Nobel Prize Winner picks Diet of the Future

FredDoyle

And by the way, humans are herbivores:

LOL. No.
Herbivores have a completely different gut. We are omnivores. Live with it.
I wonder if these were used to harvest plants?

VegesaurusRex

Maybe it's just because I have a scientific background, but I don't understand why the 'diet of the future' would be inappropriate for an omnivore, which is what humans are. I guess being a Nobel prize winner doesn't include critical thinking skills. :noway:

He is saying that meat won't be available or considered a good food in the future. He didn't say plants were not appropriate for omnivores. And by the way, humans are herbivores:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yUa814suU9A

You simply haven't had enough time to watch the half hour presentation by Dr Roberts, perhaps the top cardiologist in the USA. But of course, why should you. There is no requirement to actually know or understand a subject before sounding off on it.

You've just lost all credibility. Educate yourself. And by that , I mean look for sources other than Youtube.

QuietBloom

And by the way, humans are herbivores:

LOL. No.
Herbivores have a completely different gut. We are omnivores. Live with it.
I wonder if these were used to harvest plants?

Clearly our ancestors were seriously misguided. It's a miracle they survived to reproduce at all. :laugh:

And the Inuit...they must be from Mars or something.

QuietBloom

Maybe it's just because I have a scientific background, but I don't understand why the 'diet of the future' would be inappropriate for an omnivore, which is what humans are. I guess being a Nobel prize winner doesn't include critical thinking skills. :noway:

He is saying that meat won't be available or considered a good food in the future. He didn't say plants were not appropriate for omnivores. And by the way, humans are herbivores:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yUa814suU9A

You simply haven't had enough time to watch the half hour presentation by Dr Roberts, perhaps the top cardiologist in the USA. But of course, why should you. There is no requirement to actually know or understand a subject before sounding off on it.

You've just lost all credibility. Educate yourself. And by that , I mean look for sources other than Youtube.

He just went to the head of the list for quack docs. Right next to Oz.

Mr_Knight

One of the principal reasons Americans "recoil at eating whale" is precisely because affordable beef was available as an alternative.

People don't give a donkey turd about "factory farms", they care about eating yummy things at good prices. Eating of beef won't go away until an equally delicious - and affordable - alternative is available.

PikaKnight

Maybe it's just because I have a scientific background, but I don't understand why the 'diet of the future' would be inappropriate for an omnivore, which is what humans are. I guess being a Nobel prize winner doesn't include critical thinking skills. :noway:

He is saying that meat won't be available or considered a good food in the future. He didn't say plants were not appropriate for omnivores. And by the way, humans are herbivores:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yUa814suU9A

Humans are omnivores, like bears and dogs. Not herbivores like cows and horses. Pretty basic stuff here. LOL

I knew of a cow that ate a rabbit. True story.

SunofaBeach14

One of the principal reasons Americans "recoil at eating whale" is precisely because affordable beef was available as an alternative.

People don't give a donkey turd about "factory farms", they care about eating yummy things at good prices. Eating of beef won't go away until an equally delicious - and affordable - alternative is available.

I don't know about that. I've eaten whale. I agree wholeheartedly, however, with your second paragraph.

VegesaurusRex

Maybe it's just because I have a scientific background, but I don't understand why the 'diet of the future' would be inappropriate for an omnivore, which is what humans are. I guess being a Nobel prize winner doesn't include critical thinking skills. :noway:

He is saying that meat won't be available or considered a good food in the future. He didn't say plants were not appropriate for omnivores. And by the way, humans are herbivores:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yUa814suU9A

You simply haven't had enough time to watch the half hour presentation by Dr Roberts, perhaps the top cardiologist in the USA. But of course, why should you. There is no requirement to actually know or understand a subject before sounding off on it.

You've just lost all credibility. Educate yourself. And by that , I mean look for sources other than Youtube.

You know, if you actually looked at what I posted you might be in a much better position to understand who was talking, what his arguements were and why he is right. Of course this is the age of the 15 second attention span and soundbites. So to give you a snippet ofWilliam C. Roberts, M.D.

Dr. William Roberts is executive director of the Baylor Cardiovascular Institute of Baylor University Medical Center in Dallas. He received his M.D. from Emory University School of Medicine in 1958. Before coming to Baylor in 1993 he was chief of the pathology branch of the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute at the National Institutes of Health in Bethesda, Maryland, and with his colleagues there published more than 1,150 articles on cardiovascular disease in medical journals. Dr. Roberts has authored several books on cardiovascular disease, has spoken at more than 1,300 medical meetings and serves as editor-in-chief of The American Journal of Cardiology. His research focuses on morphologic aspects of cardiovascular disease. what you missed, here is the Bio of the speaker:

Next time don't criticize a post you haven't read.

MoreBean13

I have a question. Is large scale true veganism possible? How would you fertilize and replenish the nutrients in the soil without manure and blood/bone meal? All commercial chemical fertilizers? If you agree to use manure, what would happen to all the animals you have to farm for poop? Large scale pet cemeteries? Just sayin', the large scale ecology doesn't work unless you use chemical fertilizers.

The US already by itself grows enough food plants to feed the entire world. However, instead of feeding people, a huge portion of our corn and soy crop, for example, go to feed animals.

You're entirely missing my point. Even if we don't eat the animals, we need them to grow the food crops, or the ground has to be fertilized and nutrients replaced with synthetic chemicals. It can't be done naturally. If we didn't have the farm animals, there wouldn't be natural fertilization in sufficient quantities to grow enough crops to feed everyone.

DamePiglet

One of the principal reasons Americans "recoil at eating whale" is precisely because affordable beef was available as an alternative.

People don't give a donkey turd about "factory farms", they care about eating yummy things at good prices. Eating of beef won't go away until an equally delicious - and affordable - alternative is available.

See this?
It's true. All of it. Even the "donkey turd" part.

VegesaurusRex

You people are really a waste of time. You just want to hear yourself talk. I had forgotten how bad this board was.

See ya

SunofaBeach14

Maybe it's just because I have a scientific background, but I don't understand why the 'diet of the future' would be inappropriate for an omnivore, which is what humans are. I guess being a Nobel prize winner doesn't include critical thinking skills. :noway:

He is saying that meat won't be available or considered a good food in the future. He didn't say plants were not appropriate for omnivores. And by the way, humans are herbivores:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yUa814suU9A

You simply haven't had enough time to watch the half hour presentation by Dr Roberts, perhaps the top cardiologist in the USA. But of course, why should you. There is no requirement to actually know or understand a subject before sounding off on it.

You've just lost all credibility. Educate yourself. And by that , I mean look for sources other than Youtube.

You know, if you actually looked at what I posted you might be in a much better position to understand who was talking, what his arguements were and why he is right. Of course this is the age of the 15 second attention span and soundbites. So to give you a snippet ofWilliam C. Roberts, M.D.

Dr. William Roberts is executive director of the Baylor Cardiovascular Institute of Baylor University Medical Center in Dallas. He received his M.D. from Emory University School of Medicine in 1958. Before coming to Baylor in 1993 he was chief of the pathology branch of the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute at the National Institutes of Health in Bethesda, Maryland, and with his colleagues there published more than 1,150 articles on cardiovascular disease in medical journals. Dr. Roberts has authored several books on cardiovascular disease, has spoken at more than 1,300 medical meetings and serves as editor-in-chief of The American Journal of Cardiology. His research focuses on morphologic aspects of cardiovascular disease. what you missed, here is the Bio of the speaker:

Next time don't criticize a post you haven't read.

It's still just an opinion. One you cherry picked because it fits your own bias. And, it's a clear example of False Authority. This is why science relies on the scientific method and not just "smart people's" opinions.

geebusuk

"Also endorsed by Hitler"*

*Probably, he was that way inclined.

SunofaBeach14

You people are really a waste of time. You just want to hear yourself talk. I had forgotten how bad this board was.

See ya

Don't let the door hit you on the way out.

Hauntinglyfit

Maybe it's just because I have a scientific background, but I don't understand why the 'diet of the future' would be inappropriate for an omnivore, which is what humans are. I guess being a Nobel prize winner doesn't include critical thinking skills. :noway:

He is saying that meat won't be available or considered a good food in the future. He didn't say plants were not appropriate for omnivores. And by the way, humans are herbivores:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yUa814suU9A

You've just lost all credibility. Educate yourself. And by that , I mean look for sources other than Youtube.

You simply haven't had enough time to watch the half hour presentation by Dr Roberts, perhaps the top cardiologist in the USA. But of course, why should you. There is no requirement to actually know or understand a subject before sounding off on it.

I tried fixing your quotes.

Go take a look at your teeth in the mirror. Look at your canines. Compare them to the teeth of horses or cows. Read about the differences in the digestive system between us and herbivores.

I almost feel like i am trying to convince a conspiracy theorist that their arguments are flawed. I completely understand and respect being vegan for ethical reasons. Claiming that humanity was meant to be vegan is a slap in evolution's face.

MinimalistShoeAddict

I hope this is true:

http://www.animalequality.net/news/603/nobel-prize-winner-predicts-rise-veganism-2014

For the record, I have nothing against Vegans (and have many on my friend list)

However two things (from the article) should be noted:

1. The nobel prize winner is an economist
2. He focuses on the theory that it may become "repugnant" to eat meat in the market economy of the future



"Most Americans would recoil from eating whale, and feel justified in criticizing the Japanese over whale and dolphin hunting. Most Americans also eat beef. This is possible not because humans evolved to eat only land mammals, or because whales are closer to us in appearance than cows. Both whales and cows are intelligent, social animals with distinct personalities and a range of emotions. The single biggest difference lies not in whales and cows themselves, but the way our society accepts eating one and rejects the other without rational inquiry. If the tide of social paradigm shifts, eating animals in general might be considered morally outrageous by all."

My point is that "repugnance" in a market economy not "health" was the primary focus of the economist cited.

Achrya

Maybe it's just because I have a scientific background, but I don't understand why the 'diet of the future' would be inappropriate for an omnivore, which is what humans are. I guess being a Nobel prize winner doesn't include critical thinking skills. :noway:

He is saying that meat won't be available or considered a good food in the future. He didn't say plants were not appropriate for omnivores. And by the way, humans are herbivores:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yUa814suU9A

...But my stomach can digest meat. Also I have all these sharp tearing teeth?

I'm confused.

Achrya

One of the principal reasons Americans "recoil at eating whale" is precisely because affordable beef was available as an alternative.

People don't give a donkey turd about "factory farms", they care about eating yummy things at good prices. Eating of beef won't go away until an equally delicious - and affordable - alternative is available.

I have yet to encounter a meat I won't at least try (No jokes! ) So I guess that saves me from the diet of the future. Score one for my fatass tendencies.

VegesaurusRex

Maybe it's just because I have a scientific background, but I don't understand why the 'diet of the future' would be inappropriate for an omnivore, which is what humans are. I guess being a Nobel prize winner doesn't include critical thinking skills. :noway:

He is saying that meat won't be available or considered a good food in the future. He didn't say plants were not appropriate for omnivores. And by the way, humans are herbivores:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yUa814suU9A

You've just lost all credibility. Educate yourself. And by that , I mean look for sources other than Youtube.

You simply haven't had enough time to watch the half hour presentation by Dr Roberts, perhaps the top cardiologist in the USA. But of course, why should you. There is no requirement to actually know or understand a subject before sounding off on it.

I tried fixing your quotes.

Go take a look at your teeth in the mirror. Look at your canines. Compare them to the teeth of horses or cows. Read about the differences in the digestive system between us and herbivores.

I almost feel like i am trying to convince a conspiracy theorist that their arguments are flawed. I completely understand and respect being vegan for ethical reasons. Claiming that humanity was meant to be vegan is a slap in evolution's face.

In case you have never had a biology course, here is what the teeth of a meat eater look like:

https://www.google.com/search?q=tiger+teeth&espv=210&es_sm=91&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=3eHaUreEMqbyyAGH7oHYBQ&ved=0CC0QsAQ&biw=1296&bih=779#facrc=_&imgdii=_&imgrc=LZDzTcMYGHYEsM%3A;oPGjNHquF5dv_M;http%3A%2F%2Ffiles.myopera.com%2Fladiesman69%2Falbums%2F2191341%2FTiger%2520Teeth.jpg;http%3A%2F%2Fmy.opera.com%2Fladiesman69%2Falbums%2Fshowpic.dml%3Falbum%3D2191341%26picture%3D29818041;1024;768

FredDoyle

In case you have never had a biology course, here is what the teeth of a meat eater look like:

Looks like now you're confusing omnivores and carnivores...
You still haven't addressed the digestive system problem with your claim.