People will eat other people if they have nothing else to eat. Social eating rules are mostly that, a social construct, born of too many options. If a group of people or an influential individual decide bananas have feelings, so be it. The whole eggs are good, eggs are bad debate.

Read the bible for instance, like a quarter of it deals with social constructs that make no sense today, including rules about food. Pick and choose.

Just because of this fancy belief steaks have gotten no less tasty or nourishing. You have to kill a cow to get steak, no way around it. If this one is too cute, find another cow.

People are basically the same since hunting mammoths was a thing. Bread is OK. Meat is good.

I realllllly dont feel like working today TBH.

:45..."what can we do about it?
A: Have fewer children.

2:20 "we could nourish an additional 3.5 billion more people if we just ate the stuff we feed to animals"
.....except humans can't eat grasses, the main food source for cattle. Most of what we feed animals is not considered edible by humans. Organic free range chickens eat insects and slugs, is the narrator prepared to live on that to prove his point? I doubt it.

6:13 "burgers are the best food".
This proves this was made by non meat eaters with no knowledge of meat at all. Anyone who would contend a 1/4 pounder s the pinnacle of meat dishes should have their tongue removed so they don't spread more nonsense, they obviously aren't using it to taste food. ;-)

Not to be pedantic, but I know enough people who've claimed money has "nothing to do with happiness" literally that I have to counter it.

If you lack the money to keep you, or even more your children nourished or protected from the elements, you will discover there are many reasons for unhappiness that money can aid with. Money in no way grants or guarantees happiness, but there are a lot of things that make you miserable and sad that money can overcome, hungry and homeless children being the most obvious.

I have never even heard the term before a week ago, my aunt said I should check out "scientific pantheism", The page I read was that nature itself can provide spiritual nourishment, without any magic, superstition or deities. When we look at the milky way and our jaw drops in awe, that is a similar experience in the mind to "feeling a god". , that is what I took from it so far. "But we are not talking about supernatural powers or beings. We are saying this: We are part of nature. Nature made us and at our death we will be reabsorbed into nature. We are at home in nature and in our bodies. This is where we belong. This is the only place where we can find and make our paradise, not in some imaginary world on the other side of the grave." https://www.pantheism.net/beliefs/

Charlie Brooker & Philomena Cunk nourish my hypothetical soul.

@transmorpher

It's a little difficult to 'debate' your comment, because the points that you address to me are numbered but don't reference to specific parts of my post. That's probably my fault as i was releasing frustration haphazardly and sarcastically, and that sarcasm wasn't aimed at you. All i can do is try and sum up whether i think we agree or disagree overall.

Essentially everything is a question of 'taste', even for you. There's no escaping our nature, most of us don't drink our own piss, many of us won't swallow our own blood, almost all of us have a flavour that we can't abide because we were fed it as a child. So yes, our decisions are defined by taste. But taste is decided by the food that is available to people, within reasonable distance of their house, at a price they find affordable according to the society around them, from a range of food that is decided by society around them. Your average person does not have the luxury to walk around a high street supermarket selecting the most humane and delicious foods. People get what they can afford, what they understand, what they can prepare and what is available. Our ancestors ate chicken because of necessity of their own kind, their children are exposed to chicken through no fault of their own, fast forward a few generations, and thus chicken becomes an affordable, accessible staple. Can we reach a compromise here? It may not be necessary for chickens to die to feed the human race, but it may be necessary for some people to eat chicken today because of their particular life.

I don't like the use of the phrase 'if i can do it, i know anyone can'. I think it's a mistake to deal in certainties, especially pertaining to lifestyles that you can't possibly know about without having lived them. Are you one of the many homeless people accepting chicken soup from a stranger because it's nourishing, cheap and easy for a stranger to buy, and keeps you warm on the streets? Are you a single mother with coeliac disease, a grumpy teenager and picky toddler who has 20 minutes to get to the supermarket and get something cooking? Or one of the millions using foodbanks in the UK (to our shame) now? I don't think you're willfully turning a blind eye to those people, i'm not tugging heart strings to do you a disservice. Maybe you're just fortunate you not only have the choice, but you have such choice that you can't imagine a life without it. I won't budge an inch on this one, you can't know what people have to do, and we have to accept life is not ideal.

And within that idealism and choice problem we can include illnesses that once again in IDEAL situations could survive without dead animals, nevertheless find it necessary to eat what they can identify and feel safe with.

Yes, those damn gluten hipsters drive me round the bend but only because they make people think that a LITTLE gluten is ok, it makes people take the problem less seriously (see Tumblr feminism... JOKE).

I agree that we must look at what action we can take now - and that is why i keep reminding you that we are not in an ideal world. If the veganism argument is to succeed then you must suggest a reasonable pathway to go from how we are now to whatever situation you would prefer. My "ideal farm" description was just me demonstrating the problem - that you need to show us your blueprint for how we start again without killing animals and feeding everyone we have.

And on that subject, your suggestions need to be backed by real research, otherwise you don't have any real plan. "It's fair to say there is very little risk" is a nice bit of illustrative language but it is not backed by any fact or figure and so i'm compelled to do my Penn and Teller impression and call bullshit. As of right now, the life expectancy of humans is better than it has ever been. It is up to you to prove that changing the diet of 7 billion people will result in neutrality or improvement of health and longevity. That proof must come in the form of large statistical analyses and thorough science. I don't want to sound like i'm being a dick, but any time you state something like that as a fact or with certainty, it needs to be backed up by something. I'm not nit picking and asking for common knowledge to have a citation, but things like this do:

-- 70% of farmland claim
-- 'fair to say very little risk' claim
-- meat gives you cancer claim - i accept it may have a carcinogenic effect but i'll remind you so does breathing, joss-sticks, broccoli, apples and water
-- 'the impact to the planet would be immense' claim - in what way, and what would be the downsides in terms of economy, productivity, health, animal welfare (where are all the animals going to be sent to retire as of day 1?)
-- etc. etc.

Oh, and a cow might get its protein from plants, but it walks around a field all day eating grass, chewing the cud and having sloppy shits with 4 stomachs and enzymes that i don't have................. I'm a bit puzzled by this one... I probably can't survive on what an alligator or a goldfish eats, but i can survive on parts of an alligator or fish. I can't eat enough krill in a day to keep me going, but i can let a whale do it for me...?

"Claiming to be at the top of the food chain has become a popular justification for eating animal products and an affirmation of our ability to violently dominate everything and everyone. Yet justifications for needless violence that draw on notions of power and supremacy are based on the philosophy of “Might makes right” — the principle behind the worst atrocities and crimes of human history."

"We humans are not at the top of anything. We are merely part of an interdependent web of life that forms complex yet fragile ecosystems. We choose to either participate in the protection of these natural systems, or to destroy them at our own peril. The concept of a food chain is a human construct that imposes a rigid and competitive hierarchy among species, rather than a good faith understanding of the complexity of the ecosystems to which we belong. Selectively appealing to biological determinism also ignores the fact that we are moral agents. By choosing plant foods, we can get our nutrients through primary sources of nourishment, in the most environmentally friendly and resource-efficient way possible, minimizing our harm to other animals, humans and the planet."

http://freefromharm.org/common-justifications-for-eating-animals/breaking-food-chain-myth/

This nourished my brain after 3 Trump videos in a row. I am just about up to "barely coherent".

A good mom and later on he will provide plenty of nourishment. Win - Win!

I love The Fountain, and I pretty much interpreted the movie in the same way as the guy who did the video (give or take a few details).

I agree that it's a movie about coming to terms with death, and that death is not just a part of life. Life needs death to exist and vice-versa. We are all here, because stars died, and from their demise came the stuff that made our existence possible. And plants and animals die (or are killed) so that we can carry on living. And when we die, it doesn't really matter if we are buried or cremated. The stuff we are made of, the basic components of it, return to where it came from. To where it always belonged. We we're just borrowing it.

I think the tree in the spaceship is in fact the tree Tom planted over his wife's grave. And in his inability to accept her death and his eventual own, he grew attached to the tree because in a way it was the only thing he had left that was a part of his long gone wife. Her body nourished the tree, and in that sense became a part of it. But even trees don't live forever, and after 500 years the tree is dying, and once again he can't accept it. That's why he shouted at his memories of her to leave him alone. He just couldn't take it anymore. Living forever and never being able to let go, is not an easy way to live.

His death in the end, renewed the tree, making it bloom once again. Also I don't agree that he's not rational (as the video puts it). I think that's precisely the problem with Tom. He's completely rational, and ceasing to be and never again seeing his loved ones, scares him more than anything else.

I'm an atheist, and therefore I consider myself a rational person, but this movie really gave me a much needed boost to come to terms with death. Not just mine but of everyone I know. It will be terrible (as it is) when it happens, but not accepting it is denying the universe, and denying reality.

Stars die too. What chances did we ever had?

For "dumb and hypocritical", big food sure spends a lot of money doing exactly what you say they can't. They spend millions every year looking for addictive "mouthfeel" (the actual technical term used), and a balance of salt/fat/sugar that is the most addictive possible, with the lowest possible cost. None of which has -anything- to do with providing actual nourishment.

You need to do a bit of research before spouting off.

Except when you have a penis, and you're programmed to find them comforting and nourishing. Then one day you realize they're on the opposite sex and you deal with attraction and sex. All of a sudden everything gets blurred and you have found the recipe for why tits are difficult not to look at. Oh and never mind society pushes women to dress sexy which in turn put's "the girls" out on display more and more. To be fair I look at tits in a sweatshirt and still think/ wonder compulsively. So even if they weren't out on display as much as they are these days I still would still gaze shamelessly. IMO women need to deal with their issues concerning their breasts and men are completely fine where we are. I won't have someone tell me what to think and I won't have someone tell me what I can and can't look at. That's disgusting, not the act of looking at tits.

The problem isn't the sexual aspect of breasts, that's perfectly fine, it's our unability to perceive anything but. Before evolution made breasts the bouncy fondling fun we like to enjoy, they were a source of nourishment.
It's awkward and embarrassing because of our limited view, our lack to subconsciously process the whole concept behind it.
Imagine everytime we'd saw a hand, we'd think "Masturbation!"
Handshakes would be sooo awkward.

Bravo. Well said Ms. McNish.

People need to work through their uncomfortabilities with breast feeding and realize how beautiful it is that a child is getting their nourishment while also bonding with their mother in the most natural way possible.

How about we make spiked gun factories that make fruit instead of guns. And then we'd simply need to defend ourselves from bananas and kiwis and other semi-dangerous fruit types. That way we don't kill enemy combatants, we capture them; and when our own soldiers find these fruit in their own armories, they can consume them as nourishment.

Come on! It's brilliant, AND I know of the perfect training instructor for the job. Though he may actually kill you upon defending your fruit attack. Due to this risk, it's probably best to simply let enemy combatants find and distribute these arms without training in the operation of them.