If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(News.com.au)   The newest threat to our planet? Eating meat   (news.com.au) divider line 98
    More: Unlikely, United Nations Environment Programme, dinner plates, veal, greenhouse gas emissions, nitrogen, strawman arguments, meat habits, heart  
•       •       •

1456 clicks; posted to Geek » on 19 Feb 2013 at 1:13 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



98 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-02-19 12:29:59 AM
Why don't we eat other people, like Professor Mark Sutton?  I bet he tastes like bacon and ham.
 
2013-02-19 12:40:36 AM
Bye, Earth. It's been a good run.
 
2013-02-19 01:20:23 AM
I eat meat because fark you poor people
 
2013-02-19 01:22:07 AM
There are places that have been growing cattle for over 500 years without brining in anything but water. I don't know of any plants outside of some orchards that have that provide that level of being about to pull human food out of a bit of land.  Just because some farms are inefficient doesn't mean all of them are.  Maybe Professor Mark Sutton would be able to think more clearly if he had a nice steak.
 
2013-02-19 01:24:22 AM

Smeggy Smurf: I eat meat because fark you poor people


pretty much this. i bought an obscene amount of meat just now. shorty i will cook it, and eat some...throw some to the animals.
 
2013-02-19 01:27:15 AM
I donate blood every two months and it is specially reserved for premature babies, I deserve to eat more cow in order to build my blood. Everyone else should stop eating so much meat however, I want cheap meat.
 
2013-02-19 01:29:09 AM
If you think about it, animals (meat) eat more meat than we do. So if you want to make an impact in the amount of meat being eaten, start with the meat itself.
 
2013-02-19 01:30:54 AM
This isn't "new", people have been saying the same thing for years now.  I have little doubt there will be a dozen Farkers in here saying they've done just that.

DON.MAC: There are places that have been growing cattle for over 500 years without brining in anything but water.


While those places may have maintained an even level, meat consumption has not only grown per person, but also as a whole due to rising population levels.

Thing is, it's highly unlikely that this or any warnings like it are going to change people's eating habits, including mine.  I've cut down on beef, but only because I don't digest it as easily as pork or chicken.  It's part of human nature, we only care (as a whole, not as an individual) once there's an actual crisis.
 
2013-02-19 01:40:53 AM

frozenhotchocolate: I donate blood every two months and it is specially reserved for premature babies, I deserve to eat more cow in order to build my blood. Everyone else should stop eating so much meat however, I want cheap meat.


me too. i got an award for donating 60 times, or 80 times or something. i just do it for the free cookies.

i took my buddy once, and we both tried to see how we could spurt blood when they took the needles out. good times, good times.

/he is a farker, and may see this.
 
2013-02-19 01:41:24 AM
According to Dr Sutton our love of meat is not only selfish, it's  fatal.  Why? Well, it's an ugly picture. Apparently we eat significantly more meat than people who lived one to two generations before us. This demand for meat has doubled the amount of grain needed to feed the cattle. In order to keep up with this demand, farmers are relying on pesticide and fertilisers to speed up the grain production.  These fertilisers and pesticides are polluting our atmosphere and running into the ocean, killing off fish and even threatening the lifecycle of bees.

so don't eat beef because fertilizers and pesticides are killing bees. instead eat more vegetables...that use the fertilizers and pesticides that are killing bees.
 
2013-02-19 01:43:21 AM
No, I'm pretty sure it's the 7 billion or so people crowding this already overpopulated planet. Maybe we could offer free abortions and turn that into veal. That would be a win-win for everybody.
a.tgcdn.net
 
2013-02-19 01:46:15 AM
Your meat habits are killing the planetno. no it is not.
the planet is not dying. period.
nothing that the humans do will ever kill the planet.

please take your religion and shove it up your arse.
in fact, if you really think that humans ARE killing the planet, why are you still alive?
killing yourself would literally be the best thing that you could do for the planet.

/god I HATE these people. BRB going to eat some veal and release a couple of tons of co2
 
2013-02-19 01:49:45 AM

frozenhotchocolate: I donate blood every two months and it is specially reserved for premature babies, I deserve to eat more cow in order to build my blood. Everyone else should stop eating so much meat however, I want cheap meat.


Here you go.
 
2013-02-19 01:54:08 AM

log_jammin: so don't eat beef because fertilizers and pesticides are killing bees. instead eat more vegetables...that use the fertilizers and pesticides that are killing bees.


Takes a lot more than one pound of plant to make one pound of meat.
 
2013-02-19 01:55:23 AM
This is not new, and it's a direct result of the methods of industrialized agriculture. Basically, rather than having cows on marginal land that can't support grain, we have them in feedlots for a substantial part of their lives, where we feed them corn (mostly). A LOT of corn. So this corn, along with the corn we're feeding cars... well, it isn't feeding people anymore. More land is needed, more pesticides are needed, more fertilizers are needed, all of which tend to be bad for the environment. Fertilizers in particular tend to be really, really nasty for rivers and oceans.
 
2013-02-19 01:56:00 AM

frozenhotchocolate: I donate blood every two months and it is specially reserved for premature babies, I deserve to eat more cow in order to build my blood. Everyone else should stop eating so much meat however, I want cheap meat.


Thanks for that.
 
2013-02-19 01:56:09 AM
This only news to the most oblivious of people. That said, I'm not giving it up.
 
2013-02-19 01:57:40 AM

12349876: Takes a lot more than one pound of plant to make one pound of meat.


and if we're eating less meat, then we would be eating more vegetables. that pound of plant is just going to make meat on a different animal. us.
 
2013-02-19 02:05:17 AM
 
2013-02-19 02:05:59 AM

SpaceBison: No, I'm pretty sure it's the 7 billion or so people crowding this already overpopulated planet. Maybe we could offer free abortions and turn that into veal. That would be a win-win for everybody.


Honestly, I believe Soylent Green offers a hint at what humanity could do to curb overpopulation problems and feed itself. Simply put: cremation, donation, and fertilization.

We need to stop burying our dead. It's an archaic practice from a time with a poor understanding of death. Cremation needs to replace burial. Furthermore, every person cremated could be used to fertilize land, whether for farming, public property (i.e. National parks), or other places that could use it (i.e. Anywhere with arable soil).

Imagine all the land we could fertilize with the ashes of our dead. For example, we eat cattle, we die, our bodies get cremated, our ashes fertilize ground, grass grows from the nutrients our ashes supply, and cattle eat the grass. It's about time humanity returns to the circle of life.
 
2013-02-19 02:10:23 AM

Lord Binky: SpaceBison: No, I'm pretty sure it's the 7 billion or so people crowding this already overpopulated planet. Maybe we could offer free abortions and turn that into veal. That would be a win-win for everybody.

Honestly, I believe Soylent Green offers a hint at what humanity could do to curb overpopulation problems and feed itself. Simply put: cremation, donation, and fertilization.

We need to stop burying our dead. It's an archaic practice from a time with a poor understanding of death. Cremation needs to replace burial. Furthermore, every person cremated could be used to fertilize land, whether for farming, public property (i.e. National parks), or other places that could use it (i.e. Anywhere with arable soil).

Imagine all the land we could fertilize with the ashes of our dead. For example, we eat cattle, we die, our bodies get cremated, our ashes fertilize ground, grass grows from the nutrients our ashes supply, and cattle eat the grass. It's about time humanity returns to the circle of life.


just eat them.
 
2013-02-19 02:15:59 AM

justGreg: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diet_for_a_Small_Planet

Repeat from 1971?


Rest assured, we are going to destroy the planet!

We're just a little fuzzy on when.
 
2013-02-19 02:17:50 AM
This isn't new, nor is it voodoo. When you look at the resources required to raise meat compared to what those same resources could be used for, simple math takes over. Especially when you look at factory farming and the sheer volume that goes into such operations. We're facing a very real threat of our food and water supplies suffering catastrophic breakdown, yet some of you have this weird identity complex tied into your animal consumption and any news that it might be bad is a virtual affront to your manhood. It is willful ignorance - "I enjoy it, so it cannot be bad!"

Hell, you don't even have to become a hippie, sissy vegetarian. You can still measure your dick by how much you spent on a BBQ grill and I promise I won't even call you a cliché. Just start making smart choices with what and how much you consume. Or, you know, ignore the dire warnings and keep eating hormone-laden crap from some huge feedlot 2-3 times a day. Because John Wayne would have wanted it that way.
 
2013-02-19 02:20:33 AM

timujin: This isn't "new", people have been saying the same thing for years now.  I have little doubt there will be a dozen Farkers in here saying they've done just that.

DON.MAC: There are places that have been growing cattle for over 500 years without brining in anything but water.

While those places may have maintained an even level, meat consumption has not only grown per person, but also as a whole due to rising population levels.

Thing is, it's highly unlikely that this or any warnings like it are going to change people's eating habits, including mine.  I've cut down on beef, but only because I don't digest it as easily as pork or chicken.  It's part of human nature, we only care (as a whole, not as an individual) once there's an actual crisis.


*raises hand*

I'd love to go vegan 100%, but my omnivorous genes simply won't allow me to. My system rebells after a few months of plant-only-protien. :-/

I try to eat local-hunted wild when my local butcher has it, (wildboar bacon is the sizzle, fo shizzle), as the environmental impact is minimal. Heck, I've even had bear steak, which was really damned nice. (slow cooked in home made red wine, with wild oregano/thyme, wild forest cantarel)
 
2013-02-19 02:21:52 AM

adamatari: This is not new, and it's a direct result of the methods of industrialized agriculture. Basically, rather than having cows on marginal land that can't support grain, we have them in feedlots for a substantial part of their lives, where we feed them corn (mostly). A LOT of corn. So this corn, along with the corn we're feeding cars... well, it isn't feeding people anymore. More land is needed, more pesticides are needed, more fertilizers are needed, all of which tend to be bad for the environment. Fertilizers in particular tend to be really, really nasty for rivers and oceans.


I thought this was accepted common knowledge back in the 80s.
 
2013-02-19 02:24:08 AM

log_jammin: 12349876: Takes a lot more than one pound of plant to make one pound of meat.

and if we're eating less meat, then we would be eating more vegetables. that pound of plant is just going to make meat on a different animal. us.


But the extra veggies for humans would be less than the veggie that goes into the cow without producing meat.
 
2013-02-19 02:28:33 AM

12349876: But the extra veggies for humans would be less than the veggie that goes into the cow without producing meat.


some, sure. but we'd still be using the very thing the article claims is "killing the planet". To me it seems more logical to find ways to fix the two things directly causing the harm. as long as fertalizers and pesticides are polluting the environment then the problem still exists. find ways to prevent that. not eating a burger on even number days won't change a thing.
 
2013-02-19 02:33:21 AM

swahnhennessy: Hell, you don't even have to become a hippie, sissy vegetarian.


damned straight. I'm a battle-scarred skinhead, but I'm not blinded my machismo as to the dangers of hyper-farming meat.

Saving the world isn't the reserve of hippies any more. It's everyone's civic duty to do their bit. Small things by every-day people, done on a large enough scale will genuinely make the world liveable for a future that doesn't have to include soylent green as it's only hope.

We have the options, it's within the easy reach for 1st world'rs. There isn't even that much in the way of change in lifestyle. Intellectual laziness and repetition of banal, age old, anti-hippy rhetoric, is no excuse any more.
 
2013-02-19 02:36:22 AM

log_jammin: not eating a burger on even number days won't change a thing.


maybes yeah, maybeys no. The real point to organic farming methods is not to produce a more 'healthy' american, it's to produce a more healthy planet.
 
2013-02-19 02:37:36 AM

log_jammin: 12349876: But the extra veggies for humans would be less than the veggie that goes into the cow without producing meat.

some, sure. but we'd still be using the very thing the article claims is "killing the planet". To me it seems more logical to find ways to fix the two things directly causing the harm. as long as fertalizers and pesticides are polluting the environment then the problem still exists. find ways to prevent that. not eating a burger on even number days won't change a thing.


I'm not an extreme "don't eat any meat" person, but meat requires a lot more resources to get x amount of food than it takes to get x amount from plants, especially in the larger animals, and cutting back would have some impact on resource allocation, though your idea of dealing with pollutants is a much more complete, though also much more difficult task.


What does it take to make a quarter pound hamburger

www.npr.org
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thesalt/2012/06/27/155527365/visualizing-a- na tion-of-meat-eaters
 
2013-02-19 02:38:25 AM

log_jammin: 12349876: But the extra veggies for humans would be less than the veggie that goes into the cow without producing meat.

some, sure. but we'd still be using the very thing the article claims is "killing the planet". To me it seems more logical to find ways to fix the two things directly causing the harm. as long as fertalizers and pesticides are polluting the environment then the problem still exists. find ways to prevent that. not eating a burger on even number days won't change a thing.


Are you sure?

1,800 to 2,500 gallons of water go into making 1 pound of beef

40 calories of fossil fuel energy go into making 1 calorie of feed lot beef

The United Nations' Food and Agriculture Organization estimates that the meat industry generates aprox 1/5 of man-made greenhouse gas emissions
 
2013-02-19 02:46:01 AM

uttertosh: The real point to organic farming methods is not to produce a more 'healthy' american, it's to produce a more healthy planet.


And I'm all for organic farming.

12349876:  though your idea of dealing with pollutants is a much more complete, though also much more difficult task.

more difficult but in the end, it's the only problem that really matters.

Notabunny: Are you sure?


yes I am.
 
2013-02-19 02:51:30 AM

some_beer_drinker: Lord Binky: SpaceBison: No, I'm pretty sure it's the 7 billion or so people crowding this already overpopulated planet. Maybe we could offer free abortions and turn that into veal. That would be a win-win for everybody.

Honestly, I believe Soylent Green offers a hint at what humanity could do to curb overpopulation problems and feed itself. Simply put: cremation, donation, and fertilization.

We need to stop burying our dead. It's an archaic practice from a time with a poor understanding of death. Cremation needs to replace burial. Furthermore, every person cremated could be used to fertilize land, whether for farming, public property (i.e. National parks), or other places that could use it (i.e. Anywhere with arable soil).

Imagine all the land we could fertilize with the ashes of our dead. For example, we eat cattle, we die, our bodies get cremated, our ashes fertilize ground, grass grows from the nutrients our ashes supply, and cattle eat the grass. It's about time humanity returns to the circle of life.

just eat them.


Too much disease burden to directly eat other humans.
 
2013-02-19 02:52:01 AM

log_jammin: uttertosh: The real point to organic farming methods is not to produce a more 'healthy' american, it's to produce a more healthy planet.

And I'm all for organic farming.

12349876:  though your idea of dealing with pollutants is a much more complete, though also much more difficult task.

more difficult but in the end, it's the only problem that really matters.

Notabunny: Are you sure?

yes I am.


Since I usually don't eat meat on both even and odd numbered days, I gotcha covered. You're welcome.
 
2013-02-19 03:03:05 AM

Notabunny: Since I usually don't eat meat on both even and odd numbered days, I gotcha covered. You're welcome.


I've been trying to eat a lot more fish lately. like 5 days a week or more for the past month or so. But when your only option is to steam it in the microwave(only option at work) it can get a little trying at times. but man, at home when I can actually bake or brooil, that shiat is awesome!
 
2013-02-19 03:05:27 AM

Bonzo_1116: oo much disease burden to directly eat other humans.


Maybe so, but that doesn't stop me from really wanting to try eating human meat sometime

.

log_jammin: uttertosh: The real point to organic farming methods is not to produce a more 'healthy' american, it's to produce a more healthy planet.

And I'm all for organic farming.

Notabunny: Are you sure?

yes I am.


actually, if the whole of the united states went on 'meat-strike' for as little as one month, most of the industry would collapse. Make it 2 months and even the hyper-farmers would die.

Simple laws of supply and demand.

Glad you're into organic farming, though.

Here's a link to how Sweden does things - not perfect, but a sight better than doing nothing because: "Just me doing this won't make a drop in the ecological ocean"
 
2013-02-19 03:09:28 AM

log_jammin: Notabunny: Since I usually don't eat meat on both even and odd numbered days, I gotcha covered. You're welcome.

I've been trying to eat a lot more fish lately. like 5 days a week or more for the past month or so. But when your only option is to steam it in the microwave(only option at work) it can get a little trying at times. but man, at home when I can actually bake or brooil, that shiat is awesome!


Google some ceviche recipes. No oven or stove required. Spoon it onto a corn tortilla, toss on some chopped onion and avocado. Ooh momma, that's some tasty goodness.
 
2013-02-19 03:10:39 AM

Notabunny: Google some ceviche recipes


done that and loved it.
 
2013-02-19 03:34:07 AM
*eats bacon as he reads article*
 
2013-02-19 04:11:34 AM

Lord Bonzo_1116: some_beer_drinker: Lord Binky: SpaceBison: an archaic practice


Don't need to freeze my corpse because buccal swabs are preserved in the secret lab for cloning, so just burn me up and do whatever with the ashes.

Scientists win, mass production of meat is bad for the environment.  But economists also win, because calling for people to eat more veggies won't work.  To reduce demand the substitutes for meat would have to be tasty enough to make people pass up the double quarter pounder with cheese or the 24 oz dry-aged prime rib.
 
2013-02-19 04:22:04 AM
"Eat meat, but less often...

People are already doing this, aren't they?

Growing up we ate meat every day at dinner and more often than not for lunch and breakfast as well.

Fast forward to today. I eat meat about 4 times a week for dinner and rarely for lunch or breakfast.

Most people I know say much the same.

/Yeah, yeah "plural of anecdote is not data, just saying.


vulturemagazine.com.au

 Wot's going on in thread, eh?
 
2013-02-19 04:30:53 AM

Notabunny: 1,800 to 2,500 gallons of water go into making 1 pound of beef


Wow, this combined with the nice graphical statistic right above it that claims 220 gallons per pound makes me wonder if both of your studies are just making crap up.

/ come on now... 25 HUNDRED gallons of water?  your source is full of shiat.
 
2013-02-19 04:34:19 AM

I sound fat: Wow, this combined with the nice graphical statistic right above it that claims 220 gallons per pound makes me wonder if both of your studies are just making crap up.


different studies, different methods.
 
2013-02-19 04:46:08 AM
Okay, you got me thinking.

A cow lives 350 days before slaughter, drinking an average of 15 gallons per day (beef cows do not produce milk, and for a part of its life, it is a baby, so this is a generous estimate)  A cow produces, on average 568  pounds of trimmed beef.

Those number add up to 9.24 gallons per pound.

Now I hear you.  "you forgot the feed!"

No, no i didnt.  I know corn takes a lot of water.  16,500 pounds of corn go into making an 1100 pound cow.  That water, however (at least around here - ive never seen a corn field irrigated in fertile corn country) comes from the sky.  If farmers were not GROWING corn, there would be other vegitation growing on that ground.  Where corn grows, the land used to be fertile praire.  That water would be used by that vegetation if humans never existed.

Therefore, any calculation that considers the water cost of corn is suspect at best.  Also, if you didnt have ANY vegetation soaking up that water, we would have no oxygen.  The water HAS to be used or we would die.

My conclusion is a pound of beef costs 9.24 gallons of water.  Next time someone with a cause (like vegetarianism) to sell you gives you a pretty graphic, just do an estimation in your head and see if it makes ANY sense in the real world.
 
2013-02-19 04:48:47 AM
furthermore, what happens to water when it is used by a plant?  think about it.

it does not dissapear.
 
2013-02-19 04:52:39 AM
The argument "a cow uses X amount of water" was always a non starter for me since we aren't(or shouldn't be) raising cows in places where water isn't already abundant. yes they may use a lot of water, but so do toilets.

Most of the other arguments usually boil down to the fact that the US is an exporter of food and were' just really good at farming.
 
2013-02-19 05:02:32 AM
Save the planet.
Eat a vegetarian.

/Collect valuable prizes
 
2013-02-19 05:05:12 AM

I sound fat: No, no i didnt.  I know corn takes a lot of water.  16,500 pounds of corn go into making an 1100 pound cow.  That water, however (at least around here - ive never seen a corn field irrigated in fertile corn country) comes from the sky.  If farmers were not GROWING corn, there would be other vegitation growing on that ground.  Where corn grows, the land used to be fertile praire.  That water would be used by that vegetation if humans never existed.


image.shutterstock.com

Never seen this?   Huh.  Used to see it just about every summer on the farms in DelMarVa.

Anyway, the larget beef exporters look to be Brazil, Australia, and Argentina.  Not sure if they'd require irrigation any more or less than us.
 
2013-02-19 05:27:22 AM
what part of "around here"  and fertile corn country confuses you,  moron?
 
2013-02-19 05:30:09 AM
Eat steak, eat steak eat a big ol' steer
Eat steak, eat steak do we have one dear?
Eat beef, eat beef it's a mighty good food
It's a grade A meal when I'm in the mooooood.

 
Displayed 50 of 98 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report