What are you guy’s thoughts on Climate Change? Personally I think it will get worse, destroy a large chunk of the biosphere, cause mass displacement, but ultimately modernity will survive it. But not before it cause a lot of pain and suffering. The damage from it will peak around 2050-2080, but by 2100 it will be over.
Thoughts on Climate Change
Other urls found in this thread:
Bourgeois hoax to keep third-world countries underdeveloped and dependent
Every true leftist needs to be an environmentalist; that's non debatable.
Albeit being an outright veganfag is way too far.
It will destroy America and weaken capitalism.
Is enviro-nihilism the new Posadism?
There if hope, if we can overthrow capitalism soon enough and implement this solution.
Take this centrist meme elsewhere. A good idea is worth doing all the way.
Humans are originally herbivores (starchivores to be exact.) Meat eating is alienating and reactionary.
Were Omnivores. Our digestion track is much shorter than herbivores. This is why we can’t eat grass. Also their are many important vitamins found only in meat that we need to survive.
No, it’s to stop using a fucking car.
No, we're not. Our digestion tracts are exactly designed for frugivores and animals that cook starch foods. We're not designed to eat meat at all. Also, there are quite literally zero vitamins found only in meat that we need to survive. We can rely exclusively on plants, and science has empirically proven that we're much better off that way.
We'd probably see critical damage from climate change much earlier, around 2030 or so. Modernity survival depends is in question, the capitalists have shown a inability to have any kind of long term plan or plan in a global scale. Climate change bumps against capitalists natural drive to accumulate surplus value in that all solutions requires less efficient production from the point of view of the market.
Niagara Falls was never going to last without human intervention anyway. It has always been a temporary creation of the last ice age.
I don't drive, or own a car. If someone needs a car then you can't tell them to get rid of it. Just like I wouldn't tell goat herders in the Sinai peninsula to go vegan. But in the developed West, a vegan diet is possible, better for you and the environment. Maybe one needs a car, but one certainly doesn't need to eat meat three times a day.
We literally can.
It's having SSL problems, can't open it.
lol I would advise against that. Grass is full of secondary metabolites that are poison to us. I'm sorry but you do not a ruminant.
We can it eat it, we just won't digest it. Eating grass won't kill you. Pretty sure it would be well-known if the most abundant plant around us could kill us when we ate it.
Telling people to just stop eating meat and they'll be fine is dangerous. Deficiency in B12 can kill you, and without learning proper nutrition someone wouldn't know to supplement it. Reducing or eliminating animal-sourced food is good in theory but dipshits like you have to spread misinformation that makes the idea look bad by association. Fuck off and die.
People don't keep grass for eating, moron. Not only does it contain a number of anti-nutrients (not mention contaminants from lawn care), it's also covered in silica which damages tooth enamel.
Uh, we've been almost 100% herbivores until the late Upper Paleolithic and have been the most healthy then (before we started hunting megafauna in the late Upper Paleolithic and meat started being our main mode of subsistence, that is.) You clearly don't know shit about anthropology. Also, B12 deficiency only became a thing after we started using "sterile" water supplies, that is chlorinated water. In the state of nature, humans (and in fact, most contemporary herbivorous animals) don't need meat for B12, because it simply is in all drinkable groundwater.
First worldists get the bullet too.
Consuming most of the vegetation around you will make you sick and yes, eat enough of it and it can kill you. Plants have spent millions of years evolving secondary compounds to defend themselves from being eaten and dedicated herbivores have likewise spent millions of years evolving ways to deal with those compounds. We cannot consume large amounts of most plants raw because we haven't spent those corresponding millions of years evolving ways to deal with them. The exception is fruits, which plants usually produce to intentionally be consumed by animals in order to transport their seeds elsewhere. The reason most people don't give that fact that we're surrounded by poisons every day much thought is that we have evolved the ability to sense these compounds as tasting foul and thus never feel the desire to consume large quantities of them.
Although I should say even fruits typically contain toxins in the seeds to discourage animals from grinding them down and digesting them. If you eat a ton of apple seeds you can die from cyanide poisoning for instance.
And prey animals do the same thing.
Not nearly as commonly as plants, and those that do tend to derive their toxicity from the plants or algae they were eating.
Well, they have a plethora of other defense mechanisms to defend themselves from carnivores, exactly like plants. If you're prey, you have defense mechanisms, and that's all. I don't know what you're trying to prove here.
That you're not a cow and you haven't spent the better part of the Cenozoic evolving ways to digest raw plant matter. Our primate ancestors were likely frugivores and the occasional opportunistic carnivores before transitioning to omnivory for several million years once we started walking upright. We have spent a very short period of evolutionary time being dedicated herbivores. Herbivory may very well be possible or even desirable with modern technological innovations, but appealing to evolutionary tradition is a bad argument.
We do not have evolutionary traits of omnivores. According to modern anthropology, humans are originally starchivores, and meat-eating has never (until the late Upper Paleolithic) been a significant part of our diet. Your claims are unsupported by modern science.
Got some nice sources to peruse?
If you can’t digest it,it’s nutritional value is worthless.
Without water filtration water born diese would kill millions.
Yes we do. It is beneficial for us to consume both plants and animals. Our digestion track length is between a Carnivore and Herbivore. If you think this is negated y what was hundreds of thousands of years ago, you don’t understand evolution.
The Damage won’t peak until 2050-2080. Things will keep getting worse until than.
Groundwater has Vitamin B12, therefore meat isn't the sole source of it. Therefore your point is disproven. All animals and humans create vitamin B12 in their feces. In fact they don't, a bacteria does. No animal can assimilate their own B12, they must get it from outside of their body. Most animals lick bacteria-rich soils. Humans can cultivate their own vegetables without any chemicals and make sure they grow in rich soil. If they don't wash the vegetables with chlorinated water B12 will be found on it.
An average human adult has a 22 feet long intestinal tract, small and long combined. The chest size of an adult is about 26 inches. It should exclude the neck or a giraffe would spoil the metrics. The ratio is therefore 10.15. Herbivores are known to have an intestinal tract of 10 to 12 times their chest length.
Okay, I'm just saying why we have B12 deficiency in vegans. This isn't even related to the argument.
Read above. Our digestive tract has the EXACT length of a herbivore. Also, it's not beneficial—meat-eating has downsides only. The sole reason meat-eating is still a thing is because it's cultural, and because it's a show of domination—it shows that the human dominated nature in the most cruel, disgusting way.
But unfiltered groundwater also has diese.
Our digestive rack is smaller than most herbivores.
Your solution to solving the problem would cause millions to die from easily preventible diseases. I’ll take eating meat over diseases.
It’s a good source of protein. Also it’s nutrence is much more densely packed than for plants.
You should look into vitamin b12 absorbancy and why cheap multivitamins do a poor job of providing vitamin b12.
Also you should look into and consider how much vitamin b12 your body actually produces (ie the bacteria) and WHERE it specifically produces this source of vitamin b12 and then why this is still an issue for vegan humans.
Also consider that no one cares about health benefits, if people won't give up smoking, drinking, overeating and the like, good luck convincing them that meat is also bad for them. Didn't you ever get told off as a kid for telling someone "smoking is bad for you?"
As for ethics, again you're not going to shame many people into having a change of heart when humans can't get even get along, sweat shops are common knowledge and borders are a still a thing.
Also I commend vegans for substantially slashing their carbon foot print this way, but you shouldn't clutch at every tiny straw, people are either susceptible/receptive or not, and it's clearly a good use of your time to preach to those who are open minded rather than bang you head against a wall of people who honestly don't care.
I think you should learn English and actually form your arguments correctly, kid.
Okay, what does that have to do with my point? Groundwater has B12, therefore meat isn't the sole source of B12.
No it isn't. It's exactly the right size for a herbivore.
I never even said anything about my solution.
Whole grains, vegetables, and beans provide more than enough protein to stay healthy. Most people actually eat too much protein, and when the body has more than it needs, it excretes the rest in our urine. Animal protein also leads to increased risk for several illnesses. And don't even get me started on the antibiotics, drugs and other strange fodder pumped into contemporary meat. And cholesterol…
Uh, no, the most nutrient-packed foods are starch foods, because starch is literally chains of glucose, aka pure energy for the body.
Well, the lifestylism argument is correct, but I'm only speaking out against idiots that think meat-eating is essential for humans and has always been part of us.
Meat is the only source of B12 that doesn’t spread disease that can be otherwise readily avoided. Your “alternative sources” all involve the consumption of materials that are much more unsanitary and much more of a health risk than meat.
You've taken the first 2 studies out of context, you do realise that right? These studies are evaluating ecosystems, they don't pupport any human applications for obvious reasons other than environmental concern ie pollution.
Did you even read the amounts? In the first study they found a maximum of per 0.13 MICROgrams per litre of water, an American typically consumes 5 to 30 micrograms in their diet of which only 1 to 5 micrograms are actually absorbed. So to even get 5 to 30 micrograms from filthy salt water, you need to boil down 38 to 230 litres of this to get an equivalent daily dose and that's without taking into account the salt content and dirt that was in the beach waters tested. That is not an efficient way to obtain vitamin b12.
In any case you can industrially ferment vitamin b12 (from bacteria) instead if you want a cheap animal free source that won't kill you and so you should post this instead, the article even mentions that the deficiency is a problem for vegetarians but supplementation remedies it:
I have an undergrad text biochemistry text book that explicitly states that meat is the only dietary source of vitamin b12 and details the complex metabolic process it takes for you to absorb it if you're actually interested.
PS oh i just scrolled up and you were arguing it's against human nature to eat meat, oh boy. I'm not even sure why you people argue this, it's like the nazis and their holocaust denial kind of logic, it never happened but it should have whereas in your case, we did commit a holocaust on the animals and we didn't have to based on some kind of convoluted contrivances.
Also, vitamins, fortified non-dairy milk, fortified nutritional yeast, etc.
If you want a natural source of B12, it's found in mussels and other clams. While those aren't strictly vegan/vegeterian, their farming is sustainable, and they're more like sea plants than animals anyway.
That's a pretty retarded thing to say, like medieval catholics who ate beaver on lent claiming it was fish.
Also meat and animal products are natural sources of vitamin b12, don't obfuscate by saying that only shell fish are.
Regardless it is possible to go completely vegan without comprising yor health with regards to vitamin b12 by artificial supplementation.
Not at all. Mussels have a very primitive nervous system, they can't move and just grow where they're 'planted'. I'd like to see you argue it's a conscious being.
I said IF you want a natural source of B12, which isn't meat or dairy. Mussels are a sustainable alternative that are way easier on the environment. This is an environmental thread, not a vegan one.
I doubt that they consent to being eaten in a collective scheme of things. Fruit, on the other hand, does consent, as fruit is evolutionarily intended to be eaten (animals eat the fruit and drop the seeds.) It can't consent on an individual basis, though, as it's not really that smart enough.
You ever notice how vegans use other movements as vehicles for promoting veganism? Like imagine having a life so devoid of meaning that you create a quasi religion out of not eating animal products. It's sad really. Just another example of the first world's decline.
“consent” donsn’t exist in nature. Read Darwin.
Eating meat is bad not just for the environment, but also as a moral matter. For you to eat that meat, a living created had to be born, live a wretched life in absolute misery, and then be mercilessly killed.
There is no nice or non-cliche way of putting this: Meat is murder.
Ok now this is some epic bait.
More importantly, it is also true.
We're supposed to be eating the rich, not the animals.
No living thing 'consents' to be eaten.
There are carnivorous plants that hunt, some researches say plants can even communicate with one another. The strawman vegan against whom people seem to be arguing in this thread wouldn't eat plants, either. Maybe they'd eat a diet composed of algae and rock salt.
For me, I don't eat animals or animal products because of the suffering that they experience in order for us to get those products. I don't believe a mussel can suffer any more than cabbage or a tree can. If you look at how mussels reproduce, live, etc. you will notice they are quite similar to plants.
Besides, just because you want me to be a certain type of person doesn't make me one. Even a pescaterian is 'doing more' than a meat-eater. It's not about total banning, with vegan death squads running around making sure no one is drinking milk, it's about reducing production (and consumption) of meat. The reason people eat so much meat is because it is everywhere, mass produced and it's fucking cheap. Then you have porky media telling you meat is manly, or that it's good for humans.
The problem is production. Sadly, we don't have much in the way of fighting that other than reducing consumption in the hopes that companies notice. The other way, of course, is revolution.
If anons here think that the people who work in slaughterhouses will continue to do so after the economic incentive is gone they are fooling themselves. It's always funny to see socialists defending capitalist institutions and imagine them continuing on after the revolution, i.e. after capitalism is abolished.
I don't think fruit is a living thing.
Anyway, I agree. Not only is meat shilled because of its inherent show of dominating nature, and being extremely cheap to produce, the people in the slaughterhouses suffer immense psychological pain.
define 'climate change'. pretty sure there's no conclusive evidence the earth's temperature is warming in accordance to what the global warming theorists predicted. ive seen conflicting reports suggesting that that's its entirely possible increased carbon emission and extremely slight warming of the earth could prevent an ice age.
furthermore environmentalism seems to go against the principle of developing powerful industry/technology for the liberation of man. moreover, it seems to be an entirely establishment bourgeois position used to destroy emerging industries, chiefly nuclear technology(which is the most efficient green energy we have). IN ADDITION i have the belief that increasing industrial tech capabilities + population will result in a better capacity to actually clean up the earth
Is this a psyops experiment to see if it is possible to make people believe the opposite of reality?
The simulacra, spectacle, or simply the ride if you wish to call it any of that in the modern age does not believe in truth. There is only a surreal blur of ideas and nothing else. Because of this the bourgeoisie now have the power to actually convince people that destroying the planet and killing each other until the human race dies is a revolutionary act.
Talking about climate pollution or resource depletion is a massive pain in the ass, even with so-called "radical leftists." There's so much corporate-funded FUD being spread around even though the general scientific trends behind climate change are well-understood and accepted, and specific mitigation strategies get bogged down in tedious slapfight debates (such as all the veganism shit in this very thread).
The historical Marxist/state socialist response to ecology has also been pretty shitty (muh productive forces, etc.), and even in this day and age you have people like Leigh Phillips and going around saying that uhhhh actually the causes of carbon pollution are actually good tho, we just need to keep polluting more and somehow the problems will resolve themselves.
uh huh yeah tell me more how retarded austerity policies will get anything accomplished and that developing new and better technologies for cleaner energy is actually bad.
why do luddites think they're marxist
Anti-growth doesn't mean anti-technology. Ending the economic logic of capitalism, which requires infinite growth in resource consumption and industrial activity, is the only meaningful way to mitigate climate change while preserving human civilization. This can be done while allowing technological development to continue, so long as the efficiency savings are passed on to the workers in the form of greater leisure time or easier work, instead of being reinvested into more factories, more construction, etc.
Anprims who think we need mass genocide to save the world are an obnoxious distraction to the practical debate that needs to be had on how to achieve a no-growth socialist future. Likewise, retards who think "socialist" China is saving the Earth by building solar panels and using the savings to open more factories to keep their 4% growth rate up are equally useless.
Deindustrialization accomplices nothing. Yes useless plastic shot should be banned, but heavy industry is required and must expand for geoenginering to happen.
Anti-growth also doesn't mean anti-industry. The meat and potatoes of a rationally planned, egalitarian approach to sustainability is figuring out what needs to be kept and what can be abandoned, while guaranteeing a decent quality of life to the workers of the world.
historical political narratives spontaneously align majorities towards goals
why not both.
Scientists need to find funding. To do that, they must propose to solve a big an important problem. The bigger you make the problem, the larger the share of your pie of funding.
Dude if you're arguing for veganism as environmentalism don't plug shellfish. Those are vastly over exploited and many (oysters particularly) are keystone species since they filter water. Look at the state the Chesapeake Bay is in with most of the oysters gone.
Scientists don't solve problems, they investigate how things work and explain problems, engineers apply science.
That's admittedly a gross simplification but you ought to read a scientific paper and see how scientists go about their inquiry, it's not so much a case of making new discoveries and solutions as it is tying up lose ends and eliminating possibilities.
yea dude the implication being that I never read a scientific paper… well I'm doing a PhD in STEM so what to I know.
Environmental science as far as I can tell is about modelling an incredible complex system, and the predictions are very very loose. When if you predict A you get extra funding, and when you predict B you get "hmmm maybe we can put our fund elsewhere" what sort of papers get published? Couple that with the politicization of the field and you have a recipe for disaster.
You would have to be scientifically illiterate not to think the climate is changing.
We have this massive thing called the sun, which drives our climate. It works from many different cycles superimposed on eachother. It puts out 100yottawatts for fucks sake. Look this stuff up you dummy.
Right now the thermosphere is the colest we have ever measured it to be. That correlates with the low solar activity we are having at the moment.
I'm not talking about oysters, I'm talking about the blue mussels, pic related. Which can be farmed easily, grow fast and are sustainable. Oysters can't be farmed btw, that's why they're so expensive, while mussels can, that's why they're so cheap.
I think Climate change will still get worse, mainly because America is still bothering other countries just to get oil.
We're fucked. Science-denying conservatives and greedy corporations are going to prevent us from doing anything about it until it's too late.