Eternal Growth

Why would humans still be reproducing naturally 2,000 years from now? We're most of the way to having the technology to directly pick and choose which parts of the human genome are best (cutting out disabilities and susceptibility to illnesses would be a great place to start; human engineers could proceed to add features above and beyond those possessed by natural humans), developing an artificial environment that is optimal for the growth and development of the human embryo, and then introducing new humans to the world in that manner. Heterosexual / homosexual will be irrelevant.

This likely won't mean abundance for all, but low costs for producing material things and still high living costs because of having to pay off the political class the entire way. The productive part of the economy will become better and better, and the unproductive part will swallow up the gains. An example of this that has already happened is the housing market in the UK. Building the house is the cheap part; paying for planning permission is what constitutes most of the price.

It's individuals I have met through FDR that have taught me what friendship is. The logic of making friends is really: 1. Start talking to people, looking especially for those who exhibit virtues (e.g. honesty, having an active mind, curiosity, courage, being in their true self). 2. Be the kind of friend you would want to have, and ensure that the other person is gaining by having you in their life, as you gain through your relationship with them. 3. Keep contact going, and the quality of the relationship growing. Which part of the world are you from?

Forget about statistics and how the statistically average live and work on your own life, doing everything to ensure these things don't happen to you.

At 23 years old, 99% of background is a done deal. I would be curious to ask if you have started in the process of self-examination, gaining self-knowledge and becoming aware of how your psychology works and why it works the way it does?

This book is a fantastic instance of the general principle that "high verbal skills are the scar tissue that result from being lied to in very complex ways as a child" [1]. The pile of anti-philosophical words to read (and attempt to take seriously), as a man, if you never want to have a functional relationship with another human being (who happens to be a woman). [1] from podcast http://www.fdrpodcasts.com/#/2073/mensa-statists-and-the-aneurysm-of-truth Otto seems to have been highly inspired by Kant, and mentions him a lot as I've skimmed through the book. I'll leave a quote from Ayn Rand here also: Otto's conclusion is brazenly clear (indeed, OP quoted and underlined it)... his proof? If anyone here does think it is intelligible, please provide a summarised version of the reasoning. The primary error seems to be epistemological: he is trying to describe a man and woman "perfect form" as a primary thing, with objective reality just some annoying thing that only imperfectly ever expresses these forms. Quoting from Stefan Molyneux's master's thesis under the heading of "Supra-Sensual Epistemology", If we continue to the conclusion that Stef's thesis makes about supra-sensualism, Otto's book is actually explicitly using a Platonist (i.e. supra-sensual) epistemology. The following quote taken from the first chapter: In other words: Reality doesn't fit my ideas, but I feel very strongly about them, so reality must be secondary. I actually laughed given Rand mentioning of Kant's "erudite references to sciences", and Otto's Physics metaphors in this quote.

This is all very true, and I am fully in support of men who are taking a stand against the negative ways in which they are treated within modern-day society. Something that is also true is that even more oppressed than boys and men are the gender-variant. One could imagine a thread titled: "Gender-Variant People Do Not Exist: Society's Indifference Towards The Suffering Of The Gender Non-Conforming" A much higher suicide rate than even that of cisgender men; much more likely to experience abuse for their gender identity / expression at home, at school and in society at large; and major issues with even legal equality for basic rights in most of the world. Choose any issue that men face relative to women, and the gender-variant face that issue to an even greater extent than the men do. Take for example male genital mutilation (or "circumcision") - male-assigned-at-birth trans people are just as likely to be victimised by this practice, and there is also the large amount of genital mutilation that is involuntarily inflicted upon intersex babies and children. I bring the issue up because I've seen very mixed ideas within the men's movement towards the struggles of the gender variant. Greater violations of moral principles require greater sympathy, a greater corrective reaction and bigger efforts to restore a state of justice, in the same way that the theft of $1000 requires more restitution than the theft of $100. And so if gender equality is a moral principle that the men's movement supports, then I would expect it to be applying this principle universally. If it isn't willing to apply the principle universally, the men's movement is just participating in the same kind of unprincipled social manipulation (invoking "universal principles" only when it suits personal interests; implicitly rejecting them otherwise) that they criticise feminists for doing.

Because sex/gender evolved solely for the purpose of reproduction (and do not exist in asexual species), differences between the sexes all come back to which reproductive strategy is optimal for each sex. Genetic research has shown that, throughout history, 80% of female humans have successfully reproduced within their lifetimes, while only 40% of male humans have succeeded at the same. A female can hence fairly safely rely upon being able to pass on her genetics to the next generation. There is no reproductive need to individuate, compete, think independently from the tribe, etc. Males will want to use their eggs to transmit their own DNA and will provide for them, if need be. Males, on the other hand, are in tough competition against other males. For every 4 males that had children, 6 were genetic dead-ends. Important to notice here: reproductively successful males are a minority of the male population. Conformity won't work. You'll have to think independently, individuate and work hard in competition with the others — and if you don't, you'll be in the 6 and the men who do will be in the 4. Now, it's a bit more nuanced than this: A female is in competition with other female for the male partner who has the highest social status and hence greatest access to resources with which to raise her children; however this form of competition actually leads to greater conformity to the mainstream culture (the values of the most dominant males), not less. Of course, this is focusing purely on the primitive brain biology that got us here and because of the prefrontal cortex etc. we actually have the ability to make decisions on how we live our lives separately from these drives, and so there is probably a lot more (social, cultural, parenting etc.) going on beyond this in actual men and women. An interesting question would be what the factors are that differentiate the small number of women who are drawn towards independent thinking from others. An atypical exposure to male hormones during development, possibly?

Guys, these two posts which came one after the other illustrate perfectly the "lizard brain" illusion you need to get over to begin approaching the dating market realistically and philosophically: The idea that it is abhorrent for a woman to judge men based on superficial, primitive, biologically-valued characteristics (e.g. height, access to resources), but leaving completely unexamined and unquestioned your own biologically-driven judgement of women based on superficial and primitive characteristics (primarily physical attractiveness). Have your cake or eat it. Value people for making virtuous choices and expect to be valued for making virtuous choices, or don't and don't expect it in return. I'd agree with both of them that dating sites are an awful place to meet people, especially men looking for women, though. It's a gender difference that fewer women are going to be interested in something like online dating.

If a guy assumes he should pay the entire bill it lessens the respect I have for him as a potential partner and for the way in which he is approaching a relationship. Men and women are different, but must be equals within a healthy relationship. Unidirectional transfer of money makes sense if a woman is taking care of children while her partner is working on his career, or if she does more work in the house: it does not make sense early in a relationship unless the guy doesn’t respect the competence and independence of the woman, or his own value as a man and human being, or is just trying to buy his way into access to sex. When pregnancy and childcare are excluded from the equation, women are as equally capable of earning money as men (and actually are actually considerably more likely to have higher education qualifications in the current younger generations), and are no more entitled to free meals from a relative stranger. On the first few dates, expect the other person to pay for their share of the bill, and expect no less of yourself to do the same. This will filter out low-quality dates, while high-quality dates will not mind in the slightest pulling their own weight (and will respect that they expected to do such). Feminist vs. traditional is a false dichotomy - go with philosophical and mutually respecting. Go with UPB. You seem to jump from talking about "young and healthy women" to making a conclusion about "women" in general. If most men choose to focus on only a minority of the female population, this says nothing about women as a whole - there are all of the women on whom men are choosing not to focus. Society is actually an approximately 50:50 split between men and women; leaning towards there being more women. It's the same as switching from talking about "millionaire, charming, tall and handsome men" to making a conclusion about "men" in general.

So long as you got what you wanted out of the activity (the amount that you did do) and opportunity cost begins to tip in favour of another activity you want to be doing, I don't think it is automatically necessary to fi

I came across this segment while reading a book from this list, Bradshaw's "Healing the shame that binds you". Thought it would contribute to the discussion to post it here. Starting around page 25: "Ages three and a half to eight is a time when a normal child endlessly asks questions. Their curiosity begins to extend to their identity, which includes their sexual identity as well as what they want to be when they grow up (their vocation). The normal child also begins to experience his or her needs for structure, gender identity and challenge. Gay, lesbian and transgendered children are not even accounted for in the psycohlogical literature during this (or any other) developmental stage. Every gay or lesbian child I know in any depth was born gay or lesbian. Some are born transgendered (they are a girl in a boy's body or vice versa). These children are the most viciously shamed and oppressed in our society, mostly by homophobic religions (especially the white supremacists and many Christian denominations, especially the evangelical fundamentalists). Common sense would tell us that no one would choose to be ridiculed, condemned to hell, and risk being viciously beaten or killed if being gay, lesbian or transgendered were a choice." "Gays, lesbians and transgendered people are toxically shamed from the get-go. The churches and people who shame them should be ashamed. Any child who reaches preschool with a shame-based foundation (no secure attachment and constant overexposure) will experience her needs as selfish and her sexuality as shameful and bad." Searched through it to find anything else on the topic, only match (page 260) was the sentence: "It seems clear that gay, lesbian and transgendered children have a different genetic inheritance than do heterosexuals."

What about parenting (and by extension, education)? Does a gender variant child deserve equal dignity and respect from their parents as a gender conformant one? Should boys be treated differently to girls by the adults around them?

That doesn't sound like a very healthy relationship. An honest woman would have no problem agreeing to the test (if her husband paid for it, as its for his own curiosity).

Taking a risk doesn't mean that you want the negative thing that has an increased possibility of taking place. It only means that you want the positive thing that could also result e.g. the thrill / coolness of driving fast or the convenience of getting somewhere more quickly, and you are incurring the risk of the thing that you don't want because it could potentially pay off. For example, if I invest in the stock market, I don't want there to be an economic crisis that wipes out my investment - it is only a risk I am taking. What I want is economic growth that multiplies it. Perhaps you are confusing desire and responsibility? A person who drives too fast and dies as a result didn't want to die, but they are responsible for it. A person who loses money on the stock market is responsible for it, etc. As a side note, a very large percentage of the victims of motor traffic are pedestrians and cyclists. Those are the people I would feel most sympathy for, as their modes of transport are almost entirely safe, and they are killed or injured as collateral damage of those who transport themselves in dangerous machines - your mother's distress would make a lot of sense if directed toward these.

Guys, gather here. We have managed to uncover a recording of a female perspective. These rare, elusive beings, the females, are usually hidden away out of view and beyond human contact. In this precedent-defying 12 minute clip, we finally hear what one has to say. (Seriously, there are almost 4 billion women out there) The video is okay. The real problem with feminism is that it is collectivist (and hence inherently anti-individual), but the video cannot identify this because it is promoting its own brand of socially engineered collectivism. It has rose-tinted glasses on as it talks about traditional gender roles (showing movie segments of smiling heterosexual couples does not make these representative - given the era these movies were produced, these were the same couples that were universally physically assaulting their children, and then all divorced once the laws which prevented them from doing so were removed), and it is disregarding the reality that more human diversity exists within sexes than between them. It also disregards that, in a free society with no involuntary positive obligations, many people will choose to not be a gender stereotype, and enjoy doing so. It also disregards that technological advancements make gender roles less necessary, indeed irrelevant, and allow us to focus more on non-gendered aspects of our lives such as Philosophy. I won't comment on the pseudo-Neuroscience.

I'll be the first in the thread to say it: The movies are absolutely awful. I say "the movies", but I haven't even made it past two thirds of the second one because they misrepresented, poorly represented and underrepresented the books to such an extent (people I know who have watched the third have not made it sound like it was any kind of improvement, indeed the reduced budget and box office figures as well as further actor changes corroborate this). The production quality begins bad in the first movie and only gets worse in the second; entire, essential sections of the novel are absent from the movies; the movies fail to portray the underlying philosophy at all except in unintegrated catch phrases; most of the characters are bleak shades of what they are in the book, and it made no sense whatsoever to set the movies in the near future to when they were produced, for among other reasons that are essential to the story the fact that railroads (and other components of early industrialisation e.g. steel production) aren't as important to the American economy today as they were when Atlas the book is set (approximately early 20th century). What they did to my favourite character (Cherryl Brooks) in the second movie is particularly unforgivable, portraying her with none of the innocence, wonder, virtue and femininity - if also naïveté - that shines out of her in the book (being one of the characters that Rand used to portray her own values and ideal of womanhood, next to Dagny). My heartfelt recommendation (and, honestly, I think Rand herself would agree with me - she stated herself that "she would never sell any of her novels to a film company that did not allow her the right to pick the director and screenwriter as well as edit the film"[1]) would be to only read the book. Or to read the book first and then form an opinion of your own about the movies. Not to be overly negative, but seeing something you love (Atlas Shrugged the book) be trashed in the way that they movies do invokes strong emotions. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Fountainhead_(film)#cite_note-13

One of many instances of: The only bad thing about these conditions is when parents / medical professionals perform non-consensual surgery upon the affected children so they appear more binary, rather than leaving this decision to the children themselves.

If you can even externally tell the difference between a cis person and a trans person. Therapy, therapy, self-work and more therapy is all I can recommend to individuals who are considering suicide for these reasons. Dying from anorexic is different from intentional suicide, in that people with anorexia usually do not actually want to die. They may choose to only associate with businesses that provide individual changing cubicles, rather than the imperfect (and, to be honest, pointless, given that some women in the women's changing room may be tall, dominant, muscly lesbian women - while gay men who would be harmless and friendly to a heterosexual woman are in the men's room) system of gender segregation. Meanwhile, trans people have lives to lead, and transitioning early in life - i.e. undergoing puberty the first time as the right sex - is much better than later in life, especially when combined with supportive parents and a supportive community. Just as appropriate, proven medical treatment wouldn't be withheld for a decade for any other medical condition, so the emotional weight which people attach to gender shouldn't create exceptional medical rules for this particular birth defect, such that the horror of undergoing the wrong puberty may be avoided by the individuals affected. Who is "we"? What is "perverse" about trans people? If you could please explain this point. Misusing the fallacy. There are certain requirements to actually be "trans", and Mr Heyer doesn't meet them. He identifies with his birth sex and is comfortable remaining this way, and so is not trans, but is in fact cis. When I am presented with an idea, the only question that I really care to ask is: is it true? That which is false has and can have no value. Human beings do not need an "ultimate meaning", and in any case one does not exist. The lives of human beings are ends in and of themselves, to do pretty much whatever they want with them. This actually includes inventing religions and believing them as though they are fact, if they want to - but it still doesn't make them fact. The purpose of a good atheist morality is to secure for individual human beings the basic individual rights which they require in order to live. UPB is one such approach that uses the concept that moral rules which are enforced by force must be universal; the Objectivist morality was another that was based upon the idea of rational self-interest (where, to Ayn Rand, "rational" implies not sacrificing other people to oneself). Morality isn't might makes right - that is the default state of nature, prior to the introduction by humans of morality. If you want to see a true "might makes right" in human society, allow moralities that are not based on universalisation to flourish and go unopposed by rational, secular moralities. Origin for atheists is: your mummy and your daddy decided to have some fun. Their mummies and daddies decided to have some fun... all the way back to asexually reproducing and unicellular organisms, and further back to a primordial soup of molecules that by chance (and Earth having many of the right conditions) started replicating themselves. Pretty cool, don't you think? How far you have come, in a single chain of lifeforms giving birth to ever so slightly different lifeforms, to now possessing consciousness and the ability to reason? Even emotionally speaking, I think this gives me a much nicer feeling than Big Father Figure Up In The Sky (whose own origin is itself unknown) Magically Made Everything. And atheist destiny: Whatever you want it to be. Free reign. A completely open plane, to go wherever your values and work take you. Including building the spaceships that will keep humanity alive after the Sun fries the Earth, if that is what somebody wants to do. I'll take that over a false promise of unearned "judgement, paradise and glory" - and work towards a true paradise, for my actual life here on Earth. False hope is meaningless, false justice is valueless, and beauty/truth/goodness are human values - which humans ascribe to things that are good for their survival. "all of the evil people of history got away with it" - they did, but pretty much none of them would have if the other people around them didn't incorrectly believe a slave pseudo-morality that only got in the way of the recognition of a rational, universalised, secular form of ethics and the true justice it would have achieved here on Earth. Sociopaths love and thrive upon managing to convince other people to believe Christianity and all other forms of mysticism. No dictator in history has said: "Your life is an end in and of itself; please refuse to sacrifice yourself to others, nor others to you. A higher realm of knowledge does not exist; trust your own senses and individual judgment above everything else."

A trans person correctly identifies it, which is why they undergo a process called "transition" which often involves hormonally or surgically modifying it. If they identified it incorrectly (i.e. as already being congruent with their gender identity), they would not undergo a process of transition. Why would a transgender person commit suicide except in response to social pressure for them to not express their identity? Suicide isn't necessarily irrational though. It just means that on the transgender person's hierarchy of values, death is preferred over their alternatives (tolerating having to fake a false persona for the people around them vs. taking whatever risk would be necessary to just be themselves). There is no society; only individuals who should think for themselves about with whom they associate. "Hurried along"? Medical care is a service, which is ultimately (in a free society) the responsibility of the patient. Medical professionals are there to respond to market demand for their services by informed patients, and shouldn't be hurrying along anyone into anything - which would be a breach of medical ethics. Obviously the decision of I am going to transition is a huge one to take that has to be approached very carefully, fully examining why one wishes to transition and to what extent it is a good decision - ideally with the assistance of a good therapist. In the case of children, it is their own internal experience, thoughts, feelings and desires that should be the sole consideration in any treatment received. There should be no medical or parental pushing towards any specific kind of gender presentation. In practice, in present society, violations of this principle overwhelmingly harm trans kids (who are pushed to express gender according to the expectations of their parents) more than they harm cis kids who are "hurried along" into hormonal treatment for gender dysphoria that they do not desire - a complete strawman, as I have not heard of a single instance of it actually happening. "Presently"? Are you arguing that diversity in sexuality and gender expression are something new to humanity? There are no grounds to suggest that the individual behind the sexchangeregret website is trans. He identifies as a man. His mistaken transition is regrettable, but really only one of a huge number of personal problems which he is maladaptively dealing with through superstition as opposed to acquiring reality-based self-knowledge and processing his extremely abusive childhood (I did more research, and he actually was sexually abused as a child - which explains the DID and hence identity issues). Christianity in any manifestation is irrational, opposed to reality, and opposed to morality. Like any cult, Christians target the vulnerable for recruitment. The most vulnerable members of society are children, and so it follows (and is observable) that the biggest targets of Christian recruitment efforts are children, but Christians also seek to recruit vulnerable adults e.g. alcoholics or conflicted LGBT people, which is what we see happening with the sexchangeregret website.

Great video. I have nothing but contempt for anyone who regards violence against women in voluntary relationships as morally worse, or as a more pressing issue than violence against children in involuntary relationships. Of course, the powers-that-be have a vested interest in focusing the conversation on the idea that "violence is something that takes place between equals" (e.g. domestic violence), and the powers-that-be being capable of helping to end violence, over the idea that "violence is something that takes the form of top-down aggression by the corrupt towards the innocent" (e.g. child abuse, statism) - and, well, those powers-that-be being part of the problem.

While Aristotle got a lot of things right and set the stage for rational philosophy in the West, not everything he thought was correct simply by the association of it being he who thought it. (John Galt's speech in Atlas Shrugged eloquently expressed this by referring to Aristotle not by name but as "the man who was - no matter what his errors - the greatest of your philosophers".) The golden mean theory is thought to be incorrect - one rationalist explanation as to why may be heard in an 11 minute segment of this podcast. In any case, "both" is not the same as "a moderate position between two extremes". "Both" is have-your-cake-and-eat-it-too thinking, like a 40 year old who wishes to settle and raise children with a high-quality woman thinking he can afford "PUA as a way to experiment" as an equal value. It is an attempt to avoid the logical law of non-contradiction i.e. the failure to integrate one's ideas. It is an avoidance of the responsibility of consciousness, which is the need, when presented with a contradiction, to thoroughly examine one's premises and choose the best way forward. It is very telling that you regard two adults who are in philosophical disagreement as an analogous situation to a child who needs his or her mother. A core idea of self-ownership and voluntaryism is that adults are capable of being responsible for their own lives, and require unsolicited paternalistic intervention from nobody. Have you asked yourself why you like younger women? Do you believe that experience and psychological maturity in a woman are going to work against you? Or are you motivated by external physical attractiveness alone? (Hint: both lose philosophical virtue points) A 22 year old woman is an adult. A quality adult woman does not want a partner who is going to outlive her by 20 years or more, nor is she seeking in a partner an ersatz parental figure. She certainly, unambiguously, and without a doubt does not want to enter into a relationship with somebody whose intention from the beginning is to change her into something else. This means that the only 22 year old women who will be interested in you are the lowest of low quality. And if you doubt that a young woman is a self-responsible adult, this says more about the young women and portrayals thereof which you have surrounded yourself with and internalised throughout your life than it does about young women. What is the 22 year old Isabella Molyneux going to think of a man who approaches and attempts PUA nonsense on her? "You disgust me" would be my bet. If I could propose one of many hypotheses, it is that you have accepted (subconsciously if not consciously) that a high-quality woman is not going to be interested in you. As a result, you feel have to make one by turning a lump of coal into a diamond not attract a diamond by being virtuous enough yourself to deserve it. But here is the fundamental error: even if you succeed at turning a lump of coal into a diamond, which you likely won't, the diamond isn't going to be attracted to you at the end of it - for the same reason that women who are already virtuous are not. The difference is that Stefan Molyneux does not start a relationship with manipulation and other non-virtues, hoping to make virtuous (i.e. change the nature of the relationship to the opposite of its nature) later. He starts by being rational and virtuous, and lets those on whom that has no effect go their own way (to their own destruction, if Stef's are the ideas that would improve their life). Such is voluntary, honest interaction between equals.

One's gender identity is a fundamental aspect of one's identity. You really cannot live a life at all if you are not able to express it, and it is also impossible to repress or change your gender identity. And the health and well-being of a trans person is in not being coerced through parental ostracism / government force / social ostracism to fake an external presentation and deny their true self just to please others. I don't think the other things you've stated are comparable - an anorexic who doesn't want to die is acting irrationally, a person who thinks the government has put a microchip in their head has incorrectly identified reality, a person who thinks he is Napolean (literally, the Napolean) is speaking a falsehood. There is no such thing as "the natural gender binary". In nature, gender/sex is mostly a binary categorisation (in organisms which reproduce sexually), but there are exceptions. It would be very difficult for a study to completely isolate the effect of being transgender from the social context in which transgender people find themselves in causing mental illness. Given that it is only very recently that the idea of trans acceptance has entered popular consciousness at all, and that on this board of all places we recognise that childhood can have a great effect on a person's psychology for the rest of their lives, even if current society became completely trans-accepting we would still be unable to disregard the way in which negative childhood experiences for being gender variant contribute to the higher rates of mental distress among trans people compared to the general population even after transition. It completely clear, however, that for trans people, transition is overwhelmingly a positive process. The solutions to these problems are peaceful parenting, self-knowledge and individual responsibility. Gender identity and sexuality are two separate and distinct issues. A trans person can have a very plain, conventional sexuality. What are you referring to when you say "horse"? The "sexchangeregret" website came up in the other thread. The individual behind it is an extremist Christian with severe mental illness (dissociative identity disorder, which is itself strongly suggestive of an unprocessed background of extreme (sexual) child abuse) who promotes the idea that trans people, rather than living with authenticity, should turn to Jesus. I don't have the time to listen to the other recording, but the clue that it isn't coming from a place of reason and self-knowledge is in the domain name.

Thesis, antithesis, synthesis. This is literally straight out of Kant / Hegel / Fichte. You've spent so long internalising the ideas of proud irrationalists that you are having great difficulties, if you are trying at all, to think in a way that is bound by logic and by reference to objective reality. The problem is made worse by the repeatedly observable reality that you have psychological blocks towards accepting reasoned arguments and evidence, when these are given to you as alternatives. You seem to respect Stefan Molyneux at least, so I would recommend at least reading his Master's thesis (which can be found through Google) which might serve as an introduction as to what good Philosophy is - and to what it isn't (it is about the two major opposing philosophical paradigms in Western thought). Right now, bad Philosophy is literally all over your thinking, which is okay if you've never had this pointed out to you before - which it is very easy to go through life in society never experiencing, but to continue once you have the knowledge is to be entirely responsible for it. Yes, logic is bad because it serves as a constraint on one's ability to believe in the irrational, and once you free yourself from reason, you realise how many opportunities exist because you can boundlessly believe anything at all.

A lot of people attracted to the ideas of FDR have also, in my experience, been attracted to the paleo diet. The paleo diet people make some good arguments that are grounded in scientific fact and generally not talked about very much by other groups (e.g. about anti-nutrients that are present in grains and legumes) and their analyses of fatty acids and omega 3/6 ratios are very good and important to read for anyone interested in a scientific approach to nutrition, particularly when choosing which sources of fat to include in your diet (and absolutely, absolutely include sources of fat in your diet. Artificially "low fat" or "fat free" foods contribute enormously to obesity, diabetes and other health and well-being problems). As a whole, however, the idea that the way in which people historically ate (which wasn't even a specific diet, but varied enormously between regions and tribes) is somehow automatically better than anything that modern technology can produce or inform us about is fallacious and I have seen a lot of bad thinking coming out of that community next to the good points that are raised. My favourite website on nutrition is http://www.whfoods.com/ - they justify all of their claims with scientific research, and promote a varied, balanced diet of whole foods without falling into either the veg(etari)an dogma of "avoid all animal products" or the paleo dogma of "avoid all grains/legumes". There is also http://nutritionfacts.org/ which contains a lot of well-substantiated nutritional advice.