Heather Mills Mc Scary

[Pragmatopian]

Reminds me of that bit in Meet the Parents where Ben Stiller explains to Robert De Niro how he used to milk cats. "I have nipples Greg, could you milk me?"

[VinnieK]

Heather Mills' latest bizarre rant: 'Why don't we drink milk from rats and dogs?'

 

That's truly excellent. I'm warming to her nutcasery to the point where I think the government should employ her as the nation's jester.

[Amadeus]

Heather Mills' latest bizarre rant: 'Why don't we drink milk from rats and dogs?'

So, she campaigns for more awarness on global warming and does so driving

 

 

I think I can spot a slight credibility problem here

[Saltire]

Can you imagine trying to milk a rat?

 

Would it not keep falling in the bucket?

[Chinahand]

The whole rat/cat thing is crap anyway - they are higher up the food chain than cows. Rats = omnivore/insectivore, cat = carnivore - so the energy a cat uses to create their milk comes from plant to animals to cat to milk. Its less efficient than cows which go straight from Plant to cow to milk.

 

Its a similar issue with people - lots of people used to be vegetarian and got their energy directly from plants. Now with affluence the are eating more meat - omnivores - so they get the energy from animals which have to consume more biomass than the people were initially eating - hence more strain upon the earth.

 

Stupid women.

 

Sorry to be nerdish!

[cheeky boy]

Its a similar issue with people - lots of people used to be vegetarian and got their energy directly from plants. Now with affluence the are eating more meat - omnivores - so they get the energy from animals which have to consume more biomass than the people were initially eating - hence more strain upon the earth.

 

Stupid women.

 

Sorry to be nerdish!

 

 

Beg to differ

 

Humans have always been omnivores

[Chinahand]

Yes we are biologically omnivores, that doesn't stop hundreds of millions of people being too poor to buy meat and basically subsisting on vegetables and carbohydrates.

 

One of the more complicated issues for this world is we now have the economic ability to start to allow these people to eat meat, but we may not have the ecological ability to do it sustainably.

 

The world is full up!

 

That is the point Ms Mills was meant to be making, but she decided to become psychotic-eco wierdo and go off on a psuedo scientific mystery tours [did you see what I did there] about milking cats.

[Gladys]

But Chinahand, you are missing the point about food chains. In the food chain hierarchy, there is an inbuilt taboo about eating something in the food chain league which is your equivalent because you are eating something that has already metabolised the original source to the same level as you could metabolise it (cannabalism is one prime example). So eating cat or rat is distasteful, not because they are fluffy or repugnant, but because they are at the top of their food chains and so have no unmetabolised contribution to our own nutrition. Similarly is the pig, reviled by so many religions and that is not because of its habits (as in the wild they are very clean etc. etc) but because they are omnivores so have the same eating pattern and so the same metabolised nutrition as we have.

 

As anyone who has studied biology even at GCSE knows, vitamins are very transient ingredients to any diet; eat something that metabolises in the same way and you have lost those vital vitamins.

 

This could be complete b*ll*cks, and I have no empirical evidence to support it, but it stacks up for me.

[Albert Tatlock]

Heather Mills' latest bizarre rant: 'Why don't we drink milk from rats and dogs?'

 

That's truly excellent. I'm warming to her nutcasery to the point where I think the government should employ her as the nation's jester.

Strange? I thought your anaylsis would be far deeper than that - you know - rather than appealing to the masses for the moment! Like your latest posts.

[Chinahand]

But Chinahand, you are missing the point about food chains. In the food chain hierarchy, there is an inbuilt taboo about eating something in the food chain league which is your equivalent because you are eating something that has already metabolised the original source to the same level as you could metabolise it (cannabalism is one prime example). So eating cat or rat is distasteful, not because they are fluffy or repugnant, but because they are at the top of their food chains and so have no unmetabolised contribution to our own nutrition. Similarly is the pig, reviled by so many religions and that is not because of its habits (as in the wild they are very clean etc. etc) but because they are omnivores so have the same eating pattern and so the same metabolised nutrition as we have.

 

As anyone who has studied biology even at GCSE knows, vitamins are very transient ingredients to any diet; eat something that metabolises in the same way and you have lost those vital vitamins.

 

This could be complete b*ll*cks, and I have no empirical evidence to support it, but it stacks up for me.

Fish - proves it to be as you say b*ll*cks.

[Miss Take]

But Chinahand, you are missing the point about food chains. In the food chain hierarchy, there is an inbuilt taboo about eating something in the food chain league which is your equivalent because you are eating something that has already metabolised the original source to the same level as you could metabolise it (cannabalism is one prime example). So eating cat or rat is distasteful, not because they are fluffy or repugnant, but because they are at the top of their food chains and so have no unmetabolised contribution to our own nutrition. Similarly is the pig, reviled by so many religions and that is not because of its habits (as in the wild they are very clean etc. etc) but because they are omnivores so have the same eating pattern and so the same metabolised nutrition as we have.

 

As anyone who has studied biology even at GCSE knows, vitamins are very transient ingredients to any diet; eat something that metabolises in the same way and you have lost those vital vitamins.

 

This could be complete b*ll*cks, and I have no empirical evidence to support it, but it stacks up for me.

Fish - proves it to be as you say b*ll*cks.

 

If it's bollocks, why don't we eat paedophiles? Two birds, one stone. That's nonce sense.

[Mr. Sausages]

Who would want to eat something that's just come out of a child's bottom?

[Stavros]

What I don't quite understand is the campaign is trying to get people to not eat meat and dairy products because the animals create far more green house gases etc etc.

 

But if we didn't eat the animals, wouldn't there be many many more of them creating more gases?

 

Even if you use the argument that no, they're currently farmed and livestock farming would become obselete if no one ate meat or dairy products. Wouldn't the animals be free to roam because no one would be trying to eat them?

 

Or should they all just be killed off so as not to create any excess gas?

 

Stav.

[VinnieK]

Strange? I thought your anaylsis would be far deeper than that - you know - rather than appealing to the masses for the moment! Like your latest posts.

 

What's there to analyse? If Mills McCartney were supporting a serious point and was appealing to science to back up her view, then perhaps there'd be something substantial to argue with, but she's not. Instead it's a case of a minor celebrity drawing attention to herself by trying to save the world with childlike solutions to complicated problems, probaby with the intent of deflecting some of the public's ire towards her by associating herself with a good cause, as well as trying to cling on to the limelight for as long as possible before she ultimately fades into obscurity - the death rattle of the C list celeb.

 

It has to be said though that although the issue food chains and the transfer of vitamins is an important consideration, there are more fundamental and immediate counter arguments to Mills McCartney's proclamation. All current efforts to tackle global warming are quite rightly geared towards preserving the status quo as much as is possible, simply because this makes the transition over to "green" practices less painful and easier to manage. Eliminating cows, sheep and the like from the human food chain (as well as removing them from the economy) is such a fundamental change that to do so verges on an impossible task - to do so would be analogous to completely banning cars and insisting people ride around on bicycles, which simply isn't going to happen. Also, there are a number of proposed methods to cut down on emissions from farm animals without having to dramatically alter the way farmers do their job, or the eating habits of the world, one of the most simple being to alter their diet to more easily digestible varieties of grass.

 

As an aside:

 

Gladys, surely the fairly widespread custom of eating dog meat (South-East Asia, China, and indeed amongst American Indians) invalidates your idea that there is an inbuilt taboo amongst humans about eating a food chain equivalent.

[homarus]

Who would want to eat something that's just come out of a child's bottom?

 

Not many gems lately from Mr S. !

 

But back with a bang with this one???