Starvation or Old Age?

[Nerd1000]

This is exactly why I have a respectful ceremony for my plants:

-First I bathe them in only the finest waters that my kitchen tap provides.

-Then I place them gently on my sacrificial alter which the unenlightened people call a cutting board.

-I make sure I proclaim a holy prophecy for all nearby to hear, such as "Dinner will be ready in 20 mins!".

-I then place the remainder of the plant into the bin of rebirth.

-I decorate the sacrificed plant with decadent salts and spices to aid in it's journey into my heavenly esophagus.

 

Ramen :)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Statistically yes, if we were to eat only lettuce and nothing else it would be less efficient, because lettuce has almost no calories, so it loses on the "calories in" vs. "calories out" numbers.

 

But that's a really poor argument which the animal industry spokes people use to justify their very profitable businesses. It's their way of trying to stop rational conversation by diverting the attention to sensationalism instead. Because the longer honest discussion is delayed, the more money can be made in the mean time. This is always the case, from gun laws, to tobacco, to fossil fuels and everything in between. It's a strategy that unfortunately works.

 

Their first strategy works as follows:- if a problem is pointed out, point out an absurdly extreme situation so that people at the extreme ends of the argument (who are always the loudest) end up drowning out people how are focused on solving the issues.

 

Their second strategy is to play on people's fears of: not eating meat must mean that the only food left to eat is bland, unsatisfying salads. (as in my OP, not one salad in those foods, and plenty of meat-like products which scratch the itch :D )

 

Thirdly pointing out a worse way to eat than the current norm, does not nullify that there are better ways to eat than the current norm. It's simply dismissing them, for no valid reason. But again, that's their strategy of smoke and mirrors, smoke and mirrors. Watch the magic show :) But, any of us can think of worse and less efficient ways to produce food. That's not even relevant to the current issue of finding a better way to produce and consume food.

 

When we look at it rationally:

1. Nobody that is genuinely interested about environmentalism has ever said to grow only lettuce.

2. Nobody would ever suggest to eat only lettuce since you would die from malnutrition because lettuce is nutritionally sparse. (you only eat it for crunch factor)

3. It is impossible to eat enough lettuce, ever. To eat sufficient calories you would need to eat around 25 kilograms of lettuce a day. That's not counting all of the calories burned by hours of lifting thin bits of lettuce to mouth height over and over, and chewing action, and digestion. So you'd probably need to double it to 50kg.

 

So the basis for their argument is non-sense by any regard. And the goal being just to create fear and diversion.

 

I'd genuinely like to know which parts you might have considered as sordid or angsty so I can work on my dialog. I like to present my views from a logical perspective, because I believe it is more credible, and as above, I'm very much against sensationalism.

 

There is one argument you can make in favour of farming animals for meat from an environmental standpoint: Not all land is suitable for growing food crops. If you go somewhere like western Queensland you'll see what I'm getting at here: It's too dry and the soils are too poor for crops humans can digest. Grasses and weeds that are edible for ruminants grow well enough to support them, albeit at a considerably lower population density than you'd be able to sustain on prime pasture.

 

I'm not sure there's enough arable land to feed the world on grains, tubers, legumes, fruits and so forth unless you supplement it with something else- fish works nicely, but I worry that a lot of commercial fishing is unsustainable. That said, us westerners eat far too much meat.

[TomOnSteam]

There is one argument you can make in favour of farming animals for meat from an environmental standpoint: Not all land is suitable for growing food crops. If you go somewhere like western Queensland you'll see what I'm getting at here: It's too dry and the soils are too poor for crops humans can digest. Grasses and weeds that are edible for ruminants grow well enough to support them, albeit at a considerably lower population density than you'd be able to sustain on prime pasture.

 

I'm not sure there's enough arable land to feed the world on grains, tubers, legumes, fruits and so forth unless you supplement it with something else- fish works nicely, but I worry that a lot of commercial fishing is unsustainable. That said, us westerners eat far too much meat.

 

You're spot on about the fishing - experts are saying fishless oceans as early as 2040.

 

I'm too not far from Western QLD, and I'm familiar with the image farmers like to portray, but sadly the grazing animal thing is quite misleading.

 

This Australian footage shows where the vast majority our meat, eggs and dairy, comes from. I'm not trying to tug at the heart strings, just pointing out that the cattle we see running in red sand, and grazing sheep are just a dot in the big picture - because to breed and feed the several billion animals that we eat each year in Australia, they simply have to be farmed in this intensive form.

 

What this means is that these farm animals are not feeding from the land, they are being feed GMO soy, grain, corn etc from land that could be used to grow human edible foods instead. And it's said that over 80% of arable land (worldwide)is being used to grow crops for farm animals - and that we would require 70% less land to feed all of us with plant foods.

 

It's not quite this straight forward, but essentially feeding 80+ billion animals each year requires a lot more crops than feeding only 7 billion humans.

Edited November 28, 2016 by TomOnSteam

[Nerd1000]

You're spot on about the fishing - experts are saying fishless oceans as early as 2040.

 

I'm too not far from Western QLD, and I'm familiar with the image farmers like to portray, but sadly the grazing animal thing is quite misleading.

 

This Australian footage shows where the vast majority our meat, eggs and dairy, comes from. I'm not trying to tug at the heart strings, just pointing out that the cattle we see running in red sand, and grazing sheep are just a dot in the big picture - because to breed and feed the several billion animals that we eat each year in Australia, they simply have to be farmed in this intensive form.

 

What this means is that these farm animals are not feeding from the land, they are being feed GMO soy, grain, corn etc from land that could be used to grow human edible foods instead. And it's said that over 80% of arable land (worldwide)is being used to grow crops for farm animals - and that we would require 70% less land to feed all of us with plant foods.

 

It's not quite this straight forward, but essentially feeding 80+ billion animals each year requires a lot more crops than feeding only 7 billion humans.

Indeed, which is why we need to eat far less meat. Intensive 'battery' farming of animals is both cruel and wasteful, but IMO grazing still has a place so we shouldn't stop eating meat entirely- just cut back on our consumption a great deal, so that we're only using the sustainable methods of obtaining it. The other animal based foods that are more viable are eggs and milk- eggs in particular are much more efficient than eating the chicken itself, IIRC you get a bit less than 50% of the energy fed to the chicken back in the eggs. Chooks of course can be fed scraps, which means you can cut back on waste of food- this isn't gonna happen if you're battery farming, but we could reap those benefits by encouraging people to keep them in their back yard.

 

We'd probably live longer if we cut back on meats too- red meat consumption is a cancer risk after all.

[Rangi]

And yet we have a few million feral camels out here that we are paying millions of dollars to have culled from helicopters and left to rot in the desert. Go figure....

These days I try and keep my weekly meat meals to camel or roo. Emu if I am feeling like splurging, it's delicious, but very pricey. I can't bring myself to eat our own chickens and I don't think my son would let me, so when they are sick or past the lay they go under the fruit trees.

[TomOnSteam]

Indeed, which is why we need to eat far less meat. Intensive 'battery' farming of animals is both cruel and wasteful, but IMO grazing still has a place so we shouldn't stop eating meat entirely- just cut back on our consumption a great deal, so that we're only using the sustainable methods of obtaining it. The other animal based foods that are more viable are eggs and milk- eggs in particular are much more efficient than eating the chicken itself, IIRC you get a bit less than 50% of the energy fed to the chicken back in the eggs. Chooks of course can be fed scraps, which means you can cut back on waste of food- this isn't gonna happen if you're battery farming, but we could reap those benefits by encouraging people to keep them in their back yard.

 

We'd probably live longer if we cut back on meats too- red meat consumption is a cancer risk after all.

 

For sure! Not only would the environment be better for it, but so would our health (and healthcare costs!)

 

And yet we have a few million feral camels out here that we are paying millions of dollars to have culled from helicopters and left to rot in the desert. Go figure....

These days I try and keep my weekly meat meals to camel or roo. Emu if I am feeling like splurging, it's delicious, but very pricey. I can't bring myself to eat our own chickens and I don't think my son would let me, so when they are sick or past the lay they go under the fruit trees.

 

I guess eating feral camels could be advertised as "extreme free-range" :)

[kolga]

Logic and science? Shame on you Shagrat. ;)

 

The funny (or depressing depending on my mood) thing I find about this polarised debate is that the "deniers" call the "greenies" tree hugging animal lovers who put "nature" above humanity. Whereas if the "greenies" get what we/they want then it will create a stable environment for humanity to continue, but if we continue with business as usual as the deniers want, the humanity that they claim to value above nature will be condemned to much more suffering. I swing from one side to the other depending on how we we behave and what I think we deserve due to our actions, but ultimately it is a pointless value judgement that I have no right to impose on others let alone have the conviction to support. Welcome to the world of depressive realism and join me for another toast to the excitement of seeing what happens...............

 

In the meantime :joystick::pilotfly:

 

I am DEFINITELY not saying things should stay the same, what i'm saying is that you have to attack it from the right angle. No one disputes climate change, whats disputed is man-made climate change. We should be focusing on self-sufficiency, not giving more power to those who have historically committed the worst crimes against humanity.

 

(I'm not talking to anyone in particular so please don't take offense if i was arguing something you don't believe, I salute you for acknowledging that non of us have a right to impose beliefs on others!)

 

Safe landings!

[kolga]

No, you once again only skimmed that article (talking about the arctic). There is reason to discard sensationalist predictions, there is absolutely *no* reason to doubt global warming.

 

Ummm... I'm not sure what you mean. The article is talking about the antarctic. Yes, i saw the mention of the arctic, but that wasn't the focus.

What predictions do you not consider sensationalist (i'm not being sarcastic)?

[shagrat]

Well, that the area around the north pole(!) aka the "eternal ice" was partially free from ice this summer is definitely a fact, not sensationalism.

Everybody feel free to predict the consequences on his own maybe based on some research above the oceanic waters and how they shape our climate now.

You can make your own conclusions from there. :book:

[Rangi]

Edit: it isn't worth it

Edited November 30, 2016 by Rangi
Post truth

[TomOnSteam]

I am DEFINITELY not saying things should stay the same, what i'm saying is that you have to attack it from the right angle. No one disputes climate change, whats disputed is man-made climate change. We should be focusing on self-sufficiency, not giving more power to those who have historically committed the worst crimes against humanity.

 

I guess it all depends on how it's implemented - a lot of green technology gives the power back to the individuals. Such as those Earthship homes which are completely self sufficient from power to water, and some of the food is grown inside the home. Of course this wouldn't work for everyone, but just giving an example that green technology doesn't necessarily mean we have less control of our lives.

[kolga]

I guess it all depends on how it's implemented - a lot of green technology gives the power back to the individuals. Such as those Earthship homes which are completely self sufficient from power to water, and some of the food is grown inside the home. Of course this wouldn't work for everyone, but just giving an example that green technology doesn't necessarily mean we have less control of our lives.

 

The reason i said that is inevitably someone brings up regulation. I have heard that the entire world population could live and grow all their food in a space the size of Texas in arranged and planned properly (not sure how accurate, but still), so what i'm getting at is the focus should be technology, not depopulation.

 

Safe landings!

[sobek]

the entire world population could live and grow all their food in a space the size of Texas

 

There's a lot of "if"s attached to that statement. One would be the distribution of the food. The other is getting the resources needed for growing them there. It's all highly hypothetical and unrealistic.

[kolga]

There's a lot of "if"s attached to that statement. One would be the distribution of the food. The other is getting the resources needed for growing them there. It's all highly hypothetical and unrealistic.

 

Like i said, I heard, And even if it was a gross exaggeration the point still stands. I will ask you what makes it highly unrealistic? You seem to state it as fact. The entire current world population would fit in about half of Texas with the population density of Paris.

 

Safe landings!