[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / abdl / ausneets / dempart / hypno / leftpol / tingles / vg / vichan ]

/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

A collective of people engaged in pretty much what the name suggests
Winner of the 75nd Attention-Hungry Games
/caco/ - Azarath Metrion Zinthos

March 2019 - 8chan Transparency Report
Name
Email
Subject
Comment *
File
Password (Randomized for file and post deletion; you may also set your own.)
* = required field[▶ Show post options & limits]
Confused? See the FAQ.
Flag
Options
dicesidesmodifier

Allowed file types:jpg, jpeg, gif, png, webm, mp4, pdf
Max filesize is 16 MB.
Max image dimensions are 15000 x 15000.
You may upload 5 per post.


Tags: leftism (CLICK HERE FOR MORE LEFTIST 8CHAN BOARDS), politics, activism, news

File: fd2050f0588ca75⋯.png (691.12 KB, 1024x769, 1024:769, DT6AfSjXcAAvgLA[1].png)

File: cff5864a98cdde1⋯.png (715.52 KB, 800x512, 25:16, cattle-farm-farming-02-fac….png)

File: db5341f96937262⋯.png (218.72 KB, 600x600, 1:1, risks-methane-sharing_600_….png)

File: 9971d0bfce2217b⋯.png (765.34 KB, 1280x1222, 640:611, tumblr_ppxblhEmRz1rasnq9o1….png)

 No.2863303

Market-based agronomy is unsustainable, we need democratically planned agronomy. We need to drastically limit the amount of crops dedicated to feeding cattle.

 No.2863309

We need national-scale veganism and multi-story farms. Subsidize veggies and mushrooms and tax meat and such. Also awareness campaigns for a balanced diet, and increase the comprehensiveness of nutrition facts information.


 No.2863317

You are right. A lot of people in my party romanticize traditional agriculture and especially raising cattle and sheep. It's totally reactionary, but it has somehow gotten stuck in their minds. I'm struggling to convince them how damaging it is to both social relations and ecology, but it is so engrained in them.


 No.2863318

File: ecacc54cf7025ed⋯.jpg (58.65 KB, 948x710, 474:355, .jpg)

>>2863309

No amount of taxes, education, or even bans will be enough to stop the natural human desire for meat. All this will do is create black markets where meat is grown in even more unclean and inhumane environments. They will have to be re-engineered to be UNABLE To eat meat, and fortunately, there already exists a way to do this. The lone star tick's venom contains a protein called alpha-gal, which is a protein also found in all mammals EXCEPT for primates. When eaten it has no effect, but when injected directly into the bloodstream it can trigger an anti-gal immune response and create a feedback loop creating a meat allergy.

We need replicate this effect and inoculate everyone with alpha-gal to trigger the anti-gal immune response and make everyone allergic to meat. It would eliminate pork and beef consumption entirely with no need to worry about black markets because no one would be physically able to eat it. While this won't stop people from eating fish or birds, pork and beef are the worst environmental offenders so it would still be a vast improvement.


 No.2863328

Have you seen how malnourished vegans are it's a completely unhealthy diet.

Removing bread sugars and moving towards a meat based diet is much more healthier for humans


 No.2863330

>>2863318

Nope, we don't have to do any eugenics to get a more humane and ecofriendly society.


 No.2863331

>>2863318

Imagine doing all of this instead of just investing a few years into clean meat/synthetic meat research in the mid-term and meat substitutes in the short-term, something that is entirely possible in our lifetimes.

Imagine how much we could achieve if nations like China, Russia, Germany, Japan, the US were actually socialist. Imagine a Manhattan Project for climate change technologies, like clean meat, urban farming, fusion energy and so on. It's all possible, it's just that we are powerless (as of now) in the face of the bourgeoisie…


 No.2863333

File: 402a788777feab8⋯.jpg (138.85 KB, 1920x1080, 16:9, ma123xresdefault.jpg)

>>2863328

Just about everything you need can be found in vegan food. Complete proteins for instance may be found in black beans and rice, and B12 from mushrooms and seaweed. It's a matter of research which the state will propagate the information of to consumers.


 No.2863337

>>2863333

Doing that is retardedly complex and requires every vegan to meal prep or be malnourished when just eating meat could do all that.


 No.2863338

>>2863330

I'm not sure you know what eugenics is.

>>2863331

>clean meat/synthetic meat

Eating unicorn meat will not save the environment.

We might be able to grow fat cells to make plant-based foods more palatable, but lab grown meat isn't going to happen in a time frame short enough to stop climate change.


 No.2863339

>>2863337

Meat eaters have to meal prep too, though? You can't just squeeze raw ground beef into your mouth.


 No.2863341

>>2863328

I can recommend this book: https://www.akpress.org/makingakillingebook.html

a leftist critique of animal agriculture and human-animal relations using marxian, anarchist and social ecological theory.


 No.2863343

>>2863337

It's not complex at all. Just keep in mind certain foods that have certain nutrients and you'll be fine – you should be doing that anyway even if you discount veganism for whatever reason. Meat alone, unlike vegan food alone, will lead to sickness just like in the Inuits.


 No.2863345

>>2863341

woops, weren't mean to quote anybody


 No.2863347

>>2863339

You can though.

Note im not recommending it but you don't have to research random vegetables to make sure you're not going to cripple yourself.

Also vegans tend to be malnourished


 No.2863348

>>2863343

Meat based is not meat alone


 No.2863350

>>2863303

I'm vegan.


 No.2863352

>>2863338

>We might be able to grow fat cells to make plant-based foods more palatable, but lab grown meat isn't going to happen in a time frame short enough to stop climate change.

Do you actually think it's easier to engineer people to stop eating meat than to try to present alternatives? What you propose is so far out from the current political climate and can't be implemented in the next 150 years.


 No.2863353

>>2863352

Yea, those ticks might also become mutated and people are going to notice and freak out. Better to spread awareness and develop better food.


 No.2863360

>>2863347

Dude please eat your vegetables.

>Also vegans tend to be malnourished

Meat eaters tent to be obese.

>>2863352

>Do you actually think it's easier to engineer people to stop eating meat than to try to present alternatives?

The only problem is cultural. Technologically the problem is solved. The lone star tick can already do this, there are people out there RIGHT NOW who are allergic to meat because of its bite. It's a fairly simple mechanism that we already understand, but if replicating the allergic response is too hard we could literally just breed ticks and put them on people.


 No.2863367

>>2863360

>Dude please eat your vegetables

See>>2863348

>Meat eaters tent to be obese

Why are you lumping the general population in?

Why are they obese?

People get obese because of an excess amount of calories consumed.

Meat has very little calories compared to breads and sugar(which are vegan btw)

But yet meat based diet people are not obese


 No.2863377

>>2863367

If you're not eating meat alone, you're meal planning.


 No.2863378

>>2863377

That's not what meal prepping is


 No.2863380

>>2863328

Removing carbs is good. We need high fat food. But meat is itself largely excessive. It can be easily swapped for eggs, chickpeas, lentils, beans etc.


 No.2863384

>>2863380

Why are you considering a majority meat diet "excess" but a majority plant diet not excess?

Also eggs are not vegan


 No.2863386

>>2863378

Then you're under the impression that vegans put way more effort into their meals than they actually do.

>>2863384

Because it takes more resources to grow a calorie of beef than a calorie of eggs or beans.


 No.2863391

File: a469ac5753597ea⋯.jpeg (68.83 KB, 680x357, 40:21, i135037-regime-cretois[1].jpeg)

File: 342bcfe3e4ca09c⋯.jpg (703.29 KB, 765x627, 255:209, more-diet[1].jpg)

>>2863384

Because it takes an absurd amount of freshwater, energy, land to create 1 kg of beef.

Meat should unironically be reserved for pregnant women. We do not need to produce 90% of the meat we farm.

>majority plant diet

It's called normal diet you idiot.


 No.2863396

>>2863367

>meat based diet people

It's unsustainable you idiot.


 No.2863397

>>2863391

God that looks delicious.


 No.2863399

File: e4e858bd26d1e96⋯.jpg (35.54 KB, 460x352, 115:88, water-efficiency-in-produc….jpg)

File: 0b91e4f35c19caa⋯.gif (41.45 KB, 462x479, 462:479, quarter pound hamburger[1].gif)


 No.2863401

>>2863397

The pic on the right is lebanese food, I highly recommend it. Incredibly tasty.


 No.2863402

>>2863386

>Then you're under the impression that vegans put way more effort into their meals than they actually do.

They don't which is why so many are malnourished

>Because it takes more resources to grow a calorie of beef than a calorie of eggs or beans

So?

We don't have a lack of food in the first world


 No.2863404

>>2863402

I hope a mod gets you out of this thread so we can actually discuss like adults.


 No.2863406

>>2863391

>Because it takes an absurd amount of freshwater, energy, land to create 1 kg of beef.

>Meat should unironically be reserved for pregnant women. We do not need to produce 90% of the meat we farm.

Maybe in undeveloped countries but most developed nations do it fine

>>majority plant diet

>It's called normal diet you idiot

No its called modern consumer culture diet


 No.2863407

>>2863404

<please ban opposing opinions om food

Lol wut


 No.2863409

>>2863402

You are the type of person I was talking about here >>2863317


 No.2863410

>>2863407

Either he's shitposting, either he's an idiot who can barely grasp what he's even talking about. He's not going to contribute anything to the thread beyond

>durrr vegan malnourished

>eating plants so WEIRD! lol


 No.2863411

>>2863407

Also opinions have no place when we actually have quantified and scientific data. It feels like arguing with some 55 years old senile boomer on facebook. I don't care about an opinion so blatantly poorly informed.


 No.2863414

>>2863411

>Also opinions have no place when we actually have quantified and scientific data. It feels like arguing with some 55 years old senile boomer on facebook. I don't care about an opinion so blatantly poorly informed

Ok and?


 No.2863419

>>2863410

Is there anything incorrect three though?


 No.2863427

>>2863419

>it's weird to eat plants

Outside of masai/inuit tribes, every fucking single society has relied massively on plant-based food. Meat has only been affordable for mass consumption for ordinary people for barely 50 years.

Everything he says is so completely misinformed I can tell the guy is clueless in biology, nutrition and history at the same time.

>>2863414

You can't force me to care about people not doing their research.


 No.2863431

>>2863427

>Outside of masai/inuit tribes, every fucking single society has relied massively on plant-based food. Meat has only been affordable for mass consumption for ordinary people for barely 50 years.

>Everything he says is so completely misinformed I can tell the guy is clueless in biology, nutrition and history at the same time

Until the agricultural revolution everyone's diet was meat based.


 No.2863432

>>2863427

>You can't force me to care about people not doing their research.

You posting about veganism goes against this though


 No.2863433

>>2863419

>>2863427

Also

>vegans are malnourished

Blatantly wrong. Ofc you will find that one case of neglectful parents not asking a doctor or even doing basic research and killing their baby by only feeding it soy or some dumb shit but it's just fucking stupid.

>>2863431

Going back six thousand years in history because everything else is inconvenient for your narrative, nice.


 No.2863434

File: 9a588b4fa1c9a23⋯.jpg (288.56 KB, 1000x1000, 1:1, 17f23a6b5d975c8bce19dfa464….jpg)


 No.2863438

>>2863402

>So?

>We don't have a lack of food in the first world

So we are all going to fucking die because of climate change you retard piece of shit.

And if you think I will let you kill me so you can eat meat, you'll be sorely disappointed.


 No.2863440

>>2863433

>Blatantly wrong. Ofc you will find that one case of neglectful parents not asking a doctor or even doing basic research and killing their baby by only feeding it soy or some dumb shit but it's just fucking stupid

This is thr case time after time

>Going back six thousand years in history because everything else is inconvenient for your narrative, nice

Yes and? Humans didn't evolve to eat only plants sorry bud


 No.2863441

>>2863438

>>2863438

Climate change dont real if it hurts my feelings and sensible stomach :🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧


 No.2863443

File: 962f0bd65eed01e⋯.png (753.52 KB, 1300x1000, 13:10, r5he1a20yby11.png)


 No.2863445

>>2863438

>So we are all going to fucking die because of climate change you retard piece of shit.

Lol ok al gore

Do you have ANY evidence saying that we won't die by only eating plants?

>And if you think I will let you kill me so you can eat meat, you'll be sorely disappointed


 No.2863446

>>2863443

I'm OP and I've been defending reducing the amount of cattle being raised drastically. I'm not even a vegan you waste of biomass. I don't believe in individual moral posturing, structural/political change needs to happen, it's not about convincing individuals to stop buying meat. I think you're an idiot and should read a book.


 No.2863448

>>2863446

>'m OP and I've been defending reducing the amount of cattle being raised drastically. I'm not even a vegan you waste of biomass. I don't believe in individual moral posturing, structural/political change needs to happen, it's not about convincing individuals to stop buying meat. I think you're an idiot and should read a book

What are yuh butthurt about exactly?

I'm arguing against veganism as a shitty diet

Now how meat is produced is a different topic entirely and can be equally unhealthy

However factory fsrms producing bad meat does not equate to meat is bad


 No.2863449

>>2863445

>Do you have ANY evidence saying that we won't die by only eating plants?

<Do you have ANY evidence that a diet which uses fewer resources will emit less carbon?

I think you need to eat more vegetables, because clearly your meat-based diet is making you retarded.

https://phys.org/news/2018-02-plant-based-protein-tackle-climate-hunger.html

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780128039687000095

https://phys.org/news/2017-07-effective-individual-tackle-climate-discussed.html


 No.2863450

>>2863448

What's up wit hur cancerous weh of taiping?xDDDDDDD


 No.2863454

>>2863449

Sl for ghe third time now

Meat based is not meat only


 No.2863456

File: a241bbdbee6aa42⋯.jpg (37.41 KB, 254x349, 254:349, noregrets.jpg)

>>2863440

Although I agree with you, bringing up the evolution argument for either side is stupid. Humans are cognizant enough about diets to choose whatever they want to eat regardless of evolutionary history. We also still tend to have large incisors, which are remnants of primate evolution selecting for combat and dominance but we don't ALWAYS flash our teeth and fight for clan dominance like chimps do. That being said, vegans are aggressive assholes, and meat eaters are stingy pricks.


 No.2863457

>>2863454

I very clearly don't give a fuck about your autistic diet.

Climate change is an existential threat and I will not die so you can eat meat. Whether you think a vegan diet is complicated or unhealthy or yucky is irrelevant. You have to stop eating meat. So, either stop now by choice so the transition is easier for you, or be forced to stop in the future when we run out of time.


 No.2863461

>>2863456

While going against human evolution is not as damaging as you might assume. To say that the way humans have eaten for all but the last bit of history is unhealthy is a monumental claim.

As for the teeth argument we have omnivorous teeth and no where am i saying eat ONLY meat, just a majority and no breads


 No.2863466

>>2863457

>I very clearly don't give a fuck about your autistic diet

Yet you think people should care about yours

>Climate change is an existential threat and I will not die so you can eat meat. Whether you think a vegan diet is complicated or unhealthy or yucky is irrelevant.

Vegans is an existential threat to my health I won't die to satisfy some new age diet.

>You have to stop eating meat.

No i don't

>So, either stop now by choice so the transition is easier for you, or be forced to stop in the future when we run out of time

Do you have ANY evidence for this claim too?


 No.2863478

File: 91301436595188c⋯.png (129.7 KB, 512x494, 256:247, 1528240854308.png)

>>2863461

I didn't make that claim. I said the evolutionary argument is a stupid one to make considering the fact humans have ability to go against evolved characteristics. I'm sure the teeth thing is still in contention, but I would still argue that the evolved teeth we currently have isn't largely a result of diet alone, but rather clan dominance characteristics. Orangutans have large incisors but eat almost exclusively plant material. Chimps do hunt but still mostly eat plant material. I guess it not really either/or but a combination of both. I didn't claim you said to eat meat only…just stop using the evolution argument because both sides are stupid to do so.


 No.2863481

>>2863461

>To say that the way humans have eaten for all but the last bit of history is unhealthy is a monumental claim

We evolved to get the minimum amount of nutrition in order to reproduce and raise kids. Look at traditional hunter-gather africans, they're skinny as fuck and usually don't live into their 70s. What humans were able to scavenge and live off of for thousands of years is not necessarily optimal.


 No.2863482

>>2863478

>I didn't make that claim. I said the evolutionary argument is a stupid one to make considering the fact humans have ability to go against evolved characteristics

Yes i said this however my argument was that there is not evidence saying that going against evolution is optimal

>I'm sure the teeth thing is still in contention, but I would still argue that the evolved teeth we currently have isn't largely a result of diet alone, but rather clan dominance characteristics. Orangutans have large incisors but eat almost exclusively plant material. Chimps do hunt but still mostly eat plant material.

Humans and chimps are two different animals. They have enzymes that make a plant based diet optimal we don't have those.

>I guess it not really either/or but a combination of both. I didn't claim you said to eat meat only…just stop using the evolution argument because both sides are stupid to do

Well im arguing against the vegan here, who brought up the evolution diet


 No.2863492

>>2863333

>Just about everything you need can be found in vegan food

No it can't, certain amino-acids, fatty-acids and proteins are either exclusive to animal-products or are of poor digestibility.


 No.2863519

>>2863492

Okay, so we'll eat insect meat. I don't care.

We still have to stop eating meat from birds, fish, and mammals. They're too resource intensive and too wasteful, even before you get into ethical considerations.


 No.2863537

File: 1368bd5e708c80f⋯.png (814.89 KB, 900x600, 3:2, ClipboardImage.png)

File: aa4dd97d39475e7⋯.png (715.34 KB, 800x460, 40:23, ClipboardImage.png)

the only sustainable protein source is insects and maybe über-GMO soy

only bourgie fucks eat beef in any form


 No.2863555

>>2863519

>We still have to stop eating meat from birds, fish, and mammals. They're too resource intensive and too wasteful, even before you get into ethical considerations

Saying they're too resource intensive is a moral statement


 No.2863559

File: 71d63e7e0db8bca⋯.png (40.82 KB, 421x458, 421:458, 71d63e7e0db8bcabf54614c4a9….png)

>>2863537

Wouldn't insects be a reliable source of cattle's food rather than lots of crops that could be used for human consumption?


 No.2863562

>>2863555

livestock takes up like half of all farmable land on Earth, saying they're too resource intensive is an undisputable fact.


 No.2863567

I hate political vegans because they're preachy assholes but I hope some of the meat fetishists in this thread also hate cockshott because he btfos most of your arguments in this thread with simple thermodynamics.


 No.2863570

>>2863559

most livestock that can be fed purely on "artificial food" (chickens, pigs) are already fed with gmo soy. But cow need grass, their stomacs can't efficiently process anythign else

also watch this video and see why the current way of growing livestock is completely unsustainable: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wvQTmTPZix4


 No.2863576

>>2863555

Do you have fucking brain cancer? It's LITERALLY the opposite of a moral statement, unless you think the ability to support life on earth for people is some kind of moral argument too? I'm not even a vegan jesus christ some of you fuckers need to neck yourselves, at least that won't make the problem worse.


 No.2863579

>>2863570

That video literally starts off with malthusian bullshit, and I'm one of the people arguing against these retard meat fetishists.


 No.2863581

>>2863562

>livestock takes up like half of all farmable land on Earth, saying they're too resource intensive is an undisputable fact.

ok and? seems like your gripe is with the industry not the meat itself.

But assuming you are correct, why is this a problem?

None meat can easily be farmed vertically


 No.2863587

>>2863576

>Do you have fucking brain cancer? It's LITERALLY the opposite of a moral statement, unless you think the ability to support life on earth for people is some kind of moral argument too? I'm not even a vegan jesus christ some of you fuckers need to neck yourselves, at least that won't make the problem worse.

Its a moral statement because it is only a problem to him if he views raising animals to eat as too resource intensive


 No.2863592

>>2863587

No it's simple fucking thermodynamics


 No.2863601

>>2863592

>No it's simple fucking thermodynamics

what?

your level of butthurt is pretty funny

do you have an actual argument?


 No.2863606


 No.2863607

>>2863519

>They're too resource intensive and too wasteful

Not really, they're jut being grown incorrectly.


 No.2863608


 No.2863610

>>2863601

The global population at current projected levels of growth and development is expected to peak at around 10 billion, and then start to decline as birth rates decrease. To sustain that level of meat consumption for which demand equal to that of western standards as economies develop, from livestock is literally impossible on our current trajectory. Do you realise how much of our water production + food production goes into farming livestock and how much arable land is dedicated to it? When you factor in how much arable land is going to be lost from climate change it is LITERALLY impossible to sustain our current levels of meat consumption, unless you're arguing for population controls (read: genocide) or just want to maintain your comfy western lifestyle and leave the third world to rot, in which case, you'd be a reactionary, as all mathusians and those kind of types are. This is basic fucking science larger lifeforms are less energy efficient for a few different reasons but primarily because they exist on higher trophic levels.


 No.2863614

>>2863610

>It's not true!

>I don't want it to be true!

>It's a moral argument!

>Genocide isn't so bad!

>Climate change don't real!

>Meat tasty!

>Soy turns you into a woman!

>Do you have proofs?

>Meat good!


 No.2863621


 No.2863624

>>2863610

>The global population at current projected levels of growth and development is expected to peak at around 10 billion, and then start to decline as birth rates decrease. To sustain that level of meat consumption for which demand equal to that of western standards as economies develop, from livestock is literally impossible on our current trajectory

this assumes we continue down the current trajectory, also assumes it is possible.

>Do you realise how much of our water production + food production goes into farming livestock and how much arable land is dedicated to it?

Yes and in western countries we are doing it fine. your point?

>When you factor in how much arable land is going to be lost from climate change it is LITERALLY impossible to sustain our current levels of meat consumption,

this ignores the amount of arable landed gained.

>unless you're arguing for population controls (read: genocide) or just want to maintain your comfy western lifestyle and leave the third world to rot, in which case, you'd be a reactionary, as all mathusians and those kind of types are.

<if you don't agree with me you're a reactionary.

Why its quite reactionary to push a bourgeois diet then!

But in all reality you're not really proving any points you're just making vague predictions and assuming that everyone on the planet needs to eat the same food.

>This is basic fucking science larger lifeforms are less energy efficient for a few different reasons but primarily because they exist on higher trophic levels.

if you have to get this worked up over it I don't you're doing accurate science.


 No.2863625


 No.2863627

>>2863621

>wants me to watch two hours of video in place of an argument

is this like how al gore said it wouldn't snow after 2012?


 No.2863632

File: 0b65138ce15ab8d⋯.png (111.02 KB, 500x340, 25:17, mao-lmao-33019731.png)

>>2863303

What could go wrong?


 No.2863646

>>2863624

>this assumes we continue down the current trajectory, also assumes it is possible.

Pray tell then, what do you think is going to happen?

>Yes and in western countries we are doing it fine. your point?

The production of livestock for western countries literally bleeds into the third world already, there are millions upon millions of acres of farmland in central + south america primarily for growing livestock that is sold + consumed in the first world. It doesn't work at scale when you have developing economies like China + India, with larger populations than anywhere in the first world, who are going to have much higher standards of living over the coming decades, which leads to consumption levels exponentially closer to that of the west. This means you need orders of magnitude greater arable land for both livestock + feed.

>this ignores the amount of arable landed gained.

Which is significantly less than is lost, mostly in fucking Russia lmao, when you account for all factors.

>Why its quite reactionary to push a bourgeois diet then!

What the fuck are you talking about nigger I'm not the other person arguing for enforced veganism, I'm saying that livestock consumption will be forced to go down because of real material factors related to capitalist development + climate change. Meanwhile all your arguments are denialism and deflection. I never fucking said anything about everyone on the planet needing to eat the same food. Are you retarded, you need biodiversity and it's not efficient to transport massive amounts of food across the globe to satisfy your autistic strawman about how we're going to force everyone to eat the same shit. Even just moving away from raising Cattle makes a massive fucking difference. I'm not a vegan, vegans are lifestylists who substitute liberal individualist ideology for politics. Plant based diet =/= veganism.

>if you have to get this worked up over it I don't you're doing accurate science.

< y-you're just mad!

??? non-sequitor

>>2863627

<Climate Change Denialism

Are you even a fucking Communist? I don't give a shit about Al Gore what the actual fuck are you even talking about? Climate Change is real, and it's likely going to be worse than the majority of publicised estimates. We need to drastically invest into things like Nuclear & Sustainable Energy, Advanced Agricultural technology, Lab grown food, etc if we ever even want to have a chance at engendering a Socialist Society, let alone a Communist one. The type of denialist bullshit you display is equally as disgusting as the "we're all fucked anyway" nihilism, just different sides of the same wretched liberalism.


 No.2863649

>>2863309

we need local parks that already have irrigated grass to be given to community centers and converted into organic farms that donate fresh produce to food banks

need grants or tax fund to be given to local organizers for cooperative and public ownership with profits going back into the fund to buy up more parks

if done correctly on a large scale this could gut grocery store markups on produce and destroy the monoculture truck and diesel industry while increasing crop diversity, sustainability and decentralized self reliance and increase child nutrition nationwide

similar systems were implemented in cuba during the embargo to massive success


 No.2863655

>>2863303

You’re preaching to the crowd m8


 No.2863660

>>2863318

>They will have to be re-engineered to be UNABLE To eat meat, and fortunately, there already exists a way to do this.

lmao what an absurd movie villain idea

>>2863331

>Imagine how much we could achieve if nations like China, Russia, Germany, Japan, the US were actually socialist. Imagine a Manhattan Project for climate change technologies,

this haunting specter infuriates me


 No.2863663

>>2863646

>Pray tell then, what do you think is going to happen?

Economic collapse most likely.

>The production of livestock for western countries literally bleeds into the third world already, there are millions upon millions of acres of farmland in central + south america primarily for growing livestock that is sold + consumed in the first world. It doesn't work at scale when you have developing economies like China + India, with larger populations than anywhere in the first world, who are going to have much higher standards of living over the coming decades, which leads to consumption levels exponentially closer to that of the west. This means you need orders of magnitude greater arable land for both livestock + feed.

You only need more land if this people choose to adopt a meat based diet. The chinese basically survive on rice and tons of indians don't get cows so this is a none issue.

>Which is significantly less than is lost, mostly in fucking Russia lmao, when you account for all factors.

Good you agree with me here.

>What the fuck are you talking about nigger I'm not the other person arguing for enforced veganism, I'm saying that livestock consumption will be forced to go down because of real material factors related to capitalist development + climate change

ok well thats just some silly predictions.

Even if that is true it would most likely happen in third world countries before it gets to us.

>Meanwhile all your arguments are denialism and deflection

I'm asking for evidence then denying your claims when you cannot provide me with such.

>I never fucking said anything about everyone on the planet needing to eat the same food.

It seems that way, how else do you figure we use too much land for animals.

>Are you retarded, you need biodiversity and it's not efficient to transport massive amounts of food across the globe to satisfy your autistic strawman about how we're going to force everyone to eat the same shit.

You literally just argued that it is impossible for everyone in the world to consume meat so now in the same post you're aguing that you didn't just make that argument. literally what .

>Even just moving away from raising Cattle makes a massive fucking difference. I'm not a vegan, vegans are lifestylists who substitute liberal individualist ideology for politics. Plant based diet =/= veganism.

yeah agreed.


 No.2863664

>>2863646

>>if you have to get this worked up over it I don't you're doing accurate science.

>

>< y-you're just mad!

>

>??? non-sequitor

Also I never said this


 No.2863667

>>2863646

>Are you even a fucking Communist? I don't give a shit about Al Gore what the actual fuck are you even talking about? Climate Change is real, and it's likely going to be worse than the majority of publicised estimates. We need to drastically invest into things like Nuclear & Sustainable Energy, Advanced Agricultural technology, Lab grown food, etc if we ever even want to have a chance at engendering a Socialist Society, let alone a Communist one. The type of denialist bullshit you display is equally as disgusting as the "we're all fucked anyway" nihilism, just different sides of the same wretched liberalism.

Climate change is real however its probably not man made and even if it continues there are pros and negatives to it

Also the earth has been much hotter before and life did fine


 No.2863676

>>2863667

> its probably not man made

Then what's causing it?

>Also the earth has been much hotter before and life did fine

Not when humans were around.

Who cares if life survives if WE don't?


 No.2863679

>>2863676

>Then what's causing it?

natural heating and cooling

>Not when humans were around.

>Who cares if life survives if WE don't?

how do you know humans weren't around


 No.2863687

>>2863676

>natural heating and cooling

That's not a real explanation.

What natural process is causing the heating? Heat can't come from nothing, thermodynamics won't allow for that. So, what natural heating process is causing climate change?

>how do you know humans weren't around

They aren't in the geological record.

Do you seriously think humans have always been around?


 No.2863691

>>2863687

>What natural process is causing the heating? Heat can't come from nothing, thermodynamics won't allow for that. So, what natural heating process is causing climate change?

then explain the ice age

>They aren't in the geological record.

>Do you seriously think humans have always been around?

Its quite possible.


 No.2863696

>>2863691

>then explain the ice age

>Its quite possible.

No it's not, you're retarded.


 No.2863699

>>2863691

>>2863696

gdi hit reply before i intended

but yeah, you're retarded, please kill yourself


 No.2863702

>>2863696

lol you can't even defend your own argument so you just shitpost after losing on the food debate

rekt


 No.2863703

>>2863663

>Economic collapse most likely.

Elaborate on how you think this going to play out.

>You only need more land if this people choose to adopt a meat based diet. The chinese basically survive on rice and tons of indians don't get cows so this is a none issue.

They already are lol, the point is that meat consumption is already going up, and since you need 4x the amount of land for feed and an also more land to actually raise the animals it's significantly more resource intensive. You've got a point about Hindus + Cows to be fair though lmao.

>Good you agree with me here.

So you're aware that it's a massive net loss then right? Agriculture in the Southern Hemisphere is going to be massively impacted, which is coincidentally, where most of the growth is happening, meaning a lot more people migrating into a much smaller landmass with less arable land. It won't be feasible for these places to import food and they need to invest massively in the things outlined in earlier posts.

>ok well thats just some silly predictions.

Go and read any mainstream climate report, in fact, read the IPCC one, and then realise they're massively downplaying this with the most conservative estimates.

>Even if that is true it would most likely happen in third world countries before it gets to us.

So I was right about you not being a Communist then? How can this be interpreted as anything other than an argument for Genocide?

>I'm asking for evidence then denying your claims when you cannot provide me with such.

<wants me to watch two hours of video in place of an argument

No you're not, this is literally a quote from you. You've already decided you don't give a shit about evidence. https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/ Here's one of the IPCC reports I alluded to earlier. Don't pretend you're refuting anything.

>It seems that way, how else do you figure we use too much land for animals.

If you had actually listened or read any of the evidence people have provided in this thread, you'd understand exactly why. Do you even understand how agriculture works?

>You literally just argued that it is impossible for everyone in the world to consume meat so now in the same post you're aguing that you didn't just make that argument. literally what .

Is English not your first language? I said that the levels of consumption of meat that are seen in the west cannot be sustained on a global level, because they are too resource intensive, requiring too much water, food + land. Biodiversity is neccessary because you need to be able to maintain food sources in case of crop failure through drought, disease or a multitude of other factors. You either didn't read what I said or you're lying.

>yeah agreed.

Ok good fam.

>>2863664

What you said was a non-sequitor. It's not a readable sentence and doesn't have a logical point. Also you were talking about how I was getting worked up, implying that apparently getting mad has anything to do with whether one is correct or not.

>Climate change is real however its probably not man made and even if it continues there are pros and negatives to it

>Also the earth has been much hotter before and life did fine

Jesus Christ pure fucking ideology. I'm done faggot you're either trolling or actually impossible to reason with.


 No.2863715

>>2863702

At a certain point a person realizing they're arguing with a retard and will never be able to convince them of anything, because they are so fucking stupid that they can't comprehended basic facts. When someone starts questioning if humans have been around since Earth was created, you know you've hit that point. Put yourself out of our misery you dumb sack of shit. I'm pissed to know that someone as stupid as you is going to be consuming precious resources we need to avoid extinction.


 No.2863723

>>2863703

>Elaborate on how you think this going to play out.

Capitalism in crisis

>They already are lol, the point is that meat consumption is already going up, and since you need 4x the amount of land for feed and an also more land to actually raise the animals it's significantly more resource intensive. You've got a point about Hindus + Cows to be fair though lmao.

I don't see how this is a probably, some people will end up not having meat. Big deal I'm not concerned with those people if civilization doesn't collapse we will find more efficient ways to meet demand why would we not?

>So you're aware that it's a massive net loss then right? Agriculture in the Southern Hemisphere is going to be massively impacted, which is coincidentally, where most of the growth is happening, meaning a lot more people migrating into a much smaller landmass with less arable land. It won't be feasible for these places to import food and they need to invest massively in the things outlined in earlier posts.

It is impossible to accurately predict the final results of theoretical processes whose effects we won't even see in our life time.

>Go and read any mainstream climate report, in fact, read the IPCC one, and then realise they're massively downplaying this with the most conservative estimates.

<go this to people trying to see you shit and capitalizing on climate hysteria

However while I don't care much for proving or disproving some lofty claim like global warm—-errrr i mean climate change :^) I am very much against factory farms and the amount of pollution that goes into it

>So I was right about you not being a Communist then? How can this be interpreted as anything other than an argument for Genocide?

No I am a communist. Veganism/plant based eating is not a communist position

>No you're not, this is literally a quote from you. You've already decided you don't give a shit about evidence. https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/ Here's one of the IPCC reports I alluded to earlier. Don't pretend you're refuting anything.

Prove its not natural

>If you had actually listened or read any of the evidence people have provided in this thread, you'd understand exactly why. Do you even understand how agriculture works

yes do you?seems not.

>Is English not your first language?

hebrew is you antisemite

>I said that the levels of consumption of meat that are seen in the west cannot be sustained on a global level

why are you assuming everyone has to/wants to eat at the same rate we do?

>because they are too resource intensive, requiring too much water, food + land.

why

>Biodiversity is neccessary because you need to be able to maintain food sources in case of crop failure through drought, disease or a multitude of other factors. You either didn't read what I said or you're lying.

I never argued against bio diversity


 No.2863725

>>2863715

>At a certain point a person realizing they're arguing with a retard and will never be able to convince them of anything, because they are so fucking stupid that they can't comprehended basic facts. When someone starts questioning if humans have been around since Earth was created, you know you've hit that point. Put yourself out of our misery you dumb sack of shit. I'm pissed to know that someone as stupid as you is going to be consuming precious resources we need to avoid extinction.

<I can't prove my argument so you're a retard

<I'm stating fact! I don't need evidence!

sure thing bud


 No.2863733

>>2863725

I am not going to look up and prove for you that humans haven't always been on Earth. Type the words into google yourself and learn about it if you want, but I'm not your 1st grade teacher. If you aren't already aware that humans didn't roam the Earth with dinosaurs, there is no hope for you.


 No.2863735

>>2863723

>hebrew is you antisemite

Nice job outing yourself you fucking spastic.


 No.2863774

>>2863733

>>2863735

well you're out of arguments I see

QED vegans rekt again


 No.2863777

File: c029f1b1b4776df⋯.png (14.58 KB, 528x434, 264:217, .png)


 No.2863782

>>2863777

butthurt


 No.2863787

>>2863782

I base my beliefs on whoever is the least mad.

Anyone who gets mad about anything is automatically wrong, because emotions are irrational.


 No.2863795

>>2863318

TBH I've thought about this a lot, it seems like a brilliant idea, I'm surprised some deep green niggas aren't already weaponising the Lonestar tick - or at the very least capturing them and spreading to all corners of the populated globe.


 No.2863797

Veganism is bourgeois virtue


 No.2863798

>>2863391

>only pregnant women should eat meat

>posts an image of roasted lamb dishes


 No.2863799

>>2863632

Not much. It takes 12 pounds of grain and 3500 liters of water to produce 1 pound of meat, so unless nobody thinks to replace the loss of proteins and the like, people will end up with more food.


 No.2863803

>>2863797

It isn't, though? Bourgeoisie consume the finest steaks money can buy?


 No.2863805

>>2863803

>It isn't, though? Bourgeoisie consume the finest steaks money can buy?

but that is all artificial though its a show put on my restaurants to make it look expensive. They eat nice looking dishes because of the look not because of the meat.

the average prol goes to the deli and get meat by the pound cheap.


 No.2863806

>>2863803

the typical upperclass yuppie goes to Whole Foods and drinks vegan smoothies


 No.2863813

>>2863806

>liberals do it

They also support feminism. Should we ditch the entire thing too, because they liberals are fucking idiots?


 No.2863816

>>2863813

>They also support feminism. Should we ditch the entire thing too, because they liberals are fucking idiots?

feminism is redundancy

any problems women have will be solved with the abolition of capitalism focus on anything other than class struggle delays such.

Liberal feminism doesn't even seek the liberation of women but only to elevate some women to bourgeois status


 No.2863818

>>2863805

The average prole can't eat meat by the pound. That's just first world proles where meat is kept artificially cheap.


 No.2863823

File: defc0588e635279⋯.jpg (296.66 KB, 1024x768, 4:3, fish-aquaponics.jpg)

>Have large quantities of offspring

>Can easily be maintained

>Can be easily fed using meal scrap and waste broken down by fly larvae

>Can be used in aquaponics to provide nutrients and nitrogen to plants

>Everything from crustaceans to salt-water fish can be used

>Are fucking delicious l, especially when smoked and chilled

>Are objectively better than 🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧vegetables🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧

Why haven't you taken the fish-pill anons?


 No.2863828

>>2863823

Because oceans are overfished.


 No.2863832

>>2863823

Aquaponics is a meme.


 No.2863837

>>2863818

>The average prole can't eat meat by the pound. That's just first world proles where meat is kept artificially cheap.

yeah and?


 No.2863842

>>2863828

>Implying

Farm raising exists. The only reason farm-raising is considered bad currently is because of the methods used to keep costs down. You can mass-breed fish for consumption in proportionally far smaller areas than livestock and with far less resources. Also, sea-fishing is entirely still viable with set quotas and rotation fishing.

>>2863832

Only reason it isn't utilized now is the cost and the lack of investment compared to other operations. There is no reason it could not be implemented large scale, especially if both systems are kept a distance apart from each other.


 No.2863848

>>2863842

>If we just ignore cost the problems go away!


 No.2863858

>>2863848

Cost in regards to society today, which is based on the demand and the popularity of the system as well as it's competiton to sea-farming which does not require any maintenance for the stock in question.


 No.2863861

>>2863858

I'd like to see the math for how much it would cost to feed the world with aquaponics. I'm willing to bet it would be too expensive.


 No.2863863

>>2863848

>>2863861

>>2863832

>Globally, aquaculture supplies more that 50 percent of all seafood produced for human consumption—and that percentage will continue to rise.

https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/topic/aquaculture#4howmuch


 No.2863864

>>2863333

>Just about everything you need can be found in vegan food.

Nope. Vitamins D, A, K, E are fat soluble. Your body literally can't process them without you taking animal fats.

>B12

Just a reminder that vegans take B12 supplements created from cow gut bacteria.

>black beans

Enjoy that lovely lectin toxicity fucking up your guts.

>>2863360

>Meat eaters tent to be obese.

Yeah, if you rely on shit "vegan science" which does not distinguish people eating meat from people eating meat from junk food. Include the latter into any statistical category and its going to fuck up the groups overall health statistics.

>>2863396

Look up fucking "vegan influencers" on youtube like Freelee. Vegans are so malnourished that they compensate their qualitative undernourishment with quantitative food intake: they eat excessive amounts of food. Freelee eats like 5 kgs of banana each day. It's fucking crazy and completely unsustainable.

>>2863378

>lentils, beans

Enjoy your lectins.

>>2863391

>Meat should unironically be reserved for pregnant women.

Your body literally can not function properly on a biological level if you don't consume meat, you absolute retard. Look up the dozens of ex-vegans coming out right now on Youtube. Some of them almost died from your unscientific diet. You are an omnivore and no amount of moralist bullshit is changing that fact.

You are literally advocating for something that is super damaging to your fellow human beings so that you could feel superior to them, you utter piece of shit.


 No.2863868

>>2863433

>>vegans are malnourished

>Blatantly wrong

Idiot. Look up these compilations of how people's bodies changed thanks to your super healthy diet:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EFF30jfTubU

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1HwBtRlyxPs

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PJnPZgLHHWQ

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PFnkWjmvMOA

Vegans develop a wide range of health problems from diabetes through dental issues to completely fucking up their guts. Mental symptoms occur. Brain fog. Depression.


 No.2863869

>>2863864

>Nope. Vitamins D, A, K, E are fat soluble. Your body literally can't process them without you taking animal fats.

Animal fats in particular?

>Just a reminder that vegans take B12 supplements created from cow gut bacteria.

It's created from vegetation that ends up in the cow gut – mushrooms and seaweed have it too naturally. Either way, even if what you said was true, supplements are a small price to pay for ecological sustainability.

>Enjoy that lovely lectin toxicity fucking up your guts.

Nobody's going to eat black beans and nothing else – there's other complete proteins but black beans and rice are just one simple combo.

>>2863868

>Cherrypicking

So much for intellectual honesty.


 No.2863870

>>2863774

I'm not a vegan retard, but jesus christ I see why they hate people like you now. I guess Social Fascists are unlikeable in all walks of life.


 No.2863872

File: fad9c4463d2bb72⋯.jpg (116.63 KB, 500x733, 500:733, 1508612314414.jpg)

>>2863864

>Enjoy that lovely lectin toxicity fucking up your guts.

Yea that only happens if you eat them raw you dumbass. Ever heard of cooking?


 No.2863874

>>2863863

aquaculture != aquaponics

That's just regular fish farming, which is itself pretty terrible for the environment.


 No.2863878

>>2863872

You can't remove them completely with cooking only reduce the toxicity. The farting that follows eating beans is due to your guts being irritated by a fucking toxin. Consuming lectin leads to allergic reactions and nutritional deficiency.

>>2863869

>>Cherrypicking

It's called overwhelming evidence. Just look up for yourself any 5yrs+ vegan channel on youtube. Check how the person looked when s/he started and a few years later. All of them look like shit: anemic, skin problems, malnourished, losing teeth, hair.


 No.2863882

>>2863878

>The farting that follows eating beans is due to your guts being irritated by a fucking toxin

lol wtf no it's not, it's from fiber

you're as bad as retarded vegans that say the casein protein in cheese is poisonous and addictive


 No.2863884

>>2863878

If you cook them well enough (like you're supposed to) the lectin will be gone or at the least virtually inexistant – just like cooking chicken to remove salmonella, you wouldn't say that cooking only partially removes the pathogens from it, right?

>It's called overwhelming evidence

If one person can do it right then that's all the evidence that's needed to substantiate a sound theory. Using "evidence" in this regard is like saying that all those communist revolutions failing is "proof" communism doesn't work. See >>2863333.


 No.2863887

File: 04369a8e0f5bcb8⋯.jpg (83.42 KB, 788x685, 788:685, 1501984677657.jpg)

>>2863608

Ladies and gentlemen… the man, the meme, the dabber


 No.2863889

>>2863884

Salmonella is a bacteria, a living thing, a microorganism. Of course it dies when you cook it. Lectin is a protein, you can't just remove it since it constitutes the very thing you are eating.

>If one person can do it right then that's all the evidence that's needed to substantiate a sound theory.

Too bad we can't find that single person.

>like saying that all those communist revolutions failing is "proof" communism doesn't work

bait-tier


 No.2863891

>>2863870

>I'm not a vegan retard, but jesus christ I see why they hate people like you now. I guess Social Fascists are unlikeable in all walks of life.

<if you're not a vegan you're a SOCIAL FASCIST

wut


 No.2863892

>>2863331

>synthetic meat

/thread


 No.2863894


 No.2863896

File: aba0cc9b161792a⋯.jpeg (80.97 KB, 1280x853, 1280:853, AF60841C-8D64-4E94-BA97-9….jpeg)

>>2863537

Based and bugpilled.


 No.2863899

File: 44937c893656c03⋯.jpg (95.43 KB, 598x598, 1:1, 1498854336083.jpg)

>>2863892

imma show you synthetic meat


 No.2863900

File: e56b2ee223930cb⋯.png (111.14 KB, 640x640, 1:1, 358.png)

File: f209cc9a7bee7e8⋯.png (347.1 KB, 887x612, 887:612, 1.png)

File: a853a6227f63168⋯.png (491.03 KB, 892x892, 1:1, 2.png)

File: bfacd694c406b1c⋯.png (534.38 KB, 895x878, 895:878, 3.png)


 No.2863902

File: fff08d7dd0078b5⋯.jpg (32.69 KB, 720x611, 720:611, 1504993488797.jpg)

File: 94856a75421edb0⋯.png (1.58 MB, 1884x1214, 942:607, 1.png)

File: 5d016089bf0a370⋯.jpg (572.15 KB, 2014x1795, 2014:1795, 2.jpg)

File: 439e6ee5c20e04f⋯.jpg (580.21 KB, 2194x1787, 2194:1787, 3.jpg)


 No.2863907

>>2863902

>a long record of personal experiences with veganism is like anti-communist bourgeois-pushed propaganda

Your brain is broken, dude.


 No.2863909

>>2863900

>>2863902

>youtube's algorithm is an objective and trustworthy conveyor of information


 No.2863911

>>2863892

Trying to go straight for lab-grown meat is going to take a long time, and probably too long to address climate change. I think we can skip a step by making synthetic meat that uses lab-grown animal fat + vegetable protein combined together. Unfortunately the market for this commodity is too small for capitalism to bother producing it. Biohackers might be able to, but otherwise eh


 No.2863912

>>2863909

I don't care about the algorithm, I'm interested in the symptoms all of these ex-vegans are describing since they are pointing to one possible conclusion.


 No.2863913

>>2863911

The short term can be handled with rationing of consumption and planning of production. 150 grams per day is enough.


 No.2863917

>>2863912

>I don't care if I'm cherrypicking, I will only discuss vegan health outcomes in the form of the individual experiences of a few dozen Youtube celebs


 No.2863918

>>2863917

>Vegan ecelebs are okay with me as long as their health doesn't start deteriorating due to the diet and start eating meat again. From that point on they are bad ecelebs.

>few dozens

I'm pretty sure the vegan moment is losing its momentum all around the globe due to fucking obvious reasons.


 No.2863919

>>2863918

*movement


 No.2863921

>>2863918

There's literally more vegans than ever before, what are you talking about?


 No.2863929

>>2863918

Here's what happened with most of these "vegans"

1. They become vegan because it's trendy and cool, or because they saw a documentary once, or because it generates activity for their Youtube channel.

2. They did zero research and put in zero effort, and eventually become malnourished because they aren't eating balanced meals.

3. They give up because they never really cared about being vegan in the first place, and because they've never had to work for anything in their lives anyway.

4. The backlash generates a bunch of views and comments and channel activity, which then causes Youtube's algorithm to promote these videos.

5. You screenshot them and own the vegans epic style XD

What, exactly, do you think this proves?


 No.2863932

>>2863864

>Fat only exists in animals.

>>2863889

>Proteins don't change by heating.

This isn't even bro-science tier.


 No.2863942

>>2863929

Most of these people were vegans for 5+ years, some of them 10+. Most of them had balanced diets (whatever the fuck that means on an unbalanced diet like veganism), tried out different things to eat, went from cooked to raw vegan, tried fruit-based only, soy, etc. and took vitamins. The very reason they tried out different options while remaining vegan is the health issues all of them started experiencing. A lot of them went to doctors who insisted they should start eating meat again and refused only to let their health deteriorate even further.

The funniest thing is that when they started eating meat again they described how fast all of those skin, gut and psychological problems went away.

I just love how vegans automatically pull the "they weren't doing it properly" card. It really shows what a cult this is, those leaving for obvious medical problems viewed as betrayals or not-true-cult-members.

>>2863932

The closest thing to a proper fat source is avocado, one of the most unsustainable options out there.

>>Proteins don't change by heating.

Said no one.


 No.2863944

>>2863942

>went from cooked to raw vegan, tried fruit-based only, soy, etc.

Stop.

These people are retards. There's nothing healthy about eating raw food, or only eating fruit, or whatever the fuck. If this is what most of these people are doing to try and be healthy, no wonder they failed - they're fucking stupid.

I bet they vote for the green party and think wifi gives them cancer too.

But that is not really representative of most vegans. Again, you're just cherrypicking people who are presented to you by Youtube's algorithm.


 No.2863946

>>2863944

god what the fuck I'm thinking about it more, honestly eating only RAW food would make you even more unhealthy! "hurr i keep eating raw beans why am i not getting any protein" holy fuck these dumb people i wish they'd fucking died from their retarded diets


 No.2863952

>>2863944

>These people are retards. There's nothing healthy about eating raw food, or only eating fruit, or whatever the fuck.

Can you read, nigger?

<<The very reason they tried out different options while remaining vegan is the health issues all of them started experiencing.

They are struggling to remain vegans, hence these idiotic and heroic attempts on their parts.

It's literally impossible to maintain a healthy vegan diet, because you are a fucking omnivore, not a herbivore. I'm not cherrypicking anything. These are biological facts and these people getting sick on a nutrition profile not meant for humans is consistent with those facts.

https://medium.com/@zelphontheshelf/10-signs-youre-probably-in-a-cult-1921eb5a3857


 No.2863956

File: f5e6b803bb3fdad⋯.jpg (11.72 KB, 250x201, 250:201, 2ae4bcdf810f39ee7caebcc417….jpg)

>>2863952

>omnivore means you need meat


 No.2863957

>>2863318

why can't we do this to make people allergic to gay


 No.2863961

>>2863952

>They are struggling to remain vegans, hence these idiotic and heroic attempts on their parts.

Or you have cause-and-effect backwards: they struggled to remain vegan because they were idiots, which is why they became more idiotic as they struggled harder.

>I'm not cherrypicking anything.

You literally are. You're cherrypicking videos recommended to you by Youtube's algorithm as if this proves anything. It's nonsense. Not only are the results cherrypicked, but they aren't even themselves picked from a representative sample of the population! This isn't strong evidence.

Look at actual studies of plant-based diets. They're universally considered healthier than the standard diet.

https://www.nature.com/articles/nutd20173

Does that mean that it's the MOST healthy dietary choice? Probably not, unfortunately. As you said, we ARE omnivores. But it would be a vast improvement for most people, because most people eat like shit anyway.

tbh I think we can find a compromise position and just eat insects. Vegans that get hung up on the suffering of insects are autistic and no one likes them anyway, and you can get all your nutrition from insects so you don't have to worry about your gains. Sound fair?


 No.2863963

>>2863957

It only works because primates don't produce alpha-gal on their own, and so the body rejects it. Gay people DO produce cum on their own, though, so injecting them with more cum won't make them allergic.


 No.2863968

File: 1d7a38b74d35697⋯.gif (17.25 KB, 303x299, 303:299, 1d7a38b74d35697fc46bc4640c….gif)

>meat-farming is environmentally damaging the larger the population, and an inefficient source of food

<muh nature, muh bourgeois decadence

>replacing exploitation by bourgeoisie with markets forcing workers to exploit themselves isn't an improvement, nor efficient

<it's actually efficient because reasons, muh Yugoslavia, muh freedom

>religious institutions were, are and will continue to be reactionary and will oppose our cause and oppress the people

<but I was brought up religious, it's all I know, please you need Jesus to be moral, I wanna keep the church

Pearl-clutching. Every fucking time.


 No.2863973

>>2863961

>Look at actual studies of plant-based diets. They're universally considered healthier than the standard diet.

Everything is healthier than the standard diet, because the standard diet is junk food.

I don't hold the same ethical standards towards animals as I do towards humans, therefore I have absolutely no problems with raising, killing, and eating animals. I'd love to try out insects, but they are no adequate substitute for proper meats, because most insect species are very low on B12, Retinol, and β-carotene, while being too high on fiber.

>>2863968

>we shouldn't eat what we are biologically determined to be needing

hmmmm


 No.2863981

>>2863973

>Everything is healthier than the standard diet, because the standard diet is junk food.

True, but the point stands. If veganism is necessary, we'll be able to survive with a reasonable quality of life.

>I don't hold the same ethical standards towards animals as I do towards humans, therefore I have absolutely no problems with raising, killing, and eating animals.

That's fine, I don't either. I do think animals deserve more ethical concern than we currently give them, but my main concerns are related to the environment and labor.

Meat production at a scale needed to sustain 10 billion people is impossible without destroying the environment. It's too inefficient and creates too many negative externalities. I'm not even sure if we can feed everyone with a plant-based diet, let alone a diet where everyone eats as much meat as they want.

And someone has to slaughter our meat for us, and its probably the worst job on Earth. The people who have to perform industrial scale slaughter face numerous physical, psychological, and sociological damages that can not be fairly compensated. The levels of mental and physical illness caused by slaughterhouses can not be understated. I don't think there is a way to make the job humane for the humans performing it, and there's no place for slaughterhouses after the revolution.

Hunting and very small scale slaughter may be permitted, but industrial meat is not possible.

>I'd love to try out insects, but they are no adequate substitute for proper meats, because most insect species are very low on B12, Retinol, and β-carotene, while being too high on fiber.

Not all insects are created equal, but mealworms specifically are very high in B12.

And uh, β-carotene comes from vegetables dude. Sweet potatoes, carrots, dark leafy greens, butternut squash, you know? And the body converts β-carotene to Rentinol on its own.

As for being "too much fiber", most people need more fiber anyway. They'd probably benefit.


 No.2863987

File: eacadda8c0f2e46⋯.png (298.69 KB, 1075x624, 1075:624, fiber.png)

>>2863981

>Meat production at a scale needed to sustain 10 billion people is impossible without destroying the environment. It's too inefficient and creates too many negative externalities.

Here's an option for a global scale (since we are talking about extreme scenarios): adults who don't reproduce get to buy meat at normal prices, those who do at double the price for each child they have. Two problems at once.

>muh PTSD from industrial slaughterhouses

This is the most ridiculous thing I've read in this thread. We've been slaughtering animals from the very beginning of our species, using much more primitive and inefficient, hence gorier means to do it. If anything we made slaughtering cleaner, faster, less gory and more efficient. To say that somehow the industrial scale is responsible for "psychological suffering" of the workers – and not the actual conditions of a workplace – is pure ideology. It is the most dishonest tactic on your part to pretend to be caring for your fellow humans while you are in fact only obsessed with animals and the perceived purity of your soul.

And by the way: not even the fucking gestapos had psychological problems and they were exterminating human beings on an industrial scale.

Pure. Fucking. Ideology.

>most people need more fiber

No, they don't. In fact, the opposite.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xqUO4P9ADI0

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UJjp6fTGq6g


 No.2863990

>>2863987

>And by the way: not even the fucking gestapos had psychological problems and they were exterminating human beings on an industrial scale.

bullshit


 No.2864001

>>2863990

I'm sorry to burst your bubble, but it's the truth. Evil can be normalized, and it becomes banal and mundane very easily.

The thing about the psyche is that it is intimately connected to the dominant ideology. In other words there are no "objective" traumatizing factors (well, unless we are talking of bodily harm and the sort) like killing an animal or a fellow human being.

When you kill for your army you are awarded, when you kill as a civilian, punished. It's the same act of killing, yet triggers separate response from society and in your psyche. Thus there's nothing inherently traumatizing in slaughtering animals. You can make it seem problematic, sure, but that will be due to your political act, and not some kind of inherent or objective ethical standard "finally" surfacing.


 No.2864020

We don't need to completely eliminate meat but it's pretty obvious that having an entire populace refuse to eat a meal if it's not 80% beef is just not sustainable.

Meat needs to be pushed back to its place of being a small but important part of a meal alongside a healthy mix of vegetables and fruit and some grains.


 No.2864032

>>2863987

lol holy shit are you a ptsd denialist?


 No.2864035

>>2864001

even more bullshit

do you think any nazi was sent to do the killings? they knew who to sene to do what. it's one thing to fight in a war, which you perceive as honorablr, and quite another to work in a camp and fill mass graves with starved prisoners


 No.2864042

>>2864032

I don't approve of DSM categories.

>>2864035

>Gitta Sereny makes the same point in her book “Into That Darkness,” about Franz Stangl, the commandant of Treblinka. The assignment to the SS was a promotion for the Austrian policeman. Stangl was not a sadist. He was soft-spoken and polite. He loved his wife and children very much. Unlike most Nazi camp officers, he did not take Jewish women as concubines. He was efficient and highly organized. He took pride in having received an official commendation as the “best camp commander in Poland.” Prisoners were simply objects. Goods. “That was my profession,” he said. “I enjoyed it. It fulfilled me. And yes, I was ambitious about that, I won’t deny it.” When Sereny asked Stangl how as a father he could kill children, he answered that he “rarely saw them as individuals. It was always a huge mass. … [T]hey were naked, packed together, running, being driven with whips. …” He later told Sereny that when he read about lemmings it reminded him of Treblinka.

>Christopher Browning’s collection of essays, “The Path to Genocide,” notes that it was the “moderate,” “normal” bureaucrats, not the zealots, who made the Holocaust possible. Germaine Tillion pointed out “the tragic easiness [during the Holocaust] with which ‘decent’ people could become the most callous executioners without seeming to notice what was happening to them.” The Russian novelist Vasily Grossman in his book “Forever Flowing” observed that “the new state did not require holy apostles, fanatic, inspired builders, faithful, devout disciples. The new state did not even require servants — just clerks.”

https://www.truthdig.com/articles/the-careerists/


 No.2864046

>>2864042

>I don't approve of DSM categories.

lol ofc

why is it that people with bizarre dietary beliefs ALWAYS have a shittonne of other bizarre beliefs about literally everything?


 No.2864053

>>2864046

You don't need to believe in every quackery to be critical about the DSM.

Even the American Psychological Association, the British Psychological Society, and the American Counseling Association had reluctences about the last edition.

The principal problem is see about it is the big gap between what it is, a simple imperfect tool, and how it is treated by the the health system: the bible whose diagnostics commends hospitalizations and treatment, insurance billing and FDA approval for new drugs.


 No.2864054

>>2863562

implying a prairie where livestock eat can necessarily be farmed. also conveniently forgetting they can be fed hay, ya know, the part of wheat we dont eat. meat is very effective as nurishment, and going without creates much complication, also forgetting, the crazy effectiveness of meat to make things tasteful with minimal preparation.

we can reduce meat comsumption but planning to stop it is plainly retarded


 No.2864060

>>2863309

>We need national-scale veganism

No, we need to stay secular, there is a point about animal cruelty and CO2 emissions in food production, however we cannot bow to religions like veganism, if laboratory meat grown in vats also fixes the issues that that is acceptable to. There isn't going to be a social hierarchy based on what kind of food you eat.

No food-tribalism like fruit-tribe vs meat-tribe.

>multi-story farms

Not possible with current technology,not even close. If You stack agriculture you'll have to ad artificial lights, we cannot even come close to that kind of electricity generation at present.

>>2863317

>people in my party romanticize traditional agriculture and especially raising cattle and sheep

Well traditional animal farming was not very damaging to ecology. However it was brutally hard work for very little reward.

> but it is so engrained in them.

Well find out what parts of herder culture you can bring back.


 No.2864065

>>2864053

>the DSM-V has problems

>therefore nothing it deals with is true

hmmm


 No.2864070

>>2864065

Bourgeois economics has a lot of problems, that doesn't mean that its object (economy) is not real.

>nothing it deals with is true

Objects of science aren't true or false, they exist. Scientific categorization, theories, etc. can be true or not.


 No.2864073

>>2863333

You're partially right, VEGETARIANISM is 100% viable, I haven't seen any form of veganism that isn't borderline death-cult tier, "refugee cum is technically vegan" soy-boyism.


 No.2864075

File: 3c187662dd5b02b⋯.png (141.03 KB, 505x696, 505:696, 1555321093610.png)

Are you eating healthy enough to feed your toilet tree?


 No.2864119

>>2863799

id take one pound of meat over 12 of grains any day though


 No.2864120

>>2864042

I honestly don't understand what those quotes are supposed to prove

I said they knew who to send to do what and you give me a guy who is a fucking sociopath (he sees his prisoners as OBJECTS, as GOODS) and the reason why you think he's just a normal guy is that he's soft-spoken and not a sadist, so not some frothing-at-the-mouth caricature of a madman

so if a serial killer is polite, soft-spoken and kill cleanly and quickly, he's just a regular guy

the second quote is vague as fuck, since a clerk doesn't actually physically kill anyone, and handling paper for a genocidal regime is morally easier for people than pulling a trigger in a camp (far from eyes, far from mind)


 No.2864121

>>2864119

you're either gonna take those grains or you're gonna starve, fuck off


 No.2864133

>>2863894

>>2863891

Climate Change Denialism, which is what this first faggot has been doing the entire thread, is a bannable offense. Idk why the fuck you're replying to me you lenin hat retard, I'm literally not a vegan and am not advocating for veganism (Veganism is a lifestylist political ideology that blames individuals for systemic problems and privileges animals over humans, all I'm arguing is that Climate Change is going to force us to drastically move away from Livestock Farming and likely towards things like Lab Grown Meat & Insects alongside more Plant-Based Diets). Both of you on the other hand are advocating for the genocide of the third world by proxy because of your weird fetishism against Veganism. Yes we know, Veganism is moralist nonsense, stop pretending that everyone here is arguing for veganism because you know you can't win on any other terms. Absolutely pathetic.


 No.2864141

>>2864133

>I'm arguing is that Climate Change is going to force us to drastically move away from Livestock Farming and likely towards things like Lab Grown Meat & Insects alongside more Plant-Based Diets).

Yet there is no evidence of this and ignores the land gain from global warming that is currently under ice.

>Both of you on the other hand are advocating for the genocide of the third world by proxy

not at all

>because of your weird fetishism against Veganism. Yes we know, Veganism is moralist nonsense, stop pretending that everyone here is arguing for veganism because you know you can't win on any other terms. Absolutely pathetic.

Arguing against veganism is not fetishism against veganism.


 No.2864148

>>2864141

>Yet there is no evidence of this and ignores the land gain from global warming that is currently under ice.

There is ample fucking evidence you are just repeatedly refusing to engage with it

>not at all

>Climate change is real however its probably not man made and even if it continues there are pros and negatives to it

>Also the earth has been much hotter before and life did fine

>Even if that is true it would most likely happen in third world countries before it gets to us.

Pretty easy to infer the subtext from these positions

<Arguing against veganism is not fetishism against veganism.

It fucking is when you strawman, deflect and dismiss the people who aren't vegans to only argue against veganism, and then repeatedly accuse me of being a fucking vegan when I've said multiple times why I think veganism is retarded. Veganism is fucking retarded, there was ONE person arguing for Veganism in the entire thread, yet you continue to pretend other people are arguing for Veganism. You are being intellectually dishonest on purpose.


 No.2864151

>>2864148

>There is ample fucking evidence you are just repeatedly refusing to engage with it

<there is evidence you're just not looking!! and no I'm going going to prove my claim you need to do that

yeah ok bud still no evidence

>Pretty easy to infer the subtext from these positions

nope

>It fucking is when you strawman, deflect and dismiss the people who aren't vegans to only argue against veganism, and then repeatedly accuse me of being a fucking vegan when I've said multiple times why I think veganism is retarded.

>Well I started out arguing against OP's veganism then sudden when veganism was btfo'd they dialed back and came up with random arguments against meat

>Veganism is fucking retarded, there was ONE person arguing for Veganism in the entire thread, yet you continue to pretend other people are arguing for Veganism. You are being intellectually dishonest on purpose.

ok so you admit I'm right on the Vegan question


 No.2864157

>>2864121

delusional


 No.2864161

>>2864151

>ok so you admit I'm right on the Vegan question

We never disagreed, yet here you are dismissing everything else and declaring yourself the "victor" of a non-existent argument. What the actual fuck is wrong with you? You do realise Veganism advocates for ZERO use of animal products in all sectors right? There is such a huge difference between Veganism and saying that current Livestock Farming is unsustainable and will need to be changed a lot (You keep bringing up the gained land, but it's less than we lose and it doesnt' account for the sheer costs of migration to the first world and the transtional period to change biodiversity in a way that makes it sustainable to farm industrially in Russia, if you have billions of people migrating to the 1st world, where consumption of meat is much higher, then suddenly you have a very big problem). Everyone can see what you're doing here, you've been absolutely BTFO so you're pivoting the discussion to a thing that we never disagreed on, and then lying about what people are advocating for so you can declare yourself winner on the internet. Point me to where I said one time that Veganism was necessary. Where's your evidence?


 No.2864164

>>2864161

>We never disagreed, yet here you are dismissing everything else and declaring yourself the "victor" of a non-existent argument

>What the actual fuck is wrong with you? You do realise Veganism advocates for ZERO use of animal products in all sectors right?

This whole thread my main argument was against veganism and against not eating meat, you're just complaining about a failed attempt to make the argument into something its not.

>You keep bringing up the gained land, but it's less than we lose and it doesnt' account for the sheer costs of migration to the first world and the transtional period to change biodiversity in a way that makes it sustainable to farm industrially in Russia, if you have billions of people migrating to the 1st world, where consumption of meat is much higher, then suddenly you have a very big problem

Migration into the first world is even more unsustainable than Livestock farming. That would have to be ended before Livestock farming.

>Everyone can see what you're doing here,

theres like two people here what are you talking about?

>you've been absolutely BTFO so you're pivoting the discussion to a thing that we never disagreed on,\

Not a single person has been able to counter my anti vegan arguments. so you're incorrect there.

>and then lying about what people are advocating for so you can declare yourself winner on the internet.

see above

>Point me to where I said one time that Veganism was necessary. Where's your evidence?

Read the thread. I started replying to OP about veganism then you replied to my replies. How am I supposed to know you're not the vegan if there are not post IDs and you don't use a flag?


 No.2864170

>>2863318

> EXCEPT for primates

Does that mean "immunized" people could still eat primates?

>humans turn into cannibals

Thanks vegans


 No.2864173

File: 776658810c70fd6⋯.jpg (66.82 KB, 798x776, 399:388, 4408737-lol i'm soup.jpg)


 No.2864236

>>2864164

>This whole thread my main argument was against veganism and against not eating meat, you're just complaining about a failed attempt to make the argument into something its not.

I engaged you on completely different terms, as did other posters.

>Migration into the first world is even more unsustainable than Livestock farming. That would have to be ended before Livestock farming.

Ok well when the Global South turns into a literal dustbowl where do you think they're going to fucking go lmao? Are you going to kill them all? You realise that Arab Spring was literally caused by Drought destabilizing food supplies at the root right? This isn't a political reality in the future, it's happening RIGHT NOW and it's being massively exacerbated by Imperialism, Capitalist Development and the absolute refusal of any Bourgeois government to take even the slightest measures necessary.

>theres like two people here what are you talking about?

There are more than 2 people here, as you can see by the flags, which later on in this post you point out as an excuse

>Not a single person has been able to counter my anti vegan arguments. so you're incorrect there.

I mean I'm half shitposting because you're being purposefully obtuse but again I never engaged you on veganism so? Why are you talking about other people, I'm replying to you, you've repeatedly asked for evidence, been provided with it, and then dismissed it and asked for more evidence. Me making a statement isn't evidence, as you've said yourself so your refusal to engage with actual scientific material is on you. I didn't engage with the vegans because other people already were refuting them.

>see above

wew

>Read the thread. I started replying to OP about veganism then you replied to my replies. How am I supposed to know you're not the vegan if there are not post IDs and you don't use a flag?

How am I supposed to know you're the same poster when there are no post IDs and you don't use a flag? Oh right because I have reading comprehension and can tell the difference between different people based on what they're saying, their syntax, grammer + conversational style. Are you just being a sophist on purpose now?

Yes ok I'm mad on the internet, please feel free to point that out again as if it's an argument at all. Don't pretend you're not fucking trolling when you say shit like

<hebrew is you antisemite

You've repeatedly refused to engage with other points people have made and have consistently misrepresented posters positions, as if it's our responsibility to help you keep track of imageboard posting. You are a living meme, and it's actually wild you haven't been banned for rule #4 yet.


 No.2864252

>>2864060

>lab grown meat

the hurls carnists will go through just avoid eating real food that won't reduce their lifespan


 No.2864266

>>2864170

Well cannibalism WOULD help the environment.


 No.2864271

>>2864236

>I engaged you on completely different terms, as did other posters.

like I said it is completely impossible to tell you from the vegans if you do not identify yourself, however anti vegan topics were my main point here.

>Ok well when the Global South turns into a literal dustbowl where do you think they're going to fucking go lmao?Are you going to kill them all?

this requires that to actually happen though.

>You realise that Arab Spring was literally caused by Drought destabilizing food supplies at the root right?

The arab spring was a result of US imperialism.

>This isn't a political reality in the future, it's happening RIGHT NOW and it's being massively exacerbated by Imperialism, Capitalist Development and the absolute refusal of any Bourgeois government to take even the slightest measures necessary.

I agree. However allowing billions to move into the first world would make life unsustainable so migration must be stopped


 No.2864361

>>2864271

>like I said it is completely impossible to tell you from the vegans if you do not identify yourself, however anti vegan topics were my main point here.

You can keep saying this but this thread is about more than Veganism

>this requires that to actually happen though.

There is overwhelming evidence that without extreme ecological measures taken within the next 10 years that this is exactly what's going to happen. 1.5c of warming is already beyond our control, if we reach 2c or more then within the next 20 years then indicators are that we're going to be up shit creek. If you look at any of the projected maps for arable land, the Global South faces severe desertification. This is on top of the looming global crisis that which will hit within the next 18 months and increasing interimperialist competition, which themselves will not only make these issues worse, but likely lead to massive war, famine & migration in many areas of the Global South.

>The arab spring was a result of US imperialism.

What do you think opened the door to US destabilization efforts in the first place? You can find multiple sources indicating the initial tensions were from rising food prices caused by climate change impacting harvests, literally go and type in "Arab Spring Drought" into google. This was an absolute Dream of an opportunity for the CIA among others to ferment civil unrest, another tool in utility belt of Imperial Strategy in the Middle East.

>I agree. However allowing billions to move into the first world would make life unsustainable so migration must be stopped

You keep saying this but you haven't outlined any alternative whatsoever. In the abscence of an alternative, you're tacitly supporting the genocide of the Global South. This is incontrovertible, although it wouldn't surprise me if this was actually your position if you're from Israel like you purport (:


 No.2864369

File: aad6010c80ab236⋯.jpg (257.54 KB, 1021x1020, 1021:1020, aad6010c80ab2368b964d47ba6….jpg)

=IMAGINE HAVING PLANT LOL=

=TOP TEXT=


 No.2864380

>>2864361

>You can keep saying this but this thread is about more than Veganism

Veganism is literally the OP topic.

>There is overwhelming evidence that without extreme ecological measures taken within the next 10 years that this is exactly what's going to happen. 1.5c of warming is already beyond our control, if we reach 2c or more then within the next 20 years then indicators are that we're going to be up shit creek. If you look at any of the projected maps for arable land, the Global South faces severe desertification. This is on top of the looming global crisis that which will hit within the next 18 months and increasing interimperialist competition, which themselves will not only make these issues worse, but likely lead to massive war, famine & migration in many areas of the Global South.

Still you continue to post outlandish claims without any evidence nor do oyu account for land gain from Antarctica and other areas covered in snow

>What do you think opened the door to US destabilization efforts in the first place?

meddling in the middle east since the end of WW1

>You can find multiple sources indicating the initial tensions were from rising food prices caused by climate change impacting harvests, literally go and type in "Arab Spring Drought" into google. This was an absolute Dream of an opportunity for the CIA among others to ferment civil unrest, another tool in utility belt of Imperial Strategy in the Middle East.

I'm sure you can point to millions of factors that all played a part.

I'm not denying this but to say the refugee crisis is a direct result of global warming is laughable


 No.2864885

>>2864380

>Market-based agronomy is unsustainable, we need democratically planned agronomy. We need to drastically limit the amount of crops dedicated to feeding cattle.

Criticizes the market, suggests reducing beef production. Doesn't mention any other meat production. Doesn't mention Veganism. Yep, the OP is literally about veganism.

The meat question is pretty irrelevant. More importantly is to discuses how to achieve enough crop yield (for both human consumption and animal feed) while minimizing fossil fuel inputs to farming. Current agriculture relies heavily on fossil fuels for fertilizer, mechanization, and transport - it will not be sustainable in the future. We should study the examples of Cuba and DPRK as both countries have learned to make do with limited fossil fuels in agriculture.


 No.2864895

File: 6740752d235ee7b⋯.png (1.42 MB, 1356x1312, 339:328, ClipboardImage.png)


 No.2865051

>>2864369

Fuck, do you have other rare memes from that thread? I lost them due to reinstall, but there was at least another meatbol gang meme and a pornbol gang.


 No.2865080

>>2864885

>The meat question is pretty irrelevant

You're dialing back to something completely non topical at this point


 No.2865121

>>2864885

>The meat question is pretty irrelevant. More importantly is to discuses how to achieve enough crop yield

Except these things are directly connected.

Reducing meat consumption will help us achieve enough crop yield. Now obviously you're right in that this doesn't require full veganism, but largely plant-based diets aren't out of the question.

Personally, I think we should be experimenting with plant-fillers in meat products. For example if it's possible to make a ground beef/texturized protein mixture that was indistinguishable from pure beef, we could reduce the amount of meat consumption but still eat delicious hamburgers.


 No.2865129

>>2864380

>Veganism is literally the OP topic.

It's not, again you're doing the same thing you've been doing the entire thread, trying to focus the argument around Veganism when there are much more important issues.

>Still you continue to post outlandish claims without any evidence nor do oyu account for land gain from Antarctica and other areas covered in snow

The fact that you're even aware of the arable land that will be gained means that you've seen all the projected outcomes, by your own logic, where is the evidence that this land will be arable if we want to go down this route? Do you know anything about Soil Viability for regions that were previously trapped under layers of ice for example? We don't know exactly how much land we will gain or lose, but all realistic estimates point to there being a net land loss, and the fact that you've even accepted this framing means that you're fully aware of this, and are just choosing to ignore that which you think is inconvenient. There has been evidence posted in this thread of all of this, if you're going to reject evidence because it's "speculative" then you can't even make the argument that we'll gain arable land because that's speculative as well.

>meddling in the middle east since the end of WW1

Intentionally misleading, we're talking about the Arab Spring specifically, obviously Imperialism in the Middle East is the larger overarching factor but that's not what we're talking about. Do you deny that Climate Change & Imperialism have links that can be drawn between them?

>I'm sure you can point to millions of factors that all played a part.

>I'm not denying this but to say the refugee crisis is a direct result of global warming is laughable

Never said this, point me to where I said that the refugee crisis was created by Global Warming. All I claimed is that Climate Change was a catalyst for events leading to the Arab Spring. You're being dishonest again.


 No.2865134

>>2864895

>>2864380

>>2865129 (me)

Also, make sure you read this, and then fully process exactly what people have been saying.


 No.2865142

Sure, we eat too much meat, but going all vegetarian/vegan isn't going to solve things because there are large areas of the planet that can't support large-scale agriculture but can support grazing animals or insects, and ignoring them because you find meat icky is a terrible idea.


 No.2865145

>>2865142

I'm OP and I find meat delicious. I don't even get why is this idea so fucking hard to get through your skull.


 No.2865150

>>2865145

You know that there are vast parts of Australia and Africa that you can only use for food by grazing/hunting on because the native water sources were never very good or reliable to begin with and centuries of Eurasian-style farming have pushed them to the breaking point, right?

Also, conveniently, Australia has kangaroos, which can survive on basically no water and shitty Australian flora that's basically just starch and chlorophyll, are good eating, and produce almost no methane. It's just a pity that they can't be tamed or kept so the only option is to hunt them, something that has to be done because they have no natural predators left and would breed out of control otherwise, causing environmental collapse.


 No.2865154

>>2865145

You know that grazing/hunting can not actually supply the world's demand for meat, right? At current consumption rates we need factory farms, and consumption is only going UP. This is not sustainable.


 No.2865155

>>2865154

>>2865150

Pretty sure OP understands that, he came in and clarified that the thread wasn't actually about Veganism, but instead about sustainability & agriculture.


 No.2865156

>>2865154

>>2865150

Please read the entire thread before saying dumb shit that's been adressed like 4 times already.


 No.2865160

>>2865156

What do you mean? Neither of those things have been refuted or addressed


 No.2865162

>>2865160

>we need to stop raising cattle industrially

>we need to stop breeding chicken in concentration camps

>how about the outback where nothing grows?

You can have your kangaroos, I really don't care, this is about industrial meat production and the problem with "a meal without meat is not a real meal" mentality.


 No.2865164

>>2865162

But the 2nd guy you were replying to was agreeing with you, he was saying that Meat Consumption requires industrial production at current levels, and is only expected to grow, a sentiment which I've echoed in my own posts. It's the posters who are doing outright denialism and attempting to derail the conversation into a pro/anti vegan debate that are the problem.


 No.2865165

>>2865164

Well my bad, I got confused then. Anyway the entire thread has been kinda ruined by mouthbreathers already.


 No.2865167

>>2865145

I'm OP and this is a vegan thread.


 No.2865168

>>2865165

This happens basically every time, it's actually just impossible to have productive discussions on certain issues on /leftypol/ because there is a contingent of idiots how have to derail to soapbox about anything even tangentially related to something. With Agriculture threads it's usually first started by a Vegan who then proceeds to get dogpiled by the sort of people Vegans would call "Carnists", at which point these people then try to attack other people because the well has already been poisoned by Vegans. You see this same sort of dynamic with basically any thread discussing Sex as well. I'm pretty sure the person I've been arguing with the entire thread has intentionally derailed the whole time, similarly to how the Incel Tripfag does with threads about Relationships.


 No.2865169

>>2865167

>>2865165

>>2865168 (me)

Case in point


 No.2865196

>>2863303

I agree with the with this pretty much, though I'm not a vegan. But I'd like to hear some thoughts on this: https://www.independent.co.uk/environment/cows-seaweed-methane-burps-cut-greenhouse-gas-emissions-climate-change-research-a8368911.html

If we could effectively eliminate the methane production from cattle, could we still maintain some degree of meat production? In the long term I believe the only viable option for meat production is lab grown meat, but this could somewhat soften the transition. I'm also not sure about insects, since we should also be preserving them.


 No.2865235


 No.2865238

>>2865134

addressing global warming is more important than meat production for human survival?

Sure I agree but those people still have to eat and if were going to have emergency refugee green houses to grow crops i'm certain people will start taking out guns if you feed those crops to pigs and cows


 No.2865240

>>2865238

Fam, I'm not the poster you think I am if you're saying that to me.


 No.2865255

rec>>2865129

>It's not, again you're doing the same thing you've been doing the entire thread, trying to focus the argument around Veganism when there are much more important issues.

ok well I'm mainly considered with the not limiting the "drastically limit the amount of crops dedicated to feeding cattle" as per OP topic

>The fact that you're even aware of the arable land that will be gained means that you've seen all the projected outcomes, by your own logic, where is the evidence that this land will be arable if we want to go down this route? Do you know anything about Soil Viability for regions that were previously trapped under layers of ice for example? We don't know exactly how much land we will gain or lose, but all realistic estimates point to there being a net land loss, and the fact that you've even accepted this framing means that you're fully aware of this,

A net loss if the climate weirdos are correct. However if it is correct we will lose some land and gain some more. No one can accurate predict what the crop viability will be in 2050 if some climate disaster happens

>and are just choosing to ignore that which you think is inconvenient.

>absolutely not

>There has been evidence posted in this thread of all of this, if you're going to reject evidence because it's "speculative"

<makes claim

<has no evidence to back it up

<gets called out

<there is evidence! no I don't need evidence for my claim you do!

<there is evidence in this thread(just not in any of my posts)

ok bud.

And all predictions of what the earth's surface will look like in 2050 are by definition speculative

>then you can't even make the argument that we'll gain arable land because that's speculative as well.

just as speculative as losing arable land :^) you can't have one without the other.


 No.2865273


 No.2865896

>>2863399

>the higher the nutritional value the higher the resources required to create

SHOCKING VEGAN NEWS


 No.2865910

>>2865255

>ok well I'm mainly considered with the not limiting the "drastically limit the amount of crops dedicated to feeding cattle" as per OP topic

Why? You said earlier in the thread that you agreed with that, why are you backpedalling now?

>A net loss if the climate weirdos are correct. However if it is correct we will lose some land and gain some more. No one can accurate predict what the crop viability will be in 2050 if some climate disaster happens

If there is more evidence for an estimate of net loss than net gain, then why make an argument for net gain unless you were committed to being anti-scientific? You are denying climate change, just like you have earlier in the thread.

>ok bud. And all predictions of what the earth's surface will look like in 2050 are by definition speculative

Why are you lying? There are links in this thread to evidence, you just ignored them and then are stating again and again there is no evidence.

>just as speculative as losing arable land :^) you can't have one without the other.

That's literally my point retard, you're not smart for saying "no u", you literally cannot argue as a counterpoint about speculation when you're only engaging in speculation yourself. I guess if no-one can predict the future how about you jump off the nearest cliff. After all, we don't know if you'll die, it's impossible to predict the future.

Like how you conveniently ignored the rest of the post, because you realise you got BTFO yet again, so you're not trying to move the goalposts and recentre the argument, just like you did with Veganism earlier.


 No.2865913

>>2865910

>Why? You said earlier in the thread that you agreed with that, why are you backpedaling now?

can you expand on this? because right now it seems like you're mad I said you or the vegans in the thread were backpedaling so you're using the same word, how original.

>If there is more evidence for an estimate of net loss than net gain, then why make an argument for net gain unless you were committed to being anti-scientific? You are denying climate change, just like you have earlier in the thread.

Like I said we don't have solid evidence one way or another to prove what the global agriculture environment will look like it 2050 provided some climate disaster. Saying we will have a net loss is just as speculative as saying we will have a net gain.

>Why are you lying? There are links in this thread to evidence, you just ignored them and then are stating again and again there is no evidence.

<you: *Makes claim*

<"can you back that up"

<"there's plenty of evidence!!1"

<"where?"

<"everyone where!!"

<"can you provide any?"

<"its in this thread duhhh!!""

ok you are deflecting here.

>That's literally my point retard, you're not smart for saying "no u", you literally cannot argue as a counterpoint about speculation when you're only engaging in speculation yourself. I guess if no-one can predict the future how about you jump off the nearest cliff. After all, we don't know if you'll die, it's impossible to predict the future.

Like I said we don't have solid evidence one way or another to prove what the global agriculture environment will look like it 2050 provided some climate disaster. Saying we will have a net loss is just as speculative as saying we will have a net gain.

>Like how you conveniently ignored the rest of the post, because you realise you got BTFO yet again, so you're not trying to move the goalposts and recentre the argument, just like you did with Veganism earlier

when? you haven't been correct about anything yet and haven't provided a shred of evidence for what you're saying


 No.2865922

hello …. have you ever heard of GRAZING …. it's called grazing. Cows don't eat corn, chickens don't eat corn, pigs don't eat corn, UNLESS some crony capitalists who are only interested in the bottom dollar force them to.

get a fucking grip you insane fucking weirdos


 No.2865927

>>2865922

>some crony capitalists

Hi /pol/, how are you doing?

It's funny that people that are supposedly anti-liberal, use the same concepts and expressions as liberals.


 No.2865928

>>2865913

it doesn't really matter if we have a net gain loss or stay the same production of grains for cattle is incredibly inefficient and loses 90% of captured energy in the process

perennial dry land legumes could completely replace cattle worldwide require no replanting once established and provide equal protein and better health outcomes while reducing carbon emissions from cows directly and in the incredibly wasteful supply chain of fertilize-transport-feed-slaughter. this is orders of magnitude gains in efficiency.

>>2865922

>Cows don't eat corn, chickens don't eat corn, pigs don't eat corn,

my chickens are literally eating organic corn feed right now.

maize is one of the biggest subsidized products world wide. coca cola is practically entirely propped up as a multi billion dollar international conglomerate on corn syrup as a free tax payer subsidized waste product of the corn industry. GMO corn is bred for weight to increase price yields is packed with water and sugar and deficient in micro-nutrients. Corn meal, split corn, and corn mash are corn based pellets are fed to livestock causing malnutrition and cancers in these animals reducing the quality of the meat. Dairy cows, breeding pigs, and caged chickens dont graze.

The USG/USDA actually pays farmers to burn food, pays farmers to leave their fields empty to reduce supply to control prices, pays farmers to plant corn instead, clears forests and leases public land to private companies if they agree to plant corn, gives farmers free seed if they use privately owned seed, and so on

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agricultural_subsidy


 No.2865934

Animals should only be fed inedible or unfit plant parts or grazing. Feeding cows with good corn ought to stop.


 No.2866005

>>2865255

>However if it is correct we will lose some land and gain some more.

"Gaining" land in Canada and Russia isn't actually all that valuable. The land is shitty and the growing season is inherently limited by the availability of sunlight, rather than just temperature. If we lose fertile crop land and gain sand and gravel that's dark half the year, we're still fucked.


 No.2866006

File: 0eb266c789f97ed⋯.jpg (533.46 KB, 1506x944, 753:472, CORN.jpg)

>>2865934

>Feeding cows with good corn ought to stop.

There are many different types of corn that are different sizes colors shapes textures dryness sweetness softness starch content protein and so on. this feeding cows "good corn" doesn't happen, corn that is not fit for human consumption is intentionally grown to subsidize mcdonalds, kfc, mountain dew, dunkin donuts, sugar cereal, hersheys, reeses, refined pastry, soft drinks, juice concentrates, milk cheese butter and dairy supply chains, thickening agents for soups canned goods baked goods cosmetics and hygiene products

all of this stems from WWII era subsidies with the rail/oil/steel teaming up with agriculture and cattle to capture the whole chain of human reproduction, produce cheap protein at a loss to win the war, and the invention of modern preservatives things like "enriched bread" "american cheese" and "tang" to prop up kellogs, general mills, kraft etc to fund the war effort and increase the population nutritionally well maintained fighting age men and is based on outdated bunk science that was funded by the named corporations to justify their programs


 No.2866011

>>2865928

>it doesn't really matter if we have a net gain loss or stay the same production of grains for cattle is incredibly inefficient and loses 90% of captured energy in the process

are you under the impression that technology isn't constantly becoming more efficient?

>perennial dry land legumes could completely replace cattle worldwide require no replanting once established and provide equal protein and better health outcomes while reducing carbon emissions from cows directly and in the incredibly wasteful supply chain of fertilize-transport-feed-slaughter. this is orders of magnitude gains in efficiency.

It can't completely replace cattle that isn't meat


 No.2866013

>>2866005

>"Gaining" land in Canada and Russia isn't actually all that valuable. The land is shitty and the growing season is inherently limited by the availability of sunlight, rather than just temperature. If we lose fertile crop land and gain sand and gravel that's dark half the year, we're still fucked.

do you have any evidence that its worse farm land


 No.2866185

>>2865913

>can you expand on this? because right now it seems like you're mad I said you or the vegans in the thread were backpedaling so you're using the same word, how original.

You never said I was backpedalling, because I'm not a vegan, but here:

>>2863663

>>Even just moving away from raising Cattle makes a massive fucking difference. I'm not a vegan, vegans are lifestylists who substitute liberal individualist ideology for politics. Plant based diet =/= veganism.

<yeah agreed.

You agreed about cattle, now your position is different?

>ok you are deflecting here.

You quoted a link to multiple IPCC reports here:

>>2863723

<Prove it's not natural

This is denialism, and clearly shows you're ignoring evidence. You've also stated that you refuse to accept the articles & videos posted elsewhere in the thread and even when directly adressed with evidence such as screencaps of biology textbooks explaining why scientifically it's less efficient to grow livestock the way we do in terms of energy, you've also ignored those.

>Like I said we don't have solid evidence one way or another to prove what the global agriculture environment will look like it 2050 provided some climate disaster. Saying we will have a net loss is just as speculative as saying we will have a net gain.

This is contradicting your earlier rebuttal where you said we will gain land, and now I've pointed it out, you've changed your position to "well we can't know either way".

>when? you haven't been correct about anything yet and haven't provided a shred of evidence for what you're saying

You haven't provided a shred of evidence for anything you're saying either, and your initial engagement was to attempt to refute generally accepted evidence, understanding & arguments, so please, prevent me some evidence that Climate change is natural and not manmade, for example.


 No.2866192

>>2865928

>>2863627

>>2866185 (me)

In addition, here you have outright refused to engage with evidence explaining exactly how many of the things you've argued against are correct.


 No.2866197

>>2866185

>You agreed about cattle, now your position is different?

Nothing you said was incorrect

However cutting back on cattle is a bad idea.

>This is denialism, and clearly shows you're ignoring evidence

Your lack of evidence does not = my denialism

>You've also stated that you refuse to accept the articles & videos posted elsewhere in the thread and even when directly adressed with evidence such as

Because linking a two hour video is not a replacement for an argument.

>screencaps of biology textbooks explaining why scientifically it's less efficient to grow livestock the way we do in terms of energy, you've also ignored those.

I responded to this already here >>2866011

>are you under the impression that technology isn't constantly becoming more efficient?

>This is contradicting your earlier rebuttal where you said we will gain land, and now I've pointed it out, you've changed your position to "well we can't know either way".

Then you're not understand what I said.

I said we will gain land from the ice caps melting. This is correct you've even complained about the supposed quality of land we'll gain.

>You haven't provided a shred of evidence for anything you're saying either, and your initial engagement was to attempt to refute generally accepted evidence,

Because I haven't been making outlandish claims desu.

also its not generally accepted sorry.

>understanding & arguments, so please, prevent me some evidence that Climate change is natural and not manmade, for example.

If you are going to claim its man made the burden of proof is on you.


 No.2866293

>>2866011

>are you under the impression that technology isn't constantly becoming more efficient?

you misunderstand, this is not a technological barrier its inherent to higher food chain organisms that are not producers by their biology. Cows cant photosynthesize and the energy loss from sunlight->grass->cows->humans can't be improved. There is always going to be a 90% loss of energy when you raise an animal for food.

>>2863587

>Its a moral statement because it is only a problem to him if he views raising animals to eat as too resource intensive

this would be true if anyone was making a moral judgement. The point is that they are MORE resource intensive and therefor LESS efficient. this really is simply thermodynamics. if you want to say something is "too" intensive you have to give a qualifier. In this case meat based diets are too intensive or too inefficient because we are trying to imagine a world where that has less climate change. Since plant based diets production uses significantly LESS resources and energy anything MORE is superfluous, unnecessary, inequitable, short-sighted, inefficient, selfish, stupid, etc with regards towards the goal of reducing climate change in order to maintain a livable ecosystem.

im not even vegan but this is ecology 101 >>2864895 i can post more screenshots from textbooks if you want


 No.2866376

>>2866293

>you misunderstand, this is not a technological barrier its inherent to higher food chain organisms that are not producers by their biology. Cows cant photosynthesize and the energy loss from sunlight->grass->cows->humans can't be improved. There is always going to be a 90% loss of energy when you raise an animal for food.

In that case its been that way since the dawn of time why is it a problem now?


 No.2866396

File: 0b3135036b7b9da⋯.png (41.35 KB, 504x301, 72:43, Global-change-in-the-colle….png)

File: c2f56230277a39a⋯.png (46.98 KB, 640x394, 320:197, Biomass-humans-livestock-w….png)

File: ccc5f8a9e4f45ff⋯.jpg (88.61 KB, 575x422, 575:422, livestock_table_1_575.jpg)

File: 7e4b4372786227e⋯.png (10.88 KB, 398x339, 398:339, highlights25_cattle.PNG)

File: 5afbf0ae1728944⋯.png (48.8 KB, 1024x728, 128:91, Historical human populatio….png)


 No.2866448

>>2866013

The area we're talking about is dominated by taiga and tundra. Neither have good soil, which means they aren't as good for growing crops.


 No.2866450

>>2866376

Because in nature when an animal overfeeds on its habitat it dies off. From nature's point of view that isn't a problem at all. If there are too many cows consuming too many plants, the cows will die and the plants will come back.

You can imagine why that will be problematic for humans who are reliant on cows for food, though.


 No.2866510

>>2865121

cheap steak with vegetal proteins exist already. spoiler alert : they suck

none of the anti beef guyz have addressed the fact animals can eat shit we dont, and produce fertilizer. pasture arent inherently farmable. the problem with farmable space is stupid shit like bio fuel, and shit techniques that kill the soil. which wont be fixed under capitalism


 No.2866513

>>2865928

so clearly, per your post, the problem have nothing to do with meat but everything with fucking capitalism

>feed organic corn to chicken

what a waste, they can eat your garbage


 No.2866516

>>2866293

>energy loss !

wtf is that shit arguments, we didnt spend energy ourselves, most come from the Sun. also having unspecified and unexctrable 'energy' is useless, while having quality food full of protein and nutrient is useful.


 No.2866517

>>2866448

but perfectly fine for grazing though


 No.2866555

>>2866185

yes and?


 No.2866558

>>2866448

>The area we're talking about is dominated by taiga and tundra. Neither have good soil, which means they aren't as good for growing crops.

good, we need area for livestock not crops


 No.2866560

>>2866450

>Because in nature when an animal overfeeds on its habitat it dies off. From nature's point of view that isn't a problem at all. If there are too many cows consuming too many plants, the cows will die and the plants will come back.

>You can imagine why that will be problematic for humans who are reliant on cows for food, though

Don't over feed cows then


 No.2866718

>>2866513

>everything with fucking capitalism

yep and capitalism reproduces animal exploitation for profit at human expense

>>2866517

>but perfectly fine for grazing though

maybe if your raising caribou

>>2866516

> we didnt spend energy ourselves,

> most come from the Sun.

>also having unspecified and unexctrable 'energy' is useless,

what is oil?

it all comes from the sun

its not my fault if you skipped ecology, chemistry and physics go watch a few hours of khan academy or opencourseware


 No.2866719

>>2866560

Then there won't be enough meat.

I don't know how you aren't getting this.


 No.2866723

>>2866719

>Then there won't be enough meat.

>I don't know how you aren't getting this

I don't see what you're so confused about.

we don't have a storage of meat now what makes you think there will be in the future


 No.2866727

>>2866723

1. There will be more people and also more demand for meat due to economic development.

2. We are only able to meet demand currently because we are disregarding the environment. This means there WILL be a die-off in the future, even if currently there isn't a problem.

Combine those together and you have a shortage.


 No.2866732

>>2866727

>1. There will be more people and also more demand for meat due to economic development.

then we expand the livestock farms and/or limit people from entering the country.

>2. We are only able to meet demand currently because we are disregarding the environment. This means there WILL be a die-off in the future, even if currently there isn't a problem.

And we are moving towards a more ecologically way of farming also technology is getting more efficient

combine those together and we have a sustainable meat industry


 No.2866745

>>2866732

>then we expand the livestock farms

There's only so much space. At the moment we're expanding into the Amazon rainforest. Surely you see how this isn't sustainable?

>and/or limit people from entering the country.

The meat is still being eaten regardless of what country they're in.

>And we are moving towards a more ecologically way of farming

No we aren't. It's actually gotten much worse.

>also technology is getting more efficient

Cows have not gotten any better at turning plants into meat.


 No.2866746

>>2866745

>There's only so much space. At the moment we're expanding into the Amazon rainforest. Surely you see how this isn't sustainable?

Most the the midwest has nothing in it.

Same for Africa

>The meat is still being eaten regardless of what country they're in.

ok? just increase meat production

>No we aren't. It's actually gotten much worse.

[citation needed]

>Cows have not gotten any better at turning plants into meat.

what?


 No.2866749

>>2866746

>Same for Africa

2dense4me

The tse-tse flies and rampant drought issues doesn't really make Africa a great place to rear cattle, as any African cattle-farmer involved in bush-wars over grazing areas can tell you.


 No.2866756

File: 621f27383309f72⋯.jpg (237.19 KB, 615x300, 41:20, EstabrookFeedLots2-Post-th….jpg)

>>2866746

>Most the the midwest has nothing in it.

Except for crop fields, which are already in use.

>Same for Africa

Cool we'll chop down their jungle too! What's the worst that could happen?

Oh, or are we going to grow them in the fucking desert? Is that your plan?

>ok? just increase meat production

There is only so much meat you can produce before it becomes unsustainable. That's what this thread is about.

>[citation needed]

In order to keep up with demand we've switched from pasture to feetlots. This is the kind of "technological efficiency" that has made global meat consumption possible in the first place.

>what?

I mean there's no magical techno-solution for the simple problem of meat being less efficient than plants per calorie. That's just thermo-dynamics.


 No.2866758

>>2866749

>The tse-tse flies and rampant drought issues doesn't really make Africa a great place to rear cattle, as any African cattle-farmer involved in bush-wars over grazing areas can tell you.

thats what irrigation is for


 No.2866760

>>2866756

>Except for crop fields, which are already in use.

there is still plenty of open land.

>Cool we'll chop down their jungle too! What's the worst that could happen?

clearly ignorant of africa

Huge parts of land are just nothing not even a forest.

>There is only so much meat you can produce before it becomes unsustainable. That's what this thread is about.

While I agree there are problems with the meat industry, ending production of meat is a terrible idea

>In order to keep up with demand we've switched from pasture to feetlots. This is the kind of "technological efficiency" that has made global meat consumption possible in the first place.

that is literally more efficient thanks for proving my point.

>I mean there's no magical techno-solution for the simple problem of meat being less efficient than plants per calorie. That's just thermo-dynamics.

yeah but a diet lacking meat is unhealthy


 No.2866767

>>2866756

>here is only so much meat you can produce before it becomes unsustainable.

Red meat is literally the most nutritious food source out there.


 No.2866769

This thread should just be locked at this point, it's not possible to have a productive discussion with a person who repeatedly replies to posts demonstrating an intentional desire to derail, consistently repeating the same points, then when contradicted or refuted, asking for evidence, ignoring it and then asking for more evidence, backpedalling, lying, engaging in sophistry in general etc. This will continue to happen in basically every thread where agriculture & climate change comes up because it has repeatedly in the past also, because the mods refuse to actually enforce rules.


 No.2866771

File: 665e6b3cd84e7cb⋯.png (96.77 KB, 211x327, 211:327, 1.png)

>>2866756

>I mean there's no magical techno-solution for the simple problem of meat being less efficient than plants per calorie. That's just thermo-dynamics.

<thermo-dynamics

<<<<thermo-dynamics

We are talking about nutrition. The essence of your post is analogous to:

>HURR, coconut weighs less under Earth's gravity than red meat,

<THEREFORE, DURR, it is more cool


 No.2866772

>>2866769

A thread should not be locked only because a minority of posters are retarded.


 No.2866777

>>2866772

The poster is in violation of rule #4 so if the mods aren't going to do their jobs and continue to allow them to derail I don't see how there can be productive discussion. Imperialist shilling gets dealt with very quickly on here, which is also part of rule #4, so I'm just wondering why the double standard exists.


 No.2866786

>>2866777

<everything I don't agree with is shitpost

<muh rule 4


 No.2866792

File: e78e651e409aa51⋯.png (138.74 KB, 267x291, 89:97, 1.png)

>>2866777

>moving_the_goalpost_no.5

Yes, you convinced me! This thread should be PURGED because your feelings were hurt!


 No.2866817

File: a5aeb8288caa14a⋯.png (153.25 KB, 493x470, 493:470, 1.png)

File: a4d4a0ae883e1f6⋯.png (92.29 KB, 275x448, 275:448, 2.png)


 No.2866819

File: f09cdfc7bdbd64c⋯.jpg (133.58 KB, 1018x675, 1018:675, 1.jpg)

File: a74ec6b0932dfd5⋯.png (92.78 KB, 376x642, 188:321, 2.png)


 No.2866820

File: ba0e9ab41313c6e⋯.png (591.52 KB, 582x553, 582:553, 1.png)

RED MEAT IS FASCIST!!!!

EATING NUTRITION-FREE PLANTS IS PROGRESSIVE!!


 No.2866829

File: 55e8e8b687fc775⋯.jpg (29.52 KB, 373x521, 373:521, malnutritioned_vegan_child.jpg)

Vegans are DEPRIVING Babies, Babies want MEAT

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eREb0fiqaKo

Vegans KILL BABIES

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZRzbpXw3IZQ

If you pretend to be a communist and uphold a "vegan diet," you hold an anti-human ideology, period.

VEGANISM = GENOCIDE


 No.2866830

File: 75743c70e59b57d⋯.png (46.02 KB, 214x241, 214:241, 1.png)

>>2863894

>From Hitler to present-day Not Socialists […] the far right's anti-meat ideology runs surprisingly deep.

>The slogan—blut und boden in the original German—was popularized by Walther Darré in 1930 (although the concepts behind the phrase can be traced back to the 19th-century Völkisch movement). Darré was the German minister of agriculture from 1933 to 1942 and a staunch advocate for agricultural reform in Nazi Germany. "Blood and soil" became a mythical reimaging of German identity, emphasizing the importance of racial heritage (blood) as tied to the land (soil).

>Adolf Hitler—whose vegetarianism is well-known in popular culture—certainly connected diet with race. In Hitler's Table Talk: 1941-1944, a collection of transcribed monologues delivered by the Führer in conversation with his inner circle, he advocates for vegetarianism as a universally natural and healthy choice, using humans' vegetarian "ancestral instincts" and young children's "antipathy" to meat as evidence for his argument.

>While this may seem contradictory—how can one support animal rights but deny the rights of other people?—there is a long history of animal welfare and environmentalism in white nationalist communities. The Nazi party, for example, had a "green wing" that pushed for environmental reform, including organic farming and reforestation programs, and protections for certain species of plants and animals. Along with Hitler, Heinrich Himmler was a vegetarian who opposed vivisection and cruelty towards animals. Far-right organic farming movements emerged in postwar Australia, connecting notions of race, nation, land, and nature.

>These ideas persist in white nationalist circles today. Take Aryanism.net, for example. Among all the articles devoted to the history, philosophy, and politics of white nationalism, the site has a full page dedicated to veganism. Littered with quotes from Hitler, Hess, Devi, and Joseph Goebbels, the anonymous author(s) claim that veganism is "a hallmark of an authentic Not Socialist," and "a sign of genuine empathy and a level of nobility beyond presently popular norms." It's not enough to be vegan, however. Like Devi, the webpage is adamant that Aryans should be vegan for ethical reasons, and not simply for health or vanity.

>The notion that veganism is somehow "natural" for white people has also been spread by the white nationalist and minor YouTube celebrity Jayme Louis Liardi. He began his YouTube career in 2012 with his channel Simply Vegan. Initially, his vlog-style videos were typical fare for this kind of channel—a list of must-read vegan books, reasons to stop eating animal products, and a series of videos on what he ate each day. But around 2014 to 2015, Liardi's tone changed. He began espousing a "warrior" code in relation to his veganism and critiquing the trappings of modern "degenerate" culture.

>White nationalist veganism can sound somewhat absurd, but it also shows how complex and deeply rooted this ideology is, and how it can appeal to a variety of different audiences. To combat these racist movements, we must understand them, including how they can incorporate beliefs we usually associate with liberal or leftist politics. The diversity of this movement should not be underestimated.


 No.2866833

File: bd83c333fc8c14a⋯.png (49.63 KB, 251x266, 251:266, 1.png)

File: 14fdf42fb70131e⋯.png (97.04 KB, 745x454, 745:454, 2.png)

>>2866829

>Vegans are DEPRIVING Babies, Babies want MEAT

<1.png

<vegans forcing babies to eat plants

<2.png

<baby getting his natural nutritional source, meat

I guess I'll turn Buddhist right now!


 No.2866835

File: 917724483e1eeb5⋯.png (202.32 KB, 457x461, 457:461, anemic_vegan_kid.png)


 No.2866850

>>2866760

I don't really think your a leftist or arguing in good faith. Maybe you are just wholly and completely ignorant of reality but your simple "just do x" fixes are misguided and won't work for a myriad of reasons.

Intuitively we can understand that as ancient humans came together to plant crops they formed sedentary communities invented writing and debt and domesticated animals that this was a fundamental change to our relationship with the means of our production and reproduction of life. Numerous multidisciplinary studies show that the advent of agriculture and domestication of coincided with the invention of private property the closing of common lands and decline in nomadic lifestyles that followed wild animals to a domination of nature style of controlling animals.

Ecological systems are naturally in balance and much of the deserts of Africa, Australia, Asia and America were artificially created by overpopulation and overgrazing of herd animals like sheep, cows and goats and unprecedented clear cutting during the middle ages and colonial period. Many of the horrific diseases that humans experience are not present in nature and are a product of the unsanitary conditions that modern society necessitates to reproduce itself. Healthy biodiverse ecosystems self regulate and do not stagnate to the point where they create bubonic plagues.

Pre-colonial civilizations have been found by archaeologists to engage in continent wide selective agriculture where useful plant species were propagated and dense forests were alternated with low fields to concentrate animal populations for easy hunting. Entire sections of "wild" "unsettled" land was described as "naturally abundant" with fruit and vegetables growing everywhere and animals in plenty. Catholics, anglos, romans etc slaughtered the people and clear cut their forests and suppressed their language and traditions as devil magic.There is evidence of this existing in every continent from the beginning of humans to the colonial period and through today.

If you actually read a marx even once and had some scientific background you would realize historical materialism is entirely consistent with sociology, archaeology, biology, ecology, chemistry, physics, meteorology, geology, and climate science and our politics should be informed by that reality.


 No.2866854

File: e9deb17e4be2c14⋯.png (97.56 KB, 295x279, 295:279, 1.png)

File: 010340652e4bdd4⋯.png (183.19 KB, 506x531, 506:531, 2.png)

>>2866829

>vegan parents [1.png]

>She's turning PURPLE, she hate's it, LOL!

>non-idiotic parents [2.png]

>Wow, she loves it!


 No.2866856

>>2866850

>I don't really think your a leftist or arguing in good faith

food production is not a left or right issue.

>Maybe you are just wholly and completely ignorant of reality but your simple "just do x" fixes are misguided and won't work for a myriad of reasons.

no there are just simple solutions that aren't of global apocalypse level like people are trying to make it out to it be.

>Intuitively we can understand that as ancient humans came together to plant crops they formed sedentary communities invented writing and debt and domesticated animals that this was a fundamental change to our relationship with the means of our production and reproduction of life. Numerous multidisciplinary studies show that the advent of agriculture and domestication of coincided with the invention of private property the closing of common lands and decline in nomadic lifestyles that followed wild animals to a domination of nature style of controlling animals.

ok and? Where are you going with this?

>Ecological systems are naturally in balance and much of the deserts of Africa, Australia, Asia and America were artificially created by overpopulation and overgrazing of herd animals like sheep, cows and goats and unprecedented clear cutting during the middle ages and colonial period. Many of the horrific diseases that humans experience are not present in nature and are a product of the unsanitary conditions that modern society necessitates to reproduce itself. Healthy biodiverse ecosystems self regulate and do not stagnate to the point where they create bubonic plagues.

Yes this is correct.

>Pre-colonial civilizations have been found by archaeologists to engage in continent wide selective agriculture where useful plant species were propagated and dense forests were alternated with low fields to concentrate animal populations for easy hunting. Entire sections of "wild" "unsettled" land was described as "naturally abundant" with fruit and vegetables growing everywhere and animals in plenty. Catholics, anglos, romans etc slaughtered the people and clear cut their forests and suppressed their language and traditions as devil magic.There is evidence of this existing in every continent from the beginning of humans to the colonial period and through today.

the forests were cleared to grow grain.

>If you actually read a marx even once and had some scientific background you would realize historical materialism is entirely consistent with sociology, archaeology, biology, ecology, chemistry, physics, meteorology, geology, and climate science and our politics should be informed by that reality.

there's nothing special (or leftist) about climate science.


 No.2866860

>>2866771

are you actually incapable of stringing more than two ideas together?

Cows don't exist in a fucking vacuum. No one disagrees that meat is not more nutritionally dense. It takes more energy, human energy, input, work by people, people getting up and going to work and doing labor, more of it, it takes more and not less work from humans, to create one calorie of energy from cow, than it does it create one calorie of energy from plant .

you have a person

they do (10) work

they make (10) energy from plant

you have a person

they do (10) work

they make (1) energy from cow

how does this magic happen if cows dont spontaneously appear from work?

you have a person

they do (10) work

they make (10) plant energy

(10) energy goes to making cow

(9) energy is lost as heat

(1) energy is retained by cow

how do you not fucking understand this.

for every cow you must have 10 plant and burn 9 of them.

there is no "expand to the arctic" or "make more cow" without "burn more plants"


 No.2866861

>>2866860

all calories aren't equal.

A pound of meat is more valuable than a pound of grain


 No.2866865

>>2866860 (You)

>all calories aren't equal.

>A pound of meat is more valuable than a pound of grain

thats literally what i said but 100 calories of meat is not more valuable than 100 calories of grain they are both 100 calories

100g of beef is 250 calories

100g of rice is 150 calories

obviously a pound of meat has more calories because its more calorie dense

a pound of water has no calories, thats not how nutrition works

using the same conversion 100 cal of beef is 40 grams and 100 cal of rice is 66 grams

but it takes 1000 calories or 666 grams of rice to make 40 grams of beef you fucking idiot


 No.2866869

>>2866861

and you can do the same conversions with water and avocado toast

it takes 1 gallon to make 100 calories of rice

10 gallons to make 100 calories of avacado

and 1000 gallons to make 100 calories of beef

its fucking wasteful


 No.2866873

>>2866865

>>2866869

>thats literally what i said but 100 calories of meat is not more valuable than 100 calories of grain they are both 100 calories

<what are macro nutrients

please read a fitness book

Meat is always more valuable to the human body that the amount amount in grains or fruits


 No.2866874

File: 1ee3204c58928e4⋯.gif (Spoiler Image, 90.35 KB, 450x306, 25:17, 1ee.gif)

>>2866860

Thank you for your reply, fam!

>No one disagrees that meat is not more nutritionally dense. It takes more energy, human energy, input, work by people, people getting up and going to work and doing labor, more of it, it takes more and not less work from humans, to create one calorie of energy from cow, than it does it create one calorie of energy from plant.

The point isn't really that "red meat is more nutritious" (although it fucking is), but rather that you can not fucking sustain a human animal without a meat-based diet exactly because he biologically requires it. Reducing meat consumption is another thing, although we should take into account that we, as a species, literally can not live healthily without consuming animal meat.

You keep pushing this surface-level-analogy (thermo-dynamics, and so on) which DOES NOT actually address the issue at hand: quantitative and qualitative nutrition. It was already shown ITT that not even an "insect based diet" is adequate for human beings to sustain themselves on. You skipped that point (and many others) to conclude that everybody ITT is against you, and everybody ITT is a "shitposter" except you.

The fact is, we biologically NEED red meat. End of story, you brainwashed liberal.

>for every cow you must have 10 plant and burn 9 of them.

What you do here is a one-dimensional (aka. quantitative pseudo-) analysis. Yeah, on a quantitative level cow meat is totally BAD, MUH NIGGUH, but it turns out that we need it on a qualitative level.

If you are not ready to accept this biological fact, that has two possible implications:

1) you are a psychopath, like that famous vegan, Vegan Gains ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s3S26Gp5QK4 )

2) or you don't care about actual science and wish to push your anti-human ideology.

Chose one, you fucking retard. We, humans, need animal fats. This is a biological fact.


 No.2866883

>>2866856

the forests were cleared to grow grain.

and? again this is what im saying i dont disagree. growing grain was a less efficient alternative to what was already in place but the new arrivals didn't understand how to manage it and suppressed information about it in chase of profit and expansion under a known system to the detriment of individuals, society and the environment. Monoculture row planting, gmo-fertalizers, synthetic fertilizers and tilling have many of the same problems as mono-species herd grazing in that they increase erosion, destroy water quality and retention in the landscape, and breed disease that puts entire countries crops in jeopardy, and destroy biodiversity effecting the whole food chains ability to regulate itself.

>>2866856

>food production is not a left or right issue.

I didn't say it was I said our politics should be informed by science.

>>2866856

>there's nothing special (or leftist) about climate science.

I didn't say that. Historical materialism and climate science are scientifically valid models whether they are leftist or not.


 No.2866884

>>2866883

>the forests were cleared to grow grain.

this is bad

>and? again this is what im saying i dont disagree. growing grain was a less efficient alternative to what was already in place but the new arrivals didn't understand how to manage it and suppressed information about it in chase of profit and expansion under a known system to the detriment of individuals, society and the environment. Monoculture row planting, gmo-fertalizers, synthetic fertilizers and tilling have many of the same problems as mono-species herd grazing in that they increase erosion, destroy water quality and retention in the landscape, and breed disease that puts entire countries crops in jeopardy, and destroy biodiversity effecting the whole food chains ability to regulate itself.

this is what I've been arguing against.

>I didn't say it was I said our politics should be informed by science.

>I didn't say that. Historical materialism and climate science are scientifically valid models whether they are leftist or not.

well you said I wasn't a leftist


 No.2866886

>>2866869

>1 unit of red meat = 1 unit of [any kind of plant]

>>2866835

>>2866833

>>2866854

>>2866829

>>2866819

>>2866817


 No.2866890

>>2866874

>The fact is, we biologically NEED red meat. End of story, you brainwashed liberal.

Citation needed. Red meat farming is responsible for 3/4ths of the emissions produced by meat farming.


 No.2866893

>>2866890

>Citation needed.

>>2866886


 No.2866895

>>2866893

Needing nutrients found in red meat and needing red meat are two different things.


 No.2866899

File: 26f5ed173e2d3c7⋯.jpeg (7.43 KB, 275x183, 275:183, 1.jpeg)

>>2866890

>Red meat farming is responsible for 3/4ths of the emissions produced by meat farming.

Which is like 1/12th of the harmful emissions we have under capitalism. To attack no. 12 on the list while everybody above this level is literally doing a 100% more damage, WHILE we fucking biologically NEED this shit, is LITERAL genocidal ideology.

Just to compare:

>cows are an integral parts of the bio-system

>cars are not

>factories and oil/coal/etc. sites produce like 90% of the unsustainable contamination

<LET'S FOCUS ON COWS

I wish you died, fam.


 No.2866900

>>2866874

i said earlier im not even vegan myself.

everyone should eat meat sparingly like they do in my Chinese cartoons and it should be enforced by gunpoint.

maybe make it a quarter of your meal once a week/month as a treat or get a whole roast for holidays once a quarter and freeze leftovers.

>The fact is, we biologically NEED red meat. End of story, you brainwashed liberal.

I'm not entirely sure if I believe you. Does it have to be red? I thought you could get everything from legumes like lentils, almonds, cashews, peanuts etc. Now I don't actually insist people do this because they are often practically luxury goods in some places but if we moved towards making them more available so people could rely on meat less that would be a good things. A big problem is the psychological appeal baked into consumerism, because meat is generally the main course and most expensive thing people think they are losing their status by giving it up.

Afaik the only thing that you can't get from plants is Vitamin B12 and a lot of fortified breads have it anyway. From my research it seems like the only sources for the ingredients for fortification ie how they source the actual B12 is still animals. What would be wrong with growing some crispr bacteria in vats that produces B12 and fortifying all grains with it instead of taking all that time money and resources to grow a whole ass animal.


 No.2866901

File: beed528f2199fd7⋯.png (43.48 KB, 186x178, 93:89, 1.png)

>>2866895

>[food category A:] has 99% of required nutrition sources a specific species (ours) needs to sustain itself

>[food category B:] has shitty amounts of nutrition sources a specific species (ours) needs to sustain itself


 No.2866902

>>2866899

>Which is like 1/12th of the harmful emissions we have under capitalism.

>>cows are an integral parts of the bio-system

>cars are not

>factories and oil/coal/etc. sites produce like 90% of the unsustainable contamination

meat processing, meat packing, meat shipping, meat storing, meat refrigerating,

really even the same with grains veggies and pastas lets all take reusable buckets to the farmers market

you got a source for that 1/12


 No.2866907

>>2866899

Who said "Focus on cows"? Cars are getting fucking banned, tiny son. As does coal.

>>2866901

>meat is the only source of iron and zinc we have!

lmao

>nutritional substitution is LITERALLY GENOCIDE

A calculation will be performed, and if producing a meat substitute is less damaging to the environment than meat, then it's fucking gone.


 No.2866914

>>2866901

lol do you think were suggesting you replace burgers with rice?

actually triggered because he doesn't want to eat his broccoli lmao


 No.2866915

>>2866914

Don't even have to eat the veggies, how are vitamin tablets made?


 No.2866916

>>2866900

>i said earlier im not even vegan myself.

I don't give a shit about your personal preferences. As Marxists from Engels, through Lenin, to Althusser have mad it clear: it is not what you avowed yourself what matters, but what you actually do and believe. You, my friend, literally gobbled up liberal-vegan propaganda.

<How do I know this / what are the signs / symptoms of this?

The very fact that you disregard the ACTUAL problems of our capitalist economy, factors like carbon-based-energy, the lack of public transport, polluting factories (lobbying against restrictions), and moved the POST TOWARDS ATTACKING OUR VERY BIOLOGICAL NEEDS.

YOU ARE SO FAR BEYOND HOPE THAT YOU WERE CONVINCED BY YOUR FELLOW LIBERALS THAT WE NEED TO ATTACK OUR OWN BIOLOGICAL NEEDS IN ORDER TO CUT DOWN ON CLIMATE CHANGE, WHILE OUR MEAT CONSUMPTION ISN'T EVEN ON THE TOP TEN OF THE LIST THAT CONTRIBUTES TO IT.

You are literally a psychopath, wishing to see this species wither, just so you could fulfill your purely moralist ideology.

Everyone from Marx, through Engels, to Zizek would spit on your fucking grave, you genocidal fool.


 No.2866917

>>2866914

>rice

>carbohydrates

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wBsnk2PtPeo

>>2866907

>only

<vs. most nutritious

Le ideology 10001%

get upvote, man


 No.2866918

>>2866916

>it's a smaller problem than other sources of pollution, therefore, we shouldn't pay attention to it

We've had energy, transport, industry's and residential tickets for a while now. Guess who is next on the list?


 No.2866922

File: 237132475127a80⋯.png (302.91 KB, 550x413, 550:413, 1.png)

>>2866918

>infrastructure, logistics, historically contingent housing solutions vs. biological requirement of a species


 No.2866925

>>2866916

>The very fact that you disregard the ACTUAL problems of our capitalist economy, factors like carbon-based-energy, the lack of public transport, polluting factories (lobbying against restrictions),

except these are my main problems with meat production oil-steel-rail-beef-mcdonalds-cocacola are inherently linked under western capital tradition and the enclosing of the commons, creation of national parks, and subsidizes leasing of public land for profit, urbanization of the proletariat, increase of wage slavery through the antebellum period, division of labor, rural and urban, cities that import food, streets that prioritize businesses and private transport over individual autonomy, the rise of the automobile, rugged individualism, bringing home the bacon etc are all products of the enforced relationship we have to the means of production

Land holding capitalists and feudal kings alike held control over the production of food to control the masses and you are drinking the beef flavored koolaid.


 No.2866928

>>2866922

>implying vs.

>muh humin natshur!

They're all going to be tackled at once. Agriculture is a separate industry, anyway, and won't be left idle.

You'll get your protein, iron, zinc, B12 and niacin.


 No.2866933

Retard-proof questionnaire

(chose one)

1) Why are Westerners so fat?

A) animal fats;

B) carbohydrates and types of sugars.

2) Why has childhood cancer and diabetes become an epidemic?

A) animal fats;

B) carbohydrates and types of sugars.

SOLUTION: B.


 No.2866937

>>2866931

>>2866933

C) Calorie-dense, cheap, unfilling food. Eating healthy is expensive.


 No.2866945

>>2866922

>meat isnt petite booj luxury

>meat is a requirement

>eating meat is a human right

okay lumpen carnist show me the six gorillion dead vegans. maybe its you who needs to read a book

meat isnt going away, you just wont be able to do your jordan peterson beef cleanse anymore because itll be downsized and rationed to end factory farming. ill be glad for it, since it sucks having pig shit ponds that spread feces contaminated water into the air and factory farms are a disgusting fucking eyesore.

>>2866931

>>2866933

nice double post sperg


 No.2866952

>>2866937

>C) Calorie-dense, cheap, unfilling food. Eating healthy is expensive.

people in the first world don't have a problem affording food


 No.2866953

File: ac5a99283f2621c⋯.png (818.37 KB, 973x566, 973:566, 1.png)

>>2866937

>>2866945

Welcome to the capitalist diet, wherein 10 companies dictate what you eat.

Turns out that these companies produce and rely on carbohydrate and fiber sources like sugar, corn (syrup), soy, rye, and grain 99% of the time when they feed you.

Turns out that when the capitalist states of the world when they make their "nutritional recommendations" (nutritional pyramids) they totally comply with the above mentioned [pic related] company's needs.

>something, something Marx about the nature of the capitalist state

ALL OF YOU VEGANS ARE DUPED!

D

U

P

E

D


 No.2866954

>>2866931

I mean isn't it both and more. Westerners are fat because of the diabetic sugar crash cycle and it fucks up their ability to regulate carbs and they eat too many carbs to process even without fucked up regulation and they eat to many animal fats on top of that and too many plant oils on top of on top of that

Cancer is obviously driven by stress and sugar, but often metastasizes from the incorporation and buildup of toxic elements in the body that are found in environmental pollutants from industrial runoff, construction, and military adventures. This makes it into the body in small amounts from the environment, small amounts from plants and in large amounts through the consumption of other animals especially predators that eat other animals like larger long lived fish and birds.

Don't eat fish, really, the supply chain is a closed loop full of mercury and arsenic and more than 70% of fish is mislabeled tilapia grown in shallow ponds and fed pellets of ground fish cartilage that constantly increases mercury and arsenic concentrations.

seriously

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RYYf8cLUV5E.

Also don't eat packaged sandwich meat with nitrates.

Another big cause of cancer is chemicals being used in preserving, packaging, glues, cosmetics and hygiene products that are "not intended for consumption" or "not for internal use" and therefore not regulated by the USDA/FDA. 3M currently has a massive controversy where they have been using cancer causing glues in food products for decades that seep into the product during long term storage and commonly end up marked down after expiry date in low income groceries like wal-mart and dollar stores.


 No.2866960

>>2866953

>>2866006

>>2865928

>maize is one of the biggest subsidized products world wide. coca cola is practically entirely propped up as a multi billion dollar international conglomerate on corn syrup as a free tax payer subsidized waste product of the corn industry. GMO corn is bred for weight to increase price yields is packed with water and sugar and deficient in micro-nutrients. Corn meal, split corn, and corn mash are corn based pellets are fed to livestock causing malnutrition and cancers in these animals reducing the quality of the meat. Dairy cows, breeding pigs, and caged chickens dont graze.

>The USG/USDA actually pays farmers to burn food, pays farmers to leave their fields empty to reduce supply to control prices, pays farmers to plant corn instead, clears forests and leases public land to private companies if they agree to plant corn, gives farmers free seed if they use privately owned seed, and so on

turns out corn and wheat arent that fucking good for you suprise. pretty sure most vegans eat whole grains, wild rice, lentils, quinoa, beans, peas, beans, beans, beans, almonds, cashews, peanuts, and copious amounts of fresh fruits and vegetables.


 No.2866961

>>2866954

>I mean isn't it both and more. Westerners are fat because of the diabetic sugar crash cycle and it fucks up their ability to regulate carbs and they eat too many carbs to process even without fucked up regulation and they eat to many animal fats on top of that and too many plant oils on top of on top of that

you can't eat too much animal fat.

>Cancer is obviously driven by stress and sugar, but often metastasizes from the incorporation and buildup of toxic elements in the body that are found in environmental pollutants from industrial runoff, construction, and military adventures. This makes it into the body in small amounts from the environment, small amounts from plants and in large amounts through the consumption of other animals especially predators that eat other animals like larger long lived fish and birds.

this is a probably with how meat is produced currently not meat itself

>Don't eat fish, really, the supply chain is a closed loop full of mercury and arsenic and more than 70% of fish is mislabeled tilapia grown in shallow ponds and fed pellets of ground fish cartilage that constantly increases mercury and arsenic concentrations.

>seriously

>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RYYf8cLUV5E.

Wild fish is best.

>Also don't eat packaged sandwich meat with nitrates.

eating anything packaged in plastic is bad.


 No.2866962

>>2866945

>carnist

Apparently making clear that we biologically need animal nutrition makes me a "carnist" (a non-category, outside of vegan ideology).

>jordan peterson

I'm a fucking communist, you libshit. I don't give a fuck about what alt-right superstars' choices about food. They are as often correct about nutrition as they are about "races" or "genders," and so on.

>hurr, pigshit

HURR, indeed. There's no other way under socialism to do this, except the capitalist way, DURR!


 No.2866965

>>2866953

>There are many different types of corn that are different sizes colors shapes textures dryness sweetness softness starch content protein and so on. this feeding cows "good corn" doesn't happen, corn that is not fit for human consumption is intentionally grown to subsidize mcdonalds, kfc, mountain dew, dunkin donuts, sugar cereal, hersheys, reeses, refined pastry, soft drinks, juice concentrates, milk cheese butter and dairy supply chains, thickening agents for soups canned goods baked goods cosmetics and hygiene products

>all of this stems from WWII era subsidies with the rail/oil/steel teaming up with agriculture and cattle to capture the whole chain of human reproduction, produce cheap protein at a loss to win the war, and the invention of modern preservatives things like "enriched bread" "american cheese" and "tang" to prop up kellogs, general mills, kraft etc to fund the war effort and increase the population nutritionally well maintained fighting age men and is based on outdated bunk science that was funded by the named corporations to justify their programs


 No.2866966

File: 12294cd4d9e9f4e⋯.gif (677.06 KB, 500x277, 500:277, CoarseDelayedHart-size_res….gif)

>>2866953

>1.png

B-but that's basically vegetarianism.


 No.2866971

File: 76c4102e7ed24d0⋯.gif (2.31 MB, 440x440, 1:1, tenor.gif)

>>2866953

<10 companies dictate what you eat.

<these companies produce and rely on carbohydrate and fiber sources like sugar, corn (syrup), soy, rye, and grain 99% of the time when they feed you.

WOW! I'm a vegan and I'm going to address this valid point without my moralist bias, my comrade! Thanks for educating me!


 No.2866973

File: e3c23ec971a7741⋯.png (89.62 KB, 592x554, 296:277, ClipboardImage.png)

>be india

>population 1 billion

>burgers literally illegal

>entirely families slaughtered over accidentally killing local cow

<b-b-but you need burger t-t-to survive :'(


 No.2866977

>>2866960

>most vegans eat whole grains, wild rice, lentils, quinoa, beans, peas, beans, beans, beans, almonds, cashews, peanuts, and copious amounts of fresh fruits and vegetables.

which is a cancer recipe, fyi

>>2866961

>eating anything packaged in plastic is bad.

Under capitalism, yes.

>>2866965

>if we move from 90% starch content to 50% starch content we gon be good

HURR


 No.2866982

File: fc925e198372971⋯.png (646.62 KB, 1280x720, 16:9, ClipboardImage.png)

>>2866945

>you just wont be able to do your jordan peterson beef cleanse anymore because itll be downsized and rationed to end factory farming.


 No.2866983

If Vegans are so healthy, why do they need to lie?

PROOF That Vegan Gains Is A Liar

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pn8Rd3efEqk

Cults R Us: Freelee the Scam Artist - YOUTUBE EULOGY

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LYcf_8MrirA

Why I'm no longer vegan…

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZI1Be8C37-k


 No.2866989

>>2866874

Not sure you're talking to the person you think you are, there's only 1 vegan in the entire thread, and yet again, everyone is making the conversation about veganism when the thread isn't about veganism, OP himself even said that it wasn't about veganism, but just like every other fucking time on this godforsaken fucking board, vegans + anti-vegans have to derail the conversation into fucking this bullshit. I am not a vegan, the person you're replying to isn't a vegan, and you don't fucking understand anything.


 No.2866993

File: 909570f0883abcd⋯.png (246.32 KB, 353x505, 353:505, 1.png)

AGAIN

FUCKING HUMAN BABIES INSTINCTIVELY KNOW WHAT THEY NEED IN TERMS OF NUTRITION:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eREb0fiqaKo

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eREb0fiqaKo

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eREb0fiqaKo

POINT MADE IN VID: THERE WAS NEVER A TIME IN HUMAN HISTORY WHEN FRUITS & VEGGIES WHERE ALWAYS AVAILABLE TO HUMANS REGARDLESS OF CALENDAR SO THAT THEY MAY FEED THEIR OFFSPRING WITH THESE PLANT-BASED SOURCES. IN FACT, THE ONLY NUTRITION SOURCE THAT WAS ALWAYS AVAILABLE TO OUR SPECIES WAS ANIMAL MEAT.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pEguuASirDg

VEGANS = GENOCIDAL, HISTORICAL-MATERIALISM-DENYING CULTISTS


 No.2866994

>>2866916

You have conveiniently ignored all the actually important conversations in this thread to only soapbox against vegans. You are absolutely fucking pathological, perhaps even moreso than fucking vegans, which is saying a lot. This thread isn't about fossil fuel emissions, which are by far the biggest issue with regards to climate change, it's about agriculture + it's relationship to climate change. Why are you bringing this up in your polemics against an opponent that doesn't exist. All of you fucks are literally anti-materialist.


 No.2866995

File: 7c4875f57e93e3c⋯.jpg (12.88 KB, 220x348, 55:87, 220px-Althusser.jpg)

>>2866989

>the Marxist definition of ideology is hard for me to grasp


 No.2866996

Christ and now the fucking vegans are crawling out of the woodwork. This is why I said it was literally impossible to talk about this issue on /leftypol/.


 No.2866998

File: 81dacd8d6241e5a⋯.png (6.23 KB, 445x431, 445:431, 1315625368311.png)

>>2866994

>this thread is about the spirit of the thread and not the actual letter of the thread which makes up physically 99% of the thread


 No.2866999

>>2866995

>If I condescendingly shitpost I win


 No.2867000

>>2866999

>if I read books I lose


 No.2867002

>>2866998

You evidently haven't been reading the thread becuase I've spent half of it arguing with people when the ONLY thing we agree on is that veganism is fucking retarded, yet to avoid actually engaging me they've just repeatedly asserted me as a vegan.


 No.2867004

>>2867000

If you read books you'd be able to actually make worthwhile posts instead of posturing before you've even engaged because of your intellectual insecurity.


 No.2867007

>>2867002

I literally did the same, mind you. But it turns out that people would rather gobble up and reproduce bourgeois propaganda rather than critically engage (you included).

>inb4 anything

Yeah, yeah, you'a'saint.

>[you] asserted me as a vegan

>>2866995

(Start with Ideological State Apparatuses, CUMr8)

>>2867004

There were like two dozens of posts already made in this thread from the side of "we need meat, niggah" none of whose valid points any of you actually addressed.

You brought this shit upon yourselves, you ridiculous bitches. To reiterate: we, as a species need animal meat. You can suck a dick. That's it. We'd like you to make an actual argument, however.


 No.2867011

File: 134e936ada6b674⋯.png (92.96 KB, 202x276, 101:138, 1.png)

>>2866993

>>2866983

>>2866971

>>2866966

>>2866953

I'M A VEGAN COMMUNIST AND I'M ACTUALLY GOING TO ADDRESS THESE POINTS!!!


 No.2867014

>>2866952

Not even Turd Worldists are this dumb.


 No.2867016

1. The ecological argument is a post-hoc justification for the vegan lifestyle. Everyone can agree that everyone eating lots and lots of meat (something that does not actually happen right now) under current models would be bad. This is not to say that absolutely nobody should eat or wear or otherwise consume any animal products at all, starting ASAP.

2. The idea that it is easier to make all people stop consuming any animal products whatsoever than it is to develop sustainable distribution and rationing is a vegan delusion. It is not that it is easier, it is that it is more desirable to the deeply moralist vegan who believes that pigs have souls.

By the time that we have to ration meat because everybody is used to frequent luxuries (not possible under capitalism), there will be nothing simpler than to synthesize meat or otherwise fill demand with novel production techniques. The notion that humans should be dominated by the environment is conservative woo woo bullshit.

The fact that countless hours are spent hand wringing over how meat consumption is ecologically devastating when vegans happily consume almonds and pistachios grown in the literal dessert (diverting absurd amounts of water for a luxury crop) proves the ecological argument came after the veganism. The fact that vegans agonize over animal suffering but rarely spare a thought for the indigent farmers they harm by consuming plants at subsidy prices and importing quinoa to the point that the people who farm it are priced out reveals the bourgeois, moralist nature of the vegan.


 No.2867018

>>2867016

And if I was a vegan, I'm sure I'd give a shit about any of these anti-vegan polemics that plague this thread.


 No.2867020

>>2867014

they don't sorry food is cheap and there's food stamps if you're poor


 No.2867022

>>2867016

I'm a 100% supporting this post, maybe except this part, comrade:

>to synthesize meat

I have absolutely no problems with growing, killing, eating animals. Only if and when a lab grown meat becomes

1) 100% nutritious as "natural" meat and;

2) economically more plausible than what naturally we can provide,

I may accept this shit.

Otherwise I'm for growing, killing, and eating pigs/cows/chickens.

Do you find these terms acceptable?

>>2867018

>HURR, but also, DURR


 No.2867023

>>2867022

>Otherwise I'm for growing, killing, and eating pigs/cows/chickens.

we also need to sustainably hunt wild animals not just farm animals


 No.2867024

>>2867023

Okay, why not.


 No.2867025

>>2867022

Ecological considerations come first.


 No.2867026

>>2867007

I literally agree that we need animal meat fam, I'm just angry at the people in this thread doing climate change & science denialism


 No.2867027

>>2867018

>if I was a vegan

>>2866995

>>2866993

>>2866983

>>2866962

>>2866953

>>2866916

u r dripping of bourg ideology, ☭TANKIE☭ friend.


 No.2867028


 No.2867034

File: ad176e61e7e834f⋯.png (287.26 KB, 444x582, 74:97, 1.png)

Hi, guys!

I've been a Vegan for 15 years. Only 2 of my teeth have been lost and I still have my hair, so! I think of all of these carnists ITT as plagued individuals… Like, why the fack would you make your body a cemetery for animals, lol?

Anyways, I'm steel healthy and I'm more than reahy tho addretth you as I would even if I haven lost thooth! Pleath thell me what u want, k?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=msk2kR4_3ak


 No.2867035

>>2867028

I didn't mean to angry post at you specifically, but like the entire time I wasn't even engaging with the anti-vegan posts because I agree with them, my points were about how climate change is going to massively change the way in which we conduct agriculture, and that this may well include some kind of reduction in meat consumption in the future as capitalist development leading to higher demand for meat in the second + third world is going to come to a massive head with ecological disaster that is going to dramatically shift our priorities in terms of actually sustaining the planet. Meanwhile I'm confronted with someone that can't grasp the idea that whilst we NEED meat nutrionally, the way in which it's produced when you consider the ecological factors means that from an efficiency standpoint we need to be investing into better ways to produce meat. The poster was literally saying that climate change wasn't manmade, and no-one was refuting him, instead choosing to go on diatribes about veganism. This board really isn't good for my mental health I'm just going to stop replying to this thread.


 No.2867036

File: aee0af6c787b2f9⋯.jpg (14.3 KB, 363x321, 121:107, 1348702395569.jpg)

>>2867027

>screaming at others "bourg ideology", while propping up "humin natshur"

I love extra cheese and five different meat toppings on my extra large pizza. But that doesn't make meat farming any more ecologically sustainable, or in any way a good use of water, land and food.

Also bourg ideology is about propping up "personal responsibility" meme, not asking for profound systemic change.


 No.2867037

>>2867034

>>2867028

Like how the fuck can we call ourselves Communists if this is our response to perhaps the greatest crisis that the human race has ever experienced?


 No.2867041

>>2867016

>The notion that humans should be dominated by the environment is conservative woo woo bullshit.

this is the woo woo right here

wild untapped nature does not exist and is not a force that is dominating or in need of domination


 No.2867042

>>2867023

I feel like if you got giant vacuum vehicles to sweep up all the critters hit by cars you'd end up with more meat than what's produced during hunting season.


 No.2867046

>>2867042

Hunting season isn't for the benefit of humans, it's for the benefit of nature.


 No.2867056

This thread is fucking embarrassing tbh. Given the rate at which lab grown meat has been falling in price it'll be an economically viable alternative long before any utopian forced vegan bullshit could be implemented. Getting it's price down below that of farm animal meat is basically a matter of economy of scale at this point. Face it vegans, you're gonna be obsolete soon.


 No.2867061

>>2867056

Sounds breddy good. I heard you needed stem cells to not have the tumor meat taste like shit, though.


 No.2867062

>>2867035

I'm not sure (honestly, there's no way for me to be sure), that you were always anti-vegan ITT, but it doesn't really matter really, since it's besides my point. I made it rather clear in previous posts that I believe that veganism is a typically bourgeois ideology wherein "our" – THE typical ruling class obfuscating category – most burning problem is addressing "our" individual habits: namely, eating something that we fucking biologically rely on.

May there be no illusions regarding that when we become beyond fucked due to climate change, the 1% will be eating red meat and we'll be sucking on Soylent Green, my friend.

That is to say, that you, comrade, did not actually address OUR BIOLOGICAL NEEDS, and instead opted for pseudo-scientific (or, shall I say "vegan-scientific) concepts WITHOUT addressing what is most important for a Marxist: class antagonism!

>whilst we NEED meat nutrionally, the way in which it's produced when you consider the ecological factors means that from an efficiency standpoint we need to be investing into better ways to produce meat

Sure, okay, but still, if I decided to have a child, his/her BIOLOGICAL needs would dictate him/her having fucking meat from month 3:

>>2866993

>dramatically shift our priorities

Fuck that, mate. there's no "US." If I am in fact sound, it means that "us," as a species must move beyond certain practices, and not allowing faggy bourgs to dictate "vegan diets" upon us, ffs. Besides, most of us, proles, would rather die, than have us eat reduced red meat consumption. Have us (proles) have lesser numbers of kids rather than this pseudo-scientific BS!

>>2867007

>people would rather gobble up and reproduce bourgeois propaganda rather than critically engage

hmmm

>>2867016

>The fact that vegans agonize over animal suffering but rarely spare a thought for the indigent farmers they harm by consuming plants at subsidy prices and importing quinoa to the point that the people who farm it are priced out reveals the bourgeois, moralist nature of the vegan.

Daily reminder that veganism obfuscates class antagonism!

>>2867036

>I love extra cheese and five different meat toppings on my extra large pizza. But that doesn't make meat farming any more ecologically sustainable, or in any way a good use of water, land and food.

What all of that achieves is you becoming a lard-ass, you idiot. Carb consumption is literally what makes you a Cartman.

>Also bourg ideology is about propping up "personal responsibility" meme, not asking for profound systemic change.

This would be a legit social point if it weren't about ideology/biology: you will literally become a fat-ass by consuming that carb-shit, you idiot.


 No.2867065

>>2867056

how many joules of fossil energy are used in keeping that lab running buddy


 No.2867067

>>2867061

>I heard you needed stem cells to not have the tumor meat taste like shit, though

You need stem cells in order to grow the meat in the first place. You don't need many animals for that though, nor do you need to kill the animal in question.


 No.2867068

>>2867065

Significantly less than the quantity needed to run a farm.


 No.2867069

>>2867062

>the 1% will be eating red meat and we'll be sucking on Soylent Green, my friend.

>That is to say, that you, comrade, did not actually address OUR BIOLOGICAL NEEDS

pretty sure soylent has b12 niacin iron and everything else you need in it idk why you are so stuck on this spook why does it have to be red


 No.2867073

File: e8242d4941a9bfc⋯.png (81.02 KB, 191x326, 191:326, 1.png)

>>2867037

Simple.

<U eat carb -> u fat.

<U don't eat carb -> u don't fat.

Questions, you retard?

>>2867046

>lab grown meat

Most embarrassing meme ITT. It's like the "automation is coming" shit in econo101 threads. You have no idea what you are talking about, in other words.

>>2867061

>tumor meat taste

DAILY REMINDER THAT THIS IS VEGAN IDEOLOGY

>>2867065

>>2866886

>>2866874

>>2866829

>>2866993

>>2865896

>>2867069

>pretty sure soylent has b12 niacin iron and everything else you need in it idk why you are so stuck on this spook why does it have to be red

<B12

<as opposed to veganism

Yes, my friend, cannibalism is more nutritious than veganism. Your point is…?


 No.2867075

>>2863303

I agree, but about androgyny.


 No.2867078

>>2867073

>Most embarrassing meme ITT. It's like the "automation is coming" shit in econo101 threads. You have no idea what you are talking about, in other words.

It's literally something that is being produced at the moment. It's cost of production has fallen by about 38000x since research started and only needs to fall by a further 10x to reach price parity with normal meat. Why are you in this much denial? Do you own shares in a slaughter house or something?


 No.2867096

>>2867078

>Why are you in this much denial?

I'm not, you bourg-econ-fag.

"The Economy" doesn't provide """"the goods"""" (be they automation or HIGH SPEED INTERWEBS) under capitalism.

Under capitalism the system will keep on reproducing its contradictions, as Marx detected them. So for instance, when the price ("worth") of working power is HISTORICALLY the LOWEST in HISTORY (like right now), there will be zero (that is: 0) automation going on, since there's no bourgeois incentive to make the (market) "race" go on. The whole capitalist system is literally frozen thanks to Margaret Thatcher, you fag.

>>2867078

>It's literally something that is being produced at the moment. It's cost of production has fallen by about 38000x since research started and only needs to fall by a further 10x to reach price parity with normal meat.

You are literally talking about "demand & supply" side economics when Marx has already debunked this shit in his "The Poverty of Philosophy" (1847).

It is with great displeasure that I tell you: you are a faggot who is beyond 200 years when it comes to economics/politics. This was already debunked by Marx, in other words.

All of you vegan faggots and "tech will free us" fags need to read Marx, for fuck's sake!


 No.2867109

>>2867096

>Under capitalism the system will keep on reproducing its contradictions, as Marx detected them. So for instance, when the price ("worth") of working power is HISTORICALLY the LOWEST in HISTORY (like right now), there will be zero (that is: 0) automation going on, since there's no bourgeois incentive to make the (market) "race" go on. The whole capitalist system is literally frozen thanks to Margaret Thatcher, you fag.

I would respond by saying that this is why we need an effective labour movement to reduce labour hours and drive up the cost of labour power, but none of this has anything to do with the matter at hand: what you've just said is literally a non-sequitur (also attributing such a phenomenon to the actions of a politician is idealist as fuck).

>You are literally talking about "demand & supply" side economics when Marx has already debunked this shit in his "The Poverty of Philosophy" (1847).

What? I'm talking about economies of scale you raging faggot, the same shit that has bought the price of solar PV cells down to the point where it makes sense to install them even in the absence of subsidies.


 No.2867128

Have you ever been so mad about vegans, you had an apoplectic fit while not being surrounded by any?


 No.2867132

>>2867128

I can't say that's a condition I suffer from. This guy >>2867073 on the other hand…


 No.2867136

>>2867078

When we were hunter-gatherers, which, by the way, approximately covers 95% of our species' actual existence, we "brutally" hunted for meat, and we rarely ate any nuts, veggies, fruits. We are, quite simply, hunters OVER gatherers.

While our babies were clinging on our female's breasts, these females were looking out for berries and vegetables, while our forefathers were trying to capture animal meat.

What I've had said so far is a fucking historic/anthropological fact, mind you. (Go argue against Engels' The Origin of the Family, Private Property, and the State if you can actually read, you liberal shill!)

I'm not saying that "this is our nature" - I'm only saying that this has been our species' condition under which we have spent 99% f our evolution. Yet, having able to have a disregard for this evolutionary factor is what makes us social, human, class-based, and so on; and we, as Marxists know, that the latter is what progresses history as such.

Our species can be said to have been existing for at least over 300,000 years. This means that our currently existent individuals have been – in one way or the other – under the influence of the aforementioned evolutionary path, moreover, the rule of a class society in the latter years.

Hence, you are an absolute and ridiculous faggot, and you need to read a fucking non-vegan book.


 No.2867137

File: cfba4bc48b7e3ad⋯.webm (624.72 KB, 640x360, 16:9, 1401411217993.webm)

>>2867136

>Our species can be said to have been existing for at least over 300,000 years

>only recently (12,000 years ago) started to amount to anything civilization-wise, when it settled down, and planted some goddamn wheat


 No.2867138

File: 63c6ef123eadcc5⋯.jpg (106.63 KB, 750x563, 750:563, brutalist-architecture-8.jpg)

>>2867109

>I would respond by saying that this is why we need an effective labour movement to reduce labour hours and drive up the cost of labour power, but none of this has anything to do with the matter at hand: what you've just said is literally a non-sequitur (also attributing such a phenomenon to the actions of a politician is idealist as fuck).

No. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=85tYfXYmzJY

>I'm talking about economies of scale you raging faggot, the same shit that has bought the price of solar PV cells down to the point where it makes sense to install them even in the absence of subsidies.

And I'm talking about the actually existing capitalist economy with its antagonisms and its contradictions and not about the hegemonic ideas about its benevolence you seem to share, you turd.

>>2867128

Last month on the "main street" of my town three vegan fags were trying to evangelize random walkers by showing them random "chicken farm torture" vids on their iPads. From that moment on, as a Marxist, I've known that they were class enemies, because I was for the self-elimination of the proletariat and they were for some moralist bullshit about my food.

>>2867132

>Marxism is a condition

…in a way…

>>2867137

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_sapiens

eat a dick, you pseud


 No.2867141

File: d2bf95858967437⋯.png (202.25 KB, 447x582, 149:194, 1.png)

TL;DR:

>People who preach about your "unethical" protein:

BOURGEOIS

>People who preach about proletarian dictatorship:

COMMUNISTS


 No.2867143

>>2867138

>>2867136

Give me an example of a ==civilisation== having occurred before the neolithic revolution and the settling of a nomadic population following the development of agriculture.

I really hope you're not implying that human civilisations and its underlying social-political relationships are based on red meat eating?


 No.2867145

>>2867141

Environmentalism is not a matter of ethics or negotiation, for that matter.


 No.2867146

File: 8386660474a9cce⋯.png (114 KB, 400x400, 1:1, 1429695745037.png)

>>2867141

TL;DR

YOU:

B*BOON

ME:

MANDRILL MASTER RACE


 No.2867151

>>2867141

Nobody is talking about '"unethical" proteins', you are strawmanning.

I refuse to believe you are actually 18+.

I think you are an edgy American teen larping as a M-L after reading a few Wikipedia articles (and maybe some texts over at marxists.org) and calling everyone liberal in order to shock your parents and classmates in high-school.


 No.2867154

>>2867138

>No *link to cockshott on wages*

Are you actually capable of make an argument?

>about the hegemonic ideas about its benevolence you seem to share, you turd

Again, what? Are you denying that economies of scale are a thing?

>>2867136

WTF? Did you just respond to the wrong post? I was arguing synthetic meat is going render the entire vegan position obsolete. I'm not a fucking vegan you cock-gobbling mongoloid.


 No.2867160

>>2867143

>civilisation

is pretty much defined by sedentary agriculture


 No.2867170

File: 60831bc6b2873e5⋯.png (32.58 KB, 127x168, 127:168, 1.png)

>>2867143

It's called "primitive communism" by Marx, and it's called hunter-gatherer society by anthropologists/historians/archaeologists/biologists. OUR SPECIES BY ALL CREDIBLE ACCOUNTS HAS SPENT ITS TIME EATING ANIMAL MEAT (PRIMARY) AND GATHERING ANYTHING ELSE (SECONDARY FOOD SOURCES) WE COULD. We are LITERALLY primarily carnivores, and secondarily herbivores, thus our "omnivore" status is aligned.

See: >>2866829

(It's in our biology to prefer animal meat and fat.)

>inb4 denying our evolutionary facts

good luck, sailor

>I really hope you're not implying that human civilisations and its underlying social-political relationships are based on red meat eating?

I'm not. I'm just stating facts, you drooling retard. Humanity (homo sapiens) has spent 99% of its evolution OUTSIDE of so called civilization.

>>2867145

Read a book, you dirty nigger. Communists do not strive for "environmentalism," you trash-person. We do not adore Nature. We hate "her." We wish to leave this anti-human planet and everyone who fetishizes this dirty and meaningless rock-floating-in-space is a counter-revolutionary moron.

>>2867146

[baboonment not found]

>>2867151

[argument not found]

>>2867154

>Are you actually capable of make an argument?

Are you actually capable to sit through a 20 minutes video?

>Again, what?

>>Again, what?

>>>Again, what?

>>>>Again, what?

>>>>>Again, what?

HURR, video watching HARD


 No.2867173

>>2867170

>Are you actually capable to sit through a 20 minutes video?

Sure, that's the second time I've watched that particular video. It does nothing to back your argument though.


 No.2867174

>>2867154

>synthetic meat is going render the entire vegan position obsolete

<sci-fi is going to render all of your beliefs obsolete

<<also, I'm not an autism


 No.2867176

File: 103bde6e1519448⋯.gif (819.64 KB, 574x250, 287:125, ScratchyCalculatingIndochi….gif)

>>2867174

Anaki killed all the young jedi, therefre you are wrnog.


 No.2867178

>>2867174

Once again, it is something that already exists, it's simply a matter of cost reduction through scaling up production. Claiming that this won't happen is akin to denying the fall in the cost of photovoltaics over the last 10 years. If we were talking about a purely theoretical technology your idiotic remark might make sense.


 No.2867179

File: ddcb0636dd108d3⋯.jpg (43.58 KB, 565x317, 565:317, karl-marx-monument-AP.jpg)

File: 81dacd8d6241e5a⋯.png (6.23 KB, 445x431, 445:431, 1315625368311.png)

>>2867174

>>sci-fi

I don't get what your problem is with this. Maybe elitism?! I've spent my entire life supporting dubious "alternate history" threads and I'm known for proposing a method approaching human history called "lol-materialism".


 No.2867180

File: 40c1207060343ca⋯.png (781.93 KB, 761x840, 761:840, 2.png)

>>2867178

>it's simply a matter of cost reduction through scaling up production

<hey, I'm only 200 years wrong! :D


 No.2867181

>>2867180

Here's an idea, instead linking to videos and posting images of texts that you've (supposedly) read, why don't you actually articulate your position on the matter. You do understand the texts you've read right? If so it shouldn't be hard for you to do.


 No.2867200

>>2867154

Synthetic meat renders the vegan position victorious, dipshit. If synthetic meat can be made cheaper than real meal, vegans win.


 No.2867209

>>2867200

It's still meat, growing it in a bioreactor doesn't magically make it a vegetable.


 No.2867211

>>2867209

But it's not an animal product, which is what vegans care about.

It's like how vegans don't care if you wear synthetic leather or fur.


 No.2867214

>>2867170

>Read a book, you dirty nigger. Communists do not strive for "environmentalism," you trash-person. We do not adore Nature. We hate "her." We wish to leave this anti-human planet and everyone who fetishizes this dirty and meaningless rock-floating-in-space is a counter-revolutionary moron.

Looking around for communists espousing anti-environmentalism, I only found Mao Zedong, and that kind of revisionism will be a pass from me, dawg.


 No.2867215

>>2867211

What's the issue, then?

>when destroy the planet with cow farts to own the vegans


 No.2867216

>>2867211

https://www.plantbasednews.org/post/should-vegans-support-lab-grown-meat

>Secondly, the process for lab-grown meat would still require the use of animal cells. That means they would take a small muscle sample from the animal to collect the stem cells. This is clearly exploitation of the animals and thus would not be deemed vegan.

>The Dutch scientist Professor Mark Post who first presented the world with lab-grown meat laid out his vision as 'you have a limited herd of donor animals in the world that you keep in stock and that you get your cells from there'.

>So, vegans face the question, would we be happy for a small number of animals to suffer to save the billions of animals that would suffer and die under the current agriculture industry? I believe the opinions would be heavily divided.

Most of what I've read by vegans implies that they do not view lab grown meat as vegan. Most do seem to view it as better than the status quo, though.


 No.2867229

>>2867215

It's not a viable alternative to animals yet, and if meat eaters all wait around for synthetic meat to stop eating animals it will be too late. What people should do is switch to a mostly plant-based diet until lab grown meat becomes viable.

>>2867216

It really depends on how the cells are harvested. Obviously if there is a donor herd that is kept around for continual harvesting of stem cells, vegans will object. That's still an animal product, after all, no different than wool or honey or whatever other harmless shit vegans get worked up about. If we get to the point where no animals are involved in the process anymore, though, then it can't really be called an animal product. At that point, the vegans get what they want and animal farming basically ends forever.


 No.2867245

>>2867214

Nah, he's right. The earth is a shit place.

We just can't afford to trash it.


 No.2867311

Christ lmao all of you retards reverted back to the same motte & bailey tactics. You are literally not communists, you are reactionaries, just like vegans are.




[Return][Go to top][Catalog][Nerve Center][Cancer][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[]
[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / abdl / ausneets / dempart / hypno / leftpol / tingles / vg / vichan ]