Ten oz

Resistors in series simply add resistance to a circuit. The more resistance you have the more current required. So if your concern is about providing to much power to the motor a resistor in series won't improve your situation. Placing resistors in parrallel decrease total resistance http://physics.bu.edu/py106/notes/Circuits.html It seems like to me that you merely want protection? Figure out the what current (amps) your motor is rated for and put a fuse inline with it. That will prevent the motor from overheating because as the temp increases resistance increase which draws more current (amps) and blows the fuse.

The great thing about God is that he/she/it sets the standard for all things in the natural world. God cant be wrong about anything. To imply so just triggers the argument that the human mind just cant see the whole picture the way god does. As a fictional character God has no limit and can not be tied down to anything logical or real.

Highly intelligent by human standards or highly intelligent because I am human? Either way I think I will take that as a compliment. Thank you I don't think anything you are saying is wrong. I wonder if future generations will but that is a far less tangible thing than the pros and cons of various agriculture. I myself am conflicted by what I believe is currently achievable, what is the most sustainable, the most cost effective, and how feel about it all ethically. I suppose religion was dreamt up in part to deal with such internal debates.

I understand what you are saying. You are right. I am trying to have it both ways. I do undertsand the ethical argument and I do feel compelled by it however I don't believe it will ever be a cause for action. The majority isn't moved by it. So I try to avoid allowing it to inform my decision making. Cold hard economics is the only thing that will cause action on change. Ethics won't. So I am dispassionate about it. At some point as our population grows and our resources become further constrained I think there will be a shift. To get from A to B society often lingers in a contradictory state. Before homos3xuals were allowed openly in the military we had the contradictory don't ask don't tell. After we ended slavery we continued to allow Jim Crow in the south. I suppose I am currently in one of those states right now. I see value in being a vegetarian both ethically and enviromentally yet I am not one. I don't eat red meat and limit how much chicken and fish I eat to once a day. That is far as I can go for now. I am still the son of my father. Which is to say a product of my environment.

As humans we are unique in how bloodthirsty we are. No other species on earth kills just for the sake of killing. Other animals kill out of neccessity. I think our ability to kill without any risk factors has desensitized us. Killing out of neccessity is different than people killing just because they rather eat chicken wings at the bar on friday night that nachos with beans and salsa. Even apex predators have specific diets that don't over exploit their prey. We use animal products for a lot more than just food. Dead chickens won't go to waste Growing crops was a huge part of what got us to where we are too. I would also argue that early civilizations didn't eat as much meat as we eat today. They had livestock but not enough of it to afford meat being the center piece of every meal. They used livestock for dairy and to help with their crops. Killing and eating the animal out right was more of something done for special occasions or as animals required being put down. I am not trying to refocus the discussion to beef. It was just a suggestion that steering away from beef might be a place to start. Hopefully other posters will come up with some more suggestions. Someone early mentioned insects. That is an interesting idea. For the record I do not believe we, the U.S., will be vegetarian in my lifetime.

Our system has a lot of problems. Most of our representation is poor. That can be changed though. One of our biggest problems in politics is that people only pay attention to the whitehouse. Many of the same people who lament about D.C. have no idea who their congressman is, Governor is, Mayor is, and so on. There is a whole lot of govt impacting our lives between my kitchen table and the President of the United States. All of these govt officials that we aren't paying attention to like District Judges, state election officers, state Treasury, and etc greatly influence or system. So rather than staying home and not voting I think people need to do the opposite. People need to get more involved especially in local races. Local races is where it is more likely third party candidates can win. Small local races are not as manipulated by outside money.

Ethically it wouldn't change anything. We would still be killing. In term of efficiency and sustainability it would be positive. Other red meats like Goat meat is actually more sustainable. They are browsers not grazers and more of them can be raised per acre than beef. http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/food/goat-meat-the-final-frontier/2011/03/28/AF0p2OjC_story.html I just don't know how we get from where we are in the united states to vegetarian in one adult step. All I can imagine right now are a multitude of baby steps. That is why are brought up steering us away from beef. I believe it would be an improvement. IMO one of societies biggest problems is that we ignore the unsustainable course we are on. We do it with energy, banking, urban sprawl, our diets, with everything. As demand surpasses what crude oil can satisfy we just turn to shale oil and keep on truckin'. As the average amount of indebtedness grows we just change interest rates and brankruptcy laws and keep truckin'. As we fertile land runs out we just build communities in deserts and keep truckin'.I don't think Vegetarianism is the cure to all of humanities problems. I do think it would help. We, society, needs to start thinking about doing things more efficiently rather than always working to finding ways to get more. it is time to start thinking about how we can get by with less.

That is the question. I was hoping you'd guys have the answers. Seriously though is isn't simple. I think the first step is moving people away from eating so much beef. As was pointed out earlier the dairy industry is supplemented by the beef industry. So dairy industries from other sources like Goat, Sheep, Horse, Buffalo, and even Camel would need to grow.

Eugentics has 3 major flaws IMHO: 1 - Bias of the group with the power/ability to implement it. Throughout history we have persecuted various types of people. Being Gay, black, Jewish, Irish, and etc are all things previous generations would've bias against. Implementation would always be a matter of the prevailing zeitgeist. Only in reflections from future generations is it ever known which zeitgeists endured and have value. 2 - How is intelligence tested? Studies have shown IQ tests are limited. A more thoroughly educated person is more familiar with the format and normally performs better. How do you test a persons capacity to learn though? How do you test someone's ability to invent or think of something new? If the goal is to improve the human mind shouldn't potential be more important than displays of cultivated knowledge? I just don't see how we'd messure the difference. 3 - evolution needs randomness. Survival of the fitness isn't intelligence or advances adaptaition. It is about environment. Many successful species have gone extinct. Whether it was a new disease none of them were lucky enough to have a mutation to be immune to or a volcano erupting and devastating an ecosystem they relied on. Diversity is a key to long term survival. We can't predict which mutations will be best when something unplanned for happens. Which also can't predict whose offspring will have a new useful mutation.

Interesting link. I give my spent grain to a co-worker who has chickens. Haven't read up on any specific figures but I imagine the growing taste for craft beer is greatly increasing demand for malted grain which also increases the amount of spent grains to be disposed of.

I live in Southern California and there are craft breweries all over here too. I also homebrew. I went through a long IPA stage but currently find myself drinking a lot of Triple Belgian ale. Thank god you didn't counter, for argument sake, that Bud, PBR, Miller, etc were great beers, lol. I am not sure I would've been able to constrain my response.

You continue to mix vegetarians with vegans in an attempt to make your b12 argument stick. This thread asks about vegetarians not vegans. So your "why vegans sucks" link does not counter any of my points. As I already posted, with links, the most common types of vegetarians do consume dairy products and eggs. So b12 is not an issue. As for saying 500 million people in India and 50 million people China proves a vegetarian diet can be safe.......I have no idea what you consider inaccurate about that? I did not say it proves a vegetarian diet is superior. No degree was given. I believe "safe" is the oppropriate word. Perhaps our definition of the safe within the context used is different? You said "I agree that the factual parts of the report are evidence that current meat production, particularly beef, is on shaky ground as far as sustainability and environmental degradation." well that is the crux of this thread IMO. The rest is just what to do about it and that is entirely a matter of opinion regardless of which facts either side provides. So we basically agree on what the current state of affairs are and disagree about how society should handle it moving forward. Bringing up my beer reference made me chuckle. I like that. Like I said before you latch on to every comment whether it is to the point being discussed or not. That isn't a bad thing. "Standard American lagers are knows as “American Adjunct Lagers”. This means these are lagers that are brewed with adjuncts. Adjuncts are any non-malted grain, like rice or corn. This means that rather than using 100% malt, large breweries will cut the malt with corn or rice (or both). This will dull the flavour, lighten the colour, and barely affect the alcohol level. Thus, the large breweries can still brew a 5% alc./vol. beer, but at a lower cost. Corn and rice are less expensive than malt, so it’s an attractive cost-cutter for breweries. In addition, the beer will now appeal to the masses — if drank cold enough, the beer will lose almost all of its flavour, and go down like water." http://thehoppyending.wordpress.com/the-craft-beer-difference/

Other than calling the third largest agricultural state the second largest what "claims" have I made that isn't true? There are facts a person uses to highlight a truth and then there are board general statements meant to help frame perspective. I have provided links for everthing I have posted that highlighted a truth. You have latched on to general statements meant to frame perspective or provide context in an attempt to delegitimize ideas you do not agree with. The big picture here isn't whether or not Texas is the second or third largest agricultural states. Thus far it seems the most you have contributed to this discussion is to give a review of what others have posted. I don't see how that is useful. If your complaints culminated is an alternative there would definately be value in that.

Desalinization is another thing I think with be considerably more common in the future. It comes with a higher price tag though because of the energy required which will impact the agricultural industry. It will also impact the energy industry as a whole because desalinization will become yet another market requiring huge amounts of energy.You are right that people don't starve because there isn't enough food. IMO people starving is absolutely an economic issue. Hydrophobic gardening I'll hopefully become more prevalent and allow for my food to be grown locally and help reduce the transportation cost of shipping food.

I don't believe there is a linear connection between ability and opportunity. Lots of smart people working as unskilled labor. Just because a person has a talent doesn't mean the environment they are born into will allow for them to excell with that talent. My guess is that there are great musicians working in construction and great mathematicians cleaning toilets.

you referred to the water issue as a strawman. I posted that bit about Texas to show that water is impacting cattle production in the states I referenced. Far as refferring to Texas as the second largest agricultural state.....you got me. Texas is not #2, it is #3. I don't see how that changes my point about water though.

Safe and healthy are not the same thing. It was a broad remark. I just feel too much is being made of b12. There are ways to get b12 without the status qou. The united states consumes 3 times more meat than the global average. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3045642/Humans are omnivores. However many of the meats we consume would make us sick if we tried to eat them uncooked. I think consuming eggs, fish, and insects along with plants better reflects the type of foods humans actually evolved eating than does pork chops or buffalo wings. And cars aren't the only things that use fuel so I guess cafe standards are a strawman too? There are no silver bullets that can fix our issues of sustainability. "Ongoing drought conditions have also reduced the supply of cattle in Texas, the nation's largest state for beef production, contributing 6.3 billion pounds in 2012, 15 percent of the national total, Texas Department of Agriculture Spokesman Bryan Black said. Some cattlemen have begun to rebuild their herd, primarily in East Texas, where drought conditions have subsided "Since January 2011, the total number of cattle and calves in Texas has declined by 2.4 million head to 10.9 million head," Black said. Beef cow numbers have dropped by 20 percent over the same period to 4.35 million head." http://www.accuweather.com/en/weather-news/cattle-ranchers-forced-to-cull/26595624

I have primarily focused on the efficiency and sustainability aspects of a vegetarian diet but there is a discussion that could had about the ethical aspects as well. I have often wondered if future generations will look back on us poorly for our treatment of animals. Animals in nature kill out of necessity. We kill as a matter of preference. I think there is something unnatural about that. However I don't think we will change our ways for ethical reasons. I think as the population increases and our resources become more strained economics will for a shift.

I have not read much regarding this topic but think it is an interesting question. My guess is that humans are drawn to the repetitiveness of it. Our unconscious is constantly working to judge distance, triangulate the source, and evaluate the meaning of sounds we hear. Music with its tempos and rythemes probably makes it easy and relaxing to for our unconscious to follow. Plus the multitude of tones makes triangulation easier. In terms of an evolutionary advantage, assuming there is one, repetitive sounds are typically artificial. So perhaps consciously being aware of the difference between a naturally occurring and artificial sound helped us. I will certainly read up on this.

"An ovo-lacto vegetarian (or lacto-ovo vegetarian) is a vegetarian who does not eat animal flesh of any kind, but is willing to consume dairy and egg products. In contrast, a vegetarian who consumes no animal products at all is called a vegan. Veganism even excludes animal products found in clothes, such as wool, fur, and other animal based products.""In the Western world lacto-ovo vegetarians are the most common type of vegetarian. Generally speaking, when one uses the term vegetarian a lacto-ovo vegetarian is assumed." http://www.princeton.edu/~achaney/tmve/wiki100k/docs/Lacto-ovo_vegetarianism.html I think your point about b12 is exaggerated. The most common type of vegetarians consume dairy products and eggs which are both good sources of b12. Besides, 500 million vegetarians in India and 50 million in China proves humans can safely be vegetarian. Within the context of this discussion mentioning that some vegetarians eat fish doesn't really contribute useful information. It seems more like a complaint. This thread is about efficient and sustainable food for the future. Fish populations are on the decline. Our oceans are over fished. So unless you are looking to introduce information about advancements in fish farmering the comment seems out of place. This is possibly an alternative of the future too. As it stands the united states is only 5% of the world population but we consumer 25% of the worlds resources. It is clearly not sustainable. Our two biggest food producing states California and Texas are both dealing with droughts. http://droughtmonitor.unl.edu/What happens when our population grows? Demand isn't shrinking and it is fairly obvious to me beef isn't a sustainable or efficient food to use as a dietary center piece the way we currently do.

Thank you.

That's great! I haven't gotten into the health benefits aspect of us changing our diet in this thread because the efficiencies and sustainability side is what I think will eventually create change. At some point the population will be so great, water so little, and energy so constrained that industry will prefer grains over livestock. As you correctly pointed out though there is a health benifit to it as well. How many people take a handful of pills a day that could be replaced with a better diet?I eat fish and chicken but gave up red meat. I also don't eat meat (chicken/fish) with every meal.

To your point I saw the video of an interview with Richard Dawkins where he stated that he wished the world was vegetarian or vegan while admitting that he was not. The prospect of changing ones own behavior is hard even for those who understand the need for it.The generation that follows change deals much better with it. I am biracial. When my parents married it was still against state law for them to be married in several states. Now here we are a generation or two later and the president of the United States is biracial. If children grow up in a more agrarian society they would be able to more easily accept the idea of vegetarianism than those of us who grew up on McDonalds and Taco Bell.

Yeah, china is seeing an increase in meat. India not as much because their vegetarianism is tide a lot to religion. Meat, because of its higher costs, is heavily eatin' by wealthier countries.

500 million people in India are vegetarians. That's more people than the whole population of the united states. 50 million people in China are vegetarian. That is greater than the population of Canada. In other words a whole lot of people. So I don't understand why you would consider the idea as less valid than an off world thought experiment? Do you believe your diet is one entirely of choice? You and I are products of our environment. Just like I speak English because I was raised to do so our diets are a reflection of culture. For the most part we do not willfully choose a diet as adults. We eat the things we were raised eating as a matter of habit. It is like religion in that way. A person born in a Christian country will most likely grow up Christian. A person in a Muslim country will grow up Muslim. Coke, along with all other soda companies, use to to use cane sugar. For economic reasons they switched to high fructose corn sryup. Taste test after taste test show people prefer cane sugar better but at the end of the day we drink what we are given. Same goes for American beer. To cut costs large American companies use rice and corn because they are cheaper grains. As a result American beer has to be drank cold to avoid off flavors not present in European ales that are made from high quality malts. Most in the states don't know any better and just drink what they are given. Ignorance is bliss. My point being that as economic necessitate industry has no trouble changing of tastes to accommodate their bottom line. Eventually as our population continues to grow certian markets simply won't be worth the effort. Meat require more energy, more water, and more land for a smaller return. So once economics necessitates a change we will see change. Exploitation? I have not made an argument regarding exploitation. We exploit ever resource on this planet. My comments are primarily about efficiently producing enough food to feed people. The oceans are over fished. I don't believe fish are a viable food source of the future. Vegetarians drink milk and eat eggs. That isn't my opinion that is just the reality. I believe there are subgroups that forgo one or the other but that isn't relevant IMO.