Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Depends on what aspect of the environment we are discussing. Meat production uses a lot of water (it's been said you could float a destroyer in the water it takes to get a beef cow from birth to slaughter) and clear cutting of forestry in order to either give the animals land or grow food for them on that land.

More importantly, we could give up conventional meat. If we give up electricity modern society ceases to exist. There's no point in environmentalism if we collapse in the process.

[moocowmoo]

You guys do realize that giving up electricity and other modern conveniences would do a lot more for the environment than giving up meat?

It's not an either/or thing. Giving up one is still better than giving up neither. It doesn't have to be all or nothing either. Consuming less of both is reasonable.

[penguinofhonor]

.

[Zrk2]

Meat production uses a lot of water (it's been said you could float a destroyer in the water it takes to get a beef cow from birth to slaughter)

My problem with analogies like this one is that they assume all that water just gets destroyed after one use. It doesn't. It may have been somewhat polluted, but it's still there and usable.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Meat production uses a lot of water (it's been said you could float a destroyer in the water it takes to get a beef cow from birth to slaughter)

My problem with analogies like this one is that they assume all that water just gets destroyed after one use. It doesn't. It may have been somewhat polluted, but it's still there and usable.

That's not the analogy at all. The point about water is that it is tied up by being used, and vast amounts are rendered unusable in raising livestock. Nobody thinks the water never returns to a usable form.

[Vattic]

Anyway, how do you all feel about hunting? It's the opposite of factory farming. And the animal would never have died of old age in the wild anyway, wolves would get it long before that. If anything, a gun is a more humane way to go than wolf jaws. But each deer you take home is one wolf family going hungry. Is it ethical to compete against wolves for food?

Personally I have a lot less issue with people who are willing to kill. As I've said I find the idea of killing things to be morally questionable and so don't do it unnecessarily. I know plenty of omnivores who also find killing animals to be questionable and would not be willing to kill an animal for food. This kind of hypocrisy really gets to me.

I don't think the kind of disconnect a lot of people have with the source of their food is healthy. One of my co-workers won't eat fish if she's seen it "with it's head on" and I know someone else who won't eat meat that has bones in it because it reminds them of where it came from.

[DJ]

It's easy for a vegetarian to say that Xbox is more important than steak.

But yeah, most of modern conveniences are far worse for the environment than meat, because they all guzzle fossil fuels. Global warming will do a lot more long-term damage than land clearance.

[moocowmoo]

It's easy for a vegetarian to say that Xbox is more important than steak.

But yeah, most of modern conveniences are far worse for the environment than meat, because they all guzzle fossil fuels. Global warming will do a lot more long-term damage than land clearance.

Global warming is directly tied with land clearance, and modern meat production, processing, transport and storage all require fossil fuels.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

It's easy for a vegetarian to say that Xbox is more important than steak.

But yeah, most of modern conveniences are far worse for the environment than meat, because they all guzzle fossil fuels. Global warming will do a lot more long-term damage than land clearance.

You're not understanding that these things are not isolated from one another. Land clearance destroys forests, forests are made of plants, plants convert CO2 into O2. If we had more plants global warming would be delayed. If we have enough plants and fewer emissions it will reverse.

Most modern conveniences do not directly use fossil fuels, they use electricity generated from fossil fuels. If we replace the source of the electricity with renewables the modern conveniences have negligible impact.

[10ebbor10]

Actually, only planting forests decreases orbital Co². And in a fairly neglible amount. I mean, just paving the area would capture more Co². (Concrete absorbs Co² as it settles.) On average, all ecosystems are by nature in an equibrilum, ie Co² neutral.(Capturing of biomass underground is neglible).

Most modern conveniences do not directly use fossil fuels, they use electricity generated from fossil fuels. If we replace the source of the electricity with renewables the modern conveniences have negligible impact

Another myth. Even the most environementally friendly renewable (barring Co²) still emmits about 100 gramms of Co² per [Dammit, forgot the unit. Probably Kwh], along with a variety of other pollution types.

If we're going to solve this problem, we'll need real solutions, and not some expensive PR stunts, which is what several projects often end up being.

[penguinofhonor]

.

[DJ]

BTW, I didn't mean to suggest that we as a society should abandon electricity wholesale. Just electricity in personal housing. That, coupled with a drastic decrease in consumption of factory products (which generate a lot of CO2 in the making via energy costs) would do wonders for our carbon footprint. Basically, we'd have to live a lot more ascetic lifestyle, but we could still have stuff like modern medicine. But yeah, nobody wants to give up their Xbox, so I find it a bit hypocritical when they try to guilt-trip me over eating meat.

[lordcooper]

It's easy for a vegetarian to say that Xbox is more important than steak.

But yeah, most of modern conveniences are far worse for the environment than meat, because they all guzzle fossil fuels. Global warming will do a lot more long-term damage than land clearance.

Sure, but MRI machines, respirators, large scale water purifiers, lights, heaters, transportation, elevators, traffic lights, email, digital systems etc are all far far more important than a thing that can easily be replaced with another thing that is better for people's health, the environment, and involves an awful lot less killing.

E: The next quote was added while I was typing

BTW, I didn't mean to suggest that we as a society should abandon electricity wholesale. Just electricity in personal housing. That, coupled with a drastic decrease in consumption of factory products (which generate a lot of CO2 in the making via energy costs) would do wonders for our carbon footprint. Basically, we'd have to live a lot more ascetic lifestyle, but we could still have stuff like modern medicine. But yeah, nobody wants to give up their Xbox, so I find it a bit hypocritical when they try to guilt-trip me over eating meat.

There's a big difference in the damage caused by an Xbox and a lifetime spent eating meat.  That said, I'll give up all my consoles if you give up meat.

[DJ]

Xbox is a metaphor for all the modern conveniences (as opposed to necessities), including cars, high density urban areas, most entertainment and such things. Personally, I'd rather do without those than meat. Rustic life can be quite nice in my experience.

[Frumple]

So have you (or anyone, really) actually seen numbers crunched on the environmental impact of a more dispersed population? I haven't (which is why I ask), but it's another one those things -- I'm not 100% convinced (or even 50% convinced, for that matter) that spreading the population out is a good thing. There are efficiencies to high density urban areas that low density rural areas, well, lack. And vice versa. I don't know how the logistical considerations of maintaining our population through one means or the other stacks up against each other. But I am somewhat doubtful that it's substantially in the favor of going back to sustenance farming and suchlike. Once the population gets over a certain threshold, the game starts changing.

As for rustic life, m'own personal experiences have led me to largely conclude it's nice in small doses, but I wouldn't want to live it. Which is actually about the same response to city living. I like the in-between, where there's enough centralization there's actually shit to do (besides farm, drink, and fuck) and people to interact with besides bigoted fuckwits, but low enough density you've actually got undergrowth in places and the occasional bit of quiet. I'll give up meat before I give up theatre and easily accessed concert halls.