Is it wrong to harvest animals for food?

but what makes plants more worthy of death than animals?
Just because they can't run away? Or make sounds you can hear?

The cow eats plants because it can't eat anything elce. If everyone became Vegan what would happin to the cow? You can't drop thier population by means other than killing them off. You can't relese them into the wild, they can't survive it. They would go extinct.
What about the animals that compete with us for plant food? We already spend billions to wipe out bugs that feed on our crops. Killing billions of lives for the sake of a salad.

as for the Nazerine thing.. I don't remember hearing anything about Jesus' brother being a Nazerine.
John the baptist (his cousin) was a Nazerite.
some info on Nazerites from : http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Nazarite

Abstain from wine, vinegar (which was made from wine), grapes, raisins, and all intoxicants;

• Refrain from cutting one's hair and beard;
• To avoid corpses, even those of a family member.

The vow was usually for a fixed period of time — 30, 90 or even 100 days. At that time, the man would make a sacrifice that included a lamb, a ewe, a ram, and a basket of bread and cakes. There are cases where a parent would make this vow for her or his child, which the child would observe for his entire life.

Click to expand...

The practice of a Nazarite vow is part of the mystery of the Greek term "Nazarene" that appears in the New Testament; the sacrifice of a lamb and the offering of bread does suggest a relationship with Christian symbolism. However, a saying (Matthew 11:18f; Luke 7:33ff) attributed to Jesus makes it doubtful that he might have been a Nazarite, as does the ritual consumption of wine as part of the Eucharist.

Click to expand...

From JewishEncyclopedia.com: http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=142&letter=N

Three restrictions are imposed upon the Nazarite, according to Num. vi.: he may not take wine, or anything made from grapes; he may not cut the hair of his head; he may not touch the dead, not even the body of his father or mother. If a Nazarite has become unclean by accident, he must offer a sacrifice and begin the period of his vow anew. He is "holy unto the Lord" (Num. vi. 8), and the regulations which apply to him actually agree with those for the high priest and for the priests during worship (Lev. x. 8 et seq., xxi.; Ezek. xliv. 21). In ancient times the priests were persons dedicated to God (Ezek. xliv. 20; I Sam. i. 11), and it follows from the juxtaposition of prophets and Nazarites (Amos ii. 11-12) that the latter must have been regarded as in a sense priests. Young men especially, who found it difficult to abstain from wine on account of youthful desire for pleasure, took the vow. The most prominent outward mark of the Nazarite was long, flowing hair, which was cut at the expiration of the vow and offered as a sacrifice (Num. l.c.; Jer. vii. 29).

Click to expand...

nothing is mentioned about eating meat. Infact they must perform animal sacrifices if they accidently break one of thier vows. Dead animals in food do not count as 'corpes', only human bodies are part of the vow. (thus no military activity as you may touch a dead person)
Now granted Sampson the most famous of the Nazarines broke those laws often. He got involved in drinking contests and killed several people including hacking one man to death.


wa:do

Real quick; is there any room in here for two stances:

1) This is the way the Earth works; some animals eat other animals and we happen to be of the former type (I do believe we are still on the exact same level as all other life and should not be ashamed of this).

2) What about hunting?

Fluffy said:

Free range meat is not a sustainable resource. In fact, as the population rises, more and more meat will have to be produced through factory farming because there is simply not enough space. Far more crops and energy can be produced in a space in which pastoral farming would provide to a lesser extent. Furthermore, arable farming is more healthy for the environment.

It is interesting that you bring attention to the fact that parts of the amazon are being cut down to produce soybeans. Considering the infertility of the amazonian soil, I think you will find that such a thing is a rarity when you compare this to the land that is used for keeping and grazing animals.

Edit: Oh! and welcome fellow Englandian!!!!

Click to expand...

Hey Fluffy,

The land the Palestinians are trying to 'get back' from the Jews was desert, before the Jews got there. Through sheer hard work, and dedication, the Jews have created fertile land.

I accept that we as humans are designed as omnivorioues creatures so meat are a natural part of our diet. We cannot complain however when one of us get eaten by animal, that is just part of nature. Now, people does rarely get eaten by animals but it does happen for time to time. We are mostly on top of the food chain but not always, I accept that.

PW, you're missing the point. If you don't eat a cow, you aren't causing as many deaths as you would if you did eat the cow. Those crops that get sprayed for bugs? They're fed to livestock as well. Besides this, hydroponics are growing in popularity, and you don't need pesticides with hydroponics.

To drop the numbers of livestock, all that needs to be done is to not allow them to breed. Then captive livestock will die out.

Some people might say we've "always" eaten meat (not true), but then, throughout most of man's history, we've also kept slaves.

I cause the least amount of suffering and deaths as a vegan.

painted wolf said:

but what makes plants more worthy of death than animals?
Just because they can't run away? Or make sounds you can hear?

The cow eats plants because it can't eat anything elce. If everyone became Vegan what would happin to the cow? You can't drop thier population by means other than killing them off. You can't relese them into the wild, they can't survive it. They would go extinct.

Click to expand...

I'll answer both questions. Plants have no central nervous system ,so i am quite happy to eat them. But if you want me to become a fruitarian, I'm afraid i'm not gonna, but by all means, you can if you want to. I'll also have to ask what cows eat. Plants, you say? Well, even if you do believe that plants have a right to live, (i'm assuming that you're just playing a crap game of devil's advocate) one will observe that plants are consumed by the animals which are slaughtered. It's called the food chain. (It feels good to be a vegetarian lecturing someone else on the food chain. It's annoying having some fop try to lecture you on it, not knowing what they're talking about.)

I highly doubt people would convert to vegetarianism en masse, in numbers so high that one day, we have cows going to slaughter, and the next, we don't. I highly doubt that everyone will switch to a vegetarian diet anyway, given any period of time, but for the sake of argument, lets say that people do slowly switch to vegetarianism, so what doe sbecome of the bovines?

Of course you've got to kill them, but the modern agricultural system is pretty much controlled by humans. We are the ones who give life, and we are the ones who take it. Most female ctatle are artificially inseminated periodically, (This keeps a cycle of milk production, incidentally, so if you have trouble understanding why vegans don't consume dairy, because it doesn't hurt the animal, the issue vegans have is that milk production relies on the creation of life, which is to be ended. it's part of the same system.) so if demand falls, less will be inseminated, and thus less cattle will be born, and sent to slaughter. It would be bad business sense to breed more cows than needed, as they require feeding.

And if at the end of it all, the farm bovine did become extinct, why would I care? If it were a plant, a cow would be a "cultivar" - A species which has been bred to have its characteristics, to produce more meat, and more milk than others. Humans created the agricultural bovine, so as I see it, it would not be a great trouble if humans ended the species too. Agricultural bovines could not survive in the wild, so the species would have to die out, although I don't see why that's such a big deal. there are many wild bovine species out there, from which the agricultural variety was bred.

Of course, agriculture is the main thing to be weary of. Whethe rit is plants or animals which are being cultivated, there are some things wrong with mass agriculture. The reliance on pesticides and fertilizers, but of course, with a population this large emanding cheap food, it is the norm, and it will be difficult to change it.

God put cows on the earth for a reason, and it's obviously not because they look pretty. Being a Southern girl, I'm all for eating meat. However, I think the animals should be kept in a humane environment, and they shouldn't be mistreated. It's all a matter of preferance. I love chicken, but I can't stand pork. If you like your greens, fine. Go for it. There is nothing wrong with eating meat.

I'm not a christian, so I don't go for the whole "God put animals here for a reason." but if there is a God, I would be sure that God also put bananas, mangoes, apples, oranges guavas and grapefruits here for a reason. - To be eaten.

Of course, there isn't any obligation to eat mangoes. I'm sure that if God does exist, she won't scream at us for not eating mangoes. The same with meat.

It is allowed, and the bible does allow it. If I can remember, Deuteronomy 14 does say that we are allowed to eat meat, although camels, pigs and badgers are frowned upon.

My main problem with animal agriculture is the en masse production, how little respect is shown for the lives taken. I believe that if you do eat meat, you should be willing to take responsibility for taking life. I'm happy to pull carrots out of the ground, but I'm not willing to kill animals. As such, I have chosen not to eat meat.

It is allowed, and the bible does allow it. If I can remember, Deuteronomy 14 does say that we are allowed to eat meat, although camels, pigs and badgers are frowned upon.

Click to expand...

Originally, in the "Garden of Eden", meat was not a consumable item. The other animals existed for their own sakes. God clearly granted only plants to humans. It was only after the flood (when, presumably, all plant life was gone) that God allowed the consumption of meat, only because there were no more plants. A vegetarian, then, is closer to living in God's idea of paradise.

I'm not Christian either, and I also don't buy the "God put cows here for a reason" thing. Cows exist for their own reasons.

I tried to explain that too, Loki. It's very simple, I don't know why no one ever understands it.

Vegan Human: Plant Life
Omnivorous Human: Plant Life, Animal Life
Cow: Plant Life (more than both types of human)

Which causes the most death? The omnivorous human. By eating the cow, they are eating the concentrated deaths that the cow caused, meaning that the omnivorous human causes far more deaths than either the vegan human, or the cow. The argument "I eat meat because I equate the life of a cow to that of a potatoe" is bull**** (Though I also equate the life of a cow to that of a potatoe, I also realize that eating the cow causes more deaths, so I eat the potatoe instead.)

Melody said:

I believe life is life, whether it's plant or animal. If I believe it's wrong to take life to sustain my own, then I'm going to starve to death fairly quickly.

Unfortunately, our society has changed so significantly that it is impossible for everyone to raise their own food and so are dependent on the "mass produced". I don't think there's anything wrong with it as long as the animals are treated humanely.

Than again, I have the luxury of being able to afford my belief system. I have the financial wherewithal to spend more on the organic, humanely raised plants and animals. Some people are not able to. I don't think this makes them a bad person.

Click to expand...

You stole my words!

Ormiston said:

This just reminded me of something I'd heard about evolution. Does anyone know if it is a true (scientifically proven) that carniverous behavior is mainly responsible for our larger brains?

Click to expand...

Ahuh!! OMG!!!

I saw this in a biology film 3 days ago!

It was talking about monkeys and how they have grown bigger brains eating meat.

Saw11_2000 said:

Ahuh!! OMG!!!

I saw this in a biology film 3 days ago!

It was talking about monkeys and how they have grown bigger brains eating meat.

Click to expand...

I knew I was smart!! Uh huh, uh huh uh huh uh uh huh :woohoo:

http://www.mercola.com/2000/apr/2/vegetarian_myths.htm

The Myths of Vegetarianism

by Stephen Byrnes, ND, PhD, RNCP






MYTH #7:

Vegetarians live longer and have more energy and endurance than meat-eaters.

Surprising as it may seem, some prior studies have shown the annual all-causedeath rate of vegetarian men to be slightly more than that of non-vegetarian men (0.93% vs 0.89%). Similarly, the annual all-cause death rate of vegetarian women was shown to be significantly higher than that of non-vegetarian women (0.86% vs 0.54%). (40)

Russell Smith, PhD, referred to in myth # 5, in his authoritative study on heart disease, showed that as animal product consumption increased among some study groups, death rates decreased! Such results were not obtained among vegetarian subjects. For example, in a study published by Burr and Sweetnam in 1982, analysis of mortality data revealed that, although vegetarians had a slightly (.11%) lower rate of heart disease than non-vegetarians, the all-cause death rate was much HIGHER for vegetarians (41).

It is usually claimed that the lives of predominantly meat-eating peoples are short-lived, but the Aborigines of Australia, who traditionally eat a diet rich in animal products, are known for their longevity (at least before colonisation by Europeans). Within Aboriginal society, there is a special caste of the elderly (42). Obviously, if no old people existed, no such group would have existed. In his book Nutrition and Physical Degeneration, Dr. Price has numerous photographs of elderly native peoples from around the world (42). Explorers such as Vilhjalmur Stefansson reported great longevity among the Inuit (again, before colonisation). (43)

Similarly, the Russians of the Caucasus mountains live to great ages on a diet of fatty pork and whole milk products. The Hunzas, also known for their robust health and longevity, eat substantial portions of goat's milk which has a higher saturated fat content than cow's milk (44). In contrast, the largely vegetarian inhabitants of southern India have the shortest life-spans in the world (45). Dr Weston Price, DDS, travelled around the world in the 1920s and 1930s, investigating native diets. Without exception, he found a strong correlation among diets rich in animal fats, with robust health and athletic ability. Special foods for Swiss athletes, for example, included bowls of fresh, raw cream! In Africa, Dr Price discovered that groups whose diets were rich in fatty fish and organ meats, like liver, consistently carried off the prizes in athletic contests, and that meat-eating tribes always dominated peoples whose diets were largely vegetarian (42).

It is popular in sports nutrition to recommend "carb loading" for athletes, to increase their endurance levels. But recent studies done in New York and South Africa show that the opposite is true: athletes who "carb loaded" had significantly less endurance than those who "fat loaded" before athletic events (46).



On a purely nutritional level, soybeans, like all legumes, are deficient in cysteine and methionine, vital sulphur-containing amino acids (56). Soybeans are also lacking in tryptophan, another essential amino acid (56).

Furthermore, soybeans contain no vitamins A or D, required by the body to assimilate and utilise the beans' proteins (56). It is probably for this reason that Asian cultures that do consume soybeans usually combine them with fish or fish broths, The New Zealand government is considering removing soy formula from the market and making it available only by prescription (58).

Though research is still ongoing, some recent studies have indicated that soy's phyto-oestrogens could be causative factors in breast cancer and infantile leukaemia (59). Regardless, soy's phyto-oestrogens, or isoflavones, have been shown to depress thyroid function and cause infertility in some animals (60). As a practitioner, I have seen more than my share of vegetarians with hypothyroidism. They invariably rely on soy foods to get their protein.

MYTH #11:

The human body is not designed for meat consumption.

Some vegetarian groups claim that since humans possess grinding teeth like herbivorous animals and longer intestines than carnivorous animals, this proves the human body is better suited for vegetarianism (61). This argument fails to note several human physiological features which clearly indicate a design for animal product consumption.

First and foremost is our stomach's production of hydrochloric acid, something not found in herbivores. HCL activates protein-splitting enzymes. Further, the human pancreas manufactures a full range of digestive enzymes to handle a wide variety of foods, both animal and vegetable.
While humans may have longer intestines than animal carnivores, they are not as long as herbivores; nor do we possess multiple stomachs like many herbivores, nor do we chew cud. Our physiology definitely indicates a mixed feeder, or an omnivore, much the same as our relatives, the mountain gorilla and chimpanzee (who have been observed eating small animals and, in some cases, other primates) [62].

MYTH #15:

Eating animal foods is inhumane.

Without question, commercially raised livestock live in deplorable conditions where sickness and suffering are common. Additionally, some prescription drugs are derived from animals (e.g., Premarin) in torturous ways. In America, at least, livestock animals are exempted from anti-cruelty laws and, typically, commercially raised livestock animals are slaughtered in ways that promote adrenaline release, which could have harmful effects on the people who eventually consume them. In countries like Korea, food animals such as dogs are killed in horrific ways, i.e., beaten to death with a club. Our recommendations for animal foods consumption most definitely do not endorse such practices. As noted in our discussion of myth #1, commercial farming of livestock results in an unhealthy food product, whether that product be meat, milk, butter, cream or eggs. Our ancestors did not consume such substandard foodstuffs, and neither should we.

It is possible to raise animals humanely. This is why organic, "free-range" farming is to be encouraged: it is cleaner and more efficient, and produces healthier animals and foodstuffs from those animals. Each person should make every effort, then, to purchase organically raised livestock (and plant foods). Not only does this better support our bodies, as organic foods are more nutrient-dense and are free from hormone and pesticide residues, but this also supports smaller farms and is therefore better for the economy (67).

Orthodox Jewish and Muslim slaughtering methods (kosher and hallal, respectively) are similar to those practised by organic farms, in that the animals are slain in a state of tranquillity‹unlike their unfortunate battery-farm cousins. Such practices minimise, if not eliminate, the release of harmful stress hormones and are therefore more humane to the animal and more healthful to us.
Nevertheless, many people have philosophical problems with eating animal flesh, and these sentiments must be respected. Dairy products and eggs, though, are not the result of an animal's death and are fine alternatives for these people.

Saw11_2000 said:

http://www.mercola.com/2000/apr/2/vegetarian_myths.htm

The Myths of Vegetarianism

by Stephen Byrnes, ND, PhD, RNCP






MYTH #7:

Vegetarians live longer and have more energy and endurance than meat-eaters.

Surprising as it may seem, some prior studies have shown the annual all-causedeath rate of vegetarian men to be slightly more than that of non-vegetarian men (0.93% vs 0.89%). Similarly, the annual all-cause death rate of vegetarian women was shown to be significantly higher than that of non-vegetarian women (0.86% vs 0.54%). (40)

Russell Smith, PhD, referred to in myth # 5, in his authoritative study on heart disease, showed that as animal product consumption increased among some study groups, death rates decreased! Such results were not obtained among vegetarian subjects. For example, in a study published by Burr and Sweetnam in 1982, analysis of mortality data revealed that, although vegetarians had a slightly (.11%) lower rate of heart disease than non-vegetarians, the all-cause death rate was much HIGHER for vegetarians (41).

It is usually claimed that the lives of predominantly meat-eating peoples are short-lived, but the Aborigines of Australia, who traditionally eat a diet rich in animal products, are known for their longevity (at least before colonisation by Europeans). Within Aboriginal society, there is a special caste of the elderly (42). Obviously, if no old people existed, no such group would have existed. In his book Nutrition and Physical Degeneration, Dr. Price has numerous photographs of elderly native peoples from around the world (42). Explorers such as Vilhjalmur Stefansson reported great longevity among the Inuit (again, before colonisation). (43)

Similarly, the Russians of the Caucasus mountains live to great ages on a diet of fatty pork and whole milk products. The Hunzas, also known for their robust health and longevity, eat substantial portions of goat's milk which has a higher saturated fat content than cow's milk (44). In contrast, the largely vegetarian inhabitants of southern India have the shortest life-spans in the world (45). Dr Weston Price, DDS, travelled around the world in the 1920s and 1930s, investigating native diets. Without exception, he found a strong correlation among diets rich in animal fats, with robust health and athletic ability. Special foods for Swiss athletes, for example, included bowls of fresh, raw cream! In Africa, Dr Price discovered that groups whose diets were rich in fatty fish and organ meats, like liver, consistently carried off the prizes in athletic contests, and that meat-eating tribes always dominated peoples whose diets were largely vegetarian (42).

It is popular in sports nutrition to recommend "carb loading" for athletes, to increase their endurance levels. But recent studies done in New York and South Africa show that the opposite is true: athletes who "carb loaded" had significantly less endurance than those who "fat loaded" before athletic events (46).



On a purely nutritional level, soybeans, like all legumes, are deficient in cysteine and methionine, vital sulphur-containing amino acids (56). Soybeans are also lacking in tryptophan, another essential amino acid (56).

Furthermore, soybeans contain no vitamins A or D, required by the body to assimilate and utilise the beans' proteins (56). It is probably for this reason that Asian cultures that do consume soybeans usually combine them with fish or fish broths, The New Zealand government is considering removing soy formula from the market and making it available only by prescription (58).

Though research is still ongoing, some recent studies have indicated that soy's phyto-oestrogens could be causative factors in breast cancer and infantile leukaemia (59). Regardless, soy's phyto-oestrogens, or isoflavones, have been shown to depress thyroid function and cause infertility in some animals (60). As a practitioner, I have seen more than my share of vegetarians with hypothyroidism. They invariably rely on soy foods to get their protein.

MYTH #11:

The human body is not designed for meat consumption.

Some vegetarian groups claim that since humans possess grinding teeth like herbivorous animals and longer intestines than carnivorous animals, this proves the human body is better suited for vegetarianism (61). This argument fails to note several human physiological features which clearly indicate a design for animal product consumption.

First and foremost is our stomach's production of hydrochloric acid, something not found in herbivores. HCL activates protein-splitting enzymes. Further, the human pancreas manufactures a full range of digestive enzymes to handle a wide variety of foods, both animal and vegetable.
While humans may have longer intestines than animal carnivores, they are not as long as herbivores; nor do we possess multiple stomachs like many herbivores, nor do we chew cud. Our physiology definitely indicates a mixed feeder, or an omnivore, much the same as our relatives, the mountain gorilla and chimpanzee (who have been observed eating small animals and, in some cases, other primates) [62].

MYTH #15:

Eating animal foods is inhumane.

Without question, commercially raised livestock live in deplorable conditions where sickness and suffering are common. Additionally, some prescription drugs are derived from animals (e.g., Premarin) in torturous ways. In America, at least, livestock animals are exempted from anti-cruelty laws and, typically, commercially raised livestock animals are slaughtered in ways that promote adrenaline release, which could have harmful effects on the people who eventually consume them. In countries like Korea, food animals such as dogs are killed in horrific ways, i.e., beaten to death with a club. Our recommendations for animal foods consumption most definitely do not endorse such practices. As noted in our discussion of myth #1, commercial farming of livestock results in an unhealthy food product, whether that product be meat, milk, butter, cream or eggs. Our ancestors did not consume such substandard foodstuffs, and neither should we.

It is possible to raise animals humanely. This is why organic, "free-range" farming is to be encouraged: it is cleaner and more efficient, and produces healthier animals and foodstuffs from those animals. Each person should make every effort, then, to purchase organically raised livestock (and plant foods). Not only does this better support our bodies, as organic foods are more nutrient-dense and are free from hormone and pesticide residues, but this also supports smaller farms and is therefore better for the economy (67).

Orthodox Jewish and Muslim slaughtering methods (kosher and hallal, respectively) are similar to those practised by organic farms, in that the animals are slain in a state of tranquillity‹unlike their unfortunate battery-farm cousins. Such practices minimise, if not eliminate, the release of harmful stress hormones and are therefore more humane to the animal and more healthful to us.
Nevertheless, many people have philosophical problems with eating animal flesh, and these sentiments must be respected. Dairy products and eggs, though, are not the result of an animal's death and are fine alternatives for these people.

Click to expand...

My only response to this (great stuff by the way) is that different parts of each animal should have different results related to our health. Simply eating a liver is surely better for you than eating the muscles. Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm getting hungry...

I had fish for lunch, I like fish, lean, Omega acids, good stuff.

I think meat eaters being more obese and such is more because Vegetarians are very health-obsessed usually. You don't see meat eaters counting calories as much, or watching portions, or worrying about getting lean meat. I'm positive that health concious omnivores are very healthy.

Originally, in the "Garden of Eden", meat was not a consumable item. The other animals existed for their own sakes. God clearly granted only plants to humans. It was only after the flood (when, presumably, all plant life was gone) that God allowed the consumption of meat, only because there were no more plants. A vegetarian, then, is closer to living in God's idea of paradise.

Click to expand...

I don't think so. The garden of Eden story is in the Old Testament, which is the Old Law. Christians are supposed to obey the New Law, which is the New Testament. We were never told by Christ that "eating meat is bad,". Eating meat is not bad. While it would be wrong to kill an animal "just because", if you are killing the animal for food, it is fine. We have a rule in our family- "Anything that is killed is eaten." That includes fish, turkey (we've got hunters in our family) and meat bought at the grocery store. Nothing can go to waste, because then the animal would have died for nothing.

This is not a matter of religion. This is a matter of "Do I wish to kill animals for my dinner, or do I wish to eat vegetables so that less animals are slaughtered?"

Is it wrong for a lion to kill and eat a zebra in the wild? No. Then why should it be considered wrong for humans to kill and eat other animals.

actually the vegitarian and the omnivore both kill equily... they both need to consume the same number of calories. The omnivore just gets some via meat. The cow would still need to eat the plants. I don't count the number of plants the cow eats because the cow would eat them regardless of my eating the cow.

We have been eating meat since we were apes. Chimps are hunters, as are many kinds of monkeys and eaven Gorillas will eat bugs and stuff. So yes, we have 'always' been omnivorus.

The adaption that let us grow our big brains also reduced our ability to chew tough plant matter. Look at a Gorilla or chimp skull, you will see a large crest of bone running along the top. That sagital crest is attachment for massive plant munching musscles, musscles that we gave up when we lost that crest starting with the later Australopithicines. Without the crest our skulls had room to expand and our jaws to shrink. We needed to increase our processing of food to make up for the lack of strength. We learned to cook and to get the most bang for our eating buck. We developed a strong attraction to two particular high calorie foods... Fat and Carbohydrates. Plant and Animal matter.

Sadly soil productivity has been dropping rapidly due to modern farming tecniques and the fact that most farming is done on marginal and easily damaged soils.

Humans use about 8.7 billion hectares of land worldwide. About 3.2 billion hectares are potentially arable, of which a little less than half is used to grow crops. The remaining 1.7 billion hectares of potentially arable land, along with most nonarable land, function as pasture, forest, and woodland. Recent global studies estimate that soil quality on three-quarters of the world’s agricultural land has been relatively stable since the middle of the twentieth century. On the rest, however, degradation is widespread and the overall pace of degradation has accelerated in the past 50 years. Productivity has declined substantially on approximately 16 percent of agricultural land in developing countries, especially on cropland in Africa and Central America, pasture in Africa, and forests in Central America. Almost 75 percent of Central America’s agricultural land has been seriously degraded as has 20 percent of Africa’s and 11 percent of Asia’s.

Click to expand...

from: http://www.ifpri.org/2020/briefs/number58.htm

Millions of tons of top soil are lost anually due to erosion by wind, rain and other bad human practices. Soil and water salination, due to bad irrigation practices, is a major threat in Australia, parts of China and the USA. In many other places the soil nutreints are weak at best and need heavy applications of chemical fertalizers to slow the degridation of crop production. Austraila and Africa are the best examples of this due to thier older and less renewable soils.
North America has it relitively easy, we have young soil due to our heavy glaciers during the ice age grinding up the landscape, we have a still active volcanic chain that occasionally dumps fresh volcanic soil to add to our lands fertility. However we are the exception not the rule, and our soils are quickly being taxed to the point of loosing some of thier fertility. Not to mention the effects that massive ammounts of chemical fertilizers are having on our environment and water supplys. So much toxic farm chemicals are leached into the US water table that every spring a massive 'Dead zone' appears at the mouth of the Mississippi river. This dead zone covers 21,000 tousand squre miles off the coast and growing. There are now 150 dead zones around the globe.
map of the Mississippi dead zone: http://mrbdc.mnsu.edu/mnbasin/fact_sheets/minn_miss.html
global dead zone locations: http://www.earth-policy.org/Updates/Update41_data.htm
more info: http://www.earth-policy.org/Updates/Update41.htm

Farming of plants causes just as many problems as that of animals... no human tecnology is harmless when practiced at such a large scale.... you simply change from one problem to another.

Worldwide, annual fertilizer use has climbed to 145 million tons, a tenfold rise over the last half-century. (See data.) This coincides with the increase in the number of dead zones around the globe. And not only has more usable nitrogen been added to the environment each year, but nature’s capacity to filter nutrients has been reduced as wetlands are drained and as areas along riverbanks are developed. Over the last century, the world has lost half its wetlands.
In the United States, some of the key farming states like Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, and Iowa have drained 80 percent of their wetlands. Louisiana, Mississippi, Arkansas, and Tennessee have lost over half of theirs. This lets even more of the excess fertilizer farmers apply flow down the Mississippi River to the gulf.

Click to expand...

from Earth Policy Institute.

wa:do

Ah, i was wondering when the Byrnes essay would come out. I find that the two main essays written against vegetarianism (There's another one by some bloke called Barry) are very patronising, and don't really serve as much of a good guide. They're written by someone who obviously has a chip on their shoulder, and the language used in them just seems ignorant. After all, "Eating animal foods is inhumane" is described as a myth. Wll, that's entirely subjective. To some people, it is inhumane, to others, it isn't.

To me, "The Myths of Vegetarianism" isn't of any value whatsoever to a vegetarian such as myself. I already know that the human is omnivorous by nature, and I'm more than willing to write the rest of it off as rubbish.

I think meat eaters being more obese and such is more because Vegetarians are very health-obsessed usually. You don't see meat eaters counting calories as much, or watching portions, or worrying about getting lean meat. I'm positive that health concious omnivores are very healthy.

Click to expand...

*looks up from munching on his 3rd chocolate muffin of the day* Huh?

Is it wrong for a lion to kill and eat a zebra in the wild? No. Then why should it be considered wrong for humans to kill and eat other animals.

Click to expand...

What about rape in the animal world? Does that justify human rape? What about animals eating animals of the same species? Does that justify us killing and eating other humans?