Forums > Social Discussion > Vegetarianism for climate change?

Posted: 17th Dec 2009
Originally Posted By: WoodlandApplesThat article is misrepresenting user error as climate change.
The skiing one is not true too, I work at Bulla and I can say that the snow condition is much worse in Australia than that

Fair enough.

If we as members of the human race practice meditation, we can transcend our fear, despair, and forgetfulness. Meditation is not an escape. It is the courage to look at reality with mindfulness and concentration. Thich Nhat Hanh

Posted: 17th Dec 2009
Stone - I'm not suggesting creating a barren wilderness. just because the planet is warming up does NOT mean the planet will become one. What I would like someone to look into is how we COULD live if that happened. just because the temperature is going to increase doesn't mean the planet will become a barren wilderness. Humans may farm it and develop it into one but raising CO2 is unlikely to be the cause.

What I'm saying is even if we combat anthropogenic climate change are we really then going to attempt to anthropogenically maintain the planets temperature? keep it fixed in our comfort zone. what would be the effects of trying to cool the planet? we'll save the polar bears but what about the creatures who thrive in the warmer climate are we to sentence them to extinction because it's not the temperature WE want or is it just because we have fallen in love with some endangered species because we feel responsible. We need to accept we can't save everything and trying will only lead to unexpected results. Yes cut back on emissions and pollutants we mustn't poison the planet. but we must remember in our haste to save ourselves and a select few who are we actually condemning because the climate is moving the way they would like, are they any less important than us?

A couple of balls short of a full cascade... or maybe a few cards short of a deck... we'll see how this all fans out.

Posted: 17th Dec 2009
^_^ ... >_> ... <_< ... ~_~

the best smiles are the ones you lead to

Posted: 17th Dec 2009
does anyone remember chernobyl? massive disaster nasty peice of work terrible radioactive fall out 1986 an evoronmental nightmare.

now 23 years on
https://www.nsrl.ttu.edu/chornobyl/wildlifepreserve.htm

We could go back 100 years, use lots of coal create smog and kick start that global cooling everyone worried about before we cleaned the air up.

What I'm essentially saying is do we REALLY think every government on earth is going to come to resolution? or are we more likely to end up fighting for resources again like we did at the dawn of humans. deer get culled to protect the herd (because we killed off the wolves) we have no predator to thin our ranks, we support the weak and infirm and have extended our lives to more than double what they were just 3000 years ago. Limit child birth in EVERY country. Stop aid to third world countries. let evolution kick back in and let those who CAN survive, survive. It's callous but it's true the more human lives we try to save the more we will end up killing. we can't save everyone.

A couple of balls short of a full cascade... or maybe a few cards short of a deck... we'll see how this all fans out.

Posted: 17th Dec 2009
ouch.. I really wouldn't go as far.

For me it would already be enough NOT to support oppressive regimes which enslave, exploit and torture their own people in 3rd world countries and emerging markets... that in itself would already diminish poverty and suffering.

and it should not be forgotten that "aid" going to those countries quite often comes in form of money - which they then got to spend on goods and services originating in the donating countries.

its quite easy to say: let them die... maybe we should start a full scale war as to speed up the process and shorten the suffering... ?

the best smiles are the ones you lead to

Posted: 17th Dec 2009
Well done Tom now you've got it right!

we are animals, animals are territorial, Survival of the fittest. nuke them and turn it into a nature reserve.

Ok so what I said seems a little extreme. but the point is the earth has finite resources and can only support a certain level of life.
Animals (including humans) need those resources to live.
Whilst alive those animals will reproduce and will increase their populations unless acted upon by external pressures (predators, disease, misfortune. lack of food)
This increase in populations will need more resources BUT the sources are finite.
Evolution kicks in and those most suited to survival will get those resources (In the animal kingdom it's those most suited physically) however Humans as animals are also taking those resources.

We want to save all the animals and all the people, who honestly thinks that's possible? Animals will end up extinct it happened before and it will happen again we have to accept that some will go - no one cares about the 100's of species of insects that go extinct but may have a more serious effect upon our lives than a panda (Bee's, ants etc who keep flora etc ticking over, the planets gardeners.) what we care about are those we enjoy looking at or who have a good press agency and get on TV. I don't want to see tigers or pandas only in pictures but I would rather that than every insect on the planet died - put your wants and hopes aside and look at the facts can it be done yes or no? Look at chernobyl and tell me the Nuke wouldn't be better for the planet than the people. Trying unsuccessfully to live in an area that cannot suuport them, birth rates through the roof, due to infant death, and the need for workers. If they were animals we would have captured them and put them in a zoo or park for their own safety. but because they are human we ship in huge amounts of aid, money, clothes, equipment which at the same time adds to climate change - which is contributing to their suffering due to desertification - which I know everyone believes is caused by global warming. etc etc.seems to me to be making things worse not better.

think of Humans as animals with the same rights and tell me what you would do to humans if they were an animal?
EDITED_BY: Mynci (1261067863)
EDIT_REASON: forgot ironic wink after 1st line

A couple of balls short of a full cascade... or maybe a few cards short of a deck... we'll see how this all fans out.

Posted: 17th Dec 2009
Nuclear power is the only way to go.

Sure solar's all nice and romantic like, but have you ever tried to run your house on solar? Fridge, stove heating, hot water all suck way more energy than you can harvest from a rooftop full of solar panels.

All this green energy amounts to nothing more than putting a band aid on a brain tumour.

Posted: 17th Dec 2009
Originally Posted By: MynciStone - I'm not suggesting creating a barren wilderness. just because the planet is warming up does NOT mean the planet will become one. What I would like someone to look into is how we COULD live if that happened. just because the temperature is going to increase doesn't mean the planet will become a barren wilderness. Humans may farm it and develop it into one but raising CO2 is unlikely to be the cause.

Mynci, we are creating a barren wilderness. That’s what is happening in Australia and Africa, for example. CO2 and other greenhouse gasses are the cause. Check out this Climate Change: FAQ

Originally Posted By: MynciWe want to save all the animals and all the people, who honestly thinks that's possible? Animals will end up extinct it happened before and it will happen again we have to accept that some will go - no one cares about the 100's of species of insects that go extinct but may have a more serious effect upon our lives than a panda (Bee's, ants etc who keep flora etc ticking over, the planets gardeners.) what we care about are those we enjoy looking at or who have a good press agency and get on TV….


Mynci, you are speculating about things that may or may not happen in the future. All I’m saying is we need to do something now to reduce the rate of global warming. You only need to look at the rate at which the glaciers and poles are melting to see that. Sea-levels are rising, and we are experiencing more and more extreme weather events. You talk about evolution, well it’s is survival time now, not in 20 yrs. It will be way too late then.

If we as members of the human race practice meditation, we can transcend our fear, despair, and forgetfulness. Meditation is not an escape. It is the courage to look at reality with mindfulness and concentration. Thich Nhat Hanh

Posted: 18th Dec 2009
okaaay... yesterday I was feeling a little belligerent sorry

And I'm saying yes the dry equatorial and southern area will probably desertify because it's expanding the edges of what is already there, but if everything gets warmer then colder areas become more temperate, ice melts and plants can grow. the planet won't immediately turn into a desert of sand.
I think we have different perspectives based upon our home climate. you are seeing drier more desert like effects but it's just plain getting wetter here. Yes it's warmer but we are having so much more rain and snow than we have had for the passed 15 years. Talk of hose-pipe bans have disappeared and we now have regular floods.

What I'm saying is I can't see us slowing global warming especially by political means. it's too big a lifestyle choice for everyone. the governments can't agree because they don't want to disadvantage their own countries after financial disaster to growing 3rd world economies which supply most of our produce and take a lot of our money. Giving them extra to become "green" will essentially bring them up to our level of technology whilst they maintain huge resources the west covets is going to be a massive stumbling block, no matter what we say we aren't a global community yet, we are a globe full of communities and some of those don't get on.
We're all still using our computers our TV's, refridgerators and millions of Xmas lights. It's not just about the energy we use it's about the amount of people using it. the easiest way to cut carbon footprint in half is to half the population. Green energy is good but it is also very expensive to start up especially in private homes. The requirements for politicians is to make tough choices that their electorate will NOT like and I don't see them doing that - It risks their own Job and that of their party.

I'm not talking about 20 years time. I know we're screwed now. WORLD POPULATION NOW - 6.8 Billion
WORLD POPULATION 30 YEARS - Estimates say 9 billion.

So even if we halve emissions today in 1 day and keep peoples emissions constant in 30 years they will be way back up again as the 3rd world develops and more people are born. population is increasing exponentially birth rates are coming down but not quick enough. it's not enough to talk about emissions it's the people making them that is the problem. and all those people will need places to live, food to eat which will mean more farms more trees cut down more animals for meat, more fish being caught. less space for other life which will be restricted to the places we don't want to live.

I know it all seems negative but even if we do drop emissions is there any proof that CO2 uptake will counter what has already occurred? If not then addressing emissions is bailng out the sea with a thimble even though it still needs to be done. I'm not someone who doesn't believe I'm someone who thinks we are not focusing at all the issues, only the surface and that many people don't realise and it is our ability to stay alive that could be our greatest problem.

A couple of balls short of a full cascade... or maybe a few cards short of a deck... we'll see how this all fans out.

Posted: 18th Dec 2009
is this thread anywhere still about "vegetarianism for climate change" or just plain

the best smiles are the ones you lead to

Posted: 18th Dec 2009
If you notice in my last post I did mention more meat needed for more people, if population increases so do food requirements we can cut emissions but if birth rates continue at approximately 2 for the western world and higher for developing countries more meat will be needed to feed them all so some emissions will increase regardless of green energy. it has wandered a little I admit

I maintain that the lifestyle changes required to combat climate change be it emissions or dietary choices are too severe for many to accept. Laws will be required and i don't see governments cutting their own throats and risking their jobs to enforce what will be required even if it is to save the planet. People may want to think globally but it will take soomeone special to stand up and make the required changes even though they know it will be the end of their job. After so long with a Labour Government I can't see the conservatives risking letting them back in by enforcing laws that will inconvenience the entire population. Brown could do it now but he won't, even knowing he'll probably lose next year. And I doubt he could get the laws passed his own peers who will want to keep their jobs.

A couple of balls short of a full cascade... or maybe a few cards short of a deck... we'll see how this all fans out.

Posted: 18th Dec 2009
Originally Posted By: StoneMynci, you are speculating about things that may or may not happen in the future. All I’m saying is we need to do something now to reduce the rate of global warming.

like? ... 'cause turning to veg even right NOW (as in this very instant) will not have effects right NOW. you know that quite well, sir.

"prediction models ... have shown that ... could[/] reduce..." at some given time in the future, after the industry has realized that the demand for meat is declining and adjusted.


Stout: Is solar power for you in Canada

Canadian Solar FAQs

Usable solar power does not necessarily require a hot climate. Don't fall for the nuclear lobbyists slogans.

the best smiles are the ones you lead to