Some problems aren't even a 'bug': this might be one of the only Google products that doesn't feature a 'search'. Seriously?! Tried really hard to like it for a few months, went back to the basic messaging app.
Not necessarily, look how quickly we acted on things like acid rain or the ozone and CFC's. And 200 years ago in the US, just the thought of the country not having human slaves was, quite honestly, considered ludicrous and literally impossible to even imagine. Same with other civil liberties like equality for women. Very few people back then were thinking 'oh, this is just around the corner'. It was unfathomable. Impossible. Yet social justice tends to turn things around.
It won't be tomorrow or next week or next year, but it will happen, and it will likely be sooner than we think, imo.
I take 2x 1000mcg of B12 once a week. Had my blood tested a couple months ago, I've been vegan over 24yrs and my B12 is on the high end (535pmol/L, healthy range is 150-650.)
If you do your research, you'll find B12 deficiency is actually pretty common in non-vegans too, and many have to supplement even tho they're not vegan.
Try eating "meat alone", I promise you'll regret it after about a week when you have no energy and are completely constipated. They don't 'choose' it, it's their only option much of the year (and they do eat seaweed, some native plants that grow in the warmer. They don't live on ice 365 days a year.)
Plus, you'll need to eat quite differently to adapt - Vitamin C isn't present in cooked animal foods, so you'll need to consume raw liver and brains (or, frozen, as Inuit often do) to prevent scurvy. I'm sure you'll love doing this over taking that B12 supplement. Or are you willing to take Vitamin C daily, but not B12?
As someone else pointed out, there isn't a whole lot of 'green water' in California right now. So now what?
There are already many charts showing how inefficiently livestock convert resources...per calorie, per calorie of protein, or nearly any other metric, we're much more efficient eating plants ourselves. (And the fact is: we can live without meat, but can't live without plants.)
Finally, just because it's a vegan website doesn't invalidate the resources it links to. The resources are all there, just go through it yourself. (And try not to cherry-pick items that make a thin defence for your case.)
Yes, because it wasn't this kind of thinking that lead us into this drought at all.. (And there's no second-guessing involved, the numbers are right there.)
You're right that residential use is a tiny fraction of California's water (and it's silly trying to get people to act on this thinking it'll make a difference), and agriculture is in the range of 80% of all water use...but of that, over half is devoted to livestock. So it's the animals that are the problem - not the produce. Also lot of America's produce comes from California, and I think it'd be difficult for the rest of the country to compensate. Getting rid of livestock, however, would go a long way to conserving water AND keeping people well fed. Here are some stats on that.
Some do... MEC (Mountain Equipment Co-op) here in Canada sometimes returns dividends to members, I got $50 back this year as an example. Granted, this isn't typical, and most non-profits don't operate as a chain of stores..but it doesn't happen. (Point being: lots of different types of non-profits.)
No, of course not, pretty much every vegan is also from a long liner of meat-eaters!;)
There's a lot more to it, besides even if livestock were changed and water usage in CA dropped from 50% to like 40%, it's still a completely unsustainable amount of water....and it goes way beyond that. Also in the US (I'm from Canada actually) 50% of all land used by humans is for livestock. The numbers are really shocking there, and globally - take a look at some of the info on this blog post: http://blog.thevictoriavegan.com/2014/10/humane-meat-its-not-humane-for-nature.html - it's insane.. =(
It only 'appeals' because that is what they're used to. Take someone who's grown up on almond milk, and give them cow's milk, and I bet they'd find it pretty disgusting.
I would imagine replacing cattle with sheep and goats would be a bit less water, but a whole lot of new infrastructure would have to be developed...and to supply the amount of meat wanted by people, it would probably only drop the amount of water by a few points...and to use your earlier point, won't people used to beef only appeal to a small fraction of the population?;)
Given the scale, I don't think switching animals is really a solution, but a delay (since demand will only continue to increase, unless another attitude is instilled.)
Here are some stats - almonds use about 10% of CA's water. Crops for human use are about 25% of all CA use (including almonds). Total agriculture water use is 75%. What's missing? Livestock. Animal agribusiness soak up 50% of all water used in CA. Why are we talking about showers and lawns when animal agribusiness out scales EVERYTHING else by such a huge margin? I outline this more here: http://veganstart.org/almonds.
Livestock are the culprit, and 50% of all water in CA is used for animal agribusiness. The total agriculture sector is 75% (including almonds). It's insane to not talk about this, here are more details: veganstart.org/almonds.
I think the 1.6 servings is a breakdown of a standard 'serving size'. 187.6ml is an odd serving size (usually 250ml??) But for easy comparison of the Nutritional Data chart, the 'serving size' needs to be the same, allowing you to easily compare two different products. So when they make a 300ml bottle, it has a weird 'number of servings', even tho by all accounts that will likely be one serving (or possibly two. But rarely 1.6.)
I started a page for a new project in December, and the auto-verify 'feature' gave me the 'approved' message, telling me it'd be 1-2 weeks before it gets finalized, and here we are near the end of January, and it's still not happened. The previous page i set up (maybe 2yrs ago) whipped through this process..so sucks in some ways being 'new' there.
I also get the feeling the hashtags aren't used much.
And my own experience is people, businesses and non-profits push content, but few actually will read it. (I see this in my stream, very few +1's and commentary.) So yes, lot of entities might be talking, but not to each other. I've been trying to interact with my new project, and while getting good success elsewhere, my G+ page hasn't grown. Really starting to feel like it's a waste of time (especially as someone else pointed out, Google has a habit of dropping things they get bored with...and their lack of function and development give me this impression with G+.)
Slashdot Mirror
Thanks, but I'm not talking about chats - talking about SMS messages... How can Hangouts not have a search feature for your SMS messages??
Some problems aren't even a 'bug': this might be one of the only Google products that doesn't feature a 'search'. Seriously?! Tried really hard to like it for a few months, went back to the basic messaging app.
Not necessarily, look how quickly we acted on things like acid rain or the ozone and CFC's. And 200 years ago in the US, just the thought of the country not having human slaves was, quite honestly, considered ludicrous and literally impossible to even imagine. Same with other civil liberties like equality for women. Very few people back then were thinking 'oh, this is just around the corner'. It was unfathomable. Impossible. Yet social justice tends to turn things around.
It won't be tomorrow or next week or next year, but it will happen, and it will likely be sooner than we think, imo.
...said nearly every meat-eater before going vegan. ;)
Supplement, singular. B12. Which they recommend EVERYONE over 50 take:
"People over 50 should get most of their vitamin B12 from fortified foods or dietary supplements because, in most cases, their bodies can absorb vitamin B12 from these sources."
I take 2x 1000mcg of B12 once a week. Had my blood tested a couple months ago, I've been vegan over 24yrs and my B12 is on the high end (535pmol/L, healthy range is 150-650.)
If you do your research, you'll find B12 deficiency is actually pretty common in non-vegans too, and many have to supplement even tho they're not vegan.
Try eating "meat alone", I promise you'll regret it after about a week when you have no energy and are completely constipated. They don't 'choose' it, it's their only option much of the year (and they do eat seaweed, some native plants that grow in the warmer. They don't live on ice 365 days a year.)
Plus, you'll need to eat quite differently to adapt - Vitamin C isn't present in cooked animal foods, so you'll need to consume raw liver and brains (or, frozen, as Inuit often do) to prevent scurvy. I'm sure you'll love doing this over taking that B12 supplement. Or are you willing to take Vitamin C daily, but not B12?
Next argument? =)
How about responding to what uses up the most water as year after year of drought passes?
You're fun at conversation.
As someone else pointed out, there isn't a whole lot of 'green water' in California right now. So now what?
There are already many charts showing how inefficiently livestock convert resources...per calorie, per calorie of protein, or nearly any other metric, we're much more efficient eating plants ourselves. (And the fact is: we can live without meat, but can't live without plants.)
Finally, just because it's a vegan website doesn't invalidate the resources it links to. The resources are all there, just go through it yourself. (And try not to cherry-pick items that make a thin defence for your case.)
Yes, because it wasn't this kind of thinking that lead us into this drought at all.. (And there's no second-guessing involved, the numbers are right there.)
It's not the produce, it's the livestock.
You're right that residential use is a tiny fraction of California's water (and it's silly trying to get people to act on this thinking it'll make a difference), and agriculture is in the range of 80% of all water use...but of that, over half is devoted to livestock. So it's the animals that are the problem - not the produce. Also lot of America's produce comes from California, and I think it'd be difficult for the rest of the country to compensate. Getting rid of livestock, however, would go a long way to conserving water AND keeping people well fed. Here are some stats on that.
In Canada, co-ops fit under the 'non-profit' umbrella, as far as I'm aware. That's how they're taxed, and governs how they are expected to operate.
Some do... MEC (Mountain Equipment Co-op) here in Canada sometimes returns dividends to members, I got $50 back this year as an example. Granted, this isn't typical, and most non-profits don't operate as a chain of stores..but it doesn't happen. (Point being: lots of different types of non-profits.)
Bottled water...watering lawns...even almonds...they're not the problem. It's livestock. They consume around 50% of all water use in CA.
Here, let's just compare dairy products: http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2014/03/california-water-suck
Keep in mind that around 80% of people regularly consume these, and the non-dairy products are a tiny portion of sales..
Here's a collection of articles and stats for those really interested in learning about what's using up California's water: veganstart.org/almonds
Quick Sony, concoct another movie banning and threats to national security to draw attention away from this!
No, of course not, pretty much every vegan is also from a long liner of meat-eaters! ;)
There's a lot more to it, besides even if livestock were changed and water usage in CA dropped from 50% to like 40%, it's still a completely unsustainable amount of water....and it goes way beyond that. Also in the US (I'm from Canada actually) 50% of all land used by humans is for livestock. The numbers are really shocking there, and globally - take a look at some of the info on this blog post: http://blog.thevictoriavegan.com/2014/10/humane-meat-its-not-humane-for-nature.html - it's insane.. =(
It only 'appeals' because that is what they're used to. Take someone who's grown up on almond milk, and give them cow's milk, and I bet they'd find it pretty disgusting.
;)
I would imagine replacing cattle with sheep and goats would be a bit less water, but a whole lot of new infrastructure would have to be developed...and to supply the amount of meat wanted by people, it would probably only drop the amount of water by a few points...and to use your earlier point, won't people used to beef only appeal to a small fraction of the population?
Given the scale, I don't think switching animals is really a solution, but a delay (since demand will only continue to increase, unless another attitude is instilled.)
Sorry - here's the URL http://veganstart.org/almonds.
Here are some stats - almonds use about 10% of CA's water. Crops for human use are about 25% of all CA use (including almonds). Total agriculture water use is 75%. What's missing? Livestock. Animal agribusiness soak up 50% of all water used in CA. Why are we talking about showers and lawns when animal agribusiness out scales EVERYTHING else by such a huge margin? I outline this more here: http://veganstart.org/almonds.
They also grow a lot more almonds than walnuts..
This.
Livestock are the culprit, and 50% of all water in CA is used for animal agribusiness. The total agriculture sector is 75% (including almonds). It's insane to not talk about this, here are more details: veganstart.org/almonds.
By agriculture, you mean livestock.. Livestock soak up 50% of CA's water use. http://www.newrepublic.com/article/120915/american-west-drought-being-worsened-livestock-industry
I think the 1.6 servings is a breakdown of a standard 'serving size'. 187.6ml is an odd serving size (usually 250ml??) But for easy comparison of the Nutritional Data chart, the 'serving size' needs to be the same, allowing you to easily compare two different products. So when they make a 300ml bottle, it has a weird 'number of servings', even tho by all accounts that will likely be one serving (or possibly two. But rarely 1.6.)
This doesn't seem to qualify as 'properly', eh?
I started a page for a new project in December, and the auto-verify 'feature' gave me the 'approved' message, telling me it'd be 1-2 weeks before it gets finalized, and here we are near the end of January, and it's still not happened. The previous page i set up (maybe 2yrs ago) whipped through this process..so sucks in some ways being 'new' there. I also get the feeling the hashtags aren't used much. And my own experience is people, businesses and non-profits push content, but few actually will read it. (I see this in my stream, very few +1's and commentary.) So yes, lot of entities might be talking, but not to each other. I've been trying to interact with my new project, and while getting good success elsewhere, my G+ page hasn't grown. Really starting to feel like it's a waste of time (especially as someone else pointed out, Google has a habit of dropping things they get bored with...and their lack of function and development give me this impression with G+.)