Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

I saw this "Eating our Way to Extinction" video on fb: https://www.facebook.com/upliftconnect/videos/1012079985595649/?pnref=story

 

Since we know that eating meat contributes to most of what is destroying our Earth, can a meat eater call him or herself environmentalist?

 

Are you sure that everyone agrees that bring carnivorous is the reason the earth is being destroyed?

 

Or that it even is being destroyed? And perhaps not just amidst a cyclical warming trend?

 

I, for one, certainly do not know any of that. And I'm a Biologist.

 

So, please enlighten me. Tell us why everything would be fine if we all became vegetarians. And disprove the cyclical theory for climate change.

 

In your own words. I think it's against the rules here to lead a thread with a video link and to hinge your entire argument on it as well.

 

Thanks!

Posted (edited)

While "destruction" is clearly not the correct term to use it is pretty clear that the rate we are looking at in terms of temperature increase. Being a biologist (really?) does not make you an authority on climate (i.e. appeal to authority fallacy). Unless, of course you are specialized in the area, but then one would expect a bit more background knowledge.

Also mechanistically this argument is inherently weak. What would cause those cycles? Currently we know that it is driven by CO2 and we know that humans are the major source for the observed increase. To state that it is somehow cyclic one would have to argue that in absence of anthropogenic sources the Earth would somehow suddenly decide to increase CO2 or other greenhouse gases. There are no alternative theories to explain all the observed climate signatures, which is why people actually looking into it pretty much agree on the human-CO2-climate change link.

 

That being said, there is a cause to be had regarding use of meat as an important contributor to CO2.Current estimates (Pitesky et al 2009, Adv Agronom) pin it about 14-18% (with fossil fuel use making up ca. 60%). So it is significant and it is almost certain that stopping industrial production would reduce CO2 emission. What the actual impact is going to be is more difficult to assess, however.

Even shifts from beef (which contributes most) to other livestock could reduce emission significantly. But obviously, it would not change the big chunk of fossil fuel use.

Edited by CharonY
Posted (edited)

Are you sure that everyone agrees that bring carnivorous is the reason the earth is being destroyed?

Or that it even is being destroyed? And perhaps not just amidst a cyclical warming trend?

I, for one, certainly do not know any of that. And I'm a Biologist.

So, please enlighten me. Tell us why everything would be fine if we all became vegetarians. And disprove the cyclical theory for climate change.

In your own words. I think it's against the rules here to lead a thread with a video link and to hinge your entire argument on it as well.

Thanks!

Oops, sorry I didn't know we can't use video links. I will have to read the rules again :(

Well we can't ignore when scientists and climate experts say that climate change is the biggest global health threat right now. And I am pretty sure scientists have considered, studied, and ruled out "natural cycle." I don't think Earth warms up because it feels like it, something must cause it. Raising livestock requires large amount of energy for refrigeration, transportation, etc. Cattle produce methane gas which warms the planet 23 times more than CO2. Are you sure you're a biologist? With simple google search, one can find that animal agriculture is one of the major causes of global warming.

Edited by ModernArtist25
Posted

Oops, sorry I didn't know we can't use video links. I will have to read the rules again :(

My understanding of the rules on video links is that you can use them, but they should not represent your entire argument. You should ideally summarise that argument in your own words and use the link to provide more depth, or background. I think your OP went some way towards meeting these requirements, but that just an opinion of someone with fewer posts than you have.

Posted

My understanding of the rules on video links is that you can use them, but they should not represent your entire argument. You should ideally summarise that argument in your own words and use the link to provide more depth, or background. I think your OP went some way towards meeting these requirements, but that just an opinion of someone with fewer posts than you have.

 

!

Moderator Note

:cool:

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.