Firstly, there are many different methods for human composting, including just burial in a biodegradable box without preservatives. At cemeteries, plots might be slightly more expensive because they’re more spread out, but beyond that it’s the same cost as any burial.
But yes, I would absolutely pay the minor difference in cost to not waste resources (both my nutrients and the gas burnt). I have no heirs.
I would much rather be a tree than a toxic plot of grass. I think anyone visiting me would be happier with that too….but it’s much more about the environment than people for me.

Again, because this one method is costlier doesn’t mean it has to be. This method is really partial cremation. I would consider something more like this….

https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/environment/a34054806/living-coffin-helps-bodies-decompose-faster/

Or less. Those cost less than most coffins.

People used to just go in a pine box and they composted quickly…none of these preservatives in the body and steel coffins designed to last centuries, that’s insanity to me and I want none of it.

Unfortunately the land fill would be a rotting cesspool of decaying bodies if people could toss bodies into dumpsters. Maybe consider donating to science, then they pay for your disposal.

Edit: this reminds me of the above ground cemeteries in New Orleans that (according to our tour guide) use the natural heat to naturally cremate bodies then they just push the last remains to the back of the tomb and reuse it.

I would totally choose this over the alternatives….although I prefer the composting “coffins” that are impregnated with microbes and fungi to decompose the body faster, and no bone grinding.

With all the ways humans take from their environment, I like the idea of giving back just a little. My body feeding a tree is a much better disposal than pumping it full of toxic preservatives so it can take decades to rot and be toxic for the soil or wasting tons of natural gas to cremate it, again wasting any nutrients it may hold.

The only drawback is I can’t do that AND have a Viking funeral.

Have I said any such things? I certainly don't recall saying any of that.
You must note, however, that the overreaction you get from some people likely stems from attempts to shame them using exaggeration, hyperbole, and even outright lies, which tend to make enemies to your cause rather than converts. I've never met a vegan that didn't operate that way to some degree. Perhaps those people are just giving back the same level of honest discussion and discourse they received. There's apparently something about veganism that makes it's practitioners think their movement is more important that fact and truth, like the "Dr." (and his followers) who claimed eating any amount of any red meat is just as carcinogenic as smoking a pack a day of cigarettes, citing WHO studies that said nothing of the sort. Many have said "If you agree with my goal, stopping animal suffering, why would you contradict my claims, even though I privately agree they're exaggeration and fantasy?". Ends don't justify means imo, and nothing justifies lying.

I don't need a degree in nutrition or to be a dietitian to understand the basics covered in multiple health classes I've passed and multiple scientific studies I've read. Is meat healthy? Yes....if it's raised and prepared properly and eaten in moderation. Is meat unhealthy? Yes...when eaten excessively or prepared unsafely.
Is veganism healthy? Yes....when practiced properly with a balanced diet that has all the nutrients humans need. Is veganism unhealthy? Yes...it is the way it's practiced by most vegans who don't have a grasp on what proper nutrition is. It's definitely harder to have a balanced healthy diet without any animal products, but isn't impossible.

Once again, I feel you are being fast and loose with fact by implying any of those statements have come from me. The only people I expect to die 6 times in a row are the ones in my dungeon that I'm keeping alive to prolong their torture....and they know what they did to deserve it. ;-)

Sure.
For newts, it's everything.
Leaf litter, twigs and branches, and downed trees are all imperative for a healthy forest....as is periodic fire in most cases. They are habitat for most forest animals.
They also moderate soil humidity, keeping it from drying out to dust, and return nutrients to the soil for plants to utilize.

Few forests could survive being raked clean, none would remain healthy.

They need to start scooping those things into vaccums and throwing them into a drum to roast the fuckers and start having termite-eating contests and shit.

The thought crossed my mind so i did some light googling and actually, yes they're edible and apparently they're very nutritious.

https://www.omicsonline.org/chemical-analysis-of-an-edible-african-termite-2161-1009.1000105.php?aid=3346

Nutrient Composition (%)
Protein 20.94±0.08
Lipid 34.23±0.83
Ash 7.60±0.33
Moisture 10.78 ± 0.02
Crude fibre 5.71± 0.01
Carbohydrate 20.74±0.00

Nutrient Composition (%)
Protein 20.94±0.08
Lipid 34.23±0.83
Ash 7.60±0.33
Moisture 10.78 ± 0.02
Crude fibre 5.71± 0.01
Carbohydrate 20.74±0.00

Vitamins Composition (mg/100g)
Vitamin A 0.35 ± 0.00
Vitamin C 17.76 ± 1.60
Riboflavin 1.56 ± 0.02
Thiamin 0.67 ± 0.04
Niacin 2.74 ± 0.02

Like I am genuinely floored right now at how nutritious these things are.

And that's coming from the government body responsible for promoting eggs. You gotta wonder just how bad they are for us. With the cholesterol of two burger King whoppers it's definitely not a health food regardless of any other nutrients that might be present.

Refined carbs aren't great, but grains, starchy roots (potatos) and beans are a key component of every bluezone in the world where people live the longest and with the fewest amounts of disease. There's a video about it on the same channel as this video above :-)

You don't want to trade weight loss, for long term health is what I'm saying. Weight loss in of itself is going to improve health markers and general wellbeing, but the majority of people in the west die from preventable heart-disease, which is without a doubt tied to cholesterol, which eggs are full of (yes there are a lot of cholesterol deniers out there, but there is no valid research backing up their claims). Bob Harper is a good recent example, huge keto/low-carb advocate, had a heart-attack, despite being lean and athletic. He's doing the bluezone way of eating now....

Also have you noticed that nobody ever mentions the 4th macro nutrient in any diet these days? Fibre! The one macro nutrient almost everybody is deficient in.... but nobody seems to talk about it, except those selling fibre supplements. I find it weird personally!

He did mention fish/white meat, however he was making the point that meats aren't what is making them healthy - the Mediterraneans are healthy despite these animal foods. They are healthy because of the large intake of whole plant foods, as is the case in Japan.

And we know this, because within Japan itself there's a clear relationship between health, and amount of animal products consumed. The traditional Okinawan diet (the place which has the most centenarians int he world) is just 6% calories from animal products, the rest being from sweet potato and rice and veg. Where as mainland Japan where they eat more animal products they don't do as well as their Okinawan neighbors.

This relationship of animal food intake & rates of chronic diseases works on a local level or a global level. Less is always better, all the way to none (Loma Linda 7th day Adventists many of which are vegan by religion tend do the best out of all of the blue zones, when it comes to chronic disease).



------


Omega 3 is present in so many plant foods - such as flaxseed/linseed, hemp, chia, and even sea algae (which is where the fish get their omega 3 from)

The benefit of getting omega 3 from plant sources means almost no saturated fat, no cholesterol, no mercury, no IGF-1 raising protein structures (and no antibiotics if you are eating farmed fish). Also they say the ocean will be fishless by 2048..... (which also coincides with the Post Atomic Horror era for the Trekkies out there lol)

Fish also don't have any fiber, (the one macro nutrient everyone pretends doesn't exist, and most people are deficient in). Stay regular and prevent diverticulitis/diverticulitis, and avoid hemorrhoids, and even varicose veins.

Flax also contains lignans which prevents/treats prostate cancer https://www.healthline.com/health/prostate-cancer/flaxseed-and-prostate-cancer.


You just get so much more nutrition out of plants over all. Animal products tend to have a higher amount of a single compound or nutrient, but they have a lot of baggage with it. It's like buying a car, you don't necessarily want the one with the biggest engine, the total package is what's important.


------

Whether or not Barnard is a vegan shill, doesn't change the nutritional profiles of foods as shown above.

It also doesn't change the fact he looks, acts and speaks amazing for someone that's 65 years old - clearly putting his theory into practice with wonderful results. And while that is anecdotal, that's certainly something nobody would say about Atkins, or Loran Cordain (Paleo advocate) or Jimmy Moore (Keto advocate), who all look like they could drop dead any minute (and Atkins literally did drop dead).

"The good and bad news about ants and plants. ... Their tunnels aerate the soil and allow water and nutrients to flow directly to the plant roots. They also distribute seeds by storing them in their tunnels. The bad news is that ants can protect honeydew-producing, sucking insects that do a great deal of damage."

I want to know what effect global dimming has had. It's a no brainer to think less light=less nutrient uptake.
Temperature also helps regulate growth rates, and it's changed.
Interesting about co2 making each plant larger with no addition of nutrients. Reminds me of growing redwoods in New Zealand....they grow astonishingly fast there, but the wood is useless because it's so soft.
*quality

Carnivorous is the wrong word. Carnivorous plants have digestion systems that allow them to take nutrients directly from their victims.
Flagitious or sanguinary self fertilizing seems a more appropriate label for his hypothesis.

**EDIT**
I'm finding other sources that say that sterile "terminator seeds" are a patented technique, but that Monsanto has promised not to use it. Straight from the horse's mouth:
http://www.monsanto.com/newsviews/pages/terminator-seeds.aspx

So it appears that my info below is wrong. I will try to talk with my family and get the full story. That being said, I'll leave my original comment and the followup below unaltered.
*********


My firsthand knowledge of this stuff was from more than 10 years ago, and also when I was pretty young (early 20's). So I did some web searching to try to get updated since your question is a very interesting one:

http://web.mit.edu/demoscience/Monsanto/about.html

According to that, Monsanto is the company behind "Roundup Ready", and their corn (and other crops in the line) do use sterile "terminator seeds". It also mentions that farmers "must purchase the most recent strain of seed from Monsanto" each year.

I was never in the decision-making structure of my family farm, but I did remember that we couldn't just buy the Roundup Ready seed *once* and then hold a small amount back as seed for the next year and continue to get the benefits.

I'm not 100% sure exactly how the modification for sterility works -- I don't know if the plant will sprout if you plant the sterile seeds and just fail to produce any ears / fruit, or if it just won't germinate at all. I do remember that we had to be quite careful to fully clean out the corn grown from the GM seeds from our storage bins, and better yet to store our non-GM corn to be used for future seed in entirely different bins. That was done to make sure that we didn't end up planting any of the sterile stuff.

I'm sure that the seed dealers that sell the GM stuff really push farmers to buy and plant it every year, as hinted to in that link. But you certainly don't *have* to. On the other hand, if you go back to non-GM seed for a year or two or more, you can't use a strong herbicide like Roundup if you have an unexpected outbreak of weeds or other pest plants -- the Roundup would kill the non-GM crop along with everything else.

Basically, I don't specifically begrudge companies like Monsanto for their practices concerning these GM crops. The "terminator seeds" are controversial, but don't seem like a big deal to me. If you could buy GM seeds once and then just hold back some of your harvest for next season's seed, they'd only get your money once AND we'd probably lose the original strains. So I see that as kinda win-win, especially if you don't 100% buy into their sales department urging you to use GM seed every single year.

I don't want to sound like a shill for Monsanto -- some of their other practices are pretty shady, particularly political lobbying. But from the perspective of my family farm, the GM corn that we use was/is a real beneficial thing. Significantly less pesticide/herbicide use over time, and it allows for expanded low/no till farming. Before herbicides, tilling was one of the only ways to kill off pest plants. But, it also makes the fields lose some moisture and nutrients. Expanded farming and ubiquitous tilling was largely the cause of the "dust bowl" dirty 30's. Anyway, I'd say that a lot of good has come out of modernized techniques and technology like GM crops.

Duh. Soylent green is made from elderly people, not teenagers, and as such it's made from pretty tainted meat. I'll take some Soylent pink, made from pure milk fed baby.

Not murder if they're terminally ill and ask you to do it, in many states.

Far more ethical to work for proper animal treatment than to insist on something that will never happen in a way that makes those you wish to convince your adversaries. He'll get WAY farther towards ending some animal suffering that your methods ever will. Your methods have had many people reply to you that they will eat MORE meat just to spite you, or so you've said in the past....so your methods are obviously failing badly, so are unethical as they cause MORE animal suffering.

Most available vegan food is processed today, so is in the same category you put bacon and deli turkey. Unprocessed meats are also far healthier than processed meats, and are more nutrient dense than plants.

Depending on the curing process, it can be bad or good (and again, not PROVEN to cause cancer...you just backed off that claim on the other thread...so why make it again?)

He wants less harm done to animals....so he's winning. he wants people to eat MORE healthily, he's winning. He wants to move away from a zealous, all or nothing movement that's failing in it's goals and making enemies in the effort, he's winning.

There isn't enough available land to switch to purely vegetarianism either, you're point is ridiculous, no one is advocating feeding all people on pure meat....he's not even advocating for vegetarians to eat meat, and said so clearly. If you had a point to make, then you've failed.

You say that like vegans aren't mostly pasty sickly looking people that look about 2 years late for death by wasting syndrome.

With logic like Ben Rukle's, I'm surprised he's not advocating Soylent Green:
It's full of nutrients that people need, since it's made from people.
It's environmentally friendly because humans are a renewable resource.
It's ethical cause people these days live comfortable lives, so it's fine to kill them in their teens.


The good old "killing humanely" argument. Yes it's better than factory farming, but killing a human in a nicer way is still murder by law, and so is treating them nicely before killing them.
If ethical living is his goal, then he's failed.

I've also heard his story many times. Eats mainly vegan junk food, which lacks nutrients (as does all processed junk food), and then somehow links that to all vegan food being unhealthy.

This is why I'm always banging on about eating unprocessed whole foods, they are nutrient dense.

You'll also notice that at the end they are eating specifically processed meat - the type proven to cause cancer. (as well as the worlds #1 killer heart-disease).
If he wants healthy food, then he's failed.


When it comes to sustainability, foods like potatoes, rice, and grains give you the most calories output for energy/water/land put in.
There also simply isn't enough land on the planet to farm animals this way and feed everyone.
If he wants sustainable farming, then he's failed.


Also he looks like he's about 2 years late for a heart-attack.

I'm glad to see that people are now accepting that exercise does very little for weight loss. Eating the right foods is 90% of the weight loss effort. Permanent weight loss also hasn't got anything to do with calorie counting/restriction.

A whole-foods plant based diet is the only sustainable way to lose weight because you never go hungry, and you get all of the nutrients you need. No exercise, no starvation, no calorie counting, no fasting, no salads. Just eat real hearty and satiating foods, and that's it.

You'll lose an average of 2.5kg a month, which within 2 years is 60kg. It's consistent, predictable and permanent.

If you're serious about losing weight here are some resources that I've used to get my BMI back to 23 (from 30):

https://www.drmcdougall.com/health/shopping/books/starch-solution/

https://www.amazon.com/21-Day-Weight-Loss-Kickstart-Dramatically/dp/0446583820

http://engine2diet.com/recipes/

https://www.amazon.com/Foods-That-Cause-Lose-Weight/dp/0380807971/ref=pd_sim_14_2?ie=UTF8&dpID=51BiLkzcpQL&dpSrc=sims&preST=_AC_UL160_SR95%2C160_&psc=
1&refRID=J9FHP0P469CCPDH0Z613

Of course, exercise is great for your heart and brain health, and to give your body some tone and shape.