>
> As to your last statement, it sounds as if you are pleading for a
> more progressive approach away from Nature rather than a more
> natural and hence regressive approach which leads us back to
> Nature and the foods we are actually supposed to eat and which
> our bodies have been conditioned to eat for multimillions of
> years (as compared to the relatively short period that man has utilised
> fire for cooking purposes). Or am I reading between the lines
> again?
>
> Best regards,
>
> Alan

alan, evolution or adaption is with nature rather than away from nature. all
animals in nature will adapt or die if their environment changes the foods and
habitat they live in. that is what is happening to our species due to
population increase and deforestation.

 what i was/am saying is that to solve world problems by reverting back to
cave man lifestyle has some merits but also may present serious limits in our
ability to survive in the fast changing times we live in.

 also the diets of cave men may have served them well, but may have also
contributed to the male dominant or alpha male dictatorship type society that
the cave men and women experienced. how many of us today would be willing to
accept the political mentality of a cave man type society with slavery, womens
oppression, infanticide, barbaric battles over turf, etc.

i would be willing to go back to the stone age with some folks if i thought
they were really serious and used a consensus paradigm and modified diet
rather than the traditional cave man style.