Wha? I'm not suggesting such a thing. I'm simply saying that I'd consider buying "fake steak" if it tasted the same and had a similar price. I'm generally not buying steak for health reasons, but definitely there are bonus points if the fake steak has a nutrition profile on-par with real steak.
The US government is still subsidizing wool production from WW2.
Yes, but it's a $5 million subsidy. That barely registers on anyone's radar against the $16 billion in overall agricultural subsidies. The farm bill comes up every 5 years or so. Usually it's pretty stable, but there definitely is incremental change each time. Regardless, this is a red herring - we can't refuse to make any changes simply because we think the government is too corrupt. A much larger obstacle to my argument is the fact that no competitive, tasty, and nutritious meat substitute currently exists!
questionnaires are horse shit
Perhaps, but I fail to see studies supporting your assertions about the health of a meat-based diet. I'm quite aware that the studies I pointed to are merely correlation studies.
pointing out the conflict of interest in those who push a plant-based diet.
It's just not an interesting argument. You brought up people from over 100 years ago. Meanwhile, there are actual scientific papers to discuss - and to your credit you've done just that.
But let's not get too hung up on health claims... obviously an unapologetic carnivore such as myself does not find them significant enough to act upon. Your paper says:
Thus, we posit that while dietary intake is an obvious and essential component of health, it is a trivial risk factor for obesity, metabolic, and chronic diseases (15, 55, 73, 113, 114). Our position is rapidly acquiring support given the “tiny” effect sizes and “massive confounding” inherent in nutrition research (61, 138–140). For example, when compared to the relative risk estimates of smoking tobacco, estimates for dietary factors are an order of magnitude smaller (140). In fact, these estimates are so trivial, “crude and imprecise” that most diet-disease associations may be considered spurious (141). As such, we posit that measuring “diet” per se is tangential if not irrelevant to the major public health issues faced by industrialized nations (113, 114).
I pretty much agree with that - it does not matter much whether I eat a meat or a plant-based diet, so if fake meat is better for the environment, tastes the same, and provides plenty of protein - what do I care?
I hope that you can re-read that article and see what utter pseudo-scientific BS it is. Vegans are well aware of the dangers of B12 deficiency, and they take supplements to compensate. Whether the B12 was made in the gut of an animal or in a lab, the human body does not care. Vegetarians get plenty of B12 from dairy and eggs. For someone like me who doesn't have an ideological reason to avoid meat, I'm highly confident that I'd still have plenty of B12 in my diet even if McDonalds switched to vegetable-based "meat" patties. Some of his links are hilarious since they directly contradict other parts of his paper. He actually links to this abstract, which supports his claim that vegans "often" suffer malnourishment (as opposed to cheeto-eating omnivores?) but directly contradicts some of his other stuff:
Vegetarians exhibit a wide diversity of dietary practices, often described by what is omitted from their diet. When a vegetarian diet is appropriately planned and includes fortified foods, it can be nutritionally adequate for adults and children and can promote health and lower the risk of major chronic diseases. The nutrients of concern in the diet of vegetarians include vitamin B(12), vitamin D, -3 fatty acids, calcium, iron, and zinc. Although a vegetarian diet can meet current recommendations for all of these nutrients, the use of supplements and fortified foods provides a useful shield against defi
If all animal agriculture disappeared to today, corn and bean production would hardly drop a whit.
This assumes that government incentives would not change. I think that is a faulty assumption. While I do recognize that the farm lobby is powerful, there is only so much excess production that they can justify. It's easy to justify an overproduction so that even a severely bad year does not lead to a food shortage - it's not so easy to justify double that again. Soybean production in particular is 90% dedicated to animals and would be very hard to direct elsewhere.
You should investigate the history of those who promote a vegetable-based-diet
Yes, there have been many charlatans. But let's stick with science and avoid the temptation to use ad hominems.
Because of vitamin B12, we are obligate carnivores-- there are simply no natural dietary sources of B12 sufficient for humans other than meat
Agreed, but we are also a lot smarter than dogs. If we can get B12 from an artificial source, I have no justification to reject that. You CAN live a healthy lifestyle today without any animal products whatsoever. It takes a lot of tenacity and - I agree with you - it's not the natural state of things. But the fact that it is possible shows that, in the future, it should be possible to do so with a lot less effort. Few of us live in anything like our "natural" state, except for a handful of miserable subsistence tribes living in Savannah-like conditions.
My understanding of modern agriculture and economics is neither severely lacking nor deliberately deceptive.
Then why do you seem to deny that most corn and nearly all soybean production is to feed livestock? You seem to hate corn and soybean production. Fair enough. Most corn is grown for ethanol and meat, and something like 90% of soybeans go to animal feed. How can you deny that cutting meat production would also cut the production of these crops?
No meat substitute will have the nutritional profile of real meat, which is what the human body needs.
How can you make absolute statements about the future like this? How do reconcile the scientifically demonstrated health benefits of a vegetable-based diet with your belief in the healthful effects of a meat-based diet?
Your understanding of modern agriculture and economics is severely lacking.
As is yours, or you are being deliberately deceptive.
Very much beef is raised on land that simply cannot be used for any type of human consumable vegetable crop, be it corn, beans, lettuce, tomatoes, whatever.
I don't see why this is germaine. I'm not talking about completely free-range cattle, I'm talking about the majority of meat which consumes more than half of the corn raised for food and the vast majority of soybeans. You are trying to make it sound like meat is raised in a sustainable way. Some is, most is not.
anything that could remotely be considered sustainable cannot be done at a profit
The exact same thing can be said of animal production. The sustainably raised meat is expensive.
It's all monocropping with large amounts of artificial chemical inputs.
And most of that monocropping goes into meat production.
I will never go vegetarian, let alone vegan.
Even if a cheap, delicious meat substitute were available? That sounds like an emotional rather than rational decision.
Right, but grain agriculture doesn't "require" what you are saying either. Yes, raising corn and beans is an environmental nightmare, but more corn is raised for animal feed than for human consumption. More soybeans are fed to animals than to humans. Yes, you can mandate that animals are pasture-fed only. But you can also mandate sustainable grain and legume production. Both scenarios are purely hypothetical at the moment.
While you are working on that, we could significantly reduce grain and soybean production simply by reducing our reliance on animal husbandry. That is a direct result that is not hypothetical in any way. If you personally adopt a vegan diet, you personally are reducing the need for the production of soybeans and corn. Either that or you simply make the price of meat a bit cheaper so that someone else can now afford it.:)
Animal husbandry requires massive amounts of grain agriculture. If it was all pasture land, sure, you might have a valid point. But livestock are typically fattened on soybean and corn based feed. More of the corn grown in the US is used to feed animals than is used to feed humans.
I'm an unrepentant carnivore, but if you gave me something where the cost and flavor was about the same but it came without the need for animal husbandry and the associated environmental effects, I'd be very open-minded.
Normally I agree, but this particular tax is a tariff from the 1960s that has somehow survived numerous multi- and bilateral trade agreements. And it's a significant tariff at that.
Yes, you certainly can - with a fair amount of effort - pare down Windows. There are also embedded versions of Windows - for years we shipped equipment with XP Embedded. But these are not readily available, and for most people they are violating copyright when they acquire such an image - also putting themselves at risk for malware. "Small and Light" is a definite advantage of Linux, even if Ubuntu begins to approach Windows in bloatiness. Just for scale, a regular install of Windows is around 12 GB (16 if you let it install Office). Ubuntu comes in around 2GB. At the extreme end, Damn Small Linux gives you a full graphical interface for 50MB of disk space while Windows IoT Core (smallest Windows embedded version) requires 2GB, though it only uses 1GB and reserves 1GB for updates.
The key is that you can tweak this with Linux. If you want a really lean install, throw net install (e.g. Debian) on and only put the bits on that you need. Have a big drive, lots of RAM, and don't want to be bothered with esoteric shit? Install everything-but-the-kitchen-sink (e.g. Ubuntu). Want something that fits on your USB stick for rescuing? Download a premade image (e.g. SystemRescueCd).
You can do this stuff to some degree with Windows as well, but not as easily and not as legally/safely. What you describe is a feature of Linux, not a flaw.
All those fixes assume the bonds in the trust are good assets.
Re-read my comment. I say "The point is, treat it as an ongoing expense and try to balance the income and expenses rather than playing these stupid fucking games with fake trust funds."
It's just taxes to fund a social benefits program. This kind of stuff is not controversial anymore, but politicians need to make the difficult decision of where to either raise new revenue or where to make cuts. Remove the cap on the wage tax and you take care of about 70% of the problem. Raise the age of retirement by a single year more than makes up for the rest. Or, alternatively you could let rich people keep less of their SS income by increasing the tax on it above a certain threshold. The point is, treat it as an ongoing expense and try to balance the income and expenses rather than playing these stupid fucking games with fake trust funds. This just makes the problem worse when the fake trust fund "runs out".
FDR's SS was at least honest-ish. It was clearly pay-as-you-go. The "reforms" of the 80s and 90s that attempted to make the program appear as though it was pre-funded are just the worst. Social Security is only in the black currently due to "interest" that the federal government pays to itself.... an accounting trick. It will soon be in the red despite this trick - but make no mistake: every dollar that flows in to SS is a dollar that cannot go toward other national priorities. Despite the accounting, the government only has one giant fund and it is zero-sum.
That same logic could be used to insist on buying kids brand-name fashions. Sorry, no - my kids get their choice of sneakers from Marshalls, TJ Maxx, Target, etc. Wrong lesson, getting them whatever is hot. Give 'em a fidget spinner this year just to show them how fucking worthless "hot" is.
Agreed. The problem is publicity-seeking stores selling limited amounts of trendy merchandise far below market rates. The far easier solution, if one were needed, would be to stop that practice.
The good people of Chernobyl know what a great job the government can do at running nuclear power stations. Come to think of it, where do public utilities get their corporate charter?
My point wasn't to invent the perfect analogy, but to show how people could live a little bit too much in the now. Circumstances and technology change. The assumptions you are using as the baseline for your argument (expensive to throw people at Mars, no riches to be had) could change very quickly with either improvements in technology or scientific discovery.
Slashdot Mirror
And so is mandating veganism.
Wha? I'm not suggesting such a thing. I'm simply saying that I'd consider buying "fake steak" if it tasted the same and had a similar price. I'm generally not buying steak for health reasons, but definitely there are bonus points if the fake steak has a nutrition profile on-par with real steak.
The US government is still subsidizing wool production from WW2.
Yes, but it's a $5 million subsidy. That barely registers on anyone's radar against the $16 billion in overall agricultural subsidies. The farm bill comes up every 5 years or so. Usually it's pretty stable, but there definitely is incremental change each time. Regardless, this is a red herring - we can't refuse to make any changes simply because we think the government is too corrupt. A much larger obstacle to my argument is the fact that no competitive, tasty, and nutritious meat substitute currently exists!
questionnaires are horse shit
Perhaps, but I fail to see studies supporting your assertions about the health of a meat-based diet. I'm quite aware that the studies I pointed to are merely correlation studies.
pointing out the conflict of interest in those who push a plant-based diet.
It's just not an interesting argument. You brought up people from over 100 years ago. Meanwhile, there are actual scientific papers to discuss - and to your credit you've done just that.
But let's not get too hung up on health claims... obviously an unapologetic carnivore such as myself does not find them significant enough to act upon. Your paper says:
I pretty much agree with that - it does not matter much whether I eat a meat or a plant-based diet, so if fake meat is better for the environment, tastes the same, and provides plenty of protein - what do I care?
You can survive, but you won't be healthy: https://chriskresser.com/why-y...
I hope that you can re-read that article and see what utter pseudo-scientific BS it is. Vegans are well aware of the dangers of B12 deficiency, and they take supplements to compensate. Whether the B12 was made in the gut of an animal or in a lab, the human body does not care. Vegetarians get plenty of B12 from dairy and eggs. For someone like me who doesn't have an ideological reason to avoid meat, I'm highly confident that I'd still have plenty of B12 in my diet even if McDonalds switched to vegetable-based "meat" patties. Some of his links are hilarious since they directly contradict other parts of his paper. He actually links to this abstract, which supports his claim that vegans "often" suffer malnourishment (as opposed to cheeto-eating omnivores?) but directly contradicts some of his other stuff:
If all animal agriculture disappeared to today, corn and bean production would hardly drop a whit.
This assumes that government incentives would not change. I think that is a faulty assumption. While I do recognize that the farm lobby is powerful, there is only so much excess production that they can justify. It's easy to justify an overproduction so that even a severely bad year does not lead to a food shortage - it's not so easy to justify double that again. Soybean production in particular is 90% dedicated to animals and would be very hard to direct elsewhere.
I have and they're universally horse shit.
The vast majority of nutritional studies are indeed horseshit. But there have been some pretty solid studies which point to a benefit of a plant-based diet.
Dietary fiber intake is inversely correlated to colorectal cancer
Red meat is correlated to colorectal cancer (but not poultry, and fish is inversely correlated)
EPIC also has yielded studies showing a correlation between dairy intake and prostate cancer, as well as saturated fat and breast cancer.
You should investigate the history of those who promote a vegetable-based-diet
Yes, there have been many charlatans. But let's stick with science and avoid the temptation to use ad hominems.
Because of vitamin B12, we are obligate carnivores-- there are simply no natural dietary sources of B12 sufficient for humans other than meat
Agreed, but we are also a lot smarter than dogs. If we can get B12 from an artificial source, I have no justification to reject that. You CAN live a healthy lifestyle today without any animal products whatsoever. It takes a lot of tenacity and - I agree with you - it's not the natural state of things. But the fact that it is possible shows that, in the future, it should be possible to do so with a lot less effort. Few of us live in anything like our "natural" state, except for a handful of miserable subsistence tribes living in Savannah-like conditions.
My understanding of modern agriculture and economics is neither severely lacking nor deliberately deceptive.
Then why do you seem to deny that most corn and nearly all soybean production is to feed livestock? You seem to hate corn and soybean production. Fair enough. Most corn is grown for ethanol and meat, and something like 90% of soybeans go to animal feed. How can you deny that cutting meat production would also cut the production of these crops?
No meat substitute will have the nutritional profile of real meat, which is what the human body needs.
How can you make absolute statements about the future like this? How do reconcile the scientifically demonstrated health benefits of a vegetable-based diet with your belief in the healthful effects of a meat-based diet?
Your understanding of modern agriculture and economics is severely lacking.
As is yours, or you are being deliberately deceptive.
Very much beef is raised on land that simply cannot be used for any type of human consumable vegetable crop, be it corn, beans, lettuce, tomatoes, whatever.
I don't see why this is germaine. I'm not talking about completely free-range cattle, I'm talking about the majority of meat which consumes more than half of the corn raised for food and the vast majority of soybeans. You are trying to make it sound like meat is raised in a sustainable way. Some is, most is not.
anything that could remotely be considered sustainable cannot be done at a profit
The exact same thing can be said of animal production. The sustainably raised meat is expensive.
It's all monocropping with large amounts of artificial chemical inputs.
And most of that monocropping goes into meat production.
I will never go vegetarian, let alone vegan.
Even if a cheap, delicious meat substitute were available? That sounds like an emotional rather than rational decision.
No, it doesn't require that
Right, but grain agriculture doesn't "require" what you are saying either. Yes, raising corn and beans is an environmental nightmare, but more corn is raised for animal feed than for human consumption. More soybeans are fed to animals than to humans. Yes, you can mandate that animals are pasture-fed only. But you can also mandate sustainable grain and legume production. Both scenarios are purely hypothetical at the moment.
While you are working on that, we could significantly reduce grain and soybean production simply by reducing our reliance on animal husbandry. That is a direct result that is not hypothetical in any way. If you personally adopt a vegan diet, you personally are reducing the need for the production of soybeans and corn. Either that or you simply make the price of meat a bit cheaper so that someone else can now afford it. :)
No, we don't have that product in the US.
Animal husbandry requires massive amounts of grain agriculture. If it was all pasture land, sure, you might have a valid point. But livestock are typically fattened on soybean and corn based feed. More of the corn grown in the US is used to feed animals than is used to feed humans.
I love that episode.
I'm an unrepentant carnivore, but if you gave me something where the cost and flavor was about the same but it came without the need for animal husbandry and the associated environmental effects, I'd be very open-minded.
what's a brand stamp?
It's like a tramp stamp, but made with fire.
Explain? It's very straightforward - either increase income or decrease expenditures. This isn't rocket science.
Normally I agree, but this particular tax is a tariff from the 1960s that has somehow survived numerous multi- and bilateral trade agreements. And it's a significant tariff at that.
Yes, you certainly can - with a fair amount of effort - pare down Windows. There are also embedded versions of Windows - for years we shipped equipment with XP Embedded. But these are not readily available, and for most people they are violating copyright when they acquire such an image - also putting themselves at risk for malware. "Small and Light" is a definite advantage of Linux, even if Ubuntu begins to approach Windows in bloatiness. Just for scale, a regular install of Windows is around 12 GB (16 if you let it install Office). Ubuntu comes in around 2GB. At the extreme end, Damn Small Linux gives you a full graphical interface for 50MB of disk space while Windows IoT Core (smallest Windows embedded version) requires 2GB, though it only uses 1GB and reserves 1GB for updates.
The key is that you can tweak this with Linux. If you want a really lean install, throw net install (e.g. Debian) on and only put the bits on that you need. Have a big drive, lots of RAM, and don't want to be bothered with esoteric shit? Install everything-but-the-kitchen-sink (e.g. Ubuntu). Want something that fits on your USB stick for rescuing? Download a premade image (e.g. SystemRescueCd).
You can do this stuff to some degree with Windows as well, but not as easily and not as legally/safely. What you describe is a feature of Linux, not a flaw.
Isn't this the "chicken tax"? Weird how these things can last half a century.
All those fixes assume the bonds in the trust are good assets.
Re-read my comment. I say "The point is, treat it as an ongoing expense and try to balance the income and expenses rather than playing these stupid fucking games with fake trust funds."
It's just taxes to fund a social benefits program. This kind of stuff is not controversial anymore, but politicians need to make the difficult decision of where to either raise new revenue or where to make cuts. Remove the cap on the wage tax and you take care of about 70% of the problem. Raise the age of retirement by a single year more than makes up for the rest. Or, alternatively you could let rich people keep less of their SS income by increasing the tax on it above a certain threshold. The point is, treat it as an ongoing expense and try to balance the income and expenses rather than playing these stupid fucking games with fake trust funds. This just makes the problem worse when the fake trust fund "runs out".
FDR's SS was at least honest-ish. It was clearly pay-as-you-go. The "reforms" of the 80s and 90s that attempted to make the program appear as though it was pre-funded are just the worst. Social Security is only in the black currently due to "interest" that the federal government pays to itself.... an accounting trick. It will soon be in the red despite this trick - but make no mistake: every dollar that flows in to SS is a dollar that cannot go toward other national priorities. Despite the accounting, the government only has one giant fund and it is zero-sum.
Excellent. That's good gift timing - the spirit of Festivus is strong in your family.
That same logic could be used to insist on buying kids brand-name fashions. Sorry, no - my kids get their choice of sneakers from Marshalls, TJ Maxx, Target, etc. Wrong lesson, getting them whatever is hot. Give 'em a fidget spinner this year just to show them how fucking worthless "hot" is.
Agreed. The problem is publicity-seeking stores selling limited amounts of trendy merchandise far below market rates. The far easier solution, if one were needed, would be to stop that practice.
So what? You are going to die on Earth.
The good people of Chernobyl know what a great job the government can do at running nuclear power stations. Come to think of it, where do public utilities get their corporate charter?
My point wasn't to invent the perfect analogy, but to show how people could live a little bit too much in the now. Circumstances and technology change. The assumptions you are using as the baseline for your argument (expensive to throw people at Mars, no riches to be had) could change very quickly with either improvements in technology or scientific discovery.