• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Cowspiracy documentary: factually accurate?

Tiktaalik said:
If the movie hits Netflix or Amazon Prime, I'll take a look at it.
Click to expand...

Yep, as I said in the OP, it's on Netflix streaming. If you get a chance, take a look and let us know what you think.

I'm a carnivore, I have no agenda here, but if anyone's curious about the actual content of this movie, some of the main points:

Livestock is way more harmful to the environment than fossil fuels and other causes commonly discussed by big environmental groups. Not just cows, but pigs, chickens, and fish. Eating meat and dairy and other animal products is very inefficient, because of the high ratio of the food and water animals consume to the amount of food generated from them. Also they pollute. Also, they take up a lot of land, and contribute to deforestation.

I'm not asking if you think--off the top of your head--if veganism sounds like a good idea; I'm wondering if the film got its facts right.
 
Last edited:
Tsukasa Buddha said:
You know something is on the right track when the only response is random vegan bashing.
Click to expand...

Not really. Bashing is no indication of the veracity or falsehood of a statement. In general is an indication on the person itself only.

If I start to bash PETA, republican or the pope without evidence, it is not an indication that all those groups are "good" and onto something. That would only be an indication on my personality and opinion.

ETA: and to even be more controversial bashing between gamersgater and anti gamersgater is no indication that either side has a point or not a point, or that any of those position is valid, but rather an indication that there are trolls on both side.
 
Last edited:
Trebuchet said:
I like my meat. I try not to think about where it came from.
Click to expand...

I like meat. I know where it came from and butchered farm animals and animals I hunted. I dislike the killing and removing of guts and butchering, it is messy (and killing is still heart rendering), but it is something I accept as a fact of life that to get the meat you need to pay the price.
 
Last edited:
I'm a carnivore, I have no agenda here, but if anyone's curious about the actual content of this movie, some of the main points:

Livestock is way more harmful to the environment than fossil fuels and other causes commonly discussed by big environmental groups. Not just cows, but pigs, chickens, and fish. Eating meat and dairy and other animal products is very inefficient, because of the high ratio of the food and water animals consume to the amount of food generated from them. Also they pollute. Also, they take up a lot of land, and contribute to deforestation.

I'm not asking if you think--off the top of your head--if veganism sounds like a good idea; I'm wondering if the film got its facts right.

http://www.cowspiracy.com/facts/

http://www.theguardian.com/environm...p-beef-reduce-carbon-footprint-more-than-cars
 
Last edited:
jimtron said:
ILivestock is way more harmful to the environment than fossil fuels and other causes commonly discussed by big environmental groups. Not just cows, but pigs, chickens, and fish.
Click to expand...

That is not really correct if only looking at global warming as pointed above (ETA: actual numbers of agriculture ALL combined (animals+farming) about 14% of contribution to AGW, whereas transportation is about 13% see EPA web site). For other statistic it depends. Are they using the same inaccurate water statistic about gallon of waters falling on a field and counting that as being used by the cow/pigs, thus making it looks like as if cow/pig were using inordinate amounts of waters ?

ETA: "Livestock and their byproducts account for at least 32,000 million tons of carbon dioxide (CO2) per year, or 51% of all worldwide greenhouse gas emissions." also counting carbon dioxide is wrong for cattle, as it is a zero additional emission, that is why usually you only look at methane. So they are misdirecting.

"Methane is 25-100 times more destructive than CO2 on a 20 year time frame." yeah but as with the other statement it has a short half life in the atmosphere, so really the contribution of methane is LOWER than the CO2 contribution.

"Livestock is responsible for 65% of all human-related emissions of nitrous oxide – a greenhouse gas with 296 times the global warming potential of carbon dioxide, and which stays in the atmosphere for 150 years." actually more cited numbers are around 110-120 years, and there are sinks. We augmented by 20% the atmospheric content since industrial revolution. But as far as its contribution to AGW, the numbers I saw were around 5% to 10% (30% about methane and 60% CO2, the rest small percentage in single digit being fluoridated gas which are studied, like one I made some study on : SF6).

Unfortunately I can't seem to find again the page showing the contribiution of all gas to AGW.


Due to the above I have my doubt on the film "facts" being really facts
 
Last edited:
Aepervius said:
That is not really correct if only looking at global warming as pointed above. For other statistic it depends. Are they using the same inaccurate water statistic about gallon of waters falling on a field and counting that as being used by the cow/pigs, thus making it looks like as if cow/pig were using inordinate amounts of waters ?
Click to expand...

They're not just looking at climate change; they're looking at environmental impact in general, including use of resources. I don't recall them making that argument about water falling on a field. They did talk about how much water and grain and land animals use compared to how much meat, dairy, and eggs that are produced (ie, it's very inefficient).
 
Last edited:
Let us stipulate that farming is harmful to the environment. After all, people are harmful to the environment and we like to eat. The fact that both farms and cars are harmful to the environment does not somehow make a dichotomy. Should we all go vegan so that we can drive bigger cars?
 
Breed insects insects for consumption instead. Make them into yummy stuff that doesn't look like its origins, much like we do with burgers and chicken nuggets.
 
jimtron said:
They're not just looking at climate change; they're looking at environmental impact in general, including use of resources. I don't recall them making that argument about water falling on a field. They did talk about how much water and grain and land animals use compared to how much meat, dairy, and eggs that are produced (ie, it's very inefficient).
Click to expand...

That is the things though which bothers me though. Even if the numbers were fully correct, we human do not function SOLELY on efficiency or we would long have switched to a mashed mass of protein, fat, and starch, minerals and vitamins, and a bit of vegetable fiber or fruit delivered in efficient canned dosis you just need to heat a bit. We would live in coffin hotels and massively in compact building (maybe even underground) to lower heating efficiency. Maybe even centralized redistribute works to have lower route and less energy wasted.

But we don't , we do it in a variety of form which are inefficient and culturally dependent. Especially food which is considered a very important of our life, society, culture, and well being not only by its composition, but by its taste appreciation and form visually. We value individual houses and let people find works.

That is the problem I have with people claiming "meat is inefficient". Yeah it is I doubt anybody understanding how animals function would miss that. Whereas it is highly inefficient or not that inefficient is disputable. But ignoring the cultural impact of meat consumption or disallowing it is like claiming those *-ism political system could work in the real world without taking into account human psychology.

You have a much better chance to have an impact on transportation, heating, and various other methane/N2O/CO2 emission, than you do have on food.

Imagine a politician starting to say "well meat is inefficient from now on we will add a tax on your meat to reflect that and OUTPRICE all of you plebe on it, and only let rich people eat meat".


Good luck on that one.
 
Sideroxylon said:
Breed insects insects for consumption instead. Make them into yummy stuff that doesn't look like its origins, much like we do with burgers and chicken nuggets.
Click to expand...

Still would need a cultural change. Why should I eat protein burger ? Because somebody want me to ? I prefer beef burger. Let the market decide , and the market will almost certainly shun the protein burger, at least in western world. You would have to lower the price of protein burger to the point of nearly giving them free, or rise the price of meat or both. I can#t imagine rising the price of meat would be seen as fine by the vast majority of people not earning much and you could expect a lot of riot in the street "rich politician make meat too expansive for us, they continue to stuff themselves because the rich arse can afford it, and they force us to eat roaches burger ?" the slogan write themselves alone.
 
Cultural changes of various sorts happen every generation. Consider the food attitudes towards crustaceans. If some have to be dragged kicking and screaming towards sustainability so be it.
 
Aepervius said:
Still would need a cultural change. Why should I eat protein burger ? Because somebody want me to ? I prefer beef burger. Let the market decide...
Click to expand...

Good point, let the magical free market (which allows the meat and tobacco industries to get subsidized) decide! It knows what's best.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/21/b...se-in-a-drugs-price-raises-protests.html?_r=0

The drug, called Daraprim, was acquired in August by Turing Pharmaceuticals, a start-up run by a former hedge fund manager. Turing immediately raised the price to $750 a tablet from $13.50, bringing the annual cost of treatment for some patients to hundreds of thousands of dollars.

“What is it that they are doing differently that has led to this dramatic increase?” said Dr. Judith Aberg, the chief of the division of infectious diseases at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai. She said the price increase could force hospitals to use “alternative therapies that may not have the same efficacy.”

Turing’s price increase is not an isolated example. While most of the attention on pharmaceutical prices has been on new drugs for diseases like cancer, hepatitis C and high cholesterol, there is also growing concern about huge price increases on older drugs, some of them generic, that have long been mainstays of treatment.
Click to expand...
 
jimtron said:
A bit amateurish in some ways and definitely polemical, but, if the facts hold up, it does make a compelling argument for veganism. Thoughts?
Click to expand...


Without having seen it, I'd say that the American meat-producing industry is completely broken as regards the health and income of its workers, the optimum health of animals, and the environmental costs, especially to those who live near slaughterhouses and feedlots.

However, veganism is not necessarily the answer. There are ways to raise animals for meat that are responsible for the animals, workers and neighbors.
 
Loss Leader said:
Without having seen it, I'd say that the American meat-producing industry is completely broken as regards the health and income of its workers, the optimum health of animals, and the environmental costs, especially to those who live near slaughterhouses and feedlots.

However, veganism is not necessarily the answer. There are ways to raise animals for meat that are responsible for the animals, workers and neighbors.
Click to expand...
I agree with your last sentence there, but even if that were accomplished, we'd still have the problem of sustainability, if we continue to consume meat and other animal products at the current rate. The pollution, deforestation, and waste of resources (feed, water, land) caused by animal agriculture is devastating, if the facts from the doc are to be believed.

http://www.cowspiracy.com/facts/
 
jimtron said:
I agree with your last sentence there, but even if that were accomplished, we'd still have the problem of sustainability, if we continue to consume meat and other animal products at the current rate. The pollution, deforestation, and waste of resources (feed, water, land) caused by animal agriculture is devastating, if the facts from the doc are to be believed.
Click to expand...


I would absolutely agree that animal products should be reduced in importance in the American diet.
 
The impact on the environment of industrial scale farming is one very good reason (among many) to oppose anything which contributes to global population growth and/or bringing the third world up to first world standards.

The more people there are, and the more of them wanting to live like first worlders (with all that that entails in terms of meat consumption, fossil fuel use, products needing to be produced for them) the worse off the planet will be.

This is one of the many reasons I oppose letting high fertility third worlders into first world nations.

All this effort was put into convincing first world populations to dramatically reduce their reproduction, and first worlders listened and heeded that. They were never told they'd subsequently be backstabbed by the powers that be negating this completely by flooding their nations with people from other societies who breed like plankton.

Humans tend to be more miserable and view other people as less significant as there are more and more of them. Being packed like sardines into massive cities isn't a very good way to live, IMO. Even if some people like living in high density ways, many of us can only feel peace and happiness in sparsely populated situations. The kind of places where certain times of day you can go for a walk or a drive and see almost nobody else. The kind of places where on rare lucky occasion you can go to a section of a public park and find that you have the place to yourself.

The more we permit high-breeders access to first world meat production and calorie surpluses, the more the entire planet will turn into a picked clean husk where everyone lives in miserable squalor packed in like sardines.

I'd really like to see the global population falling, not rising. I think ideally we would get the global population down to maybe about 2 billion again.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom