Gyroscopic Investing

i used to love fresh trout caught in  a high elevation stream, planted ones were OK native trout even better. i don't have the opportunity any more unfortunately.. 

how are you sorting out whether the fish you buy is what it says it is, is as fresh as it claims it is, is as as wild as it claims, as free of mercury etc. when you buy from the store? and if you do sort it all out are you paying a huge premium?

dualstow wrote:

rocketdog wrote: I recently read the book "Eating Animals", and the author mentions a slaughterhouse that is owned and run by vegetarians.

Interesting! I heard that book was a good read.

It's very well done.  He basically visits various factory farms -- sometimes trespassing in the dead of night -- and writes about what he observed.  He doesn't come across as trying to push an agenda, but rather as an observer documenting what he sees and hears.  I guess he became a vegetarian long before writing the book, then went back to eating meat, and has switched back and forth since.  It was written by the same author of "Everything is Illuminated" and "Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close". 

A lot of what he wrote about I'd already heard many times before, but then there are some first-hand accounts from slaughterhouse workers towards the end that really turned my stomach.  I had to force myself to keep reading.  Pretty disturbing stuff. 

l82start wrote: ... it varied depending on whether i was in the weight loss phase or the stable diet phase of the low carb/palio diet, during the weight loss portion i ate eggs, cheese, butter, ham, chicken, red meat, snacked on pork rinds or nuts and had a small portion of veggies with each meal i also stayed away from starches. not only did i loose weight but my appetite decreased significantly...

Sounds like a modified Atkin's/ketogenic diet.  Is that what you were following?

I just got back from an NIH conference where the neuroprotective effects of the ketogenic diet were discussed.  It's pretty amazing how it seems to protect against a wide array of neurodegenerative conditions (at least in rodent experiments).

I wonder if humans were meant to be in the ketotic state (brain running on ketones rather than glucose) on a regular basis, which is what would happen if you fasted occasionally.  It also brings to mind the story of the Navajo and other SW Indian tribes.  Historically, they ate when food was available which meant, not every day.  When they switched to a modern diet, they ended up with crazy high rates of obesity and diabetes.

WiseOne wrote:

l82start wrote: ... it varied depending on whether i was in the weight loss phase or the stable diet phase of the low carb/palio diet, during the weight loss portion i ate eggs, cheese, butter, ham, chicken, red meat, snacked on pork rinds or nuts and had a small portion of veggies with each meal i also stayed away from starches. not only did i loose weight but my appetite decreased significantly...

Sounds like a modified Atkin's/ketogenic diet.  Is that what you were following?

I just got back from an NIH conference where the neuroprotective effects of the ketogenic diet were discussed.  It's pretty amazing how it seems to protect against a wide array of neurodegenerative conditions (at least in rodent experiments).

I wonder if humans were meant to be in the ketotic state (brain running on ketones rather than glucose) on a regular basis, which is what would happen if you fasted occasionally.  It also brings to mind the story of the Navajo and other SW Indian tribes.  Historically, they ate when food was available which meant, not every day.  When they switched to a modern diet, they ended up with crazy high rates of obesity and diabetes.

yes basically a modified Atkin's/ketogenic type diet, or a DYS version of one, i mixed and matched between things i had been reading about/studying and what felt right to me..

i wonder the same? based on personal experience with the ketotic state and second hand stories from intermittent fasters i wouldn't be surprised if our body's did have a natural adaptation towards it, and got benefits from it as a result..

dualstow wrote: As a meat eater, I am doing my part by dying younger than vegetarians. Vegetarians will live longer, selfishly continuing to use the resources of the planet: water, oil, etc. By taking myself out relatively early with a grass-fed-beef-clogged small intestine, I am saving countless gallons of those resources, as well as megawatts upon megawatts of electricity.

Don't worry, the years vegeterians actually live longer could be measured on one hand and the disease-risk reduction rapidly closes the gap on S.A.D. as they age.  Part of it is because of chronic nutritional defenciencies and the other is most vegetarians are just non-animal "junk food" vegetarians.  The common thread in optimal health is not what you eat so much as what you don't eat (i.e. plant-based and man-made toxins).

Yeah, I think the word is still not out on the longevity benefit. Not to sound defeatist, but I still chalk most of it up to genes.
At the same time, I truly admire vegetarians. I just don't think it's the right choice for me. Not for more than a week at a time, anyway.

I don't buy factory farmed meat, so 99% of the animals I eat are well raised on small farms near home. It's not something I think about that much since I already do my best to support the best farmers I can find. Factory farms are deplorable and most should be shut down.

Ideally we'd all just hunt for our food — the animals would get a wider array of nutrients — but I don't know how to use any weapons.

In terms of the moral implications of eating meat, it seems that herbivores were basically created to be eaten by carnivores. Herbivores eat tons of plants all day and have very complex stomachs to concentrate those plant nutrients into their offal and fats. Then a carnivore comes along and eats those nutrients and those nutrients become part of the carnivore's cells — in ratios that are already balanced for animal cell composition (since the carnivore is actually eating animal cells). This ongoing cycle happens every single minute of every single day on African savannas.

Humans evolved to be meat-eating and omnivorous — as evidenced by our stomach composition and our dental structure (with an array of incisors and molars). It's just a part of life. I don't like the way the system is set up, but we do need to eat meat if we want our cells to be fed optimally (without resorting to artificial supplementation, that is). The human gut is far less complex than that of herbivores, so we lack the ability to easily transform all plant food into the proper ratios of carbs/fats/proteins found in our cells.

For instance, chimps and gorillas can obtain 60% of their energy from fiber, but humans — with our short colons — only have the ability to obtain, at most, 7% of our energy from fiber:

http://pmid.us/6320630

The highest fiber intake observed in any human culture was 86 grams (roughly 130 calories) per day — which is about 6% of energy. Interestingly, Africans have slightly longer colons, suggesting a slightly more plant-based evolutionary diet and a greater ability to ferment fiber into fats. And Europeans have slightly shorter colons, which suggests a more animal-based diet.

http://huntgatherlove.com/content/human ... er-follies

And finally, unlike gorillas and chimps, we have tiny cecums which prevents us from fermenting lots of plant matter into fat. Fat is necessary for all cells — particularly brain cells.

You could have probably shaved a full page off this thread had you posted earlier, Gumby.

Gumby makes a strong argument for why eating meat is healthy, but does it naturally follow from this that it is ethical? In other words, on what ethical basis do humans justify not extending the moral precept of "you shall not kill" to other forms of mammals? If two people were starving in the woods, it would be unethical for one to kill and eat the other, despite the fact that it would be the healthiest course of action.

Saying that it is natural and that other animals eat other animals is also a shaky argument. There is plenty of behavior in the lower animal kingdom of rape, murder, and incest that humans would not use to justify its occurence among us. If we are to consider ourselves more evolved and reasonable, then it must follow that we behave differently from those animals that we claim are beneath us. Because, if we behave as they do, then by what means do we have to claim ourselves as morally superior?

I am a meat eater, but it seems to me difficult to argue that killing (let alone the torture and degradation of factory farms) of another sentient being for my nourishment and palate pleasure is a strong ethical argument to make. Veganism and vegetarianism may not be optimal (that is debatable in light of scientific supplement advancements) but there exists plenty of evidence that billions of people live long and healthy lives on such a diet.

It seems to me that if we are to claim ourselves to be the highest species on this planet, we would do well to behave that way and not only extend our moral precepts to creatures that look like us, but to others beneath us as well.

It's an interesting question. Still, you have to wonder why nearly every culture that has ever graced the face of this planet chose to eat meat. Very few were ever vegetarians. There's also plenty of references in most religious cultures where meat eating is just a part of life (despite the whole "thou shalt not kill" clauses). So there seems to be an exception for animals — as if they were put on this Earth to feed and nourish us. We are at the top of the food chain, after all.

I believe most meat eating cultures would say a prayer of "thanks" to their god for providing the meat, wine, etc. Native Americans, Christians, Jews, Eskimos, etc. all had prayers for when food was slaughtered. Even many of the "Kosher" laws were about treating animals with respect (specific slaughtering techniques to minimize pain, for instance). You weren't supposed to eat the meat unless it was slaughtered in a humane manner.

Almost all cultures had very rich traditions for their slaughters. It's only recently that those traditions have been lost to corporations and their awful factory farms.

The morality of killing animals is something that becomes more uncomfortable the longer you look at it if you approach it from the perspective of humans and animals existing on the same moral plane. Because yeah, we do all sorts of unpleasant things to animals that we would never do to other humans.

It may sound blunt, but in the end, my moral argument is, "Because my species won the game of evolution." I believe a moral boundary exists between species, and it is more immoral to commit violence on a member of my own species than it is to perpetrate cross-species violence.

What fascinates me is how this debate can be viewed through the lens of the classic "in-group-out-group" modes of thought that so strongly inform modern politics. Unease at killing animals can be thought as an especially radical inclusion of animals in the expansive in-group you think of yourself as belonging to, while the more traditional willingness to not even think about the moral consequences of the act speaks to a quick judgement that animals are outside your group and worthy only of the application of more utilitarian moral codes, if any at all.

doodle wrote: Gumby makes a strong argument for why eating meat is healthy, but does it naturally follow from this that it is ethical?

If you view anything that is needed for your physical health as unethical, then perhaps you should look at your ethical system. 

Some people can do fine on a vegetarian diet.  Many cannot.  You need to be sensitive to your body.  Reality is reality.