PDA

View Full Version : An Article On Problems Wrought By The



LTJBukem
11-16-2003, 08:25 PM
There are more than six billion people who share our planet. Ultimately it is us who have the power in the marketplace to determine which foods will be produced and sold, and to what extent the industrial model of agriculture will be replaced. It is clear that the adoption of the Western diet as a worldwide standard will ensure a planet with more disease and increasingly severe environmental problems. Conversely, we know that plant-based protein is readily available and it is less costly, both in terms of direct costs, and in terms of the "external" costs that we are already paying (e.g. for subsidies, environmental cleanup and to treat disease).

Planet on a Plate offers insight into how our food consumption patterns impact on the biosphere and the earth's ability to sustain a growing human population. This publication deserves wide circulation and support - it is a valuable educational tool. Too many of us simply have not seen the connection between what we put on our plates and the state of our physical world and our own health. We have not, for example, related the quality of our water to the foods that we purchase. We have not related the myriad of Western ailments to our diets. But the tide is beginning to turn.

The evidence against industrial animal production ("factory farms") specifically, and meat-intensive diets in general is both overwhelming and compelling. Fortunately, this fact is being widely recognised and changes are occurring. For example, the veggieburger, once relegated to the status of a "niche market" is now commonplace in every corner shop and supermarket. The consumption of soya-based products is rising exponentially and main stream companies have entered the vegetarian market in a significant way. Yes, positive change has begun.

While it is true that we have a long way to go, Planet on a Plate will have enormous impact in hastening the dietary revolution that needs to occur. We can build the kind of planet, the kind of future that we want. But we need to act and we need to act now.

Global warming is increasing, the hole in the ozone layer is getting bigger, rainforests are disappearing, deserts are expanding, fossil fuels are running out and seas are dying.

So what's this got to do with diet? Everything!

The meat industry directly contributes to all the major environmental catastrophes facing our planet. The number of farmed animals in the world has quadrupled in the last 50 years and this puts an incredible strain on the environment. Food production no longer nurtures the land; instead both animals and soil are pushed to their limits and beyond in an effort to satisfy the voracious appetite of the Western world. It is an appetite for both meat and profit.

The current buzz word is 'sustainable' and yet modern agriculture is anything but sustainable. Rainforests are still being chopped down at an alarming rate either for grazing or to grow crops to feed to animals. Crops (mostly grown for animal feed) require pesticides and fertilisers that then leach into waterways, causing massive pollution. The increased numbers of animals means more manure, which contributes to acid rain, pollutes rivers and lakes and renders drinking water unsafe. Soil is pushed beyond its fertility limits, is not replenished or fallowed and becomes prone to erosion. Top soil, the very stuff of life, is now a rapidly disappearing commodity. Oceans are being destroyed by overfishing, which is devastating entire marine ecosystems, while coastal fish farms are causing extensive pollution and wildlife decline.

That, in a nutshell, is what confronts us, and it is a pretty depressing picture. Despite an abundance of scientific evidence that the world's life support systems are being seriously eroded, the situation is getting worse, not better, as the scale of decline accelerates.

Factory Farming

Farming practices have intensified over the last 60 years and resulted in a powerful and destructive industry based on 'intensive' or 'factory' farming. Its aim is to increase yields while decreasing the cost of production. The welfare of animals is rarely considered, so they are kept in tightly packed and frequently inhumane conditions to ensure maximum profit.

More animals mean more crops are needed to feed them, so there is pressure on farmers to increase crop yields. Over 70 per cent of the land in England and Wales is used for agriculture, 40 per cent of this is used as grazing for livestock (1), while a high proportion of the remainder is used to grow crops to feed livestock. In the US a typical cow will consume about two tons of grain while at a feedlot, just to gain 400 pounds in weight (2).

The world production of grain has more than tripled in the past 40 years - during the same period the production of livestock has also tripled (3). Yet famine is still widespread across the globe.

Forests are cleared, ponds are dried, hedgerows ripped up, precious water supplies are wasted in order to provide food and grazing for cattle. This is proven to be an inefficient use of land. Ten hectares of land will provide enough meat to feed only two people compared to providing enough maize for 10 people, grain for 24 people or soya for 61 people (3a).

Animal feed crops are often products of monoculture - a practice that involves growing the same single crops in the same field year after year with no fallowing or rotation. Soil cannot sustain such intense demands, so chemical fertilisers are used to promote crop growth as a matter of course. Growing feed for industrial animal agriculture systems changes land use and harms biodiversity through habitat loss and ecosystem damage (4).

Improper grazing has caused extensive environmental damage and rangeland degradation in the Western US; topsoil erosion is a serious problem in the US and in other countries. The application of pesticides and chemical fertilisers has led to a depletion of organic matter and loss of soil biological communities - vital for recycling and distributing nutrients.

Fields have been made larger to accommodate bigger machinery. An estimated 300,000 miles of hedgerow have been lost in the UK since 1945. Results of the Council for the Protection of Rural England hedgerow survey shows that 23 per cent of hedges were lost between 1984 to 1990 (5). This combined with continuous pesticide spraying has decimated the primary food sources of many birds and small mammals. The RSPB report a 50 per cent decline in the number of farmland species of bird in Britain and knock on effects of pesticide applications can be felt throughout the food chain (6). The constant saturation of our countryside with poisons has had some unexpected consequences, with some organisms developing resistance to chemicals, so even more powerful concoctions have been developed.

This chemical warfare has led to a system completely dependant on pesticides, 22 million kg are sprayed onto land in the UK every year (7). They not only remain in foodstuffs, but accumulate in the soil and leach into waterways. Some are carcinogenic, while others promote allergies, birth defects and various health problems (8). Water companies spend £120m per year on treating water to remove pesticides from our water (9).

Water - The Fountain of Life

Water Eutrophication
The high nitrogen content of fertilisers causes algae to thrive and has led to algal blooms so toxic that they have killed healthy dogs who have swum through them. The sheer density of algae can block out sunlight, denying it to other plants and fish. When the algae dies, its remains are broken down by bacteria that remove oxygen from the water in the process and can suffocate most life.

This process is called eutrophication and even the seas are not safe from it. In 1981, ‘83 and ‘86, large quantities of flatfish were found dead in the North Sea where this process had led to an 80 per cent oxygen decrease in bottom waters (10). A “dead” zone in the Gulf of Mexico of up to 7,000 square miles that can no longer support most aquatic life is linked to nutrients from farm runoff – including animal waste. This type of pollution is also believed to be linked to Pfiesteria outbreaks and massive fish kills in the coastal waters of North Carolina and Maryland (11).

Farming was the largest source of eutrophication in the UK between 1989 - 1997 with up to 3000 different freshwater bodies affected by algal blooms (12).

Bio-accumulation
The chemical cocktail sprayed on agricultural land is accumulating and contaminating reservoirs, rivers, lakes and ponds and its residues can be found throughout the food chain. Just as with heavy metals, these residues are increasingly concentrated the higher up the food chain you go by a process of bio-accumulation. Chemicals present in waterways are absorbed by micro-organisms. Aquatic life feeds on huge quantities of these organisms, which are then eaten by fish and the residues they contain are stored in their fatty tissues.

Fish is used as fertiliser or eaten by humans, and the residues continue to concentrate up the food chain - and the higher you go, the larger the dose of toxins you receive. A similar process takes place with livestock, who consume vast quantities of residue-containing food. It is particularly marked in meat and dairy products, which can contain 14 times more contaminants than plant foods. The way to reduce your level of ingestion of these chemicals is to choose your diet from low down the food chain - from plants - preferably organic plants.

Nitrogen pollution
Fertilisers contain large amounts of nitrogen, much of which cannot be absorbed by the crops. The excess nitrogen leaches from the soil on which it is spread into underground reservoirs - the source of much of our water supply. Nitrogen in drinking water is associated with ‘blue baby syndrome’ - a potentially fatal destruction of the red blood cells in new-born children.

Nitrogen can also transform into nitrites, which can combine with proteins in food to form nitrosamines, which are carcinogenic - cancer promoting. Millions of pounds are spent by water companies in the UK to treat the water in order to bring the nitrate levels down to a legally acceptable level, this cost is of course passed on to us, the customer.

Manure
There is obviously a simple equation - the more animals, the more manure. Both have increased so dramatically that it is estimated that the US cattle herd alone produces 253,924 pounds of manure per second (13). While in the UK it has been estimated that the country’s 3 million dairy cows could produce up to 62 billion litres of excreta per year (12).

Waste from intensive farming also poses an environmental threat. A lot of manure is stored with water as slurry. This toxic liquid is 100 times more polluting than human sewage and it frequently leaks into rivers and streams where it can exterminate all life.

In 1992, the waste from livestock was 13 times as much as from humans in the US (14). In 1998 the amount of animal manure produced was 2.6 trillion pounds (15). Ammonia emissions from manure can settle on plants and soil, resulting in toxicity and biodiversity loss; spreading manure on land can lead to nitrates in groundwater, posing health hazards; manure can accumulate heavy metals, contaminating crops and increasing health risks (16).

Acid Rain
Stored slurry contains large amounts of ammonia, which becomes a breeding ground for bacteria. Their action creates acid, which evaporates and then combines with nitrous oxide from fertilisers and industrial pollution to form acid rain. Acid rain is extremely destructive and sours soil, destroys forests and renders once prolific waters lifeless. After the burning of fossil fuels, animal manure is the second biggest cause of acid rain.

Water usage
Earth is two-thirds water and only 0.06 per cent of this is fresh water and even less of this is available as drinking water.

Animal agriculture uses huge amounts of water, energy and chemicals, often with little regard for the long-term adverse effects. Between 1940 and 1980, world-wide usage of water doubled and 70 per cent of it goes into agriculture (17). Many irrigation systems are pumping water from underground reservoirs much faster than they can ever be recharged.

The production of meat is an inefficient use of such a vital limited resource. It takes 1000 litres of water to produce one kilogram of wheat, yet it takes 100,000 litres of water to produce one kilogram of beef (18). The University of California studied water use in their state, where most agricultural land is irrigated, and they place water use for vegetables such as tomatoes, potatoes and carrots in the 20 to 30 gallon range for an edible pound of food. It takes 441 gallons of water to make a pound of beef (19).

Fresh water, once a seemingly abundant resource, is now becoming scarce in many regions and that poses a real threat to the stability of the world. Numerous countries are in dispute over water supplies and the seeds of future wars are clearly beginning to germinate.

Top soil
Top soil is the fertile upper layer of soil without which almost nothing will grow. It is essential for life and yet it is being eroded at an alarming rate through over-use and denaturing due to the excessive use of fertilisers and pesticides.

In the 20th century alone, the US has lost half its topsoil and 7 billion tons a year continue to be eroded (20). Its structure has been so distorted that wind and water can simply carry it away (21). With luck, top soil is replenished at a rate of 2.5 centimetres every 100 years.

Some 85 per cent of top soil loss is attributed to livestock rearing (22). Around the world, top soil is being eroded at rates 16 to 300 times faster than it can regenerate (23). Globally it is estimated that 24 billion metric tons of fertile soil is lost each year, an amount equal to the entire agricultural land area of the US (24).

Energy

Intensive farming requires large amounts of energy: fuel to run huge combine harvesters, tractors and other machinery; energy to produce and transport pesticides and fertilisers; and fuel to refrigerate and transport perishable produce across the country and around the world. Fossil fuels are required throughout this process and their use contributes to ozone depletion and global warming.

Inefficiency of Meat

Animals use the energy they gain from food to move around, breathe, grow, keep warm and perform all their bodily functions - just as we do. Only six per cent of their energy intake ends up being stored in flesh or milk. For every 16 pounds of high-protein food fed to cattle, only one pound of meat results. In terms of food energy, it takes 24 calories in the form of grain or soya to produce a single calorie of beef (25). In fact, the more a cow is milked, the more grain concentrates she needs (26).

Looked at from a global perspective, livestock production represents an obscene waste of food and a betrayal of the world's poor. High quality food such as wheat and soya, which could feed humans, is being fed to animals and largely wasted. The amount of feed consumed by the US beef herd alone would feed the entire populations of India and China - two billion people. As factory farming is spread to these and other developing countries, the implication for world food resources is deeply depressing. As always, it will be the poorest who pay the price in disease and famine.

A vegetarian - or even better a vegan - diet is capable of feeding the entire population of the world - and then some (27)!

Global Warming

Carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide are naturally occurring gases in the atmosphere. They act like the glass of a greenhouse by trapping the sun's heat and reflecting it back to earth. This phenomenon is what makes the world habitable, keeping the atmosphere about 33°C/92°F higher than it would otherwise be. But animal agriculture adds significantly to global warming. Scientific American (9/97) reported that growing feed for livestock requires intense use of synthetic fertiliser, releasing nitrous oxide – a far stronger greenhouse gas than CO2. Producing feed and heating buildings that house animals uses fossil fuels, emitting CO2; decomposition of liquid manure releases larger amounts of methane into the atmosphere as well as forming nitrous oxide (28).

The concentration of carbon dioxide, methane or nitrous oxide has, until now, been determined by a complex interaction between oceans, forests, soil, ice-caps and clouds. These natural changes have taken place over millions of years. However, the last few decades have seen an extraordinary explosion in these three greenhouse gases. The result has been global warming. All 10 of the hottest years on record have occurred in the last 15 years.

Warmer weather might sound great to those who live in cold climates, but such dramatic changes could actually mean disaster. Britain's Hadley Centre for Climate Change has predicted dramatic events, including, for example, flooding. As the polar ice caps melt and the world's oceans warm and expand, flooding will be a global problem. The number of people on coastlines subject to flooding each year will rise from 5 million at present to 100 million by 2050 and 200 million by 2080. Vast tracts of land, about one third of all agricultural land, and some island countries will disappear under water permanently as sea levels rise. Mass migrations of millions of landless people present a potential environmental and humanitarian disaster as well as threatening potential serious conflict.

Another 30 million people will be hungry in 50 years because large parts of Africa will become too dry to grow crops. An extra 170 million people will live in countries with extreme water shortages.

Malaria, one of the world’s most dreaded diseases, will threaten much larger areas of the planet (29).

The tundra regions of the world contain within their frozen soil an incalculable amount of methane. As the soil defrosts with increasing temperatures, billions of tons of gas may be released to add to the global warming. The more the earth warms, the more gas will be released. This is called positive feedback and could mean that the greenhouse effect becomes unstoppable with unknown consequences.

There is much talk about planting more trees
to replace those cut but it is only a partial answer. Rainforests developed over thousands of years and constitute unique and perfectly balanced ecosystems which, once destroyed, cannot be successfully replaced (30). It is the old growth forest which is most valuable in storing carbon and moderating climate change. Only 22 per cent of old growth forest remains and this is being cut at a rate of nearly 2 acres per second (31).

Felled Forests
Rainforests are vitally important to life on Earth. They are invaluable in storing large reserves of CO2. Slash and burn eradicates all growth and unlocks centuries worth of stored CO2 in only minutes when the wood is burned. The released gas floats upwards and contributes to global warming.

Every hour, at least an additional 4,500 acres fall to chain saws, machetes, bulldozers and flames (32). Rainforests are chopped down initially for the large trees, which are used for timber. The rich tapestry of saplings, seedlings, shrubs, bushes, plants and smaller trees are cut to the ground and burned - as are many of the creatures who depend upon them. The barren land which results from slash and burn is largely used as grazing or growing feed for livestock cattle (33).

In 1996, the US imported 4.2 per cent of its 2.07 billion pounds of imported beef from Brazil; that’s over 80 million pounds of beef (34).

One of the most affected areas is Costa Rica, which was once almost entirely clad in trees. In the last 20 years, nearly 80 per cent of its forests have been cut. Just one hamburger made from Costa Rican beef is estimated to cost the life of a large tree, 50 saplings and seedlings of some 20-30 different species, hundreds of species of insects and a huge diversity of mosses, fungi and micro-organisms (35).

When given an economic value it has been estimated that sustainably harvested for fruits and latex one hectare of rainforest is worth £4,550. The same area of land is worth only £1650 as clearcut timber and a paltry £100 as pasture (35a).

It is not just rainforest that has been lost. Habitats all around the world have been adversely affected by agriculture. In the UK, more than 95 per cent of original woodlands have been destroyed - most of that land is now used to graze or grow feed for farmed animals. Britain, once a beautiful and varied landscape, has become a monoculture of grains and grass.

More cattle means more belching and this is now the second largest contributor to global warming after fossil fuel burning. World-wide, livestock produces 882 tons of methane per year and accounts for 17 per cent of all global warming emissions of methane (36). Methane is 20 times more effective at warming the globe than CO2, which it joins above the earth (37).

Desertification
According to the United Nations, deserts are growing at the rate of 74,592 square miles every year - an area the size of England and Scotland (39). This decline of once fertile soil into desert land is called desertification. One of the major contributors to the process is cattle ranching and the grazing of other livestock such as sheep, camels and goats on the margins of existing deserts.

Ex-rainforest land is particularly prone to deterioration as the soil is comparatively thin. It has adapted over thousands years to support the forest with its network of roots, and these in turn hold the soil together. The effect of cattle grazing, with their heavy bodies and hard hooves, is to compact the soil, break down its structure and reduce its fertility. The loss of trees also leads to a reduction in water vapour, which prompts climate change and reduces rainfall levels. The eventual end result of these different factors is desert. Unfortunately, when the soil becomes dry, lifeless and unsuitable for cattle, the ranchers move on and start the process again somewhere else.

The most effective way of slowing down desertification is to reduce overgrazing, deforestation and destructive forms of planting and irrigation (40). It is widely acknowledged by many organisations that intensive farming practices are unsustainable and environmentally damaging. The WWF recommend in their Living Planet 2000 report that people reduce their intake of dairy and meat products in order to reduce grazing pressure on land (40a).

Species Loss
The scale of deforestation means that thousands of species, possibly millions, are losing their habitat at an accelerating rate. The richly abundant and often unique flora and fauna of the forests are disappearing. Every hour, a further four plant or animal species become extinct (41). It is estimated that at least one half of the world's species live in the rainforests.

Many rainforest plants have valuable medicinal properties and contain the only known cure for certain diseases. They are used to treat cancer, strokes, heart disease and many other illnesses. By wiping out the rainforests we are possibly destroying an abundant supply of new drugs capable of curing major diseases. Many of the species being destroyed are unknown to humankind.

Wildlife
Furthermore, most wildlife is seen as competition to farmers. Many species are not only killed by pesticides and the purposeful destruction of habitats such as woodlands, marshlands and ponds, but are also shot, hunted or trapped. In the UK, foxes, rabbits, badgers and increasingly once again wild boar are considered a threat to the farmers income. In the USA each year the federal government hunters and trappers kill about 100,000 coyotes, bobcats, feral pigs and mountain lions. They are shot from aeroplanes, caught in steel-jaw leghold traps or neck nooses, or poisoned with cyanide (38). This number does not include the many animals mistakenly caught in traps or the animals killed by the landowners themselves.

Fishing

Countless birds and other animals suffer and die from injuries caused by swallowing or becoming entangled in discarded fishing hooks, monofilament line and lead weights (42).

Commercial fishing of the oceans has decimated both fish stocks and the aquatic environment. Herring, cod, hake, redfish and mackerel are the fish species that are most commonly exploited commercially across the world - some of which are close to becoming extinct as a result of overfishing. There are several methods used for commercial fishing:

Trawling
Trawlers, some the size of football fields (43), work non-stop across the oceans' fishing grounds, backwards and forwards in a never-ending process which scoops up huge quantities of fish and destroys the sea bed and the creatures that live there. Nets like huge tapering bags are used, and the mouth of the bag can be 224 ft. wide! It is kept open by huge, metal-bound trawl (otter) boards that can weigh tons. They are dragged across the ocean floor and crush and grind to destruction anything in their path.

A variant is the beam trawl, where a long metal beam is fixed to the underside of the net's opening. Floatation devices keep the mouth of the net open and dangling from the beam are 'tickler' chains, which drag along the bottom forcing almost every creature from its hiding place into the mouth of the net.

Between 60 and 80 million tons of fish are caught from the seas of the world each year by trawling. The total for all methods is about 100 million tons. Fish that are too small, non-target species or species with no commercial value are discarded. This can include almost every creature from the sea or sea bed - sea urchins, brittle stars, crabs, dolphins, seals and sea-birds.

As shrimp nets are dragged through the water, they catch every living creature in their path - trapping both shrimp and unwanted fish and sea turtles. Sea turtles caught in shrimp nets are held under water until they drown. Thousands of endangered sea turtles are killed in this way every year (44).

The ecological balance of the oceans is disturbed when the catch rate exceeds the natural reproduction rate. This is overfishing. All 17 of the world's major fisheries have either reached or exceeded their limits. The North Sea is cleared of a quarter of its fish every year.

Drift Netting
Drift nets hang like curtains from the surface of the sea. Constructed from thin but strong monofilament nylon, they are virtually invisible to all sea life. They can be up to an incredible 30 miles long. The target fish are often tuna, but as dolphins tend to congregate where tuna swim, they too die in large numbers. Rays, sharks, sea birds and small whales all become entangled in these ghostly nets.

It is not uncommon for nets to become detached in rough weather and float away to kill large numbers of animals and birds. When weighed down with dead bodies they sink to the bottom but once the carcasses have rotted, they float back to the surface and continue their destruction. Thousands of dolphins, porpoises, small whales, sea lions and walruses are killed by drift nets each year (45).

After years of campaigning, drift nets were banned by the EU from 1 January 2002 in the Atlantic and Mediterranean. Sadly, the Baltic Sea was exempted after lobbying by Demmark, Sweden and Finland who continue to use this destructive fishing technique with their 350 vessels.

Purse Seine Netting
A purse seine net is suspended from the surface, the bottom of it many fathoms below the surface. The boat pays out the net in a complete circle so the effect is like that of a tube of netting hanging down, surrounding the target shoal of fish. A kind of drawstring at the bottom of the net is pulled tight so the net represents a purse with an open top but a closed bottom. The top is then also closed and the net hauled inboard. Again, tuna are the main target, but again, dolphins also get trapped and drown.

Wildlife
Many birds, including razor-bills, cormorants, and puffins, feed mainly on sand eels, sprats and small herrings, all of which are heavily exploited by fishermen. In 1994, overfishing in the North Sea was believed to have caused about 100,000 birds to starve and the problem seems to be worsening.

Commercial fishermen often blame the low numbers of fish on local wildlife and demand ‘culling’ to solve the problem. As a result, seals have been killed in their thousands - 51,000 in Russia and 250,000 in Canada in 1996 and there are similar demands being made in Britain. In February 1999, a proposal was presented to the US Congress by the National Marine Fisheries Service to allow fishermen and ‘resource’ managers to shoot Pacific harbour seals and Californian sea lions along the coasts of California, Oregon and Washington to protect the dwindling stocks of salmon and steelhead and to reduce competition for fish between these pinnipeds and humans (46).

Fish - a healthy option?
The flesh of fish often stores dangerous contaminants, such as PCB’s, suspected of causing cancer, nervous system disorders and foetal damage; dioxins, also linked to cancer; radioactive materials like strontium 90; and such toxic metals as cadmium, mercury, lead and arsenic, which can cause health problems ranging from kidney damage and mental retardation to cancer (47).

Fish Farming

Overfishing and the subsequent collapse of many commercial fisheries has led to an increase in fish farming. The increase in the number of fish farms has adversely affected wild fish populations. Many fish farms are found in coastal regions of the world. In the Scottish lochs, where many of the UK’s fish farms are found, there is a slow exchange rate of water, lochs containing fish farms tend to have unnaturally higher nutrient levels and eutrophic conditions which inevitably lead to more frequent algal blooms (48).

There has been a dramatic rise in the amount of factory farmed salmon produced in Scotland. There are 340 salmon farms in Scotland, in 1980 the amount of salmon produced was 800 tonnes, in 2000 it was 127,000 tonnes (49). Salmon are carnivorous, a large proportion of the oceanic catch is caught to feed them - it takes 5 tons of fish caught from the sea to produce one ton of factory farmed salmon (50). Inland factory-farmed fish are kept in shallow concrete troughs. The intensive crowding – as many as five fish per square foot – spreads infection and parasites, so factory fish farmers use antibiotics to get more fish fatter faster (51).

Parasites commonly found on factory farmed fish are also infecting wild populations - wild fish would never come into contact with more than a few lice during their lifetime. Increasing numbers of fish farms has led to increasing numbers of lice in waters which effectively eat fish alive.

Besides antibiotics, growth promoting drugs and disinfectants, other chemicals used in fish farming include the pigment Canthaxanthin, used to turn the fish's flesh from its natural grey to pink. Canthaxanthin is banned as an additive in food but fed to fish which are bred to be eaten. It is banned in the USA because it is believed to be carcinogenic (52). According to the executive director of the Marine Aquatic Association, farmed salmon are pale because they are denied their natural carotenoid-rich diet.

Wildlife
As well as altering the natural balance of coastal waters, fish farms attract fish-eating wildlife. So the fish farmers often try to protect their stocks by killing the wildlife, including seals, otters, guillemots, herons, dolphins, porpoises and basking sharks.

On March 4, 1998, a federal law in the US took effect that allows fish farmers in 13 states to kill unlimited numbers of cormorants to protect their profits. The US Fish & Wildlife Service estimates that 92,000 of these birds will be killed by fish farmers each year—about 5 to 10 per cent of the North American population (53).

Seabird numbers plummet as a result of overfishing, while the catch is fed to carnivorous fish and herbivorous livestock as high protein food.

Pollution
Northern Hemisphere fish farms are commonly found in the same coastal areas as those polluted by industry, human sewage and agriculture. It is inevitable that fish will take in some of the toxins and concentrate them.

Fish farms also cause their own pollution. One ton of farmed trout produces pollution equal to the untreated sewage of 200-300 people. It has been estimated that the amount of pollution in Scotland due to ammonia output from fish farming is comparable to sewage produced by 9.4 million people (54). Faeces and food pellets are concentrated around the netted underwater cage, but the bulk accumulates beneath the cages. This toxic build-up causes de-oxygenation and can adversely affect local wildlife communities. Eutrophication can occur as the water is enriched with nitrates, phosphates and nitrogenous waste products.

Unfortunately, fish farming is now a global phenomenon for expensive creatures such as prawns and yellow tails. The coastal areas chosen for the farms are usually mangrove swamps, seen as useless areas ripe for exploitation. In fact they provide the most productive and important habitat in the oceans. Ninety per cent of marine fish rely upon the amazing diversity provided by the mangroves, particularly for spawning. Over 2,000 species of fish, crustaceans and plants thrive there.

Mangroves act as buffers, they prevent flooding, stop erosion and are the nursery of ocean life - and they are being ripped up faster than anyone can count. Indonesia, the Philippines, Malaysia, Thailand, Ecuador, Panama - clearance is rampant everywhere. The subtropical regions of the world have lost 70 per cent of all mangrove swamps since 1960, largely to fish farming. The construction of fish farms has led to the decline in wild populations of fish and shell fish in particular. Mangroves are destroyed as more farms are built, however farms rely upon wild larvae to stock them, but numbers are dwindling because they are destroying the very habitat from which they originate. After a few years the farms have to be moved, cutting down yet more mangroves. Desolation is left behind.

The environment pays a terrible price for that prawn cocktail!

Conclusion

There is one thing within your power that will have a huge and immediate impact in protecting our planet, and that is to change your diet. Stop eating meat and fish today - and, give up dairy products. Any step you take is important, and you can immediately begin to remove yourself from the cycle of exploitation and destruction. Even better, raise your voice.





Originally posted by About the author
http://www.viva.org.uk/guides/grafs/davidbrubaker.jpg

David Brubaker, Ph.D. is Director of the Henry Spira/GRACE Project on Industrial Animal Production, Center for a Liveable Future, Johns Hopkins University School of Public Health, USA. He also serves as
a consultant to the Global Resource Action Center for the Environment in
New York City.

Brubaker is a graduate of Temple University, Southern Illinois University and the University of Pennsylvania. He is a member of the Committee for a Global Water Contract. Brubaker has served as a consultant to numerous non-governmental organisations. Previously he was the Executive Vice President of PennAg Industries Association, a regional agribusiness trade association. He is a former president of the Agricultural Associations Executive Council, and was a member of the board of Directors of the American Feed Industry Association.

Long active in the cleanup of the Chesapeake Bay, he has served as Chair of the Citizens Advisory Committee to the Chesapeake Executive Council and in many other Bay-related positions. He lives in Lititz, Lancaster County, Pennsylvania.

Source (http://www.viva.org.uk/guides/planetonaplate.htm)

http://www.viva.org.uk/

J'Pol
11-16-2003, 08:58 PM
You must know that no-one is actually going to read that.

What an exercise in futility.

Perhaps if you could précis it, maybe a couple of lines of your own thoughts on the matter may help.

TheDave
11-16-2003, 09:08 PM
i eat meat im healthy.
meat is good for you anyone that says otherwise is lying

3rd gen noob
11-16-2003, 09:12 PM
the gallardo just beat the gt3

i'm shocked :o

bigboab
11-16-2003, 09:14 PM
Originally posted by TheDave@16 November 2003 - 21:08
i eat meat im healthy.
meat is good for you anyone that says otherwise is lying
Does this mean I am to avoid the use of the word 'otherwise' in any future postings? :rolleyes:

pol
11-16-2003, 09:20 PM
Originally posted by 3rd gen noob@16 November 2003 - 21:12
the gallardo just beat the gt3

i'm shocked  :o
me too :o

1:25 in the wet >_<


ps - i reckon it&#39;s mr. hill btw ;)

J'Pol
11-16-2003, 09:22 PM
Originally posted by bigboab+16 November 2003 - 22:14--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (bigboab @ 16 November 2003 - 22:14)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-TheDave@16 November 2003 - 21:08
i eat meat im healthy.
meat is good for you anyone that says otherwise is lying
Does this mean I am to avoid the use of the word &#39;otherwise&#39; in any future postings? :rolleyes: [/b][/quote]
LIAR

3rd gen noob
11-16-2003, 09:22 PM
Originally posted by pol+16 November 2003 - 21:20--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (pol @ 16 November 2003 - 21:20)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-3rd gen noob@16 November 2003 - 21:12
the gallardo just beat the gt3

i&#39;m shocked&nbsp; :o
me too :o

1:25 in the wet >_<


ps - i reckon it&#39;s mr. hill btw ;) [/b][/quote]
well, now that i&#39;ve calmed down a bit and thought about it, the result was inevitable

i mean, the gallardo has 4wd and a large power advantage

anyway, i think stig is Perry McCarthy (check out the cover of his book, it proclaims he is "TV&#39;s The Stig") ;)

bigboab
11-16-2003, 09:24 PM
Originally posted by J&#39;Pol+16 November 2003 - 21:22--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (J&#39;Pol @ 16 November 2003 - 21:22)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Originally posted by bigboab@16 November 2003 - 22:14
<!--QuoteBegin-TheDave@16 November 2003 - 21:08
i eat meat im healthy.
meat is good for you anyone that says otherwise is lying
Does this mean I am to avoid the use of the word &#39;otherwise&#39; in any future postings? :rolleyes:
LIAR [/b][/quote]
:lol:

I&#39;m of to participate in some amber nectar, while pretending to watch the TV. :D

J'Pol
11-16-2003, 09:25 PM
http://images-eu.amazon.com/images/P/1844250180.02.LZZZZZZZ.jpg

LTJBukem
11-16-2003, 09:25 PM
Originally posted by J&#39;Pol@16 November 2003 - 20:58
You must know that no-one is actually going to read that.

What an exercise in futility.

Perhaps if you could précis it, maybe a couple of lines of your own thoughts on the matter may help.
It&#39;s up to the individual whether they want to read up on a subject or not. After last nights discussion, i thought i&#39;d post some resouces for those who are interested.

Did you read this article JPol? I thought you of all people might think it worthwhile to spend some time learning something. Maybe you&#39;d like to comment on it?




This spamming is why i tend not to post in the lounge, all you lot do in here is talk crap. If i want to do that i go down the pub and meet my friends, just like i&#39;m about to do now.

But hey, &#39;bump&#39; away.

3rd gen noob
11-16-2003, 09:26 PM
Originally posted by J&#39;Pol@16 November 2003 - 21:25
http://images-eu.amazon.com/images/P/1844250180.02.LZZZZZZZ.jpg
thanks, J&#39;Pol :D

TheDave
11-16-2003, 09:26 PM
Originally posted by J&#39;Pol@16 November 2003 - 21:25
http://images-eu.amazon.com/images/P/1844250180.02.LZZZZZZZ.jpg
cool

J'Pol
11-16-2003, 09:27 PM
Originally posted by bigboab+16 November 2003 - 22:24--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (bigboab @ 16 November 2003 - 22:24)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Originally posted by J&#39;Pol@16 November 2003 - 21:22

Originally posted by bigboab@16 November 2003 - 22:14
<!--QuoteBegin-TheDave@16 November 2003 - 21:08
i eat meat im healthy.
meat is good for you anyone that says otherwise is lying
Does this mean I am to avoid the use of the word &#39;otherwise&#39; in any future postings? :rolleyes:
LIAR
:lol:

I&#39;m of to participate in some amber nectar, while pretending to watch the TV. :D [/b][/quote]
Moi too

Watching the Brazil Peru Game

Brazil just got a pen

Sky Sport 3 btw

3rd gen noob
11-16-2003, 09:27 PM
Originally posted by LTJBukem@16 November 2003 - 21:25
But hey, &#39;bump&#39; away.
2. Posts containing subject matter deemed grotesque, disturbing, obscene, malicious, or of a sexual nature may be edited or deleted. Images containing complete nudity are not allowed, and nude images in which the subject(s) are topless may only be posted in the Lounge area.

pol
11-16-2003, 09:27 PM
i&#39;m too slow again :(

http://www.uploadit.org/files2/161103-66348thumb.jpg

J'Pol
11-16-2003, 09:30 PM
Originally posted by LTJBukem+16 November 2003 - 22:25--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (LTJBukem @ 16 November 2003 - 22:25)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-J&#39;Pol@16 November 2003 - 20:58
You must know that no-one is actually going to read that.

What an exercise in futility.

Perhaps if you could précis it, maybe a couple of lines of your own thoughts on the matter may help.
It&#39;s up to the individual whether they want to read up on a subject or not. After last nights discussion, i thought i&#39;d post some resouces for those who are interested.

Did you read this article JPol? I thought you of all people might think it worthwhile to spend some time learning something. Maybe you&#39;d like to comment on it?




This spamming is why i tend not to post in the lounge, all you lot do in here is talk crap. If i want to do that i go down the pub and meet my friends, just like i&#39;m about to do now.

But hey, &#39;bump&#39; away. [/b][/quote]
:lol: :lol: :lol:

I didn&#39;t read it so :

No Comment.

Oh and sorry we are not up to your level of discussion, just talking crap and all that sort of thing. I may have a wee search for your posts elsewhere and learn a bit about proper discussions.

LTJBukem
11-16-2003, 09:36 PM
Originally posted by 3rd gen noob+16 November 2003 - 21:27--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (3rd gen noob &#064; 16 November 2003 - 21:27)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Originally posted by LTJBukem@16 November 2003 - 21:25
But hey, &#39;bump&#39; away.
2. Posts containing subject matter deemed grotesque, disturbing, obscene, malicious, or of a sexual nature may be edited or deleted. Images containing complete nudity are not allowed, and nude images in which the subject(s) are topless may only be posted in the Lounge area.[/b]
Yeah, that&#39;s funny. Mind you, that&#39;s probably the closest you&#39;ll get to sex, spending every night on this board.


<!--QuoteBegin-JPaul
I may have a wee search for your posts elsewhere and learn a bit about proper discussions.[/quote] Go ahead- If you have nothing better to do with your life. I tend to post in software world because i&#39;m interested in computers and software. I guess you post in the Lounge because you have an interest in social interaction, and this is the closest you can get.

Have a great night.

3rd gen noob
11-16-2003, 09:40 PM
Originally posted by LTJBukem@16 November 2003 - 21:36
Yeah, that&#39;s funny. Mind you, that&#39;s probably the closest you&#39;ll get to sex, spending every night on this board.
oh, it&#39;s sad because it&#39;s true <_<

J'Pol
11-16-2003, 09:41 PM
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Absolutely

You have a great night too, with your mates. I bet it&#39;s just one big long party where you are.

Cheese
11-16-2003, 09:50 PM
Here&#39;s a more interesting way of putting it LTJ:

http://www.themeatrix.com/

J'Pol
11-16-2003, 10:01 PM
Originally posted by Withcheese@16 November 2003 - 22:50
Here&#39;s a more interesting way of putting it LTJ:

http://www.themeatrix.com/
That&#39;s really good.

Thanks for the link.

I assume you are rennet free btw.

bigboab
11-16-2003, 10:07 PM
Originally posted by J&#39;Pol+16 November 2003 - 22:01--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (J&#39;Pol @ 16 November 2003 - 22:01)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Withcheese@16 November 2003 - 22:50
Here&#39;s a more interesting way of putting it LTJ:

http://www.themeatrix.com/
That&#39;s really good.

Thanks for the link.

I assume you are rennet free btw. [/b][/quote]
Can you find me one that is mortgage free. :lol:

Cheese
11-16-2003, 10:18 PM
Originally posted by bigboab+16 November 2003 - 22:07--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (bigboab @ 16 November 2003 - 22:07)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Originally posted by J&#39;Pol@16 November 2003 - 22:01
<!--QuoteBegin-Withcheese@16 November 2003 - 22:50
Here&#39;s a more interesting way of putting it LTJ:

http://www.themeatrix.com/
That&#39;s really good.

Thanks for the link.

I assume you are rennet free btw.
Can you find me one that is mortgage free. :lol: [/b][/quote]
???

Am I missing something? :blink: (Probably :D )

J'Pol
11-16-2003, 10:25 PM
RENneT

Sadly I may be too much on boabs wavelength to consider myself in good mental health.

Billy_Dean
11-16-2003, 10:28 PM
Well I read it, didn&#39;t learn much I didn&#39;t know. Like the spammers, didn&#39;t learn much I didn&#39;t know there either. You get to learn in the lounge that certain people, when they have nothing intelligent to say, say it anyway. I&#39;m almost a vegetarian, I eat meat maybe once or twice a week, sometimes not. I&#39;m 55 and look 40. I climb hills for excercise, and ride a pushbike everywhere I go. I challenge any 7 day meat eater of my age to say they are healthier than me. I don&#39;t get sick, ever, I may have the odd accident, but that&#39;s not my diet. The world will never give up eating meat, but if they were to cut down it would help, what harm is there in going without meat once or twice a week? I make vegetarian dishes that would make anyones mouth water. Maybe instead of taking the piss out of vegetarians you should be grateful that they are doing something beneficial for the world.


:)

J'Pol
11-16-2003, 10:31 PM
That&#39;s what the lounge is for Billy, or didn&#39;t you know that.

Cheese
11-16-2003, 10:33 PM
Originally posted by J&#39;Pol@16 November 2003 - 22:25
RENneT

Sadly I may be too much on boabs wavelength to consider myself in good mental health.
lol That almost went over my head then (thank god for Google...)

No, I&#39;m pretty much a meat-eater anyhow...I need my strength.

Abe
11-16-2003, 10:36 PM
Can&#39;t even eat want you want anymore without someone hovering over you blabing scientific thoeries. ;) If I take a P%ss wrong I damage some part of the world lol

TheDave
11-16-2003, 10:38 PM
Originally posted by Abe@16 November 2003 - 22:36
Can&#39;t even eat want you want anymore without someone hovering over you blabing scientific thoeries. ;) If I take a P%ss wrong I damage some part of the world lol
yeah, the rug :lol:

Billy_Dean
11-16-2003, 10:38 PM
Originally posted by Abe@17 November 2003 - 08:36
Can&#39;t even eat want you want anymore without someone hovering over you blabing scientific thoeries. ;) If I take a P%ss wrong I damage some part of the world lol
Oh good, another intelligent lounge lizard&#33;


:)

Cheese
11-16-2003, 10:42 PM
Originally posted by TheDave+16 November 2003 - 22:38--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (TheDave @ 16 November 2003 - 22:38)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Abe@16 November 2003 - 22:36
Can&#39;t even eat want you want anymore without someone hovering over you blabing scientific thoeries. ;)&nbsp; If I take a P%ss wrong I damage some part of the world lol
yeah, the rug :lol: [/b][/quote]
ROFL (though careful to miss the wet patch)

J'Pol
11-16-2003, 10:43 PM
Come on now Billy, the chap is just new and may not be a native English speaker.

Give him / her a chance here, without just going for the throat.

vivitron 15
11-16-2003, 10:56 PM
Originally posted by J&#39;Pol+16 November 2003 - 22:31--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (J&#39;Pol @ 16 November 2003 - 22:31)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> That&#39;s what the lounge is for Billy, or didn&#39;t you know that. [/b]

Originally posted by lounge description+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (lounge description)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>You may talk about anything here.[/b]
<!--QuoteBegin-forum rules@
3. Spam is not permitted in any form[/quote]

This gentleman was trying to start a serious topic about a subject about which he is concerned. If you have no interest in what is being said then why perpetuate the thread by spamming it? If you do not think that you will enjoy participating in it, then don&#39;t, allow it to fall off the bottom of the screen.

The subject title of this thread clearly stated to what the post is refering, so you didnt even have to come into it.

Are the spammers here so absent minded that they are not able to allow a conversation to exist without their involvement? If you were in the pub and someone wasn&#39;t talking about what you want to discuss, do you interrupt them and start your own conversation regardless? You may all start any kind of thread that you want, you don&#39;t need to use other peoples threads. You do all know how to use this:
http://www.klboard.ath.cx/style_images/1/t_new.gif
dont you?

Oh, and finally:
<!--QuoteBegin-Abe
Can&#39;t even eat want you want anymore without someone hovering over you blabing scientific thoeries.&nbsp; If I take a P%ss wrong I damage some part of the world lol[/quote]
I don&#39;t remember anyone "hovering over you", i would guess that you intentionally came into this thread, and decided to read it and post.

Cheese
11-16-2003, 11:02 PM
To be fair LTJ didn&#39;t really try to start a serious discussion he just cut and pasted something that someone else had to say on the subject. I&#39;m sure that if he had come on and posted his OWN views then maybe he would have been taken more seriously.

pol
11-16-2003, 11:02 PM
Originally posted by vivitron 15+16 November 2003 - 22:56--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (vivitron 15 &#064; 16 November 2003 - 22:56)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Originally posted by J&#39;Pol+16 November 2003 - 22:31--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (J&#39;Pol &#064; 16 November 2003 - 22:31)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> That&#39;s what the lounge is for Billy, or didn&#39;t you know that. [/b]

Originally posted by lounge description
You may talk about anything here.
<!--QuoteBegin-forum rules@
3. Spam is not permitted in any form

This gentleman was trying to start a serious topic about a subject about which he is concerned. If you have no interest in what is being said then why perpetuate the thread by spamming it? If you do not think that you will enjoy participating in it, then don&#39;t, allow it to fall off the bottom of the screen.

The subject title of this thread clearly stated to what the post is refering, so you didnt even have to come into it.

Are the spammers here so absent minded that they are not able to allow a conversation to exist without their involvement? If you were in the pub and someone wasn&#39;t talking about what you want to discuss, do you interrupt them and start your own conversation regardless? You may all start any kind of thread that you want, you don&#39;t need to use other peoples threads. You do all know how to use this:
http://www.klboard.ath.cx/style_images/1/t_new.gif
dont you?

Oh, and finally:
<!--QuoteBegin-Abe
Can&#39;t even eat want you want anymore without someone hovering over you blabing scientific thoeries. If I take a P%ss wrong I damage some part of the world lol[/quote]
I don&#39;t remember anyone "hovering over you", i would guess that you intentionally came into this thread, and decided to read it and post.[/b][/quote]


15" my arse

Abe
11-16-2003, 11:06 PM
well DANM.

EDIT:better?

Now go back to your serious conversation about the worlds destruction.

TheDave
11-16-2003, 11:09 PM
how do you get a 15" arse?

vivitron 15
11-16-2003, 11:10 PM
Originally posted by Withcheese@16 November 2003 - 23:02
To be fair LTJ didn&#39;t really try to start a serious discussion he just cut and pasted something that someone else had to say on the subject. I&#39;m sure that if he had come on and posted his OWN views then maybe he would have been taken more seriously.
There is a psychological theory that no knowledge can be created by man, and that every aspect of our thoughts merely adds to that which we have already been told.

Regardless of his intentions, there remains no reason to justify the spam which was posted here. If indeed the reason for posting this article was (as i can only assume) that he wanted a discussion about it to follow, then that chance has now been lost. I would love for someone to justify the need for spamming this topic; i will pose the question to you all Why not start your own topics?


and pol, that is exactly the mindless behaviour to which i am refering. Thank you dearly for proving my point.

J'Pol
11-16-2003, 11:15 PM
Vivitron

He cut and pasted a diatribe and didn&#39;t even go to the bother of expressing an opinion. So why would I take that seriously.

My first post suggested that he may wish to let us know what he thought, rather than take the role of a cyber photocopier.

Threads are hi-jacked in the lounge constantly. It is the way it works here.

I am frankly at a loss to understand why you have chosen this one to take the moral high ground.

Oh and thanks for the advice on where I should and shouldn&#39;t post. However if you have a problem with where and what I am posting, tough. If you think it inappropriate you know where the teachers lounge is.

TheDave
11-16-2003, 11:17 PM
this has been going on for days. cant we just stop.

some eat meat, some dont. <_<

Billy_Dean
11-16-2003, 11:19 PM
Originally posted by TheDave@17 November 2003 - 09:17
this has been going on for days. cant we just stop.

some eat meat, some dont. <_<
If you&#39;re bored you can stop, or do you need someone to hold your hand?



:)

TheDave
11-16-2003, 11:21 PM
well what else is there to do?

pol
11-16-2003, 11:23 PM
vivitron15, if you feel so strongly about it then why not pm a mod



There is a psychological theory that no knowledge can be created by man, and that every aspect of our thoughts merely adds to that which we have already been told.

bollocks. what age are you ?

i ask because, for talking&#39;s sake, if your 25, then would you be happy in the thought that by the time you were 35 then you wouldnt know any better, or have made any advances by yourself ?

there&#39;s &#39;theories&#39; about everything


and pol, that is exactly the mindless behaviour to which i am refering. Thank you dearly for proving my point.

mindless behaviour ??

get it together man.

vivitron 15
11-16-2003, 11:23 PM
JP

I must commend you on your first post; you asked the poster for his opinion. The ensuing couple of replys were also fine. I believe it was 3rd Gen who started the spamming on this occasion. There is no particular reason for you to take it seriously, that i grant you, however this person is allowed to start a discussion if they so do wish.


Threads are hi-jacked in the lounge constantly. It is the way it works here.
this is exactly what i fail to understand. Why is this so? Why not start your own topics?
If no-one wants to discuss something, then allow it to fall off the bottom of the screen.

I have chosen this topic, because it is a perfect example. It took 3 replys to be spammed. I fail to see the benefits to anyone. I would like to repeat my question

f you were in the pub and someone wasn&#39;t talking about what you want to discuss, do you interrupt them and start your own conversation regardless?

TheDave
11-16-2003, 11:24 PM
There is a psychological theory that no knowledge can be created by man, and that every aspect of our thoughts merely adds to that which we have already been told.
that means no-one can know anything :ph34r:

vivitron 15
11-16-2003, 11:26 PM
Originally posted by pol@16 November 2003 - 23:23
bollocks. what age are you ?

i ask because, for talking&#39;s sake, if your 25, then would you be happy in the thought that by the time you were 35 then you wouldnt know any better, or have made any advances by yourself ?

there&#39;s &#39;theories&#39; about everything


mindless behaviour ??

get it together man.
I am a 20 year old student, whose girlfriend is studying a psychology honours degree. I would like to quote exactly the theorem, however i do not take a studious interest, I merely learn in passing from her works.

There are theories about most things, i grant you, but i do believe that this is an established theorem.

I would love to know what it was that you felt you were contributing by adding your comment. I assure you, at the time of writing my monitor was 15"

J'Pol
11-16-2003, 11:27 PM
It was spammed because it deserved to be.

To copy a wordbrick (thanks Hobbes) from the internet and post it without comment or expressing your own opinion is nothing less that thread pollution.

So it was treated in the way that it deserved.

TheDave
11-16-2003, 11:28 PM
but if that were true, we&#39;d all be dead

vivitron 15
11-16-2003, 11:30 PM
I fail to see how you are able to judge what is worthy of discussion and what is not?

And Dave, are you referring to the original post? If so then I do believe you almost started to discuss it there. That is a turn up for the books.

TheDave
11-16-2003, 11:30 PM
im referring too
There is a psychological theory that no knowledge can be created by man, and that every aspect of our thoughts merely adds to that which we have already been told.

vivitron 15
11-16-2003, 11:33 PM
welll i fail to see how, but regardless, this is not the topic at hand.

Why not start your own topics?

My point is using that was exactly that conversation must begin somewhere, and in quoting this article, a conversation could indeed have ensued.

J'Pol
11-16-2003, 11:34 PM
Originally posted by vivitron 15@17 November 2003 - 00:30
I fail to see how you are able to judge what is worthy of discussion and what is not?

And Dave, are you referring to the original post? If so then I do believe you almost started to discuss it there. That is a turn up for the books.
Taking the pub scenario.

If someone walked in and placed a newspaper open on the table, without saying anything, would you discuss it, or ignore it.

If they said, look Viv I was reading this today and I think there may be some truth in it. What would you do then.

If someone wants to discuss something then they should say something about the subject. Not just put the source material on the table.

TheDave
11-16-2003, 11:34 PM
ok. heres my 2 pennies

i dont think its unhealthy.

happy now?

pol
11-16-2003, 11:37 PM
Originally posted by vivitron 15+16 November 2003 - 23:26--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (vivitron 15 &#064; 16 November 2003 - 23:26)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-pol@16 November 2003 - 23:23
bollocks. what age are you ?

i ask because, for talking&#39;s sake, if your 25, then would you be happy in the thought that by the time you were 35 then you wouldnt know any better, or have made any advances by yourself ?

there&#39;s &#39;theories&#39; about everything


mindless behaviour ??

get it together man.
I am a 20 year old student, whose girlfriend is studying a psychology honours degree. I would like to quote exactly the theorem, however i do not take a studious interest, I merely learn in passing from her works.

There are theories about most things, i grant you, but i do believe that this is an established theorem.

I would love to know what it was that you felt you were contributing by adding your comment. I assure you, at the time of writing my monitor was 15"[/b][/quote]
:spam:


ps - sorry, i didnt realise that the 15" was for a monitor, maybe you should change your sig to &#39;why use one word when a double entendre would suffice&#39;, seeing as you seem to have a very selective sense of humour


I fail to see how you are able to judge what is worthy of discussion and what is not?

we&#39;re not worthy, glad to have you around to keep us all in check

vivitron 15
11-16-2003, 11:38 PM
JP,

If someone walked into my local and put a newspaper on the table, and I caught a glimpse of the headline, then maybe I would start to discuss it, depending, of course on the subject matter. However, I feel that the link between my use of the analogy and yours is somewhat tenuous, as the way in which a conversation begins on a forum cannot be compared to that of a social scenario, whereas a conversation follows pretty much the same format regardless of the situation in which it exists.

Why not start your own topics?

TheDave
11-16-2003, 11:39 PM
whats your oppinion on this article viv?

vivitron 15
11-16-2003, 11:41 PM
Originally posted by pol@16 November 2003 - 23:37
:spam:

ps - sorry, i didnt realise that the 15" was for a monitor, maybe you should change your sig to &#39;why use one word when a double entendre would suffice&#39;, seeing as you seem to have a very selective sense of humour


we&#39;re not worthy, glad to have you around to keep us all in check
I would love for you to prove this to not be true. I dont believe that you will be able to.

And yes, i do indeed have a selective sense of humour. I do like Friends, however i do not like Bo Selecta. I would imagine that this is true of most individuals, however, again this is not the topic at hand.

I never claimed I was the one to judge whether a topic should be allowed to be posted.

But, please answer me one thing
Why not start your own topics?

J'Pol
11-16-2003, 11:43 PM
Originally posted by vivitron 15@17 November 2003 - 00:38
JP,

If someone walked into my local and put a newspaper on the table, and I caught a glimpse of the headline, then maybe I would start to discuss it, depending, of course on the subject matter. However, I feel that the link between my use of the analogy and yours is somewhat tenuous, as the way in which a conversation begins on a forum cannot be compared to that of a social scenario, whereas a conversation follows pretty much the same format regardless of the situation in which it exists.

Why not start your own topics?
Correct me if I am wrong :

1. You chose the analogy.

2. I start "my own topics" on a regular basis.

Cheese
11-16-2003, 11:44 PM
I like Friends and Bo selecta and meat.

vivitron 15
11-16-2003, 11:45 PM
Originally posted by TheDave@16 November 2003 - 23:39
whats your oppinion on this article viv?
I personally think that is quite an important article, which most people should take time to at least skim through. I have not had time to go through it with a fine-toothed comb, however I feel that it addresses many issues. One of the most important of which is the fact that the meat based diet is incredibly inefficient. It is perfectly logical that the animals waste some energy before they are consumed.

Also, I found interesting the point regarding deforestation. I did not know that this was an issue. I personally think that it is shocking, as we (as a planet) have precious few resources left, and should really be starting to conserve some on a global scale. It has opened my eyes, and I think that I would like to look morre into this

edit: and yes JP, i used an analogy which was relevant to my point. Your use of the analogy isn&#39;t really analogous to the situation at hand

edit: Yes, JP I am aware that you start topics, and i have enjoyed participating in them from time to time. I still do not however see the need to hijack topics, when everyone is able to start their own

J'Pol
11-16-2003, 11:51 PM
Originally posted by vivitron 15@17 November 2003 - 00:45


edit: and yes JP, i used an analogy which was relevant to my point. Your use of the analogy isn&#39;t really analogous to the situation at hand
I think you will find that it is.

The chap was hardly a regular in this particular lounge / bar.

Your analogy was based on a group of friends having a discussion in a pub. I would suggest that the stranger was the person who started the thread, by placing the article on the table, whilst making no comment on it.

vivitron 15
11-16-2003, 11:57 PM
The person here made it clear that they wanted to start to discuss this topic. They did this by placing a thread in an open forum for people to view. This can only be compared to saying "Hey, theres something here that i found interesting, would anyone like to comment"

The people jumping in and spamming were effectively shouting over the top of this person and his conversation. In effect "butting in", if i may use such a colloquism. Granted, the conversation had not yet begun to take effect, but the speed of a conversation on a forum and in a pub are incredibly varied.

pol
11-17-2003, 12:02 AM
I would love for you to prove this to not be true. I dont believe that you will be able to

:huh:, prove what ??

that you have a selective sense of humour ?
the reason i said that was that having a look at your member title and sig would suggest that you do actually have a sense of humour, but i failed to notice it when you started posting in this thread as if it was a matter of life or death (sorry to steal your thunder BigBoab).


And yes, i do indeed have a selective sense of humour. I do like Friends, however i do not like Bo Selecta. I would imagine that this is true of most individuals, however, again this is not the topic at hand.

i&#39;d have to agree (on the "most individuals" part) but i&#39;d have to guess that&#39;s due to the fact that friends has an audience of hundreds of millions, whereas i doubt most non uk folks have ever heard of bo selecta (as well as it mainly just takes the piss out of brits, so it would hardly be relevant to anyone else), to their loss.


But, please answer me one thing
Why not start your own topics?

because since i returned to the board a couple of days ago, i&#39;ve seen umpteen threads about vegetarians etc etc, and since this is the lounge whats the problem ?

so please return the favour and answer a question,
why not lighten up ?

ps - i cant believe i&#39;m spending so much time with this, if your not happy then pm a mod instead of trying to act like one - there&#39;s plenty of serious threads about veg lately, why dont you post in those ?

J'Pol
11-17-2003, 12:05 AM
Originally posted by vivitron 15@17 November 2003 - 00:57
The person here made it clear that they wanted to start to discuss this topic. They did this by placing a thread in an open forum for people to view. This can only be compared to saying "Hey, theres something here that i found interesting, would anyone like to comment"

The people jumping in and spamming were effectively shouting over the top of this person and his conversation. In effect "butting in", if i may use such a colloquism. Granted, the conversation had not yet begun to take effect, but the speed of a conversation on a forum and in a pub are incredibly varied.
Which part don&#39;t you understand.

It&#39;s the equivalent of someone not saying anything, because he didn&#39;t say anything.

He made nothing clear, because he didn&#39;t say anything.

The thread was worthless, because he .... what&#39;s the point.

vivitron 15
11-17-2003, 12:11 AM
I apologise, though it did seem from your post that you were insinuating that my personal comments were spam. I realise there is very little ways to emphasise your comments, as there is IRL. In the same way, I was meaning that most people have a varied sense of humour. I fail to see why this was referred to.

The comment about "this is the lounge..." is exactly my point. Why is it that threads in here are able to be spammed, when this is clearly against the rules of the forum? The purpose of the lounge is for people to be able to enjoy the ability to discuss "Off-Topic" discussions.

I assure you I am very similar to you, I just fail to see why this mentality has emerged in the lounge...It was never like this when I was a more active lounge member.

And your last comment intrigues me. I would love to be able to post in a serious thread about meat, however people keep spamming them...this is exactly the case in hand. If I were trying to act like a mod, then I would be attempting to move this thread, however I&#39;m not going to waste my time; it would be futile.

I just can&#39;t see the benefit to anyone of spamming threads about such as this in here. A few months ago, I was able to discuss things with people, without the need for them to resort to spam, like they do now.

vivitron 15
11-17-2003, 12:12 AM
Originally posted by J&#39;Pol@17 November 2003 - 00:05
Which part don&#39;t you understand.

It&#39;s the equivalent of someone not saying anything, because he didn&#39;t say anything.

He made nothing clear, because he didn&#39;t say anything.

The thread was worthless, because he .... what&#39;s the point.
The fact that he posted meant that he registered an interest in the topic, JP as well you know. If he didnt want to discuss it in a civilised manner, then he wouldnt have posted.

J'Pol
11-17-2003, 12:14 AM
Is Spam meat, is that the problem.

vivitron 15
11-17-2003, 12:15 AM
Originally posted by J&#39;Pol@17 November 2003 - 00:14
Is Spam meat, is that the problem.
No JP, Im sure you can see my point. I would just like to know why it is that the concensus around the lounge is that it is all about spam. The lounge is a place for "Off-Topic" discussion.

edit: removed JPs quote line, see below

J'Pol
11-17-2003, 12:16 AM
Originally posted by vivitron 15@17 November 2003 - 01:12
If he didnt want to discuss it in a civilised manner, then he wouldnt have posted.
You would think so wouldn&#39;t you.

However I tend to base my judgements on evidence, rather then "common sense".

vivitron 15
11-17-2003, 12:17 AM
It is true that:


Originally posted by saying
common sense isn&#39;t
however there is no reason to spam this topic. If people feel it is "flame-bait" or "uninteresting" then why not allow it to fall? maybe someone else would like to discuss it?

J'Pol
11-17-2003, 12:19 AM
Originally posted by vivitron 15@17 November 2003 - 01:15

No JP, Im sure you can see my point, as I&#39;m pretty sure you are quite an intelligent man.&nbsp;
Thanks awfully for that, condescending as it may be.

I am sure you are quite an intelligent tax dodger as well.

Does the superiority complex come naturally, or do you have to work at it.

vivitron 15
11-17-2003, 12:26 AM
incredibly sorry there. I have edited my post, as it may indeed not have sounded genuine. I was in fact refering to the fact that i am aware thaty you are an intelligent, well read gentleman. (or so is the opinion that i have informed of you from reading your posts). I do have to work at being condescending, however this, again is not the issue.

It is late, and I shall be retiring soon. The only thing that I would like to know is why people feel the need to thread-spam. That is all. It is clearly against the rules, and as such i fail to understand how it continues.

edit: oh, and by the way JP, I have paid quite a lot of tax into this country already, and after having graduated, I would like to get a good job; a result of which is that I will pay more tax, but such is life. I am not bitter or angry at this.

hobbes
11-17-2003, 12:33 AM
Originally posted by vivitron 15@17 November 2003 - 00:57
The person here made it clear that they wanted to start to discuss this topic.&nbsp; They did this by placing a thread in an open forum for people to view.&nbsp; This can only be compared to saying "Hey, theres something here that i found interesting, would anyone like to comment"

The people jumping in and spamming were effectively shouting over the top of this person and his conversation.&nbsp; In effect "butting in", if i may use such a colloquism.&nbsp; Granted, the conversation had not yet begun to take effect, but the speed of a conversation on a forum and in a pub are incredibly varied.
Viv,

I think the problem here is that this thread stems from a thread started by JPaul last night and most of us on this thread know it. Apparently Burkem felt unsatisfied with the outcome and decided to show up today with a copy and paste article to show us that he was right. I find it ironic that when he landed in the thread last night, it was apparent that he hadn&#39;t taken the time to read what others had already stated, and now he starts off here with a long reading assignment I bet he hasn&#39;t fully read.

The discussion took place last night, this thread was a simple attempt to "show us who was right". It takes no effort to rely on the words and academic degrees&#39; of others to express your point. A discussion comes from his taking the time to condense the key points from the article and express them in his words, providing a link for the person to read the source.

The desire to have a discussion was immediately recognized as a disingenuous and was treated in such a manner. Had the thread not had this history behind it, I am confident that it would not have been treated thusly. It also would have had a better chance of survival in the World News section, which hangs in heavy stagnation at the moment.

I, of course, have not participated in this spamfest, but then again, I&#39;m not some apple drinking, : selling, barsteward

J'Pol
11-17-2003, 12:37 AM
Originally posted by vivitron 15@17 November 2003 - 01:26
incredibly sorry there. I have edited my post, as it may indeed not have sounded genuine. I was in fact refering to the fact that i am aware thaty you are an intelligent, well read gentleman. (or so is the opinion that i have informed of you from reading your posts).&nbsp; I do have to work at being condescending, however this, again is not the issue.

It is late, and I shall be retiring soon.&nbsp; The only thing that I would like to know is why people feel the need to thread-spam.&nbsp; That is all.&nbsp; It is clearly against the rules, and as such i fail to understand how it continues.

edit: oh, and by the way JP, I have paid quite a lot of tax into this country already, and after having graduated, I would like to get a good job; a result of which is that I will pay more tax, but such is life. I am not bitter or angry at this.
Too late mate.

Are you aware of the phrase " In vino veritas"

You don&#39;t have to work on being condescending, you pretty much have it sorted.

I&#39;m glad that you are not angry at having to pay a lot of tax, given that this will only happen if you have a substantial income. How magnanimous of you.

Maybe one day you may meet someone who has to decide whether to feed themself or their child. I hope not, but you never know, it might happen.

vivitron 15
11-17-2003, 12:41 AM
I thank you for taking the time to discuss this. I assume
http://www.klboard.ath.cx/index.php?showtopic=81904&st=90
this is the thread to which you refer. I read a little bit of it, but to be honest i couldnt be bothered to join a thread which was so long, so i was not aware of the history.

however surely the easy thing would be to allow this to drop off the bottom? i may have come along and replied. if noone wanted to discuss, it would have disappeared.

it just bugs me that every topic ends up in this way in here. maybe i seem on my high horse, but its just one of those many niggling things.

pol
11-17-2003, 12:50 AM
vivitron15, you&#39;re whining on and on about people spamming, man this is the lounge. i agree with what has been said that the thread wasnt up to much to begin with

judging by your various replies that have jumped from you feeling the need to police the forum to using piss-poor analogies about phsycological theories etc etc - if you feel the need to prove a point or get something off your chest then why dont you start a new topic ?

this and the way you use your particular brand of terminology make me think that you are under the impression that you are somehow above everyone else, and you&#39;re right and everyone else is wrong. big deal if you think i spammed a topic, as i said there&#39;s a few of these already

and as for "I assure you I am very similar to you", man what the f*ck ??

LTJBukem
11-17-2003, 01:08 AM
I&#39;ll answer the main points that have came up, i&#39;ll have to be quick though as i&#39;m working in the morning.


Why did i post the article?
Because i thought some board members might find it interesting, i still do. Having last night got involved in another thread on the subject, and reading some misconceptions, i thought i&#39;d source an article from someone who knows what they are talking about.


Should i have condensed the points?
I don&#39;t really see how i could have, or indeed, why i should have. The article isn&#39;t really that long; maybe hobbes thinks i should have posted some pictures instead.


Why did i not post my opinion?
Well, the author is a leading scientist in his field, and i am not. What was i meant to say?:- &#39;Oh ya, i agree completely....&#39; or &#39;There&#39;s a couple of things i&#39;d like to add to that....&#39;.
Besides, the Topic title clearly states that i&#39;m posting an article. Why JPaul thinks he is some sort of board almighty, who decides what can and cannot be posted, i don&#39;t understand. I have yet to see a board rule that states members cannot source articles written by authoritative scientists, unless they give their opinion afterward.


Did i expect a debate to arise from this?
No, not really. I must admit that i&#39;m quite surprised at JPaul though, i too thought of him as being intelligent; now i think he has an attitude problem.


Do i care that the thread got spammed?
No, although i do think it&#39;s pretty pathetic. I&#39;m actually quite glad it&#39;s getting so much attention. That way, anyone who might be interested in learning about important ecological issues will see the post here, and take the time to read it.

J'Pol
11-17-2003, 01:20 AM
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Is that the best you can do ?

I hope you and the rest of the happening dudes had a good time down the pub.

When I was a young gun like you I didn&#39;t come home and post on the interweb (it didn&#39;t exist).

I certainly didn&#39;t come home and answer specific points with well thought out, well constructed answers. I really didn&#39;t give a flying feck about what other people thought.

I am glad you are so much more mature and that you went drinking with your mates, then came back and posted such an elegant reply. Well done that man.

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Hope your work goes well in the morning, another thing I didn&#39;t give a feck about.

summerlinda
11-17-2003, 01:50 AM
How low can you go JP, i think you&#39;ve become an arse or maybe you always were but i didn&#39;t see it...

Billy_Dean
11-17-2003, 02:00 AM
I feel this is a very important and relevant thread, and I&#39;m glad it was posted.

JP***, to use the pub analogy again; if someone came into the bar, dropped his trousers and shat on the floor, then walked out without explaining why he did it, would you just ignore it?

I too once thought of JP*** as an intelligent, well rounded individual, now I&#39;m confused.


:)

hobbes
11-17-2003, 03:03 AM
I found the article a little over the top, particularly when it blamed the sinking of the Lusitania and the assassination of the Archduke Ferdinand on the creation of the frankfurter.

It presented some excellent points particularly about the mistreatment of animals (I watched the flashvideo, too) but the final common demoninator was really human greed. That is why I recommended, in my very first post, that societies should enact animal protection laws to set the bar for what is allowable.

It seems that McDonald&#39;s is attempting to get meat cheap by converting rainforest into pastureland. Surprisingly rainforest soil is quite thin, the trees there have rather extensive lateral roots and not deep roots. So given the fact that it is a RAIN forest, the exposed topsoil is quickly washed away and a useless clay muck remains, most deplorable. The exposed trees are easily toppled because of their shallow roots.

The truth is that the Earth could easily feed itself now. People are being starved by their governments, not due to a true lack of food. You convert cow fields to soy bean fields and watch the war lords and government soldiers grow fatter.

Our government needs to pay farmers not to grow their crops (last time I checked, anyway) because the price of grain would fall so low that farming would not be cost effective. We have to create an artifical shortage to allow the common farmer to make money.

I, therefore, find the inefficiency argument to be moot. In addition, I disagree with his statement about land usage and how many people it can support, but I would have to read the reference to really comment. But since I find the point moot....

Although I can appreciate why you want to stop eating meat as your form of protest, I can&#39;t imagine what I would be able to enjoy if I boycotted everything that was being exploited. I see the "food" issue as being a small slice of much bigger pie.


Should i have condensed the points?
I don&#39;t really see how i could have, or indeed, why i should have. The article isn&#39;t really that long; maybe hobbes thinks i should have posted some pictures instead.

Hmmm, not very high road of you.


@SummerLinda, according to the article, the eggs and milk have to go. ;)

Too bad Biggles and Magic Nakor have not found their way here, always good stuff from them.

vivitron 15
11-17-2003, 10:45 AM
Originally posted by JP+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (JP)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>I&#39;m glad that you are not angry at having to pay a lot of tax, given that this will only happen if you have a substantial income. How magnanimous of you.

Maybe one day you may meet someone who has to decide whether to feed themself or their child. I hope not, but you never know, it might happen. [/b]

If you read the line which you quoted JP, I did say that "I would like to get a good job."

Also, do you know a great deal about my life? Why do you assume that I am not in that situation as we speak? How is it that you are so sure that I do not have this decision to make each and every day? These are rhetorical, I don&#39;t wish to discuss this, but please do not make too many assumptions about me.


vivitron15, you&#39;re whining on and on about people spamming, man this is the lounge. i agree with what has been said that the thread wasnt up to much to begin with

judging by your various replies that have jumped from you feeling the need to police the forum to using piss-poor analogies about phsycological theories etc etc - if you feel the need to prove a point or get something off your chest then why dont you start a new topic ?

this and the way you use your particular brand of terminology make me think that you are under the impression that you are somehow above everyone else, and you&#39;re right and everyone else is wrong. big deal if you think i spammed a topic, as i said there&#39;s a few of these already

and as for "I assure you I am very similar to you", man what the f*ck ??

I am not "whining on about people spamming", I am merely trying to ascertain the motives behind peoples need to spam.

I apologise if my point was badly made-my use of that was just to emphasise that there is no way a conversation can begin without someone coming here and sharing knowledge.

I am sorry that you feel this way, if you met me IRL, you may indeed like me, as I am a veryt easy-going person.

I also cannot see how you can say "the thread wasnt up to much to begin with" - this is the point i am trying to make. The concensus in the lounge is that "anything goes" when clearly it is not the case.

I did debate whether or not to start this into a new topic, however there is very little chance of a topic surviving once it has been destroyed to the extent that it had already been.

<!--QuoteBegin-linda
&nbsp; How low can you go JP, i think you&#39;ve become an arse or maybe you always were but i didn&#39;t see it...[/quote]
Thank you linda, I think that you have summarised my feeling towards Mr Montgolfier at this present time. The fact that he has resorted to personal insults and arguments over my social and financial situation astounds me. I thought that he was beyond this.

Can I now assume, by the lack of response that there is no reason for the way in which threads are hijacked i nthe lounge? Can I assume that there is, therefore no reason at all for anyone to post here rather than to spam and flame?

MagicNakor
11-17-2003, 11:31 AM
I&#39;ve seen this thread, but really there&#39;s so much spamming, and ironically most of it is off-topic, that it&#39;s fairly difficult to draw any conclusion whatsoever.

From the looks of the website, it appears to be some sort of PETA clone for the UK. Seeing as I don&#39;t reside in the UK, I honestly can&#39;t tell how stretched most of the statements in the article may be. However, laying blame on farming for global warming is silly; scientists can&#39;t agree what causes it. Some think it&#39;s all our fault, others say that it&#39;s just the world coming out of the Ice Age, as the world was far more temperate when the dinosaurs roamed around. Furthermore, there are different grades of grain, which, from what I&#39;ve seen of these pro-vegan articles, is something that they fail to recognize. Grain that is fed to animals is not the same grain that is fed to humans.

It&#39;s really too bad that there&#39;s so much spam, although I suppose it&#39;s to be expected with a cut/paste job. Oh well.

:ninja:

hobbes
11-17-2003, 05:06 PM
Yes, an article from an agenda based website hardly holds the clout of an article from a peer reviewed journal.

Colin Spencer is a novelist, playright, cookery book writer and food columnist for The Guardian- the author of the article discussed below
The same site also claims that humans are natural vegans despite the fact that we cannot break down the basic plant structure unit- cellulose. Cellulose is a polymer of glucose, which the is "monetary unit" of our bodies energy supply. Glucose levels in the blood are regulated to ensure that cells are supplied with a steady source of energy. Glucose, as you know, is broken down within cells to release carbon dioxide, water, and usable energy(ATP).

Cellulose (http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/organic/carb.html#c4)

So you can see the contradiction here. We cannot break down the very molecule that is composed of sub-units(glucose) that are the primary source of storable and immediate energy of humans. Cows and termites can do this, we can&#39;t. So when we eat grains and grasses and such, we are basically pooping 99% away, whereas true herbivores make much higher conversion of the same grain into body mass.

So I find a site which is not peer reviewed and presenting its version of science to the masses, to be somewhat less than authoritative, particularly since some of the contributors are not even scientists. There are some nuggets of truth there, but the intended readers of this site are not trained to critically evaluate the information (which presents speculation as fact) and simply take it and copy and paste it elsewhere.

LTJBukem
11-17-2003, 06:29 PM
The author you&#39;re trying desperately hard to discredit is not linked to VIVA, the website you&#39;re questioning the credibility of. VIVA chose to publish this article, which is based upon the authors book. He does not at any point of the article claim that we are natural vegans.

You&#39;ve visited the site, and subsequently claim it presents speculation as fact? Care to link some examples of this, because i can&#39;t see any?



Colin Spencer is a novelist, playright, cookery book writer and food columnist for The Guardian

David Brubaker, Ph.D. is Director of the Henry Spira/GRACE Project on Industrial Animal Production, Center for a Liveable Future, Johns Hopkins University School of Public Health, USA. He also serves as
a consultant to the Global Resource Action Center for the Environment in
New York City.

Brubaker is a graduate of Temple University, Southern Illinois University and the University of Pennsylvania. He is a member of the Committee for a Global Water Contract. Brubaker has served as a consultant to numerous non-governmental organisations. Previously he was the Executive Vice President of PennAg Industries Association, a regional agribusiness trade association. He is a former president of the Agricultural Associations Executive Council, and was a member of the board of Directors of the American Feed Industry Association.

Long active in the cleanup of the Chesapeake Bay, he has served as Chair of the Citizens Advisory Committee to the Chesapeake Executive Council and in many other Bay-related positions. He lives in Lititz, Lancaster County, Pennsylvania.

hobbes
11-17-2003, 07:20 PM
Originally posted by LTJBukem@17 November 2003 - 19:29
The author you&#39;re trying desperately hard to discredit is not linked to VIVA, the website you&#39;re questioning the credibility of. VIVA chose to publish this article, which is based upon the authors book. He does not at any point of the article claim that we are natural vegans.

You&#39;ve visited the site, and subsequently claim it presents speculation as fact? Care to link some examples of this, because i can&#39;t see any?


I&#39;m merely stating that the website is of questionable scientific validity based on the fact that they host scientific opinions presented by people who make cookbooks.

I made no attempt to discredit Brubaker, my point about the website is that it is agenda based and not a credible scientific source. His conclusions are extreme and people might want to look elsewhere for a different opinion or a different way to tackle the problem.

To publish a book, you must simply have an opinion. Books are not peer reviewed so the author can draw any conclusion he wishes without cross examination. I find his need to blame every major environmental catastrophe on meat to a bit extreme. That is his speculation, not a fact. Did the Exxon Valdez crash into a cow? Are dioxins contained in cow farts? Is Bessy driving a gas guzzling Hummer?


The meat industry directly contributes to all the major environmental catastrophes facing our planet.