Europe, Boring Until it's Not

[C-Mag]

It's not bullshit, Monty. The US government actually paid for it.

I imagine the truth is a combination of all those factors. My point was in contesting the claim that Americans were somehow more benevolant than anyone else.

Don't change my statement...... this is what I said

C-Mag wrote:
American humans are pretty much benevolent Apex Predators; I can't fully speak to other countries so I won't.

I specifically said I was not comparing or speaking for othres us to others.

[Speaker to Animals]

It's not bullshit, Monty. The US government actually paid for it.

I imagine the truth is a combination of all those factors. My point was in contesting the claim that Americans were somehow more benevolant than anyone else.

LOL

I would not be supporting the notion that we were more benevolent back then. After the 1940s, maybe. Even then, we are talking about relative comparisons here. Saying we are more benevolent than a Chinese or Soviet hegemony is not exactly a bold claim.

[Fife]

Anyway, the USA is the most benevolent country on the planet. You're welcome, cousins.

[Montegriffo]

The simple fact is that there are nowhere NEAR enough calories in edible plant life to sustain 7 billion of us. Not even close. So either we cull the human population, or we accept meat as a necessary food source. Again, no argument is possible. You can choose to do differently, but you are being less efficient as an organism.

Not sure I agree, it takes much more land to produce meat. The thing is pasture land can be more benificial to wildlife than intensively farmed arable land however many more acres are needed to produce winter feed. There is a balance to be made between cheap protein sources and land usage as there is between choosing to eat dead animals or not.
Meat consumption isn't the problem, poor farming practises are.

[Speaker to Animals]

Nah, plants could support us calorie-wise. It's not the calories that are the problem. It's the nutrients. There are nutrients you need in animal products that you can't really get or synthesize from plant sources. Furthermore, it's very difficult to build a lot of muscle on such a diet. I wouldn't want a vegan Marine Corp, for example.

Also, the main way you'd support a large population with plants is through grains, rice, etc. That's not healthy either. That's the second biggest reason why Americans are so obese right now.

Then you have to look at all the environmental damage caused by large farms.

The question isn't whether humans should abandon the natural human diet (omnivores), but a matter of big agricultural versus local farms and sources. It's also a matter of whole foods versus processed, industrial foods.

[Montegriffo]

It's not bullshit, Monty. The US government actually paid for it.

I imagine the truth is a combination of all those factors. My point was in contesting the claim that Americans were somehow more benevolant than anyone else.

Don't change my statement...... this is what I said

C-Mag wrote:
American humans are pretty much benevolent Apex Predators; I can't fully speak to other countries so I won't.

I specifically said I was not comparing or speaking for othres us to others.

Well I contest that statement. Unless the American definition of benevolent is somehow different. Humans the planet over generally put their needs before those of wildlife and biodiversity. The only variance is in how efficiently they do it.

[Montegriffo]

Nah, plants could support us calorie-wise. It's not the calories that are the problem. It's the nutrients. There are nutrients you need in animal products that you can't really get or synthesize from plant sources. Furthermore, it's very difficult to build a lot of muscle on such a diet. I wouldn't want a vegan Marine Corp, for example.

Also, the main way you'd support a large population with plants is through grains, rice, etc. That's not healthy either. That's the second biggest reason why Americans are so obese right now.

Then you have to look at all the environmental damage caused by large farms.

The question isn't whether humans should abandon the natural human diet (omnivores), but a matter of big agricultural versus local farms and sources. It's also a matter of whole foods versus processed, industrial foods.

for an increasing number of players, that's changing. With quarterback Tom Brady headed to his eighth Super Bowl with the New England Patriots on Sunday, others in the league have taken notice of his healthy habits. As the Boston Globe points out: "It's a movement being led by Tom Brady, who dominated the league in his late 30s and is still going strong at 40, thanks to his vegetable-based diet and flexibility training over muscle mass."

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/01/31/why-nfl ... vegan.html

[Speaker to Animals]

I imagine the truth is a combination of all those factors. My point was in contesting the claim that Americans were somehow more benevolant than anyone else.

Don't change my statement...... this is what I said

C-Mag wrote:
American humans are pretty much benevolent Apex Predators; I can't fully speak to other countries so I won't.

I specifically said I was not comparing or speaking for othres us to others.

Well I contest that statement. Unless the American definition of benevolent is somehow different. Humans the planet over generally put their needs before those of wildlife and biodiversity. The only variance is in how efficiently they do it.

In that context, we kind of are the most benevolent. In the 19th century, shit got pretty bad. We had a kind of environmental awakening in the late 1800s. Chicago River, for instance, was totally polluted with shit, dead animals, and God knows what else. It was terrible everywhere. We invented the entire conservation movement. We set aside massive amounts of lands to leave them in their natural state.

Europeans were not far behind us in this respect.

Literally, nobody else gives a shit. Go to China if you don't believe me.

[Speaker to Animals]

Nah, plants could support us calorie-wise. It's not the calories that are the problem. It's the nutrients. There are nutrients you need in animal products that you can't really get or synthesize from plant sources. Furthermore, it's very difficult to build a lot of muscle on such a diet. I wouldn't want a vegan Marine Corp, for example.

Also, the main way you'd support a large population with plants is through grains, rice, etc. That's not healthy either. That's the second biggest reason why Americans are so obese right now.

Then you have to look at all the environmental damage caused by large farms.

The question isn't whether humans should abandon the natural human diet (omnivores), but a matter of big agricultural versus local farms and sources. It's also a matter of whole foods versus processed, industrial foods.

for an increasing number of players, that's changing. With quarterback Tom Brady headed to his eighth Super Bowl with the New England Patriots on Sunday, others in the league have taken notice of his healthy habits. As the Boston Globe points out: "It's a movement being led by Tom Brady, who dominated the league in his late 30s and is still going strong at 40, thanks to his vegetable-based diet and flexibility training over muscle mass."

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/01/31/why-nfl ... vegan.html

That's a pretty horrible demographic to use as an example. NFL players are pretty unhealthy as a general rule. Many of them are obese on purpose.

Furthermore, I never said it was impossible. I said it was quite impractical for the average person to do this long term without health consequences down the line. It's also very expensive to do it correctly.

On an individual level, with money not a concern, sure. On a societal level. LOL no.

If you want to eat that way, I am happy for you. I don't begrudge you. I don't make what I eat a moral issue. It's a health issue. The way vegans make their diet into a religion is fucking weird.

[Montegriffo]

Nah, plants could support us calorie-wise. It's not the calories that are the problem. It's the nutrients. There are nutrients you need in animal products that you can't really get or synthesize from plant sources. Furthermore, it's very difficult to build a lot of muscle on such a diet. I wouldn't want a vegan Marine Corp, for example.

Also, the main way you'd support a large population with plants is through grains, rice, etc. That's not healthy either. That's the second biggest reason why Americans are so obese right now.

Then you have to look at all the environmental damage caused by large farms.

The question isn't whether humans should abandon the natural human diet (omnivores), but a matter of big agricultural versus local farms and sources. It's also a matter of whole foods versus processed, industrial foods.

for an increasing number of players, that's changing. With quarterback Tom Brady headed to his eighth Super Bowl with the New England Patriots on Sunday, others in the league have taken notice of his healthy habits. As the Boston Globe points out: "It's a movement being led by Tom Brady, who dominated the league in his late 30s and is still going strong at 40, thanks to his vegetable-based diet and flexibility training over muscle mass."

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/01/31/why-nfl ... vegan.html

That's a pretty horrible demographic to use as an example. NFL players are pretty unhealthy as a general rule. Many of them are obese on purpose.

Furthermore, I never said it was impossible. I said it was quite impractical for the average person to do this long term without health consequences down the line. It's also very expensive to do it correctly.

On an individual level, with money not a concern, sure. On a societal level. LOL no.

Cost comes down with a change in favour of plant food over animal. Currently protein is grown in huge amounts to feed to animals. Vegans are cutting out the middleman.
My compromise is to eat cheese and eggs but no meat.