Go Back  Bike Forums > Bike Forums > Living Car Free
Reload this Page >

People Without Cars

Notices
Living Car Free Do you live car free or car light? Do you prefer to use alternative transportation (bicycles, walking, other human-powered or public transportation) for everyday activities whenever possible? Discuss your lifestyle here.

People Without Cars

Old 03-19-15, 08:40 AM
  #76  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 222

Bikes: 90's Campione,90's trek multitrack,2005 trek 3700

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
More and more people are living in the suburban/ueban environments. You can make car free work in those places if you try. Some people have medical issues and can't. Most people also don't want to stop eating meat or quit start exercising. Nothing immoral about any of this btw. But to say it's not terrible for our long term survival is foolish. We are Born to die though. Once you accept that it's pretty cool.
plustax is offline  
Old 03-19-15, 08:51 AM
  #77  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Missouri
Posts: 710

Bikes: Nashbar CR5

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 2 Times in 2 Posts
Originally Posted by plustax
More and more people are living in the suburban/ueban environments. You can make car free work in those places if you try. Some people have medical issues and can't. Most people also don't want to stop eating meat or quit start exercising. Nothing immoral about any of this btw. But to say it's not terrible for our long term survival is foolish. We are Born to die though. Once you accept that it's pretty cool.
Well the eating meat thing certainly depends on who you talk to. I'm sure you can give me a whole list of links and reasons as could someone on the other side. I eat chicken and fish and workout; I definitely want a healthier lifestyle. As you see in my signature; I didn't use to have a healthier lifestyle. It really takes the motivation to want it.

One of the things I used to say, that I hear a lot now, is "Why starve and suffer just to live a couple of years longer". Except I realized that not only does working out feel great; AND I hardly 'starve' by eating healthy foods in healthy portions; but it's not about living a few years longer. It's about life being worth living in those last few years. It's about not spending my last 10 or 15 years on earth with pills, pumps, doctors and surgeries. I don't want to have to have joints replaced because of destroying them through being obese, and have to regulate bodily functions like blood pressure through pills. It's the same reason I invest, save for retirement, and put more into my pension than what is normally 'taken out'. I intend to enjoy my life straight through to the end.

People ARE moving more towards suburban and urban environments which definitely has it's societal benefits. Though we definitely could do for some 're-wiring'. For everyone who tells me rural people should move to the city; I want to ask them when the city; which is usually located along a main river or other channel; is going to tear itself down and move out to a sparse, flat, dry region that's tough to farm and thus would be perfect for the cities which destroy all of the land anyway. So that farmers can use that fertile land along the river; instead of it just being rows of cities and large towns. The fact is we aren't as efficient as we ought to be. It would be IMPOSSIBLE, of course, but wouldn't it be neat if we went all "SimCity" on the world and re-arranged everything to be more efficient.

Last edited by RomansFiveEight; 03-19-15 at 08:56 AM.
RomansFiveEight is offline  
Old 03-19-15, 08:54 AM
  #78  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 222

Bikes: 90's Campione,90's trek multitrack,2005 trek 3700

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
I don't think meat is unhealthy, because I don't really see evidence to support it. It's definitely not healthy for our long term survival because it produces an unhealthier ecosystem that is less capable of supporting our species.
plustax is offline  
Old 03-19-15, 09:37 AM
  #79  
Been Around Awhile
 
I-Like-To-Bike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Burlington Iowa
Posts: 29,950

Bikes: Vaterland and Ragazzi

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 12 Post(s)
Liked 1,517 Times in 1,031 Posts
Originally Posted by plustax
I don't think meat is unhealthy, because I don't really see evidence to support it. It's definitely not healthy for our long term survival because it produces an unhealthier ecosystem that is less capable of supporting our species.
On an equally relevant to people without cars/LCF topic, what's the current PC approved viewpoint on the use of elevators in high rise buildings?

Should their use be restricted to only registered wheelchair users in order to promote a healthier population?

Are those people who take the human powered path up and down stairs morally superior to all those allegedly lazy, obese, wasteful, environmentally obtuse yokels who use fossil-fueled contraptions to get above the ground floor in buildings?
I-Like-To-Bike is offline  
Old 03-19-15, 09:51 AM
  #80  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 222

Bikes: 90's Campione,90's trek multitrack,2005 trek 3700

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Morally wrong no, nor it it any of the other adjectives you used, but it's definitely not conducive to the overall health of our species (nor the longevity of it).

If you are asking my personal answer, I used to take the stairs to my seventh floor job. I work on the second floor now.

If you want to get into things like providing health care and curing diseases then I am not really sure about how that will turn out in the end. I work in cancer research. Will this be useful because we eventually reach the stars and go out into the universe or is it simply accelerating the destruction of the planet and our own species as a result?


I don't know. Cars however as they are used currently do and hence we talk about them here.

Does that make sense?

Last edited by plustax; 03-19-15 at 09:56 AM.
plustax is offline  
Old 03-19-15, 09:56 AM
  #81  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Missouri
Posts: 710

Bikes: Nashbar CR5

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 2 Times in 2 Posts
Originally Posted by plustax
Morally wrong no, nor it it any of the other adjectives you used, but it's definitely not conducive to the overall health of our species (nor the longevity of it).

If you are asking my personal answer, I used to take the stairs to my seventh floor job. I work on the second floor now.
Don't take this the wrong way because I really ought to just shy away from the meat vs. no meat topic. It's one of those topics where both sides are convinced they are unequivocally right and the other is wrong. But as long as there have been humans there have been humans eating meat. Our evolutionary ancestors ate meat. We developed tools so that we could more easily eat meat (and kill meat). Go back far enough on the evolutionary train and you'll find herbivorous ancient pre-historic ancestors; but for right around 1.5 million years (at least, that's the earliest we have evidence for it) humankind and it's evolutionary ancestors have adapted to eating other animals.

So how long is 'long' when it comes to sustainability? We've ("we" being both humans for our 200,000 years history, and the various ancient hominids that evolved into us for the 1.3m years before that) been eating animals for 1.5 million years; that's an awfully long time. In fact, many of our predecessors HAVE died out, and not due to a lack of meat.

Just curious.

Last edited by RomansFiveEight; 03-19-15 at 10:11 AM.
RomansFiveEight is offline  
Old 03-19-15, 10:03 AM
  #82  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 222

Bikes: 90's Campione,90's trek multitrack,2005 trek 3700

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Long? Forever of course Hence the reaching the stars bit. Though that may not have been in my post originally.
plustax is offline  
Old 03-19-15, 10:10 AM
  #83  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Missouri
Posts: 710

Bikes: Nashbar CR5

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 2 Times in 2 Posts
Well I guess the part I'm having trouble with is why eating meat isn't sustainable but vegetation is. Due to overpopulation we're short on both. We could just as easily eat away all of our vegetation; especially if we all stopped eating meat. Ancient hominids have tried it, vegetarianism isn't new (though it wasn't a pseudo-moral issue; so much as it was a lack of availability or ability); and their bones are smaller, weaker, they died younger, and had higher infant mortality. We know more now which is why veganism isn't dangerous like it once was, but even so. We are the product of millions of years of evolution which has adapted to eat meat. Conversely, what we typically eat tends to be rapidly breeding hardy animals that have evolved to handle harsh conditions; I don't think that's a coincidence. Early hominids ate a lot of rodents and small mammals which of course, "breed like rabbits" (pun intended). We still eat chicken and fish which are plentiful and beef which is very hardy (I don't really eat much beef personally, but it certainly has it's evolutionary advantages as a food animal).

I get some of the health benefits of a healthy vegetarian/vegan diet (with supplementing certain foods to insure the necessary protein intake); but sustainability is a new one for me. I appreciate your insight and answering my questions but I just can't wrap my head around what makes vegetation more sustainable than meat; or vice versa. It seems they coincide well and part of our evolutionary superiority is our ability to eat both and our diet consisting of both. I just can't fathom why meat is "unsustainable", other than overpopulation; which is just as equally true of vegetable matter. We may not realize it in the developed world which not only produces it's own food but imports it from other countries as well; but food is in short supply; including and especially fresh vegetables and fruits.

Last edited by RomansFiveEight; 03-19-15 at 10:18 AM.
RomansFiveEight is offline  
Old 03-19-15, 10:12 AM
  #84  
Been Around Awhile
 
I-Like-To-Bike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Burlington Iowa
Posts: 29,950

Bikes: Vaterland and Ragazzi

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 12 Post(s)
Liked 1,517 Times in 1,031 Posts
Originally Posted by plustax
Cars however as they are used currently do and hence we talk about them here.

Does that make sense?
Given that you are discussing the virtues or not of eating meat, no.
I-Like-To-Bike is offline  
Old 03-19-15, 10:16 AM
  #85  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 222

Bikes: 90's Campione,90's trek multitrack,2005 trek 3700

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by I-Like-To-Bike
Given that you are discussing the virtues or not of eating meat, no.

Elaborate then. Because it makes sense to me.
plustax is offline  
Old 03-19-15, 10:19 AM
  #86  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 222

Bikes: 90's Campione,90's trek multitrack,2005 trek 3700

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by RomansFiveEight
We could just as easily eat away all of our vegetation; especially if we all stopped eating meat.
Animals have to eat plants to grow. We could simply eat the plants we are using to feed the animals to feed ourselves.

Originally Posted by RomansFiveEight
We still eat chicken and fish which
Fish are not by any means plentiful unless you count farm raised fish which have a poorer nutrient profile than wild fish along with many (but not all) species of fish that are farmed being fed wild fish populations.


Chicken is not to bad for the enviroment in terms of CO2 generation. The produce manure but again it's still a lot better beef or pork.

Last edited by plustax; 03-19-15 at 10:22 AM.
plustax is offline  
Old 03-19-15, 10:25 AM
  #87  
Been Around Awhile
 
I-Like-To-Bike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Burlington Iowa
Posts: 29,950

Bikes: Vaterland and Ragazzi

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 12 Post(s)
Liked 1,517 Times in 1,031 Posts
Originally Posted by plustax
Elaborate then. Because it makes sense to me.
Makes as much on topic (ya know: living car free) sense as all the other posts from a few posters that inject/preach personal views and/or rants about all sorts of OT moralistic/political issues that they wish to associate with a PC version of living car free.
I-Like-To-Bike is offline  
Old 03-19-15, 10:29 AM
  #88  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 222

Bikes: 90's Campione,90's trek multitrack,2005 trek 3700

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
So your posts were meant to drag on the conversation that doesnt make sense then? If you'll notice I tried to steer the convo back towards cars in my post.
plustax is offline  
Old 03-19-15, 10:33 AM
  #89  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Missouri
Posts: 710

Bikes: Nashbar CR5

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 2 Times in 2 Posts
Originally Posted by plustax
Animals have to eat plants to grow. We could simply eat the plants we are using to feed the animals to feed ourselves.



Fish are not by any means plentiful unless you count farm raised fish which have a poorer nutrient profile than wild fish.


Chicken is not to bad for the enviroment in terms of CO2 generation. The produce manure but again it's still a lot better beef or pork.
Salmon and other types of fish breed readily and are extraordinarily plentiful. The sheer number of salmon that can be extracted from streams each years is incredible and they keep coming back.

The issue is largely in the oceans which, as they warm, they become less populated. Fish are very sensitive to the environment. Beef, pork, and even chicken is a very hardy animal that can live in a large variety of environments. I live near Dairy Farms and these cows shuffle around the fields whether it's 12 degrees with snow on the ground or 100 degrees out. They just don't care. As long as they have food, they're happy. Fish can't handle radical changes, they kind of have their one environment and that's it. Freshwater fish are a little less sensitive to that because their environment DOES change and so they have adapted thusly. Which of course, is an issue of environment. Though our environment has had swings before. At one time, Bison were a tremendous problem with emissions. They were essentially hunted out. Bison is a good alternative to beef through from a health benefit; it's far leaner. So is venison. Venison is also very plentiful and generally harvested from the wild, not farmed. Venison is probably the perfect 'beef replacement'. It's small, breeds readily, very hardy, has few natural predators. In fact, overpopulation of deer is a problem in a lot of areas even with hundreds of thousands of them being harvested by hunters each year.

And as for animals eating plants; well it's what they eat. Cows eat grass. Chickens eat the seeds of other plants. None of them eat the hearty nutritious foods like spinach, kale, and beans that we should be eating. Sure they eat corn (but they generally eat 'feed corn' which isn't what you're eating. It's been bred to be larger and grow faster but it isn't very appetizing at all.), but otherwise most of these animals are eating other grains and grass. Low-carb is the hip thing to do these days; less demand for bread; more grain for the animals! Almost none of what feed animals eat is something you can put on your plate and get nutrition from. You might get some nutrition from feed corn; you almost certainly won't like it though. And I suppose you could grind up their grains and meal into flour for breads; but again, it isn't the consistent, controlled type of grains you're getting at the supermarket or farmers market. It's feed-grade. Cheap, fast growing, easy. And the cows don't care; they eat it and remain healthy. It's not 'unhealthy' vegetation; it's just not what you or I would WANT to eat; and it doesn't provide the same kind of nutrition (but it provides plenty of nutrition for them).

A lot of the farmers out here get a kick out of the suburban trend of wanting 'grass fed cattle'. The cows are smaller, less healthy, less hearty. It's bad for the cattle. And the meat in the end is less nutritious. But it sure is cheap! And they get to charge extra because it's "all natural grass fed".

Seriously, the way we've evolved to eat is amazing. We eat the hardiest, most prolifically breeding, and most nutritious animals out there which eat mostly the stuff we don't eat. Grass, grains, feed corn, etc. We could mow down all the feed corn and grow edible corn, sure. But we'd be growing a lot less feed corn. We can grow a LOT more feed corn in the same amount of space in the same amount of time. Feed corn turns into beef which turns into yummy steak. (Or, in my case, turns into chicken feed when ground up along with some grains, which is fed to chickens which turn into yummy grilled chicken breasts!) Wild harvested animals, like Venison, Salmon, Tuna, etc., eat stuff we aren't harvesting. None of us are plucking the insects, plankton, and other invertebrates from the water that the Salmon are eating. (Or the chickens, for that matter. Have you ever kept chickens? You won't have mosquitoes, ticks, spiders, etc. anymore if you have chickens! Plus nothing beats a fresh unmolested brown egg right off of the ground.)

Seriously; I know these days it's "hip" to think that millions of years of evolution got it wrong and we have to undo the mistakes of our ancestors but the truth is evolution is this freaking brilliant thing and our planet has been designed in this chaotic harmony that works really, really, really well.

By the way, I don't 'not' eat beef because of environmental concerns; though those are real (but it also stems to overpopulation, the real key issue. Not a lot of easy, moral solutions to that. Other than maybe discouraging folks from thinking they need to have 3 or 4 kids) But weight loss and getting fit are my big goals and it's hard to do that with beef and pork. Chicken and wild caught fish are far healthier options, far less fat, fewer calories; and in many cases more nutrition. I do occasionally have beef, but I treat it like ice cream. An occasional treat; not part of my regular diet.
RomansFiveEight is offline  
Old 03-19-15, 10:35 AM
  #90  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 222

Bikes: 90's Campione,90's trek multitrack,2005 trek 3700

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
romans there would be no deer left if we harvested them at the rate to replace beef.
plustax is offline  
Old 03-19-15, 10:46 AM
  #91  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Missouri
Posts: 710

Bikes: Nashbar CR5

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 2 Times in 2 Posts
Originally Posted by plustax
romans there would be no deer left if we harvested them at the rate to replace beef.
It's closer than you think. About 41 million cattle are harvested each year; and about 9 million deer. And remember the deer aren't farmed (mostly) and there are limits on their harvest. Each year conservation departments calculate and determine the population and then issue permits and licenses based on how many they think can safely be harvested. For example, here in Missouri, we have plentiful doe but sometimes are short on bucks. So generally hunters are only allowed to kill one buck each year, and can sometimes kill 3 or 4 doe. The doe provide better meat anyway. Most hunters, all the ones I know, are very concerned with making sure they use as much of the deer as possible. Plus one or two adult deer can feed a family for a year.

You're right that we can't replace the beef. But if we could wean Americans away from beef, and farm venison; we could really do well. Though venison are tough to farm. They move fast, are susceptible to diseases when they aren't allowed to run wild and, frankly, fences aren't really effective at keeping them anywhere.

Despite 9~10 million deer a year being harvested, the population hovers around 50 million. Meaning that even though 20% of them are consistently killed each fall and winter (and that's just hunting; many more are killed on the road); their numbers don't dwindle. Very, very hardy breeders.

By the way, I want you to know I'm not being argumentative. It's tough to convey tone over the internet. I'm just trying to understand why meat is unsustainable in the future. I'm not sure you've been able to convince me at all. I'm still pretty impressed by the way nature has lined up the right animals to eat the right animals to keep everything in check. Our diets DO need updating though. We're not supposed to eat meat EXCLUSIVELY. If Americans mixed a LOT more vegetables into their diets, weaned themselves off of so much beef, etc., most if not all of the issues of sustainability would go away. And believe it or not; that's the trend. As Americans are finally being encouraged to be healthier; diet is the first thing that has to change (and hey, I'm living proof).

As to the elevators; my grandparents visited Israel in the 80's and stayed at the "King David Hotel". On the Sabbath, the elevator stopped automatically on every floor. As Jews are not permitted to 'work' on the Sabbath, some orthodox jews would view even operating the elevator as 'work' (those same Jews will turn their lights on in their house the night before the sabbath so they remain on through the sabbath). My grandparents mentioned it was the only day the American tourists took the stairs; because it was faster

I couldn't say I'd support forcing folks to use the stairs and elevators for handicap folks only (though that's the way it was both at my high school AND in college. Both had elevators that required a key and were for handicapped persons only. Both only being 2 or 3 floor buildings though), but I do wish folks would use the stairs more. Little things like that that would make us healthier. The only caveat I have for that is folks who workout regularly. Sometimes on this forum I see folks scoffing people people working out and then using the elevator. So what? If they are working out and becoming healthy, then they are working out and becoming healthy! The stairs are a nice touch; but so what? Though, personally, I try to use the stairs instead and generally park far away, etc.
RomansFiveEight is offline  
Old 03-19-15, 11:08 AM
  #92  
Sophomoric Member
 
Roody's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Dancing in Lansing
Posts: 24,221
Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 711 Post(s)
Liked 13 Times in 13 Posts
Originally Posted by plustax
Morally wrong no, nor it it any of the other adjectives you used, but it's definitely not conducive to the overall health of our species (nor the longevity of it).

If you are asking my personal answer, I used to take the stairs to my seventh floor job. I work on the second floor now.

If you want to get into things like providing health care and curing diseases then I am not really sure about how that will turn out in the end. I work in cancer research. Will this be useful because we eventually reach the stars and go out into the universe or is it simply accelerating the destruction of the planet and our own species as a result?


I don't know. Cars however as they are used currently do and hence we talk about them here.

Does that make sense?
Yes, about the only post here that does make sense.

The way meat is produced in the modern age is clearly very bad for the environment. That's a scientific fact. You can't dispute it if you are a rational person. But, like you say, that doesn't necessarily make it morally wrong to eat meat.

But if we choose to eat meat (as it's currently produced), the facts have to be taken into account. It's childish to just say "eating meat is fine because that's what we want to believe." We have to face facts and make rational decisions about the use of resources if we're going to survive in the next couple generations.

At the current time, it doesn't look like people want to eat less meat. Global meat consumption is going up as more people can afford it. If that's what people want, fine. But it would be smart to have a discussion about the effects of producing more meat, and come to some intelligent decisions about the practice. We might be able to eat less meat per person, as well as develop less harmful ways of producing it. Just because something is bad for the nvironmnt doesn't automatically mean that you're going to outlaw it. But you do need to make decisions based on the scientific facts about what is a rational plan other than banning meat.

There are many similarities to this issue and the role of automobiles. People don't want to ban cars, but they do need to think rationally about how we can have cars while still doing less harm to the environment. The two answers, as with meat consumption, are to both drive less globally and to find technological innovations that cause less pollution while driving.
__________________

"Think Outside the Cage"
Roody is offline  
Old 03-19-15, 11:12 AM
  #93  
Sophomoric Member
 
Roody's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Dancing in Lansing
Posts: 24,221
Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 711 Post(s)
Liked 13 Times in 13 Posts
Originally Posted by RomansFiveEight
Salmon and other types of fish breed readily and are extraordinarily plentiful. The sheer number of salmon that can be extracted from streams each years is incredible and they keep coming back.

The issue is largely in the oceans which, as they warm, they become less populated. Fish are very sensitive to the environment. Beef, pork, and even chicken is a very hardy animal that can live in a large variety of environments. I live near Dairy Farms and these cows shuffle around the fields whether it's 12 degrees with snow on the ground or 100 degrees out. They just don't care. As long as they have food, they're happy. Fish can't handle radical changes, they kind of have their one environment and that's it. Freshwater fish are a little less sensitive to that because their environment DOES change and so they have adapted thusly. Which of course, is an issue of environment. Though our environment has had swings before. At one time, Bison were a tremendous problem with emissions. They were essentially hunted out. Bison is a good alternative to beef through from a health benefit; it's far leaner. So is venison. Venison is also very plentiful and generally harvested from the wild, not farmed. Venison is probably the perfect 'beef replacement'. It's small, breeds readily, very hardy, has few natural predators. In fact, overpopulation of deer is a problem in a lot of areas even with hundreds of thousands of them being harvested by hunters each year.

And as for animals eating plants; well it's what they eat. Cows eat grass. Chickens eat the seeds of other plants. None of them eat the hearty nutritious foods like spinach, kale, and beans that we should be eating. Sure they eat corn (but they generally eat 'feed corn' which isn't what you're eating. It's been bred to be larger and grow faster but it isn't very appetizing at all.), but otherwise most of these animals are eating other grains and grass. Low-carb is the hip thing to do these days; less demand for bread; more grain for the animals! Almost none of what feed animals eat is something you can put on your plate and get nutrition from. You might get some nutrition from feed corn; you almost certainly won't like it though. And I suppose you could grind up their grains and meal into flour for breads; but again, it isn't the consistent, controlled type of grains you're getting at the supermarket or farmers market. It's feed-grade. Cheap, fast growing, easy. And the cows don't care; they eat it and remain healthy. It's not 'unhealthy' vegetation; it's just not what you or I would WANT to eat; and it doesn't provide the same kind of nutrition (but it provides plenty of nutrition for them).

A lot of the farmers out here get a kick out of the suburban trend of wanting 'grass fed cattle'. The cows are smaller, less healthy, less hearty. It's bad for the cattle. And the meat in the end is less nutritious. But it sure is cheap! And they get to charge extra because it's "all natural grass fed".

Seriously, the way we've evolved to eat is amazing. We eat the hardiest, most prolifically breeding, and most nutritious animals out there which eat mostly the stuff we don't eat. Grass, grains, feed corn, etc. We could mow down all the feed corn and grow edible corn, sure. But we'd be growing a lot less feed corn. We can grow a LOT more feed corn in the same amount of space in the same amount of time. Feed corn turns into beef which turns into yummy steak. (Or, in my case, turns into chicken feed when ground up along with some grains, which is fed to chickens which turn into yummy grilled chicken breasts!) Wild harvested animals, like Venison, Salmon, Tuna, etc., eat stuff we aren't harvesting. None of us are plucking the insects, plankton, and other invertebrates from the water that the Salmon are eating. (Or the chickens, for that matter. Have you ever kept chickens? You won't have mosquitoes, ticks, spiders, etc. anymore if you have chickens! Plus nothing beats a fresh unmolested brown egg right off of the ground.)

Seriously; I know these days it's "hip" to think that millions of years of evolution got it wrong and we have to undo the mistakes of our ancestors but the truth is evolution is this freaking brilliant thing and our planet has been designed in this chaotic harmony that works really, really, really well.

By the way, I don't 'not' eat beef because of environmental concerns; though those are real (but it also stems to overpopulation, the real key issue. Not a lot of easy, moral solutions to that. Other than maybe discouraging folks from thinking they need to have 3 or 4 kids) But weight loss and getting fit are my big goals and it's hard to do that with beef and pork. Chicken and wild caught fish are far healthier options, far less fat, fewer calories; and in many cases more nutrition. I do occasionally have beef, but I treat it like ice cream. An occasional treat; not part of my regular diet.
Meat production methods have changed drastically since the paleolithic era. Comparing modern farming to ancient hunting in terms of environmental impact is foolish.
__________________

"Think Outside the Cage"
Roody is offline  
Old 03-19-15, 11:14 AM
  #94  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Missouri
Posts: 710

Bikes: Nashbar CR5

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 2 Times in 2 Posts
Originally Posted by Roody
Yes, about the only post here that does make sense.

The way meat is produced in the modern age is clearly very bad for the environment. That's a scientific fact. You can't dispute it if you are a rational person. But, like you say, that doesn't necessarily make it morally wrong to eat meat.

But if we choose to eat meat (as it's currently produced), the facts have to be taken into account. It's childish to just say "eating meat is fine because that's what we want to believe." We have to face facts and make rational decisions about the use of resources if we're going to survive in the next couple generations.

At the current time, it doesn't look like people want to eat less meat. Global meat consumption is going up as more people can afford it. If that's what people want, fine. But it would be smart to have a discussion about the effects of producing more meat, and come to some intelligent decisions about the practice. We might be able to eat less meat per person, as well as develop less harmful ways of producing it. Just because something is bad for the nvironmnt doesn't automatically mean that you're going to outlaw it. But you do need to make decisions based on the scientific facts about what is a rational plan other than banning meat.

There are many similarities to this issue and the role of automobiles. People don't want to ban cars, but they do need to think rationally about how we can have cars while still doing less harm to the environment. The two answers, as with meat consumption, are to both drive less globally and to find technological innovations that cause less pollution while driving.
Amen!

That's what it's all about. Let's find sustainable, real, genuine ways to improve our world. Lets invest in better technologies to reduce the emissions create both when cars are produced and when the darn things are actually on the road. Progress looks like year after year, less and less fuel purchased in the US. That progress is attained through BOTH more efficient, and fewer cars. Less fuel purchased is less fuel burned. Lets improve the way meat is produced and encourage Americans (and others) to wean down their consumption of meat. We don't need to all become vegetarians; but maybe convincing folks that really it isn't healthy, natural, or necessary to eat meat with every single meal. You'll save money, lose weight, and be healthier when you mix in plenty of fresh veggies and reduce your meat consumption. That was one of my dietary changes when losing weight. Meat was the major component of every single meal, veggies were a 'side component'. Now veggies generally take the forefront and lean meats harvested as best as I have access to are consumed. A couple times a week I don't eat ANY meat, and I generally eat some meat with my veggies, instead of some veggies with my meat. For example, I'm eating a chicken salad for lunch today. Spinach, lettuce, peppers, kale, some light vinaigrette dressing and a couple ounces of grilled chicken (I grill up a pound or two at a time and use it for several days). I think most Americans could handle that, and it would make a tremendous difference.
RomansFiveEight is offline  
Old 03-19-15, 12:30 PM
  #95  
Been Around Awhile
 
I-Like-To-Bike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Burlington Iowa
Posts: 29,950

Bikes: Vaterland and Ragazzi

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 12 Post(s)
Liked 1,517 Times in 1,031 Posts
Originally Posted by plustax
So your posts were meant to drag on the conversation that doesnt make sense then? If you'll notice I tried to steer the convo back towards cars in my post.
Good luck with that , though why discussion of cars is always considered a hot topic for a list allegedly devoted to living without them is one of the inscrutable mysteries of this list. I suppose it is so some proselytizers can rant on endlessly about their moral, political, medical, and/or economic reasons to not use/own them and simultaneously polish their PC credentials/halo.
I-Like-To-Bike is offline  
Old 03-19-15, 01:13 PM
  #96  
Sophomoric Member
 
Roody's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Dancing in Lansing
Posts: 24,221
Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 711 Post(s)
Liked 13 Times in 13 Posts
Originally Posted by RomansFiveEight
Amen!

That's what it's all about. Let's find sustainable, real, genuine ways to improve our world. Lets invest in better technologies to reduce the emissions create both when cars are produced and when the darn things are actually on the road. Progress looks like year after year, less and less fuel purchased in the US. That progress is attained through BOTH more efficient, and fewer cars. Less fuel purchased is less fuel burned. Lets improve the way meat is produced and encourage Americans (and others) to wean down their consumption of meat. We don't need to all become vegetarians; but maybe convincing folks that really it isn't healthy, natural, or necessary to eat meat with every single meal. You'll save money, lose weight, and be healthier when you mix in plenty of fresh veggies and reduce your meat consumption. That was one of my dietary changes when losing weight. Meat was the major component of every single meal, veggies were a 'side component'. Now veggies generally take the forefront and lean meats harvested as best as I have access to are consumed. A couple times a week I don't eat ANY meat, and I generally eat some meat with my veggies, instead of some veggies with my meat. For example, I'm eating a chicken salad for lunch today. Spinach, lettuce, peppers, kale, some light vinaigrette dressing and a couple ounces of grilled chicken (I grill up a pound or two at a time and use it for several days). I think most Americans could handle that, and it would make a tremendous difference.
And of course, the sticking point is the large faction of people who cannot or will not discuss these issues rationally. They can call people who are trying to discuss it silly names, and engage in childlike denial that problems even exist, but real discussion of real problems in this world (and this forum) is constantly being drowned out by the "nattering nabobs of negativity."

The point is, there are real problems that face this world. Obviously, climate change is one of the most serious problems. Cars (and meat eating) are both aspects of the problem. Maybe not the most important aspects, but things that we ordinary people can do something about. Whether individuals choose to do anything is another issue, and whether they should do something is obviously a moral question that's open to debate.

(And it is pretty cool that doing the "right thing" environmentally is sometimes also th thing that's the best for your pocketbook and your health!)
__________________

"Think Outside the Cage"
Roody is offline  
Old 03-19-15, 09:33 PM
  #97  
In the right lane
 
gerv's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Des Moines
Posts: 9,565

Bikes: 1974 Huffy 3 speed

Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 44 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 7 Times in 6 Posts
Originally Posted by RomansFiveEight
Salmon and other types of fish breed readily and are extraordinarily plentiful. The sheer number of salmon that can be extracted from streams each years is incredible and they keep coming back.
This is definitely not the case. Globally, there are over 2,000 species of fish near extinction. Salmon species among them. Yes, you can eat farmed fish, even salmon... although I understand they are commonly fed pork bits.
gerv is offline  
Old 03-19-15, 10:20 PM
  #98  
Been Around Awhile
 
I-Like-To-Bike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Burlington Iowa
Posts: 29,950

Bikes: Vaterland and Ragazzi

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 12 Post(s)
Liked 1,517 Times in 1,031 Posts
Originally Posted by Roody
And of course, the sticking point is the large faction of people who cannot or will not discuss these issues rationally. They can call people who are trying to discuss it silly names, and engage in childlike denial that problems even exist, but real discussion of real problems in this world (and this forum) is constantly being drowned out by the "nattering nabobs of negativity."

The point is, there are real problems that face this world. Obviously, climate change is one of the most serious problems. Cars (and meat eating) are both aspects of the problem. Maybe not the most important aspects, but things that we ordinary people can do something about. Whether individuals choose to do anything is another issue, and whether they should do something is obviously a moral question that's open to debate.

(And it is pretty cool that doing the "right thing" environmentally is sometimes also th thing that's the best for your pocketbook and your health!)
"The sticking point" of this thread and the LCF list is your belief in your own righteousness and that the purpose/intent of this list is to be a sounding board for you and a handful of sanctimonious purveyors of PC platitudes to blather on endlessly about your take on "the real problems that face this world."

Suggest that you take your political and spiritual posts about "the real problems that face this world" to P&R, and finally spare the LCF list the OT political and political correctness lessons.
I-Like-To-Bike is offline  
Old 03-19-15, 11:38 PM
  #99  
Senior Member
 
Ekdog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Seville, Spain
Posts: 4,403

Bikes: Brompton M6R, mountain bikes, Circe Omnis+ tandem

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 146 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 6 Times in 5 Posts
Originally Posted by gerv
This is definitely not the case. Globally, there are over 2,000 species of fish near extinction. Salmon species among them. Yes, you can eat farmed fish, even salmon... although I understand they are commonly fed pork bits.
And chicken feces and...

Seven Reasons to Avoid Farm Raised Salmon
Ekdog is offline  
Old 03-20-15, 12:06 AM
  #100  
Thunder Whisperer
 
no1mad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: NE OK
Posts: 8,847

Bikes: '06 Kona Smoke

Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 275 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 6 Times in 2 Posts
TL;DR the thread
Originally Posted by BicycleBicycle
I met someone today that does not have a car by choice.

I was wondering, for those of you people who can actually afford cars, and are getting older, or are old why do you not have a car?
How about you try giving up your car? Who knows, by the time you get to be "old" (whatever age you define that as), you'll look at a car and go 'meh'
__________________
Community guidelines
no1mad is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.