Jump to content
bludog

Avoiding Meat & Dairy Is 'Single Biggest Way' To Reduce Your Impact On Earth

Recommended Posts

41 minutes ago, Craig234 said:

I think liberals need to not claim the issue is the 'extinction' of the human race

 

That's just my commentary.  I don't think it should be a Liberal issue.  Most people aren't aware enough of the history of life on Earth to even come close to taking it seriously.

 

41 minutes ago, Craig234 said:

I think it's far more likely that the effects will be the killing and misery of MUCH of the human race, but that the wealthy will not be going extinct. I think it's far more likely for a lot of people to be killed than for all people to be killed.

 

That is a possibility.  And it's how evolution proceeds:  By the less adaptive dying in larger numbers, before they can reproduce, than the more adaptive.  It is usually just a fraction of a percent, over time.  It doesn't necessarily produce a more durable species over the long run.  Often new conditions make old adaptations ineffective.

 

41 minutes ago, Craig234 said:

Even if extinction is a possibility, it seems more effective to talk about the lesser stage before that of mass killing and misery. But as that happens and te population shrinks, I expect things would stabilize and the remaining people could consider it a great success - a bit like how the wealthy came out way ahead from the Great Recession.

 

As a political issue, I wouldn't even go there. 

 

But the Great Depression, let alone the Great Recession isn't even remotely comparable to catastrophic environmental breakdown.  Even the fall of Rome and the start of the "Dark Ages" in Western Europe bears no resemblance to the life-threatening severity of ecosystems run amuck ...   Likely accompanied by nuclear, chemical, biological warfare, as the parties blame each other and fight over quickly diminishing resources.  It is interesting that the Cretaceous-Paleogene extinction event killed ALL  dinosaurs and animals over 50 pounds ...  Which is what we are.  Being rich might not confer any benefit.

 

Anyway.  I digress.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, bludog said:

 

That's just my commentary.  I don't think it should be a Liberal issue.  Most people aren't aware enough of the history of life on Earth to even come close to taking it seriously.

 

It shouldn't be, but it is, because with two parties, the Republicans are bought and paid for (leaders) or fooled (voters). Like tobacco, it'll take time for it not to be as partisan.

 

About your other point, there's a bigger issue, that people simply have a hard time understanding the issue of billions of years on the planet, hundreds of millions of years for fossil fuels to be created, the delicate balance of nature, the delicate atmosphere, and the radical nature of the human race using up the fossil supplies in the blink of an eye of a century.

 

People tend to have an illusion - there's always gas, there's always air.

 

I like the title of a book by Thom Hartmann to explain the issue - "The Last Hours of Ancient Sunlight".

 

In it he explains - the only energy historically available was sunshine. That was fine for growing plants to eat. But some of that energy from sunshine was stored in fossils - it's a one time supply of extra energy built up over hundreds of millions of years.

And we are wiping it out, fast, since we developed the technology to extract that energy, with the internal combustion engine a bit over a century ago, allowing our planet to explode the development as it is, these huge cities and massive consumer goods and hundreds of millions of cars and so on.

 

But it can't continue -as you with the limited supply of fossils were burning through, the changes we're making to the atmosphere, etc. And not just the gasses from fossil fuel, but even the explosion of methane from cows feeding 7 billion people, on the topic you raise in this thread.

 

Few voters have any idea of that issue, how we are making huge changes to the planet - they aren't aware of the time frames. I like that book title because it conveys the nature of the issue and the science - the stored energy we're extracting - and the time frame of being 'ancient sunlight' being used up, fast, and the pace, the 'last hours'.

 

Now, it's one thing to have that issue, and another for our political system to inform the voters of it and set policy that works, rather than a short-sighted profit-driven disaster.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Craig234 said:

And we are wiping it out, fast, since we developed the technology to extract that energy, with the internal combustion engine a bit over a century ago, allowing our planet to explode the development as it is, these huge cities and massive consumer goods and hundreds of millions of cars and so on.

 

But it can't continue -as you with the limited supply of fossils were burning through, the changes we're making to the atmosphere, etc. And not just the gasses from fossil fuel, but even the explosion of methane from cows feeding 7 billion people, on the topic you raise in this thread.

 

Few voters have any idea of that issue, how we are making huge changes to the planet - they aren't aware of the time frames. I like that book title because it conveys the nature of the issue and the science - the stored energy we're extracting - and the time frame of being 'ancient sunlight' being used up, fast, and the pace, the 'last hours'.

 

Good post.  And it sounds like an interesting book!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, bludog said:

I don't think it should be a Liberal issue.

 

But in the real world we live in, if Democrats had in their platform anything, even a weak suggestion, like "we should reduce the consumption of meat", Republicans would immediately turn it into a political issue.

 

Not only that: they would win big time with it. They would spin it as something like:

- "Democrats want to take your guns and your burgers."

- "Don't touch my steak, or my chili or beef stew. Get your hands off my dinner, it ain't Democrat blue."

- "First they came for our ham sandwich, and I didn't speak up because I don't eat pork...."

 

And that's even before the conspiracy theorists get hold of it. 

 

Whether or not it's a good thing wouldn't matter even an iota. It's a losing political issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, laripu said:

 

But in the real world we live in, if Democrats had in their platform anything, even a weak suggestion, like "we should reduce the consumption of meat", Republicans would immediately turn it into a political issue.

 

Not only that: they would win big time with it. They would spin it as something like:

- "Democrats want to take your guns and your burgers."

- "Don't touch my steak, or my chili or beef stew. Get your hands off my dinner, it ain't Democrat blue."

- "First they came for our ham sandwich, and I didn't speak up because I don't eat pork...."

 

And that's even before the conspiracy theorists get hold of it. 

 

Whether or not it's a good thing wouldn't matter even an iota. It's a losing political issue.

 

Don't forget, a poor little old lady, "Where's the Beef? Oh, Democrats took it away". But Democrats should champion this issue, carefully.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, laripu said:

But in the real world we live in, if Democrats had in their platform anything, even a weak suggestion, like "we should reduce the consumption of meat", Republicans would immediately turn it into a political issue.

 

Maybe it's a question of whether it's more important to disregard the future and win elections now or alert the world to the danger and suffer political defeat.  With each issue that we give up to the Republicans, we become more like them;  Representing the same powerful, plutocratic interests.  And we have not won by doing that.  The Democratic Party has sunk to the lowest ebb in its history, with all three branches of government plus the Supreme Court, firmly in Republican hands.  At the same time, the Democratic Party has come to resemble the Republican Party more than ever before in its reliance on Big Interest funding.

 

Maybe foolish to pursue the same strategy which has led to our present state of helplessness in Washington.  We have ducked issues like climate change, environmental degradation due to meat production and economic inequality simply because we are afraid of Republican propaganda.  And all it's got us is defeat.

 

It is time to address the really important issues of our time and boldly become the party of truth instead of the party of obeisance and support of Republican deceit.  Pursuing the same losing strateghy is Einstein's definition of insanity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, bludog said:

 

Maybe it's a question of whether it's more important to disregard the future and win elections now or alert the world to the danger and suffer political defeat.  With each issue that we give up to the Republicans, we become more like them;  Representing the same powerful, plutocratic interests.  And we have not won by doing that.  The Democratic Party has sunk to the lowest ebb in its history, with all three branches of government plus the Supreme Court, firmly in Republican hands.  At the same time, the Democratic Party has come to resemble the Republican Party more than ever before in its reliance on Big Interest funding.

 

Maybe foolish to pursue the same strategy which has led to our present state of helplessness in Washington.  We have ducked issues like climate change, environmental degradation due to meat production and economic inequality simply because we are afraid of Republican propaganda.  And all it's got us is defeat.

 

It is time to address the really important issues of our time and boldly become the party of truth instead of the party of obeisance and support of Republican deceit.  Pursuing the same losing strateghy is Einstein's definition of insanity.

 

This is not a simple topic, whether to always campaign on the right policies, or whether to not fo anything that isn't popular. The answer is neither of those options.


Imagine if Democrats had been campaigning for gay marriage equality since JFK. How many elections would be lost over that as the country 'wasn't ready'? California defeated gay marriage at the ballot not long before the court legalized it. Obama refused to endorse it in his campaign.


There are practicalities. What if Obama had come out for it and it cost him the election - how much damage would a McCain/Palin administration have done? This is the art of pushing things the right direction as much as they can be - and I'm not giving Obama credit for that, but he did provide some better direction than Republicans would have.

 

Adlai Stevenson learned this lesson as he lost to Eisenhower, ending the Democrats' run after FDR, and giving us the cold war and the disastrous history with the CIA from overthrowing democracies to MKULTRA harming thousands of Americans with things like LSD and worse involuntary medical harms.

 

It's ironic that Harry Truman gave us the quote about voters given a choice between a Democrat who acts like a Republican and a Republican preferring the real thing, when he himself was the replacement for a 'real Democrat' Henry Wallace, the VP, on behalf of business interests - but he had a point.

 

Given the choice of fighting for important issues, especially as important as the future habitability of the planet, and trying to win elections by not doing so, Democrats' choice is clear that they need to fight for the right policies. But they have to take politics into account in how they do it. McGovern had a lot of good policies - and got 38% of the vote against a traitor.

 

As just one basic political point, one lesson that can be taken a bit from Republicans - their only issue is their donors, but they basically never talk about the issue - that's what 'retail politics' is, they talk about what will get them votes and then use the power for what they want.

I'm not suggesting Democrats copy that craven approach, but I am suggesting that they consider the politics in what they campaign on. We got a pro-gay marriage president in office by his being coy on the issue. If he'd campaigned on it, it seems likely he'd have lost.

 

Leading public opinion is an issue.

The question is whether it's being led for the good of the country - or its harm, as with Republicans.

FDR faced this issue when the country was against entering WWII, and he made a campaign promised under pressure not to enter the war, but he did add an escape clause, unless we were attacked - and then there's good evidence he manipulated an attack on us.

You could say that was deceitful and against democracy, but it can also be said his motives were the good of the country and history supports his position - Republicans also deceive the public about their policies but for the good of their donors, not the country.


Really, it's worse than that - they have a media operation that has built a sort of Republican cult that just automatically voted (R) regardless of the issues, indoctrinating them 24x7.

 

Democrats need to both fight for good policies and consider the politics how to do it. And sometimes it can mean having to limit the good policies, unfortunately.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Craig234 said:

 

As the link you provided affirms, some issues are more important than others.  Putting the world on a vegan diet is at the top of the list.  However, I do agree, to run on it would be political suicide.  But the information desperately needs to be disseminated to the public somehow.

 

On the one hand, if we cave into the Republican's agenda we actually support them and become more like them.  When given a choice between Republican lite and the real thing, most voters choose the genuine article.  On the other hand, unfortunately, it's not expedient to put forth all the crying issues of our time because then we would not be in a position to push any of them ...  The position we find ourselves in now.

 

So, as you suggest, we have to draw a balance.  And the issue to emphasize now is surely  Plutocracy and the shrinking Middle Class.  It's the one issue where the Republicans are not in sync with their base.  And the one issue they can't run away from.  They are fully committed.  It's also an issue where the voters can see the effects with their own eyes.  But perhaps not so amazingly, we have mostly run away from this issue.  And the reason for that is over dependence on Big interest dollars ....  Just like the Republicans.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, bludog said:

 

As the link you provided affirms, some issues are more important than others.  Putting the world on a vegan diet is at the top of the list.  However, I do agree, to run on it would be political suicide.  But the information desperately needs to be disseminated to the public somehow.

 

On the one hand, if we cave into the Republican's agenda we actually support them and become more like them.  When given a choice between Republican lite and the real thing, most voters choose the genuine article.  On the other hand, unfortunately, it's not expedient to put forth all the crying issues of our time because then we would not be in a position to push any of them ...  The position we find ourselves in now.

 

So, as you suggest, we have to draw a balance.  And the issue to emphasize now is surely  Plutocracy and the shrinking Middle Class.  It's the one issue where the Republicans are not in sync with their base.  And the one issue they can't run away from.  They are fully committed.  It's also an issue where the voters can see the effects with their own eyes.  But perhaps not so amazingly, we have mostly run away from this issue.  And the reason for that is over dependence on Big interest dollars ....  Just like the Republicans.

 

I suspect the Democrats running away from the issue of plutocracy is a bit like an analogy to, why not - Nazis.

Imagine that Nazis were taking over our country.

You could imagine that Democrats would say, 'this is the mot important issue! Our nation is at stake! We have to be uncompromising in our opposition!'

 

But then what happens when the Nazis win, and kill the opposition, and terrify the rest - and it becomes more an issue of coping with the reality? The role of the opposition changes - the most aggressive might be an 'underground opposition' trying to take some action, but it would largely be a long game, opposing them quietly.

To oppose them more openly at that point would be rather pointless - congratulations, you get shot.

Now, plutocrats are not Nazis or shooting the opposition, but the analogy might hold in that it is SUCH an uphill battle for Democrats running for office when it costs billions for the presidency and many millions for Congress, that the plutocrats are just so overwhelmingly powerful, that they cope with the money and join in, as really opposing it is pointless.

Now, Bernie has made some progress on changing that, but until his campaign, it was pretty much the case. And for many Democrats - pretty much all outside the progressives and perhaps some of them - it still is. So you see the Democrat from North Dakota getting a Koch ad thanking her for her help passing banking deregulation.

 

In other words, the issue with money in politics might be past the 'public should oppose it' stage, and to the 'it's utterly overwhelmed the system' stage.

And that's where even the 'good' politicians have to compromise, picking their issues to do the right thing and not doing it on others, and it's the exception who can do better than that at trying to do the right thing consistently.

The public still thinks their opinions matter more... how many voters would be surprised to learn that all members of Congress spend half their time on fundraising? It's not like the politicians talk about it much. The talk to voters is still in terms of caring what they have to say, when studies show 99% of voters have zero influence on Congress.

 

It's in that environment that the members find themselves fundraising or being gone, and having to serve the donors to get the funds, and having to mislead voters about how much they have to fundraise and serve the donors rather than the voters to get their votes. That's sort of the starting point. Now, do the right thing?

 

I'd bet politicians must resent the voters pretending it's easy for them to just do the right thing. What a mess.

And as we agree, that's why plutocracy needs to be the litmus test and the top issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, bludog said:

Maybe it's a question of whether it's more important to disregard the future and win elections now or alert the world to the danger and suffer political defeat.

 

We have ducked issues like climate change, environmental degradation due to meat production and economic inequality simply because we are afraid of Republican propaganda.  And all it's got us is defeat.

 

We can alert the world, but we need to do it in a way that fits the psychology of people voting. Not doing that is what gets up defeat. Truth may not get you anything, because truth is countered by skillful, well-paid liars. Remember how they made George W Bush into a hero and swift-boated Kerry? And what they did to Hillary Clinton? So far, the only pol I've seen that could really leverage intelligence to win an election, in his prime, was Bill Clinton.

 

Climate change... you can tell people that they'll save money by buying solar and help save the earth too.  What will they believe? That they can save money. And the smarter ones might install solar panels, but they still won't believe in climate change. You think they'll buy electric cars?  There's already propaganda saying that electric cars are worse for the environment than gas-guzzlers.

 

Social programs? They won't really support those unless they're nearly starving, like when FDR got good stuff through. If they're doing OK, it'll all be socialism. SOCIALISM!! and a picture of the latest Democrat leader dressed as Stalin or Hitler. If they're doing OK, the near-morons will believe that cancelling Social Security and Medicare will make them prosperous.

 

What got us defeat isn't ducking issues, it's putting up boring intelligent candidates to a country where 50% of the people are near-morons, but nevertheless have the right to vote. I personally like boring intelligent candidates, but I've come to realize that I really don't represent any kind of demographic at all.

 

Want proof that the US is 50% near-morons? Every other developed country in the world has universal healthcare, and here we're still unable to convince the near-morons. Not for lack of trying, since FDR. Rich people can afford to pay really good liars.

 

We've been through this before. Remember? They do and this is the kind of thing they'll say:

fearmongore.png?w=440

 

This is f*ckin' politics and it's a dirty sh1tty business.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, laripu said:

Want proof that the US is 50% near-morons? Every other developed country in the world has universal healthcare, and here we're still unable to convince the near-morons. Not for lack of trying, since FDR. Rich people can afford to pay really good liars.

 

Reagan - really good liar who worked for the rich to oppose Medicare when JFK was running on it. And you know what's forgotten? He won - in 1962 it was voted on and lost;

 

https://theintercept.com/2015/07/30/medicares-50th-birthday-lets-forget-ronald-reagans-insane-diatribe-trying-stop/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Craig234 said:

I suspect the Democrats running away from the issue of plutocracy is a bit like an analogy to, why not - Nazis.

Imagine that Nazis were taking over our country

 

This particular analogy is not helpful since imaginary lessons from this fanciful takeover can't be transferred to the present political situation.

 

3 hours ago, Craig234 said:

To oppose them more openly at that point would be rather pointless - congratulations, you get shot.

 

Not really relevant to here and now.

 

3 hours ago, Craig234 said:

Now, Bernie has made some progress on changing that, but until his campaign, it was pretty much the case

 

IMO, one of the main reasons Bernie is respected, on both sides of the aisle is because he is fearless.  Unlike most other Democrats, he does not take campaign or lobbying money from big, right wing donors in exchange for either his rhetoric or his vote in the Senate.  That leaves him free to say the unabashed truth.

 

3 hours ago, Craig234 said:

I'd bet politicians must resent the voters pretending it's easy for them to just do the right thing. What a mess

 

At a salary $174,000 a year, nominal, for senators and reps, the job shouldn't expect the job to always be easy.  It would be a healthier situation if voters kicked them out on their ass more often.

 

3 hours ago, Craig234 said:

And as we agree, that's why plutocracy needs to be the litmus test and the top issue

 

Yes.  In addition to the Republicans being trapped in devotion to plutocracy but not wanting to talk about it, exposing them would be a good tactic.  And ideally throw a monkey wrench into the workings of the upward conveyor belt of wealth.  As well as getting more progressive democrats elected to further the agenda of equality.

 

But if Democratic lawmakers are to expose the Republican Party as the party of Plutocracy, it must be done confidently and with conviction.  Bernie and a few others have set the example.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, bludog said:

 

This particular analogy is not helpful since imaginary lessons from this fanciful takeover can't be transferred to the present political situation.

 

We'll disagree - I don't think you got the point being made. It's a little tricky and Nazis were probably distracting.
 

Quote

At a salary $174,000 a year, nominal, for senators and reps, the job shouldn't expect the job to always be easy.  It would be a healthier situation if voters kicked them out on their ass more often.


The salary is really almost irrelevant to the role - it affects trillions of dollars both spent by the federal government and in the economy. Many if not most of them are taking pay cuts for the job, sometimes very large ones, and it's about the power, not the money.

 

Yes, it's voters who aren't doing the best job as well, especially at supporting candidates in primaries who are not well funded by special interests.

 

Quote

Yes.  In addition to the Republicans being trapped in devotion to plutocracy but not wanting to talk about it, exposing them would be a good tactic.  And ideally throw a monkey wrench into the workings of the upward conveyor belt of wealth.  As well as getting more progressive democrats elected to further the agenda of equality.

 

But if Democratic lawmakers are to expose the Republican Party as the party of Plutocracy, it must be done confidently and with conviction.  Bernie and a few others have set the example.

 

Yes, about all Republicans have in response is to call them socialists for wanting to reign in the plutocrats, and to try to get voters to view themselves as the target.

 

So when the progressive wants to raise taxes on billionaires, the Republicans say 'they want to raise YOUR taxes, voter'. That works a lot on initial use, but can be debunked.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Craig234 said:

We'll disagree - I don't think you got the point being made. It's a little tricky and Nazis were probably distracting.

 

Yes. Agree to disagree.  Not a day goes by that the Nazis and Hitler are used as analogies, by both sides, on these boards.  No one was tricked.  I reject the point.  The remainder of the post was germane.

 

43 minutes ago, Craig234 said:

The salary is really almost irrelevant to the role - it affects trillions of dollars both spent by the federal government and in the economy. Many if not most of them are taking pay cuts for the job, sometimes very large ones, and it's about the power, not the money.

 

The salary is many times more than the US average.  Although not as bloated as much executive pay in private business.  I agree, it's more about the power than the money.  But politicians should expect and understand that voters expect them to do the right thing.  And so they should.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Finally, vegetarian burgers are starting to show up in fast food chains.

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/01/technology/burger-king-impossible-whopper.html

Quote

 

Behold the Beefless ‘Impossible Whopper'

 

<snip>

This week, Burger King is introducing a version of its iconic Whopper sandwich filled with a vegetarian patty from the start-up Impossible Foods.

<snip>

In Burger King’s testing so far, customers and even employees had not been able to tell the difference between the old meaty Whopper and the new one.  “People on my team who know the Whopper inside and out, they try it and they struggle to differentiate which one is which,” Mr. Machado said.

<snip>

Impossible Foods and its competitors in Silicon Valley have already had some mainstream success. The vegetarian burger made by Beyond Meat has been available at over a thousand Carl’s Jr. restaurants since January and the company is now moving toward an initial public offering.  White Castle has sold a slider version of the Impossible burger in its 380 or so stores since late last year.

<snip>

 

These meatless burgers produce just a small fraction of the greenhouse gasses that are emitted by cattle.  The beef industry is challenging the use of the word "meat" for these burgers.  Needless to say, ranchers will oppose meatless burgers with every resource available.  But there are high hopes among people concerned with global warming and the environment, that this is the beginning of the end for burgers made of animal meat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FDA makes enough problems for us  trying to figure out what is in our food already 

 

    if you smothered it with enough mayo it would taste just like a whooper

 

Now I do not like to toss this Idea out  here  but Idaho suffered the worst rangeland fires we have ever seen in history and the idea is that we could have averted  that loss of nature had we let the cattle graze the lands and buffalo used to do that 

 and here in town we are starting to use goats as a herbicide and a to again curb vegetation to reduce fires

 

if we take live stock out of grazing the land that other creatures grazed then we have  a lot of fuel for fires and with global warming creating vast times of drought and floods ? I am open to better ideas but I think we still need ranchers and we can use them in a better way then we have

 

 PS  I am in no way defending the meat industry or its practices 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don’t think having a burger once and a while Is going to throw the earth in a tailspin. It’s the average glutton American that shove food in their pie holes like they are not sure when they will eat again. 

Its sick 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We did evolve to consume animal matter as well as plant matter, however. We get certain important nutrients from animals that we don't from plants. Then there is the fact that we have a real taste for meats of all sorts and would never want to give them up. Realistically, then, we can't expect a global shift to a vegetarian or vegan diet, nor even a national one. It seems most imperative instead to institute environmentally friendly and sustainable dairy farming practices. Rainforests shouldn't be cleared to raise cattle, but then they should not be cleared for any reason at all. So, I feel it is best to approach it that way - protecting natural habitats first and foremost, not trying to push humanity into a plant-based diet. All that farming of grains can't be the best thing for the environment either, and grains (including corn and the sugar derived from it) are the primary culprit in the obesity epidemic and all of the health problems that brings. People aren't getting diabetes from beef or bacon or milk, but from wheat and corn, and how we farm that stuff can be pretty bad for the environment in different ways, most notably the associated CO2 output and, of course, pollution from chemicals sprayed on the land and the crops.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Imgreatagain said:

I don’t think having a burger once and a while Is going to throw the earth in a tailspin. It’s the average glutton American that shove food in their pie holes like they are not sure when they will eat again. 

Its sick 

 

It's also natural when food is so plentiful and cheap.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Mordastyr said:

We did evolve to consume animal matter as well as plant matter, however. We get certain important nutrients from animals that we don't from plants. Then there is the fact that we have a real taste for meats of all sorts and would never want to give them up. Realistically, then, we can't expect a global shift to a vegetarian or vegan diet, nor even a national one.

 

As omnivores, we evolved the ability to live on either plants alone as 40% of subcontinental Indians do;  Or a diet of meat alone e.g. Eskimos.  There are no nutrients from animals that cannot be derived from plants. 

 

We have no inborn preference for certain foods.  Instead, we have been designed by evolution to be food-adaptable.  Everything depends on conditioning and habit.  Many vegans find meat repugnant.  And lots of meat eaters are repelled by plant based foods.

 

Given humankind's innate adaptability, it would only take one or two generations for the world to switch to a plant-based diet.

 

7 hours ago, Mordastyr said:

t seems most imperative instead to institute environmentally friendly and sustainable dairy farming practices. Rainforests shouldn't be cleared to raise cattle, but then they should not be cleared for any reason at all. So, I feel it is best to approach it that way - protecting natural habitats first and foremost,

 

A sensible approach.  And part of any solution to combat anthropogenic climate change.  But livestock are far more demanding of space than crops.  The raising of livestock spurs habitat loss far more than cultivation of produce.

 

7 hours ago, Mordastyr said:

not trying to push humanity into a plant-based diet. All that farming of grains can't be the best thing for the environment either, and grains (including corn and the sugar derived from it) are the primary culprit in the obesity epidemic and all of the health problems that brings. People aren't getting diabetes from beef or bacon or milk, but from wheat and corn, and how we farm that stuff can be pretty bad for the environment in different ways, most notably the associated CO2 output and, of course, pollution from chemicals sprayed on the land and the crops.

 

The population of the planet is approaching 8 billion and we must all be fed.

 

Raising livestock for slaughter is many times more destructive to the environment than plant agriculture.   Each steer, pig and chicken must be fed with crops, raised separately, just for them.  Beef comes from ruminants which produce methane.  Methane comprises 10% of greenhouse gases but is roughly 30 times more powerful in trapping the sun's heat.

 

https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/overview-greenhouse-gases

Pie chart that shows different types of gases. 81% from carbon dioxide fossil fuel use, deforestation, decay of biomass, etc., 10% from methane, 6% from nitrous oxide and 3% from fluorinated gases.

This makes methane a more dangerous greenhouse gas than CO2.  Eliminating hamburgers from the national diet alone, and replacing them with grains, beans/legumes, nuts/seeds and vegetables, would go far in controlling the runaway greenhouse effect.

 

7 hours ago, Mordastyr said:

People aren't getting diabetes from beef or bacon or milk, but from wheat and corn, and how we farm that stuff can be pretty bad for the environment in different ways, most notably the associated CO2 output and, of course, pollution from chemicals sprayed on the land and the crops.

 

Wheat or corn are low-glycemic and do not cause diabetes.  Over-processing of wheat by removing the bran and germ layers, turns it into it empty carbs. And the concentrated sugar derived from corn harms health.  But without modification, beef, bacon and milk are loaded with saturated fats and cholesterol.

 

Plant based agriculture has its own problems but is many times less destructive to the biosphere than the raising of livestock for slaughter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Main sources of methane emissions
  • Methane Emissions: Human Sources. Since the Industrial Revolution, human sources of methane emissions have been growing. ...
  • Fossil fuel production, distribution and use. ...
  • Livestock farming. ...
  • Landfills and waste. ...
  • Biomass burning. ...
  • Rice agriculture. ...
  • Biofuels. ...
  • Methane Emissions: Natural Sources.

Main sources of methane emissions | What's Your Impact

 
 
 need to curb the whole
 
Rice needs to be looked at as we suggest a vegan lifestyle 
 
 
 
 
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/1/2018 at 10:11 PM, bludog said:

The biggest analysis to date reveals the huge footprint of livestock - It provides just 18% of calories but takes up 83% of farmland.  The new research shows that without meat and dairy consumption, global farmland use could be reduced by more than 75% ...  And still feed the world.  Since most of the mass extinction of wildlife is due to habitat loss, vegan lifestyles would greatly slow the dying out of wildlife species.

 

“A vegan diet is probably the single biggest way to reduce your impact on planet Earth, not just greenhouse gases, but global acidification, eutrophication, land use and water use,” said Joseph Poore, at the University of Oxford, UK, who led the research. “It is far bigger than cutting down on your flights or buying an electric car,” he said, as these only cut greenhouse gas emissions.

 

the comparison of beef with plant protein such as peas is stark, with even the lowest impact beef responsible for six times more greenhouse gases and 36 times more land.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/may/31/avoiding-meat-and-dairy-is-single-biggest-way-to-reduce-your-impact-on-earth

 

 

 

Livestock releases methane and CO2. Trump supporters who would tell you the vegetables are that food eats are often fat and therefore produce more CO2 when they breath and more methane when they fart. 

 

We live longer than they do because we are more responsible in our lifestyles. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am flabbergasted by how complacent so many are about climate change.  Especially so many on the left.  The problem has to be dealt with NOW.  There is no time left.  The further we let this problem go, the more momentum it picks up.  We, in this generation, are putting our own convenience before the future of humanity.

 

It appears that there is more anxiety among those who will inherit the world we made for them;  The children.

 

Pupils skip school for environmental protest - BBC News

A global campaign calling for action over climate change saw thousands of British children walk out of school to take part and protest. Politics Live heard from ...
 
Mar 14, 2019 - Thousands of students went on strike in London on February 15, 2019, to protest their government's inaction on climate change.
Mar 15, 2019 - We spoke with young people protesting at City Hall on Friday, March 15, as part of the Youth Climate Strike.
Mar 15, 2019 - From Vanuatu to California, young people went on a "climate strike" to bring attention to the way climate change threatens their futures.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×