Vegetarians are destroying the environment

reply to post by DevolutionEvolvd

Not going to address me, i see?

Much easier to direct your posts at PEOPLE, as opposed to the topic at hand when you are trying to deflect....

[edit on 12-2-2010 by DevolutionEvolvd]

Originally posted by DevolutionEvolvd
reply to post by captaintyinknots

 

Look, searching google for data to support your claim is hardly research. You say grazing is 10x worse....I ask you because I assume you know what you're talking about. Instead, you're simply googling.

My source from an earlier post, detailing my side of the arguing, cites a well researched book.

In any case, we can play that game. We'll just go back and forth, providing the sources we find on google that support our argument. How fun. Searching google scholar...I found this:

Quantitative Effects of Grazing on Vegetation and Soils Over a Global Range of Environments

Multiple regression analyses were performed on a worldwide 236—site data set compiled from studies that compared species composition, aboveground net primary production (ANPP), root biomass, and soil nutrients of grazed vs. protected, ungrazed sites. The objective was to quantitatively assess factors relating to differential sensitivities of ecosystems to grazing by large herbivores. A key question in this assessment was: Do empirically based, broad—scale relationships correspond to ecological theories of plant—animal interactions and conceptual frameworks for management of the world's grazing lands? Changes in species composition with grazing were primarily a function of ANPP and the evolutionary history of grazing of the site, with level of consumption third in importance. Changes in species composition increased with increasing productivity and with longer, more intense evolutionary histories of grazing. These three variables explained >50% of the variance in the species response of grasslands or grasslands—plus—shrublands to grazing, even though methods of measurement and grazing systems varied among studies. Years of protection from grazing was a significant variable only in the model for shrublands. Similar variables entered models of change in the dominant species with grazing. As with species composition, sensitivities of change in dominant species were greater to varying ecosystem—environmental variables than to varying grazing variables, from low to high values. Increase of the dominant species under grazing were predicted under some conditions, and decreases were more likely among bunch grasses than other life—forms and more likely among perennials than annuals. The response of shrublands was different from that of grasslands, both in terms of species composition and the dominant species. Our analyses support the perception of grazing as a factor in the conversion of grasslands to less desirable shrublands, but also suggest that we may be inadvertently grazing shrublands more intensively than grasslands. Percentage differences in ANPP between grazed and ungrazed sites decreased with increasingly long evolutionary histories of grazing and increased with increasing ANPP, levels of consumption, or years of treatment. Although most effects of grazing on ANPP were negative, some were not, and the statistical models predicted increases in ANPP with grazing under conditions of long evolutionary history, low consumption, few years of treatment, and low ANPP for grasslands—plus—shrublands. The data and the models support the controversial hypothesis that grazing can increase ANPP in some situations. Similar to species variables, percentage differences in ANPP between grazed and ungrazed treatments were more sensitive to varying ecosystem—environmental variables than to varying grazing variables. Within levels not considered to be abusive "overgrazing," the geographical location where grazing occurs may be more important than how many animals are grazed or how intensively an area is grazed. Counter to the commonly held view that grazing negatively impacts root systems, there was no relationship between difference in ANPP with grazing and difference in root mass; as many positive as negative differences occurred, even though most ANPP differences were negative. Further, there was a weak relationship between change in species composition and change in ANPP, and no relationship with root mass, soil organic matter, or soil nitrogen. All three belowground variables displayed both positive and negative values in response to grazing. Current management of much of the world's grazing lands based on species composition criteria may lead to erroneous conclusions concerning the long—term ability of a system to sustain productivity.

I'm sure there is more...but that's not the point.

-Dev

1)I stated flat out that this was the most basic of research on the siubject, which you obviously havent done. Sorry I dont have a plethora or sources already compiled for you

2)You have shown no willingness to even ATTEMPT to compare the two sides-you are flat out against the opposing point of view.

3)The research on this is endless. And not a single source will claim that growing veggies is worse for the environment than grazing. The (say it with me now) POLICY surrounding them is what has the most negative impact.

Do you wish to debate the topic, or discuss the posters? I am only here for the former. Continue to make this a ME vs YOU debate, and I will desengage, as anyone with even the slightest bit of experience in actual debate knows that:
a)Only topics can be debated, not people;
b)the continual deflecting of the topics to the people is a sure sign of someone who cant stay n the debate, and/or has a diminished IQ.

I eat raw food and I DO NOT EAT SOY. I just eat fruit and vegetable, nuts and seeds. No need to put down forests for me.

Soy is used MUCH MUCH MORE for all kinds of products made NOT FOR VEGETARIANS. Soy is used in food industry as almost it's main ingredient, and if you eliminate soy, half of the products in your local supermarket will be gone. Vegetarians are probably just a tiny percentage of soy consumers.

Tobacco, coffee - those are also grown all over the world, along with soy.

[edit on 12-2-2010 by herbivore]

Originally posted by DevolutionEvolvd
It's an omnivore vs vegetarian debate.

It's just the only thread you show up in is when you can take the omnivore side and try to claim king of the hill with it in such a way where you accuse semantics. Otherwise, we never debated the specifics of these words before, so I don't know where you thought we did.

I didn't talk about your behavior or argue about your behavior, I just wanted to debate the specifics of the words. I didn't agree with how you try to say vegetarians are not omnivore. that is like to say meat eaters aren't omnivores.

Omnivores eat everything. ALL. If you eat only meat you aren't an omnivore.

You know I rather promote organic omnivorism, so don't try to derail this because you know organic omnivorism wouldn't even support an article like the OP.

Actually Minnesota-based Cargill, the largest private agribusiness in the world, spent $20 million on a big soy elevator right in the Amazon -- illegally -- in violation of environment rules. A federal judge in Brazil ruled that the elevator had to be shut down and Cargill tried to fight it. Then Greenpeace documented that farmers were massively spreading soy farms because Cargill's message was will we buy as much soy beans as possible. So soybeans is actually used as CURRENCY in the Amazon -- but Cargill has now pledged not to buy soy from newly deforested lands -- although enforcing this is difficult since the Amazon still has mass slavery and is a black market of illegal activities.

The soy goes for chicken in Europe and pork in China.

reply to post by captaintyinknots




[edit on 12-2-2010 by drew hempel]

Originally posted by drew hempel
Actually Minnesota-based Cargill, the largest private agribusiness in the world, spent $20 million on a big soy elevator right in the Amazon -- illegally -- in violation of environment rules. A federal judge in Brazil ruled that the elevator had to be shut down and Cargill tried to fight it. Then Greenpeace documented that farmers were massively spreading soy farms because Cargill's message was will we buy as much soy beans as possible. So soybeans is actually used as CURRENCY in the Amazon -- but Cargill has now pledged not to buy soy from newly deforested lands -- although enforcing this is difficult since the Amazon still has mass slavery and is a black market of illegal activities.

The soy goes for chicken in Europe and pork in China.

reply to post by captaintyinknots

 

[edit on 12-2-2010 by drew hempel]

I'm not sure what you are getting at here. I am aware that agro business is bad for the environment.

Ever heard of Monsanto? Syngenta?

Doesnt change the fact that it isnt as bad as grazing. Also doesnt change the fact that you are still speaking of policy, not of the damage done by the growing of veggies.


[edit on 12-2-2010 by captaintyinknots]

To ask "what kind of poop" is used is a crucial question as sustainable agriculture has always relied on HUMAN # - humanure. I was in a village in Morocco which had vegetable crops in the desert because they used humanure.

There's a book called 5,000 years of farming - about Asia -- and the reliance of Asian farming on human #.

The West thought this caused disease but in fact it was the raw shell fish eaten in the rivers which was causing some disease -- not the humanure.

reply to post by hangedman13

Originally posted by captaintyinknots

Originally posted by Essan
The point is that soya is produced by first burning down rainforests to grown the crops and then shipping the product to Britain. This has a higher carbon footprint than eating lambs raised on Welsh moors.

The best solution is to eat what you like, but source it locally

And grazing land comes from...where?

The argument that rainforests are burned down more for veggies than for grazing is false to the point of being laughable...

the moors are a near wasteland and no use for anything else the only use thay have is for sheep to graze. so theres no real waste if you put sheep or goats on them because theres no use for that type of land anyway

Originally posted by Aceofclubs

Originally posted by captaintyinknots

Originally posted by Essan
The point is that soya is produced by first burning down rainforests to grown the crops and then shipping the product to Britain. This has a higher carbon footprint than eating lambs raised on Welsh moors.

The best solution is to eat what you like, but source it locally

And grazing land comes from...where?

The argument that rainforests are burned down more for veggies than for grazing is false to the point of being laughable...

the moors are a near wasteland and no use for anything else the only use thay have is for sheep to graze. so theres no real waste if you put sheep or goats on them because theres no use for that type of land anyway

You missed the point. The same can be said about a lot of the marsh land where I live in Oregon.

You cannot produce enough on these lands to supply what is needed, however.

reply to post by cushycrux


Guilty by association, I presume?

Correlation does not imply causation.

I can very easily attribute the findings posted in that graph to the population jump.....Baby Boomers!

-Dev

Originally posted by captaintyinknots
............
There is no possible way that it can be factually argued that the damage done by producing meat is outdone by growing veggies, which actually REPLENISH the land, not destroy it.

Really?... didn't you know that cows take dumps and a good dump by hundreds, if not thousands of cows is good for the soil?....

Why can't you people be veggans if you want and leave everyone else choose what they want instead of wanting to push your way of life onto everyone else?....

The old excuse of "being a veggie saves the Earth" is nothing more than nonsensical rhetoric by a bunch of people who want to push their way of life onto everyone else....

I don't care if you want to be a veggie, but i care when you people make up lies and try to push your way of life onto everyone else...

I don't care if you have a sense of "self-righteousness" but nothing you veggans, and environmentalists do helps the environment, more so when your demands have brought upon legislation, and research for atmospheric CO2 sequestration which will be the worse environmental impact caused by mankind.

You can forget about oil spills, or illegal deforestation...the work of environmentalists will forever destroy the rainforests, and all green biomass of Earth because of them wanting to tax to death, and sequester atmospheric CO2...

For all of their "wanting to save the Earth" environmentalists haven't learnt yet that atmospheric CO2 is actually good for the environment and for all green biomass of the planet, not to mention that it also benefits animals, and humans.


[edit on 12-2-2010 by ElectricUniverse]

Originally posted by captaintyinknots

And grazing land comes from...where?

The argument that rainforests are burned down more for veggies than for grazing is false to the point of being laughable...

Originally posted by Aceofclubs
the moors are a near wasteland and no use for anything else the only use thay have is for sheep to graze. so theres no real waste if you put sheep or goats on them because theres no use for that type of land anyway

i ansered the question you asked, i never missed anything. in the uk the moors are huge and can be used much more than thay are already. the article is about the uk

so where dose the land come from? its already there.
That was my point

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse

Originally posted by captaintyinknots
............
There is no possible way that it can be factually argued that the damage done by producing meat is outdone by growing veggies, which actually REPLENISH the land, not destroy it.

Really?... didn't you know that cows take dumps and a good dump by hundreds, if not thousands of cows is good for the soil?....

Why can't you people be veggans if you want and leave everyone else choose what they want instead of wanting to push your way of life onto everyone else?....

The old excuse of "being a veggie saves the Earth" is nothing more than nonsensical rhetoric by a bunch of people who want to push their way of life onto everyone else....

I don't care if you want to be a veggie, but i care when you people make up lies and try to push your way of life onto everyone else...

I don't care if you have a sense of "self-righteousness" but nothing you veggans, and environmentalists do helps the environment, more so when your demands have brought upon legislation, and research for atmospheric CO2 sequestration which will be the worse environmental impact caused by mankind.

You can forget about oil spills, or illegal deforestation...the work of environmentalists will forever destroy the rainforests, and all green biomass of Earth because of them wanting to tax to death, and sequester atmospheric CO2...

For all of their "wanting to save the Earth" environmentalists haven't learnt yet that atmospheric CO2 is actually good for the environment and for all green biomass of the planet, not to mention that it also benefits animals, and humans.


[edit on 12-2-2010 by ElectricUniverse]

1)Sure. You do realize that the damage done to the soil by grazing takes YEARS to recover, and that the decomposition of compost (dumps as you put it) takes quite a while as well, and actually hurts the soil before it helps it, right?

2)I'm not vegan, nice try though. And as I saw it, this article and thread was painting vegans negatively. So who is pushing what on who here?

3)I never said anything about 'being a veggie saves the earth" nor do I think that. Try to not put words in people's mouths-it makes you look foolish.

4)You are straying quite a ways off topic here.

5)I am no environmentalist, but your assertion of them is asinine.

6)Again, you are straying off topic.

Oops, your whole pose just got destroyed....

reply to post by Aceofclubs


Still missing the point. I a not going to explain it again.

Well I agree that the vegetarian vs. meat debate is too simplified. When I studied sustainability in Costa Rica for a college semester -- School of Field Studies, 1992 -- you could see the major

erosion

from the cattle. But this was because of the monocultural agribusiness for export to the U.S. forcing the local campesinos to use the worst land on the steepest hills for cattle grazing.

Traditionally, of course, the crop was the "milpa" or corn and beans -- which, btw, makes a complete protein.

In fact traditional cultures around the world have combined grains to make complete proteins.

But the best kind of farming is more like seasonal horticulture -- or even better is just "gathering" plants. The traditional rice crop where I'm from -- Minnesota -- is harvested from lakes where the rice grows naturally -- and it's slapped into a canoe.

Whereas the farm crop was the "three sisters" -- beans, corn and squash. These were fertilized with fish but the beans are nitrogen fixers for the corn and squash.

Then for the winter deer were "harvested." But when John Jacob Astor set up the Northwest Fur Company -- the Natives were found to not trap animals for profit.

Rhoda Gilman documented in the MN Historical Society that the fur trappers from Europe intentionally got the indigenous first nations to be alcoholic and only then would the animals be trapped into extirpation -- local extinction.

So finally the indigenous tribes were forced to eat muskrat for food -- which is foul tasting.

Anyway there's been a huge explosion of humans due to the Western farming -- which is plow-based farming -- whereas Asian and African and Native farming in the New world relied on a foot plow at most but usually a hoe or a thin plow behind the water buffalo -- but there were not large rectilinear fields -- it was using terraces.

Domestication of animals coevolved with rectilinear plow-based farming -- through what Dr Jacques Cauvin calls the "symbolic revolution" of 9,000 BCE in Western Asia.

Before that, for example the Senufo in Ivory Coast, there were circular houses to symbolize the Lunar cycles -- the Natives in the U.S. relied on the lunar cycle to determine their hunter-gathering food cycle as well.

But the lunar circular houses were all destroyed when the symbolic revolution took place as solar rectilinear technology is easier for geometric expansion.

And with it the population explosion and the environmental crisis. The book "Ecological Imperialism" by Professor Alfred Crosby is an excellent expose about the "monocultures of the mind" behind Western agricultural expansion.

In fact the Greek word for tragedy comes from the word for goat. There's a reason that the Green Sahara of 3500 BCE is now a vast desert with wars driven by the water crisis (Sudan and Palestine, for example).

reply to post by ElectricUniverse




[edit on 12-2-2010 by drew hempel]

Do you wish to debate the topic, or discuss the posters? I am only here for the former. Continue to make this a ME vs YOU debate, and I will desengage, as anyone with even the slightest bit of experience in actual debate knows that:
a)Only topics can be debated, not people;
b)the continual deflecting of the topics to the people is a sure sign of someone who cant stay n the debate, and/or has a diminished IQ.

You made this a me vs. you debate as soon as you told me I had no place in this conversation.....because I asked a question.

You don't have to disengage; I'll do so gladly. My dminished IQ has put me at an obvious disadvantage debating you.

Enjoy

-Dev

[edit on 12-2-2010 by DevolutionEvolvd]

[edit on 12-2-2010 by DevolutionEvolvd]

Originally posted by DevolutionEvolvd

Do you wish to debate the topic, or discuss the posters? I am only here for the former. Continue to make this a ME vs YOU debate, and I will desengage, as anyone with even the slightest bit of experience in actual debate knows that:
a)Only topics can be debated, not people;
b)the continual deflecting of the topics to the people is a sure sign of someone who cant stay n the debate, and/or has a diminished IQ.

You made this a me vs. you debate as soon as you told me I had no place in this conversation.....because I asked a question.

You don't have to disengage; I'll do so gladly. My dminished IQ has put me at an obvious disadvantage debating you.

Enjoy

-Dev

False. Go back and reread. You turned this into a matter of debating the posters, not the topic.

Sorry, your feelings got hurt.

My post directed at "other posters" has nothing to do with this thread. We have a history, and I sure as hell don't want to get into BS that typically follows him around.

You'll learn, once you've been around long enough, that certain posters have certain tendencies. Thank you for hurting my feelings, I'll go hide in mutter now.

-Dev

Originally posted by captaintyinknots

1)Sure. You do realize that the damage done to the soil by grazing takes YEARS to recover, and that the decomposition of compost (dumps as you put it) takes quite a while as well, and actually hurts the soil before it helps it, right?

For crying out loud.... even farming takes a toll on the soil and crops must be rotated not to mention that the soil must be allowed to recover.... the same has to be done in grazing....

Again nice try, but you are showing that you have no idea on what you are tlaking about...

If a parcel of land is over produced, and neglected it would not produce vegetable, or any harvest again for a long while....

Originally posted by captaintyinknots
2)I'm not vegan, nice try though. And as I saw it, this article and thread was painting vegans negatively. So who is pushing what on who here?

You seemed to be overprotective of vegans, and btw i did say "all you people", wasn't refering to you specifically....

Originally posted by captaintyinknots
3)I never said anything about 'being a veggie saves the earth" nor do I think that. Try to not put words in people's mouths-it makes you look foolish.

But that is the motto of most, if not all vegans... We have had several threads in the past in which vegans claim that to save the planet people must become vegans....

For example....

Save the planet - become a vegan
20 April 2007

David Nibert
Eating cow flesh isn't just cruel to animals, says David Nibert. It has led to untold human suffering and is now wrecking our environment

Since I became an advocate for animals - living as a vegan on ethical and political grounds and focusing my scholarship on animal issues - I have been reproached by friends, family and colleagues. They urge that, instead, I should focus on discussing and helping to alleviate human suffering. I respond that this is exactly what I am doing. The oppression and suffering of animals and of so many humans are too closely tied together to separate. Work that helps eliminate animal oppression helps marginalised and devalued human beings as well.
..........

www.timeshighereducation.co.uk...

Notice how the vegan above includes "ethics" and"politics" for being a good vegan....apart from his claim that to save the Earth people must become vegans....

This same claim is regurgitated by many, if not most vegans. There are exceptions but in general that is the motto of vegans these days....

Originally posted by captaintyinknots
4)You are straying quite a ways off topic here.

Not i am not... the sequestration of atmospheric CO2 will destroy environments around the world.... it is part of what is being discussed....

Originally posted by captaintyinknots
5)I am no environmentalist, but your assertion of them is asinine.

Not really, it is the truth.... Environmntalists have been going after CO2, and carbon for decades, and both are needed by life on this planet...both animals, and all plant life....

Originally posted by captaintyinknots
6)Again, you are straying off topic.

Again, not true, and o matter how many times you keep claiming this it doesn't make it true....

The post is about "vegetarians are destroying the environment", and vegetarians ar environmentalists....

Originally posted by captaintyinknots
Oops, your whole pose just got destroyed....

By your nonsensical rhetoric?.... nice try...