Sirona

A healthcare process that didn't put profits over health might be able to educate consumers, and do more to prevent overeating of meat (and food in general). Prohibition doesn't work.

 

I love meat as well, but I only have bacon a couple times a month, and beef is only present in about 1 meal in 5. Chicken, pork, and fish make up part of the rest, with a meatless meal usually once a week. I buy the meat from a small local butcher that's proud of the way his sources treat livestock.

 

And of course, we're all waiting for in vitro meat to be made appetizing. I'm hoping eventually lab-grown meat will be our answer. I know it's wishful thinking, but I can't help but think that if we grow it ourselves, we can remove the bad and enhance the good.

 

Good for you

 

I'm not sure about in the U.S., Phi but in Australia it's a lot more expensive to buy organic/sustainable produce and it's not regulated in here either, so unless you've done your research, you might just be paying more for nothing. Organic farming is also a lot less efficient even though it's more environmentally friendly, so there is still a trade off.

Yes this is obviously a problem, but I don't think it is that critical a problem that my wishes could not take place. They will gradually be set back to nature, or kept for other resources than their meat. Yes there are ALOT of animals cause humans love to eat ALOT. If forced reproduction of the animals will stop they will also dwindle down in their numbers. So again this is a thing that takes time.

Live stock have been been domesticated for thousands of years; they can't survive in the wild. Do you realise evolution takes time? You can't just send the cattle and pigs off on their merry way and hope they'll be able to fend for themselves. I fail to see the logic here, how can this be seen as less cruel? I've asked you this before, but I'll just ask again: why are you on a science forum when you have very little understanding of basic scientific concepts? Furthermore, you don't seem to be at all interested in rethinking your opinions when logical evidence is put forth. Realising you're wrong can be cathartic too.

In the case of insects it is mainly a need to kill them. Just killing them for the heck of it should also be not allowed. Mainly insects are parasites or trespassers, and kind of NEED to be killed.

 

To avoid suffering humane suicide or ending of life should be allowed I think. There is a case of an israeli who had cancer and was in pain who flew to switzerland to end his life peacefully. I think that is legitimate.

Why single out insects as pests? Animals can be pests too. We have many introduced species in Australia which are pests such as cane toads and European rabbits. Insects play a crucial ecological role too. In fact it is our human disruption to their natural ecosystem that causes 'pests'. Therefore I don't think that's a very good argument.

There's good evidence that, if we could get the whole planet to stop eating meat, it would greatly reduce emissions that aid climate change. But what do you do with all those animals?

 

We're already eating less meat per person in major populations centers in first world countries. Modern lifestyles and better healthcare access are raising awareness. But what do you do about Masai tribes in Africa, where cattle are considered the metric of success? Or any other culture that relies on livestock to survive?

We're not in disagreement; I'm not a vegetarian nor am I suggesting that people not eat meat. I am just raising the concern of sustainability. The solution would be to increase food production on existing agricultural land rather than increasing the land area. This will obviously have negative impacts too but will reduce the worldwide food gap.

 

As you said, eating less in general (not just meat) will also help close the food gap and also promote better health. There is evidence that calorie restriction promotes better health and longevity as well as eliminating or improving weight related diseases such as type 2 diabetes, high blood pressure, sleep apnea, PCOS/hormonal imbalance, high cholesterol, etc.

 

I think genetically modified food plays an important part in increasing food production sustainably too and improving the taste and nutrition of plant and soya based meat substitutes. In Australia, most people are adverse to GMO foods, so educating people ACCURATELY on sustainability is important too.

Exactly I came back on to the forum to discuss science, no more pointless analysis. I agree fully.

 

I suppose your contribution to this thread is just a coincidence then

"Why give a robot an order to obey orders. Why aren't the original orders enough?" - Stephen Pinker

In this case, it might help to take 'survival of the fittest' quite literally. People can be rude, especially online; get over it.

There is no real excuse for poor spelling in an on-line environment with instant spell-checking available. Choosing to deliberately not correct errors strikes me as inconsiderate to the reader.

 

I disagree, if you haven't bothered to use spell-checker it just reflects badly on yourself. It would only be inconsiderate to the reader if the spelling was so atrocious that it was indecipherable and took the reader longer than usual to comprehend. However, I've rarely experienced this myself.

My main moral qualm with eating meat is that it's not sustainable. In Australia, approximately sixty percent of our continent is used for grazing; this mightn't sound serious, but this grazing land is acquired by clearing our bush land. Consequently resulting in habitat loss and Australian wildlife being threatened. Another fact to note is a lot of our grain we produce is used to feed farm animals for meat production. Depending on temperatures and rainfall, you need approximately 3.5 hectares per cow and in areas where there is little rain you'd need a lot more.

Agree with Phi about your courage. Always remember that you're still the same person with the same heart, the same feelings toward others, and the same character. Not everyone in your life will recognize this, and some may shun you or even turn you away as a result of your conclusion, but it's true. Recall that you can always replace friends and change social groups and/or rituals, but you cannot replicate the value of being true to yourself. That's what matters. Big milestone. Best wishes!

 

Well said, iNow.

 

I know someone who is a scientist and also extremely religious. I have a lot of respect for him and I've always been able to accept he's a devout Christian and he's an exception because I know with anything else he relies on scientific evidence. At times I've thought he maintains his Christian identity because it's such an integral part of who he is; he's invested so much of his life in the church. His social life is limited mostly to church related activities and events. Also, he comes from a religious family and we know that there is a genetic component to religious inclination as well as environmental factors.

 

It's very difficult not only to admit you were wrong, but also to figure out who and what you are if you've spent most of your life identifying as a devout Christian. You've basically got to start all over again (in his case), not only in finding belonging in other friendship circles and communities but also discovering what else you are passionate about, new hobbies, social activities, etc. You could compare it to a divorce I suppose; it's very difficult to let go of something that is so integral to who you are, especially once you've invested so much into it.

 

However, I agree with iNow, you've got to be true to yourself first. It's even more difficult to live a life in denial and although the fear of rejection is strong, there is nothing more rewarding than being able to truly love and respect yourself and you can only achieve this through honesty I believe.

 

 

I don't believe there is always a correlation between poor spelling and ignorance. I've worked and studied with a few people who had poor spelling who were above average intelligence. From my understanding people with poor language skills have difficulty putting sounds into written letters and arranging them in the right sequence. It makes it complicated when there are 44 different sounds in the English language but only 26 letters in the alphabet.

I would only consider someone ignorant if they've got a combination of poor spelling, grammar, expression and more importantly if what they have to say is not factual. I'm willing to over look poor language skills if a person is still able to communicate intelligent content. I personally focus on what people. Then there are those with high linguistic intelligence who are able to express themselves eloquently, yet have very little information to communicate. There are many ways to be intelligent and having high linguistic intelligence sometimes I think is a little overrated. Even at school and University most subject areas test your knowledge through written essays and reports and I think it gives those who have high linguistic intelligence an unfair advantage.

However, there certainly are a lot of people who are both uneducated/ignorant and have poor language skills also. I just wouldn't automatically assume it.

I don't think so. Traditional homeopathy depends on dilution, resulting in the active ingredient being mostly absent in the final medication. In contrast St John's Wort is used as an extract, with components still present. More accurately one could classify it as a herbal remedy if the components actually have therapeutic qualities. The main issue, however, seems to to be that the evidence is not terribly strong that it actually works reliably.

Thanks CharonY, herbal remedy was what I was looking for.

Please correct me if I'm wrong, however, I was under the impression that St John's Wort was a homeopathic remedy; do you have evidence of it's effectiveness in treating depression?

Generally, and this is not nessisarily in relation to diabetes, avoid too much processed sugar. Go for sugar free drinks and no sugar in your tea coffee. Avoid sugary sweets in between meals. Also eat a balanced diet, not too much fat and not too many carbohydrates.

Do you mean sweeteners when you say sugar free drinks? I am still unsure of artificial sweeteners and avoid them even though whether they're bad for you is still inconclusive with a lot of mixed results from studies. One study I read (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23364017) shows that they increase the risk of type 2 diabetes, however, other studies have shown that it helps with weightloss because it helps to reduce overall calorie intake if switching from sugary beverages and others show no effect at all.

 

 

 

 

I see this as just going heavily into detail. Sort of like going down scale and finding quanta. Light for example as we know it is much more interesting and colorful than just the quanta it is made up of. It is an entire world.

What you quoted could be the biological side of the psychological issue.

 

Again as I have said, these are things still out of the grasps of science. Studying telekinesis and telepathy can help to improve this subject.

I'd say that was a very simple scientific explanation as to why you shouldn't abstain from ejaculation. You seem to think that any scientific explanation is either wrong or too complicated which leads me to wonder why you're on a science forum at all; I can assure you there is a lot of pseudoscience and quackery on the internet and you don't need to look to hard to find it. I'm sure you'll be less frustrated having discussions with like minded people since you don't seem curious at all about the nature of things using evidence based theories and studies.

Psychology and biology go together hand in hand. That is how I see it. I am not an expert on the subject but maybe the stress and anxiety help create the carcinogenic secretions, or prevent the body from handling them.

 

On a bit of a different note, to ejaculte you don't have to masturbate. You can have sex, or do the alternative I offered. I see the action of touching and rubbing your genitals as the main problem. When I do my alternative I don't have all those negative symptoms I mentioned, just saying.

I thought we already established that your symptoms were psychological because of your tendency to associate masturbation with negative consequences?

 

I just have to say, every time I comment on this topic I have Monty Python's 'Every Sperm is Sacred' sketch in my head. It's driving me crazy

Because porn makes you forget to use protection?! That would make me itchy too.

I haven't laughed that much in a while! You're hilarious.

 

Though on a serious note, you hardly ever see porn stars wearing condoms (do they make them that big? ) and when you do it's always like seeing a dog walk on its hind legs! I suppose you could argue that porn encourages unsafe sex and some STDs are bad for the brain! (I can only think of one off the top of my head).

There's a trade-off, whilst there is clear financial incentive it is an event. it's a break in the routine life, people get to talk about it with others. We are social animals, this is why festivals and events are so popular. Whilst making someone feel special all the time is nice it's not that easy. If you're doing it all the time then it's no longer special and there are a few people out there who would think it's too much. We have busy lives to small encouragements such as thanksgiving, Chirstmas, birthdays etc are a way of bumping us back into the giving and spoiling type. Don't get me wrong I've worked in A and E and seen the suicides at christmas (I don't celebrate christmas) and I don't celebrate my birthday either but in general if done sensibly these celebrations are beneficial to society. This is why all societies all over the world have celebrations at marked times of the year.

 

I somewhat disagree with you. It's a sense of community, shared experiences and belonging which are beneficial to society; this does not necessarily mean that Christmas, Valentine's Day, etc are beneficial. For example public events (concerts, fundraisers, fireworks) are much more beneficial for society because they not only bring people together, create shared experiences and a sense of belonging but they also promote equality because they bring together people of all walks of life together in the one space and they're free and inclusive. I always feel stressed when it's Christmas, Birthdays, Easter and Valentine's because although I don't believe in the significance of these occasions, I need to make an effort not for my own benefit but because I come across as uncaring, cheap, disorganised, selfish unless I adhere to this expected etiquette. I do always make the effort because relationships are more important to me than proving a point, but they're celebrations that I don't look forward to. However, this weekend I went down to the beach to watch the Surf Life Saving NSW Competition where beach and surf enthusiasts from all over Sydney attended and it was a stress free day, a great way to get involved in the local community, meet other enthusiasts, share some food and beer with friends and relax.

Wait, since when is being competitive a bad thing?

Completely agree had to vote up. You have to think why people are playing games. Partly to pass time, simulate, because it's fun and because they get to simulate doing stuff they'd never do in real life. I play starcraft and order units to kill other units without even thinking twice...... In real life I definitely wouldn't facilitate killing. Same goes with the way I talk online. A conversation online generally has less impact because you don't know the person and they have no ties to your social circle. You can even mute them and considering the previous points you will forget about them very quickly. The problem is that people take themselves too seriously on the internet. Whilst I don't shout abuse at people I sometimes taunt people when playing online games and I've lost count of how many people have taunted me. The bottom line is that they don't know anything about you. What I think is more interesting is the people who take it to heart. There is an increasing number of people who really freak out when someone has a difference of opinion to them or says that their efforts are not amazing. Colleges are partly to blame allowing the creation of "safe spaces", making up a line of facts which are usually victim orientated and attacking and demonising anyone who questions those facts. I am one small person in a vast world. I am not connected to you in any way apart from this dialog. If you don't like what I'm saying don't worry it will not affect your life in any way unless you choose for it to. Where the double standards really come out is when lefties call politicians and speakers who aren't left every name under the sun but then try and silence them when they say something they don't agree with. Thankfully in gaming freedom of speech is still going strong. Whilst some activists have tried to imposed their double standards onto this industry the gaming industry thankfully has remained market orientated which maintains freedom of choice and freedom of speech. Instead of buckling to tyranny they let their customers decide. If you want to engage in this horseplay you can do that. If you don't no one is forcing you to play. If there is enough people who want a heavily policed gaming platform then there would be a market for it and money to be made. More heavier policing would cost more. If you'd like to pay more for that then it would be your choice to seek out such a service as long as I don't have to be forced to pay more people because someone else is too delicate.

 

 

I completely agree. Also, it's often a strategy used to find like minded people in online games or forums too. Since we generally hide behind the comfort of anonymity, most gamers/geeks/nerds don't disclose much about themselves, rarely have pictures or talk about their hobbies, personal lives or relationships. Therefore, the way they hold themselves in discussion becomes the most important factor in determining whether or not you choose to interact with them or not. Someone who always sees themselves as the victim and can't defend their arguments and opinions by using evidence or facts and are easily offended are generally not popular on forums/online games because it's the only weaknesses that can be perceived online.

 

It's not too different offline, except we have more aspects to judge people by and are more diplomatic about it only because we're less free in the sense that we're more connected and exposed. Everyone passes judgement, it's just a part of human nature and we're much more limited online in the way we choose who we want to communicate with.

Actually, the alliance I was a member of was a pretty good crowd. We used to have meetings via Skype (about 20 of us) to organise our attacks on other alliences (you can't do it in faction chat as there are too many spies from other alliences). We used to hate the spoilt little brats that spent too much money on the game who were obnoxious too. lol

Good for you! However, whether this is representative of other websites which have chat features is not clear.

 

My point on behaviour on the internet was more generalised, however. For example, I've noticed on this forum that people to some degree make snide/ condescending comments and patronise others; I am not accusing you all of anything, I do it myself. My point is that when we have no personal connection to others, we have little reason to be cooperative or polite. For example, I'd happily point out inconsistencies or disagree with people online and be less inclined to be polite compare to offline because I know offending certain people slightly offline could have greater consequences and disadvantages. We self censor ourselves in front of our family, friends and colleagues, but most don't bother online.

 

However, there is a difference between not being particularly sensitive or polite to others online and bullying which is malicious and damaging, regardless of whether you have no connection to them or not.

What's Valentine's Day but another occasion to spend unnecessary amounts of money? If you love someone, make them feel special everyday, you don't need a designated day to have an excuse for that.

Twin and sibling studies on ASD suggest that it does have a high hereditary component, however, in most cases the group studies show that the parents of ASD are usually not autistic. Fraternal twins also seem to be much lower at risk than identical.

It seems like you're suggesting that the primary cause of aging is changes in hormones, however, even if you were to suppress hormones at puberty, the teenagers are still going to age. Telomeres will still continue to divide and get shorter which will be the onset of illness and disease.

 

Like I said before, there are many theories of aging and finding a way to repair each cell would be very complicated and isn't just as simple as suppressing hormones. There is also the evolutionary factor too. Not to mention it doesn't make a lot of economic, environmental and ethical sense to slow the aging process.

It's not just that they're children, but they also have the power of anonymity which means there are rarely consequences for anti-social, malicious and apathetic behaviour. They've no real need to maintain a respectable level of behaviour (or so they think) because they know that they won't be personally accountable, nor is cooperation online as necessary as it is offline. There is a lot of bullying online and it's not just in a gaming context either.

Also, pretty much all men watch porn at some point in their lives. Seems that at about the age of 10, most males will seek out visually arousing material. While the technology of, and the media by which erotic material is delivered is changing rapidly, human behavior regarding erotic material has not dramatically altered in the face of increased access to it.

 

+1

 

However, I'd like to add that females are just as curious about erotic material, however, they're not as open about it for various reasons such as the fear, isolation, judgement from society which deters from openness. Thankfully in Australia we're fairly liberal when it comes to sex, even so that criticism and disapproval still exists, albeit to a lesser degree than other countries.

 

Edit: Grammatical error