Why driving a Prius is really not enough

[tripp]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(patsparks @ Aug 19 2007, 05:07 AM) [snapback]498596[/snapback]</div>

Mix it up I say.

Meat, fish chicken vegetables, eat em all.
In Australia it's normal for cows n bulls to eat grass not grain. Yes I know cows fart but they do that if you don't eat them even more.
[/b]

Grass fed is the way to go. Grain fed is the result of WW2 (for the US anyways). A lot of the methane emissions are the result of manure festering in holding ponds. At least as electricity gets more expensive, a lot of industrial farm operations are putting animal waste in anerobic digesters and generating power with the methane. This reduces the methane foot print as well as the need to consume fossil fuels for electricity. At least in some areas the animal waste from food processing is turned into biodiesel. Pretty grizzly, really, but it has some merit.

I've "processed" fish (for other people, I really don't like fish, to put it mildly), and small mammals and amphibians (for my reptilian charges at the science museum where I worked in high school and college). Never have prepared large animals (the few times I've gone hunting it was mostly a good lesson in foot prints, we never saw a thing), but I completely agree that the whole process is far too abstract for most people.

[mclieb]

I thought this chat room was full of intelligent environmental friendly people. The replies to the original post have made me realize otherwise. Ignorance is bliss I suppose IE posters who ignore the fact that we are killing the earth and defend it by stating "but its tasty" or "god put them here" or people like "Slair".

[geodosch]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(mclieb @ Aug 19 2007, 03:27 PM) [snapback]498736[/snapback]</div>

I thought this chat room was full of intelligent environmental friendly people. The replies to the original post have made me realize otherwise. Ignorance is bliss I suppose IE posters who ignore the fact that we are killing the earth and defend it by stating "but its tasty" or "god put them here" or people like "Slair".
[/b]

Humans are omnivores, and thereby intended to eat both meat and vegetable. It is your right to decide to eschew meat. But to call others who don't wish to do the same ignorant and environmentally unfriendly is small-minded and judgmental.

It's true that the raising of meat products has a negative impact on the environment. So does crop production. All the chemicals that are used to allow the production per acre we enjoy do harm to the ecosystem. Yes, you might say that you only use organically grown produce, but even if that's so, most people don't. And if the entire population decided to become vegans eating only organically grown crops, then we wouldn't have the necessary land to sustain us.

So you can eat your veggies, and I'll eat my meat, fish (and veggies too.) But please don't assume that you're superior because of your choices.

[madler]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(GeoDosch @ Aug 19 2007, 01:39 PM) [snapback]498773[/snapback]</div>

And if the entire population decided to become vegans eating only organically grown crops, then we wouldn't have the necessary land to sustain us.[/b]

I'd like to see a reference for that.

[mclieb]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(GeoDosch @ Aug 19 2007, 04:39 PM) [snapback]498773[/snapback]</div>

Humans are omnivores, and thereby intended to eat both meat and vegetable. It is your right to decide to eschew meat. But to call others who don't wish to do the same ignorant and environmentally unfriendly is small-minded and judgmental.

It's true that the raising of meat products has a negative impact on the environment. So does crop production. All the chemicals that are used to allow the production per acre we enjoy do harm to the ecosystem. Yes, you might say that you only use organically grown produce, but even if that's so, most people don't. And if the entire population decided to become vegans eating only organically grown crops, then we wouldn't have the necessary land to sustain us.

So you can eat your veggies, and I'll eat my meat, fish (and veggies too.) But please don't assume that you're superior because of your choices.
[/b]

I did not once assume I am superior, and I do eat meat. I am saying people make stupid immature comments on an important subject matter. Not once did I say don't eat meat, but that people should not be defending their arguments with idiotic remarks. Learn to read. Or maybe you can read and just not interpret words that are in front of you? It is ok though, I can spell it out.

[geodosch]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(mclieb @ Aug 19 2007, 09:46 PM) [snapback]498911[/snapback]</div>

I did not once assume I am superior, and I do eat meat. I am saying people make stupid immature comments on an important subject matter. Not once did I say don't eat meat, but that people should not be defending their arguments with idiotic remarks. Learn to read. Or maybe you can read and just not interpret words that are in front of you? It is ok though, I can spell it out.
[/b]

In an earlier post, I stated: "If God didn't want us to eat meat, why did he make the animals taste so good?" You alluded to that in your claim that some posters were neither intelligent or environmentally friendly. Now you're calling it 'idiotic.'

I stand by that statement, and anyone who claims we should not be eating meat needs to address it. The earth is an ecosystem, and some living things, whether animal or plant, are there to be consumed by other living things. It is my belief that God meant it that way. And I believe we have a taste for meat because we were meant to eat it. Just because I was able to sum that up in a pithy sentence, you characterize it as stupid and immature.

[geodosch]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(madler @ Aug 19 2007, 09:21 PM) [snapback]498902[/snapback]</div>

I'd like to see a reference for that.
[/b]

I've seen many unchallenged claims in this thread, mostly regarding the damage the raising of livestock does to the environment, and how it's even responsible for global warming. Nobody felt the need to request references for them, but when an counter claim is made, suddenly references are required.

The need for pesticides and other chemicals to maintain our current crop production is something I've heard many times, just as I've also heard about the claims regarding the negative impacts of livestock. But since you demand citations, here's one from James Ridsdill-Smith:

Over the past 25 years the total world crop production has increased significantly. The global human population is expected to increase to 10 billion by the middle of this century. There will be a need for more food and fibre coming from less land, less water and using less labour. Vulnerability of crops to pests, weeds and diseases increases with increasing intensity of production. The overall global loss of crop production due to weeds, pests and diseases is estimated to be 42%, but if physical, biological or chemical means were not used to protect crops this would rise to 70%.
[/b]

[RobH]

There seem to be several characteristic comments so far. They are:

1. Meat production is sinful. Anyone who eats meat is an uncaring cretin.

2. Meat production is causing damage to our environment. If you really care for the environment, then you wouldn't eat meat.

3. It's a mixed bag. Meat has its cost, but so do the alternatives. We need to figure this out.

4. Eating meat may be bad, but no way am I going to change.

5. Humans are omnivores, and that includes meat. I enjoy meat, and intend to eat all of it that I want.

I guess I'm about a 2.5 on the above scale. Note that nobody actually stated #1, but some of the responses seem like a response to #1.

Meat production is a problem, but eliminating it is not practical for many people. What needs to happen is that we need to pay attention to the energy cost of food, just like we are beginning to pay attention to transportation and building efficiency.

Organic food production is accused of being land intensive. This ignores the enormous damage being done by conventional food production. The lose of topsoil is going to take land out of production. Conventional water usage is non-sustainable. Whether we call it organic, biodynamic, or some other name, food production is going to have to become more conserving of land and water resources.

The world has a growing population, and, more important, an even faster growing population of high consumers. Nature has a way of dealing with overpopulation. It's called a dieoff. When population exceeds the available resources, enough of the population dies until the remaining resources are adequate. When a partial dieoff doesn't reach equilibrium, then species extinction occurs.

Global warming is clearly going to wipe out many places where people live today. The displacement of those people will be dealt with in the traditional ways, such as war, starvation, disease, and polarization between the haves and the havenots. The level of intelligence applied to our consumption styles will determine just how difficult the future will be.

Back to the tread topic. Meat production is way less efficient in feeding people than, for example, soy production. Soy products are available that effectively displace meat in the diet. Personally, I think that the best health requires minimizing both meat and soy. But the choice is available, and reduced meat production would be better for the environment.

[F8L]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(RobH @ Aug 19 2007, 09:41 PM) [snapback]498983[/snapback]</div>

There seem to be several characteristic comments so far. They are:

1. Meat production is sinful. Anyone who eats meat is an uncaring cretin.

2. Meat production is causing damage to our environment. If you really care for the environment, then you wouldn't eat meat.

3. It's a mixed bag. Meat has its cost, but so do the alternatives. We need to figure this out.

4. Eating meat may be bad, but no way am I going to change.

5. Humans are omnivores, and that includes meat. I enjoy meat, and intend to eat all of it that I want.

I guess I'm about a 2.5 on the above scale. Note that nobody actually stated #1, but some of the responses seem like a response to #1.

Meat production is a problem, but eliminating it is not practical for many people. What needs to happen is that we need to pay attention to the energy cost of food, just like we are beginning to pay attention to transportation and building efficiency.

Organic food production is accused of being land intensive. This ignores the enormous damage being done by conventional food production. The lose of topsoil is going to take land out of production. Conventional water usage is non-sustainable. Whether we call it organic, biodynamic, or some other name, food production is going to have to become more conserving of land and water resources.

The world has a growing population, and, more important, an even faster growing population of high consumers. Nature has a way of dealing with overpopulation. It's called a dieoff. When population exceeds the available resources, enough of the population dies until the remaining resources are adequate. When a partial dieoff doesn't reach equilibrium, then species extinction occurs.

Global warming is clearly going to wipe out many places where people live today. The displacement of those people will be dealt with in the traditional ways, such as war, starvation, disease, and polarization between the haves and the havenots. The level of intelligence applied to our consumption styles will determine just how difficult the future will be.

Back to the tread topic. Meat production is way less efficient in feeding people than, for example, soy production. Soy products are available that effectively displace meat in the diet. Personally, I think that the best health requires minimizing both meat and soy. But the choice is available, and reduced meat production would be better for the environment.
[/b]

Nice post.

[Swanny1172]

What about meat I hunt, kill and put on my own dinner table?