Our eating habits aren't sustainable [Archive]

Cupid stunt

20 Apr 2009, 01:31 AM

Five Ways to Make Your Food Help Save the Planet:

http://www.naturalnews.com/026071.html

"Here are five ways to make that happen with your food and beverage consumption decisions...

1. Buy local food and drink
A big part of the carbon footprint of foods and beverages is found in the fossil fuels used to transport them to your local grocery store. Buying food that's grown locally largely avoids that footprint, regardless of the type of food. Local dairy and meat products, for example, are "greener" than dairy and meat imported from somewhere else. But using plants as your food source (see #3, below) is the greenest of all.

2. Avoid wasteful packaging
A tremendous amount of energy goes into the creation of food and beverage packaging. Sadly, most of that energy is wasted because the food packaging is quickly discarded by consumers.

To avoid this waste, buy in bulk or purchase minimally-packaged products. Breakfast cereals are a classic case of extremely wasteful packaging with a high carbon footprint. Companies like Nature's Path offer bulk packaging on some of their cereals, giving you the option of avoiding the wasteful boxes typically used for cereals.

3. Buy plants, not meats and animal products
This is the most important food purchasing strategy of all: Buy plants instead of animal products. This will drastically reduce your carbon footprint. Meats and animal products are extremely resource intensive, requiring enormous amounts of water, food and fossil fuels to produce. In fact, it's no exaggeration to say that the widespread consumption of meat is not ecologically sustainable.

This doesn't even consider the issues of animal factory waste runoff or the enormous amount of methane produced by cows (via cow farts). Methane is approximately twenty times worse at causing global warming than CO2, by the way.

This point isn't about vegetarianism or veganism from a health point of view. That's a different discussion. This is about reducing or eliminating meat consumption solely from an ecological perspective. And there's no debate about this issue, either. Factory-farmed animal products are extremely wasteful of Earth's resources. They have huge "overhead" that makes them a poor choice for eco-conscious individuals. It's no exaggeration to say that avoiding the consumption of factory-farmed meat does more to reduce your carbon footprint than driving a Prius!

4. Buy minimally-processed foods
Highly-processed foods require a lot of energy and resources to produce. They're also extremely wasteful in terms of nutrients. White processed sugar, for example, is missing as much as 98% of the original nutrients found in unprocessed cane juice. Taking those nutrients out required a tremendous amount of wasted energy, and that's why white sugar has a much larger carbon footprint than evaporated cane juice.

The same is true of breads, cereals, canned soups and other processed foods. Anything that isn't fresh requires energy for processing and cooking. Anything that's pasteurized, for example, has a much larger carbon footprint than the same foods RAW. That's because pasteurization requires the foods or beverages to be heated, burning up fossil fuel energy.

RAW living plants, in this way, are the most ecologically-sensitive foods you can buy, grow or consume. (They're also the healthiest, but that's a different article...)

5. Grow your own
Finally, the best way to reduce the carbon footprint of your food consumption is to grow your own food. That makes your food so local that it's in your own back yard!

And you don't have to grow ALL your own food to make a difference: You can start with basic sprouting right in your own kitchen. The very best kitchen countertop sprouter I've found is the EasyGreen Sprouter sold at the best price with free shipping by RawFoodWorld (http://www.therawfoodworld.com/prod...). With this affordable device and a few bucks worth of sprouting seeds, you can grow a considerable portion of your own diet right in your kitchen, anywhere in the world.

Pursuing a backyard garden goes even further, and if you live in the right climate, you can grow a portion of your food just a few steps away from your door. (This is what I'm doing in Ecuador right now, enjoying the amazing carbon footprint reductions of literally being walking distance from my own food supply.)

With some effort on your part, you can grow food in virtually any climate -- even Northern Canada. Cold-tolerant blueberries and fruit trees can do remarkably well even in exceedingly cold areas of the planet. And if you're living in a city with limited space, try following the concepts of "square foot gardening" outlined in the book by the same name: http://www.amazon.com/All-New-Squar...
"
Also, our consumption of fish is causing big problems:

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/nature/predators-starve-as-we-plunder-oceans-1671066.html

Dawn Run

20 Apr 2009, 01:34 AM

doesnt being a democrat hippie who loves the planet feel so right and warm and fuzzy?

Cupid stunt

22 Apr 2009, 11:52 PM

doesnt being a democrat hippie who loves the planet feel so right and warm and fuzzy?

No, I just get to feel a little less stupid than people who don't have an interest in their environment.

Is it wrong to care about millions of people starving on another side of the planet because we're polluting it from this side?

I'm not a democrat or a hippie.

Scarecrow

23 Apr 2009, 12:02 AM

ciphersort

23 Apr 2009, 12:04 AM

You can always just start eating vat grown quorn (http://quorn.com/). I've been hearing these arguments since the 70s... and well... I will do whats best for me and my taste buds. Grilling steak tonight (locally grown cow).

Update: The steaks were friggin' delicious! Some of my best ever.

Cupid stunt

23 Apr 2009, 12:20 AM

Nothing wrong with action, but I mean to detect a quantum of crazy fanaticism in your posts every now and then. I sometimes get the feeling you have been brainwashed by the same sect as kelly. Just my humble opinion. I could be wrong.

I don't think a sense of urgency is unwarranted considering the current ecological circumstances...

millions of people starving on another side of the planet because we're polluting it from this side?

http://www.naturalnews.com/023374.html

"According to the latest research, species around the world are going extinct faster that previously thought, at a rate not seen since the extinction of the dinosaurs. The Living Planet index which was released today shows that due to destructive human activity, the diversity of all life on earth has decreased by over 30%, nearly a third in fact in the past thirty-five years.

The Zoological Society of London and the Global Footprint Network also gave the following statistics: land species have declined by 25%, marine life by 28% and freshwater species by 29%. The reports editor Jonathan Loh stated that to see such a sharp fall off in the species of the planet was "completely unprecedented in terms of human history". "You'd have to go back to the extinction of the dinosaurs to see a decline as rapid as this... In terms of human lifespan we may be seeing things change relatively slowly, but in terms of the world's history this is very rapid."

To us, the extinction rate may seem slow or almost non-existent, but in terms of life on a historical time line, the rate is 10,000 times faster than the rate at which the planet normally loses species."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2005/aug/11/science.climatechange1

"A vast expanse of western Sibera is undergoing an unprecedented thaw that could dramatically increase the rate of global warming, climate scientists warn today.

Researchers who have recently returned from the region found that an area of permafrost spanning a million square kilometres - the size of France and Germany combined - has started to melt for the first time since it formed 11,000 years ago at the end of the last ice age.

The area, which covers the entire sub-Arctic region of western Siberia, is the world's largest frozen peat bog and scientists fear that as it thaws, it will release billions of tonnes of methane, a greenhouse gas 20 times more potent than carbon dioxide, into the atmosphere."

Dirac

23 Apr 2009, 12:24 AM

Pfft. Just me changing my habits won't make any difference. I'll keep doing what I'm doing.

Cupid stunt

23 Apr 2009, 12:33 AM

Pfft. Just me changing my habits won't make any difference. I'll keep doing what I'm doing.

That's why we're in this situation.

Dirac

23 Apr 2009, 12:33 AM

That's why we're in this situation.

Indeed.

Faust06

23 Apr 2009, 12:43 AM

CEOofRawness

23 Apr 2009, 12:54 AM

I was thinking about this earlier as I passed by the TV and some Earth Day crap was on the news channel. Everyone knows we need to become more environment-friendly and yet everyone is too complacent to act on it. Seems like it's gonna be one of those things where people will only get their shit together when it's too late.

doesnt being a democrat hippie who loves the planet feel so right and warm and fuzzy?

This has much less to do with being a tree-hugger than it does looking out for the survival of the human race.

And what is it with you calling everyone a democrat as if it's an insult? Last I remember it was the republicans that ran America to the ground in the last 8 years. Not that democrats are all that different anyway. Arguing over democrat or republican is like arguing over snake oil of different scents.

There will come a point where everyone will get their shit together regarding the environmental crisis and you'll still be spewing out juvenile jokes like it's not a big deal.

CEOofRawness

23 Apr 2009, 12:58 AM

The problem isn't simply eating meat or not buying locally. North Americans just eat too much shit food (hence the obesity) and create ALOT of unnecessary waste.

My solution: encourage people to be healthy so they wont look or feel like shit, and change laws so that most of everything is recyclable. For one, not buying fast food so damn often is a good step. Or even coffee for that matter... make it at home, so I don't have to picture the millions upon millions of Tim Hortons and Starbucks cups in the garbage.

In other words, I mostly agree.

Your solution is a solid one, but it won't work in the land where everyone worships money. The reason why most of the crap you mentioned still exists is because of the huge amount of profit they bring in. When all the fish have been caught, all the soil disappears, and all the riverbeds run dry is when people will learn that they can't eat money.

BAJ

23 Apr 2009, 02:58 AM

Probably we got smart (as a species) because we started walking upright, holding tools, and hunting for meat.

Personally, I eat primarily meat, maybe about 2 pounds per day.

I used to work at a farm that harvested 150,000 pounds of catfish per day, for meat consumption. This provided me with a good job.

Your idea sounds good. Go live in India, where it's already common. They eat lots of rice and stuff. Of course, might have to share a one-room shack with 14 people, but you'll get to live according to your desire to have less of an individual environmental impact.

You see, these are all economic questions. I'm going to eat meat as long as I can afford it. If I'm can afford it, I'm going to eat steak at every meal. There's nothing you can do to change it, unless provide vegetarian foods that I like to eat as well as cooking meat.

I can go pay $10 for some meat that will last me four or five meals. In my job, I need energy and strength. A salad or some vegetarian food is not going to carry me through the kind of physical activity I do as a farmer.

Besides, my Masters degree is in Aquaculture, which is the growning of aquatic organisms (MEAT), in water. Currently, I work with ornanmental species, but fuck all if I'm going to be against producing meat.

What if everyone in Aquaculture (the 10,000 in the catfish industry for example) suddenly needed to find a different job because your ideas took hold? Are you going to provide them with another job?

However, I will say fish have a food conversion of 2:1, whereas with cows it's more like 8:1, but cows can eat grass, which is pretty cheap.

EDIT:

Oh, and I must say the farm I worked on made rice, soybeans, and wheat. They lost $1 million per year raising those crops, but if they didn't do it, they'd loose $5 million. I know that doesn't make sense, but they rarely made a PROFIT on their crops.

But catfish made a $6 million dollar profit using 20% of their acreage.

It's about money per acre, if you are a farmer.

**life is...**

23 Apr 2009, 03:53 AM

Yes, I agree absolutely with this. My personal opinion is that our brains were only able to consistently and predictably able to develop to this level when we began to hunt more and more for meat. The proteins are not only a superior energy source, but they are vital for the development of neurons, where as vitamins from vegetables and fruits are vital for their operation. According to the Aussies being a vegetarian could cause "brain shrinkage" http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,24336544-23272,00.html

Cupid stunt

23 Apr 2009, 06:46 AM

BAJ

23 Apr 2009, 12:10 PM

According to that, wine shrinks your brain too...

Our choices are:

A: Change our eating habits
B: Create an inhabitable environment for our children

No, there are lots more choices.

For example, the most impact you can personally have is to reduce your number of children or not have any.

How do you propose to solve the financial situation I mentioned?

One of our interns here went back to England to work at a feed mill that makes fish food. I think he's making around 3000 pounds per month, which might be $6000 depending on the pound vs dollar.

Are you going to provide that guy with a job? Are you going to pay him to do something else?

If there were no money in making meat, then nobody would do it. The opposite is true.

It's about making $4000 per acre rather than $200 per acre.

You are not going to get people to change using your current reasoning. Explain the economics on:

1.) How I can make more money doing it your way?
2.) How can I retask my education to something besides meat, at your expense?

Meat is the future until your idea makes more money per acre. Otherwise, you are just masturbating mentally. Comprede?

airjaw

23 Apr 2009, 06:54 PM

One of the problems involved with changing our individual habits is that one person's sacrifices make hardly a dent on the world. Collective action is needed ,and everyone needs to contribute. Why should one person make sacrifices when the rest of society doesn't? It makes no sense to continue taking the bus, riding your bike to work, growing your own food, and eating salads every night when everyone else enjoys the convenience of driving cars, shopping in supermarkets, and grilling steak.

You may think you're making a difference individually but the truth is that an individual's actions have no impact whatsoever in the grand scheme of things. The problem also extends further on a larger scale. Why should one country scale back and sacrifice if other countries won't? And why should growing countries like China and India scale back right at a crucial period of economic growth, when the USA has overconsumed for so many years? That hardly seems fair. It's like an older brother eating meat his entire life, then stopping after he has grown large already and making his little brother who is still small and growing stop eating meat too.

I agree that there's a problem but it takes collective effort. So far there has been no leadership capable of solving the issue of how to govern the actions of 6 billion people, and I doubt there ever will be.

The one slim hope that we have probably lies in the hands of the laws of economics. At some point, the costs of polluting will become more and more aware to the societies we live in and "living green" will become not only more urgent but necessary for our continued survival. At this point, there is incentive to collectively police behaviors that contribute to or worse the pollution problem.

CEOofRawness

24 Apr 2009, 05:22 AM

Cupid stunt

24 Apr 2009, 01:18 PM

No, there are lots more choices.

For example, the most impact you can personally have is to reduce your number of children or not have any.How do you propose to solve the financial situation I mentioned?

One of our interns here went back to England to work at a feed mill that makes fish food. I think he's making around 3000 pounds per month, which might be $6000 depending on the pound vs dollar.

Are you going to provide that guy with a job? Are you going to pay him to do something else?

If there were no money in making meat, then nobody would do it. The opposite is true.

It's about making $4000 per acre rather than $200 per acre.

You are not going to get people to change using your current reasoning. Explain the economics on:

1.) How I can make more money doing it your way?
2.) How can I retask my education to something besides meat, at your expense?

Meat is the future until your idea makes more money per acre. Otherwise, you are just masturbating mentally. Comprede?

Government subsidies.

Fruit and vegetables should be subsidized, not taxed, meat should be taxed highly in the same way as cigarettes are taxed. In my opinion they should be in a higher tax bracket due to it contributing towards the escalating problem.

I am pointing out that attitudes need to change and things certain things need to get done in order to force our governments make an agreement to do something about it. Government policies have caused this problem, apathy is allowing it to continue.

You are looking at this from a small picture perspective. You're comparing thousands of assumed job losses to the health of our environment. Thousands of job losses is irrelevant, they'll be replaced by other jobs that will become available anyway due to the rise in the consumption of healthier, environmentally sustainable foods. This will happen out of necessity sooner or later but judging by the attitudes of the vast majority it will be far too late by then.

To put things in perspective, a few thousand possible job losses is completely insignificant compared to fact that the diversity of all life on earth has decreased by over 30% in the past thirty-five years. That's not taking into account the health benefits.

I won't have to pay for it myself, the people selling the vegetables will create jobs. We will also become more healthy. As societies, we don't eat what we want, we eat what is advertised and sold to us at an affordable price. This is why in Japan they eat rice, fish, fruit & veg whereas we eat chocolate, crisps, Mcdonalds & Pot noodles. (By crisps I mean chips & by chips I mean fries if my translations are right)

Our health systems cost so much of our money because people are overweight, nutrient deficient, drugged up and generally unhealthy.

camille

24 Apr 2009, 02:32 PM

I think the consumers' share in this mess is laziness and fear of having to actually provide for themselves.

We drove past my hub's deceased grandpa's the other day and he was telling us about how his great grandfather died when his grandpa was twelve. His grandpa hunted rabbits and squirrels to put meat on the table. He sold whatever extra he had to bring in money for the family.

While I don't believe every child should have to learn like that, I do believe a huge problem is separation from our food and parents' fear of making their kids work.

My oldest son (just turned nine) knows how to hoe a garden, plant potatoes and fertilize the garden. He washes dishes. He can do laundry. He knows how to compost. He can warm food up on the stove.

We tell him these things are not chores. He doesn't get an allowance. They are part of his responsibilities in caring for our family. It's a team effort.

The kids and I are vegan, hub isn't. He hunts for his meat or buys it from a local cattle farmer. Very rarely do we buy meat in the store.

Granted, there are many people who live in the city and can't provide for themselves like we do, but there are many people choose not to do for themselves or will buy shit they know isn't good for them. (Why aren't we talking about the soda empire? or Kraft food products?)

Meat isn't a necessity. I've been living as a vegan for over twenty years and I'm physically active. I do think that local farmers could provide for the community if the community didn't eat everything in excess.

Seems the high dollar amount of money talked about in this thread sounds like these aren't local farms, but industrial farms. There is a huge difference between a farmer who's making a decent living selling locally and a corporate farm. People drive through the area where I live, see the vast farmland, the little barns and silos, and think there are many farmers here who are supporting themselves when actually it is corporations leasing farmers' lands.

This is a consumer problem more than a big money corp problem.

My mother and father both talk about how they didn't have meat every meal when they were growing up. That really emerged in the late forties, early fifties, among middle/upper class. They had meat on Saturday night with leftovers on Sunday. And they all worked hard.

I don't see the problem as a problem with meat consumption (Edit: meaning people eating meat instead of being vegetarians), but how meat is being farmed and handled (look at the meat cutting plants which are predominantly labored by Mexican women instead of skilled union laborers).

People do not want to care for themselves. They want to pay somebody else to do it for them (<- buying coffee every morning instead of making at home, buying breakfast, lunch, dinner instead of cooking, carry out food is now a staple). We have chosen to do those things.

I also think fast food, convenience foods have contributed to eating disorders. Food is not seen as energy or sustenance because there is no sense of proper eating. It's either expendable or gluttonous. We have no sense of proper nutrition because we are so separated from our food. If more children ate decent well-rounded meals and were partially responsible for caring and preparing the food, they wouldn't develop such dangerous relationships with food.

Feops

24 Apr 2009, 04:40 PM

Our eating habits are sustainable as long as food we consume is affordable.

BAJ

24 Apr 2009, 05:26 PM

Our eating habits are sustainable as long as food we consume is affordable.

Exactly. This summarizes part of what I was saying.

In addition, there is nothing wrong with any of these things.

First, we and other organisms have been eating meat for millions of years.

Second, excessive government has led to the starvation of millions.

Third, the free market (not government) should determine what we eat. This won't play in Texas, as the saying goes. If you think you can get elected on a "no meat" platform, you are stupid. Not in this century.

Fourth, our CO2 levels have increased to about 360 ppm, from 280 ppm in the pre-industrial era. During the carboniferous period, the CO2 went to 1500 ppm. Life was fine. The planet was bursting with plant life, animal life, and species. What is the problem? Plants love CO2. Warmth is good for the planet.

---

However, you are right about health. In my case, I do not care if I'm healthy. I'd love to have a massive heart-attack before I get very old and before I become a burden to society.

Of course, China's one child policy is a much better government intervention than these food consumption issues. You should reduce the number of children. That will be far easier to impose than taking meat away from people.

Okay, speaking of geologic time, I've reversed it. Now you are the one looking at things from a very narrow perspective.

durentu

24 Apr 2009, 05:57 PM

Our eating habits are sustainable as long as food we consume is affordable.

It's a curious thought. Perhaps food economics influences or perhaps even dictates our eating habits. the main factors being time and money, instead of health, nutrition and ecology. The suggested food pyramid is well known however what about our actual food pyramids? What do we eat most and is it different from the suggested food pyramid? Is the suggested food pyramid even ecologically friendly?

Instead of complaining and debating, I'll state my solution. Maybe you'll find it useful.

I recently have gotten interested in hydroponics. Being able to grow my veggies better than I can get in soil more efficiently. And to further that, the ideas of aquaponics where the waste of hydroponics are fed into the aquaculture, and that waste fed back into the hydroponics. I really like the concept that I've been waiting to try it for real. The only part that I'm working out now is that the current aquaponics system has to be fresh water. Otherwise there's the sticky business of desalination from salt water fishes. Again, very interesting concept. If I can set that up, I can feed myself to whatever extent my raw materials are available and my over production can be sold to the local markets. (concept similar to grid-tie alternative energy. Use what you need, sell back the rest).

I haven't figured out the balance point where the money I make pays for the food I grow and eat. Of course the more people do this, the less profit I'll make, but still, for my own interests, it's a nice idea that my energy and food consumption is costing me nothing. I just wished that I had a mentor to talk over these things and iron out the myths and cloud dreaming.

If can I produce my own needs (I'm thinking maslow's triangle), then would I really need to waste my time trying to make money? I'm starting to wonder if it's better to cut out the middle man between my abilities and my needs. Forget the job and money making stuff, and just directly produce my needs. Maybe I'll make good on this when I get going, but it's an idea that appeals to me a great deal. Every time I can produce my own needs, I can afford a pay cut. The idea is to get or do a job for nothing.

If aquaponics and grid-tie alternative energy works out as I plan, then my cost for food and energy is zero or even negative (I'm being paid to eat and use energy). My parents grow veggies in a garden every year. about 150 square feet. We eat salads all the damn time and they taste pretty darn good. Oil and vinegar is pretty much that's needed except for some specialty items. And by the time the season is over, we've given away tons of food to friends. 150sf of veggie garden feeding 4 big people isn't bad at all. Not to mention the freedom to go eat tomatoes on whim with the satisfaction that the markets can never hope to compete with my own garden.

There is a huge difference between fresh wild food compared to farm foods. The beef you eat now isn't real. Beef back in the day is more gamy and the taste is really different. The color of the fat isn't supposed to be white. It's supposed to be yellow. I'm not a nutritionist or biologist, but it your fat looks white, then there's definitely a problem. Check for yellow vs white fat on beef, chickens and stuff.

Also, just like Coke sells refreshment, A super fresh salad gives me this revitalization or rejuvenation feeling. I don't know if it's just me, but since the new economy is based on experiences (commodity->goods->services->experiences), A salad bar selling as a revitalization shop would be awesome. A local produce market does just that. Their produce prices are higher, but you cannot beat their quality. And they make salad lunches that are just so unbeatable.

If you've ever made pasta at home, the "al dente" sold in dried pasta compared to fresh "al dente" pasta you make at home are complete 2 different eating experiences. You don't know "al dente" if you haven't made and ate your own pasta.

Ahh! the life to be completely self sustaining, with the freedom to pursue my intellectual curiosities.

How to build aquponics sytem

If you have a fish tank, you're half way there.
1
2
3

The system can always be optimized for yield.

Dark Razor

24 Apr 2009, 06:46 PM

Our eating habits are sustainable as long as food we consume is affordable.

No, our eating habits are sustainable if food becomes unaffordable to the majority of the population, though I guess you were hinting at that.

The earth has finite resources and can sustain either a low population at a high standard of living or a high population at a low standard of living.
Currently we have both scenarios at the same time, with the first world living the former and the rest living the later. High standard of living can be replaced with wasteful behaviour, the more wasteful a society is the smaller its sustainable population, or by proxy, the sustainable population of places that the wasteful place is exploiting to extract additional resources.

Now that living standards are increasing in large undeveloped countries like China and India, resources, especially water and food become strained.

Additionally, our food production is living on borrowed time as current production levels depend on massive fossil fuel input. Any significant price rise of those fuels over a longer period of time will increase prices and lower output. The current low prices for food "commodities" also cause farmers to plant less and postpone investments which will add further stress.

If you relly on the market to adjust food production then you will either end up with a lot of people being killed off because of insufficient production or you will end up with massive environmental destruction like deforestation, soil erosion and resultion desertification/infertility of the soil because of over-utilization of the natural resources.

Or you end up with both at the same time, which I believe is in fact the scenario which will happen to play out.

I don't expect that there will be anything done about it, mostly because current industry, and governments who depend on those industries, aren't really interested in promoting solutions to the problems we face, they are interested in promoting buisness opurtunities and in preserving the status quo (e.g. keeping unemployment low at all costs) to keep the "social peace". This leads to governments promoting sub-optimal or even harmful things like Ethanol production. Though I imagine it's difficult for decision maker in the govm. to discern research from propaganda, as these often look identical.

To solve the problems we are facing I imagine we'd need a combination of local inniatives to solve problems on the micro scale and effective government regulation to adress issues on the macro level and to coordinate the many local innitiatives. However to do that you'd first have to disentangle government from big buisness, which seems almost impossible. Big buisness and high officials/rich individuals interested in preserving their status at all costs are the problem, they will use all their power to prevent any solutions that might impact them in a negative way.

durentu

24 Apr 2009, 07:06 PM

I think most of these problems require a fundamental shift in values and thought.

Moving from consumer to producer mentality. Instead of gimme gimme gimme, it's more of give give give. Economics becomes better, people know how to take just what they need, learn the value of the dollar as it becomes stronger etc. Also the government hand outs will not be needed when this fundamental shift happens. I think the problems will be lessened if not solved by the side effects of being more productive, and consumer.

"Ask not what the country can do for you, Ask what you can do for your country" - JFK.

great words.

Dark Razor

24 Apr 2009, 08:18 PM

I think most of these problems require a fundamental shift in values and thought.

Moving from consumer to producer mentality. Instead of gimme gimme gimme, it's more of give give give.

I'd agree with that, it seems to me though that most people are so brainwashed by advertising and other marketing devices that they are unable to make any type of informed decision about basically anything. They are almost like remote-controlled by the TV.

BAJ

24 Apr 2009, 10:10 PM

It's a curious thought. Perhaps food economics influences or perhaps even dictates our eating habits. the main factors being time and money, instead of health, nutrition and ecology. The suggested food pyramid is well known however what about our actual food pyramids? What do we eat most and is it different from the suggested food pyramid? Is the suggested food pyramid even ecologically friendly

durentu,

Let me say this post really impressed me. It was very interesting. It reminded me of my young idealistic days before I went to graduate school. I used to read about this kind of thing.

This is widely practiced in Asia. The chicken coop is built over the pond to fertilize it.

In fact, they use waste. The sewer goes straight into the pond. In Indonesia, the public toilets along the road are simply a hole straight over a fish pond.

One of my professors came back from Vietnam with a photo of a guy reading the newspaper sitting down on a toilet build over the pond. There was no plumbing. It goes directly into the pond.

They fertilize vegetables in the same way.

In my career, I've toured a wide variety of operations, been exposed to many more. I've toured the Epcot hydroponics.

Your experiment/ lifestyle project interested me.

However, of course, I don't have any time to play around with that. Today I brought up more than 4000 more fish to sell. We are on our third week of spawning. We need to drain ponds.

I have time to microwave some hotdogs. That's about it.

We are trying to build a few recirculating systems here, but that is to save money. MONEY. Maybe we use 120 million gallons of water that is pumped from the water table. We are trying everything we can to save money. Agriculture here is depressing the water table, and we are contributing.

But we don't care about this in a "save the children" sense. We only care about this from a money standpoint.

As for CO2, I cut all my catalytic converters out because I think it makes the vehicle run better. I cannot be persuaded based on sentimentalist or alarmist views.

CEOofRawness

25 Apr 2009, 04:26 PM

Fourth, our CO2 levels have increased to about 360 ppm, from 280 ppm in the pre-industrial era. During the carboniferous period, the CO2 went to 1500 ppm. Life was fine. The planet was bursting with plant life, animal life, and species. What is the problem? Plants love CO2. Warmth is good for the planet.

Hopefully we don't end up having an atmosphere like Venus' (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Venus):

The large amount of CO2 in the atmosphere together with water vapor and sulfur dioxide create a strong greenhouse effect, trapping solar energy and raising the surface temperature to around 740 K (467Â°C), hotter than any other planet in the solar system, even that of Mercury despite being located further out from the Sun and receiving only 25% of the solar energy Mercury does.

nonplussed

25 Apr 2009, 04:40 PM

Our eating habits are sustainable as long as food we consume is affordable.

This is an interesting argument, but it fails to take into account externalized costs...which is the problem entirely.

BAJ

25 Apr 2009, 04:50 PM

durentu

25 Apr 2009, 11:21 PM

durentu,

Let me say this post really impressed me. It was very interesting. It reminded me of my young idealistic days before I went to graduate school. I used to read about this kind of thing.

This is widely practiced in Asia. The chicken coop is built over the pond to fertilize it.

In fact, they use waste. The sewer goes straight into the pond. In Indonesia, the public toilets along the road are simply a hole straight over a fish pond.

One of my professors came back from Vietnam with a photo of a guy reading the newspaper sitting down on a toilet build over the pond. There was no plumbing. It goes directly into the pond.

They fertilize vegetables in the same way.

In my career, I've toured a wide variety of operations, been exposed to many more. I've toured the Epcot hydroponics.

Your experiment/ lifestyle project interested me.

However, of course, I don't have any time to play around with that. Today I brought up more than 4000 more fish to sell. We are on our third week of spawning. We need to drain ponds.

I have time to microwave some hotdogs. That's about it.

We are trying to build a few recirculating systems here, but that is to save money. MONEY. Maybe we use 120 million gallons of water that is pumped from the water table. We are trying everything we can to save money. Agriculture here is depressing the water table, and we are contributing.

But we don't care about this in a "save the children" sense. We only care about this from a money standpoint.

As for CO2, I cut all my catalytic converters out and weld the exhaust back together because I think it makes the vehicle run better. I cannot be persuaded based on sentimentalist or alarmist views. I do not care.

I'm glad that it interested you.

I can certainly see where you're coming from. Producing fish is a commodity business and it's a price war. Very cut throat and in my view, a very old but necessary economy. I'd imagine that the commodity business will become even more difficult in the future as the new age of selling experiences puts more pressure on commodities.

Kidding aside, I wondered if there's anyone that grades human poo. I'd imagine that the third world countries would develop better fertilizer than the big mac western diets (though I think the wester poo is better for diesel).

And not only is it good fertilizer, some places use dung patties as a main source of energy. There was a video on youtube showing 6 dung batteries powering a radio.

I'd like your input about aquaculture. Is there a book that you'd recommend or trade/tutorial websites that I can quicken my study of aquaculture?

Thanks a bunch.

Dark Razor

25 Apr 2009, 11:34 PM

I'm glad that it interested you.

I can certainly see where you're coming from. Producing fish is a commodity business and it's a price war. Very cut throat and in my view, a very old but necessary economy. I'd imagine that the commodity business will become even more difficult in the future as the new age of selling experiences puts more pressure on commodities.

Kidding aside, I wondered if there's anyone that grades human poo. I'd imagine that the third world countries would develop better fertilizer than the big mac western diets (though I think the wester poo is better for diesel).

And not only is it good fertilizer, some places use dung patties as a main source of energy. There was a video on youtube showing 6 dung batteries powering a radio.

I'd like your input about aquaculture. Is there a book that you'd recommend or trade/tutorial websites that I can quicken my study of aquaculture?

Thanks a bunch.

Actually, the use of human waste as fertilizer is one of the main reasons for the high prevalence of infectious diseases and intestinal parasites in those places. As well as the reason that westeners usually get sick when they eat any type of food in rural areas in those countries. Just saying...

durentu

25 Apr 2009, 11:45 PM

BAJ

26 Apr 2009, 12:19 AM

Actually, the use of human waste as fertilizer is one of the main reasons for the high prevalence of infectious diseases and intestinal parasites in those places. As well as the reason that westeners usually get sick when they eat any type of food in rural areas in those countries. Just saying...

Well, here we raise fish for pets for people's ponds, pretty fish (not fish for food). Still, we use other types of fertilizers, cottonseed meal, for example.

These fish make great pets. They can grow up 100 cm, and have an average life of 70 years.
http://www.intpcentral.com/uploads/bowl4_edited_3.jpg

Yet, when I worked for a state environmental agency, took a sample that had a fecal cloriform count of 10,000 right next to where some guy was fishing. (A count of 10 is acceptable.) In other words, he was fishing in a polluted stream right here in the US. (I hope he cooked the fish properly!)

In addition, we measured some waste treatment plants. One was only treating like 50%. I was asking, "Why?" My co-worker explained more treatment plants were needed, but it was killed by NIMBY (not in my back yard). That is, runoff into sewars was overwhelming capacity.

I believe secondary sewage can go directly to the marsh or biofilter. The marsh will love it.

These hydroponics systems are what can be done on a massive scale.

You think waste is really bad? Go measure life at effluent sources! So many fish!

Here, I was thinking about it, we don't waste 120 million gallons. It flows through our tanks, but then returns to the environment. What's in our tanks? Fish. Last I heard, fish are not bad for water. It's not hydroponics in the sense that it helps irrigate and fertilize agriculture. It goes back to the natural word. It doesn't harm anything.

BAJ

26 Apr 2009, 01:19 AM

I'd like your input about aquaculture. Is there a book that you'd recommend or trade/tutorial websites that I can quicken my study of aquaculture?

.

When I'm looking for general information, the department where I got my masters degree is usually where I start. On their links page, you can find job sites and links to information pages.

http://www.ag.auburn.edu/fish/Links.php

However, if I wanted to know something more specific, then I'd look for a very specific thing using google.

I found my current job on the internet.

colormegone

26 Apr 2009, 02:52 AM

what does your username mean?

BAJ

26 Apr 2009, 03:12 AM

what does your username mean?

Who are you talking to? The OP?

INThoughtPolice

26 Apr 2009, 04:13 AM

A lot of fascist ideas so far. Keep em coming.

Cupid stunt

26 Apr 2009, 04:30 AM

A lot of fascist ideas so far. Keep em coming.

Which ones?

Cupid stunt

26 Apr 2009, 06:47 AM

Here's the CO2 link I was reading. (http://ff.org/centers/csspp/library/co2weekly/2005-08-18/dioxide.htm)

Here's another. (http://ilovecarbondioxide.com/2009/01/co2-climate-facts.html)

We live in very CO2 impoverished time according to Earth history.

Thus, if we really care about the children, we'll make as much CO2 as we possibly can. Plants will flourish! We'll have more plants, and less water will be tied up in the ice.

I love swamps and think of the Heartland being an ocean again! That will get rid of those pesky Republicans in the center of the country.

You think we are destroying Earth, or making Earth like Venus? False. We may destroy ourselves, but then again, we may adapt instead.

So you think those big stinking dust clouds coming out of old bangers is actually helping the environment? All this climate change talk is one big conspiracy theory?

Your links (probably funded by exxon) contradict the scientific consensus, what if the scientists and ecologists are right?

The planet is losing species of life at a fast increasing rate in recent years, why?

http://www.seakeepers.org/featured-plankton.php

"PLANKTON & KRILL LEVELS RAPIDLY DECREASING SeaKeeper 1000™ can provide important data

The projected global collapse of ocean fish stocks by the year 2048 grabbed headlines in November when Science magazine published the alarming findings of an international panel of scientists. While that report focused on the larger, fishing species that we typically eat, equally important is the bottom of the complex ocean food chain. As with any structure, its stability and strength are based on its foundation. Plankton and krill are the small animals and plant-life that make up the base of the ocean food chain.

Plankton are extremely small, free-swimming organisms that can be single- or multi-celled. There are two major plankton categories: phytoplankton and zooplankton. As the names suggest, phytoplankton are tiny algae or plants, and zooplankton are the animal counterparts. Krill consist of a group of about 85 separate species of shrimp-like animals up to two inches in length; the Antarctic Krill (Euphausia superba) is one of the most significant.

By far, plankton and krill collectively are the largest biomass on the planet, with an estimated 150 million tons of krill alone spawned in the oceans annually. In comparison, the total world consumption of fish and shellfish is approximately 100 million tons a year.

Plankton are a key component of the marine ecosystem and are sensitive to environmental change. Many natural resources directly depend on plankton as a food source. Not only is plankton is the diet of small krill, but of the largest animal on earth – the blue whale. Plankton provide the link between the atmosphere and the ocean as they pass the energy of sunlight and nutrients the food web to fish, bird, and mammal populations.

Scientists have now correlated the increase in ocean temperatures with a decrease in phytoplankton production. As documented in the recent Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the oceans are warming. In fact 80 percent of the heat that is being trapped by greenhouse gases is absorbed by the ocean. [/quote]

But we don't care about this in a "save the children" sense. We only care about this from a money standpoint.

As for CO2, I cut all my catalytic converters out because I think it makes the vehicle run better. I cannot be persuaded based on sentimentalist or alarmist views.

It's what the scientists & ecologists are saying is going to happen. There's nothing sensationalist or alarmist about it.

This is why government subsidies and tax raises are necessary for our children and millions of people in poor countries. Businesses only care about profit. Government policy can determine what fields make a profit.

To put this in some sort of perspective:

http://archive.gulfnews.com/articles/07/02/18/10105140.html

"United Nations: It is "a terrible indictment of the world in 2007" that 18,000 children die every day because of hunger and malnutrition, and 850 million people go to bed every night with empty stomachs, the head of the UN food agency said on Friday."

That's 7 million children a year, an unhealthy environment will likely cause this number to grow drastically. This is only an idea of the suffering that humans face, the cost to nature is far more important.

thod

26 Apr 2009, 11:05 AM

Cupid stunt

26 Apr 2009, 11:38 AM

You are truly a climate change believer, I am sceptical still. I know that you will always find evidence to back up your beliefs if you already believe. Environmental science has gone from being a backwater to billion dollar business. To keep their jobs and the money flowing depends on ever greater scare stories.

Take your plankton story for example, the deciding factor on plankton growth is not the composition of the air but the minerals available in the water to build bodies. Experiments have shown you can create massive plankton growth by using a crop sprayer to seed the ocean with iron. It is the lack of iron that is most restrictive. A hotter world would increase deserts and it is the wind blowing dust from these deserts that supplies the iron to the ocean. Thus we have a feedback mechanism. In addition, a hotter world increases cloud reflecting sunlight and shielding the plankton.

Anyway, that is off topic. Something that I find interesting is that we are told to eat lean meat these days, good for the health and all that. So what to make of this? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rabbit_starvation

Well somethings been causing the opposite effect on population levels over the last few decades, not only on the base of the oceans food chain but all life on earth:

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/nature/an-epidemic-of-extinctions-decimation-of-life-on-earth-829325.html

Is spraying the ocean with iron feasible? Will anyone do it on a scale big enough to make a difference even if it is?

I think it's to be expected that the only conspiracy theory people will believe in is the one that the media tell us isn't the work of a bunch of crazy nutjobs but that doesn't make it true. The mainstream media makes a joke of climate change but in reality there's so much scientific evidence regarding man made climate change that even the media struggle to pretend it's not really happening any more.

Still, for arguments sake we'll say it's a 50/50 chance, despite all the scientific evidence. Assuming there was a 50/50 chance and the decline in life around the planet was caused by humans, and there is a 50/50 chance that if we carry on we will hit a "tipping point" then we should be treating that risk just as seriously as if we knew for sure it was going to happen. When you're fucking with nature itself there are no risks worth taking, especially when they're backed up by huge amounts of scientific evidence.

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/nature/an-epidemic-of-extinctions-decimation-of-life-on-earth-829325.html

Dark Razor

26 Apr 2009, 12:10 PM

Is spraying the ocean with iron feasible? Will anyone do it on a scale big enough to make a difference even if it is?

There was an iron fertilization experiment carried out by the German research vessel Polarstern in January this year, the results (http://www.treehugger.com/files/2009/03/iron-fertilization-geoengineering-unpredictable.php) were that, surprise surprise, it isn't as simple as we thought and the consequences are unpredictable.

BAJ

26 Apr 2009, 02:13 PM

So you think those big stinking dust clouds coming out of old bangers is actually helping the environment?

No, oldbangers should wear scrubbers or whatever, unless they are expelling water.

All this climate change talk is one big conspiracy theory?

Gosh, no. Climate has been changing for 4 billion years. Why should it stop changing?

The planet is losing species of life at a fast increasing rate in recent years, why?

[The projected global collapse of ocean fish stocks by the year 2048 grabbed headlines in November when Science magazine published the alarming findings of an international panel of scientists. While that report focused on the larger, fishing species that we typically eat, equally important is the bottom of the complex ocean food chain.

This is awesome news. I'm glad for the article.

Take note, one of my first jobs, when I was 17 was to sort fish eggs and fish larvae from other ocean plankton.

If ocean stocks decline, this is great news for aquaculture.

Further, we make plankton all the time. You see, it's quite tricky. The timing must be good. You have to get rotifers, which is what the baby fish eat. If bloom has not produced rotifers, then the fry (baby fish) will starve. However, if the bloom cycle is too far along, then the copepods will actually eat the fry.

rotifers---> moina---> daphnia----> copepods

Another thing that can often happen, is that all the phytoplankton can be consumed by the zooplankton, and pond will go clear. This kind of crash is acutally expected. It's good news because in general it means there are enough rotifers, but it requires action.

You have to get the green plants growing again quickly! You have to fertilize the pond.

Anyway, I was not afraid by any of this article or problems.

Locally, at this farm, touch wood...we have not had problems. I was very worried last week since it didn't look like we were going to make the rotifers in time. I was out there on a Saturday kicking up phosphorus and adding liquid fertilizer.

Then later, in the week, I checked the fry, and they all had full stomachs. The fry are eating and growing. The hatch was huge. The predatory insects were few.

We'll I've not done mariculture, but these bloom problems do not scare me very badly. I can make plankton. If I can make it, then I'm sure these mega-geniuses will find stuff out.

Yet, I am also not worried from the stand point of geologic time. We've had way more CO2 and higher temperatures. We've also had species crashes in geologic time.

TheMANimal

26 Apr 2009, 03:06 PM

Anyway, that is off topic. Something that I find interesting is that we are told to eat lean meat these days, good for the health and all that. So what to make of this? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rabbit_starvation

Rabbit starvation does not imply that eating lean meat is bad. It just implies that your body requires more nutrition than is available from rabbits or lean meats. In other words fruits and vegetables or carbohydrate containing foods. In fact, this information is available in that same wiki article linked too.

CEOofRawness

26 Apr 2009, 04:26 PM

Rabbit starvation does not imply that eating lean meat is bad. It just implies that your body requires more nutrition than is available from rabbits or lean meats. In other words fruits and vegetables or carbohydrate containing foods. In fact, this information is available in that same wiki article linked too.

Exactly. Nothing is recommended in extremes, even stuff that is "good for you". The high amount of saturated fat found in some animal products (e.g. ground beef) is the reason why people are told to stick to lean meats. And once again, saturated fat shouldn't be completely eliminated from the diet either. But having too much of it can lead to health problems, particularly of the heart. Not to mention that fat is caloricly dense, making it very easy to gain weight if you go overboard with it.

A lot of the crops that are grown and the animal products produced have a degraded nutritional value due to modern agricultural techniques that favor short-term production (i.e. more food per acre or unit time) over traditional farming, which is more sustainable and healthier, though less profitable.

Everyone knows that the #1 goal of ANY company is to make profit, profit, profit. And profit = gross income - production costs. The cheaper they buy their meat or fruits/veggies, the higher their profit (e.g. McDonald's and friends). But cheaper food entails cheaper production techniques that are environmentally damaging and lower nutritional quality.

Taco Bell uses lower quality meat than dogfood (http://forums.intpcentral.com/showpost.php?p=844221&postcount=24), according to Oso Mocoso. Considering their push for their $0.79/0.89/0.99 value menu, I wouldn't be surprised.

BAJ

26 Apr 2009, 09:30 PM

Exactly..

A lot of the crops that are grown and the animal products produced have a degraded nutritional value due to modern agricultural techniques that favor short-term production (i.e. more food per acre or unit time) over traditional farming, which is more sustainable and healthier, though less profitable.

In my academic career, I was exposed to certain concepts. One of these is "the tragedy of the commons". In this people tend to enter something until everyone is just breaking even.

The government actually pays people NOT to produce.

The farm I worked for that had catfish had row crops. Altogether they had 28,000 acres. Let that sink in for a minute. They rotated rice, wheat, and soybeans, since crop rotation saves the land.

The owner'd been farming since, gosh, the 1930's. He told a story one time he had wheat, and they cut it. Then it made head again, so he was thinking, "More wheat, more money." But instead, the government actually gave him a very stiff fine for over producing.

You see, people produce until everybody just breaks even or makes no profit.

There are two advantages of aquaculture. One, it takes advantage of marginalized lands not acceptable for other crops (like swampy areas). Two, it's sufficiently technical, requires more risk, and takes more start-up cost than other forms of agriculture. To a certain extent, this limits the tragedy of the commons.

But cheaper food entails cheaper production techniques that are environmentally damaging and lower nutritional quality.

I disagree with slash and burn in the Amazon. But what are you going to do about it? Rainforest soils are only good for a few crops, but I doubt you can do anything about it.

Taco Bell uses lower quality meat than dogfood (http://forums.intpcentral.com/showpost.php?p=844221&postcount=24), according to Oso Mocoso. Considering their push for their $0.79/0.89/0.99 value menu, I wouldn't be surprised.

Ha, ha. I love taco bell. I'd even eat the little dog on the commercial.

Cupid stunt

26 Apr 2009, 09:45 PM

No, oldbangers should wear scrubbers or whatever, unless they are expelling water.

So pumping the atmosphere with CO2 isn't good for the environment after all?

Gosh, no. Climate has been changing for 4 billion years. Why should it stop changing?

OK man made climate change is just a conspiracy?

This is awesome news. I'm glad for the article.

Take note, one of my first jobs, when I was 17 was to sort fish eggs and fish larvae from other ocean plankton.

If ocean stocks decline, this is great news for aquaculture.

Well, if a quarter of all species being wiped out and fish stocks disappearing within 30 years is good for aquaculture then it must be awesome news. :gm:

Further, we make plankton all the time. You see, it's quite tricky. The timing must be good. You have to get rotifers, which is what the baby fish eat. If bloom has not produced rotifers, then the fry (baby fish) will starve. However, if the bloom cycle is too far along, then the copepods will actually eat the fry.

rotifers---> moina---> daphnia----> copepods

Another thing that can often happen, is that all the phytoplankton can be consumed by the zooplankton, and pond will go clear. This kind of crash is acutally expected. It's good news because in general it means there are enough rotifers, but it requires action.

You have to get the green plants growing again quickly! You have to fertilize the pond.

Anyway, I was not afraid by any of this article or problems.

Locally, at this farm, touch wood...we have not had problems. I was very worried last week since it didn't look like we were going to make the rotifers in time. I was out there on a Saturday kicking up phosphorus and adding liquid fertilizer.

Then later, in the week, I checked the fry, and they all had full stomachs. The fry are eating and growing. The hatch was huge. The predatory insects were few.

We'll I've not done mariculture, but these bloom problems do not scare me very badly. I can make plankton. If I can make it, then I'm sure these mega-geniuses will find stuff out.

Yet, I am also not worried from the stand point of geologic time. We've had way more CO2 and higher temperatures. We've also had species crashes in geologic time.

I'm guessing that creating plankton in oceans around the world won't be quite so simple as it is in your local aquafarm.

BAJ

26 Apr 2009, 10:03 PM

So pumping the atmosphere with CO2 isn't good for the environment after all?

Ah, CO2 is probably fine. Particulates and sulfides, maybe not.

OK man made climate change is just a conspiracy?

I was with you on global warming, and I've seen Gore's film. I even read his book "Earth in the Balance" back in 1994. I wanted him to be President.

However, if it involves me giving up meat, then it's a crock of shit, really. I mean, I see much more evidence that it's not a big deal compared with geologic history.

Billions of people work in the meat industry, not mere thousands.

Well, if a quarter of all species being wiped out and fish stocks disappearing within 30 years is good for aquaculture then it must be awesome news. :gm:

Yes, it is. Besides, most of this is due to over-fishing. People over-fish. Stocks decline. Prices rise. The price of aquacultural commodities also rises. Yes it is very, very good news.

I'm guessing that creating plankton in oceans around the world won't be quite so simple as it is in your local aquafarm.

Ha, ha. Of course not. The idea you can impact this positively or negatively is sort of absurd.

But, it doesn't scare me.

I don't think iron seeding is the thing.

But regardless, research the carboniferous. I don't know if you are aware of this, but most of the oil comes from planktonic deposits during this time. This time in Earth's history had hugely more plankton than today, and much higher levels of CO2.

CO2 is food for plants. It's critical for photosynthesis. More CO2 means more plants. It seems obvious.

And even if it my "hobby-farm" here is small scale, it is still very sensitive to aspects such as global warming. It is just as sensitive as the Earth is as a whole. So far, we are just fine. The fish are breeding, and everything is going very well with our plankton.

Cupid stunt

26 Apr 2009, 10:44 PM

Ah, CO2 is probably fine. Particulates and sulfides, maybe not.

Well that's not what the scientists are saying, either way it's gambling with the environment.

I was with you on global warming, and I've seen Gore's film. I even read his book "Earth in the Balance" back in 1994. I wanted him to be President.

However, if it involves me giving up meat, then it's a crock of shit, really. I mean, I see much more evidence that it's not a big deal compared with geologic history.

Billions of people work in the meat industry, not mere thousands.

I think "billions" is an exaggeration considering the worlds population is only 6.77 billion but still, the jobs will be re-created in harvesting, the difference will be that we wouldn't have a food shortage causing 850 million people to go to bed hungry & 18000 children to die every single day. If we continue eating meat we are gambling with nature. I'm not saying eating meat should be banned but the price should be at least doubled (IMO) and the price of growing fruit & vegetables should be subsidized, thus creating food abundance, sustainable eating habits, a healthy nation, a healthy environment and a healthy economy. McDonalds is not a necessity.

Yes, it is. Besides, most of this is due to over-fishing. People over-fish. Stocks decline. Prices rise. The price of aquacultural commodities also rises. Yes it is very, very good news.

Would you think that if you were one of the extinct species, or one of the 18000 children dying every day?

Ha, ha. Of course not. The idea you can impact this positively or negatively is sort of absurd.

But, it doesn't scare me.

I don't think iron seeding is the thing.

But regardless, research the carboniferous. I don't know if you are aware of this, but most of the oil comes from planktonic deposits during this time. This time in Earth's history had hugely more plankton than today, and much higher levels of CO2.

CO2 is food for plants. It's critical for photosynthesis. More CO2 means more plants. It seems obvious.

And even if it my "hobby-farm" here is small scale, it is still very sensitive to aspects such as global warming. It is just as sensitive as the Earth is as a whole. So far, we are just fine. The fish are breeding, and everything is going very well with our plankton.

Well I'd agree that you'd think CO2 would mean more plants but I don't think it hits plants directly, my understanding is that it's the environment itself that is being destroyed, thus less plants.

Either way, at the moment we have 2 choices. Take the scientists & ecologists seriously and cut down a lot on meat, coal & oil or believe that they're all involved in a conspiracy to take our money and continue to take a massive gamble on natures behalf.

BAJ

27 Apr 2009, 02:01 AM

My parents have a Prius hybrid. I asked my Mom, "So are you trying to save the environment or are you being economical?" My parents believe that they will save money when the car is paid off. That's 90% of the reason.

I guess when I was a missions officer for a campus ministry, I organized a hunger awareness dinner. That's where you draw lots, and people are allowed to eat in proportion to the global distribution of food. A few got chicken dinner. Many got just rice, and then there were people in between.

Nowadays, I guess, I'm going to bake and eat meat for as long as I can. I'm going to enjoy every day to the fullest.

If it makes you feel better, donnate half your money to the World Food Program. Personally, I have no interest in it at all.

Ah the poor children!

Good grief. Is it my fault the fuckers are breeding and they have no food. May they all die! Why EXACTLY should I care?

Do you know in Africa that nobody sleeps alone? If you stay at your brother's house, he lends you one of his wives. Did you know if they have no food, they let their children starve so they can eat first?

If you really care, use all your vacation time to bring suitcases full of contraception to the third world. That will do more good than 500 posts here.

Did you understand what I said about over-production of food commodities?

The government is already paying people NOT to produce corn and many other crops. Why? Because over-production will drive the price too low.

So what is your solution? Double the price of meat through taxation? It will be more than a "Boston Tea Party" this time. There will be riots in the streets.

If costs go up to regular factors, then that's perfectly normal, but government intervention in this way...forcing people to reduce meat...is ridiculously stupid. It creates a harmfully artificial economic situation. Millions of people probably work in the meat industry. This might actually lead to a war.

Economically speaking, it's the same as the government buying massive quanities of grain and other foods to keep the price high. I think the government already buys massive quanities of food. I agree with the government doing this. Then the price of grain will rise. Then more people will make it.

Of course, I don't know how this ties in with paying people not to produce!

However, putting a tax on my meat will never fly. It will never work. You are going to take on McDonald's? Good luck with that.

I bet you, and everyone you contact and influence in your entire existence on this planet, cannot get one barbecue joint in one small Texas town to shut down. I DARE you to try it. I absolutely dare you.

If you succeed, then I'll stop eating meat for one day.

ciphersort

27 Apr 2009, 02:48 AM

I bet you, and everyone you contact and influence in your entire existence on this planet, cannot get one barbecue joint in one small Texas town to shut down. I DARE you to try it. I absolutely dare you.

If you succeed, then I'll stop eating meat for one day.

:rofl: BAJ you are killing me. Were I subsisting on plants alone that laugh attack probably would have done me in.

bass_n_treble

27 Apr 2009, 03:10 AM

My contribution: I will adopt children.

Cupid stunt

27 Apr 2009, 10:18 PM

Ah the poor children!

Good grief. Is it my fault the fuckers are breeding and they have no food. May they all die! Why EXACTLY should I care?

Do I need to answer this?

Do you know in Africa that nobody sleeps alone? If you stay at your brother's house, he lends you one of his wives. Did you know if they have no food, they let their children starve so they can eat first?

That's ridiculous.

So what is your solution? Double the price of meat through taxation? It will be more than a "Boston Tea Party" this time. There will be riots in the streets.

When did Americans last riot about anything? You saying there will be riots in the streets doesn't mean there will be.

If costs go up to regular factors, then that's perfectly normal, but government intervention in this way...forcing people to reduce meat...is ridiculously stupid. It creates a harmfully artificial economic situation. Millions of people probably work in the meat industry. This might actually lead to a war.

Aah, then we should stop the high tax rates on beer & cigarettes? Otherwise there might be wars & riots in the streets right? The only thing that's ridiculously stupid is all the assertions you're making.

Economically speaking, it's the same as the government buying massive quanities of grain and other foods to keep the price high. I think the government already buys massive quanities of food. I agree with the government doing this. Then the price of grain will rise. Then more people will make it.

Economically speaking it's the same as putting extra taxes on beer and alcohol.

Of course, I don't know how this ties in with paying people not to produce!

It doesn't.

However, putting a tax on my meat will never fly. It will never work. You are going to take on McDonald's? Good luck with that.

I'm not saying I can by myself, I'm saying that if we don't, millions more will die.

Whether you care or not is irrelevant.

Feops

27 Apr 2009, 10:58 PM

durentu: Well, sort of. More that what we eat are given an upper limit by economics. I could eat ramen every day for cheap but I choose not to because I can afford better food.

Hydroponics is an interesting idea, though I question its ultimate cost in energy compared to a farm. Having a proper outdoor garden seems a good investment.

Dark Razor: Yeah, it was something of a play on the old supply and demand deal. If food becomes scarce, price goes up, and the luxery of meat starts to incur a premium given the effort to produce it. Right now we're at something of a sweet spot, as you noted, with oil adding a huge energy leverage to how much food we can produce. If this will taper off or not is another debate entirely.

It's hard to say what the best path for the government to take would be - doubly so when people form idealistic notions of what we "should" be doing. Regulations stifle growth, excessive regulation becomes economical suicide. I think the current gamble is that progress will outpace resource exhaustion for a while, and when decline does take place, it will be a gradual pressure that shifts economics rather than an outright collapse.

nonplussed: Please elaborate!

BAJ

28 Apr 2009, 12:28 AM

Do I need to answer this?

Yes, absolutely.

That's ridiculous.

General fact. If you couldn't feed children, then would you make lots of children? No, I hope not, but some do make lots of children even if they have no food. Am I responsible for their poor planning? I can't even afford children!

I was involved with a church that delivered medicine to 40 medical clinics in developing countries. On occasion, someone from Africa would come talk, and that's what one of these missionaries said, "Nobody sleeps alone."

Who am I to believe? A person who actually lives and works in Africa helping the poor all of his natural life, or some guy in England? For all I know, you googled 18,000 starving children yesterday, and know nothing personally about it.

And yes, you have to explain why I should care. Why exactly should I value my happiness less? I don't even care how many.

Aah, then we should stop the high tax rates on beer & cigarettes? Otherwise there might be wars & riots in the streets right? The only thing that's ridiculously stupid is all the assertions you're making.

Listen, not everyone believes as you do. It is a belief system. It's worse than a religion.

Beer and cigarettes are drugs. Meat is food.

Most people in American would probably just tell you that you are full of shit at best. Others might actually beat you up over the meat issue.

Go into some barbecue joint up in Chicago, New York, down South, or almost anywhere.

You got this person. They weight 350 pounds of solid muscle, and they are hunched over an all-you-can-eat buffet, piled high with meat. Oh, gosh! I can just imagine you trying to explain it's bad for them. Ask them to sign a petition to raise meat taxes. Oh, please let me watch you do that!

You know the military eats meat, right? You are throwing eggs at a tank. That's how futile your bullshit is.

I'm not saying I can by myself, I'm saying that if we don't, millions more will die.

Whether you care or not is irrelevant.

That's part of the point. It doesn't matter whether you care either. It doesn't mean anything. It is not going to happen.

Millions die all the time.

You are silly if you think your caring about this issue will make a hill of beans worth of difference.

I didn't just say you, though. I said everyone you meet and influence in your entire life combined with everyone they influence ad infinitum. You have to come up with a lot of scary bullshit to influence even one person.

All I have to do is fire up a barbecue grill. They will smell the awesome barbecue and be converted. Frequently I encourage people in the art of cooking steak, and I feed people who come over. I'm going to eat some sausages and pork chops right now. There's nothing you can do about it. EVER.

America has great traditions of eating meat, especially on certain holidays. At the intervention of the President of the United States, one turkey is pardoned by tradition on Thanksgiving. ONE TURKEY. And he is the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES. Who are you?

CEOofRawness

28 Apr 2009, 06:01 AM

BAJ

28 Apr 2009, 12:49 PM

So you're saying that providing everyone with as much meat as they want is sustainable? We're talking about a possible downfall of human civilization and all you care about is people eating meat and keeping their jobs.

I know where you're coming from; it's almost completely socially and economically impossible to reduce our meat consumption. It's not worth the risk, though. Many people think the same way, too, which is why we're fucked.

I don't have much faith in the human race really.

Here's the other side. At one point I read this book, "Fit for Life", and started to try it. Of course, I felt fabulous for a few days. The author suggests vegetarianism. You eat fruits in the morning.

I guess I stayed with that diet for a few days. It was fabulously expensive. Yet, I also grew sick of it after a few days. Soon I hated it.

I have a fairly good knowledge of myself specifically and the humans generally.

If you believe that people should eat less meat, the only way you are going to win...THE ONLY WAY...is to make something people like to eat that is just as good and filling as meat. I like the boca and vegetarian foods, but they are more expensive.

In the above paragraph, I'm telling you how to win.

Of course, likely means processing the food, so you're screwed if you also believe in not processing the food.

Yet, people are addicted to meat and foods. We have so many restaurants! It likely adds up to billions. They are spreading into China now. There was a pizza hut and kfc in Saudi Arabia when I went there.

The program I watched on China was sort of amusing. They don't understand "drive-thru" culture yet. They go through the "drive-thru", and then they get out their car and carry the food inside and eat it. Ah, but don't worry, our culture will spread.

I like to watch these shows on the travel channel. They show you the top ten barbecue joints or they show you the top 10 hamburger paradise restaurants. I have seen one for chocolate too, but for the most part, I've never seen on on vegetarian eateries. Perhaps if they made one with vegetarian eateries, then nobody would even watch it.

I think if I have to switch to a bland, tastless food, then I don't even want to live any more, and I grow tired of any vegetarian type of foods after a few days. They just don't fill me up or give me the same strength and energy.

Thus, in summary, you have to come up with a better plan. If you want to change people's diet, then you have to make a very-tasty food. I saw this other film about a factory that makes pretzels. I don't remember how many the factory made, but it was a very huge amount each hour. They've even make "Buffalo Wing" flavored pretzels. Why? It makes a profit. They have a market for it.

Your ideas have a very small market. It won't sell. If it doesn't sell, then nobody cares about it.

You might say, "That's not fair! The children! The Earth is burning down!"

I say, "Sorry, that's the way the world works."

Feops

28 Apr 2009, 04:56 PM

So you're saying that providing everyone with as much meat as they want is sustainable? We're talking about a possible downfall of human civilization and all you care about is people eating meat and keeping their jobs.

Come now, human civilization will not collapse owing to meat consumption.

The market balances itself. As need increases either production increases, cost increases, or both. It's a very elastic system that won't suddenly collapse in on itself leavingnopeoplewithmeatsotheyriotohgod. When cost increases people will seek out cheaper alternatives.

airjaw

28 Apr 2009, 05:14 PM

People aren't going to stop eating meat. Maybe we should eat less - that I can agree with. But people that call for the world to stop eating meat entirely are not to be taken seriously.

What happened to the INTP attitude of letting people make their own decisions? Or is that just me?

People know themselves the best and should have the choice to eat what they want. Going vegetarian wouldn't make any sense to me. I'd lose 50% of my muscle mass and I'd drive myself crazy after a few weeks. I'd be a completely different person, and I don't want to be different.

joft

28 Apr 2009, 05:19 PM

doesnt being a democrat hippie who loves the planet feel so right and warm and fuzzy?

Actually, it feels a bit like being trapped in a fucking nightmare where absolutely nothing is right, warm, or fuzzy.

Technical

28 Apr 2009, 05:24 PM

Actually, it feels a bit like being trapped in a fucking nightmare where absolutely nothing is right, warm, or fuzzy.
"Then just stop doing it. It's the easiest thing in the world, you just stop." *eats teh steaks*

BAJ

28 Apr 2009, 05:28 PM

I just realized that I'm so evil that I produce an ornanmental species! We tie up agricultural land for the sole purpose of making something pretty! How evil! The people are starving, for Christ's sake.

But you know because we make a high value species, 20 acres produces enough MONEY to sustain 26 families by American standards. Let that sink in. No other form of agriculture (other than ornanmentals) has a higher value per acre.

Could we support 26 families raising anything else on 20 acres? If so, let me know what it is, please. Maybe I'll think about it.

(Exclude pot and cocaine, please. We like to stay legal ;))

Technical

28 Apr 2009, 05:30 PM

You have an orchid farm?

BAJ

28 Apr 2009, 05:36 PM

You have an orchid farm?

I don't own the farm. I just work here.

An actual example photo of what we make is on a previous page.

MadamI'madaM

28 Apr 2009, 06:12 PM

I think if I have to switch to a bland, tastless food, then I don't even want to live any more, and I grow tired of any vegetarian type of foods after a few days. They just don't fill me up or give me the same strength and energy.

Vegetarian foods definitely aren't flavorless.

Most of the flavors in anything you eat come from plants. Meat is more like a textured hormone cocktail.

Also, the healthiest I've ever personally felt was when I was eating almost all vegetarian calories supplemented with tuna sans fatty emulsion.

Lots of saturated fats bog me down.

durentu

28 Apr 2009, 06:40 PM

A few facts.

- cooking foods is proven to provide more energy to the human body. In evolution, it has provided the energy resources to help develop a larger brain
- we live in the information age and thus require the use of our brains to survive in modern times.
- the brain consumes a large amount of energy from the foods we eat.

raw veggies help to cleans the body and provide minerals and nutrients while meats provide the best source of protein for bodily repair and energy.

The way our taste buds works is that it likes the things that provide the most quickest source of energy. Aside from acquired tastes, this is why sugar tastes better than meats.

So the first question is: can you fabricate, produce, or genetically engineer a food product that will replace all the foods omnivores usually eat? Pills don't count because they atrophy the digestive system.

A sweet salty tasting meat plant that is dense. It can be baked, boiled, fried, chopped, BBQ'd, and others. Then allow it to be a sustainable food. then it should take over the other food markets.

This is basically the holy grail of foods. The sweet salty meat plant. (we're well on our way because we can grow muscle tissues now with stem cells).

As far as I know in present day, the only way to make self sustaining meats (assuming that there's no argument about self sustaining veggies), then we must allow for stem cell research to grow our own meats. I'm guessing that growing meat will be cheaper because the over head and time constraints will be less.

Would everyone here be happy with stem cell meat growing as a way to solve
1) economies of meat eating
2) issues of sustainability

provided that
1) grown meats provide the nutrition as regular meats
2) is still tastey (probably still taste like chicken)
3) costs of grown meat is cheaper than raising meat
4) health risk precautions are in place (hopefully the CDC not the USDA)

If I forget about soylent green, I think I'd go for it.

Technical

28 Apr 2009, 06:43 PM

IT'S PEOPLE! SOYLENT COWPIES ARE MADE OUT OF PEOPLE! WE THOUGHT WE WERE EATING COWPIES, BUT IT'S PEOPLE!

CheeZ

28 Apr 2009, 10:24 PM

Second, excessive government has led to the starvation of millions.

Third, the free market (not government) should determine what we eat.

If costs go up to regular factors, then that's perfectly normal, but government intervention in this way...forcing people to reduce meat...is ridiculously stupid. It creates a harmfully artificial economic situation.

The reason that beef doesn't cost more is because of government subsidies.

This is not free-market economics. These are not regular factors, yet they're allowed to continue because of ridiculously stupid government intervention. What regular factors make soybeans more expensive than cows? Maybe if they were magic beans...

The current economic situation is artificial. Government intervention is the only reason the current model still exists.

I like the boca and vegetarian foods, but they are more expensive.

Yes they are. Why? Beef prices are low because the cattle industry is subsidized. Not directly, but still... Consider this:

In 2004, the US produced (http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/78/3/660S) approx. 8 million metric tons of animal protein.
124 kg of meat is eaten per American per year. 44kg, or 35% of this is beef.
That's 2.8 million metric tons of beef.

In 2004, American farmers received (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agricultural_subsidy#United_States) more than $2.8 billion in feed grains subsidies.
If 35% of that was for beef, that's $980 million in feed grain subsidies for cattle feed.

Is beef safe? (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/11/world/asia/11beef.html)
"About 50 countries, including Korea, Taiwan and Japan the last of which accounted for 36 percent of American beef exports closed their doors to American beef after the first confirmed case of mad cow disease was found in Moses Lake, Wash., in December 2003."

How about money not spent on testing for mad cow diease. Could that be considered a subsidy?
In 2004, the test for mad cow cost $25 per head.
As of 2006, the USDA tested "about one out of every 90 slaughtered."

In 2004, beef processing plants (http://www.ag.ndsu.nodak.edu/aginfo/lsmkt/docs/ac033105.pdf) slaughtered 32,300,000 head of cattle.
If they tested 1 in 90, or 358,888, that means 31,941,111 went untested, saving cattle farmers $798,527,777.

$ 980,000,000 in government subsidies for cattle feed
$ 798,527,777 saved by not testing the cows we slaughter
$1,778,527,777 spent not technically subsidizing cattle ranchers. PER YEAR!

This doesn't include the money spent on political lobbyists to ensure that things don't change.

This also doesn't include the opportunity cost of committing 44% of US-produced soybeans (http://www.nopa.org/content/issues/livestock.pdf) to feed cattle. How many is that? How about 85.03 Million Metric Tons (http://www.soystats.com/2007/page_09.htm) of soybeans. How many Boca burgers could we make with all that?

The current market is the artificial construct of government intervention.

The market balances itself. As need increases either production increases, cost increases, or both. It's a very elastic system that won't suddenly collapse in on itself leavingnopeoplewithmeatsotheyriotohgod. When cost increases people will seek out cheaper alternatives.

We are not allowing the market to balance itself. It's not an elastic system if it's propped up by the federal government. If the US government was not whoring out to agriculture lobbyists, the market would look very, very different.

What happened to the INTP attitude of letting people make their own decisions? Or is that just me?

I'm all for it. I'd be very curious to see what happens.

CheeZ

28 Apr 2009, 10:34 PM

So you're saying that providing everyone with as much meat as

they want is sustainable? We're talking about a possible downfall of human civilization

and all you care about is people eating meat and keeping their jobs.

Come now, human civilization will not collapse owing to meat consumption.

Maybe total collapse is hyperbole. But surely we can agree that cattle production comsumes resources in staggering quantities.

Start with those 85.03 Million Metric Tons (http://www.soystats.com/2007/page_09.htm) of soybeans.

If we didn't use the grains to feed cattle, what could we do with it?
"Feed about 840 million people who follow a plant-based diet." (http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/78/3/660S) Or maybe we could reduce the trade deficit by $80 billion a year. (http://www.news.cornell.edu/releases/aug97/livestock.hrs.html) Maybe some combination of both.

What about water? Segelken reports (http://www.news.cornell.edu/releases/aug97/livestock.hrs.html) that "Grain-fed beef production takes 100,000 liters of water for every kilogram of food."
In 2005, meat packers produced 24.6 billion pounds of beef, or 11,158,372,302 kilos.
That's 11,158,372,302,000,000 liters or 2,946,926,124,958,200 gallons of water.

2,946 TRILLION GALLONS OF WATER PER YEAR FOR COWS!

Lake Michigan holds 1,299 Trillion gallons.
Lake Tahoe contains 39.75 trillion gallons.

Beef production in the US consumes a Lake Michigan and a Lake Tahoe worth of water every six months.

That's not all. Antibiotics. Petroleum involved in processing and transporting meat. 272 million hectares (http://www.news.cornell.edu/releases/aug97/livestock.hrs.html) of pasture.

At the very least, this is a mis-allocation of resources we could be using for other things. Look at what we're feeding to the cows. Where in the natural world did cows grow up eating soybeans?

Feops

28 Apr 2009, 10:37 PM

Sure they're subsidized. That doesn't change the fact that your average american can run out and afford to pick up a hamburger whenever the fancy strikes them.

CheeZ

28 Apr 2009, 10:41 PM

Yet, people are addicted to meat and foods.

If it's addicting, maybe a tax would be appropriate.

I'm kidding, but maybe it's not as ridiculous as it sounds. Part of the argument for taxing cigarettes and alcohol is to defray the medical costs of diseases associated with those products. If the logic can be used there, why can't we ask people with unhealthy diets to pay for their share of medical expenses?

BAJ

29 Apr 2009, 12:34 AM

Stuff you said.

Awesome. That's some intelligent arguing, and I did not know much about cows. I don't think the catfish industry is big enough to lobby for hand-outs. Really, I only know about fish and the government doesn't give us anything.

Your data is very interesting.

I would not be opposed to letting the price float. I don't agree with government handout for beef or soybeans. Let them fight out on the free market.

Still what it will boil down to is whether your vegetarian restaurant can out-sell the hamburger joint next door. The only thing I care about is getting food I like at a decent price.

I'll try your restaurant, and if I like it, then I'll eat there instead. That's all I care about really.

I've tried vegetarian sandwiches on occaision, and I didn't enjoy it half as much as a meat sandwich.

I'd look up how many trillions of gallons row crops use up every year. But I'm really too lazy, and bored.

Besides, my chilli cheese sausages are done in the microwave. I absolute love those!

2hype

29 Apr 2009, 12:57 AM

If it's addicting, maybe a tax would be appropriate.

I'm kidding, but maybe it's not as ridiculous as it sounds. Part of the argument for taxing cigarettes and alcohol is to defray the medical costs of diseases associated with those products. If the logic can be used there, why can't we ask people with unhealthy diets to pay for their share of medical expenses?

What does this have to do with eating meat or not?

cripple

29 Apr 2009, 01:11 AM

2,946 TRILLION GALLONS OF WATER PER YEAR FOR COWS!

So what, it's not like it goes into space or something. Take away the cows, and they will be probably just be replaced with humans. Is that what you want?

CheeZ

29 Apr 2009, 02:44 AM

What does this have to do with eating meat or not?

All I'm suggesting is even-handed application of laws. Tobacco is a health risk. So is saturated fat. So is cholesterol. How do you justify taxing one and not the others?

So what, it's not like it goes into space or something. Take away the cows, and they will be probably just be replaced with humans. Is that what you want?

How about we fix the Colorado River? (http://climate.weather.com/articles/coloradoriver120501.html)

cripple

29 Apr 2009, 03:16 AM

How about we fix the Colorado River? (http://climate.weather.com/articles/coloradoriver120501.html)
By killing the cows? Have not looked at it this detailed. Those who own the river will have to make a calculation of how much they can get for the water, compared to the meat. The work will be less, and the demand high. If the profit is higher, and the people willing to go grassing in the fields, by all means, kill the cows.

BAJ

29 Apr 2009, 03:25 AM

Cattle production fun facts page. (http://beeffrompasturetoplate.org/sustainabilityfunfacts.aspx)

Highlight:

Because 85 percent of U.S. grazing lands are unsuitable for producing crops, grazing animals more than doubles the area that can be used to produce food.

Cattle serve a valuable role in the ecosystem by converting the forages humans cannot consume into a nutrient-dense food.

Chez says in his post:
In 2004, beef processing plants slaughtered 32,300,000 head of cattle.
If they tested 1 in 90, or 358,888, that means 31,941,111 went untested, saving cattle farmers $798,527,777.

$ 980,000,000 in government subsidies for cattle feed
$ 798,527,777 saved by not testing the cows we slaughter
$1,778,527,777 spent not technically subsidizing cattle ranchers. PER YEAR!

Farm subsidy database map. (http://farm.ewg.org/farm/index.php?key=nosign)

Aritcle that talks about other subsidies (http://farm.ewg.org/farm/summary.php)

Top Programs For Subsidies: Corn is King
Over the past twelve years, taxpayers have spent $56 billion on corn subsidies paid to over 1.5 million recipients, making it the top crop for federal assistance. Wheat subsidies ranked second, which paid $22 billion to more than 1.3 million recipients, followed closely by cotton subsidies, which provided $21 billion to over 247,00 recipients over the period.

The Conservation Reserve Program ranked fourth, paying over $20 billion to 768,180 recipients.

Even considering adding testing into cows, and NOT including any testing in these other crops, cows are still not in the top four. We can't even eat cotton, and it's third!

If I figured right, that's 4.7 billion per year for corn. I'll write the number out so it looks scarier:

4, 666, 666, 667 per year! For corn!

See, you also know it's evil because when you divide 56 billion by 12 years, you get lots of "666" numbers, that repeat ad infinitum. The horror!

CheeZ

29 Apr 2009, 04:08 AM

"Converting the forages humans cannot consume" seems like a preferable way to feed cows. There are other things we can do with the soybeans.

And you're right. Agricultural subsidies in this country are ridiculous. Don't even get me started on corn... All of these are good examples of why our eating habits need to be revised.

Maybe our cotton habits too. :p

thod

29 Apr 2009, 04:18 PM

Parts of the UK are unsuited for anything but keeping sheep. The soil on the uplands is thin, like less than an inch thick. You cannot plough such soil, there are countless jagged rocks sticking out, it is very steep. Sheep are an excellent way of using this land, they can give you meat, milk, and fibre. It simply cannot be used for other crops, the grass grows by itself and is never out competed by trees which cannot take root.

Our ancestors lived in a state of perpetual near starvation. If they could have obtained more calories from crops they would have done so. They chose to raise sheep in these areas because it was and is the best choice.

The argument that vegetarianism is best for everyone, everywhere, does not hold water.

turt

29 Apr 2009, 05:16 PM

All I'm suggesting is even-handed application of laws. Tobacco is a health risk. So is saturated fat. So is cholesterol. How do you justify taxing one and not the others?

You need fat to live. You need cholesterol to live. You do not need tabacco to live.

YHWH

29 Apr 2009, 05:25 PM

You could live on just vegetables and water. you don't really need any of the others in that case.

CEOofRawness

30 Apr 2009, 02:33 PM

Anyone know if the swine flu originated from modern agricultural techniques (i.e. cramming animals into tight quarters and pump them full of antibiotics to prevent the spread of disease, which happens anyway)?

I knew it was a matter of time until something like that happened, but I'm not sure if this really is the root cause of the swine flu. It wouldn't be surprising if this was the case, though.

I bring this up because our eating habits require these large-scale animal farms, and disease can spread quite easily in these conditions. Animal diseases aren't always transmittable to humans, but just like the swine flu, it can mutate into strains that can spread to humans.

Regardless of whether or not swine flu can be attributed to these animal harms, they're still ticking time bombs and a pandemic is still imminent.

CEOofRawness

30 Apr 2009, 02:53 PM

Come now, human civilization will not collapse owing to meat consumption.
Yea, that was a far stretch. It could still cause a huge world wide problem, though. Poor energy efficiency and mutation of animal disease into strains that can infect humans (e.g. swine flu) are two big issues.

People aren't going to stop eating meat. Maybe we should eat less - that I can agree with. But people that call for the world to stop eating meat entirely are not to be taken seriously.

What happened to the INTP attitude of letting people make their own decisions? Or is that just me?

People know themselves the best and should have the choice to eat what they want. Going vegetarian wouldn't make any sense to me. I'd lose 50% of my muscle mass and I'd drive myself crazy after a few weeks. I'd be a completely different person, and I don't want to be different.
I agree that eating less meat is a much better and feasible idea. I wouldn't want to become vegan either, but every single meal doesn't need to be comprised of mainly of animal products. As for the INTP comment: I don't care what people do with their lives either, until their decisions begin to affect me as well. Like I said, we're talking about something that might become a huge issue later on when the population increases even more and we will have no other option than to switch to more efficiently produced food. Even though the economy should be considered, it's still irrelevant in the long run. It's a made up system that can go up or down depending on policies that we put (or fail to put) in place. The environment is different. We're using resources at such a high rate that nature can't keep up with us and restore them. These decisions are going to be a headache or even disastrous down the road, and as an INTP I don't see why we shouldn't take action now to prevent it from occurring.

(Exclude pot and cocaine, please. We like to stay legal ;))
I never considered it until you brought it up. You make a good talking point for legalization, though :grin:

You need fat to live. You need cholesterol to live. You do not need tabacco to live.
You don't need animal products to live, either. Meat is more of a luxury than a necessity, and it's going to become more costly as time goes on.

BAJ

30 Apr 2009, 05:44 PM

Anyone know if the swine flu originated from modern agricultural techniques (i.e. cramming animals into tight quarters and pump them full of antibiotics to prevent the spread of disease, which happens anyway)?

.

Would you prefer to live in the Middle Ages before modern agriculture? You know, back when 1/3 of the population was dying from disease epidemics?

This is not the first time in human history that we've had disease problems. Why become an alarmist and start blaming it on modern agriculture?

If there are problems, then these can be fixed. Right?

Meanwhile, keep working on your alternative fast food place that out-sells McDonalds and every other meat resturant. It's the only solution to actually make any progress on the problem.

Feops

30 Apr 2009, 06:06 PM

Yea, that was a far stretch. It could still cause a huge world wide problem, though. Poor energy efficiency and mutation of animal disease into strains that can infect humans (e.g. swine flu) are two big issues.

I'll certainly grant that. Meat has a huge indirect cost right now given the whole cycle of fossil fuels > nitrogen > corn > feed > cow. This rapidly produces meat but is an environmental burden in addition to the potential for a superbug of sorts to come from so many animals kept in close proximity in sickly conditions.

That particular cycle is not sustainable forever. Eventually fuels will deplete and population growth will spill the environmental impact to alarming levels. Flus and such may become more common. Adjustments will have to be made. The question becomes if progress and innovation can switch gears smoothly to match human demands.

Here opinions differ I suppose, and my personal opinion is that food satisfaction is of very high importance to people and innovation will follow to meet that demand. But ONLY when current circumstances become stressed (or are forseen by the government to become unacceptable), otherwise it doesn't make economical sense to do so.

In summary as to not contradict myself, yes I think our eating habits are sustainable, but only if process adapts with sufficient speed and forsight.

dodo

30 Apr 2009, 07:15 PM

hi. i'm late to this. i'm gonna express my opinion on food habits, not that i have read everything in the post though.. just pages 1,2,9..
I see it like this: to eat animals you need to raise them. that is, you need to feed them. so you could spend some food to raise a pig, make the pig use the food to grow and make reserves (but only with a % of the food you've given to it) and then eat the reserves. in this way, plant eating is more efficient, 'cause from the total energy given by the sun, an X% goes into the plant, (100-X)% goes to reserves. with the pig, a % of this, say Y% of the (100-X)% goes to the pig and ONLY (100-Y)% OF THE (100-X)% goes to you! you've lost energy by growing a pig.
on the other side, we do need to digest the food, and maybe it's more efficient to digest meat in terms of energy spent in digestion vs energy gained from it. after all, meat is more 'complete' than plants so it would require us to digest 5 different plants to get what one piece of meat can give us. i'm not sure about this though..
however, i don't know how it is that meat helps the brain. does it make it bigger? does it make it faster? in any case, it all boils down to the neural connections you make, you can be a total fast-thinking asshole with a big brain. there are lots of really stupid people that eat meat every day too. We can exercise our brains in other ways.
in any case, it doesn't make sense economically to sacrifice all that food give to the pigs to get... well.. food again :/
big scale economy should manage plants, not animals, since its the food source that requires the less spending. if you want to eat meat, feed it, spend your own food in it, and then chop it into pieces and eat your precious brain-food. if we let a big corporation do this, they would need plants to produce half of the plants nutritional value in meat and we'll eventually run out of them (specially 'cause plants salesman would have to sell their products to meat salesman, so the meat market would be more profitable, and no one would raise plants). and please, don't steal the animals from the seas, if everyone did that we would have no more fishes :stupid: (this is only done on the seas, there are not enough left on land to make it a business)

Cupid stunt

30 Apr 2009, 07:42 PM

Medici

30 Apr 2009, 08:00 PM

MadamI'madaM

30 Apr 2009, 08:17 PM

avolkiteshvara

30 Apr 2009, 08:23 PM

thod

30 Apr 2009, 08:40 PM

Nah, some will argue that the new flu is due to factory farming because it fits their agenda of stopping factory farming. Same with global warming is due to factory farming. The rise of the Taliban is down to factory farming, declining educational standards, factory farming.

The Spanish flu of 1918 can hardly be said to originate from factory farming. The more recent pandemics of Asian and Hong Kong flu neither. The pigs would run free in south east China gobbling up waste. Whenever you get humans in close proximity to animals you have the potential for crossovers. Better to put the pigs in a factory farm where human contact is limited.

CEOofRawness

30 Apr 2009, 10:22 PM

Would you prefer to live in the Middle Ages before modern agriculture? You know, back when 1/3 of the population was dying from disease epidemics?

This is not the first time in human history that we've had disease problems. Why become an alarmist and start blaming it on modern agriculture?

If there are problems, then these can be fixed. Right?

Meanwhile, keep working on your alternative fast food place that out-sells McDonalds and every other meat resturant. It's the only solution to actually make any progress on the problem.

Or we can keep our inefficient habit of eating too many animal products until the world's population growth outpaces our ability to grow meat and other animal products. Demand will increase and supply will eventually hit a ceiling due to the pure inefficiency of raising animals for food. It would come to a point where most of our crops go into feeding animals that we eat instead of actually eating the crops ourselves. Remember, low supply + high demand = higher prices, so the price of animal products will eventually be so high that people will most likely switch over to cheaper food (i.e. vegan) anyway. This will lead to the meat industry losing some (probably not much) money and some workers being laid off regardless. Might as well become responsible citizens now before being forced to do it later on under unfavorable conditions.

And the reason why so many people survive disease now is because of our advances in medicine, not agricultural practices. During the Middle Ages farm animals were raised eating their natural food, not being pumped with hormones and antibiotics, or being crammed together where diseases can easily spread and feeding herbivores their own meat and bone marrow (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mad_cow) in the name of higher profit.

In that case, yes, I'd prefer farming techniques from the Middle Ages. The amount of money that is being saved by using shortcuts is producing garbage nutrition that has led to the many health complications we see today. We're losing much more money in health-related expenses than we're saving with our modern agriculture. All for what, a preference of diet? This is definite irresponsibility of our government, corporations, and society as a whole.

But like I said, it will eventually catch up with us anyway. And for the record, I'm not saying for everyone to become a vegetarian, but to at least cut down on eating so many animal products.

CEOofRawness

30 Apr 2009, 10:25 PM

That particular cycle is not sustainable forever.
...
In summary as to not contradict myself, yes I think our eating habits are sustainable, but only if process adapts with sufficient speed and forsight.

Exactly my point.

Perhaps we can adapt our processes to sustain our eating habits, but I highly doubt this. Biology is so complex that it's very difficult to find a solution without shooting ourselves in the foot. Every shortcut we've taken has had its side effects: hormones, antibiotics, genetic modification, etc.

I say we stop fucking with nature until we find a shortcut that we KNOW will have minimal to no side effects.

1. It's not the government's job.
2. Why don't you get them to just ban flavor...

Maybe I'm wrong, but isn't the cause of America's current economic crisis due to failed government regulation, corporate greed, and our society's irresponsible financial decisions (this sounds familiar...)?

We as a society are making a choice that will lead us down a very difficult road and the free market is going along with it (which is natural). So yes, it is the government's job to regulate society when it can't regulate itself. Isn't that the reason why we have laws and regulations in the first place?

CEOofRawness

30 Apr 2009, 10:35 PM

I see it like this: to eat animals you need to raise them. that is, you need to feed them...
Thank you for breaking it down. This is the very base of the OP's reasoning, which even a little kid can follow.

on the other side, we do need to digest the food, and maybe it's more efficient to digest meat in terms of energy spent in digestion vs energy gained from it...
Proteins are actually less efficient to digest metabolically since they need to be broken down into amino acids (their basic building blocks) before being reassembled into anything useful (antibodies, DNA, RNA, skeletal muscle, etc). Carbohydrates are our primary source of fuel and get stored in our bodies readily compared to fats or protein. This doesn't mean that we don't need protein or fat, just that it's more efficient "in terms of energy spent in digestion vs energy gained from it".

however, i don't know how it is that meat helps the brain. does it make it bigger? does it make it faster? in any case, it all boils down to the neural connections you make, you can be a total fast-thinking asshole with a big brain. there are lots of really stupid people that eat meat every day too. We can exercise our brains in other ways.
The human brain primarily uses glucose (i.e. sugar, i.e. carbohydrates) as its primary source of energy. If you've ever been on a really low carbohydrate diet you'll soon realize this as your thinking actually becomes much more sluggish, which sucks ass (personal experience).

in any case, it doesn't make sense economically to sacrifice all that food give to the pigs to get... well.. food again :/
big scale economy should manage plants, not animals, since its the food source that requires the less spending. if you want to eat meat, feed it, spend your own food in it, and then chop it into pieces and eat your precious brain-food. if we let a big corporation do this, they would need plants to produce half of the plants nutritional value in meat and we'll eventually run out of them (specially 'cause plants salesman would have to sell their products to meat salesman, so the meat market would be more profitable, and no one would raise plants). and please, don't steal the animals from the seas, if everyone did that we would have no more fishes (this is only done on the seas, there are not enough left on land to make it a business)

Again, thank you for breaking it down into elementary terms (not being sarcastic).

CEOofRawness

30 Apr 2009, 10:55 PM

Amino acids compose just about your entire body. Some have different elements in them, and some can't be synthesized in the human body.

Almost no plant products have every one and every plant source is less bioavailable gram per gram.

But if people wanted to start eating healthy, legumes, cereals, and nuts could save the planet and prolong life to some insane clusterfuck.

Not getting tons of protein from a calorically small amount of lean meat sort of obligates one to eat lots of certain kinds of plants to get enough protein to sustain and build muscle. It also limits the amount of fatty and sugary bullshit you can eat since you'll need to shove huge amounts of fibrous goodness down your throat to get enough blood free tryptophan.

The energy efficiency alone would probably make up for the protein issues, though. It just makes living healthy a like eating a tightrope.
Isn't the bio-availability of plants less because of the fiber in it? The human body doesn't digest fiber, which is why it goes right through you and thus is used to help clean the bowels. This also helps clean any toxins that build up in the intestines and colon along with preventing constipation.

You're right: most plants don't contain every amino acid, which is why some vegans suffer from nutritional deficiencies. This is also why I don't suggest completely eliminating animal products from our diets; we're omnivores for a reason. The typical American diet contains meat as the central food product in every meal, which leads to Americans consuming too much protein. The world won't end if everyone were to eat less meat per meal or perhaps not eat meat for one or two meals, and the positive impact on the environment would be significant.

But yeah cows living in their own filth in a cubic foot of liquid cow shit can't be good.

All in the name of profit.

Better to put the pigs in a factory farm where human contact is limited.

Factory workers will still be exposed to these animals, though. Not to mention that factory farms host a lot of animals, leading to a lot of waste. And even though antibiotics can stem the tide of disease in these farms, infection will eventually spread like wildfire and mutate into a strain that can infect humans (e.g. swine flu). So while infections won't be common, they can be potentially devastating when they do manifest.

Medici

30 Apr 2009, 11:07 PM

Maybe I'm wrong, but isn't the cause of America's current economic crisis due to failed government regulation, corporate greed, and our society's irresponsible financial decisions (this sounds familiar...)?

We as a society are making a choice that will lead us down a very difficult road and the free market is going along with it (which is natural). So yes, it is the government's job to regulate society when it can't regulate itself. Isn't that the reason why we have laws and regulations in the first place?

Not to derail the thread, but I will answer this, and if you have further issues you can resurrect an old thread that talks about the same topic or make a new one.

No, on the insufficient regulation. We have been living in a huge bubble and everything is starting to correct itself. Not to mention, it's not the government's job to ensure smoothness.

With few (if any) exceptions, doesn't everyone act in there own self-interest? Why not blame the consumer who is so obsessed with cheap, that they do not care about where it comes from? Drugs act the same way. Why do all those countries produce drugs, because Americans (and others) consume them. Basically, corporations can't be greedy unless there is a market.

People, of which society is made, in general, make decisions ranging from bad to horrible. (So I guess I agree on that point)

The government can't even regulate itself, what qualifies it to regulate others in the same situation. Also, why do we need to shield the ignorant from their ignorance?

"The United States is a nation of laws: badly written and randomly enforced." - Frank Zappa

Again, because I actually agree with your side of the argument (pertaining to food), address these points somewhere else.

Exactly my point.

Perhaps we can adapt our processes to sustain our eating habits, but I highly doubt this. Biology is so complex that it's very difficult to find a solution without shooting ourselves in the foot. Every shortcut we've taken has had its side effects: hormones, antibiotics, genetic modification, etc.

I say we stop fucking with nature until we find a shortcut that we KNOW will have minimal to no side effects.

1. We have managed to overcome this obstacle time and time again. (Last article I red, said that we have had at least 3 significant green (food) revolutions)
2. Biology operates using the trial and error method, this is the same thing humanity is doing.
3. Stop any form of progress until we completely understand all of the potential consequences, and their consequences?

As a final note, humanity suffers from this thing called inertia, and until something catastrophic happens, people will keep on doing what they've been doing. To top this off, the rest of the world (non-oecd nations) is coming online, which only means things are going to get worse. So while I applaud your effort. In the end, we just get to wait until something significant happens and to be prepared when it does.

BAJ

1 May 2009, 01:29 AM

Or the government could subsidize healthy, environmentally friendly foods and up the taxes on unhealthy, environmentally unfriendly foods rather than the other way around, as we've already discussed.

They do subsidize other foods. I guess you missed my post about that. Beef is not even in the top four in terms of dollars spent.

I guess you also missed that cows, sheep, and other animals can be environmentally friendly because they can forage in land unsuitable for other crops.

Meat is also full of nutrients. It satisfies hunger.

I'm going into town, and eat at the catfish buffet. Then I'm going to go to the grocery store, and probably buy $50 worth of meat products.

I also need to buy milk. I guess I drink about a gallon of milk per day.

Random off topic questions:

Are you actually from Texas? Are you a Redneck?

No, I don't even like visiting Texas, except perhaps visiting some of the cities. I toured the Dallas botanical garden with one of the directors of that, and spent a day talking with the guy in charge of the Japanese Garden. That was a decent trip, I guess about three years ago.

I don't know what you mean by being a redneck. In some ways, yes. Jeff Foxworthy defines being a redneck as having a "glorious absence of sophistication", and in that sense, I agree.

However, I have a Masters degree in Aquaculture, and I'm considered fairly intelligent by most of the people I meet...probably I'm only in the upper 3%, whereas a lot of people on the forum are in the upper 1% of intelligence.

Mostly I grew up in Alabama, and my accent has been described as Southern Effeminate.

Yet, I don't hunt and fish. At one farm where I worked, there was a hunting club, so it wasn't uncommon to find several deer carcasses hanging in a shed. People around here are heavily involved with hunting.

They tell long hunting stories, which includes the person laughing and joking, and even acting out how the animal died. I guess I was in the 30% who voted for Obama here, and probably one of the very few white people to vote for him here.

Up the road a piece is a hunting club, where people can pay thousands of dollars just to kill a deer. It's a private herd, so they don't have to follow the regular hunting seasons.

Myself, I'm not against hunting, of course, but I just don't enjoy sitting out in the cold. Besides, I can buy steaks and hamburger at reasonable prices, and deer is not my favorite meat.

Now that I've answered your question fairly thoroughly, are you a retarded stoner?

CEOofRawness

1 May 2009, 02:38 AM

No, on the insufficient regulation. We have been living in a huge bubble and everything is starting to correct itself. Not to mention, it's not the government's job to ensure smoothness.

Yes it is.

With few (if any) exceptions, doesn't everyone act in there own self-interest? Why not blame the consumer who is so obsessed with cheap, that they do not care about where it comes from? Drugs act the same way. Why do all those countries produce drugs, because Americans (and others) consume them. Basically, corporations can't be greedy unless there is a market.
Of course people act in their own interests, and corporations follow suit. They pander to the masses only for their own gain, and it's a vicious cycle if society as a whole has demand for something that is not a good idea for them (e.g. cheap food with no nutrition).

People, of which society is made, in general, make decisions ranging from bad to horrible. (So I guess I agree on that point)
Agreed. I usually don't care when others make horrible decisions until it starts affecting bystanders like myself.

The government can't even regulate itself, what qualifies it to regulate others in the same situation. Also, why do we need to shield the ignorant from their ignorance?
The government is supposed to provide for the welfare and the protection of its people. While I don't believe that it needs to protect people from themselves, they should encourage self-improvement and health. Considering that our demand for animal products has forced corporations to raise animals in a certain fashion for economic efficiency, the only entity that can step in and do anything about this is the government. Improper disposal of animal waste along with cramming them like sardines can easily lead to the spread of disease and a possible worldwide epidemic. The corporations won't care as long as they're making profit and society won't care since they're getting the animal products they want to consume. Both also won't care (or can't do much) about the damage to the environment or the inefficiency of energy that results from raising animals.

To summarize: society and corporations are so short-sighted that they are willing to make decisions that are bad for everyone in the long-run, so the government needs to step in and keep everyone on track before things get out of hand.

1. We have managed to overcome this obstacle time and time again. (Last article I red, said that we have had at least 3 significant green (food) revolutions)
2. Biology operates using the trial and error method, this is the same thing humanity is doing.
3. Stop any form of progress until we completely understand all of the potential consequences, and their consequences?
1. This still doesn't address the energy inefficiency that arises from raising animals.
2. Yes, biology operates from trial and error, but when humanity takes the same approach, many people can get harmed before any error is realized. Too much is at stake to take a blind trial and error approach.
3. I didn't say to stop any progress, but to seriously examine the possible side effects of new techniques before testing it out on the human population.

As a final note, humanity suffers from this thing called inertia, and until something catastrophic happens, people will keep on doing what they've been doing. To top this off, the rest of the world (non-oecd nations) is coming online, which only means things are going to get worse. So while I applaud your effort. In the end, we just get to wait until something significant happens and to be prepared when it does.
I agree, humanity definitely becomes too complacent and their inertia can carry them straight into oblivion before anyone notices. This is what government is supposed to be for, although we know that they don't always help.

I'm just surprised that more people are not aware of these issues.

Medici

1 May 2009, 02:48 AM

Yes it is.

Of course people act in their own interests, and corporations follow suit. They pander to the masses only for their own gain, and it's a vicious cycle if society as a whole has demand for something that is not a good idea for them (e.g. cheap food with no nutrition).

Agreed. I usually don't care when others make horrible decisions until it starts affecting bystanders like myself.

The government is supposed to provide for the welfare and the protection of its people. While I don't believe that it needs to protect people from themselves, they should encourage self-improvement and health. Considering that our demand for animal products has forced corporations to raise animals in a certain fashion for economic efficiency, the only entity that can step in and do anything about this is the government. Improper disposal of animal waste along with cramming them like sardines can easily lead to the spread of disease and a possible worldwide epidemic. The corporations won't care as long as they're making profit and society won't care since they're getting the animal products they want to consume. Both also won't care (or can't do much) about the damage to the environment or the inefficiency of energy that results from raising animals.

To summarize: society and corporations are so short-sighted that they are willing to make decisions that are bad for everyone in the long-run, so the government needs to step in and keep everyone on track before things get out of hand.

1. This still doesn't address the energy inefficiency that arises from raising animals.
2. Yes, biology operates from trial and error, but when humanity takes the same approach, many people can get harmed before any error is realized. Too much is at stake to take a blind trial and error approach.
3. I didn't say to stop any progress, but to seriously examine the possible side effects of new techniques before testing it out on the human population.

I agree, humanity definitely becomes too complacent and their inertia can carry them straight into oblivion before anyone notices. This is what government is supposed to be for, although we know that they don't always help.

I'm just surprised that more people are not aware of these issues.

Government: Hey corporations, I have a vested interest in your constant success. Could you please do something that is temporarily unpleasant so that the world will be a better place when you retire?
Corporations: No, problem

I just don't see things going that way.

That's the problem with universal suffrage.

1. I believe that we have made sufficient progress in solar energy that companies are willing to gamble on it (which only works if they are greedy, btw), because the payday for cheap solar energy would be enormous.

2. Just because you don't like to see human suffering, doesn't mean that is not needed.

3. I was exaggerating a bit, but your proposal is like having an FDA for everything, and we all know how quickly stuff goes through the FDA.

dodo

1 May 2009, 03:18 AM

Again, thank you for breaking it down into elementary terms (not being sarcastic).
i hope you're not!

i guess that's all i have to say. hell if i try to put an argument about what the government should do. the only thing i believe is that we shouldn't keep things so out of sight. if people could see everyday how pigs and cows are treated, the solution would come up much more quickly (and i don't mean that the information is there available for anyone who cares to search it, i mean the information there for people to see if they randomly raised their heads. just like ads, i suppose). of course, corporations need to work in the shadows, it's the only way they can get away with morally doubtful methods.

BAJ

1 May 2009, 03:57 AM

Update:

I did go eat catfish.

Then I went to the grocery store and bought about $44 in meat. Maybe this will last me 4 days.

This is a decent sized grocery store in a small town.

I was very amused in thinking about this thread.

Outside of the grocery store were two different kinds of barbecue grills for sale. Also, the store had an entire pallet of Kingsford charcoal brickets about 5 ft from the entrance.

When I was paying my way through the undergrad, I worked for a year at grocery store. During that time, I learned a little bit about marketing.

They did not put those barbecue grills right next to the entrance by accident. If I didn't already own two types of barbecue grills, then I might buy one. If I keep seeing them there, I might actually buy a third kind of barbecue grill. That way I can cook meat four or five different ways all at the same time.

All you vegetarian soap-boxers, I bought an extra package of salad in your honor. It will probably go to waste, but I was amused. I even bought Raspberry salad dressing, just to try it.

As far as I can tell, everyone was buying meat. I almost had to wait in line by the beef.

Maybe y'all squishy vegetarian preachers should stand outside the grocery store and hand out pamphlets.

I was talking to someone today, and they said they went vegetarian for three years. Why? Their friend worked for a restaurant, and he could get vegetarian sandwiches for free.

I started thinking about it. There may be another solution. Vegetarian food would have to be free, provided by the government. It would have to also be excellent food. That's the only way I'd even try to eat that way. You'd have to provided me with excellent free food.

When I worked in the catfish industry, I could get 15 pounds of catfish for about $4. If I really wanted to, then I could eat carp for free. You see, with ornanmental fish we are very selective. I'd say we keep 50% at best. In Japan, they keep only 5%, but for our market we keep more. Frequently I throw away something like 30 Kg of carp. What do we do with it? Sometimes we just throw it out on the ground. Other times, we practically give it away to turtle farmers who feed it to their turtles. We sell it cheap, cheap, pennies per pound.

Thus, if I were very, very hungry, then I could eat carp for free.

If you want ME to be more vegetarian, then it has to be absolutely free. In fact, you'd have to pay me to eat that way.

And don't say, "You'd save money, so it's like being paid money."

My response is that you would need to actually serve me a prepared, tasty, filling, satisfying food FOR FREE.

dodo

1 May 2009, 04:05 AM

My contribution: I will adopt children.
wow. i hadn't thought of that... it really makes sense, if i can resolve the nature vs nurture thing, or let it stand aside.

CEOofRawness

1 May 2009, 04:27 AM

Government: Hey corporations, I have a vested interest in your constant success. Could you please do something that is temporarily unpleasant so that the world will be a better place when you retire?
Corporations: No, problem

I just don't see things going that way.
I don't see that happening either, especially with the army of lobbyists in Washington. I'm stating what should happen. Like you mentioned, I severely doubt it will happen, though.

That's the problem with universal suffrage.
Agreed. Humans are intelligent, compassionate beings, but society is a dumb and dangerous animal.

1. I believe that we have made sufficient progress in solar energy that companies are willing to gamble on it (which only works if they are greedy, btw), because the payday for cheap solar energy would be enormous.

2. Just because you don't like to see human suffering, doesn't mean that is not needed.

3. I was exaggerating a bit, but your proposal is like having an FDA for everything, and we all know how quickly stuff goes through the FDA.

1. True, but the carbon footprint is only half the story. The energy inefficiency also comes from growing crops that will be fed to the animals as they grow. As organisms become more complex, their metabolisms generally become less efficient than less complex organisms. Animals consume an enormous amount of food from crops and produce a large amount of waste. Cows also produce a significant amount of greenhouse gases (source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cattle)):

A 400-page United Nations report from the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) states that cattle farming is "responsible for 18% of greenhouse gases."[32] The production of cattle to feed and clothe humans stresses ecosystems around the world,[31] and is assessed to be one of the top three environmental problems in the world on a local to global scale.[33]

2. Who said I don't like to see humans suffer? I just don't want to become an innocent bystander just because some corporation wants to experiment with some potentially hazardous methods just so they can save a few bucks here and there. Public safety comes second to their profits, which is why they can't be trusted to do the right thing.

3. I'd rather have and FDA for everything instead of leaving it no holds barred, anything goes for the corporations. Even if stuff gets passed quickly and the FDA is corrupt (may or may not be true), at least they need to sacrifice money for lobbyists and such. A better approach would be similar to how scientific studies are done on humans in that thorough testing needs to be done before we get to the human testing stage. Again, I mainly care because I know that I'll be a guinea pig for the profit of those greedy assholes.

Cupid stunt

2 May 2009, 11:59 AM

They do subsidize other foods. I guess you missed my post about that. Beef is not even in the top four in terms of dollars spent.

I guess you also missed that cows, sheep, and other animals can be environmentally friendly because they can forage in land unsuitable for other crops.

Meat is also full of nutrients. It satisfies hunger.

I'm going into town, and eat at the catfish buffet. Then I'm going to go to the grocery store, and probably buy $50 worth of meat products.

I also need to buy milk. I guess I drink about a gallon of milk per day.

I understand that some animals can be environmentally & economically friendly, I'm not talking about banning meat, just making it more of a luxury than it is as well as changing the ways in which we raise, tax & subsidize meat so that it is sustainable. In other countries they get by just fine without consuming much meat, Chinese & Japanese type diets probably are sustainable, and they're tasty, cheap & healthy. Less meat and less methane producing meat is what I'm suggesting. If we replaced Cows with half the amount of kangaroo's, the methane problem would be resolved instantly as kangaroos don't emit methane and world hunger could be solved.

No, I don't even like visiting Texas, except perhaps visiting some of the cities. I toured the Dallas botanical garden with one of the directors of that, and spent a day talking with the guy in charge of the Japanese Garden. That was a decent trip, I guess about three years ago.

I don't know what you mean by being a redneck. In some ways, yes. Jeff Foxworthy defines being a redneck as having a "glorious absence of sophistication", and in that sense, I agree.

However, I have a Masters degree in Aquaculture, and I'm considered fairly intelligent by most of the people I meet...probably I'm only in the upper 3%, whereas a lot of people on the forum are in the upper 1% of intelligence.

Mostly I grew up in Alabama, and my accent has been described as Southern Effeminate.

Yet, I don't hunt and fish. At one farm where I worked, there was a hunting club, so it wasn't uncommon to find several deer carcasses hanging in a shed. People around here are heavily involved with hunting.

They tell long hunting stories, which includes the person laughing and joking, and even acting out how the animal died. I guess I was in the 30% who voted for Obama here, and probably one of the very few white people to vote for him here.

Up the road a piece is a hunting club, where people can pay thousands of dollars just to kill a deer. It's a private herd, so they don't have to follow the regular hunting seasons.

Myself, I'm not against hunting, of course, but I just don't enjoy sitting out in the cold. Besides, I can buy steaks and hamburger at reasonable prices, and deer is not my favorite meat.

Now that I've answered your question fairly thoroughly, are you a retarded stoner?

I wasn't really accusing you of being stupid, you seem more like a person who's lived among stupid people all your life. There's some states in America, Texas being a famous example where many people are backwards. The type of place where you get a large amount of rednecks, christian fundamentalists, self serving Bush/McCain supporters chanting "Drill baby drill" where social status is determined purely by the size of the engine in your car. You seem to have some of that mentality in you.

I smoke weed, maybe a joint a day, sometimes I'll go days without, sometimes I'll smoke more. I'm not addicted so it would depend on your definition of a stoner. I'm not retarded.

BAJ

2 May 2009, 12:09 PM

I understand that some animals can be environmentally & economically friendly, I'm not talking about banning meat, just making it more of a luxury than it is as well as changing the ways in which we raise, tax & subsidize meat so that it is sustainable. In other countries they get by just fine without consuming much meat, Chinese & Japanese type diets probably are sustainable, and they're tasty, cheap & healthy. Less meat and less methane producing meat is what I'm suggesting. If we replaced Cows with half the amount of kangaroo's, the methane problem would be resolved instantly as kangaroos don't emit methane and world hunger could be solved

Rice patties and wetlands produce more methane than cows. Why don't you advocate taxing rice farmers rather than cattle farmers? They make more methane.

Also, Japan is probably effecting the global fish more than your "global-warming" bloom problem. They will pay $10,000 for a tuna. Just one fish.

CheeZ

2 May 2009, 12:16 PM

If we replaced Cows with half the amount of kangaroo's, the methane problem would be resolved instantly as kangaroos don't emit methane and world hunger could be solved.

There's no way that Americans would support eating kangaroos. They're cute.

http://curiousanimals.net/wp-content/uploads/2007/07/wallaroo2.jpg

People would riot.

Cupid stunt

2 May 2009, 02:03 PM

Rice patties and wetlands produce more methane than cows. Why don't you advocate taxing rice farmers rather than cattle farmers? They make more methane.

Also, Japan is probably effecting the global fish more than your "global-warming" bloom problem. They will pay $10,000 for a tuna. Just one fish.

I doubt that Japan is effecting the global fish problem more than climate change but I won't dispute that many countries, companies & people are overfishing far too much. That's an important issue too, just not quite as important an issue as climate change itself but still a big issue.

http://www.gadling.com/2007/10/24/big-in-japan-tuna-fish-will-soon-be-extinct/

"Approximately one year ago, British scientists issued a report warning that within the next fifty years, there will most likely be nothing left to fish from the sea. According to the report, nearly one-third of historical sea fisheries have already collapsed, and the rate of decline is accelerating."

http://www.epa.gov/methane/sources.html

Table 1 U.S. Methane Emissions by Source (TgCO2 Equivalents)

Source Category 1990 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003
Landfills 172.2 147.4 138.5 134.0 130.7 126.2 126.8 131.2
Natural Gas Systems 128.3 133.6 131.8 127.4 132.1 131.8 130.6 125.9
Enteric Fermentation 117.9 118.3 116.7 116.8 115.6 114.5 114.6 115.0
Coal Mining 81.9 62.6 62.8 58.9 56.2 55.6 52.4 53.8
Manure Management 31.2 36.4 38.8 38.8 38.1 38.9 39.3 39.1
Wastewater Treatment 24.8 31.7 32.6 33.6 34.3 34.7 35.8 36.8
Petroleum Systems 20.0 18.8 18.5 17.8 17.6 17.4 17.1 17.1
Rice Cultivation 7.1 7.5 7.9 8.3 7.5 7.6 6.8 6.9
Stationary Sources 7.8 7.4 6.9 7.1 7.3 6.7 6.4 6.7
Abandoned Coal Mines 6.1 8.1 7.2 7.3 7.7 6.9 6.4 6.4
Mobile Sources 4.8 4.0 3.9 3.6 3.4 3.1 2.9 2.7
Petrochemical Production 1.2 1.6 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.4 1.5 1.5
Iron and Steel 1.3 1.3 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.1 1.0 1.0
Agricultural Residue Burning 0.7 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.7 0.8
Total for U.S. 605.3 579.5 569.3 557.3 554.2 546.7 542.3 544.9

"Enteric fermentation is fermentation that takes place in the digestive systems of ruminant animals.

It is one of the factors in increased methane emissions.

Ruminant animals are those that have a rumen. A rumen is a special stomach found in cows, sheep, and water buffalo that enables them to eat tough plants and grains that monogastric animals, such as humans, dogs, and cats, cannot digest.

Enteric fermentation occurs when methane (CH4) is produced in the rumen as microbial fermentation takes place. Over 200 species of microorganisms are present in the rumen, although only about 10% of these play an important role in digestion. Most of the CH4 byproduct is belched by the animal, however, a small percentage of CH4 is also produced in the large intestine and passed out as gas.

In Australia ruminant animals account for over half of their green house gas contribution from methane.[1] Australia has implemented a voluntary immunization program for cattle in order to help reduce flatulence-produced CH4."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enteric_fermentation