It's even possible to combine these things, although that's a dangerous game to play. Biodynamic agriculture is a great example of this, Rudolph Steiner's model of how agriculture (and scientific matters in general) is... heterodox... but biodynamic farms regularly produce good crops of quality food, and the practices cultivate healthy soil by any objective measure you would care for.
I wouldn't go casually trying this with medicine, where practitioners are more likely to do the wrong thing for the wrong reasons, rather than the right thing for the wrong reasons.
He bans anyone from the permaculture subreddit who disagrees with him, which is why there are multiple off-shoot subreddits, including one specifically dedicated to his malfeasance which broaches into criminality.
Does anybody know why movements rooted in holism keep getting taken over by people like this? It seems like every movement that starts out by wanting to incorporate high-level perspectives ends up getting burdened with the crystal-spinners and magic-cancer-curers of the world.
I think going deep into crazy is natural, and the hard question is trying to balance that out with a deeper truth. At core, I think there is a deeper value in being the control group outside of the modern world.
So, can food cure cancer? I don't know, but it may be worth looking into. Amish, for instance, have 40% less cancer. Is it the food? the air? the bacteria? the hard work? No Idea!
Myself, I'm getting firmly on the fasting train. I eat every other day, and I feel great.
There’s no mystery.
Also - who diagnoses Amish people for cancer? Can there be a higher "dark number" of undetected cancers among them than among the general population?
Life expectancy should really only be talked about in terms of expected lifespan of someone who's already made it to say 3 years old.
Otherwise, we get a very distorted view of modern medicine's ability to stave off death. Modern medicine has really done well at reducing infant mortality though.
People can say things that are patently absurd about one field while being an expert in another, but I also can't just be completely credulous in treating any assertion about any subject I do not understand as true. I don't really have much else to do but build out from a network of trust rooted in people who seem competent and clear-minded by whatever criteria I can judge.
My biggest concern about it is that half its advocates say crazy things. For instance, down-thread we got the line:
"[Paul Wheaton] believes that in a decade the soil will be so rich in organic matter with healthy microbial activity (with no chemical history) could produce food that cures cancer. I believe that in an environment where human body is not weakened by the constant bombardment of chemical compounds, it could heal itself from cancer."
I do my best to keep an open mind because, hey, a lot of bits and pieces sound plausible, but whenever I get to lines about cancer-curing food, I begin to doubt the truth, validity or factual nature of anything else that was said on the topic.
Aside from that, the biggest question is always going to be "Does it scale to growing sufficient food for 10 billion people?" Maybe it does, maybe it doesn't, but whenever food comes up keep in mind that end game. If a particular agricultural system could produce food at lower energy costs, more sustainably, "better", but could only feed a billion people applied globally, it's only an acceptable solution in very particular moral frameworks.