High protein and a sustainable earth

BraziliaNZ

Have a read of this
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/food_and_drink/real_food/article3931260.ece
Off the wall topic for here I know but I just wanted to see if it actually worries any of you? As a lot of the advice here seems to be eat meat meat meat meat and a little veg.
I only eat red meat about once a month and I try and rotate between chicken, turkey, and fish on the other days, and with the fish shortage I'm feeling guilty about that too!
I seriously haven't been able to eat red meat for the last couple of years without feeling guilty. With the 8 billion people on the planet, what food source that is high in protein can replace cattle? Keep it in mind that most of the world rarely gets to eat meat.

mikemac

No need to feel guilty about overfishing, we blame them thieving Spanish trawlers for that!

Maybe buy Irish and buy free-range or from a butcher who sources their produce locally? Ever drive around the countryside? You don't see Irish cattle and sheep penned into feedlots.

Ireland and Europe is miles behind the practices they do in the US. If you're interested in the subject, Fast Food Nation is a great book.

I'm sounding like a spokesperson for the IFA

Edit: I see you are in New Zealand but I'd imagine it's pretty similar

BraziliaNZ

Yeah you do see wild cattle everywhere here but I mean a lot of the meat eaten in Europe comes from South America and you can see what farming is doing to the Earth there, just look on google earth. I'm going to stop eating meat for good I think, but I'm going to keep fish for a while before phasing it out. I believe the UFC champion is a vegan. I can currently lift pretty heavy so I'm going to have to find ways of keeping my protein levels up if I want to remain strong.

Floyd Soul

Try switching to venison perhaps?

Also, if your concerned, why not try sourcing your meat from local, small scale farmers?

sobriquet

It's an interesting topic alright. Apparently one of the current drivers of the food crisis is that so much of the grains produced go to feeding livestock for our western meat consumption habits.

I'm currently reading The Omnivores Dilemma by Michael Pollan, and I have his In Defense of Food lined up too. Fierce interesting stuff. The overall solution he comes to when it comes to sustainablity is buy local grass fed beef. He does advocate cutting back on meat, particularly red, pointing out that our ancestors wouldn't have eaten meat as frequently as we do, once or twice a day.

I'm not far into it though, so I may be misrepresenting his points.

Been thinking about how to get the traditional vegetable protein sources into my diet - chickpeas, kidney beans etc but not really bothered yet. Any suggestions or recipes welcome.

davyjose

BraziliaNZ wrote: »

a lot of the meat eaten in Europe comes from South America

Not in Ireland AFAIK.

I won't eat lamb, or veal - it's where I draw the line, but in terms of red meat, I don't think it's healthy to consume huge amounts of it anyway. It's not efficiently digested by the human body. For instance they say the average 60 year old American has a couple of lbs of undigested red meat lodged in their colon. That's not good.

Unfortunately I don't think it's possible to be "big" without consuming animal proteins off some sort. If does anyone has any examples, please share.

BraziliaNZ

just google image "vegan bodybuilder" and you'll see some pretty big dudes!

Hanley

BraziliaNZ wrote: »

just google image "vegan bodybuilder" and you'll see some pretty big dudes!

Yeah... and google "bodybuilder" and you'l see some even bigger. I know Bill Pearl and the likes managed to pull it off, but for the average person I think it's just not going to work.

But hey, if you guys decide to go that route, it means all the more protein for me!! (everyone wins!! )


EDIT: I just googled vegan bodybuilders, and also checked the galleries on their site. I didn't find these pretty big dudes you were referring to. Can ya link me??

BraziliaNZ

Hanley wrote: »

I didn't find these pretty big dudes you were referring to. Can ya link me??

Well your idea of "big" is probably different, I'm more into being fit and strong and healthy rather than being able to lift 200kg for no reason. The fact is we all need to eat less meat for the sake of the planet, but the other fact is most people are more interested in their bloody 6 packs than anything else.

colmconn

davyjose wrote: »

Not in Ireland AFAIK.

the importation of brazilian beef into the EU is banned.
http://www.rte.ie/news/2008/0130/beef.html

Pugsley

Hanley wrote: »

EDIT: I just googled vegan bodybuilders, and also checked the galleries on their site. I didn't find these pretty big dudes you were referring to. Can ya link me??

Seconded, they were of fairly unimpressive size, just very lean.

Hanley

BraziliaNZ wrote: »

Well your idea of "big" is probably different, I'm more into being fit and strong and healthy rather than being able to lift 200kg for no reason. The fact is we all need to eat less meat for the sake of the planet, but the other fact is most people are more interested in their bloody 6 packs than anything else.

Ah now you see you're changing your mind. You said "pretty big" in your original post. I'd be fairly sure most people here would expect that to mean "an abnormal amount of muscle", not the sort of guy you see in every gym around the country.

Which just goes to back up my point that you'll find it very hard to put on muscle as a vegan.

I assume your idea of "strong" that you mentioned in your original post is a matter of personal opinion too?

I've a very good reason for lifting 200+ kg... I want to. Just like you want to not eat meat. But yeah... I see where you're coming from. We should all stop eating meat and stop thinking about our six packs because we're killing the planet. We should kill all the cows because of the methane they produce too (maybe I'm actually doing a public sevice by eating them so....??). And all those 2bn people born in the last 10 years or so should all be shot because their co2 output could potentially be harmful to the planet. And well to be honest, I was here first. :rolleyes:

brianthebard

Is brazilian beef still banned? I thought it had been lifted. I worry about the same issues OP, I've cut back on the fish I eat and don't eat cod any more, although there are plenty of other fish whose stocks are just as badly off or worse. I think protein supplements are relatively guilt free because as I understand it the whey used is a by product of cheese making-so that protein is "reclaimed" so to speak. A lot of sustainablity issues would be ironed out if production was less wasteful, so stop shopping in supermarkets which throw out hundreds of kilos of food every day. Also (and this might be a little more extreme) you could consider taking up freeganism its only a stop gap solution at best though.

Macha

Agriculture is the biggest contributor to C02 emissions in Ireland. And most of that comes from the meat and dairy sector. It's the simple truth that cutting down on red meat is one of the best things a person can do to reduce their carbon footprint.

I'm not vegetarian but I only eat free-range/organic. I think the least we can do is give the animal a decent life before we kill it. And of course organic is better for the environment, regardless of whether its better for me.

brianthebard - good point about the wastefulness of supermarkets. It's also about wastefulness at home, throwing out food that you don't eat & goes out of date. Organic waste causes huge problems in landfills as it causes leachate (contaminated water runoff) and gives off methane, which is 8 times more powerful a greenhouse gas than C02. Plus you have totally wasted all the energy that went into growing/raising that food, including petrol in farm machinery, fossil-fuel based fertilizers, transportation & heating, cooling & lighting of the supermarket.

Bottom line: if the rest of the world ate as much meat as most people in here, we really would be heading for the hills.

ali.c

Just playing devils advocate here.......

taconnol wrote: »

Agriculture is the biggest contributor to C02 emissions in Ireland. And most of that comes from the meat and dairy sector. It's the simple truth that cutting down on red meat is one of the best things a person can do to reduce their carbon footprint.

True agriculture is the largest single contributer to our GHG emissions, but overall it is 28% and it has been falling consistently since 1998 (unlike the other contributions to GHG emissions which have been increasing dramatically for the most part. Also if everyone stopped or seriously cut back on meat eating in this country it would have large economic consequences. Only 9% of our agriculture land is devoted to crop production.

brianthebard - good point about the wastefulness of supermarkets. It's also about wastefulness at home, throwing out food that you don't eat & goes out of date. Organic waste causes huge problems in landfills as it causes leachate (contaminated water runoff) and gives off methane, which is 8 times more powerful a greenhouse gas than C02. Plus you have totally wasted all the energy that went into growing/raising that food, including petrol in farm machinery, fossil-fuel based fertilizers, transportation & heating, cooling & lighting of the supermarket.

Which is why incineration with energy recovery isnt the worst environmental option....

Bottom line: if the rest of the world ate as much meat as most people in here, we really would be heading for the hills.

I am not disagreeing with you in the long term but as agriculture is such a substantial part of the economy here i think there are other issues which bear consideration. Also as far as the production of beef goes it is considerably more sustainable in Ireland than in alot of other countries.

Macha

Ah Ali, I thought you might show up on this thread!

ali.c wrote: »

True agriculture is the largest single contributer to our GHG emissions, but overall it is 28% and it has been falling consistently since 1998 (unlike the other contributions to GHG emissions which have been increasing dramatically for the most part. Also if everyone stopped or seriously cut back on meat eating in this country it would have large economic consequences. Only 9% of our agriculture land is devoted to crop production.

Only transport is really increasing "dramatically". Others, such as residential are actually stabilising or increasing very slowly. True, agriculture is falling but why is that? It isn't because Irish people are eating less meat. People stopping eating meat may have considerable economic consequences but so will us all continuing with the status quo. I was at a talk by Failte Ireland, where a real worry was expressed over the reality of Ireland's green image. Tourism is the 2nd largest industry in Ireland. What about the economic consequences of that?

But I'm not advocating that people stop eating meat, just think about the impact that their eating habits have on animal welfare & the environment.

ali.c wrote: »

Which is why incineration with energy recovery isnt the worst environmental option....

Incineration is like nuclear - overkill and an excuse to carry on with current inefficient behaviour. If we cut down and recycled as much as we could (including food waste), there wouldn't be enough waste left to make an incinerator feasible. In Denmark, waste is divided into 9 fractions. Here we just want to feck it all into a big machine & burn it. How clever of us.

ali.c wrote: »

I am not disagreeing with you in the long term but as agriculture is such a substantial part of the economy here i think there are other issues which bear consideration. Also as far as the production of beef goes it is considerably more sustainable in Ireland than in alot of other countries.

Yes it is more sustainable than in other countries but that's like saying that a Lexus is more sustainable than a Hummer. There are going to be huge economic impacts to our behaviour. Ireland is facing huge fines over our ridiculous GHG emissions. Is the agriculture sector going to pay for their contribution? I think not.

Another problem is the true environmental cost of what we buy is not included. Ie, I buy a steak for €5 - what about the cost of removing the C02 caused by that steak from the atmostphere? I don't pay for it. WHen a carbon tax comes in, meat will revert back to being the luxury it was for all the thousands of generations before us. As a race, humans have a very short memory - our parents wouldn't have eaten as much meat as we do but we think our current lifestyles are normal.

Roper

Well as an SUV driving red meat eating man, I'd just like to say screw you hippies!

In all seriousness, there is no way I would ever consider going vegan, but the only meat I eat is Irish or occasionally British venison when I can get it. If you want to be sure of your meat's origin, go to a butcher and don't buy in Supermarkets. It helps to be able to ask "where did that come from" to someone who can give you an answer instead of a student.

If you're really concerned about your carbon footprint, you ought to be checking your vegetables more than your meat. Irish meat, beef in particular, is still under the yoke of protectionism, though not as much as in the past, because it is such a huge sector here, whereas checking the labels on your veg, even your everyday stuff like spuds, cauliflower etc. might surprise you.

Great tracts of Africa and South America are given up to feeding the west, and if certain ridiculous, moronic ideas are pursued, pretty soon even larger swathes of those continents will be given up to fuelling our cars too.

sobriquet

ali.c wrote: »

Also if everyone stopped or seriously cut back on meat eating in this country it would have large economic consequences.

This goes for every measure to combat global warming/carbon emissions - whether in agriculture, transport, manufacturing etc. People will always need to eat, and farmers are in as good a position as any business people to re-task their farms to other methods of production or producing other foods. I mentioned Michael Pollan above, here's his description of a sustainable farm producing large quantities of meat and crops. There are big trade-offs in terms of labour intensitivity etc, but it might be a choice we have to make.

There's another talk on TED that's very vociferous on the meat consumption issue but given the defensiveness already displayed I'll not link it directly. Look for Mark Bittman on there if interested.

Roper has a good point about the vegetables too. Checking the country of origin stickers on is enlightening, it's mad to think of something being flown from South Africa or New Zealand all the way here. Isn't there EU legislation coming in in the next year or so that'll hike up food importation taxes? It'll make local produce much more competitive.

BraziliaNZ

Hanley wrote: »

I see where you're coming from. We should all stop eating meat and stop thinking about our six packs because we're killing the planet. We should kill all the cows because of the methane they produce too (maybe I'm actually doing a public sevice by eating them so....??). And all those 2bn people born in the last 10 years or so should all be shot because their co2 output could potentially be harmful to the planet. And well to be honest, I was here first. :rolleyes:

You're just being totally unreasonable. There's a thing called moderation. Yes there are too many cows on the planet and methane is a problem. It's ignorance like the above that will be our downfall.

Hanley

BraziliaNZ wrote: »

You're just being totally unreasonable. There's a thing called moderation. Yes there are too many cows on the planet and methane is a problem. It's ignorance like the above that will be our downfall.

It's called hyperbole. Still waiting on those pics of the "fairly big" dudes btw. Hmmm.... maybe you're familiar with hyperbole???

Frankly, we're a progressive bunch of peoples. I don't see us going backwards and eating less meat and more veg. I do think that there will be more efficient ways of dealing with all the various negative outputs of manufacturing and motoring tho. I personally feel that, combined with recycling and perhaps a greater uptake of public transport on a personal level is where it will be won and lost.

There are people here speaking with far greater knowledge of sustainable development than I, but alot of what I'm seeing seems to be very idealistic and an pure economist standpoint on things. Alot of the solutions being offered aren't ones that I see as being workable (in that I don't see a great degree of the population jumping on board). While what's being discussed might be the "best" option, it's not one that I ever see being put into practice in the real world.

I guess we could all just eat chicken instead. But wait... what about the battery farms... Organic must be the way to go... but the volume of output needed probably isn't possible organically... so the prices go up... and the poor people are the ones who suffer. So they're back to eating cheap crap... which leads to health problems, obesity etc... and then our hospitals get overcrowded (more so)... then we have people calling for reforms... and that's when the REAL fun begins!! (c'mon... I was being far too serious in previous paragraphs. I needed to lighten the mood!)

BraziliaNZ

Hanley wrote: »

It's called hyperbole. Still waiting on those pics of the "fairly big" dudes btw.

I would consider myself a fairly big dude compared to most people, but in your world I'm probably small and weak... Do you think everyone in the world should have the right to eat as much meat as you do? Or are some animals more equal than others?

t-ha

I've been a vegan the last few months and I can't say I've noticed any adverse affect on my training.

I'd also like to voice my support of two things brought up in this thread. 1] We could be SO much more efficient with our energy usage if the conditions dictated & I think that that is the main route the goverment should be looking at. 2] Bio-fuel = the suck. Seriously, people are gonna starve over this.

Hanley

BraziliaNZ wrote: »

I would consider myself a fairly big dude compared to most people, but in your world I'm probably small and weak... Do you think everyone in the world should have the right to eat as much meat as you do? Or are some animals more equal than others?

Well the "fairly big" vegan bodybuilders you referred to earlier were bascially just skinny guys with a bit of muscle in great condition, so you'll have to understand if I'm not taking your word on things anymore.

EDIT: Using T-ha as an example certainly will not work because he build his body while eating like a man!!!

I don't know what you're talking about with your last two sentences. I think those with the means should be able to eat meat if they want. Where did you get the "are some animals more equal than other" question? Equal to what anyway????

But hey, once again, nice job in avoiding all the valid points I made in a post and latching on to the superlatives and unconsequential remarks.

sobriquet

Hanley wrote: »

I do think that there will be more efficient ways of dealing with all the various negative outputs of manufacturing and motoring tho. I personally feel that, combined with recycling and perhaps a greater uptake of public transport on a personal level is where it will be won and lost.

There are people here speaking with far greater knowledge of sustainable development than I, but alot of what I'm seeing seems to be very idealistic and an pure economist standpoint on things. Alot of the solutions being offered aren't ones that I see as being workable (in that I don't see a great degree of the population jumping on board). While what's being discussed might be the "best" option, it's not one that I ever see being put into practice in the real world.

So this argument basically boils down to saying well, it's not really a problem, recycling and public transport will cap the carbon emissions so why worry. Stating it like that is ignoring a massive elephant in the room, we know the effect that our (global) agricultural processes have. As to it being viable or not, we may not have much of a choice. It may be made for us.

Why do you think that reducing overall meat consumption isn't workable?

t-ha wrote: »

I'd also like to voice my support of two things brought up in this thread. 1] We could be SO much more efficient with our energy usage if the conditions dictated & I think that that is the main route the goverment should be looking at. 2] Bio-fuel = the suck. Seriously, people are gonna starve over this.

Absolutely agree, the main drivers of the food crisis are the amount of crops being used for feeding livestock and dairy, and to produce bio-fuels. As to conditions dictating, they will, and sooner rather than later. Eddie Hobbs was on the last word yesterday evening talking about oil hitting $135 per barrel, well before people were expecting. (Just shows you how quickly the formerly fringe theory of peak oil is becoming mainstream.) The era of cheap fossil fuels is over, which effects everything - from the gas needed to produce fertilizers to the trucks racing up and down the country to run our just-in-time stock processes.

Dragan

BraziliaNZ wrote: »

Well your idea of "big" is probably different, I'm more into being fit and strong and healthy rather than being able to lift 200kg for no reason. The fact is we all need to eat less meat for the sake of the planet, but the other fact is most people are more interested in their bloody 6 packs than anything else.

Diminishing other people pursuits , dreams and goals WILL get you banned.

Thread carefully.

Everyone.

Hanley

sobriquet wrote: »

So this argument basically boils down to saying well, it's not really a problem, recycling and public transport will cap the carbon emissions so why worry. Stating it like that is ignoring a massive elephant in the room, we know the effect that our (global) agricultural processes have. As to it being viable or not, we may not have much of a choice. It may be made for us.

Why do you think that reducing overall meat consumption isn't workable?

Oh come on... ever since the 1970's Irish agriculture hasn't been viable or competitive. There's been support and intervention for the last 30 years to prop up the sector.

What do suggest as an alternate to meat? Grains and other carbs?? And increase the already worldwide obesity epidemic? Not a great idea in my opinion.

Degsy

The fact is that the increasing production of Soya has been responsible for the fastest level of rainforest destruction since they started monitering the situation.Soya is the "alternative" to meat thats being pimped around the place at the moment.http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=mg18825265.400

Roper

And now, with the notion of biofuel, millions of acreage is being destroyed for grain to make biofuel too.

It comes down to a very simple equation:
Finite amount of land+ever increasing population=difficulties

Now there are some who advocate beef farming as the root of all evil but at the same time say "Yay for biofuel powered cars", ignoring the fact that cows will be moved off that land in favour of crops for fuel. Many of the so-called Environmentalist arguments are shallow and unsustainable, ignoring that for everything you remove, you must have a viable replacement.

To throw a spanner in the works here- who knows what, in terms of waste produced versus power output, the most efficient energy source known to man is?

sobriquet

Hanley wrote: »

Oh come on... ever since the 1970's Irish agriculture hasn't been viable or competitive. There's been support and intervention for the last 30 years to prop up the sector.

I've nothing to disagree with there, I was talking about our agricultural processes globally - all that meat we import. That's why I pointed out '(global)'. Those supply chains are responsible for large parts of the worlds carbon emissions, and we have our part in that, whether we like it or not. As I said though, with new carbon taxes for food that travels long distances, and the cost of importing food due to increasing transport costs, Irish farming will become more competetitive.

Hanley wrote: »

What do suggest as an alternate to meat? Grains and other carbs?? And increase the already worldwide obesity epidemic? Not a great idea in my opinion.

Yeah, as it happens, I think we should replace meat with nice loaves of white bread... with chocolate inside, like petit pains. Ah no, I'm not suggesting anything like it, no need to be so defensive. I'm lurking around the fitness forum long enough to be sold on the meat and plenty of vegetables line, don't worry!

I asked because I think there's something of a false dichotomy here. It's not necessarily a case of lots of meat or none. Most of the meat in question is raised on grain and is heavily processed to become fast food or value-added processed meals, flavoured with cajun sauce and breadcrumbs and whatnot. Not the stuff you'd advocate to someone looking to bulk, and it's why I think meat consumption could viably go down.

I think taconnol is right, our modern diet is abnormal in the context of history with respect to the amount of meat we consume, and we may end up returning to something closer to that than we are now. Meat will always be available to those who want it, but I think that we might be facing a very possible reality that it's going to become much more expensive in the future.

Degsy

Roper wrote: »

To throw a spanner in the works here- who knows what, in terms of waste produced versus power output, the most efficient energy source known to man is?

Nuclear power at the moment,it has other inherent "concerns" though.

Degsy

sobriquet wrote: »

I think taconnol is right, our modern diet is abnormal in the context of history with respect to the amount of meat we consume

Completely untrue.If you're talking about middle class people,they ate FAR more meat a hundred years ago.They ate far more animal products fifty years ago and the bulk of a hunter-gatherer's diet 10,000 years ago would've been whatever meat he could kill,hence the nomadic nature of man,following herds of animals.The idea that shiitloads of vegetables in your diet as opposed to loads of red meat is a comparatively modern one,at the turn of the last century,vegetarians were viewed with suspicion and a certain amount of pity.

sobriquet

Degsy wrote: »

Completely untrue.If you're talking about middle class people,they ate FAR more meat a hundred years ago.They ate far more animal products fifty years ago and the bulk of a hunter-gatherer's diet 10,000 years ago would've been whatever meat he could kill,hence the nomadic nature of man,following herds of animals.The idea that shiitloads of vegetables in your diet as opposed to loads of red meat is a comparatively modern one,at the turn of the last century,vegetarians were viewed with suspicion and a certain amount of pity.

Interesting; it's not something that I'd have thought intuitively, the opposite would have seemed the obvious case with livestock being costly and time-consuming to rear and butcher. Anyone have any pointers on it to reading on the subject? It's interesting stuff, but unfortunately googling this subject comes up with a lot of pro-/anti- screeds on vegetarianism/veganism/low-carb/environmentalism etc.

Degsy

sobriquet wrote: »

Interesting; it's not something that I'd have thought intuitively, the opposite would have seemed the obvious case with livestock being costly and time-consuming to rear and butcher. Anyone have any pointers on it to reading on the subject? It's interesting stuff, but unfortunately googling this subject comes up with a lot of pro-/anti- screeds on vegetarianism/veganism/low-carb/environmentalism etc.

Not really,you see land was far more plentiful than it is now,wild game was more common and made its way onto even the common man's table.Labour costs were cheap due to the abscence of unions etc.Apart from indusrty,100 years ago the primary employer was agriculture.If you want an idea of meat consumption among the less-than poor buy the Edwardian Country House DVD from amazon.

Roper

Degsy wrote: »

Nuclear power at the moment,it has other inherent "concerns" though.

Correct, however it wasn't that I was advocating the use of nuclear power for all, just that solutions to problems such as energy, food etc. may not exactly tally with our personal convictions.

So while I love the thought of people everywhere driving cars made of hemp, or eating food from organic sources, the fact is that 10 billion people can't do that.

The fact is that we eat, drive and live so well because other people don't. The West has a master-servant relationship with the poor regions of the world, they feed us, and in return we pay them with wars, famine, disease. Now you can say oh well, we're Irish, we're not like those Britishers and Americans with their colonial interests, but by living the way we do, we contribute. Next time you eat some baby corn, look at the packet and ask how much the farmer in Mozambique or Morocco was paid, how much the truck to the airport, the flight to the depot in Amsterdam or Hamburg and the cooling systems employed there to keep the food fresh, the flight to Dublin and the truck to your shop contributed to your carbon footprint. If you're happy enough with all this so that you can have some slightly cheaper baby corn, happy enough to continue that process, then you've signed up to a variety of unjust processes. I know I've signed up to them and I'm sure I'll continue to do so, but I'm trying to take small steps towards making my contribution to the whole cycle less significant.

Macha

Degsy wrote: »

Completely untrue.If you're talking about middle class people,they ate FAR more meat a hundred years ago.They ate far more animal products fifty years ago and the bulk of a hunter-gatherer's diet 10,000 years ago would've been whatever meat he could kill,hence the nomadic nature of man,following herds of animals.The idea that shiitloads of vegetables in your diet as opposed to loads of red meat is a comparatively modern one,at the turn of the last century,vegetarians were viewed with suspicion and a certain amount of pity.

Well now, here we hit another speed bump. THe middle class of today is far greater than the middle class of previous generations, even going back only as far as the middle of the previous century. The majority of people would not have had a large meat intake and the most of their calories would have come from carbohydrates and vegetables. Again, for the majority meat would have been saved for a special occasion.

Another issue. Vegetarians may have been viewed with suspicion with certain sections of society in Europe but vegetarianism was widespread in other parts of the world, eg India.

This discussion is being viewed by many from a very euro-centric position with a very narrow definition of what 'progress' is. For example, China and India want to eat more meat to achieve our 'quality' of life. Is that necessarily progress? These things need to be questioned

Good post, Roper

Degsy

taconnol wrote: »

This discussion is being viewed by many from a very euro-centric position with a very narrow definition of what 'progress' is. For example, China and India want to eat more meat to achieve our 'quality' of life. Is that necessarily progress? These things need to be questioned

Good post, Roper

Well i can only speak from a european perspective and this is after all europe.
If people in other continents want to "improve" thier lives by eating more meat who are we to argue with them.The fact is that there are a small number of people(in the first world) who dont enjoy the taste of meat and thats fine.These people are in the minority,meat is delicious,nutritious,sustaining and natural.Many vegetables and meat alternatives are heavily-treated,processed-to-buggery,tasteless garbage.I'm sure people in India and china are sick to buggery of eating rice all day,just likethe irish people were sick of spuds with every meal,just like they now buy jeeps instead of waiting on the bus.They want a slice of what others have,thats consumerism and human nature.

Dragan

It strikes me as funny that a lof of people in the First World would give out about having options when it comes to what they eat.

colmconn

Roper wrote: »

So while I love the thought of people everywhere driving cars made of hemp, or eating food from organic sources, the fact is that 10 billion people can't do that.

the population of the planet is approx. 6.6 billion. we've not been that fruitful in our multiplying just yet

Degsy

Dragan wrote: »

It strikes me as funny that a lof of people in the First World would give out about having options when it comes to what they eat.

When people arent staring REAL hunger or hardship in the face,they'll give out about anything.

colmconn

Degsy wrote: »

I'm sure people in India and china are sick to buggery of eating rice all day,just likethe irish people were sick of spuds with every meal

some how I doubt it. they generally know how to make a meal flavourful, unlike many irish people who never venture past putting butter on their spuds, or taking them out of the deep fat frier.

besides, a significant proportion of the indian population is vegetarian. they have to include something like rice in their diet on daily basis to get meals with a complete amino acid profile.

Roper

Dragan wrote: »

It strikes me as funny that a lof of people in the First World would give out about having options when it comes to what they eat.

Well that's a great comment for after dinner with the brandy and cigar's with the boys in the country club, but it doesn't really contributen to the realities of the situation.

For example I wouldn't see what people say in this thread as "giving out", but more arguing over the best approach to how to eat and still morally fit in with the world. Hanley has (more or less) stated that he doesn't care, which is his prerogative of course, as long as he gets his meat for his goals, he'll let others worry about the difficulty. My problem with that is that it's not leaving people scratching their head in boardrooms thinking "Dang, these people want more meat, what a conundrum these lifters and fit people are causing us", but more that the same people are saying "I know, let's depopulate this large tract of land so we can fit more cattle in, forcibly evict this freehold farmer, and then rehire him for less than he earns right now". Like it or not, much of what you consume (not just in the dietary sense) has implications for people far less off than yourself.

As I've stated, I don't practise what I'm preaching here but I am in the process of changing, completely changing, the way I eat and live. Too much of what we do feeds into an unjust chain. Ignorance is no excuse anymore we live in an age of information (overkill and filtering might be an excuse). If you sit back and think "well, nothing can be done about it" then you obviously have a short memory. The complete and utter revamp and u-turn by McDonald's over it's work practises, menu, food sourcing due to the fall out from Fast Food Nation, Supersize Me and the many high profile court cases that have taken place are testament to how companies respond to pressures from consumers.

Roper

colmconn wrote: »

the population of the planet is approx. 6.6 billion. we've not been that fruitful in our multiplying just yet

I'm aware of the population of the planet, however it will be about 10 billion by the middle of this century, when our decisions about food and energy today will really have an impact.

Dragan

The point that i am gently trying to make is maybe Fitness and Political/Agricultural/Social issues don't mix.

This is the Fitness forum, not anything else.

BossArky

Dragan wrote: »

The point that i am gently trying to make is maybe Fitness and Political/Agricultural/Social issues don't mix.

Tell that to Arnie.

Dragan

BossArky wrote: »

Tell that to Arnie.

I imagine i could get word sent to him.....scarily enough.

Roper

Dragan wrote: »

The point that i am gently trying to make is maybe Fitness and Political/Agricultural/Social issues don't mix.

This is the Fitness forum, not anything else.

You may have a point but at the same time we're in a forum where high protein is king and advocated more often than not. I suppose it was only a matter of time before someone brought the ethical demands of such a diet up.

If you think about it, say for example a leading gym was found to be exploiting its workforce, where do you think it would come up? I reckon here. It wouldn't be fitness related but it would be of interest to the fitness community.

Dragan

Roper wrote: »

You may have a point but at the same time we're in a forum where high protein is king and advocated more often than not. I suppose it was only a matter of time before someone brought the ethical demands of such a diet up.

If you think about it, say for example a leading gym was found to be exploiting its workforce, where do you think it would come up? I reckon here. It wouldn't be fitness related but it would be of interest to the fitness community.

Valid point. I am more than happy to allow the thread to continue, i have enjoyed reading it. I just think it's important the people remember this is Fitness and the prevalent concern expressed in here will never be the contents of this thread.

Nor should it.

Hanley

Roper wrote: »

For example I wouldn't see what people say in this thread as "giving out", but more arguing over the best approach to how to eat and still morally fit in with the world. Hanley has (more or less) stated that he doesn't care, which is his prerogative of course, as long as he gets his meat for his goals, he'll let others worry about the difficulty. My problem with that is that it's not leaving people scratching their head in boardrooms thinking "Dang, these people want more meat, what a conundrum these lifters and fit people are causing us", but more that the same people are saying "I know, let's depopulate this large tract of land so we can fit more cattle in, forcibly evict this freehold farmer, and then rehire him for less than he earns right now". Like it or not, much of what you consume (not just in the dietary sense) has implications for people far less off than yourself.

At least I'll come out and say where I stand on this matter. I've a nasty feeling that a lot of the people complaining about this and that are the same ones doing absolutely nothing to change it. But moaning in some way makes them feel better (Not anyone specifically in this thread, just in general like).

I do care about things like starvation, poverty etc etc, especially close to home... My family gives quite a bit to charity, and my uncle would have his chefs cook up extra food at the end of the night to give to homeless shelters before he passed away, so believe me when I say I'm well versed in the disadvantaged side of life in Dublin. Of course these people should be catered for and helped out of the situation they're in. God damn I don't think anyone would deny that!!

Very simply I think there MUST be some solution that doesn't involve people giving up their favourite foods. I honestly don't know what it is. Maybe the answer lies in genetic modification, but I'm not sure.

I guess you could call me a straight up capitalist in all of this. I think if someone has the means to eat meat or drive a big car they should be allowed to, assuming it is within the law of the land. They should of course give thought to the impact they're having and try to minimise any negative impact, now with the various externality charges the government are implementing they're being made think of this more than ever which can only be good in my opinion.

If meat does begin to accrue externality charges then I guess we'll see how much value people actually place on their ability to eat it.... I'd gladly make sacrifices elsewhere if it comes to it!

davyjose

Hanley wrote: »

Very simply I think there MUST be some solution that doesn't involve people giving up their favourite foods. I honestly don't know what it is. Maybe the answer lies in genetic modification, but I'm not sure.

Yum Yum

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4148164.stm

Who here would eat this?

Macha

Hanley wrote: »

Very simply I think there MUST be some solution that doesn't involve people giving up their favourite foods. I honestly don't know what it is. Maybe the answer lies in genetic modification, but I'm not sure.

Unfortunately, this is exactly where we fall down. We don't want to give up anything, we don't want to change our lifestyles in anyway. Give up Ryanair weekends in Barcelona & Prague? No way. Eat less meat? Pfff. When everyone looks for a solution to these problems, the last place they look is at themselves. Behaviour modification is always the last option. If we keep waiting for a technological silver bullet, we will be shooting ourselves in the foot. When you think about it, us worrying about having to give up our favourite foods really seems incredibly petty when we consider that entire islands in the Pacific are going to be lost to rising sea levels.

Hanley wrote: »

I guess you could call me a straight up capitalist in all of this. I think if someone has the means to eat meat or drive a big car they should be allowed to, assuming it is within the law of the land. They should of course give thought to the impact they're having and try to minimise any negative impact, now with the various externality charges the government are implementing they're being made think of this more than ever which can only be good in my opinion.

I think this is where we differ. I don't think people have the right to pollute, just because they can afford to. And if they can afford to, well then they can afford to clean up after themselves. The problem is that the impact they have is delayed and hard to see and conceptualise so others aren't bothered. Again, its where human nature falls down: another example of this would be smoking. If you got wrinkly, yellow hands & heart disease straight away, way less people would smoke. We're not good at the delayed effects thing.

Hanley wrote: »

If meat does begin to accrue externality charges then I guess we'll see how much value people actually place on their ability to eat it.... I'd gladly make sacrifices elsewhere if it comes to it!

Interesting, this raises the idea of a personal carbon credit. You would spend yours on meat to the detriment of something else, while another person might prefer to eat less meat & have those weekends in Paris.

Another interesting point: they say obese people eat 18% more calories than the average person, drive a lot more & generally are a 'bigger' burden on the environment. It's all about balance in the end.

davyjose

taconnol wrote: »

When you think about it, us worrying about having to give up our favourite foods really seems incredibly petty when we consider that entire islands in the Pacific are going to be lost to rising sea levels.

You're trying to use logic against nature. It is human nature to be selfish. We are programmed for self-preservation.

If we keep waiting for a technological silver bullet, we will be shooting ourselves in the foot.

I would say the opposite: if you expect people to give up their creature comforts, then you will be waiting a long time. Whether it's immoral or not.