Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr

Forum Post: Chinese Immigrants Crossing the Rio Grande

Posted 6 years ago on July 26, 2014, 11:42 a.m. EST by Crackpot (53)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

The influx of Central American illegal immigrants appears to have attracted the attention of Chinese nationals seeking to gain access to the United States. Border Patrol union officials in the Rio Grande Valley Sector tell NATIONAL REVIEW ONLINE that they’ve noticed a recent uptick in the number of Chinese border crossers. While the Obama administration has sought to attribute the spike in Central Americans coming to the U.S. to poverty and regional violence, no such explanation exists for the arrival of Chinese immigrants.
“[Traffic of Chinese-born persons] seemed to have dried up for awhile, but then maybe within the last month or so it seemed to have increased,” says Albert Spratte, the sergeant-at-arms of the National Border Patrol Council Local 3307 in the Rio Grande Valley. “You see them in threes or fours, and it’s always, ‘Oh, the one-child policy, the one-child policy, don’t want to go back.’ They’re always trying to claim some credible fear.”

Chinese Immigrants Crossing Rio Grande


The Manhattan Institute thinks immigrants increase economic efficiency by reducing labor shortages in low- and high-skilled markets because their educational backgrounds fill holes in the native-born labor market.

There may be other reasons for immigrants to come to the US besides going to work for an American company. It could be possible to find work through a network of established countrymen that are already here. The immigrant may want to have a child or children born in the US in order to have a family member with US citizenship. Once they are here the chances of them leaving soon are small. The chances of attracting more immigrants are large.

Imagine Congress repealing the Fourteenth Amendment because Department of Homeland Security couldn’t do its job.



Read the Rules


[-] 1 points by grapes (5232) 6 years ago

Their food protein sources have already been prepared for them in the form of the invasive Asian carps and snakeheads that other people detest and refuse to eat. Their eating habit should help control the invasive species and protect local fauna and flora as well as the Great Lakes fishing industries. Bon Appetit!

[-] 1 points by Crackpot (53) 6 years ago

They would rather eat at McDonald's.

[-] 2 points by MattHolck0 (3867) 6 years ago

beef is not an economical sound way to expend the resources from plants

It may have been once when there were no crops and grass encrusted the plains

[-] 1 points by Crackpot (53) 6 years ago

McDonald's has served over 99 billion. McDonald's operates in over100 countries. It is interesting that they have kept going for nearly sixty years. Meat neatly provides all essential amino acids in one package. Plants do not. A combination of plants can. Farmers are better off feeding grain to livestock than eating the grain themselves.

[-] 0 points by MattHolck0 (3867) 6 years ago

the cows get the nutrition from grains just as we do

[-] 4 points by flip (7101) 6 years ago

it is true what you say about beef but humans are not evolved to eat grains. lots of new info about that but grains are the cause of much illness in our society. another big problem to be solved. i was mostly vegetarian for a long time and became very sick - parasites, candida and more. i have mostly cured myself with an atkins diet but the paleo people and gary taubes are for sure on to something

[-] 2 points by Renneye (3874) 6 years ago

flip: replying here...

[-] 2 points by flip (6851) 14 hours ago nice job here - i have a similar story and did the same research. i had all sorts of problems from grains and it took me many years to recover - i am still not 100%. my wife is insulin resistant - we both eat an atkins/paleo type diet. i did not read either book but it is all the same basic story - thanks ↥twinkle ↧stinkle permalink


Thanks flip, for your passionate tenaciousness in keeping the facts straight!

I'm sure you already know the following, but there may be others reading that could benefit.

Gluten intolerence Incidence figures went from 1 in 10,000...then 1 in 500...then 1 in 250, now I have even seen info saying 1 in 10 people have Celiac/gluten intolerance.

After random testing, it is estimated that 90% of people with gluten intolerance are undiagnosed. That is mainly because the vast majority of people with Celiac, show no overt symptoms that can be pinpointed to gluten, and gluten intolerance is so rarely tested for, thus going undiagnosed and certainly misdiagnosed as many other conditions. I know I was.

If we know that gluten is a 'neurotoxin'...like snake venom, or arsenic, or certain molds are neurotoxins to which our bodies are also intolerant, and add to that those statistics, we would have to accept that it is a distinct probability that Celiac is not really a disease, but the slow systematic poisoning of an entire population.

Pharmaceutical companies can not legally fund-raise or profit from medicines until a condition is legally classified as a 'disease'. They fought for many years to get Celiac classified as a disease.

Being a toxic poison, gluten induces an 'auto-immune response', the same way that your body would react to any toxic poison. This is how they get away with calling it a 'disease'. They now call Celiac an 'auto-immune disease'. It is not. It is a condition brought on by a 'neurotoxic poison' that induces an auto-immune reaction. The body would react to a toxic poison such as arsenic with an auto-immune response as well, but would we classify it as an auto-immune 'disease'? Of course not.

If you were bitten by a snake with neurotoxic poison...wouldn't your body react with an auto-immune response and try to attack the poison? Of course it would. But that's not an auto-immune 'disease'...that is a reaction to a poison. Wheat is a 'mass poisoning', of global proportion.

The answer is quite simple. Remove the toxin and no more auto-immune response.

[-] 2 points by flip (7101) 6 years ago

fructose is toxic to humans - processed through the liver like alcohol - - check out the video by robert lustig called "the bitter truth"or read gary taubes "is sugar toxic" - or maybe you have already!

[-] 0 points by Crackpot (53) 6 years ago

Cows are ruminants like goats, sheep, and deer. Their digestive systems vary greatly from those of monogastric animals such as man, dogs, poultry and swine. Ruminants have a 4-compartment stomach. Monogastric animals have a 1-compartment stomach. Unless you are an animal nutritionist, this is where your understanding of the cow's digestive system may end.

Ruminants have the unique ability to convert roughage into protein and energy through their microbial/enzyme digestive systems. Because of this ability, cattle and other ruminants play an important role in the earth's ecology and in our food chain.

Our biggest source of livestock feed is grass! Humans can't get nourishment from it, but huge tracts of the earth's land are too dry, too steep or too rocky for grain. We let cows and calves harvest sparse crops of grass from massive tracts of the American Great Plains, Canadian Prairie Provinces, the Australian Outback, New Zealand, the sandy steppes of Hungary and huge tracts of Khazakstan.

Apparently, there are 20 amino-acids in the body and 8 of them are "essential" for protein. So, it's not enough to eat things that have protein in them, such as beans, lentils etc, but we have to eat the right combinations of these to ensure we have all 8 amino-acids daily.

Generally, proteins derived from animal foods (meats, fish, poultry, milk, eggs) are complete. Proteins derived from plant foods (legumes, seeds, grains, and vegetables) are often complete as well (examples include chickpeas, black beans, pumpkin seeds, cashews, cauliflower, quinoa, pistachios, turnip greens, black-eyed peas, and soy). Some plant foods tend to have less of one or more essential amino acid. Some are notably low, such as corn protein, which is low in lysine and isoleucine.

[-] 1 points by MattHolck0 (3867) 6 years ago

i would guess that out own bodies can create most of those needed proteins

humans didn't evolve on the global food market

[-] 2 points by Crackpot (53) 6 years ago

You need essential amino acids in your daily diet because your body cannot make them. If you do not get essential amino acids in your diet, proteins break down, resulting in muscle loss and problems with repair. Amino acids, which are building blocks of proteins, can be essential, non-essential or conditional. Non-essential and conditional amino acids are made in your system, so you do not need to worry about consuming them each day.

Your body needs more than 20 total amino acids to build and repair muscles and tissues. The nine essential amino acids are histidine, isoleucine, leucine, lycine, methionine, phenylalanine, threonine, tryptophan and valine. Non-essential amino acids, made in your system, include alanine, asparagine, aspartic acid and glutamic acid. In addition, your body makes conditional amino acids -- however, if you are stressed or severely sick, you need to get them from your diet as well. Conditional amino acids include arginine, cysteine, glutamine, glycine, ornithine, proline, serine and tyrosine.



[-] 0 points by grapes (5232) 6 years ago

Well propotioned plant diets can supply the essential amino acid profile without putting undue stress on the environment. Raising beef is energetically much less efficient than raising chicken. While we may think that cows eat grass, the cows in the U.S. eat cornmeal. Worse yet, they are fed antibiotics to improve growth rate and profits. They are literally vats potentially brewing bioweapons that chip away the effectiveness of our medicines.

We can for example eat rice with beans to complement their essential amino acid profiles. In that way, we can feed far more people or reduce the impact on the environment. Human beings are omnivores more adapted to eating a mostly plant-based diet. Many human diseases associated with eating meat show that eating meat is evolutionarily maladaptive.

[-] 3 points by Renneye (3874) 6 years ago

grapes: replying here...

[-] 0 points by grapes (2820) 5 hours ago It may be too far back to recall but did you develop Celiac shortly after eating bad grains? Perhaps allegic reactions to gluten developed when your body reacted to some semi-degraded chemical molecules derived from gluten and attacked them as being toxic but eventually dragging the gluten in as collateral damage due to the similarity of the chemical structures of gluten and the derived molecules. ↥twinkle ↧stinkle permalink


I've been sick since birth with this. My mother and father are both gluten sensitive. Paternal grandmother also was gluten sensitive. My brother and sister are both gluten sensitive. My two children are also highly gluten sensitive. My ex, who has multiple sclerosis does much better when living gluten free. ANY disease does better when gluten is taken out of the diet. Bar none!

The worst populations for Celiac are Italy, then Sweden (me), then Ireland. But those statistics are becoming muddled as the grain diets spread across the world bringing disease with them.

Please grapes...do your research before going any further. Your giving out dangerous advice.

DANGEROUS GRAINS by James Braly, MD and Ron Hoggan, MA - PDF ~ http://www.rickmacaulay.com/Ken/Dangerous%20Grains.pdf


Dogtorj ~ http://dogtorj.com/ (great information in layman's terms)




Dr. Blaylock ~ EXCITOTOXINS; The Taste That Kills - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tTSvlGniHok

Gluten Neurotoxin ~ http://www.glutenfreesociety.org/gluten-free-society-blog/gluten-causes-nerve-damage/

Inflammation the Root of all Disease ~ http://torontopubliclibrary.typepad.com/health-and-wellness/2013/03/my-entry.html

scientific data ~ http://www.etseq.urv.es/cdmedics/pdfs/Celiac%20disease%20from%20gut%20to%20brain.pd



Dr. Maios Hadjivassiliou ~ http://limbicretraining.com/brain-nourishment/

Excitotoxins ~ Glutamate - http://www.kellychilds.com/excitoxins-and-nitrites-nitrates/

Gluten free food lists for gluten intolerant people who may also be reading.

Gluten Free Food Brand List ~ http://elegantlyglutenfree.com/safe-foods-master-lists#safebrand

Gluten Free Food Brands ~ http://www.penny.ca/Products.htm

Gluten Free Phone Apps ~ http://celiacdisease.about.com/od/sociallifestyleresources/tp/Gluten-Free-Iphone-Apps-To-Help-You-Shop-Eat-Out.htm

[-] 2 points by flip (7101) 6 years ago

that is all true but i have terrible problems when i eat grains! i have to eat a very low carb diet to be healthy so that complicates the issue - no?

[-] 0 points by grapes (5232) 6 years ago

First try to nail down if you are gluten intolerant or something else, changing your diet once every two weeks keeping logs to the responses to no-gluten diet, no-wheat diet, low-starch diet, no-fruit diet, no-sugar diet, vegetable diet, etc. Control the food input by parametrizing it and monitor the output.

[-] 2 points by flip (7101) 6 years ago

Thanks for the advice but that was not what I was looking for. I know how to keep my systems functioning. I was simply pointing out that for many eating grains is a big problem and that makes not eating meat very difficult. Many experts believe that humans were not meant to eat grains- any and all grains could be very bad for your health!

[-] 1 points by grapes (5232) 6 years ago

Much of the population on our planet gets the largest amount of their food calories from grains so whether we are meant to eat grains or not is a question about luxury asked only by a very select few.

I have not lived long enough to tell if grains are the culprit of bad health but I do know that modern science and health measures have GREATLY improved the health and well being of some fortunate folk in the last century in spite of the continued consumption of grains. Cultivation of grains was the breakthrough of the Agricultural Revolution upon which civilizations and many wonders were built. I also saw the great rise of the degenerative diseases associated with the excessive consumption of meat in those fortunate folk unfortunate enough to choose carnivorous diet. In energetic terms, it is very reasonable that plants were the predominant foods for our ancestors because meat was much rarer until recently for some fortunate as well as unfortunate folk. Meat has its place but plants should dominate. Anything in excess is bad so listen to your own body. "Speak to the Earth and it shalt teach thee."

[-] 3 points by flip (7101) 6 years ago

this is incorrect - "great rise of the degenerative diseases associated with the excessive consumption of meat." actually i think many of the assumptions in your comment are incorrect. while many live longer than before, in part, because of "modern medicine" we are a very unhealthy population. we suffer from chronic diseases that the american indians of the plains never experienced- from cancer to arthritis to diabetes. those "primitive people" ate only meat - almost never plants and never grains. there are others who were in a similar state - the maasai, the inuit and the reindeer herders of lapland - all with diets that contradict what you seem to think. it is a long debate and i do not have time now. i would refer you to gary taubes - "what if it's all a big fat lie" and "is sugar toxic." also there is much written about our pre farming ancestors and their state of health. what you are correct about is that this is a much bigger problem for the planet and how we feed ourselves. as i said before my main point is that while you are correct about the pressure meat puts on scarce resources eating the way you describe literally makes me sick. and i do not want to be sick. at the same time i (we?) use water and energy to an extent unheard of in most areas of the world. i am not about to live in a yurt either.

[-] 0 points by grapes (5232) 6 years ago

We the "Americans" have little claim to be the healthiest population in the developed countries. In fact, we are largely nearly the best by every measure in the wrong direction. We do not have enough historical health and nutritional data to say definitively that consumption of grains is detrimental to health but we do have data showing that immigrants from Japan and Mexico caught up in their later generations with the native-born U.S. population in the rates of degenerative diseases.

Japan has a very healthy population and they consume significant amount of grains in their diet, apparently to no disadvantage. Your "noble healthy savage" hypothesis of meat consumption being great may have neglected that in those days people died so much younger through infectious diseases and childbirths that the diseases due to meat consumption did not have sufficient time to develop.

Sugar IS bad but it does not mean automatically that starch from grains which can turn into much sugar is bad because our bodies use glucose as its basic energy source. Metabolism of excess proteins from meat or dairy products causes toxic nitrogenous wastes that can cause kidney damage. Metabolism of fat creates free radicals which accelerate aging. The key to proper consumption of grains is to control the rate of glucose release from the starch and the rate of digestion of starch through proper consumption with fats, proteins, and other nutrients.

[-] 4 points by flip (7101) 6 years ago

Do some reading before responding to me. And do not read those who have presided over the sickening of the population.

[-] 3 points by Renneye (3874) 6 years ago

Wheat gluten is becoming recognized as a 'known neurotoxin'. NEUROTOXIN.

Grains were never meant for human consumption. It comes down to population and money. That doesn't make the human body any more able to digest this poison. And it IS a poison.

The human body is able to digest grains a little better, only if they are fermented.

Your conversation here is of interest because I am Celiac...highly intolerant to gluten. It took 42 years to get properly diagnosed. 10 years is the average length of diagnosis. And much damage was done before I was diagnosed.

I've done a lot of research on this, grapes...and I'm going to respectfully say that most of your information is wrong, on this subject.

For one...Grains cause the Blood Brain Barrier (BBB) to become permeable. That's terrible, considering an intact BBB is critical in keeping out dangerous free radicals/scavengers from our brain.

There is much evidence that shows a direct correlation to the amount of brain disease with that of grain consumption. Nevermind the onslaught of physical diseases related to grain consumption.

Please read Books like "Dangerous Grains" and "Wheat Belly" before going any further.


[-] 2 points by flip (7101) 6 years ago

nice job here - i have a similar story and did the same research. i had all sorts of problems from grains and it took me many years to recover - i am still not 100%. my wife is insulin resistant - we both eat an atkins/paleo type diet. i did not read either book but it is all the same basic story - thanks

[-] 1 points by grapes (5232) 6 years ago

I live by the motto, "Everything is physical." I am not surprised that grains may make the blood/brain barrier permeable. After all, the brain is the organ that burns glucose most intensively. Grains can produce huge amount of glucose which the brain loves to go hogwild with. The brain probably opens its doors wide and all kinds of things other than glucose may crash the party, too. The metabolism of glucose creates free radicals so the excessive partying can age the brain quickly. There is no getting away from glucose though because the brain runs ON glucose and too little of it we die and too much of it we die. As I have said before, "Life is electric fire burning slowly in water." We want no flame out or flare ups. We can only hope for and achieve slowed aging and dying. That is not too bad because no one gets out of life alive, by definition!

[-] 0 points by grapes (5232) 6 years ago

It may be too far back to recall but did you develop Celiac shortly after eating bad grains? Perhaps allegic reactions to gluten developed when your body reacted to some semi-degraded chemical molecules derived from gluten and attacked them as being toxic but eventually dragging the gluten in as collateral damage due to the similarity of the chemical structures of gluten and the derived molecules.

[-] 2 points by flip (7101) 6 years ago

first of all while this is true - "Carbohydrates were pushed by the U.S. government to reduce the rate of atherosclerosis due to animal fat consumption." - it was wrong thinking on the part of the government. fat does not cause heart disease carbs and insulin do! this is also bad information - "Fats and carbohydrates are interchangeable to a large extent in the diet" - they are not! also using calories as any type of guide is not very good. calories are determined by burning food up in an oven to see how many calories it will produce - the human body using food very differently.

[-] 0 points by grapes (5232) 6 years ago

Fat does not cause heart disease, really? Good luck with your diet because as you said that "human body using food very differently" so excess fat can change into cholesterol and then hormones whose improper quantities can be very disruptive to health. Of course, excessive carbohydrates enabled by insulin turn into fat, too, if not used.

As far as life energy is concerned, the caloric content matters most. As long as the metabolic pathways join together eventually, there is little sense in arguing whether I go broke because of the low balance in my checking account or the low balance in my savings account because they are joined together. Within some bounds, the liver performs automatic transfer of "funds" between the "accounts."

I think that the important thing to remember is that health is based on a rather complicated dynamic balance. There is some leeway due to the adaptability of the body but we still need to keep many things within gross bounds. At any moment, our body's cravings are the best guide to what it needs but we also have thinking minds too to keep things within gross bounds.

[-] 2 points by flip (7101) 6 years ago

look you are wrong - that is the main story here. i ate mostly meal like pasta primavera with veggies and good oil and garlic and i got sick becaue of it! i read "diet for a new america" and gary nulls books and too many others and i got sick. i have read what you have but you have not read what i have so until you do some research let's just stop this. one last time i will give you mark sisson -"The Problem: The Basic Assumption of the Carb Paradigm is Wrong

Glucose is not the preferred fuel of muscle cells under normal human resting metabolic conditions or even under most normal human movement patterns (exercise). Fat is. Sure, given an unlimited supply of glucose and regular refilling of glycogen stores, skeletal muscle will burn through it during exercise the same way a fire burns through kindling when that’s all you have to offer. The body can shift carbohydrate oxidation to keep up with intake. But skeletal muscle can burn fat with great efficiency (and far less oxidative fallout) at relatively high outputs for very long bouts. Cardiac muscle actually prefers ketones, and the brain can run just fine (maybe even optimally) on a blend of ketones and minimal glucose. Our survival as a species has depended on these evolutionary adaptations away from glucose dependency. Entire civilizations have existed for ages on what is practically a zero-carb diet. Think about this: there is actually no requirement for any “essential dietary carbohydrates” in human nutrition. It’s possible to live a very long and healthy life never consuming much – if any – in the way of carbs, provided you get adequate dietary protein and fat. The same can’t be said for going too long without protein or fat. Cut too far back on either of those macronutrients and you will eventually get sick and die.

The Evolutionary Model

Fat and protein were the dominant macronutrients (when food was even available) over the majority of our two-and-a-half million years as evolving humans. The lack of regular access to food and a scarcity of carbohydrates for much of this time necessitated that we adapt efficient pathways to readily store and access body fat for energy if we were to survive day-to-day and generation-to-generation. Our movement patterns were such that we never required large amounts of glucose or that we needed to store very much glycogen. It was predominantly fats, ketones and the minimal infusion of glucose via gluconeogenesis that got us here. Dietary carbs were insignificant. In fact, when you consider how ridiculously small the body’s glycogen reservoirs are, you understand that it would have been impossible for us to survive as a species if glucose were truly the “preferred” fuel. The liver, the main back-up glycogen/glucose storage facility for the brain and other glucose-burning organs, can only store about 100 grams of glycogen. Less than a day’s worth. Your muscles can only hold another 350-500 grams, barely enough to run for 90 minutes at a reasonable clip, and that glycogen isn’t even available to provide fuel for the brain. Meanwhile, we have a virtually unlimited storage capacity for fat (like 100,000 grams or close to a million calories on some people). The reason glycogen storage wasn’t necessary is because, between our copious fat storage capability, easy access to fats as fuel, gluconeogenesis and ketones, we just didn’t need much. Evolution tends not to reward structures or functions that take up unnecessary space or waste energy.

[-] 1 points by MattHolck0 (3867) 6 years ago

mammals are complex animals given the greatest time to mature on mothers milk

pasta is $1/pound

[-] 1 points by grapes (5232) 6 years ago

I agree that pasta was a bad choice - I suspected that it was not good decades ago because I saw many overly-endowed Italians who loved pastas. Carbohydrates were pushed by the U.S. government to reduce the rate of atherosclerosis due to animal fat consumption. That was a mistake but it was a simplification due to the very limited comprehensibility of the populace.

Fat (lipid) layers are what cellular membranes are made of, somewhat like the insulating plastic coating of electrical wires and functioning similarly electrically so some fat is necessary for cellular repair and replacement. Then there are protein channels that function like transistors on the cellular membranes to carry on myriad functions, including but not limited to the transport of electrically charged particles. Gram for gram fat has the highest caloric (or life energy) content so it is reasonable that we crave eating fat. After all, our ancestors were lousy horders or creators of food so folds of rippling fat were life-saving in hard times. I saw very ancient Egyptian statues that celebrated fatness in the elites. Also Buddha statues were very fat, too. With modern abundance of food, that all changed, especially because we live so much longer now that gunk has ample time to build up in our blood vessels so we die of heart disease, stroke, atherosclerosis, etc. I can see a day when cancers will be the only incurable disease around and we ALL die of cancers eventually.

Fats and carbohydrates are interchangeable to a large extent in the diet but I doubt very much that fats were easy to come by for our ancestors. I vote for matriarchy rather than patriarchy as the cradle of human culture because "sweet potatoes" were far more available to mamas than "lards" were to papas. If children had counted on their father to kill an animal to feed them, they would have likely starved and often died.

[-] 1 points by MattHolck0 (3867) 6 years ago

Primates eat fruit


[-] 2 points by flip (7101) 6 years ago

sorry but you are wrong about this - not about meat putting a strain on resources but about health. read taubes if you are serious about this question. i understand why you think what you do - i was pretty much a vegetarian for 20 years - until i got very sick! i am not interested in a long debate on the subject. if you want tot think what you do that's fine with me. i have done my research - aside from taubes i would recommend weston price and peter attia. here is jared diamond - The Worst Mistake in the History of the Human Race

By Jared Diamond University of California at Los Angeles Medical School

To science we owe dramatic changes in our smug self-image. Astronomy taught us that our earth isn't the center of the universe but merely one of billions of heavenly bodies. From biology we learned that we weren't specially created by God but evolved along with millions of other species. Now archaeology is demolishing another sacred belief: that human history over the past million years has been a long tale of progress. In particular, recent discoveries suggest that the adoption of agriculture, supposedly our most decisive step toward a better life, was in many ways a catastrophe from which we have never recovered. With agriculture came the gross social and sexual inequality, the disease and despotism, that curse our existence...............................One straight forward example of what paleopathologists have learned from skeletons concerns historical changes in height. Skeletons from Greece and Turkey show that the average height of hunger-gatherers toward the end of the ice ages was a generous 5' 9'' for men, 5' 5'' for women. With the adoption of agriculture, height crashed, and by 3000 B. C. had reached a low of only 5' 3'' for men, 5' for women. By classical times heights were very slowly on the rise again, but modern Greeks and Turks have still not regained the average height of their distant ancestors.

Another example of paleopathology at work is the study of Indian skeletons from burial mounds in the Illinois and Ohio river valleys. At Dickson Mounds, located near the confluence of the Spoon and Illinois rivers, archaeologists have excavated some 800 skeletons that paint a picture of the health changes that occurred when a hunter-gatherer culture gave way to intensive maize farming around A. D. 1150. Studies by George Armelagos and his colleagues then at the University of Massachusetts show these early farmers paid a price for their new-found livelihood. Compared to the hunter-gatherers who preceded them, the farmers had a nearly 50 per cent increase in enamel defects indicative of malnutrition, a fourfold increase in iron-deficiency anemia (evidenced by a bone condition called porotic hyperostosis), a theefold rise in bone lesions reflecting infectious disease in general, and an increase in degenerative conditions of the spine, probably reflecting a lot of hard physical labor. "Life expectancy at birth in the pre-agricultural community was bout twenty-six years," says Armelagos, "but in the post-agricultural community it was nineteen years. So these episodes of nutritional stress and infectious disease were seriously affecting their ability to survive."

[-] 1 points by grapes (5232) 6 years ago

Ah! You are absolutely right about being vegetarian leading to bad health. While consumption of significant amount of vegetables is good for health, the body's urge to make them taste good by lavishing them with salt, creamy salad dressings, croutons, etc. can cause big problems long term.

I never believed in vegetarianism because I can see that I have canine teeth for meat but I have more molars for fruits and vegetables. I eat grains and oils for supplementing my caloric intake. It is hard to get all of the calories needed from meat or fruits and vegetables alone without running into problems. Grains are not natural to human physiology until the Agricultural Revolution made them abundantly available so I am sure that we are not 100% suitable for eating grains but much of the world's population's surviving on grains for millennia tells me that grains can be okay for human consumption. Body cells, especially in the brain, run on glucose so grains can supply that easily because chemically glucose is closer to starch. Fats and proteins have more chemical processing steps to become glucose that require enzymes and produce wastes that can be detrimental in the long run.

[-] 0 points by MattHolck0 (3867) 6 years ago

humans were not meant to eat grain

an animal must eat to live

there is no greater meaning or plan

[-] 2 points by Crackpot (53) 6 years ago

Cattle were feeding off the land before they were domesticated. They ate vegetation. That is what their biological function is.

[-] 1 points by grapes (5232) 6 years ago

Agribusiness distorted cattle's biological function greatly though as corn becomes a significant part of the cattle's diet.

[-] 2 points by Crackpot (53) 6 years ago

Cattle will still eat grass The corn is the .feedlot's idea. Makes a better looking steak.

[-] 1 points by grapes (5232) 6 years ago

Corn is a significant part of cattle's diet even out of feedlots. I am sure though that grass is eaten too, because it is often cheaper.

[-] 2 points by Crackpot (53) 6 years ago

Grass is free. It doesn't have to cultivated. There is a huge agribusiness complex that feeds corn to livestock. Corn is also used in gasohol production. The ranchers could shift more livestock to grass feeding to lower the need for corn

[-] 1 points by grapes (5232) 6 years ago

Is there any tasty corn burger out there? That may bypass the flow of life energy through livestock altogether, increasing the human carrying capacity.

[-] 2 points by Crackpot (53) 6 years ago

A lot of wildfires could be avoided or less severe by bringing foraging vegetation eaters such as sheep or buffalo or deer into the area to eat the under growth.

Having a deer herd control the undergrowth would be a major advantage.

[-] 1 points by grapes (5232) 6 years ago

Yes, there are also goats which can produce goat cheese from poison ivy. Yum, yum.

[-] 1 points by MattHolck0 (3867) 6 years ago

8,000 years ago


Sus scrofa Middle East and possibly China

Domestication Timeline

[-] 1 points by DouglasAdams (208) 6 years ago

Cattle can just be left to roam the grassland without much human intervention. The herds of buffalo, the Great American Bison, Mongolian Yak did this from prehistoric times. These herds fed predators.

The "ancient bison", was the most common large herbivore of the North American continent for over ten thousand years, and is a direct ancestor of the living American bison.

During the later Pleistocene Epoch, between 240,000 and 220,000 years ago, steppe wisent (Bison priscus), migrated from Siberia into Alaska. This species inhabited parts of northern North America throughout the remainder of the Pleistocene. In midcontinent North America, however, B. priscus was replaced by the long-horned bison, Bison latifrons, and somewhat later by Bison antiquus. The larger B. latifrons appears to have died out by about 20,000 years ago. In contrast, B. antiquus became increasingly abundant in parts of midcontinent North America from 18,000 ya until about 10,000 ya, after which the species appears to have given rise to the living species, Bison bison. B. antiquus is the most commonly recovered large mammalian herbivore from the La Brea tar pits.


Not only did bison feed saber tooth tigers, wolves, and man. It kept the prairie from being over grown and limited the risk of great prairie fires.

[-] 1 points by grapes (5232) 6 years ago

Take a virtual tour (e.g., on Google Earth) of the U.S. It is NO longer unlimited grassland of the disappeared prairie. There are now clear boundaries of different usages of land. For Ted Turner, it makes sense to roam his bison herds because he owns so much land that letting the bisons graze is the easiest way but for most of us, we eat foods produced by agribusiness. Our choices can propagate down the food web to our environment so we should remember: I eat therefore I am. It is superior to: I eat therefore I'm ailed.

[-] 1 points by DouglasAdams (208) 6 years ago

This is a map of uninhabited areas in USA.


US Dept of Interior has managed to protect this resource from greedy billionaire speculators. Speculators would drill for oil just because it would be profitable and create jobs.

The east coast is overdeveloped with unaffordable housing. Plans for NYC metropolitan area expect population to reach 30 million .by 2050. That usually entails demolishing usable structures to construct more expensive replacements. For example, one WTC tower at $3.8 billion for two twin towers at $400 million, nearly ten times the cost..



[-] 1 points by grapes (5232) 6 years ago

There is a big factor of inflation in the nominal cost difference between 1WTC and the Twin Towers. All savvy or rich people use inflation-adjusted accounting to see reality. In the early 1970's when the Twin Towers were built, first class stamps cost 8 cents so we have about a factor of 6 for inflation alone. Then there are the reinforced-concrete core to minimize the impact of terrorist attacks plus the about 400 feet of steel steeple to reach 1776 feet height to make a political statement and the fact that the leasing to tenants requiring financial incentives. Terrorism costs as does a political statement through symbolism.

The U.S. still has much vacant land but really very few people like to live in those places unless infrastructures are improved. I expect that Chinese immigrants start living in NYC or Californian cities when they first arrive in the U.S. because the infrastructures are already present. Perhaps shipping the killed Asian carps of the Mississippi valley to NYC can supply fish markets for new Chinese immigrants.

[-] 1 points by grapes (5232) 6 years ago

And get obese, sick, and die for it! In that case, we must stop Chinese immigration lest the Chinese overload our overburdened health system. Perhaps we need a different ethnic group to eat the invasive Asian carps, snakeheads, and Burmese pythons already well established here.

[-] 1 points by Crackpot (53) 6 years ago

I may start going to a Chinese takeout near by.

[-] 1 points by grapes (5232) 6 years ago

There is no problem with eating Chinese cuisine aside from a bit too much of salt, oil, and ajinomoto.

[-] 1 points by MattHolck0 (3867) 6 years ago

perhaps from lack of available refrigeration in the traditional recipes

[-] 1 points by grapes (5232) 6 years ago

I doubt it because refrigeration of foods was an American invention and there are many other cuisines that do not have excessive flavorings.