--- On Fri, 12/4/09, Stephen A. Lawrence <[email protected]> wrote: > From: Stephen A. Lawrence <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [Vo]:OT: Scientists grow pork meat in a laboratory > (Follow-up) > To: [email protected] > Date: Friday, December 4, 2009, 10:55 PM > > It wasn't; I was mostly thinking in terms of people being > encouraged to eat more of it if it's cheaper. But in > any case, people who switch from a largely plant-based diet > to a largely animal-based diet suffer, as a group, for the > switch. All else being equal, making that switch > easier isn't likely to benefit anybody. And in the > United States, where obesity is a big problem, making > calorie dense foods cheaper doesn't seem ideal.
Okay. Thanks for the clarification. I misunderstood then what you were saying, and thus retract anything negative I may have had to say towards you. Thanks for clearing it up. > Of course, very few people in the United States are > actually "poor" by world standards, and starvation is not a > big problem (feel free to correct me on this). In > fact, last I read, in the United States, obesity tended to > be less of a problem for the wealthy than the "poor", which > suggests that many poor people in the United States already > suffer from a superfluity of calories; however, I don't know > if that's still true. They're 'eating,' for the most part. I guess what I am saying is, most of what they are eating can scarcely be considered food. > It makes no economic sense that a meat diet, with meat made > by very inefficiently post-processing soybeans through > cattle, should be less expensive than a diet based directly > on soy and other plant products. I think people should have the right to choose what they wish to eat. If they want to eat crap, fine. If they want to eat well, fine. But they should have equal access to both; the better stuff shouldn't be more expensive. I do eat fast food, but not particularly often. I like to cook, and so does my wife. There's something to be said for making something at home. Some nights we don't eat any meat. It doesn't bother me. As long as it tastes good and doesn't make me very ill, I like it. She is quite a bit bigger than me, but nowhere NEAR what was in the picture you posted. More on that it a moment........ But then, most everyone is bigger than a 109 pound man... down from 117 6 months ago. I struggle to keep weight on myself. Thinner isn't always healthier. She can run circles around me, and (in my opinion) is the most beautiful thing I have ever seen. According to the media, and most doctors perhaps, she is overweight. She does not feel it, and is active and very healthy. So she does not worry about it. > What makes you think I didn't? (The comment was, in > fact, not entirely serious...) Ok. Didn't come through to clearly, but that's the internet. > They ate darned little of it compared with a modern > American diet. Don't fog the issue -- the pesticides > aren't causing heart disease; it's the corn-fed > cattle. Corn isn't exactly an adulterant, but it sure > changes the character of the beef, and it wasn't fed to > cattle a couple centuries back, and far fewer cattle were > fed to humans a couple centuries back, as well. Point is, they didn't have gardenburgers. They did eat meat. Something's changed. Cancer is skyrocketing, degenerative diseases are too. > What makes you think the test-tube beef which finally hits > the market won't be every bit as "well marbled" as the > corn-fed beef which is most likely already killing folks you > know? You don't need pesticides for that -- all you > need is the right blend of fat and muscle cells. It might be. If people want it, let them have it. I tend to prefer the leaner stuff. They say that is 'tough' meat. But I'm the guy that, when asked how well I like my steak, tells the waitress that when it reaches my plate, it should look like it was passed through the core of a nuclear reactor. :) > Check out what happened to heart disease rates when > Japanese immigrants, coming from Japan with a very low-meat > diet (beef was historically extremely expensive there), > started eating a standard American > diet. That comparison was, in fact, at the > core of one of the first major studies which showed a link > between diet and heart disease. I will look into it. I did not know about this. > From a health point of view, there's not a spoonful of > difference. Heart disease is likely to get them before > any of the potential but relatively low-kill-rate problems > caused by the petrochemical "additives". I guess my view is probably kind of skewed by the fact that (among many problems I have), I do have heart disease. It isn't caused by how I eat. Stress is the worst factor for my condition. I realize this isn't applicable to everyone, but it understandably makes me look at things from a different perspective. As far as low kill rate things, I am watching a good friend, and relative, die of ALS. Maybe I focus on this because it hits me close to home, and it hurts. > > I do not ask for a profound reply. I ask that you do > not insult me in response. > > I sincerely hope I didn't. You generally make a lot > of sense and a lot of the time I agree with what you say. You didn't, I appreciate the tone of your reply. It was kind, even where you disagreed. Thanks. And thanks for letting me know that at least some of what I say makes sense. > And I'll close this with what seems like an appropriate > image. This is not the ideal we should be striving > for... Saw it. Didn't know what I was looking at initially. Now, I like plus-sized women a LOT. My wife is one, would never change her. But that's a bit... um.... excessive. ...am I going to hell for thinking upon seeing the picture... "BRING ME SOLO AND THE WOOKIEE.... HO HO HO HOOOOO....." --Kyle
