• Hello!

    Either you have not registered on this site yet, or you are registered but have not logged in. In either case, you will not be able to use the full functionality of this site until you have registered, and then logged in after your registration has been approved.

    Registration is FREE, so please register so you can participate instead of remaining a lurker....

    Please be certain that the location field is correctly filled out when you register. All registrations that appear to be bogus will be rejected. Which means that if your location field does NOT match the actual location of your registration IP address, then your registration will be rejected.

    Sorry about the strictness of this requirement, but it is necessary to block spammers and scammers at the door as much as possible.

Vegetarianism and the Environment

ForkedTung said:
Soylent Green ROFL... I had a friend that wrote a paper for a college class arguing that we should all be made into dog food? "Purina is peeeopleeee..."
Click to expand...

Ahhh, I actually did something similar decades ago when in public schools based on a misquote from RAH: "Cannibalism as a cure for overpopulation and world hunger." needless to say , the high price of BEEF makes the idea of legalized cannibalism pretty scary. Lots of poaching would be likely.....lol.
 
jpccusa said:
And although the majority of the methane is burped by cows, there are still a smaller portion of it being farted and yet more being released by the feces (microbes still working on the feces after it left the body).
Click to expand...

When you say "microbes" do you mean the bacteria that live in there stomachs? The amount they fart is about the same that your avarage human does. and barely any methane comes from cows. Does that mean that you agree with a cow, pig, goat, sheep tax and mabe even later a people tax?

(will comment further later)
 
Cornsnake124 said:
When you say "microbes" do you mean the bacteria that live in there stomachs? The amount they fart is about the same that your avarage human does. and barely any methane comes from cows. Does that mean that you agree with a cow, pig, goat, sheep tax and mabe even later a people tax?

(will comment further later)
Click to expand...

I'm still waiting for your sources that say that cows emit "barely any" methane gas...

And yes..."microbes" would be tiny, microscopic "critters" that live in the digestive tracts of ALL animals and help to digest the food and break it down.
 
This population control idea is controversial. China has extreme population control. For years they could only have one child by law. Is that a good idea for population control? Has it helped the environment in China? Well I just read in a few more years China will virtually be a nation of 18 to 40 year old men. Since they can only have one child, little girls are of little use and a discarded. I was reading how the lack of woman in upcoming generation is going to cause major social issues. There's an outcome of population control that probably wasn't expected.

As for America, we have been reducing the average child per family for years. Population control was supposed to help us but people don't think of the other side of population control which is the elderly. If you steadily reduce the amount of children per family then eventually you will have more elderly than young people. As Americans our "mother nature" has been replace by economics. Economics now decides whether you eat or go hungry. The elderly stop working so they consume products and no longer produce them. When those elderly heavily outweigh the working your setting up for an "economic" famine. I believe we are just starting to see the beginning of this here in America with the baby boomers starting to enter retirement.

I do not think there is a good ending for population control. I think stable economics is the best and most humane way to help the environment.
 
Austin M said:
This population control idea is controversial. China has extreme population control. For years they could only have one child by law.It wasn't really a law per se, rather a policy,it's just that when couples had more than one they were taxed on those additional children Is that a good idea for population control? Has it helped the environment in China? That's really not a fair question, China has way too many other issues involved to draw any conclusion based on that.Well I just read in a few more years China will virtually be a nation of 18 to 40 year old men. Since they can only have one child, little girls are of little use and a discarded. This is partially true, the policy affects 63% of chinese with rural citizens being exempt, female infanticide is practiced there, but to what degree I don't know I was reading how the lack of woman in upcoming generation is going to cause major social issues. There's an outcome of population control that probably wasn't expected.Actually I bet it was, it's just that the politburo knew that they personally wouldn't be affected

As for America, we have been reducing the average child per family for years. Population control was supposed to help us but people don't think of the other side of population control which is the elderly. If you steadily reduce the amount of children per family then eventually you will have more elderly than young people. As Americans our "mother nature" has been replace by economics. Economics now decides whether you eat or go hungry. The elderly stop working so they consume products and no longer produce them. When those elderly heavily outweigh the working your setting up for an "economic" famine. I believe we are just starting to see the beginning of this here in America with the baby boomers starting to enter retirement. right right! look at social security! Our govt. pillages that every chance they get and fills the files literally with IOU's

I do not think there is a good ending for population control. I think stable economics is the best and most humane way to help the environment.
Click to expand...
I disagree, tell the rainforests that. There's just too darn many of us. It's a physical fact that the more people there are the more needs there will be to be met. I honestly think we passed the threshold at least a billion humans ago. Look at a map from just 100 years ago and one today. Guess what the worlds going to look like in another 100...We've got global warming and almost all of the countries in the Northern Hemisphere are lined up and staking claims to the newly opened ocean passages, fishing areas etc.. not to mention the military concerns. Shouldn't we be focused on why all this new "territory" has opened up?
 
Cornsnake124 said:
Here is a link I have so far...
http://www.riverdeep.net/current/2002/03/032502t_cowpower.jhtml
I also posted on a couple cattle forums so people should be posting pretty soon.
Click to expand...

...Cows burp an abundant supply of it every day — about 280 liters per animal ...
Click to expand...

This is from the article you linked. It is talking about methane. Notice it says "abundant supply", not "barely any". Also note the amount...about 280 liters per day...that's per animal.

So...YOUR source just blew up YOUR argument. "Barely any" is HARDLY defined as 280 liters per animal per day....that's more of an "abundant supply" as your source stated.

Don't get me wrong...I see they were putting the gases to use, and I'm quite sure that's what the cattle farmers you've invited will come over and tell us. But the simple fact is...making a waste product useful does not change the amount that is produced. Cows produce an abundant supply of methane gas, from one end or the other, every single day. And as their feces sits on the ground and rots...it produces more methane gas.

I'm with you that reducing the number of cows won't be the solution. I hear you on that. But 280 liters per day is more than I fart and burp, and it is most definitely a substantial amount of methane gas, given the number of cows on the planet.

Your source just shot your argument. I hate when that happens...
 
ForkedTung said:
That's really not a fair question, China has way too many other issues involved to draw any conclusion based on that.
Click to expand...
I think you make my point right there. China has population control measures in place. I would say they are pretty extreme measures. Those measures have not helped the environment. If China doesnt' count because "they have way too many other issuses involved", then you could apply that arguement to all countrys and population control in general. So I agree with this. There are way too many other issues involved to say population control is the solustion. It's more complex then that.

I disagree, tell the rainforests that. There's just too darn many of us. It's a physical fact that the more people there are the more needs there will be to be met.
Click to expand...

Why are they cutting down them forest? Is it due to need or greed? Is it so more people can live there? I don't think so. I think the number one reason is so that someone can make money one way or another. Are we loosing rainforest because there are "so many darn people", or is it because the people we have want so much more "stuff"?
 
Last edited:
The people who are cutting down the rain forest are not being greedy. They are trying to survive. They are trying to feed their families. They are clearing the ground to farm. The solution to that is to find another way for them to make a living. If I have to choose between starvation and the planet, I'm gonna have a Big Mac.
 
wade said:
The people who are cutting down the rain forest are not being greedy. They are trying to survive. They are trying to feed their families. They are clearing the ground to farm. The solution to that is to find another way for them to make a living. If I have to choose between starvation and the planet, I'm gonna have a Big Mac.
Click to expand...

I totally agree and that's why I believe stable economics is a foundation to the solution.

I have to say that there is some big profiteering going on there as well. There are many American's down there clear cutting the rainforest in order to start industrial farms for huge profits. Which is another argument that being a vegetarian doesn't = better environment. Let's not forget the coca and marijuana farms and production plants down there either. How about the exotic wood that goes on the market?
 
I'm a cabinet maker by profession. Exotic woods that are endangered or threatened are banned for the US. We still import lost of wood, no doubt but very little of it is comming from threatened forests. 99% of the woods being used today are comming from our own trees. Hardwoods from the north east and soft woods from the North West coast.
 
Cornsnake124 said:
Here is a link I have so far...
http://www.riverdeep.net/current/2002/03/032502t_cowpower.jhtml
I also posted on a couple cattle forums so people should be posting pretty soon.
Click to expand...

I personally never measured it, but I'm positive I'm NOT producing 280 liters of methane per day, otherwise I would not be allowed to work in an office (per your comparison of humans vs. cows).

Since I'm not sure you are familiar with the metric system, 1 liter = 0.264 gallon. So unless you burp and fart almost 74 gallons of methane per day, I say the cows produce more, which, as Chris said, CANNOT be considered "trace amounts."

As for the people posting on the cattle forums, unless they are "Kathy Love of Cows" (published books and all), those sources will have no weight to support your claim.
 
mike17l said:
http://www.cornsnakes.com/forums/showthread.php?t=77939
Click to expand...
Ya know I used to live in Austin, Texas for a few years... on Lake Travis...ate at the Salt Lick...saw some bats...drove the Devil's Backbone...drank Tecate and Sauza white tequila...watched them put a lime in my iced tea? huh, ...caught Kingfish and Dorado off S. Padre...etc... and I'd like to hypothesize that Texans are probably the reason the environment is the way it is...don't get me wrong those are some great truly decent southern people, but they're so full of hot air they have to have affected global warming to some degree...I mean I was down there long enough I forgot there even were another 49 states, much less an entire world out there. Give them a vote and they'd likely secede before the ink was dry...lol
 
There aren't 49 states. There is Texas, the US, Old Mexico, and the rest. That's it. I'd provide links, but the google searches are too environmentally costly! Time to stop searching the net.

It's sad, though, because I use google for everything - even searches on how to spell words!
KJ
 
Maybe if I come up with a "green" search engine, I could be as rich as the Google founders. "Green" is the new black.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top