> Regardless of your stance, we cannot exist within an ecosystem without -
by
> our very existence - affecting it to some degree.

i agree

Your contention is that
> we affect it too much.

it is more about the quality  of our impact . it is a question of power over
instead of  power with . it is also about unregulated power growing
exponentially and more than that ,  human impacts on environment serve them
less and less with time . it is a self defeating attitude because the
conception of self is so narrow .desires are endless while needs are finite
.

I have no argument with that. What I have an issue
> with is *how* you determine at what point we "step over the line", so to
> speak. Since you won't answer any of my questions specifically, I'll just
> have to "punt" at this point.
>
> Consider the beaver. It drastically affects it's environment by damming up
> a stream. Your contention, I assume, is that a beaver dam is "ok" because
> "it was meant to be". It somehow works within it's environment.

the beaver content himself with  the dam and is not racing toward progress
in a compulsive manner .

the changes are for him satisfying and have worked for him for eons .it is
not the case with changes done on our food since the paleolithic time , we
are compulsivelly trying to  "improve"  on what is and each move bring us
farther to the satisfaction of our needs , every time   we lost a lot and
have been  increasing in complexity
>
> Now, consider a human doing the same thing. Suppose a hunter/gatherer
> decides to start raising crops from seed. To make his life easier, he dams
> up a stream and channels "some" of the water into a small field of crops
> (not grains, because we know they are not paleo :). Other than the fact
> that the human dam may displace a beaver's dam (don't worry, the little
> critter will find another spot :), what is the difference? How can *you*
> make the assumption that the human dam (another of nature's creature's) is
> not as "ok" within the ecosystem as the beavers'?

that is fine with me ,the question is : how necessarry is it ?
is it a simple coincidence that the first crops to be planted are grains ?
i share the opinion that the compulsive motivation to grow grains is  linked
to the hormonal disturbance they triggerand their addictive quality  rather
than making life easier .

even in very adverse situation like the kung there is a strong resistance to
becomes farmer among hunter gatherer unless they are forced to .( too much
work )

 By creating a demand for a) more organic food,
> b) paleo-based food, and c) (for those us who can) producing our own food
> naturally.

it is a good start but i propose more , questionning first the need for
tilling the ground then the need to change the taste of foods thru
denaturation . neither of thoses choices are necessarry and are even an
hindrance to full satisfaction of our needs

jean-claude
>