I tend to believe that any absolute answer that is declared an end all answer
is probably not the answer. For example, I'm not convinced that everyone
jumping into a vegetarian diet is going to suddenly or even slowly
save the world.
Especially, considering that some of these stats are based on unrealistic
estimates.
For example, suggesting that x acres of corn would feed x number of cows and
that would feed x number of people whereas the x acres of corn would feed way
more people is flawed. Humans cannot survive on a corn diet. Even if
we expanded
this to grains and soybeans, humans cannot survive on a corn-soybean diet.
Why? because vegetables in general are low in two or three essential
amino acids
that humans must get in their diet. those amino acids are produced by animals
and so you must ultimately get them from animals or artificially
produced products.
Furthermore, even if the plant has x amount of lysine for example, the
amount in
the plant is not completely biologically available to the human
because we simply
do not have the enzymes for breaking these products down.
Also, outside of feedlots where high-concentrate diets are fed, if you look at
grass fed cattle/sheep/goats you are going to find that these animals
are raised
on lands that are not very suitable for food crop production AND that much of
what they are fed is not human food but rather grasses. However, most
beef is fed out in feedlots and relatively little is raised on grass.
Sheep and
goats, however, are virtually entirely fed using areas that would not be used
for any kind of crop farming.
Now, growing row crops such as corn and soybeans is not a one-to-one conversion
to growing horticultural food crops. Horticultural food crops require
more intensive
care in order for them to have shelf life and for other technical
reasons. The seeds
are planted further apart, the rows further apart and the necessary
irrigation and
pest control much more extreme than row crops. Other crops such as fruits
waste tons of land in comparison. It takes a good 5 years before a fruit tree
reaches maturity (semi dwarf) and closer to two years for a dwarf. Again,
high use of pesticides is the norm. And what about nuts? Aren't
these one of the
wonder foods that will supplant meat in our diet??? Well, a pecan tree takes a
good 15-30 years to reach maturity depending on the hybrid!!!! now that tree
will produce for a good long time, but do you really think a pecan orchard is
all that productive?
Overall, we would do well to lower our meat intake for both environmental and
health reasons. However, if we wanted to really do this right, we
would all buy
a goat for milk, have it eat our grass and weeds for milk, then eat the kids.
In fact, goat meat is much more in line with human nutrition than lamb and lamb
more in line than beef or pork.
My wife and I have our own flock of chickens we use for eggs. We raise a
couple of pigs each year, and do raise a few meat goats each year. I still
like to eat a nice juicy steak once in a while. We raise most of our vegetables
from the garden, although the weather in East Texas has been anti-garden for
three years strait...luckily, we put away a lot three years ago.
I don't know if what I am doing is making any great contribution to the earth's
environment. I certainly can't say that I'm setting some great example, as
who the heck sees what I'm doing anyway? However, I have always had this
idea that pseudohomesteading (my term I invented comparing what we do to the
movement from the 1970s) would be fun. So, we are doing it because we
like to live this
way. If it wasn't for a pile of student loans and medical bills, I
might just go off the
grid and give the world the proverbial phalange, except for the
occassional journal
article I publish, letter to the editor, and maybe even a listserv
post if I kept the
internet for contact with the real world. I also enjoy watching TV,
so it can't go
either. And then there is central air and heat. Oh, and running water. Radio,
music, damn....I'm back on the grid and almost hit yupeeville :(
If everyone pics ONE CAUSE and stuck with it, the world would be a better place.
If your cause is recycling, and you do it religiously, and a bunch of
other people also do it,
it will have an impact.
But the real problem is that there are a lot of people who do
absolutely nothing, have
absolutely no interest in the health of the environment, and a mess of
people who are
actually at war with environmental causes. If even most people tried
to do something,
I think you would see an environmental revolution. Unfortunately, most people
are consumed by other things and even if they are concerned about the
environment,
they really are not engaged in anything of environmental importance.
How's that for a completely bleak outlook.
Ask me tomorrow and I may have a more positive slant!
On Tue, Sep 8, 2009 at 9:50 PM, Kevin McCluney<kevin.mcclu...@asu.edu> wrote:
> I recently attended the 2009 annual meeting of the Ecological Society of
> America (ESA). The theme of this year’s meeting was sustainability. There
> were many great talks on this subject and a few truly pessimistic ones. One
> speaker proposed that human beings are, by our very nature, destined to
> consume and reproduce as much as possible, and despite our best efforts,
> this will lead to our own demise. During the same talk the speaker also
> asked, “who is responsible?” He answered his question by saying that we at
> this conference are just as much a part of the problem as anyone else.
>
> Is this true? I know I myself have taken many steps to lower my footprint
> and many other ecologists have as well.
>
> For instance, at last year’s ESA meeting in Milwaukee there was an
> interesting occurrence at local restaurants. The first night of the
> conference I had a really good veggie burger at one restaurant. I went back
> later in the week for another. The waitress apologized… they were all out.
> She went on to explain that the manager had heard our conference was coming
> to town, so bought extra ahead of time, but ran out of those quickly anyway.
> The manager then went to the local grocery store and bought more. But alas,
> by the time I returned, they had run out of those as well. Further, when I
> dine with friends at ESA meetings, I often find that more than half the
> table orders vegetarian entrees.
>
> Why does eating vegetarian matter so much? Modern, industrialized livestock
> production is one of the more environmentally destructive human endeavors.
> It contributes roughly one fifth of all our greenhouse gas emissions, more
> than all cars, and these gases are major contributors to the rapid climate
> change we’re experiencing. Livestock production also may, in certain cases,
> be leading to deforestation and destruction of important ecosystems, as well
> as to pollution of rivers, lakes, and even oceans. In addition, we all know
> that basic ecological principles hold that it takes less resources to raise
> plant based food sources than meat based, since energy is lost as you move
> up the food chain. Thus we can feed more people and use fewer resources on
> a plant-based diet. All this caused the chairman of the Intergovernmental
> Panel on Climate Change recently to proclaim that the best thing a person
> could do to reduce their impact on climate change was to eat a more plant-
> based diet.
>
> My wife and I haven’t stopped at eating low on the food chain. We’ve also
> joined community supported agriculture, where we buy a share of produce from
> a local farm. The farmer gets upfront economic security and we get very
> affordable, local, fresh organic produce. We pay just $18 per week for a
> large bag of food. At this price we can afford to supplement our diet with
> additional organic items from the grocery store.
>
> We’ve also taken a variety of other steps, from riding my bike to work, to
> offsetting car and air travel through renewable energy from an independently
> certified company, to buying 100% of our electricity from renewable sources
> through our local utility for as little as $15 per month.
>
> While we may not be reaching the small ecological footprint of those in many
> third world countries, we’ve done our best to come in line with our planet’s
> limits while maintaining a decent quality of life.
>
> So, are ecologists just as much a part of the problem as everyone else? Are
> all ecologists the same? What are the variety of lifestyle choices made by
> ecologists? Not only would the answers to these questions provide a
> response to the ESA presenter, but I think the answer would be interesting
> to a wide audience. I propose that ESA conduct a poll of members, asking
> questions about lifestyle choices and demographics, comparing ours to that
> of the general public. If we are not different, this would be a bit of a
> wake-up call. However, if we are different, then perhaps some of our
> lifestyle choices would be informative to understanding how to achieve a
> more sustainable society.
>
> If there is one thing I learned from a cultural anthropology course I once
> took, it was that there isn’t just one right way to live. Human cultures
> throughout the world are very diverse. But, from the inside of one culture
> it is often very hard to see other ways to live. Let us not be trapped in
> our culture, but seek a better understanding of all the ways of living, so
> that we might find a more sustainable path.
>
> --
> Kevin E. McCluney
> Graduate Student
> School of Life Sciences
> Arizona State University
> Tempe, AZ 85287-4601
>
--
Malcolm L. McCallum
Associate Professor of Biology
Managing Editor,
Herpetological Conservation and Biology
Texas A&M University-Texarkana
Fall Teaching Schedule:
Vertebrate Biology - TR 10-11:40; General Ecology - MW 1-2:40pm;
Forensic Science - W 6-9:40pm
Office Hourse- TBA
1880's: "There's lots of good fish in the sea" W.S. Gilbert
1990's: Many fish stocks depleted due to overfishing, habitat loss,
and pollution.
2000: Marine reserves, ecosystem restoration, and pollution reduction
MAY help restore populations.
2022: Soylent Green is People!
Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message, including any
attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may
contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized
review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not
the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and
destroy all copies of the original message.
