Meat-Eaters Soak Up the World's Water

[G_j]

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0823-02.htm

Published on Monday, August 23, 2004 by the Guardian/UK

Meat-Eaters Soak Up the World's Water
A change in diets may be necessary to enable developing countries to feed their people, say scientists

by John Vidal

Governments may have to persuade people to eat less meat because of increasing demands on water supplies, according to agricultural scientists investigating how the world can best feed itself.

They say countries with little water may choose not to grow crops but trade in "virtual water", importing food from countries which have large amounts of water to save their supplies for domestic or high-value uses.

Research suggests that up to 24% more water will be needed to grow the world's food in 20 years, but many of the fastest-growing countries are unable to devote more water to agriculture without sacrificing ecosystems which may be important for providing water or fish.

With about 840 million people in the world undernourished, and a further 2 billion expected to be born within 20 years, finding water to grow food will be one of the greatest challenges facing governments.

Currently up to 90% of all managed water is used to grow food.


..more..

[leesa]

1. We've known this for decades and yet Yanks are as opposed to

vegetarianism as they ever have been. I am always looked at with pity when I say I am a vegetarian.

[DemBones DemBones]

2. That seems unlikely since there are so many

vegetarians today. I'm not vegetarian now but my daughter is vegan and that's made me notice the trend. She was just commenting recently about how much easier it is to buy food now, with Burger King even selling veggie burgers.

[sadiesworld]

4. Americans eat too much meat...

I'm guilty. OTOH, I don't think being a vegetarian works for everyone. I know a few people who have tried and they were sick on an almost constant basis-they would catch every bug going around and keep it.

[G_j]

7. Throwing a huge slab

of meat on the plate seems pretty American.
Some cultures are a little more sparing at least.
If nothing else, moderation can go a long way.

[sadiesworld]

8. Glad you understood my point.

[RivetJoint]

9. Ever live in Germany???

Meat, meat, meat. Those people can eat some meat.

[Kellanved]

19. Not really

AFAIK German per-capita meat consumption (about 90kg) is in the lower end of the EU countries and far below the US's 120+kg.

[RivetJoint]

21. Not in

Bavaria and Baden-Wurtenberg

[ret5hd]

28. data and/or links? (nt)

[RivetJoint]

34. Personal

observation of Scwabians and Bavarians ingesting LARGE quantities of meat. Different than up north were they eat more seafood.

[NervousRex]

51. Bullshit!

Travel much?....go to Britain or Germany. Americans eat a lot of meat, but where did they get that cuisine from?...think about it.

[flvegan]

73. Said what?

Who cares where it came from. PEOPLE eat too much meat. Regardless of where they are, came from, or live.

Eating meat is bullshit. Literally. Most meat you buy in the store is contaminated with animal feces. Your burger is a shitburger. Yummmy! Eat it up.

Sure, cooking meat kills e.coli, but it's still shit.

Enjoy...

[Name removed]

76. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

81. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[muriel_volestrangler]

85. Meat consumption per capita 1998

http://earthtrends.wri.org/text/agriculture-food/variable-193.html

USA: 122kg
Germany: 86.9kg
UK: 75.8kg

[sweetheart]

3. Meat producers soak up the world's water

If meat was expensive and hard to come by, people would eat something
else. The presumption that the average american denied a burger
would go out, buy a cow and kill it, is a slim one. Likely they'd
just continue down the street looking for a good meal.

Water is a scarce resource, and the food producers should be paying
for it at equal prices to the retail water consumer. That would
quickly use the forces of free markets to correct this dangerous
distortion.

As it stands, the taxpayer is giving corporate welfare to such
producers though massive water subsidy. Geesh, the welfare
corporations in america are every bit as ugly as the stereotypes
the pukes like to spread about "urban welfare mums". In fact, those
mums are hard working real people, and these corporattions are
creating a global-scale disaster with their malfesiance.

[sybylla]

6. "Massive water subsidies" - only true in some states

Many states in the Midwest have plenty of water to sustain humans and agriculture. The only way California even came close to challenging Wisconsin as top dairy producer is through water subsidies. You can't raise cows on corporate farms in semi-arid regions without a steady water supply.

I agree, food producers should be paying for the water they consume in production. It will force producers back into the regions where their crops and cattle will most naturally survive. It will be good for the environment and healthier for people, provided they can still afford to eat.

[G_j]

12. right

subsidies and corporate welfare make meat 'cheap'.
Besides water, there are plenty of other costs too, such as the fossil fuels needed to transport feed, livestock etc.
If consumers payed the actual 'cost' there would be a lot less meat in people's diets I'm sure.

[SoCalDem]

15. The waste that the "meat producers" generate is polluting

water tables everywhere...:(

[lanparty]

57. Unlike grain ...

Cattle actually walk part of the way to the slaughterhouse.

Are you telling me that grain and vegetable levitate themselves onto the kitchen table all by themselves?????? Are you mad?????

[Robb]

5. This comes up in the West all the time...

Or as we say out here, all politics is about water.

The pound of lettuce takes something absurd like one one-hundredth the amount of water to produce as the pound of beef. But as long as subsidies keep beef more profitable, that's what's gonna get the water.

Again, this is the problem with a market economy. It may do a lot of clever things, but it can't be counted on to do the right thing.

[muriel_volestrangler]

22. Figures from the article:

"On average, it takes 1,790 liters of water to grow 1kg of wheat compared with 9,680 liters of water for 1kg of beef."

It's better to compare wheat as well, since it has more protein and carbohydrate than lettuce.

[lanparty]

46. Cows consume more water ...

... than they piss and shit it out. The water is returned to the envrionment, the circle continues.

This argument is utterly ridiculous. I DARE you to convince camel and ostrich herders that growing lettuce takes less water than tending their flocks of animals.

[sweetheart]

54. You should visit some desert cattle ranches

There is one about an hour south of san jose on route 5 in the
central valley of california that stinks soooo bad, that ya have
to roll up your windows for half an hour... near kettleman if memory
serves... like 10000, cows in a desert-like climate where they would
never survive naturally. The "cycle" as you put it, does not have
the rains and runoff to clean up the toxic stench, so it just festers. If that smell don't turn you off to beef, i don't know
what will.

I've seen similar near phoenix in arizona, with a similar stench
and toxic dump effect. Perhaps you speak of more midwestern or
eastern climates where the biosystem can handle the toxiciity of
the outputs... but your parochial recycling of water theory
could use some brushing up to be realisic given the climates
and scales of some of these operations.

[lanparty]

55. You're right ...

I wasn't referring to raising cattle in the middle of the fucking desert. Of course, the cost of that beef should reflect the higher cost of water in an arid region.

Finally, it was a desert when it started. It's STILL a desert. I realize that deserts have their own unique sub-terranian ecologies. But there really isn't that much life there to begin with.

As people continue to move west water will become more and more expensive there. Us midwesterners will make a killing selling water from the great lakes to western regions at outrageous profits.

Yeah we have winter here. And we like it that way.

[TheRovingGourmet]

90. Raise ostriches. Better meat, less resources.

[lanparty]

58. If I was stuck in the wilderness ...

... I would rather have a pound of beef than a pound of lettuce. The beef actually has some nutrition in it. The lettuce will go right through you.

OF COURSE A HIGHER NUTRITION FOOD SOURCE WILL REQUIRE MORE RESOURCES TO PRODUCE!!!!!!

Say all you want about meat consumption. Those fucking old Indians chiefs lived over a hundred years. And the bulk of their diet consisted of Buffalo. I'm 100% certain that lifespan has more to do with LIFESTYLE than diet.

[flvegan]

63. Yes, factory farmed buffalo

Wild animals, hunted in the wild (as your reference to the longevity of Indians) certainly would be a grand source of protein, etc. I don't think those elders got their buffalo from factory farms, cranking out animals chock full of disease, eating their own kind (cannibalism), shot full of antibiotics and steroids. Yum.

Was there a "mad buffalo" disease? Probably not.

[lanparty]

94. I'd rather had a pound of steroid packed factory beef ....

... in the wilderness than a point of lettuce.

The point is that creating a higher energy content food takes more energy. DUHHHH. The comparison to growing a pound of lettuce is a red herring.

[Nimrod]

10. Proud member of PETA

People for the Eating of Tasty Animals.

Let the flaming by vegans begin. :)

[RebelOne]

11. Well, I'm a proud vegetarian.

[stavka]

13. Do you have something against plants?

I mean eating them, how cruel? ;)

[DenverDem]

17. Typical.

The point of the thread is the unsustainable use of resources that is required to produce meat.

The ethical implications that you attempt to ridicule are real, but not the point here.

[stavka]

29. I'm from Michigan

It's difficult to imagine a shortage of water that is not well beyond my lifetime - and even if there is, it may turn the great lakes states (and Canada) into the OPEC of H2O.

Blue Gold, Wisconsin Wine...

Typically, I do ridicule everything - so I won't argue that point.

[DenverDem]

33. You need to do some research on water issues.

Indeed, Great Lakes water will be very valuable.

[rniel]

41. how about P.E.T.P

People for the Ethical Treatment of Plants. How can anyone eat brocolli after looking into their sad eyes as you put them into boiling water.

[DenverDem]

14. Your screen name is correct, at least.

Come on into the twenty first century.

[TowelBoy]

70. Hahahaha

Amen, brother

[LWolf]

16. Did you ever notice the elephant in this closet?

We talk about diminishing resources, and the need to change what we do to get more out of those resources; space, water, etc. Eating less meat is a good way to do that, as long as you are not dependent on corporate owned GM crops to do so.

But why is the root of the issue never addressed? When will human overpopulation ever be brought out of the closet and acknowledged as the prime source of many of our problems? Why not discuss the optimum number of humans the planet can support without further destruction of habitats and the environment?

[slackmaster]

18. Thank you for saying it

Eating less meat or less food without addressing overpopulation only pushes the population bomb's detonation a little farther into the future.

:toast:

[bryant69]

23. What's that old line from Pogo

"I notice most of the people who complain about overpopulation wait until they've been born to start complaining."

Something will have to be done; but all the solutions are pretty hard to impose.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[LWolf]

26. They are hard to impose, but they are pretty simple.

1. Legitimize not having children as a valid choice in life; do away with the cultural indoctrination that life without kids is somehow incomplete, etc.

2. Through education and incentive, not mandate, limit # of kids for people who want them to 2.

I'm not comfortable with legislation/government mandating reproductive numbers, one way or the other. I think coming generations won't have a choice, if we don't make some responsible choices now. I'd prefer massive education programs and financial/material incentives.

[Pithlet]

35. World overpopulation

has very little to do with number 1. I don't think that people in nations where birth control options are almost non-existent worry about offending people if they don't have children. And I don't think that removing any social taboos about being child free will do a whole lot, either.

In fact, people talk about cultural indoctrination making people have kids, but never bring up how society makes it very tough to have and raise children, unless you're rich. If there is so much pressure to have children, and if people who don't have them are so looked down upon, then why do we have such a huge problem with childhood poverty, even in a rich country like the US? Honestly, I was child free by choice for most of my adult life, and for a time didn't plan on ever having them, and I don't remember this pressure that some who are child free talk about. If anything, I looked at people who had kids and wondered how they did it. Now that I'm a parent, I'm not lauded and worshiped. No one ever tells me "You had kids! Good for you!" I'm just another parent who's kids annoy everyone who doesn't have kids.

[A_Possum]

44. I don't agree with your first point

People in nations where birth-control options are almost non-existent are generally places where a woman who has no children is considered less than dirt. Usually there is a societal mechanism to divorce her or put her aside in some way for a "fertile" woman. And in the same kinds of societies, she then has no support, financial or otherwise. So it's almost a death sentence to be infertile.

[LWolf]

45. I live in a pretty hard-core

conservative area. I've lived here since 1980. My local paper, several times a year, is inundated with LTEs concerning population growth. The basic premise in these letters is this:

1. Population growth is good, because growth sustains the economy and because god said, "Go forth and multiply."

2. People who choose not to have children are selfish and self-centered. They don't share our "family values."

The local conservative columnists who grace the editorial pages, when they deign to discuss world population, support these assertions.

Of course, there's a whole world beyond this community; it's one more reason to be concerned with our nation's drift to the right.

I'm the only child of a single working mom; a latch-key kid before the phrase was coined. I have 2 grown children; I raised them mostly on my own. I'm well aware of how hard it is to raise kids in this society. I've made a career out of spending time with everyone else's kids; I'm an elementary school teacher. In a public school, I get to see American diversity close up. I see the priveleged and the underpriveleged. I work with great parents who are working long hours and struggling to provide, and with parents who keep having kids but can't be bothered to interact with them. It's not about restricting who can have kids, imo, but about encouraging families to choose, emphasis on choice, to have fewer babies.

I think, just my pov, that we have high rates of children living in poverty because our society/culture reflects the conservative/republican pattern of being "pro-life" until birth, and then we're on our own. Quantity over quality.

I choose quality over quantity.

[lanparty]

60. Actually, our population seems to be stabilizing ...

... it's all the immigrants that keep the growth numbers up.

More developed countries have a pattern of lower reproduction numbers. And thats GREAT!!!!!

If we can limit our imigration numbers (by actually GUARDING the border) we can forestall our country becoming like China and India.

[flvegan]

20. More info

Here's a link to a good article in the same tone:
http://www.vegsource.com/articles2/water_stockholm.htm

I don't mean to dis anyone, but the simple fact is that eating meat is selfish. Being vegan is easy, though it is a huge change, and a change not easily made without some help. Eating meat leads to environmental devastation, waste, starvation and animal cruelty. The human body doesn't NEED meat (or dairy or eggs for that matter), so the only reason folks eat it, outside of the errant belief that's necessary, is "because it tastes good" which is selfish.

And yes, I'm a vegan (as vegan as possible, considering my car and bike tires have cow parts in them, etc).

Only my second post, and I'm probably not getting off to a good start with most folks.

[sybylla]

38. Nope. Not the best foot.

Though it may make you feel better about your choice to go vegan, calling names and labeling will do nothing to fix problems. Does calling pro-choicers selfish change their minds? Neither will calling your average Joe and Jane selfish for eating meat. I suggest we focus on the issues and how best to solve our problems instead.

Eating meat is a way of life. Most people won't try living differently until they've made their mind up to change. For every person the motivations to change will be different: economics, health, environment, ease of access, etc. But I guarantee, being called selfish isn't likely to appear on the list.

[flvegan]

59. Still

By definition of the word "selfish" what I said is true. Someone's reaction or perception of my intent really isn't under my control, but under theirs. I don't recall calling anyone a name or applying any label. I never said, "you meat eaters suck because you're selfish." now did I? I simply stated that eating meat (when one knows the issues at hand) is a selfish act.

It has nothing to do with making myself feel better. I don't need forum posting to make myself feel one way or another.

Pro-choice v. meat eating seems apples v. oranges, and I'm not understanding your comparison. Seems one is factually based, and one based on personal belief.

Eating meat IS a way of life, true and unfortunate. I didn't call anyone selfish to change their mind. I simply made a statement that was factual, offering a different aspect as to considering choices and the impact one makes.

Everyone commits actions that are selfish, myself included, as nobody is perfect...

[sybylla]

93. True

It is your opinion that eating meat is selfish. And it is true that most meat eaters will view your opinion as offensive. And it is true that everyone commits actions that are selfish, including you.

But how many "meateaters" will be willing to work with you to solve the problems they "foist on the world" once you have espoused your opinion. Your attitude closes debate and turns people away from any benefit your subsequent edification may have had.

PETA does it, Pro-Lifers do it (see example in previous post), many organizations who take a side in a particular battle take a stand that puts off any opportunity for debate and discussion. Rather than address issues in a manner that produces solutions and compromises, drawing sharp lines in the sand and implying you're with us or agin us postpones and perhaps eliminates any reasonable solution.

Divisiveness gets us nowhere in the debate - unless that's precisely where you want it to go. :shrug:

[John_Shadows_1]

24. 80% of grain grown in U.s. ....

... goes to feed cows. It's ridiculous. And it takes petroleum-based fertilizer to grow that grain, so we get pushed closer not only to water shortages but Peak Oil.

My New Year's resolution was to quit eating beef - it's been eight months, and I've still got a pretty good bench press.

Do the right thing, give up beef, and pass the word!

[sybylla]

42. Link, please

Last I knew an exceedingly large percentage of the grain grown in the U.S. was shipped overseas.

I'd like to see a link to an independent source for your statistic.

[lanparty]

47. Cows eat grain ...

... and shit most of it out. The shit is used to fertilize fields to produce more grain. The circle of life continues.

Honestly, you Vegan folks are a little nutty in my opinion. You have no scope of the practicalities you are talking about.

[dpibel]

83. And that is why fertilizer manufacturers go broke

If you think that American agriculture is based on recycled cowshit, I suggest you do a little research.

The amber waves of grain are fertilized with nitrate fertlizers, and they're not made out of cowshit. They are, in fact, made of methane (natural gas), increasing the pressure on the hydrocarbon supply.

Your earlier post on the amazing wonders of the hydrological cycle is similarly well-informed, although I suppose it's possible you know a great deal more about the available supply of fresh water than people who make a career of knowing about it.

[Nadienne]

25. I rarely buy meat in a grocery store.

But that's because I have plenty of deer meat in the freezer...

[Gothic Sponge]

27. Vegetarian here for 17 years.

Doing my part to save the water! ;)

[Cat Atomic]

30. Someone tell me why this is a problem.

Seriously, no offense meant- I'm curious.

The water isn't going anywhere. Whether cows drink it or not, the water goes back into the system. Every drop of water is recycled water. It's probably been in all sorts of life at one point or another.

If it's a question of water management, then I still don't see it. It'd be an issue for areas experiencing a drought, certainly, but it's not like we ship tankers around the world carrying water.

So anyway, I assume there's a more nuanced explanation that I'm missing, so I'd appreciate a little illumination. What's the real impact?

[muriel_volestrangler]

37. Diverting the water can destroy habitats

Take the Yellow River in China:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3937403.stm

For more than 200 days of the year this once mighty river no longer makes it to the sea.

It's like the Rhine petering out in central Germany, or the Nile drying up in northern Sudan.

Why? In large part humans are to blame, in particular China's communist rulers, who have long believed nature should be bent to man's will.

The river has been overused and abused. Dozens of dams block its flow, drawing off huge quantities of water to grow cotton in the desert.

If water is drawn from a river further up, and sent into the fields, it decreases the amount in the river. In the fields, much of it evaporates (or goes through the plants - they lose moisture through their leaves while giving out oxygen) into the atmosphere, and so never makes it back to the river.

If people take water from wells at a faster rate than the rainfall replenishes the groundwater, the water table will go down, again affecting rivers that come from the area. Overuse also means there won't be enough for human use (drinking, washing, industry, flushing toilets, etc.) left in the rivers or wells.

[lanparty]

49. Billions served in China ...

... by their water supply.

This is an issue of human overpopulation. Water use per cow pales in comparison to water use by people.

The solution is:
1) Less people (through reduced breeding of course).
2) More intesive water conservation and recycling. Use of grey water systems.

Seriously, don't try to take meat out the hands of carnivores. You'll get your hand bitten EVERY time.

And finally, you're precious grains are proving to be not so great for human beings as well. High concentrations of carbohydrates in diets are turning out to be a poor substitute for humans who have evolved as meat eaters.

[htuttle]

50. It's FRESH water that's getting scarce

There's not a lot you can do with salty ocean water that doesn't take a whole lot of energy to do it (such as desalinization).

There's only so much fresh water at any given time, and it has been decreasing due to changes in climate. Worse, though, is that there is much more demand for fresh water than there used to be.

[Kanary]

31. Well, I guess I should just kill myself now, and save the world.

I'm surprised, G_j, that you are posting something that is so inflammatory.

Kanary

[G_j]

36. the vegetarian discussion can get

dumb and silly here. I thought the article compelling. All someone has to do is think about it, of course raising meat takes a tremendous amount of water resourses. This fits into the overall need for sustainability.

[Kanary]

67. I'm sick and tired of guilt..... it's more than silly, it's destructive

That's why I said what I did, and I meant it... if it's too much trouble for me to live on this planet, then I'll get off.

Y'know, if there was even a smidgeon of care given to each other, and some support, it wouldn't be so bad, but after time, one starts to notice that the bulk of what is said here is negative, negative, negative. It's like it's impossible to ever do anything right.

So, we can all beat each other over the head and do the guilt stuff about having the gall to actually NEED anything to live, or we can FINALLY start to take it seriously that MAYBE we should do something about the population problem.

?????

Kanary

[alarimer]

32. probably depends on the kind of meat

For large cattle operations, this is probably true. But what if we ate buffalo for example. It probably requires less water to raise bison (I am talking about American Bison here not water buffalo which I know nothing about) because they are native to very dry areas in the west. Just a thought. And probably they are better for you too.

[natrat]

39. how can you have any pudding

if you dont eat your meat
ya cant have any pudding...


pink floyd

[sybylla]

40. We'd also get a two-fer with dairy cattle

Milk, cheese, other dairy products, and then beef, leather, and other byproducts.

[flvegan]

61. And veal!

The nasty by-product of the dairy industry. You know about veal crates, right?

Raping a cow via machine is okay too, right? I mean, they really need to keep cranking that milk out. They're "just" animals, though...

[liontamer]

43. Of course this only applies to farming practices

It's not eating meat that's the problem,it's the way corporate farming works. Agriculture could be modified to make it more environmentally sound, it's just less profitable to do so.

[htuttle]

48. Earth-safe agriculture produces less food than petro-agriculture

But it's able to do so for an almost unlimited amount of time, as opposed to post 'green revolution' farming which will burn out the land rather quickly (hence the need to continually add chemicals).

So we'd still be back to less meat, more vegetables and grains.

I think it's quite possible to change your diet to contain less meat, but not feel like your 'deprived' somehow. Try skipping red meat, and stick to poultry. And don't eat JUST meat. Treat it as an expensive 'extra' -- since ecologically speaking, it is. If you only buy organic, free-range meats, it WILL become an expensive extra (but it tastes so much better than the factory stuff, it's worth it to have less of it).

[alarimer]

53. So many problems

With large animal feeding operations. For starters what do you do with all the manure?? The air quality in and around those places is horrendous too. Their waste pollutes streams and rivers. It is not just the water issue, although water quality and quantity is a mjor issue.

[Deja Q]

52. How about better birth control?!

In every country?

With peak oil coming, the short term problem isn't as much water as it is the ability to keep human population alive. In short, we can't. 840 million now is bad enough...

Everything's a problem, but birth control is the first solution. I'm sorry if people have a problem with that, but it is a mere start to a dire situation we never needed to put the world society into in the first place.

[lanparty]

56. I try to point this out to ...

... my ultra-liberal colleagues here that got all upset because of the Bruhaha over the Sierra club and illegal immigration. I'm AMAZED they don't see the correlation between increased population and increased demands upon the environment.

We as a species need to learn to limit our own numbers. Otherwise, we will overwhelm the planets ability to sustain us and we WILL see a cataclysim of starvation that will rival the death rate of the great plagues.

[stavka]

62. The people you need to reach (the poor) are the poorest listeners

We aren't being overbred by Middleclass, Western leftists - or Westernized Japan and Communist China.

Where is a good James Bond plot when you need one? (Younger readers, insert Rainbow Six where I said James Bond)

[Kanary]

78. Did you read the thread on Social Security?

There was a post about societies that provide care for their elderly show corresponding declines in population.

Or....... you could continue to show your bias against poor folk.

:shrug:

Kanary

[liontamer]

64. the sad thing is

I don't think even the number of people is the problem. I think it's the way we distribute resources. I honestly think that the earth can support far many people than currently exist. People who are starving are usually starving as a result of politics and big business.

[diablerie]

65. You can have my steak...

..When you pry it from my cold, dead fingers.:wow:

[Jose Diablo]

66. Meat eaters?

This phrase sounds like its on par with "Breeders".

Get a life.

[natrat]

69. if you had to butcher that cow

for that nasty cheeseburger you might think twice--meat is *ucking gross

[TowelBoy]

71. Where's the cleaver?

:D

Sorry, that was probably rude...

[flvegan]

72. Big talk

Typical...

If you actually had to do it, you'd pussy out. Once you spent a moment with that animal, you'd realize it'd be like clipping your own dog.

Yeah, where's the cleaver. Big talk for a little person.

AND, even if you could summon the nutsack to do it, you'd be violently affected by it.

[The Straight Story]

75. Fishing and eating the catch

Something I have done many times in my life. I could do the same with a cow, deer, etc.

Not everyone attaches emotional aspects to such an act. My dad used to have chickens when he was a kid, they killed them and ate them all the time. It is a big deal to some because they transfer emotions into the whole act. Not saying this is all bad, or wrong, just making an observation.

One man's morals is another man's cage. If you feel something is wrong, don't do it. If you think your way is right, by all means go door to door on a bike and try to convert people to the real way, the best way, etc. Just don't be surprised if they don't see things the same way.

We are all free to preach our message and convert those who are savages, uneducated, or uninformed as to our ideals. Much like those who berate christians for their end of the world preaching (Jesus is coming soon and so forth) I think many have been hardened to the message of doom and gloom so often predicted again and again - massive water shortages, over population, and so forth. People have heard it before, not seen it happen, and now they see the message as bunk. A christian view on this (which one can transfer to other items already mentioned) is that the end gets closer each day and the signs will get closer together (ie, they are there in each generation, just increasing in frequency and effect the next generation). So we could borrow from that and say, ok well the bad things did not happen in a big scale, but they did on a little one and are only getting worse.

Of course, some day the sun will go away too. Or a meteorite will hit. Or a nuclear war, or maybe a bad virus or bio weapon will get loose. People have lots of things to worry about and maybe some won't see the urgency in eating veggies to save some water (of course, if the animal population skyrockets they will be drinking a lot more than they are now maybe too).

At any rate, don't take me overly serious, just ranting at midnight :)

[Morning Dew]

77. I'm doing my part

I'm doing my part to keep those animals from drinking all the water - I'm eating them, one at a time.

Seriously, I catch and clean fish and I've slaughtered chickens. I could do a cow or pig if need be... show or tell me how and I could do it.

No problem with people who choose not to eat meat, but if they want to preach to me about it, they'd better not be driving around with leather upholstery.

[NickB79]

82. I grew up on a farm

I helped my dad raise literally thousands of animals from birth to sale with the knowledge they were to be slaughtered. We also slaughtered several hogs, cattle, and chickens annually for our own usage. I've had no problems butchering chickens, or shooting pigs and cattle to put them down before the men from the creamery butcher them right there.

The result? I am probably as well-rounded a person as you could find. I am very non-violent (to the point I've never so much as punched anyone in my life), I have a loving relationship with my girlfriend, I love pets, I have a college degree, and I'm a staunch Democrat. I still help my family on the farm as well. Hardly "violently affected", in my book.

Honestly, you'd think that if doing these things created monsters of people, we'd never have made it out of the 19th and early 20th century, when the majority of people in this country grew up in rural areas, slaughtering animals themselves. Instead, we see these people referred to as the "Greatest Generation."

[Jose Diablo]

86. Pussy out?

This term, like "meat-eaters" and "breeders", is extremely offensive.

The first implies weakness of will and not unlike part of the female genitalia. I assure you, women are far from weak willed. Why don't you try squeezing a good size grapefruit out of something the size your rectum, then come back and discuss the weakness of female genitalia. But then again, maybe you have a huge rectum.

The second term, meat-eaters, implies something like being carnivorous is wrong. It is neither wrong or unethical. What is wrong is treating animals without respect, like breeding chickens in a 6 inch cage their entire lives, injecting them with estrogen to make them grow faster and slaughtering them without the chicken ever having left the cage, see sunlight or feel rain. The treatment of animals is what is important, ethically. Killing them for food and eating them, if done humanly, is not unethical.

The third term, "breeder", attempts to treat someone that produces children with contempt. In this respect it is much like the term "meat-eater or pussy". All of which I find offensive.

As for myself ever having slaughtered animals for their meat, I have done so, many many times. I assure you I did not find any reason to "pussy-out". But I have always treated animals with the respect any living thing deserves, to be treated humanely, without pain in so far as that is possible. I do not like "blood" sports like bull fighting, cock fighting or dog fighting. To me, to kill just for entertainment is wrong. And these sports cause needless pain for animals, I think they are unethical.

As for my "nutsack", if you are referring to my testicles, I have two and yes they work just fine, thank-you.

You are the one speaking like a little child, with little understanding, with baiting words.

[muriel_volestrangler]

89. why is 'meat-eater' offensive to you?

There's no implication that it's wrong. It's the two basic terms in the English language for what's involved - 'meat' meaning a food, and 'eat'. How could you possibly say it in a more unjudgemental way? It's no more offensive than 'coffee drinker'.

And why are you going on about 'breeders'? No-one else is mentioning them.

[Guaranteed]

87. Only because we're sheltered Americans.

I don't see people in other countries having any problems with it.

In any case, get me hungry enough, and I'll kill an elephant.

[TowelBoy]

92. You ever gone hunting?

[natrat]

74. not that rude

just a joke..but seriously there is something wacked with the modern world in this regard,,,at least indians respected the bufalo

[RebelOne]

91. That's right. If most people nowadays had to go out and kill

their steak, they probably would not be meat eaters.

[jackieforthedems]

68. Something To Add

http://www.pbs.org/pov/pov2004/thirst

[Swamp Rat]

79. When will we embrace the obvious remedy? - Cannibalism

Let's eat babies!

[Gore1FL]

80. Until Rescue Rooter came

A herd of cattle could have survived from the water that flooded my basement last time it rained.

[enigmatic]

84. I worked in a slaughterhouse for a short time

In Nebraska while I was hopping trains, I fish and eat my catch, and I'm still a meat-eater. I'm probably the most non-violent person I know outside of my wife, and we both have a cat that we love dearly.

On the other hand, out of the 3 vegatarians I've known in my life, 2 were militant, and one was pretty blase about it. The 2 militant ones both were both arrested numerous times on domestic violence charges (one male, the other female)for battering their spouses; the female also was a heavy meth addict.

Eating meat doesn't make you a bad person. Ans not eating meat doesn't make you a good person. Personalities have much more to do with it than whether or not you eat meat or not.

[theboss]

88. This is impossible

Since I only put a splash of water in my scotch when I have a steak.