18 Jan 08
Originally posted by PsychoPawnOf course it has.
Do you have any research or evidence that this is true?
Lifespans have increased dramatically over the last hundred years or so. I'd be interested in actual evidence that processing food has somehow reduced them.
I do agree that there have been failures and that processed food is often not as good tasting (spray cheese doesn't even come close to a ...[text shortened]... 'd have to back that claim up if you want to claim that all processing has reduced lifespans.
Lifespans have been getting longer due to advances in medicine. You only have to read a couple of nutrition books to see that processed, artificial food is contributing to a shortening of lifespan (which may, I admit, still show a net increase), and a reduction in quality of life.
Most processed foods are very high in bad fats, salt and sugar (which is used to disguise the salt). There is absolutely no doubt that obesity is becoming more and more of a problem in the developed world. This is largely due to a decline in the quality of food, due to a steep incline in the consumption of processed foods.
D
18 Jan 08
Originally posted by rwingettOf course, people have always had to eat, but modern agriculture is very firmly tied to agricultural science. Fertilisers, pesticides, high yielding varieties have all increased the availability, and decreased the cost of food.
I don't know about the eating of food. They certainly ate in pre-scientific cultures. Are you referring to food processing?
18 Jan 08
Originally posted by PsychoPawn'claim that all processing has reduced lifespans' - I didn't make that claim.
Do you have any research or evidence that this is true?
Lifespans have increased dramatically over the last hundred years or so. I'd be interested in actual evidence that processing food has somehow reduced them.
I do agree that there have been failures and that processed food is often not as good tasting (spray cheese doesn't even come close to a ...[text shortened]... 'd have to back that claim up if you want to claim that all processing has reduced lifespans.
I would have to go back a few years and reread numerous nutrition books to try to present a balanced view as to why the presentation of highly processed foods is on balance a negative element on western society; but why should I when Ragnorak summarises so neatly above?
As to the farming of foods it is not 'science' that suggests that we eat plants designed to tolorate high levels of weedkiller etc, but I think there is increasing awareness that the complexity of interactions of chemical aids for farming getting into the foodchain has results yet to be seen.
But don't worry. Evolution is an irresistable force. Those of us whose genes can't survive won't, and those who do will continue the line...
19 Jan 08
6 edits
Originally posted by rwingettAfter doing a little surfing on the net, I came up with a few quotes that you might like to read regarding the issue which were by no means given by those who are religious.
What??? Now you're jabbering on like someone from the Olduwan culture of the Lower Paleolithic. Or worse. What historical record is there for this supposed change in the keeping of historical records? Pray tell. When was this "time of Adam"? Was that during the Paleolithic era as well? Or earlier? Was "Adam" an Australopithecus or a Homo Habilis? Or somethi ...[text shortened]... ? Please regale us with your assembled physical evidence for your ground breaking theories.
"Recorded history is no more than 6000 years old, whereas human beings have been making history ever since they have been on the earth, a period believed to be about 1 million years." (Ashey Montagu, Man: His First Million years)
"In the last 6000 years, man has advanced far more rapidly than he did the million or more years of prehistoric existence." (Loise Eisman and Charles Tanzer, Biology and Human Progress)
Here are the facts. About 6000 or so years ago the first civiliations appeared. The stone age began as mankind learned to use metals and stones for tools. The wheel was invented. Writing systems were developed and recorded history begins.
I suppose one could blame the retardation of such progress on two factors if leaving out the "God" factor. Either mankind made significant evolutionary progress on his own about 6000 years ago and/or you could blame it on environmental factors such as the Ice Age for retarding such development.
Equally as interesting to me is the fact that men such as Maimonides (1135-1204) and Nahmanides (1194-1270) wrote such astounding commentaries on Genesis to have said that there were human like-creatures during the time of Adam and Eve and hinted that mankind probably had an evolutionary type beginning. Were these revelations strictly from understanding Genesis from the Torah or other sources that we are not privy to? Who is to say, however, the fact remains that these ideas came about from such religious men well before modern science came to the same conclusions. Their conclusion were that Adam and Eve had been set apart from every other living creature when God breathed his soul life into them or his "neshamah" into them.
19 Jan 08
Originally posted by RagnorakI would argue that it is the foods being high in fats and sugars that is the problem and not the fact that they are "processed". I don't really disagree much with you here frankly.
Most processed foods are very high in bad fats, salt and sugar (which is used to disguise the salt). There is absolutely no doubt that obesity is becoming more and more of a problem in the developed world. This is largely due to a decline in the quality of food, due to a steep incline in the consumption of processed foods.
D
There is no doubt that obesity is a growing problem in the developed world. I think food also has to do with it, although there are many other factors. One of the most significant that I see is the significant reduction in exercise that the average person gets.
The problem is categorizing something as being "processed" (a pretty vague term, frankly) as being bad. Heck, just because something is natural doesn't make it good for you either.
19 Jan 08
Originally posted by snowinscotlandIt seems I did misunderstand your clam and I'm sorry. I think my response to Ragnorak somewhat explains my thoughts.
'claim that all processing has reduced lifespans' - I didn't make that claim.
I would have to go back a few years and reread numerous nutrition books to try to present a balanced view as to why the presentation of highly processed foods is on balance a negative element on western society; but why should I when Ragnorak summarises so neatly above?
...[text shortened]... Those of us whose genes can't survive won't, and those who do will continue the line...
As to the farming of foods it is not 'science' that suggests that we eat plants designed to tolorate high levels of weedkiller etc, but I think there is increasing awareness that the complexity of interactions of chemical aids for farming getting into the foodchain has results yet to be seen.
No argument here. Although, I'm not sure why you put superfluous quotes around the word science.
But don't worry. Evolution is an irresistable force. Those of us whose genes can't survive won't, and those who do will continue the line...
Now this just seems rude and snarky to me. I don't see how it makes sense in the context of the discussion or how it contributes to the conversation. But hey, I might be misunderstanding you 🙂
19 Jan 08
Originally posted by PsychoPawnI think Rangorak is right. The industrialized world is killing itself all in the name of the almighty dollar. They put preservatives in food to increase shelf life, they inject steroids in livestock for bigger animals, they overharvest fields to the point that they are nutrient poor. What does it all mean? It means a much higher rate of obesity, heart disease, and cancer in comparison to the rest of the third world.
I would argue that it is the foods being high in fats and sugars that is the problem and not the fact that they are "processed". I don't really disagree much with you here frankly.
There is no doubt that obesity is a growing problem in the developed world. I think food also has to do with it, although there are many other factors. One of the most sign ...[text shortened]... as being bad. Heck, just because something is natural doesn't make it good for you either.
19 Jan 08
Originally posted by whodeyMaybe religion was conceived 6000 years or so ago, rather than your conjecture that God intervened at that point.
After doing a little surfing on the net, I came up with a few quotes that you might like to read regarding the issue which were by no means given by those who are religious.
"Recorded history is no more than 6000 years old, whereas human beings have been making history ever since they have been on the earth, a period believed to be about 1 million years." ...[text shortened]... r living creature when God breathed his soul life into them or his "neshamah" into them.
Which seems more likely in your opinion?
Wait.
Don't answer that.
19 Jan 08
Originally posted by whodeyThats because people who live in the third world have a much lower life expectancy than people in the 'first world'. Heart disease, obesity, and cancer are all much more likely in people able to get past the age of 40 without being killed by militias, malaria, AIDS, TB, Cholera, Hepatitus A, B, C, or E, any of the parasitic worms, or just generally starving to death.
I think Rangorak is right. The industrialized world is killing itself all in the name of the almighty dollar. They put preservatives in food to increase shelf life, they inject steroids in livestock for bigger animals, they overharvest fields to the point that they are nutrient poor. What does it all mean? It means a much higher rate of obesity, heart disease, and cancer in comparison to the rest of the third world.
If people who live in the developed world, with the best hospital care, best access to varied foods, contraception and education, can't take two minutes to think "Hey Gee, I'm fat, diabetic, and need a bypass, maybe I should stop cramming all these sugary cakes into my mouth and do some exercise." then frankly, they deserve what they get.
Consumers have choice over what to buy, it's actually one of the things I approve of about capitalism. If people don't want to buy crap, they don't have to, the market for it will disappear and everyones a winner. Or possibly whiner. You never know with some people.
Anyhow, this is well off topic.
19 Jan 08
1 edit
Originally posted by josephwAlthough the fact that these people could create paint by the mixing of natural ingredients then paint the wall in a cave, presumably by using firelight doesn't convince you of the fact that maybe people were around at that time? Or maybe God put it there to confuse archaeologists? I guess if he did it with all those dinosaur bones he's vindictive enough to paint some fake painting, on a wall, in a cave, in France. I guess he does work in mysterious ways after all...
You folks don't get it!
If man had been around prior to 6000 years ago the archaeological remains of civilization would exstend futher back than just 6000 years. And not just a few smatterings of paint on the wall of a cave.
You don't think that maybe, most of the tools in use at the time were horn, wood and stones like flint. That maybe those type of tools wouldn't survive to the present day? Oh wait! Some Flint tools do exist from that period. They are called microliths.
6000 years ago writing hadn't been invented, so there is no recorded history at that point. Not that it matters too much, there is a wealth of scientific evidence, if you look for it. It's not as handy as reading one book, but it is quite interesting never-the-less.
Edit - Sorry for being so snotty, I was in a bad mood from work and needed to vent my rage. I just re-read this and realised I'd been a bit nastier than healthy debate calls for 🙂
19 Jan 08
Originally posted by whodeyAs I mentioned before, Ragnorak has a point.
I think Rangorak is right. The industrialized world is killing itself all in the name of the almighty dollar. They put preservatives in food to increase shelf life, they inject steroids in livestock for bigger animals, they overharvest fields to the point that they are nutrient poor. What does it all mean? It means a much higher rate of obesity, heart disease, and cancer in comparison to the rest of the third world.
There has been a correlation between an increase in prevalence in processed foods and some health problems in the western world. However, correlation is not causation.
It is necessary to take a real hard look at all the real causes and target them in a rational way.
19 Jan 08
Yes, some processed foods are bad for you. People shouldn't eat so much of it basically. There are regulations which control how much of what manufacturers should put in stuff, not putting things in which are likely to be poisonous etc etc. I don't know if it's different in the U.S. but in the UK, food manufacturers have to put how much salt, sugar, etc is in each product and there has recently been some more regulations to try and make it clearer to people what is in their food so that consumers can judge for themselves what they should or shouldn't eat.
As for pesticides and stuff like that, there are regulations covering this too (whether they are followed is a different matter), however if you are concerned try buying Organic produce. In the UK, this side of the market has expanded rapidly in the last couple of years and it is entirely consumer driven. Demand for organic food continues to grow and the market (no pun intended) follows it.
But I agree on some points in general. Some processed food is bad for you. Mind you, people used to think that tomatoes were poisonous so dietary advice has come a long way too.
19 Jan 08
Originally posted by whodeyAbsolute rubbish. All you're doing is vainly trying to force the data to fit your desired conclusion. But it does not.
After doing a little surfing on the net, I came up with a few quotes that you might like to read regarding the issue which were by no means given by those who are religious.
"Recorded history is no more than 6000 years old, whereas human beings have been making history ever since they have been on the earth, a period believed to be about 1 million years." ...[text shortened]... r living creature when God breathed his soul life into them or his "neshamah" into them.
It's true that recorded history is no more than 6,000 years old (actually it's only about 3,500 years old). It's also true that the rate of technological advancement has sped up dramatically within the last few thousand years, but your desired conclusion of 4,000 BCE (6,000 years ago) as being a watershed moment in human history simply does not hold up. Let's examine the type of things that had already been discovered before that time:
Stone scrapers: 2.5 million years ago
Stone hand axe: 1.6 million years ago
Fire: 1.5 million years ago
Clothing: 100,000 years ago
Domestication of animals: 15,000 BCE
Pottery: 11,000 BCE
Bow, sling: 9,000 BCE
Agriculture: 8,000 BCE
Here is the dating of some of the cultures that were around before your magical date:
Keberan (18,000 to 10,000 BCE) nomadic hunter gatherers. Used stone tools.
Natufian (12,500 to 9,500 BCE) established permanent settlements. Harvested wild grain.
Halafian (8,000 to 5,300 BCE) mud brick dwellings. Made glazed pottery. Farming. Kept cattle, sheep and goats.
The city of Catal Huyuk, in Turkey, was settled as early as 7,500 BCE, well before your claimed date of 4,000 BCE for the first civilizations. It maintained an estimated population of somewhere between 5,000 and 8,000 before eventually being abandoned. They had a thriving culture. They lived in plastered mud brick houses. Their many grave sites, murals and goddess figurines attest to a well developed religious sensibility. They were increasingly skilled at agriculture, the domestication of animals, pottery making and tool usage. In short, they were fully human and had a thriving culture as much as 3,500 years before your fairy tale date.
So it was a long, steady progression of advancements over a long period of time and not some miraculous burst of ingenuity that started 6,000 years ago. Your entire theory is utter garbage.
19 Jan 08
Originally posted by PsychoPawnScience does not 'do' anything; it is a field of study, so I put it in quotes to show I was using it in the sense that others on this forum say things like 'science does not advance this or that'.
Although, I'm not sure why you put superfluous quotes around the word science.
But don't worry. Evolution is an irresistable force. Those of us whose genes can't survive won't, and those who do will continue the line...
Now this just seems rude and snarky to me. I don't see how it makes sense in the context of the discussion or how it contributes to the conversation. But hey, I might be misunderstanding you 🙂
I felt the latter paragraph was simply the basic facts. How could it be rude? Perhaps you are a little sensitive?
20 Jan 08
Originally posted by scottishinnz"EVERY aspect of your life is underpinned by science, yet you would deny that. I call that hypocrisy."[/b]
[b]How much do you know about science?
Do you use a cell phone?
Science.
Do you eat food?
Science.
Are you typing on a computer?
Science.
Medicine?
Science.
Not everything.
I feel that you have missed my point.
If anything, science is in it's infancy. There's too much room for error and doubt. The time frames given for what existed more than 10,000 years ago is uncertain at the very least. There are too many variables for science to account for.