Is it better for the environment if I choose to be a vegetarian?
- Thread starter jockslap
- Start date
Two points with that, not all vegetarians eat or like tofo. I hate the stuff. Secondly, we can make artifical rainfall and rich soil. They're called hoses. They're pretty new and a lot of design is still in the works... okay, I'm being sarcastic, sorry. But just to build a tofo farm is no reason to knock down the Amazon.Finnboghi said:
As for the OP, yeah, it would help a lot. Less land clearing to make way for animal farms. Live stock need a lot of room to graze.
I can also bring up the topic of Wind energy as well, seeing how none of the farmers want to build one where their cows dwell the greedy... (Shakes fist).
Also, I don't understand this whole "Meat rules! Let's consume an animal!" argument anymore. I like meat, but becomming vegetarian was nothing outstanding or hard. The food's the same, and just as tasty. The only thing you're missing is the texture. It was really no sweet off anyone's back.
I'm posting now, because I missed the last vegetarian argument, and a lot of good points were brought up in that one.
EDIT
Yes it does. Sales will go down. Farmers won't buy and raise as much cattle. Less meat to go to waste.Seldon2639 said:
Also, with the transporting idea, it takes more to transport meat. Firstly from the farms to the slaughter house, then onto the butchers or wherever. Plants get harvested at the farms and brought to the markets. Where I live, all products are locally grown so less transport still.
sorry for making this go for so long, but I believe I have some qualifications on this level.
on the environmental level historically heavy agriculture has done more in the way of damage to the planet than grazing/slaughter ever has.
while grazing animals put out high amounts of methane ( vegetarians do as well) it as at much lower levels than many advocacy groups like to claim. a whole heard of cows puts out less in the way of volatile chemicals a year than a single car does in one day...something like Yellow stone national park, or any average geo thermal, and oceanic vent, or volcano ( even dormant) put out more chemicals in a minute than the human population can in 10 years.
heavy agriculture on the other hand not only strips native soil of nutrients, it's responsible for spreading non native fungus and bacteria to local, native plant species, alters the PH balance in the ground, kills off native grasses meant to keep the soil and earth from blowing into the atmosphere, it's devastated natural ecosystems, as it displaces natural wildlife it cuts off their food...driving animals into more populated areas, or in some cases the complete loss of the dominant natural species.
take the dust bowl of the U.S. This was agriculture gone wrong. During western expansion huge amounts of sub-prime land was sold for pennies an acre, leading to a boom of people from the big eastern cities to buy up and attempt to farm... the removal of the natural grasses, which when replaced by wheat, corn, and other grans and plants were unable to contain the soil and led to vast amounts being left to dry, and eventually blow into the air.
this caused a chain reaction, and soon black storms swept the west, and mid west eventually reaching the east coast. The storms of dust generated their own heat, leading to mass droughts that lasted for years, horrid air quality, and health conditions that lead to the death of thousands of people " many of them were infants, small children and elderly"
this lead to many acts around the world to limit what can be grown where, and when, and how much land is allocated to this....one nation who has not enforced this is China, who currently is suffering their own dust bowl.
on a physical level
Soy does have the complex proteins in smaller portions that is often found in meats, true...however they don't contain the acids in meat that the human body needs, more important is the trans-fats that is needed to sustain a healthy BRAIN... not only to the acids in the trans fats keep the brain fed, more importantly they act as insulation for the neurons.
one reason that omniverous, and carnivorous animals ( including humans) show higher levels of complex thought processes, social structures, forethought, advanced communication, more complex, and effective vision is directly related to meat in their diet, be it from insects, or large prey... The evolution of humanity was directly connected to larger amounts of meats into the diet...as we worked up to scavenging kills for the marrow, to cooking the meat not only afforded us time to form stronger social bonds, and preserve out food longer, it drove us to develop advanced hunting strategy ( which required more communication, better ability to read the land and use it to an advantage, follow the stars to aid in following prey, to design new technologies)
It was when Homo sapient ( the first wave ) were limited to the coastal areas that the diet of largely fish led to a massive cognitive leap, This was directly linked in to the fats, and acids fish are rich in...As many know homo Sapient was physically modern, but the mental capacity was lacking.. the change in brain chemistry led to the evolution of homo sapient sapient...modern man.. us..
So without a need for meat our species would never have become what it is today, and we do still need it, supplements can take an edge off, but they all lack the primary chemicals for brain development ( one reason Doctors all over the world stress NEVER to put a child on a vegetarian diet) children who are forced on one show alot of developmental problems, or a higher rate of things like epileptic seizures, disorders in the nervous system, and even weaker immune systems.
A.L.McDargh PHD
Social Anthropology
University of Edinburgh
on the environmental level historically heavy agriculture has done more in the way of damage to the planet than grazing/slaughter ever has.
while grazing animals put out high amounts of methane ( vegetarians do as well) it as at much lower levels than many advocacy groups like to claim. a whole heard of cows puts out less in the way of volatile chemicals a year than a single car does in one day...something like Yellow stone national park, or any average geo thermal, and oceanic vent, or volcano ( even dormant) put out more chemicals in a minute than the human population can in 10 years.
heavy agriculture on the other hand not only strips native soil of nutrients, it's responsible for spreading non native fungus and bacteria to local, native plant species, alters the PH balance in the ground, kills off native grasses meant to keep the soil and earth from blowing into the atmosphere, it's devastated natural ecosystems, as it displaces natural wildlife it cuts off their food...driving animals into more populated areas, or in some cases the complete loss of the dominant natural species.
take the dust bowl of the U.S. This was agriculture gone wrong. During western expansion huge amounts of sub-prime land was sold for pennies an acre, leading to a boom of people from the big eastern cities to buy up and attempt to farm... the removal of the natural grasses, which when replaced by wheat, corn, and other grans and plants were unable to contain the soil and led to vast amounts being left to dry, and eventually blow into the air.
this caused a chain reaction, and soon black storms swept the west, and mid west eventually reaching the east coast. The storms of dust generated their own heat, leading to mass droughts that lasted for years, horrid air quality, and health conditions that lead to the death of thousands of people " many of them were infants, small children and elderly"
this lead to many acts around the world to limit what can be grown where, and when, and how much land is allocated to this....one nation who has not enforced this is China, who currently is suffering their own dust bowl.
on a physical level
Soy does have the complex proteins in smaller portions that is often found in meats, true...however they don't contain the acids in meat that the human body needs, more important is the trans-fats that is needed to sustain a healthy BRAIN... not only to the acids in the trans fats keep the brain fed, more importantly they act as insulation for the neurons.
one reason that omniverous, and carnivorous animals ( including humans) show higher levels of complex thought processes, social structures, forethought, advanced communication, more complex, and effective vision is directly related to meat in their diet, be it from insects, or large prey... The evolution of humanity was directly connected to larger amounts of meats into the diet...as we worked up to scavenging kills for the marrow, to cooking the meat not only afforded us time to form stronger social bonds, and preserve out food longer, it drove us to develop advanced hunting strategy ( which required more communication, better ability to read the land and use it to an advantage, follow the stars to aid in following prey, to design new technologies)
It was when Homo sapient ( the first wave ) were limited to the coastal areas that the diet of largely fish led to a massive cognitive leap, This was directly linked in to the fats, and acids fish are rich in...As many know homo Sapient was physically modern, but the mental capacity was lacking.. the change in brain chemistry led to the evolution of homo sapient sapient...modern man.. us..
So without a need for meat our species would never have become what it is today, and we do still need it, supplements can take an edge off, but they all lack the primary chemicals for brain development ( one reason Doctors all over the world stress NEVER to put a child on a vegetarian diet) children who are forced on one show alot of developmental problems, or a higher rate of things like epileptic seizures, disorders in the nervous system, and even weaker immune systems.
A.L.McDargh PHD
Social Anthropology
University of Edinburgh
Like a bunch of other folks have said, it takes a lot less energy to produce 1 kilocal of veggies than of meat. Bad agricultural practices are a legitimate concern but...livestock eat that stuff, too. Raising a cow/pig/other delicious beast means we have to raise that much more plant matter, not less.
So, a typical veg. diet does require less acreage to support and hence is more 'sustainable.'
So, a typical veg. diet does require less acreage to support and hence is more 'sustainable.'
This is inaccurate. The human body is capable of synthesizing complex amino acids (proteins) entirely from vegetable sources. Furthermore, myelin, the insulating sheath on axons, is not formed from a trans-fat. Trans-fats are bad for you. Don't eat them. You will do fine with vegetables as long you eat a sensible mix (protip: black beans are great)Matronadena said:
But we already control their breeding patterns. Eat less meat and the farmers won't breed and raise as many cows. Eat more, and it's the exact opposite.teisjm said:
Horticulture said:
I was not really meaning to what can and can't be broken down, Its more about quantity is where I was getting,
and I stress dietary needs do vary person to person
for me personally an all vegi diet will kill me, several thousand pounds in lab tests, doctor visitations, and dietitians made it quiet clear that I need acids, and proteins in quantities only found in meats...
but I do note that too carnivorous a diet is not good for a human as well... so naturally a moderation is something all need to consider in everything.
thats what being an omnivore is about...we have the ability to eat, and extract nutrients from just about everything, that said we biologically do need to find a balance and subsidize our needs.
only way to be 100% free of all that is to go to a replacement diet ( as in all food in pill form) but then again that poses gastrointestinal problems, atleast until we can sorta evolve out of that >.<
Technically, yeah, because you use less land per 'unit diet' of veg/fruit than you do meat due to energy lost between photosythnise, the animal eating/disgesting it, and you getting your energy from the animal. However....
And also some land simply isn't stable for crops - so grass, which can feed animals, is usable, making unstable land good for grazing.DannyBoy451 said:
*opens up biology notes*
Short answer : yes.
Long answer : Maybe, it'll have to be empirically tested at each decisive step.
Firstly, in an ecosystem 20% of the producer's energy is given to the next level in the food chain. That is, grass producing 1000J of energy would give 200J to a cow eating it.
And any subsequent levels after that the energy transferred is only a meager 10% AFTER the primary organism uses it. ( 200J to cow, cow uses 100J and then passes on 10J to humans who eat the beef. Numbers are highly inaccurate but i haven't slept the whole night and i'm running on diet dr pepper )
Secondly, the amount of work done to upkeep animals is much higher than the work done to upkeep plants. Also you have to remember that when you upkeep animals you do not eliminate the work done on the plants so you're essentially adding another level of work. ( Vegetarian diet requires work on plants. Meat diet requires work done on plants AND THEN work done on the animals. )
From the above two points you can see that eating meat is HIGHLY inefficient.
However consider the following points.
To make up for the lack of proteins many people will eat soy, spinach etc. However, soy is found to be carcinogenic. The amount of soy you're consuming each day to get the right amount of protein would vastly increase your chances of getting cancer. ( Of course with the reduction of many other carcinogenic factors in meat, ie. Biological amplification, you'd probably even out.
What bikeninja said about meat rotting in our gut is actually false. Plants are the ones that humans cannot digest. Human intestines have an extremely small caecum which is what most herbivores have to store bacteria which helps break down cellulose. Cellulose is of course what plants are mostly made of. ( Cellulose is different from STARCH which is what the plants STORE their food as. )
Proteins are actually digested very quickly, even quicker than carbohydrates in fact. They are digested in the stomach by protease and very quickly assimilated into the bloodstream.
^ 4 years studying biology and a gold medal in biology olympiad says you're wrong. Read above. A simple wiki search on the human stomach will tell you you're wrong too. Most of the protein you intake is digested and assimilated by the time it exits your stomach and into your duodenum
Edit: Sauce here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pepsinogen breaks proteins down into peptides
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trypsin then breaks peptides into amino acids which our body uses.
Dont forget the dendrons as well ;-)
Oh and i believe the 'good' fatty acid you're looking for is the omega-3 fatty acid.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omega_3
Short answer : yes.
Long answer : Maybe, it'll have to be empirically tested at each decisive step.
Firstly, in an ecosystem 20% of the producer's energy is given to the next level in the food chain. That is, grass producing 1000J of energy would give 200J to a cow eating it.
And any subsequent levels after that the energy transferred is only a meager 10% AFTER the primary organism uses it. ( 200J to cow, cow uses 100J and then passes on 10J to humans who eat the beef. Numbers are highly inaccurate but i haven't slept the whole night and i'm running on diet dr pepper )
Secondly, the amount of work done to upkeep animals is much higher than the work done to upkeep plants. Also you have to remember that when you upkeep animals you do not eliminate the work done on the plants so you're essentially adding another level of work. ( Vegetarian diet requires work on plants. Meat diet requires work done on plants AND THEN work done on the animals. )
From the above two points you can see that eating meat is HIGHLY inefficient.
However consider the following points.
To make up for the lack of proteins many people will eat soy, spinach etc. However, soy is found to be carcinogenic. The amount of soy you're consuming each day to get the right amount of protein would vastly increase your chances of getting cancer. ( Of course with the reduction of many other carcinogenic factors in meat, ie. Biological amplification, you'd probably even out.
What bikeninja said about meat rotting in our gut is actually false. Plants are the ones that humans cannot digest. Human intestines have an extremely small caecum which is what most herbivores have to store bacteria which helps break down cellulose. Cellulose is of course what plants are mostly made of. ( Cellulose is different from STARCH which is what the plants STORE their food as. )
Proteins are actually digested very quickly, even quicker than carbohydrates in fact. They are digested in the stomach by protease and very quickly assimilated into the bloodstream.
bikeninja said:
Edit: Sauce here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pepsinogen breaks proteins down into peptides
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trypsin then breaks peptides into amino acids which our body uses.
Horticulture said:
Oh and i believe the 'good' fatty acid you're looking for is the omega-3 fatty acid.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omega_3
We as humans in the modern age don't eat other humans as a sign of morality and ethics. In older centuries, the American Indians and other peoples of Scandinavia and europe were known to indulge in cannabalism for religious and spiritual reasons. American Indian warriors would eat a piece of their foe's hearts because they believed that the power of the warrior would come into the tribesman eating it.Brotherofwill said:
If you're going to become vegetarian it's a huge commitment, so think carefully about the choice you're about to make and don't base it on a flimsy reason such as 'the environment'. Do it because you really believe in it and nothing else.
Short answer NO
Long answer, No because vegetation produces a large amount of CO2 in the early stages of it's development. Only when plants reach a certain stage (which varies on the plant) do they begin to reduce our CO2 content. Sadly if your eating them, most generally don't reach that stage.
Long answer, No because vegetation produces a large amount of CO2 in the early stages of it's development. Only when plants reach a certain stage (which varies on the plant) do they begin to reduce our CO2 content. Sadly if your eating them, most generally don't reach that stage.