I just laugh at the Global Warming Lobby.
I watched this program and it showed were the sea levels were in 1700's and it was a meter higher than today's level.
Stop mass producing cows = starvation and economic damage.
Printable View
I just laugh at the Global Warming Lobby.
I watched this program and it showed were the sea levels were in 1700's and it was a meter higher than today's level.
Stop mass producing cows = starvation and economic damage.
Undertaker. Do you see the big brick wall... now picture it in your mind... now picture you ramming your head into it. that's how i feel =)
Rather than respond to the disjoined posts which gets confuseing im going to respond to the main problem im finding in the pro veg argument.
Ok this is a very stupid claim you keep makeing. Cows are animals, animals are NOT mass produced. They are not Manufactured.Quote:
"if we stopped mass producing cows/chickens etc, then we would free up alot of water/grain/soy bean that could be converted to food
"If we stopped mass producing cows= alot less global warming
If we keep on mass producing cows so you can have your dinner= more global warming"
Animals are made by this method.
Bull sees cow. Bull humps cow. Cow givers birth 9 months or so later.
Or alternatively, but raier since it costs more.
Bulls sperm is extracted, cow is artificially inseminated, 9 months later cow gives birth.
The former is the most common. it is done in a controlled way, the bull doesn't get to go around freely humping every cow it can, if it did wed have more cows than are wanted.
Now if we let all cows go free, (letteing them starve to death in winter, long and painful) as you seem to suggest, bulls will mate with most the cows, if they dont die off alot more cows will come in to existants, alot more than would in normal famring method.
Since you say you dont want to let the cows die a slow horrible death, hence are going to keep feeding them (which means they stay alive and keep farting green house gas's) then cows population exploders haveing nothing to limit it.
Meaning we have more cows if we stop farming them, than if we keep farming them? do you understand that yet? i made the point many times but you repatedly failed to grasp it.
Then your source is obviously an idiot. GM foods by defult have NO chemicals AT ALL. They are Geneticly modifed so pesticeds/weedisieds dont need to be used to keep the better adaptaed plants (weeds) and bugs from killing the crop.Quote:
Hmm whilst that may be true I heard that some of the chemicals they use in GM foods can be more harmful?
The crop becomes strong enough to do this itself, meaning much better yeald, far cheeper and less damage to the enviroment.
In summery, unless you cull every cow, you will end up getting more polution than if we just kept farming them as we are now.
If you dont cull them they die a slow horrible painful death, which is worse for the cow than being used by the meat industry.
What youve read wrong. i say again. there is "no proof red meat causes heart deasese"Quote:
From what I've read up on the subject they have some quite significant evidence? Though one solution could be to eat more "white meat" than red, thus solving the heart problem.
There is "No eviednce that suggest red meat causes heart desease"
On the global warming argument, may i point out, global warming is proven, no real sicentists disagree with that. Its agreed the world is heating up. The disagreement is, some sicentists belive this is a natrual phenomena, that the earth would heat up even if there were no humans, that where nothing to do with it, while others aurgue that where causeing the earth to heat up from pollution (or at least speeding it up)
Rather than respond to the disjoined posts which gets confuseing im going to respond to the main problem im finding in the pro veg argument.
Ok this is a very stupid claim you keep makeing. Cows are animals, animals are NOT mass produced. They are not Manufactured.
You misinterpreted what I said, I basically meant that the meat industry has so many cows for future slaughter.. if that makes sense (im damn tired so ^_^)
Animals are made by this method.
Bull sees cow. Bull humps cow. Cow givers birth 9 months or so later.
Or alternatively, but raier since it costs more.
Bulls sperm is extracted, cow is artificially inseminated, 9 months later cow gives birth.
cheers for that :p
The former is the most common. it is done in a controlled way, the bull doesn't get to go around freely humping every cow it can, if it did wed have more cows than are wanted.
Of course, but just because a bull doesn't go round humping every cow about, think how many cow farms there are? That's what I'm trying to get at.
Now if we let all cows go free, (letteing them starve to death in winter, long and painful) as you seem to suggest, bulls will mate with most the cows, if they dont die off alot more cows will come in to existants, alot more than would in normal famring method.
As you said previously, letting cows go free would do no more good as they've been so hand picked (dunno if that makes sense) through the generations that they have huge milk reserves compared to a normal cow, thus causing pain as the calves can't drink all of it.
Since you say you dont want to let the cows die a slow horrible death, hence are going to keep feeding them (which means they stay alive and keep farting green house gas's) then cows population exploders having nothing to limit it.
Indeed, quite the conundrum but.. as I said previously, if we hadn't "processed- bad word but..) so many cows into existence there wouldn't be that problem =/
Meaning we have more cows if we stop farming them, than if we keep farming them? do you understand that yet? i made the point many times but you repatedly failed to grasp it.
I understood on the previous posts but you're looking at this generation of cow... More and more cows are created each year= thus giving more greenhouse gases
Then your source is obviously an idiot. GM foods by defult have NO chemicals AT ALL. They are Geneticly modifed so pesticeds/weedisieds dont need to be used to keep the better adaptaed plants (weeds) and bugs from killing the crop.
The crop becomes strong enough to do this itself, meaning much better yeald, far cheeper and less damage to the enviroment.
Then why do people try and avoid GM foods when it's obviously less harmful to the environment compared to pesticides? (which i'm not really "for" anyway).
In summery, unless you cull every cow, you will end up getting more polution than if we just kept farming them as we are now.
If you dont cull them they die a slow horrible painful death, which is worse for the cow than being used by the meat industry.
Alas it is the meat industry that has sealed that fate, as they have been hand picked (as I said, not the right word ) cows couldn't possibly live in an un-farm-like environment.
What youve read wrong. i say again. there is "no proof red meat causes heart deasese"
There is "No eviednce that suggest red meat causes heart desease"
I'm pretty damn positive there is a bit of evidence behind it but = tiredness :eusa_wall
On the global warming argument, may i point out, global warming is proven, no real sicentists disagree with that. Its agreed the world is heating up. The disagreement is, some sicentists belive this is a natrual phenomena, that the earth would heat up even if there were no humans, that where nothing to do with it, while others aurgue that where causeing the earth to heat up from pollution (or at least speeding it up)[/quote]
One thing we agree about ^_^
I personally think it's a naturally occurance but we seem to be speeding it up A LOT by the amount of things we're shoving into the air.
To conclude, in my opinion we never needed meat, my opinion is the canines (which aren't exactly big) and other bodily functions allowed us to eat meat but the function was only needed for survival in a harsh crop season, same principle (ish) as our cousins the apes, they live primarily vegetarian but occasionally eat their own (if they died)
My apologies if this doesn't make sense but it's been a long day ^^
Global warming is serious. There are more and more floods around the world nowadays.
True but could be not affiliated with global warming atall eitherQuote:
Originally Posted by Doomsboy
No it's not.Quote:
Originally Posted by Doomsboy
Here are some reasons why there are "more floods"
- More Media attention on things like that.
- We have concreated many parts of the land, sometimes out drains/waterways can't cope.
- It's always happened.
- Humans are spreading so we notice more natural things.
I think I'm having a weird psychotic episode but I actually agree with you :OQuote:
Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:-
@global warming bit. my auntie is like WE MUST RECYCLE OR IN 10 YEARS THE WORLD WILL BLOW UP blah blah.
it's quite funny.
Yeap, us all dieing out at the coming of a new ice age,Quote:
Originally Posted by Hysteria
hahahahhahahahahahah toit toit toit