Eat less meat

Our microsite www.eatlessmeat.org is packed with further information

http://tinyurl.com/ys5gv6
Overview
Global meat production and consumption are soaring. Until the 1990s,
the vast majority of animal products were consumed in rich countries,
yet the last decade has seen many in developing nations also adopt the
“Western diet”. Together with the growth in meat consumption,
intensive factory farms are not just the norm in “the west”, but are
proliferating rapidly in countries like Brazil and China to meet the
demand for meat.

All indications are that this trend will continue apace for the
foreseeable future, encouraged by governments and international
agri-business.


The scale of expansion in meat production and consumption is
unsustainable. Rather than helping to tackle global hunger, the
increase in meat consumption threatens global food security, our
shared environment and our own health.

The main problems can be summarised as follows;

Human health: Alongside the increased consumption of animal fats are
disturbing rates of obesity, heart disease and adult-onset diabetes.
In order to reduce the risk from these diseases, all informed opinion
now stresses the desirability of reduced consumption of animal
products and increased intake of fresh fruit, vegetables and
fibre-rich carbohydrates

The welfare of farmed animals: The explosion in meat consumption is
paralleled by the global expansion of industrial “factory farming” of
animals, a system which by its very nature compromises basic welfare
standards. In factory farms, the animals suffer from confinement,
isolation or overcrowding and the frustration of their natural
behaviour.

Water scarcity: Lack of water is set to be the biggest threat to
global stability in coming decades. Producing meat uses up vast
amounts of water; each calorie of meat takes far more water to produce
than a calorie of grain or carbohydrate; for example, it takes only
500 litres of water to produce a kilo of potatoes, but 100,000 litres
to produce a kilo of beef.

Environmental impact: The unsustainably large livestock population is
having a devastating effect on our environment. A major contributor to
global warming, livestock herds account for 10% of all greenhouse
gases, including 25% of all methane emissions. In addition, the sheer
volume of waste generated by the farm animal population, together with
the excessive use of fertilisers to grow their feed, causes high
levels of ammonia and nitrate pollution of land, water and air.

Global food security: Much of the earth’s arable land is now being
used to grow feed crops for intensively farmed animals rather than for
people.
Placing animal products at the centre of food policy greatly
diminishes the possibility of feeding the world’s human population.
Rather than using vast areas of land to grow crops for animal feed,
more food can be obtained by using land to grow crops for direct human
consumption.

Brief history and future objectives
CIWF launched its Eat Less Meat campaign in March 2004 at an event in
London. Speakers included leading environmentalist Jonathon Porritt,
author Colin Tudge and food policy expert Professor Tim Lang.
CIWF has published a range of materials to support the campaign: a
report “The Global Benefits of Eating Less Meat” by Mark Gold, with
foreword by Jonathon Porritt and a video “Eat Less Meat – it’s costing
the Earth” narrated by Joanna Lumley.

Several organisations are supporting our campaign:
The Soil Association
http://www.soilassociation.org/
The Food Commission
http://www.foodcomm.org.uk/
The Gaia Foundation
http://freespace.virgin.net/s.rabin/html/mainmenu.html
The Biodynamic Agriculture Association
http://www.anth.org.uk/biodynamic/
The Research Foundation for Science, Technology and Ecology (India)
http://www.vshiva.net/
The Women's Environmental Network (WEN)
http://www.wen.org.uk/

The campaign aims a
To persuade consumers to eat less meat and eat only organic or free
range meat
To persuade western governments to set targets for a reduction in meat
consumption. We are aiming for a 15% reduction by 2020

Campaign actions
Set personal targets for eating less meat. How about meatless Mondays?
When you buy meat, always buy organic or free range.
When in restaurants, ask if the meat they serve is organic or free
range. If not, try the vegetarian option!
Visit the eatlessmeat.org microsite or order our report, video or
leaflets.
http://www.eatlessmeat.org/

Talk about the idea of eating less meat to family, friends and
colleagues or write to your local newspaper about the issue.
Get involved with CIWF

CIWF is the organisation that gets things done. To find out more on
how you can actively help CIWF with petitions, demonstrations and
community fundraising, visit the Get involved section of the website.

On Mar 11, 8:24 am, "( _ /)" > wrote:
> Eat less meat
>
> Our micrositewww.eatlessmeat.orgis packed with further information
>
> http://tinyurl.com/ys5gv6
> Overview
> Global meat production and consumption are soaring. Until the 1990s,
> the vast majority of animal products were consumed in rich countries,
> yet the last decade has seen many in developing nations also adopt the
> "Western diet". Together with the growth in meat consumption,
> intensive factory farms are not just the norm in "the west", but are
> proliferating rapidly in countries like Brazil and China to meet the
> demand for meat.
>
> All indications are that this trend will continue apace for the
> foreseeable future, encouraged by governments and international
> agri-business.
>
> The scale of expansion in meat production and consumption is
> unsustainable. Rather than helping to tackle global hunger, the
> increase in meat consumption threatens global food security, our
> shared environment and our own health.
>
> The main problems can be summarised as follows;
>
> Human health: Alongside the increased consumption of animal fats are
> disturbing rates of obesity, heart disease and adult-onset diabetes.
> In order to reduce the risk from these diseases, all informed opinion
> now stresses the desirability of reduced consumption of animal
> products and increased intake of fresh fruit, vegetables and
> fibre-rich carbohydrates
>
> The welfare of farmed animals: The explosion in meat consumption is
> paralleled by the global expansion of industrial "factory farming" of
> animals, a system which by its very nature compromises basic welfare
> standards. In factory farms, the animals suffer from confinement,
> isolation or overcrowding and the frustration of their natural
> behaviour.
>
> Water scarcity: Lack of water is set to be the biggest threat to
> global stability in coming decades. Producing meat uses up vast
> amounts of water; each calorie of meat takes far more water to produce
> than a calorie of grain or carbohydrate; for example, it takes only
> 500 litres of water to produce a kilo of potatoes, but 100,000 litres
> to produce a kilo of beef.
>
> Environmental impact: The unsustainably large livestock population is
> having a devastating effect on our environment. A major contributor to
> global warming, livestock herds account for 10% of all greenhouse
> gases, including 25% of all methane emissions. In addition, the sheer
> volume of waste generated by the farm animal population, together with
> the excessive use of fertilisers to grow their feed, causes high
> levels of ammonia and nitrate pollution of land, water and air.
>
> Global food security: Much of the earth's arable land is now being
> used to grow feed crops for intensively farmed animals rather than for
> people.
> Placing animal products at the centre of food policy greatly
> diminishes the possibility of feeding the world's human population.
> Rather than using vast areas of land to grow crops for animal feed,
> more food can be obtained by using land to grow crops for direct human
> consumption.
>
> Brief history and future objectives
> CIWF launched its Eat Less Meat campaign in March 2004 at an event in
> London. Speakers included leading environmentalist Jonathon Porritt,
> author Colin Tudge and food policy expert Professor Tim Lang.
> CIWF has published a range of materials to support the campaign: a
> report "The Global Benefits of Eating Less Meat" by Mark Gold, with
> foreword by Jonathon Porritt and a video "Eat Less Meat - it's costing
> the Earth" narrated by Joanna Lumley.
>
> Several organisations are supporting our campaign:
> The Soil Associationhttp://www.soilassociation.org/
> The Food Commissionhttp://www.foodcomm.org.uk/
> The Gaia Foundationhttp://freespace.virgin.net/s.rabin/html/mainmenu.html
> The Biodynamic Agriculture Associationhttp://www.anth.org.uk/biodynamic/
> The Research Foundation for Science, Technology and Ecology (India)http://www.vshiva.net/
> The Women's Environmental Network (WEN)http://www.wen.org.uk/
>
> The campaign aims a
> To persuade consumers to eat less meat and eat only organic or free
> range meat
> To persuade western governments to set targets for a reduction in meat
> consumption. We are aiming for a 15% reduction by 2020
>
> Campaign actions
> Set personal targets for eating less meat. How about meatless Mondays?
> When you buy meat, always buy organic or free range.
> When in restaurants, ask if the meat they serve is organic or free
> range. If not, try the vegetarian option!
> Visit the eatlessmeat.org microsite or order our report, video or
> leaflets.
> http://www.eatlessmeat.org/
>
> Talk about the idea of eating less meat to family, friends and
> colleagues or write to your local newspaper about the issue.
> Get involved with CIWF
>
> CIWF is the organisation that gets things done. To find out more on
> how you can actively help CIWF with petitions, demonstrations and
> community fundraising, visit the Get involved section of the website.

People do eat too much crappy meats..and other foods of course. Maybe
the quality outlets should be licenced and people could have a
tradable ration? This way places like the 'Hotshop' in Llanberis,
Gwynedd, North Wales, could carry on making the absolute best Shish
kebabs in the UK, whlist all that rubbish sold could be phased out,
and the rest of the time people could eat raw nuts and fruits and the
like. The land thus freed could be used for tree crops etc and also
native reafforestation of the empty wastes of the UK hill country. The
process could be speeded up by stopping all animal farming subsidy and
all other non organic subsidy. Hill farmers could take the Forestry
Commision shilling if they wanted government/public money....the FC
have gone very native tree orientated recently.

( _ /) wrote:
> Eat less meat

Why avoid the REAL problem?
You should be campaigning to stop people breeding like rats.
But of course, no one wants to touch that one with a barge pole...

--
http://fun.drno.de/pics/english/rooftops.jpg

"( _ /)" > wrote
> Eat less meat
>

How about just eat less, consume less, PERIOD? Why pick on meat? You
wouldn't have an ummm hidden agenda, would you?

On Wed, 12 Mar 2008 06:39:06 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:

>"( _ /)" > wrote
>> Eat less meat
>>
>
>How about just eat less, consume less, PERIOD? Why pick on meat? You
>wouldn't have an ummm hidden agenda, would you?

Obesity is a serious problem due to animal products entirely. So
therefore Eat less meat

Our microsite www.eatlessmeat.org is packed with further information

http://tinyurl.com/ys5gv6
Overview
Global meat production and consumption are soaring. Until the 1990s,
the vast majority of animal products were consumed in rich countries,
yet the last decade has seen many in developing nations also adopt the
“Western diet”. Together with the growth in meat consumption,
intensive factory farms are not just the norm in “the west”, but are
proliferating rapidly in countries like Brazil and China to meet the
demand for meat.

All indications are that this trend will continue apace for the
foreseeable future, encouraged by governments and international
agri-business.


The scale of expansion in meat production and consumption is
unsustainable. Rather than helping to tackle global hunger, the
increase in meat consumption threatens global food security, our
shared environment and our own health.

The main problems can be summarised as follows;

Human health: Alongside the increased consumption of animal fats are
disturbing rates of obesity, heart disease and adult-onset diabetes.
In order to reduce the risk from these diseases, all informed opinion
now stresses the desirability of reduced consumption of animal
products and increased intake of fresh fruit, vegetables and
fibre-rich carbohydrates

The welfare of farmed animals: The explosion in meat consumption is
paralleled by the global expansion of industrial “factory farming” of
animals, a system which by its very nature compromises basic welfare
standards. In factory farms, the animals suffer from confinement,
isolation or overcrowding and the frustration of their natural
behaviour.

Water scarcity: Lack of water is set to be the biggest threat to
global stability in coming decades. Producing meat uses up vast
amounts of water; each calorie of meat takes far more water to produce
than a calorie of grain or carbohydrate; for example, it takes only
500 litres of water to produce a kilo of potatoes, but 100,000 litres
to produce a kilo of beef.

Environmental impact: The unsustainably large livestock population is
having a devastating effect on our environment. A major contributor to
global warming, livestock herds account for 10% of all greenhouse
gases, including 25% of all methane emissions. In addition, the sheer
volume of waste generated by the farm animal population, together with
the excessive use of fertilisers to grow their feed, causes high
levels of ammonia and nitrate pollution of land, water and air.

Global food security: Much of the earth’s arable land is now being
used to grow feed crops for intensively farmed animals rather than for
people.
Placing animal products at the centre of food policy greatly
diminishes the possibility of feeding the world’s human population.
Rather than using vast areas of land to grow crops for animal feed,
more food can be obtained by using land to grow crops for direct human
consumption.

Brief history and future objectives
CIWF launched its Eat Less Meat campaign in March 2004 at an event in
London. Speakers included leading environmentalist Jonathon Porritt,
author Colin Tudge and food policy expert Professor Tim Lang.
CIWF has published a range of materials to support the campaign: a
report “The Global Benefits of Eating Less Meat” by Mark Gold, with
foreword by Jonathon Porritt and a video “Eat Less Meat – it’s costing
the Earth” narrated by Joanna Lumley.

Several organisations are supporting our campaign:
The Soil Association
http://www.soilassociation.org/
The Food Commission
http://www.foodcomm.org.uk/
The Gaia Foundation
http://freespace.virgin.net/s.rabin/html/mainmenu.html
The Biodynamic Agriculture Association
http://www.anth.org.uk/biodynamic/
The Research Foundation for Science, Technology and Ecology (India)
http://www.vshiva.net/
The Women's Environmental Network (WEN)
http://www.wen.org.uk/

The campaign aims a
To persuade consumers to eat less meat and eat only organic or free
range meat
To persuade western governments to set targets for a reduction in meat
consumption. We are aiming for a 15% reduction by 2020

Campaign actions
Set personal targets for eating less meat. How about meatless Mondays?
When you buy meat, always buy organic or free range.
When in restaurants, ask if the meat they serve is organic or free
range. If not, try the vegetarian option!
Visit the eatlessmeat.org microsite or order our report, video or
leaflets.
http://www.eatlessmeat.org/

Talk about the idea of eating less meat to family, friends and
colleagues or write to your local newspaper about the issue.
Get involved with CIWF

CIWF is the organisation that gets things done. To find out more on
how you can actively help CIWF with petitions, demonstrations and
community fundraising, visit the Get involved section of the website.

On Wed, 12 Mar 2008 09:36:18 +1100, Jeßus >
wrote:

>( _ /) wrote:
>> Eat less meat
>
>Why avoid the REAL problem?
>You should be campaigning to stop people breeding like rats.
>But of course, no one wants to touch that one with a barge pole...

You are of course right. The UK is currently experiencing a free for
all when it comes to immigration. Not just for jobs, these people are
staying here and breeding in huge numbers.

Whilst on paper (after they have cooked the books) it would seem we
have the same amount of people as we always had, give or take, but in
reality almost everyone in the UK is starting to feel a foreigner in
their own country. Sadly it's probably too late to change anything
now, our society has been watered down to obscurity already.

In the meantime Eat less meat

Our microsite www.eatlessmeat.org is packed with further information

http://tinyurl.com/ys5gv6
Overview
Global meat production and consumption are soaring. Until the 1990s,
the vast majority of animal products were consumed in rich countries,
yet the last decade has seen many in developing nations also adopt the
“Western diet”. Together with the growth in meat consumption,
intensive factory farms are not just the norm in “the west”, but are
proliferating rapidly in countries like Brazil and China to meet the
demand for meat.

All indications are that this trend will continue apace for the
foreseeable future, encouraged by governments and international
agri-business.


The scale of expansion in meat production and consumption is
unsustainable. Rather than helping to tackle global hunger, the
increase in meat consumption threatens global food security, our
shared environment and our own health.

The main problems can be summarised as follows;

Human health: Alongside the increased consumption of animal fats are
disturbing rates of obesity, heart disease and adult-onset diabetes.
In order to reduce the risk from these diseases, all informed opinion
now stresses the desirability of reduced consumption of animal
products and increased intake of fresh fruit, vegetables and
fibre-rich carbohydrates

The welfare of farmed animals: The explosion in meat consumption is
paralleled by the global expansion of industrial “factory farming” of
animals, a system which by its very nature compromises basic welfare
standards. In factory farms, the animals suffer from confinement,
isolation or overcrowding and the frustration of their natural
behaviour.

Water scarcity: Lack of water is set to be the biggest threat to
global stability in coming decades. Producing meat uses up vast
amounts of water; each calorie of meat takes far more water to produce
than a calorie of grain or carbohydrate; for example, it takes only
500 litres of water to produce a kilo of potatoes, but 100,000 litres
to produce a kilo of beef.

Environmental impact: The unsustainably large livestock population is
having a devastating effect on our environment. A major contributor to
global warming, livestock herds account for 10% of all greenhouse
gases, including 25% of all methane emissions. In addition, the sheer
volume of waste generated by the farm animal population, together with
the excessive use of fertilisers to grow their feed, causes high
levels of ammonia and nitrate pollution of land, water and air.

Global food security: Much of the earth’s arable land is now being
used to grow feed crops for intensively farmed animals rather than for
people.
Placing animal products at the centre of food policy greatly
diminishes the possibility of feeding the world’s human population.
Rather than using vast areas of land to grow crops for animal feed,
more food can be obtained by using land to grow crops for direct human
consumption.

Brief history and future objectives
CIWF launched its Eat Less Meat campaign in March 2004 at an event in
London. Speakers included leading environmentalist Jonathon Porritt,
author Colin Tudge and food policy expert Professor Tim Lang.
CIWF has published a range of materials to support the campaign: a
report “The Global Benefits of Eating Less Meat” by Mark Gold, with
foreword by Jonathon Porritt and a video “Eat Less Meat – it’s costing
the Earth” narrated by Joanna Lumley.

Several organisations are supporting our campaign:
The Soil Association
http://www.soilassociation.org/
The Food Commission
http://www.foodcomm.org.uk/
The Gaia Foundation
http://freespace.virgin.net/s.rabin/html/mainmenu.html
The Biodynamic Agriculture Association
http://www.anth.org.uk/biodynamic/
The Research Foundation for Science, Technology and Ecology (India)
http://www.vshiva.net/
The Women's Environmental Network (WEN)
http://www.wen.org.uk/

The campaign aims a
To persuade consumers to eat less meat and eat only organic or free
range meat
To persuade western governments to set targets for a reduction in meat
consumption. We are aiming for a 15% reduction by 2020

Campaign actions
Set personal targets for eating less meat. How about meatless Mondays?
When you buy meat, always buy organic or free range.
When in restaurants, ask if the meat they serve is organic or free
range. If not, try the vegetarian option!
Visit the eatlessmeat.org microsite or order our report, video or
leaflets.
http://www.eatlessmeat.org/

Talk about the idea of eating less meat to family, friends and
colleagues or write to your local newspaper about the issue.
Get involved with CIWF

CIWF is the organisation that gets things done. To find out more on
how you can actively help CIWF with petitions, demonstrations and
community fundraising, visit the Get involved section of the website.

"Osvald Hotz De Baar" > wrote
> On Wed, 12 Mar 2008 06:39:06 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
>>"( _ /)" > wrote
>>> Eat less meat
>>>
>>
>>How about just eat less, consume less, PERIOD? Why pick on meat? You
>>wouldn't have an ummm hidden agenda, would you?
>
> Obesity is a serious problem due to animal products entirely. So
> therefore Eat less meat


That is inaccurate, obesity is a serious problem which is a direct result of
excessive consumption, measured in calories. Therefore consume fewer
calories.

Also reconsider the energy argument. Meat is frequently, as in my case,
raised a few miles from where it is sold, so the energy expended to
transport it to market, per calorie, is very small, whereas products like,
say, bananas, require a large expenditure of energy to transport them, say,
from Equador to New York. Therefore eat less bananas.

Osvald Hotz De Baar wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Mar 2008 09:36:18 +1100, Jeßus >
> wrote:
>
>> ( _ /) wrote:
>>> Eat less meat
>> Why avoid the REAL problem?
>> You should be campaigning to stop people breeding like rats.
>> But of course, no one wants to touch that one with a barge pole...
>
> You are of course right. The UK is currently experiencing a free for
> all when it comes to immigration. Not just for jobs, these people are
> staying here and breeding in huge numbers.
>
> Whilst on paper (after they have cooked the books) it would seem we
> have the same amount of people as we always had, give or take, but in
> reality almost everyone in the UK is starting to feel a foreigner in
> their own country. Sadly it's probably too late to change anything
> now, our society has been watered down to obscurity already.

Well, immigration is really a separate issue to overpopulation, which is
*the* #1 problem regardless of where they might be.

We could become 1000 times more efficient in food production overnight,
give *everyone* as much food as they need - all that will happen is an
even faster increase in population growth. Humans will breed to whatever
the breaking point is in their region.

> In the meantime Eat less meat

Probably particularly relevant to Westerners, but yes - 'we' tend to eat
too much meat, irrespective of personal views on whether to be Vegan or not.




--
http://fun.drno.de/pics/english/rooftops.jpg

On Thu, 13 Mar 2008 17:33:37 +1100, Jeßus >
wrote:

>Osvald Hotz De Baar wrote:
>> On Wed, 12 Mar 2008 09:36:18 +1100, Jeßus >
>> wrote:
>>
>>> ( _ /) wrote:
>>>> Eat less meat
>>> Why avoid the REAL problem?
>>> You should be campaigning to stop people breeding like rats.
>>> But of course, no one wants to touch that one with a barge pole...
>>
>> You are of course right. The UK is currently experiencing a free for
>> all when it comes to immigration. Not just for jobs, these people are
>> staying here and breeding in huge numbers.
>>
>> Whilst on paper (after they have cooked the books) it would seem we
>> have the same amount of people as we always had, give or take, but in
>> reality almost everyone in the UK is starting to feel a foreigner in
>> their own country. Sadly it's probably too late to change anything
>> now, our society has been watered down to obscurity already.
>
>Well, immigration is really a separate issue to overpopulation, which is
>*the* #1 problem regardless of where they might be.

It's the immigrants breeding that is causing the feeling of
overpopulation. I live in London and can see first hand the dilution
of Britain. Without doubt the largest increase in so few years is of
East Europeans.

Not their fault. If our politicians are stupid enough to open the
floodgates and keep them open then we can only blame them.

Politicians seem to have an aversion to seeing the long term picture.
Either that or their ivory towers are just too well insulated from the
rest of us.

>We could become 1000 times more efficient in food production overnight,
>give *everyone* as much food as they need - all that will happen is an
>even faster increase in population growth. Humans will breed to whatever
>the breaking point is in their region.

Same in wildlife really.

>> In the meantime Eat less meat
>
>Probably particularly relevant to Westerners, but yes - 'we' tend to eat
>too much meat, irrespective of personal views on whether to be Vegan or not.

Quite. Forget veggie or not, it's gone beyond that. We now need to
start thinking about saving our planet.

pete the lying "ar" loon shitbag lied:
> On Thu, 13 Mar 2008 17:33:37 +1100, Jeßus >
> wrote:
> [...]

Just shut up and **** off, pete, you stupid lying shitbag.

On 12 Mar, 07:25, Osvald Hotz De Baar >
wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Mar 2008 06:39:06 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
> >"( _ /)" > wrote
> >> Eat less meat
>
> >How about just eat less, consume less, PERIOD? Why pick on meat? You
> >wouldn't have an ummm hidden agenda, would you?
>
> Obesity is a serious problem due to animal products entirely. So
> therefore Eat less meat

So if I had a diet of chips (that's French fries to Americans) which
are completely vegan - just potatoes, oil and salt - I would never get
fat, is that what you're REALLY claiming?

I'll never be able to understand faith-heads of any stripe....

Dragonblaze

- God? I'm no God. God has mercy. -

On 17 Mar, 16:14, dh@. wrote:
> On Fri, 14 Mar 2008 06:55:29 -0700 (PDT), Dragonblaze > wrote:
> >On 12 Mar, 07:25, Osvald Hotz De Baar >
> >wrote:
> >> On Wed, 12 Mar 2008 06:39:06 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
> >> >"( _ /)" > wrote
> >> >> Eat less meat
>
> >> >How about just eat less, consume less, PERIOD? Why pick on meat? You
> >> >wouldn't have an ummm hidden agenda, would you?
>
> >> Obesity is a serious problem due to animal products entirely. So
> >> therefore Eat less meat
>
> >So if I had a diet of chips (that's French fries to Americans) which
> >are completely vegan - just potatoes, oil and salt - I would never get
> >fat, is that what you're REALLY claiming?
>
> >I'll never be able to understand faith-heads of any stripe....
>
> * * I've recently learned that strong atheists are most amusing
> about their faith. I was first amused to learn that they deny
> their faith that the tooth fairy doesn't exist, also Santa and
> the Easter Bunny, etc. Then I was more amused to learn
> they deny their own faith in the possibility that a creator
> does not exist, and later that they deny their own faith in
> everything they have faith in, including their faith that the
> Earth will continue to rotate. How screwed up can you get?

Don't make unwarranted assumptions. The fact that I recognize
religious or quasi-religious fanatics ("faith-heads") does not mean
I'm an atheist.... As a matter of fact, I'm an agnostic.

Now kindly address the issue: are you claiming that it would be
impossible to become obese on a vegan diet?

Dragonblaze

- God? I'm no God. God has mercy. -

On Fri, 14 Mar 2008 06:55:29 -0700 (PDT), Dragonblaze > wrote:

>On 12 Mar, 07:25, Osvald Hotz De Baar >
>wrote:
>> On Wed, 12 Mar 2008 06:39:06 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>> >"( _ /)" > wrote
>> >> Eat less meat
>>
>> >How about just eat less, consume less, PERIOD? Why pick on meat? You
>> >wouldn't have an ummm hidden agenda, would you?
>>
>> Obesity is a serious problem due to animal products entirely. So
>> therefore Eat less meat
>
>So if I had a diet of chips (that's French fries to Americans) which
>are completely vegan - just potatoes, oil and salt - I would never get
>fat, is that what you're REALLY claiming?
>
>I'll never be able to understand faith-heads of any stripe....

I've recently learned that strong atheists are most amusing
about their faith. I was first amused to learn that they deny
their faith that the tooth fairy doesn't exist, also Santa and
the Easter Bunny, etc. Then I was more amused to learn
they deny their own faith in the possibility that a creator
does not exist, and later that they deny their own faith in
everything they have faith in, including their faith that the
Earth will continue to rotate. How screwed up can you get?

<dh@.> wrote in message ...
> On Fri, 14 Mar 2008 06:55:29 -0700 (PDT), Dragonblaze
> > wrote:
>
>>On 12 Mar, 07:25, Osvald Hotz De Baar >
>>wrote:
>>> On Wed, 12 Mar 2008 06:39:06 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>> >"( _ /)" > wrote
>>> >> Eat less meat
>>>
>>> >How about just eat less, consume less, PERIOD? Why pick on meat? You
>>> >wouldn't have an ummm hidden agenda, would you?
>>>
>>> Obesity is a serious problem due to animal products entirely. So
>>> therefore Eat less meat
>>
>>So if I had a diet of chips (that's French fries to Americans) which
>>are completely vegan - just potatoes, oil and salt - I would never get
>>fat, is that what you're REALLY claiming?
>>
>>I'll never be able to understand faith-heads of any stripe....
>
> I've recently learned that strong atheists are most amusing
> about their faith. I was first amused to learn that they deny
> their faith that the tooth fairy doesn't exist, also Santa and
> the Easter Bunny, etc. Then I was more amused to learn
> they deny their own faith in the possibility that a creator
> does not exist, and later that they deny their own faith in
> everything they have faith in, including their faith that the
> Earth will continue to rotate. How screwed up can you get?


People who claim to be "amused" are usually "confused".

In MsgID<eUKBj.74184$w94.59582@pd7urf2no> on Wed, 12 Mar 2008 06:39:06
GMT, in uk.current-events.bird-flu, 'Dutch' wrote:

>"( _ /)" > wrote
>> Eat less meat
>>
>
>How about just eat less, consume less, PERIOD? Why pick on meat? You
>wouldn't have an ummm hidden agenda, would you?

Meat is (I believe) an inefficient use of resources in the production of
food. It also has a vast (and compared to decaying plant matter
unavoidable) amount of methane as a byproduct.

I speak BTW as a lifelong carnivore. The nearest I come to vegetarianism
is a vague effort to keep my meat consumption down to what I consider to
be the optimum minimal level that (again as I consider it) gives the
maximum yield in terms of bodily benefits.

However from the facts I've read, you can't argue with the veggies for
saying that there's a hugely greater nutritional value from a given amount
of land if it's used for the right arable crops, intended for direct
consumption, than if it's used to support animals for us to eat.

What I want to see in the future is meat that's grown in tanks, with no
brain attached, and the nutrients directly supplied rather than being
inefficiently converted from foodstock. I imagine that route would knock
spots off the 'efficiency' argument against meat, it would also shut down
the 'cruel to bring about life just because you wanna eat it' argument.

Dave J.


--
Freeware Open Source Internet Television / Video RSS player. Fetches Video
RSS feeds or retrieves from regular searches on Youtube or Google video.
Dozens of feeds as defaults. Science, Politics, Music, Geekery...
Miro -> Downloadable from http://www.GetMiro.org <- Worth a try!

"Dave J." > wrote in message ...
> In MsgID<eUKBj.74184$w94.59582@pd7urf2no> on Wed, 12 Mar 2008 06:39:06
> GMT, in uk.current-events.bird-flu, 'Dutch' wrote:
>
> >"( _ /)" > wrote
> >> Eat less meat
> >>
> >
> >How about just eat less, consume less, PERIOD? Why pick on meat? You
> >wouldn't have an ummm hidden agenda, would you?
>
> Meat is (I believe) an inefficient use of resources in the production of
> food. It also has a vast (and compared to decaying plant matter
> unavoidable) amount of methane as a byproduct.
>
> I speak BTW as a lifelong carnivore. The nearest I come to vegetarianism
> is a vague effort to keep my meat consumption down to what I consider to
> be the optimum minimal level that (again as I consider it) gives the
> maximum yield in terms of bodily benefits.

'There appears to be no threshold of plant-food enrichment or
minimization of fat intake beyond which further disease prevention
does not occur. These findings suggest that even small intakes of
foods of animal origin are associated with significant increases in
plasma cholesterol concentrations, which are associated, in turn,
with significant increases in chronic degenerative disease mortality
rates. - Campbell TC, Junshi C. Diet and chronic degenerative
diseases: perspectives from China. Am J Clin Nutr 1994 May;59
(5 Suppl):1153S-1161S.'

'Analyses of data from the China studies by his collaborators and
others, Campbell told the epidemiology symposium, is leading to
policy recommendations. He mentioned three:

* The greater the variety of plant-based foods in the diet, the greater
the benefit. Variety insures broader coverage of known and unknown
nutrient needs.

* Provided there is plant food variety, quality and quantity, a healthful
and nutritionally complete diet can be attained without animal-based
food.

* The closer the food is to its native state - with minimal heating,
salting and processing - the greater will be the benefit.

http://www.news.cornell.edu/Chronicl..._Study_II.html

> However from the facts I've read, you can't argue with the veggies for
> saying that there's a hugely greater nutritional value from a given amount
> of land if it's used for the right arable crops, intended for direct
> consumption, than if it's used to support animals for us to eat.

'Depending on the type of meat, it takes 6-17 times more land to
feed the average American meat eater than to feed a vegetarian.30
...
30 L. Reijinders and Sam Soret, PhDs 2003,
...'
http://www.massanimalrights.org/enviroflier.html

> What I want to see in the future is meat that's grown in tanks, with no
> brain attached, and the nutrients directly supplied rather than being
> inefficiently converted from foodstock. I imagine that route would knock
> spots off the 'efficiency' argument against meat, it would also shut down
> the 'cruel to bring about life just because you wanna eat it' argument.
>
> Dave J.
>
>
> --
> Freeware Open Source Internet Television / Video RSS player. Fetches Video
> RSS feeds or retrieves from regular searches on Youtube or Google video.
> Dozens of feeds as defaults. Science, Politics, Music, Geekery...
> Miro -> Downloadable from http://www.GetMiro.org <- Worth a try!

Dave J. > writes
>Meat is (I believe) an inefficient use of resources in the production of
>food. It also has a vast (and compared to decaying plant matter unavoidable)
>amount of methane as a byproduct.

That depends. If you are talking about most of upland britain, its
impossible to grow arable crops there so the ONLY resource is grazing by
livestock. In this case of course its NOT an inefficient use of
resources.

Also to note that all decaying plant matter emits methane, remember the
fuss when they recently discovered vast amounts were being emitted by
topsoils worldwide.

--
Oz
This post is worth absolutely nothing and is probably fallacious.

In > on Wed, 19 Mar 2008 15:37:52
-0000, in uk.current-events.bird-flu, 'pearl' wrote:

>> I speak BTW as a lifelong carnivore. The nearest I come to vegetarianism
>> is a vague effort to keep my meat consumption down to what I consider to
>> be the optimum minimal level that (again as I consider it) gives the
>> maximum yield in terms of bodily benefits.
>
>'There appears to be no threshold of plant-food enrichment or
>minimization of fat intake beyond which further disease prevention
>does not occur. These findings suggest that even small intakes of
>foods of animal origin are associated with significant increases in
>plasma cholesterol concentrations, which are associated, in turn,
>with significant increases in chronic degenerative disease mortality
>rates. - Campbell TC, Junshi C. Diet and chronic degenerative
>diseases: perspectives from China. Am J Clin Nutr 1994 May;59
>(5 Suppl):1153S-1161S.'
>
>'Analyses of data from the China studies by his collaborators and
>others, Campbell told the epidemiology symposium, is leading to
>policy recommendations. He mentioned three:
>
>* The greater the variety of plant-based foods in the diet, the greater
>the benefit. Variety insures broader coverage of known and unknown
>nutrient needs.
>
>* Provided there is plant food variety, quality and quantity, a healthful
>and nutritionally complete diet can be attained without animal-based
>food.
>
>* The closer the food is to its native state - with minimal hea


Hmm, fair enough I suppose, though I'm suspicious of any hidden motivation
behind the study. I've always figured that meat provides useful amino
chunks that are less easy to find in a vegetarian diet, with the
undesirable fats being a cost that should be kept to a minimum.

If the study holds water over the years then I suppose I'll just have to
give in and own up to having some meat because a) I like it and b) I'm too
lazy to organise a balanced vegetarian intake.

Dave J.

In > on Wed, 19 Mar 2008
15:52:34 +0000, in uk.current-events.bird-flu, 'Oz' wrote:

>>Meat is (I believe) an inefficient use of resources in the production of
>>food. It also has a vast (and compared to decaying plant matter unavoidable)
>>amount of methane as a byproduct.
>
>That depends. If you are talking about most of upland britain, its
>impossible to grow arable crops there so the ONLY resource is grazing by
>livestock. In this case of course its NOT an inefficient use of
>resources.

Yes, that makes a good justification for minor meat consumption. Though
not for the American style gullet stuffing that's threatening to infect
the globe.

>Also to note that all decaying plant matter emits methane, remember the
>fuss when they recently discovered vast amounts were being emitted by
>topsoils worldwide.

I've always figured though that the emissions from decaying vegetable
matter are more easily either controlled, reduced, or harnessed for
burning than those from animals.

Make no mistake, I'm in no way an advocate of humanity turning vegetarian,
I just see both sides of the debate and accept that we're swinging too far
into rain forest destroying hamburger-gulping greed that caries a massive,
almost karmic, future health cost.

Dave J.

In message >, Dave J. >
writes
>In > on Wed, 19 Mar 2008
>15:52:34 +0000, in uk.current-events.bird-flu, 'Oz' wrote:
>
>>>Meat is (I believe) an inefficient use of resources in the production of
>>>food. It also has a vast (and compared to decaying plant matter unavoidable)
>>>amount of methane as a byproduct.
>>
>>That depends. If you are talking about most of upland britain, its
>>impossible to grow arable crops there so the ONLY resource is grazing by
>>livestock. In this case of course its NOT an inefficient use of
>>resources.
>
>Yes, that makes a good justification for minor meat consumption. Though
>not for the American style gullet stuffing that's threatening to infect
>the globe.
>
>>Also to note that all decaying plant matter emits methane, remember the
>>fuss when they recently discovered vast amounts were being emitted by
>>topsoils worldwide.
>
>I've always figured though that the emissions from decaying vegetable
>matter are more easily either controlled, reduced, or harnessed for
>burning than those from animals.
>
>Make no mistake, I'm in no way an advocate of humanity turning vegetarian,
>I just see both sides of the debate and accept that we're swinging too far
>into rain forest destroying hamburger-gulping greed that caries a massive,
>almost karmic, future health cost.
>
>Dave J.

I'm obviously suffering from mental constipation but could someone
enlighten me as to what this rubbish has to do with a ng dedicated to
British birdwatching? By all means discuss this in the fullest possible
detail in the vegan, veggie, environmentally aware landfill sites,
methane and related gases and such focussed groups but please don't dump
this rubbish in the British birdwatching group. After all you have
around 60,000 other newsgroups to choose.

Hopefully an ill controlled rant will not ensue.

And I know I'm crossposting. Irritating isn't it!

--
Tom Withycombe
NW Dorset/UK

Tom Withycombe wrote:
>
> I'm obviously suffering from mental constipation but could someone
> enlighten me as to what this rubbish has to do with a ng dedicated to
> British birdwatching?

Nothing at all Tom, just as it has little relevance to many of the
groups to which it is cross posted. However, Pete is so desperate for
attention that he always cross posts to at least six groups. In
addition, he frequently nymshifts in attempts to avoid the kill filters.

> By all means discuss this in the fullest possible detail in the vegan, veggie, environmentally aware landfill sites,
> methane and related gases and such focussed groups but please don't dump
> this rubbish in the British birdwatching group. After all you have
> around 60,000 other newsgroups to choose.

Pete just does not care.

> Hopefully an ill controlled rant will not ensue.

Pete probably hopes that it will.

> And I know I'm crossposting. Irritating isn't it!

Indeed but, as I have said, Pete does not care.


--
Old Codger
e-mail use reply to field

What matters in politics is not what happens, but what you can make
people believe has happened. [Janet Daley 27/8/2003]

In message >, Old Codger
> writes
>Tom Withycombe wrote:
>> I'm obviously suffering from mental constipation but could someone
>>enlighten me as to what this rubbish has to do with a ng dedicated to
>>British birdwatching?
>
>Nothing at all Tom, just as it has little relevance to many of the
>groups to which it is cross posted. However, Pete is so desperate for
>attention that he always cross posts to at least six groups. In
>addition, he frequently nymshifts in attempts to avoid the kill filters.
>
>> By all means discuss this in the fullest possible detail in the
>>vegan, veggie, environmentally aware landfill sites, methane and
>>related gases and such focussed groups but please don't dump this
>>rubbish in the British birdwatching group. After all you have around
>>60,000 other newsgroups to choose.
>
>Pete just does not care.
>
>> Hopefully an ill controlled rant will not ensue.
>
>Pete probably hopes that it will.
>
>> And I know I'm crossposting. Irritating isn't it!
>
>Indeed but, as I have said, Pete does not care.
>
>
Thanks. Fortunately I have not come across Peter before. Sounds like I
need to open the kerplonk file.
--
Tom Withycombe
Eagle Travel Marketing Ltd
Dorset/UK
Tel : +44 (0)1935 873344
Fax : +44 (0)1935 873331
Website: www.classichideaways.com

Tom Withycombe wrote:
> In message >, Old Codger
> > writes
>>
>> Indeed but, as I have said, Pete does not care.
>>
>>
> Thanks. Fortunately I have not come across Peter before. Sounds like I
> need to open the kerplonk file.

Watch out for the nymshifting.


--
Old Codger
e-mail use reply to field

What matters in politics is not what happens, but what you can make
people believe has happened. [Janet Daley 27/8/2003]

On 20 Mar, 16:21, Old Codger > wrote:
> Tom Withycombe wrote:
>
> > I'm obviously suffering from mental constipation but could someone
> > enlighten me as to what this rubbish has to do with a ng dedicated to
> > British birdwatching?
>
> Nothing at all Tom, just as it has little relevance to many of the
> groups to which it is cross posted.

Of course the problem could be alleviated if everyone replying
to the guy removed all the irrelevant groups from the cross-post
first. It is easier for me to remember to do this than most people
because google groups never allows me to post to more than 5
groups at a time.

>*However, Pete is so desperate for
> attention that he always cross posts to at least six groups.

Why does he post to small groups instead of large ones if
that is his motivation?

>*In
> addition, he frequently nymshifts in attempts to avoid the kill filters.

If they don't want to read his posts he should respect that...

> > By all means discuss this in the fullest possible detail in the vegan, veggie, environmentally aware landfill sites,
> > methane and related gases and such focussed groups but please don't dump
> > this rubbish in the British birdwatching group. After all you have
> > around 60,000 other newsgroups to choose.
>
> Pete just does not care.
>
> > Hopefully an ill controlled rant will not ensue.
>
> Pete probably hopes that it will.
>
> > And I know I'm crossposting. Irritating isn't it!
>
> Indeed but, as I have said, Pete does not care.
>
> --
> Old Codger
> e-mail use reply to field
>
> What matters in politics is not what happens, but what you can make
> people believe has happened. [Janet Daley 27/8/2003]

Dave J. > writes
>15:52:34 +0000, in uk.current-events.bird-flu, 'Oz' wrote:

>>
>>That depends. If you are talking about most of upland britain, its
>>impossible to grow arable crops there so the ONLY resource is grazing by
>>livestock. In this case of course its NOT an inefficient use of
>>resources.
>
>Yes, that makes a good justification for minor meat consumption. Though
>not for the American style gullet stuffing that's threatening to infect
>the globe.

Yes, to an extent. Mind you, outside southern india 'the rest of the
globe' has tended to eat as much meat as it can afford, and always has
done. Its perhaps the total quantity eaten which many find offensive in
the US.

>>Also to note that all decaying plant matter emits methane, remember the
>>fuss when they recently discovered vast amounts were being emitted by
>>topsoils worldwide.
>
>I've always figured though that the emissions from decaying vegetable
>matter are more easily either controlled, reduced, or harnessed for
>burning than those from animals.

Maybe, it would be nice to have decaying biomass of all sorts to help
power the wildlife in the world. From earthworms mighty lions feed (via
a few steps, its true).

>Make no mistake, I'm in no way an advocate of humanity turning vegetarian,
>I just see both sides of the debate and accept that we're swinging too far
>into rain forest destroying hamburger-gulping greed that caries a massive,
>almost karmic, future health cost.

Mostly its because the world population is way to big, and growing
bigger. Religions don't in general help, I note.

--
Oz
This post is worth absolutely nothing and is probably fallacious.

Goo - ****wit David Harrison, THE GOOBER, a colossally
stupid ****wit and an OUTED queer - lied and presented
no challenge:

> On Mon, 17 Mar 2008 08:21:02 -0700 (PDT), Dragonblaze > wrote:
>
>> Goo - ****wit David Harrison, THE GOOBER, a colossally stupid ****wit and an OUTED queer - lied and presented no challenge:
>>> On Fri, 14 Mar 2008 06:55:29 -0700 (PDT), Dragonblaze > wrote:
>>>> On 12 Mar, 07:25, Osvald Hotz De Baar >
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 12 Mar 2008 06:39:06 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>>> "( _ /)" > wrote
>>>>>>> Eat less meat
>>>>>> How about just eat less, consume less, PERIOD? Why pick on meat? You
>>>>>> wouldn't have an ummm hidden agenda, would you?
>>>>> Obesity is a serious problem due to animal products entirely. So
>>>>> therefore Eat less meat
>>>> So if I had a diet of chips (that's French fries to Americans) which
>>>> are completely vegan - just potatoes, oil and salt - I would never get
>>>> fat, is that what you're REALLY claiming?
>>>> I'll never be able to understand faith-heads of any stripe....
>>> I've recently learned that strong atheists are most amusing
>>> about their faith.

You're an idiot.


>> Don't make unwarranted assumptions. The fact that I recognize
>> religious or quasi-religious fanatics ("faith-heads") does not mean
>> I'm an atheist.... As a matter of fact, I'm an agnostic.
>
> I thought I was, but it turns out I'm a weak atheist since
> part of being agnostic means you don't think it can be
> known whether God exists or not. I believe it can be known
> if he does,

You have no basis for that belief.

On Mon, 17 Mar 2008 08:21:02 -0700 (PDT), Dragonblaze > wrote:

>On 17 Mar, 16:14, dh@. wrote:
>> On Fri, 14 Mar 2008 06:55:29 -0700 (PDT), Dragonblaze > wrote:
>> >On 12 Mar, 07:25, Osvald Hotz De Baar >
>> >wrote:
>> >> On Wed, 12 Mar 2008 06:39:06 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>> >> >"( _ /)" > wrote
>> >> >> Eat less meat
>>
>> >> >How about just eat less, consume less, PERIOD? Why pick on meat? You
>> >> >wouldn't have an ummm hidden agenda, would you?
>>
>> >> Obesity is a serious problem due to animal products entirely. So
>> >> therefore Eat less meat
>>
>> >So if I had a diet of chips (that's French fries to Americans) which
>> >are completely vegan - just potatoes, oil and salt - I would never get
>> >fat, is that what you're REALLY claiming?
>>
>> >I'll never be able to understand faith-heads of any stripe....
>>
>> * * I've recently learned that strong atheists are most amusing
>> about their faith. I was first amused to learn that they deny
>> their faith that the tooth fairy doesn't exist, also Santa and
>> the Easter Bunny, etc. Then I was more amused to learn
>> they deny their own faith in the possibility that a creator
>> does not exist, and later that they deny their own faith in
>> everything they have faith in, including their faith that the
>> Earth will continue to rotate. How screwed up can you get?
>
>Don't make unwarranted assumptions. The fact that I recognize
>religious or quasi-religious fanatics ("faith-heads") does not mean
>I'm an atheist.... As a matter of fact, I'm an agnostic.

I thought I was, but it turns out I'm a weak atheist since
part of being agnostic means you don't think it can be
known whether God exists or not. I believe it can be known
if he does, but not if he doesn't.

>Now kindly address the issue: are you claiming that it would be
>impossible to become obese on a vegan diet?

That was someone else's thing, not mine. It seems to me
a couple pounds of sugar a day would make for obesity,
and starch turns to sugar, then fat, so it seems like it should
be simple enough. Well the popular idea of eating protein
and fat, and cellulose but no starch, should be enough to
show that eliminating starchy/sugary stuff does as well or
better than eliminating animal products. It seems more like
the sort of diet humans would have developed around,
to me. Meat and insects, fruits and whatever vegetables,
and probably leaves. Before humans learned to make
flour and breads etc, there probably wasn't a whole lot
of starch in their diet. But now...

On Mon, 17 Mar 2008 21:56:10 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:

><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>> On Fri, 14 Mar 2008 06:55:29 -0700 (PDT), Dragonblaze
>> > wrote:
>>
>>>On 12 Mar, 07:25, Osvald Hotz De Baar >
>>>wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 12 Mar 2008 06:39:06 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>> >"( _ /)" > wrote
>>>> >> Eat less meat
>>>>
>>>> >How about just eat less, consume less, PERIOD? Why pick on meat? You
>>>> >wouldn't have an ummm hidden agenda, would you?
>>>>
>>>> Obesity is a serious problem due to animal products entirely. So
>>>> therefore Eat less meat
>>>
>>>So if I had a diet of chips (that's French fries to Americans) which
>>>are completely vegan - just potatoes, oil and salt - I would never get
>>>fat, is that what you're REALLY claiming?
>>>
>>>I'll never be able to understand faith-heads of any stripe....
>>
>> I've recently learned that strong atheists are most amusing
>> about their faith. I was first amused to learn that they deny
>> their faith that the tooth fairy doesn't exist, also Santa and
>> the Easter Bunny, etc. Then I was more amused to learn
>> they deny their own faith in the possibility that a creator
>> does not exist, and later that they deny their own faith in
>> everything they have faith in, including their faith that the
>> Earth will continue to rotate. How screwed up can you get?
>
>People who claim to be "amused" are usually "confused".

Did you hear that on TV or something?

<dh@.> wrote in message news
> On Mon, 17 Mar 2008 21:56:10 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
>><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>>> On Fri, 14 Mar 2008 06:55:29 -0700 (PDT), Dragonblaze
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>>On 12 Mar, 07:25, Osvald Hotz De Baar >
>>>>wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 12 Mar 2008 06:39:06 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>> >"( _ /)" > wrote
>>>>> >> Eat less meat
>>>>>
>>>>> >How about just eat less, consume less, PERIOD? Why pick on meat? You
>>>>> >wouldn't have an ummm hidden agenda, would you?
>>>>>
>>>>> Obesity is a serious problem due to animal products entirely. So
>>>>> therefore Eat less meat
>>>>
>>>>So if I had a diet of chips (that's French fries to Americans) which
>>>>are completely vegan - just potatoes, oil and salt - I would never get
>>>>fat, is that what you're REALLY claiming?
>>>>
>>>>I'll never be able to understand faith-heads of any stripe....
>>>
>>> I've recently learned that strong atheists are most amusing
>>> about their faith. I was first amused to learn that they deny
>>> their faith that the tooth fairy doesn't exist, also Santa and
>>> the Easter Bunny, etc. Then I was more amused to learn
>>> they deny their own faith in the possibility that a creator
>>> does not exist, and later that they deny their own faith in
>>> everything they have faith in, including their faith that the
>>> Earth will continue to rotate. How screwed up can you get?
>>
>>People who claim to be "amused" are usually "confused".
>
> Did you hear that on TV or something?


Nope, you're transparent, you used the word three times in that paragraph,
you are not amused, you protest too much, you're in a horrible muddle.

"Oz" > wrote in message
...
>
> Also to note that all decaying plant matter emits methane, remember the
> fuss when they recently discovered vast amounts were being emitted by
> topsoils worldwide.
>


In an area of Salisbury which had a building estate using an ex-city dump
there was a sudden need to dig holes to release gas safely. The dump had
been disused for decades and had been deemed inactive.

I find it astonishing that it is accepted that a super-computer is needed
to inaccurately predict weather and yet "obvious aint it" is applied to the
global warming problem.

It will be interesting to see what the coming credit crunch driven downturn
in the economy does to people's views as jobs disappear and people realize
that
keeping the worlds economy going and reducing emissions is not going to be
easy.

On Fri, 21 Mar 2008 08:30:29 -0000, "Buddenbrooks" >
wrote:

>
>"Oz" > wrote in message
...
> >
>> Also to note that all decaying plant matter emits methane, remember the
>> fuss when they recently discovered vast amounts were being emitted by
>> topsoils worldwide.
>>
>
>
> In an area of Salisbury which had a building estate using an ex-city dump
>there was a sudden need to dig holes to release gas safely. The dump had
>been disused for decades and had been deemed inactive.
>
> I find it astonishing that it is accepted that a super-computer is needed
>to inaccurately predict weather and yet "obvious aint it" is applied to the
>global warming problem.
>
>It will be interesting to see what the coming credit crunch driven downturn
>in the economy does to people's views as jobs disappear and people realize
>that
>keeping the worlds economy going and reducing emissions is not going to be
>easy.

You are sort of missing the point. The global economy as we know it is
completely unsustainable, wasteful and destructive short cut to
destruction. The sooner we get rid of the idiocy of a material society
the better.

Then of course everything else will fall in to place.

Anyone who thinks we can carry on as we are is living in cuckoo land.

On Thu, 20 Mar 2008 10:58:04 -0700 (PDT), Buxqi >
wrote:

>On 20 Mar, 16:21, Old Codger > wrote:
>> Tom Withycombe wrote:
>>
>> > I'm obviously suffering from mental constipation but could someone
>> > enlighten me as to what this rubbish has to do with a ng dedicated to
>> > British birdwatching?
>>
>> Nothing at all Tom, just as it has little relevance to many of the
>> groups to which it is cross posted.
>
>Of course the problem could be alleviated if everyone replying
>to the guy removed all the irrelevant groups from the cross-post
>first.

That requires aptitude and common sense. Something the troll netkops
don't possess.

>>*However, Pete is so desperate for
>> attention that he always cross posts to at least six groups.
>
>Why does he post to small groups instead of large ones if
>that is his motivation?

Education for all I should imagine.

>>*In
>> addition, he frequently nymshifts in attempts to avoid the kill filters.
>
>If they don't want to read his posts he should respect that...

That's a bit like saying a newspaper should be tailored to individual
wants. Nonsense. Most of the netkops just want comics and dirty
magazines to read. In Brian's (Old Codger from Bicknacre in Essex)
case he just wants dirty magazines portraying bestiality subjects.

The simple fact is if you don't want to read something then DON'T, but
please don't proceed and feel the world needs to know about your
decision.

We simply don't care.

>> > By all means discuss this in the fullest possible detail in the vegan, veggie, environmentally aware landfill sites,
>> > methane and related gases and such focussed groups but please don't dump
>> > this rubbish in the British birdwatching group. After all you have
>> > around 60,000 other newsgroups to choose.

Every one should be aware of the problem the planet faces. Even if you
are sad twitcher who likes to hide away in dark bushes pretending to
look for birds but usually just peeping toms!

On Thu, 20 Mar 2008 12:37:08 +0000, Dave J. >
wrote:

>In > on Wed, 19 Mar 2008
>15:52:34 +0000, in uk.current-events.bird-flu, 'Oz' wrote:
>
>>>Meat is (I believe) an inefficient use of resources in the production of
>>>food. It also has a vast (and compared to decaying plant matter unavoidable)
>>>amount of methane as a byproduct.
>>
>>That depends. If you are talking about most of upland britain, its
>>impossible to grow arable crops there so the ONLY resource is grazing by
>>livestock. In this case of course its NOT an inefficient use of
>>resources.
>
>Yes, that makes a good justification for minor meat consumption. Though
>not for the American style gullet stuffing that's threatening to infect
>the globe.
>
>>Also to note that all decaying plant matter emits methane, remember the
>>fuss when they recently discovered vast amounts were being emitted by
>>topsoils worldwide.
>
>I've always figured though that the emissions from decaying vegetable
>matter are more easily either controlled, reduced, or harnessed for
>burning than those from animals.
>
>Make no mistake, I'm in no way an advocate of humanity turning vegetarian,
>I just see both sides of the debate and accept that we're swinging too far
>into rain forest destroying hamburger-gulping greed that caries a massive,
>almost karmic, future health cost.

Forget the future, it's here already.

On Thu, 20 Mar 2008 12:23:07 +0000, Dave J. >
wrote:

>In > on Wed, 19 Mar 2008 15:37:52
>-0000, in uk.current-events.bird-flu, 'pearl' wrote:
>
>>> I speak BTW as a lifelong carnivore. The nearest I come to vegetarianism
>>> is a vague effort to keep my meat consumption down to what I consider to
>>> be the optimum minimal level that (again as I consider it) gives the
>>> maximum yield in terms of bodily benefits.
>>
>>'There appears to be no threshold of plant-food enrichment or
>>minimization of fat intake beyond which further disease prevention
>>does not occur. These findings suggest that even small intakes of
>>foods of animal origin are associated with significant increases in
>>plasma cholesterol concentrations, which are associated, in turn,
>>with significant increases in chronic degenerative disease mortality
>>rates. - Campbell TC, Junshi C. Diet and chronic degenerative
>>diseases: perspectives from China. Am J Clin Nutr 1994 May;59
>>(5 Suppl):1153S-1161S.'
>>
>>'Analyses of data from the China studies by his collaborators and
>>others, Campbell told the epidemiology symposium, is leading to
>>policy recommendations. He mentioned three:
>>
>>* The greater the variety of plant-based foods in the diet, the greater
>>the benefit. Variety insures broader coverage of known and unknown
>>nutrient needs.
>>
>>* Provided there is plant food variety, quality and quantity, a healthful
>>and nutritionally complete diet can be attained without animal-based
>>food.
>>
>>* The closer the food is to its native state - with minimal hea
>
>
>Hmm, fair enough I suppose, though I'm suspicious of any hidden motivation
>behind the study. I've always figured that meat provides useful amino
>chunks that are less easy to find in a vegetarian diet, with the
>undesirable fats being a cost that should be kept to a minimum.
>
>If the study holds water over the years then I suppose I'll just have to
>give in and own up to having some meat because a) I like it and b) I'm too
>lazy to organise a balanced vegetarian intake.

You need a balanced diet regardless preference for lazy foods.

"Old Codger" > wrote in message ...
> On Thu, 20 Mar 2008 10:58:04 -0700 (PDT), Buxqi >
> wrote:

> >> > By all means discuss this in the fullest possible detail in the vegan, veggie, environmentally aware landfill sites,
> >> > methane and related gases and such focussed groups but please don't dump
> >> > this rubbish in the British birdwatching group. After all you have
> >> > around 60,000 other newsgroups to choose.
>
> Every one should be aware of the problem the planet faces.

"Cautious, careful people, always casting about to maintain their reputation
and social standing, never can bring about reform. Those who are really in
earnest must be willing to be anything or nothing in the world's estimation."
- Susan B. Anthony

On Fri, 21 Mar 2008 11:32:33 -0000, "pearl" >
wrote:

>"Old Codger" > wrote in message ...
>> On Thu, 20 Mar 2008 10:58:04 -0700 (PDT), Buxqi >
>> wrote:
>
>> >> > By all means discuss this in the fullest possible detail in the vegan, veggie, environmentally aware landfill sites,
>> >> > methane and related gases and such focussed groups but please don't dump
>> >> > this rubbish in the British birdwatching group. After all you have
>> >> > around 60,000 other newsgroups to choose.
>>
>> Every one should be aware of the problem the planet faces.
>
>"Cautious, careful people, always casting about to maintain their reputation
>and social standing, never can bring about reform. Those who are really in
>earnest must be willing to be anything or nothing in the world's estimation."
>- Susan B. Anthony
>

It would appear to some even in this day and age that ignorance is
bliss!

Bird watchers are fine but the twitchers are a weird bunch indeed.
Mores the pity.

"( _ /)" > wrote in message ...
> On Fri, 21 Mar 2008 08:30:29 -0000, "Buddenbrooks" >
> wrote:

> >It will be interesting to see what the coming credit crunch driven downturn
> >in the economy does to people's views as jobs disappear and people realize that
> >keeping the worlds economy going and reducing emissions is not going to be
> >easy.
>
> You are sort of missing the point. The global economy as we know it is
> completely unsustainable, wasteful and destructive short cut to
> destruction. The sooner we get rid of the idiocy of a material society
> the better.
>
> Then of course everything else will fall in to place.

'Enlightened Agriculture

"Cautious, careful people, always casting about to maintain their reputation
and social standing, never can bring about reform. Those who are really in
earnest must be willing to be anything or nothing in the world's estimation."
Susan B. Anthony

'Crisis and opportunity in North American agriculture' John Ikerd
Emeritus professor of agricultural economics at the University of
Missouri

[extracts only, as selected by nlpwessex - original article presented at
a farm conference, "Recapturing Wealth on the Canadian Prairies,"
Brandon, Manitoba, October 26-27, 2000 - full copy available at
http://www.cropchoice.com/leadstry.asp?recid=376 ]

......In essence, as agriculture moves from competitive capitalism to
corporatism, it changes from a market economy to "central planned"
economy. Central planning didn't work for the Communists, and it won't
work for the corporations. The problem wasn't that the Communists
weren't smart enough or that their computers weren't large enough.
Central planning is a fundamentally wrong-headed approach to managing
an economy - for corporations as well as governments. The corporate
system of food production will prove to be fundamentally incapable of
meeting the needs of the people. Its emergence as the dominant system,
therefore, represents a prime opportunity for an alternative to corporate
central planning, to create an agriculture that will truly meet the needs of
the people of an enlightened society.

As society becomes more enlightened, we are beginning to realize that
we are destroying our natural environment in the process of trying to
produce cheap food. We are mining the soil through erosion and
depletion of its natural product in the process of maximizing production
and minimizing dollar and cent costs of production. We are polluting
our streams and groundwater with residues from the pesticides and
commercial fertilizers necessary for large-scale, specialized industrial
crop production and with wastes from giant confinement animal feeding
factories. We are destroying the genetic diversity, both below and
above the soil that is necessary to support nature's means of capturing
and transforming solar energy into energy for human bodies.

As society becomes more enlightened, we are beginning to realize that
we are destroying the social fabric of society in the process of trying
to make agriculture more efficient. We are destroying opportunities for
people to lead productive, successful lives. We are turning thinking,
innovative, creative farmers into tractor drivers and hog house janitors.
There is dignity in all types of work, but all people should have
opportunities to express their full human potential. Consolidation of
decision making concentrates the opportunities among the privileged
few while leaving the many without hope for a rewarding future.
Industrial specialization also tends to separate people within families,
within communities, and within nations. We are just beginning to
realize that industrialization destroys the human relationships needed
to support a civilized society. The outdated economics that supports
agricultural industrialization is fundamentally incapable of dealing
effectively with either the environmental or social challenges of today.
In economics, the environment and society are external or outside of
the decision making process - something that may impact or be
impacted by decisions but not part of the process. In reality, the
economy, environment, and society all are parts of the same inseparable
whole. Society needs a more enlightened system of decision-making -
one capable of integrating economic, ecological, and social decisions.
We need a "new" approach to farming in North America..... (....)

Pursuit of self-interests is an inherent aspect of being human. But,
people, by nature, do not pursue only their narrow, individual or
personal self-interest. It's also within the inherent nature of people to
care about other people and to care of the earth. People are perfectly
capable of rising above selfishness and greed to pursue a higher
concept of self-interest - a self-interest that values relationships with
other people and stewardship of the earth as important dimensions
of one's self-interests.

This higher self-interest includes our narrow self-interest (personal,
individual concerns), but it also includes interests that we share with
others (relationship, community, and social concerns) and interests
that are purely altruistic (ethics and moral concerns). All three
contribute to our well being or quality of life. Each contributes to a
higher sense of quality of life - explicitly recognizing that each of us
individually is but a part of the whole of society, which in turn must
conform to some higher order or code of natural law....

.....Admittedly, the new American farm will require a lot more knowledge,
understanding, and thinking than does farming by industrial methods.
However, any future occupation offering an opportunity for a decent
living will require people to use their minds. The days when someone
could earn a good living by the sweat of their brow are in the past.
There will be plenty of innovative, creative, hard working people to
operate the new American farms, once the real possibility for a more
desirable quality of life in farming - economically, socially, and ethically -
becomes widely known....

.....We, the people, currently control everything that needs to be changed
in order to build a more sustainable, higher quality of life, as individuals
as well as for society as a whole. The economy is a creation of people -
it is not some sacred, unchangeable set of natural laws. People created
the current economic system and people can change it. The corporation
does not exist by some right or some decree from God. People created
corporations and they exist at the discretion of people. Each corporation
has a charter, which once obligated it to operate for the good of the public.
We the people can revoke those charters, even if we have to amend the
constitution to do it. We can control or abolish corporatism and we can
shape our economy to meet the needs of people....

One by one, as we find the courage to demand something better, we will
change the world for the better. Susan B. Anthony, the champion of
voting rights for women in the US once said, "Cautious, careful people,
always casting about to maintain their reputation and social standing,
never can bring about reform. Those who are really in earnest must be
willing to be anything or nothing in the world's estimation." It takes
courage to bring about change. But Margaret Mead, an award winning
cultural anthropologist, once said, "Never doubt that a small group of
thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world, indeed it's the only
thing that ever has." As each of us finds the courage to change our
selves and to influence our little piece of the world, we can change the
world. Indeed, this is the only thing that ever can.

John Ikerd can be reached at [..]
Full article at: http://www.cropchoice.com/leadstry.asp?recid=376

1999 University of Missouri Report to the US National Farmers Union,
'CONSOLIDATION IN THE FOOD AND AGRICULTURE SYSTEM'
- pdf format http://www.nfu.org/images/heffernan_1999.pdf
[extract below]

".....to understand the global food system, one must understand the
operations of the major global firms such as Cargill, ADM, and ConAgra http://www.btinternet.com/~nlpwessex...ents/scats.htm .
.....Today
the system is becoming much more complex starting with involvement in
biotechnology, extending through production, and ending with highly
processed food. Increasingly, these firms are developing a variety of
different alliances with other players in the system..... We will use the
concept 'cluster of firms' to represent these new economic arrangements.

......In a food chain cluster, the food product is passed along from stage
to stage, but ownership never changes and neither does the location of
the decision-making. Starting with the intellectual property rights that
governments give to the biotechnology firms, the food product always
remains the property of a firm or cluster of firms. The farmer becomes
a grower, providing the labor and often some of the capital, but never
owning the product as it moves through the food system and never
making the major management decisions."

'CONSOLIDATION IN FOOD RETAILING AND DAIRY:
Implications for Farmers and Consumers in a Global Food System',
Report to National Farmers Union, Jan 2001, University of Missouri
http://www.nfu.org/index.cfm?categor...e=issues&id=67

UK farmers being led to US-style GM slavery
http://www.btinternet.com/~nlpwessex...dSainsbury.htm

"Farmers will be given just enough to keep them interested in growing
the crops, but no more. And GM companies and food processors,
will say very clearly how they want the growers to grow the crops."
Friedrich Vogel, head of BASF's crop protection business
(Farmers Weekly 6 November 1998)

Disease and pestilence hits Missouri as GM soy expands
http://www.btinternet.com/~nlpwessex...risoybeans.htm
...
http://www.btinternet.com/~nlpwessex...griculture.htm

"pearl" > wrote in message
...
> "Old Codger" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On Thu, 20 Mar 2008 10:58:04 -0700 (PDT), Buxqi >
>> wrote:
>
>> >> > By all means discuss this in the fullest possible detail in the
>> >> > vegan, veggie, environmentally aware landfill sites,
>> >> > methane and related gases and such focussed groups but please don't
>> >> > dump
>> >> > this rubbish in the British birdwatching group. After all you have
>> >> > around 60,000 other newsgroups to choose.
>>
>> Every one should be aware of the problem the planet faces.
>
> "Cautious, careful people, always casting about to maintain their
> reputation
> and social standing, never can bring about reform. Those who are really
> in
> earnest must be willing to be anything or nothing in the world's
> estimation."
> - Susan B. Anthony
>

posted by someone who won;'t eat meat this is nicely ironic

Jim Webster

>

On Fri, 21 Mar 2008 11:58:31 -0000, "pearl" >
wrote:

>"( _ /)" > wrote in message ...
>> On Fri, 21 Mar 2008 08:30:29 -0000, "Buddenbrooks" >
>> wrote:
>
>> >It will be interesting to see what the coming credit crunch driven downturn
>> >in the economy does to people's views as jobs disappear and people realize that
>> >keeping the worlds economy going and reducing emissions is not going to be
>> >easy.
>>
>> You are sort of missing the point. The global economy as we know it is
>> completely unsustainable, wasteful and destructive short cut to
>> destruction. The sooner we get rid of the idiocy of a material society
>> the better.
>>
>> Then of course everything else will fall in to place.
>
>'Enlightened Agriculture
>
>"Cautious, careful people, always casting about to maintain their reputation
>and social standing, never can bring about reform. Those who are really in
>earnest must be willing to be anything or nothing in the world's estimation."
>Susan B. Anthony
>
>'Crisis and opportunity in North American agriculture' John Ikerd
>Emeritus professor of agricultural economics at the University of
>Missouri
>
>[extracts only, as selected by nlpwessex - original article presented at
>a farm conference, "Recapturing Wealth on the Canadian Prairies,"
>Brandon, Manitoba, October 26-27, 2000 - full copy available at
>http://www.cropchoice.com/leadstry.asp?recid=376 ]
>
> ......In essence, as agriculture moves from competitive capitalism to
>corporatism, it changes from a market economy to "central planned"
>economy. Central planning didn't work for the Communists, and it won't
>work for the corporations. The problem wasn't that the Communists
>weren't smart enough or that their computers weren't large enough.
>Central planning is a fundamentally wrong-headed approach to managing
>an economy - for corporations as well as governments. The corporate
>system of food production will prove to be fundamentally incapable of
>meeting the needs of the people. Its emergence as the dominant system,
>therefore, represents a prime opportunity for an alternative to corporate
>central planning, to create an agriculture that will truly meet the needs of
>the people of an enlightened society.
>
>As society becomes more enlightened, we are beginning to realize that
>we are destroying our natural environment in the process of trying to
>produce cheap food. We are mining the soil through erosion and
>depletion of its natural product in the process of maximizing production
>and minimizing dollar and cent costs of production. We are polluting
>our streams and groundwater with residues from the pesticides and
>commercial fertilizers necessary for large-scale, specialized industrial
>crop production and with wastes from giant confinement animal feeding
>factories. We are destroying the genetic diversity, both below and
>above the soil that is necessary to support nature's means of capturing
>and transforming solar energy into energy for human bodies.
>
>As society becomes more enlightened, we are beginning to realize that
>we are destroying the social fabric of society in the process of trying
>to make agriculture more efficient. We are destroying opportunities for
>people to lead productive, successful lives. We are turning thinking,
>innovative, creative farmers into tractor drivers and hog house janitors.
>There is dignity in all types of work, but all people should have
>opportunities to express their full human potential. Consolidation of
>decision making concentrates the opportunities among the privileged
>few while leaving the many without hope for a rewarding future.
>Industrial specialization also tends to separate people within families,
>within communities, and within nations. We are just beginning to
>realize that industrialization destroys the human relationships needed
>to support a civilized society. The outdated economics that supports
>agricultural industrialization is fundamentally incapable of dealing
>effectively with either the environmental or social challenges of today.
>In economics, the environment and society are external or outside of
>the decision making process - something that may impact or be
>impacted by decisions but not part of the process. In reality, the
>economy, environment, and society all are parts of the same inseparable
>whole. Society needs a more enlightened system of decision-making -
>one capable of integrating economic, ecological, and social decisions.
>We need a "new" approach to farming in North America..... (....)
>
>Pursuit of self-interests is an inherent aspect of being human. But,
>people, by nature, do not pursue only their narrow, individual or
>personal self-interest. It's also within the inherent nature of people to
>care about other people and to care of the earth. People are perfectly
>capable of rising above selfishness and greed to pursue a higher
>concept of self-interest - a self-interest that values relationships with
>other people and stewardship of the earth as important dimensions
>of one's self-interests.

Seems on Usenet we have an unusual gathering of bigots then,as caring
and sharing is certainly a minority sport here.

>This higher self-interest includes our narrow self-interest (personal,
>individual concerns), but it also includes interests that we share with
>others (relationship, community, and social concerns) and interests
>that are purely altruistic (ethics and moral concerns). All three
>contribute to our well being or quality of life. Each contributes to a
>higher sense of quality of life - explicitly recognizing that each of us
>individually is but a part of the whole of society, which in turn must
>conform to some higher order or code of natural law....
>
>....Admittedly, the new American farm will require a lot more knowledge,
>understanding, and thinking than does farming by industrial methods.
>However, any future occupation offering an opportunity for a decent
>living will require people to use their minds. The days when someone
>could earn a good living by the sweat of their brow are in the past.
>There will be plenty of innovative, creative, hard working people to
>operate the new American farms, once the real possibility for a more
>desirable quality of life in farming - economically, socially, and ethically -
>becomes widely known....
>
>....We, the people, currently control everything that needs to be changed
>in order to build a more sustainable, higher quality of life, as individuals
>as well as for society as a whole. The economy is a creation of people -
>it is not some sacred, unchangeable set of natural laws. People created
>the current economic system and people can change it. The corporation
>does not exist by some right or some decree from God. People created
>corporations and they exist at the discretion of people. Each corporation
>has a charter, which once obligated it to operate for the good of the public.
>We the people can revoke those charters, even if we have to amend the
>constitution to do it. We can control or abolish corporatism and we can
>shape our economy to meet the needs of people....
>
>One by one, as we find the courage to demand something better, we will
>change the world for the better. Susan B. Anthony, the champion of
>voting rights for women in the US once said, "Cautious, careful people,
>always casting about to maintain their reputation and social standing,
>never can bring about reform. Those who are really in earnest must be
>willing to be anything or nothing in the world's estimation." It takes
>courage to bring about change. But Margaret Mead, an award winning
>cultural anthropologist, once said, "Never doubt that a small group of
>thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world, indeed it's the only
>thing that ever has." As each of us finds the courage to change our
>selves and to influence our little piece of the world, we can change the
>world. Indeed, this is the only thing that ever can.
>
>John Ikerd can be reached at [..]
>Full article at: http://www.cropchoice.com/leadstry.asp?recid=376
>
>1999 University of Missouri Report to the US National Farmers Union,
>'CONSOLIDATION IN THE FOOD AND AGRICULTURE SYSTEM'
>- pdf format http://www.nfu.org/images/heffernan_1999.pdf
>[extract below]
>
>".....to understand the global food system, one must understand the
>operations of the major global firms such as Cargill, ADM, and ConAgra http://www.btinternet.com/~nlpwessex...ents/scats.htm .
>....Today
>the system is becoming much more complex starting with involvement in
>biotechnology, extending through production, and ending with highly
>processed food. Increasingly, these firms are developing a variety of
>different alliances with other players in the system..... We will use the
>concept 'cluster of firms' to represent these new economic arrangements.
>
>.....In a food chain cluster, the food product is passed along from stage
>to stage, but ownership never changes and neither does the location of
>the decision-making. Starting with the intellectual property rights that
>governments give to the biotechnology firms, the food product always
>remains the property of a firm or cluster of firms. The farmer becomes
>a grower, providing the labor and often some of the capital, but never
>owning the product as it moves through the food system and never
>making the major management decisions."
>
> 'CONSOLIDATION IN FOOD RETAILING AND DAIRY:
>Implications for Farmers and Consumers in a Global Food System',
>Report to National Farmers Union, Jan 2001, University of Missouri
>http://www.nfu.org/index.cfm?categor...e=issues&id=67
>
>UK farmers being led to US-style GM slavery
>http://www.btinternet.com/~nlpwessex...dSainsbury.htm
>
>"Farmers will be given just enough to keep them interested in growing
>the crops, but no more. And GM companies and food processors,
>will say very clearly how they want the growers to grow the crops."
>Friedrich Vogel, head of BASF's crop protection business
>(Farmers Weekly 6 November 1998)
>
>Disease and pestilence hits Missouri as GM soy expands
>http://www.btinternet.com/~nlpwessex...risoybeans.htm
>..
>http://www.btinternet.com/~nlpwessex...griculture.htm
>

That can now be changed to 'Crisis and opportunity in global
agriculture'

"Old Codger" > wrote in message ...
> On Fri, 21 Mar 2008 11:58:31 -0000, "pearl" >
> wrote:
>
> >"( _ /)" > wrote in message ...
> >> On Fri, 21 Mar 2008 08:30:29 -0000, "Buddenbrooks" >
> >> wrote:
> >
> >> >It will be interesting to see what the coming credit crunch driven downturn
> >> >in the economy does to people's views as jobs disappear and people realize that
> >> >keeping the worlds economy going and reducing emissions is not going to be
> >> >easy.
> >>
> >> You are sort of missing the point. The global economy as we know it is
> >> completely unsustainable, wasteful and destructive short cut to
> >> destruction. The sooner we get rid of the idiocy of a material society
> >> the better.
> >>
> >> Then of course everything else will fall in to place.
> >
> >'Enlightened Agriculture
> >
> >"Cautious, careful people, always casting about to maintain their reputation
> >and social standing, never can bring about reform. Those who are really in
> >earnest must be willing to be anything or nothing in the world's estimation."
> >Susan B. Anthony
> >
> >'Crisis and opportunity in North American agriculture' John Ikerd
> >Emeritus professor of agricultural economics at the University of
> >Missouri
> >
> >[extracts only, as selected by nlpwessex - original article presented at
> >a farm conference, "Recapturing Wealth on the Canadian Prairies,"
> >Brandon, Manitoba, October 26-27, 2000 - full copy available at
> >http://www.cropchoice.com/leadstry.asp?recid=376 ]
> >
> > ......In essence, as agriculture moves from competitive capitalism to
> >corporatism, it changes from a market economy to "central planned"
> >economy. Central planning didn't work for the Communists, and it won't
> >work for the corporations. The problem wasn't that the Communists
> >weren't smart enough or that their computers weren't large enough.
> >Central planning is a fundamentally wrong-headed approach to managing
> >an economy - for corporations as well as governments. The corporate
> >system of food production will prove to be fundamentally incapable of
> >meeting the needs of the people. Its emergence as the dominant system,
> >therefore, represents a prime opportunity for an alternative to corporate
> >central planning, to create an agriculture that will truly meet the needs of
> >the people of an enlightened society.
> >
> >As society becomes more enlightened, we are beginning to realize that
> >we are destroying our natural environment in the process of trying to
> >produce cheap food. We are mining the soil through erosion and
> >depletion of its natural product in the process of maximizing production
> >and minimizing dollar and cent costs of production. We are polluting
> >our streams and groundwater with residues from the pesticides and
> >commercial fertilizers necessary for large-scale, specialized industrial
> >crop production and with wastes from giant confinement animal feeding
> >factories. We are destroying the genetic diversity, both below and
> >above the soil that is necessary to support nature's means of capturing
> >and transforming solar energy into energy for human bodies.
> >
> >As society becomes more enlightened, we are beginning to realize that
> >we are destroying the social fabric of society in the process of trying
> >to make agriculture more efficient. We are destroying opportunities for
> >people to lead productive, successful lives. We are turning thinking,
> >innovative, creative farmers into tractor drivers and hog house janitors.
> >There is dignity in all types of work, but all people should have
> >opportunities to express their full human potential. Consolidation of
> >decision making concentrates the opportunities among the privileged
> >few while leaving the many without hope for a rewarding future.
> >Industrial specialization also tends to separate people within families,
> >within communities, and within nations. We are just beginning to
> >realize that industrialization destroys the human relationships needed
> >to support a civilized society. The outdated economics that supports
> >agricultural industrialization is fundamentally incapable of dealing
> >effectively with either the environmental or social challenges of today.
> >In economics, the environment and society are external or outside of
> >the decision making process - something that may impact or be
> >impacted by decisions but not part of the process. In reality, the
> >economy, environment, and society all are parts of the same inseparable
> >whole. Society needs a more enlightened system of decision-making -
> >one capable of integrating economic, ecological, and social decisions.
> >We need a "new" approach to farming in North America..... (....)
> >
> >Pursuit of self-interests is an inherent aspect of being human. But,
> >people, by nature, do not pursue only their narrow, individual or
> >personal self-interest. It's also within the inherent nature of people to
> >care about other people and to care of the earth. People are perfectly
> >capable of rising above selfishness and greed to pursue a higher
> >concept of self-interest - a self-interest that values relationships with
> >other people and stewardship of the earth as important dimensions
> >of one's self-interests.
>
> Seems on Usenet we have an unusual gathering of bigots then,as caring
> and sharing is certainly a minority sport here.
>
> >This higher self-interest includes our narrow self-interest (personal,
> >individual concerns), but it also includes interests that we share with
> >others (relationship, community, and social concerns) and interests
> >that are purely altruistic (ethics and moral concerns). All three
> >contribute to our well being or quality of life. Each contributes to a
> >higher sense of quality of life - explicitly recognizing that each of us
> >individually is but a part of the whole of society, which in turn must
> >conform to some higher order or code of natural law....
> >
> >....Admittedly, the new American farm will require a lot more knowledge,
> >understanding, and thinking than does farming by industrial methods.
> >However, any future occupation offering an opportunity for a decent
> >living will require people to use their minds. The days when someone
> >could earn a good living by the sweat of their brow are in the past.
> >There will be plenty of innovative, creative, hard working people to
> >operate the new American farms, once the real possibility for a more
> >desirable quality of life in farming - economically, socially, and ethically -
> >becomes widely known....
> >
> >....We, the people, currently control everything that needs to be changed
> >in order to build a more sustainable, higher quality of life, as individuals
> >as well as for society as a whole. The economy is a creation of people -
> >it is not some sacred, unchangeable set of natural laws. People created
> >the current economic system and people can change it. The corporation
> >does not exist by some right or some decree from God. People created
> >corporations and they exist at the discretion of people. Each corporation
> >has a charter, which once obligated it to operate for the good of the public.
> >We the people can revoke those charters, even if we have to amend the
> >constitution to do it. We can control or abolish corporatism and we can
> >shape our economy to meet the needs of people....
> >
> >One by one, as we find the courage to demand something better, we will
> >change the world for the better. Susan B. Anthony, the champion of
> >voting rights for women in the US once said, "Cautious, careful people,
> >always casting about to maintain their reputation and social standing,
> >never can bring about reform. Those who are really in earnest must be
> >willing to be anything or nothing in the world's estimation." It takes
> >courage to bring about change. But Margaret Mead, an award winning
> >cultural anthropologist, once said, "Never doubt that a small group of
> >thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world, indeed it's the only
> >thing that ever has." As each of us finds the courage to change our
> >selves and to influence our little piece of the world, we can change the
> >world. Indeed, this is the only thing that ever can.
> >
> >John Ikerd can be reached at [..]
> >Full article at: http://www.cropchoice.com/leadstry.asp?recid=376
> >
> >1999 University of Missouri Report to the US National Farmers Union,
> >'CONSOLIDATION IN THE FOOD AND AGRICULTURE SYSTEM'
> >- pdf format http://www.nfu.org/images/heffernan_1999.pdf
> >[extract below]
> >
> >".....to understand the global food system, one must understand the
> >operations of the major global firms such as Cargill, ADM, and ConAgra http://www.btinternet.com/~nlpwessex...ents/scats.htm .
> >....Today
> >the system is becoming much more complex starting with involvement in
> >biotechnology, extending through production, and ending with highly
> >processed food. Increasingly, these firms are developing a variety of
> >different alliances with other players in the system..... We will use the
> >concept 'cluster of firms' to represent these new economic arrangements.
> >
> >.....In a food chain cluster, the food product is passed along from stage
> >to stage, but ownership never changes and neither does the location of
> >the decision-making. Starting with the intellectual property rights that
> >governments give to the biotechnology firms, the food product always
> >remains the property of a firm or cluster of firms. The farmer becomes
> >a grower, providing the labor and often some of the capital, but never
> >owning the product as it moves through the food system and never
> >making the major management decisions."
> >
> > 'CONSOLIDATION IN FOOD RETAILING AND DAIRY:
> >Implications for Farmers and Consumers in a Global Food System',
> >Report to National Farmers Union, Jan 2001, University of Missouri
> >http://www.nfu.org/index.cfm?categor...e=issues&id=67
> >
> >UK farmers being led to US-style GM slavery
> >http://www.btinternet.com/~nlpwessex...dSainsbury.htm
> >
> >"Farmers will be given just enough to keep them interested in growing
> >the crops, but no more. And GM companies and food processors,
> >will say very clearly how they want the growers to grow the crops."
> >Friedrich Vogel, head of BASF's crop protection business
> >(Farmers Weekly 6 November 1998)
> >
> >Disease and pestilence hits Missouri as GM soy expands
> >http://www.btinternet.com/~nlpwessex...risoybeans.htm
> >..
> >http://www.btinternet.com/~nlpwessex...griculture.htm
> >
>
> That can now be changed to 'Crisis and opportunity in global
> agriculture'

Indeed.