Originally posted by FabianFnasThe solutions are not so much science fiction anymore as they are a matter
I've seen this solution in numerous science-fiction stories (like Asimov's trilogy and like). And there they're work pritty nice.
But I would miss the nature. Strolling in the woods, hearing birds chirping, see the sunset over the sea. But instead breathing conditionned uverused air, drinking recycled water, eating food produced by god only knows. Well, I'm glad I don't live in this future.
of cost and research. And who says you can't stroll the woods and listen to
the birds? In fact, there will be more woods and birds for your casual
strolling this way. I know I wrote "on the sea, or in the desert", but there's
nothing saying we can't build them "near land, or close to vegetation", if
not in the woods directly. The basic idea is to not impeach as much on
nature; not using resources without giving nature a chance to recover.
Originally posted by JigtieIn order to save the planet, I'm prepared to sacrifice the chirp-chirp.
The solutions are not so much science fiction anymore as they are a matter
of cost and research. And who says you can't stroll the woods and listen to
the birds? In fact, there will be more woods and birds for your casual
strolling this way. I know I wrote "on the sea, or in the desert", but there's
nothing saying we can't build them "near land, or cl ...[text shortened]... peach as much on
nature; not using resources without giving nature a chance to recover.
How far (near?) in the future do you think these kind of project will be neccesary? (Meaning: How pessimistic about the future are you?)
- Joined
- 05 Oct 05
- Moves
- 63425
Originally posted by FabianFnasYour, "My sole contribution to make a change won't make a difference in the bigger picture" mentality, times the majority of the population's sharing of that viewpoint, is what keeps people locked into inaction. If you believe your practices to be worthy of a change for the better, change your practices for nothing more than your own personal satisfaction.
My reproducing or not doesn't have any effect of the overpopulation of the planet. Not more than me eating a good juicy steak, anyway.
How many is a reasonable number of people so we can live in balance with the nature? And continue eating what our bodies need? One billion? Less?
Stating meat is a necessity to our bodies is incorrect. If anything, it is healthier to the body to replace the meat with other sources of protein. Fact is, meat is a habit, and it's easier to continue the habit than to replace it with healthier alternatives.
Originally posted by SJ247You're right. (We're talking about eating meat, aren't we?)
Your, "My sole contribution to make a change won't make a difference in the bigger picture" mentality, times the majority of the population's sharing of that viewpoint, is what keeps people locked into inaction. If you believe your practices to be worthy of a change for the better, change your practices for nothing more than your own personal satisfaction.
...[text shortened]... abit, and it's easier to continue the habit than to replace it with healthier alternatives.
The tendency is that people eat less and less meat over time? And so am I.
But the vegetarianism is only one way to bring nature in order. To save energy, use less fossil fuels, and many other methods are at hand. Pick one, and stick with it. Doing something is better than doing nothing.
1 edit
I suppose the question that I didn't ask, but was sort of implied was, would you fight to protect your "right" to eat meat, even if all the evidence out there suggested that it was now endangering the overall health and well-being of not only the planet, but also the vast majority of its citizens.
Originally posted by duecerToo right. Not many cattle go hungry everyday. One hectare to feed one person beef, or the same hectare can simultabeously feed just under 20 people rice or some other staple grain crop. Lets not even go to the water the cattle consume. The worlds cattle get fed enough grain that could feed the world(all of its citizens) ten times over. So come the revolution will you be fighting to maintain your right to eat meat or will you be fighting to free up the land and stop the clearing of Amazonian rainforrests needed to keep feeding the meat tables of this planet?
save the planet...start eating meat. Bands of roving cattle are eating all our grass!!!:'( If left unchecked there is no telling how fast they can multiply. The only solution is to eat them, before they eat us out of house and home!!! gentleman to your grills!!ðŸ˜
Originally posted by kmax87I'm not too worried about running out of resources -- Al Gore says we're all going to die because of "global warming."
This is a recast title that parallels a different thread I started. This one posing its question just a little more directly.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qiYghMmFc_8
Have a look at that video first and then comment on whether or not you think the issue of using the worlds resources this badly may eventually precipitate a natural Apocalypse, or whethe ...[text shortened]... ainst the overfed, over resourced, coronary hardened corpulence that is much of the first world?
1 edit
Originally posted by kmax87You know, according to a recent (or maybe not so recent - can't
Too right. Not many cattle go hungry everyday. One hectare to feed one person beef, or the same hectare can simultabeously feed just under 20 people rice or some other staple grain crop. Lets not even go to the water the cattle consume. The worlds cattle get fed enough grain that could feed the world(all of its citizens) ten times over. So come the revolution ...[text shortened]... op the clearing of Amazonian rainforrests needed to keep feeding the meat tables of this planet?
remember when I read it) study, people are like huge flocks of birds. If
only a few changes direction, the rest will follow without even thinking
about it. That's what needs to be done here. A few respected leader
types has to take a stand for what's right, and the rest will follow like...
well, like birds, soaring through the blue skies in triumph and beautiful
formation.
To answer your question: I want to follow the lead in a new direction
against the interests of the meat industry.
Yeeee-haaaw!
Or not.
Woooo-hoooo!
Yeah, that's better.
Originally posted by der schwarze RitterAnd cattle contribute more to the greenhouse effect than does burning fossil fuels.
I'm not too worried about running out of resources -- Al Gore says we're all going to die because of "global warming."
But with cattle its a double wammy. The land being cleared to raise cattle also happens to be large tracts of Amazonian forestation so that the lungs of the earth, the trees in the Amazonian forest that help filter out the nasties and convert Co2 into O2 are being depleted while the numbers of cattle increase.
Its like bailing water out of a leaky boat with a soup spoon but instead of trying to fix the hole and make the spoon bigger we're doing the exact opposite, making the hole bigger and expecting to keep the leaky boat afloat with a tea spoon.
Originally posted by der schwarze RitterYeah what a chump!
I'm not too worried about running out of resources -- Al Gore says we're all going to die because of "global warming."
What public figure would want to take on the task of trying to teach a largely ignorant America what the rest of the world pretty much agrees is already happening.
I wouldn't want that job!
The markets will change anyway. Market forces will lead people to start investing in renewable energy and buying smaller, more cost effective cars, because, as resources dry up prices will rise. Birthrate is already slowing in most more-developed countries. Hopefully as people live longer and have children later this will gradually reach a balance.
Originally posted by kmax87No we wouldn't want to go to the water. Presenting the amount of water cattle drink alongside how many people die of thirst, or how much grain cattle consume alongside how many people (or was it children? much more emotive to use children or poor widdle bubbies) die of hunger proves nothing except how gullible some people are.
Too right. Not many cattle go hungry everyday. One hectare to feed one person beef, or the same hectare can simultabeously feed just under 20 people rice or some other staple grain crop. Lets not even go to the water the cattle consume. The worlds cattle get fed enough grain that could feed the world(all of its citizens) ten times over. So come the revolution ...[text shortened]... op the clearing of Amazonian rainforrests needed to keep feeding the meat tables of this planet?
A cow drinking a gallon of non potable water out of a trough in Australia does not deprive a poor widdle bubby in Africa of water.
"How To Lie With Statistics" Darrell Huff
Didn't see any mention of an apocalypse in the vid either, basically if you get warm fuzzies from not eating meat then, hey, go for it, whatever blows your hair back bud. Want to take it a step further, buy a cattle ranch and convert it to rice, no need for all these hollow threats about "fighting" in a revolution.