> >> All things being equal, what is really wrong with a "bigger" squash?
>
> >what is "wrong" with chosing this caracteristic ( bigger squash) as a
> >criteria of
> >"improvement "is that you makes yourself in a position to eat more of it
> >that nature intended your species to eat
>
> OK, Jean-Claude, I will rephrase a prior question to you in light of the
> above statement - specifically. How do you know that nature did not intend
> for me (as a human) to "improve" the squash by making it bigger?

it is simple,  plant this squash in a natural ecosystem situation and in no
time this squash is going to revert to a wild form as any other domesticated
crops because it is what works in the natural context .Nature have no
intention , it is a process of harmonisation between the different forms
life takes .
not one species ( no matter how clever they want to be ) can  direct and
becomes this process on their own .that is  game  of interactions with too
many players and  variables .




 In other
> words, how do *you* know "how much" nature intended me to eat?

because of the phenomeneon rediscovered by instinctive eating . there is a
precise fine tuned relationship between a species and its food , the senses
are there to measure that quantity in relation with metabolic needs .
By experience i learned that  farther a food is  from its wild origin and
less this regulation of eating works leading us to excesses.

 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?
>
The point is that it doen't stop at "some degree"  but is an exponential and
limitless movment toward more and more complexity and artificiality . It is
just not viable  as things becomes more complex we are face with diminishing
returns . presently to maintain our agricultures crops we have to use more
energy than is produced , just not sustainable .To maintain our population
we are desertifying the earth and eliminating too many species , in the long
run it have a cost and things  will comes back to a balance .
how comes our created plants are dependant on so much labor and energy to
maintain themselves alive and that the rest of the wild is not accepting
them if nature is in accord with humans abherations ?
we are creating seedless varieties of fruits that are unable to reproduce on
their own . did nature intended also to abandon sexual reproduction and use
factories to produce seeds instead of seed pods ?

did also nature intended for city dwellers to dictate what is happening in
the natural world when they don't even knows where food comes from.
genetically modified organisms with the terminator technology goes even
farther .did nature intended that monsanto corporation was going to becomes
the only supplier of seeds for the whole planet .?

by the way nature also intended for the supreme court of canada to condemn
Percy Shmeiser.
for peoples who don't knows this canola seed saver and breeder had its life
works destroy by the invasion of  his fields by   GMO canola , he is far
from being the only one that monsanto threaten to condemn but he is the only
one who stood up to monsanto and refuse to pay them  for what he din't plant
and din't want to plant .he paid way more than what he will have if it din't
stand up .( natural selection ) other farmers can continue to be the slaves
of monsanto .everything is perfect as nature intended.



SCOC rules farmer violated Monsanto's patent

CTV.ca News Staff

The Supreme Court of Canada has ruled in favour of Monsanto in the
David-and-Goliath battle between the U.S. biotech giant and a Saskatchewan
farmer.

In a 5-4 decision, the court ruled that the farmer, Percy Schmeiser,
violated Monsanto's patent on Roundup Ready canola seeds when he grew them
without permission.

Farmers pay a premium for the seeds because they are genetically modified to
be resistant to herbicides. Monsanto says Schmeiser intentionally planted
the Roundup Ready seeds, thereby infringing on the company's patent.

But Schmeiser maintained the Roundup Ready plants discovered growing in his
fields back in 1997 blew into his fields from a neighbour's uncovered truck.
In fact, the 73-year-old farmer claims the seeds "polluted" fields he had
been cultivating for years.

jean-claude