Upload
Login or register

Just a thought

Click to block a category:GamingPoliticsNewsComicsAnimeOther
 
+90
Views: 8987 Submitted: 09/19/2013
Hide Comments
Leave a comment Refresh Comments (34)
[ 34 comments ]
> hey anon, wanna give your opinion?
asd
#18 - necrons
Reply +3 123456789123345869
(09/19/2013) [-]
WARNING: LONG BORING AND EDUCATIONAL POST PROVING THIS IDIOT WRONG.
You are an ignorant retard, ever heard of something called the ten percent rule? As you move up the food chain only ten percent of energy goes with you (this is due to excrement and various biological cycle ********). IE: a cow will have already eaten ten times as many calories in feed as it provides for us by the time we slaughter it. For every acre of land required to produce a certain amount of calories in wheat or corn for direct human consumption you need 10 times as many acres producing feed for livestock to produce an equivalent amount of calories in beef or poultry. I don't advocate going vegetarian because i like to eat meat and i see no problem with eating it in moderation, but what you just said is completely wrong.
User avatar #21 to #18 - laziness [OP]
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/19/2013) [-]
And I'm not advocating to eat meat, or to not eat meat. I'm just saying that we would still be taking up land and all that, no matter what, and even if we don't use more farms than we do now. we would still have to push animals out of their habitat to make the farms that we have now, therefor not "saving the animals" in the process of even having one farm. I'm not saying either vegetarianism or meat-eating-ism is right or wrong, I'm just presenting a counter-perspective to a very cliche argument from the crazy ass vegans and vegetarians
#19 to #18 - necrons
Reply +3 123456789123345869
(09/19/2013) [-]
also i just realized that i sounded like a pretentious uptight douche just then. that is all.
User avatar #20 to #19 - laziness [OP]
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(09/19/2013) [-]
you sure did
User avatar #31 to #19 - angelmatvey
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/20/2013) [-]
Yeah, pretty much. I think you're right, though.
#30 - skyelinesunrise
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(09/20/2013) [-]
Vertical farming.

They have large towers of land, divided into floor sections.

tipnut [dot] com [slash] grow-potatoes/ <since I don't feel like logging in and want the link to show for anons
You can grow 100 pounds of potatos in 4 square feet (essentially 16 cubic feet)

You can in theory do this at a much larger scale. Industrial vertical farming still has a long way to go, but its advancing a lot.
User avatar #35 to #30 - nanako
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(09/21/2013) [-]
i'd have to question the need for vertical farming, though. sure it seems like a wonderful idea, but there are practical constraints with moving things around a skyscraper (which takes more energy)

more significantly, there's a ******* ton of space on earth. A quick glance at just about anywhere from google maps shows how little of the land we're actually using. the world is a lot bigger than people give it credit for.

Soil fertility is another matter, presumably not all available land is good for growing, but with fertiliser technology that's less of an issue
#34 to #30 - laziness [OP]
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/20/2013) [-]
I've never heard of this, but why is there not more of it yet!
User avatar #15 - coffeebinge
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(09/19/2013) [-]
Not sure if the same amount of space would be necessary to feed a vegan world.
But I'm sure the main problem is: there's too many humans alive. And our numbers are growing. I'm no church of euthanasia fag but I think in a better world with a way smaller population.

User avatar #25 to #15 - laziness [OP]
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/19/2013) [-]
I agree, in 20 years time or even less, I think we will start seeing more and more problems with too much population. Then we will proceed to take over Canada in a brutal, violent, but polite way to make room for more apartment buildings and fast food restaurants.
#12 - khalidh
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(09/19/2013) [-]
Oh ****! A controversial post on FJ
Everyone pull out your PhDs
#24 to #12 - laziness [OP]
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/19/2013) [-]
I know right
I know right
#11 - burritochan
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(09/19/2013) [-]
Every step up the food chain, about 90% of the energy is lost in transfer. So, for example, eating an acre of corn provides *much* more energy than feeding an acre of corn to a cow, then eating the cow. That's why vegetarians' argument works. Having more people eat lower on the food chain reduces the total amount of land needed to provide for people.
User avatar #5 - nanako
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/19/2013) [-]
Regarding the morality of veganism, i have to say that plants are alive too. They grow, they repreoduce, they react to their surroundings, and they adapt to survive. Animals might have a more complex set of behaviours, but we're all organisms in the end.

all life feeds on other life. And things must always die for other things to live. it's The Circle of Life.

as people, we're adapted to eat lots of things. unlike many animals that live solely on meat or veg. we can have both. i think it's pretty silly to waste that part of ourselves.
User avatar #27 to #5 - laziness [OP]
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/19/2013) [-]
Do you eat rocks or something?
User avatar #32 to #27 - nanako
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(09/20/2013) [-]
lol no. i eat vegetables and meat, like most humans. my point was that i don't agree with the moral arguments for veganism
User avatar #33 to #32 - laziness [OP]
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/20/2013) [-]
Ah alright, carry on then
#1 - ohayougozaimasu
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(09/19/2013) [-]
I agree, more or less.   
   
No matter what we humans do, we will ultimately destroy the environment and many animal habitats.  However, you may want to consider the argument that an environmentalist/vegetarian/vegan would make: &quot;What you described is better than destroying our environment through animal farms.&quot;  I wouldn't be so confident in my answer without addressing other valid points.
I agree, more or less.

No matter what we humans do, we will ultimately destroy the environment and many animal habitats. However, you may want to consider the argument that an environmentalist/vegetarian/vegan would make: "What you described is better than destroying our environment through animal farms." I wouldn't be so confident in my answer without addressing other valid points.
#3 to #1 - laziness [OP]
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/19/2013) [-]
I don't think it's better. If anything I think it's better the way it is now. Like a happy medium, without too much demand on either side to force more expansion of farms.

I just wanted to point out that no matter what we do, we are not really going to be "saving the animals" because we've grown to be such a dominant species on this planet, we can't stay at this level of population and still hope to "save the animals" unfortunately.
#4 to #3 - ohayougozaimasu
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/19/2013) [-]
Okay, I see your point.
User avatar #28 - douevensax
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/19/2013) [-]
TLR
Meat is Beast
#17 - leetroll
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/19/2013) [-]
except animal protein digests easier and we get more benefit from it than from soy protein or anything else
User avatar #23 to #17 - laziness [OP]
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/19/2013) [-]
You have completely missed the point of my argument.
User avatar #14 - zanshin
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/19/2013) [-]
Your point is wrong. We wouldn't need any more farms. I'm certain we'd use less space than now.
User avatar #22 to #14 - laziness [OP]
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/19/2013) [-]
You're argument is weak, thank you for trying.
[ 34 comments ]
Leave a comment