We might be killing ourselves much faster than "climate science" suggests

The third world is catching up to the post war west in terms of population growth and pollution output. Unless the rest of the world cuts back all our efforts to cut our own is in vain and, going by the lack of adheirance by non western signatories of the paris agreement, they are decidedly uncooperative on that front.

Outside of a technological miracle it is it seems the only solution possible is to effectively roll back half the worlds development; no more cheap electricty, no more baby booms.

I cannot imagine such proposals are going attract many volunteers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Greyblades

The third world is catching up to the post war west in terms of population growth and pollution output. Unless the rest of the world cuts back all our efforts to cut our own is in vain and, going by the lack of adheirance by non western signatories of the paris agreement, they are decidedly uncooperative on that front.

Outside of a technological miracle it is it seems the only solution possible is to effectively roll back half the worlds development; no more cheap electricty, no more baby booms.

---

Well, insects going extinct and the soil degrading to uselessness are going to hit us regardless of what other countries do because we're ruining these things right here. I'm not sure whether insects are going extinct in Africa as well. If we can't grow enough food here anymore, we'll be going to Africa as refugees or die of malnutrition.
Perhaps some insects could be replaced with pollinating robot drones, but what about soil degradation? The way it sounds to me, adding more chemicals just won't work anymore at some point in the relatively near future.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Greyblades

I cannot imagine such proposals are going attract many volunteers.

---

Death will not wait for volunteers. :skull:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kagemusha

There are just too many of us period.

---

Are you Chinese to make such claims?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HopAlongBunny

Pollution. More population=>more pollution.

---

We don't have to do anything because: more population=>more pollution=>less population=>less pollution.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

And just how will you get the non-Western and non-techno cultures to adopt this policy? It has, de facto if not de jure, been the policy of most developed Western cultures for nearly half a century.

The death rate per 1000 in France and the UK is 9, the USA 8, and Italy and Greece 11 and Japan 10. The bigger economy countries are at a rough death rate of 10 per 1000. In contrast, the rate for the Middle East is around a 6 and central and eastern Africa around a 12. Indonesia, China, and India are around a 7.

Birth rates in the West/Industrials are roughly around 11/1k. The ME varies between 15 and 35, probably around 20 overall. EA and CA average around 33. China is a hint higher than the West at 12, but Indonesia and India average 19/1k.

In short, the West and Japan already practice a two-child policy. The developing world does not. Short of magically transforming their economies to Western standard of living levels and cultural values, just how do we go about effecting such a policy?

---

I was just talking about my own half, but now that you mentioned. I would give it similar conditions with carbon credit, but at individual level. Maybe thus making babies might become more fashionable and we would not go totally extinct at the West. Concerning the rest of the World. Those who would accept the policy would gain development aid, those who would not, it would be cut off. Other means would be trade deals.

Generally id rather not answer what should be done about the behalf of other countries in any situation and im not sure asking me gives any good answers either.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gilrandir

Are you Chinese to make such claims?

---

Are you North Korean for wanting the human civilization to collapse because of stupidity?:rolleyes:

It's a reoccuring thing, I forgot the name of the the theory but it boils down to population overstretching, it was hot in the twenties when some major leaps in medecine were made, but it was hot in the 19th century as well as agriculture became more efficient. It never happened though as people get less children if they are more likely to survive, caring for the enviroment is also a kuxory-problem as having a nice enviroment becomes desirable, it kinda solves itself. Wildlife needs attention though, who's in favour of recolonising Africa and South-America to save it? Thought so

Technology is good, space is very rare here in the Netherlands but we grow more than enough food, can't call it wildlife but species are doing just fine, wolves and lynxes are even sighted, they don't want to be seen so you don't but they are there

You're probably thinking of the musings of Thomas Robert Malthus:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Robert_Malthus

The Green Revolution may have staved off facing some of the limits he mused about, but those same practices (chemical fertilizers, insecticide, herbicide, tillage...etc.) have also led to played out soils, water pollution and the disappearance of needed insect species.
Another technological solution to the problems of modern agriculture might be feasible, but it will have to address the consequences of the practices developed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beskar

I am not a vegan, but I know this information is incorrect. You have to manage your diet appropriately, that is true, but vegan malnourishment is a myth (for humans). Arguably, "meat eaters" are worst for micro-nutrient malnourishment. How many do you know eat a full 5-7 a-day?

---

No, if you're a vegan, in sense that you don't eat meat, fish and any dairy products, then you unconsciously undermine your own health. There's an ongoing campaign of misinformation by vegan lobbyists, whose impartiality is zero, like the infamous Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine.

Generally, we have yet to fully understand how digestion works, but every serious scholar agrees that meat and dairy are obligatory for a healthy diet. For example, no fruit can offer you any amount of creatine (its name comes from the Greek word for meat, "κρέας"), which is necessary for our cerebral functions.
Some recommended articles about the subject:
http://ssu.ac.ir/cms/fileadmin/user_...onsumption.pdf
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/art...type=printable
http://clinchem.aaccjnls.org/content.../1802.full.pdf
http://ro.uow.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent...text=hbspapers
https://articles.mercola.com/sites/a...-veganism.aspx
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/art...f/14561278.pdf
https://www.researchgate.net/publica..._of_Metabolism

Their amount and vocabulary may look overwhelming, but they're worth a reading, if you feel tempted by vegan propaganda. IMO parents forcing veganism to their children is as stupid and immoral as not vaccinating them.
Thankfully it's not a very threatening phenomenon right now, but it has the potential to surpass in anti-intellectualism even the climate change denial.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kagemusha

Are you North Korean for wanting the human civilization to collapse because of stupidity?:rolleyes:

---

I see. Making fun = being stupid. Now I know why you Japanese wanted to exterminate us Koreans.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gilrandir

I see. Making fun = being stupid. Now I know why you Japanese wanted to exterminate us Koreans.

---

More like: Making fun=making fun.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kagemusha

More like: Making fun=making fun.

---

In my invew making fun =/= using abusive language.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gilrandir

In my invew making fun =/= using abusive language.

---

North Korean policies= stupid
North Korean´s= variety of people
abusing concepts like policies= free for all
abusing people= bad

I hope we can get back on topic once you two are done abusing mathematic signs. :shifty:

That said, as a meat eater, Crandar's sources do appear a bit shifty in some cases. I don't have time to read and analyze them all in detail though.
One is by a doctor Mercola, who is also trying to sell things in his shop (including vegan protein bags, why would he sell to vegans if he thinks veganism is unhealthy? hypocrite?), that has about the same credibility level as Alex Jones for starters.
Some others only talk about the benefits of this or that, but I couldn't find them explicitly saying they're unavailable to vegans. At best I saw them conclude that vegans are less healthy. That study from Graz does say it corrected for lifestyle choices, but it doesn't say whether they're just doing veganism wrong and I'm not sure whether they also corrected their data for the possibility that they found so many sick vegans becuase sick people try veganism in an attempt to cure themselves rather than becoming sick from being a vegan.
The study that talks about the benefits and drawbacks of red meat seems to say that only certain preparation styles might make the benefits outweigh the drawbacks, without checking that more thoroughly. Of course eating it raw will likely get you a toxoplasma gondii infection: http://www.ihaveabrainparasite.com

So on the meat eater issue, I guess things are still vague.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

I hope we can get back on topic once you two are done abusing mathematic signs. :shifty:

That said, as a meat eater, Crandar's sources do appear a bit shifty in some cases. I don't have time to read and analyze them all in detail though.
One is by a doctor Mercola, who is also trying to sell things in his shop (including vegan protein bags, why would he sell to vegans if he thinks veganism is unhealthy? hypocrite?), that has about the same credibility level as Alex Jones for starters.
Some others only talk about the benefits of this or that, but I couldn't find them explicitly saying they're unavailable to vegans. At best I saw them conclude that vegans are less healthy. That study from Graz does say it corrected for lifestyle choices, but it doesn't say whether they're just doing veganism wrong and I'm not sure whether they also corrected their data for the possibility that they found so many sick vegans becuase sick people try veganism in an attempt to cure themselves rather than becoming sick from being a vegan.
The study that talks about the benefits and drawbacks of red meat seems to say that only certain preparation styles might make the benefits outweigh the drawbacks, without checking that more thoroughly. Of course eating it raw will likely get you a toxoplasma gondii infection: http://www.ihaveabrainparasite.com

So on the meat eater issue, I guess things are still vague.

---

It's probably possible to be perfectly healthy on a vegan diet, but it requires more knowledge of where certain rare nutrients are (vitamin B is an issue). It's easier to get the full set of nutrients if you eat some meat as well, or at the very least some animal-derived products. In any case, wartime Britain showed that it is possible to move largely to a vegetarian diet, but this doesn't spare the land if it's still cultivated intensively, and you'll probably still want to keep some breeding stock (cf. the post-war cull of pig breeds to standardise for the market).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

It's probably possible to be perfectly healthy on a vegan diet, but it requires more knowledge of where certain rare nutrients are (vitamin B is an issue). It's easier to get the full set of nutrients if you eat some meat as well, or at the very least some animal-derived products. In any case, wartime Britain showed that it is possible to move largely to a vegetarian diet, but this doesn't spare the land if it's still cultivated intensively, and you'll probably still want to keep some breeding stock (cf. the post-war cull of pig breeds to standardise for the market).

---

It's difficult, but we should distinguish between diets for survival and diets for "optimal health". The latter are nearly opaque to modern science because it's such a complex object of study: everything in the whole body over time.

The former, however, is probably easier to distinguish, even with 19th century science. As a random example, the meat of small mammals, even accompanying many plant-based diets, will lead to malnutrition and starvation in the long-term because small-mammal (lean) meat lacks certain fats and lipids, or more proximately because the proportion of proteins relative to other caloric nutrients overwhelms the liver.

http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/71/3/682.full.pdf

It is worth noting that some of our sources for meat such as sheep and goats are able to utilize land that cannot feasably be converted for crop farming, a stony highland slope will never bear wheat or corn but can support mutton production.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kagemusha

North Korean´s= variety of people

---

Wrong!! North Korean's = possessive case singular = belonging to A North Korean.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gilrandir

Wrong!! North Korean's = possessive case singular = belonging to A North Korean.

---

Dont take Husar´s job!:bigcry:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crandar

For example, no fruit can offer you any amount of creatine (its name comes from the Greek word for meat, "κρέας"), which is necessary for our cerebral functions.

---

It is produced by the body but we do get a lot from eating meat. You can also take vegan supplements to compensate too. So no, you don't need to eat meat. There are meat-free alternatives and solutions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crandar

No, if you're a vegan, in sense that you don't eat meat, fish and any dairy products, then you unconsciously undermine your own health. There's an ongoing campaign of misinformation by vegan lobbyists, whose impartiality is zero, like the infamous Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine.

Generally, we have yet to fully understand how digestion works, but every serious scholar agrees that meat and dairy are obligatory for a healthy diet. For example, no fruit can offer you any amount of creatine (its name comes from the Greek word for meat, "κρέας"), which is necessary for our cerebral functions.
Some recommended articles about the subject:
http://ssu.ac.ir/cms/fileadmin/user_...onsumption.pdf
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/art...type=printable
http://clinchem.aaccjnls.org/content.../1802.full.pdf
http://ro.uow.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent...text=hbspapers
https://articles.mercola.com/sites/a...-veganism.aspx
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/art...f/14561278.pdf
https://www.researchgate.net/publica..._of_Metabolism

Their amount and vocabulary may look overwhelming, but they're worth a reading, if you feel tempted by vegan propaganda. IMO parents forcing veganism to their children is as stupid and immoral as not vaccinating them.
Thankfully it's not a very threatening phenomenon right now, but it has the potential to surpass in anti-intellectualism even the climate change denial.

---

Vegetarians and Vegans have to be extremely careful about their diets. It is FAR too easy to fall short in certain minerals/vitamins as well as protein intake when eschewing dairy and meats entirely.

A quick look at human teeth and the rest of the digestive systems says OMNIVORE in large letters. I am well aware that the preponderance of meat/dairy/refined sugars in the Western diet may be skewed from what is healthy, but excising everything but renewable vegetable product from the human diet is, I suspect, nearly as unhealthy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beskar

It is produced by the body but we do get a lot from eating meat. You can also take vegan supplements to compensate too. So no, you don't need to eat meat. There are meat-free alternatives and solutions.

---

You still need to eat meat, especially if you're a child. The amounts synthesized by the body are hardly sufficient (which is why so many vegans suffer from creatine deficiency) and also, the body could have spent this time producing other nutritional elements.
http://clinchem.aaccjnls.org/content.../1802.full.pdf
About the various supplements existing, all of them are coming from animal products, which makes them unacceptable for the vegan dogma. Meanwhile, the lack of creatine leads to underdevelopment, weak muscles and brain. It's an unnecessary disaster and vegan diet imposed on minors is child abuse.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crandar

About the various supplements existing, all of them are coming from animal products, which makes them unacceptable for the vegan dogma.

---

Nope - While dietary creatine comes mostly from animal products, the creatine used in supplements is made from synthetic creatine is made from sarcosine (or its salts). Sarcosine may be synthesized from chloroacetic acid and methylamine. So whilst most of your links point out to various things a vegan needs to consider, there are alternatives to animal-based consumption. I am not attempting to disprove your statement that vegans/vegatarians have less creatine, more that they came make up for the deficiency through alternative methods.

You could argue there is also an ethos about keeping to "whole foods" and avoiding anything sythenic or manufactured which would make arguement moot for those people.

Only meat contains B1, you are more at risk to get alzheimer pretty early in your life, would at least eat meat 2 times a week, going all veggie simply isn't very good for you. I wouldn't call meat essential but you are build to take advantage of it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beskar

Nope - While dietary creatine comes mostly from animal products, the creatine used in supplements is made from synthetic creatine is made from sarcosine (or its salts). Sarcosine may be synthesized from chloroacetic acid and methylamine. So whilst most of your links point out to various things a vegan needs to consider, there are alternatives to animal-based consumption. I am not attempting to disprove your statement that vegans/vegatarians have less creatine, more that they came make up for the deficiency through alternative methods.

You could argue there is also an ethos about keeping to "whole foods" and avoiding anything sythenic or manufactured which would make arguement moot for those people.

---

How many people are going to stick to a vegan diet? Why wouldn't people eat the now rarer and thus more prestigious meat? What studies are there of a large population moving towards a more vegetarian diet, in particular the practical aspects of moving them to such a diet and making sure they keep to it? If you can't do this, there's no point in talking about the vegan-approved synthesis of dietary requirements.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

How many people are going to stick to a vegan diet? Why wouldn't people eat the now rarer and thus more prestigious meat? What studies are there of a large population moving towards a more vegetarian diet, in particular the practical aspects of moving them to such a diet and making sure they keep to it? If you can't do this, there's no point in talking about the vegan-approved synthesis of dietary requirements.

---

Well, there are effectively vegetarian-like diets in existence around the world, due to meat being such a luxury item in the first place. If there isn't the availability, there is no need to make people "stick" to it.

There is also other technology like lab-grown meats which are an alternative. There are also GM solutions to making sure people get their nutrition.

There are also shake based diets which do away with cooking and meat all together, but they are rather bland, example of these being Huel and Cambridge but these run into a problem due to swallowing concerns.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beskar

Well, there are effectively vegetarian-like diets in existence around the world, due to meat being such a luxury item in the first place. If there isn't the availability, there is no need to make people "stick" to it.

There is also other technology like lab-grown meats which are an alternative. There are also GM solutions to making sure people get their nutrition.

There are also shake based diets which do away with cooking and meat all together, but they are rather bland, example of these being Huel and Cambridge but these run into a problem due to swallowing concerns.

---

The point I'm making is that western countries, who will be the only ones willing to switch voluntarily, can afford meat. There is a case study of a western country successfully reducing meat intake whilst still functioning, namely WWII Britain. And there are studies of how they made the rationing system work. NB. it wasn't just about goodwill and scientific logic.

No, it made people pretty darn grumpy.

In any case, Beskar is demonstrably wrong because the insects are suffering most in areas with intensive crop farming, which is exactly what you would need to feed everyone Vegan. You're also need to kill most of the sheep, cows, goats etc. that we keep and turn all the meadows they graze on over to arable land - except some of it's not suitable.

The BBC had an article on this recently, too, about people who went Vegan for ethical reasons and discovered it made them physically unwell despite "monitoring" their diet closely. The fact is, Veganism doesn't really work for humans and more than a heavily meat-based diet. Of course, by "humans" I really mean Europeans because not all humans have the same guts, I can't see the Innuit surviving on a Vegan diet at all - for example.

He's also wrong about this "natural equilibrium" because developed countries are still horribly over-populated. This is a serious issue in Britain where we are swallowing farm land to build houses, but it get's really serious if you look at somewhere like Japan. The Japanese have really serious mental health issues as a society, isolationism, loneliness, suicide... A lot of that can be traced to their extreme over-crowding, especially the loneliness.

The International Development fund is a total bust - because the money just gets wasted or simply hived off and spent by corrupt politicians.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

No, it made people pretty darn grumpy.

In any case, Beskar is demonstrably wrong because the insects are suffering most in areas with intensive crop farming, which is exactly what you would need to feed everyone Vegan. You're also need to kill most of the sheep, cows, goats etc. that we keep and turn all the meadows they graze on over to arable land - except some of it's not suitable.

The BBC had an article on this recently, too, about people who went Vegan for ethical reasons and discovered it made them physically unwell despite "monitoring" their diet closely. The fact is, Veganism doesn't really work for humans and more than a heavily meat-based diet. Of course, by "humans" I really mean Europeans because not all humans have the same guts, I can't see the Innuit surviving on a Vegan diet at all - for example.

He's also wrong about this "natural equilibrium" because developed countries are still horribly over-populated. This is a serious issue in Britain where we are swallowing farm land to build houses, but it get's really serious if you look at somewhere like Japan. The Japanese have really serious mental health issues as a society, isolationism, loneliness, suicide... A lot of that can be traced to their extreme over-crowding, especially the loneliness.

The International Development fund is a total bust - because the money just gets wasted or simply hived off and spent by corrupt politicians.

---

Blair is appreciated in west Africa simply because this fact of life is heavily reduced in areas where he's involved, leading to these funds actually getting to target areas and being used with some degree of efficiency in developing these areas to progressive standards. But, as Beskar has demonstrated, and as every other British leftist will demonstrate, to them Blair is Iraq and nothing else.

Certainly any Brit who wants to talk about a prescriptive diet should have a look at WWII's rationing system and how it worked, and its ramifications. A look at the agricultural changes and their ramifications would also be useful. Because that's effectively what they're saying should happen. There's one historian, whose name I've forgotten, who has actually looked at how rationing from that period might work if translated into the modern world.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

Blair is appreciated in west Africa simply because this fact of life is heavily reduced in areas where he's involved, leading to these funds actually getting to target areas and being used with some degree of efficiency in developing these areas to progressive standards.

---

Hrm, the only information google deigns to show me on Blair's African Governance Initiative that isn't self promotion is an independent article on anti-Ebola logistics in sierra leone and a telegraph article on a lack of transparency in its dealings in Ethiopia.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

In any case, Beskar is demonstrably wrong because the insects are suffering most in areas with intensive crop farming, which is exactly what you would need to feed everyone Vegan. You're also need to kill most of the sheep, cows, goats etc. that we keep and turn all the meadows they graze on over to arable land - except some of it's not suitable.

---

A large proportion of the farmland is used to feed animals. If you don't need to feed the animals, this can be turned into land farming solely for humans. Land used which cannot be farmed, but sheep graze for example can be made into viable habitats for biodiversity.

As for the poor sheep, cows, etc. They will end up on your plate. No need to pity their plight as you season their flesh just before your teeth tear through it. There is no need for forced mass breeding and rising prices for the last of the meat will act as a farmers payday.

In short, more biodiversity, less land usage, no more animal suffering. Wins across the board.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beskar

A large proportion of the farmland is used to feed animals. If you don't need to feed the animals, this can be turned into land farming solely for humans.

---

Last I checked, the majority of pastoral farmland was pastoral precisely because it wasn't suitable for arable farming.

Quote:

---

Land used which cannot be farmed, but sheep graze for example can be made into viable habitats for biodiversity.

---

This presupposes it isn't already, which it often is. Sheep and cows are kept in smaller, hedged, fields, and those fields are left to grass naturally, they often have man-made brooks running through them for watering the animals, too.

Quote:

---

As for the poor sheep, cows, etc. They will end up on your plate. No need to pity their plight as you season their flesh just before your teeth tear through it.

---

I find your lack of compassion disturbing. You forget, I grew up on a working sheep farming, I have been involved in the process from birth to death. I care, I eat meat, the two are not a conflict. Simply a fact of life for me.

Quote:

---

There is no need for forced mass breeding and rising prices for the last of the meat will act as a farmers payday.

---

Oh, yes, how are the crofters going to survive in your brave new world?

What you going to do, give them nice cushy jobs working in customer service? Talk about cruel.

Quote:

---

In short, more biodiversity, less land usage, no more animal suffering. Wins across the board.

---

My sister, who did a degree in animal welfare, once gave me an axiom: "the fact the animal died is not an animal welfare issue". Death is inevitable, how an animal dies is important but the fact it died to provide us with meat is not. So the "no more suffering" argument is rubbish, as is the biodiversity argument, as pastoral farming (which there will be more of) is inherently harmful to the environment when done intensively.

Face it, your argument is ill thought out and utterly without foundation, moral, economic, or scientific.

You refuse to recognise the simple truth - there are too many people.