From an ecological perspective, replacing cattle with buffalo wouldn't be much of a win. There are too many meat-eating people on the planet to make either animal the primary source.
Is there a problem with having a 'revolving' population of 60M? That is, we are eating out of the population, and it is replacing itself (with our help)?
Assume we could feed all the meat-eaters on a revolving 60M cattle--would we then have solved the problem? Or are we supposed to maintain a smaller-than-original population?
Regular coke is about as vegan as regular pickles.
Pretty terrible analogy. I have no idea if pickles are vegan or not. I would assume they are but I'm not steeped in the vegan ethos and many things have surprised me in the past as being non-vegan.
Animal products are constantly snuck into processed, preserved and packaged foods. I'd find it funny, but wouldn't be surprised, to find that something derived from an animal found its way into a jar of pickles 'for flavor'.
One pound of beef requires 1,847 gallons of water. Cattle produce a huge amount of methane. Ranchers use antibiotics profligately. Cows require a terrific amount of energy to grow, relative to plants, meaning lots of the corn we grow in the US goes to meat, which is far less energy efficient.
Um, you do realize that most nuts require in the same range of water, right? Hazlenuts, walnuts, almonds, and cashews need from 1100 to 1900 gallons per pound. So, I'm not quite sure what you are trying to prove other than don't farm things that require water in areas that also require irrigation.
Um, you do realize that a fair summary of your argument is, "nuts too require much water, therefore beef is a sustainable food source?"
Hmm, I was going to say "No way!" but looking around it seems like 60M buffalo back in the day [1] and at times 100M cows [2], certainly not "order of magnitude" but more cows that buffalo. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_bison#Range_and_popul... [2] http://www.cattlenetwork.com/advice-and-tips/cowcalf-produce...
100M is an order of magnitude more than 60M, by definition. "order of magnitude" doesn't mean "ten times as much", it means "you have to use another column to describe it"... and so 1x10^8 is an order of magnitude more than 6x10^7...
You're just wrong.
Here are three sources that say an order of magnitude means ten times as much:
Hmm, I was going to say "No way!" but looking around it seems like 60M buffalo back in the day [1] and at times 100M cows [2], certainly not "order of magnitude" but more cows that buffalo. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_bison#Range_and_popul... [2] http://www.cattlenetwork.com/advice-and-tips/cowcalf-produce...
100M is an order of magnitude more than 60M, by definition. "order of magnitude" doesn't mean "ten times as much", it means "you have to use another column to describe it"... and so 1x10^8 is an order of magnitude more than 6x10^7...
an order of magnitude conventionally means an approximate power of 10; the implicit accuracy of the approximation is such that n orders of magnitude means a multiple between 10^(n-0.5) and 10^(n+0.5).
Sure. Usually it boils down to whether fish/seafood is considered vegetarian, but sometimes it also includes broth or animal byproducts. For the purposes of definition, I use the below, which appears to be the general consensus definitions in America, though I'm sure some will dispute this. Vegetarian: (also called ovo-lacto vegetarian) No meat (including fish/seafood). Eggs, dairy, and honey are okay. Byproducts tha…
> My Japanese friends tell me there's no point in me trying to eat there. The only option that doesn't involve seafood is "monk training food", which is...not intended to be tasty. I'm vegan an eat Japanese food all of the time. It really just depends on the restaurant. Examples: - Tempura batter can be vegan if they don't add eggs to it. Some restaurants do, and some don't. - Sushi rice is basically sugar, salt and…
So you eat vegetarian rolls and tempura battered sushi rice in Miso and call that Japanese cuisine?
Hell, no. People may be eating what they choose to eat with just as much moral conviction as your vegetarianism. That is not for you to decide. You have no right to deceive others about what they are putting into their body, let alone in hopes of "convincing" or converting them. You have no right to physically force your own morality upon others without their informed consent. Think about what you have just argued fo…
It helps not to get too theoretical when it comes to morality. Someone that eats turkey and not vegetables out of moral conviction? That's not a sane thing to worry about and compensate for. There is a 0% chance of that being the case. If you worried about preferences that obscure/made-up you'd forbid every category of food, every color of food, every texture of food... On top of that, it's very likely that every ing…
You happen to be wrong, I am a counterexample (I don't eat soy, and yes, for moral reasons), but I won't explain, because I don't have to. And what I am saying is that I shouldn't have to. Sure, you can decide to believe whatever you want on your own, but when it makes you justify feeding things to me that I have resolved not to eat, that's downright violating.
Hell, no. People may be eating what they choose to eat with just as much moral conviction as your vegetarianism. That is not for you to decide. You have no right to deceive others about what they are putting into their body, let alone in hopes of "convincing" or converting them. You have no right to physically force your own morality upon others without their informed consent. Think about what you have just argued fo…
You're making a lot of assumptions: I'm not a vegetarian, first of all. My point is simply that tricking someone into eating tofurkey is objectively more moral than tricking them into eating turkey, because both involve equal trickery, but it is incredibly improbable that anyone has moral objections to tofurkey (and in the specific case, this was a certainty). With a stranger it's more complicated because they might…
Fine, but you being vegetarian wasn't part of my objection. You're the one making assumptions. I don't eat tofu for ethical reasons, and I shouldn't have to justify them over your own to prevent you from violating my bodily integrity by deception if I were to eat at your table. Your argument is still deplorable and morally corrupt.
It helps not to get too theoretical when it comes to morality. Someone that eats turkey and not vegetables out of moral conviction? That's not a sane thing to worry about and compensate for. There is a 0% chance of that being the case. If you worried about preferences that obscure/made-up you'd forbid every category of food, every color of food, every texture of food... On top of that, it's very likely that every ing…
You happen to be wrong, I am a counterexample (I don't eat soy, and yes, for moral reasons), but I won't explain, because I don't have to. And what I am saying is that I shouldn't have to. Sure, you can decide to believe whatever you want on your own, but when it makes you justify feeding things to me that I have resolved not to eat, that's downright violating.
I meant someone whose morality specifically insists that there be bird meat. Sorry for being unclear.
So again here there is a difference adding a problem ingredient, and there being an ingredient you don't put in. For the former you need to ask about dietary restrictions and respect that. Which they did. For the latter, I don't think you're in much risk of violating anyone's moral system.
From an ecological perspective, replacing cattle with buffalo wouldn't be much of a win. There are too many meat-eating people on the planet to make either animal the primary source.
Is there a problem with having a 'revolving' population of 60M? That is, we are eating out of the population, and it is replacing itself (with our help)? Assume we could feed all the meat-eaters on a revolving 60M cattle--would we then have solved the problem? Or are we supposed to maintain a smaller-than-original population?
60M is possibly double the population there ever was, and that was a time when far, far more land was devoted to them. The only way to have that many now would be an extremely concentrated population (with its methane output) plus all the other outputs of humanity.
There is no single answer about what we're "supposed to" do, but it is clear that cattle are driving the increase of methane production and that methane is a far, far more potent greenhouse gas than C02. A plant-based replacement wins hands-down in any ecological analysis.