Skip to main content

TR Memescape

  • Talkrational: we are internet drama junkies, and kinda like vultures circling the struggling beast. we don't necessarily need a personal stake in this shit, well other than lulz being serious personal business

Topic: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World) (Read 177456 times) previous topic - next topic

BenTheBiased, Testy Calibrate, superhoop, DaveGodfrey, Dave Hawkins, JonF, Sea Star, Pingu and 4 Guests are viewing this topic.
  • nesb
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #27700
I wonder what the ecological impact of this "fake meat" is ...

"Real meat" raised correctly IMPROVES ecosystems. (And methane is not a problem)

My guess is that fake meat degrades them

There's been at least one easy-to-Google study that showed cultured meat to be more environmentally friendly than traditional meat production. Also, methane is a huge problem.

  • Peez
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #27701
Lol

EDIT: Actually that's a pretty weird comparison. I've never even heard of anyone "raping" a baby.  Aborting, yes. But never raping.
Sadly you need only Google a little to find that yes, babies are sometimes raped.

Peez

Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #27702
Also, Book of Mormon, damn it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TqEPrPa07XU

ETA: 0:58

  • Sea Star
  • Not an octohatter
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #27703
Lol

EDIT: Actually that's a pretty weird comparison. I've never even heard of anyone "raping" a baby.  Aborting, yes. But never raping.
Sadly you need only Google a little to find that yes, babies are sometimes raped.

Peez
My link is in the other thread.
Quote from: Dave Hawkins on Today at 07:50:40 AM
Lol
Sea Star has been trolling me this whole time.

Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #27704
Also, Book of Mormon, damn it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TqEPrPa07XU



ETA: 0:58




I was bought tickets to see The Book Of Mormon in New York earlier this year.

Fkn hilarious

Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #27705
Extremely important paper here related to the topic of what we eat and how it affects our health.

Quote
Dietary Carbohydrates and
Dental-Systemic Diseases

P. Hujoel

Department of Dental Public Health Sciences, Box 357475,
School of Dentistry, University of Washington, Seattle, WA
98195-7475, USA; hujoel@u.washington.edu
J Dent Res
 88(6):490-502, 2009
ABSTRACT
Two contradictory hypotheses on the role of dietary
carbohydrates  in  health  and  disease  shape  how
dental-systemic associations are regarded. On one
side, Cleave and Yudkin postulated that excessive
dietary fermentable carbohydrate intake led--in the
absence of dental interventions such as fluorides--
first
  to  dental  diseases  and
then
  to  systemic  dis-
eases.  Under  this  hypothesis,  dental  and  systemic
diseases  shared--as  a  common  cause--a  diet  of
excess fermentable carbohydrates. Dental diseases
were regarded as an alarm bell for future systemic
diseases,  and  restricting  carbohydrate  intake  pre-
vented  both  dental  and  systemic  diseases.  On  the
opposite  side,  Keys  postulated  the  lipid  hypothe-
sis:   that   excessive   dietary   lipid   intake   caused 
systemic  diseases.  Keys  advocated  a  diet  high  in
fermentable carbohydrate for the benefit of general
health,  and  dental  diseases  became  regarded  as
local  dietary  side  effects.  Because  general  health
takes precedence over dental health when it comes
to dietary recommendations, dental diseases became
viewed  as  local  infections;  interventions  such  as
fluorides,  sealants,  oral  hygiene,  antimicrobials,
and dental fillings became synonymous with main-
taining  dental  health,  and  carbohydrates  were  no
longer  considered  as  a  common  cause  for  dental-
systemic diseases. These opposing dietary hypoth-
eses have increasingly been put to the test in clinical
trials.  The  emerging  trial  results  favor  Cleave-
Yudkin's   hypothesis   and   may   affect   preventive
approaches for dental and systemic diseases.
http://www.ohsu.edu/xd/education/schools/school-of-medicine/departments/clinical-departments/psychiatry/grand-rounds/upload/Dietary-Carbs-Dental-Systemic-Dz.pdf

Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #27706
Quote
Evidence from Paleopathology, Medical Explorer Accounts, 
and Population Migration Studies
Historically,  clustering  of  CNCDs  was  first  discussed  within  the  context  of
nutrition  transitions.  Hunter-gatherers  are  typically  characterized  as  being
largely  free  from  dental  caries,  periodontal  disease,  cardiovascular  disease,
diabetes, cancers, and obesity (Truswell, 1977). For instance, dental authorities
report "never [having] seen paradontal [
sic
] disease in the Zulus living in their
native reserves" (Cleave and Campbell, 1966), or Eskimos untouched by civi-
lization with "magnificent dental development" and "so high an immunity to
dental  caries"  (Price,  1945).  The  scarcity  of  dental  CNCDs  among  hunter-
gatherers coincides with an absence of systemic CNCDs. Prevalence of diabe-
tes  among  Zulus  living  in  tribal  conditions  was  "extremely  rare,"  and  for
Eskimos  it  was  reported  to  be  less  than  2
per
  10,000  people  (Price,  1945).
Other diseases, such as coronary thrombosis, pulmonary embolism, gall stones,
and rheumatoid arthritis, were similarly rare in populations with hunter-gatherer
lifestyles such as reported in Africa, Australia, or other continents prior to the
adoption of Western lifestyles (Trowell, 1960).
When individuals with a hunter-gatherer lifestyle transitioned to Western
lifestyles  as  a  result  of  agriculturization,  migration,  colonization,  or  other
circumstances, CNCDs appeared.

  • Faid
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #27707
Dave, do you think anyone (especially among those of us in the medical profession) has any issues or objections to the findings of that paper (that you keep posting and reposting for some reason)?
Who even made the rule that we cannot group ducks and fish together for the simple reason that they are both aquatic? If I want to group them that way and it serves my purpose then I can jolly well do it however I want to and it is still a nested hierarchy and you can't tell me that it's not.

Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #27708
One note - every time I bring up the topic of the Inuits being quite healthy living on animal foods alone, Pingu says "yabbut ... they have a high incidence of coronary disease"

Well hold on ... WHICH INUITS are we talking about?  Price found two subgroups within each group he visited - one group was eating strictly indigenous foods and had perfect teeth ... and the other group was eating a westernized diet.

Now it's true that Price did not stay with the perfect teeth groups long enough to check their health when they were old (who could?) ... but THIS PAPER says that perfect teeth is an EARLY INDICATOR of future long term wrt systemic CNDCs.

Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #27709
Dave, do you think anyone (especially among those of us in the medical profession) has any issues or objections to the findings of that paper (that you keep posting and reposting for some reason)?
Pingu does.  See above.

  • Faid
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #27710
One note - every time I bring up the topic of the Inuits being quite healthy living on animal foods alone, Pingu says "yabbut ... they have a high incidence of coronary disease"

Well hold on ... WHICH INUITS are we talking about?  Price found two subgroups within each group he visited - one group was eating strictly indigenous foods and had perfect teeth ... and the other group was eating a westernized diet.

Now it's true that Price did not stay with the perfect teeth groups long enough to check their health when they were old (who could?) ... but THIS PAPER says that perfect teeth is an EARLY INDICATOR of future long term wrt systemic CNDCs.
We've been through all that dave.

Yes, dental health is an indicator for long term systemic CNDCs. Why? Fermented carbohydrates. Too much sugar is bad. This is not something new.

As for the inuit and Masai, you were shown the links in the past. Shall I look for them again?
Who even made the rule that we cannot group ducks and fish together for the simple reason that they are both aquatic? If I want to group them that way and it serves my purpose then I can jolly well do it however I want to and it is still a nested hierarchy and you can't tell me that it's not.

  • Faid
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #27711
Dave, do you think anyone (especially among those of us in the medical profession) has any issues or objections to the findings of that paper (that you keep posting and reposting for some reason)?
Pingu does.  See above.
Wrong. No one (and not Pingu, as far as I'm aware) disputes that excess of carbohydrates is bad for the health, and causes serious systemic illness. Can you tell me where she's said otherwise?
Who even made the rule that we cannot group ducks and fish together for the simple reason that they are both aquatic? If I want to group them that way and it serves my purpose then I can jolly well do it however I want to and it is still a nested hierarchy and you can't tell me that it's not.

Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #27712
If you want a really simple way of looking at my agricultural philosophy, you have only to read this one paragraph from this paper ...
Quote
When individuals with a hunter-gatherer lifestyle transitioned to Western
lifestyles  as  a  result  of  agriculturization,  migration,  colonization,  or  other
circumstances, CNCDs[1] appeared.

So (Voxrat) ... I am simply seeking to return to what I believe to be the key aspects of the hunter-gatherer diet in which the animals are ranched instead of hunted (the "hunter" part) and in which the fruits and vegetables and minimal grains are raised via gardening (the "gatherer" part).

In this way, we can EAT like hunter-gatherers ... but not have to spend so much time doing it ... AND we can live at a much higher density than true hunter-gatherers ... not sure exactly the density for my area yet, but it might be as high as 2 persons per acre.  If 1 person per acre is the global average for all lands which could be used for agriculture and there are 20 billion such acres worldwide, then this implies a maximum world population of 20 billion.  (admittedly much lower than one of my earlier wild guesses of 100 billion ... yes, I'm pretty sure I'm wrong about that)
Cardiovascular diseases, diabetes mellitus, certain cancers, and dementia are
examples of systemic CNCDs. Dental caries, periodontal disease, certain oral
cancers,  and  leukoplakia  are  examples  of dental CNCDs.

Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #27713
I will let Pingu speak for herself, but it appears that she subscribes to some variation of the Keys Hypothesis (as opposed to the Cleave-Yudkin hypothesis) ... here's Hujoel's summary of the Keys hypothesis
Quote
On  the
opposite  side,  Keys  postulated  the  lipid  hypothe-
sis:   that   excessive   dietary   lipid   intake   caused 
systemic  diseases.
  Keys  advocated  a  diet  high  in
fermentable carbohydrate for the benefit of general
health,  and  dental  diseases  became  regarded  as
local  dietary  side  effects.  Because  general  health
takes precedence over dental health when it comes
to dietary recommendations, dental diseases became
viewed  as  local  infections;  interventions  such  as
fluorides,  sealants,  oral  hygiene,  antimicrobials,
and dental fillings became synonymous with main-
taining  dental  health,  and  carbohydrates  were  no
longer  considered  as  a  common  cause  for  dental-
systemic diseases.

Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #27714
I say this primarily because she seems to believe that the reported coronary problems among the Inuit that she has read about IS CAUSED BY their diet which is high in animal fats.  Which seems to align with Keys' view.

I - on the other hand - believe that any coronary problems among the Inuit would have been caused by WESTERNIZED DIETS.

  • Faid
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #27715
What makes you think that the two hypotheses are mutually exclusive? What if BOTH an excess of carbohydrates and an excess of fats is responsible for illness?

Did I just blow your mind?
Who even made the rule that we cannot group ducks and fish together for the simple reason that they are both aquatic? If I want to group them that way and it serves my purpose then I can jolly well do it however I want to and it is still a nested hierarchy and you can't tell me that it's not.

Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #27716
Dave, Hunter-Gatherers don't drink the milk of other species as adults.
Why do I bother?

  • Faid
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #27717
I say this primarily because she seems to believe that the reported coronary problems among the Inuit that she has read about IS CAUSED BY their diet which is high in animal fats.  Which seems to align with Keys' view.
As far as the animal fats part is concerned, yes. That doesn't mean that excessive carbohydrate intake is recommended. That is ALSO the cause for illness. This is not an either/or thing, dave.
Quote
I - on the other hand - believe that any coronary problems among the Inuit would have been caused by WESTERNIZED DIETS.
And you don't think that a high fat content is related to a "WESTERNIZED DIET"?
Who even made the rule that we cannot group ducks and fish together for the simple reason that they are both aquatic? If I want to group them that way and it serves my purpose then I can jolly well do it however I want to and it is still a nested hierarchy and you can't tell me that it's not.

Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #27718
Diet wasn't the only factor in the health of hunter-gatherers. They also got a ton of exercise from all that hunting and gathering, which is something your system mostly eliminates.

Although, since you mostly shun modern medicine, your system would also mostly eliminate the reasons most people live longer lives now than hunter-gatherers did, so there's that.

  • Faid
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #27719
Who even made the rule that we cannot group ducks and fish together for the simple reason that they are both aquatic? If I want to group them that way and it serves my purpose then I can jolly well do it however I want to and it is still a nested hierarchy and you can't tell me that it's not.

Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #27720
One note - every time I bring up the topic of the Inuits being quite healthy living on animal foods alone, Pingu says "yabbut ... they have a high incidence of coronary disease"

Well hold on ... WHICH INUITS are we talking about?  Price found two subgroups within each group he visited - one group was eating strictly indigenous foods and had perfect teeth ... and the other group was eating a westernized diet.

Now it's true that Price did not stay with the perfect teeth groups long enough to check their health when they were old (who could?) ... but THIS PAPER says that perfect teeth is an EARLY INDICATOR of future long term wrt systemic CNDCs.
We've been through all that dave.

Yes, dental health is an indicator for long term systemic CNDCs. Why? Fermented carbohydrates. Too much sugar is bad. This is not something new.

As for the inuit and Masai, you were shown the links in the past. Shall I look for them again?
"Too much sugar is bad"

I believe that this is a dangerous oversimplification ... why?  Because someone reading it might think "I need to reduce my sugar intake and everything will be fine" and they go on their merry way eating a diet composed mostly of refined carbs and end up dying of a heart attack at 50.  Or perhaps they become vegetarian and suffer from different health problems.

A better statement I think is ...

"The diet needs to contain enough body building materials to stay healthy and disease free ... if the diet is composed of too high a % of fermentable carbs, especially ones like refined wheat which has been robbed of many essential dietary ingredients ... then there is the risk of the body not having enough body building materials to stay healthy and disease free."

CNDCs - both dental and systemic - are the result of a LACK of something ... not the result of a POISON (if you will) such as sugar or Wonder bread.  The problem is that if too high a % of your diet is Wonder bread then your appetite will be satiated BEFORE you have ingested sufficient body building materials to stay healthy and disease free.

Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #27721
I say this primarily because she seems to believe that the reported coronary problems among the Inuit that she has read about IS CAUSED BY their diet which is high in animal fats.  Which seems to align with Keys' view.
As far as the animal fats part is concerned, yes. That doesn't mean that excessive carbohydrate intake is recommended. That is ALSO the cause for illness. This is not an either/or thing, dave.
Quote
I - on the other hand - believe that any coronary problems among the Inuit would have been caused by WESTERNIZED DIETS.
And you don't think that a high fat content is related to a "WESTERNIZED DIET"?
A fatty acid ratio of 10 to 1 or 20 to 1 is certainly a bad thing.  1 to 1 is more normal.

Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #27722
Diet wasn't the only factor in the health of hunter-gatherers. They also got a ton of exercise from all that hunting and gathering, which is something your system mostly eliminates.

Although, since you mostly shun modern medicine, your system would also mostly eliminate the reasons most people live longer lives now than hunter-gatherers did, so there's that.
I don't SHUN modern medicine.  I just don't need it much because of my lifestyle.  Which DOES include a fair amount of exercise.  In summer I climb trees and cut branches, remember?  In winter, I cut and haul firewood, remember?   Most of my co-workers have "salesman bellies" but not me.

  • Faid
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #27723
One note - every time I bring up the topic of the Inuits being quite healthy living on animal foods alone, Pingu says "yabbut ... they have a high incidence of coronary disease"

Well hold on ... WHICH INUITS are we talking about?  Price found two subgroups within each group he visited - one group was eating strictly indigenous foods and had perfect teeth ... and the other group was eating a westernized diet.

Now it's true that Price did not stay with the perfect teeth groups long enough to check their health when they were old (who could?) ... but THIS PAPER says that perfect teeth is an EARLY INDICATOR of future long term wrt systemic CNDCs.
We've been through all that dave.

Yes, dental health is an indicator for long term systemic CNDCs. Why? Fermented carbohydrates. Too much sugar is bad. This is not something new.

As for the inuit and Masai, you were shown the links in the past. Shall I look for them again?
"Too much sugar is bad"

I believe that this is a dangerous oversimplification ... why?  Because someone reading it might think "I need to reduce my sugar intake and everything will be fine" and they go on their merry way eating a diet composed mostly of refined carbs and end up dying of a heart attack at 50.
It's a good thing no doctor, nutritionist or any kind of scientist says something like that, then. In fact, most physicians go into great lenghts with their patients on the kind of foods a diabetic should be careful of.

Quote
A better statement I think is ... "the diet needs to contain enough body building materials to stay healthy and disease free ... if the diet is composed of too high a % of fermentable carbs, especially ones like refined wheat which has been robbed of many essential dietary ingredients ... then there is the risk of the body not having enough body building materials to stay healthy and disease free."That's not exacly correct. It's also a question of direct damage caused by carbohydrates on a physiological level.

Quote
CNDCs - both dental and systemic - are the result of a LACK of something ... not the result of a POISON (if you will) such as sugar or Wonder bread.  The problem is that if too high a % of your diet is Wonder bread then your appetite will be satiated BEFORE you have ingested sufficient body building materials to stay healthy and disease free.
No, that's not always the problem. Sometime it's not a question of a "LACK" of something, but of too much of something, and the imbalances it creates in the body.

Who even made the rule that we cannot group ducks and fish together for the simple reason that they are both aquatic? If I want to group them that way and it serves my purpose then I can jolly well do it however I want to and it is still a nested hierarchy and you can't tell me that it's not.

  • Faid
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #27724
I say this primarily because she seems to believe that the reported coronary problems among the Inuit that she has read about IS CAUSED BY their diet which is high in animal fats.  Which seems to align with Keys' view.
As far as the animal fats part is concerned, yes. That doesn't mean that excessive carbohydrate intake is recommended. That is ALSO the cause for illness. This is not an either/or thing, dave.
Quote
I - on the other hand - believe that any coronary problems among the Inuit would have been caused by WESTERNIZED DIETS.
And you don't think that a high fat content is related to a "WESTERNIZED DIET"?
A fatty acid ratio of 10 to 1 or 20 to 1 is certainly a bad thing.  1 to 1 is more normal.
What do you mean by a "20 to 1" ratio?
Who even made the rule that we cannot group ducks and fish together for the simple reason that they are both aquatic? If I want to group them that way and it serves my purpose then I can jolly well do it however I want to and it is still a nested hierarchy and you can't tell me that it's not.