Jump to content

Vegetarians

uttoxram75

By uttoxram75
in The Jim Smith Room

Recommended Posts

Leeds Ram

Leeds Ram

Posted
Posted

Wow that's pretty dumb. Some rainforests are cut down to provide more livestock ground, but the majority of the world's livestock production doesn't come from the rainforest regions FYI. Come to America and you'll learn what type of land is generally used for big time, major livestock production. (Hint: It's a bunch of wide open grassland not much worthy of being used as farmland) I mean I admire your belief in saving the rainforest, but that's a very small thing in the big picture of livestock production. Besides why would you use very rich land for livestock? That's just a waste of farmland.

It is becoming a bigger problem, especially in places like Brazil. While it may be a small problem in the livestock industry it is becoming a bigger problem and we are destroying ourselves. Where did I claim the majority of livestock was put on sites that used to be the rainforest?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Replies 79
  • Created
  • Last Reply
Leeds Ram

Leeds Ram

Posted
Posted

.....and so the farmers just cut down more forests and the cycle begins again?

well the big companies cut down the trees and then generally it is used for livestock which washes the minerals away so the rainforest can't grow again. Also like Kansas said it is a waste of farmland but it shouldn't even be cut down in the first place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
RamOfKansas

RamOfKansas

Posted
Posted

It is becoming a bigger problem, especially in places like Brazil. While it may be a small problem in the livestock industry it is becoming a bigger problem and we are destroying ourselves. Where did I claim the majority of livestock was put on sites that used to be the rainforest?

You didn't, but I'm just trying to point out that's a very small problem in the issue of livestock production in relation to our enviroment. A much bigger factor is the great American aquifers running out. This is more important in relation to the debate we were having in the area of livestock costs of production. We weren't having a "Save the Rainforests" eco friendly debate were we? We were talking about the economics of it. Or I missed something?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
RamOfKansas

RamOfKansas

Posted
Posted

well the big companies cut down the trees and then generally it is used for livestock which washes the minerals away so the rainforest can't grow again. Also like Kansas said it is a waste of farmland but it shouldn't even be cut down in the first place.

I just wanna make clear, I admire your idea of it. But there's little we can do to stop it until countries with that problem actually make serious, concerted efforts to stop it. This isn't the big problem in the wide scope of it, sorry to say.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Leeds Ram

Leeds Ram

Posted
Posted

You didn't, but I'm just trying to point out that's a very small problem in the issue of livestock production in relation to our enviroment. A much bigger factor is the great American aquifers running out. This is more important in relation to the debate we were having in the area of livestock costs of production. We weren't having a "Save the Rainforests" eco friendly debate were we? We were talking about the economics of it. Or I missed something?

well if we go back to the original thread it wasn't originally about livestock production at all, I was simply making a point that a lot of land is being destroyed and used for livestock purposes, while it may not be a massive number in comparison to American production it is still a big chunk of land which will in future generations have an effect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Leeds Ram

Leeds Ram

Posted
Posted

I just wanna make clear, I admire your idea of it. But there's little we can do to stop it until countries with that problem actually make serious, concerted efforts to stop it. This isn't the big problem in the wide scope of it, sorry to say.

I don't deny any of what you have just said.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
RamOfKansas

RamOfKansas

Posted
Posted

Wait - have we a thread that's wondered slightly off topic?

There's a surprise 'http://www.dcfcfans.co.uk/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=';)' />

Rok, I've not heard of 'aquifers' before - what does that mean?

Young Ram has the link there for ya, it's a serious problem of late. Aquifers are pretty much giant shallow underground water tables. And in America they are drying up, this is a particularly heated issue in Western Kansas where water rights are a huge issue, Colorado has had a history of taking more than their fare share of water before it gets to the border(rivers wise). It also doesn't help that due to the growing of corn(a very water, energy intensive crop...ethanol subsidies can feck off) in a very dry, arid land that is the plains, Western Kansas, Texas, Oklahoma etc etc are pretty much just drying up. It's getting to the point where in a few years, it'll be practically uninhabitable. We're using more than it can fill back in each year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
SillyBilly

SillyBilly

Posted
Posted

Wow that's pretty dumb. Some rainforests are cut down to provide more livestock ground, but the majority of the world's livestock production doesn't come from the rainforest regions FYI. Come to America and you'll learn what type of land is generally used for big time, major livestock production. (Hint: It's a bunch of wide open grassland not much worthy of being used as farmland) I mean I admire your belief in saving the rainforest, but that's a very small thing in the big picture of livestock production. Besides why would you use very rich land for livestock? That's just a waste of farmland.

YR made a valid point, it is imo the biggest environmental challenge facing the global population at the moment. I'm bored of lamentable conspiracy theories on youtube or poorly funded documentaries on TV presented by a no-mark recalcitrant scientist "educating" us that climate change is a myth or a policy deemed favourable to western economics. Fortunately we've come a long way since the American big business brigade were able to buy scientific research, something I embrace every time I paint a wall or fill up my car with unleaded petrol. We're talking areas of forest the size of England in Brazil alone cut done and replaced by cattle farming. We're replacing our biggest source of inflow of oxygen/removal of CO2 with a methane factory, a gas at least 20 times more potent to the atmosphere than carbon dioxide. Forests in India and China cut down and replaced with paddy fields, no guesses as to what they are pumping out. The relevance isn't where the current amount of livestock land is consumed but where it is consuming, where it is expanding. Rainforest/forest land is fragilie, it is rich and fertile for only as long as the forest stands, it is a self-regulating/sustainable system, the forest supplies itself. There is no going back. I personally believe by supporting our tiny pockets of rainforest/forest (less than a few % of the world's surface) that will do more than mankind then any donation you can ever give to a humanist based charity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...