Starvation or Old Age?

[TomOnSteam]

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 :)

 

The difference is amazing! I know which eggs I would rather eat.

 

I think a lot of vegans would consider eating eggs from rescued hens as being technically vegan, since you're not adding to the harm, in fact your making the best situation out of it.

P.S. looks like they had a similar breakfast to me :P

Edited November 3, 2016 by TomOnSteam

[Kippy]

[BIGNEWY]

The difference is amazing! I know which eggs I would rather eat.

 

I think a lot of vegans would consider eating eggs from rescued hens as being technically vegan, since you're not adding to the harm, in fact your making the best situation out of it.

P.S. looks like they had a similar breakfast to me :P

 

My rescue hens get spoiled, on top of normal feed they get warmed muesli twice a day :)

[DieHard]

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:

 

Another reason to drink beer!

 

I doubt very much I will make 105 in 40 years---I won't be here. And wife and I did our part, we don't have kids. LOL! That is the answer to your issue here, quit having children. Problem solved!

Edited November 11, 2016 by DieHard

[Rangi]

Mmmmm , perhaps contraception should be opt-out instead of opt-in.....

[msalama]

BLAH BLAH BLAH

1) Some bunch of crazies (a.k.a. "scientists" in these post-modern times) now claim plants have feelings too. OK, strike plants off as well. So what's on the menu now?

 

2) Some other bunch of crazies (a.k.a. "scientists" in these post-modern times) now claim growing / consuming lettuce produces more CO2 than growing cattle & eating beef. So what's on the menu now?

 

Anyway, I'll just eat what I eat & leave you gentlemen(?) to your sordid little eco-angsty activities. Toodle-oo for now

[sobek]

You have to be a vegan of the fifth circle to post in this thread. Don't eat anything that casts a shadow.

 

Anyways, at least now we know whom to blame. :D

[shagrat]

Ehm, to be very clear here, I am an omnivore. I just don't like it when my food still moves!

 

Yet, the OP has a point there, not that it matters much in the greater context if we all go veggie or vegan or whatever now, as the root cause can't be solved. Decreasing ressources vs. growing demand aka population.

 

You simply cannot feed 9 billion people from the complete planets production capacity, even if we could perfectly distribute and optimize it...

 

So we may adjust the timeframe by a couple of decades, but if people start killing each other for survival on a grand scale in 30 or 60 years from now, was what people say and do since the 70ies. "60 years from now I'm dead. If the sh... hits the fan I'm no longer around, so not my problem... ah, wait children! Sorry, young ones, and good luck!"

 

You won't change the human behaviour. :dunno:

[sobek]

Ehm, to be very clear here, I am an omnivore. I just don't like it when my food still moves!

 

Check your sarcasm detector.;)

[Rangi]

Ehm, to be very clear here, I am an omnivore. I just don't like it when my food still moves!

 

. :dunno:

 

One of my favourite delicacies is still moving when you eat it, witchetty grubs, they are good toasted, but best fresh and wriggling.

[TomOnSteam]

1) Some bunch of crazies (a.k.a. "scientists" in these post-modern times) now claim plants have feelings too. OK, strike plants off as well. So what's on the menu now?

 

This is exactly why I have a respectful ceremony for my plants:

-First I bathe them in only the finest waters that my kitchen tap provides.

-Then I place them gently on my sacrificial alter which the unenlightened people call a cutting board.

-I make sure I proclaim a holy prophecy for all nearby to hear, such as "Dinner will be ready in 20 mins!".

-I then place the remainder of the plant into the bin of rebirth.

-I decorate the sacrificed plant with decadent salts and spices to aid in it's journey into my heavenly esophagus.

 

Ramen :)

 

 

 

 

 

 

2) Some other bunch of crazies(a.k.a. "scientists" in these post-modern times) now claim growing / consuming lettuce produces more CO2 than growing cattle & eating beef. So what's on the menu now?

 

Statistically yes, if we were to eat only lettuce and nothing else it would be less efficient, because lettuce has almost no calories, so it loses on the "calories in" vs. "calories out" numbers.

 

But that's a really poor argument which the animal industry spokes people use to justify their very profitable businesses. It's their way of trying to stop rational conversation by diverting the attention to sensationalism instead. Because the longer honest discussion is delayed, the more money can be made in the mean time. This is always the case, from gun laws, to tobacco, to fossil fuels and everything in between. It's a strategy that unfortunately works.

 

Their first strategy works as follows:- if a problem is pointed out, point out an absurdly extreme situation so that people at the extreme ends of the argument (who are always the loudest) end up drowning out people how are focused on solving the issues.

 

Their second strategy is to play on people's fears of: not eating meat must mean that the only food left to eat is bland, unsatisfying salads. (as in my OP, not one salad in those foods, and plenty of meat-like products which scratch the itch :D )

 

Thirdly pointing out a worse way to eat than the current norm, does not nullify that there are better ways to eat than the current norm. It's simply dismissing them, for no valid reason. But again, that's their strategy of smoke and mirrors, smoke and mirrors. Watch the magic show :) But, any of us can think of worse and less efficient ways to produce food. That's not even relevant to the current issue of finding a better way to produce and consume food.

 

When we look at it rationally:

1. Nobody that is genuinely interested about environmentalism has ever said to grow only lettuce.

2. Nobody would ever suggest to eat only lettuce since you would die from malnutrition because lettuce is nutritionally sparse. (you only eat it for crunch factor)

3. It is impossible to eat enough lettuce, ever. To eat sufficient calories you would need to eat around 25 kilograms of lettuce a day. That's not counting all of the calories burned by hours of lifting thin bits of lettuce to mouth height over and over, and chewing action, and digestion. So you'd probably need to double it to 50kg.

 

So the basis for their argument is non-sense by any regard. And the goal being just to create fear and diversion.

Anyway, I'll just eat what I eat & leave you gentlemen(?) to your sordid little eco-angsty activities. Toodle-oo for now

I'd genuinely like to know which parts you might have considered as sordid or angsty so I can work on my dialog. I like to present my views from a logical perspective, because I believe it is more credible, and as above, I'm very much against sensationalism.

Edited November 12, 2016 by TomOnSteam

[shagrat]

Very good and rational points, Tom.

 

The "angst" is an emotion that usually happens on the receivers end.

So if people talk about eco-angst-activity they subsequently understood the facts, but dismiss the consequences and blame them as "fictious", "made up" etc.

 

Personally I'm not that emotional about it, as our current options are basically, to see if the last 30 years actions were enough to stop the effects estimated in the 80ies to early 2000s.

From the facts I read, and they seem pretty accurate to me, the problem can't be solved by us anyway.

So we should simply hope the effects hit us late in our life or after we died...

 

Only long term solution could be to announce a number of human beings that can be supported by this planet each decade, and adjust the population and resource usage accordingly...

 

Well, if anyone believe this is a valid(!) option, I don't.

 

@Sobek - got the sarcasm, but I wanted to be clear, that I'm not just making up facts and arguments, to safe the cute animals... I've met a fair share of (mostly women) who are "vegetarians" as they would never hurt an animal, let alone eat one. Well, at least if it is cute and furry! Glibbery fish is ok, as is anything else that is not cute, somehow.

So I rather like to be honest and yes, I eat meat, but I'm aware of the consequences. ;)

[kontiuka]

Interesting development ...

 

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/prince-edward-island/pei-cow-farting-1.3856202

[TomOnSteam]

Interesting development ...

 

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/prince-edward-island/pei-cow-farting-1.3856202

 

But how will they get the cows to swim underwater :music_whistling:

[kontiuka]

But how will they get the cows to swim underwater :music_whistling:

Hey, if we canucks can teach our cows to play ice hockey, we can certainly teach them how to snorkle.:D

[kolga]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/2016/11/24/scott-shackleton-logbooks-prove-antarctic-sea-ice-not-shrinking/

 

:)

[sobek]

The headline is very misleading. Read the whole article.

 

What it boils down to:

 

The findings demonstrate that the climate of Antarctica fluctuated significantly throughout the 20th century and indicates that sea ice in the Antarctic is much less sensitive to the effects of climate change than that of the Arctic, which has experienced a dramatic decline during the 20th century.

[Kuky]

The planet can never die because of humans. The whole of nature is linked together and everything is connected and dependable on other things, and I mean everything. Also whatever exists in the planet is not created or destroyed, it merely changed form/energy and it will continue to do so. If and when people destroy all life, people will die also... and then the planet will simply "heal" itself, all of humans will rot and change energy into other forms, which will again just go back to the planet itself, and be used, reused and changed forms again over and over. The only thing that can destroy the planet is collision with other very large cosmic bodies, and if that happens it doesn't matter, it'll be very quick :) but even then people could by then figure out how to send people permanently into space, away from mother Earth.

[kolga]

The headline is very misleading. Read the whole article.

 

What it boils down to:

 

What is misleading about it? The arctic is not the antarctic. And remember, there have been predictions of the arctic disappearing since at least the 20's, but its still there, albeit smaller. All i'm saying is there is reason to question the theory.

[sobek]

What is misleading about it? The arctic is not the antarctic. And remember, there have been predictions of the arctic disappearing since at least the 20's, but its still there, albeit smaller. All i'm saying is there is reason to question the theory.

 

No, you once again only skimmed that article (talking about the arctic). There is reason to discard sensationalist predictions, there is absolutely *no* reason to doubt global warming.

[shagrat]

What is misleading about it? The arctic is not the antarctic. And remember, there have been predictions of the arctic disappearing since at least the 20's, but its still there, albeit smaller. All i'm saying is there is reason to question the theory.

The predictions at that time were correct in term of the fact, what was fuzzy at best was the prediction of the effects and the timeframe.

 

Now with more and more data to extrapolate, more and more effects available to analyze, the predictions get better.

The fact, that climate change happens is pretty obvious... Unfortunately the late 70ies predictions were wrong.

They expected the effects of melting glaciers in the Alps for example, to get precarious with a temperature rise of 3-5°C in that region.

The latest correlations of glacier movements, melting ice and temperature change see heavy impacts already, with just a 1-1.5°C rise...

And that is not a prediction!

 

Now since we monitor the Arctic, in the late19th century the overall area of the shelf ice in winter reduced by 2/3rd and this Summer the area around the north pole(!) was partially free from ice.

Fact. No "estimation", predictions or crystal ball.

We may not be sure this is a direct impact of CO2 in the air, man-made or just another natural phenomenon, but we can predict that it will have an effect.

 

The cool Arctic water masses are the motor for the gulf stream that moves warm equatorial waters north and "heats" the Northsea side of Great Britain for example.

Now if the Arctic water gets warmer it does not pull enough warm water from the equator and this natural pump, will stop.

Unlike the term "global warming" this should bring more cold(!) water south as the Arctic and equatorial waters equalize and the new "Arctic circle" shifts south.

Though temperatures rise, overall, Arctic water and air masses will be colder than the golf stream used to be, and collide with warm air over the natural barrier of the Alps, Pyrenees, etc. with more and more extreme weather in Europe.

 

A similar effect will hit Canada, Greenland and the US east coast, down to the Carolinas... So Hurricane season gets worse and prolonged, maybe.

 

The current question isn't so much "what can we do?", but "did we do enough in the 70ies, 80ies and 90ies?", as our measures need about 70 years to affect the climate systems.

What we do now, will have an effect in roundabout 70 years.

 

Let's hope the effects need long enough to show, and maybe the CO2 conferences and measures we took to reduce pollution take effect.

[Rangi]

Logic and science? Shame on you Shagrat. ;)

 

The funny (or depressing depending on my mood) thing I find about this polarised debate is that the "deniers" call the "greenies" tree hugging animal lovers who put "nature" above humanity. Whereas if the "greenies" get what we/they want then it will create a stable environment for humanity to continue, but if we continue with business as usual as the deniers want, the humanity that they claim to value above nature will be condemned to much more suffering. I swing from one side to the other depending on how we we behave and what I think we deserve due to our actions, but ultimately it is a pointless value judgement that I have no right to impose on others let alone have the conviction to support. Welcome to the world of depressive realism and join me for another toast to the excitement of seeing what happens...............

 

In the meantime :joystick::pilotfly:

Edited November 27, 2016 by Rangi
Added emoticons for comic effect

[Worrazen]

Consider this:

 

Afaik they called it global warming and when it wouldn't bite they changed it to climate change, so now, any change is human's fault?

 

Al gore said long ago everything's going to melt by 2012, so if they were wrong with millions of research spent before, how are they going to be right this time?

[cthulhu68]

Consider this:

 

Afaik they called it global warming and when it wouldn't bite they changed it to climate change,

Don't forget it started with "A hole in the ozone layer".

 

I think they've just done a poor job of branding. Global warming doesn't sound so bad in the middle of a Chicago winter when it's 5degrees outside. Climate change...meh,how bad could that be. They should try something more ominous or foreboding like "Apocalyptic Meltdown".

[sobek]

Some people have made unprofessional predictions about the consequences of climate change. The thing is, it is an immensely complex issue. That does not at all mean that the effect does not exist or dire consequences have not already started to manifest themselves.

 

Go tell farmers in California that climate change is a myth and see how that goes.

Edited November 27, 2016 by sobek