advertisement


No More Meat.

Joe P said:
Vinny,

The 1 percent figure for plants (on average across many species) is attributable to photosynthetic efficiency, though calling it photosynthetic inefficiency would be more accurate. It’s worse than Rogers LS3/5A levels of inefficiency.

Joe
Click to expand...

I suspect that that is for vegetation, not for plants. In other words, per square metre or square kilometre or whatever.

PAR (photosynthetically active radiation) represents somewhat less than 50% of all radiation arriving at the earth's surface from the sun. Obviously, one hell of a lot misses plants and being absorbed, based on (making the maths incredibly simple), 50% and 1%, plants only capture 2% of PAR, but if they didn't absorb so little, all plant material would be black, or at least not (mostly) green.

I have just spent ages trawling literature about photosynthesis and insolation for an article for a horticultural magazine - I'll post links if interested - no conjecture or legends, pukka science.
 
That's OK, Vinny. I don't need a refresher.

My point is simple. We've exceeded 8 billion people on Earth. If many wish to eat meat, especially if sourced from cows, we'll be in a pile of shit — metaphorical shit, real shit, abstract shit, environmental shit. The argument for going vegetarian from an environmental perspective is empirically sound, logical and ethical.

Another infographic making the same point as the earlier one I posted.

the-weight-of-responsi.jpg


Joe
 
The major problem is that there are lies, damned lies and statistics. And selection is the main problem with them.

What % of mammals are humans? What is your proposal for that "problem"?

(Us humans are around 60% of the weight of livestock, world-wide. Compared to all life on earth, we are less than nowt. Bacteria are estimated to weigh significantly more than 1000 times what all us humans do. Some estimates suggest that wild animal numbers are only 15% of what they were before man got going. All that makes livestock numbers?)
 
@Joe P

The numbers are essentially what I posted - 36% humans, the rest are captive livestock - humans are around 60% the mass of livestock. 36/60 is exactly 60%.
But man is insignificant as a proportion of all life on earth. Insects out-weigh us by in the order of 17:1, so they out-weigh our livestock by something like 10:1.
I really can't be bothered posting stuff for you to repeat. At least your source agrees with mine (which is actually a suprise.....).
 
mi_z said:
It's not a full life. The continually impregnate them while they can and kill them when they are no longer economically viable -- which is usually at a fraction of their natural lifespan. Some life.
Click to expand...
Maybe I should have said full-er life. At least you didn’t call me “stupid” or a “moron.” Like Steve67 deduced: you’re new here, ain’t-cha(?) While I didn’t agree with Steve’s opinions about this subject I mostly agree with his comments about audio and I love his automobile analogies.
 
interesting

sandwich chain Pret A Manger is abandoning the idea of vegetarian-only outlets, saying people are buying veggie options at all its branches.
The final three Veggie Pret stores, in London and Manchester, will switch to normal Prets by the end of this month.
The specialist outlets, first launched eight years ago, were no longer needed, the company said.
"Every Pret is a Veggie Pret shop," said Katherine Bagshawe, UK food and coffee director at Pret A Manger.
One in every three main meals sold was now vegetarian or vegan, she said.
The veggie stores had acted as an "innovation hub" Pret added, launching new products including most recently a "VLT" sandwich which replaces the bacon in a traditional BLT with mushroom "rashers" and a Thai-inspired sticky mushroom Banh Mi baguette and meatless meatballs.

www.bbc.co.uk

Pret A Manger is converting last few all-veggie outlets

The sandwich chain said all its shops offered an extensive range of vegetarian options.
www.bbc.co.uk
 
Vinny said:
I have just spent ages trawling literature about photosynthesis and insolation for an article for a horticultural magazine - I'll post links if interested - no conjecture or legends, pukka science.
Click to expand...
I hope you have drawn the Hill and Bendall Z-scheme and explained its function. 2 photons required for every single-molecule reaction required. That's why as Joe says it's less efficient than an LS3 5a with a blown tweeter.
 
stevec67 said:
I hope you have drawn the Hill and Bendall Z-scheme and explained its function. 2 photons required for every single-molecule reaction required. That's why as Joe says it's less efficient than an LS3 5a with a blown tweeter.
Click to expand...
You can't split water with 1 photon of visible light - simples. It's like trying to run a 5 V motor off a 2 V battery!
 
I just installed a gaggle of geese to keep the grass down around here, and plan to eat their offspring. Previously I mowed the grass with a petrol driven tractor.

/eating meat to tackle climate change. I've planted a couple of thousand trees but do enjoy a bit of open space as well.
 
gavreid said:
One photon at a time builds up a diffraction pattern as does C60
Click to expand...

I was actually talking about a 2-beam Michelson or Martin-Pupplet Interferometer. But the same curio applies for the two slits situation. The real underlaying point is that the 'photon' is *everywhere* in between the instants of generation and detection. But behaves like *two* photons so far as these test setups probe that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


advertisement


Back
Top