Another one bites the dust!!!

[edithaint]

Originally Posted by JosephineBloggs

The population amount isn't the problem. It's how resources are managed and shared out.

I'd have to disagree. We don't even know what all resources we really need, and humans are exhibiting many of the biological signs associated with peak population. I say peak population, because "overpopulation" implies a problem, when the cycle of growth and decline is totally normal and healthy for almost every other species. Humans are no exception.

[JosephineB]

Originally Posted by edithaint

I'd have to disagree. We don't even know what all resources we really need, and humans are exhibiting many of the biological signs associated with peak population. I say peak population, because "overpopulation" implies a problem, when the cycle of growth and decline is totally normal and healthy for almost every other species. Humans are no exception.

Please can you expand if you don't mind re exhibiting signs.

We need the resourses that we have distributed fairly. Is it more difficult than rocket science

[edithaint]

Originally Posted by JosephineBloggs

Please can you expand if you don't mind re exhibiting signs.

We need the resourses that we have distributed fairly. Is it more difficult than rocket science

Actually, yes. It goes against human nature to "share" to the extent you think we "need" to. The average person would rather provide for themselves and their close family, not strangers a thousand miles away. We wouldn't even be having this conversation if our current population was sustainable because communities would be isolated enough to prevent competition for resources. With less humans, we would have more plants and other animals.

As for signs? Asociality and isolationism of mostly males....Hypersociality and interventionism in mostly females....Passivity, punctuated by sporadic aggression, in males....Increased aggression in females, especially toward their offspring....Of course, the exact details vary between communities and individuals. But these basic patterns are found in most primates and rodents when the population reaches a certain density. With humans, such behaviors were previously seen as the Roman Empire neared collapse.

Of course, we don't see these things for what they are. That too is human nature. Instead, we blame guns and video games for all the antisocial school shooters, while praising our globalism as the "progress" that will save us. We have lofty ideals of world peace, curing cancer, and ending world hunger in a universe that has always been violent. Fortunately, neither socialism nor veganism will save us from the cycle of boom and bust.

We mutilate the genitals of other animals to prevent overpopulation, yet think ourselves immune...

[Altair]

Seems this thread took a turn. Considering population and consumption.. our impact on the environment can be observed through both. A bigger population means we need more land and resources, however it's also true that rich countries with lower populations can have bigger impact on the environment through high consumption than poor countries with higher populations..

Egoism is human nature, but so is fixing problems. Doing the right thing is wisdom. We know we have this one planet here with unique conditions for us to thrive. We (still) share this with millions of other life forms.. a wonderful world worthy to preserve. I'm a practical thinker myself and prefer to think in terms of actions and solutions. Vegans have some relevant answers, though not all the right answers, as I see it. Veganism may forget environmental context and focus primarily on the ethics of keeping farm animals, which can of course be done small scale and sustainably (think garden chickens, for example..)..

Originally Posted by JosephineBloggs

Please can you expand if you don't mind re exhibiting signs.

We need the resourses that we have distributed fairly. Is it more difficult than rocket science

I read that 1/3 of food is wasted in the West.

That is a CRIME - combined with climate change, over production, chemicals, cruelty to animals, food distribution and wealth distribution are pivotal.

The problem is the upper levels control the policies and Governments that are impotent in response.

As well as the entertainment channels that keep us ALL blindfolded and busy - aka Gladiators and bread to the masses in Rome

JL

Originally Posted by Altair

Seems this thread took a turn. Considering population and consumption.. our impact on the environment can be observed through both. A bigger population means we need more land and resources, however it's also true that rich countries with lower populations can have bigger impact on the environment through high consumption than poor countries with higher populations..

Egoism is human nature, but so is fixing problems. Doing the right thing is wisdom. We know we have this one planet here with unique conditions for us to thrive. We (still) share this with millions of other life forms.. a wonderful world worthy to preserve. I'm a practical thinker myself and prefer to think in terms of actions and solutions. Vegans have some relevant answers, though not all the right answers, as I see it. Veganism may forget environmental context and focus primarily on the ethics of keeping farm animals, which can of course be done small scale and sustainably (think garden chickens, for example..)..

I think some parts of Europe are far more enlightened in some regards - go to Arte and you will see amazing documentaries on farming husbandry etc. Raising awareness is key but in America and the UK most of the networks are focused on the dumb things, the inconsequential **** that passes as news today.

Everything starts with proper awareness and education.

[JosephineB]

Originally Posted by edithaint

Actually, yes. It goes against human nature to "share" to the extent you think we "need" to. The average person would rather provide for themselves and their close family, not strangers a thousand miles away. We wouldn't even be having this conversation if our current population was sustainable because communities would be isolated enough to prevent competition for resources. With less humans, we would have more plants and other animals.

As for signs? Asociality and isolationism of mostly males....Hypersociality and interventionism in mostly females....Passivity, punctuated by sporadic aggression, in males....Increased aggression in females, especially toward their offspring....Of course, the exact details vary between communities and individuals. But these basic patterns are found in most primates and rodents when the population reaches a certain density. With humans, such behaviors were previously seen as the Roman Empire neared collapse.

Of course, we don't see these things for what they are. That too is human nature. Instead, we blame guns and video games for all the antisocial school shooters, while praising our globalism as the "progress" that will save us. We have lofty ideals of world peace, curing cancer, and ending world hunger in a universe that has always been violent. Fortunately, neither socialism nor veganism will save us from the cycle of boom and bust.

We mutilate the genitals of other animals to prevent overpopulation, yet think ourselves immune...

I believe we can turn things around. Whether we will or not, time will tell. Im just doing what I can.

[Flexi-Girl]

Originally Posted by Lucky 1

Another one bites the dust!!! .......AKA....The Fall Of the vegan YouTube Stars!!!!

Last Sunday a very popular and successful vegan YouTube star was brought down by....(GASP) The public exposure that she was consuming animal protein (fish).

Why??? Because she had developed serious health problems associated with being a vegan!

And I quote. "she had only been eating fish for two months, as a remedy to the health complications she developed after six years as a vegan."

Or how about former vegan YouTuber Bonnie Rebecca who posted long videos to her fans about why she had to start consuming animal proteins again because of digestive issues associated with a pure vegan diet???

So any thoughts on when people will finally give up on this silly, provably unhealthy and dangerous fad diet????

https://www.thedailybeast.com/vegan-...e-change-diets

I have been eating a vegan diet since 2007. In that time, I have weaved in and out of the, "community". I use that term loosly as there really isn't a community with one unifying goal.

When I first started my vegan diet, there wasn't much awareness of veganism. At least your average person didn't know what it was. I was more or less out on the fringes with my friends and family. People thought I was strange but they accepted it.

Probably around 2014 I noticed a trend on "Youtube" (at least that's when I began paying more frequent attention to Youtube). Suddenly veganism seemed to be gaining popularity. New channels were popping up, IE Freele, Vegangainz etc.

I must admit I felt quite enamored. It was wonderful seeing people for whom I thought at the time, understood me. And so for a while, I was really into their stuff. For the next couple years, I followed several vegans on Youtube, often getting swept into their way of thinking.

Over that time, I began to notice things were not quite so perfect. It's the same problem I have noticed with other types of communities. It's as if the things that made the community special, it's message, or it's meaning gets corrupted.

Many of the so-called Youtube vegans are attention seekers, or narcissistic melodramatists. They like to stir up drama and create controversy. A lot of the vegan activists want an all or nothing outcome.

Around 2016, I noticed a counter movement, within many conservate circles, slamming veganism. I think many of these conservatives are reactionary to veganism because they see much of it as leftist ideology. And then added to that, those conservates who are merely opportunists looking to stir up controversy to get more views.

With all these factors combined, veganism is the hot topic. It's not just a diet, or a personal choice. No. It's an agenda.

Because of all the vilenss these days on both sides, I want to stay as far away as I can.

[Sapphirez]

I enjoyed and appreciated your posts Debrah, thanks for contributing to this thread

Originally Posted by edithaint

67 is much closer to our natural lifespan than 104. With our ever-increasing population and resulting sociocultural issues, maybe we shouldn't really strive to live into our hundreds.

lol says who? The human body is designed to maintain "homeostasis" indefinitely.. it doesn't just give up, it gets run down and overburdened and destroyed and that is when death occurs.. or even as with accidents death occurs when the body is moved in ways it's not meant to be, and what we consume internally and externally also "moves" the body, in ways it may want, which sustains life, or ways it doesn't, which is what contributes to disease, disorder, and death..

There are a lot of polluting outside sources, which is why it's even more important to control what we can internally and in our immediate external environments, and with the pollutive nature (or anti-nature) of the world today people can't be expected to live as long as they ought to, but there is logically and literally no reason why humans shouldn't live past 100 or even 200 years old in the ideal climate. Nothing says the body stops striving for homeostasis at 100 or 60 or 300 years. Nothing. Degeneration occurs because of outside forces and sources. But there are infinite ways for us to replenish our bodies, brains and beings.. Even "science" that once said you're screwed cuz your cells stop regenerating after a certain number, point, or age, has been reexamined as inaccurate. There are just ways to make the body thrive and ways to thwart its operations.


Creativity is the nature of the game. We are creative beings with a lot of potential and possibilities and modes of expression. for better or worse.... When people deviate too far from their nature, be it physical, mental, emotional or spiritual, etc., disorder and disease set in.. otherwise the body is constantly trying to reverse any damage and heals itself all the time when not interrupted or corrupted by other things. Cells regenerate and a lot of natural things and ways of life or activity can contribute to this greatly. It takes understanding of nature and human nature, and how to not fuff with nature cuz that is where problems arise and we need to remember we are nature. If we cook ourselves in the microwave or stab or shoot ourselves, and leave our bodies rotting for days or weeks, bad things happen.. similar things happen if we consume things that were treated or mutilated that way. I mean of course if we chew ourselves like we must chew raw food, or blend ourselves up in a blender obviously the results will be bad, but when we chew living food or blend it up and consume it as soon as possible, it's still alive.. Plants can be reasonably modified and still be alive for a while, but if you do that to animals they're dead so they're not of ideal use to the body.. and you wouldn't eat a cut up cucumber that's been sitting on the counter for four days, because it's too far deviated from its nature and not alive and well anymore.. but when it was first cut up it was still alive, because plant foods are magical that way. But if you cook it, it gets killed and has a more detrimental effect on the human body just as you'd expect and deduce using logic. I know that raw food isn't exactly being discussed here, but in fact it is an important key to the ideal vegan or any diet. And some plants are not meant to be the best food for humans or animals. It all depends but with modern science and increased spiritual understanding we can figure this all out relatively well

[edithaint]

Originally Posted by Sapphirez

I enjoyed and appreciated your posts Debrah, thanks for contributing to this thread







lol says who? The human body is designed to maintain "homeostasis" indefinitely.. it doesn't just give up, it gets run down and overburdened and destroyed and that is when death occurs.. or even as with accidents death occurs when the body is moved in ways it's not meant to be, and what we consume internally and externally also "moves" the body, in ways it may want, which sustains life, or ways it doesn't, which is what contributes to disease, disorder, and death..

There are a lot of polluting outside sources, which is why it's even more important to control what we can internally and in our immediate external environments, and with the pollutive nature (or anti-nature) of the world today people can't be expected to live as long as they ought to, but there is logically and literally no reason why humans shouldn't live past 100 or even 200 years old in the ideal climate. Nothing says the body stops striving for homeostasis at 100 or 60 or 300 years. Nothing. Degeneration occurs because of outside forces and sources. But there are infinite ways for us to replenish our bodies, brains and beings.. Even "science" that once said you're screwed cuz your cells stop regenerating after a certain number, point, or age, has been reexamined as inaccurate. There are just ways to make the body thrive and ways to thwart its operations.


Creativity is the nature of the game. We are creative beings with a lot of potential and possibilities and modes of expression. for better or worse.... When people deviate too far from their nature, be it physical, mental, emotional or spiritual, etc., disorder and disease set in.. otherwise the body is constantly trying to reverse any damage and heals itself all the time when not interrupted or corrupted by other things. Cells regenerate and a lot of natural things and ways of life or activity can contribute to this greatly. It takes understanding of nature and human nature, and how to not fuff with nature cuz that is where problems arise and we need to remember we are nature. If we cook ourselves in the microwave or stab or shoot ourselves, and leave our bodies rotting for days or weeks, bad things happen.. similar things happen if we consume things that were treated or mutilated that way. I mean of course if we chew ourselves like we must chew raw food, or blend ourselves up in a blender obviously the results will be bad, but when we chew living food or blend it up and consume it as soon as possible, it's still alive.. Plants can be reasonably modified and still be alive for a while, but if you do that to animals they're dead so they're not of ideal use to the body.. and you wouldn't eat a cut up cucumber that's been sitting on the counter for four days, because it's too far deviated from its nature and not alive and well anymore.. but when it was first cut up it was still alive, because plant foods are magical that way. But if you cook it, it gets killed and has a more detrimental effect on the human body just as you'd expect and deduce using logic. I know that raw food isn't exactly being discussed here, but in fact it is an important key to the ideal vegan or any diet. And some plants are not meant to be the best food for humans or animals. It all depends but with modern science and increased spiritual understanding we can figure this all out relatively well

Ugh, there's more to it than homeostasis of OUR bodies. We are to Earth as microorganisms are to us, and just as you wouldn't want too much candida in your hoo-ha, our planet doesn't want too many of us. Earth says we shouldn't live into our hundreds, that's why she usually kills us through illness and "accidents" at some point past menopause. Monkeys living to 300 defies nature much more than eating meat does. But perhaps you're right about eating our food while still alive though, it would explain why many carnivores don't wait for their meat to die first. Although I would totally eat a 4 YEAR old cucumber. Pickled in vinegar and garlic, of course.