Paleo Diet: Raw Paleo Diet and Lifestyle Forum
Raw Paleo Diet Forums => Off Topic => Topic started by: TylerDurden on October 01, 2015, 02:16:25 am
-
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3247422/Abducted-babies-chained-trained-pick-1-000-coconuts-day-Revealed-billion-pound-coconut-water-industry-built-abuse-monkeys.html (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3247422/Abducted-babies-chained-trained-pick-1-000-coconuts-day-Revealed-billion-pound-coconut-water-industry-built-abuse-monkeys.html)
-
Damn child labor laws are to blame. There was a day and age when orphaned humans performed the same task under similarly slavish conditions.
Chocolate is still harvested by slave children.
http://www.foodispower.org/slavery-chocolate/ (http://www.foodispower.org/slavery-chocolate/)
-
I dont understand why we, as humans living on the north american contentent, import coconuts and coconut products from thailand when they grow in abundance in florida and central america. WHAT THE FUCK. RogueFarmer brought me an mature one straight from florida and its the best coconut i ever had.
-
I dont understand why we, as humans living on the north american contentent, import coconuts and coconut products from thailand when they grow in abundance in florida and central america....
This is easily explained by economics, particularly the demand side of the coconut market. In American cuisines, coconuts are found in recipes for cake, frostings, and Mounds candy bars. Asian cuisines have recipes that are flowing with coconut. Except for our imported cuisines, we wouldn't really rush out and buy many coconuts.
And, of course, Florida doesn't have enough monkeys for the harvest.
-
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3247422/Abducted-babies-chained-trained-pick-1-000-coconuts-day-Revealed-billion-pound-coconut-water-industry-built-abuse-monkeys.html (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3247422/Abducted-babies-chained-trained-pick-1-000-coconuts-day-Revealed-billion-pound-coconut-water-industry-built-abuse-monkeys.html)
I have not heard nor seen monkeys trained to pick coconuts in the Philippines.
What we do is coconut trees have chipped trunks that are placed there specifically for climbing by people. There are enough talented people who climb coconut trees.
I viewed the video and saw that the monkey is very inefficient and very slow at harvesting a single coconut. Way way slower than a human being. It seems this monkey harvesting thing is just for people's amusement, not serious harvest labor. Maybe there are better videos out there showing a monkey who can harvest more efficiently than humans?
When coconuts are harvested, a guy with a bolo (axe) chops an entire bunch and this entire bunch of 5 to 20 coconuts is brought down quick.
I will still be selfishly happy if the rest of the world stopped buying coconuts because us locals are getting hit by high coconut prices the past recent years when the first worlders suddenly had an appetite for coconuts.
-
I will still be selfishly happy if the rest of the world stopped buying coconuts because us locals are getting hit by high coconut prices the past recent years when the first worlders suddenly had an appetite for coconuts.
Looks like it's not going to happen any time soon, with all this coconut oil trend. I recently found out they now sell VCO in Belgian supermarkets, when some time ago you could only find them in Asian and organic shops.
I went to Thailand a couple of times with my family as an early teen, and witnessed the coconut-picking with monkeys. I guess the process is a bit slower, but safer for the producers than to climb there themselves.
-
This whole superfood concept has to stop. Buying palm oil and coconut oil has led to total destruction of vast areas of tropical forest, and all that stuff has zero benefit on health, anyway.
-
Ultimately it would be ideal for people to stop cooking and processing their foods so that the need for cooking and baking oils would drop dramatically, but until then Palm and coconut oil can be used as a much more healthy alternative to the processed vegetable oils like corn soy and canola.
There is no avoiding the humans insatiable need for quality fats and I believe coconut fat to be far superior to other alternatives being used, so why not develop ways to increase production?
I've been all up and down the coast of Florida and there is plenty of space to grow millions of coconut trees, all that needs to be done is to replace all those useless decorative palms and plant coconut in their place.
The main problem is that real estate tycoons have bought out all the prime coconut land and are not letting it be used it to its full potential, because there is so much more money in playing the housing bubble than actually producing something of value.
Also for insurance reasons they don't let coconut trees grow near all the old folks communities down there because they are afraid that falling coconuts will kill the old people.
I say lets make the best of all worlds and turn the old folks homes into coconut plantations and give some of the old folks helper monkeys that will collect coconuts. This is a totally sustainable solution that will not cause any harm to the environment ;)
-
Just more ways to annihilate the environment! ;) :o :o ??? l) :'( :'(
-
I'm in earnest here, and am not sure how my idea of getting the old folk communities and condos, and other beach front property to become coconut plantations will annihilate the environment. And the old folks would really benefit from being put to work, and with the right regulations in place the helper monkeys would get five hour workdays, three day weekends, maternity leave and free health care.
I thought that coconut was something which could be sustainably harvested with very minimal harm to the ecosystem. The fiber and pulp can be used as compost and there is virtually no waste?
-
Not just compost. In thailand, they use coconut fiber to make mattresses, and I'm pretty sure there's a hundred application for coconut by-products, in housing and such.
http://www.livestrong.com/article/247999-uses-of-coconut-fiber/ (http://www.livestrong.com/article/247999-uses-of-coconut-fiber/)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coir (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coir)
-
I'm in earnest here, and am not sure how my idea of getting the old folk communities and condos, and other beach front property to become coconut plantations will annihilate the environment. And the old folks would really benefit from being put to work, and with the right regulations in place the helper monkeys would get five hour workdays, three day weekends, maternity leave and free health care.
I thought that coconut was something which could be sustainably harvested with very minimal harm to the ecosystem. The fiber and pulp can be used as compost and there is virtually no waste?
You clearly have this wrongheaded notion that everything centres around humanity. Planting coconut trees involves building a staid, dull, unnatural monoculture and that is harmful to the environment. I have seen this elsewhere - in Austria and Ireland, I have seen vast swathes of trees of the same species being built at the same equal distance from each other, it looks highly artificial and does not serve Nature as Nature involves chaos.
It is not palaeo, either. Bear in mind that a palaeolithic diet of our forebears involved a huge variety of foods, not just one or two so-called "superfoods".
-
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/
-
The trouble is that right now large-scale coconut planting is being done. It would not matter if humans grew coconuts in areas which normally would not support much in the way of vegetation(though the US droughts are fouling this up). The point is that relying on just one food is un-palaeo and a wider variety is needed in order to minmise environmental damage. Endless groves of coconut trees,however small each one may be, will ruin the envrionment.
As regards grassfed, well I eat raw wild game, not grassfed anyway.....
9 billion is already unsustainable if you look at the statistics. The Earth does not have infinite resources.
-
who says the coconuts have to be grown in a monoculture? i am sure there is land overgrown by kudzu and whatever else that could be converted to a more diverse and "productive" polyculture including coconuts. they do have a large variety of usage and their biproducts can be composted and used to remediate more land. people dont think about polycultures because their value systems are fucked and if its not going to make a quick profit, and if that profit doesnt directly translate into dollar bills, they generally dont see the worth. they cant understand that the polycultures worth is in its diversity and the fact that the value is inherent in the aging and diversifying of land, vegetation and animal herds. its too hard for people nowadays to grasp nuance.
-
who says the coconuts have to be grown in a monoculture? i am sure there is land overgrown by kudzu and whatever else that coul
d be converted to a more diverse and "productive" polyculture including coconuts. they do have a large variety of usage and their biproducts can be composted and used to remediate more land. people dont think about polycultures because their value systems are fucked and if its not going to make a quick profit, and if that profit doesnt directly translate into dollar bills, they generally dont see the worth. they cant understand that the polycultures worth is in its diversity and the fact that the value is inherent in the aging and diversifying of land, vegetation and animal herds. its too hard for people nowadays to grasp nuance.
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.
-
It is not palaeo, either. Bear in mind that a palaeolithic diet of our forebears involved a huge variety of foods, not just one or two so-called "superfoods".
Living in a temperate zone all my life, with its seasons, it takes an extra minute to grasp the idea of a food source that produces year-round, as does the coconut palm. Ancestrally, culinary diversity wasn't practiced for its own sake, but because many foods are only available for a week or three per year. If you live in the coconut zone, it wouldn't make sense to limit eating the ever-present coconut simply for the sake of variety.
-
Saber didn't even suggest going on a mono-diet of coconut in the first place.
-
Saber didn't even suggest going on a mono-diet of coconut in the first place.
No, but, generally speaking, coconuts are nothing special and plenty of people can be healthy without ever eating a coconut. I just think one should not focus on one or two superfoods, when variety is usually healthier in the long term. Even SB goes in for a wide variety of raw organ-meats, for example.
-
I didn't know coconuts were now labeled as "superfoods". I salute the ingenuity of agribusinesses for turning slightly unusual fruits and vegetables into extra profit. Same as low-fat (high-sugar) yogurt, and gluten-free vegetable soup.
-
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.
so you cant do a poly culture with seaweeds and shrimps and other salt water creatures? i mean, its not like its impossible. i was only suggesting sourcing them from the united states as to cut down on the shipping from other countries, of course i dont think they are an ideal food if they dont grow in your bioregion as you can find the same nutrients locally. it was just a suggestion geared at those who dont choose to eat locally, making their choices less destructive.
-
I didn't know coconuts were now labeled as "superfoods". I salute the ingenuity of agribusinesses for turning slightly unusual fruits and vegetables into extra profit. Same as low-fat (high-sugar) yogurt, and gluten-free vegetable soup.
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.
-
so you cant do a poly culture with seaweeds and shrimps and other salt water creatures? i mean, its not like its impossible. i was only suggesting sourcing them from the united states as to cut down on the shipping from other countries, of course i dont think they are an ideal food if they dont grow in your bioregion as you can find the same nutrients locally. it was just a suggestion geared at those who dont choose to eat locally, making their choices less destructive.
I've not heard that shrimp can eat coconut, or anything else from the palm, although I doubt anyone has tried. And permaculture is a different situation when your shoreline is constantly shifting and you have high tide twice a day. Granted, tides vary from place to place, but it's still a MUCH more difficult scenario than an inland farm. Regardless, we'll all be eating vat-grown meat in 15-20 years. 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.
-
As regards grassfed, well I eat raw wild game, not grassfed anyway.....
9 billion is already unsustainable if you look at the statistics. The Earth does not have infinite resources.
I am having trouble following your logic, you personally can afford to buy wild harvested animal foods, yet admit that wild harvesting of food is unsustainable and unable to feed the world? At the same time you are against using cultivated foods to feed the world, even those which which have a low environmental impact such as coconuts. I am sure you must admit that many of the other foods you consume that are produced through cultivation and wild harvesting, have a much higher negative environmental impact than the "monkey picked" coconuts I eat?
No, but, generally speaking, coconuts are nothing special and plenty of people can be healthy without ever eating a coconut. I just think one should not focus on one or two superfoods, when variety is usually healthier in the long term. Even SB goes in for a wide variety of raw organ-meats, for example.
Variety is the spice of life, but there are also many people who do well on just a small number of nutrient rich staple foods. Coconut may have some of the trace ocean elements which are lacking in my own land animal based diet. Its a matter of economics too, coconuts being much more affordable than eating three dozen oysters every week, or some other seafoods which are also unsustainably raping the oceans.
Goji Berries, bee pollen and other "superfoods" have no track record of being used as a primary staple for any group of people. And I would agree that most superfoods sold on the market are over hyped.
Coconut on the other hand has been used by island people for millennia in combination with a fish based diet with incredibly good results.
There are some groups of people who live almost exclusively off of fish and coconut, so there has to be some merit to its health food status.
I will admit that my own consumption of nearly two pounds of coconut butter a week is an anomaly and there may not be any precedent of a western born man who eats as much coconut as myself? Its also possible that I've become metabolically addicted to high levels of coconut fat and there is a dependency issue.( though its only an issue if there is a negative downside) and there are by far much worse food addictions out there.
Thinking about it even deeper it may be that coconut is what allows some of those tropical fishing peoples to thrive and mitigate the negative effects seen when people, other than the adapted inuit, get all their fats from pufa rich fish fat. The MCT in coconut could act in a way to balance fat metabolism in cultures heavily reliant on fish fats and proteins.
There are also people on this forum including Inger and myself who eat coconut regularly along with large amounts of animal fat, so perhaps it has some benefit for some people who eat larger amounts of all animal fats and protein in general?
-
I am having trouble following your logic, you personally can afford to buy wild harvested animal foods, yet admit that wild harvesting of food is unsustainable and unable to feed the world? At the same time you are against using cultivated foods to feed the world, even those which which have a low environmental impact such as coconuts. I am sure you must admit that many of the other foods you consume that are produced through cultivation and wild harvesting, have a much higher negative environmental impact than the "monkey picked" coconuts I eat?
I eat raw wild game and raw fruits, mostly. None of the fruits have as negative an environmental impact as coconut harvesting by monkeys. I do not suggest that wild harvesting will sustain 9 billion, I am stating that we desperately need a reduction in the world population by c.6 billion at the very least, to avoid eventual total destruction of the world's environment.
Goji Berries, bee pollen and other "superfoods" have no track record of being used as a primary staple for any group of people.
Wrong. The term "superfoods" has been used for those 2 as well as other foods.
As regards coconut, the japanese and icelandic people have thrived on a high-seafood diet without coconuts for millenia. Coconuts are nothing special.
-
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?
-
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?
-
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?
-
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.
-
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!
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
Chickens, pigs and other livestock raised on coconut will have healthy fat with similar anti microbial properties as coconuts.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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 (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3260583/Chernobyl-wildlife-PARADISE-Wolves-lynx-elk-boar-thrived-humans-abandoned-nuclear-disaster-zone.html)
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
I don't even have access to a pc but I do own many issues of acres USA which had many articles on the subject. They distribute a book called "sea energy agriculture" which covers the subject. Adding carbon to soil is also a method to rehabilitate land where Saltation has occurred. I will try to come up with some sources when I get the chance. I read that although many if not most farms yields were negatively effected by tsunamis in south east Asia, many were benefited with as much as double normal yields. All life came from the ocean, our blood is nearly the same as ocean water. It only makes sense that this salt would be beneficial to life.
-
I'm just not sure that carbon can really offset the problem of sodium blocking calcium. I'm talking about something peer-reviewed, and/or something from a real expert who uses Brix readings or other direct measurements of plant quality. I hate to be so skeptical with you, but Acres USA is not always known for scientific rigor or hard-nosed insistence on fact.
-
I believe this scientific paper is more or less what RF is talking about:-
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S014019631000265X (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S014019631000265X)
-
I believe this scientific paper is more or less what RF is talking about:-
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S014019631000265X (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S014019631000265X)
I'm not sure that article was talking about sodium salinity. Sodium is only one of several mineral salts that can damage soil. Also, it was tree growth that reduced the salinity. It's not clear that the trees accomplished that through increasing carbon.
-
You wouldn't use anywhere near the amount that is used when chemical salts are applied and not with the same frequency either.
Anyways the coconut I picked for Jessica was no where near the ocean and all those trees were growing semi wild in the woods. There is an island I would go to where they said not to pick the coconuts because the trees were treated for a disease, most of which were right on the coast. I'm not sure if this was for cosmetic reasons or not. I think some areas perhaps coconuts only grow near the ocean because the soil inland is not ideal for them. At one time most of Florida was basically one gigantic coral reef so the soil is largely made up of ancient coral, which is probably pretty decent coconut substrate. Dates will grow right by the ocean too.
-
Well look, if you're going to start shipping seawater inland, you might as well use seaweed emulsion and/or seawater precipitate. Shipping heavy stuff gets expensive, you might as well maximize the minerals you need and minimize the sodium if you're going to ship things.
-
I didn't this even existed but just saw today in a meat market that there is company that makes/sell 'Coconut Flakes' cereal, advertised as Paleo and gluten free.
So really Paleo means to people to substitute coconut and almond flour for all the things they are currently eating.
-
This thread led me to take a peak at the containers of coconut water for sale in Trader Joe's. They had two brands, one listing cane sugar, the other with corn syrup. So much for healthy food fads. And as Ioanna points out, coconut flour and flakes are a hot item when it comes to grain-free eating, which is often called paleo.