Re: We might be killing ourselves much faster than "climate science" suggests
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Beskar
A large proportion of the farmland is used to feed animals. If you don't need to feed the animals, this can be turned into land farming solely for humans. Land used which cannot be farmed, but sheep graze for example can be made into viable habitats for biodiversity.
As for the poor sheep, cows, etc. They will end up on your plate. No need to pity their plight as you season their flesh just before your teeth tear through it. There is no need for forced mass breeding and rising prices for the last of the meat will act as a farmers payday.
In short, more biodiversity, less land usage, no more animal suffering. Wins across the board.
You really do need to look at WWII rationing and agriculture in Britain. It was, in gross, probably the lowest meat-eating period in recorded British history, with land use optimised to maximise feeding the population with the essentials. Yet both rationing and agriculture encountered problems that your posts do not consider. PFH touches on the rationing problem, which may sound flippant, but is a major obstacle to making it work. And while the mass vegetising of British agriculture did feed more people for the land used, it was enabled by unusually inclement weather, land was used that was unsuitable for the purpose, and the land was exhausted after several years of intensive production, exacerbated by lack of regeneration through manuring.
Re: We might be killing ourselves much faster than "climate science" suggests
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
Face it, your argument is ill thought out and utterly without foundation, moral, economic, or scientific.
Shouldn't be projecting so much, isn't healthy.
Re: We might be killing ourselves much faster than "climate science" suggests
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Beskar
Shouldn't be projecting so much, isn't healthy.
I attacked your argument, you attacked me.
That contravenes the basic founding principle of the Backroom.
I challenge you to engage with your interlocutors' arguments or withdraw and concede defeat.
Re: We might be killing ourselves much faster than "climate science" suggests
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
I attacked your argument, you attacked me.
Actually, you attacked me. With phrases like "I find your lack of compassion disturbing" and it was "ill-thought out, without foundation, moral, economic and scientific basis" which were are just plain wrong showing no attempt from your side to understand what is being said. I believe your personal feelings towards me (hence projecting) is heavily influencing or blinding your replies which is why I am withdrawing because arguing with you is pointless when you are not going to be civil. Not the first occasion.
Here are some sources:
http://www.fao.org/docrep/010/a0701e/a0701e00.HTM
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/201...ns-not-animals
http://www.onegreenplanet.org/enviro...ditching-meat/
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/...-a6844811.html
Re: We might be killing ourselves much faster than "climate science" suggests
This is the warmest Halloween that I experienced except when I was in Arizona and California.
Re: We might be killing ourselves much faster than "climate science" suggests
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Beskar
That miss-represents what I said.
Quote:
As for the poor sheep, cows, etc. They will end up on your plate. No need to pity their plight as you season their flesh just before your teeth tear through it.
I find your lack of compassion disturbing. You forget, I grew up on a working sheep farming, I have been involved in the process from birth to death. I care, I eat meat, the two are not a conflict. Simply a fact of life for me.
You espoused a lack of compassion for animals, I responded to that directly by pointing out that even though I have been involved in farming, I still care.
At the end I said:
Quote:
Face it, your argument is ill thought out and utterly without foundation, moral, economic, or scientific.
You refuse to recognise the simple truth - there are too many people.
I said your argument had no foundation, and that you refused to acknowledge the truth that there are too many people.
I think you're the one projecting - you see me attacking your argument and you take it as a personal attack, so you try to make a nastier personal attack. You're right though, it's not the first time, and I'm not the only one you've done it to.
I read the article you linked from the Independent - it presumes the future is factory farming due to an ever-growing population. So, again, a refusal to engage with the real issue. It's also wrong that if everyone was Vegan there would be no more hunger. We already produce adequate food, the people in the world who are starving live in warzones like Yemen and Somalia, or in countries riddled with corruption like Zimbabwe. You do realise there's enough arable land in Zimbabwe to feed all of Southern Africa, yes?
Famine is a political problem - pretending it's a logistical problem is not helpful.
I noted one thing in that Independent Article - the problem of Antibiotic resistance. This is something else caused by too many people and too much reliance on technology.
The Onegreenplanet article is just as bad, it correctly identifies the problem but then asks not how we can solve it, but how we can get around it. Instead of asking how we can reverse human population growth and bring our numbers back down to a reasonable level. That means about a 50% drop, and most of that needs to happen in Europe and Asia. Lowering the population would mean lower population density, which would mean healthier people and less strain on the environment.
But no, instead we march "forward" and spread across the globe like Locusts.
Re: We might be killing ourselves much faster than "climate science" suggests
How do you deal with a plague of locust?
Re: We might be killing ourselves much faster than "climate science" suggests
Quote:
Originally Posted by
John Smith
How do you deal with a plague of locust?
Without spoiling the crops?
Can't really - some modern pesticides will kill them but mostly you wait for them to starve after the eat everything.
Was that your point?
Re: We might be killing ourselves much faster than "climate science" suggests
Quote:
Originally Posted by
John Smith
How do you deal with a plague of locust?
Saute pan, high smoke point vegetable oil, salt.
Since they ate all of your food, you might as well get it second hand.
Re: We might be killing ourselves much faster than "climate science" suggests
I'm no biologist, but first I'd ask how they become a plague in the first place?
Perhaps it's due to the same monoculture that destroys the soil and two problems could be solved in one step?
Perhaps it is partially because their natural enemies have gone missing?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Seamus Fermanagh
Saute pan, high smoke point vegetable oil, salt.
Since they ate all of your food, you might as well get it second hand.
:laugh4:
Re: We might be killing ourselves much faster than "climate science" suggests
You are some terrible individuals. :bow:
Re: We might be killing ourselves much faster than "climate science" suggests
Cows and deer are bros but too dumb to really understand anything.
Pigs are somewhere between dogs and people. Pigs understand and when pigs scream it sounds like people. I try not to think about Pigs.
Chickens are trash and would eat you if they could. DO NOT feel bad for the chickens.
Re: We might be killing ourselves much faster than "climate science" suggests
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Strike For The South
Pigs are somewhere between dogs and people. Pigs understand and when pigs scream it sounds like people. I try not to think about Pigs.
The wounded piglets I had to put down when I got their momma sow while hunting did scream, like people too, they made eye contact with me. It really is a gut wrenching sound and among one of the many things I don't like thinking about...
Re: We might be killing ourselves much faster than "climate science" suggests
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Strike For The South
Chickens are trash and would eat you if they could. DO NOT feel bad for the chickens.
Their demeanor is rather fitting considering they are part of what became of the dinosaurs.
Re: We might be killing ourselves much faster than "climate science" suggests
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Greyblades
Their demeanor is rather fitting considering they are part of what became of the dinosaurs.
I'm getting this image of shivering archeopteri huddling for warmth in some rocky cleft, staring bitterly at the little mammals skittering about and having a frolic in drifting flurries.
