I guess my point is that I don't take any pills for it
And that's fine, as long as you're careful. The problem with B12 deficiency is that you can seem perfectly fine, and yet be deficient, resulting in nasty things like increased chances of heart disease. Which, to be a broken record, is why it's important to be careful and ensure you've developed a balanced dietary plan that ensures your nutritional requirements are covered.
So the question becomes would you rather have Sulphate potassium oxide and potash running into your water table, or nicotine and pyrethrins...?
Good question. Of course, I have no idea what the comparative impacts are between the two approaches, so I'm not in a position to judge, but it's an important point to consider.
Interestingly, I see you didn't really address the fertilizer issue. Do you know if "organic" farming tends to use the same volume of fertilizers as traditional farming? One of the big problems with traditional farming is the runoff of large volumes of fertilizer into lakes and river, which causes all sorts of damage due to algae blooms, etc. It'd be interesting to know if "organic" farms are any more sustainable in that regard.
Incidentally, I put "organic" in quotes as I view it as a marketing buzzword. TBH, I'm not even convinced all their ideas are good ones, and I'm *far* more interested in true, environmentally sustainable farming. Traditionally, these two ideas ("organic" and environmentally sustainable) have been conflated, and I think most "organic" farms attempt to be sustainable, but your post suggests that may not be the case, implying that it's important to differentiate between the two.
Or I'll just skip your unreadable dreck and move on to a comment with better grammar and correct punctuation. Communication is *both* presentation and content. Only an idiot would suggest otherwise.
Well, the Vegan society suggests taking a B12 supplement, along with the consumption of fortified foods, in order to ensure a sufficient volume of the vitamin is included in the diet, so I'm assuming such supplements are considered kosher. More specifically, according to Wikipedia, B12 is produced, industrially, "through fermentation of selected microorganisms," which does not, to my knowledge, violate any Vegan precepts.
'course, when they opt for hydroelectric (eg, Three Gorges), people still freak out. If they went nuclear, same-same. And there's no way solar or wind will address their growing needs. So... got any other options that people won't bitch about?
humans (sans perhaps Eskimos and such) also weren't meant to eat the amount of low-quality meat that the average American eats these days, either. There is a middle ground.
Completely agreed, but that doesn't change my point one iota.
That being said, eating meat isn't necessary anymore;
Nope, it's not. With the advent of vitamin supplements, it's possible to eat a balanced vegetarian/vegan diet and still consume the necessary vitamins and minerals. But, once again, that doesn't change my point. You shouldn't just flip a switch and start eating vegan. It's something you should carefully think about and research before making the switch, because it's *not* a trivial change and you *do* need to work hard to ensure you're getting a balanced diet, because humans are simply not designed to survive on a pure-vegetable diet.
As for organic farming being 'sustainable', all it is is substituting human labor, land (production densities must be much lower to avoid pest population buildup), and excess energy (e.g., using a propane torch to kill weeds by application of heat, or more tillage passes to mechanically weed fields) for chemical and fertilizer use.
It appears you're missing the point. The entire idea is to remove fertilizers and pesticides from the production chain, in order to reduce environmental impact. Might that increase energy consumption a bit? Sure. Will it require more land and labour? Perhaps. But at least our lakes and rivers won't be choked with algae feeding on fertilizer runoff. And that's ignoring the fact that many fertilizers are derived from petroleum, and if we plan to get off the petroleum teat, we'll have no choice but to reduce fertilizer use.
Don't be idiotic. If we want to support a growing human population, cities are the only way we can achieve it. The concentration of human life means food, water, electricity, and other resources, don't need to be distributed across large geographic ranges, which means *less* energy consumption. Plus, having people closer to their places of work, school, etc, means people themselves travel less, which also means less consumption.
As proof, look up the stats on Manhattan. You may be shocked to discover that, *gasp*, per capita it's one of the most energy efficient places in the world. No, the real inefficiencies are in the ridiculous suburban and ex-urban cultures of the United States, which represent the epitome of selfish, inefficient lifestyles.
The practices may be uncommon at this time, but I assure you that all of the vegetarians I know are completely normal humans.
Normal humans... with a vitamin B12 deficiency, unless they really know what they're doing.
Seriously, go vegetarian/vegan if you like, but don't do it without the help of someone who really knows what they're doing (like a doctor or dietitian). Remember, humans weren't built to be vegetarians, so it takes some special care to live on a diet like that.
This chap was a very good humanities/history teacher.
And the key bit, which you oddly gloss over, is that he *wasn't* a science teacher, and more importantly, *wasn't* teaching the students that the earth was flat and that round-earthiness was "just a theory". Contrast this with current efforts to shoehorn creationism in to the classroom and you'll see why there's a very *very* big different between Dover, and your crazy history teacher.
Say with MOND, why are we so scared to think that perhaps Newtonian mechanics aren't quite enough to calculate with on galactic scales?
Because results like the Bullet Cluster have left even MOND theorists admitting that there must be at least some dark matter out there in order to explain the observations? Seriously, the least you can do is keep up with the latest science on the topic.
He he, agreed, but never forget, there are young'uns here who haven't read the book, and given the ending is, you know, a bit of a plot twist, it might be best not to ruin it for them (luckily, I read it a year back or so...)...
Slashdot Mirror
I guess my point is that I don't take any pills for it
And that's fine, as long as you're careful. The problem with B12 deficiency is that you can seem perfectly fine, and yet be deficient, resulting in nasty things like increased chances of heart disease. Which, to be a broken record, is why it's important to be careful and ensure you've developed a balanced dietary plan that ensures your nutritional requirements are covered.
So the question becomes would you rather have Sulphate potassium oxide and potash running into your water table, or nicotine and pyrethrins...?
Good question. Of course, I have no idea what the comparative impacts are between the two approaches, so I'm not in a position to judge, but it's an important point to consider.
Interestingly, I see you didn't really address the fertilizer issue. Do you know if "organic" farming tends to use the same volume of fertilizers as traditional farming? One of the big problems with traditional farming is the runoff of large volumes of fertilizer into lakes and river, which causes all sorts of damage due to algae blooms, etc. It'd be interesting to know if "organic" farms are any more sustainable in that regard.
Incidentally, I put "organic" in quotes as I view it as a marketing buzzword. TBH, I'm not even convinced all their ideas are good ones, and I'm *far* more interested in true, environmentally sustainable farming. Traditionally, these two ideas ("organic" and environmentally sustainable) have been conflated, and I think most "organic" farms attempt to be sustainable, but your post suggests that may not be the case, implying that it's important to differentiate between the two.
Apparently it can be, but it may depend on the brand and type.
I didn't say I valued shape over content. I said presentation and content are *equally* important.
Apparently you also need to work on reading comprehension, in addition to your writing skills.
I find it both hilarious and pathetic that this pseudoscience BS was modded interesting...
Since only water can go from solid to gas
Apparently *someone* has never played with dry ice...
now we find a way to launch approximately 40bn gallons of fine single-malt whisky to Mars.
Why? You don't actually... put water *in* your whisky, do you? Sick bastard... you probably put ice in there, too. Admit it!
Or I'll just skip your unreadable dreck and move on to a comment with better grammar and correct punctuation. Communication is *both* presentation and content. Only an idiot would suggest otherwise.
Unix, X, and C are down to 5% market share? Better tell that to Sun, IBM, Oracle, Red Hat, Ubuntu...
Yeah yeah yeah, I mis-typed, so sue me. :) BTW, I assume you're also taking a B12 supplement as per the Vegan society's recommendation?
Well, the Vegan society suggests taking a B12 supplement, along with the consumption of fortified foods, in order to ensure a sufficient volume of the vitamin is included in the diet, so I'm assuming such supplements are considered kosher. More specifically, according to Wikipedia, B12 is produced, industrially, "through fermentation of selected microorganisms," which does not, to my knowledge, violate any Vegan precepts.
Really, how big a deal is this?
It isn't a big deal at all. But it's funny. Laugh, ffs.
'course, when they opt for hydroelectric (eg, Three Gorges), people still freak out. If they went nuclear, same-same. And there's no way solar or wind will address their growing needs. So... got any other options that people won't bitch about?
If the green city gets all its resources from another city, yes
Nice strawman. Got any more you'd like to knock down while you're at it?
humans (sans perhaps Eskimos and such) also weren't meant to eat the amount of low-quality meat that the average American eats these days, either. There is a middle ground.
Completely agreed, but that doesn't change my point one iota.
That being said, eating meat isn't necessary anymore;
Nope, it's not. With the advent of vitamin supplements, it's possible to eat a balanced vegetarian/vegan diet and still consume the necessary vitamins and minerals. But, once again, that doesn't change my point. You shouldn't just flip a switch and start eating vegan. It's something you should carefully think about and research before making the switch, because it's *not* a trivial change and you *do* need to work hard to ensure you're getting a balanced diet, because humans are simply not designed to survive on a pure-vegetable diet.
I was with you up to this:
As for organic farming being 'sustainable', all it is is substituting human labor, land (production densities must be much lower to avoid pest population buildup), and excess energy (e.g., using a propane torch to kill weeds by application of heat, or more tillage passes to mechanically weed fields) for chemical and fertilizer use.
It appears you're missing the point. The entire idea is to remove fertilizers and pesticides from the production chain, in order to reduce environmental impact. Might that increase energy consumption a bit? Sure. Will it require more land and labour? Perhaps. But at least our lakes and rivers won't be choked with algae feeding on fertilizer runoff. And that's ignoring the fact that many fertilizers are derived from petroleum, and if we plan to get off the petroleum teat, we'll have no choice but to reduce fertilizer use.
Cities are unsustainable. Not farms.
Don't be idiotic. If we want to support a growing human population, cities are the only way we can achieve it. The concentration of human life means food, water, electricity, and other resources, don't need to be distributed across large geographic ranges, which means *less* energy consumption. Plus, having people closer to their places of work, school, etc, means people themselves travel less, which also means less consumption.
As proof, look up the stats on Manhattan. You may be shocked to discover that, *gasp*, per capita it's one of the most energy efficient places in the world. No, the real inefficiencies are in the ridiculous suburban and ex-urban cultures of the United States, which represent the epitome of selfish, inefficient lifestyles.
The practices may be uncommon at this time, but I assure you that all of the vegetarians I know are completely normal humans.
Normal humans... with a vitamin B12 deficiency, unless they really know what they're doing.
Seriously, go vegetarian/vegan if you like, but don't do it without the help of someone who really knows what they're doing (like a doctor or dietitian). Remember, humans weren't built to be vegetarians, so it takes some special care to live on a diet like that.
It seems like they want a democracy
It does? According to whom?
This chap was a very good humanities/history teacher.
And the key bit, which you oddly gloss over, is that he *wasn't* a science teacher, and more importantly, *wasn't* teaching the students that the earth was flat and that round-earthiness was "just a theory". Contrast this with current efforts to shoehorn creationism in to the classroom and you'll see why there's a very *very* big different between Dover, and your crazy history teacher.
Now we're stuck doing these other simulations and experiments trying to find something you know will not be found.
Actually, it has been found. We still don't know what it is, but it's there, whether you like it or not.
Well, either you're lying, or you're poorly educated on the topic. The Bullet Cluster results have all but demonstrated the existence of dark matter.
Say with MOND, why are we so scared to think that perhaps Newtonian mechanics aren't quite enough to calculate with on galactic scales?
Because results like the Bullet Cluster have left even MOND theorists admitting that there must be at least some dark matter out there in order to explain the observations? Seriously, the least you can do is keep up with the latest science on the topic.
He he, agreed, but never forget, there are young'uns here who haven't read the book, and given the ending is, you know, a bit of a plot twist, it might be best not to ruin it for them (luckily, I read it a year back or so...)...
Wow... nice spoiler, jackass. :)