30 Bananas a Day!

In my book The Interconnectedness of Life I argue that even though I do reference scientific studies, because science changes from one year to the next I don't heavily rely on science to back up my book. What I do however is try to state my point that a vegan lifestyle (better yet a diet of predominantly fruits and vegetables) is indeed better for our health, the health of the planet and if we care about animals.

What do you think? Do you think science is a load of quack or do you follow science and every study out there? Your opinion on the issue.

The Interconnectedness of Life a book by Michael Lanfield with foreword by Karen Davis, PhD explores the relationship between humans, animals and the Earth. It exposes the underlying reasons to the vast array of daunting problems of our time while addressing spiritual and ethical issues so we can live in a more harmonious, loving and compassionate world.
With inspiring and telling stories from Jonathan Balcombe, PhD, Karen Davis, PhD, Judy Carman, MA, David Sztybel, PhD, Matt Bear and others, this is the definite book of awakening consciousness on the planet, while saving the Earth, feeling and looking great, and best of all being kind to animals. If you truly want to understand the meaning of life and our place in this world, than this book is for you.

What people are saying about The Interconnectedness of Life

"The Interconnectedness of Life articulates in an uplifting and engaging way the many correspondences between vegan living and building a healthier world. Michael Lanfield weaves stories from his personal journey of transformation together with the latest research on nutrition and ecology. To this he adds a judicious selection of wise words from sages of many times and places. The result is a literary banquet that is sure to inspire and guide readers to greater compassion, clarity, health, and understanding. Highly recommended."
– Dr. Will Tuttle, Author of the #1 Amazon bestselling book The World Peace Diet

"If we as humans are ever to break free from the path of destruction we currently find ourselves on, it is crucial that we as a species embrace the concept of nonviolence. Veganism is a philosophy whose time has come, and in order for us to fulfill our destiny of spiritual evolution, it is one that must be recognized and adopted by every living human on this planet. Michael’s message is clear, love is the glue that connects everything to everything else, and denial of this has led to wide scale suffering for countless animals, planet wide. If we are ever to bring this planet back from the brink of seemingly inevitable despair, we must recognize animals as our brethren and realize we are here to guide and protect them, not to abuse, slaughter and gluttonously devour them, as has sadly been the case since the dawning of recorded history. The Interconnectedness of Life goes far in explaining just why we need to step back and take a look at our relationship with other earthlings, and sheds light on the daily, forced atrocities animals must endure before finally ending butchered sizzled and fried on our dinner tables."
– Mango Wodzak, Author of Destination Eden

"Reading the Interconnectedness of Life, you feel as though you are sitting with Michael himself as he opens his heart and tells his story of vegan awakening. In this genuine and heartfelt book, he covers all the reasons why human beings must end the exploitation and killing of animals, if life on earth is to survive. He also offers excellent references for further research. What I love the most about Michael’s work, though, is that he goes to the heart of the solution for us all. He makes it clear that our task “to create peace and heaven on earth” requires the raising of human consciousness to the highest level of unconditional love for all life. This book will help many people become vegan and thus, help bring peace, freedom and love to all beings."
– Judy Carman, MA, Author of
Peace to all Beings and The Missing Peace

You can purchase the paperback or download the free PDF.

Please share this message and the book around with your friends and family.


Views: 2398

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

mainstream science is a religion called scientism.. it's not real science..


I read in a book called "what it means to be 98% chimpanzee" that scientific statements are always authoritative, because they are made by scientists, but at the same time are always falsifiable by definition in the scientific method. That's to say all scientific statements have the caveat "unless new information shows otherwise" attached, yet they thrown around like immutable facts aka scientism hahaha

I think science is a kind of truth that can be biased.

For instance, lobbies pay scientists to demonstrate that their product is healthy, and the scientists design conditions for this statement to be true. So yes, science showed us that eating that is healthy (or healthier than another thing, or without adverse effects)... in this particular condition. And this last part is often omitted, saying that the product is scientifically proved healthy.

Another point is that most studies compare the experimental condition to the SAD diet. So, processed soy is said healthy, as well as legumes, roasted nuts, olive oil,... but their are just healthier than SAD and not a component of a healthy diet like we hear everyday.

Moreover, experiments focus on 1 component of plant and/or on 1 organ/function of the body. So, antioxydants in wine are said to be beneficial for the heart, but what about the brain and about alcohol?

Science is truth, and I have no problem with it, but the issue is with the diffusion of the results. Medias pick out the result (Wine is good for you) without nothing about the conditions and limits of the experiment, creating misleading statements.

It's very simple.  Anything that follows the scientific method is science.  Anything that does not follow the scientific method is not science.  It may be interesting but it isn't science.

For example, "scientific studies" are NOT science, they measure correlations and not causal relationships.  These studies may have truth in them and the may be interesting but they also contain errors and flaws.  These days due to various agendas certain communities have blurred the distinctions between experimentally confirmed phenomena and statistically measured correlations.  THEY ARE NOT THE SAME THING.  And society as a whole has suffered for it.

What do you suggest we replace the scientific method with?  There is of course science done well and science done poorly. Probably much of the science you hear in the general media is poorly communicated - often due to complex topics having to be broken down into summaries or even sound bites. Getting a better understanding of most topics requires time and effort. 

Go back and read what I said again, it appears you didn't read it.  Nowhere did I suggest replacing the scientific method.  The scientific method has a flawless track record.

The issue is that nobody seems to be able to articulate what the scientific method is.  The general public is completely uneducated on what it is.  I doubt anywhere here would be able to explain it in their own words.

The problem we're having in society is nobody explains the difference between science (experimental verification with 100% replicable results) and a "scientific" study, which is a sampling that measures correlations.  The latter simply is not science.  It may be true, it may be useful, but it simply is not science because it has errors in it.

Yes and No. Science means the search for truth. Most people use language to cover up the truth and then call it "science", when it was shoddy, half baked or outright corrupt in the first place.

Well, it's a method to arrive at an answer. A little bit more reliable to hold up objective facts, understanding, and an aim for the truth (not to say that all research institutions do so).. than purely subjective opinion that's expressed in absolutes. As Jeff noted, a scientific study is not similar in weight to a scientific theory, law, or fact.

It takes time to see patterns that are repeatable.

Science papers do not progress in any linear, sequential fashion. Science does not move towards truth easily. It has fits and starts. A lot of what gets published is junk. It takes time for the stuff in many studies to be put in the junk pile. Everyone has an agenda--even me.

Nutrition is a very soft science and progress is slow.  We are a bit ahead of the curve but time will show the truth.  I believe in science but I do not believe that every study is good science.  At this stage in my life I am more skeptical than ever. 

But I also believe that given enough time and enough good constraints, the truth of the matter will prevail.

I believe that veganism has some very strong advantages when done correctly. I also believe that high raw with reasonable nods towards meeting micronutrient and macronutrient requirements is an incontrovertible good.  But it will be a while before all effective doubt is removed.  I don't really care about the time aspect. In the meantime I consider myself to be the best possible proponent.

Anyone who looks at me, talks to me, can tell I am doing something incontrovertibly good.  Maybe not 100% optimal but very very good without at doubt.

If you think there are quacks in science, you should try health "gurus" and their fancy retreats, snake oil and books.

I downloaded and generally liked the book. It's a good overview of the most of issues. I didn't know that Alicia Silverstone still eats dairy. But sure enough I confirmed it from her own mouth...

“If I was at a party and there was a tray of cheese sitting there and I had had drinks, then I might have a bite,” Silverstone confessed to UsMagazine.com..." She's no vegan.

The only problem I had with the book was the love argument rather than the logical utilitarian argument. I have been told that some people respond better to these types of subjective emotional words like love, but I personally prefer objective reasoning. When you start talking about loving slaughterhouse killers you lost me. To bring about the greatest utility I would gladly kill them all to stop the killing of a billion chickens. Hell, I would kill every employee of Tyson Foods if I could get away with it. I realize that sounds bad, but it's a means to an end.

Love and empathy are not necessary to be a vegan, all that's required is an understanding of their suffering. We know that our own suffering is bad, we know that animals also suffer, therefore to cause them pain without a good reason is unethical. It's a cold, objective, emotionless calculation, just like scientific reasoning.

That said, you are promoting activism as I do, so we have arrived at the same goal. Thanks for the book.



TheBananaGirl created this Ning Network.

30BaD Search

Latest Activity

© 2020   Created by TheBananaGirl.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service