New Testingstan

Straha wrote:

RyanThunder wrote:@Straha: Maybe you just thought I was being brief, but you should notice that I actually snipped out the part about factory farm conditions.

Which I do have a problem with for the reasons you mentioned. What I do not have any problem with whatsoever is any number of animals being slaughtered for food, as long as its sustainable.

You're not answering the question. Why is it good to murder 10 Billion living beings every year?

Presumably because people eat them.

Is there an objectively good reason for doing it? Not one that I can think of.

But then we should all probably live off of some kind of fungal food grown in vats or something. On the moon, or in orbit, for good measure, maybe.

Okay I should've done this a page ago, but what, precisely, are you proposing we do?

It's really not that difficult IF you can afford it. Fact is that veganism is generally a way more expensive diet than an omnivorous one.

So could someone explain how veganism is somehow more sustainable than our current methods? Can it realistically replace our existing food supply and still manage to provide enough nutrition for six billion people? Or is it just philosophical grand-standing as opposed to a practical solution?

Have you ever seen one of those producer/consumer pyramids in a 3rd grade biology book?

Zod wrote:So could someone explain how veganism is somehow more sustainable than our current methods? Can it realistically replace our existing food supply and still manage to provide enough nutrition for six billion people? Or is it just philosophical grand-standing as opposed to a practical solution?

Do you have any idea how much more energy goes into meat production than agriculture (meant for human consumption)?

Bah, forget vegetarianism. Let's all just get regular injections of raw, lab-manufactured nutrients and forgo eating altogether. Much more efficient.

Losonti Tokash wrote:

Zod wrote:So could someone explain how veganism is somehow more sustainable than our current methods? Can it realistically replace our existing food supply and still manage to provide enough nutrition for six billion people? Or is it just philosophical grand-standing as opposed to a practical solution?

Do you have any idea how much more energy goes into meat production than agriculture (meant for human consumption)?

Are you including the amount of energy it takes to combat topsoil erosion and degradation? (The answer is that neither one is really sustainable on its own if the population keeps growing.)

Well, he does have a point; that producing a pound of beef takes a lot more resources than producing a pound of bread.

But yeah, pop control is critical. This would just be mitigating the side effects of that.

Zod wrote:Are you including the amount of energy it takes to combat topsoil erosion and degradation? (The answer is that neither one is really sustainable on its own if the population keeps growing.)

You do realise that livestock don't just take energy from power plants or something, right? All that energy comes from vegetation, and every pound of vegetable you give to an animal is a fraction of a pound of usable food we get from it. Any resource issue crops have, animal products have three to twelve times over.

I'm curious about one thing, though: let's say for a moment that one day we were to unanimously commit to no longer eating any meat products at all, ever again. The resources going into the mass production and distribution of meat are immediately freed up for the production of vegetarian food. This is going to produce a tremendous spike in the total supply of food, and in turn prices will crash; this theoretically enables poor people to better afford food and not have to starve.

But what happens then? Will all food producers accept this price level as the new normal? (Which leads to another question, how does this affect the standard of living for any agribusiness that isn't already a huge corporation?) Will some/a lot of them go out of business until prices return to where they previously were?

Would hunger actually be reduced in the long term by this action? Or would our economic system continue to deny people that which we have in abundance?

Infinity Biscuit wrote:

Zod wrote:Are you including the amount of energy it takes to combat topsoil erosion and degradation? (The answer is that neither one is really sustainable on its own if the population keeps growing.)

You do realise that livestock don't just take energy from power plants or something, right? All that energy comes from vegetation, and every pound of vegetable you give to an animal is a fraction of a pound of usable food we get from it. Any resource issue crops have, animal products have three to twelve times over.

It's not quite as binary as that. Yes, we pour a lot of human-consumable resources into the raising of livestock, but that doesn't mean that all meat products have to be derived from that. For example, keeping chickens in concert with a backyard garden can be substantially beneficial and provide a plentiful source of protein (eggs) and fertilizer, while helping with pest control and being damn cheap to keep fed. Cattle can graze on grasses which really don't do a whole lot for humans and which grow fairly readily with little labor and even on land which would not necessarily support other agriculture (at least not without substantial influx of resources).

The tremendous amount of resources that goes into meat is less an argument against any meat consumption whatsoever, and more against the sheer quantity of meat we gluttonously ingest as a society.

The use of livestock in marginal lands, not being fed grain or straw from cropland does mean you're not using land resources you could otherwise, right, but you're still using more water, contributing more to erosion, and other things like that than if you didn't use that land at all. I think at that point it could be debatable as no longer quite so lopsided since if you go that far the effects are fairly minimal, but Zod was apparently thinking it could actually be better in those regards to raise meat, and not even necessarily restricting it to marginal areas.

On a personal level I have little objection to humanely-raised animals on marginal lands (or chickens in areas they can feed themselves), since my primary issue with meat is ecological. But I feel it's better to come at the issue from the assumption that the meat will cost more resources, and maybe find some exceptions, than to assume they're on equal ground.

Infinity Biscuit wrote:The use of livestock in marginal lands, not being fed grain or straw from cropland does mean you're not using land resources you could otherwise, right, but you're still using more water, contributing more to erosion, and other things like that than if you didn't use that land at all. I think at that point it could be debatable as no longer quite so lopsided since if you go that far the effects are fairly minimal, but Zod was apparently thinking it could actually be better in those regards to raise meat, and not even necessarily restricting it to marginal areas.

Point out where I said so, otherwise fuck off about what I was "thinking".

You asked if meat was still more resource-intensive even including stuff like erosion? If you already figured that it was, that seems a weird thing to ask. Note the use of "could be" rather than "is"

Infinity Biscuit wrote:You asked if meat was still more resource-intensive even including stuff like erosion? If you already figured that it was, that seems a weird thing to ask. Note the use of "could be" rather than "is"

No, I didn't. Good fucking Christ are you illiterate? It's right up there less than a page back.

Geez, Zod, don't you think you're over-reacting a little ?

Oxymoron wrote:Geez, Zod, don't you think you're over-reacting a little ?

Not really, since it seems that some people like to find whatever excuse they can get to ride my ass for whatever reason.

Zod wrote:Not really, since it seems that some people like to find whatever excuse they can get to ride my ass for whatever reason.

Where's Ein when you need him?

RogueIce wrote:

Zod wrote:Not really, since it seems that some people like to find whatever excuse they can get to ride my ass for whatever reason.

Where's Ein when you need him?

Doesn't count.

Zod, I think you need to chill out.

i just saw this on the facebook and it was an interesting read

http://fozmeadows.wordpress.com/2012/12 ... political/

about women and people of color in history and in fantasy

You know, I feel like Mass Effect had the perfect opportunity to portray a multi-national future and fell short. It was good that i could be whatever colour I wanted but the VA was obviously North American. It would have been interesting to have your character be from Zimbabwe or something and explore how that effects her life. Does racism still exist, is Zimbabwe a full partner in the SA or are they ostracised like today?

there is currently an amazing debacle ongoing in the land of sweden

see we have this tradition where every christmas eve at 3 p.m. whole families are forced at gunpoint by parents to watch a hour of old disney cartoons, some from the '30s

and this year disney decided to remove some good ol' fashioned racist caricatures which sometimes accidentally appeared in cartoons from the '30s
(it should be noted that said caricatures were not present until sometime in the '80s when they did some sort of restoration of the clips, because jesus christ the '30s were not something to be proud of)

naturally this is FUCKING OUTRAGEOUS

because apparently we swedes are so post-racism that it's totally fine to show huge-nosed cartoons jews wobbling about, and black-faced dolls saying "mammy", as family entertainment.
i mean, it's not like we have a growing, explicitly racist party in parliament or anything, or that non-whites are almost openly discriminated against, or have a city becoming world-famous for its anti-semitism

clearly getting rid of racist stereotypes in family entertainment is the bad decision here

i almost wish disney would have released an additional statement with the removal: "you crazy fucks are already too fucking racist to handle this shit, what the hell is wrong with you?"

Haha you can't seriously be objecting to that. Maybe ban Tintin in the Congo while you're at it?