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

[MysticSang'ha]

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

I'll try again.

Food purity ideas has been given the same kind of vigor that sexual purity ideas have had. One other purity law that has been culturally established has been what to do with the dead, but that's another conversation.

I find the insistence that queers are debased to in the same realm as pointing fingers at meat eaters and insisting they're debased in some way. It all comes down to how one perceives what is morally right, not just for one person, but for all of civilization. And it can mostly stem from spiritual and religious teachings, not from science.

I find studies like the ones MM quoted to be short-sighted, and scapegoats meat-eating into a small box of hording crap-quality meats from CAFOs, and rather does not take into consideration what actually occurs in sustainable agriculture that is pastoral/heritage-based. It also fails to take into consideration humans consuming massive amounts of fossil fuels as a major contributor to the planets environmental woes.

But if it makes people feel better and sleep better at night by thinking they're morally superior for not eating meat, go right ahead. Just don't create any legislation around it. I won't force anybody to eat meat if they don't want to. I ask for the same respect in return.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

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

Hey, I had a mere 10 on my list in the Mystic Manifesto. But it pretty much amounted to a lot of time spent on the trampoline. :trampo:

 

[Me Myself]

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.

1- You do are aware that fossil fuel is nowhere near as hurtfull as methane right?

2- More sustainable ways of transportation are being developed.

3- Canibalism can be deeply spiritual too. The ritualistic murder by the Aztecs towards their gods was a spiritual experience to them (not to say an honor for their enemies in their heads) and they saw it as a perfect connection with the world too. Notice that this argument is not me saying that killing an animal is the same that killing a human, but me saying that while "spiritual conexion" is nice and dandy, it doesn´t have much to do with morality in this case. I would want to further this point, but again this thread is about sustainability. There are other threads for the morality factor of killing animals and we (including me) have already made this one lean more there than it should.

 

[Wirey]

If something didn't scream and die, it ain't dinner.

 

[Debater Slayer]

I have no issues if someone chooses not to eat meat out of a perceived 'duty' to protect the environment, not harm animals, etc., so long as they don't force their dietary habits on others or try to shame them into becoming vegetarian through hyperbolic statements and comparisons.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

1- You do are aware that fossil fuel is nowhere near as hurtfull as methane right?

Source?

There are many ways to generate methane in the atmosphere, with fossil fuels being one of them. Permafrost is another. Wetlands is a third. I hope you weren't trying the cow fart argument here, because it's a pretty bad argument.

2- More sustainable ways of transportation are being developed.

Oh? Such as?

3- Canibalism can be deeply spiritual too. The ritualistic murder by the Aztecs towards their gods was a spiritual experience to them (not to say an honor for their enemies in their heads) and they saw it as a perfect connection with the world too. Notice that this argument is not me saying that killing an animal is the same that killing a human, but me saying that while "spiritual conexion" is nice and dandy, it doesn´t have much to do with morality in this case. I would want to further this point, but again this thread is about sustainability. There are other threads for the morality factor of killing animals and we (including me) have already made this one lean more there than it should.

Well, good. Let's stick to the impact on the environment, because throwing in references to cannibalism as a comparison is not a road we want to go down. We've already been through arguments concerning feminism and abortion, and I really don't have the patience of being thrown into the same category as murdering doctors and cannibalistic head hunters.

So, let's consider the impact of water depletion by monocropping for agriculture, which is not nearly all used for feeding animals in CAFOs, but is raised primarily for biofuel, chemicals, sweeteners, and material. Much of the crops raised in this country, at least, due to mono-cropping methods is actually inedible, and is processed to be something entirely different than the actual crop.

Ever hear of High fructose corn syrup? It's there. And a lot of corn is raised for crap like that and for biofuel for our cars.

I still maintain that it isn't vegetarianism that will save the world, but localizing our production and consumption. I have yet to hear a valid argument that global vegetarianism will prevent a global collapse of civilization or the majority of humanity dying off.

 

[Revoltingest]

If something didn't scream and die, it ain't dinner.

[youtube]k4gr1Mof5hU[/youtube]
Screaming Fruit! - YouTube

 

[Penumbra]

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.

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

Besides flavor.

Two issues I see with that link are that, unless I missed them:
a) I don't see any mention of fish.
b) I don't see any mention of transportation costs.

I spent around 10 years as a vegetarian after considering the arguments for it, but then after that added some fish into my diet after considering the arguments for the importance of that. So for the most part I understand the vegetarian viewpoint, although even when I was one, I didn't discount the importance of locally produced animals.

Fish:
I've seen fairly good arguments that dietary EPA and DHA omega 3 fatty acids are helpful for optimal health and played a role in human brain development, considering that the production of EPA and DHA from ALA omega 3 fatty acids (the kind that can generally be found in some plants) is inconsistent. It's pretty difficult to get EPA and DHA naturally without fish. (They get it from algae where we can get it too if we eat a lot of it.)

And while overfishing is a problem like any other area of food, I don't think it would be optimal if the world did not fish at all.

If the world needs an amount of food equal to X, and we decide to get that food strictly by land, when we have to use an amount of land to get that food. If we utilize the other two thirds of the world that consists of water in addition to land, then we can get the same amount of food X, but spread over a larger area and therefore make less strict use of land resources.

Transportation:
Generally, I suspect that the chicken my bf eats that is raised by Amish people within driving distance is better for the environment overall than my South American apples.

There's the carbon emissions but there's also the highway maintenance, manufacturing costs of extra vehicles, polluted waters from shipping boats, etc.

Integrated Farms:
A problem with raising animals is getting rid of the waste.

A problem with growing plants is getting enough extra nutrients to them.

Nature avoids these problems by having animals and plants together in a cycle. When humans try to separate and industrialize them, we create extra problems.


Overall, I think the #1 thing we can do for the environment (other than cannibalism, extra warfare, etc.) would be to consciously choose to have no more than two children per couple. Or at least two children or fewer per couple, on average. We can optimize our food sources as much as we want but if population keeps inching upward then we run into a wall at some point.

 

[Me Myself]

Source?

There are many ways to generate methane in the atmosphere, with fossil fuels being one of them. Permafrost is another. Wetlands is a third. I hope you weren't trying the cow fart argument here, because it's a pretty bad argument.

Airplanes don´t release Methane, they release CO2. Methane is many times more damaging than CO2 to enviroment. Livestock are responsible for 18 per cent of the greenhouse gases that cause global warming, more than cars, planes and all other forms of transport put together.

http://www.independent.co.uk/enviro...ging-to-planet-than-co2-from-cars-427843.html

Oh? Such as?

SOLAR IMPULSE - AROUND THE WORLD IN A SOLAR AIRPLANE

So, let's consider the impact of water depletion by monocropping for agriculture, which is not nearly all used for feeding animals in CAFOs, but is raised primarily for biofuel, chemicals, sweeteners, and material. Much of the crops raised in this country, at least, due to mono-cropping methods is actually inedible, and is processed to be something entirely different than the actual crop.

Ever hear of High fructose corn syrup? It's there. And a lot of corn is raised for crap like that and for biofuel for our cars.

I still maintain that it isn't vegetarianism that will save the world, but localizing our production and consumption. I have yet to hear a valid argument that global vegetarianism will prevent a global collapse of civilization or the majority of humanity dying off.

did you not read the article? o.o It is not the only step of course, but It would greatly improve everything. Stuff still needs to be worked out with the crops, but those are also taken into account in the article.

 

[nameless]

Food purity ideas has been given the same kind of vigor that sexual purity ideas have had. One other purity law that has been culturally established has been what to do with the dead, but that's another conversation.

I have no idea why you introduced 'sexual purity' thing here, it has nothing to do with what i have said in this thread. Personally, i dont have any opinion about 'sexual purity' just like i dont have any opinion about 'love', it can be right for those who believe in it, and wrong for those who dont believe in it, but it dont make me to view other people to be 'queer' as long as they are not causing harm to other living beings. If you see them as 'queer community', then there is enough reasons for you to be 'queer' too, because there is no such thing as 'love' for some people.

I find the insistence that queers are debased to in the same realm as pointing fingers at meat eaters and insisting they're debased in some way. It all comes down to how one perceives what is morally right, not just for one person, but for all of civilization. And it can mostly stem from spiritual and religious teachings, not from science.

my interest on vegetarinism is not due to my culture, it was at my age of 4-5, i turned to vegetarianism, i did not have any damn knowledge about any spirituality or religions at that time.

But if it makes people feel better and sleep better at night by thinking they're morally superior for not eating meat, go right ahead. Just don't create any legislation around it. I won't force anybody to eat meat if they don't want to. I ask for the same respect in return.

Actually when did i do that? i never forced any dietary habits on others. Im of the opinion that it would be morally correct if whatever morality you impose on helpless living beings, is also applied to us or that may be actually the real 'superiority complex'.

 

[nameless]

I have no issues if someone chooses not to eat meat out of a perceived 'duty' to protect the environment, not harm animals, etc., so long as they don't force their dietary habits on others or try to shame them into becoming vegetarian through hyperbolic statements and comparisons.

there was no attempt to force any dietary habits on others. What i find stupid here is the double standard they have, they make use of 'food chain' to justify their diet, but they are not ready to accept the other part of food chain which includes cannibalism. Im still waiting for a valid response from them on that.

 

[nameless]

BTW, I have humanely slaughtered chickens.

from where did you get those chickens?

 

[Shuddhasattva]

Cannibalism tends not to be a viable evolutionary strategy. There are many reasons, but prions stand out as perhaps foremost.

 

[Storm]

there was no attempt to force any dietary habits on others. What i find stupid here is the double standard they have, they make use of 'food chain' to justify their diet, but they are not ready to accept the other part of food chain which includes cannibalism. Im still waiting for a valid response from them on that.

It's not a double standard because we are not a naturally cannibalistic species.

It is hyperbole, because it boils down to "well, what makes you better than Jeffrey Dahmer?" I'm sorry, but it's just not an argument you can use unless getting people to roll their eyes and start ignoring you is the actual goal.

 

[Shuddhasattva]

And from a certain way of looking at it, cannibalism can be ethically superior. For instance, in accord with my religion (Kaula), I would be quite willing to eat the flesh, especially the heart, of somebody who has already died, especially a coreligionist who wills that their body be partaken of.

Who would I be hurting?

 

[nameless]

It's not a double standard because we are not a naturally cannibalistic species.

i dont think generalization would fit here, we are all of same species but it is upto individual choice to decide what their nature is, just like homo-sexuality, there is actually no reason for minority to follow the nature of the majorities.

 

[Storm]

i dont think generalization would fit here, we are all of same species but it is upto individual choice to decide what their nature is, just like homo-sexuality.

Yeah, that's not a choice, either.

Also, sorry again, but it isn't a generalization to point out that we lack a certain instinct, regardless of our capacity to override instinct.

Now, your hyperbole has been answered, and your credibility sufficiently undermined. Let it go.

 

[nameless]

so im a non-veg by nature? .... ok, i give up, let's not derail the thread anymore.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

Airplanes don´t release Methane, they release CO2. Methane is many times more damaging than CO2 to enviroment. Livestock are responsible for 18 per cent of the greenhouse gases that cause global warming, more than cars, planes and all other forms of transport put together.

Cow 'emissions' more damaging to planet than CO2 from cars - Climate Change - Environment - The Independent

Methane is also released by the production of fossil fuels, MM.

The bulk of energy related methane emissions arise from methane release during fossil fuel extraction and transportation. Some methane is also produced during fossil fuel combustion, with sources such as fossil fuelled power stations, transport and heating all being significant contributors to atmospheric methane concentrations. The total global methane emission estimate from energy related sources is around 100 million tonnes each year.

And from the EPA website:

Globally, ruminant livestock produce about 80 million metric tons of methane annually, accounting for about 28% of global methane emissions from human-related activities.

The ONLY thing you are accounting for is air quality, which is more adversely affected by our use of burning fossil fuels for transport, for materials production, for pharmaceuticals, etc. You are not accounting for depletion of our resources, our use of fresh water (which is mostly used for agriculture and monocropping pratices), and for the depletion of our topsoil which makes growing ANY edible plants and vegetables impossible once the land becomes arid.

SOLAR IMPULSE - AROUND THE WORLD IN A SOLAR AIRPLANE

Cute, but doesn't make a dent in the food items and material goods that are actually shipped by water and not air.

Liner shipping is the service of transporting goods by means of high-capacity, ocean-going ships that transit regular routes on fixed schedules. There are approximately 400 liner services, most sailing weekly, in operation today. Liner vessels, primarily in the form of containerships and roll-on/roll-off ships, carry about 60 percent of the goods by value moved internationally by sea each year.

Maritime cargo accounts for so much of the economy that it's considered a necessary expense, that burns fossil fuels as well as transports fossil fuels.

A solar airplane has the same difficulty catching on with the industry that has tremendous lobbying power with the government. BIG OIL! Oil is the cheapest form of energy because it's net output is tremendous compared with any other form of energy, including alternatives such as wind and solar.

Who's okay with oil spills? Let's see a show of hands!

The world needs to consume less while reducing, reusing, and recycling more. The world also does well by buying locally. That will make the biggest difference. It takes away a chunk of reliance on fossil fuel use.

did you not read the article? o.o It is not the only step of course, but It would greatly improve everything. Stuff still needs to be worked out with the crops, but those are also taken into account in the article.

Yes I did. Here's the 5 steps Scientific American proposed on its site from your link:

....stop agriculture from consuming more tropical land, boost the productivity of farms that have the lowest yields, raise the efficiency of water and fertilizer use worldwide, reduce per capita meat consumption and reduce waste in food production and distribution.

ALL of which are addressed by purchasing locally and reducing transportation costs. Eating higher quality meat means eating less quantities of crappy meat sources. Using biomass on the site of agriculture by efficient composting methods with carbonecous material. Using less water by applying better mulch for crops and providing better feed to ruminants (which digest GRASS better than GRAINS provided in CAFOs), and using less tropical land (using more of ANY land whether tropical and/or temperate) is doable by discontinuing stripping arable land through chemical applications of herbicides and chemical fertilizers.....which effectively is the modern day method of "slash and burn" methods of the past, except with Monsanto.

I believe your sources support my argument of eating locally bred crops and meat animals than it does instituting a global law of vegetarianism, which you proposed earlier in the thread. I stand by my argument that vegetarianism does not cure the worlds environmental ills.

 

[Shuddhasattva]

I'm not certain that anyone has argued that vegetarianism, in of itself, makes for a sustainable system.

However, there is a wrench to be thrown in the argument for a sustainable meat industry. Is a sustainable, localized meat industry possible?

Yes, but for what sized population/demand?

My field is ecotechnology, and one of my major areas of study is agro-ecology. As such, "according to my calculations" :bonk:, the volume of meat that could befarmed in a local manner via sustainable techniques is not sufficient to meet current demand.

That's not to say that I think a meatless diet is necessary for a sustainable system.