In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
Cattle are the biggest cause of global warming because ruminants belch methane which is a more potent greenhouse gas than CO2.
Saturated fat is not the best thing for you and remains controversial as to its role in heart and artery disease. Organic grass fed beef is not as bad for you as feedlot beef but is much more expensive. Heart disease exploded right around the time they went to feedlots and some people believe cramming cattle with government subsidized corn and antibiotics is partly to blame for making their fat less healthy to consume.
Raising cattle in feedlots in order to make it affordable may be contributing heavily to antibiotic resistance.
The benefits of staying alkaline are being embraced by many.
Many plant proteins digest more quickly than beef or pork and may be less metabolically stressful. Metabolic stress is one of the biggest causes of premature aging. Caloric restriction can extend lifespan.
Ruminant cattle like cows and sheep belch methane which is a more potent greenhouse gas than CO2 by about 20 times. I believe there's still enough fiber in government subsidized corn to cause significant belching.
Growing the corn and then feeding it to cattle so they could burn most of it away staying alive means you have to raise a lot more protein than you would if you just grew it and ate it. It's a high loss proposition made possible only by cheap fuel and government corn subsidies. The corn is grown, harvested, and shipped with copious amounts of diesel fuel. And all that cheap fuel being burned definitely turns into CO2.
Mankind is meant to eat tubers. We are evolved to find and dig them up and cook them which makes many of them more edible and digestible and reduces antinutrients. Hunting or scavenging was done when possible. Some people report a reduction in depression and alcoholism when they switch their carb consumption away from grains and sugar to potatoes.
Scientists now think mankind has been cooking their food for much longer than formerly thought. They've found the remnants of cooking fires hundreds of thousands of years old. It is one reason humans don't need as large a gut and have more energy to fuel their larger minds than herbivores. They were able to find highly nutritive roots and render them edible by cooking. Gorillas and chimps OTOH spend most of their waking hours gathering and chewing raw plant foods because they have to, even though their brains consume far less fuel than ours.
Loren Cordain, the creator of the paleo diet, suggested that it is possible that gatherer ancestors of humans typically scavenged other predators' kills by using their ability to hold tools to break open the skulls and long thigh bones and eat the fatty brains and marrow inside. These food sources were lost to other predators because they cannot break the skull or long bones of many prey species. And the humans were already walking around looking for food.
Meat eating is definitely a strong advantage because of the healthful fatty acids that are rarely found in plants consumed by humans and the concentrated energy and protein content. Cattle can spend all day gathering and eating plants that we can't digest which have traces of Omega-3 fatty acids. Free range cattle are much less conducive to heart disease. However, it is definitely possible to survive without meat. It is reasonable to assume that humans evolved to include and benefit from meat.
However, plant based foods have been in intensive development since civilization started and it is now possible to get excellent, nearly complete nutrition from them. Only they don't always taste as good as a burger.
So, if ruminants are the biggest cause for global warming, why do we protect the billions of them in Africa? Or is it only North American ruminants that are to blame?
The world we evolved in had those "billions" already. (way to make up a number!).
It was when we added millions more and started pumping up and burning old carbon that there might have been the start of a rise in global temperature.
To put it another way, if the sun warms the earth, should we devise a way to make a second sun and have it warm the earth twice as much? Would you say, we can't cut back our plans to make two suns because it would mean we have to get rid of the old one as well?
I doubt they would ban meat consumption outright. They seem to be trying to make plant-based eating attractive rather than ban meat.
They may also someday come up with better ways of capturing methane like feeding cattle electrically harvested silage inside an enclosed facility which captures the methane. They may someday have enough wind farms (I am referring to windmills not to the capture of methane) to generate enough electricity to make it happen.
I don't know about cattle farming. Maybe there's a way to manage their grazing vs their penned up time which would minimize emissions.
It is a part of what we evolved to eat and there may be compounds that are either missing in plant-based foods which we either haven't discovered yet, or which will be hard to duplicate or perhaps more environmentally expensive to duplicate.
You accuse me of making up a number while you make up the entirety of your argument. Your theories are farcical, obtuse, and completely unoriginal. Except the one that we evolved to eat tubers. That one clearly came from your own subterranean intellect.
If you ever looked at a science article instead of spewing fiction, you would realize you're doing it again by making stuff up. This is like me telling you all about Vietnam. Actually it's like me telling someone who was scanning news articles in the late 1960s all about Vietnam, as I have little firsthand experience.
The idea that mankind evolved to eat tubers is a hypothesis that is presently under consideration by the scientific community, not a theory.
It is worse now. There are around 94.4 million beef cattle and they probably have a higher metabolism and turnover rate because of all the growth hormone.
But there's still a few natural ruminants, but also people, and their 94 million cattle with a higher turnover rate, and all their cars and trucks, and steel and concrete manufacture, power generation, etc. etc. etc.
Looking for good alternatives to meat may dial back one of the bigger sources of greenhouse gas emissions.
Comments
People denying their natural instincts help make psychiatrists very rich! 🙂
Soy boys UNITE............roflmfao
it will become the new soylent green
Cattle are the biggest cause of global warming because ruminants belch methane which is a more potent greenhouse gas than CO2.
Saturated fat is not the best thing for you and remains controversial as to its role in heart and artery disease. Organic grass fed beef is not as bad for you as feedlot beef but is much more expensive. Heart disease exploded right around the time they went to feedlots and some people believe cramming cattle with government subsidized corn and antibiotics is partly to blame for making their fat less healthy to consume.
Raising cattle in feedlots in order to make it affordable may be contributing heavily to antibiotic resistance.
The benefits of staying alkaline are being embraced by many.
Many plant proteins digest more quickly than beef or pork and may be less metabolically stressful. Metabolic stress is one of the biggest causes of premature aging. Caloric restriction can extend lifespan.
Meat definitely contributes to climate change.
Ruminant cattle like cows and sheep belch methane which is a more potent greenhouse gas than CO2 by about 20 times. I believe there's still enough fiber in government subsidized corn to cause significant belching.
Growing the corn and then feeding it to cattle so they could burn most of it away staying alive means you have to raise a lot more protein than you would if you just grew it and ate it. It's a high loss proposition made possible only by cheap fuel and government corn subsidies. The corn is grown, harvested, and shipped with copious amounts of diesel fuel. And all that cheap fuel being burned definitely turns into CO2.
Mankind is meant to eat tubers. We are evolved to find and dig them up and cook them which makes many of them more edible and digestible and reduces antinutrients. Hunting or scavenging was done when possible. Some people report a reduction in depression and alcoholism when they switch their carb consumption away from grains and sugar to potatoes.
Scientists now think mankind has been cooking their food for much longer than formerly thought. They've found the remnants of cooking fires hundreds of thousands of years old. It is one reason humans don't need as large a gut and have more energy to fuel their larger minds than herbivores. They were able to find highly nutritive roots and render them edible by cooking. Gorillas and chimps OTOH spend most of their waking hours gathering and chewing raw plant foods because they have to, even though their brains consume far less fuel than ours.
Loren Cordain, the creator of the paleo diet, suggested that it is possible that gatherer ancestors of humans typically scavenged other predators' kills by using their ability to hold tools to break open the skulls and long thigh bones and eat the fatty brains and marrow inside. These food sources were lost to other predators because they cannot break the skull or long bones of many prey species. And the humans were already walking around looking for food.
Meat eating is definitely a strong advantage because of the healthful fatty acids that are rarely found in plants consumed by humans and the concentrated energy and protein content. Cattle can spend all day gathering and eating plants that we can't digest which have traces of Omega-3 fatty acids. Free range cattle are much less conducive to heart disease. However, it is definitely possible to survive without meat. It is reasonable to assume that humans evolved to include and benefit from meat.
However, plant based foods have been in intensive development since civilization started and it is now possible to get excellent, nearly complete nutrition from them. Only they don't always taste as good as a burger.
The problem is that I think climate change is a joke, and you think it is a dire threat to mankind.
So, if ruminants are the biggest cause for global warming, why do we protect the billions of them in Africa? Or is it only North American ruminants that are to blame?
I dont care what either side eats or does not eat as long as they dont try to force it on the other side.
The world we evolved in had those "billions" already. (way to make up a number!).
It was when we added millions more and started pumping up and burning old carbon that there might have been the start of a rise in global temperature.
To put it another way, if the sun warms the earth, should we devise a way to make a second sun and have it warm the earth twice as much? Would you say, we can't cut back our plans to make two suns because it would mean we have to get rid of the old one as well?
I doubt they would ban meat consumption outright. They seem to be trying to make plant-based eating attractive rather than ban meat.
They may also someday come up with better ways of capturing methane like feeding cattle electrically harvested silage inside an enclosed facility which captures the methane. They may someday have enough wind farms (I am referring to windmills not to the capture of methane) to generate enough electricity to make it happen.
I don't know about cattle farming. Maybe there's a way to manage their grazing vs their penned up time which would minimize emissions.
It is a part of what we evolved to eat and there may be compounds that are either missing in plant-based foods which we either haven't discovered yet, or which will be hard to duplicate or perhaps more environmentally expensive to duplicate.
How many millions of tons of green-house gasses to humans belch and fart every day?
Lets limit humans.............this argument is stoopid.
You accuse me of making up a number while you make up the entirety of your argument. Your theories are farcical, obtuse, and completely unoriginal. Except the one that we evolved to eat tubers. That one clearly came from your own subterranean intellect.
We don't eat grass, then have bacteria digest them in our four stomachs like cows. There is much less methane.
Besides, how is having less meat because someone invents an acceptable alternative as bad as being forced not to have kids?
If you ever looked at a science article instead of spewing fiction, you would realize you're doing it again by making stuff up. This is like me telling you all about Vietnam. Actually it's like me telling someone who was scanning news articles in the late 1960s all about Vietnam, as I have little firsthand experience.
The idea that mankind evolved to eat tubers is a hypothesis that is presently under consideration by the scientific community, not a theory.
Golly! I wonder if the 60,000,000 million bison that roamed North America prior to the arrival of Europeans farted at all?
It is worse now. There are around 94.4 million beef cattle and they probably have a higher metabolism and turnover rate because of all the growth hormone.
soreshoulder are you and serf related??????? guess you two will battle it out for last man on earth
These are not "last man on earth" quality arguments.
How is that an argument not to reduce our carbon footprint??
But there's still a few natural ruminants, but also people, and their 94 million cattle with a higher turnover rate, and all their cars and trucks, and steel and concrete manufacture, power generation, etc. etc. etc.
Looking for good alternatives to meat may dial back one of the bigger sources of greenhouse gas emissions.