Why driving a Prius is really not enough

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

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.

 

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".

 

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

 

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

I'd like to see a reference for that.

 

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

 

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

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.

 

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

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:

 

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.

 

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

Nice post.

 

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

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(mclieb @ 2007 Aug 19 12:27 PM) [snapback]498736[/snapback]</div>

Not full, exactly. It takes more effort to find them now than it used to.

 

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

Maybe some of us just don't buy into the claptrap that you are spewing.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Rae Vynn @ Aug 20 2007, 12:32 PM) [snapback]499173[/snapback]</div>

Venison is packed with protein, vitamins and minerals. Better yet, it's a meat free of antibiotics and synthetic hormones. What's more venison has a fraction of the fat found in beef. Surprisingly, a 3½ ounce serving of ground beef has 40 percent more calories, 223 percent more fat and 125 percent more cholesterol than the same amount of venison. Turkey and chicken have fewer calories and fat than venison, but venison has less cholesterol than both white meats.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(GeoDosch @ Aug 19 2007, 07:49 PM) [snapback]498928[/snapback]</div>

I didn't say required. I simply said that I'd like to see a reference. Jeez. Some people seem to be very sensitive and defensive about this topic. Perhaps that indicates some insecurity in their position. Or maybe it's just the personality of the poster.

Anyway, I have been trying to provide references for my claims. Thank you for your reference -- it's much easier to respond to the data than to just the claim.

First off, that reference only quotes (in an oblique way) the relative efficiency of organic vs. conventional crops. That ignores the much, much larger effect of the inefficiency of the beef production. What do you think the cows are eating? They are eating grain produced using those same methods. A lot of that grain. At a 54:1 inefficiency in protein production:

U.S. could feed 800 million people with grain that livestock eat, Cornell ecologist advises animal scientists

If we stopped producing beef, inherent in your scenario: "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.", then that grain -- that land, that water, and that energy would go to make crops for people to eat instead of cows. At ratios like 54:1, even losing a factor of two to organic farming (if that were really the case, which it isn't), would provide a huge payoff.

Second, here is a reference that counters the claim that organic yields are substantially different, showing 7.4 t/ha for conventional corn in Pennsylvania, vs. 7.7 t/ha for organic corn in Pennsylvania (you have to pick a place, since corn yields vary by a factor of four depending on the state):

Impacts of Organic Farming on the Efficiency of Energy Use in Agriculture

That same reference shows the vast energy and water use superiority of the organic crops.

Your reference is not necessarily wrong, since it says nothing directly about organic crops. It only refers to crops with no protection at all. It's not like the organic farmers are doing nothing about the pests! They're just not using pesticides.

In any case, your concern as a beef eater should not be a couple of loony vegetarians on some internet forum gently justifiying a possible change in lifestyle. You concern should be this:

Involuntary vegetarianism - possible lack of meat in the future

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(GeoDosch @ Aug 19 2007, 07:29 PM) [snapback]498924[/snapback]</div>

First off, as I mentioned in a previous post, it is not obvious that we have an inherent taste for meat. I and probably you were fed meat before we could even talk. If it is an acquired taste (like beer), we don't remember acquiring it. I used to be a devout beefitarian. Since I stopped not only have I lost the urge -- now the stuff smells rotten to me, even when fresh. This is not an uncommon experience among vegetarians.

Second, even if it is an inherent, driving urge, like say, sex, then does that mean that God (or Darwin, or whoever) meant us to have as much as we want? Whenever we want? Regardless of the impact on anyone and everyone else? Is that the way we should treat sex, for which there is unquestionably an inherent driving urge?

I'm sorry, but as humans we can make choices that animals usually cannot. Just because you like something or have a built in urge for that something, that does not mean that you cannot or should not make choices about it. Thank God (there he is again), that we are not bound by what it appears that we are "meant" to do.


<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Swanny1172 @ Aug 20 2007, 09:13 AM) [snapback]499152[/snapback]</div>

As far as the environment and feeding the planet are concerned, no problem.

The problem is that you cannot support the current beef consumption of, say, the United States that way. (I'm assuming that you are hunting in your local forest, as opposed to hunting at your local factory cow farm. )

 

The real problem with the "we were meant to..." argument is that it doesn't scale well at all. The earth wasn't "meant" to have 7 billion humans and a similar number of bovines. It's the sheer scale that makes this such a massive problem. We really need to figure out a better way. For some folks, giving up a certain thing is easy for other, it isn't. That's the trick. We need a viable solution that addresses the lifestyle/impact issues. It's obvious that we can't keep down the path we're on. It's so obviously unsustainable.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Rae Vynn @ Aug 20 2007, 12:17 PM) [snapback]499155[/snapback]</div>

Do you really think they are out fishing so their catch can be turned into 'fish meal'. It is used because it is a cheap byproduct of processing fish for human consumption. If there stopped being a demand for fish meal for livestock, it would probably be used for fertilizer. Either way, it's not going to have any major impact on how much the oceans are fished.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(madler @ Aug 20 2007, 01:28 PM) [snapback]499203[/snapback]</div>

Saying "I'd like to see a reference" implies that you don't believe the statement. That you didn't use the word "required" is splitting hairs. And it wasn't a case of being defensive about the topic. If you tell me you've never heard it said that chemicals are needed to sustain current food production, frankly I wouldn't believe it. And whether or not you agree with that concept, asking me to dig up a reference is what I don't appreciate.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(madler @ Aug 20 2007, 01:48 PM) [snapback]499211[/snapback]</div>

If we weren't meant to eat meat, why do we have incisors? You can tell whether an animal is herbivore, carnivore or omnivore by looking at its teeth. Humans are omnivores. That's also why humans have a gall bladder; to process the fat in meats. Horses and rabbits don't have gall bladders, because they are herbivores.

Need more proof? My sister's friend was a vegetarian, and when she had her first baby she fed the baby a vegetarian diet. The baby almost died of malnutrition, and the doctor chastised the mother for almost killing her baby. He said that while an adult can tolerate a wide range of diets, a baby needs meat in its diet to grow and thrive. To me, that is pretty good evidence that meat was an intended part of our diet.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(madler @ Aug 20 2007, 01:48 PM) [snapback]499211[/snapback]</div>

Are you suggesting that Darwin had some influence on what we are as people? I've got some shocking news for you: Darwin wrote about his observations on evolution; he didn't create evolution.

What gets me is how many of those spouting the need for a vegetarian/vegan diet put themselves so far above everyone else. There was a time when people were vegetarians for health reasons: they felt it was better for their body to eat that way. Then you started hearing from the vegetarians who felt it was wrong to kill animals for food. I always found that argument quite specious, since as I recall plants are living things too... or at least they were before someone ripped them out of the ground to eat them.

But now the vegetarians have a new drum to pound: it's bad for the environment. And the latest twist is "it causes global warming." It's like when the (present) government answers every criticism with "9/11", as if no further explanation is then needed.

The fact is, the human race does countless things that are bad for the environment. And for a group to look at that vast mosaic of activities, pick one (in this case, eating meat), and to declare "It's Wrong!", and anyone who doesn't agree is, in their mind, an insensitive, uncaring, uninformed cretin. To quote Monty Python, "This is a vegetarian restaurant only, we serve no animal flesh of any kind. We're not only proud of that; we're smug about it."

But what is so special about that one very specific thing? By the fact that this thread is titled: "Why driving a Prius is really not enough", I assume that the anti-meat faction is driving cars. But why? I don't think anyone could argue that raising livestock has a greater negative impact on the earth than cars. No only the fuel they use, but the emissions, and the raw materials that go into them, and the energy to process and assemble those materials. So why are you still driving? Yes, you bought a Prius to lessen the impact, but why not eliminate it? Get a job close to where you live (or vice-versa). Or move to the city; that's a far more efficient way for people to live, where they can better share resources, and don't have to drive everywhere they go. Someone here said "Just because you like something or have a built in urge for that something, that does not mean that you cannot or should not make choices about it." Yes, well stated. Oh, but wait, that was you telling me why I shouldn't eat meat. Why doesn't the same apply to driving? Why is driving a car okay, but eating meat is not okay. Both are choices. The way I see it, eating meat is more necessary than driving.

So when you've given up driving, and using electricity, and consuming goods that generate landfill waste, and every other activity that has some negative impact, then you can tell me what things I can and can't do. I doubt I'd listen, but at least I wouldn't think of you as a hippocrate.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Rae Vynn @ Aug 20 2007, 07:35 PM) [snapback]499421[/snapback]</div>

Since I never specified the age of her baby (child, toddler, etc.), it's amazing how you feel you're able to make the above statements. He was of an age to eat solid food. And perhaps the mother was stupid as you imply. All I know is that she was a vegetarian.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Rae Vynn @ Aug 20 2007, 07:35 PM) [snapback]499421[/snapback]</div>

What an incredible twisted logic that is. So if I have a cat that is fed food out of a box or can, and then it goes outside and kills and eats a mouse, has its biology miraculously changed? I don't think so, any more than the biology of humans has changed since they days of cavemen, when the did do all the things you mention above. The terms carnivore and omnivore have nothing to do with who killed the meat, or whether it was eaten cook or raw.

So while you try to (incorrectly) pick apart the semantics of my argument, I don't see that as any sort of rebuttal.