PETA releases statement opposing Pokemon

[Kelb_Panthera]

Does anyone else hope that a member of peta will see that the organization's statement has spawned a discussion of how to prepare poke'mon based foodstuffs in this thread? I think the reaction would be hilarious.

[Karen Lynn]

Thanks, Kelb. I honestly missed the irony there. If you'll excuse me, I'm going to go die of laughter now.

[Socratov]

Originally Posted by Kelb_Panthera

Does anyone else hope that a member of peta will see that the organization's statement has spawned a discussion of how to prepare poke'mon based foodstuffs in this thread? I think the reaction would be hilarious.

I do, but maybe someone should send a link, just to be sure

Originally Posted by Adrian Korvedzk

Thanks, Kelb. I honestly missed the irony there. If you'll excuse me, I'm going to go die of laughter now.

Wait for me!

[Serpentine]

Originally Posted by Xondoure

The whole point is that we would be growing less food than we are now. Not more. Because eating meat requires you to grow more crops than if you only grew food for people. So there would be less pressure put on farms.

As for Serpentine's point, I once again never said everyone everywhere should stop eating meat entirely, and fully recognize it can be a sustainable practice. That doesn't change the fact that the meat industry is one of the leading causes behind deforestation and has a huge impact on greenhouse gasses.

You may not have been saying that, but you also haven't exactly been going out of your way to clarify that all the evils of livestock agriculture you've been talking about are by no means universal. In fact, it seems to me that for the most part it's pretty US-specific. Most of it simply doesn't apply to Australia, for example, and a lot of what does, doesn't apply to kangaroos as another example. To reiterate: a substantial part of the land in Australia used for grazing sheep and cattle cannot be used for human-edible crops due to lack of rainfall, rough terrain and/or inadequate soil which would require huge amounts of waterway-poisoning fertiliser. The Australian beef and cattle industry is not, for the most part, taking up space that could be "more efficiently" used for vegetables and grains. Australian beef and lamb is, by default, free-range* and grass-fed. There is some grain-fed and corn-fed meat grown here, but it's always boldly pronounced as such because it's unusual and, therefore, supposedly makes it specialler or something. I'll now know not to be fooled by that, and avoid it like the plague.
Now, yes, the average non-vegetarian diet does incorporate more meat than is both necessary and recommended from a health standpoint. And I'd almost like to date a vegetarian at this point just so that I'd be properly motivated to stop being a hypocrite and go to more effort to find ethical meat (also I think I'd actually have quite a lot in common with the non-militant vegetarians) - I think it'll actually be one of the first lifestyle changes I'll make when I have a proper income, seeking out ethical, environmentally friendly and probably mostly locally-grown food.
Anyway, my point is, there's plenty wrong with the meat industry, and plenty of reasons to reduce the amount we consume, and everyone should be far more aware of what we eat, where it comes from and how it's produced. But there is no need to exaggerate the problems and make sweeping generalisations: acknowledging the areas that are doing right is just as important as pointing out the stuff that's wrong.

*though there are other issues, e.g. the live sheep export, which is a semi-major issue at the moment.

[Xondoure]

Originally Posted by Serpentine

You may not have been saying that, but you also haven't exactly been going out of your way to clarify that all the evils of livestock agriculture you've been talking about are by no means universal. In fact, it seems to me that for the most part it's pretty US-specific. Most of it simply doesn't apply to Australia, for example, and a lot of what does, doesn't apply to kangaroos as another example. To reiterate: a substantial part of the land in Australia used for grazing sheep and cattle cannot be used for human-edible crops due to lack of rainfall, rough terrain and/or inadequate soil which would require huge amounts of waterway-poisoning fertiliser. The Australian beef and cattle industry is not, for the most part, taking up space that could be "more efficiently" used for vegetables and grains. Australian beef and lamb is, by default, free-range* and grass-fed. There is some grain-fed and corn-fed meat grown here, but it's always boldly pronounced as such because it's unusual and, therefore, supposedly makes it specialler or something. I'll now know not to be fooled by that, and avoid it like the plague.
Now, yes, the average non-vegetarian diet does incorporate more meat than is both necessary and recommended from a health standpoint. And I'd almost like to date a vegetarian at this point just so that I'd be properly motivated to stop being a hypocrite and go to more effort to find ethical meat (also I think I'd actually have quite a lot in common with the non-militant vegetarians) - I think it'll actually be one of the first lifestyle changes I'll make when I have a proper income, seeking out ethical, environmentally friendly and probably mostly locally-grown food.
Anyway, my point is, there's plenty wrong with the meat industry, and plenty of reasons to reduce the amount we consume, and everyone should be far more aware of what we eat, where it comes from and how it's produced. But there is no need to exaggerate the problems and make sweeping generalisations: acknowledging the areas that are doing right is just as important as pointing out the stuff that's wrong.

*though there are other issues, e.g. the live sheep export, which is a semi-major issue at the moment.

I agree. The trouble comes from when people point to stuff like this and use it to willfully ignore the problems that do exist in the food industry. Which is why I was focused on laying out the case for what is being done that's wrong clearly. Afterall with things such as this people are actively looking for reasons to still eat meat (after all it tastes good) which can lead to ignoring the problems. Me, I'm not about to judge the decisions people make, but I do feel that they should at least be informed.

Sides, local grassfed steak beats the pants off industrialized, corn fed, antibiotic shot up "meat."

[Elemental]

Originally Posted by Serpentine

*though there are other issues, e.g. the live sheep export, which is a semi-major issue at the moment.

And we will not discuss it for reasons of mind control.

Anyway... I cannot stress how right Serpentine is here. No offence to my own country, but Australia is mostly useless for growing things.
Where I live, yes, because I'm ten kilometres from the sea with two nearby rivers. Most everywhere else? No.

Recently, we drove through the country, and let me tell you this: The grass was grey. It's actually quite stunning, all those hillsides covered in silvery grass. But on our trip, we only saw crops for on the flat ground where there was volcanic soil.
And a lot of said crops were peanuts.

[Serpentine]

Yeah, I just travelled by train from Sydney up to near Coffs, and I was looking out the window at the scenery with this thread in mind. There are so many places that are covered with cattle that no one in their right mind would bother trying to grow anything other than grass on.

[dehro]

Originally Posted by Serpentine

Yeah, I just travelled by train from Sydney up to near Coffs, and I was looking out the window at the scenery with this thread in mind. There are so many places that are covered with cattle that no one in their right mind would bother trying to grow anything other than grass on.

new idea..grow veggies..on the cattle
small portable greenhouses tied to their backs.

[Karoht]

Originally Posted by Kelb_Panthera

Does anyone else hope that a member of peta will see that the organization's statement has spawned a discussion of how to prepare poke'mon based foodstuffs in this thread? I think the reaction would be hilarious.

Combine this idea with their cooking mama ripoff game. They might even like it.

[Blightedmarsh]

A part of the picture is that some parts of the world are just not particularly suitable to agrarian lifestyle. Here in England the east grows crops and the west raises livestock. Its just a function of the climate.

Then there is the kind of long term damage that plowing, irrigation, fertilization and land clearance causes for example:

Iraq was the "fertile crescent", the cradle of civilization, now its a desert; Why? Because thousands of years ago the locals used irrigation, the water evaporated and salt build up; destroying the soil ever since.

This is not the only example; the great American dust bowl, the destruction of the Nazca civilization and closer to home the bronze age clearing and planting of high ground leading to the desolate moors of today.

To say that agrarian agriculture is inherently more environmentally friendly that pastoral culture is to dramatically underestimate the complexity of the problems and the full scope of the potential impacts.

[Karoht]

Originally Posted by Blightedmarsh

A part of the picture is that some parts of the world are just not particularly suitable to agrarian lifestyle. Here in England the east grows crops and the west raises livestock. Its just a function of the climate.

Then there is the kind of long term damage that plowing, irrigation, fertilization and land clearance causes for example:

Iraq was the "fertile crescent", the cradle of civilization, now its a desert; Why? Because thousands of years ago the locals used irrigation, the water evaporated and salt build up; destroying the soil ever since.

This is not the only example; the great American dust bowl, the destruction of the Nazca civilization and closer to home the bronze age clearing and planting of high ground leading to the desolate moors of today.

To say that agrarian agriculture is inherently more environmentally friendly that pastoral culture is to dramatically underestimate the complexity of the problems and the full scope of the potential impacts.

This is entirely true.
We do have methods which can mitigate some of these effects. Soil erosion due to land clearing (no breakup of wind because the land is turned into fields and the soil exposed to wind and rain) can be mitigated by replenishing the topsoil with compost, along with lining the farmland with trees. Said trees could even be fruit bearing. For a better explanation of this and other effects, look up Permaculture. It's a fascinating read.

Then there are concepts like 3D farming along with other artificial environment technology which could greatly minimize the overall ground level space we currently use for agriculture, and potentially return the land to nature, within reason. Omega Garden (www.omegagarden.com) has a really cool example, scroll down the page and see their test video. Their tagline is 'Fill a warehouse, feed a city' and the concepts involved are pretty nifty.

[Ravens_cry]

3D farming can only go so far as there is only so much energy from sunlight.

[Xondoure]

Originally Posted by Blightedmarsh

A part of the picture is that some parts of the world are just not particularly suitable to agrarian lifestyle. Here in England the east grows crops and the west raises livestock. Its just a function of the climate.

Then there is the kind of long term damage that plowing, irrigation, fertilization and land clearance causes for example:

Iraq was the "fertile crescent", the cradle of civilization, now its a desert; Why? Because thousands of years ago the locals used irrigation, the water evaporated and salt build up; destroying the soil ever since.

This is not the only example; the great American dust bowl, the destruction of the Nazca civilization and closer to home the bronze age clearing and planting of high ground leading to the desolate moors of today.

To say that agrarian agriculture is inherently more environmentally friendly that pastoral culture is to dramatically underestimate the complexity of the problems and the full scope of the potential impacts.

The problem is when we have to grow more crops to harvest the amount of meat we bring in. No one is suggesting agriculture doesn't have drawbacks. The point I am making is that more agriculture is needed with the way the meat industry works in large parts of the globe.

[Serpentine]

Went looking for ethical meat-eating in Australia, found this. Kinda funny to see a meat-producer encouraging people to eat less meat
I wonder if a thread on ethical meat-eating would be allowed... It'd be really useful to have an international resource on good farms and companies for buying meat from, but it might be considered advertising :/

[Karen Lynn]

It also seems like it would touch too close to politics(heavily ingrained in our food in the us).

[Serpentine]

No more than, I'd personally think less than, this particular thread...

[Karen Lynn]

The more incorrect my prior statement turns out to be, the happier I'd be. :3

[Kelb_Panthera]

Originally Posted by Adrian Korvedzk

The more incorrect my prior statement turns out to be, the happier I'd be. :3

We got into political philosophy a few pages back, but that's discussing the ideas that move politics.

I really doubt we could have a discussion about where you can get "ethical meat" without running afoul of the rules on politics, since what exactly constitutes ethical meat would require delving into current thoughts and activities around the matter, or advertising, since simply naming places to get "ethical meat" could be construed as advertising for those suppliers.

If I had any serious thoughts on the matter, I'd be willing to give it a shot though.

[Frozen_Feet]

Originally Posted by Ravens_cry

3D farming can only go so far as there is only so much energy from sunlight.

Said energy from sunlight is orders of magnitude greater than all energy used by current human civilization. To quote Wikipedia: "The total solar energy absorbed by Earth's atmosphere, oceans and land masses is approximately 3,850,000 exajoules (EJ) per year.[7] In 2002, this was more energy in one hour than the world used in one year.[12][13] Photosynthesis captures approximately 3,000 EJ per year in biomass.[9] The amount of solar energy reaching the surface of the planet is so vast that in one year it is about twice as much as will ever be obtained from all of the Earth's non-renewable resources of coal, oil, natural gas, and mined uranium combined.[14]"

[Mutant Sheep]

Originally Posted by Frozen_Feet

Said energy from sunlight is orders of magnitude greater than all energy used by current human civilization. To quote Wikipedia: "The total solar energy absorbed by Earth's atmosphere, oceans and land masses is approximately 3,850,000 exajoules (EJ) per year.[7] In 2002, this was more energy in one hour than the world used in one year.[12][13] Photosynthesis captures approximately 3,000 EJ per year in biomass.[9] The amount of solar energy reaching the surface of the planet is so vast that in one year it is about twice as much as will ever be obtained from all of the Earth's non-renewable resources of coal, oil, natural gas, and mined uranium combined.[14]"

Amend statement to

Originally Posted by Ravens_cry

3D farming can only go so far as there is only so much energy we can reasonably obtain from sunlight with the current state of technology and also not a giant sphere of super-solar panels around the sun.

?

[Dvil]

No giant sphere of super-solar panels necessary. That's not the energy given off by the sun each year, that's the energy that's reaching the Earth.

[Karen Lynn]

Be that as it may, we still don't have the tech needed to harness a usable amount in even the most average of applications.

[Ravens_cry]

Originally Posted by Frozen_Feet

Said energy from sunlight is orders of magnitude greater than all energy used by current human civilization. To quote Wikipedia: "The total solar energy absorbed by Earth's atmosphere, oceans and land masses is approximately 3,850,000 exajoules (EJ) per year.[7] In 2002, this was more energy in one hour than the world used in one year.[12][13] Photosynthesis captures approximately 3,000 EJ per year in biomass.[9] The amount of solar energy reaching the surface of the planet is so vast that in one year it is about twice as much as will ever be obtained from all of the Earth's non-renewable resources of coal, oil, natural gas, and mined uranium combined.[14]"

Yes, but we are talking about 3D farming. If that is is going to change the amount of land used for farming, it can't be taking away the sunlight other plants need, and that, and the efficiency of photosynthesis, is constant.

[Emperor Ing]

Now pardon me for my ignorance of the concept, but it occurs to me that sunlight travels in a linear direction from the sun. If farming were to truly be 3D as I see it, some plants will have light at the expense of others.

As for solar energy, yes. It's there, and we have a supply of it that's so vast it might as well be infinite. But our technology isn't so advanced as to be able to harness solar energy in a way that is profitable, and therefore mass-producible way. In the future, yes, it's an obtainable goal, along with fusion power, and some form of technology which uses gravity as a power source, though I sincerely doubt we'll see the latter in our lifetimes.

[Ravens_cry]

Originally Posted by Emperor Ing

Now pardon me for my ignorance of the concept, but it occurs to me that sunlight travels in a linear direction from the sun. If farming were to truly be 3D as I see it, some plants will have light at the expense of others.

My thought exactly.

Originally Posted by Emperor Ing

As for solar energy, yes. It's there, and we have a supply of it that's so vast it might as well be infinite. But our technology isn't so advanced as to be able to harness solar energy in a way that is profitable, and therefore mass-producible way. In the future, yes, it's an obtainable goal, along with fusion power, and some form of technology which uses gravity as a power source, though I sincerely doubt we'll see the latter in our lifetimes.

Strictly speaking, we already do. It's called water power.

[Frozen_Feet]

My point is mainly that scarcity is not our problem; engineering is. We need better plants and solar panels. As for taking away light from existing plants, there's lots of space left where nothing of value is growing right now, which could be utilized for solar panels or, perhaps, hydro- or aerophonic farms.

[dehro]

Originally Posted by Frozen_Feet

My point is mainly that scarcity is not our problem; engineering is. We need better plants and solar panels. As for taking away light from existing plants, there's lots of space left where nothing of value is growing right now, which could be utilized for solar panels or, perhaps, hydro- or aerophonic farms.

genuine question.. how does that work with the ..transportation of energy?
say you cover the Sahara with solar panels.. how do you get the ..yield from there to the rest of the planet? don't you loose a substantial amount of energy that way? are the costs of the operation workable?..will it ever be doable?

(that is aside from the obvious problem with maintenance of said pannels, sandstorm damage and suchlike...I'm curious about the transportation bit here..not about the technical issues surrounding the actual "collection of sunraypowerenergy")

[Frozen_Feet]

Several possible methods. If we're growing plant matter, it's just a matter of moving them spot A to spot B, we just need to (assuming portion of yield goes into running the transports) grow enough for the balance to be worth it.

If it's electricity, one possibility is to use hydrolysis to extract hydrogen and oxygen from seawater and transfer it using pipelines or containers, both of which are established technologies.

Second possibility is using superconductive landlines, a technology which exists, but hasn't been used in such grand scale yet. Yes, there would still be loss of energy at certain points of the process - but less so than using normal conductives.

Rememer, gas and electricity are already transferred for hundreds, sometimes thousands of kilometers, so infrastructure to do it is not beyond our possibilities to build.

Maintenance is a tough cookie, but much of it depends on choice of location. Not all unused sunny places on earth are hard-to-reach or and hostile like Sahara. Though I have a faint recollection of a test powerplant located somewhere in there.

For costs, it hard to give realistic estimates. It's good to note the costs of manufacturing solar panels have gone down by 80% in about two decades, while their efficiency has increased by like amount. As material technology improves, my bet is that making and placing the panels or plants farms will not be an issue - distribution infrastructure will be the choke point. This is similar to current global issues with food production - we produce about twice as much food as would be needed to feed every mouth on earth, but there's still a billion people starving due to bad logistics.

[Ravens_cry]

Originally Posted by Frozen_Feet

My point is mainly that scarcity is not our problem; engineering is. We need better plants and solar panels. As for taking away light from existing plants, there's lots of space left where nothing of value is growing right now, which could be utilized for solar panels or, perhaps, hydro- or aerophonic farms.

What defines "of value"?
Go back a century or so, and most people who were into conservation were hunters who wanted to be able to keep hunting instead of driving all this wonderful (and tasty) wildlife into extinction.
Now, it is more life for its own sake.
Oceans certainly can't be used for this because, aside from the logistic nightmare of setting up solar panel farms out in open water, it's the oceans, and the phytoplankton contained there in ,that convert almost all carbon dioxide back into oxygen.
Now, solar is certainly part of the solution, but it's not the entirety. Unfortunately, electricity isn't storable on a massive scale yet, and sending it via wires also incurs losses.

[Frozen_Feet]

In this case, "nothing of value" could mean species that would still remain abundant (and potentially be more vital) elsewhere, or nothing, period, as is the case with rocky portions of certain deserts.

Also, don't go discounting solar power at sea. There are working plans for stations at sea, which would capture worthwhile amount of energy while not severely impacting planktons you mentioned. (Well, not any more severely than current travel by oceans, but that's a can of worms on its own.) Plus, plankton and seaweed farms, which would increase the conversion rate while also giving us fuel and/or food.