Greetings astute traveller, this website now exists for historical reasons.

Much has been learned since 2006. I urge you to keep exploring the evolution of information through other websites.

Author Topic: The Environmentalist's Dilemma  (Read 9793 times)

Offline Lone_woLf

  • Cub
  • *
  • Posts: 38
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
    • GOING SANE
The Environmentalist's Dilemma
« on: January 05, 2009, 04:04:41 PM »
Environmental groups urge people to eat a meat-free (preferably vegan) diet. This is because it saves resources such as energy, fresh water, and land that could grow more human food or land that could revert back to or remain wild land.

But when you take a longer view, agriculture caused all of these problems. So it follows that more agriculture is not the solution, but rather more of the same.

How does one live the paleolithic diet while being environmentally friendly? --And still being part of modern society. Is such a thing even possible? Does one do for the planet, or do they do for themselves and theirs?

Of course environmentally palatable options exist, but they seem to only be available and affordable to a dwindling number. How does it rest on the soul to know that you can eat basic foods for optimum health when others are stuck with a grain-based diet and nutritional deficiencies ?
Our deepest fear is not that we are inadequate. Our deepest fear is that we are powerful beyond measure. It is our light, not our darkness, that most frightens us. We ask ourselves, who am I to be brilliant, gorgeous, talented, fabulous? Actually, who are you not to be? You are a child of God. Your playing small doesn’t serve the world. There’s nothing enlightened about shrinking so that other people won’t feel insecure around you. We are all meant to shine, as children do. We were born to make manifest the glory of God that is within us. It’s not just in some of us; it’s in everyone. And as we let our own light shine, we unconsciously give other people permission to do the same. As we’re liberated from our own fear, our presence automatically liberates others.

--Marianne Williamson

Offline Matt Emery

  • Administrator
  • Tribal Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 1601
  • Karma: +6/-0
    • View Profile
    • Caveman Power
Re: The Environmentalist's Dilemma
« Reply #1 on: January 14, 2009, 06:46:47 PM »
Quote
But when you take a longer view, agriculture caused all of these problems. So it follows that more agriculture is not the solution, but rather more of the same.
With planet earth being so overpopulated, I'm not sure there is a solution.  Normally a species would regress, although we haven't hit that point yet, but who knows... maybe science will prevent it all together.
"Be true to your biology"

Offline Scott

  • Cub
  • *
  • Posts: 10
  • Karma: +1/-0
  • Hurry to meet Death before your place is taken!
    • View Profile
Re: The Environmentalist's Dilemma
« Reply #2 on: January 26, 2009, 07:02:00 PM »
One thing Environmentalist fail to see is that you're not really destroying the earth, only nature herself can accomplish that. No you only destroy yourself, mother nature has responses to actions we take, we mess our eco system up, she inturn fixes it, nature has no emotion therefore it would not matter one tiny bit if the human race became extinct all together, with growing populations a few things will happen, we will either be leveled off by disease and hunger, poison ourselves to death, or the earth itself will do its thing storms, climate change, eruptions, Ice Age you name it and eliminate the Roach's of the earth, the only species who actually takes out of the earth rather than live off of it. Us. Few will survive if any but that's how it goes, adapt and live in harmony with her or have you head bitten off and die out.

Some things you can do are as followed, managed hunts, raise your own meat in a better way, the biggest problem here is Human population critical mass will be reached soon enough, it will fix itself one way or another, all you really have to decide is, am I going to be a sheep or a wolf when that time comes.

Regardless of what some Environmentalist spout were Omnivores, and I am not bashing Environmentalist I'm the first one to hold natures hand and befriend her, going off the deep end with overkill and overuse of everything like were doing now makes no sense, so to does it make on sense to revert to the other deep and far off path of not using, eating, etc. at all or going against our nature by becoming vegan, that is in the opposite of this, no there has to be balance and a perfect one at that. Just because nature made us to be able to eat anything for survival does not mean there should be a preference, no a mixture of both is ideal and natural. If you go off either deep end your hurting nature's perfect natural balance plain and simple.

Plants are what we ate to hold us over to get the energy  we needed to catch and to eat fish and other animals during the spring and summer, and meat is what we ate to hold us over until the spring came back with it's plants. In a Natural tribal society at least in Northern hemisphere peoples such as Europeans, Laplander's, Eskimos etc. these people would starve to death if they picked one over the other.

But even in tropical climates meat eating is just as big as it is in the Colder climates, meat also gave man for a better lack of words the proteins he needed to build a brain, yes there are proteins in some plants but not animals fats and these type of essential proteins.

As for Milks, Cheeses etc. Those are up in the air as far as I am concerned, though it might be said some bush man of old might have cased a wild animal down, killed it and suckled it after it was dead, but idk how common that is other then the few last African tribes, that mix the milk and blood together and drink it, though I wonder if Agriculture has cause a melting of the new and the old to form into this custom?
The All-Father wove the skein of your life a long time ago. Go and hide in a hole if you wish, but you won't live one instant longer. Your fate is fixed. Fear profits a man nothing.

Offline Tony Bondioli

  • Tribal Moderator
  • Warrior
  • *****
  • Posts: 461
  • Karma: +17/-1
  • Be strong in spirit & equal to our Fathers of old.
    • View Profile
Re: The Environmentalist's Dilemma
« Reply #3 on: February 02, 2009, 12:34:43 PM »
Excellent points, Scott.  I'm in complete agreement with you, with a possible exception regarding man's ability to destroy the planet.  Although I would like to think we don't--or will never--have that capability, it seems to me that we are headed in that direction.  Having reached the top of the food chain and developed the technology to, at the very least, completely change the natural order of life on Earth, it is now the responsibility of humankind to act as stewards of the planet.  A healthy, omnivorous diet can and should certainly be a part of that.
RN, B.Sc. Health Promotion and Wellness. Public Health Nurse serving a Great Lakes Native American tribe. Husband and father. Lousy at cards, but with a fair singing voice. Good to have around when the excrement hits the rotating cooling apparatus.

"I worshipped dead men for their strength, forgetting I was strong."  (Vita Sackville-West)

“I'm not a prophet or a stone aged man, just a mortal with the potential of a superman. I'm living on.”  (David Bowie)

"Man fears the beast within the wolf, because he does not understand the beast within himself."  (Turtle Island Alphabet)

"Seek not only to follow in the footsteps of the men of old; seek the things they sought."  (Basho)

"[Primal man] is of the soil... he fits into the landscape, for the hand that fashioned the continent also fashioned the man for his surroundings."  (paraphrasing Luther Standing Bear)

Offline taimenz

  • Scout
  • **
  • Posts: 61
  • Karma: +2/-0
    • View Profile
Re: The Environmentalist's Dilemma
« Reply #4 on: March 05, 2009, 06:12:34 AM »
i feel your pain alot.  im an executive chef in a seasonal town so we shut down three months a year.  all spring summer and fall i spearfish.  fall and winter duck and deer hunt.  i hardly buy meat for personal consumption all year.  of course im always tasting things while im working but i would say 85% of my protein is wild that has been gathered by me and my friends.  right now my fish stock is starting to get low in the freezer.  the only other thing i would like to get into is possibly raising some chickens so i don't have to buy eggs. the only problem is if everyone started doing this there wouldn't be enough substance so we really are in a situation. hopefully people will become more responsible in there breeding.  i will be getting married this winter coming up and actually feel bad about having children. i really only want to limit it to one just to pass along what i am. the biggest problem is looking around at the people who have 4 and 5 kids are alot of times in my opinion the ones that shouldn't be contributing to our gene pool mainly because there the ones not contributing to society in a productive way.
The spirit of wilderness, born into those who seek the quiet placs in the temples of creation, unencumbered by the shackles and comforts of society, is the only reality.  Man becomes real, fulfilling his destiny, nourishing his soul, and touching the Creator with every step. Tom Brown Jr.

Offline mrmartin1121

  • Cub
  • *
  • Posts: 25
  • Karma: +2/-0
    • View Profile
Re: The Environmentalist's Dilemma
« Reply #5 on: March 06, 2009, 01:45:25 PM »
i am also getting married this coming may, and i dont feel bad at all about wanting to have 4-5 children with my beautiful wife. we are both responsible adults and are well aware of the responsibilities that come along with that. but i do feel the same way when i hear about women that are already living off the government popping out more children each year. primarly for this reason, we are headed in a downward spiral. if i do feel bad about anything, it would be bringing children into a world that is headed "no where". theres not one answer that will fix our enviroment. and we will definately NOT be able to undo the destruction we have caused over night. there are too many ignorant people in this country alone (North America), much less the world, that prevent us from banning together and taking an active approach towards enviromental restoration. now on the other hand, there are many people that are doing just that, but my belief is that the bad is out-weighing the good, by far.

Offline Clara

  • Cub
  • *
  • Posts: 1
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: The Environmentalist's Dilemma
« Reply #6 on: February 19, 2010, 10:13:58 AM »
@Scott: Remember, cows aren't the only ones who produce milk. Human women do, too.

Offline Alex Good

  • Hunter
  • ***
  • Posts: 102
  • Karma: +1/-1
    • View Profile
Re: The Environmentalist's Dilemma
« Reply #7 on: March 02, 2011, 10:13:19 PM »
 If a huge storm hit japan and china then the world's population would be under control again. Not that I hate the chinese, there are just way too many of them.

Offline monajani

  • Cub
  • *
  • Posts: 1
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: The Environmentalist's Dilemma
« Reply #8 on: August 28, 2013, 03:46:35 AM »
its seems a nice forum
great discussion


thanks for sharing
pass4sure 640-461    *Link Removed*
Testking 000-105 braindumps    *Link Removed*
Testking icnd certification braindumps    *Link Removed*
Testking 642-165 braindumps    *Link Removed*