Green is not Mean. plz plant a tree... One more reason to not be a vegetarian. jgk lives
Upload
Login or register
Leave a comment Refresh Comments (152)
[ 152 comments ]
Anonymous comments allowed.
68 comments displayed.
#4 - charpentier
Reply +134
(04/28/2013) [-]
One more reason to not be a vegetarian.
#6 to #4 - anon
Reply 0
(04/28/2013) [-]
Vegetarian diets would create a higher demand on organic vegetables and crops, so more people would b able to plant them.
#69 to #6 - anon
Reply 0
(04/29/2013) [-]
Yes, but planting more crops would exhaust the soil and lose its nutrients.

Also we could also plant the crops for the livestock.
#155 to #69 - nogphille
Reply 0
(04/29/2013) [-]
livestock needs food and soil just as badly... how are you guys not seeing this?
#9 to #4 - HarvietheDinkle
Reply 0
(04/28/2013) [-]
because people eat grass, shrubs and trees (the most abundant source of erosion-preventing plants)
#11 to #9 - captnpl ONLINE
Reply +3
(04/28/2013) [-]
No, but they clear out forests to make room for extra soybeans.
#12 to #11 - HarvietheDinkle
Reply 0
(04/28/2013) [-]
that goes for most farms of any kind
#13 to #12 - captnpl ONLINE
Reply +2
(04/28/2013) [-]
True, but cattle farms maintain dense grass fields and produce fertilizer to help other crops grow more effectively and on less land.
#23 to #13 - nogphille
Reply +1
(04/28/2013) [-]
for every kg of meat, you'd need 10kg of wheat or other crops to feed them.. so i highly doubt it's more economical for the soil..
#49 to #23 - captnpl ONLINE
Reply -1
(04/29/2013) [-]
It's 7kg for beef, but they only give it to the cattle during the winter, or if there is an excess of grain. Most cows feed on grass 60% of the year.

Also, if you raise cattle you get milk, then you can use the rest of the cow to make glue, soap, insulin, arthritis medication, leather, asphalt tar, fire extinguisher foam, surgical sutures, and a hundred other things that I don't feel like typing. lists.envirolink.org/pipermail/ar-news/Week-of-Mon-20040105/015167.html
#66 to #49 - nogphille
Reply +1
(04/29/2013) [-]
point still remains that the cattle need more land to be fed than it would take to farm soy or other crops that could feed people in the same quantity that meat products would..
also mentioning that those walking meatsticks also consume water and produce methane and other harmfull byproducts..
=>
http://science.howstuffworks.com/zoology/mammals/methane-cow.htm
#95 to #66 - captnpl ONLINE
Reply -2
(04/29/2013) [-]
1. We already produce enough food to feed everyone in the world, it's more of a distribution problem.

2. Plants drink water too.

3. Methane is being used as an alternate energy source You need to login to view this link

4. I couldn't find any other harmful byproducts, google kept redirecting me to horse meat contamination articles.
#152 to #95 - nogphille
Reply 0
(04/29/2013) [-]
let me provide some better points than drastronomy.. i hope :)

1. your point was that huge areas of forests were being cleared for soy etc.
having a more efficient food/land ratio would clear massive amounts of land, which could be used to regrow forests or provide food for the still rising population.
2. the water plants consume does not need to have the same standards as what cows consume, this water will still be consumed by us indirectly, unlike through meat
=> http://vegetarian.about.com/od/vegetarianvegan101/f/waterpollution.htm
the cows even contaminate the water and soil.
3. his point was fairly good. you can't harvest the methane, unless you want to go around catching cowfarts.. instead, these damage the ozone layer..
4. search harder, carbon dioxide, methane, water consumption,...
=> en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_meat_production
#120 to #95 - drastronomy
Reply -1
(04/29/2013) [-]
1. yes, but it is easier to distribute with more food to go around
2. not nearly as much, and they filter it anyway and do not turn it into piss
3. the methane cannot be harvested
4. release enormous amount of carbon dioxide
#46 to #4 - waaw
Reply 0
(04/29/2013) [-]
What do you think the cows are eating before you eat them?
#52 to #4 - anon
Reply 0
(04/29/2013) [-]
Not obliterating the human species through ultimate form of retardation (poisoning your own environment) is somehow vegetarianism? What the ****?
#7 to #4 - lieutenantshitface **User deleted account**
+6
has deleted their comment [-]
#21 - winglit ONLINE
Reply +31
(04/28/2013) [-]
Vegetarians are killing our planet! GET EM!
#8 - anon
Reply 0
(04/28/2013) [-]
As a soil scientist I can tell you that the colorations of the water are more caused by the amount of soil exposed to the running water. The bin with the plants is only clear because of the amount of plant material that prevents the soil from being picked up (bin has roots and stems). The bin with the leaves is clearer because the decaying plant humus is doing an alright job at keeping the soil in place. The bin with only dirt will only produce muddy water because there is no other material inside it. So in reality this "experiment" really only shows how plant and leaf cover affects the amount of soil in runoff. While the water in the one with plants is clear, it didn't really filter any pollutants moving across it. If there was a way to see the water after it moves down through the soil after being absorbed then you would see the filtration effect.
#114 to #8 - awesomenessdefined
Reply -4
(04/29/2013) [-]
How do you feel about the fact that you wasted your life to become a soil scientist?
#125 to #114 - turbodoosh
Reply 0
(04/29/2013) [-]
He probably makes more money and gets laid more often than someone who calls themselves 'awesomenessdefined'
#141 to #125 - sadaurkar
Reply +1
(04/29/2013) [-]
Quiet, turbodoosh
#142 to #141 - turbodoosh
Reply 0
(04/29/2013) [-]
no
#148 to #142 - sadaurkar
Reply +1
(04/29/2013) [-]
#149 to #148 - turbodoosh
Reply 0
(04/29/2013) [-]
#158 to #125 - awesomenessdefined
Reply -1
(05/03/2013) [-]
WOAH! Sick Burn, Dude1!
#137 to #8 - anon
Reply 0
(04/29/2013) [-]
your credentials are phony, because while you are right, you are also wrong, the amount of soil effects the colouration of the water, but trees also do filter out polutants, in newzealand where i live, trees are planted arround lakes, to filter harmfull farm runoff that would end up poluting the lakes, trees filter out nitrates and other chemicals in fertilisers that damage the lake by promoting algae growth and introducing heavy metals.
#140 to #8 - LOLinternet
Reply +2
(04/29/2013) [-]
'Soil scientist'

Ok. Was totally not expecting soil to be a scientific field.






AHUEHUEHEHEUE. FIELD.
#84 to #8 - gorginhanson
Reply +5
(04/29/2013) [-]
THANK YOU SOIL SCIENTIST

Said someone for the first time ever
#73 to #8 - isenseven
Reply +7
(04/29/2013) [-]
I think the real question here is what the **** is a soil scientist doing on funnyjunk?
#29 to #8 - RisenLichen ONLINE
Reply +8
(04/28/2013) [-]
Soil Scientist? Holy ****.
#10 to #8 - logicstrike
Reply +19
(04/28/2013) [-]
what Ilearned here is that "Soil scientists" are actually called soil scientists what the **** (I checked and everything)
#50 - sirbutterballs
Reply +2
(04/29/2013) [-]
Well we do have science.We could make mechanical filtering-systems.
#51 to #50 - sirbutterballs
Reply +2
(04/29/2013) [-]
But then again if there was ever an EMP we'd have no drinkable water...
#53 to #51 - sketchE
Reply +8
(04/29/2013) [-]
i live in alaska ill just go live on a glacier
#105 to #53 - anon
Reply 0
(04/29/2013) [-]
I had allreadyy claimed my glacier. I live in Wasilla
#64 to #53 - jtwagner
Reply 0
(04/29/2013) [-]
Interesting fact, Alaska is a water neutral state. For as much water as humans **** up, in alaska it's replenished in full by rain/snowfall.
#126 to #51 - turbodoosh
Reply +1
(04/29/2013) [-]
#61 to #51 - Katzie
Reply +1
(04/29/2013) [-]
Implying all science is ruined by an EMP
#88 to #61 - sirbutterballs
-1
has deleted their comment [-]
#77 to #61 - sidekickman
Reply -2
(04/29/2013) [-]
no science is ruined by emp. advanced circuitry is. unless our water purifier is super basic or doesn't involve circuits, it would survive. just know that any car that isn't like, fifty years old probably gets fried in an emp.
#96 to #77 - winglit ONLINE
Reply +1
(04/29/2013) [-]
there's ways of EMP proofing electronics you know? expensive and largely unnecessary but possible
#103 to #96 - sidekickman
Reply -1
(04/29/2013) [-]
how about you look up the percentage of emp-proofed items to regular items available in the market.
#106 to #103 - winglit ONLINE
Reply +1
(04/29/2013) [-]
I said It was expensive and largely unnecessary! I didnt say my ******* toaster was EMP proof why the hate bud?
#108 to #106 - sidekickman
Reply -1
(04/29/2013) [-]
just saying, didn't intend to come off hostile. the only cheap way of emp-proofing an item is the faraday cage, but the item inside must not be plugged in, at least that's all im aware of. nothing is really completely EMP proof, since it just charges things with a high voltage that fries things that require less voltage.
#157 to #108 - Katzie
Reply 0
(04/30/2013) [-]
We are kinda talking about the future, and if it was our only source of drinkable water I think we'd take steps to make it as infallible as humanly possible.
#134 to #108 - whymewhy
Reply -1
(04/29/2013) [-]
you didn't seem hostile to me, he just is overly sensitive and looking for a fight/argument.
#156 to #134 - sidekickman
0
has deleted their comment [-]
#87 to #77 - sirbutterballs
-1
has deleted their comment [-]
#138 to #87 - whymewhy
Reply 0
(04/29/2013) [-]
please tell me you are trolling and really know who makes the charger. i don't know much about cars even i know dodge makes the charger.
#154 to #138 - sirbutterballs
Reply 0
(04/29/2013) [-]
Not really trolling. My brain said it was right while I was typing and when I looked at it again I knew I ****** up.
#62 - Katzie
Reply +7
(04/29/2013) [-]
Is there some big joke I'm missing today where everyone comes on and posts either things that aren't funny or the most tasteless things possible? Or is this ******* facebook now?
#76 to #62 - sidekickman
Reply 0
(04/29/2013) [-]
It's Tumblrfeed now.
#132 to #62 - whymewhy
Reply +1
(04/29/2013) [-]
what do you mean today... everyday is full of unfunny **** on here now.
#115 - stevencolbert
Reply +6
(04/29/2013) [-]
LLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLIIIIIIIIIIIIIBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBEEEEEEEEEEEERRRRRRRRRRRRRRRAAAAAAA AAALLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
LLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLIIIIIIIIIIIIIBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBEEEEEEEEEEEERRRRRRRRRRRRRRRAAAAAAA AAALLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
#71 - darthblam ONLINE
Reply +5
(04/29/2013) [-]
How the **** does this **** make it to the front page?
#104 - ishotthedeputy
Reply +4
(04/29/2013) [-]
Found the liberal
#109 to #104 - Schwarzenegger
Reply -2
(04/29/2013) [-]
#144 to #104 - ludislavonac
Reply -2
(04/29/2013) [-]
Americans and your stupid complaining about liberals, you're annoying
Americans and your stupid complaining about liberals, you're annoying
#129 to #104 - rhiaanor
Reply -1
(04/29/2013) [-]
because being for equality is a bad thing, and has to do with plants
#117 to #104 - anon
Reply 0
(04/29/2013) [-]
How is valuing the environment and wanting clean water a political thing?
#122 to #117 - heroicvenom
Reply +4
(04/29/2013) [-]
2 reasons
1. liberals are away going on about the environment
2. **** you, thats why
#123 to #122 - heroicvenom
Reply +1
(04/29/2013) [-]
*always
#97 - xxELITExx
Reply +4
(04/29/2013) [-]
my water is filtered by the city's water treatment plant.
#58 - foelkera ONLINE
Reply +1
(04/29/2013) [-]
I don't get it
#60 to #58 - anon
Reply 0
(04/29/2013) [-]
The less plant life = the dirtier the water
#63 to #60 - razerblazer
Reply +3
(04/29/2013) [-]
( he drinks his own piss)
#93 to #60 - Uranium
Reply -1
(04/29/2013) [-]
You didn't get it either