Serving organic chicken doesn't strike me as remarkable.
how can you call ORGANIC chicken in a restaurant 'unremarkable'?! If you're so jaded and bored, try another profession! :)
A Well-Fed World specifically makes the connection about the harm caused by the "livestock" industry on global hunger and food security. www.awfw.org/scarcity-vs-distribution
I've read the story twice now, and I still don't know why I put that giant eyeball there.
You've got to read the story to find out!
Being a nudist, that's nice. Meet more nudists on nudistfriendfinder.org
Yeah, what IS up with that eyeball, anyway?
This movie is NOT set at Whitman College (which is a real life top liberal arts college in the US) but at fictional "Winchester University". Please correct your story.
The premise that ecologists have followed is that animals cause soil degradation and desertification due to over grazing. Based on this premise, Savory (with the support of all the other ecologists in his country) made the tragic mistake of removing elephants from the landscape. Savory acknowledges this tragedy and that he'll take this mistake to his grave.
What happened though without the elephants is that desertification got a lot worse. What Savory learned is that the elephants and large grazers were and are essential in preventing desertification and that animals are an essential part of maintaining grassland ecosystems. 2/3 of the earth non-submerged area is grasslands.
In America, the near extermination of bison took those large ruminants out of the ecosystem. Abolitionist vegans now want to further degrade ecosystems by doing away with grass fed cattle and other livestock. But despite misinformed editorials claiming that Savory's methods don't work, the proof is in the implementation with over 40 milion acres on 5 continents utilziing holistic management methods producing results.
Here are two excellent videos showing the methods and benefits of proper management and soil sequestion. Anyone who dismisses what Savory has been accomplishing is simply blinded by his or her food religion and has not spoken with any ranchers using these methods
The Soil Solution to Climate Change - http://t.co/SJpHvU4vFg
Soil Carnon Cowboys - http://vimeo.com/80518559
"This concept of cattle as agents of environmental remediation, and much of the intellectual underpinnings of Hahn Niman's analysis, is based on the work of Allan Savory."
Savory, responsible for the killing of 40,000 elephants because, he claimed, they were destroying the Savannah, now advocates the breeding of cattle to restore that same land, has never provided any reproducible data to back up his claims. His assertions are rebuked here: http://bit.ly/asavory and here: http://bit.ly/1zdoedf
"macaroni and cheese is haute cuisine because you rubbed your truffles on it"
She actually argues that eating meat is not morally wrong, and that it can be part of a health diet along with being a positive towards our environment versus the projected view that all meat production is a negative impact on our environment. Are you willing to acknowledge that humans have been eating meat since evolution formed modern man, and that our ancestral roots also come from meat eaters? Is the hawk immoral? What about the cat, dog, snake, salmon, bear, raccoon, hummingbird, etc.? How do you feel about wind turbines, hybrid cars, trains, plant farming, etc. killing countless animals everyday? I understand the point you are trying to make, animals feel pain (agreed) and that should be respected (again, I agree). But you are living in a fantasy utopia where death is not part of how our world operates, some animals/plants die so others may live. Should we do everything possible to make sure animals who are being raised for food are treated with respect and raised as humanly as possible, I say emphatically yes. Should they be slaughtered (processed for the PC crowd) humanly, without a doubt. If the author chooses to raise animals humanly and in a sustainable fashion, makes sure they are slaughtered humanly but still chooses to be a vegetarian that is her choice, and should not be used as an argument for why you dismiss everything she states in her article as bullshit just because you have a different opinion, what happened to using science to form an opinion instead of letting emotions skew your take on facts.
....What? This entire article, her entire ARGUMENT is full of paradox after paradox. She doesn't eat meat, and she "feels too strongly" about animals to eat them, but she argues FOR EATING MEAT??????? Am I the only one that realizes this is all complete bullshit? If animals didn't have feelings, if it wasn't WRONG to kill animal, if it didn't cause them pain, why would she cry and weep for them? This is so ridiculous. This entire article is bullshit. I am so through with irrational justifications. I cannot wait until a meat-eater with decent arguments actually arrives and gives me something to think about.
The author's points are well taken; we've let agribusiness take us into a horrible realm where the livestock is basically tortured in the name of efficiency. And we already know the damage done by intensive industrial farming, the vegetables starved of nutrients, crops modified to absorb more pesticides, the Amazon cleared for soybean production...
So why not eat eggs and meat and fowl provided by small, preferably local producers - just as we try to do with produce, baked goods, etc?
Nothing sensational at all, the author cites scientific reports to debunk all the myths that are being passed off as "science." maybe you should read the books as well its footnotes before making such ill informed comments. Besides any introductory environmental course that doesn't understand the carbon cycle, ecosystems and soil health really isn't a very good one. Diets that require a lot of transportation for out of season produce don't have small carbon foot prints.
asset forfeiture purposes."as they say is just another way for law officers to take what you have and keep it even with no charges being laid. This his happening to more & more people and a stop should be made to it. Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty?
Oh, her case has absolutely nothing to do with her bank account, I promise. /s Sad, sensationalist piece that panders to the meat-loving crowd. What exactly qualifies this lady to call out a mass of scientifically published journals/reports as "flimsy science"? If this is the route the bohemian is going to take with such an impending issue, please cite sources.
Even the text used at the JC's introductory class for environmental science states that the best way to lessen your carbon footprint is to adopt a plant-based diet.
Not Harming Animals: What reasons cited by the author make no sense?
LOL how predictable regarding the vegan response to watch "Cowspiracy" and that the "real" numbers are the World Watch report numbers. Cowspiracy lost what little credibility it had citing the World Watch report. Here are two excellent critiques of that Wolrd Watch report that show how flawed that report's analysis was and why it's considered something of a joke. The second critique below is by a vegan
Climate Chicanery (clip and paste the links into your browser)
Vegan Stephen Walsh's critique
Plus here's a good review of "Cowspiracy" which points out that the movie is really one more concerned about pushing an abolitionist vegan agenda instead of a being genuinely concerned about climate change - http://exm.nr/1rrdpQy
Watch conspiracy, it's actually 51% of the climate earth issue, not 18%...13-18% is car and plane emissions, etc.
2015 Metro Newspapers. All rights reserved.
Website powered by Foundation