Do not buy Coconuts!

[sabertooth]

How do you possibly know what the total environmental impact of your food consumption is comparatively speaking? Mostly must mean that you indeed do eat other cultivated foods regularly as well? The fruit you eat could be picked by disadvantaged migrants and the wild game could be killed by despotic poachers.

I personally don't like using the term superfood to describe coconut....... none of the so called superfoods like goji berries, bee pollen, avocados, or some other hyped food have ever made up 20 percent indigenous peoples diet. You typically cannot make a staple out of these foods ...but there are people who eat up to 20 percent from their calories from coconuts as a staple and are very healthy.

I think you are missing my point.... I am not saying that coconut is the only way to be able to balance a fished based or other meat based diets, I am saying it is one of many ways.

The Japanese eat lots of seaweed, other strange vegetables, and fermented foods which help balance their fish intake. The icelandic fishermen tribes must also have had other foodstuffs which helped balanced their diets. While islanders use coconuts as a staple to balance out their fish intake.

Much of what people use for food staples and become adapted to, depends heavily upon what foods are available. If coconut wasnt available then perhaps my body would seek out some other food staple to fulfill its requirements. I never said that coconuts where essential, only that they have nutritional properties which seem to be synergetic with a high animal fat and protein based diet.

Perhaps if I were to learn more about foraging in the woods of Kentucky I could find some roots and tubers to chew on that would provide what my body gets from eating coconut, but since I live as a man in the city with a job and responsibilities, its impossible for me to take the time to seek out a wilderness guide and relearn all the lost ancient knowledge of how to subsist eating entirely from ones ecosystem. I'm not denying that it would be ideal if we could all do this, and it would help bring humanity back into balance with mother earth, its just that I dont see how this could be feasibly done considering that the majority of humans prefer the convenience of not having to do a damn thing with food gathering outside of the supermarket environment. People in general much rather like buying superfoods from supermarkets sold to them in a package with FDA nutrition factoids and a brand name on the label.

As un paleo as this reality is, I doubt that there is anyone here right now who does live entirely on the foods produced within their local 100 mile range? Nor does any of us completely avoid eating foods harvested by exploited laborers, or in some cases monkeys?

[TylerDurden]

How do you possibly know what the total environmental impact of your food consumption is comparatively speaking? Mostly must mean that you indeed do eat other cultivated foods regularly as well? The fruit you eat could be picked by disadvantaged migrants and the wild game could be killed by despotic poachers.

I know, for a fact, that my raw wild game I buy  is sourced from legitimate, licenced hunters. The fruit may be mostly picked by foreigners in southern Europe, no migrants though involved.

I personally don't like using the term superfood to describe coconut....... none of the so called superfoods like goji berries, bee pollen, avocados, or some other hyped food have ever made up 20 percent indigenous peoples diet. You typically cannot make a staple out of these foods ...but there are people who eat up to 20 percent from their calories from coconuts as a staple and are very healthy.

I dispute that. All these so-called "superfoods" do not provide any magical health benefit of themselves.

 As regards coconuts, obviously since other people such as the Japanese etc. have used other laternatives, then coconut is not necessarily useful for health.

As un paleo as this reality is, I doubt that there is anyone here right now who does live entirely on the foods produced within their local 100 mile range? Nor does any of us completely avoid eating foods harvested by exploited laborers, or in some cases monkeys?

I certainly do NOT, and I am sure many others do not  do so, either. Incidentally, what on earth has exploited laborers got to do with benefitting or harming the environment? Nothing, nothing whatsoever!

As regards palaeo practices, I have already pointed out many times in the past that the further we get away from Nature(ie "palaeo practices"), the more we suffer, so it is in our interests to be as palaeo as possible. Granted, not all of us can achieve that, but why bother selecting fruit from as far away as possible simply in order to follow a silly health-fad?

[cherimoya_kid]

It's working for him, Geoff. Fixing people's health is more of an immediate concern than avoiding exploiting animals or underprivileged people. Health first, hmm?

[jessica]

lol cherimoya, its not so literal that the shrimp eat the coconut, but you create a habitat that sustains both coconuts and shrimps and crabs and whatever else, some of what is in the system does not directly feed you, it feeds the shrimp, shrimps shit feeds the coconuts tree, and probably their own food supply etcetc....you just mimic nature.

[TylerDurden]

It's working for him, Geoff. Fixing people's health is more of an immediate concern than avoiding exploiting animals or underprivileged people. Health first, hmm?

1 human's health is of no importance. You are basically stating Louis XV's famous quotation:-""Après moi, le déluge"(after me, the flood"). In other words, "who cares what happens if I destroy the environment? I will be dead by then  anyway!" Terribly limited a behaviour, imo!

[cherimoya_kid]

lol cherimoya, its not so literal that the shrimp eat the coconut, but you create a habitat that sustains both coconuts and shrimps and crabs and whatever else, some of what is in the system does not directly feed you, it feeds the shrimp, shrimps shit feeds the coconuts tree, and probably their own food supply etcetc....you just mimic nature.

Why do you think you're the only one who knows about permaculture, etc.? Rofl

The difficulty is trying to sustain everything so close to the coastline. The land is usually flat and sandy, so it's hard to make use of gravity. There are coconut crabs that you could feed coconut to and fatten them, then eat them yourself, sell the meat, and feed the meat to another food animal, maybe chickens. You'd just need to make sure your coconut crabs had a place to weather storms, because most of the tropics gets hurricanes.

But yeah, the coconut crab is the link in all that, for sure. Big hassle to set it all up, because beachfront property is expensive anywhere. You could do it a little ways inland, but then you've got to manually get replacement minerals to your trees. Hassle either way.

[cherimoya_kid]

1 human's health is of no importance. You are basically stating Louis XV's famous quotation:-""Après moi, le déluge"(after me, the flood"). In other words, "who cares what happens if I destroy the environment? I will be dead by then  anyway!" Terribly limited a behaviour, imo!

It's hard to convince people to protect someone ELSE when they are still sick themselves.

And you are making an assumption that technology will not save us soon. There is no evidence your assumption is correct, though.

[RogueFarmer]

Its also unnatural having grass fed animals in feed lots eating cut hay, but this is the state of affairs in the modern world of paleo dieting. There is no avoiding having cultivated foods.

Human life does center around humanity, and maintaining a world with 9 billion large brained supper apes requires a lot of resources, but I insist that coconut grooves if done properly have very little environmental impact, unlike the other monocrops. You are also able to grow coconuts in places where cattle can graze around the trees.

Small scale manageable plots of coconut trees sustainably harvested along the tropical coastland is a far less environmentally damaging prospect than you are making it out to be.

https://locavoredelmundo.wordpress.com/2011/09/18/coconuts-a-sustainable-agricultural-industry/

I agree except that anyone growing "grassfed" "finished" meat from animals raised primarily in feedlots isn't going to have a high margin of profit as a great deal of the gross will be consumed by the vast increase of expense feeding mechanically harvested and stored feeds. This kind of farmer is probably already a hay farmer and is using livestock to increase the value of his hay. The farmer who is serious about producing high quality grass finished animals is probably going to be raising the animals the majority of the time on quality pasture. In harsher colder environments, longer dormant seasons are greater compensated by higher quality forages during longer days in what is often a longer growing season. However livestock can be raised on pasture forages year round in most climates. There is a purple cow association dedicated to instructing cattle growers how to finish the highest grade cattle on the highest grade organic pastures year round in almost any climate.

[RogueFarmer]

May I humbly suggest you stick to talking about crops you know? Coconuts are unique in their salt tolerance, which is why growing them next to the ocean is ideal. Also, when they have their roots washed by saltwater regularly through wave action, they are able to take up the mineral richness of the seawater and make a much more nutritious food than otherwise. I've seen it in action in Costa Rica.

Coconuts can grow far away from the ocean, they only require alkaline soil and a humid climate. Most palms are salt tolerant. This is probably because when palms originated there was not the high organic matter level in the soil, the soils were much newer formed and much of the world was covered in shallow seas. Most of the soil probably Was salty.

Besides that, organic produce, crops and forages grown on healthy soils, can tolerate and even greatly benefit from salt including seawater and mined from ancient sea beds as well as derivatives of seawater which may contain little sodium chloride. Salt can increase yield in for ages as well as quality and increase overall health and rate of gain on livestock raised on these forages.

Coconuts can be planted in bunches and distributed to provide shade that benefits pasture growth and livestock comfort meaning livestock gains. Without producing so much shade it outcompetes grass, coconut roots penetrate deeper than the majority of the grasses roots, coexisting beneficiary. It is one of many tree crops that can be incorporated into livestock systepms and one of a few not generally consumed by livestock, though if processed can be fed to any manner of livestock to their benefit.

Coconuts I believe are the best source of medium chain fatty acids that are anti viral and antibacterial and the only other good source I know of is milk which is intolerable to some people. They are a clean source of water. I would wager coconuts save fat more human lives than the average vegetative food.

[RogueFarmer]

Chickens, pigs and other livestock raised on coconut will have healthy fat with similar anti microbial properties as coconuts.

[sabertooth]

I know, for a fact, that my raw wild game I buy  is sourced from legitimate, licenced hunters. The fruit may be mostly picked by foreigners in southern Europe, no migrants though involved. I dispute that. All these so-called "superfoods" do not provide any magical health benefit of themselves.

 As regards coconuts, obviously since other people such as the Japanese etc. have used other laternatives, then coconut is not necessarily useful for health.

 I certainly do NOT, and I am sure many others do not  do so, either. Incidentally, what on earth has exploited laborers got to do with benefitting or harming the environment? Nothing, nothing whatsoever!

As regards palaeo practices, I have already pointed out many times in the past that the further we get away from Nature(ie "palaeo practices"), the more we suffer, so it is in our interests to be as palaeo as possible. Granted, not all of us can achieve that, but why bother selecting fruit from as far away as possible simply in order to follow a silly health-fad?

If you don't mind me asking, How much does your legitimate licensed wild shot environmentally friendly meat cost you?

It just seems a bit hypocritical for someone to pay for the right to eat more ethically than thou. Just because somebody bought a government licences and sells the meat on the open market does not mean that what they do is any better than what a poverty stricken poacher does in the black market. These distinctions are completely man made.

I insist that we are in agreement regarding the fact that there are no superfoods which possess magical properties which are universally proven. Yet for certain individuals certain foods can and do work miracles, though usually there are other supportive factors. For me as an individual coconut is such a food, I did not go out of my way to choose it because of some fad, I eat it because it was something I could tolerate and it made me feel good to eat. Its technically a seed and not a fruit, and it has properties which are very unique, and though they may not be universally miraculous they can be beneficial, especially for individuals like myself who couldn't tolerate higher glycemic fruits.

I respectfully will disagree with you on your values regarding holding the environmental wellbeing, over the wellbeing of the average human being. The malthusian point of view that whats best for earth and whats best of its people are eternally irreconcilable is one that I think lacks love, vision and faith not only in humankind, but in mother earth who created us.

The problems which you Identify with some inherent flaw in human nature, is actually a systems error which could be corrected if the mental and physical effort and ingenuity was put into doing so. These systems of mono culture and money slavery are indeed devastating not only to the environment of earth but to the spirit of humanity. following occam's principle, the simplest solution would be to get rid of the humans, but that just isn't an option for people who cherish the complications of existence and hold on to the ideal that we are indeed capable of further growth and evolution which will more than compensate for all the past damage done.

The hope I hold is for enough people to join together from the grassroots and adopt more sustainable ways of living and consciously try to be kinder to the environment. Even if it won't stop the swarm of mad materialistic super food craving monkeys from their path of mutually assured destruction, it may slow the depletion of the environment just enough to give us the time needed for the solutions to evolve in response to the problems as they arise.

There is no absolute salvation for earth or humanity, the only salvation we can ever experience is within present life as it now exist on earth. Its easy to postulate about leaving the world better for our grandchildren, and the earth creatures to inherit, but the truth is if we do not put the wellbeing and health of our present day human mind, body, and spirit first, then what are we truly working to save the planet for?   

[sabertooth]

Chickens, pigs and other livestock raised on coconut will have healthy fat with similar anti microbial properties as coconuts.

I throw the slightly sour coconuts I sometimes get to my chickens and bunnies and they absolutely love it.

[jessica]

Why do you think you're the only one who knows about permaculture, etc.? Rofl
 

uh.  i was just giving an example to help clarify how what i mentioned might work to produce plant and animal/crustacean food, i only added further explanation because it seemed necessary.

[jessica]

Permaculture as a movement is based on the implicit assumption that technology will not save us in the near future, and I do not share that belief.

how is permaculture NOT technology?  how are living systems created in nature not the most complex technology man has ever known?  we cant even scratch the surface of their complexity. 

the technology man "creates" is based out of some egoic need to be responsible for "life" and to be able to be literal in translation or obscure manipulation of the knowledge of nature.  its really absurd that we hold this above actually just participating in the ridiculous miracle that life is. 

[JeuneKoq]

Goji berries are also another so-called "superfood" as is bee pollen etc. I do not know why you are so enthusiastic at the ability of big corporations to brainwash people into buying their useless products.

I was being sarcastic.

[cherimoya_kid]

Coconuts can grow far away from the ocean, they only require alkaline soil and a humid climate. Most palms are salt tolerant. This is probably because when palms originated there was not the high organic matter level in the soil, the soils were much newer formed and much of the world was covered in shallow seas. Most of the soil probably Was salty.

Besides that, organic produce, crops and forages grown on healthy soils, can tolerate and even greatly benefit from salt including seawater and mined from ancient sea beds as well as derivatives of seawater which may contain little sodium chloride. Salt can increase yield in for ages as well as quality and increase overall health and rate of gain on livestock raised on these forages.

Coconuts can be planted in bunches and distributed to provide shade that benefits pasture growth and livestock comfort meaning livestock gains. Without producing so much shade it outcompetes grass, coconut roots penetrate deeper than the majority of the grasses roots, coexisting beneficiary. It is one of many tree crops that can be incorporated into livestock systepms and one of a few not generally consumed by livestock, though if processed can be fed to any manner of livestock to their benefit.

Coconuts I believe are the best source of medium chain fatty acids that are anti viral and antibacterial and the only other good source I know of is milk which is intolerable to some people. They are a clean source of water. I would wager coconuts save fat more human lives than the average vegetative food.

Let's get our facts straight. Sodium prevents calcium uptake, and calcium is the most important macro-mineral for most plants. Coconuts tolerate salt very well, but they are pretty unique in that.

[cherimoya_kid]

how is permaculture NOT technology?  how are living systems created in nature not the most complex technology man has ever known?  we cant even scratch the surface of their complexity. 

the technology man "creates" is based out of some egoic need to be responsible for "life" and to be able to be literal in translation or obscure manipulation of the knowledge of nature.  its really absurd that we hold this above actually just participating in the ridiculous miracle that life is. 

So which tech articles are you reading? None, you say? Then how can you dismiss human technology out of hand? That's like saying that a baby will never learn to walk because he couldn't walk at birth, or a seed will never become a tree with leaves because it doesn't have leaves now.
 
Farming doesn't teach you about the ultimate potential of human technology. It teaches you about farming. The scale and scope of human technological progress cannot be so easily understood by an organic farmer cursing the follies of Monsanto and Big Ag. You would need to do a lot more research and read hundreds or thousands of articles to get a sense of it.

[cherimoya_kid]

I throw the slightly sour coconuts I sometimes get to my chickens and bunnies and they absolutely love it.

Chickens love coconut. I've fed it to them out of my hand.

[TylerDurden]

 

I was being sarcastic.

Sorry    This is what happens when one is under the influence.  I am giving up my one main anti-RPD vice for many months  as of today.

[TylerDurden]

If you don't mind me asking, How much does your legitimate licensed wild shot environmentally friendly meat cost you?

On average c.14 euros a kilo, sometimes less sometimes more. I eat more than I should than most RPDers so usually spend more than I need. This will change soon, though.

It just seems a bit hypocritical for someone to pay for the right to eat more ethically than thou. Just because somebody bought a government licences and sells the meat on the open market does not mean that what they do is any better than what a poverty stricken poacher does in the black market. These distinctions are completely man made.

Not at all. The wild game I eat comes from wild deer etc. who would otherwise become pests and ruin the environment if they rose too high in numbers. Of course, it would be more environmental if wolves and other predators were introduced to kill the deer and the human population reduced. But poachers do not only kill for food, they also kill for trophies, such as the evil  Austrian woman who was caught recently having killed  a wild lynx.Poachers are  definitely anti-environment.At this stage, you will no doubt out yourself as a hardened poacher, I suppose?

I insist that we are in agreement regarding the fact that there are no superfoods which possess magical properties which are universally proven. Yet for certain individuals certain foods can and do work miracles, though usually there are other supportive factors. For me as an individual coconut is such a food, I did not go out of my way to choose it because of some fad, I eat it because it was something I could tolerate and it made me feel good to eat. Its technically a seed and not a fruit, and it has properties which are very unique, and though they may not be universally miraculous they can be beneficial, especially for individuals like myself who couldn't tolerate higher glycemic fruits.

That's fine. Each to his own needs, and we all need to do different RPD diets to see what works for us.

I respectfully will disagree with you on your values regarding holding the environmental wellbeing, over the wellbeing of the average human being. The malthusian point of view that whats best for earth and whats best of its people are eternally irreconcilable is one that I think lacks love, vision and faith not only in humankind, but in mother earth who created us.

No, I have faith in Mother Earth all right, but I am realistic as to what humans are capable of.

The problems which you Identify with some inherent flaw in human nature, is actually a systems error which could be corrected if the mental and physical effort and ingenuity was put into doing so. These systems of mono culture and money slavery are indeed devastating not only to the environment of earth but to the spirit of humanity. following occam's principle, the simplest solution would be to get rid of the humans, but that just isn't an option for people who cherish the complications of existence and hold on to the ideal that we are indeed capable of further growth and evolution which will more than compensate for all the past damage done.

Well, you certainly understand Occam's Razor! Why go for complicated solutions which have far less chance of success when something simple is a better solution. Imagine a world with only 500 million people of various ethnicities all living in a more palaeo way in tribes instead of urban jungles/zoos etc.?

The hope I hold is for enough people to join together from the grassroots and adopt more sustainable ways of living and consciously try to be kinder to the environment. Even if it won't stop the swarm of mad materialistic super food craving monkeys from their path of mutually assured destruction, it may slow the depletion of the environment just enough to give us the time needed for the solutions to evolve in response to the problems as they arise.

It is probably too late already for such a future change to make any difference.

There is no absolute salvation for earth or humanity, the only salvation we can ever experience is within present life as it now exist on earth. Its easy to postulate about leaving the world better for our grandchildren, and the earth creatures to inherit, but the truth is if we do not put the wellbeing and health of our present day human mind, body, and spirit first, then what are we truly working to save the planet for?   

By helping other species not just our particular one, we are  helping the Universe and Mother Nature and thus indirectly enriching ourselves. It all has to do with the laws of scarcity:- the more humans there are, the less an individual human's life is worth, the fewer humans there are, the more an individual's life is worth.

[TylerDurden]

Look how nature rebounds when humans disappear from an area:-

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3260583/Chernobyl-wildlife-PARADISE-Wolves-lynx-elk-boar-thrived-humans-abandoned-nuclear-disaster-zone.html

[sabertooth]

I would agree to great degree with you on the bulk of your point of view, except the for when it comes to the laws of scarcity, which i see are not absolute and are variable depending on the level of inequity within a particular system( be it our human  socioeconomic systems or the environmental ecosystem as a whole.

I point out the fact that the average working man or woman who has to feed themselves as well as provide for offspring, even if they have an average working class income in a developed nation, will still find it extremely difficult to pay 14 dollars per kilo for quality paleo meat, nor would they be able to participate in the kind of local permacultural revolutions which would to a great degree remedy these systemic imbalances in the way food is produced and distributed. The field workers whom pick the produce and ranchers who raise pasture meat are often too poor themselves to even afford the foods which their labor produces, and are economically enslaved to a system of food distribution and production that leaves them with no alternative other than to buy from the likes of monsanto.

If economic conditions and education systems where truly a little more equitable then the people may have just enough control over their own food choices to invest in the kind of permacultural alternatives which would allow for the earth to much better feed the populations of the world without the kind of scarcity which is produced by the unsustainable methods currently being employed for the benefit of the billionaire class.

It is not the sheer number of people whom are to blame for diminishing the individual's worth, it is the inequity between the rich and the poor. In a world with only 500,000 million people, some malthusians think is ideal, it is very well likely that you would see a trillionaire class which pays an enforcer class and managment class of roughly a few million to keep the remaining population in a kind of neo feudal slavery. The power to cull the population is the same power that will be used to control the population. Much in the same way farmers have domesticated and enslaved animals( such as the monkey in chains) humanity as a whole will end up under such conditions. This may indeed be a way in which to keep the people from destroying the earth, but in the process of saving the world we would be asked to sacrifice our soul. Such a draconian deal in itself in no way would help to increase the self worth of the average person.

We have all been deluded by a systemic inequity into holding the most untrue rubbish as dogma. The men of science, academia, and media whores which propagate these notions of scarcity mentality, are well paid actors. People with 6 and 7 figure incomes, working for people with 8 and 9 figure incomes, who are owned by those with 10 figure plus, are given positions of authority, to dictate to the world population of people most of which live on 4 figure incomes or less, what is truth. The fact is that scarcity is a human invention, not caused by providing the people with what they truly need, but is instead a result of greed which results in the kind of inequity and imbalance within the system of resource distribution.

I agree that we must not be so self centered and there is a need to take actions toward preserving the vital balance of the ecosystems of the planet, though it is my view that we cannot begin to help other creatures and mother earth bring balance to the force, without first dealing with the inequity and ignorance within the human systems which are now running amok.

[TylerDurden]

Most people could afford 14 dollars per kilo as long as they did not overeat. I have managed to do well on far less in the past when I was much poorer. Granted, I would have to spend a little more time looking for good deals, such as raw wild hare carcasses at 13 pounds sterling a carcass(food enough for 3 days if I was not greedy). So, it is not an issue of poverty, but an issue of too many humans. Already, we are seeing vast swathes of pollution in the world's oceans and it is getting worse. If the world's poor  ever got  as rich as the first worlders, then they would destroy the environment at a much faster rate than ever before. So, the fewer humans, the better. Check that article on Czernobyl I just posted on this thread a little while ago, it shows how abundant wildlifge becomes , all that is needed is for humans to piss off from an area.

[RogueFarmer]

Let's get our facts straight. Sodium prevents calcium uptake, and calcium is the most important macro-mineral for most plants. Coconuts tolerate salt very well, but they are pretty unique in that.

It's the minerals present in seawater besides sodium chloride that is important to coconuts. Saltation is only an issue in soils with low carbon levels. There are dozens of salt products sold as soil amendments and some people even grow hydroponics in dilluted sea water. Pumping seawater hundreds of miles to land deprived of minerals will likely one day be common practice.

[cherimoya_kid]

It's the minerals present in seawater besides sodium chloride that is important to coconuts. Saltation is only an issue in soils with low carbon levels. There are dozens of salt products sold as soil amendments and some people even grow hydroponics in dilluted sea water. Pumping seawater hundreds of miles to land deprived of minerals will likely one day be common practice.

Do you have any studies or research on this?