RE: Any Vegetarians/Vegans here?
July 6, 2014 at 2:13 pm
(This post was last modified: July 6, 2014 at 2:22 pm by bennyboy.)
If you're such a fan of efficiency, then why feed grain to animals? The animals must consume at least some of the calories in the grain in digesting, in moving around, in maintaining body temperature, etc. EVEN IF we are required to keep some areas clear for farming, as soon as you start feeding some of that produced food to cattle, you are setting yourself up for a double whammy. The only advantage of animals, in terms of calories, is that they can graze inedible foods, like grass, and produce edible foods, like T-bone steaks. If we stopped feeding grain to animals, and also reduced the "need" for animal calories consumed by people who are already overweight, we could save most cattle without increasing crop land. Yes, current crops are responsible for animal deaths, and I would prefer a solution to that. But unless you are suggesting REPLACING crop land with grazing land, this is moot to a discussion about vegetarian vs. non-vegetarian food production. So you are left arguing that the meat will provide such superior nutrition that it justifies the loss of efficiency-- an argument that is difficult given there are probably over a billion vegetarians living healthy lives.
re: non-natural environments
I'd say the human condition is non-natural, and that's the problem. We have a massive world population, only a very few percent of whom are required to work to provide themselves with sustenance. We are like bacteria that have filled up 90% of a petri dish-- we are beginning to choke on our own easy success. No amount of efficiency will long delay the inevitable if the total calorie requirements of our species keep growing exponentially.
An alternative
There's a possibility that grain crops are NOT very efficient converters of energy. I'd wager that seaweed, lichen, algae etc. do it better. Certainly, the oceans absorb very much of the sun's energy, and there is little maintenance required except to stop dumping waste (including waste from artificial crop fertilizers) into them. There are many advantages to be gotten by culturing and harvesting ocean-born crops.
re: non-natural environments
I'd say the human condition is non-natural, and that's the problem. We have a massive world population, only a very few percent of whom are required to work to provide themselves with sustenance. We are like bacteria that have filled up 90% of a petri dish-- we are beginning to choke on our own easy success. No amount of efficiency will long delay the inevitable if the total calorie requirements of our species keep growing exponentially.
An alternative
There's a possibility that grain crops are NOT very efficient converters of energy. I'd wager that seaweed, lichen, algae etc. do it better. Certainly, the oceans absorb very much of the sun's energy, and there is little maintenance required except to stop dumping waste (including waste from artificial crop fertilizers) into them. There are many advantages to be gotten by culturing and harvesting ocean-born crops.
