View previous topic | View next topic

tick bites can save the world!

Page 1 of 6
Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next

gruff5
1207658.  Thu Oct 06, 2016 6:03 pm Reply with quote

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/oct/07/tick-bites-that-trigger-severe-meat-allergy-on-rise-around-the-world

Cattle, other ruminants and pig farming are one of the biggest environmental threats there is. So, a bit of biological warfare on ourselves, dropping these ticks from planes & converting ourselves to vegetarians could 'save the planet'.

Less abuse of animals, into the bargain.

 
14-11-2014
1207662.  Thu Oct 06, 2016 6:30 pm Reply with quote

Quote:
dropping these ticks from planes

Less abuse of animals, into the bargain.

Ticks are animals...

 
gruff5
1207666.  Thu Oct 06, 2016 9:12 pm Reply with quote

yes, so nice for them to have blood for dinner!

 
barbados
1207668.  Fri Oct 07, 2016 1:09 am Reply with quote

gruff5 wrote:
Less abuse of animals, into the bargain.


So what happens to the animals we eat then?

 
Spud McLaren
1207671.  Fri Oct 07, 2016 3:52 am Reply with quote

barbados wrote:
So what happens to the animals we eat then?
We?
I don't eat any.

 
14-11-2014
1207673.  Fri Oct 07, 2016 3:58 am Reply with quote

Quote:
Quote:
Less abuse of animals, into the bargain.


So what happens to the animals we eat then?

One mammal will be replaced by many cheaper, smaller birds and fish. If the ticks can survive the distribution method, then the ticks may not survive Lyme disease tests. More abuse of more animals*, and the effects of overfishing.

* = "The QI logo. Some argue that because the magnifying glass lens is a curved surface, the image of the lowercase 'i' should be accordingly distorted, and neglecting this is poor showing for such a scrutinising knowledge show. However, as QI pointed out in 'Optics', Series O (broadcast 7 June** 2017), magnifying glasses work not through principles of optics, but through your imagination."

** = June?!

 
Zziggy
1207696.  Fri Oct 07, 2016 5:13 am Reply with quote

barbados wrote:
gruff5 wrote:
Less abuse of animals, into the bargain.


So what happens to the animals we eat then?


Erm - they don't exist.

I assume gruff5 was saying that this less abuse of animals was coming around because everybody was turning vegetarian.

So no abuse.

(Except by your random psychopaths, but what can you do about them?)

 
brunel
1207697.  Fri Oct 07, 2016 5:16 am Reply with quote

gruff5 wrote:
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/oct/07/tick-bites-that-trigger-severe-meat-allergy-on-rise-around-the-world

Cattle, other ruminants and pig farming are one of the biggest environmental threats there is. So, a bit of biological warfare on ourselves, dropping these ticks from planes & converting ourselves to vegetarians could 'save the planet'.

Less abuse of animals, into the bargain.

You really think that spreading something that is also one of the most common vectors for Lyme's disease, a disease that can have chronic long term debilitating effects on those who have been infected even after being treated, is a good thing? Or, for that matter, a creature that also has a record of also causing muscular paralysis and respiratory failure?

You might have meant your original post to be taken in a jocular manner, but personally I find it to be a bit of a sick joke given that ticks are known transmission vectors for some quite unpleasant diseases.

 
14-11-2014
1207702.  Fri Oct 07, 2016 5:28 am Reply with quote

Quote:
I assume gruff5 was saying that this less abuse of animals was coming around because everybody was turning vegetarian.

So no abuse.

 
Jenny
1207709.  Fri Oct 07, 2016 5:47 am Reply with quote

I think it's a misconception that a universal vegan diet means no animal abuse. What about all the farm animals that won't even have a life? If wool and leather are out of bounds, people aren't likely to keep cattle, pigs and sheep as pets. Who's to say that the substitution of plastic and wood for animal products isn't going to also be environmentally destructive? What about the loss of habitat for animals brought about by much wider use of land for arable crops? What about the loss of soil fertility brought about by absence of animal manure?

Of course there's a case for eating less meat (especially in the USA where diet can often be very meat-heavy) but I have my doubts about the wisdom of any 'solution' that requires no use of animals at all.

 
14-11-2014
1207715.  Fri Oct 07, 2016 6:04 am Reply with quote

Quote:
the wisdom of any 'solution' that requires no use of animals at all.

But gruff5's 'solution' is restricted to red meat of mammals only (excluding abused ticks, and humans), and less people will eat any meat (poultry, fish).

A chicken is an animal, and many chickens (i.e. more abused animals) may replace one cow, so doubts remian justified.

 
Zziggy
1207722.  Fri Oct 07, 2016 6:31 am Reply with quote

Jenny wrote:
I think it's a misconception that a universal vegan diet means no animal abuse. What about all the farm animals that won't even have a life?

Is your argument that not existing is a form of abuse?
Jenny wrote:
If wool and leather are out of bounds, people aren't likely to keep cattle, pigs and sheep as pets. Who's to say that the substitution of plastic and wood for animal products isn't going to also be environmentally destructive?

People do keep pigs as pets! However, don't forget that the leather industry is already incredibly destructive to the environment:
This Gizmodo report wrote:
Even in fully modernized and carefully managed facilities, it is nearly impossible to reclaim all of the pollutants generated by the tanning process. As a rule of thumb, tanning one ton of hide typically results in 20 to 80 cubic meters of wastewater with Chromium concentrations around 250 mg/L and sulfide concentrations at roughly 500 mg/L, not to mention the offal effluence from the preparation phase and the pesticides often added to keep mold growth down during transport to the facility. Hell, 70 percent of an untreated hide is eventually discarded as solid waste—the hair, fat, meat, sinew, all goes straight into the trash.


Jenny wrote:
What about the loss of habitat for animals brought about by much wider use of land for arable crops?

First you must establish that there would actually be "much wider use of land for arable crops". Worldwide, 40% of land used to grow crops is used to grow crops that goes to feed animals, but in richer countries it's closer to about 70%. It is extremely inefficient. As this Cornell University report says,
Quote:
The 7 billion livestock animals in the United States consume five times as much grain as is consumed directly by the entire American population.

... Each year an estimated 41 million tons of plant protein is fed to U.S. livestock to produce an estimated 7 million tons of animal protein for human consumption. About 26 million tons of the livestock feed comes from grains and 15 million tons from forage crops. For every kilogram of high-quality animal protein produced, livestock are fed nearly 6 kg of plant protein.

... On average, animal protein production in the U.S. requires 28 kilocalories (kcal) for every kcal of protein produced for human consumption. Beef and lamb are the most costly, in terms of fossil fuel energy input to protein output at 54:1 and 50:1, respectively ...

... U.S. agriculture accounts for 87 percent of all the fresh water consumed each year. Livestock directly use only 1.3 percent of that water. But when the water required for forage and grain production is included, livestock's water usage rises dramatically. Every kilogram of beef produced takes 100,000 liters of water. Some 900 liters of water go into producing a kilogram of wheat. Potatoes are even less "thirsty," at 500 liters per kilogram.

 
barbados
1207725.  Fri Oct 07, 2016 6:46 am Reply with quote

While there are replacements to animal products in clothing, there is a huge effect by not using animal products, they range from (seeing as this suggestion only causes red meat allergy) the tasty bacon sandwich to the water that we drink
So the vegan option really isn't one without it's downsides

 
14-11-2014
1207732.  Fri Oct 07, 2016 7:06 am Reply with quote

Quote:
seeing as this suggestion only causes red meat allergy

Only red meat of mammals.

 
Spud McLaren
1207741.  Fri Oct 07, 2016 7:23 am Reply with quote

barbados wrote:
[...] there is a huge effect by not using animal products, they range from the nasty bacon sandwich to the water that we drink
Please elucidate, barb; I don't think I'm aware of this.

 

Page 1 of 6
Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next

All times are GMT - 5 Hours


Display posts from previous:   

Search Search Forums

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group