Universal Love TRTT Part 8: Random thoughts also sack Hinkley

[Lagooner]

There's been a few months where I have driven the HQ daily. Certainly not all year but driving it as the everyday car would be maybe triple that?

I mean, if everyone just lived ten minutes away from everything we'd use a lot less of everything, which brings me back to me other sticking point.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Unfortunately it’s not that simple. If you devolved all the big cities into thousands of smaller towns you’d have the population spread out over a much larger area. Servicing the sprawl would be very inefficient.

 

[Janus]

I’m not sure how this flows from what I said but I agree with it.

You said that humans don’t really have anything to offer the planet and are good for nothing. I’m saying that it’s not humans that are good for nothing but how we choose to live that is the problem. If people lived right, we would have the responsibility of looking after the planet.

Those that allow their base desire and instinct to rule them are, by the Hermetic definition, evil. Those who allow reason and sense (the higher self) to rule them reflect the good.

 

[Lagooner]

You said that humans don’t really have anything to offer the planet and are good for nothing. I’m saying that it’s not humans that are good for nothing but how we choose to live that is the problem. If people lived right, we would have the responsibility of looking after the planet.

Those that allow their base desire and instinct to rule them are, by the Hermetic definition, evil. Those who allow reason and sense (the higher self) to rule them reflect the good.

No I was replying to the idea that livestock animals have “no use” outside of being a food source with the suggestion that inherently neither do we.

 

[edgie]

Unfortunately it’s not that simple. If you devolved all the big cities into thousands of smaller towns you’d have the population spread out over a much larger area. Servicing the sprawl would be very inefficient.

A lot of regional areas have infrastructure in place to cope with much greater populations than what they currently do, and you don't think places could service themselves?

Anyway, we are still drifting from my main original point.

When we do we accept we have to settle for less?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Lagooner]

A lot of regional areas have infrastructure in place to cope with much greater populations than what they currently do, and you don't think places could service themselves?

Anyway, we are still drifting from my main original point.

When we do we accept we have to settle for less?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

As I said before, never. Almost everyone that exists will not willingly accept less than they already have and it will eventually come to a head.

 

[Butters Made Me Do It]

Once again with the ad hominems. Come back to me you have an actual argument.

Lol like you posted anything more than a shrill squeal of unfounded alarm

I mean really

You don't think the massive increase required in cropping to cover for the shortfall in protein levels would have a significant environmental impact?

- Remove almost all meat/dairy animals
- Replace feed crops with other crops
- There are also urban/industrial options for protein growth

But you invent a ‘massive increase required’, when...why? Why a massive increase? In the absence of you justifying your bizarre and idiotic question, I have to assume you’re arguing that feeding up cows etc is more efficient than humans eating crops directly?

lol you knob

 

[edgie]

As I said before, never. Almost everyone that exists will not willingly accept less than they already have and it will eventually come to a head.

Then there's nothing meaningful that can be done. What's the point lol?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Butters Made Me Do It]

Then there's nothing meaningful that can be done.

There’s ecofascism. It’ll probably come regardless of what anyone here does.

 

[Janus]

As I said before, never. Almost everyone that exists will not willingly accept less than they already have and it will eventually come to a head.

“We are the causes of Evil, preferring them before the Good. The things most apparent are Evil, but the Good is secret...for it has neither Form nor Figure.”

In other words - it is only our desire for tangible, material things that drives our nature toward destruction. The things that are most important aren’t things at all, but that which is incorporeal - our relationship with others, for example.

It’s not about accepting less. It’s about changing the mentality that having more is something to aspire to.

 

[Eddie Dingle]

Come on you guys the good old fashioned Aussie she’ll be right attitude will get us through everything.

 

[edgie]

Oh I know she'll be right or more likely she's rooted regardless of what happens downunder so have a good one.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Forzaport]

Bugs are an alternate source of protein, until we start feeling bad about eating them...

 

[Relativity]

Lol like you posted anything more than a shrill squeal of unfounded alarm

I mean really
- Remove almost all meat/dairy animals
- Replace feed crops with other crops
- There are also urban/industrial options for protein growth


But you invent a ‘massive increase required’, when...why? Why a massive increase? In the absence of you justifying your bizarre and idiotic question, I have to assume you’re arguing that feeding up cows etc is more efficient than humans eating crops directly?

lol you knob

No need to go all PB on me BMMDI. All I have done is point out that the "sunshine and rainbow" vegan solution is not all sunshine and rainbows. Now let's filter out the tanty and address the points you bring up.

"- Replace feed crops with other crops".
The amount of feed crops is a small portion of area covered by the sheep and cattle industry in Australia. It is only really the feedlot sector of the meat industry that uses cropping for stock feed. This accounts for less than 50% of our red meat production. While a portion of the grass fed production uses hay for supplementary feed this is sourced largely from on farm grass harvesting. That is the farm cuts and bails the existing grass during the spring when it is growing faster than the stock can eat. The station country, where the majority of stock is held rarely supplementary feed. It is not economical or practical for them to do.
If you want to replace the millions of hectares of grazing land with crops you would need to clear more land to make room. The added problem with this is that about 85% of Australia's grazing land is not suitable for cropping because of it's lack of reliable rainfall and poor soil profile.

"- There are also urban/industrial options for protein growth".
As I pointed out before, while there has been massive research done in this area, the reason why it hasn't taken off is it is too expensive to produce. You mention mushrooms. They don't need much room (sorry) or sunshine but rice, wheat and any other cereal crop still require lots of those ingredients. You still have to clear an area to make room for them.

" Why a massive increase?"
As above you are replacing stock grazing area with crop growing area. We don't keep spare cropping area. It has to be found and cleared.

"you’re arguing that feeding up cows etc is more efficient than humans eating crops directly"
No I'm not. I'm arguing that if you want to feed the world a vegan diet then that is going to come at a massive environmental cost. Something the vegan does contortions to to hide.

"lol you knob"
Grab yourself a stick of celery and go lie down.

 

[Rexie J]

No need to go all PB on me BMMDI. All I have done is point out that the "sunshine and rainbow" vegan solution is not all sunshine and rainbows. Now let's filter out the tanty and address the points you bring up.

"- Replace feed crops with other crops".
The amount of feed crops is a small portion of area covered by the sheep and cattle industry in Australia. It is only really the feedlot sector of the meat industry that uses cropping for stock feed. This accounts for less than 50% of our red meat production. While a portion of the grass fed production uses hay for supplementary feed this is sourced largely from on farm grass harvesting. That is the farm cuts and bails the existing grass during the spring when it is growing faster than the stock can eat. The station country, where the majority of stock is held rarely supplementary feed. It is not economical or practical for them to do.
If you want to replace the millions of hectares of grazing land with crops you would need to clear more land to make room. The added problem with this is that about 85% of Australia's grazing land is not suitable for cropping because of it's lack of reliable rainfall and poor soil profile.

"- There are also urban/industrial options for protein growth".
As I pointed out before, while there has been massive research done in this area, the reason why it hasn't taken off is it is too expensive to produce. You mention mushrooms. They don't need much room (sorry) or sunshine but rice, wheat and any other cereal crop still require lots of those ingredients. You still have to clear an area to make room for them.

" Why a massive increase?"
As above you are replacing stock grazing area with crop growing area. We don't keep spare cropping area. It has to be found and cleared.

"you’re arguing that feeding up cows etc is more efficient than humans eating crops directly"
No I'm not. I'm arguing that if you want to feed the world a vegan diet then that is going to come at a massive environmental cost. Something the vegan does contortions to to hide.

You know what you are talking about.

I was in the livestock/buying/trading/politics sector for many years.

PS. I stopped buying for the live trade to the Middle East after an extensive visit to Saudi and Emirates.

 

[Janus]

"The world has lost a third of its arable land due to erosion or pollution in the past 40 years, with potentially disastrous consequences as global demand for food soars, scientists have warned.

New research has calculated that nearly 33% of the world’s adequate or high-quality food-producing land has been lost at a rate that far outstrips the pace of natural processes to replace diminished soil.

The continual ploughing of fields, combined with heavy use of fertilizers, has degraded soils across the world, the research found, with erosion occurring at a pace of up to 100 times greater than the rate of soil formation. It takes around 500 years for just 2.5cm of topsoil to be created amid unimpeded ecological changes."

Again, the pursuit of profit instead of giving the land a chance to replenish the nutrients in the soil through water that never gets downstream because of all the farm dams that are around to service livestock/crops is the problem.

In ancient Israel, they would let the land recover for a year every seven years. They called it a jubilee year. People think that modern societies are so much smarter than the older ones, but in actual fact they are so much dumber because they are driven by greed. Pay the farmers a compensation payment for the seventh year that is added into the price of their product and let the soil recover for a bit, FFS.

 

[Butters Made Me Do It]

"- Replace feed crops with other crops".

The amount of feed crops is a small portion of area covered by the sheep and cattle industry in Australia. It is only really the feedlot sector of the meat industry that uses cropping for stock feed. This accounts for less than 50% of our red meat production. While a portion of the grass fed production uses hay for supplementary feed this is sourced largely from on farm grass harvesting. That is the farm cuts and bails the existing grass during the spring when it is growing faster than the stock can eat. The station country, where the majority of stock is held rarely supplementary feed. It is not economical or practical for them to do.

If you want to replace the millions of hectares of grazing land with crops you would need to clear more land to make room. The added problem with this is that about 85% of Australia's grazing land is not suitable for cropping because of it's lack of reliable rainfall and poor soil profile.

- 40% of Australian beef is feedlot, 80% of beef in Aus supermarkets is feedlot. Swapping for cropping doesnt look so huge with that in mind re feeding Australians. As for a very popular meat like chicken, thats pretty much all crop feed isnt it?

As I pointed out before, while there has been massive research done in this area, the reason why it hasn't taken off is it is too expensive to produce.

Things like this being ‘too expensive’ track against current cheap agricultural product. Climate change will make all such tech more ‘affordable’. It seems likely that the proportional value of agricultural product vs other product (tech, service, etc) increases.
We export ~71% of our beef (as part of the 65% of total farm production we export). Australia is in a fantastic position to control its own agricultural outputs and raise demand/raise prices to the point that alternate technologies are deployed to support what food is made available internationally.

This isn’t a technical impossibility, its just not economically feasible in current market conditions. Change the market.

" Why a massive increase?"

As above you are replacing stock grazing area with crop growing area.

Thats one option bu it looks by far to be the stupidest one. We can let grazing land regenerate by killing beef exports and actually do a good thing for our environment.

Its replaced by other protein sources from the significant volume of reclaimed crop land that goes to animal feed, and technological solutions driven by continued research and improving the relative value if agriculture outputs via cultural change and the unavoidable impacts of climate change.

And maybe we can replace that high irrigation cotton too. Fresh water is going to be more valuable in achieving food solutions.

 

[Duck Farmer]

- 40% of Australian beef is feedlot, 80% of beef in Aus supermarkets is feedlot. Swapping for cropping doesnt look so huge with that in mind re feeding Australians. As for a very popular meat like chicken, thats pretty much all crop feed isnt it?

Things like this being ‘too expensive’ track against current cheap agricultural product. Climate change will make all such tech more ‘affordable’. It seems likely that the proportional value of agricultural product vs other product (tech, service, etc) increases.
We export ~71% of our beef (as part of the 65% of total farm production we export). Australia is in a fantastic position to control its own agricultural outputs and raise demand/raise prices to the point that alternate technologies are deployed to support what food is made available internationally.

This isn’t a technical impossibility, its just not economically feasible in current market conditions. Change the market.

Thats one option bu it looks by far to be the stupidest one. We can let grazing land regenerate by killing beef exports and actually do a good thing for our environment.

Its replaced by other protein sources from the significant volume of reclaimed crop land that goes to animal feed, and technological solutions driven by continued research and improving the relative value if agriculture outputs via cultural change and the unavoidable impacts of climate change.

And maybe we can replace that high irrigation cotton too. Fresh water is going to be more valuable in achieving food solutions.

All good points plus we won't have to put up with Sam Kekovich.

 

[DazalenkoUBewty]

How ya'll doing? Just thought I'd stop by and give some love to the couple decent folk of this forum. Hope you're all going ok after the harsh loss. You know who you are. .. To the rest... well, I know you're hurting.
Life is better without this head-toss of a joint. Tc

 

[edgie]

Lol I love how the climate/sustainable environment discussion is really only centred on ethics of meat eating.

Way to see the forest from the trees. That's overtly progressive types for you.

How much tech are we using to converse in this medium? Where did it come from? Did it grow on trees? Where are we getting the energy to use it?




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[edgie]

Although we absolutely need to go get our guns and invade all the cotton farms. Start the revolution. Can't rely on politics and policy. Be prepared to die to for something. Heck, be willing to.

No violence, no change.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Butters Made Me Do It]

Adding to my previous post (had to get to phone charger so hit post), Tencel lyocell (an alternative fiber to cotton) is derived from eucalyptus which we could certainly use some of the grazing lands for, freeing up that cotton field nearer to irrigation.

 

[Butters Made Me Do It]

Although we absolutely need to go get our guns and invade all the cotton farms. Start the revolution. Can't rely on politics and policy. Be prepared to die to for something. Heck, be willing to.

Of all the problems we face, shutting down cotton irrigators shouldn’t be one we need guns for. Its only grown because its economically viable, and less water-demanding crops are suitable for the same land. Legislation could end this one easily.

Save a farmer, shoot a pollie

 

[Eddie Dingle]

Of all the problems we face, shutting down cotton irrigators shouldn’t be one we need guns for. Its only grown because its economically viable, and less water-demanding crops are suitable for the same land. Legislation could end this one easily.

Save a farmer, shoot a pollie

I don’t like guns.

Can we just throw rocks at them?

 

[Butters Made Me Do It]

I don’t like guns.

Can we just throw rocks at them?

Get em in a headlock

 

[Del165198]

Get em in a headlock

ScumMo looks like the kind of guy who put a lot of people in head locks and gave them noogies in high school