Save the planet, eat more meat.

[buttercup]

And yet just like Pavlov's Dog, here you are chomping at the bit with your usual bullshit.


Unless you hunted gazelle on the Serengeti with lions, you never did that. Animals hunted and killed in Africa are routinely tortured and terrified before killing, then left to decay (crocodiles prefer their meat that way), but otherwise, you've eaten no corpses, the meat was cut up into steaks by the time you saw it, none of it was decaying, because it was all kept well-refrigerated and fresh according to USDA standards, none of it was abused, a meaningless term you fail to define, farm animals lead a rather idyllic life, none of them was terrified, except maybe a little the last few seconds as it was being dispatched, and I seriously doubt any of the animals were tortured. But then, you probably count the ear tag they get as a form of torture and use some video made in the 1970s as your backing.

Bottom line, as usual, you dramatize and make shit up to justify your own food choices by putting down others with horsecrap.

Sheesh, so much anger. Lighten up. We've had many threads like this, and it's not always so serious, sometimes we're just having fun. You don't need to take every little thing so seriously.

 

[Woodznutz]

All vegetables??? Really??

Some vegetables.

 

[Woodznutz]

You seem to be afflicted with a bad case of fuzzy thinking. You started this buy proclaiming that people should eat more meat. Then at some point you decided that people just eat too much. The fact is that some people do eat too much while others do not eat enough, and that is not by choice.

Another fact is that a tremendous amount of the foo that's produced is wasted, in part because because it is not distributed equitably or rationally .

Americans eat too much meat, the poor of the world not enough, so both statements stand.

 

[Sparker]

Farming the prairie has turned out to be a mistake. Freegrazing is most of what can be done with what's left of the soil and water. The diet there will be mostly meat as the trucking industry dies off. Where there is more water, and reckless overfarming hasn't destroyed too much of the soil, a more varied diet will be possible.

 

[Woodznutz]

You have yet to explain that, The fact is that growing vegetables and grains to feed to animal that we then eat is a grossly inefficient way to feed the planet, We can produce enough food and more to feed everyone but only if we make better use of the land. There is no way in hell that you can refute that,

The best use of farmland is to incorporate animals into it. Animal manures reduce the need for chemicals.

We need very little grain to 'finish' cattle if they're allowed to mature on quality grass. Also, Americans should reduce meat consumption along with all other foods. This will help the health of both man and the land.

People here generally haven't made the health connection between the land, food, and themselves, and they don't seem to care. If we don't force the land to produce so much maybe it can get some rest.

Grasslands invite rain, cultivation drives rain away.

Grasslands Are Some of Earth’s Most Underrated Ecosystems

Grasslands provide critical wildlife habitat, help mitigate climate change and support food and livelihoods globally. Yet they're undervalued — and at risk.

www.wri.org

 

[westwall]

The solution for global hunger is to have fewer children in the developing world. Hard to develop when your people are starving.

The true solution is to end the 3rd World. Elevate EVERYONE to 1st World status and watch everything get better for the environment.

 

[Woodznutz]

Sure , over population is a problem in some regions, But what does that have to do with the premise of your thread.? "eat more meat?? or is is Eat less? Or is is it vegetables are killing the earth?

Lets recap , You started this mess my proclaiming that we can save the planet by eating more meat, Then you claimed that growing vegetables is killing the planet,

Then in post 17 you state that the problem is that people just eat too much meat ! Is there something wrong with you?

After that you decided that we just eat too much, without acknowledging the fact that some people do not get enough food. Now you’re pivoting to over population.

What the hell does "saving the planet " really mean to you and what would it look like? Does saving the planet mean saving the human species? Or does it mean preserving it as a viable life sustaining environment for all species and plant life,? (which in the absence of humans would be more probable)

It seems that you have no idea where you want to go with this. For all of your blathering, , you have never once presented what you believe to be a rational and sustainable land use policy or agricultural practice except some vague reference to grass lands and returning land to forests

At the same time you totally ignore the social, political and economic aspects of food production and distribution. Are you at all concerned about- or even aware of -the fact that there are people right here in this country who are hungry despite the abundance of food? Save the planet? How about save the hungry children?

You really do not seem to know what it is that you believe , Your thread started out as a idiotic mess and it still is. Your thread seems to be a bad joke without a punch line, except that hunger is not funny and you have no solution for it.

Although vague and seeming contradictory everything I've said is true. However, it requires the reader think about what I've said, not give knee jerk negative responses.

Consider the effect on agriculture of Americans reducing their caloric intake from an unhealthy 3500 calories per day to a healthier 2000 calories per day. If food prices have to rise to keep the food industry solvent that's the cost of better health for people and the land. There's no free lunch (pun intended).

 

[Woodznutz]

The true solution is to end the 3rd World. Elevate EVERYONE to 1st World status and watch everything get better for the environment.

Such progress would place too much demand for fossil fueled energy. Massive upheaval and starvation will happen long before the developing countries are 'elevated'.

 

[westwall]

Such progress would place too much demand for fossil fueled energy. Massive upheaval and starvation will happen long before the developing countries are 'elevated'.

No, it wouldn't. There is a direct correlation between wealth and reduced population.

Reduced population equals LESS consumption.

 

[toobfreak]

Sheesh, so much anger.

Anger? Where was there any anger in my post? That was a very bad misread of my post. So you are prone to imagination as well? Maybe you are hallucinating from lack of protein from not enough eating meat.

I have more than doubled my consumption of protein now--- I will eat double my usual amount of meat from now on, selected from hopefully the most abused, terrified and tormented animals possible, to make up for the meat you didn't eat.

I think there is a market cross town which specializes in selling meat only from baby deer, abandoned Easter rabbits, and people's lost pets, etc., all appropriately starved, beaten, tormented and scared before execution with a rusty knife.

 

[ReinyDays]

Anger? Where was there any anger in my post? That was a very bad misread of my post. So you are prone to imagination as well? Maybe you are hallucinating from lack of protein from not enough eating meat.

I have more than doubled my consumption of protein now--- I will eat double my usual amount of meat from now on, selected from hopefully the most abused, terrified and tormented animals possible, to make up for the meat you didn't eat.

I think there is a market cross town which specializes in selling meat only from baby deer, abandoned Easter rabbits, and people's lost pets, etc., all appropriately starved, beaten, tormented and scared before execution with a rusty knife.

That taints the meat ... better to to get the baby animals used to the slaughtering pit a few days before ... that way the babies are nice and calm before the we cut their throats ... all the blood is out in a few seconds and all the hormones triggered stay in the gland ... and not get distributed to the meat ...

Chickens are small enough just one quick swing of the axe ... or just grab the head and spin it off ... whatever gets the blood out before panic sets in ...

It brings the best flavor out in the meat to slaughter this way ... maybe you city-slicking flatlanders never tasted properly killed and butchered baby animals ...

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Although vague and seeming contradictory everything I've said is true. However, it requires the reader think about what I've said, not give knee jerk negative responses.

Consider the effect on agriculture of Americans reducing their caloric intake from an unhealthy 3500 calories per day to a healthier 2000 calories per day. If food prices have to rise to keep the food industry solvent that's the cost of better health for people and the land. There's no free lunch (pun intended).

I most certainly have thought about what you said, It would appear th you have not thought much about it before saying it odd ball shit like growing vegetable is killing the planet. Still waiting for you to explain that.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

The best use of farmland is to incorporate animals into it. Animal manures reduce the need for chemicals.

We need very little grain to 'finish' cattle if they're allowed to mature on quality grass. Also, Americans should reduce meat consumption along with all other foods. This will help the health of both man and the land.

People here generally haven't made the health connection between the land, food, and themselves, and they don't seem to care. If we don't force the land to produce so much maybe it can get some rest.

Grasslands invite rain, cultivation drives rain away.

Grasslands Are Some of Earth’s Most Underrated Ecosystems

Grasslands provide critical wildlife habitat, help mitigate climate change and support food and livelihoods globally. Yet they're undervalued — and at risk.

www.wri.org

OK you're making some amount of sense here now . We have indeed come a long way from your OP about eating more meat to save the planet. That is evolution I suppose.

However, you are no addressing the fact that while some people have far more than they need others have too little and reducing food production will no correct that disparity and probably exacerbate it. The problem is waist and disparity in distribution because that food is not treated as a human right

 

[Woodznutz]

No, it wouldn't. There is a direct correlation between wealth and reduced population.

Reduced population equals LESS consumption.

Not sure what your point is. Please elaborate.

 

[Woodznutz]

OK you're making some amount of sense here now . We have indeed come a long way from your OP about eating more meat to save the planet. That is evolution I suppose.

However, you are no addressing the fact that while some people have far more than they need others have too little and reducing food production will no correct that disparity and probably exacerbate it. The problem is waist and disparity in distribution because that food is not treated as a human right

Here's probably the best example of what I'm talking about. Instead of the ridiculous claim that raising livestock is a net negative for global food production consider this. As soon as I learned of this program, I became a donor, along with Water Wells for Africa and Navaho Water Project.

How Devon farmer's send-a-cow-to-Africa charity has changed lives - Farmers Weekly

A Devon farmer’s idea to send cows to Uganda has grown into an organisation offering training in sustainable farming and business skills across rural east

www.fwi.co.uk

 

[Woodznutz]

I most certainly have thought about what you said, It would appear th you have not thought much about it before saying it odd ball shit like growing vegetable is killing the planet. Still waiting for you to explain that.

I include cereal grains as well which deplete the soil causing the use of more chemicals. Vast fields of grains can hardly be fertilized with animal manures, but if people ate more meat less acreage would be needed for grains and other vegetables. More land could be turned into pasture and hay land. The acreage used to produce ethanol is another environmental tragedy.

Ethanol's outsized place in the U.S. energy system

frontiergroup.org

 

[Woodznutz]

lolol... (I'm laughing because I rarely start these threads, but I get paged to them....which is pretty much the opposite of how a few folks on this site portray things.)

As for carnivorism....Nooope. I'll never go back to eating the decaying corpses of abused, terrified, tortured animals. Just the thought of it now is weird and gross to me.


View attachment 1126526

Millions around the world are dying on the 'vegan' diet.

 

[DukeU]

lolol... (I'm laughing because I rarely start these threads, but I get paged to them....which is pretty much the opposite of how a few folks on this site portray things.)

As for carnivorism....Nooope. I'll never go back to eating the decaying corpses of abused, terrified, tortured animals. Just the thought of it now is weird and gross to me.


View attachment 1126526

Billions of animals are killed growing and harvesting food and crops.​

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Here's probably the best example of what I'm talking about. Instead of the ridiculous claim that raising livestock is a net negative for global food production consider this. As soon as I learned of this program, I became a donor, along with Water Wells for Africa and Navaho Water Project.

How Devon farmer's send-a-cow-to-Africa charity has changed lives - Farmers Weekly

A Devon farmer’s idea to send cows to Uganda has grown into an organisation offering training in sustainable farming and business skills across rural east

www.fwi.co.uk

It is hardly a ridiculous claim and your link does not refute it. In fact there is very little information about of that works

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Millions around the world are dying on the 'vegan' diet.

Seriously?? Can you document that please.