Quantcast
If you eat meat and believe in global warming you are a hypocrit.

Forums - General Discussion - If you eat meat and believe in global warming you are a hypocrit.

NJ5 said:
steven787 said:
The world has the highest known population since man has come into existence. There is less hunger proportionally then ever before. What's the problem again?

 never heard of that statistic, but let's assume it's true.

What's the problem? Plenty of them... We're straining the planet's resources, in large part due to over-population. Exponentially rising population + depleting resources means trouble. It's the same problem Yeast and other simple organisms typically run into. Population growth can't go on forever, neither can economic growth.

What allows so many people to exist is mostly our technology which allows us to access plentiful energy, especially fossil fuels. If you noticed, before the economic crisis hit energy was getting more and more expensive, which will probably also happen when the economy starts to recover. It could even stop the economy from ever recovering to the levels we've seen in the past few years.

This will especially be a problem if investment in renewable energy (and even non-renewable energy) isn't taken seriously during the recession.

 

 

Yeast doesn't have the capacity to organize augment it's production method for obtain food beyond the natural environment allows.

From irrigation, to nitrogen-based fertalizers, genetics, hormones and mechanization, the food supply is ample to feed the whole human population; the problem is cost and transportation (within borders).  Most hunger is caused by war.

If you go to http://www.wfp.org/country_brief/index_region.asp and look where the world food program work almost all of those are engaged in some type of long term conflict or are under the control of a corrupt or weak government.

Rising energy costs are a sign of more people using energy, which means more people have modern heating and lighting.  India still has almost half a billion people with out electricity but it less than 10 years ago.

Often as countries develop they leap frog the steps industrialized nations had to take, saving money and impacting the environment less.  Cell phones, computerized banking, credit cards, and renewable energy allow rapid change without the large industrial infrastructure investment with out massive temporary employment that displaced major portions of the population in the US.

Don't confuse fossil fuels with fuel.  Brasil has built its economy on biodiesel.  Small remote villages are installing solar panels, The US and Canada depend on an almost unlimited source of coal and natural gas for electricity.  The minute we have a viable portable unlimited fuel for transportation, the problem is solved.  The world enters a new age of movement.  Renewable resources are coming; profitability ensures this.

I don't understand how anybody can look at the progress in India, China, or Vietnam and think things are getting worse.

Now, don't take this to mean that I think there are no problems, there is a long way to go but progress is being made.



I would cite regulation, but I know you will simply ignore it.

Around the Network

@steven787:

Yeast doesn't have the capacity to organize augment it's production method for obtain food beyond the natural environment allows.


Exactly the same with humans, the difference is only that our techniques are more advanced. Expoentially increasing population against a limited resource base is still a problem even with the best technology.

From irrigation, to nitrogen-based fertalizers, genetics, hormones and mechanization, the food supply is ample to feed the whole human population; the problem is cost and transportation (within borders). Most hunger is caused by war.


The two perhaps most important items you listed (fertilizers and mechanization) are heavily dependent on energy which was my point.

If you go to http://www.wfp.org/country_brief/index_region.asp and look where the world food program work almost all of those are engaged in some type of long term conflict or are under the control of a corrupt or weak government.


That's true but it doesn't contradict my point.

Rising energy costs are a sign of more people using energy, which means more people have modern heating and lighting. India still has almost half a billion people with out electricity but it less than 10 years ago.


It's also a sign that energy is getting more expensive to harvest (especially fossil fuels) and that supply has a harder time keeping up with demand. Simple "law and demand" explain it, although there are other factors involved.

Don't confuse fossil fuels with fuel. Brasil has built its economy on biodiesel. Small remote villages are installing solar panels, The US and Canada depend on an almost unlimited source of coal and natural gas for electricity. The minute we have a viable portable unlimited fuel for transportation, the problem is solved. The world enters a new age of movement. Renewable resources are coming; profitability ensures this.


I don't confuse the two, in fact I believe our only chance is to significantly and quickly invest in renewables. Due to various articles I read I'm just not sure that this is happening well enough.

 



My Mario Kart Wii friend code: 2707-1866-0957

NJ5 said:

@steven787:

Yeast doesn't have the capacity to organize augment it's production method for obtain food beyond the natural environment allows.


Exactly the same with humans, the difference is only that our techniques are more advanced. Expoentially increasing population against a limited resource base is still a problem even with the best technology.

That's my point, we have brains, yeast do not.

From irrigation, to nitrogen-based fertalizers, genetics, hormones and mechanization, the food supply is ample to feed the whole human population; the problem is cost and transportation (within borders). Most hunger is caused by war.


The two perhaps most important items you listed (fertilizers and mechanization) are heavily dependent on energy which was my point.

Energy is not a problem, yet.  Hormones play a huge part in protein production

If you go to http://www.wfp.org/country_brief/index_region.asp and look where the world food program work almost all of those are engaged in some type of long term conflict or are under the control of a corrupt or weak government.


That's true but it doesn't contradict my point.

It does, because we have not reach a point where the population has gotten too big.

Rising energy costs are a sign of more people using energy, which means more people have modern heating and lighting. India still has almost half a billion people with out electricity but it less than 10 years ago.


It's also a sign that energy is getting more expensive to harvest (especially fossil fuels) and that supply has a harder time keeping up with demand. Simple "law and demand" explain it, although there are other factors involved.

The price of oil goes up because of demand, global short-run supply/production capacity has gone up and has not gone down.  Long term, it will start to drop at some point.

Don't confuse fossil fuels with fuel. Brasil has built its economy on biodiesel. Small remote villages are installing solar panels, The US and Canada depend on an almost unlimited source of coal and natural gas for electricity. The minute we have a viable portable unlimited fuel for transportation, the problem is solved. The world enters a new age of movement. Renewable resources are coming; profitability ensures this.


I don't confuse the two, in fact I believe our only chance is to significantly and quickly invest in renewables. Due to various articles I read I'm just not sure that this is happening well enough.

I agree with you.

 

 

If the population goes too high, people will die.  The population hasn't started declining, so we must not have reached that point.



I would cite regulation, but I know you will simply ignore it.

That's my point, we have brains, yeast do not.


It's pointless to have a brain if we don't use it to look at (and plan for) long-term sustainability.

The price of oil goes up because of demand, global short-run supply/production capacity has gone up and has not gone down. Long term, it will start to drop at some point.


Unfortunately, in this case "long term" is not very long according to an increasing number of studies. Here's the latest from the IEA (which by the way seems sugar coated at some points):

http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/IEA-doesnt-see-peak-oil/story.aspx?guid={C844CC20-F5BC-4627-987A-7CBF7FE50923}

"Capacity additions from current projects tail off after 2010," the Paris-based agency said. "This largely reflects the upstream development cycle: Many new projects will undoubtedly be sanctioned in the near term as oil companies complete existing projects and move on to new ones. But the gap now evident between what is currently being built and what will be needed to keep pace with demand is set to widen sharply after 2010."

(...)

Tanaka said that "while market imbalances will feed instability, the era of cheap oil is over."

(...)

However, Tanaka said it was "far from certain" those companies would be willing to make the necessary investment themselves or to attract sufficient capital to keep up the necessary pace of investment."



If the population goes too high, people will die. The population hasn't started declining, so we must not have reached that point.


There's a bit of a fallacy in that thinking. Resource depletion happens no matter the population level, no fixed limit needs to be reached in order for problems to happen. Sustainability means having a good plan for long-term sustainability, and executing it on time. Unfortunately I'm afraid it will become increasingly obvious that we didn't do enough fast enough.

 



My Mario Kart Wii friend code: 2707-1866-0957

steven787 said:

 

Don't confuse fossil fuels with fuel.  Brasil has built its economy on biodiesel.  Small remote villages are installing solar panels, The US and Canada depend on an almost unlimited source of coal and natural gas for electricity.  The minute we have a viable portable unlimited fuel for transportation, the problem is solved.  The world enters a new age of movement.  Renewable resources are coming; profitability ensures this.

 

Actually, we get 58.7% of our electricity from clean Hydro, 12.4% from Nuclear. Only the rest involves burning stuff. That was in 2003, I'd say now we have shifted a little greener with some Wind projects. My province get over 95% of its electricity from Hydro.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_sector_in_Canada



Around the Network
The_vagabond7 said:
Tispower1 said:
twesterm said:
Kasz216 said:

Well that global warming is man-made anyway. All the non combustion fuel won't do crap if meat production stays the same... and bad news. Meat production is on the rise as more countries get richer, because well. Meat just tastes better.

Not forcing anyone to be a vegetarian. Just saying.... if you believe global warming is man made...(and care.) and eat meat. You're a hyporcrit.

http://www.commondreams.org/views07/0120-20.htm

 

So you're saying that we can't cut back on other things that cause global warning then?  Food is somewhat essential, SUV's aren't.

(Note that I don't give a crap about global warning but I just think your argument is silly)

yes but as I pointed out, cows are worse than SUVs. I hate the fact that people just pick on the motorist and blame everything on them, when in fact, heating your home is worse for the enviroment than driving 13000 miles a year.

 

I don't really care about this issue, but from a logical standpoint I have to intervene. I  think it's more about excess than actual percentile harm done. A person that is driving a H2 two blocks in a crowded city and then let's it idle for an hour would be considered worse than the person living in a one bedroom apartment with his thermostat set on 71 regardless of which is doing more harm over all. It's the being callous and needlessly excessive polluter that is focused on, rather than the person going about their daily business in a moderate and concientious way.

I guess my point is that there is so much tax and government concentration on the car, when most of the time it's necessary, aprt from major cities, public transport has a long way to go, and yet there are better things governments could be spending their time and energy on, rather than painting all motorists as (to use your example) people who drive horribly inefficient cars and only drive two blocks in them. Most people I know who commute by car have at least a 30 min drive on dual-carriage/motorway. Just a few wasteful % drive 2 blocks. And if in America it's more than that, then I think the US government should fill the budget defecit by rasing fuel to what we pay, about £1 a litre, or $1.50 a litre.