Jump to content

Do you think you can switch to a sustainable diet?


You are about to reply to a thread that has been inactive for 1057 days.

Please take a moment to consider if this thread is worth bumping.

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, FairreLilette said:

I'm not exactly sure what kind of meat you are speaking about in the far north?  I also heard the far north people sustained on a lot of fish.  Fish has Omega3 which can lower the bad cholesterol, I think.  Anyhow, I'm just waking up with coffee...so not sure of what you are referring to and what was their whole diet.

I'd say animals are organic, yes, but animal fats are the leading cause of diabetes, stroke, and heart disease. 

Also, organic meat is far, far different than what most of us have eaten.  It is way leaner and there isn't that much of it and has far less fat than the main farm grown, genetically modified meats we eat today where the animals themselves are fed genetically modified sugars to "fatten up", the corn especially.    

 

You should see our beef..It's so lean we had to strap beds to their sides to keep them from falling all the way over..

Seriously, if you cooked it in a pan you'd have to add some kind of  liquid because it's just that lean..

 

We use our own feed, which comes from our seed, which we grew from the fields that my father made.. hehehe

They graze from the grass, which I've sat on with my own ass, that grows from the same place our seed does..

It won't take me long to finish this song ,cause here comes that fricken bull again..

He's coming up fast, so I better move my ass, cause he's pissed as a soccer hooligan..

 

hehehe

ETA: just to add.. Our beef is about as lean as the deer meat we get from our property.. The deer pretty much eat the same things as the cows do.. they are in our fields eating crops and grazing the same lands.. they are always around the cribs nibbling at the corn.. plus we throw some down out there for them.. we have salt licks out for them also which they really love..

you can get right up with them and they'll come over and take a cob from you..Gotta watch them bucks though at a certain time of year.. they tend to get a little high strung and can get frisky on you if you aren't careful.. :ph34r:

hehehe

 

Edited by Ceka Cianci
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, FairreLilette said:
2 hours ago, Luna Bliss said:

Aren't animal fats organic though, and what people mostly thrived on as hunter-gatherers, and still do in the far north where no heart disease is found among those who eat loads of animal fat.  I've read it's the overheated, over-processed vegetable oils that are what's bad for you (this unnatural process turning them into a kind of chemical the body doesn't know how to handle).

I'm not exactly sure what kind of meat you are speaking about in the far north?  I also heard the far north people sustained on a lot of fish.  Fish has Omega3 which can lower the bad cholesterol, I think.  Anyhow, I'm just waking up with coffee...so not sure of what you are referring to and what was their whole diet.

I'd say animals are organic, yes, but animal fats are the leading cause of diabetes, stroke, and heart disease. 

Also, organic meat is far, far different than what most of us have eaten.  It is way leaner and there isn't that much of it and has far less fat than the main farm grown, genetically modified meats we eat today where the animals themselves are fed genetically modified sugars to "fatten up", the corn especially.    

The carnivorous diet of traditional Eskimo inhabitants of the frozen, northern, circumpolar regions of planet Earth (Siberia, Alaska, Canada, and Greenland). ***'Eskimo' might be a 'bad word' now though, and 'Inuit' is used for North America -- I just don't know the word that would include those outside of North America, except for 'people in the northern hemisphere'.

Their diet -- hunted animals, including birds, caribou, seals, walrus, polar bears, whales, and fish provided all the nutrition for the Eskimos for at least 10 months of the year. And in the summer season people gathered a few plant foods such as berries, grasses, tubers, roots, stems, and seaweeds. Frozen snow-covered lands were unfit for the cultivation of plants. Animal flesh was, by necessity, the only food available most of the time.

I'm just mostly playing devil's advocate here though, and pointing out we don't really know if animal fat is the cause of disease because there's so many conflicting studies. Earlier some thought the lack of heart disease among 'northern people' meant animal fat is not bad. But some found evidence that their genes allowed them to adapt to a land with very little to eat besides animals -- a genetic adaptation that most of the rest of the world doesn't have. Yet other studies say the 'northern people' did indeed suffer from heart disease.

You can find lots of studies that say animal fat is not bad for you, and an equal number that say it is bad for you. Who knows?!   :(   At the moment I just try not to eat processed food with empty calories devoid of nutrition, and not to eat the flesh of animals that have been treated badly. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Luna Bliss said:

You can find lots of studies that say animal fat is not bad for you, and an equal number that say it is bad for you. Who knows?!

This is true.  The science of health and our food can vary and vary day-by-day sometimes with a publication always coming with some new finding.  One medical journal says this, another says that's changed and now this.  I find science much like that song "weird science".  I ultimately think science is weird because it's ever changing, especially as it relates to our health.  

I suffer from hereditary high cholesterol and eat only egg whites and no other sources of cholesterol for that past few years, although I've had hereditary high cholesterol found in my early twenties.  I've always had it even though my diet could be considered "health food" centric and my youngest sister too who could also be considered living a extremely healthy lifestyle.  *shrugs*  Why my youngest sister and I have this is a mystery.  I also have a friend who was a vegetarian, didn't smoke, didn't drink, didn't do drugs, exercised daily and came down with brain cancer.  This brain cancer was thought to just be hereditary.  

However, I prefer lighter, delicious meals without heavy meat by choice and taste as to what I prefer.  So, I think I could easily adapt.  Heavy meals I would not like to adapt too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't usually like discussions like this (and don't like this one either, actually) because the word organic always gets thrown into them. One thing that all discussions about sustainable living/eating have in common is that the general public doesn't seem to understand what the word organic actually means, or at least they can't come to a consensus on it. In fact, it has more definitions than it does letters, or at least that's been my experience with people discussing it.

People seem to believe that organic means that no chemicals were used, no pesticides were used and that the creation/production/harvest/delivery/storage, etc.. of said products is somehow less taxing on the environment and/or humanity, among other things. None of those things is actually true on global or even widespread scale. Some of them might be true of some things, sometimes, but none of them are true all the time for all things, or even most. In fact, "organic" produce and meat (for example) can actually be even MORE taxing on the environment, contain MORE chemicals and pesticides (just a different variety), and often cost far, far more in resources (and money to the consumer). Organic foods do not improve sustainability in the way people think they do, at least, not the vast majority of things labelled as "organic" (and this goes for products far beyond that which we eat, too). While the processes, chemicals, pesticides, etc.. may differ from that of non-organic, organic is not inherently better, never really has been, and it's only getting worse as more and more products are given the label. It became some weird fad to call everything organic, and brag about eating/buying organic some time ago and it kind of snowballed from there. Now everything has some "organic" counterpart that people seem to think is somehow better, more healthy, lends more to a sustainable lifestyle, and, most of the time, people are wrong. 

Unless you control every aspect yourself, ie, grow, make, etc.. your own "organic goods", or can somehow get a firsthand experience of seeing the goods you purchase/consume go through all of their processes (or anything remotely like that, ie, knowing who grows your veggies, produces your meat, etc.. etc..)....you really don't have any idea of that "organic" label is as truthful as you think, or means what you think/have been told, anyway. You also won't really know if that product being "organic" actually makes it overall better, at all. It's far more likely that it doesn't. 

It's one of the weirdest misconceptions I have seen when it comes to sustainability, and yet it's the most common one and people have this weird NEED to hold on to it as if it's a truth. I will never understand it. That's why I don't usually discuss such things, because I usually offend someone by saying "organic doesn't mean better", or something along those lines.

As to the OP, if I could live a more self-sustaining lifestyle, I would, including my diet. I limit my junk to only certain junk and I don't over purchase crap that is more resource intensive when I can avoid it, regardless of my desire/like for those things. I do make an effort when possible to support local, but local is rather limiting and definitely not sustainable (ie, it would be more resource intensive both on consumer and planet, than non-local in enough cases) here. I could do better in this regard, I'm sure most people could. If I HAD to do it, it wouldn't be nearly as difficult as some make it seem. Global sustainability versus individual sustainability can be vastly different, though. On a personal level, it would likely be far more costly initially, and take quite a while to truly be consider sustainable, but it's certainly possible given the right circumstances (which aren't present, at the moment).

I make a concerted effort to do what I can with what I've got. When I can do better, I will. Until then, I try to keep my footprint as small as possible. I certainly won't pretend I live a very sustainable lifestyle as is, and I won't  do things (like pretend organic, or a specific type of dietary habit for that matter, is universally better) to try and make it seem like I do. I do intend to have a really lovely garden again this year, but given where I live, that garden is only so sustainable, or, rather, for so long towards that. I do other things that help a more sustainable lifestyle. I don't buy unnecessary crap, I don't drive which helps a lot with my carbon footprint (more than most people realize), we use until it can't be used anymore(and then we repurpose whenever possible), we take on a barter lifestyle whenever possible (services and/or goods for likewise). I, and by that I also mean my family, do our best to limit the footprint we leave on this planet in the ways where it has the best impact (especially when combined with others' actions), but may not get us the most "popular karma points from people who...."(I probably shouldn't finish that statement, so I won't, but you get my point, lol)

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, Tari Landar said:

I don't usually like discussions like this (and don't like this one either, actually) because the word organic always gets thrown into them. One thing that all discussions about sustainable living/eating have in common is that the general public doesn't seem to understand what the word organic actually means, or at least they can't come to a consensus on it. In fact, it has more definitions than it does letters, or at least that's been my experience with people discussing it.

People seem to believe that organic means that no chemicals were used, no pesticides were used and that the creation/production/harvest/delivery/storage, etc.. of said products is somehow less taxing on the environment and/or humanity, among other things. None of those things is actually true on global or even widespread scale. Some of them might be true of some things, sometimes, but none of them are true all the time for all things, or even most. In fact, "organic" produce and meat (for example) can actually be even MORE taxing on the environment, contain MORE chemicals and pesticides (just a different variety), and often cost far, far more in resources (and money to the consumer). Organic foods do not improve sustainability in the way people think they do, at least, not the vast majority of things labelled as "organic" (and this goes for products far beyond that which we eat, too). While the processes, chemicals, pesticides, etc.. may differ from that of non-organic, organic is not inherently better, never really has been, and it's only getting worse as more and more products are given the label. It became some weird fad to call everything organic, and brag about eating/buying organic some time ago and it kind of snowballed from there. Now everything has some "organic" counterpart that people seem to think is somehow better, more healthy, lends more to a sustainable lifestyle, and, most of the time, people are wrong. 

Unless you control every aspect yourself, ie, grow, make, etc.. your own "organic goods", or can somehow get a firsthand experience of seeing the goods you purchase/consume go through all of their processes (or anything remotely like that, ie, knowing who grows your veggies, produces your meat, etc.. etc..)....you really don't have any idea of that "organic" label is as truthful as you think, or means what you think/have been told, anyway. You also won't really know if that product being "organic" actually makes it overall better, at all. It's far more likely that it doesn't. 

It's one of the weirdest misconceptions I have seen when it comes to sustainability, and yet it's the most common one and people have this weird NEED to hold on to it as if it's a truth. I will never understand it. That's why I don't usually discuss such things, because I usually offend someone by saying "organic doesn't mean better", or something along those lines.

As to the OP, if I could live a more self-sustaining lifestyle, I would, including my diet. I limit my junk to only certain junk and I don't over purchase crap that is more resource intensive when I can avoid it, regardless of my desire/like for those things. I do make an effort when possible to support local, but local is rather limiting and definitely not sustainable (ie, it would be more resource intensive both on consumer and planet, than non-local in enough cases) here. I could do better in this regard, I'm sure most people could. If I HAD to do it, it wouldn't be nearly as difficult as some make it seem. Global sustainability versus individual sustainability can be vastly different, though. On a personal level, it would likely be far more costly initially, and take quite a while to truly be consider sustainable, but it's certainly possible given the right circumstances (which aren't present, at the moment).

I make a concerted effort to do what I can with what I've got. When I can do better, I will. Until then, I try to keep my footprint as small as possible. I certainly won't pretend I live a very sustainable lifestyle as is, and I won't  do things (like pretend organic, or a specific type of dietary habit for that matter, is universally better) to try and make it seem like I do. I do intend to have a really lovely garden again this year, but given where I live, that garden is only so sustainable, or, rather, for so long towards that. I do other things that help a more sustainable lifestyle. I don't buy unnecessary crap, I don't drive which helps a lot with my carbon footprint (more than most people realize), we use until it can't be used anymore(and then we repurpose whenever possible), we take on a barter lifestyle whenever possible (services and/or goods for likewise). I, and by that I also mean my family, do our best to limit the footprint we leave on this planet in the ways where it has the best impact (especially when combined with others' actions), but may not get us the most "popular karma points from people who...."(I probably shouldn't finish that statement, so I won't, but you get my point, lol)

The thing that always got me about organic is...you're using the same rain as the inorganic farmer down the road.  All the chemicals and such that populate in the clouds rain right down on your 'organic' garden.  It almost defeats the purpose, IMO.  Unless you grow everything in a greenhouse and personally detox all the water you use,  your produce is still getting chemicals.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Tari Landar said:

Now everything has some "organic" counterpart that people seem to think is somehow better, more healthy, lends more to a sustainable lifestyle, and, most of the time, people are wrong. 

Unless you control every aspect yourself, ie, grow, make, etc.. your own "organic goods", or can somehow get a firsthand experience of seeing the goods you purchase/consume go through all of their processes (or anything remotely like that, ie, knowing who grows your veggies, produces your meat, etc.. etc..)....you really don't have any idea of that "organic" label is as truthful as you think, or means what you think/have been told, anyway. You also won't really know if that product being "organic" actually makes it overall better, at all. It's far more likely that it doesn't. 

Organic means organic.  The farmers and even the organic turkey farmers my family has encountered for our Thanksgiving turkeys are definitely organic, and you can visit their farms as well as buy produce right off the farm and by the taste you can just tell, plus you can view their farming from the road as farms are outdoors.   Also, foods from the healthy stores I've bought from you can tell it is organic because first of all it doesn't have the shelf life and last as long as others - organic granola with honey is one - goes bad much quicker.  

However, I'm wondering if you are mixing up organic with items that are sometimes labeled "all natural" this is where the labeling is very screwed up.  There is a tea called Arizona Tea.  Arizona Tea is labeled as ALL NATURAL.  However, it has the sugar equivalent of three to four candy bars.  I refuse to eat anything with high fructose corn syrup in it, and I read every label, even if labeled all natural.

As far as adapting to a sustainable diet.  I believe I could.  Lab grown meat sounds horrid though.  

Arizona Tea's sugar content:

One can of Arizona Green Tea contains almost 68 grams (17 grams per 8 oz serving size) of sugar. This amounts to around 16 teaspoons! This insane amount of sugar is almost triple what the average woman should consume, and nearly double what the average man should consume. In an entire day!

Edited by JanuarySwan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, Rowan Amore said:

The thing that always got me about organic is...you're using the same rain as the inorganic farmer down the road.  All the chemicals and such that populate in the clouds rain right down on your 'organic' garden.  It almost defeats the purpose, IMO.  Unless you grow everything in a greenhouse and personally detox all the water you use,  your produce is still getting chemicals.

The main reason to eat organic food is not so much to avoid chemicals as to obtain food that supplies the greatest amount of nutrients. The nutrient content of any food is only as good as the soil it's grown in. But the synthetic soils on our typical non-organic farm, stripped of nutrients with vegetation and insect killers, are soils that are missing vital nutrients. Many of these nutrients we're not even aware of as they haven't been discovered (we discover more every year), or in some cases the importance of them to the human body is not fully known. Also, the synthetic fertilizers used in attempt to make up for some of what has been stripped from the soil are often supplied in an imbalanced way not found in nature, causing more harm than good to the human body.

Edited by Luna Bliss
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, FairreLilette said:

However, I prefer lighter, delicious meals without heavy meat by choice and taste as to what I prefer.

In terms of what balance of fat, carbs, and protein we require, we do need to just pay attention to how our bodies feel overall as you're doing so well it seems. Everybody's genes are different and so we have different requirements. I can't say I've figured out just what I need yet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Rowan Amore said:

The thing that always got me about organic is...you're using the same rain as the inorganic farmer down the road.  All the chemicals and such that populate in the clouds rain right down on your 'organic' garden.  It almost defeats the purpose, IMO.  Unless you grow everything in a greenhouse and personally detox all the water you use,  your produce is still getting chemicals.

Actually the big thing is runoff and if water is coming from their land onto your land.. Also wind and their chemicals traveling to your land by air..

that was a big thing with Monsanto and their round up.. it traveling over to someone else's land

They sure picked a good name for that product, because that's what they did with those farmers.. they rounded them up..

We had a tussle with them over some seed once , but only had to buy a temporary license for that season..

The Co oP ended up paying the license

they would have been in trouble if they would have brought there boys to our land to try to get rough.. The men were about to get on the war path.. But they folded and settled for a seasonal..

luckily it was only 20 acres..We've been letting that 20 grow wild for about 12 years now i think..We just bush hog it every once in awhile..

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Ceka Cianci said:

There is an old saying. Some say it is Navajo, some say it is Ghandi.

 "When you point a finger, three fingers point back at you." :P

Unless you are a cartoon character, then there is only two..

hehehe

depositphotos_125049026-stock-photo-vint

 

 

 

This saying comes from the Navajo. The Navajo word for a human being is bílaʼashdlaʼii, which means, literally, the five-fingered one. In Navajo culture, pointing the finger should be strenuously avoided. There are a few things that you are permitted to point at, such as rainbows, but, never point at them with a finger, you point with your thumb (or your chin as among my own people). Pointing at people is very serious. If you point at someone and accuse him of some wrongdoing, it’s considered a very serious overreaction and it will probably get you in trouble. In a Navajo court of law, the judge will admonish you for pointing and remind you that when you point a finger, there are three fingers pointing back at you. That's not a joke.

Edited by Silent Mistwalker
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Silent Mistwalker said:

 

This saying comes from the Navajo. The Navajo word for a human being is bílaʼashdlaʼii, which means, literally, the five-fingered one. In Navajo culture, pointing the finger should be strenuously avoided. There are a few things that you are permitted to point at, such as rainbows, but, never point at them with a finger, you point with your thumb. Pointing at people is very serious. If you point at someone and accuse him of some wrongdoing, it’s considered a very serious overreaction and it will probably get you in trouble. In a Navajo court of law, the judge will admonish you for pointing and remind you that when you point a finger, there are three fingers pointing back at you. That's not a joke.

Thank you.. I always remembered that saying since i could remember, but never knew where it came from..

I remember thinking it was my fathers saying, but after looking it up it was out on the net all over the place, So i knew that couldn't be.. hehehe

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, JanuarySwan said:

Organic means organic.  The farmers and even the organic turkey farmers my family has encountered for our Thanksgiving turkeys are definitely organic, and you can visit their farms as well as buy produce right off the farm and by the taste you can just tell, plus you can view their farming from the road as farms are outdoors.   Also, foods from the healthy stores I've bought from you can tell it is organic because first of all it doesn't have the shelf life and last as long as others - organic granola with honey is one - goes bad much quicker.  

However, I'm wondering if you are mixing up organic with items that are sometimes labeled "all natural" this is where the labeling is very screwed up.  There is a tea called Arizona Tea.  Arizona Tea is labeled as ALL NATURAL.  However, it has the sugar equivalent of three to four candy bars.  I refuse to eat anything with high fructose corn syrup in it, and I read every label, even if labeled all natural.

As far as adapting to a sustainable diet.  I believe I could.  Lab grown meat sounds horrid though.  

Arizona Tea's sugar content:

One can of Arizona Green Tea contains almost 68 grams (17 grams per 8 oz serving size) of sugar. This amounts to around 16 teaspoons! This insane amount of sugar is almost triple what the average woman should consume, and nearly double what the average man should consume. In an entire day!

I'm sure many people would love to buy all organic produce and meat.  The problem is price.  For example, using turkey

Regular turkey = $0.89-$2.99 per pound

Organic = $5.50-$6.20 per pound

Free Range = $4.59-$6.93 per pound

That may not seem like a lot to some people but to others it might be the difference between one bird or buying other items for a meal.  When you're counting every penny, every penny counts.

Until prices come down on every day items that can be grown organically, it's really only feasible for people with more money to spend on food to purchase organic.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Rowan Amore said:

I'm sure many people would love to buy all organic produce and meat.  The problem is price.  For example, using turkey

Regular turkey = $0.89-$2.99 per pound

Organic = $5.50-$6.20 per pound

Free Range = $4.59-$6.93 per pound

lol there's a reason my brother renamed Whole Foods to 'Whole Paycheck'.   :)

I've found that if I forgo a lot of meat though, using nuts and yogurt to supply the missing protein, I can eat a lot of the organic veggies from there and get those nutrients without adding too much cost.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Rowan Amore said:

I'm sure many people would love to buy all organic produce and meat.  The problem is price.  For example, using turkey

Regular turkey = $0.89-$2.99 per pound

Organic = $5.50-$6.20 per pound

Free Range = $4.59-$6.93 per pound

That may not seem like a lot to some people but to others it might be the difference between one bird or buying other items for a meal.  When you're counting every penny, every penny counts.

Until prices come down on every day items that can be grown organically, it's really only feasible for people with more money to spend on food to purchase organic.

Yes but it depends where and when as to what you have around you.  Some organic items are cheaper because they have less in them - granola with honey is one.  It's cheaper at Trader Joe's (if you know of Trader Joes), and spinach or tomato pastas are the same price at Trader Joe's as store bought white flour pastas.  But, granola, breads, pastas without chemicals and preservatives and sugars like high fructose corn syrup can go bad faster.  Thank goodness for green boxes and Tupperware.  

 So, it all depends on what is around you as far as local farmers.  My local farmers do not at all cost more, as a matter of fact, it's less.  And, the taste is a world of difference.  As far as an organic turkey for our Thanksgiving dinner, it's something my family splurges on a little but it averages about $12 dollars more for their organic turkeys, so it's do-able since we don't do it that often.  But I've found I can spend less at Trader Joe's for many things and they have exceptional products.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Most the food studies depend on who is funding them.

 

Red meat is bad.. Brought to you by the chicken farmers

 

Butter is bad.. brought to you from the corn growers association

really want to save the planet.. it starts with having alot less people

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Luna Bliss said:

lol there's a reason my brother renamed Whole Foods to 'Whole Paycheck'.   :)

I've found that if I forgo a lot of meat though, using nuts and yogurt to supply the missing protein, I can eat a lot of the organic veggies from there and get those nutrients without adding too much cost.

Oh, yeah, Whole Foods Market has prices for doctors to shop in.  As a matter of fact, I know a doctor's wife who shops there, that's how crazy that place is.  I don't know what the heck they are doing there?

Trader Joe's I just glanced over the WIKI and it says Trader Joe's prices are less than store bought brands because they do without the middle man.  That is the same our local farmers are doing, selling with no middle man (no store building/electricity, etc to afford) and selling right on their soil with carts set up outdoors, so it's cheaper.

Whole Foods, forget it.  It's prices are for doctors it's so crazy.  

Edited by JanuarySwan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is something I do get from someone else.. But it's really good and I love how the whole bathroom smells of it after someone showers using it..

I've talked about these before, Dr. Squatch

I get them the bars and the shampoo and conditioners..

I've even tried them before and they really work.. The pine tar one is like an exfoliating soap.. I actually scratched my boob with it and let out a scream the first time.. Then the door opened and my husband asking if everything was alright in there.. That bar is like a cactus once it gets used some..hehehe

The shampoo and conditioner is omg.. But i can't use it up on them, because they'll revolt.. I'm gonna have to get my own andthem their own..

I get theme Duke Cannon also, but I notice the Dr.Squatch gets used up really fast.. plus the boys have a hard time holding onto those big bars that Duke cannon has..

But if you are looking for really good soaps and shampoos and conditioners.. These are really good..

They have funny commercials too..

 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/9/2021 at 10:16 PM, Rowan Amore said:

If it doesn't include cheese then no.

Yes cheese can be sustainable. In fact it would probably be better cheese. Animals raised on farms where crops are also grown is a very good idea. The animals waste becomes fertilizer for the crops, cutting down on the need to purchase fertilizer which in turn reduces the need for fossil fuel use to produce and transport. It was only when modern agriculture separated the production of meat and dairy from the production of crops that things became unsustainable. Going back to that sort of farming is the best thing we can do both for our health and the health of the planet.

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Sorciaa said:

really want to save the planet.. it starts with having alot less people

No actually that is not needed, what is needed is for us to produce food the right way, and stop using farm products for so many things that are not food.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Ceka Cianci said:

I always wondered why people say save the planet, when they mean human race..

Ever since i seen George Carlin say it, it's stuck with me.. hehehe

 

 

When I say "save the planet" I mean precisely that. Humans? After seeing what's been done to the planet by humans in the last 50 years, not so much. Humanity is worth saving but what's the point if there is no habitable planet? I've yet to see one in this solar system, much less any other that isn't within our reach. It has me wondering, why not both?

Edited by Silent Mistwalker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Silent Mistwalker said:

 

When I say "save the planet" I mean precisely that. Humans? After seeing what's been done to the planet by humans in the last 50 years, not so much. Humanity is worth saving but what's the point if there is no habitable planet? I've yet to see one in this solar system, much less any other that isn't within our reach. It has me wondering, why not both?

When I sit back and watch timelapse videos of google maps, It always reminds of that thing that agent Smith say's to Morpheus in the matrix..

"I'd like to share a revelation I've had during my time here. It came to me when I tried to classify your species. I realized that you're not actually mammals. Every mammal on this planet instinctively develops a natural equilibrium with their surrounding environment, but you humans do not. You move to another area, and you multiply, and you multiply, until every natural resource is consumed. The only way you can survive is to spread to another area. There is another organism on this planet that follows the same pattern. Do you know what it is?

A virus. Human beings are a disease, a cancer of this planet. You are a plague, and we are the cure."

Because that's what it looks like happening as i watch a time lapse..

Are we worth saving?

If all the other animals on the planet were intelligent enough to cast a vote, I doubt things would go our way.. It's not just ours..

Does the human race need to survive more than any other living thing on the planet? Only in our eyes it does.. So I don't see it as saving the planet when people say that, because the planet will still be a habitat for something after we are gone..it will just not let us live on it anymore because we sucked at living on it.

The planet won't die because of us.. it will find it's cure which is more than likely the human race extinguishing itself or something else that nature throws at us.. either way when it's all said and done, we'll hardly be a blip on earths timeline radar.

Think about this.. The world is being taken over by phone zombies.. They get endorphin rushes from likes..

phones didn't really take off until about 10 years ago.. imagine 10 years from now.. they'll probably be walking around with eye phones and have to keep their arms out in front of them to type..Zombie stance!! \o/

We're doomed..

hehehe

 

 

 

Edited by Ceka Cianci
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Ceka Cianci said:

When I sit back and watch timelapse videos of google maps, It always reminds of that thing that agent Smith say's to Morpheus in the matrix..

"I'd like to share a revelation I've had during my time here. It came to me when I tried to classify your species. I realized that you're not actually mammals. Every mammal on this planet instinctively develops a natural equilibrium with their surrounding environment, but you humans do not. You move to another area, and you multiply, and you multiply, until every natural resource is consumed. The only way you can survive is to spread to another area. There is another organism on this planet that follows the same pattern. Do you know what it is?

A virus. Human beings are a disease, a cancer of this planet. You are a plague, and we are the cure."

Because that's what it looks like happening as i watch a time lapse..

Are we worth saving?

If all the other animals on the planet were intelligent enough to cast a vote, I doubt things would go our way.. It's not just ours..

Does the human race need to survive more than any other living thing on the planet? Only in our eyes it does.. So I don't see it as saving the planet when people say that, because the planet will still be a habitat for something after we are gone..it will just not let us live on it anymore because we sucked at living on it.

The planet won't die because of us.. it will find it's cure which is more than likely the human race extinguishing itself or something else that nature throws at us.. either way when it's all said and done, we'll hardly be a blip on earths timeline radar.

Think about this.. The world is being taken over by phone zombies.. They get endorphin rushes from likes..

phones didn't really take off until about 10 years ago.. imagine 10 years from now.. they'll probably be walking around with eye phones and have to keep their arms out in front of them to type..Zombie stance!! \o/

We're doomed..

hehehe

 

 

 

 

LARIMER-LANDFILL-KS-07122018347.jpg

 

57a49e282a00002d004f8926.gif?ops=scalefi

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Silent Mistwalker said:

 

LARIMER-LANDFILL-KS-07122018347.jpg

 

57a49e282a00002d004f8926.gif?ops=scalefi

What happens to the things americans put in the recycling bins is terrible also, because they don't use a lot of it..we pay to have it shipped off and disposed of , so who knows where that ends up.. might be a big part of all that junk out in the ocean that is floating around..

It's a whole out of sight out of mind thing..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are about to reply to a thread that has been inactive for 1057 days.

Please take a moment to consider if this thread is worth bumping.

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...