| environmentalists
Posted: 2/19/2007 10:33:31 PM | Hey, all:
Our personal lifestyles and practices exist on an infinite continuum, and the things listed here are just a collection of points along that continuum.
I think the items are just some examples of what someone might do who wished to make some difference in environmental issues, although there is a great deal of overlap with other issues, philosophies and practices. Some of them are also practiced by Eastern religions, especially Zen Buddhism, who believe there are foods which are better and some which are worse. Oddly, root crops are frowned on by Zen practitioners, but some are among the best vegetables available. I practice some Zen ideals, but I eat meat and I know devout Buddhists who eat meat. I also do some of my own vegetables and fruit and I raise chickens for eggs and meat.
Some of the items here are somewhat symbolic, and serve as an example of what many of us could do to improve the environment. Many of us would do well to pay attention to our practices and try and find ways to improve.
There is a lot we can all do to move toward sustainability, which is one of the most crucial areas that the world's population must move. A couple of people in previous messages have correctly touched on this.
I personally do take notice of the women here who either support or oppose behavior considered to be green. Some of you, wow, if your phone doesn't ring, it's me, and some of you, I would be honored to know more.
David
Messages done with sustainable energy, with Wind and Sun! | |
|
| environmentalists
Posted: 3/23/2007 9:32:29 PM |
Recycle all waste
Switch off anything not being used
Cook real food (no processed foods)
Buy organic foods, cosmetics etc....
Go vegan or veggie
Walk or cycle rather than take the car on short trips
Avoid flying
Go on campaign marches/offer support to campaigns
Bycott products
You missed one.............
Chaining Yourselves to a tree on Your anniversary...........lol!!!
No I could not.. | |
|
| environmentalists
Posted: 3/23/2007 10:38:06 PM | A environmentalist is Not one of the activist. That is what you are describing in your post here OP.
Just what does being a environmentalist have to do with being a vegetarian ? ,boycott
products ?
That is being a activist.
A good environmentalist is what we have always called a good steward of the land.
You will find that one of the most commonly failed stewardship is the failure to follow the three Rs.
Reduce
Reuse
And Recycle. | |
|
| environmentalists
Posted: 3/24/2007 10:53:45 AM |
If animals weren't meant to be eaten, they wouldn't be made out of meat.
 Mind if I have some of your relatives over for dinner? 
Just what does being a environmentalist have to do with being a vegetarian ?
A good question.
And the answer is that it takes 10 times more land space to feed a meat eater than it does a vegetarian due to required grazing land for the livestock.
Americans tend to eat a lot more red meat than is healthy for human consumption. As a result we require additional grazing land for livestock. Thankfully there is plenty of freed-up land now available in Brazil where rainforests used to be.  | |
|
| environmentalists
Posted: 3/24/2007 1:14:42 PM |
A good question.
And the answer is that it takes 10 times more land space to feed a meat eater than it does a vegetarian due to required grazing land for the livestock.
Trouble with that answer is you used economics. So you either wasn't able to answer it as a enviromental issue or you didn't fully think through your answer.
Now just where do you think that the fertilzer that fuels the growth of those plants come from ?
In being a good steward of the land. A person has to be able to strike the right balance. | |
|
| environmentalists
Posted: 3/24/2007 8:10:29 PM |
Trouble with that answer is you used economics.
Uh... wrong. Reducing their own ecological footprint is key to most environmentalists. Reducing everyones ecological footprint is essential for the long term health of the planet. There are three big ways to do that.
1. Bury your car in your back yard and don't drive. (check)
2. Don't have kids. (check)
3. Don't eat red meat as it takes more land (and more oil, fertilizers, pesticides) than being a vegetarian (lapsed and loving it).
Most of the rest of the stuff outside of changing the world is window-dressing.
Cheers,
Mike (I was down to 100 grams of cheese a week once... oh well) | |
|
| environmentalists
Posted: 3/24/2007 8:39:56 PM | OK so you are going to use one of the products from the animals as fertilizer. Right ?
That means you are going to have the animals using that space anyway. Right ?
So where is the sense in not using the rest of that animals products ? | |
|
| environmentalists
Posted: 3/24/2007 9:32:09 PM |
OK so you are going to use one of the products from the animals as fertilizer. Right ?
Wrong. Most fertilizer is actually derived from oil.
Cheers,
Mike (oil, not just for Cool Whip anymore) | |
|
| environmentalists
Posted: 3/24/2007 11:19:33 PM | Most ammonium nitrate is made by one of two processes. The ammonia and nitric acid are produced from chemical refining processes, from side streams from natural gas processing (nitrogen and sulfur are natural contaminants in natural gas and petroleum crudes). I think most people get confused because they don't understand refining processes and the term sour gas and crudes, which refers to the enrichment of N and S heterocycles in natural carbon deposits.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ammonia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ammonium_nitrate
Historical industrial production of ammonia...
Before the start of World War I most ammonia was obtained by the dry distillation[10] of nitrogenous vegetable and animal waste products, including camel dung where it was distilled[8] by the reduction of nitrous acid and nitrites with hydrogen; additionally, it was produced by the distillation of coal;[8] and also by the decomposition of ammonium salts by alkaline hydroxides is what the previous poster was referring to, and indeed, the production of ammonium nitrate by reacting ammonia with nitric acid predates WWI. However, manufactured gas (stepwise distillation of coal) was the preferred route and after WWI, refining of natural gas replaced manufactured gas plant production (by about 1930-1935).
(I worked on enhanced natural bioremediation of contaminated old manufactured gas plant sites - there are several thousand scattered throughout the world, many here in the US and Canada.). | |
|
| environmentalists
Posted: 3/24/2007 11:59:13 PM | No way.. Their to extreme for me.. I agree with protecting the environment but i think they take it a bit to far. And I don't buy in to a lot of there scare tactics.
Give me my steak and potato’s!
If animals weren't meant to be eaten, why would they be made out of meat.
LMBO!!!
| |
|
| environmentalists
Posted: 3/25/2007 12:13:28 AM | | I think that people are most important ........we have to value people first , unfortunately there are those who caccoon themselves in the "environmental movement " and they are basically very withdrawn from true spirituality.....not that I am so spiritual , but atleast I try. | |
|
| environmentalists
Posted: 3/25/2007 5:59:08 AM | OP, I already do most of those things without even thinking about it. It's not that difficult. In my city we have to recycle cos bin charges are high whereas recycling is free. I cant understand why americans dont do it.
About eating meat, its probably healthier to eat very little meat, I only eat meat about once a week and I dont miss it.
I cycle or walk everywhere, that way I never even have to think about my weight and I dont need to go to a gym. I appreciate not everyone can do this because of poorly planned cities or living in a rural community, but they could use public transport. And if there isnt good enough transport you need to do something about it, campaign to get transport. Its not fair that people that know better are still not making the effort to stop environmental damage and global warming. We can only do it if everyone plays their part. Its a way of life, not some sort of big deal. | |
|
| environmentalists
Posted: 3/25/2007 7:03:17 AM |
Most fertilizer is actually derived from oil.
Just what is so enviromentally friendly about that ?
Here I was under the impression that this discussion was about what is good for the enviroment. | |
|
| environmentalists
Posted: 3/25/2007 7:45:57 AM |
Just what is so enviromentally friendly about that ?
Nothing. That would be the point about eating things that require less of it.
The last ratios I saw were roughly four pounds of grain for a pound of chicken and ten to sixteen pounds of grain for a pound of beef. Each pound of grain requires pesticides (fossil fuels), herbicides (fossil fuels) and the oil required for tilling, sowing, reaping and transporting. Therefore a pound of beef requires 10-16 times the fossil fuels as a pound of grain. That's why being a vegetarian is a more environmentally friendly choice.
It can be made more environmentally friendly by trying to eat things only grown within 100 miles (160 km) of you. This is known as a 100 Mile Diet. There's a blog and book etc about it. Eating an organic 100 Mile Diet tends to reduce this further. The last time I saw statistics, the average piece of food travelled something like 1000 km before being eaten. The energy for transporting it comes almost entirely from fossil fuels.
Cheers,
Mike (bonus exercise: think about the green house gas implications of this food cycle) | |
|
| environmentalists
Posted: 3/25/2007 8:50:43 AM |
Uh... wrong. Reducing their own ecological footprint is key to most environmentalists. Reducing everyones ecological footprint is essential for the long term health of the planet.
I was going to respond, but this answer is perfect, thank you.
Besides the simple efficency of being vegetarian there is also a positive impact from eating soy based products, crop rotation. Mant farmers large and small use soy to replenish some nutrients stripped by other crops.
While recent studies suggest it has no special weight control properties (why anyone would think it would is beyond me) it is still an amazing little plant found in everything from your salad bacon topping to a McDonald's hamburger.
Just for the record, I'm vegetarian for more personal rather than global reasons. I love animals too much to be comfortable eating them simply for taste. Especially when the alternatives are actually quite good these days. Personally I recommend Morning Star's Grillers Prime, Breakfast Sausages, Chick Patties and Hot Dogs! | |
|
| environmentalists
Posted: 3/25/2007 10:14:18 AM | There is a point that I have been trying to make. For some reason everyone has been missing it. Maybe I have just not explained myself well enough.
You need those animals in order to maintain a healthy environment.
Where is the environmental benefit of using just one product of something that you have to maintain anyway.
Do you truly believe that you would be better off using a manufactured fertilizer. One that would then have to be shipped in. I can guarantee that the fertilizer gets shipped more then 100 miles in most cases. | |
|
| environmentalists
Posted: 3/25/2007 10:16:19 AM | I would love to see improvements to public transportation. I think the US should invest heavily in a monorail network all across the country, reducing the need for cars or even planes. Maglev trains don't use the amount of fuel that cars do. Perhaps someday we'll have a nice train network, allowing people to have enjoyable commutes to work instead of frustrating long drives. I understand that India is getting ahead of us in that regard--one of my friends who is Indian just came back from there, and he says that the new train network is making quite a difference over there. I understand that Brazil is doing the same.
....and I eat meat Yes, you can be a meat eater and still support things that help the environment, like the above mentioned train network. | |
|
| environmentalists
Posted: 3/25/2007 11:07:10 AM |
You need those animals in order to maintain a healthy environment.
Where is the environmental benefit of using just one product of something that you have to maintain anyway.
How many animals of what types are required? Millions of acres of Brazilian rain forest have been slashed and burned to put beef on tables across the world. Entire ocean ecosystems from the bottom up have been destroyed to put protein on plates. Entire low-lying areas in Pacific countries have been salinated to the point of being unusable to put shrimp on skewers.
You can certainly eat some animal protein and have a small ecological footprint. You can't eat nearly as much as the average American consumes and have a small ecological footprint.
Your point is valid in a very narrow range, but your grasp of how food is actually created, harvested and delivered to our mouths is weak. Agribusiness and the 'green revolution' create enormous amounts of green house gases, non-arable land and pollution every year.
And there's really no way around it with 7 billion people on the face of the earth.
Cheers,
Mike (hoping for yet another technological avoidance of Malthus' theory) | |
|
| environmentalists
Posted: 3/25/2007 11:13:30 AM |
your grasp of how food is actually created, harvested and delivered to our mouths is weak.
You have got to be kidding me !
I live in the breadbasket area of the US in a rural district. Just what do you think the common topics are around here ? That's right agriculture and livestock. The two go hand in hand.
Time to live in reality not in a dream utopia. | |
|
| environmentalists
Posted: 3/25/2007 11:50:08 AM | If it's LOVE......those are definitely compromisable issues. Not saying they can make you choose all of their choices, but let's just compare those to say.....a person who drinks, gambles, squanders money. Red flags. The things you listed are things that serve a good purpose. If you can live harmoniously and they can respect that you might not agree on every issue but will not hold it against them, well, it would work.
I am a healthy person, none of those would cause me to balk.. | |
|
| environmentalists
Posted: 3/25/2007 12:03:04 PM |
I live in the breadbasket area of the US in a rural district.
Then your blindness to the environmental impacts of meat production is willful. Thanks for clarifying.
Cheers,
Mike (but feel free to provide any information of value that you have from your privileged position) | |
|
| environmentalists
Posted: 3/25/2007 1:51:01 PM | From one enviro to another - is it possible to change behavior in one, two or three generations? Can you wait that long to find an ideal mate? Is POF the right place to find your green soul mate? Or, does it make more sense to join all the organizations you support to find the mate you seek? (Thinking of course that if you love chess you join chess clubs and meet like minded people, etc.). Now I digress, or, is that devolve?
Seeing no mention in the thread of the difference between organic and non-organic food production I thought it'd be relevant to bring the differences up. Since there were a few posts sorta going that way...
Organic production produces higher quality foods, sustainable production due to soil
enhancement vs. fertility and topsoil loss, and creates smaller ecological footprint
than large scale commercial ag
Organic production (utilizing IPM practices) tends to foster healthy ecosystems
overall -
no pesticide run off
no mass bee die off (don't forget - plant and bee symbiosis)
no toxic gas escaping into the air we breathe and back into the water we drink
ad infinitum
Organic production is not currently possible in large scale farming production
leading one to question centralized, mass production vs. small, local farming
practices and distribution
this isn't much good for feeding those in parts of the world where ag is simply not
possible due to natural soil and water constraints
leading one to re-think ag production priorities and practices as well as where
people choose to live... think sustainable communities
Choosing to date a person based upon their environmental beliefs alone is such a hard row to hoe, but not impossible. So many complex, inter-related issues come into play. It is great if you can find someone to match your envirosuasion and ethical mandates - maybe better if you can learn to live with others and find acceptable common ground and learning potentials.
Better to help the children learn to cope with a changing world than to expect our mates to conform in every way we desire.
 | |
|
| environmentalists
Posted: 3/25/2007 2:15:49 PM | to actually answer the original question: NO!
I could not, and would most certainly choose not to live with or formulate a serious relationship with what is popularly come to be defined as an "Envirnmentalist".
I am a conservationist, and somewhat of a restorvationist... to me there is a vast difference. Connservationsist's are more practical and common sensical and are willing to look at the biggest picture that is available. Pop-culture envirnmentalists are just radical left wing nut jobs, in my opinion. Jumping on the latest popular and hysterical Liberal bandwagon that might have a celebrity on it. No thanks. Not for me.
I've lived thru the whole evolution of this stuff. I've seen and heard it all..and have been a devout follower at times in my past. Maturity, and just living quite a while, and having actual personal anecdotal evidence that we are just changing things a little on this planet, temporarily... mostly, has wised me up to all the screeching and holier than thou hysteria.
Just to round this off... I couldn't live with one of those PITA types either. Good gawd. Give me a woman who thinks Ted Neugent's cool!!!!!! | |
|
| environmentalists
Posted: 3/25/2007 2:47:25 PM |
mostly, has wised me up to all the screeching and holier than thou hysteria.
Oh, you mean like...
Pop-culture envirnmentalists are just radical left wing nut jobs, in my opinion.
Give me a woman who thinks Ted Neugent's cool!!!!!!
You can have all three of them with my blessing Pinebreeze
Folks, the right and the left are weighed down with fanatics. What's best for us lies somewhere inbetween. Real change, whether 'envirinmental' or environmental is going to take a lot more education of the general populace and time we may or may not have.
In the meantime, if you care at all about leaving a world your children and grandchildren can enjoy growing up in, then try to make sound decisions. Opt for low-impact options or try to counter-balance what damage you may be doing to the environment by your lifestyle choices.
We owe it to those who come after us to leave the world in at least as good a condition as we found it. (climbs down from soapbox) | |
|
| no problem
Posted: 3/25/2007 3:51:58 PM | Sure, I could live with a strict envionrmentalist. I accept people's beliefs. However, would he be willing to live with me as I flew to my vacation desitanations, killed my prey and ate it, wore comsetics... and all the other stuff I wouldn't change for a man.
If he can accept me I can accept him. | |
|
Home
login 
