Many religions and philosophies' main theme is the fall from paradise:
the original man lived naked, without social classes, without
frustrations in a warm place where plenty of natural food was
available. Isn't it the exact description of our mother's womb? At
least, in my humble opinion, our intuition of lost innocence, lost
harmony, corruption from society comes from infancy.

The central theme in the Essene Gospel of Peace is that man is at the
same time rooted in Mother Nature and aspiring to higher spiritual
levels. Thus, he first has to live accordingly to laws of Nature, as
our ancestors did, before being able to receive God Father's teaching.
With a proper nutrition, he will be healthy and get rid "Satan" (in
modern language, he will detoxify).

The same theme, revisited by Burger's scientific mind, became instincto-
nutrition: for him, the Paleolithic was a kind of Golden Age when humans
had no illnesses, lived maybe 140 years, perhaps even 969 years like
Methuselah. They lived in harmony with Nature, since millions of years
of Darwinian selection resulted in a perfectly adapted instinct. With
raw food, we will get rid of abnormal molecules that have accumulated
in the body (cf "Satan").

The Buddhist and Taoist theories are not centered on nutrition, but on
the "lost innocence" aspect. The idea is to empty our mind, get rid of
our masks and reach the center, dissolve the ego in the universe and
reach the state of mind of an infant: empty, innocent, without conflicts.

Martial arts' philosophy is very similar: center and root your body, in
order to achieve the union between body and spirit. Work on the instinct
of preservation, which the most basic one; try to understand our natural
agressivity and recognize that "bad" side of our personality we fear so
much. Ultimately, the art should lead to inner peace and love for the
enemy [of course, most "old masters" were hardly gentlemen during their
prime].

But the very fact of being a human implies living artificially. It is true
that some hunter-gatherers like the Bushmen tribe "work" only 15 hours a
week; but they are still "primitive", and in Western countries, with 40
hours a week, we can afford cars, electricity, computers. Not so bad...
It seems that we perpetually have to search a compromise between our
instinctual and our intelligent parts.

Every artificial behavior can destroy the original "harmony". But should
every artifact be considered as a denaturation? In other words, should we
equate natural=good, artificial=bad? Should we share our fruits with
worms and birds? Eat Aflatoxin-contaminated grains? Consume plants that
produce carcinogenic toxins? Probably not. Some scientists speculate that,
although we produce enzymes to destroy plants' toxins, the longer-lived
mammals are those which have the most efficient system of detoxification.
Anyway, no animal is perfect; the cardio-vascular system of frogs is even
so imperfect that these animals get tired very quickly.

There will probably be many controversies in bioethics concerning
genetical engineering (transgenic food, cloning, artificial selection
and so on): what do we have the "right" to do, or, more precisely,
which artifacts are really "intelligent", beneficial to humans?

Two major artifacts are agriculture and meals at regular hours. A truly
instinctive nutrition would require IMO eating monomeals, randomly, and
only when hungry. Interestingly, the Essene Gospel of Peace and Burger's
dietary recommendations on the subject are the same: eat twice a day,
the first meal at noon and the second one at 6 p.m. (approximately).
Each time, eat at most 2 or 3 different foods, one by one. This,
probably to prevent overeating -which is tempting when food is abundant.
But man, to develop his mind, shouldn't waste his energy in thinking
about food.

Another interesting thing is that the concept of "living" food is
important to many rawists, as if their consumption lead to purification.
Essenes used to eat sprouted grains; even Burger found it necessary to
say that raw meat, with all the bacteria in it, is more lively than
cooked vegetables. I think that a common intuition is that living matter
has a kind of life force, and death occurs when all of it has been
consumed. Thus, sprouted grains, and maybe fruits (which are potential
trees), are the most lively foods.

While my scientist's mind rejects such a simplistic (or even animistic)
idea, I will just point out that biologists haven't understood the
process of ageing yet. And I reject the idea that sprouted grains increase
lifespan more than (say) salads. Even if grains contributed in slowing
down the process of degeneration (which is not proved), grains are not
without inconvenients (flatulences, purines, trypsin inhibitors, phytates,
gluten, thick hulls and so on). No food is "higher quality" than others,
balance and variety are essential in human nutrition; we do not only die
from the natural ageing process, but from intoxication as well.


Best,

Jean-Louis.