Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

5 Reasons Vegans are Better at Sex Watch

    • TSR Support Team
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Moura)
    This reply makes my brain bleed.



    "There's strong scientific evidence that shows a reduction in animal product consumption will slow down climate change. Kinda makes sense considering the animal industry contributes massively to pumping unwanted gases into the atmosphere and is a major drive behind deforestation. Not to mention the run off from fertilisers/pesticides. But I don't wanna believe that. I like meat n milkshakes :p: Yum yum :p: I'm a real man. GAINZ!!!!!"

    I'm not even going to bother to touch upon how your "choice" to eat meat as much as you like worsens famine in 3rd world counties.

    FYI while I am a vegetarian and try to be as close to vegan as possible without making life difficult for those around me, my view is that if people at least cut down on meat consumption, have it once or twice a week, the world would be in a much better state. I don't see how that is so hard. Just having more awareness about how what you're eating has an effect globally would be brilliant.
    Was that due to the big words that you obviously don't understand?

    Or was it because it didn't agree with your point of view?

    I'm thinking a combination of the two.

    Yes but 88% of the UK population are meat eaters (i'm sure that's correct but please correct me if i'm wrong. It's a large majority regardless)

    Therefore, since i love meat and dairy (ie i don't want to change) and people will not change their diet on mass (meaning it is pointless) then there really is no point.

    Changing the fuel(s) our cars run on, planes etc, stopping how the third world/large 'growing' economies are just striving for economic growth above all else are bigger factors.

    Yes, gases produced by the meat industry are a major cause of climate change (current thinking thinks this, this is hardly an easy topic to understand. Science is evolving surrounding this) but i'm not going to change my who life to make no difference.
    I will use a hybrid car if they become affordable, i am pro wind turbines and other forms of renewable energy etc. We need to use technology to save us (if we aren't already beyond the point of no return already), not ecocentric changes.

    GM crops would feed the third world but oh wait.... You're against that (i presume you are since all political groups and parties which promote your views are against)

    Just lol at your attempt to guilt trip meat eaters by mentioning the term 'famine and 3rd world'. Nothing to do with their dictators? Nothing to do with poor management of all the foreign aid that comes into their countries?

    Fair. I think excessive red meat consumption is not healthy. However ultimately i think an individual can make their own choices (provided they aren't so overweight they'll put a strain on health services) and this is an issue i have with veganism (and those of similar persuasion). That's fantastic you have found your sense of morality through veganism (or as close as you can to) but i don't think that makes you better than other people.
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    :lol:
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Unistudent77)
    Was that due to the big words that you obviously don't understand?

    Or was it because it didn't agree with your point of view?

    I'm thinking a combination of the two.

    Yes but 88% of the UK population are meat eaters (i'm sure that's correct but please correct me if i'm wrong. It's a large majority regardless)

    Therefore, since i love meat and dairy (ie i don't want to change) and people will not change their diet on mass (meaning it is pointless) then there really is no point.

    Changing the fuel(s) our cars run on, planes etc, stopping how the third world/large 'growing' economies are just striving for economic growth above all else are bigger factors.

    Yes, gases produced by the meat industry are a major cause of climate change (current thinking thinks this, this is hardly an easy topic to understand. Science is evolving surrounding this) but i'm not going to change my who life to make no difference.
    I will use a hybrid car if they become affordable, i am pro wind turbines and other forms of renewable energy etc. We need to use technology to save us (if we aren't already beyond the point of no return already), not ecocentric changes.

    GM crops would feed the third world but oh wait.... You're against that (i presume you are since all political groups and parties which promote your views are against)

    Just lol at your attempt to guilt trip meat eaters by mentioning the term 'famine and 3rd world'. Nothing to do with their dictators? Nothing to do with poor management of all the foreign aid that comes into their countries?

    Fair. I think excessive red meat consumption is not healthy. However ultimately i think an individual can make their own choices (provided they aren't so overweight they'll put a strain on health services) and this is an issue i have with veganism (and those of similar persuasion). That's fantastic you have found your sense of morality through veganism (or as close as you can to) but i don't think that makes you better than other people.

    loooooooooool ok, I don't really want to respond to someone who resorts to insults and (incorrect) assumptions to try and prove their point, it just shows that your arguments aren't strong enough to support themselves.

    You basically summed it up in your first statement. You don't want to change so you won't listen to any facts that make you feel uncomfortable about the decisions you are making about your diet. People are changing their diet. If you look at the statistics of dietary habits, there is a huge increase of vegans/vegetarians as people are becoming more aware of what they are eating, and an even larger number of people reducing their meat consumption. The change won't come over night though, which is why I support reduction, I am not unrealistic. You say "we need to change the fuel on cars"... but that really just shows the exact problem... people are willing to sit around and do nothing, waiting for "some scientist" to invent something that will just fix the problem (as if it's that easy) when we can make so much difference on a personal level... and fail to realise if we don't all make an effort then it will be too late.

    (and just in case you are interested, it's becoming increasingly clear that the meat industry is the main contributor to greenhouse emissions... so it really is our eating habits that will make the biggest change https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2367646/)

    If you think eating meat to the extent that we do is a choice, then fine. Just accept that it is an incredibly selfish one... (and before you cry and say by that I mean I'm better than you, it doesn't. It just means in this one aspect of life I am making a less selfish decision.)
    • TSR Support Team
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Moura)
    loooooooooool ok, I don't really want to respond to someone who resorts to insults and (incorrect) assumptions to try and prove their point, it just shows that your arguments aren't strong enough to support themselves.

    You basically summed it up in your first statement. You don't want to change so you won't listen to any facts that make you feel uncomfortable about the decisions you are making about your diet. People are changing their diet. If you look at the statistics of dietary habits, there is a huge increase of vegans/vegetarians as people are becoming more aware of what they are eating, and an even larger number of people reducing their meat consumption. The change won't come over night though, which is why I support reduction, I am not unrealistic. You say "we need to change the fuel on cars"... but that really just shows the exact problem... people are willing to sit around and do nothing, waiting for "some scientist" to invent something that will just fix the problem (as if it's that easy) when we can make so much difference on a personal level... and fail to realise if we don't all make an effort then it will be too late.

    (and just in case you are interested, it's becoming increasingly clear that the meat industry is the main contributor to greenhouse emissions... so it really is our eating habits that will make the biggest change https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2367646/)

    If you think eating meat to the extent that we do is a choice, then fine. Just accept that it is an incredibly selfish one... (and before you cry and say by that I mean I'm better than you, it doesn't. It just means in this one aspect of life I am making a less selfish decision.)
    Says the person who said (and i quote)
    'This post makes my brain bleed'

    Yet it wasn't illiterate, it contained reference to wider schools of thought with regard to climate change (and how we combat it) etc and yet you childishly ridiculed. So don't even.

    What points have i raised that are 'incorrect'?

    12% is high is it?
    That figure includes vegatarians who are drinking milk, eating chocolate and other animal based products which pollutes the planet.

    You've obviously highlighted meat as the main issue but really slaughter simply gives a value to cattle, sheep etc for the farmer. Most cows are for dairly for instance, thus if we all went vegatarian it would not stop the issue.


    No. Your own link says 'animal produce' accounts for a mere 18% of GWG (largest single factor as you correctly say).

    So 82% of the damaging gases are coming from other avenues, thus the technocentric approach is FAR FAR FAR more important that what we do with our diet.

    So 'some scientist' is hopefully going to reduce our global impact far more than all of us being vegan would (which will never happen)

    I can guarantee that Transport PLUS fossil fuels accounts for way more than our diet does. I was actually shocked at how small a share animal products had. 18% is not insignificant but hardly much.

    And yes, i will not be becoming vegan. It is selfish but i simply do not want to do so.
    It isn't a question of being vegatarian as all the animal products are made by..... Animals and therefore how they die is simply an ethical issue, not relevant to climate change. Due to the fact that they are bred to be milked for cheese, chocolate (insert any number of possibilities) and therefore whether they get slaughtered or not and end up on my plate is not very relevant. (In a climate change sense, we can argue over ethics but that is not connected to your 18% figure).

    So i'm not quitting almost every food i enjoy.

    I agree with your last paragraph. Correct.


    Also, i am actually of the opinion already it is too late. The Paris agreement is weak af and Trump has already removed all reference to climate change on the US Government's website so....

    We need major action now to stand even a chance. At least as a Scottish person i can say my country is trying its best but China, America and the emerging world are ruining it
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Unistudent77)
    Says the person who said (and i quote)
    'This post makes my brain bleed'

    Yet it wasn't illiterate, it contained reference to wider schools of thought with regard to climate change (and how we combat it) etc and yet you childishly ridiculed. So don't even.

    What points have i raised that are 'incorrect'?

    12% is high is it?
    That figure includes vegatarians who are drinking milk, eating chocolate and other animal based products which pollutes the planet.

    You've obviously highlighted meat as the main issue but really slaughter simply gives a value to cattle, sheep etc for the farmer. Most cows are for dairly for instance, thus if we all went vegatarian it would not stop the issue.


    No. Your own link says 'animal produce' accounts for a mere 18% of GWG (largest single factor as you correctly say).

    So 82% of the damaging gases are coming from other avenues, thus the technocentric approach is FAR FAR FAR more important that what we do with our diet.

    So 'some scientist' is hopefully going to reduce our global impact far more than all of us being vegan would (which will never happen)

    I can guarantee that Transport PLUS fossil fuels accounts for way more than our diet does. I was actually shocked at how small a share animal products had. 18% is not insignificant but hardly much.

    And yes, i will not be becoming vegan. It is selfish but i simply do not want to do so.
    It isn't a question of being vegatarian as all the animal products are made by..... Animals and therefore how they die is simply an ethical issue, not relevant to climate change. Due to the fact that they are bred to be milked for cheese, chocolate (insert any number of possibilities) and therefore whether they get slaughtered or not and end up on my plate is not very relevant. (In a climate change sense, we can argue over ethics but that is not connected to your 18% figure).

    So i'm not quitting almost every food i enjoy.

    I agree with your last paragraph. Correct.


    Also, i am actually of the opinion already it is too late. The Paris agreement is weak af and Drumpf has already removed all reference to climate change on the US Government's website so....

    We need major action now to stand even a chance. At least as a Scottish person i can say my country is trying its best but China, America and the emerging world are ruining it
    I was expressing my disagreement with the post, not personally insulting you.

    The rate of vegetarianism/veganism is rising... especially among millennial and younger generations, which is where change generally happens. Like I said, change doesn't happen over night. Also that figure does not include those making a concerted effort to reduce their meat/dairy consumption. I'm not sure on your point here anyway... all big change starts with a small change.


    It's actually not too late... climate change is inevitable now but the extent to which it changes is not. There are models for the worst possible scenario (no change in lifestyle) and best case scenario (change in lifestyle) and they are significantly different. (http://www.wri.org/blog/2014/08/choo...sions-pathways). It is totally possible to slow down climate change.

    That "mere" 18% is larger than the transportation industry, which you think we should focus solely on. I am not claiming that the animal industry is the ONLY thing thing that needs attention, but changing our eating habits and making them more reasonable is the best thing we can all do on an individual level. How many people are skilled enough to contribute towards changing the tech industry emissions? Not many. Furthermore what sort of timescale are you expecting this to happen on?

    It's really a shame that you think this way. It's ideologies like yours that prevent progression, and I don't mean that in a rude way, I mean it in a sad way.
    • TSR Support Team
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Moura)
    I was expressing my disagreement with the post, not personally insulting you.

    The rate of vegetarianism/veganism is rising... especially among millennial and younger generations, which is where change generally happens. Like I said, change doesn't happen over night. Also that figure does not include those making a concerted effort to reduce their meat/dairy consumption. I'm not sure on your point here anyway... all big change starts with a small change.


    It's actually not too late... climate change is inevitable now but the extent to which it changes is not. There are models for the worst possible scenario (no change in lifestyle) and best case scenario (change in lifestyle) and they are significantly different. (http://www.wri.org/blog/2014/08/choo...sions-pathways). It is totally possible to slow down climate change.

    That "mere" 18% is larger than the transportation industry, which you think we should focus solely on. I am not claiming that the animal industry is the ONLY thing thing that needs attention, but changing our eating habits and making them more reasonable is the best thing we can all do on an individual level. How many people are skilled enough to contribute towards changing the tech industry emissions? Not many. Furthermore what sort of timescale are you expecting this to happen on?

    It's really a shame that you think this way. It's ideologies like yours that prevent progression, and I don't mean that in a rude way, I mean it in a sad way.
    I'll keep this short as i'll add on an extract from a peer-reviewed piece (one which i think is neutral).

    Yes, change will take time but it's easy to get a strong rate of change when something is small.

    Small changes will do nothing. If we want to reduce that 18% figure re diet related climate change then we must go vegan. Going vegatarian will not mean loads of animals will not be bred. They will.... For milk. They'll die or be slaughtered and still contribute to GWGs. Achieving nothing.

    With the greatest of respect (and this applies to my extract although he notes this), it is simply guess work. Look at the models from 10 years ago and compare. Some predicted catastrophe and that was nonsense but many actually predicted far less severe warming than we have witnessed.

    My pessimistic beliefs are moulded by my two flatmates who study geography and show me what they are being taught. Also a friend who is doing his masters on the melting of the Greenland ice sheet, it is far worse than they thought. (None of which are vegatarians even, nevermind vegans but i digress)

    Anyone who claims to know is talking nonsense. However, groups of scientists have mentioned certain parameters which will be irreversible once reached and many are close.

    With Trump and other 'deniers' trends are very bad. 2016 is looking like the warmest year on record (again) - figures haven't been released officially yet but i've seen uncorrected figures posted on another sight.

    Sea Ice extent is at its lowest ever level (certainly in the Arctic).

    Possible to slow it, perhaps. Possible to stop? Unlikely imo but i don't 'know' that

    I said Transportation PLUS fossil fuels. Those two will be bigger. Transportation is only mildly beaten.

    Rate of technological change has been rapid, even in last 5, 10 years.

    Hybrid cars are here for example. Renewables are here.

    We need America or insert whatever superpower to start a technological war in relation to this. Ie bring the price down, make all the rest follow. Unfortunately unlikely.

    So a lot of the technology is here and could be built upon but yeah, it is a race against time and we're losing badly.


    What 'ideology' would that be?

    I don't deny climate change. I'm actively for solutions which will likit our global impact. I'll happily have a hybrid car etc but i will not reduce my happiness a lot.

    Food brings happiness for many people, myself included. I enjoy driving also etc.
    I'm not going vegan to make a ridiculously small difference. Our focus shouldn't be on convincing people to change their diets. It should be to make it as easy and as cheap as possible to eat less processed rubbish, less toxic cars, less toxic transport, make the country run on renewables (plus nuclear for now) etc.


    So you dislike me because i don't want to remove almost all foods i enjoy from my diet. You instantly assume i'm an intolerant right-winger who 'makes your blain bleed'.
    Not hard to see why vegans aren't (as a generalisation) liked is it? I think it is YOU who has the intolerance, not me.

    Extract from: 'Principles Of Planetary Climate' by Raymond T. Pierrehumbert.

    The Big Question of how much the Earth will warm upon a doubling or quadrupling of C02, and how fast it will do so, engages a number of associated questions. Insofar as water vapor is itself a powerful greenhouse gas, any tendency for water vapor content to increase with temperature will amplify the warming caused by C02. This is known as water vapor feedback. This feedback is now considered to be on quite secure ground, but the study of the behavior of water vapor in the atmosphere offers many challenges, and is a problem of considerable subtlety. In subsequent chapters, we will provide the underpinnings needed for a study of this host of questions. Clouds present an entirely greater order of difficulty, as they warm the planet through their effect on outgoing infrared radiation, but cool the planet through their reflection of solar radiation. The net effect depends on the complex processes determining cloud height, cloud distribution, cloud particle size, and cloud water or ice content. The infrared effects of clouds will be discussed in Chapter 4 and the reflective effects of clouds on sunlight will be discussed in Chapter 5. Uncertainties about the behavior of clouds are the main reason we do not know precisely how much warmer the planet will ultimately get if we double the C02 concentration. Typical predictions of equilibrium global average warming for a doubling of C02 range from a low of around 2 °C to a high of around 6 °C, with some potential for even greater warming with a low (but currently unquantifiable) probability. Because of other uncertainties in the system (particularly the magnitude of the aerosol effect and especially the indirect aerosol effect on cloud brightness) simulations with a range of different cloud behaviors can all match the historical climate record so far, but nonetheless yield widely different forecasts for the future. There is no analysis at present that excludes the possibility of the higher end of the forecast range, for which the effects would likely be catastrophic. There are other feedbacks in the climate system that complicate the forecast. These include feedbacks from melting snow and ice, and from the dynamics of glaciers on land. They also include changes in vegetation, and changes in the ocean circulation which can affect the delay due to burial of heat in the deep ocean.


    Global warming - perhaps more aptly called "global climate disruption" - is an event of geological proportions, but one which is caused by human activities. The natural range of C02 for the past 800 000 years, and almost certainly for the entire two million years of the Pleistocene, has been 180 to 280 molecules per million. Owing Lo human activities, the C02 concentration is already far above the top of the natural range that has prevailed for the entire lifetime of the human species, and without action will become much higher still. The human species and the natural ecosystems we share the Earth with have adapted over the Pliocene and Pleistocene to glacial-interglacial cycles, but a world with doubled C02 will subject them in lhe course of two centuries or less to a temperature jump to levels far warmer than the top of the range to which societies and organisms have adapted. Even if climate sensitivity is at the low end of the predicted range and if human societies hold the line at a doubling of C02, the resulting 2 °C warming represents a substantial climate change; it takes a great deal to change the mean temperature of the entire globe, and a 2 °C global mean increase is a summary statistic that masks much higher regional changes and potentially quite massive effects on sea ice, glaciers, and ecosystems.
    If climate sensitivity turns out to be at the high end, the warming could be 4 °C or more, and if that is compounded by an increase to four times pre-industrial C02 the global mean increase could reach 8 °C. That is twice the degree of warming in the PETM, and though the PETM looks abrupt, it is very likely to have set in on a longer time scale than it would take human industrial society to burn the remaining reserves of fossil fuels. If this is allowed to happen, it will take thousands of years for the climate to recover to a normal state. Could global warming disrupt the natural glacial-interglacial cycle? What would the consequences of that be?

    Those are indeed Big Questions. As seen by paleoclimatologists 10 million years in the future, whatever species they may be, the present era of catastrophic release of fossil fuel carbon will appear as an enigmatic event which will have a name of its own, much as paleoclimatologists and paleobiologists refer today to the PETM or the K-T boundary event. The fossil carbon release event will show up in 13C proxies of the carbon cycle, in dissolution of ocean carbonates through acidification of the ocean, through mass extinctions arising from rapid warming, and through the moraine record left by retreating mountain glaciers and land-based ice sheets. As an event, it is unlikely to permanently destroy the habitability of our planet, any more than did the K-T event or the PETM. Still, a hundred generations or more of our descendants will be condemned to live in a planetary climate far different from that which nurtured humanity, and in the company of a greatly impoverished biodiversity. Biodiversity does recover over the course of millions of years, but that is a very long time to wait, if indeed there are any of our species left around at the time to do the waiting. Extinction may not be precisely forever, but it is close enough.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Unistudent77)
    I'll keep this short as i'll add on an extract from a peer-reviewed piece (one which i think is neutral).

    Yes, change will take time but it's easy to get a strong rate of change when something is small.

    Small changes will do nothing. If we want to reduce that 18% figure re diet related climate change then we must go vegan. Going vegatarian will not mean loads of animals will not be bred. They will.... For milk. They'll die or be slaughtered and still contribute to GWGs. Achieving nothing.

    With the greatest of respect (and this applies to my extract although he notes this), it is simply guess work. Look at the models from 10 years ago and compare. Some predicted catastrophe and that was nonsense but many actually predicted far less severe warming than we have witnessed.

    My pessimistic beliefs are moulded by my two flatmates who study geography and show me what they are being taught. Also a friend who is doing his masters on the melting of the Greenland ice sheet, it is far worse than they thought. (None of which are vegatarians even, nevermind vegans but i digress)

    Anyone who claims to know is talking nonsense. However, groups of scientists have mentioned certain parameters which will be irreversible once reached and many are close.

    With Drumpf and other 'deniers' trends are very bad. 2016 is looking like the warmest year on record (again) - figures haven't been released officially yet but i've seen uncorrected figures posted on another sight.

    Sea Ice extent is at its lowest ever level (certainly in the Arctic).

    Possible to slow it, perhaps. Possible to stop? Unlikely imo but i don't 'know' that

    I said Transportation PLUS fossil fuels. Those two will be bigger. Transportation is only mildly beaten.

    Rate of technological change has been rapid, even in last 5, 10 years.

    Hybrid cars are here for example. Renewables are here.

    We need America or insert whatever superpower to start a technological war in relation to this. Ie bring the price down, make all the rest follow. Unfortunately unlikely.

    So a lot of the technology is here and could be built upon but yeah, it is a race against time and we're losing badly.


    What 'ideology' would that be?

    I don't deny climate change. I'm actively for solutions which will likit our global impact. I'll happily have a hybrid car etc but i will not reduce my happiness a lot.

    Food brings happiness for many people, myself included. I enjoy driving also etc.
    I'm not going vegan to make a ridiculously small difference. Our focus shouldn't be on convincing people to change their diets. It should be to make it as easy and as cheap as possible to eat less processed rubbish, less toxic cars, less toxic transport, make the country run on renewables (plus nuclear for now) etc.


    Extract from: 'Principles Of Planetary Climate' by Raymond T. Pierrehumbert.

    The Big Question of how much the Earth will warm upon a doubling or quadrupling of C02, and how fast it will do so, engages a number of associated questions. Insofar as water vapor is itself a powerful greenhouse gas, any tendency for water vapor content to increase with temperature will amplify the warming caused by C02. This is known as water vapor feedback. This feedback is now considered to be on quite secure ground, but the study of the behavior of water vapor in the atmosphere offers many challenges, and is a problem of considerable subtlety. In subsequent chapters, we will provide the underpinnings needed for a study of this host of questions. Clouds present an entirely greater order of difficulty, as they warm the planet through their effect on outgoing infrared radiation, but cool the planet through their reflection of solar radiation. The net effect depends on the complex processes determining cloud height, cloud distribution, cloud particle size, and cloud water or ice content. The infrared effects of clouds will be discussed in Chapter 4 and the reflective effects of clouds on sunlight will be discussed in Chapter 5. Uncertainties about the behavior of clouds are the main reason we do not know precisely how much warmer the planet will ultimately get if we double the C02 concentration. Typical predictions of equilibrium global average warming for a doubling of C02 range from a low of around 2 °C to a high of around 6 °C, with some potential for even greater warming with a low (but currently unquantifiable) probability. Because of other uncertainties in the system (particularly the magnitude of the aerosol effect and especially the indirect aerosol effect on cloud brightness) simulations with a range of different cloud behaviors can all match the historical climate record so far, but nonetheless yield widely different forecasts for the future. There is no analysis at present that excludes the possibility of the higher end of the forecast range, for which the effects would likely be catastrophic. There are other feedbacks in the climate system that complicate the forecast. These include feedbacks from melting snow and ice, and from the dynamics of glaciers on land. They also include changes in vegetation, and changes in the ocean circulation which can affect the delay due to burial of heat in the deep ocean.


    Global warming - perhaps more aptly called "global climate disruption" - is an event of geological proportions, but one which is caused by human activities. The natural range of C02 for the past 800 000 years, and almost certainly for the entire two million years of the Pleistocene, has been 180 to 280 molecules per million. Owing Lo human activities, the C02 concentration is already far above the top of the natural range that has prevailed for the entire lifetime of the human species, and without action will become much higher still. The human species and the natural ecosystems we share the Earth with have adapted over the Pliocene and Pleistocene to glacial-interglacial cycles, but a world with doubled C02 will subject them in lhe course of two centuries or less to a temperature jump to levels far warmer than the top of the range to which societies and organisms have adapted. Even if climate sensitivity is at the low end of the predicted range and if human societies hold the line at a doubling of C02, the resulting 2 °C warming represents a substantial climate change; it takes a great deal to change the mean temperature of the entire globe, and a 2 °C global mean increase is a summary statistic that masks much higher regional changes and potentially quite massive effects on sea ice, glaciers, and ecosystems.
    If climate sensitivity turns out to be at the high end, the warming could be 4 °C or more, and if that is compounded by an increase to four times pre-industrial C02 the global mean increase could reach 8 °C. That is twice the degree of warming in the PETM, and though the PETM looks abrupt, it is very likely to have set in on a longer time scale than it would take human industrial society to burn the remaining reserves of fossil fuels. If this is allowed to happen, it will take thousands of years for the climate to recover to a normal state. Could global warming disrupt the natural glacial-interglacial cycle? What would the consequences of that be?

    Those are indeed Big Questions. As seen by paleoclimatologists 10 million years in the future, whatever species they may be, the present era of catastrophic release of fossil fuel carbon will appear as an enigmatic event which will have a name of its own, much as paleoclimatologists and paleobiologists refer today to the PETM or the K-T boundary event. The fossil carbon release event will show up in 13C proxies of the carbon cycle, in dissolution of ocean carbonates through acidification of the ocean, through mass extinctions arising from rapid warming, and through the moraine record left by retreating mountain glaciers and land-based ice sheets. As an event, it is unlikely to permanently destroy the habitability of our planet, any more than did the K-T event or the PETM. Still, a hundred generations or more of our descendants will be condemned to live in a planetary climate far different from that which nurtured humanity, and in the company of a greatly impoverished biodiversity. Biodiversity does recover over the course of millions of years, but that is a very long time to wait, if indeed there are any of our species left around at the time to do the waiting. Extinction may not be precisely forever, but it is close enough.
    I just don't understand why you have such trouble accepting that a reduction in animal product consumption would reduce global greenhouse emissions and is probably the best thing most people can do on an individual scale.
    I honestly just do not understand where the logic comes from "small changes do nothing"... if everyone thought that then we would be stuck in the middle ages. Nothing would ever happen.

    On being vegan, I already know that and follow a complete vegetarian diet and try to be vegan to the point of not troubling my friends, which I've already said, suggesting that I know vegan is the best answer. What I'm saying is that if everyone ate meat on a much less regular basis, consumed locally, there would be an improvement... and this is a much more likely scenario than everyone becoming vegan. Being vegan is not easy.

    I also study climate as part of my degree and believe me, it's depressing turning up to lectures. Being realistic of the situation doesn't mean we have to throw our hands in the air and wash our hands of any responsibility because "it's inevitable"... there is much room for improvement. Knowing the facts actually should make you more determined to try your best to reduce the destruction we are causing.

    How are you going to make America and China change their attitude?? Except through protest and petition there's not much you can do there (which you should do obvs). Unless you are an exceptional engineer you're not going to be part of a team making technological/vehicular changes either. You can change your diet though. It's really not hard to reduce your meat/animal product consumption. 18% is not at all insignificant and these changes alongside advances in technology are what will slow down climate change. There is not one solution to slowing it down, you have to have a combination of many things and changing diet is one of those factors.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Corbynista)
    By moaning you mean standing up for the animals who are voiceless and people are happy to slaughter (although wouldn't take the axe and do it themselves). Traditions are outdated things from the best.
    Yeah pretty much. We're omnivores and top of the food chain. The only difference is we don't need to chase meat round a forest these days.
    • Offline

      20
      (Original post by Corbynista)
      Stop posting threads that only contain YouTube videos. Form your own opinion and than ask for thoughts on that. Otherwise we might as well all just be posting comments on the original video.

      Ontopic: the only vegan I know is asexual. Kind of crushes your theory from where I'm standing :pierre:
      • TSR Support Team
      Offline

      15
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by Moura)
      I just don't understand why you have such trouble accepting that a reduction in animal product consumption would reduce global greenhouse emissions and is probably the best thing most people can do on an individual scale.
      I honestly just do not understand where the logic comes from "small changes do nothing"... if everyone thought that then we would be stuck in the middle ages. Nothing would ever happen.

      On being vegan, I already know that and follow a complete vegetarian diet and try to be vegan to the point of not troubling my friends, which I've already said, suggesting that I know vegan is the best answer. What I'm saying is that if everyone ate meat on a much less regular basis, consumed locally, there would be an improvement... and this is a much more likely scenario than everyone becoming vegan. Being vegan is not easy.

      I also study climate as part of my degree and believe me, it's depressing turning up to lectures. Being realistic of the situation doesn't mean we have to throw our hands in the air and wash our hands of any responsibility because "it's inevitable"... there is much room for improvement. Knowing the facts actually should make you more determined to try your best to reduce the destruction we are causing.

      How are you going to make America and China change their attitude?? Except through protest and petition there's not much you can do there (which you should do obvs). Unless you are an exceptional engineer you're not going to be part of a team making technological/vehicular changes either. You can change your diet though. It's really not hard to reduce your meat/animal product consumption. 18% is not at all insignificant and these changes alongside advances in technology are what will slow down climate change. There is not one solution to slowing it down, you have to have a combination of many things and changing diet is one of those factors.

      Obviously the main answer to that is 'i don't want to'. Like there is not even a 1% chance of me doing so, it would make me far less happy and i'm not going to do it.

      However, the vegan argument that if we all change it sort everything is just not true, neither is meat eating is unethical and horrible.

      Due to India i would guess that say 1/6 of the world is vegan at most (i tried to google but no answers. Just loads of nonsense hippy articles talking about the ethics of slaughter which have NOTHING to do with climate change.

      You'll never get that to 1/2. So at most what, 9% of the GWG's will be removed.

      Your own link states that 40 million cubic tonnes of CO2 (the most harmful gas) are connected to the use of fossil fuels in fertilizing. As was 90 million cubic tonnes connected with very concentrated farming ie battery conditions

      So:

      That 18% figure is actually being inflated and worsened by outdated technology. We remove fossil fuels, we lower the 'animal product related damage' to the environment.

      Secondly, the UK has been pushing for free-range conditions.

      All farms around me have large fields, most 200+ acres. So some of that critique is more aimed at other countries and how they treat animals.

      All of the above means that becoming vegan really is only touching 18% of the GWG's AT ABSOLUTE MOST. More likely sub 10%.

      Vegatarianism has a tiny influence by comparison given that animals will still be bred to be milked. Whether they're eaten once killed is hardly that significant.


      It is one of those factors (well the biggest as you've shown but not 'big' as a piece of the overall pie) but i don't think 18% is enough to 'save the planet' (we've already established the real achievable figure of change is way below 18%).

      Changing your diet and removing many things you enjoy from your life is simply too unpalatable for most of the populace imo, me included. That's the bottom line.
      Offline

      18
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by Unistudent77)
      Obviously the main answer to that is 'i don't want to'. Like there is not even a 1% chance of me doing so, it would make me far less happy and i'm not going to do it.

      However, the vegan argument that if we all change it sort everything is just not true, neither is meat eating is unethical and horrible.

      Due to India i would guess that say 1/6 of the world is vegan at most (i tried to google but no answers. Just loads of nonsense hippy articles talking about the ethics of slaughter which have NOTHING to do with climate change.

      You'll never get that to 1/2. So at most what, 9% of the GWG's will be removed.

      Your own link states that 40 million cubic tonnes of CO2 (the most harmful gas) are connected to the use of fossil fuels in fertilizing. As was 90 million cubic tonnes connected with very concentrated farming ie battery conditions

      So:

      That 18% figure is actually being inflated and worsened by outdated technology. We remove fossil fuels, we lower the 'animal product related damage' to the environment.

      Secondly, the UK has been pushing for free-range conditions.

      All farms around me have large fields, most 200+ acres. So some of that critique is more aimed at other countries and how they treat animals.

      All of the above means that becoming vegan really is only touching 18% of the GWG's AT ABSOLUTE MOST. More likely sub 10%.

      Vegatarianism has a tiny influence by comparison given that animals will still be bred to be milked. Whether they're eaten once killed is hardly that significant.


      It is one of those factors (well the biggest as you've shown but not 'big' as a piece of the overall pie) but i don't think 18% is enough to 'save the planet' (we've already established the real achievable figure of change is way below 18%).

      Changing your diet and removing many things you enjoy from your life is simply too unpalatable for most of the populace imo, me included. That's the bottom line.
      Yep, you just don't want to, that is the crux of the problem. That is the only thing you are saying that is true.

      You're literally just throwing out abstract ideas that remove any responsibility from an individual and just rely on "someone else" (who???) inventing things that don't exist yet! If we had the technology to viably replace all fossil fuels in every aspect of life then yes, the entire issue of climate change would be well on the way to being resolved. Please tell me how you're going to do this? Renewable sources aren't sufficient and nuclear comes with a whole load of problems. The best thing we can ALL do right now to slow down climate change (and maybe give these technologies time to develop!) is everything we can on an individual scale. If everyone reduced and was more considerate about what they were eating then it would have a cumulative effect. Attitudes like yours are problematic.

      Also you're ignoring the huge amount of methane that cattle farming produces (30x more potent than CO2).

      If simply reducing meat/animal product consumption has that much effect on someones happiness then they must have quite a sad life.
      • TSR Support Team
      Offline

      15
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by Moura)
      Yep, you just don't want to, that is the crux of the problem. That is the only thing you are saying that is true.

      You're literally just throwing out abstract ideas that remove any responsibility from an individual and just rely on "someone else" (who???) inventing things that don't exist yet! If we had the technology to viably replace all fossil fuels in every aspect of life then yes, the entire issue of climate change would be well on the way to being resolved. Please tell me how you're going to do this? Renewable sources aren't sufficient and nuclear comes with a whole load of problems. The best thing we can ALL do right now to slow down climate change (and maybe give these technologies time to develop!) is everything we can on an individual scale. If everyone reduced and was more considerate about what they were eating then it would have a cumulative effect. Attitudes like yours are problematic.

      Also you're ignoring the huge amount of methane that cattle farming produces (30x more potent than CO2).

      If simply reducing meat/animal product consumption has that much effect on someones happiness then they must have quite a sad life.
      That isn't true but ok.

      I'm saying becoming vegan isn't worth it given that the difference it would make (even pretending everyone does it, which they obviously won't) is not that significant and certainly not enough for people like me (who acknowledge climate change and want to limit it) to go through the displeasure of taking out dairy and meat from our diets for LIFE.

      There are already hybrid cars, i'll be purchasing one. I'll certainly avoid a diesel.

      I agree renewables aren't ready, hence why we need superpowers to advance the cause. And no, i can't make this happen.

      Nuclear is not that unsafe and is by far our best option at the present moment but everyone is scared of it so unfortunately faces stigma.

      Your methane point backs up my point about how little a difference becoming vegatarian makes.

      I would seriously dislike eating a vegan diet. Maybe for a couple of weeks i'd manage it but it would be awful longer-term. Everything i enjoy (well almost, i like soup and bread) is meat/dairy based

      People should have freedom (to a large extent) and they can eat how they want to. You can eat how you wish obviously.

      A far better way is improving/adapting what people use and pollute the planet with.

      Asking people to change their diet by eliminating all dairy and meat and believing they will is simply a utopian dream.

      This is before we get into the defie cy in diet issue. Of course you can be vegan and get everything you need and i know people who do (huge respect to them!) but i reckon most vegans don't.
      Offline

      18
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by Unistudent77)
      That isn't true but ok.

      I'm saying becoming vegan isn't worth it given that the difference it would make (even pretending everyone does it, which they obviously won't) is not that significant and certainly not enough for people like me (who acknowledge climate change and want to limit it) to go through the displeasure of taking out dairy and meat from our diets for LIFE.

      There are already hybrid cars, i'll be purchasing one. I'll certainly avoid a diesel.

      I agree renewables aren't ready, hence why we need superpowers to advance the cause. And no, i can't make this happen.

      Nuclear is not that unsafe and is by far our best option at the present moment but everyone is scared of it so unfortunately faces stigma.

      Your methane point backs up my point about how little a difference becoming vegatarian makes.

      I would seriously dislike eating a vegan diet. Maybe for a couple of weeks i'd manage it but it would be awful longer-term. Everything i enjoy (well almost, i like soup and bread) is meat/dairy based

      People should have freedom (to a large extent) and they can eat how they want to. You can eat how you wish obviously.

      A far better way is improving/adapting what people use and pollute the planet with.

      Asking people to change their diet by eliminating all dairy and meat and believing they will is simply a utopian dream.

      This is before we get into the defie cy in diet issue. Of course you can be vegan and get everything you need and i know people who do (huge respect to them!) but i reckon most vegans don't.
      You're absolving consumers of any responsibility to think about what they're buying and how it affects climate globally. Your putting all the onus on abstract things such as "superpowers" and "scientists" to fix everything so that you can can continue living a destructive lifestyle. You think buying a hybrid car is doing your bit, when in fact it's literally doing the absolute minimum (where do you think the electricity comes from?). You ignore my point about at least reducing animal product consumption and keep telling me how you don't want to be vegan, which I understood 5 messages ago and explained that if everyone started by reducing, rather than complete removal, there would be improvement. You use the logic "one person won't make a difference" to justify your arguments, which is far from how all change in human history has happened (and obviously it isn't just 1 person as more and more people are making the decision to think about what they eat). It is actually pretty much accepted how much damage the animal/meat industry is causing to the climate and that mitigation efforts would slow down global warming... I can understand deciding you don't care and want to be selfish and continue living as you are, if that is just the way you are... but to kid yourself and deny the facts and label everyone else's conscientious actions as "pointless" is just a bit ridiculous. I am not saying it is the only thing to focus on, I'm saying it is something everyone can feasibly do without much effort to help the situation.
      • TSR Support Team
      Offline

      15
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by Moura)
      You're absolving consumers of any responsibility to think about what they're buying and how it affects climate globally. Your putting all the onus on abstract things such as "superpowers" and "scientists" to fix everything so that you can can continue living a destructive lifestyle. You think buying a hybrid car is doing your bit, when in fact it's literally doing the absolute minimum (where do you think the electricity comes from?). You ignore my point about at least reducing animal product consumption and keep telling me how you don't want to be vegan, which I understood 5 messages ago and explained that if everyone started by reducing, rather than complete removal, there would be improvement. You use the logic "one person won't make a difference" to justify your arguments, which is far from how all change in human history has happened (and obviously it isn't just 1 person as more and more people are making the decision to think about what they eat). It is actually pretty much accepted how much damage the animal/meat industry is causing to the climate and that mitigation efforts would slow down global warming... I can understand deciding you don't care and want to be selfish and continue living as you are, if that is just the way you are... but to kid yourself and deny the facts and label everyone else's conscientious actions as "pointless" is just a bit ridiculous. I am not saying it is the only thing to focus on, I'm saying it is something everyone can feasibly do without much effort to help the situation.
      So the other 82% is 'abstract' is it? Yet the 18% is the be all and end all?

      I think the problem is you are talking about what an individual can do, rather than what can be achieved by us as a collective.
      The 'minimum' to you may be a hybrid car but to the general populace that would be radical.


      I've said my point a million times as to why being vegatarian will have far less of an effect than being vegan due to cows still being bred to be milked.
      So 'improvement' is heavily limited until people go vegan.

      I'm not saying it's pointless, i'm saying the difference will be minimal and you're doing it for moral reasons really. Fair enough. As your last sentence alludes to, for you it isn't 'much effort' to cut dairy and meat from your diet but for most it would be a monumental undertaking.
      Offline

      18
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by Unistudent77)
      So the other 82% is 'abstract' is it? Yet the 18% is the be all and end all?

      I think the problem is you are talking about what an individual can do, rather than what can be achieved by us as a collective.
      The 'minimum' to you may be a hybrid car but to the general populace that would be radical.


      I've said my point a million times as to why being vegatarian will have far less of an effect than being vegan due to cows still being bred to be milked.
      So 'improvement' is heavily limited until people go vegan.

      I'm not saying it's pointless, i'm saying the difference will be minimal and you're doing it for moral reasons really. Fair enough. As your last sentence alludes to, for you it isn't 'much effort' to cut dairy and meat from your diet but for most it would be a monumental undertaking.
      You keep changing what I say to fit your own agenda. Being vegetarian will make much more of a difference than doing nothing, but then again doing nothing and living in a bubble is much easier isn't it. A large number of environmental experts agree that giving up meat will help slow down global warming and is essential... so I think I will believe them and their papers over you.

      However, my point is reducing the consumption of all animal products , not going cold turkey, which I have stated over and over again... but for some reason you keep ignoring this and flip between vegetarianism being pointless and veganism being too hard. And no, I don't find being vegan easy, I find it hard and don't classify my diet as vegan, which is why I don't suggest it as the only route that everyone must take.
      Offline

      3
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by Angry Bird)
      rather eat steak than have sex
      Imagine life without bacon!!!
      Offline

      16
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by AshEntropy)
      Imagine life without bacon!!!
      don't really eat bacon but I do eat eggs..almost everyday
      Offline

      19
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by Corbynista)
      What was the point of you posting this?
      • TSR Support Team
      Offline

      15
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by Moura)
      You keep changing what I say to fit your own agenda. Being vegetarian will make much more of a difference than doing nothing, but then again doing nothing and living in a bubble is much easier isn't it. A large number of environmental experts agree that giving up meat will help slow down global warming and is essential... so I think I will believe them and their papers over you.

      However, my point is reducing the consumption of all animal products , not going cold turkey, which I have stated over and over again... but for some reason you keep ignoring this and flip between vegetarianism being pointless and veganism being too hard. And no, I don't find being vegan easy, I find it hard and don't classify my diet as vegan, which is why I don't suggest it as the only route that everyone must take.
      It isn't a linear decrease in your contribution to GWG's through going from meat eater to vegatarian and vegatarian to vegan.

      Veganism would decrease the demand for cattle (obviously) whereas vegatarianism would not really. A tiny bit as some are bred for meat but most cows and chickens would be bred to be milked/eggs taken, thus drinking milk and eating eggs contributes towards more animals being bred.

      That depends on whether it is already too late and frankly other factors will be more pivotal such as what happens with fossil fuels and technology advancements (and yes farming advancements would be included in the latter which would reduce that 18% figure).

      It's an evolving situation and therefore anyone claiming 'it's essential to be vegan in order to save the planet' is just guessing. Will an 18% reduction be enough (which obviously won't be anywhere near 18%, more like 8%)?
      Highly doubtful if we look at recent trends

      See my point above about how it isn't a linear curve. If you are consuming dairy products (or to a lesser extent other animal based products) then you are contributing to the breeding of more cows (and other animals potentially depending on what animal it's a product of) and therefore GWGs due to increasing demand.
      Offline

      0
      ReputationRep:
      Kill urself stupid hippy

      sumbody force meat down his throat

      britian four the british

      god save the queen

      we the british will never be slayin
     
     
     
  1. See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  2. Poll
    Will you be richer or poorer than your parents?
    Useful resources
    AtCTs

    Ask the Community Team

    Got a question about the site content or our moderation? Ask here.

    Welcome Lounge

    Welcome Lounge

    We're a friendly bunch. Post here if you're new to TSR.

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  3. See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  4. The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.