Impact of meat on the environment

[Ahimsa]

10 billion animals a year

To put the energy-using demand of meat production into easy-to-understand terms, Gidon Eshel, a geophysicist at the Bard Center, and Pamela A. Martin, an assistant professor of geophysics at the University of Chicago, calculated that 2.2 pounds of beef is responsible for the equivalent amount of carbon dioxide emitted by the average European car every 155 miles, and burns enough energy to light a 100-watt bulb for nearly 20 days.Though some 800 million people on the planet now suffer from hunger or malnutrition, the majority of corn and soy grown in the world feeds cattle, pigs and chickens. This despite the inherent inefficiencies: about two to five times more grain is required to produce the same amount of calories through livestock as through direct grain consumption, according to Rosamond Naylor, an associate professor of economics at Stanford University. It is as much as 10 times more in the case of grain-fed beef in the United States.



Because the stomachs of cattle are meant to digest grass, not grain, cattle raised industrially thrive only in the sense that they gain weight quickly. This diet made it possible to remove cattle from their natural environment and encourage the efficiency of mass confinement and slaughter. But it causes enough health problems that administration of antibiotics is routine, so much so that it can result in antibiotic-resistant bacteria that threaten the usefulness of medicines that treat people.

[Mark]

I don't understand why this is posted in renewable energy forum.

[Ahimsa]

Renewable Energy Forum: Discussion on various alternative energy, renewable energy, & free energy technologies. Also any discussion about the environment, global warming, and other related topics are welcome here.

[ashtweth]

you only need to eat 10% meat in your diet
Thanks for posting i can use this info

[sucahyo]

Meat is needed, replacing it with something else may introduce new problem. I think it is better to review the whole process from cattle food to meat processing device. I don't think it is the meat fault, it is the fault of the primitive / environment polluting technology that the industry use.

[gotoluc]

Killing evolved animals for human ingestion is cancer to the Worlds Nature. It is as big of a problem as Capitalism is.

There are only negative effects to this carnivorous action to which man will soon realize though the Eco system break down.

The facts is, we are an evolved specie compared to the animal kingdom and should know what is correct action.
If we gave an Axe to someone that wants to eat a steak and say, go kill that animal over there and cut it apart to get your steak. You would find that more than 80% of the people cannot behave in such a way. So why are these people eating meat?... Well, here's where Capitalism comes in. They pay someone who is out of touch with his humanness and is mostly thinking of greed (money) to do this, so you don't have to deal with this disgusting Action. They will package it nicely for you and call it a sirloin steak and place it in a display case. You buy it because advertising makes you believe you need this. A thought may cross you mind thinking, this use to be an animal at one time but you think it's fine since you were not involve in the killing.

This is where you are WRONG!... if you pay someone to kill someone you are just as responsible as the one who does it for the money.

Science and religion have been teaching us that for every action there is an effect. It is also know as Karma and believe me no actions bypass this this fundamental law of the Universe. This is the main topic in the story of Adam and Eve. Karma is as subtle as picking an apple from a tree. Just that acting was enough to start the physical experience of man separating himself of His God Truth. The story of Adam and Eve is just a story but the message is real and explains consequences of actions in this World. The order of evolution is mineral, plant, insect, animal, human. The effects of action of eating a plant is nothing compared to eating an evolved vegetarian animal.

The fact is, the human digestive system is really a vegetarian design. Still today! thank God there are hundreds of million human vegetarians that never ate animals or insects in their live and live very healthy lives. So why do people keep believing animals are required in our diet???

If you don't believe in all the above that's fine! I'm not interested in debating it... just don't ignore the physical proof it is having on our irreplaceable natural resources needed to keep the planet alive. If you want to save the Rain Forests then become a vegetarian and you will experience the reward in this lifetime.

You all know this is a real problem and you know what causes it, so fix it.
I did it over 12 years ago. Even then I could see the writing on the wall.

and to All

Luc

[Radiant_Science]

@ALL

Gotoluc is right...
I myself am addicted to the intoxicant known as meat. But, contrary to common belief...MEAT IS NOT NEEDED. We all believe that it "takes protein to make protein". THIS IS COMPLETELY WRONG. I'll show you why in 2 points

1st...Do cows naturally eat protein (meat) to build all their muscle??? NO!!!!!!!(In fact they get mad cow disease when forced to)

2nd...(Look this up)...We actually BURN energy eating meat....because our body cannot use it in such a form. We actually have to expend energy to break the meat down to it's building blocks and then re-build OUR muscle tissue.

The fact is....we are meant to eat from the "Garden of Eden" not the "Farm of Eden"....Meat takes much more resources to grow (water, food, and land) and returns very little in comparison to vegetables.

The sad truth is that we (consumer society) are vampiric leaches feeding off the Earth in a destructive "parasitic" manner. We return very little to the Earth and take for granted all of it's species we exploit.

[lighty]

Oh... dear God... not such a discussion here...

Meat or fish or some other form of "animal proteins" are needed in human diet because human digestive system is NOT vegetarian but omnivorous. If we were vegetarians we would have to have much longer intestines, proper teeth for grinding food rich with cellulose, different flora in digestive system and we would be able to synthesise some of the proteins and amino-acids that we are currently taking from meat. Yes, we could go into discussion about vegetarianism and its ethical values in modern age of meat production but ethics don't change biology.

Also, being vegetarian is an invention of newer age. First of all to get the amount of useful proteins one needs when put under physical strain (especially with sportsmen) it would take either enormous amounts of vegetarian food or it would take smaller amount of concentrated vegetarian supplements. No farmers in history was vegetarian other then in times of famine when no meat was to be found and we all know how that ended for people. Consider this, no successful sportsmen was ever vegetarian while in training. The names you usually read as an example are invariably the sportsmen taking vegetarian diet after they finished with their active career.

Also, the amount of historical and scientific misinformations and misconceptions used by vegetarian lobby is staggering.
People are usually shocked when they realise Dalai Lama is NOT vegetarian which is of course normal for Tibetan Buddhist. Buddha is always taken as an example of the living harmoniously and in total non-violence (Ahimsa). Well, Buddha also WASN'T vegetarian. If someone bothers to read historical scriptures (and I'm always going back to the source) it is mentioned in several passages he ate meat and on the day of his death it is written before he died he ate a piece of pork. Which is of course normal diet but hey take it to zealous activists to take it to extreme. Let's be hollier then Buddha. It is also clearly described that Jesus ate meat and fish. It's said so in conventional Bible as well as in apocryphal writings. So, no matter how hard one wishes he was vegetarian he simply wasn't. Muhammad of course normally ate meat and fish. No pork of course but any other kind of meat. So we see here a pattern emerging. Any holly person from history one could think of was NOT vegetarian. From a spiritual point of view those are rather interesting facts. In spiritual practices of both West and East there is no compulsory vegetarianism. One shouldn't overindulge in meat but it is hardly a vegetarianism. Granted during the times of intensive spiritual practice one should abstain of eating meat. But then again it is clearly said abstaining from meat eating should last only during those periods and one should abstain from opiates and sex as well. So, no vegetarianism there either.

As for the health issue there is a lot of rubbish about vegetarians having a less incidence of cancer. When eating balanced diet the incidence of cancer is exactly the same statistically speaking. Of course overindulging in meat could disbalance the metabolism but then again taking too much soya products does it in even more harmful form.

I won't even talk about nonsense about vegetarians being less aggressive. There are a number of examples disproving that one. Aggressiveness doesn't come from meat. As I said- Buddha was eating meat, Jesus was eating meat even in present day Dalai Lama eats meat. Does that make them aggressive?

Also, while there is a meat industry lobby there is also vegetarian industry lobby. So, vegetarian equivalents of milk cost several times the cost of cow's or goat's milk. Various soya, mushroom, seitan and other products as a rule cost more then meat products. So, you think there is no vegetarian industry lobby out there talking rubbish? Think again.

Also, this is where my claim that vegetarianism is a product of modern age is proven. People in rich countries can afford such extravaganza (from biological point of view) because they have resources (read money) to do so and they don't work physically hard enough to have need for much energy (fitness twice a week is not hard labour). People in poor countries are happy to eat meat because it sustain them on a basic biological level. Yes they can go vegetarian in times of need but than again they often suffer of malnutrition and health problems because of vegetarian nutrition and hard physical labour. So, it's nice feeling pure and divine when one have money, time and is not under much physical strain.

As for not eating evolved beings I would be glad not to do it if somebody provides me with adequate nutritional supplements which will not drain my budget or damage my health. People often speak about humankind being a part of living Earth and its biosphere. Well, guess what? Being part of that biosphere means eating other life forms. Mother Earth is not sentimental but rather a practical being. So we will not eat evolved life forms. No problem. But that is also a sign of our distancing from being parts of Earth's biosphere. Living in big cities, driving polluting cars, consuming vasts amount of energy in all forms- it all drains Earth's resources. Eating vegetarian and feeling as if compensating for the rest of the stuff is delusional. If one wants to be true part of nature, go live on the countryside and work hard for your bread. And then, well then you'll have to be practical and to start eating meat. You'll need additional energy, you will need any sustenance you can get, you won't have money for extravaganza.

All being said, I am all against overindulging in meat products. I am also against cruel treatment of animals. Yes, it's cruel to put animals in the horrible living conditions. But saying that killing an animal for satisfying basic biological needs is like saying that wolf is cruel for killing a lamb. Wolf is doing what is necessary in order for him to survive. So, why is human killing of animals cruel if we do it in order to survive. Yes, it should be painless for animals. Yes, they should be treated with respect because they provide us with food. In fact most of old traditions and religions require respect and gratitude toward animals that provide them with food for survival. They even have rules how to kill the animal as quickly and painlessly as possible. The problem in modern corporate world is not with human animal eating other animals. It's a normal biological requirement and normal part of the Earth's ecosystem. The problem is when we're doing it in the way that doesn't appreciate our role in the ecosystem and when we do it in a way that is demeaning to animals. And no, not all animals are treated cruelly in a way shown in propaganda films. Those are the worst cases and not everything is so black.

I love animals both wild ones and the house ones. Not once I stepped over some society boundaries in order to help them if they were mistreated or wounded. However, I also feel that I'm part of Earth's biosphere and I have no qualms eating a Bambi. It's all part of the nature's way. We cannot simply declare that we're above it and expect it to still be a part of the whole system. Either we're part of that system which includes eating Bambi or we're not part of the system but are separated from it. Currently we cannot have both ways. It's like saying that somebody is living in half-celibacy. It's impossibility.

Finally, I was vegetarian and I even got more extreme and became vegan. I could have afforded it so I did it. Then I got under a lot of physical stress and my body required additional sustenance. I stuck to my misguided beliefs. Finally my health broke. So I suffered for a number of years in conditions which were intolerable. But still I stuck to my beliefs. At one point I travelled into East and while seeking cure I met with Sufi's. The thing they demonstrated and the wisdom were astounding. So, one day one of the Sufis asked me why I don't eat meat? I explained everything about spiritual concepts of ahimsa. He listened carefully and then asked me if I was so dedicated to non-violence why am I so oppressive to my own body? That got me thinking and I soon started eating meat again. Their energetic medicine and normal nutrition restored my health back to a level that no doctor could even imagine since I was already doomed. And then I finally realised. Point of life on Earth is being a part of the Earth itself. So, if the Earth's way is the way of eating other living beings then by doing otherwise I harm myself and in the long run I get separated from the Earth herself. So, I love animals, I treat them with respect. But I also eat them because that is what it means to be a part of living cycle of Mother Earth. I travelled a lot and no matter where I got, every native culture were always doing the same, they treated animals with respect but they also ate them. Only places where I saw an attempt to became separate from the living cycle were in the cities. We are living in concrete buildings with little green around us. We drive in metallic things that pollute. We become overindulgent in eating meat. We become extravagant becoming vegetarians. Point of living is being in harmony with the nature around us but also being in harmony with our own nature. Both in the spiritual as well as in biological sense.

[future pather]

Vegetarians really must hate plants

[gotoluc]

Man will look at others and justify his actions to be correct but only fool themselves by doing so. The correct action does not come from observing others behavior in this day and age as all is corrupted because most have been doing this. Do not even look at this Buddha replacement as an example of correct behavior as he is living in exile because of his actions.

It would be wrong to assume that Jesus ate animals because He materialized what the people wanted... also do note that it was Fish (non mammal) a much lower evolution state. Jesus had enough of a challenge to teach the people to help, respect and Love one other, do you think he was going to make cabbage? Also to note is, Jesus original teaching of how to purify the body and re-incarnation has been changed by man to suit his own agenda or convenience.

To conclude the original Buddha was eating animals because the replacement one does is not a wise conclusion.

Be truthful with yourself and stop looking at what others do. Place yourself in front of the animals you want to kill to eat and truthfully observe how your soul and intellect responds to this action. This is your Truth.

and to All Creation

Luc

[future pather]

Place yourself in front of the animals you want to kill to eat and truthfully observe how your soul and intellect responds to this action. This is your Truth.

This is the very point that boggles my mind when some vegetarians use this argument to justify their eating habits.

How can you possibly object to the classification of certain life species over others AND THEN TURN AROUND AND SAY THE SOLUTION IS TO CLASSIFY ALL PLANTS AND FUNGUS AS SO FAR BENEATH YOU AS TO NOT EVEN PONDER THEIR WORTH AS LIFE FORMS?

If you said the solution was to only eat fruit that fell from trees, milk, and other things which don't cause the loss of life that would be one thing.

But you don't say that. You say it is a sin to kill and butcher a cow but it is not even worth thinking about if it is wrong to kill and butcher a living head of lettuce.

There is too large of an intellectual disconnect here for me to respect that logic.

You can not damn putting one species over another and then turn right around and claim a solution that has nothing but disregard for all plant and fungus species.

Well you can, lol, but it doesn't make any sense at all to me

For some reason God created a place where living things have continued on at the expense of other living things. This is something very heavy to ponder. . . God sustains us all.

Not everyone of course digs scripture as a place to turn to for possible answers but since religion was already brought up in this thread I will share some relevant scripture for anyone who may wish to consider it :

1Accept him whose faith is weak, without passing judgment on disputable matters. 2One man's faith allows him to eat everything, but another man, whose faith is weak, eats only vegetables. 3The man who eats everything must not look down on him who does not, and the man who does not eat everything must not condemn the man who does, for God has accepted him. 4Who are you to judge someone else's servant? To his own master he stands or falls. And he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand.

5One man considers one day more sacred than another; another man considers every day alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind. 6He who regards one day as special, does so to the Lord. He who eats meat, eats to the Lord, for he gives thanks to God; and he who abstains, does so to the Lord and gives thanks to God. 7For none of us lives to himself alone and none of us dies to himself alone.


Romans 14 :: NIV Bible

[lighty]

To conclude the original Buddha was eating animals because the replacement one does is not a wise conclusion.

Actually it is explicitly written in Buddhistic scriptures that Buddha ate meat and it is a written cannon that the night he died the last meal he had was a piece of pork. Read original Buddhistic scriptures man, don't buy into anybody's wishful thinking and third hand interpretations. It's the same thing as with Vassilatos's wild conjectures. Nobody bother to look into original bibliography but when one does it is soon clear that a lot of his claims that are now taken for granted are but a conjectures and often erroneous. The same things go for deliberate misinterpretations of spiritual scriptures. There is no place for different interpretations regarding Buddha's diet. He ate meat.

As for the Jesus- he was a Jew and Jew ate and still eat meat. So, if not explicitly stated otherwise (as it isn't) best educated assumption is that he ate meat.

I still think this thread has nothing to do with renewable energy research but my point was that trying to be part of nature by trying not to abide to nature's way is like f/u/c/k/i/i/n/g for virginity. You cannot have it both ways. Either you live as part of nature's cycles or you don't. It's as simple as that.

[Ahimsa]

This article belongs in this section because this section is for topics regarding the environment. It could fit in other sections but I felt like it was most relevant here as the article is about the effects that producing meat has on the environment.

I, being a vegetarian for the past 21 years, am no stranger to the myriad opinions that a group of people will have regarding the subject of not eating meat. It's a can of worms.

While I have very strong feelings on the subject and will engage in the occasional debate, I respect all opinions and I ask that others do the same.

The main purpose of my posting this article is because I know that many are unaware of the mass amounts of energy that it takes, and the pollution that it creates, to produce such small amounts of meat (among other significant information explained in the article).

Also, just to clarify, this article does not suggest that anyone stop eating meat, it just says that if we were to reduce our intake, benefits would be immense.

Moral and health issues aside, I hope that we can take a look at this info for what it is and maybe make some changes in our lives that would be of some benefit for our earth.

[lighty]

@Ahimse

I agree with you about not overindulging in meat diet. However, no matter what such articles say the main pollution source in modern world are carbohydrate based energy sources. Reducing meat consumption could help but if modern civilization doesn't reduce its use of carbohydrate based fuels we'll have a grim future.

BTW- moral and ethics is not the same. I guess you were talking about ethical dilemma not a moral one.

[Mark]

All I can say is I love animals, especially pigs. They taste GOOD!