By: Ethan A. Huff, NaturalNews.com
There is a concerted effort currently underway to demonize all things meat, regardless of how it is raised or produced, by blaming disease, obesity, and now even global warming, on human meat consumption. And a recent paper put out by S. Matthew Liao, a professor of philosophy and bioethics at New York University, outlines some outlandish solutions for how to combat so-called man-made climate change, including a recommendation that pharmaceutical companies develop drugs to induce nausea when people eat beef or pork products.
In a recent interview with Ross Anderson from The Atlantic, Liao presents his case for why he believes humans need to be micromanaged, controlled, and ultimately genetically-engineered (GE) for the betterment of the planet. Cutting greenhouse gas emissions and implementing various environmental measures are simply not enough, in Liao’s mind, to stop his theory of man-made climate change, which has led him to envision a world where human beings are genetically redesigned with “eco-friendly” characteristics, and where pharmaceutical drugs are used to reprogram the way people think and act.
Drug-induced vegetarianism to ‘save the planet’
Making no differentiation between meat that comes from grass-fed, pasture-based livestock, and meat from genetically-modified (GM), grain-fed, confined livestock, Liao claims that “livestock farming” in general is responsible for a large bulk of man-made global warming. So his solution to this alleged problem is to urge drug companies to create a pill or patch that would induce nausea when a person consumes a meat product.
“The paper suggests that such individuals could take a pill that would trigger mild nausea upon the ingestion of meat, which would then lead to a lasting aversion to meat-eating,” writes Anderson about Liao’s idea of an anti-meat drug, which admittedly would be voluntary, at least initially. And if the drug option is not plausible, then Liao suggests an anti-meat patch that would stimulate an immune response that rejects the assimilation of meat proteins in the body.
Pasture-raised animals actually help the environment, naturally improve soil health
Liao’s short-sighted and ignorant views about meat production are concerning, because they could be used to implement tyrannical restrictions on meat consumption in the very near future. What Liao fails to grasp is the difference between the factory-farm model of raising livestock, which is destroying human health and the environment, and small-scale, pasture-based models of raising livestock, which are actually improving the environment and soil health.
Back in 2010, Lisa Abend from TIME wrote a great piece about how grass-fed livestock operations are changing the way meat is produced, and all for the better. Unlike conventional livestock, grazing animals eat grass and other forage that humans cannot eat, and naturally work manure and other organic matter into soil while they ruminate, which improves soil nutrient content and keeps carbon dioxide in the ground where it belongs (http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1953692,00.html).
In the pasture-based model, grazing animals are a vital part of the ecological cycle rather than a detriment to it, and the meat these animals produce is highly-nutritious and rich in healthy omega-3 fatty acids and other nutrients. Pasture-raised animals, in other words, are an essential component of vibrant environmental health, as opposed to their confined counterparts, which are responsible for immense environmental destruction (http://www.naturalnews.com/027199_meat_fat_cattle.html).
To read more, visit: http://www.naturalnews.com/035248_meat_consumption_nausea_pills.html
