Ecology and Vegetarianism: food, climate and CO2

Consumption and sustainable and responsible diet tips daily to reduce energy and water consumption, waste ... Eat: preparations and recipes, find healthy food, seasonal and local conservation information food ...
Janic
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 19224
Registration: 29/10/10, 13:27
Location: bourgogne
x 3491




by Janic » 12/01/14, 08:59

Hello Citro
janic ... I don't know where to start, I disagree on too many points of your approach ...

I do not want an agreement, but just to correct misconceptions spread by the media at the behest of agribusiness.
- The "unsuitability" of the human body to the consumption of animal proteins is very controversial.

It is not a question of theoretical point of view, but of physiology and comparative anatomy. It's like saying that "The inadequacy "of cattle to consume animal protein is very controversial. No one would believe it despite the attempt made and whose results were not convincing and why? Because, at school, we teach children that the anatomy and physiology of cattle is vegan, on the other hand (if you have books on the subject you can check it) the affirmation of the human omni s' is based on culture and not on anatomo-biology. Why ?
In contrast, veganism and nutritional deficiencies are often mentioned ...

Of course ! No system applied to the individual is perfect because of heredity, lifestyle, food mode, etc ... so we can find here and there some cases of deficiencies. But you have to compare them to other layers of the population and the results are rather favorable for LV (and again there are many forms of LV, too long to develop here)
So rather than relying on incompetent media and in need of paper to lay: why not check, with a maximum of people concerned and actually living this lifestyle, what it is? There are forums (for example Vegeweb which is one of the most consulted, for example) where everyone expresses themselves (almost : Cry: ) freely and which is better than on dit and assumptions.
- From a planetary point of view, livestock and meat food are essential for survival issues (seasonality of plant resources) and represent the only local solution for survival and storage of food resources (fodder).

This is only partially true because, apart from some extreme cases, the vegetation offers more products than the bidoche and a good part grows in winter and another part can be the object of dry or transformed conservation.
- Food alternatives such as insects, practiced in many countries are also credible and logical (use of local resources).

There too it is only local and indeed for certain populations it is a means of survival. But this is not applicable to all of humanity and even less to “modern” European-American societies (as far as we are concerned) because it is these latter populations which are the biggest consumers of bidoche.
- When I mentioned the hens raised at the bottom of the garden fed with peelings, it goes without saying that these peelings came from vegetables grown in the garden next to the chicken coop. We consider that a well managed garden of 10m by 10m is enough for the needs of a person ...

But then again, you cite a behavior at the margin from the rest of society. The omni or vg subject concerns the entire world population because it is the food behavior of this one for the years to come which will decide or not of the food future and at the same time of the survival of humanity.
- I am sorry to contradict you on the origin of ORGANIC products, French production is far below demand, not to say ridiculous ...

It is very fair and I would say happily and unfortunately at the same time.
Fortunately because it concerns above all a real awareness and not a fashion that lasts only the time of it. Unfortunately because the survival of populations depends on it, the poisoning of the land and its consequences on human and non-human consumers are dramatic.
The majority of the products we consume are even produced outside of Europe and I am not talking about their exoticism like Quinoa, soybeans and others.

a) products outside Europe: this mainly concerns supermarkets which see in organic farming only a future economic sector to exploit but which does not take into consideration the real health of consumers, but which only seeks to sell products of better quality supposed at low prices ( which is contradictory)
b) quinoa, soy etc ...: Again, these are marginal products which represent only a tiny part of the daily food volume. We can compare this to chocolate, coffee, tea and other exotic products consumed by the population.
For my case, we may consume a 500g pack of quinoa a month for two and very, very exceptionally soy (I do not share at all this obsession with protein that must absolutely be consumed instead of the jug)
When there was the scandal of contaminated milk from China, famous German brands of organic products had to withdraw dairy products from the market because they no longer met demand and had obtained supplies from Brazilian producers who were out of stock had themselves sourced from ... China.

This is the whole problem, which I have already mentioned, of the officialization of organic farming which has lost in demand to open up to more producers who are less fussy about the real and final quality of the product. Hence this rush on the BIO as a factor of better quality and its deviances. But it's like in politics, in economics, in any sector where humans intervene and are concerned. Just because a few apples are rotten doesn't mean the whole basket has to be thrown away.
In short, in food as elsewhere, there are choices to be made but above all compromises ...

It is, of course, a matter of life choice where certain minor points can be satisfied with compromise and other points where compromise is the worst thing.
PS: I will not follow this subject because I lack time for other activities that are close to my heart. Sorry, but I have to make choices ...

It's good to have had the patience to talk so far. What I find especially unfortunate is this recovery for cash from the media literature without verifying the honesty of its sources and above all without checking it with the only competent people, namely those who live it every day. I just hope that these few clarifications will have helped readers with personal reflection.
0 x
Janic
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 19224
Registration: 29/10/10, 13:27
Location: bourgogne
x 3491




by Janic » 13/01/14, 13:28

postponement and response of the following subject:
https://www.econologie.com/forums/post268410.html#268410
For those who reduce their consumption without going to the VG stage, without this being representative, my "feeling" at the level of my enlarged circle is the following:
a) main motivation = "diet" / cardiovascular disease, etc ... The idea that red meat has a negative effect is gaining ground ...

This is of course what emerges from the influence of the media (but I agree that it is always that acquired) Indeed the media highlight the "negative" effects of red meat: d 'on the one hand because it is the most consumed, on the other hand because it is from it that scandals came and especially since the mad cow. In reality, all meats have negative effects, which is verified in terms of health when their consumption ceases.
b) in 2nd, except VG "militant" or "philosophical" [I mean by "reflection on Life"], it is the ecological approach: after awareness of energy problems ..., but gray energy or fossil COXNUMX emissions linked to their food. And first and foremost, that of red meat.
In short, there is a reflection among a growing part of the population, around "ecology", organic farming, etc ... with induced effects on the consumption of meat ... Someone who goes in a "organic" store will inevitably be confronted with soy, tofu, legumes in bulk, and "slip" towards a change in its diet ...

From professional experience (I ran a healthy food store at the time when this type of product was frowned upon by authorities and consumer associations) the neophite entering one of these places first sees the prices at its excessive eyes and soy tofus and the like are seen as "weird" exotic products. Unless it comes with a specific objective like looking for meat compensation products or looking for products with recognized therapeutic effects.
Otherwise, there are the super markets which are only products without the accompaniment of competent people on the use of the products offered. (you only get what you pay for!)
c) indeed, the shocking images of certain programs on industrial breeding and slaughterhouses, the mad cow scandal, then Lasagna on horseback, etc ... These various scandals have led people to reflect and, without "switch" to a strict VG diet, to change their diet in a "less meat" direction ...

It is true, but it has no depth because if the quality of the container is recognized (for example organic meat) consumption starts immediately. So its impact is fluctuating and can only be measured over a few decades. Thus we frequently see that there is only a shift in consumption and less red meat is shifted to more poultry, fish and other animal "proteins".
With the economic factor, which can be synergistically!

This is, in my opinion, the most important factor, as for the cigarette, and the economic crisis forced a certain part of the population to reduce their purchases on an expensive product (in France, except for pork, breeding is not very industrial). On the other hand, highly (and almost totally) industrial poultry or pork are therefore cheaper and purchases are carried over to them (as bad or even worse than non-industrial red meat).
I respect the "philosophical" approach, which leads to becoming strict VG for the sake of consistency (to avoid, in fact, being fake!). I think it weighs very little in the statistics.

It is obvious, but the VG philosophy is not in search of the number, but of the quality (as for the food).
What I have explained elsewhere, is that the entire world population will not only have to drastically reduce their animal consumption, but will have to achieve almost total Vg by virtual ecological and economic constraint (but this will not be the result of a voluntary and therefore fulfilling approach, but by constraint and with its frustrations)
Pragmatic, I try to have a broad influence, through points a and b, on a large number, which inflects his attitude "a little" ...

Only the little in question will not go fast enough to avoid the global ecological and economic crisis (and especially American-European) linked to "food" farming. It only takes a simple rule of three to notice!
PS: Well, on the news on France 2, comparison between organic and non-organic in super markets and in stores!
Note: I could say that I don't care at all about the fact that people eat more or less junk food, since I am no longer concerned with the subject; This does not mean being indifferent to the suffering generated by this type of consumption.
0 x
Janic
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 19224
Registration: 29/10/10, 13:27
Location: bourgogne
x 3491

Re: Ecology and vegetarianism: food, climate and CO2




by Janic » 25/05/17, 17:46

http://www.fayard.fr/lettre-ouverte-aux ... 2213702315
"We are probably witnessing, and I hope with all my heart, the passage to a higher ethical stage where humanist thought is emancipating itself from its anthropocentric framework to extend to all the sentient beings who inhabit the Earth. Therefore, showing “humanity” no longer means simply respecting other human beings, but any living being, according to its degree of sensitivity and consciousness. Life was expressed on Earth through an abundance of diversity.
Since the human being today is the most conscious and powerful species, may he use his forces no longer to exploit and destroy these forms of life, but to protect and serve them. It is for me our most beautiful vocation: protectors and servants of the world. "
Frédéric Lenoir
His notion of "according to his degree of sensitivity and consciousness"is doubtful, but it is already a big step forward and to be done!
0 x
"We make science with facts, like making a house with stones: but an accumulation of facts is no more a science than a pile of stones is a house" Henri Poincaré
Janic
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 19224
Registration: 29/10/10, 13:27
Location: bourgogne
x 3491

Re: Ecology and vegetarianism: food, climate and CO2




by Janic » 06/07/17, 09:22

7% of Americans think that chocolate milk comes from brown cows
http://www.midilibre.fr/2017/06/16/7-de ... 522814.php
and therefore a little humor on milk in general:
http://www.insolente-veggie.com/la-vach ... t-du-lait/
0 x
"We make science with facts, like making a house with stones: but an accumulation of facts is no more a science than a pile of stones is a house" Henri Poincaré
User avatar
sen-no-sen
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 6856
Registration: 11/06/09, 13:08
Location: High Beaujolais.
x 749

Re: Ecology and vegetarianism: food, climate and CO2




by sen-no-sen » 06/07/17, 14:15

Janic wrote:His notion of "according to his degree of sensitivity and consciousness"is doubtful, but it is already a big step forward and to be done!


Not at all, he simply makes a distinction - which is obvious! - between a lettuce leaf and a chimpanzee ...
0 x
"Engineering is sometimes about knowing when to stop" Charles De Gaulle.
Janic
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 19224
Registration: 29/10/10, 13:27
Location: bourgogne
x 3491

Re: Ecology and vegetarianism: food, climate and CO2




by Janic » 06/07/17, 18:14

Janic wrote:
His notion of "according to his degree of sensitivity and consciousness" is doubtful, but it is already a great step forward and to be done!

Not at all, he simply makes a distinction - which is obvious! - between a lettuce leaf and a chimpanzee ...
so a question of human sensitivity, who becomes judge and judge between the level of sensitivity and awareness of a lettuce leaf, a chimpanzee or a human.
He is a theologian, after being a philosopher, strongly imbued with his religious / anti-religious culture also and his interpretation of the genesis, which does not make this distinction!
0 x
"We make science with facts, like making a house with stones: but an accumulation of facts is no more a science than a pile of stones is a house" Henri Poincaré
Janic
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 19224
Registration: 29/10/10, 13:27
Location: bourgogne
x 3491

Re: Ecology and vegetarianism: food, climate and CO2




by Janic » 07/07/17, 08:35

I am therefore perfectly representative of many of my fellow men: I am sensitive to your suffering and I have campaigned for a long time for it to decrease, but I find it hard to resist a good seafood platter, and even if I have greatly reduced my consumption of meat and I tend towards vegetarianism, I still fall for a roast chicken at the restaurant or with friends.
Among my fellows, your best friends are certainly vegans, who do not consume anything from the animal kingdom or its exploitation, but I still feel unable to achieve this practice, however completely coherent. I also ask myself the question, and I'll come back to this at the end of this letter, to know if an ethical attitude towards you can take into account the degrees of pain sensitivity and intelligence of your various species, or if the same absolute respect must be applied to all…
What makes us unique - the complexity of our language, the infinite nature of our desire, a mythico-religious thought, an ability to project ourselves into the distant future and a universal moral conscience - should encourage us to adopt a just and responsible attitude. toward you. And yet, we are most often driven by the most stupid instinct to dominate and exploit you, according to the old adage of the law of the strongest. Certainly, we dress this predatory and dominating instinct with a thousand intellectual and rhetorical artifices. Because one of the singular characteristics of the human being, it is also this extraordinary capacity to justify his desires ! As the philosopher Baruch Spinoza pointed out in the 1th century: "We do not want something because we judge it good, but we judge it good because we want itXNUMX. It suits us to exploit a donkey, to witness the murder of a bull in an arena, or to eat suckling pig ... Never mind! Let's invent good reasons - economic, cultural, biological, gastronomic or religious - to do so, in order to satisfy our desire ... in good conscience.
https://www.fredericlenoir.com/lire-un-extrait/
0 x
"We make science with facts, like making a house with stones: but an accumulation of facts is no more a science than a pile of stones is a house" Henri Poincaré
User avatar
sen-no-sen
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 6856
Registration: 11/06/09, 13:08
Location: High Beaujolais.
x 749

Re: Ecology and vegetarianism: food, climate and CO2




by sen-no-sen » 07/07/17, 11:12

Janic wrote: so a question of human sensitivity, who becomes judge and judge between the level of sensitivity and awareness of a lettuce leaf, a chimpanzee or a human.


This is above all an objective observation.
A chimpanzee is a more complex form of life than a lettuce leaf, regardless of our sensitivity, an ET or an AI would quickly reach the same conclusion.
On the other hand, the differentiation between humans and their closest relatives (globally mammals) is essentially speciesism and therefore an essentially cultural construction.
0 x
"Engineering is sometimes about knowing when to stop" Charles De Gaulle.
Janic
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 19224
Registration: 29/10/10, 13:27
Location: bourgogne
x 3491

Re: Ecology and vegetarianism: food, climate and CO2




by Janic » 07/07/17, 12:42

This is above all an objective observation.
You cannot declare something partisan as an objective.
A chimpanzee is a more complex form of life than a lettuce leaf, regardless of our sensitivity, an ET or an AI would quickly reach the same conclusion.
Same thing: WHO declares that it is a certain level of complexity (in relation to what and to whom?) The human with his religious and atheistic culture which made it the summit of evolution (sic)
On the other hand, the differentiation between humans and their closest relatives (globally mammals) is essentially speciesism and therefore an essentially cultural construction.
Everything is cultural, without any kind of culture nobody could establish criteria of distinction between various categories of living things. "Never mind ! Let's invent good reasons - economic, cultural, biological, gastronomic or religious - to do it, in order to satisfy our desire ... in good conscience. "said Lenoir!

"A bacterium can have some 4 million nitrogenous bases in its genetic heritage while organisms, such as humans, have 3 billion. Curiously, amphibians and some flowering plants have more than 10 times the nitrogen bases found in humans. A single mycoplasma, the smallest living being, has 580.000 bases which provide the codes for 482 genes. "
0 x
"We make science with facts, like making a house with stones: but an accumulation of facts is no more a science than a pile of stones is a house" Henri Poincaré
Janic
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 19224
Registration: 29/10/10, 13:27
Location: bourgogne
x 3491

Re: Ecology and vegetarianism: food, climate and CO2




by Janic » 28/02/18, 17:34

tonight on France 5 at 20:50 pm: "should we eat animals"
0 x
"We make science with facts, like making a house with stones: but an accumulation of facts is no more a science than a pile of stones is a house" Henri Poincaré

 


  • Similar topics
    Replies
    views
    Last message

Back to "Sustainable consumption: responsible consumption, diet tips and tricks"

Who is online ?

Users browsing this forum : No registered users and 118 guests