"Eating Beef More Destructive to Environment than Driving a Car"

www.beyondveg.com...

Originally posted by Shar_Chi
Let me get this straight without any further ambiguities... you disagree that a vegetarian diet is better for the environment than a meat-oriented diet. Correct?

Funny... I never thought I was the least ambiguous in any of my previous responses. I think that you are attempting to play on semantics in an attempt to get me to say what you want me to say. Well, ain't gonna happen!

Here, let me help you see in color - since you seem to see everything as merely back and white. Let's pretend that the totality of the Earth is 100 acres. 50 acres are arable and the other 50 are not. 25 arable acres are forest and 25 acres of non-arable land is forest. Got that? You now have 25 acres each of arable and non-arable, non-forest land. Responsible land management techniques would utilize the 25 non-arable, non-forest land for raising live-stock and the 25 arable acres for growing crops.

Further, proper land management techniques would allow the livestock the freedom to live free-range and graze naturally upon the flora provided by nature - after all, evolution has left them equipped to do so! Ergo ther eis no need to use any of the arable land to grow fodder for the livestock and there is no need to cut down any forest either.

Subsequently, the 25 acres of arable land would be farmed utilizing crop rotation techniques and fertilization techniques by recycling the livestock waste to avoid chemical fertilization. Healthy crops are generally disease and pest resistant thus eliminating the need for chemical pesticides. Also, crops would be grown in their native climates to ensure that the weather and rainfall would adequately provide for said crops without having to rely on the aquafiers that people need to survive.

Your arguments fall flat on their face whne you attempt to make the arguments for veganism/anti-meat and responsible/sustainable farming mutually inclusive when they are, in fact complete non-sequiturs.

Choosing to live a vegan lifestyle can have the same consequences, environmentally as a diet containing livestock - depending on how the resources are managed. Is that so hard to see?

Looking back at my scenario - let's assume that all of the sudden, the majority of the population decided that they would become vegan. We would need to cut down the forest on the remaining 25 acres of arable land to sustain the food requirements of the population. I think we can agree that would be bad thing.

On the other hand, let's assume that everyone decided that they needed to have a giant steak for dinner every single night - then we would either need to cut down 25 acres of non-arable forest or intrude upon the arable land - again a bad thing.

You cannot discuss the morality of eating meat in the same debate as it's environmental sustainablity - as you are attempting to do (intentionally or not) because they are mutually exclusive of one another.

The Reader's Digest summary: Neither is better than the other, more or less environmental, when responsible land managment techniques are employed. Nature has evolved to be in balance and it is up to us to ensure that our food procurement practices are in sync with nature. Summarily, either one can be environmentally devastating when gluttonous or abusive production tehcniques are employed.

Yes your simulation world sounds great, where do I sign up?
I was actually referring to the real world. I'm afraid we shall simply have to agree to disagree dude

reply to post by Shar_Chi


My "simulation" world is not too entirely different from the real world. Certain parts of the Earth are arable, others are not. Certain parts of the world are forested while others are not. The surface area of the world is finite - you cannot make it bigger nor can you force nature to change it's composition.

This was for illustration purposes. I'm sorry that you are either incapable or unwilling to grasp abstract examples to illustrate very real-world points.

You can disagree with realistic examples all you want but it doesn't change or diminish the validity of my point.

Like the saying goes... you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink. So eat it for dinner instead!

Originally posted by kozmo
Like the saying goes... you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink. So eat it for dinner instead!

I've tried horse-meat. It doesn't taste very good. Tough to chew. Perhaps I should have pressure-cooked it?

Often, on long trips, I will eat a cheeseburger while I drive. When it's cold the heater in the car will also be on. At night the headlights will also be on. I feel better now that I have that off my chest.

Originally posted by kozmo
This was for illustration purposes. I'm sorry that you are either incapable or unwilling to grasp abstract examples to illustrate very real-world points.

Please - I certainly can grasp your examples. If your scenario were accurate I would probably agree with you, as I agreed with Beachcoma in her example.

If the world reflected your scenario, mate, I'd probably never have stopped eating meat myself. I still miss the taste sometimes. But particularly due to modern industrial farming practises, being an environmentalist lends itself to abstaining from meat, as report after report confirms. Once I had weened myself though, I realised that environment was only one of many good reasons.

Anyhow, I really am tired of this thread, so it's all yours, and no hard feelings. As I said, agree to disagree. And some of the practises you mentioned as far as local organic I think are very positive, although of course your attitude to the animals you kill repulses me. But that is for another thread

[edit on 20-12-2007 by Shar_Chi]

There's SO much crap out there, people seem to forget what has been debunked last year! (This was) - I'm too annoyed to try & dig up the article that includes many angry comments, so Ill just make it simple:

Is eating a hamburger going to kill millions of people yearly due to air pollution? (And don't go giving me that crap that well, things are transported by truck, etc, WE DONT NEED TO BE BURNING ANYTHING!!! - The illusion that oil is necessary is plainly that. It is the cutting down of the trees to make place for a bunch of cows that is RAPING our world. "Damaging to the Environment is such an understatement now, it's disgusting!
Too soft, still feels like the 80's , with the Planeteers over here! WAKE UP & smell the Carbon Monoxide, and keep in mind Alex Jone's admission that he doesn't know it all, & is wrong on some things, such as his opinion that such an imbalance in the natural gasses in the atmosphere of Co2 AND Carbon MONOXIDE, as he overlooks, is good for the Earth... Really... Okay Alex, go run your Car in the garage, & even if you have a bunch of plants in there or something, you'll see how wrong you were, but you wouldn't do that, because it's obvious now. - I used to love ya, but now I can't call in, because you hang up on your guests, even though you say you'll take their calls, & now I don't feel so small anymore.

Just.... have some common sence... Posts like this detrtact from spending time on more important subjects.

-

Next topic is gonna be "Taking # is very destructive for the environment"

reply to post by criticalunity


The U.N. actually issued that report about a meat diet being a larger polluter than vehicle use.




[edit on 21-12-2007 by DeadFlagBlues]

I buy my steaks at a small local butcher store. I buy ecologically breed meat.

He slaughters the animals himself, by hand... so overall the only polution he creates, would be if he farted while doing it...

Dont generalise the process pls

reply to post by Bluess


In general, people consume their meat in the form of fast food. This is the issue we're talking about. Your assumption that the pollution comes from processing the meat is totally off base, as well. That's not where the major contributor of world wide pollution comes from.

Originally posted by DeadFlagBlues
reply to post by Bluess

 

In general, people consume their meat in the form of fast food.

Is there some statistic I missed? Because I really doubt that more meat is eaten in the form of fast food than anything else.

reply to post by Johnmike


This is more obvious than technical.

Sorry that it says funnypictures on it. Nuff said.

reply to post by Shar_Chi


You brought up a good point that will help Mike out...

McDonalds IS the biggest buyer of BEEF on the planet.

They wouldn't need the biggest supply of beef on the planet if they didn't have the largest demand for it.

I don't think it's obvious at all. Most of my experience with meat isn't fast food at all. I haven't been to a fast food place in God knows how long, and most people I know don't go very often, or at least often enough to get most of their meat from it.

I'm so sick of hearing how I'm destroying the environment because I attempt to sustain my own life.

I don't care, and I am totally guilt free. I have a 4x4 v8 powered 12mpg truck, with giant tires. I eat chicken, beef, and pork that were raised in a cage at a factory farm. I eat deer and elk that I kill. The cost of me living on this planet is high.

If God didn't want us to eat animals, why did he make them out of meat? I will do as I please until I die.

IF YOU REALLY BELIEVE THAT THE ENVIRONMENT IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN HUMAN LIFE, YOU SHOULD KILL YOURSELF.

Do you think mankind has caused "global warming" and it is a bad thing, KILL YOURSELF.
Do you think that there are too many people, consuming the planet's resources? KILL YOURSELF
Do you want to do a good deed in accordance with the scriptures of environmental wackoism? KILL YOURSELF
Do you ride a bike when you could drive, because you are worried about Co2 emmissions? KILL YOURSELF, because when you breath you produce CO2!!

+1 for my ignore list

why is it that the defenders of meat eating all seem to have things blowing up in their avitars? i might just have to start another thread...