Should all cows be killed?

[Dimentio]

Cows are more responsible for CO2 emissions than cars (http://jds.fass.org/cgi/reprint/78/12/2760.pdf)

http://www.asware.net/gallery/d/3769-2/cow.jpg

So, both we and the republicans have concluded that the cow is responsible for a lot of environmental problems today. What to do? The republican solution is to bark at environmentalists and animal rights-activists and call them hypocrites, as well proposing that we do environment a "favor" and eat at McDonalds, wrongfully concluding that cows are a non-renewable resource.

My solution is the following, and that is that we completely and fully scrap the animalic agriculture, down to the smallest ecological farm. Cows, sheep, any pasture, should be converted to more space-efficient and nutrient-rich vegetabilic agricultural areas. Many "greens" want to keep their childhood pasture with "Rosa" and all the sheep, for nostalgic reasons. But we could potentially not only stomp out a lot of emissions, but also utilise our nutrient needs more efficiently by using less land than otherwise needed and receive more enegy.

Imagine how much land we could terraform into natural forest! Bio-diversity will, after a generation, prosper.

So, it is time to create a final solution on the cow issue.
:cool:

[capitalistwhore]

I can see the headlines now: Socialists begin new plan, Commit Bovinicide

Somehow I am not sure if OUR "final solution" should ever involve mass killings - however, I do see a potential here for taking care of world hunger temporarily...

[Dr Mindbender]

Send the cows to Africa. Cut down world hunger and Co2 emmissions in one swoop. Problem solved.
Oh yeah, McDonalds wont like that, will they? :unsure:

[chimx]

Back in the old days of Earth First! when it was run by "country folk", it was quite a common position of theirs to go shoot cows due to the problems modern animal husbandry has on our ecosystem.

[Dimentio]

Originally posted by [email protected] 03, 2007 06:09 am
Back in the old days of Earth First! when it was run by "country folk", it was quite a common position of theirs to go shoot cows due to the problems modern animal husbandry has on our ecosystem.
Hahaha... what happened? Did PC liberals take over?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

At this point I feel it would be useful to point out that one can raise animals in areas unsuitable for growing crops. I do not see the utility in getting rid of all animal rearing.

[Dimentio]

For it is nutrically inefficient? We have this debate on tech.eu as well. :D

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Originally posted by [email protected] 03, 2007 08:35 pm
For it is nutrically inefficient? We have this debate on tech.eu as well. :D
How is it nutritionally inefficient? I suppose it's more "efficient" to harvest blades of grass off a hillside for yourself to eat than have a sheep do the hard work for you and eat mutton for dinner. And get a woolly jumper or sheepskin* into the bargain.

Efficiency comes in stranger forms than you think.

*Wearing these can save energy that would be otherwise used to heat the building you're in.

[Dimentio]

We get more of turning the overextended pastures into more efficient farmlands. We could also return a lot of pastures to wildlife. This debate I am already undertaking with Fredrik Jonsson at the NET forums.

[socialistfuture]

real inappropriate to use the ford final solution for obvious reasons.
here in nz the bulk of our emissions come from agriculture and especially cows and sheep. they are trying to make pills that deduce the amount of methane they belch.

[Dimentio]

Originally posted by [email protected] 03, 2007 09:36 pm
real inappropriate to use the ford final solution for obvious reasons.
here in nz the bulk of our emissions come from agriculture and especially cows and sheep. they are trying to make pills that deduce the amount of methane they belch.
Yes I know it's inappropriate :D

Tragedy with NZ though. I mean a real nice environment destroyed to make pastures for 20 million sheep.

[socialistfuture]

i dont advocate no animal farming and i am vegan, its cool to have animals around. however a massive reduction in stock numbers and a conversion to permiculture and other more effective methods i believe is needed.

similar to what cuba has done.
here is an awesome video of Vandana Shiva talking about agriculture and nutrition (amongst other things).

http://youtube.com/watch?v=kzR7w4HOCDM
- it starts on the clash of civilisations and then goes on to ashima - non violence, anti imperialism and ecology.

[Dimentio]

Originally posted by [email protected] 03, 2007 09:39 pm
i dont advocate no animal farming and i am vegan, its cool to have animals around. however a massive reduction in stock numbers and a conversion to permiculture and other more effective methods i believe is needed.

similar to what cuba has done.
here is an awesome video of Vandana Shiva talking about agriculture and nutrition (amongst other things).

http://youtube.com/watch?v=kzR7w4HOCDM
- it starts on the clash of civilisations and then goes on to ashima - non violence, anti imperialism and ecology.
Oh great, it's "cool" to have animals around. Just like Swedish greens, who want more pastures, most likely out of nostalgia. *cough cough*

[socialistfuture]

id far more enjoy hanging out with animals that authoritarian marxists :P

[Dimentio]

Originally posted by [email protected] 03, 2007 10:14 pm
id far more enjoy hanging out with animals that authoritarian marxists :P
I'm not a marxist and not an anarchist, but a technocrat. :D

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

We get more of turning the overextended pastures into more efficient farmlands.

You can't grow crops on thin soils without exhausting them. Not to mention the difficulties in planting and harvesting crops growing on steep slopes.

If it's efficiency you want, why not rear something that can at least transport itself?


We could also return a lot of pastures to wildlife.

How is this more efficient?

[Dimentio]

We need less areals to grow the same amounts of nutrients equivalent to our current consumption of meat. Hence, we would make a more optimal decision.

[TC]

the title of this thread is in profoundly bad taste and is clearly meant more to alarm than as a serious topic. you're really not funny.

[Dimentio]

I have sick sense of humor. Yay! :P

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 04, 2007 12:10 am
We need less areals to grow the same amounts of nutrients equivalent to our current consumption of meat.
You unfourtunately ignore the fact that some land is better for the kind of food that only animals eat (anything that contains no real nutrients other than cellulose) than for human-edible foodstuffs. It is more efficient to have cows where only grass can really grow than attempting to grow, say, wheat on there.


Hence, we would make a more optimal decision.

As NoXion and I pointed out it's not all that optimal if you look at crop growing and land usage.

[Jesus Christ!]

Originally posted by [email protected] 04, 2007 12:19 am
the title of this thread is in profoundly bad taste and is clearly meant more to alarm than as a serious topic. you're really not funny.
Says the kid with the "abortions tickle" avatar.

[Outmoded]

Okay, I've trawled this (http://www.innovations-report.com/html/reports/agricultural_sciences/report-14756.html) up on the interwebs.

It seems that we're already heading to some solution, although it probably won't please anyone with even a mild dislike of GM foods. Although this source is a preliminary prediction, it shows that various groups are considering genetic modification of livestock to produce:

Medically beneficial milk: In other words, milk that can boost the immune system, improve lactose utilization and even relieve diarrhea. Considering all the organic hoo-hah we had last time, I think will probably get the worst backlash, as it's the only product being put directly on our table.

Low-Fat Cows: This is possibly the most viably sound, as scientists have already established one part of the process, and through selective breeding hope to develop cows which produce low-fat milk. Again, I can't help but expect that this is going to generate some backlash, but then again, this is only a step up from basic breeding in any case.

Green Cows: The big one. Cows which produce greatly reduced levels of methane gas, by either adding or removing particular microorganisms within the cow's stomaches to create the ideal conditions for efficient digestion without the large gas output. I can't really call this one, I mean, it's only the minutest of changes, and nothing compared to some of the other things we do to cows, but still. Those animal rights protestors need something to do, don't they?

Okay, personally, I think this looks to be the best way forward - it'll just take a long time to do so. In the mean time, how about some system of tubes? Bottle the unholy arse-gas and use it.

[jaycee]

yeah i agree if nature is in a crisis we just kill it, after all that won't affect us we've got ipods

[Sentinel]

I have edited the thread title, as it was inappropriate and in a bad taste.

Please refrain from such jokes in the future.

[Dimentio]

Originally posted by Jazzratt+July 04, 2007 03:48 am--> (Jazzratt @ July 04, 2007 03:48 am)
[email protected] 04, 2007 12:10 am
We need less areals to grow the same amounts of nutrients equivalent to our current consumption of meat.
You unfourtunately ignore the fact that some land is better for the kind of food that only animals eat (anything that contains no real nutrients other than cellulose) than for human-edible foodstuffs. It is more efficient to have cows where only grass can really grow than attempting to grow, say, wheat on there.


Hence, we would make a more optimal decision.

As NoXion and I pointed out it's not all that optimal if you look at crop growing and land usage. [/b]
No matter if some land is better adopted for pasture, cows are undoubtly consuming more energy than they gives. Moreover, there are already a lot of food burned today, just in order to keep prices up. With the current production, I think we most likely could feed more than the world population. Hence scarcity is not a problem, but we would achieve a higher level of efficiency by consuming vegetabilic food.

[Vargha Poralli]

Or we could use it to produce energy Gobar Gas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gober_gas).


It is used in many villages in India which helps in reducing subsidies to LPG's Link (http://www.mothercow.org/oxen/gobar-gas-methane.html)


Originally posted by Wiki
Owing to its simplicity in implementation and use of cheap raw materials in the villages, it is often quoted as one of the most environmentally sound energy source for the rural needs.

Any way killing all the cows is totally impossible. In India Hindus still see it as a god and would stiffly oppose the act. Some insane religious Hindus should also have to be removed from population.

[Dimentio]

Originally posted by g.ram+July 04, 2007 12:32 pm--> (g.ram @ July 04, 2007 12:32 pm) Or we could use it to produce energy Gobar Gas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gober_gas).


It is used in many villages in India which helps in reducing subsidies to LPG's Link (http://www.mothercow.org/oxen/gobar-gas-methane.html)


Wiki
Owing to its simplicity in implementation and use of cheap raw materials in the villages, it is often quoted as one of the most environmentally sound energy source for the rural needs.

Any way killing all the cows is totally impossible. In India Hindus still see it as a god and would stiffly oppose the act. Some insane religious Hindus should also have to be removed from population. [/b]
Sounds interesting :)

As for India, I have my issues with hinduism but it is still a fascinating religion. Everything from Asia is fascinating.

[Luís Henrique]

But all cows are killed... just not all at once.

Why do I have the feeling that this thread belongs in Chit-Chat?

Luís Henrique

[Vargha Poralli]

Originally posted by Serpent+July 04, 2007 06:04 pm--> (Serpent @ July 04, 2007 06:04 pm)[quote]Originally posted by [email protected] 04, 2007 12:32 pm
Or we could use it to produce energy Gobar Gas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gober_gas).


It is used in many villages in India which helps in reducing subsidies to LPG's Link (http://www.mothercow.org/oxen/gobar-gas-methane.html)

[quote]Wiki
[b]As for India, I have my issues with hinduism but it is still a fascinating religion. Everything from Asia is fascinating.

As for with any religion Hinduism too has its issues. And yet it is stronger among the people who are the most oppressed by it - Dalits,OBCS and MBC's.

Only the liberation of the religious people from the alienating nature of Capitalism can make them stop using the dope - Religion.

[Dimentio]

Originally posted by Luís [email protected] 04, 2007 02:50 pm
But all cows are killed... just not all at once.

Why do I have the feeling that this thread belongs in Chit-Chat?

Luís Henrique
Yes. But I mean that we should'nt really renew them.

[Sentinel]

Topic split -- new topic on the future of religion has been created in the Religion forum.

Religion will always be the opiate of the masses (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=68385) (No, it won't!).


Why do I have the feeling that this thread belongs in Chit-Chat?

While I doubt anyone is seriously suggesting the mass slaughter of cows, I don't see why their emissions wouldn't be a valid topic for discussion on this forum. Not only do they seem to constitute an actual problem, may provide an useful energy source as well. We have already learned about gober gas for instance, so the thread is far from useless imo actually.

[Dimentio]

Yes, this thread has actually turned out better than my human rights-thread

[Enragé]

it depends on what the majority of people want. If they want to have cars at the expense of cows, so be it, if they'd rather have cows, so be it.

The question of efficiency is nonsense, its what would make the people the happiest.

[anarchista feminista]

Originally posted by [email protected] 06, 2007 07:57 am
it depends on what the majority of people want. If they want to have cars at the expense of cows, so be it, if they'd rather have cows, so be it.

The question of efficiency is nonsense, its what would make the people the happiest.
Alot of people enjoy both beef and cars... <_<

[Dimentio]

Originally posted by anarchista feminista+July 05, 2007 10:51 pm--> (anarchista feminista @ July 05, 2007 10:51 pm)
[email protected] 06, 2007 07:57 am
it depends on what the majority of people want. If they want to have cars at the expense of cows, so be it, if they&#39;d rather have cows, so be it.

The question of efficiency is nonsense, its what would make the people the happiest.
Alot of people enjoy both beef and cars... <_< [/b]
Even if that would mean suffering and decay later on? I assume that by education and enlightenment, most people could be mature enough to quit eating meat.

[kelly-087]

They are our natural prey and food I see no problem in killing and eating a cow.

[Entrails Konfetti]

Just watch, in the media they are really going to be pushing for a low beef diet pretty soon&#33;

[Luís Henrique]

Originally posted by [email protected] 05, 2007 07:12 pm
While I doubt anyone is seriously suggesting the mass slaughter of cows, I don&#39;t see why their emissions wouldn&#39;t be a valid topic for discussion on this forum.
So let&#39;s try to be a bit rational about cows emissions of CO2.

As we should know, cows release CO2 into the atmosphere because they use oxygen from the air to burn carbon.

Now, where does this carbon cows burn come from?

From plants, particularly grass, that cows eat.

And those plants, where do they take their carbon from?

From the atmosphere, via photossynthesis.

Cows don&#39;t create carbon. They release carbon that was fixed by plants. As long as cows - or other animals - are not destroying all vegetal life, this is part of a natural cycle, which is perfectly sustainable and renewable.

Luís Henrique

[socialistfuture]

it is methane from cows that is the problem.
too many cows = large methane emmisions - there is a little bit of debate about it here because agriculture is so central to the nz economy at the present - so that means LOTS of sheep and cows, meat and diary - the majority of which is for export.

[Dimentio]

Originally posted by Luís Henrique+July 07, 2007 06:01 am--> (Luís Henrique @ July 07, 2007 06:01 am)
[email protected] 05, 2007 07:12 pm
While I doubt anyone is seriously suggesting the mass slaughter of cows, I don&#39;t see why their emissions wouldn&#39;t be a valid topic for discussion on this forum.
So let&#39;s try to be a bit rational about cows emissions of CO2.

As we should know, cows release CO2 into the atmosphere because they use oxygen from the air to burn carbon.

Now, where does this carbon cows burn come from?

From plants, particularly grass, that cows eat.

And those plants, where do they take their carbon from?

From the atmosphere, via photossynthesis.

Cows don&#39;t create carbon. They release carbon that was fixed by plants. As long as cows - or other animals - are not destroying all vegetal life, this is part of a natural cycle, which is perfectly sustainable and renewable.

Luís Henrique [/b]
It is not sustainable when there are billions of sheep, cows and other animalic agriculture. :D

[socialistfuture]

have to agree with u on this one

[RevSouth]

Originally posted by Serpent+July 03, 2007 03:06 am--> (Serpent @ July 03, 2007 03:06 am)
[email protected] 03, 2007 06:09 am
Back in the old days of Earth First&#33; when it was run by "country folk", it was quite a common position of theirs to go shoot cows due to the problems modern animal husbandry has on our ecosystem.
Hahaha... what happened? Did PC liberals take over? [/b]
To some degree, I think it just got too big to be effective, at first it was something almost straight from the pages from the Monkey Wrench Gang, as far as the people in it went, folks who loved nature and wanted to keep it the way it was. It&#39;s actually got more political, anarchist, anyway, but its mainstream enough to have stopped most of the more violent direct action, besides a few offshoots.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth_first

[socialistfuture]

the early one were &#39;conservative conservationists&#39; self proclaimed rednecks who cared for the land. once the ELF came on the scene and even way earlier it got quite anticapitalist.

[Janus]

Wetlands produce twice as much methance as cows so there are many natural factors and sinks that have an influence on "greenhouse gas" emissions. I doubt that there is going to be a cutdown on cows anytime soon (in fact the the opposite is more likely to occur) so the focus should be placed on more research and finding a balance in this area.

[socialistfuture]

i disagree, humans are the only species that drink the milk of another.
we can get plenty of food from grains, nuts and fruits along with other plant sources.

for those who like meat permiculture and small scale farming is way less destructive and polluting both emissions wise and with effluent.

i imagine that eventually people will be sick of the amazon being destroyed so that people can do cattle farming and grow GE soya to feed stock (yes i know the soya is also used for other means).

current farming is energy intensive and not well thought out.
could provide lots of links and articles ( i grew up on a farm when i was younger so this isn&#39;t just idealist vegetarian ranting either).