Eating Right Can Save the World | Hacker News Reader

Eating Right Can Save the World

outsideonline.com

17 pointssergeant310 comments

"Organic farming, Nichols tells me, is really about the health of the soil and the ecosystems producing our food. Nichols wants to show me the difference between soil from conventional agriculture, which uses chemical fertilizers and pesticides, and soil from what Rodale calls regenerative organic agriculture, which uses natural pest management, extensive cover crops, and natural fertilizer like manure."

Okay, if we are going to cut out most of our animal consumption, there goes most of our manure, no?

And if we stick to natural fertilizer, that cuts our potential crop yields by a huge amount. We just don't have a natural means to get enough nitrogen into the soil without the Haber-Bosch process.

Combine those two items alone and I guess we will lose at least 2/3 of our fertilizer supply.

So the first step needs to be, if I'm reading right - get rid of a few billion people?

Cows are intrinsically linked with organic farming in most of the world. They give fertilizer, power and milk. It is now skewed because of oil. If oil is expensive, they are the key to sustainable and prosperous agriculture.

I'm a "mostly vegan" individual and beyond the smug attitude that plagues that choice, I have to say that this lifestyle seems to be good for one's health as well. It is less fun, sure, let's be honest, but the benefits somehow outweigh what you lose by giving up meat and processed foods.

"Whatever my own practice may be, I have no doubt that it is a part of the destiny of the human race, in its gradual improvement, to leave off eating animals, as surely as the savage tribes have left off eating each other when they came in contact with the more civilized."

> Henry David Thoreau

Saying "Paleo is Stupid" will definitely get more people to read your article. Which is apparently about educating people about saving the planet through food choices. So, educate people, don’t insult them.

Could be that the author is going for the mainstream, or the largest audience. Personally, I know few people doing a paleo diet, and none strike me as the types to give two turds about their diet's environmental impact. The rest of the folks I know do, indeed, think that paleo's stupid. So you validate a the opinions of a large number of people to rope them in, and they read the rest of the article.

Not that I know the mind of the author, but in summary they insult people that wouldn't ever even click the link, while cozying up to those that do.

There are many different "Paleolithic" viewpoints. Some are low carb, others are higher in carbs. Some are high in protein and some promote moderate levels of protein. Typically though, a Paleo diet is higher in fat and the consumption of processed foods is not suggested. It's all about consuming things that are minimally processed, low sugar, whole foods. Your actively level and genes have a lot to do with what is best for you in terms of your diet.

Many people assume that a Paleo diet primarily consists of meat, but that is not necessarily true. Many Paleo followers promote the consumption of things like yams, sweet potatoes, and some fruits like berries. However, if you listen to someone like Rob Wolff, he regularly promotes the massive consumption of vegetables, roots, and tubers. He even promotes sustainability, supports local farmers, and talks about animal welfare. Even though he recommends not consuming gluten, he doesn't suggest you replace it with gluten free stuff. He goes one step further and suggests completely eliminating grains (e.g., wheat, rice, oats), which are a staple in vegetarian and vegan dies.

A lot of people fail to realize or accept that many Paleo followers were once vegetarians and even vegans. But eventually, usually after many years, they realized that it wasn't working for them and had to try something different like Paleo.

Talking about food is akin to talking about religion. Everyone will have a different opinion on what is right, wrong, best, and worse by their background.

Unlike religion, there are actual verifiable facts to consider. Calling food choice a religion sounds like an excuse to not consider ones choices critically.

To be clear, I'm talking about how people talk about how they choose their food.

There's plenty of verifiable facts to consider, but those that trumpet those facts and make wide suggestions ignore the local circumstances. Someone with a $20 weekly grocery bucket isn't going to spend twice as much on organic vegetables regardless of if its better for the planet or even for themselves. Everyone has to eat, and everyone has to balance how much time, effort, and energy they spend on gathering, cooking, making food, and also balance that against everything else they are attempting to do.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com