It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Lol World must reach Peak Meat by 2030

page: 2
21
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 12 2019 @ 09:31 PM
link   
a reply to: Lumenari

Flatulent Beetle's, I know you were talking about California but could not help but think of Liverpool and a night of nasty curry and bad beer.

You make a good point, we do need more tree's but we also need to be able to control them, to cut them down when and were necessary and all those towns should have had agricultural wind break's around them with the tree's at least a couple of hundred yards away from them.




posted on Dec, 12 2019 @ 09:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed
a reply to: MRinder


The letter said that when grazing land is not required or is unsuitable for horticulture or arable production, it should, where possible, be repurposed by restoring native vegetation such as forest, which acts as a "carbon sink." A carbon sink is anything that absorbs more carbon that it releases, according to the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO).




Can you explain why this is a bad thing ?


Because I don't consider a meal a meal unless it contains meat. That's why.



posted on Dec, 12 2019 @ 09:33 PM
link   
a reply to: gallop

You've been playing too much fallout, the mutant rat's with monocles and top hat's will eat you long before it's get's to that stage.

Anyway an article that explains why we NEED meat in our diet.
breakingmuscle.com...
edit on 12-12-2019 by LABTECH767 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 12 2019 @ 09:44 PM
link   
Next thing you know they will start demanding we wipe our rear ends with our bare finger because toilet paper has a carbon footprint.

They will never be content unless we behave exactly the way they want, until we don't have a single freedom. This is not about climate. This is about control. Don't expect the climate freaks to follow their own demands and rules either.



posted on Dec, 12 2019 @ 09:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: MRinder

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed
a reply to: MRinder


The letter said that when grazing land is not required or is unsuitable for horticulture or arable production, it should, where possible, be repurposed by restoring native vegetation such as forest, which acts as a "carbon sink." A carbon sink is anything that absorbs more carbon that it releases, according to the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO).




Can you explain why this is a bad thing ?


Because I don't consider a meal a meal unless it contains meat. That's why.


< sigh > Evidently, meat doesn't help reading comprehension, because meat is not what his comment was about. It was about rehabbing unusable land back to it's original flora state and if anybody could be bothered to explain why that's a bad thing.

As an aside, cutting back on the meat intake isn't a bad idea. Don't drop it, because I'm not giving up my rib eyes, but reduce to a 3 or 4 ounce serving is a good move for your health. Those cows are damn tasty, but they're artery-clogging bastards when snorted in excess. Many like to joke around & say life's only worth living if you're filling your face full of meat, but you kinda have to still be alive to do that. Anything in excess works against ya.



posted on Dec, 12 2019 @ 09:51 PM
link   
a reply to: MRinder



I Like to Eat My Climate Change Fanatics with some Fava Beans , and a Nice Chianti .... Salute"



posted on Dec, 12 2019 @ 09:58 PM
link   
a reply to: Nyiah

I understood what his comment was really about. It's just that sneaky liberal way of taking something good and using it to sell you something evil. As in the old liberal pleas to throw out all common sense "for the sake of the children". I wasnt born a sucker.

I am sure your health advice is good advice. I dont want to live to 100. I want enjoy my life knowing full well that I may be trading some years of it for my choice. I would rather enjoy as much as I can then live longer.

edit on 12-12-2019 by MRinder because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 12 2019 @ 10:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: Lumenari

originally posted by: Bluntone22
a reply to: MRinder

I guess if we start eating vegans it will be a win win.


I've heard that if you marinate a Vegan properly with a little bit of beef broth and some liquid smoke then they don't end up so chewy.

Perhaps we should check with Augustus on the subject...



I hear it doesn't matter how much you marinate them an anything, they still taste like cr@p, because that's what they are full of!



posted on Dec, 12 2019 @ 10:39 PM
link   
a reply to: MRinder

How very caveman of you!



posted on Dec, 12 2019 @ 10:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: Lumenari

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed
a reply to: MRinder


The letter said that when grazing land is not required or is unsuitable for horticulture or arable production, it should, where possible, be repurposed by restoring native vegetation such as forest, which acts as a "carbon sink." A carbon sink is anything that absorbs more carbon that it releases, according to the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO).




Can you explain why this is a bad thing ?


Simply because when trees burn they emit all the carbon they stored.

If we go by the tree-hugger's bible (California regulations) then we will grow a lot of trees, not be able to clear them because of the flatulent glowing beetle or something and then more of America will have the same spectacular wildfires California enjoys every year.

It's a long-term disaster.





Are you really trying to argue growing trees is a long term disaster for the environment ?



posted on Dec, 12 2019 @ 10:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: Joecanada11
a reply to: MRinder

How very caveman of you!


Thank you for your kind words. I would rather be a caveman then some soy eating wuss.
edit on 12-12-2019 by MRinder because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 12 2019 @ 10:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

originally posted by: Lumenari

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed
a reply to: MRinder


The letter said that when grazing land is not required or is unsuitable for horticulture or arable production, it should, where possible, be repurposed by restoring native vegetation such as forest, which acts as a "carbon sink." A carbon sink is anything that absorbs more carbon that it releases, according to the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO).




Can you explain why this is a bad thing ?


Simply because when trees burn they emit all the carbon they stored.

If we go by the tree-hugger's bible (California regulations) then we will grow a lot of trees, not be able to clear them because of the flatulent glowing beetle or something and then more of America will have the same spectacular wildfires California enjoys every year.

It's a long-term disaster.





Are you really trying to argue growing trees is a long term disaster for the environment ?


Lol your side really does lack a sense of humor.



posted on Dec, 12 2019 @ 11:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: MRinder

originally posted by: Joecanada11
a reply to: MRinder

How very caveman of you!


Thank you for your kind words. I would rather be a caveman then some soy eating wuss.


Says the only person that seems to have to be real defensive about their 'masculinity'. What are you hiding buddy?
Another embarrassing thread. Congrats.



posted on Dec, 12 2019 @ 11:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: MRinder
a reply to: Nyiah

I understood what his comment was really about. It's just that sneaky liberal way of taking something good and using it to sell you something evil. As in the old liberal pleas to throw out all common sense "for the sake of the children". I wasnt born a sucker.

I am sure your health advice is good advice. I dont want to live to 100. I want enjoy my life knowing full well that I may be trading some years of it for my choice. I would rather enjoy as much as I can then live longer.


Man, I don't want to live to 100, either. The older the women in my family get, the more various cancers & Alzheimer's crops up (not a pretty disease) I'll settle for a shorter life with my mind still working & not wasting away from a cancer instead.
However, I have to be careful, since we have some major heart health issues from my dad's side of the family (my dad's struggled with high BP and had a five part emergency bypass) and I have uncontrollable blood pressure myself (medication does not work) Without making a multi-chapter novel of an explanation, it's biggest trigger is red meat, and the older I get, the higher the risk goes for needing a bypass myself if I don't make some changes from the beef-heavy Midwest Farmer's Diet I grew up on, am accustomed to and partial to, and mind the diet style NOW. I'm 35, I'd kinda like to put off what I see as inevitable heart surgery as long as possible. Sometimes the trade-off for enjoyment right now isn't that awesome when the chickens come home to roost in a decade or two when you're still new to the retirement age stage, as was my dad's case. That's what made him retire, not choice, but a major, intricate heart surgery



posted on Dec, 12 2019 @ 11:09 PM
link   
I had some of those Peak brand chicken white meat strips, they weren't very good. I am not going to worry about Peak meat.

I will keep eating real meat as long as I live, I will not eat that manmade crap.



posted on Dec, 12 2019 @ 11:18 PM
link   
a reply to: Nyiah

I applaud your choice to eat healthy and take into account your genetics and family health history. Seems very smart of you. My point to this thread is that each of us should be FREE to eat as we see fit and also we should be aware of the implications of our life choices and each individual choose their own path though life rather than be dictated to by a bunch of psychopathic control freaks who have a God complex.



posted on Dec, 12 2019 @ 11:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: Bluntone22

originally posted by: 10uoutlaw
a reply to: MRinder

Why bother , AOC says we are down to 9 years anyway . Have a burger with dairy cheese


Yeah!
And fukashima was going to kill us twice by now...
Screw it, I'm getting a steak.


*laughs in tumor



posted on Dec, 12 2019 @ 11:55 PM
link   
response A:

When these discussions come up, people always talk about how "artery clogging" meat is, then they go blame a steak. Actually, steak is the lowest in fat of the various meat foods, and the most recent study (last month!) says that reducing meat intake, AT ALL, does not affect a healthy person's life expectancy.


Response B: Cows are causing global warming.

Cows are the same genus as Bison, which once roamed the American plains AND forests. Buffalo fart just as much as cows do. And since there was once over 100 million buffalo, and today there are barely 80 million cows, there is obviously a.... fart gap. We aren't eating enough bovines!!!



posted on Dec, 13 2019 @ 12:04 AM
link   
a reply to: Graysen

I reckon my son's butt has the equivalent methane production of at least 50 cows .



posted on Dec, 13 2019 @ 12:08 AM
link   
a reply to: MRinder

Everyone knows me well enough to know that I will only reply to this topic in a well-mannered, thoughtful, caring manner.

*ahem*






































top topics



 
21
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join