# A few question for Omnivores . . . **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [April 24, 2002, 3:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-few-question-for-omnivores/105367 "2002-04-24T15:45:46Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 16
**Author:** ![the\_great\_dalmuti](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b2d939/32.png) [@the\_great\_dalmuti](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/the_great_dalmuti)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2002, 8:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-few-question-for-omnivores/105367/301 "2002-06-06T20:53:51Z")
**Nightime** , you said “Therefore, if eating meat is wrong, eating vegetables is also wrong. Except that eating meat does not actually cause the land not to be used, because the land would not be used anyway. Therefore by your argument eating meat is fine, but eating vegetables is wrong.” First, you have not offered a cite for the “farmers being paid not to grow” spiel. I need to see some proof of that before I can put stock into your argument. Second, How does meat not actually cause the land not to be used? Second, if it’s all a matter of economics, and lack of money, than whether or not meat doesn’t actually cause the land not to be used is irrelevant. Land being utilized or not, poor people aren’t going to have money. Third, if you can show me an organic farm that gets paid not to produce crops, I’ll bake you a carrot cake. I’m sure you won’t be able to. The demand is way too high for organic produce. You said “You say that if we stopped eating meat, land would be free to grow crops. But we are already not using the land we have because we want the prices to stay high. Therefore your argument fails.” Hold on, champ. I still need to see a cite. Even if you can produce one, that was one aspect of one argument, it doesn’t crumble the enitre entity of veganism. Not “we.” I don’t want to keep the prices high. Keep me out of your generalizations. And, one more thing. This improper use of land in no way excuses other, improper uses of land. The fact that some land is not used, in no way excuses the grain wasted by feeding livestock. Two wrongs don’t make the problem become any less severe than it already is. Also, I never said that I wanted to “get rid of the meat industry.” You’re putting words into my mouth. I’m calling for people to be more responsible consumers. I’ve said this quite a few times. Even if you’ve just proved whatever it is you’re trying to prove. We till have a huge problem on our hands! And you know what, proving whatever you were proving did absolutely nothing to assist in the lessening of that problem! So, you would contest and say there are absolutely no advantages, as far as the environment and global hunger are concerned, to veganism? You think my efforts are completely baseless, fruitless, and even (?) more harmful than your own? You seriously believe these things? -TGD ---
**Author:** ![the\_great\_dalmuti](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b2d939/32.png) [@the\_great\_dalmuti](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/the_great_dalmuti)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2002, 9:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-few-question-for-omnivores/105367/302 "2002-06-06T21:05:12Z")
**Nightime** , you said “Ahh, but you are forgetting one detail. The corn would not even have been grown in the first place, were it not for the cow.” Cite? That’s ridiculous. “Because it is profitable to grow corn for cows, but it is not profitable to grow corn for starving people around the world.” Cite? So, since them’ poor folk is already poor, let’s not do a damn thing but keep everything the way it is. Since we’re already wasting land, let’s do our best to waste it as thoroughly as possible, and make an even bigger mess! Listen to yourself! It’s simple. Less cows would necessarily equate to less rainforest being cleared away. It’s simple. This, in and of itself, is a good enough reason to not give your money to the meat industry. If you care at all about the state of the environment, biodiversity on our planet, or the air we breathe, it shouldn’t take too long to put all of the dots together. -TGD ---
**Author:** ![the\_great\_dalmuti](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b2d939/32.png) [@the\_great\_dalmuti](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/the_great_dalmuti)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2002, 9:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-few-question-for-omnivores/105367/303 "2002-06-06T21:12:08Z")
**Nightime** , you said “Ahh, but you are forgetting one detail. The corn would not even have been grown in the first place, were it not for the cow.” Cite? That’s ridiculous. “Because it is profitable to grow corn for cows, but it is not profitable to grow corn for starving people around the world.” Cite? So, since them’ poor folk is already poor, let’s not do a damn thing but keep everything the way it is. Since we’re already wasting land, let’s do our best to waste it as thoroughly as possible, and make an even bigger mess! Listen to yourself! It’s simple. Less cows would necessarily equate to less rainforest being cleared away. It’s simple. This, in and of itself, is a good enough reason to not give your money to the meat industry. If you care at all about the state of the environment, biodiversity on our planet, or the air we breathe, it shouldn’t take too long to put all of the dots together. -TGD ---
**Author:** ![the\_great\_dalmuti](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b2d939/32.png) [@the\_great\_dalmuti](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/the_great_dalmuti)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2002, 9:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-few-question-for-omnivores/105367/304 "2002-06-06T21:18:48Z")
**Nightime** , you said “Ahh, but you are forgetting one detail. The corn would not even have been grown in the first place, were it not for the cow.” Cite? That’s ridiculous. “Because it is profitable to grow corn for cows, but it is not profitable to grow corn for starving people around the world.” Cite? So, since them’ poor folk is already poor, let’s not do a damn thing but keep everything the way it is. Since we’re already wasting land, let’s do our best to waste it as thoroughly as possible, and make an even bigger mess! Listen to yourself! It’s simple. Less cows would necessarily equate to less rainforest being cleared away. It’s simple. This, in and of itself, is a good enough reason to not give your money to the meat industry. If you care at all about the state of the environment, biodiversity on our planet, or the air we breathe, it shouldn’t take too long to put all of the dots together. -TGD ---
**Author:** ![the\_great\_dalmuti](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b2d939/32.png) [@the\_great\_dalmuti](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/the_great_dalmuti)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2002, 9:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-few-question-for-omnivores/105367/305 "2002-06-06T21:22:29Z")
Sorry about the multiple post. Had a few wee problems. -TGD ---
**Author:** ![Darwins\_Finch](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/darwins_finch/32/20304_2.png) [@Darwins\_Finch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Darwins_Finch)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2002, 9:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-few-question-for-omnivores/105367/306 "2002-06-06T21:48:07Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by the\_great\_dalmuti \* > \*\ ***Finch** said _“I quite agree that the average person may not eat as much as a 1,250lb cow. However, assuming that that field went from feeding cattle (which tgd deems “wasteful”) to solely feeding humans (however many it can subsequently feed), the environmental impact of that field remains exactly the same. It is not the fact that its products are going to cattle that makes it problematic; it is it’s mere existence”_ > > Sure, the impact on the field is precisely the same. That’s not the point. The point is that we are reducing the amount of corn we feed the cown down to 1,250 pounds of cow. Only about 600-700 poinds of that cow are edible, remember.\*\* Sorry, but that is **exactly** the point. If that same plot of land were used exclusively to feed humans, the environmental impact would be exactly the same. Therefore, the fact that it is being used to feed cows is irrelevant to the damage it causes. Farming is destructive. Large-scale farming even moreso, regardless whether the food goes to cattle, goes to humans, or winds up in a landfill. Your argument is that feeding cattle is wasteful and harmful to the environment; here is a case where the crop itself, not the cattle, not the meat industry, is responsible for a great deal of harm. > [@](#): > > \*\*By “reducing” food down, by first funneling it through cows, we create an entirely unnecessary, wasteful industry. Sure, we get more protein. Is it necessary? Nope. With the protien you also get more fat, toxins, and all the other good stuff. > > See, but if we eliminate the cows from this equation, we lose all of the undesirable side-effects that would normally be exclusive to raising cows (as opposed to corn), namely: waste material, antibiotics and growth hormones being passed into the human food chain, clearing of rainforests, etc.\*\* Waste material (in the form of the manure that you are so fond of) helps to fertilize the soil. Clearing of rainforests is not restricted solely to the meat industry. Wood from the trees found in such forests are a hot commodity, you know. Again, even without the cattle, land would be cleared for irresponsible uses. \*\* > [@](#): > > Its not the corn’s existence that we’re worried about, it’s the cow’s. \*\* From [www.fao.org](http://www.fao.org/WAICENT/FAOINFO/AGRICULT/magazine/9809/spot4.htm): > [@](#): > > Another environmental “hot spot” linked with grazing is deforestation. Since 1950, some two million sq km of rainforest and its associated biodiversity has been lost, with livestock ranching being a major culprit, especially in Latin America. **But again the root causes are complex, and are often more the results of policy distortions than livestock production itself**. These include subsidized credit and other tax advantages which have favoured ranch development, and land speculation linked to road construction and government-financed colonization schemes (in many countries land must be shown to be under some agricultural use before it can be registered to an owner). [bolding mine] Note, in particular the bolded part. The cow is not the problem. People are the problem. People who have their own agendas without regard to the effects of said agendas. And, while I’m at it, from the same article: > [@](#): > > **The great advantage of livestock grazing is that it converts to useful products resources what would otherwise be wasted. In the process, grazing animals play a positive environmental role: they improve the diversity of grasses by dispersing seeds, and break up the soil crust.** This is why arid rangelands are a dynamic and highly resilient ecosystem, provided the number of people and animals that the land can support remains in balance. Indeed, the ability to recover after drought is one of the main indicators of long term environmental and social sustainability in arid grazing systems. Again, note the bolded part. And again, note that the cow is not the problem. ---
**Author:** ![Meatros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b4bc9f/32.png) [@Meatros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Meatros)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2002, 9:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-few-question-for-omnivores/105367/307 "2002-06-06T21:55:48Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by the\_great\_dalmuti \* > **Meatros** , keep being funny, friend. Surely you must have some sort of genetic disposition towards humor. I hope that it gets you far, in life. > > You said “It seems to me Dal that you think because humans are capable of thought that they are different biologically than animals. IMO Humans aren’t even better than animals, we ARE animals.” > What you just said justifies every atrocity, every crime, and every sick and twisted thing a human being has done to another human being. If we cannot be responsible for our own actions, what can we be held responsible for? Man, I sincerely hope you never have children. > It’s so simple. It was even in the recent Spider-man movie. “With great power comes responsibilty.” > Just because we are animals doesn’t remove us from being responsible for what we choose to do and not do. Sure, not better than animals, not worse than animals, but undoubtedly different from animals. > Grow up a little, and you’ll figure that out. > -TGD \*\* I think you read a little too much into my words. I never said shit about responsibility or justification. I said that we aren’t different from animals. Maybe I should have been a little more specific, if so it’s my fault. Animals (not all) eat each other, humans are a type of animal that has needed to eat meat for centuries (although some people say that we no longer actually have to eat meat). So we do what it is in our nature to do: we eat meat. We _might_ not have to anymore, but how does that have any moral implications? I know that you like to tout out statistics on rain forests and Mcdonald’s, but let’s say I hunt my own deer, cook it an eat it using fire wood and twigs. Am I more morally/ethically right than someone who orders McD’s? And if so, why? If not why? Where are you drawing your morals from? Also I had a few other questions: Why does great power = great responsibility? Who’s to say what is responsible, you? Seems as though you went off on a rant, then you go on to say “I sincerely hope you never have children”, why? Are you trying to say, in a smug and condescending way, that whatever ethics/morals you have are better than mine? This leads me to; why are your morals and ethics better than mine? Is it because you care about an animal more than I do? Is it because you prefer, naively, to think that the things you eat do not kill or endanger animals? Or that the animals you endanger do not count because you are above me, because when I “grow up a little” I’ll “figure it out”. ---
**Author:** ![Squish](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/8797f3/32.png) [@Squish](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squish)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2002, 9:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-few-question-for-omnivores/105367/308 "2002-06-06T21:59:52Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by the\_great\_dalmuti \* > **The Rio Salado/Salt River. What kind of crops was it supporting? There is at least a 50% chance, if not better, that that land was being used to produce corn and/or soy destined for livestock consumption.** Originally? The Hohokam and their descendants, the Pima/Maricopa tribes, grew corn, squash, beans and cotton. The Hohokam’s massive canal system was the model for modern Maricopa County’s canal system. Today, crops raised using Salt River Water in Maricopa County include: cantaloupe, watermelon, honeydew, peaches, citrus, broccoli, lettuce, cabbages, onions, green onions, radishes, cauliflower, spinach, escarole, kale, turnips, swiss chard, cilantro, parsley, endive, leeks, spinach, wheat, barley, feed corn, alfalfa and of course, our most famous crop: cotton. Please note that of all the crops listed, only two are “feed crops” for livestock. This information is from the Maricopa County Extension Service; county extension services provide information for and about agriculture throughout the US. Here are some links you may wish to investigate: [http://ag.arizona.edu/yavapai/anr/nr/naturalresourcesofyavapaicounty.html](http://ag.arizona.edu/yavapai/anr/nr/naturalresourcesofyavapaicounty.html) - For grazing cattle on non-arable land. [http://water.az.gov/AZWaterInfo/statewide/supplyde.html](http://water.az.gov/AZWaterInfo/statewide/supplyde.html) - Water use in Arizona. [http://az.water.usgs.gov/factsheets/fs94-16/FS94-016.html#link2](http://az.water.usgs.gov/factsheets/fs94-16/FS94-016.html#link2) - Water problems in Arizona. > [@](#): > > **I use an electric blanket because it get’s damn cold, with no central heating, and no insulated walls.** Why an _electric_ one, was my question. I live in a region where night-time temperatures regularly get below freezing for three or four months. I use non-electric blankets–why don’t you? > [@](#): > > **you know, maybe some implications of our lifestyle choice that we should think about? So, the problem doesn’t exist at all, because I don’t live up to these synthetic standards your setting for me, but choose not to follow yourself? Did I get this right?** I’ve thought about the implications of my lifestyle; you obviously haven’t thought about yours. Also, you’re the one who’s doing the preaching; therefore, you must hold yourself to a higher standard than us poor ignorant heathens or risk being called a hypocrite. As far as agricultural subsidies, look, I’m tired of doing your homework for you. So, as a primary source (you do know what that means, don’t you?), I’ll tell you that since at least the 1960s the US government has paid farmers not to grow crops. I’m surprised that as a vegan you didn’t know that. I’m surprised that as a vegan you are apparently clueless about agriculture. ---
**Author:** ![Phoenix\_Dragon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/65b543/32.png) [@Phoenix\_Dragon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Phoenix_Dragon)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2002, 10:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-few-question-for-omnivores/105367/309 "2002-06-06T22:50:45Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by the\_great\_dalmuti \* > \*\ ***Dragon** , you said “There currently is enough food in the world to feed everyone (Even with meat production), it’s a matter of distribution.” > > I’m still waitiing for a cite. Let me know when you _can_ find it. \*\* You aren’t reading my posts, are you? I said I couldn’t find it. You know, I’m getting tired of being forced to repeating myself. > [@](#): > > \*\*You said “Why is a human evil for eating meat while a bear is not, seeing as both are omnivores and both can eat vegitable matter instead of meat? Or if “evil” is too strong for you, how about “not good.”” > > I’ve already adressed this. Humans have a choice. Bears can’t plant vegetables. Humans can. Humans have the means, but not the will, to adopt a plant-based diet. Bears do not hae the means. This is the difference. Also, do bears, on a one-for one basis, produce as much waste, garbage, and pollution as humans? Nope. Not by a long shot. Knowingly choosing to do somthing, when there is a much better option available, definitely qualifies as “not good.”\*\* Cut out all the environmental stuff, I’m dealing with your original bit. You know, the “unnecesary death” bit. Bears, like humans, can eat vegitable and animal matter. By YOUR definition of unnecesary death, every time a bear _chooses_ to eat salmon instead of eating berries, it is commiting the same evil as a human killing an animal for food. It doesn’t matter that bears can’t plant crops, they can eat plant matter, and there’s plenty of that out in the forest. Quit dodging the question by going into economics and production and deal with your claims of “unnecesary death” and why a bear has different standards than humans. > [@](#): > > \*\*You said “Second, are you going to show how much of the US’s meat consumption if “rainforest beef”? Or even if Big Macs are “rainforest beef” or not?” > > Most rainforest beef goes towards fast food hamburgers. The best cite I can give is that it states it over and over again in the book Fast Food Nation, and all of the author’s sources are very, very well documented. I know of a good quote, but I can’t find it right now. A fellow meat eater, **zen101** attested to the depth and accuracy of this book. \*\* So in other words, no, you can’t supply a cite. Thank you. > [@](#): > > \*\*One last point, from a post or two ago. You said “And since you’re going on and on about it, explain how eating meat (Not “rainforest beef,” but ANY meat) means someone likes that the rainforest is being eroded away.” > > I never said that this means someone “likes” the fact that the rainforest is being burnt down. (By the by, does that mean you admit that the rainforest it being cleared away? You acknowledge this fact?)\*\* What the fuck? Saying it THREE TIMES is not enough for you to get it through your skull??? **Yes, it is being cleared away!** Did I word the damn sentance clearly and simply enough for you this time? Sheesh… > [@](#): > > **But, if someone still chooses to support an industry that practices these things, that person is not showing their dissaproval. Not showing their dissapproval essentially equates to either not caring one way or another, or actually approving the practice.** Boy, I hope you don’t have any wood in your home, some trees are cleared from the rainforests to make wood. Clearly, you must support the clearing of the rainforests by supporting the wood industry. And it sounds like you’ve got more electrical appliances than I do, you must be in support of the air and water polution that the power-generating industry creates. A bike? Any idea how much destruction and polution is caused by the industries mining metal for the bike, or rubber for the tires? You shouldn’t buy that stuff, you’re supporting the industrialization of the world, which has far larger ecological consequences than livestock production. Oh, I forgot. That only applies to “evil” industries like meat. > [@](#): > > \*\*So, if I donated my money to terrorist organizations, would you believe me if I claimed to not like what they were doing? No, you most certainly wouldn’t. \*\* I swear, if we see more idiotic statements like that, we’re going to have to come up with a new version of Godwin’s law… You’re going to have to do a lot better than claiming that an as-yet un-declared portion of the US’s beef market comes from “rainforest beef”, if you’re going to cinvince me not to eat meat. Especially since I’ve already pointed out (Twice!) that I eat very little if any beef anyway. ---
**Author:** ![Darwins\_Finch](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/darwins_finch/32/20304_2.png) [@Darwins\_Finch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Darwins_Finch)\ **Post date:** [June 7, 2002, 12:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-few-question-for-omnivores/105367/310 "2002-06-07T00:06:08Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by the\_great\_dalmuti \* > **Finch, the rainforest communities thank you for your indirect support of the razing of their home. Your trite, displacing, cop-out means a lot to them, and they understand that you don’t really want to make them go extinct, you just can’t help yourself from supplying money to companies who do directly make them go extinct. You’re the real victim, not the animals. They’re proud to die for you, because you know the difference between the words “direct” and “indirect”. You’re their hero!** Whereas you obviously _don’t_ know the difference between the two. I will take that as a “No, I can’t back it up, so I will continue to spout nonsense.” \*\* > [@](#): > > You’re going to try and play innocent over my use of the words “direct” and “indirect?” It appears as if you are in some serious denial. It’s so sad you’re using something so transparent to shield yourself from the obvious consequences of your actions.\*\* I’m sorry…where did you provide the proof that my actions are **directly** responsible for extinctions? Oh, that’s right…you didn’t. Because you can’t. I am not in denial. As you may have noticed, had you actually read what I (and others) have wrote, I know, and can accept that my very existence precludes the existence of other organisms. I am aware of the consequences of my actions. Animals die to feed me and others. You think that’s wrong, I don’t. Deal. \*\* > [@](#): > > And you said _my_ logic was flawed. \*\* You got me there. Obviosuly, you aren’t even _using_ logic. See below: > [@](#): > > You would have no ethical qualms over hiring a hitman to harm another human? It’s the same exact thing. You’re paying the McMiddleman to do your dirty work for you, and you sit back and think you’re good to go; flaw free; _nothing if not loving them animals!_ > > There’s nothing wrong with buying crack, as long as you don’t make it yourself? > > There’s nothing wrong with buying child pornography, as long as you didn’t film it yourself? > > There’s nothing wrong with buying your child a gun, as long as you don’t use it yourself? > > Wake up, my man, and accept that yes, you are a part of the problem. To which I can really only respond, “What the _hell_ are you talking about?!” > [@](#): > > \*\*Here’s a [to a PBS factsheet](http://www.pbs.org/tal/costa_rica/facts.html). Is PBS good enough for you? Check it out. More indirect death you are absolutely absolved from. \*\* Great, you want to play duelling factoids again. OK, I’ll play along. From that same site: \*\*Since 1989, a global population of 5.2 million people is climbing by nearly 90 million/year. The population growth rate in Central America is 2.8%, the second highest in the world after Africa. Predictions show the region doubling in about 20 years. The developing countries, which account for most of the tropical rainforest biospheres, have almost 75% of the world’s people but only about 15% of the world’s goods. The popular wood products made from trees found only in rainforests, such as mahogany or rosewood, have become a booming industry. Experts tie extensive logging to flooding of massive land areas in Thailand in 1988. Hundreds of items that people in industrialized nations use every day come from tropical rainforests. Most of the forests in India and Nepal have been cleared for agriculture. Extensive use of powerful pesticides on banana plantations in Costa Rica has been tied to huge fish kills in nearby rivers and streams.\*\* So, what have we learned from this? > [@](#): > > **Here’s a nice quote from [YesWorld:](http://www.yesworld.org/info/rainforest.htm) > "A recent study by the World Wildlife Fund showed that Brazilians could make between three and 100 times more money from a properly managed rainforest than by current methods which destroy the forests. A well-managed forest will provide valuable goods and money on-goingly, whereas cattle, mining, dams, and timber make the land only valuable for a brief time, after which it becomes worthless. Properly managing a forest includes the sustainable harvesting of things like Brazil nuts, cashews, rubber, resins, and wild tropical fruits, ecological tourism, and more."** Perhaps one should, then, ask why _aren’t_ the Brazilians properly managing their forests and making the alleged 3 to 100x as much money? > [@](#): > > **Here are some facts taken from a report at[forests.org:](http://forests.org/recent/2000/cogradds.htm) > "Conservationists estimate that the current extinction rate is 1,000 to 10,000 times higher than it should be under natural conditions. That means that in the first decades of the 21st > century, many creatures - from a majestic Albatross to Asian freshwater turtles - may join the ranks of the flightless Dodo bird. The primary reason: humans. Everything from expanding cities to > deforestation, agriculture and fishing pose a significant threat to the planet’s biodiversity . . .Of the 11,046 plants and animals at risk of extinction, 1,184 are in Central America and Mexico, where poverty and logging are teaming up to shrink habitats and decimate species, according to the study . . .Those listed as threatened to some degree number 11,046 plant and animal species, in almost all cases because of human activities. IUCN says this means that 24% of mammals and 12% of birds “face a high risk of extinction in the near future”. The list includes 18,276 species and subspecies. About 25% of reptiles, 20% of amphibians and 30% of fish so far assessed are listed as threatened . . .The total number of critically endangered mammal species is now 180, 11 more than in 1996, while bird species have risen from 168 to 182."** To which I can predictably reply, “yes, I knew that.” Humans have been driving species to extinction pretty much from the start. What does this have to do with meat? \*\* > [@](#): > > Experts estimate that every person who switches to a pure vegetarian (vegan) diet saves an acre of trees every year.\*\* Great. now show me the studies from these alleged “experts”. \*\* > [@](#): > > Here’s another good quote from [this cite:](http://www.alibi.com/alibi/1999-08-05/veggies.html)One acre of land can produce 20,000 pounds of potatoes or just 165 pounds of beef. While people are starving worldwide, our livestock consumes 80 percent of the corn, 95 percent of the oats and almost all of the soybeans grown in the U.S. If these crops were fed directly to people, we would have enough food to feed five times the human population of our own country. Think of the impact that would have on world hunger. \*\* Which conveniently ignores any considerations as to distribution of said food. Food isn’t free, unless you grow it or kill it yourself (and even then, there is a cost involved). People don’t become farmers or ranchers because they are altruistic. ---
**Author:** ![Darwins\_Finch](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/darwins_finch/32/20304_2.png) [@Darwins\_Finch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Darwins_Finch)\ **Post date:** [June 7, 2002, 12:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-few-question-for-omnivores/105367/311 "2002-06-07T00:13:37Z")
> [@](#): > > _Originally posted by the\_great\_dalmuti_ > \*\*Dragon, you said “There currently is enough food in the world to feed everyone (Even with meat production), it’s a matter of distribution.” > > I’m still waitiing for a cite. Let me know when you can find it. \*\* I’m not **Phoenix Dragon** , but here ya go: > **[Organic or GMO? - psrast.org](https://www.psrast.org)** > > Organic foods are packed with nutrients, taste better and aren’t riddled with synthetic pesticides. Foods that people tend to eat – you know the kinds: boxed, GMO-filled fast food and frozen – leave people with a myriad of health issues. Why GE Food... > [@](#): > > World hunger is extensive in spite of sufficient global food resources. Therefore increased food production is no solution. “The problem is that many people are too poor to buy readily available food”. Therefore measures solving the poverty problem is what is required to solve the world hunger probem according to this book. [http://www.foodfirst.org/pubs/backgrdrs/1998/s98v5n3.html](http://www.foodfirst.org/pubs/backgrdrs/1998/s98v5n3.html) > [@](#): > > Myth 1 > Not Enough Food to Go Around > > Reality: Abundance, not scarcity, best describes the world’s food supply. Enough wheat, rice and other grains are produced to provide every human being with 3,500 calories a day. That doesn’t even count many other commonly eaten foods-vegetables, beans, nuts, root crops, fruits, grass-fed meats, and fish. Enough food is available to provide at least 4.3 pounds of food per person a day worldwide: two and half pounds of grain, beans and nuts, about a pound of fruits and vegetables, and nearly another pound of meat, milk and eggs-enough to make most people fat! The problem is that many people are too poor to buy readily available food. Even most “hungry countries” have enough food for all their people right now. Many are net exporters of food and other agricultural products. > **[Causes of Hunger are related to Poverty](https://www.globalissues.org/article/7/causes-of-hunger-are-related-to-poverty)** > > This part of the globalissues.org web site looks into some of the relationships between poverty and hunger. Issues such as land use, land ownership, war, famine and so on lead to poverty, which increases hunger. > [@](#): > > In a world of plenty, a huge number go hungry. Hunger is more than just food production and meeting demands. The causes of hunger are related to the causes of poverty. One of the major causes of hunger results from poverty itself. The various issues discussed throughout this site about poverty lead to people being unable to afford food and hence going hungry. [http://www.bradford.ac.uk/research/ijas/ijasno2/ayalew.html](http://www.bradford.ac.uk/research/ijas/ijasno2/ayalew.html) > [@](#): > > By the same token, an increase in national food production does not by itself guarantee food security. Availability of food at the national level is but one factor for food security. Supporters of this idea try to work out a food balance sheet for a given country and, if food availability is more or less equal to the food needs of the country’s population in general, they conclude that the country is food- secure. Given this perspective of food security, the basis for famine early warning would then be the monitoring of food production at the national level and may not take into consideration other important and relevant social, political, and cultural factors. > > ``` > The assumption underlying this perspective is that whatever food is produced in the country will be evenly distributed to each region and to each household. But the facts are different. Those who failed to produce will have access to the surplus in the country (through the markets) if, and only if, they have purchasing power. In most poor countries, however, many people do not have such power. National governments, too, often lack the necessary financial resources to purchase the surplus and to distribute it to the have-nots, especially when millions become destitute. Therefore, food availability at the national level does not provide food entitlement to households and individuals. > > ``` Need I go on? ---
**Author:** ![Darwins\_Finch](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/darwins_finch/32/20304_2.png) [@Darwins\_Finch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Darwins_Finch)\ **Post date:** [June 7, 2002, 12:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-few-question-for-omnivores/105367/312 "2002-06-07T00:28:53Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by the\_great\_dalmuti \* > **First, you have not offered a cite for the “farmers being paid not to grow” spiel. I need to see some proof of that before I can put stock into your argument.** Again, here ya go: [http://www.progress.org/archive/barnes10.htm](http://www.progress.org/archive/barnes10.htm) > [@](#): > > Farming corporations receive further government aid in the form of subsidies. Among these are payments for reduced crop production. Since farmers with large landholdings are able to “not-grow” more crops than are farmers with small holdings, their subsidies are more generous. [http://www.fb-net.org/FB/farmAidNYTimes.htm](http://www.fb-net.org/FB/farmAidNYTimes.htm) > [@](#): > > Good crops or bad, high yields or low it hardly matters, the checks roll in from the federal government, the biggest payroll in farm country. By the end of the year, some farmers can receive up to $280,000 simply by having another miserable year of failure. > […] > “We’re taking very good ground out of production and paying people to do it,” Mr. Axtman said. “So where we used to have a hundred regular clients, now we have sixty. And what do they do with the money? Well, some of them buy the Winnebago and hit road. They don’t buy a new tractor from me.” [http://www.nationalreview.com/moore/moore050202.asp](http://www.nationalreview.com/moore/moore050202.asp) > [@](#): > > A definition of insanity could be to try something over and over and over again even when it never produces the intended result. The U.S. government has spent more than $150 billion in farm aid since the late 1970s, and yet every year more marginal farmers go out of business. One explanation for this is that the price-support system rewards the largest producers, because the more bushels you produce, the bigger your check from Uncle Sam. Of course, other years we paid farmers not to grow things, and that turned out to be a boondoggle, too. [http://www.ocean.se/editorial/breakfast/hunger.html](http://www.ocean.se/editorial/breakfast/hunger.html) > [@](#): > > Even so, there are currently one billion people who are hungry and cold in poor countries, despite the fact that the ‘food mountain’ continues to grow. In some countries farmers are paid not to grow food. Harvest are burned so that markets will not be flooded with food causing prices to fall. [http://reason.com/0111/co.ml.money.shtml](http://reason.com/0111/co.ml.money.shtml) > [@](#): > > Many farmers welcome the shift to conservation and are lining up to get paid not to work, or at least to be non-farming farmers. More than 36 million acres are currently enrolled in the program and more landowners want in. That’s hardly surprising. Money for nothing: It’s good work – if you can get it. Need I go on? ---
**Author:** ![Phoenix\_Dragon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/65b543/32.png) [@Phoenix\_Dragon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Phoenix_Dragon)\ **Post date:** [June 7, 2002, 12:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-few-question-for-omnivores/105367/313 "2002-06-07T00:31:53Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Darwin’s Finch \* > **I’m not Phoenix Dragon, but here ya go: > [Organic or GMO? - psrast.org](http://www.psrast.org/nowohu.htm)** Thanks! Sorry I couldn’t find them myself, that helps a lot 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Darwins\_Finch](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/darwins_finch/32/20304_2.png) [@Darwins\_Finch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Darwins_Finch)\ **Post date:** [June 7, 2002, 12:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-few-question-for-omnivores/105367/314 "2002-06-07T00:47:57Z")
I botched the coding in one of my posts up there. Below is the proper presentation: > [@](#): > > Great, you want to play duelling factoids again. OK, I’ll play along. From that same site: > > \*\*Since 1989, a global population of 5.2 million people is climbing by nearly 90 million/year. The population growth rate in Central America is 2.8%, the second highest in the world after Africa. Predictions show the region doubling in about 20 years. > > The developing countries, which account for most of the tropical rainforest biospheres, have almost 75% of the world’s people but only about 15% of the world’s goods. > > The popular wood products made from trees found only in rainforests, such as mahogany or rosewood, have become a booming industry. > > Experts tie extensive logging to flooding of massive land areas in Thailand in 1988. > > Hundreds of items that people in industrialized nations use every day come from tropical rainforests. > > Most of the forests in India and Nepal have been cleared for agriculture. > > Extensive use of powerful pesticides on banana plantations in Costa Rica has been tied to huge fish kills in nearby rivers and streams.\*\* > > So, what have we learned from this? And no problem, **PD** 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Squish](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/8797f3/32.png) [@Squish](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squish)\ **Post date:** [June 7, 2002, 12:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-few-question-for-omnivores/105367/315 "2002-06-07T00:59:46Z")
Here’s a whole list of documents on farm subsidies from the Heritage Foundation: [http://search.heritage.org/cgi-bin/texis.exe/webinator/newsearch/?db=db&query=subsidies](http://search.heritage.org/cgi-bin/texis.exe/webinator/newsearch/?db=db&query=subsidies) (if the link doesn’t work, go to [www.heritage.org](http://www.heritage.org) and do a search for ‘subsidies’. Here’s an overview from bartleby: [http://www.bartleby.com/65/ag/agrisub.html](http://www.bartleby.com/65/ag/agrisub.html) ---
**Author:** ![Meatros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b4bc9f/32.png) [@Meatros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Meatros)\ **Post date:** [June 7, 2002, 1:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-few-question-for-omnivores/105367/316 "2002-06-07T01:15:31Z")
Phoenix & Darwin-Good posts! I bet you 10$ that we won’t be seeing Dal again for a while. Only to materialize later as happened before. ---
**Author:** ![the\_great\_dalmuti](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b2d939/32.png) [@the\_great\_dalmuti](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/the_great_dalmuti)\ **Post date:** [June 7, 2002, 1:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-few-question-for-omnivores/105367/317 "2002-06-07T01:45:43Z")
My final post. You have all inspired me. You beat the vegetarianism righ out of me. I’m going to give up veganism and go on a permanent Atkin’s diet. Nothing but meat for Dalmuti. It’s probably for the best, anyway. I’d hate to turn 30 without hemmaroids. What fun would that be? I’m going to take the knowledge bestowed upon me from this thread, and share it with the world. I’m going collect the wisdom of all these “ignorance-free” dopers, and teach teach teach everyone I meet, especially children: **"I don’t have to explain myself any more than a grizzly bear does."** I also made up my mind to go to an animal shelter, adopt as many cats and dogs as possible, cut them up, and feed them to one another. We did this to cows, which everyone else seems to be cool with. So, hey? I guess I’m cool with it too. Maybe I can be the one to discover Mad Cat Disease . . .then I’d be hip. And the cats don’t mind. They’re carnivores. Also, I’ll be sure to make a habit of kicking other people’s pets. They’re only animals, as I’ve learned here, so there’s really no reason not to. Since there’s more than enough food to go around, and starving people aren’t really starving, they’re just not working hard enough, I think a new hobby of buying cheesburgers and throwing then at the homeless is in order. They need discipline. I’m going to have many, many children, and feed them lots and lots of hamburgers, just to spite environmentalists. Those damn hippies are always ruining the taste of my prime rib. I also think I’m going to invest in rainforest grazing. The way you guys described it, it’s the best thing since pre-sliced bacon. All the dead endangered critters make their way into the cow, and it makes the burgers tase even better. Last note, it’s funny how much everyone defended meat: It’s innocent. It’s not destroying anything. The cow’s like it. But most people actually took the time, for some reason or another, to point out of “very little” meat they eat. Why would do put forth the effort, and belittle the champion you were working so hard to defend? It doesn’t add up. Anyway. I’m bored with both your scientific bigotry and your inability to see a bigger picture. As you’ve told me: you can find a cite to support anything. Nit picking’s great if your a nit. Not if you’re not. I wish you the best of luck of living a long, healthy life. Maybe we’ll bump into each other at McDonalds, someday. I’ll be the guy buying burgers for everyone, mooing like there’s no tomorrow. Good luck. (You’re going to need it.) -The Great Dalmuti ---
**Author:** ![Darwins\_Finch](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/darwins_finch/32/20304_2.png) [@Darwins\_Finch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Darwins_Finch)\ **Post date:** [June 7, 2002, 1:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-few-question-for-omnivores/105367/318 "2002-06-07T01:52:04Z")
I do hope that you invest in a good reading comprehension course at some point, **dalmuti**. Best of luck with your puppy-kicking and hemorrhoids. ---
**Author:** ![pldennison](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/9fc29f/32.png) [@pldennison](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pldennison)\ **Post date:** [June 7, 2002, 1:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-few-question-for-omnivores/105367/319 "2002-06-07T01:55:24Z")
Are you done embarrassing those of us at the “vegetarian but not even a little bit loony” table? I sure hope so. Incidentally, four years ago a world-renowned Indian economist by the name of Amartya Sen won a Nobel Prize for his work in demonstrating that, far from being an issue of scarcity, famines are a result of resource distribution inefficiencies. It would serve you well to read it. ---
**Author:** ![Phoenix\_Dragon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/65b543/32.png) [@Phoenix\_Dragon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Phoenix_Dragon)\ **Post date:** [June 7, 2002, 2:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-few-question-for-omnivores/105367/320 "2002-06-07T02:22:53Z")
Dalmuti, you must have an extremely warped world-view (Not to mention vocabulary and logical process) if you seriously think anyone here actually was proposing the idiocy you put foreward in that “last post” (The cows like it? Are you seriously thinking that’s what anyone seriously said?). But no, I generally give people more credit than that, so I’m going to have to assume that was just a trollish “screw you guys” post of someone who doesn’t want to actually confront any of the points brought up against their unreasonable declarations. The school-yard “I can’t win so I’m going to mock you guys for being right” bit. Feel free to prove me wrong by actually presenting reasonable points, I’d be more than happy to carry on a decent debate over it, but I won’t exactly be holding my breath; Your track record started out pretty low on this topic and kept on plumeting. You do much more to hurt the reasonable vegetarians’ possition than you do to help them. Should I even mention that after what, FOUR times now, you still seem to be under the mistaken impression that people are promoting the destruction of the rainforest as a good thing? After this many times, I have to conclude that you must be purposefully blind to what’s being said to actually mis-construe it that far. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-few-question-for-omnivores/105367.md?page=15) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-few-question-for-omnivores/105367.md?page=17)