Huel Guide To Sustainability, disgusting

Umm, the average lifespan used to be half of what it is today and medicine allows most children to make it to adulthood, instead of half your litter being taken out by polio and the flu.

Anyone who chooses not to have a child because of a Huel article is probably not good breeding stock anyways.


10 points Gryffindor.


C’mon, trashtalk about breeding is Slytherin all day


Firstly, it is not the “problem” bro, but the “situation”. The situation is three things: capitalism, industrialization and smaller families. Do you want to eliminate all these? Today the society is not based on extended families that were traditional to these countries, which more easily supported more kids because not all couple would be of the child producing age in the same family at the same time, and there is always a greater economic safety net in larger families. Capitalism and industrialization have both played big role in systematic monetization of land and its produce in a manner that is quite unfair to farmers, who long ago formed the largest profession in these places. There is nothing that can undo these changes, not that they are bad in the first place. Smaller families, capitalism and industrialization all have other merits of their own. Times have changed. Secondly, you say this was not an unbearable problem in centuries past. It actually was. Life expectancy was in low 20s if you look that back. Kids were dying everywhere. We shouldn’t want to bring back those times. Only raise more kids if you can afford to care for them all.

Let me tackle these two misconceptions. Having fewer children can be better for the environment, but it’s not black and white and the only way forward. Some people do use it as a way to promote a method of population control that is best kept in dystopian novels, but that’s simply hijacking the premise of this point.

It’s pretty clear in the article as Deron has pointed out which steps to improving one’s carbon footprint are feasible and also where this point is coming from. The article also provides references so you can read in more detail.

This is ridiculous and the claim that global warming has been wrong in the past is also incorrect. It’s mainly been pushed by sensationalist media and a handful of scientists. Even the author of one of these widespread articles wrote a follow-up piece debunking some misused information by others from his piece:

The climate prediction models from the 1970s are still holding true today.

This is a key strategy so is educating women which leads to naturally fewer children due to having children later in life and having a higher quality of life in general. The article we wrote is relatively short because that’s how long we have peoples’ attention for. We’re not saying population control is the answer, because it isn’t and that sort of thinking alone like you said leads to some horrible ideas. You can see from this thread that the majority of people are not thinking this way. I’d really recommend reading the references at the bottom of the article for a better idea of where we are coming from.

It’s not a political agenda. In fact, climate change never used to be a partisan issue. For the 11,602 scientific articles that were published in 2019 100% agreed about the reality of human-caused climate change. Amongst people who know there stuff this no longer even a 97% majority, we can’t ignore it.


So the official response fron a representative of Huel is that global warming has never been wrong and thus all information affirmed by global warming is to be accepted.

I get it, Global Warming is a pagan idol that is not to be questioned. Furthermore this discussion is no longer publicly viewable so apparently any dissent is being censored. Got it.

That’s not what I said at all. This forum is all about discussion so feel free to share any data that you feel opposes the above.

The post and all the comments are still viewable to everyone. Posts can either be deleted (comments can no longer be viewed) or locked (comments can still be viewed but further comments can’t be posted). Both are obvious actions that are highlighted clearly by discourse so I’m not sure why you think the post is no longer viewable to everyone.

1 Like

Umm, so, ya’ll got wayyyyyy to much time on your hands :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:


I honestly have no idea what that means, but thank you. Appreciate all the constructive criticism.

We haven’t yet achieved Godwin’s Law on this thread, but if the above post is any indication, we should arrive there soon.


Are we still on a forum for protein powder or did I miss something? I think you missed the point of what the message they sent was about. In my mind, less people would mean less harmful affects to the earth. We already over eat meat, we’ve taken over forests for more suburban housing…is that going to stop? Probably not. But they were just giving one suggestion to a problem that can’t be solved by one thing, but could maybe help the problem. If you took everything as face value in today’s society, you would go insane.

How dare you call it “ protein powder” those are fighting words!


Hahaha excuse me. Meal replacement! I mean’t meal replacement!! :joy:

1 Like

It’s a shame that we have this type of people living around but hey it takes time. Why would somebody want to bring another human being to this world? Because of their ego, that’s why. Our egos got so big that the only thing we know is ‘me, my needs and me’. How about we pause and reflect a bit.
Not everybody wants to have children and well done to people who stand up and say no, I don’t want children…
Because you are offended, it doesn’t mean you are right. You are just too emotional.
Don’t worry about the shirt, now that I know you will not wear it, I will wear more often and maybe buy one more to wear it everyday and support huel.

If we skip past the hysteria, the politicking, the mud-slinging, and the scorched earth of this thread, can we get an answer as to whether or not @Ignatius and @Hueler will be putting their money where their mouths are and abandoning Huel?

1 Like

Hah! #Typical. :rofl:

Well. I can’t blame him. After all, he has a lot of kids to feed. :grinning:


Ignatius never claimed that he was giving up Huel. He just was further explaining Hueler’s point and everyone lumped the two in the same boat.

1 Like

@Deron, you are my favorite! :slight_smile:


You’re right, @RageofMelkor. Apologies. I just also find it puzzling that someone who accuses a company of eugenics, etc. could abide lining that company’s pocketbooks.

In any case, your point is well taken.