Wobbler
New Member
It's natural selection innit? The meat eaters will die so the vegetarians will inherit the world.So, in summation, if you eat meat you're a big meanie an you will die of cancer
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
It's natural selection innit? The meat eaters will die so the vegetarians will inherit the world.So, in summation, if you eat meat you're a big meanie an you will die of cancer
It's natural selection innit? The meat eaters will die so the vegetarians will inherit the world.
I'll take the cancer.
I dunno about that.
I got an (incorrect) cancer diagnosis at one point. It wasn't very nice.
I'd go so far as to say it was fairly unsettling.
My feeling now is cancer can fuck off at any and all points in my life.
You can get old, without dementia, and you can a quick death. My Grandad was mid eighties, and was basically grand until he croaked it. All of his sisters are still bating around the place, ancient, totally healthy and razor sharp.
I know they're all just going to keel over one day, no drama. I'll take that exit strategy.
Perhaps you're right but I'm not sure what you're basing it on. Pete posted the BBC article and that was one (perfectly plausible) inferrence from the data. But they didn't know. How do you know?
I'll certainly read the book since it's an area I'm interested in.I don't...Pete's BBC article seems to be concerned w cancer initiating, not flourishing...i've no fevered, zealot theories on what gives you cancer.
The China Study
goto the end of page 59 'NOT ALL PROTEINS ARE ALIKE' and read on.
i believe the book has a vegan bias but they did give two test groups of rats some same sort of cancer, fed one group on an animal protein(AP) and the other on a plant protein(PP) and the results were a big increase in tumour growths in the AP groupand none in the PP group.
Maybe there should be means tested exterminations. Is that what you're advocating?
I'd argue that what we need is a fundamental rethink of
-How much meat we consume
-How animals are reared
Cutting meat out entirely doesn't strike me as a good idea (unless you buy into the notion that it's morally wrong to eat meat). The fact is that cows, pigs and sheep don't make good pets. If we stop rearing them, in order to save the planet, what will happen to them?
Well...yeah. But they're here now. Do we kill 'em, let them die naturally or what, once we stop eating meat?
Not trying to be smart, I'm interested in your insight.
Attempting to limit peoples' meat consumption is just not politically possible, I would say, without dictatorship, war or some other disaster that directly affects the status quo.
I didn't say "not possible", I said "not politically possible". What government is going to limit rising wealth or industrialisation of food production?consumption patterns change all the time. they can be dictated directly by the market or facilitated by government intervention.
we eat much more meat than we ever did before. this is as a direct response to a number of factors e.g. rising wealth, industrialisation of food production, use of chemical inputs such as hormones and growth promoters, EU subsidies etc.
so it isn't beyond the realms of imagination that consumption patterns can change again. there is tons of policy/research work in this area and i can bore you out of it with links
I didn't say "not possible", I said "not politically possible". What government is going to limit rising wealth or industrialisation of food production?
I didn't say "not possible", I said "not politically possible". What government is going to limit rising wealth or industrialisation of food production?
One of your factors for increased meat consumption was "rising wealth", so if a government wanted to decrease meat production they could try and limit people's wealth, no? I'm being deliberately simplistic here, just trying to illustrate that certain things we might in theory do to mitigate climate are not politically possible.limiting wealth hasn't much to do with it.
That's technology they're investing in, which is politically ok. What a country with a big meat industry like Ireland or the US can't do (or at least can't do seriously enough to have an impact) is this kind of thing:lots of governments are taking soft approaches to this. e.g. the UK government is developing product roadmaps aimed at reducing impacts of certain products including food
sweden recently launched a guidance on low carbon diets and specifically suggest cutting down meat
Or increase the cost of meat. If farming practices improved dramitically, prices would rise, environmental impact of production per kilo would fall as would consumption.One of your factors for increased meat consumption was "rising wealth", so if a government wanted to decrease meat production they could try and limit people's wealth, no?
That's technology they're investing in, which is politically ok. What a country with a big meat industry like Ireland or the US can't do (or at least can't do seriously enough to have an impact) is this kind of thing:
" sweden recently launched a guidance on low carbon diets and specifically suggest cutting down meat "
... because the meat industry is just too important to the economy.
That's what I would have thought anyway. Am I wrong?
That's what I would have thought anyway. Am I wrong?
Actually, what I really meant here was - the meat industry is politically too strong. And I don't mean just the "meat lobby", I mean everyone who depends on it for a living, from vets to livestock farmers to feedstuff producers to butchers to guys on the killing line. Producing meat is very much integrated into the fabric of Irish rural life, and I think giving some extra incentives to farmers to grow soybeans isn't really going to have all that much of an effect.... because the meat industry is just too important to the economy
What if there was an economic incentive to grow less but better and more expensive meat?I think giving some extra incentives to farmers to grow soybeans isn't really going to have all that much of an effect.
I think giving some extra incentives to farmers to grow soybeans isn't really going to have all that much of an effect.
I could be wrong, of course.
Upgrade your account now to disable all ads...
Upgrade nowWe use essential cookies to make this site work, and optional cookies to enhance your experience.