I cause pollution and degradation of the environment just by my existence on Earth, even if I ate nothing. There are multiple ways that we all cause pollution, and squeeze out other species of all kinds. Eating meat is not a recent phenomenon, but the oldest diet along side of eating wild plants, when available. Raising crops is not nearly as old of a practice.
Eating and raising domesticated crops, and raising animals that eat them, are methods to allow humans to exist in denser populations than they could otherwise.
If there was a solution to the problem of pollution, urban sprawl, displacement of native plant and animals, it would be in a massive reduction in the human population.
Eating plants are not going to have a massive impact on our world. The source of the problem is the over population of humans. We take up a lot of room, and use a huge amount of resources far beyond our eating habits.
Natural growing edible plants and animals do not exist in high enough number to support anything close to our current population. Anything we plant, feed, produce, consume or use has an impact.
Taking the next logical step would be objecting to anyone eating anything that has been raised by humans, plant or animals.
I could make an even better argument that any unneeded consumer good we own, should be banned. My toaster alone uses a large amount of electricity, causes pollution by way of needed power plants and the infrastructure to bring me electricity.
These kind of debates are useless, as I am not about to give up a diet that suits me well for some theoretical benefit to society, anymore than you are going to throw away your toaster for the same reason. None of us has thrown away our power using computer, have we? Could we get by without it? I think so.
Ted where do you get your bs info from? Most soy and corn crops are government subsidized and go to feeding livestock. Concentrated feeding operations(CAFOs) need massive grain stocks and this is where most grain gets consumed. Grazing requires even more land.
The only person here with BS info is the one who cannot think clearly or logically. Grain production destroys the topsoil while grazing improves the soil. We simply cannot go on destroying topsoil. Why don't you at least read the information that is online from Lierre Keith's book or Read some of the reviews.
Quote:
Going vegetarian or vegan is the best thing you can ever do to control pollution, waste and to improve your ethics.
Mr. Ignorant where do you think most grains go nowadays? In the United States for our roughly 300 million people, over 6 billion livestock are raised and killed yearly for food, they consume most the grains. Where do you think there will ever emerge enough grasslands to mythically graze all the animals currently raised in CAFOs? Do you realize you are arguing based on grazing myths when most animal stock is not grazing for most its lifespan?
Going vegan/vegetarian is the most sustainable step you can do in terms of lowering your carbon, water and waste, period. You can search out as many un-credible bloggers and books as you like, it does not change the facts. When you eat meat everyday, not only do you have your own waste, but the waste of the over thousand animals consumed yearly per meat-eater(yes, it is over a thousand for the average American meat-eater when you factor in all the small fish, shellfish and crustaceans they will consume, remember you can eat several dozen shrimp alone in one sitting). This is why ceasing to consume meat is the most sustainable step that you can take.
Mr. Ignorant where do you think most grains go nowadays?
I really think it is absurd to think you can go on for ever destroying your topsoil for grain production.
Quote:
In the United States for our roughly 300 million people, over 6 billion livestock are raised and killed yearly for food, they consume most the grains.
They are fed grains because you make grains cheap with subsidies. That way of farming isn't sustainable and the sooner you change the better.
Quote:
Where do you think there will ever emerge enough grasslands to mythically graze all the animals currently raised in CAFOs?
If you choose to feed your farm animals crap food you eat crap meat. Why do you think the omega 6 ratio of human breast milk is now above 15% when it used to be below 5%?
Quote:
Do you realize you are arguing based on grazing myths when most animal stock is not grazing for most its lifespan?
It is in the UK and it could be in the USA. You have to pay more for your meat but it won't make you such a violent homicidal nation.
Quote:
Going vegan/vegetarian is the most sustainable step you can do in terms of lowering your carbon, water and waste, period. You can search out as many un-credible bloggers and books as you like, it does not change the facts. When you eat meat everyday, not only do you have your own waste, but the waste of the over thousand of animals you will consume yearly. This is why ceasing to consume meat is the most sustainable step that you can take.
The only person here whose views are unsustainable is you.
Where is the science to support your claims?
It really is about time you made some effort to understand the science showing how dangerous wheat really is these days.
All the bloggers I link to provide links to the evidence, the science, the facts on which they base their opinions.
The other readers will see clearly who hasn't any science, facts or evidence to support their opinions.
Ted you are just an ignorant. You like to pretend that raising well over a thousand pounds of flesh per meat-eater annually is somehow mythically more sustainable than just eating and farming directly plant foods.
And I don't eat wheat! But I cannot expect you to get even that right.
That is your opinion and not a fact. If you had facts to support your case you would produce them. You have to resort to insult because you've no evidence.
Quote:
You like to pretend that raising well over a thousand pounds of flesh per meat-eater annually is somehow mythically more sustainable than just eating and farming directly plant foods
There is no point in arguing with you if you won't make the effort to read the material at the links I provide. If you had read the Lierre Keith book you would understand the facts that vegetarian life involves death and disease and isn't sustainable.
Quote:
And I don't eat wheat! But I cannot expect you to get even that right.
I thought we were talking about vegetarianism or vegans. Are you trying to claim no veggies or vegan eat wheat or even that the majority of vegetarians/vegans also avoid wheat?
Where is your evidence to support that idea?
There is no way to maintain each meat eating Westerner eating their several thousand pounds of livestock yearly and be more sustainable unless you are deluded fellow like this Ted Hutchinson character. It will always take up more land, involve more farming, waste more water, create more wastewater for all the additional animals, more methane, etc. Like I said no meat eating Westerner is really paying the true cost of their habit thanks to short-sighted policies to encourage meat.
Less is less, unless you are Ted and feel a psychological need to make doing more agricultural work into something that is mythically environmentally better.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert Goodland and Jeff Anhang
World Watch Institute: Livestock and Climate Change
...
Livestock are already well-known to contribute to GHG[Green House Gas]
emissions. Livestock’s Long Shadow, the widely-cited 2006
report by the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organi-
zation (FAO), estimates that 7,516 million metric tons per
year of CO2 equivalents (CO 2e), or 18 percent of annual
worldwide GHG emissions, are attributable to cattle, buffalo,
sheep, goats, camels, horses, pigs, and poultry. That amount
would easily qualify livestock for a hard look indeed in the
search for ways to address climate change. But our analysis
shows that livestock and their byproducts actually account
for at least 32,564 million tons of CO2e per year, or 51 percent
of annual worldwide GHG emissions.
...
On average, each hectare of grazing land supports no
more than one head of cattle, whose carbon content is a frac-
tion of a ton. In comparison, over 200 tons of carbon per
hectare may be released within a short time after forest and
other vegetation are cut, burned, or chewed. From the soil
beneath, another 200 tons per hectare may be released, with
yet more GHGs from livestock respiration and excretions.
Thus, livestock of all types provide minuscule carbon “pig-
gybanks” to replace huge carbon stores in soils and forests. But
if the production of livestock or crops is ended, then forest will
often regenerate. The main focus in efforts to mitigate GHGs
has been on reducing emissions, while—despite its ability to
mitigate GHGs quickly and cheaply—vast amounts of poten-
tial carbon absorption by trees has been foregone.
Gentlemen, please! Discuss the topics and if warrented, quote references. One thing WE ALL HAVE IN COMMON on this board is to try and avoid medical science and drugs (and there are tons of articles in the medical journals about how good statins are for you), but all of us know differently. Let us all behave in a cordial manner (with respect to each other).
One thing I have learned in real life; any topics such as vegetarian vs carnivore, lib vs con, christian vs athiest never end in civility.
Linear Mode
