Vegetarians are destroying the environment

the way i see the planet in 100 years or more all the land mass on this planet wont have any green besides for food prediction for humans and animals that humans eat ware gonna end killing mother nature in favor of technology

reply to post by DevolutionEvolvd

Im telling you that if you dont understand the damage done by grazing, you really dont have a place in this conversation.

Grazing is 10x more damaging to land than grazing(and that isnt even mentioning the methane gas produced by grazing animals).

reply to post by cushycrux


...or you could let ruminants eat the foods they were designed/evolved to eat. Then you won't have that problem.

-Dev

reply to post by xenchan`


Verticle farms are not far off. They will change everything.

Originally posted by DevolutionEvolvd
reply to post by cushycrux

 

...or you could let ruminants eat the foods they were designed/evolved to eat. Then you won't have that problem.

-Dev

The human body isn't made for 7 burgers and 5 Steaks per week....btw..

[edit on 12-2-2010 by cushycrux]

Originally posted by DevolutionEvolvd
reply to post by cushycrux

 

...or you could let ruminants eat the foods they were designed/evolved to eat. Then you won't have that problem.

-Dev

And then in turn let the predators eat the ruminants to control their numbers. Oh yeah, that's right, humans want some ruminants numbers excessively high and the predators numbers low. So high are the ruminants as to surpass the carrying capacity of the land thus creating the imbalance and destruction of the environment while extirpating the predators.

[edit on 12-2-2010 by DevolutionEvolvd]

reply to post by cushycrux


Actually, it is. But that's not the discussion at hand. This is not a nutritional discussion, it's an environmental/political one.

-Dev

Originally posted by sparrowstail
And then in turn let the predators eat the ruminants to control their numbers. Oh yeah, that's right, humans want some ruminants numbers excessively high and the predators numbers low. So high are the ruminants as to surpass the carrying capacity of the land thus creating the imbalance and destruction of the environment while extirpating the predators.

Great point. The human population alone makes this discussion a very complex one.

-Dev

Originally posted by DevolutionEvolvd
Which is more "Going Green'; Vegetarianism or Ominvorism?

I would have to say, based on my research, Omnivorism.

Awesome!

Consider that your arguement really is vegetarians versus carnivores.

I'm sure if you add up all the available food vegertarians eat and all the available food carnivores eat, that you would then see the vegetarians are more omnivore than carnivores.

reply to post by captaintyinknots

Grazing is 10x more damaging to land than grazing(and that isnt even mentioning the methane gas produced by grazing animals).

I am not questioning the validity of this statement but could you provide documentation to support this?

I have provided an example of the “Dust Bowl” that demonstrates the harmful nature of agriculture, but to have the other side information would be helpful as well.

reply to post by FortAnthem


I think you're a very selective reader and that the article isn't paying attention to itself.

Vegetarianism isn't harming anything; it's the shipping that's doing it. And pointing the finger at vegetarian shipments is ludicrous. How many foreign cars are there in Britain and the US? Japanese TV's, shoes made in Korea? Do you think they got there by camel train?

[edit on 12-2-2010 by TheWalkingFox]

reply to post by TheWalkingFox

How many foreign cars are there in Britain and the US? Japanese TV's, shoes made in Korea?

Actually there are factories in the US that produce the foreign car brands, and it would be the pollution from these factories that would be more of a problem than the shipping anyway.

Originally posted by DevolutionEvolvd

Originally posted by captaintyinknots
reply to post by DevolutionEvolvd

 

Im telling you that if you dont understand the damage done by grazing, you really dont have a place in this conversation.

Don't start that holier-than-thou BS. You can very easily answer my question and enlighten me on the damaging effects of grazing.....

Grazing is 10x more damaging to land than grazing(and that isnt even mentioning the methane gas produced by grazing animals).

Right, 10x huh? Please, elaborate. You're answering complex questions with simple, shrug-it-off sentences.

And would you like to go into the methane production of rice crops?

-Dev

The effects of grazing ar equite complex, and have been studied to death.

if you havent looke into them, how can you even TRY to back up this argument?

yes, 10X. A little simple research will show you that.

ohioline.osu.edu...
ohioline.osu.edu...
www.sciencedirect.com... canchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1205057664&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=9e5b1d2a78414b6bd43f62cd04277e2a< br />
These were the first hits for "negatve effects of grazing" on google. There are thousands of sources.

Again, if you dont understand this side of it, how can you argue that growing veggies is worse?

Originally posted by AlienCarnage
reply to post by captaintyinknots

 

Grazing is 10x more damaging to land than grazing(and that isnt even mentioning the methane gas produced by grazing animals).

I am not questioning the validity of this statement but could you provide documentation to support this?

I have provided an example of the “Dust Bowl” that demonstrates the harmful nature of agriculture, but to have the other side information would be helpful as well.

I am not in any way arguing that agriculture is 'good' for the environment, I am arguing that it is not as bad as grazing.

Also, the Dust Bowl was caused as much by livestock as it was by growing veggies.

I cited 3 examples in my previous post, and there are thousands more sources out there as well.

reply to post by dzonatas


Would you like for me to rephraze that?

What would you like to call them? Herbivores?

Can you please have one discussion with me in which you don't defer to semantics? Or twist my words?

-Dev

Originally posted by DevolutionEvolvd
Can you please have one discussion with me in which you don't defer to semantics? Or twist my words?

I don't agree with how you exclude meaning out of words like how you excluded vegetarians from omnivorism.

You don't have to agree with that. Just don't accuse me of "twisting" your words when you use ambiguous words.

What do you want to call meat eaters... or whatever the OP states that is better then vegetarians? The OP complains about vegetarians, so if you subtract any kind of vegetarism from the whole (note root word omni- prefix, which mean all):

Omnivores (all) - (minus) vegetarians (part) = ??? (what's left)

Omnivores - vegetarians = carnivores?

Please, clarify.

reply to post by DevolutionEvolvd


Please get it. The statement..

Vegitarians are destroying the environment

is complete wrong, false and stupid. You wanna know the truth? No!

reply to post by dzonatas


It's an omnivore vs vegetarian debate. Like I said, there's no need to argue semantics here. It's very obvious what we're talking about.

You're not twisting my words, yet. However, you are prone to such behaviour in previous debates.

-Dev

Amazon rainforests pay the price as demand for beef soars..

www.guardian.co.uk...

McDonald's Is Super-Sizing Destruction of Amazonia: Greenpeace
www.commondreams.org...

Soya Destroying Amazon
www.i-sis.org.uk...

“If currents trends continue, cattle ranchers and soya farmers alone will destroy 40 per cent of Amazon rainforest by 2050.”
www.savetheirworld.org.uk...

Want to stop global warming? Stop eating meat.
www.qi-whiz.com...

New standards for growing soy will destroy forests, livelihoods and the climate
www.indymedia.ie...

The Rape Of The Rainforest...And The Man Behind It
www.rainforests.net...

ALL FOR MEAT