> If you say so, then so be it.
> I "own" the land because that's how that particular resource is allocated
> in the U.S. in the 21st century. I make no judgements about whether it is
> right or wrong, only that it is so. I do not fear or "untrust" the wild.
> You read way too much intent and philosophy into simple statements of
fact.

i was not talking about you personally but of the dominant culture , i am
sorry you feel defensive of it .

> > i have been working in establishing edible  ecosytems by integrating
them
> > in the wild
>
> I am doing the same thing in the "not"-wild. So, what's your point?

the point was not the above sentence wich  was the context how i came to my
point , please reread the answer.

my point is
that you don't know what you have  lost.many many potential relationships
between species are lost . the complexity of those relationships is what
makes the balance . by narrowing down species you create dificulty to
achieve this balance .plants becomes unbalanced in their own nutritional
make up .


> I have my doubts about this romanticized "pristine" way of thinking by
> primatives. Quite far-fetched to imagine them intellectualizing their role
> in the environement.

it is preciselly not intellectual , primitive thinking is like children
thinking ,before they learn to analyse ,discriminate between things they
just see wholly non discriminativelly and magically  . nothing romanticized
about it it is just our  birth given way
of aprehending the world . the other way of thinking is learned from
analytic thinking of parents who narow things down to special relationships
in time and space  then  inforced by schools in our modern
societies

if when you look at a flower and see petals , sepal , stem , pistil etc....
you lost the flower in the process.if you see foods as a mix of nutrients
you lost the food

> > not worth the trouble for hunter gatherer , for starch yes they worked
on
> it
>
> And your evidence - other than your personal experience and observations -
> of this is...? There is much evidence to the contrary among the American
> natives. During their migrations they would plant seeds at various points
> along their routes, knowing full well they would have easy pickings when
> returning. Quite fascinating, actually. Corn + pole beans + squashes
> planted together correctly have a symbiotic relationship. The corn stalks
> provide the support for the beans, and the squash plants shade the ground
> and discourage weeds.

seeds of what ?

you are talking of full blown agriculturists who have been thru the
neolithic revolution allready .my evidences come from the cultures who have
not been exposed to agriculture or didn't integrate it .( true hunter
gatherers )

> Problem is, if they planted fruit/nut trees, they have to wait a few or
> many seasons until the first harvest. If they planted grains, they would
> have a harvest the same year. And, they would have not been reasoning -
> "Hey, I've been existing of a diet with 40-60% fat. I better plant a
> long-term crop with that in mind". Again, it's silly to ascribe
"scientific
> thinking" to someone who has little science.

you give me one more  clue that you might not be able to   conceive an other
way of knowing than" scientific thinking ".
does it not makes sense than having an experience of fatty meats  , when
switching to a plant based diet you will be looking for plant fats without
having to "know " ( intellectually ) that nuts are made of fats , can you
not just
experience it as fatty ?

i just read an experiment that have been done by a feed store in walnut
grove in iowa . 23 separate vitamins and minerals each in their own bin ,
cows could alternate freelly their choices of bins in such a way  they
receive a balanced diet , their preferences changed with the seasons and
climate , demonstrating a natural inclination to follow the dictate of their
bodies needs.
how do they knows ?is it

> Which came first, the grain or the city?

how do you free and " motivate "enough peoples to built cities without
grains being stored and stoked to be released in a timelly manner , you have
to create social class from farmers to slave to priests and army first by
locking lands and foods in the hands of few  ,
egalitarian neolithic cultures didn't built cities they stayed at the
village  scale of organisation ( yes they preexisted and have been crushed
by city cultures.)

> because it was "easier" to tend grains that way? Or were grains introduced
> into a culture that was already heading in that direction, and found to be
> utilitarian? I cannot say for sure. Neither can you.

a village can tend grains efficiently but a city can forcefully manage its
distribution .
nothing changed since city culture is still deciding what is going on on the
land .
jean-claude


>