Author Topic: The Addictive Origins of Agriculture  (Read 6934 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline van

  • Mammoth Hunter
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,769
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: The Addictive Origins of Agriculture
« Reply #25 on: June 25, 2017, 12:46:50 am »
I have eaten sprouted wheat for months on end in my twenties.  I put it through a juicer auger type.  I ate it raw. To it I added my own dressings etc.   Otherwise I found it quite unappealing.  I wonder how you eat it, how you hopefully enjoy it, how much you eat, and do you still eat it?  It's in the details, and they seem to be missing from your lectures. 

Offline sabertooth

  • Mammoth Hunter
  • ******
  • Posts: 3,047
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: The Addictive Origins of Agriculture
« Reply #26 on: June 25, 2017, 12:50:39 am »
Nature is neither perfect or imperfect, these arguments about what is the most natural are judgmental concepts outside of ultimate reality. Nature is that which happens of itself, and could mean anything and everything.

There is no inherent  exclusivity in nature, herbivores evolved in tandem with carnivores, plants with animals, fungus with bacteria...one form of life isn't more valid than others, one way of life can be just as viable as another...the proof of success is built into the genetic code of the linage of surviving generations.

On the human level we are given the scope of consciousness by which to compare or contrast different modes of living and to make subjective personal judgement of what is optimal, based on the rocky ground of reason and science.

We all have our own individual values which shape our view of what is optimal...I personally like to use a broad scope that combines personal anecdotal experience with documented evidence of successful examples of healthy and viable ways of living. There are numerous examples of large groups of people living healthy lives, on a variety of vastly different dietary approaches....

From this wider scope when discussing specific benefits of specific foods such as the alleged benefits of sprouted wheat, anecdotal evidence isn't enough proof of anything...Where are the trans-generation groups of humans who have been known to thrive on diets high in sprouted grains of any kind?? Sure there are people who claim that sprouted grains are healthy, but how do we quantify those claims??? Are there any examples sprouted grain champions who would best the top cage fighters, mountain climbers, apex breeders, intellectually powerful, or the longest living, people in the world?

Perhaps there are some individuals who can indeed thrive on diets high in sprouted grain, though generally speaking I just dont see the evidence that sprouted grains provide any advantage over diets based on animal foods which could be combined with various ratios of non grain based plants that were used as human staples before the age of cultivation.

On a personal note I cant stand the taste of sprouted wheat or any other grain enough to even consider a long term experiment...I have from time to time added some sprouts to my salads, but have always been somewhat repulsed by the flavor, and had a strong aversion to anything more than a trace amount. 
« Last Edit: June 25, 2017, 02:01:56 am by sabertooth »
A man who makes a beast of himself, forgets the pain of being a man.

Offline cobalamin

  • Trapper
  • **
  • Posts: 73
    • View Profile
Re: The Addictive Origins of Agriculture
« Reply #27 on: June 27, 2017, 12:44:19 pm »
I agree, and believe though hunger may have driven people to eat grains in times of want, it wasn't the primary factor in the development of the widespread grain addiction that spawned the agricultural revolution. From my point of view there isnt a linear progression of cause and effect that easily explains the rise of the grain headed hominids. There is an element of quantum co-arising, that poses a "chicken or the egg" dichotomy which cannot be addressed with "either or"linear thinking. 

As Gabor Mates work has shown, addiction is a holistic phenomenon, and the presence of addictive substance in the environment are often not nearly important as the patterns of behavior established by the society at large. Sociological factors must of played a huge role, at the time of the divergence between "hunter gatherer' and agrarian. The fact is that though in some areas humans had diminished the big game staples of hunting cultures, there continued to be nomadic people who continued to follow the herds to new frontiers...and in many cases succeeded in becoming herders of large open range livestock, which provided them everything they needed....... while in other cases the early agrarians began to set up long term structures and institutional establishments. Even in time of famine and want the agrarians stayed put and would no longer venture out in search of food, and when the locust and pest ate up their grain crops many starved, rather than resort to gathering the insects, and digging for grubs. The same spirit which made them raise the temples to the gods, and become attached to a central location, is the same spirit of addiction which lent itself to the rise of a grain brain culture.

This did not happen overnight....the  establishment of religious temples, and stone permanent structures of early civilization occurred during transitional phases, usually near water ways where even when there was no hunting, fish was plentiful as primary staple, and enabled many early agricultural communities to prosper and populations to explode. Over the course of generations deeply ingrained behavior pasterns developed, the people became totally domesticated and acculturated, indoctrinated with ideology, they forgot entirely the ways of their nomadic ancestors. Divisions of labor and hierarchy emerged and created an underclass who no longer had the freedom, time, or know how to forage and fish for supplemental food. This underclass became entirely addicted to the daily bread rations, and became reliant on the nectar of the tards( known as wine and beer) for their diversions....without even realizing it humanity became simultaneously addicted to Grain, as well as to civilization itself.

These are general observations which span the gamut of the many conflicting sides humanity and not a moral judgment...... perhaps Aldous Huxley was right in, how prescribing an opiate to the masses is in some way necessary in order to make people of civilization enjoy a life of servitude. Growing and using various forms of dope has brought more humans together than was possible in hunter gatherer groups, where without narcotics there seems to be a natural limit to the number of people the tribal alpha hierarchy can tolerate.

I was at a job sight once and there as a black man, a bi racial, a Cuban, a Guatemalan, a Mexican, and myself smoking a joint, and the black man says with a huge smile as he takes a hit "this is the one thing that can bring everyone together" and everybody there laughs . Be it sharing tea, smoking tobacco, coffee, or even "Breaking bread" there seems to be something about these euphoric substances which can break down primal barriers and unite large numbers of people...and even if nations of people are only united out of some hopeless codependency, which is overall detrimental to the health of the individual, perhaps some how by creating unity and cooperation, the communal living dope growing agrarian humanity isnt without some merit??

The stimulants are preventing neurodegeneration somewhat because the majority of humans aren't producing their own.... ******* ....in abundance. What's missing?

Offline nummi

  • Warrior
  • ****
  • Posts: 249
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: The Addictive Origins of Agriculture
« Reply #28 on: June 28, 2017, 02:06:35 am »
I first came to this forum 4 years ago? I've read posts older than that. I see what is talked about now... what has been talked about inbetween. You are all stuck. You are simply regurgitating same old, only difference is that you are wording same thing somewhat more nicely or strongly. Seeming appearance seems to change, but essence is still same; essence has not improved at all.

One thing I've noticed, not just here but overall everywhere, is that truly extremely few can actually describe and explain their own info-processing steps, how they came to their assumptions and conclusions. Reasons and causes why. Honesty especially to self. Most people simply blurt out short replies that say and give at best nothing but are rather insults and other such low garbage that brings less than nowhere.

Rather astonishing how short and narrow field of view of almost everyone is. Field of view regarding written texts and especially thoughts and meanings within those texts, but also field of view when it comes to making logical connections and conclusions. And when such short and narrow perspective meets one that requires significantly wider and deeper so to even hope to comprehend what is said and why... And because of this shortness/narrowness, short blurts of nothingness and insults and demeanings follow instead of actually at least trying to explain and reason, to be rational and logical.

Self-perfection of this sort just leads to dietary orthodoxy or dietary orthorexia in the end. Nature is not perfect nor does it ever seek perfection. Perfection is a mere manmade concept, which is wholly unnatural in and of itself.
Not selfperfection, but selfimprovement. There's distinct difference. Selfperfection alone yes leads to orthodoxy/stuckness, but not selfimprovement as there is always some way to make better. But even for selfperfection there is place within selfimprovement; some aspects of living that require perfecting to whatever degree before can move onto next.

About nature and its "perfection" I already said some.
Perfection is not solely humanmade concept, there is actual such aspect/functioning/processing to working of world/nature. There is that which humans have made up (which is nonsense), and that which is real (cannot be described by words we use); of that natural/real perfection can somewhat describe direction toward it, and up to reader whether reader can comprehend or not. World/nature also has like layers of perfection, and all that which lies between layers/points of different perfections, regions of becoming and unbecoming so to say.

But why are you even talking about perfection and assuming everyone regards it same way you do? How about you define what you regard perfection as? So that anyone could immediately see what it means to you, thus what exactly you are talking about (or is another issue that you can't understand what others are talking about because you don't know things as well? simple solution to this is selfimprovement, this very thing you apparently are very much against).

Perfection does exist, it can be achieved, but each aspect of life and living, and functioning of world, has its own levels of perfections. This world, as it at present is, has conditions and factors. Nature, life of nature lies within those factors. Conditions/factors which have their own perfect forms; nature which has its own perfect forms; entities/creatures/organisms that have their own perfect forms -- interchanges and workings between all these that also have their perfect forms and ways. Different perfections clashing, different becomings to perfection clashing. So obviously world is a mess, and manifestation of true perfection seems to be nonexistent and truly impossible.

Quote
Anyway, we all do indeed experiment all the time with palaeo concepts, myself included. As regards sprouts, given my lack of success with sprouts, I find it rather difficult to believe that sprouted wheat could be any different, a sort of superfood. It's arbitrary,  like stating that raw 100%  grassfed beef is way better for one's health than raw 100% grassfed lamb.
"Anyway, we all do indeed experiment all the time with palaeo concepts, myself included." -- this means that you are dogma follower. Because you specified phrase "paleo concepts". It means severely limited views and disregarding anything that goes against paleo dogma. I personally am not talking from perspective of some "paleo" dogmatic limitation/garbage, I'm talking about functioning of body and what it needs so that it could function as good as can achieve and ever better if possible -- this is what dieting and health is about when regarding food, not any "paleo" or any other dogmatic cultistic prohibiting garbage. Only body and its needs and how to fulfill those needs, and how to become ever stronger (ever stronger as in improving, similar to what you might regard as "evolution"; self-improvement comes when "evolution" has achieved its goal in enabling organism self aspect, thus self-improvement; point from which onward movement can not occur if you keep yourself subject to only instinctive ways).

Sprouts and superfoods? They are not. They are simply nutritious food, and that's all.
That sprouted wheat "could be any different". This means that you have never even tried on yourself to confirm whether it is or not, that all you do regarding it is simply believe something you've read somewhere and believe what some priest (like Iguana) is telling you.
When you tried sprouts, how was your overall diet, balanced and stable or rather not? And how would you ever know what is balanced and stable if you're merely a follower of something that tells you to regard things some, whatever, way? And how was your nervous system functioning at that time when you tried them, was it lower/weaker/numbed, any issues that could compromise your sensings, or could you actually honestly feel effects of food after consuming them? Because if nervous system functioning is too weak/numbed, can't feel much anything. And considering that you've practiced veganism in your past, how much nervous system damage, thus sensing and also logic-process damage, did you cause to yourself?

And, even when leaving previous aside, it isn't arbitrary. Buckwheat, barley, wheat, and all other grains and seeds have different effects specific to their species/varieties. Just like fish, beef, kangaroo, sheep, chicken, pig, etc are different. Even more so that consistencies of all grains and seeds are differ, more so different when they are sprouting and already synthesizing vitamins and doing all those other sprouting things. Yet more so different as to soils they grew on. More so that some sprouts are not that good, and some sprouts can be eaten safely only during very limited sprouting period.

So really, your claims about seeds/grains/legumes overall, regardless condition they are in, is based on what? Belief and dogma, not reason/logic/mind. Same apparently goes to all of you.

Quote
You may not approve of Iguana, fair enough,  but bear in mind he has been rather  longer at this RPD lifestyle than  you, as regards raising chickens, experimentation etc.
Exactly same as some vegans/meat-avoiders attempt to assume some position of authority and that "they are absolutely right" merely because they've practiced those ridiculous ways for decades. You think with Iguana this is any different? How long he has practiced is of no significance other than it shows how long he has been stuck; just like those vegans/meat-avoiders are totally stuck; for decades.
Could as well say that wars and raping and killing, etc -- that these are all something all of us should actively practice, merely because they've been done for thousands of years and more.
Whether someone is right or wrong is not determined by how long someone has practiced that whatever, but whether what he practices and does is right or wrong, and how right and how wrong; and more importantly how big and bad wrongs are attached to rights of those practices, and likewise what rights are attached to wrongs.
Easy to claim things, and apparently very easy to get stuck to claims without actually ever verifying truth regarding them.

Quote
Re animals:- bacteria are actually very highly complex organisms, too. So are many animals. Indeed some of their behaviours are far more complex than humans can achieve without technology., such as electroreception. Also, human intelligence also requires access to and use of the primitive animalistic(ie mammalian/reptilian) parts of the brain, to some extent.For example, most of the world's really brilliant geniuses were loners like Tesla, Newton, Archimedes etc.etc., who clearly had unusually well-developed/enhanced frontal lobes but poorly-developed animalistic parts of their brains, thus leading to them becoming incapable of the usual human relationships, and therefore none of them had children.
There isn't anything that cannot be learned. All that those "loners" did is not anything special. All abilities and skills they had can be learned, trained, achieved, and it is very easy to do. But it takes quite some while because nervous system, metabolism, overall body functioning has to be improved -- self-improvement -- for example to train/learn reading speed up to 100 words a second took me 8 months (also depends on difficulty of texts, but I read books regarded as most difficult, so...). This increase in reading speed, not looking words but looking at thoughts behind words, significantly improves thinking capability and speed of thoughts, depth and width and other dimensions. Overall info-processing functions of body are improved.
One day I took a magnet into my hand and it felt weird, realized by moving my other hand around it that I could feel magnetic fields, couldn't do this ever before. My senses are more sensitive/sharper (or is word improved more appropriate?). Also flashes of true 3D vision; picture any (most likely) of you see via your eyes is not 3D, but is same as 2D picture on paper; true "3D" vision is such that you can literally feel shapes-textures-surfaces with eye-sight; to have such vision actively part of self, not 2-3 very short flashes, for that need rather significantly more powerful functioning of nervous system and whole body than I currently have. Many more things not any of you have ever even remotely mentioned of having achieved or being on path toward achieving; all you, any of you, do here is merely rewording same old you've already achieved; totally stuck.
As body improves, deeper issues reveal that need to be corrected so to heal more fully. What nearly all of you are doing is assuming a "normal" position of health and body functioning and instead of making yourself ever better you are keeping yourselves stuck at that specific chosen "normalcy" condition.

I know how to achieve all this and much more, will take very long time, years upon years of work, and will be rewarding beyond my current imagination. And will come to know exactly how to achieve all this and more, which means can likewise easily give advice to self-willing listeners as what to do and what not to do so to be on path of self-realization and self-improvement. Instead of keeping self stuck to some dogma.

Most of you here have no life's purpose, you don't even know what life and living is, and many of you here are imitating being on purposeful/lifeful road. Belief/fanaticism/dogmatism nullifies purpose and living, thus also nullifies self aspect within yourselves, thus self-improvement cannot occur, thus completely stuck, for decades and for entire life-time like in case of some already mentioned.

If cannot see self then cannot see others. Before can see others first need to learn to see self. I can see myself very well, which means I can see you all very well. Blindness regarding self at same means blindness regarding others; blindness regarding others means misinterpretations and mistranslations of others, because you don't see others as they are because you don't see yourself as you are. Simple logic, world is weird.

Offline nummi

  • Warrior
  • ****
  • Posts: 249
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: The Addictive Origins of Agriculture
« Reply #29 on: June 28, 2017, 02:23:52 am »
From this wider scope when discussing specific benefits of specific foods such as the alleged benefits of sprouted wheat, anecdotal evidence isn't enough proof of anything...Where are the trans-generation groups of humans who have been known to thrive on diets high in sprouted grains of any kind??
Who, except you now, has here ever said anything about diets high in sprouted grains of any kind?

Quote
Sure there are people who claim that sprouted grains are healthy, but how do we quantify those claims???
Sure there are people who claim that eating raw meat is healthy, but how do we quantify those claims???
Are you really so blind regarding yourself? Simply looking for justifications and excuses why to demonize something you have never even tried on yourself to see what truth regarding it is. And just because something has on it label "scientific proof", is in actual reality mere opinions and personal views and personal experiences of someone else, based on measurement systems that are themselves again based on someone elses opinions. Such a thing as "scientific proof" does not exist.
To get it right, anything right, have to see relativistic functioning (not "science" relativism garbage). One thing or aspect of something, in relation to or relativized by others connected to it or influencing it, thus determining its condition and being, thus real truth.

Either you have something personal you can show/describe/explain, and especially verify for yourself, thus can inform others how verification process works so that others could perhaps do same, or you don't. Personal bodily and environmental conditions, how and when and why, discriminating differences and comparing them, trying on ourselves. But not some fanatical cultistic dogmatic regurgitations merely for sake of glorifying some ridiculous dogma.

Quote
Are there any examples sprouted grain champions who would best the top cage fighters, mountain climbers, apex breeders, intellectually powerful, or the longest living, people in the world?
This too attached directly to your overconsumption of sprouted grain nonsense... Delusional much, or severe prejudice, bias, preconception? Same exact type of excuses vegans use for glorifying their far worse garbage. And you assume yourselves to be better than them, yet behave essentially same.
Are you really so delusional that you assume that eating basically only one food item one can become some great and powerful entity? I would very much like to see you be "oh great and powerful" by eating almost only/mainly bulls balls, or whatever. Severe health issues would quickly follow... starving yourself of so much essential, and overconsuming many other nutrients.

Quote
Perhaps there are some individuals who can indeed thrive on diets high in sprouted grain,
And the only one who began talking about eating sprouted grains in such excessive amounts, is you and none else.

Quote
though generally speaking I just dont see the evidence that sprouted grains provide any advantage over diets based on animal foods which could be combined with various ratios of non grain based plants that were used as human staples before the age of cultivation.
Civilizations here on Earth have existed for millions of years and longer. Civilizations that have been far far more advanced than this current humanity.
For example statues from hundreds/thousands of years ago, making of which requires by "modern" standards at least very highly advanced 3D printer that can print marble to perfection. Printers that officially do not even exist yet (not that printers were used, as there are other ways too; but sculpting out such sculptures with chisels and hammers is impossible). You want specific "links" to such "sculptures" and examples? Then go do some honest research, and honest thinking that must follow such honest research.
Age of cultivation... there have been many.
And this "paleo times" that gets constantly repeated here over and over, personally none of you ever having seen that such time actually existed, and base your own "opinions" regarding it solely on opinions of someone else, some "scientists" and other dogmatists... This paleo time that you so childishly favor, never existed. Proof? Only ones who can prove it to you are you yourselves, but this does require honest research and honest thinking.
You have truly absolutely no conception nor idea what was staple dieting in those "paleo times" that never existed to begin with. There were people at those times, many different peoples, they did eat stuff, they also cultivated things. But running around wild with simple tools and such? Sure, just as people doing essentially same exist right now at this time too, mostly in jungle areas.

Quote
On a personal note I cant stand the taste of sprouted wheat or any other grain enough to even consider a long term experiment...I have from time to time added some sprouts to my salads, but have always been somewhat repulsed by the flavor, and had a strong aversion to anything more than a trace amount.
That might be you specifically. Or it might also be dogma in your brain dictating what and how to regard. Or you're simply missing the fact that being on very specific way of dieting, and then trying something that really does not fit that kind of dieting, simply cannot work just as easily as trying a few times.
And obviously, as should be well known to all here, tastes change as diets change. Digestion changes as diets change. So if you keep yourself stuck to one specific way of eating that discludes other specific food items, and have formed such way of eating over years, stuck to it, then perhaps it would be best if you simply stay quiet regarding that which you do not eat and never will, because you are keeping specific digestion that does not suit to sprouted grains and many others and as such sprouted grains would not taste as good nor digest as good either.
It is rather dumb to base "grains are all and only bad" merely because you dogmatically haven't eaten them, don't and won't, and your personal digestion does not suit them.

Nummi, for all of your claims about how you don't care for dogma/rules/scripture/orthodoxy, you are entangled in an awful lot of it. What's worse, you seem to be utterly oblivious of this fact.
Those stuck cannot see themselves as they truly are. Oblivious are you not I.
You haven't even personally tested whether claims about wheat, you keep yourself stuck to, are true or not... Instead you have preconceptions and you look (research) for any justifications how to "justify" those, and attempt to make up newer seemingly sane excuses to justify and glorify your cultistic dogma.
I had those exact same claims before me about wheat, from exact same dogma that you still are stuck to, but I tested their validity. And you call me "entangled" and "oblivious" while you don't even bother testing for yourself, on yourself, truly honestly, claims you hold as absolutely true, whether claims you fanatically adhere to actually hold up to reality.
Claims about agriculture being "bad". Ridiculous, as after animal/beast/savage stage development, agriculture becomes necessity, as societies emerge and become civilizations. And agriculture also is supposed to improve, and eventually become obsolete as something yet greater is supposed to take its place -- all of which has to be done right, not wrong; that these things can be done wrong does not mean all of them are wrong and bad.

Agriculture is bad only for those who are incapable of doing it themselves and sustaining and improving themselves with its aid, and/or by attempting to do it they would instead mess things up so bad that they would be better without. This does not mean it is bad overall, it just means there are those so dumb or low advanced they simply can't with it.
Just because some can't use toilet paper without having their finger go to shit, does not mean ass is some big bad thing that should be done away with.

You call me entangled, trying to convey to it sense of stuckness? Why use this word "entangled"? Entangled sure, as everything is in relation to all else, thus entangled as dependent on all else and actively anyones identity being created/caused by all else. But not stuck. How much "entangled" is, depends on how much of world one can perceive and feel and use, and how straightforward and honest to oneself one is.

I have eaten sprouted wheat for months on end in my twenties.  I put it through a juicer auger type.  I ate it raw. To it I added my own dressings etc.   Otherwise I found it quite unappealing.  I wonder how you eat it, how you hopefully enjoy it, how much you eat, and do you still eat it?  It's in the details, and they seem to be missing from your lectures.
I eat them raw, sometimes together with other seeds, sometimes I add spices and stuff (not due to taste but due to spices-etc having metabolically and health wise great effects). Taste wise best timing to eat is 2-3 days after they begin growing small roots (weather also effects their germination and growth and taste), before that taste isn't that great and after that begins tasting grassy.
I eat a handful to two at a time. Not every time, not every month. I've eaten 6 months straight, every day some, then 2-3 months none, then 3-4 months again. They are constantly available as I have chickens and I sprout for them, and eat same myself. Closeby me there's a family whose children cannot eat any eggs, nor many things at all, due to allergies and stuff that are due to parents not having been smart enough in time for children, they can't eat eggs except those from my chickens (regardless whether those eggs are massproduced garbage or from homegrown chickens; they are all fed with unsprouted grains), because I sprout all wheat I give my chickens. Eggs from chickens who have eaten unsprouted wheat, taste is awful; but when chickens on sprouted wheat, then there is no bad taste and instead is very good.

Your behavior, most of yours here, is exactly same as that of vegans trying to defend their cultistic garbage. Your responses are also exactly same in essence and effect -- short garbage that is meant to attack instead of ask questions and provide explanations and descriptions of causes that determine what is what and why. As tyler said "paleo concepts" -- only that which is within "paleo" dogma borders, only that which paleo dogma allows. A cult just like veganism, both are bad, one worse than other.
All you do is say short things, but not ever describing your own processes as to how you came to those "conclusions". Because you don't have any, you simply believe and follow. If you don't describe how you came to them, then how are readers supposed to verify whether your conclusions are correct or false? Vegans do same thing as you do, nothing at best but mostly attacks and excuses when in light of information that shows them to be wrong.

Offline TylerDurden

  • Global Moderator
  • Mammoth Hunter
  • *****
  • Posts: 17,016
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
    • Raw Paleolithic Diet
Re: The Addictive Origins of Agriculture
« Reply #30 on: June 28, 2017, 03:14:42 am »
The "civilisations appearing on Earth millions of years ago"concept/theme  has been so throughly debunked like with the

flat earth theory that it is absurd to bring it up. As regards fanous people like Tesla, it is not realistic to assume that anyone, least of all yourself, could emulate his key abilities within 1 lifetime. Yes, I know of that "10,000 hours "claim but Tesla, for example, was able to literally see his inventions in his mind's eye, so that he could work out whether they would function or not. Marcos had a photographic memory, again a trait unlikely for someone else to attain short of a billion-to-1 chance happening such as a rare head-injury(see Orando Serrell) etc. etc.

re "If we say we are animals, then we also must say we are bacteria. Obviously not true." Actually, there are now valid scientific theories which claim that bacteria are a key, essential part of all macro-organisms:-

http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20170321-why-your-diet-may-be-bad-for-your-gut-bacteria


Anyway, others' personal experiences, do seem to run counter to your claims. I have tried raw sprouts even when eating RVAF diets as well, other than my 100% raw sprouts diet prior to going RVAF, and they did not work then either.

Ultimately, behind all the guff, your point is that agriculture can be a good thing(the best thing?) if properly managed by humans. Fair enough. After all, some of us cannot get hold of genuine raw wild foods on a regular 100% basis, so improving agricultural methods if one has access to a small farm of some sort can be  a good idea.
« Last Edit: June 28, 2017, 04:45:45 am by TylerDurden »
"During the last campaign I knew what was happening. You know, they mocked me for my foreign policy and they laughed at my monetary policy. No more. No more.
" Ron Paul.

Offline Iguana

  • Mammoth Hunter
  • ******
  • Posts: 3,041
  • Gender: Male
  • Eating tuna fish
    • View Profile
Re: The Addictive Origins of Agriculture
« Reply #31 on: June 28, 2017, 04:41:57 am »
Ultimately, behind all the guff, your point is that agriculture can be a good thing(the best thing?) if properly managed by humans. Fair enough. After all, some of us cannot get hold of genuine raw wild foods on a regular 100% basis, so improving agricultural methods if one has access to a small farm of some sort can be  a good idea.
Notions of "good" or "bad" are always relative: something good in certain circumstances or/and for something or somebody may be bad in other circumstances or/and for something or somebody else.  ;)

BTW, congrats for having read all the above drivel!
Cause and effect are distant in time and space in complex systems, while at the same time there’s a tendency to look for causes near the events sought to be explained. Time delays in feedback in systems result in the condition where the long-run response of a system to an action is often different from its short-run response. — Ronald J. Ziegler

Offline surfsteve

  • Chief
  • *****
  • Posts: 708
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: The Addictive Origins of Agriculture
« Reply #32 on: June 28, 2017, 05:10:45 am »
Translation:

I been coming to this forum for a long time and everything you guys ever posted is composed of the same 26 letters of the alphabet over and over... Nothing new! Unlike me. You guys don't know anything about diet because everything you eat turns to shit... You guys don't know anything... Blah-blah-blah. Bulls balls! Wah-wah-wah!
« Last Edit: June 28, 2017, 05:40:54 am by surfsteve »

Offline Eric

  • Mammoth Hunter
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,019
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
    • EricGarza.info
Re: The Addictive Origins of Agriculture
« Reply #33 on: June 28, 2017, 06:24:45 am »
Quote
Translation: I been coming to this forum for a long time and everything you guys ever posted is composed of the same 26 letters of the alphabet over and over... Nothing new! Unlike me...

LOL, well played!

 

SMF spam blocked by CleanTalk