shortstep Posted November 25, 2010 Share Posted November 25, 2010 (edited) Soon they'll have us all living in characterless boxes, 2 or more on a little suburban block with no dogs and no backyard. No the green dream in high density inner city living, but they do think a chicken on your balcony would be OK green wise, provided you did not eat it. All the rural lving folk need to move to the city and all their land will be reverted to natural habitat for native animals, no domestic animals allowed and we all have to be vegans. high speed carbon nutral trains from one sity to anotherm all roads removed. Edited November 25, 2010 by shortstep Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brightonrock Posted November 25, 2010 Share Posted November 25, 2010 Soon they'll have us all living in characterless boxes, 2 or more on a little suburban block with no dogs and no backyard. No the green dream in high density inner city living, but they do think a chicken on your balcony would bo OK green wise, provided you did not eat it. All the rural lving folk need to move to the city and all their land will be reverted to natural habitat for native animals, no domestic animals allowed and we all have to be vegans. high speed carbon nutral trains from one sity to anotherm all roads removed. Battery People ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CBL Posted November 25, 2010 Share Posted November 25, 2010 Soon they'll have us all living in characterless boxes, 2 or more on a little suburban block with no dogs and no backyard. No the green dream in high density inner city living, but they do think a chicken on your balcony would be OK green wise, provided you did not eat it. All the rural lving folk need to move to the city and all their land will be reverted to natural habitat for native animals, no domestic animals allowed and we all have to be vegans. high speed carbon nutral trains from one sity to anotherm all roads removed. I identify myself on the green side of things, I work in environmental ed and have an ecology background - I sure as hell don't think like that. It is not a case of us vs nature - we are not separate from nature - we need take from the land and we need to put back as well. There are extremists in all avenues of life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shortstep Posted November 25, 2010 Share Posted November 25, 2010 Ok here is what is all came from and this was back in 2009. Time to Eat the dog http://www.greenmuze.com/reviews/news/1737...e-dog-news.html In a bid to save the planet, two University of Victoria, New Zealand professors are encouraging people to think about the ecological footprints of our animal companions via a provocatively titled new book – Time to Eat the Dog. In their new book, Time to Eat the Dog: The Real Guide to Sustainable Living authors Robert and Brenda Vale, make the case that dog companions have more of an environmental impact than driving a big car. In fact, according to their international headline making findings, feeding a pet dog (roughly the size of a German Shepherd), has twice the environmental impact of driving a 4.6-litre Toyota Land Cruiser 10,000kms (6,213 miles) a year. Throughout the book the authors compare the carbon ‘paw prints’ of various types of popular animal companions to the environmental impact of driving different types of vehicles or using typical household appliances. Their findings are not going to be very popular with pet lovers, but their facts and statistical evidence is hard to ignore. The writers, often described as ‘kill-joys’ (we prefer to think of them as realists), describe the environmental footprint of everything from golf to funerals in a quest to help people understand the true meaning of sustainability. More SHOULD owning a great dane make you as much of an eco-outcast as an SUV driver? Yes it should, say Robert and Brenda Vale, two architects who specialise in sustainable living at Victoria University of Wellington in New Zealand. In their new book, Time to Eat the Dog: The real guide to sustainable living, they compare the ecological footprints of a menagerie of popular pets with those of various other lifestyle choices - and the critters do not fare well. As well as guzzling resources, cats and dogs devastate wildlife populations, spread disease and add to pollution. It is time to take eco-stock of our pets. To measure the ecological paw, claw and fin-prints of the family pet, the Vales analysed the ingredients of common brands of pet food. They calculated, for example, that a medium-sized dog would consume 90 grams of meat ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KKDD Posted November 25, 2010 Share Posted November 25, 2010 Soon they'll have us all living in characterless boxes, 2 or more on a little suburban block with no dogs and no backyard. Nasty minded little people who miss the point Beautiful dogs, a large and healthy garden and horses what could be better ? I think my earlier point about discrediting reasonable points of veiw by characterising them in terms of extremes, is being well demonstrated in this thread. Talk about missing the point... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mita Posted November 25, 2010 Share Posted November 25, 2010 I identify myself on the green side of things, I work in environmental ed and have an ecology background - I sure as hell don't think like that. It is not a case of us vs nature - we are not separate from nature - we need take from the land and we need to put back as well. There are extremists in all avenues of life. Agree, CBL. Shortstep, I also remember this stuff being peddled some months back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shortstep Posted November 25, 2010 Share Posted November 25, 2010 the list of approved pets But if you can't face the prospect of life without an animal companion, there are a few green pets out there. Dump the dog for a smaller critter like a hamster, goldfish or canary, and you'll massively shrink your land toll. An even better choice, Vale says, is an animal you can both stroke and eat. The eco footprint of three hens kept for eggs and meat, for example, is just 0.02 acres a year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mita Posted November 25, 2010 Share Posted November 25, 2010 (edited) Ok here is what is all came from and this was back in 2009. Time to Eat the dog http://www.greenmuze.com/reviews/news/1737...e-dog-news.html In a bid to save the planet, two University of Victoria, New Zealand professors are encouraging people to think about the ecological footprints of our animal companions via a provocatively titled new book – Time to Eat the Dog. I checked out the qualifications of these writers, Robert & Brenda Vale, to see what scientific studies they've done....or scientific papers they've had published in peer-reviewed journals. Found their area of expertise. They're architects & teach at the University of Wellington. Note...architects. Not scientists. There's a guideline that students at universities are taught. To recognise when they...or someone else...has moved beyond their field of expertise. Those 2 folk are perfectly free to give what opinions they like, based on whatever they quote as evidence. (All of us do that, which is fine.) But those opinions are outside their field of expertise. So this thread features an article purporting to give scientific information, coming from a podcaster who's not a member of a science faculty. About an issue which was written up in a book by a couple whose area of expertise is architecture. No published scientists standing up so far. Edited November 25, 2010 by mita Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mita Posted November 25, 2010 Share Posted November 25, 2010 (edited) Found a great critique of R. & B. Vale's case that a dog leaves a much higher carbon footprint than a Toyota Land Cruiser....from the horse's mouth. A US website devoted to cars & information about the various models. A real petrol-heads' heaven. And this is what they say, after describing the Vale's case (bless 'em, their field of knowledge is cars!): Let us point out a few obvious criticisms: According to Department of Transportation figures, the average American drives nearly 15,000 miles per year - so you'd need to nearly triple their figures to get an honest estimation of a Land Cruiser's impact. That changes the math drastically. Second, the dog eats replaceable resources - we can grow more food. The SUV burns fossil fuels...and we can't grow more oil. The study also didn't take emissions into account. On the whole, it's probably not a reason to give up the dog just yet. SCORE: Folk who seriously know about cars 1 Architects 0 Edited November 25, 2010 by mita Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Silvawilow Posted November 25, 2010 Share Posted November 25, 2010 Well we're super bad then, 1 four wheel drive car, 1 human child, 3 dogs and 3 cats Matt, you're a tool ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Annie99 Posted November 25, 2010 Share Posted November 25, 2010 FFS!!!! Some people have WAY too much time on their hands. I don't even believe all the carbon footprint/carbon swapping rubbish. Look at what China and India are doing. Even if everyone in Australia got rid of their dogs it would make no difference. What rubbish. What annoys me is these people get paid good money to come up with this crap. Oxygen thieves! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aranyoz Posted November 25, 2010 Author Share Posted November 25, 2010 Soon they'll have us all living in characterless boxes, 2 or more on a little suburban block with no dogs and no backyard. No the green dream in high density inner city living, but they do think a chicken on your balcony would be OK green wise, provided you did not eat it. All the rural lving folk need to move to the city and all their land will be reverted to natural habitat for native animals, no domestic animals allowed and we all have to be vegans. high speed carbon nutral trains from one sity to anotherm all roads removed. Ah shortstep good to at least one other dog enthusiast who knows about UN Agenda 21! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aranyoz Posted November 25, 2010 Author Share Posted November 25, 2010 Ok here is what is all came from and this was back in 2009. Time to Eat the dog http://www.greenmuze.com/reviews/news/1737...e-dog-news.html In a bid to save the planet, two University of Victoria, New Zealand professors are encouraging people to think about the ecological footprints of our animal companions via a provocatively titled new book – Time to Eat the Dog. I checked out the qualifications of these writers, Robert & Brenda Vale, to see what scientific studies they've done....or scientific papers they've had published in peer-reviewed journals. Found their area of expertise. They're architects & teach at the University of Wellington. Note...architects. Not scientists. There's a guideline that students at universities are taught. To recognise when they...or someone else...has moved beyond their field of expertise. Those 2 folk are perfectly free to give what opinions they like, based on whatever they quote as evidence. (All of us do that, which is fine.) But those opinions are outside their field of expertise. So this thread features an article purporting to give scientific information, coming from a podcaster who's not a member of a science faculty. About an issue which was written up in a book by a couple whose area of expertise is architecture. No published scientists standing up so far. Give it time some scientist is sure to get themselves a grant to research this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aidan3 Posted November 25, 2010 Share Posted November 25, 2010 Those warmists and their "science"! The other day it was, like, 33C and today it's back down to about 18C. Make up your mind, warmists! And don't tell me I can't have a dog or a house or a car. From my cold, dead hands... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jed Posted November 25, 2010 Share Posted November 25, 2010 Factor into the equation that it takes more resources to build a Prius than a Landrover. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aidan3 Posted November 25, 2010 Share Posted November 25, 2010 Maybe to build, but not over it's lifetime. http://www.thecarconnection.com/tips-artic...loding-the-myth Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sheilaheel02 Posted November 25, 2010 Share Posted November 25, 2010 I'm a Natural Selectionist myself. As humans WE have decimated the planet, far more than any other animal, so I vote we legalise selective cannibalism. Yep, Oxygen Thief Stew slow cooked in the Crock Pot and served with a nice Chianti. They tend to be quite toxic to our environment, are in abundant supply and readily reproduce. I reckon I could happily knock quite a few off to negate the fact I drive a 4WD and keep animals as pets. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alyosha Posted November 28, 2010 Share Posted November 28, 2010 I'm a Natural Selectionist myself. As humans WE have decimated the planet, far more than any other animal, so I vote we legalise selective cannibalism. Yep, Oxygen Thief Stew slow cooked in the Crock Pot and served with a nice Chianti. They tend to be quite toxic to our environment, are in abundant supply and readily reproduce. I reckon I could happily knock quite a few off to negate the fact I drive a 4WD and keep animals as pets. I'm pretty awful too, four human kids and four large furry ones - plus one foster. Geez. I've got my stomping boots on for sure! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Souff Posted November 28, 2010 Share Posted November 28, 2010 "Serving up Fido as an entree might be a bit extreme, but one of the most effective ways you can make an impact on your ecological footprint is by not owning a dog… When it comes to an ecological footprint, a dog is the equivalent of two Toyota LandCruisers… The fact that a family pet is such a way of life in the Australian culture is damage enough. Even if we widened our palate to include dogs, that wouldn’t stop people owning pets… What would be most effective is for people to think hard before buying a pet. It might be better to grow some plants instead. At least plants are edible." Gee, you're a bit slow Andrew! Dogs ARE very edible (cho) and, unless Australia's state laws have changed recently, it is perfectly legal to slaughter your dog and cook it and eat it. You just have to ensure that you can kill it cleanly and the dog does not suffer in the process. This might come as a surprise to some newer DOLers but yes, it is true and there are elements of our multicultural society who have cho on the menu. Souff Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DerRottweiler Posted November 28, 2010 Share Posted November 28, 2010 lol @ Andrew Bolt. lol @ Hippies. Two extremes.....what ever happened to the middle ground? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now