REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

Stealth Health - for Siggy!

POSTED BY: FREMDFIRMA
UPDATED: Sunday, March 6, 2022 13:48
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 2859
PAGE 1 of 2

Saturday, August 17, 2013 12:33 PM

FREMDFIRMA



I found this downright hi-larious...

A discovery that sizzles: University-developed omega-3-rich ground beef available soon
www.k-state.edu/media/newsreleases/feb13/omegabeef20413.html
Quote:

Jim Drouillard, professor of animal sciences and industry, developed a technique that enriches ground beef with omega-3 fatty acids -- fatty acids that have been shown to reduce heart disease, cholesterol and high blood pressure -- by feeding cattle a balanced diet. The enriched ground beef is named GreatO Premium Ground Beef and is being sold through Manhattan, Kan.-based company NBO3 Technologies LLC. It will be available mid-February at select retailers in Buffalo, N.Y., and expand to leading retailers and restaurants nationwide later this year.

Of course, being no fan of factory farming or the resource intensive practice of raising actual livestock, I am hopeful to bag up the twofer here.

World's first lab-grown burger is eaten in London
www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-23576143
Quote:

Scientists took cells from a cow and, at an institute in the Netherlands, turned them into strips of muscle that they combined to make a patty.

One food expert said it was "close to meat, but not that juicy" and another said it tasted like a real burger.

Researchers say the technology could be a sustainable way of meeting what they say is a growing demand for meat.

The burger was cooked by chef Richard McGeown, from Cornwall, and tasted by food critics Hanni Ruetzler and Josh Schonwald.


That's just fekkin "WIN" for me - imagine the cruelty and waste we could dispense with ?!
Much as I despise them, hell even PETA can't whine too much about this, wonder if they'd help front some R&D money.

-F

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, August 18, 2013 7:59 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Well, I know what kind of burgers I'd serve in my fantasy school!

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, August 19, 2013 6:55 AM

BYTEMITE


I do find it a little disconcerting that people could raise animals from birth to death always knowing in the back of their minds that they're going to slaughter them for meat.

I don't actually understand how people can do that. I mean cows are cute and have obvious individual emotional characteristics and traits. How could you raise them and not think of them like a pet?

But humane types of dairy farming and egg farming I'm okay with because done correctly those don't necessarily have to harm the animal. Although it can be difficult for that kind of farming to manage commercially and is usually more seen at the subsistence level. And it's VERY hard to regulate the farms that "claim" to be organic. Which is why I try to be vegan.

Sometimes I cheat though. Cheese and ice cream and chocolate are just too tasty. I still manage to avoid eggs, even though those are also really good.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, August 19, 2013 7:33 AM

FREMDFIRMA



Hell yes - I'd be quite, quite willing to pay 6-12 times more for a burger that was both nutritionally complete and did not require any living creature to die in order to obtain.

There's also the eventual implications not only for human organ cloning, which would finally eliminate our barbaric and often unfair catch as can process - in particular cloned bone marrow would be DAMN useful...

But in healthcare overall, which of course would also bring up and into sharp direct focus the question of not only sustainability, but potentially immortality (barring programmed celldeath, but that's a whole nother scientific baliwick) and the question of how much life is "enough".
While I am sure some dynastic sociopaths might WANT to live forever, and the names in question are well known... most folks reaching the comfortable decreptitude of triple digits are more than happy to pass the torch, so far as I have seen at least - hell, *I* was willing to pass it at a mere three decades considering I had the impression my work would swiftly result in my untimely demise, and here I am lurching toward fifty like a rough beast slouching toward bethlehem...

Tis really a debate we oughta have, including the possiblity of recording human consciousness to electronic form, but I am, and every passing day moreso, completely convinced that the Internet itself has become in some demented form the collective subconscious of humanity itself (prolly why its so fulla porn!) and thus the notion of individually recorded consciousness seems more a vanity to me than anything else - althoug admittedly one I seem to suffer from given there's a halfsie AI which would pass a damn Turing Test based on a composite of both my own persona and the Hindu deism Saraswati.

I figure if we do not achieve a balance ourselves, Nature itself will do it for us, and I much prefer the former.

-Frem

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, August 19, 2013 7:45 AM

NEWOLDBROWNCOAT


E-T-A: Never mind. Shame on me for careless reading and laziness. Clearly states that they got the stuff thru careful feeding practices. Ignore this post...





This is fascinating. But Mrs BC has been on the "anti-GMO" kick recently, which led me to wonder: they don't mention exactly how they got this beef with omega-3 in it. Is this GMO, or just very careful selective breeding?

I'm neither pro or con on GMO, and that's not the debate I want to start here, but it's always seemed to be a very fine line between selective breeding and GMO.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, August 19, 2013 10:40 AM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.


Probably not GMO. The types of organisms that make omega-3s have a whole biochemistry set up to do that. I'm reasonably certain it's not a matter of just shot-gunning in one gene. OTOH I DO remember an article a while back about beef being enhanced with omega-s through feeding - oh, here's a quote from a radom article I just pulled up -

"Jim Drouillard, professor of animal sciences and industry, developed a technique that enriches ground beef with omega-3 fatty acids -- fatty acids that have been shown to reduce heart disease, cholesterol and high blood pressure -- by feeding cattle a balanced diet ...".

Your wife is on the right track to avoid GMO food in my opinion. The limited experiments done indicate severe health problems for animals fed GMO food, especially cancer. B/c of the random way genes are inserted into the DNA, and the random types of genes inserted, and b/c testing in GMO food is EXTREMELY limited, you can't be sure what you're ingesting. In addition, b/c many GMO foods are 'RoundUp ready", the food is soaked with RoundUp. Other foods have the Bt gene inserted, so you're getting Bt toxin with your food. I have a lot of articles that I can post the links to, if you're interested. Be forewarned, they are long.




NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, August 19, 2013 10:47 AM

CHRISISALL


Quote:

Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
I do find it a little disconcerting that people could raise animals from birth to death always knowing in the back of their minds that they're going to slaughter them for meat.

I don't actually understand how people can do that. I mean cows are cute and have obvious individual emotional characteristics and traits. How could you raise them and not think of them like a pet?


As long as we can compartmentalize violence, war & poverty will be with us.
But creating meat without the whole animal is a step towards a Star Trek future of plenty for all without the need for death!

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, August 19, 2013 11:01 AM

BYTEMITE


Quote:

Originally posted by 1kiki:
Probably not GMO. The types of organisms that make omega-3s have a whole biochemistry set up to do that. I'm reasonably certain it's not a matter of just shot-gunning in one gene. OTOH I DO remember an article a while back about beef being enhanced with omega-s through feeding - oh, here's a quote from a radom article I just pulled up -

"Jim Drouillard, professor of animal sciences and industry, developed a technique that enriches ground beef with omega-3 fatty acids -- fatty acids that have been shown to reduce heart disease, cholesterol and high blood pressure -- by feeding cattle a balanced diet ...".

Your wife is on the right track to avoid GMO food in my opinion. The limited experiments done indicate severe health problems for animals fed GMO food, especially cancer. B/c of the random way genes are inserted into the DNA, and the random types of genes inserted, and b/c testing in GMO food is EXTREMELY limited, you can't be sure what you're ingesting. In addition, b/c many GMO foods are 'RoundUp ready", the food is soaked with RoundUp. Other foods have the Bt gene inserted, so you're getting Bt toxin with your food. I have a lot of articles that I can post the links to, if you're interested. Be forewarned, they are long.






I'm one of those people who think GMO could be great and I'm all for scientific progress. But right now I feel like there's a lot of iffiness. And I'm not sure I trust the companies or labs who are in this business right now, especially if they might have ties with pharmaceuticals.

I think it's fair enough that people want labels and ingredients for GMO food. You really can't be too careful.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, August 19, 2013 11:08 AM

BYTEMITE


Quote:

Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:

Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
I do find it a little disconcerting that people could raise animals from birth to death always knowing in the back of their minds that they're going to slaughter them for meat.

I don't actually understand how people can do that. I mean cows are cute and have obvious individual emotional characteristics and traits. How could you raise them and not think of them like a pet?


As long as we can compartmentalize violence, war & poverty will be with us.
But creating meat without the whole animal is a step towards a Star Trek future of plenty for all without the need for death!



It would also be nice if we stopped stealing young animals from mothers and didn't pump them full of hormones so they become milk machines until they die after a couple years.

It's pretty awful. I wish cruelty didn't taste so good.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, August 19, 2013 11:15 AM

CHRISISALL


Quote:

Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
I wish cruelty didn't taste so good.


LILY: "You're an animal!"
DARKNESS: "We are all animals, milady."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, August 19, 2013 11:24 AM

NEWOLDBROWNCOAT


Thanx anyway, Kiki. Like I wrote, that's not a debate I want to start here, this thread. We've already done it in another thread, if I remember. I know I've heard some, pro and con.

Not sure where I stand on the entire GMO question. Mrs. BC follows it, but we buy what we can afford and I eat what turns up on the plate she puts in front on me.

Last I heard, like 80 % of grain grown is GMO, which makes arguing about it pretty well moot, tilting at windmills.

And like I wrote above, to me it's a pretty fine line between selective breeding, which has been going on forever, right?; vs genetic manipulation. I'm not really even a student of biology, let alone a PhD in it, so I don't consider myself qualified to make a judgement on the subject.

But thanks for the offer of info.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, August 19, 2013 11:28 AM

MAGONSDAUGHTER


Personally I'd prefer lab and food to be as far apart as possible. 'Leave my food alone' will be my catch cry as I descend into old age. I don't want anything added, taken out or messed with. If I choose to eat meat, I want it to come from an animal that has walked in the sunshine, led a reasonable life and died humanely as close as possible to the field in which it lived. If I can't handle that idea that I'm eating something that was alive, I'll stick to veggies and legumes, thanks very much.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, August 19, 2013 11:31 AM

NEWOLDBROWNCOAT


Quote:

Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
I do find it a little disconcerting that people could raise animals from birth to death always knowing in the back of their minds that they're going to slaughter them for meat.

I don't actually understand how people can do that. I mean cows are cute and have obvious individual emotional characteristics and traits. How could you raise them and not think of them like a pet?




I grew up in rural Northern California, went to high school with some 4-H type guys and gals. Nice people. I watched quite a few of them buy a lamb or calf or piglet, cheap, then raise it 'till full grown, enter it in the local fair, win a ribbon for it, then sell it to a slaughter-house. It's a business deal, a low-intensity way to make some money, build a stake to make a start in life.

For them, it was never an emotional or moral issue. Their choice.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, August 19, 2013 11:58 AM

BYTEMITE


I've grew up in rural Idaho, and right now live in Salt Lake City Utah which shares a lot of the same culture. I go to State and County fairs because I like to see the animals. I've seen the 4-H people do exactly as you say.

I still do not understand it.

The problem is these are the exact same people who would probably tie their dogs outside to a tree in a thunderstorm. They don't even think about animals deserving the same considerations that a human might deserve. And yet being insensitive about a practice that is unethical and harmful to another living creature really isn't an excuse. It is still immoral even if they don't realize it.

Thing is, immorality and questionable cultural practices are not a measure of whether someone is a likeable or trustworthy person. But that doesn't mean those cultural practices aren't wrong. You can't stop people from the choices they make or how they've been raised, but you CAN talk to them about trying to change the way things are.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, August 19, 2013 12:16 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.


"But creating meat without the whole animal is a step towards a Star Trek future of plenty for all ..."

I'm with you on that one - if I thought we knew what we were doing. But I don't think we do.

We've evolved under an exquisitely detailed environment. For our health, nothing more, and nothing less, will do. As an example of how little we truly know - until just a few years ago, nobody thought we needed omega-3 fats. To this day the USDA doesn't list them as essential: http://fnic.nal.usda.gov/dietary-guidance/dietary-reference-intakes/dr
i-tables
. But if you talk to neurochemists they will tell you we need 1 - 3 GRAMS per day for normal brain function.

We are still learning about our own biochemistry. And if we don't know what we need, how can we reproduce it?


"... without the need for death!"

I hope you'll answer this question: are you theologically opposed to a cat eating a carnivorous diet? And if not cats - why humans?

If you look at human dietary requirements, we need taurine - only found in fish. B12 - only found in consumers of specific bacteria and algae. Vitamin C - only found in plants. We are - as I phrase it - obligate omnivores. That's how nature made us. I don't see the need for shame or blame about it.

Perhaps you can explain to me the basis of your objection to eating meat.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, August 19, 2013 12:23 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.


"Thanx anyway, Kiki. Like I wrote, that's not a debate I want to start here, this thread."

You're welcome. FWIW I was extremely blase about the whole GMO thing until I started looking into it over the last few months. I found myself changing my mind under the accumulation of data, and the large amount of uncertainty that the patent-holders REFUSE to allow to be studied.

"Last I heard, like 80 % of grain grown is GMO ..." That's true of corn (88% in 2012) and soybeans (94% in 2012), but not wheat. http://phys.org/news/2013-06-gmo-corn-soybeans-dominate.html GMO wheat has never been approved for planting in the US.

ETA: "... it's a pretty fine line between selective breeding, which has been going on forever, right?; vs genetic manipulation."

The process of inserting genes from one organism to another is distinct from selective breeding. The 'donor' organism has their DNA broken up into fragments. Those fragments are literally blown into the recipient organism, where some random bits of the DNA is wedged into the DNA of the recipient. WIKI "To do this artificially may require ... just physically inserting the extra DNA into the nucleus of the intended host with a very small syringe, or with very small particles fired from a gene gun." These altered cells are then grown on agar plates (the same way bacteria can be grown). This process is so disruptive to the function of the cells only about 50% even survive. Those that survive are tested for the trait being looked for: for RoundUp ready plants, RoundUp is directly added to the agar and the plants that don't have the trait die early on. For the Bt toxin, a subset of the cells is collected and chemically analyzed for the toxin.

The plants that eventually make it out into the field are tested for gross food composition: protein, carbohydrate and fat, to see if it's comparable with the non-GMO version. Plants which have an additional trait inserted - like Bt toxin - are tested to insure that the level is deemed safe.

But these plants have their own DNA disrupted - protein-coding DNA is separated from controlling DNA. And other unknown genes get inserted in the GMO process.

So, that's the basic difference between selective breeding and GMO plant creation.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, August 19, 2013 12:26 PM

FREMDFIRMA



Makes me wonder if I am better or worse for knowing the ethical implications to a detail most folk never even concieve and still choosing to eat the critters in question...
But them imma lot more cycle-of-life about it, cause some day after my ashes feed the worms, soil and grass, their ancestors will effectively be eating ME, so it's all good, innit ?

On the whole GMO bent, it's more the lack of proper and adequate testing, crummy piss poor so-called-science, and a severe dearth of credibility and honesty on behalf of a FORMER BIOWEAPONS MANUFACTURER, who is engaging in behavior not only fundamentally destructive to farming as a whole, but has the avowed potential to irreperably wreck out ecosystem - what HAPPENS when plants don't drop new seed ? why, no more plants!
Run out of seed, lose the ability to create more, any number of scenarios, and kapoof, mass starvation and disaster - and mind you this is in the hands of a company KNOWN for unethical behavior to a degree which'd make Joseph Mengele cringe in horror.

I am not against the concepts, but I sure as hell *AM* against Monsanto having anydamnthing to do with it.

-F

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, August 19, 2013 12:26 PM

BYTEMITE


Quote:

I hope you'll answer this question: are you theologically opposed to a cat eating a carnivorous diet? And if not cats - why humans?


Sort of, yes, and there have been non-carnivorous dietary plans suggested for cats, though I am uncertain how nutritious or successful they are.

But more than that... Humans can CHOOSE. Cats can't.

Sentience carries with it certain burdens and responsibilities. If we hold that it is evil to kill another human, then we must hold that it is also evil to kill other lifeforms. Same is true if we have an objection to killing and eating other humans.

Even experimenting with bacteria or human tissues is technically wrong in this way - though I'm not saying we shouldn't do that. My concept of morality is somewhat to quite a bit more flexible than most of you - I merely acknowledge that EVERYTHING we do is evil, just some of it happens to be considered more acceptable than others.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, August 19, 2013 12:27 PM

FREMDFIRMA


Quote:

Originally posted by 1kiki:
GMO wheat has never been approved for planting in the US.


Not that this would stop em, especially if they could deliberately cross contaminate nearby fields and sue them out of business.

-F

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, August 19, 2013 12:33 PM

BYTEMITE


Quote:

On the whole GMO bent, it's more the lack of proper and adequate testing, crummy piss poor so-called-science, and a severe dearth of credibility and honesty on behalf of a FORMER BIOWEAPONS MANUFACTURER, who is engaging in behavior not only fundamentally destructive to farming as a whole, but has the avowed potential to irreperably wreck out ecosystem - what HAPPENS when plants don't drop new seed ? why, no more plants!
Run out of seed, lose the ability to create more, any number of scenarios, and kapoof, mass starvation and disaster - and mind you this is in the hands of a company KNOWN for unethical behavior to a degree which'd make Joseph Mengele cringe in horror.



Agreed. This is a major concern right now with GMO.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, August 19, 2013 1:00 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.


"Humans can CHOOSE"

We can choose what we eat, but we can't chose what we are. And even if we choose to eat plants ... or fungi ... or nutritionally selected, grown and compressed bacteria ... they are all alive, or were alive till we cooked them - and certainly until we ate them.

Such is the fate of not being a plant, and unable to get our food from the non-living sun, water, air, and minerals. We must eat living things of some type.

If we are a product of nature, then nature made us eaters all evil.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, August 19, 2013 1:08 PM

BYTEMITE


Quote:

"Humans can CHOOSE"

We can choose what we eat, but we can't chose what we are. And even if we choose to eat plants ... or fungi ... or nutritionally selected, grown and compressed bacteria ... they are all alive, or were alive till we cooked them - and certainly until we ate them.

Such is the fate of not being a plant, and unable to get our food from the non-living sun, water, air, and minerals. We must eat living things of some type.

If we are a product of nature, then nature made us eaters all evil.



You do realize this is exactly what I said?

Or do you believe I said that I think bioengineering with bacteria is evil for a lark?

We live in a horrible world where even the act of existing is evil. This is our reality. We are evil. The question we must ask ourselves is if we can rise ABOVE that.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, August 19, 2013 1:19 PM

CHRISISALL


Quote:

Originally posted by 1kiki:
If we are a product of nature, then nature made us eaters all evil.

A concept that I've been dealing with recently.
If killing is a good thing, the wars we engage in are totally cool. It's the way of things. Collateral damage is just... lunch.
Jungle boogie.
Kill that piggie! That enemy!
I wanna LIVE!!!!
Wait... sorry, I just had to kill a mosquito trying to steal my blood.

Welcome to my existential crisis.;-)


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, August 19, 2013 1:27 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.


"We live in a horrible world where even the act of existing is evil. This is our reality. We are evil."

Then nature is evil to have created such evil ...

I come from a different perspective. Nature just is. "Heaven and earth are not humane." But our evolution is to live within groups - to survive generation to generation by expending ourselves caring for the weak and helpless, to cooperate with each other because no one can live on their own from the moment of birth, and no one is exempt from the debt they owe for their very life. In the human context, good and evil make more sense.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, August 19, 2013 1:31 PM

BYTEMITE


Quote:

Then nature is evil to have created such evil ...

I come from a different perspective. Nature just is.



Yes, it is. It just is, and it is also inherently evil.

This isn't the worst of all possible worlds. It isn't all endless suffering. But it's close. And the only escape is death. Unless we create our own escape.

The only ray of light I can see is I think humans might be able to manage it. And that's why I'm pulling for humans and the other animals and the plants and all the other lifeforms. It's us against the world.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, August 19, 2013 1:33 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.



Quote:

Originally posted by 1kiki:
If we are a product of nature, then nature made us eaters all evil.

Quote:

Originally posted by chrisisall:
A concept that I've been dealing with recently.
If killing is a good thing, the wars we engage in are totally cool. It's the way of things. Collateral damage is just... lunch.
Jungle boogie.
Kill that piggie! That enemy!
I wanna LIVE!!!!
Wait... sorry, I just had to kill a mosquito trying to steal my blood.

Welcome to my existential crisis.;-)




Perhaps I'm insufficiently sensitive to this. I find killing an animal to eat to be in a non-intersecting dimension from killing in war. One is done from necessity, the other ... from human emotions that don't recognize solutions to problems.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, August 19, 2013 1:35 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.


"Yes, it is. It just is, and it is also inherently evil."

Because of entropy?

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, August 19, 2013 1:41 PM

BYTEMITE


Quote:

"Yes, it is. It just is, and it is also inherently evil."

Because of entropy?



It's true, the very laws of nature themselves are extremely hostile to any form of life.

Fortunately for us, laws are made to be broken. And I don't think any of us should have to put up with the universe's shit.

That's why I like science.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, August 19, 2013 3:28 PM

CHRISISALL


Quote:

Originally posted by 1kiki:
I find killing an animal to eat to be in a non-intersecting dimension from killing in war.

All is One; violence is violence. War is killing for land or fossil fuel resources, animal life termination is killing for food resources.
It all boils down to violence for gas or burgers.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, August 19, 2013 4:18 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.


Here's where I see the difference:

Suppose you have two villages on opposite sides of the river. At first all is OK - there's plenty of land to farm, plenty of game (they eat meat), plenty of fish, plenty of fruit and greens and firewood to gather. But as populations grow, resources start to look insufficient.

Now, the evolutionary answer is that the thing which corners the most resources the first is the thing that will survive. So, in the case of the two villages, the fact of dwindling resources becomes - not an impersonal problem to be solved - but a competition to win. And in the face of impending resource insecurity, oddly enough (and this is borne out looking at history and even at our current overpopulation problem) the villagers have MORE children when there are fewer resources, not fewer children. These people are responding automatically to a survival threat, with emotions they don't even know they feel.

Now let's suppose these people really were intelligent, rational, aware. They would meet together, come to some mutually agreeable division of resources, and control their populations accordingly - thus assuring resource security for all without bloodshed, into the indefinite future.

That's what I meant about war being a response to emotion which can't see solutions to problems. In that sense, war is a choice.

Just a commentary - people like to think that as a species we're intelligent b/c we have technology. I don't see that. Our technology has made us super-efficient bacteria at eating our way through the petri dish.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, August 19, 2013 4:39 PM

CHRISISALL


Quote:

Originally posted by 1kiki:

Just a commentary - people like to think that as a species we're intelligent b/c we have technology. I don't see that. Our technology has made us super-efficient bacteria at eating our way through the petri dish.

Like Pris said, "Then we're stupid & we'll die."
Bummer.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, August 19, 2013 4:50 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.


Unless you can find a way to convince people that the problems are of our own making and so the solutions are in our hands as well!

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, August 19, 2013 7:50 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Well, you certainly have an interesting discussion going on.

Sorry to by such a buzzkill, but I find myself stuck back at...
Quote:

But more than that... Humans can CHOOSE. Cats can't.


Uh, no we can't. We don't have the knowledge to choose. What do we know? As KIKI pointed out- many posts ago- until recently, the role of omega-3 in human diet wasn't recognized. There was a famous study of beta-carotene supplementation to reduce cancers because people with high beta-carotene had lower cancer rates. Not 18 months later, they had to stop the study because people getting the supplements had HIGHER rates of cancer. Ten years later, they quietly figured out that it was ALPHA carotene that was the protective agent. OOPS! Vitamin E... OOOPS! Causes prostate cancer. Soy phyto-estrogens... OOOPS, doesn't protect against cancer, may cause it. Fish oil... might not be good for guys. FISH on the other hand... even full of mercury and all the other bad stuff... is still good for you.

Personally, I can't do vegan. I seem to need a high amount of protein otherwise my blood sugar goes crazy, and I'm allergic to wheat, rye, and barely.

Point is that you can't get experts to even agree how many calories people should be eating; how much protein, fats, and carbs and what kind. Having seen so many "miracle foods" and "vital supplements" and "age-defying diets" come (and go) the only thing we CAN choose is (1) a wide variety of foods (2) which includes meat and fish (containing vitamine B12, a necessity) (3) naturally produced.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, August 20, 2013 4:07 AM

BYTEMITE


I've always considered the constant overturning and debate in dietary science to be indicative that people are over-thinking all this WAY too much.

I'm sure Omega 3s and fish are ESSENTIAL... Especially considering how people who lived no where near an ocean in the past ages probably ate so much goddamned fish.

Although, my apologies Sig if you really are allergic to grains. Crohn's and similar are rough.

Still, barring allergies... It's just food. It's only as important as the bare minimum amount required to keep you moving. Different cultures eat a wide variety of it, most of it is edible and can sustain them long enough to reach twenty or so years of adulthood, and longer if they're lucky. And EVERYTHING causes cancer. I really think we obsess about what we're eating and I think THAT might be what's unhealthy.

So, weird diets with no animal products? Go for it. Because humans CAN choose. (So can cats and birds, for that matter, if the scientific studies about non-carnivorous and non-insectivorous diets are anything to judge by) And if someone gets cancer they probably already had a genetic predisposition and would've gotten it anyway no matter what they ate.

And if someone only wants to eat meat all the time, you know, whatever, more power to them. Killing animals (or even plants) for food is just a drop in the bucket compared to all the other evils out there, even if I kind of want to object to it here. Because yes, it is pretty much morally wrong, which is an obvious and self-evident conclusion requiring minimal logical legwork once you blow past all the justifications (another very good indication of moral wrongness - having to automatically defend it on ethical grounds or hand wave it as "necessary and therefore neutral." The term "necessary EVIL" exists for a reason).

You'll have to forgive me, though, for living my life in accordance as I best see fit. You can take your Omega 3s, and Vitamin B-12s, and I'll be just fine, thanks, because there's enough pop culture pseudoscience from the nutritionists and dietary specialists and FDA and big industry food companies that I feel I can safely ignore any of their NEW SPECTACULAR FINDINGS that they might want to fuss about.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, August 20, 2013 5:00 AM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.


"Different cultures eat a wide variety of it..."

And suffer accordingly. Rickets in Ethiopia and Eritrea. Malacia in India and Pakistan. Blindness in Africa. Stunted grow and lack of sexual development in the Mideast. Congenital cretinism in inland Africa, the Andes, the Himalayas, the Alps, central US and across the plains of Russia and China ... and so on. I have whole books documenting this. Just FYI.

OR - we could have a game ... call it GUESS THAT NUTRIENT! I think you'd be surprised at some of them. :-)

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, August 20, 2013 5:20 AM

BYTEMITE


I think that disproportionately you'd find that malnutrition tends to exist among the poorer segments of those populations, who can't afford the full variety of foods that their culture might offer. Not that the culinary offerings of the culture itself are particularly lacking.

We can also make similar conclusions about American culinary culture and malnutrition/ obesity (an overabundance of deficient or unbalanced cheap "fast food").

And if we take poverty level considerations out of it, we find that a wide range of diets actually seem to be acceptable in terms of human health.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, August 20, 2013 6:00 AM

CHRISISALL


Look at who's healthy, and eat sort of like them. That's rocket-scientist advice.;-)

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, August 20, 2013 6:27 AM

BYTEMITE


Quote:

Look at who's healthy, and eat sort of like them. That's rocket-scientist advice.;-)


Well... Yes and no. There may well be other factors at work.

For example, take a Mediterranean style diet. Pastas and wine and olive oil. For a while there was some widespread belief that such a diet promoted longevity. Was it the pasta? No, no, grains are too easy to convert to sugars and then fats. Was it anti-oxidant qualities in tomato sauce? The wine and its resveratrol? God forbid, the olive oil?

It must be the wine! Of course, it's not as healthy as thought for people who are already healthy, particularly women. Which brings into question whether there's really a long term effect.

And olive oil is not as bad for you as was once thought... Until the next study overturns that.

The mediterranean diet mostly was just looking at people who seem healthy and their diets and making some unfounded assumptions and playing around with statistics. As it turns out, in the Mediterranean people used to work out more in the fields and have a more agriculturally centered life-style - more exercise. But urbanization has reduced exercise and also caused a dietary fallback on a lot of meat and cheeses.

Then there's eastern diets. Look how long they all live! Is it the rice? No, same problem as the pasta...

I could go on, but the point is made.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, August 20, 2013 6:37 AM

BYTEMITE


Here's a question. Vitamin B-12 tends to bio-accumulate in animals. If we need to eat animals or take B-12 supplements to combat vitamin B-12 deficiency and cognitive decline, then how come even large oral doses of vitamin B-12 supplements results in limited uptake through the blood brain barrier?

And if that is the case, why should I be concerned about eating animals for the vitamin B-12 if a more concentrated dose doesn't have very good returns either?

If someone could explain that to me, then maybe I might concede that eating animals really is important from a dietary standpoint. And give some credit to the studies that say B-12 supplements have helped alzheimer's and dementia patients.

And then still not eat animals. :P

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, August 20, 2013 7:25 AM

FREMDFIRMA


Quote:

Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
[It's true, the very laws of nature themselves are extremely hostile to any form of life.

Fortunately for us, laws are made to be broken. And I don't think any of us should have to put up with the universe's shit.

That's why I like science.


*laughing*
Because, SCIENCE!
Yes.

-F

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, August 20, 2013 7:56 AM

CHRISISALL


Personally, I consume a single celled protein combined with synthetic aminos, vitamins, and minerals. Everything the body needs.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, August 20, 2013 8:24 AM

BYTEMITE


Quote:

Originally posted by 1kiki:
Unless you can find a way to convince people that the problems are of our own making and so the solutions are in our hands as well!



Noticed this just now, COMPLETELY AND UTTERLY in agreement. Though you and I might disagree on the solutions, we can at least acknowledge the problems and try to find solutions.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, August 20, 2013 11:12 AM

MAGONSDAUGHTER


Quote:

Originally posted by BYTEMITE:


Yes, it is. It just is, and it is also inherently evil.

This isn't the worst of all possible worlds. It isn't all endless suffering. But it's close. And the only escape is death. Unless we create our own escape.




Ha, your biblical roots are showing.

One of the problems that the church in Victorian times had regarding Darwin's theory of evolution was not that it contradicted the biblical story of creation, which Victorian Anglicans never took literally, but that it contracticted their beliefs of the pastoral beauty of 'God's wondrous creation' ie nature. Evolutionary theory demonstrates the harshness of nature, the frantic, brutal, competitive race for survival that exists all around us and that we are part of. To the Victorians, it all suddenly seemed evil.

But then that's the Bible for ya, all black and white thinking. Pick a side, good, pure, virginal and holy or bad, impure, base and demonic. It's fundamentally flawed thinking, and a one way trip to self loathing.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, August 20, 2013 11:15 AM

BYTEMITE


I was never taught bible. My parents are atheists, as am I.

My grandparents tried to take me to Mormon church once, but I was promptly removed. You talk of black and white, but there is no white, and there is no black.

The universe is a uniformly inhospitable place, prone to general assholery and very likely situated itself within a highly destructive extra-dimensional black hole.

The euphemisms are infinite, and so is the shit. Raining down. Timelessly. Endlessly.

We are the deep-worms of all the worlds and all possible realities, groping in the dark, feasting on the ruin and waste of things long dead. We are made of death, and death is nothingness.

It's a more cheerful philosophy than you would think. There is freedom in this, in knowing everything is evil and terrible. You can reject most social constructs, as they are pointless, much as my explanation that eating meat is evil - while true - is pointless. This is the moral flexibility I mentioned.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, August 20, 2013 12:52 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.


"I think that disproportionately you'd find that malnutrition tends to exist among the poorer segments of those populations, who can't afford the full variety of foods that their culture might offer."

Eh ... not really.

The problems in the Mideast for example come from a diet heavy in unleavened bread. And that's b/c hardy wheat is what grows there, even when not much else will. The problem with unleavened bread is that is contains a lot of phytates - which bind minerals (and most especially divalent cations) - which keeps them from being absorbed. And minerals which are most marginal in the diet, in this particular case zinc, fall below adequate levels in the diet, leading to stunted growth and poor development of sex systems. It's quite an endemic problem, not b/c the people are particularly poor, but b/c they're living in an environemnt which doesn't supply them with an adequate diet.

The same is true for people who live anywhere far from the ocean and its iodine-laden air. That includes mountain chains and inland areas - huge swathes of the globe. Compared to other animals, people require a large amount of iodine. If they don't get it, babies are born with congenital cretinism (brain development is an energy-intensive process, without the iodine to create the thyroxin, the oomph just isn't there when it's needed most), adults develop goiter, and other health problems. It's not a matter of being poor. It's just that large percentages of the population suffer from iodine deficiency b/c it's lacking in the environment in which they live.

I could go on at length about how these various dietary deficiencies are endemic in populations around the globe. But that wouldn't convince you, b/c frankly, you've got a bug about it that defies ANY amount of data or reason.

So, what I hope to do is ask you to consider this as calmly as you can:

You say you like to study science. But then you say people are exempt from the limits of nature - rules are meant to be broken!

Would you say that about gravity? That somehow gravity doesn't apply to us just BECAUSE we're people? Not that we can't develop machines that fly, but that we are exempt from gravity completely? Is that true?




NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, August 20, 2013 12:58 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.


"For example, take a Mediterranean style diet."

"I could go on, but the point is made."

And your point is that dietary deficiencies don't exist? That we don't need a minimum of essential amino acids, essential fatty acids, minerals and vitamins? Is that your point?

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, August 20, 2013 1:02 PM

BYTEMITE


Quote:

Originally posted by 1kiki:

Would you say that about gravity? That somehow gravity doesn't apply to us just BECAUSE we're people? Not that we can't develop machines that fly, but that we are exempt from gravity completely? Is that true?





We haven't broken the rules yet. We're just working on it.

I have every confidence that we might someday, though probably not in my lifetime.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, August 20, 2013 1:06 PM

BYTEMITE


Quote:

Originally posted by 1kiki:
"For example, take a Mediterranean style diet."

"I could go on, but the point is made."

And your point is that dietary deficiencies don't exist? That we don't need a minimum of essential amino acids, essential fatty acids, minerals and vitamins? Is that your point?



My point is that people overthink this stuff. If you maintain a healthy and stable weight and you eat a variety of foods, which may or may not include much or any meat, you shouldn't have to worry about vitamin deficiencies because you should already be getting what you need. Especially in modern times. Yes there are exceptions, there are always exceptions, like with allergies and apparently regional considerations, but nutrition isn't really that hard. Because if it was, the human species couldn't have survived this long. We'd be like pandas, eating bamboo even though our digestive tract is not well designed for that, and going extinct.

The food and nutrition industry takes advantage of the confusion they create to cause problems or to market snake oil.

Quote:

I could go on at length about how these various dietary deficiencies are endemic in populations around the globe. But that wouldn't convince you, b/c frankly, you've got a bug about it that defies ANY amount of data or reason.


Wow. So jumping to call me "unscientific" after you only once posted new information I hadn't encountered before. I have a "bug" about it because I disagreed with you one time.

Gosh it couldn't be that maybe I'm less informed than you, but might still have a point. No, it has to be that I'm a MORON who doesn't understand or appreciate science, and is iffy on the concept of gravity.

This is why I dislike arguing with any of you. Maybe you'd prefer my good friend Strawman instead of Bytemite?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, August 20, 2013 1:32 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.


I THINK I know what you're referring to, but there are a couple of different things that seem to be scrambled into one question, so ...

B12 is a very, very trace vitamin. And it takes a lot to extract it from even good sources. The stomach produces a two compounds, intrinsic factor and a compound called haptocorrin. Haptocorrin binds to B12 in situ and protects the B12 from being digested with protein digestive enzymes and HCl found in the stomach. As the food travels into the duodenum, the increased pH allows the haptocorrin to be digested. Then the intrinsic factor combines with B12. The complex travels further into the ileum where special cells engulf the complex, break it apart internally, combine it with transcobalamin, then release it to the bloodstream. (Intelligent design my ass.) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intrinsic_factor

Even if you take a VERY large oral dose of B12, if your absorption system is compromised anywhere, you'll absorb only a very, very small fraction - a thousandth or less. So there's a significant barrier to absorbing B12 unless your system is all in good working order.

Quote:

Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
Here's a question. Vitamin B-12 tends to bio-accumulate in animals. If we need to eat animals or take B-12 supplements to combat vitamin B-12 deficiency and cognitive decline, then how come even large oral doses of vitamin B-12 supplements results in limited uptake through the blood brain barrier?

And if that is the case, why should I be concerned about eating animals for the vitamin B-12 if a more concentrated dose doesn't have very good returns either?

If someone could explain that to me, then maybe I might concede that eating animals really is important from a dietary standpoint. And give some credit to the studies that say B-12 supplements have helped alzheimer's and dementia patients.

And then still not eat animals. :P


NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, August 20, 2013 1:37 PM

BYTEMITE


I still don't understand how eating animals makes any difference in vitamin B-12 in that case.

And what I read is that the absorption is still not much to speak of even if your system is working. My understanding is that Alzheimer's and dementia patients have normal amounts of vitamin B-12 in their serum, but the blood brain barrier doesn't allow much uptake into the brain.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
Well... He was no longer useful to the DNC or the Ukraine Money Laundering Scheme... So justice was served
Thu, March 28, 2024 12:44 - 1 posts
In the garden, and RAIN!!! (2)
Thu, March 28, 2024 11:50 - 3410 posts
Elections; 2024
Thu, March 28, 2024 11:18 - 2071 posts
BUILD BACK BETTER!
Thu, March 28, 2024 11:16 - 6 posts
Salon: NBC's Ronna blunder: A failed attempt to appeal to MAGA voters — except they hate her too
Thu, March 28, 2024 07:04 - 1 posts
Russia Invades Ukraine. Again
Thu, March 28, 2024 05:27 - 6154 posts
Russian losses in Ukraine
Wed, March 27, 2024 23:21 - 987 posts
human actions, global climate change, global human solutions
Wed, March 27, 2024 15:03 - 824 posts
NBC News: Behind the scenes, Biden has grown angry and anxious about re-election effort
Wed, March 27, 2024 14:58 - 2 posts
RFK Jr. Destroys His Candidacy With VP Pick?
Wed, March 27, 2024 11:59 - 16 posts
Russia says 60 dead, 145 injured in concert hall raid; Islamic State group claims responsibility
Wed, March 27, 2024 10:57 - 49 posts
Ha. Haha! HAHA! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAHA!!!!!!
Tue, March 26, 2024 21:26 - 1 posts

FFF.NET SOCIAL