okay but you can't say that all or even most hunger in the world is because of deforestation... even if it was what is the point? I'm certainly not advocating cutting down forests. Yes drought is a significant factor but it is most definitely not the entire story.
lack of food akin to national debt? I don't know... money can be printed endlessly and its value can fluctuate and the countries that own that debt can call it in and taxes can be raised to decrease the debt or lowered and increase the debt.... Whereas one bushel of grain will feed X people and two bushels of grain will feed (X * 2) people. There is a relatively small carryover in world food supply now (60 days, used to be 150 just 10 years ago) and you might see in a few years (probably during your lifetime) why it is important to grow more food, certainly not less with organic ag.
my point is simply that the food system and supply do not work in isolation ... simply saying growing more food will feed more people does not account for many associated variables ... you can grow more food but if the consequences include degradation to the environment and potential risk to future food supply - is it worth it?
okay but you can't say that all or even most hunger in the world is because of deforestation... even if it was what is the point? I'm certainly not advocating cutting down forests. Yes drought is a significant factor but it is most definitely not the entire story.
lack of food akin to national debt? I don't know... money can be printed endlessly and its value can fluctuate and the countries that own that debt can call it in and taxes can be raised to decrease the debt or lowered and increase the debt.... Whereas one bushel of grain will feed X people and two bushels of grain will feed (X * 2) people. There is a relatively small carryover in world food supply now (60 days, used to be 150 just 10 years ago) and you might see in a few years (probably during your lifetime) why it is important to grow more food, certainly not less with organic ag.
my point is simply that the food system and supply do not work in isolation ... simply saying growing more food will feed more people does not account for many associated variables ... you can grow more food but if the consequences include degradation to the environment and potential risk to future food supply - is it worth it?
again, increased yields do not necessarily mean degradation to the environment. Sustainability is more important to farmers (the people who OWN the land and want to pass it on to their kids) more than anyone else. That isn't opinion, that is what I have witnessed from being in agriculture my entire life - both on the farm and in business/industry. If increased yields meant that the farmer would be hurting the land, he wouldn't do it because the land is the lifeblood of his operation.
I agree, increased supply doesn't necessarily mean feeding more people, but we sure as hell don't even have a chance if we decide to grow less or even the same as today, given the population increases to be seen this century.
The guy who predicted that population would eventually exceed the capacity of the planet's food capacity (his name escapes me) was wrong ONLY because of technology and modern farming practices that allow us to grow more food. -- Agriculture and Food Policy by Ronald Knutson (Paperback | ISBN10: 0131718738, ISBN13: 9780131718739) don't know which page...
Everything not forbidden is compulsory and eveything not compulsory is forbidden. You are free... free to do what the government says you can do.
okay but you can't say that all or even most hunger in the world is because of deforestation... even if it was what is the point? I'm certainly not advocating cutting down forests. Yes drought is a significant factor but it is most definitely not the entire story.
lack of food akin to national debt? I don't know... money can be printed endlessly and its value can fluctuate and the countries that own that debt can call it in and taxes can be raised to decrease the debt or lowered and increase the debt.... Whereas one bushel of grain will feed X people and two bushels of grain will feed (X * 2) people. There is a relatively small carryover in world food supply now (60 days, used to be 150 just 10 years ago) and you might see in a few years (probably during your lifetime) why it is important to grow more food, certainly not less with organic ag.
my point is simply that the food system and supply do not work in isolation ... simply saying growing more food will feed more people does not account for many associated variables ... you can grow more food but if the consequences include degradation to the environment and potential risk to future food supply - is it worth it?
again, increased yields do not necessarily mean degradation to the environment. Sustainability is more important to farmers (the people who OWN the land and want to pass it on to their kids) more than anyone else. That isn't opinion, that is what I have witnessed from being in agriculture my entire life - both on the farm and in business/industry. If increased yields meant that the farmer would be hurting the land, he wouldn't do it because the land is the lifeblood of his operation.
I agree, increased supply doesn't necessarily mean feeding more people, but we sure as hell don't even have a chance if we decide to grow less or even the same as today, given the population increases to be seen this century.
The guy who predicted that population would eventually exceed the capacity of the planet's food capacity (his name escapes me) was wrong ONLY because of technology and modern farming practices that allow us to grow more food. -- Agriculture and Food Policy by Ronald Knutson (Paperback | ISBN10: 0131718738, ISBN13: 9780131718739) don't know which page...
but isn't agriculture one of the main reasons our population started growing in the first place? it seems to me to be a vicious circle...
but isn't agriculture one of the main reasons our population started growing in the first place? it seems to me to be a vicious circle...
You are exactly right. In fact, agriculture is the start of all civilization. In the Nile river valley people domesticated livestock and started growing all their food in one place instead of being nomadic. Once people starting saving the best seeds and "genetically reprogramming" the crop their was a surplus of grain. Once there is a surplus of grain you need an army to protect it. For there to be an army there has to be a government... and it is all downhill from there!
But what is the alternative? Go back to living in the woods or in caves? (Personally, I am all for that) Pick and choose who we feed and "weed out" the weak ones... you know... social darwinism?
Everything not forbidden is compulsory and eveything not compulsory is forbidden. You are free... free to do what the government says you can do.
again, increased yields do not necessarily mean degradation to the environment. Sustainability is more important to farmers (the people who OWN the land and want to pass it on to their kids) more than anyone else. That isn't opinion, that is what I have witnessed from being in agriculture my entire life - both on the farm and in business/industry. If increased yields meant that the farmer would be hurting the land, he wouldn't do it because the land is the lifeblood of his operation.
I agree, increased supply doesn't necessarily mean feeding more people, but we sure as hell don't even have a chance if we decide to grow less or even the same as today, given the population increases to be seen this century.
The guy who predicted that population would eventually exceed the capacity of the planet's food capacity (his name escapes me) was wrong ONLY because of technology and modern farming practices that allow us to grow more food. -- Agriculture and Food Policy by Ronald Knutson (Paperback | ISBN10: 0131718738, ISBN13: 9780131718739) don't know which page...
i would argue that increased yield DO lead to environmental degradation more often than not ... it is just that sometimes they are not apparent because of it's indirect nature ... this degradation could be the result of increased use of chemicals, greenhouse gases, pollution, etc.. ... a farm may increase yields on an annual basis but rarely do they factor in their contribution to pollution or climate change ...
In regards to environmental degradation, you are entitled to your opinion. I'll just say that there have been significant advances in the way farmers manage the land. No-till or minimum till is used almost exclusively (little or no soil erosion), glyposphate ready crops allow farmers to use less pesticides (something like 1 ounce per acre) and they don't have to cultivate the land anymore (less fossil fuels, soil erosion, soil compaction), the USDA pays farmers to strip-till land and have strips of grass on hilly land to pull in the pesticides and minimize the amount going into the water... and there are many other practices that lead to sustainability.
Agriculture uses 16% (IIRC) of the consumed fossil fuels. Yes, that is a lot, and we should continue to find ways to decrease that number. But if you look at the fossil fuels consumed per bushel of grain or per dozen eggs or gallon of milk etc, I guarantee that the ratio is a small percentage of what it was 50 years ago.
Everything not forbidden is compulsory and eveything not compulsory is forbidden. You are free... free to do what the government says you can do.
I haven't read all of the posts but it seems to me there is an argument going on about organic vs. higher yield farming practices. I'm not a farmer, but the environmental costs and benefits of each of these practices seem pretty easy to identify. There are problems with both. If the solution is reverting the entire global economy back to sustenance farming, even that would have it's problems. You'd have to regulate how every individual maintains his private farm to prevent environmental degradation. But you couldn't, because all the regulators would have to spend all their time tending their own gardens.
I reluctantly abandoned vegetarianism when my doctor told me I may be predisposed to insulin resistance and I had to consume more fat and less soy.
In order to eat more fat you added MEAT?
Gosh, I hope there is a hell of a lot more to that story which you didn't include. Just a few of the wonderful vegetarian fats are chocolate, walnuts, peanut butter, sunflower seeds, olive oil, and flax/linseed, which is one of the richest sources of Omega-3 known to man.
Several months ago, I realised that I've been allergic to soy for nearly two years. I stopped consuming it. I did not run over to the Halal butcher and fill my face with flesh.
Yes, I did. Mostly fish and buffalo. I eat chicken and beef, but if I can substitute them for fish or buffalo (it's illegal to give buffalo hormones and they are usually raised in a more sustainable fashion than cows, and the meat is leaner). I very rarely will eat bacon if that is what is available, mostly just because I do like the taste of it, but other than that I really dislike pork products and disagree with a lot of pork farming practices. I don't eat stuff like lamb, veal, etc.
I was eating all of the healthy plant fats you mention- I was an extremely healthy vegetarian if I do say so myself. I also took fish oil supplements. I mostly became a vegetarian just because I never cared much about meat, and I figured that given the environmental benefits, etc, it made sense. For over a year I never really missed meat at all. However the hormonal issues I have continued to get worse and I was gaining weight and was very lethargic and everything. I never attributed any of it to vegetarianism, until I started reading a lot about the condition I have and time and time again the advice seemed to be, "it's not a good idea to be a vegetarian." Besides the fat and soy issues, when you are a vegetarian, you do end up getting more calories from carbohydrates than you do if you are a meat eater, obviously. And obviously that's not a great idea if you are trying to avoid insulin resistance and other hormonal imbalances. Finally my endocrinologist just suggested I go back to eating meat so as to get more of my daily calories from protein and fat rather than carbs (and to avoid having to eat as much soy).
I usually eat meat once a day now. As soon as I did, I started losing weight I had gained as a veg and just feeling overall better and with much more energy. My blood glucose wasn't bad when I was a vegetarian, but it's even better now. My cholesterol is slightly higher, but the levels of both my good and bad cholesterol were so good to begin with, this isn't a problem- I'm still well below the "normal" range for the bad and above for the good. I also just have to eat fewer calories. There are a ton of efficient plant foods, don't get me wrong. But I don't get hungry anymore while at the same time consuming fewer calories each day. My mood also just improved a lot. It's funny my mom said that once I gave up vegetarianism, the "light" came back to my face (though don't get me wrong, I once, years ago, tried the first two weeks of the South Beach Diet and I was in a baaaad mood that whole 2 weeks. For me, I think I need a good mix of different foods to keep the balance).
I'm not saying that everyone has to eat meat to be healthy and I DON'T have any agenda to promote meat. I just think that different people process different foods differently and have different dietary needs. I firmly believe that being a vegetarian is not always the healthier option as a lot of people think. I think that it may be better for men to be vegetarians than women, both because of hormonal issues and the fact that we don't produce as much of our muscle as men. And I think in general, food is "marketed" in such a way that it distorts people's decisions in choosing it.
I have to say I take some offense to your description of meat eaters as running off the butcher and filling their faces with flesh. As I think I have described, meat eating does not equal gluttony. I am really quite disgusted with the "filling my face with flesh" comment. I think I am quite a healthy person with a good grasp on both general nutrition and my own personal health needs. I even love animals and feel much empathy for them, but I do also believe that humans are omnivores and we have our place in the food chain. I do disagree with a lot of live stock farming practices, but I also disagree with a lot plant farming practices as well, and I don't believe that organic farming or vegetarianism is the solution to all problems and may even cause others.
Good god this was a great post! I definitely agree with you where you said humans are omnivores and that different people process foods differently and have different dietary needs, but the rest of it was great too.
I reluctantly abandoned vegetarianism when my doctor told me I may be predisposed to insulin resistance and I had to consume more fat and less soy.
In order to eat more fat you added MEAT?
Gosh, I hope there is a hell of a lot more to that story which you didn't include. Just a few of the wonderful vegetarian fats are chocolate, walnuts, peanut butter, sunflower seeds, olive oil, and flax/linseed, which is one of the richest sources of Omega-3 known to man.
Several months ago, I realised that I've been allergic to soy for nearly two years. I stopped consuming it. I did not run over to the Halal butcher and fill my face with flesh.
This smug venom is why many people disdain the vegan movement and its proponents. :twisted:
All the world will be your enemy, Prince with a thousand enemies, and whenever they catch you, they will kill you. But first they must catch you, digger, listener, runner, prince with the swift warning. Be cunning and full of tricks and your people shall never be destroyed.
I reluctantly abandoned vegetarianism when my doctor told me I may be predisposed to insulin resistance and I had to consume more fat and less soy.
In order to eat more fat you added MEAT?
Gosh, I hope there is a hell of a lot more to that story which you didn't include. Just a few of the wonderful vegetarian fats are chocolate, walnuts, peanut butter, sunflower seeds, olive oil, and flax/linseed, which is one of the richest sources of Omega-3 known to man.
Several months ago, I realised that I've been allergic to soy for nearly two years. I stopped consuming it. I did not run over to the Halal butcher and fill my face with flesh.
This smug venom is why many people disdain the vegan movement and its proponents. :twisted:
I have to say I take some offense to your description of meat eaters as running off the butcher and filling their faces with flesh. As I think I have described, meat eating does not equal gluttony. I am really quite disgusted with the "filling my face with flesh" comment. I think I am quite a healthy person with a good grasp on both general nutrition and my own personal health needs. I even love animals and feel much empathy for them, but I do also believe that humans are omnivores and we have our place in the food chain. I do disagree with a lot of live stock farming practices, but I also disagree with a lot plant farming practices as well, and I don't believe that organic farming or vegetarianism is the solution to all problems and may even cause others.
I'm sorry, Lauri. I was talking about me filling my face. I was raised on meat, and ate it for 30 years. I like to use the words flesh and lactation to challenge people because they are more honest than the silly euphemisms "meat" and "milk." A lot of people I talk to never think about where such substances come from before they appear on supermarket shelves. I always found it refreshing that in Spanish, the word carne is the only word for flesh/meat. The language doesn't differentiate between the flesh on a person and the meat of a killed animal.
This smug venom is why many people disdain the vegan movement and its proponents. :twisted:
I'm sorry, tybird. I did not think my post was venomous. I get called all manner of swears and insults online. (Usually for offering an opinion, and then typing, "Do your own research.") I'm sorry if this one went too far. I will try to be more bland from now on.
As I told you in a previous thread, I am not a vegan. I have never been a vegan. Outside of the silly community "college" I attended, I have never known anyone else who doesn't eat animals. I am the weirdo whackadoo wingnut in my life. No one else is different from the pack. It's a bizarre perspective. It gets frustrating at times.
This smug venom is why many people disdain the vegan movement and its proponents. :twisted:
I'm sorry, tybird. I did not think my post was venomous. I get called all manner of swears and insults online. (Usually for offering an opinion, and then typing, "Do your own research.") I'm sorry if this one went too far. I will try to be more bland from now on.
As I told you in a previous thread, I am not a vegan. I have never been a vegan. Outside of the silly community "college" I attended, I have never known anyone else who doesn't eat animals. I am the weirdo whackadoo wingnut in my life. No one else is different from the pack. It's a bizarre perspective. It gets frustrating at times.
This smug venom is why many people disdain the vegan movement and its proponents. :twisted:
I'm sorry, tybird. I did not think my post was venomous. I get called all manner of swears and insults online. (Usually for offering an opinion, and then typing, "Do your own research.") I'm sorry if this one went too far. I will try to be more bland from now on.
As I told you in a previous thread, I am not a vegan. I have never been a vegan. Outside of the silly community "college" I attended, I have never known anyone else who doesn't eat animals. I am the weirdo whackadoo wingnut in my life. No one else is different from the pack. It's a bizarre perspective. It gets frustrating at times.
No blood, no foul
All the world will be your enemy, Prince with a thousand enemies, and whenever they catch you, they will kill you. But first they must catch you, digger, listener, runner, prince with the swift warning. Be cunning and full of tricks and your people shall never be destroyed.
What about a can of beans? How much methane does a consumed can of beans produce???
This global warming thing is out of control.. the problem isn't the temperature of the earth. With or without our help it will get much warmer than it is now, and much cooler than it is now again. Most animals will go extinct with or without our help, in fact, eventually our sun will supernova and earth will be no more.
The real immediate problem is world population. Stop having so many damn kids!
The real immediate problem is world population. Stop having so many damn kids!
I think you meant this line as sarcasm, just like the rest or your post?
It seems to me that Americans are slowly going infertile. Many potential causes have been raised: Genetically modified 'Frankenfood,' vaccine ingredients, hormones in food animals, hormone mimickers in plastic, chemicals in the water, electromagnetic radiation from the countless machines in modern life, vitamin/mineral deficiencies, and so on.
My small sphere of acquaintances may or may not be typical: Two friends from high school, who are 36 just like me, have been unable to make babies. One has never become pregnant. The other was briefly pregnant one time, but had an early miscarriage. A third friend dreamt of having 3 children. She eventually had one. That child is 9 1/2, and there have been no siblings. My auntie, who is only a decade older than me, wanted a baby since her teenage years. She managed to have one child when she was 30. That baby, now my 17 year old cousin, is an only child. So are all 3 of my other maternal relatives born in the years since her birth. I've not heard of any singleton-child families in my ancestry before the 1990s.
The real immediate problem is world population. Stop having so many damn kids!
I think you meant this line as sarcasm, just like the rest or your post?
It seems to me that Americans are slowly going infertile. Many potential causes have been raised: Genetically modified 'Frankenfood,' vaccine ingredients, hormones in food animals, hormone mimickers in plastic, chemicals in the water, electromagnetic radiation from the countless machines in modern life, vitamin/mineral deficiencies, and so on.
My small sphere of acquaintances may or may not be typical: Two friends from high school, who are 36 just like me, have been unable to make babies. One has never become pregnant. The other was briefly pregnant one time, but had an early miscarriage. A third friend dreamt of having 3 children. She eventually had one. That child is 9 1/2, and there have been no siblings. My auntie, who is only a decade older than me, wanted a baby since her teenage years. She managed to have one child when she was 30. That baby, now my 17 year old cousin, is an only child. So are all 3 of my other maternal relatives born in the years since her birth. I've not heard of any singleton-child families in my ancestry before the 1990s.
and then you have the fucking DUGGARS :roll: uggghhh.
once again though, problem isn't population so much as consumption!
and don't gimme none of this globarl warming is a conspiracy bullshit. regardless of the temperature of the earth and the debate whether or not its natural or not, just go look at the shit in the oceans and the smog in shanghai, the populations of animals WE'VE depleted (SHARKS, for instance - mostly for sake of STATUS symbols)... it doesn't matter, we're just committing suicide. the earth'll be here LONG after we kill ourselves through our own stupidity.
The real immediate problem is world population. Stop having so many damn kids!
I think you meant this line as sarcasm, just like the rest or your post?
It seems to me that Americans are slowly going infertile. Many potential causes have been raised: Genetically modified 'Frankenfood,' vaccine ingredients, hormones in food animals, hormone mimickers in plastic, chemicals in the water, electromagnetic radiation from the countless machines in modern life, vitamin/mineral deficiencies, and so on.
My small sphere of acquaintances may or may not be typical: Two friends from high school, who are 36 just like me, have been unable to make babies. One has never become pregnant. The other was briefly pregnant one time, but had an early miscarriage. A third friend dreamt of having 3 children. She eventually had one. That child is 9 1/2, and there have been no siblings. My auntie, who is only a decade older than me, wanted a baby since her teenage years. She managed to have one child when she was 30. That baby, now my 17 year old cousin, is an only child. So are all 3 of my other maternal relatives born in the years since her birth. I've not heard of any singleton-child families in my ancestry before the 1990s.
and then you have the fucking DUGGARS :roll: uggghhh.
once again though, problem isn't population so much as consumption!
and don't gimme none of this globarl warming is a conspiracy bullshit. regardless of the temperature of the earth and the debate whether or not its natural or not, just go look at the shit in the oceans and the smog in shanghai, the populations of animals WE'VE depleted (SHARKS, for instance - mostly for sake of STATUS symbols)... it doesn't matter, we're just committing suicide. the earth'll be here LONG after we kill ourselves through our own stupidity.
Well more people means more consumption.. correct me if I'm wrong.
Well more people means more consumption.. correct me if I'm wrong.
not to repeat myself (sorry) but, all i have to say is, USA consumes more than china doesn't it? it consumes more than india?
i think they are both problems, but when you look at consumption vs population north americans use way more than other countries with even bigger populations...
and then you have the fucking DUGGARS :roll: uggghhh.
once again though, problem isn't population so much as consumption!
and don't gimme none of this globarl warming is a conspiracy bullshit. regardless of the temperature of the earth and the debate whether or not its natural or not, just go look at the shit in the oceans and the smog in shanghai, the populations of animals WE'VE depleted (SHARKS, for instance - mostly for sake of STATUS symbols)... it doesn't matter, we're just committing suicide. the earth'll be here LONG after we kill ourselves through our own stupidity.
American women have more children than any other western country. I read recently that it's still 2 or 2.5 on average in the U.S. while in western Europe it's dropped to something like 1. Americans are more obsessed with reproduction. And Americans are the last people on earth who should be. My mother always says "well if they can afford so many kids, it's their choice." Well no one can afford the externalities of adding additional Americans to the planet. Every additional kid you have is millions of extra tons of pollution and just tons and tons of natural resource depletion and waste creation. I'm not saying people shouldn't have kids, but at a certain point having so many is just selfish. I think the Mr. & Mrs. Duggar should be sued in class action law suit for the rest of the planet.
And anyone who thinks "global warming" is bullshit or a conspiracy has not seen the data. period. they've watched fox news and taken it as gospel. Climate change is natural yes, but not like this. Before the industrial revolution, climate did not change as fast as it has been since. The amount of CO2 in the ice core shoots up right at the time of the industrial revolution as does the climate data. And there's no doubt that the greenhouse effect is a real phenomenon. It seems absurd to me to think that humans have not influenced climate change through combustion of fossil fuels. Scientists have been studying the idea of human induced climate change since the 1960s- it was not invented by Al Gore. And what do the conspiracy theorists think the scientists' motives are? I don't get that, what do they have to gain? Climate scientists want to live in a comfortable home with electricity as much as anyone else...
Well more people means more consumption.. correct me if I'm wrong.
not to repeat myself (sorry) but, all i have to say is, USA consumes more than china doesn't it? it consumes more than india?
i think they are both problems, but when you look at consumption vs population north americans use way more than other countries with even bigger populations...
absolutely.
consumption is far worse than merely population. and we, the USA, are definitely a great/terrible example of that.
It seems to me that Americans are slowly going infertile. Many potential causes have been raised: Genetically modified 'Frankenfood,' vaccine ingredients, hormones in food animals, hormone mimickers in plastic, chemicals in the water, electromagnetic radiation from the countless machines in modern life, vitamin/mineral deficiencies, and so on.
My small sphere of acquaintances may or may not be typical: Two friends from high school, who are 36 just like me, have been unable to make babies. One has never become pregnant. The other was briefly pregnant one time, but had an early miscarriage. A third friend dreamt of having 3 children. She eventually had one. That child is 9 1/2, and there have been no siblings. My auntie, who is only a decade older than me, wanted a baby since her teenage years. She managed to have one child when she was 30. That baby, now my 17 year old cousin, is an only child. So are all 3 of my other maternal relatives born in the years since her birth. I've not heard of any singleton-child families in my ancestry before the 1990s.
also, as to infertility, while obviously there are myriad causes, known and unknown, i've read more than a few times in reputable journals/experts that a great factor on the infertility issue is AGE. i know no one likes to say it, but it does seem a big factor. i've read about it too many times. one doctor stated plainly, if more women went back to having children in their early 20s rather than early 30s, that the infertility issue would not be nearly the problem that it is today. yes, there are many, many factors that contribute to infertility but it is hypothesized that a large proportion of the issues are due to couples waiting longer to reproduce.
once again though, problem isn't population so much as consumption!
and don't gimme none of this globarl warming is a conspiracy bullshit. regardless of the temperature of the earth and the debate whether or not its natural or not, just go look at the shit in the oceans and the smog in shanghai, the populations of animals WE'VE depleted (SHARKS, for instance - mostly for sake of STATUS symbols)... it doesn't matter, we're just committing suicide. the earth'll be here LONG after we kill ourselves through our own stupidity.
and i might add to your last statement:
...and the planet, along with almost all it's inhabitants, will be all the more happier and healthier without us as well.
the populations of animals WE'VE depleted (SHARKS, for instance - mostly for sake of STATUS symbols)... it doesn't matter, we're just committing suicide. the earth'll be here LONG after we kill ourselves through our own stupidity.
Is your reference to shark consumption and status symbols pointing to shark fin soup???? Any shark consumption that I have partaken in has only been shark steaks, not fins or soup. Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't the fin soup an Asian status thing...like tiger penis soup....or male potency drugs/powder made from rhino horn.
All the world will be your enemy, Prince with a thousand enemies, and whenever they catch you, they will kill you. But first they must catch you, digger, listener, runner, prince with the swift warning. Be cunning and full of tricks and your people shall never be destroyed.
the populations of animals WE'VE depleted (SHARKS, for instance - mostly for sake of STATUS symbols)... it doesn't matter, we're just committing suicide. the earth'll be here LONG after we kill ourselves through our own stupidity.
Is your reference to shark consumption and status symbols pointing to shark fin soup???? Any shark consumption that I have partaken in has only been shark steaks, not fins or soup. Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't the fin soup an Asian status thing...like tiger penis soup....or male potency drugs/powder made from rhino horn.
for one who supposedly hasn't imbibed, sure are well versed on these delicacies/potions....;)
i keed, i keeed.....i've read about such whacked out things myself.
the populations of animals WE'VE depleted (SHARKS, for instance - mostly for sake of STATUS symbols)... it doesn't matter, we're just committing suicide. the earth'll be here LONG after we kill ourselves through our own stupidity.
Is your reference to shark consumption and status symbols pointing to shark fin soup???? Any shark consumption that I have partaken in has only been shark steaks, not fins or soup. Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't the fin soup an Asian status thing...like tiger penis soup....or male potency drugs/powder made from rhino horn.
yeah it was. its not just finnning that is a cause of them dying but its a good example of needless waste.
by we i mean humans, not north americans.
once again though, problem isn't population so much as consumption!
and don't gimme none of this globarl warming is a conspiracy bullshit. regardless of the temperature of the earth and the debate whether or not its natural or not, just go look at the shit in the oceans and the smog in shanghai, the populations of animals WE'VE depleted (SHARKS, for instance - mostly for sake of STATUS symbols)... it doesn't matter, we're just committing suicide. the earth'll be here LONG after we kill ourselves through our own stupidity.
and i might add to your last statement:
...and the planet, along with almost all it's inhabitants, will be all the more happier and healthier without us as well.
noooo kidding. i'm sure every rhino and elephant and bear and insect on earth will be crying in unison, ding dong the humans are gone
in my opinion, people who deny global warming just use it as a political view to use in their favour for being lazy. its easier to label a global problem as a conspiracy than it is to change your lifestyle and put a little effort into using normal plates instead of paper plates, driving a smaller car instead of a hummer, being conscious of what they are consuming etc... people don't want to face the reality so they come up with some excuse why they shouldn't have to do anything.
holes in the ozone, deforestation, drought, water shortages, food distribution, landfills, toxins in your water, companies tapping into your water, wildlife extinction, encroachment, nani nani nani i could go on and on. climate change isn't the only evidence of how humans treat their planet and treat each other.
wah wah the earth warms naturally, i can still order twice as much as i need and throw half of it away. :roll:
Two Pounds of Beef Produce the Greenhouse Gas Emissions of a Three-Hour Drive While leaving all the lights at home burning bright during the trip.
New Scientist: "Meat is Murder on the Environment" ...
A kilogram of beef is responsible for more greenhouse gas emissions and other pollution than driving for 3 hours while leaving all the lights on back home.
This is among the conclusions of a study by Akifumi Ogino of the National Institute of Livestock and Grassland Science in Tsukuba, Japan, and colleagues, which has assessed the effects of beef production on global warming, water acidification and eutrophication, and energy consumption...
Their analysis showed that producing a kilogram of beef ... is responsible for the equivalent of the amount of CO2 emitted by the average European car every 250 kilometres, and burns enough energy to light a 100-watt bulb for nearly 20 days.
Hat-tip to Ezra Klein, who anticipates the inevitable cries that these kinds of studies set the stage for the proverbial jack-booted thugs to take away Americans' God-given right to a nice Salisbury steak:
As always, the issue isn't that people shouldn't eat burgers. They should just know what's entailed in eating that burger. Plenty of folks are appalled to see a living room light left on but would never think to trade the cheeseburger for a grilled cheese.
we're carnivours....we need human population control.
Well more people means more consumption.. correct me if I'm wrong.
not to repeat myself (sorry) but, all i have to say is, USA consumes more than china doesn't it? it consumes more than india?
i think they are both problems, but when you look at consumption vs population north americans use way more than other countries with even bigger populations...
also, as to infertility, while obviously there are myriad causes, known and unknown, i've read more than a few times in reputable journals/experts that a great factor on the infertility issue is AGE. i know no one likes to say it, but it does seem a big factor. i've read about it too many times. one doctor stated plainly, if more women went back to having children in their early 20s rather than early 30s, that the infertility issue would not be nearly the problem that it is today. yes, there are many, many factors that contribute to infertility but it is hypothesized that a large proportion of the issues are due to couples waiting longer to reproduce.
The friends I mentioned have all been vigorously trying to become pregnant since their early twenties. Yes, I understand that if they just began to try now at 36 years of age, their chances are not great. It could of course be the men that have fertility issues, but it leads to the same result.
Also: I think that most of the increase in U.S. population is due to immigration, not reproduction. It's unfair to state that without referencing a source, so feel free to ignore.
Comments
my point is simply that the food system and supply do not work in isolation ... simply saying growing more food will feed more people does not account for many associated variables ... you can grow more food but if the consequences include degradation to the environment and potential risk to future food supply - is it worth it?
again, increased yields do not necessarily mean degradation to the environment. Sustainability is more important to farmers (the people who OWN the land and want to pass it on to their kids) more than anyone else. That isn't opinion, that is what I have witnessed from being in agriculture my entire life - both on the farm and in business/industry. If increased yields meant that the farmer would be hurting the land, he wouldn't do it because the land is the lifeblood of his operation.
I agree, increased supply doesn't necessarily mean feeding more people, but we sure as hell don't even have a chance if we decide to grow less or even the same as today, given the population increases to be seen this century.
The guy who predicted that population would eventually exceed the capacity of the planet's food capacity (his name escapes me) was wrong ONLY because of technology and modern farming practices that allow us to grow more food. -- Agriculture and Food Policy by Ronald Knutson (Paperback | ISBN10: 0131718738, ISBN13: 9780131718739) don't know which page...
but isn't agriculture one of the main reasons our population started growing in the first place? it seems to me to be a vicious circle...
You are exactly right. In fact, agriculture is the start of all civilization. In the Nile river valley people domesticated livestock and started growing all their food in one place instead of being nomadic. Once people starting saving the best seeds and "genetically reprogramming" the crop their was a surplus of grain. Once there is a surplus of grain you need an army to protect it. For there to be an army there has to be a government... and it is all downhill from there!
But what is the alternative? Go back to living in the woods or in caves? (Personally, I am all for that) Pick and choose who we feed and "weed out" the weak ones... you know... social darwinism?
i would argue that increased yield DO lead to environmental degradation more often than not ... it is just that sometimes they are not apparent because of it's indirect nature ... this degradation could be the result of increased use of chemicals, greenhouse gases, pollution, etc.. ... a farm may increase yields on an annual basis but rarely do they factor in their contribution to pollution or climate change ...
Agriculture uses 16% (IIRC) of the consumed fossil fuels. Yes, that is a lot, and we should continue to find ways to decrease that number. But if you look at the fossil fuels consumed per bushel of grain or per dozen eggs or gallon of milk etc, I guarantee that the ratio is a small percentage of what it was 50 years ago.
Good god this was a great post! I definitely agree with you where you said humans are omnivores and that different people process foods differently and have different dietary needs, but the rest of it was great too.
Yep.
I'm sorry, Lauri. I was talking about me filling my face. I was raised on meat, and ate it for 30 years. I like to use the words flesh and lactation to challenge people because they are more honest than the silly euphemisms "meat" and "milk." A lot of people I talk to never think about where such substances come from before they appear on supermarket shelves. I always found it refreshing that in Spanish, the word carne is the only word for flesh/meat. The language doesn't differentiate between the flesh on a person and the meat of a killed animal.
I'm sorry, tybird. I did not think my post was venomous. I get called all manner of swears and insults online. (Usually for offering an opinion, and then typing, "Do your own research.") I'm sorry if this one went too far. I will try to be more bland from now on.
As I told you in a previous thread, I am not a vegan. I have never been a vegan. Outside of the silly community "college" I attended, I have never known anyone else who doesn't eat animals. I am the weirdo whackadoo wingnut in my life. No one else is different from the pack. It's a bizarre perspective. It gets frustrating at times.
I wish I could be vegan, or vegetarian even...
This global warming thing is out of control.. the problem isn't the temperature of the earth. With or without our help it will get much warmer than it is now, and much cooler than it is now again. Most animals will go extinct with or without our help, in fact, eventually our sun will supernova and earth will be no more.
The real immediate problem is world population. Stop having so many damn kids!
I think you meant this line as sarcasm, just like the rest or your post?
It seems to me that Americans are slowly going infertile. Many potential causes have been raised: Genetically modified 'Frankenfood,' vaccine ingredients, hormones in food animals, hormone mimickers in plastic, chemicals in the water, electromagnetic radiation from the countless machines in modern life, vitamin/mineral deficiencies, and so on.
My small sphere of acquaintances may or may not be typical: Two friends from high school, who are 36 just like me, have been unable to make babies. One has never become pregnant. The other was briefly pregnant one time, but had an early miscarriage. A third friend dreamt of having 3 children. She eventually had one. That child is 9 1/2, and there have been no siblings. My auntie, who is only a decade older than me, wanted a baby since her teenage years. She managed to have one child when she was 30. That baby, now my 17 year old cousin, is an only child. So are all 3 of my other maternal relatives born in the years since her birth. I've not heard of any singleton-child families in my ancestry before the 1990s.
and then you have the fucking DUGGARS :roll: uggghhh.
once again though, problem isn't population so much as consumption!
and don't gimme none of this globarl warming is a conspiracy bullshit. regardless of the temperature of the earth and the debate whether or not its natural or not, just go look at the shit in the oceans and the smog in shanghai, the populations of animals WE'VE depleted (SHARKS, for instance - mostly for sake of STATUS symbols)... it doesn't matter, we're just committing suicide. the earth'll be here LONG after we kill ourselves through our own stupidity.
i think they are both problems, but when you look at consumption vs population north americans use way more than other countries with even bigger populations...
Save Salmon....Eat Beef
American women have more children than any other western country. I read recently that it's still 2 or 2.5 on average in the U.S. while in western Europe it's dropped to something like 1. Americans are more obsessed with reproduction. And Americans are the last people on earth who should be. My mother always says "well if they can afford so many kids, it's their choice." Well no one can afford the externalities of adding additional Americans to the planet. Every additional kid you have is millions of extra tons of pollution and just tons and tons of natural resource depletion and waste creation. I'm not saying people shouldn't have kids, but at a certain point having so many is just selfish. I think the Mr. & Mrs. Duggar should be sued in class action law suit for the rest of the planet.
And anyone who thinks "global warming" is bullshit or a conspiracy has not seen the data. period. they've watched fox news and taken it as gospel. Climate change is natural yes, but not like this. Before the industrial revolution, climate did not change as fast as it has been since. The amount of CO2 in the ice core shoots up right at the time of the industrial revolution as does the climate data. And there's no doubt that the greenhouse effect is a real phenomenon. It seems absurd to me to think that humans have not influenced climate change through combustion of fossil fuels. Scientists have been studying the idea of human induced climate change since the 1960s- it was not invented by Al Gore. And what do the conspiracy theorists think the scientists' motives are? I don't get that, what do they have to gain? Climate scientists want to live in a comfortable home with electricity as much as anyone else...
absolutely.
consumption is far worse than merely population. and we, the USA, are definitely a great/terrible example of that.
also, as to infertility, while obviously there are myriad causes, known and unknown, i've read more than a few times in reputable journals/experts that a great factor on the infertility issue is AGE. i know no one likes to say it, but it does seem a big factor. i've read about it too many times. one doctor stated plainly, if more women went back to having children in their early 20s rather than early 30s, that the infertility issue would not be nearly the problem that it is today. yes, there are many, many factors that contribute to infertility but it is hypothesized that a large proportion of the issues are due to couples waiting longer to reproduce.
just read back a bit, excellent post:
and i might add to your last statement:
...and the planet, along with almost all it's inhabitants, will be all the more happier and healthier without us as well.
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow
for one who supposedly hasn't imbibed, sure are well versed on these delicacies/potions....;)
i keed, i keeed.....i've read about such whacked out things myself.
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow
by we i mean humans, not north americans.
in my opinion, people who deny global warming just use it as a political view to use in their favour for being lazy. its easier to label a global problem as a conspiracy than it is to change your lifestyle and put a little effort into using normal plates instead of paper plates, driving a smaller car instead of a hummer, being conscious of what they are consuming etc... people don't want to face the reality so they come up with some excuse why they shouldn't have to do anything.
holes in the ozone, deforestation, drought, water shortages, food distribution, landfills, toxins in your water, companies tapping into your water, wildlife extinction, encroachment, nani nani nani i could go on and on. climate change isn't the only evidence of how humans treat their planet and treat each other.
wah wah the earth warms naturally, i can still order twice as much as i need and throw half of it away. :roll:
we're carnivours....we need human population control.
problem is humans.....we're satans spawn.
The friends I mentioned have all been vigorously trying to become pregnant since their early twenties. Yes, I understand that if they just began to try now at 36 years of age, their chances are not great. It could of course be the men that have fertility issues, but it leads to the same result.
Also: I think that most of the increase in U.S. population is due to immigration, not reproduction. It's unfair to state that without referencing a source, so feel free to ignore.