[Dragon-Dancer]

peck420 peck420:

Dragon-Dancer Dragon-Dancer:

It's an interesting sentiment but it really isn't practical. There isn't enough local product to feed the kinds of populations we have anymore. At the rate cities are gobbling up surrounding farmland there will be even less as time goes on.

It isn't practical because we make it impractical.

Many studies have shown the viability of large scale, vertical farming for urban centres.

Although...we might all have to become vegetarians to make it work, unless they figure out vertical animal husbandry .

Unless they perfect the ability to grow meat in a lab on a larger scale. I do remember reading at some point that there was a fair bit of research going on into this as well since it could certainly help increase production of animal protein if it could be done safely.

[BeaverFever]

QBall QBall:

http://www.demog.berkeley.edu/~andrew/1918/figure2.html

He want us to eat like we did 100 years ago when life expectancy for men was 51 and women 54?

What you think all the transfats and chemical additives are somehow sustaining you? Our longer life expectancies have more to do with advances in medical science and hygene, and nothing to do with shovelling 3,000 calories of machine processed, chemical-ladden crap down our throats 24/7. Come on buddy.

[BeaverFever]

Dragon-Dancer Dragon-Dancer:

It's an interesting sentiment but it really isn't practical. There isn't enough local product to feed the kinds of populations we have anymore. At the rate cities are gobbling up surrounding farmland there will be even less as time goes on.

Well for sure cities gobbling up farmland isn't good, but it's a myth that there isn't enough farmland, but if you watch Food Inc, where this farmer actually shines quite brilliantly, you'll see that you can easily feed people natural farm food without all the mass-produciton garbage. The whole "there isn't enough farmland" argument is just a myth propagated by the major food manufacturers.

[QBall]

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

QBall QBall:

http://www.demog.berkeley.edu/~andrew/1918/figure2.html

He want us to eat like we did 100 years ago when life expectancy for men was 51 and women 54?

What you think all the transfats and chemical additives are somehow sustaining you? Our longer life expectancies have more to do with advances in medical science and hygene, and nothing to do with shovelling 3,000 calories of machine processed, chemical-ladden crap down our throats 24/7. Come on buddy.

And you think nutritional science hasn't progressed in the past 100 years as well and can account for our longevity? Come on buddy.

[BeaverFever]

Sure, but that has nothing to do with the manufactured garbage we cram in our pie holes every day. Do you really think those Hostess Twinkies, microwave dinners, and KFC double-downs are nutritionally enhanced and causing us to live longer lives?.

It's a known fact that much of the food we eat today is LESS nutritionally dense than the same product was 50 years ago. And on top of that, we eat less of that "nutritous" food and more crap.

The advancements in nutritional science have only led to a tidal wave of evidence that we are increasingly poorly nourished (which the puoblic continues to ignore) and to the proliferation of expensive nutritional supplements from the health food store.

[Yogi]

'Nutritional Science = chemicals!

Did You Know?
Vitamin C is an antioxidant. Found in oranges, spinach, and many other foods, it will help you get over a cold, and may even keep you from catching one.


What the article is clearly stating is that people would be much healthier if they consume 'unadulterated' foods.

'Your' Nutritional Science on the other hand, promotes buying a bottle of vitamin pills for $10 which somewhere amongst the 'fillers', contains a bit of vitamin C which has been extracted from an orange ( or serving of home-grown spinach) that can be purchased for .10.

Yes, that's definitely progress!