So this is my attempt to describe a highly simplified carbon cycle, which seems in need of review after some general observations and conversation (though I think pyrrhosrepublic might have had an overly optimistic estimate of interest). Unfortunately, general science education is frequently blown off, maybe because people take these vital life processes for granted. There are more important or interesting things to worry about than processes that will continue to work without our knowledge. Yet nearly everything is directly dependent on these processes, not just our bodily functions, but also our jobs, our resources, and even the warm glowing warming glow of the internet. As we rapidly approach energy and climate concerns, these processes can no longer be taken for granted.
The picture above illustrates the major biological processes that cycle carbon from atmospheric to organic forms. It becomes easy to see that by digging up and burning fossil fuels, we are disrupting the cycle. Up through the present, nearly all of our energy, which our technological innovations and economy are completely dependent upon, came from sunlight energy that has been concentrated over hundreds of millions of years. And it all started with photosynthesis, which is probably my all-time favorite sequence of chemical reactions…
We don’t convert oxygen into carbon dioxide. Through cellular respiration, similar to combustion, organic molecules are oxidized (release electrons) to form carbon dioxide. Those electrons lose energy that is stored in ATP, the molecule our bodies can then use to function. Oxygen accepts the de-energized electron and is thus reduced (gains electrons) to form water and complete the coupled redox reaction.
Thus, oxygen is converted to water, and the organic molecules we eat (carbohydrates, fats, proteins) are converted to carbon dioxide and usable energy.
One way to feel productive might be to learn the most basic biological processes critical to our lives. The carbon cycle is also extremely relevant due to increasing energy and climate concerns.
Whatever. 15,000+ notes.
Fat Head Trailer (via FatHeadMovie)
Now on Hulu, I really liked this documentary. Fat Head is the antithesis to Spurlock’s Super Size Me. And as you would expect, the filmmaker attacks Super Size Me. Some of this movie shows its libertarian bent with government regulation and free choice. And while I certainly don’t identify as a libertarian, I sympathize with aspects of it. But I still think restaurants should be required to indicate calorie amounts on their menu boards.
One of the main themes of this movie is that the low-fat diet we’ve been lead to is not as supported as we’ve been reared. We’re taken to this theme through talking-head scientists and by the producer that goes through his own month-long fast food diet (mostly McDonalds). Only with this producer, he loses weight.
At the same time, regardless of the truth or falsity regarding diet, I still think McDonalds is an asshole after watching McLibel. And I still find Fathead to be largely compatible with Schlosser’s book Fast Food Nation. Issues like wages, meat packing, environment, and food safety are still relevant. Though the Fat Head producer seriously plays down advertising to children—a matter which Schlosser takes seriously.
This documentary does provide some informative mythbusting regarding diet and health. For example, there likely isn’t an obesity epidemic to be blamed on fast food. The incidence of obesity may not have really increased, but the number of “obese” people might have swelled when the inaccurate BMI was instituted as a health indicator. There hasn’t been conclusive evidence linking cholesterol, fat, and heart disease (though not mentioned in the film, the incidence of heart disease has declined in the last 50 years, just as fast food has increased in popularity). The low-fat diet myth was busted about ten years ago, with a response in the form of high-fat, low-carb diets. Furthermore, while alluded to but never fully addressed in the film, the health care industry has been careless addressing the well being of obese people, often dismissing any unrelated ailments with a prescription to lose some weight.
However, while Naughton criticizes nutrition scientists for ignoring pertinent health information regarding fat and cholesterol, he makes some pretty large omissions himself. True, nobody is forced to eat at McDonald’s, and they aren’t forced to get the largest meal. Most people know that McDonald’s isn’t healthy, they can easily access the nutritional info, etc. While people should have a free choice about what they eat, how can it possibly be mistaken as a fair choice? He never once mentions that the fast food industry is heavily subsidized, while healthier alternatives are not. He states that people are rational beings capable of making logical choices and that the poor are unfairly assumed to be stupid and lazy. Yet he forgets that the portion of income used to buy food is a large factor weighed when the poor make logical decisions. He argues that the big, bad government and big, bad health food lobbies would like to artificially double the cost of fast food through “taxation and regulation” in order to sway those choices. What if the big, bad government just eliminated the subsidies that currently support the fast food industry? The cost of a hamburger would be far more than double, and it would cost considerably more than produce and legumes. Oh, and we shouldn’t forget that the big, bad government can’t build adequate playgrounds, while the unfairly demonized private fast food industry is able to provide much more for kids—no doubt due to their “free market” success.
Naughton also makes a dangerous assumption regarding diet and evolution as he promotes a fast food version of Atkins. Unfortunately, our bodies evolved based on past conditions, not current ones. True, our hunter-gatherer ancestors ate fewer carbs, but they did eat grains and fruits. Unlike the McDonald’s diet, their diet was rich in fiber and essential micronutrients and low in sodium. True, they ate plenty of meat and thus animal fat. Yet the animals they ate and the lifestyles they had were much different than our current ones (though he does repeatedly stress the importance of exercise). Grass-eating wild animals were considerably leaner and lower in saturated fat than their modern day grain-fed factory counterparts. Hunter-gatherers did not consume dairy.
Yet we can’t go back to eating a basic hunter-gatherer diet, as slow foodies like Michael Pollan will advocate. There simply aren’t enough resources available for everyone to eat pasture-grazing livestock. It was the advent of agriculture and grain production that led to the human population explosion. And unfortunately, our bodies can’t adapt to current conditions. Most diet related diseases will kill people mid-life or later, after they’ve reproduced. So the outdated genes get passed on.
I agree that the USDA food pyramid is biased by an interest to promote commodity crops. But the answer isn’t to pack in foods high in saturated fats. Fats can be enjoyed in moderation, just as we’ve long been told. And also as we’ve been told, a balanced diet includes vegetables, fruits, lean proteins, complex carbohydrates, and yeah, exercise. Nothing new there. There’s no easy fad that will allow us to consume large amounts of the junk foods we crave. Sadly, since our genes developed under conditions that no longer exist, we now have to eat and do things we may not always enjoy in order to stay healthy.
Finally, I’m not sure how Fat Head is at all compatible with Fast Food Nation. Yes, issues like wages, meat packing, the environment, and food safety are still very relevant. Along with subsidies and factory farming, none of these things are ever mentioned. And these things should be considered far more relevant than an individual taste preference for Big Macs.
Re: I still consider myself an anarchist
I was slighty [fiscally] conservative less than a year ago. Thinking about it now, if I HAD to live under a government, I would hope that it was a Marxist Communist government.
Still, allotting people the money to buy things they need would completely eliminate the need for fitness among humans. I would really prefer to let nature take its course. I fear the human population would exceed past the earth’s carrying capacity.
I think about this a lot, about how the world might be overpopulated. I don’t know if that’s true. I would like to know. I truly hope I’m wrong.
Am I?
Communism and anarchy are somewhat opposite, and both seem silly. Anarchists will quickly abandon that idea once they are knocked down and have their anarchy jackets stolen, while communists must abandon the individuality and free choices we all value so much in the US. What we need is a blend of socialism and capitalism, similar to what we have, just one that works a lot better. In general, the free market works, but it’s imperative to have a central government that can provide basic protections (e.g. laws against rape and murder) and correct a host of failures of the free market. The market isn’t perfect: for example, it cannot prevent pollution, abuse by natural monopolies, overexploitation of resources (tragedy of the commons), nor can it adequately provide public goods (military, police, fireworks) or an educated population.
Socialist welfare systems do not need to be about handing money to people without it, but we definitely do not live in a world where natural selection can or should be taking its course on impoverished people. There are unnatural political inequities in place, and the government’s role here should be to provide equal opportunities, not equal outcomes. Yet we still live in a highly segregated society; it’s naive to think that poor people can just pull themselves out of a largely disadvantageous situation.
And globally, the inequities are much greater. If you’re concerned about overpopulation, it depends on what your ideal world would be. Just take any online carbon footprint quiz. The validity can be debated, but a number that I’ve taken estimate that we would need 4-5 Earths if the entire population consumed the amount of resources I do. I live in a small studio apartment; walk, bike, or bus almost everywhere I go; buy very few household items and little clothing; and eat a vegan diet. I’m not so sure I want to live any more lightly than I already do, and for sure most Americans don’t even want to live at this level. There is a wealth of resources, but they are unequally distributed. There’s enough food grown to feed 9 billion people, yet at least 1 billion of the 6.7 billion on Earth are starving. That’s not natural selection. So what do we do? In order for us to live at our current standard, a large portion of the world must live in abject poverty. There aren’t enough resources for us all to live this way. Still, due to globalization, the heavily populated third world is rapidly developing, raising important concerns regarding energy consumption and climate change. Do we tell them to stop? Do we force them to remain in poverty so we can have things that they can’t? These aren’t questions that any system of government (especially lack of government) can satisfactorily answer.
Hypocrisy, double standards call it what you like
http://blogs.aljazeera.net/business/2010/07/21/hypocrisy-double-standards-call-it-what-you
Is BP bashing getting out of hand? The latest salvos from US legislators are over BP’s involvement in the release of the Lockerbie bomber.
David Cameron, the British prime minister, has defended BP saying the decision to release Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi was the Scottish governments alone.
But it’s a bit rich for a nation that has the biggest lobbying industry in the world, that regularly waters down legislation and strong arms other nations into buying American, to be questioning the motive of others.It’s not just me that thinks the US is being hypocritical in its handling of this crisis.
Bloomberg columnist Matthew Lynn under the headline, “BP Needs to Tell Whining Americans to Take a Hike”, says the
US is guilty of crazy double standards. [BP Chief Executive Tony] Hayward should go on TV and say: “Excuse me, which country is the biggest oil consumer on the planet? Who refused to do anything about climate change, or even to put sensible taxes on gas? Heck, your president even flies around in a 747 when a modest Gulfstream jet would get him there just as fast. So of course the oil companies have to drill in more and more dangerous places. If you insist on being addicted to cheap oil, you have to recognise there are risks attached. So grow up, and stop acting like children.”
Jon Snow, a presenter for Channel 4 News in the UK, compares BP with Union Carbide. The US company was responsible for probably the worst-ever environmental disaster in Bhopal, India.
At least 3,000 people died immediately, some 15,000 are estimated to have died since as a results of ingesting the fumes… Beyond the 11 people killed on the exploding oil rig in the Gulf of Mexico no one has yet died from the consequent oil spill. Yet an American president is now at war with a British multinational and all political guns are blazing.”
Snow also points out an arrest warrant has been issued for the Warren Anderson, the former Union Carbide chief executive, but no action has been taken.Wouldn’t it be better if Barack Obama, the US president, stood up told US companies to cough up for their environmental disasters globally?
He may want to start with Chevron, which is on the hook for $27 billion, for dumping 56 billon litres of toxic waste in the Amazon rainforest of Ecuador. Chevron claims it’s done its bit and the rest is up to Petro Ecuador.
Our Lopsided Energy Subsidies, Visualized
Here’s a look at the various ways in which we subsidize energy (the chart is based on this paper from the Environmental Law Institute). As you can see, the tax breaks for traditional fossil fuels, in the bottom left quadrant, are just massive. The result? The cost of coal and oil are artificially cheap, meaning we use them more, and the companies that extract and sell them reap absurd profits. Is there any neoliberal economic defense for this or is it simply an unfair product of industry lobbying?
My answer? Lobbying.
Agreed.
It probably has more to do with energy return on investment (EROI), which is unrelated to dollars. Based on the amount of energy required to harvest and distribute an energy source, fossil fuels are the most efficient. Most of the energy on earth comes from the sun, and only plants can lock that energy into the bonds of carbon fuels through photosynthesis. Fossil fuels are the result of billions of plants over millions of years fixing that sunlight energy. By burning fossil fuels, we release millions of years of concentrated sunlight all at once (and the CO2 molecules that were bonded to make those fuels).
The government is in a tough position, illustrated by the graph (one of the most optimistic; light colors represent uncertainty; x-axis represents energy output we use from each source). It sort of makes sense for energy to be subsidized, as any increase in technology or GDP is directly correlated to energy consumption, and it then makes sense to subsidize the most efficient fuels. As we face climate change, the gulf spill, and peak oil, we also face alternatives that could never meet our increasing demands.
Take wind, for example. The EROI indicator doesn’t include time, or rate of return, which is an important factor to consider when making investments. The EROI on coal is realized when the coal is dug up, transported, and burned. This is a relatively short amount of time compared to wind. The investment is made in building the windmills, but the return is realized over the full lifetime of the farm. So it might take 30 years to get back, say, 30 times the energy that was put in. Whereas with coal, it may take only weeks or days to get back 50 times the energy that was put in. Another factor is storage. Say we switch to electric cars that we power with wind energy. When energy must be stored on batteries, some of that potential realized energy is lost due to battery inefficiency. This further lowers the EROI of wind power.
The EROI of fossil fuels also decreases as we exploit the easiest resources and must dig deeper (or blow up mountaintops). Conspicuously missing from an EROI calculation is the energy invested in environmental cleanup. But it isn’t as easy as saying Big Oil and Coal rule the government. The future is only full of low EROI options, both traditional and alternative, and that is a difficult reality for politicians to face. We are increasingly subsidizing cleaner alternatives, which helps, but we’ll never again be able to utilize the equivalent of a million years’ worth of concentrated sunlight so quickly and cheaply. The only real alternative is a drastic reduction in consumption (difficult to advocate during an economic depression).
The Naïve Vegetarian
- Animal farming is an efficient use of land. Much of the land used for animal farming, cannot be used for arable farming. With a rapidly expanding world population, a large proportion of whom are already starving, how can taking this land out of production help?
Actually, the vast majority of our arable land is used to grow feed for livestock raised in factory farms. This is the most inefficient use of land possible. Also, most of the rainforest loss is due to feed production and livestock grazing.
Following food web energy dynamics, the amount of calories received from the meat is only about 10% of the amount of calories that went into the animals, calories that could feed far more people. And that only counts the calories in the grain, not the energy inputs to plant, irrigate, harvest, fertilize, spray pesticides on, and transport that grain.
It is true that sustainable levels of livestock grazing on marginal land is an efficient use of those resources, namely because large ruminants can turn the calories in grass into something we can digest. However, almost no beef is raised in the US this way due to corn and soy subsidies. Cattle born on ranches and are then transferred to CAFOs and switched to an unnatural diet of grain.
- The killing of animals for food is morally wrong. Some animals are born to hunt, others to be hunted. This is natural. Does the lion have a moral right to kill an antelope? What are an antelope’s ‘rights’ not to be eaten by a lion? Such questions are meaningless.
I agree with this somewhat. In a hunter-gatherer sense, it is natural for humans to kill animals for food, just as many other animals would. What is morally wrong, however, is not just the treatment our livestock are subjected to. It’s also the loss of habitat to make way for feed, the use and pollution of land that could be used to grow far more efficient crops, the diversion of water to irrigate feed crops and water livestock in water deficient areas, the abuse of undocumented workers in slaughterhouses (even free range, organic cattle must be slaughtered in the same slaughterhouses; beef butchering is still done by hand and is one of the most dangerous jobs in the US—see Schlosser’s Fast Food Nation), the contribution of animal farming to climate change (the livestock industry is a greater anthropogenic source of greenhouse gases than all our forms of transportation combined), etc. So, even for those who remain unconcerned with the impacts of omnivorous diets in developed countries on animals, the impact of meat consumption on human populations is becoming difficult to ignore.
- If killing animals is wrong, what about fish? Four-fifths of the Earth’s surface is covered in ocean. Could the world’s rapidly growing population be sustained if we did not farm it?
Again, even if we argue that the sustainable harvest of animals is not morally wrong, there would still be far more food to feed a rapidly growing population if people stopped feeding it to animals instead.
- Vegetarianism is healthier. Many become vegetarians because they believe that such a lifestyle is healthier. But vegetables, fruit and salads are not as healthy as we are told. They are contaminated with sewage sludge, viruses, polluted irrigation water, pesticides and herbicides. Lettuce is the worst of all.
Comparisons of the health and longevity of cultures with different dietary habits confirms that meat eaters can expect to live longer than vegetarians and don’t need to visit their doctors as often as vegetarians. And, by the way, vegetarians have exactly the same risk of colon cancer as meat eaters.
While true that vegetables are contaminated with pesticides and polluted water, the feed that is fed to livestock is also contaminated with these things, and they eat far more of it. Perhaps this doctor doesn’t know much about food web ecology or biomagnification, but any pollutants become concentrated at higher trophic levels. This is what the recommendation to “eat low on the food chain” refers to. Aquatic food webs are far more lengthy and complex, which is why pregnant women are discouraged from eating fish out of the Great Lakes. This is becoming an increasing problem in factory farmed livestock. Cattle, for example, are herbivores that normally eat very low on the food chain. However, they are frequently fed the remains of other animals, including fish meal, in CAFOs. EPA studies have shown that breast milk of most meat eating women in the US exceeds drinking water standards for many pesticides and contaminants. The average contamination of vegetarian breast milk is much lower, and even less for vegans.
As for disease statistics, the link at the bottom provides references. However, other studies have shown a significant increase in disease risks associated with omnivorous diets when all other factors are controlled for: heart disease, diabetes, breast cancer, ovarian cancer, uterine cancer, prostate cancer, obesity, etc. are all less frequent in vegetarians (see Diet for a New America by John Robbins, former ice cream heir turned vegan, for chapters on health data with references). Some of these are likely linked to the way animals are now raised.
- Vegetarianism — a form of child abuse. Many aspects of vegetarianism are harmful, particularly to growing infants. An infant’s nutrient needs are great but it has a small stomach. Nutrient-dense foods are essential. Most foods from vegetable sources are nutrient poor. Doctors have suggested that vegetarian fad diets should be classed as a form of child abuse.
Of course, vegetarians have to be careful when selecting foods for themselves and their children. Vegetarians don’t just survive on salad, and careful selection of nutrient-rich foods is sufficient. There are plenty of cultures around the world that are entirely vegetarian, so this statement is just misinformation.
- The vegetarian’s dilemma. Being a lacto-ovo-vegetarian (those who eat milk and eggs) carries little or no health risk for its adult adherents. But while these vegetarians don’t kill animals for food, they rely on the rest of us to carry that burden of guilt for them — for a cow to produce milk a calf must be born each year. What are we to do with those calves? They cannot all be kept and fed. They must be killed — there is no other option. Isn’t it a waste not to eat them?
What a compelling argument for veganism! While I’ve argued above that meat consumption in itself is not morally wrong and is natural, dairy consumption remains completely unnatural. In fact, the majority of humans have some degree of lactose intolerance, but most of us just put up with the minor cases. Yes, dairy cows must have calves every year to continue producing milk. Milk that is for their calves. Humans begin on a diet of breast milk, but at some point they are weaned. No other species steals the milk meant for another species offspring in order to fulfill its own desires. Kind of perverse, if you think about it.
The Western vegetarian at the moment is in a very privileged position. So long as not too many join him, he can afford to indulge his naïve dietary fads in a way that is denied to most of the people of this Earth. While he ponders on this fact, he might also apply himself to Kant’s Categorical Imperative which may be rewritten: What would be wrong for all, is wrong for one
Again, far more healthy and environmentally friendly foods would be available if wealthy Western societies quit indulging their selfish, destructive tastes. It isn’t an easy switch for many, due to the food subsidy structure in the US. However, both the UN and the IPCC have begun urging people to adopt vegetarian and vegan diets in order to combat global environmental destruction and climate change. Even just a reduction in animal product consumption would do far more for human health and the environment than probably any other individual consumer choice.
![thatbridgeisonfire:
gingermax:
thedailywhat:
Aggressive-Aggressive Note of the Day: Spotted at the Monterey Bay Aquarium, where visitors are invited to provide information on the things they’ve been doing to combat climate change.
[reddit.]
this makes me sad D:
While the inevitable extinction of the polar bear will be sad, attention for the polar bear has distracted people from countless extinctions going on right now. As a charismatic vertebrate, the polar bear has drawn the general public’s attention to climate change and led people to make choices they likely would have ignored. However, the inaccessibility of polar bears and their relative unimportance to global ecosystems has also led to apathetic responses to climate change, such as this one.
Obviously a kid wrote this, but even adults are unaware of the ecosystem services that invertebrates, more sensitive to climate change, provide. Insects, worms, bacteria, and fungi are hardly cute or recognized as anything more than nuisances. Without the services they provide, such as decomposition, nutrient recycling, pest reduction, food web stability, water purification, and pollination, we wouldn’t have our most basic needs for survival, like food. The polar bear is one animal, far away, but models suggest that climate change will result in the extinction of 15-40% of all species during our lifetimes, not just our kids’ lifetimes.](http://www.tumblr.com/photo/1280/caramelbaloney/777670643/1/tumblr_l5530kDK0G1qzpwi0)
Aggressive-Aggressive Note of the Day: Spotted at the Monterey Bay Aquarium, where visitors are invited to provide information on the things they’ve been doing to combat climate change.
[reddit.]
this makes me sad D:
While the inevitable extinction of the polar bear will be sad, attention for the polar bear has distracted people from countless extinctions going on right now. As a charismatic vertebrate, the polar bear has drawn the general public’s attention to climate change and led people to make choices they likely would have ignored. However, the inaccessibility of polar bears and their relative unimportance to global ecosystems has also led to apathetic responses to climate change, such as this one.
Obviously a kid wrote this, but even adults are unaware of the ecosystem services that invertebrates, more sensitive to climate change, provide. Insects, worms, bacteria, and fungi are hardly cute or recognized as anything more than nuisances. Without the services they provide, such as decomposition, nutrient recycling, pest reduction, food web stability, water purification, and pollination, we wouldn’t have our most basic needs for survival, like food. The polar bear is one animal, far away, but models suggest that climate change will result in the extinction of 15-40% of all species during our lifetimes, not just our kids’ lifetimes.
What does it mean to be a vegetarian?
I once had a conversation with some of my housemates about vegetarianism. One of them remarked that she had been a vegetarian for the last ten years and has since occasionally started eating meat again. This led me to think about how we define what it is to be a vegetarian.
The word itself simply means: Someone who does not meat. Yet, it seems that our use of the word implies a slightly different meaning: Someone who does not ever eat meat. You may have heard someone say that they are a vegetarian who eats chicken or a vegetarian who eats fish. It is also likely that you have heard someone else say that such a person is not a vegetarian.
I’m curious as to why we define a vegetarian to be someone who never eats meat. Why not simply call anyone who, in general, does not eat meat a vegetarian? To make a parallel argument, we do not define a liberal or conservative as someone who always votes on the liberal or conservative side of an issue. We do not define a Roman Catholic as someone who always follows the dogma set forth by the Catholic Church.
The question is: Why do some define vegetarianism so absolutely? It is true that there are people who proclaim themselves to be pesco-vegetarians and the like, but these people are often marginalized by strict vegetarians.
Perhaps there is some distinction to be made in political beliefs versus lifestyle choices. One might argue that there is a difference between defining one’s eating habits rather than one’s voting record.
If there is such a distinction, I can’t think of it. In fact I would argue that there isn’t a difference in defining lifestyle choices that would lead one to be an absolutist. Take the example of cycling. We do not define a cyclist as someone who rides their bicycle for every trip they take. Furthermore we do not define a cyclist as someone who never drives a car.
In summary, it’s silly to exclude people who occasionally eat meat from being called vegetarians. A practice of inclusion rather than exclusion might even attract more people to eat a more plant-based diet.
Vegetarianism differs from the other political beliefs and lifestyle choices in that it is perceived as carrying a value judgment. To non-vegetarians, vegetarianism is implied criticism. And to some other vegetarians, vegetarianism is a moral criticism of animal consumption, so for a vegetarian to consume animals would be a betrayal.
More than any of these other choices, vegetarianism is held up to constant scrutiny. Vegetarians frequently have to respond to statements such as, “plants are living things, too,” or “animals would eat you, so why is it wrong to eat them?” I sometimes wonder if people feel a defensive need to challenge vegetarians because, around vegetarians, they feel forced to face their own sort of uncomfortable existential shame. Of course plants are living things; humans are unable to harvest sunlight energy to fix atmospheric carbon into a chemically reactive compound, and we must thus consume other living things with this ability in order to survive. And we all must kill to live.
There’s definitely a reasonable philosophical argument against eating other sentient beings, but as a vegan, I don’t believe it’s morally wrong to eat animals. It makes sense to eat animals from a hunter-gatherer perspective, because the caloric return per time and energy of investment would be much greater for hunting than gathering. It makes sense to eat grazing animals, because we cannot digest grass. Cows and bison can convert the sunlight energy locked in grasses on marginal land into a form we can utilize.
However, there is a HUGE difference between eating sustainably fished and hunted animals and our current practices of overharvesting and factory farming. The return on investment has completely diminished; we must now input far more energy and resources than we get out from the meat. There are moral issues with converting the rainforest and most of the natural environments in the Midwest to ag fields that are mostly used to feed livestock in feedlots. Loss of habitat, water consumption, fertilizer and pesticide pollution…all to feed far fewer people than vegetables grown on that same area of land would feed. There are moral and health issues with the conditions under which animals live in those feedlots. Cows are supposed to eat grass, not corn. Crowding and disease result in antibiotic pollution. And humans are supposed to drink human milk as babies, but at some point we need to be weaned. It seems strange to then steal the milk intended for other species’ offspring.
So, certainly, there are many reasons to be vegetarian besides strict animal rights. If one chooses to be vegetarian because they feel it is completely wrong to eat animals, then they should probably never eat meat. But many vegetarians are probably more concerned with health, the environment, inhumane treatment of food animals, etc. I agree that they should not be condemned for consuming an occasional animal product, because anyone who considers themselves a vegetarian is doing FAR more to reduce their impacts in these areas than the average omnivore. And we do need more of them.
“The best way to get more out of energy, by a fairly wide margin, is low-tech and unsexy: density.”
David Roberts, “Local Power: Tapping Distributed Energy in 21st-Century Cities”
(via davidgalestudios)
(via smartercities)
One day, after all the drain tiles and dams that have served their purposes have been removed, and some woodlands and prairies have been replanted, restorationists will turn to bulldozing the suburbs.
(via cheyenneobvious)
the carbon footprint of one 500ml water bottle = 1000 litres of tap water too.
I hate people why buy bottled water because they think they’re better than us tapwater plebeians
And who owns water? Corporations such as Nestle (which also owns the brands Arrowhead, Calistoga, Dear Park, Ice Mountain, Ozarka, Perrier, Poland Spring, S. Pellegrino, and Zephyrhills) profit by bottling cheap municipal sources, which the public has already paid to purify, and selling it back to them. What’s worse, they build large bottling plants in rural communities, such as in central Michigan, and pump out the free groundwater. This drains the lakes and wells of local residents, leaving them dry and forcing them to buy their own water back at the corporate markup.
(via ialmostlaugh)
I used to do this all the time but I got tired of undressing every time I had to pee.
conserving water ftw ♥
PETA’s Sexy Campaigns Miss Just About Every Mark
Every time I learn about one of PETA’s “confrontational” new campaigns, I want to cram foie gras in my mouth, wear veal earrings and slip into a bikini made entirely of tuna.
Then, I want to order dolphin sashimi, dress my cats in ermine and, in short, behave in a manner that distances me a million miles from this sexed-up Hello Kitty turn on food ethics.
PETA describes itself a “Sexy Celeb Supporter”. That this mission statement might be applied equally to push-up bras makes sense. Frilly and precious, PETA is far too tied up with its appearance to, say, take any practical steps toward animal welfare in the Gulf of Mexico.
You’d think an organization like PETA might want to roll its sleeves up and help manage this habitat calamity. No. But they did release this intriguing press statement. PETA says that if we want to help injured Gulf animals, what we really should do is stop eating meat.
According to PETA, the devastation of marine animal populations is the result of the pot-roast you ate last Thursday. It has nothing to do with BP.
No. I don’t understand it either.
As oiled seabirds die a slow, painful death, PETA turns its attention back to core business: titties.
Big titties.
PETA’s newest Rad and Refreshing billboard takes a slice of British cheesecake to make the claim that a high-fat diet ends in a low-fat penis. The model, by-the-by, is called Chantelle and she started her climb to vegetarian stardom on the greasy poles of motorcycle trade shows. Then, she won a Reality TV contest. Now, she’s here to school you boys about the health of your omnivorous dongs.
Chantelle might be very nice and I’m glad she’s turned her charms into cash. God knows, I’d hold a flaccid wiener for money if I had the décolleté for it. It certainly looks easier than writing. Far be it from me to go on and interminably on about the objectification of flesh; processed into a sausage skin or otherwise. It’s not Chantelle I find repugnant. It is the sex reflex of her current employers.
WTF is it with PETA? Who among their number holds a sub-standard MBA and the shop-worn conviction that “sex sells”? Sure, sex sells some stuff. Sales of cars, footwear and quality linen can all be improved with sex. But, sex doesn’t sell everything. There’s a range of goods and services that cannot be convincingly promoted with sex. These include, but are by no means limited to, bank loans, floor coverings and responsible eating.
It’s easy to change into a pink pair of frilly panties. It is far more difficult to change what’s inside the pantries of the world. When it comes to what we put in our mouths, we tend to resist good advice. Sometimes, though, we might hear something so rational that we begin to think before we shop.
Personally, I could not resist the plain talk and neat thought of Michael Pollan. It was Pollan who drove me to buy only ethically grown meats. In small portions. And it was Pollan who alerted me, and many vegetarians, to the shocking practices of agribusiness. In short, we learned that the production of plant foods can be just as unethical, unsustainable and crap as the raising of meat.
But. The ethical flaws of a vegetarian world-view aside: Pollan got inside my gut. And he did so with reason, research and argument. And I have no wish to know what color panties he wore when he wrote The Omnivore’s Dilemma.
This is how you change consumption for the greater good. You just can’t achieve it with a pair of tits and the threat of a floppy wang. And, you can’t achieve it by being racist tools.
Did you see this PETA dump on first nation people from back in February? The same “consciousness raising” vegans that used several of the world’s most expensive titties to save a few contaminated rabbits were making fun of the Inuit. Seriously. Who gives a flying frankfurter if the Inuit club a few seals? They don’t have nationhood, dental care or iPhones. Who in their right mind would begrudge these people a few dozen marine mammals?
For years now, this organization has colluded with famous idiots. Using the vacant mechanism of celebrity, it has attempted to jam the machine of animal slaughter. It has asked Naomi Campbell (still an unapologetic fur-wearer) to pose nude for its anti-fur campaign. It has lured vegan Playboy models into its employ and draped them publicly in lettuce leaves. Yes, girls, it’s apparently fine to inject poison into your tits and show your asshole to Hef and the world for money. But eating little lambs is Just Not Cool.
I hope Gaia is sick on them all.
But, aside from leaving all those animals to die in the Gulf, PETA’s saddest fail is its stupid beauty pageant.
Every year, it unstraps the bong from its smug vegetarian face and names Sexy Vegetarians. None of whom, as it happens, this guilty omnivore wants to eat. (OK. Except for Alyssa Milano.)
This is the problem with using one-size-fits-all sex. When mass culture spews out its sausage feed of lust, it can look as appetizing as head-cheese.
PETA, I am a principled eater and my omnvorism is certainly up for sale. But you simply will not buy it with your sexy, celeb-supporting processed meat.
(via Jezebel)
Sadly, PETA has failed to realize the irony of its own tactics. Treating animals as objects for consumption is shameful, but presenting women as objects for a different type of consumption is perfectly acceptable. However, your response is irrational. Just because one group’s brand of activism is unfortunate and tasteless doesn’t mean the movement is invalid. Surely, there are some embarrassing feminist and pro-choice groups, but they wouldn’t convince any of us to run to the other side.
And unfortunately, PETA does point out an uncomfortable reality. Our wanton consumption habits, including meat consumption, have contributed to habitat loss and species extinction more than anything else. It’s easy to point the finger at big, evil, profit-grubbing BP instead of inspecting our own roles in this mess. It’s our consumption that made them profitable, that made them drill in the Gulf. And the amount of resources consumed by the livestock industry is staggering. The UN and IPCC have both begun advocating vegan and vegetarian diets for very valid reasons, including water shortages, climate change, world hunger, rainforest destruction, pesticide and fertilizer pollution, etc.
Michael Pollan is a wonderful writer who has brought food production issues to the general public in a captivating way. I’m curious what ethical flaws you see with a vegetarian diet. It’s true that plant production often results in heavy environmental damage, but livestock then eat those plants. And they eat them in much greater quantities than we do, and provide us with far less protein than the entire mass of plants they’ve eaten would. So an omnivorous diet thus requires the devastation of far more land than a vegetarian or vegan diet, which is completely irresponsible and unsustainable with today’s population.
If your omnivorism really is up for sale, and you require rational, scientific research, as opposed to the bawdy, offensive tactics of PETA, then I urge you to check out the UN report, “Livestock’s Long Shadow”.
Human Race to be extinct in 100 years
therecipe:adailyriot:jasencomstock:danielholter:
A professor of microbiology at the Australian National University believes that humans will become extinct in the next hundred years.
Fran Fennner, who helped eradicate smallpox, believes “It’s an irreversible situation. I think it’s too late.”
He says the real problem is increasing population and “unbridled consumption” and he doesn’t think we’ll curb greenhouse gas emissions either.
This is stupid, and circulation of these sentiments only perpetuates the idea that environmentalists are doomsday extremists. 100 notes already?? How about a little critical thinking, fellow tumblrs? We are certainly facing problems of increasing population, increasing consumption, and climate change. Human populations will be stressed, but this article says nothing about how this would contribute to the extinction of the entire human race. We are facing problems similar to ancient societies that have collapsed, but there are also many differences. Those populations were isolated; note that at the time those societies collapsed, the human race didn’t disappear. We definitely need to curb consumption and population growth, but sending such an apocalyptic statement is counter-productive.
