|
17029 Posts
On May 29 2009 11:59 OmgIRok wrote:
Vegetarians get more biomass than non-vegetarians because plants are the primary producer, and Humans, naturally, are 3rd/4th level consumers. But vegetarians, because they eat only plants, then become 1st level consumers. Since only 10% of biomass/energy is passed on to the next higher level, non-vegetarians would get only .1%~.01% of what vegetarians get.
I don't even know where to begin.
Yes, only around 10% of the energy is passed on to the next trophic level.
But saying that non-vegetarians get less "biomass" in their diet is just stupid. First of all, you're assuming non-vegetarians eat nothing except meat, and no primary-producer source food in their diet. That's just inane. Secondly, on average, both groups (vegetarians and non-vegetarians) consume the same equivalents of biomass. It just took more energy for the non-vegetarians to gain their equivalents of biomass in the diet, but it's the same amount (on a population average).
Your argument doesn't even make logical sense. Vegetarians get more biomass than non-vegetarians? Let's say person A, a vegetarian, eats nothing but ten heads of lettuce a week. Now let's examine person B, who eats ten heads of lettuce a week and a steak. Are you honestly going to say that person A "gets more biomass" than person B?
Holy shit.
What I think you meant to say (and is correct), is that it takes more energy to produce a kg of non-vegetarian diet than it does to produce a kg of a vegetarian diet, on average. That statement is true.
|
Aside from "Wook at the cute fuzzy animals" there are lots of reasons to be vegitarian. For example, if the economic crisis / peak oil cause a famine, then we will all need to be vegetarian to survive because growing beans and stuff is simply ~10 times more efficient than raising cattle/chickens/pigs. Plus, there are health benefits if you are fat or something.
I don't eat much meat and when I do I try to eat from animals that haven't been factory farmed simply for the reason that factory farms pollute like hell and the meat contains all kinds of growth hormones and antibiotics that I don't want to ingest.
Most of the meat I eat my family kills ourselves. It is much more morally comfortable (at least in a conscious mind, can't say the same for subconscious) when you humanely kill the animal yourself instead of having it raised and killed somewhere over the horizon, and then see a video like that.
I'm less on the vegan track I guess, and more on the "no packaged foods" track. We have a garden too ^_^
|
On May 29 2009 11:59 OmgIRok wrote:
Vegetarians get more biomass than non-vegetarians because plants are the primary producer, and Humans, naturally, are 3rd/4th level consumers. But vegetarians, because they eat only plants, then become 1st level consumers. Since only 10% of biomass/energy is passed on to the next higher level, non-vegetarians would get only .1%~.01% of what vegetarians get.
lol?
You got the concept wrong dude. What you learned in school is that 10% of the potential energy is passed on to the next level. Its just a figure to show the inefficiency in metabolism.
You are getting 1% or .1% or whatever of the biomass the cow ate in his lifetime, which is alot different from 1% of biomass of the cow itself.
|
Kennigit
Canada19447 Posts
I ate 3 steaks and a large garden salad today. Balance has been restored to the universe.
|
Braavos36388 Posts
Reopened this.
Kennigit I know you enjoy eating meat constantly (LOL) but don't hate on Artosis and the other vegetables please.
|
I like meat, and I like well-treated animals. When I don't have budget constraints I'll go free-range only. I don't buy into the whole vegetarian-for-the-animals thing.
+ Show Spoiler +For every animal you don't eat, I'll eat two
|
On May 29 2009 12:38 PH wrote:Show nested quote +On May 29 2009 05:20 iNfuNdiBuLuM wrote:On May 29 2009 05:17 King K. Rool wrote:
Bolded is exactly why I'm not swayed at all from your arguments. I like to eat meat hence I endorse these methods.
You can like to do something while not supporting the harmful effects of it, you know. Liking the way meat tastes does not justify animal cruelty and ecological degradation. Hmm...what if it does? I can't think of a possible non-contingent argument that would put the animal's lifestyle over my convenience and I daresay even luxury.
This thread is such a shitheap i don't know why i'm replying. ugh.
In my opinion, liking the way something tastes isn't a justification for the method it was produced. There are many bad things involved in the making of mass produced meat. They have been discussed before, and include: cruelty, pollution (air and water), growth hormones in food, and deforestation (e.g. Brazil) which leads to a degraded landscape that is eventually unusable for any sort of agricultural production. These aren't some made up bullshit facts by environmentalists, this stuff has happened in the past and is happening in the present. When faced with these issues, his reaction (and yours and many others) was to say "but I like eating meat, so all of that doesn't matter."
It's a completely disconnected thought process. If I like wearing Nike shoes, does that make it O.K. that they were made by children in scummy ass sweatshops in southeast asia? Now obviously someones response to that will assert that humans are superior to animals and therefore its perfectly acceptable to treat them any way we please. Again I would argue that this is not true. Completely ignoring the cruelty aspect for now - there are ways to get cruelty free meat - consider the host of environmental and ecological problems caused by mass meat production. Often these problems directly affect us and our quality of life: global warming from deforestation, lake, river, and sea eutrophication due to overfertilization; river pollution frrom animal shit off of farms, loss of biodiversity, hormones and antibiotics in meat that we eat. I think that all of these issues practically require that we rethink the way our meat is produced and where it comes from. These problems are a direct consequence of the treatment of our meat animals. "But I like it" is a selfish and shortsighted excuse.
And FieryBalrog, the reason vegetarianism is such a big deal is that diet is one of the few parts of a lifestyle you have almost complete control over. Yes, the very act of living the western lifestyle is harmful to the environment and even to other people. However most of us didn't have control over where we were born and how we were raised, or choice in the matter that we have to drive to work to make money to eat and have shelter and clothe ourselves. If I had the means and necessary motiviation to become some agrarian hilldorf, I might do that. But I do not. Diet is one of the perhaps few places someone can make a conscious choice about his or her impact on the rest of the world. Some people choose to not eat meat and others do. That's essentially what it boils down to. The notion that one group is somehow "better" than the other is foolish.
I say this shit and I'm not even a vegetarian.
|
There are many bad things involved in the making of mass produced meat. They have been discussed before, and include: cruelty, pollution (air and water), growth hormones in food, and deforestation (e.g. Brazil) which leads to a degraded landscape that is eventually unusable for any sort of agricultural production. All of these including cruelty can be attributed to modern agribusinesses which produce non-cattle products. I suggest you look up how migrant farm hands are treated during harvest season and how monocrops are a prime source of damage to air, soil, water and genetic diversity.
That's the problem: the issue shouldn't be Carnivore v Vegetarian. It should be Maximum production v. Sustainable production.
|
GrandInquisitor
New York City13113 Posts
Interesting thought: if you are allowed to kill animals to eat, why aren't you allowed to have sex with them?
I'm not a vegetarian nor a beastialist, just curious how one reconciles the two.
PS: The answer is not "you have to eat animals to survive", since you can survive without eating animals just like how you can survive without having sex with them.
|
I am mostly vegetarian because of 2 simple reasons:
1.) higher concentrations of nutrients per calories
2.) I don't like hurting animals, directly or indirectly.
this said, I still eat some meat if served to me.
|
On May 30 2009 02:22 L wrote:Show nested quote +There are many bad things involved in the making of mass produced meat. They have been discussed before, and include: cruelty, pollution (air and water), growth hormones in food, and deforestation (e.g. Brazil) which leads to a degraded landscape that is eventually unusable for any sort of agricultural production. All of these including cruelty can be attributed to modern agribusinesses which produce non-cattle products. I suggest you look up how migrant farm hands are treated during harvest season and how monocrops are a prime source of damage to air, soil, water and genetic diversity. That's the problem: the issue shouldn't be Carnivore v Vegetarian. It should be Maximum production v. Sustainable production.
I haven't read about this. Will check it out, thanks.
|
It's insanity that people are trying to justify eating meat on the 'mass market' theory.
To those of you spewing the crap about humanity being evolutionarily carnivorous: You're wrong. Humanity evolved on the principle of 'If I get a chance at meat (IE: Once or twice a week) Then i'll take advantage of it!' They didn't evolve on 'OMG MEAT EVERYDAY.' The human body =/= carnivorous. Again, those of you arguing the historical aspect of carnivorism - It was a sign of power and wealth, not this crap of 'i'm evolutionarily adapted to eat tons of meat'.
Now, to the people stating that vegetarianism is more effecient? You realize that if we were to go completely vegeterian, we would have to use even MORE deforestation and we would also have a huge problem on our hands? When you say sentient beings learn to make the decision of being vegetarian or not, you're applying the knowledge of 'i think it's more effecient to do it this way'. Which it is. In a small scale, highly developed country. In the mass production market, there is no way it would be more effecient. At least, not from the chart and graph predictions that I have seen.
That said, I still don't eat a lot of meat. I really don't care what choice you make, as long as you're not trying to force it on me. *Cough*PETA*Cough*
|
On May 30 2009 02:42 Kaialynn wrote:
Now, to the people stating that vegetarianism is more effecient? You realize that if we were to go completely vegeterian, we would have to use even MORE deforestation and we would also have a huge problem on our hands? When you say sentient beings learn to make the decision of being vegetarian or not, you're applying the knowledge of 'i think it's more effecient to do it this way'. Which it is. In a small scale, highly developed country. In the mass production market, there is no way it would be more effecient. At least, not from the chart and graph predictions that I have seen.
lol clearly if people eat less meat then we will need less livestock. since livestock dont consume any crops at all we will definitely need to cut down forests to grow more crops. fuck vegetarianism when we have cow and pigs and sheep that grow for free without even being fed!!!!!
|
Honestly, i don't give a fuck about animals...humans own them, this is nature.
This video did not change my opnion.
|
On May 30 2009 02:52 Dariush wrote:
Honestly, i don't give a fuck about animals...humans own them, this is nature.
This video did not change my opinion.
go out into the wild and say we own them lol
i could "own" you if i put my mind to it, that doesn't make it right
|
On May 29 2009 04:26 baal wrote:
By the way why is vegetarianism a solution for this? a person who fights for better treatment of animals is more effective than a vegetarian imo.
But isn't it a bit ironic to be fighting for better treatment of animals and eating them at the same time? I mean, you're pretty much supporting the "industry" by playing along. Besides I don't see many of the people who say they'd like better treatment of animals actually do anything about it, myself included.
I was hooked on straight edge some years back and was vegetarian for a while. I'm not anymore (actually this was like 10 years ago), but I still pretty much sympathize with a vegetarian lifestyle, mainly for the suffering and often barbaric treatment of animals.
Then again, most of the time I don't really have the time to think about it because of the hassles of daily life and the constant stream of information bombarding us all. It's hard to focus on a single issue, no matter how important it is.
I don't think humans are more important or better than animals and thinking that we are can be a bit dangerous imo. There's not necessarily a huge step to thinking that our culture are better than other cultures etc. It's a general thought pattern that isn't only about humans vs animals, but rather that some people are superior to others. I'm not sure what I'm aiming at because I haven't really thought about these matters in quite some while, but it just seems like a really bad thing to have any living being suffer at someone elses expense.
|
On May 30 2009 02:48 Fontong wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2009 02:42 Kaialynn wrote:
Now, to the people stating that vegetarianism is more effecient? You realize that if we were to go completely vegeterian, we would have to use even MORE deforestation and we would also have a huge problem on our hands? When you say sentient beings learn to make the decision of being vegetarian or not, you're applying the knowledge of 'i think it's more effecient to do it this way'. Which it is. In a small scale, highly developed country. In the mass production market, there is no way it would be more effecient. At least, not from the chart and graph predictions that I have seen. lol clearly if people eat less meat then we will need less livestock. since livestock dont consume any crops at all we will definitely need to cut down forests to grow more crops. fuck vegetarianism when we have cow and pigs and sheep that grow for free without even being fed!!!!!
Yeah totally. You didn't even read my post at all. Pound for pound, yes, Meat is more ineffecient that vegetables/wheat/other crops. But do you really think that if everyone went vegeterian, we could feed the world (Or hell, a country) based on the crops alone and the buildings where cows are 'farmed'?
Be serious.
EDIT: Cows aren't grown :S
|
On May 30 2009 02:55 Foucault wrote:Show nested quote +On May 29 2009 04:26 baal wrote:
By the way why is vegetarianism a solution for this? a person who fights for better treatment of animals is more effective than a vegetarian imo. But isn't it a bit ironic to be fighting for better treatment of animals and eating them at the same time? I mean, you're pretty much supporting the "industry" by playing along. Besides I don't see many of the people who say they'd like better treatment of animals actually do anything about it, myself included. I was hooked on straight edge some years back and was vegetarian for a while. I'm not anymore (actually this was like 10 years ago), but I still pretty much sympathize with a vegetarian lifestyle, mainly for the suffering and often barbaric treatment of animals. Then again, most of the time I don't really have the time to think about it because of the hassles of daily life and the constant stream of information bombarding us all. It's hard to focus on a single issue, no matter how important it is.
No.
|
On May 30 2009 02:54 travis wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2009 02:52 Dariush wrote:
Honestly, i don't give a fuck about animals...humans own them, this is nature.
This video did not change my opinion. go out into the wild and say we own them lol i could "own" you if i put my mind to it, that doesn't make it right
I said our race owns them...not me personally...the fuck? 
|
On May 30 2009 02:59 L wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2009 02:55 Foucault wrote:On May 29 2009 04:26 baal wrote:
By the way why is vegetarianism a solution for this? a person who fights for better treatment of animals is more effective than a vegetarian imo. But isn't it a bit ironic to be fighting for better treatment of animals and eating them at the same time? I mean, you're pretty much supporting the "industry" by playing along. Besides I don't see many of the people who say they'd like better treatment of animals actually do anything about it, myself included. I was hooked on straight edge some years back and was vegetarian for a while. I'm not anymore (actually this was like 10 years ago), but I still pretty much sympathize with a vegetarian lifestyle, mainly for the suffering and often barbaric treatment of animals. Then again, most of the time I don't really have the time to think about it because of the hassles of daily life and the constant stream of information bombarding us all. It's hard to focus on a single issue, no matter how important it is. No.
Ok, thanks for elaborating.
What I mean is that it seems more like something you'd think in order to have a better conscience, rather than actually caring about the animals.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
