Maybe the entire world should go more primal? page

[Aussie]

Just a quick hello as I've just registered and only yesterday received my copy of the book.


While I enjoy and am gradually adapting to lifestyle to become more primal, I fear it may all be in vain unless some larger issues are addressed.


This paper provides a new way of looking at the issue.

http://e360.yale.edu/content/feature.msp?id=2192


I'd be interested in others opinions on this.


cheers

[Tarlach]

Yeah it's pretty sad. We are going to kill most of the planet and likely ourselves with it.


There is not enough room on the planet for the world to go primal. Grains are keeping the current population alive. We need to cut the population and make some major technological changes.


Until people can keep the number of kids they have under two, the best we can hope for is a global pandemic or war.


Maybe we will run out of fuel soon and that will help us also...

[SerialSinner]

The land use issue can be pretty tricky. On the other hand, there are lots of land that are not suitable for agriculture that could be used to raise different types of animals, thus maximizing the meat production potential. That being said, free-range grass fed animals are carbon neutral, and if raised in proper environments and quantities their environmental impact would be reasonable.


In contrast, large monocultures have tremendous environmental impacts, require a lot of land and supply low-nutrient foods. To make things worse, the land claimed for agricultural purposes tends to be fertile and thus the host of rich ecosystems.


The solution to this issue is, by no means, simple. But I think there are enough arguments pro-large-scale meat consumption and against large-scale-grain consumption to prevent us from reaching black or white conclusions.


Primal/Paleo are not for everyone though. I think we all have experienced circumstances where, even when people are given the information and rationale behind eating like we do, they end up not buying it. Natural selection? Maybe.

[Catalina]

Here's an interesting article from Scott Kustes at Fitness Spotlight:


http://www.fitnessspotlight.com/2009/07/27/paleoprimal-lifestyle-sustainable-meat-production/


I totally agree with Tarlach--population control is going to have to kick in for life on this planet to be sustainable no matter what people are eating.

[SerialSinner]

Great article Catalina, thanks for the link. He didn't consider the potential of fish as an additional source of protein though. In any case, sustainability necessarily entails dealing with overpopulation one way or another. Until we solve that problem we are pretty much doomed to extinction or massive population reduction due to famine.

[OnTheBayou]

I am increasingly impressed with www.fitnessspotlight.com Great analysis; one might argue points, but generally in the ball park.


What if there never was a Neolithic/Agricultural point in time? No grains. What would we be as a species? How many of us on this planet. No doubt, many fewer. But would we feel any pain about it?


I doubt it. It would just be the way it is/was.

[annadragon]

You won't get enough people to go primal to incite a war based on the principal. Yes, we might eventually strip enough resources that it will come to war.

I suggest two books, both sci-fi but timely: Protector by Larry Niven and Tuff Voyaging by George R. R. Martin. They tackle such issues in which war with nukes becomes the evolutionary mechanism and contemporary, albeit different impetus for humanity and technology that might sustain a population/culture which upholds procreation as the holy grail.


All scary prospects but good fictional perspectives that demonstrate where we could or are going.


It's quite legit to point out that we might not be the same people without our agricultural revolution, and certainly the industrial revolution will impact this.

Contemporary Primal/paleo does beg the question if we hadn't encountered those points in our history would we need to continually improve our technology in order to progress? or will it be because of our technology and those points in our history that we drive evolution?

Mind you driving without a license is risky.

[kuno1chi]

It occurs to me, that absent the Agricultural Revolution...I might never have been born.


As I am currently VERY happy with being alive; I propose we take it as a Good Thing, and move on from there :-D

[hannahc]

I'm not really a Bill Clinton fan, but he did make a point during a recent interview that the education of women around the world will be the best way to both increase family incomes and lower birth rates. I thought it was a very pertinant point, because as an educated woman myself I can't imagine living in a place where I would not have been allowed to go to school, and because lowering world-wide birth rates is one of the only gentle ways of reducing our population. It's also important to note that educated women generally choose to have fewer or no children, it's not a limit forced on them by the government.

[OnTheBayou]

kuno, if you weren't alive, you wouldn't be sad at not being...... Sort of a Zen koan, you know?


It's not that Bill Clinton is the bearer of the news about educated women, it's happening all over the world. Educated women appear to either use more contraceptives, or are better at saying "No!," or spend less time in the bedroom because they are too busy with non-reproductive life.


Not to bring up Clinton again, but under his welfare to work program, women are not having as many kids as they used to when welfare was easier to get. My theory is it's not so much rational choice as it is they aren't available for the bf to knock off a bit during the day.