Can we all agree that vegetarianism is a good step to take? I don't expect much push back on the environmental harm, ethical problems, and the general evilness of factory farming in regards to livestock.
Is there a similar healthy argument for avoiding fish/shellfish? These appear to be case by case on environmental farm (overfishing) and the ethical problems of killing them seem negligible for most people.
Other urls found in this thread:
en.m.wikipedia.org
youtu.be
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
twitter.com
Nope. Eating bugs is the best route.
This. Easy to farm and good in nutrients.
Also mammals are much more costly to raise.
A diet high in vegetation and high in insect meat could be a good replacement for what we have today while allowing for (possibly) minimal environmental impact.
Anyone know of papers doing an analysis on bugs vs current farm animals?
>Can we all agree that vegetarianism is a good step to take?
No.
How so? You can't clear out any diseases the bugs have, or clean the shit out of their intestines, etc or any other diseases they carry in their blood before you eat them. Why is it a good idea to eat bugs? Also bugs eat shit and garbage and I don't want that transferred to me.
It's possible that you already have consumed it though. I know that bread and rice often have lot's of small pieces of insects because it's to dificult to filter all of it out.
I really hope you're kidding, I would sooner eat you than insects.
Can you say why? Or is it just because they are strange looking?
Wouldnt the rational thing be to just try them and see if you like it? Or even more rational just eat them because its good for the environment and they are healthy for you?
Check out either "How not to die" or "the food hourglass" both written by doctors not gurus and both advocate much plants. Though at least the doctor in food hourglass states that one should take some meat, but only white meat i.e. poultry.
Also just more vegetables and fruit is not enough: take legumes, nuts and mushrooms as well.
But I wholeheartly agree that insects is the way forward.
>Also bugs eat shit and garbage
Bugs in farms for consumption don't do that.
any reason other than you just think bugs are gross?
it seems to me that getting people to eat bugs is more a cultural problem than a scientific one.
In the Netherlands we already have some bugs available. I love crickets and grasshoppers, but as of now it is way too expensive. We also what is called buffalo worms. I didn't like the buffalo worm burger, but would like to try the buffalo worms as they are anyway.
Scorpions seem like the ultimate anarchid to eat.
Almost guaranteed . FDA guidelines for wheat flour is up 75 insect fragments per 50 grams.
The juxtaposition of a bait post with pescatarianism is amusing.
Checked
Nothing wrong with eating clams. They don't know shit and they're super easy to grow. Probably the most sustainable protein (other than bugs??)
Shitty get but still
Checked
M8 look up pig toilets.
Checked ;) nice quints
Are clams bugs?
>2016
>Not being apex predators and only eating the heart of your enemies
> tfw you have never gotten a dub
It's not a bad step, but I wouldn't say it's good. If everyone wanted to be vegan, then it would be fine, but keeping people from eating meat/animal products if they want to is a violation of the person's freedom. You couldn't have forced veganism outside of a purely authoritarian government, which is shitty in and of itself.
>the ethical problems of killing them
Fuck off hippie.
>eating meat/animal products if they want to is a violation of the person's freedom
Enter animal rights ethics
what does Veeky Forums say about this video?
How do you reverse atherosclerosis and heart disease?
>environmental harm, ethical problems, and the general evilness of factory farming in regards to livestock.
but i don't care about any of these things and morality isn't objective. you can call me selfish but then you'd be a hypocrite since that position would be all about your comfort in making sure your morality is the ethics of society.
so i'll pass on the vegetarianism thanks
What if they were ground up into patties and had beef flavouring and artificial colouring? It would probably end up with the consistency of tofu.
It doesn't matter because we'll have stem cell burgers before retards drop their attitude towards meat and bugs.
Meat isn't that nutritious anyway, and the best parts (liver, for instance) are ignored as "ewww yuck" by "muh rare stake" tards.
Eat what you want, don't eat what you don't want, and STFU about it.
I don't know how to put it, but I find it interesting that a lot of 4channers mock 'leftists' on certain things and are somewhat in support of a kind of autoritarianism or at least facts over feels. And there is also some dislike of hedonism.
But when it is about food you touch a spot and you get:
>muh human right to eat anything I like
When there is scientific support that less meat, I am not talking of total removal from the diet, is good for personal health, society and the environment.
I think it is fine to disagree, but most disagreement comes from sentimental feelings which the supposed left is mocked for.
I happen to think that it is actually possible to defend eating meat on scientific grounds, but again most of it is sentimental.
If we changed the way we eat a lot of diseases could be prevented and this would benefit society.
>a good healthy diet is good and healthy for you
I dont think anybody really denies this. Everybody thinks from time to time "man, I really should eat healthier".
But after all we dont have to base everything on pure rational guidelines. Often times people do irrational things, just because they get joy/pleasure out of it.
I think there's room for that. But like 30 percent of the time.
I think it is unfair that people who can prevent disease and know it do, and are able, not get punished in some way when they do get sick.
They get treated and get away from it the easy way, it seems unfair.
The little knowledge of juridiction I have is casuallity, and that seems to applyable.
Though know when I talk of unhealthy eating it has less to do with meat but more with sugar and fastfood.
I think some pleasure and joy is fine, but not in excess.
>They get treated and get away from it the easy way, it seems unfair.
Oh, OK. When somebody eats until he has crippling obesety or his heart explodes, yeah then it should be perfectly fine for other people to intervene.
Welcome to Veeky Forums, let us talk about autists and vegans
You can maximize your own health, or you can maximize how well you adhere to some nutty ethical farming ideology (that happens to be based on falsehoods you got from a documentary).
You can only do one at a time.
Where are you from?
I am not sure what your point is. But someone who has obesity actually gets punished in a way. Though I wanna add, maybe they are addicted to certain food.
Compare that to the people who get cancer because of unhealthy eating. Their action has no consequences until they get cancer, and while that isn't fun, it is treatable. In my eyes, which is harsh, they get away with it too easily.
The Netherlands. Here we have a lot of deaths from cancer. Maybe boomers, the ones getting most of the cancer, do not know the connection between their diet and cancer.
Fastforward to today we have a better understanding of what causes cancer, yet what is eaten is probably even worse.
Again I find it unfair that, when you know the consequences of your actions, you do not get punished. It is different when the disease is (fully) genetic.
Everyone makes mistakes, but consider that an unhealthy lifestyle is making mistakes over and over.
If there's a kind of addiction to it, or systematic reasons, I can understand. But when someone ,knowingly, by free choice engages unhealthy, I have no sympathy and he or she should be punished in a way.
The idea is that instead of doing something about it, they get a quick fix, and I find that a kind of cheating.
I know it sounds harsh and I am actually suprised to have so little backlash. For many what they eat is a private freedom, which they do not want any intervention in.
It must sound really extreme and it isn't even possible, but I feel that people should go to court when they got diseases that are preventable and a judge should rule whatever they are to blame for it. If so this should have consequences for who pays for the treatment (them vs society).
Sorry for having this view, but for me it feels like unjustice.
>they get away with it too easily.
What do you even mean? They get away too easily with eating some potato chips every sunday, because they only got cancer? What are you even on about? If you dont become a vegetarian you will get cancer? What should people eat to prevent cancer anyway?
also
>maybe they are addicted to certain food
that would be a really sad excuse for being fat
It has little to do with vegetarian as I noted earlier. Though less meat seems beneficial.
>What should people eat to prevent cancer anyway?
It is more about what NOT to eat. That is what I find unfair, people indulge on food that is known to be bad. But instead of changing that they go for a quickfix.
But are you actually interested in what I have to say or are you enraged by what I say?
OP is correct.
To add to this comment. Within nutrition there's few consensus, except on what is bad.
Not that it is without problems, they were wrong on fat too. But pundits took this the wrong way and now claim that something like butter is good.
I'm kind of interested, I just wholeheartedly disagree with the notion that people should avoid everything that could theoretically increase the chance of getting cancer and that people "get away too easily" by getting a potentially terminal desease. I also dont understand how it is unfair for people that eat unhealthy to become unhealthy.
>Within nutrition there's few consensus, except on what is bad.
No, there's really not. What there is is a bunch of retarded newscasters reporting on some college senior's study that barely hits a .05 correlation as if it's causation, plus a diet/exercise industry that exists solely to sell bullshit diets.
The general guidelines mostly work for most all people. Once you start moving away from the average person to the extremes, it's best to get individually tailored nutritional advice (the super obese, higher levels of athleticism, that kind of stuff), but that's not so much because the mechanics of nutrition are different for these people, but because they use their bodies in very different ways than most people.
>should avoid everything that could theoretically increase
The issue is that the food that should theoretically be avoided are often the foods most regulary eaten.
Also note how I changed my opinion. I am not advocating to change people's diet but for it to have consequences when it has bad consequences.
Think of it as skin in the game.
>that people "get away too easily" by getting a potentially terminal desease
Maybe you are right, but my argument is that the treatment gets payed for by society (at least in my country) when it should be payed by the individual (but only when it is within their control)
>I also dont understand how it is unfair for people that eat unhealthy to become unhealthy.
I don't think I said this. I think it is unfair when these people get easy fixes in the form of treatment.
In the Netherlands there's a social healthcare system: a good thing. I feel it is unfair when people benefit from it without taking a burden.
You could argue people do: they pay taxes. But I would argue that while this is true, it is not right that the money from those taxes goes to preventable cases. I argue, the money and treatment is for the people who got unlucky.
>today we have a better understanding of what causes cancer
yeah, being a complex organism
Sounds cheap. Are you saying there's no consensus that too much sugar or fastfood is bad?
I know there's some controversial stuff, such as whatever diary is good. But that shouldn't mean we should disregard everything.
I think that reliable doctors exist. It was actually from one, who wrote a book, who warned about this:
>plus a diet/exercise industry that exists solely to sell bullshit diets.
Not an argument. We might not know exactly what causes cancer but we do have an idea on what increases the chances of getting it.
Please expand your argument.
>when it should be payed by the individual (but only when it is within their control)
I really agree with you on this when it comes to a lot of health issues. But blaming cancer on the eating habbits of the patient is a little bit too much. There are studies on almost every kind of food that indicate an increasing risk of getting cancer, but there is no clear consensus about the actual causation between [food x] and cancer. People who are totally fit, with healthy eating habits, still get cancer and who can really tell that they avoided "cancerous food" their whole life? Lastly I want to point out, that with most other health proplems that stem from bad eating habits, you will get symptoms signaling you to change your diet before fucking up your body. With cancer however, you are fucked as soon as you find out about it and wont really know what exactly has caused it.
Sorry, I wasn't super clear in my first sentence, after the "no" it should have been "there is plenty of consensus".
Eat mostly veggies, fruits, mushrooms, and nuts. Eat more white meat than fish, more fish than red meat (fish would probably be a preference were it not for the potential of mercury poisoning), but eat far less of any kind of meat than you do the preceding stuff. Too much of anything is bad. Over processed stuff is generally not that good for you (mainly because the processing tends to destroy some nutrients). Raw not meat is generally best (with some exceptions), then descending healthfulness to the kind of not that good of an idea: deep frying in butter, but so long as you're not continually on the bad side of the cooking it really doesn't make a giant difference how you prepare it. Don't eliminate any macronutrient from your diet, you need all of that shit. Etc. etc. etc. etc.
It's mainly common sense at this point.
Yeah, but really, being a complex organism alone is already enough to cause cancer. It is actually amazing that cancer isnt more common.
Oh yeah, and if it's salty, fatty, and/or sugary, don't eat that much and do so rarely if you do choose to indulge.
Thank you for this comment. I dunno if you commented before, but the other replies seemed to be more sentimental disagreements.
So may I ask: when and with what health issue is it fair to let the individual pay instead of society?
We know exactly what causes cancers:
the genetic material in some cells gets fucked up in a way that makes them start reproducing out of control. Anything that can potentially damage this stuff is "cancerous". The longer you live, the more risk you have, period, just because of all the ways that cells can be damaged and end up with this as a result...thinking it's complicated because there are a lot of things that can cause the damage is like thinking that a severed spinal cord is complicated because there are a lot of ways it can be severed.
Look, there are no great mysteries to cancer, nor have there been for a very long time. We've understood the mechanisms at play for decades. The complication comes in the fact that any of the various kinds of cells in your body can become cancerous. This makes detection a pain in the ass, and it makes targeting the damaged cells even more of a nightmare. See, since these cells are cells from your body in the first place, most all of your defenses don't fuck with them. If you didn't know it already, most of medicine isn't so much actually curing things, but helping your body cure itself (there definitely are exceptions, but fewer than the general public believes). This is a case, like HIV/AIDS where your body is entirely useless in these efforts...actually one of the more interesting areas of research (for me at least) are efforts to "train" the immune system to be able to recognize cancerous cells -- which is really hard because there's almost no changes to the protein signature on the cellular walls (how white blood cells identify foreign cells).
Anyway, nothing about cancer is complicated. It's just really fucking hard to deal with successfully without killing someone.
Well, now I'm confused if you were the one I replied to. But what you describe is exactly what I've learned that decreases the odds of getting cancer.
I find it a bit too harsh to enforce people to eat healthy.
But consider the opposite, punishing unhealthy eating: a Redditor knows that a diet consisting only of mountain dew, pizza and tortilla chips is bad, but he says he enjoys it and doesn't care.
Redditor's doctor notice his bulging body and tells him that he can't continue like this. But after repeated warnings he continues his habit.
Said Redditor is now older and has numerous health issues. He is in a country with social health care. Is it fair for society to pay for this?
Of course I imagine that in reality it is much harder to pinpoint to bad habits. If someone is fat, you can conclude it is bad eating habits. But enough people exist who are skinny but still consume, say, loads of soda.
The solution would be that doctors on a regular basis discuss eating habits with their patients and I am not sure if the world is ready for that. I am sure there is more issues.
I think it's a little more complicated than that. Being able to take the time to cook your meals daily and being able to afford "good" foods is a luxury that not everyone has.
I've gone periods of my life eating little more than ramen and maybe a can of veggies every other day. I knew it wasn't good for me, but it was better than starving and I couldn't afford anything else.
I'll leave this here:
This year, more than 1 million Americans and more than 10 million people worldwide are expected to be diagnosed with cancer, a disease commonly believed to be preventable. Only 5–10% of all cancer cases can be attributed to genetic defects, whereas the remaining 90–95% have their roots in the environment and lifestyle. The lifestyle factors include cigarette smoking, diet (fried foods, red meat), alcohol, sun exposure, environmental pollutants, infections, stress, obesity, and physical inactivity. The evidence indicates that of all cancer-related deaths, almost 25–30% are due to tobacco, as many as 30–35% are linked to diet, about 15–20% are due to infections, and the remaining percentage are due to other factors like radiation, stress, physical activity, environmental pollutants etc. Therefore, cancer prevention requires smoking cessation, increased ingestion of fruits and vegetables, moderate use of alcohol, caloric restriction, exercise, avoidance of direct exposure to sunlight, minimal meat consumption, use of whole grains, use of vaccinations, and regular check-ups. In this review, we present evidence that inflammation is the link between the agents/factors that cause cancer and the agents that prevent it. In addition, we provide evidence that cancer is a preventable disease that requires major lifestyle changes.
>I dunno if you commented before
since posting with you
>when and with what health issue is it fair to let the individual pay instead of society?
Thats a hard one and would be up to lots of experts on medicine/chemistry/biology to decide.
But generally speaking it should be things that are directly and undeniably linked to certain eating habits and the willful continuation of them.(for example extreme obesety)
I dont know, there are people who treat their bodies like total shit and at a certain point one should consider this slow suicide.
Maybe everybody should get one chance at least. But let's say someone needs fancy operations for his heart condition, he gets them but after that still continues to eat greasy burgers everyday. That shouldnt be the burden of everyone, if he fucks up his heart again
That is why I say in a previous post that it is important that it is not systematic i.e. out of control of the person.
I do know that many people cannot afford"good" food. That is why emphasis free choice.
>Thats a hard one and would be up to lots of experts on medicine/chemistry/biology to decide.
Don't forget an expert on jurisdiction.
So after saying all this, I thought of my dad, who died of cancer. He sort of caused me to live more healthy since he did the opposite (lots of fastfood, alcohol and smoking).
So, I realized that individual pay doesn't only affect the individual but the family to. Imagine if the family is poor. That is something to consider.