People will need to turn vegetarian if the world is to conquer climate change, according to a leading authority on global warming.
In an interview with The Times, Lord Stern of Brentford said: “Meat is a wasteful use of water and creates a lot of greenhouse gases. It puts enormous pressure on the world’s resources. A vegetarian diet is better.”
Direct emissions of methane from cows and pigs is a significant source of greenhouse gases. Methane is 23 times more powerful than carbon dioxide as a global warming gas.
Lord Stern, the author of the influential 2006 Stern Review on the cost of tackling global warming, said that a successful deal at the Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen in December would lead to soaring costs for meat and other foods that generate large quantities of greenhouse gases.
He predicted that people’s attitudes would evolve until meat eating became unacceptable. “I think it’s important that people think about what they are doing and that includes what they are eating,” he said. “I am 61 now and attitudes towards drinking and driving have changed radically since I was a student. People change their notion of what is responsible. They will increasingly ask about the carbon content of their food.”
Lord Stern, a former chief economist of the World Bank and now I. G. Patel Professor of Economics at the London School of Economics, warned that British taxpayers would need to contribute about £3 billion a year by 2015 to help poor countries to cope with the inevitable impact of climate change.
He also issued a clear message to President Obama that he must attend the meeting in Copenhagen in person in order for an effective deal to be reached. US leadership, he said, was “desperately needed” to secure a deal.
He said that he was deeply concerned that popular opinion had so far failed to grasp the scale of the changes needed to address climate change, or of the importance of the UN meeting in Copenhagen from December 7 to December 18. “I am not sure that people fully understand what we are talking about or the kind of changes that will be necessary,” he added.
Up to 20,000 delegates from 192 countries are due to attend the UN conference in the Danish capital. Its aim is to forge a deal to reduce greenhouse gas emissions sufficiently to prevent an increase in global temperatures of more than 2 degrees centigrade. Any increase above this level is expected to trigger runaway climate change, threatening the lives of hundreds of millions of people.
Lord Stern said that Copenhagen presented a unique opportunity for the world to break free from its catastrophic current trajectory. He said that the world needed to agree to halve global greenhouse gas emissions by 2030 to 25 gigatonnes a year from the current level of 50 gigatonnes.
UN figures suggest that meat production is responsible for about 18 per cent of global carbon emissions, including the destruction of forest land for cattle ranching and the production of animal feeds such as soy.
Lord Stern, who said that he was not a strict vegetarian himself, was speaking on the eve of an all-parliamentary debate on climate change. His remarks provoked anger from the meat industry.
Jonathan Scurlock, of the National Farmers Union, said: “Going vegetarian is not a worldwide solution. It’s not a view shared by the NFU. Farmers in this country are interested in evidence-based policymaking. We don’t have a methane-free cow or pig available to us.”
On average, a British person eats 50g of protein derived from meat each day — the equivalent of a chicken breast or a lamb chop. This is a relatively low level for a wealthy country but between 25 per cent and 50 per cent higher than the amount recommended by the World Health Organisation.
Su Taylor, a spokeswoman for the Vegetarian Society, welcomed Lord Stern’s remarks. “What we choose to eat is one of the biggest factors in our personal impact on the environment,” she said. “Meat uses up a lot of resources and a vegetarian diet consumes a lot less land and water. One of the best things you can do about climate change is reduce the amount of meat in your diet.”
The UN has warned that meat consumption is on course to double by the middle of the century.
Methane is 23 times more powerful than carbon dioxide as a global warming gas and livestock production (cows, pigs, chickens) is responsible for over 1/3rd of methane emissions. A joke that has been circulating is that it is better to eat a salad in a gas guzzling SUV than to eat a burger in a hybrid.
As a progressive-minded ultra-liberal environmentalist, I feel compelled to act and so I am making a pledge to give up meat for 1 month, starting today and ending on November 26th.
Following Energies' lead, I am making this thread to invite all of you to make your own pledge for however long you wish. The majority of this forum believes that the threat of global warming is real and that humans play a major role in causing it so it's time to put your meat where your mouth isn't.
i can't tell if you're being serious or not, but i've been a vegetarian for a little over two years now. it was a natural adjustment for me, since i had already more or less quit eating meat, unless eating with friends or my parents. there are lots of great vegetarian dishes out there. i recently traveled to indonesia and ate vegetarian the whole time, and it was awesome
While i guess the idea is good, i will never stop eating meat. I don't care if it becomes illegal and i get thrown in jail, my last meal will be a rare steak.
Does not eating meat somehow make you really skinny over time? Is that why they need to take these weird supplements with every meal, everyday (pretty much replacing what meat provided)?
you don't need to eat any weird supplements to maintain a healthy vegetarian diet. the biggest things you lose from meat are protein and iron, both of which you can get from legumes, lentils, spinach, tofu, etc. there's lots of options
On October 27 2009 21:17 EsX_Raptor wrote: Does not eating meat somehow make you really skinny over time? Is that why they need to take these weird supplements with every meal, everyday (pretty much replacing what meat provided)?
Yay for people not being educated about vegetarian/veganism! All the nutrients you need (except for vitamin B12) can be found in more than acceptable amounts in non-meat foods. B12 is necessary for accelerated brain functioning, and can be taken occasionally as a supplement. There's no nutritional downside to not eating meat - we don't need that much protein.
That said, I'm not giving up meat because it's delicious. I don't always eat it, because I tend to prefer other foods, but when I do, it's fucking awesome.
On October 27 2009 21:17 EsX_Raptor wrote: Does not eating meat somehow make you really skinny over time? Is that why they need to take these weird supplements with every meal, everyday (pretty much replacing what meat provided)?
Yay for people not being educated about vegetarian/veganism! All the nutrients you need (except for vitamin B12) can be found in more than acceptable amounts in non-meat foods. B12 is necessary for accelerated brain functioning, and can be taken occasionally as a supplement. There's no nutritional downside to not eating meat - we don't need that much protein.
That said, I'm not giving up meat because it's delicious. I don't always eat it, because I tend to prefer other foods, but when I do, it's fucking awesome.
I don't think i can look at artosis, or a ton of other vegetarians i know for that matter, and with a straight face say that i agree that vegetarianism/veganism doesn't make a person very skinny over the course of their life.
I agree that eating less meat is a good idea for various reasons. If you are trying to reduce methane emissions, you also should eat less rice, though. Iirc there are bacteria in rice fields that produce quite an amount of methane too. Reducing the number of cows and chickens also requires you to drink/eat less milk/eggs.
On October 27 2009 21:17 EsX_Raptor wrote: Does not eating meat somehow make you really skinny over time? Is that why they need to take these weird supplements with every meal, everyday (pretty much replacing what meat provided)?
Yay for people not being educated about vegetarian/veganism! All the nutrients you need (except for vitamin B12) can be found in more than acceptable amounts in non-meat foods. B12 is necessary for accelerated brain functioning, and can be taken occasionally as a supplement. There's no nutritional downside to not eating meat - we don't need that much protein.
That said, I'm not giving up meat because it's delicious. I don't always eat it, because I tend to prefer other foods, but when I do, it's fucking awesome.
I don't think i can look at artosis, or a ton of other vegetarians i know for that matter, and with a straight face say that i agree that vegetarianism/veganism doesn't make a person very skinny over the course of their life.
Artosis is a skinny nerd. I'm a fat tend-to-be-mostly-vegetarian-just-not-very-often-recently.
However, I have to disagree that all vegetarians are skinny
Trouble is, after being pretty decent at cooking before becoming a vegetarian I find now all the things I knew how to cook well have become useless, aside from stir-fries which I can but for really cheap from restaraunts ($6 Thai lunch! Fuck yeah!). nite - use it as an excuse to cook for yourself, I am sure your family wouldn't complaing about you becoming vegetarian it actually turns out cheaper :3
There are a lot of reasons to become vegetarian this is just one of them, like livestock takes up so much more room than vegetables, cruelty-free, etc. so you could add them to the OP if you find them and increase the scope of this thread.
On October 27 2009 21:29 Vedic wrote: I pledge to eat extra meat for a month. That should even things out.
You need to eat three times as much meat to counter-act those who choose to be vegetarian :p
Lol BlackJack... giving up meat for one month is such a stupid thing to do. That's like saying you want to prevent global warming, but you only want to do it for 30 days....
I know a couple of pescetarians, I think I could do that a lot easier than vegetarian/vegan. Giving up meat isn't that hard, actually, and I'm not a vegetarian, but if there's a veggie patty option, I usually get that. Processed hamburger meat is disgusting.
On October 27 2009 21:12 ghermination wrote: While i guess the idea is good, i will never stop eating meat. I don't care if it becomes illegal and i get thrown in jail, my last meal will be a rare steak.
I'm with you on this man, I've been eating meat all my life and I'm not about to stop. If people were really serious about cutting the amount of greenhouse gases then they'd need to take drastic action such as shutting down all industry, shipping and aviation -.-
On October 27 2009 21:29 Vedic wrote: I pledge to eat extra meat for a month. That should even things out.
You need to eat three times as much meat to counter-act those who choose to be vegetarian :p
Lol BlackJack... giving up meat for one month is such a stupid thing to do. That's like saying you want to prevent global warming, but you only want to do it for 30 days....
On October 27 2009 21:35 Amber[LighT] wrote: Lol BlackJack... giving up meat for one month is such a stupid thing to do. That's like saying you want to prevent global warming, but you only want to do it for 30 days....
one month out of each year. We're all supposed to be making cutbacks, it's not a "do all that we can or do nothing" policy
On October 27 2009 21:35 Amber[LighT] wrote: Lol BlackJack... giving up meat for one month is such a stupid thing to do. That's like saying you want to prevent global warming, but you only want to do it for 30 days....
one month out of each year. We're all supposed to be making cutbacks, it's not a "do all that we can or do nothing" policy
My point is if you're going to go ahead and be vegetarian for a month, why not do it all year long? Studies show it's actually healthier to be a vegetarian if you do it correctly, and based upon your history on this site and other BW sites you seem like a smart enough guy to figure this stuff out without much trouble .
EDIT: I should stress that though I advocate everyone being vegetarian for the greater good of humanity blah blah blah... I am not a vegetarian myself.
Well technically when you eat veggies you consume more energy then meat, but we were brought up on meat and people will never change. Meat is important as freedom to us.
I've been a vegetarian (lacto-ovo) since ~May 20th. It's actually very easy to do. But thanks for joining! Hopefully everyone also realizes there are many more compelling reasons to become a vegetarian besides environmental issues such as global warming. There are ethical issues with the treatment and killing of animals, and if you want to combat world hunger, vegetarian diets is the best way to go (even wikipedia will have good statistics; the USDA has estimated that 90% of soy, 80% of corn, 70% of wheat, and even half the water supply are used just to feed animal livestocks. It's incredibly inefficient to raise livestock).
As for vegetarians being skinny, that's probably true. I've always been very skinny, but being a vegetarian has not made me lose any weight.
On October 27 2009 22:10 Velr wrote: I'll probably never become vegetarian.
Reason 1: I like meat to much.
Reason 2: Cooking good Vegetarian meals is pretty hard.
Reason 3: Vegetarian meals taste like shit, and unless you're a dietary expert you can't eat healthily.
Thats just not true. I love meat but a really good vegetarian dish is still really good.
B12 and Iron are problems for some people but thats about it. It probably tastes like shit if you eat it in a way were you lack many vitamins and other stuff tho .
I am suprised so many people are mentioning that you will become skinny....first of all its not true..second of all, i bet for some of you it wouldnt be such a bad thing.
I personally made the switch like 5months ago..at first it was hard..for like a week. I didnt know what to put on my sandwich and stuff,but now it comes naturally. I still eat fish though..
I think most vegetarian meals tast great..there not that hard to make and they got me thinking alot more about what I eat in general..the result....
Iron is rarely a problem for adult men, you only need something like 8-9mg which if you have wholemeal bread and some dried apricots or cashews you are like 95% of the way there - and that is before leafy greens. Also in eating more vitamin-rich vegetable-based meals means you should have adequate amounts of other vitamins required in the absorbption of other nutrients like vitamin C.
Just have to manage your diet well and once you learn what you should or shouldn't eat, can and can't eat, what you need lots of, etc. it's really surprisingly easy and satisfying.
Global Warming (Climate Change?!) bogeyman! Boo! Because all our doctored models predict unmitigated disaster! Be afraid! Be very afraid!
That said vegetarianism isn't such a bad idea especially when grain prices are expected to rise sharply over the next few years. As long as food gets expensive, people will naturally turn to plants for their food. Hell maybe, we'll even put the domesticate cow on the endangered species list! Ha!
What about eating fish? I don't think fishermen pollute the environment by throwing their nets out to the sea. Besides, fish are stupid and they have no feelings so that's that for the animal defenders. Not to mention fish tastes delicious!
Not eating meat is like telling ants not to eat other insects; besides being a pretty weird hit on their nutrition, the number of flies, grasshoppers, etc. are still the same lol.
Blood-Sausage, Liver Sausage, Ham, Bacon... Pork-Ear/Feet (not on picture but looked exactly like just cutted of a living pork and then cooked).. Felt *true* :p
On October 27 2009 21:23 CTStalker wrote: you don't need to eat any weird supplements to maintain a healthy vegetarian diet. the biggest things you lose from meat are protein and iron, both of which you can get from legumes, lentils, spinach, tofu, etc. there's lots of options
It's not true for everyoneeee... I'm borderline anemic and my doctor told me that I HAVE to start eating beef else I hafto start taking supplements cause vegetables and legumes have a different type of iron absorption that is less effective... .___.
On October 27 2009 21:07 BlackJack wrote: An interview came out today with a global warming chief urging people to give up meat in order to save the planet.
He predicted that people’s attitudes would evolve until meat eating became unacceptable.
Methane is 23 times more powerful than carbon dioxide as a global warming gas and livestock production (cows, pigs, chickens) is responsible for over 1/3rd of methane emissions. A joke that has been circulating is that it is better to eat a salad in a gas guzzling SUV than to eat a burger in a hybrid.
This is ridiculous. And you know of course, that humans, their industries and activities emit less "greenhouse effect" gases in a year, than animals, forests, seas and other "natural" things do over the course of one day. You do know that?
Edit: An interesting read on the importance of balance in the environment. http://wiki.amee.com/index.php/Carbon_dioxide_emissions It's the same with methane and everything else. Except that we're not gonna eat animals that have been dead for thousands of years, are we?
On October 27 2009 21:07 BlackJack wrote: An interview came out today with a global warming chief urging people to give up meat in order to save the planet.
He predicted that people’s attitudes would evolve until meat eating became unacceptable.
Methane is 23 times more powerful than carbon dioxide as a global warming gas and livestock production (cows, pigs, chickens) is responsible for over 1/3rd of methane emissions. A joke that has been circulating is that it is better to eat a salad in a gas guzzling SUV than to eat a burger in a hybrid.
This is ridiculous. And you know of course, that humans, their industries and activities emit less "greenhouse effect" gases in a year, than animals, forests, seas and other "natural" things do over the course of one day. You do know that?
Exactly, the plan is clearly to STOP killing animals so they can reproduce and clog the planet with more greenhouse gasses.
I propose a diet consisting entirely of vegetarians. The greenhouse conciousness displayed in this thread indicates clearly that they are easily the livestock of choice if we want to reduce methane emissions.
Also, tell me artosis doesn't look like he would taste good with a nice bottle of chianti and some fava beans.
Blood-Sausage, Liver Sausage, Ham, Bacon... Pork-Ear/Feet (not on picture but looked exactly like just cutted of a living pork and then cooked).. Felt *true* :p
I find meat delicious, but that's just disgusting.
Yeah, one of the many reasons to stop eating meat. Of course unless people stop eating dairy products and eggs the problem, albeit diminished, persists.
On October 27 2009 23:09 Piy wrote: Yeah, one of the many reasons to stop eating meat. Of course unless people stop eating dairy products and eggs the problem, albeit diminished, persists.
Veganism ftw yo :p
No meat, no dairy, what the hell do you eat then? Bread, beans and water?
Damn pigs are guilty too? Only heard about cows and since I mostly eat pork I was thinking I'd be in the clear. Not going to change what I eat so drastically, not even for a month.
My idea is that we all revert to neolithic days, living in caves and foraging daily for food. If we make a conscious effort to stop speaking and using our faculties of reason, we might devolve back into monkeys, thus allowing the Earth to revert to its original state. Maybe world governments can pass legislation to ensure everyone does this.
Termites are also responsible for a lot of CO2 emissions, so perhaps we can all start eating them and kill two birds with one stone?
On October 27 2009 23:09 Piy wrote: Yeah, one of the many reasons to stop eating meat. Of course unless people stop eating dairy products and eggs the problem, albeit diminished, persists.
Veganism ftw yo :p
No meat, no dairy, what the hell do you eat then? Bread, beans and water?
You forgot the soy. How could you forget the soy -.-
On October 27 2009 23:48 Ingenol wrote: My idea is that we all revert to neolithic days, living in caves and foraging daily for food. If we make a conscious effort to stop speaking and using our faculties of reason, we might devolve back into monkeys, thus allowing the Earth to revert to its original state. Maybe world governments can pass legislation to ensure everyone does this.
Termites are also responsible for a lot of CO2 emissions, so perhaps we can all start eating them and kill two birds with one stone?
or how about we dont just see black and white? You dont have to go back to the stoneage, simply giving up some luxury would do a lot. Like not leaving on all your devices all the time and instead wait a lil longer for them to be ready for you, or not to do fun stuff that is clearly killing the environment like car racing, OOOH sorry, i forgot NEVER EVER cut down on fun because thats sacred.
If you are a vegetarian out of compassion for animals, I think you are loony.
If you are a vegetarian for the health benefits, I don't see why you need to treat meat like it's taboo. I know many vegetarians who brag about how much lower their risk of heart disease is, only to see them feast on cookies and soft drink on a regular basis.
yet when they are out eating with you it's "oh no thanks, I can't eat meat."
you can eat meat and a little bit would be good for you. unless its against your religion there is no reason to treat a food like it's taboo.
On October 27 2009 23:56 eMbrace wrote: If you are a vegetarian out of compassion for animals, I think you are loony.
If you are a vegetarian for the health benefits, I don't see why you need to treat meat like it's taboo. I know many vegetarians who brag about how much lower their risk of heart disease is, only to see them feast on cookies and soft drink on a regular basis.
yet when they are out eating with you it's "oh no thanks, I can't eat meat."
you can eat meat and a little bit would be good for you. unless its against your religion there is no reason to treat a food like it's taboo.
I think you should reread the OP. It gave an altogether different reason for becoming a vegetarian.
On October 27 2009 23:09 Piy wrote: Yeah, one of the many reasons to stop eating meat. Of course unless people stop eating dairy products and eggs the problem, albeit diminished, persists.
Veganism ftw yo :p
No meat, no dairy, what the hell do you eat then? Bread, beans and water?
You forgot the soy. How could you forget the soy -.-
On October 27 2009 23:48 Ingenol wrote: My idea is that we all revert to neolithic days, living in caves and foraging daily for food. If we make a conscious effort to stop speaking and using our faculties of reason, we might devolve back into monkeys, thus allowing the Earth to revert to its original state. Maybe world governments can pass legislation to ensure everyone does this.
Termites are also responsible for a lot of CO2 emissions, so perhaps we can all start eating them and kill two birds with one stone?
or how about we dont just see black and white? You dont have to go back to the stoneage, simply giving up some luxury would do a lot. Like not leaving on all your devices all the time and instead wait a lil longer for them to be ready for you, or not to do fun stuff that is clearly killing the environment like car racing, OOOH sorry, i forgot NEVER EVER cut down on fun because thats sacred.
hahaha
Did you know... Per bike at the tour the france there are over 2 cars/motorbikes?
Where do you stop? You could also just forbid people to form up in large groupes for whatever reason, because at places with many people there is much pollution.
On October 27 2009 23:56 eMbrace wrote: If you are a vegetarian out of compassion for animals, I think you are loony.
If you are a vegetarian for the health benefits, I don't see why you need to treat meat like it's taboo. I know many vegetarians who brag about how much lower their risk of heart disease is, only to see them feast on cookies and soft drink on a regular basis.
yet when they are out eating with you it's "oh no thanks, I can't eat meat."
you can eat meat and a little bit would be good for you. unless its against your religion there is no reason to treat a food like it's taboo.
Please do not associate some personal anecdotes to a negative view to vegetarians.
Also, for people who might now some vegetarians, consider if they are simply "not meat eaters" or are vegetarian. A person that does not eat a hunk of steak but does eat gelatin-based foods is does not fully embrace a vegetarian diet (thats only a small difference, but don't think of those "vegetarians" as huge hypocrites).
It's not the issue of pollution here. What's really at stake is the humanity. The dilemma: What's more important, us, or the environment?
Environmentalists want humanity to tighten its bond with environment. People like me want to sever it completely.
Mankind has 2 very cool features as a species: - adaptability - survivality
When we learned how to bend nature to our will (it's not perfected yet) we got free of most living organisms problem: your environment changes drastically/perishes - you perish too. Personally, I couldn't care less if all other species would die, or if our planet would get destroyed. I believe in mankind. I believe that when this planet won't be able to sustain us any more or it will become inhospitable for us, we will already be colonizing other planets, have cybernetic bodies or develop other means of not caring what happens to Earth and its wildlife/plants etc.
This is progress, this is the future. You can not stop this. Embrace it!
I actually own this shirt. I will wear it proudly and eat three times my normal meat for this month to counterbalance the vegetarianism in this thread.
On October 27 2009 21:17 EsX_Raptor wrote: Does not eating meat somehow make you really skinny over time? Is that why they need to take these weird supplements with every meal, everyday (pretty much replacing what meat provided)?
Yay for people not being educated about vegetarian/veganism! All the nutrients you need (except for vitamin B12) can be found in more than acceptable amounts in non-meat foods. B12 is necessary for accelerated brain functioning, and can be taken occasionally as a supplement. There's no nutritional downside to not eating meat - we don't need that much protein.
That said, I'm not giving up meat because it's delicious. I don't always eat it, because I tend to prefer other foods, but when I do, it's fucking awesome.
Yeah you don't find alot of B6 and other vitamins in a vegetarian diet either. Tests have been made on how much of the actual vitamin content in food that our bodies take up and the bioavailability isn't that good for some vitamins, so don't expect do be sufficient in vitamin B6 either.
The problem is that protein in vegetarian food seldom is as good as protein found in meat. If you want decent protein you will have to mix sources, for example wheat + milk or kidney beans + soy beans etc.
People in general have really bad education in nutrition it seems, so if you don't want to be lethargic and get deficient in several vitamins, you will be have to be quite aware of what you are eating. I guess this applies much more to someone with an active life, but if you're just sitting at home playing computer games all day it's not as important.
On October 27 2009 21:12 scintilliaSD wrote: Somehow I doubt choosing not to eat meat will impact how much livestock is raised and slaughtered on a daily basis.
Humans are carnivores not herbivores. Meat is the best concentrated source of protein. If you are a fully grown adult I guess its not as important to get plenty of protein; but if you have kids or young family don't force them to vegetarianism it will stunt there growth unless they take supplements and get the protein they require. No only the body but brain needs protein a lot of going with lesser amounts is the good way to reduce your APM! And thats whats important after all.
And its aeroplanes, cars, power stations that are the most harmful.
If we turned fully to fruit & veg we'd have the problem of polluting the oceans more crushing more of the sea life.
What should happen is a few years ban on fishing that would replenish the oceans and help clean them up as more fish = cleaner ocean surprisingly.
On October 28 2009 00:47 Track wrote: I can't believe nobody responded to my well timed Maddox input!(although by definition no Maddox input can possibly be ill-timed.)
I stand corrected. Another wise sage felt the need to utilize Maddox's creative genius too.
And the first thing I was going to do once I saw this thread was post that picture and link to the article. You guys beat me to it.
Also at the op, there is a way easier solution to this which Australian farmers have been working on for some time. You see the reason everyone always goes on about beef and methane is because cows produce loads of methane, a disproportionately high amount. It's not that meat is intrinsically bad, it's that methane is bad and cows suck. However kangaroos have an almost unique digestive system which is pretty much methane free. So if you're being a veggie to avoid methane in the production of food then feel free to go on a roo burger binge. Assuming of course that the co2 production in shipping from Australia isn't a problem.
On October 27 2009 23:48 Ingenol wrote: My idea is that we all revert to neolithic days, living in caves and foraging daily for food. If we make a conscious effort to stop speaking and using our faculties of reason, we might devolve back into monkeys, thus allowing the Earth to revert to its original state. Maybe world governments can pass legislation to ensure everyone does this.
Termites are also responsible for a lot of CO2 emissions, so perhaps we can all start eating them and kill two birds with one stone?
or how about we dont just see black and white? You dont have to go back to the stoneage, simply giving up some luxury would do a lot. Like not leaving on all your devices all the time and instead wait a lil longer for them to be ready for you, or not to do fun stuff that is clearly killing the environment like car racing, OOOH sorry, i forgot NEVER EVER cut down on fun because thats sacred.
hahaha
Did you know... Per bike at the tour the france there are over 2 cars/motorbikes?
Where do you stop? You could also just forbid people to form up in large groupes for whatever reason, because at places with many people there is much pollution.
Did you know... Per car at a racing event there are way more than 2 cars/motorsbikes additionally to the car wasting a shitload of energy. Did you know... That high end sport is wasting a shitload of energy, as first priority in sport is always to win. Did you know.. Most of professional athletes give a fuck about the environment, eventhough they highly reliant on it. A good friend of mine is an upcomming professional ski athlete for the swiss team and he wrote a paper on how the swiss ski association gives a fuck on the environment eventhough they really need the fucking snow to do what they do, he earned nothing but laughs.
Where I stop? We could also kill 99% of human beings, but thats bullshit talk to bring up such gay arguments to question everything, just to kill the talk about it.
It's not a question about where to stop, but about what things should really be adressed. For an example take SUV cars. They are a typical example of a bullshit development (aka marketing dudes who have no clue about anything tell the engineers what to do). It is made for normal driving but also for offroading, oh sorry, I forgot, it sucks at both. This is shit that has no right to exist. ARGH, I also forgot, they are "fun", and "cool", and we never cut back on fun, damnit. You never wondered why they are called crossover now and not SUV anymore? Because SUV got that "bad vehicle" touch now and its not fitting into the trendy green image every company is trying to have nowadays. Another example are batterys, you know them? Nice little round tubes you can buy everywhere, they will give you nice energy for a short ammount of time. You can put them into so many mobile device, really awesome. But did you know that for a shitload of time there are rechargeable batterys which you can use over and over and over again, still ppl buy the "cheaper" nonrechargeable batterys. Shit like this (batterys) should be forbidden as its an obvious waste just to serve an illogical conviniece.
We simply need to come back from our "fun society", everything has to be fun and shiny nowadays, it fucking sucks. I love to drive with a car, but I don't own a car because I dont need it. I love electronic devices (I work as electric engineer so I gotta have a passion for it), but I own only a celly and a laptop because I honestly question wether I need such a device or not. I don't crazyly turn up the heat in the winter like so many ppl and companys (i'm actually sitting in a T-Shirt on my computer and feeling hot AT THE END OF OCTOBER!) I rather wear my pullover, what a crazy dude I am huh? wearing winter cloths in the winter, really crazy.
With the meat I do it the same, I am no vegi at all (I once almost was, only ate saussaces) but I consciously look that I'm eating little meat. But I fucking love good meat, I should eat it all day long as money is not the issue, right? FUCK THAT!
On October 28 2009 01:02 Adeeler wrote: Humans are carnivores not herbivores. Meat is the best concentrated source of protein. If you are a fully grown adult I guess its not as important to get plenty of protein; but if you have kids or young family don't force them to vegetarianism it will stunt there growth unless they take supplements and get the protein they require. No only the body but brain needs protein a lot of going with lesser amounts is the good way to reduce your APM! And thats whats important after all.
And its aeroplanes, cars, power stations that are the most harmful.
If we turned fully to fruit & veg we'd have the problem of polluting the oceans more crushing more of the sea life.
What should happen is a few years ban on fishing that would replenish the oceans and help clean them up as more fish = cleaner ocean surprisingly.
On October 28 2009 01:02 Adeeler wrote: Humans are carnivores not herbivores. Meat is the best concentrated source of protein. If you are a fully grown adult I guess its not as important to get plenty of protein; but if you have kids or young family don't force them to vegetarianism it will stunt there growth unless they take supplements and get the protein they require. No only the body but brain needs protein a lot of going with lesser amounts is the good way to reduce your APM! And thats whats important after all.
And its aeroplanes, cars, power stations that are the most harmful.
If we turned fully to fruit & veg we'd have the problem of polluting the oceans more crushing more of the sea life.
What should happen is a few years ban on fishing that would replenish the oceans and help clean them up as more fish = cleaner ocean surprisingly.
i don't know if you know what an omnivore is....but you should probably check that out
Well gl on doing it for one month man, i tried once. Went to bed with my ex gf one night, i wake up chewing on her shoulder after having a dream of tearing the flesh off of it. Lol she looked so scared......
BUT yeah, lol gl i hope you fair better then i did!
God is in the steak: My brazilian steakhouse experience and why i will never give up meat. ever.
On March 24 2008 02:09 decafchicken wrote: My Gaucho: Brazilian Steakhouse Experience.
We arrived at the restaurant at 11:07 for our 11:00 reservation. The place is desolate, save a few of the tables. The decor consists of dark carpeted floors, tasteful wooden furnishings, and a wooden ceiling complementing a warmly lit, capacious dining area. We are seated at our table, near the salad bard. Before I dive into the eating, let me explain how this place works. For 20$ lunch or 40$ dinner, you are entitled to an all you can eat, not-your-average salad bar complete with everything from little balls of mozzarella to soups with such complex names I don't care to spell them at this time, to artichoke hearts. This is then followed by the main course, a smattering for steaks, beefs, chickens, and more (15 in total). You have a token that says "No, thank you" on one side, and "Yes, please" on the other. When you are ready for meat, you flip the token to the Yes side. There are cycles of Brazilian men adorned in gaucho attire: loose, fancy black pants tucked into boots, topped by a loose white dress shirt. These cowboys then go from table to table with a saber of a given meat, which they will cut for you if you want some, which you then grab with your pair of tongs. Rinse and repeat till you explode. Now on to the juicy stuff: So I start off with the salad, crafting myself a classic caesar salad with romaine lettuce, caesar dressing, mozzarella cheese, and croûtons. I quickly inhale that scrumptious assortment of rabbit food and prepare myself for a man's meal. I start off conservatively, saving myself for my favorites: filet mignon, pork tenderloin, babyback ribs, and ribs. I soon learn this is a foolish error on my part for several reasons: I have the appetite of several grisly lumberjacks after a hard day's work, the servings are relatively small, and lastly you'd be a damned fool not to try every last one of these delectable slices of cooked muscle and fat. I believe I started off with some top and bottom sirloin. As these meats touched my palette, the anger of not being in Mexico momentarily left me. It was THAT good. I carefully ingested these fine pieces of meat, piece by piece, making them last. Soon the waitress brings a bowl of mashed potatoes. My kryptonite. I absolutely love a good helping of mashed potatoes. But these taters were crafted by no mere mortal. God himself poured a bit of his soul into this buttery, creamy concoction that melted my taste buds away. When mixed with my next round of meat, pork tenderloin topped with Parmesan cheese, my mouth had multiple orgasms. The explosion of juicy flavor combined with the smooth as silk mashed potatoes was almost too much to handle. Had there been no more, I could have cried, spit it out, and eaten it again just in hopes of experiencing it again. I realized I still had more meat and potatoes left, and simply repeated the eating. Next was Fillet Mignon wrapped in bacon. My favorite steak ever...wrapped in bacon. Oh lord, this will be good. As I slice the meat, blood pours out of this perfectly cooked piece of meat. I can hardly wait till the flavorful blood ravishes my tongue. Before my mouth even as the chance to envelop this meaty goodness, I can smell what is to come. I bite down into what can only be described as pure extacy. But that's not all. I keep chewing. And flavor keeps coming. I chew each piece for minutes, extracting every last bit of flavor. I'm scared to breathe, let alone open my mouth, for fear that some of this flavor might escape into undeserving air. I repeat this cycle over with more meats than I knew existed. Every single muscle of a cow or pig was available for my enjoyment. Over the next hour, my taste buds were assaulted with an assortment of the greatest meats ever cooked. Sadly, when it felt like every piece I ate was going to come back out, I knew it was time to let go. Quite possibly the most worth while 20 + tax/tip that I have ever spent, after the Starcraft Battle Chest.
In summary, all I have to say is vegetarians are missing part of their soul.
on the bright side giving up meat for one month would afford a wealth of opportunities to moralize and condescend to family, friends, and strangers on the internet.
then again, if i try to save humankind, i'm positionally associated with all the same sorts of people who have so thoroughly convinced me that we're not worth the effort in the first place.
When someone figures out how to selectively mono-oxidize methane to methanol reliably and on industrial scale they will quickly become the richest person on the planet.
In general, I think that giving up meat is pretty difficult to do healthily for a long period... I've done it off and on purely for health effects, eating more veggies is good for you... but do it too long and you start looking like those guys you pass on the street cracked out on meth... After a while I always get afraid of being malnourished and go back to meat-rich diets. As for the OP, I think the issue that, in general animals are pretty wasteful as a food source definitely has some merit, and maybe some awareness is in order... but its not gonna go anywhere... any sort of change would require a massive about-face in the world lifestyle... and overall meat's just too yummy to give up
Not true You will get skinnier if you burn more calories or if you take in less calories. Meat is heavy on protein and low on carbs compared with things like rice or potatoes. If you start eating a vegetarian diet you will probably input more calories. It might make you gain some weight. But at the same time you should be eating less fat and more vegetables.
2) It is hard to prepare vegetarian meals.
Not true I bet any professional cook will tell you it is easier to mess up preparing a good steak than it is to prepare some vegetables. Depending on your meal it may also be many times quicker to prepare than the time it takes for meat to be properly cooked. What can go wrong? I guess you can cook the rice to pulp or something. But that's about it. And that happens not because you made a mistake. It happens because you don't pay attention. Hmm, well maybe you can cut yourself while cutting vegetables.
3) One needs to take food supplements as a vegetarian.
Not true People talk about iron, calcium and people talk about protein. Fact is that some non-meat products have more iron or calcium than meat has and fact is that western people eat way too much protein because meat is eaten every day. Not getting all that meat protein is actually the solution, not the problem. There used to be a myth about vegetables having 'bad protein'. It is true that there is no vegetable that contains enough of all the essential amino acids required to produce all the protein the body needs. But of course you will be eating more than 1 type of vegetable. If you eat two types of vegetables within a 12 hour time frame then protein can be formed using amino acids of both vegetables. The only weak spot for a vegetarian is B12. But if you diet contains diary or foods fortified with B12 then this is also no problem. Just be aware of the symptoms. One might have a genetic flaw that makes it difficult for B12 to be absorbed.
4) It is hard to go eating out.
Sometimes true This really depends on how adjusted the society where you go out eating in to people with a vegetarian diet. But for me this was really no problem. In western countries any decent restaurant will serve several specific vegetarian meals. Often you won't have many things to pick, that is true. Only when your friends insist to go to this just really 'bad' restaurant you may run into problems. But there are also many normal restaurant who are naturally able to serve vegetarians well. So it can be really easy or really annoying. Maybe ask Artosis, haha.
5) I love meat and I hate vegetables. Being a vegetarian is going to be hard.
True You are going to have to depend on vegetables for nice dishes. If you won't eat them or you won't be able to enjoy them then you will have a hard time. But hating vegetables is a problem for you regardless of if you are a vegetarian or not.
6) I will need to cook myself and I will need a bit of creativity and imagination.
Partially true. It is not very convenient to be a vegetarian while being unwilling to cook anything. It's probably bad to do regardless if you are a vegetarian. But yes, if you become a vegetarian you will need to develop a new repertoire of dishes. What you know right now probably isn't enough. But things like google make this quite easy. Again, it isn't hard to cook vegetarian meals.
7) Vegetarian meals have less taste.
Not true Where does meat and fish get its taste from? You got it right! You can throw so much herbs and spices into your vegetarian dish as you want. And it's not like vegetables have a weak taste. Many of them have strong taste. That is one of the reasons why children, who are more sensitive to stronger taste, often dislike vegetables. Brussel sprouts anyone? It won't taste like meat. But it sure has taste.
8) It won't make a difference if I become a vegetarian.
False If everyone became a vegetarian it would make an enormous difference. Yes, you are but one person. But that is the point. You don't ask yourself what difference 1 person would make. You ask yourself what is the right thing to do. If you apply this to voting or to morality then anyone will immediately see this is a fallacy. One person never makes a big difference. But still you try to figure out what is the moral thing to do and who is the right person to vote for.
Rofl, yet another utterance regarding 'sustainable development' which completely ignores the rational basis of the entire problem:
There are too many people.
Yeah, give up meat, then when we hit 12 billion people go "oh shit, we're still having the same problems". Feel free to rely on all countries reaching first world standards of living without first world environmental impacts per person, somehow, in order to reduce the birthrate globally. Seems like a fantastic plan.
Thank god that by the end of this thread there are some people who didn't watch too many episodes of Captain Planet growing up...
The whole not eating meat thing is silly. Owning a DOG creates a bigger "carbon footprint" than driving an SUV. Maybe if you avoid meat for some sort of health reasons it makes sense, but if it's because you don't like killing cute little animals to sustain yourself (which is nature's way), or because you think the planet is going to turn into the Ash World tileset if you do.... you are just ridiculous.
Even if global warming WAS real, it would be an inevitable result of too much population, something that ALWAYS naturally corrects itself, and thus humans would just start dying off at a fairly rapid rate until a more appropriate number of people were left here. There is no prospect of extinction because of climate change - all that anyone is doing in their futile self-sacrificial attempts to save the planet is to ensure that less scrupulous people inherit the earth.
L, the earth can support many more people if it didn't support any livestock. That's a fact. Yes, if population continues to grow it will be a problem no matter what. Population would approach infinity. And so would resources required.
Population growth in the third world will become similar to that in the first world the moment they have first world living conditions. And maybe that is when the earth reaches 12 billion people. And if we can sustain 12 billion vegetarians while we can't sustain 12 billion people and all the livestock required to feed them meat then being a vegetarian does solve the problem.
If you are going to assume that mankind is doomed because no matter what happens, population will grow, overshoot and civilization will crash, fine. But that doesn't mean you get to be wasteful and immoral.
In 100,000 billion years there will be no evidence left of mankind. At that moment your morality or immorality won't matter. But it does matter now.
Solution: Get the government to stop subsidizing meat.
Meat as of now costs much less than it should. If the price correctly reflected the actual costs to produce meat, restaurants would order less of it and people would also think twice before ordering a meat dish. You wouldn't have to go vegetarian just to save the world, everyone would naturally eat less meat because taste vs cost it is not worth it.
@WhuazGoodJaggah Ok, your obviously not the brightest star on this planet. Calling convenience bad... Ugh...
Did you know... Per car at a racing event there are way more than 2 cars/motorsbikes additionally to the car wasting a shitload of energy. Did you know... That high end sport is wasting a shitload of energy, as first priority in sport is always to win. Did you know.. Most of professional athletes give a fuck about the environment, eventhough they highly reliant on it. A good friend of mine is an upcomming professional ski athlete for the swiss team and he wrote a paper on how the swiss ski association gives a fuck on the environment eventhough they really need the fucking snow to do what they do, he earned nothing but laughs.
Both things are totally INSIGNIFICANT on the global scale.
Where I stop? We could also kill 99% of human beings, but thats bullshit talk to bring up such gay arguments to question everything, just to kill the talk about it.
About as bullshit as to stop having big sport events and stuff like that because of the pollution.
Things that would work: Better Transport-Ships... The older ones (still in service with no sign of retiring) are probably the single most polluting vehicles on the entire planet. Better Public Transport - As soon as it's faster than a car, people will use it way more, when it's faster as a plane (with all the check-in bullshit), people will use it. It's a no brainer.
It's not a question about where to stop, but about what things should really be adressed. For an example take SUV cars. They are a typical example of a bullshit development (aka marketing dudes who have no clue about anything tell the engineers what to do). It is made for normal driving but also for offroading, oh sorry, I forgot, it sucks at both. This is shit that has no right to exist. ARGH, I also forgot, they are "fun", and "cool", and we never cut back on fun, damnit. You never wondered why they are called crossover now and not SUV anymore? Because SUV got that "bad vehicle" touch now and its not fitting into the trendy green image every company is trying to have nowadays.
You fail. People actually want SUV's, that’s why they buy them. Are SUV's stupid? Yes. Are they a good development? No. Do (did) people want them? YES. The marketing dude would have been a fucking retard to not jump on that bandwagon.
Btw: SUV's don't suck at normal driving, they suck at gas consumption and therefore have gotten a bad image but that’s about it. I never ever heard the term "crossover" for SUV up until your post.
Another example are batterys, you know them? Nice little round tubes you can buy everywhere, they will give you nice energy for a short ammount of time. You can put them into so many mobile device, really awesome. But did you know that for a shitload of time there are rechargeable batterys which you can use over and over and over again, still ppl buy the "cheaper" nonrechargeable batterys. Shit like this (batterys) should be forbidden as its an obvious waste just to serve an illogical convenience.
Convenience isn't illogical, why do you think so? Convenience isn't good for the environment but it's VERY logical for the single person. I couldn't care less about batteries, I own basically no devices that use them or at least I don't use them. Humans strife for convenience, it's one of the great motors of our culture. Classic batteries are a dying breed anyway, you probably won't have to care for them much longer, at least for most devices.. WHY? Because it's more CONVENIENT to just have reloadable inbuilt batteries in your stuff (like in your mobile phone).
We simply need to come back from our "fun society", everything has to be fun and shiny nowadays, it fucking sucks. I love to drive with a car, but I don't own a car because I dont need it. I love electronic devices (I work as electric engineer so I gotta have a passion for it), but I own only a celly and a laptop because I honestly question wether I need such a device or not. I don't crazyly turn up the heat in the winter like so many ppl and companys (i'm actually sitting in a T-Shirt on my computer and feeling hot AT THE END OF OCTOBER!) I rather wear my pullover, what a crazy dude I am huh? wearing winter cloths in the winter, really crazy.
You might also suggest that we work way less in winter, only stay at home and feed from the stuff we could hunt and find during the warmer months. Because... It's WINTER your damn pullover isn't supposed to keep you warm enough when its 0-5°C outside.
I could now tell you how awesome I am for various reasons when it comes to the environment (like you obviously love to) and what a bitch I am when it comes to other environment for other reasons. Instead I'm now driving home in my 5.7l, 340hp car to my green powered, energy/warmth efficient built home where the electrical devices are actually really put on off. Maybe I'm going to Burger King on the way....
PanN, how can belonging to what group decide something important as what diet you eat?
As for being condescending. You are the one coming to a vegetarian themed topic telling people how elitist they are and how much they annoy you, apparently. Have you nothing worthwhile to contribute?
On October 28 2009 01:41 Excelsior wrote: Even if global warming WAS real, it would be an inevitable result of too much population, something that ALWAYS naturally corrects itself, and thus humans would just start dying off at a fairly rapid rate until a more appropriate number of people were left here.
This is your solution? If we fuck it up too much most of the fuckups will die, simple natural law. Nobody advocating that humanity attempt some sort of balance is unaware of that. It's entirely obvious. They'd just rather avoid billions of human lives being lost.
Green argument "if we don't look after our environment loads of people will die from the result". To which your counter argument is "yeah, but once billions are dead our impact will be lower".
I can't help but feel you somewhat missed the point.
On October 28 2009 01:51 PanN wrote: Every vegetarian I've met was a condescending elitist bent on telling me my lifestyle is incorrect. I really really don't want to join that side......
Although i know what kind of people you're talking about, most vegetarians are not like that. Most are just conscious of what they're doing and taking appropriate action and not just blindly following what they were taught as a child. Eating meat, the way we do as a civilization is bad imo. I'm just a lazy prick about it though, even though i strongly believe vegetarianism is by the far better than a diet with lots of meat, i'm still a huge meat-eater. So i'm basically just a piece of shit.
On October 28 2009 01:41 Excelsior wrote: but if it's because you don't like killing cute little animals to sustain yourself (which is nature's way), ^^
Its natures way to keep 30 chickens in a cage not fit for 1?
On October 28 2009 01:43 Sarpedon wrote: L, the earth can support many more people if it didn't support any livestock. That's a fact. Yes, if population continues to grow it will be a problem no matter what. Population would approach infinity. And so would resources required.
Population growth in the third world will become similar to that in the first world the moment they have first world living conditions. And maybe that is when the earth reaches 12 billion people. And if we can sustain 12 billion vegetarians while we can't sustain 12 billion people and all the livestock required to feed them meat then being a vegetarian does solve the problem.
If you are going to assume that mankind is doomed because no matter what happens, population will grow, overshoot and civilization will crash, fine. But that doesn't mean you get to be wasteful and immoral.
In 100,000 billion years there will be no evidence left of mankind. At that moment your morality or immorality won't matter. But it does matter now.
The earth can also support many more people if we decide to go back to making our houses out of sod.
Your premise in the middle, that we're going to level out around 12 billion is also relatively hilarious: what if we don't and we keep going? Let me tell you the story of Haiti: they kept going. Now there's almost no land for people to subsistence farm, so there's a huge exodus of people. Haiti is exporting people because there just isn't enough of Haiti to go around. This is Malthus in action.
What's your solution if your unsupported hope that we level out at 12 billion doesn't happen? What happens if despite all of the eco-friendly changes we adopt, we simply hit our photosynthetic ceiling and just plain don't have the ability to meet our energy needs (hint: we are rapidly approaching that point) without delving into consumable fuels? What then?
What happens when Haiti becomes 'the world'? There's no first world nations equivalents in the solar system that we can ship people off to so that they can send back money. Even if there were, we'd require entire new planets to ship ourselves off to, which is something like nine orders of magnitude too expensive to do at a rate which would help us manually adjust our population.
So you want to be pro-sustainable development? Time to get aboard the zero population growth, or population reduction train.
Edit: Even at 12 billion, bringing the third world to first world consumption standards puts us at well over 10 times the current level of total environmental impact, and we're having significant troubles with our current level of impact.
On October 28 2009 01:55 Sarpedon wrote: PanN, how can belonging to what group decide something important as what diet you eat?
As for being condescending. You are the one coming to a vegetarian themed topic telling people how elitist they are and how much they annoy you, apparently. Have you nothing worthwhile to contribute?
Everyone here is fine, I didn't say the people in the thread annoy me, or are elitist. I simply said everyone I've met in real life is this way. Don't read into it that much.
Contribute?
I think Vegetarianism is fine. I don't like the vegetarian culture though. Organic foods / saving the planet etc. I'm all for helping the planet, but there are far more dangerous things to the planet than people eating meat.
Brb, I'm going to go drink four glasses of milk and down a left over steak from last night, and I hate left overs, but damn do I love steak.
On October 28 2009 01:51 PanN wrote: Every vegetarian I've met was a condescending elitist bent on telling me my lifestyle is incorrect. I really really don't want to join that side......
Sounds like a borderline religious sect you've got who's after your brain
Instead of cutting back for a month and then going back to eat, wouldn't it make sense to cut your meat intake overall just slightly?
I was a vegetarian for around a full year before I went back to eating meat. I remember the very first two meals I had with meat I threw it up completely due to it being unsettling in my stomach.
Many modernized countries are suffering from zero or negative population growth these days, I heard. It's developing countries that continue to have high birth and death rates. As death rates decline in a country as it develops, birth rates decline as well. A large reason of population boom is a result of many countries developing in a short period of time, where the birth rates and death rates have not yet equalized.
On October 28 2009 02:13 scintilliaSD wrote: Many modernized countries are suffering from zero or negative population growth these days, I heard. It's developing countries that continue to have high birth and death rates. As death rates decline in a country as it develops, birth rates decline as well. A large reason of population boom is a result of many countries developing in a short period of time, where the birth rates and death rates have not yet equalized.
I wouldn't use the word "suffering." I'd say more people that not think it's beneficial
On October 28 2009 02:13 scintilliaSD wrote: Many modernized countries are suffering from zero or negative population growth these days, I heard. It's developing countries that continue to have high birth and death rates. As death rates decline in a country as it develops, birth rates decline as well. A large reason of population boom is a result of many countries developing in a short period of time, where the birth rates and death rates have not yet equalized.
On the contrary, the UK population is increasing at the greatest rate since the 1800s at the moment. Partly fuelled by immigration and the children of immigrants. I agree that the two person family is becoming standard for the first world but with increasing lifespans there are more simultaneous generations alive at the same time.
On October 28 2009 00:38 Manit0u wrote: Mankind has 2 very cool features as a species: - adaptability - survivality
Haha.. you know, every species that exist today, fits that description. Otherwise, they would be extinct. I love evolution... it is so rational.
But I agree with the spirit of your post. Technological advancement will set us free. If only ethics based decisions won't stand in progress' way.
The only thing I gotta learn is to not freak out when a cow starts talking to me about my dinner plans.
Actually, most of the species that exist today can't adapt to changing environments. They sure as hell are greatly adapted for the environment they're currently in, but that's it. Move polar bears to Sahara and see how well they'll do...
And ethics won't be of any matter as soon as people will finally see the truth and accept it. We must think about human beings first, everything else is secondary to this priority.
On October 28 2009 02:13 scintilliaSD wrote: Many modernized countries are suffering from zero or negative population growth these days, I heard. It's developing countries that continue to have high birth and death rates. As death rates decline in a country as it develops, birth rates decline as well. A large reason of population boom is a result of many countries developing in a short period of time, where the birth rates and death rates have not yet equalized.
First world countries are experiencing such large quantities of immigration because they have such low population growth. The problem is, however, that such a net flux of people from poor nations to rich nations eventually stops once the poor nation stops being disadvantaged.
Simply put: 'Modern' society needs to import cheap workers, which means its being subsidized, in part, by the high birthrate of other areas. Add to that the fact that areas that aren't 'modern' want to become modern, and you see that there's a problem growing that needs to be dealt with now before it explodes in 30-60 years.
But that's secondary to the real problem; current consumption rates are unsustainable and our world population by 2050 is going to be roughly 1.5x the size it is now, and many nations are pushing to hit first world standards of living. If china alone hits that mark, the environmental impact of the human population will double. And that's in china, where the population is set to go into a net decline at 2030 because of their birth policy. Take india, who doesn't have the same controls and the numbers go off the charts into the 'oh fuck this is bad' zone.
On October 28 2009 01:46 Railxp wrote: Solution: Get the government to stop subsidizing meat.
Meat as of now costs much less than it should. If the price correctly reflected the actual costs to produce meat, restaurants would order less of it and people would also think twice before ordering a meat dish. You wouldn't have to go vegetarian just to save the world, everyone would naturally eat less meat because taste vs cost it is not worth it.
Wrong solution.
Get the government to stop subsidizing GRAINS AND CORN.
Right now they're subsidizing grains and corn.... to feed livestock.... which they are subsidizing to get us meat.
Grow something else with the land for grains and corn. Grass feed livestock.
Plus, GRASS FED CATTLE produce HEATHIER MEAT. And guess what... is SUSTAINABLE.
wait.. as an ultra-liberal blah blah.. you are sacrificing one month of the year without meat to help save the planet? I tell you what.. today I won't have meat!
Ms. Keith was a practicing vegetarian (vegan) for twenty years, driven by her passion for kindness and justice for all creatures. She couldn’t bear the thought of even killing a garden slug, or, for that matter, even removing a garden slug from her garden to a place where something or someone else might kill it. Her years of compassionate avoidance of any foods of animal origin cost her her health. Her story of coming to grips with the realization that whatever she ate came as a consequence of some living being’s having to die form the matrix onto which her narrative hangs.
I am cheering you all on but there are a couple guilty pleasures which I simply cannot give up, one of them being meat and the other being gaming.
I drive a fuel efficient car, use the bare minimum electricity, recycle, am very conscious about how much water I use and dont smoke.
While there is always more you can do for the world not eating meat is something I could never do.
Good luck to the rest of you!
Edit:
On October 28 2009 03:13 psion0011 wrote: I don't understand, if there are too many cows farting shouldn't we eat MORE meat as to kill the cows faster?
On October 28 2009 03:13 psion0011 wrote: I don't understand, if there are too many cows farting shouldn't we eat MORE meat as to kill the cows faster?
think of how many millions of millions of cows are grown just so people can eat them
they aren't gonna re-produce on their own that quick
On October 27 2009 21:07 BlackJack wrote: The majority of this forum believes that the threat of global warming is real and that humans play a major role in causing it so it's time to put your meat where your mouth isn't.
The water wasted raising meat is the huge issue. With vegetables/fruit/nuts/beans... you just have to water the plant. With Livestock, you have to grow their feed, feed them for years, give them water to drink and- a ton of water is used just to "wash" away their waste and package the food. Its called the "water footprint" of food, and its essentially a mark of the Efficency of eating something.
Per LB of food, water consumption to produce= Apples -- 83 gallons Cucumber -- 28 gallons Potatoes -- 30 gallons
...these are some conservative figures from others that I have seen.You dont need to be a statistician to figure that we could feed more people, more health food, on less land using less water if we just ate LESS meat. Not even NO meat, but just less.
The carbon footprint and waste produced, and dead zones in the sea caused by Eutrophication + Show Spoiler +
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eutrophication
are indeed an issue... but I think the water footprint is a much better argument for why a society based on mostly plant food is far far more sustainable. Not to even touch on the saved cost of medical expenses. >.< TY if you read.
I honestly wouldn't mind being a vegetarian since I don't enjoy meat as much as I used to nowadays, but I have a real hard time giving up seafood so I don't think I could ever be a vegetarian.
I don't understand why so many people react to vegetarianism with such hostility. I mean, stereotypically, vegetarians/vegans are supposed to be the preachy, obnoxious ones who self-righteously tell you how much better they are for eating tofu. And yet this thread has far more of the maddox-esque 'hurr imma eat animals to make up for ur vegetables' comments. If you don't feel any necessity to be vegetarian, fine. But what is it about the concept of vegetarianism that threatens you so much? Seems a bit hypocritical to me.
Personally, I'm not an an environment where being vegetarian is really a viable option. I do have a great deal of respect for people who do make that choice, however. Whatever you think about global warming, greenhouse gas emissions, overpopulation, Malthusian nightmares, etc, etc, vegetarianism is a more efficient, less wasteful way to feed yourself. So ease up on the hostility, guys. There's no reason to castigate someone simply for making a different lifestyle choice than yours.
I've been a vegan for a year now, the only "supplements" I take are calcium and b vitamins. I never miss eating animal products or anything like that, it's honestly not difficult at all as long as you truly want to do it, in which case it's not so much a decision you make but just what you do because there's is nothing else for you to do.
In the context of greenhouse gases, global warming and saving the planet is a bunch of bullshit. All this nonsense is really about saving the people, not the planet. People should follow their principles though, whatever they are, so if it means becoming a vegetarian for 1 month to help the planet then cool, do it. My question is, why 1 month? If you really believe in it then it should be a life long thing. Not that you have to do it for the rest of your life, by any means, but to go into it thinking you will only do it for a month is pretty weak.
I'm already a vegetarian, and have been for nearly 10 years now (I'm almost 26 years old). A few comments...
I agree with Lucktar's comments regarding the hostility and spite towards vegetarians. I've never actually met a preachy vegetarian or vegan in my life, yet that's the stereotype.
My family, friends, and even fiancee eat meat, and I don't ever talk down to them or judge them for it.
Also LOL @ Blackjack "I'll give it up for 30 days". If you really cared about the causes here, I would hope you would make a more rational goal to help out. It's like people who believe "I won't buy gas this week" will help lower gas prices and reduce dependency on oil. A more reasonable goal would be something like researching how to best incorporate a vegetarian diet for a few days, gradually eating more vegetarian meals throughout the week, and within the month, either entirely or almost entirely giving up meat for the rest of your life.
edit: Also regarding vegetarianism "making you skinny", that's not true. What often is the case is before one adopts a vegetarian diet, they take a lot of time to research nutritional requirements and how to acquire them with the new diet they are adopting. Basically, they become more health conscious as a result. I know it definitely was the case for me, and I've heard similar cases with other vegetarians I know. I still eat some junk food, but overall I eat a healthy diet.
Fish from fish farms are also fed food that could have been eaten directly. How efficient it is exactly I don't know. But there is a better alternative; insects.
Eating fish is destroying the biggest ecosystems of this planet. So in a sense eating fish is probably the worst. But it really depends. I mean, global warming is mainly a problem for humans. Not for the planet. In fact, it may be better for the planet than no global warming in the long run. Especially if it goes really wrong for us humans.
With fish I think the main issue is that too much fish are being overfished nowaday, rather than the fish themselves doing anything. There's also the problem of farmed fish harboring parasites and diseases which leak out to the wild and etc.
Eating meat isn't the problem. It's the way we massively process it. If everybody had a self-sufficient produce farm, we would be absolutely fine.
I think a lot of vegetarians are taking this relatively stupid ultimatum as an excuse to preach about vegetarianism. The fact is, I was a vegetarian for a year, and went back to meat and ultimately felt much, much better, while gaining noticeably more muscle mass as soon as I began consuming high quality protein sources again. Of course you can supplement, but that's very hypocritical, as the protein found in most of these supplements would be from animal cells.
This is pretty much like saying that all fast food is awful due to McDonalds. There are many people in my area who hunt and use 100% of the animal that they can to feed/clothe their family, while obviously not adding to CO2 emissions.
On October 28 2009 04:46 Romance_us wrote: Eating meat isn't the problem. It's the way we massively process it. If everybody had a self-sufficient produce farm, we would be absolutely fine.
That makes no sense to me. Economy tells me that those big scale companies who produce meat in mass, make their profit on being efficient. They're efficient with their animals. When the growth rate of the animal significantly lowers, it's ready for slaughter. No need to feed it any more, and ehm.. cause co2 or whatever. They feed it the cheapest food available that will yield a sufficient quality meat as end product, of course taking into account laws and regulations on ethical standards of animal treatment. That cheap food is cheap because the least amount of work was involved to get it, meaning least amount of people involved meaning a (relatively) small carbon footprint. And so on.
If you were to scale it down to teeny tiny local farms, then the economy of scale would be completely thrown out the window. Those animals on that farm still need to live and eat. That food has to come from somewhere, where it is produced in small quantities. By people who spill some of that food and are less efficient with it in other ways that they wouldn't be with bigger batches. - With the economic effects of supply and demand in place and no extreme effects such as monopolies, the price of a product equates quite evenly with a carbon footprint, so I believe. Subsidies fuck up this picture though, and should really be eliminated.
On October 28 2009 04:46 Romance_us wrote: Eating meat isn't the problem. It's the way we massively process it. If everybody had a self-sufficient produce farm, we would be absolutely fine.
That makes no sense to me. Economy tells me that those big scale companies who produce meat in mass, make their profit on being efficient. They're efficient with their animals. When the growth rate of the animal significantly lowers, it's ready for slaughter. No need to feed it any more, and ehm.. cause co2 or whatever. They feed it the cheapest food available that will yield a sufficient quality meat as end product, of course taking into account laws and regulations on ethical standards of animal treatment. That cheap food is cheap because the least amount of work was involved to get it, meaning least amount of people involved meaning a (relatively) small carbon footprint. And so on.
If you were to scale it down to teeny tiny local farms, then the economy of scale would be completely thrown out the window. Those animals on that farm still need to live and eat. That food has to come from somewhere, where it is produced in small quantities. By people who spill some of that food and are less efficient with it in other ways that they wouldn't be with bigger batches. - With the economic effects of supply and demand in place and no extreme effects such as monopolies, the price of a product equates quite evenly with a carbon footprint, so I believe. Subsidies fuck up this picture though, and should really be eliminated.
This. The whole reason industrialization is possible is because we no longer have >50% of the population engaged in subsistence farming. Individual family farms MAY be friendlier on the environment (maybe), but they definitely don't provide a more efficient way of feeding a population.
On October 28 2009 04:13 EscPlan9 wrote: I'm already a vegetarian, and have been for nearly 10 years now (I'm almost 26 years old). A few comments...
I agree with Lucktar's comments regarding the hostility and spite towards vegetarians. I've never actually met a preachy vegetarian or vegan in my life, yet that's the stereotype.
I have met plenty of preachy vegetarians in my life.
Also LOL @ Blackjack "I'll give it up for 30 days". If you really cared about the causes here, I would hope you would make a more rational goal to help out. It's like people who believe "I won't buy gas this week" will help lower gas prices and reduce dependency on oil. A more reasonable goal would be something like researching how to best incorporate a vegetarian diet for a few days, gradually eating more vegetarian meals throughout the week, and within the month, either entirely or almost entirely giving up meat for the rest of your life.
What was that about vegetarians not being preachy?
I think it's a great opportunity for people to experience living without meat for a month, it doesn't mean he has to go all Che Guevara on meat right away.
edit: Also regarding vegetarianism "making you skinny", that's not true. What often is the case is before one adopts a vegetarian diet, they take a lot of time to research nutritional requirements and how to acquire them with the new diet they are adopting. Basically, they become more health conscious as a result. I know it definitely was the case for me, and I've heard similar cases with other vegetarians I know. I still eat some junk food, but overall I eat a healthy diet.
Vegetarians always say this and I think it can be true but most veggies I know are skinny as fuck.
edit: Also regarding vegetarianism "making you skinny", that's not true. What often is the case is before one adopts a vegetarian diet, they take a lot of time to research nutritional requirements and how to acquire them with the new diet they are adopting. Basically, they become more health conscious as a result. I know it definitely was the case for me, and I've heard similar cases with other vegetarians I know. I still eat some junk food, but overall I eat a healthy diet.
Vegetarians always say this and I think it can be true but most veggies I know are skinny as fuck.
It's probably because a lot of vegetarians don't really exercise properly or eat properly. My cousin is a vegetarian and his body is build a lot better than me. It's just up to your lifestyle. My cousin also makes sure he's getting enough of everything he needs. He tried to be a vegan for a year but we both kinda realized that it was just too constrictive for no good reason. I've kinda noticed that he eats a lot more after he stopped eating meat. When I see how much he eats at breakfast it baffles me.
All jokes aside, I really won't mind switching to a more vegetarian diet later, but I'll always have at least some meat every once in a while. My current diet doesn't consist of much meat anyway though. Maybe aside from the once a month bacon or once a week hamburger.
He a vegetarian and a fat muscular guy. As long as you work out you should be fine as a adult vegetarian. Its really just kids that can be harmed from not eating meat.
For anyone that is interested, there are other reasons not to eat meat, or more specifically Animal Protein, and book called "The China Study" was published after a massive study linking the consumption of animal proteins to much higher cancer rates.
On October 28 2009 04:13 EscPlan9 wrote: I'm already a vegetarian, and have been for nearly 10 years now (I'm almost 26 years old). A few comments...
I agree with Lucktar's comments regarding the hostility and spite towards vegetarians. I've never actually met a preachy vegetarian or vegan in my life, yet that's the stereotype.
My family, friends, and even fiancee eat meat, and I don't ever talk down to them or judge them for it.
Also LOL @ Blackjack "I'll give it up for 30 days". If you really cared about the causes here, I would hope you would make a more rational goal to help out. It's like people who believe "I won't buy gas this week" will help lower gas prices and reduce dependency on oil. A more reasonable goal would be something like researching how to best incorporate a vegetarian diet for a few days, gradually eating more vegetarian meals throughout the week, and within the month, either entirely or almost entirely giving up meat for the rest of your life.
edit: Also regarding vegetarianism "making you skinny", that's not true. What often is the case is before one adopts a vegetarian diet, they take a lot of time to research nutritional requirements and how to acquire them with the new diet they are adopting. Basically, they become more health conscious as a result. I know it definitely was the case for me, and I've heard similar cases with other vegetarians I know. I still eat some junk food, but overall I eat a healthy diet.
OK, definition of preachy vegetarianism: starting/contributing to a thread in order to convert the people that misguidedly go on with their (normative) way of life into a way of life that is better for every single human, and that if everyone did this the world would be better. You know, replace "vegetarianism" with "Christianity" and let's see you argue with that definition. Religious preachers also don't think of it as being preachy but rather as an honest-to-God attempt to help people bring heavenly glory into your heart.
You start with saying you never met a preachy vegetarian - news flash, you are one. Proof: after that opening, you continue by immediately belittling Blackjack's contribution because it's not a permanent solution, point out the flaws in his idea, and then preach about how things are done right. You know, your way. With that attitude, Blackjack should double his meat intake out of spite instead of stopping for 30 days. Just so he can say "way to go, dumbass - this is on you" every meal. You manage to be so condescending, throwing in the occasional "I'm just like everyone else" comment, while flailing around explanations for the superiority of your way and your people. We don't want to hear it.
So yeah. There's hostility. But in a thread like this "vegetarianism pledge", which for us normal people is about the same as a "Purity Ring Support" or "Jesus Loves You" or whatever, it's justified. This is the last time I'll give this thread the respect of bumping it. Because trolling us like this in order to catch the eyes of a percentage is cheap religious theatrics. That's right. Preachy as it gets. You want to tell me I'm wrong? Let's see you do it in a PM, because I will not add one more thing to this thread.
On October 28 2009 07:20 Traveler wrote: For anyone that is interested, there are other reasons not to eat meat, or more specifically Animal Protein, and book called "The China Study" was published after a massive study linking the consumption of animal proteins to much higher cancer rates.
I will take my chances.
No seriously I will... you only live once and sacrificing delicious meat and Brazilian Steakhouses just isn't worth it. Not only do I still eat a healthy diet but it's delicious at the same time. There is also the compounding fact that my profession generally forces me to run and stay in shape... something that I can't really do while being a vegetarian.
You can tell me to take supplements all you want but they just aren't as good as primary source. 6'5 205 lbs is hard to fuel with plants.
If I'm at a higher rate for cancer (I can't imagine really that it's as MUCH HIGHER as you imply) fine... I'll be eating this cheeseburger with a smile on my face.
I just don't understand why you have to give it up completely like most vegetarians choose to do.
It's like drinking pop. I told myself one day that I'd never drink pop again, and I was fine with it for a long time. One day I drank some by accident and I felt kind of down, like I lost.
And why? Because I drank some carbonized sugar water that actually had less calories than the cookie I ate a minute ago?
It's stupid.
And so now if I'm out and want something tasty with a special meal, I may get a tasty choice of pop as opposed to water. I still drink mostly water, but the pop does not hurt me in any way if I keep track of it.
This is why many vegetarians annoy me just by being vegetarian. Because even if they don't express it, you just assume they have this condescending look on meat eating. I looked down on people every time I saw them order pop -- I never confronted them, I just felt superior, healthier.
If you can drink pop, eat meat, or whatever and still be healthy (which is sooooo easy), then why give up on such a great variety of dishes?
i guess I can manage my diet across many different levels, while some have to just focus on one.
Vegetarians are fine as long as they're not the uppity, self righteous ones. I respect your right to eat (or in this case, not eat) what you want. I'm sure your lifestyle is very noble and fulfilling, I don't want to hear about it, though.
On October 28 2009 07:20 Traveler wrote: For anyone that is interested, there are other reasons not to eat meat, or more specifically Animal Protein, and book called "The China Study" was published after a massive study linking the consumption of animal proteins to much higher cancer rates.
I will take my chances.
No seriously I will... you only live once and sacrificing delicious meat and Brazilian Steakhouses just isn't worth it. Not only do I still eat a healthy diet but it's delicious at the same time. There is also the compounding fact that my profession generally forces me to run and stay in shape... something that I can't really do while being a vegetarian.
You can tell me to take supplements all you want but they just aren't as good as primary source. 6'5 205 lbs is hard to fuel with plants.
If I'm at a higher rate for cancer (I can't imagine really that it's as MUCH HIGHER as you imply) fine... I'll be eating this cheeseburger with a smile on my face.
do you know anything about being vegetarian?
it's not hard to keep fueled on plants. Even being 205 lbs.
I'm not suggesting you convert. I eat meat almost every meal and have no intentions of stopping - not for a day, let alone a month - but c'mon you're talking out of your ass.
Its amazing how much anger a vegetarianism thread will bring out on any forum on the web. People really, REALLY, do not like being told that vegetarianism is a) healthier, b) more environmentally sound, c) morally/ethically 'right', etc. Few things bring out the rage like vegan/vegetarianism. This is because many veggies come across as arrogant, condescending and holier-than-thou.
That being said, the facts are in on vegetarianism. Our current process' for raising animals is extremely detrimental to the environment. A healthy whole foods vegan diet takes little to no effort in planning and is completely healthy(this being said, it does take more effort cooking. As would any whole foods diet). Morals, ethics and animal welfare arguments are important for an individual, but irrelevant as an argument. If you would like references, I recommend reading the vegetarianism article on wiki for a start.
As an aside, ANY reduction, be it for a month or a day, in meat consumption, or travel, or whatever, is a step in the right direction. Every little bit helps, by definition.
Disclamer: I was vegan for four years, purely due to environmental concerns. I now eat meat as of 1 month ago, and will likely continue eating meat.
seems like this thread has a great lack of the fact that there isnt enough room on earth to sustain 6 billion vegetarians, but you're right, fuck those poor chinese and africans for eating meat, they are destroying the environment!1111oneretard
I recently got alot of money for my extra work, and I'm happy to tell you that I'll be spending it on extra meat this coming month, and I'll be thinking about this thread while I do it.
On October 28 2009 09:20 Catch]22 wrote: seems like this thread has a great lack of the fact that there isnt enough room on earth to sustain 6 billion vegetarians, but you're right, fuck those poor chinese and africans for eating meat, they are destroying the environment!1111oneretard
I recently got alot of money for my extra work, and I'm happy to tell you that I'll be spending it on extra meat this coming month, and I'll be thinking about this thread while I do it.
On October 28 2009 08:22 eMbrace wrote: I just don't understand why you have to give it up completely like most vegetarians choose to do.
It's like drinking pop. I told myself one day that I'd never drink pop again, and I was fine with it for a long time. One day I drank some by accident and I felt kind of down, like I lost.
And why? Because I drank some carbonized sugar water that actually had less calories than the cookie I ate a minute ago?
It's stupid.
And so now if I'm out and want something tasty with a special meal, I may get a tasty choice of pop as opposed to water. I still drink mostly water, but the pop does not hurt me in any way if I keep track of it.
This is why many vegetarians annoy me just by being vegetarian. Because even if they don't express it, you just assume they have this condescending look on meat eating. I looked down on people every time I saw them order pop -- I never confronted them, I just felt superior, healthier.
If you can drink pop, eat meat, or whatever and still be healthy (which is sooooo easy), then why give up on such a great variety of dishes?
i guess I can manage my diet across many different levels, while some have to just focus on one.
so now I feel superior again -- sweet.
just cuz you quit pop and are a douchebag, doesn't mean vegs are. i'm sure there are lots of things in life you don't understand -- maybe you can chalk 'personal dietary decisions' up to another one of those
On October 28 2009 08:22 eMbrace wrote: I just don't understand why you have to give it up completely like most vegetarians choose to do.
It's like drinking pop. I told myself one day that I'd never drink pop again, and I was fine with it for a long time. One day I drank some by accident and I felt kind of down, like I lost.
And why? Because I drank some carbonized sugar water that actually had less calories than the cookie I ate a minute ago?
It's stupid.
And so now if I'm out and want something tasty with a special meal, I may get a tasty choice of pop as opposed to water. I still drink mostly water, but the pop does not hurt me in any way if I keep track of it.
This is why many vegetarians annoy me just by being vegetarian. Because even if they don't express it, you just assume they have this condescending look on meat eating. I looked down on people every time I saw them order pop -- I never confronted them, I just felt superior, healthier.
If you can drink pop, eat meat, or whatever and still be healthy (which is sooooo easy), then why give up on such a great variety of dishes?
i guess I can manage my diet across many different levels, while some have to just focus on one.
so now I feel superior again -- sweet.
just cuz you quit pop and are a douchebag, doesn't mean vegs are. i'm sure there are lots of things in life you don't understand -- maybe you can chalk 'personal dietary decisions' up to another one of those
If my colon was all packed with partialy digested red meat id be testy too... so I dont hold it against them. The hostility against vegetarians really doesn't have a whole lot to do with the vegetarians...
On October 28 2009 07:20 Traveler wrote: For anyone that is interested, there are other reasons not to eat meat, or more specifically Animal Protein, and book called "The China Study" was published after a massive study linking the consumption of animal proteins to much higher cancer rates.
I will take my chances.
No seriously I will... you only live once and sacrificing delicious meat and Brazilian Steakhouses just isn't worth it. Not only do I still eat a healthy diet but it's delicious at the same time. There is also the compounding fact that my profession generally forces me to run and stay in shape... something that I can't really do while being a vegetarian.
You can tell me to take supplements all you want but they just aren't as good as primary source. 6'5 205 lbs is hard to fuel with plants.
If I'm at a higher rate for cancer (I can't imagine really that it's as MUCH HIGHER as you imply) fine... I'll be eating this cheeseburger with a smile on my face.
do you know anything about being vegetarian?
it's not hard to keep fueled on plants. Even being 205 lbs.
I'm not suggesting you convert. I eat meat almost every meal and have no intentions of stopping - not for a day, let alone a month - but c'mon you're talking out of your ass.
I know plenty about what you consume eating vegetables and tofu and in general non meat products.
I could not retain the muscle mass/strength I have now with a vegetarian diet unless I eat like pounds of god damn legumes/tofu/beans which mostly taste like crap anyway. Unfortunately I don't sit on my ass all day. I work out roughly 5 times a week and my job generally makes me chase down people who don't want to go to jail that day. I like to be in shape and take it seriously.
Could I keep myself at my current weight/mass with a vegetarian diet? Sure... if I wanted to spend about 5x more than I do now for food.
On October 28 2009 07:20 Traveler wrote: For anyone that is interested, there are other reasons not to eat meat, or more specifically Animal Protein, and book called "The China Study" was published after a massive study linking the consumption of animal proteins to much higher cancer rates.
I will take my chances.
No seriously I will... you only live once and sacrificing delicious meat and Brazilian Steakhouses just isn't worth it. Not only do I still eat a healthy diet but it's delicious at the same time. There is also the compounding fact that my profession generally forces me to run and stay in shape... something that I can't really do while being a vegetarian.
You can tell me to take supplements all you want but they just aren't as good as primary source. 6'5 205 lbs is hard to fuel with plants.
If I'm at a higher rate for cancer (I can't imagine really that it's as MUCH HIGHER as you imply) fine... I'll be eating this cheeseburger with a smile on my face.
do you know anything about being vegetarian?
it's not hard to keep fueled on plants. Even being 205 lbs.
I'm not suggesting you convert. I eat meat almost every meal and have no intentions of stopping - not for a day, let alone a month - but c'mon you're talking out of your ass.
I know plenty about what you consume eating vegetables and tofu and in general non meat products.
I could not retain the muscle mass/strength I have now with a vegetarian diet unless I eat like pounds of god damn legumes/tofu/beans which mostly taste like crap anyway. Unfortunately I don't sit on my ass all day. I work out roughly 5 times a week and my job generally makes me chase down people who don't want to go to jail that day. I like to be in shape and take it seriously.
Could I keep myself at my current weight/mass with a vegetarian diet? Sure... if I wanted to spend about 5x more than I do now for food.
Indeed, vegan foods are less calorie dense, meaning you would be eating larger portions at each meal. I ate much more as a vegan than i did before becoming vegan. However, this does not translate into higher food costs. Having been buying meat, eggs, dairy etc over the last month, my food bill has skyrocketed. Wheat, rice, beans, fruit and veggies etc are all fairly cheap.
Obviously if you don't like the taste of beans, legumes etc, don't eat them. Eat whatever you want to eat and what makes you feel happy/healthy. Just wanted to point out that in my experience, eating a vegan diet was much easier on my wallet.
On October 27 2009 21:17 EsX_Raptor wrote: Does not eating meat somehow make you really skinny over time? Is that why they need to take these weird supplements with every meal, everyday (pretty much replacing what meat provided)?
Yay for people not being educated about vegetarian/veganism! All the nutrients you need (except for vitamin B12) can be found in more than acceptable amounts in non-meat foods. B12 is necessary for accelerated brain functioning, and can be taken occasionally as a supplement. There's no nutritional downside to not eating meat - we don't need that much protein.
That said, I'm not giving up meat because it's delicious. I don't always eat it, because I tend to prefer other foods, but when I do, it's fucking awesome.
I don't think i can look at artosis, or a ton of other vegetarians i know for that matter, and with a straight face say that i agree that vegetarianism/veganism doesn't make a person very skinny over the course of their life.
Artosis is a skinny nerd. I'm a fat tend-to-be-mostly-vegetarian-just-not-very-often-recently.
a large percentage of the indian population are vegetarians, and it doesn't make them very skinny over the course of their lives
edit: also some people seem to be talking about vegetarianism as if its some new concept which can't be applied for different lifestyles, occupations, etc. But people have been practicing vegetarianism in India for thousands of years, so I don't think that there its valid to say at all that "i'm a cop so I can't be a vegetarian" , or in order to eat the amount of calories/proteins that i need, i'd have to spend way more on food.
Also I checked regarding protein. 100g of roast beef gives you approx. 26.1 g of protein. 100g of dal or lentils gives you 26g of protein too. So I don't think there is a big difference.
Having said this i'm not a vegetarian, just thought that some people should realize vegetarianism is not a new thing at all.
Please people, take the initiative and become vegetarians.. If there are less meat consumers I can get my meat at a lower price due to supply and demand change. You contribute to saving the environment and I get to eat my meat cheaper so it's a win win. The only concern I have as a result is naturally there'll be less food joints that specializes in meat like 'Outback Steakhouse'' which would be of great inconvenience to me.
I have no problem with people who love broccoli but almost every vegetarian I've met has been snobby/preachy and tried to convert me. It's okay though cause I know I'm enjoying life more than they are (in terms of food at least).
Then they claim meat-eaters are hostile. It's like blaming a 10/10 girl for being rude to a guy at a bar when she's being hit on 24/7
If everyone started sacrificing things just because they could live without them this world would be more than TvT boring.
On October 27 2009 21:17 EsX_Raptor wrote: Does not eating meat somehow make you really skinny over time? Is that why they need to take these weird supplements with every meal, everyday (pretty much replacing what meat provided)?
Yay for people not being educated about vegetarian/veganism! All the nutrients you need (except for vitamin B12) can be found in more than acceptable amounts in non-meat foods. B12 is necessary for accelerated brain functioning, and can be taken occasionally as a supplement. There's no nutritional downside to not eating meat - we don't need that much protein.
That said, I'm not giving up meat because it's delicious. I don't always eat it, because I tend to prefer other foods, but when I do, it's fucking awesome.
I don't think i can look at artosis, or a ton of other vegetarians i know for that matter, and with a straight face say that i agree that vegetarianism/veganism doesn't make a person very skinny over the course of their life.
Artosis is a skinny nerd. I'm a fat tend-to-be-mostly-vegetarian-just-not-very-often-recently.
Also I checked regarding protein. 100g of roast beef gives you approx. 26.1 g of protein. 100g of dal or lentils gives you 26g of protein too. So I don't think there is a big difference.
Meat protein and other protein are structured differently. If it were merely a matter of amount of protein then body builders would eat non meat alternatives because they are less calorie dense.
i work in a meat factory and most of the meat I eat wouldve been discarded if I didnt buy it for 1/10th of the store price
I should eat less beef and more pork and chicken tho. i lived without a freezer for a while and a couple times I was forced to eat 3kg of beef in 3-ish days lol
fruits and vegetables are delicious and it is absolutely true that a vast majority of people in western countries eat too much meat. people like the guy interviewed in OP should just advice people to eat less meat rather than to stop eating it completely because this is so unappealing to many people that they end up completely ignoring a very valid piece of advice.
I know anecdotal evidence wouldn't hold up in a court of law, but every vegetarian/vegan I've ever known has looked extremely malnourished and unhealthy.
Also one of them killed her fucking cat because she tried to feed it an all-vegan diet and it starved to death. Cats are carnivores, sweetheart.
But anyway, there's no reason to get angry at vegetarians/vegans as a whole, guys. Despite what some of them think, vegetarians/vegans will NEVER become a large percentage of our population; we're omnivores, we naturally want to eat meat and fish. Just smile and move on.
On October 28 2009 12:03 Liquid`Drone wrote: i work in a meat factory and most of the meat I eat wouldve been discarded if I didnt buy it for 1/10th of the store price
I should eat less beef and more pork and chicken tho. i lived without a freezer for a while and a couple times I was forced to eat 3kg of beef in 3-ish days lol
fruits and vegetables are delicious and it is absolutely true that a vast majority of people in western countries eat too much meat. people like the guy interviewed in OP should just advice people to eat less meat rather than to stop eating it completely because this is so unappealing to many people that they end up completely ignoring a very valid piece of advice.
thats because the guy on OP is trying to push his moral agenda through lies and its not really honestly concerned about realistic ways to improve others lives even if his own fucked up hypocrite brains think he is.
On October 28 2009 12:03 Liquid`Drone wrote: i work in a meat factory and most of the meat I eat wouldve been discarded if I didnt buy it for 1/10th of the store price
I should eat less beef and more pork and chicken tho. i lived without a freezer for a while and a couple times I was forced to eat 3kg of beef in 3-ish days lol
fruits and vegetables are delicious and it is absolutely true that a vast majority of people in western countries eat too much meat. people like the guy interviewed in OP should just advice people to eat less meat rather than to stop eating it completely because this is so unappealing to many people that they end up completely ignoring a very valid piece of advice.
thats because the guy on OP is trying to push his moral agenda through lies and its not really honestly concerned about realistic ways to improve others lives even if his own fucked up hypocrite brains think he is.
God damn, defensive much? You've decided that the OP article is full of lies and propaganda, without supplying a shred of reasoning or evidence to support this, and you're trying to paint vegetarianism as some sort of quasi-religious cult a la Scientology. Argue the issues if you like, but leave the vitriol and indignation at home, please. You're making yourself look like an idiot.
Vegetarianism has real and demonstrable benefits for both health and the environment, and addresses some real issues of morality regarding animals as well. If you don't give two fucks about animal rights, and you like steak, that's fine. But if your argument is 'I don't care,' then you're hardly in a position to blast people who attempt to argue with scientific studies, statistics, etc. Quit acting like vegetarians are obligated not to talk about vegetarianism, for fear of offending your carnivorous sensibilities.
i was dating a vegan a while back (does fucking count as dating? or do you have to like, eat dinners and shit?) and he would tell me about all this food that sounded delicious, but he wasn't too keen on me eating meat (unless it was his. hypocrit, i know).
Perhaps i should phone him and see if he wants to go out to dinner....
.. what if he thinks that's code for sex? oh well. win/win.
On October 27 2009 21:12 scintilliaSD wrote: Somehow I doubt choosing not to eat meat will impact how much livestock is raised and slaughtered on a daily basis.
Somehow I doubt voting really makes a difference in elections.
On October 27 2009 21:12 scintilliaSD wrote: Somehow I doubt choosing not to eat meat will impact how much livestock is raised and slaughtered on a daily basis.
Somehow I doubt voting really makes a difference in elections.
edit: everyone please read Sarpedon on page 5.
Actually, If one person choses not to eat meat, then there is a Real difference... there will be X kg less meat produced per year as certain stores sell less than they expect and so cut their orders for next year.. and that works its way back to less animals being raised for meat.
On the other hand your vote does Not matter in an election unless the election is a tie. which means there is a very very good chance your vote is exactly 0 (in the election, if it influences the reported ballot numbers..which is more likely... it may make your favored candidate seem like a more viable choice in the next election, or may make the winner more/less confident in their political support, thus influencing their decision making)
On October 28 2009 12:03 Liquid`Drone wrote: i work in a meat factory and most of the meat I eat wouldve been discarded if I didnt buy it for 1/10th of the store price
I should eat less beef and more pork and chicken tho. i lived without a freezer for a while and a couple times I was forced to eat 3kg of beef in 3-ish days lol
fruits and vegetables are delicious and it is absolutely true that a vast majority of people in western countries eat too much meat. people like the guy interviewed in OP should just advice people to eat less meat rather than to stop eating it completely because this is so unappealing to many people that they end up completely ignoring a very valid piece of advice.
thats because the guy on OP is trying to push his moral agenda through lies and its not really honestly concerned about realistic ways to improve others lives even if his own fucked up hypocrite brains think he is.
God damn, defensive much? You've decided that the OP article is full of lies and propaganda, without supplying a shred of reasoning or evidence to support this, and you're trying to paint vegetarianism as some sort of quasi-religious cult a la Scientology. Argue the issues if you like, but leave the vitriol and indignation at home, please. You're making yourself look like an idiot.
Vegetarianism has real and demonstrable benefits for both health and the environment, and addresses some real issues of morality regarding animals as well. If you don't give two fucks about animal rights, and you like steak, that's fine. But if your argument is 'I don't care,' then you're hardly in a position to blast people who attempt to argue with scientific studies, statistics, etc. Quit acting like vegetarians are obligated not to talk about vegetarianism, for fear of offending your carnivorous sensibilities.
Arguing with Baal is like Russian Roulette, and all who know him well realize that he is just a bit..blunt in nature, kinda like Rekrul, without the mood swings. It's easy to misinterpret what he's saying.
All I can think of is that it's too bad that experiment trying to collect methane from livestock and use it as fuel to create electricity didn't work out. It wasn't cost effective.
I remember seeing pictures of cows strapped with tanks piped to their asses...ahahaha.
i haven't read through the thread, i'll read it when i have the time, because i am interested in the topic, but if cows and pigs are allowed to live....... more methane??? we're stopping cows and pigs from emitting that shit by eating them
Meat is a luxury that i enjoy the most, there is absolutely no way i can replace that luxury with another food. No matter what substance u replace meat with, the texture jus does not equate, especially on chinese dishes. And, seeing how there are a shit load of chinese ppl, i know most of em will be unwilling lol.
On October 28 2009 12:03 Liquid`Drone wrote: i work in a meat factory and most of the meat I eat wouldve been discarded if I didnt buy it for 1/10th of the store price
I should eat less beef and more pork and chicken tho. i lived without a freezer for a while and a couple times I was forced to eat 3kg of beef in 3-ish days lol
fruits and vegetables are delicious and it is absolutely true that a vast majority of people in western countries eat too much meat. people like the guy interviewed in OP should just advice people to eat less meat rather than to stop eating it completely because this is so unappealing to many people that they end up completely ignoring a very valid piece of advice.
thats because the guy on OP is trying to push his moral agenda through lies and its not really honestly concerned about realistic ways to improve others lives even if his own fucked up hypocrite brains think he is.
God damn, defensive much? You've decided that the OP article is full of lies and propaganda, without supplying a shred of reasoning or evidence to support this, and you're trying to paint vegetarianism as some sort of quasi-religious cult a la Scientology. Argue the issues if you like, but leave the vitriol and indignation at home, please. You're making yourself look like an idiot.
Vegetarianism has real and demonstrable benefits for both health and the environment, and addresses some real issues of morality regarding animals as well. If you don't give two fucks about animal rights, and you like steak, that's fine. But if your argument is 'I don't care,' then you're hardly in a position to blast people who attempt to argue with scientific studies, statistics, etc. Quit acting like vegetarians are obligated not to talk about vegetarianism, for fear of offending your carnivorous sensibilities.
As mora said, i am not arguing about vegetarianism, i am arguing about OPs interviewed asshole.
Global Warming to advocate vegetarianism? fuck that shit, could that asshole try to use any more pathetic vile manipulation to pursue his personal agendas?.
Discussions about vegetarianism for the following reasons make sense:
- Health - The morality in animal consumption - World Hunger
But climate change? fuck him and all his offspring for doing such a pathetic attempt, especially when its not even proven that man has something to do with it, and now a big portion of the scientific community is claiming that we were actually in a micro ice-age till mid 1800s, and that in the roman times the average weather was way hotter than nowadays, not to mention earlier stages of the earth.
Also it is clear that he is leading people to follow his beliefs by the wrong way when he says that in the end "everyone" will be a vegetarian, which says he is not worried about climate, but about morality.
If you want to discuss the morality of eating meat i have some decent arguments on it too.
On October 28 2009 12:03 Liquid`Drone wrote: i work in a meat factory and most of the meat I eat wouldve been discarded if I didnt buy it for 1/10th of the store price
I should eat less beef and more pork and chicken tho. i lived without a freezer for a while and a couple times I was forced to eat 3kg of beef in 3-ish days lol
fruits and vegetables are delicious and it is absolutely true that a vast majority of people in western countries eat too much meat. people like the guy interviewed in OP should just advice people to eat less meat rather than to stop eating it completely because this is so unappealing to many people that they end up completely ignoring a very valid piece of advice.
thats because the guy on OP is trying to push his moral agenda through lies and its not really honestly concerned about realistic ways to improve others lives even if his own fucked up hypocrite brains think he is.
God damn, defensive much? You've decided that the OP article is full of lies and propaganda, without supplying a shred of reasoning or evidence to support this, and you're trying to paint vegetarianism as some sort of quasi-religious cult a la Scientology. Argue the issues if you like, but leave the vitriol and indignation at home, please. You're making yourself look like an idiot.
Vegetarianism has real and demonstrable benefits for both health and the environment, and addresses some real issues of morality regarding animals as well. If you don't give two fucks about animal rights, and you like steak, that's fine. But if your argument is 'I don't care,' then you're hardly in a position to blast people who attempt to argue with scientific studies, statistics, etc. Quit acting like vegetarians are obligated not to talk about vegetarianism, for fear of offending your carnivorous sensibilities.
As mora said, i am not arguing about vegetarianism, i am arguing about OPs interviewed asshole.
Global Warming to advocate vegetarianism? fuck that shit, could that asshole try to use any more pathetic vile manipulation to pursue his personal agendas?.
Discussions about vegetarianism for the following reasons make sense:
- Health - The morality in animal consumption - World Hunger
But climate change? fuck him and all his offspring for doing such a pathetic attempt, especially when its not even proven that man has something to do with it, and now a big portion of the scientific community is claiming that we were actually in a micro ice-age till mid 1800s, and that in the roman times the average weather was way hotter than nowadays, not to mention earlier stages of the earth.
Also it is clear that he is leading people to follow his beliefs by the wrong way when he says that in the end "everyone" will be a vegetarian, which says he is not worried about climate, but about morality.
If you want to discuss the morality of eating meat i have some decent arguments on it too.
To be fair, he was quoted later in the article saying he wasn't a serious vegetarian.
If cows are a "significant source of methane gas" why the hell aren't we strapping tanks to their asses and collecting that stuff? Methane is natural gas, the same stuff you use to heat your homes. People die mining for it.
2 possible conclusions.
1. The article is overstating their production capability as it conveniently skips over how much they actually produce.
On October 28 2009 12:03 Liquid`Drone wrote: i work in a meat factory and most of the meat I eat wouldve been discarded if I didnt buy it for 1/10th of the store price
I should eat less beef and more pork and chicken tho. i lived without a freezer for a while and a couple times I was forced to eat 3kg of beef in 3-ish days lol
fruits and vegetables are delicious and it is absolutely true that a vast majority of people in western countries eat too much meat. people like the guy interviewed in OP should just advice people to eat less meat rather than to stop eating it completely because this is so unappealing to many people that they end up completely ignoring a very valid piece of advice.
thats because the guy on OP is trying to push his moral agenda through lies and its not really honestly concerned about realistic ways to improve others lives even if his own fucked up hypocrite brains think he is.
God damn, defensive much? You've decided that the OP article is full of lies and propaganda, without supplying a shred of reasoning or evidence to support this, and you're trying to paint vegetarianism as some sort of quasi-religious cult a la Scientology. Argue the issues if you like, but leave the vitriol and indignation at home, please. You're making yourself look like an idiot.
Vegetarianism has real and demonstrable benefits for both health and the environment, and addresses some real issues of morality regarding animals as well. If you don't give two fucks about animal rights, and you like steak, that's fine. But if your argument is 'I don't care,' then you're hardly in a position to blast people who attempt to argue with scientific studies, statistics, etc. Quit acting like vegetarians are obligated not to talk about vegetarianism, for fear of offending your carnivorous sensibilities.
As mora said, i am not arguing about vegetarianism, i am arguing about OPs interviewed asshole.
Global Warming to advocate vegetarianism? fuck that shit, could that asshole try to use any more pathetic vile manipulation to pursue his personal agendas?.
Discussions about vegetarianism for the following reasons make sense:
- Health - The morality in animal consumption - World Hunger
But climate change? fuck him and all his offspring for doing such a pathetic attempt, especially when its not even proven that man has something to do with it, and now a big portion of the scientific community is claiming that we were actually in a micro ice-age till mid 1800s, and that in the roman times the average weather was way hotter than nowadays, not to mention earlier stages of the earth.
Also it is clear that he is leading people to follow his beliefs by the wrong way when he says that in the end "everyone" will be a vegetarian, which says he is not worried about climate, but about morality.
If you want to discuss the morality of eating meat i have some decent arguments on it too.
settle petal, no need to throw out junk like 'fuck him and his offspring' and 'pathetic vile manipulation'
a point i'd like to make is that global warming is what you can call an disease that was accumulated through either a major factor or several factors but all in their selves could alone disrupt the earths system to a disaster.
some of the factors and the leading ones are (which most is already very known)
- the downfall of our tree population(the rate we're cutting tree's is not sustainable) - the marine life (especially the plankton or whatever it's called that i dont recall but according to very strong studies they contribute to our oxygen by at least 60% alone) but then we got the fishes of course, or what's left of them... and fish is a important part of our diet if u care about health! - pollution both on land, the sea and our air by toxic chemicals - human population is too high ( not sustainable)
i want to mention on the last point that there's several studies which is hard to find on the internet and kinda has to be read in books that for an example an island that had around 2600 deer's. Over 3 times as much deer's that was calculated sustainable, and in the near future they all started to die because there was no food left for them... and in the end of the study there was only like 47 left. That's nature's way of dealing with imbalance
so my point is, and nearly all intelligent people would agree, our world population is way to high.
A study that was made by Rockerfeller back in the 70s or so concluded that our world would only be sustainable in long-term if our population never got past 1 billion (500 million was 'prime population'. We currently have a population of 6,9 billion or even 7 now. Do the math on how far off we are and how hard we will fall if that's really the case.
and that's assuming the world economy wouldn't fall and a third world war would break out before/after that. (and anyone that believes the economy wont fall in the near future is uneducated, it practically already has...stupid delays)
really plankton contribute that much oxygen? wow that kicks ass
i never really gave a shit about the whole japanese whaling thing but i can use this against the retards that are so adamant about saving the useless whale population
That said study was what earned economist a reputation of being pessimists. However, its common opinion among economists now (according to my high school econ teacher) that the study failed to account for advances in technology.
There's still a lot of research going on in all fields today, including agriculture. So a study saying we won't have enough food 40 years ago, doesn't necessarily hold up today.
On October 28 2009 17:17 wdreamer wrote: That said study was what earned economist a reputation of being pessimists. However, its common opinion among economists now (according to my high school econ teacher) that the study failed to account for advances in technology.
There's still a lot of research going on in all fields today, including agriculture. So a study saying we won't have enough food 40 years ago, doesn't necessarily hold up today.
so you believe we are not putting a stress on the earth just by all the natural resources and our food etc with our current population?
I'm not saying the study HAS to be 100% accurate but there are valid points in it, im unsure about the "safe population number" aswell but our current population leans towards disaster, honestly.
Conspiracy-theorists believes that the so called swine flu and its vaccine was purposely created in the use of "population control". Even the swine flu incident back in 76
Now they point out valid points, and the ingredients in the vaccine, and how the swine flu appearantly was created in a lab etcetc and all stuff going around now that most mainstream media dont dare bring up.
edit: god im changing topic each minute :/ too sleepy, gn
Naw, I didn't say that. I just wanted to point out that the study is invalid. Well we probably do have enough food though. I mean think about how much food you actually need, and how much you waste. We could probably survive on like half of what we eat, it wouldn't be fun or healthy, but just surviving. But if that we did that, there'd be plenty of food to support a much larger population.
Now other limiting factors like air, space, and energy are entirely different matters. However, I personally think the approach we're taking towards the problem is wrong. Our track record for conserving and preventative is pretty bad. I think instead of focusing only on reducing consumption/output, we should instead try to re-engineer the situation.
For example, like I stated above, if we have a surplus of methane from cow farts, why don't we collect it and put it to use? I know that not every situation works that nicely, but its an option I think should be explored more thoroughly. The way humans became the top of the food chain was by changing their environment. So why do we assume we have to backtrack our changes to fix our current problems. Why do we just find more advanced and beneficial changes we could implement?
Sorry for rambling so much and not addressing your question too much, BTW.
Most of the predictions and statistics represented by super green people are bullshit, we will never run out of food or places to put garbage, and I don't think we'll run out of lumber, I mean we are already using concrete for building and internet is the new paper. As for running out of oil we can just use something else. gasoline wasn't chosen because it was the best fuel it was chosen because it was the first "good" one. The problem is that everything is geared to be run by gas, we can't just replace all cars with electric cars, It's gonna take a long ass time.
I think people underestimate how big the goddamn world is.
On October 28 2009 17:42 ShaperofDreams wrote: The End is Nigh!!!
Most of the predictions and statistics represented by super green people are bullshit, we will never run out of food or places to put garbage, and I don't think we'll run out of lumber, I mean we are already using concrete for building and internet is the new paper. As for running out of oil we can just use something else. gasoline wasn't chosen because it was the best fuel it was chosen because it was the first "good" one. The problem is that everything is geared to be run by gas, we can't just replace all cars with electric cars, It's gonna take a long ass time.
I think people underestimate how big the goddamn world is.
This is all my completely uninformed opinion BTW.
Completely uninformed indeed. You are an idiot.
edit: sorry, that was kind of mean. you are right about the practical difficulty of switching fuels a least. there is a lot to learn though.
Energy is a pretty legitimate problem. What else can we use? I mean you mentioned electric cars, but where do you think they get their energy. You plug them in and they get charged up from your outlet. Where did that come from? A power plant that probably works runs on coal.
Solar, wind, water, and other "green fuels" have ineffective output except in certain situations. Like if you're gonna build windmills it only makes sense to build them in really windy places. Solar cells are ridiculously cost-ineffective until we can improve their efficiency.
Another random thought: Why do we even assume that these will have no adverse affect on the environment? Right now there's just so few of them that it doesn't' seem to do anything. But I bet if we mass produced windmills, so that all wind speeds were cut in half, there would be some major climate changes. The light from the sun is part of the environment too. If we drain a lot of it, it makes sense that we'd make a general cooling effect. Probably, the best solution is that we use lots of sources of energy, or sources where their effects would cancel out each other.
about energy, if ur a extra-terrestial believer like me and all the hokus pokus that is appearantly kept behind our back then we could use a power source that channels power from other dimensions! like in stargate (zero point module)
imagine that powering everything you need
on a more serious note, why havent anyone brought up the fact that whole our solar system is actually changing rapidly according to the studies N.A.S.A have done recently.
Nearly all planets have increased temperature, saturn spins faster etc
You guys think there's something bigger going on than just our little planet?
I'm sorry but the meat people are comedy. The "Meat = Manly" thing has been done so well. You gotta love what TV can do to people. Live on just meat for 2 months. Please.
Right now there's just so few of them that it doesn't' seem to do anything. But I bet if we mass produced windmills, so that all wind speeds were cut in half, there would be some major climate changes. The light from the sun is part of the environment too. If we drain a lot of it, it makes sense that we'd make a general cooling effect.
Your post was good until this retarded couple of sentences. I don't know where you people hear this garbage (TV?, friends?) but everyone citing this doesn't have the slightest idea of the energy forces that drive the climate system. In the end wind is also driven by solar energy and the rotation of the Earth and our civilization does not currently possess any means to impact either the amount of sunlight hitting Earth or somehow slow down its rotation.
So no, making a lot of windmills isnt going to "slow down wind" or stop the earth from rotating and solar panels aren't going to induce a "general cooling effect" (whatever the hell that even means). If anything, it would decrease Earth's albedo, because solar cells tend to be dark (deep blue/black), so our surface will actually absorb more energy.
This is the way to change the system if you are truly dedicated to the cause. Vegetarians, I respect your right to choose what you want to eat, but honestly, you aren't going to change the social norms of billions of people nor are you going to take down a vital economic infrastructure that has been around for thousands of years.
Vegetarianism is an urban luxury that isn't practical for the majority of the people in the United States and in developing countries. As is, living in San Francisco (arguably, one of the hottest spots for vegetarianism), I would have to easily pay 2 or 3 times as much for the equivalent protein yield of a vegetarian diet. Spinach easily costs almost $2/lb; dal costs $3+/lb; the cheapest nuts cost $5/lb. Comparatively, most of the protein I eat costs less than $2/lb (yes, I know this is on the cheap end). My point is though, is that in a major vegetarian area, it's pretty expensive to be a healthy vegetarian.
Now try to apply that to areas outside of New England and the Pacific Coast. How many people do you think have the resources and access to eat a healthy vegetarian diet? How many people do you think have the knowledge of how to eat a healthy vegetarian diet? And this is excluding the fact that a lot of times, meat is cheaper out in the rural areas than it is in urban areas. From a purely utility maximizing standpoint, people aren't going to be vegetarian. If you are truly committed to the cause of vegetarianism for the sake of global warming, then save a couple extra bucks by eating meat and donate that money to good research causes. You can't beat the marginal utility on a per dollar basis. If you are truly committed to the cause of vegetarianism for other reasons, this doesn't apply to you.
On October 28 2009 18:51 gchan wrote: Vegetarianism is an urban luxury that isn't practical for the majority of the people in the United States and in developing countries.
Vegetarianism is an urban luxury in developing countries? By 'developing countries' you are clearly referring to most of Africa where hardly anyone can afford to eat meat. Yep.
This is the way to change the system if you are truly dedicated to the cause. Vegetarians, I respect your right to choose what you want to eat, but honestly, you aren't going to change the social norms of billions of people nor are you going to take down a vital economic infrastructure that has been around for thousands of years.
Vegetarianism is an urban luxury that isn't practical for the majority of the people in the United States and in developing countries. As is, living in San Francisco (arguably, one of the hottest spots for vegetarianism), I would have to easily pay 2 or 3 times as much for the equivalent protein yield of a vegetarian diet. Spinach easily costs almost $2/lb; dal costs $3+/lb; the cheapest nuts cost $5/lb. Comparatively, most of the protein I eat costs less than $2/lb (yes, I know this is on the cheap end). My point is though, is that in a major vegetarian area, it's pretty expensive to be a healthy vegetarian.
Now try to apply that to areas outside of New England and the Pacific Coast. How many people do you think have the resources and access to eat a healthy vegetarian diet? How many people do you think have the knowledge of how to eat a healthy vegetarian diet? And this is excluding the fact that a lot of times, meat is cheaper out in the rural areas than it is in urban areas. From a purely utility maximizing standpoint, people aren't going to be vegetarian. If you are truly committed to the cause of vegetarianism for the sake of global warming, then save a couple extra bucks by eating meat and donate that money to good research causes. You can't beat the marginal utility on a per dollar basis. If you are truly committed to the cause of vegetarianism for other reasons, this doesn't apply to you.
This is just fundamentally untrue on several levels. Firstly, low quality meat is not a traditional part of a healthy diet, regardless of how much protein it contains. Secondly, you would have to eat an absurd (ABSURD!) amount of vegetables to get the same quantity of protein that you get in meat. So using a lb for lb ratio to argue cost is just stupid. But the point your missing is that eating less protein isn't a bad thing, as the average meat eater eats far more protein than is good for them anyway.
Now perhaps it's different in America, I don't know, I've never been there (although all Americans in the UK complain about our food prices). If I go into a supermarket I can buy 4 chicken breasts for £2 - £2.50 or I can buy a 1kg bag of dried beans for £0.90. Or I could buy a large bag of potatos and feed myself for a week. The thing is, if you're eating meat, you still need to buy things like leafy vegetables, root vegetables, fruit and pulses to have a healthy diet, but the meat can easily be replaced by beans/potatos/nuts (which I feel you've misrepresented) and can still provide you with sufficient calories and protein.
It's one of the fairly well kept secrets of the meat industry, but in almost all cases, even if you're a vegan, if you're getting enough calories, you're getting enough protein.
So don't try and wrangle out the "it's not viable for most people" argument. In fact, one of the reasons for the depreciation in meat and appreciation in vegetables is due to the fact that meat producers are taking up more and more of the land to grow animals rather than vegetables.
I am not a huge fan of meat, but I don't think I can give it up entirely. How bout a hybrid pledge where I promise to eat only a little and recycle my cans, bottles, and microwave pizza boxes?
The light from the sun is part of the environment too. If we drain a lot of it, it makes sense that we'd make a general cooling effect. Probably, the best solution is that we use lots of sources of energy, or sources where their effects would cancel out each other.
OMG! Solar panels are going to drain energy out of the sun!
Been a vegetarian since 2005 (although I still eat fish occasionally). It's not a difficult transition to do really.
For me it was ethical and political reasons for changing such as: * Eating meat is a waste of resources since so much energy is lost in the process of breeding cattle.
* I couldn't personally kill a cow so I shouldn't ask somebody else to do it in my place.
* The way many farmers "store" their animals leads to diseases spreading amongst them. The farmers react to this by putting antibiotics in the animals' food in order to stop diseases to spread. The problem with this? We get antibiotic-resistant germs, which any doctor will tell you is quite a problem.
On October 28 2009 21:50 Slugbreath wrote: Been a vegetarian since 2005 (although I still eat fish occasionally). It's not a difficult transition to do really.
For me it was ethical and political reasons for changing such as: * Eating meat is a waste of resources since so much energy is lost in the process of breeding cattle.
* I couldn't personally kill a cow so I shouldn't ask somebody else to do it in my place.
* The way many farmers "store" their animals leads to diseases spreading amongst them. The farmers react to this by putting antibiotics in the animals' food in order to stop diseases to spread. The problem with this? We get antibiotic-resistant germs, which any doctor will tell you is quite a problem.
Ehm the real problem with antibiotic-resistant bacteria is overprescription of antibiotics to humans.
EDIT:A quick google search will also tell you that they dont put antibiotics in the animal food in sweden since it has been outlawed since 86. They still use it but not they way you claim.
On October 28 2009 18:51 gchan wrote: Vegetarianism is an urban luxury that isn't practical for the majority of the people in the United States and in developing countries.
in the usa, this might actually hold true. I have the impression usa is in dire need of cheaper healthy food and more expensive unhealthy food. but in development countries the situation is completely opposite of this ; meat has a more appropriate price-tag and vegetarianism is FAR more common.
On October 27 2009 21:23 CTStalker wrote: you don't need to eat any weird supplements to maintain a healthy vegetarian diet. the biggest things you lose from meat are protein and iron, both of which you can get from legumes, lentils, spinach, tofu, etc. there's lots of options
On October 29 2009 00:50 daz wrote: how the hell am i supposed to get 200g of protein a day without eating meat or meat prodcuts
A valid question that anyone has if they'd like to continue to gain from their workouts, but want to embrace the vegetarian lifestyle. There are adequate alternatives, none that I'd like to consider however.
Bodybuilding.com has some answers. You really have to get the full spectrum of vegetables to maintain a diet like that. I really hope I die before vegetarian is the new thing.
On October 28 2009 23:04 SwedishHero wrote: Anybody who is saying that being a vegetarian is morally or ethically right can suck my dick.
I don't think it's ethically or morally wrong to eat meat but I feel like eating meat is hypocritical if you wouldn't be able to kill the animal yourself due to empathy for the animal.
Not eating meat does nothing to impact the meat industry. If you really care about the environment, bike to work or conserve your electricity consumption. Vegetarianism is fine if you really don't like eating meat, but if you do, sacrificing it for this cause won't help anything environment related. Just because you choose not to consume it doesn't mean it won't continue just like it always has.
Furthermore, I was trying to find some real numbers (and I couldn't), but I'd be willing to bet global methane production pales in comparison to CO2 production. Methane isn't the real problem, and focusing on eliminating it over other, more problematic greenhouse gasses, such as CO2, is a waste of time.
Choosing to become vegetarian reduces the demand for meat which impacts the amount of meat produced. Not much, but one person's biking to work and saving electricity also saves very little electricity.
CO2 is the leading culprit, but CH4 is by no means negligible.
Here is a link that analyzes the energy effects of eating meat vs driving, etc.
On October 28 2009 23:04 SwedishHero wrote: Anybody who is saying that being a vegetarian is morally or ethically right can suck my dick.
Do I have too?
On October 29 2009 00:50 daz wrote: how the hell am i supposed to get 200g of protein a day without eating meat or meat prodcuts
Very easily? You're going to be needing a huge amount of calories if you're actually eating that much protein anyway, but beans are on a par with meat in terms of protein percentage, as well as being lower in fat. Also, how big are you? 200g seems an awful lot even if you way 100+kg. You might want to look into protein related kidney problems if you're doing it over the long term.
* I couldn't personally kill a cow so I shouldn't ask somebody else to do it in my place.
Thats, in my book, the best reason to not eat meat.
Do we get to apply that to sewage workers too?
Not being able to kill a cow would be because of his ethics. I'm pretty sure he wouldn't have any ethical problems with being a sewage worker.
Most animals, even predators, might leave you alone, until they're hungry.
That's retarded.
If a vegetarian was starving, I'm sure he or she would eat an animal too.
Yeah. That's true. But if I was lost in the desert with a person I had no particular affiliation with, I'd probably eat them too. And I don't really want to shakily transfer that conclusion back into the real world.
P.S oh, and fun though this is, can we all just agree that Methane emissions DO in fact make up 1/5 of the cause of global warming like all leading scientists say, and that all the vegetarians/vegans in the world aren't silently dieing of malnutrition.
lol didnt think this would turn into such a huge thread
sorry didnt read whole thread only like 3 pages so sorry if i repeat.
here's what I think and personally do
MEAT IS DELICIOUS the flavour of meat is something so fucking rich and different, no amount of vegetables can replace or even come close to mimicing that flavour and texture.
BUT I DO AGREE THAT MEAT USES UP RESOURCES which is a failure of free market where the total costs are not calculated into the price tag of the product.
THE PRICE OF MEAT IS TOO LOW FOR IT TO BE SUSTAINABLE
so until governments slap a FAT ASS TAX on meat to get money to a) counteract all the damage harvesting beef/pork creates b) drop the demand for meat
the problem is VERY VERY VERY UNLIKELY solved by promoting decreased meat consumption.
It would be like trying to reduce gas usage by promoting bicycling instead of taxing oil and automobiles.
To the above poster, of course the problem won't be solved by promoting less meat eating but it will be helped.
Think of it this way:
If vegetarianism was never promoted there would probably be very few vegetarians around. Now look at all these restaurants, fast food chains, etc, offering either vegetarian menus or at least options. It's becoming a trend to be vegetarian and it is becoming socially acceptable and much easier to find vegetarian options. Promoting it produces real results over time.
This is the way to change the system if you are truly dedicated to the cause. Vegetarians, I respect your right to choose what you want to eat, but honestly, you aren't going to change the social norms of billions of people nor are you going to take down a vital economic infrastructure that has been around for thousands of years.
Vegetarianism is an urban luxury that isn't practical for the majority of the people in the United States and in developing countries. As is, living in San Francisco (arguably, one of the hottest spots for vegetarianism), I would have to easily pay 2 or 3 times as much for the equivalent protein yield of a vegetarian diet. Spinach easily costs almost $2/lb; dal costs $3+/lb; the cheapest nuts cost $5/lb. Comparatively, most of the protein I eat costs less than $2/lb (yes, I know this is on the cheap end). My point is though, is that in a major vegetarian area, it's pretty expensive to be a healthy vegetarian.
Now try to apply that to areas outside of New England and the Pacific Coast. How many people do you think have the resources and access to eat a healthy vegetarian diet? How many people do you think have the knowledge of how to eat a healthy vegetarian diet? And this is excluding the fact that a lot of times, meat is cheaper out in the rural areas than it is in urban areas. From a purely utility maximizing standpoint, people aren't going to be vegetarian. If you are truly committed to the cause of vegetarianism for the sake of global warming, then save a couple extra bucks by eating meat and donate that money to good research causes. You can't beat the marginal utility on a per dollar basis. If you are truly committed to the cause of vegetarianism for other reasons, this doesn't apply to you.
This is just fundamentally untrue on several levels. Firstly, low quality meat is not a traditional part of a healthy diet, regardless of how much protein it contains. Secondly, you would have to eat an absurd (ABSURD!) amount of vegetables to get the same quantity of protein that you get in meat. So using a lb for lb ratio to argue cost is just stupid. But the point your missing is that eating less protein isn't a bad thing, as the average meat eater eats far more protein than is good for them anyway.
Now perhaps it's different in America, I don't know, I've never been there (although all Americans in the UK complain about our food prices). If I go into a supermarket I can buy 4 chicken breasts for £2 - £2.50 or I can buy a 1kg bag of dried beans for £0.90. Or I could buy a large bag of potatos and feed myself for a week. The thing is, if you're eating meat, you still need to buy things like leafy vegetables, root vegetables, fruit and pulses to have a healthy diet, but the meat can easily be replaced by beans/potatos/nuts (which I feel you've misrepresented) and can still provide you with sufficient calories and protein.
It's one of the fairly well kept secrets of the meat industry, but in almost all cases, even if you're a vegan, if you're getting enough calories, you're getting enough protein.
So don't try and wrangle out the "it's not viable for most people" argument. In fact, one of the reasons for the depreciation in meat and appreciation in vegetables is due to the fact that meat producers are taking up more and more of the land to grow animals rather than vegetables.
I think we're arguing apples and oranges here. It's really hard to compare food prices of the UK to food prices in the USA because the US produces a lot more produce/meats than the UK does. Oddly enough, and for reasons I'm not completely sure why, most of the places I've been to in the US sell meat cheaper than they do vegetables. And this is using a gram-to-gram protein comparison. I specifically chose those foods as examples because they are rich in protein and somewhat comparable on a gram-to-gram basis for protein. Potatoes have virtually no protein. Beans do, but it is strangely difficult to find dried beans for sale here; they mostly come in the canned variety.
And you're probably right about most Americans eating too much low quality meat in their diets. I'm not disputing this. What I am disputing is that it's monetarily cheaper to have a healthy vegetarian diet that has sufficient amounts of protein. If you're consciously and constantly aware of every calorie you eat and every gram of protein you intake, healthy meats like chicken breasts and tuna are a lot cheaper than the protein rich vegetable equivalents. And I know this because I have been vegetarian for weeks and months at a time before. Even now, I only eat meat half the days of the week...and fact of the matter is that it's quite costly to get enough protein from purely vegetables.
So are starcraft players that don't eat meat play as vegiterran? + Show Spoiler +
such a bad pun, i'm sorry
On a more related subject, I highly doubt vegetarianism will truly gain a popular following. To me, it seems like its just a small-percentage type of deal, as homosexuality is (I AM NOT CONNECTING THE TWO, KAY?). Too many people like meat. *edit* some grammar.
This is the way to change the system if you are truly dedicated to the cause. Vegetarians, I respect your right to choose what you want to eat, but honestly, you aren't going to change the social norms of billions of people nor are you going to take down a vital economic infrastructure that has been around for thousands of years.
Vegetarianism is an urban luxury that isn't practical for the majority of the people in the United States and in developing countries. As is, living in San Francisco (arguably, one of the hottest spots for vegetarianism), I would have to easily pay 2 or 3 times as much for the equivalent protein yield of a vegetarian diet. Spinach easily costs almost $2/lb; dal costs $3+/lb; the cheapest nuts cost $5/lb. Comparatively, most of the protein I eat costs less than $2/lb (yes, I know this is on the cheap end). My point is though, is that in a major vegetarian area, it's pretty expensive to be a healthy vegetarian.
Now try to apply that to areas outside of New England and the Pacific Coast. How many people do you think have the resources and access to eat a healthy vegetarian diet? How many people do you think have the knowledge of how to eat a healthy vegetarian diet? And this is excluding the fact that a lot of times, meat is cheaper out in the rural areas than it is in urban areas. From a purely utility maximizing standpoint, people aren't going to be vegetarian. If you are truly committed to the cause of vegetarianism for the sake of global warming, then save a couple extra bucks by eating meat and donate that money to good research causes. You can't beat the marginal utility on a per dollar basis. If you are truly committed to the cause of vegetarianism for other reasons, this doesn't apply to you.
This is just fundamentally untrue on several levels. Firstly, low quality meat is not a traditional part of a healthy diet, regardless of how much protein it contains. Secondly, you would have to eat an absurd (ABSURD!) amount of vegetables to get the same quantity of protein that you get in meat. So using a lb for lb ratio to argue cost is just stupid. But the point your missing is that eating less protein isn't a bad thing, as the average meat eater eats far more protein than is good for them anyway.
Now perhaps it's different in America, I don't know, I've never been there (although all Americans in the UK complain about our food prices). If I go into a supermarket I can buy 4 chicken breasts for £2 - £2.50 or I can buy a 1kg bag of dried beans for £0.90. Or I could buy a large bag of potatos and feed myself for a week. The thing is, if you're eating meat, you still need to buy things like leafy vegetables, root vegetables, fruit and pulses to have a healthy diet, but the meat can easily be replaced by beans/potatos/nuts (which I feel you've misrepresented) and can still provide you with sufficient calories and protein.
It's one of the fairly well kept secrets of the meat industry, but in almost all cases, even if you're a vegan, if you're getting enough calories, you're getting enough protein.
So don't try and wrangle out the "it's not viable for most people" argument. In fact, one of the reasons for the depreciation in meat and appreciation in vegetables is due to the fact that meat producers are taking up more and more of the land to grow animals rather than vegetables.
I think we're arguing apples and oranges here. It's really hard to compare food prices of the UK to food prices in the USA because the US produces a lot more produce/meats than the UK does. Oddly enough, and for reasons I'm not completely sure why, most of the places I've been to in the US sell meat cheaper than they do vegetables. And this is using a gram-to-gram protein comparison. I specifically chose those foods as examples because they are rich in protein and somewhat comparable on a gram-to-gram basis for protein. Potatoes have virtually no protein. Beans do, but it is strangely difficult to find dried beans for sale here; they mostly come in the canned variety.
And you're probably right about most Americans eating too much low quality meat in their diets. I'm not disputing this. What I am disputing is that it's monetarily cheaper to have a healthy vegetarian diet that has sufficient amounts of protein. If you're consciously and constantly aware of every calorie you eat and every gram of protein you intake, healthy meats like chicken breasts and tuna are a lot cheaper than the protein rich vegetable equivalents. And I know this because I have been vegetarian for weeks and months at a time before. Even now, I only eat meat half the days of the week...and fact of the matter is that it's quite costly to get enough protein from purely vegetables.
Canned beans are pretty much as good for you as dried ones, they're just different methods of mass storage. I did some research and you're right, meat is ridiculously cheap in America. Thing is, so is everything else. Your food costs nothing :o It's nothing like that in Europe.
And you've still missed my point. To get an equivalent amount of protein from vegetables compared to a largely meat based diet can be hard (although not if you eat beans) for the same price, my point is is that if your eating meat every day all week, you're getting far to much protein anyway. You do realise that most average sized people only need to eat about 50-60g of protein a day right? That's like a tin of beans, 2 slices of bread and 5 potatoes (average of 7g protein per 100g weight btw). And that's before you factor in the protein from all the other things you'll no doubt eat in that day. That would cost me about £1. I don't know how little you could get it for in America. $1 probably.
The whole argument of whether you can get more protein per dollar from meat or non-meat is pretty pointless. No one chooses to be vegetarian or meat-eating for that reason.
The reason we'll never have a majority of vegetarians is cultural. The majority of people are apathetic and will either not ask the question "is it ok to eat meat", or even if they are told that it is ethically good to avoid meat, they just won't care.
Regardless of this not becoming the norm, its good to avoid meat for countless reasons and their is nothing wrong in promoting it. Also to meat-eaters: I don't think it is morally wrong to eat meat.
lol who couldn't bring themselves to kill a cow it's a walking bag of meat. I think we have plenty of time to adapt our technology and methods to make our resources last longer.
Although I agree that most Americans and Europeans eat way too large meals. I was raised by (eastern) euros so my meals were huge and I got a tummy when my metabolism wasn't at it''s prime, started eating smaller meals and exercising a bit, bam 20 pounds gone.
On October 29 2009 14:42 psion0011 wrote: I'm eating two delicious steaks (rare of course) for dinner right now. Lightly seasoned of course, any kind of sauce just ruins it.
Also I would love to have the chance to slaughter some cows personally.
At least you eat your steak properly. One of my good friends eats his steak well done and it makes my head hurt.
* I couldn't personally kill a cow so I shouldn't ask somebody else to do it in my place.
Thats, in my book, the best reason to not eat meat.
I'd be happy to kill a cow for food. Embracing our ancestral roots ONE COW AT A TIME.
I can't believe Jayme is responsible for the safety and wellbeing of the public o.o frightening.
Comments like these are mildly enraging.
Either say why or go to hell honestly. If it's because of my comment that I can't get the same nutritional requirements from a vegetarian diet without a ton of unappealing (and more expensive in the USA) alternative then well.. wtf man that would be true. If it's because protein from plants is different from meant... well that's also true. Is it really that significant? NO but it should be mentioned because it could be a factor for people that are body building.
Your implication that i'm too stupid or something without a comment as to WHAT THE PROBLEM is has to be the most annoying type of forum post possible.
If you want to be a vegetarian GO FOR IT. It's not practical for everyone though.
I don't see how taking meat out of your diet will lower greenhouse gases, we live in a society of excess. I'm sure more unsold meat gets thrown out then what the entire sub group of people who don't eat meat would consume. The idea that since I stopped eating meat they will stop murdering half a cow each month is laughable.
You can't compare walking instead of driving to not eating meat. The meat will be made whether I eat it or not. While if I choose to walk that means 1 less car giving off C02.
Also even if you look at it in a completely hypothetical manner sure it may mean less meat being made and that helps for global warming. But it also means more natural habitat being destroyed for farmlands.
I don't know if this has been noted yet, but aren't the complex proteins from animals/meat + plants what caused humans to grow such large brains and evolve as fast as we have? Doesn't shit like tofu, green veggies, etc not provide the same kind of proteins as meat?
And I was always told that when taking supplements when working out that whey protein is what you want, and any other rice or whatever protein (not only tastes like shit) but isn't going to give you the right effect for muscle growth as well.
Denying meat is like denying being a human imo. I got nothing against vegetarians though.
I can't wait for everyone to realize that all the stupid "green" things they've been doing all account for nothing. You all ASSUME that co2, methane, monoxide, etc, are culprits of global warming. What you don't seem to understand that 1998 was hotter than it was today. The larger Ice bodies are actually thickening, like the arctic.
You can do whatever makes you feel smarter than everyone else, but don't push it on other people. Don't kid yourself, all these things you're doing are just meaningless hobbies.
Maybe you people should research on sites that aren't funded by someone standing to gain from these "green" achievements. CO2 = fucking plants. We could multiply our co2 emissions by 30, and even the most delicate of plants would survive.
On October 29 2009 00:50 daz wrote: how the hell am i supposed to get 200g of protein a day without eating meat or meat prodcuts
Very easily? You're going to be needing a huge amount of calories if you're actually eating that much protein anyway, but beans are on a par with meat in terms of protein percentage, as well as being lower in fat. Also, how big are you? 200g seems an awful lot even if you way 100+kg. You might want to look into protein related kidney problems if you're doing it over the long term.
* I couldn't personally kill a cow so I shouldn't ask somebody else to do it in my place.
Thats, in my book, the best reason to not eat meat.
Do we get to apply that to sewage workers too?
Not being able to kill a cow would be because of his ethics. I'm pretty sure he wouldn't have any ethical problems with being a sewage worker.
Most animals, even predators, might leave you alone, until they're hungry.
That's retarded.
If a vegetarian was starving, I'm sure he or she would eat an animal too.
Yeah. That's true. But if I was lost in the desert with a person I had no particular affiliation with, I'd probably eat them too. And I don't really want to shakily transfer that conclusion back into the real world.
P.S oh, and fun though this is, can we all just agree that Methane emissions DO in fact make up 1/5 of the cause of global warming like all leading scientists say, and that all the vegetarians/vegans in the world aren't silently dieing of malnutrition.
How can you say its very easy to get 200g of protein without eating meat? Have you ever tried? I mean sure its doable but like you said you would have to eat an insane amount of calories to do it and I'm not interested in getting fat. The only way I've found to meet my protein intake requirement without eating 4000 calories a day is by eating lean meat and fish. And as far as beans go, it's true they do have a significant amount of protein but there are two problems with beans, first being that most types of beans have way more carbohydrates which makes them a poor choice for a bodybuilding type diet and secondly that the protein in beans has a much lower biological value than the protein found in meat which again make them unsuited for the purpose of muscle gain. Oh and for the record i weigh roughly 200lb, and if you are trying to gain muscle it is recommended to eat at least 1g of protein per lb of body weight, hence why i said 200g. I seriously doubt 200g of protein is in the kidney problems level.
On October 28 2009 23:04 SwedishHero wrote: Anybody who is saying that being a vegetarian is morally or ethically right can suck my dick.
Do I have too?
On October 29 2009 00:50 daz wrote: how the hell am i supposed to get 200g of protein a day without eating meat or meat prodcuts
Very easily? You're going to be needing a huge amount of calories if you're actually eating that much protein anyway, but beans are on a par with meat in terms of protein percentage, as well as being lower in fat. Also, how big are you? 200g seems an awful lot even if you way 100+kg. You might want to look into protein related kidney problems if you're doing it over the long term.
On October 29 2009 01:07 APurpleCow wrote:
On October 29 2009 00:55 Element)LoGiC wrote:
On October 29 2009 00:45 APurpleCow wrote:
On October 28 2009 23:51 Spinfusor wrote:
On October 28 2009 22:07 Velr wrote:
* I couldn't personally kill a cow so I shouldn't ask somebody else to do it in my place.
Thats, in my book, the best reason to not eat meat.
Do we get to apply that to sewage workers too?
Not being able to kill a cow would be because of his ethics. I'm pretty sure he wouldn't have any ethical problems with being a sewage worker.
Most animals, even predators, might leave you alone, until they're hungry.
That's retarded.
If a vegetarian was starving, I'm sure he or she would eat an animal too.
Yeah. That's true. But if I was lost in the desert with a person I had no particular affiliation with, I'd probably eat them too. And I don't really want to shakily transfer that conclusion back into the real world.
P.S oh, and fun though this is, can we all just agree that Methane emissions DO in fact make up 1/5 of the cause of global warming like all leading scientists say, and that all the vegetarians/vegans in the world aren't silently dieing of malnutrition.
How can you say its very easy to get 200g of protein without eating meat? Have you ever tried? I mean sure its doable but like you said you would have to eat an insane amount of calories to do it and I'm not interested in getting fat. The only way I've found to meet my protein intake requirement without eating 4000 calories a day is by eating lean meat and fish. And as far as beans go, it's true they do have a significant amount of protein but there are two problems with beans, first being that most types of beans have way more carbohydrates which makes them a poor choice for a bodybuilding type diet and secondly that the protein in beans has a much lower biological value than the protein found in meat which again make them unsuited for the purpose of muscle gain. Oh and for the record i weigh roughly 200lb, and if you are trying to gain muscle it is recommended to eat at least 1g of protein per lb of body weight, hence why i said 200g. I seriously doubt 200g of protein is in the kidney problems level.
People that know nothing always complain about high protein intake and the liver/kidneys. These concerns mean nothing.
On November 04 2009 09:34 Element)LoGiC wrote: I can't wait for everyone to realize that all the stupid "green" things they've been doing all account for nothing. You all ASSUME that co2, methane, monoxide, etc, are culprits of global warming. What you don't seem to understand that 1998 was hotter than it was today. The larger Ice bodies are actually thickening, like the arctic.
On November 04 2009 10:23 cUrsOr wrote: More images from factory farms. Of course this has nothing to do with the meat YOU eat, that comes from Disneyland. ugh + Show Spoiler +
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vt1Jyh8NCDc
Every time someone is shocked by something on the internet i have to laugh. Eating meat is natural. The fact that you guys are pushing that it is POSSIBLE to live on a vegetarian diet (a very carefully formulated one, of course) while billions of idiots with absolutely no nutritional training whatsoever manage to live perfectly fine on an omnivorous diet shows one thing: Vegetarians are like lots of people, they seek to feel superior to others for whatever token reason they grab onto. I will never stop eating meat.
On November 04 2009 09:34 Element)LoGiC wrote: I can't wait for everyone to realize that all the stupid "green" things they've been doing all account for nothing. You all ASSUME that co2, methane, monoxide, etc, are culprits of global warming. What you don't seem to understand that 1998 was hotter than it was today. The larger Ice bodies are actually thickening, like the arctic.
You can do whatever makes you feel smarter than everyone else, but don't push it on other people. Don't kid yourself, all these things you're doing are just meaningless hobbies.
Maybe you people should research on sites that aren't funded by someone standing to gain from these "green" achievements. CO2 = fucking plants. We could multiply our co2 emissions by 30, and even the most delicate of plants would survive.
Nobody just assumes that methane, carbon dioxide, nitrous oxides, etc. are the culprit greenhouse gases. Rigorous lab tests have been done demonstrating the heat trapping potential of these compounds. Data taken shows them occurring in increasing concentrations in our atmosphere along with correlating temperature changes.
If the average temperature was higher in 1998 than it is now, this does not invalidate "global warming" (the media term for climate change). This is the intersection of the human and geologic time scale. Climate change does not mean every year is going to be hotter than the next. It entails a host of complicated and not entirely understood changes brought about by the complex feedback processes in the atmosphere and biosphere.
And yes, tell the researchers and scientists who spent the last 30 years studying these problems that this is all just a "meaningless hobby." Are you really comparing climatology to building model trains or collecting stamps? Do you really think people worry about climate change just so they can feel smarter than others?
As for CO2 = plants. You did not state your argument very well, but I see what you're getting at. Yes, there is a natural carbon cycle, and vegetation is a seasonal carbon storage. However: burning of fossil fuels coupled with deforestation and development release more net CO2 into the cycle. Effectively, it increases the amount of CO2 in the cycle while removing one of the storages. More CO2 accordingly remains in the atmosphere.
One thing to note is that trees don't act as an infinite Carbon sink. For example, if you set aside an area of forest and pumped carbon in, eventually a threshold would be reached where the plants are "saturated" with CO2, leaving the rest in the air.
There is some merit to the claim that research into climate science is biased by the funding sources. This is a problem in many scientific fields. I suggest you read some actual scientific papers if you're looking to develop a comprehensive and informed opinion on this subject. At least then, if nothing less, you'll be able to argue the other side more convincingly.
"progressive-minded ultra-liberal environmentalist" can't spell vegetarianism. I'm sure someone already pointed this out, but i thought it was hilarious.
On November 04 2009 09:34 Element)LoGiC wrote: I can't wait for everyone to realize that all the stupid "green" things they've been doing all account for nothing. You all ASSUME that co2, methane, monoxide, etc, are culprits of global warming. What you don't seem to understand that 1998 was hotter than it was today. The larger Ice bodies are actually thickening, like the arctic.
You can do whatever makes you feel smarter than everyone else, but don't push it on other people. Don't kid yourself, all these things you're doing are just meaningless hobbies.
Maybe you people should research on sites that aren't funded by someone standing to gain from these "green" achievements. CO2 = fucking plants. We could multiply our co2 emissions by 30, and even the most delicate of plants would survive.
Nobody just assumes that methane, carbon dioxide, nitrous oxides, etc. are the culprit greenhouse gases. Rigorous lab tests have been done demonstrating the heat trapping potential of these compounds. Data taken shows them occurring in increasing concentrations in our atmosphere along with correlating temperature changes.
I wasn't questioning their ability to trap heat, which I agree with. I do however disagree that they aid to "global warming" in any substantial manner.
If the average temperature was higher in 1998 than it is now, this does not invalidate "global warming" (the media term for climate change). This is the intersection of the human and geologic time scale. Climate change does not mean every year is going to be hotter than the next. It entails a host of complicated and not entirely understood changes brought about by the complex feedback processes in the atmosphere and biosphere.
Yup, complex, not well understood processes that have been in effect for I'm sure a pretty long time.
And yes, tell the researchers and scientists who spent the last 30 years studying these problems that this is all just a "meaningless hobby." Are you really comparing climatology to building model trains or collecting stamps? Do you really think people worry about climate change just so they can feel smarter than others?
You know that 20-30 years ago they were fearful of an ice age? Yeah, they planned to put soot on major ice bodies.
As for CO2 = plants. You did not state your argument very well, but I see what you're getting at. Yes, there is a natural carbon cycle, and vegetation is a seasonal carbon storage. However: burning of fossil fuels coupled with deforestation and development release more net CO2 into the cycle. Effectively, it increases the amount of CO2 in the cycle while removing one of the storages. More CO2 accordingly remains in the atmosphere.
The article I linked to explained that recently, we have not noticed a higher than normal ratio of methane in the atmosphere.
One thing to note is that trees don't act as an infinite Carbon sink. For example, if you set aside an area of forest and pumped carbon in, eventually a threshold would be reached where the plants are "saturated" with CO2, leaving the rest in the air.
There have been studies I could link to that conclude we can't even sustain the amount of CO2 that would be required to melt half of greenland in 1000 years.
There is some merit to the claim that research into climate science is biased by the funding sources. This is a problem in many scientific fields. I suggest you read some actual scientific papers if you're looking to develop a comprehensive and informed opinion on this subject. At least then, if nothing less, you'll be able to argue the other side more convincingly.
All that aside, I respect that you've actually researched the issue. More than I can say for about 95% of people that agree with global warming, like most of my friends. They think it's indisputable, which is why I hate anything that carries that tone.
I have no problem with Vegetarians its the ones who refuse to drink milk or eat anything associated with milk products which is stupid IMO. Last time I checked milking a cow didn't kill the cow.
On November 04 2009 09:34 Element)LoGiC wrote: I can't wait for everyone to realize that all the stupid "green" things they've been doing all account for nothing. You all ASSUME that co2, methane, monoxide, etc, are culprits of global warming. What you don't seem to understand that 1998 was hotter than it was today.
Regarding the OP: I like meat. I'm going to continue eating meat. In fact, I'm all in favor of the rest of you becoming vegetarians, as it leaves more meat for me to eat.
On November 04 2009 09:34 Element)LoGiC wrote: I can't wait for everyone to realize that all the stupid "green" things they've been doing all account for nothing. You all ASSUME that co2, methane, monoxide, etc, are culprits of global warming. What you don't seem to understand that 1998 was hotter than it was today. The larger Ice bodies are actually thickening, like the arctic.
You can do whatever makes you feel smarter than everyone else, but don't push it on other people. Don't kid yourself, all these things you're doing are just meaningless hobbies.
Maybe you people should research on sites that aren't funded by someone standing to gain from these "green" achievements. CO2 = fucking plants. We could multiply our co2 emissions by 30, and even the most delicate of plants would survive.
Nobody just assumes that methane, carbon dioxide, nitrous oxides, etc. are the culprit greenhouse gases. Rigorous lab tests have been done demonstrating the heat trapping potential of these compounds. Data taken shows them occurring in increasing concentrations in our atmosphere along with correlating temperature changes.
I wasn't questioning their ability to trap heat, which I agree with. I do however disagree that they aid to "global warming" in any substantial manner.
If the average temperature was higher in 1998 than it is now, this does not invalidate "global warming" (the media term for climate change). This is the intersection of the human and geologic time scale. Climate change does not mean every year is going to be hotter than the next. It entails a host of complicated and not entirely understood changes brought about by the complex feedback processes in the atmosphere and biosphere.
Yup, complex, not well understood processes that have been in effect for I'm sure a pretty long time.
And yes, tell the researchers and scientists who spent the last 30 years studying these problems that this is all just a "meaningless hobby." Are you really comparing climatology to building model trains or collecting stamps? Do you really think people worry about climate change just so they can feel smarter than others?
You know that 20-30 years ago they were fearful of an ice age? Yeah, they planned to put soot on major ice bodies.
As for CO2 = plants. You did not state your argument very well, but I see what you're getting at. Yes, there is a natural carbon cycle, and vegetation is a seasonal carbon storage. However: burning of fossil fuels coupled with deforestation and development release more net CO2 into the cycle. Effectively, it increases the amount of CO2 in the cycle while removing one of the storages. More CO2 accordingly remains in the atmosphere.
The article I linked to explained that recently, we have not noticed a higher than normal ratio of methane in the atmosphere.
One thing to note is that trees don't act as an infinite Carbon sink. For example, if you set aside an area of forest and pumped carbon in, eventually a threshold would be reached where the plants are "saturated" with CO2, leaving the rest in the air.
There have been studies I could link to that conclude we can't even sustain the amount of CO2 that would be required to melt half of greenland in 1000 years.
There is some merit to the claim that research into climate science is biased by the funding sources. This is a problem in many scientific fields. I suggest you read some actual scientific papers if you're looking to develop a comprehensive and informed opinion on this subject. At least then, if nothing less, you'll be able to argue the other side more convincingly.
All that aside, I respect that you've actually researched the issue. More than I can say for about 95% of people that agree with global warming, like most of my friends. They think it's indisputable, which is why I hate anything that carries that tone.
Like the 100% of global warming non believers out there, you claim greenhouse gas effect/global warming is disputable and just a "theory"
The fact is, the earth IS getting warmer. The polar ice caps ARE melting, and sea levels WILL rise if the earth's water gets warmer (can't dispute that... thermal expansion of water). Whether or not this is caused by greenhouse gases you say is up for debate. Maybe it is. It has been shown that greenhouse gas levels are strongly correlated with global temperatures. Correlation not causation you say? What do you suggest we do? Wait around for a few hundred years and see who's right. For all practical purposes, the safest bet isto operate under the assumption that the greenhouse gas effect is true. Besides, how could anyone rationally believe that altering the composition of our atmosphere won't have any consequences?
That said, I still want my meat. Unlike the use of hybrid cars, etc, which directly lower emissions, a small portion of the population not eating meat may decrease demand a little bit, but the prices will decrease and the meat will sell anyways. I don't see how a small vegetarian movement will be able to lower meat production. I also don't see how a large percentage of the population will give up eating meat. We are omnivores after all.......
On November 04 2009 15:24 Element)LoGiC wrote: Christ. You are very uninformed.
Nobody just assumes that methane, carbon dioxide, nitrous oxides, etc. are the culprit greenhouse gases. Rigorous lab tests have been done demonstrating the heat trapping potential of these compounds. Data taken shows them occurring in increasing concentrations in our atmosphere along with correlating temperature changes.
I wasn't questioning their ability to trap heat, which I agree with. I do however disagree that they aid to "global warming" in any substantial manner.
The thing is, modern data is on a very short time scale compared to the amount of geological data. I'm not sure how familiar you are with paleoclimate, but basically temperature is estimated by measuring fractionated isotope ratios of Oxygen in ice or seafloor sediment. There's other indicators too, like pollen in sediments. You can also measure the concentration of CO2 in the same air bubbles trapped in the ice. Thus the infamous 'inconvenient truth' graphs that go back for 600,000 years or so. Anything before 3 million years is a bit less relevant to our time, due to the significant difference in ocean circulation patterns before the isthmus of Panama was formed. Still, we can generally see that when the Earth was warmer in the past, there was more CO2 in the atmosphere.
The problem of a relatively short period of modern measurement has been partially solved by climate models. I guess the basic assumption is that if a model successfully predicts the present climate given a known set of past climate parameters, it's predictions for future climate will be more accurate. And then they run the model on lots of computers tons of times, and other models with different parameters. Models have been only increasingly complex over time. Tbh this is one area i'm not too familiar with though.
But there is relatively little doubt that greenhouse gases have a significant effect on global climate. I think the questions most people are asking is, "Do the greenhouse gases people make have an effect on the climate?" "What is the rate that human sources are adding these gases to the atmospheric cycle, if at all?" "What are the natural sources/sinks and how could they be changing? Is man changing them?"
If the average temperature was higher in 1998 than it is now, this does not invalidate "global warming" (the media term for climate change). This is the intersection of the human and geologic time scale. Climate change does not mean every year is going to be hotter than the next. It entails a host of complicated and not entirely understood changes brought about by the complex feedback processes in the atmosphere and biosphere.
Yup, complex, not well understood processes that have been in effect for I'm sure a pretty long time.
Which means they are still in effect today. Albedo, volcanism, pressure systems, circulation etc. are all relevant now and were all doing their things however many millions of years ago and still are. I don't think I get your point here
The article does have some good points about the language used in some global warming docs and articles. Obviously these are biased sources of info (as is this article). He is wrong about interglacials though. Sometimes all the ice melts in an interglacial, sometimes it doesn't. However, the processes thought to drive the last million years or so of Ice Ages are basically orbital in nature. They operate over time scales on the order of 23,000 - 100,000 years, so it's pretty unlikely we'd observe changes due to these in the short time we've been measuring. There is probably a threshold point, like in most Earth systems, that once crossed the renders the melting process irreversible.
The argument that melting the Arctic ice cap doesn't contribute to seal level rise is not relevant. If you melt the Arctic, you are melting Greenland and probably Antarctica too. There's your sea level rise; enjoy it.
I like how his main argument is that melting of sea ice is good because it gives access to whole new areas of exploitation. Charming really. Biodiversity be damned! It is true though, that governments will love to get their hands all over this geopolitical goldmine. Someone will get rich off of it, we can build some more material possessions for consumers to buy and the world keeps on spinning.
And yes, tell the researchers and scientists who spent the last 30 years studying these problems that this is all just a "meaningless hobby." Are you really comparing climatology to building model trains or collecting stamps? Do you really think people worry about climate change just so they can feel smarter than others?
You know that 20-30 years ago they were fearful of an ice age? Yeah, they planned to put soot on major ice bodies.
I guess that's the problem with science. It's self correcting and therefore capable of mistakes. Before the 1960's people thought the crust of the earth was like a giant skin that contracted to form mountains. Now there's the theory of plate tectonics.
Point being, new data changes the current theory. I agree that there is a large amount of uncertainty regarding the future of the climate (though I disagree that there is no human impact. imo, Man is a geologic agent more potent than most any other process in history).
As for CO2 = plants. You did not state your argument very well, but I see what you're getting at. Yes, there is a natural carbon cycle, and vegetation is a seasonal carbon storage. However: burning of fossil fuels coupled with deforestation and development release more net CO2 into the cycle. Effectively, it increases the amount of CO2 in the cycle while removing one of the storages. More CO2 accordingly remains in the atmosphere.
The article I linked to explained that recently, we have not noticed a higher than normal ratio of methane in the atmosphere.
One thing to note is that trees don't act as an infinite Carbon sink. For example, if you set aside an area of forest and pumped carbon in, eventually a threshold would be reached where the plants are "saturated" with CO2, leaving the rest in the air.
There have been studies I could link to that conclude we can't even sustain the amount of CO2 that would be required to melt half of greenland in 1000 years.
It's not the amount of CO2 that makes the glacier retreat. It's a) precipitation patterns, and b) temperature of air and sea.
I don't think anybody really knows whether the Greenland ice sheet will be all there or half there or not there 1000 years from now. You can predict it based on models, but there are a lot more variables affecting ice sheet extent than just CO2 partial pressure.
There is some merit to the claim that research into climate science is biased by the funding sources. This is a problem in many scientific fields. I suggest you read some actual scientific papers if you're looking to develop a comprehensive and informed opinion on this subject. At least then, if nothing less, you'll be able to argue the other side more convincingly.
All that aside, I respect that you've actually researched the issue. More than I can say for about 95% of people that agree with global warming, like most of my friends. They think it's indisputable, which is why I hate anything that carries that tone.
Thanks. Since I go to school studying very similar stuff, i try to stay on top of these issues. Though sometimes it's difficult to separate personal biases in studies/professors from a pragmatic view of the situation. Sorry if i come across as an asshole in my posts. I (usually) don't mean to.
My main line of thought about global warming/climate change/scientific voodoo/whatever you want to call it right now is as follows. The recession of the last great Ice Sheets some 20,000 years BP gave rise to the modern climate - the Holocene. This is the climate that permitted the development of civilization and led to our current standing. It is the climate that allowed the widespread adoption of agriculture. If left unchecked, it is possible that human activities can eventually drive the climate from one that has been so hospitable, to one that is much less permitting of human development. A good article about this is A Safe Operating Space for Humanity.
I've actually been seriously considering this recently. Now I have some more incentive, I suppose? I'll try it out for a month. See what happens. But I might miss meat =(, it's so good! I have nothing against eating meat morally, so that is probably incentive against making the switch.
On November 04 2009 09:34 Element)LoGiC wrote: I can't wait for everyone to realize that all the stupid "green" things they've been doing all account for nothing. You all ASSUME that co2, methane, monoxide, etc, are culprits of global warming. What you don't seem to understand that 1998 was hotter than it was today. The larger Ice bodies are actually thickening, like the arctic.
You can do whatever makes you feel smarter than everyone else, but don't push it on other people. Don't kid yourself, all these things you're doing are just meaningless hobbies.
Maybe you people should research on sites that aren't funded by someone standing to gain from these "green" achievements. CO2 = fucking plants. We could multiply our co2 emissions by 30, and even the most delicate of plants would survive.
On November 04 2009 15:29 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: I have no problem with Vegetarians its the ones who refuse to drink milk or eat anything associated with milk products which is stupid IMO. Last time I checked milking a cow didn't kill the cow.
Vegans are too extreme. They limit their diet waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay too much.
On November 04 2009 15:29 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: I have no problem with Vegetarians its the ones who refuse to drink milk or eat anything associated with milk products which is stupid IMO. Last time I checked milking a cow didn't kill the cow.
Anyone who is vegetarian for ethical reasons should also be vegan. Life as a milking cow, or as a chicken laying eggs is absolutely terrible.
On November 04 2009 10:53 SonuvBob wrote: Got any photos of the damage farming does to the land and ecosystem? SOY IS MURDER
New research has shown that various north american deserts are the result of maize and foodstuff farming by the nazcas, who by using irrigation basically raped their soil and then fell into huge civil wars over the few remaining scarce resources.
I find it irritating how self righteous most meat lovers argue here. As someone that eats the occasional steak myself I can't believe that you're all that ignorant.
Noone is asking you to become a vegetarian. Noone is asking you to become a vegan. Noone is saying that eating meat is a terrible crime.
Ridiculing the idea of eating less meat to save your own climate makes you just look stupid.
Besides- since I try to eat less meat, I actually enjoy it more. Like the sunday roast- tastes better when you don't have it every day.
thinking eating less meat actually has a significant impact on climate makes YOU look stupid.
Also veggies are the proof that god doesnt exist, or he does but he is a sadist fuck... seriously, make celery taste like bacon and we would all be skinny.
On November 05 2009 06:16 Monsen wrote: I find it irritating how self righteous most meat lovers argue here. As someone that eats the occasional steak myself I can't believe that you're all that ignorant.
Noone is asking you to become a vegetarian. Noone is asking you to become a vegan. Noone is saying that eating meat is a terrible crime.
Ridiculing the idea of eating less meat to save your own climate makes you just look stupid.
Besides- since I try to eat less meat, I actually enjoy it more. Like the sunday roast- tastes better when you don't have it every day.
china has a higher per capita consumption of pork than the US 1.4 billion vs 300 million you do the math
On November 05 2009 06:16 Monsen wrote: I find it irritating how self righteous most meat lovers argue here. As someone that eats the occasional steak myself I can't believe that you're all that ignorant.
Noone is asking you to become a vegetarian. Noone is asking you to become a vegan. Noone is saying that eating meat is a terrible crime.
Ridiculing the idea of eating less meat to save your own climate makes you just look stupid.
Besides- since I try to eat less meat, I actually enjoy it more. Like the sunday roast- tastes better when you don't have it every day.
china has a higher per capita consumption of pork than the US 1.4 billion vs 300 million you do the math
Doesn't address my point whatsoever.
"THE CHINESE ARE EVEN WORSE!" Isn't much of an argument.
On November 05 2009 14:24 baal wrote: thinking eating less meat actually has a significant impact on climate makes YOU look stupid.
Also veggies are the proof that god doesnt exist, or he does but he is a sadist fuck... seriously, make celery taste like bacon and we would all be skinny.
I don't know why I bother to reply to a known troll, but there-
Lifestock breeding is responsible for the largest amout of greenhous gases. Thus it's directly responsible for climate change. Uninformed much?
On November 04 2009 09:34 Element)LoGiC wrote: I can't wait for everyone to realize that all the stupid "green" things they've been doing all account for nothing. You all ASSUME that co2, methane, monoxide, etc, are culprits of global warming. What you don't seem to understand that 1998 was hotter than it was today. The larger Ice bodies are actually thickening, like the arctic.
You can do whatever makes you feel smarter than everyone else, but don't push it on other people. Don't kid yourself, all these things you're doing are just meaningless hobbies.
Maybe you people should research on sites that aren't funded by someone standing to gain from these "green" achievements. CO2 = fucking plants. We could multiply our co2 emissions by 30, and even the most delicate of plants would survive.
On November 04 2009 09:34 Element)LoGiC wrote: I can't wait for everyone to realize that all the stupid "green" things they've been doing all account for nothing. You all ASSUME that co2, methane, monoxide, etc, are culprits of global warming. What you don't seem to understand that 1998 was hotter than it was today. The larger Ice bodies are actually thickening, like the arctic.
You can do whatever makes you feel smarter than everyone else, but don't push it on other people. Don't kid yourself, all these things you're doing are just meaningless hobbies.
Maybe you people should research on sites that aren't funded by someone standing to gain from these "green" achievements. CO2 = fucking plants. We could multiply our co2 emissions by 30, and even the most delicate of plants would survive.
holy crap your dumb.. could you be any more uninformed??
Could you elaborate on what I'm misinformed on?
You're misinformed because the climatologists who run the blog you cite are sponsored by large anonymous (power) companies with a vested interest in maintaining scientific doubt about the impact of global warming. And yes, 'holy crap you're dumb'.
What is all the fuss about? There is no such thing as a "true" "right" or "wrong" and, thus, eating meat may be "murder" but it's not "wrong."
And, of course, that means murder, incest, rape, etc. etc. are not "wrong" either.
The closest thing to "right" is being the strongest. What is implicit in the vegetarian view -- and this is most clear with the production and distribution of bloody slaughter house videos -- is that pain is an argument against reality.
This underlying premise serves as the foundation of statements like "you wouldn't like that (that = being slaughtered) if you were that animal would you?"
But that is just to say "it sure would suck to be at the mercy of forces infinitely stronger than you." I don't know of any living thing that wouldn't agree (and for those without the conceptual faculty, implicitly agree [as is demonstrated by writhing pigs etc]).
So the upshot of the story is "be strong."*** And the vegetarian response to that lesson is "I'm weak."
If you are interested in the philosophic culmination of the vegetarian attitude, check out Schopenhauer -- his conclusion is that it would be better if there was nothing -- if the universe did not exist. The answer to this view is found in Nietzsche -- and his basic argument against Schopenhauer is that it is silly (and ALWAYS a indication of weakness) to use a fantasy (morality) to judge reality.
***:Note: what genuine strength consists of is not defined here
On November 04 2009 09:34 Element)LoGiC wrote: I can't wait for everyone to realize that all the stupid "green" things they've been doing all account for nothing. You all ASSUME that co2, methane, monoxide, etc, are culprits of global warming. What you don't seem to understand that 1998 was hotter than it was today. The larger Ice bodies are actually thickening, like the arctic.
You can do whatever makes you feel smarter than everyone else, but don't push it on other people. Don't kid yourself, all these things you're doing are just meaningless hobbies.
Maybe you people should research on sites that aren't funded by someone standing to gain from these "green" achievements. CO2 = fucking plants. We could multiply our co2 emissions by 30, and even the most delicate of plants would survive.
holy crap your dumb.. could you be any more uninformed??
Could you elaborate on what I'm misinformed on?
You're misinformed because the climatologists who run the blog you cite are sponsored by large anonymous (power) companies with a vested interest in maintaining scientific doubt about the impact of global warming. And yes, 'holy crap you're dumb'.
No need to call me dumb for having a different opinion. There's still a large dispute about everything. It's far from settled.
On November 05 2009 14:24 baal wrote: thinking eating less meat actually has a significant impact on climate makes YOU look stupid.
Also veggies are the proof that god doesnt exist, or he does but he is a sadist fuck... seriously, make celery taste like bacon and we would all be skinny.
It CAN be done... We HAVE the technology! Genetic engineering is the future... We will become the Gods of the new world! The world of celery that tastes like bacon!!!
I don't know of any living thing that wouldn't agree (and for those without the conceptual faculty, implicitly agree [as is demonstrated by writhing pigs etc]).
You're anthropomorphizing. Animals are not sentient.
On November 04 2009 09:34 Element)LoGiC wrote: I can't wait for everyone to realize that all the stupid "green" things they've been doing all account for nothing. You all ASSUME that co2, methane, monoxide, etc, are culprits of global warming. What you don't seem to understand that 1998 was hotter than it was today.
Regarding the OP: I like meat. I'm going to continue eating meat. In fact, I'm all in favor of the rest of you becoming vegetarians, as it leaves more meat for me to eat.
Your link "the planet as a whole has warmed since 1998, sometimes even in the years when surface temperatures have fallen"
And our climate models did not forecast it, even though man-made carbon dioxide, the gas thought to be responsible for warming our planet, has continued to rise. "
Christ I hate people who think they know about global warming. Can we just accept that it's beyond our ability to predict climate change?
EPT
.
![[image loading]](http://www.sand.net.nz/wp-content/uploads/2008/03/peppersteak.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://67.59.184.41/lmag_blog/files/Images/schlachtplatte-gross.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/images/bigpot6.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.blogadilla.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/carnivore-support-group.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://theghostofmoonlightgraham.files.wordpress.com/2009/08/prince-fielder.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i33.photobucket.com/albums/d63/strike019/PivenGTFO.gif)
![[image loading]](http://crazyeats.files.wordpress.com/2009/08/giant-steak1.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.nahiku.com/baby-back-ribs.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.beefusa.org/deImages/vegetarians_lg.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.creekstonefarms.com/images/Beef_filet_whiteplate-500.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3657/3421995948_68edc81b29.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.todayscacher.com/2005/feb/img/zero_point_module.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bb/Radiative-forcings.svg)
![[image loading]](http://i262.photobucket.com/albums/ii99/Rixpics007/MammalDigestionChart.jpg)
