Hi and welcome, Rex!

Interesting points you make.

>Point one: the persimmon.  Is there anything that can pucker the mouth as well
>as an unripe persimmon?  Its astringency is legendary.  However, the fruit,
>once ripened, is delectable.  I submit that Mother Nature (a very good friend
>of mine) is simply saying, "Not yet, children---I'll tell you when it's time
>to spread the seed."  And the seed is surely spread because there is not a
>fruit-eating animal that can resist ripe persimmons.

I'm assuming you're not talking about the "American persimmon" here,
sometimes called the "pawpaw"? It probably doesn't matter whether it is the
pawpaw or the Japanese persimmon as the astringency in notorius in either.
Except...for the Fuyu-type cultivars--which are non-astringent. These make
an interesting counter-example to the point I think you are trying to make
here. Because of human intervention we have a persimmon (the Fuyu) which
has lost its astringency and can be eaten "unripe". Surely you would agree
that is an example of human intervention which makes a fruit easier to eat.
On the other hand, at least to my taste buds, a Fuya is no match for a
Hachiya (sp?). But the comparison should be to the wild progentitors of
Japanese. Have you sampled such fruit? How does it compare? I suspect they
were smaller, stronger-flavored, had less "window-of-ripeness-opportunity",
and probably would ripen less easily off the tree. As such, if you and I
were to sit down to an unlimited supply of wild and Hachiya persimmons, do
you conceed that we would be more likely to eat more "sugar calories" from
the Hachiyas, and that they would be relatively "empty calories" relative
to the ratio of nutrients/sugar found in the wild ones?

>Point two: *green* apples.  This fruit, perhaps the most popular in the US can
>do quite a number on the tummies of youngsters who eat more than a few from
>wild or cultivated trees.  Few youngsters violate Mother Nature's "not yet"
>rule a second time.  However, can anyone argue against the life force of a
>ripe apple?  How empty an appleless world would be.

But here you are proving Tom's point, aren't you? The "crabapples" are
harder to eat than a red delicious apple, no? Conversely, it would be
easier to overeat on the red delicious, no? Or am I missing something here?

>Point three: my thornless blackberries.  I can hand you a berry one day before
>its time and the sourness will make you shiver.  If you were to wait but a
>single day, you would be rewarded with a true delicacy.  MN is very, very
>clear about when it's proper to eat her seed bearers.

My understanding is that even the bred cultivars of blackberries are pretty
"wild"--that is, not that different in characteristics. Here you talk of
thornless berries. Thornless was the quality bred for, so it may be that
the fruit is quite similar still to its wild progenetors. When breeders get
around to making blackberries the size of golfballs, which are not very
strongly flavored (so that more will be eaten), then blackberries, like
apples, may serve as an example of the difference bewteen wild and
domesticated fruit.

>Back to the sour orange.  Can this really be a food for man?  Could a sour
>orange actually be instead a degenerate form of the sweet orange?  Could sour
>oranges have disappeared eons ago but for their value only as rootstock?
>Perhaps they lost the gene to ripen like other fruit.  Quite honestly, I
>consider a sour orange about as important in the diet of man as an Osage
>orange, which may not be an orange at all.

I am not familiar with Osage oranges, but have no trouble believing that
wild oranges didn't play a big role in the lives of our Paleolithic
forefathers/mothers. Except for some areas of SE Asia (where wild durian
and champedek grow) I doubt that fruit sugar was much consumed (honey,
perhaps). Look at the fruits consumed by, say, the chimps in Jane Goodall's
study. Except for the bananas researchers provided them, these were wild
fruits. I seriously doubt that any of them compare favorably with our
modern cultivated fruits.

>My point is that humans are irrestibly guided to the sweetest
>fruit they can find.  When the food adulterers don't interfere, that means
>humans will get the best possible nutrition.  What person can eat a 10 Brix
>apple when an 18 Brix apple is on the table?  That's not sweetness we're
>talking about: that's pure nutrition.

Brix level is greatly correlated with good flavor, but there may be more to
the equation than simply Brix. The question is why we have such a sweet
tooth? Could it be that simple carbs were in short supply during our
evolution? That we never had as much sweet fruit as we "wanted" so our
attraction is hard-wired as "very attractive" so that when they are
available we eat much of them?

The question could also be asked of our "fat tooth". Easy sources of
dietary fat were perhaps hard to come by and when they were available it
was time to stock up by eating lots.

Both concentrated sources of sugar and fat are, today, readily available,
so if we were to follow our "instinct" for sweets and fatty foods without
regard for the modern "oversupply", might we be overdoing it?

>> * Wild pineapples are usually inedible; ditto the wild precursors of the
>> mango.

>You've handed me a tough one here.  I was unaware that a pineapple was
>actually a fruit and will have to do some reading.  The people in Florida that
>I know who grow pineapples only plant the chopped off tops.  There are no
>seeds involved they tell me.

This is true of many of our cultivated fruits--that seeds have been
bypassed. Are you saying bananas, navel oranges, seedless grapes, etc are
not fruits too?

>And I'll check around on the mango.  Are you
>saying that some "wild precursors" are edible and some are inedible?

Well, I wouldn't say they are inedible, but the difference is even greater
than the difference between a crab apple and a half-pound red delicious.

>> So, one could say that wild fruit must pass nature's REAL first law -
>> survival of the fittest (not to be confused with phony versions
>> promoted by fanatics).

>Well obviously, the plant must be successful in spreading its seed or it
>becomes history as I assume so many have.

I think Tom's point is that many domesticated fruits (and veggies) will not
reproduce w/o human intervention, that they won't survive in the wild...

>> Wild fruit passes the law; cultivated fruit does
>> not. Nature is interested in survival, not sugar content.

>Good Grief! sugar is the basic building block of the plant world.  The plant
>then takes minerals and combines them with the sugar to build all the other
>essences of life.  Those plants that can produce the most sugar are the most
>successful at growing, not just spreading seed.

The plants that are most successful at producing a lot of sugar are usually
the ones we have bred and cultivate. We are replacing natural selection in
the matter because we have such a sweet tooth. The high-Brix fruits you
were speaking of are not wild are they? They are the result of your own
growing practices, not natural selection.

>Indeed we are---exactly as Mother Nature designed us.  And she was wise enough
>to plan it so we would get maximum mineralization if we simply headed for
>maximum sweetness.  How simple---and beautiful---and emminently workable.

Simple, beautiful, and emminately workable in wild nature, but probably not
in the produce section of your favorite organic food store. The ambivilent
experiences of fruitarians, and many others who eat a high % of fruit
longterm tend to be an exception which proves the elegance of Mother
Nature's _original_ system--probably because the supply/demand ratio we
evolved on is turned on its head as it is at the modern grocery or farmer's
market.

Cheers,
Kirt