« Fish Flatulence! | October | What does gold taste like? » « George W. Bush by the ... | Recommendations | Super Size Me »

Comments

Dad • 10/08/04 • 7:14 PM:

The footprint site is a good one. Most Americans have a very large footprint indeed. We know this by the oft quoted statistic that we’re 6% of the population but we consume 25-40% of the resources, but this site focuses the issue a little better. It also tells you what you can do about it.

I looked into the FAQs and found an EXCEL spreadsheet for calculating the footprint factors. They also have a lot of other information, so their methods are open to criticism by those who may think differently. This is the kind of approach I like, because it implies they are only interested in accurately presenting the facts rather than hyping a viewpoint.

Patrick • 10/09/04 • 12:50 PM:

My footprint is 19, compared to 24 average for people in my country. Still, we’d need 4.3 planets if everyone lived like I do. I tried to figure out my Uruguayan footprint, but they don’t list Uruguay. So I tried Argentina and entered my information for when we lived in Uruguay. I got a 3.9, compared to an average 3 for my area (or for Argentina). We’d still need 2.2 planets for everyone to live like me. But the evidence is clear: I should move back to Uruguay and live like we did there.

Dad • 10/09/04 • 6:38 PM:

Largely because you kids moved out on me, I needed about 9 planets the first time. I did it again with more “reasonable” assumptions and still needed over 7 planets (33 acres). If I include 6 people in my household, I reduce my footprint to 20. Maybe if 20 people moved in, we’d get down to single digits.

I thought the program said there were 4.5 biologically productive acres per person in the world. So how come you still needed 2.2 planets if you only used 3.9 acres?? I think we need to dig in a little deeper to find out what assumptions the program makes.

Patrick • 10/09/04 • 10:25 PM:

Yeah, I thought the way we lived in Uruguay was pretty reasonable. I either rode my bike, walked, or took the bus (if I had to go far). Our food came almost entirely from within Uruguay from local farmers (except bananas I guess). Our house was a reasonable size (I’d guess about 1000 sq. ft.). I mean, to do less would be to live in poverty pretty much. Ah, one problem was probably that we ate a lot of meat. But that, too, was local.

Dad • 10/09/04 • 10:51 PM:

I just did a rough calculation and got about 5 acres of land per each person on earth. I don’t know how much of it is arable (you can’t farm the Himalayas) but it’s close the the number they quote in the footprint calc. Basically, your family in Uruguay (assume you used only 4 at that time) could have had a 16 acre farm to live on. I think that could have worked, once you got the hang of agriculture and animal husbandry.

AJ • 10/11/04 • 2:19 PM:

I’m sure the assumptions are crazy. That quiz was short. No engineer would consider those assumptions to be anywhere near “accurate.”

I think most peoples score would be high because they probably eat too many processed foods and grains. It takes way more space and resources to grow food than to eat animals. One more reason why eating meat is more natural for humans. Animals can sustain themselves on grass, etc., while we need special crops that only grow certain times of the year, and need to eat a lot of them. Plus all those sugars give you diabetes. Anyway, after people can finally admit that low-fat was the biggest dietary myth ever, (fat doesn’t make you fat) there’s no reason to eat so many bowls of cheerios and have no energy all day.

ps:I can’t believe “doesn’t” isn’t in the maddenation spell check dictionary. Oh, wait it thinks all contractions are wrong. I guess that’s OK.

Patrick • 10/11/04 • 5:35 PM:

All contractions are “misspelled” because the spell checker doesn’t understand apostrophes. It was a free bit of software to plug in to the blog, and though I wish it understood apostrophes, I guess we can’t have it all.

As for animals: you could also argue that it requires a lot of viable food to fatten up an animal to where it’s viable food itself. Not wild-ranging cattle eating grasses, but chicken eating corn and stuff… The solution, it would seem, is for everyone to become a vegetarian, and then kill off all the other animals on the earth, so they’re not eating our food.

David • 10/12/04 • 12:20 PM:

Actually AJ, as Pat said - TONS of viable food is needed to support the meat that we consume. It is, in my opinion, the best (maybe only) reason to become a vegetarian (possible weird medical reasons aside). There are good stats out there that talk about how we could easily feed the world with the food we produce, where it not for the fact that so much of it goes to feeding livestock (and now aquaculture too). It’s a simple matter of ecological trophic levels. Big animals require more food from smaller animals/plants (that contain fewer calories - and only ~10% of any organism’s energy is transferred to the thing consuming it anyway).

And I’m pretty sure that farming plants takes up less room that raising animals and has less environmental impact (whatever that is).

My footprint was a 13 - lowered by the fact that I always ride my bike instead of driving my car. Plus, I often use a solar powered calculator.

You are all right that the survey could certainly be more accurate. I don’t think the point is to be exact, but rather give us broad ideas - so to me it’s okay.

Dan • 10/12/04 • 7:11 PM:

Dave, how did you get a 13? Are you a vegetarian? We’ll pretend that you are for my experiment. Is most of your food locally grown? Judging by your receipts at Costco, I’d say no, but you get the benefit of the doubt. Do you produce much less waste than others around Chicago? Judging by the fact that you eat about twice as much food as I do (statistic is in dollars, not calorie intake or whatever), I’d say you go for at least “the same”, but we’ll give you “much less”. I’ll give you a 1500ft^2 home (it’s way bigger). I’ll say you save energy, which you are good at doing. I’ll say that you never go anywhere without riding your bike/animal there (and forget that you own a car), and you never fly. That gives you a 13.

Me? I get a 19. I still get a 19 even if I only bike places. The best I could do for myself is a 16. But if I do a square footage decrease (>500sqft) I get an 8. Whuh?

David • 10/12/04 • 10:33 PM:

I got a 13 by plugging in what I thought was right. That’s how - highly complex. As for the house - I don’t remember what I put. But I doubt that mine is 1.5 times bigger than Pat’s house. Do you?

And why are you so alarmist and confrontational? What’s all the fuss? If it makes you feel better, my actual footprint is still bigger than yours (and the same as Dad’s and Pat’s). As for the 2x $ on food - that extra dough ALL goes to supporting local growers. I thought I told you that already? Not to mention - when I DO drive, I put my car in neutral at stop lights, which lowers me by one point.

The reason you get a 19 is because last year you left your room light on a bunch of times when you weren’t even in there.

Last thing - your studio is probably about 35 square feet or so.

Patrick • 10/13/04 • 3:43 PM:

Dave, that was for my house in Uruguay. My house here is a little over 3,000 sq. ft. You visited my house in Uruguay, so maybe you can judge by that, but I’m not so sure about its size anyway. I was guessing.

AJ • 10/14/04 • 7:26 PM:

It seems you guys believe the American Heart Association is giving you good advice. Well, if we increase the amounts of carbohydrates (wheat, fruits, and grains - all aka sugars) and reduce red meats and saturated fats, you end up with wildly fluctuating blood sugar levels. If you’re really lucky you don’t end up with diabetes.

Think about the typical diet of an American in this era of epidemic diabetes. Now think about what you eat and how you feel after (You might have to experiment and write it all down). I know that if I have some (3-4) eggs and maybe some cheese with some OJ I feel good all day(at least until lunch). I also know that if I have 2-3 bowls of cereal and toast and OJ I get tired easily at work (energy level rises than drops) and I’m hungry all the time. But that bowl of Total is supposed to be great for me? I wonder why so many people need to drink coffee to stay awake at certain times of everyday at work?

Check out this article the naive vegetarian . Yeah, Dan the website is ugly, but there are a bunch of other good interesting articles and links on the site.

By the way, this sort of higher fat lower sugar diet seems to be advocated by most high level athletic trainers that I’ve ever talked to, and their jobs are to make humans perform at their peak physical abilities. Check out anything by Paul Chek . According to him there are “metabolic types.” I think it’s rare to find someone who is a carbohydrate type, but I haven’t read his book yet.

Also, for years many body builders have used high fat diets to cut fat before competitions.

So, in MY OPINION, I think FAT is one of the best things you can eat. Please find some studies that prove this isn’t, because I can’t. I do, however, see advice all over the place to eat “low fat.” Most dietitians today will admit the “low fat” fad was the biggest myth ever. (possibly propagated by the huge wheat industry?)

I realize humans are omnivores. The human body is amazing and can adapt to all sorts of hardships, but not for long term peak performance. So, if you’re OK with the absolute minimum, then remember 14 pieces of flare is the minimum at Chachkis. “We’re not in Kansas anymore.”

Then again, becoming all vegetarians and killing all the other animals that eat our food sounds pretty cool too. Especially because we probably wouldn’t kill penguins and it’s really funny to watch them try to walk.

Dad • 10/15/04 • 10:01 AM:

The idea of the footprint site is to promote an awareness of the unequal distribution of resources in the world (or the decidedly unsustainable lifestyles that affluent Americans have gotten used to). The question of overall health is a different subject, although most experts agree that we eat too much processed food and red meat.

The fact that using cereal grains for food is more efficient than eating meat is unassailable. Also, if we become thinner (I speak more of myself than you young’uns) in the process, that is also to the good. So I see nothing wrong with chiding us “high on the hog” people for becoming too much like hogs ourselves (you are what you eat?).

I am not a vegetarian, nor to I contemplate becoming one. Also, I have many friends who have adopted Atkins/South Beach types of diets and are doing well on them. These diets eschew (no pun intended) carbohydrates in favor of proteins and fat. I’m still convinced of the power of a well balanced diet and regular exercise. However, I still eat too much and live in a house that’s too big, and lug a two-ton vehicle around town with me when I do my shopping for products that are shipped hundreds, if not thousands, of miles to cater to my needs.

Patrick • 10/15/04 • 10:51 PM:

I am wary of anything that becomes a fad, and the Atkins diet is the biggest fad I’ve seen in a long time. They’ve got low-carb ORANGE JUICE for cryin’ out loud! I think this points to the very problem the footprints site is trying to make: that here we can be concerned with “peak performance,” while other places, people are simply concerned with “not dying.” A more sensible, equitable, what-have-you distribution of food, more sensible planning, would improve the lives of millions while only minimally worsening the lives of us rich folks. Theoretically. I doubt you can ever convince more than a handful of people to sacrifice their own stuff (while they’re surrounded by others who are not sacrificing one lick) for the good of strangers. Evidence of this is that fact that so many of those who do “sacrifice” by becoming vegetarians and such gloat in it and use it as a club. They get their sense of superiority to make up for whatever “sacrifice” they’re making. And if it didn’t, in their minds, make them “better” than everyone else, what would be their motivation?

Apologies to people like John the Baptist who ate locusts and wild honey without feeling morally superior to everyone else. No, wait a minute! He did bash the Pharisees a lot!

David • 10/16/04 • 5:01 PM:

Atkins sure is a giant fad - and although it seems to work well early on, and sometimes for the first six months - studies show it isn’t effective for longer periods. Not to mention your body NEEDS carbohydrates in order to exercise properly - so an Atkins lifestyle is not conducive to exercise. (Did I ever send you that Dave Barry article on the subject? It’s hilarious)

Discover magazine from two months ago (the one with the human head/brain on the cover) had an awesome article about Eskimo diets. They almost never eat a vegetable or fruit, get 50% of their calories from fat, and have 1/2 the incidence of heart disease as Americans. It points out that there are no essential foods, only essential nutrients. [if you would like me to email you this article, just ask - it’s very good]. One major point that they make, and I don’t think AJ mentioned -saturated fat is very bad. Turns out the animal fat (normally high in saturated fats) that Eskimos eat is very high in unsaturated fats. Also, trans fats are horrible for you.

And AJ, there are scientifically backed diets that are super-low in fat - like the Ornish diet, commonly used by people recovering from heart attacks/disease. Again, if you’re interested, I can send articles on this and other stuff to you if you want (from Harvard’s Medical Journal and from Scientific American).

Lastly, AJ, as far as carbohydrates go - just like fats, some are good some are not as good. “Wheat, fruit, grains” do not equal sugar. What’s important is the time and energy needed to digest the carbs, and how quickly their energy gets into your blood and then your cells. One must take into account the glycemic index of the food and the glycemic load. When I get to school on Monday I will try to put in a bunch of links for y’all to check out (I teach a unit on all this stuff - which is why I have a bunch of info on it).

Oh yeah - good points Dad and Pat on the purpose of the footprint. Very true. And nice “Office Space” reference AJ.

Dad • 10/17/04 • 4:18 PM:

This article on our “National Eating disorder” is interesting. It suggests that our whole attitude about food, that it’s primarily about health and “poisons,” is probably not good for us. In other countries, eating is a pleasurable experience driven primarily by taste. In the US, eating is something to be controlled, carefully considered for health effects, a necessary evil that will kill us if we’re not careful. Meanwhile, we have the “omnivore’s dilemma;” what shall we eat given the millions of choices available?

Relax, America. Consider the French. they’re pretty stupid. They live to eat, and yet have fewer heart attacks than we do.

Post a comment