PETA’s Sea Kitten Campaign Gets Pranked With Steak Ad
Some clever techies confused PETA supporters today by pulling a well-executed prank against their campaign to “re-brand” fish as sea kittens.
For at least a couple hours today, the internet was abuzz with the fact that www.SeaKittens.com had an Omaha Steaks ad smack-dab at the top of the page. But PETA can’t really be that careless, right?
>> You Digg? Check out our other upcoming posts
>> Sea Also: Michael Vick Scores 73.5% on PETA’s Animal Empathy Test
Turns out that the page is a line-by-line duplicate of PETA’s actual sea kittens campaign site, but it’s not owned by PETA at all. According to Alley Insider, PETA has confirmed that the site is a parody and that they are not running any steak ads.
All jokes aside, giving up meat is one of the best ways you can help stop the advancement of global warming and air and water pollution.
More information about the environmental impact of meat:
- UN’s Top Climate Scientist Urges People to Combat Climate Change by Eating Less Meat
- German Government Advisory: Eat Meat Only on Special Ocassions
- The Hidden Giant #1: “Food” — Vegetarianism
- Meat is murder on the environment
- How poultry producers are ravaging the rural South
It kinda looks like the grey cat is eating the yellow fish
“Actually, YOU are clueless. Yes you need this technology to raise the crops. But when you raise animals you have to raise crops to feed them many times. So multiply the “irrgate the crops and the runoff that results” by the number of times the cows need to eat and you’ll see how much worse meat is for the environment.”
I’m sure your community college degree will take you far into the agriculture profession of shoveling up shit.
Now just to clarify, I am a meat eater myself and have no intention of ever giving it up, but…
You are all IGNORANT if you really think that our consumption of meat has nothing to do with global warming.
Mark said, “If everyone today turned into a vegetarian many thousands of hectares of forest would need to be cut down to make room for all the crops.” This is COMPLETELY false. Each grass-fed cow requires 3 to 100 acres of grazing land per year for 1250lb of meat. 1250lb of corn can be grown in 1/20th of an acre.
Dave said, “If I gave up meat that means there would be more cows releasing methane into the air, which is a major cause of air pollution.” Are you really that much of an idiot? If a substantial number of people gave up meat, such that there were a considerable impact on demand, farmers would stop breeding so many cattle. This is not an argument.
Again, there are plenty of other sacrifices I will make in the interest of combating climate change before I give up meat, but I can’t stand reading so much idiocy
Lots of people seem to take issue with the sentence, “All jokes aside, giving up meat is one of the best ways you can help stop the advancement of global warming and air and water pollution.”
I won’t bother arguing directly on global warming, but here are two simple facts: Farming cattle indisputably produces a lot of methane. In addition, forests are often cut cut down to make room for the cattle.
What wasn’t mentioned is that raising meat for food is very inefficient. The amount of corn, soy, etc that one can grow on an acre of land is vastly more than one can obtain from animals (which are fed on crops that we could simply eat ourselves). If you want to eat meat, but don’t like to be so wasteful, I suggest chicken and small game like rabbit. Acre for acre, those animals produce far more food than cattle.
For any interested I recommend you read “Livestock’s Long Shadow”, a report given by the UN’s Food and Agriculture Organization. The link to it is here: http://www.fao.org/docrep/010/a0701e/a0701e00.HTM
It’s an assessment of the significant impact the livestock industry has on the environment. The report was distributed in late 2007 and is a good read for anyone interested on the subject.
Most soy foods are highly processed and require a lot of energy to produce.
If you compare a veggie burger made of TVP to a grass-fed beef burger, the grass-fed beef burger requires a LOT less energy to produce.
Look at these 2 scenarios:
1. Beef burger: Animal (cow or bison) eats grass (and some hay and water). Animal is slaughtered. Cook and eat.
2. Veggie burger: Soy is grown on crops (requiring water and chemical fertilizers — or manure). The crops are sprayed with the fertilizers (either manure or chemical) using tractors or planes — which requires petroleum. Once the soy is harvested, the soybean oil is extracted in a factory. Then the soy flour is pressure-cooked. Then it is extruded in huge extruders, then dried. This is all done in a factory, folks, requiring a great deal of energy.
A lot of the soy being grown is responsible for the destruction of rainforests. Not to mention that a lot of the soy and corn crops are genetically modified.
Cows on pasture do not increase methane gas. It is feed lot cows that are responsible for the methane.
I buy grass-fed meats from local farmers who raise the animals sustainably on pasture.
“All jokes aside, giving up meat is one of the best ways you can help stop the advancement of global warming and air and water pollution.”
Hilarious - almost as funny and stupid as the superbowl commercial. Propaganda? hmm, I think so.
Do you even know what seakittens taste like? DO YA?! They taste just like dog food. Delicious!
Wouldn’t killing all animals except humans be the best for the environment? Grow meat in the lab to eat.
Trees are useful, animals are not.
Let’s work together towards an animal and pollution free planet.
And for those of you who would remind me that we humans are animals… when the technological singularity happens we’re all going to be machine anyways.
Wow the ending killed it for me. I’m never going to stop eating meat now. Yummmmmmmmm.
Meat was one of the things that help humans evolve into what we are today, intelligence wise. We needed that protein for our brains to grow larger.
Sea kittens?
Delicious with butter and lemon.