Rattle your pitchforks and say #yes2meat

#76

I’d love to continue but OP is tired of us verging off topic and my fashionable politics so I guess I’m stepping out.

(Doug) #77

No it’s not, Bob - it shows that our ‘poor’ is often really not so poor, in the context of the entire world, with people taking many things for granted - things that are true luxuries many places elsewhere. It’s massively naive and illogical to presume that just by changing policies this situation can be substantially altered, i.e. we have already far surpassed the carrying capacity of the earth to provide everybody the standard of living to which the average poor American is used to, let alone the middle class of the U.S. or indeed any western, industrialized nation.

As I think about it, raising meat animals with better plant diversity, less chemical usage, etc., in a more sustainable and good way for a meaningful portion of the world’s people seems incredibly hard. If we were holding steady at a population of 3 billion, say - then perhaps improving technology could do it, in the end. Yet we’re way over 7 billion already and heading to 9 or 10 fast.

There is also climate change to deal with. Not saying this is any sure doom for us, and we’re pretty darn adaptable, but a good bit of crop-growing land and pasture land has already been rendered worthless or less suitable for it. Some new lands will be improved/created by the changes - and people have moved around on earth before due to such things, but I see it as a net negative for now.

The overall trend is still strongly toward less individual farmers, “family farms,” etc., and toward huge agribusiness, which I can’t see being favorable to pasture-raised meat unless the prices would rise so high as to provide more profit than what the land is being used for now. :neutral_face:

(Doug) #78

Hey KC, make a separate thread or I will, if you want…

https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/full/10.1098/rspb.2013.2025?url_ver=Z39.88-2003&rfr_id=ori%3Arid%3Acrossref.org&rfr_dat=cr_pub%3Dpubmed&

Full free text there. Here’s a quote: Of the total land surface of the world, 33% is used for livestock production. Ouch, to me that’s a huge :slightly_frowning_face:.

We already have extensive factory-farming in several ‘First World’ countries, plus a lot in China, Mexico, the Phillipines, Taiwan, Argentina, Pakistan, Thailand, Ethiopia and… India - yeah, ‘sacred cows’ and all that but water buffalos ain’t sacred and though it’s hard to believe, India is the world’s 2nd largest exporter of beef, barely behind only Brasil.

BeefExports
BeefExports.jpg448×843 175 KB

There obviously is a limit on how much of the earth’s surface is suitable for pastoral grazing. If we’re already using 1/3 of the land for it, how much is left that can be added, as we’re faced with increasing demand for meat.

(less is more, more or less) #79

I warmly encourage you to create your own post, and carry on. I should have simply said “no hi-jacking.” We are way off-topic.

We low-carb-ites should stand ready to counter the charge that we only care about ourselves. That we’ve thought out the ramifications of providing a reliable supply of a low-carb, high-animal-product regimen to more than the first world. Also, we in the first world have access to food woefully absent in the majority of the world. That may lead to a more macroeconomics discussion, but that will lead to its own irrelevant tangents, as we have seen.

(Doug) #80

Yeah… Maybe I’m missing something that really means I’m wrong, but with the way things are - huge world population, increasing demand for meat, and already a lot of the earth dedicated to meat production, seems to me that sustainable animal husbandry and farming practices, especially aimed at less chemical usage and better conditions for the animals, are destined to only be niche production, if that. :worried:

(Running from stupidity) #81

Sure, but are the ones who stay still living a comfortable life? I know I’d rather have a lower personal income on an annual basis if that means we’re looking after the less-fortunate in society via a working safety net. (I know this is not how it generally works in the US, but it is here, and I’m just saying that I’ll take the hit to help others. I also think Bernie isn’t much of a planner, he just likes popular ideas without details.)

Capitalism lets us keep our own tips.

How about we just pay a living wage, build it into the cost of doing business, and do away with tipping?

but look at that ‘Poverty Line’ again - $25,750. Not all that far from $32,400

Yeah, it is. it’s a MASSIVE difference if all you can earn is $25K.

and $32,400 puts one in the top 1% of world income .

Yes, but world averages are irrelevant when you’re trapped into an expensive cost structure.

The OldDoughouse
(Raj Seth) #82

I can attest to that being true - I AM controlled by a woman’s emotions - my wife’s :joy:

(Running from stupidity) #83

Not brave enough to tag her, either :slight_smile:

(Raj Seth) #84

ummmmm - I don’t think I have permission to do that :wink:

(Running from stupidity) #85

:joy::joy::joy:

(Zack F) #86

So somebody’s starting an “Autophagy and the Austrian Theory of the Business Cycle” thread? :smile: I’d say they are related!

(Carolus Holman) #87

EAT Diet Recommends A Fudge Pop Tart’s Worth of Sugar/Day?

One would think from the report’s language that its recommendations are all about eating more fruits, vegetables, and whole grains, but in fact, EAT advises:

—Only 3% of calories from vegetables. Add the “potatoes/cassava” category, and the total creeps up to 5%

—Only 5% of calories from fruit

This does not appear to be a “more fruits and vegetables” report.

Rather, EAT promotes 8 teaspoons of sugar a day, which is about the equivalent of a fudge pop tart.

(Carl Keller) #88

Nina Teicholz is great. :sunglasses:

(ianrobo) #89

If I missed this discussion, apologies and please merge but it was the second story on BBC news today and the recommendation …

well a quarter of an egg a day, a burger a week, 200g of fruit and veg today and of course 250g of whole grains a day. Now if you ask me that would barely fill me up in one meal … never mind over a full day if not used to eating.

Of course this EAT has all the usual corporate sponsors … the usual names like Kelloggs and the report presented with no qualification at all form people in our sphere.

This is the vegan lobby taking control and we HAVE to fight it

('Jackie P') #90

I have just seen this and I have to admit I do worry about certain aspects of it.
I follow a Keto Diet and feel incredibly healthy. I have a number of friends who are discovering the health benefits. BUT if everyone adopted a Keto Diet would the world be able to sustain it? There are obviously huge environmental issues.

('Jackie P') #91

Maybe we support the vegan community so we can eat their share of the animal protein and fats😁

(ianrobo) #92

There are no environmental issues with properly raised grass fed and well kept animals who are not stuffed with grains to fatten them up

(ianrobo) #93

Oh ffs just listened to Radio 5 who had Walter Willet on emphasise he was from Harvard of course, his cover.

However on it he claimed this diet was the med diet of 50 years ago ! That’s the luecrepeated from guess what ??? The seven countries studies !!! I have been to the med so many times and none of their meals are Vegan in any way shape or form !

('Jackie P') #94

I agree but this isnt an option for everyone.

#95

Agree! The group is well-funded, founded by three well-funded non-profits, supported by the corporate food industry. We need to fight this!

Yes, there is a on-going thread on this topic: