On Fri, 9 Jun 2000 00:08:24 -0700, Ingrid Bauer/J-C Catry
<[log in to unmask]> wrote:

>>Instinctual eating has always been a very important concept to me
>>(not "instincto").
>>I always try to listen to my feelings before i prepare something.

J-C:
>plerase don't confond the principles of anapsology with the attempts at
>practicing them.!
>it doen't have to !

I just use the word "instincts" as i think that i do have some instincts
and feelings that can guide me what to eat, also in a moment to moment
basis. And that it's important to listen carefully to them.
As i said, I'm not stemming from the "instincto" movement and i don't know
enough of it yet. I just have some personal thoughts, what was right.

Instincto(anopsology) i got to know mainly from your posts about it, which
mostly were a pleasure to read for me.
Besides from some net references (also Kirt's).

>i don't see meats consumption as ecologically expensive as before. When i
>eat a deer for example that graze on ocean spray, arbutus ,fir ,cedar
>,willows and others   plants folliage that i have no instinctive
>attraction to eat. i contribute to the regulation of growth of thoses
>plants. Without it this forest,  allready so lush that it is difficult to
>travel thru ,will be impenetrable.

Here in bavaria deers are overgrazing and destroying many upccomeing young
trees so the wood is likely to get into an age problem.
Predators are gone, and hunters with guns should play the role to
limit deer numbers.
But as they are (also) hunting for "joy" it seems not to limit the deer
numbers, and more likely to propagate the deer number in woods.
Because they feed them in winters.
And deers wouldn't be natural wood dwellers on our regions.

How many animals can a land bear naturally,
as you are estimating above?

1 square kilometer (1km*1km) in a rich area naturally is inhabited by
as much wild game as one hunter needs per year (4-5 big animals plus the
smaller). Anything more is from agro fedder.
But as also hunters want to live longer as 1 year,as some animals have to be
left alive. To have baby animals. Thus in a lasting kind of wild game
exploitation, serious estimations go to 10 square kilometers per human.
Anything more will kill of the wild game population in the long run.
This are 10000ha or 50000 acres, right?
How big is your garden? how big is your island?

Maybe in this way most all big animals in the americas were killed
to extinction, like Jaren Diamond suspects.
No more mammouth (of course) but also no horses and cattlelike animals
except the bisons. They must have been hard to catch, i suspect.
Only the reintroduction of rideable horses (by spaniards after 1500)
led to the bison-exploitations nativa american societies (like sioux?).
Probably this this wouldn't have been a really sustainable structure
on the long run.

>... Eating is a dance of energy
>fluctuating from one species to an other.
So it is.

>>As in burgers sexuality episodes - a total unlimited access to everything
>>wantable... isn't a historic anchestral experience, is it?
>
>yes and it is not reserved to instinctos ,this all exponential quest to get
>everything we want started a long time ago and comes to its limitations.
> the earth being round we will have to see those limitations) ..

Seems i could sign this too.

>The all idea of instinctive eating is based in my opinion on letting go of
>control of what can makes us happy and content.
Could this lead to hedonism?
Does it make us happy and content in the long run if we repeat
as often as possible what satisfied us once? Or satisfied us presently?

The same goal (to makes us happy and content) claims buddism.
With different approaches of course.

>I believe our instincts are there to bring us what we need
hm hm
> and that it
>works thru the principle of pleasure.
hm hm not easy to recognise what caused what.

cheers

Amadeus S