Free Range Naturism

Naturism => General Naturism Discussion => Topic started by: BlueTrain on January 11, 2020, 01:05:10 PM

Title: And you thought clothing was bad
Post by: BlueTrain on January 11, 2020, 01:05:10 PM
I don't think I read this here first. If I did, I couldn't find the thread. This sort of goes along with the thread of 'what's in your pants.'

It seems that certain cheeses like grated parmesan and shredded cheddar, the kind we buy all the time, contains ground cellulose. That is, it contains a wood product. Says so on the labels. Is that bad? Can't be that good. It's added to prevent caking and apparently it works. Sometimes it's might be just a filler. I use some in omelets and au gratin potatoes. Should I be worried? It's also said that you probably wouldn't like to see sausage being made, either. And I do know for a fact that if you raise chickens to eat, there's something really messy that's going to take place somewhere between the henhouse and the kitchen.

Well, I'm not. Don't know what kind of wood they use. I imagine it could still be called organic, if that really has any meaning. I used to say that 'organic' meant it contains no petroleum products but I'm less certain of that now. Either way, it doesn't bother me. But it's certainly a curious fact, all the same. It might bother the kind of person who, as mentioned in a newspaper article a few days ago, went to five different grocery stores to find the perfect avocado. But I'm the kind of person who thought leftover pizza from a party at work (you have parties like that, don't you?) was like manna from heaven the next day and still believes cake is never too stale to eat.

I sure miss those pizza parties at work.
Title: Re: And you thought clothing was bad
Post by: Bob Knows on January 11, 2020, 08:19:39 PM

It seems that certain cheeses like grated parmesan and shredded cheddar, the kind we buy all the time, contains ground cellulose. That is, it contains a wood product. Says so on the labels.

Some 40 years ago there was a big propaganda push for "high fiber" diets.  Wood fiber, sawdust, was added to many products such as bread.  "Contains 5% cellulose fiber," became common.  It cut the cost of producing food by 3 or 4 percent, made a lot of money for food manufacturers.   

Since then we have learned that undigestable vegetable fiber is a big cause of bowel irritation, crones disease, constipation, and colon cancer.  My younger sister died of colon cancer.  You won't catch me eating any sawdust products.
Title: Re: And you thought clothing was bad
Post by: BlueTrain on January 11, 2020, 09:50:27 PM
I'm one of those animals that'll eat most anything, although there's a lot that I've never eaten and a few things, like Thai food, that I'll never eat again. I won't eat sodium, either, but I do use salt.

I've never known anyone who had colon cancer and I'm not related to anyone who ever died of any kind of cancer. But they're all dead just the same. One of my wife's relatives smoked and drank and lived past 100. But I'm not related to her. Maybe we should stick to a kosher/halal diet. But I'd sure hate to give up ham.
Title: Re: And you thought clothing was bad
Post by: jbeegoode on January 12, 2020, 06:28:50 PM
Cheeze has also got the GMO feed, and antibiotics and hormones that are fed to cows in this country. The business is said to be controlled by the mafia...I dunno.

Cheese is made by a set process, but this American stuff is a new concoction.

European countries have no GMO and things are made the real way. The taste is the truth. I only eat European cheeses. There are probiotic factors in cheese.

When I cook with American cheeze, it makes like plastic. I can't get it to work in my omelets like it used to. It taste kinda like cheese. I consider it a fake cheese. The fake cheeze that is for vegans is the same texture, only worse...so much for health. Maybe it is inundated with wood, or even plastic, as I wouldn't put anything past the food manufacturers.

The nutritional value of all the processed foods is a further factor.

I go into Trader Joe's and read the labels. All of the American cheezes have labels telling us that there are studies that the crap in the cheeze is okay. That just tells me that the crap is in ALL American cheeze and it is corrupted corporate run studies and corporate run FDA that are in cahoots.

The quality of the cheese is the other factor and the my memory telling me how different this stuff is from what I grew up with. Velveeta started this out and now it is all cheeze.
Jbee
Title: Re: And you thought clothing was bad
Post by: BlueTrain on January 12, 2020, 09:16:39 PM
Remember when someone said that in the future we'd get all our nutrition from pills? That was probably before anyone was talking about bulk in our diet. There are even people who want to legalize "recreational drugs." Some things just don't add up.

Life expectancy, if that's anything to go by, is over 70 for men. In the late 1930s, when everyone consumed pure food, mostly grown at home, meat killed fresh in the back yard (that's the messy part I mentioned), home-baked bread, when smoking was healthful, and nobody stayed inside watching TV, life expectancy was around 60 for men. What it was for women was, presumably, irrelevant for everyone here. Some things just don't add up.

Just remember, you will most assuredly die of cancer if you don't die of something else first. Eat right, keep fit, die anyway.
Title: Re: And you thought clothing was bad
Post by: nuduke on January 12, 2020, 11:25:55 PM

I believe quality of diet has had little effect on life expectancy over the last 100 years other than that our dreadful modern diet has caused more illness than in days of yore.  Back then too little food was a big factor.  But most of all, what has caused us in todays world to eassily make the fourscore years, frequently make fourscore and ten and increasingly to live to 5-score years is probably 3 factors.  1. Medical science and being able to cure or stave off heart disease and cancer and to diagnose and treat broken bones and ever more sophisticated operations to fight many conditions and particularly antibiotics and vaccination. measles, TB and sepsis accounted for many lives before antibiotics.  2  Public health, good water supply, refrigeration and individual hygiene.  We don't die of cholera or food poisoning so much any more. 3. Greater affluence and better nutrition and 4. We don't work so hard these days thanks to automation, machines and so on.  There are fewer manual jobs digging and shovelling, hammering and lifting which it would appear were a major factor in wearing people out and early death.
Where these factors don't exist to the same extent in poorer, less well developed countries, life expectancy remains significantly shorter.
Very importantly, if we talk about the average age at death, this has been hugely increased because infant and child mortality has plummeted over this period.   
That's my perception anyway (aided a bit by a spot of googling!).
John 
Title: Re: And you thought clothing was bad
Post by: ric on January 13, 2020, 09:54:29 AM
There's also no mention of quality of life. For many the last year's have restricted mobility and dementia. My father for example spent his last few years in physically in a local nursing home, mentally God knows where most of the time, my father had gone at least 2 years before his body stopped.
I've got a ninety something neighbour, she's mentally ok but basically has sat in the same chair for the last 10 years. Got a carer to come in 3 times a day to get her in and out of bed and feed her.
Longer lifespan makes good statistics but not always good lives
Title: Re: And you thought clothing was bad
Post by: BlueTrain on January 13, 2020, 01:52:14 PM
As nuduke has pointed out, decreased infant and child mortality may have had more effect on longevity than anything else. It used to be not that unusual, when families were really large, that the last child born would not survive for very long. It occurs to me that not having a lot of children might have made a difference, too. Certain ailments seem to run in families, too, which you can't do anything about. Basic sanitation, which is assumed today, and just getting enough to eat, also assumed today, probably make more difference than anything.

People also persist in habits that have been known to be unhealthy for ages, like using tobacco. I've never smoked but apparently people get something out of it. Likewise, certain occupations are also known to be unhealthy but I suppose they pay well, like coal mining. Something I think we forget and now take for granted is clean air and even, believe it or not, clean water. Originally, cities were unhealthy places to live, not because they were crowded, which they were, but because they were unsanitary and polluted. That was the original impetus for naturism, of which nudism was only one approach. The basic idea was to get out of town, into the countryside for hiking, exercise in the open air, with an element of conservation thrown in for good measure (hopefully not near a pig farm). For an urban worker to actually manage to get a vacation to be able to leave town for a week or two was an achievement in itself. So, it goes without saying that naturism, especially nudism, was a product of progressive (very progressive) thinking, as well as being largely urban. Presumably rural folks already enjoyed plenty of exercise in the open air (hopefully not near a pig farm) but were probably much too conservative to embrace nudism and too tired or busy to go hiking.
Title: Re: And you thought clothing was bad
Post by: Peter S on January 13, 2020, 02:35:36 PM
John Nuduke, how can you dismiss the effects of diet yet say that better nutrition has helped? Aren’t they connected? I agree, though, that medical science is doing a good job of elongating our lifespans - on the one hand I believe the ever-more processed and chemically-enhanced nature of our foodstuffs is contributing to illness and bodily issues, but perhaps the preservatives used in those foods are preserving the bodies that take them on board. Unfortunately medicine is all too often preserving unhealthy life rather than increasing the healthy years, a factor that makes it more costly and more uncomfortable for all. I’m trying to extend the good years as much as possible, in the hope that, when it comes, the decline is reasonably rapid.
Title: Re: And you thought clothing was bad
Post by: BlueTrain on January 13, 2020, 05:06:03 PM
Speaking only for myself, I think you raise good points. However, I don't believe that human bodies, or animals, either, for that matter, are necessarily that efficient at processing whatever we eat and drink. In other words, we aren't finely tuned machines, most of us. Some are, to be sure, like athletes. I imagine they subsist on a carefully controlled and studied diet, yet they do a lot more than that. But all athletes are not alike. Even though they may essentially do the same things, their aims may be different. And that's why bodybuilders usually don't look like Olympic weightlifters. Besides, there are unfounded rumors that some athletes consume a lot of totally unnatural substances to enhance their performance. It's doubtful if they have a long lifespan in mind when they do that, though.

On top of all that, I'd say that a lot of people live out their lives, short or long, with little contact with medical science. And some people don't even believe any of it.
Title: Re: And you thought clothing was bad
Post by: jbeegoode on January 13, 2020, 05:27:31 PM
Life expectancy is a statistically created an average. All of those child deaths throw the numbers off.

In the 1930's there was more disease, contamination of water, food insecurity stress, ignorance, much less quality and knowledge in medicine, child death, smoking and exploitation of labor.

The people who I know from family and friends, that lived into the 90's, had a good farm and a garden out back. They had community, family and worked a lot. It was a thriving environment for good genes. They didn't drink to excess, or didn't drink at all.
Jbee
Title: Re: And you thought clothing was bad
Post by: BlueTrain on January 16, 2020, 07:27:51 PM
I know people that lived under those conditions who did not make it to 65. In fact, I'm still struck when I see the obituaries of people who were younger than me when they died. We may see aging or being old somewhat differently than, say, fifty years ago. One did not commonly see the cause of death back then, if the person was old. One obituary in the 1950s gave the cause of death as "extreme old age." I guess no one dies of old age these days.

I have my doubts that people ate any better (assuming they could afford things) in our grandparents day than now. I realize that's a vague range of years. One of my grandfathers was born in 1876. Let's just say before 1960 or maybe even 1950. Because food did not (presumably) contain additives like they do now, it does not follow that people had healthier diets, though they may have. Lots of processed foods have been around longer than we think, you know. I grew up eating bacon and eggs every morning. Would that be considered healthy today? I don't remember if we used butter or margarine, probably both, same as I do today. But back then, it was probably real margarine.

Ever visit an Amish farmer's market?  I'm sure they don't add anything to the foods they sell (they generally have prepared foods, not just produce). But it's heavy stuff.
Title: Re: And you thought clothing was bad
Post by: Bob Knows on January 16, 2020, 11:56:32 PM
Just recently published (Jan 2020) the Journal of the American Medical Association is getting a backlash from big carb/sugar corporations for daring to publish independent research showing that red meat is not harmful for human health. 

Backlash Over Meat Dietary Recommendations Raises Questions About Corporate Ties to Nutrition Scientists

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2759201?utm_source=facebook&utm_campaign=content-shareicons&utm_content=article_engagement&utm_medium=social&utm_term=011620&fbclid=IwAR3PzOtjS5ieG-K2wfeCDs_bggOt1BAIY9VAiYCVYnamtuT8MTFYJgVD5bQ#.XiBVIxHXoHx.facebook
Title: Re: And you thought clothing was bad
Post by: BlueTrain on January 17, 2020, 12:10:38 AM
According to a recent survey, more doctors smoke Camels than any other cigarette.
Title: Re: And you thought clothing was bad
Post by: jbeegoode on January 17, 2020, 04:27:14 AM
"Eating red meat is not harmful to human health" is a misleading statement because of its absolutism. It is over simplified. Common sense tells us that it has been a part of human diet for millennia, and eating a hamburger doesn't make people drop dead. There is no issue there.

How much meat one eats, what kind of meat, what one eats with the meat and what source of the meat are the important concerns. A primarily vegetable, or plant based diet is a more natural diet, which has been practiced for millennia, back to human origins. It doesn't hurt people. People can get by eating just plants, obviously. Study shows us that all of the pockets of longevity are inhabited by vegetarians. "The China study" by Campbell is a study of 10's of thousands over years, huge masses of data with obvious conclusions. So, I'll personally stick to the organic fresh and raw veggie end of things and minimize my meat consumption to a treat every few months and then fish once or twice a week. I know how i feel and look and the studies that I read have shown personal results when I have put them into action.

There are not only the influences of big money mucking up the informative and propagandizing, but the self interest of the academics and colleague that play this game of intellectual dominance with peer review and "science based" proofs. Ivory castles are built on being respected and they are very often self-limiting and dismissive of new information and ideas, or just plain overly defensive. Just because something has yet to be proven doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. Just because it hasn't been extensively proven, doesn't mean that what it points to is untrue. These ploys have been used to plant doubt by unethical corporate industry like tobacco, Monsanto, on and on.
Jbee
Title: Re: And you thought clothing was bad
Post by: BlueTrain on January 17, 2020, 11:49:56 AM
I tend to agree with just about everything you said. In theory, of course, everyone is operating in their own self-interest, especially corporations. The object of a corporation is to make money for the owners. It doesn't really work out that way in practice, though. The way it really works is that the corporation makes upper management wealthy, sometimes incredibly wealthy. And wealth equals power, whether or not it's exercised. How much difference it makes to you or me is another matter.

I believe that it is in the nature of many people that once they've made up their mind, they won't change it, no matter what. Alternatively, facts are irrelevant, sometimes because the issues that really matter are not being discussed at all. And it goes without saying that morality and ethics sometimes don't matter.

I realize there are places in the world where more people than average live exceptionally long lives. But from what I've read, there is conflicting information. As I recall, they weren't all necessarily happy, although happy is an elusive term. None ate a lot, though. I don't think any of them lived in urban areas, either. But I also don't recall there was any mention of coincidence about people living longer than average in certain areas.

On the matter of living longer, I keep remembering two things. First, Thoreau advocated a plant-based diet, which I believe he really followed. That was also long before processed foods and additives. But my diet is full of meat, food additives and highly processed foods and I'm almost 30 years older than Thoreau was when he died. In some respects, whole-wheat bread is not natural. So be careful about tossing around words like natural or organic. A 100% organic farm is no better place to work than one that isn't, either.

Thoreau never married. It's said married people live longer, though the joke is that it may only seem that way. Interesting point to think about, though. I think most of those old folks in the studies were married. Also, as near as I recall, some of those places were in Communist countries, which would nullify any positive results of any study done by a conservative American organization, if you follow me.
Title: Re: And you thought clothing was bad
Post by: jbeegoode on January 17, 2020, 05:44:56 PM
National Geographic this month, and an earlier issue. The "blue zones" studies results are all thick on the net. What they eat is just one factor. Built in exercise, life long relationships, purpose, belonging are common threads.

I don't recall any communist countries, but there was a spot in Russia where people were noted to live really long that isn't included for some reason. I had friends from there. Saul totally abused his obese body and dropped dead in his 70's in spite of his bad habits and Larry his son got cancer (probably nuclear radiation) and passed at 65.

There is a group in Costa Rica that eat black beans salsa and corn tortillas for breakfast. The waters and food of Vicabamba, Ecuador were negated, it was just bad memory and record keeping. The ancient Inca kings used to vacation there for health. There are consistent threads. None were urban, one set in Southern California.

Oh yea, smoking and drinking excessively were not habits.

I'm not as concerned about dying as quality of living, myself.
Jbee
Title: Re: And you thought clothing was bad
Post by: John P on January 17, 2020, 05:58:41 PM
On the matter of living longer, I keep remembering two things. First, Thoreau advocated a plant-based diet, which I believe he really followed. That was also long before processed foods and additives. But my diet is full of meat, food additives and highly processed foods and I'm almost 30 years older than Thoreau was when he died. In some respects, whole-wheat bread is not natural. So be careful about tossing around words like natural or organic. A 100% organic farm is no better place to work than one that isn't, either.

Thoreau never married. It's said married people live longer, though the joke is that it may only seem that way. Interesting point to think about, though. I think most of those old folks in the studies were married. Also, as near as I recall, some of those places were in Communist countries, which would nullify any positive results of any study done by a conservative American organization, if you follow me.

I just looked up "thoreau vegetarian" and he wasn't one, though in general he ate a simple diet that didn't cost much.
https://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2017/07/11/535770269/what-did-thoreau-really-eat-you-might-be-surprised

About his non-marriage, I've got a story. A few years ago my wife and I hosted a naturist couple that we're friends with for a week at our home, while the male member of the couple helped me rebuild our front porch (actually the other way around--he's an experienced builder, and I fetched and carried). One day we took a recreation break, and all four of us went out to Walden Pond. I knew there's a replica of Thoreau's famous cabin there, but it was a nice surprise to find that there was a costumed Thoreau re-enactor in it, giving little performances of what the great man might have said to a visitor. It happened that I'd read a biography of Thoreau recently, so I was ready with things to talk to him about, and one thing I thought would be fun was asking him about Miss Ford. Apparently this lady was a governess to Ralph Waldo Emerson's children, or perhaps just a lodger in the home there (she's not a well-documented person) but anyway, she met Henry during his visits to the house, and at one point she proposed marriage to him. The record says that he didn't just refuse her, but that he was quite rude about it. I said, "Mr Thoreau, while you've been on your visits to Mr Emerson, apparently you met Miss Ford. What did you think of her?" And he said, "Miss Ford? A little brown pinched woman, intent on interrupting my bachelor career! Of course I refused her!" He looked almost horrified.

I was a little surprised, but it was a great act. I said, "But Mr Thoreau, a heart that offers love has value..."

He wasn't having any of it. "Not MY heart!" he snapped.

A few minutes later he asked us to be on our way, as he was expecting a party of schoolchildren. As we left I said, "Thank you, Mr Thoreau. You watch out for that cough." (Knowing that he died of tuberculosis.) Ever since then, my friend has been repeating that "Little pinched woman" line back to me. It was a perfect case of tossing the right pitch to a player who knew how to hit it.

Compulsory link with nudity: Thoreau swam nude in Walden Pond, and so have I. Of course in his day swimsuits hadn't been invented, and hardly anyone visited Walden Pond. Now you have to be sneaky. Standing offer: if any readers of this board can make it to Boston, I'll take you out to Walden. We can walk as much as you want to and you can swim, but I can't promise that nudity will be possible in these less innocent times.
Title: Re: And you thought clothing was bad
Post by: Bob Knows on January 17, 2020, 07:55:20 PM
I believe that it is in the nature of many people that once they've made up their mind, they won't change it, no matter what. Alternatively, facts are irrelevant, sometimes because the issues that really matter are not being discussed at all. And it goes without saying that morality and ethics sometimes don't matter.

BINGO!   As the old saying goes, "My mind is made up.  Don't confuse me with facts."

Morality and ethics are important, but there is no universal agreement about morality or ethics.   Some fools say that being naked is immoral.
Title: Re: And you thought clothing was bad
Post by: BlueTrain on January 17, 2020, 09:42:58 PM
These subjects, you know, are difficult to discuss within the confines of a forum such as this, especially for someone like me who is not the polished writer that Thoreau was. I do edit my posts once in a while, though, but only when absolutely necessary (and not always then).

What I was trying to say when I mentioned the Communists, was that when studying something, it is probably awfully tempting to leave out things that don't fit your idea of what the results or conclusions ought to be. Inconvenient facts, you might say. Sometimes common sense gets left out, too. After all, it is interesting to study people in different places who happen to live to be quite old but if you aren't going to live in any of those places, it is merely interesting. Not that many people get to live where they want to anyway, although it's worth the effort to try. If some people only had the price of a bus ticket out of town!

Although there may not be universal standards regarding ethics, morality and manners, I believe there are more similarities than differences. True, there are some basic cultural differences, like the way shaking hands is done in some cultures but not in others. But offering aid in an emergency, basic hospitality and respect for both neighbors and strangers. Those things are universal, except where recent events and behavior has cancel the inherent good of people. As we all know, some people have no manners, no ethics and no morals by any standard. And some have no standards, either. There may be more people like that than I wish to admit, too. And finally, don't expect any particular logic about what the standards happen to be, especially concerning nudity.
Title: Re: And you thought clothing was bad
Post by: nuduke on January 21, 2020, 06:37:12 PM

Stimulated by Peter S's remarks of 13th Jan post, I have to agree.  We are assailed from all directions by the chemicals we have invented to make our world better as we see it.  I often wonder if the current vast increase in all manner of diseases from allergies to cancers is actually a product of living in a world full of synthetic food additives that we ingest, cutaneous absorption from washing powder additives, textiles and shower gel (to name but a few), fumes and residues of polymers from the packaging of our foodstuffs and many, many other chemicals that seep into us daily.
There are so many compounds in our environment that we absorb, it is so complex to try and asset the effect of any.  Hopefully people will not stop trying to look for dangerous things that we eat but it seems a huge job to further reduce those risks or indeed work out if there are effects happening.
John
Title: Re: And you thought clothing was bad
Post by: BlueTrain on January 21, 2020, 06:46:50 PM
I have doubts that there is a vast increase in diseases. We get rid of one, mostly, and another takes its place. It might be that we are less accepting of death than we used to be. Between all the safety devices we are surrounded with and the wonder drugs, we still die. It is probably possible to have a diet consisting exclusively of pure foods, grown or raised without any additives, preservatives or being genetically modified, just like we did in the 1940s. It probably wouldn't be cheap, though, and possibly no more nutritious either. But it almost seems that food like that is a luxury only the well-off can afford. Or, did we really eat like that in the 1940s?
Title: Re: And you thought clothing was bad
Post by: jbeegoode on January 21, 2020, 06:49:49 PM
...Standing offer: if any readers of this board can make it to Boston, I'll take you out to Walden. We can walk as much as you want to and you can swim, but I can't promise that nudity will be possible in these less innocent times.
What temperature is the water in the summer?
Jbee
Title: Re: And you thought clothing was bad
Post by: John P on January 22, 2020, 06:06:05 PM
By the middle of May, I'd be confident of swimming reasonably comfortably in any body of fresh water in southern New England. Farther north, you might want to wait until June. I'm thinking of Little Rock Pond, which is on the route for the Solstice Hike in Vermont. Some of us do swim there (Dan is always first) but you do notice that the water could be warmer. Of course it's easier to step in if it's a warm day without a breeze blowing!
Title: Re: And you thought clothing was bad
Post by: John P on January 22, 2020, 06:21:17 PM
Making a totally separate post because this thread has multiple topics. Some of us here are willing to entertain some ideas about health and diet that I think are really misguided. I think the key point should be that we've seen a constantly increasing life span for people in rich countries: anything you say about health now versus some past era is arguing against obvious success. Could we do even better? Probably yes, but we're doing pretty well already. There's no reason to argue about this when the figures are out there at everyone's fingertips.

But when I said "constantly increasing life span" that doesn't totally apply to the United States right now. In fact life expectancy has slipped a little in the last few years, and it's because of drug use, alcoholism and suicide. If anyone wants to talk about how we can live longer, they ought to give some thought to the ways that people cause their own early deaths, either by deliberate action or by substance abuse.

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/health/american-life-expectancy-has-dropped-again-heres-why
Title: Re: And you thought clothing was bad
Post by: BlueTrain on January 22, 2020, 07:39:56 PM
Good post but I think one of your points, the one about people in rich countries having longer lives, should be amended to reflect that it really only applies to those who are relatively well-off, if not necessarily rich. Even though the United States might be considered a rich country, there are still people who are living in poverty with poor health habits and without convenient or affordable access to health care professionals. When "convenient and affordable access to health care professionals" became common, I don't know.

I suspect there are various opinions about doctors and the so-called health care industry as there are about food and the food industry. There was a time, though, when fairly small towns might have a hospital and doctors who made house calls. It wasn't like that always, of course, and it goes without saying that it isn't like that anymore, either, at least as far as I know. My experiences with doctors, hospitals and health care in general has been overwhelmingly positive and, fortunately, I am well covered by insurance. But an interesting fact is, where I live, which is an affluent (or very affluent) county in Northern Virginia, there is essentially one hospital system and many medical practices are also part of that system. I don't know if that's good or bad but that's the system through which I've had those good experiences. On the other hand, I suspect there are individuals who are very demanding as patients and difficult to satisfy. I realize doctors are paid well (but not as much as you might think, considering) but under present conditions, who'd want to be a doctor?
Title: Re: And you thought clothing was bad
Post by: jbeegoode on January 22, 2020, 08:53:22 PM
The hot spots for extra aging and better health are mostly not particularly affluent. A couple are in pretty much poverty. So, just being healthy and cared for may not be enough. Rich also makes indulgence, and less a exercise for most of us in various degrees. I might be healthier living in a tent in the woods and migrating, with good food and lifelong friends. Or, living i one small community, living and working well. Or, getting tatamis and cushions and going traditional Japanese style to get up and squat more. Or," blow up the TV, move to the country, eat a lot of peaches and try to find Jesus on my own."

Every so often, a doctor may be needed.
Jbee
Title: Re: And you thought clothing was bad
Post by: BlueTrain on January 22, 2020, 09:22:17 PM
Needing care is not the same as needing a doctor.
Title: Re: And you thought clothing was bad
Post by: reubenT on February 10, 2020, 07:06:03 AM
Yes,  I think clothing is bad for us in some ways,  but our common diet is bad as well. 

I came from a predominantly vegetarian culture on both sides.  My mother's family used a little meat but she decided to drop it before her children arrived.   Both grandmothers lived past 90,   94 and 96.   My dad's father died at 68 from heart attack,  My mother said he was a foodaholic.  Severe overeater.   Her father died at 87.  He was a Wisconsin farmer and cheese lover.  My dad passed away last year at age 92.   Although he was vegetarian he was not a consumer of health food particularly.  Processed and sweetened was his breakfasts and snacks.  I am sure he would have lasted much longer with more natural and raw foods.  But that was his choice,  we have a right to make our own choices and live or die with their results.

I research many things;  nutrition and health,  natural healing is one area we've worked on for a lifetime.    In regards to longevity the difference between Mongolia and Japan is significant.  average of 67 versus 87.    Mongolia diet is heavy in meat,  since the country is pastoral in nature,  while Japan is more rice/vegetable oriented.  Seems like Okinawa was 89 average with a lot of over 100's   

I have gradually assembled my own opinions and  plan for life and diet.  It's Eden oriented.   I've decided to be a serious naturist gardener/farmer.   Due to my early experience of nudity repression,  and subsequent break from it.  I feel the need for all the body freedom I can get.   It looks like the closer I can get to Eden style living and eating the healthier I can be. And the better chance I have at living to be old healthfully and working condition.    And so I am working on heading that way.     And we also study fertility,  and plan to use and experiment with nutrient dense type fertility ideas,   getting heavy minerals on the soil in the best balance we can achieve for best results. Monitoring plant brix levels to watch how they respond.    With my grandfather being a grower of produce,  my mother raised with that and being an avid gardener,  I grew up in the gardening scene and it kinda comes naturally.   Any time I miss gardening for a season it feels like something just aint right. 
  So in pursuance of that I'm working on equipment to help out,  and fencing to protect my food plants from critters.  Working on clearing fence row and cutting posts in the vicinity of the fence from the cedar and locust trees.  Closing in maybe 7 acres. Most of the fence the posts are coming from within 100-200 ft of where they will go in, and a lot within 20-50 ft.  But there's excess posts in some places and limited in others,  so we'll have to transport some around to the lower side.
   The old track loader I've been reworking in the shop is practically done,  ready to start up and make sure all the repairs are working.    Need to build a mowing machine to maintain the orchard and collect mulch and compost material from cover crops.  And eventually I need to take a road trip in a truck to pick up the trace mineral product I can't buy and have shipped.   I bought a "new" truck that should work for that.   It's antique but in excellent condition, being predominantly garage kept, continually maintained and just 22,000 miles on it.   A 1975 IH, fire dpt water tank truck.  I will remove the tank pretty soon and put a flat bed on it.  Since I want to go full time naturist gardening I have to make it large enough to be "commercial" in order to not have to resort to sideline jobs to keep the finances in shape.  Besides once I get the brix up, it'll taste so good people are going to want it.   I may not be able to keep up with the demand for it. 
     
Title: Re: And you thought clothing was bad
Post by: BlueTrain on February 10, 2020, 02:45:16 PM
I've never felt repressed in my life. Maybe there is a psychological element to everything.

We are descended from and are related to so many people that given one's own family history, it's difficult to draw a definite conclusion. My mother, for instance, didn't make it to 50 but her mother lived to be about 93, I think it was. Of my mother's brothers, the oldest outlived all the rest. One of my uncles who lived across the street from where I grew up used to say that everything you eat will kill you. I was never sure what his point was but both he and his wife died at age 64 (I'm 73). Neither were the least bit overweight, either, and ate a lot that they grew themselves, without a heavy meat diet. They both smoked heavily, though. My father lived to be 84. His diet was largely the same but he didn't smoke. My wife's family tends to be long-lived. Her mother was 97 (we were sure she'd live to be 100 and one of her cousins lived to be 103--and she smoked. Both drank. My wife's aunt will be 95 next month and her uncle will be 92 I think. None of them ate home-grown food and none of them were nudists,either. I'm sure that diet is very important to health and longevity but I just can't put my finger on it.

So, no matter what I eat, I figure I have another ten good years and after that, I don't know. My wife, though, who is seven years younger, will undoubtedly outlive me by ten years at least. I expect to outlive our family doctor, too, who is five years older than I am.
Title: Re: And you thought clothing was bad
Post by: John P on February 10, 2020, 11:10:03 PM
I am currently at Sunsport Gardens in Florida, and I see that on the social calendar for next week is "Birthday party for Tex", who has a permanent home here. He's turning 100. I might try to find out what his choice of diet is!
Title: Re: And you thought clothing was bad
Post by: BlueTrain on February 11, 2020, 01:12:41 PM
Find out what he drinks, too.
Title: Re: And you thought clothing was bad
Post by: Safebare on February 12, 2020, 01:35:03 AM
I'm more interested in broader topics. Wife and children, rewarding job/career, medical philosophies, hobbies?
Title: Re: And you thought clothing was bad
Post by: BlueTrain on February 15, 2020, 12:07:39 PM
Here's more to worry about: https://www.theguardian.com/food/2020/feb/13/how-ultra-processed-food-took-over-your-shopping-basket-brazil-carlos-monteiro.

Best taken with a grain of salt.
Title: Re: And you thought clothing was bad
Post by: jbeegoode on February 15, 2020, 06:47:18 PM
I am currently at Sunsport Gardens in Florida, and I see that on the social calendar for next week is "Birthday party for Tex", who has a permanent home here. He's turning 100. I might try to find out what his choice of diet is!
Obviously hanging around freely naked has something to do it! ;D ;)
Jbee
Title: Re: And you thought clothing was bad
Post by: jbeegoode on February 15, 2020, 07:37:11 PM
This article seems to be a little behind the times. They can't figure out why the stuff makes people fatter?! It sounds like new information, but it is just scratching the surface of the issues.

Even the categorizing calls this stuff food. It isn't food. Food is nutritious. It is a food substitute.

It does show that trend of cultures immersing into this garbage western diet and the obvious immediate effects.
Jbee
Title: Re: And you thought clothing was bad
Post by: Bob Knows on February 15, 2020, 10:39:11 PM
Even the "Ultra Processed Foods" are a big step better than the FAKE food we now are being sold.  So-called "Impossible burgers,"  "Beefless ground beef," and similar GMO ingredients mixed with toxic chemicals, various kinds of algae or bacteria, and almost nothing recognizable.

Our bodies are mostly composed of meat and animal fat. Eat what you are.  Natural and good.     
Title: Re: And you thought clothing was bad
Post by: BlueTrain on February 15, 2020, 10:50:16 PM
Makes you wonder how cattle survive. Or wild elephants. The only things I know that follows that advice are preying mantises.
Title: Re: And you thought clothing was bad
Post by: jbeegoode on February 17, 2020, 05:37:23 AM
Ah yup, I hear ya Blue train...gotta wonder how they do so well eating veggies. The big razorback apes, all the relatives, cattle, should have flowers instead of fur. ;)
Jbee
Title: Re: And you thought clothing was bad
Post by: nuduke on February 23, 2020, 10:56:52 PM
Here's more to worry about: https://www.theguardian.com/food/2020/feb/13/how-ultra-processed-food-took-over-your-shopping-basket-brazil-carlos-monteiro (https://www.theguardian.com/food/2020/feb/13/how-ultra-processed-food-took-over-your-shopping-basket-brazil-carlos-monteiro).

Best taken with a grain of salt.

Salt is also bad for you they say!! :D
Maybe just a pinch :) :)
John
Title: Re: And you thought clothing was bad
Post by: nuduke on February 23, 2020, 10:58:27 PM
Even the "Ultra Processed Foods" are a big step better than the FAKE food we now are being sold.  So-called "Impossible burgers,"  "Beefless ground beef," and similar GMO ingredients mixed with toxic chemicals, various kinds of algae or bacteria, and almost nothing recognizable.

Our bodies are mostly composed of meat and animal fat. Eat what you are.  Natural and good.   

I was at a restaurant last week that served vegan Fish & Chips!  Go figure.  It was made of mushrooms apparently :D
John
Title: Re: And you thought clothing was bad
Post by: BlueTrain on February 23, 2020, 11:59:05 PM
It doesn't seem like a good idea to poison your customers. Maybe it's not that bad after all.

One problem that appears to be assumed away is that not all of our health problems, if any, are due to what we eat or how we eat it. I'd even suggest that our environment can be equally bad for our health. By environment, I mean the surroundings where we spend most of our waking hours, especially while we're at work. Mostly that would be the air we breathe. After that would be what we actually do most of the time. A sedentary existence, in theory, is bad for us. I say in theory, because we probably all know people who've lived to be fairly elderly who never did any really strenuous work in their life and even that needs qualifying. Ask any schoolteacher is their job is strenuous.
Title: Re: And you thought clothing was bad
Post by: Peter S on February 24, 2020, 01:48:03 PM

I was at a restaurant last week that served vegan Fish & Chips!  Go figure.  It was made of mushrooms apparently :D
John

I can't quite get all these "vegan" versions of meat-food. If they're so certain of the benefits of veganism why do they feel the need to pretend like this, even to the extent of telling us how you can't tell the difference from the real thing! If you can't tell the difference, why bother? (you've got me started now ...)
Title: Re: And you thought clothing was bad
Post by: ric on February 25, 2020, 10:22:06 AM
i also dont see the point of veggy food pretending to be bad meat.   weve got spicy bean burgers in the freezer but wouldnt dream of giving space to a pretend meat burger or whatever.
Title: Re: And you thought clothing was bad
Post by: BlueTrain on February 25, 2020, 11:47:18 AM
Give them a break. They're catering to their customer's whims. I've never eaten any faux-meat. My most delightful restaurant meals have been bacon cheeseburgers.
Title: Re: And you thought clothing was bad
Post by: nuduke on February 28, 2020, 10:01:56 PM

I agree with you, Peter and Ric.  It's not really true to the vegan lifestyle if you feel the need to eat things that resemble meat even though they are vegetable to the core.  It is the equivalent of, say, a nun using a dildo.  She gets the thrill  but still stays celibate.  That's not the point of the celibacy is it!
Blue Train is on the mark too - this recent explosion of vegetarian and vegan options in pre-prepared and processed food is obviously a marketing ploy to sell more stuff to everyone not just veggies.  We all feel good if we have had a meatless meal, hence the ridiculous popularity of Greggs Vegan Sausage rolls as a lunchtime food for busy workers to feel a tiny bit better (i.e. self righteous) in their lunch break :)
John
Title: Re: And you thought clothing was bad
Post by: BlueTrain on February 29, 2020, 12:56:47 AM
Okay, what's the difference between vegetarian and "vegan"? That is, according you all here; not according to Wikipedia. There seem to be variations no end.

Now, here's another twist on the subject. I read a lot of old stuff, meaning things from a thousand years ago, presumably translated correctly. It's all monastic material. They had rules or at least strong suggestions about what to eat and drink. A pound of bread a day, a couple of dishes of cooked food, fish once in a great while but no flesh of four-legged beasts, as they put it. Curiously, the writers say monks cannot do without wine, regrettably, the ration being about a cup a day. No mention of water.

So, how does alcohol fit into the ideal diet? Just wine, of course. And by the way, it's Lent.
Title: Re: And you thought clothing was bad
Post by: Peter S on February 29, 2020, 06:54:53 AM
The vegetarians I know will eat dairy products such as cheese, cream, milk, but the vegans won’t touch anything that has come from animals. You get the odd one who’s a “bacon vegetarian” - vegetarian but can’t resist that sizzle ...
Title: Re: And you thought clothing was bad
Post by: ric on February 29, 2020, 10:13:05 AM
by the way its (the wine?)  lent how do you get it back? :-\
Title: Re: And you thought clothing was bad
Post by: BlueTrain on February 29, 2020, 11:07:55 AM
by the way its (the wine?)  lent how do you get it back? :-\

For good behavior.
Title: Re: And you thought clothing was bad
Post by: jbeegoode on March 01, 2020, 09:28:51 PM
FAke meat is faked meat. It isn't from an animal, so its vegn. My old vegan girldfriend had me eating that garbage. Found out that it came out to the same old "way too processed food" the faked food, the lack of balance, nutrition, etc. It had protien, soy protean. Soy isn't so good a crop for the invironmnet. It kils rainforest to feed cattle. Limited, over processed.

Some of the faked flavor looks like poision to me when I read the label.

We eat some veggie burgers. There is no pretense about being fakedmeat. It is cobvenient and taste good, but it is still processed, cooked, less nutritious food.

The fake stuff comes from teh same manufacturers that sell meat and processed food. It is very profitable and has a longer shelf life, ie. ripoff.
Jbee
Title: Re: And you thought clothing was bad
Post by: John P on March 02, 2020, 05:26:08 AM
My vegan step-daughter-in-law is pretty disdainful about anything that's made to resemble meat. She'd say "I don't regret anything about meat and I don't need to be reminded about it. Vegetables should look like vegetables!" When she comes to our house, we try to find something interesting to serve (and we all eat it). We do our best to avoid soy products as a main dish because it's so boring and predictable. I recall eggplant stuffed with beans, tomato, onion and walnut was pretty popular.

But Thanksgiving demands turkey, so then she'll bring a vegan dish for herself, while we try to make all the other vegetables animal-free as well. I'm the pie specialist, and these days there are all kinds of butter substitutes for making pie crust, so that's easy. Vegan step-daughter-in-law loves apple pie, and we make sure she gets a good piece to take home. She has to pass on the pumpkin pie though, because you really can't make that without eggs.

One thing I was surprised to hear about was honey. That's not acceptable because "It passes through the body of the bees". And anyway, she'd say even insects shouldn't be exploited by humans. But she doesn't preach to anyone else; if the menu includes animal products, she'll sit at the same table while other people (and that includes her husband, my wife's son) eat them.
Title: Re: And you thought clothing was bad
Post by: BlueTrain on March 02, 2020, 10:45:18 AM
I gather that the basis of the vegan point of view is that we're exploiting animals if we eat them or their products. That certainly is true, I suppose, but the farm workers on an organic farm are just as exploited as a cow might be and an organic farm is no better place to work than any other farm. So it might be something of a modern luxury to be vegan. If we ourselves do next to no manual labor with our hands, we're living the lives of cattle anyway.
Title: Re: And you thought clothing was bad
Post by: jbeegoode on March 03, 2020, 03:25:47 AM
My vegan obsessed ex-girlfriend was a purist,but I think her main driver was the factory farm exploitation. Those animal rights expose' vids getting into a secret pig factory, chicken torture chamber,and cattle feed lots speak for themselves for miles around. The destruction to the environment is astronomical and unnecessary, if you cut back on eating that crappy factory meat. So, it was a heartfelt moral thing, having nothing to do with human labors.

Honestly, I still recoil at that kind of meat and behavior. I don't participate after viewing the vids,which have now become illegal as a terrorist act because of the power of these exploitative corporations.

Family farm, local farms that we grew up with are about completely gone, or completely different. It is an ugly exploitative destructive situation. For me participating in that kind of abuse, is the same as supporting the Nazi German regime. It helps me to understand how the NAzis got away with genocide.

No thank-you, I don't have to eat that product and I'm better off for it. Still, I'm not opposed to eating animals here and there, eggs, most fish. It isn't the same. It is an intellectual a moral argument compared to a horrid abomination in human greed. Just not at all the same thing to me.
Jbee
Title: Re: And you thought clothing was bad
Post by: ric on March 03, 2020, 10:01:57 AM
if eating animals was wrong there wouldnt be any meat eating animals.....

the animal welfare/cruelty argument is a whole different ball game. im from an english livestock farming background and know that the vast majority of small farmers in this country  genuinely want to keep happy livestock , but the bottom line is the bottom line... money makes the world go round .

chickens are one of the most numerous animals on the planet because humans exploit them... if we didnt eat both chickens and eggs there wouldnt be as many hens in existance.   personally we pay the extra for free range eggs in the belief that the chickens that produce them have as good a lifestyle as is compatible with us getting breakfast.

 you cant make omelets without cracking eggs...
Title: Re: And you thought clothing was bad
Post by: BlueTrain on March 03, 2020, 01:21:27 PM
I wonder if there were any purists when horsepower had to do with an actual horse. Even then, a horse's lot was nothing but work, relatively short and it didn't end in pastures full of clover. But some recognized that, for what it was worth.

I'm from southern West Virginia and I lived in a small town, then out in the country. There were still people who made their living as farmers, or at least part of it. Horses were still being used. Nobody had a tractor. Even in town, a few people still kept horses or chickens and one person even kept a cow. But that all faded away by the 1960s. There were also peddlers who came around selling produce from the back of a pickup truck, rather like farmers' markets today. And if you live in certain parts of the country, there might even be an Amish farmers' market, too. All the farmers' markets I've been to, including one Amish farmers' market in Maryland, also sold prepared food. Were animals exploited? Were children exploited? Were vast tracts of wilderness denuded of trees to create bean fields? If you consider everything, you cannot be a purist. Being a purist can mean giving up a lot of things for various reasons. Thoreau was somewhat like that. It's a pity he died so young.
Title: Re: And you thought clothing was bad
Post by: jbeegoode on March 03, 2020, 10:53:13 PM
This is a mess, not humane, wrong.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nEKpyzyn6N8
 I noticed that chicken processing propaganda follows this film. The video is a free range outfit. Chickens don't have room to move in the usual processing, the smaller farmer contractor who has them before the processing.
Peta has some films out that are effective.

The animals are simply treated as meat from birth, a commodity. It is cruel, it is wrong. These are live being and they feel and have needs, to start out, they need to walk to move. Let's be real here.
Jbee
Title: Re: And you thought clothing was bad
Post by: John P on March 04, 2020, 12:18:14 AM
if eating animals was wrong there wouldnt be any meat eating animals.....

I believe I've had that conversation with vegan step-daughter-in-law, and she says she doesn't have a problem with what animals do to each other. She said "It's natural for them, and you can't expect animals to have a conscience. But we're able to know that we're exploiting animals, and we shouldn't be doing it."

By the way, she has two cats, and I pointed out that she has to feed them meat products if they're going to survive, and she said that's natural too. I could have said that she doesn't need to sponsor their existence, but it didn't seem to be worth pushing the topic to that extent. At least her cats stay indoors and don't go out to kill anything.

I wonder if there were any purists when horsepower had to do with an actual horse. Even then, a horse's lot was nothing but work, relatively short and it didn't end in pastures full of clover. But some recognized that, for what it was worth.

Here in Massachusetts we have the intellectual heritage of all the noble thinkers. Bronson Alcott (while Louisa May was a child) tried to establish a commune ("Fruitlands") where they'd be vegetarians and also avoid taking advantage of any person or creature. So they wouldn't wear cotton, because it was grown by slaves, nor wool because it was stolen from sheep, and they couldn't afford silk (or they didn't want silkworms to die) so they only wore linen, and we get some cold weather around here, so they did plenty of shivering. And they weren't any good at farming anyway. I'm not sure if they had animals to do any of the work, or if that was making slaves of the horses.

There is one little factoid that I recall from Fruitlands that makes it relevant here. While it lasted, the commune attracted a few misfits and visionaries, and one of them was an "Adamite" named Samuel Bower, who was what we'd call a nudist. Unfortunately he's only a footnote to the story, but he apparently came from England. Where he ended up, nobody seems to know.
Title: Re: And you thought clothing was bad
Post by: BlueTrain on March 04, 2020, 01:35:27 AM
There were a remarkable number of idealistic and hopeful utopian communities from that period, some of which survive. Most had a religious origin, although they did not all originate in New England. Some were earlier and some brought their community from Europe. They're all interesting to me to some extent. The idea lives on in some ways. Some churches, particularly Roman Catholic, style themselves as "communities" and there are of course monastic and similar intentional communities in both R.C. and a few other Christian denominations. I'm on the mailing list of a small Episcopal monastery in Michigan and have been getting their newsletters for at least 30 years. I don't know of any permanent nudist communities, although some clubs have full-time residents.

It may be possible that because so many of us live in crowded communities (or what we think are crowded), we think we'd rather live somewhere with few neighbors, some place with more 'elbow room.' But rural areas sometimes have a stronger sense of community than a typical suburban community. Or at least, that's what I think, based on my own experiences. But things change. I do know that the contributors here like to think of this as a community but it is no more than a virtual community. But it suggests that we really need community.
Title: Re: And you thought clothing was bad
Post by: ric on March 04, 2020, 09:51:18 AM
i honestly dont see how a vegan (oranyone else) can justify keeping a pet cat in the unnatural surroundings of a house.  they might not be eating the thing but theyre subjecting the animal to a totally unnatural lifestyle to satisfy some  need of their own.
i have a close neighbour that has a cat and a labrador both of which rarely go outside, the dog atleast gets shoved through the door so it can crap on the lawn, the cat has a litter tray under the stairs, which the dog has a snuffle through every now and again.
ive always had a pet cat,  its purpose is to chase off the mice, rats ,rabbits and flying pests from my veggy garden. cat is free to come indoors during the day, if its in when i go to bed its shown the door ,  we feed it and it supplements with whatever it can catch.   mice dissapeer completely, rats we just find the tail on the doormat, rabbits he usually leaves skin and guts.
current cat is about 14 years old , still climbs in through the window if the door aint open and hasnt seen a vet since his bits were chopped off. 
Title: Re: And you thought clothing was bad
Post by: nuduke on March 07, 2020, 04:34:48 PM
I gather that the basis of the vegan point of view is that we're exploiting animals if we eat them or their products. That certainly is true, I suppose, but the farm workers on an organic farm are just as exploited as a cow might be and an organic farm is no better place to work than any other farm. So it might be something of a modern luxury to be vegan.

So true, Blue Train.
And what about vegetable rights?  A vegan eats carrots and apples but they have been farmed and 'exploited' by humans just like any other farmed species.
From a somewhat philosophical point of view is there really any difference between exploiting animals and vegetables?  We have no idea whether (and if) plants have awareness of their fate?  Is a farmed apple happier than a wild apple.  Is it kinder or better to feed and nurture a carrot than let it fend for itself in the wild?  If you are a vegan or vegetarian you automatically make this philosophical distinction between the fate of animals and vegetables based (as far as I can see) on a wholly notional distinction between what exploitation means or is allowed in the plant kingdom versus the animal.
I would ask why animals are more important not to exploit than vegetables?  Animals wouldn't exist without the vegetables capturing sunlight and turning it into plant tissue that animals can eat. Surely animals are the more disposable stratum of evolution because they exploit plants for their existence. 
All this is to say that I agree with Blue Train's assertion that  "
it might be something of a modern luxury to be vegan".
[/size][/color]
That's not to deny any vegan or vegetarian their preference. This is not the issue, "chacun a son gout" I say. But I can't see how it is more virtuous to avoid eating or exploiting animals. 
[/size][/color]
This preferential regard for the fate of animals is all a very deep rooted anthropomorphism, in all of us, which is stronger in relation to animals than plants because we see more clearly the similarities of animals to the human animal than of plants to humans.   And the more the animal is like a human, the more the anthropomorphism.  Thus we love and cuddle and keep as pets pussycats, doggies, rabbits, monkeys and the like of higher mammals.  But we don't go oooh!, aaahhh! and want to pet and snuggle with lobsters, squids, locusts or slugs.
[/size][/color]
So I say to Vegans and Vegetarians, rejoice in your healthy preference and go easy on the 'principle' of it! :)
[/size][/color]
John
Title: Re: And you thought clothing was bad
Post by: nuduke on March 07, 2020, 04:51:09 PM

I should say that after offering the arguments in my previous post a few minutes ago, I should add that I don't endorse cruelty and the more repellant practices of animal mass farming any more than the rest of you (and indeed possibly vegans).  Maybe I am a bit more tolerant than some of you to how many chickens to a field or a barn!  But equally, we should pay more for our food rather than accept some of the conditions that poultry and cattle are kept in to keep the price of food 'competitive'.


However, Ric makes a point 
Quote
chickens are one of the most numerous animals on the planet because humans exploit them.
Maybe this is a cunning evolutionary ploy on the part of certain species.  Think about it - chickens, pigs and cows are far more numerous than they would have been if we didn't eat them.  Maybe by evolving for humans yummy flavours when cooked, and making us eat them and breed them, the hen, the cow and the pig gain far greater numbers (and variety) of their species which is usually defined as evolutionary success.
Yes! Perhaps it is we humans that are the pawns in the game of life.  We may be being exploited by our foods.  The chicken's point of view may be "Make the humans eat me, they grow successful and breed and therefore farm more of us."  More humans, more chickens.   
Since this is an evolutionary thing, presumably it applies equally to the carrot and the apple that are benefitting in provenance symbiotically with humans.
Consider that, high minded Vegans!
 :D :D
John 
Title: Re: And you thought clothing was bad
Post by: BlueTrain on March 07, 2020, 04:57:54 PM
Goodness! I don't have anything at all to do with Lobsters (they aren't kosher), squid, locusts or slugs. It makes me wonder what the origin of kosher or halal (close but not precisely the same) dietary rules are. Many foods are prohibited, many of which most people don't eat anyway. As far as I know, however, there are no plant foods that are forbidden under anyone's rules, which is not to say that you can eat just any plant. Even so, we had rhubarb growing in the garden when I was little but I wasn't aware that it was food. Anyway, most if not all food prohibitions are religiously based. Some people, not many, eat monkey meat. There was also a belief in WWI that some imported canned meat in France was monkey meat. But that's just a curiosity in this discussion.

Part of the Islamic dietary laws involve how animals are slaughtered, so there is some concern over animal welfare. And the butcher can even be Christian or Jewish. The rules for that and kosher are fairly complicated and I don't wish to overly simplify things.

Some religious prohibitions about food have more to do with bodily submission than anything else, apparently, and self-denial, a totally foreign concept to most people. And likewise, some foods (or some things eaten as food) have more to do with just the opposite. Overall, however, I'd say that humans are highly adaptable food-wise, just like rats.
Title: Re: And you thought clothing was bad
Post by: nuduke on March 07, 2020, 05:29:12 PM

Occasionally, in my childhood, my mother would cook something with tinned stewing steak.  My Father on these occasions would lick his lips and say in a satisfied voice and a strong Yorkshire accent "Aaaah, stewed monkey!".  I used to find this hilarious and as I type this I am laughing hysterically at this again.  Thanks for the unwitting nostalgic reminder, Blue Train.
John
Title: Re: And you thought clothing was bad
Post by: Bob Knows on March 07, 2020, 08:29:55 PM
Neuroscience News:  March 5, 2020: Low carb-based diet may help to prevent or reverse signs of early brain aging in middle-aged people.

Recent study confirms that eating carbs and sugars messes with your mind.  Makes your brain age at a younger age, but brain aging could be reversed by eating a diet of animal protein and fats.

https://neurosciencenews.com/low-carb-brain-aging-15870/
Title: Re: And you thought clothing was bad
Post by: BlueTrain on March 08, 2020, 02:34:36 AM
The term monkey meat, as I understand the story, originated in the Great War when both France and the U.K. had to import great quantities of meat from several different places, which mostly did not include any place where monkeys actually lived. Much was canned and of suspicious origin, and was heavily salted or spiced. It would have been either pork or beef (or corned beef). During the war on the Western Front as well for most civilians before the war, proper nutrition and sanitation was rarely either possible or probable. We forget how the masses lived in Europe and the U.K. at the time and many Americans north and south weren't really much better off. Any form of scientific approaches to health and nutrition and sanitation had only just begun then. But people somehow managed, just like most people have to do today.
Title: Re: And you thought clothing was bad
Post by: ric on March 08, 2020, 10:05:57 AM
when you get into the minute detail of meat production and vegetable production things are no where clear cut from the moral prospective.   beef cattle can spend significant amounts of their lives wandering in pasture.  what looks to the uninformed to be a field of grass is in fact a diverse ecosystem , the crop the cattle are eating is unlikely to be one species of grass , theres probably allsorts of wild flowers and herbage growing aswell. then theres all the insects , butterflies and assorted creepy crawlies all the way up to wild deer. not to mention the birds in the hedgerows.  all these wild creatures are living in the same space as the cattle and by and large peacefully coexisting.

compare that to the typical vegetable field , any plant  that isnt the intended crop is either hoed or chemically sprayed,  you end up with a field of one type of plant which doesnt support any of the wild animals and bugs.  added to that the cropping area is completely dug up and any wild creatures habitats destroyed on a regular basis. the place is a monocultural desert.  even the organic veggies destroy the wildlife, they just beat it to death physically rather than destroy everything with noxious chemicals

all in all the wild creatures and plants get on infinitely better with the meat eaters compared to the industrialised veggies.
Title: Re: And you thought clothing was bad
Post by: BlueTrain on March 08, 2020, 11:54:55 AM
That monocultural desert you've just described also describes the fenced-in vegetable garden behind the house in the small town where I was born in the 1940s, as well as the much larger vegetable gardens where we moved in the 1960s and which my father continued to keep until he died in the 1990s. There was no peaceful coexistence with any animals or birds (there weren't any wild animals in town and few in the country anyway). Most of our neighbors both in town and in the country had gardens like that and everybody behaved like Mr. McGregor in the Tale of Peter Rabbit. The huge farms of the Midwest prairie were really monocultural before the first plow broke ground, with nothing but a few kinds of grasses, although the American prairie is so large, there is a fair amount of diversity for the whole. The purpose of both farming and vegetable gardening, as well as raising cattle and sheep, is to support humans, not wildlife. If what I see from my dining room window is anything to go by, the wildlife will manage just fine. 
Title: Re: And you thought clothing was bad
Post by: Bob Knows on March 08, 2020, 04:49:00 PM
I'm going to post this here for those who have suffered from infectious diseases and those who worry about coronavirus and other infections.  Its not new science but has been willfully ignored for decades.

Every time someone eats sugar or carbs it reduces you body's ability to fight off infection. It has been ignored by the corporations that push sugar and carb products.  It has been ignored by the Medical Industrial Complex that robs us while pushing their "treatments" after we get infections, and pushing their vaccinations.  A healthy diet makes you strong and able to resist infection.

American Journal of Clinical Nutrition:  Role of sugars in human neutrophilic phagocytosis

https://academic.oup.com/ajcn/article-abstract/26/11/1180/4732762?fbclid=IwAR0AmtRoUOo6ADsXV91EApnoE5XyY-AWEO2uMhZsx3Decputryajg6pPz7k
Title: Re: And you thought clothing was bad
Post by: BlueTrain on March 08, 2020, 07:09:54 PM
Your realize that bread in any form, which humans have subsisted on for centuries, contains carbohydrates. So I can't go along with that assertion. In fact, you should probably be eating bread with every meal. Any bread. Try baking some yourself one day.
Title: Re: And you thought clothing was bad
Post by: jbeegoode on March 08, 2020, 07:40:28 PM
I don't think that our bread/carb domestic food supply has helped us much more than keep more of us alive cheaply, better storage, etc. It throws me of, for example, my body become hypoglycemic. It is also associated with a population that is controlled, impoverished with a lot of submissive conformity. I'm saying that it has more dominance in our general diets that it should. I'd be more comfortable, or inclined  with something closer to a hunter gatherer that something that has popped up in only the last ten thousand years. It may not be that the diet is better, but the people are more numerous, dependent and drugged by sugars.

I'm not so sure what Bob's article means to us, but the information is important as it all gets hashed out. Proteins are important. Carbs do get people sugared out. Then there is the whole vegetable thing. I do know that brain activity is a multi functioning interaction with the environment and can not be simplified, or limited to one input, or definition of a healthy brain. "utilize le ou perd le" "aut amittat eam, " or "Use it or loose it" is a very important factor, too.

As for the people standing around all 8 hour day clipping chicken's beaks off compared to a traditional farm....

Then, there is a carrot on an organic farm which is given optimum soil resources, nutrition and watering compared to a seed plucked down into some sick soil filled with chemicals and poisons, with just some PPK laid down to make it grow up to look good. If I was a carrot, I know what I'd choose!
Jbee
J
Title: Re: And you thought clothing was bad
Post by: BlueTrain on March 08, 2020, 09:34:56 PM
You are free to eat anything you wish and nothing you don't want to, provided it is available and you are willing to pay the price. Same goes for drink, too. Just don't smoke anything.
Title: Re: And you thought clothing was bad
Post by: Bob Knows on March 13, 2020, 04:01:56 PM
With the current fear of Covid-19 I'm posting this article from Immunology Science journal.  Their immunology research shows that a Keytogenic or carnivore diet will activate T cells, raise your immunity to viruses, and protect you from fatal virus infections.  It was published prior to the Covid-19 scare so it focuses on flu viruses which have already killed 16,000 Americans this year.  Activating T cells would also protect against coronavirus.  Maybe it time to rethink our diets. 

From  Science Immunology  15 Nov 2019:
Vol. 4, Issue 41, eaav2026

Quote
Influenza A virus (IAV) infection–associated morbidity and mortality are  a key global health care concern, necessitating the identification of  new therapies capable of reducing the severity of IAV infections. In  this study, we show that the consumption of a low-carbohydrate, high-fat  ketogenic diet (KD) protects mice from lethal IAV infection and  disease. KD feeding resulted in an expansion of γδ T cells in the lung  that improved barrier functions, thereby enhancing antiviral resistance.  Expansion of these protective γδ T cells required metabolic adaptation  to a ketogenic diet because neither feeding mice a high-fat,  high-carbohydrate diet nor providing chemical ketone body substrate that  bypasses hepatic ketogenesis protected against infection. Therefore,  KD-mediated immune-metabolic integration represents a viable avenue  toward preventing or alleviating influenza disease.

https://immunology.sciencemag.org/content/4/41/eaav2026
Title: Re: And you thought clothing was bad
Post by: nuduke on March 18, 2020, 12:00:47 AM

Oh no!  I don't want flabby and lazy phagocytic neutrophils!  I want my neutrophils phagocyting for all they are worth....must cut down the bread!
John :)

Title: Re: And you thought clothing was bad
Post by: BlueTrain on March 18, 2020, 10:16:34 AM
Didn't know mice ever came down with the flu. For the meat and potatoes types out there, neither was available in the grocery store last Saturday when my wife went shopping. So coming up with the optimal diet is subject to real world limitations. The default plan therefore is to eat what is available and which you can afford, same as people have always done.
Title: Re: And you thought clothing was bad
Post by: jbeegoode on March 18, 2020, 10:37:55 PM
The keto diet is of many types. This one in the experiment isn't meat only. It is also a get rid of carbs diet, like I eat, except pizza ;). I have a friend that is having similar results on his Keto plan, but gets some veggie in there, too.

He is held up in his place in Tortolita with 700 pounds of rice and pasta avoiding everybody. Lo, if he needs to break into his carb stash. He is often not feeling the need to eat for a day or two. He has lost 50 pounds, like Bob.

Colloidal silver has been good for flu and viruses in the past.
Jbee
Title: Re: And you thought clothing was bad
Post by: BlueTrain on March 18, 2020, 11:28:55 PM
I am 6'1" and weigh between 170 and 175. Weight loss is not desirable in my case.
Title: Re: And you thought clothing was bad
Post by: Bob Knows on March 19, 2020, 04:38:40 PM
For the meat and potatoes types out there, neither was available in the grocery store last Saturday when my wife went shopping.

I don't know where you shop, but my local Safeway has plenty of stock.  Maybe there was panic buying in your town.  The deliveries will rapidly catch up.  Most of the panic buyers won't be buying anything for a couple of weeks. 
Title: Re: And you thought clothing was bad
Post by: BlueTrain on March 19, 2020, 05:28:33 PM
I live in a suburb of Washington, D.C. My local gun shop had bare shelves, too.
Title: Re: And you thought clothing was bad
Post by: BlueTrain on April 03, 2020, 09:34:59 PM
To update on the grocery stores here, with a sampling of one, they do not have plenty of everything. No frozen fruit but some fresh fruit. No frozen pizza or orange juice, either. Some bread, some toilet paper. Things have not yet returned to the old normal; this is the new normal for a while.
Title: Re: And you thought clothing was bad
Post by: jbeegoode on April 03, 2020, 09:43:25 PM
THEY HAD TOILET PAPAER!!! People are selling TP on street corners at ten bucks a roll here!! Quick send me a case. We'll make a fortune. Sends me more cans of beans, too. The more bowel movements, the better the TP business. With diaria people will panic! Holy Cow, it's a motherload!

Nah...I lied. They have to restock each day a Trader Joes. The stuff is gone by noon.
Jbee

Title: Re: And you thought clothing was bad
Post by: BlueTrain on April 04, 2020, 12:14:25 AM
Just remember, somewhere I read that toilet paper is the cause of deforestation. Don't recall where I read it, though.
Title: Re: And you thought clothing was bad
Post by: ric on April 04, 2020, 11:07:07 AM
sold a mower yesterday to a lorry driver who works in the tesco supermarket distribution chain, theyre all on overtime with drivers hours regs temp suspended.
supermarkets in uk are having a sales boom comparable to xmas.

but theres still idiots about, ive now got 3 lawnmowers and a set of dining chairs sold on ebay all for collection only, paid by paypal,   ones been wating here 3 weeks for collection , ones yorkshire , another in south wales..ive forgotten where tother 2 are. were in somerset.   im not refunding unless they ask.