http://www.physorg.com/news4998.html
Stop eating meat? Why not stop
burning oil and eat the meat.
Only someone deprived of essential
protiens could not see this one.
If God had intended for us to be
vegiterians he wouldn"t have made
the animals out of meat.
QUOTE
If God had intended for us to be
vegiterians he wouldn"t have made
the animals out of meat.
vegiterians he wouldn"t have made
the animals out of meat.
Great argument.
We don't need animals for essential proteins, as there are alternatives (eggs, peanuts, beans, dairy products). Meat eating is completely optional, and though I myself am not a vegetarian (too weak-minded to cut off meat forever), it wouldn't hurt to at least reduce the amount you consume.
We don't need to eat meat every day or even every meal. It's also a good idea for the environment and for the coming energy crisis.
QUOTE (JavaTool+Jul 7 2005, 04:07 PM)
We don't need animals for essential proteins, as there are alternatives (eggs, peanuts, beans, dairy products). Meat eating is completely optional, and though I myself am not a vegetarian (too weak-minded to cut off meat forever), it wouldn't hurt to at least reduce the amount you consume.
It wouldnt hurt to reduce... ?
Well it wouldnt hurt not to chance a thing either...
It wouldnt hurt to reduce... ?
Well it wouldnt hurt not to chance a thing either...
We would be cutting co2 emissions but we would also be cutting thousands maybe even millions of people off from their income source. Just think about it, the farmers would have to reorient all of their fields to grow crops not to herd some animals. The processing plants would shut down and a lot of small and big businesses would go bankrupt
Its like saying "lets stop using computers to reduce the power consumption"
Although... smaller changes might be beneficial
Its like saying "lets stop using computers to reduce the power consumption"
Although... smaller changes might be beneficial
My view is that there's people in the world getting rich off the idea of global warming. I dont know if any of you live in the UK, but we get adverts for companys that tell your company how to reduce CO2 outputs! They have these big elabourate ads with terrible weather, yet when I look out my window its fine and dandy.
Sure we get ups and downs, but thats natural. I think because theres been no really terrible weather in the past 50 years in the UK that people just expect it should always be nice. So some *** of a scientist does some "research" (which I commented on on another post) comes up with a theory, and there we have it.
I've said earlier, when volcanoes erupt they chuck up more pollution into the atmosphere than cars could make in a million years. And yet the world survives..
I you wanna reduce CO2, go plant some feckin trees!
Global warming is a big load of tits!
Sure we get ups and downs, but thats natural. I think because theres been no really terrible weather in the past 50 years in the UK that people just expect it should always be nice. So some *** of a scientist does some "research" (which I commented on on another post) comes up with a theory, and there we have it.
I've said earlier, when volcanoes erupt they chuck up more pollution into the atmosphere than cars could make in a million years. And yet the world survives..
I you wanna reduce CO2, go plant some feckin trees!
Global warming is a big load of tits!
Nobody talks about the single biggest greenhouse gas - WATER VAPOR!
Professor Andy, I agree with you. Go plant some trees is some of the best advice for "global warming" I know. Plants and trees love the high co2. Now has anyone heard of a report on how much we raised green house gasses by cutting down all those trees???? Instead of replanting, scientists whine about cars, factories, and cows farting. Sheesh.
I think the argument against the "go plant a tree" philosophy is that it is easier to modify our behavior than it is to modify the environment. Not to mention the outcome is much more predictable. Yes modifying the environment may be what got us into this mess, but I doubt it is what will be what gets us out. I liken it to destroying one invasive species with another. It's not really solving problems, it's just counteracting the symptoms.
I think it would be more effective to curb, as much as possible, further changing of the environment (in either direction), and wait for nature to become acclimated to our presence again. It hasn't been able to do so yet because the nature and extent of our effects on the environment change so rapidly. If we could stabilize our footprint, even without necessarily shrinking it, I think the ecology would find a new equilibrium and become "more natural" again.
Just my 2 minimum units of currency.
I think it would be more effective to curb, as much as possible, further changing of the environment (in either direction), and wait for nature to become acclimated to our presence again. It hasn't been able to do so yet because the nature and extent of our effects on the environment change so rapidly. If we could stabilize our footprint, even without necessarily shrinking it, I think the ecology would find a new equilibrium and become "more natural" again.
Just my 2 minimum units of currency.
[QUOTE] Antiphon: "If God had intended for us to be vegiterians he wouldn"t have made the animals out of meat. "
Great, I look forward to an Antiphonburger, although, if I think what mind occupied the meat, I get seriously put off. Think i'd rather remain vegetarian.
Oh, your'e not an animal are you? Sheesh, check out your anatomy, all those bits inside and hanging on on the outside correspond just an interesting little bit to other primates, uh, even doggies. Uh, but then you were "specially created" right? That must be why you manage to get two spelling mistakes into a five-syllable word.
Actually, seeing the quality of the meat as implied by the thing acting for a brain, I think grinding it up for a suitable pet-product might be the answer.
Great, I look forward to an Antiphonburger, although, if I think what mind occupied the meat, I get seriously put off. Think i'd rather remain vegetarian.
Oh, your'e not an animal are you? Sheesh, check out your anatomy, all those bits inside and hanging on on the outside correspond just an interesting little bit to other primates, uh, even doggies. Uh, but then you were "specially created" right? That must be why you manage to get two spelling mistakes into a five-syllable word.
Actually, seeing the quality of the meat as implied by the thing acting for a brain, I think grinding it up for a suitable pet-product might be the answer.
shuttng down the processing plants
that are part of the agri business monopoly on the land
would be a good thing
thatis not farming it'slaughter, planting, bio-chenistry.
Being in a farming state, with a father who was a farmer and went on to teach vocational agriculture and other farm sciences, I've always kept a close eye on the agriculture sector.
What we are seeing now is the logical conclusion of three decades of driving out the small farmer, and turning farming into a multinational industry. During the seventies and eighties we saw the rise of the large corporate farms. Buying up foreclosed farmland on the cheap, these megalith companies streamlined the farm to an assembly line production that even Henry Ford would envy. And in that transforming process, they drove many small family farmers to ruin and despair, resulting in even more foreclosures and misery. Right now, aprox 75% of this country's domestically produced food is grown on corporate farms.
The folly of NAFTA hurt the family farmer even more. Unable to compete with the low wages in Mexico, and an almost year around growing climate, farmers in the US were simply unable to compete. And the big corporate farm giants, always eyeing the profit line, moved their operations oversees. Monsanto, ADM and others became multinational conglomerates. And while they reaped the profits from their low wage workers in Mexico, they collected the federal monies that were traditionally granted to family farmers, resulting in even more profits, many from not growing crops here in the US.
Even further blows came in the form of GM crops. Unable to continue with the traditional, money saving practice of seed saving(unless they wanted to face a patent lawsuit), family farmers were forced to buy seed every year, along with the requesite pesticides, herbicides, etc, all at a back breaking cost. By now, most family farmers have either been reduced to weekend farmers, working a forty hour job and taking care of the reduced farm output on their free time, or having been forced to sell their land to ADM etc, are now working as virtual sharecroppers on a farm that was once in their family.
Meanwhile, the continued onslaught of free trade has simply drained farming to south of the border. There is no way to compete with the lower wages, lower safety standards, and year around growing. Many corporate farms are simply keeping their land to retain the grant monies and tax breaks they recieve for leaving their fields fallow, or waiting for the housing development people to offer up the right price.
I myself have a small spot of land, and quite frankly I am going to farming a bit a try. I will specialize in exotic crops, shitaki mushrooms and the like, along with an orchard of heirloom fruit trees and a garden of organic, heirloom vegatables. I have no illusions of making a full time living from this land, but it will put a decent chunk of change in my pocket, and if all else fails, hey, I'll be able to feed myself and my family.
It used to be that major cities were only three days away from major food riots. I suspect that that time frame has considerably shrunk, what with the food being imported on an as needed basis. And once again, we see corporations wringing a few pennies of profit at the expense of much human misery.
The candy store paupers lie to the share holders/They're crossing their fingers they pay
A corporation, essentially, is a pile
of money to which a number of persons have sold their moral allegiance.
that are part of the agri business monopoly on the land
would be a good thing
thatis not farming it'slaughter, planting, bio-chenistry.
Being in a farming state, with a father who was a farmer and went on to teach vocational agriculture and other farm sciences, I've always kept a close eye on the agriculture sector.
What we are seeing now is the logical conclusion of three decades of driving out the small farmer, and turning farming into a multinational industry. During the seventies and eighties we saw the rise of the large corporate farms. Buying up foreclosed farmland on the cheap, these megalith companies streamlined the farm to an assembly line production that even Henry Ford would envy. And in that transforming process, they drove many small family farmers to ruin and despair, resulting in even more foreclosures and misery. Right now, aprox 75% of this country's domestically produced food is grown on corporate farms.
The folly of NAFTA hurt the family farmer even more. Unable to compete with the low wages in Mexico, and an almost year around growing climate, farmers in the US were simply unable to compete. And the big corporate farm giants, always eyeing the profit line, moved their operations oversees. Monsanto, ADM and others became multinational conglomerates. And while they reaped the profits from their low wage workers in Mexico, they collected the federal monies that were traditionally granted to family farmers, resulting in even more profits, many from not growing crops here in the US.
Even further blows came in the form of GM crops. Unable to continue with the traditional, money saving practice of seed saving(unless they wanted to face a patent lawsuit), family farmers were forced to buy seed every year, along with the requesite pesticides, herbicides, etc, all at a back breaking cost. By now, most family farmers have either been reduced to weekend farmers, working a forty hour job and taking care of the reduced farm output on their free time, or having been forced to sell their land to ADM etc, are now working as virtual sharecroppers on a farm that was once in their family.
Meanwhile, the continued onslaught of free trade has simply drained farming to south of the border. There is no way to compete with the lower wages, lower safety standards, and year around growing. Many corporate farms are simply keeping their land to retain the grant monies and tax breaks they recieve for leaving their fields fallow, or waiting for the housing development people to offer up the right price.
I myself have a small spot of land, and quite frankly I am going to farming a bit a try. I will specialize in exotic crops, shitaki mushrooms and the like, along with an orchard of heirloom fruit trees and a garden of organic, heirloom vegatables. I have no illusions of making a full time living from this land, but it will put a decent chunk of change in my pocket, and if all else fails, hey, I'll be able to feed myself and my family.
It used to be that major cities were only three days away from major food riots. I suspect that that time frame has considerably shrunk, what with the food being imported on an as needed basis. And once again, we see corporations wringing a few pennies of profit at the expense of much human misery.
The candy store paupers lie to the share holders/They're crossing their fingers they pay
A corporation, essentially, is a pile
of money to which a number of persons have sold their moral allegiance.
Not only would we be able to cut co2 emissions by not farming animals for food, we would be able to free up land to grow the extra other foods to replace the meat. It would also leave us with an excess amount of food to feed all the starving people and everbody would have jobs, just different ones. They could all go organic and reduce polutants even further, also farmed animals consume very large amounts of water, an average of 3000 litres of water is needed to produce a Kilogram of beef (Maff UK figures) , farmed animals use approx 10,000 times as much water as humans, so extra bonus of no water shortages.
Id rather save the moomoo's (iam partial to hamburgers, sue me) and stop slash & burning and basically raping the rain forest....... there'd be less problem all around if we werent loosing ten's of thousands of square acres of purdy green trees a year : /
You guys are arguing for global lifestyle change here. Probably bigger than you know. Corporations as they exist now are necessary to support the huge global population in the lifestyles they currently adhere to. No other framework is efficient and powerful and stable enough.
Either you need to convince everyone but the impoverished to start living more modestly, or you need to get rid of a whole lot of people.
Such change will not come through advancement of knowledge or technology. It will not come through re-education. Nor will it come through revolution. It will come only by catastrophe.
Either you need to convince everyone but the impoverished to start living more modestly, or you need to get rid of a whole lot of people.
Such change will not come through advancement of knowledge or technology. It will not come through re-education. Nor will it come through revolution. It will come only by catastrophe.
A lot of changes are going to be coming in the next ten years. people need to start realizing all humans effect each other one way or another. In order for us all to survive on Clod, we need to work to lessen our impact on the natural environment. Without that environment, we don't live any more. 
Good points, "lost r' footin on the land," - only perhaps those who are bound to the concrete jungle lifestyle and who go grabba burger an' coke when the need hits cannot understand the impact of what you rightly refer to as "multinational conglomerates," their impersonal and de-personalising commercialisation. These MuCos have a corporate personality which is certainly not the sum aggregate of their workers, but are part of a marketing-production-consumption-demand servoloop not necessarily driven by a sense of service, but more so by the senses of profit-driven shareholders and boards well distanced from final consumers.
It may well be pointed out that present First World expectations of lifestyle cannot be met by anything less than the massive economies-of-scale systems that produce the goods and consumables we need in our daily lives. The undercutting, out-competing and driving off of the small farmers and agriculturists is an automatic conclusion. However, the effectively distributed ownership, production and distributed control which is a fundamental mark of such small production units also offered a natural buffer against massive commercialised over-exploitation of land and resources, the forceful introduction of contentious GE products and their accompanying questionable pesticidal biochemistry. Not least, in the long run it implies a forced siphoning of previous landowners and field-workers from a nature-based occupational lifestyle into commercialised technological lifestyles.
In a somewhat facetious Sci-fi projection we can visualise a future where vastly integrated and distributed robotic systems handle all agricultural, arboricultural, bovicultural and other involvement with the Earth, and "free up" humans for vastly better things, like designing better automation systems, which I admit being rather fond of.
Or one of those might just be the temptation to wreck a bit of over-presumptious technology, clear the spot, plant something, nurture it and watch it grow..
FV
It may well be pointed out that present First World expectations of lifestyle cannot be met by anything less than the massive economies-of-scale systems that produce the goods and consumables we need in our daily lives. The undercutting, out-competing and driving off of the small farmers and agriculturists is an automatic conclusion. However, the effectively distributed ownership, production and distributed control which is a fundamental mark of such small production units also offered a natural buffer against massive commercialised over-exploitation of land and resources, the forceful introduction of contentious GE products and their accompanying questionable pesticidal biochemistry. Not least, in the long run it implies a forced siphoning of previous landowners and field-workers from a nature-based occupational lifestyle into commercialised technological lifestyles.
In a somewhat facetious Sci-fi projection we can visualise a future where vastly integrated and distributed robotic systems handle all agricultural, arboricultural, bovicultural and other involvement with the Earth, and "free up" humans for vastly better things, like designing better automation systems, which I admit being rather fond of.
Or one of those might just be the temptation to wreck a bit of over-presumptious technology, clear the spot, plant something, nurture it and watch it grow..
FV
Antiphon:
Environmental Impact of Dihydrogen Monoxide*
Environmental Impact of Dihydrogen Monoxide*
Among the many commonly-sited DHMO-related environmental impacts are:
DHMO contributes to global warming and the "Greenhouse Effect", and is one of the so-called "greenhouse gasses."
DHMO is an "enabling component" of acid rain -- in the absence of sufficient quantities of DHMO, acid rain is not a problem.
DHMO is a causative agent in most instances of soil erosion -- sufficiently high levels of DHMO exacerbate the negative effects of soil erosion.
DHMO is present in nearly every creek, stream, pond, river, lake and reservoir in the U.S. and around the world.
Measurable levels of DHMO have been verified in ice samples taken from both the Arctic and Antarctic ice caps.
Recent massive DHMO exposures have lead to the loss of life and destruction of property in California, the Mid-West, the Philippines, and a number of islands in the Caribbean, to name just a few.
*Satire Alert!
People producing and distributing meat would lose their jobs if people ate less meat but it wouldn't mean they couldn't find other jobs, like, say, producing and distributing fruit, vegetables and dairy products.
Do you honestly believe that you would be taking a 'chance' giving up meat? I think the opposite holds true. Do you even know what you're eating? What's in your meat? Millions of people in the world are vegetarians. We live longer, are less likely to have heart attacks and/or strokes, have leaner bodies and healthier ideals. And in terms of farmers and businesses collapsing, first of all, if livestock weren't in demand, farmers could focus their energy on crops such as soy and canola - much better for our soil and easier to maintain. Second, if meat production companies go out of business, I say good riddens. They are what have gotten in the way of our farmers' livlihood in the first place. Go to the PETA website and check out their short film "Meet Your Meat" then come back on here and say "If God didn't want us to eat animals, they wouldn't have made them out of meat."
QUOTE
Nobody talks about the single biggest greenhouse gas - WATER VAPOR!
Environmental Impact of Dihydrogen Monoxide*
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Nobody talks about the single biggest greenhouse gas - WATER VAPOR! |
Environmental Impact of Dihydrogen Monoxide*
Among the many commonly-sited DHMO-related environmental impacts are:
DHMO contributes to global warming and the "Greenhouse Effect", and is one of the so-called "greenhouse gasses."
DHMO is an "enabling component" of acid rain -- in the absence of sufficient quantities of DHMO, acid rain is not a problem.
DHMO is a causative agent in most instances of soil erosion -- sufficiently high levels of DHMO exacerbate the negative effects of soil erosion.
DHMO is present in nearly every creek, stream, pond, river, lake and reservoir in the U.S. and around the world.
Measurable levels of DHMO have been verified in ice samples taken from both the Arctic and Antarctic ice caps.
Recent massive DHMO exposures have lead to the loss of life and destruction of property in California, the Mid-West, the Philippines, and a number of islands in the Caribbean, to name just a few.
*Satire Alert!
That web site is hilarious. And the worse part is there are probably people to ignorant to tell it's a joke. Something they did on The Man Show is a good example of this. They wanted to see how clueless people are so they set up a booth (I don't recall the location) with a sign that said "End woman suffrage!" They actually had people signing a petition. Seems like a few people's brains weren't firing on all cylinders.
QUOTE (Daein+Jul 11 2005, 04:54 AM)
That web site is hilarious. And the worse part is there are probably people to ignorant to tell it's a joke. Something they did on The Man Show is a good example of this. They wanted to see how clueless people are so they set up a booth (I don't recall the location) with a sign that said "End woman suffrage!" They actually had people signing a petition. Seems like a few people's brains weren't firing on all cylinders.
Daein: Ignorant? Such as this person:
"Nothing will benefit human health and increase chances for survival of life on Earth as much as the evolution to a vegetarian diet." - Albert Einstein
So ... your source of information is The Man Show. Good citation. I like that show, but it is hardly a serious reference.
Good luck. Have fun in the meatrix!
-lance
Daein: Ignorant? Such as this person:
"Nothing will benefit human health and increase chances for survival of life on Earth as much as the evolution to a vegetarian diet." - Albert Einstein
So ... your source of information is The Man Show. Good citation. I like that show, but it is hardly a serious reference.
Good luck. Have fun in the meatrix!
-lance
Of course it's not a serious reference and wasn't meant to be. Also my comment had nothing to do with vegetarianism.
QUOTE (Daein+Jul 12 2005, 12:14 AM)
Of course it's not a serious reference and wasn't meant to be. Also my comment had nothing to do with vegetarianism.
Then what is your point? Why did you reference The Man Show? Have you never seen the sewage and stench from a massive chicken growing facility? Do you not believe chicken's beaks get clipped or melted at birth? Do you think they are not in cages not much larger than their own bodies for their entire lives? Do you realize that free-range farmers can not compete with the economics and distribution power of factory farming? Do you know the payment structure for being a supplier to say Tysons or Purdue? And how that will manipulate people into doing things they wouldn't do otherwise, or speak about in public.
My daughter is in 4H. They had an "Ethics class" in animal husbandry ... Treat your animals nice while you display them at 4H ... then go back to the factory farm and do unspeakable things that we don't want to show in public, or talk about.
Do you have a dog? Then: Cut off its nose and put it in a cage about 2x2x3 feet big for its entire life and do not touch it or allow anything but steel to touch it.
Being a vegetarian is more than just eating carrots and celery. Good luck being in the meatrix.
Then what is your point? Why did you reference The Man Show? Have you never seen the sewage and stench from a massive chicken growing facility? Do you not believe chicken's beaks get clipped or melted at birth? Do you think they are not in cages not much larger than their own bodies for their entire lives? Do you realize that free-range farmers can not compete with the economics and distribution power of factory farming? Do you know the payment structure for being a supplier to say Tysons or Purdue? And how that will manipulate people into doing things they wouldn't do otherwise, or speak about in public.
My daughter is in 4H. They had an "Ethics class" in animal husbandry ... Treat your animals nice while you display them at 4H ... then go back to the factory farm and do unspeakable things that we don't want to show in public, or talk about.
Do you have a dog? Then: Cut off its nose and put it in a cage about 2x2x3 feet big for its entire life and do not touch it or allow anything but steel to touch it.
Being a vegetarian is more than just eating carrots and celery. Good luck being in the meatrix.
QUOTE (Daein+Jul 12 2005, 12:14 AM)
Of course it's not a serious reference and wasn't meant to be. Also my comment had nothing to do with vegetarianism.
I think Lance thought you were commenting on The Meatrix website. Pretty funny in a way
I think Lance thought you were commenting on The Meatrix website. Pretty funny in a way
QUOTE (JavaTool+Jul 12 2005, 12:28 AM)
I think Lance thought you were commenting on The Meatrix website. Pretty funny in a way
... OK. Didn't see that link. I think I stand corrected ...
... OK. Didn't see that link. I think I stand corrected ...
Sorry for the misunderstanding. I should have mentioned I was talking about that DHMO web site. 
Uh- there is much more to this than what was stated above. Yes, the meat and dairy industries are the number one contributers to global warming, deforestation, water shortage etc. It's not a radical view, on the contrary. But- it is something the government and meat industry leaders would like to keep quiet.
Factory Farms emit massive amounts of methane gas (you can figure out how right?), which is more harmful than carbon dioxide as far as warming the atmosphere. Of course, transporting the animals uses huge amounts of oil as well. Developing countries are clearing their forests for room to rasie grain for livestock. Most of the world's fresh water is used to raise livestock. This is not new information. Buy becoming veg, you will do more to prevent global warming than you would by buying a hybrid car. (not that doing both wouldn't be a good idea)
Do some reading- beyond advertising by the meat industry. Time.com has an article called "Will we still eat meat?" about the 21st century. (the answer is no, because the industry is unsustainable) Like I said, these are not radical or new ideas, just fact.
Factory Farms emit massive amounts of methane gas (you can figure out how right?), which is more harmful than carbon dioxide as far as warming the atmosphere. Of course, transporting the animals uses huge amounts of oil as well. Developing countries are clearing their forests for room to rasie grain for livestock. Most of the world's fresh water is used to raise livestock. This is not new information. Buy becoming veg, you will do more to prevent global warming than you would by buying a hybrid car. (not that doing both wouldn't be a good idea)
Do some reading- beyond advertising by the meat industry. Time.com has an article called "Will we still eat meat?" about the 21st century. (the answer is no, because the industry is unsustainable) Like I said, these are not radical or new ideas, just fact.
Hi all,
I think it would be "nice" to not eat meat for one reason... we are killing thinking animals to "feed our habit". If it wasn't for that I would have no problems with it. It is conceivable we may "grow" meat in genetic mass food production units. It is totally wasteful to "grow" an animal using the production and acreage of many farms to feed them. The "crop of meat" fails in times of drought and the animals drown in the floods. Better to produce meat "synthetically" without the problems of grazing animals and their suffering. Even some vegans will eat it
Top Biotech Firm Developing New "Applesteak" Fruit "Mixed" information here.
in vitro meat production bit better
We will eventually grow all our "crops" in such systems and also in intensive hydroponic systems without the disease and contamination of insects or wildlife. We will be able to take these systems into space and to other planets. These "factories" will be "small" as a footprint on the surface of the planet (with many harvestable layers thick... continuous production) and will need a new form of energy to perform this task... but it will come. The systems are available for vegetable production already (except for the cost). They are already used in "factories" for cut flower mass production where the price is high. Water and excess nutrients are able to be recycled in these totally sealed systems. That way every country will feed itself rather than this terrible cycle of drought, famine and flood followed by a good dose of pestilence. Hmmm... now what about "war"?
Cheers
I think it would be "nice" to not eat meat for one reason... we are killing thinking animals to "feed our habit". If it wasn't for that I would have no problems with it. It is conceivable we may "grow" meat in genetic mass food production units. It is totally wasteful to "grow" an animal using the production and acreage of many farms to feed them. The "crop of meat" fails in times of drought and the animals drown in the floods. Better to produce meat "synthetically" without the problems of grazing animals and their suffering. Even some vegans will eat it
Top Biotech Firm Developing New "Applesteak" Fruit "Mixed" information here.
in vitro meat production bit better
We will eventually grow all our "crops" in such systems and also in intensive hydroponic systems without the disease and contamination of insects or wildlife. We will be able to take these systems into space and to other planets. These "factories" will be "small" as a footprint on the surface of the planet (with many harvestable layers thick... continuous production) and will need a new form of energy to perform this task... but it will come. The systems are available for vegetable production already (except for the cost). They are already used in "factories" for cut flower mass production where the price is high. Water and excess nutrients are able to be recycled in these totally sealed systems. That way every country will feed itself rather than this terrible cycle of drought, famine and flood followed by a good dose of pestilence. Hmmm... now what about "war"?
Cheers
If you don't believe in climate change then you are sucking Exxon Mobil 's tail pipe. They are the ones making money on climate change.
The current scientific consensus -- which means every scientist that is not on an oil company's payroll -- on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), and recently confirmed by a joint statement of the G8 academies of science, is that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities.
We have had the hottest 10 years ever recorded in the last 14 years.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temperature_r...past_1000_years
2005 was the hottest year on record.
1st hurricane ever in the southern hemisphere. Record number of tornadoes already this year in the US. Record number of typhoons in Japan last year. Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans. Heat wave in Paris. Stongest hurricanes ever in the Atlantic.
If you have children, you need to take your head out of your *** and start doing everything possible to halt global warming.
The current scientific consensus -- which means every scientist that is not on an oil company's payroll -- on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), and recently confirmed by a joint statement of the G8 academies of science, is that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities.
We have had the hottest 10 years ever recorded in the last 14 years.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temperature_r...past_1000_years
2005 was the hottest year on record.
1st hurricane ever in the southern hemisphere. Record number of tornadoes already this year in the US. Record number of typhoons in Japan last year. Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans. Heat wave in Paris. Stongest hurricanes ever in the Atlantic.
If you have children, you need to take your head out of your *** and start doing everything possible to halt global warming.
I think we should all adopt HINDUISM and become cow worshipers!!!
Mooo MMOOOO!!!!
Mooo MMOOOO!!!!
The only reason there are intellegent Humans today is because are ancestors started to eat meat. This extra protein enlarged the brain. Look it up.
Well, since animals farting is one of the leading causes for C02 emmisions, perhaps it deserves some attention. Not that any corporation in their right mind would consider it their responcibility. That just leaves science departments. Is there a way to stop cows farting without slaughtering them?
QUOTE
We would be cutting co2 emissions but we would also be cutting thousands maybe even millions of people off from their income source. Just think about it, the farmers would have to reorient all of their fields to grow crops not to herd some animals. The processing plants would shut down and a lot of small and big businesses would go bankrupt
Its like saying "lets stop using computers to reduce the power consumption"
Although... smaller changes might be beneficial
Its like saying "lets stop using computers to reduce the power consumption"
Although... smaller changes might be beneficial
People producing and distributing meat would lose their jobs if people ate less meat but it wouldn't mean they couldn't find other jobs, like, say, producing and distributing fruit, vegetables and dairy products.
QUOTE (phil245+Apr 19 2006, 04:42 PM)
The only reason there are intelligent Humans today is because are ancestors started to eat meat. This extra protein enlarged the brain. Look it up.
actually, there is absolutely no proof for this.
it's a ploy by the meat industry to fool the average citizen.
if you look at evolution, sure, our ancestors ate meat, but by your theory all carnivores should be more intelligent, when in nature the opposite is in fact true.
by and large all the more intelligent animals are herbivores or omnivores.
actually, there is absolutely no proof for this.
it's a ploy by the meat industry to fool the average citizen.
if you look at evolution, sure, our ancestors ate meat, but by your theory all carnivores should be more intelligent, when in nature the opposite is in fact true.
by and large all the more intelligent animals are herbivores or omnivores.
Did you -seriously- just say there is no proof of this?...
That would be personal opinion and not any sort of empirical evidence. It just so happens to be that humans are not vegetarians, we haven't been since we were small brained monkeypeople. Out of magical coincidence, just as we started harvesting bone marrow and eating it, our brains grew a lot better. Out of magical coincidence, the protein in the marrow is required during the developmental stages of brain formation and we had a very hard time getting it from flora.
WOW SOME COINCIDENCE. What kind of loony tune thinks the meat market is now involved in anthropological conspiracies?
Oh, apparently THIS ENTIRE THREAD. The truth of the matter is that 'going veg' isn't going to stop global warming- That's such a pansy vegetarian point of view. First of all, the MEAT INDUSTRY isn't 'responsible for water shortages'. That is the dumbest thing I have heard this year. Second of all, agricultural farmland requires deforestation just as grazing land for cows. In fact, the two are interchangeable. As for cows farting up a storm, we've killed millions apon millions of cow analogues that would of roamed the country originally. Yes, cows produce a great deal of methane and some carbon dioxide and some nitrous oxide- However, they also produce a product which packs a larger amount of nutrition into a smaller amount of space. If you were to transport 20 times the grain, you would use more fossil fuel. Also, in most developing countries, meat is transported by roundup. Cows have feet.
NOT ONLY THAT, but modern beef producing facilities are indoor structures that use FAR LESS ROOM than a conventional farm environment and stack cows vertically. Maybe it's not 'humane', but it definitely produces more calories and nutrients per square foot than rolling hills of grain. By exponential factors!
IN CONCLUSION, the alternative to modern meat production is agriculture. Since 'organic' agriculture is a two dimensional crop, and agriculture uses almost as much water, we end up with more deforested land to feed less people. There is also the matter of tractors used to process the grain and the fertilizer used to render the land.
Also, let me be frank- Most people need meat or alternatively a very well balanced vegetarian diet to synthesize and absorb all the necessary proteins and nutrients to be healthy. This would require an immense amount of coordination among farmers and an acute awareness of nutrition that most people aren't really capable of mustering.
Also, statistically.. Wetlands, natural gas usage and landfill practices each produce more tgs of methane than enteric digestion/fermentation-
A category that includes all enteric digestion/fermentation on the planet by all animals who do so!
And as for the person who said that in nature carnivores are less intelligent than herbivores, that is the biggest load of steaming crap I've ever heard. Predators are required to be smarter than their prey or they wouldn't eat very often. Bunny= Stupid, Cat= Smart. Hyena= Smart, Gazelle= Stupid. Tell me of a stupid predator that eats smart prey, please.
That would be personal opinion and not any sort of empirical evidence. It just so happens to be that humans are not vegetarians, we haven't been since we were small brained monkeypeople. Out of magical coincidence, just as we started harvesting bone marrow and eating it, our brains grew a lot better. Out of magical coincidence, the protein in the marrow is required during the developmental stages of brain formation and we had a very hard time getting it from flora.
WOW SOME COINCIDENCE. What kind of loony tune thinks the meat market is now involved in anthropological conspiracies?
Oh, apparently THIS ENTIRE THREAD. The truth of the matter is that 'going veg' isn't going to stop global warming- That's such a pansy vegetarian point of view. First of all, the MEAT INDUSTRY isn't 'responsible for water shortages'. That is the dumbest thing I have heard this year. Second of all, agricultural farmland requires deforestation just as grazing land for cows. In fact, the two are interchangeable. As for cows farting up a storm, we've killed millions apon millions of cow analogues that would of roamed the country originally. Yes, cows produce a great deal of methane and some carbon dioxide and some nitrous oxide- However, they also produce a product which packs a larger amount of nutrition into a smaller amount of space. If you were to transport 20 times the grain, you would use more fossil fuel. Also, in most developing countries, meat is transported by roundup. Cows have feet.
NOT ONLY THAT, but modern beef producing facilities are indoor structures that use FAR LESS ROOM than a conventional farm environment and stack cows vertically. Maybe it's not 'humane', but it definitely produces more calories and nutrients per square foot than rolling hills of grain. By exponential factors!
IN CONCLUSION, the alternative to modern meat production is agriculture. Since 'organic' agriculture is a two dimensional crop, and agriculture uses almost as much water, we end up with more deforested land to feed less people. There is also the matter of tractors used to process the grain and the fertilizer used to render the land.
Also, let me be frank- Most people need meat or alternatively a very well balanced vegetarian diet to synthesize and absorb all the necessary proteins and nutrients to be healthy. This would require an immense amount of coordination among farmers and an acute awareness of nutrition that most people aren't really capable of mustering.
Also, statistically.. Wetlands, natural gas usage and landfill practices each produce more tgs of methane than enteric digestion/fermentation-
A category that includes all enteric digestion/fermentation on the planet by all animals who do so!
And as for the person who said that in nature carnivores are less intelligent than herbivores, that is the biggest load of steaming crap I've ever heard. Predators are required to be smarter than their prey or they wouldn't eat very often. Bunny= Stupid, Cat= Smart. Hyena= Smart, Gazelle= Stupid. Tell me of a stupid predator that eats smart prey, please.
Do you honestly believe that you would be taking a 'chance' giving up meat? I think the opposite holds true. Do you even know what you're eating? What's in your meat? Millions of people in the world are vegetarians. We live longer, are less likely to have heart attacks and/or strokes, have leaner bodies and healthier ideals. And in terms of farmers and businesses collapsing, first of all, if livestock weren't in demand, farmers could focus their energy on crops such as soy and canola - much better for our soil and easier to maintain. Second, if meat production companies go out of business, I say good riddens. They are what have gotten in the way of our farmers' livlihood in the first place. Go to the PETA website and check out their short film "Meet Your Meat" then come back on here and say "If God didn't want us to eat animals, they wouldn't have made them out of meat."
Arguments that say if we stopped eating meat JOBS would be affected hasn't read the latest news about OUTSOURCING! Farmers have been having to rethink how they produce for generations as the shifts in eating consumption changes. The larger commitment is to future generations being able to enjoy what's left of our beautiful earth. Global warming is a bigger issue than our economy. If we don't do something about this effect, we won't have an economy to vainly protect. 
I'm a little skeptical about how becoming a vegetarian will save the environment. First of all, if it is the animals that emit the greenhouse gases, wouldn't the solution be to eliminate the animals completely?
Second, they say that the main reason for rain forest destruction is for cattle grazing. However, if there is no demand for meat, the cows will still be here (there may be more), so where will they go? There will need to be some habitat for all the extra cows, chickens, pigs, etc.
Second, they say that the main reason for rain forest destruction is for cattle grazing. However, if there is no demand for meat, the cows will still be here (there may be more), so where will they go? There will need to be some habitat for all the extra cows, chickens, pigs, etc.
[FONT=Arial]becoming a vegetarian isn't just about eating meat or not eating meat. it is also about ethical treatment of the animals that we get the meat from. for example, animals that are gassed, but wake up later when they are being cut open and skinned. animals that are abused and given so much steriods, that if a human were givin as many steroids, by 18 months they would weigh 1200 lbs. it is also not a discussion of wether god made animals out of meat for us to eat or not. 1) who is to prove there is a god and 2) if there is a god, he made many diferent speices of animals AND plants, so yes... we could eat meat, but he also gave us the freedom of choice and the more humane and ethical choice would be to eat plants who ( i am pretty sure) cannot feel pain. also eating meat means that world hunger increases, because we value the life of a cow pruducing meat more than we value a human life, so we feed the corn and wheat and grains we grow, to the cow instead of a starving child in india or africa. that is SICK. that you would care more about your meat than someone else liveing on 1/4 of the food you live on.
this is just some of the things that i know and i am only 15. i hope that our world will learn to accept a little discomfort of not having everything so everyone can have something.
this is just some of the things that i know and i am only 15. i hope that our world will learn to accept a little discomfort of not having everything so everyone can have something.
I we got rid of all carnivores on Earth, then the rest of the herbivores would eat up most the plantlife and we'd be even worse off correct? They'd starve and plantlife would diminish as well ... how can grass stop deer from eatting it without something bigger around? If anything more carnivores are needed.
Overall, the problem is simply focusing on one issue to the exclusion of others. The agricultural industries grow more food (including cattle) and support more life than nature can do on her own as far as I can tell. That's a good right? Or is nature suppose to be devoid of things like food chains and carbon cycles etc.?
Plants have DNA and grow and live. They effectively "bleed" when cut as well. Just because we don't speak the same language doesn't mean they don't feel pain, though I admit it seems highly unlikely as what would be the purpose of a plant experiencing pain over something they likely can't do much about or learn from ... do plants learn?
But plants are still life, organic and grow from seeds with DNA etc. If people don't eat meat, thay eat a lot more vegitables and deny some other animal eating that same food. It's a tradeoff.
Plants have DNA and grow and live. They effectively "bleed" when cut as well. Just because we don't speak the same language doesn't mean they don't feel pain, though I admit it seems highly unlikely as what would be the purpose of a plant experiencing pain over something they likely can't do much about or learn from ... do plants learn?
But plants are still life, organic and grow from seeds with DNA etc. If people don't eat meat, thay eat a lot more vegitables and deny some other animal eating that same food. It's a tradeoff.
also eating meat means that world hunger increases, because we value the life of a cow pruducing meat more than we value a human life, so we feed the corn and wheat and grains we grow, to the cow instead of a starving child in india or africa. that is SICK. that you would care more about your meat than someone else liveing on 1/4 of the food you live on.
Would you deny them eating meat? That could easily be considered just as sick. It's probably easy to say don't eat meat when you have a lot of food around, but I doubt many people around the world have the same luxuries and protein and fats provide a lot more sustainance.
Overall, the problem is simply focusing on one issue to the exclusion of others. The agricultural industries grow more food (including cattle) and support more life than nature can do on her own as far as I can tell. That's a good right? Or is nature suppose to be devoid of things like food chains and carbon cycles etc.?
QUOTE
we could eat meat, but he also gave us the freedom of choice and the more humane and ethical choice would be to eat plants who ( i am pretty sure) cannot feel pain.
Plants have DNA and grow and live. They effectively "bleed" when cut as well. Just because we don't speak the same language doesn't mean they don't feel pain, though I admit it seems highly unlikely as what would be the purpose of a plant experiencing pain over something they likely can't do much about or learn from ... do plants learn?
But plants are still life, organic and grow from seeds with DNA etc. If people don't eat meat, thay eat a lot more vegitables and deny some other animal eating that same food. It's a tradeoff.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| we could eat meat, but he also gave us the freedom of choice and the more humane and ethical choice would be to eat plants who ( i am pretty sure) cannot feel pain. |
Plants have DNA and grow and live. They effectively "bleed" when cut as well. Just because we don't speak the same language doesn't mean they don't feel pain, though I admit it seems highly unlikely as what would be the purpose of a plant experiencing pain over something they likely can't do much about or learn from ... do plants learn?
But plants are still life, organic and grow from seeds with DNA etc. If people don't eat meat, thay eat a lot more vegitables and deny some other animal eating that same food. It's a tradeoff.
also eating meat means that world hunger increases, because we value the life of a cow pruducing meat more than we value a human life, so we feed the corn and wheat and grains we grow, to the cow instead of a starving child in india or africa. that is SICK. that you would care more about your meat than someone else liveing on 1/4 of the food you live on.
Would you deny them eating meat? That could easily be considered just as sick. It's probably easy to say don't eat meat when you have a lot of food around, but I doubt many people around the world have the same luxuries and protein and fats provide a lot more sustainance.
i was not saying that you should deny a person who is starving meat, if they need to eat it then let them it it. god, what would even put that into your head. and another point would be that those animals are probably hunted and not made for meat, and are probably wild. what i was saying is that we, the people who can afford to, should not eat meat, and then when there is enough food for everyone because the grain is being fed to humans and not just to make cows and chickens and pigs fatter then they should be, no one would need to eat meat.
and about plants feeling pain. have you ever heard one scream out in pain as the skin is being peeled off. as far as i know they do not have nerves i could be wrong about that though, and i don't think they have brains. and it is more humane to eat plants and we would not be denying animals of other food. we would be using less land then now to grow food, less water, and there would be less pollution for everyone. how do you think animals survive in the wild? they get their own food and do you think that it is healthy for them to weigh that much and get pumped of steroids? nope.
and if you are so concerned about plants feeling things, why don't you become a fruitarian: a person who does not cook anything , or eat anything that has not already fallen from a tree or bush i.e. has died on its own.
once you do that then maybe i can respect your outlook in plants.
oh. and how would you like your dog for dinner? little fido roasting on a stick. same thing with animals. just because one is cuter makes no difference. chickens are as smart as cats and pigs are as smart as dogs.
plus animals cause the rainforest to get cut down because. ...
the developing countries that the rainforest is in are in debt up to their ears. meat is in very high demand so they grow meat. to do so they need land. and after a certain period of time, cattle ruin the topsoil of the land, and nothing can be grown there anymore, so they cut down more forest, leaving barren land behin. 3/4 of out world is water, and 1/2 of the land is unlivable ex.: antartica and like areas.
70% of the food grown in the US is given to animals. not people. animals. and THIS is gross. we have people who die of hunger, not as many as other countries, but if we gave that food to people instead of animals, everyone would have something in their belly at night. and if the world gave the food grown for cattle to people, it would be enough to fill the caloric needs of 8 billion people. (not sure if that is exact number but very close to)
and about plants feeling pain. have you ever heard one scream out in pain as the skin is being peeled off. as far as i know they do not have nerves i could be wrong about that though, and i don't think they have brains. and it is more humane to eat plants and we would not be denying animals of other food. we would be using less land then now to grow food, less water, and there would be less pollution for everyone. how do you think animals survive in the wild? they get their own food and do you think that it is healthy for them to weigh that much and get pumped of steroids? nope.
and if you are so concerned about plants feeling things, why don't you become a fruitarian: a person who does not cook anything , or eat anything that has not already fallen from a tree or bush i.e. has died on its own.
once you do that then maybe i can respect your outlook in plants.
oh. and how would you like your dog for dinner? little fido roasting on a stick. same thing with animals. just because one is cuter makes no difference. chickens are as smart as cats and pigs are as smart as dogs.
plus animals cause the rainforest to get cut down because. ...
the developing countries that the rainforest is in are in debt up to their ears. meat is in very high demand so they grow meat. to do so they need land. and after a certain period of time, cattle ruin the topsoil of the land, and nothing can be grown there anymore, so they cut down more forest, leaving barren land behin. 3/4 of out world is water, and 1/2 of the land is unlivable ex.: antartica and like areas.
70% of the food grown in the US is given to animals. not people. animals. and THIS is gross. we have people who die of hunger, not as many as other countries, but if we gave that food to people instead of animals, everyone would have something in their belly at night. and if the world gave the food grown for cattle to people, it would be enough to fill the caloric needs of 8 billion people. (not sure if that is exact number but very close to)
and plants and beans give you enough protein to be healthy. too much protein is actually a bad thing for you. 1 seving of meat is about a half of a steak that one would eat in one sitting. meat 3 serving a week is healthy, but not more than that. after that it is very bad for you. too much protein causes calcium to leak out of bones.
This debate is almost unbelievable, but good fun.
The fact is we are a fairly small contributor to CO2 to the atmosphere, despite all the hype you read. Going vegetarian would be a drop in the ocean.
We don't amount to a hill of beans.
But beans do produce a lot of Methane which has 23 times the global warming potential compared to CO2
The fact is we are a fairly small contributor to CO2 to the atmosphere, despite all the hype you read. Going vegetarian would be a drop in the ocean.
We don't amount to a hill of beans.
But beans do produce a lot of Methane which has 23 times the global warming potential compared to CO2
VEGETARIANISM IS THE FUTURE!!!
NOBODY THINKS KILLING IS RIGHT
IT CREATES SO MUCH NEGATIVE ENERGY
...WE ARE MOVING TOWARDS A MORE NATURAL
WAY OF LIVING WHICH IS MORE THAN AMAZING
...SACRIFICES WILL HAVE TO BE MADE &
PEOPLE WILL ADJUST...CHANGE IS INEVITABLE
OR WOULD YOU PREFER TO ADJUST TO THIS...
1 Effects of Global Warming
1.1 Effects on weather
1.1.1 More extreme weather
1.1.2 Increased evaporation
1.1.3 Cost of more extreme weather
1.1.4 Destabilization of local climates
1.2 Oceans
1.2.1 Sea level rise
1.2.2 Temperature rise
1.2.3 Acidification
1.2.4 Shutdown of thermohaline circulation
1.3 Ecosystems
1.3.1 Ecological productivity
1.4 Glacier Retreat
1.5 Further global warming (positive feedback)
1.5.1 Methane release from melting permafrost peat bogs
1.5.2 Methane release from hydrates
1.5.3 Carbon cycle feedbacks
1.5.4 Forest Fires
1.5.5 Retreat of Sea Ice
1.6 Negative feedback effects
2 Consequences
2.1 Economic
2.1.1 Decline of agriculture
2.1.2 Insurance
2.1.3 Transport
2.1.4 Flood defense
2.1.5 Migration
2.1.6 Northwest Passage
2.1.7 Development
2.2 Environmental
2.2.1 Water scarcity
2.3 Health
2.3.1 Direct effects of temperature rise
2.3.2 Spread of disease
2.4 Impacts of glacier retreat
...TO STOP KILLING ANIMALS AND CUT GLOBAL WARMING
AT THE SAME TIME IS SOMETHING I WOULD GIVE ANYTHING FOR
[SIZE=14][COLOR=purple]
NOBODY THINKS KILLING IS RIGHT
IT CREATES SO MUCH NEGATIVE ENERGY
...WE ARE MOVING TOWARDS A MORE NATURAL
WAY OF LIVING WHICH IS MORE THAN AMAZING
...SACRIFICES WILL HAVE TO BE MADE &
PEOPLE WILL ADJUST...CHANGE IS INEVITABLE
OR WOULD YOU PREFER TO ADJUST TO THIS...
1 Effects of Global Warming
1.1 Effects on weather
1.1.1 More extreme weather
1.1.2 Increased evaporation
1.1.3 Cost of more extreme weather
1.1.4 Destabilization of local climates
1.2 Oceans
1.2.1 Sea level rise
1.2.2 Temperature rise
1.2.3 Acidification
1.2.4 Shutdown of thermohaline circulation
1.3 Ecosystems
1.3.1 Ecological productivity
1.4 Glacier Retreat
1.5 Further global warming (positive feedback)
1.5.1 Methane release from melting permafrost peat bogs
1.5.2 Methane release from hydrates
1.5.3 Carbon cycle feedbacks
1.5.4 Forest Fires
1.5.5 Retreat of Sea Ice
1.6 Negative feedback effects
2 Consequences
2.1 Economic
2.1.1 Decline of agriculture
2.1.2 Insurance
2.1.3 Transport
2.1.4 Flood defense
2.1.5 Migration
2.1.6 Northwest Passage
2.1.7 Development
2.2 Environmental
2.2.1 Water scarcity
2.3 Health
2.3.1 Direct effects of temperature rise
2.3.2 Spread of disease
2.4 Impacts of glacier retreat
...TO STOP KILLING ANIMALS AND CUT GLOBAL WARMING
AT THE SAME TIME IS SOMETHING I WOULD GIVE ANYTHING FOR
[SIZE=14][COLOR=purple]
Thank you rosemary for the link to article at Time.com called "Will We Still Eat Meat?" I found this very interesting.
I also read a lot now, in many places that a vegan diet causes 1.5 less tonnes of CO2 than a meat eater diet. Switching to a vegan diet is an easy thing to do, just do it gradually if it seems to hard. There are a lot of guides to going vegan which are helpful.
I can't understand why many meat eaters will not go vegan, it seems such a logical thing to do considering the global warming crisis. And it is also more healthy for the body. Not to mention so much less hurtful to animals.
I also read a lot now, in many places that a vegan diet causes 1.5 less tonnes of CO2 than a meat eater diet. Switching to a vegan diet is an easy thing to do, just do it gradually if it seems to hard. There are a lot of guides to going vegan which are helpful.
I can't understand why many meat eaters will not go vegan, it seems such a logical thing to do considering the global warming crisis. And it is also more healthy for the body. Not to mention so much less hurtful to animals.
[COLOR=purple] 
God created the animals to serve us to a compnay us,for us to rule over them.God made the plants fruits and nuts berries for us to eat. A King does not eat his subjects he rules over them ! RELIGIOUS ....PHYSIOLOGICAL our digestive tracts are not sutable like tigers /carnivores/ that eat and eliminate quickly due to the short digestive tract. with humans it creates illnesses due to the food putrifying because it is to difficult to eliminate or break down.....hence DISEASES...by the way the majority i not ALL epidemics come from meat consumption. The number of individuals hospitalized, less than 10% are vegetarian........ please feel free to reply or ask more Q?'s
"AHIMSA"
God created the animals to serve us to a compnay us,for us to rule over them.God made the plants fruits and nuts berries for us to eat. A King does not eat his subjects he rules over them ! RELIGIOUS ....PHYSIOLOGICAL our digestive tracts are not sutable like tigers /carnivores/ that eat and eliminate quickly due to the short digestive tract. with humans it creates illnesses due to the food putrifying because it is to difficult to eliminate or break down.....hence DISEASES...by the way the majority i not ALL epidemics come from meat consumption. The number of individuals hospitalized, less than 10% are vegetarian........ please feel free to reply or ask more Q?'s "AHIMSA"
QUOTE (Guest_Andrew+Sep 16 2007, 12:24 PM)
God made the plants fruits and nuts.
..... nuts huh ..... well that explains you.
..... nuts huh ..... well that explains you.
QUOTE (Guest_Andrew+Sep 17 2007, 12:24 AM)
[COLOR=purple]
What is it about vegiterians that they can't understand how to post? Not enough protein in the brain?
[hint] click Close all Tags just before you submit [/hint]
What is it about vegiterians that they can't understand how to post? Not enough protein in the brain?
[hint] click Close all Tags just before you submit [/hint]
Interesting idea. I’ve never thought about it. It can be really useful for many users. Thank you very much!
-------------------------------------
www.u4.com.ua | www.u5.com.ua | www.u6.com.ua
-------------------------------------
www.u4.com.ua | www.u5.com.ua | www.u6.com.ua
So you are saying that cooking meat is speeding up global warming, right? So when a vegitarian cooks their shish kabobs or their tofu then that is the same thing. This is the worst side of global warming. It is bad enough that you guys freak out the country and the world with these ridiculos ideas that eating is speeding up global warming. I want to to take this comment seriously, do some tests, and then e-mail me back with the results. Then and only then will i even consider believing this idea.
My e-mail is: pb4life20@aol.com
My e-mail is: pb4life20@aol.com
QUOTE (Guest_Steve+Jul 8 2005, 09:30 AM)
Not only would we be able to cut co2 emissions by not farming animals for food, we would be able to free up land to grow the extra other foods to replace the meat. It would also leave us with an excess amount of food to feed all the starving people and everbody would have jobs, just different ones. They could all go organic and reduce polutants even further, also farmed animals consume very large amounts of water, an average of 3000 litres of water is needed to produce a Kilogram of beef (Maff UK figures) , farmed animals use approx 10,000 times as much water as humans, so extra bonus of no water shortages.
YEAH, in fact, let's all just go back to living in an agrarian society! Starting with you. Please unplug and throw away your computer immediately.
YEAH, in fact, let's all just go back to living in an agrarian society! Starting with you. Please unplug and throw away your computer immediately.
Vegetarians CAUSE global warming.
1- Because they eat Vegetables and greenery that filters CO2 and pollutants.
2- They do not eat cows or animals that generate Methane.
1- Because they eat Vegetables and greenery that filters CO2 and pollutants.
2- They do not eat cows or animals that generate Methane.
QUOTE (professor andy+Jul 7 2005, 07:37 PM)
My view is that there's people in the world getting rich off the idea of global warming. I dont know if any of you live in the UK, but we get adverts for companys that tell your company how to reduce CO2 outputs! They have these big elabourate ads with terrible weather, yet when I look out my window its fine and dandy.
Sure we get ups and downs, but thats natural. I think because theres been no really terrible weather in the past 50 years in the UK that people just expect it should always be nice. So some *** of a scientist does some "research" (which I commented on on another post) comes up with a theory, and there we have it.
I've said earlier, when volcanoes erupt they chuck up more pollution into the atmosphere than cars could make in a million years. And yet the world survives..
I you wanna reduce CO2, go plant some feckin trees!
Global warming is a big load of tits!
Actually , That would be very interesting ..
Does anyone actually know this comparison to be anything like accurate.
Cheers
Iseason
Sure we get ups and downs, but thats natural. I think because theres been no really terrible weather in the past 50 years in the UK that people just expect it should always be nice. So some *** of a scientist does some "research" (which I commented on on another post) comes up with a theory, and there we have it.
I've said earlier, when volcanoes erupt they chuck up more pollution into the atmosphere than cars could make in a million years. And yet the world survives..
I you wanna reduce CO2, go plant some feckin trees!
Global warming is a big load of tits!
Actually , That would be very interesting ..
Does anyone actually know this comparison to be anything like accurate.
Cheers
Iseason
QUOTE (Carniverous+Sep 28 2007, 09:11 PM)
Vegetarians CAUSE global warming.
1- Because they eat Vegetables and greenery that filters CO2 and pollutants.
2- They do not eat cows or animals that generate Methane.
ROFL
******TOUCHE********
1- Because they eat Vegetables and greenery that filters CO2 and pollutants.
2- They do not eat cows or animals that generate Methane.
ROFL
******TOUCHE********
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.