follow up of a discussion from paleofood list
>
> First, there is nothing wrong with being an idealist. We all are to some
> extent. But, idealists who take their views to extremes have a tendency to
> end up spinning their wheels and going nowhere. There is a give-and-take
in
> "nature" (compromise) that many idealists have a tendency to ignore,
> perhaps even scorn.

what if the present human "reality 'was extreme to the natural world reality
.?

why is it that abherant human organisation like the corporate world without
no understanding of basic natural economy ( like living off natural capital
instead of basing their income on the annual solar gain) are not considered
an idealist view took to  extremes ? ( progress)

> I know that despite all the whining and moaning I may do, THE WORLD is not
> going to adapt to my wishes. Therefore, I am left with adapting in some
> fashion to THE WORLD. It may not be perfect, but it's all I can do.

but you are making this world by giving in to it . this world have been made
over and over again  by  idealists who changed the rules of the games .and
also by the inertia of the masses who resist those changes
>
>
> > nothing have "fondamentally"  changed since then ,
>
> First, I challenge you to support that sweeping statement. We cannot truly
> know what the world was like prior to about 7000 years ago. We can only
> surmise based on our pet interpretations of available data. At this point
> we (i.e. - modern researchers) can't even agree in which environment we
> truly thrived. Are we aquatic apes adapted to eat more seafoods? Are we
> savannah creatures adapted to eat only grass-fed meat? Are we truly
> tree-dwellers who should eat mostly fruit and insects?

i am talking fondamentally not in forms .for sure the species are different,
the oxygen levels etc.... but the rules of the game are the same , the
regulation sytems are still in operation .humans spend lot of energy trying
to bypass them , raise above them . it is just impossible , all what they
can do is to postpone in time the natural outcomes of their actions

> > paleo hunters were not "consumers" of their environment they were active
> in creating it.
>
> Huh? A predator does not "consume" it's prey? There is widespread evidence
> that paleo and early-neolithic hunters did, in fact, cause the rapid
> decline of a number of species. We "moderns" are not the only humans who
> have contributed to the demise of many species.
>
> Again, we (humans) have, throughout our short history on this planet,
> affected everything so that it's pretty unlikely the planet can be
restored
> to the state it was in before we came onto the scene. That is, as long as
> we remain in the ecosystem. And, assuming you are not proposing that our
> species voluntarily commit mass suicide, we will continue to affect
> everything for some time to come.

eh you forget the essential if we are powerfully affecting the planet we can
also takes it  to a direction that is most suitable to its inhabitants (all
species ).It is just a question of awareness of ourselves as interdependant
with all species .you can create choices for you that support and favorise
the natural world .all the wheat you don't eat allow for more diverse
pasture land to produce the meat you want . and all the grass fed beef you
choose to not  eat to not support deforestation or desertification in
pasture lands  ,  will allow  for amany other species to thrive and that can
become food to you .
our species is voluntarelly committing suicide , there is enough signs of
the unsustainability of our world allready.( unless extreme idealist don't
do their job at raising the awareness)
the desertification of the planet ( diminution of total biomass in quantity
and quality ) is well obvious to anyone you can look back .

> Jean-Claude, I enjoy bantering with you, but I feel we are getting too far
> off-topic here. Why don't we continue this discussion on the Paleolife
> list?
i wrote okay! on the paleo food list but my post came back ) i have been
talking too much .
>