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.
Isn't macrophotography amazing, NewAgeRedneck? You can make just about anything look beautiful or horrible.
I am somewhat concerned at the photographer's apparent ignorance of copyright and trademark law. "Fair use" is the cry of those who don't want to comply with copyright law, and it's almost never used correctly. The use here of those items doesn't qualify under most of the multiple criteria for fair use, as near as I can tell, and he might find himself on the wrong end of a lawsuit for copyright infringement or trademark violation.
I've been visiting his ( Mike Adams ) website every now and then for the past year or so. If he's doing anything illegal, I'm guessing that he would have been prosecuted and shut down by now. I've seen links to his website plastered all over the internet, so he's not exactly running a covert operation. I googled The Health Ranger and got 269,000 hits. I'm not familiar with the "Fair Use" concept you mention, so I won't even pretend to know what that is.
Differently damaging. It's possible to raise livestock in wild areas without the massive amount of habitat destruction that is required for agriculture.
You don't think that the bean fields were waiting for the settlers when they arrived in the Great Plains, do you?
It's possible but how often is it actually done? The vast majority of beef in U.S. grocery stores are not from livestock raised in wild areas. There's habitat destruction for both livestock and produce no doubt... but beef cattle/dairy produce more green house gases than anything else in the agricultural industry according to the EPA.
Well, you wouldn't have to unless you're using other people's material. Since I do volunteer editing for a nationwide publication, and since I'm a moderator for an assortment of lists on an email forum (with firm rules against copyright violation), I keep the U.S. Copyright Office website bookmarked and lurk on lists where intellectual property attorneys argue this stuff. (My background as a legal assistant long ago helps there just in translating into plain English .)
Suffice it to say that Fair Use is a VERY slim reed to depend on in a court of law. He may never get caught by the particular entities whose copyright/trademark he's violating, or he may eventually get caught. (The internet is a very big place.)
Now, using the particular products and taking his own extreme close-up photos is no problem. It's his use of any photos taken by the company, an advertising company paid by the company, or anyone else that's the issue. But that's so far off-topic here it's not even funny! So I'll hush-up about it now.
It's possible but how often is it actually done? The vast majority of beef in U.S. grocery stores are not from livestock raised in wild areas. There's habitat destruction for both livestock and produce no doubt... but beef cattle/dairy produce more green house gases than anything else in the agricultural industry according to the EPA.
But that's a process issue, not something inherent in eating meat.
The question posed is whether or not meat consumption is bad for the environment. The answer to that question is no.
If the question was whether or not factory farming techniques are bad for the environment, then the answer is yes. And that is true whether you are raising livestock or crops.
But that's so far off-topic here it's not even funny! So I'll hush-up about it now.
Hey we all stray from the main issue from time to time. IMO, that's one of many things that makes the forum an interesting place. It's often an off topic comment that is most enlightening. I'm glad you brought it up. I never heard of "Fair Use" before you mentioned it, but now it is on my radar.
sean98125 wrote:
If the question was whether or not factory farming techniques are bad for the environment, then the answer is yes. And that is true whether you are raising livestock or crops.
But that's a process issue, not something inherent in eating meat.
The question posed is whether or not meat consumption is bad for the environment. The answer to that question is no.
If the question was whether or not factory farming techniques are bad for the environment, then the answer is yes. And that is true whether you are raising livestock or crops.
The question was whether or not meat consumption is bad for the environment and then I referenced an article by the L.A. Times regarding farming techniques, transportation of animals, greenhouse gases output, etc. It was left open ended.
Sitting down at dinner chomping on a steak is not necessarily killing the earth... but how it got there most likely is... there's plenty of references on this thread (and enough creditable organizations that state that raising livestock is taxing on resources and polluting the environment) and it all comes down to consumption. The fact of the matter is... most American meat eaters consume factor farmed meat - not free range meat , not organic meat (most of us under 30 probably have never tasted free range meat). We willing consume meat that is more taxing on our environment than anything we can grow. So to me, meat consumption is bad for the environment because of the type of meat that America eats.
Anything we consume has the potential to be bad for the environment but we don't have to eat 1 lb a day of the worst offender.
So to me, meat consumption is bad for the environment because of the type of meat that America eats.
But that's not a logical conclusion. Saying that meat consumption in general is bad for the environment because certain methods of raising a certain animal is bad for the environment is not logical at all. The logical answer is that meat consumption is not bad for the environment, but certain ways of raising animals for meat is. Other ways of raising meat are not bad for the environment, and we can mention wild animals used for meat...
This was on the front page of the L.A. Times. I thought it was interesting that "... livestock emits 18% of carbon gases, more than the transportation sector...".
Treading lighter with low-carbon diets - Los Angeles Times (http://www.latimes.com/features/lifestyle/green/la-me-lowcarbon22apr22,0,722395.story - broken link)
WHile I am not reading nearly 200 posts, I just finished watching "dirty jobs" on tv, and they were at a dairy farm. The farm is self-sufficient energywise. The cow manure is fermented and the mathane collected and used for power the farm. The fertilizer is used to raise feed for the cows.
While cows certainly emit plenty of gases, so do the BILLIONS of people.
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.
.) 
So I'll hush-up about it now.