Post Reply
Page 1 of 10  •  1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 10 Next
Switch to Forum Live View Don't take a shower if you eat animals
7 years ago  ::  Feb 23, 2008 - 1:44PM #1
SkyWalker53
Posts: 2,235
Then you can save the water you wasted with your faulty diet.

YOU CAN SAVE MORE WATER BY NOT EATING A POUND OF BEEF THAN YOU DO BY NOT SHOWERING FOR AN ENTIRE YEAR.26

Take a shower if you eat vegan.

Between watering the crops that farmed animals eat, providing drinking water for billions of animals each year, and cleaning away the filth in factory farms, transport trucks, and slaughterhouses, the farmed animal industry places a serious strain on our water supply. Nearly half of all the water used in the United States goes to raising animals for food.22

It takes 5,000 gallons of water to produce 1 pound of meat, while growing 1 pound of wheat only requires 25 gallons.23 A totally vegetarian diet requires only 300 gallons of water per day, while a meat-eating diet requires more than 4,000 gallons of water per day.24,25 You save more water by not eating a pound of beef than you do by not showering for an entire year.26

While millions of people across the globe are faced with droughts and water shortages, much of the world's water supply is quietly being diverted to animal agriculture. As the Western diet spreads to the rest of the world, even desert nations in Africa and the Middle East are pouring what little water they have into meat production.

It is clear that raising animals for food puts a tremendous strain on our already limited water supply, and water is used much more efficiently when it goes toward producing crops for human consumption.


Growing all the crops to feed farmed animals requires massive amounts of water and land—in fact, nearly half of the water and 80 percent of the agricultural land in the United States are used to raise animals for food.6,7 Our taste for meat is also taking a toll on our supply of fuel and other nonrenewable resources—about one-third of the raw materials used in America each year is consumed by the farmed animal industry.8

Farmed animals produce about 130 times as much excrement as the entire human population of the United States, and since factory farms don't have sewage treatment systems as our cities and towns do, this concentrated slop ends up polluting our water, destroying our topsoil, and contaminating our air.9 And meat-eaters are responsible for the production of 100 percent of this waste—about 86,000 pounds per second!10 Give up animal products, and you'll be responsible for none of it.

Vast tracts of land are needed to grow crops to feed the billions of animals we raise for food each year. According to scientists at the Smithsonian Institute, the equivalent of seven football fields of land is bulldozed every minute, much of it to create more room for farmed animals. Of all the agricultural land in the U.S., nearly 80 percent is used in some way to raise animals—that's roughly half of the total land mass of the U.S.10 More than 260 million acres of U.S. forest have been cleared to create cropland to grow grain to feed farmed animals.11

The U.S. certainly isn't alone in its misuse of land for animal agriculture. As the world's appetite for meat increases, countries across the globe are bulldozing huge swaths of land to make more room for animals and the crops to feed them. From tropical rain forests in Brazil to ancient pine forests in China, entire ecosystems are being destroyed to fuel our addiction to meat. According to scientists at the Smithsonian Institute, the equivalent of seven football fields of land is bulldozed every minute to create more room for farmed animals.12


6 Robbins, p. 238.
7 Marlow Vesterby and Kenneth Krupa, "Major Uses of Land in the United States, 1997," U.S. Department of Agriculture Statistical Bulletin.
8 Jim Motavalli, "The Case Against Meat," E Magazine, Jan./Feb. 2002.
9 Ayres.
10 Motavalli.
10 Vesterby and Krupa.
11 Earth Talk, "The Environmental Beef With Meat," The Bay Weekly, 6 Jan. 2005.
12 Smithsonian Institution, "Smithsonian Researchers Show Amazonian Deforestation Accelerating," Science Daily Online, 15 Jan. 2002.
22 Robbins, The Food Revolution, p. 238.
23 Robbins, The Food Revolution, p. 236.
24 Robbins, Diet for a New America, p. 367.
25 Frances Moore Lappé, Diet for a Small Planet, Ballantine Books: New York,1982.
26 Robbins, The Food Revolution, p. 236.
Quick Reply
Cancel
7 years ago  ::  Feb 24, 2008 - 5:49AM #2
bluehorserunning
Posts: 1,754
Source no.7 is the only one that looks to be primary; do you have a link so that we can read it for ourseves?

ps you need to also cite the overall source from which you cut-and-pasted the words; cut and pasting the sources of the source dosen't quite suffice.
Quick Reply
Cancel
7 years ago  ::  Feb 24, 2008 - 1:54PM #3
solfeggio
Posts: 9,337
bluehorse -
Instead of just nit-picking about sources, which Sky has clearly given, why don't you comment on the body of the articles she cites?

You (and Paula) are always so quick to disparage in smug, one- or -two-sentence answers, rather than making cogent arguments to support your own theories.

For example, do you agree with Sky's thesis that animal agriculture is one of the major factors behind global warming?  Do you think that, if cattle farming was severely curtailed in the American West, that this would benefit the ground water?

Actually engaging in a discussion would be so much more productive than this never-ending belittling and fault-finding.
Quick Reply
Cancel
7 years ago  ::  Feb 24, 2008 - 2:26PM #4
Gandalf_Parker
Posts: 1,188
It might have carried more weight if it was left as an argument to beef. Beef is the most wasteful of food crops and is fairly likely to be banned or heavily controlled even within my lifetime. Its way over the top when compared to any other food (even for a devout carnivore like me).

To take such reports and make them an argument against eating all animals does not seem to be picking your battles well. IMHO It causes most people to just ignore what could have been a very useful discussion.

Gandalf  Parker
--
Vegan diets work and have zoological support.
Vegetarian diets work and have zoological support.
Carnivore diets are usually done very incorrectly.
Quick Reply
Cancel
7 years ago  ::  Feb 24, 2008 - 1:54PM #5
solfeggio
Posts: 9,337
bluehorse -
Instead of just nit-picking about sources, which Sky has clearly given, why don't you comment on the body of the articles she cites?

You (and Paula) are always so quick to disparage in smug, one- or -two-sentence answers, rather than making cogent arguments to support your own theories.

For example, do you agree with Sky's thesis that animal agriculture is one of the major factors behind global warming?  Do you think that, if cattle farming was severely curtailed in the American West, that this would benefit the ground water?

Actually engaging in a discussion would be so much more productive than this never-ending belittling and fault-finding.
Quick Reply
Cancel
7 years ago  ::  Feb 24, 2008 - 2:26PM #6
Gandalf_Parker
Posts: 1,188
It might have carried more weight if it was left as an argument to beef. Beef is the most wasteful of food crops and is fairly likely to be banned or heavily controlled even within my lifetime. Its way over the top when compared to any other food (even for a devout carnivore like me).

To take such reports and make them an argument against eating all animals does not seem to be picking your battles well. IMHO It causes most people to just ignore what could have been a very useful discussion.

Gandalf  Parker
--
Vegan diets work and have zoological support.
Vegetarian diets work and have zoological support.
Carnivore diets are usually done very incorrectly.
Quick Reply
Cancel
7 years ago  ::  Feb 24, 2008 - 4:01PM #7
DesertKat
Posts: 436
Further, you are ignoring that agroculture and, most specifically, cotton farming is one of the largest wastes of water in the American West.  I have seen fields devistated by cotton all along West Texas and the Permian Basin.  In point of fact, it is agroculture that is causing desertification at an unprecidented rate- not cattle ranches.

Basically, the entire argument is off.
Criticism may not be agreeable, but it is necessary. It fulfils the same function as pain in the human body. It calls attention to an unhealthy state of things.
Winston Churchill
Quick Reply
Cancel
7 years ago  ::  Feb 24, 2008 - 5:48PM #8
SkyWalker53
Posts: 2,235
No the "argument is not off". There is no argument. There are only the facts. BAM. Eating animals is not necessary and is a HUGE waste of water, which is rapidly becoming scarce. Stop eating animals and while you're at it, buy hemp clothes instead of cotton clothes. Better yet, go naked.
Quick Reply
Cancel
7 years ago  ::  Feb 24, 2008 - 8:49PM #9
solfeggio
Posts: 9,337
Gandalf -
You're right about the raising of cattle being incredibly wasteful, although I'm not sure that the cattle barons believe that or, even if they do, are going to curtail their empires any time soon.  The masses are too much in love with their hamburgers, steaks, and roasts to give them up willingly even if continuing to consume them means destroying the environment.  And the cattle-raisers can get too much profit off their exploitation of innocent creatures to want to stop for any reason.

Many different topics are discussed here, but it is an animal rights forum, after all, so you are going to find at least a few - very few, as it happens - people who are committed to certain principles, the most important being the immorality of exploiting and abusing our fellow animals for any reason.

Because of our principles, we cannot simply say: 'don't eat cow corpses,' so as not to annoy the people who eat chicken or lamb or pork.  As far as we're concerned, the whole idea that other species are here for us to use is completely fallacious.
Quick Reply
Cancel
7 years ago  ::  Feb 25, 2008 - 3:27PM #10
becca97
Posts: 2,562
BHR ~ there are other sources AW sources for this type of info here are some PDF's from CIWF:-

http://www.ciwf.org.uk/globalwarning/global-warning.pdf

http://www.ciwf.org.uk/publications/rep … s_Meat.pdf

have only skimmed these article recently (v busy with home office (gov) studies and they are so time consuming havn't time or energy to trawl through more pdfs at length) but if i recall CIWF aside from conducting their own primary research also link to other sources often in their studies and sites.
Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 1 of 10  •  1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 10 Next
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook