Bicycling wastes gas ?
I found this interesting and thought I would pass it on. I never considered the fact that what and how I eat had this much of an impact on anything more than my own health and well being. Chalk one up for the Veggiemonster :)
http://bicycleuniverse.info/transpo/energy.html
http://bicycleuniverse.info/transpo/energy.html
Views: 744
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Vilda on
-
Thanks Doom, had time to think about the last post while in the shower and man alive it made me wanna destroy things. I would guess that the people doin' that report were lookin to support there own agenda. I'm headin to a party where the Avg Edu level is a Masters degree and there isn't a veggie in the bunch.
It would be saying that rich dumb people and poor dumb people eat meat and everyone else is a veggie ;-) Good thought there.
There was another article that came out awhile back that said that the higher an education level a woman gets the more sexual partners that woman is likely to have. That is far more intriguing. ;-)
-
Permalink Reply by Minh on
-
I was talking about western countries.
If you look at India the rich eat more meat and the poor eat more of a vegetarian diet. Thanks for not reading. And your great grandmother probably didn't become a vegetarian/vegan for political purposes.
Dr. Doom said:My only problem with veganism/vegetarianism is that it's really only a choice for people who come from middle/upper income backgrounds in western society.
That's preposterous. My great grandmother grew up poor in a remote area of Puerto Rico and well into her 90s ate so little meat that she may as well have been a vegetarian. My mother in law sure isn't rich or the product of an art school, and she doesn't eat meat. I've known plenty of Jamaicans who grew up without any money and didn't eat meat or even salt. The idea that vegetarianism is strictly for pampered children of well to do parents, or that it's strictly a way of making a social/political statement, is ridiculous, and ignores a wide range of experience.
-
Permalink Reply by Jason on
-
You don't have to guess, you can read the report, Minh helpfully supplied a link. Of course that would require some effort, interest, willingness to alter your perceptions and understanding etc. All of which is much more demanding than posting meat pics, so that's probably not gonna happen.
And besides, you're going to a party with some meat eaters holding masters degrees, ergo the study, which you have not bothered to read, which surveyed 15,028 people about their meat consumption, and follows standard peer reviewed methodologies, is clearly debunked by your anecdotal experience.
Gabe said:I would guess that the people doin' that report were lookin to support there own agenda.
-
-
So give me some data not some anecdotal evidence about educated friends or what a distant relative does. I linked a study in my earlier reply. And by the way I'm vegan.
-
-
Well Jason now i'm really not readin it. ;-) And will continue to post meat pics ;-) And the people at the party are 28-30 of mixed income raising with masters degrees varying from education to engineering. ;-) Carnivorous home brew types ;-) You want me to get a survey?
"I'm a fifth level vegan. I don't eat anything that casts a shadow."
-
-
Yeah, this pretty much concludes any further troll feeding I'm going to participate in.
Have fun at your party Gabe.
Keep up the good work making the world a better place through naked bike riding.
-
Permalink Reply by Dr. Doom on
-
I was talking about western countries.
What, Puerto Rico isn't part of the west now?
The idea that there's a correlation between vegetarianism and SES in western countries is not controversial. The idea that it's only a choice for middle/upper income people, though, is entirely different, and somewhere between condescending and offensive.
-
Permalink Reply by Duppie on
-
Jason,
thanks for your thoughtful response
(just ignore the trolls by the way, and they will leave all by themselves)
In large part I do agree with you. I've done my own reading and agree that industrial farming, CAFO's, etc. are unsustainable in the long term.
But I've concluded that eating grass-fed beef and free range pigs are acceptable for me. And yes, I've visited both the farms from which I purchase the beef and pork and I've seen that the animals appear to be happy.
You might call me a foodie, since I am highly interested in food. I love visiting (ethnic) grocery stores and just look at products they sell. I love trying out new things, we get our veggies from a CSA (yes, I've visited that one too) and eggs are provided by our own backyard chickens.
** We now interrupt this program for a PSA: Tomorrow, October 3rd, from 10am-3pm: Hen-apalooza. A Chicagoland chicken coop tour. Come and learn about raising chickens in your backyard: http://www.thechainlink.org/events/henapalooza-chicagoland. Now back to our regualr scheduled program **
And yes, meat is part of what I like. And that is where I think you are coming off as condescending: Your inability to accept that people who have done their homework just like yourself can come to a different conclusion about eating meat.
Jason said:I get what you're saying Duppie but I think you're sorta cherry picking comments from my posts to take issue with. I'll grant you that the bluntness of a lot of my comments might come off as condescending, but I'm just trying to lay out facts, I'm not passing moral judgments on people. You say I'm vilifying without showing an alternative, but I think the alternative has been shown repeatedly here, stop eating meat, eat vegetables and grains and fruits instead. That's really about it. Until someone makes that decision what's the point of posting vegan recipes here?
Also I'm not vilifying people here, I'm just addressing the results of their actions. People have a hard time making that distinction I know (myself included), but it's true. You say I don't respect meat eaters, but that's not true, I respect them as human beings, and some of them that I know as individuals for the contents of their heart and their character, but if asked point blank, no I don't respect their meat eating (or at least the thoughtless eating of commercial meat), and I certainly can't overtly endorse it, and I'm now at a point where I will no longer tacitly endorse it with my silence. But there's a difference between a person and their behavior. If a friend of mine smokes and the topic comes up I'm not going to lie and say I think it's cool, or okay because I don't, and because let's be honest, it isn't.
And as for the comment about intellectual dishonesty, look, I have a bad habit of using "you" in the general sense, so when I say "If you smoke marijuana from Mexico and deny any culpability for the violence that takes place there surrounding the drug trade, then you are engaging in intellectual dishonesty." I'm only wrong in that I should say "If one smokes marijuana from Mexico and denies any culpability for the violence that takes place there surrounding the drug trade, then one is engaging in intellectual dishonesty." So I apologize for using the inappropriate pronoun. But nonetheless the poor pronoun usage doesn't make either statement false.
I mean watch documentary after documentary on any environmental topic you want: air, water, oil whatever, and you will see over and over experts, scientists, researchers who will say something to the effect of: "Our behavior is the cause of this problem. We are all responsible." And that includes them, and they know it. That's just honesty, it's not moralizing. Nobody expects that anyone can realistically live within the life sustaining network that is modern society without sharing the burden of collective guilt for the negative impacts that a society of our scale and structure makes on our planet and the life on it. But that's not a pass to deny the role we each play. And if that knowledge is a source of discomfort in terms of ones conscience, or sense of duty, or social responsibility then one is compelled to try to effect a positive social change or else their living in denial and willful ignorance. which is exactly where many people are.
Does that mean they have to immediately reduce their impact to zero or else they're a charlatan and a hypocrite? I don't think so. Others do. Others like to undercut peoples attempts to make a positive social change by deriding their efforts as pointless, weak, unpatriotic, homosexual, whatever. I think it's a defense mechanism. I find these are people who are extremely defensive, a little lazy, and do not appreciate being reminded that they bear some responsibility for the way things are. In my experience these people tend to be big Ayn Raynd fans, like John Wayne movies, favor the unseen hand of the free market over regulation, describe themselves politically as libertarians and like to entertain delusions of being self made rugged individualists who got to where they are without any help or support from society and likewise owe it nothing. But I digress.
Duppie, I understand that your perspective (if I understand correctly) is that positive social change is best effected by enlightening those you're trying to change to the appealing attributes of the behavior change you want them to make: i.e.:See how fun biking is! See how yummy this vegan French toast tastes! That's a perfectly valid perspective, I just don't agree with it. It's my opinion that the importance of the issues we're dealing, the magnitude of what's at stake, and the conditions at this stage of the game demand that we dial it up from a softer more gently nudging tone to the slightly more strident, blunt, and at times, seemingly condescending tone of straightforward observation and rationality.
Cigarettes kill people.
Human activity is adversely affecting the climate.
Commercially produced meat (and dairy) is wreaking environmental havoc.
They're just facts. And if all someone can say against that is to post a picture of two all beef patties special sauce lettuce cheese and two pickles on a sesame seed bun, well then that's certainly their prerogative, but a willful resistance to engage in anything remotely resembling a defense of one's behavior would certainly suggest that at some level, that person knows it is indefensible.
I mean look, I'm not telling anyone what to do. If people want to go on eating meat, that's what they're going to do. I realize that. What you put into your body is a personal decision (up to a point). What I am doing though is trying to lay out what all the evidence shows in terms of the effects of America's love affair with abundant cheap meat and be honest about the connection between supply and demand. It's my hope that given the facts people will make the change on their own, because their conscience dictates it. I have no real expectations that this will happen quickly enough or on large enough of a scale to make a difference though. I think that policy change is the only real answer, sadly.
(And here is where the James' of the world can start loading their guns and digging in to their foxholes in defense of their right to eat meat against the pol pot onslaught of socialist big government. Boogedy! Boogedy! )
Sadly I do think that we will go on consolidating farming, subsidizing meat and dairy and HFCS, and we will continue to drain ourselves in terms of natural resources, finances and public health. In the end changes in policy and law will be necessary. We will have to ration things like beef, or ban them outright, because people can't be trusted to collectively moderate their intake. The industries promoting these unsustainable products and systems can't be trusted to self regulate. We see this time and time again. I see it every time I go home, to my small hometown in West Texas, where drought has ravaged the landscape for decades now. Water is in short supply, and yet people still insist on having lush lawns, because that's their property, this is America, they can do whatever they want. So water has to be rationed. Laws are effected that limit the times one can water their lawn, and requiring that water does not run off into the street where it is wasted. And of course people cry "Big Government! Socialism! Communism! My grandfather didn't die in a war so big government could tell me what to do. He died so I could enjoy the freedom entitled to me by the Constitution of the United States of America to be a selfish and thoughtless jerk who wastes nonrenewable resources!"
So yeah, I think on the larger scale, until we are faced with the grim reality of our own extinction, we will not change. And by then I think it will be too late. Until then we will go on engaging in unsustainable actions like eating meat, driving everywhere, etc. in defense of "the American way", or capitalism, or personal liberty etc. etc., which of course is simply a guise for the consolidation of wealth and power into the hands of a few (so they can live in diamond palaces on the moon waited on by robot ninja butlers or something. I guess. I don't really know what they're gonna do with an unlivable planet and no one to envy them, clearly they haven't thought that far ahead, but that'll be their problem, I'll be long dead).
In the meantime, I simply going to say what I think is the truth. Just the facts maam. Just connecting the dots.
Duppie said:You're right. There should be time for voicing your frustrations, etc.
However, this thread is the water cooler conversation and the meat eaters play the role of cagers and are being villified without being shown a good alternative. Of course they are not going to take that lying down. Since Jason doesn't really respect meat eaters ("and you can't maintain any intellectual honesty if you try to deny the causal links, or try to disassociate your own culpability in a chain of events.". Really? He thinks he is qualified to judge my intellectual honesty?) the meat eaters retaliate by turning this thread into a joke.
I've seen this over and over again. Whether you're a vegan, a bicycling advocate, or support any other issue that is not mainstream yet, you have to keep the message in mind. Jason may be right in that veganism is the way to go, but he did nothing to convince me with his condescending tone.
H3N3 said:
Duppie said:Anyhow, I think Dr Doom is making the right point. You don’t convert people by beating them upside their head with facts about how bad their behavior is. You convert them by showing how joyful your life’s choices are (and yes, I absolutely love kale). Same with bicycling. If you try to convert drivers by explaining how bad cars are for the environment, you’re bound to get less results than by showing how truly joyful riding your bike can be. Especially this week. Look at that sunshine!
Absolutely.
But it's also valuable to have community- or culture-internal discussions where you let all your frustrations hang out and commune with the like-minded; if someone chooses to do what sounds like "beating upside the head" in that context, have some faith that that they're going to take a different approach at the water cooler at work, over holiday dinner with the extended family, or when they write their letter to the editor.
-
Permalink Reply by tzizzle on
-
You can't just focus on changing individual minds. You have to change the system: the built environment, institutions of various sorts, economic power relations, etc.
People didn't come out of the womb addicted to SUV's and single-family homes. They were trained after years of conditioning.
Deciding whether or not to eat meat has some political value. But it's not going to change the world. To do that, to make all food production sustainable and make the entire US bikable, we're going to need to talk about social movements.
Essential reading for anyone convinced that we have to make radical changes to avert eco-catastrophes in the near future: http://www.ecologyandsocialism.org/
Groups
-
Critical Mass discussion
262 members
-
Chicagoland Beer Explora…
203 members
-
Chicago Randonneurs
269 members
-
Walk Bike Transit
63 members
-
British Bicycles of Chic…
172 members
© 2008-2016 The Chainlink Community, L.L.C.
Powered by
