>> Alan:
>> >If the intent wasn't there Kirt (i.e. if evolution did not develop
>> >food cycles, interdependencies and symbioses etc.) then there would be
>> >no such things as jungles.

Sure there would. There would simply be no pontification on the matter. ;)

>And the next thing you will be questioning is whether plants REALLY
>do attract bees in order to get pollinated!! Intent may be a human
>word but evolution obviously intended them to do just that, just as
>it intended food cycles, interdependencies/symbioses etc.. If you
>wish to reject this then you are in for a scrap with just about
>every botanist and biologist on this earth.

Bring em on, which, of course, you can't. As I said previously, any animal
on this planet will eat any attractive item on this planet (vegetable,
animal, or mineral) as food without regard to your notions of intent
(neglecting particular humans who think they are above it all ;)). The
"intended food cycle" for humans has NOTHING TO DO with fundamentalist
natural hygiene. The "interdependencies/symbioses" for humans probably have
more to do with animal foods than fruit. And you are welcome to show
otherwise, as you claim.

>> But, I suspect, you need the notion of intent to justify your
>> fundamentalist NH. Without it, NH's false claims to "naturalism" come
>> tumbling down.
>
>I am not a member of the German NH Society any more. I and more
>renowned people such as Helmut Wandmaker, Dr. K. J. Probst and
>Franz Konz etc. left them nearly three years ago to form a
>breakaway group which attemopts to provide some better answers
>based on newer findings. People like Shelton, Fry and Walker etc.
>may have been pioneers but they certainly did not (and could not)
>know some of the things we know now.

Hmmm...

I hear Helmut is a fake and a phoney. Never heard of Probst or Konz. I
suspect your name-dropping is simply a excuse to avoid the notion I
mentioned intitially. But in re-reading it, I see you are not merely
name--dropping but associating yourself with the names. I hope your stint
at the Apex of Total Truth is rewarding.

>True to a degree..but this would not explain why most trees have
>devised methods of spreading their seeds further afield (some are
>propeller-shaped, some are encased in "cotton wool", some rely
>on being eaten by birds or animals etc.).

And, I'd bet, most of the fruits and vegetables you eat rely on humans for
propagation. So? What any of this has to do with whether nuts "should" or
"want" to be eaten is beyond me though.

>>In the longterm, yeah, the younger trees replace the older
>> trees. What any of this has to do with whether nuts "should" or "want" to
>> be eaten is beyond me though.
>>
>Nuts can not afford to wait until the parent tree dies before taking
>its place. They rely on animals such as squirrels etc. to propagate
>(i.e. they serve as both immediate food..also to humans.. and also
>rely on animals burying them elsewhere as a winter stock and then
>forgetting where some of them were buried).

Nuts have no bank account and thus cannot "afford" anything, and, again,
have no sense or semblence of "intent". Your squirrel fantasy is (besides
being restricted to the temparate zones) almost absurdist in its
simplification of nature and natural selection. It is striking, though,
that you have gone from "nuts do not want to be eaten" to nuts "serve as
both immediate food..also to humans". I guess it's all in the translation
of "want" and "serve", no? ;)

>> >If you doubt this then you had better start reading some Darwin
>> >or study botany and natural history.
>>
>> If I doubt what? That various schemes have evolved to disperse plants
>> seeds? I have trouble following your lines of thought many times.
>
>Exactly that. You questioned the intentions of Nature.

Exactly WHAT? If I have questioned the "intentions of nature", you appear
to have assumed them verbatim. But, never mind, I just love when folks like
you capitalize the N in nature....as if as discussion has ended because,
after all, Helmut, Kanz, and Probst have told you what nature is. LOL!

>The problem is that there is very little research on what humans
>are supposed to eat (because it would be counterproductive for the
>food industry in the first instance).

Your ignorance in this matter would be amusing except for the fact that you
act superior to those who actually _have_ done the research. (try the
search engine at http://maelstrom.stjohns.edu/archives/paleodiet.html for
starters). Conspiracy theories seem to be the other leg that NH
fundamentalism stands on (the first leg, as mentioned, being "Nature" with
a capital N).

>Cherry-picking is thus often
>not possible and common sense has to be applied in the first instance,
>often based on research which was not directed at the paleolithic
>diet in the first place. In other words, to use a recent example here,
>if raw stringbeans have been found by food researchers to contain a
>toxic substance known as phasine in concentrations which are
>dangerous to humans, then it is common sense that raw stringbeans
>are not an original human food (the same goes for deadly nightshade
>and any other raw plants containing high levels of toxins).

Can I use this paragraph as an example of disordered thought?

Let's try this again: Alan, toxins are EVERYWHERE! Singling one out because
some researcher named it in the 20th century has NOTHING to do with whether
it was part of the paleolithic diet (never mind that modern string beans
did not exist 40,000 years ago--since neither did most of the fruits and
veggies that you eat). You can appeal to common sense as some higher
authority all you want, but you haven't shown that you exercise much.

>I have never been indoctrinated against animal foods. In fact I am one
>of the few who claim that humans can and must be able to deal with
>raw animal protein.

Few?

Oh, you mean the few NH fundamentalists...and how did you _deal_ with it
Alan? ;)

>The diets of the apes most related to humans tend
>to support this (a small percentage of the diet of chimps is made up
>of insects and raw meat..and bonobos at least eat a small percentage
>of insects). The question is..is it necessary. I have found more
>arguments against eating (raw) meat than for eating it (and listed
>them in a recent post to Jean-Louis, for example). That's all.

That's not all, Alan. JL has shown every "line of thought" you have shared
to be short-sheeted, to say the least. It appears animal foods may be
needed for some sort of prerequisat mental accuity, at least according to
the example you are setting.

>Let me guess that you are an American Kirt. It is amazing how the
>Americans tend to view the advice of people from other countries as
>somehow meaning that they themselves are inferior in some way.

Let me guess that you prejudge people by their nationality...or your best
guess as to such. ;)

>Do
>you walk around with a chip on your shoulder or something? I merely
>offer my advice and knowledge to anyone on this planet to use or
>reject as he or she thinks fit.

I, and others, reject it. So...que es su problemo, Senior Alanito? Some
sort of chip, perhaps?

>Without discussion there can be
>no progress.

You have shared your ultimate knowledge with us underlings. Is that
discussion? Indeed, I, and others, have attempted to enlist you in some
actual discussion, but you come up with "without discussion, there can be
no progress".

>Personally I couldn't give a damn what other people
>are eating and stand to gain nothing by converting anybody to my
>way of thinking (except perhaps a better environment for us all).

Gag!!!!!!!

You and forest will get along fine.

>Why not merely try weighing up the pros and cons of what people
>say (and throw back any CONSTRUCTIVE criticism you like) rather
>than trying to put people into specific drawers and shooting off
>the "holier than thou" mentality.

I am objecting to _your_ "holier than thou" mentality. My constructive
criticism to you would be to take a deeeeeep beath and repeat after me, "I
know no more than I did before I became certain" until you lighten up.

Cheers,
Kirt

Secola  /\  Nieft
[log in to unmask]