One of the main reasons I started this Substack was to point out how the government has been manipulating our choices - in varying degrees - when it comes to the decisions that we make with regard to our health and fitness. The government’s efforts have been going on, both blatantly and subtly, for at least 60 years, with diet and nutrition being one of the main areas they’ve tried to control.
Obviously, the last 2 years have changed this dynamic quite a bit - they are no longer interested in subtleties, working in the shadows - as the government has resorted to strong arm tactics in their efforts to force the improperly, and incompletely, tested vaccine into people. Over the past several months the government and their agents in the media have re-started their push to connect eating meat with climate change, using the same nonsensical ‘non-science’ that is their method.
The government’s efforts to get people to eat less red meat, when red meat consumption is down substantially over the past 40+ years, tracks with the drop in our overall level of health. If meat consumption drops further people will be even less healthy. Now I know correlation doesn’t equal causation, but when you look at the precipitous drop in Americans’ health, and the conditions that are associated with this drop in health, it can be said that it’s at least very possible that the drop in meat consumption has not helped Americans’ overall health.
Furthermore, in the movement away from meat, some zealots have gone as far as to say that cattle should be removed from the food chain; this would be catastrophic to both humans and to the environment. Aside from being a ridiculous statement.
As an aside, isn’t it interesting that the environmentalists will stop a project like a dam - or another structure of progress - in order to protect a minor species to avoid an ‘environmental catastrophe,’ like the Snail Darter, but think it’s fine to eliminate a major species that is a major component of a healthy eco system? And there is no doubt about it; raised properly cattle are part of a healthy and sustainable ecosystem and are vital to our survival. After all, where does all the manure come from that is used by organic farmers to fertilize their crops and replenish the top soil?
Which brings us to one of the many fallacies - maybe the main fallacy - in the ‘meat is bad for the environment’ argument; cattle are a drain on our system, eat food that could go elsewhere and take up land that could be used for other crops.
Here’s the quick retort to that misinformation. Cattle graze on land not suitable to grow crops, 90% of their diet consists of clippings, hay, corn stalks and other stuff that we can’t eat, and they turn all of that inedible stuff into one of the most nutrient-dense foods available. With this process powered by the sun.
Now, you may have heard of this lab-grown meat that is being foisted upon us by Big Tech; I’ve brought up this subject in a previous post. Ironically, lab-grown meat would be horrendous for the environment in the exact same way the ‘meat is bad’ crowd try to portray real meat.
Lab-grown meat is labor and resource intensive, and has a huge negative environmental footprint, with none of the beneficial offsets.
For starters, lab-grown meat needs labs in huge specially constructed indoor spaces, proprietary technology, and massive amounts of energy/resources from the power grid.
So while we are told to power our homes and businesses with inferior solar and wind power, and told we need to buy electric cars and trucks and reduce our carbon footprint, these same people want to grow ‘beef’ in a manner that is both unnatural and inefficient, and comes with an incredibly large negative environmental impact.
Just like most scams, this is a plain and simple money grab, this one disguised as environmentalism. You see, Big Tech wants lab meat because it’s a new area of Intellectual Property (IP) that can be patented, and that will result in billions of dollars of revenue. For them. And a monopoly, to boot.
You see, you and a couple of friends can go out and find some appropriate land, and buy some heads of cattle and raise beef. Not easy, but you can do it. Once lab meat is developed and patented, meat production becomes the property of Big Tech.
Think Google but producing really awful food, and in total control of the food supply. What could possibly go wrong?
And the other fake manufactured meats that are currently out there are really bad for you, as well. Over-processed, filled with additives and fillers and who knows what else; it’s a gastronomic nightmare.
Impossible Meat is one of these fake foods that’s been pimped as a better, healthier, more environmentally friendly version of the real thing. Does soy leghemoglobin sound good to you?
Soy itself isn’t great for you, so what are the chances soy leghemoglobin is? And the makers of this ersatz food, in their attempts to make this stuff attractive, need to use all kinds of chemicals, additives, and dyes to make it look like beef. If beef is so terrible, why is there the need to create something that looks like it, with artificial ingredients?
They want to make this artificial food bleed like beef, so they use food dyes and chemicals, and process the hell out of their secret, patented ingredients to try to make it palatable. Hard pass…
You can read for yourself and see how the scam works. Scare tactics, fake noble cause, mis and disinformation, cataclysmic projections that never seem to come true. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/jan/08/lets-get-rid-of-friggin-cows-why-one-food-ceo-says-its-game-over-for-meat-aoe
I’m old enough to remember when the experts said the environmental apocalypse would occur around 1980. I was in first or second grade in April 1970 when Paul Erlich unleashed this whopper; “Population will inevitably and completely outstrip whatever small increases in food supplies we make. The death rate will increase until at least 100-200 million people per year will be starving to death during the next ten years [by 1980].”
On the first Earth Day in May 1970, Erlich said 4 billion people would die during the 1980’s due to a variety of catastrophes stemming from pollution and starvation. Hey, he got carried away with the excitement of the first Earth Day. Who wouldn’t?
There are a lot of other examples of these kinds of lies that were passed off as scientific projections, some were revealed as frauds over the past few years, but Erlich is fun to highlight because he’s spectacularly and consistently wrong, and yet is still considered to be relevant in some quarters.
But back to the point…I know I’m wandering off course…
So while we should, and can, improve our farming methods - industrially farmed mono crops are surely a bad thing - nothing good will come from removing meat from our diets or from our ecosystem, and would actually cause irreversible harm to both us and our world.
Well said! Can’t wait for part 2...and maybe 3!
Very good approach to fitness. Great points about the governments unhelpful attempts to weigh it. When our government arrives to help run for the hills.