You even contradict yourself, since you say:Janic wrote:
the world population is moving towards an almost total vegetarianism by obligation rather than by choice.
And further :
Janic wrote:
Politics like the economy will have to make choices
There is no contradiction between the two! Politicians, by professional necessity, have a global view on society, therefore with the possibility of orienting their politics according to these parameters. The individual with a view restricted to his small person even if the information (more or less oriented) multiply For example the tobacco mentioned where the individual smokes for his pleasure in the indifference for his entourage. On the other, the State which limits global consumption by restrictive laws without prohibiting on an individual level. The more the stress increases, the less the individual will have the choice. It is the same for the bidoche, overall production can not develop "to infinity" to satisfy the pleasures of the table of bidocheurs. It will suffice to follow closely America among the largest producers and consumers, the greatest number of sick people, who feed their cattle on the backs of developing countries desertifying the agricultural landscape by the industrial production of GMO corn or not and soy. Industrial farms hardly see fodder that does not fatten fast enough.
As Sen_No_Sen reminds us, we must nevertheless emphasize that according to the ambient paradigm, it is not the consumption of meat that will come at the top of the concerns (neither today nor tomorrow) but a world that will have to come out of the oil infusion , governed by the law of supply and demand: except to consider the kg of meat at € 500.— by means of a distribution key depending on forage consumption and the petroleum that we had to consume in this girl ...? I'll believe it when I see it!
You won't have to wait long! Symptomatic: the case of anti-theft devices on meat in supermarkets. It must be believed that this comes at the top of the concern of some!
Which will not happen by the way, since farm animals do not eat so much grain, but mainly stems (or at least what humans do not eat primarily, so we are not in competition with them on this point.)
This is only valid for traditional breeding which tends to be restricted to be replaced by industrial breeding as for pigs or poultry where these are sectors which have become almost exclusive (almost 90%)
We could then discuss for a long time yet, what shortage humanity will suffer first (like the shortage of oil VS the lack of water or what do I know ...) long before being concerned with eliminating meat products almost completely (as in your prediction!) even if there are cause and effect relationships between all these questions, this will certainly not be the decisive element in the action of politicians. In this domain, it’s not them who chooses anyway but people have been told to me (laugh out loud)
The people chosen when the choice is left to them, not when it ceases to be possible.
It is wishful thinking!It is therefore to be hoped that the change of course will not be made by obligation! Because we could wait a very long time and because we must hope that it will intervene well before.
So precisely not! Limitations are always made by obligation, rarely by personal choice. : speed limit, alcohol limit, tobacco limit, drug limit. Individuals capable of limiting themselves are rare (and besides why would they limit themselves, life is short and the pleasures that the individual can give themselves are limited) and, I return the ball to you, limiting yourself is psychologically bad !
Janic wrote:
otherwise it's like considering that the melting of ice depends on free will! At its very beginning perhaps, but now more.
Hundreds of millions of people take cancer or cardiovascular disease well, yet they know the causes (such as smoking, alcohol, junk food, lack of exercise) does that mean that stopped!
This vision is abstract for many of those who are supposed to know the causes (how many are really interested in these subjects?) They would have to visit hospitals with the relationship between pathology and consumption as on cigarette packs, which doesn’t in disuade nobody so far!
So exactly why were they stopping something considered bad for themselves when the state promoted it directly or indirectly by the lobbies. Wasn't the State the promoter of tobacco by its monopoly?
One of them is the excessive consumption of refined white sugar contained in sodas: forbidden to drink that to teenagers, to see ... if this way you will be followed ...
Again, it's not about prohibition (it's you, who talks about prohibition, not me!) but of rarefaction of the product ! When there will be no more sweet sodas, teens will turn to what existed before these sodas like their elders who consumed only a few refined sugars before the industry took them over.
So I hear your opinion, but what is curious is your perpetual angle of attack which is reluctant to consider the concepts of basic pedagogy - however glaring - in the arsenal to be taken into account to "stimulate the good choice". Hence the unhappy words sometimes used.
It all depends on the point of view where you stand! As you underline it is MY angle of attack which does not exclude or replace any other. I am opposed to refined products like you, but they seem priority to you while I do not give them more or less priority than other food consumption. Each product can be favorable or unfavorable to health and, FOR ME, I do not make a difference between the harmful products that it is these refined products or other processed products like alcohol and therefore the bidoche too.
So why is it my angle? For the importance that this has on society in general (whether for health, ecology, ethics) and as a trigger for pathologies in the same way as other products destroying health. In addition, it is an area that I know to practice on a daily basis and not to have an abstract knowledge, only intellectual. It is therefore a signal, a warning, in the midst of many others which saturate the individuals who receive them and therefore cause them to be neglected or rejected. It's life !
But not being heard does not mean having to be silent as you do for refined sugars or the acid / base ratio whose role is no more to be overlooked.