Veganism

[PannickAtTheDisco]

It's debatable if eating meat is the reason why we have developed as a species. Even if it was true, what bearing does that have on our present society and what we do in the future? Should we base our view on what society should do in the future based soley on what has been done in the past? Animal agriculture is responsible for more greenhouse gas emissions than transportation, is the leading cause of rainforest destruction, oceanic dead zones, top soil erosion etc. We may not have much of a future if we do not change what we are doing.

Also do you think we shold not contemplate cruelty just because our ancestors may not have done?

it's not in the slightest bit debatable. How humans farm meat is a different question to humans eating meat. The former has merit, the latter has no merit to its questioning.

 

[urban genie]

I bet it's been 'proven' by a McDonald's funded study.

Dr Max Gerson's therapy has much higher success rates than any convential treatments.

Poisoning the body with Chemotherapy is not the answer you don't heal a sick body with poison.

I got my info off cancer research site not McDonalds

http://www.cancerresearchuk.org/abo...rnative-therapies/individual-therapies/gerson

What Gerson therapy is
Gerson therapy is an alternative therapy which means it is usually used instead of conventional cancer treatment.

It aims to rid the body of toxins and strengthen the body’s immune system.

There is no scientific evidence that Gerson therapy can treat cancer. In fact, in certain situations Gerson therapy can be very harmful to your health. The diet should not be used instead of conventional cancer treatment.

You might also hear Gerson therapy called the:

• Gerson diet
• Gerson regimen
• Gerson method

It was developed in the 1920s and 30s by a German doctor called Max Gerson. He claimed that it helped cure his migraine headaches. So he went on to use it to treat other diseases such as tuberculosis and cancer.

Gerson therapy side effects
In some situations the Gerson diet can cause some very serious side effects and is potentially harmful. It is very important to speak to your doctor first if you are thinking of using the Gerson diet.

Coffee enemas remove a lot of potassium from your body and have been known to cause:

• infections
• dehydration
• fits
• salt and other mineral imbalances in the body
• heart and lung problems, even death
• constipation and inflammation of the bowel (colitis) from regular, long term use of enemas which can weaken the bowel muscle

Other reported side effects include:

• loss of appetite
• diarrhoea and sickness
• abdominal cramps
• aching, fever and sweating
• cold sores
• dizziness and weakness

As I said using unproven diets to aid your theory and throwing out that not eating meet will stop you dying young is ridiculois.

 

[Scottyboi]

I'm equally fascinated and appalled by this man

Fuck sake Dam I've just ate lol.

 

[Scottyboi]

Read up on Dr Max Gerson, Essiac, Hoxsey and the China Study.

The level of ignorance on this subject is astounding yet we watch our friends and loved ones die early its madness.

You are arguing for death ahead of life.

If you are going to quote anyone to support your arguement it would be Dr Sebi who apparently won a court case proving he cured cancer and aids in his patients.

Ironically he died of pneumonia whilst locked up for having a suitcase full of cash, which he wanted to use to setup a health village in Africa. Lisa Left Eye Lopez was a huge advocate of his.

 

[Metal Biker]

It's debatable if eating meat is the reason why we have developed as a species. Even if it was true, what bearing does that have on our present society and what we do in the future? Should we base our view on what society should do in the future based soley on what has been done in the past? Animal agriculture is responsible for more greenhouse gas emissions than transportation, is the leading cause of rainforest destruction, oceanic dead zones, top soil erosion etc. We may not have much of a future if we do not change what we are doing.

Also do you think we shold not contemplate cruelty just because our ancestors may not have done?

You reckon there will be enough vegetables and grain to suddenly feed 7.6 billion people? Who will you get to produce and pick it, or would you install a national lottery that forces people to become farmers to make up the demand, because someone will have to grow and pick it, most likely machines, machines that produces even MORE greenhouse gases. Speaking of farmers, how will you get around the growing urban population issues and building on green belt land and couple it with needing the same additional land for the new produce we'd need to create?

What about world governments? If it was cheaper, more profitable and easier for society to be based on a Vegan diet wouldn't they have done it by now? At the very least it must have been contemplated, research done and the outcome was one that was so outlandish and pie-in-the-sky to ever do, they rejected the notion to just carry on as usual? What would happen to the 1.5 billion cows on the planet? Who would dispose of their corpses upon natural death? How would they be fed, areas to graze would need to be laid out, unless you advocate a mass culling to bring the numbers down, which kind of defeats the purpose, doesn't it?

All hypothetical, obviously, but I wonder if the "Meat is Murder" crowd have taken these issues into account.

 

[Juan King]

Take a look at population growth and get back to me with the numbers.
There aint enough land to feed the world without meat.

You didn't answer any of my questions.

To answer your question, you have it the wrong way round, there in't enough land to feed the world with meat as it is currently being produced.

Animal agriculture is very wasteful, it is estimated that we currently produce enough calories to feed 10-11 billion people world wide, but the majority of this goes to livestock, not people.

70% of the grain in the U.S. is fed to farmed animals rather than to people (The world’s cattle alone consume a quantity of food equal to the caloric needs of 8.7 billion people.)http://www.onegreenplanet.org/animalsandnature/facts-on-animal-farming-and-the-environment/
http://www.onegreenplanet.org/animalsandnature/facts-on-animal-farming-and-the-environment/
All resources taken into account, one acre of land can produce 250 pounds of beef. The same acre of land can produce 50,000 pounds of tomatoes or 53,000 pounds of potatoes.

This advises going vegetarian halves CO2 emissions from your food: https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn25795-going-vegetarian-halves-co2-emissions-from-your-food/




Have a read through this too: https://academic.oup.com/ajcn/article/78/3/660S/4690010

 

[Juan King]

it's not in the slightest bit debatable. How humans farm meat is a different question to humans eating meat. The former has merit, the latter has no merit to its questioning.

How does it have no merit. Are you saying we have to eat meat to continue as a species?

 

[PannickAtTheDisco]

How does it have no merit. Are you saying we have to eat meat to continue as a species?

there is no merit to stopping people eating meat. It is part of the fabric of human civilisation and development, a healthy and core component of the diet and nature determines the laws of nature and is a far superior judge than a small sub-section of society.

 

[Hoghead]

My 18 yo has decided to go vegan for Lent.
We shall see how it goes.

 

[Juan King]

You reckon there will be enough vegetables and grain to suddenly feed 7.6 billion people? Yes see my post above. Who will you get to produce and pick it, we already produce enough to feed everyone, but we waste large amount of this feeding it to livestock who we then eat, which is not an efficient use of resources, how do you think they harvest this now? machines that produces even MORE greenhouse gases. Look at stats above comparing CO2 emissions from plant based v meat based diet. Speaking of farmers, how will you get around the growing urban population issues and building on green belt land and couple it with needing the same additional land for the new produce we'd need to create? Meat production uses more resouces than crops, so if you are worried about the environment & the green belt, surely the best thing you can do is go plant based?

What about world governments? If it was cheaper, more profitable and easier for society to be based on a Vegan diet wouldn't they have done it by now? I never said any diet was more profitable than the other. Animal agriculture is big business. Most of the world, particulary the poorer countries live on a mostly plant based diet now,people are starving because richer countried buy grain to feed cattle, as we can pay more money for it than the poor people. Look up how much animal agriculture is subsidised At the very least it must have been contemplated, research done and the outcome was one that was so outlandish and pie-in-the-sky to ever do, they rejected the notion to just carry on as usual? Read the research, most people agree that animal agriculture is less sustainable than plant based. What would happen to the 1.5 billion cows on the planet? There are only so may cattle because we artificially breed them for food, if we stopped doing that there wouldn't be 1.5 billion cattle, they aren't breeding naturally. Also everyone isn't going to suddenly go vegan overnight, it would have to be a gradual phased out approach. Who would dispose of their corpses upon natural death? How would they be fed, areas to graze would need to be laid out, unless you advocate a mass culling to bring the numbers down, which kind of defeats the purpose, doesn't it?

All hypothetical, obviously, but I wonder if the "Meat is Murder" crowd have taken these issues into account.

Answers in red