The redneck strike again.

[Little Rik]

[quote='Riketto' pid='707144' dateline='1405258537']
There is a small-big problem with let you eat meat.
It is a fact that to produce a KG. of meat it takes over 10 KG of vegetable proteins and in order to do this we need to cut more and more forests as the population grow.

A little knowledge is a dangerous thing. In this case two small misunderstandings have snowballed into an entirely non-factual appraisal of the situation. It's a common misunderstanding, and it's actively promoted by groups with a vested interest....and we all know how truthful that sort of shit ends up being.
Item 1. "10kg of vegetable protein" - that is unavailable to human beings. We don't have to feed livestock what we eat, and livestock is capable of eating things that we are not - things which grow on unproductive land (with regards to row crops).

Instead of growing grass for animals we can grow different food for humans. In this way we would need a lot less land which in turn means more forests.
If you don't believe that to make 1kg of meat it is needed over 10kg of veg. proteins all you have to do is to look at any search engine for facts.
One more dogma of your is that there is no such a thing as unproductive land.
Any land can be turned into fertile land or turned into forest.
I don't particularly like the Israelis for what they are doing to the Palestinians and to the Bedouins but as far as turning desert area into fertile land i have to give my respect.

Item 2. "We need to cut down more forests". Actually, we don't- and you wouldn't want to waste the money to cut down a forest just to put cattle on it. We cut down forests because timber is worth money, and as a side effect it -instantly- creates productive row cropping land (veggies for human consumption). You can reduce your nutrient requirements for a few years while the soil depletes and sell the timber simultaneously. The land is -then- put to pasture.

Timber is worth money but that is only half of the reason why the bastards cut the forests.
The world is hungry for more and more meat and to make meat you need a lot of veg. proteins.
They started vandalized the forests especially in the Amazon as the west got more hungry for meat.
What a strange combination!
By the way usually after few crops the land become worthless.

Soil Depletion
Rainforests are the earth’s oldest continuous ecosystems. Fossil records show that the forests of Southeast Asia have existed in more or less their present form for 70 to 100 million years. In just the past century we have managed to severely reduce the breadth of this ecosystem. This has created problems not only in the countries of these forests, but to the rest of the world as well. Four-fifths of the nutrients of the rainforests are in the vegetation. The soil is nutrient poor and becomes eroded and unproductive within a few years of being cleared. After logging, the land is generally used for farming, and then when it goes fallow, is used for cattle grazing. Yet the soil is so poor that even cattle grazing exhausts it after a few years. Then you have dry, barren land which is good for practically nothing except erecting buildings. It will never recover, especially when it is not allowed to coppice. When the land is cleared and barren, less rain falls and the whole ecosystem of the region begins to change.

http://www.angelfire.com/mo/celticmoon/r....html#Soil

The actual situation is thus (ignoring the value of timber). In order to grow vegetables for human consumption in the most cost effective manner forests are cleared so as to leverage a "bank" of nutrients in the soil. After the land has been depleted and is no longer on the right side of the cost benefit line with regards to growing food for people directly the only way to continue to profit (and grow food for people) is to put it to pasture. Incidentally, putting land to pasture makes it fertile and productive (with regards to row-cropping) again - given time. Ah, the circle of life.

Wrong again Rhythm.
As shown above the land after few years is not even good for pasture so all get fu..ed up.

Try again. In the meantime, let me take a crack at it-
You don't eat meat because it feels icky. You've rationalized this ickly feeling post hoc, but the rationalization was not as important as the icky feeling - so you didn't take the time to research the issue in order to form a thorough understanding of it. Instead, you looked for snips of text and argument that would appear to support the initial icky feeling regardless the veracity of the snips and arguments -intentionally manufacturing validation for a deeply personal experience. You further vested this icky feeling with spiritual heft and weight, and as such it has become an item of sacred importance to you. This capped it, and made it "true forever, all over the cosmos" as any spiritual thing is experienced to be.
How did I do? There's nothing wrong with being a vegetarian just because eating meat makes you uncomfortable. That's a valid reason. There -is- something wrong with offering shitty arguments that 5 minutes worth of google could have dispelled for you before you ever had the displeasure of talking to me.

The spiritual side is also affected but at least i am not responsible for your madness but the material-physical side affect me and everybody else (people with some brains on their heads).
By the way it seems that you forgot to mention the fact that the meat policy affect me also as a taxpayer.
Why should i pay for demented idiots who end up in hospitals with all the diseases due to meat eating?
Would you like to pay for keeping junkies in hospitals and jails?