Yet another "Meat Is Bad" story.
- Thread starter Pangloss
- Start date
There is nothing wrong with a call of shenanigans now and then.
My point is that Greenhouse gasses are not bad, they are essential to life. Whats "bad" is when you overproduce it. You shift the atmospheric chemistry (more or less) you increase or decrease the temperature, and risk causing a chain reaction that can turn us into Venus.
The normal cycle isn't a problem, its adding stored elements back into the atmosphere that causes change, rather than recirculation.
I've heard of this one before.
Anyway, I still believe we're not supposed to have too much meat because we are designed for vegetable diet. We have incisors and molars, our canine teeth are small and dull, we have relatively long intestines.
Anyway, I still believe we're not supposed to have too much meat because we are designed for vegetable diet. We have incisors and molars, our canine teeth are small and dull, we have relatively long intestines.
People that are lactose intolerant cannot consume milk products.
No one is meat intolerant. We are carnivores.
Even His Holiness the Dalai Lama eats a small amount of meat and recomends a small amount for health purposes. His liver was ill and the cure, meat.
No, Zzarchov, that wasn't your point, but I'll go with your new one.
Of course the "poison is in the dose" - methane isn't bad - but the quantities we are releasing probably are - and farm animals are some of the biggest methane producers there are.
Plus the associated gases and resource depletions associated with factory ranching.
Pangloss
Of course the "poison is in the dose" - methane isn't bad - but the quantities we are releasing probably are - and farm animals are some of the biggest methane producers there are.
Plus the associated gases and resource depletions associated with factory ranching.
Pangloss
Well, that would make you a tad judgemental in my book. You are broadcasting your moral judgements on the activities of others. Just because they have different morals, doesn't mean they are bad or stupid. I am sure some people do enjoy tractor pull competitions.
Yes, IRBS. Having attended tractor pull competitions (as a reporter, and once, as a reluctant date), I feel I am on rock solid moral ground saying that tractor pull competitions are stupid, and the people that go there are stupid.
Notice, please, that I have admitted attending said competitions.
Back to the thread, I hope.
Pangloss
IRBS -
I am not sure that a new paragraph would have changed the meaning of your post. But I do understand and welcome your declaration that choice is not the same as necessity.
I stand by my assertion that eating meat is not a necessity for urbanites; therefore eating meat is a choice; therefore urban meat eaters choose to kill when it is not necessary; therefore it is unnecessary killing.
As I repeat, unnecessary killing is unethical. Point out where in the chain my logic falls down.
Yes that is a moral judgment. We all do it all the time - we simply tend not to be methodical or vocal about it.
Pangloss
I am not sure that a new paragraph would have changed the meaning of your post. But I do understand and welcome your declaration that choice is not the same as necessity.
I stand by my assertion that eating meat is not a necessity for urbanites; therefore eating meat is a choice; therefore urban meat eaters choose to kill when it is not necessary; therefore it is unnecessary killing.
As I repeat, unnecessary killing is unethical. Point out where in the chain my logic falls down.
Yes that is a moral judgment. We all do it all the time - we simply tend not to be methodical or vocal about it.
Pangloss
No need to apologise.
He had liver problems and he was told by doctors to eat meat for the obvious value.As you know Buddhist were forbidden to eat meat and a plethora of health problems plagued the nuns and monks. Tibet isn't the best of places back in the day for fresh fruit and vegetables...The people mainly ate lamb and yak ....I know not really trader vics.
So it's not exactly His expertise on nutrition but His actions has caused a lot of nuns and monks to eat meat and it has vastly improved many of them health wise.....
My main idea is that if we can all eat meat without it being undigested like lactose intolerants, then we are meat eaters.
The Dali Lama example was just an add on, to emphasise the religous intolerance to meat eating is inane.
Claiming that it is unnecessary. No matter what you do you are killing. If we didn't eat those animals we would have to kill them all off. It would be like claiming your going to end all human death by killing all humans (thus reducing the amount of death, since everyone you kill would die eventually anyways, and no new people would be born to later die in turn)
I don't know if your familiar with farming, but even farming plants requires alot of animals to be killed.
Death is part of the natural life cycle and you cannot live without killing other things.
Edit: Side note, read my first two posts again, my point doesn't change. I still point out that recirculating methane is not adding new greenhouse gasses.
Ahh Zzarchov, the one place where your argument falls flat is that IF we weren't hell-bent on producing table-ready meat, there would be no methane emmissions from the animals- the land where the fed is grown could have been left as-is- are you suggesting that without the cows, all that land would somehow magically pump out the same amount of methane, despite the fact that left untouched, certain unnatural conditions would have to arise in order to make the conversion to gas at the same level as it happens when fed to livestock??
A second respectful call of "bunkem" on your assertion, I declare
A second respectful call of "bunkem" on your assertion, I declare
You used the tractor pull as an example. I continued it. But we are really talking about your judgements about people eating meat are we not?
(P.S. I personally have never attended a tractor pull. I am not even sure what they pull.)
Ahh, same "necessity" as signing the death-warrants of thousands of Iraqis, it's "necessary" so we can have our toys and our stupid sprawl-F%&ker "lifestyle", I get it 
No methane emissions from Animals? So you are going to keep killing animals then?
If we weren't hell bent on mass producing food, there would be far more WILD animals. When you take in the amount of land required to raise cows (and their feed etc) its not less land that would be required to have an equal value of other animals.
When we farm we don't increase the amount of plant and animal life in an area, we just make sure only animal and plant life immediately useful to us exists (barring the changes in water).
So what you are talking about is lowering Methane emissions below natural levels (cooling our planet) by whiping out all animal life.
If you left wild animals roaming around, there would be the same amounts in the now fallow feed and grazing fields. Of a varied , less useful and less edible variety, but the same amount.
We do not create biomatter, we just ensure it is in a form we want.
