Phi for All

So the industry needs to revisit its protocols on humane treatment of livestock. That's infinitely more doable than prohibition.

Totally agree. I would even venture to say that ambiguous words are worse than useless. They can leave too much open to interpretation and subjectivity, something science tries to minimize as much as possible.

Costco is the store I frequent like this. I've found certain foods I can buy in bulk and save a lot of money on, as long as it won't go bad before we finish it. I've made the mistake of buying a huge 3 pound bag of broccoli florets (maybe three times what I need for half the price of buying in the regular supermarkets). It's like $3-4, sooooo tempting, but my family of three can't eat that much before it goes bad. The solution, of course, is to team up with a neighbor or friend who also likes broccoli, and will take half. I don't buy meat there at all. I used to get their chicken breasts, which were HUGE, until I found out they're filled with salt water (a real breast of chicken thaws within a half hour in water; Costco chicken breasts take hours to defrost, since it's mostly ice). One group, the Truthful Labeling Coalition, estimates Americans spend an extra US$2B (yes, B) on saltwater at chicken prices. "Plumping" like this isn't regulated like the rest of it, and introduces extra sodium that doesn't make it onto the label. I wonder if there aren't little private, informal coops that buy from bulk dealers and redistribute to their members. It would be smart for a church group, or other social organization, to poll it's members and make a bulk purchase, then meet to divide it up into your own containers. Perhaps you see it that way because you focus too much on "spirituality". Any convergence is you forcing your beliefs into a scientific discussion. It's not a convergence when you come crashing into a science discussion with your spirituality, it's more of a sideswipe designed to force everyone off the road. And it seems so BIZARRE that you can freely admit you don't know much science, and then make a statement like science is "not fully complete yet". How about touching a bit of reality, and admitting that maybe it seems incomplete because of your lack of knowledge of it? Isn't that more likely than the bits you don't get being wrong?

I believe he meant the word "vitality" isn't the scientific term most used to describe life. It's a great word, but it has too many other contexts that don't fit. "Vital" means absolutely necessary, which we know is NOT true of all physiology (appendix, etc). "Vitality" is defined as being strong and active, which is also not required for life. And how strong is strong? How active is active? "Woo" is often defined as too much wiggle-room in an explanation, which gets filled in with guesswork and speculation. A lot of new age stuff is like that, using a sound bit of science and then attaching all kinds of un-evidenced assumptions to it so they sound more scientific.

Interestingly, I've found I buy a bit less because it is more expensive, and that's part of reducing intake in general. It works out to be about the same overall cost, and we're not overeating. And not all organic foods are more expensive. Meats and fruits usually are, although organic hamburger is about the same. Coffee and cereals can be the same or cheaper. In the US, organic is a claim you need to prove to a federal program that's part of our USDA. "Natural" is a different story. I think they make sure you aren't using obvious artificial coloring or flavoring, but otherwise "natural" is a common claim on foods that are still heavily processed.

How Guy McPherson gets it wrong.

What is vitality, scientifically?

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Guy_McPherson You guys are now onto fixing the climate, but you've forgotten how your initial take on this guy was questionable. He distorts facts, and he's a conspiracy nut. Come back out of the weeds.

A healthcare process that didn't put profits over health might be able to educate consumers, and do more to prevent overeating of meat (and food in general). Prohibition doesn't work. I love meat as well, but I only have bacon a couple times a month, and beef is only present in about 1 meal in 5. Chicken, pork, and fish make up part of the rest, with a meatless meal usually once a week. I buy the meat from a small local butcher that's proud of the way his sources treat livestock. And of course, we're all waiting for in vitro meat to be made appetizing. I'm hoping eventually lab-grown meat will be our answer. I know it's wishful thinking, but I can't help but think that if we grow it ourselves, we can remove the bad and enhance the good.

So male cattle that don't give milk are supposed to gradually be sent back to nature? Millions of cows sent out to fend for themselves, after we domesticated them? I predict a fairly quick rise in the predator populations, wolves, mountain lions. Bears would probably find that much meat irresistible too. And guess what? Nothing humans do in the slaughterhouses can hold a candle to the way a pack of wolves tear into a pig. So basically, you're arguing for really cruel deaths to animals we try to treat humanely until it's their time. Is that really what you want? It's clear you haven't thought this through, and are relying on a big magic wand to make it all happen nicely for you. I'll ask one more time then. If sending them into the wild is even crueler, and it will take time for them to die naturally, what are we doing with the animals in the mean time? How willing are you to pitch in and pay your share of their upkeep? You won't get anything out of it, btw, not even a sandwich.

Perhaps certain books would be better than others for this task. Didn't Edgar Rice Burroughs give Tarzan a primer that had pictures? When you learn enough common terms, it's easier to understand the context of the rest, seemingly.

Not to ANYONE'S satisfaction.

And yet again you ignore the part about who feeds and cares for the existing animals we're no longer able to sell or eat until they die naturally. You seem willing to allow millions of animals to suffer the whims of your wishful thinking, as well as burden millions of humans with the care of animals they don't benefit from. How about they all stay at your place?

Ah, the wishful thinking plan of success! Let's definitely make a fundamental change in our diets and not worry about it because probably it will all work out maybe. Someday, eventually. Sort of. In reality, such a change, if made abruptly, would result in millions of pointless animal deaths. Why do you keep avoiding the question of what to do with existing animals if we can't eat them when they die naturally? Who takes care of these animals for free until they do?

Logical does not mean, "This makes sense to me". And it's not a theorem either. Can you represent it mathematically? All of the refutation is simply saying we have mundane explanations, so you MUST show why the extraordinary explanations are more compelling, or at least compelling enough for further study. Evidence needs to be shown, a case built for the extraordinary, at least enough support that it becomes intriguing (in more than just a pareidolic, satisfying your curiosity way). Serious people need serious support for any new idea. Show some solid evidence for these claims, and it might persuade folks that Occam's Razor favors you.

To me, words are like tools. Use the right ones correctly, and the job is done right. Use the wrong ones, or use the right ones incorrectly, and you've mucked the job up. When words fit the right pattern, when spelled correctly, and when used cleverly, they convey meaning without distraction. If you want to make your reader smile, or focus concern, or just about anything else you can do with words, misspellings can act as a deterrent. Your words should smoothly build understanding in the direction you intend, and misspellings are like rocks on the racetrack. I love reading. Like the movies, I always want to ignore the technical stuff and focus on the meanings, the plot, the characters, or the information being delivered. Little distractions that take me out of that moment are frustrating. Does anyone else hate watching movie trailers before you see the movie? When a bit from the clips in the trailers comes up in the movie, my mind wants the whole sequence to be played out like the trailer. It makes me start thinking about the other clips, and takes me away from what's going on now. Misspellings affect me similarly. Btw, I'm just a bit paranoid that I've misspelled something in this post. Can you go to jail for violating Skitt's Law?

There's good evidence that, if we could get the whole planet to stop eating meat, it would greatly reduce emissions that aid climate change. But what do you do with all those animals? We're already eating less meat per person in major populations centers in first world countries. Modern lifestyles and better healthcare access are raising awareness. But what do you do about Masai tribes in Africa, where cattle are considered the metric of success? Or any other culture that relies on livestock to survive?

Matter has mass, it takes up space. As iNow mentions, energy is just the ability to do work. I wouldn't go with the thoughts and perceptions angle. This is just a case where they took a popsci view of energy and matter, and then stuck a bunch of made-up wishful thinking onto it, hoping it will lend legitimacy.

! Moderator Note Not long when your obvious agenda is trolling and insults. This is a science discussion forum.

I did spend too little time on that answer, so thanks for the corrections. The bacteria synthesizes the vitamin. The vitamin contains cobalt as part of its function. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vitamin_B12 As for the question of why some people have different absorption rates, it seems the supplements are at fault. https://ods.od.nih.gov/factsheets/VitaminB12-HealthProfessional/ As for your argument that people won't be any worse off, can you show that those who are going to die anyway might be saved by vegetarianism? If not, why are we letting all the livestock die off?

Since all we see is light, how can anyone say light is perceived emotionally as love? I certainly don't love everything I see. And the good/bad vibration crap has been around for a while.

You didn't address what we do with the animals we have now. You can't just let them go, and if they don't represent any benefit you can't expect anyone to just care for them for free until they die of natural causes. What happens to these animals if we don't eat them? We had a deal. We take as best care of them as possible, so they don't have to survive in the cruel wild, and we get to eat them when they're ready. You're removing all care for the animals, unless you're going to wave a magic wand and invent someplace wonderful for them to go. You're talking about slaughter on a level that boggles my omnivorous mind. Right, since that's what the vitamin is basically, a bacteria that delivers cobalt. But deficiency in B12 is such a dangerous condition that can take years to fully develop. It's also clear that different people have different absorption rates. Trying to argue that everyone can live without meat has no basis in reality. We can be pretty sure Eldad's proposal is going to kill some people, and give others dementia and other mental disorders.

Tasty is an opinion, and worthless as a supporting argument. You cruel, sick, animal hater! If we can't kill the animals for food, we'd have to just let them die of natural causes. Nobody could afford to feed and provide healthcare for that many animals as pets with no compensation. How hateful of you! You're a monster! Cows and pigs on the highway, dying and causing other deaths as well. You really didn't think this through. Plus, you can't get vitamin B12 from a non-animal source. Even vegans use a supplement. So it's probably best not to try to force your horrible, cruel beliefs on those of us who respect and work towards ethical treatment of livestock. It's also pretty unrealistic to think everyone would just stop eating meat. Why don't you come down off your high horse and help where it's needed? More ethical treatment is a better next step than prohibition. You have to see the sense in that.

I suspect someone is trying to create a problem which their device solves. "If your snake squeaks..."

I'd settle for a bit less pointless analysis of so many posts. If it adds nothing, maybe it shouldn't be posted.