Society, and the root cause of 99% of illnesses

I like the ideals of anarcho primitivism. However I do not think a complete restructuring of society is necessary to promote improvements in health at large.

I believe education is the most important single variable regarding individual health. Home economics should make a return to the public school system. Eating balanced non-processed meals is the most important thing one can do for their health, in my opinion. Most people my age have near zero kitchen skills.

The structure of society makes it very easy to maintain an unhealthy lifestyle. However, the means for a healthy lifestyle also exist. You can not force people to make healthy choices.

Originally posted by troubleshooter
Increased acidity is the root of most western diseases.

Processing food lowers pH.

Crystals form in acidic conditions.
Fungus strives in aciditic conditions.
Most micro-organisms thrive in acidic conditions.

The regulation of the pH of blood causes hydrogen ions to pass through vessel walls...
...which erode them and plaques form to close the erosions.

Intracellular communication is lowered by increased acidity.

I fully believe this. I used to eat mostly foods that are listed as promoting acidity in the body. After switching to a diet of foods known to promote alkalinity, I received a benefit of better looking skin and a more attractive body odor.

My bowels are awesome too. I never had major problems with them, but I feel much more clean these days.

I would like to see a modern society with a Human heart... To do that, the need for money must be excised. The love of money, being the root of all evil, has led us to some very evil choices - well, some of us, at any rate.

I propose a way to eliminate money and a return to a Human heart, caring for the planet and all who reside here, in two threads: The End of Entropy (read first; this is the foundation) and The Ethical Planetarian Party Platform (the structure). Both are linked in my sig.

Originally posted by Danbones
topping the list of top killers but missing from it are
not sure of the order.
proscribed drugs
doctors mistakes
medical procedures

Is that "proscribed" or "prescribed" drugs?

Big difference, as "proscribed" is "illegal." "Prescribed" is legal and doctor-recommended. I know the deaths from proscribed (illegal) drugs is nowhere NEAR the deaths from prescribed drugs.

Originally posted by XxRagingxPandaxX

Although its name sounds tame, this deadly neurotoxin is anything but. Aspartame is an artificial sweetener (over 200 times sweeter than sugar) made by the Monsanto Corporation and marketed as "Nutrasweet," "Equal," "Spoonful" and countless other trade names. Although aspartame is added to over 9,000 food products, it is not fit for human consumption! This toxic poison changes into formaldehyde in the body and has been linked to migraines, seizures, vision loss and symptoms relating to lupus, Parkinson's Disease, Multiple Sclerosis and other health destroying conditions (even Gulf War Syndrome). Learn more information about this crime against our health.

www.lovethetruth.com...

The FDA passed this!

And scarier still is "Neotame." Seems it doen't have to be on the label at all - and it can be in "organic" and "kosher" foods as well - with no labeling.

See here: www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by Danbones
reply to post by simone50m

 

we need to infect the money with something that causes an alergic reaction to profit.

Let's just join in supporting free energy and the Ethical Planetarian Party. (The End of Entropy thread deals with the application of free energy to society and is the foundation piece - read first - and The Ethical Planetarian Party Platform is the structure. Both are linked in my sig.)

reply to post by Danbones


Cancer is by no means a new disease. All one needs to do is look at mummies from ancient egypt (heart disease was prevalent as well).

Originally posted by XxRagingxPandaxX
I was thinking, I bet the native americans were very healthy people till the Europeans came and introduced disease and vermin.

Native Americans were healthy and robust until they began consuming a western style diet. A prime example of this is the case of the Pima.

reply to post by XxRagingxPandaxX

Number of deaths for leading causes of death
Heart disease: 616,067

Heart disease is caused primarily by poor diet and also cigarette smoking.

Cancer: 562,875

Cancer is multifactorial. However, it's very clear that dietary factors are probably the most influential.

Stroke (cerebrovascular diseases): 135,952

Again...Diet and smoking.

Alzheimer's disease: 74,632

Most of the research, of late, is showing a clear connection between diabetes and alzheimers, so much so that it's been labeled "type 3 diabetes" by many in the field. More than likely, Alzheimer's is caused by poor dietary choices.

Diabetes: 71,382

Type 2 is almost exclusively caused by a poor diet. Type 1 not so much.

Hunter Gatherers of our ancestoral past didn't have to worry about these. Instead, they were lucky to survive past 5 years old, as infant mortality rates were high. Once past five...chances of survival dramatically increased. At this point, they had to worry about...

- Accidents (while hunting, working, etc.)
- Bacterial Infections
- Animals (poisonous animals and preditorial beasts)
- Malnutrition (to some extent)

Our paleolithic ancestors surprisingly did live long, healthy lives. Most of the data we have is misleading because of infant mortality. If a child made it into adulthood, they were very likely to live into the 60's and 70's, much like today's life expectancy.

reply to post by XxRagingxPandaxX


Well.. I'm glad this high schooler is here to tell us why we're sick.. Without including any real valid sources..

Any understanding of medicine, and I am really glad that he has brought his assumptions on how the world works to the table.

reply to post by Miraj


I'm glad you wasted my time with an irrelevant post. Why is John Moore not considered a "real valid" source on the topic of anarchism?

There is a book I have been meaning to read called The Human Zoo. From what I have heard, it very much supports the views OP has presented on society and health. The book looks potentially controversial judging by this short excerpt I found.

“under normal conditions, in their natural habitats, wild animals do not mutilate themselves, masturbate, attack their offspring, develop stomach ulcers, become fetishists, suffer from obesity, form homosexual pair-bonds, or commit murder. Among human city dwellers, needless to say, all of these things occur.
. . . . . .

Other animals do behave in these ways under certain circumstances, namely when they are confined in the unnatural conditions of captivity. The zoo animal in a cage exhibits all these abnormalities that we know so well from our human companions. Clearly, then, the city is not a concrete jungle, it is a human zoo.”

- The Human Zoo

reply to post by JohnnyTHSeed


Probably because all of those things can be easily observed in nature..

And because in stating what is natural, you are stating what you consider to be natural. Which is an opinion, like this paragraph that you have just posted.

Your argument just got vaguer than my irrelevant post.

reply to post by Miraj


My post was not vague at all, it was quite specific.
I believe for the purpose of that book, natural is defined as not being the result of man made technology.

Hunting and gathering wild food stuff would, I believe, be considered humans' natural environment for the purpose of the book's theory. Many of the same diseases and psychoses people in modern society are plagued with only develop in other animals when those animals live in an unnatural environment such as a zoo or a home or apartment.

I have read a bit more about anarcho-primitivism and what appeals to me most so far is the importance of environmental sustainability.

reply to post by JohnnyTHSeed


By that definition, those things have been either observed in natural environments, or would be un-able to be observed..

How many biologists are going to do autopsies on wild animal to see if they had stomach ulcers which perforated and then they bled out internally?

reply to post by Miraj


What else would a biologist spend their time doing?

Some of the activities listed do occur in the wild, however at much lower rates than in captivity.
Somach ulcers are a good example. Wild horses rarely get ulcers, however in captivity it is common. Particularly among show and racehorses.

This largely has to do with diet, stress and exercise; humans share these same variables with regards to stomach ulcers.

Studies have found that the more similar their environment is to the wild, the less likely they are to develop ulcers. You don't even need to necropsy wild horses to see how that works.

Far More information about horse ulcers than is necessary to for this conversation

Society decides what foods are available for consumption, so it is not a surprise that a nation with an abundance of cheap nutritionally void food is full of sick people. The poor are more likely to eat a diet of poor nutrition - because that is what they can afford. I don't know if stress levels are higher, lower or the same among the poor or affluent. However, looking just at diet, it can be said that the way society is structured promotes disease in the poor.

reply to post by JohnnyTHSeed


I said wild animals.

And I'd imagine most animals are too decayed by the time anyone gets a hold of their corpse.

Anyways, I still fail to see the point in these topics..
Are people suggesting that society should be disbanded in favor of the idea that we will be happier unning around in the wild and killing eachother?

Originally posted by Miraj
reply to post by JohnnyTHSeed

 

I said wild animals.

And I'd imagine most animals are too decayed by the time anyone gets a hold of their corpse.

You would imagine wrong. Just as one example, the BLM has been managing the entire population of Wild Mustangs for years. That article, and many other reputable articles, make mention that ulcers in wild horses are very rare. If you want to make the claim that these are all baseless I would hope you are basing that on something other than your underactive imagination.

Besides the scientific papers, just think about it, people have been taming wild horses for centuries. If ulcers existed in any large numbers in the wild, we would know about it.

Anyways, I still fail to see the point in these topics..
Are people suggesting that society should be disbanded in favor of the idea that we will be happier unning around in the wild and killing eachother?

I'm suggesting that we would be healthier and happier if society were structured in a way that promotes a humans optimum environment. To thrive, a human needs: nutritious food, clean water, exercise, love, a sense of purpose, just to name a few essentials. I don't think full blow anarcho-primitivism is necessary, or even possible on a large scale. But some of the ideals are essential in my opinion, such as permaculture/sustainable farming. Some do argue for a return to a hunter gatherer society, I don't see that working though.

Your description of anarcho-primitivism as "running around in the wild and killing each other" is without merit. The wiki article on the subject is a good read.