Starvation or Old Age?

[TomOnSteam]

Which way would you want your loved ones to pass away? The power is in our hands.

 

Our planet is dying: 60% of wild life populations on earth have died since 1970 - in just a mere 40 years! What will happen in the next 40 years? That is up to us as individuals. Not governments, not companies. But each and everyone of us.

 

 

Animal agriculture (and the agriculture used to feed 80+ billion farm animals) is causing the majority of this: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-10-27/wildlife-populations-plunge-almost-60-percent-since-1970-wwf/7971972

 

 

Each time we eat, we are making a decision. If our meal contains animal products(meat, dairy, fish, eggs) then we're making the decision to make the earth inhospitable. One meal at a time the earth gets closer to turning into a barren desert. And at the rate it is happening, our children might not even pass away from old age.

 

Please for the sake of the planet, your children and all of humanity, transition to a plant-based diet today.

 

If we eat foods like this:https://www.google.com.au/search?q=plant+based+diet&safe=active&espv=2&biw=1920&bih=950&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjWrK-0_vvPAhXFFpQKHVxYArUQ_AUIBygC#safe=active&tbm=isch&q=hearty+vegan+food then we might actually keep society from collapsing in the next 30-50 years. We might even keep the human race alive after the next 100 years.

 

Please, everyone needs to take action now, today. It is urgent. Find whatever resources that are available to you on the internet, or at your bookstore and start eating the delicious foods that will keep the human race alive.:thumbup::helpsmilie:

[RAZBAM_ELMO]

Tom.........you OK buddy?

 

Sent from my SM-G900W8 using Tapatalk

[TomOnSteam]

Tom.........you OK buddy?

 

Sent from my SM-G900W8 using Tapatalk

 

I'll be fine as long as the planet is fine :)

 

(but appreciate you asking anyway!)

[MegOhm_SD]

Sorry I'm an omnivore and my life expectancy is short.

 

I enjoy good food and a Vegan diet is just not it and has zero appeal for me.

 

I think I'll go out for a 22 oz Bone in, wood grilled Rib Eye and Lobster tonight.

 

But fear not, I will have a Salad as an appetizer.

Edited October 28, 2016 by MegOhm_SD

[TomOnSteam]

Sorry I'm an omnivore and my life expectancy is short.

 

I enjoy good food and a Vegan diet is just not it and has zero appeal for me.

 

I think I'll go out for a 22 oz Bone in, wood grilled Rib Eye and Lobster tonight.

 

But fear not, I will have a Salad as an appetizer.

 

Did you click the link in my OP? That food was not salad :)

[jcbak]

I'm with MegOhm.....in fact I'll buy.

[TomOnSteam]

I'm with MegOhm.....in fact I'll buy.

 

Denial is the first stage of grief. So I guess we are making some progress already :music_whistling:

[StandingCow]

Sorry, I can't hear you over this amazing steak... :D

[BIGNEWY]

could not go full vegan, but I have been a pescatarian for a while now ( do not eat meat, only fish).

 

I also do not eat or drink dairy.

 

I keep rescue / battery hens, and love fresh eggs!

 

two pictures below, before and after :)

[wavn]

What a difference!: lovely chickens now!

 

don't eat meat; sometimes fish.

[NeilWillis]

Agree with the sentiments entirely, meat is a hugely inefficient use of the world's resources. One thing I do object to though is labeling oneself as anything based on what you eat? I find the vegan label very strange, and utterly pointless.

 

I'd tell you about my own views, but they are my views and utterly irrelevant to anyone else. Why should someone who shuns meat need to tell the world? Get on with it, and maintain a little mystery - it is far more endearing!

[mvsgas]

Please, everyone needs to take action now, today. It is urgent. Find whatever resources that are available to you on the internet, or at your bookstore and start eating the delicious foods that will keep the human race alive.:thumbup::helpsmilie:

 

 

:D

Edited October 28, 2016 by mvsgas

[sobek]

While we're at it, you might want to tell people in developing countries to stop having 10 children of their own, because population growth and receding poverty/growing wealth intensify the issue.

 

The pickle is, we don't have the moral authority.

[BIGNEWY]

You are right sobek, we do not have moral authority.

 

It is something people have to choose to do individually, I think as the planet wide situation gets worse over time, the choice will become easier for the masses out of necessity.

[Pikey]

I was at a restaurant with an old friend that had converted to Budhism and was full vegan and I was chatting about this and I gave him the usual tricky questions about his leather shoes and other animal by-products and testing and blah blah.

 

What he said was, "We all have to start somewhere."

 

Accept that we cannot change others, we cannot avoid hypocrisy in this complex world but it's more important to make a stand somewhere and do your part for the planet and it's inhabitants.

 

(The high birth rates in developing countries was a human reaction to high mortality rates and the nuclear family being a more supportive environment in harsher conditions - the fact that in 50 years we can turn that around doesn't stop thousands of years of evolved behaviour - and fwiw - at least they could teach us a thing or two about what a family actually means :))

[RAZBAM_ELMO]

Ah typical ED forum derailment. ... great job on the chickens newy I myself would love a coup of my own however city laws forbid it....however nothing us stated about cows....

 

Sent from my SM-G900W8 using Tapatalk

[kolga]

I don't think meat is the most dangerous thing right now: http://www.naturalnews.com/037249_GMO_study_cancer_tumors_organ_damage.html

[Rangi]

Commercial fishing practices are doing a lot of damage to our oceans (the lungs of the planet), please be mindful of which species you are eating and how and where they are caught. While I sympathise with some of Tom's points, saying that not eating meat is the solution to 'saving' civilisation is a gross oversimplification

Sometimes I think society collapsing in the next 50 years would be the best thing long term for the planet. In the meantime family planning education and contraception along with increasing the sustainability of our food, transport and other consumption activities could reduce the burden on future generations.

Edited October 30, 2016 by Rangi

[Weta43]

By 2020 2/3 of the wild animals will have disappeared from the planet.

By 2050 there will be a greater mass of plastic in the ocean than fish.

We've pumped out so much CO2 through burning fossil fuels that we're raising the temperature of the planet to the point where we're melting the polar caps.

Developed nations pledge to reduce emissions, then increase total output, at the same time as they claim 'accounting' improvements on the back of carbon credits bought from developing nations.

We release genetic experiments into the wild with no idea of the long term consequences, because it's profitable.

A handful of families own more resources than the poorest half of the worlds population put together.

Those families own the businesses that control governments, and force treaties that strip away what little power remains in democracies, onto populations that are denied the right to see the details of the agreements until after they are signed.

We're trapped in a system that is completely predicated on perpetual growth, using a planet with finite resources as raw materials.

 

Yet the only measure that's used to decide if the system is working is that the value of the economy grows and we have more and more cheap crap to buy.

 

This is the system working as it's designed to work, and it's killing the planet we live on.

 

& you know what the system's called ?

[kolga]

By 2020 2/3 of the wild animals will have disappeared from the planet.

By 2050 there will be a greater mass of plastic in the ocean than fish.

We've pumped out so much CO2 through burning fossil fuels that we're raising the temperature of the planet to the point where we're melting the polar caps.

Developed nations pledge to reduce emissions, then increase total output, at the same time as they claim 'accounting' improvements on the back of carbon credits bought from developing nations.

We release genetic experiments into the wild with no idea of the long term consequences, because it's profitable.

A handful of families own more resources than the poorest half of the worlds population put together.

Those families own the businesses that control governments, and force treaties that strip away what little power remains in democracies, onto populations that are denied the right to see the details of the agreements until after they are signed.

We're trapped in a system that is completely predicated on perpetual growth, using a planet with finite resources as raw materials.

 

Yet the only measure that's used to decide if the system is working is that the value of the economy grows and we have more and more cheap crap to buy.

 

This is the system working as it's designed to work, and it's killing the planet we live on.

 

& you know what the system's called ?

 

Globalism. The same family's that control the governments are the ones pushing climate change and depopulation.

[Weta43]

Globalism. The same family's that control the governments are the ones pushing climate change and depopulation.

 

pushing climate change and depopulation ?

 

As in they're some sort of plot ? :)

 

So you don't believe in climate change, or the idea that there are just too many people on the planet already ?

 

You can see and depend on the efficacy of science in every aspect of your life - electronics, general physics, aeronautics, thermodynamics, optics, the list goes on, and you implicitly have faith in the modelling scientists perform that underpins all aspects of your life - the design of the cars you drive, the aircraft you fly in, the nuclear power stations that enable your lifestyle, the nuclear weapons that supposedly keep us safe, DCS.world :).

 

Everything up to where 95% of the scientists in the world tell you that the way we are making our money and organising our economy is destroying the planet we need to survive, at which point suddenly they are all involved in some giant liberal inspired conspiracy ?

 

If you have some fundamental belief that God made the earth for us to populate and use as we see fit, then I can understand your position, and we have nothing to talk about. Science has no answer to that.

 

If not - To what end are the scientists conspiring ?

[kolga]

pushing climate change and depopulation ?

 

As in they're some sort of plot ? :)

 

So you don't believe in climate change, or the idea that there are just too many people on the planet already ?

 

You can see and depend on the efficacy of science in every aspect of your life - electronics, general physics, aeronautics, thermodynamics, optics, the list goes on, and you implicitly have faith in the modelling scientists perform that underpins all aspects of your life - the design of the cars you drive, the aircraft you fly in, the nuclear power stations that enable your lifestyle, the nuclear weapons that supposedly keep us safe, DCS.world :).

 

Everything up to where 95% of the scientists in the world tell you that the way we are making our money and organising our economy is destroying the planet we need to survive, at which point suddenly they are all involved in some giant liberal inspired conspiracy ?

 

If you have some fundamental belief that God made the earth for us to populate and use as we see fit, then I can understand your position, and we have nothing to talk about. Science has no answer to that.

 

If not - To what end are the scientists conspiring ?

 

I'm wondering where you got the idea that I deny or dislike science, I love science. There are many scientists that disagree that man made warming is happening, and have been put on the list pro global warming scientist and can't get off of it. As far as creation, yes and no, I believe God created the universe, but not to use as we see fit! I'm not saying nothing harmful is happening, I'm just saying the global warming extinction naritive was created to gain control of us. I think a lot of people like to think that nothing is going on behind the scenes, but why wouldn't powerful people use there power to obtain more power and money? I hate pollution and i'm all for efficiency and technology, but more control for the people that created the problem is not the answer. To quote Tom: "I'm sure neither of us will change our opinions based on a forum chat, so keep enjoying DCS "

[Weta43]

Thanks for your measured response, and I agree we're unlikely to change each other's minds here :)

 

I will however respond to this statement:

"There are many scientists that disagree that man made warming is happening, and have been put on the list pro global warming scientist and can't get off of it."

 

There are a lot of climate scientists in the world. a small percentage can still seem like a lot of people.

Do you say this because you know scientists that have told you they are in this position, or because your preferred news outlet has repeatedly told you and the rest of its audience so ?

 

I work modelling/forecasting the electricity market in NZ.

The company I work for isn't interested in giving control to the state, or to 'the people that created the problem', it just wants to make a good return for it's shareholders.

NZ is heavily dependant upon Hydro generation that is in turn reliant on the capture of quite volatile inflows into relatively small catchments (the largest storage lake in the country only holds about 6 weeks' worth of generation capacity). That means we have an interest in any changes to how those inflows will arrive over time, we can see the changes happening, and we have to work with climate scientists and hydrologists to safeguard our business.

Among those scientists, those that believe that man made global warming is real and happening are by far a way in the majority.

It's not coincidence that the funding of those groups suggesting global warming is either not happening or not man made is opaque, and that when you follow the money back it's overwhelmingly underwritten not by liberals that want to set up some global world order, but by billionaires and petrochemical companies that have a vested interest in making sure nothing happens in the regulatory space that would interfere with their businesses.

It's the same mode of operation that had cigarette companies denying a link with cancer for decades while their internal communications showed they were fully aware of the health risks.

I understand that it can look from the media as if their is actually some significant body of scientists that deny anthropogenic global warming, but the news is about creating controversy where none exists for entertainment, and to serve their investors' corporate interests, not about giving people information they need.

 

As you said, I don't expect to convince you here, but I encourage you to do your own research into the proportions of scientists in the 2 camps and not just rely on the mainstream media ( of either camp)

[kolga]

Thanks for your measured response, and I agree we're unlikely to change each other's minds here :)

 

I will however respond to this statement:

"There are many scientists that disagree that man made warming is happening, and have been put on the list pro global warming scientist and can't get off of it."

 

There are a lot of climate scientists in the world. a small percentage can still seem like a lot of people.

Do you say this because you know scientists that have told you they are in this position, or because your preferred news outlet has repeatedly told you and the rest of its audience so ?

 

I work modelling/forecasting the electricity market in NZ.

The company I work for isn't interested in giving control to the state, or to 'the people that created the problem', it just wants to make a good return for it's shareholders.

NZ is heavily dependant upon Hydro generation that is in turn reliant on the capture of quite volatile inflows into relatively small catchments (the largest storage lake in the country only holds about 6 weeks' worth of generation capacity). That means we have an interest in any changes to how those inflows will arrive over time, we can see the changes happening, and we have to work with climate scientists and hydrologists to safeguard our business.

Among those scientists, those that believe that man made global warming is real and happening are by far a way in the majority.

It's not coincidence that the funding of those groups suggesting global warming is either not happening or not man made is opaque, and that when you follow the money back it's overwhelmingly underwritten not by liberals that want to set up some global world order, but by billionaires and petrochemical companies that have a vested interest in making sure nothing happens in the regulatory space that would interfere with their businesses.

It's the same mode of operation that had cigarette companies denying a link with cancer for decades while their internal communications showed they were fully aware of the health risks.

I understand that it can look from the media as if their is actually some significant body of scientists that deny anthropogenic global warming, but the news is about creating controversy where none exists for entertainment, and to serve their investors' corporate interests, not about giving people information they need.

 

As you said, I don't expect to convince you here, but I encourage you to do your own research into the proportions of scientists in the 2 camps and not just rely on the mainstream media ( of either camp)

 

I really appreciate your respectfulness and professionalism, I think we agree on a lot of points here. I definitely do not trust the mainstream media at all!

 

 

As far as where I get my info I've kind of accumulated it over a long period of time from different sources and so I don't remember all the details.

 

 

The billionaires are the people I'm talking about, they are trying to manipulate the public opinion to fit their agenda. The cigarette company is a great example, so is Monsanto, the drug company's, bill gates common core. Ect.

 

 

I don't deny at all that the climate changes over time, just that its all man made. There are a lot of examples of "facts" that are portrayed as generally accepted but have been disproven. For example it is said that the layers in the ice caps are years, but when they retrieved a crashed plane from WWII they had to go through thousands of layers to get to it.

 

 

I found your personal experience interesting also!

[Rangi]

I found that after reading the actual science papers in the actual science journals, not the reporting of those papers, I could not deny the reality of global warming or that it's being caused by the emissions from our energy and consumer goods (including food) production. They are not page turners or great entertainment, but very well researched and it's quite amazing how well the climate system is becoming understood.

Also be mindful of confirmation bias, where you can take anecdotal accounts that fit your preconceptions and confirm your ideas while ignoring evidence to the contrary, the he scientific method was designed to overcome such biases. If the global warming deniers used the scientific method to build a body of evidence better than the body of evidence now built for global, then great, we could all go and burn a forest and have a coal burning party.

I still sometimes wonder if the best thing long term for the planet and the reduction of suffering wouldn't be to just keep going as we are until the world is mostly uninhabitable for humans and let nature rebuild again like after the last big asteroid strike. Then again I have some pretty dark ideas that I don't think anyone should have to follow.