-
Re: PETA releases statement opposing Pokemon
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Traab
Im not worried about the planet. You know why? Because its foolishness to think that we can do much of anything that will effect it long term, on a geological time scale. We could launch every nuke in existence at the same time, and so long as the planet itself doesnt shatter and drift into space in a thousand pieces, the world will heal in time. The real issue isnt that we are killing the world, its that we are going to be killing ourselves. Once we die out due to whatever finally kills us, the world will start to self correct, and in another 30,000 years there wont be any sign we ever existed. The worst that will happen is we will make the planet unsuitable for life in some way, then we die, and the things we did that ruined the earth for us stop happening and life eventually starts over again. So i dont worry about the fate of earth.
You are being a touch overly pedantic. When people talk about the 'fate of the Earth', they generally* mean the biosphere. And that, that we can, have, and do, <expletive redacted/> on a pretty regular basis to greater and lesser extents.
Frankly, I want humanity to last as long as possible.
*Though admittedly not always.
-
Re: PETA releases statement opposing Pokemon
Quote:
Originally Posted by
dehro
how come your propaganda-sensor didn't ring?
I mean..nature didn't build us to fly either..or indeed navigate the seas.
other than that, I pretty much agree with most of what you say.
We didn't sprout wings or gills either. We created devices that allowed us to do those things. We still cannot do those things under our own power.
-
Re: PETA releases statement opposing Pokemon
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Tebryn
We didn't sprout wings or gills either. We created devices that allowed us to do those things. We still cannot do those things under our own power.
Just to reiterate; the line between man and nature is, at best, extremely blurry. Nature didn't give us gills or wings, but it did give us the intellience and the posable thumbs necessary to develop tool-use and eventually build those devices that allow us to fly and navigate even the stars. (We can navigate them already, we just don't have any way fast enough to make actually travelling them practical as of yet.) Saying that nature didn't build us to use the things we've built can ultimately be an argument that tool-use is unnatural, but that's countered by the fact that we're not the only species that has tool-use; see several species of primates, particularly chimpanzees, and sea otters for example.
-
Re: PETA releases statement opposing Pokemon
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Kelb_Panthera
Just to reiterate; the line between man and nature is, at best, extremely blurry. Nature didn't give us gills or wings, but it did give us the intellience and the posable thumbs necessary to develop tool-use and eventually build those devices that allow us to fly and navigate even the stars. (We can navigate them already, we just don't have any way fast enough to make actually travelling them practical as of yet.) Saying that nature didn't build us to use the things we've built can ultimately be an argument that tool-use is unnatural, but that's countered by the fact that we're not the only species that has tool-use; see several species of primates, particularly chimpanzees, and sea otters for example.
Tool use being natural doesn't make the tools built part of nature depending on how you define Nature. However, my main issue here is that Nature didn't -BUILD-us. Evolution doesn't select for things. It selects against things. So to offer forth "Nature didn't build us to fly etc etc" is an utterly fatuous statement from the get go. The human species didn't need to fly. So we didn't develop that particular talent.
-
Re: PETA releases statement opposing Pokemon
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Kelb_Panthera
Unless you've actually done some absolutely staggering research; seriously, scientific achievment award level stuff; you can't know that.
Just off the top of my head, if the chicken has a higher energy density than the plants that feed her, then removing her from the equation means we have to produce more weight in grain for humans than we produced weight in chicken, which may or may not have the end result of actually needing to convert more land to crop producing farmland, and/or raise overall transportation cost for that food.
Nevermind that removing the chicken from the equation falls flat either morally, because it requires driving a species into extinction, or by logical fallacy. Chickens will go feral rather than extinct if left on their own, meaning that they continue to eat grain and produce their biological emissions and/or become a pest-animal that has to be regularly neutralized.
I can't logically concede to this argument without actual data that's at least in the ball-park. Unfortunately, I rather doubt that anyone's actually done all of the necessary research to collect that data. That, or if there is truth in your assertion, the data is being suppressed for economic reasons. As others have pointed out, converting large portions of industrialized nations to a low/no-meat diet will inevitably run into issues of economic and social turbulence as well as the tremendous reduction in several industries.
@ whoever tried to throw out byproduct use: It most certainly does count. There are many places where synthesis is either a woefully impractical option or an utter non-option. If byproducts are being put to use, they're not waste. Waste is the stuff that ends up in landfills and, ironically, most of it is synthetic. You can't just throw out part of the equation because it supports the other guy instead of you.
Yes I can. The chicken will eat it's weight in grain many times over before it is killed transported and eaten. Honestly, it's not hard math, and the basis is the basic conservation of energy.
-
Re: PETA releases statement opposing Pokemon
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Xondoure
Yes I can. The chicken will eat it's weight in grain many times over before it is killed transported and eaten. Honestly, it's not hard math, and the basis is the basic conservation of energy.
I'm sorry, but this hypothesis is based on some rather dubious assumptions and one scientific principle.
This isn't a simple thermodynamics issue. It's a complex interplay between macro-economics, bio-chemistry, thermodynamics, ecology, and politics. To ignore that makes your assertion, at best, disingenious, and quite possibly flat wrong.
I can't say for certain whether your assertion is true or not any more than you can, because I haven't done the necessary research either, but I simply can't accept it as fact as it stands now.
-
Re: PETA releases statement opposing Pokemon
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Kelb_Panthera
I'm sorry, but this hypothesis is based on some rather dubious assumptions and one scientific principle.
This isn't a simple thermodynamics issue. It's a complex interplay between macro-economics, bio-chemistry, thermodynamics, ecology, and politics. To ignore that makes your assertion, at best, disingenious, and quite possibly flat wrong.
I can't say for certain whether your assertion is true or not any more than you can, because I haven't done the necessary research either, but I simply can't accept it as fact as it stands now.
The International Panel for Sustainable Resource Management has come to the same conclusion.
-
Re: PETA releases statement opposing Pokemon
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Kelb_Panthera
I'm sorry, but this hypothesis is based on some rather dubious assumptions and one scientific principle.
This isn't a simple thermodynamics issue. It's a complex interplay between macro-economics, bio-chemistry, thermodynamics, ecology, and politics. To ignore that makes your assertion, at best, disingenious, and quite possibly flat wrong.
I can't say for certain whether your assertion is true or not any more than you can, because I haven't done the necessary research either, but I simply can't accept it as fact as it stands now.
My point here, is that supporting the industrial slaughter of animals for food requires the growing of more crops than a vegetarian focused society. It's not really negotiable when the science is there.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecological_pyramid
-
Re: PETA releases statement opposing Pokemon
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Tebryn
This is helpful. Thank you. Though I'm suspicious of any news organization's retelling of findings. Does anyone know where I can see a copy of the actuall IPSRM report? Nevermind, found the pdf's on the IRM's website. I'll have to hit the public library and get a good look at them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Xondoure
My point here, is that supporting the industrial slaughter of animals for food requires the growing of more crops than a vegetarian focused society. It's not really negotiable when the science is there.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecological_pyramid
This is decidedly not helpful however. This is primary school science with a fancy suit, and says nothing at all about the associated production, transportation, or political costs.
-
Re: PETA releases statement opposing Pokemon
Quote:
Originally Posted by
GolemsVoice
I certainly would, it certainly would also be a complete mess, though. The only thing I can reliably "cook" is salad and pasta :-)
But... It's even possible to cook something veggy without resorting to pasta or salads. You shoudl check out the indian and japanese kitchen. Along the use of proteins from animals (like meat and fish) they have really explored cooking without them (think about simosas, soups, tofu shizzle and much more). Just becuase you are a vegetarian (or even vegan) shouldn't mean you can't enjoy a broad scala of foods :smallyuk:
Personally, I have never eaten something tofu I did likethe reason for that is (to quote Psyren out of context)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Psyren
Sure you can shape it to look like a steak, and even add steak flavoring, but it's never going to be a steak.
the difference is in the texture, density, juiciness, etc. I on the other hand have a irrational dislike of mushrooms (for flavor, texture etc.).
-
Re: PETA releases statement opposing Pokemon
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Socratov
But... It's even possible to cook something veggy without resorting to pasta or salads. You shoudl check out the indian and japanese kitchen. Along the use of proteins from animals (like meat and fish) they have really explored cooking without them (think about simosas, soups, tofu shizzle and much more). Just becuase you are a vegetarian (or even vegan) shouldn't mean you can't enjoy a broad scala of foods :smallyuk:
Personally, I have never eaten something tofu I did likethe reason for that is (to quote Psyren out of context)
the difference is in the texture, density, juiciness, etc. I on the other hand have a irrational dislike of mushrooms (for flavor, texture etc.).
I'm not a fan of tofu pretending to be meat, but when it's just honestly being tofu it's not bad at all. I especially like the little tofu cubes in miso soup.
-
Re: PETA releases statement opposing Pokemon
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Kelb_Panthera
This is helpful. Thank you. Though I'm suspicious of any news organization's retelling of findings. Does anyone know where I can see a copy of the actuall IPSRM report? Nevermind, found the pdf's on the IRM's website. I'll have to hit the public library and get a good look at them.
This is decidedly not helpful however. This is primary school science with a fancy suit, and says nothing at all about the associated production, transportation, or political costs.
While I agree that Tebryn's article was much more useful, the point of bringing in the wikipedia article was to illustrate my point was founded in primary school science (e.g. pretty basic.)
-
Re: PETA releases statement opposing Pokemon
I'm sure someone ought to point out that, at least from an ecological standpoint, Soylent Green is actually a terrific idea...
...while in real-life, err, maybe not. Although I'm sure that PETA would love that one... I'm surprised they ain't campaigning for it already.
Carbohydrates (the macronutrient most plants provide) surely have a place in the food chain (carb reloading sounds like an interesting resource), but I don't buy it that they're that good... Suffice to say that while humans can live ok without eating plants (though that'll result in the need for the consumption of other animals' organs), they don't do good without essential amino acids or essential fatty acids.
I'm not sure you can get those on a straight-up vegetarian diet without supplementation or food choices that wouldn't be available without modern supply chains, as in, food was hauled across the country, which also happens to not be very healthy.
-
Re: PETA releases statement opposing Pokemon
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Xondoure
Yes I can. The chicken will eat it's weight in grain many times over before it is killed transported and eaten. Honestly, it's not hard math, and the basis is the basic conservation of energy.
it is when you consider all the other factors that come into farming, animal rearing/breeding, and how they affect the soil/economy/politics/education/development of countries etc etc..it is not just a matter of grow so much stuff, burn so much other stuff and so on.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Xondoure
While I agree that Tebryn's article was much more useful, the point of bringing in the wikipedia article was to illustrate my point was founded in primary school science (e.g. pretty basic.)
that doesn't make it right though..
I don't know much about the science behind such analysis.. but..something quite basic strikes me...
people keep saying (and the quoted article has said they're wrong already) that animals eat plenty more than we'd eat if we removed them from the equation..but.. wouldn't we eat a lot more crops if we took the meat out of the equation?
put very very roughly..say a chicken eats x units of corn during it's life before it's slaughtered and eaten by me..
say I don't eat the chicken..wouldn't I have to eat at least the greatest part of those units of corn to make up for the lack of meat..plus a few units of other stuff to make up for the lack of proteine?
I really don't see that big of an advantage in it...
the whole "we'd eat much less than a chicken eats" seems over-simplicistic to me.. and I agree with others who have said this.. it cannot simply be reduced to thermodynamics.. not without putting into the equation how this fundamental shift in production, farming etc affects the biosphere, the soil.. the economic impact..entire countries would be severely affected by the changes in the employement market..
we simply cannot reduce it all to "less cows around means less greenhouse effect by a number of x" because we have no way to tell that it would actually work out that way.
also, if the whole idea is to make it more sustainable in the long run for us humans..at the expense of entire species of animals (once again..which makes the morality of this yet again rather debatable) I wonder why we should bother..we'll all just live a little healthier thus longer, thus needing more supplies. in the long run we might end up having to basically almost exterminate entire species of animals who depend on us for survival.. all for a rather dubious outcome..quite a gamble, if what you have kinda works already.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Starwulf
*Cough Cough* Ahem. A bit of poetry for your pleasure.
Roses Are Red
So is Bacon
Poetry is Hard
Mmm... Bacon
The preceding poem was lifted from a shirt in some Christmas magazine recently sent to my place.
like so?
-
Re: PETA releases statement opposing Pokemon
Quote:
Originally Posted by
dehro
it is when you consider all the other factors that come into farming, animal rearing/breeding, and how they affect the soil/economy/politics/education/development of countries etc etc..it is not just a matter of grow so much stuff, burn so much other stuff and so on.
that doesn't make it right though..
I don't know much about the science behind such analysis.. but..something quite basic strikes me...
people keep saying (and the quoted article has said they're wrong already) that animals eat plenty more than we'd eat if we removed them from the equation..but.. wouldn't we eat a lot more crops if we took the meat out of the equation?
put very very roughly..say a chicken eats x units of corn during it's life before it's slaughtered and eaten by me..
say I don't eat the chicken..wouldn't I have to eat at least the greatest part of those units of corn to make up for the lack of meat..plus a few units of other stuff to make up for the lack of proteine?
I really don't see that big of an advantage in it...
the whole "we'd eat much less than a chicken eats" seems over-simplicistic to me.. and I agree with others who have said this.. it cannot simply be reduced to thermodynamics.. not without putting into the equation how this fundamental shift in production, farming etc affects the biosphere, the soil.. the economic impact..entire countries would be severely affected by the changes in the employement market..
we simply cannot reduce it all to "less cows around means less greenhouse effect by a number of x" because we have no way to tell that it would actually work out that way.
also, if the whole idea is to make it more sustainable in the long run for us humans..at the expense of entire species of animals (once again..which makes the morality of this yet again rather debatable) I wonder why we should bother..we'll all just live a little healthier thus longer, thus needing more supplies. in the long run we might end up having to basically almost exterminate entire species of animals who depend on us for survival.. all for a rather dubious outcome..quite a gamble, if what you have kinda works already.
like so?
Yes, we couldn't just eat the grain produce consumed by chickens. What sustains a chicken will not sustain a human being. We would have to grow different crops, but we would not have to grow as much food if we cut out livestock from the equation. That is fact. Not only that but we wouldn't have to transport as many goods from point a to point b, as we wouldn't have to worry about transporting food to the chickens. On top of all this, livestock themselves emit copious amounts of greenhouse gasses and take up a lot of space that could be other wise used or restored to nature (in the not civilization sense.)
It's really quite simple, all of the energy spent by the chicken during its lifetime is energy that would have gone directly to humans had we consumed the produce directly.
And it's not at the expense of the end of all cows. I'm not suggesting we cut out domestication of livestock altogether, just that lowering the numbers and using meat as a supplementary part of our diets (as opposed to the main course) would have a positive effect on the global ecosystem. I'd also suggest eating locally grown foods to reduce the carbon footprint of transporting goods over vast distances as well as supporting local farmers, and trying to eat organically as much as possible because the food is better for you, and the environment.
Does not doing those things make you a bad person? Absolutely not. But that doesn't stop them from being good ideas.
Edit: and what we have is not sustainable long term. Then again, it is possible nothing will be sustainable long term. That however remains to be seen.
-
Re: PETA releases statement opposing Pokemon
Quote:
Originally Posted by
sharp41
I'm sure someone ought to point out that, at least from an ecological standpoint,
Soylent Green is actually a terrific idea...
...while in real-life, err, maybe not. Although I'm sure that PETA would love that one... I'm surprised they ain't campaigning for it already.
Not in real-life, no. I mentioned it before, cannibalism leads to prion diseases. Kuru, mostly, in humans, but also Creutzfeld-Jakob.
-
Re: PETA releases statement opposing Pokemon
Quote:
Originally Posted by
sharp41
I'm sure someone ought to point out that, at least from an ecological standpoint,
Soylent Green is actually a terrific idea...
...while in real-life, err, maybe not. Although I'm sure that PETA would love that one... I'm surprised they ain't campaigning for it already.
Carbohydrates (the macronutrient most plants provide) surely have a place in the food chain (carb reloading sounds like an interesting resource), but I don't buy it that they're that good... Suffice to say that while humans can live ok without eating plants (though that'll result in the need for the consumption of other animals' organs), they don't do good without essential amino acids or essential fatty acids.
I'm not sure you can get those on a straight-up vegetarian diet without supplementation or food choices that wouldn't be available without modern supply chains, as in, food was hauled across the country, which also happens to not be very healthy.
There are plant sources that are high in protein, and you can get both amino and fatty acids from a number of legumes, particularly the soybean, which are also plants. Don't downplay the importance of carbs though. They play a major role in providing the energy necessary to keep the brain running at peak performance, as I understand it.
I've made my point about the complexity of determining how removing or reducing the number of meat animals in production will impact the global biosphere, so I'll leave it alone until after I've had a chance to read that UN report. Stupid wii can't open pdf's. For the moment though, I still have my doubts.
-
Re: PETA releases statement opposing Pokemon
I agree with you on most things..except for the conclusion that some people (not you, I think) seem to draw from this statement:
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Xondoure
It's really quite simple, all of the energy spent by the chicken during its lifetime is energy that would have gone directly to humans had we consumed the produce directly.
which is that
a+b>b+c
where
a= energy and resources spent or depleted rearing livestock
b= energy and resources spent or depleted growing crops we eat
c= energy and resources spent or depleted growing crops to replace said lifestock
and that that's all there is to it.
Farming doesn't just mean plant a seed, water it and wait until it grows.. When you do that, you deplete salts and other minerals that are in the soil and that need time to be replaced by new ones.. so..farming more intensively because you need more crops means you deplete those resources faster..and need to tear down more forest in order to extend the fields.. that too causes greenhouse effect..
It means modifying the lay of the land drastically..we've done it forever, ever since the egyptians started trying to regulate the floods of the Nile to favour their crops.. ever since we dug the first irrigation channel...
Hell...even the bible tells us about resting on the seventh day and about how that translates in years when farming is involved..if I remember my studies well, according to scriptures, we're supposed to let a piece of land rest every 7th year, so that it can rebuild it's nutrients for when we go back to planting stuff on it.
Whoever did put the bible together knew this even back then, at a time when farming was difficult and uncertain at best..and still very much not as intensive as it is today...
There are too many unfathomable variables that come into play for us to reduce it to a mere thermodynamic equation.
The whole idea that stopping to eat meat would solve certain issues, which is what some of the preachy vegetarians or vegans try to push down our throats is just so full of bull that someone should tell them :smallbiggrin:
P.S. I'm not quoting the bible to spread any word or talk about theology.. far from it..definitely not the right guy for that..
I'm just saying, hell..they knew this about farming even back then, several thousand years ago (we're talking old testament, if memory serves me well).
-
Re: PETA releases statement opposing Pokemon
This isn't a discussion I'm particularly interested in getting involved in (for all it's interesting to watch), but I'd like to point out one almost-always-missed flaw in the "we feed crops to food animals we could be eating ourselves" argument: Animals can eat stuff we don't, and also not all meat is fed on food crops. In Australia, for starters, our sheep and cattle aren't, or are rarely, grain-fed. They're grass-fed. We can't eat grass, and much of the land here can support grass but not much else. Basically, a lot of the time, animals are raised for food in areas that are just no good for raising crops.
And then take, for instance, kangaroos. They eat crappy grass even sheep can't manage. They can survive way out in the desert where you couldn't farm dirt. The argument that "all of the energy spent by the [animal] during its lifetime is energy that would have gone directly to humans had we consumed the produce directly" just simply flat-out does not, cannot, apply to kangaroo meat.
Incidentally, a whole lot of the other arguments against meat-eating don't apply to kangaroos, too: they're all free-range, they don't produce methane, it's an extremely healthy low-fat meat, their feet don't trample the landscape, they don't consume crops nor take up land that could be put to other uses...
-
Re: PETA releases statement opposing Pokemon
Serpentine is right.
Here in Australia, most of our grazing land can't support crops without heavy irrigation.
-
Re: PETA releases statement opposing Pokemon
And also a crap-load of fertiliser, which has its own environmental problems.
-
Re: PETA releases statement opposing Pokemon
let's all eat kangaroos :smallbiggrin:
but yeah..there are plenty of animals that are bred on grounds where it would be impossible, impractical, not viable economically, to grow crops..
-
Re: PETA releases statement opposing Pokemon
Quote:
Originally Posted by
dehro
I agree with you on most things..except for the conclusion that some people (not you, I think) seem to draw from this statement:
which is that
a+b>b+c
where
a= energy and resources spent or depleted rearing livestock
b= energy and resources spent or depleted growing crops we eat
c= energy and resources spent or depleted growing crops to replace said lifestock
and that that's all there is to it.
You forget
d = energy and resources spent discussing vegetarianism
-
Re: PETA releases statement opposing Pokemon
I'm now more than a little curious what kangaroo tastes like. I wonder if it would be expensive to import a few pounds.
Er.... a killogram I guess.
-
Re: PETA releases statement opposing Pokemon
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Kelb_Panthera
I'm now more than a little curious what kangaroo tastes like. I wonder if it would be expensive to import a few pounds.
Er.... a killogram I guess.
You'd eat Skippy?
I had it when I was in Australia. It tasted great - very lean but still juicy. Everyone should go to Australia at least once... and take a cane toad with them when they leave.
-
Re: PETA releases statement opposing Pokemon
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Asta Kask
You'd eat Skippy?
I had it when I was in Australia. It tasted great - very lean but still juicy. Everyone should go to Australia at least once... and take a cane toad with them when they leave.
Take a truckload! In fact, you can have them all!
I'm sure you'll find some use for them.
-
Re: PETA releases statement opposing Pokemon
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Asta Kask
You'd eat Skippy?
I had it when I was in Australia. It tasted great - very lean but still juicy. Everyone should go to Australia at least once... and take a cane toad with them when they leave.
Bold for emphasis.
And have that blight all over the world. No thanks. I'll just have a couple more pounds of 'roo.
-
Re: PETA releases statement opposing Pokemon
Are they edible? By humans, I mean?
-
Re: PETA releases statement opposing Pokemon
They're poisonous...
Although the poison's on their backs, so I suppose cane toad legs might be a possible food source.
-
Re: PETA releases statement opposing Pokemon
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Eldan
Not in real-life, no. I mentioned it before, cannibalism leads to prion diseases. Kuru, mostly, in humans, but also Creutzfeld-Jakob.
Better to have the molecules be broken down and reconstituted in a series of chemical reactions and at one stage infused with new energy, most likely from pressure initiated nuclear fusion, before consuming.