Abandon4093 said:
Sorry about how late this is, had a lot of shit to do at Uni this week.
No worries, in the middle of exams myself, no time for anything.
I dunno, if you really look into it. Livestock rearing and farming in general is constantly changing, legislation is changing faster than farmers can keep up as is. Making it faster wouldn't really be feasible.
Maybe streamlining the changes would be a good idea.
Well that's it then, bigger changes but fewer of them. Keeps the rate of change the same but doesn't leave everyone confused with where things stand.
Good point, but I just don't see the non-meat eating portion of the population having had an effect on the meat industry simply because of how small it is. And the percentage of the population that doesn't use ANY animal products is even smaller still.
5-10% isn't exactly SMALL, not in my mind anyway. It'd enough for a revolt to get rolling, so why not a revolution to an industry? Though that's true, but partly that's due to the difficulty in avoiding the products as they are everywhere.
You could say that if there was no war the world would be a happier place. There are lots of ideals that would make the planet a better place, but you can't compare these unrealistic ideals to our current projections. Any major change in something as global as the food and produce industry is going to take decades. In an ideal world it might not, but this is not an ideal world.
You can compare, just to keep things in perspective, though not to use them as an actual time scale... I stand by it though, we don't have decades. It currently takes about gallon of petrol to produce 1 lb of grainfed beef, and unless the balance shifts soon, there will be just as big a problem as suddenly changing now, as it simply won't be possible then.
I'd still argue that without supplements it's not a balanced diet. A balanced diet is just that, balanced. By it's nature veganism is unbalanced in that is cuts out a whole range of foodgroups.
It can be a healthy diet, but not balanced.
Well depends on your definition of food, apparently mine is different to another's in this thread so I'd have to check. It's completely possible to get everything you need from food, without the need to take tablets, powders or concoctions to supplement it. The only really area that vegans struggle with, is the need to have food fortified with B12, but other than that, everything is attainable in the amounts needed.
Lots of Vegans do.
And actually, wheat is much more the cause of obesity than meat produce. Wheat is one of the most widely consumed crops in the developed world, and it makes up a huge part of our convenience diet. It's astronomically high glycemic index. (Around 60-70 on average)
Not the ones I know, and I bet a good amount of those that would claim it would change their tune if given the exact conditions I stated before. Usually they don't get that indepth into a conversation before someone starts shouting "Lalala, I can't hear you" or how good Bacon is and they'd never be able to manage without it. Check out the overarching tone of this thread and tell me you don't understand the defensiveness, or the need to talk in generals and broad terms.
That's not how population dynamics work. The countries lower on the demographics scale have higher populations, the countries higher on the scale have lower populations, but suffer from other problems such as an ageing population because the birthrate is generally lower than the death rate.
When a country moves up the demographics scale it's population markedly decreases. With contraception becoming more readily available, healthcare getting better and the need for large families lessened. People have less children and the population decrease means that communicable disease outbreaks that have a large impact on heavily crowded slum like societies teeter out.
What I'm getting at is that the countries who are contributing to the rapid growth of the overall population are also constantly on the verge of uncontrollable pandemics, in fighting, and have incredibly high death rates.
This is why a global population count is pretty meaningless. In the west we have a relatively low birth rate in comparison to our death rate, and our issues such as an ageing population are completely different to say Africa's issues which is an astronomically high birth and death rate.
Talking about a global population count is completely meaningless.
It still holds weight, as even those people in countries lower on the demographic scale must eat and will cause some form of pollution. Not as much, and maybe I've been overstating the problem of total global population, but as it stands there are too many people for the current system, and so it needs improving or we need less people.
Drop it for your own sake any way. It's an extremely ignorant and narrow-minded way to look at things.
Yes, I'll remember to throw out my mental disorder with the rubbish next wednesday. Thanks for the advice. It's not that simple.
Don't get me wrong, I don't think it's 'around the corner' technology. I was just saying what would be ideal in my opinion.
Just because you can do something doesn't mean you should.
And a pescivourous diet is probably quite good for a dog. Because fish have most if not all of the benefits of red and white meats whilst having few if any of the drawbacks. Plus great bonuses such as tons of healthy fatty acids and oils.
Fish is certainly my favourite meat.
The same could be said of a lot of things in our society today. He gets what he needs, though he sticks his nose into the cat food a times, though that's partly just greed. Could do with more walks, so I'll be getting him and myself fit over summer.
I was really hoping hydrogen cell cars fuel would take off, but I've not heard of that in years.
A major and ultimately damning aspect of capitalism is that eventually companies gain too much power and influence. I know in the medical field cures for hundreds of diseases are constantly suppressed by pharmaceutical companies because treatments are more profitable than cures. Much the same as companies that have vested interests in current fuels would likely suppress viable alternatives.
If it was up to me, that kind of behaviour would be grounds for execution. But unfortunately, big companies have to much power and there really is no way of fighting them at this point.
The problem with hydrogen cell cars was we never learnt of a way to create hydrogen without having to actively put more energy into the system, and clean energy hasn't taken off the way it should have, so we couldn't create enough cells sadly, even if it was popular.
Understandable, Capitalism used to have the idea of no one was allowed to stand in the way of progress, but it's kind of ground to a halt of late...
I was talking about this in another thread actually.
Have you read a Brave new World by Aldois Huxley? It's a distopian story in the same kind of vein as 1984... only it's much more accurate.
Basically, he thought that over-saturation of information would be a much more effective tool to control the public because it makes them feel ultimately helpless. Because of this, people then turn to things such as mindless entertainment because it's not taxing and doesn't make them despair.
Bringing something to the publics attention rarely has a favourable outcome. The people who are truly interested will find out on their own. As we did, hoisting out the dirty laundry for everyone to see isn't going to accomplish anything.
Read 1984, so maybe I'll give that one a go. Sounds interesting, and pretty much right. The problem is there is only saturation of certain topics, if you manage to change what's being thrown at people by making it a big enough issue, then more will learn that there is something to find out about. Until recently, when I've done more reading on both Femanism and the food industry, I didn't know there was a problem to even look up. It's only when it's brought to your attention for the first place that most people will find out about things.
It probably would if everyone suddenly changed. But if that 5-10% had always eaten meat, I think that the overall demand wouldn't be 5-10% higher than it currently is. 3% more maybe, something quite low in the grand scheme of things. Because demand doesn't work in absolutes, it's not that everyone in the UK eats 5 chickens a week or 3 lambs.
Generally, we eat what's available.
Which means there is still 3% less meat than would otherwise be produced, due to these people's efforts. It's not bad, and certainly not nothing.
That's hardly anything new though. And how you have to think about it is like this.
Who do you think was more prised in some ancient nomadic tribe that decided to settle down somewhere in a desert? Safe, but far from water. The men who made the spears? Or the guy that came up with an irrigation system?
Both would have been important and necessary, but the irrigation system would have had much more of an effect on their society in general.
True, but it's more of a long term thing. The spears had instant results and those people became heros, the irrigation designer usually doesn't end up appreciated until after death, when everything comes to fruitation.
Still, I'll be trying to focus on something positive, whatever I eventually end up doing.
