Print

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

[NullForceOmega]

No.  Vegetarianism and vegan diet have a higher carbon footprint than balanced diet, requires more processed goods.  Try again.

[Arx]

Not exactly, I'm pointing out that going off in lala land doesn't get anyone closer to actually enacting something.  Ideas that can actually be accomplished is something I could support, but all this rehashed food garbage is unworkable.  Talk to me about low-cost easy to implement on an individual level things that can be helpful, don't waste my time with huge meaningless pie-in-the-sky dreaming.

Suggest something lower-cost and easier to implement on a personal level than going vegetarian with comparable effects, then. It's entirely practical. The bug stuff, less so, I'll readily admit.

No.  Vegetarianism and vegan diet have a higher carbon footprint than balanced diet, requires more processed goods.  Try again.

Lentils are processed goods now? And beans? And, y'know, vegetables? Also, can I get a source on that please?

There's also taking the bus and walking. Really, there are plenty of simple things to do that individually have minor effects but if everyone started doing them would be massive.

Another one is installing solar geysers. I also saw something about induction heaters for boiling water in small amounts to cut back on heat wastage from kettles a few months ago. There are a lot of things that are easy to implement on a personal level, it's just that the prospect of fucking everything in fifty years is a lot less intimidating than the prospect of walking to the bus stop or splashing out on a solar geyser (even though it ultimately means free water heating).

[Radio Controlled]

No.  Vegetarianism and vegan diet have a higher carbon footprint than balanced diet, requires more processed goods.  Try again.

As far as I know, your claim is simply untrue. I will provide an actual source to try and prove my point, instead of just claiming things.

http://shrinkthatfootprint.com/food-carbon-footprint-diet

[Neonivek]

No.  Vegetarianism and vegan diet have a higher carbon footprint than balanced diet, requires more processed goods.  Try again.

As far as I know, your claim is simply untrue. I will provide an actual source to try and prove my point, instead of just claiming things.

http://shrinkthatfootprint.com/food-carbon-footprint-diet

They didn't define their terms. Article useless.

No really... Corn + Wheat + Hay = "vegetarian diet"

[NullForceOmega]

Pure vegetarian diets require vitamin supplements, i.e. processed goods.  I'm already scraping the bottom of the barrel for enough cash to function on with a wife an two kids, don't try to convince me to radically alter basic nutrition requirements, vegetarianism is expensive in the US.  I don't drive anywhere, though my wife drives to and from MSU daily, I said low-cost, as in I can do it with materials on hand or very cheaply acquired.

[Graknorke]

They didn't define their terms.

For each diet we look solely at the emissions associated with food supply, so we do not include those from consumer’s transportation, storage or the cooking of food.  Nor do we consider land use change emissions.

An Average American’s diet has a foodprint of around 2.5 t CO2e per person each year.  For a Meat Lover this rises to 3.3 t CO2e,  for the No Beef diet it is 1.9 t  t CO2e, for the Vegetarian it’s 1.7 t CO2e and for the Vegan it is 1.5 t CO2e.  Each of these estimates includes emissions from food that is eaten, wasted by consumers and lost in the supply chain.

Seems defined enough to me.

[Eric Blank]

Rescue the world? heheh, hahahahaha!! hue! Foolish mortals, thinking they can bring entire continents to a standstill with a gentle breeze.

[Neonivek]

Well ignoring that the majority of "Vegetables" carbon footprint is in other things (It is impossible with current technological standards for our society to switch to a vegetarian one due to the nutrition requirements needing vegetables that are rather harsh on soil)

Unless Vegetarian is defined as "A common basket of goods required by a vegetarian diet", they do not define it.

[Radio Controlled]

No.  Vegetarianism and vegan diet have a higher carbon footprint than balanced diet, requires more processed goods.  Try again.

As far as I know, your claim is simply untrue. I will provide an actual source to try and prove my point, instead of just claiming things.

http://shrinkthatfootprint.com/food-carbon-footprint-diet

They didn't define their terms. Article useless.

No really... Corn + Wheat + Hay = "vegetarian diet"

Did you check the actual source article?
http://www.annualreviews.org/eprint/EBIXxM7sNxrBJyuRYgki/full/10.1146/annurev-environ-020411-130608

Pure vegetarian diets require vitamin supplements, i.e. processed goods.  I'm already scraping the bottom of the barrel for enough cash to function on with a wife an two kids, don't try to convince me to radically alter basic nutrition requirements, vegetarianism is expensive in the US.  I don't drive anywhere, though my wife drives to and from MSU daily, I said low-cost, as in I can do it with materials on hand or very cheaply acquired.

I am a vegetarian that lives healthily, without any shortages, and I don't take supplements. It also doesn't need to cost a lot more, HOWEVER, it does take some more effort to maintain a balanced diet. If the food prices are radically different where you live, the situation might be different, but I cannot assess that without knowing exactly where you live and what the prices of various goods are over there.

Well ignoring that the majority of "Vegetables" carbon footprint is in other things (It is impossible with current technological standards for our society to switch to a vegetarian one due to the nutrition requirements needing vegetables that are rather harsh on soil)

Unless Vegetarian is defined as "A common basket of goods required by a vegetarian diet", they do not define it.

Please provide sources to assess credibility of claim.

[Graknorke]

Well ignoring that the majority of "Vegetables" carbon footprint is in other things (It is impossible with current technological standards for our society to switch to a vegetarian one due to the nutrition requirements needing vegetables that are rather harsh on soil)

Unless Vegetarian is defined as "A common basket of goods required by a vegetarian diet", they do not define it.

Each of these five diets are variations of the average American diet based on data from the USDA’s Economic Research Service.

For each of our diets we assume consumption of around  2,600 kcal of food energy each day, roughly equal to an average American.  This should not be confused with total food supply which is around 3,900 kcal each day.  In each diet food energy is split up among nine different food groups.

The five diets are all variations on the average diet.  We assume the Meat Lover eats more red meat, white meat and dairy in place of some cereals, fruit and vegetables.  The No Beef diet is just the average diet with all beef consumption switched to chicken.  The Vegetarian switches away from beef and chicken to fruit and vegetables, while also reducing oils and snacks.  The Vegan does much the same as the vegetarian while also eliminating dairy through further switching to cereals, fruits and vegetables.

Read more at http://shrinkthatfootprint.com/food-carbon-footprint-diet#RkKQdL71c3C0tSeO.99

[Eagleon]

Not exactly, I'm pointing out that going off in lala land doesn't get anyone closer to actually enacting something.  Ideas that can actually be accomplished is something I could support, but all this rehashed food garbage is unworkable.  Talk to me about low-cost easy to implement on an individual level things that can be helpful, don't waste my time with huge meaningless pie-in-the-sky dreaming.

My empathy is dead, life killed it.

Justifying one's own negative behaviour by pointing to flaws of others isn't a viewpoint I very much subscribe to.

Well no, Null Force is doing the equivilant of you saying "I can't eat anymore of this pasta" and him saying "Do you know how many starving children there are who would kill for what is infront of you?"

Sort of

Hate to beat a dead horse, but it's something that I think is important to put a name on - fallacy of relative privation... Probably our culture's most used to be dismissive over actually giving a shit. Hell, even our president uses it. On the flip side, guilt is a really bad motivation for people that have figured out that they can just say "I have other problems," and actually mean it, and it's a trap for both 'sides' in that once you actually can do something it becomes difficult to sort out whether you should, or if you should just keep making your life more stable and not so third-story-windowy. Then the hostility comes in and activists put their hands up with a puzzled expression going "Why do they hate us if we so love the world?"

Granted most people do it backwards from this, saying there are bigger fish to fry, starving children in africa, Jobs, climate change, etc. but just because you have problems does not mean we are in a position to solve them. @NullForceOmega, If we're in a position to solve other problems, should we freeze up and wring our hands over your mafia family? No. Good luck with your gritty life.

[Angle]

So alright - We've got a LOT of problems that need to be addressed - Environmental problems, Social problems, Cultural problems, you name it. To make things worse, these problems are all tangled up, meaning that in order to solve one, you frequently need to at least make inroads on several others, and a solution to one might actually end up exacerbating another if you're not careful.

As such, we need more than individual solutions. We need a system for developing lots of cohesive solutions, while considering all relevant problems, and for applying these solutions on a large scale. It's gonna be quite a challenge. Right now, the only things that come close to being able to do this are governments, and unfortunately most of those can be counted squarely on the "problem" side of this equation. So obviously, we're going to need to look elsewhere for coordination. Luckily, I have an idea.

You've possibly seen me ranting about this elsewhere on the forum, but I'll repeat: It's a project of mine called Agora, you can find it in my sig. It's basically a new kind of internet forum, designed to allow large numbers of people to talk about complicated subjects without the conversation crushing itself under it's own weight, like it would on a traditional forum. Instead of linear threads, posts can be in response to any number of other posts, and can have any number of other posts in response to them. As such, the forum assumes a web structure. This, in concert with a system for ranking posts, means that the conversation can split and converge to cover all relevant topics, and that  replies that contribute more to the conversation will be more highly ranked, while those that contribute less will be lower ranked. This means that a lot more people can contribute to the conversation, and that it's a lot easier for newcomers to catch up to the conversation - They need only read the posts in their direct conversational line, and can ignore the rest, while in a traditional forum they'd have to read pages & pages, only a small fraction of the posts on which are relevant to any given pat of the conversation.

This is of course merely a tool for communication, and only a beginning, at that. There are loads and loads of problems that'll need to be solved, but I think it'll give us a step up.

[Neonivek]

It is more telling that there are more people who want to actually "correct" NullForceOmega who, for all they know, isn't even wrong in his point of view from his situation. (Yes, being in dire straights DOES narrow your priorities significantly)

Then they actually care about the topic.

Which yeah, is typical Bay12 "You're the problem" mentality... but that is to me the more interesting thing about this topic.

No one just lets NullForceOmega live. He MUST be wrong. You all must be justified in your thinking.

When really what he says doesn't affect your arguments in anyway. It is why I originally painted it as more of a "Your entitled".

[Graknorke]

@Angle
You know that the chans can do that? No visualisation of web structure, but linked together like one.
Your concept is over a decade out of date

[Angle]

The chans don't have any kind of post ranking, and as you said, they don't have visualisation. So there are yet things to be done.