Living Car Free - Economy better, I'm not happy

I hope this economic turn down lasts awhile. Most people I know were always trying to keep up with others and not thinking about what they were doing. I'll not happy about people losing their jobs or homes but hope this last long enough to affect their mindset. I was one who lost a job and it hasn't been easy but we prepared for a time like this. People just need to learn to enjoy life instead of trying to buy happiness.

I'm not sure I want it to last, but I do want it to make people think again about buying needless rubbish, perhaps being nice to each other and generally appreciated the world and nature instead of destroying everything. It has certainly changed my mind about buying crap.

I struggle with this question.

I do most certainly think that we need to fundamentally address lots of life issues: how we play, work, live, move, and (ultimately) consume. And it is true that nothing forces us to face up to such questions so abruptly as hardship. I will even grant that some good things can come from a severe economic hardship.

However, I have two reasons for not wishing this on us. First, out of solidarity with my fellow humans, I do not want them to be hurt by this. Second, I suspect that forced change is far less effective than intentional change. Go ahead and call me naive (and my own thoughts about this are why I struggle about it), but I really think that we will not change our ways until we simply open our minds to what needs to be done. We have to want to change. Being forced to change will make us squirm and resist and do other horrible things instead.

j

I struggle with this question.

I do most certainly think that we need to fundamentally address lots of life issues: how we play, work, live, move, and (ultimately) consume. And it is true that nothing forces us to face up to such questions so abruptly as hardship. I will even grant that some good things can come from a severe economic hardship.

However, I have two reasons for not wishing this on us. First, out of solidarity with my fellow humans, I do not want them to be hurt by this. Second, I suspect that forced change is far less effective than intentional change. Go ahead and call me naive (and my own thoughts about this are why I struggle about it), but I really think that we will not change our ways until we simply open our minds to what needs to be done. We have to want to change. Being forced to change will make us squirm and resist and do other horrible things instead.

j

I agree. In the 70s were faced with a manufactured fuel shortage and the solutions were gas lines and odd or een gas days. As a result people started buying smaller more fuel efficient cars. The government stepped in and decided to force the people into more of these cars by setting CAFE standards. Those standards were designed to reduce the number of full sized cars made and sold in this country. The result at first was to get rid of the full sized station wagon as the vehicle of choice for the Suburan and urban spraw dwellers. Once it was discovered that the shortage of fuel was manufactured and prices and supply stabolized I am sure some believed the small car had come into its own.

During that time Honda accords grew to be closer to a full sized car. First Mini Vans replaced station wagons and then SUVs. At one point SUVs and light trucks were the best selling vehicles in the market taking the spot of almost 50 percent of all US car sales. I think it waas 2005 or so that the F series Ford pickup was the best selling vehicle in the world even if almost all of their trucks were sold in the US.

Unless people have a change of thinking on their own through education or advertising once conditions return to what people consider normal it is human nature to return to what people want rather than what they need. In other words people have to want to change rather than be forced to change.

I struggle with this question.

I do most certainly think that we need to fundamentally address lots of life issues: how we play, work, live, move, and (ultimately) consume. And it is true that nothing forces us to face up to such questions so abruptly as hardship. I will even grant that some good things can come from a severe economic hardship.

However, I have two reasons for not wishing this on us. First, out of solidarity with my fellow humans, I do not want them to be hurt by this. Second, I suspect that forced change is far less effective than intentional change. Go ahead and call me naive (and my own thoughts about this are why I struggle about it), but I really think that we will not change our ways until we simply open our minds to what needs to be done. We have to want to change. Being forced to change will make us squirm and resist and do other horrible things instead.

j
Yes, I may of come off seeming a little brutal but want a global mindset to change. The times lately has given me plenty of thinking time which has changed my mindset to what I consider a better way of living.

I struggle with this question.

I do most certainly think that we need to fundamentally address lots of life issues: how we play, work, live, move, and (ultimately) consume. And it is true that nothing forces us to face up to such questions so abruptly as hardship. I will even grant that some good things can come from a severe economic hardship.

However, I have two reasons for not wishing this on us. First, out of solidarity with my fellow humans, I do not want them to be hurt by this. Second, I suspect that forced change is far less effective than intentional change. Go ahead and call me naive (and my own thoughts about this are why I struggle about it), but I really think that we will not change our ways until we simply open our minds to what needs to be done. We have to want to change. Being forced to change will make us squirm and resist and do other horrible things instead.

j

I agree that a forced change is far less effective that intentional change, unfortunately I think we are well beyond the point that people at least here in the US can make that intentional change on their own on a large enough scale to really make any changes in a short enough time. Since I have sold my car and started riding my bike everywhere, a lot of my friends have mentioned they thought it was a great thing to do, and that it was really awesome that I have made the effort to make a positive effect and take action on something I felt strongly about, but not a single one of those people owns a bike and I can't see any of them switching over if they can drive instead.

People (as a general rule) don't want to work hard for the food they eat or the clothes they wear anymore. I know a handful of people with gardens, some larger than others, and out of the couple of hundred people I know I would say maybe one or two actually produces enough food to make a dent in their grocery bill. People are all too happy driving to the store to buy tomatoes shipped in from California or Chili....

I can't say that wish an ill fate upon people, but I honestly believe that may be what it takes to wake most people up.... Whether it happens in the next 5 years or the next 20 I think the advertising companies and their clients will continue to persuade the average US citizen out of every nickel they can regardless of the state of the economy. Most large corporations have no conscience that says enough is enough... They will do whatever it take to sell every last scrap of every resource possible... regardless of the long term effects on the environment or the consumer.

forced change may be less effective but it does make people think, which may induce intentional change.

also we have had to keep expanding global business due to an increasing population and a need to create jobs. the change is going to require a slow reduction in population by education and development of the third world. it is not a small thing by any means.

While I can't say that I haven't thought like this myself, I usually come back down to earth and realize that my ideas of what people may or may not deserve are no excuse to wish them ill. There are real people out there who are hurting because of this economic mess...and it's not always their own fault. My daddy always told me to be careful what I wished for...I hope you will consider doing the same. ;)

Like I said, I really don't wish any ill will on anyone, but I really don't see people making the changes themselves... I don't wish bad things to happen, but I can't but think they may be required to help some people understand that unlimited growth of economies, populations and production is not possible over an extended period of time...

I hope this economic turn down lasts awhile. Most people I know were always trying to keep up with others and not thinking about what they were doing. I'll not happy about people losing their jobs or homes but hope this last long enough to affect their mindset. I was one who lost a job and it hasn't been easy but we prepared for a time like this. People just need to learn to enjoy life instead of trying to buy happiness.

Dream on.

Unless people have a change of thinking on their own through education or advertising once conditions return to what people consider normal it is human nature to return to what people want rather than what they need. In other words people have to want to change rather than be forced to change.

I disagree. Most people will not, in fact, change, simply because of human nature. It's not good for the environment, or for the general quality of life, to have large tracts of 5,000 square foot houses with two SUV's in front of each one. It's not good for our bodies or our environment to eat processed food and huge amounts of meat. Getting rid of a few hundred million old TVs and old computer monitors and old laptops is a huge problem. However, what person, on an individual level, wouldn't want to live on a quiet street in a huge house full of fun electronic devices, and then be able to jump in to the SUV and go skiing every weekend? People in every society on Earth, once they acquire some wealth, immediately start to do what we have done: buy cars, get bigger houses, go shopping, jump on planes, take some nice pictures, and shop some more. Like every other species, we voraciously consume until nature tells us to stop.

We as a species have been clever enough to circumvent a lot of natural limits, which led to a few hundred years of constant progress, but now we're in a situation that if we don't put the brakes on ourselves, it's going to get very grim very quickly. In such a situation, you don't rely on millions of suburban, SUV-owning, mortgage-holding, debt-ridden, recently-laid-off, very nervous people to make decisions that take the big picture into account. We all agree that profound changes need to be made; just not by us personally. This is very un-American, and I cringe to say it, but what we need to do right now is to elect leaders who have the balls to make us do the right thing, even though it's painful in the short term.

There is no such thing as intentional change on a mass scale.

I disagree. Most people will not, in fact, change, simply because of human nature. It's not good for the environment, or for the general quality of life, to have large tracts of 5,000 square foot houses with two SUV's in front of each one.
How much did your bicycles cost?
I ride a lot, and am pretty particular about what I ride; I only have two bikes but both cost $2000+ to put together. And I ain't rich.

Is something only bad when it's something you are "smart enough" not to want?


It's not good for our bodies or our environment to eat processed food and huge amounts of meat. ...
Tell that to the Inuit:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vilhjalmur_Stefansson#Low-carbohydrate_diet_of_meat_and_fish

Another later practitioner of this diet is Owsley Stanley-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Owsley_Stanley#Diet_and_health

I am not so interested in trying such a diet, but am curious about more info on it. Info is rather tough to find online; if you search for the terms "human carnivore diet" you only get vegetarians arguing the exact opposite--and I tend to suspect that the vegetarian agenda is only socio-political and not truly based in scientific principles.

(I do agree that processed food probably causes people a lot of health problems)
~

You can argue about the affect of meat on human health, but you can't deny it's impact on the environment. It takes a lot of plant food to make a little animal food. Something like 16 pounds to 1 for beef, and 7 to 1 for chicken. And that's not even considering the water used, and waste produced. Our present consumption level of meat can not be sustained for long.

I for one hope this economy changes the actions of people

You can argue about the affect of meat on human health, but you can't deny it's impact on the environment. It takes a lot of plant food to make a little animal food. Something like 16 pounds to 1 for beef, and 7 to 1 for chicken. And that's not even considering the water used, and waste produced. Our present consumption level of meat can not be sustained for long.

I might argue that the root cause of this problem is the overpopulation of humans on the earth. Nothing is sustainable at our current population.

I'm not vegetarian, but I eat meat very rarely now. I really have no opinion on what humans "should" be eating. I do know that arguments involving saving the planet or saving the animals will do very little to change anyone's minds. About as much, I suppose, as telling a SUV driver they're polluting the planet.

Commercial farming has allowed population growth to continue unchecked. It's a huge problem, but one that absolutely noone will stop. Population growth contributes to increased economic "growth" and increasing debt - and without increasing debt the system collapses. The developed countries that are seeing population decreases are offering incentives to have more kids. A very irresponsible practice IMO.

I might argue that the root cause of this problem is the overpopulation of humans on the earth. Nothing is sustainable at our current population.

True, but a large population humans can be sustained for a much longer period if we didn't use so much of our resources on meat production. As resources dwindle (oil included), we will be forced to cut back on the wasteful practice of reverse protein production.

I hope this economic turn down lasts awhile. Most people I know were always trying to keep up with others and not thinking about what they were doing. I'll not happy about people losing their jobs or homes but hope this last long enough to affect their mindset. I was one who lost a job and it hasn't been easy but we prepared for a time like this. People just need to learn to enjoy life instead of trying to buy happiness.

That is an extremely self centered and selfish attitude. Everyone's well being depends upon a healthy and robust economy.

Everyone's well being depends upon a healthy and robust economy.

I wouldn't define out-of-control capitalism and consumerism as a healthy and robust economy, but as a nationwide pyramid scheme inevitably doomed to failure.

I wouldn't define out-of-control capitalism and consumerism as a healthy and robust economy, but as a nationwide pyramid scheme inevitably doomed to failure.

Out of control is bad both for consumerism and capitalism But growth and robust economy aren't out of control. Yes we were greedy and now we are paying for it. But who isn't paying for it now? Who or what system is better off today? The USSR didn't work and even China is turning to capitalism so it must have a draw. So what better system is there?

How much did your bicycles cost?
I ride a lot, and am pretty particular about what I ride; I only have two bikes but both cost $2000+ to put together. And I ain't rich.

Is something only bad when it's something you are "smart enough" not to want?


Tell that to the Inuit:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vilhjalmur_Stefansson#Low-carbohydrate_diet_of_meat_and_fish

Another later practitioner of this diet is Owsley Stanley-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Owsley_Stanley#Diet_and_health

I am not so interested in trying such a diet, but am curious about more info on it. Info is rather tough to find online; if you search for the terms "human carnivore diet" you only get vegetarians arguing the exact opposite--and I tend to suspect that the vegetarian agenda is only socio-political and not truly based in scientific principles.

(I do agree that processed food probably causes people a lot of health problems)
~

A recent edition of Scientific American had a really good article on the global warming effects of a meat-laden diet. (Unfortunately, I can't tell you which issue exactly, because I recently cleaned my house.) The article was very concise and well documented, and the main idea was this: raising animals, providing them with food, slaughtering them, processing their meat, and transporting them to market produces far more greenhouse gases than any other human activity besides the production of electricity. Beef in particular is a problem, although other kinds of meat production are not blameless. In fact, it's pretty likely that a car-driving vegan has a smaller carbon footprint than a car-free cyclist who eats meat.

the developed countries that are seeing population decreases are offering incentives to have more kids. A very irresponsible practice imo.

+1

Out of control is bad both for consumerism and capitalism But growth and robust economy aren't out of control. Yes we were greedy and now we are paying for it. But who isn't paying for it now? Who or what system is better off today? The USSR didn't work and even China is turning to capitalism so it must have a draw. So what better system is there?

Perhaps its not the system we need to change, but how that system is evaluated. Why use benchmarks such as GDP and %growth since last quarter? In fact why value growth in the economy at all? Why is a company only "doing well" if it shows growth?

A few proposals have been tossed about to measure stability, sustainability, etc. For example a benchmark for "doing well" could be what percentage of resources a company is renewing as compared to what it currently uses. Eg. forestry: does a logging company plant trees at a rate that matches harvest forecasts? (This was proposed be a former finance minister, and later prime minister, of Canada).

Capitalism doesn't work, it brings out the worst in our species. Large-scale communism has not worked either, for a bunch of reasons. We can certainly do better than the current system, but the root cause here isn't a broken system - its a broken species. We need to grow up, fast.

Perhaps its not the system we need to change, but how that system is evaluated. Why use benchmarks such as GDP and %growth since last quarter? In fact why value growth in the economy at all? Why is a company only "doing well" if it shows growth?

A few proposals have been tossed about to measure stability, sustainability, etc. For example a benchmark for "doing well" could be what percentage of resources a company is renewing as compared to what it currently uses. Eg. forestry: does a logging company plant trees at a rate that matches harvest forecasts? (This was proposed be a former finance minister, and later prime minister, of Canada).

Capitalism doesn't work, it brings out the worst in our species. Large-scale communism has not worked either, for a bunch of reasons. We can certainly do better than the current system, but the root cause here isn't a broken system - its a broken species. We need to grow up, fast.


Still what system is working better? Could have should have is nice in theory but what system is proving to be a better one?

Still what system is working better? Could have should have is nice in theory but what system is proving to be a better one?

That would be Cuba - people live longer there than in America, they export doctors all over the world, and still have more doctors per person than anyone else. Despite very low incomes and limited international trade, they do well in measures other than financial - happiness, longevity, etc. They didn't choose this, it was forced upon them by the US embargo, but they made the best of it - they have the best compromise of sustainability and development in the world. Perhaps the global economic slowdown will force us all to live as sustainably as the Cubans.

You can argue about the affect of meat on human health, but you can't deny it's impact on the environment. It takes a lot of plant food to make a little animal food. Something like 16 pounds to 1 for beef, and 7 to 1 for chicken. And that's not even considering the water used, and waste produced. Our present consumption level of meat can not be sustained for long.

Those stats are not accurate though. Remember cattle eat mostly grass and we don't. So the beef is using the grass that would otherwise go to waste. Not all land is good enough for crops so you take the bad spots that can sustain simple grass and let your cattle graze there. You couldn't get 16lbs of lettuce or something else off of the land where you can get that 16lbs of grass so your not necessarially taking land that could grow food for humans.

Those stats are not accurate though. Remember cattle eat mostly grass and we don't. So the beef is using the grass that would otherwise go to waste. Not all land is good enough for crops so you take the bad spots that can sustain simple grass and let your cattle graze there. You couldn't get 16lbs of lettuce or something else off of the land where you can get that 16lbs of grass so your not necessarially taking land that could grow food for humans.

This would make sense if there was enough "waste grass" to support the staggering amount of animals we eat, but there is not. A high percentage of our intensively farmed land is used to feed livestock, which are raised in feed lots and factory farm warehouses. It is a very resource intensive and wasteful process.

http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/01/27/business/meat.php

I like this thread! It's heated and people keep providing evidence and rationales for their opinions. Keep at it opinionated people, you're making my afternoon at work interesting!

Remember cattle eat mostly grass and we don't. So the beef is using the grass that would otherwise go to waste.

Well, goats and sheep would do a better job of trimming unwanted grass. Perhaps we should have a neighborhood beef that goes around yard to yard and have the beef use the grass. Think of all the gasoline from powermowers that would be saved.

Then there are those luddites who think that grasses produce oxygen, cool the planet and prevent erosion, so maybe it's not wasted after all. Crazy thought. :innocent:

... the main idea was this: raising animals, providing them with food, slaughtering them, processing their meat, and transporting them to market produces far more greenhouse gases than any other human activity besides the production of electricity. ....
Is this an undesirable situation?

(considering that water is more commonly plentiful than food is)
If society is not engaging most of its resources to produce food, then what else is more important?

(-note that you cannot "engage resources to help conservation", because by definition, conservation is the non-use of resources. You could even say that the northern regions of Canada and Russia are "full" of conservationists-)
~

Is this an undesirable situation?

Considering that feeding humans on a plant based diet uses less resources, and creates less pollution, the answer to your question is yes.



"Global demand for meat has multiplied in recent years, encouraged by growing affluence and nourished by the proliferation of huge, confined animal feeding operations. These assembly-line meat factories consume enormous amounts of energy, pollute water supplies, generate significant greenhouse gases and require ever-increasing amounts of corn, soy and other grains, a dependency that has led to the destruction of vast swaths of the world's tropical rain forests."

Don't believe me or one article. Do your own search. Frankly, I'm surprised that so many are unaware of the environmental impact of eating (a lot of) meat.

Considering that feeding humans on a plant based diet uses less resources, and creates less pollution, the answer to your question is yes.




Don't believe me or one article. Do your own search. Frankly, I'm surprised that so many are unaware of the environmental impact of eating (a lot of) meat.

When taking anthropology in college on of my professors suggested that eating meat was one of the things that got the human race out of the trees and into moving accross the face of the earth. Plant eaters were constantly searching for food and eating while meat eaters had longer times between having to eat giving them time to explore and migrate. It is perfectly natural for humans to eat meat we have teeth designed to do just that and digestive systems designed to process that food. Now if the key is not to eat so much meat or fish or fowl then maybe over eating is a problem. But there is no species on earth where food isn't one of the major concerns of life. And Humans have always been meat eaters.

Lets see...

Amazon rainforest being burnt down to grow grass for cattle, who walk all over it so after a couple of years it can't grow anything, so some more rainforest gets burnt down.

Obesity epidemic.

I stopped eating red meat years ago, and now I'm cutting out chicken and fish too. This is made easier by visiting a chicken farm for work, and hearing about the toxic chemicals concentrated in fish, and the collapse of many fish populations around the world.

Lets see...

Amazon rainforest being burnt down to grow grass for cattle, who walk all over it so after a couple of years it can't grow anything, so some more rainforest gets burnt down.

Obesity epidemic.

I stopped eating red meat years ago, and now I'm cutting out chicken and fish too. This is made easier by visiting a chicken farm for work, and hearing about the toxic chemicals concentrated in fish, and the collapse of many fish populations around the world.

Don't know, the last two toxic outbreaks of food related problems I remember were peanuts, Tomatos, and lettuce. The local fast food places wouldn't put tomatos on your burger. Even Taco Bell would put them on tacos. :innocent:

Still we are taught by science and out doctors that eating meat is important enough that it helps our childrens brain development. http://ezinearticles.com/?Enhancing-a-Childs-Brain-Development&id=1946401

But I am not sure what this has to do with the economy getting better? ;)

I'm not sure why this has to be an all or nothing issue. People need to consume less meat or try to support more sustainable resources of meat. That is not saying to eat no meat.


/from a veg


I also don't see what your above article has to do with eating meat. Please don't say 'Science says this...' or 'Evolution means this....' because you will just be embarrassing yourself. Science makes no such comments, although pro-meat and veg*ns may think otherwise.

The article was on childhood brain development. I was simply stating that some medical people encourage meat and opposed to no meat.
"To improve his aptitude and alertness, a protein-rich diet (egg, fish, meat, beans, peanuts, etc.) will help your child greatly."

And as strange as it may sound my personal doctor suggested I add more meat to my diet as I continue to exercise at the rate I have been for the last few months. I have had a diet where we tend to have meat, fowl or fish for only one meal and that is in 6 ounce portions.

Now and then I have been wrong, rarely have I ever been embarrassed by my own opinion.:lol:

So maybe I would have been more correct to say there are medical reasons to eat meat.

Some of our earliest tools were used for cutting meat and we even have specialized teeth for that very purpose.

But that still has very little to do with our economy improving or not does it?;)

I'm not sure why this has to be an all or nothing issue. People need to consume less meat or try to support more sustainable resources of meat. That is not saying to eat no meat.

I agree. I've reduced meat intake over the years so that it's normally about 2-3 meat meals in a week. Also, you can elect for a meat source that consumes less water and has lead a reasonably humane life. I purchase pork in bulk from local farmers, not from the factory hog lots. I eat very little beef and try to keep chicken consumption to a minimum. I haven't found a source for reasonably priced organic chicken. This might be a good thing: organic chicken is very expensive, but nice to have for special occasions.

For the past few years, I've cut way back on meat consumption. I'll have meat maybe once or twice a week on average. This has nothing to do with trying to go vegetarian and everything to do with trying for a healthy lifestyle. Cutting back on the meat is fine, but protein is still important, which is why I eat a lot of lentils, beans, tofu and cottage cheese.

Yeah, I'm a "meat every day or two" guy still. Tofu helps, tho.

That would be Cuba - people live longer there than in America, they export doctors all over the world, and still have more doctors per person than anyone else. Despite very low incomes and limited international trade, they do well in measures other than financial - happiness, longevity, etc. They didn't choose this, it was forced upon them by the US embargo, but they made the best of it - they have the best compromise of sustainability and development in the world. Perhaps the global economic slowdown will force us all to live as sustainably as the Cubans.If Cuba is so great why are people there constantly trying to escape on homemade rafts to Miami? Wouldn't Miamians (?) be trying to escape to there?

When taking anthropology in college on of my professors suggested that eating meat was one of the things that got the human race out of the trees and into moving accross the face of the earth. Plant eaters were constantly searching for food and eating while meat eaters had longer times between having to eat giving them time to explore and migrate. It is perfectly natural for humans to eat meat we have teeth designed to do just that and digestive systems designed to process that food. Now if the key is not to eat so much meat or fish or fowl then maybe over eating is a problem. But there is no species on earth where food isn't one of the major concerns of life. And Humans have always been meat eaters.

I find human evolution very fascinating and agree with all of your points above except the last. (bolded) The earliest humans were probably more likely to be hunted than to be hunters. While I agree eating meat was/is natural, (after all, no one forced us to do it) and may have even helped us advance through the century's, it is also the exact thing harming us today.

Life expectancy for early humans was very short. Probably very few died from heart disease or cancer, our two biggest killers today. There is plenty of medical and scientific documentation that a diet high in animal products contributes to both of these illnesses. Add to this the amount of harm we are inflicting on our environment, (there are a lot more of us now!) and it is easy to understand why cutting back on our meat consumption would be best for us overall. Unfortunately, I see meat consumption just as I do oil consumption. We will not change our ways until we are forced to.

When taking anthropology in college on of my professors suggested that eating meat was one of the things that got the human race out of the trees and into moving accross the face of the earth. Plant eaters were constantly searching for food and eating while meat eaters had longer times between having to eat giving them time to explore and migrate. It is perfectly natural for humans to eat meat we have teeth designed to do just that and digestive systems designed to process that food. Now if the key is not to eat so much meat or fish or fowl then maybe over eating is a problem. But there is no species on earth where food isn't one of the major concerns of life. And Humans have always been meat eaters.

Eating meat did not "free up our time" so to speak. What did was a "diet package." Diet packages offer a life style not driven by the need to forage and move all the time. It has been suggested that meat eating may have helped with some of the protien production in out brains but that is unproven. What really help our brains get bigger was the demands of a highly socialized lifestyle. The need to keep track of pecking orders, alliances, and outsmarting predators. Meat eating had little to do with it. Furhtermore, our teeth are not "designed" to eat meat. A cats teeth are designed for meat eating, as are a lions. Our dentition is designed to eat a lot of things, but nothing in particular. Animal domnestication was just one step in supplying some of our ancestors with certain proteins that was not available in some regions by the plant life. Today there is more than enough plant variety available at any grocery store to live healthily, if fact more healthily with very very little to no meat at all. The only thing that meat offers that is actually hard to get from a plant is B12. However, b12 is commonly found in soil which used to be in our food but due to industrialization of food cleaning there is no soil left on our food when we buy it. Vitamins solve that problem.

Vegetarians live on average 5-6 years longer than meat eaters. Humans have not always been meat eaters. Some societys eat meat, others dont.

Read "Guns Germs and Steel" for a very good account of human dietary evolution in the begining of the book.

/from an anthropologist

To the guys who think they're doing so much excercise they need extra meat: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Beaumont_(cyclist)
He is a vegetarian. All he had to do is eat a lot - the one time he ate meat was when he couldn't find enough food.

I do eat meat, but I find all this 'you need meat or x or x' advice ridiculous, you don't see 1/3rd of people in India dropping dead, do you?

Considering that feeding humans on a plant based diet uses less resources, and creates less pollution, the answer to your question is yes.
....
Don't believe me or one article. Do your own search. Frankly, I'm surprised that so many are unaware of the environmental impact of eating (a lot of) meat.
Yes but you need to keep in mind also, that (in the USA at least) a big part of the reason that the livestock industry operates the way it does is due to government regulations.

Take for example the fact that in most US states, it is illegal to sell raw (unpasteurized) milk at all, even if the buyer is fully informed of what they're buying.
Think about that for a moment: you can get thrown in jail for selling milk.
The only way you can get natural livestock milk is if you "own" the cow that produced it. And being unpasteurized basically requires that the dairy be local, because the milk cannot be stored very long before spoiling.

You want energy-efficient livestock management, there it is. But local livestock farmers are effectively locked out of local markets by such government regulations.
~

... and may have even helped us advance through the century's, it is also the exact thing harming us today.

Life expectancy for early humans was very short. Probably very few died from heart disease or cancer, our two biggest killers today. There is plenty of medical and scientific documentation that a diet high in animal products contributes to both of these illnesses. ...
This page on a Inuit mortailty study-
http://inchr.com/Doc/July2007/(11)%20Wilkins-Inuit%20life%20expectancy.pdf
says that suicide is the leading cause of death, and lung cancer is second. I don't know but would bet that the cancer is from smoking cigarettes, because they don't live near much pollution.

-----

With the Inuit people we have a prehistorical group of people who have existed on meat-only diets for most of their lives. Due to the miracle of modern transportation they may be eating potato chips and drinking Coca-cola now, but 100 years ago they certainly didn't. And they've lived where they've lived for at least a thousand years. If eating lots of meat caused anything, they'd be suffering from it by now.

Is there any comparable group of prehistoric people who were strictly vegetarian? I haven't ever heard of any.

I know that vegetarianism has been a diet fad for a long time--there were practitioners in ancient Greece and Rome I have read of, but I've not found anything that says that this lead to any permanent population that refused to eat meat.
~

Still what system is working better? Could have should have is nice in theory but what system is proving to be a better one?

So you're saying the only options are those already tried? Why limit ourselves that way?

So you're saying the only options are those already tried? Why limit ourselves that way?

No I didn't say that. I said what system is better for the people participating in the system? hat is not limiting anything. The system we have was developed and surplanted other systems throughout history. It either has a value or it doesn't. The systems that were replaced either worked or they didn't. What one works better that can be pointed to? What practical improvement to this system can be suggested that contends with human nature? whay other options are you suggesting that would lead us in a better direction?

If Cuba is so great why are people there constantly trying to escape on homemade rafts to Miami? Wouldn't Miamians (?) be trying to escape to there?

Ah, well that's down to politics. Cuba is communist, there is less personal freedom there than in America. Less freedom to earn ludicrous amounts of money, less freedom to eat till they burst, less freedom of press, less freedom to see the world. There is also less freedom to starve, to die young from substance abuse, to be brainwashed by advertising, to pay for doctors, to fail.

The fact is that most people won't change much unless they are forced to, and nobody likes being forced to do anything. But when your back is against the wall, when you have no choice, you find out what you can really do - and you'd be amazed what YOU are capable of.

I'm not saying Cuba's political system is perfect; I don't believe there is any such thing. But they have the right balance of resource use and development, to have a similar quality of life whilst using 10% of the resources of the average American.

... Unless people have a change of thinking on their own through education or advertising once conditions return to what people consider normal it is human nature to return to what people want rather than what they need. In other words people have to want to change rather than be forced to change.

I agree completely.

To the guys who think they're doing so much excercise they need extra meat: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Beaumont_(cyclist)
He is a vegetarian. All he had to do is eat a lot - the one time he ate meat was when he couldn't find enough food.

I do eat meat, but I find all this 'you need meat or x or x' advice ridiculous, you don't see 1/3rd of people in India dropping dead, do you?

You are missing a close-parenthesis on the URL. It should be:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Beaumont_(cyclist)