Footer1998

A far better alternative is to replace CEOs with democratically organized workplaces, where everyone has an equal say and equal reward. Also known as socialism.

Without doxing myself, I have expertise in this topic. It's not a matter of my world view, it's a matter of science and communication.

It is very unlikely that human adiposity leads to increased cancer risk directly. It is correlational, not causational. Human adiposity itself, isolated from compounding factors, has a complex relationship with health outcomes, and not at all the linear correlation where more fat = more bad that the mainstream likes to pretend.

We know that certain foods, particularly animal products, especially cheaper animal products, lead to cancers, heart disease, etc. This is most likely explanation for the results in this study. But yet again we have yet another study uselessly pointing out a correlation which is unhelpful for actually solving public health issues and continues to encourage the passing of the blame to those in society who have the least responsibility for their situation.

Hate these studies. They're always just based on correlations, and ignores the elephant in the room: class. How wealthy you are, how wealthy the area you live in, those factors have the highest impact on health outcomes, but the mainstream media (which is owned by the ruling class) will never be honest about that. So they just find correlations that let them blame poor people for having shitty diets.

The fact is that animals need to be fed, and they are inefficient. Most animals eat plants, so to create 1,000kcal of beef products, for example, it takes 25,000kcal of plant products. Most animal feeds are based on corn or soy, which otherwise could be turned into human food products directly with a 25x efficiency bonus.

I suppose you could make an argument that grass-fed livestock might work, but then I guess an explanation for why grass is growing but other crops aren't.

My underlying point is that animal protein is inefficient compared to plant protein

So, even if we're in a future form of humanity and all of our present farming methods failed, sowing seeds and harvesting crops would be the first kind of farming to be "restored" or "rediscovered" or whatever, because it's vastly more efficient, and assuming you're recovering from some sort of disaster scenario, feeding as many people as quickly as possible would probably be the goal. They'd probably grow rice and soy or something.

Animal farming is really for luxury goods, except in very remote places where crops can't be grown

the technology that has allowed for a life without livestock has failed

That would be the ability to grow crops? So only wild plants would grow for some reason? Impossible to farm anything then really, only viable lifestyles are scavenging, foraging and hunting