U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Great Debates
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 07-21-2009, 07:02 AM
 
Location: Visitation between Wal-Mart & Home Depot
8,309 posts, read 33,343,837 times
Reputation: 7038

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Neuling View Post
Right and wrong as with people suffering the most from climate change. It is the poor people of this world who are most affected, not the ones who have been ruining the environment for centuries and thus deserve "more" to be affected.
Misguided dogma has a funny way of discouraging logical discussion, doesn't it?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 07-21-2009, 07:09 AM
 
Location: West Coast of Europe
19,865 posts, read 18,321,358 times
Reputation: 7955
Quote:
Originally Posted by arctichomesteader View Post
Not currently, and I don't foresee the heavily populated countries (Asian countries and in much of Western Europe) ever feeding themselves in the near future. Africa is a basketcase and until the politics are settled there, there never will be enough food grown there. South America has political problems of its own. Rather bizarre when people are starving in countries that export food to countries that don't need to import food.




Zero energy use, not zero energy building.
Western Europe could easily be self-sufficient. Actually, farmers are paid money for not growing plants and leaving fields idle in order to keep the prices up. And a lot of food is exported, other surpluses are simply destroyed.
Africa could also feed itself. Of course it requires them to get their act together. But as far as the potential is concerned - and this is what we are talking about - it could be self-sufficient.
South America could easily be self-sufficient, there are relatively few people for such a huge continent. Problems only arise when they export their food to Europe etc. where they earn more, rather than feeding their own populations.
China is the only real problem. But its gender imbalance will lead to a decreasing population anyway.

I can't imagine any party wants to stop the use of energy altogether. Maybe they refer to fossil energy. What is the name of that party so I can look up their program?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-21-2009, 07:13 AM
 
Location: West Coast of Europe
19,865 posts, read 18,321,358 times
Reputation: 7955
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimboburnsy View Post
Misguided dogma has a funny way of discouraging logical discussion, doesn't it?
Are you talking about yourself?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-21-2009, 07:19 AM
 
Location: Somewhere out there
9,616 posts, read 11,066,557 times
Reputation: 3717
Thumbs down Veganism=extinction

Quote:
Originally Posted by eevee View Post
since most of the vegetation on this planet can't be eating by humans (either b/c it's poisonous or we just don't have the means to digest and gain nutrients from them), the ONLY way we could sustain an entire planet of vegetarians would be to hack down the Amazon rainforest and other natural forests and raze them for farmland to grow foods humans can eat. you'd be permanently altering entire ecosystems trying to grow produce in areas they shouldn't be grown (not every patch of land is suitable for growing soy). we'd have to up the ante in the war against garden pests (since we can't afford to have a major food source decimated by bugs) and may have to resort to chemicals if we expect to keep up (who knows what the statistic is of how much of their crop do organic farmers have to dump due to pests?). and no, we can't grow and enormous amount of plants, at least no where near enough to satisfy the world hunger. there isn't enough viable land, weather is too harsh in many locales, and it's just too time intensive (a chicken lays an egg daily and can be fit to eat in a year or so. it can take longer for a fruit tree to bear fruit) for it to work. that's not even taking into account that a single massive infestation of bugs, a bad strain of disease, or a massive natural disaster like a hurricane or prolonged freeze can kill off any entire crop and practically doom many people to starve.

how is THIS any better? the world can't sustain a wholly vegetarian human race any more than it could sustain a wholly carnivorous human race. the world can, and has been for many, many, many generations, support a omnivorous human race.
Absolutely spot on! We're evolved omnivores for a good reason; the omnivores came out on top simply becuase they (we) are the most adaptable. This is NOT political commentary; that belongs on another thread. But strict veganism belongs in the trashbin.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-21-2009, 07:23 AM
 
Location: West Coast of Europe
19,865 posts, read 18,321,358 times
Reputation: 7955
Quote:
Originally Posted by rifleman View Post
Absolutely spot on! We're evolved omnivores for a good reason; the omnivores came out on top simply becuase they (we) are the most adaptable. This is NOT political commentary; that belongs on another thread. But strict veganism belongs in the trashbin.
Veganism is dangerous because many vegans don't know what they are doing, which can literally be fatal.

Humans used to be hunter-gatherers for a long time and later on they domesticated animals and deliberately planted crops. Only thanks to agriculture was it possible to feed so many people. If it weren't for agriculture, specifically crops, there would not be 6.x billion people now.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-21-2009, 07:34 AM
 
Location: Visitation between Wal-Mart & Home Depot
8,309 posts, read 33,343,837 times
Reputation: 7038
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neuling View Post
Are you talking about yourself?
No, I'm talking about the notion that relying on others with know-how is somehow morally superior, the notion that the nebulous and vague "poor" have less impact on the environment and are therefore more entitled to life, the notion that soldiers and hunters are low and your smug, arm-chair activism that is almost certainly moot at best.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-21-2009, 07:46 AM
 
Location: West Coast of Europe
19,865 posts, read 18,321,358 times
Reputation: 7955
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimboburnsy View Post
No, I'm talking about the notion that relying on others with know-how is somehow morally superior, the notion that the nebulous and vague "poor" have less impact on the environment and are therefore more entitled to life, the notion that soldiers and hunters are low and your smug, arm-chair activism that is almost certainly moot at best.
Well, you don't even understand what I say, obviously. I never said it had anything to do with morals when one relies on experts rather than doing things on one's own. It is common sense as not everybody has the same talents, know-how, interests etc.
Was it the Africans, Chinese or Indians who have been emitting enormous quantities of greenhouse gases in the 20th century? No, but they are suffering the most from climate change. And that is unfair in my view. If anyone, it should be Europeans, Japanese and US-Americans.
And yes, I despise hunters (unless people still living in stone-age environments) and soldiers, so what?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-21-2009, 07:54 AM
 
Location: The Woods
16,455 posts, read 21,476,969 times
Reputation: 8412
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neuling View Post
Well, you don't even understand what I say, obviously. I never said it had anything to do with morals when one relies on experts rather than doing things on one's own. It is common sense as not everybody has the same talents, know-how, interests etc.
Was it the Africans, Chinese or Indians who have been emitting enormous quantities of greenhouse gases in the 20th century? No, but they are suffering the most from climate change. And that is unfair in my view. If anyone, it should be Europeans, Japanese and US-Americans.
And yes, I despise hunters (unless people still living in stone-age environments) and soldiers, so what?
China and India are the top pollution producers, not the U.S.

You despise people who have a different way of life than you...that says a lot about you.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-21-2009, 07:57 AM
 
Location: The Woods
16,455 posts, read 21,476,969 times
Reputation: 8412
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neuling View Post
Again, I am not basing my opinion on the majority, it just happens that my and their opinions are the same. That is a huge difference.

Also, what you say about Germans back then is just not true. A lot of Germans used to have weapons back then, there was no register, nobody of the Nazi apparatus knew who had how many weapons, and thus many people still had weapons, especially outside the big cities.
You used the opinions of the majority to back up yours earlier in this thread. Logical fallacy...

Most Germans did not have guns.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-21-2009, 08:02 AM
 
Location: West Coast of Europe
19,865 posts, read 18,321,358 times
Reputation: 7955
Well, I am tired of this discussion, frankly. As always with such discussions they don't lead anywhere because both sides think they are right and none will change, anyway. And obviously there are no other vegetarians here, at least none that bother to write and support me. So why would I waste all this precious time of mine... Pearls before swine
Feel free to reply, but don't expect a reply as I will delete this discussion from my subscriptions.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Great Debates
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top