If you drank the unpasteurized mixed breast milk of a hundred human women I almost guarantee you will get sick. Any body fluid, from both humans and mammals, is a huge health risk in its raw form. Infants are OK because they only drink from one and whatever disease the mom has, the baby is almost guaranteed to have already got anyway from the constant close contact.

That would not be good. However the more common case of using raw flour is eating raw cookie dough. It’s not safe.

Having blood and puss in milk is surprisingly OK. That’s not an industrial problem, that’s just biological reality. However the amount is very low and not a health concern. There are just as much of those components in raw and pasteurized. The problem is that in the raw milk the bacteria still lives on.

It’s like how there is an acceptable limit to how many ground up cockroaches and mouse shits you’re allowed to have in wheat flour. If the level is low enough and you don’t eat the flour raw, there is no problem.

Don’t you have low temperature pasteurization in the US? It tastes basically the same as raw milk and has nowhere near the mailiard reaction impact that UHT has, meaning it should have basically the same nutrition as raw milk. Never understood the raw milk craze.

You are right about the risk of heavy metal contamination so wont comment on that. But if we are speaking about an animal that crapped on top of the clay pile then that should not be an issue. Soil in general but especially clay has an absolutely enormous surface area that adsorbs both bacteria and viruses. That’s why ground water is usually safe to drink but surface water is not. A large amount of faeces leaking into the soil water from above would potentially contaminate the water with nitrate which could be a slight cancer risk if consumed in large quantities but there should be no risk of getting infected if you are digging deep unexposed clay, even if an animal crapped on top of the pile. As long as there is no heavy metal contamination eating deep clay is probably safer than eating a wild picked berry.

All the ones you listed are either:

Not native to soil but may be on soil if faeces got on there Or Not dangerous in soil but will become dangerous if food gets into contact with it before fermenting Or Only dangerous getting into your blood, but not your mouth.

As long as there is no literal poop on the soil you can eat it raw. These people mentioned in the article were digging deep clay which would carry absolutely no risk of faeces contamination.

After cooking with high heat there should be no germs left. As stated in the article there are no health risks involved except if you eat such a large amount it blocks your intestines. Also even if you didn’t cook it the germs that live in soil are not the same germs that make you sick, those you get from your fellow humans.

I don’t get how you can be against manure in any way. Used correctly there is close to no risk of any diseases getting to the end consumer. Usually you would apply manure before planting and by the time you harvest the crop too much time would have passed for any manure bacteria to survive.

Manure brings lots of benefits. We all know it brings nutrients but it also adds a lot of organic matter and very manure heavy plant cycles can even net store carbon in the soil. And if you wouldn’t use the manure where would you put it? We should all know those US style manure lagoons (poop lakes) are all environmental catastrophes. There is literally no better way to use manure than to spread it on crops. The crops take up the nutrients which saves the nutrients from running into water causing algal blooms. In my European country there is a legal requirement that all manure has to be spread on agricultural land because of the environmental benefits of doing so.

And the “poison”. Well that depends on where you live. There are safe pesticides and then there are generally horrifying ones. I don’t trust the US on this but I at least trust the experts on my country’s chemical regulation authority. They have banned lots of agricultural chem and have very strict requirements for new approvals. The main risk with modern agricultural chemicals are the people applying them, not the people eating the produce. Take glyphosphate for example, the most well researched agricultural chemical in existence. All the horror stories about it read as (and this is a real story I read in the newspaper): “I was spraying glyphosphate in my garden while 8 months pregnant and then I accidentally poured the entire 5 liter container on myself, then I had a miscarriage”. Lots of chemicals are like this. If I pour 5 liters of bleach all over myself I would get sick as well but that doesn’t mean bleached clothes are dangerous.

Both cows, horses and even to a limited extent humans can digest fiber. Cows digest fiber in the rumen where it actually turns mostly into organic acids which the cow can oxidize while the anaerobic rumen bacteria cannot. Interestingly the same thing happens in the large intestine in other mammals. For humans the large intestine is quite small and food moves through there too quickly for much fiber to be properly digested. However the easiest digestible fiber, soluble fiber, actually mostly breaks down even in a human’s large intestine and yields us approximately 2 calories per gram of soluble fiber. For insoluble fiber this amount is extremely low since there is not enough fermentation taking place for it to be completely broken down. However for mammals with a much larger large intestine where food passes much slower, even the harder to digest fibers can be utilized to a large degree.

Horses belong to this category and are called hindgut fermenters. Other examples may surprise you like gorillas and orangutans who have incredibly huge large intestines. That’s why those apes can eat leaves all day and is an explanation why their stomachs are huge without them being filled with fat, it’s all intestines.

However a weakness with hindgut fermentation is that the large intestine can only extract solubles from the microbial mass which leaves out a lot of nutrients. A cow can extract those same organic acids from the fermentation but since the rumen is first in their digestive system the whole microbial mass enters their “ordinary” digestive system which means that they can digest the actual bacteria as well, meaning they manage to extract a bunch of extra microbial proteins that hindgut fermenters may miss. The benefit to hindgut fermentation is however that the first shot at digesting the food is given to the animal itself. A horse can digest starch just as well as a human could but a cow suffers considerable losses in starch digestion since the bacteria gets first gibs, turning the starch to organic acids instead of getting broken down into simple sugars directly, which is more efficient. So in short a cow and horse can both digest fiber. However their digestive systems have significant tradeoffs and one is not necessarily better than the other.

Considering that’s a Holstein breed cow and therefore a milking cow, the nutritional demands are entirely different. Getting a cow to produce 40 liters of milk a day is no easy task and requires grass of the highest quality, combined with a generous dose of concentrate feed with grains and legumes/presscake. If a normal hobby horse was fed a diet like this they would turn obese almost instantly. In fact hobby horses usually require as poor quality feed as possible because it turns out that being ridden at walking speed for an hour 1-2 times a week is a very low amount of exercise for a horse. You have to intentionally grow as rough and low quality grass as possible for the horses not to get obese. That’s why oats are no longer given to horses. A race horse or a working horse that’s active for several hours a day can however be given oats or other concentrated feed and may be able to handle, or at least come close to handling, a dairy cow type diet. However these types of hard working horses are rare nowadays.

TLDR dairy cows and horses generally do NOT eat the same diet.

In the US the native herbivore with the “cow-niche” is the American bison. If we would restore ecosystems and replace captive grazers with wild grazers, increasing the wild bison population is the answer and much preferable to having wild cows (who don’t even exist in the first place, the wild version is extinct as mentioned). Of course bison is not an answer to what to do with the cows that already exist in the US of course.

However if a decision was made to ban all animal agriculture I would be a strong opponent of not rewilding any cows. They are not native and they are not even fit for living in the wild anymore. Just take a Holstein milking cow for example. What use does producing 40liter of milk per day have in the wild? None! Calves can’t drink even close to that amount. The lactating moms would get mastitis. They are not even fit to only make milk for just their calves anymore. Let the domestic cows die out in that case.

Well no shit. That applies to most animals we humans care for, even the ones who we don’t typically eat. Try throwing a hairless cat or a pug out into the wild. They can’t manage without us no more.

Interestingly enough you don’t have to be so specific as Black Angus. All cows are totally extinct in the wild. They derive from the Eurasian auroch which went extinct in most places of its original range over 3000 years ago. The absolute last one died in 1627 in Poland, but even that one was probably not pure auroch. If everyone went vegan we would probably still keep a few cows around in zoos but we would have no where near the amount we have today. If we wanted to reintroduce something similar we would have to rely on reintroducing european buffalos, which are another species but still native to Europe.

The original point is that billionaires, as I interpret it, is that billionaires are worse than animals. Or at least that if we look at billionaires as if they were animals we would still diagnose them as ill. My point is that that’s not true. Animals can be just as psychotic. Most have absolutely no morals and a subset of them regularly do things that are way worse than what the billionaires are doing, hence my examples.

However animals are not humans. Billionaires are humans. If we say billionaires are like animals that’s already a really bad grade. We humans are supposed to be much better than that. I’m not defending billionaires at all. I’m saying one should compare them to something else. There are much better and more effective ways to criticize them than this.

They don’t do that because they physically can’t. If they could they would. If you have two starving bears and throw them one carcass. Only one will eat because they will fight and scream away the weaker one.

Hey I’m no big supporter of billionaires but “that behavior in any other species we would classify it as some kind of divergent behavior” is extremely wrong. Altruism is extremely rare outside humans. Most animals would absolutely love to get every single piece of food in the forest all to themselves. They steal food from each other constantly. Whole species are based on the very concept of stealing as their main or sole life strategy. There are fish out there whose main food is the juveniles of the exact same fish species. Literal baby-eating as their main strategy.

We humans are supposed to be better than animals. Comparing someone to an animal is comparing them to something bad.

There are many different kinds of farms and they all need different inputs. Most impacted would be the corn and soy farms who produce a low value good for a lot of inputs in the form of fertilizer, seeds, sprays, fuel for heavy machinery etc. Least impacted would be beef producers who use wild grazing. Almost no inputs as the land produced the grazing by itself, at the same time they produce a high value good.

Of course there are lots of intermediates but those would be the extremes.

4 most important parts of artificial fertiliser are nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium and sulfur.

Nitrogen is Infinite. It’s made from the air which is 78% nitrogen. Energy is needed to fix it. Usually its natural gas but it doesn’t have to be. Electricity can also be used. There are real world plants who use hydro or wild energy to make it, even if they are few today.

Phosphorus is plentiful on Earth, both in soil, rock and sea water. However in most natural sources the concentration is too low to actually refine today. Phosphate rock which is the main source today is limited. 70% of the current Reserves are in one single country, Morocco. All world reserves combined should last for a our 300 years. After that we will either have to extract phosphorus from less phosphorus dense sources or we have to recycle it better from human excrete. Nevertheless we have plenty of time to come up with that technology. Main problem right now is not it running out but the risk of how concentrated it is. What if Morocco doesn’t want to share?

Potassium is extremely plentiful around the world. It’s 2,6% of the Earth’s mass and even the potassium rich minerals we currently use are expected to last hundreds if not thousands of years. Mined all over the world but mostly in Canada, china and Russia and Belarus. Not really a problem. Also plentiful in seawater.

Sulfur has many different sources and in most it’s a byproduct. Main source is as a biproduct of refining fossil fuels but it’s also created as a byproduct of mining for other minerals. The amount needed for agriculture is also comparably small. There is so much sulfur out there it’s even mixed into concrete just to get rid of it. I don’t see sulfur as a main concern.

So to summarize I’m really not concerned about any of them except for phosphorus and for that one it’s mostly the question of how willing Morocco is to share it. Long term when sulfate rock runs out 300 years I’m quite secure we have found out how to commercially extract it from a less dense mineral. Either that or we have finally started seriously recycling it from human excrete. Phosphorus is very easily recycled. The technology is already here. More sewage plants would just have to do it. And if we are starting to slowly reach peak phosphorus the pure financial incentives will make sewage plants start recovering it. Now it doesn’t happen because the mineral phosphorus is just too cheap and convenient.

How is this news? They are in the same war together on the same side. I would be more shocked if they didn’t communicate with each other regularly.

You would think Catholics would be absolutely outraged by this but the pope, who before was totally taboo to ever criticize, has been getting lots of criticism from Catholics for a long time now, ever since pope Francis was elected and but especially now with pope Leo. Ironically the absolutely fiercest critics of the pope are the so called “tradcaths” or ultra conservative catholic zoomers. If you look at their social media bubble it’s shit thrown at whatever the pope is saying every single week.

I don’t think US conservative Catholics care at all what Trump is saying about the pope. They hate the pope themselves. Maybe they will even cheer on.

It absolutely states that being gay is a grave sin and even calls for death for them in the old testament. However the message of Jesus in the new testament is one of radical forgiveness and non-judgement. Jesus is not afraid of those who commit sexual sins as seen by one of his companions being a prostitute. Jesus says to love everyone, forgive everyone and only hate the sin itself, but not the sinner. Judging a person is also considered a grave sin, something many modern christians have forgotten.

Therefore there is absolutely a theological basis for allowing homosexuals to attend church, following Jesus example of himself hanging out with prostitutes, another kind of sexual sinner. And since Jesus tells you to love everyone and judge no one there is no reason to hate or shun a gay person. This also applies to other sins. If you rob a bank you can still go to church as well, with the same argument.

However if you talk to a priest or pastor of a liberal LGBTQ affirming church and ask them if gays are allowed in the church they will shout a resounding yes. But if you press them on the question of if homosexual intercourse is a sin or not they will probably get uncomfortable and may give another answer. It’s a very hard biblical reality to deny.

However since you could in theory be gay and have a same sex partner and just simply not have sex with them you could give gay couples the benefit of the doubt. This is the basis for allowing gay marriage. However gay marriage stands on much more shakier grounds than simply allowing LGBTQs in the church, since marriage in the bible is explicitly stated as being between a man and a woman. Some prists/pastors however take a different route to justifying it and that involves reasoning that since God created all humans and some humans are gay, those people most have been created gay by god himself, and everything that God creates is good, therefore gays are good. This argument requires some reasoning outside the Bible but is used by many. Conservatives can attack such a stance saying it directly goes against direct bible quotes while also claiming one is not born gay but you turn gay by your own decision or others influence. Gayness would in this view be a free will sin rather than a god creates attribute.

I’m writing this comment as a non Christian who supports LGBTQ btw. Just trying to explain what I know about the discussion.