Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
UN Says Eat Less Meat To Curb Global Warming
Climate expert urges radical shift in diet
People should have one meat-free day a week if they want to make a personal and effective sacrifice that would help tackle climate change, the world's leading authority on global warming has told The Observer
A joint of beef. (Photograph/Alamy) Dr Rajendra Pachauri, chair of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which last year earned a joint share of the Nobel Peace Prize, said that people should then go on to reduce their meat consumption even further.
His comments are the most controversial advice yet provided by the panel on how individuals can help tackle global warning.
Pachauri, who was re-elected the panel's chairman for a second six-year term last week, said diet change was important because of the huge greenhouse gas emissions and other environmental problems - including habitat destruction - associated with rearing cattle and other animals. It was relatively easy to change eating habits compared to changing means of transport, he said.
The UN's Food and Agriculture Organisation has estimated that meat production accounts for nearly a fifth of global greenhouse gas emissions. These are generated during the production of animal feeds, for example, while ruminants, particularly cows, emit methane, which is 23 times more effective as a global warming agent than carbon dioxide. The agency has also warned that meat consumption is set to double by the middle of the century.
'In terms of immediacy of action and the feasibility of bringing about reductions in a short period of time, it clearly is the most attractive opportunity,' said Pachauri. 'Give up meat for one day [a week] initially, and decrease it from there,' said the Indian economist, who is a vegetarian.
However, he also stressed other changes in lifestyle would help to combat climate change. 'That's what I want to emphasise: we really have to bring about reductions in every sector of the economy.'
Pachauri can expect some vociferous responses from the food industry to his advice, though last night he was given unexpected support by Masterchef presenter and restaurateur John Torode, who is about to publish a new book, John Torode's Beef. 'I have a little bit and enjoy it,' said Torode. 'Too much for any person becomes gluttony. But there's a bigger issue here: where [the meat] comes from. If we all bought British and stopped buying imported food we'd save a huge amount of carbon emissions.'
Tomorrow, Pachauri will speak at an event hosted by animal welfare group Compassion in World Farming, which has calculated that if the average UK household halved meat consumption that would cut emissions more than if car use was cut in half.
The group has called for governments to lead campaigns to reduce meat consumption by 60 per cent by 2020. Campaigners have also pointed out the health benefits of eating less meat. The average person in the UK eats 50g of protein from meat a day, equivalent to a chicken breast and a lamb chop - a relatively low level for rich nations but 25-50 per cent more than World Heath Organisation guidelines.
Professor Robert Watson, the chief scientific adviser for the Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs, who will also speak at tomorrow's event in London, said government could help educate people about the benefits of eating less meat, but it should not 'regulate'. 'Eating less meat would help, there's no question about that, but there are other things,' Watson said.
However, Chris Lamb, head of marketing for pig industry group BPEX, said the meat industry had been unfairly targeted and was working hard to find out which activities had the biggest environmental impact and reduce those. Some ideas were contradictory, he said - for example, one solution to emissions from livestock was to keep them indoors, but this would damage animal welfare. 'Climate change is a very young science and our view is there are a lot of simplistic solutions being proposed,' he said.
Last year a major report into the environmental impact of meat eating by the Food Climate Research Network at Surrey University claimed livestock generated 8 per cent of UK emissions - but eating some meat was good for the planet because some habitats benefited from grazing. It also said vegetarian diets that included lots of milk, butter and cheese would probably not noticeably reduce emissions because dairy cows are a major source of methane, a potent greenhouse gas released through flatulence.
- Posted in
85 Comments so far
Show AllBetter yet, become a vegetarian.
Ten Reasons to Go Vegetarian:
1. You'll save the lives of 6 cows, 22 pigs, 30 sheep, 800 chickens, 50 turkeys, 15 ducks, 7 rabbits and half a ton of fish.
2. You'll help protect yourself against the most common killer diseases. An animal-based diet is high in saturated fat, animal protein and cholesterol which raise the level of cholesterol in the blood - the warning sign for heart disease and stroke. Vegetarians get up to 57 per cent less heart disease.
3. The National Cancer Institute state that eating vitamins A,C and E from fresh fruit and vegetables reduces cancers and heart disease. These vitamins even help keep your brain active in old age! None of these antioxidants are in meat.
4. A vegetarian diet provides all the nutrients you need for good health - so says the British Medical Association and US goverment.
5. There are virtually no laws to protect farm animals from cruelty.
6. Meat is an incredibly wasteful way of producing food. On average just to produce 1 kg of meat, 10kg of vegetable protein is used. That vegetable protein could be fed directly to people instead. This leads to starvation because people in the wealthy West use so many of the world's crops to feed their farm animals. And because the West has so much power it can insist that poorer countries grow food for the West's animals when they could be growing it for their own people.
7. If everyone in the world went vegetarian we could feed the whole world and more. If everyone ate meat we could not even feed half the world's population.
8. Almost all pigs are factory farmed. They are often in dark, barren, overcrowded pens and suffer from broken bones, abscesses, ruptured stomachs, pneumonia, meningitis, cuts and wounds which often kill the piglets because they are not cleaned.
9. Chickens are fed antibiotics every day to try to stop the spread of disease. Up to 100,000 are crammed in sheds. Four fifths have broken bones or deformed legs and feet by the time they are killed at just six weeks old.
10. Fishing is causing the ecological collapse of the oceans.
With the simple decision to stop eating meat and fish, you cease to play a part in this insanity. Go on be an eco-babe and go veggie today.
I grew up in a (then) very rural county. When i started at college , I started out in Agri-Business ( I had been married very young to a man who raised thoroughbred horses--it was about al I thought I knew how to do). I had to enroll in the regular agricultural courses. That meant visiting agr-businesses (farms), slaughterhouses, and a couple of family farms. By the end of the first quarter, I was OUT! I will not go into details (Naomi Klein gets it pretty damn close in Shock Doctrine)but, believe me, the way animals are kept, fed (each other) and drugged, and reproduced (remember when the FDA said it wanted to use genetic enginering via frozen sperm to "get the best animals"? What BS! The already do almost exclusively artif. insemination, because they have hormonmed and fed the animals to be so FAT that the males cannot mount the females!!)is a nightmare! The few organic, free-range (the "range" is up to the owner--can be 5' x 5')farms produce meat that is to expensive for the average person on this planet. It is true, humans are omnivores (like chimpanzees--who eat an occasional monkey--rarely), but humans are eating about 100x the meat that is necessary for full amino acid protein to be re0-produced.It can be replaced with soy (some people cannot eat soy)or combination proteins. I dont see banning meat (I dont eat it), but this factory farming is neither healthy nor humane. Also, ther is more evidence that it is coming back to bite us in the ass---lok at all therecalls! For e coli, and other bugs. It is disgusting.I know W cut the budgets and de-regulated alot. But, too many peooe are dying or becoming disabled every year. YOu dont just "get e coli" and it passes. You can have permanent kidney damage. etc.
I've been a vegetarian for about 15 years, in part, for my health, the environment and because I don't feel that an animal should have to give up its life so that I can have a meal.
And I really find dead animal parts/pieces disgusting to look at. All that grease and blood running all over the plate. Ugh. No thank you. I don't want any part of that.
UN calls for more family planning.
The United Nations is calling for more investment in family planning to reduce poverty, slow population growth and ease pressure on the environment.
In a report marking World Population Day, the UN estimates that the number of people on the planet will grow from 6.7bn to 9.2bn by the year 2050.
That means greater demand for food, water and fuel.
Such growth is unsustainable, the UN says, as climate change degrades arable land and reduces water supplies.
The hard truth is, the UN adds, the world does not even want so many new people. More than 200 million women, many in the developing world, do not have access to contraceptives.
Hundreds of thousands of women die in childbirth each year or from botched illegal abortions and women are crucial to the world's food production - in Africa and Asia they grow over 80% of crops.
Access to contraceptives would give women the chance to plan their families and the resulting slower population growth would, the UN says, ease pressure on food supplies and reduce damage to the environment.
Providing family planning to all those who want it will cost $1.2bn a year, but the UN says at the moment less than half that is being spent.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7501005.stm
"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear."-Thomas Jefferson
"More than 200 million women, many in the developing world, do not have access to contraceptives."
That is only about 12% of the adult female population. I wonder where that figure came from? It seems on the low side to me, if you include access denied by law, culture and cost as well as by sheer lack of availability.
Joe
Poor people need to have lots of children that will provide free labor for at least 10 years each. How else are they going to survive? A two person unit can't expand. It is a pyramid scheme that only ends with general wealth. To reduce population growth you need to reduce exploitation and improve people's standard of living:In other words, the rich have to stop stealing from the poor. I mean stealing, not what they made by hard work. I specially refer to wars against countries that try to do good by their people but not by the American corporation in their country...............................lizard
V-Climate: U.N. Blames Cows for Global Warming -- Unjustly!!
U.N. Blames Cows for Global Warming -- Unjustly!!
by Carolyn Lee
May 25, 2008
The following passages are from an article by Matthew J. Rales which appeared in the Spring, 2008 edition of Wise Traditions, a publication of the Weston A. Price Foundation. The entire article is not yet available online. Matthew Rales obtained his BA in Environmental Studies from Middlebury College in Vermont. He recently completed an apprenticeship at Joel Salatin's grass-based Polyface Farm and is pursuing a career in grass-based farming at Polyface.
Before the excerpts from Matthew Rales, we have Michael Pollan. His video is an entertaining and thought provoking discussion about the relationships between people, food and plants; gardening, industrial agriculture, and farming.
The last section of the video wonderfully illustrates what is possible with grass and cows. In fact, Pollan is describing his visit to Joel Salatin's farm. He discusses how natural and ecologically balanced this system is, and how much food it produces.
(Sandra's comment: It's almost a side benefit that it also takes carbon out of the atmosphere. You can't get better than that!)
Farming in this way produces healthy animals, healthy plants, and extraordinarily health-supporting food. At the same time, it is BOTH ecologically and economically viable.
Go to the video on ted.com. The part about Salatin's farm starts a bit after 10:30 minutes.
http://whataretheissues2008.blogspot.com/2008/05/un-blames-cows-for-global-warming.html
We are omnivores and thrive best with at least some meat sourced protean. I always read a message in these articles which suggests that without meat production we could solve world hunger and feed yet more of us. I don't want people to go hungry, but I also don't want yet more humans on this already overcrowded planet: there are too many of us already. How about measures to really slow our breeding so that we can have a sustainable world population in which we can all eat some meat. The fact that western governments give benefits to women to encourage them to have yet more unnecessary children is obscene; we should tax children in fact, and benefit the childless. Nine billion people (2050 estimate) squabbling over bowls of cold gruel and desperate for water and living space, not to mention work, is not an attractive prospect.
Did you notice that the article, and the UN report, specifically suggest only giving up meat ONE DAY PER WEEK. Is that too extreme for you?
Good point. Even if you think we should eat meat, there is no doubt Americans eat WAY too much of it.
"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?" -Epicurus
Eat no meat at all, for more than just global warming, but we certainly have to do all we can in regards to that one issue. Even better than vegetarian: veganism. It's inevitable that our culture will have to go this route sooner or later, and I hope it's sooner!! (:
I disagree that veganism is better than vegetarianism if you know where you get your eggs and dairy.
"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?" -Epicurus
Global Warming is not a threat! It is a natural part of the Earth's evolution. It's inevitable!
The fact that something is natural does not mean it is not a threat---jeez...............lizard
I suggest you educate yourself. Try Realclimate.org or, if you have some little scientific background, you might like to read and criticize
http://mb-soft.com/public3/global.html#7
which summarises the basic science. (The detailed conclusions are a little more suspect.)
I believe the majority of scientists on global climate change. Hell, if youre old enough--just notice the seasons! But, that being said, let's just say that humans are NOT responsible for global climate change.Do we just sit here and let the planet boil, because we are "not responsible"? Do you lie breathing in, drinking in adn eating in all that disgusting garbage? I believe we are responsible, whether it is a "natural cycle" or not--if it is--we're making it drastically worse.
And the earth isn't round, all those photos of our planet are a part of a UN conspiracy.
"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?" -Epicurus
Go vegetarian if you care about global warming or justice. The Guardian article headline said reduce meat--the BBC headline was shun meat:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7600005.stm
Anyway its the step in the right direction. As things get worse you will hear louder voices.
Michael Pollan is a joke author. His goal is to sell books to lazy rich liberals so they can feel good as they make no sacrifices.
Its ego stroking.
But I expect small farmers to be upset--since this highlights their part in spreading misery and destruction no matter how people like Frederick Johnson try to sugar coat it for $$$..
As for the idea that humans are omnivores--technically every species is an omnivore--even cats can eat vegetable matter, the question is whether it is necessary to eat meat for humans--answer: no.
Earth to Ulpian--the protein myth was debunked about a decade ago.
Dont believe it
visit this guy and challenge him to an arm wrestle:
http://www.veganbodybuilding.com/
More bandaid solutions for overpopulation and resource concentration.
Even Malthus recanted his theories about blaming overpopulation for everything. It's not the population, it's the fucking policies !
They are BOTH part of the problem. THE "problem" is many-fold. Bush et al sending "christian" mercenaries overseas to teach "abstinance-only"--never works.THe "stay a virgin or die" theory, should have been in place for Barbara Bush.I not only believe in a right to choose abortion (not as a first resort), but also in "retroactive abortion". Lets retr-abort Bush, Rummy, Cheny, Rice.Then, there are the policies of the multi-nationsl, who will destroy anything for $$$--(diamonds, oil, copperetc.)
ezeflyer certainly has a point. Overpopulation is a large and growing problem. People produced in areas and countries that can't support them don't really have a lot to do with policies.
There is a growing problem in the American Southwest because of policies of course in both population and enviornmental problems.
So you are both right.
What level of population do you think the world can support before it will be necesary to call a halt? 9 billion, 20 billion, 100 billion? Or when humans occupy every single square inch of land?
Tell us where Malthus recanted, I can't find evidence of it:
"In this famous work, Malthus posited his hypothesis that (unchecked) population growth always exceeds the growth of means of subsistence. Actual (checked) population growth is kept in line with food supply growth by "positive checks" (starvation, disease and the like, elevating the death rate) and "preventive checks" (i.e. postponement of marriage, etc. that keep down the birthrate), both of which are characterized by "misery and vice". Malthus's hypothesis implied that actual population always has a tendency to push above the food supply. Because of this tendency, any attempt to ameliorate the condition of the lower classes by increasing their incomes or improving agricultural productivity would be fruitless, as the extra means of subsistence would be completely absorbed by an induced boost in population. As long as this tendency remains, Malthus argued, the "perfectibility" of society will always be out of reach.
In his much-expanded and revised 1803 edition of the Essay, Malthus concentrated on bringing empirical evidence to bear (much of it acquired on his extensive travels to Germany, Russia and Scandinavia). He also introduced the possibility of "moral restraint" (voluntary abstinence which leads to neither misery nor vice) bringing the unchecked population growth rate down to a point where the tendency is gone. In practical policy terms, this meant inculcating the lower classes with middle-class virtues. He believed this could be done with the introduction of universal suffrage, state-run education for the poor and, more controversially, the elimination of the Poor Laws and the establishment of an unfettered nation-wide labor market. He also argued that once the poor had a taste for luxury, then they would demand a higher standard of living for themselves before starting a family. Thus, although seemingly contradictory, Malthus is suggesting the possibility of "demographic transition", i.e. that sufficiently high incomes may be enough by themselves to reduce fertility.
The Essay transformed Malthus into an intellectual celebrity. He was reviled by many as a hard-hearted monster, a prophet of doom, an enemy of the working class, etc. The ridicule and invective rained down on Malthus by the chattering and pamphleteering classes was relentless. But a sufficient number of people recognized his Essay for what it was: the first serious economic study of the welfare of the lower classes. Even Karl Marx, who deplored his conservative policy conclusions, grudgingly granted him this."
http://cepa.newschool.edu/het/profiles/malthus.htm
I can't find any evidence where Malthus recanted here:
"In October 1838, that is, fifteen months after I had begun my systematic inquiry, I happened to read for amusement Malthus on Population, and being well prepared to appreciate the struggle for existence which everywhere goes on from long- continued observation of the habits of animals and plants, it at once struck me that under these circumstances favourable variations would tend to be preserved, and unfavourable ones to be destroyed. The results of this would be the formation of a new species. Here, then I had at last got a theory by which to work".
Charles Darwin, from his autobiography. (1876)
"This often quoted passage reflects the significance Darwin affords Malthus in formulating his theory of Natural Selection. What "struck" Darwin in Essay on the Principle of Population (1798) was Malthus's observation that in nature plants and animals produce far more offspring than can survive, and that Man too is capable of overproducing if left unchecked. Malthus concluded that unless family size was regulated, man's misery of famine would become globally epidemic and eventually consume Man. Malthus' view that poverty and famine were natural outcomes of population growth and food supply was not popular among social reformers who believed that with proper social structures, all ills of man could be eradicated.
Although Malthus thought famine and poverty natural outcomes, the ultimate reason for those outcomes was divine institution. He believed that such natural outcomes were God's way of preventing man from being lazy. Both Darwin and Wallace independantly arrived at similar theories of Natural Selection after reading Malthus. Unlike Malthus, they framed his principle in purely natural terms both in outcome and in ultimate reason. By so doing, they extended Malthus' logic further than Malthus himself could ever take it. They realized that producing more offspring than can survive establishes a competitive environment among siblings, and that the variation among siblings would produce some individuals with a slightly greater chance of survival.
Malthus was a political economist who was concerned about, what he saw as, the decline of living conditions in nineteenth century England. He blamed this decline on three elements: The overproduction of young; the inability of resources to keep up with the rising human population; and the irresponsibility of the lower classes. To combat this, Malthus suggested the family size of the lower class ought to be regulated such that poor families do not produce more children than they can support. Does this sound familiar? China has implemented a policy of one child per family (though this applies to all families, not just those of the lower class)."
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/history/malthus.html
How is eating less meat or no meat a band aid solution?
How about you continuing to not be part of an excelent solution is part of the problem.
Not only is cutting back on meat/dairy a good and quick solution, it's a permanent solution. You not only eliminate green house gases, etc, but you get rid of soil erosion, desertification, land can be redistributed and protected or used to grow produce which will feed more mouths. Not to mention it would force populations to think about animal cruelty and hopefully spark a debate about how humans can live sustainably and regeneratively with animals. The possibilities this offers are truly endless and it is a solution, hardly a band-aid.
Yes, there is a problem with human over-population and mismanagement of free/affordable contraception world-wide, but there is also an animal over-population problem.
Both solutions are needed. But it is a quicker and a more concrete solution if we all continue to cut back on our flesh diets.
Raising animals for food produces more greenhouse gases than cars (about 20% of total). It is easier to reduce meat consumption than gasoline consumption. Both would be better. lizard
If the production of CO2 was taxed, meat would become very expensive and consumption would go down. Higher gas and meat prices would help a great deal in reducing greenhouse gas emissions. This is important. At a time when Earth is warming up we should not be helping it along. Furthermore, as others have pointed out, there are many ethical reasons for reducing meat consumption........................lizard
The issue of overpopulation in the third world can only be addressed by attacking the root cause, which is poverty.
One of the underlying reasons people have such large families there is for reasons of survival. When people reach an elderly age there are no programs (that evil SOCIALISM!!) to support them and they have to count on their children to do so. The more children they have, the greater the likelihood one will survive and be able to support a parent.
I have another issue as well which is hard to put into words. As medical science advances we have ever longer lifespans. While still relatively primitive life extension sciences to push ever forward. It estimated that by 2050 lifespans will reach 120 and more years. Needless to say this becomes the preserve of the wealthy.
How can a society survive with an over growing population of the elderly and fewer and fewer children? With less children would the human species become even more selfish? How would such a society (Many older people kept alive to 120 years plus and fewer children so as to combat overpopulation) improve itself spiritually? Where will new transforming ideals come from.?
I agree with you on the poverty issue. (Still don't forget to EAT LESS MEAT PLEASE! It is easy and completely under your control and does not require making complex judgements about the lives of others, as I do at my own peril below.)
I have been told by Indian-born colleagues that in India Social Security is having a son. In Phillipines, it is often a daughter with a profession who sends money home. Elder people with no wealth and no children have no way to live. So families play the lottery and have lots of children, hoping some will survive and stay close to home to help them. They may discourage independence for a child to keep them in a supportive role. I have seen this myself - parents telling a beautiful, accomplished girl she is ugly and stupid and nobody wants her so she will stay home and support them.
Population control depends on education and opportunity for women and also some reasonable form of elder care for the modern world.
Joe
DONE - We drive by feed lots twice a week.
Population control is very important. Educating women in 3rd world and our own country. Part of the reason the Chinese wish to keep christanity/muslims out is birth control issues. I'd like to help in efforts in 3rd world countries to help with birth control, and women's education. Anyone here with links to?
Consume-Cutback-Consume-Cutback...which one is it? I've never been accused of being an optimist. The thing is, by the time a critical portion of the world's population finally do get it, the rules of the game will probably change, thus leading to ever more mass confusion and needless suffering.
What? You want a solution? Educate the masses, spank the greedy little girls and boys, and STOP BREEDING!
Ok people. Let's revisit history shall we? 50 years ago, most meat was grass-fed. Today's meat, 85+ %, is corn fed. Corn-fed meat makes you hungry for more because it lacks the nutrients your body actually wants and needs. Grass fed meat on the other hand doesn't do such. Think people think ! If grass fed meat doesn't keep you coming for more and it retains most of the nutrients in contrast to corn-fed meat that comes from burning fossil fuels let alone the transportation, it's not the meat that is the problem. It is the way it is produced and manufactured that is the problem. The UN FAILS to talk about Big Agri. Oh wait, I forgot. They're in business with those goons. Like the US pols, the UN is owned lock stock and barrel by the Big Agri corporations.
And if you don't know what I am talking about, do a google search on
"corn fed" "grass fed"
except what we are importing from countries like costa rica is mainly "grass fed" beef used to make hamburgers for the fast-food industry here. it's just cheaper as it produces meat that is less 'marbled' and rich, thus more apt to be expendable and shipped abroad for us! yippee.
so no matter how you slice it, the forests are being destroyed to raise more cattle worldwide and our health is being compromised, whether it's in the name of grass or corn fed beef....
Not true. Forests were not destroyed to produce grass as grass grew on its own. If you're still that concerned about it, I'll give you a heads up. Grow some hemp and feed it to cows. Hemp is just as good as grass and can in fact help save forests fron cutting.
not true. i read a scientific article on it a awhile ago. it's not one of those CNN ones mind you. how do you think the cattle is grazing? with the mass production of meat going on worldwide, clearcutting forests and bulldozing the amazon is necessary to feed the cattle as they need ever more land. it's very simple. the consumption of meat is projected to increase by about half sometime this century...while it has already increased at least three-fold in the last century.
and yes i am indeed concerned about it as you ought to be too.
i'm not opposed to hemp.
Changing from corn-fed to grass fed would cut down on burning down forests. Going vegetarian can help too but currently we're stuck with out-of-whack corporate factory farms and unless you don't drink milk and eat straight from the raw vegetables and lentils. What I'm actually saying is that going from corn-fed to grass fed will actually moderate the damage and then we can further cut down from there. 50 years ago, forests weren't burned down to produce meat and since the meat then contain all the nutrients and taste that's sorely lacking in today's version, people weren't as hungry for seconds let alone thirds or even fourths. Think about it. A typical meat eater eats 2-4 slabs of meat on given day. And that meat is generally corn-fed and anti-biotic injected. Let's replace 2-4 slabs of corn-fed meat with 1 slab of grass-fed type. Basically, you're cutting down the consumption level 50-80% right there. Now, to add to this, I could eat 1 slab of grass fed beef and I wouldn't bother coming for seconds for the next 2-3 days although people's appetite could vary. You're talking real huge savings, both for the economy and the environment. Sure, big agri gets SMASHED financially but add it all up and it all goes a long ways.
And yes, I strongly recommend eating lentils and other plant based proteins as digestion is better and it is better absorbed by the bloodstream. Talk about solving the healthcare crisis big time and kicking Big Pharma/Insurance smack in the balls.
Good article. This article is from the UK and is aimed at us, the relatively prosperous meat-eaters. Many people on earth eat little or no meat already. They are not the problem.
Cutting out meat one day weekly is a practical start. If someone asks what they can do to help the earth, this is a simple step available to many people (unless they are already vegetarians.)
People can learn that vegetarian days are enjoyable. Maybe the norm can flip to eating vegetarian 6 days and meat only once a week.
Joe
What is the difference between a Christianists who worships an angry God and a Vegan who worships animals?
The Christianist is FAR less likely to try to impose his or her faith based belief system on me.
and probably because you can't even spell 'christian'........
Are you really that misinformed, that you believe Vegans worship the animals-- that they don't eat ?
___ Does that mean that you worship animal droppings,
___ because you don't eat them ?
Being a Vegan is not about participating in a religion, it's a life style choice of diet. Some people do have a spiritual reason for this choice, but that isn't necessary.
Namaste
LOL - Assuming you're being funny. ("Christianists" - mind if i borrow it?)
If serious, one should point out there is nothing faith-based or anything unusually systematic about eating your greens.
Actually, movements to eat less meat, reduce living standards, overpopulation, man made global warming are all related neo-malthusian created issues. It is essentially a religion in the making, where our elect are Gods who deem man to be a sinner against Gaia and whose congregation (lower classes) is conditioned to sacrifice for Mother Earth or be punished with global arming, famine, disease and eventual extinction.
It started of course with Malthus. His blaming poverty on overpopulation was to protect the capitalists and bankers of the elite class who were exploiting the lower classes, much as they do today, and to divert attention from the fact that the British Free Trade polices were crippling the local economy. He proposed misery (war, plague, famine) and vice (murder, infacticide) as was of controlling population. He also recognized that deaths from natural causes could be expedited by removing social security and repealing the poor laws. Sound familiar?
Darwins theory of Evolution, a theory which has yet to be proved although slightly more credible than the AGW theory, fit perfectly with the Eugenics movement to come. Darwins son was quoted as saying:
"At the present day, civilized nations are everywhere supplanting barbarous nations, excepting, where the climate opposes a deadly barrier; and they succeed mainly, though exclusively, through their arts, which are the products of the intellect..... Whether the extinction of inferior races before the advancing Anglo-Saxon seems to the reader sad or otherwise, it certainly appears probable...Is there room for reasonable doubt that this race, unless devitalized by alcohol and tobacco, is destined to dispossess many weaker races, assimilate others, and mold the remainder, until, in a very true and important sense, it has Anglo-Saxonized mankind?."
Darwins son was vice-president of both the 1912 and 1921 International Eugenics Congresses. The first of these two meetings was the outgrowth of a 1911 gathering of the International Society for Racial Hygiene, a predominantly German organization. That Germany would see the full enactment of eugenical policies is hardly a coincidence.
The eugenics movement post WW II resurfaced under the banner of population control and radical environmentalism.
Tarpley and Chaitkin wrote: "The population control or zero population growth movement, which grew rapidly in the late 1960s thanks to free media exposure and foundation grants for a stream of pseudoscientific propaganda about the alleged 'population bomb' and the 'limits to growth,' was a continuation of the old prewar, protofascist eugenics movement, which had been forced to go into temporary eclipse when the world recoiled in horror at the atrocities committed by the Nazis in the name of eugenics. By mid-1960s, the same old crackpot eugenicists had resurrected themselves as the population-control and environmentalist movement. Planned Parenthood was a perfect example of the transmogrification. Now, instead of demanding the sterilization of the inferior races, the newly packaged eugenicists talked about the population bomb, giving the poor 'equal access' to birth control, and 'freedom of choice'."
Planned Parenthood was founded by Margaret Sanger, a racist whose slogan was: "Birth Control: to create a race of thoroughbreds."
Sanger expressed dismal hopes for a vast segment of the population, declaring that: "only 13,500,000 show superior intelligence" . Thus, only a meager 13.5% of the population should be permitted to procreate. The rest would be segregated for orderly disposal.
Planned Parenthood retains an active role in the scientific dictatorship's project of eugenical regimentation today.
Today this as evolved to a Transhumanist movement, ala Huxley's Brave New World, where the new class distinction is genetic. Thats one of the reasons for the push to DNA test the entire population.
What happens then? Here's Dr. Richard Lynn, professor at the University of Ulster, who supports human genetic modification: "What is called for here is not genocide, the killing off of the population of incompetent cultures. But we do need to think realistically in terms of the "phasing out" of such peoples....Evolutionary progress means the extinction of the less competent."
You see, with Industrialization, productivity increases due to technological breakthroughs, and outsourcing of labour intensive industries, 85% of you are simply not needed.
Darwinism teaches that all species will eventually become extinct, unless they evolve.
"Katherine Hayles, a professor of English at the University of California, Los Angeles, says in How We Became Posthuman "Humans can either go gently into that good night, joining the dinosaurs as a species that once ruled the earth but is now obsolete, or hang on for a while longer by becoming machines themselves. In either case … the age of the human is drawing to a close."
According to the Darwinian doctrine of the Transhumanist movement, mankind is the next species slated for extinction. How do they plan the extinction of the bottom 85% so the species can evolve?.
Deputy Director of the National Science Foundation's Division of Information and Intelligent Systems William Sims Bainbridge answers:
"Techniques such as genetic engineering, psychoactive drugs and electronic control of the brain (via EMF waves) make possible a transformation of the species into docile, fully-obedient, 'safe' organisms." Whom presumably will accept their fate which is dictated by the elite.
In other words, the drug induced totalitarianism of Huxley's Brave New World. Chemically numbed and anesthetized, the bottom 85% will (are) resign themselves to extinction in the posthuman era. Meanwhile, the elite are writing the final chapter of the evolutionary script, and they have left no room for humanity in the last pages, only for those whom have evolved to become Gods and a number of intelligent or hardworking slaves (hispanic, asians, definiteley not dumb white or black Americans, unless they are good looking and can be used as slaves of "enertainment").
Wake up if you can.
I have a better idea, lets just all stop breathing.. just think how much less CO2 there would be... and the really good news is that 'they' have decided that CO2 is the cause whether the climate warms or cools... so your ass will be taxed either way...
for a little more info:
http://www.adn.com/news/environment/story/518517.html
Why can't we do everything in moderation? Eat meat and meat products once or twice a week and maybe in small portions, not "extra large". Fish ditto: just once a week. As humans are omnivores, we do need all the minerals, trace elements that fish and meat contain. Also, who doesn't like a good meat product, like sausage with the sauerkraut or ham with the cranberry sauce - not to mention lox 'n schmier?!
As for population: again, in moderation, people. Just the one child or max two per family. If divorced: tough luck. You've already had your go, just enjoy what you've got!
Hey, that's not a bad plan. I kind of like that. Except the divorce thing though. How about allowing more same sex marriages and allowing singles a little more leeway economically. I like being married and having kids but them damn pols screw it all up by mixing economic benefits with marriage and all that does is muddy up the waters. And what about teen pregnancies. Bring back sex education and mix it in with abstinence training and there wouldn't be too many unexpected pregnancies in the teen years and even in adult years. At least the pregnancies due to adulterated relationships would decrease over time with good education.
What evidence do you have that humans are omnivores? Our teeth say otherwise, our intestines say otherwise, our olfactory glands say otherwise. There are no nutrients in animals that humans can't get from plants. The Omega Fatty Acids you mention about fish is readily available in grains and fruits, like flax and avocado.
Besides that, you only like meat products if they went straight from slaughter to cooler, in an effort to maintain it's freshness. If it were to sit out for a few days, like you do with a peach or pineapple, you would be completely repulsed by its scent. Humans are naturally fruit and seed predators. We specialize in chewing stuff like apples and almonds. mmmmm. Notice that they aren't hard to chew or digest, and they can sit in our intestines for all 36 hours without leaving tons of cholesterol in our blood. The only time humans like raw uncooked meat is when it's been cured with a long salting process or it is so fresh from the animal that there is no chance of a bacterial infestation flaring up on the flesh, unlike carnivores and omnivores (bears and dogs) that are just fine with meat that has been sitting out for a while.
Unlimited cell growth is cancer. Unlimited population growth is unlimited cell growth. Unlimited economic growth is unlimited population growth. Unlimited growth is cancer...except maybe for knowledge.
Then let's continue educating ourselves and stop eating meat.