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.
After reading The Omnivores Dilemma and watching documentaries like Symphony of the Soil, I am almost certain that Veganism and Vegetarianism are shallow reactionary movements to the way we treat the animals we consume. Feedlots are horrible and unsustainable. Monoculture agriculture, with use of chemicals is horrible and unsustainable. We need a sustainable way to cultivate food. Some key talking points:
1. There is more vegetation or yield per acre in nature without the use of fertilizers and chemicals than even the top agricultural models can yield with current modern methods of fertilizers and chemicals.
That's a patently false claim.
If you study data from the US Department of Agriculture, organic yields are significantly lower. So much lower that if only organic farming was allowed, you would need another 109 Million acres of farmland in use to make up for the losses.
If you study data from the US Department of Agriculture, organic yields are significantly lower. So much lower that if only organic farming was allowed, you would need another 109 Million acres of farmland in use to make up for the losses.
The USDA is a government entity, heavily tied with the fertilizer and pesticide industries. They scratch each other's backs. It's in the USDA's interest to side with the fertilizer and pesticide industries. It's also child's play for them to make it look like 100% organic would tie up vast amounts of additional land, and oooooh scare people.
Believing their data in this area is like trusting the fox to guard the henhouse.
And no, Pollard's book "The Omnivore's Dilemma" makes no recommendation or urging to move to only veganism / vegetarianism. I've read through the book many times, and even have it in front of me. I challenge anyone to point out the chapter or page of such alleged statement(s). Quite the contrary, Polland sings the virtues of Polyface Farms, which among other things, sells meats to the public. It's not what they produce, but how they produce.
Last edited by Thoreau424; 01-09-2019 at 03:55 PM..
there was a report some time ago that said land everywhere is becoming infertile year on year, that will be a problem in the future if not now whatever you grow.
there was a report some time ago that said land everywhere is becoming infertile year on year, that will be a problem in the future if not now whatever you grow.
And yet, Pollan gives such an example of a farmer and family who turned an infertile and "useless" tract of land into a thriving, healthy farm, again that supplies quality non-industrial food (Polyface Farms). There are already proven examples out there.
The naysayers though are great at shutting down minds, ideas, possibilities. We've gotten tuned to only listening to them. And that's part of why we continue to get more and more screwed up.
If you study data from the US Department of Agriculture, organic yields are significantly lower. So much lower that if only organic farming was allowed, you would need another 109 Million acres of farmland in use to make up for the losses.
Measure the biodiversity in one acre of wild grassland or an acre of wild jungle. The nitrogen cycle is alive and well yielding far more biomass than any fertilizer based agriculture.
I believe we are in the infancy of organic farming. The soil needs to be developed.
“It’s important to remember that our current agricultural system produces far more food than is needed to provide for everyone on the planet,” said Kremen. “Eradicating world hunger requires increasing the access to food, not simply the production. Also, increasing the proportion of agriculture that uses sustainable, organic methods of farming is not a choice, it’s a necessity. We simply can’t continue to produce food far into the future without taking care of our soils, water and biodiversity.”
No one said we needed that many people, it's not up to us at this point to control population anyway. Family planning and a good economy, mature mothers and women in the workforce are enough to control population.
1. Without "chemicals" over 1/2 the people on the planet would starve. These "chemicals" are pulled from thin air - that is, the ammonia process.
2. Will you trade your $10 bills to me for $1 bills....one for one? Well, that is what you are doing with beef and some other meats. In fact, the ratio is higher - you feed them 15 lbs of soybeans and corn, etc. protein for one pound of beef protein.
3. Predator and Prey - sounds nice and maybe a supplement for a tiny portion of the world's population, but the idea of the BILLIONS eating wild meat is a fantasy.....
Eating lower on the food chain is the single "average" thing that most can do to assure a better environment and more food to go around. After we get there (and we are well on the way), then we can discuss other details.
1. Without "chemicals" over 1/2 the people on the planet would starve. These "chemicals" are pulled from thin air - that is, the ammonia process.
Thin Air? What about the abundant amount of energy needed to "Pull" it out of thin air?
What about the disruption of the way nature works (Imbalance) when you are part of the process? If things are going to get better in this country then you will need to look at the data not base things on how you feel .
Predator and prey is the way the world works, there is no alternative. That view is based on millions of years of nature telling us what works!
Eating more veggies does not help if we are dependent on chemicals for our food. We are losing biodiversity and that includes the soil health to include micro fauna, fungi, plant and all other natural sustainability loops.
Speaking of fantasies:
"former sports editor of the Birmingham Age-Herald, is credited with coining the phrase "Crimson Tide" in an article describing the 1907 Iron Bowl played in Birmingham with Auburn a heavy favorite to win. The game was played in a sea of red mud which stained the Alabama white jerseys crimson"
So there is your "red tide" fantasy.....burst. But my guess if that you don't learn from facts since it's much easier to know everything....and disagree with science, biology and even common sense....
Red Tide was never big up in Alabama anyway.....so it's doubly far out that you made such a wild "guess". May I asked exactly where you pulled that particular "reasoning" out from? I'm interested in how propaganda like that spreads...really!
"Eating meat is much more efficient nutritionally than trying to harness the Sun's energy by eating plants"
This is a complete falsehood when it comes to actual science and the modern world. You are "correct" in the sense of eating a Mastadon or Bison may have been beneficial to small populations....wild animals which didn't need to be fed crops to grow.
Modern man has little in common with our ancestors - those fatty meats cause us to develop gout, die young of clogged arteries and become obese.
Do you really think the US Obesity problems isn't linked to heavy consumption of meats?
We could delve into the details of how plant based proteins need a bit of diversity (supplements of vitamins, amino acids or the like) to be "complete" , but this has been going for a long time. That's why your breakfast cereals are "fortified".
But back to "feeding the world" and "energy-in vs. energy out". All things being equal, that beef protein uses 6 to 15X as much energy as the pinto beans, soy-based products, wheat and other sources of protein.
And we are not talking a small difference - we are talking BIG time extra energy and land use.
SUMMARY - AND CONCLUSION - In most all cases of modern civilization, eating lower on the food chain will result in vast energy savings as well as greatly reduced pollution of land, water and air. Period.
Therefore, the premise of the OP is false. Being a Vegetarians (not Vegan, but Vegetarian) is the single simplest thing one can do to change the food equation. Even those who eat meat and stick with the chicken, turkey and fish are helping greatly....
My premise is sustainability not your veganism or vegan solution. It is not false, if you go out to a modern farm there is no soil only dirt............. growing anything in dirt is not possible without chemicals. THATS THE POINT HERE.
growing anything in dirt is not possible without chemicals. THATS THE POINT HERE.
And that point has no basis in reality. You obviously have no understanding of agriculture. What about all the centuries of growing food - around the world - without synthetic chemicals. How did people survive, just breathing air? The mechanics of plant growth, biology, and the elements weren't even understood until the 19th century.
Food can be grown in any soil with sufficient nitrogen, and that can easily come from animal manure, which is rich in it. Mix the animals with the land, as it's been done for centuries, and there is no problem. Separate them like the industrialists like, and you create the disconnect and problem. The industrialists only care about themselves and their pocketbook. They'll screw us over and sell us out in the blink of an eye.
If you follow the trail of the problem back to the roots, you'll fine people there, as always happens. We're experts at creating our biggest problems. That's the point.
Last edited by Thoreau424; 01-14-2019 at 01:35 PM..
And that point has no basis in reality. You obviously have no understanding of agriculture. What about all the centuries of growing food - around the world - without synthetic chemicals. How did people survive, just breathing air? The mechanics of plant growth, biology, and the elements weren't even understood until the 19th century.
Food can be grown in any soil with sufficient nitrogen, and that can easily come from animal manure, which is rich in it. Mix the animals with the land, as it's been done for centuries, and there is no problem. Separate them like the industrialists like, and you create the disconnect and problem. The industrialists only care about themselves and their pocketbook. They'll screw us over and sell us out in the blink of an eye.
If you follow the trail of the problem back to the roots, you'll fine people there, as always happens. We're experts at creating our biggest problems. That's the point.
It's funny, I believe you are arguing the same thing yet you say that the point that you can grow nothing in just dirt (with no biology in the dirt) has no basis in reality? Am I missing something? We both agree that there is a fundamental difference between soil and dirt?
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.
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.
