inkman Posted November 5, 2009 Report Posted November 5, 2009 Do you still believe in the farce that is known as "global warming"? :rolleyes: Whether or not anyone "believes" in it, aren't most of the intiatives of countering the effects just good environmental practices? Is that such a bad thing?
Stoner Posted November 5, 2009 Report Posted November 5, 2009 LOL....the bat lived. This world is gone way to politically correct!! ugh I am overjoyed that this wonderful creature has lived. Now, what reparations will it be given?
shrader Posted November 5, 2009 Report Posted November 5, 2009 2.) I agree with this statement wholeheartedly. However, the huge irony in your statement is that by far the absolute best thing we could do to curb global warming is to become vegetarians, which is PETA's primary agenda. Wait, maybe I missed something here (I did scan through most of the recent posts). Becoming a vegetarian is the best thing we could do to curb global warming? So not eating animals is going to cut back on all the pollution from cars, factories and everything else? Please tell me you were just being sarcastic here and I missed it since I'm being very lazy.
spndnchz Posted November 5, 2009 Report Posted November 5, 2009 Farts from cows are one of the biggest ozone depleters. It's safe to assume controlling their population by slaughtering them is good for the environment.
nfreeman Posted November 5, 2009 Report Posted November 5, 2009 Noooooooooooooo, man. It's not about the size or even the passion of the movement. It's about worrying about issues that matter to people, not some rodents in a lab somewhere. If we don't figure out global warming, whether people wear fur coats really doesn't matter, does it? It has been figured out. The earth is now cooling, and the claims that 7 of the 8 hottest years ever have taken place in the last decade have been debunked and retracted. We can now turn to more pressing issues, of which there are many. Whether or not anyone "believes" in it, aren't most of the intiatives of countering the effects just good environmental practices? Is that such a bad thing? Good environmental practices are definitely a good thing. However, the government's chief policy initiative in this area -- laying an enormous new energy tax into a very fragile economy with high unemployment -- is a terrible idea. People need jobs.
Eleven Posted November 5, 2009 Author Report Posted November 5, 2009 Wait, maybe I missed something here (I did scan through most of the recent posts). Becoming a vegetarian is the best thing we could do to curb global warming? So not eating animals is going to cut back on all the pollution from cars, factories and everything else? Please tell me you were just being sarcastic here and I missed it since I'm being very lazy. The amount of arable land we use to feed the animals we eat is huge. I haven't done any research or anything, but I suspect that (1) if global warming is real, and (2) if it's a result of human activity, then (3) CDX is right.
shrader Posted November 5, 2009 Report Posted November 5, 2009 The amount of arable land we use to feed the animals we eat is huge. I haven't done any research or anything, but I suspect that (1) if global warming is real, and (2) if it's a result of human activity, then (3) CDX is right. So if we stop using that land to feed animals, wouldn't we have to use it to feed ourselves instead?
cdexchange Posted November 5, 2009 Report Posted November 5, 2009 Wait, maybe I missed something here (I did scan through most of the recent posts). Becoming a vegetarian is the best thing we could do to curb global warming? So not eating animals is going to cut back on all the pollution from cars, factories and everything else? Please tell me you were just being sarcastic here and I missed it since I'm being very lazy. Not being sarcastic at all. It has been estimated that livestock accounts for a fifth of the global warming impact, alot more than automobiles. http://en.wikipedia....27s_Long_Shadow Again, I'm not a vegetarian, I'm just a guy who abhors animal suffering but still likes a good burger :blink: I'm no expert on this stuff, I just threw it out there to point out the irony of the other guy's statement.
cdexchange Posted November 5, 2009 Report Posted November 5, 2009 Farts from cows are one of the biggest ozone depleters. It's safe to assume controlling their population by slaughtering them is good for the environment. :lol: Technically, I guess that is correct, as long as we don't breed any more after the current ones have been slaughtered.
cdexchange Posted November 5, 2009 Report Posted November 5, 2009 So if we stop using that land to feed animals, wouldn't we have to use it to feed ourselves instead? In a nutshell, it's much more efficient and cleaner, and requires far less arable land, to just grow vegetables and eat them, rather than growing several times as many vegetables, only to feed them to cattle and then kill and eat the cattle.
shrader Posted November 5, 2009 Report Posted November 5, 2009 And if we decide to kill manbearpig instead?
wjag Posted November 5, 2009 Report Posted November 5, 2009 Look, I'm not even a vegetarian and I probably never will be, I still eat poultry and fish and the occasional beef, so I fully admit that I'm a hypocrite in this regard. But I do respect PETA's fundamental mission which is the Ethical Treatment Of Animals (although I am not a member because I disagree with them on many specific issues and in general I think their tactics are flawed). I just hate the argument that their efforts somehow make other "more important" groups less effective. Anyways, it's a good topic, I love talking hockey but I like threads like this even more :thumbsup: Always been partial to cow, pig and fish (raw of course). I've also eaten raw horse in Japan... It's great being at the top of the food chain. Never tried bat... I'll bet you chicken tastes like bat.. Just a hunch.. I am overjoyed that this wonderful creature has lived. Now, what reparations will it be given? You da man...
cdexchange Posted November 5, 2009 Report Posted November 5, 2009 Always been partial to cow, pig and fish (raw of course). I've also eaten raw horse in Japan... I have friends who have eaten horse, but raw horse...wow. How was it?
wjag Posted November 5, 2009 Report Posted November 5, 2009 I have friends who have eaten horse, but raw horse...wow. How was it? Interesting. Red meat.. Tendon-ie... Had three cubes, each about 6 cubic cm. Took a bit to chew each one because of the tendons. After I ate them I told my buddy, probably never again. Didn't dislike it, just didn't leave me wanting for more. Paid about 12 bucks for that plate alone.. Nothing better than eating sushi in Japan though...
cdexchange Posted November 5, 2009 Report Posted November 5, 2009 Interesting. Red meat.. Tendon-ie... Had three cubes, each about 6 cubic cm. Took a bit to chew each one because of the tendons. After I ate them I told my buddy, probably never again. ewww...sounds nasty :sick: Nothing better than eating sushi in Japan though... Can't argue with that, although I'd put a good kobe beef steak at the top of my list. I imagine kobe is alot cheaper and more plentiful over there than here, right?
Eleven Posted November 5, 2009 Author Report Posted November 5, 2009 And if we decide to kill manbearpig instead? Not as tasty.
korab rules Posted November 5, 2009 Report Posted November 5, 2009 In a nutshell, it's much more efficient and cleaner, and requires far less arable land, to just grow vegetables and eat them, rather than growing several times as many vegetables, only to feed them to cattle and then kill and eat the cattle. Cattle don't eat vegetables, they eat grass.
korab rules Posted November 5, 2009 Report Posted November 5, 2009 Not as tasty. too tendon-ie and gamey.
wjag Posted November 5, 2009 Report Posted November 5, 2009 ewww...sounds nasty :sick: Can't argue with that, although I'd put a good kobe beef steak at the top of my list. I imagine kobe is alot cheaper and more plentiful over there than here, right? mmmm Kobe beef.. Insanely good..
cdexchange Posted November 5, 2009 Report Posted November 5, 2009 Cattle don't eat vegetables, they eat grass. Actually, many of them are fed corn and soybeans in addition to grass, but I should have said "vegitation" or "plant-life" instead of "vegetables".
Eleven Posted November 5, 2009 Author Report Posted November 5, 2009 Actually, many of them are fed corn and soybeans in addition to grass, but I should have said "vegitation" or "plant-life" instead of "vegetables". It's generally the use of arable land to feed our food that causes the problem (if there is global warming and if humans are responsible), whether it's grass, soy, corn, cereals, or other vegetation. The same cause presents another problem, too: there isn't enough land to feed everybody when there are so many meat-eaters. Starting right now, I'm going to replace three "normal" meals per week with vegetarian meals. Lunch today is spinach pie with potato salad (not the kind of potato salad that has bacon). I'm going to see if I feel more healthy, and if I feel full. I'll give it four weeks. If I do feel better, I may move further away from meat. I'll never become a vegetarian, though; I like good cuisine way too much to do that. I also will try to swat three bats with a hockey stick, each week, just to spite PETA.
cdexchange Posted November 5, 2009 Report Posted November 5, 2009 1.) It's generally the use of arable land to feed our food that causes the problem (if there is global warming and if humans are responsible), whether it's grass, soy, corn, cereals, or other vegetation. 2.) The same cause presents another problem, too: there isn't enough land to feed everybody when there are so many meat-eaters. 1.) Right, it doesn't really matter what they are fed, that isn't really the point. 2.) The ultimate bottom-line problem is my mind is this: there are too many g*ddamn people on this planet. People need to exercise some common f*cking sense when it comes to reproducing. :angry:
cdexchange Posted November 5, 2009 Report Posted November 5, 2009 Starting right now, I'm going to replace three "normal" meals per week with vegetarian meals. Lunch today is spinach pie with potato salad (not the kind of potato salad that has bacon). I'm going to see if I feel more healthy, and if I feel full. I'll give it four weeks. If I do feel better, I may move further away from meat. Awesome, let us know how it works out after a month :) I'll never become a vegetarian, though; I like good cuisine way too much to do that. Me too. :thumbsup:
Sabre Dance Posted November 5, 2009 Report Posted November 5, 2009 It's generally the use of arable land to feed our food that causes the problem (if there is global warming and if humans are responsible), whether it's grass, soy, corn, cereals, or other vegetation. The same cause presents another problem, too: there isn't enough land to feed everybody when there are so many meat-eaters. Eating more veggies is healthier anyway, but I have a question when it comes to this argument - I think we can all agree that meat (beef, pork, fish, poultry) has lots of high-grade protein. If the entire population of the earth switched to eating vegetarian, how much additional arable land (if any) would be needed to grow the beans, rice, grain, etc. that we all would need to replace the concentrated protein found in meat? Now, I know it takes X number of acres of corn production to feed a steer, but how many acres would it take to produce the corn/soybeans/whatever to replace the protein in a six-ounce filet? I have no idea how one would go about figuring this out, but it seems to me that things may work out even. (I also know that raising beef, pork, etc, has other negative environmental impacts such as manure, chemical run-off, etc. which would likely tip the balance). I'm just curious to know if any group out there has ever run these kind of numbers. That being said, I'm going out to dinner tonight and will be getting a roast beef on weck....or maybe a steak. Sorry, PETA. If it helps, prior to the first bite I will pay homage to the animal that was sacrificed for my dining pleasure....
Eleven Posted November 5, 2009 Author Report Posted November 5, 2009 Eating more veggies is healthier anyway, but I have a question when it comes to this argument - I think we can all agree that meat (beef, pork, fish, poultry) has lots of high-grade protein. If the entire population of the earth switched to eating vegetarian, how much additional arable land (if any) would be needed to grow the beans, rice, grain, etc. that we all would need to replace the concentrated protein found in meat? Now, I know it takes X number of acres of corn production to feed a steer, but how many acres would it take to produce the corn/soybeans/whatever to replace the protein in a six-ounce filet? I have no idea how one would go about figuring this out, but it seems to me that things may work out even. (I also know that raising beef, pork, etc, has other negative environmental impacts such as manure, chemical run-off, etc. which would likely tip the balance). I'm just curious to know if any group out there has ever run these kind of numbers. That being said, I'm going out to dinner tonight and will be getting a roast beef on weck....or maybe a steak. Sorry, PETA. If it helps, prior to the first bite I will pay homage to the animal that was sacrificed for my dining pleasure.... I don't have a source for you (or time to look one up right now), but I remember from my college days that the difference in the amount of land needed to produce non-renewable animal protein (there is renewable animal protein, such as eggs & milk) versus the amount needed to produce vegetable protein is a very large one.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.