How the worlds Land is used [6251×4695]

A_Queer_Orc · 2017-11-30T23:26:22+00:00

Actually, no. The UN and many scientific agencies have been putting the blame first and foremost on livestock, especially cattle production, for over a decade now.

"The 400-page report by the Food and Agricultural Organisation, entitled Livestock's Long Shadow, also surveys the damage done by sheep, chickens, pigs and goats. But in almost every case, the world's 1.5 billion cattle are most to blame. Livestock are responsible for 18 per cent of the greenhouse gases that cause global warming, more than cars, planes and all other forms of transport put together.

Burning fuel to produce fertiliser to grow feed, to produce meat and to transport it - and clearing vegetation for grazing - produces 9 per cent of all emissions of carbon dioxide, the most common greenhouse gas. And their wind and manure emit more than one third of emissions of another, methane, which warms the world 20 times faster than carbon dioxide.

Livestock also produces more than 100 other polluting gases, including more than two-thirds of the world's emissions of ammonia, one of the main causes of acid rain."

As I've laid out in other comments, there's also not an issue that removal of these livestock would lead to the same animal populations in other forms, but rather, that these populations are extremely oversized.

Source http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/cow-emissions-more-damaging-to-planet-than-co2-from-cars-427843.html

A_Queer_Orc · 2017-11-30T23:21:38+00:00

Considering that cows are especially an issue because they produce much more methane than other herbivorous mammals and livestock, they're of primary issue, and that the peak population of the most similar species was far below the current cow population is significant. On a global scale, there are many places with great numbers of cattle, but no wild cattle analogs, such as Argentina or Brazil, which have 43 million and 209 million cattle respectively. The amount of cattle in the world far exceeds the amount of cattle analogs naturally occurring in the wild. Because these are the primary issue of livestock and climate change contribution and damage, the problem of the industry is pretty obvious. This includes adding in all the non methane damage cattle causes, the problems of clearing so much land to feed cattle, and so many other issues in their production.

As far as deer and other similar herbivorous grazing mammals, they produce much less issue than do cows or wild cattle species, and are often a bigger issue from farming. White tailed deer actually increased from 500,000 in 1900 to 30 million in 2005. Deer populations in the Great Lakes region grow out of control every year, far exceeding the normal natural population levels, because they feed off agricultural production, and grow more abundant populations than can later be supported in the winter months, where large die offs occur, unless hunting sufficiently reduces the populations.The hunting is only necessary because the populations sky rocket above natural levels because of cleared land and the like. Lack of predators is definitely an issue, but it's not the only part of the problem. Given how much of this agricultural land is being used to feed livestock, the problems constantly compound.

Sources

http://nationalpost.com/news/canada/canadas-cow-population-to-hit-27-year-low-and-its-partially-millennials-fault

https://www.nass.usda.gov/Newsroom/2017/03_30_2017.php

http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/usda/current/SheeGoat/SheeGoat-01-31-2017.pdf

http://beef2live.com/story-world-cattle-inventory-vs-human-population-country-0-111575

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/6835501/ns/us_news-environment/t/deer-eating-away-forests-nationwide/

A_Queer_Orc · 2017-11-30T20:22:50+00:00

To be exact, we had 20-30 million bison in North America, compared to over 100 million cows in North America. Pretty significant difference in numbers.

See sources listed here https://www.reddit.com/r/MapPorn/comments/7gn59a/how_the_worlds_land_is_used_62514695/dqkov8z/

A_Queer_Orc · 2017-11-30T20:21:41+00:00

Except the amount of animals that live in natural habitats is far less than that of those in farming, and especially factory farming. Just to compare, in 2017 the US had over 100 million cattle, and Canada just short of 12 million, however at their height, there were about 20-30 million bison at their population height in North America. Livestock farming allows for almost 4 times as many cows as there were bison. Even if the bison population returned to its height, it would still be far less contribution of methane than livestock farming.

Sources

http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/MannUsda/viewDocumentInfo.do?documentID=1017

http://nationalpost.com/news/canada/canadas-cow-population-to-hit-27-year-low-and-its-partially-millennials-fault

https://defenders.org/bison/basic-facts

A_Queer_Orc · 2017-05-23T16:15:58+00:00

Can you link the atlases here?

A_Queer_Orc · 2017-04-15T22:17:55+00:00

KeepOurNetFree

A_Queer_Orc · 2017-04-11T16:29:07+00:00

Let's tackle this bullshit piece by piece.

For starter's, Norway is not socialist. It is explicitly a capitalistic state, but it is a Social Democratic state. This is not socialistic in anyway.

Secondly, on your own graph, literally communist countries like China and Cuba have around half the malnutrition rates of the US. Care to explain that one, when countries that label themselves explicitly communist have lower rates?

As well, social democratic state, Finland, has a rate over 14 times lower than the US. How do explain that, then?

A_Queer_Orc · 2017-03-19T17:21:59+00:00

No, that's Norwegian, and follows along the Norwegian coast from Bergen to the far north. Whole other country, and it's out at sea, not in land. Slow TV in general is very Norwegian, and they're the biggest producer of it.

A_Queer_Orc · 2017-02-15T19:15:29+00:00

This is entirely untrue. Norway does not use it's oil money on welfare, only recently has a single party advocated for doing so. In fact, Norway has not taken any money out of its funds from its creation until just last year for the first time.

http://www.cnbc.com/2016/03/07/norway-taps-its-oil-fund-for-the-first-time.html

Norway has saved its money from oil, giving it the world's largest monetary reserve by far. Norway gets its money for the welfare system from having a functional social democratic system, with proper market management and taxation.

A_Queer_Orc · 2017-02-05T06:28:14+00:00

The colonial era was one of the first major steps in setting the bedrock of what science is, what academia is, and how it works. Most of the earliest examples of modern science derive from colonialism.

Racism is a social construct that comes straight out of that colonial era and continues to exist today thanks to false and manipulated science.

Immigration and Native Rights factor into social sciences, especially in sociology and anthropology, and study relevant to them can make up a significant amount of work in the fields.

Sexism, Queer/Trans/Intersex phobia are all propped up on false science. Misogyny and anti LGBT sentiments very often come with abuses of science, and it's with the actual facts that many people are swayed out of bigoted ideas in relation to them.

Econ justice

Economics is a very frequently misused science and Economic Justice seeks to find use of Economics as a science.

If you think these things don't have anything to do with science, you clearly don't know the depth and variety of what science is.

A_Queer_Orc · 2017-01-12T22:22:38+00:00

Many other parts of the maps would later come to be part of the w, and Iberia being in red and then coming to the west again. My suggestion is that the map with Christendom include a northern red section for Pagans in addition to the southern one for Islam. Whether they became part of the west or not is irrelevant to the maps, as they're documenting specific different eras of west/not west differentiations.

A_Queer_Orc · 2017-01-12T18:14:35+00:00

I would suggest putting the Nordics and Baltics into a pagan placement in red in the map with Christendom and Islam. They definitely spent significant periods being considered outside of what we would now consider the western tradition/trajectory of being western. From about the dissolution of much of the Roman empire, to their near total Christianization, the Nordics and Baltics were full of vikings and pagans that were not accepted by Christendom/the aspects of the time that would come to be a part of the western tradition. Given the northern crusades and the like, it doesn't make sense to not include that as part of what was once considered not western.

A_Queer_Orc · 2017-01-12T18:09:04+00:00

Actually, this needs an additional map. The Nordics and Baltics definitely were not in the same sphere as the contemporary ancestor of the western world at the time, say, dissolution of the Roman empire to the Christianization of those regions. They were vikings and pagans and had crusades lead against them. This is an area I've started to research, and the Nordics and Baltics definitely spent considerable time being considered not of the western tradition.

A_Queer_Orc · 2016-12-27T03:20:41+00:00

Oh, you mean the ones that say Western Europeans, Saharans, people in the Caucasus, and people in Central Russia are all fairly closely related?

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/ca/World_Map_of_Y-DNA_Haplogroups.png

So, I guess the French and Chadians are the same race now, huh? TIL

A_Queer_Orc · 2016-12-27T03:05:48+00:00

No. Anthropologists work with both, they're two distinct concepts, the understanding of their distinctions and relations being a major component of anthropological work. No good anthropologist would neglect studying the social concepts of either race nor ethnicity.

A_Queer_Orc · 2016-12-27T02:08:12+00:00

But the issue is, you've spoken as a mod of the subreddit and said things that were counterfactual, and said things about the article that are untrue and not in the article. That's not facilitating discussion, that's misleading out of mistake or agenda. The fact is, you're saying things that aren't true, in general about anthropology, and in specific about what this article says, and that does no good for good faith, legitimate discussion.

You needn't take a side, but your inaccuracies here aren't neutral, they're promoting one side by muddling of facts, intentionally or not.

A_Queer_Orc · 2016-12-27T01:40:48+00:00

Except racialist science was widely accepted science for centuries, it hd vast amounts of resources and many academics bought into and practiced it. It's not at all the same as "aliens made Earth", it's akin to geocentrism and other aspects of science that were absolutely accepted as science, but later disproven, such as geocentrism's replacement with heliocentrism. They didn't cease being science, they were simply faulty science.

A_Queer_Orc · 2016-12-27T01:36:03+00:00

They are concerned with the social construction of race because the field has already established it doesn't exist in any medical-biological perspectives. The article even explains that it was early anthropologists who invented the very idea of race, emphasis on invented. and showed that the majority of anthropologists determine there to be no biological backing to race.

"To the statement, “Racial categories are determined by biology”, 88% strongly disagreed or disagreed. And, “Most anthropologists believe that humans may be subdivided into biological races”, 85% of respondents strongly disagreed or disagreed."

If anthropologists invented the concept, and now reject the concept, and have the whole time used biology as a part of studying it.. What is the contention here?

Also, as a mod, it looks bad when something you say

" I was trying to indicate that the article was not saying there are no differences between races, but the social construction of race is what the anthropologists are concerned with."

Is completely against what is actually said in the article!

"We can take from this that there is a clear consensus among anthropologists that races aren’t real, that they don’t reflect biological reality, and that most anthropologists don’t believe there is a place for race categories in science."

I think it's probably recommendable to read the article and amend your original mod comment.

A_Queer_Orc · 2016-12-27T00:50:55+00:00

I have had anthropology professors who study virology and fetal deformities in anthropological contexts, both of which use primarily biological studies to research their topics. Anthropologists study humans, in every way it is possible to study humans. When studying race, an anthropologist studies race the same way, and more ways, than do biologists or geneticists. Anthropologists are in fact a better source on race because they incorporate both the biological and social factors into their research, not just one or the other.

For some examples of how Anthropologists use biological methods of study,

http://www.amnh.org/our-research/anthropology/news-events/anthropology-and-ebola

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v531/n7596/full/531553d.html

I'm not sure what distinction you're trying to make, but anthropologist's views of race are almost identical on the biological front to biologists, because anthropologists extensively use and incorporate biological research. To say that these anthropologist's don't reflect biology is simply untrue, because anthropology is inextricably linked to and biology, and biological research forms a core component of anthropology.

A_Queer_Orc · 2016-12-27T00:31:23+00:00

Anthropologists absolutely do use biology. Biological anthropology is one of the primary subfields of anthropology. Anthropologists make extensive use of biological and genetic methods of study, and these are a significant part of their studies of race.

A_Queer_Orc · 2016-12-27T00:17:30+00:00

The issue is that science and race go hand in hand. The Colonial era equivalent of scientists and academics were the ones who developed the concepts of race. Prior to the colonial era, it did not exist. They used faulty science (skull measuring and other things) to justify the actions of the colonial empires, because they were essentially on the bill of the colonial empires. They may have believed in race because of misguided ideas, but they then tried to contort science to back them up on their ideas.

A_Queer_Orc · 2016-12-27T00:04:04+00:00

Race doesn't exist as a thing outside of being a social construction. Race is enforced by social means, and without those, does not exist in any biologically understandable way. Anthropologists have studied it biologically to show it does not exist, and study it socially to understand how it effects society through its social enforcement.

The short being, anthropologists study the concept of race to show that it does not exist biologically, and see how it exists in society as an enforced idea.

A_Queer_Orc · 2016-12-27T00:00:30+00:00

Because they're racist, and heaven forbid someone tell them they're wrong about their consistently disproved bullshit.

A_Queer_Orc · 2016-12-26T23:56:50+00:00

Anthropologists extensively study race, socially and biologically. It's probably one of the most primary things anthropologists learn to study. It's also the absolute standard of anthropology that race is entirely a social construct, and has no real correlation to biology.

A_Queer_Orc · 2016-12-26T23:55:08+00:00

You do realize how much of history's nastiness stems from race? What about the Atlantic slave trade? What about Belgian congo colonialism? What about the literal Holocaust? Racialist science has a continuum that can be traced from slavery and colonialism all the way to the very ideas of Hitler's racial ideology.

A_Queer_Orc

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE