Paleo Diet: Raw Paleo Diet and Lifestyle Forum
Raw Paleo Diet Forums => Hot Topics => Topic started by: Sitting Coyote on April 14, 2010, 12:29:20 am
-
This book was published last year. I just received it and haven't read it yet, and wonder if others have and what they thought. Author is Lierre Kieth. She was a vegan for 20 years before she apparently gave it up for health and ethical reasons. The back cover of the book has a review from someone at The Weston Price Foundation.
-
I just read it and overall, I thinks its very good and just a complete bombardment of everything imaginable against vegetarianism - mainly grains and soy. The one aspect of the book that was annoying was that, there were many instances where the arguments she makes go unchecked. I remember thinking how easily I could bring up some counter points (not that I know I'm right) that she would have a hard time arguing against. She would have benefited a great deal from posting on message boards like this one, where my arguing skills have sharpened immensely.
But, she did research the book well and it shows and the information inside is priceless even if the logic does get derailed every so often. The last bit of the book was easily the most controversial and most worthless. She kind of goes into the abyss when she recommends not reproducing and getting rid of anything reliant on fossil fuels. I am strongly against the reproduction argument. I think its actually pretty absurd. Reproducing children in vibrant health because of our diets is one of the best weapons we have to fix the future.
-
I'd have to agree with the issue of reproduction as I see my purpose in life is to produce more life.
In fact, I'm the volunteer web master for http://www.prolife.org.ph
it goes hand in hand with the altruistic healing info that I do.
I go on further at http://www.pronatal.org , my pronatal blog for reproducing prolifers with the polygamous leaning for maximum reproduction.
Plus I teach people how to overcome infertility at http://www.fertilityhelp.net
I got health info right. Now I only need wealth.
-
Thanks for your thoughts Paleodonk. I've been doing a little more searching and just found out that while Lierre Kieth was lecturing on her book on California last month three vegan men who didn't like her message hit her in the face with cream pies that were heavily spiked with cayenne pepper. Burned her eyes pretty bad, I guess. Ironically enough, they did the deed while she was ripping on factory farming...
-
I haven;pt read the book, but I listened to a long multi-installment radio interview with her.
Very interesting lady.
However, with regard to her reasoning, she would have done well to get someone who disagrees with her to fire off some serious critiques BEFORE she went to press. There is nothing in the book, from a health perspective, that is a good argument against being vegetarian or vegan, for example.
Her health issues were not a result of veganism per se, but of NOT embracing RAW veganism. It was, as she states repeatedly, her consumption of large amount of soy and other vegan fair that requires cooking to consume that caused her so many health issues.
Not that I'm arguing in favor of veganism - just pointing out her flawed thinking on the issue.
That said, her attacks on factory farming, large scale agriculture, etc sounded VERY well researched.
-
Pretty much most of the world's problems could be solved by a drastic reduction in population. Less than about 400 million people, worldwide, would be best.
-
Pretty much most of the world's problems could be solved by a drastic reduction in population. Less than about 400 million people, worldwide, would be best.
Yes, but then comes the argument from everyone: Would YOU want to be among those weeded out?
I don't think all those life-saving technologies that allow for greater population are such a good thing. At least not until we can more responsibly behave towards the planet.
-
Yes, but then comes the argument from everyone: Would YOU want to be among those weeded out?
I don't think all those life-saving technologies that allow for greater population are such a good thing. At least not until we can more responsibly behave towards the planet.
I agree, we shouldn't be developing technologies designed to make us live longer or survive longer etc.
As for how people would be weeded out, I have absolutely no problems with a worldwide IQ test to determine who gets their tubes tied or not, as I have always scored 125 at the very lowest, and 170 IQ at the very highest point(depending on which type of test or type of intelligence tested).
-
Well, the limit is 180 IQ so... -\
I think nutritional science will allow more population growth anyway so a smarter idea would be (for the intelligent people) to figure out a way to educate the others so that we don't have to think in reductionist way.
If population reduction will become absolutely necessary, it will more likely be a matter of "who's got more guns" than IQ.
-
I agree, we shouldn't be developing technologies designed to make us live longer or survive longer etc.
As for how people would be weeded out, I have absolutely no problems with a worldwide IQ test to determine who gets their tubes tied or not, as I have always scored 125 at the very lowest, and 170 IQ at the very highest point(depending on which type of test or type of intelligence tested).
lol, I would actually choose to wipe you out based on this comment alone. good game TD
-
lol, I would actually choose to wipe you out based on this comment alone. good game TD
lol, Yeah, I think he's intentionally trying to make us hate him so we'll kill him and he'll become a martyr for the cause. A noble sacrifice. ;)
Hey, I can play the game too. I have zero problem with a worldwide IQ test with a 179 cutoff to determine whose heads get chopped because mine has always been scored at between 180 and off the charts. Bye bye dumb dumbs. .... Hate me. ;D
-
No it should be done on who is the best at Juggling... I can juggle almost all 3-ball patterns and most 4ball patterns, then basic patterns up to 6, including tricks such as non-hand catches, keep ups, off walls, behind backs and under legs etc... And can juggle 2 balls with my feet(one foot at a time...). I only ever did 1 IQ test and it was 136. So Tyler, my worst is 11 better than your worst =D Or it should be anyone who has ever reached number 1 PvP ranking in World of Warcraft.
-
How much money do you guys think the average author of such books makes? Is there a way to look that up? I daresay one of us, or a group of us together, could write a better book. Or from a sales perspective, an equal book.
If I do go on to a PhD in some kind of biology for nutrition research I'll probably do exactly that. Maybe that's a golden ticket.
-
Well, the limit is 180 IQ so... -\
I think nutritional science will allow more population growth anyway so a smarter idea would be (for the intelligent people) to figure out a way to educate the others so that we don't have to think in reductionist way.
If population reduction will become absolutely necessary, it will more likely be a matter of "who's got more guns" than IQ.
180 IQ is not the upper limit, there are also people with IQs above 200. 250(?) IQ , I think is pretty near the maximum. That is, Mariklyn Vos Savant has up to 230 IQ registered, depending on the type of test, and she can't be as bright as some famous people in the past such as Archimedes or Nikola Tesla.
-
I seem to recall that only c.2% of humanity have IQs above 140(so-called "genius" level), so one could easily have lower IQ scores as a lower limit and still have a low population by comparison to today.
-
How much money do you guys think the average author of such books makes? Is there a way to look that up?
I would ask the authors.
The amount of money depends on how many people buy that book. Even crappy books could become best sellers with the right, targeted, marketing.
180 IQ is not the upper limit, there are also people with IQs above 200. 250(?) IQ ...
lol, I meant >= 180
-
I think nutritional science will allow more population growth anyway so a smarter idea would be (for the intelligent people) to figure out a way to educate the others so that we don't have to think in reductionist way.
The "intelligent" ones are already being weeded out. They are just intelligent enough to accept contraceptivizing their own blood lines out of existence.
Look at the demographic charts. Lots of people buying into the contraceptive game.
-
I always thought 170 was the limit. I have one of those Mensa IQ tests sitting on my computer desk which has been there for years, I've never opened it =D Maybe someday. I was thinking I'd find as many other IQ tests as I could first, to develop my IQ test-specific skill, which there clearly is.
-
The "intelligent" ones are already being weeded out. They are just intelligent enough to accept contraceptivizing their own blood lines out of existence.
Look at the demographic charts. Lots of people buying into the contraceptive game.
This reminds me of the movie Idiocracy.
-
The "intelligent" ones are already being weeded out. They are just intelligent enough to accept contraceptivizing their own blood lines out of existence.
Look at the demographic charts. Lots of people buying into the contraceptive game.
True; university graduates have fewer children, and they are more intelligent than the average.
All the farmers from whom I've bought beef have lots of children - this might be something other than intelligence, because they (males) are all taller than average too. One of them 6'6"!
The common definition of intelligence might be faulty, as a study showed that intelligent people are the most easily hypnotised. (I would add deceived, fooled, programmed, mind-controlled etc.) Probably because most of them do a very poor job of learning critical analysis which is a "Defense Against the Dark Arts" after Harry Potter.
-
I would think that their definition of "intelligent", is people who have followed the schooling system all the way, along with all other aspects of society and never questioned it or wished to go against it in any way. So by the definitions of society they are intelligent, as they have followed what society considers to be good, and correct. These classical tests of intelligence are all based on the stuff people would do in school. It's mainly a matter of who has done the most things similar to whatever it is which comes up in the test, along with how much someone cares about that test. Someone who conforms to everything is going to delight in being tested by their masters, and getting to show them how much they have followed. The people who score less: haven't done as much stuff similar to what's in the test; and have not cared much about their result.
-
(I would add deceived, fooled, programmed, mind-controlled etc.)
Yep. Look at what happened in the 1960s!