A tax on red meat?...
Discussion
I do sometimes wonder about the connection between eating a lot of red meat and being right about stuff more generally.
It seems like a lot of left wing types are vegetarian or at least apologetic omnivors while most people who eat plenty of meat are more conservative in outlook.
It stands to reason that more people who were worried about global warming and so forth would be attracted to the idea of living on lentils and grass, but I wonder if it self perpetuates.
In a hunter-gatherer society small bands of hunters would probably form a fairly disciplined unit to hunt, kill and recover large animals for food. Meanwhile large groups of grazers would root for tubers and pick nuts and berries.
The first group seem like more natural conservatives requiring discipline, order and a mean streak which allows them to kill an animal and takes a dim view of sharing the catch with those who haven't contributed. They are more likely to be quite independent and self reliant, needing to defend themselves against other tribes and wild animals while hunting. They don't really worry about someone monopolising all the wild animals, but are prepared to fight over their specific animal.
The second group don't really care about outsiders or group discipline so long as there are enough nuts and berries. They do have reason to worry about some group or individual monopolising the berries, hence they have an interest in cooperation and fair distribution. For defence from attackers and animals they rely on large numbers and authority figures, but might not be all that interested in who makes up those numbers, who those authority figures are or what they demand, provided they let them pick nuts and berries.
Grazers don't really like hunters because they are messy, violent and cruel.
Hunters don't really respect grazers because they're passive, and weak.
Of course we're not as starkly divided into those groups and hunters will also eat nuts and berries, grazers will also eat meat. But we do tend to be more one way or the other, and in my anecdotal experience the people who Brexit, controlled immigration and generally good stuff are more likely to eat meat, while people who support Remain, mass immigration and generally silly stuff are more likely to live on pasta and potatoes.
Is it just that the grazers become grazers and hunters become hunters because they have different priorities? Or could it be that grazing or hunting changes those priorities leading to increasing polarisation over time?
My own experience of moving to a more meat based diet seems to support this.
Anyone else see the same phenomenon? JSF?
It seems like a lot of left wing types are vegetarian or at least apologetic omnivors while most people who eat plenty of meat are more conservative in outlook.
It stands to reason that more people who were worried about global warming and so forth would be attracted to the idea of living on lentils and grass, but I wonder if it self perpetuates.
In a hunter-gatherer society small bands of hunters would probably form a fairly disciplined unit to hunt, kill and recover large animals for food. Meanwhile large groups of grazers would root for tubers and pick nuts and berries.
The first group seem like more natural conservatives requiring discipline, order and a mean streak which allows them to kill an animal and takes a dim view of sharing the catch with those who haven't contributed. They are more likely to be quite independent and self reliant, needing to defend themselves against other tribes and wild animals while hunting. They don't really worry about someone monopolising all the wild animals, but are prepared to fight over their specific animal.
The second group don't really care about outsiders or group discipline so long as there are enough nuts and berries. They do have reason to worry about some group or individual monopolising the berries, hence they have an interest in cooperation and fair distribution. For defence from attackers and animals they rely on large numbers and authority figures, but might not be all that interested in who makes up those numbers, who those authority figures are or what they demand, provided they let them pick nuts and berries.
Grazers don't really like hunters because they are messy, violent and cruel.
Hunters don't really respect grazers because they're passive, and weak.
Of course we're not as starkly divided into those groups and hunters will also eat nuts and berries, grazers will also eat meat. But we do tend to be more one way or the other, and in my anecdotal experience the people who Brexit, controlled immigration and generally good stuff are more likely to eat meat, while people who support Remain, mass immigration and generally silly stuff are more likely to live on pasta and potatoes.
Is it just that the grazers become grazers and hunters become hunters because they have different priorities? Or could it be that grazing or hunting changes those priorities leading to increasing polarisation over time?
My own experience of moving to a more meat based diet seems to support this.
Anyone else see the same phenomenon? JSF?
grumbledoak said:
Dindoit said:
Our appetite for meat, beef particularly, has a hugely devastating effort on the environment and our individual health. The carbon footprint is vast and there are undeniable links to cancer and heart disease.
The "carbon" footprint of pastureland is negative. Fortunately after they’ve chomped the grass the cattle are able to get all their own water, walk to the slaughterhouse where they butcher and pack themselves into individual portions ready to deliver themselves directly to your basket.
grumbledoak said:
Red meat's links to cancer are dubious and likely pushed by activism and industry pressure (i.e. money).
Which industry would that be? The near trillion dollar meat industry or...? I had no idea the tofu giants held so much power.JuanCarlosFandango said:
I do sometimes wonder about the connection between eating a lot of red meat and being right about stuff more generally.
It seems like a lot of left wing types are vegetarian or at least apologetic omnivors while most people who eat plenty of meat are more conservative in outlook.
It stands to reason that more people who were worried about global warming and so forth would be attracted to the idea of living on lentils and grass, but I wonder if it self perpetuates.
In a hunter-gatherer society small bands of hunters would probably form a fairly disciplined unit to hunt, kill and recover large animals for food. Meanwhile large groups of grazers would root for tubers and pick nuts and berries.
The first group seem like more natural conservatives requiring discipline, order and a mean streak which allows them to kill an animal and takes a dim view of sharing the catch with those who haven't contributed. They are more likely to be quite independent and self reliant, needing to defend themselves against other tribes and wild animals while hunting. They don't really worry about someone monopolising all the wild animals, but are prepared to fight over their specific animal.
The second group don't really care about outsiders or group discipline so long as there are enough nuts and berries. They do have reason to worry about some group or individual monopolising the berries, hence they have an interest in cooperation and fair distribution. For defence from attackers and animals they rely on large numbers and authority figures, but might not be all that interested in who makes up those numbers, who those authority figures are or what they demand, provided they let them pick nuts and berries.
Grazers don't really like hunters because they are messy, violent and cruel.
Hunters don't really respect grazers because they're passive, and weak.
Of course we're not as starkly divided into those groups and hunters will also eat nuts and berries, grazers will also eat meat. But we do tend to be more one way or the other, and in my anecdotal experience the people who Brexit, controlled immigration and generally good stuff are more likely to eat meat, while people who support Remain, mass immigration and generally silly stuff are more likely to live on pasta and potatoes.
Is it just that the grazers become grazers and hunters become hunters because they have different priorities? Or could it be that grazing or hunting changes those priorities leading to increasing polarisation over time?
My own experience of moving to a more meat based diet seems to support this.
Anyone else see the same phenomenon? JSF?
A load of nonsense with some nice touches in there. It seems like a lot of left wing types are vegetarian or at least apologetic omnivors while most people who eat plenty of meat are more conservative in outlook.
It stands to reason that more people who were worried about global warming and so forth would be attracted to the idea of living on lentils and grass, but I wonder if it self perpetuates.
In a hunter-gatherer society small bands of hunters would probably form a fairly disciplined unit to hunt, kill and recover large animals for food. Meanwhile large groups of grazers would root for tubers and pick nuts and berries.
The first group seem like more natural conservatives requiring discipline, order and a mean streak which allows them to kill an animal and takes a dim view of sharing the catch with those who haven't contributed. They are more likely to be quite independent and self reliant, needing to defend themselves against other tribes and wild animals while hunting. They don't really worry about someone monopolising all the wild animals, but are prepared to fight over their specific animal.
The second group don't really care about outsiders or group discipline so long as there are enough nuts and berries. They do have reason to worry about some group or individual monopolising the berries, hence they have an interest in cooperation and fair distribution. For defence from attackers and animals they rely on large numbers and authority figures, but might not be all that interested in who makes up those numbers, who those authority figures are or what they demand, provided they let them pick nuts and berries.
Grazers don't really like hunters because they are messy, violent and cruel.
Hunters don't really respect grazers because they're passive, and weak.
Of course we're not as starkly divided into those groups and hunters will also eat nuts and berries, grazers will also eat meat. But we do tend to be more one way or the other, and in my anecdotal experience the people who Brexit, controlled immigration and generally good stuff are more likely to eat meat, while people who support Remain, mass immigration and generally silly stuff are more likely to live on pasta and potatoes.
Is it just that the grazers become grazers and hunters become hunters because they have different priorities? Or could it be that grazing or hunting changes those priorities leading to increasing polarisation over time?
My own experience of moving to a more meat based diet seems to support this.
Anyone else see the same phenomenon? JSF?
People who support staying in Europe are vegetarians and live on pasta? But yet; Corbyn; who has been anti Europe his whole career; is a vegetarian...
I think you might one of those types that likes to over-simplify things; to make them more palatable (excuse the pun).
We’ve all moved on from hunting / grazing and you know that. Ten ton Tommy getting his steak from Aldi is as far from the picture you’ve painted as is possible
LDN said:
Not nearly as much as the mountain of evidence that disagrees with you.
I would love to see you produce anything convincing, let alone a mountain of evidence in favour of the meat cancer and heart disease "links" mentioned.For others not aware of the context, I believe the current tax meat story stems from research led by one Dr Marco Springmann. You can find him here: https://vimeo.com/239483108
talking at the "End of Meat" conference in Berlin. Yes, he's a vegan activist.
Roofless Toothless said:
I have never made a point of studying any of the science behind this. Is the link between red meat, bacon, etc. and health issues shown to be causal? Or is it by association only?
7. Red meat was classified as Group 2A, probably carcinogenic to humans. What does this mean exactly?In the case of red meat, the classification is based on limited evidence from epidemiological studies showing positive associations between eating red meat and developing colorectal cancer as well as strong mechanistic evidence.
Limited evidence means that a positive association has been observed between exposure to the agent and cancer but that other explanations for the observations (technically termed chance, bias, or confounding) could not be ruled out.
8. Processed meat was classified as Group 1, carcinogenic to humans. What does this mean?
This category is used when there is sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in humans. In other words, there is convincing evidence that the agent causes cancer. The evaluation is usually based on epidemiological studies showing the development of cancer in exposed humans.
In the case of processed meat, this classification is based on sufficient evidence from epidemiological studies that eating processed meat causes colorectal cancer.
http://www.who.int/features/qa/cancer-red-meat/en/
CzechItOut said:
In the case of red meat, the classification is based on limited evidence from epidemiological studies showing positive associations between eating red meat and developing colorectal cancer as well as strong mechanistic evidence.
Limited evidence is being kind, given the confounding factors. Eating red meat with anything else gets classed as "red meat causes", to some. It is also difficult to imagine a mechamism, as meat does not reach the colon...I have never ever eat meat or even fancied eating meat, I like to know what I am eating, with the thought of eating a pork pie, and not knowing what animal, or what part of that animal is filling the pie, I find appalling.
Local farm, four past generations of the present family, obvious meat eaters, all died of stomach cancer.
Rather see health advice rather than applying tax to red meat.
Local farm, four past generations of the present family, obvious meat eaters, all died of stomach cancer.
Rather see health advice rather than applying tax to red meat.
CzechItOut said:
Roofless Toothless said:
I have never made a point of studying any of the science behind this. Is the link between red meat, bacon, etc. and health issues shown to be causal? Or is it by association only?
7. Red meat was classified as Group 2A, probably carcinogenic to humans. What does this mean exactly?In the case of red meat, the classification is based on limited evidence from epidemiological studies showing positive associations between eating red meat and developing colorectal cancer as well as strong mechanistic evidence.
Limited evidence means that a positive association has been observed between exposure to the agent and cancer but that other explanations for the observations (technically termed chance, bias, or confounding) could not be ruled out.
8. Processed meat was classified as Group 1, carcinogenic to humans. What does this mean?
This category is used when there is sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in humans. In other words, there is convincing evidence that the agent causes cancer. The evaluation is usually based on epidemiological studies showing the development of cancer in exposed humans.
In the case of processed meat, this classification is based on sufficient evidence from epidemiological studies that eating processed meat causes colorectal cancer.
http://www.who.int/features/qa/cancer-red-meat/en/
If I have read this right, the cancer risk with red meat could well be by mere association and causality is not established, but with processed meat like bacon, there is a shown causal risk. From what I understand the risk in this case is from chemicals, like nitrites, that are used in the curing process.
Of course, none of this takes into account required exposure levels to produce significantly increased risk, and how the risk compares to other carcinogens that we are exposed to daily, like diesel emissions, sunlight, etc.
Wings said:
I have never ever eat meat or even fancied eating meat, I like to know what I am eating, with the thought of eating a pork pie, and not knowing what animal, or what part of that animal is filling the pie, I find appalling.
Local farm, four past generations of the present family, obvious meat eaters, all died of stomach cancer.
Rather see health advice rather than applying tax to red meat.
That’s my take on it as well. Local farm, four past generations of the present family, obvious meat eaters, all died of stomach cancer.
Rather see health advice rather than applying tax to red meat.
Wings said:
I have never ever eat meat or even fancied eating meat, I like to know what I am eating, with the thought of eating a pork pie, and not knowing what animal, or what part of that animal is filling the pie, I find appalling.
Local farm, four past generations of the present family, obvious meat eaters, all died of stomach cancer.
Rather see health advice rather than applying tax to red meat.
I'm intrigued by this position.Local farm, four past generations of the present family, obvious meat eaters, all died of stomach cancer.
Rather see health advice rather than applying tax to red meat.
Were you raised by vegetarians? Or did you become vegetarian?
Evanivitch said:
Wings said:
I have never ever eat meat or even fancied eating meat, I like to know what I am eating, with the thought of eating a pork pie, and not knowing what animal, or what part of that animal is filling the pie, I find appalling.
Local farm, four past generations of the present family, obvious meat eaters, all died of stomach cancer.
Rather see health advice rather than applying tax to red meat.
I'm intrigued by this position.Local farm, four past generations of the present family, obvious meat eaters, all died of stomach cancer.
Rather see health advice rather than applying tax to red meat.
Were you raised by vegetarians? Or did you become vegetarian?
LDN said:
Not speaking for Wings but related; my fiancé was brought up vegetarian; as was her brother. Both look half their age; to the point it has actually affected their business lives; not been taken seriously due to looking too young!!! As well; both have been without ailment their whole lives. This is from birth to present day.
What's your point?LDN said:
Not speaking for Wings but related; my fiancé was brought up vegetarian; as was her brother. Both look half their age; to the point it has actually affected their business lives; not been taken seriously due to looking too young!!! As well; both have been without ailment their whole lives. This is from birth to present day.
Mazeltov! 
LDN said:
You said you were gonna intrigued by Wings; because he’d not eaten meat. I was referring to that; and that I’m close to two people who have also never eaten meat.
You're mistaken. I'm not intrigued by Wings, I'm intrigued by people that claim they've made a conscious decision their entire life to not eat meat.And yet as a child, it's not your choice. So either you've been raised vegetarian or your definition of 'entire life' isn't quite true.
Wings said:
I have never ever eat meat or even fancied eating meat, I like to know what I am eating, with the thought of eating a pork pie, and not knowing what animal, or what part of that animal is filling the pie, I find appalling.
Local farm, four past generations of the present family, obvious meat eaters, all died of stomach cancer.
Rather see health advice rather than applying tax to red meat.
You do realise that a susceptibility to cancer can be hereditary?Local farm, four past generations of the present family, obvious meat eaters, all died of stomach cancer.
Rather see health advice rather than applying tax to red meat.
Evanivitch said:
LDN said:
You said you were gonna intrigued by Wings; because he’d not eaten meat. I was referring to that; and that I’m close to two people who have also never eaten meat.
You're mistaken. I'm not intrigued by Wings, I'm intrigued by people that claim they've made a conscious decision their entire life to not eat meat.JuanCarlosFandango said:
I do sometimes wonder about the connection between eating a lot of red meat and being right about stuff more generally.
It seems like a lot of left wing types are vegetarian or at least apologetic omnivors while most people who eat plenty of meat are more conservative in outlook.
It stands to reason that more people who were worried about global warming and so forth would be attracted to the idea of living on lentils and grass, but I wonder if it self perpetuates.
In a hunter-gatherer society small bands of hunters would probably form a fairly disciplined unit to hunt, kill and recover large animals for food. Meanwhile large groups of grazers would root for tubers and pick nuts and berries.
The first group seem like more natural conservatives requiring discipline, order and a mean streak which allows them to kill an animal and takes a dim view of sharing the catch with those who haven't contributed. They are more likely to be quite independent and self reliant, needing to defend themselves against other tribes and wild animals while hunting. They don't really worry about someone monopolising all the wild animals, but are prepared to fight over their specific animal.
The second group don't really care about outsiders or group discipline so long as there are enough nuts and berries. They do have reason to worry about some group or individual monopolising the berries, hence they have an interest in cooperation and fair distribution. For defence from attackers and animals they rely on large numbers and authority figures, but might not be all that interested in who makes up those numbers, who those authority figures are or what they demand, provided they let them pick nuts and berries.
Grazers don't really like hunters because they are messy, violent and cruel.
Hunters don't really respect grazers because they're passive, and weak.
Of course we're not as starkly divided into those groups and hunters will also eat nuts and berries, grazers will also eat meat. But we do tend to be more one way or the other, and in my anecdotal experience the people who Brexit, controlled immigration and generally good stuff are more likely to eat meat, while people who support Remain, mass immigration and generally silly stuff are more likely to live on pasta and potatoes.
Is it just that the grazers become grazers and hunters become hunters because they have different priorities? Or could it be that grazing or hunting changes those priorities leading to increasing polarisation over time?
My own experience of moving to a more meat based diet seems to support this.
Anyone else see the same phenomenon? JSF?
One of the most hilariously stupid bits of ‘analysis’ I’ve ever seen posted! The only phenomenon is in your head. Is this where the expression Meathead comes from?It seems like a lot of left wing types are vegetarian or at least apologetic omnivors while most people who eat plenty of meat are more conservative in outlook.
It stands to reason that more people who were worried about global warming and so forth would be attracted to the idea of living on lentils and grass, but I wonder if it self perpetuates.
In a hunter-gatherer society small bands of hunters would probably form a fairly disciplined unit to hunt, kill and recover large animals for food. Meanwhile large groups of grazers would root for tubers and pick nuts and berries.
The first group seem like more natural conservatives requiring discipline, order and a mean streak which allows them to kill an animal and takes a dim view of sharing the catch with those who haven't contributed. They are more likely to be quite independent and self reliant, needing to defend themselves against other tribes and wild animals while hunting. They don't really worry about someone monopolising all the wild animals, but are prepared to fight over their specific animal.
The second group don't really care about outsiders or group discipline so long as there are enough nuts and berries. They do have reason to worry about some group or individual monopolising the berries, hence they have an interest in cooperation and fair distribution. For defence from attackers and animals they rely on large numbers and authority figures, but might not be all that interested in who makes up those numbers, who those authority figures are or what they demand, provided they let them pick nuts and berries.
Grazers don't really like hunters because they are messy, violent and cruel.
Hunters don't really respect grazers because they're passive, and weak.
Of course we're not as starkly divided into those groups and hunters will also eat nuts and berries, grazers will also eat meat. But we do tend to be more one way or the other, and in my anecdotal experience the people who Brexit, controlled immigration and generally good stuff are more likely to eat meat, while people who support Remain, mass immigration and generally silly stuff are more likely to live on pasta and potatoes.
Is it just that the grazers become grazers and hunters become hunters because they have different priorities? Or could it be that grazing or hunting changes those priorities leading to increasing polarisation over time?
My own experience of moving to a more meat based diet seems to support this.
Anyone else see the same phenomenon? JSF?
Brexit voting anti-immigration supporters of similar s
t stuff stopped evolving in the caveman days? Perhaps you are on to something.... Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff