From: Jacques Du Pasquier (jacques@dtext.com)
Date: Wed Apr 03 2002 - 15:10:06 MST
Dehede011@aol.com wrote (3.4.2002/12:44) :
> Jacques,
> I came into this discussion late so let me ask a couple of question?
> Even if we consider the agricultural revolution to be a step backward have we
> factored agri-forrestry or permaculure into our thoughts along with the
> various low simple carbohydrate diets that have came along lately.
> Frankly, I have little to argue about with what I have read but with
> those three factors introduced into consideration I think we may well have a
> new ballgame.
Hi Ron,
The author of the article mentionned by Eliezer might consider your
point relevant to his argumentation. What I personnaly tried to point
out, however, is that the problem is not such and such particular
problem with agriculture, like a low diet, but our progressive
"disadaptation" through cultural development.
By adopting new technologies with our evolution-given desires as
guides, we modify our environment in the process in such a way that,
though the new situation seems better according to certain criteria
(which is why we embraced the new technology in the first place), it
shifts farther and farther from the environment for which we have
evolved, and (as we don't have time to change through biological
evolution) we become less and less adapted to it. The most obvious
desires are better served (food, shelter -- probably not sex which is
still competitive), but many others, sometimes quite important and
deep, are left starving, and on the whole it all seems quite
incoherent.
I tried, from that theoretical starting point, to think of what we can
hope to achieve to "readapt".
Jacques
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:13:13 MST