|RAZ:||I'm interested in this idea of disruption, right? 'Cause if you read, like, a business magazine or you hear a lecture from, like, a business school, they all talk about being disruptive. And yet, like, a lot of places don't want disruption. They don't want people to come in and lead it to a new, uncertain place. It's scary.|
|GODIN:||I think it's fair to say almost no one wants disruption. I think that what almost everyone does want is something better. And the art of disruption then is being able to figure out what is the likely path to get you from here to that better place with the least amount of appropriate fallout. So, you know, I spoke to the Newspaper Publishers of America 15 years ago and described in fairly startling detail, how the entire industry was going to fall apart and die. And that's not a useful form of disruption because I wasn't able to describe to them which boats they needed and which river they ought to start crossing right now. And if you want to be a leader, part of what you need to do is leverage the tools you've got, the people you have and the momentum you have to do something that might not be comfortable and might not be fun, but at least takes you to a new place in a way that's productive and useful.|
It is becoming increasingly clear that trees help people live longer, healthier, happier lives—to the tune of $6.8 billion in averted health costs annually in the U.S., according to research published this week. And we’re only beginning to understand the nature and magnitude of their tree-benevolence.
"In terms of impacts on human health, trees in urban areas are substantially more important than rural trees due to their proximity to people," the researchers wrote. "The greatest monetary values are derived in areas with the greatest population density (e.g. Manhattan).""
Paleo fans will doubtless argue that a week is not enough to experience the Paleo diet’s full benefits, and that I did not approach the week in the right spirit. I must confess that they are right.
The last time most of humanity followed, by necessity, a paleo diet, there were maybe five million people on the planet. Yet already they were having a big impact; it’s been theorized that one of the reasons agriculture developed was that large, easy-to-kill prey were becoming harder to find. As grain-growing spread, it produced what’s been called the “first population explosion.” Farmers can feed their children at a much younger age than hunter-gatherers can—they have foods like porridge to feed them—and thus can produce new ones more quickly. As a result, the sicklier agriculturists were able to outbreed the more robust hunter-gatherers. More farmers then needed even more land, which further reduced the resources available to gatherers..
Whether or not agriculture was the “worst mistake in the history of the human race,” the choice, once made, was made for good. With a global population of seven billion people, heading rapidly toward eight billion, there’s certainly no turning back now (even if paleo does, in fact, prevent zits). Pound for pound, beef production demands at least ten times as much water as wheat production, and, calorie for calorie, it demands almost twenty times as much energy. Livestock are major sources of greenhouse-gas emissions, not just because of the fuel it takes to raise them but also because they do things like belch out methane and produce lots of shit, which in turn produces lots of nitrous oxide. One analysis, published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, concluded that, in terms of emissions, eating a pound of beef is the equivalent of driving forty-five miles. (Grass-fed beef—recommended by many primal enthusiasts—may produce lower emissions than corn-fed, but the evidence on this is shaky.) Eating a pound of whole wheat, by contrast, is like driving less than a mile. All of which is to say that, from an environmental standpoint, paleo’s “Let them eat steak” approach is a disaster."