Speak EV - Electric Car Forums banner

What is going on?

  • Veganism is for the privileged few

    Votes: 5 38.5%
  • Veganism is for mass sustenance

    Votes: 10 76.9%

  • Total voters
    13
41 - 56 of 56 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,204 Posts
Discussion Starter #41 (Edited)
Possibly. The thing is the trends show decreasing fertility rates as countries develop.

This is particularly true in some east Asian countries like China (although this is skewed by the one child policy), Singapore and Japan, which have birth rates around <1.6. It seems that as education increases, particularly among females, there is a tendency to favour careers over 'family lives'. This can create tensions as its against certain cultural norms of what the female role is....

There has been little indication that advancements lead to increased birth rates again. But I guess the things you are theorising are quite unprecedented, so who knows!
My view is that building artificial biomes is an undisputed human practice, and the 'megacity' suggestion is a future history of an established trend. One known side-effect occurs when pollutions from various intensifications enters the food chain and directly impacts fertility - Chernobyl is a case in point.


I agree that there is an inverse correlation between education and birth rates. The cause, in my view, is a concern for humanity. Our minds can be described as having three loosely connected layers between which communications can be compared to long-term nagging. These layers are sometimes named visceral, emotional, and reflective:

121644

Example: Visceral powers our basic reactions to the environment, like our impulse to breath and reproduce. Reflective is where I view education having greatest impact as it stimulates self-reflection on emerging dilemmas. Note: brain drawing repurposed and the emotional section could be better placed.

My view is that education generates a positive feedback loop that powers life-long learning, and life-long learning has no time for visceral reproduction - highlighting an obvious dichotomy. WHO has, for over a decade, reported that 'major depression' has been the leading cause of disease in women and "the burden of depression is 50% higher for females than males". Could the dichotomy in modern life be the root cause of WHO findings?

www.who.int/healthinfo/global_burden_disease/GBD_report_2004update_full.pdf

I see intensification advancing humanity towards autonomous intensive farming (e.g. lab grown meats), designed by societies that continuously educate themselves in all disciplines. My view is that our drive to overcome exogenous bounds on population size undermines our ability to accommodate the fundamental visceral needs of life! 😱
 

·
I'm not crazy, the attack has begun.
Joined
·
23,035 Posts
To add spice to this vindaloo of a thread;-


Ah! That clash of ethics when people try to get more offended than the others.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,575 Posts
To add spice to this vindaloo of a thread;-


Ah! That clash of ethics when people try to get more offended than the others.
I wonder if the paper marker was expecting someone else to be offended when reporting that comment. We already know that that is rarely the case and protecting others from offence is usually not necessary. Or, whether it was an Islam devotee who was marking the paper - and reacted personally?

The paper in question would not be seen by the general public anyway - making the possibility of someone being offended quite remote. Another case of free speech being closed down by academia.

There was a recent amusing case when an invited speaker to a debate on the subject of 'free speech' was later barred from attending because the organisers disagreed with a recent comment made by that person. The irony was totally missed by them
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,204 Posts
Discussion Starter #44
More than likely there is a score card of points for the written answers to try and hit. Bullet points from the prescribed textbook would be ideal - free thinking discouraged.

It would not surprise me if the examiners use score cards for disqualifications as well as marking.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
64 Posts
I find it interesting that the headline says "Vegetarian student disqualified from GCSE paper for obscene racial comments" (my bold).

You will never in a million years see the headline "Meat eating student disqualified from GCSE paper for obscene racial comments."

Why the need to associate the fact that she is a vegetarian with the alleged racial comments? The word "vegetarian" is not needed in the headline.

I see this as an example of society's slight subtle bias against vegetarianism and need to put vegetarians and vegans down from time to time in order to bolster how weak the argument is in defense of (regular) meat eating.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
64 Posts
Electric Jamie said:

I think a strict veganism, where you avoid any food with a tiny amount of animal products and read all the ingredients to the end, is for the privileged, and may work out expensive.
Sounds excessively processed - can you provide an example?

The only item I can think of, that could cost more in vegan form, is milk. The cheapest supermarket own-label soy drinks are under £1 per litre - only marginally less than branded dairy Cravendale.
Just saw you asked me a question from ages ago. I hadn't been watching the thread.

Yes milk but also cheese.

Although say there are 10 types of biscuits on the shelves and only 2 are vegan. You can no longer just chose the cheapest one, so on average it may work out more expensive.

Same for breads, pastas if the cheapest one is not vegan.

Veganism mostly means avoiding milk chocolate and only perhaps eating dark chocolate, which is on average more expensive.

Vegan products are more common in high-end supermarkets and restaurants than the low end.

My suspicion is that you can reduce your animal product intake by about 98% without any significant change in cost but to go all the way to fully vegan will likely involve some cost increase.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,673 Posts
Pretty much. Generally the same sort of wilfully ignorant idiots who don't believe in Anthropogenic climate change and who "hate" EVs and bring out the same old tired arguments any time there is an even somewhat positive article about them.

I'm not totally convinced that we should all aim to be strictly Vegan, there are extensive grasslands that aren't much good for arable farming, so some limited consumption of grass-fed lamb or beef can perhaps be justified as being the best use of available resources.

I'd also be very reluctant to do without cheese... which means a dairy industry of some sort. Which in turn likely means having to eat some veal or at least beef of some sort - though likely on a much smaller scale than at present (unless we can somehow engineer a genuine "synthetic milk" that can still be used to make traditional cheese and yoghurt).

Clearly, grain-fattened beef cattle raised in intensive conditions are an environmental disaster and impossible to justify - cheap steaks will have to become a thing of the past.
Stick some trees on it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,204 Posts
Discussion Starter #48
Just saw you asked me a question from ages ago. I hadn't been watching the thread.

Yes milk but also cheese.

Although say there are 10 types of biscuits on the shelves and only 2 are vegan. You can no longer just chose the cheapest one, so on average it may work out more expensive.

Same for breads, pastas if the cheapest one is not vegan.

Veganism mostly means avoiding milk chocolate and only perhaps eating dark chocolate, which is on average more expensive.

Vegan products are more common in high-end supermarkets and restaurants than the low end.

My suspicion is that you can reduce your animal product intake by about 98% without any significant change in cost but to go all the way to fully vegan will likely involve some cost increase.
These examples are processed. Biscuits are processed. Chocolate is processed. Each step in the processed food supply chain need to make a profit (mixing, baking, packaging, etc.) and consumers fund all of it.

My view is that consumer cost savings, and consumer health benefits, can both be realised by simplifying the supply chain. Are raw vegan ingredients cost effective?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,204 Posts
Discussion Starter #49

·
I'm not crazy, the attack has begun.
Joined
·
23,035 Posts
Will HM Gov tax carnivores out of the breeding pool?

No, because meat eaters industrial leaders earn far more than vegy types, and can afford the tax. They will outbreed the unfortunates at the bottom to create imperial dynasties of industrial power.

The 'squeezed middle' of meat eating middle class will feel the hunger.

Too little sugar and meat slows down the brain and stops people thinking for themselves.

Feel free to go along with the brainwashing if you like, and feel your capacity for intellectual resistance ebb away.

;)


On the link;-
"(There's) a conundrum - how do we shift ourselves from consuming? We need to do more about learning to live sustainably. We talk about sustainability but we don't really know what it means. "
Yes we do. It means we have to restrict population and bring in limits on the number of offspring.

It is illogical to say "Hey, YOU have to eat less and buy less because someone else has had more kids."

Well, either I have been irresponsible in letting them have more kids, or .. or what ... ? What is MY part in the makeup of total national consumption that means my quota for consumption gets used up by others?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
25 Posts
Just saw you asked me a question from ages ago. I hadn't been watching the thread.

Yes milk but also cheese.

Although say there are 10 types of biscuits on the shelves and only 2 are vegan. You can no longer just chose the cheapest one, so on average it may work out more expensive.

Same for breads, pastas if the cheapest one is not vegan.

Veganism mostly means avoiding milk chocolate and only perhaps eating dark chocolate, which is on average more expensive.

Vegan products are more common in high-end supermarkets and restaurants than the low end.

My suspicion is that you can reduce your animal product intake by about 98% without any significant change in cost but to go all the way to fully vegan will likely involve some cost increase.
Really depends on which vegan products you buy, surely?

Iv'e been fully vegan for over 2 years now, vegetarian for 5 years prior to going vegan and a full fat carnivore before that. For me being a vegan is substantially cheaper than being either a vegetarian or carnivore, but then again I subscribe to a vegan wholefoods diet, rather than eating processed foods purporting to be healthy.

It really isn't difficult to eat a balanced vegan diet with a little preparation and a smidgeon of basic cooking skills. Okay, slightly more than opening a box and putting it in the microwave or oven, but not full on chef standards.

If all you want is to be able to buy ready made meals from supermarkets, it's always going to cost more, everyone in the manufacturing process is looking to make a profit, but if you buy real food, that requires minimal preparation along with a bit of cooking/heating up, it really is very easy, cheap and quick.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
25 Posts
Will HM Gov tax carnivores out of the breeding pool?

There's no real need to limit population growth in the "Western World" we're doing it ourselves already as we become richer we have fewer offspring. What will happen over the rest of the 21st century is that the rising population growth in other parts of the world will also fall back as these areas move more towards the middle class in China, India and many parts of Africa. Education and higher GDP per head will do far more for limiting population growth than any kinds of controls from governments across the planet.

What will do for carnivores though will be the depletion of the topsoil that allows the growth of foods to feed the vast meat industry around the world. As the planet continues to heat up and rainfall continues to get heavier as a result more and more of this topsoil will be washed away meaning that there will be less available to grow both foodstuffs for human consumption, but also to grow feed for the meat industry. At some point it will be deemed that meat production is unviable as the resources required to keep it running far outweigh growing crops for human consumption and enjoying a thick, juicy steak will become either an extremely expensive option for the guilded few or frowned upon like smoking in pubs.

I'll give it 30 years before veganism is the primary way of eating throughout the world.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,204 Posts
Discussion Starter #53 (Edited)
There's no real need to limit population growth in the "Western World" we're doing it ourselves already as we become richer we have fewer offspring
Poorer, actually.

The invention of economics that we currently use fails to account for pollution. If pollution were included in accounts as a debt, valued by the amount of currency that it would cost to clean-up, then we are bankrupt. Furthermore, British households were once able to host eight or more children. In contrast, many couples today lack enough money to raise even one child.

Every climate change protestor I have heard is failing at the first hurdle. If the UN recognised a different economic model, in which workers inherit and repay the debts of pollution, then the whole world problem would instantly correct itself: Jobs that inherently reduce pollution, such as forestry or gardening, would be highest paid - and jobs that created pollution would be worthless.

Is it world leaders that don't want to hear the truth, or people generally?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
25 Posts
Poorer, actually.

The invention of economics that we currently use fails to account for pollution. If pollution were included in accounts as a debt, valued by the amount of currency that it would cost to clean-up, then we are bankrupt. Furthermore, British households were once able to host eight or more children. In contrast, many couples today lack enough money to raise even one child.

Every climate change protestor I have heard is failing at the first hurdle. If the UN recognised a different economic model, in which workers inherit and repay the debts of pollution, then the whole world problem would instantly correct itself: Jobs that inherently reduce pollution, such as forestry or gardening, would be highest paid - and jobs that created pollution would be worthless.

Is it world leaders that don't want to hear the truth, or people generally?
I couldn't agree more with your prognosis, but until the economic model changes, how can we, as individuals be expected to view things differently ourselves. It's all well and good saying that those who reduce pollution should be paid more, I'd be loaded in that scenario, but that isn't the system we are working to, even if it fits your own argument better.

I'm sorry that as a climate protestor I don't meet your moral high ground, but what you ask for isn't going to change any time soon, so either you are playing devils advocate or it's a poor attempt at trolling. I'd far rather get off my backside and try to make a change than accept that the system is fundamentally set up wrong and we should change that first before worrying about anything else.

As for world leaders, they are predominantly all in it for themselves, but I only have to look around my own circle of acquaintances to know that the vast majority of people care primarily for themselves too, so the politicos know that if they look after the short sighted masses they will stay on the gravy train.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,204 Posts
Discussion Starter #55 (Edited)
I am not claiming a moral high ground. I pollute horribly. I am the selfish person who avoids climate change protests by flying to a resort - and I do that because of conflicting interests. Like most people I am a wage slave. For me to repay the debt of my pollution would put my family in the proverbial poor house.

Having said that I retain free thoughts. My view is that climate protests about single use plastics and carbon emissions (etc.) mask the root cause; the root cause being that society wallows in an unrecognised type of accounting fraud.

I think financial leaders entertain (and sponsor) climate protests because these protests mask a hidden unpalatable truth: I think that most protestors do not understand that their clothes, the tarmac they stand on, the phones they carry, and the banners they wave all incur costs hidden off balance sheet costs.

Everyone wishes for someone to miraculously discover a technology that fixes a broken economic system.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,204 Posts
Discussion Starter #56
41 - 56 of 56 Posts
Top