there's no real way to find exactly where wireless devices are, as far as I know.
Except that wireless devices still have a MAC, and it is the MAC they should be tracing. That, and it's not hard to follow a transmitted signal.
Minor details though, really.
a bug. But I suppose you'd suggest that your redundant routers not use the same firmware versions...but then there are bugs for firmware version X talking to version Y when occurrence Z happens. If you've never experienced such a thing, then you haven't been doing real IT for very long...or you've just been really, really lucky.
I'm viewing this page, and several other pages, with firefox...with a 63,720k footprint. 64bit XP (which is only running because I'm about to play WoW).
If the 300M thing is accurate, there is no way in bloody hell I'm going to use such a thing. I have a quad-core, mucho very fast ram, and plenty of excess resources...but that doesn't mean I want to encourage bad programming practices.
Windows kicked itself the ass for short term gains that caused them loooong term issues by making such an expansive "operating system" that comes with many, many things that have nothing to do with, well, an OS. The OS should be a platform by upon which other things are based; so why is it news that this is happening? Did slashdot report when Netware 2.0 came out in 1985 and provided an easy way to do filesharing in MSDOS?
It's not news, it's fark^H^H^H^Hslashdot.com? Oh, and I know, please tell me about all the things RedHat comes with...except:
1)those extras aren't forced, they're easy to remove (unless they're gnome...), and they're all OSS
2)you're missing the point. The point is that the OS shouldn't be expected to provide EVERYTHING. It's not a problem when IBM modifies RedHat to work with their LPARs, and it's not news when someone makes a Windows appliance without Windows. That's supposed to happen, on a regular basis.
know nothing sarcastic snot...hmm...
well, I did rtfa, I just disagree with it. I used to raise cattle myself, so I have first-hand knowledge of how destructive they are. I truly can't fathom why you think all plants must be eaten just so people can eat cows.
ahh, so you're one of those that believe it is Bush's fault Russia did this. Watching much Russian state tv lately? Do you believe the Earth is flat, too?
How about we say that what the Russians did was, well, the Russian's fault. And your "quagmire" crap is looking weaker and weaker these days. We're the evil ones, right? Because when we went into Iraq, we were looting and robbing banks?
you know, it could simply be that there isn't a demand for it. Premium services are offered, and mayhaps the ISPs simply don't see an actual demand.
I know that it might seem like a silly argument that you don't want to deal with, but really...why would 99% of the population care about anything higher than the 16Mps that is already pretty commonly available (with 45Mbps in some areas)? My content is already not waiting on the pipe between me and the provider, it is waiting on my client (at least, when I'm using my old laptop), or the server trying to generate the dynamic page.
That being said, the convo has been heavy on residential connections...the place I work would love 10x the speed, business rates are just horrible and it would be too expensive. That's a different ball of wax, though.
This is entirely incorrect. Soy is never used to feed cattle in Brazil, and I doubt it is used (much) anywhere else. Maybe you mean corn ? That would be correct. But 99% of the soy produced in Brazil is indeed exported. Mostly to China and USA, if I'm not mistaken.
You might want to check such things first;) Yes - exported, for - like I said - feed.
I could go on, that's just a couple of the links when I googled for "soy cattle feed." Soy is very, very much present in livestock feed. To an extreme amount. Enough such that, as I already said, were the soy alone (ignoring all other feed given to livestock) merely given directly to humans for food (since soy is a complete protein), then there would be more than is actually needed. Did you look at the link I provided that 99% of Argentinian soy is used for cattle feed in Europe and the US? Seems quite a bit exaggerated to me to be honest, but the point remains that a substantial portion of livestock feed is, in fact, soy.
That being said, it isn't as common in South America, because it is more expensive. We use it here where a large part of the cattle population is never actually at pasture, and starts their lives already in feed lots. And cattle can spend quite a bit of time in feed lots here. The demand for meat is so incredibly high in the US that we have to make sure we can get as much meat per acre as we can, so we stack them in feed lots and pump them with hgh, soy, and rendered low grade animal byproducts (byproduct feed supps are more common in the EU, which is why madcow is more common there).
Now, what I said before about "So, soy production per pound (since soy is a complete protein) needs merely be less than 10 times more damaging to the environment than feed grain (if cattle only ate grain...), for it to be an overall improvement." - well guess what, we're in luck - soy is actually extremely productive per acre compared to grains. my point is merely that even if it were 10 times worse, it would be ok, but hey! It's not worse, it's better, so we're even more ok.
Despite being vegan, I don't fault non-vegans; it's their choice. I do fault people who claim to be environmentalists, and yet eat meat with almost every meal; that's simple hypocrisy/ignorance. Some people though can't be healthy without meat; all humans are considerably different. My body responds to nutrition, pathogens, time, sunlight, and all other environmental factors different than even my wife - and we've been together for 15 years, and are ethnically fairly similar (I'm 3/8 french, 3/8 german, 1/8 british, and 1/8 cherokee; she's 1/4 british, 1/2 german, 1/8 french, 1/8 cherokee). She gets sick from things that don't affect me in the slightest. She tried being vegan, but got too sick; we ate the same things, and I have a much higher protein and calorie need than her (from running and working out, and in general being 50lbs heavier), but her body just couldn't adjust. Mine can. So, I'm vegan, and she eats eggs from free-range chickens, and drinks "organic" milk - ie, she's vegetarian.
Point though is that we (western civilizations) eat WAY too much meat, and have it as part of our psyche that a meal has to have it or else it just isn't healthy. That's straight up wrong. Some people can be healthy without any meat at all, most people need a little bit (or, need none but need to be really careful and use supplements). But no one needs the amount of meat that the average American eats. The cows they shouldn't be eating eat e
oops, yeah, forget I said ldap=>AD;) it doesn't matter what is providing the tree, as it's not a tree problem, it's a pam problem. That, and you're not using AD;)
there are a couple tricks to doing a complete openldap=>AD setup, and despite the years, it hasn't been documented well enough. That being said, drop a post if you still have the problem and I'll tell ya what is causing it.
I guess my point is that I don't take any pills for it;) I eat like a normal person, and were someone to stay at my house for a few weeks, it might take them a while to notice I'm not eating meat...unless they're a freak or something;)
there's a 20g protein clif bar that is vegan, and it is delicious. It's what I use for my snacks during the day.
Now, if you're one of the people that are afraid of soy, it is harder; soy is a complete protein, and is the easiest vegan thing. However, red beans and brown rice also form a complete protein in combination.
Actually, the biggest problem I have is that so much of my food has higher arginine than lysine. This means I'm more susceptible to viruses...which is why I get a cold sore every couple months, unless I take a lysine supplement. Sortof a strange supp to need to take, but eh.
That would require manufacturers and engineers to design things which are...
no, it requires the consumers looking for such qualities when they make their purchases. I went with DLP over plasma because I can replace the bulb and have a good set again, instead of having a bad plasma set after a few years. And the washing machine that I own, that the repair guy suggested I throw away? Fixed it myself for about $25 in parts; sometimes things aren't as unfixable as we think. Cars...man, those things are a mess under the hood these days...which is why I don't own one. So many of the components simply can't be fixed. Both my bike and my motorcycle are easy to repair, though.
Fix what you can. Buy things that can be fixed and/or that last a long time - even if they cost twice as much. My $150 vegan boots have right now has lasted me 4 years so far, ever other pair of footwear I owned before that lasted 3-6 months.
Capitalism and being green aren't exclusive, so long as the consumer thinks more than just a few weeks/months in advance. Capitalism just describes the interaction between supply and demand in a particular environment; producers are meeting the demand we give them, we're just not demanding durable goods.
lost the link - the "this article" that says 99% of Argentinian soy is exported for foreign cattle feed is here.
Course, there are other typos, but meh;)
I was kind of expecting this argument. Regardless of the fact that when we eat them, they can't fart any longer, what do you propose ? We kill all of them?
Eat the ones that exist. Don't aggressively breed new ones. You aren't under the impression that you just wake up one day and there's a lot of new calves, are you?;) Sure, they do have sex on their own, but AI is quite common. Could be because most the boys never get to be men...testosterone makes for tough, stringy meat, so most males become steers. But you know that.
For reference, most of the deforestation in Brazil these days steam from 2 fronts: - Lumber - Soy and Sugar Cane plantations
Incorrect. It is either pasture for cattle, or producing grain for cattle. The lumber was just a bonus for the real motive; to convert to agribusiness, the trees had to come down, might as well do something with them. Sortof like cows aren't killed for the leather, but hey...since it's there... Also, the soy that is produced there is used in vast quantities for cattle in both South America and North America, primarily not for human consumption. This article (with no sources, so take it for what it's worth...just came up in a google search at the top) even claims that 99% of Argentinian soy is exported for foreign cattle feed.
The point is not which is more productive, but which is more environmentally unfriendly.
Yes, actually, it was the point - I must have been unclear. Ignoring the other damage caused, the 8-15lbs of grain per 1 lbs of meat produced could instead be eaten directly, without the cow being an extremely inefficient middle step. The major problem with the cattle industry as it currently stands is quantity. The growth of the last couple decades simply cannot be sustained. 55% of the total land mass of the US is used by the cattle industry, the beef industry themselves. It is the sheer magnitude of the industry, the absolute pervasiveness of it, that is the problem. So yes, the quantity of grain per cow is important.
So in that light, even if soy is twice as destructive as feed grain, the total impact is much smaller, having removed that inefficient digestive system in between. If cows were 50% efficient, then ok, but they're not...90% is a very generous number to give them. So, soy production per pound (since soy is a complete protein) needs merely be less than 10 times more damaging to the environment than feed grain (if cattle only ate grain...), for it to be an overall improvement. Nevermind that cattle are a the largest consumers of soy, and that if humans simply ate the soy that cattle eat, no new soy would need to be grown, and there would actually be a surplus of soy...
Please, clean your own backyard before trying to tell other people what to do with theirs. I find it particularly arrogant for an American to use the "rain forest" argument.
Why, thank you for completely discrediting yourself as a dishonest person. I did not bring the rainforests into this - that was brought in by others (you do realize you're not the only person in the thread, right?). Which is why I said "deforestation for grazing and feed production (see: rainforests of South America, or the majority of the US countryside)." I am, indeed, doing what I can to clean up my backyard - I gave up owning a car, and bike to my high-paid job.
I'm not sure then, given your attempt to trap me with such a silly thing, whether I should take your eat-the-vets thing serious. The point is that it is a superficial deficiency in vets, as the real problem is there being too many cows. If every person in the US owned 20 cars, it could be argued that there would be a severe shortage of mechanics...but a shortage in mechanics would be hard to put numbers on at that point, since the real problem is an extreme over-abundance of cars. If you don't understand this simple point, I'
I use a computer for at least 5 years. The environmental impact of that one computer is well below trivial compared to the environmental impact caused by the beef demand from the average consumer during that same 5 years. We are not at risk of not being able to sustain our computer usage for just a couple more decades, yet we cannot at all accommodate, just in land mass alone (disregarding all other environmental impacts of complete deforestation), current beef industry growth for just a couple more decades. If it sustains as it has the last couple decades, where production doubles every 8-10 years (with cows actually becoming less efficient producers during that time, too), then we've got an actual crisis on our hands. And you want to compare that to me buying a computer every 5 years? I dare you to bring up buying a car...
Here's a happy little "fun facts" page from the US beef industry. Nice little quote there:
"About a billion acres, or 55 percent of the total land surface in the United States, is rangeland, pasture and forages."
Hmm....wonder if some of that land could be used to grow grain for direct human consumption instead? I recall reading that globally, 80% of the usable surface of the planet was used by the beef industry. Alas, I have to go to work, so I can't find the source...I should put it in delicious, methinks. Do you really consider that sustainable though? Even just the 55% number for total land mass in the US? Take into consideration too the amount of land in the US that isn't usable for anything at all; large parts of the tiny state of Alaska, the deserts of the southwest that are beyond cattle feasibility, etc....no, those places included, 55% of the land right here in the US is used for Americans to have half a pound of beef per day, average. So my "green" argument (and my health argument as well, but that's another matter) is that you should cut that in half, if not even further.
The old USDA dietary numbers were, by and large, created in "studies" funded by the beef industry. The 4 food groups thing? That idea was brought to you by the American beef and dairy farmer industries. That being said, even they only recommend a quarter pound beef per day average, so we're doubling even what the beef industry recommends for a healthy life....and you think that's sustainable? Really? With people continuing to reproduce in silly numbers, with the population ever growing, are we going to start making skyscrapers populated with cows? Growing them on the oceans? What?
I'm certainly no trendy vegan; I think that GM food is great. I have lots of friends that design GM products, and would happily use any of them. That being said, many of them have either very-low meat diets, or are vegetarians; it's not that unusual once most the people in those circles have doctorates. Organic food isn't nearly as difficult as you suggest however. With increased land mass for grain production due to less going to feed for cattle, we wouldn't need to shove harmful pesticides and fertilizers on the ground, esp with GM grains; we wouldn't need to have as much per acre as we do now.
deforestation for grazing and feed production (see: rainforests of South America, or the majority of the US countryside).
8-15lbs of grain per pound of produced beef. Cattle are a very inefficient method of food production; cut out the middle man, and even if people have to eat 3 times as many grains to make up for the lack of beef, we're still using 3-5 times less grain than had we fed it to a cow.
cattle are a very large producer of greenhouse gases
people eat about 2-5 times more meat, on average, than they "need" to (I use the word "need" loosely, I'm vegan and run 7 miles regularly, as well as work out).
for a more informed argument than I can give here, read this extremely informative UN study
Note that I'm not a "farmers are bad people!" sort; my dad grew up on a farm, put himself through college selling hogs. I had shorthorns myself, won reserve grand champion at the Austin livestock show one year. For actual farmers, there's not really a problem. Hell, if beef were actually produced, in general, the way it was 40 years ago...I'd have never stopped eating meat (though at this point, I'd never go back). But most is factory produced these days, and most of the real problem starts at the feed lots. The problem is also the consumer, demanding waaaaaayyyy too much beef.
My wife is a veterinarian. Last night she was watching a bit about the growing shortage of ag vets, and how it is supposed to be almost epic in numbers in just over a decade. Well, if we stopped eating half a pound of meat a day on average per American (yes, that's the average) and instead ate a quarter pound...which is all that the USDA recommends, despite it being heavily biased to the beef industry...then there would be plenty of vets, and the remainder of places like the rainforests might survive a little bit longer.
people miss this point often (and I've seen the number go from 8 to 15lbs grain per pound of meat). The fact is, if the cows weren't eating the grain, people could be. Yes, some of the grain is of very low quality - but it is grown that way. So, don't grow it.
Slashdot Mirror
there's no real way to find exactly where wireless devices are, as far as I know. Except that wireless devices still have a MAC, and it is the MAC they should be tracing. That, and it's not hard to follow a transmitted signal. Minor details though, really.
a bug. But I suppose you'd suggest that your redundant routers not use the same firmware versions...but then there are bugs for firmware version X talking to version Y when occurrence Z happens. If you've never experienced such a thing, then you haven't been doing real IT for very long...or you've just been really, really lucky.
I'm viewing this page, and several other pages, with firefox...with a 63,720k footprint. 64bit XP (which is only running because I'm about to play WoW). If the 300M thing is accurate, there is no way in bloody hell I'm going to use such a thing. I have a quad-core, mucho very fast ram, and plenty of excess resources...but that doesn't mean I want to encourage bad programming practices.
It's not news, it's fark^H^H^H^Hslashdot.com? Oh, and I know, please tell me about all the things RedHat comes with...except:
1)those extras aren't forced, they're easy to remove (unless they're gnome...), and they're all OSS
2)you're missing the point. The point is that the OS shouldn't be expected to provide EVERYTHING. It's not a problem when IBM modifies RedHat to work with their LPARs, and it's not news when someone makes a Windows appliance without Windows. That's supposed to happen, on a regular basis.
know nothing sarcastic snot...hmm... well, I did rtfa, I just disagree with it. I used to raise cattle myself, so I have first-hand knowledge of how destructive they are. I truly can't fathom why you think all plants must be eaten just so people can eat cows.
I'm not the flamebait, idiot mods...I'm the flame.
ahh, so you're one of those that believe it is Bush's fault Russia did this. Watching much Russian state tv lately? Do you believe the Earth is flat, too?
How about we say that what the Russians did was, well, the Russian's fault. And your "quagmire" crap is looking weaker and weaker these days. We're the evil ones, right? Because when we went into Iraq, we were looting and robbing banks?
you know, it could simply be that there isn't a demand for it. Premium services are offered, and mayhaps the ISPs simply don't see an actual demand.
I know that it might seem like a silly argument that you don't want to deal with, but really...why would 99% of the population care about anything higher than the 16Mps that is already pretty commonly available (with 45Mbps in some areas)? My content is already not waiting on the pipe between me and the provider, it is waiting on my client (at least, when I'm using my old laptop), or the server trying to generate the dynamic page.
That being said, the convo has been heavy on residential connections...the place I work would love 10x the speed, business rates are just horrible and it would be too expensive. That's a different ball of wax, though.
This is entirely incorrect. Soy is never used to feed cattle in Brazil, and I doubt it is used (much) anywhere else. Maybe you mean corn ? That would be correct. But 99% of the soy produced in Brazil is indeed exported. Mostly to China and USA, if I'm not mistaken.
You might want to check such things first ;) Yes - exported, for - like I said - feed.
"Soy meal is the single most important animal feed in the EU, accounting for 55 percent of protein-rich animal feed."
"Cattle fattened in feedlots are fed small amounts of hay or straw supplemented with grain, soy and other ingredients in order to increase the energy density of the diet."
I could go on, that's just a couple of the links when I googled for "soy cattle feed." Soy is very, very much present in livestock feed. To an extreme amount. Enough such that, as I already said, were the soy alone (ignoring all other feed given to livestock) merely given directly to humans for food (since soy is a complete protein), then there would be more than is actually needed. Did you look at the link I provided that 99% of Argentinian soy is used for cattle feed in Europe and the US? Seems quite a bit exaggerated to me to be honest, but the point remains that a substantial portion of livestock feed is, in fact, soy.
That being said, it isn't as common in South America, because it is more expensive. We use it here where a large part of the cattle population is never actually at pasture, and starts their lives already in feed lots. And cattle can spend quite a bit of time in feed lots here. The demand for meat is so incredibly high in the US that we have to make sure we can get as much meat per acre as we can, so we stack them in feed lots and pump them with hgh, soy, and rendered low grade animal byproducts (byproduct feed supps are more common in the EU, which is why madcow is more common there).
Now, what I said before about "So, soy production per pound (since soy is a complete protein) needs merely be less than 10 times more damaging to the environment than feed grain (if cattle only ate grain...), for it to be an overall improvement." - well guess what, we're in luck - soy is actually extremely productive per acre compared to grains. my point is merely that even if it were 10 times worse, it would be ok, but hey! It's not worse, it's better, so we're even more ok.
Despite being vegan, I don't fault non-vegans; it's their choice. I do fault people who claim to be environmentalists, and yet eat meat with almost every meal; that's simple hypocrisy/ignorance. Some people though can't be healthy without meat; all humans are considerably different. My body responds to nutrition, pathogens, time, sunlight, and all other environmental factors different than even my wife - and we've been together for 15 years, and are ethnically fairly similar (I'm 3/8 french, 3/8 german, 1/8 british, and 1/8 cherokee; she's 1/4 british, 1/2 german, 1/8 french, 1/8 cherokee). She gets sick from things that don't affect me in the slightest. She tried being vegan, but got too sick; we ate the same things, and I have a much higher protein and calorie need than her (from running and working out, and in general being 50lbs heavier), but her body just couldn't adjust. Mine can. So, I'm vegan, and she eats eggs from free-range chickens, and drinks "organic" milk - ie, she's vegetarian.
Point though is that we (western civilizations) eat WAY too much meat, and have it as part of our psyche that a meal has to have it or else it just isn't healthy. That's straight up wrong. Some people can be healthy without any meat at all, most people need a little bit (or, need none but need to be really careful and use supplements). But no one needs the amount of meat that the average American eats. The cows they shouldn't be eating eat e
they'll never catch me ;)
oops, yeah, forget I said ldap=>AD ;) it doesn't matter what is providing the tree, as it's not a tree problem, it's a pam problem. That, and you're not using AD ;)
there are a couple tricks to doing a complete openldap=>AD setup, and despite the years, it hasn't been documented well enough. That being said, drop a post if you still have the problem and I'll tell ya what is causing it.
I guess my point is that I don't take any pills for it ;) I eat like a normal person, and were someone to stay at my house for a few weeks, it might take them a while to notice I'm not eating meat...unless they're a freak or something ;)
yes, if nutritional yeast is a supplement (I use it as a garish on lots of things).
there's a 20g protein clif bar that is vegan, and it is delicious. It's what I use for my snacks during the day. Now, if you're one of the people that are afraid of soy, it is harder; soy is a complete protein, and is the easiest vegan thing. However, red beans and brown rice also form a complete protein in combination. Actually, the biggest problem I have is that so much of my food has higher arginine than lysine. This means I'm more susceptible to viruses...which is why I get a cold sore every couple months, unless I take a lysine supplement. Sortof a strange supp to need to take, but eh.
That would require manufacturers and engineers to design things which are...
no, it requires the consumers looking for such qualities when they make their purchases. I went with DLP over plasma because I can replace the bulb and have a good set again, instead of having a bad plasma set after a few years. And the washing machine that I own, that the repair guy suggested I throw away? Fixed it myself for about $25 in parts; sometimes things aren't as unfixable as we think. Cars...man, those things are a mess under the hood these days...which is why I don't own one. So many of the components simply can't be fixed. Both my bike and my motorcycle are easy to repair, though.
Fix what you can. Buy things that can be fixed and/or that last a long time - even if they cost twice as much. My $150 vegan boots have right now has lasted me 4 years so far, ever other pair of footwear I owned before that lasted 3-6 months.
Capitalism and being green aren't exclusive, so long as the consumer thinks more than just a few weeks/months in advance. Capitalism just describes the interaction between supply and demand in a particular environment; producers are meeting the demand we give them, we're just not demanding durable goods.
lost the link - the "this article" that says 99% of Argentinian soy is exported for foreign cattle feed is here. Course, there are other typos, but meh ;)
I was kind of expecting this argument. Regardless of the fact that when we eat them, they can't fart any longer, what do you propose ? We kill all of them?
Eat the ones that exist. Don't aggressively breed new ones. You aren't under the impression that you just wake up one day and there's a lot of new calves, are you? ;) Sure, they do have sex on their own, but AI is quite common. Could be because most the boys never get to be men...testosterone makes for tough, stringy meat, so most males become steers. But you know that.
For reference, most of the deforestation in Brazil these days steam from 2 fronts: - Lumber - Soy and Sugar Cane plantations
Incorrect. It is either pasture for cattle, or producing grain for cattle. The lumber was just a bonus for the real motive; to convert to agribusiness, the trees had to come down, might as well do something with them. Sortof like cows aren't killed for the leather, but hey...since it's there... Also, the soy that is produced there is used in vast quantities for cattle in both South America and North America, primarily not for human consumption. This article (with no sources, so take it for what it's worth...just came up in a google search at the top) even claims that 99% of Argentinian soy is exported for foreign cattle feed.
The point is not which is more productive, but which is more environmentally unfriendly.
Yes, actually, it was the point - I must have been unclear. Ignoring the other damage caused, the 8-15lbs of grain per 1 lbs of meat produced could instead be eaten directly, without the cow being an extremely inefficient middle step. The major problem with the cattle industry as it currently stands is quantity. The growth of the last couple decades simply cannot be sustained. 55% of the total land mass of the US is used by the cattle industry, the beef industry themselves. It is the sheer magnitude of the industry, the absolute pervasiveness of it, that is the problem. So yes, the quantity of grain per cow is important.
So in that light, even if soy is twice as destructive as feed grain, the total impact is much smaller, having removed that inefficient digestive system in between. If cows were 50% efficient, then ok, but they're not...90% is a very generous number to give them. So, soy production per pound (since soy is a complete protein) needs merely be less than 10 times more damaging to the environment than feed grain (if cattle only ate grain...), for it to be an overall improvement. Nevermind that cattle are a the largest consumers of soy, and that if humans simply ate the soy that cattle eat, no new soy would need to be grown, and there would actually be a surplus of soy...
Please, clean your own backyard before trying to tell other people what to do with theirs. I find it particularly arrogant for an American to use the "rain forest" argument.
Why, thank you for completely discrediting yourself as a dishonest person. I did not bring the rainforests into this - that was brought in by others (you do realize you're not the only person in the thread, right?). Which is why I said "deforestation for grazing and feed production (see: rainforests of South America, or the majority of the US countryside)." I am, indeed, doing what I can to clean up my backyard - I gave up owning a car, and bike to my high-paid job.
I'm not sure then, given your attempt to trap me with such a silly thing, whether I should take your eat-the-vets thing serious. The point is that it is a superficial deficiency in vets, as the real problem is there being too many cows. If every person in the US owned 20 cars, it could be argued that there would be a severe shortage of mechanics...but a shortage in mechanics would be hard to put numbers on at that point, since the real problem is an extreme over-abundance of cars. If you don't understand this simple point, I'
who said anything about pure veggies? I also eat nuts, legumes, and all sorts of other things. :)
I use a computer for at least 5 years. The environmental impact of that one computer is well below trivial compared to the environmental impact caused by the beef demand from the average consumer during that same 5 years. We are not at risk of not being able to sustain our computer usage for just a couple more decades, yet we cannot at all accommodate, just in land mass alone (disregarding all other environmental impacts of complete deforestation), current beef industry growth for just a couple more decades. If it sustains as it has the last couple decades, where production doubles every 8-10 years (with cows actually becoming less efficient producers during that time, too), then we've got an actual crisis on our hands. And you want to compare that to me buying a computer every 5 years? I dare you to bring up buying a car...
...boo on the unintentional italics tag. Just pretend the italics aren't there :P
"About a billion acres, or 55 percent of the total land surface in the United States, is rangeland, pasture and forages."
Hmm....wonder if some of that land could be used to grow grain for direct human consumption instead? I recall reading that globally, 80% of the usable surface of the planet was used by the beef industry. Alas, I have to go to work, so I can't find the source...I should put it in delicious, methinks. Do you really consider that sustainable though? Even just the 55% number for total land mass in the US? Take into consideration too the amount of land in the US that isn't usable for anything at all; large parts of the tiny state of Alaska, the deserts of the southwest that are beyond cattle feasibility, etc....no, those places included, 55% of the land right here in the US is used for Americans to have half a pound of beef per day, average. So my "green" argument (and my health argument as well, but that's another matter) is that you should cut that in half, if not even further. The old USDA dietary numbers were, by and large, created in "studies" funded by the beef industry. The 4 food groups thing? That idea was brought to you by the American beef and dairy farmer industries. That being said, even they only recommend a quarter pound beef per day average, so we're doubling even what the beef industry recommends for a healthy life. ...and you think that's sustainable? Really? With people continuing to reproduce in silly numbers, with the population ever growing, are we going to start making skyscrapers populated with cows? Growing them on the oceans? What?
I'm certainly no trendy vegan; I think that GM food is great. I have lots of friends that design GM products, and would happily use any of them. That being said, many of them have either very-low meat diets, or are vegetarians; it's not that unusual once most the people in those circles have doctorates. Organic food isn't nearly as difficult as you suggest however. With increased land mass for grain production due to less going to feed for cattle, we wouldn't need to shove harmful pesticides and fertilizers on the ground, esp with GM grains; we wouldn't need to have as much per acre as we do now.
deforestation for grazing and feed production (see: rainforests of South America, or the majority of the US countryside).
8-15lbs of grain per pound of produced beef. Cattle are a very inefficient method of food production; cut out the middle man, and even if people have to eat 3 times as many grains to make up for the lack of beef, we're still using 3-5 times less grain than had we fed it to a cow.
cattle are a very large producer of greenhouse gases
people eat about 2-5 times more meat, on average, than they "need" to (I use the word "need" loosely, I'm vegan and run 7 miles regularly, as well as work out).
for a more informed argument than I can give here, read this extremely informative UN study
Note that I'm not a "farmers are bad people!" sort; my dad grew up on a farm, put himself through college selling hogs. I had shorthorns myself, won reserve grand champion at the Austin livestock show one year. For actual farmers, there's not really a problem. Hell, if beef were actually produced, in general, the way it was 40 years ago...I'd have never stopped eating meat (though at this point, I'd never go back). But most is factory produced these days, and most of the real problem starts at the feed lots. The problem is also the consumer, demanding waaaaaayyyy too much beef.
My wife is a veterinarian. Last night she was watching a bit about the growing shortage of ag vets, and how it is supposed to be almost epic in numbers in just over a decade. Well, if we stopped eating half a pound of meat a day on average per American (yes, that's the average) and instead ate a quarter pound...which is all that the USDA recommends, despite it being heavily biased to the beef industry...then there would be plenty of vets, and the remainder of places like the rainforests might survive a little bit longer.
people miss this point often (and I've seen the number go from 8 to 15lbs grain per pound of meat). The fact is, if the cows weren't eating the grain, people could be. Yes, some of the grain is of very low quality - but it is grown that way. So, don't grow it.