Save the world by eating less meat...
Replies
-
-
0
-
Note, they less said to eat less meat, not to become raw vegan or even vegetarian.0
-
double post, sorry0 -
livijane07 wrote: »But this new official comment does seriously worry me. Because meat is heavily subsidized and if they drop subsidies no one but the very wealthiest will be able to afford it on a regular basis. And I'm a cynic, I don't think for a second it will help the environment. It will just be one more healthy food reserved for a few while the rest of us get sick eating crap foods.
Meat heavily subsidized? By whom? As a small-scale cow/calf producer and family farm owner, I can guarantee you that the only thing subsidizing our 80 head herd of registered and purebred Angus cattle is hard work, sweat and our bank account. Better call our county extension agent to check and see if there's a program we don't know about.0 -
queenliz99 wrote: »
Haha Look up soylent, actually. A company is marketing it. It's a complete meal replacement formula for about ten dollars a day. I actually applaud their motives and I enjoy reading the DIY recipes various people have come up with. That said, researchers still don't know enough about what we really need to consume for optimal health and the full properties of the real foods we eat, so I'm not ready to switch to a convenient but potentially down the road detrimental replacement shake.
Disclaimer: As far as I know, the stuff isn't people.
0 -
Go_Mizzou99 wrote: »What the Federal Government forget to take into account is what will actually happen if we eat less meat and more plants.
Try and follow my infallible logic created by my superior intellect:
Granted, there will be less cow flatulence (we'll just call this an air-biscuit) because there will be less cows. I am down with this logic.HOWEVER!!!!!
If people eat more plant fiber there will be waaaaaaaaaaaay more people making air-biscuits...and there are a lot more people than cows.
I never smelled a cow air-biscuit - but I can't imagine the world being saved, and being cleaner with more people making air-biscuits.
Just sayin'
Cows are more gassy because they are ruminants, humans are not.
"...the stomach of ruminant animals produces a lot of gas. The animals continually belch, once each minute, to get rid of the gas." Source: http://www.fao.org/docrep/t0690e/t0690e05.htm
The gassiest people I have ever encountered were on the Atkin's Diet.
And global warming is caused by all the hot air coming from vegans who constantly blather on about their "superior" diet.
0 -
livijane07 wrote: »But this new official comment does seriously worry me. Because meat is heavily subsidized and if they drop subsidies no one but the very wealthiest will be able to afford it on a regular basis. And I'm a cynic, I don't think for a second it will help the environment. It will just be one more healthy food reserved for a few while the rest of us get sick eating crap foods.
Meat heavily subsidized? By whom? As a small-scale cow/calf producer and family farm owner, I can guarantee you that the only thing subsidizing our 80 head herd of registered and purebred Angus cattle is hard work, sweat and our bank account. Better call our county extension agent to check and see if there's a program we don't know about.
Water subsidies out West are a huge part of the lower cost of beef according to what I've read. Of course the big guys who can afford to buy our politicians are surely seeing the most of that money, not small ranchers. It's also probably not cow biscuits we should worry about as far as the environment. It's that water.0 -
-
neanderthin wrote: »
Methane accounts for 2% towards global warming, and the biggest factor for that is melting icebergs, so if anyone really want to get actively involved, rent a tugboat. j/kMrsallen6_11 wrote: »The report is total BS.
And for those who think man has more impact on the way climate changes than changes in the output of the sun, We are not that powerful .Nor to we occupy that much of the total land area.
Nature produces more "greenhouse gasses" than all human activity combined.
The AGGW crowd only cares about controlling us. Manufacturing a far of human caused disaster is just the current tool for that. In the 70 they same "scientists" argued we were going into an ice age and demanded the exact same actions to 'stop' it.
What human industrial activity cause the global warming that ended the last ice age?
You are my favorite
!
It's not the methane. 18% of emissions come from the production of livestock worldwide. For perspective, cars, planes, trains, boats, etc. contribute 13%.
Not that I think anyone here cares.0 -
martyqueen52 wrote: »
Steak at Wal-Mart?martyqueen52 wrote: »Yes, stop eating meat... I'm tired of not being able to find the steaks I want at Wal-Mart because people who don't work get there before I do, and take it all.![:\](https://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/resources/emoji/confused.png ":\")
Yea... I live in a country area... I don't have a lot of choices to get meat....
Isn't there like a good country butcher or something? When we used to live in a semi rural area of Tennessee, there was a whole in the wall grocer/butcher - lets just say cleanliness was not his strong suit but he would cut steaks to order and man were they tasty...
I wish. This area is country / very Italian populated. So unless you want some fresh hot Italian sausage, olives, cheese, and other Italian based foods / sweets (TONS of pastry shops here).... Wal-Mart / Kroger is the best hope for meat around here.
0 -
I'm saving the world by drinking my DIY soylent.0
-
lisawinning4losing wrote: »But vegans fart more, and that totally causes global warming.
I think the global warming cause is more methane from cow farts (and there a LOT more cows now than there used to be).
Argument fail...
So it is vital that we kill those cows. And broil them and eat them.0 -
Furthermore, I'm not having children, so as long as this rock can hold it together another 50 years, I don't care what happens after that.0
-
what if we bottle cow farts and sell it as designer perfume I bet we could pay kim kardashian enough to advertise it0
-
neanderthin wrote: »
Methane accounts for 2% towards global warming, and the biggest factor for that is melting icebergs, so if anyone really want to get actively involved, rent a tugboat. j/kMrsallen6_11 wrote: »The report is total BS.
And for those who think man has more impact on the way climate changes than changes in the output of the sun, We are not that powerful .Nor to we occupy that much of the total land area.
Nature produces more "greenhouse gasses" than all human activity combined.
The AGGW crowd only cares about controlling us. Manufacturing a far of human caused disaster is just the current tool for that. In the 70 they same "scientists" argued we were going into an ice age and demanded the exact same actions to 'stop' it.
What human industrial activity cause the global warming that ended the last ice age?
You are my favorite!
It's not the methane. 18% of emissions come from the production of livestock worldwide. For perspective, cars, planes, trains, boats, etc. contribute 13%.
Not that I think anyone here cares.
Source?
The problem is that one is organic, one is not. Organic and natural emissions (such as sulfur) will not accelerate the temperature on the earth. It is well documented that we should already be headed to another ice age, and yet we are not. Humans use petrol at an alarming rate (over 70% of US transportation uses petrol) ("Climatology" by AMS 2014 EPub Reader pp unknown), and the unnatural byproduct (given that gasoline, diesel, and jet fuel are refined) is helping to eliminate the Ozone molecules (O3) in combination with the sun. But what energy refines the oil? Coal. Coal is still the major producer of electric energy, and we all know how much electricity we consume.
Humans are destroying the ozone (you know, that thing that works like a thermostat for the earth) because the emissions we give off are mostly unnatural. Since the earth soaks up 90% of the heat energy in the oceans, and with the rate of output of heat unchanged, the energy from the sun is being "soaked up" by the oceans at a faster rate because of the destruction of the ozone.
Cow farts are far and away from the main cause of global climate change, at least since the industrial revolution.
I live in the hottest place in the United States, and I got out of CA with no plans to return. While CA is putting money into supertrains and special interest, and not into education and infrastructure of water retainment, the water is running out for 37 million people. Ironically, we dont have that problem here in Phoenix, with exception to the education thing. But we have plenty of water to go around.0 -
Just curious...this is a question for anyone...if we mammals evolved to consume meat instead of just berries and other flora, is it evolutionarily advantageous to stop doing what we have evolved to do in the first place? This is purely hypothetical, because humans will be killed off long before we have time to evolve in a drastic way, such as becoming herbivores.
I feel like we would be undoing about 25000 years of evolution if we all went vegetarian, and it would not save the earth because human population would STILL BE INCREASING. The problem is just humans having babies and more babies, and using more and more natural resources in an unnatural way. Population is geometrically increasing because everyone has to have 3-11 kids.0 -
-
I'm just shocked this thread is still going....0
-
RockstarWilson wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »
Methane accounts for 2% towards global warming, and the biggest factor for that is melting icebergs, so if anyone really want to get actively involved, rent a tugboat. j/kMrsallen6_11 wrote: »The report is total BS.
And for those who think man has more impact on the way climate changes than changes in the output of the sun, We are not that powerful .Nor to we occupy that much of the total land area.
Nature produces more "greenhouse gasses" than all human activity combined.
The AGGW crowd only cares about controlling us. Manufacturing a far of human caused disaster is just the current tool for that. In the 70 they same "scientists" argued we were going into an ice age and demanded the exact same actions to 'stop' it.
What human industrial activity cause the global warming that ended the last ice age?
You are my favorite!
It's not the methane. 18% of emissions come from the production of livestock worldwide. For perspective, cars, planes, trains, boats, etc. contribute 13%.
Not that I think anyone here cares.
Source?
The problem is that one is organic, one is not. Organic and natural emissions (such as sulfur) will not accelerate the temperature on the earth. It is well documented that we should already be headed to another ice age, and yet we are not. Humans use petrol at an alarming rate (over 70% of US transportation uses petrol) ("Climatology" by AMS 2014 EPub Reader pp unknown), and the unnatural byproduct (given that gasoline, diesel, and jet fuel are refined) is helping to eliminate the Ozone molecules (O3) in combination with the sun. But what energy refines the oil? Coal. Coal is still the major producer of electric energy, and we all know how much electricity we consume.
Humans are destroying the ozone (you know, that thing that works like a thermostat for the earth) because the emissions we give off are mostly unnatural. Since the earth soaks up 90% of the heat energy in the oceans, and with the rate of output of heat unchanged, the energy from the sun is being "soaked up" by the oceans at a faster rate because of the destruction of the ozone.
Cow farts are far and away from the main cause of global climate change, at least since the industrial revolution.
I live in the hottest place in the United States, and I got out of CA with no plans to return. While CA is putting money into supertrains and special interest, and not into education and infrastructure of water retainment, the water is running out for 37 million people. Ironically, we dont have that problem here in Phoenix, with exception to the education thing. But we have plenty of water to go around.
I think you might've misunderstood. The 18% I quoted is from fossil fuels associated with the production and transportation of livestock not methane produced by said livestock.
The source was the FAO at the United Nations.
0 -
RockstarWilson wrote: »Just curious...this is a question for anyone...if we mammals evolved to consume meat instead of just berries and other flora, is it evolutionarily advantageous to stop doing what we have evolved to do in the first place? This is purely hypothetical, because humans will be killed off long before we have time to evolve in a drastic way, such as becoming herbivores.
I feel like we would be undoing about 25000 years of evolution if we all went vegetarian, and it would not save the earth because human population would STILL BE INCREASING. The problem is just humans having babies and more babies, and using more and more natural resources in an unnatural way. Population is geometrically increasing because everyone has to have 3-11 kids.
Hominids have been eating basically everything (meat and plants) for over 100,000 years. Animal domestication and agriculture are only around 12,000 years ago. Vegetarianism? Probably only since classical antiquity about 3,000 years ago.
Also, the herbivore/carnivore line is actually really blurry. Deer (usually herbivores) will eat meat if they have to.
0 -
RockstarWilson wrote: »Just curious...this is a question for anyone...if we mammals evolved to consume meat instead of just berries and other flora, is it evolutionarily advantageous to stop doing what we have evolved to do in the first place? This is purely hypothetical, because humans will be killed off long before we have time to evolve in a drastic way, such as becoming herbivores.
I feel like we would be undoing about 25000 years of evolution if we all went vegetarian, and it would not save the earth because human population would STILL BE INCREASING. The problem is just humans having babies and more babies, and using more and more natural resources in an unnatural way. Population is geometrically increasing because everyone has to have 3-11 kids.
Even the Pope said ~ you don't need so damn kids (not the Pope's verbal LOL). No, I'm not catholic and yes, the Duggar's don't need any either (even tho I watch the darn show, it's a fascination for me). Just thinkin'.0 -
Hmm, yeah i'll get right on that. Cuz doom.0
-
RockstarWilson wrote: »Just curious...this is a question for anyone...if we mammals evolved to consume meat instead of just berries and other flora, is it evolutionarily advantageous to stop doing what we have evolved to do in the first place? This is purely hypothetical, because humans will be killed off long before we have time to evolve in a drastic way, such as becoming herbivores.
I feel like we would be undoing about 25000 years of evolution if we all went vegetarian, and it would not save the earth because human population would STILL BE INCREASING. The problem is just humans having babies and more babies, and using more and more natural resources in an unnatural way. Population is geometrically increasing because everyone has to have 3-11 kids.
Even the Pope said ~ you don't need so damn kids (not the Pope's verbal LOL). No, I'm not catholic and yes, the Duggar's don't need any either (even tho I watch the darn show, it's a fascination for me). Just thinkin'.
Not that I am trying to shift the conversation or be too abstract or anything, but which of the two sexes do you think "wants" all those kids? Could it be the women making the choices to have more kids rather than the guys? Could it be genetics, and more girls are on the earth than men for a reason, so if they want all the kids and they multiply...
Of course, maybe the Mormon population just exploded and all these Mormon women wanted to fill an E350 with a buncha their kids, and then those kids each have their own bus of kids and....well you get the picture. More people, less food, more global warming from human intervention, and we all get killed by an asteroid in 2029.
Wow, my mind goes on a tangent when im baked. I just read that and it was...very fluid! Whoever that man is that said "some of the best ideas come from sittin on the john," I think I know what he is talking about!0 -
I eat less meat anyway cos red meat is expensive and I like variety, chicken and fish - will this save the world?0
-
RockstarWilson wrote: »RockstarWilson wrote: »Just curious...this is a question for anyone...if we mammals evolved to consume meat instead of just berries and other flora, is it evolutionarily advantageous to stop doing what we have evolved to do in the first place? This is purely hypothetical, because humans will be killed off long before we have time to evolve in a drastic way, such as becoming herbivores.
I feel like we would be undoing about 25000 years of evolution if we all went vegetarian, and it would not save the earth because human population would STILL BE INCREASING. The problem is just humans having babies and more babies, and using more and more natural resources in an unnatural way. Population is geometrically increasing because everyone has to have 3-11 kids.
Even the Pope said ~ you don't need so damn kids (not the Pope's verbal LOL). No, I'm not catholic and yes, the Duggar's don't need any either (even tho I watch the darn show, it's a fascination for me). Just thinkin'.
Not that I am trying to shift the conversation or be too abstract or anything, but which of the two sexes do you think "wants" all those kids? Could it be the women making the choices to have more kids rather than the guys? Could it be genetics, and more girls are on the earth than men for a reason, so if they want all the kids and they multiply...
Of course, maybe the Mormon population just exploded and all these Mormon women wanted to fill an E350 with a buncha their kids, and then those kids each have their own bus of kids and....well you get the picture. More people, less food, more global warming from human intervention, and we all get killed by an asteroid in 2029.
Wow, my mind goes on a tangent when im baked. I just read that and it was...very fluid! Whoever that man is that said "some of the best ideas come from sittin on the john," I think I know what he is talking about!
Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh....
0 -
RockstarWilson wrote: »RockstarWilson wrote: »Just curious...this is a question for anyone...if we mammals evolved to consume meat instead of just berries and other flora, is it evolutionarily advantageous to stop doing what we have evolved to do in the first place? This is purely hypothetical, because humans will be killed off long before we have time to evolve in a drastic way, such as becoming herbivores.
I feel like we would be undoing about 25000 years of evolution if we all went vegetarian, and it would not save the earth because human population would STILL BE INCREASING. The problem is just humans having babies and more babies, and using more and more natural resources in an unnatural way. Population is geometrically increasing because everyone has to have 3-11 kids.
Even the Pope said ~ you don't need so damn kids (not the Pope's verbal LOL). No, I'm not catholic and yes, the Duggar's don't need any either (even tho I watch the darn show, it's a fascination for me). Just thinkin'.
Not that I am trying to shift the conversation or be too abstract or anything, but which of the two sexes do you think "wants" all those kids? Could it be the women making the choices to have more kids rather than the guys? Could it be genetics, and more girls are on the earth than men for a reason, so if they want all the kids and they multiply...
Of course, maybe the Mormon population just exploded and all these Mormon women wanted to fill an E350 with a buncha their kids, and then those kids each have their own bus of kids and....well you get the picture. More people, less food, more global warming from human intervention, and we all get killed by an asteroid in 2029.
Wow, my mind goes on a tangent when im baked. I just read that and it was...very fluid! Whoever that man is that said "some of the best ideas come from sittin on the john," I think I know what he is talking about!
Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh....
Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh....?0 -
I repeat
I eat less meat anyway cos red meat is expensive and I like variety, chicken and fish - will this save the world?0 -
Chain_Ring wrote: »I like both. I think I'll eat both. Except for tomatoes, I hate them.
This guy knows.0 -
You can pry my meat out of my cold, dead fingers. To hell with the world, Molly needs steak.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions