3 ms·

can *.flu spread to plants? go vegetarian!

by hs 17y ago

smanek 17y ago
It spreads human to human, not pig to human. And you can't get it eating pork (so says the CDC). http://www.cdc.gov/media/transcripts/2009/t090423.htm http://www.cdc.gov/media/transcripts/2009/t090423.htm
- dejb 17y ago
  Possibly true. However there must have originally been some transfer from pigs to humans. Eating pigs and keeping them as livestock almost certainly contributed to the disease occurring. It is too late to stop this one but what about the next one. Anyone care to dispute the notion that the risk of these diseases 'crossing over' would be much reduced if humanity was vegetarian?
  - scott_s 17y ago
    If all of humanity was vegan, the risk would probably be greatly reduced, since no one would have any livestock. Vegetarian diets still include eggs and dairy. But it's just a completely unhelpful comment. Humanity as a whole is not going to go vegetarian, let alone vegan. Proposing it as a solution is just pushing an agenda.
    - dejb 17y ago
      Partially agreed about the vegan part. I wasn't trying to get too technical. However disease transmission mostly seems to occur via eating meat rather than milk or eggs. I do think it is entirely practical and possible that that most of humanity could go vegan some time in the future. Reducing the risk of disease is just one of many reasons why it would improve the world. If it is an economically superior solution then eventually that is the way the world is likely to head. How's this for a more incrementally useful statement? Reductions in livestock and meat consumption would be likely to reduce the incidences of these type of diseases - therefore it is something we should look to minimise. It isn't an all or nothing proposition.
      - scott_s 17y ago
        I got the impression that in this cases, the disease isn't spread through eating pigs. Rather, it's the fact that pigs and humans are living in close proximity to each other that allowed a flu strain to evolve that targeted both species. Hence my comment about livestock.
        dejb 17y ago
        I'm seeing a lot of contradictory indications in the news. 'China bans pork from US/Mexico', reports that 'properly cooked' pork is fine. You would think the original mutation could easily have happened in circumstances that are different from the current means of transmission. Either way it is a pretty safe bet the original pig wasn't being kept as a pet or for milk or eggs.
    - hs 17y ago
      sadly, drinking soda, eating potato chips and candy = vegetarian too ... anyway that's not what i'm doing; neither do i eat eggs, milk, even fish. i should say go vegan! i'm too selfish to care about what the rest of the world eat ... if you regard my post as a solution, fine, that's my solution to avoid *.flu -- for my selfish self well, enough of myself can you come up with better solution? something creative is even better, much better than critical things you said about how unhelpful/unfeasible one's solution is. sorry if my comment hurts your ego
      - swombat 17y ago
        The calorie density of vegetarian food being what it is, it's probable that if all of humanity went vegetarian, it would solve the over-population problem pretty quickly too because we'd run out of food.
        chaosmachine 17y ago
        Think about how much food a cow eats in the 2-3 years before it gets turned into burgers.
        dejb 17y ago
        You have this completely wrong. It takes about 10 times the plant calories to produce meat calories. If the world stopped eating meat we would would be able to feed many more people.
        likpok 17y ago
        The bigger issue with veganism (and to a lesser extent vegetarianism) is that it requires cleverness to avoid malnutrition. Like it or not, the human colon is too short for a generic vegan diet; we evolved to eat meat. There are people who already have issues getting enough iron and protein. This problem would only be exacerbated by a pure vegetarian diet. Furthermore, we do not have an issue producing food for people. We have an issue convincing people to produce food for people. That is, most of the people who starve do so because they cannot afford food, rather than because food is too expensive. This is not a problem of too little food production, because farmers can barely support themselves in places. This is not to say that reducing meat consumption is not a bad thing, just that it would probably not solve all the worlds problems (or even the food-related ones).
  - potatolicious 17y ago
    Anyone care to dispute the notion that the risk of getting run over by a bus would be much reduced if you never left the house? Not to mention that livestock-spread diseases are just a drop in the bucket in the grand scheme of horrible ways to die via epidemic.
    - dejb 17y ago
      > Anyone care to dispute the notion that the risk of getting run over by a bus would be much reduced if you never left the house? Anyone care to dispute the notion that vegetarians live healthier lives than meat eaters? Anyone care to provide an argument that eating meat is good for humanity either collectively or individually? > Not to mention that livestock-spread diseases are just a drop in the bucket in the grand scheme of horrible ways to die via epidemic. Unsupported and almost certainly wrong.
dejb 17y ago
It is pretty sad to see the knee jerk emotional response that many otherwise rational people have when it comes to the subject of impacts of meat eating. I guess you could call it another 'inconvenient truth'.

can *.flu spread to plants? go vegetarian!

by hs 17y ago

can *.flu spread to plants? go vegetarian!

It spreads human to human, not pig to human. And you can't get it eating pork (so says the CDC). http://www.cdc.gov/media/transcripts/2009/t090423.htm http://www.cdc.gov/media/transcripts/2009/t090423.htm

dejb 17y ago
Possibly true. However there must have originally been some transfer from pigs to humans. Eating pigs and keeping them as livestock almost certainly contributed to the disease occurring. It is too late to stop this one but what about the next one. Anyone care to dispute the notion that the risk of these diseases 'crossing over' would be much reduced if humanity was vegetarian?
- scott_s 17y ago
  If all of humanity was vegan, the risk would probably be greatly reduced, since no one would have any livestock. Vegetarian diets still include eggs and dairy. But it's just a completely unhelpful comment. Humanity as a whole is not going to go vegetarian, let alone vegan. Proposing it as a solution is just pushing an agenda.
  - dejb 17y ago
    Partially agreed about the vegan part. I wasn't trying to get too technical. However disease transmission mostly seems to occur via eating meat rather than milk or eggs. I do think it is entirely practical and possible that that most of humanity could go vegan some time in the future. Reducing the risk of disease is just one of many reasons why it would improve the world. If it is an economically superior solution then eventually that is the way the world is likely to head. How's this for a more incrementally useful statement? Reductions in livestock and meat consumption would be likely to reduce the incidences of these type of diseases - therefore it is something we should look to minimise. It isn't an all or nothing proposition.
    - scott_s 17y ago
      I got the impression that in this cases, the disease isn't spread through eating pigs. Rather, it's the fact that pigs and humans are living in close proximity to each other that allowed a flu strain to evolve that targeted both species. Hence my comment about livestock.
      - dejb 17y ago
        I'm seeing a lot of contradictory indications in the news. 'China bans pork from US/Mexico', reports that 'properly cooked' pork is fine. You would think the original mutation could easily have happened in circumstances that are different from the current means of transmission. Either way it is a pretty safe bet the original pig wasn't being kept as a pet or for milk or eggs.
  - hs 17y ago
    sadly, drinking soda, eating potato chips and candy = vegetarian too ... anyway that's not what i'm doing; neither do i eat eggs, milk, even fish. i should say go vegan! i'm too selfish to care about what the rest of the world eat ... if you regard my post as a solution, fine, that's my solution to avoid *.flu -- for my selfish self well, enough of myself can you come up with better solution? something creative is even better, much better than critical things you said about how unhelpful/unfeasible one's solution is. sorry if my comment hurts your ego
    - swombat 17y ago
      The calorie density of vegetarian food being what it is, it's probable that if all of humanity went vegetarian, it would solve the over-population problem pretty quickly too because we'd run out of food.
      - chaosmachine 17y ago
        Think about how much food a cow eats in the 2-3 years before it gets turned into burgers.
      - dejb 17y ago
        You have this completely wrong. It takes about 10 times the plant calories to produce meat calories. If the world stopped eating meat we would would be able to feed many more people.
        likpok 17y ago
        The bigger issue with veganism (and to a lesser extent vegetarianism) is that it requires cleverness to avoid malnutrition. Like it or not, the human colon is too short for a generic vegan diet; we evolved to eat meat. There are people who already have issues getting enough iron and protein. This problem would only be exacerbated by a pure vegetarian diet. Furthermore, we do not have an issue producing food for people. We have an issue convincing people to produce food for people. That is, most of the people who starve do so because they cannot afford food, rather than because food is too expensive. This is not a problem of too little food production, because farmers can barely support themselves in places. This is not to say that reducing meat consumption is not a bad thing, just that it would probably not solve all the worlds problems (or even the food-related ones).
- potatolicious 17y ago
  Anyone care to dispute the notion that the risk of getting run over by a bus would be much reduced if you never left the house? Not to mention that livestock-spread diseases are just a drop in the bucket in the grand scheme of horrible ways to die via epidemic.
  - dejb 17y ago
    > Anyone care to dispute the notion that the risk of getting run over by a bus would be much reduced if you never left the house? Anyone care to dispute the notion that vegetarians live healthier lives than meat eaters? Anyone care to provide an argument that eating meat is good for humanity either collectively or individually? > Not to mention that livestock-spread diseases are just a drop in the bucket in the grand scheme of horrible ways to die via epidemic. Unsupported and almost certainly wrong.

dejb 17y ago

It is pretty sad to see the knee jerk emotional response that many otherwise rational people have when it comes to the subject of impacts of meat eating. I guess you could call it another 'inconvenient truth'.