Vegan vs. Meat eaters
- Thread starter rawhide
- Start date
BigRedBuster
Active member
ZRod
Active member
No, their starving because were greedy aholes, but we don't care.
cornographic
Banned
Dunno, maybe. Vegetarianism is a part of Hindu/Buddhist culture, for sure.
In health circles, it means you are a vegetarian who avoids dairy products also. When I became a vegan back in '83, well, it was almost like coming out as gay or atheist and my NE farmer inlaws started sending me beef brochures and pamphlets and such and were really 'worried' about me for the longest time. Took alot of heat otherwise for a number of years and it is only in the last 10 years or so that the topic has pretty much lost it's taboo and all the friggin rednecks and otherwise mainstream Muricans are finally coming around--to the idea of healthy eating, at least.
I actually wouldn't necessarily advise and would probably caution against anyone going from meat eating to complete vegetarianism. I think a moderate amount of decent quality meat, etc, is more healthly. It's all the junk food that will kill you before your time.
Last edited by a moderator:
cornographic
Banned
Well, one of the main reasons people are starving is that their land has been stolen from them--for one reason or the other, often big agribusiness--hence, they are 'refugeed'. Continually getting bombed in imperialistic wars doesn't help either, no doesn't help at all. Other than that, it's a matter of manufactured scarcity, poor distribution, and profit motive, keeping people from having food.
Last edited by a moderator:
BigRedBuster
Active member
BigRedBuster
Active member
I'm assuming the above correction is correct for which I answer with.....
The United States is the largest humanitarian country in the world and we are the greedy a$$hole$?
Chances are someone starving in Africa is not because of lack of effort on our part. Almost always it's because of a horrible government or dictator over the country.
zoogs
New member
I grew up on beef and it's one of the established staples of modern culinary tradition. I'd prefer to continue those, but only because I'm used to it. That said, you have to be open to the possibility that the things we grew up on won't be the dominant practices of tomorrow. And with the growing global population, we might have to change to accommodate.
BigRedBuster
Active member
I'll admit that growing cattle for some of the world might not be the best use of the land. That's the decision that the population in those areas need to make.
However, there is one HELL of a lot of land in the US that is not good for raising crops BUT, it can raise cattle. Are people suggesting we should tear up the sandhills of Nebraska so we can grow crops? That land is the same it's been since the glaciers melted. That would be one of the worst environmental decisions in the history of the US.
Are people saying they can go into most of Texas and grow crops in basically a desert? I would love to see how the propose to do that.
Some of the best cattle in the central states come out of the badlands in SD. What crops to feed people is going to be grown there?
All these places I mention are in the calculations of land that is used to raise cattle. It's NOT going to be used for crop production.
However, there is one HELL of a lot of land in the US that is not good for raising crops BUT, it can raise cattle. Are people suggesting we should tear up the sandhills of Nebraska so we can grow crops? That land is the same it's been since the glaciers melted. That would be one of the worst environmental decisions in the history of the US.
Are people saying they can go into most of Texas and grow crops in basically a desert? I would love to see how the propose to do that.
Some of the best cattle in the central states come out of the badlands in SD. What crops to feed people is going to be grown there?
All these places I mention are in the calculations of land that is used to raise cattle. It's NOT going to be used for crop production.
zoogs
New member
^ Well, those sound like good arguments for continuing to raise cattle in those areas. Fine by me!
There are arguments that we can end world hunger, if we *really* wanted to. I'm not sure how much merit there is to that, but it doesn't sound impossible. Heck. There's a great deal of things we could do if we could just get it done (from single payer health insurance to fixing highways and investing in infrastructure), but we don't. It's frustrating and merits criticism. Think of it as pointing the thumb.
It's kind of a startling way to put it, but we do enjoy a very disproportionately good situation here in the U.S -- in food, in energy use, among other things. I find it hard to apologize for that; hey, I like my food...but it is of course frustrating when so much can be done in areas, but so little actually happens.I'm assuming the above correction is correct for which I answer with.....
The United States is the largest humanitarian country in the world and we are the greedy a$$hole$?
Chances are someone starving in Africa is not because of lack of effort on our part. Almost always it's because of a horrible government or dictator over the country.
There are arguments that we can end world hunger, if we *really* wanted to. I'm not sure how much merit there is to that, but it doesn't sound impossible. Heck. There's a great deal of things we could do if we could just get it done (from single payer health insurance to fixing highways and investing in infrastructure), but we don't. It's frustrating and merits criticism. Think of it as pointing the thumb.
Is that last sentence surprising?
Last edited by a moderator:
BigRedBuster
Active member
Supply of food is not the problem. We have enough food to feed the world. Distribution of that food is the problem. In most areas where there is a problem with distribution, there is a bad government preventing it.^ Well, those sound like good arguments for continuing to raise cattle in those areas. Fine by me!
It's kind of a startling way to put it, but we do enjoy a very disproportionately good situation here in the U.S -- in food, in energy use, among other things. I find it hard to apologize for that; hey, I like my food...but it is of course frustrating when so much can be done in areas, but so little actually happens.I'm assuming the above correction is correct for which I answer with.....
The United States is the largest humanitarian country in the world and we are the greedy a$$hole$?
Chances are someone starving in Africa is not because of lack of effort on our part. Almost always it's because of a horrible government or dictator over the country.
There are arguments that we can end world hunger, if we *really* wanted to. I'm not sure how much merit there is to that, but it doesn't sound impossible. Heck. There's a great deal of things we could do if we could just get it done (from single payer health insurance to fixing highways and investing in infrastructure), but we don't. It's frustrating and merits criticism. Think of it as pointing the thumb.
Is that last sentence surprising?
There are many situations where we (us greedy people) have sent huge amounts of food to countries and the food never gets to the people who are starving.
Now, I guess we could go in and militarily take over those countries and feed the people. I'm pretty sure that would go over like a fart in church.
PS....and none of that has anything to do with if cattle are being raised in the Sandhills and fed corn in the Platte Valley and butchered and I eat a steak.
Last edited by a moderator:
Supply of food is not the problem. We have enough food to feed the world. Distribution of that food is the problem. In most areas where there is a problem with distribution, there is a bad government preventing it.^ Well, those sound like good arguments for continuing to raise cattle in those areas. Fine by me!
It's kind of a startling way to put it, but we do enjoy a very disproportionately good situation here in the U.S -- in food, in energy use, among other things. I find it hard to apologize for that; hey, I like my food...but it is of course frustrating when so much can be done in areas, but so little actually happens.I'm assuming the above correction is correct for which I answer with.....
The United States is the largest humanitarian country in the world and we are the greedy a$$hole$?
Chances are someone starving in Africa is not because of lack of effort on our part. Almost always it's because of a horrible government or dictator over the country.
There are arguments that we can end world hunger, if we *really* wanted to. I'm not sure how much merit there is to that, but it doesn't sound impossible. Heck. There's a great deal of things we could do if we could just get it done (from single payer health insurance to fixing highways and investing in infrastructure), but we don't. It's frustrating and merits criticism. Think of it as pointing the thumb.
Is that last sentence surprising?
There are many situations where we (us greedy people) have sent huge amounts of food to countries and the food never gets to the people who are starving.
Now, I guess we could go in and militarily take over those countries and feed the people. I'm pretty sure that would go over like a fart in church.
PS....and none of that has anything to do with if cattle are being raised in the Sandhills and fed corn in the Platte Valley and butchered and I eat a steak.
Buster is correct most of the problem is not a lack of food, it is poor distribution or no distribution. Warlords taking and selling the food, no way to get the food off the docks and to the starving people etc.
ZRod
Active member
Sorry I'm using my phone, and your correction was right. That statement was mostly tongue in cheek, but you and zoogies addressed what was veiled behind my comment. I don't disagree with anything you've said in here BRB. In fact I've been astonished that I'm almost entirely agreeing with you today through out the P&R forum.I'm assuming the above correction is correct for which I answer with.....
The United States is the largest humanitarian country in the world and we are the greedy a$$hole$?
Chances are someone starving in Africa is not because of lack of effort on our part. Almost always it's because of a horrible government or dictator over the country.
