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.

"LizH228" > wrote in message
...
> 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
>

Was the letter from the loonie bin?

Zakhar wrote:

> "LizH228" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>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
>>
>
>
> Was the letter from the loonie bin?

No, dumbo. Some of it is no doubt exaggerated, but a
lot of it merits serious consideration; or, it would if
the proposal that everyone become strictly vegetarian
were serious.

"Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message
ink.net...
> Zakhar wrote:
>
> > "LizH228" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> >>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
> >>
> >
> >
> > Was the letter from the loonie bin?
>
> No, dumbo. Some of it is no doubt exaggerated,

LOL.

It's either a JOKE or somebody is so ignorant it's almost beyond belief.

>but a
> lot of it merits serious consideration; or, it would if
> the proposal that everyone become strictly vegetarian
> were serious.

What like "eat fish"?

You stupid tosser.

>

Zakhar wrote:

> "Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
>
>>Zakhar wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"LizH228" > wrote in message
...
>>>
>>>
>>>>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
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Was the letter from the loonie bin?
>>
>>No, dumbo. Some of it is no doubt exaggerated,
>
>
> LOL.
>
> It's either a JOKE or somebody is so ignorant it's almost beyond belief.

No, it isn't a joke at all, and the writer clearly
isn't ignorant, because much of what he writes is
exactly what would have to happen if everyone were to
switch to a strictly vegetarian diet.

>
>
>>but a
>>lot of it merits serious consideration; or, it would if
>>the proposal that everyone become strictly vegetarian
>>were serious.
>
>
> What like "eat fish"?

Non sequitur.

"Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message
ink.net...
> Zakhar wrote:
>
> > "Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message
> > ink.net...
> >
> >>Zakhar wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>"LizH228" > wrote in message
> ...
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>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
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Was the letter from the loonie bin?
> >>
> >>No, dumbo. Some of it is no doubt exaggerated,
> >
> >
> > LOL.
> >
> > It's either a JOKE or somebody is so ignorant it's almost beyond belief.
>
> No, it isn't a joke at all, and the writer clearly
> isn't ignorant, because much of what he writes is
> exactly what would have to happen if everyone were to
> switch to a strictly vegetarian diet.

Write down the "much" part that YOU agree with. (There's some space in
beween the square brackets below).

[ ]



>
> >
> >
> >>but a
> >>lot of it merits serious consideration; or, it would if
> >>the proposal that everyone become strictly vegetarian
> >>were serious.
> >
> >
> > What like "eat fish"?
>
> Non sequitur.

Of course it follows you stupid ****. (Stick your pompous Latin use up your
over fingered loose arse).

It was suggested by some equally ignorant shit that vegetarians eat fish,
and "Our oceans would be fished to extinction".

1) Vegetarians DON'T eat fish you stupid bloody ****ing fool.

2) If everyone was vegetarian the oceans would NOT be fished to extinction
for human food.


>

(LizH228) wrote in message >...
> 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.

This would be a good opportunity to write your own letter to the
editor with your views on this.

"LizH228" > wrote in message
...
> 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.

Wrong. If you consider the gross inefficiency of cattle as converters of
grain to meat, we probably already have enough agricultural land to feed
everyone on the planet several times over.

> 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.

There would be a reduction of livestock if we didn't eat them for meat.
Wildlife would have more habitat in the reclaimed farmland.

> Until then, I'm sure they would find humans pretty tasty.

Deer, elk, cattle, sheep, and goats don't eat people. :^)

> 3. Without humans and predators keeping down their populations, deer, elk,
> etc., will die from sickness, disease and overcrowding, eventually
becoming
> extinct themselves.

Without livestock, predators of deer and elk (which were "controlled" almost
to extinction to protect livestock interests) could return to help regulate
the population, as was intended by nature.

> 4. With no room to breed livestock, many goods and foodstuffs, like wool
and
> dairy products, will no longer be available.

There would be plenty of room to breed livestock for dairy and non-food
products.

> 5. Our oceans would be fished to extinction. Yes, all the vegetarians I
know
> eat fish and seafood.

I'm guessing the author doesn't know many vegetarians (or the few he does
know really ****ed him off, prompting him to write the letter!). The demand
for seafood products would be greatly diminished since most vegetarians
DON'T eat seafood.

> 6. Without rainforests, global warming will accelerate out of control,
creating
> floods in many parts of the world and drought in others.

I suppose the author reasons that rainforests would be eliminated to support
his first fallacy, which is untrue. Unfortunately, a larger reason for the
destruction of rainforests is increasing human population and the resulting
sprawl into new territories. Also the demand for tropical hardwood products.

> 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.

Well, at least the floods would help to extinguish the raging fires. :^)

> 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.

The book is out on whether humans were intended to be herbivores,
carnivores, or omnivores. There are too many varying opinions on the subject
for anyone to conclude anything with any certainty.

> We'll be moving to Mars a lot sooner than we think.

Mars isn't such a bad place. I grew up there (Mars, Pennsylvania that is!).

"C. James Strutz" > wrote in message
...
>
> "LizH228" > wrote in message
> ...
> > 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.
>
> Wrong. If you consider the gross inefficiency of cattle as converters of
> grain to meat, we probably already have enough agricultural land to feed
> everyone on the planet several times over.
==========================
I guesss you just don't know that cattle eat grass, eh? All cattle eat
grass. Let's see you survive on grass. cattle are a very efficient means
of turning an inedible, for us, plant material into perfectly good, healthy
food we can eat. That you have to try and convenice yourself that all meat
is raised the way you have delusions about doesn't make your diet better.
In fact, it's very easy to show that a vegan diet can cause far more death
and suffering of animals than a meat-included diet.


>
> > 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.
>
> There would be a reduction of livestock if we didn't eat them for meat.
> Wildlife would have more habitat in the reclaimed farmland.
>
> > Until then, I'm sure they would find humans pretty tasty.
>
> Deer, elk, cattle, sheep, and goats don't eat people. :^)
>
> > 3. Without humans and predators keeping down their populations, deer,
elk,
> > etc., will die from sickness, disease and overcrowding, eventually
> becoming
> > extinct themselves.
>
> Without livestock, predators of deer and elk (which were "controlled"
almost
> to extinction to protect livestock interests) could return to help
regulate
> the population, as was intended by nature.
=====================
No they wouldn't. You wouldbn't allow them in your back yard. You'd be one
of the first screaming to get them out...



>
> > 4. With no room to breed livestock, many goods and foodstuffs, like wool
> and
> > dairy products, will no longer be available.
>
> There would be plenty of room to breed livestock for dairy and non-food
> products.
=======================
There's plenty of room now.


>
> > 5. Our oceans would be fished to extinction. Yes, all the vegetarians I
> know
> > eat fish and seafood.
>
> I'm guessing the author doesn't know many vegetarians (or the few he does
> know really ****ed him off, prompting him to write the letter!). The
demand
> for seafood products would be greatly diminished since most vegetarians
> DON'T eat seafood.
======================
Right, and vegans don't kill animals for their food. You really are a hoot!


>
> > 6. Without rainforests, global warming will accelerate out of control,
> creating
> > floods in many parts of the world and drought in others.
>
> I suppose the author reasons that rainforests would be eliminated to
support
> his first fallacy, which is untrue. Unfortunately, a larger reason for the
> destruction of rainforests is increasing human population and the
resulting
> sprawl into new territories. Also the demand for tropical hardwood
products.
>
> > 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.
>
> Well, at least the floods would help to extinguish the raging fires. :^)
>
> > 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.
>
> The book is out on whether humans were intended to be herbivores,
> carnivores, or omnivores. There are too many varying opinions on the
subject
> for anyone to conclude anything with any certainty.
>
> > We'll be moving to Mars a lot sooner than we think.
>
> Mars isn't such a bad place. I grew up there (Mars, Pennsylvania that
is!).
>
>
>
>

Here is the link to the article in the newspaper. It gives a place that people
can respond:

http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drm...,DRMN_38_26420
14,00.html

You make a post using a persons false assumption about bushels of food per acre;
plants versus animal.

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. It is about less
farming needs and therefore less herbicides, pesticides and fertilizers in the
rivers I catch trout and salmon in. Your entire premise is exactly backwards and
embarrassingly stupid!

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.

"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.
>

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.
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.

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? They live with less land and
less cash and they do it with way less meat. Why? Because it is the most
efficient way to live.

Deny this all you want. Fact is that in this country vegetarians (which I AM
NOT and never have been) live longer and cost less tax dollars in medical care.
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.
> >

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".

>
> 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.
>>>
>

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.
> >>>
> >

> 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 of grain. Are you so ****ing dumb that
you can not grasp this simple
concept? - 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.
> >>>
> >

"Rogi Surta" > wrote in message
...
> Totally wrong my friend. You are sadly misinformed.
====================
No, I'm not.

Cattle are one of the most
> destructive food sources Americans use.
======================
You obviously can't read for comprehension, can you?

The calorie per bushel of grain invested
> to meat is far less efficient than direct human consumption of the same
grain.
=====================
Again, there is *NO* need or requirement to feed grain to cattle. Period.


> 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.
====================
More emtpy rhetoric without basis.

>
> The areas you refer to that cattle graze on are devastated by the input of
> cattle.
=================
No, they are not. They are areas of land that are marginal at best for crop
production. That your ignornat mantra requires you to repeat ignorant lys
doesn't make those lys true.


Your statement that I seem to be in support of petro chem companies
> indicates you did not read my comments.
======================
Yes, I did. You advocate a food source totally dependent on the
petro-chemical industry instead of substituting some of your calories with
very efficient, very environmentally friendly ones from specific meats.


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!
==========================
Again, your religious mantra of hate and misinformation has you blinded to
one small fact. There is *NO* need, nor any requirment to feed grain to
cattle. You do know that cattle can, and do live and grow quite well on
grass, don't you? Grass that does not need any massive petro-chemical
industry inputs in the form of mechinazation, pesticides, fertilizers, or
herbicides. All these are needed in massive quantituies to produce your
veggies, killer.


>
> 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? They live with less
land and
> less cash and they do it with way less meat. Why? Because it is the most
> efficient way to live.
=====================
BS

>
> Deny this all you want.
=====================
I will, because you are wrong...

Fact is that in this country vegetarians (which I AM
> NOT and never have been) live longer and cost less tax dollars in medical
care.
> 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.
==========================
maybe that's your pasttime. I watch very little. I'm too busy out doors
most of the time.
Your ignorance is amazing. You've watched too many lame TV shows
apparently.


>
> 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.
> > >
>

LizH228 wrote:

> 1. We would have to clear billions of acres of land, rainforests, national
> parks, etc., to make room to grow crops.

Hmmmm...you'd think that the cattle and other animals currently being
raised for their flesh would consume much more of such crops! And that
once the land being used to support those animals becomes available for
crops, there'd even be a surplus.

<< much silliness from this letter to the editor--which, hopefully,
thinking people realized had many fallacies--snipped >>

> Human beings are omnivores, meaning we eat fruits, vegetables, nuts . . . and
> meat.

I'm always amused by this argument, particularly since the people making
it can rarely come up with a response to this question: Then how do you
explain the societies in our world, some dating back thousands of years,
that do not kill ANY animals for food, clothing, etc.? They're still
around, and they're definitely NOT omnivores. What's up with that?!

--

"Vegetarians save lives every day"
and other veggie items:
www.SmartAssProducts.com