The Political Thread

[Tiplodocus]

I fancy being Shark for a day. What do you all reckon to Chemtrials or has it been discussed at length already.

Naturally I just Google something and am now posting a link to the first article I could find that says they are bad and evil.

Can't get link to work from phone but it's along the lines of Think these are con trails? Think again.

As an added bonus, it notes that meat consumption is the worst contributer to climate change but you already know that but just refuse to admit it because bacon.

[sheridan]

I fancy being Shark for a day. What do you all reckon to Chemtrials or has it been discussed at length already.

Naturally I just Google something and am now posting a link to the first article I could find that says they are bad and evil.

Can't get link to work from phone but it's along the lines of Think these are con trails? Think again.

They are condensation trails, and those who claim they're chem trails believe that there's a world-wide conspiracy between wildly disparate governments (US, Russia, middle east, etc) and rival companies (British Airlines, Virgin, Lufthansa, Aeroflot, Ryanair, American Airlines, United Airlines, Easyjet) to seed the atmosphere with whatever chemicals they claim are in them.  They believed this even during the height of the Cold War and despite the bitter rivalry between the airlines.  If you have to explain why that's ridiculous then I suspect the person you're trying to explain it to would never see sense.

[Professor Bear]

meat consumption is the worst contributer to climate change but you already know that but just refuse to admit it because bacon.

Soya makes you fart, so veggie food is contributing to climate change much more than the cholesterol-throttled rectums of bacon lovers everywhere.


I joke, of course.  Climate change isn't real.

[Theblazeuk]

I fancy being Shark for a day. What do you all reckon to Chemtrials or has it been discussed at length already.

Naturally I just Google something and am now posting a link to the first article I could find that says they are bad and evil.

Can't get link to work from phone but it's along the lines of Think these are con trails? Think again.

They are condensation trails, and those who claim they're chem trails believe that there's a world-wide conspiracy between wildly disparate governments (US, Russia, middle east, etc) and rival companies (British Airlines, Virgin, Lufthansa, Aeroflot, Ryanair, American Airlines, United Airlines, Easyjet) to seed the atmosphere with whatever chemicals they claim are in them.  They believed this even during the height of the Cold War and despite the bitter rivalry between the airlines.  If you have to explain why that's ridiculous then I suspect the person you're trying to explain it to would never see sense.

Heh, first encountered this on a walk around Glastonbury on the last day. Took a seat at a friendly stallholder, some old crustie, he gave me a cup of tea and I shared my smoke, we looked up at a plane flying overhead and the crazyness began. Turned out to be quite widespread among people of a certain generation too who all firmly believe "They didn't use to look like that" "There didn't use to be so many of them" "They didn't stick around like they do now". None of whom had the slightest understanding of how jet engines work or how that might interact with clouds.

[Tiplodocus]

Nice but I was after some proper science refutation.

The jist of the article I failed to link to was that big Agri or big pharma was up to no good which would negate anti theories based on borders.

Come on, who can prove that big corporate things are not seeding the clouds for their own benefit?

[Famous Mortimer]

As an added bonus, it notes that meat consumption is the worst contributer to climate change but you already know that but just refuse to admit it because bacon.

Now, lumping this particular idea in with the "woo" brigade is unfair. If we didn't farm animals for their meat, there'd be a lot less CO2 in the world. I don't expect this fact to change peoples' minds (it didn't change mine when I ate meat) but it's hardly on the same level as "chemtrails are evil".

[Jim_Campbell]

Nice but I was after some proper science refutation.

Well, you'd have to explain what they're supposed to be doing before anyone can refute anything, surely? "Their own benefit"? What benefit?

Now, lumping this particular idea in with the "woo" brigade is unfair. If we didn't farm animals for their meat, there'd be a lot less CO2 in the world.

Unquestionably true. As a fairly determined carnivore, I can agree unequivocally that people eat too much meat, and farming it is bad for the environment and not particularly good for us (the food yield per hectare farming crops compared to farming meat animals is ridiculous). My personal solution, were it within my power to affect massive change, would be the most draconian animal welfare standards in the developed world — people cry "it would make meat too expensive" but 1) we eat too much meat and 2) we waste too much food, so I see no downside to treating animals humanely and paying substantially more for meat.*

Cheers

Jim

*We're rapidly approaching the point where animal protein suitable for, say, Tesco Value Mince can be grown in vats anyway...

[Definitely Not Mister Pops]

*We're rapidly approaching the point where animal protein suitable for, say, Tesco Value Mince can be grown in vats anyway...

Apologies if this has been asked before, but would any of the vegetarians/vegans here be interested in eating lab grown meat? I understand that some choose not to eat animal flesh because they don't like the taste, but otherwise, would you still object?

[Dog Deever]

so I see no downside to treating animals humanely and paying substantially more for meat.

I can- meat will only be for the privileged in society once more.
I agree with pretty much all of what you're saying, just not the whole 'make meat more expensive' bit. I don't see how further dividing society based on wealth, creating an even bigger gap between rich and poor, is in any way progressive. Presumably, under this new price regime, you'd still be able to afford some meat when the urge took; but what about those not so well off? Hardly a good base for a just society, IMO.

[Jim_Campbell]

Presumably, under this new price regime, you'd still be able to afford some meat when the urge took; but what about those not so well off? Hardly a good base for a just society, IMO.

Then what mechanism would you propose to achieve all the benefits I mentioned?

The price of meat is driven down by methods of mass production that trade animal welfare for the cost of production. At the same time, that cheapness encourages waste. I know people —irrespective of their relative affluence— who will roast a chicken for Sunday lunch, carve the breast meat and throw the rest away. If a chicken cost £15, I suspect there would be more inclination to use the leftovers and realise better value from the purchase. Rich people would still have more luxury to be wasteful, but it was ever thus.

People's food purchases are already driven by their incomes — if your cry is "Rich people will be able to afford nicer food than poor people" ... well, I don't have a fix for that.

Cheers

Jim

[Frank]

(W)ould any of the vegetarians/vegans here be interested in eating lab grown meat? I understand that some choose not to eat animal flesh because they don't like the taste, but otherwise, would you still object?

I'm not quite sure what you mean by "object". I'm part of the YUCK (!), IT TASTES ICKY crowd, so I wouldn't choose to eat mince again, even if Brian Cox grew it himself. Meat is just protein, vitamins, and minerals I can get elsewhere, so fillet of Procter & Gamble doesn't interest me.

Pretend meat (like Quorn) only appeals to those who are veggie out of a misplaced sense of guilt and self denial, secretly craving the taste and texture of Farmfoods value chicken dippers, so if pretend meat lets them have their (beef)cake and eat it I can't see any grounds to "object".

[Dog Deever]

I don't offer any proposal- I merely point out the shortcomings in your proposal, that's the nature of discussions.

[Jim_Campbell]

I don't offer any proposal- I merely point out the shortcomings in your proposal, that's the nature of discussions.

Well, if you don't have a better suggestion, I'm not sure what you're bringing to the discussion — are you arguing that because it's not a perfect solution, nothing should be done?

Cheers

Jim

[Professor Bear]

In theory your objections sound reasonable, DD, but in reality I can't see the shortcomings you mention applying to the modern world.  People will just accept that they can't have meat in the same way they've not only accepted but - with the General Election result - endorsed that people's mums should kill themselves rather than have a spare room, the physically disabled take up too much space in their own homes, and the mentally ill should be stacking shelves in corporate supermarket chains without getting paid.
The poor want to eat meat?  Too bad.

[The Legendary Shark]

Replace corporate-level farming and retail with a localised model. Return to smaller farms and locally owned shops; encourage standards and job creation in these areas through socially created money injections - grants and interest-free loans. Local supply met by local demand and trade. Education - maybe even a whole new subject for schools to add to geography, maths and English Lit - "farming." Encourage citizens to raise their own livestock or crops, again with the help of social money injections. Phasing meat out would be the long term goal; through education and helping farmers switch from livestock to crop farming as demand declines. The short term goals would be to reduce the number of animals wasted and thus the number of animals farmed, and to improve their environments. Kinda' deflate the whole business slowly, if you see what I mean. Instead of banning meat or making it prohibatively expensive, make it unfashionable - let it die down to lower levels, but support the farms as this happens.
.
Or something.