Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
If you have a more complicated answer than the poll provides, I would love to hear it.
If you have a more complicated answer than the poll provides, I would love to hear it.
Always, these dull very Thoughtful Articulated clear answers digital... What kind of artist is that! Its rhetorical thus an exclamation mark rather than a question mark btw.I think it depends a lot on how we arrived there and what kind of resources we are looking at. Currently we don't have the infrastructure to support it. It's an easy choice to make for middle class first world people to make, much less so for people in rural poverty zones or arid climates. To say the least of people with a lot of nut or fruit based allergies.
What would be the driver?I picked the second, but there was not a really good choice. The result would not be neutral. It would likely be a natural evolution of humanity that would result in a universal diet such as this. ..
I never noticed! Your farts seems no more offensive than others here on the magic of the internet!!!! My phone is an honour 6x.it doesnt have smell mode.. Android sucks..I know one thing for sure as I reduced my meat consumption and eating more greens and vegetables. You forgot to put in 'smelly'.
I'm getting really sick and tired of farting all the time!!!!!!
Wait till it hits the trade winds.I never noticed! Your farts seems no more offensive than others here on the magic of the internet!!!! My phone is an honour 6x.it doesnt have smell mode.. Android sucks..
If you have a more complicated answer than the poll provides, I would love to hear it.
It would be a significant reduction in methane emissions if humans ate a vegan diet. After all, most of the food that cows and pigs eat goes toward growing and maintaining bones, gristle, organs, etc., that humans do not eat.Not sure if the methane emitted by 7 billion plus vegans would be more or less than the methane emitted by cows.
See Twenty Three athletes who set World Records or became World Champions. Google "vegan bodybuilders". You'll see more muscle than you can handle.Eat bugs, or take vitamin B12.
Less meat would mean less muscle mass.
It would be a significant reduction in methane emissions if humans ate a vegan diet. After all, most of the food that cows and pigs eat goes toward growing and maintaining bones, gristle, organs, etc., that humans do not eat.
I stand by my statement: It would be a significant reduction in methane emissions if humans ate a vegan diet. After all, most of the food that cows and pigs eat goes toward growing and maintaining bones, gristle, organs, etc., that humans do not eat.Vegans do tend to fart a lot as has previously been noted, a gas containing much methane.
I stand by my statement: It would be a significant reduction in methane emissions if humans ate a vegan diet. After all, most of the food that cows and pigs eat goes toward growing and maintaining bones, gristle, organs, etc., that humans do not eat.
See Twenty Three athletes who set World Records or became World Champions. Google "vegan bodybuilders". You'll see more muscle than you can handle.
What would be the driver?
A drop in the population say under 1 bil. Would do even more. But rabbits will be rabbits rgardless.One cannot logically deny the improvement to environment, including climate, and the massive reduction in suffering of trillions upon trillions of sentient creatures, if humans ate the plant-based diet that apes such as humans are biologically adapted to eat. One cannot logically deny the improvement to the environment, including climate, and the reduction in suffering of many sentient creatures, if the majority of humans were to simply change their diet today to something closer to a vegan diet. Nor can one logically deny the improvement in human health if either of the above conditionals were true.
On a recent thread (But What Are the Risks of CO2 Removal Technologies?), I cited a September article published by the UN Environmental Programme that carried the unapologetic title, “Tackling the World's Most Urgent Problem: Meat”. The article spotlighted two newly developed products, Beyond Burger and Impossible Burger, noting, inter alia, that GHG emissions resulting from animal agriculture are at least equal to that of all forms of transportation combined, that roughly "80 per cent of agricultural land is used to make livestock feed or for grazing," and that while all the buildings, roads, parking lots and other paved surfaces take up less than 1% of the earth's land surface, more than 45% of the planet's land surface is used for grazing or growing feed for livestock. In stark contrast:
According to a research study conducted by the University of Michigan, a quarter-pound Beyond Burger requires 99 per cent less water, 93 per cent less land and generates 90 per cent fewer greenhouse gas emissions, using 46 per cent less energy to produce in the U.S. than its beef equivalent.
The Impossible Burger, developed by Dr. Patrick Brown, founder of PLoS, requires approximately 75 per cent less water, 95 per cent less land, and generates about 87 per cent fewer greenhouse gas emissions than beef burgers.
The facts noted in the article do not even touch upon the vast quantities of other sorts of pollution and disease, including antibiotic resistant bacteria, that animal agriculture brings upon us