“One mans meat, is another mans poison”

Dan

It is interesting to note that the consumption of meat stimulates the sympathetic side of the bi-polar nervous system which is associated with the "fight and flight" response to existence altogether.

Simultaneously it upsets and even negates the homeostatic function of the parasympathetic side of the nervous system which is also related to the psychic and feeling dimensions of our existence-being.

The consumption of sugar and junk "foods" have the same effect. Together with Meat consumption, especially in excessive amounts as per the standard American diet it creates the out-of-balance dreadfully sane every person of which Donald Trump was/is a prime in-your-face example.

This "fight and flight" disposition also creates and keeps in place the aggressive materialism which now patterns and controls every aspect of human culture, including most/all of what is promoted as "religion" - especially in the USA. And as a corollary it also prevents the evolutionary development of the human species both at the individual and collective level.

Oh, ok DD.

“evolutionary development of the human species“.

What do you suppose is the end development stage of the evolutionary process you refer to here.?
To what end product of the human species is its completed development projected to arrive at. Reincarnation as a bird maybe?

Meat, at over $30 a kg, has rendered itself unaffordable and forced many people from the lower end of the SE end, being mostly the Donald Trump supporters, away from the contaminating influences you express.

Could it actually be though, meat eaters are more likely to be Democrats, and that could actually give a sensible theory why those people decided an escapee from the dementia ward of a nursing home, would make for a reliable President of the US of A.

Dan.

Given that vegetarians have lower life expectancies than meat-eaters, the health benefits are dubious.

Secondly, as the methane in cow farts degrades into CO2 with a 1/2 life of about 6 years, in reality, meat is 100% sustainably grown with 0% impact on climate change.

The term 'The Green Wreckers' instantly devalues whatever argument is to follow. Supporters of the switch to renewable energy are not necessarily supporters of veganism. And if readers are already groaning at the simplistic conflation of two separate groups, it's double groan by the time we get to 'their red-green agenda'!
Many who urge action on climate change also eat meat. A distinction however needs to be drawn between the large agribusiness industrialised production of grain-fed meat and the smaller-scale organic grass-fed raising of livestock. They are both very different. The former has adverse effects on both our health and that of the planet, whereas the latter is good for us and our environment. Mention also needs to be made of processed meat, most of which contains synthetic nitrates and other chemicals, which are damaging to our health.
So, while I agree with the general thrust of the article, it falls down through being needlessly divisive and confrontational and also through failing to acknowledge that not all meats are equal.

Have you ever walked down the meat isle of a supermarket Bronwyn, by your post it is doubtful. Compare the one square meter of shelf dedicated to grain fed beef, to the 25 square meter of range land raised beef, & it makes a fool of your assertions.

The vast majority of our meat is raised on range land, basically worthless for anything but grazing, with almost no input of anything. There is still some parasite protection, but with beef we have bread with the introduction of Brahman blood, a number of breeds that get no management, even tick protection.

Time to get out to the bush & actually learn something about these things, before bursting into print with utter garbage.