Eat meat, what impact on the planet?

Agriculture and soil. Pollution control, soil remediation, humus and new agricultural techniques.

could you watch the video to the end?

You can select 1 option

 
 
Consult the results
Janic
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 19224
Registration: 29/10/10, 13:27
Location: bourgogne
x 3491




by Janic » 03/09/12, 13:08

Janic wrote:
I cannot consider the notion of "moderate quantity" even at the level of quantification; like: one it's okay, three hello the damage

It is completely exaggerated!
You seem to regard meat as a poison out and it's history, many human beings owe their survival through the consumption of this one (hard to find something else to spend some latitude).

That is why we must distinguish a company obliged to eat animals to survive and our modern societies where this has gone, but not used.
Otherwise, the meat n 'is no poison, no more mushrooms are poisonous, they are certain of their components that are poisonous in quantity more or less important depending on the product. Some fungi are very toxic, even fatal, other low-toxicity and other do not cause obvious signs. This is where the concept of dose and composition of the toxic alkaloid. So what is in question is the alkaloid such as coffee (caffeine) tea (caffeine) and in this case the meat ptomaines. http://www.kousmine.com/prod04.htm
Quote:
while scientifically damage start one.

Source?
No scientific studies indicate that meat causes damage to moderate consumption.

The damage term is used relatively, the individual does not die on the spot as if he had swallowed a poison.
So the problem is that for independent scientific studies are carried out, we need significant financial support VG no group has the means to support. So the few existing studies are done the studies supported by the lobbies of meat and therefore does not go in the opposite direction to their interests.
There are some very general American studies, nevertheless, that underline the difference.
Moderate consumption of any food will not present specific clinical signs since the food of most people is diverse which makes it difficult to draw conclusions. For that you need to classify each food to measure the advantages / disadvantages (and it is forbidden to do on humans). So you will not find quasimment nothing on the subject. For the rest it is measured by comparing the experiences of certain target groups (when possible because the VG are eParts and in small quantities in the territory)
Quote:
For the "VG diet" (it is not a diet but a way of life)

Being a vegetarian since I was young, I consider it as a system and not as a way of life.

Of course, since this is not a personal choice, thought, measured, compared, it is a culture comparing themselves to another culture. (In this case we can say that all food diets modes.)
A lifestyle induced an ideology, which is not always the case.

Un changement lifestyle, food or not, is always linked to an "ideology" although the word itself be diverted from its meaning most of the time
Origins of ideology [edit]
Etymology [edit]
From ancient Greek ἰδέα (idea), "idea", and from λόγος (logos), "science, speech". Ideology is therefore, etymologically, a discourse on ideas. In ancient Greek, the noun ἰδέα related to the verb ἰδεῖν, "to see", would rather suggest the meaning of "image". Ideology is commonly interpreted as:
• the logic of an idea from its constraint ... (The strain or its opposite?)
• the logic of vision.
• the logic of a developed image to the groupthink.

A child or adult who is just following the choice of his parents or society is actually not in ideology but in a culture.
My children and grandchildren are VG but the subject does not interest them more than that, it has become a culture for them!
By cons if they have to make a choice contrary to that culture maybe they will be interested in the subject and their choice will be ideological THEN.
Finally, and this is important if each consumer, even moderate, was to kill these animals for food: how much do?
0 x
User avatar
sen-no-sen
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 6856
Registration: 11/06/09, 13:08
Location: High Beaujolais.
x 749




by sen-no-sen » 03/09/12, 13:39

Janic wrote:
The damage term is used in a relative way (...)
There are some very general American studies, nevertheless, that underline the difference.
(...) For this it is necessary to classify each food to measure the advantages / disadvantages (and it is forbidden to do on humans). So you will not find quasimment nothing on the subject.


So do not tell anything!
It is clear that no scientific study has shown that moderate consumption of meat were negative.
Only red meat is criminalized, and this at a regular consumption.
Otherwise, the meat is not a poison,


This is not what you hear in earlier.



A change in lifestyle, food or not, is always linked to an "ideology" although the word itself be diverted from its meaning most of the time


Historically this is wrong, the diet is related to the geographical location and the possibilities offered by the biotope to feed.
It is also linked to our biological potential to consume a particular food, the latter having been significantly expanded since the mastery of fire.
It was only later that prohibited (mainly religious) have appeared.


A child or adult who is just following the choice of his parents or society is actually not in ideology but in a culture.


The food choice becomes secondarily cultural, but do not forget that there may well be related to simple personal taste.
As far as I'm concerned, I hate red meat, and this is not the result of my culture or ideological conviction.
0 x
"Engineering is sometimes about knowing when to stop" Charles De Gaulle.
User avatar
Obamot
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 28725
Registration: 22/08/09, 22:38
Location: regio genevesis
x 5538




by Obamot » 03/09/12, 13:52

Janic: do not forget the smiley when you cited me. Thank you!

Janic wrote:No, the psyche and the physical play on different levels but can also have close ties. If you swallow a poison and you convince yourself that it is not, your physical prevail on your psyche. But, and there I joined you, if you are anxious the best food will not pass, but it will not turn into poison either.

Ask a chemist, but it's wrong!
Ok, if you don't want to call it a "poison", I admit it! In this case, the meat is not one in someone who eats it with consent, ditto in the VG who consumes vegetable proteins, by choice and personal will! It's all there .. .

But in the end nothing changes, whether your mind goes "switch" in one direction or the other, it will produce such and such an effect without your knowing it voluntarily. Because that, many can not help it. I don't know many who manage to alter the effect of these "products"in the body. Latest case to date, Jean-Luc Delarue who had wanted to ward off fate by getting married although suffering from cancer. Like what ...

Janic wrote:
Obamot wrote:Pffff, I note:

- You gonna possibly a form of coercion to convert people! (Although you défendes in you that seems indeed ...)

No, it is not to convert anyone, it is the change of situation that imposes itself as a drought that will grill vegetation and restrict the amount of food available per individual (or nothing if everything is grilled)

"it imposes itself" or "that imposes itself".... um?

You tell yourself that "without much conviction not try"So it's good that you admit the predominant psychological aspect. Luckily, this is my opinion but I dare not say. : Cheesy:

Well, I think you will come to take into account fully, sooner or later, and there you will see how it can be given a much more effective than we think. Although it's hard to manage because it takes "let go", something I have not yet fully succeeded in doing. But I keeping watch ....

So, "who is right"? Neither! This is the reason that should prevail. But when it comes to an emotional blackmail mechanism, it is the man who fails nine times out of ten. Because he is too demanding. I have good? Basically what does it matter, once again it is the psychological aspect which really predominates => this is what I wanted to say.

Say that "Scientifically the damage starts at one" is false, since it depends on the individual biochemistry (it is therefore case by case ...). And it is also false if we recognize the psychological aspect => therefore the answer is not admissible for all. Although you are basically right. Ditto when you reject the term "diet" (which I used on purpose) I still approve ... but it proves once again that it is still the psychological aspect that predominates. (I pass on the aspect "vital necessity", since Sen_No_Sen already mentioned it rightly ... If it is not that it touches not only the affect, but also the "need for survival", it is is why I say "it's not that simple", even if it seems obvious to you and me ...!)

Ditto for the source of nutrients ... (D'plant or animal origin)

And besides, since you estimate that"Today we consider that it is the level of tolerance of this product puisqu'individuel account"... What sets this tolerance level, if not largely the brain. Otherwise, if the physiological response of intolerance rather occurred (malaise, malaise, etc.) and many we would not immunocompromised obese ...

Uh ... And tell us how you would separate the "emotional aspect" of food choice or decision for him ...! And breast that gives the mother the baby ???? Same with the "pleasure", to which one can add the "desire" and that is precisely what I said earlier and why these "volte face" are tricky!

Once again mixing a bit of everything and putting everything into one basket. While to understand it might be appropriate to make a retrospective awareness work on the psycho-emotional question.

Because when you say that being VG there is "no ban" um ... well ... If there is one: "the meat", no? So at this point, it is the question of "Cataloguing"More problematic than is ingested or not! Again and again we are fully into the psychology !!!

In conclusion, Janic, defending the principle of VG as you do, it is eventually against-employment that you produce: I let you meditate on it!

We understand better why you take it all to heart. It is meritorious but not very effective.
0 x
Janic
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 19224
Registration: 29/10/10, 13:27
Location: bourgogne
x 3491




by Janic » 03/09/12, 14:15

Sen no sen
So do not tell anything!
It is clear that no scientific study has shown that moderate consumption of meat were negative.

This is what I explained above, no independent studies because no resources to do them.
Only red meat is criminalized, and this at a regular consumption.

Because its consumption has seriously increased in recent years which is added all products of the animals andwhich affect humans.
Quote:
Otherwise, the meat is not a poison,

This is not what you hear in earlier.


Because unlike the fungi that do not contain any alkaloids, ALL meats produce ptomaines.


You mix everything.
a)
Historically this is wrong, the diet is related to the geographical location and the possibilities offered by the biotope to feed.
If you consider any food mode is a diet so I agree with you (the original meaning of the word regimen)
The term regime, derived from the Latin "regere" (to direct), then from "regimen" (XIII ° s: action to direct),

b)
It is also linked to our biological potential to consume a particular food, the latter having been significantly expanded since the mastery of fire.
The mastery of fire was not used to a better consumption of the food, but to degrade with its digestive and pathological implications.
c)
It was only later that prohibited (mainly religious) have appeared.
Prohibitions are regulators related to experience measured on a large number of individuals and many years. Despite that many diseases have been linked to eating habits that since modern science and sophisticated means. linking them to religious prohibitions is too narrow or it is taking in physiology observers to zero. When Hippocrates said: how can we understand the disease when one knows nothing about food, it does not work about religion, but observation.
Quote:
A child or adult who is just following the choice of his parents or society is actually not in ideology but in a culture.


The food choice becomes secondarily cultural, but do not forget it can very be related to simple personal taste.

Just taste it educates, it is only to see the various food forms in different countries and where a food is considered appetizing here, it is repugnant elsewhere.
In my case I hate red meat, and this is not the result of my culture or an ideological conviction.

Let's say that both, and even more, can be confused. A food prepared in a different way may please one form and displease another. " Tastes and colors "A steak in a pan or a stew, made with the same meat, do not give the same flavor. Mashed or fried potatoes can not be compared even though it is the same product.
It is more often the sight of blood that is repugnant than the taste itself, whereas for white meats the blood is not visible.
Last edited by Janic the 03 / 09 / 12, 14: 34, 2 edited once.
0 x
Janic
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 19224
Registration: 29/10/10, 13:27
Location: bourgogne
x 3491




by Janic » 03/09/12, 14:29

obamot
I take not any because the substance we agree, this is the mode of expression that differs, but let's particularly important since it is precisely dependent on the psychological aspect
Because when you say that being VG there is "no forbidden", um ... how to say ... Yes, there is one: "the meat", no? So at this point, it is the question of "cataloging" that is more problematic than what is ingested or not! Again and again we are thoroughly in psychology!

A banned can have two origins: Outdoor / indoor. Most of our companies are prohibited from external sources (including the schemes in question) prohibited inside is called a choice insofar as it is not apparent from the purely animal instincts (though!). So we must say I am forbidden to: kill, steal, rape, eating meat or anything else, or call it an awakening of consciousness as if ban refined foods, vaccines, chemical treatments, etc ...
So of course the psychic can not be separated from the physical as to say that predominates ... personally I would say sometimes one, sometimes the other.

In conclusion, Janic, defending the principle of VG as you do, it is eventually against-employment that you produce: I let you meditate on it!

This is not my opinion! Most of those who speak of the subject have an abstract vision, intellectual, out of the experience, as I saw from the inside and when I read some thoughts I just find it a shame, not for vegetarianism that has seen others but for the individual himself.

We understand better why you take it all to heart. It is meritorious but not very effective.
again I do not seek efficiency, food mode is an individual matter and each draws the associated advantages and disadvantages.
Our time is that where our elders do not question arose, science, the media are now hot topics and therefore it seems to me logical that those who know the subject give their opinion ... no more.
Last edited by Janic the 03 / 09 / 12, 14: 48, 1 edited once.
0 x
User avatar
jlt22
Éconologue good!
Éconologue good!
posts: 414
Registration: 04/04/09, 13:37
Location: Guingamp 69 years




by jlt22 » 03/09/12, 14:36

This post was originally titled: Eat meat, what impact on the planet?

But, given the excesses of the answers, it would now be renamed: Eat meat, what impact on health?
0 x
User avatar
sen-no-sen
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 6856
Registration: 11/06/09, 13:08
Location: High Beaujolais.
x 749




by sen-no-sen » 03/09/12, 14:42

Janic wrote:
This is what I explained above, no independent studies because no resources to do them.


It is therefore appropriate not to say that the meat is harmful to health, provided it is a speculation on your part.



Because unlike the fungi that do not contain any alkaloids, ALL meats produce ptomaines.

Not being a scavenger, there was never any question of consuming rotten meat.

Let's say two, and even more, can get confused. Food prepared in a different way will please and displease one form in another.


Of course, the way food is prepared can change the perception: between two slices of bread you can eat anything!
Provided it does not change the personal tastes.
A steak is a steak, and when we do not like, bah we do not!
0 x
"Engineering is sometimes about knowing when to stop" Charles De Gaulle.
User avatar
hic
Grand Econologue
Grand Econologue
posts: 995
Registration: 04/04/08, 19:50
x 5




by hic » 03/09/12, 14:50

Janic wrote:Sen no sen
So do not tell anything!
It is clear that no scientific study has shown that moderate consumption of meat were negative.

This is what I explained above, no independent studies because no resources to do them.


HELLO
change of paradigm
In fact, it is all animal protein casein!

?????????????
EVU! - The Protein Myth
www.euroveg.eu/lang/fr/info/kit/starter04.php
In 1982, the National Research Council established a link between cancer and ... Diets rich in protein, especially animal, cause, as we know, ...

other experiences!
after exposure to a carcinogen,
any consumption of animal protein (casein)
severely increases cancer cases,
(Visible, intermittent consumption of animal protein following the cancer)

soy protein maintains the low and stable



For your health become vegans !!!
0 x
"Let food be thy medicine and thy medicine be thy food" Hippocrates
"Everything has a price has no value" Nietzche
Torture for Dummies
Forbid to express the idea that the field is acceleration (magnetic and gravitational)
And you get your patent mental torture option executioner successfully
Janic
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 19224
Registration: 29/10/10, 13:27
Location: bourgogne
x 3491




by Janic » 03/09/12, 15:18

sen no sen
Janic wrote:


This is what I explained above, no independent studies because no resources to do them.


It is therefore appropriate not to say that the meat is harmful to health, provided it is a speculation on your part.

It is this kind of argument used by manufacturers to clear their goods "it has never been proved that ..." under course requires scientific evidence often hard to make mistakes or appropriate means of recognition.
To return this form I would say: it is not appropriate to say that the meat are not harmful to healthThis is speculation on the part of those who claim fouls appropriate studies. For a long time it was considered that cancers were related to viruses (it has not changed the way) until we realize that this cancer was linked to such eating habits, another to such other mode. It currently vaccines against papilloma virus and scientists deny the causal relationship of young girls whose lives are blighted for as hepatitis (but all vaccinated are not affected), or the pick that in the news (and not all are affected either) in the mines all had no silicosis, etc .... The affirmation is based on the experiences by comparing two lifestyles and checked over the long term as we can do for saturated fats or refined foods.

Quote:
Because unlike the fungi that do not contain any alkaloids, ALL meats produce ptomaines.

Not being a scavenger, there was never any question of consuming rotten meat.

Sorry, a scavenger is an animal that eats meat killed by other than himself and he consumes leftovers. The human omni hardly kills his "prey" and must leave them degrade themselves (flocculation) because the flesh is too hard to be eaten as is (so try!) Or he uses cooking to accelerate degradation. So it is a scavenger since it adopts the characteristics.
Also unlike carnivores consuming priority rich parts and "fresh" (entrails) human does the opposite as these scavengers.
Putrefaction as Kousmine stresses is a complex phenomenon related to acidity and aerobic or anaerobic flora. When the bowel is too long this putrefaction that is why true carnivores have very short intestines and long herbivores.
Quote:
Let's say two, and even more, can get confused. Food prepared in a different way will please and displease one form in another.


Of course, the way food is prepared can change the perception: between two slices of bread you can eat anything!
Provided it does not change the personal tastes.
A steak is a steak, and when we do not like, bah we do not!

Of course it can be Vg and also do not like spinach or cauliflower, it does not affect the VG itself. Similarly omnis some do not like some meat feast but others, fish, crustaceans, worms, some insects, etc ...
0 x
User avatar
Obamot
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 28725
Registration: 22/08/09, 22:38
Location: regio genevesis
x 5538




by Obamot » 03/09/12, 19:35

Yes, finally we agree on the fact that it would be nice to be able to reduce or give up - but then individually and voluntarily - any meat intake for the sake of the planet!

And I would say that potentially would create new lines of human beings potentially much less aggressive! (Whatever, Janic although VG, no lack of "teeth" ... ahahaha)

But one point against which it is necessary to take issue, is that ptomaines developing in the gut!

As Sen_No_Sen remember, we are not scavengers that digest some by putrefaction (environment favorable to the proliferation of ptomaines), so we digest in principle by fermentation! (For healthy subjects according to Dr. Kousmine) In this type of digestion, assimilation of meat, if consumed at lunchtime and in reasonable quantities (not every day, once a week would be enough already, if we replace by protéiines vegetable ...), do not pose any problems.

And so the best way to let everyone make his choice, is certainly to avoid any stigma surrounding protein consumption mode! And certainly not to pigeonhole people VG, carnivores or what do I know ...
0 x

 


  • Similar topics
    Replies
    views
    Last message

Back to "Agriculture: problems and pollution, new techniques and solutions"

Who is online ?

Users browsing this forum : No registered users and 329 guests