That’s like saying tapering off a drug addiction is a compromise compared to going cold turkey.

At least google “food addiction”.

Here’s some watching:

https://www.pcrm.org/news/exam-room-podcast/food-addiction-why-we-cant-stop-eating

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=25xWdFYtt6w or the podcast page itself https://theproof.com/beating-food-addictions-dr-jud-brewer/

When you start with compromises like that, the failure is guaranteed, there is no “attempt”.

Considering the role of food as pleasure, this fear of big changes can backfire because people are addicted to food. It’s easier to succeed if you do a revolution in your kitchen instead of half-assed tiny changes that maintain “temptations”. It’s also much more satisfying to engage in something new, an adventure, and start to make progress in it (to accomplish things); the big change is its own reward, which helps to keep it going because you feel more agency, more capability.

This may be a new study, but it’s confirming what was known already.

Of course, CNN is trying to dilute the message and claim some magical middle ground:

“The goal shouldn’t be perfection but rather a healthy and sensible dietary pattern that allows room for enjoyment,” Kuhnle said.

From the abstract:

We conservatively estimated that—relative to zero consumption—consuming processed meat (at 0.6–57 g d−1) was associated with at least an 11% average increase in type 2 diabetes risk and a 7% (at 0.78–55 g d−1) increase in colorectal cancer risk. SSB intake (at 1.5–390 g d−1) was associated with at least an 8% average increase in type 2 diabetes risk and a 2% (at 0–365 g d−1) increase in IHD risk. TFA consumption (at 0.25–2.56% of daily energy intake) was associated with at least a 3% average increase in IHD risk.

emphasis added.

I do wonder where they can migrate to.

Eradicate the cow farming sector and the fly problem goes away.

quick calories: sweet fruits, dried fruits

slower calories: pretzels and crackers

better calories: a fresh fruit and a whole grain sandwich with some spread, some condiments, some leaves.

classic low effort: the mix of nuts and dried fruits (like raisins)

Nuts and seeds alone are obvious, but they also have a lot of calories and may not provide calories that fast, so you can end up overeating. That’s why I go for more starchy snacks from cereals, if any. Try to eat dense calories with more fiber, especially fat.

It also helps to have a bigger breakfast. Speaking of a nice porridge, there are all sorts of portable “oat bars” and similar things. Those can pack a lot of calories too, often too much. (You can make them at home, it’s not that difficult.) If you can’t find those, try looking for “work-out bars” that are plant-based.

And watch your weight. The need for snacks can be a sign that your breakfast was too small.

The Pale Blue Bean

is piefed social down?

All Amazonian countries are trying to reduce deforestation. That is wonderful, but then what to do to combat organised crime? They control a $280bn business – drug trafficking, wildlife trafficking, people trafficking, illegal logging, illegal gold mining, illegal land grabbing. It is all connected. And these gangs are at war with the governments. That’s one of the main reasons I’m becoming concerned because I know reducing deforestation is doable, so is forestry restoration. But how to combat organised crime?

capitalism’s frontiersmen

RIP Amazon people, forest and climate tipping point.

Only applies to artists who can no longer enjoy the spoils.

Add the else branches to the nested version and log the failed conditions (to make it more obvious).

China banned the farming and trading of most wildlife species for food in 2020, but these practices have simply gone underground. “We are back to business as usual,” says Vincent Nijman, a conservation biologist at Oxford Brookes University, UK, with “millions and millions of animals being traded on a daily basis”.

So much for “individual action is pointless, the government should make the big changes”.

1. “Owning” pets isn’t vegan. Hosting rescued animals, sure.

2. If you kill a pig to feed a cat, it’s like a “zero-sum game”. This means that you need a secondary criteria to make the decision, if you don’t want to play favorites (make a biased decision over who lives). This is the bloody chaos created by animal breeders.

In this situation, you are the “death panel”. Just ask people who work in animal shelters how they make the decisions, that may be a better guide than rolling dice or flipping a coin.

Like with other domestic animals who’ve been genetically sabotaged by humans, the goal is their extinction. “Pets” also include exotic animals, in which case sanctuaries and returning them to the wild are worthy goals.

Dogs can make it, cats are an issue and it would be good to have some of that non-animal-based “lab meat” for cats. And people who want these non-human animals to be like fitness models - pictures of ideal health or “platonic forms” of pets - are not serious people, they live in privileged fantasies and should be ignored.

I always forget if I’ve already signed one of those. So I checked the folder I keep the receipts in.

deleted by creator

This infographic is for people who cook. Most of these substitutions are for baking.

Not just land use. Arable land (not “marginal”) can be considered as an input to production, a variable in the outcome. It is not the only variable. As we’re talking about industrial agriculture, the other inputs are machinery, seeds, agrochemicals, and fuels (and labor if you want to count it here).

The animal farming sector competes on all these in one way or another, raising demand and pricing out poorer farmers around the world. This isn’t necessarily a rule, but it’s common and it matters; not all inputs are near scarcity. The most important one is probably fertilizers: Savings in fertilizer requirements from plant-based diets - ScienceDirect

Ex. from 2021 Global farmers facing fertiliser sticker shock may cut use, raising food security risks | Reuters

This is made worse by the fact that the rich “developed” countries dedicate a lot of resources to animal farming, including feed crops, and they bring in loads of ag. subsidies for that. Poorer countries can’t afford meaningful subsidies, so they can’t compete to buy the expensive inputs as easily. Effectively, subsidies for eating animals in rich countries translates, through the invisible hand of the global ag. inputs market, into food insecurity in poor countries. I’m not the first to point that out: https://openknowledge.fao.org/server/api/core/bitstreams/0a8bd248-025d-49fd-99e2-d8ae972fa124/content

And marginal land competes with forests, wetlands, biodiversity. “Marginal land” is a poisoned concept: https://tabledebates.org/blog/marginal-lands-sustainable-food-systems-panacea-or-bunk-concept

Fuck that channel.

Not really a challenge, the “climate friendly” idea is pseudoscience and creative accounting.