|
Jordan Peterson (pg. 3)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Sykonee |
| quote: | Originally posted by SYSTEM-J
That's because they ate very specific things like whale skin that has an unusual nutritional composition. You could replicate that but it would be very difficult and a lot more complex than just dining on domestically raised red meat. |
For sure. I just can't help being the meat-only contrarian whenever I see someone saying a meat-only diet is impossible. |
|
|
| Sand Leaper |
| quote: | Originally posted by SYSTEM-J
I'm struggling to discern what your point is. Is this some kind of "Big Arable" tinfoilery? |
I don't think you have to engage in tinfoil hattery to acknowledge that a profit motive, dietary recommendations and research don't always mix well. For example: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4355299/
| quote: |
Also, the percentage of people with Crohn's disease is very low, and obviously someone who has a very specific illness related to the digestive tract is exempt from a normal conversation about diet. I don't think that has much relevance to the likes of Jordan Peterson and the specific claims they're making for this kind of diet. |
That was just one example off the top of my head. Gut dysbiosis in general affects a lot more people to varying degrees, and eliminating fibre and complex carbohydrates works surprisingly well for a lot of them, despite the traditional idea that fibre is essential for a healthy gut flora. |
|
|
| Jon_Snow |
WHAT IF I TOLD YOU
EATING HEALTHY IS ACTUALLY
EATING NORMALLY
-morpheus |
|
|
| SYSTEM-J |
No, but you do need to provide some credible investigate journalism as a bare minimum if you're going to blanket-slur a broad scientific consensus on the environmental impact of animal rearing and the meat industry. You know, a hard link showing the arable farming lobby's (?) sponsorship of some widely cited research, not just coming out with "Those big corporations have lied to us before, man!" to support your curiosity in the latest counter-intuitive fad diet.
I mean, why not play the daft conspiracy the other way? Meat is getting hammered left, right and centre for its health impact, its ethics and its environmental footprint. If there's any lobby here that needs to manufacture some spurious PR benefits, it's the meat industry. It's very analogous to Big Tobacco in this scenario. Getting high profile public figures (particularly those right-of-centre) to espouse the miracle benefits of an all-meat diet strikes me as a better accusatory conspiracy theory than whatever vague you're suggesting. |
|
|
| Sand Leaper |
| quote: | Originally posted by SYSTEM-J
No, but you do need to provide some credible investigate journalism as a bare minimum if you're going to blanket-slur a broad scientific consensus on the environmental impact of animal rearing and the meat industry. You know, a hard link showing the arable farming lobby's (?) sponsorship of some widely cited research, not just coming out with "Those big corporations have lied to us before, man!" to support your
curiosity in the latest counter-intuitive fad diet.
|
Got any more rat poison you wanna throw into the well over there?
My point isn't that there is some Big Ag conspiracy to keep us all eating plants for Nestle and Monsanto to maintain global food hegemony. It is rather that while these companies are all attempting to merge their business activities for maximization of profit with global health, they're oversimplifying what makes up a healthy diet for different people around the world.
Let's take the recent EAT-Lancet report. Do you think reducing my countrymen's intake of fish and seafood to 28 grams per day will be particularly healthy or sustainable? Especially when we have to fly or drive in so many of the plant foods that are supposed to make up for the resulting gap in dietary protein and fat? And that's not even taking into account that many countries around the world will have to rely on annual plants to follow the report's nutrient guidelines. Large scale farming of these increase the risk of soil erosion and depletion of cropland nutrients, as people won't have the time or money to maintain necessary crop rotation.
So no, Unilever's CEOs aren't sitting in an office twirling their moustaches while everyone is getting pushed onto plant foods. They're just trying to make as much money as possible, and feeding the world's population healthily and sustainably isn't necessarily the biggest money spinner for their particular corner of the food system. It would serve the consumer well to keep this in mind before taking anyone's advice on what the world should be eating.
| quote: |
I mean, why not play the daft conspiracy the other way? Meat is getting hammered left, right and centre for its health impact, its ethics and its environmental footprint. If there's any lobby here that needs to manufacture some spurious PR benefits, it's the meat industry. It's very analogous to Big Tobacco in this scenario. Getting high profile public figures (particularly those right-of-centre) to espouse the miracle benefits of an all-meat diet strikes me as a better accusatory conspiracy theory than whatever vague you're suggesting. |
If the "Big Tobacco X celebrities" comparison is what you're going with, the plant food lobby is WAY ahead of the pack.
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/10/...te-of-mind.html
https://vegnews.com/2018/9/wu-tang-...possible-slider
https://www.livekindly.co/alec-bald...n-of-the-earth/ |
|
|
| SYSTEM-J |
| quote: | Originally posted by Sand Leaper
Let's take the recent EAT-Lancet report. Do you think reducing my countrymen's intake of fish and seafood to 28 grams per day will be particularly healthy or sustainable? Especially when we have to fly or drive in so many of the plant foods that are supposed to make up for the resulting gap in dietary protein and fat? |
You tell me. Has any rigorous analysis been done to demonstrate that these factors offset the reduction in environmental impact that would come from farming so much livestock? If there is any hard evidence suggesting these reports and this consensus is biased by corporate lobbying or that its sums don’t add up, I’m interested to read it. Otherwise, this is just JAQing off.
Believe me, nobody would like it more than me to learn that eating plenty of meat is an environmentally friendly diet. I’m too fussy an eater and enjoy meat too much to ever give it up. But from everything I’ve read on the subject, animal rearing is one of the biggest environmental problems we have as a species. It cuts across far more than just greenhouse gas emissions, touching on water use, land use, destruction of natural habitat, everything. Calories from meat are extremely environmentally inefficient compared to calories from plants, because every animal must be fed on plants for its lifespan before it can slaughtered, so almost everything you can say about pesticides, soil erosion and all the other evils of high-intensity farming apply even more to meat.
And as for the line of thinking that “we’re all ed anyway”. Well yeah, we probably are, and this is all damage limitation at best. But I don’t like the idea of just abandoning any kind of green initiatives out of doomed resignation. Reducing meat consumption is something everyone is capable of without great disruption to their lifestyles. The issue needs attacking from every angle, and this is a relatively simple one.*
*This was in response to an OrangestO post he seems to have now deleted. |
|
|
| Jon_Snow |
I’m always amazed at the ridiculous nonsense people latch onto. The internet seems to be a stupidity multiplier.
Whenever I don’t feel like doing something environmentally friendly, I think of how when our sun becomes a red giant destroying our planet, it won’t matter in the big picture.
Orangesto deleting posts. Can you blame him he sleeps on streets... |
|
|
| Vector A |
Seems to act mostly as a surrogate father figure for rudderless NEETs.
Couldn't care less about his dietary weirdness. |
|
|
| Singularity55 |
Oh something else I realised recently is pretty dodgy about him. When you're watching his personality lectures he likes to talk about splitting the big 5 personality traits into two "aspects" each which is fine and all but it's based on his research and I think possibly copyrighted. So then the only way to figure out what your results for those aspects is based on a test that costs $10 that his company administers. A test that there will if I understand it correctly never be a free version of. So he's training people to think in a certain way using concepts he has control over. That is possibly the entire reason for the existence of his free online personality lectures. I think that's really dodgy to do especially without telling people what you're doing.
He's not exactly upfront about the fact that if you want to understand yourself in big 5 terms it's free to do but if you want to use what could be called "Jordan Peterson's big 5 aspects" it's going to cost you $10.
| quote: | Originally posted by Vector A
Seems to act mostly as a surrogate father figure for rudderless NEETs.
|
I've known lots of successful uni students/teachers to be big fans too. I was pretty inspired by him but I realise now he's mostly a convenient summary of other people's ideas told in a certain narrative format fairly well. Understanding those topics in proper detail is better though. He is an expert on personality but even still I wouldn't use him as your only source of knowledge in the area.
Also could we get a thread split on the meat topic from the forum mods? Otherwise it's a bit of a thread derail. |
|
|
| Lira |
| quote: | Originally posted by Singularity55
Also could we get a thread split on the meat topic from the forum mods? Otherwise it's a bit of a thread derail. |
That's standard TA procedure: no thread remains on topic for more than 10 posts.
Znack may edit the thread title if he finds it necessary, but it's just a matter of time until this becomes a unified discussion about Jordan Peterson, meat, Tesla cars, and circumcision procedures in Djibouti. |
|
|
| planetaryplayer |
| meat is not as bad as people say. my diet is mainly meat, although I'm trying to limit cured meats. i been eating oysters and and mussels because i am a shark |
|
|
|
|
