This is topic Go vegetarian! It's better for the environment :] in forum Books, Films, Food and Culture at Hatrack River Forum.


To visit this topic, use this URL:
http://www.hatrack.com/ubb/main/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=2;t=034328

---

Posted by kaioshin00 (Member # 3740) on :
 
The "trophic levels" are structured as follows: on the bottom there are the producers, who utilize the energy of the sun to make food. The next level are the primary consumers (herbivores), who eat these producers for their nourishment. Continuing up the ladder we have secondary, tertiary, and quaternary consumers who live off a combination of the level under them (ie. humans).

Now notice that there are far fewer cows than say, blades of grass in the world, or many more plankton than whales. This is because each succeeding level of the trophic pyramid results in about 90% energy loss due to heat (your body only uses a small fraction of the net input of material you ingest).

Now if all humans were vegetarian, we would all be primary consumers, which is only the second level of the trophic pyramid. Lets hypothetically say that if we did so, we could utilize 10% of grass if we consumed it. Lets also say this is the same amount cows can absorb into their body. Now if we eat grass directly, we can use, as stated previously, 10% of it. But if we eat a cow (which absorbs 10% of the grass it eats), we only make use of 10% of 10%, or 1% of grass eaten. As you can see, continuing up the each succeding level results in drastic losses.

Therefore I say to you: be vegetarian! There will be more food for everyone and we won't have to use large patches of the earth for pastures
 

---

Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
 
Cows are way more efficient at digesting grass than humans. That whole four stomachs thing.
 

---

Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
 
If God had meant us to be vegetarians, he wouldn't have made meat so yummy.

In any case, making the majority of our diet plant-based (which I strongly agree with) is almost as effective, and far more likely to be adopted by many people.
 

---

Posted by kaioshin00 (Member # 3740) on :
 
Eh ... I was speaking hypothetically. But how much more efficient could it be? Twice as efficient? 10% of 20% then, or 2 percent
 

---

Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
 
It's also better for the environment to adopt sources of meat that use veggie resources more efficiently than cows... for instance, you have to cut down the rainforest to raise cattle. But if you eat iguana, you get the meat, (more than if you use the same amount of land for beef) the rainforest stays intact, and you can also sustainably harvest nuts, fruits, and other fun stuff.
 

---

Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
 
So we should all be hunter-gatherers... but what about those of us who can't hunt? Because of our, um, delicate constitutions? Yeah, that's it, delicate. *flounces delicately*
 

---

Posted by Portabello (Member # 7710) on :
 
If the human race in genral was lacking for food, then this argument might hold some sway.

But even with all the meat we eat, we are still able to produce well enough to feed everybody.
 

---

Posted by imenimok (Member # 7679) on :
 
You're funny, twinky.

And my serious response to this thread: I have beef cravings. The End.
 

---

Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
 
If I had to hunt to eat meat, I would hunt. Someone else gets to butcher it, though. Yucky.
 

---

Posted by Portabello (Member # 7710) on :
 
I would too, but I'd probably eat less meat.
 

---

Posted by kaioshin00 (Member # 3740) on :
 
http://www.bread.org/hungerbasics/international.html

quote:

---

Hunger Basics


FAQ


Hunger Facts:
International Domestic
World Hunger and Poverty: How They Fit Together

*

852 million people across the world are hungry, up from 842 million a year ago. 10

* In essence, hunger is the most extreme form of poverty, where individuals or families cannot afford to meet their most basic need for food.

Facts and Figures on Hunger and Poverty

* In the developing world, more than 1.2 billion people currently live below the international poverty line, earning less than $1 per day. 4

* Among this group of poor people, many have problems obtaining adequate, nutritious food for themselves and their families. As a result, 815 million people in the developing world are undernourished. They consume less than the minimum amount of calories essential for sound health and growth.

---

quote:

---

The problem is that the vegetables that are edible to people, i.e. not grass, require a certain type of land and a certain amount of water. There are places in the world where cattle grazing is more efficient than vegetable raising because the soil lacks the nutrients or the water to sustainably grow crops. In those places we are better off allowing cows to collect the energy from the scrub that grows there. Large expanses of the American West fit this description, in fact those places in the west where cattle are a big industry.

---

If people didn't eat cattle then those areas where cattle grazing is more efficient still wouldn't need to be used for cattle grazing.

My guess is, without any support, if all the regions of earth that maximize production of crops were used to fullest, there would be plenty of food so that there wouldn't need to be ANY pastures.
 

---

Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
 
zgator,

As others have mentioned, grass isn't that easy to digest for humans or very nutritious.

Now, if you give your lawn over to dandelions, you might have a workable plan.

And, even though I shouldn't have to say this, please, please lay off the herbicides, fungicides and insecticides if you want to consume your lawn.

That will also be better for the environment. And your health.
 

---

Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
 
We're building houses on the most fertile and farmable soil on earth, and for each acre changed from farmland to housing, we're opening several acres of less than serviceable land to farming. This includes everything from desert to rainforest.

I recall that an acre of rainforest converted for cattle grazing produces 4 pounds of beef per year, at first, but this isn't sustainable, since the soil won't remain fertile. The same acre as rainforest can sustainably produce 200 pounds of iguana meat per year. (Plus the aforementioned nuts and fruits)

(Source: some guy on David Letterman)
 

---

Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
 

quote:

---

My guess is, without any support, if all the regions of earth that maximize production of crops were used to fullest, there would be plenty of food so that there wouldn't need to be ANY pastures.

---

We've been through this in another thread, but current farm production relies heavily on chemical fertilizers, which in turn rely on petroleum.

While there is clearly enough food to feed the world by using fertilizer, there probably won't be when we run out of petroleum.

I agree that we should reduce meat intake, but as has been pointed out, there are cases where meat is not harmful. The case of grazing animals on naturally occurring grassland is one. It doesn't hurt the environment, and in fact, grazing animals are required in order to ensure the survival of certain plants. Also, the case of the iguana meat above, where harvesting existing meat within reasonable limits does less damage than converting to grazing, or even rubber or banana production.
 

---

Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
 
I think the 4 pounds of beef per acre of rainforest is right, but the 200 pounds of iguana sounds high. It's been awhile since I looked at the numbers... I used this as a speech topic in at least three required classes throughout junior high, high school, and college. For the often-required persuasive speech.
 

---

Posted by UofUlawguy (Member # 5492) on :
 
I always wanted to try iguana. I thought I would have the chance while I was in Honduras and Guatemala -- I once had several people chasing an iguana through my backyard, with the aim of cooking it up. Never did have the pleasure, though.
 

---

Posted by kaioshin00 (Member # 3740) on :
 
Thanks for the info Glenn. I didn't know about those things before
 

---

Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
 
I'm vegetarian now, because I feel like there's an implied contract between humans and our domestic animals. We act as parents to them. They trust us and love us and give us the benefit of their milk, eggs, fur, labor (in the days before internal combustion engines) companionship, and they enrich our lives hugely. Had we as a species not learned to join together with other species, wheat, rice, cattle, horses, dogs, and so on, we would be extinct now. It was the trick of joining, which is our greatest ability as humans, that let us survive extinction and reach a new level of existence called civilization. And it's because of civilization that we are now in a position of having power over the life and death of all species on the planet.

We aren't very good stewards of this power so far. In fact, if we keep on as we are, in the next few hundred years we're going extinct along with most of the species we love. The earth is currently in the middle of a gigantic mass extinction which is called humanity.

But it doesn't have to be. We can grow up and learn to be good stewards of all those things and fellow beings over which we have power. When we learn to honor the implied contracts with other species, we will benefit again in a similar way as we did with the agricultural (biological) revolution. Not only will we escape extinction ourselves, but we will advance to an entire new level of existence. One that is as far above civilization as we know it now, as is the life we lead today above the subsistance living of a plains ape.

When we accept this new way, part of it will be honoring other species much more than we do now. Now we treat them as objects, as though they did not have any experiences or feelings. We treat them like industrial machinery. One way in which we will change how we deal with other species in the future is that we will no longer raise them for slaughter.

That's why I'm a vegetarian. Because I realized I didn't want to violate those contracts anymore in my own personal choices. I decided to start trying to learn this new way as soon as possible. We only have a limited time to make this choice, so I thought it would be a good idea to go ahead and start.
 

---

Posted by Lupus (Member # 6516) on :
 
I think the cows violated the contract by being so tasty.

I'll keep the contract with lions and tigers and bears though. Besides the fact that they prob wouldn't taste as good...its a bad idea to violate a contract with something that might eat you.

PS: I am a bit sorry about being a smart ass...but I guess I'm in a bit of a sarcastic mood.
 

---

Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
 

quote:

---

*flounces delicately*

---

O.o

Oddest. Image. Ever.
 

---

Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
 
Lupus, I agree. I'd really like to be a vegetarian, but I just like meat too much. Instead I drive a Prius, keep my thermostat low, and I don't use air conditioning.

There are additional things we all could do that would be easier if our society would build them in. If we built communities as they were 100 years ago, you'd almost never need to drive to do errands or go to work. That's just a matter of layout and density, there isn't even a technological challenge to it. And in addition to making it easier to get where you need to go, it would also take up a smaller footprint on the ecosystem.

But everybody needs their 5 acres and McMansion, these days...
 

---

Posted by Tater (Member # 7035) on :
 
People really eat iguanas?

This thread just leaves me asking:

Why isn't anyone standing up for the rights of POTATOES not to be eaten?! HMM?!

We make for good company. Cows, however, do not.
 

---

Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
 
Go read Guns, Germs, and Steel and you will understand why eating meat is a good thing, and why the hunter/gatherer model would NEVER be able to sustain current population densities.

It never has, for good reasons...

He does a FAR better job of explaining it that I would paraphrasing him....

[ April 30, 2005, 05:18 PM: Message edited by: Kwea ]
 

---

Posted by Desdemona (Member # 7100) on :
 

quote:

---

quote:

quote:

---

*flounces delicately*

---

O.o

Oddest. Image. Ever.

---

quote:

---

Yea, flesh also of beasts and of the fowls of the air, I, the Lord, have ordained for the use of man with thanksgiving; nevertheless they are to be used sparingly;

And it is pleasing unto me that they should not be used, only in times of winter, or of cold, or famine.

---