I am not eating bugs, fungus and highly processed fake "meat" in the future. I will literally move to a rural farmland to get real food before I buy into this ridiculous movement.
Yes it’s processed with some additions, but so is a meat sausage.
Talking more broadly, not about OP. It seems a lot of people have this cognitive dissonance (I don’t know what to call it exactly) about what food is, maybe from their upbringing or religious beliefs or just society.
I’ve spoken to people that are like “I don’t like any vegetarian food”… and I’m like… so you don’t eat fries? (Oh uh I guess 90% of what I eat is already vegetarian… mmhmm)
Then if you dare get on to the topic of animal protein people are EXTREMELY conflicted in their views… if you eat a cow why not eat a horse? why not eat a dog, why not eat a monkey… oh hang on this is getting a bit close to eating humans… hang on are animals real feeling thinking creatures that while tasty also have some other properties maybe I haven’t considered before?
At the end of the day no matter what you eat, life consumes life. Even for photosynthetic organisms, often times they perform behaviors that preclude other life forms from having abundance after the first are established (e.g. black walnut trees poison the ground around them). If you eat nothing but plants there's no reason to act all high and mighty, your life still depends on the sacrifice of other life. All farmland destroys local environments. You are removing biodiversity and introducing a mono culture by definition. Then there's also this idea of the human bias towards consciousness. We are conscious individuals and we are biased towards other forms of conscious life; only Jain monks or other highly spiritual people seem to care about not stepping on insects anywhere they walk.
All you can ask at the end of the day is that all life is treated with humane respect. It doesn't really matter then whether your protein comes from a chicken or a bean if both are grown in such a way to limit harm to these life forms and to the wider environment. Short of living in the woods and homesteading, its hard to avoid widespread environmental damage to produce the things you need for modern life.
Yeah completely agree, we all do harm and benefits to the world/society.
I’m not making a moral judgement at all. I wanted to comment on the process of how people think (or don’t think) about the reasons they do or don’t eat things (like mushroom derived products or monkeys) saying mushroom based products are not “food” but eg cookies are food sounds silly to me. They’re both just ingredients mashed together.
Then they don’t want to continue this conversation because they don’t want to internalise what they’re feeling and REALLY actually think about their choices because if I think I might have to change, and then comes the very human feeling of “I don’t want to change” or “that’s not who I am” as if it’s bad to grow and change as a person.
I have to say I don't want to continue the conversation because your reply is incomprehensible. This isn't about touchy feely internal reflection.
All heavily marketed "trends" are predetermined to forward an ultimate agenda from the permanent elite class. Bill Gates doesn't want you eating beef and pork. He wants you eating his fake "meat" so they can shut down the livestock industry to save Mother Gaia from global warming.
The AMA recommends against red meat because it's high in saturated fats. It's never been proven that saturated fats are the cause of atherosclerosis.
Is this a conspiracy? Yes. But it's not a theory, the evidence is all around.
> I’ve spoken to people that are like “I don’t like any vegetarian food”… and I’m like… so you don’t eat fries? (Oh uh I guess 90% of what I eat is already vegetarian… mmhmm)
You can't (or shouldn't) live of fries. A complete vegetarian / vegan diet is not that enjoyable to eat, albeit all the processed vegetarian food make things way easier.
I started brainwashing my parents at 16 with vegetarianism because I trusted the scienc struggled for 15 years to gain any muscle because vegetable based proteins are less bioavailable and eating a lot of proteins is hard. Got kidney stones because of the vegetarian protein shakes.
After 15 years of eating a 95% low fat, high carb vegetarian diet (at least striving for it!) I started having serious health issues. Constant diarrhoea, stomach ulcers, anal bleeding. Took some meds to fix the symptoms and kind of live.
2 years of suffering and wanting to kill myself. The doctors were telling me I had high cholesterol (from what?) and needed to be put on statins and that I had to avoid eating the little meat I had. And anyway, it was probably stress related.
After 2 years, I decided to do exactly the opposite of what the doctors told me and dropped first all the processed carbs (bread, pasta, pizza - pretty hard considering I love baking bread and pizza), then after not seeing much improvements I dropped vegetables and fruit and started eating just eggs, meat and dairy.
All the symptoms disappeared in a week and I started losing weight. I eat very little calories (which is one of the best things for longevity), no hunger, my protein needs are met and I can still lift similar amount of weight.
So, right now I'm on a carnivore diet, mainly for health reasons.
From a moral point of view, I absolutely don't care, I would eat people if it were healthy (there are some deadly diseases you can get with cannibalism) and if other people wouldn't kill me (or eat me?) for it.
Similarly, from my circle I have a complete reverse example.
Multitude of health problems that went away after going to raw vegan diet. IMHO a very extreme diet, but if it's the only (discovered) thing that helps, then why not.
> Eating carnivores is not a good idea because they have higher concentrations of poison etc.
Presumably you would control their diet to avoid food chain toxin accumulation if you were to farm them. Tuna is carnivorous but that doesn't stop us from farming it much less catching it in the wild.
I would wager dog meat/slaughter is almost exclusively banned in the places it's banned due to cultural "ick" factors and nothing more.
Totally not true. They are going to drive up the cost of real meat and other livestock in the name of "climate change" and force regular people to opt for cheaper sources of food such as algae proteins, fake "meat", cricket flour, etc. Why do you think Bill Gates has invested heavily in this field? He is a monopolist first and technologist after.
> They are going to drive up the cost of real meat and other livestock
How will they do this, exactly?
Also, isn't the cost of real meat too low as it is? It hasn't priced in climate externalities that other people (including non-meat-eaters) have to pay for. Shouldn't meat include all of its costs, not just the ones paid by the farmers?
Easy. Heavily regulate the farmers with climate regulations including carbon taxes. Or pass emissions laws like they have in the Netherlands which would force ranchers to downsize their herds. This would drive up cost to produce and scarcity of the product.
As for the second part of your comment I truly am not sure what you're talking about? It seems like your sentiment confirms the first part of my answer.
Stock price is tanking, probably because they started a movement and now they have 100 competitors and own brand labels competing… there’s more choice than ever.
“Price” is a premium because vegetarians will pay a premium for something by unique. Not because it costs more to make.
I'm opting out of sneaky ways to lower the standard of living for the population of the free world. Steak > Beyond Meat junk. Bacon > fungus. Chicken/Fish > crickets.
I tried the Beyond Meat ground beef substitute once to see if it would work in tacos. Stunk up my house with a weird smell, tasted off even with all the spices, and made us all feel a bit sick after. No wonder their stock is tanking. Humans are meant to eat real meat, we evolved this way.
Genuine question.. how did you go from “Personally I don’t like a thing” therefore “humans evolved to eat meat”
Personally I don’t like peaches… does that mean humans evolved to eat meat?
Honestly it sounds like you tried 1 product, didn’t like it and used that to reinforce a totally separate worldview that you already wanted to believe and reinforce.
I don’t like beyond meat either, I agree it tastes funny, but personally that doesn’t make me feel like the only other alternative is to eat a cow.. I can just eat something else.
On the topic: There is a good metabolic theory which hypothesise that our improved brain abilities come from adapting from a mostly vegetarian diet to a meat based fat rich diet.
Meat is nutritionally superior to plants. Humans do not process cellulose easily. It takes far more plants to equal the nutritional content of meat. I tried Beyond Meat as an experiment but it tastes awful. Real meat is better.
I absolutely agree with you. It seems like HN was once full of thoughtful people grounded in good sense. Now I can see there's a lot more "embrace the future" in support of The Next Thing thrown at us plebes from the authoritarian establishment.
Fake meat made of hyper-processed plant materials are NOT meat and who knows what long term health effects would result from someone subsisting solely on that kind of food.
Human beings evolved to eat whole plants and meat. We generally find eating insects repulsive for a reason, just as we don't generally like hearing the sound of someone vomiting because it means illness is nearby. In my case I am listening to my gut and I will resist all efforts to get me to eat crickets for my protein while driving up the cost of beef so high it can only be afforded by the rich.
A free man with any dignity does not prefer crickets over meat or pretend fungus is bacon.
I think he became A rich man (Not sure if he is still the richest) by working hard and creating companies that benefited greatly from government contracts and subsidies. The whole "Inflation has peaked" statement may be nothing more than an attempt to curry favor or mend fences with those same entities after getting into hot water with his recent controversial political statements.
What he observes and acts on, and what he says publicly are not necessarily exclusive. Not saying he's misleading anyone here, but it's not unlike him to say something publicly to benefit himself.
The Federal Government can't be expected to pay/mandate payment for every citizen's inconvenience and health problem.
You lost a week's pay because you couldn't work because you were ill. Not because some politician was mean and didn't pay you or tell your boss to pay you.
Obviously we have to ban accounts that post like this. I'm not going to ban you right now, but if you pull something like this again on HN, we will have to.
Please review the rules and stick to them regardless of how wrong someone else is or you feel they are.
> touching items (such as clothing or linens) that previously touched the infectious rash or body fluids
> respiratory secretions during prolonged, face-to-face contact
Sexual transmission is just one way monkeypox can be spread, not the only way. But you probably don't ever touch any items or have face to face contact so I'm sure you're good.
> Overall, 98% of the persons with infection were gay or bisexual men, 75% were White, and 41% had human immunodeficiency virus infection; the median age was 38 years.
Per an establishment journal %98 were gay men and 41% had AIDS? Ok, I've heard enough. Remember AIDS was going to kill us all by transmitting through toilet seats?
The virus fear-mongering has reached a fever pitch.
The number of significant digits you provided suggests you're extremely confident of this. Can you provide a source? For instance, there's this study[1] that suggests surgical masks are as effective as n95 masks.
>The journals are unreliable on this and many other topics. Objective data suggests that mandatory masking has no effect on transmission.
1. It's ironic how much you denounce the value of journals and extol the value of "objective data", yet you have not attached any "objective data" (in any meaningful sense) with your original comment, and have dodged follow up requests for sources.
2. You're moving the goalposts from masks "do not work at all" to "mandatory masking has no effect".
The Lancet knowingly lied about HCQ. Therefore I don't trust them.
Anything less than an airtight full aerosol filtration respirator will not stop aerosols infected with SARS-CoV-2 from leaving and being inhaled by people. Fact. The latest CDC data suggests that "medical masks are better than cloth masks" but never attempt to identify a difference between a cloth mask and nothing.
I don't trust the establishment because they were wrong about everything. Fauci lied about masks, then lied about lying about masks, then lied about HCQ, then about IVM and other treatments. The NIH has provided 0 guidance on treating COVID other than vaccines. They did eventually do a study on HCQ to "disprove" it's effectiveness but started the dose at 1200mg/day! Nearly lethal. This of course started on patients that were too far advanced in disease and also had co-morbidities. It was a sham and borderline homicidal. All to protect the emergency use authorization for vaccines and Remdesivir.
A course of HCQ: $10. A course of Remdesivir: $3000. Which is a more fiscally responsible opportunity for a for-profit industry that controls the NIH and FDA?
The NIH staffers including Fauci (and of course the expert who is not an expert: Bill Gates) stand to make a lot of money on vaccines from Moderna and Pfizer.
Historically the entire medical industrial complex and APA lied about the "chemical imbalance" theory for depression for decades while making billions of dollars selling SSRIs and misleading the population for profit: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41380-022-01661-0
It is my opinion that these establishment organizations have 0 credibility anymore and I would never trust anything put forth by them at face value.
2. If masks don't prevent transmission, and mandates are intended to prevent transmission then mandates don't work. Aristotelian logic.
>Anything less than an airtight full aerosol filtration respirator will not stop aerosols infected with SARS-CoV-2 from leaving and being inhaled by people. Fact.
Even if we suppose this is true, it does not support the claim that "in 99.999% of cases, non-airtight masks do not work at all. Not even a little bit". At best it supports the claim that "non-airtight masks" are not 100% effective, which is an entirely different claim.
>The latest CDC data suggests that "medical masks are better than cloth masks" but never attempt to identify a difference between a cloth mask and nothing.
Okay, but this feels like you're moving the goalposts again. In your original comment you were talking about "non-airtight masks" in general, not cloth masks in particular. Also, even if we grant that cloth masks are the same as wearing nothing, the fact that medical masks are better than cloth masks/nothing still contradicts your original claim that "non-airtight masks" (ie. including surgical masks) "do not work at all" in "99.999% of cases".
I skimmed the paper and I disagree with the characterization that it "suggest[s] masks don't work at all". The conclusion seems to be "there's no evidence that masks works in practice (ie. because no such studies were conducted, not because studies were conducted and turned up negative), but evidence does seem to suggest that they works at capturing virus particles". The relevant parts from the conclusion:
"There are no studies of individuals wearing homemade fabric masks in the course of their typical activities. Therefore, we have only limited, indirect evidence regarding the effectiveness of such masks for protecting others, when made and worn by the general public on a regular basis. That evidence comes primarily from laboratory studies testing the effectiveness of different materials at capturing particles of different sizes.
The evidence from these laboratory filtration studies suggests that such fabric masks may reduce the transmission of larger respiratory droplets. There is little evidence regarding the transmission of small aerosolized particulates of the size potentially exhaled by asymptomatic or presymptomatic individuals with COVID-19. The extent of any protection will depend on how the masks are made and used. It will also depend on how mask use affects users’ other precautionary behaviors, including their use of better masks, when those become widely available. Those behavioral effects may undermine or enhance homemade fabric masks’ overall effect on public health. The current level of benefit, if any, is not possible to assess."
Again, moving the goalposts. This is talking about the effectiveness of mask mandates, your original claim was "in 99.999% of cases, non-airtight masks do not work at all. Not even a little bit.".
>2. If masks don't prevent transmission, and mandates are intended to prevent transmission then mandates don't work. Aristotelian logic.
Right, but "do masks work" and "do mask mandates work" are two separate questions. I suspect your intention might be to argue for the latter, but by overplaying your hand (ie. making the bold and unfounded claim that non-N95 masks don't work at all) you ended up getting dimissed/downvoted.
> The Lancet knowingly lied about HCQ. Therefore I don't trust them.
>I don't trust the establishment because they were wrong about everything. Fauci lied about masks, then lied about lying about masks, then lied about HCQ, then about IVM and other treatments. The NIH has provided 0 guidance on treating COVID other than vaccines. They did eventually do a study on HCQ to "disprove" it's effectiveness but started the dose at 1200mg/day! Nearly lethal. This of course started on patients that were too far advanced in disease and also had co-morbidities. It was a sham and borderline homicidal. All to protect the emergency use authorization for vaccines and Remdesivir.
>A course of HCQ: $10. A course of Remdesivir: $3000. Which is a more fiscally responsible opportunity for a for-profit industry that controls the NIH and FDA?
>The NIH staffers including Fauci (and of course the expert who is not an expert: Bill Gates) stand to make a lot of money on vaccines from Moderna and Pfizer.
This is getting derailed from the original discussion of masks, so I'm explicitly going to not respond to it.
How often do gas cars catch on fire randomly (and not under the hood but under the passenger compartment as with EVs) compared with spontaneous electric car fires?
This is reminiscent of the Galaxy Notes that were exploding in people's pockets some years ago.
There are tons of ICE car fire recalls. My sister in law's car recently had a recall for the ABS system starting a fire. A neighbor of mine had their house burn down in the 90s from a car parked for several days in their garage from what would later be a recall. Ford had a massive recall of millions of cars because the steering column would catch fire.
I've owned multiple cars which have had some kind of recall which resulted in a fire risk. Zero of them have been EVs.
Sure, those aren't all starting in the passenger compartment, but a lot of these battery fires aren't always starting in the passenger compartment either.
Kia had a major recall fairly recently for this too. I think the fix was adding a single fuse but they recommended parking outside until then.
> a lot of these battery fires aren't always starting in the passenger compartment either
A lot of EVs have batteries under the car which I think was the point. Though I can't see it being a huge issue or I would've heard a lot of stories of people being cooked by now.
You realize a gas car contains a tank full of highly flammable and explosive liquid that it uses in small quantity to create small explosions thousands of time in a second?
Of course they catch fire. what's surprising is that they don't do it more, but that's the result of ~150 years of evolution.
What about the $400 million he donated to Democrat ballot mills all around the country in 2020?
Of course hyper-leftist controlled California will squeeze every last drop out of the CA "scandal" and ignore real issues like exploding homelessness, elevated drug deaths, companies fleeing tax and regulatory burdens, etc. etc. et al.
I'm seeing a lot of measured and thoughtful comments in this thread. Unfortunately I don't think we can "science" our way out of depression. Especially since these drugs have an inexorable link to violence and suicide. Here's plenty of documented proof:
