2

votes

What aspects of paleo aren't getting enough attention on this forum?

Answered on August 19, 2014
Created December 01, 2012 at 12:53 AM

Are we missing something?

Are there any ideas that shook your world, but don't seem to be getting much attention?

32f5749fa6cf7adbeb0b0b031ba82b46

(41757)

on September 07, 2013
at 01:28 AM

@Valai, raising animals for consumption certainly can be sustainable, but the question is what level of consumption is sustainable. Particularly if there's a significant shift in dietary paradigm towards a whole-foods animal-based diet from a commodity-based (read: grain) plant-based diet.

68294383ced9a0eafc16133aa80d1905

(5795)

on December 02, 2012
at 04:37 AM

Plans for what? The point was that it's an epidemic that is eventually going to hit a tipping point. It seems the most logical is going to be economically. With that said, economics are a small scale concern when the epidemic is worldwide.

21b36b3de8ff31b0d41e7f0f4b5c1e03

(1688)

on December 01, 2012
at 12:58 PM

Um, do you have any specific plans for these millions of people?

Ae8946707ddebf0f0bfbcfc63276d823

(9402)

on December 01, 2012
at 04:53 AM

According to en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agricultural_land, there is ~12B acres of agricultural land globally. That means ~1.7 acres/person. Supposedly Joel Salatin at Polyface can produce enough calories for the average person with 1.1 acres (though he also supplements chicken feed with outside grain), and my understanding is that includes plenty of meat. I'm certainly not arguing that significant calories from plants is a bad thing, but maybe it's not a requirement of a globally sustainable solution. And, I believe that does not even count oceans, lakes and rivers.

Ae8946707ddebf0f0bfbcfc63276d823

(9402)

on December 01, 2012
at 04:52 AM

And I believe that also doesn't take into account oceans, lakes and rivers.

Ae8946707ddebf0f0bfbcfc63276d823

(9402)

on December 01, 2012
at 04:51 AM

According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agricultural_land, there is ~12B acres of agricultural land globally. That means ~1.7 acres/person. Supposedly Joel Salatin can produce enough calories for the average person with 1.1 acres (though he also supplements chicken feed with outside grain) and my understanding is that includes plenty of meat. I'm certainly not arguing that significant calories from plans is a bad thing, but maybe it's not a requirement of a globally sustainable solution.

A08b210e4da7e69cd792bddc1f4aae4b

(1031)

on December 01, 2012
at 04:40 AM

Agent Smith: "Every mammal on this planet instinctively develops a natural equilibrium with the surrounding environment but you humans do not. You move to an area and you multiply and multiply until every natural resource is consumed and the only way you can survive is to spread to another area. There is another organism on this planet that follows the same pattern. Do you know what it is? A virus. Human beings are a disease, a cancer of this planet. You're a plague and we are the cure." The Matrix, 1999. Yikes, I'm only saying.

32f5749fa6cf7adbeb0b0b031ba82b46

(41757)

on December 01, 2012
at 04:29 AM

The 2 pounds of meat per day paleo diet is not sustainable when applied on a population-wide scale. If paleo is as great as it's thought to be, then there's no reason it shouldn't be applied on that scale.

32f5749fa6cf7adbeb0b0b031ba82b46

(41757)

on December 01, 2012
at 04:24 AM

Yes, more calories coming from plants, not necessarily meaning >50% coming from plants though. Perhaps though less emphasis on fats, and an increased emphasis on starches. The average hunter-gatherer does get a significant portion of calories from carbohydrate, plants, starches.

Fab409ac4a30957e3ed508514f7bff02

(295)

on December 01, 2012
at 04:17 AM

No reason why raising/consumption of cows, pigs, goats, lamb, chickens, etc. can't be sustainable.

Ae8946707ddebf0f0bfbcfc63276d823

(9402)

on December 01, 2012
at 04:14 AM

Also, off-topic, but just curious, why did you mark this response as community wiki? I've never understood why some responses get marked community wiki...

Ae8946707ddebf0f0bfbcfc63276d823

(9402)

on December 01, 2012
at 04:13 AM

What do you mean by plant-centric? Bulk of calories from fruits, vegetables and tubers?

Frontpage book

Get FREE instant access to our Paleo For Beginners Guide & 15 FREE Recipes!

3 Answers

6
68294383ced9a0eafc16133aa80d1905

(5795)

on December 01, 2012
at 04:17 AM

Artificially elevated population growth and the lack of "evolution" wreaking havoc on the planet.

We have an absolute health travesty on our hands with millions of people surviving on pharmaceutical cocktails who are not contributing ANYTHING to society, but leaching dollars from multiple directions. Exponential growth is taking place, people are being kept alive (and profited from) at the expense of the rest of us. Many of these people, left to their own devices, would never have the intelligence, immunity or needed physical skills to even survive, let alone reproduce and raise offspring in a similar manner.

It sounds cruel, but we're the only species without a natural control mechanism for this stuff. Even other species that have similar epidemics occurring are still being somewhat controlled by human beings. Meanwhile, nobody is doing anything about the human race.

Obviously the reason this doesn't get discussed in the mainstream is A) it's a sensitive subject to broach and B) there's way too much money at stake to mess with it.

68294383ced9a0eafc16133aa80d1905

(5795)

on December 02, 2012
at 04:37 AM

Plans for what? The point was that it's an epidemic that is eventually going to hit a tipping point. It seems the most logical is going to be economically. With that said, economics are a small scale concern when the epidemic is worldwide.

21b36b3de8ff31b0d41e7f0f4b5c1e03

(1688)

on December 01, 2012
at 12:58 PM

Um, do you have any specific plans for these millions of people?

A08b210e4da7e69cd792bddc1f4aae4b

(1031)

on December 01, 2012
at 04:40 AM

Agent Smith: "Every mammal on this planet instinctively develops a natural equilibrium with the surrounding environment but you humans do not. You move to an area and you multiply and multiply until every natural resource is consumed and the only way you can survive is to spread to another area. There is another organism on this planet that follows the same pattern. Do you know what it is? A virus. Human beings are a disease, a cancer of this planet. You're a plague and we are the cure." The Matrix, 1999. Yikes, I'm only saying.

3
32f5749fa6cf7adbeb0b0b031ba82b46

(41757)

on December 01, 2012
at 04:10 AM

Sustainability. Plant-centric paleo.

I think these are the future of paleo. The bacon-centric ketogenic diet is the paleo of yesteryear. PH is moving in the right direction though.

Ae8946707ddebf0f0bfbcfc63276d823

(9402)

on December 01, 2012
at 04:52 AM

And I believe that also doesn't take into account oceans, lakes and rivers.

32f5749fa6cf7adbeb0b0b031ba82b46

(41757)

on December 01, 2012
at 04:24 AM

Yes, more calories coming from plants, not necessarily meaning >50% coming from plants though. Perhaps though less emphasis on fats, and an increased emphasis on starches. The average hunter-gatherer does get a significant portion of calories from carbohydrate, plants, starches.

Ae8946707ddebf0f0bfbcfc63276d823

(9402)

on December 01, 2012
at 04:14 AM

Also, off-topic, but just curious, why did you mark this response as community wiki? I've never understood why some responses get marked community wiki...

32f5749fa6cf7adbeb0b0b031ba82b46

(41757)

on December 01, 2012
at 04:29 AM

The 2 pounds of meat per day paleo diet is not sustainable when applied on a population-wide scale. If paleo is as great as it's thought to be, then there's no reason it shouldn't be applied on that scale.

Fab409ac4a30957e3ed508514f7bff02

(295)

on December 01, 2012
at 04:17 AM

No reason why raising/consumption of cows, pigs, goats, lamb, chickens, etc. can't be sustainable.

Ae8946707ddebf0f0bfbcfc63276d823

(9402)

on December 01, 2012
at 04:13 AM

What do you mean by plant-centric? Bulk of calories from fruits, vegetables and tubers?

Ae8946707ddebf0f0bfbcfc63276d823

(9402)

on December 01, 2012
at 04:53 AM

According to en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agricultural_land, there is ~12B acres of agricultural land globally. That means ~1.7 acres/person. Supposedly Joel Salatin at Polyface can produce enough calories for the average person with 1.1 acres (though he also supplements chicken feed with outside grain), and my understanding is that includes plenty of meat. I'm certainly not arguing that significant calories from plants is a bad thing, but maybe it's not a requirement of a globally sustainable solution. And, I believe that does not even count oceans, lakes and rivers.

32f5749fa6cf7adbeb0b0b031ba82b46

(41757)

on September 07, 2013
at 01:28 AM

@Valai, raising animals for consumption certainly can be sustainable, but the question is what level of consumption is sustainable. Particularly if there's a significant shift in dietary paradigm towards a whole-foods animal-based diet from a commodity-based (read: grain) plant-based diet.

Ae8946707ddebf0f0bfbcfc63276d823

(9402)

on December 01, 2012
at 04:51 AM

According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agricultural_land, there is ~12B acres of agricultural land globally. That means ~1.7 acres/person. Supposedly Joel Salatin can produce enough calories for the average person with 1.1 acres (though he also supplements chicken feed with outside grain) and my understanding is that includes plenty of meat. I'm certainly not arguing that significant calories from plans is a bad thing, but maybe it's not a requirement of a globally sustainable solution.

2
52ad7ee5eef0d7339d0977bd7a2ceb8a

on December 01, 2012
at 04:20 AM

importance of sustainable food, appreciation of clean food eating and how it relates to our bodies, our emotions, our economy, and more.

is this what you mean?

and yeah i like KA24s answer.

Answer Question


Get FREE instant access to our
Paleo For Beginners Guide & 15 FREE Recipes!