if you eat fish, you're not a fucking vegetarian - Page 4

DeviousJ · 12-03-2002, 07:18 PM

But waste and energy are the crux of the argument. Given that animals get all their energy from their food, and some of that energy goes to waste, cutting the animals (except us, obviously) out of the picture yields more energy from the same amount of vegetation. Which means more food to go around, or the same amount of food with less farming required, if you like. You're right about having to bring other crops in, some requiring more space than the grain fed to many animals, but I can't see it requiring much more land than is used now for vegetable growing and animal grazing. Plus it is possible to intensively farm vegetables in a way which would be (is) extremely harmful to animals. It would require a certain shift in vegetable farming practices around the world, to provide more of the crops which can only be grown in certain areas if demand needed to be satisfied. This could cause changes to habitats on a small scale, so I'll concede that, but overall there would be a smaller need for vegetables, meaning there would be less farmland required. It all depends on how things were handled at a regional level

Undone · 12-03-2002, 08:53 PM

Making long posts=starting an argument

. jk Anyhoo, I totally agree with what both of you are saying are issues. It'd be interesting to look into. And now I feel like posting something more on topic: VEGETARIAN FISH.

http://www.crazedweasels.com/mexico/us/pix/plane4.jpg

Lie · 12-04-2002, 02:30 AM

Those things are so damn addictive. I stopped buying bags of them because I'd eat the whole freaking thing at once.

12-03-2002, 07:18 PM	#91
DeviousJ CORNFROST Location: GUREITO DESU YO Posts: 24,891	But waste and energy are the crux of the argument. Given that animals get all their energy from their food, and some of that energy goes to waste, cutting the animals (except us, obviously) out of the picture yields more energy from the same amount of vegetation. Which means more food to go around, or the same amount of food with less farming required, if you like. You're right about having to bring other crops in, some requiring more space than the grain fed to many animals, but I can't see it requiring much more land than is used now for vegetable growing and animal grazing. Plus it is possible to intensively farm vegetables in a way which would be (is) extremely harmful to animals. It would require a certain shift in vegetable farming practices around the world, to provide more of the crops which can only be grown in certain areas if demand needed to be satisfied. This could cause changes to habitats on a small scale, so I'll concede that, but overall there would be a smaller need for vegetables, meaning there would be less farmland required. It all depends on how things were handled at a regional level

12-03-2002, 08:53 PM	#92
Undone Apocalyptic Poster Location: Atlanta, GA Posts: 1,335	Making long posts=starting an argument . jk Anyhoo, I totally agree with what both of you are saying are issues. It'd be interesting to look into. And now I feel like posting something more on topic: VEGETARIAN FISH. http://www.crazedweasels.com/mexico/us/pix/plane4.jpg

12-04-2002, 02:30 AM	#93
Lie Socialphobic Location: Goin' out West where they'll appreciate me Posts: 10,001	Those things are so damn addictive. I stopped buying bags of them because I'd eat the whole freaking thing at once.