|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
CentralCali
Joined: 17 May 2007
|
 Posted: Sun Jun 22, 2008 11:23 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Big Bird: You might want to mention to the Guardian that it's CO[sub]2, not CO[squared]. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Bramble
Joined: 26 Jan 2007
Location: National treasures need homes
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 22, 2008 11:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Thunndarr wrote: |
| Quote: |
| What do you mean, no link? TexasPete posted the link, and BB quoted from it in a subsequent post. |
You know, as alluded to previously, maybe this is a current events thing that I just can't quite grasp. You see, it's not my habit to go scrolling through other posts when I'm looking for a link to the post I'M READING RIGHT NOW. Generally, I find it better for all concerned, when using a quote, to cite that quote within the same post, or to provide a link, again, within the same post. I don't know why that seems like an alien language to some of you. |
I haven't followed this thread super carefully either, as the whole thing has completely filled with garbage. But if you were following carefully enough to participate, I don't know why you'd jump down someone's throat for not providing a link that had already appeared ... or why you�d accuse someone of citing an unreliable source of information when the article was about where to look for more reliable information on the topic at hand.
To get back to the original subject, though, I really didn't care for the Guardian article. The moral argument is at the heart of the case for veg*nism, and I find it really irritating to see that swept aside. I don't think the author is going to get taken any more seriously by pretending to be something he's not or by minimizing the moral arguments in favour of side issues (which may possibly be open to debate in some cases). Even if �farmers� somehow manage to breed animals who don't require water, vegans will stay vegan and will continue to oppose animal slaughter. That's my 2 won. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Happy Warrior
Joined: 10 Feb 2010
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 09, 2010 8:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
| daskalos wrote: |
| Just, that statistic - 20-some-odd square meters of land for a kilo of meat - seems far-fetched to me, even as an average. Working out my friends' farm, I make it roughly out to 1 meter per kilo for three steers slaughtered per year, still more than an equivalent of lima beans, say, but far more satisfying, both in terms of protein yield and flavor. |
Turns out your suspicions are correct.
| Big Bird wrote: |
| Another thing that gets very little attention is the extraordinary amount of water that goes into producing meat. |
Turns out those statistics were overblown.
Monbiot: I was wrong about veganism. Let them eat meat � but farm it properly
Highlights:
| Quote: |
Instead of citing a simple conversion rate of feed into meat, we should be comparing the amount of land required to grow meat with the land needed to grow plant products of the same nutritional value to humans. The results are radically different.
Waste food in the UK, Fairlie calculates, could make 800,000 tonnes of pork, or one sixth of our total meat consumption.
Even though it is tilted by the profligate use of grain in rich countries, the global average conversion ratio of useful plant food to useful meat is not the 5:1 or 10:1 cited by almost everyone, but less than 2:1. If we stopped feeding edible grain to animals, we could still produce around half the current global meat supply with no loss to human nutrition: in fact it's a significant net gain.
Like many greens I have thoughtlessly repeated the claim that it requires 100,000 litres of water to produce every kilogram of beef. Fairlie shows that this figure is wrong by around three orders of magnitude. It arose from the absurd assumption that every drop of water that falls on a pasture disappears into the animals that graze it, never to re-emerge.
[And] the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation's famous claim that livestock are responsible for 18% of the world's greenhouse gas emissions, a higher proportion than transport. Fairlie shows that it made a number of basic mistakes. Overall, Fairlie estimates that farmed animals produce about 10% of the world's emissions: still too much, but a good deal less than transport. |
Meat diets are healthy, provided the meat is grass-fed instead of grain-fed or corn-fed. It turns out that grass-fed meat is fairly environmentally healthy, too.
The environmental superiority of the vegetarian position is steadily eroding. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 09, 2010 3:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Indeed. However this should not be surprising. Overblown claims and exaggerations are part and parcel of extremists of every stripe whether their cause is global warming or vegetarianism or animal rights or any other.
Always take information from such sources as suspect and highly biased. Then educate oneself on the topic. Certain posters in this thread have quite clearly demonstrated the foolishness of taking extremist claims at face value. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Chet Wautlands
Joined: 11 Oct 2008
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 09, 2010 4:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
It might sound heartless and all but if we are given two options:
ONE- A planet of 15 billion people where everyone eats soy products and drinks seaweed milk
or
TWO- A planet of 8 billion where people can eat whatever the hell they wish.
I choose option #2  [/quote]
You don't have that choice though. You can't convince people to stop reproducing. As an idea it's fine, but you can't put it into practice. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rothbard
Joined: 23 Aug 2010
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 09, 2010 4:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Chet Wautlands wrote: |
It might sound heartless and all but if we are given two options:
ONE- A planet of 15 billion people where everyone eats soy products and drinks seaweed milk
or
TWO- A planet of 8 billion where people can eat whatever the hell they wish.
I choose option #2 |
You don't have that choice though. You can't convince people to stop reproducing. As an idea it's fine, but you can't put it into practice.[/quote]
The Earth's population is believed to top out at around 12 billion by 2100 (I think, I might be pulling those figures out of the air). I don't see why all of those people can have our current standard of living, or better. Obviously, we have scarce resources, but we have one infinite resource which is human ingenuity.
Of course, people will still be complaining about inequality. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
comm
Joined: 22 Jun 2010
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 10, 2010 12:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Here's an idea: governments shouldnt allow their citizens to reproduce beyond the limits of their country's food production.
If you let people reproduce at an unconstrained rate, sooner or later the food will become too scarce, whether you're eating meat or not.
Hell, if I keep eating meat and that causes the world population to drop, that's less non-food resources being taken up by them as well. More starvation = lower carbon emissions = less global warming.
Medium rare please. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
balzor
Joined: 14 Feb 2009
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 14, 2010 8:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| crusher_of_heads wrote: |
| Outback Sunday night! |
Outback in Korea sucks. they don't know how to cook steaks and the meat is crappy. Maybe I'm just biased coming from Texas |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Hotwire
Joined: 29 Aug 2010
Location: Multiverse
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 14, 2010 8:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
No longer go there ^
Have had to send to many cold, grey, sad looking steaks back to be redone too many times.
VIPS do an okay steak I find. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
brento1138
Joined: 17 Nov 2004
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 28, 2010 4:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
It might sound heartless and all but if we are given two options:
ONE- A planet of 15 billion people where everyone eats soy products and drinks seaweed milk
or
TWO- A planet of 8 billion where people can eat whatever the hell they wish.
I choose option #2 |
Or...
Option THREE - A planet of 15 billion people where 1 billion people "the haves " drive cars, eat meat, money, etc, and rule with an iron fist over the 14 billion other people "the have nots" who, if they are lucky, can eat soy products and drink seaweed milk. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
