GuyGadebois wrote:I read "sausages" ...
That's the very low-meat diets, at times you can have hallucinations ...
GuyGadebois wrote:I read "sausages" ...
- You have to face the facts, meat consumption is increasing, so you have to produce more, with less and less land. Do you have a solution ?
Janic wrote:it's simple to produce less meat, which in fact reduces consumption. Elementary my dear Watson!
Janic wrote:Your previous reasoning does indeed correspond to a reality that cannot be disputed and that I largely share, but here it is the complete drift to self-justify the agribusiness that you defend.Well done ! Do you want to make 5 billion poor and emerging poor eat better and more expensive? !"We can simply eat better (and more expensive)"
Eating better and eating more are not synonymous. However, our Westerners have got into the habit of reasoning in terms of weight and calories, but not in terms of quality or nutritional efficiency. So before our pseudo western food scientists got involved, these populations had much smaller food portions than here, but nutritious, and were not worse off. As for the cost of the 5 billion more, it is not them these "poor", compared to us, who will suffer the most, but OUR companies of overabundant consumption and not only in food.The first thing to do is already not to try to impose OUR cultural model and therefore also food. If we did not show them our examples of biters and wasters, via our media, they would not ask YOUR questions.I wish you good luck if you are going to preach the good word to them "poor friends, I ask you to eat better ... it will be more expensive, but you are not going to dwell on such low earthly considerations all the same. on the ground! Well, I'm leaving you, it's time for my organic dinner, but in the meantime, enjoy your meal ... "
However before we do shit shit at home (namely sell them our shit) they cultivated in almost organic like all the generations which preceded them, without our business of transformation of products, raw and nourishing, into whitened, refined, and polluted products , the top of the top of westerners.This is what your realistic but not eco-friendly friends do, they want to impose themselves on populations who do not need their way of destroying life ... the organic in question.It is from the facts that we can decide what actions to take, not from wishes, prejudices, dreaming that men would be different from what they are, and that they could do other than what that they do. You have to do with what you have on hand, men as they are.It is to take the problem backwards! Since they are inspired by the Western model, it is up to this Westerner to show that eating junk food is not a biological necessity, on the contrary, and that a more vegetated model would fully meet their needs, without GMOs. . As for deforestation, it is precisely OUR model of Western madmen that must be changed, not supported and developed among our “friends” as you say and whose “friendship” consists in selling them OUR industrial products! So if WE don't want to change, why would THEY do it?And since the facts show that we eat more and more meat, we must therefore produce more food, that is to say, go to farms that produce more while respecting the environment.
Otherwise it is guaranteed deforestation, it has already started.
Hypocrites that we are!
PS: let us remember the American model of conquest of lands belonging to the Indians and which "civilized" them, (that is to say decimated) with great blows of whiskey and diseases of white people.
realistic ecology wrote:Were there no famines?
sicetaitsimple wrote:realistic ecology wrote:Were there no famines?
No, no, there were no famines .... But it was "before".
GuyGadebois wrote:There are none nowadays either ... all thanks to GMOs
sicetaitsimple wrote:GuyGadebois wrote:There are none nowadays either ... all thanks to GMOs
You'll notice if you reread ... my answer
Back to "Agriculture: problems and pollution, new techniques and solutions"
Users browsing this forum : No registered users and 186 guests