Interesting thought...but am i an addict, or is this a state i should be experiencing regularly? (IE: being active?)

In my youth, i was prone to mood swings, and more extreme emotional states..people now often comment on how level-headed i am...maybe it's because i wasn't burning the calories and being as active as i should have been.

In a way i can totally relate to this - i'm a fairly high-level bike racer, and if i don't ride for 2-3 days, i find i start to get moody and restless, and it's *always* cured by getting out and getting my heart going a bit. Even a walk will make the difference. I wasn't active as a kid, only really started in my 20's, but ever since i started, i need to keep active to keep in a good headspace...and i know of several other riders who say the same thing. Their partners actually tell them to get out and ride because they get in a state when they're inactive. Maybe in a way other species are responding to some kind of natural need to keep active....?

It seems the down-mod still has some use, but the up-mod is preferred...how about if it just 'cost more' to mod-down posts?

I have to assume you were trying to make a joke, apologies for missing whatever reference you were making...

There were major cities 23,000 years ago?

As a driver, would you be happier sitting behind the 30 cyclists lined up at a busy stop sign, waiting for each one to alternate with the traffic the other way? Or would you rather the 30 move through the stop sign as 'one vehicle' as they normally do (for efficiency)? Don't forget, a car and a cyclist should each take a turn to pass the stop sign; technically a car AND cyclist travelling/crossing the same direction is illegal as well and should be one-at-a-time, and should be single-file when arriving at the stop sign.

Um..ships *are* traveling along it - hate to link to Wikipedia, but: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northwest_Passage#Effects_of_climate_change

You're correct that it isn't being used much, but it's because it's not really all that efficient and ice is the least of their concerns: http://www.edmontonjournal.com/business/Northwest+Passage+shipping+potential+cooled+transport+minister/9659331/story.html

I wish there was a mod point for 'Didn't Google Own Claims Before Posting'. I'm trying to believe this isn't flamebait, but it's sad to me that so many claims are made here that come from zero research and easily disproved with a simple search... Oh, and the ice isn't contained solely around the 'North Pole'...ugh..

Look up emerging dietary trends in minority countries like China...many countries that traditionally ate little meat are on the increase, and some of them have a much larger population than the US.

Hmmm..i'm a bike racer, don't eat any animal products and don't shop at Walgreens..there are plenty of others at a high level (David Zabriskie as an example was for a year, not sure if he still is since retiring). Where do you think cows get the iron, zinc and fat-soluble vitamins that's in their flesh? Same place i do: in the plants we eat.

You're conveniently ignoring that this is a global mean temperature increase, and that some areas will get significantly warmer (and others significantly colder, esp in the winter). One such area are the polar ice caps,which are getting a lot warmer, and we're seeing lot more melting. It might not matter for many major cities that it's 1-3 degrees warmer, because they will be submerged in the ocean. There's a lot more to consider than 'it will be one degree warmer'. If it were as simple as it being one degree warmer evenly around the world, most would probably have no concern. The problem is this isn't the case, and things are changing dramatically in many areas.

Good points. Let's take a look at South America instead: i had trouble getting a comprehensive number, but there appears to be over 300 million cattle there...almost 200 million in Brazil alone. How much forest has been replaced with graze land(and how many big grazers were there before)? And there are well over a billion cattle worldwide. It's pretty staggering and way out of proportion for the planet.

And almost as staggering are the people who keep modding down any post highlighting the facts of the matter...i thought the guideline on /. was to 'mod up' rather than down?

Well-said, one day we won't have to say this over and over...

*ANY* kind of soy that is actually edible is also heavily processed.

Never heard of edemame? You're literally eating soy beans out of the pod. Are you saying it's not edible, or that it's highly processed? Tempeh is the beans mashed together (most not even breaking open), with bacterial culture added...is that heavily processed? Tofu is literally boiled and mashed soy beans (aka soy milk), but with the solids filtered out, and a coagulant like calcium chloride added...i would define those all as 'minimally processed'.

Glad you had success reducing calories to lose weight, but i'm confused - you say the article is bullshit, but aren't you regurgitating the message in your final paragraph by saying that protein is needed to balance out what we're eating? And that link is dreadful. Simply put: our bodies produce all the cholesterol we need. Yes, there is a lot of bad 'vegetarian' info out there, yes...but what's worse is the bad 'eat meat' info.

70-90% of all soy, corn and wheat grown in the US is fed to livestock...and the return on that (in calories or protein) is a fraction of what goes into it...not to mention the energy used to grow the food, then raise livestock. A few cows in a large field may 'be efficient', if they're eating mainly grass....but that's not how 99% of the livestock in the US is raise. And imagine if it were: the majority of land is already used for this kind of agriculture. It would require cutting down the rest of our forests to create enough grazing land. Again, just look at that graph. It's indicative of how much space they require...and they're already 'compacted' in factory farms. If you want to see cattle grazing freely, visit India...

And that's not how much water goes into making milk. It's definitely not 1:1. Here's an informative article: http://sciblogs.co.nz/waiology/2012/05/24/how-much-water-does-it-take-to-produce-one-litre-of-milk/. Usually closer to 1000L of water per 1L of milk. Would love to see where you got that 40:20 statistic. And to respond to another comment: dairy cattle do get eaten, that's most of the hamburger you see. But they're just using it up, it's not considered very good grade.

Compare the amount of livestock to the rest of the wild mammals on the planet, it's quite staggering, and i doubt many would expect the numbers to look like this:

http://xkcd.com/1338/