I'm not in favour of getting the whole world to follow a palaeolithic diet. After all, the fact that peoples' sperm-counts(and fertility in general) have been declining all over the world, partly due to deficient diets and partly due to overpollution, means that birth-rates might be significantly reduced, over time, which would help enormously. Plus, I find a certain Schadenfreude at the thought of others not having access to a good, healthy diet - for one thing, if the whole world were to follow a Palaeo lifestyle, my own access to high-quality foods would be reduced, which would not be good for me at all.
Re libertarianism:- Such a philosophy would only work in practice, re managing the worlds' resources, if virtually everyone were a libertarian. One only needs a few appalling individuals who don't care about the local wildlife, the issue of overpollution etc., along with lax enforcement of the law,and then more and more resources inevitably get exhausted, until there's nothing left worth having.
I don't agree with the idea that the worlds' population will ever collapse to sustainable levels, though, whether due to WWIII or whatever - partly because there are plenty of ideologies which frown on population-reducing tactics such as birth-control - and increasing wealth doesn't necessarily always lead to lower population-growth.
More than likely, we will simply have to expect an ever lower standard of living, having to live off hydroponically-derived crops, termites, or "Soylent Green" style processed supplements - by which time, we will merely live in a ghastly.ugly urban nightmare, the world over.
As regards managing Nature, I can safely state that the more human intervention I've seen in National Parks and other wild areas, the uglier and poorer the places have always ended up. One of my most favourite spots in the south of France, the Vallee des Merveilles in the Parc du Mercantour, used to have staggeringly beautiful mountain-lakes, but most of those have been almost wholly drained each year, these days, due to the relentless march of "human progress"(ie due to a French governmental initiative to divert water from the National Parks to use for making hydroelectric power, further down - all this despite laws supposed to protect the Park).
Geoff
"Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see.”
Arthur Schopenhauer quote http://www.rawpaleo.com/ http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/rawpaleodiet/ > Date: Sat, 31 May 2008 11:27:10 -0600> From: [log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: Letter From New Scientist Magazine> To: [log in to unmask]> > Geoffrey Purcell wrote:> > I don't believe in the theory of "freedom without responsibility" , and, besides, Mankind ceased to be part of Nature when it ceased to be subject to natural selection. Once humans became domesticated, they were no longer part of the natural process.> >> > > I don't believe in "forced responsibility" except insofar as one should > not use force or fraud on another. Other definitions of > "responsibility" that includes the use of force to try to force other > people to make mine or your choices will fail and be tyrannical.> > Personally, I'm a libertarian and hold strongly that people should be > able to control their person and resources as they see fit. While I'm a > fan of the Paleo diet and benefits to be gained therefrom (leveraged > with modern technology, health care, etc), I'm not a fan of some > hypothetical modern paleo ideal lifestyle with minimalist human presence > on the planet. I should add that I'm a transhumanists, I see man as > taking control of their own evolution and leveraging technological > innovations to maximize their own personal life, liberty, and happiness > as well as life span.> > Steve> > > Geoff > Date: Sat, 31 May 2008 11:12:19 -0600> From: [log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: Letter From New Scientist Magazine> To: [log in to unmask]> > Geoffrey Purcell wrote:> > Sorry, I should have made clear that I meant that reintroduction of species to an area where they were previously extinct was OK, but that introducing species such as rats etc. to areas they never were a natural part of the ecosystem thereof, was a bad idea. Of course, ideally, one should really just reduce human intervention in Nature to near-zero levels as that would allow a balance to eventually appear on its own, but that would require much harsher laws to make slaughterers of wildlife suffer decades of imprisonment, a considerable expansion of the size of National Parks to allow animals to migrate to other wild areas etc. > > > > Geoff > >> > > > I cannot say that I'm a fan of tyranny in any form. Man is a part of > nature just as much as beavers dam up water sources, bees modify trees > habitats, etc. The idea that man is somehow out of place on earth or > that he should not be allowed to modify his environment is ludicrous. > As to national parks, there should be none. Property should be owned by > individuals who can choose to manage their resources to best advantage. > Some will choose one way, some another, their choice. If someone or > some group doesn't like the way a piece of property is managed, they can > buy it themselves and change it's management. The idea of "Shoot a > meal, go to jail" is a form of tyranny that I find unacceptable.> > Steve> > > _________________________________________________________________> >> > http://clk.atdmt.com/UKM/go/msnnkmgl0010000009ukm/direct/01/> > >
_________________________________________________________________
http://clk.atdmt.com/UKM/go/msnnkmgl0010000009ukm/direct/01/
|
