Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊

Is this nature pressing the 'reset' button ?



WATFORD zero

Well-known member
NSC Patron
Jul 10, 2003
26,188
No, the Chinese accidentally hit the self destruct button on the human race’ behalf having missed it on many thousands of previous occassions. The appalling hygiene in their wet markets mixed with live animals was a disaster waiting to happen.


Just like shutting down American chicken production in 1918 would have stopped any further pandemics :facepalm:
 
Last edited:




beorhthelm

A. Virgo, Football Genius
Jul 21, 2003
35,431
No, you see people like yourself immediately jump on it as if you’re going to be forced to be vegetarian. That isn’t the point. If you think there is any relationship between the farming processes of the past 7900 years, to the last 100years, then you need to open your mind to what is happening.

You‘ve immediately called it an ‘agenda’ because you’re immediately on the defensive. This is a problem, and justifying that we farmed for 8000 years isn’t an answer.

quite right its defensive, you've questioned global food chain which we depend on. we cannot support our population on home grown food, even with modern agriculture, so where do you want to take that?
 






Bakero

Languidly clinical
Oct 9, 2010
13,898
Almería
a good example of Betteridge's law. so domesication of animals is probably responsible for all flu, lets go vegan globally. dont disagree its an option.

As far as I can see the article doesn't call for global veganism, though the word vegan is used once:

"There have been claims on social media, sometimes posted by vegans, that if we ate less meat there would have been no Covid-19. Interestingly, some of these have been blocked by mainstream news organisations as “partly false”. But the claims are also partly true. Though the links they draw are too simplistic, the evidence is now strong that the way meat is produced – and not just in China – contributed to Covid-19.

It is clear that to prevent or at least slow the emergence of new zoonoses, as Fearnley and Lynteris have argued, China’s wet markets will need to be better regulated. But we also need to look behind those markets, at how our food is produced globally."


Your attachment to the status quo is quite something.
 




beorhthelm

A. Virgo, Football Genius
Jul 21, 2003
35,431
As far as I can see the article doesn't call for global veganism, though the word vegan is used once:

of course it is, the entire article is highlighting our domestication and farming of animals has created easy conduit for virus to cross from species to us. i accepted the argument is possibly right and the solution is end domestication of animals, and means going vegan. what other conclusion was supposed to be drawn?
 


RossyG

Well-known member
Dec 20, 2014
2,630
I eat meat daily, but I think veganism is the future. In a few decades they’ll be able to make meat substitutes that’ll be indistinguishable from the real thing. Once you can do that, why waste time and resources on raising and slaughtering animals?
 


BBassic

I changed this.
Jul 28, 2011
12,514
Literally nothing will change because of this pandemic.

Calling it now.

Pollution levels will go back to their pre-COVID levels, mass consumption will remain the way of the world, people in low pay jobs will still be dicked over at the first hint of economic wobble.

There'll be individual changes for sure but it won't amount to a societal change.

#cynicismFriday
 




Bakero

Languidly clinical
Oct 9, 2010
13,898
Almería
of course it is, the entire article is highlighting our domestication and farming of animals has created easy conduit for virus to cross from species to us. i accepted the argument is possibly right and the solution is end domestication of animals, and means going vegan. what other conclusion was supposed to be drawn?

Is there no middle ground?
 


Bakero

Languidly clinical
Oct 9, 2010
13,898
Almería
Literally nothing will change because of this pandemic.

Calling it now.

Pollution levels will go back to their pre-COVID levels, mass consumption will remain the way of the world, people in low pay jobs will still be dicked over at the first hint of economic wobble.

There'll be individual changes for sure but it won't amount to a societal change.

#cynicismFriday

I'm swinging between optimism and cynicism myself, with the latter generally on top.
 


seagull_special

Well-known member
Jun 9, 2008
2,943
Abu Dhabi
No, as Mother Nature is a figment of human imagination.



No, the Chinese accidentally hit the self destruct button on the human race’ behalf having missed it on many thousands of previous occassions. The appalling hygiene in their wet markets mixed with live animals was a disaster waiting to happen.

Absolutely and there is nothing to say it couldn’t happen again in any other place with poor practice and hygene with even worse consequences. The hope would be that the world react quicker and isolate but prevention is definitely the best option.
 




Swansman

Pro-peace
May 13, 2019
22,320
Sweden
We dont know to what the extent the Earth is "living" and if it got a "immune system" in that case. Of course there is a huge sentiment of people who believe that humans know and understand evertyhing because of our Holy Flawless Science, but the planet is littered with ruins of civilisations that though they were all-knowing and therefore could tame the nature and the planet. We're not so clever as we may think.
 




Wrong-Direction

Well-known member
Mar 10, 2013
13,454
No one was listening to David Attenborough so nature stepped in. Earth only had about 50 years left so maybe it's a good thing for the human race to continue

Sent from my SM-A600FN using Tapatalk
 




BLOCK F

Well-known member
Feb 26, 2009
6,411
'In the year 2525, if man is still alive'..........
Courtesy of Zager and Evans, 1969.
 






Machiavelli

Well-known member
Oct 11, 2013
16,808
Fiveways
we're been altering the planet for at least 8000 years, when we begun farming. its arguably something that defines us as human.

Yes, at least 8000, although the figure generally alighted on is 12,000. Disappointingly for you, however, one of the key debates within the Stratigraphy sub-group that will likely soon have its proposal for the anthropocene ratified is precisely when its beginning will be designated (all geological eras/epochs/periods are). They have considered four:
-- the emergence of agriculture, that you point to
-- the rise of capitalism, and the first wave of globalisation, c1500
-- the industrial revolution, c1800
-- the post-war upturn in production and consumption, including the nuclear age, c1950
The proposal of the sub-group is to go with the third option. You'll note, however, that, beyond the first, capitalism is involved. With a bit of luck, mindless, indiscriminate growth and exploitation of resources will decline as a result of CV19 and, more importantly, the confirmation of the anthropocene. That doesn't spell the end of capitalism (which, in numerous sectors, is an efficient way to distribute resources and products, and generative of quality), but the neoliberalism that we've been too greatly subjected to over the past four decades, is simply incompatible with it.
As to your point about human nature, I note how you've qualified it but any insistence on pinning it down usually generates multiple problems.
 








Albion and Premier League latest from Sky Sports


Top
Link Here