4 ms·

>Am I saying you shouldn't eat beef? Of course not -- it's delicious! IMVHO, there are much better reasons to drop meat + dairy from your diet than water. Huma

>Am I saying you shouldn't eat beef? Of course not -- it's delicious! IMVHO, there are much better reasons to drop meat + dairy from your diet than water. Human taste is a malleable thing - after a while, other things start to taste much more delicious.

raldi 12y ago
Fair point! But the last time I mentioned these stats, I was accused of pushing a militant vegan agenda, so this time I wanted to be sure to establish my meat cred.
- SEJeff 12y ago
  And while totally respecting your POV please understand that some of us think things like Beef, Pork/Bacon, and Fisha re absolutely delicious. We can agree to disagree and still be friends, or at least civil adults :)
  - mod 12y ago
    He literally said "it's delicious" in the post they're referencing. You can agree to agree, I guess.
  - CalRobert 12y ago
    You're not even disagreeing, though. The point is that things can be delicious but still merit restraint in their consumption.
    - raldi 12y ago
      I'm not even arguing for restrained consumption! I just think we should charge California producers of these foods market rate for the water they require, even if that means they can't be profitably produced in California anymore, and we have to import them from places that aren't going through a drought.
      - maxerickson 12y ago
        What does 'the market rate' mean for all the infrastructure (I guess most of the agriculturally interesting surface water has been diverted under existing regulation)? I don't mean that in a snide way, I just wonder what exactly you mean. Like, would it be okay under this market system for someone to purchase a large amount of the land where the water originates and construct a huge dam+reservoir? Would adjacent property owners have to go to court to redo the resolution of their competing interest in water that happens to flow across the properties?
hurin 12y ago
A lot of land which is suited for cattle herding is not as a matter of fact suited for vegetable or grain production - the idea that vegetarianism is more ecologically sound is somewhat mythical.
- CalRobert 12y ago
  Surely you know a claim like that should include some citation.
  - hurin 12y ago
    There was a good article I read awhile back (which was more global rather than limited to a specific nation) but I can't seem to find it now - nevertheless for example (random google search, an article about Mongolia (source: USDA; ref: http://bit.ly/1MD20ZN http://bit.ly/1MD20ZN): About 80 percent of agricultural production is animal-based while the remaining 20 percent mostly comes from field crops, mostly wheat. Only about 1 percent (1.35 million hectares) of total land is suitable for crops
- ssmoot 12y ago
  I'm not at all in favor of dropping meat. But unless I'm mistaken I think you're implying that by removing beef production, you'd have to substitute it with additional vegetable or grain production. Where I think the pro-vegetarian argument would actually be that by decreasing meat production, you actually recover more vegetable/grain farm capacity since it's much more efficient for people to eat their veggies directly. Just like it would be much more efficient to eat the 10lbs of sardines it takes to grow 1lb of salmon. (NB. I didn't look that up, but I think it's in the ball-park.)
  - hurin 12y ago
    It's an interesting topic. >But unless I'm mistaken I think you're implying that by removing beef production, you'd have to substitute it with additional vegetable or grain production. There are a lot of non-simple factors involved for example dairy and meat account for a majority of most people's protein intake, this would mean substitution for increased protein nutrition from plants (limited mostly to soybeans). >Where I think the pro-vegetarian argument would actually be that by decreasing meat production, you actually recover more vegetable/grain farm capacity since it's much more efficient for people to eat their veggies directly. This statement is mostly true for using vegetable/grain production land whose produce is used for cattle feed-lots right? What about cattle that get the larger % of their food from grazing? Also there is a significant difference between human quality/desired food and animal feed. For example a lot more corn is used in animal feed than in human consumption - this is especially effective because maize is a c4 plant and until genetics gets there will continue to completely dominate other cultivatable plants in terms of yield. p.s. I'm not saying that meat production in the US is ecologically friendly - it definitely is not - feedlot greenhouse gas production is almost entirely unregulated, they cause massive damage to local watersheds etc - but it's possible to do terrible damage to the environment with vegetable growth as well; I'm just arguing for a more or less objective view of the situation (and I don't think meat is evil is the correct answer).

raldi 12y ago

Fair point! But the last time I mentioned these stats, I was accused of pushing a militant vegan agenda, so this time I wanted to be sure to establish my meat cred.

SEJeff 12y ago
And while totally respecting your POV please understand that some of us think things like Beef, Pork/Bacon, and Fisha re absolutely delicious. We can agree to disagree and still be friends, or at least civil adults :)
- mod 12y ago
  He literally said "it's delicious" in the post they're referencing. You can agree to agree, I guess.
- CalRobert 12y ago
  You're not even disagreeing, though. The point is that things can be delicious but still merit restraint in their consumption.
  - raldi 12y ago
    I'm not even arguing for restrained consumption! I just think we should charge California producers of these foods market rate for the water they require, even if that means they can't be profitably produced in California anymore, and we have to import them from places that aren't going through a drought.
    - maxerickson 12y ago
      What does 'the market rate' mean for all the infrastructure (I guess most of the agriculturally interesting surface water has been diverted under existing regulation)? I don't mean that in a snide way, I just wonder what exactly you mean. Like, would it be okay under this market system for someone to purchase a large amount of the land where the water originates and construct a huge dam+reservoir? Would adjacent property owners have to go to court to redo the resolution of their competing interest in water that happens to flow across the properties?

hurin 12y ago

A lot of land which is suited for cattle herding is not as a matter of fact suited for vegetable or grain production - the idea that vegetarianism is more ecologically sound is somewhat mythical.

CalRobert 12y ago
Surely you know a claim like that should include some citation.
- hurin 12y ago
  There was a good article I read awhile back (which was more global rather than limited to a specific nation) but I can't seem to find it now - nevertheless for example (random google search, an article about Mongolia (source: USDA; ref: http://bit.ly/1MD20ZN http://bit.ly/1MD20ZN): About 80 percent of agricultural production is animal-based while the remaining 20 percent mostly comes from field crops, mostly wheat. Only about 1 percent (1.35 million hectares) of total land is suitable for crops
ssmoot 12y ago
I'm not at all in favor of dropping meat. But unless I'm mistaken I think you're implying that by removing beef production, you'd have to substitute it with additional vegetable or grain production. Where I think the pro-vegetarian argument would actually be that by decreasing meat production, you actually recover more vegetable/grain farm capacity since it's much more efficient for people to eat their veggies directly. Just like it would be much more efficient to eat the 10lbs of sardines it takes to grow 1lb of salmon. (NB. I didn't look that up, but I think it's in the ball-park.)
- hurin 12y ago
  It's an interesting topic. >But unless I'm mistaken I think you're implying that by removing beef production, you'd have to substitute it with additional vegetable or grain production. There are a lot of non-simple factors involved for example dairy and meat account for a majority of most people's protein intake, this would mean substitution for increased protein nutrition from plants (limited mostly to soybeans). >Where I think the pro-vegetarian argument would actually be that by decreasing meat production, you actually recover more vegetable/grain farm capacity since it's much more efficient for people to eat their veggies directly. This statement is mostly true for using vegetable/grain production land whose produce is used for cattle feed-lots right? What about cattle that get the larger % of their food from grazing? Also there is a significant difference between human quality/desired food and animal feed. For example a lot more corn is used in animal feed than in human consumption - this is especially effective because maize is a c4 plant and until genetics gets there will continue to completely dominate other cultivatable plants in terms of yield. p.s. I'm not saying that meat production in the US is ecologically friendly - it definitely is not - feedlot greenhouse gas production is almost entirely unregulated, they cause massive damage to local watersheds etc - but it's possible to do terrible damage to the environment with vegetable growth as well; I'm just arguing for a more or less objective view of the situation (and I don't think meat is evil is the correct answer).