>> some molecules have obviously more disturbing impact than others.( and
>> it is proportional to the unexpectancy of the body to ever enconter such
>> molecules in natural conditions)
>
>Maybe you are contradicting yourself here. Didn't you just say, a
>paragraph above, that drugs, alcohol, and cooked foods do NOT have a
>"more disturbing impact than others?"
>
>I don't think the degree of the "disturbing impact" has much to do
>with the "encountering things in natural conditions" either. After
>all, opium - a highly addictive substance, wouldn't you agree? - is
>totally "encounterable" in nature.

i was meaning" expected for the body to encounter internally ".Have
you ever
ate poppie latex ? it is horrible tasting very little chance to pass
the
taste barrier ( unless you denature it and then you got a disturbing
effect)
how much alcohol can you absorb  on a continuous basis from eating
overripe
fruits ?

>> so what is the reasons and mechanisms of addictions ?
>
>Drowning out one's sorrows. Stuffing feelings. Numbing out. Coping.
>Surviving. Making oneself function in otherwise impossible
>circumstances. (Like, for instance, you're too exhausted to go to
>work one more day without ten cups of coffee, ten cokes and ten
>chocolate bars to keep you awake. Like, if you don't have a drink
>you know you'll never be able to walk over and talk to that girl.
>Like, if you don't shoot up you simply cannot bear the terror and
>heart-break of seeing the horrors that are occuring in your house.
>Or even like when you believe - maybe incorrectly but that's what
>you in fact believe - that you would not be able to survive without
>the "friend in the night" help of your chosen addiction.

Addiction works by changing the brain chemistry and the hormonal
balance .

 Anything can be use to do that,  from a simple thought or belief to
highy
denatured molecules . It is in that sense that i said that substances
were
not addictive  per se . In fact we are getting addicted to specific
hormonal
responses or neuromessengers or whatever. the molecules actives in the
drug
are just triggering those responses often by having a structure
similar to
an endogene molecule.
>
>>
>> the desertification process that goes with every rise of  civilizations
is
>> self destructive .
>> i see the speedy evolution and mondialisation of the occidental culture
>> precipitating that destruction.
>
>You're looking at negative things. Why Jean-Claude? The
>mind-blowingly, amazingly, wonderful things are SO much more
>interesting, educational, fun, and abundant - than the negative
>things.

i don't see anything negative about warning somebody who didn't see a
hole
and is ready to fall into it and nothing negative about   having
learned by
observation that falling in a hole can hurt.

I will be negative if i was seeing that and either looking at all the
ground
who doen't have holes in it .or drinking away my fears of being hurt.
saying :  isn't it beautifull all this solid concrete around the hole
?
i will be negative if i was seeing that hole  and was not knowing what
to do
about it. i wil be depressed if i kew what to do and could not do it.

the history of civilisations is very clear about the impact of their
economies on desertification.
The most striking for me was when i flew other what is  the craddle of
the
occidental civilisation ( mesopotamia,  between India and europe ). i
could
see all the streams and rivers beds dried out and no vegetations. what
was
once so much rich land that human kind started to exploite it by
cultivating
it is now a desert, egypt followed behind and greece  then the romans
who
invaded europe and from there to america where they finish the job
started
already by the cultivation of corn ( see the Anasazi in Mesa verde
plateau)

i live in the country that might be one of the last to  be desertified
and
yet i see that it is happening ..
i must be  seeing even more negatively that if i had the attenuating
circonstances of living in california ( where the desertification is
obvious)

>> I see cooking as a way to "improve" our situation in the food chain at
the
>> root of the desertification.
>> so even if it is better it might no be for long anymore. The awakening up
>> from burying the head in the sand of that desert might be chocking to
more
>> than one.
>
>I don't understand this paragraph.

cooking alllowed us to eat in bigger quantities what we will have been
regulated to eat in smaller portions if the instinctive regulation had
been
in charge. it allowed us even to eat things that we could not eat raw.
With
that we changed our place in the web of life becoming greedy from
being
malnourished  that lead us to overpredation , pastoralism and
agriculture
 everystep contributing to the loss of diversity and quantity of the
total
biomass in favor of humans)
Now we reach so much an unbalance between the numbers of humans and
the rest
of the web of life that support us directly or indirectly that the
situation
is critical . The last means of human ingeniosity to whipp the
exhausted
horse ( chemicaly induced fertilty and genetic engineering) is going
to
precipitate the crises.It is why i said it might not be for long
anymore
 that is the good news it just can't go that much farther ) either the
total
biomass  diversity will recover without humans ,either humans change
their
way and recover with it.

only hitting bottom will be making us change so i am very positive
about
that.

the arrogance of the american Empire might be in the way for its
inhabitant
to realise that the bottom is near  because they are sitting on top of
the
pile of earth digged out  from the hole. The fall might be harder for
them

All what i said about our outerecology can be translated to our
innerecology.

I am as negative about the health status of the human species.

to finish on a positive note look at this.

southern europe green belt ( regreening the desert)
http://www.mir.org/greenbelt/english/index.htm

extracted from http://www.seedballs.com/gmmfpa.html

Masanobu Fukuoka 'negative view
"The world is digging itself into a bottomless pit with modern
agriculture,"
he admonished. "The simple hearth of the small farm is the true center
of
our universe. Scientific thought is leading you away from a healthy
life.
Even the practice of conventional organic agriculture is a dangerous
digression. It cannot be sustained if you have to rob one part of the
earth
to feed another."

Masanobu ' confidence that it could be different:
"God's love grows plants. Nature grows crops. Birds sow seeds. In
three
years, even the soil starts changing spontaneously. There are no ideas
like
big or small, strong or weak, rich or poor, in Nature. No idea like
'the
struggle for existence'. There are bugs and diseases, but they do not
cause
problems. Many kinds of bugs co-exist in natural harmony. We cannot
know why
plants grow. I dare say, God's love. For example, the soil on my
mountain is
the same as that in the deserts and was not green fifty years ago. But
now,
even though I have not changed the soil, plants grow there

jean-claude