Vegetarian Discussion: Benefits Of Vegetarianism For Human Beings

Benefits Of Vegetarianism For Human Beings
Posts: 45

Report Abuse

Use this form to report abuse or request takedown.
The requests are usually processed within 48 hours.

Page: 1 2 3 4 5   Next  (First | Last)

Rupert
2013-02-03 15:15:32 EST
http://philosophyforprogrammers.blogspot.de/2013/02/poverty-and-plant-based-diets.html

George Plimpton
2013-02-04 10:34:53 EST
On 2/3/2013 12:15 PM, Rupert wrote:
> http://philosophyforprogrammers.blogspot.de/2013/02/poverty-and-plant-based-diets.html
>


The very first paragraph in this pile of dogshit:

Forty years ago, Frances Moore Lappe wrote Diet for a Small
Planet, a combination cookbook and food industry critique. In it,
she pointed out that the grain we feed to livestock animals could
*instead be fed to hungry people*.


And that is exactly what you lied and said was not the mainstream
position of "vegan" crackpots - but it is. No, they're *not* preaching
a reduction in environmental degradation - in fact, there's no mention
of that in the pile-of-dogshit site at all. What they're specifically
saying is that grain currently fed to livestock could instead *directly*
be fed to starving people.

Rupert
2013-02-04 10:46:40 EST
On Monday, February 4, 2013 4:34:53 PM UTC+1, George Plimpton wrote:
> On 2/3/2013 12:15 PM, Rupert wrote:
>
> > http://philosophyforprogrammers.blogspot.de/2013/02/poverty-and-plant-based-diets.html
>
> >
>
>
>
>
>
> The very first paragraph in this pile of dogshit:
>
>
>
> Forty years ago, Frances Moore Lappe wrote Diet for a Small
>
> Planet, a combination cookbook and food industry critique. In it,
>
> she pointed out that the grain we feed to livestock animals could
>
> *instead be fed to hungry people*.
>
>
>
>
>
> And that is exactly what you lied and said was not the mainstream
>
> position of "vegan" crackpots - but it is. No, they're *not* preaching
>
> a reduction in environmental degradation - in fact, there's no mention
>
> of that in the pile-of-dogshit site at all. What they're specifically
>
> saying is that grain currently fed to livestock could instead *directly*
>
> be fed to starving people.

If the demand for grain to be fed to livestock goes down, it will become more affordable to those in poor countries.

George Plimpton
2013-02-04 11:34:50 EST
On 2/4/2013 7:46 AM, Rupert wrote:
> On Monday, February 4, 2013 4:34:53 PM UTC+1, George Plimpton wrote:
>> On 2/3/2013 12:15 PM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>> http://philosophyforprogrammers.blogspot.de/2013/02/poverty-and-plant-based-diets.html
>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> The very first paragraph in this pile of dogshit:
>>
>>
>>
>> Forty years ago, Frances Moore Lappe wrote Diet for a Small
>>
>> Planet, a combination cookbook and food industry critique. In it,
>>
>> she pointed out that the grain we feed to livestock animals could
>>
>> *instead be fed to hungry people*.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> And that is exactly what you lied and said was not the mainstream
>>
>> position of "vegan" crackpots - but it is. No, they're *not* preaching
>>
>> a reduction in environmental degradation - in fact, there's no mention
>>
>> of that in the pile-of-dogshit site at all. What they're specifically
>>
>> saying is that grain currently fed to livestock could instead *directly*
>>
>> be fed to starving people.
>
> If the demand for grain to be fed to livestock goes down, it will become more affordable to those in poor countries.
>

The grain (mostly dent corn) fed to livestock is not edible by humans.

You confused and clueless urbanites simply have no understanding of
basic economics (price theory). American and European farmers are not
going to grow human edible vegetable crops and ship them to Africa and
Bangladesh for free. Those poor starving people couldn't afford to buy
any food from us at all. Their economies are in ruin, more than for any
other reason, because their societies are incapable of civil governance.

I did a search on "causes of world hunger", and none of the first four
sites I looked at made any mention at all of "because those greedy first
worlders feed grain to livestock."

http://www.wfp.org/hunger/causes
http://www.globalissues.org/issue/6/world-hunger-and-poverty
http://www.freeholdtwp.k12.nj.us/WebQuests/6th%20grade%20webquest/threecauses.htm
http://gccblogs.concernusa.org/2011/10/21/top-5-causes-of-hunger/

You fuckwits simply have got to give up on this. It's a lie. There is
no hunger in the world due to civilized peoples growing grain for livestock.

Rupert
2013-02-04 11:40:43 EST
On Monday, February 4, 2013 5:34:50 PM UTC+1, George Plimpton wrote:
> On 2/4/2013 7:46 AM, Rupert wrote:
>
> > On Monday, February 4, 2013 4:34:53 PM UTC+1, George Plimpton wrote:
>
> >> On 2/3/2013 12:15 PM, Rupert wrote:
>
> >>
>
> >>> http://philosophyforprogrammers.blogspot.de/2013/02/poverty-and-plant-based-diets.html
>
> >>
>
> >>>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> The very first paragraph in this pile of dogshit:
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> Forty years ago, Frances Moore Lappe wrote Diet for a Small
>
> >>
>
> >> Planet, a combination cookbook and food industry critique. In it,
>
> >>
>
> >> she pointed out that the grain we feed to livestock animals could
>
> >>
>
> >> *instead be fed to hungry people*.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> And that is exactly what you lied and said was not the mainstream
>
> >>
>
> >> position of "vegan" crackpots - but it is. No, they're *not* preaching
>
> >>
>
> >> a reduction in environmental degradation - in fact, there's no mention
>
> >>
>
> >> of that in the pile-of-dogshit site at all. What they're specifically
>
> >>
>
> >> saying is that grain currently fed to livestock could instead *directly*
>
> >>
>
> >> be fed to starving people.
>
> >
>
> > If the demand for grain to be fed to livestock goes down, it will become more affordable to those in poor countries.
>
> >
>
>
>
> The grain (mostly dent corn) fed to livestock is not edible by humans.
>
>
>
> You confused and clueless urbanites simply have no understanding of
>
> basic economics (price theory). American and European farmers are not
>
> going to grow human edible vegetable crops and ship them to Africa and
>
> Bangladesh for free. Those poor starving people couldn't afford to buy
>
> any food from us at all. Their economies are in ruin, more than for any
>
> other reason, because their societies are incapable of civil governance.
>
>
>
> I did a search on "causes of world hunger", and none of the first four
>
> sites I looked at made any mention at all of "because those greedy first
>
> worlders feed grain to livestock."
>
>
>
> http://www.wfp.org/hunger/causes
>
> http://www.globalissues.org/issue/6/world-hunger-and-poverty
>
> http://www.freeholdtwp.k12.nj.us/WebQuests/6th%20grade%20webquest/threecauses.htm
>
> http://gccblogs.concernusa.org/2011/10/21/top-5-causes-of-hunger/
>
>
>
> You fuckwits simply have got to give up on this. It's a lie. There is
>
> no hunger in the world due to civilized peoples growing grain for livestock.

There's a claim made in the link I gave that an additional 9 million vegetarians would reduce the price of corn by $5/bushel. You're saying that this would not be human-edible corn?

George Plimpton
2013-02-04 12:11:00 EST
On 2/4/2013 8:40 AM, Rupert wrote:
> On Monday, February 4, 2013 5:34:50 PM UTC+1, George Plimpton wrote:
>> On 2/4/2013 7:46 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>> On Monday, February 4, 2013 4:34:53 PM UTC+1, George Plimpton wrote:
>>
>>>> On 2/3/2013 12:15 PM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>> http://philosophyforprogrammers.blogspot.de/2013/02/poverty-and-plant-based-diets.html
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>> The very first paragraph in this pile of dogshit:
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>> Forty years ago, Frances Moore Lappe wrote Diet for a Small
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>> Planet, a combination cookbook and food industry critique. In it,
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>> she pointed out that the grain we feed to livestock animals could
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>> *instead be fed to hungry people*.
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>> And that is exactly what you lied and said was not the mainstream
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>> position of "vegan" crackpots - but it is. No, they're *not* preaching
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>> a reduction in environmental degradation - in fact, there's no mention
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>> of that in the pile-of-dogshit site at all. What they're specifically
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>> saying is that grain currently fed to livestock could instead *directly*
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>> be fed to starving people.
>>
>>>
>>
>>> If the demand for grain to be fed to livestock goes down, it will become more affordable to those in poor countries.
>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> The grain (mostly dent corn) fed to livestock is not edible by humans.
>>
>>
>>
>> You confused and clueless urbanites simply have no understanding of
>>
>> basic economics (price theory). American and European farmers are not
>>
>> going to grow human edible vegetable crops and ship them to Africa and
>>
>> Bangladesh for free. Those poor starving people couldn't afford to buy
>>
>> any food from us at all. Their economies are in ruin, more than for any
>>
>> other reason, because their societies are incapable of civil governance.
>>
>>
>>
>> I did a search on "causes of world hunger", and none of the first four
>>
>> sites I looked at made any mention at all of "because those greedy first
>>
>> worlders feed grain to livestock."
>>
>>
>>
>> http://www.wfp.org/hunger/causes
>>
>> http://www.globalissues.org/issue/6/world-hunger-and-poverty
>>
>> http://www.freeholdtwp.k12.nj.us/WebQuests/6th%20grade%20webquest/threecauses.htm
>>
>> http://gccblogs.concernusa.org/2011/10/21/top-5-causes-of-hunger/
>>
>>
>>
>> You fuckwits simply have got to give up on this. It's a lie. There is
>>
>> no hunger in the world due to civilized peoples growing grain for livestock.
>
> There's a claim made in the link I gave that an additional 9 million vegetarians would reduce the price of corn by $5/bushel. You're saying that this would not be human-edible corn?

First, that number is simply bullshit - shit from mostly grain-fed
cattle, I might add. And yes, if any grain that was produced to be fed
to the non-existent livestock continued to be produced, it would not be
edible for humans. First of all, the corn (maize) itself is not the
sweet corn variety that you know. It is a hard corn, often called dent
corn, that has to be processed.

Do you know how corn for livestock is processed? For cattle, typically
the entire plant - stalk, leaves, ears of corn including the cobs - is
chopped up into bits. The cattle eat the entire plant. That's cheap to
produce. I don't know as much about poultry feed, but if you look at
pictures of the stuff:

http://www.forberg-international.com/filarkiv/Image/products/Feed/MG_5275_479x350.jpg
http://thumbs.dreamstime.com/thumblarge_500/1272790990t1P3P4.jpg

it doesn't look like something humans would eat. I have to believe
there is more than simply the grain in it. I expect stalks and leaves
and other bits are ground up into it.

Here's what you loony fuckwits don't understand. In both the US and
Europe, and I suspect in Canada too, the production of the grain is
heavily subsidized by national or supranational governments, meaning the
stuff is sold below cost to the livestock feeding operations. If the
reality is that poor starving Africans can't "defeat" - i.e., outbid -
CAFO lots now for subsidized grain, which is not edible by humans as
currently processed, how in the *FUCK* do you think they would
outcompete the CAFOs if the grain weren't subsidized, or if more of it
were diverted for the more costly processing required to produce human
edible food?

What it always sounded like lesley, the Whore of Ballaghaderreen, was
advocating was that the grain currently grown for and fed to livestock
simply be loaded onto freighters and sent to Africa and Bangladesh, and
distributed for free since it is obvious those people can't feed
themselves. Is that what you're proposing?

George Plimpton
2013-02-04 12:14:31 EST
On 2/4/2013 9:11 AM, George Plimpton wrote:
> On 2/4/2013 8:40 AM, Rupert wrote:
>> On Monday, February 4, 2013 5:34:50 PM UTC+1, George Plimpton wrote:
>>> On 2/4/2013 7:46 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Monday, February 4, 2013 4:34:53 PM UTC+1, George Plimpton wrote:
>>>
>>>>> On 2/3/2013 12:15 PM, Rupert wrote:
>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>>>>> http://philosophyforprogrammers.blogspot.de/2013/02/poverty-and-plant-based-diets.html
>>>>>>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>>>>>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>>>> The very first paragraph in this pile of dogshit:
>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>>>> Forty years ago, Frances Moore Lappe wrote Diet for a Small
>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>>>> Planet, a combination cookbook and food industry critique.
>>>>> In it,
>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>>>> she pointed out that the grain we feed to livestock
>>>>> animals could
>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>>>> *instead be fed to hungry people*.
>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>>>> And that is exactly what you lied and said was not the mainstream
>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>>>> position of "vegan" crackpots - but it is. No, they're *not*
>>>>> preaching
>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>>>> a reduction in environmental degradation - in fact, there's no mention
>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>>>> of that in the pile-of-dogshit site at all. What they're specifically
>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>>>> saying is that grain currently fed to livestock could instead
>>>>> *directly*
>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>>>> be fed to starving people.
>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>> If the demand for grain to be fed to livestock goes down, it will
>>>> become more affordable to those in poor countries.
>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> The grain (mostly dent corn) fed to livestock is not edible by humans.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> You confused and clueless urbanites simply have no understanding of
>>>
>>> basic economics (price theory). American and European farmers are not
>>>
>>> going to grow human edible vegetable crops and ship them to Africa and
>>>
>>> Bangladesh for free. Those poor starving people couldn't afford to buy
>>>
>>> any food from us at all. Their economies are in ruin, more than for any
>>>
>>> other reason, because their societies are incapable of civil governance.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I did a search on "causes of world hunger", and none of the first four
>>>
>>> sites I looked at made any mention at all of "because those greedy first
>>>
>>> worlders feed grain to livestock."
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> http://www.wfp.org/hunger/causes
>>>
>>> http://www.globalissues.org/issue/6/world-hunger-and-poverty
>>>
>>> http://www.freeholdtwp.k12.nj.us/WebQuests/6th%20grade%20webquest/threecauses.htm
>>>
>>>
>>> http://gccblogs.concernusa.org/2011/10/21/top-5-causes-of-hunger/
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> You fuckwits simply have got to give up on this. It's a lie. There is
>>>
>>> no hunger in the world due to civilized peoples growing grain for
>>> livestock.
>>
>> There's a claim made in the link I gave that an additional 9 million
>> vegetarians would reduce the price of corn by $5/bushel. You're saying
>> that this would not be human-edible corn?
>
> First, that number is simply bullshit - shit from mostly grain-fed
> cattle, I might add. And yes, if any grain that was produced to be fed
> to the non-existent livestock continued to be produced, it would not be
> edible for humans. First of all, the corn (maize) itself is not the
> sweet corn variety that you know. It is a hard corn, often called dent
> corn, that has to be processed.
>
> Do you know how corn for livestock is processed? For cattle, typically
> the entire plant - stalk, leaves, ears of corn including the cobs - is
> chopped up into bits. The cattle eat the entire plant. That's cheap to
> produce. I don't know as much about poultry feed, but if you look at
> pictures of the stuff:
>
> http://www.forberg-international.com/filarkiv/Image/products/Feed/MG_5275_479x350.jpg
>
> http://thumbs.dreamstime.com/thumblarge_500/1272790990t1P3P4.jpg
>
> it doesn't look like something humans would eat. I have to believe
> there is more than simply the grain in it. I expect stalks and leaves
> and other bits are ground up into it.
>
> Here's what you loony fuckwits don't understand. In both the US and
> Europe, and I suspect in Canada too, the production of the grain is
> heavily subsidized by national or supranational governments, meaning the
> stuff is sold below cost to the livestock feeding operations. If the
> reality is that poor starving Africans can't "defeat" - i.e., outbid -
> CAFO lots now for subsidized grain, which is not edible by humans as
> currently processed, how in the *FUCK* do you think they would
> outcompete the CAFOs if the grain weren't subsidized, or if more of it
> were diverted for the more costly processing required to produce human
> edible food?
>
> What it always sounded like lesley, the Whore of Ballaghaderreen, was
> advocating was that the grain currently grown for and fed to livestock
> simply be loaded onto freighters and sent to Africa and Bangladesh, and
> distributed for free since it is obvious those people can't feed
> themselves. Is that what you're proposing?

By the way, it appears as if the Whore of Ballaghaderreen is still in
"business":
http://www.irelands-directory.com/Roscommon/Ballaghaderreen/Health%20Care/Reflexology.html

Hmm...I wonder just what that "special offer" might be?

This is pretty funny...a search in Google on "ballaghaderreen lesley
simon" yields this result list: http://tinyurl.com/bhcdr6l. Check out
the second link returned. LOL!!!!


Mr.Smartypants
2013-02-04 12:15:34 EST
On Feb 4, 9:34 am, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
> On 2/4/2013 7:46 AM, Rupert wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Monday, February 4, 2013 4:34:53 PM UTC+1, George Plimpton wrote:
> >> On 2/3/2013 12:15 PM, Rupert wrote:
>
> >>>http://philosophyforprogrammers.blogspot.de/2013/02/poverty-and-plant...
>
> >> The very first paragraph in this pile of dogshit:
>
> >>         Forty years ago, Frances Moore Lappe wrote Diet for a Small
>
> >>         Planet, a combination cookbook and food industry critique. In it,
>
> >>         she pointed out that the grain we feed to livestock animals could
>
> >>         *instead be fed to hungry people*.
>
> >> And that is exactly what you lied and said was not the mainstream
>
> >> position of "vegan" crackpots - but it is.  No, they're *not* preaching
>
> >> a reduction in environmental degradation - in fact, there's no mention
>
> >> of that in the pile-of-dogshit site at all.  What they're specifically
>
> >> saying is that grain currently fed to livestock could instead *directly*
>
> >> be fed to starving people.
>
> > If the demand for grain to be fed to livestock goes down, it will become more affordable to those in poor countries.
>
> The grain (mostly dent corn) fed to livestock is not edible by humans.


Obviously the corn raised for livestock will be replaced with corn
being raised for people.

How can you be so dense, Goo?



>
> You confused and clueless urbanites simply have no understanding of
> basic economics (price theory).  American and European farmers are not
> going to grow human edible vegetable crops and ship them to Africa and
> Bangladesh for free.  Those poor starving people couldn't afford to buy
> any food from us at all.  Their economies are in ruin, more than for any
> other reason, because their societies are incapable of civil governance.
>
> I did a search on "causes of world hunger", and none of the first four
> sites I looked at made any mention at all of "because those greedy first
> worlders feed grain to livestock."
>
> http://www.wfp.org/hunger/causeshttp://www.globalissues.org/issue/6/world-hunger-and-povertyhttp://www.freeholdtwp.k12.nj.us/WebQuests/6th%20grade%20webquest/thr...http://gccblogs.concernusa.org/2011/10/21/top-5-causes-of-hunger/
>
> You fuckwits simply have got to give up on this.  It's a lie.  There is
> no hunger in the world due to civilized peoples growing grain for livestock.


Rupert
2013-02-04 14:10:38 EST
On Monday, February 4, 2013 6:11:00 PM UTC+1, George Plimpton wrote:
> On 2/4/2013 8:40 AM, Rupert wrote:
>
> > On Monday, February 4, 2013 5:34:50 PM UTC+1, George Plimpton wrote:
>
> >> On 2/4/2013 7:46 AM, Rupert wrote:
>
> >>
>
> >>> On Monday, February 4, 2013 4:34:53 PM UTC+1, George Plimpton wrote:
>
> >>
>
> >>>> On 2/3/2013 12:15 PM, Rupert wrote:
>
> >>
>
> >>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>> http://philosophyforprogrammers.blogspot.de/2013/02/poverty-and-plant-based-diets.html
>
> >>
>
> >>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>> The very first paragraph in this pile of dogshit:
>
> >>
>
> >>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>> Forty years ago, Frances Moore Lappe wrote Diet for a Small
>
> >>
>
> >>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>> Planet, a combination cookbook and food industry critique. In it,
>
> >>
>
> >>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>> she pointed out that the grain we feed to livestock animals could
>
> >>
>
> >>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>> *instead be fed to hungry people*.
>
> >>
>
> >>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>> And that is exactly what you lied and said was not the mainstream
>
> >>
>
> >>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>> position of "vegan" crackpots - but it is. No, they're *not* preaching
>
> >>
>
> >>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>> a reduction in environmental degradation - in fact, there's no mention
>
> >>
>
> >>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>> of that in the pile-of-dogshit site at all. What they're specifically
>
> >>
>
> >>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>> saying is that grain currently fed to livestock could instead *directly*
>
> >>
>
> >>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>> be fed to starving people.
>
> >>
>
> >>>
>
> >>
>
> >>> If the demand for grain to be fed to livestock goes down, it will become more affordable to those in poor countries.
>
> >>
>
> >>>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> The grain (mostly dent corn) fed to livestock is not edible by humans.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> You confused and clueless urbanites simply have no understanding of
>
> >>
>
> >> basic economics (price theory). American and European farmers are not
>
> >>
>
> >> going to grow human edible vegetable crops and ship them to Africa and
>
> >>
>
> >> Bangladesh for free. Those poor starving people couldn't afford to buy
>
> >>
>
> >> any food from us at all. Their economies are in ruin, more than for any
>
> >>
>
> >> other reason, because their societies are incapable of civil governance.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> I did a search on "causes of world hunger", and none of the first four
>
> >>
>
> >> sites I looked at made any mention at all of "because those greedy first
>
> >>
>
> >> worlders feed grain to livestock."
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> http://www.wfp.org/hunger/causes
>
> >>
>
> >> http://www.globalissues.org/issue/6/world-hunger-and-poverty
>
> >>
>
> >> http://www.freeholdtwp.k12.nj.us/WebQuests/6th%20grade%20webquest/threecauses.htm
>
> >>
>
> >> http://gccblogs.concernusa.org/2011/10/21/top-5-causes-of-hunger/
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> You fuckwits simply have got to give up on this. It's a lie. There is
>
> >>
>
> >> no hunger in the world due to civilized peoples growing grain for livestock.
>
> >
>
> > There's a claim made in the link I gave that an additional 9 million vegetarians would reduce the price of corn by $5/bushel. You're saying that this would not be human-edible corn?
>
>
>
> First, that number is simply bullshit - shit from mostly grain-fed
>
> cattle, I might add. And yes, if any grain that was produced to be fed
>
> to the non-existent livestock continued to be produced, it would not be
>
> edible for humans. First of all, the corn (maize) itself is not the
>
> sweet corn variety that you know. It is a hard corn, often called dent
>
> corn, that has to be processed.
>
>
>
> Do you know how corn for livestock is processed? For cattle, typically
>
> the entire plant - stalk, leaves, ears of corn including the cobs - is
>
> chopped up into bits. The cattle eat the entire plant. That's cheap to
>
> produce. I don't know as much about poultry feed, but if you look at
>
> pictures of the stuff:
>
>
>
> http://www.forberg-international.com/filarkiv/Image/products/Feed/MG_5275_479x350.jpg
>
> http://thumbs.dreamstime.com/thumblarge_500/1272790990t1P3P4.jpg
>
>
>
> it doesn't look like something humans would eat. I have to believe
>
> there is more than simply the grain in it. I expect stalks and leaves
>
> and other bits are ground up into it.
>
>
>
> Here's what you loony fuckwits don't understand. In both the US and
>
> Europe, and I suspect in Canada too, the production of the grain is
>
> heavily subsidized by national or supranational governments, meaning the
>
> stuff is sold below cost to the livestock feeding operations. If the
>
> reality is that poor starving Africans can't "defeat" - i.e., outbid -
>
> CAFO lots now for subsidized grain, which is not edible by humans as
>
> currently processed, how in the *FUCK* do you think they would
>
> outcompete the CAFOs if the grain weren't subsidized, or if more of it
>
> were diverted for the more costly processing required to produce human
>
> edible food?
>
>
>
> What it always sounded like lesley, the Whore of Ballaghaderreen, was
>
> advocating was that the grain currently grown for and fed to livestock
>
> simply be loaded onto freighters and sent to Africa and Bangladesh, and
>
> distributed for free since it is obvious those people can't feed
>
> themselves. Is that what you're proposing?

No.

If land was freed up to grow corn fit for human consumption, that would have an effect on the price.

George Plimpton
2013-02-04 14:49:17 EST
On 2/4/2013 11:10 AM, Rupert wrote:
> On Monday, February 4, 2013 6:11:00 PM UTC+1, George Plimpton wrote:
>> On 2/4/2013 8:40 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>> On Monday, February 4, 2013 5:34:50 PM UTC+1, George Plimpton wrote:
>>
>>>> On 2/4/2013 7:46 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>> On Monday, February 4, 2013 4:34:53 PM UTC+1, George Plimpton wrote:
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>>> On 2/3/2013 12:15 PM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>>>> http://philosophyforprogrammers.blogspot.de/2013/02/poverty-and-plant-based-diets.html
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>>> The very first paragraph in this pile of dogshit:
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>>> Forty years ago, Frances Moore Lappe wrote Diet for a Small
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>>> Planet, a combination cookbook and food industry critique. In it,
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>>> she pointed out that the grain we feed to livestock animals could
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>>> *instead be fed to hungry people*.
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>>> And that is exactly what you lied and said was not the mainstream
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>>> position of "vegan" crackpots - but it is. No, they're *not* preaching
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>>> a reduction in environmental degradation - in fact, there's no mention
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>>> of that in the pile-of-dogshit site at all. What they're specifically
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>>> saying is that grain currently fed to livestock could instead *directly*
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>>> be fed to starving people.
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>> If the demand for grain to be fed to livestock goes down, it will become more affordable to those in poor countries.
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>> The grain (mostly dent corn) fed to livestock is not edible by humans.
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>> You confused and clueless urbanites simply have no understanding of
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>> basic economics (price theory). American and European farmers are not
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>> going to grow human edible vegetable crops and ship them to Africa and
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>> Bangladesh for free. Those poor starving people couldn't afford to buy
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>> any food from us at all. Their economies are in ruin, more than for any
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>> other reason, because their societies are incapable of civil governance.
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>> I did a search on "causes of world hunger", and none of the first four
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>> sites I looked at made any mention at all of "because those greedy first
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>> worlders feed grain to livestock."
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>> http://www.wfp.org/hunger/causes
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>> http://www.globalissues.org/issue/6/world-hunger-and-poverty
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>> http://www.freeholdtwp.k12.nj.us/WebQuests/6th%20grade%20webquest/threecauses.htm
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>> http://gccblogs.concernusa.org/2011/10/21/top-5-causes-of-hunger/
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>> You fuckwits simply have got to give up on this. It's a lie. There is
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>> no hunger in the world due to civilized peoples growing grain for livestock.
>>
>>>
>>
>>> There's a claim made in the link I gave that an additional 9 million vegetarians would reduce the price of corn by $5/bushel. You're saying that this would not be human-edible corn?
>>
>>
>>
>> First, that number is simply bullshit - shit from mostly grain-fed
>>
>> cattle, I might add. And yes, if any grain that was produced to be fed
>>
>> to the non-existent livestock continued to be produced, it would not be
>>
>> edible for humans. First of all, the corn (maize) itself is not the
>>
>> sweet corn variety that you know. It is a hard corn, often called dent
>>
>> corn, that has to be processed.
>>
>>
>>
>> Do you know how corn for livestock is processed? For cattle, typically
>>
>> the entire plant - stalk, leaves, ears of corn including the cobs - is
>>
>> chopped up into bits. The cattle eat the entire plant. That's cheap to
>>
>> produce. I don't know as much about poultry feed, but if you look at
>>
>> pictures of the stuff:
>>
>>
>>
>> http://www.forberg-international.com/filarkiv/Image/products/Feed/MG_5275_479x350.jpg
>>
>> http://thumbs.dreamstime.com/thumblarge_500/1272790990t1P3P4.jpg
>>
>>
>>
>> it doesn't look like something humans would eat. I have to believe
>>
>> there is more than simply the grain in it. I expect stalks and leaves
>>
>> and other bits are ground up into it.
>>
>>
>>
>> Here's what you loony fuckwits don't understand. In both the US and
>>
>> Europe, and I suspect in Canada too, the production of the grain is
>>
>> heavily subsidized by national or supranational governments, meaning the
>>
>> stuff is sold below cost to the livestock feeding operations. If the
>>
>> reality is that poor starving Africans can't "defeat" - i.e., outbid -
>>
>> CAFO lots now for subsidized grain, which is not edible by humans as
>>
>> currently processed, how in the *FUCK* do you think they would
>>
>> outcompete the CAFOs if the grain weren't subsidized, or if more of it
>>
>> were diverted for the more costly processing required to produce human
>>
>> edible food?
>>
>>
>>
>> What it always sounded like lesley, the Whore of Ballaghaderreen, was
>>
>> advocating was that the grain currently grown for and fed to livestock
>>
>> simply be loaded onto freighters and sent to Africa and Bangladesh, and
>>
>> distributed for free since it is obvious those people can't feed
>>
>> themselves. Is that what you're proposing?
>
> No.
>
> If land was freed up to grow corn fit for human consumption, that would have an effect on the price.

What do you mean, "freed up"? If farmers could earn more money growing
corn for human consumption than by growing it for livestock feed, why do
you think they wouldn't already be doing it? Do you think farmers are
irrational - that is, they're in business to make money but they don't
undertake the activity that makes them the most money?

Maybe what you're suggesting is that if there were fewer livestock to
feed (due to an increase in the number of vegetarians), and so less feed
grains produced, then that land might find its *next* highest valued use
in growing corn and other grains for starving people in Africa. But why
would you think they can afford to pay even for the next-highest use of
the land? Corn is already pretty cheap. A bushel of dry corn sells for
around US$4.00, and weights 56 pounds, or about 7 cents per pound. I
don't know what the edible percentage is, but let's say that only one
quarter of the weight is edible corn grain, which can be ground up into
meal or otherwise processed into human edible corn, so that an edible
pound of corn grain costs 28 cents. Of course, that's 28 cents *BEFORE*
the milling, and it also reflects the subsidies paid to farmers to grow
corn in the first place. If poor starving Africans can't pay 28 US
cents for a pound of feed, why do you think they could pay for something
else?

In fact, corn prices have risen steeply in recent years - the stuff
fetched US$2.00 per bushel in 2004-2005. The reason the price has gone
up is not because more is being diverted to livestock, but rather
because it's being used in ethanol production, at least in the US. This
has also resulted in higher livestock feed prices, so the cost of meat
is going up.

What you ought to be doing, if you're interested in helping poor
starving Africans avoid hunger, is to forget about the US grain market,
and focus instead on working to eliminate bad governments and war in Africa.
Page: 1 2 3 4 5   Next  (First | Last)


2020 - UsenetArchives.com | Contact Us | Privacy | Stats | Site Search
Become our Patron