> i am sorry you feel defensive of it .

Not defensive at all. Just noting that not everything can be described in
black/white terms.

> please reread the answer.

Again, what is the point? If you are trying to inform me that I am not
going to duplicate a natural rain forest on 1.5 acres, then I have to
concur. If you are telling me I'm "wasting my time" in what I am doing,
then you're barking up the wrong tree.

> just see wholly non discriminativelly and magically  . nothing
romanticized
> about it

Oh, I think ascribing some magical way of thinking to someone who is
motivated by survival *is* romanticizing it. And, although I agree that
primitives seem to be more in tune with their environment, I don't believe
they are automatically immune to "dominating the environment" thoughts.
Else, many developments would have neve occured. Isn't housing an attempt
to "dominate your environment"?

> seeds of what ?

Corn + pole beans + squashes. Re-read my post. Other examples exist, though
they are not as inventive.

> you are talking of full blown agriculturists who have been thru the
> neolithic revolution allready

Nope. These were hunter-gatherers. No cities. No permanent buildings.
Carried their home on their backs. They did this natural farming during
their migrations following game. Interesting that certain American native
tribes seemed to have both paleo and neolithic tendencies. As if they found
the ideal compromise between both worlds.

> a village can tend grains efficiently but a city can forcefully manage
its
> distribution .

Not an egalitarian village certainly :)