You'll have to forgive us if we have a hard time figuring out what your position is. You spend most of your time making fun of people for arguments they didn't make.

Here's a great example of your idiotic bogus logic. You are a vegetarian because you think eating meat is "destroying the planet" (laughably idiotic, but whatever). Therefore, one would assume that in Thucy's perfect world, everyone would give up the evil that is meat and turn to his diet.

And what would be the result? Well, you would have to replace a massive amount of meat with a more massive amount of less-nutrient dense non-meat which would require....wait for it....a massive increase in farming...which means a massive increase in the destruction of now-natural land to turn it over to the growing on non-meat food. Along with this comes a massive increase in the use of water, the destruction of habbitat, etc etc etc

Instead of taking a *reasonable* approach -- (Americans should eat less meat...in fact, Americans should stop being disgusting pigs and eat less IN GENERAL, and thus curbing whatever imaginary cow-fart problem you have bought in to...) -- you go for the All Is Doom 100% scenario. Idiocy. Foolishness. A classic example of unintended consequences because as soon as 100% of the people go meatless, you will start crying out about how much land has been destroyed for farming, and how much wasted fossil fuel and water goes into growing all those dastardly plants, etc.

No such thing as moderation in Thucy's fucked up guilt-ridden world.

Moron.

By the way...lots of cows just graze off the renewable natural land...how about that!

Yeah, except Thucy explicitly stated he doesn't think everyone should be a vegetarian. He said people should eat less meat. So, great job there, krellin...

Hahaha krellin. He said he advocates eating far LESS meat. And that he's not eating any at all to ''compensate''. Since you seem to know everything, didn't you study a bit of biology? Don't you know that energy wise, meat is incredibly not effective? Even if you cramp up animals in a farm, mistreating them and all, you still need to feed them a shitload of crop, that is not used to feed us. Not only meat can give us a good amount of energy, you should go see a nutritionist. And yes, it's good being a vegetarian or vegan as long as you got the nutrients you need. Yes eating meat is not harmful, in normal quantities, which is absolutely not the case right now. We simply eat way too much meat.

Because you have a degree or something in a scientific field doesn't mean you know well about everything or that you're just not a plain idiot who seek the information so that it justifies his views.

@abgemacht, krellin just doesn't really read what we write. Since we don't talk in accord with his views, he just dismisses everything we say. Did you notice how he just bashed at us instead of attacking specific points we brought up? That's what people who can't argue good do.

Krellin, there's a difference between having a ''normal'' amount of cows and just breeding them so much that they do really have an impact. It's like if a species is too present it can fuck up the ecosystem.

Can't you just try to actually read the arguments and argue them instead of mocking them? Mocking arguments is not an argument in itself. You may find we're a bunch of idiots or whatever and that you are so superior, but doing so just shows how much of an idiot you are.

"And what would be the result? Well, you would have to replace a massive amount of meat with a more massive amount of less-nutrient dense non-meat which would require....wait for it....a massive increase in farming...which means a massive increase in the destruction of now-natural land to turn it over to the growing on non-meat food. Along with this comes a massive increase in the use of water, the destruction of habbitat, etc etc etc"

This is literally the opposite of true. You are quite literally now lying.

Don't worry, Spear, Thucy and I have been arguing with krellin for half a decade. We know how this game works.

Lol

@krellin
Of course climate change happens without people around, which isn't to say that it can't also happen with us around, or with us influencing it.

Regardless of the cause, the climate is warming and the ocean are rising, which will affect our way of life. Maybe catastrophically, maybe just a burp. But throwing as much science at the problem to see if it is a problem, and how much, is a logical thing to do. Maybe with our level of science and understanding of climate we will only get 60% or 80% or whatever accuracy and that's what we will have to work with. That's still better forecasting than say, with the stock market, the economy past a couple of years in the future, and so on, and yet that still doesn't keep governments and corporations from using long-range economic forecasts to plan ahead. A poor tool is still better than no tool, which is in turn better than throwing away the tool and denying there is a need for the tool.

Granted, this is a theory, not a proven thing, but here is a likely example of catastrophic climate change from greenhouse gases:
http://www.nature.com/news/archaeageddon-how-gas-belching-microbes-could-have-caused-mass-extinction-1.14958

In 2011, methane "volcanoes" up to a kilometer wide were spotted off of the Russian coast. Not scary in itself; that is just a blip, but there will be more of that as the oceans warm up, which adds to everything else.

I don't have a problem with looking at the models, getting projections, and planning for the future based on that. Maybe the solution is to curb greenhouse gases, but maybe the best economic solution is to educate people on low lying coastal areas on when they will likely need to take a hike. It's government's duty to plan ahead for potential crisis and come up with rational solutions; it's what they are paid to do. Insurance companies have already adjusted for increased severe weather activity. Governments at all levels generally have not.

I'm just re-reading krellin's thing about replacing meat would result in a massive increase of farming... seriously??? It can't be anything but a decrease. It's just a fact that the more you add intermediaries in the food chain, that much less energy is accessible and lost.

Yeah even for krellin that was a massive lie. I'm shocked he would have the balls to say something like that. I'll just use Occam's razor and assume he was truly ignorant of that fact.

Another good possibility is that he believes most meat in our diets still comes from cattle grazed overland, rather than from factory farms that rely on farmed.

It is true, to give everyone all the facts, that marginal lands that are not useful for any agriculture can be use as rangeland for cattle, and, if not overgrazed, can actually be beneficial to those ecosystems. Meat raised this way is also nutritionally superior to feed-raised meat, by a lot, not to mention it being more sanitary and supporting the traditional lifestyles of herdsmen.

Of course, if we only produced meat in this sustainable way, we would have only a tiny tiny fraction of our current meat supply. Our demand far, far outstrips what can be supplied sustainably and as the middle income countries demand more and more meat, it's only getting worse.

As much as vegetarianism in developed countries, and just reduced meat consumption (whoever invented meatless Monday was literally a genius) are helpful and necessary, I expect we will have to rely on meat-replacement technology (google "beyond meat") or artificial meat production (lab-grown) to meet the bulk of demand for meat. Maybe, long term, all these countries will tone down even their "fake" meat demand and we will reach a more efficient equilibrium, but in the meantime I thank god every day that this is an issue Bill Gates is aware of and focusing on. It has brought a lot of much needed attention to the issue.