Comments on: Global Warming, Eating Meat and the Importance of the Local Farm Movement — Directly from a Farmer http://eco-chick.com/2008/05/1140/global-warming-eating-meat-and-the-importance-of-the-local-farm-movement-directly-from-a-farmer/ The modern girl's guide to living green & fabulous. Sat, 11 Feb 2012 04:17:30 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Tamar http://eco-chick.com/2008/05/1140/global-warming-eating-meat-and-the-importance-of-the-local-farm-movement-directly-from-a-farmer/comment-page-2/#comment-2633 Tamar Fri, 24 Oct 2008 00:17:55 +0000 http://eco-chick.com/?p=1140#comment-2633 Wow! There are some highly thought-provoking comments on here. Unfortunately, I am still not sure what the perfect diet for the health of people and for the Earth is. I am a little afraid of the commenters who claim all of our problems are because of over-population. All six billion or so inhabitants of this planet could live on a one-fourth acre plot each in Australia alone. The world is not over-populated, it is just poorly managed. Please don't give the Military-Industrial-Banking Elitist anymore fodder to start gasing and starving us to depopulate the world! Also, I go back and forth all the time trying to decide if meat eating or vegetarianism is better. I currently eat about 2 meals a week that include locally raised organic meats. I often grapple with the compassion argument. The ironic thing I observe is that so many vegetarians (mostly vegans) throw out the argument that you can't ever be compassionate if you are still eating animal products. I think Michael up there pointed that out. What is so interesting is most of these people whom point this out are like Michael, and sound like they are so angry they are one second away from pulling out a gun and shooting up a McDonald's. Where as Shannon Hayes sounds like a highly intelligent well-balanced compassionate individual. Sometimes I wonder if that lack of B-12 does something to the brain. I also think vegetarianism is more of a belief-system. Belief systems are things that the Ego gravitates towards. That is why people get so upset about it. The Ego will get real angry when it is defending it's Belief System. I think if we really want to be compassionate beings we just need to practice tolerance and forgiveness of others and their Belief Systems! Wow! There are some highly thought-provoking comments on here. Unfortunately, I am still not sure what the perfect diet for the health of people and for the Earth is. I am a little afraid of the commenters who claim all of our problems are because of over-population. All six billion or so inhabitants of this planet could live on a one-fourth acre plot each in Australia alone. The world is not over-populated, it is just poorly managed.
Please don’t give the Military-Industrial-Banking Elitist anymore fodder to start gasing and starving us to depopulate the world!
Also, I go back and forth all the time trying to decide if meat eating or vegetarianism is better. I currently eat about 2 meals a week that include locally raised organic meats. I often grapple with the compassion argument. The ironic thing I observe is that so many vegetarians (mostly vegans) throw out the argument that you can’t ever be compassionate if you are still eating animal products. I think Michael up there pointed that out. What is so interesting is most of these people whom point this out are like Michael, and sound like they are so angry they are one second away from pulling out a gun and shooting up a McDonald’s. Where as Shannon Hayes sounds like a highly intelligent well-balanced compassionate individual. Sometimes I wonder if that lack of B-12 does something to the brain.
I also think vegetarianism is more of a belief-system. Belief systems are things that the Ego gravitates towards. That is why people get so upset about it. The Ego will get real angry when it is defending it’s Belief System. I think if we really want to be compassionate beings we just need to practice tolerance and forgiveness of others and their Belief Systems!

]]> By: Rebecca http://eco-chick.com/2008/05/1140/global-warming-eating-meat-and-the-importance-of-the-local-farm-movement-directly-from-a-farmer/comment-page-2/#comment-2632 Rebecca Thu, 10 Jul 2008 16:10:00 +0000 http://eco-chick.com/?p=1140#comment-2632 You make some great points. The problem is, the tiny minority or extreamists, this is true for everything, control the masses. The political 'ideas' being lobbied currently in Canada are just socialism under the disguise of green-living. You are right to say we cannot ignore a problem due to a degree of uncertainty, but we can not fall victim to policial talk that is about money and power. All things are really about power. The so called 'Green-revolution' that some Canadian parties push is about money, giving tax breaks to so called green organisations.Enviromentalism is about power too.Control over the enviroment and over the people. I have a hard time buying into a casue that has a goal to 'control the weather' so to speak. I would hardly put my vote of confidence behind anyone preaching this. We cannot control nature or the weather. These things change. Now, I agree with you saying that most enviromentalists do not fear-monger, but they are at least in part listening to it. Like you said about the media only latching on to the big stories. The hype surrounding global warming is the same. No one is getting the whole story, only the information that will sell ad space and boost ratings. Maybe they want you to buy a 'green' washing machine or something, this 'green' wave of product advertising is about money not the enviroment. I have had a hard time finding statistic evidence of Global Warming occuring, they even changed the name of it, it's Climate Change now, becasue I suppose a few places got cooler. I have heard theories as to way it may be happening, including sun spots, solar flares, carbon-dioxide, volcanic action, and natural earth changes. Now, I still have no numbers to compare, no scientific research. Science does not understand everything, we do not know what is going on, it is hard to make changes. My beef is not with moderate enviromentalists, I do not think pollution is healthy, or that we should cut down all the forests. I do not trust the words or actions of the political arms of these movements which are gaining control of governemtns and institutions with great increase. These inefficient and power hungry groups (like all political groups) appear to have no other agendas other than 'saving' the enviroment. I hardly think a governemnt whose sole want is to save the enviroment is a strong choice. What is the point of a balenced eviroment if the country is in economic cirisis, or under attack You make some great points. The problem is, the tiny minority or extreamists, this is true for everything, control the masses. The political ‘ideas’ being lobbied currently in Canada are just socialism under the disguise of green-living. You are right to say we cannot ignore a problem due to a degree of uncertainty, but we can not fall victim to policial talk that is about money and power. All things are really about power. The so called ‘Green-revolution’ that some Canadian parties push is about money, giving tax breaks to so called green organisations.Enviromentalism is about power too.Control over the enviroment and over the people. I have a hard time buying into a casue that has a goal to ‘control the weather’ so to speak. I would hardly put my vote of confidence behind anyone preaching this. We cannot control nature or the weather. These things change.
Now, I agree with you saying that most enviromentalists do not fear-monger, but they are at least in part listening to it. Like you said about the media only latching on to the big stories. The hype surrounding global warming is the same. No one is getting the whole story, only the information that will sell ad space and boost ratings. Maybe they want you to buy a ‘green’ washing machine or something, this ‘green’ wave of product advertising is about money not the enviroment.
I have had a hard time finding statistic evidence of Global Warming occuring, they even changed the name of it, it’s Climate Change now, becasue I suppose a few places got cooler. I have heard theories as to way it may be happening, including sun spots, solar flares, carbon-dioxide, volcanic action, and natural earth changes. Now, I still have no numbers to compare, no scientific research. Science does not understand everything, we do not know what is going on, it is hard to make changes.
My beef is not with moderate enviromentalists, I do not think pollution is healthy, or that we should cut down all the forests. I do not trust the words or actions of the political arms of these movements which are gaining control of governemtns and institutions with great increase. These inefficient and power hungry groups (like all political groups) appear to have no other agendas other than ‘saving’ the enviroment. I hardly think a governemnt whose sole want is to save the enviroment is a strong choice. What is the point of a balenced eviroment if the country is in economic cirisis, or under attack

]]> By: E.R. Dunhill http://eco-chick.com/2008/05/1140/global-warming-eating-meat-and-the-importance-of-the-local-farm-movement-directly-from-a-farmer/comment-page-2/#comment-2631 E.R. Dunhill Mon, 30 Jun 2008 16:46:50 +0000 http://eco-chick.com/?p=1140#comment-2631 Rebecca, We can and do see many of the impacts of our behaviors, whether that’s eating or transportation or building. It may be impossible to say with absolute certainty what all of the ramifications are, but we can’t simply ignore problems because of a small degree of uncertainty. That’s a bit like saying to one’s cardiologist, “I recognize that I have high blood pressure, high cholesterol, and a weight problem, but I’m not going to do anything about my diet or activity-level, because you can’t be certain that I’ll have a heart attack or a stroke, and you can’t say when it’s going to happen.” The central difference is that when we do things that negatively impact the environment, we also negatively impact other people. When we do things to improve environmental quality, we share this benefit with others. The point you raise that humans are part of the environment is fundamental to a great deal of environmental thinking and practice. For most, a central reason that we seek to minimize negative impacts on the environment is that we, our neighbors, and our children need natural systems to support our quality of life. You’re absolutely right that the abstract thing many call “nature” will keep on going, regardless of what people do. The problem is that when people consume resources and produce waste without regard to broader impacts, we change nature to the detriment of ourselves and others. I think this is the most misunderstood facet of environmentalism: Investing in and managing environmental quality produces tangible benefits for people. Like many environmentalists, I disagree with fear-mongering. This doesn’t solve problems and it creates enmity. However, just because a problem appears to be serious doesn’t mean that it’s made-up. Were people wrong to be alarmed when they read that Panzers were rolling into France? As for Greenpeace, this is merely one group, albeit a vocal, widespread one. (Also, Greenpeace is sometimes confused with the Green Party, though these are separate organizations and the former isn’t a political party.) Many environmentalists disagree with some of their methods and even some of their underlying policies. Others agree with them. But, Greenpeace is not a synonym for environmentalism, anymore than the Eastern Orthodox Church is a synonym for Christianity. It’s important to keep in mind that unusual or shocking points of view get more media attention than moderate or rational ones do. This sells ad time. For instance, this spring, a small band of criminals destroyed some homes near Seattle in the name of the environment. This made national news. Also this spring, roughly 100,000 people, comprising neighborhood groups, churches, Scouts, schools, and local and regional conservation groups removed hundreds of tons of trash from rivers all over the US. The event went substantially unnoticed by news media. The overwhelming majority of environmentalists fall into the latter category, people who offer their time, creativity, and money to better their communities and share their fascination with or enjoyment of the environment with others. Just because some people have extreme points of view or want to force their beliefs on others doesn’t mean that the majority feels that way, and it doesn’t invalidate the entire community and the good that they do. Rebecca,
We can and do see many of the impacts of our behaviors, whether that’s eating or transportation or building. It may be impossible to say with absolute certainty what all of the ramifications are, but we can’t simply ignore problems because of a small degree of uncertainty. That’s a bit like saying to one’s cardiologist, “I recognize that I have high blood pressure, high cholesterol, and a weight problem, but I’m not going to do anything about my diet or activity-level, because you can’t be certain that I’ll have a heart attack or a stroke, and you can’t say when it’s going to happen.” The central difference is that when we do things that negatively impact the environment, we also negatively impact other people. When we do things to improve environmental quality, we share this benefit with others.
The point you raise that humans are part of the environment is fundamental to a great deal of environmental thinking and practice. For most, a central reason that we seek to minimize negative impacts on the environment is that we, our neighbors, and our children need natural systems to support our quality of life. You’re absolutely right that the abstract thing many call “nature” will keep on going, regardless of what people do. The problem is that when people consume resources and produce waste without regard to broader impacts, we change nature to the detriment of ourselves and others. I think this is the most misunderstood facet of environmentalism: Investing in and managing environmental quality produces tangible benefits for people.
Like many environmentalists, I disagree with fear-mongering. This doesn’t solve problems and it creates enmity. However, just because a problem appears to be serious doesn’t mean that it’s made-up. Were people wrong to be alarmed when they read that Panzers were rolling into France?
As for Greenpeace, this is merely one group, albeit a vocal, widespread one. (Also, Greenpeace is sometimes confused with the Green Party, though these are separate organizations and the former isn’t a political party.) Many environmentalists disagree with some of their methods and even some of their underlying policies. Others agree with them. But, Greenpeace is not a synonym for environmentalism, anymore than the Eastern Orthodox Church is a synonym for Christianity.
It’s important to keep in mind that unusual or shocking points of view get more media attention than moderate or rational ones do. This sells ad time. For instance, this spring, a small band of criminals destroyed some homes near Seattle in the name of the environment. This made national news. Also this spring, roughly 100,000 people, comprising neighborhood groups, churches, Scouts, schools, and local and regional conservation groups removed hundreds of tons of trash from rivers all over the US. The event went substantially unnoticed by news media.
The overwhelming majority of environmentalists fall into the latter category, people who offer their time, creativity, and money to better their communities and share their fascination with or enjoyment of the environment with others. Just because some people have extreme points of view or want to force their beliefs on others doesn’t mean that the majority feels that way, and it doesn’t invalidate the entire community and the good that they do.

]]> By: Rebecca http://eco-chick.com/2008/05/1140/global-warming-eating-meat-and-the-importance-of-the-local-farm-movement-directly-from-a-farmer/comment-page-2/#comment-2626 Rebecca Sat, 28 Jun 2008 22:56:49 +0000 http://eco-chick.com/?p=1140#comment-2626 Thanks for the apology. I am not fearfull of grass-fed livestock. The article is an interesting one, that takes in account many subjects. What boiled my blood were a few comments, ones that included the idea of consuming LESS or NO meat, I was primarily responding to those ideas, this forum may not be the most ideal to discuss(meaning, the article is not primarily about my commentary, nor were some of the other comments, but I felt this was a more open-aired community that wouldn't jump down my throat at the first mention of eating meat) Also, just for consistency, I am not the Rebecca that posted much earlier in the article. Anyway.The impacts of our eating. A complex question. Now, I cannot be sure what ramifications come from my consumption of anything. No one can. We live within the enviroment, so we can not make control it. Now, people try and seperate ramifications into 'good and bad' categories. When such matters are subjective. Yes, cattle give of methane from their digestion, this can not be qualified as 'good' or bad'. You mention preventing enviromental problems, the item to note hear is that to humans are a part of the enviroment. Define enviromental problems. What are they and what makes them anything but intrinsic to humanity for some reason. That is the only reason we care, the world is not stotic. It's important that we don't destroy our species, only for our only selfish wellbeing- and there is nothing wrong with that, every species in the world is trying to get ahead. You mention the movement of crops, I am aware of their introductions and the ramifications. Enviroments changed and may have been unstable, but nature rights itself, something always evolves to fill the niche. Australian can toads being one of them, while it is not under control something in nature will fill the niche. Nature does not need us 'saving' it, it has been around longer than us and will probably outlast regardless of what we do. What I fear is the scare-mongering the media does in Ontario. The Green-peacers(a political party) use scare tactics. The equivelent to saying that the sun will not rise tomorrow unless we sacrifice a life. The sun will come up regardless. They want to put a carbon-tax on all things which is only a tax to fill their pockets - you would have to be a lunitic to belief a tax can change anything - what is sad is that they have a good deal of people convinced. As for the comment about being forced to eat soy, it is more anecdotle that fact. But it is a slippery slope. I live in a small place, the majority of school board representivities have decided to make the Monday school lunch a vegetarian day. No meat, glutten, peanuts and other things are to be served. They don't even want parents to send their children with these products in bag lunches. This is insane and sadly, the PTA was voted down. This is against my freedom as a parent. This is where the force is. Unfortunatly, I belief it will only get worse if we don't act now. Sorry, I have to make this short. The second part of the rebutte will hopefully be more informative and well-written then this one. Thanks for the apology. I am not fearfull of grass-fed livestock. The article is an interesting one, that takes in account many subjects. What boiled my blood were a few comments, ones that included the idea of consuming LESS or NO meat, I was primarily responding to those ideas, this forum may not be the most ideal to discuss(meaning, the article is not primarily about my commentary, nor were some of the other comments, but I felt this was a more open-aired community that wouldn’t jump down my throat at the first mention of eating meat) Also, just for consistency, I am not the Rebecca that posted much earlier in the article. Anyway.The impacts of our eating. A complex question. Now, I cannot be sure what ramifications come from my consumption of anything. No one can. We live within the enviroment, so we can not make control it. Now, people try and seperate ramifications into ‘good and bad’ categories. When such matters are subjective. Yes, cattle give of methane from their digestion, this can not be qualified as ‘good’ or bad’. You mention preventing enviromental problems, the item to note hear is that to humans are a part of the enviroment. Define enviromental problems. What are they and what makes them anything but intrinsic to humanity for some reason. That is the only reason we care, the world is not stotic. It’s important that we don’t destroy our species, only for our only selfish wellbeing- and there is nothing wrong with that, every species in the world is trying to get ahead.
You mention the movement of crops, I am aware of their introductions and the ramifications. Enviroments changed and may have been unstable, but nature rights itself, something always evolves to fill the niche. Australian can toads being one of them, while it is not under control something in nature will fill the niche. Nature does not need us ‘saving’ it, it has been around longer than us and will probably outlast regardless of what we do.
What I fear is the scare-mongering the media does in Ontario. The Green-peacers(a political party) use scare tactics. The equivelent to saying that the sun will not rise tomorrow unless we sacrifice a life. The sun will come up regardless. They want to put a carbon-tax on all things which is only a tax to fill their pockets – you would have to be a lunitic to belief a tax can change anything – what is sad is that they have a good deal of people convinced. As for the comment about being forced to eat soy, it is more anecdotle that fact. But it is a slippery slope. I live in a small place, the majority of school board representivities have decided to make the Monday school lunch a vegetarian day. No meat, glutten, peanuts and other things are to be served. They don’t even want parents to send their children with these products in bag lunches. This is insane and sadly, the PTA was voted down. This is against my freedom as a parent. This is where the force is. Unfortunatly, I belief it will only get worse if we don’t act now.
Sorry, I have to make this short. The second part of the rebutte will hopefully be more informative and well-written then this one.

]]> By: E.R. Dunhill http://eco-chick.com/2008/05/1140/global-warming-eating-meat-and-the-importance-of-the-local-farm-movement-directly-from-a-farmer/comment-page-2/#comment-2625 E.R. Dunhill Fri, 27 Jun 2008 18:27:38 +0000 http://eco-chick.com/?p=1140#comment-2625 Rebecca, I apologize if I’ve wrongly branded you. The amount of vegetation consumed in a vegetarian diet is actually less than what is consumed in a diet that contains a great deal of meat. Animals convert plant material into meat, plus all of the parts of the animal people don’t eat, plus the energy they need to move, consume, and breed, plus their waste. When you eat meat, you're essentially distilling a larger quantity of plant material into a smaller quantity of animal protein. There are some figures about that in the article we’re commenting upon, and they’re similar to numbers I’ve seen in many other sources. As for environmentalism as a religion, I think this requires a very broad definition of religion, and lumps together a huge spectrum of environmental philosophies, motivations, and practices into an artificial, unwieldy unit. Is a financial planner foisting the religion of money on people by educating them about investing and saving? Is an engineer proselytizing the religion of physics by demonstrating that a faulty bridge is likely to collapse? No. Likewise, someone who raises concerns about our investments in the ecological, geological, and biochemical processes that are central to civilization is not pushing a religion. Nor are those who research and educate on the underlying sciences that drive these processes. Claiming these actions are a religion seems like bearing false witness against one’s neighbor to me. You’ve also introduced some words in this discussion that are a little surprising: -“Those proposing that we only eat and buy things made locally pushes us back into the fuedal age or even the dark age.” The word “only” seems out of place. There’s a difference between encouraging people to consume using a path of least resistance, and dictating that they can’t use other alternatives. -“I should not be forced to eat soy becasue it is supposably better for me, when I honestly don’t think it is.” I'm not sure where the word "forced" comes from. Who is forcing you to eat soy? Or more generally, who is suggesting that people be forced to be vegetarians? As for the point about agricultural diffusion, there’s a huge difference between natural herds of wild bison and high-density feedlots of exotic domesticated cattle. Aside from that, diets adapt. You’ve talked a little about the evolution of human culture, so you’re no doubt aware that maize was a staple throughout North America, despite the fact that it’s indigenous to Central America. And the Great Hunger happened in large part because of the failure of potato crops, an Irish staple brought from the Americas. Also, consider the introduction of the tomato to the Mediterranean diet, or coffee to, well, just about everywhere. Habits adapt quickly to many of these types of changes. Working to prevent environmental problems by being thoughtful about these kinds of changes seems like a good thing to me. I happen to think it’s a great deal more important for people to consider <em>the impacts</em> of what they eat (and more generally, how they live) than to adopt a particular diet or lifestyle. The article we’re responding to makes a similar case, describing environmental benefits of eating grass-fed meat and dairy. I’m genuinely curious as to why this issue seems to anger or even frighten you. Can you elaborate? Rebecca,
I apologize if I’ve wrongly branded you.
The amount of vegetation consumed in a vegetarian diet is actually less than what is consumed in a diet that contains a great deal of meat. Animals convert plant material into meat, plus all of the parts of the animal people don’t eat, plus the energy they need to move, consume, and breed, plus their waste. When you eat meat, you’re essentially distilling a larger quantity of plant material into a smaller quantity of animal protein. There are some figures about that in the article we’re commenting upon, and they’re similar to numbers I’ve seen in many other sources.
As for environmentalism as a religion, I think this requires a very broad definition of religion, and lumps together a huge spectrum of environmental philosophies, motivations, and practices into an artificial, unwieldy unit. Is a financial planner foisting the religion of money on people by educating them about investing and saving? Is an engineer proselytizing the religion of physics by demonstrating that a faulty bridge is likely to collapse? No. Likewise, someone who raises concerns about our investments in the ecological, geological, and biochemical processes that are central to civilization is not pushing a religion. Nor are those who research and educate on the underlying sciences that drive these processes. Claiming these actions are a religion seems like bearing false witness against one’s neighbor to me.
You’ve also introduced some words in this discussion that are a little surprising:
-“Those proposing that we only eat and buy things made locally pushes us back into the fuedal age or even the dark age.” The word “only” seems out of place. There’s a difference between encouraging people to consume using a path of least resistance, and dictating that they can’t use other alternatives.
-“I should not be forced to eat soy becasue it is supposably better for me, when I honestly don’t think it is.” I’m not sure where the word “forced” comes from. Who is forcing you to eat soy? Or more generally, who is suggesting that people be forced to be vegetarians?
As for the point about agricultural diffusion, there’s a huge difference between natural herds of wild bison and high-density feedlots of exotic domesticated cattle. Aside from that, diets adapt. You’ve talked a little about the evolution of human culture, so you’re no doubt aware that maize was a staple throughout North America, despite the fact that it’s indigenous to Central America. And the Great Hunger happened in large part because of the failure of potato crops, an Irish staple brought from the Americas. Also, consider the introduction of the tomato to the Mediterranean diet, or coffee to, well, just about everywhere. Habits adapt quickly to many of these types of changes. Working to prevent environmental problems by being thoughtful about these kinds of changes seems like a good thing to me.
I happen to think it’s a great deal more important for people to consider the impacts of what they eat (and more generally, how they live) than to adopt a particular diet or lifestyle. The article we’re responding to makes a similar case, describing environmental benefits of eating grass-fed meat and dairy. I’m genuinely curious as to why this issue seems to anger or even frighten you. Can you elaborate?

]]> By: Rebecca http://eco-chick.com/2008/05/1140/global-warming-eating-meat-and-the-importance-of-the-local-farm-movement-directly-from-a-farmer/comment-page-2/#comment-2624 Rebecca Fri, 27 Jun 2008 16:10:15 +0000 http://eco-chick.com/?p=1140#comment-2624 I am not calling the people of South Asia or East Asia, uncivilized. I am saying that in order to eat an all vegetation diet, one would have to consume vast quantities of vegetation throughout the day in order to maintain the caloric rates the body needs. They have civilization. In fact the middle east is the birth place of civilization becasue of their fertile grounds. They settled down, and founded the neolithic revolution. During the dark ages in Europe, the middle east was in it's golden age- they had basic plumbing and infastructure. Civilization - they ate meat as well. I am not saying that civilization is American cities and capitalism. By civilization I mean settlements that progress, to what we have today. Those proposing that we only eat and buy things made locally pushes us back into the fuedal age or even the dark age. I am not so against consumming local food, I cannot be, I live on a family farm. I do not advicate only consuming local products. I cannot by a television made in this town - no one makes them. I am saying that in Canada, where the best fruit growing soils and weather are in southern Ontario and British Columbia, both of which are covered by cities. Let's put aside the ancestral eating topic for now. I cannot back up my eating habits with unrefutable justifications just as vegetariansism cannot.I am willing to retract the point in order to carry on the discussion. As for enviromentalism ;it is a religion. Religions convert others by making them feel inferror or incorrect. Enviromentalism pushes people to belief that they are so wrong in their ways that there only redemption is to go 'Green'. Which in Canada has become a marketing campaign used by every company I can think off. They use our public school system to inforce it. Going 'Green' in Canada means using windpower and eating less meat. This supposably curbs climate change. But in Denmark where they have many wind turbinds they have seen changes in local weather. Wind is energy, it moves weather systems and pollen. If you harness the wind, you steal that energy and weather does not move and nor does the pollen. Crops were failing and eather was dry in areas where it was damp regularly. Nothing is 'free', yes it may cutdown on 'carbon emmisions' but it takes power mine the ore used to make the steel, power to make the machines, power to transport them, power to maintain them. All I am saying is that people are taken in by what they are told is 'Green'. This not eating meat buissness to cut down on methane is just the same. If everyone was able to form independant thoughts, and critical thinking maybe we would be able to avoid the masses of sheep-like people jumping on the bandwagon without thinking about it. I appreciate that there are people responding to my comments. We are engaging in debate. Myabe we can reach some sort of consensus. I am not bigoted, I think that you are asuming positive and negative conotations to words, like civilization. Asia had a stable civilization for nearly 3 or 4 thousand years. They have been a civilization for along time. By civilization I do not mean 'civilized', that is a conetation of negativity and inferority. Not what I meant. By vegetariasm being incompataible with civilization I mean American and european civilization. I should have specified. I apologize. The cold weather and woodlands require a storage of meat and non-perisables to weather the winter. For your claim that Canada was not home to european species. Correct. But it still has bison species - a bovine species like cattle. And other similar species. It is well accepted as a scientific theory that the Aboriginal peoples here came from Mongolia about 10 000 years ago, by that logic are they a native species? They adapted, and historically eat alot of meat. People adapted to what was around them, meat. I live in Canada, now my ancestors came over during the Great Hunger in Ireland. They moved to eastern Canada. A very similarly climated area, About 50 years ago, my parents moved from Nova Scotia to ONtario for work, and we live in hte North, becasue we enjoy the climate. I do not lon the equator. It is far to hot for me, and tropical fruit is too sweet for me. Please feel free to comment back, if I missed a point of yours to comment on I apologize, oh, one more thing. Diabetes. Those who have had ancestors that began to ate refined sugar are supposably less likely to get it. When the europeans came over to North America they traded with the natives with sugar. Populations of Aborigial people have high levels of diabetes their bodies were given high levels of refinded sugar too quickly, I am sure there are foods that I would have similar reactions too, I have tried soy products, I do not like them, and my body doesn't seem to benefit from their consumption either. People that have eaten soy all their lives and are predesposed to the consumption of it benefit from it. I should not be forced to eat soy becasue it is supposably better for me, when I honestly don't think it is. I am not calling the people of South Asia or East Asia, uncivilized. I am saying that in order to eat an all vegetation diet, one would have to consume vast quantities of vegetation throughout the day in order to maintain the caloric rates the body needs. They have civilization. In fact the middle east is the birth place of civilization becasue of their fertile grounds. They settled down, and founded the neolithic revolution. During the dark ages in Europe, the middle east was in it’s golden age- they had basic plumbing and infastructure. Civilization – they ate meat as well. I am not saying that civilization is American cities and capitalism. By civilization I mean settlements that progress, to what we have today. Those proposing that we only eat and buy things made locally pushes us back into the fuedal age or even the dark age. I am not so against consumming local food, I cannot be, I live on a family farm. I do not advicate only consuming local products. I cannot by a television made in this town – no one makes them. I am saying that in Canada, where the best fruit growing soils and weather are in southern Ontario and British Columbia, both of which are covered by cities. Let’s put aside the ancestral eating topic for now. I cannot back up my eating habits with unrefutable justifications just as vegetariansism cannot.I am willing to retract the point in order to carry on the discussion. As for enviromentalism ;it is a religion. Religions convert others by making them feel inferror or incorrect. Enviromentalism pushes people to belief that they are so wrong in their ways that there only redemption is to go ‘Green’. Which in Canada has become a marketing campaign used by every company I can think off. They use our public school system to inforce it. Going ‘Green’ in Canada means using windpower and eating less meat. This supposably curbs climate change. But in Denmark where they have many wind turbinds they have seen changes in local weather. Wind is energy, it moves weather systems and pollen. If you harness the wind, you steal that energy and weather does not move and nor does the pollen. Crops were failing and eather was dry in areas where it was damp regularly. Nothing is ‘free’, yes it may cutdown on ‘carbon emmisions’ but it takes power mine the ore used to make the steel, power to make the machines, power to transport them, power to maintain them. All I am saying is that people are taken in by what they are told is ‘Green’. This not eating meat buissness to cut down on methane is just the same. If everyone was able to form independant thoughts, and critical thinking maybe we would be able to avoid the masses of sheep-like people jumping on the bandwagon without thinking about it. I appreciate that there are people responding to my comments. We are engaging in debate. Myabe we can reach some sort of consensus. I am not bigoted, I think that you are asuming positive and negative conotations to words, like civilization. Asia had a stable civilization for nearly 3 or 4 thousand years. They have been a civilization for along time. By civilization I do not mean ‘civilized’, that is a conetation of negativity and inferority. Not what I meant. By vegetariasm being incompataible with civilization I mean American and european civilization. I should have specified. I apologize. The cold weather and woodlands require a storage of meat and non-perisables to weather the winter. For your claim that Canada was not home to european species. Correct. But it still has bison species – a bovine species like cattle. And other similar species. It is well accepted as a scientific theory that the Aboriginal peoples here came from Mongolia about 10 000 years ago, by that logic are they a native species? They adapted, and historically eat alot of meat. People adapted to what was around them, meat. I live in Canada, now my ancestors came over during the Great Hunger in Ireland. They moved to eastern Canada. A very similarly climated area, About 50 years ago, my parents moved from Nova Scotia to ONtario for work, and we live in hte North, becasue we enjoy the climate. I do not lon the equator. It is far to hot for me, and tropical fruit is too sweet for me. Please feel free to comment back, if I missed a point of yours to comment on I apologize, oh, one more thing. Diabetes. Those who have had ancestors that began to ate refined sugar are supposably less likely to get it. When the europeans came over to North America they traded with the natives with sugar. Populations of Aborigial people have high levels of diabetes their bodies were given high levels of refinded sugar too quickly, I am sure there are foods that I would have similar reactions too, I have tried soy products, I do not like them, and my body doesn’t seem to benefit from their consumption either. People that have eaten soy all their lives and are predesposed to the consumption of it benefit from it. I should not be forced to eat soy becasue it is supposably better for me, when I honestly don’t think it is.

]]> By: E.R. Dunhill http://eco-chick.com/2008/05/1140/global-warming-eating-meat-and-the-importance-of-the-local-farm-movement-directly-from-a-farmer/comment-page-2/#comment-2630 E.R. Dunhill Thu, 26 Jun 2008 14:36:33 +0000 http://eco-chick.com/?p=1140#comment-2630 Rebecca, I think there's merit in considering health issues as they relate to ancestry. We also must be mindful of the geography of food production. Just as your ancestors didn't eat tofu or curry, Canada, the US, and indeed all of the Western hemisphere is not naturally home to cattle, sheep, goats, oats, honeybees, European earthworms, &c. People of antiquity developed dietary practices based substantially upon what was available to them in their local areas. Geography and ethnicity are constantly evolving, and the human population is increasing rapidly. I don't think it's especially fanatical to reconsider certain practices. In light of your statement that diets should be based upon ethnicity, your assertion that vegetarianism and veganism is not compatible with civilization comes across as rather bigoted. Are you really claiming that vast numbers of people of South Asian and East Asian descent (and other cultures) are uncivilized by virtue of their parentage? Mark, The Smithsonian Institution offers a good resource on sustainable seafood at: http://www.mnh.si.edu/seafood/ Rebecca,
I think there’s merit in considering health issues as they relate to ancestry. We also must be mindful of the geography of food production. Just as your ancestors didn’t eat tofu or curry, Canada, the US, and indeed all of the Western hemisphere is not naturally home to cattle, sheep, goats, oats, honeybees, European earthworms, &c. People of antiquity developed dietary practices based substantially upon what was available to them in their local areas. Geography and ethnicity are constantly evolving, and the human population is increasing rapidly. I don’t think it’s especially fanatical to reconsider certain practices.
In light of your statement that diets should be based upon ethnicity, your assertion that vegetarianism and veganism is not compatible with civilization comes across as rather bigoted. Are you really claiming that vast numbers of people of South Asian and East Asian descent (and other cultures) are uncivilized by virtue of their parentage?

Mark,
The Smithsonian Institution offers a good resource on sustainable seafood at:
http://www.mnh.si.edu/seafood/

]]> By: Rebecca http://eco-chick.com/2008/05/1140/global-warming-eating-meat-and-the-importance-of-the-local-farm-movement-directly-from-a-farmer/comment-page-1/#comment-2623 Rebecca Thu, 26 Jun 2008 14:27:59 +0000 http://eco-chick.com/?p=1140#comment-2623 Starre, I tried to word by comment fairly. I am white, and I am only commenting on what I know, my own genetics. I hardly think that it is racist to apply that to the logic. yes human beings are adaptable, and it is a wonderous work of evolution. All I am saying is that, a logical step in maintaing human health is too look to our ancestors. Vegetarians and vegans cite that humans are meant to eat plant material, I disagree on the whole. Yes, there are more than likely people in the world meant and able to consume such a diet. People from areas around the eqautor benefit from nearly year-round growing seasons. Now you say it is not what we eat, but how to survive with the current population of the world. No we can not decide who lives or dies, and I did not state that we should only be sustained by our local areas, previous commenters have, I think it is incorrect for indivduals to force people to eat plant material only in order to sustain populations. By the way, it is not your country of origin as much as ethnic background. I realize saying by relatives are from Ireland does not constitute an Irish race, it was just a marker for people to know where I am from. I live in Canada. Now, the idea to eat your ethnic background is not a radical one. But it would not be right to force it on anyone else to suppoably save the planet. All I wanted to do was implore that their are other lifestyles that are equally as 'right' other than vegetarianism. Now, you speak of the planet being in peril - I hear this alot - evidence would be nice, why is it in peril and how? If your resposnse is overpopulation, nature will let itself out. Think of Jackrabit populations, if their are bumper years for food - their population soars - and so do the animals that eat them - and they in turn increase in numbers. Then next year their are the an average amount of rabbits and an increased amount of predetors, so what happens in winter, some of the predetors die - survival of the fit - or in some cases the luckiest. And the next winter populations are evened out. The world is in constant flux. Have you seen Soylent Green? Not the most realistic approach to overpopulation - but a profetic one. Now if you believe in climate change or global warming - the jury is still out. I have not heard any solid facts about either occuring - and even if they are why isn't climate change a natural process. Their have been many - The Ice Age - it was hardly caused by carbon-dioxide from my Pontiac Wave. People forget that human being are a part of the enviroment and whatever we do is natural, yes we build civilization, but do beavers not build damns turning free flowing streams into stagnent ponds for their own uses - cutting down trees in the process, do birds not build nests. People have more control over their actions but it hardly constitutes a mass ban on th consumption of meat - what would we do with all the domesticated species we have know - they would hardly survive in the wild. When it comes to species extinction, 1% of the total worlds species live today. Meaning, if their are 1 million species on the planet now - their were once 99 million others in existance at one time. The world changes. Anyway if you would like to look at this big picture - the planet earth is an isalnd in the vast ocean of the universe. If we do not leave this planet at some point in the next - i don't know few million years (not sure of the exact numbers) the sun will go super nova and nothing will be living on the earth anyway. We will not all perish as you say if we do not change - maybe some will, maybe some won't. Just to go over the ancestral diet idea, I do not have any scientic fact to back me up - I haven't looked for any, nor do I think their has been much research. I was putting it out as an idea to see if it was viable. I do remember one thing. Their was an inuit community living far up north eatng an American diet rich in grains - they were grossly overweight and poor in health. They were told to switch to a high fat diet - their traditional diet. They lost weight, felt better, their diabetes became controllable and with those with the curable kind it went away. They are genetically dispossed to eating a high fat diet, something the North American food guide highly discourages for it's ill effects. We are not all the same genetically. I do not see a health ramification to trying to seek out your most ancestral diet. What those who survived to bear you ate. PLease do post back, I would enjoy a civil debate on the topic. Oh, can you clarify how I was being racist, other than just citing that Europeans might have a different diet than say Asians, Africans, Native Americans e.t.c? That is not racist - racism is the act of singling out races and have a negative attidue towards them. I do not see the negativity, geneticly we are different in ways, that is science. It would be polically correct bull**** to say other wise. Oh, and those who have mixed ancestry, like yourself you may have genetic advantage, varied genes add adaptations to your DNA. Like crossbreeding strawberry plants to be both frost resistant and lush and sweet. At one point if the planet maintains the great movemnet of people is does now, we will most likely be mixed populations in the future. The scientif model for how humans came to have races is to do with genetic adaptions. We are believed to have all originated for Africa. Those that migrated to Europe, through genetic selection became light skinned and light eyed becasue of snow. Snow casues snow blindness in bright light, blue or light eyes are resistant to this - but some of us also sneeze everytime they go outside as a reflex from that same adaptations. Those that went to Asia, became fish and rice consumers and have a high metabolism for carbohydrates - one I sadly don't share. Africans becmae darker to protect from the suns harsh rays - melenin in the skin and eyes, they don't burn or get skin cancer - at least not to the raites lighter skinned people do. But Africans from certain areas were plauged with malarjia - the survivor have sickle cell disorder - malajia cannot aflict these indivduals - but the downside - less oxygen intake in the blood. Those are a few of the example of what genetics does. I feel that what I have said is not racist, just perefecly acceptable genetic informations. I never said that any people is superior to another. So please, why am I a racist? Thanks. Starre, I tried to word by comment fairly. I am white, and I am only commenting on what I know, my own genetics. I hardly think that it is racist to apply that to the logic. yes human beings are adaptable, and it is a wonderous work of evolution. All I am saying is that, a logical step in maintaing human health is too look to our ancestors. Vegetarians and vegans cite that humans are meant to eat plant material, I disagree on the whole. Yes, there are more than likely people in the world meant and able to consume such a diet. People from areas around the eqautor benefit from nearly year-round growing seasons. Now you say it is not what we eat, but how to survive with the current population of the world. No we can not decide who lives or dies, and I did not state that we should only be sustained by our local areas, previous commenters have, I think it is incorrect for indivduals to force people to eat plant material only in order to sustain populations. By the way, it is not your country of origin as much as ethnic background. I realize saying by relatives are from Ireland does not constitute an Irish race, it was just a marker for people to know where I am from. I live in Canada. Now, the idea to eat your ethnic background is not a radical one. But it would not be right to force it on anyone else to suppoably save the planet. All I wanted to do was implore that their are other lifestyles that are equally as ‘right’ other than vegetarianism. Now, you speak of the planet being in peril – I hear this alot – evidence would be nice, why is it in peril and how? If your resposnse is overpopulation, nature will let itself out. Think of Jackrabit populations, if their are bumper years for food – their population soars – and so do the animals that eat them – and they in turn increase in numbers. Then next year their are the an average amount of rabbits and an increased amount of predetors, so what happens in winter, some of the predetors die – survival of the fit – or in some cases the luckiest. And the next winter populations are evened out. The world is in constant flux. Have you seen Soylent Green? Not the most realistic approach to overpopulation – but a profetic one. Now if you believe in climate change or global warming – the jury is still out. I have not heard any solid facts about either occuring – and even if they are why isn’t climate change a natural process. Their have been many – The Ice Age – it was hardly caused by carbon-dioxide from my Pontiac Wave. People forget that human being are a part of the enviroment and whatever we do is natural, yes we build civilization, but do beavers not build damns turning free flowing streams into stagnent ponds for their own uses – cutting down trees in the process, do birds not build nests. People have more control over their actions but it hardly constitutes a mass ban on th consumption of meat – what would we do with all the domesticated species we have know – they would hardly survive in the wild. When it comes to species extinction, 1% of the total worlds species live today. Meaning, if their are 1 million species on the planet now – their were once 99 million others in existance at one time. The world changes. Anyway if you would like to look at this big picture – the planet earth is an isalnd in the vast ocean of the universe. If we do not leave this planet at some point in the next – i don’t know few million years (not sure of the exact numbers) the sun will go super nova and nothing will be living on the earth anyway. We will not all perish as you say if we do not change – maybe some will, maybe some won’t. Just to go over the ancestral diet idea, I do not have any scientic fact to back me up – I haven’t looked for any, nor do I think their has been much research. I was putting it out as an idea to see if it was viable. I do remember one thing. Their was an inuit community living far up north eatng an American diet rich in grains – they were grossly overweight and poor in health. They were told to switch to a high fat diet – their traditional diet. They lost weight, felt better, their diabetes became controllable and with those with the curable kind it went away. They are genetically dispossed to eating a high fat diet, something the North American food guide highly discourages for it’s ill effects. We are not all the same genetically. I do not see a health ramification to trying to seek out your most ancestral diet. What those who survived to bear you ate. PLease do post back, I would enjoy a civil debate on the topic. Oh, can you clarify how I was being racist, other than just citing that Europeans might have a different diet than say Asians, Africans, Native Americans e.t.c? That is not racist – racism is the act of singling out races and have a negative attidue towards them. I do not see the negativity, geneticly we are different in ways, that is science. It would be polically correct bull**** to say other wise. Oh, and those who have mixed ancestry, like yourself you may have genetic advantage, varied genes add adaptations to your DNA. Like crossbreeding strawberry plants to be both frost resistant and lush and sweet. At one point if the planet maintains the great movemnet of people is does now, we will most likely be mixed populations in the future. The scientif model for how humans came to have races is to do with genetic adaptions. We are believed to have all originated for Africa. Those that migrated to Europe, through genetic selection became light skinned and light eyed becasue of snow. Snow casues snow blindness in bright light, blue or light eyes are resistant to this – but some of us also sneeze everytime they go outside as a reflex from that same adaptations. Those that went to Asia, became fish and rice consumers and have a high metabolism for carbohydrates – one I sadly don’t share. Africans becmae darker to protect from the suns harsh rays – melenin in the skin and eyes, they don’t burn or get skin cancer – at least not to the raites lighter skinned people do. But Africans from certain areas were plauged with malarjia – the survivor have sickle cell disorder – malajia cannot aflict these indivduals – but the downside – less oxygen intake in the blood. Those are a few of the example of what genetics does. I feel that what I have said is not racist, just perefecly acceptable genetic informations. I never said that any people is superior to another. So please, why am I a racist? Thanks.

]]> By: Starre http://eco-chick.com/2008/05/1140/global-warming-eating-meat-and-the-importance-of-the-local-farm-movement-directly-from-a-farmer/comment-page-1/#comment-2629 Starre Wed, 25 Jun 2008 20:17:27 +0000 http://eco-chick.com/?p=1140#comment-2629 Mark- there is nothing wrong with having bowel movements many times a day! It is actually quite healthy and the human body is not really supposed to 'hold' onto waste but our crummy diets full of processed foods (and meat) move through our bodies much more slowly. There is also variability in digestive systems among people and it is not 'right' to go once or twice or however many times a day- it depends on your body. Rebecca, your comments are interesting, but a bit racist, frankly. I have heard this "eat what your ancestors ate" but my background is spread over three continents and at least six countries (some of which have changed borders since). So what am I supposed to eat according to your logic? Also, human beings are very adaptable and can eat all kind of diets and be healthy- from the Masai eating blood and milk and meat to vegan and veggie diets, to all-dairy. The point is not how we can survive- but how can the earth WITH all the people that currently live on it? I agree we are overpopulated, but going by your solution, we should only have enough people on earth that can be sustained by their local areas. So what about the rest of the people? And who decides who lives and who starves? The truth is veggie/vegan diets can feed a lot more people. If we are uncomfortable limiting our populations- we are still debating about birth control for goodness sake!- then we have to change our impact on the earth or we WILL all perish. Mark- there is nothing wrong with having bowel movements many times a day! It is actually quite healthy and the human body is not really supposed to ‘hold’ onto waste but our crummy diets full of processed foods (and meat) move through our bodies much more slowly. There is also variability in digestive systems among people and it is not ‘right’ to go once or twice or however many times a day- it depends on your body.

Rebecca, your comments are interesting, but a bit racist, frankly. I have heard this “eat what your ancestors ate” but my background is spread over three continents and at least six countries (some of which have changed borders since). So what am I supposed to eat according to your logic? Also, human beings are very adaptable and can eat all kind of diets and be healthy- from the Masai eating blood and milk and meat to vegan and veggie diets, to all-dairy. The point is not how we can survive- but how can the earth WITH all the people that currently live on it? I agree we are overpopulated, but going by your solution, we should only have enough people on earth that can be sustained by their local areas. So what about the rest of the people? And who decides who lives and who starves? The truth is veggie/vegan diets can feed a lot more people. If we are uncomfortable limiting our populations- we are still debating about birth control for goodness sake!- then we have to change our impact on the earth or we WILL all perish.

]]> By: Mark http://eco-chick.com/2008/05/1140/global-warming-eating-meat-and-the-importance-of-the-local-farm-movement-directly-from-a-farmer/comment-page-1/#comment-2628 Mark Wed, 25 Jun 2008 19:31:52 +0000 http://eco-chick.com/?p=1140#comment-2628 I have been vegan for almost 9 months now and it has been great to me. My health improved and I even lost 20lbs. Becoming a vegan was great until until just recently. I have developed some bad stomach problems and I don't think its good for my health. I use to make a bowel movement once a day and now as a vegan I am going 3-4 times a day. I don't want to eat meat (Ethical Reasons) but I decided it is best for my health. So as of today I am only going to eat Free-Range Organic meats and Seafood. If you care about your health then you should avoid hormones and antibiotics in your food. I use to look down on people that eat meat because I thought it was not a necessity. I have recently come to the conclusion that for my health it is. So I don't think someone should be looked down on for eating meat to sustain their health. I have been vegan for almost 9 months now and it has been great to me. My health improved and I even lost 20lbs. Becoming a vegan was great until until just recently. I have developed some bad stomach problems and I don’t think its good for my health. I use to make a bowel movement once a day and now as a vegan I am going 3-4 times a day. I don’t want to eat meat (Ethical Reasons) but I decided it is best for my health. So as of today I am only going to eat Free-Range Organic meats and Seafood. If you care about your health then you should avoid hormones and antibiotics in your food. I use to look down on people that eat meat because I thought it was not a necessity. I have recently come to the conclusion that for my health it is. So I don’t think someone should be looked down on for eating meat to sustain their health.

]]>