Todd wrote:

>On Tue, 4 May 1999, Richard Keene wrote:

>> I've seen this view of the fall being a allegory
>> of the transition to agriculture.  I don't think so though.
>>
>> From God's viewpoint food just isn't that important.

>Well, I don't want to invest too much in this interpretation of
>scripture, but the main point of it is not about food so much as
>it is about humanity's general mode of existence in relation to
>the other creatures of the world.
Yes I think you're right. In Tibet, for example the buddists should
not kill any animal (because of bad consequences, "karma").
But (many) Tibetans like to eat meat (of yak).
As a consequence it is tried,to get meat from animals "already dead".
Maybe fallen to death in the mountains.
Or "per accident" killed by a moslemic butcher.
So, here important is not to EAT the meat but to kill animals.

>  In Quinn's terms, agriculture
>initiated a "declaration of war" in which the world becomes a
>place to be conquered and enslaved to needs of an expanding food
>supply and human population.
Today in many cases agriculture *is* a declaration of war on nature.
Unfortunately in many cases eating paleo isn't an improvement on this
but rather playing it worse. Because many rely on meat that
is produced from agriculture (not hunting). And that requires about
tenfold of the crop production as for crops used directely by humans.

Paleolithic highlight: Farming trees for nuts and fruit.
A given area of nut trees yields food amounts, comparable to what

organic farming does.
For example 2 tons of black walnuts per ha.
Nourishes 14 persons for 1 year.

Btw: the "neolithic transition" was far from any kind of attack
to nature. The *first* neolithic people had a very peaceful and
friendly approach on nature. Once felling trees in a very small area.

regards

Amadeus


---
Sent through Global Message Exchange - http://www.gmx.net