> > ....Perhaps
> > nature wanted our species to increase and flourish by gaining control
> > of
> > the ecosystem to "some" degree. Can I not be a tool of nature just as
> > any
> > other creature can?
> to have an overview of some fondamental differences in culture between
> hunter gatherer relying on the wild and neolitic societies relying on
> domesticated crops and animals read this article
> http://www.primitivism.com/future-primitive.htm
Interesting article, Jean-Claude, although I'm not sure what it has to
specifically with my post. But, OK, I'll bite.
Regardless of your stance, we cannot exist within an ecosystem without - by
our very existence - affecting it to some degree. Your contention is that
we affect it too much. I have no argument with that. What I have an issue
with is *how* you determine at what point we "step over the line", so to
speak. Since you won't answer any of my questions specifically, I'll just
have to "punt" at this point.
Consider the beaver. It drastically affects it's environment by damming up
a stream. Your contention, I assume, is that a beaver dam is "ok" because
"it was meant to be". It somehow works within it's environment.
Now, consider a human doing the same thing. Suppose a hunter/gatherer
decides to start raising crops from seed. To make his life easier, he dams
up a stream and channels "some" of the water into a small field of crops
(not grains, because we know they are not paleo :). Other than the fact
that the human dam may displace a beaver's dam (don't worry, the little
critter will find another spot :), what is the difference? How can *you*
make the assumption that the human dam (another of nature's creature's) is
not as "ok" within the ecosystem as the beavers'?
> you refuse to yourself the chance of experiencing the obvious difference
in
> responses to the wild taste and the domesticated form once you eliminate
> drastically all attempts to trick
I have likely eaten nearly as much "wild" food as you have. Not in it's raw
state, always, but yes, I have "tasted" the difference between wild and
domesticated.
> did dinosaurs got extinct in few years ?
Possibly overnight.
> you got to not have much experience in gardenning !
Wrong. I practice natural, organic gardening. I use mulching techniques
that are not only labor, cost, and time saving, but have the advantage of
recycling many materials that would ordinarily go to "waste", and, as a
bonus, provide a very pleasant landscape around my property.
I grew up with a father who made me work in the garden using "standard"
methods - i.e., chemicals, rototiller, weeding, etc. I hated it. I tried to
find other methods (like mulching) in order to make my life easier, but he
would have nothing to do with it. So, I had to wait until I became an adult
"land-owner" to be able to practice natural garnening methods. I would not
consider myself an expert yet, but I have had considerable success using
these methods in both planting beds and with permascape ("edible
landscaping"). I check my growing areas once or twice a week, pull a few
weeds here and there (sometimes eat them), and then pretty much forget
about them (no worries) until harvest.
> you can't resolve a problem with the same mind set that created it in the
> first place .
You mean science and technology? Well, I don't want to speak for everyone
on this list, but I bet most of them came to the paleo way of eating
*because* of science, rather than despite it. Instincto is fine, but it's
the (scientific) research that is proving it out.
Bottom line. We all know that the agricultural industry sucks, and it has
done/is doing many things wrong. We can agree on that point, for sure. But,
agriculture is here - and it is here to stay. So, rather than running
around whining and complaining about how bad it is, I take the viewpoint
that we should be doing our best to get at least some of the industry to
reform. How do we do that? By creating a demand for a) more organic food,
b) paleo-based food, and c) (for those us who can) producing our own food
naturally.
|
