|
|
|
|
boulderingmadman
Jan 20, 2003, 4:40 PM
Post #51 of 85
(3651 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 14, 2002
Posts: 448
|
so really, what difference would it make if we used our precious soil to support beef or plant-foods? i mean, its a well written statement, and you have obviously thought about it to some extent. but would we really be using less agricultural lands if we consumed more vegetables and fruit? these plants need someplace to grow and be nurtured just as cattle do. in fact, id be willing to venture that if you removed animal byproducts as a whole from every human diet, youd find more agricultural land being used to support the insurmountable amount of vegetative consumables needed to feed 6.5 billion people. lets face it...first of all, thats never going to happen. i dont eat meat because i think its natural or anything like that...i like the taste, and i like the feeling of a fatty steak in my gut after a day of climbing, and i doubt im alone on this. but that doesnt discount your statements in its entirety... "We've already converted 83% of the terrestrial surface of the earth to meet our consumptive needs, perhaps we need to realize that if we can survive utilizing an all plant diet, maybe we should - just to avoid total ecosystem collapse" this is fantastic. but i think of it this way, (and im not trying to flame you or convince you or anything, just exposing another idea...) cattle are far more self-sufficient than plants. once they are bred and born, they could live on nothing more than natural grasses and such. all this hormone injection therapy, etc, is a waste of time and money in an effort to make more money...i agree. but farming of plants, in an organic fashion, is far more time and space consuming, let alone the huge amount of human support required, compared to organic/free-range cattle farming. no, though your statements are well written and thought out, i disagree. what we need to do, is reconsider our mass populations. what we need to do is control that aspect, rather than change our diet. becoming a farming species will create the need for more people, more used resources, and fewer areas of non-developement...IMHO. changing the diet wont change the fact that the human race is growing at an exponential rate. we are like a virus on the face of this planet, and with no forms of population control, were ultimately doomed...regardless of the food products we put into our systems...
|
|
|
|
|
aarong
Jan 20, 2003, 4:49 PM
Post #52 of 85
(3651 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 24, 2002
Posts: 180
|
Wait a minute - did I just read this???? "...cattle are far more self-sufficient than plants." HA! You have got to be kidding me! Here's a little hypothetical question for you: A nuclear warhead hits California and wipes out everything - what will grow back first? plantlife? or cows? The meer fact that plants rely on potosynthesis makes them more efficient, more self-sustaining than animals - ALL animals. [ This Message was edited by: aarong on 2003-01-20 08:53 ]
|
|
|
|
|
boulderingmadman
Jan 20, 2003, 5:00 PM
Post #53 of 85
(3651 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 14, 2002
Posts: 448
|
actually...read the wholeost...dont pick out the lines you have something against, then remove it from the context in which it is written, and make a lame reply. think and read before you reply. free-range/organic cattle can, have been, and could be again, raised with VERY LITTLE human interference. beyond breeding and birthing, the survival instinct takes over. they eat, they sleep, they $#!&. they get slaughtered and consumed. all this modern technology in farming is not natural and not healthy. leaave the "advancements" alone, let them survive, and yes, they are less "needy" than a crop of vegetables. they dont need to be weeded, watered, planted, tendered, harvested nad shipped. just born, killed and shipped. agriculture is a time consuming and involved process...even if you let the plants grow naturally and organically. you really think we could support 6.5 billion vegetarians on natural vegetation? think again. a crop of cattle wont be destroyed because of one storm. an entire crop of cattle cant be consumed by a swarm of locusts. and entire crop of cattle neednt be harvested. and entire crop of cattle neednt be born. cattle will support the survival of the species, if we allow them to. plants cant do this on their own. besides planting, tendering, and harvesting, you need to take into consideration crop rotation, soil-nutrition content, re-supply of those nutrients, soil preperation, crop loss and natural damages...see my point?? ive never heard of a farmer losing an entire crop of cattle to a hail storm. i have seen entire crops country wide be destroyed from similar natural occurences. how would that be then? we have a giant flood in the agricultural center, when every human is vegetarian, and we lose 30% of the worlds food supply? yup...then were right %@#$ered... if a nuclear warhewad hits california...nothing will grow back until after radiation id cleared and the human race is gone, anyhow...WTF is that all about? that doesnt even make sense. how long would we survive on irradiated soil and vegetation? right...good hypothetical question that makes no sense... but then again, i AM boulderingmadman...so you can ignore the logic in my post and just start the flame war... eventually ill tell you to go %@#$ yourself, and someone will come into the topic and attack my character...because you cant attack the logic. so why bother? just ignore me... [ This Message was edited by: boulderingmadman on 2003-01-20 09:03 ]
|
|
|
|
|
crazykegger
Jan 20, 2003, 5:17 PM
Post #54 of 85
(3651 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 12, 2002
Posts: 18
|
Man, whoever started this article started drama with it. What a great question. It is true, you notice more "nature people," and more "spiritual people." I consider myself a very religious person. I believe the reason for the "Nature loving" is because, imagine you just conquered a 100 ft wall (To me that would be big anyways). What a feat. When you look out over the climb, you see what you accomplished. From top to bottom, you look out and say WOW. On top of that, you are on top of the world, literally. You can look out and see the forest/water. How beautiful it is. That is the reason why we love the beuty of nature. Runners/bikers/etc, they cannot see there accomplishment from the start. They finish a run and having little to look at. This is what I see. I also am a beginner and have only done one outdoor climb (Planning another one). I also am not a vegetarian. I love meat and can never give it up. If your a veg. than more power to you. I hate it though, when people (As far as beliefs go religious/eating habits, whatevet) try to force their opinion on you. That is where people fail. We have what is called free will. Let people use their free will. Ok, I am getting off the subject. Nature is a beutiful thing and the reason climbers love it more is because we do, and see it.
|
|
|
|
|
crazykegger
Jan 20, 2003, 5:19 PM
Post #55 of 85
(3651 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 12, 2002
Posts: 18
|
I Just realized that I am on page four. That sucks.
|
|
|
|
|
dingus
Jan 20, 2003, 5:26 PM
Post #56 of 85
(3651 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 17398
|
"all this modern technology in farming is not natural and not healthy. leaave the "advancements" alone, let them survive, and yes, they are less "needy" than a crop of vegetables. " That is a most remarkable argument you propose there. Not only is it unsupportable, but it doesn't matter anyway. Consider some ultimate truths: 6 billion plus, and rising. People need to and will eat. Get hungry enough and we will eat ANYTHING. The choices of a few vegans in the US are SO beside the point. Feeling sorry for the animals, being concerned about the impact of industrial scale meat industries, etc., don't matter in the least. It's like choosing not to have children as a way to fight global overcrowding... it's merely a personal and a futile statement, the proverbial drop in a rainstorm. The only benefit is to the feelings of the person doing it (and more power to them by the way). In terms of the ill-health benefits of our food supply and our modern lifestyles, vegan and omnivore alike, perhaps the more militant amoung you can answer this question... If all of this is so bad for us, why, oh why are we living longer than ever? A trend, by the way, that has only sped up during the industrialization of our society. The more industrialized we become, the longer we live. In terms of health benefits to the individual, I'll state a couple of obvious points... 1. We are all somewhat different. What is sustaining and enjoyable for one person can be obnoxious for another. Anyone who has ever been force fed as a child, or attempted to do the same with their own children, knows the clear truth of that statement. So imposing your choices on others seems ill advised at best. 2. If a person takes sustanence and joy out of a vegan lifestyle, I applaud them. Seriously, my lifestyle, choices and eating habits are not threatened because someone else is sickened by the thought of those choices. 3. I truly believe most humans can eat damn near anything with calories with out too much ill-health, if they are very active and burn that food entirely. I liken it to a furnace.... keep the heat up and you can throw most any fuel in there and it will burn fairly cleanly. Let the fire go low and the richer fuel sources don't burn all the way and a lot of residue is left over, clogging the furnace and spewing toxic gases into the atmosphere. A sendentary lifestyle is the true crime of most fat Americans, arguably the fattest people on earth. It isn't cheeseburgers, it isn't potato chips, it isn't processed food. If you're hungry and cold and working your butt off, a cheeseburger can really hit the spot! It's inactivity. Like throwing a tire on a small campfire, eating a double whopper with fries and gulping a milkshake, and then plopping down on the couch for a nap, can leave behind a lot of bad stuff if you don't burn it up cleanly. The best benefit for America isn't "low calorie" or low meat or low carb or low anything. The best benefit for America is working our butts off and being hungry all the time. Keep the furnace on high. Not only will we produce more, we will burn our food more cleanly. Climbers as a group are better than most Americans in this regard. That's why you can see a wide range of eating lifestyles in this group and still see relatively healthy individuals. The worst of America's health problems are all related to overeating and underworking... heart disease, diabetes, etc. But the religion of food is powerful stuff. Who among you is a false prophet? DMT
|
|
|
|
|
aarong
Jan 20, 2003, 5:36 PM
Post #57 of 85
(3651 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 24, 2002
Posts: 180
|
First of all, it's hard for me to pass up a a statement as blatant as cows being more self-sufficient than plants - in the context of your argument - or outside the context of your argument. Secondly - cows are not raised in "crops." Thirdly - yes, there are storms which wipe out crops but I have also heard of entire herds being wiped out - remember Mad Cow disease in England? Disease happens in animal populations all the time - and it is much more costly, not to mention more dangerous from a public health concern, than losing a crop. Finally, how can you simply gloss over "breeding and birthing" in speaking of the self-sufficiency of cattle? You can't - it's a major aspect of raising animals for food! And what happens when cattle eat all of those natural grasses you speak of? Don't you think you will have to replant? YES. And that's why most cattle are NOT raised in beautiful fields of natural grasses - but warehouses and stockyards where they can be feed/injected easier. Anyway - I didn't plan on arguing this point - but give me a break.
|
|
|
|
|
boulderingmadman
Jan 20, 2003, 5:40 PM
Post #58 of 85
(3651 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 14, 2002
Posts: 448
|
the reason we live so much longer than we have in the past is more due to advancements in medical technology...not food production technologies... but overall, i agree with you., peple can and will eat anything they want. again, im not sure i un derstand why my wrods are the ones being chosen to be pulled out of context and argued against. do you guys honestly want me to turn this into a flame war?? i dont get it... i post logical statements. the above quote is far more logical than "what if a nuclear warhead hits california...". yet its me that you all are trying to get...whats the problem here? it would appear as though its merely an attempt to piss me off rather than debate a topic. dingus, the rest of your post has NOTHING to do with the snippet you quoted from me...out of context, i may add. it seems like all you guys want is to piss me off and get me type some cursing and swearing and really flame the $#!& out of you. then you can point at me and say "See. Typical of boldering.com. no sense. all they do is flame peple." try acknowledging some logic. try actually debating the replies...not drawing conclusions from out of context snippets. try being intellectual in your pursuits...rather than starting a flame war you will most definately lose... ps---go %@#$ yourself in the ass with a broken beer bottle...now you can all point and laugh and say how worthless b.com is. are you happy now??
|
|
|
|
|
boulderingmadman
Jan 20, 2003, 5:44 PM
Post #59 of 85
(3651 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 14, 2002
Posts: 448
|
oh, aarong, --what about this nuclear warhead thing? what about this agriculture thing? what about all the responses that i did write that you are obviously ignoring? why are yopu ignoring these aspects of my replies? is it because there really isnt much you can say to it? right...the entire population of the world can be supported by natural vegetation. yet somehow...im the one who doesnt make sense... here--%@#$ you. now you can point and laugh too...
|
|
|
|
|
dingus
Jan 20, 2003, 5:52 PM
Post #60 of 85
(3651 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 17398
|
"dingus, the rest of your post has NOTHING to do with the snippet you quoted from me...out of context, i may add. it seems like all you guys want is to piss me off and get me type some cursing and swearing and really flame the $#!& out of you. then you can point at me and say "See. Typical of boldering.com. no sense. all they do is flame peple." Your post, and that thought about cows being more self sufficient than the plants they eat, provoked me to post. Simple as that. Not that I owe you an explanation... Now I could have flamed you, or poked fun at you, or tore your argument to pieces, any of which would be patently easy to do frankly. But no. Rather, I took what I thought was the high road to point out that the entire discussion, while perhaps interesting on a debating scale, is beside the point. Why do you take everything so personal dude? May I make a suggestion? Make your best argument on a topic. Allow people the latitude to disagree and make their counterpoints. And then LET IT GO! Yer gonna blow a vein in your forehead at this rate! Cheers, DMT
|
|
|
|
|
aarong
Jan 20, 2003, 5:53 PM
Post #61 of 85
(3651 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 24, 2002
Posts: 180
|
Wow - that didn't take long at all. Only 2 posts before I was told to go F myself!! Can anyone else beat that?? ok - you want a reply to my nuclear warhead comment - I was making a point as to the self-sufficiency of plant vs. animals. Yes, the area would be irradiated for years, perhaps decades, but pioneer species of plants would quickly take root - long before humans could safely inhabit the area. Plants are more resiliant, more self-sufficient, and, I would argue, more beneficial for the world at large. Their contribution comes not only in terms of food but in their benfit to the environment. Sure - it was an extreme example to use - but this warranted an extreme example - just to make a point.
|
|
|
|
|
ecocliffchick
Jan 20, 2003, 6:01 PM
Post #62 of 85
(3651 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 4, 2002
Posts: 613
|
The idea behind avoiding consumption of animal products is that you are feeding lower on the food chain and therefore require less area of arable land per person to sustain your metabolic requirements (in fact it's about a 10 to 1 ratio). The cows that we are discussing all require tremendous amounts of land to grow crops to feed them, even if they are being housed in tiny feed lots. We then utilize a mere 10% of that metabolic energy when we eat them, instead of the crops that they eat. (The energy is lost as heat as the cows use energy to breathe and metabolize and live and grow) Instead, if we took the area that we are devoting to growing crops to feed the cows and used it to grow crops to feed us directly, we would be using 100% of the energy given off by those plant crops. If we did switch to agriculture based on human consumption of plant products, we would actually have a SURPLUS of land that we could attempt to restore back to natural function (and as a bonus we could solve world hunger). People can argue that the problem isn't what we're eating, but how many of us there are. That's very true. But how do you propose we slow our explosive population growth? Do you propose we tell instill a radical ban on reproduction? It is just not feasible to expect a reduction in our population any time soon. The argument about us all living longer now, really doesn't apply to the topic of meat consumption. Longer life is a result of the dramatic increase in medical technologies, which (unfortunately) are responsible for the tremendous population growth that is resulting in our ecological catastrophes. Right now all our funding is going towards saving the human species - when it's quite evident that humans are doing just fine, thank you, and perhaps we'd better think about some other critters for a change.
|
|
|
|
|
boulderingmadman
Jan 20, 2003, 6:05 PM
Post #63 of 85
(3651 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 14, 2002
Posts: 448
|
so, youre extreme example of a nuclear warhead hitting cali is somehow more logical than my point that the population of the world is not sustainable by natural vegetation? ok...ill let it go... dingus--if you could tear my post apart with logic and reason, maybe you should do that rather than post a reply, quoting me, and having nothing to do with the quote. the hipocrisy is almost suffocating. i post logically, and its auto-dismissed, simply because it comes from me. yet, you and others post nonsense, and it somehow holds more weight because it comes from you... you respond over and over, declaring your "rightness" and dismissing me, yet, its me who is taking it too seriously? this fun. blowing a vein over something like this is not in my nature. you see, when i turn off my computer, thoughts of you never enter my mind. this only occupies me between climbing and working. what i find most amusing is the automatic dismissal. this place makes me feel comfortable. you guys need an asshole among you...and im mkore than happy to be that asshole... let the flamewars begin....
|
|
|
|
|
aarong
Jan 20, 2003, 6:08 PM
Post #64 of 85
(3651 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 24, 2002
Posts: 180
|
Well said. I have one comment on the population boom issue: there were some surprises recently in world census data that reflected a decrease in the growth rate in India and China - 2 of the most populated countries. This showed that rules imposed by the Chinese govt. (while extreme) and EDUCATION of women in both India and China have had an impact on the population rate. This in no way means that the problem is less important than it was - but at least it shows promise as a potential solution to this world problem. (As a sidenote - we, as Americans, typically ignore that the population boom is a world problem.)
|
|
|
|
|
dingus
Jan 20, 2003, 6:11 PM
Post #65 of 85
(3651 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 17398
|
"The argument about us all living longer now, really doesn't apply to the topic of meat consumption. Longer life is a result of the dramatic increase in medical technologies, which (unfortunately) are responsible for the tremendous population growth that is resulting in our ecological catastrophes. Right now all our funding is going towards saving the human species - when it's quite evident that humans are doing just fine, thank you, and perhaps we'd better think about some other critters for a change. " You can't seperate the baby from the bathwater in this case. Our longer lives are a result of induatrialization. That includes medicine, food, protection from the elements, ALL of it. To state that it's all medical is to ignore the fact that doctors and researchers eat too. Having a reliable and predictable food source is a luxury that has been absent for the vast majority of humanity for the vast majority of our history as a species. Reasons for longer life most definitely include avoiding starvation. That is not to say your other points don't have merit, they do. But humans are people too. Try floating some of these arguments in Madagascar right now. Poor folks are starving to death as we busily type our words into our computer terminals. When that reality hits, all the intellectual arguments about "what is best" necessarily fall to the side. Eating supercedes even the most solid intellectual debate. That is the bitter truth of our situation, of humanity. We breed, we eat, and we want to survive, ALL OF US! How much land a cow needs is beside the point when you are starving. DMT
|
|
|
|
|
ecocliffchick
Jan 20, 2003, 6:20 PM
Post #66 of 85
(3651 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 4, 2002
Posts: 613
|
It's true that population growth may have slowed in two countries (one by way of a radical law -that wouldn't go over too well in many "western" cultures), but just because their growth has slowed, doesn't mean that we aren't still growing as a whole. We're now expanding our amazing medical technologies to third world countries to promote longer life for each of these poor suffering children, resulting in their survival to reproduce themselves. Yes, education will help to slow our population growth, but slowed growth is still growth. I'm totally for attempting to educate people as to replacement rate reproduction - but there are no simple solutions and this is just one of several actions that we need to make.
|
|
|
|
|
dingus
Jan 20, 2003, 6:22 PM
Post #67 of 85
(3651 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 17398
|
"dingus--if you could tear my post apart with logic and reason, maybe you should do that rather than post a reply, quoting me, and having nothing to do with the quote. " My friend, some day you will learn that you cannot dictate the form and content of the debate. You can only control your part of it. These sorts of discussions take on a life of their own and often move in tangents. Get used to it. If I want to quote you I will. I am under no requirement to do it in any particular fashion. I don't have to argue in a manner to suit your style any more than you do mine. I have no intention or need to flame you and I'm not going to engage in a non-sequiter argument about self sufficient cows (and the plants they eat) and nuclear war in California. Come back in a month and reread this thread. Maybe then you'll see it through fresh eyes. You will find my posts and points in these sorts of dicussions to be well grounded generally, based upon reality and of course my opinions. I generally try to make a point well enough that it doesn't need 5 follow up posts to defend and explain it. I state my piece, you state yours. Then... LET IT GO! Cheers, DMT
|
|
|
|
|
boulderingmadman
Jan 20, 2003, 6:23 PM
Post #68 of 85
(3651 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 14, 2002
Posts: 448
|
the proof is in the pudding...someone else posts medical technologies as a reason...and its ok. i post it, and it makes no sense... you guys are a %@#$ing riot...i love rc.com!!! ecocliffchick...youre right about the usage ratios of consuming lower species on the food cahin. but regardless of how much land and energy would be wasted feeding thousands of cows, it is still debateable that it takes fewer levels of interaction to raise beef cattle than vegetation...if done naturally. im not saying im right and your wrong. im saying its debateable. m im not an agriculturalist, and im not a cattlefarmer. but in terms of purely natural growth, cattle require less interaction than vegetation IMHO. cattle can feed themselves, can survive themselves, can reproduce themselves, and can sustain themselves. plants require fertilization, tendering, harvesting, watering, protection from the elements(more so than cattle, in some cases, less so in others), and the back-breaking labors of hundreds of humans for mass production. literally, 500 head of cattle can be cared for by fewer than 20 hands. to produce the same amount of food in vegetative form would require hundreds of hands. and that doesnt even account for the amount of clothing, and other life necessities that are a side product of the production of food cattle. im not saying your wrong. you have very valid points, and they are certainly worth considering. but i think that it would take a very conscious effort on the part of all humanity, and a combined effort of vegetative and animal food producers to make any reasonable changes. neither one will fully support the amount of people were talking about. we cant limit a resource and expect that it will produce more. in the long run, i believe that the solution is beyond our potential. in the long run, only a combined effort of the two farming products can ease the suffering of the starving peoples of the world...only by utilizing all resources can we hope to overcome the problems associated with feeding 6.5 billion mouths...a number which grows daily. neither will work on its own...
|
|
|
|
|
ecocliffchick
Jan 20, 2003, 6:24 PM
Post #69 of 85
(3651 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 4, 2002
Posts: 613
|
To dingus: it's exactly my point that there are people starving elsewhere that need food, and right now, because of OUR eating habits, they don't have it. Think of all the extra land that we would be saving if we were feeding lower on the food chain. This land could then be used to feed those people.
|
|
|
|
|
boulderingmadman
Jan 20, 2003, 6:31 PM
Post #70 of 85
(3651 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 14, 2002
Posts: 448
|
dingus--i agree with you about the course of these debates. what i find ironic is how often my points are dismissed off-hand. you come back in a month, and maybe youll realize that my posts are also well thought, intelligent, and grounded. i respond to poeple who do exactly what you are doing. i respond to logic with logic...only people seem to ignore it coming from me. everyone involved in these debates responds, over and over, with the same point of view in different words. why is this unacceptable from me? why is it that when i do post something that makes sense and is logical, you choose to ignore, only to point out an "extreme" case scenario? why is it that when i do have a logical response, and i do acknowledge the reason in a dissenting opinion, the same courtesy cannot be given to me? its because you guys have a bug in your arse about me, and no matter how logical i may be, you refuse to acknowledge it. thats ok. ignoring something doesnt make it any less right. i will continue the debate with those who actually choose to debate the points...rather than flame you in response to your closed-minded responses... its a two-way street, bro. you cant dismiss me as a flamer, and than make off-hand responses without acknowledging the logic that is there...
|
|
|
|
|
ecocliffchick
Jan 20, 2003, 6:31 PM
Post #71 of 85
(3651 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 4, 2002
Posts: 613
|
to boulderingmadman: The idea that it takes less effort to produce cattle doesn't take into account where you are getting the grain to feed the cattle. If you just leave them to graise "naturally" you aren't realizing that there are no natural prairies left for the cattle to graise upon. The labour required to restore the prairies so that the cattle can graise naturally is far less than that required to sustain a food crop. The cows food requires as much labour as our food would - only now we'd only reap 10% of the metabolic reward - which is fine if you are interested in feeding the cows, but not so efficient if you are interested in feeding the starving children in Africa.
|
|
|
|
|
dingus
Jan 20, 2003, 6:35 PM
Post #72 of 85
(3651 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 17398
|
"To dingus: it's exactly my point that there are people starving elsewhere that need food, and right now, because of OUR eating habits, they don't have it. Think of all the extra land that we would be saving if we were feeding lower on the food chain. This land could then be used to feed those people. " I challenge you to link my eating habits to the starvation that is happening in Madagascar right now. Put your money where your mouth is. I do not believe you can make a convincing case. Let's assume however we do as you suggest, move lower on the food chain and produce more food. Result? More people. You've solved nothing because it currently isn't a question of total land area vs. production. There is enough food in the world, believe it or not. Are you familiar with boom/bust cycle theory in nature? Do you think humanity is above it? DMT
|
|
|
|
|
boulderingmadman
Jan 20, 2003, 6:37 PM
Post #73 of 85
(3651 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 14, 2002
Posts: 448
|
youre absolutely right, ecocliffchick...which is why i say it requires a combination of the two...not one over the other. crops dont grow in the sahara, and cattle cant feed purely naturally. it takes effort and concentration of both food producers to even come close to solving a problem.... but its no less idealistic to talk about natural cattle-production than it is to assume the world's population can be fed through natural vegetation...both are extremist and idealistic... [ This Message was edited by: boulderingmadman on 2003-01-20 10:39 ]
|
|
|
|
|
enigma
Jan 20, 2003, 6:39 PM
Post #74 of 85
(3651 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 19, 2002
Posts: 2279
|
Not to mention the fact that the cows contain hormones and antibotics that go right into our systems.It also is more difficult to digest,I think it takes 3 days for dead animals to be digested in our systems.and... Those cows are sweet animals they recognize people and have no idea they're going to be slaughtered.
|
|
|
|
|
ecocliffchick
Jan 20, 2003, 6:48 PM
Post #75 of 85
(3651 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 4, 2002
Posts: 613
|
to dingus: (I don't know how to quote so I hope I interpreted your question correctly) I do believe man does not fall into the boom and bust cycle of nature. We have escaped natural selection on the basis of our evolution of culture. We do not fall into natural predator/prey cycles and our population growth is neither top-down or bottom-up. We have not yet run out of food and I don't expect "we" (speaking as the human species) ever will. We are not right now controled by any "natural" cycles as we manufacture our own environments free from predator/prey relationships. We are qualitatively different from every other species on the planet because we have proven our ability to escape our genetic capacity. Through our control of fire and our ability to kill at a distance, and especially through the use of proactive interference competition, we have rid the world of our predators before they had a chance to keep us in check.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|