Post Apr 7-13 2013

TaN: I agree, one of the most effective ways of reducing CO2 in the atmosphere (which will cut down on global warming) is to STOP CUTTING TREES!  CO2 is the main gas that plants (and trees) need to “breathe” – it is their counterpart of our Oxygen.  Because of this, trees draw huge quantities of carbon dioxide from the air.  By preserving and conserving forests and grasslands (and, ultimately, the environment), we are ensuring that the carbon dioxide we put into the atmosphere can be used up and “neutralized”.

Not stopping there, let us go into “Why are forests and grasslands disappearing?  Why do we have to mow them down?”  To support man’s greed!  To support man’s STUPIDITY!

Because we have put profit ahead of man, we have subverted the natural order of things.  Behind this is Business.

I am not saying business is the cause and certainly that business is evil.  Like I have blogged earlier, only Man can be good or evil.  Business, like everything else, is just behaving according to nature.  Everything else are mere instruments and creations of man and are subject to the laws that govern them.  They have no Free Will as man does.  Even those we consider “bad” – because they cause discomfort and dis-ease to us – are not (in truth) bad.  They are merely being true to their nature, their purpose.

Business originated as a good thing.  It was Man’s way of participating or contributing to the common good.  Each have our own abilities and we found, early on, that it is not efficient to do everything we need by ourselves – hence the phrase No man is an island.  We found out that by dividing the work to those who can do it best and doing out share of the workload, we are able not only to have a better chance of survival but to have a comfortable life.

We do things for others, we do for others what we do best  In turn, they do theirs for us – the concept of reciprocity.  This works out fine.  And, for quite some time, it was.

Later, we were able to have excesses – we “overproduced” – and some excesses are “perishable”.  So, we decided to “introduce and share this with other tribes and cultures.  Thus was born the concept of trade – which later, on a grander scale, blossomed into importing and exporting (which is not really a bad thing but has, again, been subverted into something evil, as, likewise, been discussed in an earlier blog).

Still others were in the form of services and not all reciprocating services were need at once.  This resulted into “investments” or “debts” – like “I owe you one” or “rain checks” – which partially gave rise to currency or turning labor into capital.

However, by redefining the original concept and purpose of business, we – or, rather, the now so-called “global elite”, which grew from local or domestic cabals when cultures and races were not as actively interacting with one another just yet – has hijacked what was once good and distorted it into something that satisfies their interests and agenda.

Instead of providing goods and services for each other, with the aim of easing each other’s lives, certain “forward thinking” people decided to turn things upside down and put profit ahead of man.  Schemes were formulated and they evolved (with the times).  One of these evolved into the idea that consumption of animals are better than consumption of plants and a large part of the success of the scheme is through diabolical and aggressive marketing strategies and capmpaigns.

Please forgive this long winding discourse, but I am getting to the point.  Fast forward to the current topc…

All this leads to the other major problem of CO2 emissions, which is the craze of increasing meat consumption.  Studies have repeatedly shown that: (1) the amount of vegetable protein needed by cattle to feed the USA can feed the populations of both China and India – 2 billion people (see: http://www.veganwolf.com/reasons_to_be_vegan.htm#Welfare%20of%20humanity; also try: http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/78/3/660S.long) and (2) the amount of water (not to mention other related and as essential natural resources) to produce a kilo of beef is 6-100 times that for a plant-based diet – 13k-100k liters for beef against 1k-2k litters for a kilo of wheat (according to:  http://www.downtoearth.org/environment/top-10-reasons).

(1) Land use – Because the groundwork has been successfully laid and everything is in place, more and more people have been “convinced or, better still, conned” into adopting the Western high animal meat-based diet.  As a result, more and more land need to be “converted” – a nicer term to mean “deforested” – into plantations and into factory farns to support ever-increasing herds of cattle in order to provide enough meat to a world that has been transformed from plant-and-fish-based diet to an animal-based one.  This means that more and more ecosystems – which have, so far, served both as barriers or buffers between dangerous unknown-to-man animal-borne diseases and man and as habitats for the same animals that now are becoming “more daring” to encroach into man’s “domain” because we have encroached into their’s first.  This means more trees are mowed down – trees that are major users of CO2.

Another major cause or contributor to the CO2 and the GHGs (greenhouse gases) in the atmosphere are the gaseous expulsions – more familiarly known as farts – resulting from cattle ingesting or consuming “alien” food.  [The natural food of cattle, which are plant eaters, is grass, but they are being fed grains – specifically soya and, probably, corn – where their digestive system (ruminants) are not designed or equipped to process and this results in gaseous build-ups that are subsequently expelled as fart, which is essentially CO2 and methane – two common GHGs.]

So, now we not only have more land lost due to deforestation or mass clearing of trees but we have released more GHGs that cattle expel from ingesting food that they are not or have not been intended for them – in addition to those released from industry and commerce.  So, the rate of global warming is actually twice.  Instead of just releasing more GHGs than the environment can “neutralize”, we have likewise destroyed the environment’s major means of “neutralizing” the pollution we produce.  It is a double whammy.

(2) Water use – WIth respect to water use, from such sources as: http://www.globalchange.umich.edu/globalchange2/current/lectures/freshwater_supply/freshwater.html, as http://www.unwater.org/statistics_res.html, as http://www.lenntech.com/water-quantity-faq.htm, and as http://www.fao.org/nr/water/aquastat/water_use/index.stm, we have irresponsibly over-extended our “needs” (which are actually wants disguised or misrepresemted as needs) and is now endangering not only ourselves (i.e., including the rest of humanity in all the other parts and nooks and crannies of this planet) but even all of creation for humans are not the only ones needing fresh water.

As for how we use whatever precious few “drops” of water accessible and available to us, instead of using it for drinking, for food production – note: processed food and all other forms of artificially man-made edible things are not food – for maintaining the balance of the environment, and for the preservation of all life, we squandered our chance to make a better world for all and have chosen to pollute and contaminate and desecrate anything and everything that was beautiful and precious – for “30 pieces of silver”.

We polluted the water by dumping our waste – i.e., residential, commercial, industrial, and agricultural – indiscriminately and unmindfully.  We contaminated the water by using it in dangerous and toxic ways – as in radioactive and nuclear applications and as in runoffs and spewing chemicals into the atmosphere only to precipitate as acid rain.  We desecrate the water by deforesting and by ravaging (via mining) mountainsides that result in land- and mudslides as well as hauling massive mountains of soil and earth to far off places for the minerals and for landscaping purposes and, in the process, upsetting or destabilizing the equilibrium of the environment and changing the water chemistry that sustains the indigenous or endemic ecosystems.

In the aspect of agriculture, the amount of (fresh) water needed to sustain animal-based diets is a hundred times more than plant-based diets – according to http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/78/3/660S.long.

And I have not yet even touched on the energy utilization plus the devastating impact on the current ever-worsening extreme weather conditions and climate change.

TaN: Milk is good for you – true or false?  It is a complicated question to answer, because it is both good and bad, depending on the circumstances.  Many questions relating to contemporary times is never simple to answer and usually involves much explanation.

Milk is good – in fact, it is vital – for the simple reason that we, as mammals, have it as our first food in our entry into this world.  As already been repeated ad nauseum, mother’s milk is best for babies.  However, it must be clearly understood that it is MOTHER’s MILK that is BEST for babies.  MOTHER refers to the biologial or birth mother of the baby.  In cases where the mother is incapable of providing the milk, it is understood that the meaning may extend to any of the same species.

In situations where none of the same species is available, then the meaning may be extended to those of the same genus, then to the same family.  The limitation is, of course, to those belonging to the same order – because those belonging to another order does not possess the ability to produce milk.

Moreover, the qualification that it is intended for babies is partially correct.  It is silent about adults.  The line of distinction as to when it remains beneficial to babies is the milk teeth.

The purpose of milk teeth is to provide a means of revealing the transition period between a liquid (milk) diet to one of solid.  The falling out of the first milk tooth indicates that the digestive system has matured to the point that the process of transformation is commencing.  As more and more milk teeth fall off or out, it indicates that the baby should be preparing and practicing to eat solid foods, to transition to solid foods.  When the last milk tooth falls off, it marks the end of the milk-based diet.  At this point, it means that the digestive system is now lactose-intolerant.

It shall be noted that mother’s milk is not processed, not pasteurized, not homogenized.

In addition, ancient Ayurvedic medicine also vouches for the benefits of milk, recommending it as medicine.  However, there is a qualification in order for it to be considered beneficial, to be considered medicinal.  Just like mother’s milk, which is best for babies, it should likewise be unprocessed.

And this brings us to the bad qualification or aspect.  For milk to be beneficial, to be medicinal, it should be natural, unadulterated, unprocessed, and/or raw milk because processing was not yet available during those times.

Ever since milk began to be processed, it has become harmful, unhealthy.  Pasteurization destroys all the beneficial organic elements in milk.  Organic compounds have a maximum tolerance to heat and begins to break down when exposed to temperatures beyond maximum body temperature (40 degrees C or 104 degrees F) and are rendered completely toxic at temperatures beyond 120 degrees C or 248 degrees F.

Conventional scientific thinking stubbornly clings to the notion that germ-free is healthy, that to kill everything and make every food immaculately devoid of living microorganisms and organic compounds is healthy, and that only food obliterated of any form of life is safe and nutritious and healthy.  It fails to understand that only life can support life.

Finally, a recently-evolved notion that eating “healthy” food is enough to stay healthy.  There is no guarantee this is unfounded idea.  In fact, there is mounting evidence that only biocompatible, bioavailable, bioaccessible nutrients are healthy.  This means that consuming healthy food is only half the process, ensuring that the body can absorb and make use of the nutrients is the other half.

So-called “healthy” food is of little nutritional value if the body does not absorb or assimilate it and of little value if the nutrients are not recognized by the body as so, all effort to be healthy is for naught.  And, the only way in which the body can recognize usable nutrients is for the latter to be in their natural form – i.e., their organic molecular structure.  And, such nutrients can only come from plants and animals – that have been properly bred and nourished (i.e., eating their natural foods grown naturally).  Natural plants and animals transform “improperly structured” or inorganic nutrients into their organic forms.  It is for this very reason that things that may be chemically identical may not exhibit the same properties or behavior – e.g., coal and diamonds are both pure forms of carbon yet they properties, let alone the physical appearances, are opposites.

It is this same argument that natural and raw milk (which is beneficial and even medicinal) is totally different from pasteurized and homogenized milk (which is totally unusable and very toxic and inflammatory to the body).

Advertisements

About anotherworldispossibleforall

nothing
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s