No more meat?

[Norsklow]

Not having enough meat is the tip of the iceberg compared to what real problems we'd be facing if there were 9 billion people in the world in another 40 years.

People should stop having so many babies.

Short of forcible sterilization, the only way to get people to stop breeding so much is to give them higher education and income. People with higher education and income tend to reproduce less readily than most.

Ok.

Let me know when you find a way of making the entire world have a 10% yearly increase in disposable income in real terms for a bit. You'll get a Nobel Prize and an admiring crowd will line up to kiss your feet.

[Sociobiology]

How about the fact that are digestive tract is basically halfway between the lengths of herbivores and carnivores. We are biological and behavioral omnivores.

Carnivores have intestinal tracts 3-6 times their body length. Herbivores' are 10-20. Humans are about at 10-12.

no
you're comparing obligate carnivores to grazing and browsing herbivores, ignoring omnivores, which are what humans are
and, frugivores, which is what we are decended from,
both of which being far more relevant.

next your probably going to compare humans to insectivores, or detritivores

[Vitaphone Racing]

Not having enough meat is the tip of the iceberg compared to what real problems we'd be facing if there were 9 billion people in the world in another 40 years.

People should stop having so many babies.

Short of forcible sterilization, the only way to get people to stop breeding so much is to give them higher education and income. People with higher education and income tend to reproduce less readily than most.

Let's go with forcible sterilization after they've had two kids.

[Sociobiology]

Yeah.... NO.

You don't want to dispute the "humans are omnivores" thing.
This is an article from a vegetarian website by a vegetarian primatologist and even HE concedes that we are omnivores:
http://www.vrg.org/nutshell/omni.htm

quotes:

Evidence of Humans as Omnivores:
Archeological Record
As far back as it can be traced, clearly the archeological record indicates an omnivorous diet for humans that included meat. Our ancestry is among the hunter/gatherers from the beginning. Once domestication of food sources began, it included both animals and plants.

Cell Types
Relative number and distribution of cell types, as well as structural specializations, are more important than overall length of the intestine to determining a typical diet. Dogs are typical carnivores, but their intestinal characteristics have more in common with omnivores. Wolves eat quite a lot of plant material.

Fermenting Vats
Nearly all plant eaters have fermenting vats (enlarged chambers where foods sits and microbes attack it). Ruminants like cattle and deer have forward sacs derived from remodeled esophagus and stomach. Horses, rhinos, and colobine monkeys have posterior, hindgut sacs. Humans have no such specializations.

Jaws
Although evidence on the structure and function of human hands and jaws, behavior, and evolutionary history also either support an omnivorous diet or fail to support strict vegetarianism, the best evidence comes from our teeth.
The short canines in humans are a functional consequence of the enlarged cranium and associated reduction of the size of the jaws. In primates, canines function as both defense weapons and visual threat devices. Interestingly, the primates with the largest canines (gorillas and gelada baboons) both have basically vegetarian diets. In archeological sites, broken human molars are most often confused with broken premolars and molars of pigs, a classic omnivore. On the other hand, some herbivores have well-developed incisors that are often mistaken for those of human teeth when found in archeological excavations.

Salivary Glands
These indicate we could be omnivores. Saliva and urine data vary, depending on diet, not taxonomic group.
Intestines
Intestinal absorption is a surface area, not linear problem. Dogs (which are carnivores) have intestinal specializations more characteristic of omnivores than carnivores such as cats. The relative number of crypts and cell types is a better indication of diet than simple length. We are intermediate between the two groups.

Conclusion
Humans are classic examples of omnivores in all relevant anatomical traits. There is no basis in anatomy or physiology for the assumption that humans are pre-adapted to the vegetarian diet. For that reason, the best arguments in support of a meat-free diet remain ecological, ethical, and health concerns.

[Dr. McArdle is a vegetarian and currently Scientific Advisor to The American Anti-Vivisection Society. He is an anatomist and a primatologist.]

Too bad I did. Our sources disagree with each other. I already said this isn't even the core of the debate.

then you should not have used it.
and for the record he has evidence you have flim-flam

[Sociobiology]

I still think insect farming is the way to go.

Maybe this just a rumor, but I heard that the meat in a McDonald's burger is mostly ground up mealworms.

no that would actually be fairly healthy.

[Sociobiology]

You do know that meat consumption is one of the biggest reasons for starvation in third world countries, right?

actually it is one of the primary means to prevent starvation, many third world societies use livestock as food stores for dry seasons/winters, It can be easily argued that first world citizens could do just fine without meat, the third world on the other hand could not, it is essential to their survival in many places.
I have a dear vegan friend who was in the peace corp for many year, and he changed hos tune when he saw how important meat was in Africa, he still argues for vegetarian diets in the US but argues against it for the developing word.

[The Mongrel Republic]

Short of forcible sterilization, the only way to get people to stop breeding so much is to give them higher education and income. People with higher education and income tend to reproduce less readily than most.

Let's go with forcible sterilization after they've had two kids.

How about getting the women into at least 2nd world-grade schools and both sexes some damned cheap birth control and condoms? Myself, I don't want kids, but that is only because of the sort of world in which they'd have to live.

[Vitaphone Racing]

Let's go with forcible sterilization after they've had two kids.

How about getting the women into at least 2nd world-grade schools and both sexes some damned cheap birth control and condoms? Myself, I don't want kids, but that is only because of the sort of world in which they'd have to live.

Because preventing them from having kids after they have already had two is a far more effective method at controlling the population.

[The Stormcloak Rebels]

I'm not going through this damn thread and doing that.

Of course you aren't, you admitted to not reading anything I've said. So the claim was absurd in the first place.

And saying humans aren't omnivores is a complete fucking lie and you fucking know it. Do say such a thing requires a level of fucking stupidity beyond the pale! It is beyond belief that someone can actually say such a thing and actually believe it. Just take a look at a menu in a restaurant. There's meat and vegetables on it. Proof right there that your telling fucking lies.

First of all, there's a difference between being wrong, and lying. If you think I'm wrong, provide evidence. Also, you probably should have read my previous posts in the first place, because I specifically emphasized that biologically we are herbivores. Behaviorally we are omnivores. I never denied this.

So fucking stop telling lies and then you can go about your business.

Stop pulling things out of your ass and provide evidence.

Please point it out specifically. If you're not going to bother doing that, and make baseless accusations, then just leave. Show me where I claimed to be morally superior to anyone. Show me where I posted lies.

Hilarious, since it's painfully obvious you're pulling shit out of your ass and lying through your teeth.

You're whole tone for the first, and saying humans aren't omnivores for the second.

Easy-peasy-light-and-breezy.

Oh my Mod will both of you just shut up. I have half a mind to report both of you.

[Mavorpen]

meat eating and active hunting exists in chimps. so no not all that recent. We are also better at eating and digesting meat than chimps, although many people still eat too much.

There is a fundamental difference. They hunt not because of nutrition at all. It is due to social and cultural behavior. According to Harvard, the amount of beef we would consume according to the average chimp diet would be about 8 grams a day. It's painfully obvious that chimps do not eat meat for nutritional value.

You do know that meat consumption is one of the biggest reasons for starvation in third world countries, right?

actually it is one of the primary means to prevent starvation, many third world societies use livestock as food stores for dry seasons/winters, It can be easily argued that first world citizens could do just fine without meat, the third world on the other hand could not, it is essential to their survival in many places.
I have a dear vegan friend who was in the peace corp for many year, and he changed hos tune when he saw how important meat was in Africa, he still argues for vegetarian diets in the US but argues against it for the developing word.

If you've read anything I've said so far, you would know that this is exactly what I have said. I have NEVER argued against meat eating in the developing world. Ever.

No, generally it's 10-20 on average. Some go even above 20.

I'm not debating this. I'm not debating against the notion that we can eat meat "just fine." I'm arguing against the notion that this justifies eating it when we can survive and live healthy lives without it.

we can survive on just wheat, yeast, and nori so why should we grow bananas and lettuce?

What a pathetic attempt at refuting my argument. Please explain where I have stated to have a moral argument against bananas and lettuce.

(Image)
no
you're comparing obligate carnivores to grazing and browsing herbivores, ignoring omnivores, which are what humans are
and, frugivores, which is what we are decended from,
both of which being far more relevant.

next your probably going to compare humans to insectivores, or detritivores

Fine, let's compare humans with omnivores then.

Facial muscles- Omnivores: Reduced Humans: Well-Developed

Jaw motion- Omnivores: Shearing; minimal side-to-side motion Humans: No shearing

Teeth: Incisors- Omnivores: Short and pointed Humans: Broad, flattened and spade-shaped

Chewing: Omnivores: Swallows food whole and/or simple crushing. Humans: Extensive chewing

Length of intestine- Omnivore: 4-6 times body length Humans: 10-11 times body length.


The fact of the matter is, omnivores are closer to carnivores than herbivores. Thus, in nearly every category, omnivores are almost the same to carnivores, yet humans are different from what you would expect of the average omnivore.

[Mavorpen]

Oh my Mod will both of you just shut up. I have half a mind to report both of you.

You'd be wasting your time.

[Poorisolation]

No, no and thrice no.

Part of the reason is this stuff cellulose which humans cannot digest but cows and other animals with long guts can. Another part of the reason is that while all cereals are grasses not all grasses are cereals. Cows in particular but other animals too can eat and digest grasses inedible to humans and so can be sustained in regions unsuitable for cereal agriculture.

Thus the resource gap is nowhere near ten times.

I was being conservative actually. If you're just looking at fresh water, which is the most likely bottlegap, it's ten times as much, even if you're just dealing with grass-fed animals. It is even higher with grain fed animals, which is a huge portion of our production. As fresh water stocks are brought to full exploitation, something is going to have to give. It will be meat production.

That said meat production in America in particular is very inefficient with many cattle being fed on corn (maize) which is extremely silly as farmers are essentially feeding their bullocks (steers) the part of the plant that humans could eat while not feeding them the part of the plant that cattle could digest and humans cannot but the cows would not suffer a huge loss in calorific intake. Worse this practice at this time appears to be spreading.

They're feeding them the indigestible parts as well. That is the problem. Sustaining the level of meat consumption in the united states is only possible thanks to the inefficient use of cereal grains to feed livestock.

So yes you ought to expect an upward trend on your McDouble but by how much is hard to quantify, $100 seems a bit high (in today's prices) but anywhere from $5-25 would not make me blink if cited as a prediction, the wide value range being due to the wide range of variables. Still even so much as $5 would price it out of many people's pockets globally.

Edit note: mashed up the links take 3: oh and incoherence

Well, to be honest, even if a McDouble is 5 dollars, all things being equal, even Americans are going be eating a lot less meat. If meat prices were that high, I'd have to become a de facto vegetarian based on my budget.

I think in regards here we are close to the same understanding of the problem. The quibble I would have is mostly with the portion first described as you need to define "fresh water" do you mean the water here is potable (fit for human consumption) or not sufficiently saline to qualify as sea water or some other categorisation? It should not be forgotten that water usage by cattle covers many sources and so in your claims are you thinking of the total amount of water used or the amount taken from the public water supply?

As to the $5 McDouble I would doubt it would rise so high for a considerable time but given the difficulty in assessing multiple factors I cannot rule it out or indeed rule out a higher rise and as you pointed out even a substantially smaller rise in meat costs would have a profound impact on some people's eating habits. Not mine, personally I prefer a Big Mac and the issue with getting to the MacDonalds is one of time so I think I have had at most three this year

Grieve for me....or not

Edit: oh and PS we all know that to retain the price the Most Reliable Corporation in the World^TM would simply reduce the actual amount of meat in any given burger.

[Terruana]

You were sounding pretty high horsed and posted lies.

Please point it out specifically. If you're not going to bother doing that, and make baseless accusations, then just leave. Show me where I claimed to be morally superior to anyone. Show me where I posted lies.

So I said it.

Deal with it.

Get off the high horse, and stop posting lies and everything will be alright.

Hilarious, since it's painfully obvious you're pulling shit out of your ass and lying through your teeth.

How about the part where you compared eating meat to owning slaves, thus implying that anyone who eats meat is as bad as a slaver, and anyone who doesn't, isn't? I'd say that's claiming to be morally superior, wouldn't you?

[Terruana]

D'you know what? I'm done with this thread. Mavorpen, your "arguments" have been going from bad to worse. You've gone from ridiculous strawmen (quote to prove it)

NOW I compared it to slavery.

Dismissing evidence provided to you without consideration because it goes against what you think is true (again, quote for proof)

Too bad I did. Our sources disagree with each other. I already said this isn't even the core of the debate.

And ridiculous unsourced claims (again, quote for great justice)

You do know that meat consumption is one of the biggest reasons for starvation in third world countries, right?

And all this while acting utterly disdainful and dismissive of anyone who disagrees with you as if they haven't a leg to stand on.
And that's not even mentioning the underlying hypocrisy in everything you've said. Your entire argument is based on "meat isn't necessary for survival and involves killing animals, so we shouldn't do it".

Well, newsflash: Ever watched TV? If so, you've indirectly contributed to the deaths of every animal that died gathering the resources to build that TV, the factory it was made in, the shop it was sold from, and the animals that died when clearing the land for and constructing those buildings, and the fossil fuels used to generate electricity to run it, and many more. Not to mention the TV station building, and all the animals that died providing the means and location to produce whatever tv show you watched. And it's not just TV. Ever been in a vehicle? You've indirectly contributed to the deaths of thousands of animals, maybe even entire species. Or how about the internet, since we both know you use that. You're responsible for all the animals that died so you could own that computer, and go on the internet. How are TV, cars and the internet necessary to survive? So stop spouting all of your self-righteous bullshit about how killing animals for food is immoral because it's unnecessary. Most of the luxuries you use every day are fucking unnecessary AND have caused the deaths of millions of animals, but you still fucking use them.

InB4 "Stop pretending like you know me, I don't watch TV/travel in cars/buses/use the internet".

[Sociobiology]

meat eating and active hunting exists in chimps. so no not all that recent. We are also better at eating and digesting meat than chimps, although many people still eat too much.

There is a fundamental difference. They hunt not because of nutrition at all. It is due to social and cultural behavior. According to Harvard, the amount of beef we would consume according to the average chimp diet would be about 8 grams a day. It's painfully obvious that chimps do not eat meat for nutritional value.

so you are arguing chimps hunt monkeys for sport then?
I assume you don't know what opportunistic high calorie food is.

actually it is one of the primary means to prevent starvation, many third world societies use livestock as food stores for dry seasons/winters, It can be easily argued that first world citizens could do just fine without meat, the third world on the other hand could not, it is essential to their survival in many places.
I have a dear vegan friend who was in the peace corp for many year, and he changed hos tune when he saw how important meat was in Africa, he still argues for vegetarian diets in the US but argues against it for the developing word.

If you've read anything I've said so far, you would know that this is exactly what I have said. I have NEVER argued against meat eating in the developing world. Ever.

You forget we can quote your posts didn't you?

No, generally it's 10-20 on average. Some go even above 20.

I'm not debating this. I'm not debating against the notion that we can eat meat "just fine." I'm arguing against the notion that this justifies eating it when we can survive and live healthy lives without it.

we can survive on just wheat, yeast, and nori so why should we grow bananas and lettuce?

What a pathetic attempt at refuting my argument. Please explain where I have stated to have a moral argument against bananas and lettuce.
you just argued that just being able to eat something is no reason to eat it if you don't need too.
really if you cant even recognize your own argument when it is quoted back to you I have to suspect you are a troll.

(Image)
no
you're comparing obligate carnivores to grazing and browsing herbivores, ignoring omnivores, which are what humans are
and, frugivores, which is what we are decended from,
both of which being far more relevant.

next your probably going to compare humans to insectivores, or detritivores

Fine, let's compare humans with omnivores then.

Facial muscles- Omnivores: Reduced

not an omnivore characteristic. and I would like you see you argue why it would be.

Jaw motion- Omnivores: Shearing

Also not an omnivore charateristic, that is a carnivore characteristic.

Teeth: Incisors- Omnivores: Short and pointed

again carnivore not omnivore

Chewing: Omnivores: Swallows food whole

you don't know what an omnivore is do you, this is a non-mammalian carnivore characteristic.

and/or simple crushing.

finally sorta got one, the shotgun principle in action I guess.
now lets look at human dentition our molars are simple and have thin enamel, basic crushing.

Length of intestine- Omnivore: 4-6 times body length Humans: 10-11 times body length.

A. not a omnivore characteristic

B. the average human intestine is 5.5 - 6 times the body length.

whomever you are quoting does not understand basic biology or anatomy.

The fact of the matter is, omnivores are closer to carnivores than herbivores.

actually they tend to more closely resemble whatever it is they evolved from, rodent omnivores resemble granivores, brown bears resemble carnivores, corvids resemble granivores, skunks resemble insectivores, notice a pattern.

again you need to step up your argument if you want to be taken seriously. I suggest making your own instead of quoting a website.

http://www.civin.org/wp/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/weak-sauce.jpg

[Mavorpen]

so you are arguing chimps hunt monkeys for sport then?
I assume you don't know what opportunistic high calorie food is.

No, I do. I didn't say it was for sport, I said social and cultural reasons. This means a lot of stuff. For instance, male chimpanzees will exchange meat for sex. The fact that it's more calories for the female goes along with this, and only further agrees with my point that chimps do not hunt because they need meat, nor are they fundamentally adapted to live on a diet with both meat and plants as their primary food sources.

You forget we can quote your posts didn't you?

And this is relevant how? I said that we can can live healthy lives without it. We being the developed world.

No. I just argued that just being able to eat something that requires killing sentient beings/causing suffering is no reason to eat it if you don't need to. It would help if you could stop making up arguments for me. I get the feeling I'm the one being trolled right now by several people in this thread.


Wrong. Omnivores have fairly large and well developed incisors for cutting plant material. They have scissor-like carnassials for shearing meat.


Bears aren't omnivores?

(Image)

I worded the first incorrectly, sorry. I didn't mean to say they swallow the entire organism whole, I meant that they tear it into chunks, and can sometimes swallow said chunks whole.

Concerning the molars, again, I must point to the bear, which you would agree is an omnivore, correct?

(Image)

By body, you do realize I'm speaking of the trunk, correct? The average leg length in men is around 83.3 centimeters, or about 2.7 feet. Guess how long the intestine (large+small) is. (Image)


I said they are closer to carnivores than herbivores. I'm comparing omnivores in the context to carnivores and herbivores. I'm aware they can resemble something else different from herbivores if their ancestors weren't herbivores. But the pattern is that they usually resemble carnivores a lot more than herbivores. Please, at least try to understand what I'm reading.


Also, I apologize, but for some reason, your quotes in my post disappeared.

[Mavorpen]

D'you know what? I'm done with this thread. Mavorpen, your "arguments" have been going from bad to worse. You've gone from ridiculous strawmen (quote to prove it)

Not a straw man.

Dismissing evidence provided to you without consideration because it goes against what you think is true (again, quote for proof)

Not dismissing evidence. In fact, I wanted him to provide more because our sources disagreed.

And ridiculous unsourced claims (again, quote for great justice)

Then ask for the source, instead of whining that I didn't source it later.Here.

And all this while acting utterly disdainful and dismissive of anyone who disagrees with you as if they haven't a leg to stand on.

If this were true, I wouldn't be debating.

And that's not even mentioning the underlying hypocrisy in everything you've said. Your entire argument is based on "meat isn't necessary for survival and involves killing animals, so we shouldn't do it".

Well, newsflash: Ever watched TV?

Why yes, I have.

If so, you've indirectly contributed to the deaths of every animal that died gathering the resources to build that TV, the factory it was made in, the shop it was sold from, and the animals that died when clearing the land for and constructing those buildings, and the fossil fuels used to generate electricity to run it, and many more.
Not to mention the TV station building, and all the animals that died providing the means and location to produce whatever tv show you watched. And it's not just TV. Ever been in a vehicle? You've indirectly contributed to the deaths of thousands of animals, maybe even entire species. Or how about the internet, since we both know you use that. You're responsible for all the animals that died so you could own that computer, and go on the internet. How are TV, cars and the internet necessary to survive? So stop spouting all of your self-righteous bullshit about how killing animals for food is immoral because it's unnecessary. Most of the luxuries you use every day are fucking unnecessary AND have caused the deaths of millions of animals, but you still fucking use them.

I believe I've already addressed all of this. Do you have trouble reading or something?

How in the world did you type this so fast?


You wouldn't enforce this argument with humans, why with other species?

No shit. What does this have to do with meat being immoral? Absolutely nothing. This fallacy that somehow because the alternative also leads to deaths, meat is magically moral. That's not how it works, at all. Yes, deforestation would still have happened. But we would only need 25% of the land we use for livestock. The reason insects aren't a main concern is not because they're small, or they're not cute, but because insofar, we have yet to note them having any significant amount of pain capabilities.

Dear gods, enough with the misrepresentation of our stance. No one is arguing that it is possible to live without killing something. Any sensible person acknowledges this, even a Jain, whom are forbidden from eating root based vegetables. And again, I don't care what we have done in the past. I care about what we are doing now and the future. Drilling and mining is in the past, let's work towards better alternatives. Unsustainable farming is in the past, let's work towards making it sustainable. Deforestation is in the past, let's work towards slowing it down significantly or stopping. Unsustainable fishing is in the past, but we should be working to making it sustainable. The notion that because we have done bad things, therefore it's okay to continue doing them is completely asinine. Not only this, but you're completely ignoring the fact that most people, researchers, etc. do not advocate for the reduction of consumption of meat because they want to "save the planet" or "it's evil!" but because it is directly harming humanity as well.

Again, who gives a shit? Seriously, stop with this logical nonsense of saying that because there will be costs, we shouldn't advance and go past the point where suffering is reduced significantly.

What? Now you're using the hilariously asinine "it's natural!" argument? Please tell me you are joking. Let's use your logic, though: Rape in order to reproduce has been done by other successful organisms. Therefore rape is suddenly moral? The "other species do it" argument is unfathomably devoid of any logic whatsoever. It's akin to saying, "Well, Nazis killed millions of Jews, and Jews has been persecuted for centuries. So, it should be fine."

Except you're entire argument is based on this huge straw man you've constructed. You don't understand our argument, why are you bothering debating at all? Vegetarians do not say that we can live without killing things. No one does, not even pacifists. Stop with the completely asinine straw men.

I can't tell you how much I facepalmed. At one point "nobody" cared about throwing away slavery. Those that did obviously just wanted to get more support for their political party. Also, I don't care if people do it because animals are cute. I don't care if they do it to make themselves feel better. As long as the right thing is done, I don't care.
And please, you can just stop talking if you're going to make useless generalizations such as the one you just made. No one is "sitting around judging each other." This is a debate forum. We choose to debate in our free time. And for the record, I am studying to work in the sciences and innovate so less suffering is brought about. So please, shut up and stop pretending like you know me.

This point is just plain stupid, and isn't even an argument. "All the white people who wants blacks to have equal rights should just move out of the country, or kill themselves in regret!"

No, it doesn't make me feel good about myself. I'm aware I'm a part of the problem. Hence why I'm trying to get to the point where I can do something. You're argument is completely hypocritical. You said we should just jump off a cliff, but what would that accomplish? You said it yourself, the majority of people wouldn't change. The best I can do is continue to live, continue to use resources to get to the point where I can be influential and improve the world as much as I can. I'm also not pretending I'm not hurting animals. Nowhere have I said that. We've evolved to eat nothing as a part of our diet. We've evolved to obtain certain nutrients, and some food just happens to contain varying amounts of it. Now that we have the technology to bypass that requirement, there is no need to eat meat. I'll say this last thing:

Take your condescending, straw-man, and asinine arguments out of here. Stop pretending you know who I am. Stop putting words in my mouth. Stop pretending you're more moral than me because you embrace the fact you kill things.

InB4 "Stop pretending like you know me, I don't watch TV/travel in cars/buses/use the internet".

So you DO remember my post where I refuted this bullshit, you're just pretending like this is still an actual point.

[The Mongrel Republic]

How about getting the women into at least 2nd world-grade schools and both sexes some damned cheap birth control and condoms? Myself, I don't want kids, but that is only because of the sort of world in which they'd have to live.

Because preventing them from having kids after they have already had two is a far more effective method at controlling the population.

I'm surprised you haven't proposed sterilizing them where or not they have had kids. Or sterilizing most of the children. Maybe I'm just reading things that aren't there.

[AuSable River]

I love how he comes back into the thread to make a poor joke instead of addressing my last post to him.

He realizes its basically pointless with a person like you, who believes lies and spreads them. Someone disconnected with reality.

Humans aren't omnivores my fucking ass. Go read a book.

Mavopen used the same tact when he floods threads that I start with disconnected nonsense, like this gem 'cow emissions of CO2 are negative while squirrel emissions of the same CO2 are somehow negative'.

it appears that he doesnt have a sound base in science.

[Mavorpen]

Mavopen used the same tact when he floods threads that I start with disconnected nonsense, like this gem 'cow emissions of CO2 are negative while squirrel emissions of the same CO2 are somehow negative'.

it appears that he doesnt have a sound base in science.

Summer is over, your bridge should be plenty warm for your hibernation this coming Fall/Winter.

[Sociobiology]

so you are arguing chimps hunt monkeys for sport then?
I assume you don't know what opportunistic high calorie food is.

No, I do. I didn't say it was for sport, I said social and cultural reasons. This means a lot of stuff. For instance, male chimpanzees will exchange meat for sex. The fact that it's more calories for the female goes along with this, and only further agrees with my point that chimps do not hunt because they need meat, nor are they fundamentally adapted to live on a diet with both meat and plants as their primary food sources.

so now males hunt meat for the female who need meat, while at the same time not needing meat?

I never claimed chimps are omnivores under stricter definitions but I am refuting your claim that

It's painfully obvious that chimps do not eat meat for nutritional value

.

chimps eat meat because it is a highly nutritious food. heck most animals will eat meat if available.

You forget we can quote your posts didn't you?

And this is relevant how? I said that we can can live healthy lives without it. We being the developed world.

actually you said

You do know that meat consumption is one of the biggest reasons for starvation in third world countries, right?

Wrong. Omnivores have fairly large and well developed incisors for cutting plant material. They have scissor-like carnassials for shearing meat.

you know people can see when you change your argument right?

Teeth: Incisors- Omnivores: Short and pointed

I notice you did not include the one omnivore point I said you got right, probable because humans share that characteristic.

Concerning the molars, again, I must point to the bear, which you would agree is an omnivore, correct?

(Image)

are you saying you are right or you are wrong about the molars?

By body, you do realize I'm speaking of the trunk, correct?

then you are using it wrong and do not understand biology body length is measured from ass to nose in the quadrupedal position.

The average leg length in men is around 83.3 centimeters, or about 2.7 feet.

which has what to do with trunk length?
the average body length for a human male is 3ft 2in

Guess how long the intestine (large+small) is. (Image)

in humans 25-28 feet
so 8-9 times my bad
still a long way from 10-11 times as you claimed
speaking of which I would also like a source for this proportion in in omnivores.
I did point out that 4-6 times body length is not an omnivore characteristic.

lets do black bears for instance body lenght 120 - 200cm
length of their intestines, recorded average 1200 cm
so that is 6-10 body length, and given the nature of the dissection (smaller individual) probably closer to 10 times.

I said they are closer to carnivores than herbivores.

and gave no justification for this, merely claimed it without foundation.

I'm comparing omnivores in the context to carnivores and herbivores. I'm aware they can resemble something else different from herbivores if their ancestors weren't herbivores. But the pattern is that they usually resemble carnivores a lot more than herbivores. Please, at least try to understand what I'm reading.

I do, merely restating an argument is not evidence.
you are repeating bullshit from a vegitiarian website without ever checking the facts.
http://www.vegsource.com

Also, I apologize, but for some reason, your quotes in my post disappeared.

then you should cut, copy, and paste.
or better yet preview button, use it.

[The Emerald Dawn]

No, I do. I didn't say it was for sport, I said social and cultural reasons. This means a lot of stuff. For instance, male chimpanzees will exchange meat for sex. The fact that it's more calories for the female goes along with this, and only further agrees with my point that chimps do not hunt because they need meat, nor are they fundamentally adapted to live on a diet with both meat and plants as their primary food sources.

so now males hunt meat for the female who need meat, while at the same time not needing meat?

I never claimed chimps are omnivores under stricter definitions but I am refuting your claim that

It's painfully obvious that chimps do not eat meat for nutritional value

.

chimps eat meat because it is a highly nutritious food. heck most animals will eat meat if available.

And this is relevant how? I said that we can can live healthy lives without it. We being the developed world.

actually you said

You do know that meat consumption is one of the biggest reasons for starvation in third world countries, right?

Wrong. Omnivores have fairly large and well developed incisors for cutting plant material. They have scissor-like carnassials for shearing meat.

you know people can see when you change your argument right?

Teeth: Incisors- Omnivores: Short and pointed

I notice you did not include the one omnivore point I said you got right, probable because humans share that characteristic.

Concerning the molars, again, I must point to the bear, which you would agree is an omnivore, correct?

(Image)

are you saying you are right or you are wrong about the molars?

By body, you do realize I'm speaking of the trunk, correct?

then you are using it wrong and do not understand biology body length is measured from ass to nose in the quadrupedal position.

The average leg length in men is around 83.3 centimeters, or about 2.7 feet.

which has what to do with trunk length?
the average body length for a human male is 3ft 2in

Guess how long the intestine (large+small) is. (Image)

in humans 25-28 feet
so 8-9 times my bad
still a long way from 10-11 times as you claimed
speaking of which I would also like a source for this proportion in in omnivores.
I did point out that 4-6 times body length is not an omnivore characteristic.

lets do black bears for instance body lenght 120 - 200cm
length of their intestines, recorded average 1200 cm
so that is 6-10 body length, and given the nature of the dissection (smaller individual) probably closer to 10 times.

I said they are closer to carnivores than herbivores.

and gave no justification for this, merely claimed it without foundation.

I'm comparing omnivores in the context to carnivores and herbivores. I'm aware they can resemble something else different from herbivores if their ancestors weren't herbivores. But the pattern is that they usually resemble carnivores a lot more than herbivores. Please, at least try to understand what I'm reading.

I do, merely restating an argument is not evidence.
you are repeating bullshit from a vegitiarian website without ever checking the facts.
http://www.vegsource.com

Also, I apologize, but for some reason, your quotes in my post disappeared.

then you should cut, copy, and paste.
or better yet preview button, use it.

I just did a three count, match is over. Sociobiology won.

[Nazi Flower Power]

Well no not literally ALL gone, but a new study has shown that in a few decades we'll have to radically alter our diets.

Food shortages could force world into vegetarianism, warn scientists

Water scarcity's effect on food production means radical steps will be needed to feed population expected to reach 9bn by 2050

Leading water scientists have issued one of the sternest warnings yet about global food supplies, saying that the world's population may have to switch almost completely to a vegetarian diet over the next 40 years to avoid catastrophic shortages.

Humans derive about 20% of their protein from animal-based products now, but this may need to drop to just 5% to feed the extra 2 billion people expected to be alive by 2050, according to research by some of the world's leading water scientists.

"There will not be enough water available on current croplands to produce food for the expected 9 billion population in 2050 if we follow current trends and changes towards diets common in western nations," the report by Malik Falkenmark and colleagues at the Stockholm International Water Institute (SIWI) said.

"There will be just enough water if the proportion of animal-based foods is limited to 5% of total calories and considerable regional water deficits can be met by a … reliable system of food trade."

Dire warnings of water scarcity limiting food production come as Oxfam and the UN prepare for a possible second global food crisis in five years. Prices for staples such as corn and wheat have risen nearly 50% on international markets since June, triggered by severe droughts in the US and Russia, and weak monsoon rains in Asia. More than 18 million people are already facing serious food shortages across the Sahel.

Oxfam has forecast that the price spike will have a devastating impact in developing countries that rely heavily on food imports, including parts of Latin America, North Africa and the Middle East. Food shortages in 2008 led to civil unrest in 28 countries.

Adopting a vegetarian diet is one option to increase the amount of water available to grow more food in an increasingly climate-erratic world, the scientists said. Animal protein-rich food consumes five to 10 times more water than a vegetarian diet. One third of the world's arable land is used to grow crops to feed animals. Other options to feed people include eliminating waste and increasing trade between countries in food surplus and those in deficit.

"Nine hundred million people already go hungry and 2 billion people are malnourished in spite of the fact that per capita food production continues to increase," they said. "With 70% of all available water being in agriculture, growing more food to feed an additional 2 billion people by 2050 will place greater pressure on available water and land."

The report is being released at the start of the annual world water conference in Stockholm, Sweden, where 2,500 politicians, UN bodies, non-governmental groups and researchers from 120 countries meet to address global water supply problems.

Competition for water between food production and other uses will intensify pressure on essential resources, the scientists said. "The UN predicts that we must increase food production by 70% by mid-century. This will place additional pressure on our already stressed water resources, at a time when we also need to allocate more water to satisfy global energy demand – which is expected to rise 60% over the coming 30 years – and to generate electricity for the 1.3 billion people currently without it," said the report.

Overeating, undernourishment and waste are all on the rise and increased food production may face future constraints from water scarcity.

"We will need a new recipe to feed the world in the future," said the report's editor, Anders Jägerskog.

A separate report from the International Water Management Institute (IWMI) said the best way for countries to protect millions of farmers from food insecurity in sub-Saharan Africa and south Asia was to help them invest in small pumps and simple technology, rather than to develop expensive, large-scale irrigation projects.

"We've witnessed again and again what happens to the world's poor – the majority of whom depend on agriculture for their livelihoods and already suffer from water scarcity – when they are at the mercy of our fragile global food system," said Dr Colin Chartres, the director general.

"Farmers across the developing world are increasingly relying on and benefiting from small-scale, locally-relevant water solutions. [These] techniques could increase yields up to 300% and add tens of billions of US dollars to household revenues across sub-Saharan Africa and south Asia."

Well.....shit. There goes my Whataburger. I think we need to quadruple the funding into research of Invitro Meat.

People make all kinds of predictions that never come true. 40 years is a long time for people to figure out better ways of managing their farmland and water supply.

[The Stormcloak Rebels]

Summer is over, your bridge should be plenty warm for your hibernation this coming Fall/Winter.

Baseless accusations of trolling, eh?

[Mavorpen]

Summer is over, your bridge should be plenty warm for your hibernation this coming Fall/Winter.

Baseless accusations of trolling, eh?

Obviously you've never been in one of his threads.