Vegetarianism is one of the best things you can do for the enviroment

[Dingbat]

I agree. Eating less meat produces less pollution and is better in many ways. A lot more resources are used to raise meat than if it was to be consumed by us straight up.

And about there being too much cattle, there's only so much because of the demand by people of having this much meat. Do you think they would have this many if people didn't want this much? Of course not!

"Humane" slaughter sounds like a joke to me.

So letting excess cattle die off from starvation is humane? I have yet to see these quasi-authoritarian vegetarian measures ever explain what you do with an excess amount of population without culling the herd dramatically.

 

[illykitty]

So letting excess cattle die off from starvation is humane? I have yet to see these quasi-authoritarian vegetarian measures ever explain what you do with an excess amount of population without culling the herd dramatically.

Because obviously everyone would become vegetarian overnight right! Just like cows appeared in great numbers overnight!

The cow population would decrease in ratio to the demand of the public. Less demand = less breading = less animals over time. I'd NEVER be for starving animals.

 

[Dingbat]

Because obviously everyone would become vegetarian overnight right! Just like cows appeared in great numbers overnight!

The cow population would decrease in ratio to the demand of the public. Less demand = less breading = less animals over time. I'd NEVER be for starving animals.

It would still require culling the herd and thus you are just killing animals not to eat but for population control. Its not like you can teach a bull to use condoms or something. I guess you could castrate them that should be humane as well.

 

[illykitty]

Actually I don't see any evidence of that. Have wild animals reproduced beyond earth's capacity before? I don't think so! There seems to always be a balance in nature and one of those things is predators.

For example, we kill predators to protect farm animals. But if we didn't need farm animals to eat anymore then we won't need to kill the predators. Follow me so far? Predators would have animals to eat, as they were meant to, cows won't invade the planet and we won't need to control anything.

 

[Dingbat]

Actually I don't see any evidence of that. Have wild animals reproduced beyond earth's capacity before? I don't think so! There seems to always be a balance in nature and one of those things is predators.

For example, we kill predators to protect farm animals. But if we didn't need farm animals to eat anymore then we won't need to kill the predators. Follow me so far? Predators would have animals to eat, as they were meant to, cows won't invade the planet and we won't need to control anything.

That would mean an explosion of predators thus throwing the ecosystem out of whack even further. You would then have an excess of predators that would now need to be exterminated and a falling herd of animals for them to feed on. It doesn't fix the problem when you are talking about talking domesticated animals and just turning them over to the wild. They will not survive and it will only create more ecological problems not counting overgrazing.

 

[illykitty]

What? That makes no sense whatsoever. I can't debate this.

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Why_are_t..._compared_to_the_prey_animals_they_hunt#page1

Read this.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

I have no beef with this,

Ooh, are you being cheeky?

but to say that we're omnivores as if it's a fact set in stone is perhaps a bit misleading; we need not be..

Our biology says we are. To deny our biology at that scope cannot be good for us, nor the environment... unless organic compost made of many humans is good for the environment It's like saying ants shouldn't be warlike [ditto, actually, for humans]. They and we are warlike for very specific, time-tested evolutionary reasons. Cultural anti-naturalism has never worked for any real period of time, and tends to lead to more misery than it prevented. Death is still population control.

Take for a single example the anti-naturalism of enforced celibacy. How often does it give rise to the psychosis of sexual abuse?

 

[Dingbat]

What? That makes no sense whatsoever. I can't debate this.

Err yes it does. Predators like coyotes and wolves populations explode alongside prey populations. It is basic ecology. The problem becomes when overhunting takes place by the predators leaving a limited amount of prey and thus they start moving into towns looking for food and humans get killed or injured and it is usually children.

I've lived in an area where the displacement of prey lead to predators coming into town especially during the summer months. It was not uncommon to hear coyotes running through the streets attacking dogs or mountain lions coming down with their cubs to hunt.

Regarding your edit it seems you missed the part of healthy ecosystem. Introducing tons of domesticated animals does not a healthy ecosystem make it would lead to an explosion of the predator population that would not balance with domesticated cattle that would be easily slaughtered.

 

[illykitty]

Fine, whatever. I'm backing down since you can't seem to put together everything I've said.

 

[Shuddhasattva]

Populations are in constant flux; some more than others. It is true that populations will often boom deleteriously, especially in isolated environments (which is counterintuitive for a lot of ecologists). Equilibrium is formed not of stasis but the mutually balancing fluxes.

 

[Me Myself]

I agree. Eating less meat produces less pollution and is better in many ways. A lot more resources are used to raise meat than if it was to be consumed by us straight up.

And about there being too much cattle, there's only so much because of the demand by people of having this much meat. Do you think they would have this many if people didn't want this much? Of course not!

"Humane" slaughter sounds like a joke to me.

exactly

 

[Me Myself]

Ooh, are you being cheeky?
Our biology says we are. To deny our biology at that scope cannot be good for us, nor the environment... unless organic compost made of many humans is good for the environment It's like saying ants shouldn't be warlike [ditto, actually, for humans]. They and we are warlike for very specific, time-tested evolutionary reasons. Cultural anti-naturalism has never worked for any real period of time, and tends to lead to more misery than it prevented. Death is still population control.

Take for a single example the anti-naturalism of enforced celibacy. How often does it give rise to the psychosis of sexual abuse?

Are you pro war? Because we are naturally prone to war for territory.

Being omnivore only means we can eat meat, but as millions of vegetarians around the world have shown, it doesn´t mean we need to eat meat.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

Are you pro war? Because we are naturally prone to war for territory.
Being omnivore only means we can eat meat, but as millions of vegetarians around the world have shown, it doesn´t mean we need to eat meat.

I am pro-human

Most of those vegetarians are gassy, and don't get to eat bacon.

Seriously though, I'm not pro-American Imperialism, because we do it wrong.

If we did it right, I probably would be for it.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

How to Double Global Food Production by 2050 and Reduce Environmental Damage: Scientific American

So is that article wrong?

The article says a study of the university of Minesotta concluded that eating less meat would be better for the environment and that even a meatless diet would be even better.

That's nice. There is plenty of research from decades of permaculture that argues that animal husbandry is necessary for the benefit of the planet. Agriculture that mimics nature is what we need to shoot for. Not arbitrary food purity laws that demand people to walk instep with what vegetarians think.

So there really is no reason at all to eat meat for most of us.

Besides flavor.

We're omnivores. We can eat meat for its nutrition.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

'compassion' of meat eaters to dislike 'blood thirsty' comparisons is just really amazing.

It's really amazing that blanket generalizations of meat eaters is not much unlike blanket generalizations of the queer community by those who believe in sexual purity laws and mandates.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

In any case, why I do obviously believe that eating animals for flavor is wrong in itself, this thread was more aimed towards the enviromental factor:

Eating less meat is one of the best things you can do for the enviroment. The less meat you eat, the better for the environment. If someone has a problem with the study of the Minnesota university, I am listening, but if it is doable and checking back with the first video in the thread, less cows is better for the environment and if we eat less cows less cows will be breeded. So... pretty much that.

I agree. Eating less meat produces less pollution and is better in many ways. A lot more resources are used to raise meat than if it was to be consumed by us straight up.

And about there being too much cattle, there's only so much because of the demand by people of having this much meat. Do you think they would have this many if people didn't want this much? Of course not!

"Humane" slaughter sounds like a joke to me.

How overly simplistic.

I ask the vegetarians....how do you get your food? Where was it shipped from? Who grew it? How was it grown? How many trees were cut down to provide the rows and rows of monocropping of your quinoa? Or your carrots?

In short, how much fossil fuel was used and how much of the planets topsoil was depleted to provide you that plate of meatless food?

BTW, I have humanely slaughtered chickens. It isn't a joke. It is remarkably profound and connects me to the circle of life-death-rebirth of the universe. I have far more reverence now for all the food on my plate than I ever did before when I was a vegetarian who patted myself on the back for buying a bag of rice that was shipped from China.

I have worked on farms and grown my own garden before without the use of biomass from animal manure, bonemeal, and blood and have found food production from green manuring FAR lacking to the production of fruits, veggies, and grains by utilizing the compost that has animal waste in it.

You can grow vegetables, fruits, nuts, and legumes without animal husbandry, but you have to import a lot of material to feed the soil since a lot of crops take massive amounts of nutrients from the soil. It's only slightly remedied by green cropping with cereal grasses every few years to the garden plot and rotating the plots, but it still doesn't provide all the nutrients the soil needs, and eventually the topsoil is depleted.

I argue that vegetarianism....in the manner that is practiced now with the importing of soy milks, almond milk and meal, seitan production, tofu, edamame, etc........ is hurting the environment with its massive reliance on fossil fuels for production and for shipping.

If vegetarians are able to be completely sustainable without importing any material to their land, then I find that to be the best thing they can do for the planet.

 

[Shuddhasattva]

Whereas others would regard that portrayal of vegetarianism as overly simplistic. All vegetarians as heedless, self-congratulatory yuppies with too much disposable income and not enough horse sense. Yep.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

Whereas others would regard that portrayal of vegetarianism as overly simplistic. All vegetarians as heedless, self-congratulatory yuppies with too much disposable income and not enough horse sense. Yep.

Oh yeah? Well your mother was a hamster, and your father smelled of elderberries!

I argue that the best thing people can do for the environment is to work, consume, and produce through sustainable models. To say that vegetarianism is the end-all and be-all of all answers for the environment IS overly simplistic.

And the analogy that meat eaters are no better than cannibals is rather over-the-top too. I sometimes fight fire with fire by turning the tables on people's own morality when my morals are put to the test.

 

[nameless]

unlike blanket generalizations of the queer community by those who believe in sexual purity laws and mandates.

whom are you referring to? i mean that queer community ...

 

[Revoltingest]

Oh yeah? Well your mother was a hamster, and your father smelled of elderberries!
I argue that the best thing people can do for the environment is to work, consume, and produce through sustainable models. To say that vegetarianism is the end-all and be-all of all answers for the environment IS overly simplistic.
And the analogy that meat eaters are no better than cannibals is rather over-the-top too. I sometimes fight fire with fire by turning the tables on people's own morality when my morals are put to the test.

Some simplistic solutions are appealing though.
I propose:
Reduce humanity......more sex, but less reproduction.
Enjoy your bacon wrapped tofu guilt free!