Saturated Fat Controversy

[FlatAssembler]

Well, informing yourself about agriculture would have been useful to you in this thread, even if it didn't lead to any "action". You'd have avoided crank arguments, lol.

If somebody brings up crank arguments about how people in the developed world going vegan would lead to massive starvation in the developing world, perhaps bringing up crank arguments about how veganism can solve global hunger is a good response.

[The Grand Nudger]

The quoted bit serves just as competently as a response to this new crank argument about crank arguments.

-but, for thoroughness -

If we purchased less from the developing world, they would have even less currency to compete with us over the food we're already out-competing them for. Do you understand?

[FlatAssembler]

If we purchased less from the developing world, they would have even less currency to compete with us over the food we're already out-competing them for. Do you understand?

Well, yes. Though I don't see what that has to do with veganism.

[The Grand Nudger]

The developed world imports food, and the products required to produce food, from the developing world. What we call "LDCs", or "least developed countries" are dependent on their agricultural capacity for the lions share of their exports..as they have little to no capacity in any other sector (beyond extraction industries, where there's a resource to extract, ofc). Meanwhile, their consumer sector is dominated by imports due to that very same lack of capacity. This means that food and money are both leaving LDCs, where the majority of people already depend on livestock operations for their very existence. In the absence of a market for that product, just as in the case of feed grain, it simply would not be produced.

So, you tell me...understanding that... what does that have to do with the conjecture that veganism would help to feed people in the developing world?

We don't have to contain ourselves to ldcs or the developing world at all, though. Some developed countries are also livestock exporters..and here too, if there were no market or a reduced market for the product, it simply would not be produced - even if somebody, somewhere, might buy it. Domestically, that's why cattle operations turn into real estate developments, here, when they get edged out. It makes more financial sense to the land owners than continuing to crank out a comparatively less valuable product even as world and local demand for livestock increases...and...ofc...people starve. That's the plight of rural america in a nutshell. They were pushed out of farming, first..by countries with lower wage labor and battery farm conglomerates, and then, out of the factories and extraction industries and retail centers those farms were so often turned into...by the same, and then, out of the housing developments they bought into by their poverty. In many places, the best use of an otherwise productive patch of land has become.....a predatory trailer park. Talk about a coup de grace.

It's really no surprise that meth and opioids have a stranglehold on those same areas. They lost their culture, their livelihoods, their land, the respect of their peers, and any reasonable expectation of future success uncoupled with the production or distribution of illicit substances.....which they then export to other communities, along with the paraphernalia of angst and frustration..including but not limited to uncontrolled firearms, and the politics of spite. It's a self reinforcing cycle of degradation, poverty, malnourishment, abuse, and institutional dependency. The short version of a long and complicated story is that there's no place in the world where the reduction or elimination of a food item and the jobs that sector provides will help, or help to feed anyone, anywhere. The really sad part, in the case of land development (and running for pride of place in the giant shit sandwich described) is that this process is effectively irreversible. Once we lay down the concrete, the productive capacity of a main-crop field is gone, and it takes centuries to rebuild a single inch of topsoil.

-and that's where alt ag comes in. Finding ways to grow a marketable product in a parking lot, or an abandoned big box, or a failed suburb, and doing so in such a way that the money made from the enterprise stays within those communities. It's already a problem, and this... in the worlds largest economy, a fully developed country. The only way out, by some metrics, is through, with more people abandoning those places and that productive land to even larger battery farms and clusters McMansions to feed and pay the ever growing population of the urban center which is increasingly incapable of maintaining anything even remotely close to food security and in which more and more people are dependent on shelf stable subsidized industries and their beneficiaries up the chain. There's a reason that so much of the shit on a public assistance program and at food pantries is grain and dairy and processed product..and it aint the nutritional value, lol.

[FlatAssembler]

This means that food and money are both leaving LDCs, where the majority of people already depend on livestock operations for their very existence.

What do you mean? People in poorer countries don't eat a diet full of meat.

So, you tell me...understanding that... what does that have to do with the conjecture that veganism would help to feed people in the developing world?

Sorry, but I don't understand what you mean.

They lost their culture, their livelihoods, their land, the respect of their peers, and any reasonable expectation of future success uncoupled with the production or distribution of illicit substances

And I thought people in Africa and Latin America are better off now than they were 50 years ago or 100 years ago. With the possible exceptions of Venezuela and Libia. I mean, life in Venezuela and Libia is certainly better now than it was 100 years ago, but I don't know for sure if it's better than it was 50 years ago. Preserving cultures doesn't mean keeping people in poverty. Rural life can seem aesthetically pleasing to an outsider, but people give it up to go work in sweatshops voluntarily.

[The Grand Nudger]

What do you mean? People in poorer countries don't eat a diet full of meat.

Never occurred to you to wonder why that might be?  Americans didn't always eat a diet full of meat, either.  "A chicken in every pot" was an iconic promise made to us as a stand-in for success and upward mobility.  Now we have multiple chickens in every pot, since we only eat the breasts, lol.....and can afford to do that.  Eliminating waste in the kitchen and in developed world eating habits would help to feed starving people in ways that going vegan could never approach.  Accounts for alot of landfill and methane, too...but mostly vegetable waste in our case.  We eat the steak and leave the broccoli on the plate.  We do this for reasons hardwired into our biology.  The steak is a denser source of what was -once- rare and valuable nutrient composition.  Got us through the hungry gap, too.  That's also why it's delicious.  

Michael Pollan wrote a great book on that, though not about meat.  The Botany of Desire.  

Sorry, but I don't understand what you mean.

Yeah, no shit..but you could, if you stopped trying to push a doomed argument and did some actual fucking research, lol. It's not as if you haven't had time since this convo started, huh?

And I thought people in Africa and Latin America are better off now than they were 50 years ago or 100 years ago. With the possible exceptions of Venezuela and Libia. I mean, life in Venezuela and Libia is certainly better now than it was 100 years ago, but I don't know for sure if it's better than it was 50 years ago. Preserving cultures doesn't mean keeping people in poverty. Rural life can seem aesthetically pleasing to an outsider, but people give it up to go work in sweatshops voluntarily.

Sure, because of increased commerce with relatively wealthy markets and a larger portion of those proceeds going to a bigger slice of the demographic pie.  Knowing that, though..tell me..how would reduced commerce due to those wealthy markets no longer desiring their products...say...meat... effect them?

Rub those two brain cells together.

If usians stopped eating meat, or reduced their meat consumption, or shifted their meat consumption to other meats..we would probably be healthier, and it would help to deal with climate change to a limited extent.....but it would completely fuck anyone who depends on our current consumer habits to put food on their own plate. That's alot of people buddy....... I know, I know, you probably imagine that they would continue to make the product and maybe sell it to their neighbors..but that's not what happens in reality.

-at least until some other developing/developed market starts buying up the meat we no longer want. Like China. They do love them some pork. Just ask US producers. Livestock production (and ag in general), despite it's being hidden from most people in the first world..or maybe because of that...is so important that it can be used a political lever by hostile foreign actors...even when the nation being manipulated is the most powerful country that the world has ever seen. Story as old as time, really, rome famously rose and fell and fought based on and for it's ability to produce and move and distribute and grant access to grain. Bread lines are now and have always been the prelude to collapse, 1st, 2nd, or 3rd world, in any era. No matter. What do you think would happen if privileged consumer activities in the 1st world made production economically unfeasible elsewhere?

---

[FlatAssembler]

Never occurred to you to wonder why that might be?

Because meat is usually more expensive, it takes more resources to produce enough of it than it does to produce plants which people can eat. And that's even so if you are trying to feed the animals with plants which people can't eat, such as trefoil.

The steak is a denser source of what was -once- rare and valuable nutrient composition.

And that's the reason why it's usually less expensive to, if we are going to eat meat, feed the farmed animals with nutrient-dense plants which humans could also eat, rather than to feed them with trefoil.

It's not as if you haven't had time since this convo started, huh?

Well, I am studying electrical engineering and computer science, so I don't have much time. Furthermore, I think the burden of proof here isn't really on me.

but it would completely fuck anyone who depends on our current consumer habits to put food on their own plate.

If we all suddenly stopped smoking, those poor people who work on tobacco farms in Cuba might, for all we know, end up starving. Therefore, we shouldn't stop smoking. Does that make sense?

[The Grand Nudger]

Never occurred to you to wonder why that might be?

Because meat is usually more expensive, it takes more resources to produce enough of it than it does to produce plants which people can eat. And that's even so if you are trying to feed the animals with plants which people can't eat, such as trefoil.

That's not even remotely why, you're putting more chips in the losing pile.  We eat more meat because we can afford to.  We eat more..just more, full stop, because we can afford to.  No one is sitting there at the dinner table calculating the realities of production.  Hell...you can't even accept the realities of production because they don't fit with your scatterbrained ideology.

And that's the reason why it's usually less expensive to, if we are going to eat meat, feed the farmed animals with nutrient-dense plants which humans could also eat, rather than to feed them with trefoil.

People could buy fucking trefoil if they wanted to..they don't, lol.  People could grow fucking trefoil if they wanted to, but they don't. Because business is not a charity, or a program aimed at feeding the starving masses....and growing food is a business.

Well, I am studying electrical engineering and computer science, so I don't have much time. Furthermore, I think the burden of proof here isn't really on me.

Well that's probably because you didn't study philosophy or agricultural production.  You claimed that veganism could help to feed the world.  That puts the burden on you, and you would have to know at least a little bit about the realities of agricultural production to float that one..which you don't, and don't care to research.  

You're a fucking crank who watched some youtube videos.

If we all suddenly stopped smoking, those poor people who work on tobacco farms in Cuba might, for all we know, end up starving. Therefore, we shouldn't stop smoking. Does that make sense?

Hey, that's in my wheelhouse, actually.  Pretty sure I told you that...but you seem too "busy" to listen to anything anyone who knows more than you tells you, or to learn those things for yourself. Unless it;s some crank, like you, but on youtube. Then you have all sorts of time, and even more time to argue those crank viewpoints with people who do know what they're talking about. IDK, pretty sure that you're entirely full of shit. But go ahead, spend some more of that time you don't have to rebut, lol.

That we all stopped smoking (not me, i love me some smoke, I'm not just in the burley transition biz and in Kentucky, I'm from Tampa Bay, lol) actually has impoverished burley producers...in a first world country.  To the point that theyre engaging in criminal conspiracies to defraud their federally backed insurance so that they don;t fail to pay their mortgage..and end up in a trailer park, lol.

To use this as an analogy, your analogy....while it isn't a good reason to -not- stop smoking (just as I've explained to you ad naus that there are good reasons to change our dietary habits)..it would be a stunning example of how false a claim like "if we all stopped smoking then burley producers would be better off" is demonstrably, patently, and absurdly untrue..just as the claim that starving people would have food if we ate less or no meat is demonstrably, patently, and absurdly untrue....

...which is what I have been telling you, not arguing about some other irrelevant shit you desperately want to bicker about to save face for having been a committed idiot over..and over...and over.

-and now what, you're reduced to lying to me about not having the time to -stop- being a committed idiot? That's your problem, not mine or anyone else's. Only you can decide to stop being a committed idiot. You could have used any of the time you were committing to idiocy to do that, huh?

[FlatAssembler]

We eat more meat because we can afford to.

Now, that we are wealthier, we can afford to eat more meat, which is more expensive than most plant food.
Also, we aren't doing it just because we can afford it. By that logic, there should be more foot-binding today than there was in the early 1900s, because more people today can afford to have daughters with bound feet (that can't work) than that was the case in the early 1900s. Eating meat is, just like foot-binding was, a nonsensical tradition, and will gradually disappear for the same reasons.

you can't even accept the realities of production because they don't fit with your scatterbrained ideology.

Says somebody who refuses to acknowledge that CO2 poisoning is not painless, because that wouldn't fit his ideology...

People could buy fucking trefoil if they wanted to..they don't, lol.

My point was that switching back to eating grass-fed meat, as you suggest, wouldn't work because it will be more expensive, grass-fed animals don't grow nearly as fast as grain-fed animals do.

You claimed that veganism could help to feed the world.

In response to somebody claiming that it would make the global hunger worse. If somebody makes a claim without presenting evidence, you can respond by making a contrary claim without evidence, to show how invalid his or her reasoning is.

"if we all stopped smoking then burley producers would be better off" is demonstrably, patently, and absurdly untrue..

Maybe not. If children are working at tobacco farms, the nicotine in that tobacco harms the skin on their hands for their whole lives. We don't know what would happen.

[The Grand Nudger]

I am jacks complete lack of surprise. You actually do have time, huh?

Eating meat isn't a non-sensical tradition, it's a function of omnivorous biology and environmental circumstance, you cretin.

What ideology do you think I'm trying to fit anesthesia into? Didn't I tell you that I, personally, have no reservations when it comes to killing animals without anesthesia? I've shot them, stabbed them with spears, yanked them up by the mouths and suffocated them, beat them to death with clubs, hit them with carbon fiber arrows and watched while they bled out, rung their necks with my bare hands....and most of this I've done for fun or someone else. I don't like the taste of wild game, and I don't like the taste of chickens that don;t have Purdue on the package and a shitload of tasty broth infused. I'll pluck off their feathers warm, I'll filet them alive and flopping. I will slit their throats, and I'll hold their balls in one hand and a box razor in another. If they get into my flowers I'll shoot them on principle and throw their bodies over the fence..alive or dead, to be eaten by whatever might happen along. I train dogs to hunt them, and eat them, alive....and I reward those dogs when they do what I've told them to do. I punish those dogs when they fail, and withhold food from them. Where others might see carnage and pain and misery I see a beautiful and sacred and thoroughly enjoyable hobby. I mean..hey, I like to kill them fast. Not because I give a shit what they feel, but because it showcases my skill as a killer. I'm in control of the moment of their end, and I can draw it out to talk to them if I want to, or I can make it happen in an instant. I only go through with the added expense and time of ethical slaughter for weak stomached consumers like yourself. I'm not one of Temple Grandin's people, who would rather do The Right Thing™ if someonme showed me how, lol. I enjoy killing and can admit that I enjoy killing. Still, I understand, because I'm not a mouth breathing idiot..that anesthesia is better than all that if a person is concerned with how an animal meets it's end.

Switching back to grass feed -beef-..not all meat is best produced by pasture grazing, would be more ecologically responsible, more ethically conscious, and more profitable for the producer - it wouldn't help to feed more people except in the case that it's an additional economic activity that plugs into a niche market of people who care, and can afford to care. I'm not the one pretending that weak willed consumer choices in the first world could help to feed starving third worlders, though...am I? You're a pussy, lol, and you imagine that other people being pussies like you might help, somehow. I know better. No more so than my being a hard-hearted apex predator helps to feed those same people. Don't get me wrong..I love some greens..but I also kill an incredible amount of animals..without anesthesia, in order to grow them. So does everyone who sells you whatever it is you eat...including your precious trefoil, lol. There is no such thing on this planet, for us, as a free lunch.

You've already been presented with evidence as to why and how veganism would not only not help, but make matters worse. I keep telling you that this isn't an argument against you being a vegan, it's just an explanation of why, if you wanted to be a vegan...saying shit like the things you've been posting are idiotic.

"We" may not know what would happen, but that "we" is only handicapped because it includes you...and you're a person who doesn't know shit, doesn't want to know shit, and pretends that he doesn't have time to learn shit. The "we" that excludes your committed idiocy does know what would happen, because it already has happened and is continuing to happen - and that's why I have a job doing what I do.

How clear was that? You understand this time, or will you be wasting more of your precious time trying not to?

---

To drive this home, for a code monkey like yourself, and someone even more specifically in your position. I can't -stand- programmers. You have no idea how the machine your very life depends on works, or is produced. It may as well be magic. I bet you'd suddenly realize, though, that there is no magic and you are dependent if people decided, as a matter of ethical or ecological responsibility....to stop buying computers. Which contain both animal products and the most environmentally destructive base materials ever made available to mankind.,,in addition to depending on the most abusive labor practices, in the most competently oppressive regimes in history

How about that, does that help? What would you do, and what does your previous investment in education and material count for, if people just gave up on pcs? You gonna go out and kill some shit yourself when you cant pay other people to do it for you, on the basis of your expertise working with a piece of equipment that you can't make yourself? You have the confidence in your uneducated opinions that only a person who knows nothing can possess. Not just about this, ofc...but in every subject you've addressed since you joined. You might want to look into that, someday, if you can spare a moment. Not for for my sake, or for the sake of any other animal that isn't me...but purely for your own. It wasn't so long ago, in your region..that eating each other was a less than absurd proposition. I handed out so much agricultural trash just to keep your lot breathing that even -I- started to wonder why we weren't feeding people back home. You should know better.