I'm sorry to use such a clear word but i consider it totaly
nonsense and unhelpful to make a comparison of vegetarianism
*contra* paleofood.
Paleofood isn't only food like: in paleolithium, glaciation time,
cold regions. That may be some peoples' definition or picture,
but not *actual* paleolithicum. Besides that there are
7000y of neolithicum history.
What concerns the arguments mentioned below you would easily
run into a strange edge position in the discussion.
I'll try to point out weak points here, but:
This is not in the intention to dispute them further, but just to
stop paleolithic nutrition beeing "defended" by arguments
which are IMHO inappropiate.
At 16:47 30/07/99 -0500, Ken Green wrote:
>
>>I remember seeing an analysis once that demonstrated that world
>>vegetarianism would be far more destructive to the environment than
>>carnivory, and far more costly, due to the need to use extensive
>amounts of
>>fertilizer, to destroy native ecosystems, ...
>>Unfortunately, I
>>don't remember where I saw it. Any of you know of such a study?
As long as you compare only hunters and gatherers in wildlife
to modern society this may match.
As soon as you have more than 10% of your food from supermarcets
it'll be *opposite*. Because everything non-vegetarian you get there
simply is produced by *tenfold* the impact on nature because
just that same desctructive fertilizers and so on are used
to nourish the animals before you get it.
If you want minimal nature impact for whole society,
IMHO the only way is to look for
organic producing. There are far more humans living today
(even in America) as the woods could bear.
All examples i've heared before, where a group of humans lived mainly
on killing animals were a kind of overexploitation - except inuit.
Applies to whales, to bisons, to fish, even to todays wild-game
when beeing fed (guess, what?).
Even Ray described repeatedly how all that nice animals went extinct.
And of course this applies to todays western society- or what do you
think all that concentrated feed stuff comes from?
Even in Europe from South and North America- soy.
Barbara Sheppard wrote:
>1. The energy/resources needed to process many vegetarian foods.
>Paleofoods, by definition, require very little preparation and are
>all edible raw. OK, many people choose to cook at least some of
>them, but there is no absolute need to do so.
Time to process a carrot?
The aim is, (hopefully common) to leave all the food largely
unprocessed. That applies to all paleofood, not more to plants.
Some additional processing energy is necessary in detoxifying
techniques like when cooking grains (*IF* you choose them).
But this *could* be done by soaking. Like meat could be eaten raw.
How much percent do you eat raw?
Take the energy cost of producing the meat and you're far off again.
>2. If it is true that paleo eating avoids or eliminates much human
>illness, then presumably a large portion of the resources that go
>into health care,
>such as hospitals and other medical and related establishments
>(e.g., drug
>manufacture), would not be needed. I believe that this could be
>quite a
>significant factor, even if direct environmental benefits of
>producing paleo foods over vegetarian ones can't be demonstrated.
>(But I'm not suggesting that they can't be.)
Again, if you compare *normal* veggies to carnies, the health cost
for the veggies will be less, because they *in average* do
better. If you compare healthy natural living paleos (say, !Kung)
to "normal" veggies...?.. Then the veggies may hopefully
be able to learn something.
The paleolithic idea with all it's contributers has brought
health concepts that may be valuable, even necessary for many
of us (veggies like carnies).
Because they *all* eat wheat and cow dairy.
>It's not just the price you pay
>for a certain food item that counts, but also the indirect costs
>associated with it.
That's the real cost.
Nothing's cheap enough if you would buy to get ill.....
agree, here
regards and peace,
Amadeus
--
Sent through Global Message Exchange - http://www.gmx.net
|
