My merge with Raw Paleo

[PaleoPhil]

as a green anarchist, i agree with tyler for the most part. but, the black bear killed in question is not really an endangered species. from what i can tell they're thriving in many places in the US. furthermore, it wasnt just killed for sport, it was killed for food. i don't see anything wrong with this particular incident, but tyler is on the money with his general spiel. we've gotta respect wild animals and the environment way more in order to survive as a species.

Yup. I agree with all that 100%. I am also a fairly radical environmentalist too (someone labeled me with the most extreme of Green environmentalist monikers, but I've forgotten it now) and get harassed quite a bit for not consuming as much crap like expensive cars and clothes as is expected in today's society and not throwing stuff out while it still has some use and value just because it's not "in fashion," but I see no problem with killing that black bear as long as it was eaten. As a matter of fact, given the current shortage of food and habitat for black bears in the US, and the fact that they're not anywhere near being endangered (as I recall, there are more black bears today than there were a century ago), it's actually a responsible thing to do. The fact that the hide will also be used is even better. We've got to return to using ALL parts of the animals. People should wear hides, furs, etc., more, not less like PETA wants--as long as the meat is also eaten and as long as the animals involved are not endangered. The problem occurs when animals are hunted or farmed for just their furs or just their livers, etc. The aim should always be to use as much of the animal as possible.

The HG lifestyle was the last reasonably sustainable lifestyle on earth. As the saying goes, "Begin with the end in mind." If humans are ever to live sustainably again they will need to move closer to that ancient HG way of life, probably incorporating a few ideas from the last 1% of human existence too, as even the HG lifestyle did result in the extermination of much of the megafauna. It may take 1000 years, but somehow humanity will have to return to something approximating the HG lifestyle, though it can never return to things exactly as they once were (for one thing, the mammoths are gone forever--unless they can be resurrected with DNA manipulation). There really is no choice, unfortunately. The agrarian lifestyle is just not sustainable and will destroy humanity if it continues indefinitely.

Is this an example of Paleo-re-enactment for the sake of re-enactment? No, it's an example of Paleo emulation for the sake of human survival, likely taking centuries to accomplish, if it's even possible. So it's not a utopian outlook, it's a pessimistic one, and unfortunately I think it's realistic. I'd be happy to hear easier alternatives, but all those I've heard so far are wildly overoptimistic, in my opinion. We are facing the catch 22 that the only way to live sustainably and healthfully for humans is to eat the flesh of animals (and some plants) and use their hides and bones as raw materials, while at the same time there are too many humans to feed and clothe with animal products.

1 mountain gorilla is worth 10 million human lives. So, on that basis, one shouldn't  be allowed to hunt and kill  1 mountain gorilla until 10 million human lives have been lost as a result of mountain gorillas killing them.

Good luck with that.     Fortunately, no one advocated in this thread killing mountain gorillas or any other endangered species.

[TylerDurden]

Good luck with that.     Fortunately, no one advocated in this thread killing mountain gorillas or any other endangered species.

The American black bear in North America numbers , at maximum estimate, 914,000. That means that 1 American black bear is worth c.450+  human lives(300 mill humans  for the US(?) , 26 for Canada and 140(?) for Mexico. Of course, black bears were in even greater numbers before humans moved in, and quite substantial until the modern era.

[livingthelife]

there are too many humans

We can reduce the population voluntarily (not likely to ever happen on a large scale due to human psychological structure) or it will be imposed on us eventually.

[yon yonson]

We can reduce the population voluntarily (not likely to ever happen on a large scale due to human psychological structure) or it will be imposed on us eventually.

those are two of the three options i can think of. the last one being that population will be reduced because the earth can not physically support this many people. in my opinion, we have already over shot the earth's human population threshold; what goes up must come down. i don't think we'll have any kind of choice (besides your option of voluntary reduction)

[livingthelife]

If your third option is that we will die back due to environmentally imposed factors, then that's only 2 options, which is what I meant: we can only cooperate or go down kicking and screaming (or shaking and wheezing in this case).

We are the only organisms who have learned to control procreation (yes, I know, goldfish and lemmings have biologically induced population-control mechanisms, but they are not consciously invoked.)

Voluntarily limiting procreation is counterpoised to individualism, which is why it won't take place on a large scale. Though voluntarily limiting reproduction is more common in developed nations where self-actualization is easier to achieve, there are so many many people for whom splitting (and I do mean that in the broadest sense) through reproduction is the only satisfying means of psychological integration available. The less resources there are, the more children there will be because existential anxiety will increase.

Children are desireable; when they are not, population will decline.

Genuinely accidental conceptions and imposed reproduction through violence are nearly insignificant factors in population growth.

This is why, IMO, union with god - not an earthly spouse - is the theme of all enlightening religions.

Have at me 

[William]

there are too many humans

I cannot agree. There are too many of the race of Man. Humans have never been numerous, IMO.

Population control is already successfully and involuntarily practiced in Canada; it was done by herding people off the land (which supports life (farms, traplines, Indian reservations etc.)) and into the stinking concrete jungles called cities.
City folk don't breed well, and never have.

[Raw Kyle]

The American black bear in North America numbers , at maximum estimate, 914,000. That means that 1 American black bear is worth c.450+  human lives(300 mill humans  for the US(?) , 26 for Canada and 140(?) for Mexico. Of course, black bears were in even greater numbers before humans moved in, and quite substantial until the modern era.

what do you mean worth so many human lives?

[yon yonson]

If your third option is that we will die back due to environmentally imposed factors, then that's only 2 options, which is what I meant: we can only cooperate or go down kicking and screaming (or shaking and wheezing in this case).

ah, i assumed you meant that the government would 'impose' population control. i was just trying to suggest that the environment itself will 'impose' control but i see that that's what you were getting at. we're on the same page now

[PaleoPhil]

I cannot agree. There are too many of the race of Man. Humans have never been numerous, IMO.

Heh, from the perspective of the San Bushmen ("the real people"), Cherokee ("the human beings"), etc. I suppose you're right. We moderners have a ways to go before we can earn that name again. At least the Kogi call us "Younger Brother" and they're trying to teach us, so there may be hope for us yet.

I don't advocate forced population control, but the irony of voluntary population control (and forced control put into effect by only SOME of the world's nations) is that those who choose not to engage in it will outpopulate those who do. For instance, the Islamic nations are currently growing at far faster rates than China (forced population control by one nation) and the West (voluntary population control). So there's no easy solution, in my view, unfortunately.

[livingthelife]

those who choose not to engage in it will outpopulate those who do

That won't concern anyone who has integrated his personality and lived fully, joyfully, and humbly without reproducing. His work is completed upon death. Nirvana / Moksha: release from rebirth

I mean rebirth in the real sense of having reproduced, not in the abstract (and to my thinking ridiculous) sense of coming back to life.

I think I'm derailing this person's journal!

Interesting discussion, though.

Namaste!

[TylerDurden]

what do you mean worth so many human lives?

I was pointing to Aspinall's claim that since we are the stewards of this planet we have an obligation to treat other (wild)species with respect and grant them sanctity of life like humans, more or less. Since as Kingsley Amis said "More means worse"(ie the greater the number the lower the quality/value), it follows that gorillas or lynxes or other species with lower numbers than humans have a greater corresponding value vis-avis the planet Earth than humans do.  Therefore, humans shouldn't kill such wild species unless the deaths inflicted on humans by the relevant species equals or exceeds the equivalent harm done by humans to that particular species. So, if a mountain gorilla is worth 10 million human lives(made by dividing the world human population by the total number of mountain gorillas in the wild) , mountain gorillas shouldn't be killed off by poachers etc. until 10 million human lives have been lost to marauding mountain gorillas.

[PaleoPhil]

So do you not eat any wild animal/sea foods, Tyler?

[TylerDurden]

So do you not eat any wild animal/sea foods, Tyler?

Touche. But, in my defence, I don't generally eat endangered wild animals. I mean, there must be many, many  millions of wild hares in the whole world, so that it's less of an issue, more a question of simple predation rather than killing off important species.  Same goes for raw oysters/mussels  which are in widespread abundance(even wild deer numbers are getting very large now). My take on this is that some key species,particularly the larger mammals at the top of the food-chain(eg:- wolves/bears/lions/great white sharks) are far more essential to the worldwide ecosystem than others so that they should be carefully spared. And, of course, since the vast majority of people eat only domesticated meats, I can just about get away with it as I'm in a tiny minority of wildgame-eaters and the practice is just about sustainable. Though, of course,the obvious solution is to massively reduce the numbers of humans. The only realistic way I can see that happening for it to be meaningful is for a massive war involving ABC-type weapons.

Also, I would like to see much, much larger national parks created in which human interference was minimal to nonexistent.

[William]

of course,the obvious solution is to massively reduce the numbers of humans. The only realistic way I can see that happening for it to be meaningful is for a massive war involving ABC-type weapons.

Also, I would like to see much, much larger national parks created in which human interference was minimal to nonexistent.

The overpopulation problem has been solved in Canada & U.S.A, and much of Europe where the previous dominant whites are being replaced. China is also urbanizing, so that will end it's problem. Agribusiness is being extended to the rest of the world by way of the imperialist wars in Iraq and I assume Afghanistan; the resultant poisoning (xeno-estrogens) will also reduce the need for war.
There's also the possibility that the current swine flu is part of a binary weapon intended to cull the unwanted.

National parks I have seen are really just tree farms. Monocultures. Sad, but greed has no limits.

[PaleoPhil]

Touche. But, in my defence, I don't generally eat endangered wild animals. ...

Nor do I, and the black bear is not endangered, so I think we are basically on the same page. Could it be that you are put off by the idea of eating "Smokey Bear," like the way some people will eat wild salmon, boar, deer or near-wild bison, but won't eat wild seal or whale species that are not endangered because of all the negative associations from Green Peace ads and the like, or certain taboo domestic animals (like dogs) that other cultures eat?

Unfortunately, I think increased future war and starvation is probably inevitable as the soils become increasingly depleted by monoculture agriculture (past soil depletions and exhaustions led to wars and empire collapses) and nations fight over increasingly scarce foods amidst a growing world population. The green revolution of chemical fertilizers, pesticides and bioengineering can only partially offset the soil depletion effects.

[TylerDurden]

Nor do I, and the black bear is not endangered, so I think we are basically on the same page. Could it be that you are put off by the idea of eating "Smokey Bear," like the way some people will eat wild salmon, boar, deer or near-wild bison, but won't eat wild seal or whale species that are not endangered because of all the negative associations from Green Peace ads and the like, or certain taboo domestic animals (like dogs) that other cultures eat?

Seals are generally universally endangered, as are, definitely, all whales. I suppose it's a matter of how one defines the term "endangered". My own stance would be to determine the numbers of wildlife present before the major whaling-hunts began(c.200-300? years ago), and leave them at that level.

My main point is that the top-level carnivores/mammals, such as  wolves/bears/great whites/whales, are absolutely essential to the food-chain, far more so than most other species, so that killing those off harms the environment FAR more than any others. So, my krill-oil-usage is far, far less harmful than killing a bear etc.

As regards domesticated animals, that is another example of human abuse. I mean, in order to stop those domesticated animals from overpopulating, humans have to sterilise(castrate/spay) most of them(which is extremely inhumane), most such domesticated breeds are far more inbred(and therefore genetically-defective) than wild species and should therefore, mostly, be put down -plus they wipe out local wildlife. For my own part, I would forbid almost all domestication of animals as pets.

An additional reason for my not wanting to eat bear, is that they are at the pinnacle of the mammalian revolution. Not only are they one of the strongest mammals, butalso one of the more intelligent. I consider it conceivable that, in an alternate scenario/alien world, ursine creatures might have attained sentience instead of primates.

[PaleoPhil]

Seals are generally universally endangered, as are, definitely, all whales. I suppose it's a matter of how one defines the term "endangered". My own stance would be to determine the numbers of wildlife present before the major whaling-hunts began(c.200-300? years ago), and leave them at that level.

That is not the generally accepted term for endangered and was not what I meant by it. I think sustainable forms of hunting and management should be allowed as long as the populations continue to grow and are not considered endangered or threatened or even "near threatened," by the scientific criteria generally used, rather than by your historical criterion. So that's another thing we'll have to agree to disagree on I guess.

I think hunters should be educated to engage in ethical, sustainable hunting that uses as much of the animal as possible (so wolves should only be killed to control imbalances or avoid public backlash against them that might lead to vigilante killing of them, for example, since not much of wolves is of much use other than trophies and adornment) and does not threaten the survival of the hunted species, and trophy hunting should be discouraged. Do you consider it OK to hunt wild deer, water buffalo, whales, seal, and other large fauna when "ethical" forms of hunting are employed?

My main point is that the top-level carnivores/mammals, such as  wolves/bears/great whites/whales, are absolutely essential to the food-chain, far more so than most other species, so that killing those off harms the environment FAR more than any others. So, my krill-oil-usage is far, far less harmful than killing a bear etc.

Banning all hunting and management of the larger fauna is the equivalent of trying to circumvent the food chain and in the modern world can result in distortions, such as decimation of prey species in a given area, starvation, disease, etc., due to imbalances in animal populations. Most environmental and governmental organizations understand this. We agree that predators and large fauna should be preserved, we just apparently disagree on how to go about this. A blind, arbitrary ban on all hunting of all species of bears until they reach pre-modern levels (which they cannot, since there will be die-off from starvation and disease before then) seems unrealistic to me. If hunting is banned, then taxpayers will have to pay rangers to periodically cull the populations to keep them healthy. In this modern world, some form of wildlife management is unfortunately necessary.

For my own part, I would forbid almost all domestication of animals as pets.

In the long run I tend to agree with you, as domestication is a distortion of the environment with many negative consequences, but wouldn't such a measure would be impossible to enforce in our lifetimes and have very bad short-term unintended consequences? Do you favor a ban of all domestication of animals?

An additional reason for my not wanting to eat bear, is that they are at the pinnacle of the mammalian revolution. Not only are they one of the strongest mammals, butalso one of the more intelligent.

OK, thanks for sharing. I think we're getting to the core of why you oppose any bear hunting here, and it's an understandable motivation.

[William]

Judging from the posts on the Canadian firearms owners' forum, there are many who get a hunting license every year, and then when close enough to the to bear they throw rocks at it, instead of a bullet.
This is an attempt to teach bears to smarten up, be alert, and avoid Man.

I guess they agree with TD.

[cherimoya_kid]

Unfortunately, I think increased future war and starvation is probably inevitable as the soils become increasingly depleted by monoculture agriculture (past soil depletions and exhaustions led to wars and empire collapses) and nations fight over increasingly scarce foods amidst a growing world population. The green revolution of chemical fertilizers, pesticides and bioengineering can only partially offset the soil depletion effects.

That's not the case.  Using composted manure, seawater precipitate, natural calcium like bone meal or dolomite, and earthworm castings can do absolute miracles for pretty much any soil, in just a few months. Humans won't be starving to death, this I guarantee.  Our future wars will be over religion, most likely.

[William]

Our future wars will be over religion, most likely.

Nah. Money, as usual.

[TylerDurden]

That is not the generally accepted term for endangered and was not what I meant by it. I think sustainable forms of hunting and management should be allowed as long as the populations continue to grow and are not considered endangered or threatened or even "near threatened," by the scientific criteria generally used, rather than by your historical criterion. So that's another thing we'll have to agree to disagree on I guess.

The trouble is that "sustainable" is a very relative term, favouring only humans. Let's say we have a population of 12 billion in 200 years' time. At that stage humans would be so numerous, that "sustainable" as a term would involve keeping alive far fewer animals than today. Far better to limit human population and allow animal numbers to increase to million+ figures. I mean, many current animal species are so limited in numbers that severe inbreeding is occurring(eg:- cheetahs)

I think hunters should be educated to engage in ethical, sustainable hunting that uses as much of the animal as possible (so wolves should only be killed to control imbalances or avoid public backlash against them that might lead to vigilante killing of them, for example, since not much of wolves is of much use other than trophies and adornment) and does not threaten the survival of the hunted species, and trophy hunting should be discouraged. Do you consider it OK to hunt wild deer, water buffalo, whales, seal, and other large fauna when "ethical" forms of hunting are employed?

Only if they exist in the millions like deer.

Banning all hunting and management of the larger fauna is the equivalent of trying to circumvent the food chain and in the modern world can result in distortions, such as decimation of prey species in a given area, starvation, disease, etc., due to imbalances in animal populations. Most environmental and governmental organizations understand this. We agree that predators and large fauna should be preserved, we just apparently disagree on how to go about this. A blind, arbitrary ban on all hunting of all species of bears until they reach pre-modern levels (which they cannot, since there will be die-off from starvation and disease before then) seems unrealistic to me. If hunting is banned, then taxpayers will have to pay rangers to periodically cull the populations to keep them healthy. In this modern world, some form of wildlife management is unfortunately necessary.

This is not a good stance. It's precisely human intervention and management which has decimated the predators at the top of the food-chain thus wiping out or heavily distorting the food-chain. Far better to let Nature take its course as it's wiser than humans. And wildlife management would be unnnecessary if humans were willing to compromise by withdrawing from land better suited for wildlife etc.

In the long run I tend to agree with you, as domestication is a distortion of the environment with many negative consequences, but wouldn't such a measure would be impossible to enforce in our lifetimes and have very bad short-term unintended consequences? Do you favor a ban of all domestication of animals?

All except guide dogs and food-animals.

[/quote]

[PaleoPhil]

That's not the case.  Using composted manure, seawater precipitate, natural calcium like bone meal or dolomite, and earthworm castings can do absolute miracles for pretty much any soil, in just a few months. Humans won't be starving to death, this I guarantee.  Our future wars will be over religion, most likely.

Boy, I hope you're right. Even if the soil is saved, though, the world population is still increasing and is expected to go to 9 to 12 billion or higher. Plus, organic farming techniques have never been shown to produce as much as "green revolution" techniques that destroy the soil, as far as I know.

Only if they exist in the millions like deer.

So I guess wild salmon are off your list too, given that their numbers have been declining rapidly? I've been eating less of them due to increasing price anyway and am beginning to think we're approaching the point where it's not sustainable to keep eating them at this rate. It's too bad too, because they are a very healthy food and I feel great when I eat salmon.

This is not a good stance. It's precisely human intervention and management which has decimated the predators at the top of the food-chain thus wiping out or heavily distorting the food-chain. Far better to let Nature take its course as it's wiser than humans. And wildlife management would be unnnecessary if humans were willing to compromise by withdrawing from land better suited for wildlife etc.
All except guide dogs and food-animals.

Yeah, I know, but "if" doesn't do us any good in the real world. We're stuck with the unpleasant reality that we've so screwed up the planet that management is the only way to keep the remaining animals alive. Management in part involves protecting the remaining wild animals. We can't rely on the masses to not exterminate them, as they have done going all the way back to H. erectus 1.6 million years ago.

[cherimoya_kid]

Boy, I hope you're right. Even if the soil is saved, though, the world population is still increasing and is expected to go to 9 to 12 billion or higher. Plus, organic farming techniques have never been shown to produce as much as "green revolution" techniques that destroy the soil, as far as I know.

You can create new soil out of literally nothing, with the ingredients I mentioned, plus terra preta, rock dust, clay, and other substrates.  Those ingredients are the basic soil body.  The calcium is the main mineral plants need, and the seawater precipitate includes all the trace minerals.  The worms in the worm castings keep the soil aerated and help avoid "hardpan".  You can also use blood meal, chicken feather meal, etc. to increase nitrogen.  It is quite possible, using all these, to produce huge yields, year after year, so long as you keep re-adding all that you took away, in terms of organic matter and minerals.  There are other tricks too, like using nitrogen-fixing plants like soy and fava in conjunction with fruit trees to increase their yield, crop rotation, foliar feeding, etc.  It's quite do-able.  The main idea is that you have to replace everything you took. I have a feeling that Moore's Law will, in just 20 years or maybe less, make all this sort of thing no longer even a slight worry, due to increasing technology. However, even without that...

[PaleoPhil]

You can create new soil out of literally nothing, with the ingredients I mentioned, plus terra preta, rock dust, clay, and other substrates.  Those ingredients are the basic soil body.  The calcium is the main mineral plants need, and the seawater precipitate includes all the trace minerals.

If it were as easy to the world's population on organic farming as you describe, I suspect they would already be doing it, as it's sufficiently a pain to adopt green revolution agriculture that some 3rd world nations have still mostly not transitioned. Most of the proponents of organic farming I've read admit that it can't feed the current world population, but I would be curious to see any alternative perspectives you can cite. Maybe they were fooled by Monsanto/ADM/Bayer propaganda or something.

I'll try to be optimistic and imagine that in some future day people smarten up and voluntarily reduce the population back to levels that organic farming could support and gradually make the transition back while rejuvenating the soils like you described. Then in the farther future reduce the population further so that people can go back to hunting, gathering and wild horticulture.

[cherimoya_kid]

If it were as easy to the world's population on organic farming as you describe, I suspect they would already be doing it, as it's sufficiently a pain to adopt green revolution agriculture that some 3rd world nations have still mostly not transitioned. Most of the proponents of organic farming I've read admit that it can't feed the current world population, but I would be curious to see any alternative perspectives you can cite. Maybe they were fooled by Monsanto/ADM/Bayer propaganda or something.

I'll try to be optimistic and imagine that in some future day people smarten up and voluntarily reduce the population back to levels that organic farming could support and gradually make the transition back while rejuvenating the soils like you described. Then in the farther future reduce the population further so that people can go back to hunting, gathering and wild horticulture.

It's not hard to switch to greener methods, you just have to stop spending money on GMO seeds, pesticides, etc., and spend it on other things. However, relatively few people even know how important natural calcium is to plants, and almost nobody knows about seawater precipitate.  Worm castings are also relatively unknown, but, just between those three things, you've pretty much got all you need for amazing soil, in just a few months.  It really is a questions of knowledge versus ignorance.  I can show you pictures of plants grown with seawater precipitate, if you want.  You can take a look at

www.c-gro.com/

or

sea-crop.com/

to get an idea.  Those are without extra calcium or worm castings.  

The only reason that N-P-K fertilizers can produce so much is because they have lots of nitrogen.  Natural sources of nitrogen like composted manure, blood meal, etc. are easily substituted in place of N-P-K fertilizer, and are much better for the soil.  

The organic growers you know almost certainly have no idea what seawater precipitate is, and may not even have heard of worm castings.  It's doubtful they even know that calcium is the most important mineral for plants.  They probably know about natural nitrogen sources like blood meal, but that's probably all. You can't build healthy plants without the right minerals, and that's why organic agriculture often fails.  People don't know what they're doing, enough to really get the job done.