What is a healthy sustainable human diet?

[!Kaggen]

To follow from the Organic food is no healthier, study finds (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=149479) thread and the How much would vegetarianism benefit humanity? (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=152521) thread.

I am asking the question what diet is the most appropriate for maximizing human health as well as being sustainable?

By sustainable I mean this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sustainable)

To start off the discussion I am linking this article and ensuing comments (http://campfire.theoildrum.com/node/5767).

This article specifically mentions the Mediterranean diet (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mediterranean_diet).

I would like to add the Okinawan diet (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Okinawan_Diet) as another example of a healthy sustainable diet.

Though these diets have some basic tenants in common (lots vegetables) I think the most obvious commonality is that the food is locally sourced and the food is fresh. This also makes these diets sustainable.

[Mojo]

I am asking the question what diet is the most appropriate for maximizing human health as well as being sustainable?


Eat mostly vegetables, and not too much.

As far a "sustainability" goes, you also have to consider population size and distribution.

[Darat]

The "Mediterranean diet" is not a sustainable diet, or ta least not for Mediterranean countries.

[!Kaggen]

Eat mostly vegetables, and not too much.

As far a "sustainability" goes, you also have to consider population size and distribution.

Yes, so what would be a sustainable diet with these factors (pop. size and distribution) in consideration?

[!Kaggen]

The "Mediterranean diet" is not a sustainable diet, or ta least not for Mediterranean countries.

Do you mean not sustainable to non-Mediterranean countries or not sustainable for Mediterranean countries, sorry its not very clear?

[Herzblut]

I am asking the question what diet is the most appropriate for maximizing human health as well as being sustainable?

A difficult question since it couples individual and global aspects.

I'm confident that a cereal-free, sugar-free diet is extremely healthy, but not globally applicable ("sustainable").

[JoeTheJuggler]

How is "sustainable" being used here? To sustain a person's health or sustainable in having no long lasting environmental impact?

If it's the latter, given our population, I don't think there is any food that can feed all of us that doesn't rely on using unsustainable resources and/or practices (fossil fuels, depleting water tables, etc.)

If it's the former, I think variety is the key.

[Cuddles]

How is "sustainable" being used here? To sustain a person's health or sustainable in having no long lasting environmental impact?

If it's the latter, given our population, I don't think there is any food that can feed all of us that doesn't rely on using unsustainable resources and/or practices (fossil fuels, depleting water tables, etc.)

If it's the former, I think variety is the key.

Pretty much what I was going to say. If you mean sustainable for humanity as a whole, there's simply no such thing. As long as the population continues to increase, there will inevitably come a point where no diet is possible that will provide for everyone.

On the other hand, if you just mean capable of sustaining an individual, there are a huge number of different diets that are perfectly healthy.

[mhaze]

To follow from the Organic food is no healthier, study finds (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=149479) thread and the How much would vegetarianism benefit humanity? (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=152521) thread.

I am asking the question what diet is the most appropriate for maximizing human health as well as being sustainable?

By sustainable I mean this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sustainable)

To start off the discussion I am linking this article and ensuing comments (http://campfire.theoildrum.com/node/5767).

This article specifically mentions the Mediterranean diet (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mediterranean_diet).

I would like to add the Okinawan diet (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Okinawan_Diet) as another example of a healthy sustainable diet.

Though these diets have some basic tenants in common (lots vegetables) I think the most obvious commonality is that the food is locally sourced and the food is fresh. This also makes these diets sustainable.

A very, very interesting question.

This has been studied quite a bit.

Here is your answer. (http://www.ooze.com/pweeta/)

[Darat]

Do you mean not sustainable to non-Mediterranean countries or not sustainable for Mediterranean countries, sorry its not very clear?

It is not sustainable for Mediterranean countries.

[Gord_in_Toronto]

As far as the Inuit are concerned: fish; seal, whale, polar bear, walrus, and caribou meat; and a occasional handful of fireweed.

Why do you ask? :confused:

[!Kaggen]

It is not sustainable for Mediterranean countries.

So what diet is sustainable in Med. countries?

[Mojo]

Yes, so what would be a sustainable diet with these factors (pop. size and distribution) in consideration?


Eat no more than the environment can support.

[!Kaggen]

How is "sustainable" being used here? To sustain a person's health or sustainable in having no long lasting environmental impact?

If it's the latter, given our population, I don't think there is any food that can feed all of us that doesn't rely on using unsustainable resources and/or practices (fossil fuels, depleting water tables, etc.)

If it's the former, I think variety is the key.

From wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sustainable

"Since the 1980s, human sustainability has implied the integration of economic, social and environmental spheres to: “meet the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs."

Why should we accept a trade-off between health, environment and preventing starvation?

I think the Med. and Okinawan diets give us a good starting point to start investigating how to solve this problem.
I also believe the common factor in these diets are that the ingredients are locally sourced and therefore fresh.

[Darat]

So what diet is sustainable in Med. countries?

Nothing.

[!Kaggen]

Pretty much what I was going to say. If you mean sustainable for humanity as a whole, there's simply no such thing. As long as the population continues to increase, there will inevitably come a point where no diet is possible that will provide for everyone.

On the other hand, if you just mean capable of sustaining an individual, there are a huge number of different diets that are perfectly healthy.

The population question is also part of the sustainability equation.
If the population is not maintained within a sustainable limit then questions of sustainable healthy food are meaningless.
Sustainability is not an object like a tree. It is purely a concept, like democracy, towards which we hope humanity wants to move.
The question in the OP is asked in this context.
If we do not ask ourselves what kind of world do we want to live in, we will never find ways of making it that way.
By investigating current and historical diets and there ability to maintain health and at the same time be economically, socially and environmentally sustainable we can deduce what concepts are worth testing and which aren't.
Of course historically, diets have been limited to geography compared to relatively recently with almost limitless access to food from all over the globe (at least in rich western countries). However this has been at an environmental cost which will only becoming apparent in the future. This needs to be taken into account in the analysis.
I still think it is relevant to use historical diets as starting points for further analysis. Especially the diets which stand out above the others.

[!Kaggen]

Nothing.

Planning on moving this thread to the philosophy?

[Herzblut]

Planning on moving this thread to the philosophy?
It just looks like Darat got some food poisoning while on vacation in Italy or Spain.

[JJM]

Eat mostly vegetables, and not too much. ...That seems right.

The Okinawa diet described in Wiki is fictional. Sorry, I no longer have my references on it; but it is high in grease and pork. The diet advocated in the article may be good; but it is not typical of Okinawa.

[!Kaggen]

It just looks like Darat got some food poisoning while on vacation in Italy or Spain.

Hmm, probably from eating at a fish and chip shop for British tourists

[quarky]

Eat people, but cook well.

[!Kaggen]

A very, very interesting question.

This has been studied quite a bit.

Here is your answer. (http://www.ooze.com/pweeta/)

Eat people, but cook well.

French cuisine

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delicatessen_%28film%29

[CoolSceptic]

"Since the 1980s, human sustainability has implied the integration of economic, social and environmental spheres to: “meet the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs."
Vague, wordy, imprecise. Will be measured differently by different people. Results will be subjective.

That doesn't make the question unanswerable, just expect people to rationalise their own prejudices. Not particularly scientific.

Sorry for interrupting. Do carry on ;) :D

[!Kaggen]

That seems right.

The Okinawa diet described in Wiki is fictional. Sorry, I no longer have my references on it; but it is high in grease and pork. The diet advocated in the article may be good; but it is not typical of Okinawa.

I did not find any references to your argument of the fictional nature of the "Okinawan diet" in this list of publications
http://www.okicent.org/publications.html
Perhaps you are thinking of diets of typical young (<30 years old) Okinawans which are probably as you say. However the "Okinawan diet" I am talking about refers to the traditional diet common to those who have lived to an old age and contribute to the high life expectancy stats of Okinawans, not the youth who might not get that old.

[!Kaggen]

Vague, wordy, imprecise. Will be measured differently by different people. Results will be subjective.

That doesn't make the question unanswerable, just expect people to rationalise their own prejudices. Not particularly scientific.

Sorry for interrupting. Do carry on ;) :D

from previous post

"Sustainability is not an object like a tree. It is purely a concept, like democracy, towards which we hope humanity wants to move."

Is democracy not worth pursuing then because it is subjective and not particularly scientific?

[Mojo]

French cuisine

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delicatessen_%28film%29


Japanese cuisine:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tampopo

[CoolSceptic]

from previous post

"Sustainability is not an object like a tree. It is purely a concept, like democracy, towards which we hope humanity wants to move."
From my previous post: vague, wordy, imprecise. You don't have to be vague, wordy, imprecise about diet. There are many sound metrics available to use. Ignoring all the meaningful metrics is a decision you have made.

Is democracy not worth pursuing then because it is subjective and not particularly scientific?
Thanks for the straw man. As for democracy, there are many different forms, some of which I would prefer humanity not to follow.

This is the fundamental problem. When you are too vague, everyone and his dog attaches all kinds of BS to it. Let's take medicine as a neutral-territory example here. I hope we can agree homeopathy is utterly worthless. But boy, is it SUSTAINABLE. And don't take my word for it. Check out the centre for sustainable medicine (http://sustainablemedicine.org/). They like the acupuncture also. I mean, it's just so sustainable.

So, let's consider this. Sustainability, according to you, is something you want humanity to move towards. And you can't deny: homeopathy and acupuncture sure are sustainable. They use up much less of the world's resources than evidence based medicine. More left for future generations. Think of the children!

So, I put myself in the position of my Victorian ancestors. They had the choice between putting effort into "sustainable" medicine like that above (homeopathy, acupuncture), and evidence-based medicine. Which of those do you think did the most good for future generations (i.e. me)? A world in which we have an endless supply of homeopathic remedy, or the other one?

I'm personally most pleased that they put their effort and resource mainly into the option that didn't have the "sustainability" tag. My life is of far higher quality because of it.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Why should we accept a trade-off between health, environment and preventing starvation?
Because there are nearly 7 billion of us and we must.

As I mentioned, there's no way we can feed 7 billion people without using fossil fuels and depleting aquifers, two inherently unsustainable practices.

[jimtron]

A difficult question since it couples individual and global aspects.

I'm confident that a cereal-free, sugar-free diet is extremely healthy, but not globally applicable ("sustainable").

Why cereal-free?

[rjh01]

Me, I believe that you should eat a wide variety of food. If you are hungry (and not just bored or something) then you need to eat. If you are overweight then your diet is not good. Do not cut out completely any food group. Reduce it yes, but that is all. You may be missing out on vital things.

I would not pay extra for "organic" food. It should be cheaper as they do not have to pay for the fertilizers and pesticides that other farmers do. Also try to define the term as it changes on who you ask.

[!Kaggen]

From my previous post: vague, wordy, imprecise. You don't have to be vague, wordy, imprecise about diet. There are many sound metrics available to use. Ignoring all the meaningful metrics is a decision you have made. Since when does sustainability mean ignoring metrics and since when did I say ignore them? The point is to define what it is that should be measured in order to assess sustainability. Without a framework as to what we are looking for your playing blind. Because it is difficult to define sustainability does not imply it should be ignored. I find scientists involved in theoretical/technical fields such as math, physics and chemistry give up easily on biological complexity because the problems are hard to put a finger on. This is what the real problem is. If you expect easy answers the difficult questions get ignored.

As for democracy, there are many different forms, some of which I would prefer humanity not to follow. So which form of sustainability would you like to follow?

Thanks for the straw man

Thanks for reciprocating below.

This is the fundamental problem. When you are too vague, everyone and his dog attaches all kinds of BS to it. Let's take medicine as a neutral-territory example here. I hope we can agree homeopathy is utterly worthless. But boy, is it SUSTAINABLE. And don't take my word for it. Check out the centre for sustainable medicine (http://sustainablemedicine.org/). They like the acupuncture also. I mean, it's just so sustainable.

So, let's consider this. Sustainability, according to you, is something you want humanity to move towards. And you can't deny: homeopathy and acupuncture sure are sustainable. They use up much less of the world's resources than evidence based medicine. More left for future generations. Think of the children!

So, I put myself in the position of my Victorian ancestors. They had the choice between putting effort into "sustainable" medicine like that above (homeopathy, acupuncture), and evidence-based medicine. Which of those do you think did the most good for future generations (i.e. me)? A world in which we have an endless supply of homeopathic remedy, or the other one?

I'm personally most pleased that they put their effort and resource mainly into the option that didn't have the "sustainability" tag. My life is of far higher quality because of it.

[Brian-M]

Eat people, but cook well.


I too was going to suggest cannibalism. The advantage of this is the more you eat, the less strain on the environment, making it the only truly environmentally friendly food supply.

[!Kaggen]

Because there are nearly 7 billion of us and we must.

As I mentioned, there's no way we can feed 7 billion people without using fossil fuels and depleting aquifers, two inherently unsustainable practices.

Population levels are also part of the sustainability equation so they should be included and tackled accordingly instead of throwing ones hands up in the air and saying that's the way it is, live with it.
After studying and working in agriculture for 17 years I am convinced we have the technologies to feed 7+ billion people sustainably. The problems I have come across in achieving this have been purely due to selfish reasons, not lack of knowledge. Read through my comments starting here http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=4953265#post4953265 in the thread mentioned in the OP about this issue.

[!Kaggen]

I suggest those who are not convinced that sustainable farming techniques can achieve production levels higher than conventional with less fertilizers and less pollution read up more about

Biochar
http://terrapreta.bioenergylists.org/

Nature Farming with Effective Microorganisms

http://www.infrc.or.jp/english/KNF_Data_Base_Web/index.html

For those that can read Japanese
http://www.infrc.or.jp/

[rjh01]

I suggest those who are not convinced that sustainable farming techniques can achieve production levels higher than conventional with less fertilizers and less pollution read up more about

Biochar
http://terrapreta.bioenergylists.org/

Nature Farming with Effective Microorganisms

http://www.infrc.or.jp/english/KNF_Data_Base_Web/index.html

For those that can read Japanese
http://www.infrc.or.jp/


Does this mean that they would be able to produce food that is cheaper than other farms? If so every farm would need to use these techniques or go out of business.

[CoolSceptic]

Since when does sustainability mean ignoring metrics and since when did I say ignore them? The point is to define what it is that should be measured in order to assess sustainability. Without a framework as to what we are looking for your playing blind.
Now this comment I have no problem with. What should be measured to define sustainability? But that isn't what you said in your original post. And nobody is likely to do it, either, because politicos like that vague wording that allows them to come to the conclusion they first thought of.

Because it is difficult to define sustainability does not imply it should be ignored. I find scientists involved in theoretical/technical fields such as math, physics and chemistry give up easily on biological complexity because the problems are hard to put a finger on. This is what the real problem is. If you expect easy answers the difficult questions get ignored.
We've made huge advances in biology etc. through rational thinking and quantification. Not through woolly thinking.

So which form of sustainability would you like to follow?
The one in which we don't use the vague term "sustainability" to pander to people's prejudices. Like the example I linked, that you termed a strawman.

The example that I linked makes many of the same pronouncements you make here, that just make no sense. It is almost suggesting a holistic approach to healthcare, environment and agriculture. (Douglas Adams, you are sorely missed) Hmm, sounds like someone suggesting there's no trade off with sustainability (rubbish, there are always trade-offs). Their preferred example - Cuba! Yes, we should all be more like Cuba, apparently. How do they justify this view? Hand-waving about sustainability.

The best way to guarantee the future of mankind is to advance technology in a quantified way, IMHO. And unless you can pin a metric on sustainability (which is a whole different discussion to the one you started here), you're not doing future generations any help at all.

[Kahalachan]

I call my diet the Evolution Diet.

I'm sure some nutritionist already thought of this.

But it goes like this........

How humans have evolved to eat is sustainable.

We climbed trees and ate vegetation. We would occasionally come across a carcass or kill one ourselves. But the meat would be hard to come by. When it came to meat eating we'd have to exercise and earn it. Sugars weren't easy to come by. Drink lots of water cause there was no soda for Australopithicus.

Lots of veges. Exercise. A little meat. Lots of water.

And that's the healthiest diet.

[Mojo]

I call my diet the Evolution Diet.

I'm sure some nutritionist already thought of this.

But it goes like this........

How humans have evolved to eat is sustainable.

We climbed trees and ate vegetation. We would occasionally come across a carcass or kill one ourselves. But the meat would be hard to come by. When it came to meat eating we'd have to exercise and earn it. Sugars weren't easy to come by. Drink lots of water cause there was no soda for Australopithicus.

Lots of veges. Exercise. A little meat. Lots of water.

And that's the healthiest diet.


I've seen it suggested that a certain amount of meat (in particular fat) in the diet would have been necessary for the evolution of the brain, since the amount of energy needed for a large brain would be difficult to obtain from a vegetarian diet (especially if, as you say, sugars weren't easy to come by).

[!Kaggen]

Does this mean that they would be able to produce food that is cheaper than other farms? If so every farm would need to use these techniques or go out of business.

Yes, they already do. However keep in mind the price of food is not solely dependent on what the farmer sells it for. What the farmer gets and what the consumer pays is vastly different in many cases. One of the most important ways of reducing the price consumers pay for food is by reducing the differential between what the farmer gets and what the consumer pays. Farmers should be getting more for their produce and consumers should be paying less. Right now many farmers are on the verge of economic ruin or are being subsidized by tax payers, whilst retailers make record profits.
Sustainable farming implies a massive revision of the way food is marketed and who profits.

[!Kaggen]

Now this comment I have no problem with. What should be measured to define sustainability? But that isn't what you said in your original post. And nobody is likely to do it, either, because politicos like that vague wording that allows them to come to the conclusion they first thought of. You are still confusing defining sustainability as a concept and measuring degrees of it. The OP wiki reference I believe has a adequate starting point to define sustainability as a concept. If you have a better definition let us know.


We've made huge advances in biology etc. through rational thinking and quantification. Not through woolly thinking. And therefore......


The one in which we don't use the vague term "sustainability" to pander to people's prejudices. If you do not like the vagueness then give us a better definition with which to work with and go out to start measuring.

The example that I linked makes many of the same pronouncements you make here, that just make no sense. It is almost suggesting a holistic approach to healthcare, environment and agriculture. (Douglas Adams, you are sorely missed) Hmm, sounds like someone suggesting there's no trade off with sustainability (rubbish, there are always trade-offs). Their preferred example - Cuba! Yes, we should all be more like Cuba, apparently. How do they justify this view? Hand-waving about sustainability. The point of the OP was not to give a solution if you did not notice, it was to ask for solutions with a couple of starters which I believe could help. So you are welcome to supply something concrete other than your own handwaving about rationallity, metrics, prejudices, vagueness and being scientific. Backseat drivers become a bit tedious after a while, so come take the wheel and be sure that we will let you know how your are doing.

The best way to guarantee the future of mankind is to advance technology in a quantified way, IMHO. And unless you can pin a metric on sustainability (which is a whole different discussion to the one you started here), you're not doing future generations any help at all. No its not, its exactly what I the OP asks. I asked you what you believed was a sustainable diet. You have answered one that can be measured. Whoopy, now tell us what we should be measuring?

[!Kaggen]

I call my diet the Evolution Diet.

I'm sure some nutritionist already thought of this.

But it goes like this........

How humans have evolved to eat is sustainable.

We climbed trees and ate vegetation. We would occasionally come across a carcass or kill one ourselves. But the meat would be hard to come by. When it came to meat eating we'd have to exercise and earn it. Sugars weren't easy to come by. Drink lots of water cause there was no soda for Australopithicus.

Lots of veges. Exercise. A little meat. Lots of water.

And that's the healthiest diet.

Something like this

http://www.paleodiet.com/

hope you like raw food

[CoolSceptic]

You are still confusing defining sustainability as a concept and measuring degrees of it. The OP wiki reference I believe has a adequate starting point to define sustainability as a concept. If you have a better definition let us know.


And therefore......


If you do not like the vagueness then give us a better definition with which to work with and go out to start measuring.

The point of the OP was not to give a solution if you did not notice, it was to ask for solutions with a couple of starters which I believe could help. So you are welcome to supply something concrete other than your own handwaving about rationallity, metrics, prejudices, vagueness and being scientific. Backseat drivers become a bit tedious after a while, so come take the wheel and be sure that we will let you know how your are doing.

No its not, its exactly what I the OP asks. I asked you what you believed was a sustainable diet. You have answered one that can be measured. Whoopy, now tell us what we should be measuring?
You seem to be confusing solutions and the metrics by which they are judged.

In the OP you asked for solutions, and you defined your metric as a link to a wiki entry on sustainability. You did not ask for a definition of sustainability. Please note I was not the only poster who observed this, even if I am a little more persistent ;) :)

If I was to choose the ideal diet, I would accept modern intensive farming practices as the most practical way to feed 7 billion people, and I see no reason why the present system of farming shouldn't continue for the next 50 years. Any diet which is justified on nutritional grounds (on which I claim no expertise) should be fine. Anyone who believes they can predict what technological advances will happen over the next 50 years, and therefore what people will be doing in 50 years time, are borderline delusional, so I don't really care beyond that point.

Probably not the answer you're looking for, but there it is.

[Cuddles]

If the population is not maintained within a sustainable limit then questions of sustainable healthy food are meaningless.

Exactly. So until you come up with a way of maintaining a sustainable population (however you define that), the question asked in the OP is completely pointless.

I still think it is relevant to use historical diets as starting points for further analysis. Especially the diets which stand out above the others.

Historically, humans have eaten pretty much anything they can get their hands on. Historically, they have also been rather unhealthy. Historically, humans have never been vaguely sustainable. The only reason sustainability is an issue now where it wasn't before is simply that there are more of us, and practices that were fine on a small scale are not so fine on larger scales.

For example, native tribes in various places are often held up as examples of humans living "naturally", "sustainably", "in touch with nature" and all that crap. Which is total bollocks. Case in point, I recently spent a couple of months in the Amazon working with some of the Huaorani. Their way of feeding themselves is to kill anything that moves and pick anything that looks edible. It's sustainable only because there are around 3000 of them in total. In the area I was working there are around 300 people in a territory of several hundred thousand hectares. And the Huaorani have one of the more sustainable lifestyles, other peoples have traditionally used much more destructive techniques such as slash and burn farming.

These people are no different from any other societies, they simply never developed any other techniques, probably mainly due to lack of any need for them. Looking at historical diets in order to find sustainability is guaranteed to fail, because historically there has never been the concept of sustainability. It's only in the last century or so that people have really realised it's possible for things like resources, land and so on to actually run out.

If you want to make plans for the future, you have to start with the present, not the distant past.

[!Kaggen]

Exactly. So until you come up with a way of maintaining a sustainable population (however you define that), the question asked in the OP is completely pointless. Ok, perhaps you would like to suggest what is a sustainable population and a way to maintain it using a definition of your preference.

Historically, humans have eaten pretty much anything they can get their hands on. Historically, they have also been rather unhealthy. Historically, humans have never been vaguely sustainable. The only reason sustainability is an issue now where it wasn't before is simply that there are more of us, and practices that were fine on a small scale are not so fine on larger scales.

For example, native tribes in various places are often held up as examples of humans living "naturally", "sustainably", "in touch with nature" and all that crap. Which is total bollocks. Case in point, I recently spent a couple of months in the Amazon working with some of the Huaorani. Their way of feeding themselves is to kill anything that moves and pick anything that looks edible. It's sustainable only because there are around 3000 of them in total. In the area I was working there are around 300 people in a territory of several hundred thousand hectares. And the Huaorani have one of the more sustainable lifestyles, other peoples have traditionally used much more destructive techniques such as slash and burn farming.

These people are no different from any other societies, they simply never developed any other techniques, probably mainly due to lack of any need for them. Looking at historical diets in order to find sustainability is guaranteed to fail, because historically there has never been the concept of sustainability. It's only in the last century or so that people have really realised it's possible for things like resources, land and so on to actually run out.

If you want to make plans for the future, you have to start with the present, not the distant past. That is why I never suggested using hunter gatherers now or in the past as an example from which to start, but people living in western societies with a recent well documented history of diet, health, social interactions and environmental impact. Thanks anyway for the interesting story.

[!Kaggen]

You seem to be confusing solutions and the metrics by which they are judged. No, the only solution I suggested to the question of the OP was local fresh food.

In the OP you asked for solutions, and you defined your metric as a link to a wiki entry on sustainability. You did not ask for a definition of sustainability. Please note I was not the only poster who observed this, even if I am a little more persistent ;) :)The question of what is a sustainable diet is a concept/hypothesis deduced from observations which can be tested and the data obtained can be used to revise the concept. I used the wiki definition of sustainable as a starting point for investigating diets which might be sustainable. Like I said before if you or others feel the wiki definition is too vague you are all welcome to contribute to refining it.

If I was to choose the ideal diet, I would accept modern intensive farming practices as the most practical way to feed 7 billion people, and I see no reason why the present system of farming shouldn't continue for the next 50 years. Any diet which is justified on nutritional grounds (on which I claim no expertise) should be fine. Anyone who believes they can predict what technological advances will happen over the next 50 years, and therefore what people will be doing in 50 years time, are borderline delusional, so I don't really care beyond that point.
Thanks for your opinion. Now explain why it took so many posts for you to give it.

Probably not the answer you're looking for, but there it is.
Aah, on a fishing expedition. At least this is now clear. I can safely now ignore your input on furthering the discussion on the question of the OP.

[Number Six]

The problem with the word "sustainable" is that it implies that nothing will change. If the circumstances as they are now remain constant forever then we can judge the impact of what we choose to do and see what happens over the long term and from that we can decide what is sustainable. But of course, we know that things won't remain constant forever and in fact things will constantly change. So it seems impossible to call anything truly sustainable. I think that thinking in terms of being less wasteful and more efficient is better. Or perhaps, "sustainable for the forseeable future" instead of "sustainable."

Also let me add something about local food. Here's the problem as I see it that would arise if everyone started eating local food. Customers would be eliminating 99.9% of potential sellers right off the bat solely based on location. And conversely, the sellers would have a monopoly, or perhaps an oligarchy, because they'd know their potential customers have eliminated almost all of their competitors right off the bat. That would be very inefficient. I think that operating so inefficiently is less sustainable than is any particular practice.

[!Kaggen]

The problem with the word "sustainable" is that it implies that nothing will change. That is a strange interpretation of the word sustainable. Of course the meaning of words change too over time so I am not sure why the word sustainable in particular won't change too. The meanings of words change according to new circumstances that come along and humans attach different meanings to the same word based on these changed circumstances. However since I am not clairvoyant I prefer to use the current meaning of a word in order to judge how to act now according to this meaning.

If the circumstances as they are now remain constant forever then we can judge the impact of what we choose to do and see what happens over the long term and from that we can decide what is sustainable. But of course, we know that things won't remain constant forever and in fact things will constantly change. So it seems impossible to call anything truly sustainable. Well of course it would be if you think that the word sustainable will have the same meaning forever, this is circular reasoning.

I think that thinking in terms of being less wasteful and more efficient is better. And why, using your argument about the meaning of the concept sustainable staying constant, should the meanings of the concepts less wasteful and more efficient not remain constant in time (not that I think they will stay constant).

Or perhaps, "sustainable for the forseeable future" instead of "sustainable." The reason for deciding what is currently sustainable is to establish a current agreed meaning for the term so that hopefully we will act accordingly. Knowing what the concept sustainable will mean in the future is anyone's guess, but if we are to act today we need to work by current understanding not what we don't know yet.

Also let me add something about local food. Here's the problem as I see it that would arise if everyone started eating local food. Customers would be eliminating 99.9% of potential sellers right off the bat solely based on location. And conversely, the sellers would have a monopoly, or perhaps an oligarchy, because they'd know their potential customers have eliminated almost all of their competitors right off the bat. That would be very inefficient. I think that operating so inefficiently is less sustainable than is any particular practice. Hmm, the locally sourced food is inefficient argument again. At this stage the evidence suggests that this argument is clutching at straws for the simple reason that the local food movement is flourishing. If its growing then its either efficient or the current "efficient system" is not efficient for allowing an inefficient system to flourish. Your pick.

[CoolSceptic]

I used the wiki definition of sustainable as a starting point for investigating diets which might be sustainable. Like I said before if you or others feel the wiki definition is too vague you are all welcome to contribute to refining it.
IMHO asking people to provide a solution and define the metric by which it is measured is a bit like believing everything a salesman says.

But hey, it's your thread, go with it.

[Number Six]

When I said that the word "sustainable" implies nothing will change I didn't mean the meaning of the word itself. I meant circumstances in our society. IOW, it's not possible to know what is sustainable because to do so assumes you know the distant future. But nobody knows that. Something that seems sustainable now may not be in the future due to a change we can't foresee. Or something that seems unsustainable now may be sustainable in the future. We don't know and unless we're talking about the near future we often can't even make an educated guess.

Some people say the automobile isn't sustainable. If that's the case then one of two things are two:

1. The automobile was once sustainable but it's not anymore. In that case, something that was once sustainable changed categories.

2. The automobile was never sustainable. In that case, it pokes a big hole in the argument that we should even aim for sustainability since it implies we should never have invented and used automobiles because after all, it wasn't sustainable. So it wasn't sustainable. So what? It served a great purpose for a century so far. It'll continue to serve a purpose and slowly over time, as gas gets more expensive or whatever, we'll morph into using something else.

It doesn't make sense to not do something because someday we won't be able to continue doing it, because such a criticism can be leveled at everything we do.

Think of all the things humans have done in history using your knowledge now and ask yourself how much of it was sustainable in the sense that it could have gone on indefinitely. I bet that just about none of it was. And yet here we are. We've somehow magically sustained ourselves by continually doing unsustainable things.

Change is certain to come and so we should try to be smart about it. But there is no final, perfect state where everything we do is sustainable and nothing ever changes. We're always doing something that we've figured out how to do but that we won't be able to do forever, but it's an improvement over the last thing and it will serve us until we figure out the next thing.

As far as the local food thing goes, if everybody bought there food locally what do you think would happen to the price of food? To answer that, put yourself in the position of the local food seller. If you know that people are going to buy your product no matter what then what are you going to do to the price of your food?

[quarky]

We're being sustained by fossil fuel consumption, which is being used at a rate beyond its replacement rate. Hence, sustainability is sort of out the window from the start.

This could be corrected by a large decrease in our population, and/or some new technologies in agriculture, or greater use of burgeoning ag. tech, such as single celled protein, leaf concentrate, insect protein, etc.

[!Kaggen]

When I said that the word "sustainable" implies nothing will change I didn't mean the meaning of the word itself. I meant circumstances in our society. IOW, it's not possible to know what is sustainable because to do so assumes you know the distant future. But nobody knows that. Something that seems sustainable now may not be in the future due to a change we can't foresee. Or something that seems unsustainable now may be sustainable in the future. We don't know and unless we're talking about the near future we often can't even make an educated guess.
The word sustainable is a description, based on our current understanding, of how humans might behave so that maximum economic, social and environmental benefits are sustained for the maximum period. It is therefore simply a conceptual reference within which we can work allowing constant feedback in order to adjust the conceptual reference. A bit like the scientific method applied to "how we should live". This implies that the circularity to which you refer is avoided and the paralysis to act which this uncertainty of the future might invoke is also avoided. Using this framework there is therefore no such thing as something which is sustainable now and not in the future since the meaning of the word sustainable has changed. This does not make someones action now within the framework of sustainability right or wrong. The word evolution embraces much more now than what Darwin could ever have imagined. That did not make him incapable of using his conception of evolution to describe many things and do his groundbreaking work. The fact that we might consider some of his description wrong now does not mean that the concept of evolution as he understood it was useless, just incomplete. I am suggesting humans move towards behavior patterns within a dynamic conceptual framework called sustainability which embraces current knowledge of maximum economic, social and environmental benefits which are sustained for the maximum periods. As current knowledge is updated so too will the concept sustainability change and the way we behave. I think people are naturally resistant to changing their behavior to fit within a certain conceptual framework and that is the resistance towards thinking about the concept sustainability which implies a behavior change in many cases. Important milestones in human cultural development always met with resistance, but if the pioneers gave up because of this we would still be running around naked grunting at each other.

Some people say the automobile isn't sustainable. If that's the case then one of two things are two:

1. The automobile was once sustainable but it's not anymore. In that case, something that was once sustainable changed categories.

2. The automobile was never sustainable. In that case, it pokes a big hole in the argument that we should even aim for sustainability since it implies we should never have invented and used automobiles because after all, it wasn't sustainable. So it wasn't sustainable. So what? It served a great purpose for a century so far. It'll continue to serve a purpose and slowly over time, as gas gets more expensive or whatever, we'll morph into using something else. This is false analogy because it is not a question of whether an object such as an automobile is sustainable, but rather the whole context in which the object functions and particularly interacts with society, the economy and the environment. In this regard issues such as the use of private vehicles compared to public transport, petrol vs. diesel, fossil fuels v. biofuels etc etc are the questions regarding sustainability not the existence of vehicles or not.


It doesn't make sense to not do something because someday we won't be able to continue doing it, because such a criticism can be leveled at everything we do. Functioning within a sustainable conceptual framework is not only about not doing something that your are doing currently because it might not be sustainable in the future, but about doing something now which we know is sustainable. Like I said above if you don't get the concept, sustainability, then the glass is half empty, if you do then its half full.

Think of all the things humans have done in history using your knowledge now and ask yourself how much of it was sustainable in the sense that it could have gone on indefinitely. I bet that just about none of it was. And yet here we are. We've somehow magically sustained ourselves by continually doing unsustainable things. Once again by magically transporting the current meaning of sustainable back and forth into the past and into the future you end up with contradictions which make good rhetoric, but help little in making a start in clarifying how we should behave.

Change is certain to come and so we should try to be smart about it. But there is no final, perfect state where everything we do is sustainable and nothing ever changes. We're always doing something that we've figured out how to do but that we won't be able to do forever, but it's an improvement over the last thing and it will serve us until we figure out the next thing. Hell yeah, there is this little matter called science which aims at predicting the future, based on past observations. Science does not work by accident. Scientist create hypotheses which predict a certain outcome which they then observe. Sustainability is one such hypothesis. The fact that the observed results might contradict ones current behavior is too bad. It does mean that the current behavior is wrong. At least from a scientific point of view.

As far as the local food thing goes, if everybody bought there food locally what do you think would happen to the price of food? To answer that, put yourself in the position of the local food seller. If you know that people are going to buy your product no matter what then what are you going to do to the price of your food? Well as it happens I am one and I know your assumptions are pure fiction. I do not own all the land in the area and I cannot imagine someone that could now or in the near future. Of course you could refer to the history of landlords and peasants and we all now how that turned out. Humans somehow have this ability to know when they are being ripped off and they don't put up with it forever. Its not sustainable ;)

[!Kaggen]

We're being sustained by fossil fuel consumption, which is being used at a rate beyond its replacement rate. Hence, sustainability is sort of out the window from the start.

This could be corrected by a large decrease in our population, and/or some new technologies in agriculture, or greater use of burgeoning ag. tech, such as single celled protein, leaf concentrate, insect protein, etc.

Thanks quarky.
As per usual one of the few who contribute some actual substance rather than getting stuck on the lets be a skeptic , just because this is a skeptics forum and I want to impress my fellow skeptics by being lets see, being skeptical.
Must have something to do with gardening. :)
When its time to plant, weed or water its time no matter how skeptical you might be about it.

[CoolSceptic]

It doesn't make sense to not do something because someday we won't be able to continue doing it, because such a criticism can be leveled at everything we do.
Well said - exactly like the precautionary principle, it is merely an method by which one can rationalise any position; as I said earlier, it simply allows people to pander to their own prejudices. It is the very antithesis of objectivity, which should be anathema to any sceptic. Let's take quarky's comment for example:

We're being sustained by fossil fuel consumption, which is being used at a rate beyond its replacement rate.
So what? We have hundreds of years of use of fossil fuels remaining, and as the resource starts to get scarce, the price will go up and other forms of energy will become more economical.

If we had no other forms of energy that could possibly replace fossil fuels, perhaps it would be something to be concerned about for future generations. But that simply isn't the case; nuclear power is more than capable of providing the sorts of levels of power we currently derive from fossil fuels. And there are tens of thousands of years of readily accessible fissionable material by todays tech (possibly millions if tech improves; possibly billions if fusion tech works out).

So what do we do about the reducing resource of fossil fuels? Do we switch to nuclear now, and save the fossil fuels... for what exactly? So that the future generations can also not use them and get some kind of similar intangible feel-good factor from not using fossil fuels?

If you have a specific reason for not using fossil fuels - pollution for example - then that is a justifiable reason for taking action. But if pollution is the issue, just say pollution - it is more measurable, more specific, and a more useful definition than the vague platititude of "sustainability".

I don't even need to address your "solutions" since you haven't yet identified a problem.

[!Kaggen]

Well said - exactly like the precautionary principle, it is merely an method by which one can rationalise any position; as I said earlier, it simply allows people to pander to their own prejudices. It is the very antithesis of objectivity, which should be anathema to any sceptic. Let's take quarky's comment for example:


So what? We have hundreds of years of use of fossil fuels remaining, and as the resource starts to get scarce, the price will go up and other forms of energy will become more economical.

If we had no other forms of energy that could possibly replace fossil fuels, perhaps it would be something to be concerned about for future generations. But that simply isn't the case; nuclear power is more than capable of providing the sorts of levels of power we currently derive from fossil fuels. And there are tens of thousands of years of readily accessible fissionable material by todays tech (possibly millions if tech improves; possibly billions if fusion tech works out).

So what do we do about the reducing resource of fossil fuels? Do we switch to nuclear now, and save the fossil fuels... for what exactly? So that the future generations can also not use them and get some kind of similar intangible feel-good factor from not using fossil fuels?

If you have a specific reason for not using fossil fuels - pollution for example - then that is a justifiable reason for taking action. But if pollution is the issue, just say pollution - it is more measurable, more specific, and a more useful definition than the vague platititude of "sustainability".

I don't even need to address your "solutions" since you haven't yet identified a problem.

At least you seem to find this entertaining.
I myself never understood the lore of fishing.

[CoolSceptic]

At least you seem to find this entertaining.
I myself never understood the lore of fishing.
You think striving for objectivity and rational thinking is "fishing"?

Fascinating. If that's fishing, I'm happy to be a fisherman.

I'll leave the touchy-feely-holistic stuff to the experts.

[quarky]

I was approaching the issue of sustainability from a non-emotional perspective. Whether its seen as a problem with or without solutions is not my issue. Its easier to view it from a nuts and bolts angle, like "how many sheep can I raise on this much pasture, year after year, without depleting the soil productivity or needing to purchase inputs beyond the profits of the product produced".

Not so much healy-feely.

[!Kaggen]

I was approaching the issue of sustainability from a non-emotional perspective. Whether its seen as a problem with or without solutions is not my issue. Its easier to view it from a nuts and bolts angle, like "how many sheep can I raise on this much pasture, year after year, without depleting the soil productivity or needing to purchase inputs beyond the profits of the product produced".

Not so much healy-feely.

I second this approach.

[CoolSceptic]

I was approaching the issue of sustainability from a non-emotional perspective. Whether its seen as a problem with or without solutions is not my issue.
OK...
Its easier to view it from a nuts and bolts angle, like "how many sheep can I raise on this much pasture, year after year, without depleting the soil productivity or needing to purchase inputs beyond the profits of the product produced".
... which is exactly the sorts of questions modern intensive farming concentrates on. So, in a non-emotional sense, you should have no issue with modern intensive farming methods then?

And where is the dependency on fossil fuels, the topic of your original post? If you are referring to the Haber-Bosch process, it is not fussy where the Hydrogen comes from. Fossil fuels are not a required input, they are just more efficient than other methods. Perhaps you are thinking of a different dependency?

[!Kaggen]

... which is exactly the sorts of questions modern intensive farming concentrates on. Really now. Most interesting. Please provide us with evidence of this and while you at it a little more detail for the vague concept "modern intensive farming methods".

Fossil fuels are not a required input, they are just more efficient than other methods. Once again please provide the evidence for this and whilst you at it also some more detail on the vague concept "other methods".

[CoolSceptic]

Really now. Most interesting. Please provide us with evidence of this and while you at it a little more detail for the vague concept "modern intensive farming methods".
!Kaggen, you spent the whole other thread complaining about modern intensive farming methods. And now you say you need them explained?

If you need them explained, how can you possibly be critical of them? Sheesh.

Once again please provide the evidence for this and whilst you at it also some more detail on the vague concept "other methods".
Ummm... what?

You want me to explain how the Haber-Bosch process can work without fossil fuels? What, because you're too lazy to look it up in a very elementary chemistry text book?

To produce fertilizer, the key first component is ammonia, NH3. This is made via the Haber-Bosch process. Inputs are N2 and H2 (nitrogen and hydrogren). N2 is readily available in the atmosphere - no shortage there. H2 is harder to come by.

Conventionally, H2 is recovered from Methane (CH4). Because the C-H bonds are relatively weak, it takes (relatively) little energy to get H2 out. But there is another way: electrolysis of water. This is more expensive because the H-O bonds in water take more energy to break. But electrolysis just needs water and electricity - no fossil fuels necessary.

Once you've got N2 and H2, you just need a whole bunch of heat and pressure to make ammonia. And that can come from any energy source.

Net result: fertilizer, made from nitrogen in the air, water and a whole bunch of energy from any source - such as nuclear. It makes no sense to do this today, because making it from fossil fuels is a lot cheaper.

On the plus side, I won't be able to get near a computer tomorrow, so you can continue this thread without me interrupting :)

[quarky]

!Kaggen, you spent the whole other thread complaining about modern intensive farming methods. And now you say you need them explained?

If you need them explained, how can you possibly be critical of them? Sheesh.


Ummm... what?

You want me to explain how the Haber-Bosch process can work without fossil fuels? What, because you're too lazy to look it up in a very elementary chemistry text book?

To produce fertilizer, the key first component is ammonia, NH3. This is made via the Haber-Bosch process. Inputs are N2 and H2 (nitrogen and hydrogren). N2 is readily available in the atmosphere - no shortage there. H2 is harder to come by.

Conventionally, H2 is recovered from Methane (CH4). Because the C-H bonds are relatively weak, it takes (relatively) little energy to get H2 out. But there is another way: electrolysis of water. This is more expensive because the H-O bonds in water take more energy to break. But electrolysis just needs water and electricity - no fossil fuels necessary.

Once you've got N2 and H2, you just need a whole bunch of heat and pressure to make ammonia. And that can come from any energy source.

Net result: fertilizer, made from nitrogen in the air, water and a whole bunch of energy from any source - such as nuclear. It makes no sense to do this today, because making it from fossil fuels is a lot cheaper.

On the plus side, I won't be able to get near a computer tomorrow, so you can continue this thread without me interrupting :)

True, N2 can be procured with a variety of energy inputs, including bacteria.
That it is mostly accomplished with fossil fuels is problematic, but not hopeless. There are other problems associated with 'modern' agriculture.
There are also many other energy inputs needed, also mostly supplied via fossil fuels.

To be aware of some of the problems with modern farming doesn't necessarily imply a switch to older methods. Most of them were also non-sustainable. Slash and burn is organic. Running hogs on steep hills is organic. Erosion is organic.

The solutions to the problems are new approaches; new focus.
I'd say its quite analogous to the problem of the automobile.
Some re-think is required.

[Brian-M]

So what? We have hundreds of years of use of fossil fuels remaining, and as the resource starts to get scarce, the price will go up and other forms of energy will become more economical.


The topic being discussed is sustainability. Pointing out that we can continue the unsustainable practice of burning vast quantities of fossil fuels for energy for several more generations is completely beside the point.

As for other forms of energy becoming more economical... can you suggest any sustainable energy source that can feasibly meet current world energy demands?

nuclear power is more than capable of providing the sorts of levels of power we currently derive from fossil fuels. And there are tens of thousands of years of readily accessible fissionable material by todays tech (possibly millions if tech improves; possibly billions if fusion tech works out).


Ignoring the vast piles of highly radioactive waste switching to nuclear fission would produce, there is only a limited supply of Uranium available, meaning nuclear power is not "sustainable" either. Switching to nuclear simply makes Uranium the next "fossil" fuel.

As for thousands of years of supply?

According to the NEA, identified uranium resources total 5.5 million metric tons, and an additional 10.5 million metric tons remain undiscovered—a roughly 230-year supply at today's consumption rate in total. Further exploration and improvements in extraction technology are likely to at least double this estimate over time.


How long would that last if everyone switched to nuclear power? (Admittedly, there are theoretical advances that could increase this to thousands of years. Click here (http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=how-long-will-global-uranium-deposits-last) to read the article.)

So what do we do about the reducing resource of fossil fuels? Do we switch to nuclear now, and save the fossil fuels... for what exactly? So that the future generations can also not use them and get some kind of similar intangible feel-good factor from not using fossil fuels?


What about tangible feel-good factors, such as using the hydrocarbons in fossil fuels to produce plastic and other materials?


Since using fossil fuel is non-sustainable, and modern agriculture is dependent on them, modern agriculture is also non-sustainable. Of course, current population levels and societies cannot be sustainably maintained either, so we're kind of stuck with things as they are at present.

[!Kaggen]

!Kaggen, you spent the whole other thread complaining about modern intensive farming methods. And now you say you need them explained?
If you need them explained, how can you possibly be critical of them? Sheesh. You should pay more attention to detail. I never said I need to understand what modern intensive farming methods are. I said you should explain what you mean by "modern intensive farming methods" and provide evidence for your claims that your idea of these methods take the nuts and bolts of sustainable practices into account.
You are welcome to use the wiki entry on intensive farming (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intensive_farming) with specific reference to the paragraph "modern intensive farming types".

In "the other thread" I was critical of specific details of current farming practice which are neither modern nor intensive. That is why I am curious to know what you think is modern intensive farming. I suspect its more hand waving.



Ummm... what?

You want me to explain how the Haber-Bosch process can work without fossil fuels? What, because you're too lazy to look it up in a very elementary chemistry text book?

To produce fertilizer, the key first component is ammonia, NH3. This is made via the Haber-Bosch process. Inputs are N2 and H2 (nitrogen and hydrogren). N2 is readily available in the atmosphere - no shortage there. H2 is harder to come by.

Conventionally, H2 is recovered from Methane (CH4). Because the C-H bonds are relatively weak, it takes (relatively) little energy to get H2 out. But there is another way: electrolysis of water. This is more expensive because the H-O bonds in water take more energy to break. But electrolysis just needs water and electricity - no fossil fuels necessary.

Once you've got N2 and H2, you just need a whole bunch of heat and pressure to make ammonia. And that can come from any energy source.

Net result: fertilizer, made from nitrogen in the air, water and a whole bunch of energy from any source - such as nuclear. It makes no sense to do this today, because making it from fossil fuels is a lot cheaper.

On the plus side, I won't be able to get near a computer tomorrow, so you can continue this thread without me interrupting :) No, that's not what I asked. I am a soil scientist and horticulturist after all. I asked you to provide evidence for your claim that using fossil fuels are more efficient than "other methods". I also asked you to specify what you think these "other methods" might be. I'll take a guess in the meantime, more hand waving.

[!Kaggen]

Some re-think is required.

Quarky, why is that when we suggest a re-think skeptics stop thinking?

[quarky]

There seems to be an urge to pigeon-hole posters into a format that makes it easier to be argumentative. I like to keep them guessing, though I actually don't know how to classify myself. I enjoy learning new stuff from people that know more than I do.

Btw, my brother grows a tropical floating fern that fixes N2...the name escapes me presently...are you familiar with it? He also works with Maringa leaves (edible tree leaves). Its this sort of research that gives me some hope.

[!Kaggen]

There seems to be an urge to pigeon-hole posters into a format that makes it easier to be argumentative. I like to keep them guessing, though I actually don't know how to classify myself. I enjoy learning new stuff from people that know more than I do.

Btw, my brother grows a tropical floating fern that fixes N2...the name escapes me presently...are you familiar with it? He also works with Maringa leaves (edible tree leaves). Its this sort of research that gives me some hope.

Makes two of us.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azolla
Amazing plant.
I have experimented with it in the past, just need to watch it as it is invasive into naturally ecosystems and can become a serious weed.

Tropical agriculture is fascinating but not something I have much experience with as South Africa has no tropical areas.
I met Miguel A. Altieri at the IFOAM 2000 scientific conference in Basel, Switzerland. He is regarded as one of the pioneers of sustainable agriculture in tropical regions specifically S. America.
Here is one of his review papers:
http://agroeco.org/fatalharvest/articles/enhancing_prod_la_peasants.html

[Herzblut]

Why cereal-free?
Trying to set a counterpoint to vegetarian types of diets.

I believe that fruit, veggies and meat is perfectly healthy, with no need for noodles, pasta or other farina products. A hunter/gatherer type of diet ("paleodiet").

[power2012]

Lots of vegetables is probably best, with a good portion of freshly picked, raw, or alive vegetables. Grains and also beans and legumes for protein. Oils like flak seed oil, sunflower, pumpkin, and things like that.

A lot of fruit.

Less meat the better! None is the best!

Never cow milk, cow milk is the worst thing! Only almond milk and things like that!

Starches and meats should never be mixed together. More of the so called "Alkaline" producing foods are better than always eating "acid" producing ones.

Although the fact still remains that if mankind if going to survive into the future as a species, he will have to eventually, over enough generations of adaptation and evolution, adapt to a fruitarian diet.

Pure water many times a day!

[Herzblut]

Less meat the better! None is the best!

No, why?


Although the fact still remains that if mankind if going to survive into the future as a species, he will have to eventually, over enough generations of adaptation and evolution, adapt to a fruitarian diet.
No, why?

[CoolSceptic]

No, that's not what I asked.
Then you did not ask clearly.

I asked you to provide evidence for your claim that using fossil fuels are more efficient than "other methods".
!Kaggen, I understand that English may not be your first language but (whether accidentally or otherwise) you have quoted me out of context and have massively distorted what I said. Please look at my original quote:
If you are referring to the Haber-Bosch process, it is not fussy where the Hydrogen comes from. Fossil fuels are not a required input, they are just more efficient than other methods. Perhaps you are thinking of a different dependency?
In context, I was clearly referring to fossil fuels being a more efficient method of the Haber-Bosch process. Do you know a more efficient method for the Haber-Bosch process? If so, I suggest you patent it as you could make billions of dollars.

But no, instead you quote me out of context, to make it appear that I said something else. That's pretty high on the weasel scale, the kind of argument 9/11 truthers and creationists use.

[power2012]

No, why?


No, why?

There are tons of better alternatives to meat. Harmful effects of meat have been well documented for years.

As for human beings becoming fruitarian...it is the only way because the future world and universe will be one that demands less killing, and ultimately no killing. Short of accomplishing a fruitarian diet I believe mankind will go extinct.

[Cuddles]

Ok, perhaps you would like to suggest what is a sustainable population

I have absolutely no idea. The problem is that neither do you. And as I said, until you have an answer, this entire thread is pointless because it asks a nonsensical question. You can whine all you like about how your questions make skeptics stop thinking, but the fact is that you've already admitted that your question is meaningless.

[Cuddles]

and as the resource starts to get scarce, the price will go up and other forms of energy will become more economical.

I agree with most of what you say, but this part is wrong. Just because one resource becomes less economical does not mean others will become more economical. It can easily just mean that everything is uneconomical.

The topic being discussed is sustainability. Pointing out that we can continue the unsustainable practice of burning vast quantities of fossil fuels for energy for several more generations is completely beside the point.

It depends on your definition of "sustainability". A resource that will run out in 100 years would probably be described as unsustainable in any reasonable view. But what about 1000 years? Or a million? At what point do you start calling it sustainable? Given a finite observable universe, there isn't anything that can last for an infinite time, so you could justifiably, if rather pedantically, say that nothing is sustainable.

You have to draw a line somewhere, and "several generations" doesn't sound all that unreasonable given that human civilisation has never gone that long without having some fairly major changes along the way.

Ignoring the vast piles of highly radioactive waste switching to nuclear fission would produce

As is pointed out pretty much every time this comes up, burning coal produces more radioactive waste than nuclear fission. The "vast piles" are a political creation only, in reality both the amount and the danger are vastly smaller than is often claimed. It's still something that needs to be taken in to consideration, but it's just not the major issue that opponents of nuclear power generally try to make it.

there is only a limited supply of Uranium available, meaning nuclear power is not "sustainable" either. Switching to nuclear simply makes Uranium the next "fossil" fuel.

And the Sun will eventually go out so solar power isn't sustainable. But looked at in sensible terms, there's enough thorium to keep us going on current power usage for millions of years, and that's before taking things like breeder reactors into account.

[!Kaggen]

You have to draw a line somewhere, and "several generations" doesn't sound all that unreasonable given that human civilisation has never gone that long without having some fairly major changes along the way.



As is pointed out pretty much every time this comes up, burning coal produces more radioactive waste than nuclear fission. The "vast piles" are a political creation only, in reality both the amount and the danger are vastly smaller than is often claimed. It's still something that needs to be taken in to consideration, but it's just not the major issue that opponents of nuclear power generally try to make it.

And the Sun will eventually go out so solar power isn't sustainable. But looked at in sensible terms, there's enough thorium to keep us going on current power usage for millions of years, and that's before taking things like breeder reactors into account.

So when it comes to predicting the future of energy you certainly don't pull any punches.
But about the question of "what is a sustainability population" you say.

I have absolutely no idea. The problem is that neither do you.

Well this proves my point below without needing to whine.

You can whine all you like about how your questions make skeptics stop thinking............

and another point

stick to what your good at, in your case predicting the future and
I will will stick to mine which is sustainable agriculture

[Brian-M]

It depends on your definition of "sustainability". A resource that will run out in 100 years would probably be described as unsustainable in any reasonable view. But what about 1000 years? Or a million? At what point do you start calling it sustainable? Given a finite observable universe, there isn't anything that can last for an infinite time, so you could justifiably, if rather pedantically, say that nothing is sustainable.

You have to draw a line somewhere, and "several generations" doesn't sound all that unreasonable given that human civilisation has never gone that long without having some fairly major changes along the way.


Sure, it does depend on what kind of time-scale we're looking at, but "sustainability" is generally looked at in the longer term view by many people these days.


As is pointed out pretty much every time this comes up, burning coal produces more radioactive waste than nuclear fission.


I've looked up the article about this in Scientific American (http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste), and looking closely at the editor's note on page 2 (http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste&page=2), the claim is not that the ash from coal-power is more radioactive, but that "ounce for ounce, coal ash released from a power plant delivers more radiation [into the surrounding environment] than nuclear waste shielded via water or dry cask storage".

You would need to keep the all the radioactive waste from nuclear power generators sealed up indefinitely for this comparison to remain valid.


And the Sun will eventually go out so solar power isn't sustainable.

Since the earth will be fried to a crisp and completely uninhabitable long before the sun goes out, I don't see this as a major problem. :)

But looked at in sensible terms, there's enough thorium to keep us going on current power usage for millions of years, and that's before taking things like breeder reactors into account.

I've never heard of Thorium before. Interesting stuff.

Other sources of power such as geothermal energy can also be looked into as a source of non-fossil energy as well.

[Cuddles]

Well this proves my point below without needing to whine.

How can anything prove your point? You don't have one! You claim you're "good at" sustainable agriculture, but not only are you incapable of defining "sustainable", you admit that your entire question is nonsensical given that you can't deal with the problem of population. If you want to prove your point, you will first have to tell us what it actually is. I suspect the main reason you have a problem doing that is that you don't have any idea what it is yourself.

Sure, it does depend on what kind of time-scale we're looking at, but "sustainability" is generally looked at in the longer term view by many people these days.

Yes, but which longer term? That was my point. Nothing is sustainable if looked at in a long enough term. Everything is sustainable if looked at in the short enough term. In order to have any sensible discussion about it, you have to define exactly what you consider sustainable.

You would need to keep the all the radioactive waste from nuclear power generators sealed up indefinitely for this comparison to remain valid.

No you wouldn't. The more radioactive something is, the faster it decays. You don't need to keep waste sealed up for particularly long before you're just left with relatively low-level waste. As I said, the problem certainly exists and needs to be considered seriously, but it's just not as bad as people make out.

I've never heard of Thorium before. Interesting stuff.

If fission takes off in any major way, which seems pretty much inevitable, thorium will almost certainly have to be the main fuel.

That said, one thing that is often missed out when people talk about uranium reserves is that no-ones ever really looked for it. Since the few deposits we've found have been plenty for our needs, it's just not economical to go looking for more. It's entirely possible that there is plenty of uranium around to keep us going for much, much longer, but we just haven't looked for or found it yet. Personally I wouldn't rely on that, but it's something to keep in mind.

Other sources of power such as geothermal energy can also be looked into as a source of non-fossil energy as well.

Oh, there are plenty of renewable sources around as well. Hopefully we'll find one that can actually supply all our energy so we won't have to worry about fossils, nuclears or any other finite resources. At the moment, however, we just don't have the technology to do that.

[GlennB]

Do you mean not sustainable to non-Mediterranean countries or not sustainable for Mediterranean countries, sorry its not very clear?

Mediterranean fish stocks have been in decline for decades and can no longer provide the people in this region with sufficient fish to support a "mediterranean diet". Much of the fish consumed by Med. people is imported.

With fisheries worldwide under severe pressure (to say the least) trying to spread the Med. diet worldwide would just hasten their decline.

This diet is non-sustainable both locally and globally given current population levels.

However, if you adopt it you will sustain yourself very happily ;)

[Marduk]

I am asking the question what diet is the most appropriate for maximizing human health as well as being sustainable?
Soylent green
:p

[quarky]

I'm going to take a stab at the O.P.'s question:

The concept of sustainability needn't get mystical for this sort of discussion.
In a micro ecological niche, such as , a wood-lot, a sustainable 'diet' of wood heat from that lot would be dictated by the amount of trees that could be removed without depleting the productivity of that piece of forest.

A way to get more fuel from that plot would be to have a more efficient stove; better insulation; more intelligent consumption, etc.

A sustainable diet relies on sustainable topsoil. Despite human's amazing feats, we still utterly depend on a thin and fragile layer of topsoil. It is not being sustained, therefore, our diet is not sustainable, in general.

It is quite analogous to the woodlot. To avoid further depletion of the tenuous, fluffy layer on top (which takes centuries to develop) would require some serious changes in how we do things. Less people would help, of course. More efficient useage of the harvest; dietary changes; etc, could hasten the demise of this thin layer that sustains us all.

This is not to suggest that there aren't possibilities of making food independently of the topsoil...but so far, we aren't going there.

[!Kaggen]

Mediterranean fish stocks have been in decline for decades and can no longer provide the people in this region with sufficient fish to support a "mediterranean diet". Much of the fish consumed by Med. people is imported.

With fisheries worldwide under severe pressure (to say the least) trying to spread the Med. diet worldwide would just hasten their decline.

This diet is non-sustainable both locally and globally given current population levels.

However, if you adopt it you will sustain yourself very happily ;)

Thanks for the input. I am aware of this.
I used the Mediterranean diet because of the original meaning of the diet explicit in its name, people living next to the Mediterranean eating fresh produce, including fish, from their immediate environment. I was not thinking of the abstraction Med. countries.

Somehow I do not believe the fish shortages in the Med. is caused by people living on the Mediterranean eating fresh fish caught in their immediate environment. It is due to industrialized high tech fishing and transport of fish from the Mediterranean sea all over inland Europe. This is of course not sustainable as we are finding out and all the more reason to understand the significance in terms of sustainability of a diet named after an ecosystem type. The fact that people who live on the Mediterranean sea now are not able to continue having a diet which includes local food stuffs and which sustained people living on the Mediterranean for hundreds of years till now indicates that we are far from understanding what is a sustainable existence for humans living in the Med. ecosystem. We simply just cannot pretend that the problem will go away and we need to deal with it decisively.

[Mojo]

Only almond milk and things like that!


Almonds are not mammals.

[!Kaggen]

How can anything prove your point? You don't have one! Quarky, why is that when we suggest a re-think skeptics stop thinking?
You claim you're "good at" sustainable agriculture, but not only are you incapable of defining "sustainable",
By sustainable I mean this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sustainable)
you admit that your entire question is nonsensical given that you can't deal with the problem of population. The population question is also part of the sustainability equation.
If the population is not maintained within a sustainable limit then questions of sustainable healthy food are meaningless.
If you want to prove your point, you will first have to tell us what it actually is.
Though these diets have some basic tenants in common (lots vegetables) I think the most obvious commonality is that the food is locally sourced and the food is fresh. This also makes these diets sustainable.

I suspect the main reason you have a problem doing that is that you don't have any idea what...

you're point is

[!Kaggen]

I'm going to take a stab at the O.P.'s question:

The concept of sustainability needn't get mystical for this sort of discussion.
In a micro ecological niche, such as , a wood-lot, a sustainable 'diet' of wood heat from that lot would be dictated by the amount of trees that could be removed without depleting the productivity of that piece of forest.

A way to get more fuel from that plot would be to have a more efficient stove; better insulation; more intelligent consumption, etc.

A sustainable diet relies on sustainable topsoil. Despite human's amazing feats, we still utterly depend on a thin and fragile layer of topsoil. It is not being sustained, therefore, our diet is not sustainable, in general.

It is quite analogous to the woodlot. To avoid further depletion of the tenuous, fluffy layer on top (which takes centuries to develop) would require some serious changes in how we do things. Less people would help, of course. More efficient useage of the harvest; dietary changes; etc, could hasten the demise of this thin layer that sustains us all.

This is not to suggest that there aren't possibilities of making food independently of the topsoil...but so far, we aren't going there.

Quarky, the sad thing is that what we know about soil is a fraction of what we know about space. Its no wonder Prof. Hawking gives human survival one option. Space. I suppose that better than trying to live in mathematical equations....

[quarky]

One thing we do know about topsoil is how it is washing down river.
Where i used to live, there was a soil conservation program, with subsidies. If you followed their advice, you could minimize your loss to 1/4 inch/year. We had 6 inches.

When I met with the agent, I laughed aloud at the plan, referring to it as the 24 year plan.
Meanwhile, I found my own plan, which actually increased the topsoil layer, while still allowing a harvest.

[CoolSceptic]

I agree with most of what you say, but this part is wrong. Just because one resource becomes less economical does not mean others will become more economical. It can easily just mean that everything is uneconomical.
Hmm... I could have worded that better. Although I could argue that being uneconomical is simply a point on the scale of being economical, it is also possible that such an approach would be somewhat argumentative ;) :D

[Brian-M]

Yes, but which longer term? That was my point. Nothing is sustainable if looked at in a long enough term. Everything is sustainable if looked at in the short enough term. In order to have any sensible discussion about it, you have to define exactly what you consider sustainable.


If we have to give an arbitrary time period, why not something something on the very safe side... like a million years. :)
After all, there are many living species that have been around for several million years without running out of natural resources.


No you wouldn't. The more radioactive something is, the faster it decays. You don't need to keep waste sealed up for particularly long before you're just left with relatively low-level waste. As I said, the problem certainly exists and needs to be considered seriously, but it's just not as bad as people make out.


You have a strange definition of "not particularly long". If it takes X years for the radioactive waste to decay to "safe" levels of radioactivity, and we are producing a constant amount of waste from power plants then we are faced with storing X amount of radioactive waste forever, because we are constantly replacing it as it decays.

And for radioactive waste, X can be a very large value...

The timeframe in question when dealing with radioactive waste ranges from 10,000 to 1,000,000 years,[34] according to studies based on the effect of estimated radiation doses.[35] Researchers suggest that forecasts of health detriment for such periods should be examined critically.[36] Practical studies only consider up to 100 years as far as effective planning[37] and cost evaluations[38] are concerned. Long term behavior of radioactive wastes remains a subject for ongoing research projects.


If we switch to worldwide nuclear power, where will we be able to store over ten thousand years of accumilated radioactive waste? Even storing it for only a hundred years would, given global production, present huge practical difficulties.

[Policenaut]

The answer is simple: The gruel from The Matrix. I hope you enjoy eating cardboard mush.

[CoolSceptic]

If we switch to worldwide nuclear power, where will we be able to store over ten thousand years of accumilated radioactive waste? Even storing it for only a hundred years would, given global production, present huge practical difficulties.
Not really. It depends on the nuclear fuel cycle used. We presently use U-235 in thermal reactor designs because:
1. The fuel costs of running a reactor are tiny compared to the capital costs;
2. U235 thermal reactors are better understood and cheaper to set up and run than other reactor types

The U235 thermal reactor produces (relatively speaking) a lot of the "awkward" isotopes for the energy it produces. But U235 will become expensive as less than 1% of the uranium mined is this isotope; the rest is U238 (better known as "depleted" uranium, once the U235 is removed). As such, mining U235 is relatively costly and only viable where very high concentration ores exist. These, of course, will be used up first.

Thorium reactors can be set up in a way that produces virtually none of the "awkward" length radioactive materials, so no nuclear waste issue. Furthermore, fast breeder reactors can actually consume the "difficult" nuclear waste as fuel - including the depleted uranium.

So you don't need to think of it as nuclear waste, just think of it as storing fuel for future generations ;)

There is a downside - particularly for the fast breeder reactors - in that they can be configured in a manner to produce highly enriched fissile material, suitable for the manufacture of weapons. (It should be of little surprise that the first US and UK reactors were of the fast breeder type - their development was more to do with weapons programmes than a desire to produce commercial power). That said, people are starting to produce designs which are unsuitable for this use; nevertheless, any such reactors will need to be carefully monitored by an independent multinational body to prevent modification for military purposes.

[Brian-M]

Let's just leave the issue of nuclear waste aside for now... we've strayed far from the topic of this thread.

I've just being thinking, wouldn't home grown fruit and vegetables be the most realistic sustainable food? Of course, you wouldn't be able to produce enough to live off, but if everyone dug up their front and back yards and started growing potatoes, onions, tomatoes, ect, this would greatly reduce the amount of unsustainable resources used by commercial agriculture and food transportation, as well as improving our diets.

Compost heaps could provide a source of free fertilizer, and fruit trees could provide shade.
Of course, fans of the 1970's BBC TV series "The Goode Life" (http://www.bbc.co.uk/comedy/goodlife) might want to take this further.

[Marc39]

Michael Pollan, one of the best food writers I know of, has summarized it this way: Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants.

[Zeuzzz]

I dont know the amountfor a healthy sustainable human diet, but I eat about 4000-5000 calories a day and weigh only 10 stone :) My metabolism is far higher than anyone I know.

[Marc39]

I dont know the amountfor a healthy sustainable human diet, but I eat about 4000-5000 calories a day and weigh only 10 stone :) My metabolism is far higher than anyone I know.

Caloric restriction is a key method for life extenson.

[Zeuzzz]

Caloric restriction is a key method for life extenson.
:(

Will it make a difference if I start now nearly 22? Or have I already maxed out my calorie intake too much?!

Also do scientists know why less calories leads to longer lives in the studies they have done? (found loads, but no substantial causative reasons)

[CoolSceptic]

Let's just leave the issue of nuclear waste aside for now... we've strayed far from the topic of this thread.
I appreciate what you're saying here. But the original topic of this thread is very vague and covers very wide ground.

The original reason for bringing up nuclear is because of the main criticism of modern farming - the reliance on fossil fuels for fertilisers. If you look at peak oil websites, they will make a big deal of this, insisting that when the fossil fuel runs out, this will result in a collapse of present day farming methods.

But since the energy inputs from fossil fuels can equally well be provided by nuclear - which most certainly isn't running out any time soon - the fossil fuel requirement is not a limit on "sustainability", certainly not in terms of energy resource usage.

And since the loose term "sustainability" also refers to environmental issues, nuclear waste comes right under the OP question. So it seems quite on topic to me.

[quarky]

Good point. You're correct.

[!Kaggen]

I appreciate what you're saying here. But the original topic of this thread is very vague and covers very wide ground.

The original reason for bringing up nuclear is because of the main criticism of modern farming - the reliance on fossil fuels for fertilisers. If you look at peak oil websites, they will make a big deal of this, insisting that when the fossil fuel runs out, this will result in a collapse of present day farming methods.

But since the energy inputs from fossil fuels can equally well be provided by nuclear - which most certainly isn't running out any time soon - the fossil fuel requirement is not a limit on "sustainability", certainly not in terms of energy resource usage.

And since the loose term "sustainability" also refers to environmental issues, nuclear waste comes right under the OP question. So it seems quite on topic to me.

So the issue of fossil fuel consumption and climate change has nothing to do with sustainability and the potential collapse of present day farming methods?
I am also tired of your criticism of the concept "sustainability".
I have invited you numerous times in this thread to contribute to reducing what you perceive is the vagueness of this term and you have yet to follow through.

This is what you suggest is the answer to the question of the OP


If I was to choose the ideal diet, I would accept modern intensive farming practices as the most practical way to feed 7 billion people, and I see no reason why the present system of farming shouldn't continue for the next 50 years. Any diet which is justified on nutritional grounds (on which I claim no expertise) should be fine. Anyone who believes they can predict what technological advances will happen over the next 50 years, and therefore what people will be doing in 50 years time, are borderline delusional, so I don't really care beyond that point.


First of all you are happy with the current "modern intensive farming practices" whatever they are supposed to be. Talk about being vague.
Then you predict things will stay the same, even though you believe they will change, then say those that predict any changes are delusional and in any case you don't care. Interesting :rolleyes:
As for what a healthy diet is you are unable to contribute at all.

Its not surprising that you change the topic to nuclear power.

[CoolSceptic]

So the issue of fossil fuel consumption and climate change has nothing to do with sustainability and the potential collapse of present day farming methods?
I haven't discussed fossil fuels and climate change. Quarky did some good work - he actually came up with some specifics, and I engaged on them. Climate change was not part of the original discussion. Are you now trying to introduce climate change into the discussion, and if so, please explain your thinking.
I am also tired of your criticism of the concept "sustainability".
I have invited you numerous times in this thread to contribute to reducing what you perceive is the vagueness of this term and you have yet to follow through.
1. You may note that I am not the only one on this thread to criticise your use of the term sustainability.
2. It is not my job to fix your broken definitions.

First of all you are happy with the current "modern intensive farming practices" whatever they are supposed to be. Talk about being vague.
Sure, let's be specific. You whined about Norman Borlaug on the other thread. How about we start with the innovations he brought to modern farming? Just as a start.
Then you predict things will stay the same, even though you believe they will change, then say those that predict any changes are delusional and in any case you don't care. Interesting :rolleyes:
I think you are mixing up quotes from several different people there. I didn't say most of those things.
As for what a healthy diet is you are unable to contribute at all.
I can give you plenty of options for a healthy diet. But you asked for a sustainable healthy diet. I can't answer your question until I actually understand what you're asking. And so far all you've managed to do is to ask me to clarify what you were asking in the first place. It is kind of like this conversation:
Person A: How much do you think a gold tribble is worth?
Person B: I don't know, what on earth is a gold tribble?
Person A: Pff, everyone knows what a gold tribble is. So what is one worth?
Person B: I honestly don't know what the hell you're talking about.
Person A: Look, I'm fed up with you being difficult about what a gold tribble is, so why don't YOU define what a gold tribble is, then tell me what it is worth!
Person B: WTF?

Its not surprising that you change the topic to nuclear power.
The topic didn't change. I was explaining why stopping using fossil fuels does not necessarily imply stopping fertiliser production. It is what we call a logical, reasoned argument. It sometimes needs to dive down side branches to form a conclusion.

[Brian-M]

I appreciate what you're saying here. But the original topic of this thread is very vague and covers very wide ground.

The original reason for bringing up nuclear is because of the main criticism of modern farming - the reliance on fossil fuels for fertilisers. If you look at peak oil websites, they will make a big deal of this, insisting that when the fossil fuel runs out, this will result in a collapse of present day farming methods.

But since the energy inputs from fossil fuels can equally well be provided by nuclear - which most certainly isn't running out any time soon - the fossil fuel requirement is not a limit on "sustainability", certainly not in terms of energy resource usage.

And since the loose term "sustainability" also refers to environmental issues, nuclear waste comes right under the OP question. So it seems quite on topic to me.


If you look back to the post where I originally mention radioactive waste, you might notice that I was attempting to push the issue to one side for the purpose of this discussion. My use of the word "ignoring" was intended literally.

The reason for this is that the problem of storage and disposal of radioactive waste is a matter of logistics, not sustainability, which is what this thread is supposed to be about. It seems unlikely that we will reach an agreement on the issue, so why fill up this thread with continued discussion on a peripherally relevant subject?


Ignoring the vast piles of highly radioactive waste switching to nuclear fission would produce, there is only a limited supply of Uranium available, meaning nuclear power is not "sustainable" either. Switching to nuclear simply makes Uranium the next "fossil" fuel.

[Beerina]

The population question is also part of the sustainability equation.
If the population is not maintained within a sustainable limit then questions of sustainable healthy food are meaningless.

The concept of sustainability, as described here, is far out of context w.r.t. reality.


Long before any such "physical limits" occur, humanity will have figured out ways around it to increase the amounts and quality of food, as they have always done, barring significant (http://juliansimon.org/writings/Ultimate_Resource/) (read: rationing) government intervention.

This "sustainability" issue is just the latest variant of the kind of issue from the '70s that Simon shot down again, and again (and again and again and...)

Science: Theories, predictions, and observations of the predictions. That's what that web page is about.


So to answer the question, pick a healthy diet and don't worry about it. You'll always have things you can pick ("healthy" for your body, according to whatever you think is healthy) from the general available offerings, which will always be available because people always want them and capitalism always seeks to supply it.

Things don't seem "sustainable" at the moment (i.e. relying on fossil fuels for farming, fertilizer, and so on) because there's no economic impetus to abandon them. Yes, it's just like for oil and cars.

[Beerina]

BTW, "lab-grown meat" is one such possible thing from the future, but I don't know it will ever be more viable than actual farms. At least not on planets. :)

[!Kaggen]

The concept of sustainability, as described here, is far out of context w.r.t. reality.


Long before any such "physical limits" occur, humanity will have figured out ways around it to increase the amounts and quality of food, as they have always done, barring significant (http://juliansimon.org/writings/Ultimate_Resource/) (read: rationing) government intervention.

This "sustainability" issue is just the latest variant of the kind of issue from the '70s that Simon shot down again, and again (and again and again and...)

Science: Theories, predictions, and observations of the predictions. That's what that web page is about.


So to answer the question, pick a healthy diet and don't worry about it. You'll always have things you can pick ("healthy" for your body, according to whatever you think is healthy) from the general available offerings, which will always be available because people always want them and capitalism always seeks to supply it.

Things don't seem "sustainable" at the moment (i.e. relying on fossil fuels for farming, fertilizer, and so on) because there's no economic impetus to abandon them. Yes, it's just like for oil and cars.

Obviously an issue worth ignoring

Results 1 - 10 of about 31,400,000 for sustainability [definition]. (0.23 seconds)

Even NASA is ignoring it

http://news.cnet.com/8301-11128_3-10317272-54.html

especially since Wall Street is on top of things :rolleyes:

[!Kaggen]

[So QUOTE=CoolSceptic] It is kind of like this conversation:
Person A: How much do you think a gold tribble is worth?
Person B: I don't know, what on earth is a gold tribble?
Person A: Pff, everyone knows what a gold tribble is. So what is one worth?
Person B: I honestly don't know what the hell you're talking about.
Person A: Look, I'm fed up with you being difficult about what a gold tribble is, so why don't YOU define what a gold tribble is, then tell me what it is worth!
Person B: WTF?

At least you admit you have no idea what sustainability is.
So until you do I recommend finding another thread to pretend you know what your talking about, so long.

[CoolSceptic]

If you look back to the post where I originally mention radioactive waste, you might notice that I was attempting to push the issue to one side for the purpose of this discussion. My use of the word "ignoring" was intended literally.
But in doing so you made a fundamental error in understanding nuclear waste; so you merely created further debate. If you wish to sideline something, I suggest you simply do that.

The reason for this is that the problem of storage and disposal of radioactive waste is a matter of logistics, not sustainability
That depends on how you define sustainability, unfortunately. If you define it as having minimal impact on future generations, some argue that stockpiling waste is creating a potentially unmanageable problem for future generations. This is mainly an argument from ignorance and fear of nuclear waste (as discussed already).

Indeed, the WWF make exactly this claim - that nuclear is not sustainable because of waste - here (http://assets.panda.org/downloads/wwf_position_statement_nuclear_power.pdf).

This ultimately stems from the ambiguity of the term "sustainable", a problem !Kaggen seems unwilling to come to terms with. If we defined it clearly, perhaps we wouldn't have these problems.

[CoolSceptic]

At least you admit you have no idea what sustainability is.
So until you do I recommend finding another thread to pretend you know what your talking about, so long.

LOL, I've already told you what sustainability is. An opportunity for individuals to reinforce their opinion by choosing a definition of sustainability to match their own prejudices.

That's the best definition you're going to get in this thread, as well.

[!Kaggen]

An opportunity for individuals to reinforce their opinion by choosing a definition of sustainability to match their own prejudices.


And that would include your own definition then.
Thanks for that philosophical insight.:rolleyes:

[CoolSceptic]

And that would include your own definition then.
Thanks for that philosophical insight.:rolleyes:
For once I agree with you - had I chosen to attempt to define sustainability, of course I would have selected a definition that was well suited to my prior position.

The best way to avoid that problem? Measure things with OBJECTIVE, rather than SUBJECTIVE criteria.

Thank you for attending science 101.

[Zeuzzz]

Also do scientists know why less calories leads to longer lives in the studies they have done? (found loads, but no substantial causative reasons)

^^^^^^

[tyr_13]

^^^^^^

No.

[Beerina]

Obviously an issue worth ignoring

Results 1 - 10 of about 31,400,000 for sustainability [definition]. (0.23 seconds)

Even NASA is ignoring it

http://news.cnet.com/8301-11128_3-10317272-54.html

especially since Wall Street is on top of things :rolleyes:


Still not an issue, sorry.

[Beerina]

For once I agree with you - had I chosen to attempt to define sustainability, of course I would have selected a definition that was well suited to my prior position.

The best way to avoid that problem? Measure things with OBJECTIVE, rather than SUBJECTIVE criteria.


Oh good. People being converted to Julian Simon's cause (http://juliansimon.org/writings/Ultimate_Resource/).

Glad to see my hot air isn't being wasted.

Those millions of web hits from Google are all aware, of course, that the impact on humanity, w.r.t. actual, measurable, objective measures of quality and length of human life are exactly the issue, aren't they?


You can go from one article to the next, beginning to end, and not see one damned mention of actual, measurable effects on human life. Beyond, of course, the "promise" that a climate scientist (not an economist) thinks it'll happen. "Evidence?" is the question Simon asks, which kills these opinions of climate scientists.

Their job is the actual effect of this or that on the surface of the Earth, not, repeat, not the effect it will have on humanity. That is an economic question, which is why Simon's predictions come true, and the climate scientists', w.r.t. effect on humanity, always fail.


And to respond to the inevitable apologists for the wrongheaded, mass belief out there, what part of "always fail" don't you understand? Here's the data, predictions, observations. It works. The climate scientists' predictions of effect on humanity don't.

End of story. Fail. Don't agree? Fair enough. Evidence?