Jonathan Ball wrote:

> Rogi Surta wrote:
> > Totally wrong my friend. You are sadly misinformed. Cattle are one of the most
> > destructive food sources Americans use. The calorie per bushel of grain invested
> > to meat is far less efficient than direct human consumption of the same grain.
>
> You are misinformed, you top-posting goofball. The
> grain cattle eat is not considered edible by humans.
> It is grown AS livestock feed.
>
> Anyway, your sense of "efficiency" is irrelevant and
> misguided. The goal in producing food is not to get
> the highest caloric value from the smallest possible
> resource input, and you're not even proposing that we
> do that. You can prove it for yourself by looking at
> the resource requirements to grow a bushel of potatoes
> versus the requirements to grow a bushel of
> raspberries. You aren't proposing that we grow and
> consume only the most resource-efficient vegetables, so
> the idea that meat be produced and consumed is no
> different.
>
> A Mercedes-Benz requires more resources to produce than
> a Kia, you dummy, but you're not proposing that people
> ONLY should have Kias available for purchase.
>
> > The number of acres of rain forests cleared each year in south america to raise
> > the cattle for fast food industries alone (a notoriously empty calorie food
> > source) is nothing more than rape of the earth.
>
> Bullshit. You're an ignorant environmental extremist.
> You're also full of shit in your claim that the
> calories are "empty".
>

Grain production is the point, not what kind it is. Are you so ****ing dumb that you
can not grasp this simple point? - resources it takes to get a calorie of meet -
versus a calorie of grain? This is what we call science.

Let me guess, now you are going to try to insult me by calling a scientist? Maybe you
might even call me educated, that would really hurt my feelings!

I am not alone in purposing gas economy cars over gas guzzling-Saudi Arabia-supporting
cars.

An empty calorie is a common term referring to high sugar/ fat content while being low
in nutrients. You seem to be a very uneducated person. Are you by any chance a
cultural decedent of the klu klux klan? A white southern Protestant?

Calling me an environmentalist means what? That I am not so self-centered and arrogant
that I care about leaving for my children a world that can sustain them?

Let me guess, you are one of those common fat people that cares only about living
forever in heaven and could give a flying **** that our children will live in a
caldron of 6 billion plus humans fighting over the last scraps of territory on this
shrinking planet.

Anyone that thinks it is an insult to be called an environmentalist has got to be a
very selfish ignorant person! My money is on you being a decedent of a white southern
protestant christian. A slave owning, civil rights violating, bible swinging, camel
through the eye of a needle, hates the educated, hillbilly!

Check this out and then talk to me http://www.2think.org/dhw.shtml

who's next?

>
> >
> > The areas you refer to that cattle graze on are devastated by the input of
> > cattle. Your statement that I seem to be in support of petro chem companies
> > indicates you did not read my comments. Grain raised cattle requires MORE petro
> > chems. That is a fact. You seem to see what you want just to argue your beliefs
> > with no regard for reality!
> >
> > How do you think a billion south east asians and a billion Chinese survive? Do
> > you think they are eating more meat or more grain?
>
> Relative to 10 years ago? They're eating more grain
> per capita today than they did 10 years ago, idiot.
>
> > They live with less land and
> > less cash and they do it with way less meat.
>
> With way MORE meat than they ate per person 10 years
> ago, dummy.
>
> > Why? Because it is the most
> > efficient way to live.
>
> Efficiency is not the only consideration.
>
> >
> > Deny this all you want. Fact is that in this country vegetarians (which I AM
> > NOT and never have been) live longer
>
> Prove it.
>
> > and cost less tax dollars in medical care.
>
> Prove it.
>
> > Heart disease is the number one killer in the country and the largest chunk of
> > medical costs that your tax dollars pay for. Your defense of meat is based not
> > on common sense but group identity. Perhaps you should just watch sports on tv
> > instead.
> >
> > rick etter wrote:
> >
> >
> >>"Rogi Surta" > wrote in message
> ...
> >>
> >>>You make a post using a persons false assumption about bushels of food per
> >>
> >>acre;
> >>
> >>>plants versus animal.
> >>
> >>===============
> >>And your assumptions are what?
> >>
> >>
> >>> Being a vegetarian is about less fat and cholesterol in your diet. It is
> >>
> >>about
> >>
> >>>living longer with less medical costs. Forget the fact that it takes more
> >>
> >>farming
> >>
> >>>to grow grain and feed to animals and then eat the animals.
> >>
> >>===========================
> >>No, it does not. It takes *zero* amounts of grains or other crops to raise
> >>many meat animals...
> >>Animals can, and do live, thrive, and grow in areas that crops are not
> >>easily grown without massive inputs from the petro-chemical industry. An
> >>industry you appear to really support... Trying to grow human edible crops
> >>where the land is minimal takes far more resourses, and causes far more
> >>environmental damage than from eating meat raised in the same area.
> >>
> >> It is about less
> >>
> >>>farming needs and therefore less herbicides, pesticides and fertilizers in
> >>
> >>the
> >>
> >>>rivers I catch trout and salmon in.
> >>
> >>======================
> >>Sure, but if veg*ns would replace 100s of 1000s of calories from their
> >>mono-culture crop foods with the same amount of calories from one grass-fed
> >>animal, or game animal, then the impact from farming would be less.
> >>
> >> Your entire premise is exactly backwards and
> >>
> >>>embarrassingly stupid!
> >>
> >>=======================
> >>You've made a few false claims of your own here...
> >>
> >>
> >>>You have made a fool of yourself. For the vast majority of people that
> >>
> >>live on a
> >>
> >>>plant only diet it is not because they love Bambi in her forest home, it
> >>
> >>is because
> >>
> >>>of poverty. They have little land and the implements to grow with. The
> >>
> >>huge list of
> >>
> >>>claims are made by misinformed person, much like yourself!
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Your
> >>>
> >>>LizH228 wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>Here is a letter to the editor taken out of yesterday's Denver paper
> >>
> >>(Rocky
> >>
> >>>>Mountain News):
> >>>>Letters to the Editor, February 10
> >>>>February 10, 2004
> >>>>
> >>>>Worldwide vegan diet would be catastrophic
> >>>>
> >>>>With the recent mad cow disease scare I've noticed a lot of people have
> >>>>suggested that we all eat vegetarian. Let's think about that for a
> >>
> >>minute. Here
> >>
> >>>>are a few reasons why a total vegetarian planet would be a horrific
> >>
> >>idea:
> >>
> >>>>1. We would have to clear billions of acres of land, rainforests,
> >>
> >>national
> >>
> >>>>parks, etc., to make room to grow crops.
> >>>>
> >>>>2. Deer, elk, cattle, sheep, goats, etc., would wreak havoc on those
> >>
> >>crops
> >>
> >>>>because their natural food source would no longer be available to them.
> >>
> >>We
> >>
> >>>>would not like that and we would insist that someone do something about
> >>
> >>it.
> >>
> >>>>What do we do? Shoot them? Chase them away? To where? We would come to
> >>
> >>look at
> >>
> >>>>them as "pests." These predators would eventually become extinct due to
> >>
> >>lack of
> >>
> >>>>natural prey.
> >>>>
> >>>>Until then, I'm sure they would find humans pretty tasty.
> >>>>
> >>>>3. Without humans and predators keeping down their populations, deer,
> >>
> >>elk,
> >>
> >>>>etc., will die from sickness, disease and overcrowding, eventually
> >>
> >>becoming
> >>
> >>>>extinct themselves.
> >>>>
> >>>>4. With no room to breed livestock, many goods and foodstuffs, like wool
> >>
> >>and
> >>
> >>>>dairy products, will no longer be available.
> >>>>
> >>>>5. Our oceans would be fished to extinction. Yes, all the vegetarians I
> >>
> >>know
> >>
> >>>>eat fish and seafood.
> >>>>
> >>>>6. Without rainforests, global warming will accelerate out of control,
> >>
> >>creating
> >>
> >>>>floods in many parts of the world and drought in others.
> >>>>
> >>>>7. What would happen if we had a drought? A lot of human deaths would
> >>
> >>occur, of
> >>
> >>>>course, but our crops will die, too. The planet will become a desiccated
> >>>>tinderbox waiting for something to ignite it.
> >>>>
> >>>>Human beings are omnivores, meaning we eat fruits, vegetables, nuts . .
> >>
> >>. and
> >>
> >>>>meat. If you wish to eat vegetarian, fine. In fact, if we all decided to
> >>
> >>be
> >>
> >>>>totally carnivorous (eating only meat products) a similar worldwide
> >>
> >>catastrophe
> >>
> >>>>would occur. We need to be omnivorous. Otherwise, this planet will die.
> >>>>
> >>>>We'll be moving to Mars a lot sooner than we think.
> >>>
> >