# The carnivore's folly



## zebedee

Mod Note: This post by Gwrthgymdeithasol was split from the discussion about Typical Foods and deserves a thread in its own right.

*Originally posted by Gwrthgymdeithasol:* Well, obviously it takes more than just your family to make a difference, but basically, agriculture is one of the most resource-intensive and environmentally damaging aspects of modern global society; and meat production is by far the most scandalous abuse of natural and diminishing resources. 


The case against meat production is so overwhelming economically and socio-politically, it's hard to know where to begin. But for example, it takes about 500 litres of water to produce 1kg of potatoes, but around 3,500 litres per kg of chicken flesh and up to 100,000 litres for 1kg of prime beef.

Grains generally PRODUCE about five times as much food energy as the energy used in production, whereas beef production USES about three times as much energy as the food energy produced, which makes grain production about 15 times more efficient in terms of fossil fuel input.

Global meat production has quadrupled in the past 50 years and livestock now outnumber people by more than 3 to 1. In 1900 just over 10% of the total grain grown worldwide was fed to animals; by 1950 this figure had risen to over 20%; the figure is now close to 50%. And most of the land used for growing livestock feed is in Third World countries, where food is most scarce. 

So while nearly a billion people are undernourished, suffering malnutrition or starvation, we in the wealthier countries continue to waste around two thirds of agricultural land for our daily meat. Except us vegans, of course


----------



## Brioche

I find it hard to believe that it takes 500 kg of water to produce 1 kg of potatoes.

My parents used to farm. Their cattle and sheep lived on grass - which humans cannot eat - and turned that grass into milk and meat - which humans can eat. The animals were never fed grain.

My parents also grew [among other things] potatoes. Those potatoes, and other vegetables, grew from the water that God sent from heaven. The only water they had for drinking, cooking, washing &c, was rainwater. The only fertilizer they used was animal manure.
I think they were treading very lightly on the planet, while still eating meat.

Millions around the word have no proper shelter, while some smug vegans [among others in the West] keep their car in a garage big enough for 3 African families.


----------



## gwrthgymdeithasol

Brioche said:


> I find it hard to believe that it takes 500 kg of water to produce 1 kg of potatoes.
> 
> My parents used to farm. Their cattle and sheep lived on grass - which humans cannot eat - and turned that grass into milk and meat - which humans can eat. The animals were never fed grain.
> 
> My parents also grew [among other things] potatoes. Those potatoes, and other vegetables, grew from the water that God sent from heaven. The only water they had for drinking, cooking, washing &c, was rainwater. The only fertilizer they used was animal manure.
> I think they were treading very lightly on the planet, while still eating meat.
> 
> Millions around the word have no proper shelter, while some smug vegans [among others in the West] keep their car in a garage big enough for 3 African families.



Let me begin by disappointing you by saying that neither I nor my family own a car or a garage (or a house or even a fridge); then I can say that I agree with you on the whole. I don't deny that you *can*, as individuals, tread lightly on the planet whilst still eating meat -- as your parents evidently did. But the point is, your parents weren't industrial agriculturalists...


----------



## geve

gwrthgymdeithasol said:


> Let me begin by disappointing you by saying that neither I nor my family own a car or a garage (or a house or even a fridge); then I can say that I agree with you on the whole. I don't deny that you *can*, as individuals, tread lightly on the planet whilst still eating meat -- as your parents evidently did. But the point is, your parents weren't industrial agriculturalists...


So do you hold a grudge against intensive farmers, or meat eaters? 

I think Brioche has a point with the garage idea. I don't think space is an issue - rather, where that space is located. See post 8 in this thread for more on that topic. I think this planet is big enough to grow food (and that would be meat or vegetables or cereals) for everyone; the problem is to divide it evenly.


----------



## gwrthgymdeithasol

geve said:


> So do you hold a grudge against intensive farmers, or meat eaters?



Neither, exactly; the problem I have is with western consumerism.



geve said:


> I think Brioche has a point with the garage idea. I don't think space is an issue - rather, where that space is located. See post 8 in this thread for more on that topic. I think this planet is big enough to grow food (and that would be meat or vegetables or cereals) for everyone; the problem is to divide it evenly.



Thanks for the link; I agree with most of what post 8 says, but this bit: "there's an excess of food available in the world, and will continue to be even when there are 10 billion of us, as long as we don't screw up the environment before then" is just wishful thinking. The environment's already been permanently damaged in many places: the USA's 'dustbowl'; Brazil's & south Asia's massive deforestation; Africa's spreading deserts; the old USSR's chemical and nuclear contamination of lakes, water tables, soils etc. There's no end to it.

The real smugness comes not from a few vegans but from western/northern meateaters who demand the right to go on sucking the life out of other countries' soil and water and economies to support their extravagant, myopic, egoistical eating habits. It's a bigger issue than what we eat, but meat kind of encapsulates the problem.


----------



## geve

gwrthgymdeithasol said:


> Neither, exactly; the problem I have is with western consumerism.


Then I'm afraid the title of this thread is misleading - and the original post, too. 


gwrthgymdeithasol said:


> It's a bigger issue than what we eat, but meat kind of encapsulates the problem.


Blaming meat eating for every problem of this planet looks like a strange shortcut to me, and not very constructive too.


You might find these previous threads interesting - or maybe not:
What are you and your country doing to avoid global warming?
the mad concept of private transport
Engineered food (the link I posted previously)
Kyoto Protocol 
Nuclear power generation


----------



## maxiogee

gwrthgymdeithasol said:


> Except us vegans, of course



Ah yes, the politics of smugness! n 



gwrthgymdeithasol said:


> So while nearly a billion people are undernourished, suffering malnutrition or starvation, we in the wealthier countries continue to waste around two thirds of agricultural land for our daily meat. Except us vegans, of course



To say that we "waste" our land is to imply that we are not at present able to produce sufficient food to feel the global population. To imply this would be to misrepresent global food production. We are more than meeting the needs of the planet's population. The problems lie in where the food is being produced and in getting it to those who are either going without or are going short. Those problems will not be resolved by my in-laws, cattle rearing farmers in rural Ireland, changing their land-use patterns. The problems of famine are, in the main, caused by internal politics in the afflicted countries, or by large populations living in areas which are not fertile enough to feed the numbers living there.

Vegans are not going to save the world.
What is the cost of shipping a ton of American beef to its market in Africa? Would it be any cheaper to ship a ton of wheat?


----------



## gwrthgymdeithasol

geve said:


> Blaming meat eating for every problem of this planet looks like a strange shortcut to me, and not very constructive too.



Would you like to point out where I indicated that that was what I was doing? Did I not say that meat eating encapsulates the problem, but that it's a much wider issue to do with overall lifestyle?


----------



## gwrthgymdeithasol

maxiogee said:


> Ah yes, the politics of smugness! n
> 
> To say that we "waste" our land is to imply that we are not at present able to produce sufficient food to feel the global population. To imply this would be to misrepresent global food production. We are more than meeting the needs of the planet's population. The problems lie in where the food is being produced and in getting it to those who are either going without or are going short. Those problems will not be resolved by my in-laws, cattle rearing farmers in rural Ireland, changing their land-use patterns. The problems of famine are, in the main, caused by internal politics in the afflicted countries, or by large populations living in areas which are not fertile enough to feed the numbers living there.



This, I'm sorry to say, is the archetypal response from the educated meateater. Blame politics, blame politicians; then we don't have to take any responsibility ourselves. Same old story. Never mind about addressing any substantive points, I need a steak.
<sigh>



maxiogee said:


> Vegans are not going to save the world.



Of course they're not. I'd never imply that. Many are as egotistic and blasé as your average meat eater. Because it's about *consumption*, and what's going to change that? Certainly not us, why should we, we've got our mortgages to pay, gym fees, petrol etc etc.



maxiogee said:


> What is the cost of shipping a ton of American beef to its market in Africa? Would it be any cheaper to ship a ton of wheat?



You couldn't have missed the point by further if you'd tried :-(


----------



## ireney

gwrthgymdeithasol said:


> So while nearly a billion people are undernourished, suffering malnutrition or starvation, we in the wealthier countries continue to waste around two thirds of agricultural land for our daily meat. Except us vegans, of course




So you are actually saying that if, for instance, all us wicked meateaters decided to turn vegan and no meat was produced anymore, we would then suddenly decide to send our surplus to those you  don't have enough to eat? 


Why don't we send our meagre surplus (meagre because so much land is wasted on producing meat  ) to them now?

As to the planet suffering because we humans turned to agriculture. I won't deny that. Of course we didn't need to take all those steps we took after turning to agriculture and which led here. I am against determinism and that (all evils can be blamed on this primary cause) seems as determinism (you farm? you are going to turn into unthinking SOBs who destroy the environment and so on and so forth).
However, it is almost the same as saying that the planet would be better without any humans on it since, if we want to go into first causes etc, we might as well say that agriculture is what made as humans humans instead of brighter-than-most animals. I won't deny that either. In fact this solution is even better for the planet than us turning vegans who still use plastic, gas etc.


----------



## maxiogee

gwrthgymdeithasol said:


> This, I'm sorry to say, is the archetypal response from the educated meateater. Blame politics, blame politicians; then we don't have to take any responsibility ourselves. Same old story. Never mind about addressing any substantive points, I need a steak.
> <sigh>


I don't need a lesson on 'addressing any substantive points' from someone calling themself "anti-social" 
What point did I miss?
I don't dispute that 'the West' is at fault for much of the hunger in the world, but it's not a problem of meat-eating. Stopping the production of meat isn't going to change a thing for the hungry of the world. Starting the sensible use of land (which I have advocated elsewhere on this forum) by growing vegetation for consumption won't affect world hunger either. What will affect world hunger is a change of heart in the affluent countries about many things. The situation in Darfur is a prime example. We shilly-shally in the UN, unable to interfere in the internal affairs of a sovereign nation, while millions starve. And while we have no desire to ship food there, we can manage to get the fighting factions all the arms and munitions they desire. Now, tell me how not eating meat would make any difference to that situation?





> Of course they're not. I'd never imply that. Many are as egotistic and blasé as your average meat eater. Because it's about *consumption*, and what's going to change that? Certainly not us, why should we, we've got our mortgages to pay, gym fees, petrol etc etc.


If you say "why should we?" then you've missed the point altogether - it is not people who say "why should we?" who make a difference anywhere, it is those who say "why should I?" that do.





> You couldn't have missed the point by further if you'd tried :-(


You seem to jump to readily to the conclusion that I meant dollars when I spoke of "cost" - there are other costs of living which might well be more expensive than the present system of globalised capitalism. I'll say this, the cost to my conscience of our frantic money-grubbing in this "can't upset the World Bank" economy is pretty expensive, and interest-laden. 
But, we all deal with our consciences as best we can.


----------



## gwrthgymdeithasol

ireney said:


> So you are actually saying that if, for instance, all us wicked meateaters decided to turn vegan and no meat was produced anymore, we would then suddenly decide to send our surplus to those you  don't have enough to eat?



Am I saying that? I don't believe so.




ireney said:


> However, it is almost the same as saying that the planet would be better without any humans on it since, if we want to go into first causes etc, we might as well say that agriculture is what made as humans humans instead of brighter-than-most animals. I won't deny that either. In fact this solution is even better for the planet than us turning vegans who still use plastic, gas etc.



Agreed


----------



## gwrthgymdeithasol

maxiogee said:


> I don't need a lesson on 'addressing any substantive points' from someone calling themself "anti-social"



Funny, but not really logical. And remember the rules of the forum: keep it friendly ;-)



maxiogee said:


> Stopping the production of meat isn't going to change a thing for the hungry of the world.



Look again -- I didn't say anything about 'stopping the production of meat'. Some people seem to be having trouble reading my words!



maxiogee said:


> Starting the sensible use of land (which I have advocated elsewhere on this forum) by growing vegetation for consumption won't affect world hunger either. What will affect world hunger is a change of heart in the affluent countries about many things.



Well yes, exactly. Including meat eating, for the reasons I gave at the top of the thread!




maxiogee said:


> The situation in Darfur is a prime example. We shilly-shally in the UN, unable to interfere in the internal affairs of a sovereign nation, while millions starve. And while we have no desire to ship food there, we can manage to get the fighting factions all the arms and munitions they desire. Now, tell me how not eating meat would make any difference to that situation?



Well, you have a good point, which I wouldn't argue with; on the other hand, whose taxes are paying for those weapons? Who voted in those politicians facilitating the arms trade, because they also promised us lower taxes, cheaper mortgages, greater consumerist luxury? 





maxiogee said:


> If you say "why should we?" then you've missed the point altogether - it is not people who say "why should we?" who make a difference anywhere, it is those who say "why should I?" that do.



Yes, of course; it was a rhetorical device.





maxiogee said:


> You seem to jump to readily to the conclusion that I meant dollars when I spoke of "cost" - there are other costs of living which might well be more expensive than the present system of globalised capitalism. I'll say this, the cost to my conscience of our frantic money-grubbing in this "can't upset the World Bank" economy is pretty expensive, and interest-laden.
> But, we all deal with our consciences as best we can.



Indeed, and whilst I agree with most of what you say, you're obviously in denial about your carnivorism ;-p


----------



## invictaspirit

I'm afraid that I am going to use this thread to randomly complain that every single person I know that lectures others on green issues, vegetarianism and cars and so on, without exception, lives in a massive, draughty, uninsulated Victorian house with no double-glazing and sits there burning gas and pissing heat out of their windows and roofs and taking the piss out of me for having a Saab. Oh and one of them drives an old VW camper. Check the gas-mileage on those babies.

I just think someone should know.


----------



## cuchuflete

Ouch!  I have foresworn lectures on green issues, from my very draughty, modestly insultated Victorian house.  In lieu of giving lectures on how to fix what's wrong with the world (life is short to cover so much ground), I drive my Saab to one of the local organic farms to buy....you guessed it...meat.  Organic and similar farming practices are a very small part of a solution to industrial meat production, as many consumers (!!) cannot afford both organic meat and television, junk food, and lots of plastic toys.  In its favor, organic meat tastes great, is more healthy than the industrial variety, and supports local farmers and local economies.  

Vegetarianism is not the only alternative to eating mass-produced animal tissue.


----------



## ElaineG

For people interested in these issues, I'd like to recommend Michael Pollan's The Omnivore's Dilemma: Anatomy of Four Meals, in which he examines the sources of four meals that he consumes: an industrial agriculture meal from McDonald's, a mass organic meal created from products from Whole Foods and similar, a sustainable agriculture meal from small humane farms, and a hunter/gatherer meal from things he scavenges, hunts and finds in the area around his home. 

Each meal is accompanied by in-depth scientific analysis, ecological  and political commentary and ethical and philosophical musing of the type that I usually find boring, but found incredibly absorbing in this case.  One thing I especially enjoyed was reading the view of an _ethically and environmentally committed_ thinker who was not ready to give up being an _omnivore, i.e., eating meat._

Among the conclusions that I reached after reading that book was that being a "mass organic" consumer was doing a bit more for the world than eating industrially produced food, but only a bit. After reading the book, I finally got off my ass and joined a local CSA (Community Supported Agriculture) venture, through which I enjoy intelligently, healthily and (I would argue) ethically produced vegetables, fruit, herbs, eggs, butter _and meat_. 

And yes it tastes so damn good too!


----------



## fenixpollo

gwrthgymdeithasol said:


> The environment's already been permanently damaged in many places: the USA's 'dustbowl';


 This statement is inaccurate.  The Midwestern US was _temporarily_ damaged for a few years in the 1930's by an extended drought.  This was a natural phenomenon, which was exacerbated by overgrazing. These factors resulted in several spectacular dust storms... which led to the historical name "The Dust Bowl" for the Midwest during the 30's.  However, the Midwest continues to be known -- as it was before and after the Dust Bowl -- as "the Breadbasket of the United States".

President Bush wants to pump money into "biofuels" because he doesn't want to be the president who did nothing about America's oil dependence; and because his friends in the oil industry can make huge profits in biofuels. The problem with hydrogen and corn is that they require much more energy to produce than the energy they provide as fuels.

This is the same concept that G is making in this thread. Wouldn't it make more sense to invest our natural resources wisely, in food and fuels that will see a high return on that investment (like grains) .... rather than a negative return (like meat and hydrogen fuel)?


----------



## Victoria32

Brioche said:


> I find it hard to believe that it takes 500 kg of water to produce 1 kg of potatoes.
> 
> My parents used to farm. Their cattle and sheep lived on grass - which humans cannot eat - and turned that grass into milk and meat - which humans can eat. The animals were never fed grain.
> 
> My parents also grew [among other things] potatoes. Those potatoes, and other vegetables, grew from the water that God sent from heaven. The only water they had for drinking, cooking, washing &c, was rainwater. The only fertilizer they used was animal manure.
> I think they were treading very lightly on the planet, while still eating meat.
> 
> Millions around the word have no proper shelter, while some smug vegans [among others in the West] keep their car in a garage big enough for 3 African families.


Good points, Brioche. My parents also had a garden and grew all our vegetables, they also kept chickens (in an urban area!) and although we were on a town water and power supply, we lived a 'green lifestyle' before it was fashionable (I am talking 1952-70 here)... This is because, I think, they were "old" compared to other peoples' parents and had been adults during the 'Depression'... also my father came from the UK.


----------



## cuchuflete

> ... it takes 500 litres of water to produce 1 kg of potatoes.


 I've been pondering this for hours.
How about the following explanation?

15 or 20 litres of water for the potato plant (I'm guessing from the local rainfall that is the only water source for the potatoes I grow.)

20 litres of water to wash the potatoes.

5 litres to cook them.

The remainder is for a nice long shower, at least once weekly, during growing season, whether or not needed by the grower.


----------



## .   1

The title of this thread is misleading. I do not know even one human carnivore. The only carnivorous animal that I have any association with is a cat.
It is my understanding that any human who attempted to eat a diet of only meat would die from lack of trace elements.
This seems to me to be en exercise in diet bashing and I doubt if anybody has been convinced to change their eating habits by the contents of this thread.
We are successful as a species due in no small part to our ability to eat just about anything. We are the most omnivorous creature that has ever existed and we are the dominant creature on this planet.
There is good hard scientific evidence suggesting that we changed from a hunter gatherer society to agrarian due to climate change about 10,000 years ago and that we would have died out had we not been able to eat meat as well as vegetables and fruit.
This ability to eat meat has meant that we are the last to die during periods of food shortage because we can consume the other animals around us during drought or flood or famine or pestilence.
Our ability to eat meat is what has shaped us and made us what we are.

.,,


----------



## maxiogee

gwrthgymdeithasol said:


> Look again -- I didn't say anything about 'stopping the production of meat'. Some people seem to be having trouble reading my words!


Did you not say, in a now-deleted post, something to the effect that vegans were morally superior to meat eaters.



> Well yes, exactly. Including meat eating, for the reasons I gave at the top of the thread!


Ah yes, these reasons I have been avoiding, deliberately. Well, now's the time. Please quote the source of this water-use figures, and the energy-input ones also. I'd be interested in data to support these claims. I find it tiresome to go seeking information backing other people's "figures", when (a) they have the data to hand, obviously; and (b) to quote Dickens 'accidents will occur in the best regulated families; and (c) I've repeatedly been found wanting when it comes to looking up other people's figures, I just can't seem to find them.





> Well, you have a good point, which I wouldn't argue with; on the other hand, whose taxes are paying for those weapons?


Ultimately, the poor unfortunates staring down the barrel of the gun, or being bombed into oblivion. But, in the case of Darfur for example, you may be damn sure that no "first world" taxpayer is paying tax towards them.




> Who voted in those politicians facilitating the arms trade, because they also promised us lower taxes, cheaper mortgages, greater consumerist luxury?


You make it sound as if it is not this pair…
View attachment 3645
…who run for office in most countries. 




> Indeed, and whilst I agree with most of what you say, you're obviously in denial about your carnivorism


Oh no, not that hoary old unrefutable accusation from the aggressive convert!  
Far from denying anything, I make no attempt to hide the fact that I eat some small amounts of meat - small not from any moral or ethical reasons, but because I have rarely enjoyed meat. There are some forms I enjoy, and occasionally indulge in, even relish.


----------



## don maico

Having been born and raised in Argentina the idea of following a vegetarian let alone vegan diet would be absurd in the extreme. Argies eat their beef with blood oozing out .On  a serious note though ,humans are omnivorous and adapt to whatever food stuffs thay happen to be near. Some peoples would follow a grain based diet others, such as the Innuit, a meat and blubber  based one. The Patagonian indians ate mostly guanacos and from the contents of said animal's stomach ,obtained whatever semi digested vegetable matter they needed.It is US surrounded as we are with so much food who can make " ethical " choices .The real moral concern is the method of production ie intensive farming techniques designed to maximis production and therfeore deliver animal products at cheap prices.The consequences of such techniques are barbarism on a grand scale particulary where chicken are concerned.These birds   are kept in overcrowded conditions ,fattened far too quickly and given all sorts of inoculations( growth hormones and  antibacteria) which ultimately find their way into our stomachs.Milking cows are forced to produce milk far in excess of what they originally designed to produce which limits their lifespan to about 5 years then they are turned into dog meat or beef burgers! Bullocks were previously fed on animal protein which led to the BSE scare a few years back. The list goes on. What we SHOULD  be doing is reverting to traditional methods of animal husbandry, the current euphemism being ORGANIC farming.This would entail us paying higher prices , we would then eat less meat but of a far higher quality.


----------



## gwrthgymdeithasol

invictaspirit said:


> I'm afraid that I am going to use this thread to randomly complain that every single person I know that lectures others on green issues, vegetarianism and cars and so on, without exception, lives in a massive, draughty, uninsulated Victorian house with no double-glazing and sits there burning gas and pissing heat out of their windows and roofs and taking the piss out of me for having a Saab. Oh and one of them drives an old VW camper. Check the gas-mileage on those babies.
> 
> I just think someone should know.



I sympathise, but I'm not one of them, so that's something new for you. But I'm not lecturing you either; do as you please -- everyone (with the money to) does these days. On the other hand, those who complain about hypocritical so-called 'greens' are so rarely in a position to protest about profligacy.


----------



## gwrthgymdeithasol

cuchuflete said:


> Vegetarianism is not the only alternative to eating mass-produced animal tissue.



In fact, vegetarianism is no answer at all, because without the dairy industry, the meat industry would need unimaginably huge subsidies to keep meat 'affordable'.


----------



## gwrthgymdeithasol

ElaineG said:


> After reading the book, I finally got off my ass and joined a local CSA (Community Supported Agriculture) venture, through which I enjoy intelligently, healthily and (I would argue) ethically produced vegetables, fruit, herbs, eggs, butter _and meat_.
> 
> And yes it tastes so damn good too!



Hurray!


----------



## gwrthgymdeithasol

fenixpollo said:


> This statement is inaccurate.  The Midwestern US was _temporarily_ damaged for a few years in the 1930's by an extended drought.  This was a natural phenomenon, which was exacerbated by overgrazing. These factors resulted in several spectacular dust storms... which led to the historical name "The Dust Bowl" for the Midwest during the 30's.  However, the Midwest continues to be known -- as it was before and after the Dust Bowl -- as "the Breadbasket of the United States".



Yes, sorry, I accept my misuse of the term 'dust bowl' (although in my defence (a little), I didn't capitalise it), but the point stands -- think how much of the southwestern US has been turned to desert after deforestation and water abuse.



> This is the same concept that G is making in this thread. Wouldn't it make more sense to invest our natural resources wisely, in food and fuels that will see a high return on that investment (like grains) .... rather than a negative return (like meat and hydrogen fuel)?



Indeed


----------



## gwrthgymdeithasol

cuchuflete said:


> I've been pondering this for hours.
> How about the following explanation?
> 
> 15 or 20 litres of water for the potato plant (I'm guessing from the local rainfall that is the only water source for the potatoes I grow.)
> 
> 20 litres of water to wash the potatoes.
> 
> 5 litres to cook them.
> 
> The remainder is for a nice long shower, at least once weekly, during growing season, whether or not needed by the grower.



The 500 litre figure relates to industrial growing, not backyard! But it takes a lot more than 20l of water to grow a potato plant!


----------



## gwrthgymdeithasol

. said:


> The title of this thread is misleading. I do not know even one human carnivore. The only carnivorous animal that I have any association with is a cat.
> It is my understanding that any human who attempted to eat a diet of only meat would die from lack of trace elements.
> This seems to me to be en exercise in diet bashing and I doubt if anybody has been convinced to change their eating habits by the contents of this thread.



Yes, it is in part an exercise in 'diet bashing', but most people seem to be able to accept that 'carnivore' isn't meant literally; all humans need vegetables and other non-meat foods to live (whereas we don't need meat). 

I never had the slightest 'hope' that anyone would alter or even think about their diet on the basis of what's in this thread (although doubtless many will have their prejudices confirmed). In fact, this wasn't an 'original' topic, but previously a response to a post in a different kind of thread.



. said:


> We are successful as a species due in no small part to our ability to eat just about anything. We are the most omnivorous creature that has ever existed and we are the dominant creature on this planet.



Yes, I've noticed that: we have a lot in common with rats, don't we?



. said:


> There is good hard scientific evidence suggesting that we changed from a hunter gatherer society to agrarian due to climate change about 10,000 years ago and that we would have died out had we not been able to eat meat as well as vegetables and fruit.



Oh well. No use crying over spilt blood. I live in hope.



. said:


> This ability to eat meat has meant that we are the last to die during periods of food shortage because we can consume the other animals around us during drought or flood or famine or pestilence.
> Our ability to eat meat is what has shaped us and made us what we are.



Bloodthirsty killers and scavengers, yes, I agree.


----------



## don maico

ElaineG said:


> For people interested in these issues, I'd like to recommend Michael Pollan's The Omnivore's Dilemma: Anatomy of Four Meals, in which he examines the sources of four meals that he consumes: an industrial agriculture meal from McDonald's, a mass organic meal created from products from Whole Foods and similar, a sustainable agriculture meal from small humane farms, and a hunter/gatherer meal from things he scavenges, hunts and finds in the area around his home.
> 
> Each meal is accompanied by in-depth scientific analysis, ecological  and political commentary and ethical and philosophical musing of the type that I usually find boring, but found incredibly absorbing in this case.  One thing I especially enjoyed was reading the view of an _ethically and environmentally committed_ thinker who was not ready to give up being an _omnivore, i.e., eating meat._
> 
> Among the conclusions that I reached after reading that book was that being a "mass organic" consumer was doing a bit more for the world than eating industrially produced food, but only a bit. After reading the book, I finally got off my ass and joined a local CSA (Community Supported Agriculture) venture, through which I enjoy intelligently, healthily and (I would argue) ethically produced vegetables, fruit, herbs, eggs, butter _and meat_.
> 
> And yes it tastes so damn good too!



Just read some extracts from that book and it makes for interesting reading

http://www.michaelpollan.com/omnivore_excerpt.pdf


----------



## gwrthgymdeithasol

maxiogee said:


> Did you not say, in a now-deleted post, something to the effect that vegans were morally superior to meat eaters.



No. I don't think any post has been deleted. Moral superiority depends on more than diet 



maxiogee said:


> Ah yes, these reasons I have been avoiding, deliberately. Well, now's the time. Please quote the source of this water-use figures, and the energy-input ones also. I'd be interested in data to support these claims. I find it tiresome to go seeking information backing other people's "figures", when (a) they have the data to hand, obviously; and (b) to quote Dickens 'accidents will occur in the best regulated families; and (c) I've repeatedly been found wanting when it comes to looking up other people's figures, I just can't seem to find them.



I'll look them up (they're from an essay I wrote a few years ago), but they're general figures 'smoothed out' for fairness across a number of sources, including the WHO. Obviously though you or someone else will say they're biased!



maxiogee said:


> Ultimately, the poor unfortunates staring down the barrel of the gun, or being bombed into oblivion. But, in the case of Darfur for example, you may be damn sure that no "first world" taxpayer is paying tax towards them.



You think not? You think the Darfur weapons were dug up out of the desert?



> You make it sound as if it is not this pair…
> View attachment 3645
> …who run for office in most countries.



And get voted in every time by the electorate...



maxiogee said:


> Oh no, not that hoary old unrefutable accusation from the aggressive convert!
> Far from denying anything, I make no attempt to hide the fact that I eat some small amounts of meat - small not from any moral or ethical reasons, but because I have rarely enjoyed meat. There are some forms I enjoy, and occasionally indulge in, even relish.



The smiley indicated the irony; you and the other meat eaters are being considerably more aggressive than me. Something in your diet? ;-)


----------



## gwrthgymdeithasol

don maico said:


> The real moral concern is the method of production ie intensive farming techniques designed to maximis production and therfeore deliver animal products at cheap prices.The consequences of such techniques are barbarism on a grand scale particulary where chicken are concerned.These birds   are kept in overcrowded conditions ,fattened far too quickly and given all sorts of inoculations( growth hormones and  antibacteria) which ultimately find their way into our stomachs.Milking cows are forced to produce milk far in excess of what they originally designed to produce which limits their lifespan to about 5 years then they are turned into dog meat or beef burgers! Bullocks were previously fed on animal protein which led to the BSE scare a few years back. The list goes on. What we SHOULD  be doing is reverting to traditional methods of animal husbandry, the current euphemism being ORGANIC farming.This would entail us paying higher prices , we would then eat less meat but of a far higher quality.



Well said, yes; my point entirely. As I said, global meat production *encapsulates* (but is not solely the wilful destruction of the environment, of the planet, by humans, especially those in the wealthy northern hemisphere.


----------



## don maico

This may  be slightly off topic but not entirely so.People in my country consider themselves to be animal lovers. They refuse to eat veal because of the way its reared or foie gras for the same reasons. They protest at the sight of veal being carried abroad in containers because of their impending fate. They succesfully had fox hunting banned and yet quite joyfuly eat intensively farmed animals like pigs and chicken who endure a life of unrelenting misery before finding their way onto the dinner table. Now I am not makingh any moral judgements myself but I ask that we should at least consider what we demand as our foodstuff. Our meats are nicely packaged and whilst they look like pieces of meat they dont resemble the animal from which they came. If a whole chicken feathers and all were put in front of us would we buy it? If dead carcasses were to hang outside our butchers ( as they once did)would we venture within? Its the duality that concerns me here ie " animal lover/ unrelenting meat consumer regardless of how its produced as long as the price is right but dont show me how the animals are reared or butchered" We sometimes get called hypocrites by our European colleagues perhaps with good reason.

So the question remains should we press for legislation to banish animal abuse and return to more traditional techniques.At the moment its all consumer led and whilst organics occupy an important niche the masses still seek cheap foodstuffs including meats


----------



## fenixpollo

gwrthgymdeithasol said:


> Yes, sorry, I accept my misuse of the term 'dust bowl' (although in my defence (a little), I didn't capitalise it), but the point stands -- think how much of the southwestern US has been turned to desert after deforestation and water abuse.


 As a resident of the desert Southwest, I can say that this region is a desert because of the lack of rain (average 7 inches per year), not because of human abuse.  On the other hand, there are many areas (e.g. around the Four Corners) which used to be grassland, but now are sand and scrub because of overgrazing.  Deforestation, as far as I know, is not a major issue here. I have no idea what "water abuse" could mean.

As one of the few supporters (in this thread) of your ideas about efficiency and conservation, I'm troubled by the overgeneralization, exaggeration and inaccuracy which you use to make your "point".


----------



## maxiogee

gwrthgymdeithasol said:


> No. I don't think any post has been deleted. Moral superiority depends on more than diet


See this thread, the progenitor of this one.
Immediately following post 50 I see seven deletions, three of which are yours. Try to keep up!



gwrthgymdeithasol said:


> And get voted in every time by the electorate...


Have you yet worked out how, in a democracy, the electorate may decline to elect any candidate from those presenting themselves. All the democracies I know of provide a winner, even if only 0.001% turn out to vote.
If you know of a way to not elect a winner, I'd be pleased to receive a message from you.




gwrthgymdeithasol said:


> Obviously though you or someone else will say they're biased!


Enough, I give up. Your prejudice is showing. I cannot debate with someone who prejudges me.



> you and the other meat eaters are being considerably more aggressive than me. Something in your diet? ;-)


No, but something is sticking in my throat.  You think being challenged in your assertions is aggressive? Watch out, there are others about here who would really lash into you and would require restraint.

Goodbye.


----------



## cuchuflete

g... said:
			
		

> ...meat production is by far the most scandalous abuse of natural and diminishing resources.



That's one viewpoint.  It either overlooks some other matters, or is a conscious exaggeration.  What about overpopulation?
What about consumption of fossil fuels?  How about growing cotton in the desert?


----------



## gwrthgymdeithasol

fenixpollo said:


> As a resident of the desert Southwest, I can say that this region is a desert because of the lack of rain (average 7 inches per year), not because of human abuse.  On the other hand, there are many areas (e.g. around the Four Corners) which used to be grassland, but now are sand and scrub because of overgrazing.  Deforestation, as far as I know, is not a major issue here.



Overgrazing prevents (re)forestation. Deforestation is a cause of lack of rain. It's all tied up together, and mostly boils down to human misuse of land. The evergrowing Sahara/Sahel is a phenomenal case in point.



> I have no idea what "water abuse" could mean.



In the American context, an example would be "golf courses"!



> As one of the few supporters (in this thread) of your ideas about efficiency and conservation, I'm troubled by the overgeneralization, exaggeration and inaccuracy which you use to make your "point".



Thank you for your consideration. If you think I'm going to sit and write an academic essay for this forum, guess again ;-)


----------



## curly

Thankyou for finally mentioning over population, there really is only one cause of irreversible human damage, and that is that we are so good at spreading, increasing our numbers, and affect places so far away from our bodies.

We are animals, but we are smart animals, termites, or foxes, or little chicken and lambs, they all damage the world a little bit, and so do we, our problem isn't that we are so much more bad than animals, or that we love to eat meat, or like getting around the world really, REALLY fast, it's that there are so many of us, according to "new scientist"( check it yourself i'm going to have dinner in a few minutes) the ideal gloabal population is about " billion as oppossed to the present 6 billion, this is the reason that some government are trying to cut the population to pre-industral times.

I could probably rant for a lot longer but i don't want to incurr the wrath of maxiogee or the even scarier "others" he talks about... 

best regards

(Oh and i'm not a self-hating human)

i will go this time i promis! The world will "destroy" itself with or without our help, it hapens, again and again and...


----------



## gwrthgymdeithasol

maxiogee said:


> See this thread, the progenitor of this one.
> Immediately following post 50 I see seven deletions, three of which are yours. Try to keep up!



I could say the same to you: one of them was the post that started this thread, and the others were deleted fro being 'off-topic', i.e. rightly belonging to this thread. Nowhere have I ever claimed moral superiority of vegans; what a pity that you can't just accept that, instead of striving to be seen to be right.



maxiogee said:


> Have you yet worked out how, in a democracy, the electorate may decline to elect any candidate from those presenting themselves. All the democracies I know of provide a winner, even if only 0.001% turn out to vote.
> If you know of a way to not elect a winner, I'd be pleased to receive a message from you.



That's not really the point, is it? It was about taxes paying for arms.



maxiogee said:


> Enough, I give up. Your prejudice is showing. I cannot debate with someone who prejudges me.



You mean to say your prejudices are *not* showing? You're *not* prejudging me? Wasn't your very first contribution, "Ah yes, the politics of smugness!"??



maxiogee said:


> No, but something is sticking in my throat.  You think being challenged in your assertions is aggressive?



Not necessarily. It doesn't bother me either way. But look at (most of) the responses -- the tones are pretty personal, to say the least.



maxiogee said:


> Watch out, there are others about here who would really lash into you and would require restraint.



Now I'm quaking in my boots ;-)


----------



## gwrthgymdeithasol

cuchuflete said:


> That's one viewpoint.  It either overlooks some other matters, or is a conscious exaggeration.  What about overpopulation?
> What about consumption of fossil fuels?  How about growing cotton in the desert?



These are all major issues, I agree. One of them, fossil fuels, is tied in closely with food production. Cotton is certainly a problem, but we all consume food daily, whereas we don't all consume cotton daily. Overpopulation was deemed not to be a problem by Maxiogee in #7 (and Geve's link before that) -- why didn't you challenge *him* at that point?


----------



## cuchuflete

Mod note:  All those who wish to characterize one another's posts are welcome to do so by PM.  Shall we all take a deep breath, re-read post #1, and continue a civil discussion?


----------



## cuchuflete

gwrthgymdeithasol said:


> ... Overpopulation was deemed not to be a problem by Maxiogee in #7 (and Geve's link before that) -- why didn't you challenge *him* at that point?



You and I interpret this comment differently:



			
				Maxiogee said:
			
		

> To say that we "waste" our land is to imply that we are not at present able to produce sufficient food to feel the global population.


  I didn't find in that, or anything Geve posted, an endorsement of current population levels.  They simply didn't address that topic as an issue by itself.   

I believe that overpopulation is a more serious and much broader issue than industrial meat production.   I don't call it "scandalous", but that's a stylistic preference.


----------



## gwrthgymdeithasol

cuchuflete said:


> You and I interpret this comment differently:



Maxiogee said (same paragraph), "We are more than meeting the needs of the planet's population", which I don't think can be interpreted as anything other than saying that the world is NOT overpopulated, in his opinion?



cuchuflete said:


> I believe that overpopulation is a more serious and much broader issue than industrial meat production.   I don't call it "scandalous", but that's a stylistic preference.



Pardon me, but it's more than a question of style! It's not 'scandalous', because the First World isn't overpopulating at the human expense of the Third! But global meat production is exactly that! 

Overpopulation is a huge problem, but seeing that you're a moderator, I'm surprised you're almost willing this thread off-topic!


----------



## invictaspirit

gwrthgymdeithasol said:


> I sympathise, but I'm not one of them, so that's something new for you. But I'm not lecturing you either; do as you please -- everyone (with the money to) does these days. On the other hand, those who complain about hypocritical so-called 'greens' are so rarely in a position to protest about profligacy.


 
It's not completely new to me.  I have seen people like you on TV.  Fair play to you.  Really environmentally-friendly houses can be extremely stylish, as well as interesting to manage.

I'm not complaining about profligacy.   I am complaining about grossly idiotic mental reasoning though. I work hard and well for the modest level of comfort and affluence I live in and so do my 'green' friends.  I am able to back up pretty much all of my moral and political views by example.  I just ask others to be able to do the same.  If you can, I have no argument with you at all.  However...I feel sure that you will join me in a generous bout of laughter and pointing at people who live in almost comically energy-wasteful houses, and drive quirky old cars that return similar fuel consumption to a Range Rover, and airily excuse this by reasons of bohemian taste, while taking it upon themselves to sermonise about the environment to people who have nicer cars and more comfortable houses that...oh dear...have a far less damaging impact on the environment than the eccentric ruins aforemetioned folks drive and/or live in.

I was never talking about you.  How could I?  But we both know the people I _am_ talking about, right?  Sort 'em out.  You sound like the chap for the job.


----------



## curly

Calm down there gwrthgymdeithasol! I think you're getting a little heated  And i don't see the link between an ability to feed ourselves, and overpopulation, over population just means that there are too many people for whatever reason..


----------



## cuchuflete

gwrthgymdeithasol said:


> Overpopulation is a huge problem, _but seeing that you're a moderator_, I'm surprised you're almost willing this thread off-topic!



I hate quoting rule books, but ours does make very clear that a moderator is only a moderator when identifying a post as coming from a moderator....

In fact, my comments and concerns, which you share, about overpopulation are very much on topic, and are a direct response to your post 1 statement, "...meat production is by far the most scandalous abuse of natural and diminishing resources."   I am disputing that statement.  I think overpopulation is a more serious abuse of "natural and diminishing resources".   If it is off-topic to debate the points made in a thread opener, you have my apologies.  If I wasn't clear before in connecting the two issues, I'm sorry.   

Back to how others did or didn't address population--

"  Maxiogee said (same paragraph), "We are more than meeting the needs of the planet's population", which I don't think can be interpreted as anything other than saying that the world is NOT overpopulated, in his opinion?"

We differ here.  I might find that we can meet the food needs of a population, and independently find that the population is too damned big.  Saying that I have enough paint to do the entire house is not an endorsement of the size of the building.


----------



## .   1

gwrthgymdeithasol said:


> Yes, it is in part an exercise in 'diet bashing', but most people seem to be able to accept that 'carnivore' isn't meant literally; all humans need vegetables and other non-meat foods to live (whereas we don't need meat).
> 
> 
> 
> I never had the slightest 'hope' that anyone would alter or even think about their diet on the basis of what's in this thread (although doubtless many will have their prejudices confirmed). In fact, this wasn't an 'original' topic, but previously a response to a post in a different kind of thread.
> 
> Why did you start this thread?
> 
> Yes, I've noticed that: we have a lot in common with rats, don't we?
> 
> Omnivorous rats live.  Vegeterian Dodo birds do not live.
> 
> Oh well. No use crying over spilt blood. I live in hope.
> 
> You live because your ancestors spilt the blood.
> 
> Bloodthirsty killers and scavengers, yes, I agree.
> 
> Damned straight.  I will continue to spill blood and scavenge and I will continue to live as long as I can.


----------



## gwrthgymdeithasol

invictaspirit said:


> I have seen people like you on TV.



Probably not as good-looking ;-)




invictaspirit said:


> However...I feel sure that you will join me in a generous bout of laughter and pointing at people who live in almost comically energy-wasteful houses, and drive quirky old cars that return similar fuel consumption to a Range Rover, and airily excuse this by reasons of bohemian taste, while taking it upon themselves to sermonise about the environment to people who have nicer cars and more comfortable houses that...oh dear...have a far less damaging impact on the environment than the eccentric ruins aforemetioned folks drive and/or live in.



To tell the truth, I used to work for Friends of the Earth -- and quit for this very reason :-(


----------



## gwrthgymdeithasol

curly said:


> Calm down there gwrthgymdeithasol! I think you're getting a little heated  And i don't see the link between an ability to feed ourselves, and overpopulation, over population just means that there are too many people for whatever reason..



It's difficult to show calmness in words, but [says calmly:] I *am* calm


----------



## gwrthgymdeithasol

cuchuflete said:


> I hate quoting rule books, but ours does make very clear that a moderator is only a moderator when identifying a post as coming from a moderator....



Oh right, you mean let your own posts slip under the cameras 



cuchuflete said:


> In fact, my comments and concerns, which you share, about overpopulation are very much on topic, and are a direct response to your post 1 statement, "...meat production is by far the most scandalous abuse of natural and diminishing resources."   I am disputing that statement.  I think overpopulation is a more serious abuse of "natural and diminishing resources".



I have to reiterate that I disagree: as I said, the First World isn't overpopulating at the cost of lives and livelihoods in the Third -- but global meat production is doing just that. Meat production consumes fossil fuels, chops down forests, degrades soil, accelerates global warming (methane), wastes and pollutes water, injects poisonous chemicals into the environment, causes heart disease, supports multinational oligarchies etc. 

I also have to say that you're misrepresenting me; I hope not deliberately. My first paragraph was, "but basically, agriculture is one of the most resource-intensive and environmentally damaging aspects of modern global society; and meat production is by far the most scandalous abuse of natural and diminishing resources." So I said 'one of the', with meat production the 'most scandalous abuse' within agriculture.

Overpopulation is a Third World problem; meat consumption is a First World problem. I suspect that's at the heart of some of the denials (not yours, probably) going on here :-(


----------



## cuchuflete

. said:
			
		

> Why did you start this thread?


The thread was spun off from another.  A moderator started this thread.  Please see Post #1.
------------------------------------------------

I'm going to make a substitution, color coded, to show that, in my opinion, meat production does not stand alone.  


			
				G.... said:
			
		

> I have to reiterate that I disagree: as I said, the First World isn't overpopulating at the cost of lives and livelihoods in the Third -- but global meat production automobile use is doing just that. Meat production automobile use consumes fossil fuels, chops down forests to build parking lots and roads, degrades soil, accelerates global warming (methane, Nox, particulates, CO2), wastes and pollutes water, injects poisonous chemicals into the environment, causes heart disease, supports multinational oligarchies etc.


 Automobiles are not limited to the so-called first, or second, worlds.  They do as much or more environmental harm as industrial meat production.   I repeat that industrial meat production is a serious matter, causes lots of harm, but is not the single worst problem facing the excessively large population of the planet.  Proving that any one issue is the "most", "worst" etc. will be a challenge in data and logic, as the problems tend to be intertwined.


----------



## gwrthgymdeithasol

cuchuflete said:


> I'm going to make a substitution, color coded, to show that, in my opinion, meat production does not stand alone.
> Automobiles are not limited to the so-called first, or second, worlds.  They do as much or more environmental harm as industrial meat production.   I repeat that industrial meat production is a serious matter, causes lots of harm, but is not the single worst problem facing the excessively large population of the planet.  Proving that any one issue is the "most", "worst" etc. will be a challenge in data and logic, as the problems tend to be intertwined.



Indeed -- as I keep saying, in fact! See also my second-last paragraph in #49 -- this whole issue was meat production within the global agribiz industry. It's only taken 50 posts to establish that!


----------



## Tsoman

Maybe we should eat people


----------



## cuchuflete

Tsoman said:


> Maybe we should eat people



Please offer something original, after reading Dr. Swift's A Modest Proposal, published around 1729.


----------



## .   1

cuchuflete said:


> Please offer something original, after reading Dr. Swift's A Modest Proposal, published around 1729.


I am as omnivorous as the next bloke but I would pass on Soylent Green.

.,,


----------



## fenixpollo

gwrthgymdeithasol said:


> Yes, sorry, I accept my misuse of the term 'dust bowl' (although in my defence (a little), I didn't capitalise it), but the point stands -- think how much of the southwestern US has been turned to desert after deforestation and water abuse.


 As far as I know, very little of the southwestern US has been turned to desert after deforestation and water abuse.  Much of the Southwest is desert because very little rain falls. This has nothing to do with human activity.

As far as being a vegan is concerned... If God had meant humans to be vegetarians, then He wouldn't have made cows out of meat.


----------



## Ana Raquel

_ Fenixpollo wrote: If God had meant humans to be vegetarians, then He wouldn't have made cows out of meat._

I don't understand 'out of meat'
¿Puedes escribirlo en español, por favor?


----------



## fenixpollo

Si Dios hubiera querido que los seres humanos fueran vegitarianos, no habría hecho las vacas de carne.


----------



## gwrthgymdeithasol

Ana Raquel said:


> _ Fenixpollo wrote: If God had meant humans to be vegetarians, then He wouldn't have made cows out of meat._
> 
> I don't understand 'out of meat'
> ¿Puedes escribirlo en español, por favor?



'de/con carne', eso es usando carne. 

It's funny, but completely daft, because 'God' also made worms and scorpions and poisonous frogs and rhinoceroses and manta rays out of meat, but you don't see many people taking advantage of 'His' incredible generosity!

In fact, it was almost certainly the brain of the early homo sapiens meat eater that conceived of 'God'. I'm saying no more. 

Except that it's hilarious that someone who cites 'God' in support of his side of an argument has just been demanding that facts be adhered to! This must be the funniest thread *ever* on WRF!


----------



## .   1

gwrthgymdeithasol said:


> 'de/con carne', eso es usando carne.
> 
> It's funny, but completely daft, because 'God' also made worms and scorpions and poisonous frogs and rhinoceroses and manta rays out of meat, but you don't see many people taking advantage of 'His' incredible generosity!
> 
> In fact, it was almost certainly the brain of the early homo sapiens meat eater that conceived of 'God'. I'm saying no more.
> 
> Except that it's hilarious that someone who cites 'God' in support of his side of an argument has just been demanding that facts be adhered to! This must be the funniest thread *ever* on WRF!


It is wonderful that you were so amused by the obvious joke.
The joke is as old as humour.
I have used various versions of that joke for as long as I can remember and I don't think that I have early onset Alzheimers.
I am pleased that you have found a use for us meat eaters as the concept of God is a wonderful one and grants solace to many many people irrespective of their dietery predjudices.

.,,


----------

