Connect with us

The Book That Shows That The World Cannot Be Properly Understood Through Just The Mind

Published

on

An in-depth review of the book Why Materialism Is Baloney by Bernardo Kastrup. The book is currently available for pre-order on Amazon, with its release slated for April 2014.

advertisement - learn more

Cover 72ppiThe “problem” with this marvelous book is that those among us who most need to confront its wisdom won’t have the openness to do so. And those with the openness to do so may not really require these explanations.

Kastrup goes about as far as one can go to use language, concepts and metaphors to “prove” that the world cannot possibly be understood merely through the mind as something separately knowable and immanently material.

Those who read Collective Evolution already probably resonate with Eckhart Tolle’s famous lines, “life is not the opposite of death; birth is the opposite of death; Life has no opposite” or “the mind cannot know the mind.”

To those who run our planet and form the backbone of our “science” this makes no sense. But they’re the ones who need to read this book and better yet, let them argue against Kastrup who uses their own scientific method to thoroughly discredit the arrogant assumptions of much of science.

For this reason he had me on board on page 14:

advertisement - learn more

“The true underlying nature of reality – the inner workings of the computer running the game – is an issue of metaphysics; an issue of philosophy. It requires different methods to be properly assessed and understood. For as long as scientists like Stephen Hawking are allowed to make preposterous pseudo-philosophical pronouncements and not be either ignored or thoroughly ridiculed by the mainstream media – in exactly the same way that, say, a famous artist would be ridiculed or ignored for making pseudo-scientific statements – our culture will fail to understand the nature of our predicament.”

Kastrup would make a wonderful attorney or debater in a “courtroom of reality” by stating his case against the current scientific assumption:

“Materialism asserts that reality exists outside your mind in the form of assemblies of material particles occupying the framework of space-time. Even energy fields are imagined, in current physics, to be force-carrying material particles.  The existence of this material reality is supposed to be completely independent of your, or anyone else’s, subjective perception of it. Thus, even if there were no conscious beings observing reality, it would supposedly still go merrily on: the planets would still orbit the sun, the continents would still drift, volcanoes would still erupt, crystals would still form in the bowels of the Earth and so on. That there is such a thing as consciousness is, according to materialism, a product of chance configurations of matter, driven mechanically by the pressures of natural selection. We are supposedly an accident of probabilities.” (15)

The 800 lb. gorilla for science:

But when it comes to consciousness, nothing allows us to deduce the properties of subjective experience – the redness of red, the bitterness of regret, the warmth of fire – from the mass, momentum, spin, charge, or any other property of subatomic particles bouncing around in the brain. This is the hard problem of consciousness.  As a matter of fact, consciousness is a sore on the foot of materialism. The materialist understanding of the world would seem a lot more solid if there were no such a thing as subjective experience at all.”(17)

Here the author is echoing the concept that Deepak Chopra often puts forth as “qualia” –the subjective aspect of our experience that is not scientifically definable and yet we know it; a great example of this is when Peter Francis Dziubian says that you can read everything that has ever been written about wine and never know how wine tastes.

Eventually Kastrup builds a powerful case for non-locality of consciousness; again resonating with comments made by Dr.Daniel Siegel at the Wisdom 2.0 conference when he suggested (as a neuroscientist) that his studies in the brain and the apparent “nonexistence” of a coherent self has led him to the realization that there is “no reason the self should be bounded by our skin.  We are ‘not the body.’  The self is both me and we and ultimately a new, and perhaps third entity, a MWE.”

A blistering critique of scientist like Hawking:

“If it serves as consolation, notice that all worldviews, including materialism, entail analogous paradoxes when it comes to the ultimate origin of everything. Big Bang theory, for instance, carries this contradiction in another form: how did everything, in the form of a bang, come out of an absolute void? What was there to bang?  One is immediately confronted with the contradiction that, while there was nothing in the beginning, there had to be at least a potential, with certain properties and attributes, which could have led to a bang.”  (153)

One might snarkly add –“who was there to bang?” because a “what” and a “who” are both mental concepts and what Kastrup is pointing to here is the poverty of such linguistic attempts at understanding what is. Indeed the word “potential” is another tip-off because it harkens directly to Heisenberg’s revolutionary Uncertainty Principle but “where” can potential “exist” except as a mental property. Where is potential in nature aside from inside a sentient being’s intelligence?

When Kastrup starts to build his own theory, or speculates on aspects of “freewill” he may get on shaky ground, because now he is describing consciousness (or the “membrane”) in quasi-physical terms that may hold some value or truth but cannot be “proven.” Freewill, for example, flies in the face of recent neuroscience experiments and yet we can and have the feeling or experience of choice; even Eckhart Tolle talks about aspects of choice in his work –we can “choose” whether to accept a situation, try to change it, or leave the locale. But essentially freewill is just another concept that can only be experienced by trying to DO and whether there is a ME that is “free” can never fully be known outside of a loop or paradox.

Where I think Kastrup shines, however, is in pointing out the limitations of scientism from a scientific perspective –unmasking it as the emperor with no (empirical) clothes and opening the reader up to alternative concepts of the reality of nonlocalized intelligence and consciousness. To his credit, Kastrup (as a scientist) deals well with paradox –he doesn’t attempt to fight or explain it; he points it out as a necessary byproduct of our own mental limitations or a function of what is (we are not in a position to know which).

“A core idea of this book is the notion that localized segments of mind at large can become immersed in the illusion of being separate from the rest of the broader membrane. The illusion originates from the self-reflective amplification of certain mental contents to the detriment of others. The ego becomes blind to the broader membrane of mind, identifying itself solely.”  (191)

Here he again resonates with the premise of much of Eckhart Tolle’s work—the fact that there is a functioning logical entity within us with which we identify but that is not what we truly are by nature. Ego is known by consciousness when we awaken to our nature, but we are not our Ego, and if we seek to identify “what” or “who” is consciousness we miss –because it is nonmaterial – an “empty” loop of subjectivity.

Kastrup also makes his points mainly with metaphors and analogies. One of the most evocative is that of the body as a partial “echo” of consciousness (vibration) like a tuning fork.

Here he has a striking insight relative to the sacred science of Egypt –or mummification –when he writes:

“The living body is not a mere habitation of the soul, but a true – albeit partial – image of the conscious entity. It is not an artificial shell, or a distorting barrier concealing and cloaking an inner entity, but the authentic way in which the conscious entity manifests in consensus reality. As such, it is not invalid to think of a person according to her body image: the body image is as honest to the conscious entity as flames are honest to combustion. However, it is ludicrous to think of the body image as the complete story about a person, in the same way that is incorrect to think that flames are all there is to combustion.”  (178)

Another powerful image that Kastrup uses is the whirlpool with respect to the “relationship” between the “individual” and consciousness –similar to the wave as part of the ocean; but in the case of a whirlpool you have the added dimensions of depth and continuity and perhaps most interesting to me –the whirlpool on a massive scale actually exists as the center of our galaxy as a black hole –literally annihilating all matter and time into a vortex of –what? Mind?

Kastrup says:

“The body image, of course, compounds the illusion. The body is simply an image in mind of a process of localization of mind, just like a whirlpool is an image in water of a process of localization of water. The body doesn’t  imply anything other than mind and its movements, in exactly the same way that a whirlpool doesn’t  imply anything other than water and its movements.”

When you then consider the image of a tuning fork, and the faint residue or “partial image” of the original vibration and how it seems to continue well beyond our capacity to sense or “hear” it, it speaks to an entirely different concept of energy and nature itself.  When one considers also that even astrophysicists have discovered the cosmic “background” static of the Big Bang itself as “evidence” –the implications are staggering.

spectrum

From Dr. Jay Kumar’s presentation at SAND.

Kastrup makes the point made by Aldous Huxley in Doors of Perception that essentially our brains are “filters” of consciousness, so that if everything (all vibration in the universe) were known we would be overwhelmed; hence our filtered view of reality (by consensus) is extremely limited.  This filtering mechanism is actually the Ego, which connects to Kastrup’s suggestion about death; while he admits with the usual humility that obviously no one knows –he says:

“The mental process we call physical death ‘makes the unconscious more conscious’  because it eliminates a source of obfuscation; namely, the egoic loop.” (182) In other words it “literally” removes the filter that temporarily (while “alive”) allowed the ego to think it was a “Self.”

Kastrup goes on to describe the many ways this view of the ego and consciousness “explains” much of what we know about “primitive” cultures and their nonfiltered awareness of nature.

And here is his elegant explanation of “freewill”:

“Freewill is a property of mind at large. It is distributed uniformly throughout the membrane [Kastrup’s metaphor for One Consciousness]. However, because of self-reflective amplification [Ego loop], we identify ourselves only with a very small part of mind. Only the freewill at work within this small field of amplification is recognized by the ego as its own will. The force – the primary cause – that puts the rest of the membrane of mind in motion is seen by the ego as foreign and utterly outside its control.”

This realization and its impending death (of the Ego) is likely what Gurdjieff called “the terror of the situation” and we often call the “void” – which can be both a source of anxiety or, upon “awakening,” the beginning of exhilaration.

What is so appealing is that for all of the difficult reasoning and language, the author is very humble. He concludes:

“Do I believe that the way of thinking laid out in this book nails down the truth? Do I believe that my metaphysics is complete? Of course not. Such a belief would be of exceptional hubris and naïveté. What I do believe is that the worldview discussed here is a concrete and sound step forward when compared to the reigning paradigm. As I hope to have demonstrated, it explains all aspects of reality that materialism claims to explain, and then many more. As such, I’m absolutely convinced that my formulation of idealism is significantly closer to the truth than the madness of materialism.”

For all of his humility Kastrup is a brilliant writer; while some of his paragraphs are long and arduous they make for a compelling organic unity. Here is a sample summation:

“…when you close your garage door behind you in the evening, it’s clear that some process holds the pattern of things you leave behind in the garage – including your car – while you are asleep, since you can come back to that same pattern in the next morning. There is no denying this. But, because of the assumption of realism, materialists must then associate the pattern with a universe outside mind itself. Drop the assumption of realism and the original deduction leads to a completely different, and much more parsimonious, conclusion: the process that holds the pattern is a mental process that happens to transcend egoic awareness, in the same way that the mental processes responsible for generating dreams or schizophrenic visions also transcend the ego. That a pattern can be held – and even develop – independently of the ego does not mean that such pattern isn’t still purely mental. A whole phenomenological universe indeed unfolds outside the ego, but not outside mind. Such a trans-egoic universe is still an experience, but the experience of a broad, non-personal, non-self-reflective segment of mind.”

Paragraphs like this are not always easy to follow but if you do the work, they elegantly lay out a very comprehensive and viable notion of reality. Kastrup has laid out his case in a very compelling scientific style. For those who would like to follow this line, and for perhaps an equally deep discussion of scientism I would recommend Jacob Needleman’s “A Sense of the Cosmos.”

At this talk at SAND (Science and Nonduality) Kastrup defined himself (to the extent that he ever would) as a “skeptic” –which has a long tradition in philosophy but ultimately is another name for accepting not knowing.  That attitude alone makes this a book worth investigating.

Advertisement
advertisement - learn more

Awareness

Scientist Explains How Cow’s Milk Leeches Calcium From Your Bones & Makes Them Weaker

Published

on

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    Milk from cows has been touted as making our bones stronger, and preventing conditions like osteoporosis. It turns out that it's the complete opposite, that milk causes bone degeneration by leeching calcium from the bone.

  • Reflect On:

    How can the food industry put out information and 'science' that counters independent research and science that's not sponsored by the actual food companies? Why do we believe what we believe? Is this a result of mass marketing?

It’s remarkable to analyze why many of us believe that milk, which is designed to help calves develop, is also suitable for human beings. We are the only species on the planet that consumes the milk of another animal. Furthermore, we are the only species on the planet who continues to drink milk after weaning. Even for cows, this would be a no-no. There are multiple studies showing that drinking milk for a cow leads to an increased mortality rate and actually makes bones more prone to fracturing, not less. One example would be this giant study from researchers at Uppsala University in Sweden.

But not only are we starting to become aware that our milk-drinking habit is one of the main sources of multiple health ailments and chronic disease; let’s not forget about the fact that 80 percent of Amazon rainforest destruction is the result of grazing animals for meat and dairy. It’s one of the main sources of environmental degradation and pollution.

And when we support the dairy industry we also support animal torture, suffering and heartache. Cows are forcefully impregnated so they can lactate, and when their babies are born they are ripped from their mothers and head straight for the slaughter house. Animal agriculture represents one of the biggest genocides on the planet today, and it shows how much we’ve lost our connection to all that is.

Lactose Intolerance

But back to consumer health concerns. If we look at all other animals who don’t consume the milk of another animal or after weaning, it is because they do not have the enzymes to break down the sugar found in milk. We are no different, and this explains why in some ethnic populations around the world, lactose intolerance is present in 90 percent of the population. A staggering 70 percent of the world’s population has some degree of lactose intolerance.

That being said, some people might have evolved and developed a cows milk just fine, which is why this information may not apply to everybody but overall, it definitely appears we are doing something unnatural.

This is explainable by science. Humans actually never had this enzyme, and to digest the sugar in milk, a cow’s milk at that, we had to develop the LTC gene, which was acquired by mutation. This is the lactase gene, which allows us to process lactose as adults. Clearly, we are not doing what is natural and in accordance with our bodies. I first came across this information from Katherine S. Pollard, a PhD at the University of California, San Francisco, in this lecture.

advertisement - learn more

Metabolic Acidosis

One of the most important points people are becoming aware of  is the fact that animal protein may in fact be harmful for human consumption, and that plant protein is a much better option. I go more in-depth on this in my article Plant-Based Protein VS. Protein From Meat: Which One Is Better For Your Body?

One thing animal protein does is trigger metabolic acidosis. This happens when the body produces too much acid and becomes very acidic, which can be caused by multiple things, including the absorption of casein found in animal protein. Casein makes up almost 90 percent of the protein in a cow’s milk. When the body experiences this type of acidosis, it actually forces the body to compensate by leaching calcium from the bones to help neutralize the increased acidity. Over time, all of this can have severe and detrimental effects on bone health, and studies have shown this.

We Have Been Misled

Science tells us that nations with high instances of hip fracture and osteoporosis also have a very high calcium intake. Given this correlation, and the fact that animal protein causes metabolic acidosis, sucking the calcium out of the bones — in direct contrast to what the dairy industry would have us believe — it’s easy to see that we have been misled.

Studies have also shown that animal protein can “turn on cancer.” This mainly comes from the work of Dr. Colin Campbell, an American biochemist who specializes in the effect of nutrition on long term health. He is the Jacob Gould Schurman Professor Emeritus of Nutritional Biochemistry at Cornell University. Scholars like Campbell are vital to the world, because they are among the few who actually examine and study nutrition and health, something that our modern day medical industry completely ignores. How ironic is it that medical doctors don’t learn anything about nutrition? How does that make any sense? It’s because modern day medicine puts profits before health.

The China Study has become known as one of the most comprehensive studies of nutrition ever conducted. It has huge implications for diet, weight loss and longer-term health. It implicates animal protein in various ways that most people aren’t ready to accept.

Below is a clip from the Forks Over Knives documentary.

The Takeaway

The big takeaway here is to realize that we have been misled by the food industry in various realms. Products that have been pushed as healthy, like milk for example, are clearly not healthy and responsible for multiple diseases. Mass marketing and food propaganda, together with the pharmaceutical industry, completely control what we believe to be real when it comes to our health. They even falsify science, to counter claims by actual impartial science which strongly opposes what is put out by these industries. It’s not easy to let go of what we’ve been programmed to believe for so long, but the bottom line is when it comes to food and nutrition, critical thinking and independent research is far more valuable that relying on our medical associations and textbooks for information. Don’t be afraid to think for yourself, do your own research and listen to your body through experience.

Related CE Articles With More Information:

Things That Happen When You Stop Eating Meat 

Internal Medicine Physician Shares What Happens To Your Body When You Stop Eating Meat

Plant-Based Protein VS. Protein From Meat: Which One Is Better For Your Body?

Doctor Explains How Humans Have A “Strict” Vegan Physiology & Anatomy

Disturbing Aerial Photos Show What Killing Billions of Animals For Meat Is Doing To The Environment

Help Support Collective Evolution

The demand for Collective Evolution's content is bigger than ever, except ad agencies and social media keep cutting our revenues. This is making it hard for us to continue.

In order to stay truly independent, we need your help. We are not going to put up paywalls on this website, as we want to get our info out far and wide. For as little as $3 a month, you can help keep CE alive!

SUPPORT CE HERE!

cards

Continue Reading

Awareness

Merck’s Recombivax Vaccine Shortage Causes Reduced Deaths In Babies

Published

on

In the summer of 2017, a malware virus mainly affecting the Ukraine, found its way onto the mainframe computer systems of Merck wreaking havoc for the company. The malware was called “NotPetya,” referring to the ransomeware family Petya, which disables computer systems and demands a ransom to be paid in bitcoin before it will restore access to a company’s files. It is destructive and costly, something Merck was to find out as its sales and manufacturing operations were disrupted by the June 7th attack. According to the Wall Street Journal, the incident cost the pharmaceutical giant $670 million to remediate, but more importantly, it caused disruption to the production of two of Merck’s pediatric vaccines: Gardasil 9 (Human Papillomavirus) and Recombivax (Hepatitis B virus), vaccines to help prevent sexually transmitted infections.

During the crisis, Merck borrowed from a CDC vaccine stockpile, in order to meet supply commitments for Gardasil 9. However, that was not the case with Recombivax, the Hepatitis B vaccine given to all babies beginning the first day of life. There is no clear medical reason for giving every baby a vaccine against hepatitis B if its mother tests negative for the disease. Nevertheless, American babies receive three doses each, which is 12 million doses in any given year for the US alone. Following the cyber-attack, Merck was unable to meet this high demand, citing production problems.

The CDC acted quickly in asking GlaxoSmithkline to supply its Hep B vaccine Engerix-B, to meet the needs of the US market. The CDC published a notice about a shortage of Recombivax on July 28th 2017 on its website, stating that the vaccine would be unavailable as of early August 2017. GSK was able to supply a monovalent (single) vaccine for the birth dose and subsequent newborn doses. Doctors could give the pentavalent combination vaccine Pediarix to older babies, depending on supply.

Just prior to the ransomware attack, two scientists from Europe wrote to the FDA to express concern that recent research on aluminum adjuvants in vaccines suggested that these adjuvants were contributing to Autism Spectrum Disorder and other neurological disorders

Merck initially expected to resume distributing Recombivax in February of 2018. However, this deadline came and went and the expected resumption of distribution was pushed back many times. Currently, the CDC is reporting that Recombivax will not be available until the middle of 2019, almost two years since the cyber-attack happened and without the public fully understanding why this particular vaccine was affected.

What are the wider ramifications of this incident? Just prior to the ransomware attack, two scientists from Europe wrote to the FDA to express concern that recent research on aluminum adjuvants in vaccines suggested that these adjuvants were contributing to Autism Spectrum Disorder and other neurological disorders. There is growing concern among some scientists about the aluminum adjuvant load in vaccines and its effects on the neurological health of children. Researchers are particularly concerned with Merck’s highly immunogenic adjuvant, Amorphous Aluminum Hydroxyphosphate Sulphate (AAHS). Gardasil and Recombivax are the only vaccines licensed to contain AAHS. Some scientists believe it may contribute to serious autoimmune conditions referred to as Autoimmune/Inflammatory Syndrome Induced by Adjuvants or ASIA.

advertisement - learn more

Very often, when the safety of AAHS is questioned in Gardasil, the response from vaccine proponents is to say that it is the same adjuvant in the Hep B vaccine given to babies for many years, so it must be safe. That is only acceptable if Merck’s Recombivax vaccine is entirely safe for babies, which is difficult to measure. Since the ransomware attack however, there may now be a way to examine the relative effects of the swift change to GSK’s vaccine.

Did a Natural Experiment Occur?

Could there be an effect on vaccine reactions if one highly immunogenic adjuvant was removed from the earliest possible childhood immunizations? What happened since Recombivax went out of production in July 2017? The only way researchers can look at reactions is through the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS). It is a passive system not without errors, but most reports are by physicians, medical professionals and vaccine manufacturers themselves. A further limitation of VAERS, is that it only captures between 1-10% of reportable reactions, thus it significantly under-reports, which should be kept in mind when looking at data.

Following the cyber-attack in June 2017, for the first time in a very long time, researchers have the ability to view in plain sight, a natural experiment whereby one vaccine was abruptly swapped out for another – replacing the very adjuvant many critics are concerned about, AAHS – with an aluminum hydroxide adjuvant contained in Engerix-B. Neither has a published independent safety profile but AAHS is suspected to be more problematic due to its immunogenicity profile.

We now have more than a year’s worth of data to examine since the attack in 2017 when Engerix-B was introduced. On average there were 29 deaths reported annually for fifteen years prior to the attack (2003 to 2017). In 2018 there were only 6 reported (to end of November 2018). Two of those deaths followed Recombivax. Assuming the same death rate to the end of the year, at most there will be 7 deaths recorded, resulting in roughly 75% less deaths since Recombivax was discontinued as a pediatric vaccine.

Source: VAERS Hep B reported deaths annually 2003 – 2018.

Injuries have also halved since Engerix-B was introduced, from on average 1,400 reported annually from 2003 to 2017, to 756 cases in 2018 with one month’s reporting yet to be recorded.

Source: VAERS Hep B reported injuries annually 2003 – 2018.

There is an obvious suggestion that GSK’s vaccine is a safer option for parents and pediatricians. Of course, a more in depth analysis is needed. Moreover, because VAERS has incomplete data, it warrants an immediate FDA investigation since most of these deaths occur in babies under three years old.

It is unknown whether this anomaly was as a result of the switch to the GSK version of the vaccine, but considering the concern some scientists have over the lack of science and unsupported safety of Merck’s AAHS, the FDA should be concerned. At the very least, there should be a moratorium on reinstating Recombivax until the disparity can be investigated. Vaccine safety should be everyone’s concern, not just vaccine safety advocates. The precautionary principle must be invoked where there is doubt. We hope the FDA agrees.

By Eileen Iorio, Children’s Health Defense Contributing Writer

Sign up for free news and updates from Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and the Children’s Health Defense. CHD is planning many strategies, including legal, in an effort to defend the health of our children and obtain justice for those already injured. Your support is essential to CHD’s successful mission.

Help Support Collective Evolution

The demand for Collective Evolution's content is bigger than ever, except ad agencies and social media keep cutting our revenues. This is making it hard for us to continue.

In order to stay truly independent, we need your help. We are not going to put up paywalls on this website, as we want to get our info out far and wide. For as little as $3 a month, you can help keep CE alive!

SUPPORT CE HERE!

cards

Continue Reading

Alternative News

Canadian Food Guide Shifts From Meat & Dairy To A Whole Foods Plant-Based Recommendation

Published

on

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    Canada has announced the implementation of a new food guide, one that promotes a whole foods, plant-based diet with the elimination of dairy and processed meats as well as a reduction in the consumption of meat.

  • Reflect On:

    With all of the science and documented examples showing that the human body is more adapted to a whole foods plant based diet, why is it so hard for people to believe? Who has been influencing our thoughts about our diet for all of these years?

The world is quickly changing, and it’s changing for the better. It’s incredible to see just how much the consciousness of the planet has shifted in so many different areas, including the food industry. At the same time, the more the world continues to wake up, the harsher the reaction from the opposition. It’s hard to challenge false beliefs systems that humanity has held onto for so long.

The most recent example of this shift in consciousness comes from Canada, one of multiple countries now encouraging a whole foods, plant-based diet. Why? It’s lot healthier, and the science proves it. Can you believe our old food guide actually recommended processed meats and dairy? We’ll discuss that more later, but for now let’s focus on the new food guide.

This is a dramatic change for Canada. As Global News points out:

The guide is one of the federal government’s most-requested publications, with its influence felt in doctor’s offices, school cafeterias, hospitals and home kitchens across the country. And for the past four decades, the guide has looked more or less the same, telling Canadians to eat a diet of specific servings from four food groups

But the new guide unveiled on Tuesday – the first major update in more than 12 years – radically upends this formula. It no longer has separate “meat” and “dairy” categories – or four distinct food groups at all. Also gone are serving sizes and numbers. Instead, Health Canada has chosen a simpler approach: The new guide shows an image of a plate, half of it covered with fruits and vegetables. The other half is divided into whole grains and “proteins,” a new category that contains meat, dairy and plant-based foods such as chickpeas and tofu.

Our education regarding food has been extremely misleading, and that’s largely because it’s heavily funded by major food corporations. So why the switch now? It’s likely because the population has had a shift in consciousness, and the government had to make a shift in order to reflect these changes. We’ve seen the same thing with unidentified flying objects, and we will begin to see it with many other topics as well.

advertisement - learn more

It’s also a positive step, because eating meat and consuming dairy products is simply not sustainable for the planet. For example, approximately 80 percent of Amazon rainforest destruction is due to grazing animals. Most of that is to support the high demand of the meat and dairy industries. If you can believe it, we clear out an entire football field worth of forests every single second. (You can find sources in the articles linked below).

Today, close to 100 plant, animal and insect species are lost because of meat and dairy farming. Here we are with all of our focus on CO2, when animal agriculture produces more greenhouse gases than all of the transportation industries combined. Meat accounts for a shocking 51 percent of global greenhouse gases. This is a huge issue that needs to be addressed, but instead it’s been swept under the rug for years.

Not only are the meat and dairy industries destroying our planet, but consuming these products also causes multiple chronic health ailments and diseases.

Think about it: Consuming another animal’s breast milk just doesn’t seem normal. We are the only animal on the planet who drinks the milk of another animal. We are the only animal on the planet who drinks milk after weaning and continue to do so well into adulthood. Big Food has used calcium as a marketing scam to justify consuming cows milk, but if you look at the science, drinking milk from a cow has led to weaker bones and higher risk of osteoporosis. In fact, animal protein creates a condition within the body called metabolic acidosis, which sucks out calcium from the bones. You cannot, in fact, absorb calcium without equal parts magnesium, which milk does not provide. There is a reason why most of the world is lactose intolerant because we actually had to develop and evolve the enzyme to be able to digest the milk of a cow. (Sources linked below.)

It’s become quite clear that we can’t really trust our regulatory agencies.

“The FDA ‘protects’ the big drug companies and are subsequently rewarded, and using the government’s police powers they attack those who threaten the big drug companies… People think that the FDA is protecting them. It isn’t. What the FDA is doing and what the public thinks it is doing are as different as night and day.” – Dr.Herbert Leonard Ley Jr, 10th commissioner and head of the FDA

The Takeaway

There is still a long way to go until our global food system is healed, including the GMO/pesticide issue that also plagues our planet and our health.

It’s interesting to reflect on the government’s intentions behind shifting our food guide: Is it really rooted in health (which it wasn’t in the past), or is it still all about money? The previous food guide has made it abundantly clear that we cannot trust the government to look out for our health, and so we must do our own research. Although this is a step in the right direction, it’s still not enough.

A recent study showed that nearly 10 percent of the population of Canada now identifies as being vegetarian or vegan. According to research from Dalhousie University, there are 2.3 million vegetarians in Canada, which is up 900,000 from a survey taken 15 years ago, and another 850,000 people identify as vegan. Combined, these numbers add up to 9.4 percent of the Canadian population. This is forcing restaurants and the meat, egg, and dairy industries to consider new approaches to a dwindling market.

At the end of the day, we have to acknowledge the health and environmental benefits of a meat- and dairy-free diet and either cut these products out completely or at least reduce our consumption of them. It’s not healthy and it’s unsustainable, and that really can’t be argued anymore.

“Veganism is a very fine form of nutrition. It’s a little extreme to tell a person who is using flesh foods that you’re going to take everything entirely away from them. When I was in practice in medicine, I would tell the patients that the vegetable based diet was the healthy way to go, and to keep away from the animal products as much as possible. People are very sensitive about what they eat. You can talk to people about exercising,  relaxation, good mental attitude and they will accept that. But you talk to them about what they are eating and people are very sensitive about that. If an individual is willing to listen, I will try to explain to them on a scientific basis of how I think it’s better for them.” – Dr. Ellsworth Wareham, heart surgeon. (source)

The Science of Not Eating Meat & Dairy if you’re looking for Proof & “Scholarly” Articles

9 Things That Happen When You Stop Eating Meat 

Internal Medicine Physician Shares What Happens To Your Body When You Stop Eating Meat

Plant-Based Protein VS. Protein From Meat: Which One Is Better For Your Body? 

Doctor Explains How Humans Have A “Strict” Vegan Physiology & Anatomy

Disturbing Aerial Photos Show What Killing Billions of Animals For Meat Is Doing To The Environment

Help Support Collective Evolution

The demand for Collective Evolution's content is bigger than ever, except ad agencies and social media keep cutting our revenues. This is making it hard for us to continue.

In order to stay truly independent, we need your help. We are not going to put up paywalls on this website, as we want to get our info out far and wide. For as little as $3 a month, you can help keep CE alive!

SUPPORT CE HERE!

cards

Continue Reading
advertisement - learn more
advertisement - learn more

Video

CETV

 

The all-new CETV brings together the leading voices in the truth and consciousness realm to a single platform for the first time ever. 

Thanks, you're keeping conscious media alive.