Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Opinion: "The End of Meat Is Here" - NY Times

Weird, here it is mentioned at the bottom of this GCSE study guide:

  • During the night, no photosynthesis takes place. This is because there is no sunlight. Only respiration occurs so at night, they take up oxygen and release carbon dioxide.

Photosynthesis: An Introduction - (GCSE Biology) - Study Mind

And what part of that is supposed to be 'photosynthetic inversion' exactly? You're describing respiration, which as noted above is not the opposite of photosynthesis.

Green plants are net contributors of oxygen. Which is why oxygen, and as always stop me if I'm going too fast for you, still exists.
 
None, because farmers do not slaughter their own livestock. Hence my assertion that 'the entire animal must be removed from the system and its soil'.
In spite of my having literally shown you how it is returned. OK.

Shouldn't matter to you anyway because plants evolved millions of years before animals anyway so they don't need fertilising. Or something.
 
In spite of my having literally shown you how it is returned. OK.

Shouldn't matter to you anyway because plants evolved millions of years before animals anyway so they don't need fertilising. Or something.

OK genius, who was artificially fertilising all the plants before humans showed up?

Because if the answer is 'nobody', your idea that plants invariably require artificial fertilisation might start to look a bit like obviously complete fucking bullshit.
 
And what part of that is supposed to be 'photosynthetic inversion' exactly? You're describing respiration, which as noted above is not the opposite of photosynthesis.

Green plants are net contributors of oxygen. Which is why oxygen, and as always stop me if I'm going too fast for you, still exists.
It's an inversion of photosyntyetic products, ie none as opposed to O2.

This means at night time, if there were other organisms, say, fish that were competing for that oxygen in a closed water body, say, a pond or a lake and it was well vegetated, they can die.

Happens not infrequently
 
Last edited:
Fish famously an intrinsic part of a field ecosystem of course.

Do farmers produce that stuff in house from their own extraneous animal bits? No. Is it produced by composting? No. So that picture of a bag of fertiliser doesn't really disprove my assertion that nutrients in animal carcasses cannot be composted or returned to the soil by the farmers who created them.

?
 
OK genius, who was artificially fertilising all the plants before humans showed up?

Because if the answer is 'nobody', your idea that plants invariably require artificial fertilisation might start to look a bit like obviously complete fucking bullshit.
Dinosaurs?
 
OK genius, who was artificially fertilising all the plants before humans showed up?

Because if the answer is 'nobody', your idea that plants invariably require artificial fertilisation might start to look a bit like obviously complete fucking bullshit.
All the animals roaming around shitting all over the place.
 
Also never mind the fact you can't compost unwanted bits of cow or pig because it would create a biohazard, so the entire animal and all its nutrients and minerals has to be taken away from the system and its soil.

so you accept that this statement is unambiguously wrong?
 
Also never mind the fact you can't compost unwanted bits of cow or pig because it would create a biohazard, so the entire animal and all its nutrients and minerals has to be taken away from the system and its soil.
And yet round here you can put meat and bones in the green bin for composting. :hmm:
 
Anyways, let's break this down a bit:

- Sustainable agriculture that does not degrade soils requires more land per kilo of product than intensive monoculture farming.

- There is limited fertile land available.

- Growing crops to feed animals and then eating the animals invariably requires more land per kilo of product than simply growing and eating crops. Also more water, fertiliser, transportation and everything else with an environmental cost.

- Humane and sustainable rearing of animals also uses more land and resources than intensive farming.

Add all these things up and the only conclusion is that we have to drastically reduce meat consumption in order to protect the environment. If you care about animal welfare, that reduction must be even greater.

Everything else everyone here is on about is either whataboutery or a complete non-sequitur.
 
Environmentally I'm still going with shit farms. You keep as many animals, fed on scraps and parts of plants inedible to humans, as needed to manage the soil. These should be kept as much as possible in areas where useful plants can not be grown or where it is expensive or unsustainable to do so. If some of those end up as food preferably consumed locally then the environmental impact will be minimised. Any meat produced can be distributed primarily according to need for example to anyone with health issues where it may be beneficial or to obligate carnivores kept by humans etc. This would all look very different depending on local climate, ecology and geography but the general principle would be a limited amount of meat and other animal products produced as a side effect of looking after the environment and providing food security.
 
Back
Top Bottom