| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
DeepElemBlues
United States5079 Posts
Umm, I 'failed to state' this because it has nothing to do with the discussion. I didn't need you to tell me people are starving because there isn't enough food. and it doesnt contrast any of the points I made. People starving because there isn't enough plant food does not mean that people can starve because there isn't enough plant food. This is pretty representative of the "good" arguments you "let" into your "mind." | ||
|
Spidinko
Slovakia1174 Posts
On June 04 2011 16:02 RoseTempest wrote: You're right, but quite a few proponents of veganism/vegetarianism in this thread have been quite condescending, smug and "persuasive". I'm guessing thats where he's coming from. Don't take it personally ;D Quite frankly the other side is guilty of that, too. Some people are just like that, whether they're vegan or w/e. | ||
|
Laerties
United States361 Posts
On June 05 2011 00:20 DeepElemBlues wrote: All those stupid Indians still suffering from poverty-induced malnutrition, why aren't they smart enough to read Gandhi?????????? Right??? All those people who starved to death in the millenia before industrialized farming, vegan or not, they just simply didn't understand how to live as good as you and Gandhi. How does it feel knowing you're better than 99.9% of all the humans who ever lived? It must be really, really awesome. If you don't have enough food to survive, than you don't have enough food to survive, I'm not saying otherwise. ASSUMING you have the means to survive there are ways to make your diet more nutritious and none of it involves meat, thats what is in his book, not a way to survive off sunlight and air. I don't think or claim to be better than anyone for the way I am living. I am just defending my reasons for not eating meat because I value them. Thanks for being a dick. You never made a point, you made a totally unsupported assertion. If you read my post before you would have seen that I did in fact make the point. It is almost common knowledge that cows consume more food than they produce. Just do a google search. If there were less cows for meat the existing grain would be able to feed more people, requiring less industrialization. If you dont wana search here is a link. http://www.news.cornell.edu/releases/aug97/livestock.hrs.html | ||
|
Laerties
United States361 Posts
On June 05 2011 00:33 DeepElemBlues wrote: People starving because there isn't enough plant food does not mean that people can starve because there isn't enough plant food. This is pretty representative of the "good" arguments you "let" into your "mind." Please be more clear, I just don't understand what your trying to say. | ||
|
Aurocaido
Canada288 Posts
On June 04 2011 17:42 DeepElemBlues wrote: Feed grain takes much less resources to grow than grain suitable for human consumption, so talking about how much agriculture it takes to support industrial meat production is misleading. It would take possibly less land but more resources to grow grain to replace meat in the world's diet. Death is not ultimate pain, and cattle are not killed in a way that causes emotional stress. I find it hard to believe it would be stressful or painful to be instantly killed without knowing it was coming. And of course a human's life is more valuable than a cow's. I don't see how anyone could argue otherwise. Human life is the most sacrosanct thing we know to exist. Growing grain takes the same amount of resources wether its grown for human or animal consumption. Does not make sense that it doesn't. According to the UN almost 40% of humanities grain harvest goes to feed animals. If that feed would instead be used to relieve world hunger, it is estimated that everyone on earth could be living off of 4000+ calories a day. On one acre of land 30,000 pounds of carrots can be grown, or 40,000 pounds of potatoes. Conversly, one acre of land can only supply 250 pounds of meat. Every humanitarian agency uses vegetarian products because they can feed over 40 times the number of people than if they used meat with the same amount of resourses. World hunger would not exist if we simply ate more of the crops that we grow instead of using them to feed animals, which is a much less efficient transfer of energy. You can easily recieve all the nutrients you need from a vegetarian or even vegan diet. Everyone saying you can't do not know what they are talking about. Any poorly planned diet, meat or vegan, will be lacking in nutrition. | ||
|
stevarius
United States1394 Posts
On June 05 2011 02:02 Aurocaido wrote: Growing grain takes the same amount of resources wether its grown for human or animal consumption. Does not make sense that it doesn't. According to the UN almost 40% of humanities grain harvest goes to feed animals. If that feed would instead be used to relieve world hunger, it is estimated that everyone on earth could be living off of 4000+ calories a day. On one acre of land 30,000 pounds of carrots can be grown, or 40,000 pounds of potatoes. Conversly, one acre of land can only supply 250 pounds of meat. Every humanitarian agency uses vegetarian products because they can feed over 40 times the number of people than if they used meat with the same amount of resourses. World hunger would not exist if we simply ate more of the crops that we grow instead of using them to feed animals, which is a much less efficient transfer of energy. You can easily recieve all the nutrients you need from a vegetarian or even vegan diet. Everyone saying you can't do not know what they are talking about. Any poorly planned diet, meat or vegan, will be lacking in nutrition. World hunger wouldn't exist if we could actually get food to where it needs to go and if we could prevent disastrous bad weather from ruining crop harvests. Grains and such are shipped worldwide because they are a LOT more stable and able to be transported. Does that make them superior? No. Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe the world has enough food to feed every person to a good level of satisfaction; however, that food is not able to be distributed because of the long distances between who can provide and who needs and the high costs involved in such transportation. | ||
|
Laerties
United States361 Posts
On June 05 2011 02:02 Aurocaido wrote: Any poorly planned diet, meat or vegan, will be lacking in nutrition. I totally agree. Just outta curiosity, are you a vegan/vegetarian? If so, what kind? On June 05 2011 02:08 stevarius wrote: Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe the world has enough food to feed every person to a good level of satisfaction; however, that food is not able to be distributed because of the long distances between who can provide and who needs and the high costs involved in such transportation. I think part of what also contributes to hunger is how much extra grain the U.S has. Like, if they have a lot ofextra grain they can flood cheap grains to everyone, but if there were bad harvests than most of it might need to be used for products + meats etc | ||
|
0mar
United States567 Posts
| ||
|
stevarius
United States1394 Posts
On June 05 2011 02:12 0mar wrote: World hunger is a logistics problem, not a production problem. Exactly. | ||
|
Aurocaido
Canada288 Posts
On June 05 2011 02:12 0mar wrote: World hunger is a logistics problem, not a production problem. Meat is incredibly expensive, grain and other staples are not. When over 40% of the worlds grain harvest goes to feed animals that will be consumed in the West, it leaves little to feed the hundreds of millions suffering from starvation. The worlds poor are unable to afford high meat prices. And yes, just because the meat industry is heavily subsidised in the West does not mean it is that cheap in other parts of the world. Meat is a first world luxury, many of the worlds poor are simply unable to afford meat and animal products. And when natural or man made disasters occur, they have no where to turn. There is a book "On poverty and famine" that examines this. In times of famine the supply of food in a region remains reletively unchanged. What changed is the ability of the people to access the food. The overproduction of meat has caused a scarcity of basic staples that the worlds poor can actually afford. World hunger is both a production and logistics problem. | ||
|
Aurocaido
Canada288 Posts
On June 05 2011 02:11 Laerties wrote: I totally agree. Just outta curiosity, are you a vegan/vegetarian? If so, what kind? I think part of what also contributes to hunger is how much extra grain the U.S has. Like, if they have a lot ofextra grain they can flood cheap grains to everyone, but if there were bad harvests than most of it might need to be used for products + meats etc I am not a vegetarian or a vegan. I just make sure I know the source of any meat I do end up eating. I don't eat much meat but when I do I know where it came from and what exactly went into its production. | ||
|
ryc
Canada29 Posts
For example, a chemist improves on an existing drug so that the side effects are less harmful to humans. However, simply manipulating the compound on the molecular level can lead to consequences once applied to humans. If the said drug was applied to an animal model prior to human use, then many disasters can be avoided. That being said, you must realize that there is a large and lengthy process to perform testing on animals. Not only is there an ethics board that must approve the concentration dose and compound identity, etc, but there are also plenty of "phases" that the drug must complete before going onto the market. Scientists realize the importance of animals, and acknowledge their sacrifice in bettering humanity. But the general public must accept that animal testing is a vital part of research but trust that we have a high moral code for the treatment of experimental animals. | ||
|
Laerties
United States361 Posts
On June 05 2011 02:38 ryc wrote: I have no problem with people who choose not to eat meat. However, as a scientist, I strongly believe that animals are required for biomedical research. The industry of drug development would not exist if in vivo studies are eliminated. For example, a chemist improves on an existing drug so that the side effects are less harmful to humans. However, simply manipulating the compound on the molecular level can lead to consequences once applied to humans. If the said drug was applied to an animal model prior to human use, then many disasters can be avoided. That being said, you must realize that there is a large and lengthy process to perform testing on animals. Not only is there an ethics board that must approve the concentration dose and compound identity, etc, but there are also plenty of "phases" that the drug must complete before going onto the market. Scientists realize the importance of animals, and acknowledge their sacrifice in bettering humanity. But the general public must accept that animal testing is a vital part of research but trust that we have a high moral code for the treatment of experimental animals. I'd agree with this assuming there is a decent standard of treatment. | ||
|
Aurocaido
Canada288 Posts
On June 05 2011 02:38 ryc wrote: I have no problem with people who choose not to eat meat. However, as a scientist, I strongly believe that animals are required for biomedical research. The industry of drug development would not exist if in vivo studies are eliminated. For example, a chemist improves on an existing drug so that the side effects are less harmful to humans. However, simply manipulating the compound on the molecular level can lead to consequences once applied to humans. If the said drug was applied to an animal model prior to human use, then many disasters can be avoided. That being said, you must realize that there is a large and lengthy process to perform testing on animals. Not only is there an ethics board that must approve the concentration dose and compound identity, etc, but there are also plenty of "phases" that the drug must complete before going onto the market. Scientists realize the importance of animals, and acknowledge their sacrifice in bettering humanity. But the general public must accept that animal testing is a vital part of research but trust that we have a high moral code for the treatment of experimental animals. Ok fair enough. However, what is your opinion for non life saving products like cosmetics? | ||
|
DeepElemBlues
United States5079 Posts
Please be more clear, I just don't understand what your trying to say. Uh, no. You use incredibly bad arguments and then claim the other side does when you're exposed. What I wrote was very easy to understand. You contradicted yourself. Growing grain takes the same amount of resources wether its grown for human or animal consumption. Does not make sense that it doesn't. Ummm, no, it doesn't. Grain grown for animals = harder to chew and digest for humans, less nutrients, etc. Takes less fertilizer and pesticides to produce. Grain grown for humans = easier to chew and digest, higher in nutrients. Takes more fertilizer and pesticides to produce. It does not make sense that higher quality products would cost the same to make as lower quality ones, if that was the case Wal-Mart would be selling their $30 shoes for $150. World hunger would not exist if we simply ate more of the crops that we grow instead of using them to feed animals, which is a much less efficient transfer of energy. You can easily recieve all the nutrients you need from a vegetarian or even vegan diet. Everyone saying you can't do not know what they are talking about. Any poorly planned diet, meat or vegan, will be lacking in nutrition. No you can't get all the nutrients you need from a vegan diet, that's total nonsense. That's why vegan diets have to be supplemented either with vitamins or you have to go out of your way to get more expensive vegan food with the extra nutrients added in. Of course it's a less efficient transfer of energy when you're putting 87 gasoline in your car it's less efficient than 93 that's why it's cheaper. Stop growing feed grain and start growing more people grain, see how much it costs. The overproduction of meat has caused a scarcity of basic staples that the worlds poor can actually afford. Nonsense. The "overproduction" of meat in industrialized countries has nothing to do with malnutrition in developing countries. The world already produces more than enough vegetable food to comfortably feed all humans, the problem is corrupt governments, backward class systems, and lack of law and order in those societies. If it was possible to send enough food aid and have it work, we would. However, the experience of Africa has shown that you can ship as much food as you want to a starving country, it won't change a thing if the people in charge of that country don't care about feeding the people. Where do you come up with this stuff? It's just a huge bunch of nearly ridiculous assertions. | ||
|
Eppa!
Sweden4641 Posts
On June 05 2011 02:20 Aurocaido wrote: Meat is incredibly expensive, grain and other staples are not. When over 40% of the worlds grain harvest goes to feed animals that will be consumed in the West, it leaves little to feed the hundreds of millions suffering from starvation. The worlds poor are unable to afford high meat prices. And yes, just because the meat industry is heavily subsidised in the West does not mean it is that cheap in other parts of the world. Meat is a first world luxury, many of the worlds poor are simply unable to afford meat and animal products. And when natural or man made disasters occur, they have no where to turn. There is a book "On poverty and famine" that examines this. In times of famine the supply of food in a region remains reletively unchanged. What changed is the ability of the people to access the food. The overproduction of meat has caused a scarcity of basic staples that the worlds poor can actually afford. World hunger is both a production and logistics problem. Poverty is the problem not lack of food or food prices. There is not a single person that works against famine that would say that lack of food has anything to with famine it only things like poverty or "not being allowed" that stops people from eating. | ||
|
Aurocaido
Canada288 Posts
On June 05 2011 03:05 DeepElemBlues wrote: Uh, no. You use incredibly bad arguments and then claim the other side when you're exposed. What I wrote was very easy to understand, if you don't, go back and read the specific quotes from you and lg and then you should get it. Ummm, no, it doesn't. Grain grown for animals = harder to chew and digest for humans, less nutrients, etc. Takes less fertilizer and pesticides to produce. Grain grown for humans = easier to chew and digest, higher in nutrients. Takes more fertilizer and pesticides to produce. It does not make sense that higher quality products would cost the same to make as lower quality ones, if that was the case Wal-Mart would be selling their $30 shoes for $150 dollars. You don't know anything about agriculture obviously. No you can't get all the nutrients you need from a vegan diet, that's total nonsense. That's why vegan diets have to be supplemented either with vitamins or you have to go out of your way to get more expensive vegan food with the extra nutrients added in. Of course it's a less efficient transfer of energy when you're putting 87 gasoline in your car it's less efficient than 93 that's why it's cheaper. Stop growing feed grain and start growing more people grain, see how much it costs. Nonsense. The "overproduction" of meat in industrialized countries has nothing to do with malnutrition in developing countries. The West already produces more than enough vegetable food to comfortably feed the world, the problem is corrupt governments, backward class systems, and lack of law and order in those societies. If it was possible to send enough food aid and have it work, we would. However, the experience of Africa has shown that you can ship as much food as you want to a starving country, it won't change a thing if the people in charge of that country don't care about feeding the people. Where do you come up with this stuff? It's just a huge bunch of nearly ridiculous assertions. I grew up on a farm in rural Saskatchewan, crops regardless of how easy it is to chew (What?) went to feed lots to sustain animals. I garrantee I know far more about agriculture than you do. Many people would argue that crops grown with no pesticide and low levels of fertilizers are actually better quality and will pay more money for them. Organic ring a bell? A properly planned vegan diet is more than able to supply the nutrients and minerals your body needs. You go to any city and you will find 4, 5 6, 7 vitamine stores. Are there that many vegans? No. Those vitamines are for meat eaters who are unable to to balance their diets because they listen to idiots like you spreading missinformation about how beneficial meat is. Americans consume more milk than anywhere else in the world, so why are there no less than three calcium supplements on the market, and the U.S. still has the one of the highest rates of osteoperosis? Something doesn't add up. You have no idea what you are talking about. The energy transfer I was refering to is the second law of thermodynamics. Energy is lost when it changes states. So by energy going from crops to animals to people that is three steps rather than two for vegans and vegetarians. The energy efficiency from plants is ten times better than meat when it reaches people, meaning that you can feed many more people on far less land. Your gas example was stupid and completely missed the point sorry. Yes poor nations are often plagued by corrupt governments and a lack of a social justice community. However, that does not change the fact that food imported from elsewhere is more expensive because of the scarcity created by the overproduction of meat in the West. Change takes time, people will starve in six days. To say you will recieve no food until you magically remedy your political system is a product of a fundamental disconnect from the human condition. | ||
|
Greatness
United States450 Posts
Today, American's eat 5-10pounds of meat a week. We just need to give it time, to let these less developed countries become more industrialized, because it will also happen to them. | ||
|
Laerties
United States361 Posts
On June 05 2011 03:05 DeepElemBlues wrote: Uh, no. You use incredibly bad arguments and then claim the other side does when you're exposed. What I wrote was very easy to understand. You contradicted yourself. You are trying to tell me that THIS "People starving because there isn't enough plant food does not mean that people can starve because there isn't enough plant food. This is pretty representative of the "good" arguments you "let" into your "mind." " is easy to understand? I'm sorry but again, I don't understand what you are trying to say. Please rephrase this sentence....it makes no sense. | ||
|
Lexpar
1813 Posts
On June 05 2011 03:22 Greatness wrote: 100 years ago, American's ate 1-2 pounds of meat a year. Today, American's eat 5-10pounds of meat a week. We just need to give it time, to let these less developed countries become more industrialized, because it will also happen to them. Wait you think this is a good thing? I'm not sure if your numbers are right, but its a fact that America's meat consumption has skyrocketed over the last century. You think this is inevitable, not some sort of problem? | ||
| ||
StarCraft: Brood War Dota 2 League of Legends Counter-Strike Super Smash Bros Other Games |
|
RSL Revival
Maestros of the Game
BSL Team Wars
Afreeca Starleague
Snow vs Sharp
Jaedong vs Mini
Wardi Open
Sparkling Tuna Cup
Afreeca Starleague
Light vs Speed
Larva vs Soma
LiuLi Cup
The PondCast
Korean StarCraft League
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
