Ecology and Vegetarianism: food, climate and CO2

[Janic]

sen-no-sen hello

What Obamot meant, what is more important to prioritize nutritional quality than product quality in terms of organic / non-organic.
Example with organic palm oil ... bio can be but in terms of nutritional qualities and their impact on health we will iron ...

Fully agree ; beyond the cultivation method, there is the intrinsic quality of the product. The comparison was made between two products of the same family. Between an organic product (without chemicals) and the same stuffed with these chemicals.
However in terms of health risk, the body does not recognize synthetic products and therefore these are always harmful to it (ditto for drugs) while a product like organic palm oil mentioned, will not as drawback as overloading (in what proportion) saturated fats (you must already consume a lot) in the same way as animal fats without having ALL the drawbacks. But here we enter the field of dietetics and not production.

And in the same light it's not because it's organic, fair trade or anything else that's virtuous!
I take the example of organic palm oil, fair trade, planted on land from ... deforestation of primary forest .... Admit that getting there is hard!

Always agree, but to feed animals with corn or soy which is often transgenic, it is ALSO necessary to deforest by storm: What is the worst? Palm oil is a short circuit since directly consumed while the passage through the meat is a long circuit not only requiring deforestation to produce animal feed, but in addition all these animals occupy agricultural land more conducive to direct production (regardless of their final fate). As an ecological balance sheet (from production to the plate), it is always the worst animal food production.

[Obamot]

I answer here, because with regard to the question of "budget", that still has its place with regard to the emerging countries as much as elsewhere .... But I do believe that after we will have gone around this specific question in terms of "Food bowl" of the inhabitants of Asia and its consequences (we have also deviated quite a bit ...) so much the tradition and the culture play a powerful role even dogmatic: it is enough to see to which point Janic is attached to its convictions in a perfectly respectable and legitimate way! And how much I try to qualify them ^^ (so much animated by mine ^^)

Janic, I understand the good will you put into the way you seek to prevent, and to share with us your experiences and your knowledge. And it's all to your credit. And it is essential to worry about the health of your neighbor. Know first of all that it touches me a lot. As is the fact of being very reserved when it comes to the practices of livestock breeding and the de facto agro-food world relating thereto, since it is necessary to feed the cattle ...

In the heart of the matter, however, certain things deserve to be rectified in form since the content is relatively "shared":

A single imperative, eat organic and complete not to consume food deficient, sick and poisoned.

It is not the "food that is deficient", but we, who by our choices, will make that we will be squared if we omit to consume such / such / them: vitamins, catalysts trace elements etc ... so: obvious confusion! (It's not a question of agreeing or not Janic !!!)

I then specify my thought

When it comes to recognizing some mistakes, It is clear that frankness and humility allow better progress in life, is that it ...? ^^ hem

intensive cultivation induces weakness in plants (like animals in factory farming)

Let's be honest: this has nothing to do with the shortcomings. This is called "the weakening of the species". Let's call a cat a cat please!

This results in diseases more or less camouflaged by so-called phytosanitary products that are toxic to plants and animals as much as to future consumers. So deficient in the sense that the final product would be “dead” before being harvested, just like industrial farm animals kept alive by many devices. However, you underline it moreover, if the human being is sick by deficiencies, it seems logical to me to consider that it is the same for the plants and the sick animals too.

We do not entirely agree on this, it is not only negative, since famine is still a scourge. She also kills! So it's not that simple ...

Then we would have to prove that using certain products rather than others, is not a benefit for the plant? (Absolutely EVERYTHING is bio-chemical in life) Proving that closing certain weaknesses would not allow the plant to develop other qualities that it could not do as much without a product, since part of its energy would be mobilized to defend itself ... However, we already do this when "we create the right conditions to cultivate, prepare the ground, cross species, etc". It is therefore to be studied, but in the interest of nature and not of the economy (I do not know and I am not for the use of chemistry, but it should not be excluded, I would ask our chemist ... It's just to say that I don't want to be dogmatic in my approach!).

Cognitive-behavioral behavior must account for at least half of the health of individuals ... (50%) if not all! So the total abolition of “chemistry” aid in agricultural production must come much further up the hierarchy of priorities !!! Let's start to stop abusing tobacco and alcohol ... because here too it is "chemistry" that is wreaking havoc ...! And yet ... a very occasional drink drunk among good friends has a lot of virtues, in particular offering comfort, and it acts on morale ... so it's a health benefit!

But overall you are right on this point! This is the main point of the debate, which was widely documented some fifty years ago, in particular by Dr Kousmine, Linus Pauling, Dr Budwig and many other researchers ...

But what a relationship when it comes to setting "priorities". We cannot simply say:
- I can't afford to eat "organic" so i stop eating ^^

It is necessary to give "solutions", so that individuals are able to eat and get by while waiting for "better"! And this best can only come by changing the laws, even by going to demonstrate in the street, in supermarkets and in front of parliaments ...

In the meantime, going to “all organic” is necessarily a later step, for a low-income or even middle-income household ...

Then, a completely "organic" food can be quite toxic "naturally" or not, depending on the circumstances and the type of food. So still confusion!

The term organic does not mean non-toxic, such as coffee, alcohol and other products unsuitable for human consumption, but only do not use the so-called chemical products of commerce by replacing them with products that are not harmful to the culture and final consumption. I thought that this nuance was largely assimilated since the time it is about it.

Ah yes? We should see to get out of "Filthy dogmatism" or in any case to avoid entering it ^^
Yes to stop smoking in public places. (Those who have not chosen to smoke, we have the RIGHT not to be inconvenienced by others .... it's elementary) No, a thousand times no, to ban alcohol, or whatever: because everyone must be able to choose for himself ... (But those who consume must know that there are "social consequences" and accept them, it would therefore be necessary to sell the packet of cigarettes 100 € of which 95% should be donated hospitals and for prevention ...) I'm exaggerating, but it's to show the logic of reasoning!

Because if someone feels better after consuming anything, it is likely to benefit them. If an addiction starts to set in ... it is better not to insist. We know that tobacco and alcohol are dangerous ... but very moderate and very controlled consumption is not necessarily bad. The fruits themselves can contain alcohol in natural form ... In addition one must be very careful with all that is practices of "banishment" of product / s whatever they are => because it you must first start thinking about those who consume them! Guilt may not be the best way to help others cope. I take everyone or nobody (so necessarily everyone, except emotional blackmail ^^)

For the rest, I do not intend to convert anyone to abandon the consumption of meat products, if it is consumed correctly and moderately (while opening the door to all alternatives without excluding any ...).

Neither have I been trying to convert anyone for a long time, neither in this area nor in others.

But no, that doesn't mean you're completely right Janic !!!

But when the subject is raised, I also give my opinion, which is only an opinion. This site is sensitive to various aspects of ecology and this is one that you consider (rightly or wrongly as not a priority)

It is a priority but necessarily hierarchical! And a thousand times wrong ... but alas, not everyone has the means ... bis repetita (and that we are partially deceived by the industry and the legislators).

but everyone places their priorities where their personal sensitivity takes them!

Definitely, I will end up believing that you do not understand! Everyone sets priorities first "that he can", is it finally clear ??????????????

Therefore, giving up meat is not only a dietary question, it is also having a humanistic look of compassion on the fate of all these living beings with which humans often have emotional relationships. How many would go so far as to accomplish the final act of killing for food? (of course many people are not embarrassed, nor sensitive)

100% agree, that cannot be discussed.

As an example (like all my other posts ... I gave just a few tracks): I do not allow myself to say that you are in error! I say that your food bowl suits you and that apparently it is very well suited to the rest of your family !!! And this is the essential, so do not change (or do as you please).

I heard it well, I reacted only because you said that veganism was complicated to manage

... we should demonstrate the opposite?

Quote:
And jit22 did well not to say "vegan", because it is very complicated to manage, if you want to avoid food squares.

Being concerned and especially speaking experience VECUE and not purely abstract, I said that this is not the case. On the contrary, it is very easy and not providing deficiencies from a few very simple elements. By cons I understand very well that it may not interest other people (which I respect) but I can not let pass an inaccurate statement and especially never verified.

... still neither demonstrated nor proven "for everyone".

But if you want to do it, take another thread ... => otherwise HS:

[Janic]

So Christophe is asked to move the whole thing to another thread, for example "ecology and vegetarianism", in the meantime I will answer you on various points:

Janic wrote:
intensive cultivation induces weakness in plants (like animals in factory farming)

Let's be honest: this has nothing to do with the shortcomings. This is called "the weakening of the species". Let's call a cat a cat please!

This is the story of the chicken and the egg: is weakness the cause or effect? The deficiency is a lack of fixation of a biological element which results in what is called a disease which weakens the species, the filling of this deficiency restores health and the species is no longer weakened.

We do not entirely agree on this, it is not only negative, since famine is still a scourge. She also kills! So it's not that simple ...

Starvation is not a disease in the usual sense of the term, just like a shortage of fuel does not mean that the engine is dead.

Then we would have to prove that using certain products rather than others, is not a benefit for the plant? (Absolutely EVERYTHING is bio-chemical in life)

It would still be necessary to prove that they are beneficial for the plant, not only in the immediate future but also for all the plants to which they would have given life if they had swarmed. However, they are not all used for reproduction, just as industrial farm animals would be incapable of reproducing without danger for the survival of the breed given that they are slaughtered just before dying of diseases.
For bio-chemical: biochemical should not be confused in the sense of the complex natural mechanisms which have been established over the centuries with pure, selective, ultra-purified chemistry which has no correspondence in nature and which the organism, who receives them, must compensate by drawing on its reserves to assimilate it or to seek to get rid of it by the emunctories or by storing them in the fats of the body until they are released by a loss of weight or a period of illness. Thereby aggravating the condition of the patient.

Prove that the fact of filling certain weaknesses, would not allow the plant to develop other qualities that it could not do as much without a product, since part of its energy would be mobilized to defend itself ... We do it however already when "the right conditions are created to cultivate, prepare the ground, cross species, etc.".

As long as this preparation consists of respecting natural processes as closely as possible, the cultivator does less harm (which agrobiologists are trying to do), but which is not the main concern of industrial culture. (deep plowing, excessive chemical fertilizers, plant survival treatments, etc.) no human would resist what the plant undergoes.
So that part of her energy is used to defend herself, it is because she is sick like humans. When you're not sick, you don't need to defend yourself.

It is therefore to be studied, but in the interest of nature and not of the economy (I do not know and I am not for the use of chemistry, but it should not be excluded, I would ask our chemist ... It's just to say that I don't want to be dogmatic in my approach!).

Okay!

Cognitive-behavioral behavior must account for at least half of the health of individuals ... (50%) if not all! So the total abolition of “chemistry” aid in agricultural production must come much further up the hierarchy of priorities !!!

Not agree, it has priority. As long as one did not know (or pretended not to know) the side effects of men's chemistry one could hide behind one's ignorance. Today it is no longer possible, any more than it is possible to ignore the effects of asbestos (it took 100 years to officially recognize it) or those of nuclear power and everything that causes scandal. today by the media. Afterwards, invoking that cognitive behavior (which is also a reality) intervenes for 50% of individuals (not affected by the harmful effects), it makes a nice leg for those who die.

Let's start to stop abusing tobacco and alcohol ... because here too it is "chemistry" that is wreaking havoc ...! And yet ... a very occasional drink drunk among good friends has a lot of virtues, in particular offering comfort, and it acts on morale ... so it's a health benefit!

Where does the abuse begin? No one has so far been able to give the limit. After the notion: "everything is poison, nothing is poison, it is the dose that makes the poison" we moved on to "the dose depends on the individual and his tolerance to the product" Where a glass will not no visible damage in one, it will be catastrophic in the other. On the other hand, culture has confirmed that sharing a drink (why does it have to be alcohol?) Actually has virtues on morale, it's called sociability. After sociologists and other specialists to explain why alcohol has taken such a large place in this sociability. Last point to which no one has given a coherent answer to date: if alcohol is so friendly and acts so much on the morale: why is this socialization prohibited for children?

But what a relationship when it comes to setting "priorities". We cannot simply say:
- I can't afford to eat "organic" so I stop eating ^^

It is the same problem as for renewable energies, if the only criterion envisaged with nuclear was that of the bomb and the supply of energy, a "waste" justifying its development, the disadvantages of which we raise a little late (short -circuiting thereby any other development of energy) it was the same in agriculture. What was the refrain at that time? Yields must be developed to feed growing humanity. Were the goal achieved? No ! It just served to eliminate the maximum of peasants and to regroup immense areas (in the American style) for the sole benefit of a few, eliminating the hedges (sheltering the natural predators of the predators of the plant) exhausting the soils by these intensive crops , poisoning farmers with treatments with or without protections, as well as land and water, etc.
The developing countries are naturally "organic" in the sense of not polluted by our filth; It remains to allow them to self-satisfy rather than pass on to them our poisoned surpluses or make our exported products better than their production costs by means of subsidies. For our affluent societies, it is by demanding more and more healthy products that the governments will back down under the popular pressure on which their situation depends, it is good to fight against nuclear power as you point out yourself.

It is necessary to give "solutions", so that individuals are able to eat and get by while waiting for "better"! And this best can only come by changing the laws, even by going to demonstrate in the street, in supermarkets and in front of parliaments ...

In the meantime, going to “all organic” is necessarily a later step, for a low-income or even middle-income household ...

Going organic is not only eating less polluted, it is first and foremost a global ecological philosophy. Currently many people would like to consume organic on the condition of not paying more than in their usual supermarket. No philosophy, no awareness, no research of why, no reflection on the additional work that this kind of culture represents, it's just the wallet that counts, while it is the waste of unnecessary spending elsewhere.

Yes to stop smoking in public places. (Those who have not chosen to smoke, we have the RIGHT not to be bothered by others .... this is elementary)

But is it to allow the father or mother to smoke at home or in the car with the doors, windows and windows closed to get the little ones used to becoming drug addicts as soon as possible?

No, a thousand times no, to ban alcohol, or whatever it is: because everyone must be able to choose for himself ... (But those who consume must know that there are "social consequences" and accept, it would therefore be necessary to sell the package of cigarettes 100 € of which 95% should be donated to hospitals and for prevention ...) I'm exaggerating, but it is to show the logic of reasoning!

I am against all bans too, I do not understand the logic which would consist in banning certain products considered as toxic and in authorizing others. Hard drugs are less deadly than soft drugs (or supposed to be so because they kill more slowly) so why not legalize them too? But knowing the social consequences has never prevented an alcohol user from driving (even below the authorized threshold) when the risks are present even if they are assumed to be lower depending on the amount ingested, which is why the threshold of some countries is 0. (better awareness or less pressure from the alcohol lobbies?)

Because if someone feels better after consuming anything, it is likely to be beneficial.

Beneficial on the moral level, possible, alcohol makes lose the direction of the realities. Biologically, this is incorrect, alcohol permanently destroys each affected nerve cell. Okay, we have a lot, but they are not renewable and the lack may be felt at the end of life.

If an addiction begins to develop ... it is better not to insist. We know that tobacco and alcohol are dangerous ... but very moderate and controlled consumption is not necessarily bad.

It is called self-justification because on the scientific level, it is undeniable that this point of view can no longer be supported.

The fruits themselves may contain alcohol in natural form ...

Quite exact, the organism produces very different alcohols, but in quantity and in precise quality and according to the needs of the body unlike the absorbed alcohols which do not correspond, neither in quality, nor in quantity, to the organic needs.

In addition we must be very careful with all that is the practices of "banishment" of product / s whatever they are => because we must first start to think of those who consume them!

That is why those who use illegal drugs do not understand why they are being banned too. Are they right or wrong?

Guilt may not be the best way to help others cope.

This is also my opinion. We must distinguish awareness of guilt. Helping to raise awareness is also to provide the means to get out of an inadequate situation? Guilt is sterile.

Janic wrote:
Quote:
For the rest, I do not intend to convert anyone to abandon the consumption of meat products, if it is consumed correctly and moderately (while opening the door to all alternatives without excluding any ...).
Neither have I been trying to convert anyone for a long time, neither in this area nor in others.

But no, that doesn't mean you're completely right Janic !!!

From lived experience, I have learned that you can only convince people who are already convinced on the inside, intervening can just help bring out what is buried (like a source of water… or oil!). So what would be the point of planting a seed in sterile soil? On the other hand when an interest is expressed, I remain ready to share MY experience and possibly some knowledge acquired over time. This is what I call no longer seeking to convert anyone.

Janic wrote:
but everyone places their priorities where their personal sensitivity takes them!

Definitely, I will end up believing that you do not understand! Everyone sets the priorities "he can", is it finally clear ??????????????

It is clear, but power without wanting it is also sterile! A young student, on another site, told me that she could not afford to buy organic, but on the other hand she could buy a computer and the subscription which accompanies it and probably a mobile too, more some fashionable clothes, etc ... but she couldn't!

Janic wrote:
Quote:
As an example (like all my other posts ... I gave just a few tracks): I do not allow myself to say that you are in error! I say that your food bowl suits you and that apparently it is very well suited to the rest of your family !!! And this is the essential, so do not change (or do as you please).
I heard it well, I reacted only because you said that veganism was complicated to manage

... we should demonstrate the opposite?

This is what "I" have been doing for three generations. On the other hand I recognize that it is very specific (like all that is new or different) but to know it you have to roll up your sleeves and get down to work, to realize that ultimately it is not so difficult than that. There are lots of books on the subject and more and more vegetarian sites which guide and support by their advice or experiences those who choose this path. AVF genre or, more specific, more or less vegan sites like Végéweb.

Being concerned and above all speaking by LIVE experience and not purely abstract, I said that this is not the case. On the contrary, it is very easy and does not provide deficiencies from a few very simple elements. By cons I understand very well that it may not interest other people (which I respect) but I can not let pass an inaccurate statement and especially never verified.

... still neither demonstrated nor proven "for everyone".

What is then demonstrated and proven? everyone in question not trying to verify anything, will not prove and demonstrate anything, it's obvious!

[Obamot]

It is not necessary amha ...

So Christophe is asked to move the whole thing to another thread, for example "ecology and vegetarianism", in the meantime I will answer you on various points:

Ok I split from which message?

I do not agree with the title of Janic. Because I still don't want to go where he wants to take the debate for questions of semantics and syllogism, there is a mixture:

So request is made to Christophe to move the whole on another wire, for example "ecology and vegetarianism"

- vegeta / risme / lism is a choice driven by a "personal will", not necessarily by necessities!
- ecology is the result of all the choices (harmful or beneficial) that society makes. It is the responsibility of the community.
- the imposition of a non-consensual food choice can be harmful to health (and not just a little ... You have to be very careful with that ...)

So these three points summarize the situation and must remain in this thread ...

There is no reason to emphasize the syllogism according to which "if we excluded all meat, it would be ecological". It is really an extreme simplification that does not match the reality on the ground.

"Technically" it is surely true .... but the decision is made upstream! By the legislator. By the choice of consumers in the stalls. By the food budgets available (we cannot however exclude that there are 'poor'). And by quantities of other phenomena and interactions. This is where it gets complicated ... So there is no history of knowing which hen or egg came first, already that there are several hens and several eggs. Because if we wanted to make a university synthesis, we would have to take EVERYTHING into account.

While here the real subject is not that! He turns around "Priorities to put in the perspective of a balanced food bowl" by putting priorities adapted to each "here and now" (which will eventually change depending on the evolution of mentalities and budgets, but can in no case be imposed ...). It would rather be:

Food: "dogma VS reform", what priorities?

But personally, I do not wish to open an endless debate (because it would still be necessary to open the discussion on the medical level, of chemistry, of agriculture, of psychology, of culture ... of the economy north / south etc). All this because Janic would eventually like to bring the debate to where it should not be ^^. No, I already said what I thought about it. This debate is already over. No need to splitter ^^ Because Christophe, you have already been overwhelmed with the first answer! So this is already where we should cut and we can not, hihihi

PS Janic: I have no doubt that you are interested in the subject ^^ but please do not (involuntarily) incorporate my quotes, thank you. ^^ And the other "quotes" are not anonymous.

[Janic]

christophe
so as not to drown the current subject on an off-topic, obamot proposed another subject: why not! I have no particular desire for the title, everything is to know if it interests someone. On the other hand I did not in any way affirm that ecology AND vegetarianism were inseparable, but only mutually concerned after the suggestion of JTL22. Being, perhaps, the only (?) Practicing in this field and given the number of distorted or incomplete opinions on the subject, it seemed good to me to try to rectify some of them. For more information, there are specialized websites on the subject that everyone can consult.
In addition, Obamot seeming to be the only stakeholder on this subject, it is obvious and a pity at the same time that it turns a little in circles.
To respond to Obamot:

- vegeta / risme / lism is a choice driven by a "personal will", not necessarily by necessities!

It is obvious that it is a choice, but also by necessities which can be different from one individual to another. For example on certain vegetated sites it is to stop an unnecessary animal slaughter, for others for health reasons, for still others for ecological reasons or for all at the same time

- ecology is the result of all the choices (harmful or beneficial) that society makes. It is the responsibility of the community.

Certainly a choice is first individual, then when it spreads and grows it becomes community. The part of vegeta * ism linked to ecology is part of it and is gaining more and more importance. But it is likely that in elections, a vegetarian candidate would not attract more votes than a green, good tone.

- the imposition of a non-consensual food choice can be harmful to health (and not just a little ... You have to be very careful with that ...)

There completely agree, but who speaks of a compulsory vegetarian food choice? It would seem that it is rather the other that is imposed in restaurants, canteens and by individuals.
End of personal intervention, on this subject, on this subject.

[Obamot]

I have in no way claimed that ecology AND vegetarianism were inseparable, ecology AND vegetarianism were inseparable,

Sorry, the problem is that you are right, and they are ... hence the "River novel" which is nonetheless very interesting ... but of great complication

For the rest, I would answer your last two posts when 'Tophe has ruled ... we will see what we can still say about it

Very warmly.

[Christophe]

Voila Obamot, you will be happy, I have split since https://www.econologie.com/forums/energie-et ... 10728.html

It was not easy but I think I arrived at something "understandable" ...

[Obamot]

Ok very well seen! Low hat.

But then I have to take out the knife! (... and the fork ^^)

intensive cultivation induces weakness in plants (like animals in factory farming)

Let's be honest: this has nothing to do with deficiencies. This is called "the weakening of the species". Let's call a cat a cat please!

This is the story of the chicken and the egg: is weakness the cause or effect? Deficiency is a lack of fixation of a biological element which results in what is called a disease which weakens the species, [...] the filling of this deficiency restores health and the species is no longer weakened.

No, definitely you do a lot in the syllogism ...

One can very well be "deficient", without intensive culture:
- goiter in the remote alpine valleys in the XNUMXth and beginning of the XNUMXth century and before ...! (Cf iodine deficit => food deficiency).
- scurvy (Cf vitamin C deficiency => food deficiency) discovered in the XNUMXth century ...

One can very well not be “deficient”, with an intensive culture:
- we weaken the soil ...
- we enrich the chemical industry ^^
- but we reduce starvation ... (difficult balance).

This is not the same...

Then, one can very well "be deficient", without that leading to illness. The body is well done and has lots of compensatory mechanisms. For example to get the calcium it needs from the bones! Then when the conditions become more favorable, it can re-fix calcium ... thus we would not arrive directly at osteoporosis because we would not have ingested this metal ...
With exceptions, like vitamin "C", since it is unable to produce it ...

Once again, there is an induction of false notions, through ignorance of the problem as a whole and not only on the environmental level amha:
- that what would depend on the "collective" => choice of society, legislation on agro-food, health standards etc (see intensive cultivation) would be the single cause which would have a direct relationship with the individual choice of "Food bowl", is wrong.

Yet another example of a distorted vision:

We do not entirely agree on this, it is not only negative, since famine is still a scourge. She also kills! So it's not that simple ...

Starvation is not a disease in the usual sense of the term, just like a shortage of fuel does not mean that the engine is dead.

You would like to pretend that "Death by famine would only be an epiphenomenon", and that the populations who undergo it would not be ultimately deficient?

To pretend that would be to deny cultural preponderance. If I simplified, you would tell us thatthey could convert to vegetalism, so they would have more to eat ...) but then why they do not make this choice, continue to eat meat and starve ...

How can we still summarize these problems to a story of chicken VS egg, for problems that depend as much on individual psychology as on local culture. I do not understand!


I hope that some of the questions have been answered, I may not (... more), try to do my best "point by point", because obviously, in view of the above there are positive gains for you, but mixed with big gaps on your part in medicine, chemistry, history of prevention, even sociology and psychology - and even in the use of French - which make you go off on the wrong tracks or hinder understanding of what you are writing. Nothing personal, but it takes hard work.

[Obamot]

Then we would have to prove that using certain products rather than others, is not a benefit for the plant? (Absolutely EVERYTHING is bio-chemical in life)

It would still be necessary to prove that they are beneficial for the plant, not only in the immediate future but also for all the plants to which they would have given life if they had swarmed. However, they are not all used for reproduction, just as industrial farm animals would be incapable of reproducing without danger for the survival of the breed given that they are slaughtered just before dying of diseases.
For bio-chemical: biochemical should not be confused in the sense of the complex natural mechanisms which have been established over the centuries with pure, selective, ultra-purified chemistry which has no correspondence in nature and which the organism, who receives them, must compensate by drawing on its reserves to assimilate it or to seek to get rid of it by the emunctories or by storing them in the fats of the body until they are released by a loss of weight or a period of illness. Thereby aggravating the condition of the patient.

Yes, okay for social issues, but you shouldn't mix everything up. We are talking about deficiencies and individual choices / priorities => it is they who will determine the societal! (And not the opposite.)

So that part of her energy is used to defend herself, it is because she is sick like humans. When you're not sick, you don't need to defend yourself.

... pffff, do you believe that? But we are ALL THE TIME defending ourselves, capturing, transforming and using energy, ALL THE TIME in a state of correction of various “stresses”, which are restored (or not) by cognitive-psycho-neuro reactions. -electric-chemo-biological => even against bacteria that are beneficial to us ... The state of "health" is "as long as we have the upper hand" on this fragile balance, and not exclusively linked to deficiencies .. or questions of energy!

Cognitive-behavioral behavior must account for at least half of the health of individuals ... (50%) if not all! So the total abolition of “chemistry” aid in agricultural production must come much further up the hierarchy of priorities !!!

Not agree, it has priority.

... then there, should assume. Because if you could stop that with a magic wand, there might be a billion deaths from starvation. Those of the recent history of humanity are already numbered by millions, and an agrarian reform can also cause famines:

# the famine in Bengal in 1943: an estimated one and a half million to three million dead
# in Tibet, the implementation of land reform and collectivization of land from 1954 did not have the positive effect expected by the communists, but on the contrary led to a significant drop in production, both for the culture only for breeding, which will lead to famines among peasants and Tibetan nomads it is the first famine in Tibet.
# from 1959 to 1961, in China, the Great Leap Forward was estimated between 20 and 30 million victims.
# in North Korea since the mid-1990s: one to two million dead
# from 1967 to 1970 in Biafra (Nigeria), more than 1 million dead;
#Sahel
#Lesotho (1983-1985)
# 1984, great famine in Ethiopia, more than 1 million dead

... but not as much in the past 25 years ... there you go!

As long as one did not know (or pretended not to know) the side effects of men's chemistry one could hide behind one's ignorance. Today it is no longer possible, any more than it is possible to ignore the effects of asbestos (it took 100 years to officially recognize it) or those of nuclear power and everything that causes scandal. today by the media. Afterwards, invoking that cognitive behavior (which is also a reality) intervenes for 50% of individuals (not affected by the harmful effects), it makes a nice leg for those who die.

Yes, but what do you want to replace it with, except for reality? If someone chooses to jump from one bridge and another to consume organic, you will be able to do nothing. It is therefore "personal choices" that direct humans above all. In the meantime you should stop these “gender mixes”, nan ^^

I stop there because you tell a lot of blah, blah, and apparently we mostly agree on the substance, but we don't agree on the "priorities to be taken" - nor on the 'scientific aspects '(you speak of it while obviously those to which you refer escape in part, amusing) - on an individual basis I tried to give more modestly clues on solutions applicable "here and now" in the state of the society and by the greatest number => to escape squalor ...

[Janic]

obamot

Yet another example of a distorted vision:
Janic wrote:
Obamot wrote:
We do not entirely agree on this, it is not only negative, since famine is still a scourge. She also kills! So it's not that simple ...
Starvation is not a disease in the usual sense of the term, just like a shortage of fuel does not mean that the engine is dead.

You would like to pretend that "death by famine would only be an epiphenomenon", and that the populations which undergo it would not be ultimately deficient?

We do not have the same vision of the word deficiency. For me the deficiency comes from a product in sufficient quantity, but in insufficient quality; whereas for you the deficiency starts from the insufficient product. Seen from this angle, I agree that it is a deficiency, just as an empty tank is a product deficiency. But that does not call into question the functionality of the engine. Famine is the lack of product and not the lack of certain components of a product.

To pretend that would be to deny cultural preponderance. If I simplified, you would tell us that they could convert to vegetarianism, so that they would have more to eat ...) but then why they do not make this choice, continue to eat meat and die of hunger...

This is a good question and I will answer it with a detour. In a recent program, it was shown that the Chinese were renting huge portions of land to the government of an African country at a ridiculous price. These lands, apparently very oily, were used for breeding by the natives and transformed into cereal crops (it seems to me) with large blows from immense tractors and hunting, with weapons to the point, the local breeders. Which were then used as very cheap labor. Did they have the choice to breed or cultivate? The answer belongs to them, but the Chinese had obviously made their choice and not on breeding. So by reasoning with the absurd (to a few thousand KM, it is easy) If, on these immense plots, the government had supported an agricultural policy rather than breeding, a larger part of the population would have had a more food available.

How can we still summarize these problems to a story of chicken VS egg, for problems that depend as much on individual psychology as on local culture. I do not understand!

See above.

I hope that some of the questions have been answered, I may not (... more), try to do "point-by-point", because obviously, in view of what above there are positive things about you,

It reassures me

but mixed with big gaps on your part in medicine, chemistry, history of prevention, even sociology and psychology

It is not my profession, however it may be your case.

- and even in the use of French -

I am not a literary: méa culpa!

that make you go off on the wrong tracks

personal point of view. To call false leads when they are not necessarily yours is to assume that only yours are good. No ?

or interfere with the understanding of what you write. Nothing personal, but it takes hard work.

And yes, there is still work on the board ... For all!

Janic wrote:
So that part of her energy is used to defend herself, it is because she is sick like humans. When you're not sick, you don't need to defend yourself.

..

.pffff, do you believe that? But we are ALL THE TIME defending ourselves, capturing, transforming and using energy, ALL THE TIME in a state of correction of various “stresses”, which are restored (or not) by cognitive-psycho-neuro reactions. -electrico-chemo-biological => even against bacteria that are beneficial to us ... The state of "health" is "as long as we have the upper hand" on this fragile balance, and not exclusively linked to deficiencies .. or questions of energy!

Don't pretend you haven't understood the meaning of my words. I stay within the framework of what most people call illness, which is to say, requiring outside intervention. It goes without saying that an organism is constantly in search of balance, but having "the upper hand" is the state which should be "normal" and not having the upper hand except, which is less and less. less so today, hence the need to find oneself as much as possible in the conditions of having the upper hand and vegetarianism is one of these favorable conditions.

Janic wrote:
Obamot wrote:
Cognitive-behavioral behavior must account for at least half of the health of individuals ... (50%) if not all! So the total abolition of “chemistry” aid in agricultural production must come much further up the hierarchy of priorities !!!
Not agree, it has priority.

... then there, should assume. Because if you could stop that with a magic wand, there might be a billion deaths from starvation. Those of the recent history of humanity are already numbered by millions, and an agrarian reform can also cause famines:

Again, don't distort things. We must start from the current state of the situations in question. Chemists have invaded all regions of the globe and it will take some time to rectify the abuses. Just like nuclear where you have to deal with it, while waiting to replace what exists with other energy systems, which will take some time also.

Janic wrote:
As long as one did not know (or pretended not to know) the side effects of men's chemistry one could hide behind one's ignorance. Today it is no longer possible, any more than it is possible to ignore the effects of asbestos (it took 100 years to officially recognize it) or those of nuclear power and everything that causes scandal. today by the media. Afterwards, invoking that cognitive behavior (which is also a reality) intervenes for 50% of individuals (not affected by the harmful effects), it makes a nice leg for those who die.

Yes, but what do you want to replace it with, except for reality? If someone chooses to jump from one bridge and another to consume organic, you will be able to do nothing. It is therefore "personal choices" that direct humans above all. In the meantime you should stop these “gender mixes”, nan ^^

I don't mix genres, I examine them from a different angle, is that forbidden?

(you talk about it while obviously those you are referring to partially escape you, fun)

For example ? I am always ready to admit possible errors, but it is not enough to accuse to be right.
Otherwise, I have not personally accused you of anything, of incompetence, of poorly mastering French, or even of being wrong. So try to have the same respect for me.