Mornin'!
I started reading Audette's book last night. Am enjoying it. Some interesting ecological concepts that are new to me. Especially as a former vegetarian. I hadn't thought much about the fact that huge numbers of animals have been lost and are becoming extinct because of loss of habitat to maintain farming. Also the fact that tilling the ground for farming allows for topsoil loss (which in an arid, windy area can render the soil totally useless after as little as 100 years). Not to mention the need for herbicides/pestcides to kill the new plant/animal invaders to the tilled soil.
Another interesting fact. The wolf and human diets were identical in the paleolithic days. Humans followed wolves and often ran them off from their kill so that they themselves could eat the kill. And wolves followed humans because the scraps of food left by humans were palatable to them. This was possibly the origin of domestication of the wolf to become the dog.
It is also interesting that every other animal in the Primate group (where we belong) eats animal protein of some nature.
I have more to say about dog diets but will start another thread.
Love,
Polly
"Neanderthin"
Moderators: Rosie, Jean, CAMary, moremuscle, JFR, Dee, xet, Peggy, Matthew, Gabes-Apg, grannyh, Gloria, Mars, starfire, Polly, Joefnh
"Neanderthin"
Blessed are they who can laugh at themselves, for they shall never cease to be amused.
Hi Polly,
Not to bash Ray Audette, because he is certainly not a threat to human existance on this planet, and in general, his writings are quite excellent, but it seems that almost everyone in modern society, over the past century or so, has delighted in bashing agriculture, over the issue of destruction of habitat, and soil loss. They all do this of course, with a full tummy, thanks to the benefits of abundant and cheap food, which is available solely because of the dedicated efforts of production agriculture, Sure, you and I might be able to survive if agriculture were non-existent, but what about the other six and a half billion people on this planet?
There's no doubt that agriculture has been responsible for significant losses of habitat and topsoil, especially in the distant past, before good soil conservation techniques were learned. However, in defense of production agriculture, I'd like to point out that all the topsoil loss from the mountaintops, and hillsides cannot be blamed on agriculture. If you will go to the wildest and most remote wilderness areas, which are not utilized by agriculture, (not even for grazing domestic livestock), you will find that the mountaintops and hilllsides are generally composed of very poor soill, and most of the topsoil is down in the valleys, where it was carried by the natural forces of nature, as the surface of this planet was being formed by wind, water, and sun, (together with the effects of whatever indigenous wild animals have frequented the area, throughout their tenure), eons ago, waaaaaaaaaaaaay before Homo sapiens ever set foot on this planet. It's just the way that nature works--everything goes downhill, simply because of the effects of gravity.
Also, in order to be realistic, (which all the anti-agriculture "experts" never seem to be), regarding the loss of habitat, to allow for crops to be grown--if that habitat had been allowed to remain, and grain production was thereby preempted, there is no way that we would be here today, discussing this, because we would never have been born. That habitat will only support a very limited population of Homo sapiens in the long run, since they are at the top of the food chain, (consider how much territory is required just to support a single brown bear, for example, (which is also at the top of the food chain).
The world is so vastly overpopulated by humans today, that it is simply ludicrous to bash agriculture for it's efficiency in feeding that huge population. If we tried to step backward in time, by reversing the production efficiency of modern agriculture, how would we rationalize the removal of billions of people, who could no longer be fed, in order to attain a "sustainable" condition of equilibrium in the ecology of this planet.
A few of us can enjoy a paleo lifestyle, but the sad fact of the matter is that there is no way that this planet can support anywhere near the current population, in that fashion. Probably, about 80 to 90% of the world's population would have to be "removed", if everyone chose to live a paleo lifestyle, today.
Let's hope that paleo living doesn't ever become the recommended choice that is promoted by USDA, and CDC. LOL.
Love,
Wayne
Not to bash Ray Audette, because he is certainly not a threat to human existance on this planet, and in general, his writings are quite excellent, but it seems that almost everyone in modern society, over the past century or so, has delighted in bashing agriculture, over the issue of destruction of habitat, and soil loss. They all do this of course, with a full tummy, thanks to the benefits of abundant and cheap food, which is available solely because of the dedicated efforts of production agriculture, Sure, you and I might be able to survive if agriculture were non-existent, but what about the other six and a half billion people on this planet?
There's no doubt that agriculture has been responsible for significant losses of habitat and topsoil, especially in the distant past, before good soil conservation techniques were learned. However, in defense of production agriculture, I'd like to point out that all the topsoil loss from the mountaintops, and hillsides cannot be blamed on agriculture. If you will go to the wildest and most remote wilderness areas, which are not utilized by agriculture, (not even for grazing domestic livestock), you will find that the mountaintops and hilllsides are generally composed of very poor soill, and most of the topsoil is down in the valleys, where it was carried by the natural forces of nature, as the surface of this planet was being formed by wind, water, and sun, (together with the effects of whatever indigenous wild animals have frequented the area, throughout their tenure), eons ago, waaaaaaaaaaaaay before Homo sapiens ever set foot on this planet. It's just the way that nature works--everything goes downhill, simply because of the effects of gravity.
Also, in order to be realistic, (which all the anti-agriculture "experts" never seem to be), regarding the loss of habitat, to allow for crops to be grown--if that habitat had been allowed to remain, and grain production was thereby preempted, there is no way that we would be here today, discussing this, because we would never have been born. That habitat will only support a very limited population of Homo sapiens in the long run, since they are at the top of the food chain, (consider how much territory is required just to support a single brown bear, for example, (which is also at the top of the food chain).
The world is so vastly overpopulated by humans today, that it is simply ludicrous to bash agriculture for it's efficiency in feeding that huge population. If we tried to step backward in time, by reversing the production efficiency of modern agriculture, how would we rationalize the removal of billions of people, who could no longer be fed, in order to attain a "sustainable" condition of equilibrium in the ecology of this planet.
A few of us can enjoy a paleo lifestyle, but the sad fact of the matter is that there is no way that this planet can support anywhere near the current population, in that fashion. Probably, about 80 to 90% of the world's population would have to be "removed", if everyone chose to live a paleo lifestyle, today.
Let's hope that paleo living doesn't ever become the recommended choice that is promoted by USDA, and CDC. LOL.
Love,
Wayne
It is suspected that some of the hardest material known to science can be found in the skulls of GI specialists who insist that diet has nothing to do with the treatment of microscopic colitis.
Hi Wayne,
I hope I didn't give the impression that Audette bashes agriculture. I think he presents both sides, and he clearly states that if not for the advances in technology, transportation, farming, etc., in the past 100 years, we wouldn't even be able to enjoy the luxury of a paleo diet now. What I was trying to say was that, having been a vegetarian for so long, I was quite familar with all of the arguments in favor of agriculture.....and I had never considered any from the "other" side. So some of these concepts are new to me. I am just trying to stretch my brain a little to see another perspective.
Yes, I have read previously that a paleo diet could support no more than 1 billion of the world's current 6 plus billion souls. Agriculture IS necessary to support our present planetary population. That said, however, I do worry about the future sometimes - whether we will have enough food and water to support endless numbers of people. ( I have read that some experts question the ability of the earth to support more than 8 billion). It seems to me that there will be a point of no return - where the population will outstrip the advances in farming technology. I think water will become a major issue in our lifetimes, too.
Anyway, some of my very best friends are farmers! LOL!
Love,
Polly
I hope I didn't give the impression that Audette bashes agriculture. I think he presents both sides, and he clearly states that if not for the advances in technology, transportation, farming, etc., in the past 100 years, we wouldn't even be able to enjoy the luxury of a paleo diet now. What I was trying to say was that, having been a vegetarian for so long, I was quite familar with all of the arguments in favor of agriculture.....and I had never considered any from the "other" side. So some of these concepts are new to me. I am just trying to stretch my brain a little to see another perspective.
Yes, I have read previously that a paleo diet could support no more than 1 billion of the world's current 6 plus billion souls. Agriculture IS necessary to support our present planetary population. That said, however, I do worry about the future sometimes - whether we will have enough food and water to support endless numbers of people. ( I have read that some experts question the ability of the earth to support more than 8 billion). It seems to me that there will be a point of no return - where the population will outstrip the advances in farming technology. I think water will become a major issue in our lifetimes, too.
Anyway, some of my very best friends are farmers! LOL!
Love,
Polly
Blessed are they who can laugh at themselves, for they shall never cease to be amused.
Polly,
No, you didn't give the wrong impression, I was just in the mood to whine about the fact that agriculture seems to be such a popular "whipping boy" these days. I apologize if I appeared to be bashing anyone in particular--I was just whining in general.
Wow! I must confess that I was guessing at the number of people that the earth could support without agriculture, and I evidently guessed right. One out of six and a half is 15%, (half way between the 10 and 20% that I guessed. LOL).
You know, I used to worry about the capacity of agriculture to feed the world, too. If you look at history, though, the "experts" have been predicting the demise of civilization probably ever since the stone club was invented.
Remember back in the early '70s when the experts predicted that we would run completely out of fossil fuels in, what was it? . . . 15 or 20 years? It's now over 30 years later, and we have discovered more new fuel reserves, than even existed, back then. Our oil supplies are growing, not diminishing, as technology allows us to find new sources, and improve production in existing fields.
Food producton was plagued by similar dire predictions back in those days, but technology always steps in and allows another order of magnitude of production increases. I've stopped worrying about it. If it happens, it will be waaaaaaaaaaaay down the road, and by then, we will probably be colonizing planets in other galaxies, and shipping food here from there--hopefully, much of it will be paleo type food. LOL.
Love,
Wayne
No, you didn't give the wrong impression, I was just in the mood to whine about the fact that agriculture seems to be such a popular "whipping boy" these days. I apologize if I appeared to be bashing anyone in particular--I was just whining in general.
Wow! I must confess that I was guessing at the number of people that the earth could support without agriculture, and I evidently guessed right. One out of six and a half is 15%, (half way between the 10 and 20% that I guessed. LOL).
You know, I used to worry about the capacity of agriculture to feed the world, too. If you look at history, though, the "experts" have been predicting the demise of civilization probably ever since the stone club was invented.
Remember back in the early '70s when the experts predicted that we would run completely out of fossil fuels in, what was it? . . . 15 or 20 years? It's now over 30 years later, and we have discovered more new fuel reserves, than even existed, back then. Our oil supplies are growing, not diminishing, as technology allows us to find new sources, and improve production in existing fields.
Food producton was plagued by similar dire predictions back in those days, but technology always steps in and allows another order of magnitude of production increases. I've stopped worrying about it. If it happens, it will be waaaaaaaaaaaay down the road, and by then, we will probably be colonizing planets in other galaxies, and shipping food here from there--hopefully, much of it will be paleo type food. LOL.
Love,
Wayne
It is suspected that some of the hardest material known to science can be found in the skulls of GI specialists who insist that diet has nothing to do with the treatment of microscopic colitis.
Morning, Alice and Polly,
I'm satisfied that there is still a lot of upside potential in ag production, since it's a technology based industry, and agriculture is very, very responsive to incentive. There hasn't been any real incentive to increase ag production in many years, and yet production keeps growing. Let the price of ag commodities rise to a profitable level, and stay there for a year or two, and you will see food surpluses you never dreamed of.
Unlike the oil industry, where production is limited, and prices regulated, by mutual agreement, farmers are driven to produce, it's just in their nature, and if they have the financial backing that they need to do so, they will always produce more than is needed.
Ag commodity prices are currently, (consistantly), lower than they were 25 or 30 years ago, and yet production costs have skyrocketed, in that period of time. Farmers have managed to stay in business, mostly by using chemicals, as a substitute for expensive hired labor, and by continually becoming more efficient--working more land, and using bigger equipment.
I think that you have hit the nail on the head when you mention water as a major problem. Water is already a big issue in Texas, with cities scrambling to buy into both above and below ground sources, as underground aquafers are depleted, due to the demands of escalating urban development. As the cities grab the water, and sign long term contracts, much irrigated farmland is being converted to dryland farming, (with much lower production potential), simply because the cities are willing to pay much more for the water than the price of ag commodities can justify.
Still, more efficient cultivars are being developed, which can maintain yields with less water, and farming techniques are continually improved, to make the most efficient use of water, (such as using chemicals to efficiently control weed competition). In the long run, though, I agree that water will probably be the limiting factor in future development, until technology perfects a way to desalinate sea water, at an economically efficient cost.
Who woulda thunk that a bottle of water would cost more than a beer? I don't know about other states, but in Texas, that is already close to reality, in places.
Love,
Wayne
I'm satisfied that there is still a lot of upside potential in ag production, since it's a technology based industry, and agriculture is very, very responsive to incentive. There hasn't been any real incentive to increase ag production in many years, and yet production keeps growing. Let the price of ag commodities rise to a profitable level, and stay there for a year or two, and you will see food surpluses you never dreamed of.
Unlike the oil industry, where production is limited, and prices regulated, by mutual agreement, farmers are driven to produce, it's just in their nature, and if they have the financial backing that they need to do so, they will always produce more than is needed.
Ag commodity prices are currently, (consistantly), lower than they were 25 or 30 years ago, and yet production costs have skyrocketed, in that period of time. Farmers have managed to stay in business, mostly by using chemicals, as a substitute for expensive hired labor, and by continually becoming more efficient--working more land, and using bigger equipment.
I think that you have hit the nail on the head when you mention water as a major problem. Water is already a big issue in Texas, with cities scrambling to buy into both above and below ground sources, as underground aquafers are depleted, due to the demands of escalating urban development. As the cities grab the water, and sign long term contracts, much irrigated farmland is being converted to dryland farming, (with much lower production potential), simply because the cities are willing to pay much more for the water than the price of ag commodities can justify.
Still, more efficient cultivars are being developed, which can maintain yields with less water, and farming techniques are continually improved, to make the most efficient use of water, (such as using chemicals to efficiently control weed competition). In the long run, though, I agree that water will probably be the limiting factor in future development, until technology perfects a way to desalinate sea water, at an economically efficient cost.
Who woulda thunk that a bottle of water would cost more than a beer? I don't know about other states, but in Texas, that is already close to reality, in places.
Love,
Wayne
It is suspected that some of the hardest material known to science can be found in the skulls of GI specialists who insist that diet has nothing to do with the treatment of microscopic colitis.