Enlightenment now and meaning of life

[DrZoidberg]

Not true at all.

It is a major contributor to obesity and artery disease and all that comes from those two.

What? That's not even physically possible. What dodgy crap are you using as sources? Naturalnews.com?

Antibiotics and steroids in our meat is not harmful for us.

It leads to greater antibiotic resistance which is very bad.

And steroids have very potent effects.

Consuming them constantly has many effects, in some cases it can make cancer more likely.

Everything has an impact on cancer to some degree. Everything. What shit science journalism does is strips the relative numbers and just mentions that it leads to cancer. Since everything you eat also does its worthless information. I'm guessing that the source of this information had cancer numbers that were within acceptable norms. Because that's the reality of it. The fact that you mention it in this form means you've been hornswaggled by a dishonest journalist.


This is the kind of stuff you learn if you dig into nutrition a bit. There's masses amount of bullshit out there.

That said, USA is much more deregulated than Europe so therefore has worse food. Food is something that we seem to need strict regulation of. Because regular people, even if interested, struggle to correctly inform themselves.

A very good book on this I can recommend is Bad Science by Ben Goldacre. It's not only about nutrition. It's about science journalism in general. But the nutrition section is extremely good. Zero bullshit

 

[untermensche]

What? That's not even physically possible.

What's not possible?

All the fat and calories in excess protein contributing to obesity?

Or all the fat contributing to artery disease, in conjunction with the elevated blood pressure due to obesity?

Do you know how many people take hypertension and elevated cholesterol medications?

 

[DrZoidberg]

What? That's not even physically possible.

What's not possible?

All the fat and calories in excess protein contributing to obesity?

Or all the fat contributing to artery disease, in conjunction with the elevated blood pressure due to obesity?

Do you know how many people take hypertension and elevated cholesterol medications?

How does the steroids and antibiotics in beef contribute to artery disease and obesity? Eating beef won't make you fat. It's healthy. So will never be a culprit when it comes to obesity, nor artery disease nor fuck with your cholesterol? You are aware that eating things with high cholesterol doesn't elevate our own cholesterol? Any cholesterol we eat is broken down into not-cholesterol. People with high levels of cholesterol have it because their bodies have taken other things from their diet and reconstituted it into cholesterol.

 

[untermensche]

What? That's not even physically possible.

What's not possible?

All the fat and calories in excess protein contributing to obesity?

Or all the fat contributing to artery disease, in conjunction with the elevated blood pressure due to obesity?

Do you know how many people take hypertension and elevated cholesterol medications?

How does the steroids and antibiotics in beef contribute to artery disease and obesity?

The fat does.

Eating beef won't make you fat. It's healthy.

It depends on how many calories are consumed compared to how many are burnt off.

This is basic nutrition.

 

[DrZoidberg]

How does the steroids and antibiotics in beef contribute to artery disease and obesity?

The fat does.

Why would cows on steroids and on antibiotics have more fat on them? I think it's the exact opposite. The fattest beef on the planet is Kobe beef and they're never given antibiotics or steroids. Cows become fat when we treat them well.

Eating beef won't make you fat. It's healthy.

It depends on how many calories are consumed compared to how many are burnt off.

This is basic nutrition.

But when has eating beef ever been the culprit in an obese person's life? It's never the beef that's the problem. It's all the other shit they eat with it that makes them fat. Beef is fine.

 

[untermensche]

Why would cows on steroids and on antibiotics have more fat on them?

You are conflating separate problems. I suspect you know it.

The fat is in the meat.

Over consumption of meat means you get a lot of fat too.

The added antibiotics and steroids are separate problems.

There are many problems with the modern polluted food supply.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Why would cows on steroids and on antibiotics have more fat on them?

You are conflating separate problems. I suspect you know it.

The fat is in the meat.

Over consumption of meat means you get a lot of fat too.

The added antibiotics and steroids are separate problems.

There are many problems with the modern polluted food supply.

The topic is how antibiotics and steroids ilead to unhealthy beef. I don't think it does. I think you're talking shit.

I don't even know what over consumption of beef means. You could eat a diet of nearly only beef and you'd be fine. In fact it's been a fad diet for quite a while now. After people realized that LCHF was unhealthy (because of all the added fat) they stopped adding the fat. Just make sure you get your vitamin C from somewhere and you'll be healthier than most people today.

Only beef is a pretty shit diet if you're an athlete. But if you want to be lean without having to work out am only beef diet will work wonders. For complicated chemical reasons I can explain. But basically, you'll feel like you've eaten more calories than you actually have. Which leads you to eat less calories than you otherwise would, leading you to lose weight.

 

[Treedbear]

Why would cows on steroids and on antibiotics have more fat on them?

You are conflating separate problems. I suspect you know it.

The fat is in the meat.

Over consumption of meat means you get a lot of fat too.

The added antibiotics and steroids are separate problems.

There are many problems with the modern polluted food supply.

I think the problem with forcing cattle to put on weight fast by giving them steroids and finishing them on grain rather than grass is that it makes them more susceptible to diseases which require the use of antibiotics. Over use of antibiotics by humans or domestic animals leads to antibiotic resistant bacteria and viruses which makes them less effective as a treatment in human diseases. The meat itself isn't that different in how it effects human health. But the antibiotics are being excreted into the environment in which we live.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Why would cows on steroids and on antibiotics have more fat on them?

You are conflating separate problems. I suspect you know it.

The fat is in the meat.

Over consumption of meat means you get a lot of fat too.

The added antibiotics and steroids are separate problems.

There are many problems with the modern polluted food supply.

I think the problem with forcing cattle to put on weight fast by giving them steroids and finishing them on grain rather than grass is that it makes them more susceptible to diseases which require the use of antibiotics. Over use of antibiotics by humans or domestic animals leads to antibiotic resistant bacteria and viruses which makes them less effective as a treatment in human diseases. The meat itself isn't that different in how it effects human health. But the antibiotics are being excreted into the environment in which we live.

Still doesn't make the meat any less lean. I think steroid meat should lead to leaner meat? That's what happens when humans take steroids.

I'm not saying antibiotics is great. I just question whether it makes the meat less healthy.

Here's something that blows many people's minds. Organically grown ecologically friendly heirloom whatever plants or animals aren't a lick healthier than the industrially farmed alternatives. The chemicals sprayed on the food is safe for consumption. It's all just myth. It tastes better. But unless you're a gourmet chef and you know what you're doing it's wasted money.

And here's the kicker, organically farmed food isn't even good for the environment. Because it uses more gasoline per amount of food produced. Precisely because that type of farming is less efficient. And global warming is surely our topmost concern at the moment?

 

[untermensche]

Why would cows on steroids and on antibiotics have more fat on them?

You are conflating separate problems. I suspect you know it.

The fat is in the meat.

Over consumption of meat means you get a lot of fat too.

The added antibiotics and steroids are separate problems.

There are many problems with the modern polluted food supply.

The topic is how antibiotics and steroids ilead to unhealthy beef. I don't think it does. I think you're talking shit.

That is not a topic of mine. It is something pulled from your ass.

Your conflating of separate topics is not an argument.

It is an inability to understand.

Antibiotics are bad because they lead to greater antibiotic resistance.

Steroids are bad because they cause many health problems.

The fat in meat leads to greater obesity and arterial disease.

I can't make it more simple for you.

I don't even know what over consumption of beef means.

You don't know a lot.

That is true.

The body can only use so much protein in a day.

After that it will store the protein in the form of fat.

 

[DrZoidberg]

The body can only use so much protein in a day.

After that it will store the protein in the form of fat.

Good luck with that. You seem unaware how this conversion is done. It also uses energy. It uses so much energy you don't need to worry about it. You'll still lose weight

 

[untermensche]

The body can only use so much protein in a day.

After that it will store the protein in the form of fat.

Good luck with that. You seem unaware how this conversion is done. It also uses energy. It uses so much energy you don't need to worry about it. You'll still lose weight

You have been reduced to just denying facts.

Good luck with that.

 

[bigfield]

Here's a question to those who thinks science and reason can give us a satisfying meaning of life. How is it doing that for you? I'm seriously curious.

I voted "yes" because science and reason give us an unvarnished look at reality, stripped bare of the superstitious and romantic nonsense other people have projected onto it, and we have no choice but to deal with the existential crisis that fills the vacuum. Without religion as a crutch, we are forced to engage in self-discovery, figure out what makes us feel good about what we're doing with our lives, and tap into as much of that as possible.

 

[DrZoidberg]

The body can only use so much protein in a day.

After that it will store the protein in the form of fat.

Good luck with that. You seem unaware how this conversion is done. It also uses energy. It uses so much energy you don't need to worry about it. You'll still lose weight

You have been reduced to just denying facts.

Good luck with that.

What I don't understand is how you don't know yourself that you're completely clueless about nutrition? You clearly don't know the first thing about this stuff. We eat all day. This isn't something it's easy to be deluded about. If we're wrong about this it has impacts on our own body. We'll notice. You'll notice. How can you not have realised this?

But why trust me? You can google this stuff. T-nation is a good source of proper nutritional information. It's for bodybuilders. They tend to have the most accurate information.

https://www.t-nation.com/diet-fat-loss/protein-will-not-make-you-fat

 

[untermensche]

From your worthless source which appears to be something pulled from somebodies ass.

Let's, for example, take someone who eats 40 grams of protein in one sitting. If we're to assume only 30 grams can be absorbed at a time, then it's safe to say that the extra 10 grams will be excreted in the feces.

That is a distortion and total ignorance.

It is all absorbed. The body is designed to absorb nutrients extremely well.

The body does not stop absorbing after a certain point.

It takes all the protein in it can.

And if the body does not need that protein for growth or repair or replenishment it will turn it into fat and store it for later.

 

[rousseau]

But not for Her Highness. Which was my entire point. Your comment to rousseau was off base; the poor of the world today are not better off than the rich of yesteryear just because they have air conditioning.



It's ignorant and trivializes the actual suffering of poor people in a way that nobody on the left would ever do. It's taken straight from the playbook of the propaganda machine that strives to limit everybody's conception of "trying to make it better" to encompass no more than "make incremental changes within the system and don't inconvenience anybody too much". Basically apologia for oppression. Tell someone in adult diapers on an assembly line in Taiwan for 16 hours a day that her life is fucking amazing because she can keep her food cold all day long, and that she is less susceptible to bacterial infection than the former Queen of England, who lived in a castle waited on by Indian servants because she was born. And keep outside of throwing range if there happen to be any rocks nearby.

The left = solidarity with the poor and working class, period. Saying "The only reason some people might think that the poor today have it bad is frankly just ignorance" is the opposite of solidarity with the poor.

In fairness, I understand where his argument's coming from, but I think it's a matter of definition. He's right that the world is better off in absolute terms, but he's wrong that this is some kind of accomplishment of science, and not just an unintended consequence of a bunch of capitalists trying to make money.

And in the long-run this growth in absolute terms is probably ephemeral, because there is no such thing as 'growth', there is only an 'increased rate of consumption' of the world's resources. The scientific revolution coincides with what historians are calling an energy bonanza. People are more food secure because of fossil fuels.

Resources are not consumed, they are just moved around. Energy is consumed to keep the entropy low; But as long as we have cheap energy and the technology to produce and exploit it, we cannot run out of anything.

The sun will provide free energy for at least a few more eons; Thorium can do the same - so we have two independent sources of effectively limitless energy available. All we need in order to never run out of any resource is to implement means to cheaply produce that energy in a useful form, and to cheaply distribute it to where it is in demand. With cheap nuclear energy, it's even fairly easy to reconcentrate and extract the excess carbon dioxide from our atmosphere.

The only irreplaceable 'resource' is biodiversity.

There's been a couple ways I've attempted replying to this post, but I think we'll just leave it at the fact that using nuclear is theory, using fossil fuels is what's actually happening. And any prosperity we see right now is at the expense of the environment.

In theory we can reach sustainability, but the gap between theory and practice isn't a minor quibble. There is how we want to be, then there is how we actually are.

 

[rousseau]

Here's a question to those who thinks science and reason can give us a satisfying meaning of life. How is it doing that for you? I'm seriously curious.

I voted "yes" because science and reason give us an unvarnished look at reality, stripped bare of the superstitious and romantic nonsense other people have projected onto it, and we have no choice but to deal with the existential crisis that fills the vacuum. Without religion as a crutch, we are forced to engage in self-discovery, figure out what makes us feel good about what we're doing with our lives, and tap into as much of that as possible.

This is a good post and I agree. It offers the only way to strip illusion from our lives. I don't think the end result of further understanding is always glamorous, but to me way better than the alternative.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Here's a question to those who thinks science and reason can give us a satisfying meaning of life. How is it doing that for you? I'm seriously curious.

I voted "yes" because science and reason give us an unvarnished look at reality, stripped bare of the superstitious and romantic nonsense other people have projected onto it, and we have no choice but to deal with the existential crisis that fills the vacuum. Without religion as a crutch, we are forced to engage in self-discovery, figure out what makes us feel good about what we're doing with our lives, and tap into as much of that as possible.

I have done the exact same thing. But I think that the reason for you to engage in self-discovery is not found in science. Neither is finding what feels good about what we're doing. I'd argue that's a spiritual practice, and the opposite of science and reason. If you can't measure it in an objective way, it ain't science.

What I'm trying to say is that I think we have the exact same view of what is a meaningful life. We've just chosen to label it differently. And that's fine. That's what embracing free thought is all about.

 

[bilby]

Resources are not consumed, they are just moved around. Energy is consumed to keep the entropy low; But as long as we have cheap energy and the technology to produce and exploit it, we cannot run out of anything.

The sun will provide free energy for at least a few more eons; Thorium can do the same - so we have two independent sources of effectively limitless energy available. All we need in order to never run out of any resource is to implement means to cheaply produce that energy in a useful form, and to cheaply distribute it to where it is in demand. With cheap nuclear energy, it's even fairly easy to reconcentrate and extract the excess carbon dioxide from our atmosphere.

The only irreplaceable 'resource' is biodiversity.

There's been a couple ways I've attempted replying to this post, but I think we'll just leave it at the fact that using nuclear is theory, using fossil fuels is what's actually happening. And any prosperity we see right now is at the expense of the environment.

In theory we can reach sustainability, but the gap between theory and practice isn't a minor quibble. There is how we want to be, then there is how we actually are.

I thought you lived in Ontario?

https://www.electricitymap.org/?page=country&solar=false&remote=true&wind=false&countryCode=CA-ON

It's not theoretical; Ontario, France, and Sweden have all done it.

 

[rousseau]

Resources are not consumed, they are just moved around. Energy is consumed to keep the entropy low; But as long as we have cheap energy and the technology to produce and exploit it, we cannot run out of anything.

The sun will provide free energy for at least a few more eons; Thorium can do the same - so we have two independent sources of effectively limitless energy available. All we need in order to never run out of any resource is to implement means to cheaply produce that energy in a useful form, and to cheaply distribute it to where it is in demand. With cheap nuclear energy, it's even fairly easy to reconcentrate and extract the excess carbon dioxide from our atmosphere.

The only irreplaceable 'resource' is biodiversity.

There's been a couple ways I've attempted replying to this post, but I think we'll just leave it at the fact that using nuclear is theory, using fossil fuels is what's actually happening. And any prosperity we see right now is at the expense of the environment.

In theory we can reach sustainability, but the gap between theory and practice isn't a minor quibble. There is how we want to be, then there is how we actually are.

I thought you lived in Ontario?

https://www.electricitymap.org/?page=country&solar=false&remote=true&wind=false&countryCode=CA-ON

It's not theoretical; Ontario, France, and Sweden have all done it.

Yes, that's true.