Avoiding meat and dairy is ‘single biggest way’ to reduce your impact on Earth

[8ball]

This is such a familiar tactic from you. When your argument falls apart you - and usually the predictable tiny handful of nodding sidekicks - just do your best to disrupt the thread ad belittle the debate.

Not happening today though. You can go fuck yourself

Oh wind it in you stupid cunt.

 

[Pickman's model]

This is such a familiar tactic from you. When your argument falls apart you - and usually a predictable tiny handful of nodding sidekicks - just do your best to disrupt the thread and belittle the debate.

Not happening today though. You can go fuck yourself

That'll wake up the nodding sidekicks

 

[Pickman's model]

You can go fuck yourself

Oh wind it in you stupid cunt.

get a room

 

[editor]

I see the job has been done and all sensible debate has now been closed down. Be proud, people.

 

[NoXion]

Yet many humans literally can't, so I'm curious as to what your point is.

It means that milk is not just "for" baby cows, as was stated in the post I was responding to.

 

[8ball]

It means that milk is not just "for" baby cows, as was stated in the post I was responding to.

I'd expect some element of breeding dairy cows for more tolerable milk, as well as the genetic changes in humans.
Much as with a lot of our crops / livestock tbf.

 

[ddraig]

Scary Dairy

Going dairy-free is a smart move not just for ethical reasons but also because it will very likely improve your health in several ways. Try going dairy-free and see for yourself!

viva.org.uk

 

[WouldBe]

So you're of the opinion that there is no cruelty involved in factory farming?

Strange then that a new study revealed that:

Intensive pig and chicken farming on the rise in the UK despite huge public opposition

I take it you missed the last part of my post then.

 

[CNT36]

I suppose you have to take into account modern technology, longevity and lifespans as well. Milk is available and plentiful in a way it hasn't been before. Many of the problems attributed to milk or meat and dairy generally are diseases that affect people as they grow older. Enzymes or no assuming the health effects of modern consumption on us have much on to preindustrial consumption on humans who would be very lucky to make sixty isn't going to be very illuminating.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Well lets put it this way: how long have humans been around and how long before milk drinking became widespread?

How about putting it this way? How many more humans are there now since humans started drinking milk?

I've posted this before. According to Mark Thomas, the geneticist who first traced the history of the gene for lifelong lactase production, that particular genetic mutation has been selected for more strongly than any other gene in the past 5000 years or so, right around the world, with lifelong lactose tolerance developing independently in several places, including Europe and East Africa. In other places, it hasn't spread so rapidly, if at all, but there are plenty of ways to treat milk to change most of the lactose into simple sugars so that those lacking the enzyme can safely consume it - making cheese, yoghurt, butter. Hard cheese contains virtually zero lactose.

It is the biggest genetic change in humans since we started farming. This is actually something of a puzzle - why, given that we can also treat milk to get rid of the lactose? One answer proposed by Thomas is that the ability to drink raw milk was crucial to survival during lean times when there wasn't much else around. If it gave you a bout of the shits during those hard times, you were done for.

 

[ddraig]

And we're just meant to take your word for it?
No link, yet agan

 

[editor]

How about putting it this way? How many more humans are there now since humans started drinking milk?

I've posted this before. According to Mark Thomas, the geneticist who first traced the history of the gene for lifelong lactase production, that particular genetic mutation has been selected for more strongly than any other gene in the past 5000 years or so, right around the world, with lifelong lactose tolerance developing independently in several places, including Europe and East Africa. In other places, it hasn't spread so rapidly, if at all, but there are plenty of ways to treat milk to change most of the lactose into simple sugars so that those lacking the enzyme can safely consume it - making cheese, yoghurt, butter. Hard cheese contains virtually zero lactose.

It is the biggest genetic change in humans since we started farming. This is actually something of a puzzle - why, given that we can also treat milk to get rid of the lactose? One answer proposed by Thomas is that the ability to drink raw milk was crucial to survival during lean times when there wasn't much else around. If it gave you a bout of the shits during those hard times, you were done for.

It's hardly a textbook case of evolution and 'genetic change' if the stuff still has to be processed and altered so vast amounts of human can drink the stuff without getting ill.

 

[ddraig]

It's hardly a textbook case of evolution and 'genetic change' if the stuff still has to be processed and altered so vast amounts of human can drink the stuff without getting ill.

And the pustules of blood and other stuff taken out

 

[littlebabyjesus]

It's hardly a textbook case of evolution and 'genetic change' if the stuff still has to be processed and altered so vast amounts of human can drink the stuff without getting ill.

Yes it is. How do you think genetic changes happen? I don't have a link to hand to Thomas's work to show you the workings, so you'll have to take my word for it that he said that, but these things are quantifiable. He isn't making an arbitrary judgement call over the strength of the selection effect.

Here's a wiki page on it, mentioning lactose tolerance as it happens.

For example, the lactose-tolerant allele spread from very low frequencies to high frequencies in less than 9000 years since farming with an estimated selection coefficient of 0.09-0.19 for a Scandinavian population. Though this selection coefficient might seem like a very small number, over evolutionary time, the favored alleles accumulate in the population and become more and more common, potentially reaching fixation

Selection coefficient - Wikipedia

 

[editor]

Yes it is. How do you think genetic changes happen? I don't have a link to hand to Thomas's work to show you the workings, so you'll have to take my word for it that he said that, but these things are quantifiable. He isn't making an arbitrary judgement call over the strength of the selection effect.

Here's a wiki page on it, mentioning lactose tolerance as it happens.



Selection coefficient - Wikipedia

Does he factor in all the weird hormones and unnatural production methods too?

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Does he factor in all the weird hormones and unnatural production methods too?

Of course, given enough time, our horrible modern farming practices would exert their own selection pressures. Any change in environment that persists through time will do that. But we clearly don't want to extend the practices over anything like that kind of timescale. Not sure how many times I have to say that I would like bottom-up reform of farming to make it more ethical.

 

[editor]

Not sure how many times I have to say that I would like bottom-up reform of farming to make it more ethical.

You can say it as many times as you like but it's never ever going to happen while people are still happy to chow down on dirt cheap meat from horrendous factory farms.

 

[Aladdin]

8ball and editor

You've made me laugh for the first time 4 weeks.

Thanks.

 

[Saul Goodman]

And the mass breeding and abuse for profit is fine with you then, gotcha!
People have pigs as pets you know, depends where you draw the line between animals and pets to justify your choices

It also depends on where you live.
Get down off that horse, before I eat it.

 

[Saul Goodman]

Do you consume any recreational drugs?

This is one of the things that makes me face-palm when some here get on their meat-free pedestal. It doesn't matter that actual people have died to assist in the powdering of their collective noses, yet they're somehow morally superior to those who eat meat...

 

[NoXion]

This is one of the things that makes me face-palm when some here get on their meat-free pedestal. It doesn't matter that actual people have died to assist in the powdering of their collective noses, yet they're somehow morally superior to those who eat meat...

I keep asking what makes meat so special, compared to any other product or service that A) is non-essential and B) has environmental and/or ethical concerns involved in its production; which if you're any kind of anti-capitalist, includes damn near everything.

I have yet to get any answer.

 

[Jeff Robinson]

I keep asking what makes meat so special, compared to any other product or service that A) is non-essential and B) has environmental and/or ethical concerns involved in its production; which if you're any kind of anti-capitalist, includes damn near everything.

I have yet to get any answer.

What other consumer product involves such ubiquitous torture in its production?

 

[platinumsage]

What other consumer product involves such ubiquitous torture in its production?

Cat food?

 

[NoXion]

What other consumer product involves such ubiquitous torture in its production?

You think black market workers' lives are all sunshine and lollipops? Personally I doubt it. Not that the legality of a product or service is any kind of guarantee. The kids mining coltan in their bare feet for the luxury electronics we use probably aren't living the life of Riley either.

That's not even going into the inherently exploitative nature of all wage-labour under capitalism.

 

[Jeff Robinson]

You think black market workers' lives are all sunshine and lollipops? Personally I doubt it. Not that the legality of a product or service is any kind of guarantee. The kids mining coltan in their bare feet for the luxury electronics we use probably aren't living the life of Riley either.

That's not even going into the inherently exploitative nature of all wage-labour under capitalism.

Don't disagree with any of that, but the nature of those injustices are different, and require different solutions.

 

[NoXion]

Don't disagree with any of that, but the nature of those injustices are different, and require different solutions.

Yeah well here's where I think the fundamental difference in opinion lies. I'm OK with humans killing animals for food. You are not. You clearly think there is a major difference between killing animals for meat, and killing them to ensure that at least some crops are left over for humans to eat. Whereas I am of the opinion that there isn't really any difference, at least as far as the animals are concerned. I don't think they care why we're killing them.

 

[editor]

Another report with the same conclusion - and I'll paraphrase: cut back on the fucking meat FFS

The global food system is the biggest driver of destruction of the natural world, and a shift to predominantly plant-based diets is crucial in halting the damage, according to a report.

Agriculture is the main threat to 86% of the 28,000 species known to be at risk of extinction, the report by the Chatham House thinktank said. Without change, the loss of biodiversity will continue to accelerate and threaten the world’s ability to sustain humanity, it said.



The root cause is a vicious circle of cheap food, the report said, where low costs drive bigger demand for food and more waste, with more competition then driving costs even lower through more clearing of natural land and use of polluting fertilisers and pesticides.

The report, supported by the UN environment programme (Unep), focused on three solutions. First is a shift to plant-based diets because cattle, sheep and other livestock have the biggest impact on the environment.

More than 80% of global farmland is used to raise animals, which provide only 18% of calories eaten. Reversing the rising trend of meat consumption removes the pressure to clear new land and further damage wildlife. It also frees up existing land for the second solution, restoring native ecosystems to increase biodiversity.

Plant-based diets crucial to saving global wildlife, says report

Vicious circle of cheap but damaging food is biggest destroyer of nature, says UN-backed report

www.theguardian.com

 

[ddraig]

You think black market workers' lives are all sunshine and lollipops? Personally I doubt it. Not that the legality of a product or service is any kind of guarantee. The kids mining coltan in their bare feet for the luxury electronics we use probably aren't living the life of Riley either.

That's not even going into the inherently exploitative nature of all wage-labour under capitalism.

More whattaboutery! Well done

 

[editor]

Yeah well here's where I think the fundamental difference in opinion lies. I'm OK with humans killing animals for food. You are not. You clearly think there is a major difference between killing animals for meat, and killing them to ensure that at least some crops are left over for humans to eat. Whereas I am of the opinion that there isn't really any difference, at least as far as the animals are concerned. I don't think they care why we're killing them.

Who is proposing slaughtering animals so "some crops are left over for humans to eat"?

 

[ddraig]

Who is proposing slaughtering animals so "some crops are left over for humans to eat"?

Guess it's the boring old "insects die when harvesting plants" argument
Hypocrisy hunting and attempted gotcha, that's been done on this thread and others