(April 8, 2019 at 3:57 pm)Thena323 Wrote:

(April 8, 2019 at 7:22 am)Succubus Wrote: The Bettas I had were all pretty indifferent to the goings on of everything else in the tank, they would sit in the trees (plants) all day doing nothing.
The Cardinal Tetras are far prettier than the Neons. 

Snails? You had better make sure they are Adam & Steve not A&E or your tank will be overrun in no time.

Snails are hermaphrodites, I think. If I get two freshwater snails, they'll have to be of different species to ensure my tank doesn't become Snail Central. The gravel dwellers are good for taking care of excess food particles, and of all of them love algae.
They'll help keep the tank clean, and Bettas and snails don't bother each other at all. They make great tank companions.

Btw, how big was/is your tank? It sounds pretty live.

Quote:bennyboy Wrote:
(Yesterday 09:17)KichigaiNeko Wrote:
Intrinsic to my position? Just for clarity, just what do you think my position is bennyboy?
Your position is that meat production and consumption is okay or necessary.


Correct so far



(Yesterday 10:56)bennyboy Wrote:
Intrinsic to this position are attitudes about the justification of suffering in others.


How is this "intrinsic" ??
This seems an assumption on your part


(Yesterday 10:56)bennyboy Wrote:
All meat-eaters must necessarily accept that in order to sustain themselves, they must cause suffering and death in others.

Why? This seems another assumption on your part sans any evidence so far for the previous assumptions

(Yesterday 10:56)bennyboy Wrote:
I assume, since you are a willing participant in the meat production/consumption cycle, that you accept whatever evils that process involves

Finally a bit of honesty! And just what ARE the "evils"?

(Yesterday 10:56)bennyboy Wrote:
-- environmentally and health-wise as well as in terms of suffering-- even if you have not specifically stated so.

You don't seem to be making any sense with the above statement, it just sounds like religious dogma regurgitated to sound good and convey guilt


(Yesterday 10:56)bennyboy Wrote:
Since in Australia, meat-production is also a big business, I'd also hazard a guess that you are willing to accept environmental corruption and animal suffering as part of the exchange of goods-- money for housing, electronic goods, etc. At this point, the word "necessity" starts to lose the ring of truth.

This from a person who lives in Korea which imports 95% of it's food and construction materials from other countries?

How's that apartment you are living in?

(Yesterday 10:56)bennyboy Wrote:
Quote:
Now, for what you have implied you are in North America/ Canada? Is this correct? And your country grows wheat? What else does it grow?

As far as I understand, here in Oz we have something like two growing seasons and yes wheat is a yearly crop here, along with many other grain crops (large scale). We are also only 22-23 million in population so most of our produce gets exported.
I live in Korea, but I am Canadian. Canada is similarly situated to Australia, I believe: large countries with low populations and good farmlands, but quite a lot of non-arable land: tundra in Canada, and dry regions in Australia.

You do realise that many of our forest have had to be felled so you can have your kimchi every day?

Would you enjoy some reading material?

http://www.nationsencyclopedia.com/Asia-...index.html
http://www.biology.ualberta.ca/bsc/engli...r5_ACG.pdf

http://gocanada.about.com/od/canadatrave...canada.htm

http://www.weather-and-climate.com/avera...outh-Korea

http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/...limate~143

http://www.murraydarlingwetlands.com.au/...-facts.asp

http://www.murrayriver.com.au/about-the-...ing-basin/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murray–Darling_basin

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/nati...le1316188/

http://www.nationsencyclopedia.com/econo...LTURE.html

http://www.agriculturemorethanever.ca/ca...log/facts/

http://www.agr.gc.ca/eng/about-us/public...1899760841

http://www.croplife.ca/just-the-facts

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topi...nd-fishing

http://countrystudies.us/south-korea/52.htm

http://www.dpi.vic.gov.au/agriculture/in...kets/korea

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agriculture_in_Australia


http://t.answers.com/answers/#!/entry/wh...89472cce9a

http://australia.gov.au/about-australia/...griculture

Suffice to say the above led to an interesting Sunday afternoon's worth of reading.

Enjoy.

Quote:KichigaiNeko Wrote:
(16th February 2014 02:56)bennyboy Wrote:
All meat-eaters must necessarily accept that in order to sustain themselves, they must cause suffering and death in others.

Why? This seems another assumption on your part sans any evidence so far for the previous assumptions
I think I don't understand what you're getting at. Are there any meat eaters who do not believe that eating meat involves any suffering? If so, there's a serious reality disconnect there. Please clarify.

Quote:
(16th February 2014 02:56)bennyboy Wrote:
-- environmentally and health-wise as well as in terms of suffering-- even if you have not specifically stated so.

You don't seem to be making any sense with the above statement, it just sounds like religious dogma regurgitated to sound good and convey guilt
I suspect you think my use of the word "evils" had a religious connotationor implication. I just used it to mean "very bad stuff." I don't see what's dogma about any of this.

Quote:
(16th February 2014 02:56)bennyboy Wrote:
Since in Australia, meat-production is also a big business, I'd also hazard a guess that you are willing to accept environmental corruption and animal suffering as part of the exchange of goods-- money for housing, electronic goods, etc. At this point, the word "necessity" starts to lose the ring of truth.
This from a person who lives in Korea which imports 95% of it's food and construction materials from other countries?

How's that apartment you are living in?
Yep, it's true. Korea not only imports much food, shoveling the environmental consequences of consumption onto other countries, it makes the money to do so by running big factories, here or abroad, belching out pollutants.

Quote:
(16th February 2014 02:56)bennyboy Wrote:
I live in Korea, but I am Canadian. Canada is similarly situated to Australia, I believe: large countries with low populations and good farmlands, but quite a lot of non-arable land: tundra in Canada, and dry regions in Australia.
You do realise that many of our forest have had to be felled so you can have your kimchi every day?

Would you enjoy some reading material?



Enjoy.

Bennyboy wrote: lol these are all good sources of information. However, you might want to supplement some of them with a summary and a point. What specifically are you trying to say with these links?

benny boy Wrote:What specifically are you trying to say with these links?

Quote:8 March 2011 – Small-scale farmers can double food production in a decade by using simple ecological methods, according to the findings of a new United Nations study released today, which calls for a fundamental shift towards agroecology as a poverty alleviation measure.

“To feed 9 billion people in 2050, we urgently need to adopt the most efficient farming techniques available,” says Olivier De Schutter, the UN Special Rapporteur on the right to food and author of the report, entitled “Agro-ecology and the right to food.”

Quote:Despite a significant growth in food production over the past half-century, one of the most important challenges facing
society today is how to feed an expected population of some nine billion by the middle of the 20th century. To meet the
expected demand for food without significant increases in prices, it has been estimated that we need to produce
70–100 per cent more food, in light of the growing impacts of climate change, concerns over energy security,
regional dietary shifts and the Millennium Development target of halving world poverty and hunger by 2015. The
goal for the agricultural sector is no longer simply to maximize productivity, but to optimize across a far more
complex landscape of production, rural development, environmental, social justice and food consumption
outcomes. However, there remain significant challenges to developing national and international policies that
support the wide emergence of more sustainable forms of land use and efficient agricultural production. The lack of
information flow between scientists, practitioners and policy makers is known to exacerbate the difficulties, despite
increased emphasis upon evidence-based policy. In this paper, we seek to improve dialogue and understanding
between agricultural research and policy by identifying the 100 most important questions for global agriculture.
These have been compiled using a horizon-scanning approach with leading experts and representatives of major
agricultural organizations worldwide. The aim is to use sound scientific evidence to inform decision making and
guide policy makers in the future direction of agricultural research priorities and policy support. If addressed, we
anticipate that these questions will have a significant impact on global agricultural practices worldwide, while
improving the synergy between agricultural policy, practice and research. This research forms part of the UK
Government’s Foresight Global Food and Farming Futures project