a steak, or a hamburger and do your part against global warming.
Additional Details
5 months ago
Wow.....either I need to work on my delivery, or some folks need to invest in a sense of humor. I guessed that most would sense the sarcasm in my question. I guess I gave the YA generalpopulation too much credit.
Best Answer
The question assumes that we would have to consume cows to reduce their population. That would still be true whichever side of the question you come down on.Consuming beef does not drive a reduced population, however, if it makes someone money producing it. Consuming beef would be needed to reduce cow population should cattle raising be severely restricted... We obviously could not continue to feed those cattle for no market, and it would not make sense slaughtering them to dump them in landfill.
If we cut our consumption of beef to reduce demand and so reduce generation of GHG, we will initially produce a large kill off of cattle surplus to anticipated demand. Prices of beef will also fall to persuade people to consume more.
What ultimately drives this process is that feeding beef is a way to market surplus corn produced to get a profitable price support. What will cause less cattle to be fed for beef is a rise in the price of corn so that feeding corn to cattle ceases to be economic.
That could be triggered by increased prices for other crops, or temporarily by demand for corn for ethanol. So if you want to prevent cattle feeding either to keep the cattle from being killed or to prevent them from emitting methane, the solution is in getting the price of non-corn crops up so that less land will be used to grow corn for cattle.
Other Answers (5)
-
I disagree with your comment. They also say that the meat companies cause more pollutants than cow manure.
-
some vegetarians are but its not your job to tell us what to think and believe.
-
As somone who tried to be a veg. more than once and decided that I also like Porterhouse steak,I know that this is true.Try and tell that to a white man with dreadlocks!Good luck.Who juggles!
-
although i am not a vegetarian, your argument is dumb. More people eating cows will not decrease the number of cows. supply and demand, remember fifth grade economics?
-
Are you serious? Do you really believe that? I would say the majority of vegetarians are against global warming, because we%26#039;re people who care about the well being of the natural world. And you%26#039;re wrong. Yes, cows give off methane and natural gases that are damaging...but so do we. And i can tell you there are a hell of a lot more humans than cows. So if you actually believe in killing cows for that sole purpose, you should start arguing to kill humans. Also, cows give off MUCH more harmful gases when theyre killed-like we all do. Maybe you should look up some real statistics and stop being so selfish and ignorant. My own personal reason for being a vegan stems from environmental protection. The meat industry is KILLING our planet. Those factories are put up everywhere, and they pollute, pollute, pollute. The more the demand for meat is , the more factories they put up. The rancid sh** they pour into our rivers and oceans is alarmingly dangerous... they carry diseases more dangerous than AIDS. And its been suggested that the meat industry accounts for more harmful gases than the transportation industry (thats code for cars, planes, trains, etc.). Not to mention the compassionate side of vegetarianism. You clearly only care about the human race, whose sole purpose is to take advantage and exploit everything that will potentially benefit us. Do your homework and attempt to sound slightly educated and empathetic.
Sorry for the third degree. But people who say stuff like this are bringing the world down.
