Author Topic: The Addictive Origins of Agriculture  (Read 7979 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Projectile Vomit

  • Mammoth Hunter
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,027
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
The Addictive Origins of Agriculture
« on: June 22, 2017, 10:29:02 am »
The notion that agriculture as a means of food procurement is the result of ancient people's addiction to opioid peptides found in cereal grains and milk has come up in the forum before. I've done a fair amount of research into this theory and its intricacies, and explored the idea in the most recent episode of my podcast A Worldview Apart. Folks who are interested are welcome to give it a listen, either on my website or on iTunes. Comments and feedback are welcome!

Offline sabertooth

  • Mammoth Hunter
  • ******
  • Posts: 3,092
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: The Addictive Origins of Agriculture
« Reply #1 on: June 22, 2017, 11:05:12 pm »
Very interesting topic, After the Cultivation of opiate contain plants it was only a matter of time before the invention of fentanyl.  Ive been postulating for some time now how the evolution of the human brain along with its subsequent creation of "high technology" may have been driven by its hunger for pleasure. This also ties in to the eastern views of attachment, samsara, and of how living can bee seen in and of itself as a form of addictive behavior.

During the cerebral supernova in which there was an exponential increase in brain size, the corresponding pleasure centers of the brain also expanded greatly, and the development of the "will to power" co-arose with the "will to pleasure"

This drove our ancestors to intentionally seek out novel and unique experiences and encounters with euphoric and mutigenic biological substances within the environment, in a such a way that other animals were never before able... during these encounters initiated by our curious apish ancestors tolerance was built and antigenic adaption took place which reinforced behaviors.

The phenomenon of Agriculturally created addiction arrived at the tail end of these early processes, which has since spiraled out of control into all sorts of perversions from electronic addiction to synthetic opiate epidemic.

I am deeply interested in the actual utility of the knowledge of these things in helping those who share this awareness to chart out a "sane" path forward, and I believe a greater understanding in the origins and purposes of the endogenous pleasure centers is needed in this endeavor.

Before the mythological fall from grace, that followed banishment from the garden after eating the forbidden fruit, what was it that evolved the modern human being out of a primordial field of potentiality?

This is where my worldview takes a deeper look behind the factors that lead up to the agrarian addiction. I postulate that the raw materials sought out and consumed by hominids during the cerebral explosion, that fueled the maximization of intelligence, also fueled a maximization of the endogenous pleasure seeking parts of the brain. These phenomenon culminated in the development of a greater curiosity and worked in tandem during our ascension.

Before the rise of the agrarian addict....Hunter gatherer man was hooked on the thrill of the hunt, the blood from a fresh kill, eating the brains and glands, sexual conquest, cultivation of sensual relationships, these were the primal triggers of the endogenous pleasure centers before the cultivation of opiate containing foodstuff. High meat may of been the drug of choice in this age. The bacterial micro flora in the guts of primal humans were capable of producing a far more balanced and superior overall sense of well being than that of the eaters of fermented grains. I further postulate the likelihood that a number of other substances in the environment were sought out as sacraments to accentuate the primal pleasure experience. These foods during the paleo era were more supplemental than staples. During this time Herbs with opiates.... cannabis.. plants with adaptogenic and euphoric properties were experimented with. Small amounts of grains were collected and eaten, and perhaps it was these practices which could be considered the gateway period that lead up to the agrarian epidemic which eventually took over humanity.

Once agrarian life became established there really was no chance of escaping the trap, and a vicious circle enveloped from which the modern whirled is still captive. Its worth mentioning the fermentation of grains into alcohol occurred simultaneously with the use of yeast bread, and overnight in these populations the micro biome was altered and the neurological wiring began its attempts to develop a symbiosis with the yeast and other grain loving microbes...this eventually lead to dependency and addiction... which is merely the dual face of adaptation.

Though this grain brained arrangement I believe leaves humanity somewhat cheated, in that although diets high in these unnaturally occurring foods provide a high level of endorphin which the brain craves, it is potentially lacking in many essential nutrients which would build a more environmentally balanced optimal "mind body". Also the anti nutrient effects of these foods, in many ways mitigates whatever positive endorphin feelings attained by their consumption... Its evident that there is a vicious cycle at work in which those addicted to the foods of civilization are compelled to cultivate means greater means of stimulating the pleasure centers, while at the same time the bodies physical capacity to create and utilize its own endogenously created endorphin is diminished
« Last Edit: June 23, 2017, 12:51:26 am by sabertooth »
A man who makes a beast of himself, forgets the pain of being a man.

Offline surfsteve

  • Chief
  • *****
  • Posts: 708
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: The Addictive Origins of Agriculture
« Reply #2 on: June 23, 2017, 12:32:31 am »
I had forgotten how addictive wheat actually was. It's been a few years since I've had it but even as recently as a few days ago I smelled someone making toast and started craving it. As I recall it was much harder than giving up coffee.

I remember giving up wheat maybe 40 years ago and it didn't seem as hard back then. I'm guessing it was because I just switched to other grains and the last time I went totally grain free. So basically all cereal grains are addictive in the same way? I also wonder if it could have been harder because the wheat wasn't as addictive back in the '70's, though it was the mid 70's so the more addictive modified strains were already out.

Offline Projectile Vomit

  • Mammoth Hunter
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,027
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: The Addictive Origins of Agriculture
« Reply #3 on: June 23, 2017, 12:41:04 am »
Quote
Though this grain brained arrangement I believe leaves humanity somewhat cheated, in that although diets high in these unnaturally occurring foods provide a high level of endorphin which the brain craves, it is potentially lacking in many essential nutrients which would build a more environmentally balanced optimal "mind body"...

I think 'potentially' is an understatement. I think people drive towards foods heavy on the opioid peptides and light on minerals and nutritionally-valuable phytochemistry is the story of agriculture. When this process first started 10,000 years ago the nutritional imbalance was relatively small, as cereal grains were still fairly robust and soils rich in nutrients for all plants to take up and incorporate into their tissues. Weston A. Price's work documents the physical degeneration that went with adopting particularly nutrient poor industrial foods, but archeologists around the world have been documenting physical degeneration even in people 10,000 years ago as they started eating cereal grains.

Quote
I remember giving up wheat maybe 40 years ago and it didn't seem as hard back then...

Read books like Wheat Belly and Grain Brain and one thing you'll learn is that wheat has changed a lot in the last 50 years. If my memory serves me, modern varieties of wheat have at least 20x more gluten per unit volume than they did back in 1950. Since the opioid compounds identified in wheat are part of the gluten, more gluten in modern varieties of wheat means more opioid peptides. Bread made from modern varieties of wheat is far more addictive and stimulates our opioid receptors far more than bread made in the 1950s or before.


Offline ys

  • Mammoth Hunter
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,323
    • View Profile
Re: The Addictive Origins of Agriculture
« Reply #4 on: June 23, 2017, 01:00:10 am »
In my opinion it has nothing to do with addiction but rather a much simpler explanation - hunger.  Grain can be stored in industrial quantities for ages and allows people to survive tough times such as wars, diseased livestock, etc.  Over time it became a staple for poor as means of survival and eventually got indoctrinated into culture.

American Indians had plenty of wild animals to choose from and did not have much need for grains.  In other parts of the world people were not so lucky and had to resort to grain.

Offline sabertooth

  • Mammoth Hunter
  • ******
  • Posts: 3,092
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: The Addictive Origins of Agriculture
« Reply #5 on: June 23, 2017, 01:28:03 am »
I think 'potentially' is an understatement.
I deliberately added "potentially", in part as a snide jab against the over cautious language often used by the scientific minded, but also as an acknowledgement that we do not know all the subtle cause and effect relationships which even though may be presented as overtly problematic on one level, on another level it could be critical for some latent and understated evolutionary advantage.

Some say necessity is the mother of invention, but would there be a necessity to motivate a nurturing and inventive mind, without a kind of underlining desperation that acts as the bastard father driving the creative mind with unfulfilled desire. Meaning that a contented and well balanced mind, which may "possibly" of been possessed by apex paleo hunter gatherers, wouldn't toil away their lives, obsessively dividing elaborate methods to obtain external opiate compounds that they would be able to produce ample amounts endogenously on the natch, with basic stone age technology.

In this theory....It is the totally addicted and depraved mind, megalomaniaclly dedicated to finding and maintaining a more perfect high, from which some of the most radical and life changing technological "progress" has been birthed.


Read books like Wheat Belly and Grain Brain and one thing you'll learn is that wheat has changed a lot in the last 50 years. If my memory serves me, modern varieties of wheat have at least 20x more gluten per unit volume than they did back in 1950. Since the opioid compounds identified in wheat are part of the gluten, more gluten in modern varieties of wheat means more opioid peptides. Bread made from modern varieties of wheat is far more addictive and stimulates our opioid receptors far more than bread made in the 1950s or before.


http://www.wheatbellyblog.com/2012/01/the-gliadin-effect/

The protien gliandin passes thought the gut membrane and enters directly into the bloodstream
« Last Edit: June 23, 2017, 01:35:51 am by sabertooth »
A man who makes a beast of himself, forgets the pain of being a man.

Offline nummi

  • Warrior
  • ****
  • Posts: 249
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: The Addictive Origins of Agriculture
« Reply #6 on: June 23, 2017, 02:17:42 am »
There is no addictive component to wheat when wheat is sprouted. Soaking 24 hours, after that 2-3 days to let it grow small white roots and this is best time to eat it taste wise and otherwise.

What creates this "addiction" about wheat is when it is consumed unsprouted, as are almost all commercial products and "eco" products made -- from unsprouted wheat. Regardless whether is mass-produced thus deficient of many minerals-vitamins and full of toxins, or grown on rich and clean soil. Wheat has to be sprouted before consumption (or other natural processes, like fermentations).
Having eaten sprouted wheat for months every day, then for 2-3 months of not eating any wheat, and then again eating it. There is no addictive component when sprouted. In fact sprouted wheat has positive effects on functioning of body, it like gives sharpness/strength/surety/balance/stability, not much but some and its quality is distinctive to wheat, if sensitive enough then can feel it and its deeper qualities.

Wheat itself, if grown on rich and unpolluted soils and is sprouted before consumption, is highly nutritious. Far more nutritious than raw animal fat.
What gives food its nutritional value, any food, is not proteins-fats-carbs-sugars-starches because these are very easy to get enough of, but are vitamins and minerals and other such micro nutrients because official daily requirements are on average about 5 times too low (varies from vitamin-mineral to vitamin-mineral, some have their official requirements many tens of times too low). How much vitamins-mirnals has fat? And wheat grains? Difference is immense and sharply in favor of wheat. If to choose what to eat by nutritional richness alone, between raw fat and sprouted wheat, then sprouted wheat should be preferred due to its significantly higher nutritional value.
Not that raw fat isn't needed, it is needed, but if to maximize body's functioning in all regards then have to choose and eat that which is of highest nutritional value without overeating (fats-proteins-carbs) and also without causing deficiencies in any regard (due having to see to it that deficiencies do not occur, fat must also be eaten, brain and solar plexus, nervous system overall, does need it).

Mentality/bias of grains being cause of many modern failures, is essentially completely false.
Grain causes harm only when it is unsprouted (or when unfermented, as that can also neutralize its debilitating effects). Ancient peoples fermented and sprouted grains, also soaked them in ash water to get natural toxins out of it. Old and ancient peoples knew of negative effects of wheat and processed them accordingly -- they knew about food many tens if not even hundreds of times better than any of us here and now. Of course there are stupid peoples in all eras, but are also smart ones, so best not to look at stupid ones and identify everyone in that era as stupid. Smart ones don't pollute and live in harmony with nature, which means they don't leave much signs of themselves ever having existed to newer generations of peoples, while stupid ones are very loud and expansive and so leave many signs and ruins behind because they failed. Failures can go a long way before they truly die out, can leave a lot of crap for newer peoples to work out and prove themselves successful.

Offline Projectile Vomit

  • Mammoth Hunter
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,027
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: The Addictive Origins of Agriculture
« Reply #7 on: June 23, 2017, 02:34:44 am »
Quote
Wheat itself, if grown on rich and unpolluted soils and is sprouted before consumption, is highly nutritious. Far more nutritious than raw animal fat.

Reading your post, it looks like you and I will have to agree to disagree on a lot of things.
« Last Edit: June 23, 2017, 03:33:21 am by Eric »

Offline Projectile Vomit

  • Mammoth Hunter
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,027
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: The Addictive Origins of Agriculture
« Reply #8 on: June 23, 2017, 02:40:27 am »
Quote
In my opinion it has nothing to do with addiction but rather a much simpler explanation - hunger...

I accept that hunger did play a role, but I don't think hunger alone could have spawned agriculture. If it were just hunger, people would have eaten grain when needed, then reverted to more nourishing foods when times got better. That's not what happened. People turned to cereal grains, and never looked back.

Just look at European colonization of the Americas and South Africa. People with a long history of food-derived opioid dependency arrived in continents with abundant game and nutritionally dense, non-cereal plants and what did they do? They ate a little of the new foods, but for the most part brought their nutritionally poor yet opioid rich cereal grains with them and ate those. And of course they ate the few cereal grains that indigenous people had domesticated, primarily maize (aka corn).

Offline surfsteve

  • Chief
  • *****
  • Posts: 708
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: The Addictive Origins of Agriculture
« Reply #9 on: June 23, 2017, 02:50:05 am »
I've made sprouted wheat bread many times. I can't vouch for it being non addictive. It's more nutritious than regular bread but wouldn't consider it to be in the same league as raw animal fat. I have a half a sack of rye that is several years old to make sprouted rye if I ever feel  the need to start eating bread again. It's very easy to make but sprouted rye is much tougher than wheat and is very hard on my juicer to grind.

Offline TylerDurden

  • Global Moderator
  • Mammoth Hunter
  • *****
  • Posts: 17,016
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
    • Raw Paleolithic Diet
"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 nummi

  • Warrior
  • ****
  • Posts: 249
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: The Addictive Origins of Agriculture
« Reply #11 on: June 23, 2017, 04:26:33 am »
Reading your post, it looks like you and I will have to agree to disagree on a lot of things.
No, simply I know and am aware better than you. There are things I know and am aware that you are not. Things I've done that you have not. There isn't anything "to agree to disagree on". Wrong is wrong. There are no two correct answers.

Have you yourself ever eaten sprouted wheat for months, then not for months, then again? So to get real personal experience, thus also real knowledge and awareness as to truth about wheat, and then comparing this to research you've done and whatever claims are made about wheat? Or is everything you "know" merely something someone else has said before, and you essentially merely copy-pasting same opinions without actually ever yourself having verified truth of any of what you are saying, and those who before you have said, about wheat?

Conclusions based only on research, but no actual personal experience in comparison to that research, are worth nothing at best. Research alone does not, can not, suffice to get real truth.

It is easy to say that you've done a lot of research about something, by so doing asserting some tone of authority, and so credulity follows much more easily for readers of less awareness and knowledge. But conclusions based of falsities and fallacies, are simply wrong; research done when materials themselves omit many relevant facts, because creators of those materials themselves knew and were aware of too little and were biased -- conclusions based on such materials alone are wrong. They cannot be right. Comparing materials with materials, but not materials with something unbiased/neutral like actually trying it yourself, leads nowhere good.

Personally, I know that many things are said about many things. But how do I myself verify for myself with true certainty as to what is truth? Mere copy-pasting of opinions of others without myself ever having tested anything regarding whatever it is, is playing dumb. I don't like playing dumb, so I don't do it. If I don't have true personal experience then how am I truly supposed to know whether the said is true or not? How is anyone supposed to know for certain if they lack true personal experience regarding the said?

Truth regarding wheat is easy to test for oneself. Only takes 6-9 months.
Wheat is not bad, wheat is good, very good. I advise to eat it, sprouted of course. Also buckwheat (soaking for 8 hours suffices, has to be raw of course, not heat-treated) and barley (just soaked is enough; cleanses entire body quite well, easily noticed about skin as makes skin smoother-softer-nicer).

Offline nummi

  • Warrior
  • ****
  • Posts: 249
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: The Addictive Origins of Agriculture
« Reply #12 on: June 23, 2017, 04:38:48 am »
I've made sprouted wheat bread many times.
Bread means cooked with high temperatures. High temperature means starches-sugars are ruined, along other constituents and balances that are ruined. Starches and sugars that due to too high temperature have energetic value lowered significantly, making body require many times more oxygen and minerals-vitamins to metabolize them. Affects nervous system quite badly (thus info processing functions, thinking, logic, feelings, emotions, all of it) as energetic influence lowers electrical-energetic functioning of nervous system and whole body. A big bad mess, simply because too high temperature ruins food severely, not just nutrients but also energetically.
Even starches in cooked potatoes have same effect as white sugar. Due to heat treatment that ruins.
This ruined starch and ruined sugar. These cause addictive like condition in body. They are also easy meal for yeast/candida while body has trouble using such ruined nutrients.

Another that causes addiction-like condition is when unsprouted, they have antinutrients that associate minerals, thus mineral deficiencies in body, thus body asking for more food. When sprouted there is no such issue.

Offline sabertooth

  • Mammoth Hunter
  • ******
  • Posts: 3,092
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: The Addictive Origins of Agriculture
« Reply #13 on: June 23, 2017, 04:38:59 am »
I accept that hunger did play a role, but I don't think hunger alone could have spawned agriculture. If it were just hunger, people would have eaten grain when needed, then reverted to more nourishing foods when times got better. That's not what happened. People turned to cereal grains, and never looked back.

Just look at European colonization of the Americas and South Africa. People with a long history of food-derived opioid dependency arrived in continents with abundant game and nutritionally dense, non-cereal plants and what did they do? They ate a little of the new foods, but for the most part brought their nutritionally poor yet opioid rich cereal grains with them and ate those. And of course they ate the few cereal grains that indigenous people had domesticated, primarily maize (aka corn).

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?? 
« Last Edit: June 23, 2017, 04:48:26 am by sabertooth »
A man who makes a beast of himself, forgets the pain of being a man.

Offline TylerDurden

  • Global Moderator
  • Mammoth Hunter
  • *****
  • Posts: 17,016
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
    • Raw Paleolithic Diet
Re: The Addictive Origins of Agriculture
« Reply #14 on: June 23, 2017, 04:59:44 am »
I personally tried raw sprouts (100% sprout plus alkaline mineral water diet for something like 4-5 months)near the end of my raw vegan phase, and , for a raw vegan, they do provide some esential missing nutrients, as I found BUT they were largely useless compared to raw meats that I ate, as the latter cleared up my health problems unlike the sprouts. I would concede that sprouts consumption might prolong a raw vegan`s health for a bit longer, but not be a solution for health. This sort of view/personal account seems to be rather common on RVAF diet forums, judging from past endless posts.
« Last Edit: June 23, 2017, 05:05:41 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: 3,043
  • Gender: Male
  • Eating tuna fish
    • View Profile
Re: The Addictive Origins of Agriculture
« Reply #15 on: June 23, 2017, 05:07:41 am »
No, simply I know and am aware better than you. There are things I know and am aware that you are not. Things I've done that you have not. There isn't anything "to agree to disagree on". Wrong is wrong. There are no two correct answers.
(...)
Wheat is not bad, wheat is good, very good. I advise to eat it, sprouted of course.

... two and half years after a sudden nummi's plague disappearance, it has surfaced again...  :(
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 #16 on: June 23, 2017, 05:33:46 am »
I personally tried raw sprouts (100% sprout plus alkaline mineral water diet for something like 4-5 months)near the end of my raw vegan phase, and , for a raw vegan, they do provide some esential missing nutrients, as I found BUT they were largely useless compared to raw meats that I ate, as the latter cleared up my health problems unlike the sprouts. I would concede that sprouts consumption might prolong a raw vegan`s health for a bit longer, but not be a solution for health. This sort of view/personal account seems to be rather common on RVAF diet forums, judging from past endless posts.

My experience is similar. I felt really good at first on a raw vegan diet but terrible after a few weeks. I stuck to it for 6 months and continued to get worse. Then I went back to a SAD diet and took loads of supplements. This made things even worse. My stomach got big and my hair started turning gray. But for some reason when I started on raw organ meats my hair regained it's natural color, my stomach went down and my health improved immensely. I totally didn't expect that and had resigned myself to being old and wouldn't have believed it except that I experienced it for myself!

Offline Projectile Vomit

  • Mammoth Hunter
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,027
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: The Addictive Origins of Agriculture
« Reply #17 on: June 23, 2017, 08:57:59 am »
I'm a big fan of organ meats too. I don't think they make up half of my diet, by calories, but certainly more than 1/4. I've come upon very good sources of chicken and duck eggs, and for the price they're very inexpensive sources of rich calories. The yolks are bright orange. But even as I say that, I laid out some raw lamb heart and goat tongue for breakfast tomorrow.

Offline surfsteve

  • Chief
  • *****
  • Posts: 708
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: The Addictive Origins of Agriculture
« Reply #18 on: June 23, 2017, 11:20:18 am »
Organ meats don't make up half my diet either. They make up half of the meat I eat by volume. I eat a lot of fruits and vegetables too and lately egg yolks. I was really impressed with the ground beef heart jerky I made just before my dehydrator bit the dust. When I get a new one I think I can boost that up even higher and also boost the health content by only drying it half way!

Offline nummi

  • Warrior
  • ****
  • Posts: 249
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: The Addictive Origins of Agriculture
« Reply #19 on: June 23, 2017, 03:06:36 pm »
I personally tried raw sprouts (100% sprout plus alkaline mineral water diet for something like 4-5 months)near the end of my raw vegan phase, and , for a raw vegan, they do provide some esential missing nutrients, as I found BUT they were largely useless compared to raw meats that I ate, as the latter cleared up my health problems unlike the sprouts. I would concede that sprouts consumption might prolong a raw vegan`s health for a bit longer, but not be a solution for health. This sort of view/personal account seems to be rather common on RVAF diet forums, judging from past endless posts.
Alkaline diet is bad as stomach and intestines require acidic environment. Eating sprouts during alkaline diet practicing and near end (or during) of vegan phase does not and can not give sufficiently correct experiential awareness/knowledge so to make correct conclusions about them, because not eating animal meats disables a lot about nervous system functioning and especially when having not eaten them some longer period, senses are messed up and also logic processes are severely messed up.

Largely useless compared to raw meats that you ate? Raw meats that you began eating after vegan period? And so raw meats that your body craved immensely and was likewise immensely satisfied by receiving into itself so to break apart and use, so finally over too long period debilitating deficiencies began going away. This really is not something that can be used to make impartial, thus correct, conclusions about sprouted grains.

To make correct and true conclusions that are actually based on reality, not some assumptions nor mere beliefs that themselves are also based on further assumptions and beliefs, is to personally eat sprouted grains while other aspects of diet are also sufficiently correct.

None of you have ever actually verified truth about grains by consuming them correctly. All you here base your claims on are flawed opinions and assumptions, and personal experiences that are based on false practices.
You can't get correct conclusions if method you used to arrive at those conclusions is dishonest and false and lacking.

Quote
... two and half years after a sudden nummi's plague disappearance, it has surfaced again...
Only "it" here is you, as you do not have a mind. All you do is follow some dogma, like some machine following commands and rules. Dogma that happens to be significantly better than vegan nonsense, but dogma the same. You are a fanatic, thus no rationality about you when it comes to pointing out simple logical facts that many things about your dogma are simply false when compared to actual reality and of course your assumptions and beliefs that you have about yourself.
You have shown before that you completely mistranslate and misinterpret me and my saying, trying to force and attach your delusions to what I say, and trying to claim that your delusions are what I meant. Try to keep yourself from doing that again. Try to be straightforward and honest, especially to yourself, advisably (but decades of you being stuck in your severely dogmatic and fanatic ways... have done their job...).

Keep away your insults, and there can not occur any issues. Because you won't be creating any.

Offline nummi

  • Warrior
  • ****
  • Posts: 249
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: The Addictive Origins of Agriculture
« Reply #20 on: June 23, 2017, 03:31:24 pm »
Agriculture is necessary so to be able to rise higher than instinctive-animalistic stage development. So to move on, to advance.
Instincts are based on body's adaptations and what body has thus far received into itself and learned about. What body already knows, but not what body does yet not know.
Instinctual eating is for animals and beasts, not humans nor anyone who is capable of creating civilizations.
Body's inner functionings can be raised significantly higher than that which instinctual eating enables and allows. For that have to use mind, to think things through, how and why things work, and so how to make everything more than was before.

Trying to keep ourselves to instincts alone is lowering ourselves to animalistic ways. We are are not animals. We are not supposed to behave and act and eat like animals. We are supposed to behave, act, live like us, as is appropriate to us and to our stage of development.

Animals cannot do better than instincts. Instincts are their "mind", it is who they are. The fact that all of us here can talk about instincts is absolute proof that instinctual way is not appropriate to us. Our way is supposed contain in it instinctual sense also, but is supposed to be dominated by higher info-processing functions than instincts. In our case we have more than instincts, we shouldn't be nor keep ourselves stuck to instincts when we can do better. We should be concentrating nutritional value into food items we eat thus into our own bodies, so to be ourselves ever stronger and clearer and more powerful and likewise to make this world ever better.

Agriculture is necessity after animal/beast stage of development. Animals/beasts don't do it because they can't, because they lack inner info-processing tools for it, thus also lack need for it.
That agriculture has been done wrongly, especially in these modern times, and that food items grown have been treated and eaten wrongly, does not mean agriculture is bad or wrong. It just means practices regarding it have been wrong, not that the entire thing itself is wrong.

Offline TylerDurden

  • Global Moderator
  • Mammoth Hunter
  • *****
  • Posts: 17,016
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
    • Raw Paleolithic Diet
Re: The Addictive Origins of Agriculture
« Reply #21 on: June 23, 2017, 05:15:00 pm »
Whatever the case, I notice that many  long-term RPDers, myself included,  do tend, over time, to adopt many of the Instincto ideas that Iguana advocates. Not all of them necessarily, but a significant proportion. Basically, the more we turn away from Nature, the worse off we are re health and many other issues.

Incidentally, we ARE animals.So far, scientists have been desperately trying and failing to determine what makes humans different from animals. Suggestions, such as that laughter or tool-use or complex social societies etc. etc. are supposedly unique to humans, have been proven wrong again and again and again.

Personally, I think it`s great to hear  different viewpoints as that challenges dietary orthodoxy etc. But it would help to avoid the (CK-inspired?) notions of self-perfection. Perfection does not exist in Nature/Reality, either.
"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 nummi

  • Warrior
  • ****
  • Posts: 249
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: The Addictive Origins of Agriculture
« Reply #22 on: June 24, 2017, 05:17:13 pm »
Personally I don't care for any dogma/rules/scripture/orthodoxy. Instead I care for functioning of nature and world in relation to my own body, as my existence depends on these. I want real truth. I need to know how world and nature truly work, so I could know how I myself truly work. There is only one way to find out what real truth is -- have to actually try things out myself, instead of believing and parroting same things over and over, again and again, year after year, decade after decade, getting not even nowhere and in truth never improving self. Doesn't even measure up to ridiculous what some are doing. I was away from these forums, as Iquana said 2.5 years -- I haven't been wasting all that time, significant selfimprovements instead and a lot, many tens and hundreds of times more to do which will take years and more. What many of you here do, is jabber about same things over and over, there isn't anything new, there is no onward movement. You're not getting anywhere with yourselves, you are stuck -- dogmatic cultistic following does this.

Personally have chickens, next year some meat rabbits and some quails, have bees and need to get more hives. Growing plants (for example simple plant as pumpkin has very powerful effects for internal info-processing functions, which I have observed from experience; can any of you find anything about this from googling "science" articles or anything? no), and next year will begin growing mushroom (reishi, shiitake, lion's mane, some others, as apparently it is very easy to grow them and they have high health values). As a newer thing will begin growing plants that have leaves-flowers-stems-roots of higher health values, that are commonly regarded as medicinal plants. Will try and see how my body will function when making them part of my daily food (smaller amounts as regular food as they are potent).
And most of you here do what? You just jabber about same thing which is eating meat this much or that much, this way or that way, then or then instead; and "wheat is bad", yourself never having even tried eating wheat for months in its correct edible state, so to see what is actual truth about it.
I too regarded wheat as "bad", merely because such ridiculous dogma was only source I was aware I could get information at first, but then eventually I tried for myself to see whether such claims about wheat are of truth or lies.

Whatever the case, I notice that many  long-term RPDers, myself included,  do tend, over time, to adopt many of the Instincto ideas that Iguana advocates. Not all of them necessarily, but a significant proportion.
Iguana is someone who attaches some simple truths to severely wrong directions. Wrong directions that keep one from moving on with their self. Exactly same thing why cults "sell" so well and hoard followers instead of guiding people to become truly selfsufficient, selfaware, selfconscious, and selfimproving; it is easier to follow than to actually do things truly self. As a very good example cults like veganism which has some truth aspects to it, but extremely severe and debilitating wrongs. Or this "Flat Earthism" cult that is most strongly propagated in vegan circles because their logic processes are ruined or gone entirely, also has some very simple truths attached to severe wrongs (in reality isn't mainstream ball nor is flat; there are reason why can seem either of them; main reason being that light is not straight, does not travel, is instant, is energy field similar to magnetic field, there is reaction time between matter and light and this is this so-called "lightspeed"). Or common Christianity and all those other ones, which again have very simple truths attached to severe wrongs that make people stuck.
They all have simple truths that fool those unaware and naive. They impress them, cause wonder in them, state of wonder that makes them stick very strongly to whatever cult they got stuck to. Many different ways to cause this "wonder" in people. For example cannabis is another thing that causes wonder to such naive and unknowing young souls and minds, and then they begin using it far too often and too much, thus literally burning away their consciousness processes thus leaving them solely functioning on memory they had thus far obtained (consciousness which is aspect about info-processing functions that enables one to admit to oneself what one is actually doing and why), thus in a state of utter stuckness.
Iguana does same thing. Simple truths to sell big bad wrongs that get people stuck. He is just another common fanatical cultist priest directing people to get stuck.

Only creatures whose activities and behavior are supposed to be dominated by instincts are those lower than humans. Among humans is supposed to be perhaps 50% instinctual, since humanity is a point of "choosing/proving" (but each of two choices within them also contain different directions, plus combinations-variations...).
The way we can process information, read, make conclusions, think, etc -- none of this is instinctual.
If some creature were to remain purely instinctual, it could and would never reach a state where it can read, write, build things, etc. Why go back?

Quote
Basically, the more we turn away from Nature, the worse off we are re health and many other issues.

Incidentally, we ARE animals.So far, scientists have been desperately trying and failing to determine what makes humans different from animals. Suggestions, such as that laughter or tool-use or complex social societies etc. etc. are supposedly unique to humans, have been proven wrong again and again and again.

Personally, I think it`s great to hear  different viewpoints as that challenges dietary orthodoxy etc. But it would help to avoid the (CK-inspired?) notions of self-perfection. Perfection does not exist in Nature/Reality, either.
Never supposed to turn away from nature, but instead are supposed to work ever better with nature, while at same time developing ways that are independent from nature in ways that don't harm nature. Because we all depend on nature. If by our activities we harm nature then we also harm ourselves. But there are ways to become more than what nature alone can enable for us; nature's prime function or goal, is to have its subjects reach a state where they can get true hold over themselves, to begin guiding themselves little by little ever more, which would be best done without harming nature. And there are ways to even improve functioning of nature. Nature is essentially some basic circling/cycling intelligent processes, which has no self aspect to it; intelligence yes, self aspect no; something neutral, that can be used for whatever purposes by anyone who has reached such stage of developemnt, but those who use it shouldn't destroy it as they themselves depend on it. There is this ancient picture depicting a serpent with its own tail in its mouth... if those old/ancient peoples were so dumb and their knowledge so "primitive" then how could they possibly have known this, and knowing this how could they possibly let themselves ruin themselves and that which they themselves depend on? If you knew, would you ruin yourself thus also doom further generations? Conceptions about old and ancient peoples, that are propagated in "science" circles, via media, are biased and wrong; belief gets nowhere but stuck.

Agriculture is not supposed to be about simply taking a plot of land and growing some plants there and then hope for good results. Doesn't work, is not supposed to, quite like that. Is supposed to be about seeing how and why nature works and how nature can be guided and directed toward producing results that we need for our own improvement and betterment. And preferably that nature also benefits.

Regarding us being animals. We are not animals. We do have in us qualities that are same that animals have, but those are under newer qualities. Newest qualities, those that require perfecting, those determine who any creature is. Animals do not have capability for mind as we do, these inner infoenergy processing functions and possibilities. Same thing if you take a seed and put into soil and let it grow to a tree... which is it then? Still a seed? Or a tree? What determines its being, that which it has been thus internally on some level sort of still is, or rather that which it actually is in present moment? Same way about children growing in mothers stomach, and infants, and grown ups...
Animal is like a child, human is like teenager. Then man stage. And then other stages.

If we say we are animals, then we also must say we are bacteria. Obviously not true.
Animals and humans are stages of development, of advancement. Who how far is. Animals are specific general stage. Humans are specific general stage. Man (not male, not masculinity), as in older times people called themselves and was gender neutral term, denotes mindhood; those who have achieved mind, which is stage of development after human. These are things not any of you know, because to find these things out, can't simply follow some "science" articles and notions nor dogma, actually have to truly think things through for oneself (in other words no place for dogmatic fanatical behavior; no place for belief, humans believe, not Men).

Difference between animals and humans, and man, and all other stages, are primarily about info processing functions and not so much about looks. These inner processes and capabilities determine who any of us are. This is according to nature and functioning of this world, we ourselves have not created these infoprocessing functions but are born around them, and after human stage can slowly begin getting own hold over them thus also personally directing how they develop further and turn out to be one day.
Being human and then getting self stuck to animalistic ways, is degeneration/devolution. Is path back to animalhood, should anyone after generations somehow survive such degeneration. It's like a grownup degenerating back to infancy. Why would anyone want to go back to previous stage of development instead of onward and forward?

Animals have "embryo" capabilities and abilities that humans do. They have to have them because nature determines their path of development, which is for them toward human stage, human stage that is supposed to be toward mind stage, etc. They could not "evolutionarily" move on if they did not have in them something that would enable them to develop newer senses. They need something with which they can gradually, slowly step onto newer/higher plane of being -- which is determined by nature and those who have before them achieved mindhood and higher stages, and thus have shaped world and nature, thus also effected in which directions newer generations of organisms and animals will develop with their organs/senses. Very many aspects to it all that need to be considered before any truly true conclusions can be made. What I know are some very general, but true, things; not copy-pasting from nor combining some dogmatic scripture lying in memory.

Selfperfection is necessary, and this requires concentration of nutritional value, thus by necessity agriculture. Those who do not recognize it as necessary and something that must be done and fail to do so during their life, or do it wrong, have failed life and nature.
Perfection does not exist in nature, but nature has perfection as its active direction. If everything stopped changing, conditions remained same, then eventually nature would achieve its own perfect form according to those conditions; but since everything is in constant change then this perfect form cannot be achieved. This direction toward perfection is why organisms adapt to newer conditions if changes haven't been so severe as to kill them out.

Offline TylerDurden

  • Global Moderator
  • Mammoth Hunter
  • *****
  • Posts: 17,016
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
    • Raw Paleolithic Diet
Re: The Addictive Origins of Agriculture
« Reply #23 on: June 24, 2017, 06:07:54 pm »
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.Same goes for other idiotic manmade concepts such as equality, which only can exist in death, or coerced human altruism.

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.

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.

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.
"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 Projectile Vomit

  • Mammoth Hunter
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,027
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: The Addictive Origins of Agriculture
« Reply #24 on: June 24, 2017, 06:15:29 pm »
Quote
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...

A great point. I would add that there are parallels between the way people's idea of perfection is socially constructed and how dogma is socially constructed.

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.

 

SMF spam blocked by CleanTalk