I don't understand vegetablism.

[x_LittleAmy_x]

From the point of view of global warming, surely we would want to reduce the amount of methane/carbon dioxide produced and increase the amount of carbon dioxide converted to oxygen by plants.
So why are people being encouraged to kill the plants and let the animals live?
Surely it should be the other way around?

Sorry if this sounds stupid but I don't get it.

 

[TessB]

Omg I love you!!! And I'm a vegetablist by the way!!!

 

[GenesAndEnvironment]

Animals eat the plants and then burn energy and shit. I'm assuming you're not joking, haha.

 

[x_LittleAmy_x]

Animals eat the plants and then burn energy and shit. I'm assuming you're not joking, haha.

"Animals eat plants and then burn energy and shit".

Thank you. I feel that my understanding of global warming has increased significantly because of your contribution

 

[GenesAndEnvironment]

"Animals eat plants and then burn energy and shit".

Thank you. I feel that my understanding of global warming has increased significantly because of your contribution

The call me "The Professor".

 

[JustAMatterOfTime]

I would quite like to be eaten by an animal

 

[x_LittleAmy_x]

I would quite like to be eaten by an animal View attachment 66243

It's best to be slowly absorbed by plants.
It will help them to grow and stop global warming, whereas if you are eaten by animals it will encourage them to burn energy and shit.

 

[GenesAndEnvironment]

It's best to be slowly absorbed by plants.
It will help them to grow and stop global warming, whereas if you are eaten by animals it will encourage them to burn energy and shit.

Oh, I think I know where I might have confused you. I did not mean shit literally, as in defecating. Defecating or decomposing after death will help plants, which is good for the environment and climate generally speaking. I meant "and shit" as in "and stuff", "et cetera", and so on.

The animals eat plants but burn energy, meaning that in terms of calories we lose out by not directly eating the plants. Exceptions are of course grass eaters "and shit". But then we obviously lose the grass or whatever.

I'm too tired for this. Can someone smart jump in here?

 

[x_LittleAmy_x]

Oh, I think I know where I might have confused you. I did not mean shit literally, as in defecating. Defecating or decomposing after death will help plants, which is good for the environment and climate generally speaking. I meant "and shit" as in "and stuff", "et cetera", and so on.

The animals eat plants but burn energy, meaning that in terms of calories we lose out by not directly eating the plants. Exceptions are of course grass eaters "and shit". But then we obviously lose the grass or whatever.

I'm too tired for this. Can someone smart jump in here?

But if the plants have more energy than the animals wouldn't a vegetablistic diet be bad for children who are already hyperactive?

 

[killedbypsychiatry]

by farming animals we are wasting lots of plants / crops, land, and water. Much more than we would if we ate the plants directly.

 

[MoreThanAFeeling]

It's a choice they made. You don't have to understand it, maybe never will. Why do people believe in some god? Why do you date this good-for-nothing? Why do some people eat KitKat like its a sandwich? etc etc

Questions starting with the word why can hardly ever be answered correctly.

 

[TessB]

It's a choice they made. You don't have to understand it, maybe never will. Why do people believe in some god? Why do you date this good-for-nothing? Why do some people eat KitKat like its a sandwich? etc etc

Questions starting with the word why can hardly ever be answered correctly.

I'm really confused. Are you telling me there is any way to eat a Kit Kat apart from nibbling all the chocolate off first then eating it wafer by wafer?? Mind blown..

 

[MoreThanAFeeling]

I'm really confused. Are you telling me there is any way to eat a Kit Kat apart from nibbling all the chocolate off first then eating it wafer by wafer?? Mind blown..

God, hear my voice. Lord, listen to my prayer.
Save me from my enemies and their evil ways.
Help me to recognize their bad intentions.
Do not let the false and hurting words of them touch me.
Protect me from devastating enemies action.
Please don't let evil destroy and triumph over my life.
I believe and trust you, please listen to my prayer. Amen.

 

[GenesAndEnvironment]

But if the plants have more energy than the animals wouldn't a vegetablistic diet be bad for children who are already hyperactive?

I'm not sure if you're trolling or not, but I'll answer. I'm talking about the net energy, not caloric density of various food groups.

 

[x_LittleAmy_x]

I'm not sure if you're trolling or not, but I'll answer. I'm talking about the net energy, not caloric density of various food groups.

Oh I see what you mean, sorry.

 

[UterEntonaur]

Sorry if this sounds stupid but I don't get it.

From what I understand this is what they mean....

---

If you want to grow veg to eat, the then resources required to grow them, has an "environmental cost" for the whole process (water/soil/pesticides/electricity/co emissions from farming equipment/etc).

Imagine if you get 5 points of energy by eating veg, and the enviro cost to grow them is 10, that's a profit/cost ratio of 5:10 (or 1:2)

---

Say you want to raise animals to eat, then those animals also have an enviro cost too, because you need to "feed" those animals regularly. That means growing a lot more veg then what humans need/eat - just to feed the animals - that you're going to kill anyway.

Imagine if you get 12 points of energy out of eating meat, but the enviro cost to grow them is 40, that's a profit/cost ratio of 12:40 (or 3:10)

---

I made up the numbers for the example but that's basically why they say eating veggies (rather than raising animals just to eat them) is better for the environment. In summary; if you want to play a small part in saving the planet, then give up meat and be a veggie, but I'm still going to enjoy chicken wings with hot-sauce and fries