brucethecollie Posted September 10, 2015 Posted September 10, 2015 Hi, Someone shared this video with me. It basically states that the greatest harm to the environment comes from the consumption of animals and the water and power it takes to keep them. I was wondering if anyone had seen this and what you all thought. I have been reading the citations but would like guidance on the issue because I'm new here and not sure how info like this-if substantiated, matters or not in the grand scheme of things and from an ethical point of view. Here is the video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZlTBC91L-x0&feature=youtu.be&list=PLmIqdlomtuStUIWj3h-RzdXx8z6Ex5gyS
green banana Posted September 10, 2015 Posted September 10, 2015 Pretty good video, but she misses an important point. There is no free market in food. The government heavily subsidizes animal products and it makes them cheaper than they would be in a free market. Without those subsidies you would have to pay a lot more for animal products and they would be of a higher quality as well. 5
Crallask Posted September 10, 2015 Posted September 10, 2015 Or maybe we'd have to pay less cause they'd have made better methods for breeding the animals or developed better maintenance methods. Not that it matters at this point anyways since we'll likely all be eating 3d printed hamburger in a decade anyways.
AnarchoNEET Posted September 10, 2015 Posted September 10, 2015 3d printed Hamburger? Isn't ham pork? I think problematic words like that will be banned under Sharia law in a decade. At least in Hamburg where I am. The name of our city will probably be changed to Halalburg or something like that.
Clark Gorny Posted September 10, 2015 Posted September 10, 2015 Well yes is it any wonder that the majority of the people screaming Global Warming, Climate Change, etc are hypocrites to their own dogma? Social Justice warriors are all about forcing you to submit yourself to their beliefs so they don't have to do anything but yell at you.
AncapFTW Posted September 10, 2015 Posted September 10, 2015 One thing that struck me about the video was that she kept using "water usage" as a measure of environmental impact. She does realize that almost all water used to farm animals will be put back into the ecosystem within hours in the form of sweat, urine, or steaming poop, right? Also, by her logic, a human requires .5 gallons of water per day just to drink. That's 3.5 billion gallons per day for the planet and 1.2775 trillion gallons per year. That's far more than the animals use. Because eliminating humans would eliminate the animal farming too, you can't be an environmentalist and a humanitarian at the same time. In fact, if you are an environmentalist you must want to eliminate humanity as well.
MagnumPI Posted September 10, 2015 Posted September 10, 2015 Just to piggyback on the previous post, since mello covered about everything I was going to say, there's a video on YouTube where you can see the documentation of reversing desertification using livestock and regrowing naturally occurring grasses. It was linked in another vegetarian thread on this board, as well. Here it is actually. Easier to find than I thought Https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=vpTHi7O66pI 1
brucethecollie Posted September 10, 2015 Author Posted September 10, 2015 Because eliminating humans would eliminate the animal farming too, you can't be an environmentalist and a humanitarian at the same time. In fact, if you are an environmentalist you must want to eliminate humanity as well. I'm trying to wrap my head around that. What if a humanitarian considers the healthy maintenance of the environment as important only for the sake of humans? Can they then be a humanitarian and environmentalist based on their motivations? Or must it be all or nothing? I agree with what mellomama posted. I personally buy local and humanely raised organic meat/chicken/eggs/fish. To be honest, I don't do it for the environment, I do it because those sources provide better nutrition and are less likely to carry bacteria that can make my family and I sick. From a nutritional standpoint, I think it's inhumane to assume that humans can do just fine without any animal products the way so many vegans do. We evolved alongside the practice of eating animals, people from some areas more so than others. It would have been unfair for my parents to raise me strictly vegan for the sake of being humane towards animals-because what about me and my body's needs? Anyway, so true about the free market aspect (something I still don't think of right away I'm afraid). Subsidizing of foods by the government has not only thrown balance off but potentially hurt so many people's health in the meantime. MagnumPI thanks for sharing that video- AMAZING stuff! 1
Recommended Posts