When the US reaches the population density of, say, India, then maybe we will need to all switch to a diet of just lentils and rice to avoid famine. In the meantime, we can use our crop land for whatever we want. For me, that means meat with my veggies.

Glatt.

Where are you getting this information from? Most of the food crops raised in the US go to feed people in the US and other country's. Yes some is grown to feed animals, but most of it is for people. The stuff that is grown for animals is grown that way from the start, cattle and horses, etc are fed a different variety of corn, oats, etc. then you find in your local grocery store. Just about the only "livestock" food that is grown in huge numbers is Alfalfa hay, and that is because its the base for so many animals diets. Raising livestock is not far more wasteful, the plants that livestock eat, people often times cant eat, they have mold, they have bugs, or something else equally as bad. If the livestock don't eat it then it will be thrown away. Also where do you think the fertilizer for all of these fruits and veggies you buy in the store come from, you guessed right, the back end of a cow. The cow is not just a taker he is also a giver.

mmmm beef.

Far be it for me to agree with Quzah, but...

I think the idea is that if you used the land to grow food for humans, you could feed more humans than if you used the land to grow feed for livestock and then eat that livestock. I forget what the numbers are, but they are pretty compelling. This isn't just an opinion, it's a verifiable fact. I just don't know the numbers off the top of my head.

My point is that we have this 'extra' land that allows us to raise livestock. So where's the harm in having an inefficient system?

Vegetarian: Indian word for "bad hunter"

Here are some numbers.
Here are some more.
Few more.

Are there numbers like that on non vegan sites? I just spent half an hour looking at USDA and Department of Agriculture websites and cant find any of those numbers. I am not saying the numbers are wrong just that figures can be twisted to fit a certain need (i.e. trying to make everyone Vegan), so would prefer to see a non bias group of numbers before I believe them.

I hate to sound cliche, but: OMFG!!! LOL LMFAO!!!. You are truely a riot. You went to the USDA web site to find evidence of numbers [/b]against the USDA[/b]? You slay me, you really do.

That's like going to GW's web site to find out information that portrays the Democratic Party in a good light.

Thanks for the laugh.

But seriously, just what do you think it takes to feed a cow? A bail of hay a day? Half of one? Let's say half. Now how much water do they drink? How much water went into that bail of hay? How much land is used for that bail? How much land is used for the cow? How long does it take for one cow to grow to "butcher size"? How much cow shit does a cow shit (if a cow could shit cow shit) per day? How much urine?

That's just one cow. Take a moment to think about that. I doubt the numbers are "doctored" too much. Just pause for a moment to actually think of how long it takes for one cow to get that big and how much food they'd eat.

Quzah.

sounds like a good argument to eat lots of veal.

I doubt you'd find the information all spelled out for you like that on the USDA site, but maybe you'd find enough info to put your own numbers together. Or you could check the references used by the veg pages.

I went to those web sites because they often have charts of just how much grain, cattle, hay, etc is produced and consumed in a year. While yes they are bias toward livestock production they do have good info collected by the government. Its not looking for evidence against the USDA, its looking for hard numbers, which they often have.

Actually I know what it takes to feed a cow, my uncle in a cattle rancher. I have been around cows almost my whole life, even had dairy cattle in High School. I could give you rough estimates based on being raised around cattle and having neighbors who grew hay but they would be just estimates.

I want facts not based on books written by vegans. Already I have found a few statistics on the USDA sites that were different then the ones on the vegan websites. Are they worth posting here? prob. not, but if 3 or 4 of the stated facts are wrong then others might be as well.

You are welcome to believe those statistics, me I'm taking them with a huge grain of salt.

just a typo, or a freudian slip? hmmmmmmmmm

none of the above.

Next you'll be telling me the cowboys are the badguys.:eek:

If God didn't intend for us to eat animals, why are they made out of meat?






not much of a first post, i know. but i feel the need to say that whenever an animal rights argument comes up. it's my trump card when i can't think of anything else to contribute.

You fucker, you're not even going to fucking answer me??

I clicked back through the thread. I can't tell who you're yelling at.

Quzah. First UT ignores me, and now Quzah is ignoring me. In both cases, I asked simple questions.

Forget it, though. It's not that important.

I answered Jeopard style. In the form of a question. Next off, you basicly answered the question yourself when you said you used to do it. Next you'll ask Wolf why he puts his name in his sig when it's on the left hand side. Or did you already ask that in another thread and I missed it?

Quzah.

One poster at a time. :)

Wolf is a she.

juju

You're a big Ayn Rand fan aren't you?

I liked her when I was 18. Then I realized it was a pretty sad way to go through life. Not invalid necessarily, but sad.

peace,

mh

I agree with some of her views, but then I see holes in others.

What do you mean, sad? Sad that I lack compassion for animals? Or sad that I'm selfish?

Why?

Because i always have. Back in the dialup days (she says as she leans back in her rocking chair), we nearly ALL signed our posts.

Like Jinx said, look at the references on the pages linked: Worldwatch (left wing org, but I believe them), New York Times, The USDA, and the list goes on. Still some books by vegans, but many other clearly non-biased sources.

No you won't find this info spelled out anywhere else, because people don't want to know it.

There is no profit motive for the vegans, but there is a huge one for the meat industry. The vegans have other motives, some of which may be misguided, but are mostly rational (IMO, but I am one one of them... well almost). Also, you have many common folk who simply make their living (not profit) off of animals, which makes it a very difficult issue. If there was a mass exodus from eating meat it would probably be most devastating for the grain farmers. But that won't happen, so I shouldn't worry.

Both...

What I'm saying is that I think it's particularly unenlightened of people when given the choice between:

A) Me = gets 99 widgets and Something else = doesn't suffer
and
B) Me = gets 100 widgets and Something else = suffers a lot

to simply choose B based on a "what's it to me?" argument.

Of course selfishness is important. Humans always have their self-interest in mind. However, if selfishness is the only measure of the worth of something, that is "sad".

Your milage may vary.

I don't ask,"What's it to me", because I seldom do things for no reason. What's my motivation?

What other measure is there?

Well, there's "meta selfishness", or the desire to feel good about oneself for easing the suffering of others, regardless of their ability to repay. It's probably based on your empathy. When I see something like the burning chicken, I feel a sympathetic pain myself, so there is on some level a selfish aspect to my desire to prevent the pain.

Ahh, econ. Everything has utility...

Same question. If you don't believe there is another measure, then you have no motivation. Like I said before, the internal logic is sound. The only problem becomes where to draw the line.

If you knew that in order for you to have a "good day" today, a baby would have to die, would you allow that to happen? Or would you just decide to have a "bad day"? What about a kitten? Or an ant?

Everyone's got a threshold. Yours is just shorter than others.

One related question: Is there anything important enough that you would give up your life in order to preserve it?