Ginny:
> Tool of nature, yes. But we're not exactly increasing and flourishing
> on the foods we've developed.

There is a considerable difference between growing larger squashes and
manipulating a plant so that it cannot even breed with it's original
version. But, that has no bearing on what my post was about.

> We're natural, all right, but we're not winning at this rate.

Winning assumes there is something to win. What would the trophy be? :)

Back to Jean-Claude:
> it is simple,  plant this squash in a natural ecosystem situation and in
no
> time this squash is going to revert to a wild form as any other
domesticated
> crops

I would like to see consistent proof of that. If that were true, then even
nature's "experiments", if they followed your baseline equilibrium
theorums, would eventually revert to their original versions. Bio-diversity
would not exist.

> because of the phenomeneon rediscovered by instinctive eating

I swear, Jean-Claude, your subjective arguments remind me of people trying
to prove the validity of the Bible by quoting passages from the Bible about
it's validity.

> By experience i learned that  farther a food is  from its wild origin and
> less this regulation of eating works leading us to excesses.

Again, you are skirting my question. How do you *know* that the
modification of a food, by *us*, is not nature's intent? (Or, maybe I
should say, "the end result of some natural balancing process unfathomable
by human beings :) You're only argument being that *you* cannot eat it
instictively?

>> Perhaps
>> nature wanted our species to increase and flourish by gaining control of
>> the ecosystem to "some" degree.

> The point is that it doen't stop at "some degree"

Not, that's not the point. Nor is it the answer to the question I asked. It
is the same kind of reply I expect from a politician who wants to answer
*his* question rather than my question.

> To maintain our population
> we are desertifying the earth and eliminating too many species , in the
long
> run it have a cost and things  will comes back to a balance .

As I pointed out previously, nature's elimination of species makes us look
like amateurs.

> how comes our created plants are dependant on so much labor and energy to
> maintain themselves alive and that the rest of the wild is not accepting
> them if nature is in accord with humans abherations ?

"Created" plants (I assume you are referring to different types of hybrids)
do not require any more labor or energy than any other plant. The system of
"industial" agriculture does. But, there are forms of agriculture that use
much less labor and energy than "industrial" agriculture, and very likely
less labor and energy intensive than simple gathering.

> we are creating seedless varieties of fruits that are unable to reproduce
on
> their own .

Sigh. Now we get to the "slippery slope" argument - the assumption that if
we "do" anything, it will lead down the Road to Perdition. Ooops, we're
there already. I would suggest we find a solution, but that might lead to
"do"ing something, and....