>> >There is ALWAYS a danger of becoming too idealistic.
>> what is the danger ?
The danger is losing sight of the forest for the trees.
First, there is nothing wrong with being an idealist. We all are to some
extent. But, idealists who take their views to extremes have a tendency to
end up spinning their wheels and going nowhere. There is a give-and-take in
"nature" (compromise) that many idealists have a tendency to ignore,
perhaps even scorn.
I know that despite all the whining and moaning I may do, THE WORLD is not
going to adapt to my wishes. Therefore, I am left with adapting in some
fashion to THE WORLD. It may not be perfect, but it's all I can do.
>> that we are rushing at 100 miles an hour against a wall
Perhaps. And "nature" will take care of the situation.
> nothing have "fondamentally" changed since then ,
First, I challenge you to support that sweeping statement. We cannot truly
know what the world was like prior to about 7000 years ago. We can only
surmise based on our pet interpretations of available data. At this point
we (i.e. - modern researchers) can't even agree in which environment we
truly thrived. Are we aquatic apes adapted to eat more seafoods? Are we
savannah creatures adapted to eat only grass-fed meat? Are we truly
tree-dwellers who should eat mostly fruit and insects?
Second, it has no bearing on what I said. My point is the plants and
animals existing today have all, in one fashion or another, been affected
by our very existence on this planet. Can you reliably state that a modern
grass-fed cow is similar enough to it's grass-fed paleolithic ancestor to
*duplicate* it's nutitional content? Or that a modern wild berry plant has
the same quality as it's paleolithic ancestor? I doubt it.
How many plant/animal species we relied on, perhaps even thrived on, back
then have become extinct?
> the illusion given to us to be able to remove ourselves from those laws
> doesn't hold water .
I never made such a claim.
> paleo hunters were not "consumers" of their environment they were active
in creating it.
Huh? A predator does not "consume" it's prey? There is widespread evidence
that paleo and early-neolithic hunters did, in fact, cause the rapid
decline of a number of species. We "moderns" are not the only humans who
have contributed to the demise of many species.
Again, we (humans) have, throughout our short history on this planet,
affected everything so that it's pretty unlikely the planet can be restored
to the state it was in before we came onto the scene. That is, as long as
we remain in the ecosystem. And, assuming you are not proposing that our
species voluntarily commit mass suicide, we will continue to affect
everything for some time to come.
> that is idealism to believe that a diet of grass fed beef and
industrially
> grown veggies ( even organic ) can compare with a wide diet of wild
animals
OK, you got me there. However, the implementation of my strategy is
pragmatic. I accept, at this point, that grains and most legumes were not
readily consumed in the paleolithic era. I am unsure at this point about
dairy products. I also accept that we moderns have been over-processing
food for some time now. So, I avoid grains, beans, most dairy, and
processed foods. Beyond that, I have to consider everything else pretty
much "fair game" <grin>.
Jean-Claude, I enjoy bantering with you, but I feel we are getting too far
off-topic here. Why don't we continue this discussion on the Paleolife
list?
|
