Blessed Love Idren
Bless Up IPXninja, give thanks for the kind words. Glad InI are able to clearly communicate InI hearts and positive energy even through digital means.
This is becoming a lively reasoning!
Yes Iah! Macka B’s Wha Me Eat!!
Jahcub I said, “Most the grain grown on planet is fed to livestock. Around 65% of it.”
Yes I, this is central to the point the author of “Diet for a Small Planet” is trying to teach InI, and I really think what InI need to focus on to use science to prove to IPXninja what InI are trying to say.
I found parts of the book in pdf form. IPXninja I would really be interested in hearing the I’s response to some of the issues brought up in this book, specifically about how the meat industry is based off viable food crops that could be more efficiently used as plant protein to feed hungry humans. Here is a quick quote from the text:
“The first edition of this book explained how our production system takes abundant grain, which hungry people can't afford, and shrinks it into meat, which better-off people will pay for. But I didn't fully appreciate that our production system not only reduces abundance but actually mines the very resources on which our future food security rests.”
Page 65 of the pdf
I would also be interested to hear the I’s response to the “Protein Myths” section
From the pdf:
“Myth No. 1: Meat contains more protein than my other food.
Fact: Containing 20 to 25 percent protein by weight, meat ranks about in the middle of the protein quantity scale, along with some nuts, cheese, beans, and fish...
Myth No. 2: Eating lots of meat is the only way to get enough protein.
Fact: Americans often eat 50 to 100 percent more protein than their bodies can use. Thus, most Americans could completely eliminate meat, fish, and poultry from their diets and still get the recommended daily allowance of protein from all the other protein-rich foods in the typical American diet.”
Pages 8-9 of the pdf
IPXninja said, “The reason I can push back, challenging the mainstream narrative, is because no narrative should go unchallenged or untested. If it survives the test, no problem. Right? But if it doesn't then we're holding on to something because it was handed down, not because it is true.”
Yes I, very true. InI should not be complacent and should question the narrative. Each one of InI should be fully invested in making the choices involved in how one lives. I do think in this case the I might not be giving enough credit to how one can hold on to something just because one likes it, not necessarily because it was handed down or even the truth.
IPXninja said, “As far as Jah "seeing n knowing"... the same book that says "to you it shall be for meat" already, at the time of that writing, understood "meat" to be food. The very word for food was "meat" which comes from animals. The Israelites were not gardeners primarily.”
True. But again, I don’t think it would be useful for InI to bring this argument based on original humans or what has gone on in the past. Even as InI must recognize that HIM Haile Selassie I ate animals (as meat), InI can see nuff examples of meat eating in the bible and throughout history. Even with InI Most beloved Highest choosing something, it shouldn’t discount the fact that InI can evolve with an eye towards the future and strive for the most harmonious methods and livity. InI can choose vegetable only diets even if that is not what InI ancestors or spiritual heads chose.
seestem said,”About HIM eating meat, I and I has not reached the ites of HIM to compare Iself to HIM like that. Also HIM follows the Ethiopian culture I and I follow Rastafari livity. Just like HIM did not dread up (no need, HIM wear the triple crown already), kinda like the students wear the school uniform and not the teacher.”
Yes Iah! I didn’t mean to skip this in I last post. Give thanks for the I sight! I see it very similar.
IPXninja said, “What I meant by this is that if person A has a primarily meat-based diet then meat is their primary source. If person B is vegetarian then meat is an alternative source (eggs for example, are meat). Many vegetarians also occasionally eat fish. If a person is a vegan then their only source of protein is plant-based. So what is "main" and "alternative" are subjective to the lifestyles (and survival methods) of different organisms.”
I think I overstand now how the I was using “main” and “alternative” to define an organisms diet, not to define the most abundant source of protein. I was trying to make the point that plant protein is the most abundant source of protein on earth and as the foundation of the food chain should be known as the main source of protein. That isn’t an important point on its own, but it does support the main point I am trying to make that humans feed human food to farmed animals which raises the price of plant based proteins to create a meat product that is a less efficient protein. Besides the fact that yes, a lot of people sure enjoy the taste of meat.
IPXninja said, “And then what happens to the animal populations we normally eat? Will they not consume the plants? Wouldn't some species of animals reproduce out of control if they weren't hunted by predators? My point is that the ecosystem is complex and has evolved in ways that are built on the foundation of predators vs prey.”
Pretty much all the animal populations “we normally eat” are all farmed animals that are raised to become meat products. So what would happen to them is, if we stopped farming them for meat there would be less of them. They won’t consume the plants (viable food grains) because we will stop feeding grains to them. Of course some species of animals would reproduce out of control if they aren’t hunted by predators, but that fact has nothing to do with the current way the average person eats meat. Buying meat from the grocery store that has been fed viable human-food crops is not related to a natural, healthy, complex and evolved ecosystem.
IPXninja said, “When it comes to capitalism people will always find and exploit those loopholes. It doesn't mean they all are but it means if you truly want to know if the "organic" label is true you have to do more homework.”
Yes I, I see. Give thanks for the links too.
IPXninja said, “I understand the point you're trying to make and would really like to agree with it in its entirety. But I think you are considering an ideal situation where each person on the planet could have enough land to farm. The way that land is owned, in some areas would be just as easy as slaughtering animals whereas in other areas, like cities, a person may own no land at all or be under regulations for how the land they do own is used. For example, I'm pretty sure I wouldn't be allowed to use my entire front lawn as a garden. And the back of my house has a creek and is shrouded in tall trees. I love it but I'm only left with a semi-large raised bed that doesn't get a whole lot of direct sunlight. I couldn't even think of being able to produce enough food to feed even one person.”
I disagree with this. I think if anyone took a square foot comparison of how much land was available and tried to either raise and slaughter animals or grow food crops, one could get much more calories from that square footage by growing plant based calories compared to meat based calories. I know that can be proven by science. The only way someone could temporarily fudge the numbers to show otherwise, would be if that square footage of land happened to have a large number of wild animals on it, and one was going to compare the calories one could get by slaughtering all those animals vs growing food crops on that piece of land. But one would be fudging the numbers because that source of wild animals would be quickly hunted to extinction without the support of a much larger piece of land with a healthy and thriving ecosystem to support the growth of those wild animals.
IPXninja said, “Ital living is not "Death free". Plants are living organisms. The only thing separating them from animals is "intelligence". But this is not a binary thing. It is a spectrum. Life is not binary thing. It is a spectrum. Plants have cells just like animals. Plants generate energy from an external source, just like animals. Plants grow just like animals. Plants have melanin (chloraphyl) just like animals. Plants pull nutrients from the ground, just like animals when they eat plants and other animals when they eat them.”
I disagree with this. Plants are living organisms but I don’t think the death of a plant can be compared to the death of an animal. I think it is too much of a stretch to say plants grow just like animals. What cow ever gave birth to new life after it was cut up on a dinner plate? I can literally consume and expel plant seeds from I body and still grow the next plant haha. To say that the only thing that separates plants from animals is intelligence doesn’t tell the whole story. Whether one sees a cow as a smart animal or not, a stalk of corn isn’t going to react the same as a cow if one were to cut it. Just because every thing is made up of cells doesn’t mean those cells create the same thing.
IPXninja said, “And... I hate to bring this up (but not that much) but the chances of anyone eating pure plants only is... a bit of an illusion. And that is because animals exist in different sizes/scale. Not only is the planet host to trillions upon trillions of tiny animals and creatures, making homes and all-you-can-eat buffets out of the plants we eat, but even our bodies are homes to millions of microscopic life forms who feed on whatever we consume.”
Yes I, this is unavoidable if InI are to take the microcosms into account. However microbes and enzymes and microscopic life are a totally different ballgame than farm raised meat. If it’s all unavoidable, but InI can decide which microorganisms to put in I bodies, I choose the microorganisms that feed off of plants haha.
IPXninja said, ”So technically speaking, we're all "kind of" eating both plants and animals anyway. Animals are killed throughout all stages of the plant-food production industry. Not only that but taking plant food away from animals for human consumption robs those animals of nutrition. So the more we grow food to feed ourselves the more we would either eat animals (many times the number of small animals vs large ones) or interrupt the lives and ecosystems of trillions of others to the point that many trillions of them would die.”
This I disagree with and even though I am not well versed on logic definitions, I think there are a few logical fallacies in that paragraph. If humans stop feeding viable food crops to animals that only robs an animal of nutrition if the same number of animals are farmed. InI are arguing to decrease the number of farmed animals because farmed raised animal protein is an inefficient process. And because InI can prove through science that it takes more land per square foot to get a comparable amount of animal protein vs plant proteins, InI could actually feed a lot more people with less land and less deforestation and less ecosystem destruction if InI chose to eat a diet based on plants. That is still true even taking into account the fact that one needs to consume more plant biomass to equal the same amount of animal protein.
Anyways theres my book for the night haha
Yes I vegan is vegetarian but vegetarian doesn’t necessarily mean vegan
Blessed Love Iahs
Empress Menen I and HIM Haile Selassie I Love