• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

How would a vegeterian (against eating animals) react to this

S

SnoopCat

Senior member
The Earth cannot support a world of vegeterians. The soil on Earth is unable to regenerate its nutrients quick enough (be barren) in order to maintain a food supply of crops to feed a world of vegetarians on Earth.
 
Well there is no way i'm turning away from PETA ( People Eating Tasty Animals )
and as for those vegetarians what a PITA
 
Originally posted by: SnoopCat
The Earth cannot support a world of vegeterians. The soil on Earth is unable to regenerate its nutrients quick enough (be barren) in order to maintain a food supply of crops to feed a world of vegetarians on Earth.
Click to expand...
Oh really? Ever stop to think about how much grain and water it takes to generate that 10oz steak you just ate? Ever stop to think about how many people all that food and water could have sustained?

You = wrong. Sorry.

According to the journal Soil and Water, one acre of land could produce 50,000 pounds of tomatoes, 40,000 pounds of potatoes, 30,000 pounds of carrots or just 250 pounds of beef.
It takes 2,500 gallons of water, 12 pounds of grain, 35 pounds of topsoil and the energy equivalent of one gallon of gasoline to produce one pound of feedlot beef.

Beef producers who supply American fast-food chains are destroying rain forests at the rate of 260 acres a day to make room for grazing cattle. It takes 2,500 gallons of water, 12 pounds of grain, 35 pounds of topsoil and the energy equivalent of one gallon of gasoline to produce one pound of feedlot beef.

It takes 2,500 gallons of water to produce one pound of beef, but just 25 gallons of water to produce a pound of wheat.

The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development lists nitrate pollution (from fertilizer and manure) as one of the most serious water-quality problems in Europe and the United States.

A 1997 study by the Senate Agriculture Committee found that 60 percent of American waterways were polluted,and the major reason is animal agriculture.

One third of all the raw materials used in the United States goes into producing animal foods.

According to FARM, 87 percent of all the agricultural land in the United States is used directly or indirectly for livestock production, and 85 percent of all U.S. topsoil loss is directly related to raising livestock.
Click to expand...

EDIT- for the record, I'm not a vegetarian. 😉

 
Well then, thank goodness animals taste so good. If they tasted horrible, I could see the possibility of a problem, but as long as a steak tastes better than asparagus, then we won't have that problem.
 
Uhm ... where do you come up with that? Actually, it takes much more farmland to support carnivores then vegitarians because our meat animals feed on plants. Converting that plant matter into the meat that reaches your dinner table is not very efficient. It'd be much more efficient for people to eat the plants directly then have them "processed" into meat.

edit: Fausto said it far better then I did.
 
Originally posted by: SnoopCat
The Earth cannot support a world of vegeterians. The soil on Earth is unable to regenerate its nutrients quick enough (be barren) in order to maintain a food supply of crops to feed a world of vegetarians on Earth.
Click to expand...


That's wrong. There are more than enough plants to feed everybody. Vegetation easily outweighs livestock.

But I still enjoy delicious steak.
 
The ones who wouldn't call your bluff would adamantly maintain their position.

If the total amount of food in the world would not support a world of omnivores, is cannibalization justified?
 
Originally posted by: xirtam
The ones who wouldn't call your bluff would adamantly maintain their position.

If the total amount of food in the world would not support a world of omnivores, is cannibalization justified?
Click to expand...
I dunno. What do you taste like? Can you suggest a wine to go with Xirtam? There's more to this than just plunking you on a plate, you know.

 
Originally posted by: Fausto1
Originally posted by: xirtam
The ones who wouldn't call your bluff would adamantly maintain their position.

If the total amount of food in the world would not support a world of omnivores, is cannibalization justified?
Click to expand...
I dunno. What do you taste like? Can you suggest a wine to go with Xirtam? There's more to this than just plunking you on a plate, you know.
Click to expand...

I plugged Soylent Green into my wine selector, but it didn't come up with anything 😕
 
You're like wrong... Just what the heck do you think cows/sheep/etc eat to produce meat?

If we all ate just a little further down the food chain, there'd be much less environmental pressure.
 
Originally posted by: ergeorge
Originally posted by: Fausto1
Originally posted by: xirtam
The ones who wouldn't call your bluff would adamantly maintain their position.

If the total amount of food in the world would not support a world of omnivores, is cannibalization justified?
Click to expand...
I dunno. What do you taste like? Can you suggest a wine to go with Xirtam? There's more to this than just plunking you on a plate, you know.
Click to expand...

I plugged Soylent Green into my wine selector, but it didn't come up with anything 😕
Click to expand...

Um, ok.
 
for each level up from grain you eat you only get ~1/10th the energy captured by the previous level. eating plants is 10% efficient, eating cow is 1% efficient, and eating shark which at fish which ate fish which ate plants is 0.1% efficient.
 
yes snoopcat do a little research or get some sorta engineering backround...this is obvious



According to the journal Soil and Water, one acre of land could produce 50,000 pounds of tomatoes, 40,000 pounds of potatoes, 30,000 pounds of carrots or just 250 pounds of beef.
Click to expand...
 
The point of me being a vegetarian isnt to convert the whole world into vegetarians, that would be stupid. Im a vegetarian not for the earth, the animials, religion, but i am a vegetarian for myself.
 
Originally posted by: xirtam
The ones who wouldn't call your bluff would adamantly maintain their position.

If the total amount of food in the world would not support a world of omnivores, is cannibalization justified?
Click to expand...

I've never seen a problem with cannibalism, it's just meat. Provided it is prepared properly, I would eat human.
 
Originally posted by: ElFenix
for each level up from grain you eat you only get ~1/10th the energy captured by the previous level. eating plants is 10% efficient, eating cow is 1% efficient, and eating shark which at fish which ate fish which ate plants is 0.1% efficient.
Click to expand...

Phew...at least a couple of people studied biomass energy conversion pyramids in high school biology.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top