What Effect will the Upcoming Ice Age have on diet?
Options
VegesaurusRex
Posts: 1,018
If you are not familiar with this topic, first Read:
www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2541599/Is-mini-ice-age-way-Scientists-warn-Sun-gone-sleep-say-cause-temperatures-plunge.html#ixzz2qxePnHcT
Then:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age
The upshot of it is that instead of global warming, what we may really have to look forward to is a mini-ice age. Arable lands will decrease significantly in size. Instead of most of Iowa growing feed lot corn, they will have to grow crops to feed humans from what little area may be left. From my point of view this is wonderful. Cruelty and factory farming will stop. Meat will no longer be generally available. Finally, humans, against their will, will be forced to live up to a higher ethical standard.
I am an ethical vegetarian, and frankly I don't mind seeing humans suffer for what they have done to animals. There will be mass starvation, and widespread suffering. I think this is called karma. I am not religious but I can easily see this as God's retribution for the suffering humans have inflicted on their fellow creatures.
What goes round, comes round.
www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2541599/Is-mini-ice-age-way-Scientists-warn-Sun-gone-sleep-say-cause-temperatures-plunge.html#ixzz2qxePnHcT
Then:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age
The upshot of it is that instead of global warming, what we may really have to look forward to is a mini-ice age. Arable lands will decrease significantly in size. Instead of most of Iowa growing feed lot corn, they will have to grow crops to feed humans from what little area may be left. From my point of view this is wonderful. Cruelty and factory farming will stop. Meat will no longer be generally available. Finally, humans, against their will, will be forced to live up to a higher ethical standard.
I am an ethical vegetarian, and frankly I don't mind seeing humans suffer for what they have done to animals. There will be mass starvation, and widespread suffering. I think this is called karma. I am not religious but I can easily see this as God's retribution for the suffering humans have inflicted on their fellow creatures.
What goes round, comes round.
0
Replies
-
Well, God gave us permission to eat meat so He is not punishing us for eating what He said we could eat. That's all.0
-
So 'God gave us permission to eat meat'? So lame.
I think the tooth fairy gave me permission to eat gummy bears. I like when mythical creatures talk to me about what food I can eat.0 -
So 'God gave us permission to eat meat'? So lame.
I think the tooth fairy gave me permission to eat gummy bears. I like when mythical creatures talk to me about what food I can eat.
When you have no intellect, argue fairy tales.0 -
So 'God gave us permission to eat meat'? So lame.
I think the tooth fairy gave me permission to eat gummy bears. I like when mythical creatures talk to me about what food I can eat.
When you have no intellect, argue fairy tales.
So, are you saying that God is not a fairy tale?0 -
So 'God gave us permission to eat meat'? So lame.
I think the tooth fairy gave me permission to eat gummy bears. I like when mythical creatures talk to me about what food I can eat.
When you have no intellect, argue fairy tales.
So, are you saying that God is not a fairy tale?
God is God, and Science is Science.
People who say the Bible says I can eat meat are the same people who think the Earth is 6000 years old, and dinosaurs lived at the same time as man.0 -
I'm not here to argue the Bible, anymore than I want to argue Grimm's fairy tales or a book of Greek mythology, but I do want to make a point.
'God's' dietary recommendations are situational. In Genesis, he offered plant-based nutrition in a garden, and peaceful coexistence with other creatures. It was conditions after the flood which forced him to give advice on how to eat meat safely. I read this as a compromise, sort of the same way parents who wish their teen to remain chaste, but teaches him/her about safe sex after s/he has crossed that line.
Who's to say God won't change his mind again after seeing the concentration camp like conditions we imprison farm animals in?
Edited to correct a typo.0 -
I'm not here to argue the Bible, anymore than I want to argue Grimm's fairy tales or a book of Greek mythology, but I do want to make a point.
'God's' dietary recommendations are situational. In Genesis, he offered plant-based nutrition in a garden, and peaceful coexistence with other creatures. It was conditions after the flood which forced him to give advice on how to eat meat safely. I read this as a compromise, sort of the same way parents who wish their teen to remain chaste, but teaches him/her about safe sex after s/he has crossed that line.
Who's to say God won't change his mind again after seeing the concentration camp like conditions we imprison farm animals in?
Edited to correct a typo.
If God is omniscient, why didn't he know enough to give the right advice in the first place? God does not change his mind.0 -
I'm not here to argue the Bible, anymore than I want to argue Grimm's fairy tales or a book of Greek mythology, but I do want to make a point.
'God's' dietary recommendations are situational. In Genesis, he offered plant-based nutrition in a garden, and peaceful coexistence with other creatures. It was conditions after the flood which forced him to give advice on how to eat meat safely. I read this as a compromise, sort of the same way parents who wish their teen to remain chaste, but teaches him/her about safe sex after s/he has crossed that line.
Who's to say God won't change his mind again after seeing the concentration camp like conditions we imprison farm animals in?
Edited to correct a typo.
If God is omniscient, why didn't he know enough to give the right advice in the first place? God does not change his mind.
Rookie mistake - If God didn't know enough to give the right advice in the first place then he's not omniscient. If he can't change his mind then he's not omnipotent. Either way, he's not God.0 -
The primary mistake here is taking anything the Daily Fail - oops, Mail! - says as gospel truth. It's a tabloid rag that usually has nothing better to do with its' newsprint than make up scare stories, either by misrepresentation, or sometimes sheer fabrication of 'facts'.0
-
I'm not here to argue the Bible, anymore than I want to argue Grimm's fairy tales or a book of Greek mythology, but I do want to make a point.
'God's' dietary recommendations are situational. In Genesis, he offered plant-based nutrition in a garden, and peaceful coexistence with other creatures. It was conditions after the flood which forced him to give advice on how to eat meat safely. I read this as a compromise, sort of the same way parents who wish their teen to remain chaste, but teaches him/her about safe sex after s/he has crossed that line.
Who's to say God won't change his mind again after seeing the concentration camp like conditions we imprison farm animals in?
Edited to correct a typo.
If God is omniscient, why didn't he know enough to give the right advice in the first place? God does not change his mind.
Rookie mistake - If God didn't know enough to give the right advice in the first place then he's not omniscient. If he can't change his mind then he's not omnipotent. Either way, he's not God.
God, I love the English Language!0 -
The primary mistake here is taking anything the Daily Fail - oops, Mail! - says as gospel truth. It's a tabloid rag that usually has nothing better to do with its' newsprint than make up scare stories, either by misrepresentation, or sometimes sheer fabrication of 'facts'.
How about the BBC?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-257438060 -
The primary mistake here is taking anything the Daily Fail - oops, Mail! - says as gospel truth. It's a tabloid rag that usually has nothing better to do with its' newsprint than make up scare stories, either by misrepresentation, or sometimes sheer fabrication of 'facts'.
How about the BBC?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-25743806
"We estimate that within about 40 years or so there is a 10% to 20% - nearer 20% - probability that we'll be back in Maunder Minimum conditions."
Or to put it another way...
"We estimate that within about 40 years or so there is a 80% to 90% - nearer 80% - probability that we won't be back in Maunder Minimum conditions."0 -
The primary mistake here is taking anything the Daily Fail - oops, Mail! - says as gospel truth. It's a tabloid rag that usually has nothing better to do with its' newsprint than make up scare stories, either by misrepresentation, or sometimes sheer fabrication of 'facts'.
How about the BBC?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-25743806
"We estimate that within about 40 years or so there is a 10% to 20% - nearer 20% - probability that we'll be back in Maunder Minimum conditions."
Or to put it another way...
"We estimate that within about 40 years or so there is a 80% to 90% - nearer 80% - probability that we won't be back in Maunder Minimum conditions."
Considering that most weather forecasts can't even tell me what is going to happen tomorrow, I think 20% is a reasonable way to expess it. Also, in Connecticut, it does seem that the Mini Ice Age has already started.0 -
The primary mistake here is taking anything the Daily Fail - oops, Mail! - says as gospel truth. It's a tabloid rag that usually has nothing better to do with its' newsprint than make up scare stories, either by misrepresentation, or sometimes sheer fabrication of 'facts'.
How about the BBC?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-25743806
"We estimate that within about 40 years or so there is a 10% to 20% - nearer 20% - probability that we'll be back in Maunder Minimum conditions."
Or to put it another way...
"We estimate that within about 40 years or so there is a 80% to 90% - nearer 80% - probability that we won't be back in Maunder Minimum conditions."
Considering that most weather forecasts can't even tell me what is going to happen tomorrow, I think 20% is a reasonable way to expess it. Also, in Connecticut, it does seem that the Mini Ice Age has already started.
Thing is - you can't have it both ways. If, as you say, most forecast's can't even tell us what is going to happen tomorrow, then why is this one forecast any more accurate?0 -
The primary mistake here is taking anything the Daily Fail - oops, Mail! - says as gospel truth. It's a tabloid rag that usually has nothing better to do with its' newsprint than make up scare stories, either by misrepresentation, or sometimes sheer fabrication of 'facts'.
How about the BBC?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-25743806
"We estimate that within about 40 years or so there is a 10% to 20% - nearer 20% - probability that we'll be back in Maunder Minimum conditions."
Or to put it another way...
"We estimate that within about 40 years or so there is a 80% to 90% - nearer 80% - probability that we won't be back in Maunder Minimum conditions."
Considering that most weather forecasts can't even tell me what is going to happen tomorrow, I think 20% is a reasonable way to expess it. Also, in Connecticut, it does seem that the Mini Ice Age has already started.
Thing is - you can't have it both ways. If, as you say, most forecast's can't even tell us what is going to happen tomorrow, then why is this one forecast any more accurate?
I don't know that it is more accurate. However, it takes something different into consideration. It takes sun activity into consideration whereas my normal weather forecast does not worry about activity on the surface of the sun. I think this has the potential for being accurate since:
- Unexplained Ice Ages have occurred thoughout human history
- The Sun cooling by a fraction of a percent could possibly be the cause of these ice ages
- The Sun is definitely less hot than it was, even 50 years ago
- There is a reasonable cause and effect connection between the sun's surface temperature and the amount of energy that reaches the earth.
The physics of an ice age have never been studied first hand, since the last Mini Ice Age was prior to physics as we know it today, and we did not have the scientific instruments available to study what we can study today. Obviously, this is a theory, but it is a reasonable one.0 -
We won't have to eat so many salted and cured foods, because refrigeration will be universal.0
-
We won't have to eat so many salted and cured foods, because refrigeration will be universal.
Problem is there may not be much to refrigerate. There are far more people than there ever have been on this planet, and the space for growing food will be seriously decreased. Meat will likely disappear as an option. Places like Iowa, which exist to grow feedlot corn will instead grow plant food for humans. Things will be different.0 -
We won't have to eat so many salted and cured foods, because refrigeration will be universal.
Problem is there may not be much to refrigerate. There are far more people than there ever have been on this planet, and the space for growing food will be seriously decreased. Meat will likely disappear as an option. Places like Iowa, which exist to grow feedlot corn will instead grow plant food for humans. Things will be different.
Yep. Things will be different and we will adapt. Since I have little or no chance of affecting a change and since it is not likely to happen in the 25 years that I have left to live, I'm not going to give it any more thought.0 -
God told us to eat meat so that we would eventually create horrible farms dedicated to the slaughter of innocent animals and inadvertently create greenhouse gas factories as well. This way when the solar minimum hits humanity will be saved by a blanket of methane.frankly I don't mind seeing humans suffer for what they have done to animals. There will be mass starvation, and widespread suffering. I think this is called karma.
People that would look without horror and revulsion on the mass starvation and suffering of humanity make me very glad there's an ignore button.0 -
Double answer. Sorry.0
