SpookyFrank
A cheap source of teeth for aquarium gravel
And if yet if you do have offspring it's not OK to eat them. Whole thing's a minefield.
Avoiding meat and dairy is ‘single biggest way’ to reduce your impact on Earth
- Thread starter editor
- Start date
And if yet if you do have offspring it's not OK to eat them. Whole thing's a minefield.
UnderOpenSky
baseline neural therapy
I'm with Good Energy as the other half insisted.
I think that means we get different electricity and gas then our neighbours.
Grump
Well-Known Member
And yet I have read several studies showing that lamb is an eco friendly meat as sheep can be grazed on hill farms that could not be used for cereal crops .
Could be right.
There are 'many' studies
so it is hard to know what is accurate. www.earthtimes.org/going-green/eating-lamb-worst-environment/1161/
SpookyFrank
A cheap source of teeth for aquarium gravel
If you factor in water consumption beef is by far the worst IIRC.
Shechemite
Be the sun and all will see you
Am I still allowed to use coconut oil as a moisturiser?
David Clapson
Well-Known Member
Eating one's children is also a great way to reduce food miles and packaging.
But srsly, one of the more respected boffins says it's too late, we must accept the impending end of most life on earth. So we might as well eat tigers and pandas while they're still available 'We're doomed': Mayer Hillman on the climate reality no one else will dare mention
But srsly, one of the more respected boffins says it's too late, we must accept the impending end of most life on earth. So we might as well eat tigers and pandas while they're still available 'We're doomed': Mayer Hillman on the climate reality no one else will dare mention
ddraig
kicking against the pricks...
why ask this?
grow up and use what you like
Shechemite
Be the sun and all will see you
Lighten up, it’s not the end of the world (unless we keep eating meat)
NoXion
Craicy the Squirrel
Could be right.
There are 'many' studies
www.earthtimes.org/going-green/eating-lamb-worst-environment/1161/
I would have thought the environmental impact of lamb would depend greatly on whether the producer and the consumer are in the same part of the world. Lamb from New Zealand might well be sensibly reared on hilly pastureland unsuitable for growing crops, but any benefit to that would probably, I would guess, be wiped out by being transported across the world to the UK, or vice versa. As opposed to lamb reared the same way but consumed in the same country.
H
Humirax
Guest
Even if people stop having sprogs, if they are going to continue consuming meat and dairy then massive harm to the environment is going to continue, same with our dependence on fossil fuels.
Regarding the population I would argue that it's not so much population growth that is the problem but distribution of resources. If resources were distributed fairly (which they are never going to be with a capitalist system) then we wouldn't be doing so much harm to the environment, infact it would be dramitcally reduced I'd say- which is why the 'neo-malthusian' argument is false (aswell as dangerous- it actually lead to people- poor people ofcourse- being sterilised in India). Neo-malthusianism blames the poor in the third world when it is infact the wealthy and rich in the west that are using (and indeed squandering) much more resources. If anyone would like, there are one or two short videos I can post here about this.
But also, regarding population, apparently capitalism relies on a surplus population, so without capitalism there would likely be fewer people- so I think we can also see that aswell as our eating habits there is a very big and significant problem we have to deal with.
Personally, it seems to me (and I could be and do hope that I'm wrong) that it's too late and that, atleast right now, not enough people are willing to make the changes necessary. The spread of veganism gives me a bit of hope but when you think about it- way more people still consume animal products and many are likely to stick with them. And the big problem of getting rid of capitalism seems more distant than ever before, so I can't say I'm positive about this these days.
Regarding the population I would argue that it's not so much population growth that is the problem but distribution of resources. If resources were distributed fairly (which they are never going to be with a capitalist system) then we wouldn't be doing so much harm to the environment, infact it would be dramitcally reduced I'd say- which is why the 'neo-malthusian' argument is false (aswell as dangerous- it actually lead to people- poor people ofcourse- being sterilised in India). Neo-malthusianism blames the poor in the third world when it is infact the wealthy and rich in the west that are using (and indeed squandering) much more resources. If anyone would like, there are one or two short videos I can post here about this.
But also, regarding population, apparently capitalism relies on a surplus population, so without capitalism there would likely be fewer people- so I think we can also see that aswell as our eating habits there is a very big and significant problem we have to deal with.
Personally, it seems to me (and I could be and do hope that I'm wrong) that it's too late and that, atleast right now, not enough people are willing to make the changes necessary. The spread of veganism gives me a bit of hope but when you think about it- way more people still consume animal products and many are likely to stick with them. And the big problem of getting rid of capitalism seems more distant than ever before, so I can't say I'm positive about this these days.
Last edited by a moderator:
lazythursday
Averagely-Known Member
You might think that but you'd be wrong. Studies have shown that new Zealand lamb has a lower carbon footprint than UK lamb even with the food miles taken into account. Transportation is all people want to focus on and it tends to be a small percentage of the overall carbon impact of a product.
lazythursday
Averagely-Known Member
I don't quite understand this. Uplands can't be used for cereals sure, but why does that mean it's eco friendly to use them for lamb? Our uplands are massively over grazed, which has a number of environmental implications particularly flooding for those of us who unfortunately live in the valleys below. Why does land have to be used for farming? It could be used productively for forestry or just left to be wild which would be far more eco friendly.
8ball
Decolonise colons!
SpookyFrank
A cheap source of teeth for aquarium gravel
Places like Exmoor and the high peak are uneconomical for sheep farming. The sheep are kept there only by subsidies designed to preserve a Thomas Hardy-esque overgrazed landscape which is not natural at all, but is intended to mimic what these areas looked like in the 18th and 19th centuries when things like 'rambling' were invented.
Define “natural” with respect to a landscape.
SpookyFrank
A cheap source of teeth for aquarium gravel
It’s not a trick at all. How are you defining artificial? A sheep is clearly not artificial. So you must be referring to the fact that a human put the sheep there. But humans put everything everywhere in the U.K. By your definition, natural could only mean entirely covered in forest.
There’s a whole body of work devoted to trying to pin down what “natural landscape” might mean. But something grazed for 100 years would generally be accepted as pretty natural at this point.
8ball
Decolonise colons!
I guess a sheep is 'natural' in the same sense a labradoodle is.
This is circular. If natural means “not artificial” then what do we mean by “artificial”? Regardless of the origins of sheep as a species, when daddy sheep decided he loved mummy sheep very much and they both decided the time was right to welcome baby sheep into their lives (sure there would be some sacrifices but it would be worth it), the process involved was the same one nature saw fit to create long before humans ever turned up. Defining a living creature as “artificial” is a bit of a stretch.
8ball
Decolonise colons!
Baronage-Phase
Well-Known Member
The move from humans as hunter gatherers to humans cutting down trees and living in one spot is really what will have fucked up the earth....in the long run.
Deforestation for the plantation of wheat etc ... and then the move in relatively recent human history to having herds of animals..mostly cattle.
If humans had remained as nomadic hunter gatherers the planet might not be in the shit it's now in.
But then we wouldn't have developed in the same way either.
Deforestation for the plantation of wheat etc ... and then the move in relatively recent human history to having herds of animals..mostly cattle.
If humans had remained as nomadic hunter gatherers the planet might not be in the shit it's now in.
But then we wouldn't have developed in the same way either.
That’s not a wolf, it’s a dog. These are different animals.A wolf, earlier today:
It’s also not artificial in the way the word is generally used.
The problem you have identified is merely that “natural” does not actually mean “not artificial”.
Similar threads
- Poll
