Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

THE Energy & Meat Thread (merged)

How to save energy through both societal and individual actions.

Do you think meat consumption reduction could save oil and delay peak oil problems?

Poll ended at Sat 11 Mar 2006, 01:27:27

Yes, I'm a vegan and if everyone was, the world would be a more peaceful place.
14
No votes
Yes, but I eat meat. It doesn't matter what I do. It's what everyone does that matters.
6
No votes
No, Jevon's Paradox still applies.
9
No votes
No, there are other ways to reduce oil consumption than to deny people an essential food group.
14
No votes
No, I deny the facts presented in this post.
5
No votes
Yes, but the MEAT lobby will never let that happen.
7
No votes
No, it's too late to implement anything to stave off any peak oil effects.
6
No votes
No, it is a cultural possibility for people to stop eating something that has been the centerpiece of their meals.
2
No votes
No, meat will get more expensive as oil gets more expensive and the market will handle it.
18
No votes
 
Total votes : 81

Re: American meat eaters are responsible for 1.5 more tons o

Postby Loki » Wed 21 Feb 2007, 03:49:43

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('BastardSquad', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Clouseau2', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('neocone', 'W')e all need meat but roughly the size of a pack of cards every day... less than 100 grams.


We don't all need meat. Wasn't meat a luxury item for many on the planet before our fossil fuel rich society began?

I haven't had meat for over 4 years, I'm still walking around ...


WOW!!!

What a completely dumbass statement!!!

Are you sure you understand peak oil?

It's hardly a "dumbass statement" as you so eloquently put it. The guy said he hasn't had meat in 4 years and is still plenty healthy.
And not too long ago meat did make up a much smaller percentage of our diet, and in many societies it was (and still is) a luxury item, certainly not something to be eaten everyday. Your counter to his statements is to link to a bunch of irrelevant articles on human evolution. Humans have always been omnivores and are plenty capable of surviving just fine without any meat of any kind. Matter of fact, the very first article you linked to says as much (did you even bother to read it?):
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'M')ilton said that her theories do not reflect on today's vegetarian diets, which can be completely adequate, given modern knowledge of nutrition.


I would also ask if you are sure you understand Peak Oil? Do you really think you'll be able to eat meat everyday (or even every week) once hyperinflation hits? Once it becomes too expensive to produce the obscene amounts of petroleum-dependent meat and fish we currently produce? Once you're forced to live off what you can grow in your backyard?
User avatar
Loki
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 3509
Joined: Sat 08 Apr 2006, 03:00:00
Location: Oregon

Re: American meat eaters are responsible for 1.5 more tons o

Postby Narz » Wed 21 Feb 2007, 07:52:39

Nice Loki.

Meat will be alot harder to come by in times ahead that's for sure.
“Seek simplicity but distrust it”
User avatar
Narz
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2360
Joined: Sat 25 Nov 2006, 04:00:00
Location: the belly of the beast (New Jersey)

Re: American meat eaters are responsible for 1.5 more tons o

Postby TorrKing » Wed 21 Feb 2007, 08:48:09

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Clouseau2', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('neocone', 'W')e all need meat but roughly the size of a pack of cards every day... less than 100 grams.


We don't all need meat. Wasn't meat a luxury item for many on the planet before our fossil fuel rich society began?

I haven't had meat for over 4 years, I'm still walking around ...


Depends on which society you are talking about. In northern societies it always were important, especially before the population got too high, because of agriculture. No way I'll give up meat. And I think I am speaking for the majority.

There will be a die off, and then those who survive can eat meat (not human for me though). If everyone becomes veggies that will still only cause further expansion of the population towards the inevitable collapse.
http://livingprimitively.com/

Need new shoes? What about making them?: http://www.lulu.com/product/ebook/making-a-primitive-sewing-kit-and-a-pair-of-moccasins/11191315
User avatar
TorrKing
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 717
Joined: Thu 24 Nov 2005, 04:00:00
Location: The ever shrinking wilds of Norway
Top

Re: American meat eaters are responsible for 1.5 more tons o

Postby Bioman » Wed 21 Feb 2007, 11:58:52

Intelligent children tend to become vegetarians later in life:

High IQ link to being vegetarian http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/6180753.stm

That's official now.

We only need to wait to see results of studies showing things the other way around: does becoming a vegetarian later in life, after having been a meat eater, make you smarter?
User avatar
Bioman
Permanently Banned
 
Posts: 69
Joined: Thu 08 Feb 2007, 04:00:00

Postby TorrKing » Wed 21 Feb 2007, 12:23:41

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Bioman', 'I')ntelligent children tend to become vegetarians later in life:

High IQ link to being vegetarian http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/6180753.stm

That's official now.

We only need to wait to see results of studies showing things the other way around: does becoming a vegetarian later in life, after having been a meat eater, make you smarter?


I don't even bother reading that. Most high IQ people on this planet on this planet doesn't even seem to understand peak oil.

Also, the motivations of becoming vegetarian is either bunny huggerish or mis-concepted eco stuff. And dietary... Please. Humans have eaten meat at all times, even if it is just a little. It is healthy to have a little meat in you diet. Every single veggie I have met or seen on tv look pale or even grey.

Maybe higher IQ people tend to have an overdeveloped sense of empathy as well, making them soft and vegetarian... :lol:
User avatar
TorrKing
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 717
Joined: Thu 24 Nov 2005, 04:00:00
Location: The ever shrinking wilds of Norway
Top

Re: American meat eaters are responsible for 1.5 more tons o

Postby HEADER_RACK » Wed 21 Feb 2007, 15:22:24

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Kingcoal', 'I')f you care about greenhouse gases, you should become a vegetarian.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'L')ivestock are responsible for 18 percent of greenhouse-gas emissions as measured in carbon dioxide equivalent, reports the FAO. This includes 9 percent of all CO2 emissions, 37 percent of methane, and 65 percent of nitrous oxide. Altogether, that's more than the emissions caused by transportation.


Link


You know it's a good start but it's not enough. After we all quit eatting meat there's still all that livestock ALIVE! We half to slaughter it all. Can't set them free because they will BREED and make the problem worse!

But why stop there? There's another animal thats probably just as bad, HUMANS. There are 6 billion of those breathing out CO2 and farting out methane. Now if we can cull this herd back about 2/3 , we really start to cut back on greenhouse gases. Not only are they not exhaling co2 anymore but they aren't driving cars or using any other type of machine or equipment emitting greenhouse gases. WHAT A HUGE CUTBACK!!

Before we work on cutting back on natural greenhouse emitters..Let's work on cutting back the UNNATURAL emitters first
User avatar
HEADER_RACK
Coal
Coal
 
Posts: 452
Joined: Thu 15 Feb 2007, 04:00:00
Top

Re: American meat eaters are responsible for 1.5 more tons o

Postby Rincewind » Wed 21 Feb 2007, 17:59:23

Some points

Yes we have evolved to eat animal protein. However, to meet our dietary requirements we don't need to eat that much (compared to carbohydrates. There is strong evidence that eating too much [red] meat is bad for you (e.g. colon cancer).

There is also the question of what type of animal protein we are most evolved to make use of. There is strong evidence to indicate that arthropods were a staple source of protein. By this I mean various types of insects. I am not joking but perhaps we should be farming locusts and molloscs instead of cattle? It would probably be more energy efficient, less environmentally damaging, and produce a more healthy food source.

In general those of us living in the west eat too much food in total in any case.

You can live on a fully vegetarian diet but must find replacement sources of protein (e.g. usually sourced from beans).

The problem with farm emissions in the increased emisisons over what natural sources normally produce and what the biosphere can process. What we have done with farming especially modern farming is use fossil energy to increase livestock numbers to a point where the biosphere can no longer keep up. This results in the build up of methane and nitrous oxide in the troposphere - which in turn contributeds to an enhanced greenhouse effect.

Cheers Rincewind
User avatar
Rincewind
Peat
Peat
 
Posts: 197
Joined: Thu 17 Jun 2004, 03:00:00
Location: New Zealand

Re: American meat eaters are responsible for 1.5 more tons o

Postby edpeak » Wed 21 Feb 2007, 23:30:16

Humans evolved doing LOTS of unhealthy things,
back when they didn't worry about how healthy
their arteries will be when they are 75..but only
about how to get enough calories to survive,
hence the lactose tolerance mutation (lactose
intolenrance is what's actually normal) did help
humans, it helped them survive in less hospitable
places...helped them live past 10 years old ;-)
even though animal milk is unhealthy
and unnatural (or even human milk, past
age 4 or so ;-) and even though that and meat
is unhealthy long term...Eating raw fat from mammoth
probably helped some humans get enough calories
to survive in cold regions, too, no one argues with that..it's
just not the healthiest of diets long term, neither
them, nor now, to live to a long life, nor to live
to age healthy (which means not just your life's
health but your quality)

Also..

Are all vegans are pale and weak? Try this 9-time
gold medal winner:

http://earthsave.org/lifestyle/carllewis.htm

Of course sometimes people see vegans
who are not pale and who are strong but think
they look "too thin" but that's largely as we've
gotten used to a certain look at "Average" which is really
heavier than ideal healthiest weight.

And last but not least..another reason to cut out animal products

http://www.ejnet.org/dioxin/dioxin_chart.gif

more background here http://www.ejnet.org/dioxin/

EDpeak

Vegan for over ten years...see www.veganchef.com for
cool recipes :-)
User avatar
edpeak
Peat
Peat
 
Posts: 156
Joined: Fri 04 Feb 2005, 04:00:00

Re: American meat eaters are responsible for 1.5 more tons o

Postby TorrKing » Thu 22 Feb 2007, 04:54:38

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('edpeak', 'E')ating raw fat from mammoth
probably helped some humans get enough calories
to survive in cold regions, too, no one argues with that..it's
just not the healthiest of diets long term....


That is absolutely bullshit. Eating raw fats from wild animals is healthy. In fact most of the northern native people of this planet did this and had (and those still doing have) flawless health.

Much better than any vegan could ever hope for. Please direct me towards the source claiming that any natives at any time in history lived on a vegan diet.

What I have noticed on vegans is that they seems to get grey hair faster. I don't have any data to support that though.
User avatar
TorrKing
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 717
Joined: Thu 24 Nov 2005, 04:00:00
Location: The ever shrinking wilds of Norway
Top

Re: American meat eaters are responsible for 1.5 more tons o

Postby Loki » Thu 22 Feb 2007, 05:08:47

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Torjus', 'P')lease direct me towards the source claiming that any natives at any time in history lived on a vegan diet.

There have been hundreds of millions of vegetarians in India over the course of the last two or three millennia. But what on earth does your question have to do with the price of beans? Africa is full of "natives." Do you really think the average Ethiopian/Nigerian/Somali is healthier than the average European or American vegetarian/vegan? And aren't Europeans "natives" of Europe? Some of these "natives" are vegan. But again, your question is irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'W')hat I have noticed on vegans is that they seems to get grey hair faster. I don't have any data to support that though.

I've noticed that heavy meat eaters tend to get colorectal cancer at a greater frequency than vegetarians/vegans. And there's plenty of data to support that (Cancer Research; JAMA). Hmmm, gray hair or colorectal cancer? That's a tough choice.
User avatar
Loki
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 3509
Joined: Sat 08 Apr 2006, 03:00:00
Location: Oregon
Top

Re: American meat eaters are responsible for 1.5 more tons o

Postby TorrKing » Thu 22 Feb 2007, 09:31:24

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Loki', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Torjus', 'P')lease direct me towards the source claiming that any natives at any time in history lived on a vegan diet.

There have been hundreds of millions of vegetarians in India over the course of the last two or three millennia. But what on earth does your question have to do with the price of beans? Africa is full of "natives." Do you really think the average Ethiopian/Nigerian/Somali is healthier than the average European or American vegetarian/vegan? And aren't Europeans "natives" of Europe? Some of these "natives" are vegan. But again, your question is irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'W')hat I have noticed on vegans is that they seems to get grey hair faster. I don't have any data to support that though.

I've noticed that heavy meat eaters tend to get colorectal cancer at a greater frequency than vegetarians/vegans. And there's plenty of data to support that (Cancer Research; JAMA). Hmmm, gray hair or colorectal cancer? That's a tough choice.


On the native question, the cultures you are speaking of is of a different character, not a culture where everyone lives off the land h/g style. People who are provided for can take the "luxury" of being vegan.

So, what you are trying to say is that although humans have had a proportion of meat in their diet in maybe millions of years, they have not adapted to that so that it is still unhealthy? But veganism, which is not older than perhaps a few thousand years, we have adapted to?

There is a failing logic there, but if you can't see it I don't really care. You can eat your veggies for me. :roll:

If you had done any background studies on this at all, you would know that for instance, the nunamiut of Alaska had no occurence of cancers (of any type) when they still lived on their original diet.

That said, eating only the meat will not be good for you, you will need to eat the liver, other organs and fat too to have a full diet.

From my knowledge, cancer in the colon is probably caused by lack of fibre in the diet. If you eat only regular meat you will become constupated. To prevent that you have to eat some sinew and cartilage too, which the body can't fully digest and will act as fibre.
http://livingprimitively.com/

Need new shoes? What about making them?: http://www.lulu.com/product/ebook/making-a-primitive-sewing-kit-and-a-pair-of-moccasins/11191315
User avatar
TorrKing
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 717
Joined: Thu 24 Nov 2005, 04:00:00
Location: The ever shrinking wilds of Norway
Top

Re: American meat eaters are responsible for 1.5 more tons o

Postby FourOfSwords » Thu 22 Feb 2007, 11:51:19

Torjus' last post is valid. Those culture's who have over many generations eaten a higher proportion of meat/fat have become genetically predisposed to not having colon and corectal cancers. It has more to do with the TYPE of meat/fat that are being consumed, and the amount of fibre consumed, associated with the food they eat. He mentioned formerly(in most places)hunter/gatherer peoples such as the Innu,Innuit etc. These same folks when introduced to modern 'processed' foods do indeed exhibit the same diseases as most 'modern' folks of industrialized nations.
It has to do with the type of fat that is stored in animals muscle layers that we consume. Modern grain fed cattle et al, produce vast amounts of Omega 6 type fatty acids within their muscle mass.
Wild or free range animals produce a proportionallly higher ratio of Omega 3 fatty acids to Omega 6. Thus the health benefits.
Pharoahs mummified bodies from the New Kingdom have been forensically studied, and an interesting discovery was made, that since they were the 'elite' of there empire, they ate a much higer proportion of cattle...guess what, evidence of artereosclerosis, and colon cancer...the reason, grain fed cattle. An interesting side note.
Vegetarianism to a large degree today, is a 'luxury' (although that does sound silly) being that most of our ancestors no matter where they came from on this Earth, ate a higher proportion of veggies to grain/meat.
As for which is healthier, its really a moot point from a PO perspective, as I'm sure to a man/woman, every poster on these forums, if facing starvation will eat whatever they can get their hands on.
I think where the disconnect is in this discussion, is that as a general rule, North Americans eat far too much meat compared to other folks in the world, it has a horrible enviromental/PO pricetag associated in its production, and too much of it is just plain bad for you.( As some ancient Greek once said: 'All things in moderation')
Alas Torjus, its unlikely you or I or any significant number of people will be able to eat much wild healthy meat in a PO world...the prospects don't look good. I've eaten, deer, elk, moose, bear, most types of wild foul, and probably every type of fresswater fish here in Canada. I've done this in moderation, and with respect as my H/G ancestors did for millenia. I am 50 years old have no hardening of the arteries, no calcification of the brain, yet I have been 'done in' by eating to many grain based foods(I've recently been diagnosed as a type 2 diabetic). Grains are the real culprit behind poor health in the industrialized West, and how they have been overprocessed. Nothing wrong with veggies, and nothing wrong with 'healthy' meat in my books.
Cheers.
A.
User avatar
FourOfSwords
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 375
Joined: Sun 05 Mar 2006, 04:00:00
Location: East edge of the Milky Way

Re: American meat eaters are responsible for 1.5 more tons o

Postby TorrKing » Thu 22 Feb 2007, 13:25:37

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('FourOfSwords', 'A')las Torjus, its unlikely you or I or any significant number of people will be able to eat much wild healthy meat in a PO world...the prospects don't look good. I've eaten, deer, elk, moose, bear, most types of wild foul, and probably every type of fresswater fish here in Canada.


I know for a fact that large numbers of people can be sustained at the underutilized freshwater fish stocks that exists in the area I have planned for PO. Game is a different story.

It will come down to power I think. If one could create a strong tribe that claimed a huge area, it could be possible to defend it from overexploitation at least reasonably well.

If a hunter knows that he is likely to get killed if hunting in a certain area, he would more than likely hunt elsewhere. At least until all other areas are pretty much empty.

For the large game to survive, such tribally protected areas will be needed. Making a tribe isn't easy though. And it would require that you drove off the majority of the population. That may not be so easy either.

Off topic this though.
User avatar
TorrKing
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 717
Joined: Thu 24 Nov 2005, 04:00:00
Location: The ever shrinking wilds of Norway
Top

Re: American meat eaters are responsible for 1.5 more tons o

Postby Loki » Thu 22 Feb 2007, 15:28:46

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Torjus', '&')lt;snip>

At the risk of repeating myself, your points are irrelevant to the discussion at hand, which is the environmental impact of a meat-centric diet. If you just don't give a damn about the environment, fine, eat what you'd like. If you're worried about the health aspects of not eating meat, worry no more. There is a massive amount of evidence that a balanced vegetarian/vegan diet is plenty healthy. I've already posted excerpts from a load of peer-reviewed scientific journals in another thread, so I'm not going to do your research for you. You accuse me of not doing my research, then spout off all sorts of unsupportable nonsense about vegetarianism and veganism. Nice.

You seem to be under the erroneous impression that some foragers ate nothing but meat. I've done plenty of research on foraging cultures (I'm writing my Ph.D. dissertation on two of them, thank you very much), and there isn't a single culture that eats nothing but meat. Not a single one, even the so-called "Eskimos," who are very much outliers anyway. The proportion of meat in the diet of known foraging cultures varies considerably---there was no single "paleolithic diet." So which of these diets have we supposedly evolved with? Should we eat like the Gwi of Botswana and get 74% of our calories from plant sources? Should we eat like the Eskimos of Greenland and get 96% of our calories from animal sources? Which of these is "correct" Torjus?

But what foragers ate is irrelevant. I know you're obsessed with hunting-gathering, which is fine, but it's hardly the final word on what humans can and should eat, or how humans can and should live. The healthiest, most long-lived people on the planet all live in agricultural societies. Look up the diet of the Okinawans, the Sardinians, and the Seventh-day Adventists in Loma Linda, California. None of them are hunting mastodons for their daily bread.
User avatar
Loki
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 3509
Joined: Sat 08 Apr 2006, 03:00:00
Location: Oregon
Top

Re: American meat eaters are responsible for 1.5 more tons o

Postby TorrKing » Thu 22 Feb 2007, 16:02:31

If you live in Greenland, explain to me what other choice you have? Do you want to plant wheat? 8O

The closer you get to the tropics, the higher the ratio of vegetables per meat. That is because the availability of plant foods are higher there compared to the availability of meat. Opposite the further north you get.

So what we are talking about is sustainability? In the long run, is there any other option than hunter-gatherer?

The hunter gatherer will deplete an area of game or other edibles and either move on or die (if there are no good alternatives). That leaves only superficial damage, which will heal in a relatively short time. The farmer lingers on until the soil is depleted pretty much beyond repair and then move on or die. Which is most sustainable?

It is possible to do sustainable small scale agriculture, but greed invariably takes over and produces cities which will make the farmers be unable to return the waste to the fields.

----

What tick me off is the ongoing nagging of "let's all become vegans". If we were moose, we could, but even the moose takes a nibble at a frog at times to get a protein boost.
User avatar
TorrKing
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 717
Joined: Thu 24 Nov 2005, 04:00:00
Location: The ever shrinking wilds of Norway

Re: American meat eaters are responsible for 1.5 more tons o

Postby TorrKing » Thu 22 Feb 2007, 16:05:34

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Loki', 'T')he healthiest, most long-lived people on the planet all live in agricultural societies. Look up the diet of the Okinawans, the Sardinians, and the Seventh-day Adventists in Loma Linda, California. None of them are hunting mastodons for their daily bread.


In hunter gatherer culture the die-off is more spread out on pretty much every generation, while in agricultural societies it goes like a rollercoaster. One generation lives long and then the next (sometime down the line) most die very young because the resources have been pillaged.
User avatar
TorrKing
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 717
Joined: Thu 24 Nov 2005, 04:00:00
Location: The ever shrinking wilds of Norway
Top

Re: American meat eaters are responsible for 1.5 more tons o

Postby Loki » Thu 22 Feb 2007, 18:27:03

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Shannymara', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Loki', 'S')hould we eat like the Gwi of Botswana and get 74% of our calories from plant sources? Should we eat like the Eskimos of Greenland and get 96% of our calories from animal sources?

Depends on where you live, and what grows/lives there. In the tropics that's fruit and fish, for example. It's called relocalization.

Yes, I know I'm idealizing.

Yes, the diet of foragers varied immensely geographically. That was my point. The advocates of the so-called "paleolithic diet" seem completely oblivious to this basic anthropological fact. They erroneously assume that there was a "paleolithic diet" rather than multiple paleolithic diets that varied as much as modern non-foraging diets.

I think relocalization of food production is one of the keystones of sustainability (and that will absolutely have to include agriculture---foraging as a primary subsistence strategy is completely impossible for 99.9% of the people currently on the planet). I'd like to discuss that in more detail. Maybe I should start a new thread on it. Have you heard of the 100-mile diet?
User avatar
Loki
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 3509
Joined: Sat 08 Apr 2006, 03:00:00
Location: Oregon
Top

Re: American meat eaters are responsible for 1.5 more tons o

Postby TorrKing » Fri 23 Feb 2007, 04:20:39

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Loki', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Shannymara', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Loki', 'S')hould we eat like the Gwi of Botswana and get 74% of our calories from plant sources? Should we eat like the Eskimos of Greenland and get 96% of our calories from animal sources?

Depends on where you live, and what grows/lives there. In the tropics that's fruit and fish, for example. It's called relocalization.

Yes, I know I'm idealizing.

Yes, the diet of foragers varied immensely geographically. That was my point. The advocates of the so-called "paleolithic diet" seem completely oblivious to this basic anthropological fact. They erroneously assume that there was a "paleolithic diet" rather than multiple paleolithic diets that varied as much as modern non-foraging diets.

I think relocalization of food production is one of the keystones of sustainability (and that will absolutely have to include agriculture---foraging as a primary subsistence strategy is completely impossible for 99.9% of the people currently on the planet). I'd like to discuss that in more detail. Maybe I should start a new thread on it. Have you heard of the 100-mile diet?


I think we agree more than we thought. :)
http://livingprimitively.com/

Need new shoes? What about making them?: http://www.lulu.com/product/ebook/making-a-primitive-sewing-kit-and-a-pair-of-moccasins/11191315
User avatar
TorrKing
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 717
Joined: Thu 24 Nov 2005, 04:00:00
Location: The ever shrinking wilds of Norway
Top

Re: American meat eaters are responsible for 1.5 more tons o

Postby FourOfSwords » Fri 23 Feb 2007, 08:55:53

Torjus, if I didn't have my 6 year old daughter to worry about, I think I would hop on a plane to Trondheim, learn Norwegian, and join your tribe...hopefully Canadians would be welcome. ;)
A.
User avatar
FourOfSwords
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 375
Joined: Sun 05 Mar 2006, 04:00:00
Location: East edge of the Milky Way

Re: American meat eaters are responsible for 1.5 more tons o

Postby TorrKing » Fri 23 Feb 2007, 10:41:30

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('FourOfSwords', 'T')orjus, if I didn't have my 6 year old daughter to worry about, I think I would hop on a plane to Trondheim, learn Norwegian, and join your tribe...hopefully Canadians would be welcome. ;)
A.


Trondheim isn't really the location though. Even without immigrating you are still welcome for a visit if you have the desire. :wink:
User avatar
TorrKing
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 717
Joined: Thu 24 Nov 2005, 04:00:00
Location: The ever shrinking wilds of Norway
Top

PreviousNext

Return to Conservation & Efficiency

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests

cron