.comment-link {margin-left:.6em;}


 

     
 

Wednesday, January 13, 2010

Will We Still Eat Meat?

Maybe not, if we wake up to what the mass production of animal flesh is doing to our health--and the planet's
by ED AYRES

Copied from time.com


When Julius Caesar made his triumphal entrance into Rome in 45 B.C., he celebrated by giving a feast at which thousands of guests gorged on poultry, seafood and game. Similar celebrations featuring exorbitant consumption of animal flesh have marked human victories--in war, sport, politics and commerce--since our species learned to control fire. Throughout the developing world today, one of the first things people do as they climb out of poverty is to shift from their peasant diet of mainly grains and beans to one that is rich in pork or beef. Since 1950, per capita consumption of meat around the globe has more than doubled.

Meat, it seems, is not just food but reward as well. But in the coming century, that will change. Much as we have awakened to the full economic and social costs of cigarettes, we will find we can no longer subsidize or ignore the costs of mass-producing cattle, poultry, pigs, sheep and fish to feed our growing population. These costs include hugely inefficient use of freshwater and land, heavy pollution from livestock feces, rising rates of heart disease and other degenerative illnesses, and spreading destruction of the forests on which much of our planet's life depends.

First, consider the impact on supplies of freshwater. To produce 1 lb. of feedlot beef requires 7 lbs. of feed grain, which takes 7,000 lbs. of water to grow. Pass up one hamburger, and you'll save as much water as you save by taking 40 showers with a low-flow nozzle. Yet in the U.S., 70% of all the wheat, corn and other grain produced goes to feeding herds of livestock. Around the world, as more water is diverted to raising pigs and chickens instead of producing crops for direct consumption, millions of wells are going dry. India, China, North Africa and the U.S. are all running freshwater deficits, pumping more from their aquifers than rain can replenish. As populations in water-scarce regions continue to expand, governments will inevitably act to cut these deficits by shifting water to grow food, not feed. The new policies will raise the price of meat to levels unaffordable for any but the rich.

That prospect will doubtless provoke protests that direct consumption of grain can't provide the same protein that meat provides. Indeed, it can't. But nutritionists will attest that most people in the richest countries don't need nearly as much protein as we're currently getting from meat, and there are plenty of vegetable sources--including the grains now squandered on feed--that can provide the protein we need.


Unfortunately, this isn't just a matter of productive capacity. Mass production of meat has also become a staggering source of pollution. Maybe cow pies were once just a pastoral joke, but in recent years livestock waste has been implicated in massive fish kills and outbreaks of such diseases as pfiesteria, which causes memory loss, confusion and acute skin burning in people exposed to contaminated water. In the U.S., livestock now produce 130 times as much waste as people do. Just one hog farm in Utah, for example, produces more sewage than the city of Los Angeles. These megafarms are proliferating, and in populous areas their waste is tainting drinking water. In more pristine regions, from Indonesia to the Amazon, tropical rain forest is being burned down to make room for more and more cattle. Agriculture is the world's biggest cause of deforestation, and increasing demand for meat is the biggest force in the expansion of agriculture.

What has proved an unsustainable burden to the life of the planet is also proving unsustainable for the planet's dominant species. In China a recent shift to meat-heavy diets has been linked to increases in obesity, cardiovascular disease, breast cancer and colorectal cancer. U.S. and World Health Organization researchers have announced similar findings for other parts of the world. And then there are the growing concerns about what happens to people who eat the flesh of animals that have been pumped full of genetically modified organisms, hormones and antibiotics.

These concerns may seem counterintuitive. We evolved as hunter-gatherers and ate meat for a hundred millenniums before modern times. It's natural for us to eat meat, one might say. But today's factory-raised, transgenic, chemical-laden livestock are a far cry from the wild animals our ancestors hunted. When we cleverly shifted from wildland hunting and gathering to systematic herding and farming, we changed the natural balances irrevocably. The shift enabled us to produce food surpluses, but the surpluses also allowed us to reproduce prodigiously. When we did, it became only a matter of time before we could no longer have the large area of wildland, per individual, that is necessary to sustain a top-predator species.

By covering more and more of the planet with our cities, farms and waste, we have jeopardized other top predators that need space as well. Tigers and panthers are being squeezed out and may not last the coming century. We, at least, have the flexibility--the omnivorous stomach and creative brain--to adapt. We can do it by moving down the food chain: eating foods that use less water and land, and that pollute far less, than cows and pigs do. In the long run, we can lose our memory of eating animals, and we will discover the intrinsic satisfactions of a diverse plant-based diet, as millions of people already have.

I'm not predicting the end of all meat eating. Decades from now, cattle will still be raised, perhaps in patches of natural rangeland, for people inclined to eat and able to afford a porterhouse, while others will make exceptions in ceremonial meals on special days like Thanksgiving, which link us ritually to our evolutionary and cultural past. But the era of mass-produced animal flesh, and its unsustainable costs to human and environmental health, should be over before the next century is out.

Ed Ayres is editorial director of the Worldwatch Institute and author of "God's Last Offer: Negotiating for a Sustainable Future."

Labels: , ,

Why Animal Agriculture Doesn't Add Up

Copied from Goveg.com


The more meat we eat, the fewer people we can feed. If everyone on Earth received 25 percent of his or her calories from animal products, only 3.2 billion people could be nourished. Dropping that figure to 15 percent would mean that 4.2 billion people could be fed. If everyone went vegan, there would be more than enough food to nourish the world's entire population—more than 6.3 billion people. The WorldWatch Institute sums this up perfectly, saying, "[M]eat consumption is an inefficient use of grain—the grain is used more efficiently when consumed by humans. Continued growth in meat output is dependent on feeding grain to animals, creating competition for grain between affluent meat-eaters and the world's poor."

The average adult human burns about 2,000 calories per day, just living his or her life. We use almost all the calories that we consume to move around, breathe, and do everyday tasks. The same is true of farmed animals. For every pound of food that they are fed, only a fraction of the calories are returned in the form of edible flesh. This is why, according to Compassion in World Farming, it takes up to 16 pounds of grain to produce just 1 pound of edible animal flesh. According to the USDA and the United Nations, using an acre of land to raise cattle for slaughter yields 20 pounds of usable protein. That same acre would yield 356 pounds of protein if soybeans were grown instead—more than 17 times as much!


Producing the grain that is used to feed farmed animals requires vast amounts of water. It takes about 300 gallons of water per day to produce food for a vegan, and more than 4,000 gallons of water per day to produce food for a meat-eater. You save more water by not eating a pound of beef than you do by not showering for an entire year.

It should be no surprise, then, that food for a vegan can be produced on only 1/6 of an acre of land, while it takes 3 1/4 acres of land to produce food for a meat-eater. If we added up all the arable land on the planet and divided it equally, every human would get 2/3 of an acre—more than enough to sustain a vegetarian diet, but not nearly enough to sustain a meat-eater.

Dr. Waldo Bello, executive director of the Institute for Food and Development Policy, concurs that raising animals for meat is a waste of resources, stating, "The American fast-food diet and the meat-eating habits of the wealthy around the world support a world food system that diverts food resources from the hungry."13 Researchers and policymakers who study the problem of world hunger agree that we have plenty of resources to feed vegans, but not nearly enough to feed our addiction to meat.

Labels: , ,

Meat Means Misery for the World's Hungry

Copied from Goveg.com

There is more than enough food in the world to feed the entire human population. So why are more than 840 million people still going hungry?1

Our meat-based diet is partly to blame, as land, water, and other resources that could be used to grow food for human beings are being used to grow crops for farmed animals instead. According to a recent report by Compassion in World Farming, "[c]rops that could be used to feed the hungry are instead being used to fatten animals raised for food." It takes up to 16 pounds of grain to produce just 1 pound of edible animal flesh.



The average adult human burns about 2,000 calories per day, just living his or her life. We use almost all the calories that we consume to move around, breathe, and do everyday tasks. The same is true of farmed animals. For every pound of food that they are fed, only a fraction of the calories are returned in the form of edible flesh. The rest of those calories are burned away raising the animal to slaughter weight or contributing to feathers, blood, and other parts of the animal that are not eaten by humans. This is why animals raised for food have to eat as many as 16 pounds of grain to create just 1 pound of edible flesh.

Because the industrial world is exporting grain to developing countries and importing the meat that is produced with it, farmers who are trying to feed themselves are being driven off their land. Their efficient, plant-based agricultural model is being replaced with intensive livestock rearing, which also pollutes the air and water and renders the once-fertile land dead and barren.

If this trend continues, the developing world will never be able to produce enough food to feed itself, and global hunger will continue to plague hundreds of millions of people around the globe. The Guardian explains that there's only one solution: "It now seems plain that [a vegan diet] is the only ethical response to what is arguably the world's most urgent social justice issue.

Crops that could be used to feed the hungry are instead being used to fatten animals raised for food. It takes up to 16 pounds of grain to produce just 1 pound of edible animal flesh. (which means ur MEAT).

Labels: ,

Meat and the Environment

Everybody is shouting for Environment friendly! But do you know your MEAT affects the environment as well?

Copied from Goveg.com


Global warming. Overexploited natural resources. Deforestation. Wasted land. Water and air pollution. The most serious environmental problems of our time are all directly linked to eating meat.

A 2006 United Nations report summarized the devastation caused by the meat industry by calling it "one of the top two or three most significant contributors to the most serious environmental problems, at every scale from local to global." The report recommended that animal agriculture "be a major policy focus when dealing with problems of land degradation, climate change and air pollution, water shortage and water pollution, and loss of biodiversity."

Many leading environmental organizations, such as the National Audubon Society and the Sierra Club, are now establishing the link between eating meat and eco-disasters like climate change. According to Environmental Defense, if every American skipped one meal of chicken per week and substituted vegetarian foods instead, the carbon dioxide savings would be the same as taking more than a half-million cars off U.S. roads.

Environmental organizations aren't the only ones making the connection. PETA has worked with many celebrities, such as Sir Paul McCartney and Chrissie Hynde, to help raise awareness about the undeniable link between eating meat and environmental devastation. To read Sir Paul McCartney's interview about the environmental crisis, visit PETA's blog The PETA Files.

Do you know?
Eating 1lb. of meat emits the same amount of greenhouse gasses as driving an SUV 40 miles.

Labels: ,

Top 10 Reasons to Go Vegan in 2010

Copied from GoVeg.com


Many people's New Year's resolutions include losing weight, eating better, getting healthier, and doing more to make the world a better place. You can accomplish all these goals by switching to a vegan diet, and you'll enjoy delicious, satisfying meals as well. Here are our top 10 reasons to go vegan in 2010:

1. Slim Down While Feeling Good

Is shedding some extra pounds first on your list of goals for the new year? Vegetarians are, on average, up to 20 pounds lighter than meat-eaters. And unlike unhealthy fad diets, which leave you feeling tired (and gaining all the weight back eventually), going vegan is the healthy way to keep the excess fat off for good while feeling full of energy.

2. It's the Best Way to Help Animals

Every vegetarian saves more than 100 animals a year from horrible abuse. There is simply no other way that you can easily help so many animals and prevent so much suffering than by choosing vegan foods over meat, eggs, and dairy products.

3. A Healthier, Happier You

A vegan diet is great for your health! According to the American Dietetic Association, vegetarians are less likely to develop heart disease, cancer, diabetes, or high blood pressure than meat-eaters. Vegetarians get all the nutrients they need to be healthy (e.g., plant protein, fiber, minerals, etc.) without all the nasty stuff in meat that slows you down and makes you sick, like cholesterol and saturated animal fat.

4. Vegan Food Is Delicious

So you're worried that if you go vegan, you'll have to give up hamburgers, chicken sandwiches, and ice cream? You won't. As the demand for vegan food skyrockets, companies are coming out with more and more delicious meat and dairy product alternatives that taste like the real thing but are much healthier and don't hurt any animals. Plus, we have thousands of tasty kitchen-tested recipes to help you get started!

5. Meat Is Gross

It's disgusting but true: Meat is often contaminated with feces, blood, and other bodily fluids, all of which make animal products the top source of food poisoning in the United States. Scientists at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health tested supermarket chicken flesh and found that 96 percent of Tyson chicken was contaminated with campylobacter, a dangerous bacteria that causes 2.4 million cases of food poisoning each year, resulting in diarrhea, cramping, abdominal pain, and fever. Learn more.

6. Help Feed the World

Eating meat doesn't just hurt animals; it hurts people too. It takes tons of crops and water to raise farmed animals-in fact, it takes up to 16 pounds of grain to produce just 1 pound of animal flesh! All that plant food could be used much more efficiently if it was fed to people directly. The more people who go vegan, the more we can feed the hungry.

7. Save the Planet

Eating meat is one of the worst things that you can do for the Earth; it's wasteful, it causes enormous amounts of pollution, and the meat industry is one of the biggest causes of global warming. Adopting a vegan diet is more important than switching to a "greener" car in the fight against global warming.

8. All the Cool Kids Are Doing It

The list of stars who shun animal flesh is basically a "who's who" of today's hottest celebs. Joaquin Phoenix, Natalie Portman, Tobey McGuire, Shania Twain, Alicia Silverstone, Anthony Kiedis, Casey Affleck, Kristen Bell, INXS lead singer J.D. Fortune, Benji Madden, Alyssa Milano, Common, Joss Stone, and Carrie Underwood are just a handful of the super-sexy vegetarians who regularly appear in People magazine. Check out our recent "World's Sexiest Vegetarians" for more hot, compassionate celebs.

9. Look Sexy and Be Sexy

Vegans tend to be thinner than meat-eaters and have more energy, which is perfect for late-night romps with your special someone. (Guys: The cholesterol and saturated animal fat in meat, eggs, and dairy products don't just clog the arteries to your heart; over time, they impede blood flow to other vital organs as well.) Plus, what's sexier than someone who is not only mega-hot, but also compassionate?

10. Pigs Are Smarter Than Your Dog

While most people are less familiar with pigs, chickens, fish, and cows than they are with dogs and cats, animals used for food are every bit as intelligent and able to suffer as the animals who share our homes are. Pigs can learn to play video games, and chickens are so smart that their intelligence has been compared by scientists to that of monkeys. Read more about these amazing animals.

Labels: ,

残忍?

有的人看了宰殺的場面,會說:好殘忍哦!好可憐哦!
那一餐,就不敢吃那一樣肉。
但转个身,吃飽了或過了幾天,那殘忍的念頭就完全消失得無影蹤了。



你說宰殺人恐怖,宰殺可愛的狗狗殘忍,難道宰殺可愛胖胖的豬豬就不殘忍嗎?
或許你會說:你是吃素的,當然這樣說咯!

以下是我個人的經驗分享,并不代表我挑釁吃葷的人哦!別誤會!

但你不知道,我也吃過肉,我也經歷過以上的種種。然后有一名老師對我說以上的話,我當場棒頭一喝!事后想了很多,很多。想過,等我吃夠了,我就不吃肉!等我吃過這樣和那樣,就吃素!過后“殘忍”的想法就不了了之。


吃夠?怎樣才謂“夠”?

到死那一天?老了?沒牙齒吃肉?才算夠嗎?



直到有一陣子,我翻開報章,每一天都是豬的新聞。

1998年,發豬瘟。很多豬只被趕到深坑里,活埋了。

看到這些新聞,我的心沉了。這些豬,為什么會在哪兒?

不都是因為人類拼命的要他們繁殖嗎?

現在生病了,就得死。



可能你會說,它遲早會死啊!它一出世就是被人吃的啊!

豬,養來被人吃?

那,雞呢?牛呢?羊呢?魚呢?蝦呢?

都是嗎?



有人說:如果我們不吃,那么雞就太多啦!循環鏈里就不平衡啦!

那你知不知道?雞那么多,是誰拼命的飼養?拼命的繁殖?你不機械化的繁殖他們,它們今日不會如此的多。



也有人說:不吃魚,海洋里就會太多魚,也不平衡!

但是你們又知不知道?就是因為人類任意的捕魚,現在海洋已陷入困境?其他以海鮮為主食的動物,就因為人類任意的捕殺魚類,而陷入了缺乏食物的困境?



相對的,人是不是需要給其他動物吃呢?所以才不會太多人?循環鏈才平衡呢?



那,鹿呢?蛇呢?狗呢?

也是嗎?



那,人呢?



為什么人就是最崇高無上的?為什么人就可以隨意的奪取其他動物的生命?

為什么鯊魚咬了我們一口,他其他的兄弟朋友都得死?

為什么老虎咬了我們一口,他就該死呢?



那,我們殺了他們那么多的弟兄,甚至咬了他們,還吞到肚里去。我們就不用死呢?



就因為我們是高等動物嗎?就因為我們是動物界里面最聰明的嗎?所以我們就可以任意的奪取其他動物的生命?



我今天不吃雞,可能就少一只雞被殺。
別人照殺,不用緊,至少我不吃。它們就不用為我而死。
一小撮的銀魚仔,有多少條生命在里頭?
我不吃那一小撮,需求量可能就沒那么多,下一次,就不必捕殺那么多了。

我不吃他們,我不會死啊!但它們卻為了我區區一餐,喪失了生命。
我只不過不想它們為了我一餐而喪失生命。就這樣而已。

也有人常用以下的疑惑攻擊持素的人。
既然吃動物是殺生, 那吃植物也是殺生, 都是殺生。他們也有生命。
對,我沒否認過植物也有生命。 但它是植物。
而你又知不知道在所有生物里,為什么分成植物與動物呢?
植物和動物的區別有在哪兒?

以科學的角度去看:
几乎所有的植物,都在同一个地方发芽生长,开花结果,也就是说原地不动地度过一生。当然这中间也有少数例外,如随水漂流的小型水生植物。与植物相反,绝大多数动物为了觅食、避敌或别的原因,经常跑来跑去处于运动状态。

植物从小到大,各种器官抑制一直在发生不同的增减变化,例如在幼小时期只有根、茎、叶,成年之后长出了花朵,花朵凋谢后再结出果实种子。而大多数动物(低等动物除外)不论老幼,五官四肢等各种器官不增不减,仅仅是体积大小的不同。例如刚生下来的小狮子或小老虎,已经具备了于父母同样多的器官。

从两者的生活习性上说,植物有个脂粉重要的特点,那就是除了少数寄生和腐生植物外,它们都能进行光合作用,能自己制造“粮食”养活自己。而动物却无法做到这一点,他们只能依靠持植物和捕食其他动物来养活自己。

植物与动物的区别,还有一条十分严格的标准。在显微镜下观察它们的细胞就会发现,植物的细胞都有一层又厚又硬的细胞壁,而动物细胞只有细胞膜,却没有细胞壁。



在佛教的角度里,我在網上找到宣化上人如此的解釋:

首先动物和植物都是生物, 都有生命.

其次动物和植物有一定的区别:

1. 动物有灵性和血气;植物有灵性, 没有血气

2. 动物被杀死的时候, 它非常怨恨和痛苦, 因为它的灵性眷恋肉身不肯走;植物则不是如此, 它的灵性会立刻离开 。

3. 从佛教的角度,还有一个比较重要的区别:
动物参与六道轮回,植物则不会。

不知道這樣的解釋,你們可以接受嗎?
再次聲明,本人并無挑釁的意思,只不過和他家分享。不要再找我吵架了。
謝謝!


 

 

 
  • dyrenforx
  • badtz00
  • KC 2000
  • zvone
  • yosia pooh
  • aprilcherrie
  • gu lou yoke
  • gu lou yoke II
  • Ken
  • Pion Yin
  • Elynn II
  • Kamcik
  • Shon Hock
  • Chun
  • SiKit
  • Bee Pei
  • Eric Foo
  • MeiSan 6more
  • Joey Khor
  • SooPee
  • Jeremy Tai
  • Evvone
  • Wni
  • simonso
  • Paulo
  • Rachel's space
  • YeongFatt
  • AmosLee
  • 倩玉
  • 詠珊
  • 丽萍
  • 宛宛
  • SooSan
  • 芳茗
  • t-ffany
  • Yolanda
  • Leeq
  • Lessayno
  • FelixZai
  • Yane
  • Yunnie
  • WeiNee
  • 佩君
  • Sze Ching
  • Soul Hunter - LiMun
  • Blur Sotong Deniel
  • Renis Chang
  • PeyChyi-小琪世界

  •  
  • My Photo Blog
  • my yahoo pics
  • Melaka 26112005 pics
  • Cameron 2006 pics
  • vIsIt zOo pics
  • wesak2005
  • rEdaNg pics
  • MSN photo album
  • picasa photo album

  • Copyright© 2007 dReAmZtReE. All Rights Reserved.