Share
You could earn SmartPoints on this page!SmartPoint Coin

October 8, 2013 at 2:35 PMComments: 44 Faves: 0

Derek Nance: And You Will Know Him by the Trail of Blood...

By Kyle McCarthy from SLN More Blogs by This AuthorFrom the Culturology Blog Series

"Not eating meat is a decision; eating meat is an instinct." - Denis Leary

Cows Taste Better than They Look... And They Look Good

I love meat - always have, always will. There will be no talking me out of this, so please don't bother trying. Meat is the centerpiece of 98% of the meals I eat and many of the snacks, as well. (There just aren't too many more satisfying experiences in life than snapping into a Slim Jim.) Furthermore, I really could not care less about the health-related statistics that people love throwing in my direction when they hear about my voracious carnivorousness; they matter about as much as that look of disgust violently contorting your face right now. PETA? I love animals too folks, but a cow's considerably limited lifespan in no way trumps my desire to eat him. He was made for my consumption. Who am I to rob him of his life's work?

At this point, I'll assume that you think I'm some kind of morbid meat-consuming monster, but I fancy myself nothing more than your average American. Whether or not this is a positive connotation is certainly debatable, but I make no apologies either way. And hey, at least I'm not this guy.

The Meat Man 

Derek Nance

Now, in fairness, I've always eaten excessive amounts of meat for selfish, gluttonous reasons, whereas the man pictured above, Derek Nance, initially began eating excessive amounts of raw meat for health reasons, although he's now grown to love it. According to a piece on vice.com written by Julian Morgans, Derek began suffering from a "mysterious illness" several years ago. After several failed diet attempts (Vegan, Mediterranean, Dairy-Free), an acquaintance who'd struggled with similar symptoms suggested that he go raw - which is exactly what he did. Five years later, Derek swears by the diet and its healthful efficacy.

What's more is that Derek thoroughly enjoys his new diet, and he claims that it didn't take long for him to become acclimated to it. According to Derek, "There’s something that happens during the adaption process. About three weeks in I noticed this real strong blood-like taste in the back of my throat and then all of a sudden I started getting strong cravings for it. The idea of cooked meat no longer appeals. It just tastes burned. And herbs and spices too, I used to season the meat, but seasonings no longer appeal either." How metal is that!?!? I'm not sure what to make of it, but it almost makes the idea seem appealing?

Darwinian Nutrition?

Derek's diet is based on the work of a dentist named Weston Price. Most famous for his work in funding the research institute of the American Dental Association, Mr. Price was one of the raw meat diet's earliest champions. Once referred to as the "Charles Darwin of Nutrition," Mr. Price believed that consumption of processed, commercialized, and overly-prepared foods in the Western Diet stripped them of their vital nutrients, which led to many common diseases of the 20th century.

Darwin

To test his theories, Price set out on a massive research project, and the result was his 1939 book Nutrition and Physical Degeneration. In it, he details the diets of several non-Western indigenous cultures (including Native Americans) who, after adopting a Western diet, began suffering from many of the harmful health aspects to which they had previously appeared largely impervious.

Many modern scientists view Price's work as heavily biased and feel that he may have been mistaking correlation for causation, but Derek Nance seems to be living proof that a diet free of any modern additives, GMOs, or preservatives can have positive effects on at least some humans.

A Carnivore and a Gentleman

I really enjoyed reading Julian's interview with Derek. He comes off as an intelligent, laid-back individual who just happens to slaughter animals and eat them raw. Sadly, Derek feels as though he's become kind of an exile from mainstream eaters, including those for whom he cares the most. "Most" of his friends allow him to bring his meal with him to dinner parties, but his parents won't even discuss his diet out loud. "My family thinks I’ve lost it." say Derek, "They literally think I’m off-the-deep-end insane and I don’t know why." Despite nearly six years on a raw meat diet and seemingly improved health, they're convinced that the raw meat will be the death of him. Some people are allergic to evidence.

Still, Derek can't allow those whose sense of cultural normalcy is disrupted by his diet to allow him to sacrifice his health and who he's become as a person. This way of life fits him, and he even considers it an ethical alternative to standard meat-eaters. Derek's first slaughter consisted of a pair of goats that he had owned for their milk, but now he routinely barters with farmers for what he considers a fair price for an animal (usually lamb, apparently), slaughters it, and totes it home.

Although slightly hippified, Derek has no moral or ethical pretense with this practice. "If an animal lives in accordance with its nature," says Derek, "I have no problem ethically slaughtering that animal. But if you raise that animal in a pen, and when it’s sick just shoot it up with antibiotics, I have real problems with that." Of course, the difference between Derek and someone like me is that I don't let a silly thing like ethics get between me and Double-Chee from McDonalds. (I apologize for the trite remark, but who has the time to slaughter their own meat?)

Cow

As an added bonus, Derek's diet has opened up a new career path for him. Previously an electrician, after helping some acquaintances handle his meat, he's now become a butcher's apprentice, a position that comes with all sorts of fringe benefits! According to Derek, "I’m learning the trade from the ground up, and I get lots of scraps to snack on."

I'll stick to my jerky, Derek, but I dig your style.

Reference:

Morgans, Julian. "This Guy's Eaten Nothing but Raw Meat for Five Years." Vice. Food. Oct. 1 2013. Web. Oct. 8 2013.

Photo Credit:

http://grist.files.wordpress.com/2013/09/derek-nance-raw-meat-vice.jpg?w=470&h=286

http://www.wallpapervortex.com/wallpaper-15909_1_other_wallpapers_charles_darwin.html

More from Kyle McCarthy from SLN Others Are Reading

44 Comments

  • I'm kinda grossed out by his bloody teeth photo, but I actually agree with Derek's principles regarding meat.

    Though I stick with fish these days, I love the taste of meat (red meat probably most of all), I recognize the importance of meat eating in human development, and respect the predator/prey relationship. I just don't want to support the current industry practices which I see not only as dangerous for people, but as really disrespectful of a life, even if it is the life of a prey animal. Beyond my own spiritual beliefs that I won't bore you with, I don't want to eat something that's been releasing stress hormones and pumped full of chemicals its entire life.

    Now, as for my opinion of the "only raw meat" diet itself, I can't imagine it's the healthiest way to go. While we evolved to omnivores, we still need the vitamins, minerals and phytonutrients in produce.

  • Oh, it's disgusting - no doubt. But it's supposed to be a shock to the system. It's as if he's saying, "Look, here's the deal, this is who I am, it's not normative, but why should that frighten you!" It may give me nightmares, but I love it!

    Believe me, I'm not a "fan" of commercialized food manufacturing; I'm just too weak to deny myself the delicacies and too lazy to slaughter my own meat. I'm not super proud of either of these facts, but they are what they are.

    Also, why do people act as if this is a new phenomenon? Upton Sinclair was discussing the vicious and dehumanizing practices of the meat packing industry more than a hundred years ago!

    I kind of thought the same thing about the "only raw meat" diet, but he speaks a little in the original interview about how not eating other foods causes his body to react differently. For instance, when he was asked how he avoids scurvy, he replied thus:

    "The organ meat of the animal actually contains vitamin C. And the thing about vitamin C is that you need more of it in a high-carbohydrate diet, but if you’re eating carnivorously, there’s enough in the animal flesh. So I just eat the organ meat and the connective tissue and everything else."

    Just one example, but I thought that was interesting.

  • "I'm just too weak to deny myself the delicacies and too lazy to slaughter my own meat."

    Well, I don't really like to lecture people about their diet, but there is another option. You could eat less meat, more specifically, you could only meat that you know was produced according to what you feel is ethical. I know people that buy a half a cow or pig (pre-portioned) from local, ethical farms that do farm shares.

    "The organ meat of the animal actually contains vitamin C."

    True, some vitamins and minerals are stored in the body, but I would worry about the water soluble vitamins we don't produce as well as the lack of antioxidants.

  • "I love meat - always have, always will. There will be no talking me out of this, so please don't bother trying."

    True. My girlfriend and I actually talked about doing this just a few weeks ago, but we haven't gotten around to it. Plus, we have a tiny freezer.

    Also, maybe you can help me out with this one: Why do some people assume that cows have feelings but fish don't?

  • "Some people are allergic to evidence."

    I have an insatiable appetite for evidence. I want more evidence of the health benefits! I'll do this diet tomorrow if its proven.

  • ""I love meat - always have, always will. There will be no talking me out of this, so please don't bother trying.""

    I'm not trying to talk you out of loving meat. *I* love meat.

    "Why do some people assume that cows have feelings but fish don't?"

    I couldn't really speak for those people, because that's not an assumption I have. I eat fish because they don't spend their entire lives confined captive in small unnatural place, eating an unnatural diet, and being pumped full of chemicals.

  • Like I said, I'm not against people eating cows, or pig, or poultry, I'm just against the practices of mass production industry.

  • Fish hatcheries? Fish farming? We don't physically see it the way we do with livestock, but aquatic food supplies are definitely mass produced.

  • Derek Nance for the win.

    I give him two years before he eats a neighbor.

  • By the way McCarthy, excellent title.

  • Yeah, I understand what you're saying. A big part of me agrees, but it can be a difficult thing to get around.

  • I feel like sometimes people who try to do something good receive unfair criticism from people who aren't trying to do good in the same way. Rather than applauding their efforts, they try to pick them apart and prove that no good is being done. For example, this conversation reminds me a lot of a conversation over a coworker doing charity work.

    I listened to someone tell him that unless he received no benefit or took no personal pleasure in his work, his charity work was useless and he was encouraged not to do it. To me, that kind of thinking is counter productive. Whether or not he is partially motivated by a tax benefit and personal gratification, he is doing more than most people do! Shouldn't we be encouraging that? Even if it's not the ultimate in good doing, isn't good being done?

    I've never claimed to be perfect or even to eat the perfect diet. I do sometimes eat farm-raised fish, or larger fish which are known to be more ecologically damaging, but I choose not to eat cows, or pigs, or poultry because I don't want to support an industry practice that I think is unethical, I try to avoid farm-raised fish, eat mostly smaller, more eco-friendly fish, and I don't eat fish every day. Could I be doing better? Of course I could! But I am still trying to do the right thing in my small way.

    "A big part of me agrees, but it can be a difficult thing to get around."

    It is hard, but I didn't just decide one day to eat no meat besides fish. It was a very gradual, natural progression. I started by cutting back on red meat, then when it felt right, I decided to cut it out of my diet completely, after several months, nearly a year later, when that diet became second-nature, I decided to give up poultry. I'm not saying this is the route everyone should take, but I just wanted to point out that you can start small. A little effort toward something you feel is right, is better than no effort in my mind.

    "True. My girlfriend and I actually talked about doing this just a few weeks ago, but we haven't gotten around to it. Plus, we have a tiny freezer."

    Maybe a few friends or family members would be interested in going in on it with you?

  • My response wasn't meant to belittle your efforts at a more humane diet. I applaud anyone who has the time and inclination to circumvent the current standard meat cultivation practices. Kudos!

    My only point is that roughly 95% of the average American's diet consists of foods that are processed in some way, shape, or form. To that end, I think its easy for people to point at the immoral treatment of livestock because they are large animals who live on large farms. They are highly visible in both the media and our daily lives. Meanwhile, many other animals who are genetically manufactured in mass quantities and then slaughtered don't get nearly the media attention.

    Also, I definitely think the cuteness factor plays a large role in what people decide is ethically tolerable. Most people don't normally think of a catfish as being a cute animal, whereas a baby lamb is adorable. Does that somehow mean that the former is more expendable?

  • "My only point is that roughly 95% of the average American's diet consists of foods that are processed in some way, shape, or form. "

    The issue isn't that there IS a process though, it's that some of the processes being employed are unethical.

    "I think its easy for people to point at the immoral treatment of livestock because they are large animals who live on large farms."

    I think it is easy to point at the immoral treatment for more reasons than the size of the animal.

    "Most people don't normally think of a catfish as being a cute animal, whereas a baby lamb is adorable. Does that somehow mean that the former is more expendable?"

    I don't find chickens particularly cute. They're kind of ugly, actually, BUT the cuteness bias is a valid point. Illustrating the issues, I remember a school iniative back in middle school where everyone was asked to volunteer time at one of two charities - Humane Society or a homeless shelter. You can probably guess where the overwhelming mass of students chose to go. :/

    While I will still say that good doing, even if it isn't the ultimate good doing, should be encouraged, I do think people could stand to think more critically and better understand, be aware, and try to overcome our naturally tendency toward these sort of bias. "Cuteness" shouldn't be a determining factor is deciding whether abuse is taking place.

    I don't want to eat a catfish that was raised in a jar so small it couldn't move, fed an unnatural diet designed to give it diarrhea (and thus keeping it anemic which makes it's flesh paler and more valuable), and pumped full of antibiotics just to keep it alive any more than I want to eat a calf "processed" this way for veal.

  • One could make an argument that all processes involved in food production are unethical. You don't have to box animals into cramped spaces and pump them full of steroids for there to be unethical treatment involved. GMOS, mass marketing, tons of unnecessary additives, none of these are "good" things. I think processing IS an issue, no matter how those processes occur. People would rather not think about that though and focus on solely on the cute animals instead.

    Yup. You're right. There are definitely lots of reasons that people point toward the treatment of livestock as immoral. It also has a lot to do with the high profile of the animal, which has a lot to do with their sheer size. Videotaping large animals being squeezed into tight spaces has an impact - especially here in the Midwest where we drive by these farms daily.

    That's good that you are cognizant of the catfish/lamb debate, but many people aren't. They don't base their arguments on any kind of rationality. It's normally something closer to this...

    Catfish = Ugly = Delicious.
    Lamb = Adorable = Boy, I don't know mom... She's so cute!

  • "One could make an argument that all processes involved in food production are unethical. You don't have to box animals into cramped spaces and pump them full of steroids for there to be unethical treatment involved. GMOS, mass marketing, tons of unnecessary additives, none of these are "good" things. "

    Yes, all these are bad things and I myself, and I know many others (meat eaters included!) try to avoid them, but that said, good and bad are not black and white issues. Littering is a bad thing and should be punished, but not equally to murder or rape, you know? This isn't to say that the discrepancy between eating GMO produce and eating unethically raised meat products is anywhere near the same, or that either is good, but to me, the abuse of cognizant creatures is more problematic and wrong than scientists fiddling with plant genetics.

  • I also feel like this is taking us back to the "Nothing but perfect is good enough, so why bother at all?" argument.

    Avoid GMOS and chemical additives, don't be brainwashed by mass marketing, AND make efforts to support ethical farming practices - all of theses efforts are commendable! Doing all would be great, but doing even one is still good. None of these things are easy. It's okay to start small. Starting is better than not!

  • Totally agree with everything you're saying here, Erin. Perfection is a myth, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be striven for.

  • There is far too much emotion applied to this argument. If the mass production of food stopped, at least a quarter of the global population would die within a year. How does that make you feel?

    All this crap about abuse and mistreatment of animals is a moot point. If we didn't mass produce, we would die. Applying sentiment before logic is what landed us in the over-populated downward spiral that we are currently in.

    That being said, we could use a good purge. So, by all means, keep on crying about the cute farm animals, maybe it will weed out the rest of the crowd-pleasing sycophants.

  • "If the mass production of food stopped, at least a quarter of the global population would die within a year. How does that make you feel?"

    The production of meat - cows especially - is a huge drain on resources and on the planet. If the resources being used to mass produce cow, pig, and poultry products were instead used to grow vegetable based proteins - nuts and beans - we would would be able to feed significantly more people. and our planet as a whole would be served much better. And yet, because we LIKE to eat meat for every meal, we chose to pursue the less economically, environmentally, and socially responsible route. How does that make YOU feel?

    http://michaelbluejay.com/veg/environment.html

  • Eating meat contributes to climate change? Seeing as how I think the entire climate change argument is a mass marketing scheme, I remain unmoved.

    I'm curious as to where you would find the space to mass produce these vegetable based proteins. Or will it be in a lab as well? Also, would those vegetable based proteins contain the same complex chained amino acids that are so vital in human tissue growth and production? Will they have the vital bacteria necessary for a strengthened immune system?

    As Mr. Leary was quoted at the beginning of this blog, eating meat is instinctual. Do not confuse a petty want with something that stands as a pinnacle of our evolution.

  • Industrial hemp. Food, fiber, biomass, and building material. Besides, how much land is used for growing grains to feed cows? Cows are a pretty poor choice in protein efficiency. Large pools of algae could also be grown for protein and crop fertilizer.

    As for meat eating being instinctual, are you telling me that when you sit on your porch and see birds feeding in the yard, your urge is to jump up and kill/eat them? Because that is a cat's urge and they are true carnivores. We are simply carnivores by convenience. It is not biologically necessary for us to eat meat when other sources of complete protein and fatty acids are abundant.

  • A curious statement, Sprouty. Why did our ancestors eat meat? Are you saying it was far more convenient to chase down an animal with a spear than it was to pick a plant?

    Also, when I see a bird on my porch, I most definitely wonder how it would taste. Because a portion of our populace chooses to repress a natural urge does not nullify the urge.

  • "Eating meat contributes to climate change? Seeing as how I think the entire climate change argument is a mass marketing scheme, I remain unmoved."

    Whether or not your believe climate change is caused primarily by human action, the fact remains that farming cows is one of the least resource efficient protein sources and harshest on our environment. Surely, you're not going to argue in favor of pollution.

    "I'm curious as to where you would find the space to mass produce these vegetable based proteins."

    "how much land is used for growing grains to feed cows?"

    Sprouty's got the point. When your raise cows, you not only need space and water for them, you need space and water for all their food.

  • Apologies, that was not my point in asking the question. Part of the reason that we abhor the production of our animals is all the testing and manipulating that goes into creating the meat. There is just as much process and manipulation involved in the creation of vegetables. If you eliminated meat, this would happen just as much.

    A homegrown tomato is far smaller than a market tomato because it was created in a lab. Just because it comes out of the ground does not make it natural. The makeup of any plant or animal can be manipulated before growth. To think that the elimination of meat production would improve anything is ludicrous.

    Again, all of this is a moot point. The problem lies in how many mouths need feeding, mass food production is a symptom.

    You want to solve your poor animal problem? I'd start with plague.

  • "A curious statement, Sprouty. Why did our ancestors eat meat? Are you saying it was far more convenient to chase down an animal with a spear than it was to pick a plant?"

    Our ancestors didn't eat meat anywhere like the typical American does today. It wasn't an every day let alone every meal thing.

    The caveman diet idea makes some sense in that we need to get back to a more natural diet, but less sense when we consider the trajectory of our expected life span. We know things our ancestors didn't. We understand the importance of hygiene. We understand the effects of certain foods and diets. We also know that vegetarians tend to be much healthier than the average person.

  • If by the "average person" you mean the fast-food toting, Wal-Mart shopper, than I certainly cannot argue that fact. That being said, you are describing an average American, not an average human.

    Eating meat is at the cornerstone of our "knowing more." When our ancestors began to hunt, it went hand in hand with the development of tools, communication, and strategic planning. Hunting also beget a social hierarchy within humanity (ie. Hunter and Gatherer). It also allowed for the quicker weening of babies off of mother's milk, which led to quicker population growth and the eventual survival of the human species.

    Now, does this mean that we should continue to eat meat in order to evolve? I can't say that meat is what will push us over the evolutionary edge, but I firmly believe that eliminating it will only hinder our further evolution.

  • Yes, EM, more convenient = easier = lazier. Sorry, but laying a snare or spearing an animal for a week's supply of food for your family is way easier than growing a vegetable garden. It is a higher return of calories on investment as well, leading to the ability to store more unused calories in body weight.

    Problem with hunting for your food is that it is UNSUSTAINABLE. Even our ancestors knew this, that's why they were nomadic in nature. The local environment can only be hunted and picked clean of it's cream for so long before it needed time to recuperate. We are a tax on the environment.

    Then real agriculture developed and things changed. Permanent settlements, overwintering, even the raising of livestock for clothing, dairy, and meat. But what we have now is a society that has no idea where food comes from. All they know is they want the cream, the meat, and are willing to pay for it. Profiteers are willing to give them what they want, with the government subsidizing it, of course, because no one can actually afford what meat really costs. Welcome to Amurica.

    Raising huge herds of animals is adding to the hunger problem at this point. you want protein, check out this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edible_protein_per_unit_area_of_land

    Not saying we should all switch to soy, but looks like grains win by a long shot.

  • "Part of the reason that we abhor the production of our animals is all the testing and manipulating that goes into creating the meat. There is just as much process and manipulation involved in the creation of vegetables. "

    That's part of the reason, sure, but only part. The pollution it causes, the relative inefficiency of our resource use, and yes, the ethical, emotional considerations, are all in favor of a more responsible meat farming practice. Ethically, the life of a plant is not equal to the life of pig and a pig is not equal to the life of human. Abuse of these lives fall on very different parts of the ethical spectrum.

    As Kyle and I discussed earlier, avoiding GMO products IS a good idea, it's just not the ONLY good idea.

    "The problem lies in how many mouths need feeding, mass food production is a symptom."

    A big step toward the solution would be shifting our diet and industry toward more veggies and less meat. As previously stated, plant-based proteins are a much more efficient use of our land and water.

  • Where is the fertilizer coming from in regards to all the growing you both want to do? Where are the strapping young lads to work on these farms? Meat is part of humanity. The amino acids contained within are not the same as those produced in protein-based plants, they are far more complex.

    Sprouty - Spearing an animal is easier than growing a crop? I think not. Even the tracking alone is far harder. I understand that you grow your own crops, but that is a bit ridiculous. Also, the modern hunting practices are regulated in regards to herd growth, and actually serve to promote the health of said herds in specific areas.

    As far as this environmentally conscious idea is concerned:

    http://content.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,2024133,00.html


  • "Where is the fertilizer coming from in regards to all the growing you both want to do?"

    You seem to be ignoring the fact that crops are being grown for animals. Whether we then take them and convert those crops directly into caloric energy or first feed them to animals which we convert into caloric energy, crops are being grown.

    "The amino acids contained within are not the same as those produced in protein-based plants, they are far more complex."

    I'm not actually arguing that meat shouldn't be eaten (Though, people have figured out how to live healthfully without the nutrients in meat). My argument is that it should and can be eaten less and be raised in an ethical way.

    "Spearing an animal is easier than growing a crop?"

    This is actually a generally accepted fact.

  • Did you see that the writer only eats meat twice a week from goats that he raises? Don't know that I'd consider him a carnivore, nor believe him when he says we can save the planet by eating meat.

  • From the article E posted a link to: "If you feed animals only food that humans can eat — which is, indeed, largely the case in the Western world — that may be true. But animals also eat food we can't eat, such as grass."

    This actually backs up my original point - that meat isn't bad, the current industry practices (such as feeding cows an unnatural corn-based diet) for producing it are.

  • Which circles back to my original point, there is nothing to be done about the industry until the population is thinned out.

  • Sprouty: I do not raise, nor do I eat, goats!

    Derek, however, eats several different animals, and he does so on a daily basis. His favorite is lamb.

    Perhaps you're thinking of his initial foray into this strange diet, in which he consumed the two goats that he had previously only used for milkiing.

  • And, why couldn't you raise human-edible crops on the land those cows are grazing on? Where would the fertilizer come from? How about crop rotation and interplanting with legumes? Why do we burn leaves when they could be composted and added to farm land? Why do we flush our piss to the ocean when it could be filtered and nitrogen extracted for fertilization? Why do we dump grey water in the ocean when the phosphorus can be used to enrich farm lands?

  • Kyle, I'm talking about Simon Fairlie, the article EM referred to (http://content.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,2024133,00.html). That guys eats goats, but only eats meat twice per week.

  • Sprouty - each of those processes would involve carbon-intensive processes as well. Eliminating population and teaching the remaining few how to hunt and grow would be much easier.

    Continually applying bandaids to gushing blood streams will only lead us into a destructive downfall. Scratch that, HAS led us into a destructive downfall.

  • Ah! He likes to mix things up a bit, eh? Variety is the spice of life, I suppose.

  • I'm really not an anti-meat lobbyist, just trying to make some sense out of the screwed up world our grandparents grandparents built for us.

  • "each of those processes would involve carbon-intensive processes as well."

    Mm... not really.

    "Eliminating population and teaching the remaining few how to hunt and grow would be much easier."

    Easier? Maybe. But completely unethical.

    "there is nothing to be done about the industry until the population is thinned out."

    Really? The only way the industry can be improved is if a bunch of people die? Because those two things are intrinsically related? I'm not buying it.

  • You don't see how more mouths to feed drive the industry that feeds them?

    I'm out.

  • We could just start eating people. That would solve the population problem and the food problem. Some of our ancestors did that, so it must be OK. I'm sure we'd be a complete protein, and we could just bulk up on cheap crops like soy and corn before the slaughter. We could even harvest the functioning organs from the edibles for the wealthy eaters to live longer lives. You know, those high protein diets wreak havoc on kidneys.

  • "You don't see how more mouths to feed drive the industry that feeds them?"

    I don't see that the only solution to hunger is mass murder, no.

    More people and their hunger wouldn't be a problem if we used our resources more wisely and spread the results of our efforts more evenly.

Comment on the Smart Living Network


Site Feedback