Go Vegetarian - Save the World!

[Aramike]

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6891362.ece

Interesting enough...
People will need to consider turning vegetarian if the world is to conquer climate change, according to a leading authority on global warming.
In an interview with The Times (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6891287.ece), Lord Stern of Brentford said: “Meat is a wasteful use of water and creates a lot of greenhouse gases. It puts enormous pressure on the world’s resources. A vegetarian diet is better.” ...but this...
He predicted that people’s attitudes would evolve until meat eating became unacceptable. “I think it’s important that people think about what they are doing and that includes what they are eating,” he said. “I am 61 now and attitudes towards drinking and driving have changed radically since I was a student. People change their notion of what is responsible. They will increasingly ask about the carbon content of their food.” ...reminded me of an old Stallone movie called "Demolition Man", where his character wakes up in a world where anything that might be bad for you is banned (including meat).

His prediction is wrong, by the way, and his analogy of drunk driving couldn't be more off-base. Drunk driving has an immediately visible, dangerous effect. Eating meat ... mmmmmmmm ....

Steaks at my house. Who's in?

[Ilpalazzo]

What would you say if I called you a brutish fossil, symbolic of a decayed era, gratefully forgotten?

[Morts]

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6891362.ece

Interesting enough......but this......reminded me of an old Stallone movie called "Demolition Man", where his character wakes up in a world where anything that might be bad for you is banned (including meat).

His prediction is wrong, by the way, and his analogy of drunk driving couldn't be more off-base. Drunk driving has an immediately visible, dangerous effect. Eating meat ... mmmmmmmm ....

Steaks at my house. Who's in?

MEAT IS MURDER......tasty tasty murder :D

[DeerHunter UK]

Kangaroos will be the saviours of meat eaters everywhere...hopefully. They have some bacteria in their gut which prevent the build up of gasses, so in effect kangaroos cannot pass wind...they don't need to. Scientists are trying to see if this bacteria can be put into cows for the same effect.
I saw it on QI.

[CaptainHaplo]

It would be a heck of a drive - but I like steak! :up:

Actually - vegetarian diets create alot of carbon and "other" gases as well. Guess this guy never considered the body's natural reaction to a salad.....

[Skybird]

The desastrous consequences to the environment of producing meat for mass consummation cannot be denied, they are too obvious. That does not only mean the infamous methane-debate, but transportation of cattle, of food to keep it alive in the big cattle farms in the US, falling ground water levels, desertification, etc. Everybody reading even a bit about the matter must come to that conclusion, it cannot be avoided. I talk of mass production of meat on industrial levels, not the local farmer having some animals in the barn to use them for his own family only.

Also, the ammount of kilograms of crop and water needed to produce 1 kilogram of meat is so insanely high that the calcualtion in the long run does not appear to be justifiable in the face of 7 billion people needed to get fed.

Finally, studies of the past 2 years showed a strong link between social class and meat consummation. The higher the social class and the education level, the less meat gets consumed in such families. Meat has become a food for the masses of low educational standard and knowledge, where the meat consumation falls the higher the educational level is. This compares to the link between obesiety and social class/educational standard. Many poor families tend towards becoming obese becasue they lack the knoweldge to stay away from sugared soft drinks and chips and unhealthy fast food.Unfortunately, these unhealthy - I would even say: venomous - foods often are the ones being cheap (because the demand is high and so the prices fall), and so they get consumed by the poor lacking the education to know about their unhealthy nature. and so you have the phenomeneon of so many people living by wellfare - being fat.

I do not go that far to propagate vegetarianism. I have been that for ten years, but then eased by stand a bit becasue occaisonally I simply like a normal old fashioned steak with butter and herbs and salt and pepper and then nothing. I enjoy the taste of it. but These days I eat meat very rarely, it simply is no need of mine. I also feel better when concentrating more on crop. In ancient Rome, there have been several revolts by legionaires if they had meat only for longer periods of time and during wars, but no crop. they felt weakneed if only eating meat. The healthy consequences of eating more crops has been known already back then.

So instead of calling for a zero-meat policy, I would call for a dratsical reduction of meat. Try to keep it at once per week only. and you may find over time that you can live with even lesser opportunities, after some time. I can and I got there without even thinking about it. I have meat once or twice per month.

The problem is that 7 billion people is simply much to much crowds on this panet. Doctors tell you to eat fish regularly. but the fact is that already now, all types of table fish have become rare, one third of them being endangered by extinction. the stocks of fish has been overfished, and very very massively so. We have fished the oceans empty in many places, and if we all would folloow the doctor's calls, it would mean cataclysm for the planet, like it also means cataclysm for the planet if every person on earth would live by Western material standards and every family would get a car and every family would consume as much water like we do over here, and every family would run as many electronic devices in the household as we do.

Our living standards in the first world are simply far too excessive, and we are several billion too many people in the whole world. Too much is too much, there is no workaround to deal with the desastrous consequences. much of our ways we take as granted are not only threatening our own perrsonal health, but are hazardous to the sphere of life on this planet as well.

[OneToughHerring]

Kangaroos will be the saviours of meat eaters everywhere...hopefully. They have some bacteria in their gut which prevent the build up of gasses, so in effect kangaroos cannot pass wind...they don't need to. Scientists are trying to see if this bacteria can be put into cows for the same effect.
I saw it on QI.

It's not a question of how much wind the intended food animal passes, it's about the whole meat producing infrastructure at place.

[SteamWake]

http://i259.photobucket.com/albums/hh312/UlteriorModem/vegan.jpg

[SS107.9MHz]

Kangaroos will be the saviours of meat eaters everywhere...hopefully. They have some bacteria in their gut which prevent the build up of gasses, so in effect kangaroos cannot pass wind...they don't need to. Scientists are trying to see if this bacteria can be put into cows for the same effect.
I saw it on QI.

NO TIME FOR THAT! cOME ON KANGAROO, JUMP INTO MY BELLY!:O:

[SS107.9MHz]

I tend to agree with Skybird on this one, and also I rather eat less meat and for it to be good (very good) than to eat lousy unsavory meat everyday... And it seems to get aharder everyday to get good meat, most of it only comes from some Butcherhouses... very rarely from supermarkets, even when they have dedicated venues.

[ETR3(SS)]

I got a great idea! Let's just kill all the animals all over the planet. This will reduce carbon emissions by infinity billion tons a year!

/end sarcasm

Seriously if we all become vegetarian then what will we do with the all the livestock? I doubt the bleeding hearts of the vegans will find wholesale slaughter for no reason acceptable. Aramike I'm comin over for that steak, I'll even bring the baked beans.

[NeonSamurai]

That one is simple really, any change in dietary consumption on a large scale would at best be gradual, and the animal stocks would gradually shrink as well.

Anyhow I also agree with Skybird in this case based on all the information I have acquired on the subject. My diet is also very low in meat and fish.

I would point out though that a fair amount of what farm animals are fed is not fit for human consumption, but for a well rounded diet they do need the other kinds of food too.

The big one though is cutting back on the human population which is totally out of control.

[FIREWALL]

I'm kinda Vegan... I always have a big baked potato with my 2" steak. :haha:

[August]

Since my heart attack I limit my meat consumption to bison and fish.

[Oberon]

Count me in on that steak, but yeah, the primary problem is supply and demand. With medical facilities in the western world constantly improving and continued aid to 'Third world' nations, as well as the growing populations of the 'Second world' nations we are outgrowing our own supply. Compounding this problem is the 'First World' nations steadily growing elderly population, so people are living longer as well as producing offspring at a continued rate, death rates are down, but birth rates are unchanged, and diseases are contained easier (for the most part) than before. So the only thing left to rebalance populations is human events (war) or natural events (earthquakes, volcanos) but in this age, we are predicting natural events with enough time to save lives, and trying to reduce the number of wars.
All good things morally, but it increases the population, and at the same time, environmental concerns (be it through natural or man-made events) are also effecting the food production rate.
Still, such a trend cannot continue indefinately, so we'll either create crops which produce more food, find a way to create food from other resources (replicators?), have a large scale natural disaster to lower population levels or suffer a global famine, but probably only after several largescale wars over food supply.
And to be frank, going veggie won't do a bloody thing.
So, I'll have some fries with my steak please Aramike :rock:

[nikimcbee]

Kinda long drive, sure. Will it be BBQ?:woot: You need Neal's dad for that. (Texas BBQ:woot::yeah:)

So this dope wants to limit carbon intake in is diet? Last time I checked, all living material was carbon based.

They really need to tag this as a religion (veganism). I don't mind the concept of a healthy vegiterian diet, because it is healthy way to eat, but to save the planet.:har::har::har::har::har::har::har::har::ha r::har:

[Ilpalazzo]

The big one though is cutting back on the human population which is totally out of control.

Word. It's insane

I was going to type something in bad taste in regards to overpopulation, but decided not to:88)

Suffice to say, I am doing my part and not having any kids in my life. Actually I just hate kids, but saying that I'm helping the world makes me sound awesome.:rock:

ps. I hope Aramike responds to my first post properly. So help me if you don't say it!

[Aramike]

What would you say if I called you a brutish fossil, symbolic of a decayed era, gratefully forgotten?I don't know ... thanks?

:up:

[August]

I don't know ... thanks?

:up:

Well *I* like you! :D

[Task Force]

LOL I WANT ME STEAK!!!

But how does he thing that stuff gets harvested... Hey buddy its the 21st century, we dont go out in the feild and pick stuff by hand anymore.:rotfl2: Does a tractor make polution, yes, does chemicals dirty up the water, yes, do vegtables need to be transported by truck, yes... This guy kind of reminds me of someone from PETA...

[Shearwater]

Another example of how a reasonable premise can be ruined by a bad conclusion of what should be done about it. People don't take too well to being moralized, but because of his doing so many people will probably doubt his statistics in the first place.

[August]

LOL I WANT ME STEAK!!!

But how does he thing that stuff gets harvested... Hey buddy its the 21st century, we dont go out in the feild and pick stuff by hand anymore.:rotfl2: Does a tractor make polution, yes, does chemicals dirty up the water, yes, do vegtables need to be transported by truck, yes... This guy kind of reminds me of someone from PETA...

Actually I've been eating hand picked vegetables all summer long.

[Task Force]

Actually I've been eating hand picked vegetables all summer long.

yea but is the rest of the populas gonna eat hand picked vegtables... no there gonna go to the store and get a bunch of commercial stuff, that a farmer was going to grow... and a farmer isnt going to hire abunch of people to pick and help grow vegtables... no hese gonna pull out a tractor and use that to do that...

and if its a bad season, and theres not enough to go around, then there will be a world food crisis... and the meat will be gone...

[totodog]

We need mass genocides to reduce the population. :mad::mad::mad:

[Task Force]

or abunch of bad carrots...

[Skybird]

We need mass genocides to reduce the population. :mad::mad::mad:

Locally that already takes place, Ruanda being a prime example. I recently have read an interesting analysis in a book about the genocide in ruanda, and understood that it has had very different reasons then what usually was reported. It was about populationpressure in extremely densed social environment, explosive social pressure due to the social order collapsing down to family levels, and simply not sufficient farming grounds available for all.

We know from animals experiments, that if you put too many rats into a cage, they start to attack, bite and kill each other, not only when food is lacking, but the stress is too much and turns them into zombies. That is what has happened in Ruanda. Other examples could be given, too.

So far such events are locally only. But in case of Africa and SE Asia, they could turn into wildfires including the whole continent. It could also affect the megacities in the rest of the world, which includes Western metropoles becoming ungovernable. In parts and some sectors, many huge cities in the West already are that: ungovernable. Rioting, anarchy, civil war looming under the horizon. Burning suburbs in Paris, racial riots in LA, war-like street fighting in Rio, and the police in Berlin no longer daring to enter certain sectors of the city anymore, are just the prelude. You can have as much high tech as you want, sooner or later the police is fighting in a lost post.

Think of it as the Rat Opera.

[Oberon]

Locally that already takes place, Ruanda being a prime example. I recently have read an interesting analysis in a book about the genocide in ruanda, and understood that it has had very different reasons then what usually was reported. It was about populationpressure in extremely densed social environment, explosive social pressure due to the social order collapsing down to family levels, and simply not sufficient farming grounds available for all.

We know from animals experiments, that if you put too many rats into a cage, they start to attack, bite and kill each other, not only when food is lacking, but the stress is too much and turns them into zombies. That is what has happened in Ruanda. Other examples could be given, too.

So far such events are locally only. But in case of Africa and SE Asia, they could turn into wildfires including the whole continent. It could also affect the megacities in the rest of the world, which includes Western metropoles becoming ungovernable. In parts and some sectors, many huge cities in the West already are that: ungovernable. Rioting, anarchy, civil war looming under the horizon. Burning suburbs in Paris, racial riots in LA, war-like street fighting in Rio, and the police in Berlin no longer daring to enter certain sectors of the city anymore, are just the prelude. You can have as much high tech as you want, sooner or later the police is fighting in a lost post.

Think of it as the Rat Opera.

Bingo. And one could think of it as a very brutal and primitive form of Darwins law, survival of the fittest. Those who are able to slash and cut their way to the top will live, those who cannot, will die, and thus the cycle will begin again.
Primitive, but the basic things are.

[Skybird]

Bingo. And one could think of it as a very brutal and primitive form of Darwins law, survival of the fittest. Those who are able to slash and cut their way to the top will live, those who cannot, will die, and thus the cycle will begin again.
Primitive, but the basic things are.

I am afraid history very often shows not the cycle starting new, but that cultures behaving like this sooner or later reached a level where they extincted themselves. surviving only those regional cultures did who managed to run their business in a way that maintained the basis of supply with natural ressources, and that were able to understand that the country/place they were living in only could afford so and so many people using its ressoruces, and not more. There are several other factors as well deciding whether or not a civilisation falls. Interaction with others, for example, and the availability of needed ressources in the place one was living, and the dependence or independence from others. But where ressources were rare or one depended on others or overpoluation was allowed while not seeing the need to stockpile reserves instead of wasting ressources for ever-continuing growth and population explosions, such cultures were doomed to vanish, and often the way in which they did was everything from peaceful and unspectaclar.

Once again, for the fourth or fifth time, I recommend this great book by Jared Diamond, "Collapse - How Societies Choose To Fail Or Succeed". It really is an eye opener. It should become mandatory reading in schools and for every politician and business boss. The truths it outlines and then proves by the examples from history, are so obvious, and so simple. A whole lot of deep insight into the reasons behind civilisational collapse or survival you get in just one book. It could not become much more pragmatic. His narration style is such that it pulls you through the book, although it is no small one.

Next week I plan to start again with his former book, "Guns, Germs and Steel - The Fates of Human Societies", which won the Pulitzer. Both books are somewhat supplementary to each other, focussing on the same general theme - why civilisations fall or survive - but explaining them by focussing on different factors if the general answer to this question.

We are on a terrible road to hell where we believe that we must always grow, especially this suicidal idea of every growing economies just seals our death sentence in the long run. Birth control, and reaching a state of dynamic homeostasis on a size level were our consummation of ressopurces does not deplete the planetary ressources, but where the planet can refill and compensate them - this instead of everlasting growth should be our focus. But history nows not a single example where a civilisation growing beyond this critical point ever reduced itself and than maintained it's existence on that standard. Civilisations either took care to not step beyond this red line, and survived for long periods of times, or they stepped beyomnd this red line, and collapsed some time later. that's why realiostic attitude leads toeards seeing the chances for civilisational survbial of man in a globalised world extremely pessimistic. Many have been before where we are today - but nobody ever succeeded, as far as I know. Sicne we today are the first truly gloobal civilisational our species has ever formed, the collapse we head for at racing speed - demanding to press the gas pedal even faster! - will not be a regional one, but a global one.

Total collapse.

[Oberon]

Good point, although I was thinking more in terms of humanity as opposed to societies, but in a narrower term, yes, some societies will die out, pretty spectacularly, no doubt taking other societies with them, but eventually there will rise those who, as you say, lived within their means, and thus they will begin a new hegemony whilst the planet restocks itself, expanding into the vacuums left by their fallen comrades. Eventually as technology rebuilds and we claw our way back up, we will find ourselves back at the beginning.
Of course, such thinking beyond the inevitable collapse is a latticework of 'ifs' and 'maybes', but I will have to look up Jared Diamond. Thanks for the recommendation, I must have missed your earlier mentions.

There is one question though, one that I'm sure is plaguing all politicians minds right about now. What do we do to prevent such a collapse?
Certainly the first thing that must go is the realm of Political Correctness, as so long as society is cushioned by this comfort blanket, no hard decisions pertaining to the future of society can be made. Beyond that? Forced family planning? One child per family?
Or is it too late already? :hmmm:

[Skybird]

I have added some things to my posting, possibly while you replied. It seems your reply leaves out these parts, therefore.

I just reiterate: we are the first truly global society on this planet, with our economy globalised as well. what effects the one, sooner or later will effect all the others as well. the geographical borders of the past, due to spacing and long travelling times, do not count anymore. The regional separation of local societies, does not work as a model anymore.

Well, more I cannot say to it all. the perspective I find to be extremely depressing. If my grim assessment shouold be correct, then the only choice we still have is in what style and attitude we will face our fate: hysterically yelling and hectically waving arms and running in panic over the bodies of the already fallen while trying to reach the resuce boats that are not aboard anyway, or - well, differently. With some more calm and grace, maybe. The choice is up to the individual only, of course, a matter of individual temperament, class and education. But as a global society, of course we will run amok and wage war and terror.

[Oberon]

Yes, I saw the added bit just after posting mine but could not think of what to add. :haha:
It is a rather depressing view, I cannot deny it, but surely one would have thought that at least a handful would survive, those 'on board the boats' perhaps and thus begin again with the greater resources available due to the decline of population? Naturally I suspect those will be governmental members :03:
Or perhaps I have too much hope for humanity within me and how we would face the total collapse of society.

Would, in your opinion, the collapse of the global society result in total instant collapse, or a more gradual splintering collapse, with the decline in the use of technology through the destruction thus fracturing the global society and saving it from complete collapse?

[Skybird]

Well, history knows many examples were societies indeed died down to the last man and women. I do not think this would be the fate of us, we would probably survive biologically, scattered around in small tribal communities, maybe some local small "kingdoms" run in authoritarian ways, but our global culture, the structure of our global society , the global communication, in short: what we call civilisation, developement, industry, economy, transportation - all that we would see collapsing. Global population numbers nevertheless would fall dramatically. Losses of up to 80, even 90% are imaginable.

It depends on the changes in the biosphere caused by climate change as well as man's actiivty in poisening the environment, wiping out other species, destroying fertile ground and functional ecological sub-systems. this planet has seen environmental changes in the past hundreds of millions of years that have caused most species to die out, in at least two cases the extinction of all life was almost complete and life needed to start all over again at almost zero, with complete new designs. Also, sometimes failed designs were deleted by evolution to begin with something very new again.

If such desastrous changes should take place, then man of course will not escape them, since he is more fragile and depending a creature than many other (lower organisms). In case of destruction of hierarchical orders, these structures become destroyed in the revese order in which they have formed up. Mammals are pretty much at the top of the hierarchy, and they will die first. Bacteria on the other hand will be amongst the last species dying out.

[Ilpalazzo]

I don't know ... thanks?

:up:

:salute:

Have you ever figured out that three seashells thing?

According to Stallone (apparently);
OK, this may be bordering on the grotesque, but the way it was explained to me by the writer is you hold two seashells like chopsticks, pull gently and scrape what’s left with the third. You asked for it…. Be careful what you ask for, sorry.

oh and hey I found a drawn image of the process. Would you like to see?

[Oberon]

Well, history knows many examples were societies indeed died down to the last man and women. I do not think this would be the fate of us, we would probably survive biologically, scattered around in small tribal communities, maybe some local small "kingdoms" run in authoritarian ways, but our global culture, the structure of our global society , the global communication, in short: what we call civilisation, developement, industry, economy, transportation - all that we would see collapsing. Global population numbers nevertheless would fall dramatically. Losses of up to 80, even 90% are imaginable.

It depends on the changes in the biosphere caused by climate change as well as man's actiivty in poisening the environment, wiping out other species, destroying fertile ground and functional ecological sub-systems. this planet has seen environmental changes in the past hundreds of millions of years that have caused most species to die out, in at least two cases the extinction of all life was almost complete and life needed to start all over again at almost zero, with complete new designs. Also, sometimes failed designs were deleted by evolution to begin with something very new again.

If such desastrous changes should take place, then man of course will not escape them, since he is more fragile and depending a creature than many other (lower organisms). In case of destruction of hierarchical orders, these structures become destroyed in the revese order in which they have formed up. Mammals are pretty much at the top of the hierarchy, and they will die first. Bacteria on the other hand will be amongst the last species dying out.

Hmmm, good points, and funnily enough I was thinking about the same thing last night after I logged off, furthermore, the wars leading up to the collapse whilst technology is still available would further drain the limited resources we have available and damage the environment further (nuclear detonations and so forth). Definately a case of the living envying the dead there. I dare say though, that once we have moved on, perhaps a new species will arise as dominance, as mammals took over after the age of the reptiles had passed. I wonder, should they gain the 'intellect' of ours, what they would make of our remains? Will one day our skeletons hang in a museum as an example of a species which suddenly disappeared due to an extinction event?
Perplexing thoughts. :hmmm:

[NeonSamurai]

Personally I believe we are already very close to that edge, and a strong candidate for our destruction right now will be bees (another candidate would be environmental collapse).

If you haven't heard by now bees are dying out due to a mysterious ailment called Colony Collapse Disorder (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colony_collapse_disorder). Entire hives have been mysteriously emptying since 2006. This is a huge problem as something like 90-95% of our food crops are reliant on bee pollination (only wind pollinated crops would be unaffected). Most of the plants in the world are polinated almost entirely by bees If bee populations across the globe fall dramatically we are talking mass starvation. If they happened to go extinct, we and many other animals would be in serious trouble, along with large sections of food producing plants (no more or very limited reproduction for them). Also there have been signs that its not only honey bees that are being affected (its harder to monitor wild native bee populations though).

All of this from one small little insect most of us rarely even think about.

[Platapus]

I cut out beef and pork from my diet last year and my doctor was very pleased at my cholesterol level 64! (and I was up in the 200+ zone prior).

However, everyone should eat what ever the hell they want to eat. Just know that if you are eating anything "bad" there may be consequences later in life. :yeah:

[August]

However, everyone should eat what ever the hell they want to eat. Just know that if you are eating anything "bad" there may be consequences later in life. :yeah:

Ah but if your fellow citizens are paying your health care bills shouldn't they have a say in what you eat so your bad choices don't cost them extra later on?

[Platapus]

Ah but if your fellow citizens are paying your health care bills shouldn't they have a say in what you eat so your bad choices don't cost them extra later on?

That would be a very difficult matter to handle. One of our basic freedoms in America is the freedom to be stupid if one wishes. We have been paying for smokers for decades....

[August]

That would be a very difficult matter to handle. One of our basic freedoms in America is the freedom to be stupid if one wishes. We have been paying for smokers for decades....

Good example. But smokers have been paying ever higher taxes for decades and I think we're not all that far from an outright ban.

I guess I just wonder how long the freedom to be stupid will last.

[CaptainHaplo]

The government will not ever ban tobacco. It makes too much money off it.

Federal, State and in some places, local taxes all contribute to the fact that the government makes more from every pack of smokes sold than does the company that produced them.

[NeonSamurai]

You think its bad there, you should try here where a pack of cigs was over 10$ a pack. Almost all of that is tax. But that's the Canadian government for you.