Produce better to eat all

Books, television programs, films, magazines or music to share, counselor to discover ... Talk to news affecting in any way the econology, environment, energy, society, consumption (new laws or standards) ...
User avatar
Cuicui
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 3547
Registration: 26/04/05, 10:14
x 6




by Cuicui » 20/11/13, 19:18

sen-no-sen wrote:
Cuicui wrote:Small remarks in passing:
- The day the octopuses survive the birth of their young, it is difficult to know the limit of their intelligence.
.
Cephalopods are indeed very intelligent, nevertheless their animals have a significant brake on increasing their cognitive capacities: on the one hand, they are solitary animals, which excludes the appearance of a "collective brain" by mutual learning. , on the other hand, their brains are not able to memorize more than a few days of information learned during a new experience.
- Chimpanzees organize group hunts to catch and devour raw monkeys.

This is apparently relatively recent behavior in chimpanzees (geologically speaking).
Contrary to octopuses, chimpanzees have the capacity to learn from their other congeners and to record information to transmit it to the following generations.
It is not impossible that (if the species does not disappear by then!) Within a few hundred thousand years the chimpanzees give birth to new forms of animals even more intelligent (hominization?).
There have also been cultural developments in many birds (chickadee, raven).
- An unstoppable way of eliminating GMO meat: stop buying it. Producers will adapt very quickly.

If producers ever produce GM meat, it's because there will be market demand ... and therefore consumers.
Reminder: almost 80% of the cattle are fed with GMOs, it does not seem to influence badly the sales of meat products!

- How do you know if the occasionally carnivorous behavior of chimpanzees is recent? On the other hand, rodents eat meat if they have nothing else to eat.
- It is not impossible that certain cephalopods acquire the capacity to memorize better, to live in a group and to transmit information to each other. Our knowledge of animal (and plant) intelligence is still very limited.
- The day when the display "with GMO" or "guaranteed without GMO" on the meat will be obligatory, things will change. Currently, the consumer does not know what he is buying.
0 x
Janic
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 19224
Registration: 29/10/10, 13:27
Location: bourgogne
x 3491




by Janic » 20/11/13, 19:42

Homo-sapiens is clearly an omnivorous animal with a vegetarian tendency, this evolution is probably made by the Baldwin effect

Sorry to contradict, but there is a confusion between culturally adopted behavior and the anatomy that classifies individuals according to food families linked to it.
Now, and this point is fundamental, those who say that humans are omnivorous state it in relation to their own behavior and that of the society around them, but (and this is contradictory) when it comes to classifying other animals they do in relation to their anatomy.
So just look at the comparative anatomical tables to see that humans are anatomically vegan with a behavior that can be omnivorous depending on their culture and circumstances.
moreover, it is risky to rely on behavior to define a classification, otherwise the anthropophagous could state that humans are naturally anthropophagic; similarly among the Greeks homosexuality was common, which did not allow to say that the human is a homosexual (while there may be homosexual behavior in these), no more than the one who takes the plane becomes a bird.
0 x
User avatar
sen-no-sen
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 6856
Registration: 11/06/09, 13:08
Location: High Beaujolais.
x 749




by sen-no-sen » 20/11/13, 20:03

Cuicui wrote:- How do you know if the occasionally carnivorous behavior of chimpanzees is recent? On the other hand, rodents eat meat if they have nothing else to eat.


Like humans, the chimpanzee is an animal that has developed a certain culture.
This culture influences the evolution of the species throughout its evolution.

We also observe very different behaviors between chimpanzees depending on the geographic areas they inhabit.
Recently, chimpanzees have been observed using sorts of spears to hunt other mammals.
http://www.nature.com/news/2007/070219/full/news070219-11.html

Its phenomena are specific to groups, so they do not come from instinct, but from culture.

- It is not impossible that certain cephalopods acquire the capacity to memorize better, to live in a group and to transmit information to each other. Our knowledge of animal (and plant) intelligence is still very limited.


Cephalopods have appeared for around 500 million years, there is little chance of seeing the appearance of such capacities in the millions of years to come.


- The day when the display "with GMO" or "guaranteed without GMO" on the meat will be obligatory, things will change. Currently, the consumer does not know what he is buying.


I'm not so sure, especially with the economic crisis!

Janic wrote:


Sorry to contradict, but there is a confusion between culturally adopted behavior and the anatomy that classifies individuals according to food families linked to it.


Yes, but it is precisely the behavior adopted that makes the species evolve, this is the Baldwin effect.
If indeed some species hardly change over time, it would be unfortunate to believe that this is true for all animals.
In humans, culture has long influenced our nature!
This same culture may also lead us to a very sinister end.
Now, and this point is fundamental, those who say that humans are omnivorous state it in relation to their own behavior and that of the society around them, but (and this is contradictory) when it comes to classifying other animals they do in relation to their anatomy.


The first hominids were indeed vegetarian, but that was a long time ago!
To say that humans are vegetarians is to evade the behavior of our closest primate parents, who themselves do not always have this type of food, cultural evolution requires.

So just look at the comparative anatomical tables to see that humans are anatomically vegan with a behavior that can be omnivorous depending on their culture and circumstances.


Do we notice cows eating meat under certain circumstances (except animal meal)?
0 x
"Engineering is sometimes about knowing when to stop" Charles De Gaulle.
User avatar
Cuicui
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 3547
Registration: 26/04/05, 10:14
x 6




by Cuicui » 21/11/13, 01:34

sen-no-sen wrote:
- The day when the display "with GMO" or "guaranteed without GMO" on the meat will be obligatory, things will change. Currently, the consumer does not know what he is buying.

I'm not so sure, especially with the economic crisis!

The majority of French people are against GMOs which they more or less regard as poisons. I am not sure that parents will agree to buy poison to feed their children, even if it is not expensive.
0 x
Janic
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 19224
Registration: 29/10/10, 13:27
Location: bourgogne
x 3491




by Janic » 21/11/13, 07:59

cuicui hello
The majority of French people are against GMOs which they more or less regard as poisons. I am not sure that parents will agree to buy poison to feed their children, even if it is not expensive.
the majority of grain animal feed is imported and GMO so, at a minimum, industrial meats are all GMOs and the general public, who eat them, don't care. But ecology, which is making its voice heard more and more, creates a theoretical attitude of rejection of GMOs such as the rejection of nuclear power, asbestos, CO2 or the Mediator (that only a tiny part of the population has consumed) . As a reminder, GMOs are everywhere in food, it is only if the quantity is greater than 1% (which is already a lot) that it should be indicated. Political hypocrisy under pressure from the lobbies. It's like antibiotics "which are not automatic"but automatically given to farm animals and absorbed by consumers and particularly children who become self-resistant in case of real need. An additional reason to no longer consume bait! : Cheesy:

sen no sen hello
Janic wrote:
Quote:
Sorry to contradict, but there is a confusion between culturally adopted behavior and the anatomy that classifies individuals according to food families linked to it.


Yes, but it is precisely the behavior adopted that makes the species evolve, this is the Baldwin effect.
If indeed some species hardly change over time, it would be unfortunate to believe that this is true for all animals.
In humans, culture has long influenced our nature!


Certainly, for certain points, but we must not confuse species (in this case the human) and its biological functions determined by its anatomy. So we must clearly distinguish, in its expressions, between being (vegetarian for example) and behaving in opposition to physiology and biology (it's as if, under the pretext that a large part of the French population, always for example , smoked we deduced that the human is a smoker or for the consumption of alcohol and other drugs. No, this behavior is only cultural and "evolution" nor would change anything. So the human is not biologically omnivorous.
The first hominids were indeed vegetarian, but that was a long time ago!

Comparative anatomy does not take account of the discourses on evolution, but is established on the comparative testimonies of human fossil bones and current bones. But there is no change between the two. So if there is permanence (whatever the duration between fossils and current bones) it is because its fundamental nature is also permanent and time does not matter.
To say that humans are vegetarians is to evade the behavior of our closest primate parents, who themselves do not always have this type of food, cultural evolution requires.

Precisely the error comes from a too easy comparison between two animal categories. Admittedly we have points in common with some of these (which the VG use besides to argue their point of view and wrongly a few times) You know like me that certain animals of the same family can have eating behaviors very different often determined by the food available (like the Inuit mentioned) however their anatomy is always corresponding to the real mode of its physiology as a whole. Indeed, food is not just about putting something in your mouth and defecating it, but must correspond to a whole digestive chain dependent on internal organs, digestive juices, flora, specific hormones and enzymes. Any difference is paid in the short or long term in suffering and death.
Do we notice cows eating meat under certain circumstances (except animal meal)?

I live in the middle of the countryside surrounded by cattle and I have never seen a cow chasing a rabbit. On the other hand, some testify to “wild” vegetarian animals bred with dogs and eat their food and get sick quickly. Human beings are less aware of this because, with a few exceptions, they also consume vegetable forces which reduce the harmful effects of meat, this is currently observed by dieticians independent of lobbies.
It is this confusion which makes us say that humans ARE omnivorous by a general public ignorant of the great rules of physiology and biology and unfortunately also by carnist scientists who thus self-justify.
0 x
User avatar
Cuicui
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 3547
Registration: 26/04/05, 10:14
x 6




by Cuicui » 21/11/13, 11:37

Janic wrote:cuicui hello
The majority of French people are against GMOs which they more or less regard as poisons. I am not sure that parents will agree to buy poison to feed their children, even if it is not expensive.
the majority of the cereal animal food is imported and GMO therefore, at least, the industrial meats are all GMO and the general public, which consumes them, does not care completely.
The "general public" is not informed.
0 x
User avatar
sen-no-sen
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 6856
Registration: 11/06/09, 13:08
Location: High Beaujolais.
x 749




by sen-no-sen » 21/11/13, 11:53

Janic wrote: So humans are not biologically omnivorous.


It is a peremptory statement, if the human was not omnivorous (ie vegan), he would not consume meat, period.
This may be offending your vegan ideal, but history shows - just like our eating habits since the beginnings of humanity - that homo sapiens are omnivores (with a pronounced vegetarian tendency).
Now, taking into account the fact that the human line comes from predominantly fruit-eating animals, we indeed have an easier time consuming vegetables, fruits and seeds.


Any difference is paid in the short or long term in suffering and death.


We do not notice a correlation between an omnivorous diet (eg Mediterranean cuisine) and an increase in mortality, on the contrary.
The increase of this one is caused by imbalances, of different natures ...


I live in the middle of the countryside surrounded by cattle and I have never seen a cow chasing a rabbit.


Right, because a cow is an exclusively herbivorous animal, which is not the case for us ... human beings.

To conclude, the current question is not to ask whether we should eat meat or not, but to know to what level this type of food is possible on a global level, except it is clear that it is technically almost impossible to continue with a highly meaty diet.
0 x
"Engineering is sometimes about knowing when to stop" Charles De Gaulle.
User avatar
highfly-addict
Grand Econologue
Grand Econologue
posts: 757
Registration: 05/03/08, 12:07
Location: Pyrenees, 43 years
x 7




by highfly-addict » 21/11/13, 13:26

Janic wrote:...
Comparative anatomy does not take account of the discourses on evolution, but is established on the comparative testimonies of human fossil bones and current bones. But there is no change between the two. So if there is permanence (whatever the duration between fossils and current bones) it is that its fundamental nature is also permanent and time does nothing to do the trick ...


Really ? http://www.futura-sciences.com/magazines/sante/infos/actu/d/biologie-science-decalee-chimpanzes-sont-mauvais-baseball-47442/
0 x
"God laughs at those who deplore the effects of which they cherish the causes" BOSSUET
"We see what we believes"Dennis MEADOWS
Janic
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 19224
Registration: 29/10/10, 13:27
Location: bourgogne
x 3491




by Janic » 21/11/13, 14:43

janic wrote: So humans are not biologically omnivorous.

It is a peremptory statement, if the human was not omnivorous (ie vegan), he would not consume meat, period.

For someone who constantly recommends "science", it should be referred to rather than to cultural adaptations.
Then, once again, one should not confuse behavior with a state. (French is a rich language with many nuances necessary to avoid mixtures and confusions) As I said previously the anthropophagy practiced by certain cultures does not establish however that the human is in fact anthropophagous. Bar point!
The works of Cuvier and his successors are not applicable to humans only but to all animals. However, Cuvier's work has not been questioned (to my knowledge) by anyone among scientists (or according to what reference can be consulted?)
This may be offending your vegan ideal, but history shows - just like our eating habits since the beginnings of humanity - that homo sapiens are omnivores (with a pronounced vegetarian tendency).

It doesn't offend me at all! All points of view can be expressed, those of carnists as well as those of VG. It is therefore not a question of philosophy, but of scientific and scientifically demonstrable reality.
Then history does not demonstrate that ... this view is disputed by non-VG scientists themselves. They recognize that certain peoples have resorted to the occasional or regular consumption of meats, which does not establish a biological state, but a deviation from it, even by necessity of survival. So humans are naturally VG with occasional consumption of meat and therefore the reverse of what you wrote (always the work of Cuvier et al.). As in our time when the use of various drugs exists, this does not establish this behavior as a priority model and its non-consumption as secondary.
Now, taking into account the fact that the human line comes from predominantly fruit-eating animals, we indeed have an easier time consuming vegetables, fruits and seeds.

As we have a philosophical divergence on the " stem from… " : I pass !
Quote:
Any difference is paid in the short or long term in suffering and death.
We do not notice a correlation between an omnivorous diet (eg Mediterranean cuisine) and an increase in mortality, on the contrary.

Absolutely not ! To measure the incidence of a food mode, it is necessary to proceed by cohorts with as difference a single criterion at a time. However, Mediterranean cuisine is completely different from others, such as the use of oil rather than animal fatty substances (butter and cheeses). in fact, we should compare, within the practitioners of this kitchen, a cohort with bidoche and without! What I do not know so far!
However, the Americans who carry out studies and statistics in abundance have demonstrated that not consuming meat, in groups where the only difference was this deletion, reduced diseases in general (including cancers) by about 50% (study of 1.500 American and Canadian dietitians, the AADDC already cited elsewhere) confirming that it was this consumption that differed and it alone since all things were equal elsewhere and based on a few tens of thousands of LV individuals compared to the same number not VG in this population. (more than 50.000 in each group!)
The increase of this one is caused by imbalances, of different natures ...

Inevitably, but only partially since these related imbalances were (and still are) the same in both groups. Reread this study!
COHORT: A cohort study is called a longitudinal study which is generally based on two groups of subjects (cohorts). It is notably used in medicine (mainly in epidemiology), in human and social sciences, in actuarial science and in ecology. wikipedia
Right, because a cow is an exclusively herbivorous animal,which is not the case for us...Human being.

Against truth which is based on a behavior, only, and not on anatomy and biology which are exact sciences.
To conclude, the current question is not to ask whether we should eat meat or not, but to know to what level this type of food is possible on a global level, except it is clear that it is technically almost impossible to continue with a highly meaty diet.

Indeed, the question is whether this consumption is possible with our production methods at the global level for the decades to come. A simple rule of three shows that no, but with households where the haves (money allows a lot of things) will continue, like the haves of previous centuries, to feast. but like "you can't have your cake and eat it too"nature (or theoretically God) restores balance!

highfly-addict
In science, you have to compare comparable things! The human is a human, the monkey a monkey and despite a large number of common points, the two are as distinct as a horse and a donkey.
Now I mentioned human fossils, not monkey fossils!
When the discourse on evolution the subject has been widely examined and interrupted at the crucial moment, but if you believe it why not! To each his faith! :D
0 x
Janic
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 19224
Registration: 29/10/10, 13:27
Location: bourgogne
x 3491




by Janic » 21/11/13, 17:36

in the thread of the subject: "food security" passed on France 5 this afternoon. To review !
0 x

 


  • Similar topics
    Replies
    views
    Last message

Back to "Media & News: TV shows, reports, books, news ..."

Who is online ?

Users browsing this forum : No registered users and 195 guests