Maybe the entire world should go more primal?
(29 posts) (14 voices)-
Aussie
MemberJust 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=2192I'd be interested in others opinions on this.
cheers
Posted 5 months ago # -
Tarlach
MemberYeah 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...
Posted 5 months ago # -
SerialSinner
MemberThe 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.
Posted 5 months ago # -
Catalina
MemberHere'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.
Posted 5 months ago # -
SerialSinner
MemberGreat 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.
Posted 5 months ago # -
OnTheBayou
MemberI am increasingly impressed with http://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.
Posted 5 months ago # -
annadragon
MemberYou 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.Posted 5 months ago # -
hannahc
MemberI'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.
Posted 5 months ago # -
OnTheBayou
Memberkuno, 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.
Posted 5 months ago # -
OnTheBayou
MemberI think these "inventions" are conceptual, not real. Personally, I'd rather eat "made" meat than have a diet high in grains.
I "love" that vegetarian justification of grains being necessary due to high population. How's this for a radical concept: Don't breed so much. Nature has its ways of adjusting population to food supply, it is humankind that subverts the natural ways.
Posted 5 months ago # -
As long as we don't go the 'Chinese' way of modifying our population (kill/ abort/ dispose of) every girl. Now, they have a MAJOR issue with the lack of women over there.
I think we try to play God too much and worry our little heads over some pretty 'over-thought' statistics and the like.
God said to multiply and populate the Earth. I did that, within reason of my sanity and income and do not feel ashamed. The Octomom, however, well, she should be shot....
Posted 5 months ago # -
We've already populated the Earth, SassaFrass. And whether or not we believe that it's our God-ordained duty to keep the planet populated, just a quick look around (and, yes, consideration of those "pretty statistics") will indicate that the Earth CANNOT sustain continued population growth.
Try to bear in mind that when/if God gave that command, he was talking to two people who had the task of populating the entire Earth (or at least a sizeable portion of it). Now that we have a more-than-sustainable population of 6.5 billion, I think it's time we move on to other priorities - like making sure that the fruit of our womb has a decent planet to live in and a reliable source of food.
I wouldn't want Americans to start killing their daughters any more than you do, but there has to be a compromise. Already we have parents with more kids than they can feed and kids with no parents to feed them. Continued rampant reproduction is not the way back.
Posted 5 months ago # -
hannahc
MemberHa, Sassa that's a strong opinion :) I was definitely alluding to the population controls in China with my earlier post, government has no business controlling population in that manner (I know, not that they have to kill their baby girls, they just choose to because "boys are better"). Some people will want a lot of children, but the trend for educated women is definitely to have 0-2 it seems, which is good for families and for the planet in my opinion.
Posted 5 months ago # -
No, actually, I wasn't responding to your post, actually, so please don't think I was talking in regards to what you said ;-)
I still think that as an 'open-minded' generation, we still try to play 'God' too much, as it were.
That's my opinion and I'm sticking to it.
I'm all about recycling and keeping my part of keeping this beautiful Earth in tip-top shape, but to throw around the thought of 'keeping your breeding low' is just a stupid thought to me. Sorry!
Posted 5 months ago # -
Is there a logical reason why it seems like a bad idea not to reproduce rampantly?
Posted 5 months ago # -
Is there any way to reduce it?
Posted 5 months ago # -
Ha ha Maba!
Just like socialism. There are ideas that seem ideal, yet cannot actually work in the long-run. Sorry, just can't buy it.
Homeostasis in the World? That would be awesome. World Peace? Yes Please! Everyone love everyone and no need for guns? I sure wish!
Does this exist and has it existed in the past? No. Sadly no.
Posted 5 months ago # -
Although it has already been mentioned, it bears repeating that education has consistently been the most effective method of reducing birth rates. This is a humane form of intentional population control that violates none and empowers many.
Whether or not conscious actions towards effective population control are "playing god" is an invalid argument. I assume that playing god refers to the idea that human actions can supercede a divinely ordained plan. If this is true, then every exercise of free will is, in effect, an act of playing god. If free will is subtracted from the equation and we only allow for divine predestination, then deliberation over our actions is fruitless.
Our species is entirely capable of making lucid decisions on the basis of rational arguments and supportive evidence in our efforts to synergize our existence with the well-being of our planet. Whether we succeed or fall prey to our baser desires remains to be seen.
Posted 5 months ago # -
Tomato Tomahto. Valid, invalid.
Sometimes we try to over-think this junk. I refuse to 'worry' about it.
I know where my future lies and I don't need to obsess over such 'worrisome' ideas, that's all. Call me stupid. I don't care. I have better things to 'worry' about. No wait, I don't!
Posted 5 months ago # -
Apathy is man's greatest enemy.
Seriously, why shouldn't you care? You went and made all those kids, and they're probably going to make kids of there own. Aren't you the slightest bit concerned that your actions are going to have an impact on their lives?
I've heard the "I don't care" argument used many times before, and while it may not be this way for you, it seems to me that it often means "I'm afraid you might be right, and that scares me, so I don't want to talk about it." In any case, it's a pretty lame cop-out, especially when you started the discussion in the first place.
Posted 5 months ago # -
Tarlach
MemberGeriMorgan> +1
If everyone cared and did their small part, we wouldn't have half the problems we do.
It's the arrogant attitude of 'it's someone elses problem' or 'it doesn't apply to me' that gets everyone in trouble.
Everyone should make a stand and refuse to be one of the ignorant masses that continues to mess things up. Most people here can do it with their health, so why not do it for the planet as well?
Closing your eyes is not the way to make problems go away.
"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing"
Posted 5 months ago # -
maranne
MemberGreat debate. Great arguments and emotional responses. Some of you are so eloquent in your expressions that I find it difficult to come up to that standard! (Shine you come to mind!:))
In my view, it all comes down to choice. In the Western World, we are privileged to decide if and how many children we want. In lots of other countries women do not have that choice.
I agree with overpopulation being an issue, I also believe the genetic quality of people reproducing to be an issue and the medical tempering with it. By no means am I suggesting baby killings, mass sterilization etc.
I do have a problem with the "absolute right to reproduce" though. Should we still consider this at any cost to the rest of the world?I am a strong advocate of birth control and education and I also strongly believe in fundamental equality between the sexes.
On a more personal level, ever since being very small I knew I would not want to reproduce. I like children and I work with them, but I simply have no urge, no emotional desire to bear one. There is no logical explanation to this and I have been "overthinking" it for years, but to no avail.
Living in a very Catholic place people still tell me one day I will change my mind (I am 39) and how much I will miss out on being a mother etc. Actually, NO. All I am going to miss out on is bringing a life into this very uncertain world hoping to receive unconditional love, sacrificing myself up to a point and then probably being disappointed if the child doesn't turn out the way I had been hoping for.
Posted 5 months ago #
Reply
You must log in to post.