The impact of the meat industry on global warming

This took me about two hours to research and write, but it's just a reply to reply to a comment I made on an article about vegetarianism. I should probably feel bad that I spent so much time writing something that will probably make no impact on anyone whatsoever, but that's what I do here, if I'm being honest with myself (not that I've written anything here in a long time). I don't feel bad about it because I was trying to expand my knowlege about something I care about. It's also important to me to be informed about the opinions you have- if your opinions are based on something feeble, then how can you feel strongly about them or act on them?
The origional comment that I wrote was that eating meat doesn't just harm the animals that you eat, it also contributes to global warming. The person who replied to my comment said that the article that I quoted wasn't valid because it was written by someone who is a vegetarian- and therefore biased. Here is the origional article http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1839995,00.html They went on to write this,
"If you look at world charts of greenhouse gas emission statistics, produced by non-biased reputable sources, you will see completely different figures. In the US in 2009, Transportation was 27.5, Industry was 20.2, and all of agriculture was 7.4%." They didn't provide a source for this data.

Anyway, here's the comment I made, because I wanted to put it somewhere where I might read it again someday. It's good to keep track of where you learn things because sometimes something seems credible and becomes a belief and when we go back later, we realize that our beliefs were based on something of questionable truth. I don't think I'll feel that way about this particular thing though.


(Here I wrote the name of the person I was responding to), I want to know your reputable non-biased source for the figures you gave. It is possible that the source I gave was incorrect, but at least I referenced one. I know that not all deforestation is for livestock Too much of what is produced goes uneaten or is eaten by those of us in first world countries who eat far more than what is necessary to sustain us. However, even if livestock production was a small part of deforestation, eating less meat would be a small improvement- which is better than nothing. Most commercially raised cattle is fed corn instead of just grazing on grass. It makes sense to me that it makes less impact on the environment to eat that corn ourselves rather than spend months feeding a cow to get it fat enough to eat. Unfortunately, if population growth continues the way it has been, I don’t think the planet can sustain us all even if we were all vegetarian. There are just too many of us. But I think we stand a better chance at survival if we use less resources in as many areas of our lives as possible- diet being one of them.

As to the article that I referenced last time, I don't think it necessarily discredits the argument if the source is a vegetarian. Is it possible that a person might become vegetarian after researching causes for global warming? It seems logical that if you learn that a behavior is potentially destructive you would cease doing it. If you considered the last source I cited as biased, I found this article referencing research from the Livestock, Environment and Development Initiative (LEAD) based at FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations). “More than two-thirds of all agricultural land is devoted to growing feed for livestock, while only 8 percent is used to grow food for direct human consumption, LEAD reported. If the entire world population were to consume as much meat as the Western world does-176 pounds of meat per capita per year- the global land required would be two-thirds more than what is presently used, according to Vaclav Smil, professor of environment and geography at the University of Manitoba and participant in the EVP study.” The article was in Scientific American magazine. If you want to know about the author, here is his website (http://www.nathanfiala.com/index.html). An organization affiliated with the United Nations seems like a reputable source to me, especially since the research comes from multiple people of different nations and beliefs doing their own independent research. Here is more info about them (http://www.fao.org/ag/AGAinfo/programmes/en/lead/lead.html)

Arguing with myself

I just spent ten minutes writing two sentances replying to a post. The blog entry was about how they were depressed by the popularity of mindblowingly stupid shit on YouTube. I wrote this "There are a disturbing amount of stupid people in the world. What makes me feel better is the fact that we'll all be dead someday." I thought about putting a smiley face at the end, but figured why use such a stupid crutch as an emoticon to communicate tone. I meant what I said, but it could be taken many ways. Someone could think I was joking or that I'm some deppressed goth that wants to commit suicide. Or I could be like someone who believes in "thinning the herd", believes that evolution was meant to keep the strong and smart alive, and we shouldnt coddle the stupid like we do in America today. I dont know what a person like that would prefess the solution to be. Killing them?..
A stupid comment on a blog turned into a debate with myself as to the worth of human beings- ex: would the world be better off without us? Will learn from our mistakes and evolve? I almost wrote "Why worry about what supid people do if it doesnt effect you?" But don't they effect us? Germany is going to close its nuclear power plants because of what happened in Japan, but no major changes have been made here to reduce our need for oil since the Gulf oil spill. Shouldn't we have learned something from that?! Human stupidity can be dangerous.
Stupid shit on Youtube is less dangerous, but still concerning. The fact that stupid crap is popular probably doesnt do harm other than annoy, and maybe perpetuate stupidity. Would someone who spends hours watching TV that does nothing to expand their world view be receptive to anything that might change their minds? Is TV stupid because the people watching like stupid shit or are people made stupid by watching it? Probably both. Any time there's a question like that, the answer is usually both. An example of this is a debate that archeologists had for a long time about whether dinosaurs were related to lizards or birds. I remember thinking as a kid- why can't it be both? Lizards and birds could have a common origin. Educated fucking adults were arguing as if the answer were gospel and to deny it made you an idiot. Why is it so hard for people to look at all sides of an arguement and be willing to change their minds? .. Actually, it is hard, because I just spent half an hour debating with myself and havent come up with a conclusive answer. But I'm OK with that.

Everyone's a Little Bit Racist(?)

I thought my first blog should be something nice and uncontroversial. (That's sarcasm- get used to it.)

Racism

"Racist"- what does that word mean to you? Is it someone who judges people by their race (for better or for worse), or is it someone who thinks their race is superior to all others? I've heard people argue that we're all racist in some way because we have preconceived notions about how we think certain groups should act. I've heard someone say that racism is being proud of whatever color you happen to be. They're all similar ideas, but different enough to cause confusion.

Most people agree that racism is bad, and most people I know would claim not to be racist. I think that someone who claims not to be racist probably isn't one, because I'm among those that defines racism as the belief that one's own race is superior. Most people are self-aware enough to know if that's what they believe.

If somebody has preconceptions about other races, some people would call that racist, regardless of whether or not they think themselves superior. I don't know which definition is right (it's likely they both are), but I do know that saying "we're all racist," is bound to annoy a lot of people. I think the point they're trying to get across is that we all judge, but calling everyone racist isn't the right way. People are going to get defensive, and rightly so. They deny being racist because their definition of the word differs from the one who accused them. When people argue, especially about things of such a sensitive nature, they can become confused about what the other person is arguing about. They may both agree that everyone has preconceived ideas about others, but if each of them has a different definition of the word, then they'll never understand each other.

"Racism", "Patriotism", "Socialism"- one word is never enough to explain such complicated ideas. If you are of the opinion that everyone who judges people is racist, then try applying the same idea to words. Everyone has their own ideas of what it means to be black, brown, or white, and everyone has different ideas about what words mean; judging either too quickly can be dangerous. The next time you argue, make sure you know what you're arguing about.

PS: If you were wondering whether or not I'm racist- I'm not. But if you think everyone is, then maybe I am.