In Leonard Shlain’s wonderful book, Sex, Time and Power (2003), he makes the following observation: “Our ancestors would … bring about the greatest mass extinction of large animals since the dinosaurs abruptly disappeared 65-million years ago. Through their ever burgeoning technological prowess, humans would plant crops, tend herds, invent writing, build the Parthenon, discover gunpowder, transform the ceiling in the Sistine Chapel, compose the Eroica Symphony, and eventually evolve into a biological force capable of influencing the very climate of the earth. Eve’s descendants have steadily accumulated the power to destroy each other in an unholy Armageddon and, like sleepwalkers, are shuffling toward a planetary ecological disaster. How could a slight, five-foot-tall, two-legged animal create such sublimity and yet wreak so much havoc in so minuscule an interval of earth”s history?” (pp.11-12).
This passage captures succinctly the paradoxical nature of humanity, the strange species capable of such opposing extremes. The sentence that is particularly germane to what I wish to focus on here, is the one where Shlain remarks that humans, “like sleepwalkers, are shuffling toward a planetary ecological disaster”.
Shlain’s book was published seven years ago, and the remark in question is even more valid today, judging by James Lovelock’s latest book, The Vanishing face of Gaia: A Final Warning (2009). I know that many readers will dismiss Lovelock’s carefully considered prognosis for the planet out of hand, and for many reasons, not least of which is the fact that they have vested interests in believing, blindly, that everything on earth is still hunky dory, and that we can go on with “business as usual” (especially when there is much profit to be made out of “green business”).
So, what is his prognosis? In a nutshell, he paints a bleak picture of the prospects facing the inhabitants of this once verdant planet — in fact, he counsels that we may as well accept that the lush world of the 20th century is forever something of the past, and that all indications are that we are witnessing the Earth inexorably moving towards what he calls a “hot state”, where many of the things and conditions that we now take for granted will have changed beyond recognition, and to our and other living beings” detriment.
How does he know this, one may object. His answer is an interesting and multi-faceted one, in so far as it takes into consideration many variables not often (in fact, hardly ever) referred to in discussions of climate change. For one thing, it rests on the distinction between those scientists who work with theoretical models for climate prediction, on the one hand, and those, on the other, who are engaged in ongoing, painstaking observation and measurement of certain conditions — always within a theoretical framework, too, of course, in this case that of Gaia theory, which considers the Earth as a single, if enormously complex and variegated, physiological, geophysical and biological system.
Those scientists who work with climate models in order to predict what the climate will be like in, say, three decades’ time, extrapolate from present conditions in terms of a set of assumed conditions about the current geophysical state of the planet, the rate of change in greenhouse gas emissions, and so on. On the other hand, those who — like Lovelock — do not rely on the projection of theory-based, anticipated conditions, and are constantly engaged in observing and measuring existing conditions, instead, to be able to adjust their present picture of the Earth system, are loathe to predict any conditions which are unattainably distant from today in observational terms.
Lovelock expresses his appreciation of the work done by many scientists who use the modelling approach, but painstakingly explains why such an approach is inadequate when it comes to forecasts pertaining to decades into the future. First, it assumes that the rate of heating of the planet will be an even, gradual process, and second, that humanity will be able to restrict it to only 2°C by 2050, when the global population is expected to stabilise around eight billion.
Third, it is almost wholly based on atmospheric physics, while a full understanding of the planet’s climate involves much more than this, for instance a sound knowledge of the way that living creatures — humans, animals and plants (especially in forests) — influence the climate. In fact, one of the things that recommends Lovelock (a geophysiologist) as scientist is his multi-disciplinary approach, where he constantly brings the latest findings of geophysics, marine biology, plant and animal physiology, biochemistry, as well as ongoing measurements of Earth conditions by scientists and satellites into an illuminating constellation.
The expectation that humanity can control climate modifications to keep them within bearable limits, when pronounced by the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), seems authoritative enough to feed into international policies on climate change, but is nevertheless highly misleading. In addition to what was said above, Lovelock is quick to remind one that science is a probabilistic discipline, where hardly anything can be predicted with complete certainty — especially when so many variables are at stake — so that it is absurd for scientists like those on the IPCC to commit themselves to such a (politically correct and reassuring) forecast, decades into the future. Many of the variables used in climate models could change in a very short time, making a mockery of what was predicted, as it happened regarding faulty model predictions pertaining to the hole in the ozone layer.
To mention only a few things that could upset the applecart before then, a catastrophe of human making could completely skew the prediction by introducing factors into the equation that the model does not include. (I wonder of the present Gulf of Mexico BP oil disaster would qualify as such a calamity.) A natural event such as a large meteorite hitting the planet, although less likely, would also throw the IPCC forecast off the tracks. Or, on the more optimistic side, there could be a series of unpredictable volcanic eruptions, which would cool the atmosphere significantly by injecting cool particles into the atmosphere, as it happened when Pinatubo erupted in 1991, cooling the Earth significantly for the following three years. Or, he concedes, geo-engineering could conceivably make such strides as to invent ways of “engineering” a cooler state.
These possibilities aside, however, Lovelock believes it far more likely that the heating of the Earth will continue, but at a much more accelerated rate than predicted. Even if there can still be bickering among scientists and members of the public about this, he points out that one of the indisputable factors indicative of a steady rise in global temperature is the rise in sea level worldwide, which had been predicted to be between 2 and 4cm worldwide from 1970 until 2007, but turned out to be almost 5cm instead. Moreover, this is a progressive rise, whereas mean global temperatures vary from year to year. The height of the Earth’s atmosphere, too, is such a reliable yardstick, because the air, like water, expands as it heats up.
Anyone reading this will probably realise that I cannot report on all the many detailed discussions that Lovelock devotes to the issues that I have referred to in his book. Let me therefore cut to the chase, as it were, and try to summarise briefly the consequences of the changing climate that he foresees. They are beyond disconcerting; they are truly shocking, because no less than the fate of living beings is at stake here.
Lovelock points out that, based on his experiments with atmospheres that resemble that of the Earth, given the present greenhouse condition of the planet — which is now well above 400 ppm of carbon dioxide — the first stabilisation of global temperature that we can reasonably expect, is at 5°C above present temperature levels. Moreover, this “jump” to a “hothouse state” will probably — as in his experimental setup — be precipitated by a relatively small increase in heat or in carbon dioxide (or methane, nitrous oxide, and/or CFCs) quantities in the atmosphere. Most disconcerting is the fact that, based on his experiment, before the rapid escalation to global desert status, there will probably be a brief period of cooling down, manifested in a cool summer, or a series of them.
As might be expected, such a rapid rise in world temperature will be nothing short of catastrophic — if it happens; and Lovelock stresses that unpredictable things could prevent it from happening. Nevertheless, there are many factors worldwide at present — listed by him, and too many to repeat here — that indicate a movement in that direction, such as the growing acidification of the world’s oceans (which has already turned vast areas of ocean into desert, with no sign of life), the growing desertification of land in many areas, the persistent droughts in parts of the world (like Australia), and so on.
Lovelock compares the Earth and its human inhabitants to a terminally ill patient, who, on receiving the bad news from his or her doctor, goes through the usual stages of shock, denial, anger accompanied by turning to conventional medicine, disappointment and subsequent turning to alternative medicine, before calm acceptance of the unavoidable end is finally reached. But let me give Lovelock the opportunity to address you himself at this stage (pp. 46-47): “Scientists, who recognize the truth about the Earth’s condition, advise their governments of its deadly seriousness in the manner of a physician. We are now seeing the responses. First was denial at all levels, then the desperate search for a cure. Just as we individuals try alternative medicine, our governments have many offers from alternative business and their lobbies to “save the planet”, and from some green hospice there may come the anodyne of hope.
Should you doubt that this grim prospect is real, let me remind you of the forces now taking the Earth to the hothouse. These include the increasing abundance of greenhouse gases from industry and agriculture, including gases from natural ecosystems damaged by global heating in the Arctic and the tropics. The vast ocean ecosystems that used to pump down carbon dioxide can no longer do so because the ocean turns to desert as it warms and grows more acidic; then there is the extra absorption of the sun’s radiant heat as white reflecting snow melts and is replaced by dark ground or ocean. Each separate increase adds heat, and together they amplify the warming that we cause. The power of this combination and the inability of the Earth now to resist it is what forces me to see the efforts made to stabilize carbon dioxide and temperature as no better than planetary alternative medicine …
… I have mentioned several times before that breathing is a potent source of carbon dioxide, but did you know that the exhalations of breath and other gaseous emissions by nearly seven billion people on Earth, their pets and their livestock are responsible for 23% of all greenhouse gas emissions?”
And a few pages further (p. 50): “There is no tipping point; we are sliding down a bumpy slope that grows ever steeper to the future hot world. Even the survival havens [like the UK and New Zealand] where climate change is gentle enough to allow the continued growth of food there will be disasters and difficulties. Thus in the more fertile parts of Europe unaffected by heat and drought, including The Netherlands, the UK and Ireland, rising sea level and storms may lead to catastrophic inundations. Much of London is likely to be flooded, and the underground transport system disabled. The Netherlands may be uninhabitable …”
The worst source of suffering and large-scale dying of living beings, Lovelock believes, will be drought. All living creatures depend on water for survival, and as the water resources of the world dwindle more and more, it is not impossible that wars may ensue over access to it (as it has already been happening in Darfur).
So what is to be done? Lovelock’s advice to governments worldwide is to stop believing that a process that has been gathering momentum for a century or more can be stopped by turning to alternative energy sources; on scientific grounds he believes that this is unlikely, and that the best we can do is to secure our water and food resources as much as possible for surviving the hot climate that lies ahead.
The most likely response on the part of people reading this post, or his book, is to reject it out of hand, because — as the saying goes — the prospect it outlines is just too ghastly to contemplate. However, one should think twice before rejecting his diagnosis of the present precarious state of the planet, as well as its future prospects. But why should one not scorn or ridicule it, especially because his assessment is extremely troubling? Lovelock himself raises this question, and answers as follows (p.23): “Why should you read — much less believe — a lone scientist, when the consortium of most of the world’s climate professionals, the IPCC, appears to express a much milder consensus on climate change [?] … what makes my forecast of future climate different is not simply a disagreement among scientists, although that is normal and healthy enough; why I speak out so strongly and talk of catastrophe is because I am a scientist influenced by evidence coming from the Earth, and viewed through Gaia theory. I work independently and I am not accountable to some human agency — a religion, political party, commercial or government agency. Independence allows me to consider the health of the Earth without the constraint that the welfare of humankind comes first. This way I see the health of the Earth as primary for we are utterly dependent upon a healthy planet for survival.”
For my part, I have always admired someone who has the autonomy of mind to resist the easy option of bowing to political correctness and convention, and I therefore — especially because he addresses the issue himself — don’t see him as an alarmist. His credentials are just too good, and being already 90 years of age, he has nothing to gain by just being otherwise. The philosophical point raised by his book is not the scientific-technological one of our chances of survival, but one raised (if I recall correctly) by the theologian, Rohrmoser, years ago, namely: If we can and do survive as a species, would conditions be such that it would be worthwhile surviving as a human being. Anyone who has seen the film, The Road, would know what this means.
@X Cepting
A few points of pedantry:
“vegetarians, especially bean eaters have a higher methane production than meat eaters. (I know, I tried to cohabit with one once.) “
—that’s rather anecdotal evidence
All people produce methane, as do all animals raised for slaughter. However 45 billion land-based animals killed for meat each year probably produce a *lot* of methane *in addition to* the people who eat them. So whether or not vegetarians or vegans fart a bit more than meat-eaters pales in significance against the massive amounts of burps and farts produced by all those animals raised for meat.
“If the space becomes available to grow staple crops like wheat and maize and, yes, beans, this will simply lead to more humans on the planet… “
—I am unable to follow how making more space available will make people breed more. Unlike many animals, people have babies whether there are resources or not. I fail to see how producing vegetables rather than raising cattle will influence this.
To be continued
@X Cepting
(Continued)
“… high intensity beef factory farming which is as ruinous of the environment as any factory farming, including veg. Did you know that veg factory farming produces more carbon dioxide directly because of the machinery and indirectly because of the electricity used in the irrigation systems?”
— a large portion of crops produced are produced for raising animals (e.g. 85% of soy grown where once was Amazon rainforest) hence those problems you mention apply at least in part to the meat industry. We will be producing grain and other vegetables whether we eat meat or not. Furthermore, we simply do not have space to raise free-range animals – as it is 1/3 of arable land is used to raise livestock – so people’s incredible meat hunger could be said to be necessitating factory farming. And animal farming requires bucketloads of electricity too.
Most obvious though are the simple maths in terms of food and energy produced. To produce 1kg of chicken, the animal must be fed 1.5-2kg of grain. With cattle it jumps to 1kg of meat produced for 16kg of grain. If that food was fed directly to humans, it would simply be much more efficient. Compared to the amounts I have eaten in my life thus far, my 52kg frame will not yield one heck of a lot of meat. This disregards matters like manure lagoons, other waste, diseases, etc. Purely in terms of efficient use of resources, a (sensible) vegan diet is the
Final sentence should have read: Purely in terms of efficient use of resources, a (sensible) vegan diet is the absolute optimum.
X Cepting – just admit it, you can’t imagine giving up those tjoppies, eh?
@HD: Sure, in the big picture it’s all just bound up energy sputtering slowly towards complete dissipation in the final heat death of the universe. Buddhist detachment aside though, the practical question is do *we* want to live? How? What are our preferences as individuals, as groups and as a bio-community?
It is clear in this regard that what we have been doing recently has not been working; indeed it has brought us to this critical juncture in a relative millisecond of historical time. It also seems clear that we have the capacity to live otherwise and that this will then act to inform the values so many people erroneously argue are solely biologically determined.
(I’m not a fan of reductionist accounts like Diamond’s – they’re symptomatic of our inability to deal with complexity and are useful only in very limited domains.)
@X Cepting: Free range / grass-finished meat and dairy are just as unsustainable as CAFO’s (http://www.care2.com/causes/environment/blog/free-range-is-not-the-answer/). To argue that veganism is not *easily* the most ecologically friendly diet (especially if it is local, organic and permaculture-based) is at odds with science and simple common sense, which is why even mainstream organisations are now beginning to advocate a dramatic decrease in the amount of meat and dairy (dairy alone seems to be responsible for 4% of ACC emissions) in our diet.
@Siobhan: I like what you’re saying, although, imho, consumption > population.
@mallencolly – this debate is starting to have the feel of a religion versus science debate, which, to conserve energy, I simply never enter into anymore. Never the twain shall meet. I cannot argue with assumptions like: if it is free-roaming it must be hunter-gatherer. How do do you think modern game farming (big business btw) is done? Also, I do not, as a rule, bring emotion or beliefs into debates over the net since it is pointless and a hindrance to gathering and debating fact. In fact, I am not religious, since, like blogroid put so nicely: “I avoid having beliefs” and prefer to deal in facts and hypothesis. So, if I use the word “evil” or “abomination” it would be in the context of “a system that does not work properly” or resources that is misused or stockpiled and creating stagnance somewhere”, i.e. disturbing harmony/balance. To tell me that killing an animal should weigh heavier on my concience than killing a plant is just so much alphabet soup to me. As far as I am concerned there is no difference. If the fact of high rise veggies appeal to you and you see nothing wrong, well, we actually have no common ground to debate on. Perhaps we should split the Earth in two and the vegans and believers can cover the Earth in high-rise buildings and eat factory sludge whilst my side will try to establish a new, more palatable, holistic balance with nature.
correction: you vegans and believers can have half the Earth, not all. In fact, why not move to a devoid of life planet like Mars where you can create a whole artificial planet and not endanger a single species on Earth?
@Evilsnukkums
- It was meant to be anecdotal, and yes, even a bit facetious, since the whole vegan v. omnivore debate is starting to become as tiresome as the whole evolution v. creationism debate. Case of: Oh no! Not again!
- More space available will give the economists the amunition to advise people that the Earth is just fine and we environ(mental) types are just shouting “overpopulation” because we like scaring people. Makes sense?
- My answer to mallencolly on crops produced for animals refer. It will answer your question. In many parts of South Africa cattle farms do not feed the stock much more than molasses extra additional to natural veldt. If you use an American vegan v. omnivore argument, keep in mind it is applicable to American high-tech. farms. A much smaller percentage of farming in this country is high-tech, mostly poultry.
The reason we have little space to raise free range is because most arable land is currently covered in mono culture crops.
The other examples are just ludicrous. It is not fact that it takes 1.2kg etc. Manure lagoons happen when bad husbandry happens. Almost all the so-called “scientifically proven” arguments I’ve seen on meat&veg v. veg refers to bad cultivation practices in both. Argument is pointless unless you enjoy debate. I prefer finding solutions. “Vegan diet is the absolute optimum”? Optimum to whom? I don’t do fanaticism either. Take all the variables into account, then recalculate.
@Poetician – Hell Yes! My Body Tells Me So!
@ X Cepting
If you think that “there is nothing wrong with natural veldt, populated by many species, graced by animals, untouched by machine, instead of the monoculture ruined veldt even semi-industrial crop production usually become? ” doesn’t at least suggest hunter-gatherer then I don’t know.
Anyways, no problem, If you consider “modern game farming” to be the solution then we’ll take that one on.
Modern game farming is practiced by means of buying in breeding stock (I saw a price list today. the prices have increased ridiculously since 2007 btw), transporting it to wherever, ensuring that specific tests are carried out for relevant diseases, managing the degradation of the plants life, and allowing those hunters that have the means to pay many thousands of rand the opportunity to shoot them. That is the short version. There is environmental damage in just about every step of the process.
@ X Cepting (part 2)
So it is nothing like the virgin lands utopia in the quote above. There is also no reason to suggest that things will stay the same with an increase in demand, since, to bastardise your response to The Lovely Mrs Shnukums “the economists will just advise people that it is eco-friendly”. Further, in cattle at least, grain fed animals produce less methane than grass fed animals due to the higher levels of consumption of grass than grains. I’m not sure if the same applies to wild buck, but it is by no means guaranteed that your assertion about less methane is true. It is also not too much of a stretch of the imagination to extrapolate the levels of damage caused once game becomes a higher demand commodity which it would be if current levels of meat consumption remain. Or that a bit of that mono-culture crop will be slipped in to “fatten the calf”.
@ X Cepting (part 3)
As for high rise sludge, poo-pooing it without providing reasons is a bit of a cop-out, don’t you think. Given that we live in a world where there is already an incredibly high level of urbanisation, much of it that is a socio-economic cesspool of ultra-high density living (with all the problems that brings) and once again, that population levels are not likely to drop anytime soon, How would vertical farming be any different nutritionally to, say, potted crops that people living in these environments are encouraged to grow (and that I myself grow since I don’t have a lot of land or good soil for that matter)? How would it be environmentally more damaging than say a block of flats? Sorry mate, but as things stand, we are in disaster recovery mode, your “living in harmony with nature” is neither fact nor hypothesis but highly romanticised speculation.
PS. Far from bringing emotion into it, this is me in friendly mode
PPS. If you want a comparison between grain fed and grass fed, follow the links from the link Aragorn provided.
@ X Cepting
- It was meant to be anecdotal, and yes, even a bit facetious, since the whole vegan v. omnivore debate is starting to become as tiresome as the whole evolution v. creationism debate. Case of: Oh no! Not again!
—For the vegans as well, believe me
- More space available will give the economists the amunition to advise people that the Earth is just fine and we environ(mental) types are just shouting “overpopulation” because we like scaring people. Makes sense?
—Sort of but the thing is, the people who most often shout overpopulation are Westerners like you and me, who have an exponentially higher environmental impact than the people in developing countries. So how we use resources, rather than population level, seems to me a far bigger factor.
- My answer to mallencolly on crops produced for animals refer. It will answer your question. In many parts of South Africa cattle farms do not feed the stock much more than molasses extra additional to natural veldt. If you use an American vegan v. omnivore argument, keep in mind it is applicable to American high-tech. farms. A much smaller percentage of farming in this country is high-tech, mostly poultry.
— This a global issue, and globally people’s excessive meat consumption is driving more industrialised farming.
@ X Cepting (part duh)
The reason we have little space to raise free range is because most arable land is currently covered in mono culture crops.
—According to the FAO report “Livestock’s Long Shadow” 33% of arable land being used for livestock *feed crop production* is correct. And 26% of total terrestrial surface for grazing. Scarier than I remember from last I read it!
The other examples are just ludicrous. It is not fact that it takes 1.2kg etc. Manure lagoons happen when bad husbandry happens. Almost all the so-called “scientifically proven” arguments I’ve seen on meat&veg v. veg refers to bad cultivation practices in both. Argument is pointless unless you enjoy debate. I prefer finding solutions. “Vegan diet is the absolute optimum”? Optimum to whom? I don’t do fanaticism either. Take all the variables into account, then recalculate.
—If you feel that what I say is not fact, feel free to counter it with references. I can get a breakdown if you want but according to the report mentioned above, “livestock consumes 77 million tonnes of protein that could be used for human consumption, whereas only 58 million tonnes are contained in food products that livestock supply.” Manure lagoons, etc happen when 45 billion land-based are raised for slaughter each year. Don’t get so annoyed. I’m not trying to convert you or change your opinion, merely challenging what I believe to be incorrect assumptions
And yes I do enjoy debate.
@X Cepting: You’re creating the same patently false dilemma Lierre Keith does in The Vegetarian Myth: industrial monocropped plant-based diet vs. ‘oh so natural back to nature’ organic free range meat diet.
Clearly, however, veganism can be done in a local, organic, permacultural way, as the many critics of Keith’s book have noted (this guy in particular: http://permavegan.blogspot.com/2010/02/maine-vegan-responds-to-eliot-coleman.html)
@Evilshnukkums – One can make statistics dance any dance you want which is why I refuse to engage in % debates, especially FAO stats, oh and definitely stats SA or any stats that claim they know precisely what is happening in Africa, or that a study done in one country of Africa would hold for the whole of Africa. If Vegans are tired of trying to browbeat meateaters, why don’t you stop? You never find meateaters trying to change Vegan’s minds.
You claim not to assume yet call me a westerner from a developed world? Oh dear. To try and make vegans see sense is difficult, I should not have tried. Something to do with a lack protein in the diet…
@mallencolly – I am pleased that you went to all that trouble to research modern big game hunting “farms”. Now try the other kind. Also perhaps try and understand the difference between husbandry and hunter gatherer. Your argument on highrises is of the order of: it is happening anyway so why can’t I also do it. I allow that I simply lack the psychological skills to answer that to your satisfaction.
@Aragorn – Please give me the salient points? I really lack the time or money to read each and every link someone posts me. We are in South Africa, every byte costs!
@ X Cepting
If by the other kind you mean big game “ranching” then you have exactly the same problems as hunting farms. Any environmental benefit comes from scale only. Remember, that I am speaking of environment, *nutrition* and *space* ie more calories/nutrients per person per hectare with the least possible amount of environemntal damage (there will be impact whenever anything is taken from or artificially inserted into nature).
So, I will ask you, can you really claim that given exaclty the same space we have now (quality and quantity), exactly the same population levels (any popualtion level) that you could adequately feed the population using game hunting/game ranching methods? Would you be making the best use of aturally occurring proteins, calories and nutrients if you did so?
@ X Cepting
My argument re vertical farming is that, yes, but I suspect with a different interpretation.
Vertical farming could be a Pareto efficient means of growing plants. ie. create further use of natural resources already consumed (cement, steel. plastics, waste plant matter, soil in need of regeneration) to either grow vegetables (cities will need to be cleaned up first, this could be part of the process) or plants not for eating (hemp, cotton, high cellulose plants, high sugar plants that can be used in manufacturing clothes, non petrochemical plastics, etc) in an as close to closed environemnt possible (no nasty chemical run-off into water tables or rivers, no erosion from water of wind, etc). It allows precision farming on a much smaller scale, no need for heavy agricultural equipment with all the benefits in terms of yield. All of this brings production closer to or into the city (employment, reduced transportation and other dependencies on petrochemicals, freeing up of valuable cropland). Should I go on?
Short version, take as much environmental damage away from rural areas and make further use of the damage already done. Reduce, re-use, recycle mate.
@ X Cepting
One can make statistics dance any dance you want which is why I refuse to engage in % debates, especially FAO stats, oh and definitely stats SA
—While statistics can be interpreted in various ways, all the numbers interpreted in that study are published – you could review it yourself. I am inclined to trust UN scientists more than grand claims made on the internet.
If Vegans are tired of trying to browbeat meateaters, why don’t you stop? You never find meateaters trying to change Vegan’s minds.
— Mallencolly agreed with Bert Olivier and you challenged his statements with claims of your own. When asked to back up *your* statements you claim that the vegans are browbeating *you*? Come now. Like I said, I am not trying to convince you; I merely wanted to see if you could back up your claims. Fear not, I know now
You claim not to assume yet call me a westerner from a developed world? Oh dear. To try and make vegans see sense is difficult, I should not have tried. Something to do with a lack protein in the diet…
—You eat meat, you may be a hunter, you live in ZA and have regular internet access. That leads me to believe that you live a generally Western lifestyle. Not an assumption, an educated guess.
While we’re on assumptions, I make sure I get the +- 41.6g of protein I need daily, but thanks for the concern