A tax on red meat?...
Discussion
I too, am intrigued by wings- chicken wings, to be precise. I'll eat 'em all, left wing or right .
Why do so many need to tell others how to live their lives? Don't knock on my door telling me which god to choose or who to vote for, don't tell me what to eat.
Leave me alone, I know what I'm doing.
I like a good Aussie shiraz with my steak or with bread & cheese, even with lentils. I draw the line, however, with tofu.
Live & let live.
Why do so many need to tell others how to live their lives? Don't knock on my door telling me which god to choose or who to vote for, don't tell me what to eat.
Leave me alone, I know what I'm doing.
I like a good Aussie shiraz with my steak or with bread & cheese, even with lentils. I draw the line, however, with tofu.
Live & let live.
LDN said:
So you agree that many movements were started by so called nutters, at that time. Whether you agree that veganism is on a par is not relevant; in that, talking of other social movements; at that time, they were sparked by fringe thinkers. If everyone toed the line, throughout history; there’d be no societal evolution; rightly or wrongly.
The problem with trying to lead is that you might be upset when people don't want to follow.Rovinghawk said:
LDN said:
So you agree that many movements were started by so called nutters, at that time. Whether you agree that veganism is on a par is not relevant; in that, talking of other social movements; at that time, they were sparked by fringe thinkers. If everyone toed the line, throughout history; there’d be no societal evolution; rightly or wrongly.
The problem with trying to lead is that you might be upset when people don't want to follow.
LDN said:
But that’s the point; people are following! It’s one of the fastest growing social movements; with big industry investing millions now in this new flourishing market.
Excellent- I'm pleased for you & the new converts.As long as they leave me in peace with my pork pie I'm sure we can all be happy.
Rovinghawk said:
LDN said:
But that’s the point; people are following! It’s one of the fastest growing social movements; with big industry investing millions now in this new flourishing market.
Excellent- I'm pleased for you & the new converts.As long as they leave me in peace with my pork pie I'm sure we can all be happy.
Nanook said:
LDN said:
But that’s the point; people are following! It’s one of the fastest growing social movements; with big industry investing millions now in this new flourishing market.
'Flat earth' is also a fast growing social movement.Doesn't mean it'll be successful though.
On a more serious note, if we were to stop eating meat, and replace it all in our diet with veg, and all of the farmers in the country killed all their chickens, ducks, sheep, pigs, cows, and used all of that land for growing veg, is it more 'economical' in terms of the amount of land required to grow enough vegetables to feed us all?
The land needed, globally, to house not just livestock; but the food needed to feed that livestock is indeed an utterly inefficient use of land. This is why animal agriculture will die out; meat won’t ever go away; but so called ‘perfect meat’ will be grown en masse in labs. Real meat but without any of the imperfections / drugs / anti biotics, etc. This is where a lot of money is going and it’s a very interesting field. Large meat and dairy manufactures in the US have actually decided to jump on board; rather than fight the future. So it’s a valid route that is currently being explored and financed to a large scale.
Nanook said:
'Flat earth' is also a fast growing social movement.
Doesn't mean it'll be successful though.
On a more serious note, if we were to stop eating meat, and replace it all in our diet with veg, and all of the farmers in the country killed all their chickens, ducks, sheep, pigs, cows, and used all of that land for growing veg, is it more 'economical' in terms of the amount of land required to grow enough vegetables to feed us all?
Yes. Doesn't mean it'll be successful though.
On a more serious note, if we were to stop eating meat, and replace it all in our diet with veg, and all of the farmers in the country killed all their chickens, ducks, sheep, pigs, cows, and used all of that land for growing veg, is it more 'economical' in terms of the amount of land required to grow enough vegetables to feed us all?
A typical meat eater's diet requires up to 2.5 times the amount of land compared to a vegetarian diet and 5 times that of a vegan diet.
LDN said:
Flat-earth; is one of the fastest growing social movements is it? I wonder if we should tell big industry / hospitality / retail that all those little ‘V’s they’re rushing to put on packaging is a waste of time; because ‘flat earth innit’
The land needed, globally, to house not just livestock; but the food needed to feed that livestock is indeed an utterly inefficient use of land. This is why animal agriculture will die out; meat won’t ever go away; but so called ‘perfect meat’ will be grown en masse in labs. Real meat but without any of the imperfections / drugs / anti biotics, etc. This is where a lot of money is going and it’s a very interesting field. Large meat and dairy manufactures in the US have actually decided to jump on board; rather than fight the future. So it’s a valid route that is currently being explored and financed to a large scale.
You don't think that's because they see an opportunity for some extra profiteering then, it's for entirely altruistic reasons?The land needed, globally, to house not just livestock; but the food needed to feed that livestock is indeed an utterly inefficient use of land. This is why animal agriculture will die out; meat won’t ever go away; but so called ‘perfect meat’ will be grown en masse in labs. Real meat but without any of the imperfections / drugs / anti biotics, etc. This is where a lot of money is going and it’s a very interesting field. Large meat and dairy manufactures in the US have actually decided to jump on board; rather than fight the future. So it’s a valid route that is currently being explored and financed to a large scale.
Oakey said:
LDN said:
Flat-earth; is one of the fastest growing social movements is it? I wonder if we should tell big industry / hospitality / retail that all those little ‘V’s they’re rushing to put on packaging is a waste of time; because ‘flat earth innit’
The land needed, globally, to house not just livestock; but the food needed to feed that livestock is indeed an utterly inefficient use of land. This is why animal agriculture will die out; meat won’t ever go away; but so called ‘perfect meat’ will be grown en masse in labs. Real meat but without any of the imperfections / drugs / anti biotics, etc. This is where a lot of money is going and it’s a very interesting field. Large meat and dairy manufactures in the US have actually decided to jump on board; rather than fight the future. So it’s a valid route that is currently being explored and financed to a large scale.
You don't think that's because they see an opportunity for some extra profiteering then, it's for entirely altruistic reasons?The land needed, globally, to house not just livestock; but the food needed to feed that livestock is indeed an utterly inefficient use of land. This is why animal agriculture will die out; meat won’t ever go away; but so called ‘perfect meat’ will be grown en masse in labs. Real meat but without any of the imperfections / drugs / anti biotics, etc. This is where a lot of money is going and it’s a very interesting field. Large meat and dairy manufactures in the US have actually decided to jump on board; rather than fight the future. So it’s a valid route that is currently being explored and financed to a large scale.
Rovinghawk said:
So if we give up steak then we can cram an extra few billion people on the planet?
I don't see the advantage to this scenario.
No, but it would save further de-forestation in theory. I think we are screwed unless we can put some kind of population control in place.I don't see the advantage to this scenario.
The numbers are staggering really. The production of four hamburgers takes 25 kilograms of animal feed, 25 square meters of land, and about 220 liters of water...
Rovinghawk said:
Long'un said:
Yes.
A typical meat eater's diet requires up to 2.5 times the amount of land compared to a vegetarian diet and 5 times that of a vegan diet.
So if we give up steak then we can cram an extra few billion people on the planet?A typical meat eater's diet requires up to 2.5 times the amount of land compared to a vegetarian diet and 5 times that of a vegan diet.
I don't see the advantage to this scenario.
Nanook said:
LDN said:
That’s exactly what it’s for yes. The chap was trying to compare veganism with the flat earth movement; I was pointing out that veganism is one of the fastest growing social movements; it’s traction only growing stronger. Flat earth has not made its way into mainstream society in quite the same way
I was not comparing veganism to flat earth movement. You should really stop reading comments, then deciding what people meant by them. It's rather unbecoming.
Over population is such a red herring.
The biggest problem facing Britain, and most western countries, is a low birth rate. Even most of the developing world is seeing birth rates falling and it's quite likely we'll see peak population this century.
As for 'using' land and water, the land and water is still there it is merely transferred from one place to another. We will know when we're running low on land and water, and food for that matter, because we'll see drastic increases in prices.
The biggest problem facing Britain, and most western countries, is a low birth rate. Even most of the developing world is seeing birth rates falling and it's quite likely we'll see peak population this century.
As for 'using' land and water, the land and water is still there it is merely transferred from one place to another. We will know when we're running low on land and water, and food for that matter, because we'll see drastic increases in prices.
Nanook said:
LDN said:
So expand on the relevance of the flat-earth movement... I’m happy to debate that with you. I didn’t bring it up; you did. I think that you feel you’ve hit a brick wall in the actual debate and perhaps you’d rather go off on a tangent. Flat-earth; the floor is yours...
You keep stating that the only reason for eating meat, is that the individual likes it. I've stated that at least once in this thread, so there's no brick wall. I'm not trying to drag the debate off on a tangent either, I'm merely stating that this idea that it's a fast growing social movement really means anything at this point, is a bit of a false idea. You're pushing the idea that there's a social media movement about veganism as something more than it really is, in my opinion. All manner of clever people, and utter morons, have access to facebook, twitter, even pistonheads. Using social media as proof of anything isn't terribly convincing.
The facts about health, use of land, treatment of animals etc. are much more convincing arguments.
you think that the vegan movement is just ‘social media thing’ - a ‘Facebook thing’?Really?
Bill Gates, Branson, MOSA meat, the list goes on. And on. And on. Billions of dollars; literally, are going into so called clean meat industry; with the goal to halt animal agriculture for both environmental and ethical reasons.
The fact you think it’s simply a social media movement is very very telling. But I’m happy to shed a light.
Good. So we’re almost on the same page in fact.
Yes, Bill Gates; of Microsoft; is one of the larger investors into the ‘clean meat’ industry that is taking shape... please do look into this, as it’s genuinely interesting; where technology is unraveling a solution to an ethical and environmental quagmire. The advancements are huge; Leonardo DiCaprio is also a massive investor; but again, the extra validity to this becoming a real industry is the fact that the worlds largest meat producers want in. They know what’s coming. They know that people’s attidtides are changing; toward animal
welfare issues and also the environmental consequences of large scale animal agriculture. They could have fought the changes that are on the horizon but they’ve embraced them. It’s good news; of course. It makes sense financially for them; number one... and embraces the change / shift in the populations attitudes.
Yes, Bill Gates; of Microsoft; is one of the larger investors into the ‘clean meat’ industry that is taking shape... please do look into this, as it’s genuinely interesting; where technology is unraveling a solution to an ethical and environmental quagmire. The advancements are huge; Leonardo DiCaprio is also a massive investor; but again, the extra validity to this becoming a real industry is the fact that the worlds largest meat producers want in. They know what’s coming. They know that people’s attidtides are changing; toward animal
welfare issues and also the environmental consequences of large scale animal agriculture. They could have fought the changes that are on the horizon but they’ve embraced them. It’s good news; of course. It makes sense financially for them; number one... and embraces the change / shift in the populations attitudes.
LDN said:
The land needed, globally, to house not just livestock; but the food needed to feed that livestock is indeed an utterly inefficient use of land. .
The problem is you are wrong. There is a myth that meat (and milk) production is a less efficient use of land than non-meat agriculture. It’s a myth because is assumes land used for meat production is easily changed to non-meat agriculture. This maybe correct for grade 1, 2, and maybe even 3a. It is at best marginal on grade 3b and completely wrong for grade 4 and 5. Almost all meat production takes place on land of less than 3a.Nanook said:
LDN said:
Good. So we’re almost on the same page in fact.
Almost, yes.LDN said:
Yes, Bill Gates; of Microsoft; is one of the larger investors into the ‘clean meat’ industry that is taking shape... please do look into this, as it’s genuinely interesting; where technology is unraveling a solution to an ethical and environmental quagmire. The advancements are huge; Leonardo DiCaprio is also a massive investor; but again, the extra validity to this becoming a real industry is the fact that the worlds largest meat producers want in. They know what’s coming. They know that people’s attidtides are changing; toward animal
welfare issues and also the environmental consequences of large scale animal agriculture. They could have fought the changes that are on the horizon but they’ve embraced them. It’s good news; of course. It makes sense financially for them; number one... and embraces the change / shift in the populations attitudes.
I've read a bit about it, and I'm fully in support of the idea.welfare issues and also the environmental consequences of large scale animal agriculture. They could have fought the changes that are on the horizon but they’ve embraced them. It’s good news; of course. It makes sense financially for them; number one... and embraces the change / shift in the populations attitudes.
These are the things that matter, the things that make a difference IMO.
People acting high and mighty on FB, calling vegans macho and posting video's of animal cruelty are not, IMO.
Not wanting to see the reality of a situation is also called burying one's head in the sand. Our actions and choices have consequences. I, personally, have a thick enough skin to see what those consequences are. Some people are squeamish and prefer to ignore what their choices might cause. It's their right; but they might not be respected for it.
As for calling vegans macho... it's not vegans calling vegans macho; it's non-vegans making that assertion; that vegan is becoming thew new macho; because of what they've noticed; in a growing number of body builders and athletes choosing veganism. There's a speaker on this; who does not support the vegan movement in any way; she was on morning UK television some days back; she stated this 'vegan is the new macho' line. I'd not heard it before.
Mrr T said:
LDN said:
The land needed, globally, to house not just livestock; but the food needed to feed that livestock is indeed an utterly inefficient use of land. .
The problem is you are wrong. There is a myth that meat (and milk) production is a less efficient use of land than non-meat agriculture. It’s a myth because is assumes land used for meat production is easily changed to non-meat agriculture. This maybe correct for grade 1, 2, and maybe even 3a. It is at best marginal on grade 3b and completely wrong for grade 4 and 5. Almost all meat production takes place on land of less than 3a.With all due respect; it's a genuine problem and if you're seriously interested; there's tons of info out there.
LDN said:
I'm not wrong. Land is suited toward different use. That's a given. But the very fact that the land that is used to grow X amount of feed for B' amount of livestock; could be used to feed Y' mount of humans is a fact.
It's not all about changing land used, suddenly, from livestock to plant. It's that the current plant land could feed umpteen times more humans...
If you think that a Welsh hillside used to raise 1 ton of lamb could be used to provide 2 tons of wheat or 3 tons of carrots then you're very much mistaken.It's not all about changing land used, suddenly, from livestock to plant. It's that the current plant land could feed umpteen times more humans...
LDN said:
With all due respect; it's a genuine problem and if you're seriously interested; there's tons of info out there.
There's tons of misinformation too.Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff