Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Can Paleo Stop the Infertility Epidemic?

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

  • #76
    Originally posted by Blackcatbone View Post
    How does that work with water?
    Water has a funny way of not disappearing from the Earth...

    Comment


    • #77
      Originally posted by DavidBrennan View Post
      Well, first off, just importing people from another place might then just infect them with the problem.

      Second off, maybe the people in Russia don't want their genes to be eradicated and so they'd want to solve the problem rather than just giving away their land to a different race. (Would somebody say that the people in China should solve their fertility issue by just giving their lands to white men?)

      As far as making the primal diet law, I think that that would be completely un-enforceable. Hell, the government can't even regulate individual substances like alcohol (Prohibition = failure) or marijuana (prohibition = failure), so logically then there's no way in hell they could control all foods and the diets of every individual. That would require insane draconian measures to even attempt, and obviously those attempts would flop, anyway.

      I do think that, as a temporary stopgap, it would be better to have artificial insemination than no children at all. But that, then, leads to the problem of low fertility in women (which exists, as well) and other assorted problems.

      I think the best solution would just be....a solution. Find out where this assault is coming from, and stop it.

      (And, just to be clear, this is NOT just localized to Russia at all. As noted in the article, the phenomenon is global as noted by the W.H.O. in the article, and it's been well documented, to varying degrees, in both the U.S. and Canada, as well.)
      Well, you wanted some possible solutions and I threw out the first few off the top of my head (because that is where I keep them, in a little pink hat, tied with a red ribbon on the top of my head).

      And this:
      I think the best solution would just be....a solution.
      is just priceless.
      Last edited by jojohaligo; 09-13-2012, 05:51 PM.
      Female, age 51, 5' 9"
      SW - 183 (Jan 22, 2012), CW - 159, GW - healthy.

      Met my 2012 goals by losing 24 pounds.
      2013 goals are to get fit and strong!

      Comment


      • #78
        Originally posted by Lily Marie View Post
        How many of you dudes carry your phones by your balls?
        ...or don't wear boxers.
        Female, age 51, 5' 9"
        SW - 183 (Jan 22, 2012), CW - 159, GW - healthy.

        Met my 2012 goals by losing 24 pounds.
        2013 goals are to get fit and strong!

        Comment


        • #79
          Originally posted by Grok View Post
          overpopulation: If everyone on the planet had a middle class home with a yard, you could fit the entire population in the state of texas. If you crammed every human being into a cube, the cube would only have to be 1 mile squared. The midwest is virtually unpopulated.
          I don't have a whole lot to contribute on your other points, but this one is so obviously oversimplified and not well thought-out that I want to point it out.

          Overpopulation is not about how much physical space the people take up. It's about how many people the world can sustain without degrading quality of life and ecological systems over time, and especially without destroying the future means for providing for a population of the same size.

          Could you supply your every material need, including food, fresh oxygen, clean water, and removal of waste, from a plot of land the size of a middle class single-family home? Of course not; the ecological systems that supply these things for you are vastly big. It takes acres and acres of farmland, watercourses, wetlands, and living, breathing ecosystems to supply the needs and absorb the waste of a single large omnivore like a human, even if you are only considering basic physical needs. Add in all the space and resources we require for recreation, transportation, and constant production of our consumer goods, and the world starts looking a whole lot smaller.

          The fact that the Midwest is sparsely populated by humans is irrelevant, because most of the space is already being used to grow food... for humans. So each additional human being requires development of additional resources, including in areas that are not already full of humans but which supply us with some of our needs and desires. If we started filling that space up with people, then there would be less space to grow the food or mine the metals or whatever for those people.

          I'm not saying that we are beyond our sustainable carrying capacity--although I wouldn't be at all surprised if we were--because that's very hard to know. But this kind of simple response to the question is worse than saying "I don't know"--it gives people who are not approaching the claims carefully a false reason not to concern themselves over a very real issue.
          Today I will: Eat food, not poison. Plan for success, not settle for failure. Live my real life, not a virtual one. Move and grow, not sit and die.

          My Primal Journal

          Comment


          • #80
            Originally posted by jojohaligo View Post
            Yet, another solution would be to get rid of poverty, mandate the primal diet (ie make it a law), and then hopefully there will be more sperm.
            No, violence is never the solution to problems.

            We were doing just great getting rid of poverty until the government came along and declared war against it.

            Comment


            • #81
              Originally posted by Grok View Post
              No, violence is never the solution to problems.

              We were doing just great getting rid of poverty until the government came along and declared war against it.
              Yes, I know that.
              Female, age 51, 5' 9"
              SW - 183 (Jan 22, 2012), CW - 159, GW - healthy.

              Met my 2012 goals by losing 24 pounds.
              2013 goals are to get fit and strong!

              Comment


              • #82
                Originally posted by Grok View Post
                If water becomes very expensive, then more people get into the water business because there is a lot of profit to be made in water. Entrepreneurs then find innovative ways to look for new water, say deep underground, or perhaps from arctic ice, or converting salt water into fresh water.
                So in the interim, when people are looking for solutions to water shortages, while there are shortages, those who can afford water get it and those who can't either go without or are forced to use polluted or unsafe water. This would, of course, solve the overpopulation problem.

                Take another example, where fresh water is hard to find in a local area where a disaster has hit, say some hurricane. If the price of fresh water does not sky rocket, then it would mean that the limited amounts of water would go to the people who first buy it instead of the people who most need it.
                No, it comes down to who can afford it. Often, the people who need it most are the ones least likely to afford the gouging that goes on during disasters, as they often live in substandard housing or in areas more prone to flooding, collapse, and often don't have the means to get out in time to escape being trapped without the cash to pay the higher prices. Once again, there's the "solution" to the over-population problem.


                If hurricane Katrina hits and something happens to you and you need fresh water and gas to get to a hospital to survive, then the only way you can be assured you will get that water is if prices are allowed to go up. If government comes in and tries to control prices, then you end up with shortages. Then the people who most need the resources do not get them.
                But who pays for it? Do only people with the money, most likely cash on hand, get injured?
                Buy house, Demolish house, Build house.

                Comment


                • #83
                  Originally posted by Uncephalized View Post
                  I don't have a whole lot to contribute on your other points, but this one is so obviously oversimplified and not well thought-out that I want to point it out.
                  Well, please keep in mind that I probably totally butchered what Dr. Block actually said. Walter Block is a professor and he teaches this stuff for a living. I'm an engineer and I need to learn a lot of details on other topics.

                  That being said, you raise valid points, and Dr. Block does indeed mention that giving everyone a house and stuffing them in Texas does not include farm land, and stores, etc.

                  Also, the example of stuffing everyone in a cube, the cube would have to be 1 mile cubed, not squared (just a correction I wanted to make)

                  It's best that you respond to what was actually said in the video, since responding to my poor recollection of the actual arguments is not quite as impressive.

                  However, in a totally free market, if the population were so large that resources were becoming scarce and prices started to rise, then it would become more difficult to raise children and populations would go down.

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    Originally posted by Blackcatbone View Post
                    So in the interim, when people are looking for solutions to water shortages, while there are shortages, those who can afford water get it and those who can't either go without or are forced to use polluted or unsafe water. This would, of course, solve the overpopulation problem.



                    No, it comes down to who can afford it. Often, the people who need it most are the ones least likely to afford the gouging that goes on during disasters, as they often live in substandard housing or in areas more prone to flooding, collapse, and often don't have the means to get out in time to escape being trapped without the cash to pay the higher prices. Once again, there's the "solution" to the over-population problem.




                    But who pays for it? Do only people with the money, most likely cash on hand, get injured?
                    If you are so poor that you can't afford a 200% increase in the price of water, then that must be because you are being paid in worthless paper which the government issues for you.

                    A gallon of water here costs about $1, so even a massive sky rocketing increase in the price of water to $5 or $10 per gallon is still affordable. If you can't afford $10 in a life threatening situation, this is the fault of the worthless government fiat money paid to you when you subjugate yourself to the bankers while performing your slave labor.

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      Originally posted by Grok View Post
                      If you are so poor that you can't afford a 200% increase in the price of water, then that must be because you are being paid in worthless paper which the government issues for you.

                      A gallon of water here costs about $1, so even a massive sky rocketing increase in the price of water to $5 or $10 per gallon is still affordable. If you can't afford $10 in a life threatening situation, this is the fault of the worthless government fiat money paid to you when you subjugate yourself to the bankers while performing your slave labor.
                      So, if you can't afford the $10 water - it's your own fault and you deserve to die?
                      Female, age 51, 5' 9"
                      SW - 183 (Jan 22, 2012), CW - 159, GW - healthy.

                      Met my 2012 goals by losing 24 pounds.
                      2013 goals are to get fit and strong!

                      Comment


                      • #86
                        Originally posted by jojohaligo View Post
                        So, if you can't afford the $10 water - it's your own fault and you deserve to die?
                        Yes, that is exactly what he said...come on now...
                        Starting Date: Dec 18, 2010
                        Starting Weight: 294 pounds
                        Current Weight: 235 pounds
                        Goal Weight: 195 pounds

                        Comment


                        • #87
                          Originally posted by jojohaligo View Post
                          So, if you can't afford the $10 water - it's your own fault and you deserve to die?
                          Actually, if you really could not afford the $10, then you would have to rely on the charity of friends, family, neighbors, and church -- not government.

                          This actually forces people to be nice to one another.

                          If you get all your charity through government, then there is no incentive for people to be nice to each other. You can be a total jerk to your friends, family, neighbors and church because the government will always be there to take care of you.

                          Comment


                          • #88
                            Originally posted by Grok View Post
                            If you are so poor that you can't afford a 200% increase in the price of water, then that must be because you are being paid in worthless paper which the government issues for you.

                            A gallon of water here costs about $1, so even a massive sky rocketing increase in the price of water to $5 or $10 per gallon is still affordable. If you can't afford $10 in a life threatening situation, this is the fault of the worthless government fiat money paid to you when you subjugate yourself to the bankers while performing your slave labor.
                            It's rare that I don't have at least $100 on me, usually more. Were I in a life threatening situation and I needed that water I would buy as much as I could, as would anyone else who had the money on them. During shortages, perceived and real, people horde. All that allowing vendors to gouge does is make sure that the vendors make buck on people's misery and only those who can afford an unexpected hit of a few hundred dollars (I can) can get the supplies they need, while those who can't go without. And do you have any idea how long a gallon of water lasts? How long it takes for services to be back up and running during a disaster? One gallon? I'd be buying as much as I could carry if I thought I needed it. So this would basically limit the amount poor people could buy while ensuring that people like me could afford as much as we needed.
                            Buy house, Demolish house, Build house.

                            Comment


                            • #89
                              Originally posted by Grok View Post
                              Actually, if you really could not afford the $10, then you would have to rely on the charity of friends, family, neighbors, and church -- not government.

                              This actually forces people to be nice to one another.

                              If you get all your charity through government, then there is no incentive for people to be nice to each other. You can be a total jerk to your friends, family, neighbors and church because the government will always be there to take care of you.
                              Well, in the case of a disaster my neighbors would be in the same boat as me, my family wouldn't be able to get help to me and the churches would already be swamped. I may be fairly comfortable financially but at $10 a pop my charity would only go so far. While I would certainly do what I could to help those around me I wouldn't be dropping the thousands of dollars it would cost to help those that could be helped for much less without the price gouging. And where are the churches supposed to get the money and supplies if vendors can charge whatever they want?
                              Buy house, Demolish house, Build house.

                              Comment


                              • #90
                                this might have been an interesting conversation on how diet and fertility work together (with some clarifications around other issues), but now. . .

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X