Below is an extract List on the BBC website written by J Sophia Geller (Sophia Smith Galer).
What would happen if (all) the world's inhabitants became vegetarians?
People choose vegetarianism for a variety of reasons: preventing animal suffering, health, sustainable reality and reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Indeed, reducing meat consumption is beneficial and the more vegetarians multiply, the better off the world will be, but what will happen if everyone switches to vegetarianism? Millions of people will be affected.
Advantages
- Emissions related to food production will decrease by 60%, mainly due to the cessation of consumption of red meat, the production of which causes methane emissions, (A.R. it is worth noting that the reference is mainly to "red meat", i.e. beef and less to pigs, sheep, poultry and not at all to fish).
- Changing the purpose of pastures to grow local plants will cause a recession, climatic changes and the restoration of the biological diversity lost due to the pressure of the shepherds.
- Without meat there will be less heart disease, less diabetes and less cancers, thus the medical expenses in the world will decrease by about 3%. If by 2050 vegetarianism is adopted by everyone, the lives of eight million people will be saved every year.
Disadvantages
- It will be necessary to replace the meat with nutritious food mainly for a population of about two billion who still today live under malnutrition conditions, since animal food is much more nutritious than rice or corn.
- Forcing nomadic herders in developing countries in arid areas where cattle and sheep are raised (such as the African Sahel) to settle down and stop consuming meat, will cause them to lose their cultural and traditional identity, (A.R. because of the terrain conditions it is doubtful if they will be able to grow vegetables that will provide for their livelihood).
- Everyone who is currently engaged in raising farm animals will have to change occupations, the alternative occupations can be: agriculture, forestry, bio-energy production and more, but failure to provide alternative employment will cause unemployment that will lead to unrest to the point of rebellions and coups, especially in rural populations.
- Removing farm animals from the area, animals that for hundreds of years shaped the environment, will have a negative effect on the natural environment, therefore it is recommended to allow farmers to continue raising goats or sheep with an environmental intention.
- Without meat, traditions will be lost, for example in many societies it is customary to give farm animals as wedding gifts, some argue that this is one of the reasons for the failure to reduce the number of farm animals in traditional societies. (Ar. in Israeli society "burning meat" has become the way the masses celebrate).
Therefore: there is a need for moderation and restraint (AR. as in many other cases, so here too it is necessary to compromise). Fortunately for us, in order to reap the benefits of vegetarianism, it is not necessary to convert the entire world population to vegetarianism. A recession in production and the frequency of eating meat and a recession in portion sizes will reduce greenhouse gas emissions by considerable percentages, percentages that will increase when the use of animal products decreases
Changes in the food production systems such as: increasing the price of meat and at the same time effective access to cheap vegetables and fruits, a proper approach to efficiency in the food supply systems that will prevent wastage, loss and overeating, since today about 50% of food is wasted, so for example meat should be a special dish and not a meal Day-to-day, the implementation of ways and methods to raise animals in an efficient and profitable and at the same time environmental way will enable a situation in which a farmer will profit when farm animals are raised in "humane" conditions.
It is important to note that there are currently solutions that will reduce greenhouse gas emissions from raising farm animals and meat production, what is missing is the will to implement changes.
And I will add as usual that the time has come that instead of controlling the environment for the sake of the human population, there will be control of the human population for the sake of the environment.
39 תגובות
> for the animals
The main harm to animals is not carried out by exceptional individuals, but in an institutionalized and industrialized way, funded by the majority
the public, but without their knowledge. Over 300 million animals are killed every year in Israel alone in the animal food industries
- The vast majority after a life full of suffering. In our meals we come into direct contact with the most extensive exploitation that ever existed
From the time of animals. Only because of economic logic the vast majority of animals in the food industries are
In closed facilities, crowded to the point of impossibility of movement. Their bodies undergo genetic and chemical manipulations until a bone is formed
The body becomes a source of suffering. The animals in the agricultural industries lost in the last decades every living photographer that survived
Still in the traditional economy: today they are seen as nothing more than machines, a mere step in the production process.
Our money is the engine that turns the wheels of this industry, without our funding this would not be possible.
>For our health
Humans in the West today eat more animal products (meat, eggs, and milk) than in any other place and time
in human history. This diet has brought certain diseases to epidemic proportions: morbid obesity, diabetes
Type 2, heart disease, osteoporosis, cancer and more. The Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine in the United States recommends
A diet based on grains and legumes, fruits and vegetables. Such a diet provides all the necessary elements for our body, rich
in dietary fiber and antioxidants, and saves it from the negative effects of saturated fats, cholesterol and proteins
from the animal Even conservative bodies, such as the American Dietetic Association, agree that a plant-based diet is suitable for everyone
of all ages and at all stages of life, and may prevent diseases and even lead to recovery from certain chronic diseases.
Switching to a plant-based diet can guarantee us quality of life and longevity - and also ease the heavy burden placed on us
The health system due to the unhealthy lifestyle that characterizes our society
>For future generations
The UN report from 2006 entitled "The long life of the livestock sector" indicates what non-institutional bodies claim
For a long time: the consumption of food of animal origin is the main cause of the ecological disaster we are in the midst of.
Dr. Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the UN panel on climate change, points to reducing meat consumption and moving
to vegetarianism as the most urgent step to reduce global warming. A similar recommendation was also recorded in the annual report
2010 of the World Wildlife Fund (WWF). Almost a third of the Earth's land is used directly or indirectly
the animal food industry. The expansion of the areas designated for raising food cattle for cattle and poultry is one of the main motivations
to destroy rainforests (70% of the Amazon basin). According to the UN report, livestock is responsible for 18% of gas emissions
The greenhouse, more than all types of transportation: planes, cars and ships together! A report by the Worldwatch organization,
The specialist in climate change attributes responsibility to livestock for about half of greenhouse gas emissions! Just as it is not possible to engage
In this problem without addressing the importance of reducing consumption and recycling, it is also not possible to ignore their destructive consequences
of the food systems on the entire fabric of life. For the humans and other animals who share the ball with us
This, and even for future generations, we must recognize this fact. Sincere concern for the environment and the health of future generations is mandatory
A renewed look at animal agriculture, and avoiding taking part in the responsibility for the destruction of the planet.
>For social justice
"Our lives begin to end the day we decide to remain silent about important things" (Martin Luther King).
A diet based on animal foods is wasteful. While billions around the world are unsure of their next meal
Of theirs, every year humanity weans about sixty billion animals intended for slaughter. the body of animals
uses food not only to develop the tissues that humans eat, but also to build bones and other tissues, to preserve
Body heat and the exception of the activity we allow these poor animals. In the end, the amount of flesh in humans
Produced by these animals is between half and a seventh of the amount of plant food we fed them.
The diet loaded with meat, eggs and milk in Northern Europe and North America comes at the expense of the great majority of
humanity. In fact, in many places in the world food for animals (to be eaten in the rich countries) is grown on the spot
grow food for the hungry population of the place. Consumption of animal products is certainly not the only cause of poverty and hunger.
Solving these problems requires a profound change in the way wealth is distributed on the face of the earth. But as long as part of a population
The world insists on a wasteful and exploitative diet, we will never be able to provide food for everyone
>Judaism and vegetarianism
Richard Schwartz, a professor of mathematics from the USA and an Orthodox Jew, is a well-known figure among activists for vegetarianism
and animal rights due to his tireless activity to spread this idea. Among other things, he wrote books on the subject, and a website
and in it over a hundred of his articles on Judaism and vegetarianism (website address: http://www.jewishveg.com/schwartz
and see also http://www.ivu.org/jvs/articles.htm). Prof. Schwartz points out that a meat diet in the modern world
stands in contradiction to six important commandments in Judaism. It involves the destruction of the environment (as opposed to the concept that the land belongs
to God, and the person was entrusted to the guard). It is based on keeping animals in the deplorable conditions of the industrialized economy
(as opposed to the prohibition of cruelty to animals). It wastes non-renewable resources (in contrast to the commandment of incorruptibility). She
Harms our health (in contrast to the commandment "and be very careful of your souls"). It creates social injustice among people
(Contrary to the many instructions to take care of the hungry and the poor). And finally, the scarcity created by the wasteful livestock industry may
cause wars (as opposed to the instruction "ask for peace and pursue it". Schwartz points out that Judaism considers vegetarianism
An ideal diet, which corresponds to God's initial intention, for humans to be vegetarians, (it is possible to expand on this topic as well
In Rabbi Kook's vision of vegetarianism and peace.)
The awl came out of the bag,
- My father - writes: "I have a lot of "dead" time at work",
Wow wow "chemist" with excess time who becomes a "multi-system expert"
who derives his expertise from Wikipedia and popular press,
A "know-it-all" that unfortunately manages to attract other readers
for idle arguments,
In short - TROL!
my father
You wrote what you think about nutrition so I will write too.
A. There is more than one possible healthy diet.
B. Since there are several options, you should choose the one that will harm the environment as little as possible. So that not only you will be healthy but also your children and grandchildren. (Eating fish, for example, causes tremendous damage to the environment, if it wasn't in Nerara and the other option was to get sick, then yes, but that's not the case)
third. It is possible to build a healthy plant-based diet and it is also possible that is based on animals (the Inuit ate mainly animal foods,
Although mostly uncooked or semi-cooked fish and meat) I'm not saying your diet is unhealthy but it's not the right one. A balanced diet includes everything the body needs, but everything the body needs can come from a variety of sources.
d. You are an unusual case of a meat eater.
When I chose to be a vegetarian (as a step to veganism) it was first of all for the health reason. Only after that reasons of morality and ecology. It is also possible to follow your own path, but it is not possible at the global level. It is impossible to produce enough food in this way so that it is cheap enough that even the poor strata will not starve. Therefore, the state should encourage vegetarianism. Organic meat is not just very expensive. And because there is another option it is also immoral, I also think that human lives come first and I am not overwhelmingly opposed to animal experiments but causing suffering to animals should only be indiscriminate.
my father
I have compiled some of your claims that require a source:
1. Most food for animals is a byproduct of growing food for humans
2.Clover cultivation does not require spraying and does not pollute (in reality the only thing it does not require is nitrogen fertilization like the whole legume family, the rest of the fertilizers it requires)
3. Most of the corn goes to human consumption (we will be satisfied even in the original that the human portion is greater than that of animals)
4 A source for the claim or scientific research that meat consumption creates less damage to the environment than a vegan diet (if I understood correctly, you only presented the position. But you do claim that it exists)
Except for the last one, there may be studies of "mercenaries" or "scientists for hire" that would be interesting to see what sort of tricks are needed for such a thing. You will not find sources to give me because it is not true. It just made sense to you so you wrote it.
And by the way, until now we have only talked about the very indirect damages of the meat industry to the environment (the damages of growing food in large quantities to feed animals that produce a small amount of meat) there are also more direct damages that are no less great.
And another small word about the interests and recommendations of health ministries. There is a video on YouTube "Transparent Walls" that shows the amount of conflicts of interest of the recommendation writers, and how many of them receive salaries from the Poultry and Milk Council, etc...
If anything from there was a lie a long time ago they would have been sued for defamation.
You are welcome to remain innocent and believe the campaigns of the meat industry and think that the money they have has no influence on the decision makers and the writers of the recommendations.
No
My opinion regarding nutrition in general and vegetarianism/vegetarianism:
1. In my opinion, a person should eat what is good for his health first, and only then consider the environment and everything else.
2. I am against industrial food, I try not to eat industrial food myself (also because I know this industry well and from the inside).
3. I am in favor of a balanced diet, my menu contains a lot of vegetables and fruits and a little meat, preferring meat from animals that are evolutionarily far from humans, poultry and fish and preferably those that feed on natural food. (I raise chickens and eat their eggs) I usually don't eat mammal meat (only because it's less healthy), I only eat poultry and fish (organic poultry without antibiotics and salmon and tuna). I also minimize eating starchy grains and sugars and oil...
4. But I am against turning this topic (or any other topic) into a religion. That's why I'm against vegetarianism, against paleo, etc. And everything I write is "usually" and "avoid" and "try"... but I don't take it as religion or as kosher laws.
5. Regarding the environment, I am very much in favor of the quality of the environment in my work, I also work on this issue in my business (treatment of toxic pollutants and waste, recycling, etc.), in life I am in favor of a minimalist approach and a natural life as much as possible - again without turning it into a fundamentalist religion.
I am also against today's excessive use of chemicals in agriculture, food, medicine and in general (even though it is professional).
6. Regarding global warming - I am sure that it exists, I have no doubt that man has a significant part in this issue, and we need to act against it (but again, in this issue, I am only against the propaganda that is made of it, the exaggerations, and turning the issue into a religion).
.
Usually what I write is my personal information, and not letters on the net.
(I try to present positions and ideas that I know are not that popular, I'm not looking to portray myself as an expert on something, nor to make an impression on anyone, so I don't mind not being popular here and not always coming out right...
(Gen- I am a chemist by profession, but I have worked in many fields in the pharmaceutical industry, chemistry, food, biotechnology, and in the past I also studied agriculture and microbiology and engineering, a nature lover, biology, astronomy and popular physics, that is why I also read the articles in science.
I am in a managerial role and sit in front of a computer all day, therefore, I have a lot of "dead" time at work, so I am interested in and read a lot of scientific studies and subscribe to all the scientific literature on the Internet.)
Of course, some of the things I write are my personal / political / philosophical opinion (I am also interested in philosophy) on the subject directly or indirectly or just what goes through my mind with the desire to provoke a slightly different thought or discussion on the subject.
There is a lot of disinformation on the net, every opinion you bring has opposite opinions. I try to refer only to reliable scientific sites and not to articles in the popular press and I also pretty much avoid Wikipedia. It is not always easy to find a scientific article that is exactly suitable for the subject in question.
my father
I read the article again. The article does not say that the color of the egg is the pigment of the corn (as opposed to the color of the meat) but that a main diet of corn causes a more faded color. which you also agree with.
Again, if you have other data show it.
And by the way, I am in favor of reducing meat consumption.
It is healthy to eat a lot of meat, especially red meat - according to the recommendation of the Medical Association:
For example: https://www.israel-heart.org.il/%D7%A6%D7%95%D7%95%D7%AA-%D7%A8%D7%A4%D7%95%D7%90%D7%99/%D7%97%D7%93%D7%A9%D7%95%D7%AA/item/3015-%D7%9E%D7%90%D7%99-2015-%D7%94%D7%9E%D7%9C%D7%A6%D7%95%D7%AA-%D7%AA%D7%96%D7%95%D7%A0%D7%AA%D7%99%D7%95%D7%AA-%D7%9C%D7%9E%D7%A0%D7%99%D7%A2%D7%AA-%D7%9E%D7%97%D7%9C%D7%95%D7%AA-%D7%A7%D7%A8%D7%93%D7%99%D7%95%D7%95%D7%90%D7%A1%D7%A7%D7%95%D7%9C%D7%A8%D7%99%D7%95%D7%AA-%D7%A2%D7%93%D7%9B%D7%95%D7%9F-%D7%9E%D7%90%D7%A4%D7%A8%D7%99%D7%9C-2011
my father
Everything I wrote about the corn is a quote from the article I gave a link for. The article was published in a serious newspaper (Calcalist from Beit Yediot, admittedly not a scientific newspaper but a very serious one) and we saw experts coming. It did not mention vegetarianism or veganism once and no one there is vegetarian.
If you have other data on the distribution of corn use in the world, please present them and don't throw hypotheses out of your head as if they work. Only 20% of corn goes to human consumption. 40% for cattle. I brought a source for my claim so don't say it's not true without your own source.
You can delete all your nonsense about "vegan interests". The meat industry has marketing budgets several orders of magnitude larger than all the vegan associations. Not including the investment in lobbyists and in the funding of sympathetic scientific research. For example, you can see their success in deleting in less than a few weeks the Ministry of Health's recommendation not to feed children processed meat (following a study that found a link to cancer).
You seem to constantly play her sophisticated and not innocent. But actually what guides you is to believe what you are comfortable believing. It makes you the most innocent person in the world.
Because the Calcalist article contains really incorrect information about chickens and the color of the egg...
For those who want to check information related to animal husbandry and agriculture, an economic newspaper is not a reliable source (in this case, even in economic matters it is not reliable) there is a faculty of agriculture, there is professional literature, and there are experts in professional forums who deal with the subject.
א
About the chickens.
All the information Friday you about the color of the egg of corn hens is incorrect.
It is true that a large part of the chicken mixture is made from corn, but the corn does not give a yellow color to the egg yolk, nor to the chicken.
The yellow-dark color of the yolk of the hen's egg originates from carotenoids (especially beta carotene) that are found in orange and green vegetables and plants, in order to dye the yolk a darker color in the past, alfalfa powder or tarantula powder was added to the hens' mixture.
(Today there are already synthetic pigments that do the same thing, only that it is not the best for health)
Chickens fed corn and other grains have a light, almost white yolk.
Another problem with corn and dry grain nutrition is that the fat composition of the egg laid by the hen that feeds on them is oleic acid (omega 6) and less than alpha oleic (omega 3), so the light egg is also less good for health.
To get an egg with omega 3 green vegetables (ALA is found in plants with chlorophyll) or flax seeds (which are among the few seeds that contain ALA), the meat of animals that eat grass also contains more omega 3 and is therefore healthier to eat.
Corn is a grain that is mainly used for human consumption - starch, oil, sugar, and more. (And the sugar produced from corn is also used in large quantities for the construction industry - it is put into the mixture of pouring concrete)
Corn is not usually grown specifically for farm animals, in Israel for example, all corn is purchased for human food and passes acceptance tests in companies that produce food for humans, and when it is of poor quality and not suitable for human consumption, it is directed to create a mixture for chickens and farm animals.
Asaf
First, I really didn't read enough carefully that this is a translation. I apologize.
Second, I didn't exactly understand your intention regarding "your objection". I wrote that if I understood correctly (and indeed you confirmed that I understood your words correctly) I have no objection.
I just pointed out that the effectiveness of such measures is low and what mainly determines the birth rate is the standard of living.
L - A - As for the "motto" indeed, as you explained and understood,
As for "the other claims you raised",
"Your objection" will not change the need of
The continued survival of the human race in a natural environment,
You should notice that the majority of the list
It is a concise translation of a study except for a number of my comments in parentheses,
That's why you have an objection or an argument with the authors of the study!
As for the reactions of - my father - it's a waste of time,
Elsewhere I wrote my opinion on the difference between discussion
which is an exchange of opinions, and an argument which is an exchange of nonsense...
I understand that my father does not intend to provide data for his claims. Which is very typical of him. It is enough to just throw away data and claims for him.
So I did a little research myself.
https://m.calcalist.co.il/Article.aspx?guid=3552039
"Until very recently, cows didn't know the taste of corn at all",... "Throughout history, cows ate only grass, and their digestive system was also adapted to it. As soon as we realized that corn makes them very fat and produce twice as much milk, we imposed a new menu on them that was completely foreign to them." This corn is digested and becomes part of the cows' meat, and it passes on to whoever eats them.
The diet of chickens is not much different. In Israel, corn fills about half of their menu. In the United States, close to one hundred percent. "In America, the chickens eat so much corn that their skin turns yellowish," says Eyal. "In Israel, the housewife does not like this shade, so the breeders add wheat to the feed in the last third of the chickens' lives, to balance the color. What cannot be changed is the color of the glowing yolk, which is actually the pigments of the corn. Chickens that eat grass have a beautiful orange yolk that is not at all like what we know...
A corn-rich diet characterizes, in fact, almost every animal that man has managed to domesticate. From pigs, turkeys, patches and pond fish to our pets...in the case of beef, 150 of the 162 servings we tested came from cows that ate only corn...according to estimates, next year global corn consumption will reach about 860 million tons of corn. 120 kg of corn for every person on earth. 20% of this corn will be eaten by humans directly, 40% will be eaten by animals and another 40% will be distilled into ethanol. Even though in the last five years the price of corn has increased by 100%, the demand for it is only increasing.." This is about corn, which is the most common crop in the world, in an article in which veganism was not mentioned once!
Regarding soy, according to Wikipedia 85-90% goes to growing meat. And soy is also one of the most common crops in the world.
But I'm sure data won't bother my father, it seems to him that most of the food for living comes from agricultural by-products, so he wrote. Has he ever read such a figure? No, then what, it won't bother him. It seems to him that a special crop for fodder does not pollute, he will write it as a fact. Is it based on something? No, why check if it made sense to my father at that moment.
Only a small percentage of the nutrition of animals that are raised for meat comes from human food byproducts. And it would also be better for the environment if it was used for energy production.
Note that the vast majority of the eight deficiencies refer to meat consumption at the household level and not to the large industrialized meat industry.
Most of the protest, both on the moral level and on the ecological level, is towards the meat industry - raising thousands of cattle and sheep, transporting them, butchering them industrially in slaughterhouses that work like a moving film. These cause deforestation, the emission of a huge amount of needs and pollution, and of course also the emission of gas. There also exist the immoral conditions, etc.
When they call for an end to meat consumption, they call for a consumer boycott of the meat industry, no one goes to demonstrations against the tribes in the Sahel. So, all in all, your entire article is not really relevant to anything.
To assemble
(I assume you collected Rosenthal. If not correct me)
If I understood correctly, you mean actions that "encourage" the reduction of birthrates and not a direct violation of the rights of the child regarding birthrates. If so, I have no objection, but as I wrote, the effect of such measures is not really great.
I would appreciate it if you would address the other claims I made against the conclusions you wrote apart from what I wrote about the permanent ending.
Where did you find out that growing for fodder does not require spraying? Any crop that grows in large and concentrated areas will eventually develop an insect that can eat it. On the contrary, in growing forage, the laws and restrictions on the use of poisons are more lenient.
You are welcome to check for yourself what percentage of corn and soy goes to the meat industry.
And also tilatan crops can be transferred to an edible crop.
Only a small part of the food for farm animals comes from crop by-products. The rest is specially sized and it doesn't matter if it is worthy of a person or not. Even tylatan, which is one of the most productive crops at the end of the process, gives less food to the nation, the possibility of growing edible crops in the same area.
In any case, it is possible to use the by-products for energy production and thus reduce the burning of fuels.
But I forgot that you don't believe in the greenhouse effect at all.
No - this is not accurate
The plants that are grown to feed these animals are usually a waste of plants that were grown for humans and are not suitable for human consumption.
Or easy-to-grow plants like alfalfa or clover whose cultivation does not require spraying or resources like plants for humans.
So this is again a "fakenews" myth that members of the vegetarian religion spread and it is not so accurate.
for the thousandth time
Global vegetation will not lead to more plant growth, on the contrary!
For every kilo of meat, 20 kilos of plants are grown to feed the animals. So if they stop eating meat, less spraying will be needed
One more thing - there is the issue of animal cruelty or animal rights - and those who love animals more than they love humans.
This issue is one of the main reasons for many people to become vegetarians and vegans - and it is known that those people mask their real reason for vegetarianism/vegetarianism by looking for other excuses for their belief, such as that it is healthier or that it is good for the environment,
And it reminds me of the converts who are looking for reasons to convince people to switch to kosher because kosher food is better for health.
To assemble
I don't know who you are referring these links to - but I happened to read them all and also many more articles than those for and against.
I am not against a vegetarian diet, I myself try to eat more plants and minimize meat.
I am against turning the topic into a religion and also against the definitions "vegetarianism" "vegetarianism" and cataloging people according to this, just as people are categorized according to their religion, Catholics, Protestants, etc.
I'm also not against the carnivores or the phyllo - for the same reasons.
Therefore, I am not at all interested in the subject of cataloging people according to what they eat: vegetarians, vegetarians, carnivores, paleos, kosher keepers, and so on.
There are nutritional recommendations from the American Medical Association and the American health and agricultural authorities, and I rely on them in matters of nutrition.
Regarding the quality of the environment - there are opinions here and there, for example those who oppose the issue claim that feeding the world with plants will require more pesticides and more use of genetic engineering... and this is bad for the environment.
I would refer you to endless articles and links of the opponents of vegetarianism - but this is an idle debate like the debate between religious and secular people about whether or not there is a God.
Response to commenters:
First of all, no - before you continue with "Destruction of Cartago" you should read this:
https://www.hayadan.org.il/assaf-on-environmntal-protection-0708114
For others who do not distinguish between vegetarianism and veganism, read this:
https://www.hayadan.org.il/call-for-people-to-be-more-vegeterian-220912
For anyone who needs reinforcement or vice versa and did not understand what was being read, here is more:
https://www.hayadan.org.il/call-for-people-to-be-more-vegeterian-220912
And again since, as it says in the subtitle, this is a summary of the fact that before they continue to attack
It is worth remembering that "end of response in reading comprehension"
And to understand you should read this:
http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20160926-what-would-happen-if-the-world-suddenly-went-vegetarian
And then read (again) my penultimate (only) paragraph...
Only those who "succeed" in reading and understanding will be justified in responding...
Nev - I forgot those who do not eat carrots or roots because it is "absolute murder of the plant" and do not eat sprouts because a sprout is the beginning of a new life...
And now there is a sect of those who do not eat milk, and there is also a "gluten weaning" sect, and the paleo - they also have all kinds of sub-sects...
These are still not really fanatical religions with preachers and converts, and lobbyists in the Knesset, like in Tiva'on, but that's how it starts (the Paleos are next in line).
gatekeeper
On the difference between vegetarianism and veganism.
I know all these errors very well, from vegans who only eat fruit that falls from a tree to vegans who don't eat honey and even eat eggs and don't eat milk but do eat goat's milk and so on and so on... and I also know the other side of excessive carnivorism, paleo, and so on .
The difference between these concepts/beliefs/religions does not interest me just as much as the difference between Protestants and Catholics or between Shias and Sunnis.
I think everyone is wrong.
The right diet for a person is a balanced diet.
And my response is because an article says that the vegan vegetarian diet is healthier, which is wrong.
My response is not only to the article but also to what previous commenters have written and also to say what I have to say on the subject and what goes through my mind when I read this article.
In connection with the constant call "Kathego should be destroyed".
I don't know how many children Assaf has. I'm guessing more than one and maybe even more than two, but let's leave the personal matter aside.
Beyond the religious and annoying fervor (as is the nature of calls "Kathego must be destroyed") it is not clear whether this is a call to enact laws that actually limit natural reproduction or only laws that encourage its reduction. If it is the second option, it should be noted that it has never worked or had the same effect, the only measure that has had an effect is the standard of living (not to the other side either, i.e. increasing the birth rate despite a high standard of living) if it is the first option, then yes China has succeeded in this, while exerting force A lot and not a small price. So first I will say that I strongly oppose you because this is a serious and forbidden violation of individual choices and a blatant intrusion of the state into the life of the citizen.
The article presents shortcomings to a theoretical reality that could never happen (except in the wild fantasy of vegetarians and vegans) of a sudden and worldwide transition to veganism. majority
The disadvantages he enumerates are completely wrong and some of them only arise from the imaginary suddenness. (I will call the arguments by numbers even though they are not numbered in the original)
1. The second billion who today are malnourished even so hardly consume meat today. And I certainly wouldn't call to compel them to stop. However, if the rest of the world switches to a plant-based diet, the world food price will drop so that starving countries can more easily import food. For example, much more than half of the soy in the world goes to the meat industry, which only produces barely 10% of it as food. In addition, the reduction in pollution from the transition to vegetarianism will reduce the global warming that was the initial source of many of the droughts and famines in these places.
2. The writer's concern for the cultural heritage seems to me no less than pointing. It doesn't seem to me that he would have written something like this about the practice of atonement with a chicken or the traditional fox fur hats of the Hasids. In addition, the amount of meat produced by these nomadic groups is extremely negligible for the world production nation and is barely enough for their own needs. In addition to this, I have no dream that people will remain forever in a life of poverty and deprivation for the purpose of "preserving a unique heritage" so that people like you can travel the world and enjoy "a fascinating encounter with backward cultures"
3. The percentage of those engaged in agriculture in Western countries is borderline negligible. Of these, only some are engaged in meat production.
In any case, they will not switch to vegetable farming. On the contrary, a global transition to vegetarianism will reduce both the plant agricultural production and demand as well as the accompanying environmental damage.
But because the process in reality will be gradual, a catastrophe is not expected as described in the article. What's more, in any case, the number of agricultural slaves is expected to drop to a truly zero level due to mechanization and robotics.
4. This argument about the contribution to the environment of grazing animals sounds delusional to me. I have never heard of such an argument. In general, grazing is much more harmful than farming (although it is slightly more humane), grazing pushes animals out of huge areas and is also harmful to vegetation. Admittedly, there are specific cases where damage to certain wild animals results in environmental damage (such as an excess of vegetation in a forested area due to damage to large herbivorous mammals, which may lead to fires, for example) so the easy and non-ideal solution is the introduction of farm animals. It is much better to try to bring back or rehabilitate elk or deer and in any case it has nothing to do with the meat industry.
5. The last argument is really ridiculous and does not deserve to be treated except as a reference to the answer to argument 2.
All the talk at the end of the article about how reducing meat is enough is nonsense. Certainly, reducing meat eating will reduce infection, but a complete cessation will reduce more. It could only be said that a reduction is enough if the situation was that a certain level of reduction the benefit is already negligible or that a complete reduction is not possible. And this is not the case, the benefit in reducing meat is linear, and vegetarianism is certainly possible in the West. In addition, vegetarianism and complete veganism stimulate finding better substitutes and make them cheaper.
In general, it seems that the writer is looking for excuses for not switching to vegetarianism instead of admitting to himself that it is difficult for him to make the switch (I also still have a hard time switching to full veganism and for now I am only a vegetarian. But I make an ideology out of it)
The article presents shortcomings to a theoretical reality that could not at all occur (except in the wild fantasy of vegetarians and vegans) of a sudden and worldwide transition to veganism. Most of the disadvantages he enumerates are completely wrong and some of them only arise from the imaginary suddenness. (I will call the arguments by numbers even though they are not numbered in the original)
1. The second billion who today are malnourished even so hardly consume meat today. And I certainly wouldn't call to compel them to stop. However, if the rest of the world switches to a plant-based diet, the world food price will drop so that starving countries can more easily import food. For example, much more than half of the soy in the world goes to the meat industry, which only produces barely 10% of it as food. In addition, the reduction in pollution from the transition to vegetarianism will reduce the global warming that was the initial source of many of the droughts and famines in these places.
2. The writer's concern for the cultural heritage seems to me no less than pointing. It doesn't seem to me that he would have written something like this about the practice of atonement with a chicken or the traditional fox fur hats of the Hasids. In addition, the amount of meat produced by these nomadic groups is extremely negligible for the world production nation and is barely enough for their own needs. In addition to this, I have no dream that people will remain forever in a life of poverty and deprivation for the purpose of "preserving a unique heritage" so that people like you can travel the world and enjoy "a fascinating encounter with backward cultures"
3. The percentage of those engaged in agriculture in Western countries is borderline negligible. Of these, only some are engaged in meat production.
In any case, they will not switch to vegetable farming. On the contrary, a global transition to vegetarianism will reduce both the plant agricultural production and demand as well as the accompanying environmental damage.
But because the process in reality will be gradual, a catastrophe is not expected as described in the article. What's more, in any case, the number of agricultural slaves is expected to drop to a truly zero level due to mechanization and robotics.
4. This argument about the contribution to the environment of grazing animals sounds delusional to me. I have never heard of such an argument. In general, grazing is much more harmful than farming (although it is slightly more humane), grazing pushes animals out of huge areas and is also harmful to vegetation. Admittedly, there are specific cases where damage to certain wild animals results in environmental damage (such as an excess of vegetation in a forested area due to damage to large herbivorous mammals, which may lead to fires, for example) so the easy and non-ideal solution is the introduction of farm animals. It is much better to try to bring back or rehabilitate elk or deer and in any case it has nothing to do with the meat industry.
5. The last argument is really ridiculous and does not deserve to be treated except as a reference to the answer to argument 2.
All the talk at the end of the article about how reducing meat is enough is nonsense. Certainly, reducing meat eating will reduce infection, but a complete cessation will reduce more. It could only be said that a reduction is enough if the situation was that a certain level of reduction the benefit is already negligible or that a complete reduction is not possible. And this is not the case, the benefit in reducing meat is linear, and vegetarianism is certainly possible in the West. In addition, vegetarianism and complete veganism stimulate finding better substitutes and make them cheaper.
In general, it seems that the writer is looking for excuses for not switching to vegetarianism instead of admitting to himself that it is difficult for him to make the switch (I also still have a hard time switching to full veganism and for now I am only a vegetarian. But I make an ideology out of it)
As usual in the holy place - my father - responds regardless of writing,
The entire article refers to vegetarianism and it is appropriate that the (regular) commenter will learn and understand the difference
between vegetarianism and veganism,
After the difference is clear to my father, he should read the article again
from beginning to end and then (perhaps) his response will be appropriate,
Regarding Hawking - as others have said, it is better if he deals only with what he understands.
There are other examples of geniuses in a specific field who talked nonsense when they interfered in other fields.
nostradamus - in the past I wrote the interpretation and the meaning of "motto",
You should read before you "step into an open door"
Skeptic - it has already been said that "end of response in reading comprehension"
Since the reference is to vegetarianism, not to veganism, there is a difference...
- There is a separate and different approach to the "Third World"...
- There is a separate and different attitude towards the natives, herders and nomads who take advantage of "burial areas"...
- Many studies show how the energy yield is better from growing vegetables than meat...
- Note that most of the list is translated and only the penultimate paragraph contains my reference,
In the last paragraphs, you are absolutely right, but that is another "story"...
All the vegans I know suffer from malnutrition to one degree or another and are unhealthy people. You need nutritional supplements, and medicines, and you eat a lot of processed industrial food (for example, all soy products) saturated with chemicals.
It is true that an excess of meat, especially fatty and red meat, causes diseases, but also malnutrition resulting from vegetarianism and veganism is harmful to health.
Man is an omnivore and must get food from both animals and plants in a balanced way.
Unfortunately, Tivaonism has become a fanatical religion and its followers preach fanatically and tempt people and children to join them without knowing the damages caused to them due to malnutrition.
Hawking is really not a mediocre scientist. He is one of the greatest scientists in his field. It is true that he may be the most famous scientist today, but it is not certain that he is the greatest (ask a man on the street what name of a living scientist he knows. 98% will say either an Israeli scientist or Hawking) It is clear that his disease and his life story have a part in his publication, as well as the collection of successful popular science stories he published. But from here to calling him a mediocre scientist the distance is great. However, you really have to remember that Hawking is an expert in a specific field (physics) and that statements from fields should be taken with limited responsibility. I really agree that many of Hawking's statements in recent years border on delusions and have no basis. Hawking is undoubtedly a genius but there is a difference between a genius and a genius. I have no doubt that the father of the hydrogen bomb and winner of the Iago Nobel Peace Prize (for his support for the tactical use of atomic bombs) is also much more of a genius than I am and yet an idiot.
Annie claims that Hawking is an idiot, on the contrary in my opinion he is admirable. And yet we don't have to accept everything he says as the words of a living God.
It seems to me that the author of the article is putting the cart before the horse, or in the English version,
As long as the first world consumes meat, there is nothing to talk about in the third world.
It's messing with the taste and not the main thing, in the third world they consume much less meat, it's not a daily thing like here,
In addition, the data presented in the article do not necessarily correspond to reality because, for example, a mass transition to vegetarianism will be expensive
the dairy products to the extent that it will no longer be a basic product, because it is clear that no one intends to simply eliminate animals,
In a very general way today, a modern dairy farm is based on the fact that all the males are slaughtered and the life span of the cow is about 5 years, and then she is also sent to slaughter instead of about 25 years of life, so for example we will take a modern dairy farm of about 300 cows, we will add all the males
It's already 600 cows and we'll value their lives 5 times to 25. We're talking about 3000 cows each, 10 times more than the modern barn
In addition, the barn will not receive money from the slaughterhouses, so all of this will fall on the dairy industry, it will become caviar for the rich.
More or less the same would be true for chickens,
So if we talk about a mass transition to vegetarianism, we are actually talking about a transition to veganism,
So a vegetarian today actually "enjoys" a low price of products that are a byproduct of the meat industry,
A vegan diet is much more complex than a meat diet and if it is not done carefully the result is the same
A person who is not healthy, many vegetarians and vegans supplement the deficiency either with injections or pills such as B12,
Since many of the vegetarians/vegans are people for whom health is a very important part of their lives, they also maintain a healthy life span such as sports and other foods, being careful of excess fat, etc... But basically the meat diet is probably an important part of the human diet for millions of years and is natural for humans, the whole exchange This of products from life will have to be grown in the fields
A large part of the meat comes from cows that eat grass from uncultivated pit areas, so that some of those areas will undergo conversion and become agricultural areas, products for humans from land areas require much more intensive processing than an area intended for cattle that is still only meat, the real main reason to switch to veganism is the reduction of suffering in the animal world. Not sure it will happen
Because the greatest human damage is the huge urban areas and the highways authority tracks that divide and destroy the living areas of the animals, this is the heaviest damage, we always hear and see images of destruction from the third world
But the more total destruction is with us the pastoral images of areas in Europe where there is only grass
Iceland is one example of many, from a place where there were about 40 forested areas, only about 4 percent of forests remain as a result of hundreds and thousands of years of exploitation of nature by man.
The real chance for the end of man's reliance on the living world is that meat will not come from life, meaning that it will be created from tissue culture, so that the substitutes will actually be the same only without the source which is life and thus at least in this place will prevent suffering in this world.
nostradmus
Indeed, there are no words in the lexicon to describe your stupidity.
Are you talking about crazy? look in the mirror
There are two options in the context of KDA -
A. Either the person will succeed with the help of technology to repair the damage he is doing, or alternatively to inhabit other stars.
B. Or not, and then your offspring will suffer, but of course they are not delusional - they will deal with how to survive instead of wasting their time cursing you.
nostradmus
I think we both know who is smarter, you or Hawking. Hint - if Hawking gets stuck in the brain with a drone, he will still be much smarter than you.
"The time has come that instead of controlling the environment for the sake of the human population, there will be control of the human population for the sake of the environment"
Are you really serious that the environment is more important than humans and their civilization? Do you live in a cave and eat twigs? How ridiculous can you be?
The fact that Hawking is a mediocre and disabled physicist does not mean that he is not an idiot and his exits are becoming more delusional day by day and seem to be invited at a high price
Hawking estimates that within 200-500 years humanity will make the planet unfit for habitation, without an atmosphere that can be lived in terms of temperature and gas composition. It doesn't look like much in the sky.