Australian (ASX) Stock Market Forum

Are you willing to give up meat, fish and dairy?

Jump to new
I've often thought about this, and to be honest, I really don't think me, being a single person, would have any impact at all if I changed my diet. If I stopped eating meat, my family still would buy and eat meat. The meat supply industry would not miss my consumption.

However, if everyone else changes their diet, then I am willing to do the same, because then I know a difference is being made.
 
Tyler Durden said:
I've often thought about this, and to be honest, I really don't think me, being a single person, would have any impact at all if I changed my diet. If I stopped eating meat, my family still would buy and eat meat. The meat supply industry would not miss my consumption.

However, if everyone else changes their diet, then I am willing to do the same, because then I know a difference is being made.
Click to expand...

Everyone = many single persons.

Do what you believe in and let other people follow you. Not the other way round!
 
George Monbiot, the Guardian guy who wrote the article is a radical warmist alarmist, but consider this;

According to Time to Eat the Dog: The Real Guide to Sustainable Living, keeping a medium-sized dog has the same impact in the environment as driving a 4.6l Land Cruiser.
By the authors' estimates, Rover wolfs down approximately 164kg of meat and 95 kg of cereal products per annum.
The land required to produce that food is 0.84 hectares (ha) (or 1.1 for a large dog), while building and driving the jeep for a year requires just 0.41 hectares of land.
Click to expand...

Read more: http://www.metro.co.uk/weird/757006-dogs-as-bad-for-global-warming-as-an-suv#ixzz1hyQ1ionC
 
No matter what the issue or resource in question, all this environmental stuff really comes down to one simple fact.

There are too many people on the planet to be able to sustain a high standard of living.

If there were "only" 1 billion of us then we just wouldn't have issues with over fishing, running out of oil, CO2 emissions and all the rest. It's the scale that causes the problems, not the activity per se.
 
I would certainly give up meat if I could be sure that it would lead to everyone in the world being fed.

But there is one issue that this article doesn't properly address and that is the economics of farming. It assumes a benevolent world managed food production rather than the self interested capitalistic production that is the reality.

Even if there is no breeding of farm animals for meat/poultry consumption, what basis is there for assuming that the increased land available for grain/vegetable production will be used for that purpose. The vast grain producing areas of the world are predominantly in or controlled by the first world and expect competitive returns based on first world expectations. The supply/demand equation is geared to demand, not based on mouths to feed, but on mouths that can afford to pay prices that will give the farmer an economic return. Farmers will not produce more to satisfy hungry mouths in Africa if those hungry mouths can't pay a rate that makes it economic for the farmers.

Of course the answer is that there is some benevolent institution that will be willing to buy sufficient food for the hungry at a price acceptable to the producers. And although I would love to see that, we don't see it today other than piecemeal operations run by the UN and various charities.

War and corruption is the main cause of famine today and changing our eating habits in the west is unlikely to solve the problem so long as that remains the case.
 
bellenuit said:
War and corruption is the main cause of famine today and changing our eating habits in the west is unlikely to solve the problem so long as that remains the case.
Click to expand...
I beg to differ. War and corruption are frequently the consequence of famine, not the cause. Famine is caused by an excessive number of mouths being born into an environment that cannot provide gainful employment and sufficient life support for such excess.

Attempts to solve the problem by charity and welfare a la "Feed the World" will only exacerbate it. All too easily an expectancy is building that someone else will take responsibility and do something. Within less than one generation, the recipients will figure out "The more babies we have, the better will we be looked after. So let's make more babies."
 
pixel said:
I beg to differ. War and corruption are frequently the consequence of famine, not the cause.
Click to expand...
V

Although in some cases that may be true, it certainly is the exception. One has only to look at countries like Zimbabwe, North Korea or Nigeria to realize that it is the corruption at the top that is causing hunger among their peoples, not too many people. Pakistan cannot adequately feed the majority of its people, yet it has an nuclear arms program. If the resources wasted by the corrupt leaders of many poverty stricken countries we're directed to their own people's welfare, there would be little poverty in the world today.
 
Are you willing to give up meat, fish and dairy?
Click to expand...
Solly, as Calliope said, the author G.Monbiot is a known eco-catastrophist and is seen at his Malthusian (and admitted carnivorous) best here. We anxiously await progress updates as he embarks upon veganism ("..the only ethical response.." -G.Monbiot). I won't be joining him in his angst-ridden self flagellation.

Vintage Monbiot from the article:
"..most people would feel uncomfortable about subsidising the bloodlust of brandy-soaked hoorays.."

"We can eat fish, but only if we are prepared to contribute to the collapse of marine ecosystems and - as the European fleet plunders the seas off West Africa.."
 
"if god didnt want us to eat animals then why did he make them so tasty?"

...give up meat, fish & milk?... NOT A SNOWBALLS CHANCE IN HELL!
 
Logique said:
Solly, as Calliope said, the author G.Monbiot is a known eco-catastrophist and is seen at his Malthusian (and admitted carnivorous) best here. We anxiously await progress updates as he embarks upon veganism ("..the only ethical response.." -G.Monbiot). I won't be joining him in his angst-ridden self flagellation.

Vintage Monbiot from the article:
"..most people would feel uncomfortable about subsidising the bloodlust of brandy-soaked hoorays.."

"We can eat fish, but only if we are prepared to contribute to the collapse of marine ecosystems and - as the European fleet plunders the seas off West Africa.."
Click to expand...

Yes Logique, I am now aware of his background so I've been doing a little research on the subject.
I've found another couple of references.

http://reasonstogovegan.com/view-all-reasons/

http://www.peta.org/living/vegetarian-living/top-10-reasons-to-go-vegan-in-the-new-year.aspx

Although I did find this Peta poster showing a model wrapped in nothing more than lettuce leaves.
Not sure if this is appropriate marketing...

petasml.gif
 
I have a 42 acre block with 3 to 5 steers, own vegie garden and chooks.
My animals are cared and loved, killed on site and provide my family with an healthy diet of red meat organic , not grain fed.
The paddocks would not be suitable to farming and not eating meat would mean eating cereals from intensive fertiliser(ie oil based) farming.
In my case at least, the planet is much better off with me eating a lot of beef and eggs/chooks
As pointed before, the problem is overpopulation.
The more human, the less to share, both between humans, and sadly between human and wildlife/nature
 

Similar threads

R
When you invest, remember to commune with the dead
Replies
2
Views
3K
Wysiwyg
Wysiwyg
M
Wall St. warns to begin stockpiling food
2 3
Replies
56
Views
14K
jonojpsg
J
R
The American use of War Pretext Incidents
Replies
6
Views
9K
sptrawler
sptrawler
Top