62 replies to this topic

[TheFountain]

Paleo dieters like duke are always referring to the 'low inflammation' levels he himself associates with his diet. In the next sentence he speaks about eating huge cheese omlettes dripping with all sorts of inflammatory substances (Dairy that is high in Omega 6, the eggs themselves which contain alot of arachidonic acid, etc). How on earth can this type of food be less inflammatory than a piece of wheat bread? This is why making blanket statements about 'carbs' and 'fats' is silly. There are healthy forms of both which do and do not cause inflammation. Can we stop with the 'all grains/carbs are bad' or 'all fats are bad' monotony already (oatmeal is known to lower inflammation!)? When you approach uninformed people with this level of absurdity you risk confusing them and making them eat a bunch of unhealthy, pro-inflammatory foods. And it helps no one in the end.

[TheFountain]

The point of this post was to further illustrate the idiotic reasoning people have when stating 'high fat diets are good'. No, high fat diets are NOT good. Diets containing higher amounts SPECIFIC TYPES of fatty acids are good. Other's are no less prescription for disease than diets high in refined carbs. Now can we please alter our language, stop being babies and get on with weeding out what is and isn't good without sounding like biased children in the process? In short, stating 'high fat is good, high carb is bad' does nothing for anyone and is a patently false and stupid statement as evidenced by cultures who have survived seemingly well on both high fat AND high carb diets. And it can never be reiterated enough that SOME fats are good and SOME carbs are good. This should be the fundamental point of entry people have when designing their diets. Anyone who states otherwise is just a biased child in my view.

[Skötkonung]

While we're pointing out problems with specific diets, let's examine the vegan raw diet that you like to espouse:

Here is an agriculture without animals, the plant-based diet that is supposed to be so life affirming and ethically righteous. First, take a piece of land from somebody else, because the history of agriculture is the history of imperialism. Next, bulldoze or burn all of the life on it: the trees, the grasses, the wetlands. That includes all creatures great and small: the bison, the gray wolves, the black terns. A tiny handful of specie - mice, locusts - will manage, but the other animals will have to go. Now plant your annual microcrops. Your grains and beans will be okay at first, living off the organic matter created by the now dead forest or prairie. But like any starving beast, the soil will eat its reserves, until there's nothing - no matter, no biological activity - left. As your yields - your food supply - begin to dwindle, you've got two option. Take over another piece of land and start again, or apply some fertilizer. Since in the books, pleading and polemical, say that animal products are inherently oppressive and unsustainable, you can't use manure, bone meal, or blood meal. So you supply nitrogen with the only other alternative, fossil fuel. Do I need to add that you can't produce this yourself, that its production is an ecological nightmare, and that one day the oil and gas will run out?

Your phosphorus will have to be made from rocks. There's a reason for the popular image that equates hard labor in a prison with chopping rocks. How will you mine it , grind it, or transport it without fossil fuel, using only human musculature and without using slavery? For your potassium, you'll collect wood ashes, try some cover crops, and hope for the best. Meanwhile the soil is turning to dust, clogging the rivers, blowing across the continent. In 1934, the entire eastern seaboard was covered in a thick haze of brown, the topsoil of Oklahoma plowed to cotton and wheat, drifting like an angry ghost to cover the eastern cities and further, to ships hundreds of miles out to sea, a final, fitting tribute to the extractive economies of the civilized. This is where agriculture, particularly vegan and vegetarian agriculture, ends: in death. The trees, the grasses, the birds and beasts all gone, and the topsoil with them.

More of the same is no solution. Faced with your diet and the consequences it will wrought upon the world, I would gladly choose the Paleo diet. At least it offers a hope of sustainable agriculture through crop rotation with ruminant animals and emphasis on domesticate perennials. Remember, what we eat does more than just sustain ourselves, it also plays an intractable role in the global ecology. If we are going to life "forever," we are also going to need a health planet.

[Dorho]

As your yields - your food supply - begin to dwindle, you've got two option. Take over another piece of land and start again, or apply some fertilizer. Since in the books, pleading and polemical, say that animal products are inherently oppressive and unsustainable, you can't use manure, bone meal, or blood meal. So you supply nitrogen with the only other alternative, fossil fuel. Do I need to add that you can't produce this yourself, that its production is an ecological nightmare, and that one day the oil and gas will run out?

There's also a third option, and that is to use plants that fix nitrogen from the atmosphere and convert it into nitrates that are released to the soil as the plant decomposes. Legumes (peas, soy etc.) are an example of nitrogen fixing plants. Also, why not use human manure or urine as fertilizers like many eco-friendly vegans do?

Your phosphorus will have to be made from rocks. There's a reason for the popular image that equates hard labor in a prison with chopping rocks. How will you mine it , grind it, or transport it without fossil fuel, using only human musculature and without using slavery? For your potassium, you'll collect wood ashes, try some cover crops, and hope for the best.

Human urine is a good source of phosphorus and potassium.

Edited by Dorho, 21 February 2010 - 12:10 PM.

[kismet]

Skotkonung, are you saying that a vegan or let's say vegan/vegetarian-biased diet is ecologically unsustainable? That's a pretty bold claim going against common wisdom. Although some of your points are interesting most issues seem vastly exaggerated.

You don't need to rebut hardcore veganism, ideological extremism is always absurd and self-refuting. If Thefountain would espouse such extremism, just put him on your ignore list, do not even address that sort of raving lunacy.

But you seem to make the claim that even vegetarianism is unsustainable (or omnivorism with a strong vegetarian-bias). Can you cite evidence that *quantifies* your statements?

Edited by kismet, 21 February 2010 - 01:25 PM.

[Tygo]

Interestingly, from an ecological point of view, a vegan diet is worse than some diets that incorporate meat:

Diet With A Little Meat Uses Less Land Than Many Vegetarian Diets

[Mind]

What I can't figure out is why raw fresh vegetables and fruits are so expensive (even during the summer at the local farmers market). I can't count the times I have heard that fruits and vegetables are more ecologically sustainable, they take so much less energy and water and resources to produce, etc, etc, etc. They are so much better for the environment, blah, blah, blah. Why are they so incredibly expensive? I don't even buy organic most of the time and yet fruits and vegetables are represent an inordinate percentage of my grocery bill. Eggs, meat, dairy are incredibly cheap by comparison. I hardly ever buy grain-based products (for myself) but they are even cheaper....practically free.

Not that I mind fruit and vegetable growers trying to make a buck, that is fine, but there is certainly a premium price being placed on fruits and veggies. I can't blame lower income people for not buying fruits and veggies.

[JackChristopher]

This is why making blanket statements about 'carbs' and 'fats' is silly. There are healthy forms of both which do and do not cause inflammation. Can we stop with the 'all grains/carbs are bad' or 'all fats are bad' monotony already (oatmeal is known to lower inflammation!)? When you approach uninformed people with this level of absurdity you risk confusing them and making them eat a bunch of unhealthy, pro-inflammatory foods. And it helps no one in the end.

[Now I don't like to speculate about someone's motivations publicly. But I feel this is a fair comment.]

The Fountain, I think Duke speaks like that because it's effective (rhetoric).

A pushy headline gets attention. Actually I think you're good that technique too. ImmInst readers see that pushy headline, it make them want to debate the post. I doubt anyone looks at it and *literally* leaves with, "Fats are good, carbs are bad."

Edited by JackChristopher, 21 February 2010 - 05:18 PM.

[JackChristopher]

Skotkonung, are you saying that a vegan or let's say vegan/vegetarian-biased diet is ecologically unsustainable? That's a pretty bold claim going against common wisdom. Although some of your points are interesting most issues seem vastly exaggerated.

But you seem to make the claim that even vegetarianism is unsustainable (or omnivorism with a strong vegetarian-bias). Can you cite evidence that *quantifies* your statements?

Kismet, do you know book The Vegetarian Myth? That's the long version of the argument. Here's a review (and summary) from outside the Paleosphere. Eades and co. have more technical reviews.

But it could be that at this point we're/our ecology is wedded to grains. If we try to switch soon, we'll have intense massive death. But long term, if we had the technology, I don't see why we couldn't sustain any ecology we wanted. But right now, I prefer the ecology where humans eat some animal and some plant food.

[DukeNukem]

Skotkonung, are you saying that a vegan or let's say vegan/vegetarian-biased diet is ecologically unsustainable? That's a pretty bold claim going against common wisdom. Although some of your points are interesting most issues seem vastly exaggerated.

Read her book, or at least listen to her podcast:
http://livinlavidalo...om/blog/?p=7258

She makes a strong case that plant food is more ecologically expensive that meat, in terms of affecting the whole environment. In New Zealand and Argentina, animals destined to be food are still raised on the land (they eat grasses), and the ecological impact appear to be less than the massive crop lands we see across the USA. Ecologically sustainable farms are making a comeback, btw.

[1kgcoffee]

What I can't figure out is why raw fresh vegetables and fruits are so expensive (even during the summer at the local farmers market). I can't count the times I have heard that fruits and vegetables are more ecologically sustainable, they take so much less energy and water and resources to produce, etc, etc, etc. They are so much better for the environment, blah, blah, blah. Why are they so incredibly expensive? I don't even buy organic most of the time and yet fruits and vegetables are represent an inordinate percentage of my grocery bill. Eggs, meat, dairy are incredibly cheap by comparison. I hardly ever buy grain-based products (for myself) but they are even cheaper....practically free.

Not that I mind fruit and vegetable growers trying to make a buck, that is fine, but there is certainly a premium price being placed on fruits and veggies. I can't blame lower income people for not buying fruits and veggies.

Because the meat and dairy and grain industries are heavily subsidized by the government.

Either way, I don't think we can put a price on our health. We simply have to find the most cost effective ways, even if that means buying frozen or harvesting *free*, *biodynamic* wild vegetables. Or doing without luxuries like cable. Asian markets have a lot of deals.

Edited by 1kgcoffee, 21 February 2010 - 05:22 PM.

[1kgcoffee]

Skotkonung, are you saying that a vegan or let's say vegan/vegetarian-biased diet is ecologically unsustainable? That's a pretty bold claim going against common wisdom. Although some of your points are interesting most issues seem vastly exaggerated.

Read her book, or at least listen to her podcast:
http://livinlavidalo...om/blog/?p=7258

She makes a strong case that plant food is more ecologically expensive that meat, in terms of affecting the whole environment. In New Zealand and Argentina, animals destined to be food are still raised on the land (they eat grasses), and the ecological impact appear to be less than the massive crop lands we see across the USA. Ecologically sustainable farms are making a comeback, btw.

What are your thoughts on her anti-civilization stance and association with eco-terrorist Derrick Jensen? They both seems like loons to me.

[TheFountain]

While we're pointing out problems with specific diets, let's examine the vegan raw diet that you like to espouse:

Here is an agriculture without animals, the plant-based diet that is supposed to be so life affirming and ethically righteous. First, take a piece of land from somebody else, because the history of agriculture is the history of imperialism. Next, bulldoze or burn all of the life on it: the trees, the grasses, the wetlands. That includes all creatures great and small: the bison, the gray wolves, the black terns. A tiny handful of specie - mice, locusts - will manage, but the other animals will have to go. Now plant your annual microcrops. Your grains and beans will be okay at first, living off the organic matter created by the now dead forest or prairie. But like any starving beast, the soil will eat its reserves, until there's nothing - no matter, no biological activity - left. As your yields - your food supply - begin to dwindle, you've got two option. Take over another piece of land and start again, or apply some fertilizer. Since in the books, pleading and polemical, say that animal products are inherently oppressive and unsustainable, you can't use manure, bone meal, or blood meal. So you supply nitrogen with the only other alternative, fossil fuel. Do I need to add that you can't produce this yourself, that its production is an ecological nightmare, and that one day the oil and gas will run out?

Your phosphorus will have to be made from rocks. There's a reason for the popular image that equates hard labor in a prison with chopping rocks. How will you mine it , grind it, or transport it without fossil fuel, using only human musculature and without using slavery? For your potassium, you'll collect wood ashes, try some cover crops, and hope for the best. Meanwhile the soil is turning to dust, clogging the rivers, blowing across the continent. In 1934, the entire eastern seaboard was covered in a thick haze of brown, the topsoil of Oklahoma plowed to cotton and wheat, drifting like an angry ghost to cover the eastern cities and further, to ships hundreds of miles out to sea, a final, fitting tribute to the extractive economies of the civilized. This is where agriculture, particularly vegan and vegetarian agriculture, ends: in death. The trees, the grasses, the birds and beasts all gone, and the topsoil with them.

More of the same is no solution. Faced with your diet and the consequences it will wrought upon the world, I would gladly choose the Paleo diet. At least it offers a hope of sustainable agriculture through crop rotation with ruminant animals and emphasis on domesticate perennials. Remember, what we eat does more than just sustain ourselves, it also plays an intractable role in the global ecology. If we are going to life "forever," we are also going to need a health planet.

Your argument ignores the fact that meat is still in higher demand than vegetables (despite the fact that people don't require meat to survive), hence the reason it is mass produced by government subsidized factory farms which have very disgusting practices. And I am not even talking about animal abuse here, but the manner in which these animals are fed and housed, although this could be considered a form of abuse as well. I think just looking at it from a plain perspective is enough to see how much more economically sustainable vegan diets are than meat based diets. But getting back to the subject at hand, a raw food vegan diet is probably as low in inflammatory foods as you can get. I mean I still think you'd have to monitor your Omega 6/Omega 3 ratios but I find one of the most common ways of making foods inflammatory is by cooking them. There are exceptions of course but usually these too are foods that lower inflammation, like oatmeal for example. Regardless of the diet avoiding processed carbs and hydrogenated/trans fats eliminates 50% of the problem.

[TheFountain]

This is why making blanket statements about 'carbs' and 'fats' is silly. There are healthy forms of both which do and do not cause inflammation. Can we stop with the 'all grains/carbs are bad' or 'all fats are bad' monotony already (oatmeal is known to lower inflammation!)? When you approach uninformed people with this level of absurdity you risk confusing them and making them eat a bunch of unhealthy, pro-inflammatory foods. And it helps no one in the end.

[Now I don't like to speculate about someone's motivations publicly. But I feel this is a fair comment.]

The Fountain, I think Duke speaks like that because it's effective (rhetoric).

A pushy headline gets attention. Actually I think you're good that technique too. ImmInst readers see that pushy headline, it make them want to debate the post. I doubt anyone looks at it and *literally* leaves with, "Fats are good, carbs are bad."

I think uninformed people have the potential of taking away 'fats are good, carbs are bad' from the way some people here frame it. It is no different than saying the opposite. Whoever is reading either idea is going to fill up on one type of inflammatory food or the other (because as some of you pointed out already, inflammatory Omega 6 fatty acids are difficult to avoid). This is why we need to have a more even handed approach when describing dietary intervention to people. Speaking for simple effectiveness ruins the debate and creates a false dichotomy between one type of macro-nutrient and the other. It's no different than when a politician speaks for effectiveness when they exaggerate or outright lie about things.

[TheFountain]

What I can't figure out is why raw fresh vegetables and fruits are so expensive (even during the summer at the local farmers market). I can't count the times I have heard that fruits and vegetables are more ecologically sustainable, they take so much less energy and water and resources to produce, etc, etc, etc. They are so much better for the environment, blah, blah, blah. Why are they so incredibly expensive? I don't even buy organic most of the time and yet fruits and vegetables are represent an inordinate percentage of my grocery bill. Eggs, meat, dairy are incredibly cheap by comparison. I hardly ever buy grain-based products (for myself) but they are even cheaper....practically free.

Not that I mind fruit and vegetable growers trying to make a buck, that is fine, but there is certainly a premium price being placed on fruits and veggies. I can't blame lower income people for not buying fruits and veggies.

I think it's as simple as they know we know these foods are the healthiest for us so they raise the prices arbitrarily in accordance with this knowledge. Ever notice how healthier oils are more expensive than hydrogenated oils, despite being less processed/easier to produce? Ever notice how they raise the price of foods that have no added sodium despite the fact that they are actually leaving something that costs out? They do it for sheer manipulation of our dollar.

[DairyProducts]

Eggs, meat, dairy are incredibly cheap by comparison. I hardly ever buy grain-based products (for myself) but they are even cheaper....practically free.

When something like this seems out of whack, there is probably a subsidy behind it.
http://en.wikipedia....y#United_States
Eggs benefit tremendously from economy of scale operations. http://aic.ucdavis.e...summaryeggs.pdf
I'm pretty sure beef is subsidized too (couldn't find the link.)

Ever notice how they raise the price of foods that have no added sodium despite the fact that they are actually leaving something that costs out? They do it for sheer manipulation of our dollar.

Who are "they"? You make it seem as though it's a mysterious cabal that has meetings about keeping the American public unhealthy. Healthier oils (coconut, olive) are not grown that much in the US because there aren't many parts of the US that can grow those, so they never became part of traditional American cuisine. A large amount of the healthy oils are not only imported, but not subsidized like corn oil. Added sodium and preservatives keeps things on the shelf longer, so money is saved. Things that are wrong in the world are more likely to be a matter of coincidence, not conspiracy.

Edited by DairyProducts, 21 February 2010 - 05:57 PM.

[TheFountain]

Eggs, meat, dairy are incredibly cheap by comparison. I hardly ever buy grain-based products (for myself) but they are even cheaper....practically free.

When something like this seems out of whack, there is probably a subsidy behind it.
http://en.wikipedia....y#United_States
Eggs benefit tremendously from economy of scale operations. http://aic.ucdavis.e...summaryeggs.pdf
I'm pretty sure beef is subsidized too (couldn't find the link.)

But the subsidy on vegetables seems way higher than other foods. My assumption is they know we know vegetables are the healthiest for us so they purposefully/arbitrarily raise the price in accordance to their manipulation process. If only people collectively started growing vegetables in their own backyards.....

[DairyProducts]

But the subsidy on vegetables seems way higher than other foods. My assumption is they know we know vegetables are the healthiest for us so they purposefully/arbitrarily raise the price in accordance to their manipulation process. If only people collectively started growing vegetables in their own backyards.....

Seems higher? There is no evidence of that in what I posted. Can you find some? I've certainly never heard of any evidence for it. Who is they? The government? Last time I checked Michelle Obama was pushing for the American people to eat more vegetables. "They" know "we" know? Who is "we"? Do you think Monsanto reads this website and has it out for "us"?
If you have any sort of proof here, I'd like to hear it. But the way you are making your points it sounds like over generalizations at best and conspiracy theory at worst.

[TheFountain]

But the subsidy on vegetables seems way higher than other foods. My assumption is they know we know vegetables are the healthiest for us so they purposefully/arbitrarily raise the price in accordance to their manipulation process. If only people collectively started growing vegetables in their own backyards.....

Seems higher? There is no evidence of that in what I posted. Can you find some? I've certainly never heard of any evidence for it. Who is they? The government? Last time I checked Michelle Obama was pushing for the American people to eat more vegetables. "They" know "we" know? Who is "we"? Do you think Monsanto reads this website and has it out for "us"?
If you have any sort of proof here, I'd like to hear it. But the way you are making your points it sounds like over generalizations at best and conspiracy theory at worst.

What I meant was that if the prices of vegetables are ANY indication then the subsidy MUST be higher on them. And everything else I said does not call for your interrogation. wtf are you with the CIA or something? Cut the shit and start asking the same questions and do not paint me as you see fit. You haven't the right nor the privilege to paint me as you see fit. I hereby nullify your perceived right to do so. You have no right to define me nor my statements.

Edited by TheFountain, 21 February 2010 - 08:15 PM.

[DukeNukem]

Skotkonung, are you saying that a vegan or let's say vegan/vegetarian-biased diet is ecologically unsustainable? That's a pretty bold claim going against common wisdom. Although some of your points are interesting most issues seem vastly exaggerated.

Read her book, or at least listen to her podcast:
http://livinlavidalo...om/blog/?p=7258

She makes a strong case that plant food is more ecologically expensive that meat, in terms of affecting the whole environment. In New Zealand and Argentina, animals destined to be food are still raised on the land (they eat grasses), and the ecological impact appear to be less than the massive crop lands we see across the USA. Ecologically sustainable farms are making a comeback, btw.

What are your thoughts on her anti-civilization stance and association with eco-terrorist Derrick Jensen? They both seems like loons to me.

I don't pay any attention to these arguments.

[niner]

What I can't figure out is why raw fresh vegetables and fruits are so expensive (even during the summer at the local farmers market). I can't count the times I have heard that fruits and vegetables are more ecologically sustainable, they take so much less energy and water and resources to produce, etc, etc, etc. They are so much better for the environment, blah, blah, blah. Why are they so incredibly expensive? I don't even buy organic most of the time and yet fruits and vegetables are represent an inordinate percentage of my grocery bill. Eggs, meat, dairy are incredibly cheap by comparison. I hardly ever buy grain-based products (for myself) but they are even cheaper....practically free.

Not that I mind fruit and vegetable growers trying to make a buck, that is fine, but there is certainly a premium price being placed on fruits and veggies. I can't blame lower income people for not buying fruits and veggies.

Because the meat and dairy and grain industries are heavily subsidized by the government.

Absolutely right. Not only that, but grain planting and harvesting is highly mechanized. Compare it to vegetable harvesting: very labor intensive. If we cared about the health of Americans, we would subsidize vegetables rather than grain. The net result would be a healthier population, but they'd be fuming mad because their McDonald's hamburgers and HFCS fix cost more money. Overall, they would pay more pennies per Calorie.

[niner]

But the subsidy on vegetables seems way higher than other foods. My assumption is they know we know vegetables are the healthiest for us so they purposefully/arbitrarily raise the price in accordance to their manipulation process. If only people collectively started growing vegetables in their own backyards.....

Seems higher? There is no evidence of that in what I posted. Can you find some? I've certainly never heard of any evidence for it. Who is they? The government? Last time I checked Michelle Obama was pushing for the American people to eat more vegetables. "They" know "we" know? Who is "we"? Do you think Monsanto reads this website and has it out for "us"?
If you have any sort of proof here, I'd like to hear it. But the way you are making your points it sounds like over generalizations at best and conspiracy theory at worst.

What I meant was that if the prices of vegetables are ANY indication then the subsidy MUST be higher on them. And everything else I said does not call for your interrogation. wtf are you with the CIA or something? Cut the shit and start asking the same questions and do not paint me as you see fit. You haven't the right nor the privilege to paint me as you see fit. I hereby nullify your perceived right to do so. You have no right to define me nor my statements.

Dude, this is the internet. Anyone can question what you write. ImmInst is a place for debate; if you make a point, you should be able to back it up. Can you?

[Skötkonung]

I think just looking at it from a plain perspective is enough to see how much more economically sustainable vegan diets are than meat based diets.

Economically or ecologically sustainable? I would rethink that one if I was you..

[Blue]

Well, lets looks at it from an energy and matter cycling perspective. From a matter perspective if you return the human urine, feces, hair, nails, and humans/meat animal corpses to the soil where the plants for human/meat animal consumption are grown, then no/very little matter is lost.

But from an energy perspective eating meat from from meat animals is much more inefficient than eating plants. Because regardless plants have to be grown. But adding an extra animal meat step before human consumption causes a massive loss of energy. A common figure is around 90%. So a person living on animal meat uses up ten times as much energy, alternatively uses up ten times as much agricultural land which gains its energy from the sun, as a person eating plant food.

Considering that energy is the really limiting resource for humankind, since matter can be recycled with energy, is animal food worth spending ten times as much of our limiting resource on as on plant food? Most likely not. For that amount of energy we could likely give a person eating plant food a very large amount of beneficial micronutrients. The value of which would far outstrip whatever value you gain from animal products.

Yes, there are some beneficial products to be found in animal products, but producing them directly using chemical manufacturing or genetic engineering of bacteria/plants would be much more efficient than growing first plants and then rearing animals in order to get them.

[oehaut]

It was said already, but I would suggest to everyone to read The Vegetarian Myth, or at least the post by Eades on the book refered here already.

The way vegetable are produce nowaday is really not any better than animal farm factory. They're production and transport is heavily based upon fossil fuel, unnatural cropping methods that recquire the use of pesticide and OMG to remain like a "plant" under these circumstance. Soy and corn are around 80% of the US crops. The diversity is slowly dissapearing.

Now, factory farm are not any better. So the solution is quite obvious.

Find a local farm, and encourage them.

Anyone who listened to Food, Inc., saw that, on the PolyFace farm, animals where an integral part of the crop production, and when a balanced is achieved between what nature has to offer and what we need to live healthy, everything is good.

Our biggest problem is that, we are getting way too many people around on this planet. Hence we need to find way to feed everyone. And this is are we are doing it. Intense and unnatural production of unhealthy food.

What I wanted to say actually is that neither industrial meat or vegetable crops are good for the planet and for us. The very best thing to do would be to self-grow our own vegetable or buy them from a local farm with our meat, that is hormone free, grass-fed, and healthy.

Unfortunatly, that's not possible for everyone, and especially during the winter.

When everything is done with balanced and with respect to nature, meat defenitively has its place in this chain, and eating meat would not hurt anything more than not eating it.

[Blue]

The way vegetable are produce nowaday is really not any better than animal farm factory. They're production and transport is heavily based upon fossil fuel, unnatural cropping methods that recquire the use of pesticide and OMG to remain like a "plant" under these circumstance. Soy and corn are around 80% of the US crops. The diversity is slowly dissapearing.

That is missing the point. Meat animals are feed plant food. So the energy cost of rearing animals and slaughtering them is an additional cost. So in no way is it possible to for animal food production to use less energy than plant food production.

If someone is thinking of free-ranging, grass fed animals, then they require an enormous surface area that could support a very large alternative plant food production instead. Extremely inefficient which is way such meat is costly.

Edited by Blue, 22 February 2010 - 01:28 PM.

[oehaut]

That is missing the point. Meat animals are feed plant food. So the energy cost of rearing animals and slaughtering them is an additional cost. So in no way is it possible to for animal food production to use less energy than plant food production.

Well, what is costly about letting them walk around and eating grass? I agree tho that the processing of meat takes more time, but you pay for this when you're buying it. So if you can afford it, it aint a problem.

If someone is thinking of free-ranging, grass fed animals, then they require an enormous surface area that could support a very large alternative plant food production instead. Extremely inefficient which is way such meat is costly.

Not that I disagree, but based on The Omnivore Dilemna, the Vegetarian Myth, and Food, Inc., my understanding is that animal are an integrant part of the food chain, and they don't "steal" alternative plant food production, as you imply. Instead, they make these vegetable production much more easier. I don't think they recquire that much of place, at least not to the level of local farming. Did you read the omnivore dilemna or saw Food Inc? In both, polyfarm appears, and it shows what real, sustainable, cost-efficient agriculture should look like. And meat is part of this.

Edited by oehaut, 22 February 2010 - 01:52 PM.

[Blue]

That is missing the point. Meat animals are feed plant food. So the energy cost of rearing animals and slaughtering them is an additional cost. So in no way is it possible to for animal food production to use less energy than plant food production.

Well, what is costly about letting them walk around and eating grass? I agree tho that the processing of meat takes more time, but you pay for this when you're buying it. So if you can afford it, it aint a problem.

If someone is thinking of free-ranging, grass fed animals, then they require an enormous surface area that could support a very large alternative plant food production instead. Extremely inefficient which is way such meat is costly.

Not that I disagree, but based on The Omnivore Dilemna, the Vegetarian Myth, and Food, Inc., my understanding is that animal are an integrant part of the food chain, and they don't "steal" alternative plant food production, as you imply. Instead, they make these vegetable production much more easier. I don't think they recquire that much of place, at least not to the level of local farming. Did you read the omnivore dilemna or saw Food Inc? In both, polyfarm appears, and it shows what real, sustainable, cost-efficient agriculture should look like. And meat is part of this.

They "steal". Again, you must first grow plants. Does not matter if it is "unused" grass land. The grass land could have been used for example wheat instead. The law of thermodynamics mean that there are no perfect conversion steps between energy forms. Much energy is lost to heat. So most of the energy feed to the animals as plant food, and caring for energy, and slaughtering energy is lost to heat before you get final animal food products. So again, you get maybe 1 kcal of animal energy when you instead you could have 10 kcal of plant energy. Or alternatively, you could support 10 people using plant foods intead of 1 people using animal food from the same piece of land.

[e Volution]

maybe we could establish a green organisation that gets dead bodies (volunteered by greenies when they die) and pulps them into fertiliser to grow organic vegetables (that are only allowed to be eaten raw or lightly steamed) and it would be the ultimate in sustainability... although on second thoughts so many bodies that die these days are a toxic load of chemicals and drugs they would probably be unfit for fertilisation purposes

[Blue]

maybe we could establish a green organisation that gets dead bodies (volunteered by greenies when they die) and pulps them into fertiliser to grow organic vegetables (that are only allowed to be eaten raw or lightly steamed) and it would be the ultimate in sustainability... although on second thoughts so many bodies that die these days are a toxic load of chemicals and drugs they would probably be unfit for fertilisation purposes

Nutrients lost by human corpses is a problem regardless of if the farming system uses animals or not.