Lazy garden ... help

[Moindreffor]

... until a few years ago, the man grew up, selected his genes without a machine to extract juices!

We each have one incorporated!

Regarding eating habits ("rigidity" in my tastes), I experienced a long time ago, a radical change, albeit temporary (about six months) of my diet, with deletion total of all fat and many other things * ... I ate things not too much for my taste, very little variety and no accompaniment of any kind: (this for the excellent reason that my liver had been reduced to the shadow of himself by the action of a virus a bit dwarf who still had the kindness not to work everything, which would have irreparably damned me ...
I must say that, apart from a little painful beginnings, I have been quite comfortable with this Spartan regime and I deduce that cultural issues mainly shape our likes and dislikes.

* Some of which did not bother me, like alcohol, and for good reason!

I also have for other reasons to go on a diet without salt, sugar, fat
well you do not have much left either
if you remove the salt completely in 15j you accept easily, and I could not eat any sausages I found it too salty, even that of the craftsman charcutier, I had to order my meat sausage without salt
for sugar it's a little longer, but I must say that I used the sweetener so not a complete weaning, for fat, well we end up with white meat and fish
it may be good for health, but not great for morale, so in the end it plays negatively on your health

so I try a bit like Didier to be more flexible, my difficulty is to find the products and time, being currently free from any professional activity, I try to pay attention to what I eat and I went back to cooking, and so I'm shopping and having time I look at labels, not easy to find what we want
on 5 signs for example only one sells honey produced only in France, all the others are EU and non-EU mixtures

if not for dietetics, actually the man is not programmed to eat a lot of meat, yesterday on TV reportage on fishing and fish, a small parenthesis on the oil of faith of cod not advised now because the faith of the fish concentrate heavy metals and therefore consuming them would bring more risks than benefits (precautionary principle)

the problem is that moving the vast majority of the population from meat to fish causes the oceans to be emptied, and for example Newfoundland cod has been overfished to the point of emptying the stock and says in the report, the fishing stop surprised the scientists who believed in a recovery of the stock and he has nothing, the cod has disappeared from its historic fishing

if I were the only decision-maker at home, I would resume my life as well as in my childhood, a little poultry, rabbits and a good butcher, more difficult for the "good" fishmonger
I'm lucky to have a farm not far away that sells live, but as I already mentioned, it's so convenient a large area that concentrates in one place, everything you need ... when you run out of time

[Jérôme]

for example, we eat all too much meat it seems ... and (very) poor quality often. But how to replace that?

May I make a comment?
There is a substantial argument to motivate the decrease or the stop of the consumption of animal proteins. In very big three themes are developed: ecology, nutrition, morality. Everyone finds the door that suits him.
Our time offers an extreme facility to those who are interested in this question since we can find on the web rich and substantiated sources of information and reflection going in this direction but also of other militants for a status quo. The challenge - of size - is to assess the solidity of the arguments of the two logics and to get an honest idea of ​​the problem, knowing that the exercise is difficult because the cultural aspect is immense (cultural in a very broad sense which includes all forms of legitimation, "it's too good", "you have to eat well to live", "what about the Inuit?", "we've always done that", "the lion eats the gazelle", etc.). Changing the paradigm is not always easy.
Many initiatives are being put in place to support people who wish to change their habits. Perhaps you have heard of "Green Monday" this year?
On the practical side (... how to replace that), there is a huge mass of cooking recipes on the internet, with "blah", good and also sublime.
Passed this little invitation to curiosity, I can, in the light of my modest experience, tell you that life without consuming animal products does not become sad (no, it's not just seeds and rutabaga to put in the tooth ... ), the pleasure dimension is respected.

[Moindreffor]

for example, we eat all too much meat it seems ... and (very) poor quality often. But how to replace that?

May I make a comment?
There is a substantial argument to motivate the decrease or the stop of the consumption of animal proteins. In very big three themes are developed: ecology, nutrition, morality. Everyone finds the door that suits him.
Our time offers an extreme facility to those who are interested in this question since we can find on the web rich and substantiated sources of information and reflection going in this direction but also of other militants for a status quo. The challenge - of size - is to assess the solidity of the arguments of the two logics and to get an honest idea of ​​the problem, knowing that the exercise is difficult because the cultural aspect is immense (cultural in a very broad sense which includes all forms of legitimation, "it's too good", "you have to eat well to live", "what about the Inuit?", "we've always done that", "the lion eats the gazelle", etc.). Changing the paradigm is not always easy.
Many initiatives are being put in place to support people who wish to change their habits. Perhaps you have heard of "Green Monday" this year?
On the practical side (... how to replace that), there is a huge mass of cooking recipes on the internet, with "blah", good and also sublime.
Passed this little invitation to curiosity, I can, in the light of my modest experience, tell you that life without consuming animal products does not become sad (no, it's not just seeds and rutabaga to put in the tooth ... ), the pleasure dimension is respected.

eating too much meat is bad for your health, that's fine
to have fun while eating that too, no matter what we eat, ok

the production of meat is not ecological, the herds of thousands of animals crossing the savannah are there to prove the opposite
it is the production of meat to feed the current population which is no longer ecological, would be fairer
but if the planet's population continues to grow, what will it take to replace the plants when the animals are removed from our diet? it is rather this question that should be asked, no?
we move the problem without solving it

[Jérôme]

eating too much meat is bad for your health, that's fine
to have fun while eating that too, no matter what we eat, ok

the production of meat is not ecological, the herds of thousands of animals crossing the savannah are there to prove the opposite
it is the production of meat to feed the current population which is no longer ecological, would be fairer
but if the planet's population continues to grow, what will it take to replace the plants when the animals are removed from our diet? it is rather this question that should be asked, no?
we move the problem without solving it

We know that it is globally much more economical to seek our energy directly in the plants rather than to go through an animal intermediary which in all logic can only induce a loss (We do not speak of the few marginal examples on the planet where it is inapplicable because there are humans but not / too few plants that can be brought).
If the question is "how will we feed humanity if the number of individuals continues to grow and we have already applied this principle of efficiency", I do not know how to answer but I sense serious trouble.

[Moindreffor]

eating too much meat is bad for your health, that's fine
to have fun while eating that too, no matter what we eat, ok

the production of meat is not ecological, the herds of thousands of animals crossing the savannah are there to prove the opposite
it is the production of meat to feed the current population which is no longer ecological, would be fairer
but if the planet's population continues to grow, what will it take to replace the plants when the animals are removed from our diet? it is rather this question that should be asked, no?
we move the problem without solving it

We know that it is globally much more economical to seek our energy directly in the plants rather than to go through an animal intermediary which in all logic can only induce a loss (We do not speak of the few marginal examples on the planet where it is inapplicable because there are humans but not / too few plants that can be brought).
If the question is "how will we feed humanity if the number of individuals continues to grow and we have already applied this principle of efficiency", I do not know how to answer but I sense serious trouble.

What to eat of plants is a solution of waiting, and again this solution does not bring the answer to the real problem How much the Earth can feed of individuals?
I do not have the answer either, but the question remains and wanting to change our mode of consumption to avoid having to answer this question is a little hypocritical, it's my point of view
putting dust under the carpet has always been the easy way

[Did67]

I do not think there are two solutions:

a) or else humanity regulates its numbers, according to the lifestyle that is consensus [in short, consuming only plants only pushes the limit by a factor of around 7; it's huge ; but there will still be a limit!]. We can now move back this limit ... But if we are not more "regulator", the same problem will arise!

b) or else humanity will be regulated: famines, wars, diseases ... "Without knowing it of its own accord" ... The effects of certain phenomena: urban violence, increase in certain diseases (in particular all those linked to nutrition) are perhaps premises ???

We do not pay attention to it: life expectancy is decreasing in the USA, the life expectancy of certain "social" categories is decreasing in Germany, France has experienced two episodes of decline in life expectancy ...

[Moindreffor]

I do not think there are two solutions:

a) or else humanity regulates its numbers, according to the lifestyle that is consensus [in short, consuming only plants only pushes the limit by a factor of around 7; it's huge ; but there will still be a limit!]. We can now move back this limit ... But if we are not more "regulator", the same problem will arise!

b) or else humanity will be regulated: famines, wars, diseases ... "Without knowing it of its own accord" ... The effects of certain phenomena: urban violence, increase in certain diseases (in particular all those linked to nutrition) are perhaps premises ???

We do not pay attention to it: life expectancy is decreasing in the USA, the life expectancy of certain "social" categories is decreasing in Germany, France has experienced two episodes of decline in life expectancy ...

you clearly say what I thought and did not dare to write, so if I regulate my consumption of meat it is for my personal well-being as for the rest of my diet

[Did67]

I would be a little more "complex": we are very far from having started to outline mechanisms going in the direction of controlling our impact.

Mastery who also has two ways:

a) reduce everyone, individually, their impact - the famous idea of ​​"happy degrowth", on which I agree with Pierre Rabhi.

b) control the numbers of humans on earth - which obviously we are unable to conceive only!

Therefore, my reduction is, besides my health, all the same in a) ... No, I will not save the world. But on my scale, I do my part nonetheless (even if I doubt that it will be useful for anything, given the b); I call it my personal ethics - which everyone, rightfully, doesn't care about! But not me !!! Another "complex" thought!).

[Moindreffor]

I would be a little more "complex": we are very far from having started to outline mechanisms going in the direction of controlling our impact.

Mastery who also has two ways:

a) reduce everyone, individually, their impact - the famous idea of ​​"happy degrowth", on which I agree with Pierre Rabhi.

b) control the numbers of humans on earth - which obviously we are unable to conceive only!

Therefore, my reduction is, besides my health, all the same in a) ... No, I will not save the world. But on my scale, I do my part nonetheless (even if I doubt that it will be useful for anything, given the b); I call it my personal ethics - which everyone, rightfully, doesn't care about! But not me !!! Another "complex" thought!).

I agree with the happy decline, as a global approach, give priority to short circuits, think about how to reduce the volume of my trash, review my mode of feeding ...,

but I think that the loss of meat in my diet will first have an impact on my health and that it will have a side effect on the planet because the overconsumption of meat is primarily a cultural problem, it is a sign outside of wealth

I am for a return to a sensible consumption and in agreement with my health, the problem of the meat is to put on the same level as the exotic fruits or out of season

[Jérôme]

... answer to the real problem How much can the Earth feed individuals?
I do not have the answer either, but the question remains and wanting to change our mode of consumption to avoid having to answer this question is a little hypocritical, it's my point of view
putting dust under the carpet has always been the easy way

I believe there is consensus that humanity can not grow indefinitely without dire consequences.
According to this observation, changing feeding habits is not a definitive solution, it can not solve the problem at a certain point. Where is this point? I do not know, but it necessarily exists.
However, if our goal is the reduction of suffering, then it is very relevant to use a means that can participate, even on a limited period. It is not because it can not answer in a total and infinite way that it is useless, illegitimate or hypocritical, it is not to use it that it would be.
More generally "meat" has a direct impact
- our planet
- our health to a certain extent
- it must be remembered, the animals
Put all or part of these points under the carpet is it possible?