The researchers of the United Nations Agricultural Agency (FAO's) call for an effort that will lead to the conservation of the gene pool since "genetic diversity of farm animals is a prerequisite for future adaptation to changes"
Although the variety of breeds of farm animals occupies an essential place in supplying food to a world that is getting warmer, many of the varieties are in danger. The researchers of the United Nations Agricultural Agency (FAO's) call for an effort that will lead to the conservation of the gene pool since "genetic diversity of farm animals is a prerequisite for future adaptation to changes". This is stated in the agency's report, which emphasizes the need to ensure that genetic sources of farm animals are used to promote nutritional security and remain so for generations to come."
It is accepted that mixed species/varieties will be more successful and durable, but it turns out that in many cases hybrids cause genetic deterioration, meaning breeds that are adapted to difficult conditions lose their skills because of hybrids
The authors of the report claim that the expanding distribution of non-indigenous varieties and lack of regulation cause damage to production because of the attitude that "indigenous varieties are not competitive", and not because as a result of adaptation over many generations, native breeds are resistant not only to climatic changes but also to diseases, lack of in scarce water or pasture, therefore it is necessary and important to preserve the genetic diversity of farm animals.
In developing countries, crossbreeding is common in order to improve milk yield or the speed of maturation, which causes the loss of unique features such as resistance to extreme temperatures, contentment with little food or water and other environmental challenges.
As an example, the report cites Pantanal cattle in Brazil called Pantneiro's. The cattle brought by the Portuguese (in the 17th century) developed over the years a resistance to parasites and local diseases, cattle that continued to exist in floods and droughts and thrived on the local pasture, at the beginning of the 20th century there were several thousand Pentaniros.
However, crossbreeding in the imported varieties caused the loss of resistance properties and the special cattle are becoming fewer and fewer and today there are only about 500 individuals that still carry the special genes and the skills of resistance and survival in the conditions of the Fentanyl,
On the other hand, a local example. In 1959, the settlers of Naut HaKachar brought cattle of the Brahma and Afrikandar varieties, assuming that the hybrids would adapt to the salting conditions. But it turns out that the cows suffered from drills and a wild growth of the telepims, maybe because they were not given enough time to adapt?
Left with no other choice, the herd was taken to the "recovery" in the north and sold, but during the loading of the cows, a number of individuals ran away and attached themselves to the cows that ran away from the villages of Phipi and Tzafi. Within about five years, the offspring of the Arabs and the runaways developed resistance to fevers, did not breed talipes, multiplied and lived in the salt as wild animals free from parasites and diseases, that is, hybridization of Afrikandar Brahma and local cows managed to overcome the local problems.
Unfortunately, the new settlers and our soldiers did not understand the uniqueness of the wild herd and treated them like pigs that were in the field, hunting them down to the last... a pity.
According to the report of the United Nations Agriculture Agency, today there are about 1500 breeds of farm animals, of which 17% are in danger of extinction. The status of 58% of the varieties is unclear due to a lack of data. But it is known that in recent generations about 100 varieties have become extinct. In order to assess the condition of farm animals, a survey was conducted in 130 countries and it turns out that since 2007 the situation has slightly improved due to the activity of governments to "stop genetic attrition" and to properly manage the breeds in their countries
If in 2007 only 10 countries reported a "garden bank", then recently the number increased to 64 and another 41 countries are planning a "garden bank". Considering that in the last decade many European countries are investing in information systems that are distributed to everyone, there is hope that unique breeds of farm animals will be preserved and exist in future generations as well.
Now they will come up and come and crack up with a loud shout those who have turned vegetarianism and tyvaism into a religion. They will shout that 'man does not eat meat by nature' and therefore it is not moral and there is no need for farm animals', so they should turn to human history and remember that until the agricultural revolution (about 12 thousand years ago) the human population existed from gathering and foraging, that is, from a wide variety of foods - including meat. It is also appropriate for them to learn that even today there are hunter-gatherer societies, as well as shepherd societies that subsist on food based on products from the sheep and cattle herds, and let's not forget the hunters of the far north whose livelihood is mainly based on hunting.
17 תגובות
You are completely wrong. It would be appropriate for you to read what he wrote and what was written in their name before you respond. Faith is a natural human trait and is deeply rooted in the human spirit which is *not at all* accessible to the investigation of the geologist.
All those intellectuals and scientists you mention do not believe
In "Supreme Judge" not in "Supreme Ruler" and not in "Supreme Power"
Because for them religion is the same moral value system,
Some define it as conscience,
To distinguish thousands of differences from devout believers...
"To believe in that "higher power" you have to be ignorant!
To wait for the ruling of a "Supreme Judge" you have to be frustrated!
To flock after a "super ruler" you have to embrace the herd!
Capish?”
Tell that to that part of the elite of physicists and mathematicians who are religious believers. Tell that to the aristocracy of philosophy for all its generations who for the most part believed.
The fact that you are disabled in various aspects of the human spirit, the fact that you lack organs of discernment and discernment, does not mean that everyone is like you. If we rely on the short quote from your words that I have brought here, it is you who is afflicted with superficial fanaticism and narrow-mindedness.
Of course, all this does not mean that people of faith (or their path in life) are above criticism. On the contrary, they are actually tested with seven eyes because their integrity and adherence to the values of truth is a touchstone for their honesty and faith.
Why do you have to be ignorant to believe in a higher power?
If I didn't make it clear enough then:
A distinction must be made between religions that originated in the ancient world and that enabled public life,
Religions based on them are systems of laws and laws that gave societies a basis
that replaced the primal instincts,
Today there are systems of judgment and control that replace and limit the religions,
But in front of those systems that are supposed to be based on logic and morality,
Stand those pious believers for whom there is:
"Supreme Ruler" "All-Knowing" "Supreme Judge" who is worked and not listened to,
now:
To believe in that "higher power" you have to be ignorant!
To wait for the ruling of a "Supreme Judge" you have to be frustrated!
To flock after a "super ruler" you have to embrace the herd!
Capish?
Doron
Are the "anti-religious" the most absent? seriously? What happened when Deri was sent to prison?
By and large I agree, I just wanted to comment on your sentence:
"What leads to religion are:
Frustration or herds or - ignorance"
It changes in the religion and the person himself
Sometimes this is true (in my non-objective opinion, especially in Islam) but this generalization is simply not true.
Entire encyclopedias of books full of questions and drawing conclusions with logical tools show that Judaism does not indicate ignorance at all. It can be said that the students of the ultra-orthodox education show ignorance on topics not related to Judaism, but the seculars also show ignorance on topics related to Judaism (and unlike the ultra-Orthodox, they are not as well educated on topics not related to Judaism).
And regarding the frustration and the herdsmen, I came to know that the anti-religious are the most frustrated and the most herdsmen.
It is clear that all vegans are ignorant and ignorant and frustrated. Otherwise what other reason does someone have to disagree with you.
collect,
"Frustration or herds or - ignorance". Is this also true regarding the religion of "peace"? Also suitable for the sect of skeptics? Or do you only look at those who are not your ideological clone through the zoologist's glasses?
And now you'll only eat chips, obviously that's not healthy
There is nothing unhealthy about veganism. For every example of a hunting society, you can give an example of a vegetarian society or one that eats a very small amount of animals. Today there are also vegan Olympic athletes. And by and large most vegans are healthier (it's true that you can say it's vegetarian even if you are more health conscious) but of course you can't claim that it's unhealthy. Of course, if you eat mostly chips, the older one
It is not necessary to contradict the last paragraph to be vegan. There are also vegan companies that lived for years in Tibet for example. The point is that it is possible and more moral. In a certain sense it is also more natural for the body (I am not saying that eating meat is completely unnatural because for hundreds of thousands of years the ancient man also adapted to meat and yet it is a relatively short time, still the basic instinct of man is reluctance to live meat,)
Maybe it's natural for rape too, that doesn't mean it's okay.
It is easiest to end a discussion with "it is impossible to convince them because they are ignorant" instead of dealing with the claims. I will only talk about B12 which is always mentioned as a winning answer. All farm animals receive B12 as a supplement in food or by injection. This vitamin is missing for vegetarians because we don't eat plants straight from the ground (nor farm animals) so what is healthier to take a pill or stick an injection into an animal and then eat it. The question is not what is natural but what is moral. If it is possible to live without killing animals and cause less ecological damage, that is what should be done. Catching fish is also natural, but at the size of humanity today, if we continue to eat fish, there will be no fish left in the sea. Although it is natural for one species to exterminate another species.
As an ecologist you should know that animal agriculture (except for honey) harms the environment much more (it is true that plant agriculture also harms, but animal agriculture is additional damage to the damage of growing food for animals and I am not talking about grazing which causes enormous damage)
She added this paragraph after the response.
Full disclosure I am a vegetarian and aspire to be vegan.
But for the purpose we will ignore the moral aspect because the site is a scientific site. It is clear that from a scientific point of view man is an omnivore created from vegetarian ancestors. It is also clear that he adapted to eating meat and thus also increased his ability to survive. He even underwent a genetic change that allowed him to digest milk after the weaning phase (a new change in the sense of evolution and many people lack this mutation, that's why many are sensitive to milk). The use of the term natural is subject to interpretation.
In a "natural" way, 7 billion people are not supposed to live, and these people are not supposed to be vaccinated, they are supposed to die of hunger and disease. So the whole use of the word natural is problematic, it's natural that a cat plays with a mouse it hunts, it doesn't mean that a person can be cruel to live. It is impossible to provide such cheap meat as today without causing such indescribable suffering. In any case, there is no need for such an amount: a. No hunters or shepherds eat as much meat as they do today. B. A balanced vegan diet is healthier, especially today when all meat is flooded with antibiotics and hormones and antibiotic resistant bacteria. third. If we want to provide enough food for a growing world and without completely destroying the planet, we should slowly switch to a mainly vegetarian diet. d. There are many studies that claim that it is not possible without meat, we must not forget the economic interests behind them, the meat industry, eggs (another example of something "natural" the ancient man did not eat eggs for more than two months of the year) and milk (another lie as if it is impossible to provide calcium without milk even though all animals in the wild doing well) invests millions in research like the tobacco companies at the time. A scientist who wants to contribute to the world who will invest in genetic engineering for plants and biological control and not in producing chickens with huge breasts that do not allow them to move. One last thing, veganism is not a religion, but it is similar in that it deals with morality and it is not scientific. It is impossible to scientifically explain why it is bad to starve animals for 14 (some percent of them will die and all of them will lose their feathers) just for a few more eggs
Both of you read the last paragraph over and over
until you might understand what is written in it
Then try to contradict her,
Only that, only the last paragraph,
If you don't succeed then you probably believe
in the vegan religion,
And believers / religious people have no chance to convince that it is
What leads to religion are:
Frustration or ignorance or - ignorance.
Successfully…
Mr. Rosetnell,
I suggest you read all the accumulated evidence that animal protein is not suitable for human consumption and its effect on the body is destructive, in addition to other animal components that increase morbidity in humans and I can briefly and partially list the diseases caused directly and indirectly by eating animals and their products : damage to the liver, kidneys and pancreas, cancer, osteoporosis (mainly due to drinking milk but also due to the fact that animal protein increases the acidity in the blood which is neutralized with the help of calcium secretion from the bones into the blood), damage to the bacteria in the intestines and the health of the intestines as a result, heart disease due to the immediate inflammation caused by animal protein in the arteries and the hand is still tilted. If you turn to Dr. Michael Greger's lecture on the subject, you will see that out of the top 20 causes of death today, 18 are the result of eating animals and their products. If we go back to human history then you can understand why even 12 thousand years ago man's diet was no longer compatible with his biological structure, in order to understand our nature we need to go back to the beginning of humanity and the development of man from the monkey, humanoid monkeys are known to be vegetarians and with the evolution and development of man he began to consume Animals due to scarcity. To see, try to do an experiment with yourself that aims to find out what is natural for you to eat, hold an apple in one hand and a chick in the other and be attentive to your instincts, which one do you want to eat? You can repeat the experiment with lettuce and lamb, rice and cow, chickpeas and fish or tomato and egg. During the experiment you will prove that nature designed your instincts so that you choose the most suitable food for you. If you are still not convinced, go to the slaughterhouse nearest to your place of residence and watch the process that a cow or lamb goes through from an animal to a steak or a hamburger and ask yourself if you would be willing to imagine eating it except in situations of scarcity like the one our ancestors suffered from 12 thousand years ago?
The meat industry only causes food shortages in the world. Not to mention the ecological fingerprint it causes.
Most of the food of farm animals in the world could be used for food for humans or was grown especially on land that could grow food. What's more, 20 tons of plant food are needed for one ton of meat. If it were allowed to feed animals only with agricultural by-products (such as straw) there would be no shortage of food in the world. But there will also be less meat and that's fine, there's no need and it's also not healthy to eat amounts of meat that are eaten in the West. People really believe that you must have meat every day and eggs every day.