Coffee vs. climate change: The news is not good

I'd better grab a ton of Davidoffs right now.

Share this post


Link to post

I'd trade all of humanity to save a single grain of coffee 

Share this post


Link to post

Say goodbye to things like chocolate as well.

 

Thanks industrial farming. Hope the $$$$ was worth it. 

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post

I feel like it's almost a good thing, because it's things like this that will finally make people care about climate change, and coffee isn't that important. In fact I'd say that caffeine dependence seems to be getting out of hand and could become a major health problem, what with the rise of "energy" drinks.

 

But caffeine will survive the death of coffee anyhow, and I'm sure that as coffee prices rise, corporate interests will spend what it takes to make GMO'd coffee that is tolerant and tolerable, and nothing will change. People will become accustomed to the new standard of quality quickly, and those than can pay for the real good stuff will enjoy the luxury.

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post

Funny how they start with coffee when it's the meat consumption all across the globe that's a much bigger problem in comparison. No biggie though, I can live without coffee just fine.

Share this post


Link to post

^^ the difference being coffee isn't a problem, but a consequence.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
18 minutes ago, axdoomer said:

Coffee can disappear, I won't care, but nobody will prevent me from eating meat.

Spoken like a real human bean. +11111111111111111

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, axdoomer said:

Coffee can disappear, I won't care, but nobody will prevent me from eating meat.

I know a certain strain of tick that can...

Share this post


Link to post

I love coffee. If it goes away, well, there's water and kombucha, I suppose. 

Share this post


Link to post

The year is 2020...

 

All coffee, chocolate, and oil as we know them today have disappeared completely from the face of the earth. Looting and riots are common place as the world devolves into chaos. But there is one last hope...

Using only cleaning products and a buttload of sudafed, the mad men who are left to wander the desolate streets have taken it upon themselves to manufacture their own cheap biker meth. 

People are now up for days and have no need for vehicular transportation, opting to run along highways like one of those 28 Days Later type zombies. 

 

Flintstones: 2020

the gritty reboot

Rated R

starring Mel Gibson and Master Blaster

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
14 hours ago, axdoomer said:

Coffee can disappear, I won't care, but nobody will prevent me from eating meat.

Funny how it's always the same with people insisting on their regular dose of meat as if there was a law which states that every human being was entitled to have as much meat as they want (which there isn't). Well guess what? All transportation included, the meat industry is responsible for roughly 50% of the global CO² emissions, and meat as a food for regular consumption (in 1st world countries only) is well past the point of economical sustainability. That being said, people who can't go even a week without meat, let alone a day, are the ones responsible for a major cause of the climate change as we experience it these days. You may not like it, but that's how it is in reality.

 

Of course, since I've had these discussions several times already, I'm well aware somebody's gonna claim that for some reason the human body needs meat (the vitamin B12 lie), or that it isn't all that bad because that "tiny" CO² footprint doesn't matter all that much. So I'm going to just point out that i.e. +90% of all the soy that's being grown in Brazil (One of the major soy exporting countries of the world), after being shipped across the globe, gets fed to cattle, which then gets slaughtered and moved across the globe again. The meat industry also doesn't "create" nutrients, it wastes them, because those animals have a metabolism which is constantly burning energy until they get slaughtered (Obviously a cow doesn't gain 500 grams of body-mass when it eats 500 grams of corn). So if you thought there might be a sustainability problem with corn and soy for example, that is a problem we have now, because there's too many animals to feed. In the meantime, people in 2nd to 3rd world countries starve, because miraculously it seems there's not enough vegetables available to feed them, even though it could be pretty darn easy.

5 people like this

Share this post


Link to post

Say all about the coffee but what about bees eh? No bees, no nothing. Same for water.....

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, Nine Inch Heels said:

That being said, people who can't go even a week without meat, let alone a day, are the ones responsible for a major cause of the climate change as we experience it these days. You may not like it, but that's how it is in reality.

A necessary sacrifice. Now, where is the meat? Don't make me start cannibalizing motherfuckers.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
19 minutes ago, Neurosis said:

 

 

JhH05Lm.gif

 

I know right? It's probably unnecessary to say what I did, because anybody with half a functioning brain knows all of that already. Right?

Share this post


Link to post
9 hours ago, Nine Inch Heels said:

All transportation included, the meat industry is responsible for roughly 50% of the global CO² emissions, and meat as a food for regular consumption (in 1st world countries only) is well past the point of economical sustainability.

It isn't the meat that's causing the biggest problem here, it's the fossil fuels used to transport the feed for the animals, as well as the meat itself for sale.  Furthermore, it's capitalism is the driving force behind our continued reliance on fossil fuels.

 

The points you make in your second paragraph are also rooted in capitalism and imperialism.  After all, why send vegetables and other foods to poor people when you can make an insane profit on them by selling them to others?

 

9 hours ago, Nine Inch Heels said:

Of course, since I've had these discussions several times already, I'm well aware somebody's gonna claim that for some reason the human body needs meat (the vitamin B12 lie)

The body doesn't "need" meat, but meat is one efficient way to get the essential amino acids we need.  And if by "vitamin B12 lie" you mean that we don't actually need to eat foods with B12, that's incorrect - our body does indeed need vitamin B12, and again while meat isn't the only source, it is a good source, and one many people prefer.  Meat also doesn't have carbs in it, which has become a major problem in the developed world due to our over-consumption of them.  This over consumption of carbohydrates give rise to problems such as diabetes, obesity, and heart disease.

 

We could also get into the fallibility of the lipid hypothesis here and how that relates to meat consumption, but I'll skip that for now.  Besides, I'm hungry and am about to go cook some chicken for dinner.

 

Just now, Nine Inch Heels said:

I know right? It's probably unnecessary to say what I did, because anybody with half a functioning brain knows all of that already. Right?

Actually, it was sort of jerkish.

Edited by YukiRaven
4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, YukiRaven said:

It isn't the meat that's causing the biggest problem here, it's the fossil fuels used to transport the feed for the animals, as well as the meat itself for sale.  Furthermore, it's capitalism is the driving force behind our continued reliance on fossil fuels.

 

The points you make in your second paragraph are also rooted in capitalism and imperialism.  After all, why send vegetables and other foods to poor people when you can make an insane profit on them by selling them to others?

Most of all the surface area on which we grow crops is being used to feed cattle. It doesn't matter how you twist this around, the fact remains that mass-meat production is past the point of economical sustainability, and the problem will get more severe the more people live on this planet. The meat industry and everything that is involved with it causes +50% of all global CO² emissions, and it does not matter how capitalism plays into this in the long run, because the surface area issue remains anyway. It's easy and complacent to blame capitalism, but it's a bit more difficult to actually check back with what you have in your shoppingcart and think about where your money goes.

 

4 minutes ago, YukiRaven said:

it is a good source, and one many people prefer.

Wrong. It's not a good source. It's not a source of B12 at all. Mammals don't create B12, they can't. It's microorganisms that do this naturally, not to mention B12 can already be synthesized, and it's being added to multi-vitamin juices or even cornflakes or the likes. You couldn't avoid consuming B12 these days in the modern world even if you wanted to, or at least it would be really difficult to do so. It's the source people prefer because it tastes so yummy, so why give a damn at all. That's why people like Neurosis post those oh so funny gifs instead of proper responses, because fuck all as long they got what they want on their plate.

 

12 minutes ago, YukiRaven said:

Meat also doesn't have carbs in it, which has become a major problem in the developed world due to our over-consumption of them.

And? Following that logic, the entirely vegetarian districts in cities like Bombay should all be crowded to the brim with people who suffer from too much carbs. They don't though, so I do not see what you are trying to tell me here. Of course you can't just not eat meat anymore and then expect no change in how you feel. That's not how that works.

 

15 minutes ago, YukiRaven said:

This over consumption of carbohydrates give rise to problems such as diabetes, obesity, and heart disease.

I'm willing to wager that vegetarians and vegans suffer much less often from things like diabetes or obesity, in fact I'm not obese at all and most people I know aren't either. Not to mention that the number one reason for obesity and heart disease is lack of excercise. That aside, I have yet to meet a nutritionist who claims that it's important to eat meat in order to not suffer from diabetes at some point.

 

20 minutes ago, YukiRaven said:

We could also get into the fallibility of the lipid hypothesis here and how that relates to meat consumption, but I'll skip that for now.

We don't have to since statistics show that vegetarians have barely any problems turning 80 or older without any issues whatsoever, people who never ever ate meat in their entire live, mind you. Let alone that it's a hypothesis that is still not verified by scientific standards, so as an argument it is of no value in this case.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
10 minutes ago, Nine Inch Heels said:

Wrong. It's not a good source. It's not a source of B12 at all. Mammals don't create B12, they can't. It's microorganisms that do this naturally, not to mention B12 can already be synthesized, and it's being added to multi-vitamin juices or even cornflakes or the likes. You couldn't avoid consuming B12 these days in the modern world even if you wanted to, or at least it would be really difficult to do so. It's the source people prefer because it tastes so yummy, so why give a damn at all. That's why people like Neurosis post those oh so funny gifs instead of proper responses, because fuck all as long they got what they want on their plate.

No, your statement is flat-out wrong.  I'd like to see scientific literature saying that meat and dairy products aren't a source of B12, because right now, I'm not finding any credible source that states this.

 

Meanwhile, here's sources that say otherwise:

 

"Vitamin B12 is naturally found in animal products, including fish, meat, poultry, eggs, milk, and milk products. Vitamin B12 is generally not present in plant foods, but fortified breakfast cereals are a readily available source of vitamin B12 with high bioavailability for vegetarians [5,13-15]. Some nutritional yeast products also contain vitamin B12. Fortified foods vary in formulation, so it is important to read product labels to determine which added nutrients they contain."

https://ods.od.nih.gov/factsheets/VitaminB12-HealthProfessional/

 

 

http://nutritiondata.self.com/foods-000116000000000000000-w.html

 

https://ndb.nal.usda.gov/ndb/nutrients/report/nutrientsfrm?max=25&offset=0&totCount=0&nutrient1=418&nutrient2=&nutrient3=&subset=0&sort=c&measureby=g

 

"Products of animal origin constitute the primary source of vitamin B12. Older individuals and vegans are advised to use vitamin B12 fortified foods and supplements to meet their needs."

http://lpi.oregonstate.edu/mic/vitamins/vitamin-B12

 

I'm sorry, but that you think that B12 isn't in meat is just so wrong, I can't take the rest of what you say seriously at all.

 

16 minutes ago, Nine Inch Heels said:

It's easy and complacent to blame capitalism, but it's a bit more difficult to actually check back with what you have in your shoppingcart and think about where your money goes.

This hinges on first worldism, and is also this is the kind of liberal bourgeois thinking that has gotten us into this mess to begin with.  The root of the problem is capitalism, class exploitation, and imperialism, as this is what feeds industry and gives the free market (which, by the way, will be one to tell you to think about what's in your shopping cart, because buy our green brand and not theirs!) its raison d'etre.  They want profit, and unfortunately, they don't see feeding the world using sustainable energy as profitable enough.

6 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, YukiRaven said:

No, your statement is flat-out wrong.  I'd like to see scientific literature saying that meat and dairy products aren't a source of B12, because right now, I'm not finding any credible source that states this.

If anything is a source of something, then said anything creates said something. None of what you show here states that animals create B12. It doesn't say so, because it can't happen. You can take in B12 by eating meat that contains the stuff, yes, but that doesn't mean it's a source, that's the point.

 

Here's how it can be synthesized: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/08/130808124052.htm

 

Microorganisms living in the soil created B12 since forever. And when the cattle was out there having some grass, it took in the B12 along with the bacteria that create it (the actual source), which then later ended up in somebody else's stomach. That's how it's always been. In fact, these days B12 needs to get added to all kinds of foods, because since crops need to last for a long time due to transporting them and whatnot, said crops get cleaned, which rids them of a lot of the actual, natural B12 source and having some nice fresh grass isn't something that happens in mass-meat production.

 

Meat is not a source of B12, and it doesn't matter how many links you throw my way, it doesn't change the fact that bacteria create B12, not animals, thus meat is merely carrying B12, which is different from being a source. That is what I meant when I said something about a B12-lie, among other things.

 

18 minutes ago, YukiRaven said:

This hinges on first worldism, and is also this is the kind of liberal bourgeois thinking that has gotten us into this mess to begin with.

The root of the problem is people thinking the that problem is something else that isn't them or what they do. There's no excuse said people can make for not using their brains to question what people tell them.

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, Nine Inch Heels said:

Meat is not a source of B12, and it doesn't matter how many links you throw my way, it doesn't change the fact that bacteria create B12, not animals, thus meat is merely carrying B12, which is different from being a source. That is what I meant when I said something about a B12-lie, among other things.

You say that meat is not a source of B12, but then you say it carries B12? So you eat it, and you get B12. Either way, it's still a source of B12 then right?

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Just now, RUSH said:

You say that meat is not a source of B12, but then you say it carries B12? So you eat it, and you get B12. Either way, it's still a source of B12 then right?

 

5 minutes ago, Nine Inch Heels said:

If anything is a source of something, then said anything creates said something.

 

Share this post


Link to post

You know a discussion is alright when they can't even agree on what a word means.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post

I get that meat doesn't create B12. That still doesn't change the fact that you adsorb and benefit from the B12 by eating meat.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
12 minutes ago, Nine Inch Heels said:

If anything is a source of something, then said anything creates said something.

That's amusing, but doesn't hold up to any sort of logic.  It also isn't how the word "source" works in English within this context.  Meat has B12 in it, and regardless of how it got there, it's considered a source of that B12.  If you think otherwise, then you're saying science is wrong, and you need to back that claim up.  Otherwise you're at best an armchair philosopher arguing about what a "source" is.

Fish don't create mercury in their body, but they have mercury in them.  Are they a source of mercury?  From what you're saying, fish aren't a source of mercury.

 

Another question: a well is said to be a source of drinking water.  But, the well doesn't produce the water itself, it simply gathers it.  Isn't it still a source of water?

 

12 minutes ago, Nine Inch Heels said:

The root of the problem is people thinking the that problem is something else that isn't them or what they do. There's no excuse said people can make for not using their brains to question what people tell them.

Exactly, which is why you need to examine capitalism rather than make statements that simply prolong the issue.

 

Edited by YukiRaven
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, RUSH said:

I get that meat doesn't create B12. That still doesn't change the fact that you adsorb and benefit from the B12 by eating meat.

By the same logic it would imply that eating meat is obsolete, since we can add B12 to whatever we want, and the benefit would be a much healthier planet. Sounds like a sweet deal to me.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post

EEagDYL.png

 

Uh oh. Now it looks like I have a side here.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, YukiRaven said:

If you think otherwise, then you're saying science is wrong, and you need to back that claim up.

If the word source means "where I get something from" which is how you use it, then fine consider meat a "source" if you can't help it at all, it changes nothing about the fact that B12 didn't miraculously appear in an animals tissue from out of nowhere. And the example of how B12 can be synthesized already backs up what I desperately try to hammer home here by way of sience fyi. So I'm in no way shape or form obligated to do deliver anything more here as a means to back up what is actually a not too uncommon knowledge, and your claim that meat is something humans need to stay healthy is falsified by millions of perfectly healthy vegetarians all across the globe.

Share this post


Link to post
This topic is now closed to further replies.