Impact of meat on the environment

[FuzzyTomCat]

Plum Island - New York

Hi everyone,

One of the biggest impact on the environment is the security of our food source and the laboratories that experiment with deadly toxins. The biggest is at "Plum Island" off of Long Island in New York a restricted area ..... so they say.

Plum Island - New York
Plum Island Animal Disease Center - Building #101

Here are some aerial images from Microsoft Live Maps as "Google Earth" has them clouded off unable to view.



This area is a older area ... BUT ... it has the only "Maltese Cross" on a tarmac around or on a government military facility that I have seen .... strange ??



There are many facilities on the island some have odd things like this one with what appears a large solar panel array used for some unknown reason.



The main facility where deadly experiments are done a area that should have the highest security available ..... but wait .... look at the gates .... two in the front and one in back .... OPEN .... and unattended.



And the US government wants to move this facility to Kansas .... go figure !!

Glen

[gotoluc]

Actually it is explicitly written in Buddhistic scriptures that Buddha ate meat and it is a written cannon that the night he died the last meal he had was a piece of pork.

LOL...No wonder he died that night.

Read original Buddhistic scriptures man, don't buy into anybody's wishful thinking and third hand interpretations.

I follow internal intuition!... it's a better teacher then what others do, say or write.

and to All

Luc

[lighty]

@Luc

I too follow my intuition and it tells me that living as a part of Earth's biosphere means not trying to isolate myself from it or to change its rules.

[ashtweth]

HEMP = MORE PROTEIN THEN MEAT
HIGHEST ESSENTIAL FATTY ACID
Stuff that's in mothers milk is in HEMP.
Cheapest food to produce can save third world countries

Hemp Production

[sucahyo]

About meat vs vegetables

Eating vegetables may not be a good choice too considering current farming method. Most of them rely on toxic material, sometimes even a deliberate poison. Washing it with water would not clean it since it already absorbed by the plant. Same thing with cattle, the food they are eating may not be poison free too, the process after the killing may not be poison free too. Fish swim in sea or river that already polluted by our industry. Even our water has poison for cleaning pathogen bactery. I guess this is why we need to eat/drink anti toxin.

People live long because they live healthy and not eating junk or food that contain poison. Which in this modern age can be really hard to do.

It is wrong to just dump the animal "waste" like bone or manure. It can be returned to earth after bio processing to help restore the earth.

It seems it is better to grow plant or cattle ourself. But it seems this may be illegal someday.

If killing animal is a sin, then killing plant is a sin too. Most religion allow killing them if it's for survival. Most will forbid to kill them without reason, animal or plant, no difference. So, don't waste your food, don't eat too much.

And if you are part of the industry, try to use the way of nature, or at least less polluting way.

[Radiant_Science]

Let this one go

IMO this thread is about as productive as a conversation about religion. In the end, it's all a matter of opinion. If someone believes something is right...they will argue it until they die. So for you people, here is something that shows the toll of farming meat.

Livestock production requires enormous amounts of energy. We put far more energy into animals per unit of food than we do for any plant crop. The main reason is that cattle consume 16 times as much grain as they produce as meat, so right there we have 16 times as much energy just to grow those crops, just so we can waste them on livestock

Meat production requires so much water it's hard to comprehend. A pound of potatoes takes 99.6% less water to produce than a pound of beef, and 97% less than a pound of chicken.

Here's an example: If you gave up showering, you'd save less water than what's required to make a single pound of beef. Not beef for a whole year, just one miserable pound. A whole year's worth of showers takes about 5,200 gallons, but it takes 5,214 gallons to produce a single pound of beef.

If you gave up beef, you'd save over 300,000 gallons a year. A whole lot more than you could save by never showering.

Raising animals for food requires lots more land than growing crops. That's because animals eat a lot more food than they provide as meat. It takes 16 pounds of grain to make one pound of beef. That's 94% more land. And 94% more pesticides. All told, livestock eat 70% of all the grain we produce. They're food factories in reverse.


And Lastly...


Livestock are responsible for 18 per cent of the greenhouse gases that cause global warming, more than cars, planes and all other forms of transport put together.


P.S....These figures comes from the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations

[anut]

What Tesla Said....

WHAT TESLA SAID:

"A thousand other evils might be mentioned, but all put together, in their bearing upon the problem under discussion, they could not equal a single one, the want of food, brought on by poverty, destitution, and famine. Millions of individuals die yearly for want of food, thus keeping down the mass. Even in our enlightened communities, and not withstanding the many charitable efforts, this is still, in all probability, the chief evil. I do not mean here absolute want of food, but want of healthful nutriment. How to provide good and plentiful food is, therefore, a most important question of the day. On the general principles the raising of cattle as a means of providing food is objectionable, because, in the sense interpreted above, it must undoubtedly tend to the addition of mass of a "smaller velocity." It is certainly preferable to raise vegetables, and I think, therefore, that vegetarianism is a commendable departure from the established barbarious habit. That we can subsist on plant food and perform our work even to advantage is not a theory, but a well-demonstrated fact. Many races living almost exclusively on vegetables are of superior physique and strength. There is no doubt that some plant food, such as oatmeal, is more economical than meat, and superior to it in regard to both mechanical and mental performance. Such food, moreover, taxes our digestive organs decidedly less, and, in making us more contented and sociable, produces an amount of good difficult to estimate. In view of these facts every effort should be made to stop the wanton and cruel slaughter of animals, which must be destructive to our morals. To free ourselves from animal instincts and appetites, which keep us down, we should begin at the very root from which we spring: we should effect a radical reform in the character of the food. There seems to be no philosophical necessity for food. We can conceive of organized beings living without nourishment, and deriving all the energy they need for the performance of their lifefunctions from the ambient medium. In a crystal we have the clear evidence of the existence of a formative life-principle, and though we cannot understand the life of a crystal, it is none the less a living being." [1]


"MORE people die or grow sick from polluted water than from coffee, tea, tobacco, and other stimulants. I myself eschew all stimulants. I also practically abstain from meat. I am convinced that within a century coffee, tea, and tobacco will be no longer in vogue. Alcohol, however, will still be used. It is not a stimulant but a veritable elixir of life. The abolition of stimulants will not come about forcibly. It will simply be no longer fashionable to poison the system with harmful ingredients. Bernarr Macfadden has shown how it is possible to provide palatable food based upon natural products such as milk, honey, and wheat. I believe that the food which is served today in his penny restaurants will be the basis of epicurean meals in the smartest banquet halls of the twenty-first century. There will be enough wheat and wheat products to feed the entire world, including the teeming millions of China and India, now chronically on the verge of starvation. The earth is bountiful, and where her bounty fails, nitrogen drawn from the air will refertilize her womb. I developed a process for this purpose in 1900."[2]


Reference:

[1] Nikola Tesla, "THE PROBLEM OF INCREASING HUMAN ENERGY", Century Illustrated Magazine, June 1900

[2] Nikola Tesla, "A MACHINE TO END WAR", Liberty, February 1937

[gotoluc]

Thank you Radiant_Science for posting these true statistics. This will be of great help for those who are ignorant of the facts and the impact it has on our Environment. This could help some to re-evaluate their habits. The ability to reflect, evaluate and reason is only a Human quality, this is what makes us distinct from the animal kingdom. Why some would want to argue and chose to behave like animals when such information is available is difficult to comprehend.

Thank you anut for posting these most amazing writings of a True Enlighten Human Being, Nikola Tesla

Many may not know that Albert Einstein stopped eating meat when Enlightened.

Thank you Ahimsa for starting this most important topic to help share and hopefully bring Awareness to our brothers and sisters.

and to All

Luc

[Radiant_Science]

Thank you Radiant_Science for posting these true statistics. This will be of great help for those who are ignorant of the facts and the impact it has on our Environment. This could help some to re-evaluate their habits. The ability to reflect, evaluate and reason is only a Human quality, this is what makes us distinct from the animal kingdom. Why some would want to argue and chose to behave like animals when such information is available is difficult to comprehend.

Thank you anut for posting these most amazing writings of a True Enlighten Human Being, Nikola Tesla

Many may not know that Albert Einstein stopped eating meat when Enlightened.

Thank you Ahimsa for starting this most important topic to help share and hopefully bring Awareness to our brothers and sisters.

and to All

Luc

No problem Luc... I need to get back on the wagon myself, as I have never felt as good as when I was a veggie.

P.S. I would like to make it clear....I DO NOT OPPOSE EATING MEAT....I oppose the inhumane and utterly SICKENING meat farming practices and the literally toxic products they produce.

[future pather]

WHAT TESLA SAID:

". . .vegetarianism is a commendable departure from the established barbarious habit.

I am devastatingly offended by that statement on behalf of every living plant on the planet.

The fact that this blatant life-form bigot (said 1/2 jokingly) concludes that paragraph, with

WHAT TESLA SAID: ". . .though we cannot understand the life of a crystal, it is none the less a living being."

Makes my mind blow smoke like that episode of the old Star Trek where Spock had a break-down spouting, "Illogical, illogical, illogical!!!"

Imo it is far more arrogant to assume zero value to plant life, zero recognition of that fact that you are calculatingly raising and killing life forms for your sustenance when you eat plants, than it is respectful to life to say we shouldn't take an animal's life for sustenance.

WHAT TESLA SAID:
" . . Bernarr Macfadden has shown how it is possible to provide palatable food based upon natural products such as milk, honey, and wheat."

Ah-hah. So NOW he brings up sustaining off things which don't necessarily require killing anything, NOT distinguishing bt plant and animal. (I could be wrong but I'm thinking there might be a way to harvest wheat without killing the plant.)

To me it means everything to get the the REAL issues and solutions, like perhaps that one.

The REAL issues have been touched on by many in this thread and I appreciate you all for doing so: toxins, mass production practices which are not in harmony with nature, inefficiency and waste, etc.

I'm being such a stickler about my point bc I don't think we can solve this issue without looking at the real problems.

It's NOT about morals regarding respecting life forms. If it were, people would at least consider the point about the impact of raising plant life only to kill it and eat it. They would include concern about pesticides in their argument instead of making blanket statements about vegetarianism in and of itself being better for the earth than all other eating choices.

It's about finding "farming" and "living" practices which are in harmony with nature.

That I agree with 10000000000000000000000000000000000% and why I appreciate everything contributed to this thread

Jessica

[sucahyo]

If vegeterian still drink milk than it is no different from eating meat since it would still mean raising a cow. If cow really take a lot of water resource, we should calculate how much water needed to produce 1 liter of milk. Soy milk is not the same as cow's milk, and do not have mother's nutricion in it, since soy do not born children. It would take land to burried the cow body if it is not consumed and only get it's milk. It still need male one to be raised in order to breed.

Let's imagine if all people become vegetarian:
- do we still need to raise cow? = no cows milk, no butter, no chees. And commercial baby's milk will be much more expensive.
- are there still land to supply all the vegetables? how many acre needed to supply nutrition equal to a cow?
- are current farming method sustainable and won't increase water pollution?
- vegetable become more expensive
- vegetable preservation become a problem.
- vegetable industry pollution become bigger problem.

anyone can add more, maybe the positive one?


I can't find any info about a suggestion to avoid eating meat in FAO. what I can find is:
FAO's Animal Production and Health Division: Milk & Dairy Products

Meat can be part of a balanced diet contributing valuable nutrients that are beneficial to health. Meat and meat products contain important levels of protein, vitamins, minerals and micronutrients which are essential for growth and development. Further processing of meat offers the opportunity to add value, reduce prices, improve food safety and extend the shelf-life. This can result in increased household income and improved nutrition. While the per caput consumption of meat in some industrialized countries is high, per caput consumption below 10 kg in developing countries must be considered insufficient and often leads to under-nourishment and malnutrition. It is also estimated that more than 2 billion people in the world are deficient in key vitamins and minerals, particularly vitamin A, iodine, iron and zinc. Deficiencies occur when people have limited access to micronutrient-rich foods such as meat, fish, fruit and vegetables. Most people with micronutrient deficiencies live in low income countries and are typically deficient in more than one micronutrient. Highly nutritious foods such as meat are particularly required for HIV AIDS infected communities and also for women and children.

Meat and meat products in human nutrition ... - Meat and health

Meat is not an essential part of the diet but without animal products it is necessary to have some reasonable knowledge of nutrition in order to select an adequate diet. Even small quantities of animal products supplement and complement a diet based on plant foods so that it is nutritionally adequate, whether or not there is informed selection of foods.

Side by side with these known benefits of including meat and meat products in the diet are problems associated with excessive intakes of saturated fats, risks of food poisoning from improperly processed products, residues of chemicals used in agriculture and animal production and other potentially adverse aspects discussed.

also:
Meat and meat products in human nutrition ... - Acknowledgments, Preface, Meat production and quality

The basis of a good diet - one adequate for growth, development and maintenance of health - is variety; a variety of foods can supply enough of the complete range of nutrients. Much of the malnutrition seen in the world is a result of relying too heavily on a single staple food.

Improvements in the diet depend on a knowledgable selection of foods that complement one another in the nutrients that they supply. It is, however, difficult in many regions to obtain such variety. Meat can complement most diets, especially those dependent on a limited selection of plant foods.

Meat and meat products are concentrated sources of high quality protein and their amino acid composition usually compensates for shortcomings in the staple food. They supply easily absorbed iron and assist the absorption of iron from other foods as well as zinc, and are rich sources of some of the vitamins in the B group. By providing such nutrients, meat consumption can alleviate common nutritional deficiencies.

The production of animals for meat can be integrated into the overall food system without competing directly with crops for human food; it enables utilization of land that is difficult to cultivate, and supplies valuable by-products as well as improving the fertility of the soil.

[FuzzyTomCat]

WHAT TESLA SAID:

"A thousand other evils might be mentioned, but all put together, in their bearing upon the problem under discussion, they could not equal a single one, the want of food, brought on by poverty, destitution, and famine. Millions of individuals die yearly for want of food, thus keeping down the mass. Even in our enlightened communities, and not withstanding the many charitable efforts, this is still, in all probability, the chief evil. I do not mean here absolute want of food, but want of healthful nutriment. How to provide good and plentiful food is, therefore, a most important question of the day. On the general principles the raising of cattle as a means of providing food is objectionable, because, in the sense interpreted above, it must undoubtedly tend to the addition of mass of a "smaller velocity." It is certainly preferable to raise vegetables, and I think, therefore, that vegetarianism is a commendable departure from the established barbarious habit. That we can subsist on plant food and perform our work even to advantage is not a theory, but a well-demonstrated fact. Many races living almost exclusively on vegetables are of superior physique and strength. There is no doubt that some plant food, such as oatmeal, is more economical than meat, and superior to it in regard to both mechanical and mental performance. Such food, moreover, taxes our digestive organs decidedly less, and, in making us more contented and sociable, produces an amount of good difficult to estimate. In view of these facts every effort should be made to stop the wanton and cruel slaughter of animals, which must be destructive to our morals. To free ourselves from animal instincts and appetites, which keep us down, we should begin at the very root from which we spring: we should effect a radical reform in the character of the food. There seems to be no philosophical necessity for food. We can conceive of organized beings living without nourishment, and deriving all the energy they need for the performance of their lifefunctions from the ambient medium. In a crystal we have the clear evidence of the existence of a formative life-principle, and though we cannot understand the life of a crystal, it is none the less a living being." [1]


"MORE people die or grow sick from polluted water than from coffee, tea, tobacco, and other stimulants. I myself eschew all stimulants. I also practically abstain from meat. I am convinced that within a century coffee, tea, and tobacco will be no longer in vogue. Alcohol, however, will still be used. It is not a stimulant but a veritable elixir of life. The abolition of stimulants will not come about forcibly. It will simply be no longer fashionable to poison the system with harmful ingredients. Bernarr Macfadden has shown how it is possible to provide palatable food based upon natural products such as milk, honey, and wheat. I believe that the food which is served today in his penny restaurants will be the basis of epicurean meals in the smartest banquet halls of the twenty-first century. There will be enough wheat and wheat products to feed the entire world, including the teeming millions of China and India, now chronically on the verge of starvation. The earth is bountiful, and where her bounty fails, nitrogen drawn from the air will refertilize her womb. I developed a process for this purpose in 1900."[2]


Reference:

[1] Nikola Tesla, "THE PROBLEM OF INCREASING HUMAN ENERGY", Century Illustrated Magazine, June 1900

[2] Nikola Tesla, "A MACHINE TO END WAR", Liberty, February 1937

Those are very nice quotes, it's amazing the thoughts of Nikola Tesla on the same subject matter "37 years" apart ..... the same but somewhat different. The quote you posted [1] looks as if its a view or belief process according to Aristotle ..... there are ten objective categories : substance, quanity, quality, relation, action, passion, where, when, posture and habit, which correspond to the development of the internal constitution of the human mind. The categories are the predicates used by the mind in thinking the world of objective reality. To exhaust the categories in describing an object is to exhaust the possibilities of explanation. The categories, therefore, express the nature of thought and the nature of things.

Arithmetic and geography involve the study of the categories of quality and quantity. Physiology adds the categories of action and relation and discuss the formative life principle. Grammatical study is a dual mental act : One directed to form and the other to content ; one to the real, the other to the ideal; one to the sentence and one to the meaning. In analizing the English sentence, the mind is usherd into the realm of logic and psychology.

Physiology - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Physiology (from Greek φύσις, physis, "nature, origin"; and -λογία, -logia) is the study of the mechanical, physical, and biochemical functions of living organisms. Physiology has traditionally been divided between plant physiology and animal and all living things physiology but the principles of physiology are universal, no matter what particular organism is being studied. For example, what is learned about the physiology of yeast cells may also apply to human cells.
The field of animal physiology extends the tools and methods of human physiology to non-human animal species. Plant physiology also borrows techniques from both fields. Its scope of subjects is at least as diverse as the tree of life itself. Due to this diversity of subjects, research in animal physiology tends to concentrate on understanding how physiological traits changed throughout the evolutionary history of animals. Other major branches of scientific study that have grown out of physiology research include biochemistry, biophysics, paleobiology, biomechanics, and pharmacology.

Sometimes Telsla got way to deep in his philosophy ..... but he was really good at it

Regards,
Glen

[Aaron]

food for thought

This is a pretty hot topic.

The main point to the thread is the impact meat industry has and not about the opinions about eating meat itself.

One thing that stuck out to me is this...Radiant_Science, you posted: "Livestock are responsible for 18 per cent of the greenhouse gases that cause global warming, more than cars, planes and all other forms of transport put together.
P.S....These figures comes from the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations"

So I started thinking, if that is true, what is the % of all other animals and humans. It is obvious all animals would be over 100% meaning only animals cause greenhouse gases, etc...

Are they talking about cow gas? lol

So I understand you are quoting what "they" are saying, but there are almost 7 billion people.

The average American type of bred cow for meat is 1300 pounds. The average human being's weight is close enough to 130 pounds (165-190 for American's ages 20-74...so I'm going to bring that down to 130 just because the American weight is above average anyway and this doesn't include children's ages and for easy math - this is not a scientific breakdown, just a simple example.

Anyway, the point is that it takes 10 people average to equal 1 cow by weight - and by weight doesn't mean everything else would follow proportionately...maybe it only takes 5 people to equal the same amount of flatulence...another f word or the 4 letter verson...lol.

There are estimates of about 1.3 billion cattle in the world...all aren't for meat obviously so lets say 1 billion. Then there are 1 meat cattle cow for each 5.38 humans at 7 billion population...real population about 1 meat cattle for each 5 humans at the "real" population of 6.6 billion or whatever.

The cows are supposed to account for 18 percent of the greenhouse gases? In what way? That isn't said...cow flatulence - methane? lol, which they are planning on taxing by the way.

Let's say it is from that... then the human population of about 6.6 billion equals about 1.32 billion in cows for weight... so if by weight the flatulence is equal, the cows and humans are about head to head meaning that humans must equal about 18% of the green house gases.

18 + 18 = 36% of greenhouse gases...that is cows + humans equaling more than 1/3 of the greenhouse gases not including all other animals.

There are 7.3 billion deer in the world estimated - according to one post online, which I can't verify the # as even being close. But lump in horses, zebras, wolves, dogs and cats...

Average weight of deer is 125 pounds since most are small females.
So same weight as about an average human.
These "deer" may include elk, caribou, etc...
So being that is a little more than the human population for the benefit of the doubt, lets just give it the same 18%.

So 18 X 3 = 54% of greenhouse gases.

So cattle, humans and deer make up over 1/2 of the greenhouse gases. I think that is a seriously overblown estimate...even at 18% without me adding the human and deer estimate (by weight - and not a scientific estimate - just food for thought) - the 18% must be seriously out of whack.

Global warming isn't proven, it isn't a law or even a theory since the theory is shot down by the overwhelming evidence that the sun plays the most significant role and the co2 in the atmosphere follows any warming trend by 800 years consitently thorughout time over all the years that have been measured by real science. Co2 doesn't cause warming...the co2 rises according to temperature increase 800 years AFTER the fact so the temp rise is independent of co2 and whatever is causing the warming (the sun) causes an increase of co2 800 years later proportionately.

This doesn't mean I don't think we shouldn't change our ways because I think we should and regardless of the propaganda on climate impact, there are facts about our pollution destroying our drinking water supplies, etc... so like always, I believe the debate should be on pollution impact and keep climate change out of it since there is no proof...only flimsy evidence that we are impacting CLIMATE. Showing the negative impact on drinkin water, our fish, etc... is MORE THAN strong enough to justify the reduction in dirtying our world.

Just last night I saw The Day the Earth Stood Still - the remake - I couldn't argue with the aliens that they wanted to destroy the humans in order to save the planet...what a concept! If the planet dies...the humans will surely die... if the humand die...the planet has a chance!

We haven't been raising cattle like we do today but since only recent times (in the numbers that we do) and any temp increase happening now in isolated parts of the world has zero relationship to the increase in cattle raising for meat or other purposes. In 800 years, there will be a proportionate increase in co2, which obviously is not emitted today as the cause and will be proportionate to our global average temperature, which is lower than it has been in the past as a matter of scientific fact. I had 2 inches of snow in my yard 2 weeks ago and it was the middle of april in the Northern hemisphere...anyway...

Regardless of the real science and facts minus the propaganda, I disagree with the way big scale farms treat animals, it is dispicable. I 100% support websites and organizations that educate the public on the mistreatment of animals such as: Milk Sucks! showing a cow making 100 pounds of milk a day so heavy it can't even stand up. SICK!

The contaiminated waste runoff into the watersheds, etc... is disgusting, it is a big waste of valuable farm land to feed cows that result in less food available for people.

I have one article way back about people in the poultry industry that swear they will NEVER eat chicken because they know how dirty and filthy and contaminated the commercial chicken industry is...they called it salmonella stew.

Americans overeat too much meat proportionately to other food like veggies, etc...

I agree with Lighty's explanation that we are omnivore's, because we are, biologically-physically, we are designed to eat both plant and animal. Our teeth and digestion is geared optimally towards eating both.

There are ideas...I can't remember the name of the person...but even believed we shouldn't eat the plants because that was the animals' job and when we eat the animals, then we get the nutrients of the plant properly broken down. I believe more in a balance but just a concept on the other end of the spectrum.

However, making a CHOICE not to eat meat is another issue and has nothing to do with if we should eat meat or not... a personal choice and I think any judgment that if and when we should encouter it in this lifetime or any other will be based on our own value system so a vegan that belives it to be wrong to eat meat goes and eats meat to survive will suffer the wrath of judgement more than a meateater that thinks it is ok to begin with.

Healthwise, one doctor I worked with and a qigong master that was a mentor of mine both were friends with Linus Pauling. The doctor was at dinner with Pauling one night and this was in the days this doctor was brainwashed into the cholesterol hoax thinking eggs are poisonous, etc... and he had a nice meatless dinner... he saw Linus Pauling ordered a big juicy steak and was blow away. He asked Pauling if he was worried about heart disease, etc... and Pauling just laughed talking about the importance of the body getting the right nutrients in proportion, it takes care of itself....like vitamin c to strengthen the arterial lining, etc... so health wise and longevity wise, being a vegeterian shows zero advantage...spiritual enlightenment is a matter of debate or opinion since it is abstract and can't be proven and again comes to just a choice someone has to make but there is no science to show it is healthier.

What I mean by long health is that the longest living people in the world, most centurions eat meat...but that doesn't necessarily make them long living...the common denominator between the longest living people in the world is that they are UNDER-NOURISHED...

This is NOT malnourished...malnourished means you don't get all the nutrients you need.

Under-nourished means you get all the nutrients you need, but you eat smaller proportions and that is the ONLY thing that has been shown to be the common denominator between MOST centurions...get all your nutrients but east small portions and that doesn't eliminate beef, etc... this is just the facts without my own opinion...this is what the real science shows.

Long life is usually associated with good health. In America, this is not always the case because some advancements can cause people to just suffer longer, which isn't the same as living long and healthy.

To eliminate any environmental impact, I think meat eaters should start to raise their own chickens, cows and go fishing on their own. I make no distinction of "meat" and consider fish and poultry meat also. If this happens, the proportion of meat in a diet will automaticaly go down because it isn't as convenient, it will be healthier and will be done with more respect to the animals(s).

Salmon is my favorite "meat" and is the #1 choice of protein and fatty acids I'll choose any day of the year compared to beef, chicken or pork. I'm not against eating chicken or beef or pork, I just know what I like. I don't eat pork, not for spiritual or other reasons but just that I think it is dirty meat. It is full of worms...yes it has to be cooked more than most meats to prevent food illness but then you just get cooked dead worms. lol

I believe that if people actually chewed their food, they wouldn't have to eat as much. I would take MANY MINUTES to chew one piece of steak to break it down to a paste like consitency so I would absorb it all and would therefore have to eat very little to get my nutrients. This isn't just some idea...that is actually how I eat. I know that by doing that I could get more nutritents out of a couple ounces of steak than the average person eating a half pound steak who chomps on it a few bites and swallows it out of pure gluttony.

Chewing food thoroughly will get someone to feel fuller faster as they allow more enzymes to be produced in the saliva and stomach and take longer to swallow and more time for their brain to catch up to what is in their stomach. Doing that would prevent people from overeating. That would eliminate a good percentage of the food production necessity for that person. The good thing about this is that this is valid and applies to EVERYONE no matter what kind of food they eat.

So if it was asked of each person to chew each bit of food for 100 bites just think about how many "greenhouse" gases it would eliminate! Better digestion, not as much food consumed to get the same nutrition, less farm and ranch acreage necessary, less health problems, longer living, etc... everything the establishment doesn't want...they want glutunous super chomping on super sized portions where most people take a bit, a few chews and a swallow followed by indigestion, rolaids and a repeating cycle that causes them to become a health meanace to society later on.

Jessica, you point out a good point on Tesla talking about barbarian food eating and talking about a crystal as a life form. Many people in the "new age - spiritual" world have no problem buying bits of crystal that were broken off from where it used to be attached to as a large living entity. I don't know the details, but I'm sure Tesla experimented with Crystals in energy experiments using smaller pieces of a larger life form in his words.

Just my 2 cents for now.

[Aaron]

food for thought

This is a pretty hot topic.

The main point to the thread is the impact meat industry has and not about the opinions about eating meat itself.

One thing that stuck out to me is this...Radiant_Science, you posted: "Livestock are responsible for 18 per cent of the greenhouse gases that cause global warming, more than cars, planes and all other forms of transport put together.
P.S....These figures comes from the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations"

So I started thinking, if that is true, what is the % of all other animals and humans. It is obvious all animals would be over 100% meaning only animals cause greenhouse gases, etc...

Are they talking about cow gas? lol

So I understand you are quoting what "they" are saying, but there are almost 7 billion people.

The average American type of bred cow for meat is 1300 pounds. The average human being's weight is close enough to 130 pounds (165-190 for American's ages 20-74...so I'm going to bring that down to 130 just because the American weight is above average anyway and this doesn't include children's ages and for easy math - this is not a scientific breakdown, just a simple example.

Anyway, the point is that it takes 10 people average to equal 1 cow by weight - and by weight doesn't mean everything else would follow proportionately...maybe it only takes 5 people to equal the same amount of flatulence...another f word or the 4 letter verson...lol.

There are estimates of about 1.3 billion cattle in the world...all aren't for meat obviously so lets say 1 billion. Then there are 1 meat cattle cow for each 5.38 humans at 7 billion population...real population about 1 meat cattle for each 5 humans at the "real" population of 6.6 billion or whatever.

The cows are supposed to account for 18 percent of the greenhouse gases? In what way? That isn't said...cow flatulence - methane? lol, which they are planning on taxing by the way.

Let's say it is from that... then the human population of about 6.6 billion equals about 1.32 billion in cows for weight... so if by weight the flatulence is equal, the cows and humans are about head to head meaning that humans must equal about 18% of the green house gases.

18 + 18 = 36% of greenhouse gases...that is cows + humans equaling more than 1/3 of the greenhouse gases not including all other animals.

There are 7.3 billion deer in the world estimated - according to one post online, which I can't verify the # as even being close. But lump in horses, zebras, wolves, dogs and cats...

Average weight of deer is 125 pounds since most are small females.
So same weight as about an average human.
These "deer" may include elk, caribou, etc...
So being that is a little more than the human population for the benefit of the doubt, lets just give it the same 18%.

So 18 X 3 = 54% of greenhouse gases.

So cattle, humans and deer make up over 1/2 of the greenhouse gases. I think that is a seriously overblown estimate...even at 18% without me adding the human and deer estimate (by weight - and not a scientific estimate - just food for thought) - the 18% must be seriously out of whack.

Global warming isn't proven, it isn't a law or even a theory since the theory is shot down by the overwhelming evidence that the sun plays the most significant role and the co2 in the atmosphere follows any warming trend by 800 years consitently thorughout time over all the years that have been measured by real science. Co2 doesn't cause warming...the co2 rises according to temperature increase 800 years AFTER the fact so the temp rise is independent of co2 and whatever is causing the warming (the sun) causes an increase of co2 800 years later proportionately.

This doesn't mean I don't think we shouldn't change our ways because I think we should and regardless of the propaganda on climate impact, there are facts about our pollution destroying our drinking water supplies, etc... so like always, I believe the debate should be on pollution impact and keep climate change out of it since there is no proof...only flimsy evidence that we are impacting CLIMATE. Showing the negative impact on drinkin water, our fish, etc... is MORE THAN strong enough to justify the reduction in dirtying our world.

Just last night I saw The Day the Earth Stood Still - the remake - I couldn't argue with the aliens that they wanted to destroy the humans in order to save the planet...what a concept! If the planet dies...the humans will surely die... if the humand die...the planet has a chance!

We haven't been raising cattle like we do today but since only recent times (in the numbers that we do) and any temp increase happening now in isolated parts of the world has zero relationship to the increase in cattle raising for meat or other purposes. In 800 years, there will be a proportionate increase in co2, which obviously is not emitted today as the cause and will be proportionate to our global average temperature, which is lower than it has been in the past as a matter of scientific fact. I had 2 inches of snow in my yard 2 weeks ago and it was the middle of april in the Northern hemisphere...anyway...

Regardless of the real science and facts minus the propaganda, I disagree with the way big scale farms treat animals, it is dispicable. I 100% support websites and organizations that educate the public on the mistreatment of animals such as: Milk Sucks! showing a cow making 100 pounds of milk a day so heavy it can't even stand up. SICK!

The contaiminated waste runoff into the watersheds, etc... is disgusting, it is a big waste of valuable farm land to feed cows that result in less food available for people.

I have one article way back about people in the poultry industry that swear they will NEVER eat chicken because they know how dirty and filthy and contaminated the commercial chicken industry is...they called it salmonella stew.

Americans overeat too much meat proportionately to other food like veggies, etc...

I agree with Lighty's explanation that we are omnivore's, because we are, biologically-physically, we are designed to eat both plant and animal. Our teeth and digestion is geared optimally towards eating both.

There are ideas...I can't remember the name of the person...but even believed we shouldn't eat the plants because that was the animals' job and when we eat the animals, then we get the nutrients of the plant properly broken down. I believe more in a balance but just a concept on the other end of the spectrum.

[Aaron]

food for thought 2

However, making a CHOICE not to eat meat is another issue and has nothing to do with if we should eat meat or not... a personal choice and I think any judgment that if and when we should encouter it in this lifetime or any other will be based on our own value system so a vegan that belives it to be wrong to eat meat goes and eats meat to survive will suffer the wrath of judgement more than a meateater that thinks it is ok to begin with.

Healthwise, one doctor I worked with and a qigong master that was a mentor of mine both were friends with Linus Pauling. The doctor was at dinner with Pauling one night and this was in the days this doctor was brainwashed into the cholesterol hoax thinking eggs are poisonous, etc... and he had a nice meatless dinner... he saw Linus Pauling ordered a big juicy steak and was blow away. He asked Pauling if he was worried about heart disease, etc... and Pauling just laughed talking about the importance of the body getting the right nutrients in proportion, it takes care of itself....like vitamin c to strengthen the arterial lining, etc... so health wise and longevity wise, being a vegeterian shows zero advantage...spiritual enlightenment is a matter of debate or opinion since it is abstract and can't be proven and again comes to just a choice someone has to make but there is no science to show it is healthier.

What I mean by long health is that the longest living people in the world, most centurions eat meat...but that doesn't necessarily make them long living...the common denominator between the longest living people in the world is that they are UNDER-NOURISHED...

This is NOT malnourished...malnourished means you don't get all the nutrients you need.

Under-nourished means you get all the nutrients you need, but you eat smaller proportions and that is the ONLY thing that has been shown to be the common denominator between MOST centurions...get all your nutrients but east small portions and that doesn't eliminate beef, etc... this is just the facts without my own opinion...this is what the real science shows.

Long life is usually associated with good health. In America, this is not always the case because some advancements can cause people to just suffer longer, which isn't the same as living long and healthy.

To eliminate any environmental impact, I think meat eaters should start to raise their own chickens, cows and go fishing on their own. I make no distinction of "meat" and consider fish and poultry meat also. If this happens, the proportion of meat in a diet will automaticaly go down because it isn't as convenient, it will be healthier and will be done with more respect to the animals(s).

Salmon is my favorite "meat" and is the #1 choice of protein and fatty acids I'll choose any day of the year compared to beef, chicken or pork. I'm not against eating chicken or beef or pork, I just know what I like. I don't eat pork, not for spiritual or other reasons but just that I think it is dirty meat. It is full of worms...yes it has to be cooked more than most meats to prevent food illness but then you just get cooked dead worms. lol

I believe that if people actually chewed their food, they wouldn't have to eat as much. I would take MANY MINUTES to chew one piece of steak to break it down to a paste like consitency so I would absorb it all and would therefore have to eat very little to get my nutrients. This isn't just some idea...that is actually how I eat. I know that by doing that I could get more nutritents out of a couple ounces of steak than the average person eating a half pound steak who chomps on it a few bites and swallows it out of pure gluttony.

Chewing food thoroughly will get someone to feel fuller faster as they allow more enzymes to be produced in the saliva and stomach and take longer to swallow and more time for their brain to catch up to what is in their stomach. Doing that would prevent people from overeating. That would eliminate a good percentage of the food production necessity for that person. The good thing about this is that this is valid and applies to EVERYONE no matter what kind of food they eat.

So if it was asked of each person to chew each bit of food for 100 bites just think about how many "greenhouse" gases it would eliminate! Better digestion, not as much food consumed to get the same nutrition, less farm and ranch acreage necessary, less health problems, longer living, etc... everything the establishment doesn't want...they want glutunous super chomping on super sized portions where most people take a bit, a few chews and a swallow followed by indigestion, rolaids and a repeating cycle that causes them to become a health meanace to society later on.

Jessica, you point out a good point on Tesla talking about barbarian food eating and talking about a crystal as a life form. Many people in the "new age - spiritual" world have no problem buying bits of crystal that were broken off from where it used to be attached to as a large living entity. I don't know the details, but I'm sure Tesla experimented with Crystals in energy experiments using smaller pieces of a larger life form in his words.

So I think both vegetarians/vegans/meat eaters "might" be able to agree on is that chewing our food thoroughly and putting smaller portions on our plates can have an enormous impact but is probably too simple of a concept for the masses to take seriously.

Just my 2 cents for now.