Breaking....vedge?

Share your recipes and great shopping spots with the rest of us.
User avatar
the croc
Posts: 5663
Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2006 6:35 pm
Location: Wellington/At sea
Contact:

Re: Breaking....vedge?

Postby the croc » Mon Jul 08, 2013 7:45 pm

+1

Buuuuuut......

Gonna be a pedantic fuckwit here about the fishing. One of the largest fishing vessels in the world (Margiris) can process roughly 75,000 tonnes a year. The Atlantic cod fishery between 1800 and 1900 alone involved hundreds if not thousands of boats that caught well over 750 tonnes a year. Your point still stands however, just the facts are wrong.

I have a problem with dismissing the sentient plants argument because there is plenty of science out there that is pretty damn convincing. It comes down to how you interpret what it means. My mum got me this book which I haven't read yet but I have read plenty similar.

Image

There is lots of stuff about plants growing better listening to Bach rather than Led Zeppelin (comes down to the drumming), suicidal altruistic responses by plants first hit by disease to save the other plants around them, and plants respond to external stimuli in a huge number of ways. Humans and plants are both aware of complex light environments, intricate aromas, different physical stimulations, have preferences for all of those and have memory. Plants are aware.

For me personally everything should be respected. To be brutally honest I think most people's sympathies lie with things they see that reflect themselves, things that give them attention and things that are charismatic creatures. Hence why people love monkey's, cats, dogs, tigers and dolphins. They get something out of the relationship and so it ends up more about how they feel than the actual animal in question. Plants are capable of very similar responses to animals, but because they are so alien to us in both physiology and appearance we can't relate to them, and so we care less. We revere what is familiar and disdain what we don't understand.

Who's a better person, someone who lives on a farm, hunts, fishes and eats home kill and grows their own veges and makes a living off the excess or an urbanite vegan who works in an office and who buys everything from the supermarket? A little bit straw man perhaps but the point is that it's not as simple as eating or not eating animals. It's more than that, a holistic way about how you live your life, the impact that you have on the landbase whether that means the local watershed or a South American soy bean farm and whether or not you think about your purchasing decisions or are just another mindless drone.

I don't exactly know what my overall point is other than respect everything and take nothing for granted.

Edited for shit grammar and clarity.
Last edited by the croc on Mon Jul 08, 2013 10:24 pm, edited 1 time in total.
There's more to life than thrash
So let's get really smashed
and do the heavy head dance

www.facebook.com/paekakpunkshow

User avatar
Philfy Vermin
Posts: 2438
Joined: Sun Mar 31, 2013 9:13 am
Location: pointing two fingers at head and making 'peow' noises

Re: Breaking....vedge?

Postby Philfy Vermin » Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 pm

^i pretty much agree with that, all life deserves respect.
Hail to the demons of the earth and kaos anarchy and destruction to those who exploit our human rights and starve the poor and make us suffer for the dead now walk the earth the armys of the dead hail vampires and all creatures of the night hail to the white moon and drtink the blood of our enimies and paint the town red


General Mutante wrote:You're so controversial. I can't handle it.

User avatar
PertHJ
Inventor of 'LOAL'
Posts: 19701
Joined: Tue Aug 20, 2002 8:53 pm
Location: Milano

Re: Breaking....vedge?

Postby PertHJ » Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:29 pm

another good post!

I bought that book for my mum for her birthday, been meaning to read it myself
http://hungjurynz.bandcamp.com/
http://www.discogs.com/user/pertHJ

Drinking beers, hell yeah!! Smoking dope, KICK TO THROAT!!

User avatar
BanalityDUFF
Posts: 1954
Joined: Fri Feb 25, 2005 8:01 pm
Location: Brisbane

Re: Breaking....vedge?

Postby BanalityDUFF » Mon Jul 08, 2013 10:49 pm

the croc wrote:here about the fishing. One of the largest fishing vessels in the world (Margiris) can process roughly 75,000 tonnes a year. The Atlantic cod fishery between 1800 and 1900 alone involved hundreds if not thousands of boats that caught well over 750 tonnes a year. Your point still stands however, just the facts are wrong.

I have a problem as well with dismissing the sentient plants argument as because there is plenty of science out there that is pretty damn convincing. It comes down to how you interpret what it means. My mum got me this book which I haven't read yet but I have read plenty similar.


i must admit i pulled the fish quote totally out of thin air. 8) it was more just to illustrate how more efficient we are at harvesting live animals than our ancestors were.

i will track down that plant book. most of the reactions of plants i've read haven't being that convincing to me, mostly it's just how they re-act to different variables but that is largely to be expected with most living things.

Who's a better person, someone who lives on a farm, hunts, fishes and eats home kill and grows their own veges and makes a living off the excess or an urbanite vegan works in an office and who buys everything from the supermarket? A little bit straw man perhaps but the point is that it's not as simple as eating or not eating animals. It more than that, a holistic way about how you live your life, the impact that you have on the landbase whether that means the local watershed or a South American soy bean farm and whether or not you think about your purchasing decisions or are just another mindless drone.


depends what you consider 'better'? their impact on the environment? their ability to enrich the lives of their community? a combination of both? or a whole different set of criteria.

i've read in a book just recently that living in a city is about the best thing the average person can do for the environment - certain caveats apply. a city living person uses less land, uses less resources (and thus has a lesser impact on the environment) in general than a person living in the country.
you also have to weigh up the social utility of a person living on a farm, tending their own garden and live-stock both of which would take up considerable amounts of time which would in turn lessen their ability to specialise in non-essential areas (the arts and education for example). an urbanite who buys everything from the grocery store is trading their skills for money to mean they don't have to have the specialised skills of making bread, mending their own clothes, or killing their own animals. they're then free to utilize their time in areas that may be more beneficial.
doctors who spend 10 hours a day in the hospital, for example, would have to dramatically cut back their ability to help others if they wanted to live off the land as it will and tend their crops and live-stock.

think about the environmental impact of 7 billion people reverting to what is essentially subsistence living. the environmental impact would be dramatic just because of the sheer volume of space needed to accommodate everyone.


purchasing power is a difficult scenario because there are so many elements to juggle that it's very difficult to find a sound answer. is it reasonable to import soy-bean from south america? i'm not entirely sure, but is it better to not import it and have those people unable to support their families? then it becomes an issue of what is ohk and not ohk to import from overseas? (should we just stop international trade all together?)
food is a reasonably easy avenue to buy locally (depending on what you call local, that is). I live in a city (brisbane) and the vast majority of my food comes from within my state (QLD) although a few products come from further abroad (other states) and a few from overseas (most of the cleaning products i buy here come from NZ). This is a reflection of eating mainly whole foods which can be sourced more readily from local farmers markets/the quality of supermarket produce being shyt over here.
within my house there are loads of things that come from further abroad (electronics from asia; books from england; music from america; clothing from india).

what would be acceptable terms for bringing those items from abroad? a once yearly purchase and shipment on behalf of all australians as a whole? reverting back to time consuming wind driven boats? just doing without them entirely which brings us back to the issue of specialisation - which i would find more difficult without the aid of technology.

i do agree that people need to think more carefully about their spending and where it's coming from but at the same time i think there are huge benefits to global trade and that these benefits may outweigh the environmental impact they have because of the social benefits they produce. this is not to say it wouldn't be awesome to find cleaner ways to doing it.

User avatar
dustbinflowers
Posts: 6644
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2005 2:41 pm
Location: Portside

Re: Breaking....vedge?

Postby dustbinflowers » Tue Jul 09, 2013 8:52 am

agree with Croc's post re plant sentience and human attitudes towards other life.
Also, I will have to track down that book
Uncinia vector

Lentil
Posts: 1574
Joined: Sun Mar 20, 2005 7:52 pm
Location: Wellington

Re: Breaking....vedge?

Postby Lentil » Tue Jul 09, 2013 10:05 pm

Thoughts...

I don't know about the south American soy beans Croc mentions but Vitasoy a popular soymilk bought here is made from organic and non GM soybeans grown in Australia. If there were more people drinking soymilk in NZ then we would be more likely to be drinking soy milk from beans grown here.

I agree with Banality Duff about the urban lifestyle often better for the environment - by using less land per person (especially those in apartments) and less transport is needed if you can walk/bike to school/work/shops etc. You can also have an urban vege patch or plot in a community garden.

If you are vegan as well you aren't supporting the pollution, large use of water, import of palm byproducts and methane emissions etc. from the dairy industry.

Plants being sentinent, if this was so you would be saving more plants being a herbivore, because a omnivore consumes big herbivores who eat way more plants than you could get through being a vegan.

User avatar
dustbinflowers
Posts: 6644
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2005 2:41 pm
Location: Portside

Re: Breaking....vedge?

Postby dustbinflowers » Wed Jul 10, 2013 9:37 am

Lentil wrote:
I don't know about the south American soy beans Croc mentions but Vitasoy a popular soymilk bought here is made from organic and non GM soybeans grown in Australia. If there were more people drinking soymilk in NZ then we would be more likely to be drinking soy milk from beans grown here.


I disagree on this- NZ's available agricultural land isn't enough to produce wheat- especially also because of dairy production- but even before the dairy takeover of arable land in the last 15 years, almost all the wheat eaten by NZers was Australian.
The ecologist Tim Flannery controversially stated that Australians are better off eating wild meat such as kangaroo, rather than eat Australian wheat, since seven kilograms of soil are used to produce one kilogram of wheat. Whole ecosystems are lost when forests are cleared to plant crops and toxic pesticides for maintaining crops also cause animal deaths.
I'm not suggesting going out and eating kangaroo- just that it is not as black and white as you stated. I don't agree with everything Tim Flannery says (he also reckons that the future of power production is nuclear) but I respect him as an ecologist.

I know there are commercial crops of soy grown around Motueka, but I think they need relatively warm conditions to grow. One of the tofu makers- Soyworks I think- uses pretty much all the commercial soy grown in NZ. Hmmm, I will have to find out if they will grow in Canterbury!


If you are vegan as well you aren't supporting the pollution, large use of water, import of palm byproducts and methane emissions etc. from the dairy industry.


A bit of a simplification there- any agriculture uses vast amounts of water in a not very efficient way- irrigation and nitrate runoff into rivers till happens, although admittedly, it is probably at lesser levels. NZ's soils are naturally really deficient in some trace minerals, and for most crops the only cost efficient way to work is by throwing huge amounts of super phosphate on the land every couple of years. And there are plenty of palm products used in everything.

Plants being sentinent, if this was so you would be saving more plants being a herbivore, because a omnivore consumes big herbivores who eat way more plants than you could get through being a vegan.


Uh Huh, and you could say that you were vege not because you love animals, but because you really, really hate plants.. :twisted:

Just to be clear here, I am playing devils advocate a bit here. I just hate overly simplified arguments- while they may make people feel better, they hide other problems. I've found alot of vege and vegan foods have massive amounts of packaging, processing, additives and food miles, and for me those are as serious considerations as the other ethical factors.
Uncinia vector

User avatar
Philfy Vermin
Posts: 2438
Joined: Sun Mar 31, 2013 9:13 am
Location: pointing two fingers at head and making 'peow' noises

Re: Breaking....vedge?

Postby Philfy Vermin » Wed Jul 10, 2013 9:52 am

yeh i get a wee bit annoyed at vegans who dont take anything else into consideration as long as its nominally vegan, i know this is an old tired argument, but it will probably never go away, its just kinda offensive when people strive to keep a 'vegan' label, but happily buy fake chucks from number1 shoe warehouse or whatever.

that said, i dont wanna discourage veganism or anything, its pretty much the shit, its just some people lose sight of why they are doing it, and then refuse to acknowledge the truth when its pointed out.
Hail to the demons of the earth and kaos anarchy and destruction to those who exploit our human rights and starve the poor and make us suffer for the dead now walk the earth the armys of the dead hail vampires and all creatures of the night hail to the white moon and drtink the blood of our enimies and paint the town red


General Mutante wrote:You're so controversial. I can't handle it.

User avatar
dustbinflowers
Posts: 6644
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2005 2:41 pm
Location: Portside

Re: Breaking....vedge?

Postby dustbinflowers » Wed Jul 10, 2013 10:13 am

I would never question someone having made a personal choice for doing something, but I am happy to discuss their justifications :)
Uncinia vector

Lentil
Posts: 1574
Joined: Sun Mar 20, 2005 7:52 pm
Location: Wellington

Re: Breaking....vedge?

Postby Lentil » Wed Jul 10, 2013 7:35 pm

The ecologist Tim Flannery controversially stated that Australians are better off eating wild meat such as kangaroo, rather than eat Australian wheat, since seven kilograms of soil are used to produce one kilogram of wheat. Whole ecosystems are lost when forests are cleared to plant crops and toxic pesticides for maintaining crops also cause animal deaths.


I am unsure about the benefits of eating kangaroos. If you encourage a large population like that of Australia to go out into the wild and shoot kangaroos for their BBQ etc I think it would make quite an impact on the kangaroo population. I am curious how he envisages that in practice?


Re crops - a lot of the crops grown on deforested land are not directly for human consumption but for the animals that people want to eat. Way less land would be needed if crops were to go directly to people.

WWF Most people associate soy with tofu and soy milk. However, only a small portion of soy is consumed directly by humans. In fact, most of the world’s soy crop ends up in feed for poultry, pork, cattle and even farmed fish.

Unbeknownst to most of us, soy is found in almost all commercially produced meat or chicken that we eat.

And unfortunately, the expansion of soy to feed the world’s growing demand for meat often contributes to deforestation and the loss of other valuable ecosystems in Latin America.

What’s happening?
In addition to the general growth in demand for food products, economic development has increased demand for meat, dairy, vegetables and fruit and fats.

To feed a larger, more urban and richer population in the future, food production must increase by 70%.

The major increase in soybean cultivation is a direct response to this growing demand. Soybean meal is the largest source of protein feed in the world, and is generally used in animal feed.


People consume a little less than half (48 percent) of the world’s grain directly—as steamed rice, bread, tortillas, or millet cakes, for instance. Roughly one third (35 percent) becomes livestock feed. And a growing share, 17 percent, is used to make ethanol and other fuels.


A widely cited 2006 report estimated that 18% of worldwide greenhouse gas emissions were attributable to cattle, buffalo, sheep, goats, camels, pigs and poultry. However, analysis performed by Goodland, with co-writer Jeff Anhang, an environmental specialist at the World Bank Group’s International Finance Corporation, found that figure to now more accurately be 51%.

Consequently, state the pair, replacing livestock products with meat alternatives would “have far more rapid effects on greenhouse gas emissions and their atmospheric concentrations — and thus on the rate the climate is warming — than actions to replace fossil fuels with renewable energy.”

...The human population is expected to grow by 35% between 2006 and 2050, while livestock numbers are expected to double during the same period.

“This would make the amount of livestock-related emissions even more unacceptable than today’s perilous levels,” states the report. “It also means that an effective strategy must involve replacing livestock products with better alternatives, rather than substituting one meat product with another that has a somewhat lower carbon footprint.”


Farming animals in New Zealand contributes to around 50% of our greenhouse gas emissions and methane from farm animals is 21 times more powerful than carbon dioxide.

And there are plenty of palm products used in everything.


No not everything and where possible I try to avoid palm products by buying a similar product that doesn't include them or go without.

I just hate overly simplified arguments- while they may make people feel better, they hide other problems. I've found alot of vege and vegan foods have massive amounts of packaging, processing, additives and food miles, and for me those are as serious considerations as the other ethical factors.


This really depends on what type of vegan diet you have. We take our own bags to the vege farmers market every week, take our own bags to the indian supermarket and buy a variety of beans from their bulk food bins, grow some of our own veges and buy some food from the supermarket buying fairtrade coffee and tea and food that is packaged but it is hard to avoid packaging completely but generally it isn't highly processed with loads of additives etc

yeh i get a wee bit annoyed at vegans who dont take anything else into consideration as long as its nominally vegan, i know this is an old tired argument, but it will probably never go away, its just kinda offensive when people strive to keep a 'vegan' label, but happily buy fake chucks from number1 shoe warehouse or whatever.


To be honest I know a lot of vegans and not really any that would fit that description of being single issue and many that volunteer their spare time on reforestation projects and human rights issues.
If you are on a low income with a family it is hard to pay top dollar for everything to avoid slave labour but you try your best.

User avatar
the croc
Posts: 5663
Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2006 6:35 pm
Location: Wellington/At sea
Contact:

Re: Breaking....vedge?

Postby the croc » Wed Jul 10, 2013 10:54 pm

BanalityDUFF wrote:
the croc wrote:here about the fishing. One of the largest fishing vessels in the world (Margiris) can process roughly 75,000 tonnes a year. The Atlantic cod fishery between 1800 and 1900 alone involved hundreds if not thousands of boats that caught well over 750 tonnes a year. Your point still stands however, just the facts are wrong.

I have a problem as well with dismissing the sentient plants argument as because there is plenty of science out there that is pretty damn convincing. It comes down to how you interpret what it means. My mum got me this book which I haven't read yet but I have read plenty similar.


i must admit i pulled the fish quote totally out of thin air. 8) it was more just to illustrate how more efficient we are at harvesting live animals than our ancestors were.

i will track down that plant book. most of the reactions of plants i've read haven't being that convincing to me, mostly it's just how they re-act to different variables but that is largely to be expected with most living things.

Who's a better person, someone who lives on a farm, hunts, fishes and eats home kill and grows their own veges and makes a living off the excess or an urbanite vegan works in an office and who buys everything from the supermarket? A little bit straw man perhaps but the point is that it's not as simple as eating or not eating animals. It more than that, a holistic way about how you live your life, the impact that you have on the landbase whether that means the local watershed or a South American soy bean farm and whether or not you think about your purchasing decisions or are just another mindless drone.


depends what you consider 'better'? their impact on the environment? their ability to enrich the lives of their community? a combination of both? or a whole different set of criteria.


Yeah sure. It comes down to every ones own arbitrary set of values. For myself its leaving the areas I live in and the areas I spend time in in better shape when I die than before I was born. I'm worried more about things on the ecosystem level than the individual. This doesn't mean when I go goat shooting that I have a blood-thirst and I want to see the animals suffer. I love the bush and so my main goal is to protect the bush as a whole. That means dealing with things that are excessively damaging whether that being weeding out noxious plants or killing animals. I don't enjoy the act of killing, but I take responsibility for it and try to reduce the suffering as much as possible. I take the back legs, the pigs clean up the rest of the goat in a few days and eventually someone else goes out and gets the pig.

BanalityDUFF wrote:i've read in a book just recently that living in a city is about the best thing the average person can do for the environment - certain caveats apply. a city living person uses less land, uses less resources (and thus has a lesser impact on the environment) in general than a person living in the country.
you also have to weigh up the social utility of a person living on a farm, tending their own garden and live-stock both of which would take up considerable amounts of time which would in turn lessen their ability to specialise in non-essential areas (the arts and education for example). an urbanite who buys everything from the grocery store is trading their skills for money to mean they don't have to have the specialised skills of making bread, mending their own clothes, or killing their own animals. they're then free to utilize their time in areas that may be more beneficial.
doctors who spend 10 hours a day in the hospital, for example, would have to dramatically cut back their ability to help others if they wanted to live off the land as it will and tend their crops and live-stock.

think about the environmental impact of 7 billion people reverting to what is essentially subsistence living. the environmental impact would be dramatic just because of the sheer volume of space needed to accommodate everyone.


Don't get me wrong my utopian ideal isn't all 7 billion people living as farmers. Cities serve a variety of important functions, I just think that we mostly do them wrong. Specialisation of vocations goes without saying. That's what community is built on.

There is plenty of research out there that modern urbanites have less free time than their historical rural counterparts. Don't forget there is some incredible music and writing that comes from rural communities. There is actually a vegan homesteading couple in the other thread on here about back to the land/ self sufficiency (page 3). "Their diet was vegan, with fruit in the morning, vegetable soup and whole grains at lunch, and a big salad for dinner. They snacked on nuts, honey, and peanut butter and avoided refined flour, sugar and white rice. They opposed food additives and food processing. Instead of refrigeration, which would shackle them to distant electrical interests, they made do with root cellars. Their time was split between chores, which took half the day, and reading and writing, music, and social activities. All was part of an integrated whole, each portion as valuable as the other, and all fulfilling."


BanalityDUFF wrote:purchasing power is a difficult scenario because there are so many elements to juggle that it's very difficult to find a sound answer. is it reasonable to import soy-bean from south america? i'm not entirely sure, but is it better to not import it and have those people unable to support their families? then it becomes an issue of what is ohk and not ohk to import from overseas? (should we just stop international trade all together?)
food is a reasonably easy avenue to buy locally (depending on what you call local, that is). I live in a city (brisbane) and the vast majority of my food comes from within my state (QLD) although a few products come from further abroad (other states) and a few from overseas (most of the cleaning products i buy here come from NZ). This is a reflection of eating mainly whole foods which can be sourced more readily from local farmers markets/the quality of supermarket produce being shyt over here.
within my house there are loads of things that come from further abroad (electronics from asia; books from england; music from america; clothing from india).

what would be acceptable terms for bringing those items from abroad? a once yearly purchase and shipment on behalf of all australians as a whole? reverting back to time consuming wind driven boats? just doing without them entirely which brings us back to the issue of specialisation - which i would find more difficult without the aid of technology.

i do agree that people need to think more carefully about their spending and where it's coming from but at the same time i think there are huge benefits to global trade and that these benefits may outweigh the environmental impact they have because of the social benefits they produce. this is not to say it wouldn't be awesome to find cleaner ways to doing it.


Trade is inevitable. It's not about restricting trade per se but being more smart about what we grow and make ourselves and what we import. Is it better to have cheap disposable electronics and cheap second hand cars or a decent manufacturing industry? Is it better to have cheap Chinese garlic with perhaps dodgy growing practices or New Zealand garlic that is grown under conditions you know will be safe and know will be providing jobs for someone locally?
There's more to life than thrash
So let's get really smashed
and do the heavy head dance

www.facebook.com/paekakpunkshow

User avatar
the croc
Posts: 5663
Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2006 6:35 pm
Location: Wellington/At sea
Contact:

Re: Breaking....vedge?

Postby the croc » Wed Jul 10, 2013 11:16 pm

Lentil wrote:Thoughts...

I don't know about the south American soy beans Croc mentions but Vitasoy a popular soymilk bought here is made from organic and non GM soybeans grown in Australia. If there were more people drinking soymilk in NZ then we would be more likely to be drinking soy milk from beans grown here.

I agree with Banality Duff about the urban lifestyle often better for the environment - by using less land per person (especially those in apartments) and less transport is needed if you can walk/bike to school/work/shops etc. You can also have an urban vege patch or plot in a community garden.

If you are vegan as well you aren't supporting the pollution, large use of water, import of palm byproducts and methane emissions etc. from the dairy industry.

Plants being sentinent, if this was so you would be saving more plants being a herbivore, because a omnivore consumes big herbivores who eat way more plants than you could get through being a vegan.


Personally I don't have a problem with dairy, but a do have a problem with industrial scale dairy intensification and shithead farmers.

You can be a dairy free meat eater for completely non moral reasons (ie lactose intolerant) and you aren't supporting the pollution, large use of water, import of palm byproducts and methane emissions etc. from the dairy industry either.

The plants are sentient/self aware argument runs into semantics. Plants are sentient based on most dictionary definitions. That doesn't mean they are self aware or conscious. Nor does it mean they can feel pain or suffering. So if that happens to be your criteria is it ok to kill an animal in a way where it doesn't feel pain and suffering, say a lethal injection of morphine?

Most veges/vegans I know would say no. The life of an animal has value over and above whether or not it can feel pain and suffering. So what is it then that people want to save animals for? I think it goes back to the reasons I raised before. We see in animals a reflection of ourselves.
There's more to life than thrash
So let's get really smashed
and do the heavy head dance

www.facebook.com/paekakpunkshow

User avatar
the croc
Posts: 5663
Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2006 6:35 pm
Location: Wellington/At sea
Contact:

Re: Breaking....vedge?

Postby the croc » Wed Jul 10, 2013 11:35 pm

Lentil wrote:
The ecologist Tim Flannery controversially stated that Australians are better off eating wild meat such as kangaroo, rather than eat Australian wheat, since seven kilograms of soil are used to produce one kilogram of wheat. Whole ecosystems are lost when forests are cleared to plant crops and toxic pesticides for maintaining crops also cause animal deaths.


I am unsure about the benefits of eating kangaroos. If you encourage a large population like that of Australia to go out into the wild and shoot kangaroos for their BBQ etc I think it would make quite an impact on the kangaroo population. I am curious how he envisages that in practice?


I doubt he means they way you have framed it. Harvest management of wild populations is perfectly achievable when you look after the resource.

Lentil wrote:Re crops - a lot of the crops grown on deforested land are not directly for human consumption but for the animals that people want to eat. Way less land would be needed if crops were to go directly to people.


Two things. One: There are other ways of livestock rearing that doesn't require deforestation. I doubt anyone here supports industrial scale meat production. Two: Most of (not all) the crops that are fed directly to animals aren't fit for human consumption anyway. Dairy cows in NZ are generally fed supplementary feed of maize grain, maize silage or palm kernel. Good luck eating any of that. Now of course that area that was used to grow supplementary feed could be used to grow something else that was fit for human consumption.

Lentil wrote:
WWF Most people associate soy with tofu and soy milk. However, only a small portion of soy is consumed directly by humans. In fact, most of the world’s soy crop ends up in feed for poultry, pork, cattle and even farmed fish.

Unbeknownst to most of us, soy is found in almost all commercially produced meat or chicken that we eat.

And unfortunately, the expansion of soy to feed the world’s growing demand for meat often contributes to deforestation and the loss of other valuable ecosystems in Latin America.

What’s happening?
In addition to the general growth in demand for food products, economic development has increased demand for meat, dairy, vegetables and fruit and fats.

To feed a larger, more urban and richer population in the future, food production must increase by 70%.

The major increase in soybean cultivation is a direct response to this growing demand. Soybean meal is the largest source of protein feed in the world, and is generally used in animal feed.


Yep sure but it's not the case in New Zealand.

dustbinflowers wrote:I would never question someone having made a personal choice for doing something, but I am happy to discuss their justifications :)


That's exactly it.
There's more to life than thrash
So let's get really smashed
and do the heavy head dance

www.facebook.com/paekakpunkshow

Lentil
Posts: 1574
Joined: Sun Mar 20, 2005 7:52 pm
Location: Wellington

Re: Breaking....vedge?

Postby Lentil » Thu Jul 11, 2013 5:52 pm

WWF Most people associate soy with tofu and soy milk. However, only a small portion of soy is consumed directly by humans. In fact, most of the world’s soy crop ends up in feed for poultry, pork, cattle and even farmed fish.

Unbeknownst to most of us, soy is found in almost all commercially produced meat or chicken that we eat.

And unfortunately, the expansion of soy to feed the world’s growing demand for meat often contributes to deforestation and the loss of other valuable ecosystems in Latin America.

What’s happening?
In addition to the general growth in demand for food products, economic development has increased demand for meat, dairy, vegetables and fruit and fats.

To feed a larger, more urban and richer population in the future, food production must increase by 70%.

The major increase in soybean cultivation is a direct response to this growing demand. Soybean meal is the largest source of protein feed in the world, and is generally used in animal feed.

Yep sure but it's not the case in New Zealand.


You brought up the vegans and south American soy first so I replied. In New Zealand most soy is more likely to come from Australia and South American soy is more likely to go to feeding farm animals.


Kangaroos - I doubt he means they way you have framed it. Harvest management of wild populations is perfectly achievable when you look after the resource.


I don't think it would be a big answer to feeding millions of Aussies though.

Two things. One: There are other ways of livestock rearing that doesn't require deforestation. I doubt anyone here supports industrial scale meat production. Two: Most of (not all) the crops that are fed directly to animals aren't fit for human consumption anyway. Dairy cows in NZ are generally fed supplementary feed of maize grain, maize silage or palm kernel. Good luck eating any of that. Now of course that area that was used to grow supplementary feed could be used to grow something else that was fit for human consumption.


If you want to eat a diet high in meat and dairy then as a global diet it will lead to deforestation and environmental disaster. A large portion of grain that is fit for humans is fed to animals.

I originally became vege after working as a musterer on a sheep farm hating it every time I got told to kill a sheep.

Since then I have also wanted to have a diet that is not globally greedy. A diet of the typical person in wealthy countries is not one that the planet could support if everyone in the world was to adopt it. In fact the planet is already in shit and as the population increases and people in the developing world continue to change their diets to be more like ours in NZ and other wealthy populations things aren't looking hopeful. We already have companies like Fonterra in Asia trying to sell dairy to people who traditionally don't consume dairy and they are busy researching ways of making it more palatable to the Asian taste buds.

•The total cattle population for the world is approximately 1.3 billion occupying some 24% of the land of the planet
•Some 70 to 80% of grain produced in the United States is fed to livestock
•Half the water consumed in the U.S. is used to grow grain for cattle feed.
•A gallon of gasoline is required to produce a pound of grain-fed beef.
Last edited by Lentil on Thu Jul 11, 2013 10:15 pm, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
the croc
Posts: 5663
Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2006 6:35 pm
Location: Wellington/At sea
Contact:

Re: Breaking....vedge?

Postby the croc » Thu Jul 11, 2013 7:02 pm

Lentil wrote:
WWF Most people associate soy with tofu and soy milk. However, only a small portion of soy is consumed directly by humans. In fact, most of the world’s soy crop ends up in feed for poultry, pork, cattle and even farmed fish.

Unbeknownst to most of us, soy is found in almost all commercially produced meat or chicken that we eat.

And unfortunately, the expansion of soy to feed the world’s growing demand for meat often contributes to deforestation and the loss of other valuable ecosystems in Latin America.

What’s happening?
In addition to the general growth in demand for food products, economic development has increased demand for meat, dairy, vegetables and fruit and fats.

To feed a larger, more urban and richer population in the future, food production must increase by 70%.

The major increase in soybean cultivation is a direct response to this growing demand. Soybean meal is the largest source of protein feed in the world, and is generally used in animal feed.

Yep sure but it's not the case in New Zealand.


You brought up the vegans and south American soy first so I replied. In New Zealand most soy is more likely to come from Australia and South American soy is more likely to go to feeding farm animals.


Fair enough


Lentil wrote:
Kangaroos - I doubt he means they way you have framed it. Harvest management of wild populations is perfectly achievable when you look after the resource.


I don't think it would be a big answer to feeding millions of Aussies though.


Neither does Tim Flannery according to what you quoted:

Lentil wrote:The ecologist Tim Flannery controversially stated that Australians are better off eating wild meat such as kangaroo...


Lentil wrote:
Two things. One: There are other ways of livestock rearing that doesn't require deforestation. I doubt anyone here supports industrial scale meat production. Two: Most of (not all) the crops that are fed directly to animals aren't fit for human consumption anyway. Dairy cows in NZ are generally fed supplementary feed of maize grain, maize silage or palm kernel. Good luck eating any of that. Now of course that area that was used to grow supplementary feed could be used to grow something else that was fit for human consumption.


A large portion of grain that is fit for humans is fed to animals as I said earlier.


There's enough food in the world to feed everyone it's just a distribution problem, right?
There's more to life than thrash
So let's get really smashed
and do the heavy head dance

www.facebook.com/paekakpunkshow

Lentil
Posts: 1574
Joined: Sun Mar 20, 2005 7:52 pm
Location: Wellington

Re: Breaking....vedge?

Postby Lentil » Thu Jul 11, 2013 7:21 pm

Yeah we could have enough food to feed the world without trashing it if we have a sustainable diet and capitalism abolished itself. After all there has been enough food to feed the world already but you get depressing scenarios of poor countries exporting food during famines and wealthy countries hoarding or dumping surplus while people starve in poor countries and on it goes.


Quote:

Kangaroos - I doubt he means they way you have framed it. Harvest management of wild populations is perfectly achievable when you look after the resource.


I don't think it would be a big answer to feeding millions of Aussies though.

Neither does Tim Flannery according to what you quoted
:


Yeah your right maybe what I am getting at is that it is not a big part of the solution because of this. Also I am replying to the original quote below. If Australians ate the same amount of Kangaroo as they do wheat then that would be a lot of kangaroos. Aussie is also one of the top 10 countries that export wheat .

The ecologist Tim Flannery controversially stated that Australians are better off eating wild meat such as kangaroo, rather than eat Australian wheat, since seven kilograms of soil are used to produce one kilogram of wheat.

User avatar
Philfy Vermin
Posts: 2438
Joined: Sun Mar 31, 2013 9:13 am
Location: pointing two fingers at head and making 'peow' noises

Re: Breaking....vedge?

Postby Philfy Vermin » Thu Jul 11, 2013 8:17 pm

ethical pissing contest
Hail to the demons of the earth and kaos anarchy and destruction to those who exploit our human rights and starve the poor and make us suffer for the dead now walk the earth the armys of the dead hail vampires and all creatures of the night hail to the white moon and drtink the blood of our enimies and paint the town red


General Mutante wrote:You're so controversial. I can't handle it.

User avatar
FC
Orange Ska Dork
Posts: 20816
Joined: Mon May 09, 2005 4:37 pm
Location: Manchester
Contact:

Re: Breaking....vedge?

Postby FC » Thu Jul 11, 2013 9:59 pm

Meat's pretty yum
PertHJ wrote:I disagree with Aidans divergence from ska music, but agree with his correct use of scientific terms


Ois II Men|Hatewanx|XfrankgrimesX

User avatar
mmmm....good crack
Posts: 4053
Joined: Tue Aug 20, 2002 5:00 pm
Location: down
Contact:

Re: Breaking....vedge?

Postby mmmm....good crack » Thu Jul 11, 2013 10:07 pm

I really hope you guys don't worry too much about plant feelings.
Image

User avatar
Philfy Vermin
Posts: 2438
Joined: Sun Mar 31, 2013 9:13 am
Location: pointing two fingers at head and making 'peow' noises

Re: Breaking....vedge?

Postby Philfy Vermin » Thu Jul 11, 2013 10:32 pm

when i was a kid i felt guilty if i excluded a teddybear.
Hail to the demons of the earth and kaos anarchy and destruction to those who exploit our human rights and starve the poor and make us suffer for the dead now walk the earth the armys of the dead hail vampires and all creatures of the night hail to the white moon and drtink the blood of our enimies and paint the town red


General Mutante wrote:You're so controversial. I can't handle it.

User avatar
dustbinflowers
Posts: 6644
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2005 2:41 pm
Location: Portside

Re: Breaking....vedge?

Postby dustbinflowers » Fri Jul 12, 2013 8:05 am

mmmm....good crack wrote:I really hope you guys don't worry too much about plant feelings.


As someone who has spent a significant amount of their life killing plants for a living, I have a persistant feeling that I am going to die by treefall. I'm not sure trees make the distinction between native and exotic, or that I am killing for the 'greater good'...

As for the old ethical diet thang, I am not even trying to look at it from a global scale, or even developed nations, although I believe on a whole lot of levels that less meat and dairy has got to be better. I think NZ's situation is interesting, because wild meat is ecologically beneficial, but is not a factor that is generally acknowledged.
Uncinia vector

User avatar
akaxo
Posts: 8518
Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2005 11:28 am
Location: antichristchurch

Re: Breaking....vedge?

Postby akaxo » Fri Jul 12, 2013 8:36 am

there's a roald dahl short story like that. some guy develops a way to measure or hear plants feelings, thinks he can hear them screaming in pain. tries to prove it by recording on the device he makes while cutting into a tree. branch falls on him when he starts and he dies. the end. just like yours will be.
We must secure the extinction of all people and no future for any children

User avatar
Philfy Vermin
Posts: 2438
Joined: Sun Mar 31, 2013 9:13 am
Location: pointing two fingers at head and making 'peow' noises

Re: Breaking....vedge?

Postby Philfy Vermin » Fri Jul 12, 2013 10:13 am

haha, been felling gum trees and macrocarpa for the last week, they fuckin fight back trust me, especially when milling, 3m wet gum sleeper or a 5m 2 by 8 is not to be taken lightly, pun unintended, my fingers are black blue and red, been crushed that many times.
Hail to the demons of the earth and kaos anarchy and destruction to those who exploit our human rights and starve the poor and make us suffer for the dead now walk the earth the armys of the dead hail vampires and all creatures of the night hail to the white moon and drtink the blood of our enimies and paint the town red


General Mutante wrote:You're so controversial. I can't handle it.

User avatar
dustbinflowers
Posts: 6644
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2005 2:41 pm
Location: Portside

Re: Breaking....vedge?

Postby dustbinflowers » Fri Jul 12, 2013 2:16 pm

I almost got killed by a 6 metre holly tree I was killing, several years ago. It fully tried to take me out as it fell.
Uncinia vector

User avatar
mmmm....good crack
Posts: 4053
Joined: Tue Aug 20, 2002 5:00 pm
Location: down
Contact:

Re: Breaking....vedge?

Postby mmmm....good crack » Fri Jul 12, 2013 7:08 pm

I read that Roald Dahl as a kid. Part of a collection of short stories I think.

I was all about Roald Dahl as a kid tbh.
Image

User avatar
akaxo
Posts: 8518
Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2005 11:28 am
Location: antichristchurch

Re: Breaking....vedge?

Postby akaxo » Fri Jul 12, 2013 7:31 pm

yeah tales of the unexpected or something like that. i remember loving it.
We must secure the extinction of all people and no future for any children

User avatar
the croc
Posts: 5663
Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2006 6:35 pm
Location: Wellington/At sea
Contact:

Re: Breaking....vedge?

Postby the croc » Sat Jul 13, 2013 10:09 am

I know I guy who used to be a forestry worker on the West Coast before the ban on native logging. After getting taken out by a tree for a second time and having half his body crushed he thought he probably wouldn't be as lucky a third time and finally decided to quit. Had a massive skin graft on his lower leg due to multiple surgeries he had to have on it after it was broken in 14 places. I have no idea how he was still walking.
There's more to life than thrash
So let's get really smashed
and do the heavy head dance

www.facebook.com/paekakpunkshow

User avatar
PertHJ
Inventor of 'LOAL'
Posts: 19701
Joined: Tue Aug 20, 2002 8:53 pm
Location: Milano

Re: Breaking....vedge?

Postby PertHJ » Tue Jan 14, 2014 6:50 am

One year on, 11 years not eating meat.
http://hungjurynz.bandcamp.com/
http://www.discogs.com/user/pertHJ

Drinking beers, hell yeah!! Smoking dope, KICK TO THROAT!!

User avatar
Dixon Cider A.C.
Posts: 3917
Joined: Fri Aug 24, 2007 1:09 pm
Location: pito one

Re: Breaking....vedge?

Postby Dixon Cider A.C. » Tue Jan 14, 2014 10:37 am

The man

User avatar
akaxo
Posts: 8518
Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2005 11:28 am
Location: antichristchurch

Re: Breaking....vedge?

Postby akaxo » Tue Jan 14, 2014 11:22 am

yeah good shit, no reason to do otherwise other than considering a taste sensation more important than a life.
We must secure the extinction of all people and no future for any children


Return to “Vegetarian and Vegan”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests