Topic: Red Meat

[Nichi]

Red and Processed Meat Intake Linked to Mortality  CME/CE

News Author: Laurie Barclay, MD
CME Author: Charles Vega, MD, FAAFP
Disclosures
Release Date: March 26, 2009; Valid for credit through March 26, 2010


March 26, 2009 — Eating red and processed meat is associated with modest increases in total mortality, cancer mortality, and cardiovascular disease mortality rates, according to the results of a large, prospective study reported in the March 23 issue of the Archives of Internal Medicine.

"High intakes of red or processed meat may increase the risk of mortality," write Rashmi Sinha, PhD, from the National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Department of Health and Human Services in Rockville, Maryland, and colleagues. "Our objective was to determine the relations of red, white, and processed meat intakes to risk for total and cause-specific mortality."

The National Institutes of Health–AARP Diet and Health Study enrolled approximately half a million people aged 50 to 71 years at baseline. A food frequency questionnaire administered at baseline allowed estimation of meat intake, and Cox proportional hazards regression models allowed calculation of hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) within quintiles of meat intake.

Red meat included all types of beef and pork such as bacon, beef, cold cuts, hamburgers, hotdogs, steak, and meats in pizza, lasagna, and stew. White meat included chicken, turkey, and fish along with poultry cold cuts, canned tuna, and low-fat hotdogs. Processed meats could include either red or white meats in the form of sandwich meats or cold cuts as well as bacon, red meat and poultry sausages, and regular hotdogs and low-fat hotdogs made from poultry. The authors note that some of the meats may overlap in the 3 categories, but they were not duplicated or used in the same models in the study analysis.

The models considered covariates of age, education, marital status, presence or absence of family history of cancer (for cancer mortality only), race, body mass index, smoking history, physical activity, energy intake, alcohol drinking, use of vitamin supplements, fruit consumption, vegetable consumption, and use of menopausal hormone therapy in women. Primary endpoints of the study were total mortality and deaths caused by cancer, cardiovascular disease, injury and sudden deaths, and all other causes.

During 10 years of follow-up, 47,976 men and 23,276 women died. Overall mortality risks were increased for men and women in the highest vs the lowest quintile of red meat intake (HR, 1.31; 95% CI, 1.27 - 1.35; and HR, 1.36; 95% CI, 1.30-1.43, respectively) and processed meat intake (HR, 1.16; 95% CI, 1.12 - 1.20; and HR, 1.25; 95% CI, 1.20 - 1.31, respectively). Men and women with higher intake also had increased risks for cancer mortality for red meat (HR, 1.22; 95% CI, 1.16 - 1.29; and HR, 1.20; 95% CI, 1.12 - 1.30, respectively) and processed meat (HR, 1.12; 95% CI, 1.06 - 1.19; and HR, 1.11; 95% CI 1.04 - 1.19, respectively).

Cardiovascular disease risk was increased for men and women in the highest quintile of intake of red meat (HR, 1.27; 95% CI, 1.20 - 1.35; and HR, 1.50; 95% CI, 1.37 - 1.65, respectively) and processed meat (HR, 1.09; 95% CI, 1.03 - 1.15; and HR, 1.38; 95% CI, 1.26 - 1.51, respectively). For the highest vs the lowest quintile of white meat intake for both men and women, there was an inverse association for total mortality, cancer mortality, and mortality from all other causes.

"Red and processed meat intakes were associated with modest increases in total mortality, cancer mortality, and cardiovascular disease mortality," the study authors write. "In contrast, high white meat intake and a low-risk meat diet was associated with a small decrease in total and cancer mortality."

Limitations of this study include possible residual confounding by smoking; possible measurement error; and cohort predominantly non-Hispanic white, more educated, with less smoking, less fat and red meat intake, and more intake of fiber and fruit and vegetables than similarly aged adults in the US population, limiting generalizability.

"These results complement the recommendations by the American Institute for Cancer Research and the World Cancer Research Fund to reduce red and processed meat intake to decrease cancer incidence," the study authors write. "Future research should investigate the relation between subtypes of meat and specific causes of mortality."

In an accompanying editorial, Barry M. Popkin, PhD, from the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, discusses how the implications of reducing excessive meat intake would relate to several major global concerns.

"Of equal importance is the role of clinicians as public health advocates," Dr. Popkin writes. "Far too few clinicians speak out on topics such as this. What the public hears is the side of the profession that is preaching vegetarian diets and not the side of the profession that is discussing moderation as a healthy option."

The Intramural Research Program of the National Institute of Health, National Cancer Institute supported this study in part. The study authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Popkin is not a vegetarian and has no financial conflict of interest related to any food product as it affects health.

Arch Intern Med. 2009;169:543-545, 562-571.
Clinical Context

Dietary patterns are changing around the globe, and an editorial by Popkin, which accompanies the current article, describes these patterns. Individuals in higher-income countries continue to consume meat and dairy products at 2 to 3 times the rate of lower-income countries. However, meat and dairy products are becoming a more common dietary staple in some developing countries, particularly India, China, and Brazil.

In part, higher consumption of meat is the result of a lower cost of beef vs several decades ago. At the same time, the cost of grains and rice has increased significantly on the world market in the last 6 years. This has important environmental consequences, as the need for water and feedstock is much higher in raising animals vs raising basic crops.

Meat consumption can have significant effects on rates of obesity and overall health as well. The current study examines a large cohort of adults to determine the effect of meat intake on mortality rates.
Study Highlights

    * Study participants included adults between the ages of 50 and 71 years who lived in 6 different regions of the United States.
    * Participants completed a 124-item food frequency questionnaire at baseline, which inquired regarding dietary habits during the previous 12 months.
    * The main study variable was the consumption of red meats, white meats, and processed meats. Processed meats could include either red or white meats in the form of sandwich meats or cold cuts.
    * The main outcome of the study was total mortality rate, and secondary outcomes included cause-specific mortality rates related to cancer and cardiovascular disease. These data were derived from national mortality databases and diagnostic codes.
    * The relationship between meat consumption and mortality was adjusted to account for major confounding factors, including demographic, family history, and health habit variables.
    * 322,263 men and 223,390 women were included in the study analysis. During 10 years of follow-up, there were 47,796 and 23,276 deaths among men and women, respectively.
    * Men and women in the lowest quintile of red meat intake consumed approximately 9 g per 1000 kcal of diet per day. Men and women in the highest quintile of red meat intake consumed 68.1 and 65.9 g per 1000 kcal of diet daily, respectively.
    * The median processed meat consumption in the first and fifth quintiles were 1.6 g per 1000 kcal/day and 22.6 g per 1000 kcal/day, respectively.
    * Participants who consumed more red meat tended to be married, of non-Hispanic white ethnicity, and have worse health habits and a higher body mass index.
    * The adjusted HRs for all-cause mortality in comparing the highest vs the lowest quintiles of red meat consumption were 1.31 for men and 1.36 for women. This same comparison for processed meats yielded adjusted HRs of 1.16 and 1.25, respectively. All of these values were statistically significant.
    * The risk for death increased gradually with increasing red and processed meat consumption.
    * The risk for cancer mortality was increased by a factor of 1.2 in comparing the highest vs the lowest quintiles of red meat intake. The risk for cardiovascular death was increased by 1.27 among men and 1.50 among women in comparing these same quintiles.
    * The consumption of processed meat also increased the specific risks for cancer and cardiovascular mortality.
    * Red meat consumption increased the risk for death from injury or sudden death among men but not women, and the risk for deaths from other causes was increased with higher red meat consumption in both sexes.
    * Consumption of white meat had the opposite effect on the risk for mortality. The risk for death among both women and men in the highest vs the lowest quintile of white meat consumption was 0.92.
    * Subgroup analysis based on smoking status did not change the main study findings.
    * Overall, the researchers concluded that 11% of deaths among men and 16% of deaths among women might be prevented if all adults consumed red meat at levels commensurate with the first study quintile.

Pearls for Practice

    * Although some lower-income countries have increasing levels of meat and dairy consumption, the rate of consumption of these products is still 2 to 3 times higher among individuals in higher-income countries. The cost of beef has decreased worldwide in the last several decades, whereas the cost of grains and rice has increased during the last 6 years.
    * In the current study, red meat and processed meat consumption were associated with higher rates of all-cause, cardiovascular, and cancer mortality. However, white meat consumption was associated with a lower risk for mortality.

http://cme.medscape.com/viewarticle/590167?src=cmemp

[Nichi]

And blindness too...

Diet High in Red Meat Tied to Early Age-Related Macular Degeneration CME

News Author: Karla Gale, MS
CME Author: Laurie Barclay, MD
Disclosures
Release Date: March 27, 2009; Valid for credit through March 27, 2010

March 27, 2009 — Red meat consumption is positively associated with early age-related macular degeneration (AMD); high intake of chicken, on the other hand, is inversely associated with late AMD, according to findings from a prospective Australian study.

"High meat intake has been associated with higher levels of N-nitroso compounds, heme iron, and advanced glycation end products, which could result in oxidative damage and could be toxic to the retina," Dr. Elaine W.-T. Chong at the University of Melbourne and fellow researchers note in the American Journal of Epidemiology for April 1.

To clarify the role of meat intake in AMD, Dr. Chong's group studied 5604 subjects in the Melbourne Collaborative Cohort Study. They were aged 58-69 years at baseline in 1990-1994, when they completed food frequency questionnaires covering the previous year.

The presence of AMD was determined by non-mydriatic retinal photography between 2003 and 2006, when subjects were 66-85 years old.

There were 1680 cases of early AMD, defined as the presence of drusen, 63 µm or larger, with or without the presence of hyper/hypopigmentation. Seventy-seven subjects had late AMD, indicated by the presence of choroidal neovascularization or geographic atrophy.

Compared with red meat consumption < 4.5 times/week, consumption at least 10 times weekly was associated with an odds ratio of 1.47 for early AMD (p for trend < 0.001, after adjustment for age, sex, smoking, BMI, and other dietary factors). Red meat intake was not associated with late AMD.

By contrast, chicken intake was not associated with early AMD. However, those who ate chicken at least 3.5 times weekly were at reduced risk of late AMD compared with eating it less than once a week (adjusted odds ratio 0.43, p for trend = 0.007).

Fish consumption was not associated with AMD, the report indicates.

"A high level of red meat consumption may be a novel risk factor for early AMD or may act as a marker for a group of persons with an increased risk from other lifestyle factors," Dr. Chong and her team conclude. "Confirmatory data from other cohort studies are needed."

Am J Epidemiol. 2009;169:867-876.

Reuters Health Information 2009. © 2009 Reuters Ltd.
Clinical Context

In the developed world, AMD is the leading cause of severe vision loss in people 50 years or older. By 2020, it is estimated that the US prevalence of late AMD will increase by 50% to 3 million and that prevalence in Australia will also double.

Although the pathogenesis of AMD remains unknown, diet has been postulated to affect the risk for AMD. Identifying modifiable risk factors would have dramatic implications for public health because treatment is available only for neovascular complications of AMD. No previous study has focused specifically on meat intake or evaluated this association with the risk for AMD.
Study Highlights

    * The goal of this cohort study was to examine associations between red meat and chicken intake and the risk for AMD.
    * Red meat included veal, roast beef or veal, beef steak, meatballs, meatloaf, mixed dishes with beef, roast lamb or lamb chops, mixed dishes with lamb, roast pork or pork chops, and rabbit. Processed meat included salami, sausages or hotdogs, bacon, ham, and manufactured luncheon meats. Chicken included roast or fried chicken, boiled or steamed chicken, and mixed dishes with chicken.
    * The study cohort consisted of 6734 persons aged 58 to 69 years in from 1990 to 1994 in Melbourne, Australia.
    * A food frequency questionnaire administered at baseline was used to estimate meat intake.
    * During follow-up conducted from 2003 to 2006, participants underwent bilateral digital macular photographs, which were evaluated for AMD.
    * Follow-up rate was 58% during a 13- to 16-year period.
    * At follow-up, the investigators identified 1680 cases of early AMD and 77 cases of late AMD.
    * After adjustment for age, smoking, and other potential confounders, odds ratios (OR) were estimated with logistic regression.
    * Greater consumption of red meat intake was positively associated with early AMD.
    * OR for eating red meat at least 10 times per week vs less than 5 times per week was 1.47 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.21 - 1.79; P for trend < .001).
    * Higher intakes of fresh and processed red meat were associated with similar trends toward increasing prevalence of early AMD.
    * In contrast, eating chicken at least 3.5 times per week vs less than 1.5 times per week was inversely associated with late AMD (OR, 0.43; 95% CI, 0.20 - 0.91; P for trend = .007).
    * Including chicken in the model did not affect the OR for red meat as a risk factor for AMD, suggesting that the inverse association seen for chicken was unlikely to reflect simply a lower intake of red meat.
    * There were no associations between total fat or saturated fat intake and AMD in this cohort, and controlling for fat intake did not affect the ORs relating to meat intake and AMD.
    * The investigators conclude that different meats may have different effects on AMD risk and may be an appropriate target for lifestyle modification.
    * Limitations of the study include combining the 2 subtypes of late AMD, few cases of late AMD, reliance on the food frequency questionnaire for estimate of red meat and chicken intake, and single assessment of diet and maculopathy status.
    * Other limitations are inability to exclude residual confounding, use of multiple comparisons, and the possibility that meat intake could be a proxy for other risk factors or for other unknown substances associated with AMD.

Pearls for Practice

    * In a large Australian cohort study, greater consumption of red meat was positively associated with early AMD. Higher intakes of fresh and processed red meat were associated with similar trends toward an increasing prevalence of early AMD. Different meats may have different effects on AMD risk and may be an appropriate target for lifestyle modification.
    * In contrast, eating chicken was inversely associated with late AMD, and this inverse association seemed unlikely to reflect simply a lower intake of red meat. Controlling for fat intake did not affect the ORs relating to meat intake and AMD.

http://cme.medscape.com/viewarticle/590214?src=cmemp

[tangerine dream]

Tip:

For any of you that eat (or have eaten) a lot of red meat, you ought to be doing a total body detox, flush and colon cleanse every few months just to be on the safe side.

Add to that,  lots of veggies and fiber to keep yourself healthier in the future.



Men who eat red meat as a main dish five or more times a week have four times the risk of colon cancer of men who eat red meats less than once a month. 

That's just one study, but the evidence is quite consistent that red meat is associated with a higher risk of colon - possibly prostate - cancer.

Even lean red meat seems to increase the risk of colon cancer.  It's not just red meat that is a problem, a diet which is rich in acid forming foods is know to increase the risk of many illness and disease, since the highly acid forming diet causes a large accumulation of debris and hardened mucoid plaque (mucous) in the colon. Once the colon is damaged in this way, the body's immune system, and ability to eliminate toxins becomes compromised.


The protein structure of most meats is much more complex and harder to digest than that of plant proteins, this puts an enormous strain on the liver as the half digested protein molecules enter the blood stream and wreak havoc.


And actually, eating too much protein puts excess strain on not just the the liver, but kidney and heart as well. 

[Firestarter]

This is why I believe there should be days of the week we dont eat meat at all, just to keep things cleaner and drink a lot of water, too.

[tangerine dream]

From a Traditional Chinese Medicine perspective:


Brahmins, who did not engage in battle, but focused on study and spiritual development, were forbidden use of meat. This brings up the next point on meat eating, and how it effects us spiritually. This view is both disturbing and confusing. For, what these authors seem to be saying is that for ideal spiritual development one should eat as a vegetarian , but for most of us with little hope anyway, this is not appropriate. Perhaps this is a bit facetious, but in examining the energetic qualities in meat, it is not held in high regard by Taoists, and it would seem something of a necessary evil for those of us living in modern culture.

There is the psychological energetic aspect to this subject which follows that eating meat creates many disturbing desires. Those who consume meat are filling themselves with low energy foods producing a gross spirit producing animalistic tendencies and belligerent mentalities. On the other hand those who eat more vegetables will supposedly have a more harmonious spirit. As Hua Ching Ni recommends:

"The highest beings absorb pure energy...People trying to spiritualize their life eat only light subtle foods such as herbs and vegetables."

Pitchford notes that just as certain animals have certain attributes which may be beneficial to health, they also have negative attributes which are transmitted to the eater. The shyness of the rabbit or the desires of the pig are examples of this. He further argues that perhaps much of the stress that is attributed to a modern lifestyle may be the result of eating too much meat and its toxic by-products, obstructing the body's physical and therefore mental well being.

Though most caution against the practice of a strict vegetarian lifestyle, the practice of including meat in the diet is approached with caution among modern Taoist authors. Meat should represent only a fraction of the total diet. Eating too much meat in the diet creates a condition of Yin blood, or an acidic imbalance leading a person to become prone to illness. On the other hand a strict vegetarian diet may cause one to become too alkaline. A harmonious balance should be sought for. Maoshing Ni in The Tao of Nutrition recommends gradually moving to a mostly vegetarian diet, including meat as no more than 1/10 of all food consumed.

As practitioners of Oriental Medicine it behooves us to remember that we are instruments of influencing body, mind and spirit. In our Western materialistic society it is often easy for us to focus on ailments of the body, ignoring the rest. We need to be sensitive and understanding of others who are seeking a more spiritual existence, and be prepared to work with them within the parameters of the lifestyle choices of others. In our own tradition there are precedents for including at least a little meat in the diet. There is also a tradition for forgoing this for spiritual purposes. If a patient who has chosen a vegetarian lifestyle is having health difficulties, assessment of their particular regime, and alterations to the diet can be made. This should be attempted and encourage first, before insisting that meat should be eaten. According to our own tradition meat should only be a very small part of the diet anyway. If it appears that meat is, in our opinion, absolutely necessary, we must be prepared to counsel patients and provide them with a very clear understanding of their health and allow them to make an informed decision. This strategy should be approached with knowledge and compassion for our vegetarian patients.



http://acupuncture.com/nutrition/vegdiet.htm

[daphne]

Red and Processed Meat Intake Linked to Mortality  CME/CE

News Author: Laurie Barclay, MD
CME Author: Charles Vega, MD, FAAFP
Disclosures
Release Date: March 26, 2009; Valid for credit through March 26, 2010


March 26, 2009 — Eating red and processed meat is associated with modest increases in total mortality, cancer mortality, and cardiovascular disease mortality rates, according to the results of a large, prospective study reported in the March 23 issue of the Archives of Internal Medicine.

"High intakes of red or processed meat may increase the risk of mortality," write Rashmi Sinha, PhD, from the National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Department of Health and Human Services in Rockville, Maryland, and colleagues. "Our objective was to determine the relations of red, white, and processed meat intakes to risk for total and cause-specific mortality."

Does this mean that if one avoids the eating of red meat or processed meat, one can avoid the risk of total mortality too?   

[Nichi]

heheh.

[Firestarter]

Nice find read it. After seeing what I am pretty sure much was red meat did to the karmic, then had the call to quit it. Now on rare occasion I may have red meat. Very rare. Like I had a chimichanga some time ago. But I have not sat with a steak or did a burger in over a year (maybe burger once). But he got way flowered up. Clogged arteries needed stints and had two mini strokes. I swear much was the red meat. He ate it almost every DAY. That's too much. I now do chicken and fish. And I am trying to be careful with organic chicken.

[Michael]

Much of this is sentiment, and people have the right to believe what they want with regard to food so long as they don't foist it upon their children.
Always defer to how your own body reacts - many people have individual reactions, but even there one should be careful - if you cease eating or drinking anything which makes you feel unwell, you will soon paint your self into a corner of overall ill-health.

This is one area where a lot of research is being done, so evidence-based advice is the default. Too much of foodie attitudes is based on theoretical associations with all kinds of fallacious ideas.

The current evidence advice is that vegetarian diets cause many health problems in later life, because supplements are not a substitute for real food, and the more you get into vegan directions the more supplements you need. Just get over it - meat and dairy are very healthy for the body. We kill and eat - everything in the universe kills and eats.

The other current evidence advice is that too much read meat, and especially processed red meat, is bad for long term health (cancer risk).

The answer offered by sensible medical advisors is to limit processed red mean (eg ham and salami) to rarely, and non-processed red meat to once or twice a week, but preferably mixed-in, like with curries or stir-fries, which reduces the quantity, as opposed to stakes and sausages etc. This is balanced with lots of fresh vegetables.

Chicken is OK in similar proportions, and fish is fine in high quantities. The only difficulty with fish is for those who live in the Northern Hemisphere due to the levels of pollution in the oceans and rivers. Individual fish varieties have their own story in this, which can be researched for your area.

Dairy is a real controversy. They are finding now that dairy provides such assimilable high levels of so much we need, that we all should find ways to include it, full fat, in our diets. If you are lactose intolerant, there are ways to overcome this - do your research about how to regain the gut enzymes to process lactose that you had as a child. The other problem is cholesterol - so keep quantities of full cream milk down - don't over-do it. And if you like cheese, which you should, always look for the kinds of cheeses which retain the pre/pro-biotic fermentation benefits. That means avoid cheaper supermarket cheeses which are biotically dead. Get good quality cheese from a deli. (I'm a big fan of Manchego)

[Nick]

The most sensible response I've heard people claim is that you can get whatever nutrients you need from plant sources. The best way to "attempt" this would seem to be to eat the equivalent of a mediteranian version of the vegetarian diet. I say this is sensible because then you've got a nice healthy balance of ingredients, and flavors.

The argument against the vegetarian mediteranian (or Indian even) diet, is that some nutrients like iron we actually absorb better if it comes from meat, of which if I recall red is the best source. As I understand the iron sources in plants are very difficult for us to digest, and I can't recall if there is plant based way around that. And b12 is high in red meat, but you can also get that from dairy.

I have been largely vegetarian for probably a bit over 3 years now, following a vegetarian version of the mediterianian diet, and I've not noticed any problems that I can trace to my diet. I have also managed to do this mostly vegetarian diet (still eat occasional fish and eggs), without feeling like I'm missing anything. I had tried vegetarian previously and it made me feel horrible, using mediteranian diet as a model solved this. I am a huge proponent of learning to listen to your body, but I also think evidence based data is important as it is hard to be aware of all aspects of our experience at once. I do have a larger gut but this was gradually happening even previous to the dietary change. I still eat high amounts of diary which is probably why the gut hasn't gone down since going veggy. The gut isn't unmanageable though and seems to have stopped growing for now.

As for the iron, you can get it easily digestible from fish, which is a very healthy source of "meat". Some vegetarians don't classify fish as meat, but if you are veggy cause of the environment well over fishing is still a huge problem. And buying fish from more sustainable sources is sometimes not easily budget friendly.

I am very curious your thoughts Michael on the evidence linking the meat industry, especially cattle if I recall, to climate change. The ecological side of this is for me what made me at least try to be as vegetarian as possible.

[Michael]

Firstly, on iron, a vegetarian friend of mine who is now in her sixties has always included a lot of veg iron items and took calcium supplements - she got kidney stones last year.

Environmental impact of beef. This is a huge problem for the beef industry. In Australia we raise and eat a lot of lamb, but sheep are a difficult animal to manage, as require a lot of intervention - many graziers are moving to beef which is far less trouble. Both have hooves in a country (Australia) which never had hooved animals, so there is a damaging impact on the soil. The planet can't sustain the current level of beef eating. But there are many regenerative farmers who are raising beef environmentally responsibly. The global regenerative farming industry is extremely exciting, yet still too small. In the end, red meat will have to become more expensive and farmed less for sustainable environment reasons.

The worst three environmental products are chicken, beef and palm oil. Palm oil is the least destructive of these three, and chicken the worst. Chicken is bad because it is expanding at an exponential rate and is environmentally destructive due to the vast plantations of soy beans for chook food. But then fish farming and ocean fishing are other environmental disasters.

There are just too many people. So much that is causing environmental catastrophe is actually good, but becomes bad once scaled up to service plague levels of humans on earth. Having said that, human numbers are falling, but not fast enough and affluence is the last component of Paul Ehrlich and John Holdren's equation: I=PAT, to be addressed.

For eating, all this simply requires that humans restrict their meat diet to an occasional. But agri practices still need transformation.

It is understandable that one would feel guilty about the environmental impact of living elements and drop them from consumption/use, but if one were to take this to its logical conclusion, it would be extremely hard to live in the world - almost everything from clothes, transport, housing, food to books and education, involves environmental destructive practices. Ceasing using such items is not always the best way to address the Earth's problems.

[Nick]

Agreed, hence why though I rarely eat beef, I still eat fish as if covers most of what I would have gotten from beef.

As you said the problem is too many people.

Some people think that getting rid of humanity is a solution, like, what if the human race died off. Despite this just isn't an option I can accept, being a human who wants to live who knows other humans he also wants to live. Despite my own self interest and love of people, I recently heard someone note that it's odd we never think of what would happen to the environment if humans didn't exist, that is like most species we play a role in the eco system. What that is exactly is a curious question though... And would it be better if we died off and some new planetary adaptation replaced us...?

Never the less I want to live and yet if I stopped doing things that harm the environment that would mean not being able to live at since everything we make pretty much has a negative effect on the environment.

It's a strange place we are in, stuck between a rock and a hard place doesn't begin to capture it...

At this point in to history to think ecological is almost as difficult as, and potentially mind expanding, as trying to think about the gods.