What a poor false dichotomy. Most unsustainable farming is for feedstock/corn alcohol. You know what would feed more people? Wasting less food and spending less energy growing meat when you can grow a ton more vegetables for the same amount of energy.
It's not that hard to buy free-range meat. Meat shouldn't be such a large part of your diet that the cost floats to the top just by paying for reasonably decent living conditions for the animals you eat. It simply isn't healthy for a person to consume mostly meat.
Indeed. On top of that, we could stop shipping food around so much, grow crops intrinsically more suited for the local climate, grow food that is more nutritionally viable and therefore requires less land to feed the same amount of people.... Sustainability should be the name of the game, not instant gratification, pandering to limited tastes and maximizing visible aesthetic of the foods we need to SURVIVE. Not look at in awe and wonder but actually eat and survive.
Bravery and freedom changed meanings. Now they mean bravery to commit acts of violence and freedom to attempt to control the world. Who needs personal liberty when individuals are only interested in games and trivialities -- sports, music, TV, movies, politics, books, parties?
This is a very accurate description, I think. Similarly, human linguistics generally concerns itself only with mappings between symbolic concepts with no thought as to how those are truly internally represented nor how synthesis into external representation occurs. It is mighty strange watching spoken/written language pour out fully-formed without once grasping how the process occurs. Literacy is much the same between math and writing.
You would probably quite enjoy Noam Chomsky's latest work, The Science of Language. In it, he claims nothing is innate except the concept of Merge. Basically, it is only set theory and construction/deconstruction based upon that. Counting numbers is not innate; it is consequential of a certain kind of indoctrination. All humans can potentially do it, but it is not something inborn. Likewise, all humans can learn a spoken/written/signed language, but it is not inborn.
Where are you getting your information about this time frame? Every recent researcher I've read from says the deviation occurred around 50,000-60,000 years ago.
No, you merely have a lay understanding of nutrition. I can't help you there -- you have to help yourself. Here's one potential start if, for example, you want to learn how sugar (and therefore juice) is a distinct poison:
Great point. I like how the study apparently holds it to be self-evident that faster brain development is inherently beneficial. There is a tremendous amount of activity, especially development of language processing, that occurs during the infancy phase of humans. We cannot possibly have controlled studies to adequately gauge the overall effects of this -- for ethical reasons alone.
I honestly can't believe you truly think it's valid to study the few remaining "primitive" cultures and extrapolate that directly backward to our ancestors of fifty millennia ago. Self-consistent science is still junk science when there are many logical gaps missing.
You know, you cannot eat a diet consisting primarily of meat and generally consider it nutritionally-sound by default, either. Especially bottom-barrel factory-produced meat can have severe lack of nutrients.
Nice disingenuous use of the term "primary diet source." There is in fact no such belief that humans with incredible ability to discern plants ever evolved in a situation where meat was more than a "secondary diet source," whereas in the modern world, a typical human will eat meat every day, and almost as often, with every meal. Foraging is just as much part of human nature as hunting.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes. Hydroponics and aeroponics are viable replacements for soil growing.
What a poor false dichotomy. Most unsustainable farming is for feedstock/corn alcohol. You know what would feed more people? Wasting less food and spending less energy growing meat when you can grow a ton more vegetables for the same amount of energy.
It's not that hard to buy free-range meat. Meat shouldn't be such a large part of your diet that the cost floats to the top just by paying for reasonably decent living conditions for the animals you eat. It simply isn't healthy for a person to consume mostly meat.
Conventional farming is heavily subsidized by the federal government (our taxes.) Organic farming? Not so much.
It's an illusion. If they all voted for it, that illusion would be more shabby. There is no difference between the parties.
Aesthetics are more important than everything! That's what the industrial revolution taught us, right?
Indeed. On top of that, we could stop shipping food around so much, grow crops intrinsically more suited for the local climate, grow food that is more nutritionally viable and therefore requires less land to feed the same amount of people.... Sustainability should be the name of the game, not instant gratification, pandering to limited tastes and maximizing visible aesthetic of the foods we need to SURVIVE. Not look at in awe and wonder but actually eat and survive.
Bravery and freedom changed meanings. Now they mean bravery to commit acts of violence and freedom to attempt to control the world. Who needs personal liberty when individuals are only interested in games and trivialities -- sports, music, TV, movies, politics, books, parties?
This is a very accurate description, I think. Similarly, human linguistics generally concerns itself only with mappings between symbolic concepts with no thought as to how those are truly internally represented nor how synthesis into external representation occurs. It is mighty strange watching spoken/written language pour out fully-formed without once grasping how the process occurs. Literacy is much the same between math and writing.
Even in math, we don't necessarily limit ourselves to Euclidean space. For every X/Y/Z, there's also a theta/phi/rho.
You would probably quite enjoy Noam Chomsky's latest work, The Science of Language. In it, he claims nothing is innate except the concept of Merge. Basically, it is only set theory and construction/deconstruction based upon that. Counting numbers is not innate; it is consequential of a certain kind of indoctrination. All humans can potentially do it, but it is not something inborn. Likewise, all humans can learn a spoken/written/signed language, but it is not inborn.
-1 Completely misunderstanding the point of the article and comment.
Less overpopulation.
... and the prison system and law enforcement, subsidizing unsustainable agriculture, funding propaganda-research...
The United States winning any particular technological arms race benefits no one.
Where are you getting your information about this time frame? Every recent researcher I've read from says the deviation occurred around 50,000-60,000 years ago.
No, you merely have a lay understanding of nutrition. I can't help you there -- you have to help yourself. Here's one potential start if, for example, you want to learn how sugar (and therefore juice) is a distinct poison:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM
If you don't think Monsanto is also a terrorist organization, you clearly have no understanding of the current state of agriculture.
We absolutely co-evolved with cattle. Do you have some nutritional basis with which to reject milk as being a valid source of food for an adult?
Great point. I like how the study apparently holds it to be self-evident that faster brain development is inherently beneficial. There is a tremendous amount of activity, especially development of language processing, that occurs during the infancy phase of humans. We cannot possibly have controlled studies to adequately gauge the overall effects of this -- for ethical reasons alone.
I honestly can't believe you truly think it's valid to study the few remaining "primitive" cultures and extrapolate that directly backward to our ancestors of fifty millennia ago. Self-consistent science is still junk science when there are many logical gaps missing.
You know, you cannot eat a diet consisting primarily of meat and generally consider it nutritionally-sound by default, either. Especially bottom-barrel factory-produced meat can have severe lack of nutrients.
Apple juice is so nutritionally-devoid it's not even food -- it's sugar, a poison.
You are deluded into believing that 'science' (like this article) is any less whimsical. Seek deeper truth rather than indoctrination.
Nice disingenuous use of the term "primary diet source." There is in fact no such belief that humans with incredible ability to discern plants ever evolved in a situation where meat was more than a "secondary diet source," whereas in the modern world, a typical human will eat meat every day, and almost as often, with every meal. Foraging is just as much part of human nature as hunting.