Jump to content
Holidays
Local
Radar
Snow?
Sign in to follow this  
Snipper

Should I become vegan (vegetarian) to save the planet?

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, feb1991blizzard said:

Rubbish - more people - less trees, so less oxygen, plus you dont have to use it all up - a small percentage decrease makes earth uninhabitable - fact - i think what you are saying along with the rest of your brigade is - its ok if no earth in 1000 years as long as it isn't in the next 150 years.

Where is the data to back up your assumptions? and I think 7.7 billion of some what short of the 2 trillion required to make oxygen consumption an issue. More people only equates to less trees if we chop them down... and its also ironic you accuse me of short-termism when you dismiss the issue of anthropogenic climate change. As Hans Rosling points out on the issue of overpopulation, birth rates are actually now declining and by 2030, two thirds of the population will live in countries where the fertility rate is below the replacement level.

Besides I'm not sure what any of this has got to do with becoming a vegan in itself... Pigs or beef cattle need to be fed large amounts of grain and grass. To make farming profitable, a farmer has to produce animals for market quickly and efficiently, which means using up more environmental resources. The land that is used for grazing cannot be used for growing food for people, nor can the land that is devoted to producing animal feed. That is the reason why there is the argument for turning towards plant based diets. I agree its not just the case of giving up meat completely but neither is the issue just overpopulation. Its a question of living more sustainable lifestyles as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Quicksilver1989 said:

Where is the data to back up your assumptions? and I think 7.7 billion of some what short of the 2 trillion required to make oxygen consumption an issue. More people only equates to less trees if we chop them down... and its also ironic you accuse me of short-termism when you dismiss the issue of anthropogenic climate change. As Hans Rosling points out on the issue of overpopulation, birth rates are actually now declining and by 2030, two thirds of the population will live in countries where the fertility rate is below the replacement level.

Besides I'm not sure what any of this has got to do with becoming a vegan in itself... Pigs or beef cattle need to be fed large amounts of grain and grass. To make farming profitable, a farmer has to produce animals for market quickly and efficiently, which means using up more environmental resources. The land that is used for grazing cannot be used for growing food for people, nor can the land that is devoted to producing animal feed. That is the reason why there is the argument for turning towards plant based diets. I agree its not just the case of giving up meat completely but neither is the issue just overpopulation. Its a question of living more sustainable lifestyles as well.

You'll have to chop them down to build houses - can you not see that eventually you will be screwed for space.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, feb1991blizzard said:

You'll have to chop them down to build houses - can you not see that eventually you will be screwed for space.

Given these are the areas of high population densities... space isn't an issue.

image.thumb.png.75d7f239d7cf1358675b02c3976bbd19.png This first plot is from 1994 but still it emphasises the point about space.

image.thumb.png.bec92a3c5645b9ff187f19e78a1fef42.png And this shows the fertility rates from 2016.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Quicksilver1989 said:

Given these are the areas of high population densities... space isn't an issue.

image.thumb.png.75d7f239d7cf1358675b02c3976bbd19.png This first plot is from 1994 but still it emphasises the point about space.

image.thumb.png.bec92a3c5645b9ff187f19e78a1fef42.png And this shows the fertility rates from 2016.

And another thing, how many people born in those 'non - polluting countries' are now living in western developed countries? a lot and a lot more if people with your views get their way so it won't matter where they were born, their carbon footprint will be the same as ours if they then migrate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Quicksilver1989 said:

Another load of posts lazily assuming overpopulation is the only problem. 50% of the worlds CO2 emissions come from the richest 10%... and 10% of the worlds CO2 comes from the poorest 50%.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/dec/02/worlds-richest-10-produce-half-of-global-carbon-emissions-says-oxfam

Lets face it, the rich need to change their lifestyles, that would make the biggest differences to global CO2 emissions but that seems to be overlooked by the right wing.

OK, I may have lazily assumed that overpopulation is the only issue. But if there were no humans here and never had been, is it safe to assume that the earth would be stable from an atmospheric gas and a temperature point of view. My point is that with more people comes not only their own individual emissions, but an ever increasing loading based on the richest 10% and a more rapid growth in the effective outputs of the poorest end of the spectrum as they become "civilised". As more and more CO2 is pumped out by planes trains and automobiles as people move around, based on the principal that all but a few of the ancient nomadic tribes will all have Toyota Land Cruisers or whatever and there's no going back save some form of Mad max style apocalypse!

as @Ed Stone said earlier all those people will need to have somewhere to live which will use up more of the Earth's resources, likely cutting down tress for agricultural and structural purposes. I don't have all the answers, but I do have some pretty uncomfortable questions!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, feb1991blizzard said:

Rubbish - more people - less trees, so less oxygen, plus you dont have to use it all up - a small percentage decrease makes earth uninhabitable - fact - i think what you are saying along with the rest of your brigade is - its ok if no earth in 1000 years as long as it isn't in the next 150 years.

Data? Who needs data? It's 'feelings' that matter! And, how long is it now, that oxygen-breathing organisms have existed -- 500Ma+? By your schoolboy logic/chemistry, all the oxygen would have gone before the dinosaurs even had time to evolve!🦕

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Ed Stone said:

Data? Who needs data? It's 'feelings' that matter! And, how long is it now, that oxygen-breathing organisms have existed -- 500Ma+? By your schoolboy logic/chemistry, all the oxygen would have gone before the dinosaurs even had time to evolve!🦕

Ha Ha Ha - here we go again - Ed 'The truth' Stone - it just gets more and more laughable by the minute.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
10 minutes ago, feb1991blizzard said:

And another thing, how many people born in those 'non - polluting countries' are now living in western developed countries? a lot and a lot more if people with your views get their way so it won't matter where they were born, their carbon footprint will be the same as ours if they then migrate.

I think you are exaggurating the numbers hugely and if your point really does apply....  doesn't that underline the need for us to change our lifestyles, research more sustainable technologies to make it easier for developing countries to live more sustainable lifestyles?

9 minutes ago, JeffC said:

OK, I may have lazily assumed that overpopulation is the only issue. But if there were no humans here and never had been, is it safe to assume that the earth would be stable from an atmospheric gas and a temperature point of view. My point is that with more people comes not only their own individual emissions, but an ever increasing loading based on the richest 10% and a more rapid growth in the effective outputs of the poorest end of the spectrum as they become "civilised". As more and more CO2 is pumped out by planes trains and automobiles as people move around, based on the principal that all but a few of the ancient nomadic tribes will all have Toyota Land Cruisers or whatever and there's no going back save some form of Mad max style apocalypse!

as @Ed Stone said earlier all those people will need to have somewhere to live which will use up more of the Earth's resources, likely cutting down tress for agricultural and structural purposes. I don't have all the answers, but I do have some pretty uncomfortable questions!

Can't disagree with the statement that if there were no humans there would be less CO2 emissions as things are. I get concerns that developing countries will then burn more CO2... but that underlines the importance of researching and developing cleaner technologies... so future generations can develop without having large CO2 footprints as well. 🙂 

Edited by Quicksilver1989

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Quicksilver1989 said:

I think you are exaggurating the numbers hugely and if your point really does apply....  doesn't that underline the need for us to change our lifestyles, research more sustainable technologies to make it easier for developing countries to live more sustainable lifestyles?

Can't disagree with the statement that if there were no humans there would be less CO2 emissions as things are. I get concerns that developing countries will then burn more CO2... but that underlines the importance of researching and developing cleaner technologies... so future generations can develop without having large CO2 footprints as well. 🙂 

only realistic way through that I can see is to invest in more geothermal energy by drilling down and using effectively ground source heat to give us reliable clean energy via steam generation, that way when the wind doesn't blow at night we won't have to rely on fossil fuel sourced electricity.

imagine each town or suburb could have its own smaller power station that's clean, renewable, well as long as the earth beneath our feet stays hot!

don't understand why its not done more already!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
5 minutes ago, JeffC said:

only realistic way through that I can see is to invest in more geothermal energy by drilling down and using effectively ground source heat to give us reliable clean energy via steam generation, that way when the wind doesn't blow at night we won't have to rely on fossil fuel sourced electricity.

imagine each town or suburb could have its own smaller power station that's clean, renewable, well as long as the earth beneath our feet stays hot!

don't understand why its not done more already!

Geothermal energy is one way though we should have really invested in tidal energy and CO2 capture as well... 

Overall we are in trouble if we don't change our lifestyles as countries develop (or make it easier to reduce our reliance on CO2). It's not easy but we are in a position to do something about it. The argument isn't simple with regards to overpopulation as is the issue of simply giving up on meat... but we do need to find a way to stop relying on CO2 so much.

Edited by Quicksilver1989

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, feb1991blizzard said:

Ha Ha Ha - here we go again - Ed 'The truth' Stone - it just gets more and more laughable by the minute.

Well, you could present something to back-up your ideas, for once, feb? Just an idea...?

Schoolboy name-calling will get you no further than schoolboy science, BTW!:oldgood:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

In regards to going Vegan   For me  and probably many others of my Generation and the one before    i cant see that really happening    I like meat and having  ate it  all my life i would find it difficult to cut out totally.  Thats not to say i have not dabbled with vegetable based products that are similar.  Im sure going forward the young growing up today will be less reliant on meat  and with a ever increasing awareness on such matters  meat eaters may become a minority in the years to come.  However will that be enough?.  will we be past that tipping point already by then?.  Its a sad state of affairs but in my honest opinion  i think Geo engineering  is the only way we can get out of this mess.  One thing is for certain  the earth is getting warmer  and with that comes more  much more stresses on natural resources   change is needed  but i cant see the world changing in time.   

 

In regard to this thread  i see a university as stopped selling Beef burgers.  A token Gesture?.

https://news.sky.com/story/goldsmiths-university-bans-beef-burgers-to-help-tackle-climate-change-crisis-11784206

Edited by weirpig

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Think God has a cunning plan to overcome overpopulation.  We are all going to become gay, whether we like it or not. There will probably be soon population pride marches organised.

Read some interesting science fiction books in the 1950’s set around similar scenarios.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, Snipper said:

Think God has a cunning plan to overcome overpopulation.  We are all going to become gay, whether we like it or not. There will probably be soon population pride marches organised.

Read some interesting science fiction books in the 1950’s set around similar scenarios.

no disrespect to anyone, but if that's the plan as they say on Dragon's Den, I'm out!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Giving up steak to save the planet......that's a toughie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, JeffC said:

no disrespect to anyone, but if that's the plan as they say on Dragon's Den, I'm out!

Thanks for coming out. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Snipper said:

Thanks for coming out. 

I wasn't, was never confused! 😅

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Call me cynical but I'm curious what the manufacturing carbon footprint was of the boat that Greta Thunberg is crossing the Atlantic on... 

Composite Hull, cast alloy mast, synthetic fabric sails, all the tech involved... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, JeffC said:

Call me cynical but I'm curious what the manufacturing carbon footprint was of the boat that Greta Thunberg is crossing the Atlantic on... 

Composite Hull, cast alloy mast, synthetic fabric sails, all the tech involved... 

Usual load of naive tosh by the supposed environmentally aware about being politically an environmentally correct. 

Yes let’s stop all travel by aeroplane, powered ships and cars if fossil fuel using.  Should solve one problem and that is the population will fall due to starvation. So let’s go for it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If we are suppose to be vegetarians why does our appendix not work?  It is a non functioning organ of our evolutionary past. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Snipper said:

If we are suppose to be vegetarians why does our appendix not work?  It is a non functioning organ of our evolutionary past. 

Yeah, a bit like parliament! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, JeffC said:

Yeah, a bit like parliament! 

Too right. The sooner it is cut out the better. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎12‎/‎08‎/‎2019 at 21:19, Quicksilver1989 said:

Given these are the areas of high population densities... space isn't an issue.

image.thumb.png.75d7f239d7cf1358675b02c3976bbd19.png This first plot is from 1994 but still it emphasises the point about space.

image.thumb.png.bec92a3c5645b9ff187f19e78a1fef42.png And this shows the fertility rates from 2016.

What we also need to remember is that those areas with high 'fertility' rates also tend to have high infant mortality rates due to famine poor health provision lack of clean water etc. As these countries prosper you see 'fertility rates drop as young people find they can work and look after family without having to have the backstop of more children. This is why in china families are now being encouraged to have children again as they see the potential for their economy to stall due to a lack of labour. We still use population growth based on old facts and as a result continue this anti human retoric

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, jonboy said:

What we also need to remember is that those areas with high 'fertility' rates also tend to have high infant mortality rates due to famine poor health provision lack of clean water etc. As these countries prosper you see 'fertility rates drop as young people find they can work and look after family without having to have the backstop of more children. This is why in china families are now being encouraged to have children again as they see the potential for their economy to stall due to a lack of labour. We still use population growth based on old facts and as a result continue this anti human retoric

 

 

Yes I do agree with that and just a comparison with the fertility rates from 1970 to 2014 is astounding.

image.thumb.png.f07a1abe006db6a0322c1740ffdd4f14.png

Even in China now the fertility rate is 1.6 which when comparing to birth rates of past decades and given the downwards trend in the 1990s its easy to see why more children are being encouraged.

image.thumb.png.e37cd68dc8f02a4ef1cc43f828b6e0f9.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...