RenzoSupreme said:

I seem to have lost track of what it is we're arguing about.. I was just going to observe and make a few comments, but I think I'd prefer to get this off my chest at this point:::

I at first, thought this argument was regarding ethics:  Is it ethical to kill?

Then it became one of entropy.  What is a more 'efficient' diet, isn't the same as 'what diet has a smaller carbon foot-print'.  So, what are we arguing here? I'll touch on everything for good-measure.

Ethical?  You think that not eating meat makes you a more ethical person.  Okay.  Thats fine.  I disagree, and I don't need any kind of statistics or information to back that up at all.  You have your 'opinion' about it, I have mine.  You think kiling unnecessarily is unethical.  So do I.  I'll take a spider outside before I kill, because it isn't necessary. 

Let me ask you a question to think about while you read the rest of this:  Have you ever seen an animal starve to death?  I have..

If you think that there is no un-ethical bi-product of your own self-righteous lifestyle, you're mistaken.  I could write an entire book regarding the 'ethical implications of a self-righteous American youth', but it suffices to simply say for now, your existence is not 'ethical' by your own measurement.  I already have enough information to make that statement:  You have a house, yeah? You have internet? yeah?  You're an educated citizen of this country, yeah? You ride your bike or drive your car on our streets, yeah? 

You enjoy the comfort of a home heated with natural gas, yes?  Hows the electricity?  All of these 'comforts' you so enjoy, have tremendous ethical implications, you either deny, or haven't looked into. Do you know where your natural gas comes from?  Do you know the environmental and ethical implications of using hot-water to wash yourself?  It isn't necessary.  Cold water works just as well.  So...Why do you shower with hot-water?

Want to be completely ethical?  Kill yourself.  I PROMISE, its the only easy way to achieve it. Oh, theres other ways, but I don't think you'll make it, nor like it.

Is it ethical that I hunt and kill?  Do the research, before you say its a 'dick move'.  You've no clue what me and my culture do for you and yours.. I'd bet that you enjoy camping on BLM land and state-parks, hiking and riding and so forth.  How do you think those places are protected?  With what money do you think they are maintained and protected for your enjoyment? 

What do you think would happen if we didn't try to control wild animal population?  You think its like Bambi? Just happy little forest animals, doing their forest animal things? You think if we just leave them alone, they'll all be cool and safe, and happy? If your answer is 'yes', we are done here, and I can clearly conclude that you are ignorant, and too self-righteous to educate. 

*Quick side-note: Much of the game we hunt, isn't even native. Do you know the 'ethical implications' of letting non-native species run rampant? Find out, and find out good before you answer that.. 

Do you think its more ethical to let an animal starve to death, or to kill it?  Take your time, do the research, and answer carefully before you go talking about how my killing is 'unnecessary' and that I do it for 'enjoyment'.  Do you know what a drought is? Do you know what happens in a drought?  Find out.  Find out, good.

On the contrary, I don't enjoy it.  It still troubles me emotionally, and I've been doing it for 20 years.  I enjoy the outdoors, and spending time with my family, but killing?  Its not something I take lightly.  I respect and care for these animals so much more than you will ever realize. Assuming that I take life and spill blood for fun, is offensive on the highest level. 

You don't know me, nor do you understand me. I'd be happy to get to know you so that maybe you can make some understandable assumptions about me, but until then, you shouldn't assume you understand me.  I don't pretend to understand you, and I wouldn't make assumptions regrading the content of YOUR character, until I could substantiate it.  When you do that, we call that being a 'judgmental prick'..

Lets touch on the whole entropy/carbon foot-print thing.  The beef industry is tremendously inefficient in terms of entropy.  This is true.  I remember reading all the data back in college.  Its pretty scary, really.  So yeah, in strict terms of environmental impact, a vegetarian diet blows a omni-diet out of the water.. I can say that without batting en eyelash.

But, since we're having a pissing contest here, in terms of entropy and efficiency, my moderate red-meat and vegetarian diet blows your vegi-diet out of the water.. I guarantee it. And since we're really seeing who can piss FURTHER, I'd bet that my diet is quite a bit healthier than yours, and probably easier and less expensive to maintain, and I know for a certain fact, that it tasts way, way, WAY better.  (I know this, because I was a DEVOUT vegetarian for over a decade)

You said what I do is 'a dick move', without even the smallest amount of information about what I do, and why I do it.. I say, thats kindof a dick move.. Before you go trying to peg me as one of those hicks that drives around in a huge truck, and drives four-wheelers to track and kill game, think again..That would be a tremendously inaccurate assumption, again, and a dick-move.. Again.. Like I said, I'm happy to get to know you so you don't make any more 'dick-move' assumptions. . .
/renzo

---

I would +5 if I already hadn't

RenzoSupreme said:

Lets touch on the whole entropy/carbon foot-print thing.  The beef industry is tremendously inefficient in terms of entropy.  This is true.  I remember reading all the data back in college.  Its pretty scary, really.  So yeah, in strict terms of environmental impact, a vegetarian diet blows a omni-diet out of the water.. I can say that without batting en eyelash.

---

The Influence said:

Oh and Renzo you do make some very valid points. I didn't really check your math cause 2+2=4 and I love beef.

---

RenzoSupreme said:

Pris, I'm not arguing with you, and you have some valid sources cited there, but you're forgetting about the agricultural processes that raise the food to feed the cattle.  This article you posted states it clearly:
-"The biggest threat today to freshwater ecosys­tems is agricult­ure. Agriculture is the raising of crops and livestock for food."

---

Quote:

Okay, check this out.. Without using the internet, or citing any sources, I'll explain the argument in the simplest terms possible.  (This is a rare occasion, folks)

I'm not going to do the research to find the exact percentages, I'm going to guess, based on what I remember.

---

Quote:

So, lets play pretend.

---

RenzoSupreme said:

Please, don't go picking that apart

Like I said, I made those numbers up.  They may or may not be accurate.

---

Quote:

Assessment suggests that on average the complete life cycle environmental impact of nonvegetarian meals may be roughly a factor 1.5–2 higher than the effect of vegetarian meals in which meat has been replaced by vegetable protein.

---

Quote:

Results show that, for the combined differential production of 11 food items for which consumption differs among vegetarians and nonvegetarians, the nonvegetarian diet required 2.9 times more water, 2.5 times more primary energy, 13 times more fertilizer, and 1.4 times more pesticides than did the vegetarian diet.

---

Quote:

Research shows that vegetarian diets are well suited to protect the environment, to reduce pollution, and to minimize global climate changes.

---

Quote:

The environmental impact of meat is high mainly due to the feed required by livestock in combination with the impacts of cultivating, transporting and processing of feed crops such as tapioca and grains.

---

Quote:

A recent study of ≈20 items sold in Sweden showed a span of 0.4 to 30 kg CO2 equivalents/kg edible product. For protein-rich food, such as legumes, meat, fish, cheese, and eggs, the difference is a factor of 30 with the lowest emissions per kilogram for legumes, poultry, and eggs and the highest for beef, cheese, and pork. Large emissions for ruminants are explained mainly by methane emissions from enteric fermentation. For vegetables and fruits, emissions usually are ≤2.5 kg CO2 equivalents/kg product, even if there is a high degree of processing and substantial transportation.

---

RenzoSupreme said:

I know how cattle are fed..

---

koraks said:

Pris, I appreciate your wit, but your argument about meant not being inefficient in terms of production factors and enivornmental cost is the biggest facepalm I've ever seen here on this board. And that says something. Goddamn, you really can be a stubborn moron.

Quote:

Assessment suggests that on average the complete life cycle environmental impact of nonvegetarian meals may be roughly a factor 1.5–2 higher than the effect of vegetarian meals in which meat has been replaced by vegetable protein.

---

Reijnders & Soret, "Quantification of the environmental impact of different dietary protein choices", American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, Vol. 78, No. 3, 664S-668S, September 2003

---

Prisoner#1 said:

http://extension.umd.edu/publications/pdfs/fs447.pdf

and yes, there is incidental use such as cooling or fly control but you're
referring to a few hundred gallons of water per day for an entire herd,
that's included in the links that I'd posted and still maintains the usage
for cattle to around 1% of the total agricultural water usage

---