Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Primal Diet vs. Sustainability

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Any "solution" that does not have birth control as a major part is nothing but a big fail. There is no way we can continue to increase the population and feed the population of the planet indefinitely.

    Comment


    • #17
      Were you on that National Geographic show "Preppers"? I think you're worrying about issues that won't happen in any of our lifetimes...js

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by GerryM View Post
        I agree, it's probably not a rational worry but interesting to note that, like many other things, what is obviously good for the individual may be harmful for society as a whole. I am reminded of the fact that while saving, spending wisely, and avoiding debt is manifestly good advice for the individual, if practiced by every American would result in plunging GDP levels and a deflationary depression (consumer spending makes up the majority of US GDP.) Perhaps when such dichotomies occur we should immediately suspect some sort of dysfunction with society.
        That is an excellent point.
        High Weight: 225
        Weight at start of Primal: 189
        Current Weight: 174
        Goal Weight: 130

        Primal Start Date: 11/26/2012

        Comment


        • #19
          I've been thinking about this some. In every similar discussion I've seen, it's always been a question of how much GRAIN cows and such eat, compared to the nutrition of eating meat. Wouldn't it make a huge difference if the majority of the cows/animals were GRASS fed, instead, as primal and paleo recommend? Grass can be grown on almost any earth surface, and cows or other ruminants are ideal users of this grass. This food is basically free, and is not edible by humans. Hence, meat grown this way would be an extra, free food.

          There does remain a problem of water. I have never seen a discussion of how much water a cow uses, compared to a similar nutritional value of grain.

          Raising cows also does not require anywhere close to the amount of pesticides or tractor/gas usage that growing grain requires.

          Also, because meats and vegetables are far more nutritious than grains, our bodies require far less of them to live well.

          All in all, I think the whole grain versus meat leading to starvation question is much overblown, with grass-fed meats very probably taking the upper hand in nutrition for the masses, if done on a large scale.

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by specsAreGrok View Post
            The solution to this dilemma is obvious, we eat the excess population of people. Problem solved! Since so many vegans are intent on eating like CAFO animals I suggest we start with them.
            LOLLL! Naw - I would want assurance that my human meat had been purelly PB fed from birth to finishing.
            "When the search for truth is confused with political advocacy, the pursuit of knowledge is reduced to the quest for power." - Alston Chase

            Comment


            • #21
              Don't we have too many people already? Isn't the world population already decreasing? What's wrong with that?
              "When the search for truth is confused with political advocacy, the pursuit of knowledge is reduced to the quest for power." - Alston Chase

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by GerryM View Post
                Assuming that all the benefits you ascribe to eating a primal diet are accurate, have you considered the macro effects on world nutritional levels if this diet was to be globally implemented? Many would argue that current population levels are unsustainable even given a universal grain based diet.
                Right, agriculture made the current population possible, but ideal health of the current population is perhaps not possible. Meh, perhaps. And academically that's interesting to ponder. But...

                What I always think is -- who cares! We just buy the meat.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Don't underestimate developments in terraculture - new technologies for producing food that are accesible to everyone. The debate here centres around the premise that we will always use AGRI-culture to produce our food, and we won't. Terraculture is far more paleo-friendly, takes up less space and will enable much more farmland to be converted to enormous ranges - semi wild grass lands on which we can farm vast herds of ruminants and have healthier countrysides as a result.
                  Healthy is the new wealthy.

                  http://www.facebook.com/groups/ances...handnutrition/

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    I refuse to eat anything but grass fed people!

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      There was a Ted talk making the rounds recently about how to combat desertification in many zones by introducing herds of herbivores to graze the area thereby breaking the surface soil and introducing dung and grass seed. Much of the worlds land surface is unusable for agriculture but could be re-purposed from arid waste to grazing lands.

                      Now can this wisdom be made use of? That is my question.
                      Primal since April 2012 Male 6' 3" SW 345lbs CW 240lbs GW 220lbs and when I get there I am getting a utlikilt. This one http://www.utilikilts.com/company/pr...ilts/workmans/ actually.

                      Join me at www.paleoplanet.net, where all the cavemen hang out.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Well, here's another thing to throw into the mix. I'm getting ready to plant my first Square Foot Garden - Square Foot Gardening Store | Raised Bed Planters, Square Foot Gardening Grids, Square Foot Gardening Boxes. It purports to be extremely self-sustainable and water-use efficient, plus installable in any location with any soil composition since it uses a mix of peat moss, vermiculite, and compost in a raised soil bed. The philosophy is anti-row crop and reduced-commercial farming with an emphasis on producing a wide variety of foods for family use. Also, the peat moss and vermiculite have a 10 year use life and the compost used to feed the garden comes from sustainable sources collected right there at the house. Plus the whole shebang is organic. The founder really does have a zeal for ending world hunger in part through the Square Foot (or Square Meter) Garden. I'll be posting about my garden journey on my journal.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Here is the link to the Ted Talk that Warmbear was talking about: Allan Savory: How to fight desertification and reverse climate change | Video on TED.com

                          The Documentary One Man, One Cow, One Planet may also interest you. One Man One Cow One Planet 1/6 - YouTube

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Everyone needs to read the Omnivore's Dilemma and or watch Food Inc. They interview farmers who are bringing up their plants and animals together and those farms produce 0 waste. None. And the needs of the different organisms are met by the other organisms.

                            The fact is that is how we used to farm, which was sustainable. We can go back with a lot of hard work.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              I thinks so many vegans are intent on eating like CAFO animals I suggest we start with them .

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                I am paleo but I make my living teaching people how to identify and eat wild plants. A lot of vegetarians sign up for my classes and I hear this view often. I think it includes many assumptions. Let me address just one. Vegetarians assume more plants grown for food is better than more animals being raised for food. It goes along the lines of if we take a 100,000 acres out of beef production and put it into plant production we can feed a more people. That's assertion needs one more word: We can feed more people poorly. Increasing carb production never means people eat better. It never means more people eat better. It always means more people will eat poorly. Producing more carbs does not translate into healthier people or more people fed better. It just means more people eating poorly. That does not seem to me to be positive or "sustainable."

                                Of course the real problem is too many people. Increasing the food supply is the bandaid on the infected wound. We have GMOs and agri-business producing huge amounts of grain because there are so many people. Vegetarians like to paint meat eaters and their food animals as the problem. It is not: It is too many people and we have that because of grain production. More grain production only means more people. That is not a solution. It's making the problem worse. Getting rid of food animals is not a solution. That means less healthy people. Population reduction is the solution. Humanity however is not yet committed or desparate enough to use the solution.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X