"The antidepressant Remeron (Mirtazapine) is often a cause of weight gain, and when taken with Zyprexa (Olanzapine) has been shown to cause 30 lbs. weight gain in a 6 month case study."

mentalhealthdaily.com/2015/01/31/zyprexa-and-weight-gain-how-it-causes-you-to-get-fat/

Yep, with heavy cream in many of your meals, plus continually increasing portions, you will find that foods that are NOT rich with cream will taste empty and unsatisfying while normal portions will seem too small.

You may also find yourself craving that stuffed feeling as well. All things that will contribute to long term gain!

Personal preference to some extent. Cheesecake made with lots of real dairy is a personal favorite.

Real ice cream with lots of fruit compote is another great choice.

Rich puddings made with lots of real heavy cream in various flavors.

With calorie rich choices and portion growth you ought to be able to go from 400 calorie "snacks" to 800 calorie "snacks" over a couple of months easily.

Just serve that dessert an hour or so after the meal. It just gives you a better opportunity to slowly increase the portions at dinner AND slowly increase the portions on the desserts!

I agree, but isn't it interesting how acceptable it is in our society to say "if you don't LOSE weight I don't think I can love you anymore"

If you are going to make casseroles, use heavy cream for the sauce and, real butter more than it calls for.

Make sure there are desserts for every meal ... really heavy fattening desserts with portions that grow just a little week after week.

As you go along, with delicious foods that are fattening and desserts that are indulgences, over time less fattening foods are going to taste blah. As you slowly increase the portions she is going to get used to them and start eating more at all her meals.

Way too much panic there! Food production is increasing due to improved yields. The amount of land devoted to agriculture in the US is decreasing even as production increases

We have a lot to learn about plastics in the environment. Some of the plastics we were certain were going to require hundreds of years to break down are breaking down in decades or less.

The Amazon is about local politics and warped government incentives more than anything else.

Over-fishing is solvable in most cases by aquaculture, if we can stop trying to regulate it out of existence.

Many of the technologies required to overcome these issues is already here, but suppressed by rent-seeking by current business'. In short, the people who are supposed to regulate fishing are actually protecting those doing the over-fishing by holding back aquaculture for example.

We don't know everything and sometimes what we think we know is wrong. Mother nature is more resilient than we often give her credit for.

When you exaggerate the scope of the problem, instead of scaring people into agreeing with you they throw their hands up and ignore it as a hopeless case.

Government central planning is not the solution, most of the time it is the problem.

I see you don't understand what I am saying.

Here in the US, we have a minority who is pushing an actual piece of legislation called the Green New Deal. This specific Green New Deal is not a conceptual thing, or a call for more funding for renewables, or anything like that. It is also, not a move away from globalism and a move towards US or first world production (which because of energy efficiency would reduce global CO2 by itself), it is essentially a move to full on Socialism wrapped in an environmental wrapper.

The result of it would almost immediately be a LARGE reduction in US standards of living, widespread unemployment, and more.

Of course the proponents of it deny this, but if you actually read it, you are constantly struck by "why is this in an environmental bill?".

So, what I am saying is that if those who consider themselves the enlightened betters in the US were to push this through, half the country would erupt in armed insurrection.

So I am not saying you want bloodshed, and certainly I don't either. I have been working in engineering, in industry, for a long time and have never met anyone who wanted to ruin the environment. It is almost always about honest mistakes or economics. But plans that essentially ruin peoples lives in mass are going to provoke bad stuff happening.

I wish I thought the people cooking up these plans understood what the consequences would be.

Unfortunately, I believe than many of them regard environmentalism as a convenient method to implement the socialism that is the real agenda. When I say socialism, I don't mean a strong social safety net, I mean "control of the means and methods of production".

Like some religious zealots, they believe they are right, and anything that lets them get their way is justified. They scare the cr#p out of me.

Just to be clear, I am not threatening you, or anyone else. I am telling you that as passionate as you may be, there are others who are just as passionate about not allowing "you" to impose your plans on them.

You see them every day and they are just regular people. But at the end of the day, they would spill your blood to stop the "solution" you desire. They don't just think you are wrong, they think your ideas are evil.

If we go so far as to provoke this conflict there will be no winners. Think about the consequences.

newman2455:
I call for no such thing. Don't put words in my mouth.

Research democratic socialism and the green new deal if you're curious to learn more:

]www.dsausa.org/[/quote]

I did not say, nor mean to imply that you wanted a civil war. My intent was to point out you would get one.

I don't need to once again review all the idealistic BS surrounding democratic socialism. We have all seen it tried many times in the real world with the accompanying death and misery it brings.

Yes, we know, it is all going to be DIFFERENT this time because the RIGHT PEOPLE are going to be in charge and everyone is going to get enlightened. Yeah, and unicorn farts are the energy source of the future.

I believe that technology is going to provide what we need, but it will take the free market to do it. When renewables are cost effective (they are now in some applications) they will increasingly become the prominent energy source.

Subsidizing them is a mistake, it just implements immature technology that wastes resources.

The only way we are going to have a Green New Deal is with a River of Blood to go with it.