Forum Settings
       
« Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6
Reply To Thread

You know when you hear something so mindblogglingly stupid..Follow

#1 Apr 22 2008 at 7:44 AM Rating: Excellent
****
8,619 posts
...That you can't quite believe you actually heard it correctly?

Well i did hear correctly and it was still sounded stupid. But i like to think i have an open mind so i brought it to this most open minded of forums to see if anyone could answer a few of my questions generated by what i heard and hell throw your opinions in aswell cos i love you all so very much.

Ok to Business: Former beatle, all round good egg and snappy dresser Sir Paul "I'm still worth millions" McCartney has said that we should all stop eating meat to stop global warming.

Quote:
The former Beatle said the world's meat industry was one of the main contributors to global warming.

Sir Paul urged people to tackle the problem by turning to a meat-free diet.

"I would urge everyone to think about taking this simple step to help our precious environment and save it for the children of the future," he said in an interview with animal rights organisation Peta.
The arguement goes that animal farming is producing between 10 and 15% of the greenhouse gases produced by industrialised countries. So if everyone stopped eating meat as part of thier diet we could reduce the greenhouse gas output by 10-15%.

Now i have a few small logistical questions before i move on to my opinion.

1. What is the preposal for the animals, are they to be slaughtered or left roaming around, because one option is the forced extinction of entire species and the other accompleshes nothing since said animals are still wandering around farting and such like.

2. Where do you draw the line? In africa Oxon are part of the culture and ecconomy of the tribes, or do you just propose to put the farmers out of business because they are dirty stinking capitalists?

3. Why stop at farming? Dogs fart something terrible and they must be adding to the problem, so do we ban any pets that add to the greenhouse gases aswell? What about the herds of wildebeast, Impala, Yak, they have no purpose at all, at least Cows feed us, thats useful. Can't we get rid of all the pointless animals first? lets start with Wombats.

4. should we maybe just maybe look at industry before we start looking at agriculture? maybe plant some more trees? What if we forced farmers to plant 10 trees around every field? that would ofset at least some of the green house gases long term right?

    Opinion:


I really LOATHE when people try and deflect a debate away from the real isses/possible solutions by offering rampant stupidity as a viable alternitive.

Global warming is a complex problem, So complex that so far they haven't been able to detect much, if any global increase in temprature despite the early models showing massive increases by now.

Simple solutions put forward by celebretity's for organisations with Agenda's that are nothing to do with the issue they are talking about are both counter productive to the efforts made by sencible people and lead skeptics to believe that the talk of Global warming is nothing more than a smokescreen to enable govenments to bring in unpopular laws.

I do believe there is a problem but me not eating chicken Szechuan noodles tonight isn't going to solve it!

Excuse the Gbajieque length, and please Comment, ignore, derail, CJ, deride whatever you want to do.
#2 Apr 22 2008 at 7:46 AM Rating: Good
*****
10,755 posts
If it wasn't for my horse, I never would have spent that year in college.
#3 Apr 22 2008 at 7:52 AM Rating: Good
I'm a bit torn on this issue. I love meat, I really do.

But the industry is really inefficient and polluting. Not only that, but it also uses tremendous amounts of water, which will soon be a precious commodity, even for us.

The problem isn't really with traditional animal husbandry (as you get in Africa), but intensive meat-farming.

Paulsol will explain it much better than I, but there's probably something to be done there.

Fundamentally, our way of life is not sustainable if the whole planet does it. While 3/4 is stuck in poverty it doesn't matter, but when they start to catch up, then we're in a bit of a conendrum. It's hard telling China/India "follow what I say, not what I do". Well, it's easy telling it, but they probably won't agree.
____________________________
My politics blog and stuff - Refractory
#4 Apr 22 2008 at 7:58 AM Rating: Decent
****
8,619 posts
The thing is Red, you don't HAVE to have intencively farmed meat, you can PAY MORE for normally produced meat, and that is sustainable there are literally millions and millions of aches of farmland that the govenment pay to remain fallow for years on end in the UK alone, yet there is a food crisis?

The unsustainablity is in population levels and thats an entirely different issue altogther.
#5 Apr 22 2008 at 8:06 AM Rating: Good
Baron von tarv wrote:
The thing is Red, you don't HAVE to have intencively farmed meat, you can PAY MORE for normally produced meat, and that is sustainable there are literally millions and millions of aches of farmland that the govenment pay to remain fallow for years on end in the UK alone, yet there is a food crisis?


Well, the "food crisis" and the problem with the meat-industry are two different things.

And yeah, you can have sustainable traditional "organic" meat, but it will cost a hell of a lot more. I don't mind too much, but that's not the issue here. The isue is with the current state of the meat industry, which relies on intensive grazing and rearing.

Quote:
The unsustainablity is in population levels and thats an entirely different issue altogther.


It's not the "population level" that matters, it's their way of life. And that's entirely tied to the meat-industry problem.

Obviously I'm not advocating that we all stop eating meat. I'm french for fUck's sake. But I do agree that the industry is not sustainable, neither in terms of global warming, or in terms of ressources used to mantain it, and even less so if it keeps in increasing it as is the case currently.
____________________________
My politics blog and stuff - Refractory
#6 Apr 22 2008 at 8:13 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
RedPhoenixxx wrote:
But the industry is really inefficient
Well, the more efficent they make it, the more people complain. Something about objecting to growth hormones and cattle cages.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#7 Apr 22 2008 at 8:13 AM Rating: Good
By this logic we should cut down all the trees aswell.

http://www.carbon-info.org/carbonnews_028.htm

Not just trees, plants aswell.

So we can't eat meat, and we can't eat plants?

Better yet, lets stop using electricity aswell.
#8 Apr 22 2008 at 8:26 AM Rating: Good
Jophiel wrote:
RedPhoenixxx wrote:
But the industry is really inefficient
Well, the more efficent they make it, the more people complain. Something about objecting to growth hormones and cattle cages.


True, I meant "unsustainable". I really don't think cages and hormones are the way forward.

Quote:
By this logic we should cut down all the trees aswell.


The problem is not just that they fart, but that the amount of ressources needed to rear so much meat is completely disproportionate to the "benefits". And we're cutting down 1.5 acres of rainforest every second to create new land for grazing. It is a bit fUcked up.
____________________________
My politics blog and stuff - Refractory
#9 Apr 22 2008 at 8:29 AM Rating: Decent
****
9,997 posts
Quote:
If it wasn't for my horse, I never would have spent that year in college.


First thing I thought of.


As for the meat industry, I don't think 15% of greenhouse gas emissions is substantial enough to warrant a widescale change of human omnivorism.

And isn't it mostly cattle that's the culprit? Nothing to do with pigs, chicken or certainly fish?
#10 Apr 22 2008 at 8:36 AM Rating: Good
Vagina Dentata,
what a wonderful phrase
******
30,106 posts
The amount of land cut and used for grazing is considerable and was less of a problem when you are talking about small,traditional farms and hunting. Rather, he is alluding to massive agribusinesses that hog resources-- think about the impact in Brazil, for example, where millions of acres of rainforest (our only new world rainforest left) are being plowed, for among other things, grazing land for cattle. I'm fine with you not agreeing, but like Redphoenixxx, I'm more torn and don't find his point particularly stupid.

There are more efficient ways, as Joph discussed, that are tantamount to really unhealthy amounts of animal abuse and use of hormones. I think we'd be better off reducing our meat intake, at the very least.

Edited, Apr 22nd 2008 12:37pm by Annabella
____________________________
Turin wrote:
Seriously, what the f*ck nature?
#11 Apr 22 2008 at 8:43 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Commander Annabella wrote:
There are more efficient ways, as Joph discussed, that are tantamount to really unhealthy amounts of animal abuse and use of hormones. I think we'd be better off reducing our meat intake, at the very least.
Nonsense. We just need to step up development of growing meat in vats.

Mmm... delicious vat-meat.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#12 Apr 22 2008 at 8:54 AM Rating: Excellent
Jophiel wrote:


Mmm... delicious vat-meat.


Mmm, tube-steak.

#13 Apr 22 2008 at 8:55 AM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,360 posts
I don't find his comments stupid. A little tunnel-visioned, sure, because vegetarianism is a cause he's espoused for most of his adult life. Doesn't mean he lacks a point, though.

Meat production costs something like 15 times more energy than the equivalent human-edible grain production. Issues of deforestation aside, that's a lot of energy loss.



Edited, Apr 22nd 2008 12:57pm by Samira
____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#14 Apr 22 2008 at 8:57 AM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,360 posts
Hamsters? "On the job, ma'am!"

Okay, if you want to read something really mindbogglingly stupid:

The other morning I was getting coffee, and the chick behind the counter told me, "I just started a fresh brew so it'll be a minute." I said fine. Then she corrected herself:

"Well... doesn't take a whole minute. Takes about 60 seconds."

I gave her a "Is that your final answer?" look, and she nodded and said, "Yeah... that sounds right."




Edited, Apr 22nd 2008 1:05pm by Samira
____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#15 Apr 22 2008 at 9:03 AM Rating: Excellent
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
35,474 posts
I've got to be honest here, I'm not going to stop eating meat. One of you is going to have stop eating it for the both of us. Many thanks in advance.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.


An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#16 Apr 22 2008 at 9:28 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Samira wrote:
Meat production costs something like 15 times more energy than the equivalent human-edible grain production.
Sure, but cows digest cellulose-based stuff much more efficently than humans. So it's a waste not to feed that grain to the cattle!
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#17 Apr 22 2008 at 9:33 AM Rating: Excellent
Since we're on the subject of unrelated stories about random people:

Last Sunday I was taking a shower, when I heard shouts and screams from what sounded like a teenager. It went on, and on, and on. I got out of the shower, opened the bathroom window, and there was a woman, early 30's, sitting on her window ledge. She was shouting "It's too late now, you should've come before, it's too late..." I kept watching for a bit, and thought I might even make a thread here about it, a kind of "will she jump or not?" live and direct from my bathroom window, with regular updates like CNN during election time.

And then it hit me. I hate this. I hate people who are fascinated by other's misery, I hate people who slow down to look at accidents, I can't stand society's fascination for things which are completely irrelevant and yet tragic. The daily horrors of humanities. It always pisses me off, cos it's not "news", it's become a form of morbid entertainment, and there is far too much of it around.

So I closed the bathroom window, glad I hadn't seen her jump. I decided to do the right thing: Roll a joint and smoke it on my balcony. I roll the joint, take my lighter, step on my balcony, and lo and behold: there were 2 police vans, 3 police cars, 2 firetrucks, 1 ambulance, between 10-15 10 policemen, all gathered right there under_my_freaking_balcony. They had cordonned off the street, and were all waiting, talking, negotiating.

No joints for Red, then.

Anyway, long story short, the screams and shouts lasted for 5-6 hours, until at around 6 in the evening she decided to come down, and they took her away.

Finally, I went on my balcony and had a joint.

MotherfUckers.
____________________________
My politics blog and stuff - Refractory
#18 Apr 22 2008 at 12:15 PM Rating: Excellent
****
4,158 posts
Quote:
What is the preposal for the animals, are they to be slaughtered or left roaming around, because one option is the forced extinction of entire species and the other accompleshes nothing since said animals are still wandering around farting and such like.


Factory farming, of cows chickens pigs and other animals, has done more to reduce species diversity than anything else. this is also true of crop farming. Its very nature (ie pursuit of largest yield for minimum cost) has dictated that animals and crops are bred to conform.

That limiting of diversity is not just confined to the animals being farmed. But also the animals and plants that would have at one time been living alongside food animals that are being organically raised.

Quote:
2. Where do you draw the line? In africa Oxon are part of the culture and ecconomy of the tribes, or do you just propose to put the farmers out of business because they are dirty stinking capitalists?


Unless you are one of the top 1% or so of earners in Africa, I can pretty much assure you that your diet doesn't contain meat once a week, let alone twice a day, seven days a week.

Factory farming is the problem. Not occasional meat eating.
Quote:

3. Why stop at farming? Dogs fart something terrible and they must be adding to the problem, so do we ban any pets that add to the greenhouse gases aswell? What about the herds of wildebeast, Impala, Yak, they have no purpose at all, at least Cows feed us, thats useful. Can't we get rid of all the pointless animals first? lets start with Wombats.



As I said, Factory farming. Intensively farming animals, using artificial growth stimulants (anti-biotics and growth hormones for example) is whats doing the damage. Not dog farts.

Quote:
4. should we maybe just maybe look at industry before we start looking at agriculture? maybe plant some more trees? What if we forced farmers to plant 10 trees around every field? that would ofset at least some of the green house gases long term right?



Agriculture in the 21st century IS an industry. There is nothing natural about eating meat 2 or 3 times a day, 7 days a week. And there is nothing natural about the methods used to make a chicken go from hatching out of an egg on day one, to being ready to eat only 28 days later.

It takes 25 gallons of water to produce 1lb of wheat & 2500 gallons to produce 1lb of meat

In a world that is going to have some serious problems with water shortages, this surely should be taken into account.

In a world where people are already hungry, does it make sense that something like 70% of all grain/soya type crops are grown purely to feed intensively farmed animals?


I don't think people should never eat meat. I just think that if they are going to eat it, they should treat it with the respect that it deserves (ie. know what it means to eat animal flesh, with all its connotations) and also they should only eat meat from organicaly raised animals. And that would mean paying full price for it.

It is impossible to produce healthy (for the consumer or the planet) meat at a profit, at the rate that it is produced currently, without incurring a massive environmental and social debt. To think otherwise is ridiculous.

Paul McCartney is a ****** tho.


____________________________
"If you have selfish, ignorant citizens, you're gonna get selfish, ignorant leaders". Carlin.

#19 Apr 22 2008 at 12:33 PM Rating: Good
****
9,997 posts
Quote:
I think we'd be better off reducing our meat intake, at the very least.


I can only speak for Americans, but that's true regardless of any environmental impacts. Americans consume way more meat than they need on average. You don't need more than a few ounces a day, roughly the size of your palm-- that's plenty for your nutritional needs (unless perhaps you're heavily bodybuilding), and it should usually be fish or something lean like chicken. Beef intake is way too high and contributes considerably to our obesity epidemic.

I can't even recall the last time I had beef personally. It was probably beef vegetable stew.

To be totally frank, I think the environmental thing is mostly irrelevant. I can't imagine many people would be socially responsible enough to avoid meat for environmental reasons (or could be persuaded to) without having enough personal responsibility to avoid excessive meat consumption for health reasons.

Course I could be wrong.
#20 Apr 22 2008 at 12:43 PM Rating: Good
****
4,158 posts
Quote:
I think the environmental thing is mostly irrelevant.


Extremely false, I'm afraid.

Quote:
I can't imagine many people would be socially responsible enough to avoid meat for environmental reasons (or could be persuaded to) without having enough personal responsibility to avoid excessive meat consumption for health reasons.



Also false.

Sadly people still smoke 40 **** (cigarrettes for the sniggering idiots at the back) a day, even tho it does exactly whjat it says on the box. So health isn't going to be a major factor in peoples decision to cut down or stop.

And as can be seen at the moment, people would rather turn food into ethanol for fuel, than worry about how that might effect food prices for the poor.



____________________________
"If you have selfish, ignorant citizens, you're gonna get selfish, ignorant leaders". Carlin.

#21 Apr 22 2008 at 1:24 PM Rating: Good
****
8,619 posts
Quote:
Factory farming, of cows chickens pigs and other animals, has done more to reduce species diversity than anything else. this is also true of crop farming. Its very nature (ie pursuit of largest yield for minimum cost) has dictated that animals and crops are bred to conform.

That limiting of diversity is not just confined to the animals being farmed. But also the animals and plants that would have at one time been living alongside food animals that are being organically raised.
Answer the question, what would you do with all the animals that will not be eaten? For this you would have to answer for every cow, sheep, pig and chicken bred for food production including breeders.
Quote:
Unless you are one of the top 1% or so of earners in Africa, I can pretty much assure you that your diet doesn't contain meat once a week, let alone twice a day, seven days a week.
Never been to Africa have we? I lived there for 6 years and you are talking *********
Quote:
As I said, Factory farming. Intensively farming animals, using artificial growth stimulants (anti-biotics and growth hormones for example) is whats doing the damage. Not dog farts.
All Cows produce greenhouse gases, not just factory ones, including milk production cows. Stop derailing the discussion into something about factory Vs non factory farming, this is about a claim that everyone should stop eating meat to slow production of green house gases.

I agree with you about factory farming but you are not answering any of my questions and you are going off on random tangents about issues that have NOTHING to do with global warming.
Quote:
Agriculture in the 21st century IS an industry. There is nothing natural about eating meat 2 or 3 times a day, 7 days a week. And there is nothing natural about the methods used to make a chicken go from hatching out of an egg on day one, to being ready to eat only 28 days later.
Sure but what does that have to do with global warming? Again nothing at all.

I have no complaint with people campaining for factory farming and a reduction in meat in diets on health and sustainability grounds.

I do have a problem with people claiming that Cows are somehow the main cause of greenhouse gas emition increases when 200 years ago Cape Buffalo and Southern African Wildebeast populations both numbered billions and now number less than a million between them, you can also throw in North American Buffalo into that.
Quote:
In a world where people are already hungry, does it make sense that something like 70% of all grain/soya type crops are grown purely to feed intensively farmed animals?
It's the same world where we had grain mountains so huge that it couldn't be stored properly but Africa was starving.

It's the same world where Govenments pay to leave fields fallow that could be used.

Its the same world where Africa govenments have paid for weapons instead of food and infrastructure for decades knowing that the western charities, banks and Govenments would bail them out.

None of that makes sence either but it's far worse imho than using crops to feed animals.
#22 Apr 22 2008 at 2:34 PM Rating: Good
I can't stop farting today.

I apologized to the ozone layer in advance.
____________________________
"The Rich are there to take all of the money & pay none of the taxes, the middle class is there to do all the work and pay all the taxes, and the poor are there to scare the crap out of the middle class." -George Carlin


#23 Apr 22 2008 at 3:43 PM Rating: Excellent
****
4,158 posts
Wow! So much anger!!



Quote:
Answer the question, what would you do with all the animals that will not be eaten? For this you would have to answer for every cow, sheep, pig and chicken bred for food production including breeders.


You could have a massive feast! And then turn all that land that used for supporting the meat industry into parks and forests, so that fat fucking meat eaters could run about a bit, and hopefuly get enough exercise to stave off the next heart attack.


Quote:
Never been to Africa have we? I lived there for 6 years and you are talking *********


Yes i'v been to Africa.

Quote:
Consumption of meat in the U.S. is 124 kg/capita/y, compared to the global average of 38 kg. The countries that consume the least amount of meat are in Africa and South Asia; the lowest ten are Sierra Leone, Democratic Republic of Congo, Mozambique, Sri Lanka, Rwanda, India, Malawi, Guinea, Burundi and Bangladesh. Consumption in these countries is between 3 and 5 kg/capita/y.
Link

********* Yeah its bollox if you are able to afford to eat meat every day.


Quote:
Stop derailing the discussion into something about factory Vs non factory farming, this is about a claim that everyone should stop eating meat to slow production of green house gases.


I never said everyone should stop eating meat. I think everyone should stop eating it as tho its a infinite resource that has no impact on the environment. If you feel there is no co-relation between industry (be it agricultural industry or the chemical industry for example) and the environment, then thats fine. Hopelessly wrong tho. Factory farming exists to supply people with meat products. If people ate less, or better still, no meat, then factory farming would be unnecessary.

The theory that says that Man-made greenhouse gases are what is causing global warming, is a debate for a separate thread IMO. I remain completely unconvinced that man has anything other than a very minor effect on the climate.

I do believe tho, the unfettered use of anti-biotics, genetic engineering, pesticide production and the by-products of the meat industry, such as nitrogen run-off into waterways, to be a far greater environmental issue than some as yet unproven connection to climate change.

Quote:
Sure but what does that have to do with global warming? Again nothing at all.

I have no complaint with people campaining for factory farming and a reduction in meat in diets on health and sustainability grounds.


In this we agree. As I said, McCartneys a prat.


Quote:
It's the same world where we had grain mountains so huge that it couldn't be stored properly but Africa was starving.

It's the same world where Govenments pay to leave fields fallow that could be used.

Its the same world where Africa govenments have paid for weapons instead of food and infrastructure for decades knowing that the western charities, banks and Govenments would bail them out.

None of that makes sence either but it's far worse imho than using crops to feed animals.


I agree again. The problem with hunger in the world has nothing to do with supply. But everything to do with distribution.

In my first reply i was specifically trying to answer the 4 questions that you posed. I'm not seriously expecting anyone to stop eating meat because of what my opinions on the subject are.

But for you to get all stroppy because I rightly pointed out that 21st century farming methods are an industry, and carry with it all the negative impacts of any major industry, pollution, negative health effects, and profit over quality modes of operating, is pretty disingenuous of you.

I personnaly don't eat meat because I don't like perpetuating an industry that I see as harmful to my health, harmful to the health of the planet and not least because it is inevitably cruel and demeaning to the animals.

The only reason I hear from people as to why they continue to eat meat, is because "it tastes nice".

IMO the manifold negatives of a regular meat diet far outweigh that selfish and blinkered statement.






____________________________
"If you have selfish, ignorant citizens, you're gonna get selfish, ignorant leaders". Carlin.

#24 Apr 22 2008 at 4:08 PM Rating: Decent
Prodigal Son
******
20,643 posts
It's too bad the great, empty plains in the middle of this country aren't covered in tall grasses and home to free-roaming herds of giant, hardy, meaty animals in the countless millions.

Edited, Apr 22nd 2008 8:09pm by Debalic
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#25 Apr 22 2008 at 6:38 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
****
4,593 posts
I've found the solution to Global Warming, Mandatory Air Conditioners and Febreze for every home!!!

Edited, Apr 22nd 2008 10:38pm by Yodabunny
#26 Apr 22 2008 at 6:55 PM Rating: Excellent
Quote:
If it wasn't for my horse, I never would have spent that year in college.


I've heard this non sequiter before, and the answer is possibly this (true story):

A rich preppy girl had to sell her horse to pay for her new SUV so she could attend the university. However, she got knocked up within a year, married a rich guy, and considered the year spent in college a waste of time.

Well, the first sentence is a true story anyway. Not sure what happened to Elizabeth Walters after that. But she definitely sold her horse to buy a new SUV to go to college!

(The other, even more logical explanation is someone that wanted to participate in a school's equestrian team to get better care and/or a critical surgery for an ailing horse, since some equestrian team members get free horse vet care.)
« Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 152 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (152)