If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
VKH- the one and only thing we can control is ourselves. I take that seriously. I try not to impose my diet and lifestyle on anyone else, and i expect the same treatment from everyone else. I didn't coin the "elitist" primal mentality, our dear leader did in his book. read it.
It has occurred to me in my more paranoid moments that all of the seeming incompetence of 20th century dietary science was really just a project to get everyone to eat crap that will render them infertile and kill them quicker, as a form of Malthusian control. Of course, never ascribe to malice what can be adequately explained by incompetence, I suppose.
@worthc I've read the book (and Mark's elitist reference), and believe it or not, I took your statement as a reference to the book! The trouble with text is that it's hard to convey tone and other nuances. If you read my post it wasn't in any way a personal attack to you just to the fact that living primal these days IS elitist. I agree!
@Nick I understand. I was an EE for 8 years and the author of the link in the O.P. is a very well known EE, so I'm sure the spacing was intentional, probably for effect.
Re: Stonyfield Farms....all that just by feeding cows what they were meant to eat. Sheesh...what will they think of next???
My BIL is a cattle rancher. Their cattle are grass fed, then fattened on grain at the end. I wonder if that negates all the grass they eat early on. I'll have to ask some detailed questions.
I do know that the beef we get from them is way different that the beef in grocery stores...less salt and junk that makes it stay nice and red. It has to be better, but it can probably be better still.
I agree with On The Bayou. If the original poster needs to be called out on anything, it's his attempt to set the terms of the debate as a binary choice between a vegetarian utopia on one hand and on the other hand: continued animal-protein-based food consumption that, he asserts, would only be possible through genocide. VKH, I think your attack on the first half of the equation is great; putting the whole world on a grain/vegetarian diet in order to facilitate continued population growth doesn't sound like my idea of utopia. As for the second half, the genocide premise is idiodic, if not downright offensive. No. The answer, as OTB alluded, is continued economic development. As countries move from underdeveloped nations to newly developed nations, birth rates go down. In fact, "today about 42% of the world population lives in nations with sub-replacement fertility." (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sub-replacement_fertility) And, by the way, their citizens go from just trying to survive to worrying about other things like the environment, education, etc. There are still unanswered questions, like how do we ensure continued economic develoment, and how do we transition to a primal type diet on a mass scale once total populations begin to decline sufficiently. But those are the proper terms of the debate.
Maybe he's referring to the carbon monoxide they spray on beef to make it look bright red?
And yeah, calves have to be grass fed at the beginning..otherwise it just doesn't really work. And the grain finishing totally obliterates the previous O6:O3 ratio, because the finishing is when the bulk of the fat is added.