Paleo Diet and Paleolithic Diet Questions & Answers

Question

5

“By eating meat we share the responsibility of climate change, the destruction of our forests, and the poisoning of our air and water. The simple act of becoming a vegetarian will make a difference in the health of our planet.” ― Thich Nhat Hanh, The World We Have: A Buddhist Approach to Peace and Ecology

Any thoughts?

flag	asked Sep 11 at 23:11 Kath 51●1

2

Major religions, including Buddhism serve interests of agricultural empires, not individuals. I wouldn't follow their advice. – Eugene K Sep 12 at 6:12

4

He's a religious figure, not a scientist. His opinion is no more valid than mine. I disagree with him for the most part, and will ignore his advice. I spent 16+ years as a vegetarian, and I haven't undone the damage to my digestive system yet, after 1.5 years of paleo/primal diet. – NewEra Sep 12 at 17:05

Matt · Answer 1 · 2012-09-11 23:22:08Z UTC

15

Is eating the wild deer contributing to those ills and evils? Is eating a wild salmon or tuna? How about that grass-fed cow that is actually at worst carbon neutral? (Joel Salatin seems to think they sequester carbon even!) Nope, nope and nope.

How about wheat, soy or corn grown monoculture? That's definitely more destructive than wild or traditionally farmed foods.

answered Sep 11 at 23:22

Matt
36.4k●2●10●69

1

Can you give some evidence for cattle being carbon neural? Are you including methane (1 tonne of methane = 25 tonnes of carbon dioxide, in terms of warming potential). – Chappy Sep 12 at 13:36

Think about a grass-fed cow. Its only inputs are grass and water. Grass's inputs are just water, CO2 and sunlight. The cow in addition to growing also enriches the soil with manure, fixing even more carbon from the atmosphere. time.com/time/magazine/article/… – Matt Sep 12 at 13:54

1

If ruminant farts were an a real issue because of fermentation, thats a bit complex. I am pretty sure we cant just kill all the ruminant or vegetarian animals and call it ethics. Whether global warming is a periodic occurance, like ice ages, is an unknown. Is it something we should prevent? Nobody is a prophet. Guess maybe it depends on how hot or cold it is where you live, lol. Where I live, it could use a few more degrees. – Jamie Sep 12 at 14:16

2

Oh, the methane hobby horse... Methane does trap more heat than does carbon dioxide, but dissipates from the atmosphere after a decade whereas carbon dioxide takes thousands of years to dissipate. The level of methane in the atmosphere contributed by animal agriculture only increases proportionate to the increase in the number of ruminants relative to 10 years ago. This figure is about .05% annually. So the change is pretty marginal, particularly considering the overall trend toward stabilization in atmospheric methane levels of the past few decades. – Erik Sep 12 at 16:06

Art · Answer 2 · 2012-09-11 23:39:51Z UTC

8

Utter nonsense.....

answered Sep 11 at 23:39

Art
81●1

McKenzie · Answer 3 · 2012-09-12 00:22:32Z UTC

5

I think anyone who quotes that should read "The Vegetarian Myth"

answered Sep 12 at 0:22

McKenzie
1,046●1●3●13

nada · Answer 4 · 2012-09-12 00:47:25Z UTC

3

it's crap. one way to have an idea of how retarded a movement is is to observe how annoying its followers are.

answered Sep 12 at 0:47

nada
1,027●1●10

	I tried not to laugh, but failed. – MathGirl72 Sep 12 at 2:39
	AHEM (cough, cough). – hotlava Sep 12 at 14:48
	it's almost as if you want to say something.... – nada Sep 12 at 15:19

matthew · Answer 5 · 2012-09-12 00:02:32Z UTC

2

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=heWprUncqIw

answered Sep 12 at 0:02

matthew
313●1●7

Colin · Answer 6 · 2012-09-12 00:37:34Z UTC

2

B12 deficiency is not prevalent in Asia except in vegetarians. Ya probably not a good idea.

answered Sep 12 at 0:37

Colin
1,836●3●8

Dr. Mitchell J Morris PhD · Answer 7 · 2012-09-14 14:16:58Z UTC

I believe this quote is just a tool to push he author's political agenda.

Grass feeding livestock is actual GOOD for the environment. A lot of ecosystems developed along with the grazing ruminates and depend on them to survive. The american grass land has a huge caring capacity for wild buffalo. Too bad the were over hunted.

Don't take my word for it, grass feeding livestock is being used right now to reverse desertification in Zimbabwe.

http://www.new-ag.info/en/focus/focusItem.php?a=1775

Heidi · Answer 8 · 2012-09-11 23:49:16Z UTC

The difference it will make in the health of the planet is ill-health for it's inhabitants and ill-health for the soils that require animal and plants to coexist together.

This is a horribly simplistic and horribly wrong solution for our completely broken food system.

Asclepius · Answer 9 · 2012-09-14 08:23:51Z UTC

Veg*nism simply pushes the killing to where it can't be seen! There is still death and destruction with modern arable farming practices.

Go look at a farmed piece of monocropped land. It is a chemically cleansed monoculture (and that is at the height of growth prior to harvest). After the harvest the soil is exposed, eroded and leeched of nutrients which (in intensive Western farming) requires amonium nitrate fertiliser to redress. The toxins used to cleanse the land kill bug life and wash off (along with the soil) to kill aquatic life in the water cycle.

In contrast look at arable pasture. Biodiverse and rich in life. The animals are drought/flood tolerant (unlike crops). Larger animals with large fat stores can tolerate famine. If the weather turns nasty, animals can be herded to safer areas (unlike crops).

More interestingly animals can be used to restore the land - implemented as part of the life cycle and general health of the land.

Two examples of this can be found here:

http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F20616FE3C5A0C728CDDAC0894DD404482

and here:

http://challenge.bfi.org/node/2104

Here is a recommended reading list that shows how animals can be used as part of your food cycle:

"Meat a Benign Extravagance" by Simon Fairlie
"We Want Real Food" by Graham Harvey
"So Shall We Reap" by Colin Tudge
"The Power of Duck" by Takao Furuno
"The Carbon Fields" by Graham Harvey*

*I've not read this one but have read his blog.

meta · Answer 10 · 2012-09-14 14:03:27Z UTC

1

It's a legitimate clarion call.

Modern consumption of meat is simply unsustainable - please spare me the "eating wild deer" nonsense. What proportion of paleo followers can do that?

Paleo is also about adapting to what is available from the environment.

There is a reason why humans are omnivores.

answered Sep 14 at 14:03

meta

Industrialized beef production is the problem here, there are better ways of producing meat, pork and poultry – Alvaro Sep 14 at 14:27

Jamie · Answer 11 · 2012-09-12 03:27:59Z UTC

0

My thought is that the dalai lama is a better buddhist.

answered Sep 12 at 3:27

Jamie
5,897●1●3●17

Word. “If science proves some belief of Buddhism wrong, then Buddhism will have to change." So when we prove that eating meat is better for us and the world, the Dalai Lama will sit down to enjoy a steak with the rest of us. – Varelse Sep 12 at 3:40

2

@Luckie, he already would! chow.com/food-news/2820/… – Chappy Sep 12 at 13:39

Whoa, Chappy, that is cool! I did not know that! – Varelse Sep 12 at 15:37

Chappy · Answer 12 · 2012-09-12 13:44:21Z UTC

This is a difficult one for me. On the one hand food production in a Paleo world would be much more sustainable than our current intensive agriculture, in terms of pollution, climate change and resource management. But I very much doubt it could feed nearly as many people.

Say what you like about grains, but they do produce vastly more calories per acre than meat. If the world switched to a Paleo-style diet overnight, I guess we would be eating a lot of potatoes.

mindmt · Answer 13 · 2012-09-12 15:34:01Z UTC

Buddhists are stuck in their own mantra. The Buddha would not have made such an ignorant statement!

For what it's worth, compare with the traditional daoist viewpoint - that we are inhabited by three "worms" that feed on the putrefaction caused by consuming the "five grains". Paleo isn't new!

Lierre Keith is the go to girl if you are looking for answers to the sustainability dilemma. Send her book to Thich Nhat Hanh!

Waste/desert lands are elegantly recovered by raising cattle - not by crop "rotation"!

Grrrrr!

Alvaro · Answer 14 · 2012-09-14 21:28:51Z UTC

0

I think we should ban industrialized farming in general, not only because of how detrimental it is to the health of nature, but because it's inhumane.

Turning to vegetarianism, wouldn't change anything, ecologically wise.

edited Sep 14 at 21:28

answered Sep 14 at 14:24

Alvaro
3,385●5●16

What do you think of this quote in relation to paleo?

14 Answers