NationStates Jolt Archive

I wonder if the fact that this expert is a vegetarian has had any influence on his conclusions? The article also fails to mention his area of expertise but I doubt an economist is an expert on climatology.

"The 68-year-old Indian economist, who is a vegetarian, said diet change was important in reducing greenhouse gas emissions and environmental problems associated with rearing cattle and other animals.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080907/ts_afp/unfoodclimatewarmingindia_080907064950

So, will you take this so called experts unbiased (?) word for it and eat less meat?

Biased. Humans produce 3-5 % of all CO2, but animals aren't gonna make up the whole rest of that.

It's an accepted fact. Jeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeesus

What is?

It's an accepted fact. Jeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeesus

What's an accepted fact? He is not an expert on climatology?

Cutting back on meat will certainly reduce climate change as well as a host of other environmental damages (not to mention carry more than a few health benefits to boot).

However, eliminating meat is, paradoxically enough, also damaging to the environment. Animals serve a valuable role in efficient farming by consuming waste products from crops and other sources, effectively converting in to more food things that would have been otherwise wasted or otherwise disposed of (most likely burned). The guy doing this study would help the planet even more if he introduced some meat in to his own diet.

I guess that old adage about everything in moderation makes as much sense as ever...

I might cut down on animal products... Although I knew about this before, he's not the first person to make these statements. I don't get why more people don't know about the environmental benefits of vegetarianism (or at least only eating the food pyramid suggestion amounts of meat instead of steaks the size of toilet seats).

The problem is plant-animal disbalance - as rainforests are still being burned to make space for pastures - not meat-eating per se. I doubt US as a whole contributes more than 5% to GW in its animal and agriculture practices. It does contribute the most through oil burning, but just that.

Cutting back on meat will certainly reduce climate change

Only if humans cause Global Warming, which isn't certain.

Only if humans cause Global Warming, which isn't certain.

That's why I mentioned other environmental effects. Honestly, even without global warming there are plenty of unpleasant environmental damages caused by overproduction of meat, including water pollution, habitat destruction, antibiotic resistance, deforestation and desertification and the spread of various new diseases that emerge from animal vectors.

Meat production needs to be balanced, not eliminated, and I think that's one thing people forget in regard to any issue involving climate change.

Industrial farms produce more CO2 than meat animals just because of the tractors, harvesters and other farm machinery involved. They also are responsible for more nitrates and pesticides in the groundwater and oceans than well-maintained pastures.

A well-maintained pasture contains a variety of plants and animals which contribute more to biomass (sustainable fuel production) than single cropping (or housing, parking lots, stores and office buildings). It also contributes less to the depletion of the worlds oil supply and to the production of nitrate runoff which is a chief contributor to algal bloom in the oceans.

The real problem isn't too many meat animals, it's too many people.

being vegetarian is one of the many things that you can do to reduce your carbon footprint. It is not the only thing but it does help.

Only if humans cause Global Warming, which isn't certain.

Nothing in science is certain. However, you can get to the point where the chances of you being wrong are so slim that any opposition is inherently either borne from ignorance or irrationality. We've got that on subjects like evolution, heliocentricism, and, as you likely don't know, anthropogenic climate change.

what this guy doesn't look at is the CO2 emissions from B12 factories. B12 only comes from animal products. now you can get it from milk and eggs but 1 glass of milk and 1 egg only provides 10% of their daily value. meaning you need to eat 10 eggs or drink 10 glasses of milk or a combination there of(not to mention that would really increase the Co2 emissions from source animals). where as 1 chicken breast 8 ounces of beef or 1 slice of liver is more then capable of providing your daily B12.

So most vegetarians who are not depleting their B12 reserves have to take supplments and eat artificially fortified food. the fortification process is highly expensive and very Co2 intensive.

being vegetarian is one of the many things that you can do to reduce your carbon footprint. It is not the only thing but it does help.

Being a vegetarian does not reduce your carbon footprint. In point of fact, it contributes to increasing it. To produce enough vegetable matter (corn, wheat, soy, rice and beets as well as the more specialized "truck" like tomatoes, brocolli, squash, peppers etc) to feed the world requires machines and chemicals. These machines use petroleum. The chemicals, used as fertilizers and pesticides, require factories (unless, of course, you use organic fertilizers which are made from, guess what - bullshit).

The only thing that's going to reduce humanity's carbon footprint is for humanity to stop having so many kids.

what this guy doesn't look at is the CO2 emissions from B12 factories. B12 only comes from animal products. now you can get it from milk and eggs but 1 glass of milk and 1 egg only provides 10% of their daily value. meaning you need to eat 10 eggs or drink 10 glasses of milk or a combination there of(not to mention that would really increase the Co2 emissions from source animals). where as 1 chicken breast 8 ounces of beef or 1 slice of liver is more then capable of providing your daily B12.

So most vegetarians who are not depleting their B12 reserves have to take supplments and eat artificially fortified food. the fortification process is highly expensive and very Co2 intensive.
Do you have a link for this? I've been vegetarian nine years and I don't take B12 supplements or eat 10 eggs a day and I've never had a problem with a B12 deficit.
I've also looked at the labels of B12 supplements and noticed that you hardly need any to get by. Hell, bread and cereal have more than enough B12 in them half the time.

I wonder if the fact that this expert is a vegetarian has had any influence on his conclusions? The article also fails to mention his area of expertise but I doubt an economist is an expert on climatology.

"The 68-year-old Indian economist, who is a vegetarian, said diet change was important in reducing greenhouse gas emissions and environmental problems associated with rearing cattle and other animals.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080907/ts_afp/unfoodclimatewarmingindia_080907064950

So, will you take this so called experts unbiased (?) word for it and eat less meat?

Gee I wonder if he is willing to not worship cows in the light they are damaging the enviroment. I say slaughter all the wayward cows in India first.

The only thing that's going to reduce humanity's carbon footprint is for humanity to stop having so many kids.
But it's not OUR duty to do so. It's not the West. Actually, the West barely has 2 kids per family, usually less. Rather, it's the Africa and some parts of South America and Asia that are the problem.

What we should do is fight against population growth in undeveloped nations, because they're the ones who make the impact, and, unlike us, they don't give a bloody damn about the environment. So far certain issues are keeping them down, but should the aid continue, they'll lose these regulatory mechanisms - yet continue to have a dozen kids per family.

But it's not OUR duty to do so. It's not the West. Actually, the West barely has 2 kids per family, usually less. Rather, it's the Africa and some parts of South America and Asia that are the problem.

What we should do is fight against population growth in undeveloped nations, because they're the ones who make the impact, and, unlike us, they don't give a bloody damn about the environment.
Because one of us uses at least 10 times the resources that the average African uses.

Because one of us uses at least 10 times the resources that the average African uses.
Yet. Aid will make them developed, and guess what, they'll use as much if not more resources.

And it's not necessarily so, really. At least we don't burn down rainforests to produce new agricultural land as we've used up and abandoned the old plantations, dooming once fertile soil to turn into a desert with no chance of recovery.

But it's not OUR duty to do so. It's not the West. Actually, the West barely has 2 kids per family, usually less. Rather, it's the Africa and some parts of South America and Asia that are the problem.

What we should do is fight against population growth in undeveloped nations, because they're the ones who make the impact, and, unlike us, they don't give a bloody damn about the environment. So far certain issues are keeping them down, but should the aid continue, they'll lose these regulatory mechanisms - yet continue to have a dozen kids per family.

Yes, it is not the west crapping out all these new humans. You are also correct in stating that enviromentalism is really a western thing. I suggest people go to China or Africa or most of the middle east. Pollution is out of control.

Nature does have a way of correcting over population. Sometimes I wonder if we should just let nature take it's course. However that isn't very pc.

Yet. Aid will make them developed, and guess what, they'll use as much if not more resources.

In India and China you have an argument and the environment is something that's becoming an issue in those countries. Nobody gives a shit about Africa though so it'll probably stay the way it is (or get worse) for quite a while.

But the fact of the matter is that if we go about being just as wasteful and terrible on the environment as developing economies instead of trying to lead by a better example, we'll just make things that much worse.

And it's not necessarily so, really. At least we don't burn down rainforests to produce new agricultural land as we've used up and abandoned old land, letting it turn into a desert with no chance of recovery.
That's Brazil. And I'm not saying that their use of land and rainforest (incidentally, they do this to raise cattle) is good. Actually, the fact that most of the rainforest slash and burning is to raise cattle sort of emphasizes the negative effect of meat consumption on the environment.

Also, I wouldn't call rainforest soil fertile. Usually it's really deprived of nutrients, which is why growing on these lands doesn't work.

Do you have a link for this? I've been vegetarian nine years and I don't take B12 supplements or eat 10 eggs a day and I've never had a problem with a B12 deficit.
I've also looked at the labels of B12 supplements and noticed that you hardly need any to get by. Hell, bread and cereal have more than enough B12 in them half the time.

the thing with B12 is it stores in your liver. it takes years before the deficiency manifest itself
there is one source http://www.vegsoc.org/info/b12.html
Vitamin B12 is excreted in the bile and is effectively reabsorbed. This is known as enterohepatic circulation. The amount of B12 excreted in the bile can vary from 1 to 10ug (micrograms) a day. People on diets low in B12, including vegans and some vegetarians, may be obtaining more B12 from reabsorption than from dietary sources. Reabsorption is the reason it can take over 20 years for deficiency disease to develop in people changing to diets absent in B12.

the thing with B12 is it stores in your liver. it takes years before the deficiency manifest itself
there is one source http://www.vegsoc.org/info/b12.htm
404 - not found

And the stuff you quoted didn't say anything at all about having to eat 10 eggs a day... and the fact that it only says "some vegetarians" suffer from this suggests that 10 eggs a day is overkill otherwise it would be "most vegetarians".

Being a vegetarian does not reduce your carbon footprint. In point of fact, it contributes to increasing it. To produce enough vegetable matter (corn, wheat, soy, rice and beets as well as the more specialized "truck" like tomatoes, brocolli, squash, peppers etc) to feed the world requires machines and chemicals. These machines use petroleum. The chemicals, used as fertilizers and pesticides, require factories (unless, of course, you use organic fertilizers which are made from, guess what - bullshit).

The only thing that's going to reduce humanity's carbon footprint is for humanity to stop having so many kids.

Yes, it does. What do you think those livestock eat? while it may take a lot of CO2 to sustain a vegetarian with, for example, cattle you need to transport insane amounts of food to them until they are ready to eat. While ideally there would be sustainable, healthy farming everywhere as to circumvent this problem to many people want to eat meat for these type of practices to be the norm.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080826/ts_afp/lifestylegermanyclimateagriculture
http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/06/06/business/greencol07.php
http://imparo.wordpress.com/2007/07/19/vegetarianism-vs-meat-eating-and-global-warming/
http://www.terradaily.com/2007/080826145712.1l5ntekw.html

I already don't eat meat. And the expert is quite correct. A vegetarian diet is far less carbon-intensive than a carnivorous one. Anyone who denies it is probably the same sort of person who denies the wretchedness of his/her disgusting flesh-eating habit.

404 - not found

And the stuff you quoted didn't say anything at all about having to eat 10 eggs a day... and the fact that it only says "some vegetarians" suffer from this suggests that 10 eggs a day is overkill otherwise it would be "most vegetarians".

my bad left off the L in html. should work now.

But it's not OUR duty to do so. It's not the West. Actually, the West barely has 2 kids per family, usually less. Rather, it's the Africa and some parts of South America and Asia that are the problem.

What we should do is fight against population growth in undeveloped nations, because they're the ones who make the impact, and, unlike us, they don't give a bloody damn about the environment. So far certain issues are keeping them down, but should the aid continue, they'll lose these regulatory mechanisms - yet continue to have a dozen kids per family.

CO2 Emissions: CO2 emissions per capita (source: WRI)
Units: Metric tons of carbon dioxide per person

2002 Data
Asia (excluding Middle East) 2.32
Central America & Caribbean 3.07
Europe 8.40
Middle East & North Africa 4.02
North America 19.59
Oceania 12.18
South America 2.19
Sub-Saharan Africa 0.83
Developed Countries 11.12
Developing Countries 1.98

http://earthtrends.wri.org/searchable_db/index.php?action=select_countries&theme=3&variable_ID=466

I wonder if the fact that this expert is a vegetarian has had any influence on his conclusions? The article also fails to mention his area of expertise but I doubt an economist is an expert on climatology.

"The 68-year-old Indian economist, who is a vegetarian, said diet change was important in reducing greenhouse gas emissions and environmental problems associated with rearing cattle and other animals.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080907/ts_afp/unfoodclimatewarmingindia_080907064950

So, will you take this so called experts unbiased (?) word for it and eat less meat?

Oh, this is amusing on so many levels.

First, you claim to discredit Dr. Pachauri as biased because he doesn't eat meat. Of course, if he did eat meat, you'd call him a hypocrite. Nice Catch-22. Your position is even more ridiculous because part of the reason the man is a vegetarian is because of his beliefs on the impact meat has on the climate. So he "walks the talk."

Second, since when to you listen to climatologists? My understanding is that your view of the Global Climate Crisis flies in the face of overwhelming consensus of climatologists.

Third, Dr. Pachauri is Chair of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and has been since 2002. Perhaps he might know a thing or to about climate change -- but you didn't really care what his credential were did you?

Finally, Dr. Pachauri isn't claiming we all have to give up meat. Just cut back a little -- starting with maybe one day a week without meat. This is one of many ideas he has about small lifestyle changes we could make that cumulatively would have a major impact in solving the climate change crisis.

Get a grip.

In India and China you have an argument and the environment is something that's becoming an issue in those countries.
Like painting pollution-ruined mountain slopes green (using toxic paint).

China is about to become the world prime polluter, if it hasn't yet.


But the fact of the matter is that if we go about being just as wasteful and terrible on the environment as developing economies instead of trying to lead by a better example, we'll just make things that much worse.

But we are trying to set a good example. The West is cutting down on pollution, not as fast as it can, but it is. Others aren't.

And helping countries like Brazil to reproduce more and expand their environment-destroying economy is the worst possible thing we can do.


Actually, the fact that most of the rainforest slash and burning is to raise cattle sort of emphasizes the negative effect of meat consumption on the environment.
No, it's the negative effect of careless practices. The West produces much meat without really using a lot of land. Yes, it's sometimes cruel to the animals, but that's a separate issue. What's more important is that the environmental footprint is minimized through high-yield crops, sustainable land use, and, lately, reuse of byproducts such as methane.


Also, I wouldn't call rainforest soil fertile. Usually it's really deprived of nutrients, which is why growing on these lands doesn't work.
Well, probably so, fertility doesn't matter much really. What matters is that the rainforests provide a massive, disproportionally dominating amount of carbon dioxide absorption and oxygen release, and are critical to keeping Earth human-habitable.

I wonder if the fact that this expert is a vegetarian has had any influence on his conclusions? The article also fails to mention his area of expertise but I doubt an economist is an expert on climatology.

"The 68-year-old Indian economist, who is a vegetarian, said diet change was important in reducing greenhouse gas emissions and environmental problems associated with rearing cattle and other animals.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080907/ts_afp/unfoodclimatewarmingindia_080907064950

So, will you take this so called experts unbiased (?) word for it and eat less meat?
Your unbridled, unfounded and rather ignorant disdain for anything connected to the UN aside, I don't have to take his word for it. There's nothing new here.

Good advice is all he offered...

Nature does have a way of correcting over population. Sometimes I wonder if we should just let nature take it's course.
Indeed, it does have a way of controlling population. Many ways, actually. Earth is far more resilient than most think. We can nuke it all over, and it will deal. It will just no longer be a good place for humans.

So should we let the nature take its way? Sometimes, but most of all we should rather try to self-regulate ourselves. We can let the Brazilians and others burn down all the rainforests, and leave the Earth without CO2 recycling and oxygen regeneration. And the nature will correct that - most humans, who can't afford to own and maintain artificial oxygen extractors, will die. The need for agriculture will drop massively, cattle farming will disappear as cattle will die out as well, and in a few hundred million years Earth will restore its forests and environment.

my bad left off the L in html. should work now.
Ok. It says that people aged 15+ need 1.5 micrograms of B12 a day. One cup of milk has 0.9 micrograms of B12. Therefore, you need about 1.5 cups of milk, which is probably about one glass. Not 10.
One 325mL glass of soy milk has 70% of the required B12.

Yes, it does. What do you think those livestock eat? while it may take a lot of CO2 to sustain a vegetarian with, for example, cattle you need to transport insane amounts of food to them until they are ready to eat. While ideally there would be sustainable, healthy farming everywhere as to circumvent this problem to many people want to eat meat for these type of practices to be the norm.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080826/ts_afp/lifestylegermanyclimateagriculture
http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/06/06/business/greencol07.php
http://imparo.wordpress.com/2007/07/19/vegetarianism-vs-meat-eating-and-global-warming/
http://www.terradaily.com/2007/080826145712.1l5ntekw.html

http://www.americangrassfed.org/pdf/articles/Beef_and_dairy.pdf

http://www.americangrassfed.org/pdf/articles/Beef_and_dairy.pdf
Did you notice the part of the article that mentions that this is rarely ever done? Cows are generally grain fed, not grass fed in the developed world.

http://www.americangrassfed.org/pdf/articles/Beef_and_dairy.pdf

And? It says that cows do their part for an ecosystem when good farming practices are being used, as I said. They say nothing to their benifit when they are raised in factor farms. In fact it backs up my claim about the bad farming practices we have now: "The way we do cows today, the confinement system, is definitely bad for the environment. It could only be thought of by idiots. I could understand why people would be appalled," says Sally Fallon, president of the Weston A. Price Foundation, a D.C. nonprofit dedicated to the preservation of traditional foods, including meat and dairy. So you supported me. Good job.

I already don't eat meat. And the expert is quite correct. A vegetarian diet is far less carbon-intensive than a carnivorous one. Anyone who denies it is probably the same sort of person who denies the wretchedness of his/her disgusting flesh-eating habit.

I wonder what would happen if we switched over to genetically engineered/in-vitro meat for the vast majority of our meat supply rather than harvesting it from living animals. Think that would reduce carbon emissions by a similar rate without necessarily removing meat from our diets altogether? (Best part about this kind of meat is it could be altered in many nutritionally adding ways without the sheer expense of traditional fortification processes.)

It's what we'll probably end up doing. Technology is a tool, it can be used for evil or for good, and better technology can be used to partially fix the damages from of the old technology.

Yes, it is not the west crapping out all these new humans. You are also correct in stating that enviromentalism is really a western thing. I suggest people go to China or Africa or most of the middle east. Pollution is out of control.

Nature does have a way of correcting over population. Sometimes I wonder if we should just let nature take it's course. However that isn't very pc.

Old fashion warfare a la WW II also helps to reduce world population.:(

Your unbridled, unfounded and rather ignorant disdain for anything connected to the UN aside, I don't have to take his word for it. There's nothing new here.

Good advice is all he offered...

Maybe when the UN does something worthwhile and useful it will earn some of my respect. Until then, my disdain shall remain. :eek: Oh, and that disdain is well founded.

Old fashion warfare a la WW II also helps to reduce world population.:(

So now you're advocating genocide?

So now you're advocating genocide?

Perhaps you missed the sarcasm in my remark. :(

Maybe when the UN does something worthwhile and useful it will earn some of my respect. Until then, my disdain shall remain. :eek: Oh, and that disdain is well founded.

What about all the charity work it's done via UNICEF, WHO and other such agencies what about UNFICYP? The Suez Crisis? MINUGUA? MINURSO? ECOMOG? It does have successes, it's failures were just big, but if it wasn't there the other conflicts would have been bigger and there would be even less peace and stability in the world.

What about all the charity work it's done via UNICEF, WHO and other such agencies what about UNFICYP?
Well, yes. That's the problem. The planet has a limited capacity, for probably 2-3 billion people to live decent lives. "Charity" is another word for helping to maintain a high population of your species, not really a thing good for the world.

Maybe when the UN does something worthwhile and useful it will earn some of my respect. Until then, my disdain shall remain. :eek: Oh, and that disdain is well founded.

Strange then how you

a) Have been unable to formulate any well-founded criticism as recently as this thread (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=564470&page=3), where your description of the biggest failure of the UN consisted of the names of various countries.

b) Ignore most of what the different organizations under the UN umbrella actually does on a daily basis, and fail to explain how for example the International Court of Justice, the World Health Organization, the United Nations High Council for Refugees, the Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, the UN Development Programme or the United Nations Children's Fund are not doing anything which could be considered "worthwhile".

c) Care enough to make this thread focusing on what Pachauri, working for the UN, is advising, when you could rather attack the science behind his statements. But that would be too much to ask, I guess.

Well, yes. That's the problem. The planet has a limited capacity, for probably 2-3 billion people to live decent lives. "Charity" is another word for helping to maintain a high population of your species, not really a thing good for the world.

How Malthusian, his theories are falsified once you add education to the mix. Also, if we developed sustainable living habits many more could live on this Earth. So it's really us North Americans that should cut back, not the Africans.

Also, if we developed sustainable living habits many more could live on this Earth. So it's really us North Americans that should cut back, not the Africans.
We don't burn down rainforests, at least. And actually it's only us who possibly have a chance to develop sustainable living technologies.

We don't burn down rainforests, at least. And actually it's only us who possibly have a chance to develop sustainable living technologies.

We demand wood from forests to accommodate our lives. Also we, despite having the capability to, do not live sustainably. They do.

We demand wood from forests to accommodate our lives. Also we, despite having the capability to, do not live sustainably. They do.
Only the least developed, "fifth world" tribes. All others have already jumped on the bandwagon of gas guzzling.

We don't burn down rainforests, at least. And actually it's only us who possibly have a chance to develop sustainable living technologies.
We're the ones who aren't living sustainably. We need to develop technologies to live sustainably and have the same comforts we enjoy.

Further, when someone suggests something like "decreasing meat consumption makes for more sustainable living" everyone gets all pissy. Like, this isn't a new technology, it's just consuming less wasteful food.

And really, pointing fingers going "well, they're becoming as wasteful as we are!" isn't helping anything.

Only the least developed, "fifth world" tribes. All others have already jumped on the bandwagon of gas guzzling.

Judging from my earlier stats they haven't to the extent that we have.

Only the least developed, "fifth world" tribes. All others have already jumped on the bandwagon of gas guzzling.

I'm not sure why you've tried to turn this into a debate about whether "the West is ebil."

That has nothing to do with Dr. Pachauri said, nothing to do with this thread, and next to nothing to do with the subject of climate change.

The West is making some progress in protecting the environment and prevent climate change -- more than much of the rest of the world. That doesn't mean that the West isn't contributing to environmental degredation and climate change or that the West can't or shouldn't do more to fight those challenges.

Judging from my earlier stats they haven't to the extent that we have.
It's just a matter of time. They're taking more gas by the year. And they drive ultra-dirty age-old vehicles that would be a disgrace for our junkyards.


We need to develop technologies to live sustainably and have the same comforts we enjoy.
It won't work like Get Out Of Jail Free Card. Some comforts will have to be sacrificed. But, we can, and need to develop these technologies. There's some, though not enough, work on it in progress.

I wonder what would happen if we switched over to genetically engineered/in-vitro meat for the vast majority of our meat supply rather than harvesting it from living animals.

That strikes me as such a waste of time, resources and research to avoid not doing something.

It won't work like Get Out Of Jail Free Card. Some comforts will have to be sacrificed. But, we can, and need to develop these technologies. There's some, though not enough, work on it in progress.

And that's what this thread was about, the UN expert said that meat was one of those luxuries that need to be sacrificed and so far no Westerners (aka the people of this forum) will cut back. Telling.

Being a vegetarian does not reduce your carbon footprint. In point of fact, it contributes to increasing it. To produce enough vegetable matter (corn, wheat, soy, rice and beets as well as the more specialized "truck" like tomatoes, brocolli, squash, peppers etc) to feed the world requires machines and chemicals. These machines use petroleum. The chemicals, used as fertilizers and pesticides, require factories (unless, of course, you use organic fertilizers which are made from, guess what - bullshit).

The only thing that's going to reduce humanity's carbon footprint is for humanity to stop having so many kids.

You're ignoring the fact that on the whole, vegetable matter is far more efficient with energy. So while some fool trying to convince us that eating plants is bad for the environment would love to point out that industrial farms output more CO2 than a pasture would, they conveniently ignore the fact that the farm's energy output for human consumption is vastly greater than that from meat. Granted, even if we all ate vegetables, there would still be many environmental problems, but it does help.

We demand wood from forests to accommodate our lives. Also we, despite having the capability to, do not live sustainably. They do.

Wood is a renewable product, just like any other agricultural product. Just look at all the pine wood forests growing in NW Louisiana and other places. The lumber companies come in and clear cut, then replant. Paper companies own a lot of land in this country.

And that's what this thread was about, the UN expert said that meat was one of those luxuries that need to be sacrificed
And he would need to expend more effort than his age permits in order to be more wrong.



This is one thing that can be solved through technology. Our stomachs aren't infinite.

It's just a matter of time. They're taking more gas by the year. And they drive ultra-dirty age-old vehicles that would be a disgrace for our junkyards.


Source? Because when I looked I found:
Climate and Atmosphere — CO2 Emissions: CO2 emissions per capita (source: WRI)
Units: Metric tons of carbon dioxide per person

For Africa:
2002 2001 2000 1999 1998 1997 1996 1995 1994 1993 1992

0.83 0.82 0.83 0.84 0.85 0.88 0.90 0.90 0.89 0.90 0.87

Wood is a renewable product, just like any other agricultural product. Just look at all the pine wood forests growing in NW Louisiana and other places. The lumber companies come in and clear cut, then replant. Paper companies own a lot of land in this country.

Yes, but we need it all too quickly and aren't adhering to proper practices and are using to much CO2 while removing to much forest to really be sustainable.

Yes, but we need it all too quickly and aren't adhering to proper practices and are using to much CO2 while removing to much forest to really be sustainable.
But we can fix it. We know the way. Takes just a will to do it.

And we still can be sustainable, if we keep strict world population quotas.

I'm not sure why you've tried to turn this into a debate about whether "the West is ebil."

You did not see his/her location field, did you?

"Location: Use appropriate tackle and trolling methods that match the species you seek, and you should more than double your trolling results."

But we can fix it. We know the way. Takes just a will to do it.


Yes, and this thread is an example of how when someone suggests a way of doing that they are resented mocked and people refuse do what they say.
And it's more the living habits of the West that are creating the problem over the 3rd world's population.

Judging from my earlier stats they haven't to the extent that we have.

They won't be far behind when the Henry Ford of India gets his plant up and running. That price means millions of new cars for much less wealthy people.
For just $2,500.00 you can get this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7UCwUqterV4&NR=1 if they get the plant built.

I'm not sure why you've tried to turn this into a debate about whether "the West is ebil."

Someone always does that. I'm surprised no one has brought the ebil Dear Leader into it yet. :eek2:

They won't be far behind when the Henry Ford of India gets his plant up and running. That price means millions of new cars for much less wealthy people.
For just $2,500.00 you can get this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7UCwUqterV4&NR=1 if they get the plant built.

That's nice? It doesn't change that the West/china/India and not Africa is the problem.

But we can fix it. We know the way. Takes just a will to do it.

And we still can be sustainable, if we keep strict world population quotas.

So are you proposing that all countries pass a law like China has that only allows you to have one child? Or, are you proposing sanctions such as no tax credits or free school for a second, third, or fourth child? Just how do you propose to "keep strict world population quotas?

And it's more the living habits of the West that are creating the problem over the 3rd world's population.

http://www.garryconn.com/images/BullShit.gif

The overpopulation of third world countries takes up enormous amounts of energy. Other countries have to use energy to grow food supplies, transport food and medical supplies, and distribute those supplies to prevent disease and starvation. So, don't tell me that overpopulation does not contribute to the problem.

Utter piffle. As other posters have pointed out, to produce enough vegetables to feed the world requires fertilisers and machinery, whose production and usage requires substantial C02 emission. Wouldn't help substantially, if at all.

After seeing this nonsense suggestion, I reckon even I could probably qualify as an "expert". I'm writing to the UN to see if I can get support from the IPCC for my proposal that people be required to breathe 25% less. Air analysis machines would be installed in everyone's houses and workplaces, and anyone caught breathing too much would be given the death penalty.

So are you proposing that all countries pass a law like China has that only allows you to have one child? Or, are you proposing sanctions such as no tax credits or free school for a second, third, or fourth child? Just how do you propose to "keep strict world population quotas?
Just a coalition of US, EU, China and Russia should be enough to figure out the proper quotas for each nations and enforce them. Higher quotas for environmentally responsible countries with low pop density, lower quotas for ones with high pop density, further lower for environmentally irresponsible ones.

Of course, blanket bans like "one child only!" are silly, it should be worked out using economical leverage. Say, reproduction rewards in quality nations with space to grow, but reproduction taxes in less effective, less responsible, or space-constrained nations. Of course, each working it out on their own, just as long as they meet their quota.

That's nice? It doesn't change that the West/china/India and not Africa is the problem.

While Africa itself is not the problem, Africa does contribute to the problem just like the rest of the world. Nice of you to leave out Asia (other than China) and the middle east. :rolleyes:

I just noticed from the poll that no one has been convinced to stop eating meat because of this so called way to solve the problem. Not one person so far.

Just a coalition of US, EU, China and Russia should be enough to figure out the proper quotas for each nations and enforce them. Higher quotas for environmentally responsible countries with low pop density, lower quotas for ones with high pop density, further lower for environmentally irresponsible ones.

Of course, blanket bans like "one child only!" are silly, it should be worked out using economical leverage. Say, reproduction rewards in quality nations with space to grow, but reproduction taxes in less effective, less responsible, or space-constrained nations. Of course, each working it out on their own, just as long as they meet their quota.

So much for a free and democratic society. :(

Just a coalition of US, EU, China and Russia should be enough to figure out the proper quotas for each nations and enforce them. Higher quotas for environmentally responsible countries with low pop density, lower quotas for ones with high pop density, further lower for environmentally irresponsible ones.

Of course, blanket bans like "one child only!" are silly, it should be worked out using economical leverage. Say, reproduction rewards in quality nations with space to grow, but reproduction taxes in less effective, less responsible, or space-constrained nations. Of course, each working it out on their own, just as long as they meet their quota.

All good in theory, but people don't act rationally, and often have children they can't afford even as it is. When these reproduction taxes threw people into poverty there would no doubt be an intense media and popular backlash against the policy and demand for help for the poor. In China, where there's no free press or respect for popular opinion thats all very well, but in democracies I doubt it'd hold. Thats of course presuming you get the US, EU, China and Russia to agree on each others quotas and to cooperate in ensuring people keep to their quotas.

Utter piffle. As other posters have pointed out, to produce enough vegetables to feed the world requires fertilisers and machinery, whose production and usage requires substantial C02 emission. Wouldn't help substantially, if at all.

After seeing this nonsense suggestion, I reckon even I could probably qualify as an "expert". I'm writing to the UN to see if I can get support from the IPCC for my proposal that people be required to breathe 25% less. Air analysis machines would be installed in everyone's houses and workplaces, and anyone caught breathing too much would be given the death penalty.

And as I've pointed out on the last page (in a better explanation), that's false. Plants are far more efficient in energy output than meat.

Hate the IPCC much? Just because you disagree with what the IPCC says doesn't mean you need to act like you've had a zombie eat your brains.

And we still can be sustainable, if we keep strict world population quotas.

You do know that the countries that refuse to abide by it will gain utter dominance in the world economy, right? The thing is, you cannot stop growth; stopping growth is tantamount to a death sentence because it inevitably means those who continue to grow will eventually outpace you and overwhelm you. Population growth naturally slows with economic development, but any population that allows its growth to slow too much will bring about its own demise. Japan and Russia are both good examples of economies that may eventually implode from lack of a fresh labor force.

The only means of making growth sustainable is growth itself; anything else will invariably lead to the destruction and dispersal of a given culture or even outright extinction. You need to constantly increase your population, your GDP and your life expectancy in order to remain competitive and to defend the resources and technological gains you've made.

Cutting down on mass pig farms at least'll reduce the environmental impacts. If you've ever passed by even from a mile off you'll know what I mean.

Cutting down on mass pig farms at least'll reduce the environmental impacts. If you've ever passed by even from a mile off you'll know what I mean.

...far too well. There's a very good reason why you keep your air conditioning on internal air circulation and windows up in certain parts of farm country.

You do know that the countries that refuse to abide by it will gain utter dominance in the world economy, right?
CBU-87. That's what CBU-87 is for.


There's always a way if the decision is made by the king of the hill.

CBU-87. That's what CBU-87 is for.

There's always a way if the decision is made by the king of the hill.

Unless, of course, those countries can retaliate in kind.

Do you think the US would seriously do such a thing? If we were smart, we'd encourage even more population growth to utterly dominate world markets and become the only source of fresh workers for the global economy, completely subjecting the increasingly depopulated Europe to our economic rule. Any country that imposed such a depopulation policy would immediately feel the pressure as others moved in to consume the resources and economic markets they left behind.

Nobody except those whose populations were similarly young and growing would be able to oppose us.

Old news, actually. I'm not a vegetarian, but it's simply healthier to cut down on your meat consumption when you're a grownup.

Unless, of course, those countries can retaliate in kind.
That's why it has to be a US-EU-China-Russia coalition. Total control of worldwide nuclear arsenal, advanced chemical and biological technologies, undefeatable conventional forces.

And, it will be, if it happens. Without US nothing worldwide can happen anyway; China does it already; Russia would get a massive quota; EU is obsessed with regulation and will jump on any new policing bandwagon.


Do you think the US would seriously do such a thing? If we were smart, we'd encourage even more population growth to utterly dominate world markets and become the only source of fresh workers for the global economy, completely subjecting the increasingly depopulated Europe to our economic rule.
That's why the quotas would be nation-specific - high for US, low for Brazil.

Being a source of workers doesn't really pay. You have to spend money educating them. It rather pays to be a workforce importer, receiving fully grown-up and educated people, struggling to become your citizens.




Thinking of how national evil can work... quite fun.

I just noticed from the poll that no one has been convinced to stop eating meat because of this so called way to solve the problem. Not one person so far.

I should have known someone would do it as soon as I pointed it out. Guess I should have made it a public poll. :$

It won't work like Get Out Of Jail Free Card. Some comforts will have to be sacrificed. But, we can, and need to develop these technologies. There's some, though not enough, work on it in progress.
Then why have you turned this into a bitch fest about the third world and it's horribly unsustainable lifestyle when you admit that ours isn't?

That strikes me as such a waste of time, resources and research to avoid not doing something.

Why?

No, seriously, why? It would give us an alternative that could let us eat meat without requiring livestock. I'm not seeing a downside.

Why?

No, seriously, why? It would give us an alternative that could let us eat meat without requiring livestock. I'm not seeing a downside.
It's unnecessary and somewhat wasteful. Instead of spending research dollars on something useful, we'd be spending money on something that's pretty useless.

I should have known someone would do it as soon as I pointed it out. Guess I should have made it a public poll. :$
Make that two people.

It's unnecessary and somewhat wasteful. Instead of spending research dollars on something useful, we'd be spending money on something that's pretty useless.
How is it useless?

How is it useless?
Because we already have high protein foods that just you know, grow out of the ground and are perfectly delicious?

Because we already have high protein foods that just you know, grow out of the ground that are perfectly delicious?
You're forgetting that a modern man drinks. And that requires a supply of some vitamins and minerals to mitigate, best found in beef.

Plus, which of these is as delicious as nice thin stakes of top-quality, freshly slaughtered, thoroughly ground, farm-grown beef?

Because we already have high protein foods that just you know, grow out of the ground and are perfectly delicious?

No we don't.

Besides, the whole point is not to just replace livestock meat with this kind of meat, but to broaden our diet with meat that has a much better range of nutrients. Imagine a steak with lots of vitamin C, for example.

You're never going to get people to stop eating meat completely. So the way I see it, it's worth exploring, at the very least. (It's already being explored, in fact. )

You're forgetting that a modern man drinks. And that requires a supply of some vitamins and minerals to mitigate, best found in beef.

I drink and don't eat meat and guess what? I'm perfectly alright. I also know several other people who drink and don't eat red meat... what vitamins and minerals are in beef exactly?

Plus, which of these is as delicious as nice thin stakes of top-quality, freshly slaughtered, thoroughly ground, farm-grown beef?
As delicious? I'd say that they tend to be much more delicious since I don't find beef delicious at all.

No we don't.

Yes we do. Lentils, chickpeas, pinto beans, kidney beans, black beans... all with loads of protein and delicious when cooked well. :)

Besides, the whole point is not to just replace livestock meat with this kind of meat, but to broaden our diet with meat that has a much better range of nutrients. Imagine a steak with lots of vitamin C, for example.

Why do that when you have legumes and veggies?

You're never going to get people to stop eating meat completely. So the way I see it, it's worth exploring, at the very least. (It's already being explored, in fact. )

And I'm saying it's a waste of resources. I'm not expecting everyone to quit eating meat, but it would be great if everyone who does eat it cut down. I mean, if people ate the 2-3 servings like on the food pyramid (minding what a serving size actually is) instead of the 6-10 servings many do now and maybe took a day off eating meat every now and then, we'd be much better off.

I drink and don't eat meat and guess what? I'm perfectly alright.
You just don't drink enough.


I also know several other people who drink and don't eat red meat... what vitamins and minerals are in beef exactly?
A whole load. Basically, all the stuff you find in grass, only concentrated.
I forgot the source, but I've read about that part with beef being particularly good in mitigating some of the alcohol effects.


As delicious? I'd say that they tend to be much more delicious since I don't find beef delicious at all.
And your alternative is soylent?

Oh, I'm fully aware of the science behind sustainability of meat, hence why what I talked about before is worth research, to find out if it's more sustainable.

Also, you're forgetting one thing: subjectivity of taste.

I can't stand most kinds of beans, for example, and neither can a lot of other people. Your logic is based upon your own tastes. Not everyone can stand a vegetarian diet; I know I can't. That doesn't mean I don't eat vegetables--I eat quite a lot--but I do like some meat in my diet and I'm not about to cut it out entirely.

You just don't drink enough.
Honey, I could probably drink you under the table.

A whole load. Basically, all the stuff you find in grass, only concentrated.
I forgot the source, but I've read about that part with beef being particularly good in mitigating some of the alcohol effects.
Nah, starch is the winner when it comes to post drinking foods. Potatoes and bagels ftw.

And your alternative is soylent?
I didn't say a thing about soy. There are other legumes that are quite delicious. If we're leaving the high protein foods aside, fruits and veggies are also delicious.

Honey, I could probably drink you under the table.
So you're an alcoholic.


I didn't say a thing about soy. There are other legumes that are quite delicious.
Not much different, too.

Oh, I'm fully aware of the science behind sustainability of meat, hence why what I talked about before is worth research, to find out if it's more sustainable.

Also, you're forgetting one thing: subjectivity of taste.

I can't stand most kinds of beans, for example, and neither can a lot of other people. Your logic is based upon your own tastes. Not everyone can stand a vegetarian diet; I know I can't. That doesn't mean I don't eat vegetables--I eat quite a lot--but I do like some meat in my diet and I'm not about to cut it out entirely.
What kinds of beans have you had?

And I never said that everyone should cut meat out of their diets or even that eating meat was altogether unsustainable. I said that eating meat in the quantities most people eat it (especially in North America) is unsustainable. If people ate meat in sensible quantities instead of gorging themselves on it, animals could probably be raised in a sustainable manner without making meat in a vat.

So you're an alcoholic.
No. You just come off as a person who can't hold their booze.

Not much different, too.
Totally not true. I'd like to see you make hummus out of soybeans.

What kinds of beans have you had?
Lots of different kinds, from the types you mentioned, to things like lima beans, string beans, etc.

And I never said that everyone should cut meat out of their diets or even that eating meat was altogether unsustainable. I said that eating meat in the quantities most people eat it (especially in North America) is unsustainable. If people ate meat in sensible quantities instead of gorging themselves on it, animals could probably be raised in a sustainable manner without making meat in a vat.
Ah, I see.

Slight problem, though: this presumes we'll always been a condition to raise livestock. This isn't very doable in, say, space, in colonies in orbit or on the moon, etc. This is where vat meat comes in handy, because it doesn't require livestock and I'm certain most astronauts don't want to turn into vegetarians.

Lots of different kinds, from the types you mentioned, to things like lima beans, string beans, etc.
How were they prepared?

Slight problem, though: this presumes we'll always been a condition to raise livestock. This isn't very doable in, say, space, in colonies in orbit or on the moon, etc. This is where vat meat comes in handy, because it doesn't require livestock and I'm certain most astronauts don't want to turn into vegetarians.
I think we're quite a ways away from moving out into space. Perhaps we should spend money working towards building colonies on the moon before we start worrying about how the colonists will have to survive on freeze dried meat if they want any for the first couple of years since they'll all be eating freeze dried and/or canned anything.

aside: You can also get soy fake meats that have fooled my dad (i.e. a non-vegetarian). They're a little expensive and I prefer to substitute for chickpeas or lentils, but they exist and have about the right texture and flavour.

Actually, we're not. We should be doing it already, in fact; a lot of resource problems we're having are within our reach if we'd just get to it already.

But that's not the point. The point is being able to produce something locally. This is the sort of thing that can be used in all sorts of situations where raising livestock isn't an option. Really, it has more uses than you might realize. I suggest some research.

Actually, we're not. We should be doing it already, in fact; a lot of resource problems we're having are within our reach if we'd just get to it already.

A guy from NASA came to give a colloquium to the department. We're a long way from people living on the moon, let alone growing meat in vats on the moon.
And this isn't much of a resource problem because it's quite simple for everyone to just cut down on their meat consumption. The amount of meat many people eat is excessive and unhealthy, it would be a lot more than the environment that would benefit from a decrease in meat consumption.

But that's not the point. The point is being able to produce something locally. This is the sort of thing that can be used in all sorts of situations where raising livestock isn't an option. Really, it has more uses than you might realize. I suggest some research.
Really? So what kind of energy demands does cloning meat have? You still have to put energy into the cells to get them to multiply, you also have to do something to give it some sort of texture otherwise nobody would want to eat it. You can't just grow atrophied muscle in a tube and have it come out tasting good and coming out as a nice steak. I think you should do some more research.

http://www.garryconn.com/images/BullShit.gif

The overpopulation of third world countries takes up enormous amounts of energy. Other countries have to use energy to grow food supplies, transport food and medical supplies, and distribute those supplies to prevent disease and starvation. So, don't tell me that overpopulation does not contribute to the problem.
It's our overpopulation that is part of the problem:
CO2 Emissions: CO2 emissions per capita (source: WRI)
Units: Metric tons of carbon dioxide per person

2002 Data
Asia (excluding Middle East) 2.32
Central America & Caribbean 3.07
Europe 8.40
Middle East & North Africa 4.02
North America 19.59
Oceania 12.18
South America 2.19
Sub-Saharan Africa 0.83
Developed Countries 11.12
Developing Countries 1.98

http://earthtrends.wri.org/searchabl...ariable_ID=466
I've already posted this but you seem intent on ignoring actual data while fabricating your own. Tell me, how does this point to Africa as being the problem?

Meh. I can't afford meat anyway.

Ok. It says that people aged 15+ need 1.5 micrograms of B12 a day. One cup of milk has 0.9 micrograms of B12. Therefore, you need about 1.5 cups of milk, which is probably about one glass. Not 10.
One 325mL glass of soy milk has 70% of the required B12.

funny the government begs to differ. http://ods.od.nih.gov/factsheets/vitaminB12.asp on the amount of B12 needed per day. though closer to 7 glasses per day.

If we aren't supposed to eat animals, why are they made of meat?

I know, I know, massive-scale meat-farming is bad for the environment. It's just that meat is just about inimitable, and tastes too good to forgo. I mean, BARBECUE, fer cryin' out loud. I like Gardenburgers and Boca products and eat them whenever I can, but I could never completely let go of sizzling meat. I have cut back on my consumption after reading books like Eric Schlosser's Fast Food Nation, an excellent exposé that was inexplicably filmed as drama. I've only gone to fast food when no other options are available or the group I'm with goes.

When the tipping point comes and responsible, sustainable meat farming is the norm, making organic/Earth-friendly meat far less expensive than it is now, it'll be easier. The problem is the expense.

i never eat fast food. though i eat a lot of meat in accordance with the atkins diet and i have never felt healthier.

If we aren't supposed to eat animals, why are they made of meat?

The same can be said of humans.

The same can be said of humans.
*looks up from where he was gnawing on Intangelon's leg*

What, did you say something?

Utter piffle. As other posters have pointed out, to produce enough vegetables to feed the world requires fertilisers and machinery, whose production and usage requires substantial C02 emission. Wouldn't help substantially, if at all.

See the problem with this is that the way that we are farming now, and they way we must continue to unless people significantly cut down on meat is that we must harvest these plants, take them to factory farms and feed livestock with them. We must feed these animals for their entire lives, until they are ready to eat. Thus, significantly more CO2, energy and land goes into a single meal with meat than one without it, with the exception of those who get their meat from farms who adhere to good practices. So unless you're going to provide a source saying the factory farming is more sustainable than a vegetarian diet....

See the problem with this is that the way that we are farming now, and they way we must continue to unless people significantly cut down on meat is that we must harvest these plants, take them to factory farms and feed livestock with them. We must feed these animals for their entire lives, until they are ready to eat. Thus, significantly more CO2, energy and land goes into a single meal with meat than one without it, with the exception of those who get their meat from farms who adhere to good practices. So unless you're going to provide a source saying the factory farming is more sustainable than a vegetarian diet....

Okaaaaaaaay enough already! Yes, I was wrong and bullshitting without a source:p. Thing is...for me this information won't change my eating habits...I already feel guilty when eating meat as it is, but the range of veggies that I like isn't really wide enough for anything but a ridiculously repetitive diet so an extra layer of guilt probably isn't going to make me change my habits and ditch my lovely bland processed meat.

The same can be said of humans.

Yeah, so? Did you hear me say anything about long pig? You assume I'm going to be against that. Try again.

*looks up from where he was gnawing on Intangelon's leg*

What, did you say something?

Nope (http://www.themadmusicarchive.com/song_details.aspx?SongID=9828). Continue.

funny the government begs to differ. http://ods.od.nih.gov/factsheets/vitaminB12.asp on the amount of B12 needed per day. though closer to 7 glasses per day.
Dude, you're the one who supplied the first source.

Although according to this one, eating fortified cereal with milk (one cup of each) has you set. i.e. I get enough B12 at breakfast.

Okaaaaaaaay enough already! Yes, I was wrong and bullshitting without a source:p. Thing is...for me this information won't change my eating habits...I already feel guilty when eating meat as it is, but the range of veggies that I like isn't really wide enough for anything but a ridiculously repetitive diet so an extra layer of guilt probably isn't going to make me change my habits and ditch my lovely bland processed meat.
What veggies do you like?

There's more to eating a varied diet than just different veggies, if you like peppers and carrots and onions, you can mix it up with different kinds of beans and spices or fry them or boil them in a soup or add them to pasta sauces all with different spices, put them on rice, pasta, whatever... it's possible to be very creative with just a couple of ingredients (cooking for one with produce that only lasts a week for a couple of years has taught me this much).

Dude, you're the one who supplied the first source.

Although according to this one, eating fortified cereal with milk (one cup of each) has you set. i.e. I get enough B12 at breakfast.

I only eat organic. the factor process of adding Iron B12 and other nutrients is very heavy on Co2 emissions, and prevents the cereal from being organic. while my organic beef taste great.

I only eat organic. the factor process of adding Iron B12 and other nutrients is very heavy on Co2 emissions, and prevents the cereal from being organic. while my organic beef taste great.

Look, eat what you want. We need less meat to be consumed in order to farm sustainably. If vegetarianism doesn't fit your lifestyle that's fine, but don't make it sound like our diet is worse for the world.

What veggies do you like?
There's more to eating a varied diet than just different veggies, if you like peppers and carrots and onions, you can mix it up with different kinds of beans
Or, you can mix them with chicken and beef - BTW, byproducts of poultry and milk industries. Carrots go best with mixed with ground beef and wrapped in some other vegetable.

What veggies do you like?

There's more to eating a varied diet than just different veggies, if you like peppers and carrots and onions, you can mix it up with different kinds of beans and spices or fry them or boil them in a soup or add them to pasta sauces all with different spices, put them on rice, pasta, whatever... it's possible to be very creative with just a couple of ingredients (cooking for one with produce that only lasts a week for a couple of years has taught me this much).

Thats a good point. I actually like most of the stuff you mention, the problem I have is with anything spicy or particularly strong-tasting...which is why I've been sticking to the processed crap which is the ultimate in bland, well that and my lack of confidence/ability in the realm of cooking stuff. My doctor specifically advised me to cut out all the junk (99% of my diet) as she believes its contributing to stomach problems I have. Says the food you have cravings for is often the stuff your body has least tolerance for, and all that. So I guess I really ought to put in the effort. When health and ethics both point you in the same direction I guess thats a preeetty good sign. Hmm...I shall enquire/steal my parents cookbooks when I next go home. Anyway, thanks for the pointers! :)

Yeah, so? Did you hear me say anything about long pig? You assume I'm going to be against that. Try again.

Who's assuming? I was just stating the obvious, as is my wont.

A guy from NASA came to give a colloquium to the department. We're a long way from people living on the moon, let alone growing meat in vats on the moon.
And this isn't much of a resource problem because it's quite simple for everyone to just cut down on their meat consumption. The amount of meat many people eat is excessive and unhealthy, it would be a lot more than the environment that would benefit from a decrease in meat consumption.

I'm not talking about food resources. I'm talking about metals, about stuff like iron, nickel, copper, platinum, that sort of stuff.

We're only a long ways away from it because those who are developing the technology don't have the funding. We CAN do it if we were willing to spend the money.

Really? So what kind of energy demands does cloning meat have? You still have to put energy into the cells to get them to multiply, you also have to do something to give it some sort of texture otherwise nobody would want to eat it. You can't just grow atrophied muscle in a tube and have it come out tasting good and coming out as a nice steak. I think you should do some more research.

I should indeed. I don't know enough to argue this much beyond my initial wonderings, really.

You've brought up good questions. I like that.

OP: This, from the same people that told us that cow flatulence was a major source of greenhouse emissions?!?!?

Screw that. I'm doing my part for the environment - eating a cow.

OP: This, from the same people that told us that cow flatulence was a major source of greenhouse emissions?!?!?

Screw that. I'm doing my part for the environment - eating a cow.

Uh, it is. Flatulence produces methane. Methane is a greenhouse gas. There are more than one billion cows in the world.

You do the math.

OP: This, from the same people that told us that cow flatulence was a major source of greenhouse emissions?!?!?

Screw that. I'm doing my part for the environment - eating a cow.

It's not doublethink. The OP is saying "Reduce the amount of meat people eat. That means less livestock has to be raised, which in turn means fewer cows farting us into a baked clay ball of an Earth."

Becoming a vegetarian is the right thing to do to stop climate change.
Additional water and nutrient are consumed by animals. They are not the primary producing organism. Each organism higher in the food chain consumes more energy. In ecology there is a rough rule of ten. An organism only takes a tenth of the energy of something it consumes

Meat is within the human diet. It is complicated to replace the nutrients that meat provides. But it can be done

The best solution to stop carbon dioxide emissions would be to stop population growth. But that is unthinkable for the sake of the economy.

That being said I eat meat every day. There is a range of reasons why greenhouse pollution occurs. Not the least being the decadent lifestyle of the first world and rising economies.
I ride my bike almost everywhere. That does a lot more. (But then again I do it for fitness and cost reasons)

Uh, it is. Flatulence produces methane. Methane is a greenhouse gas. There are more than one billion cows in the world.

You do the math.

Catch the cow gas. Compress it and use it to power our vehicles.:eek:

Only if humans cause Global Warming, which isn't certain.

Listen very carefully this time, because I'm getting tired of repeating it to all the smart-asses who trot this BS out. NO ONE in the scientific community thinks that humans cause global climate change, merely that we are contributing to and accelerating it (and BTW the correct term is climate change; that's what scientists call it. "Globgal warming" is what the press calls it).

This means I can fight the environazis by eating more delicious animal flesh? Fantastic!

If you want to contribute to global warming just start having sex. If you have 2 children you have continued yours and your spouses pollution to the next generation. Have 10 children and its 5 times the amount of pollution

To top it off live on a farm. A large space that requires lots of land clearing and grow cows upon it. Drive the most cost effective vehicle you can find for the farm (which could also be the most polluting) and waste electricity on the property as much as possible

well the impact of meat agriculture is not entirely trivial, but ...

it kindof pales in the context of such other details as the use of combustion to generate energy and propell transportation, and that of population growth.

i think it falls somewhat behind forest product harvesting in that reguard.

i'd put population first
dirty energy and dirty transportation tied for second and third
nonconservationist forest practices fourth
and meat based agriculture somewhere arround sixth to eighth, if that, even with no clear idea what exactly numbers five, six and possibly seven might be. innefficient consumption of energy maybe.

his conclusions, while not entirely nonvalid, arn't exactly news either. pretty much everything being said here was written 30-40 years ago. the economic impact is undoubtedly somewhat greater in the context of india itself, but even there, environmentally, it may be as much or more a matter of visibility and traditional sentiment, valid traditional sentiment certainly, and spiritually valid feelings especially, then of greatest tangable impact.

driving the rest of the planet into indenturing itself to the automobile is seriously driving down the wrong road, even for those parts of the planet that have been doing this to themselves for the past 50 years

I wonder if the fact that this expert is a vegetarian has had any influence on his conclusions? The article also fails to mention his area of expertise but I doubt an economist is an expert on climatology.

"The 68-year-old Indian economist, who is a vegetarian, said diet change was important in reducing greenhouse gas emissions and environmental problems associated with rearing cattle and other animals.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080907/ts_afp/unfoodclimatewarmingindia_080907064950

So, will you take this so called experts unbiased (?) word for it and eat less meat?

Biased or not he is correct.

So much for a free and democratic society. :(

A free and democratic society coupled with mindless consumerism is inevitably, without exception, self destructive.

the scientist in the OP is right.

on top of those environmental concerns, it's also true that eating less meat can help to feed the rest of the world.

there is not enough arable land in the entire world to support the consumption of meat by the entire world population at the current average american level.

however, there is more than enough arable land to feed everyone---right now---if everyone is a vegetarian.

it takes 5 pounds of feed grain to create 1 pound of beef.

think about that---five times the food, in vegetable matter, than flesh-food, per acre.

now that would be a revolution.

oh---and cows have to produce the methane---there's no way around that.

farm machinery, however, could be changed in ways that reduce or eliminate its output---if the market made it pay the farmer.

also, farming can be done with less chemicals than presently done---particularly if more labor is used.

i grew up on a modern american, industrialized farm; i'm very certain of these things.

think about that---five times the food, in vegetable matter, than flesh-food, per acre.
It's not five times the food, because a pound of vegetable matter does not contain as much energy as a pound of meat.

I can't believe that people are so hooked on CO2 that it took until page 9 for Methane to get mentioned. The rice and beef agribusiness are two of the chief methane producers, and methane is quite a bit more potent when it comes to warming than is CO2, it's just that CO2 has become the hyped thing because its the biggest.
What about all the charity work it's done via UNICEF, WHO and other such agencies what about UNFICYP? The Suez Crisis? MINUGUA? MINURSO? ECOMOG? It does have successes, it's failures were just big, but if it wasn't there the other conflicts would have been bigger and there would be even less peace and stability in the world.ECOMOG wasn't created by the UN.
OP: This, from the same people that told us that cow flatulence was a major source of greenhouse emissions?!?!?

Screw that. I'm doing my part for the environment - eating a cow.How about not eating it, thereby reducing demand for cows, thereby reducing the amount of cows and the amount of rainforest burned to feed cows to feed Westerners?

I can't believe that people are so hooked on CO2 that it took until page 9 for Methane to get mentioned. The rice and beef agribusiness are two of the chief methane producers, and methane is quite a bit more potent when it comes to warming than is CO2, it's just that CO2 has become the hyped thing because its the biggest.
ECOMOG wasn't created by the UN.
How about not eating it, thereby reducing demand for cows, thereby reducing the amount of cows and the amount of rainforest burned to feed cows to feed Westerners?

Or (here's a concept!) ranchers could start harnessing the methane produced by their cows to run their farm...there are a number of farms who are already doing this, and it's incredibly energy efficient, as well as good for the environment (less dependency on other sources of energy which produce emissions).

Eating meat is not bad for the environment. Producing meat doesn't have to be bad for the environment. However, getting rid of all meat production is a grand way to encourage mass starvation - there's a lot more produced along with it that we simply can't do without, even if we all were to go vegetarian tomorrow (not happening).

It's not five times the food, because a pound of vegetable matter does not contain as much energy as a pound of meat.

certainly it's not exactly five times the food---the math becomes more complicated.

but my simply example is illustrating a true principal, and any falseness in it is only from a lack of exactitude.

but you are wrong, i think, about which pound contains more energy.

while the animal pound is more rich in already-formed proteins, isn't the vegetable pound higher in carbohydrates?---aren't carbohydrates the form of food-stuff with the highest caloric content?---aren't calories, in short, how we measure the amount of energy in food?

but you are wrong, i think, about which pound contains more energy.
while the animal pound is more rich in already-formed proteins, isn't the vegetable pound higher in carbohydrates?---aren't carbohydrates the form of food-stuff with the highest caloric content?---aren't calories, in short, how we measure the amount of energy in food?
Vegetables, in general, contain 20-32 kcal per 100 grams. Meat ranges between 100-200 for chicken, 250-300 for beef, and 450-550 for pork.

The component with the highest calorie content is fat, next follow carbohydrates and proteins.

Furthermore, due to the energy consumed digesting the vegetables, they are considered unrestricted dietary food - that is, you can't gain weight from them even if you try, as most their energy is spent on digestion.

certainly it's not exactly five times the food---the math becomes more complicated.

but my simply example is illustrating a true principal, and any falseness in it is only from a lack of exactitude.

but you are wrong, i think, about which pound contains more energy.

while the animal pound is more rich in already-formed proteins, isn't the vegetable pound higher in carbohydrates?---aren't carbohydrates the form of food-stuff with the highest caloric content?---aren't calories, in short, how we measure the amount of energy in food?

even more so when you take in to account that most ranchers feed their cows at least a 50% diet of Grass which is mostly inedible to humans.
pound by pound meat has more energy. due to fat and protein. Vegetables and fruits have more energy in them then we can take out but they are largely inaccessible to us because they are in fiber form.

It's not five times the food, because a pound of vegetable matter does not contain as much energy as a pound of meat.

Also, that pound of meat could have been grown with plant matter that is completely inedible to - incapable of sustaining - a human being.

Take for, an extreme, example lichen and reindeer...but works with low nutritional value plant matter & other ruminants too.

edit:
That's not mentioning the cargo costs of hauling fresh vegetable matter half way across the world if you happen to live in places with poor growth seasons (draught, humidity, temperature)...especially autumn, winter & spring here up north. :p