Does anyone here have a soda addiction?

[Taoist Texts]

What you do with your body is far more important than what you put in it.

It sounds like a very reasonable opinion, i agree. But is it a traditional POV?

Look at the ultra-distance running Taramuhara made famous by the Born to Run book. They subsist on maize for the most part.

They are great, i have researched and admired that tribe.

 

But...

 

There is a very high infant mortality rate among the Tarahumara. This fact is counterbalanced by the fact that there is also a very high birth rate. The average Tarahumara woman gives birth to about ten babies hoping that three or four will survive into adulthood. Adulthood is usually short for the Tarahumara with the average life expectancy being forty-five (Lutz 50)

[soaring crane]

Their infant mortality and life expectancy are due to the rotten conditions they live with

[woodcarver]

I can't change that I grew up American as hell. Eating fast food and soda drinking don't get enough attention in eastern thought because not everyone can relate to it.

 

...but it's a real problem for us and just like everything else, it takes time to wane off things. Do you not agree?

 

I like to make fun of Americans, too but who needs Daoist philosphy more in this world? We need to walk before we run.

[woodcarver]

I'm calling on the minds of those who assist humanity for help.

 

We eat and drink too much crap, watch too much tv and movies, and care too much about ourselves and materialism. We are incredibly confused about what's happening in the world around us and if we step out of line, there are consequences.

 

We need the help of outside forces.

[Taomeow]

I researched Tarahumara too.   They hunt deer, in addition to eating maize, but because of the overall decline of the land and drastically diminished availability of what they used to hunt, they also eat mice.   Given their lifestyle, they are likely to have been full time hunters before the white man displaced, enslaved, decimated them, displaced again, and devastated the land, forcing them to flee repeatedly to less and less hospitable environs. 

 

Careful with those blind colonialism-derived views of who's healthy and who's not "due to what they eat" -- also with extrapolating what they eat post-catastrophically to what they ate traditionally.  To expose people to genocidal interventions and then announce that whatever health problems they have are due to their dietary habits...  come on.  Really. 

Edited September 6, 2015 by Taomeow

[woodcarver]

I like native Americans as much as the next daoist but civilization is genetic engineering just like natural selection.

 

Those who do well in civilization pass on their genes and those who do not don't reproduce. My body can't go out in the woods and eat mice... Maybe a few generations ago!

[Taomeow]

I like native Americans as much as the next daoist but civilization is genetic engineering just like natural selection.

 

Those who do well in civilization pass on their genes and those who do not don't reproduce. My body can't go out in the woods and eat mice... Maybe a few generations ago!

 

Genetic engineering is as much natural selection as a lab mouse in a cage is the beneficiary of natural selection.  Alas, compared to their wild counterparts, those lab-born, lab-raised (for countless generations now) mice are sickly, weak,  miserable, aspontaneous, inept, and stupid, albeit docile and obedient.  There's nowhere to evolve inside the cage.  Not that a mouse outside the cage needs to evolve -- in its own environment it's perfect as it is or it wouldn't be here after all those millions of years.

 

Civilization is not natural selection.  It is a parasitic infection.  Just because someone has worms does not mean he is evolving.  It may simply mean he is going extinct.  History of evolution is full to the brim of stories of unsuccessful species that were able to start but weren't able to hold on to life on earth for more than a few dozen million years.  And the ones extinguished even sooner are far more numerous.  And we aren't anywhere near that mark which allows to assess the evolutionary success or failure of a species -- in evolutionary terms we've been born a minute ago.  The younger a live creature, the more vulnerable to sudden changes in its environment -- try imagining a newborn baby whose parents decide he needs to be able to adjust to conditions that drastically change every five minutes -- or else, bad luck, he failed to evolve.  This will give you an accurate picture of humanity's place in evolution.

 

To assume that civilization is "evolving" us is similar to assuming that an ingrown toenail is a new evolutionary venue and all the pain is toward some future superclaws we're supposed to develop.  Nope.  It's just that the shoe was too tight and thwarted the normal development of that toenail.  That's what civilization is.  That's what genetic engineering is.  Nothing more promising than that. 

[Rocky Lionmouth]

All forms of civilization or just the larger ones supported by hierarchical power structures where the few who make the rules are top of the foodchain and those at the bottom are petri-dishes and cattle?

 

Edit: i ask because i still have a (naive?) hope that smaller groupings based on mutual assistance, respect and solidarity with similar groupings might work.

How about soda addiction huh? Great thread this!

Edited September 6, 2015 by Rocky Lionmouth

[Taomeow]

All forms of civilization or just the larger ones supported by hierarchical power structures where the few who make the rules are top of the foodchain and those at the bottom are petri-dishes and cattle?

 

Edit: i ask because i still have a (naive?) hope that smaller groupings based on mutual assistance, respect and solidarity with similar groupings might work.

How about soda addiction huh? Great thread this!

 

The word "civilization" derives from the Latin civitas,"city."  All it really means is "life in a place, and in a way, severed and separated from nature."  It does not mean "more advanced culture," "better social order," or "more efficient ways to survive and thrive."  All it means is that a separation must take place and parts of the population quit doing what humans have always been doing on this planet -- living intertwined inseparably with their natural habitats -- and adjust to living in unnatural habitats that keep growing in size, influence, and impact on the remaining natural ones. 

 

The impact is not just drastic but mind-boggling and its progression is geometric.  In the past 50 years alone, humans destroyed 50% of all forests on Earth.   But "civilization" has always meant, first and foremost, "deforestation."  Someone (or something) drives this process who seems to have placed an order for a desert planet and they've been "redecorating" a planet whose surface used to be covered with forests everywhere, ever since "civilization."  I have no idea why this client who ordered the remodeling wants it remodeled this way, but it's definitely a client very hostile to things alive, very very opposed to the process of aliveness on Earth.

 

Everything else that has ever been done in the times of our (?) civilization has always been presented to us as the most important things, while the main thing that was happening all along, unstoppable deforestation, hardly ever mentioned at all.  It's a famous trick of all stage magicians and all con artists -- they distract your attention with something bright and shiny, visible and attention-catching, while the sleight-of-hand act quietly goes unnoticed, and they deceive you with utmost ease because you're looking elsewhere.  

 

So, to answer your question:  I believe civilization in the shape and form we know it to be an absolute evil.  For it not to be that, cities (and the non-cities that are basically sucked out, chewed up and spat out discards of cities, which is what the accompanying "countryside" turns into, courtesy of this division) and deforestation must not happen.  But in this case it will no longer be "civilization," it will be what it has always been -- culture.  Human culture can be as rich and as advanced as we would make it -- as we always made it before what I believe constituted a hostile takeover by some parasitic opposing consciousness. 

 

As for hope...  If vast numbers of people were to suddenly see the light and learn the difference between "culture" and "civilization," there would be hope.   We are truly magnificent when left well alone.  I remember...  But will we ever conquer the parasite and recover from the incalculable damage sustained, will we suddenly spontaneously become wise and strong and whole, or whether someone or something will have pity on us and fix it all for us, including us (don't we always wait for a "savior?..")?..  Does not seem likely, but one always hopes, dum spiro spero... 

Edited September 6, 2015 by Taomeow

[Rocky Lionmouth]

Thank you for elaborating on that my friend! The distinction between civilisation - culture is very important in my eyes too, and i hear and appreciate the thought of civilisation as an abomination. Culture fits my thinking around this perfectly i think, for now at least, whirlwind mind and all, provided culture continues to be an extension of the idea of living human activity thriving and evolving and suiting the needs of its errr, cultivators(?).

[Taomeow]

Yes, RL,

 

cultivators, artists, thinkers, storytellers, singers, inventors, spiritual leaders, spiritual followers (one has to be a being of culture to choose who or what to follow wisely) -- we are good at that, even great, we don't need complex technology to accomplish what we need.  Even animals have these things when left to their own devices.  Some great apes meditate -- for hours.  Some jaguars chew  ayahuasca and go to other dimensions to see what's up there and learn.  Some monkeys wash their yams before eating, but others  -- even members of the same family -- don't, it's not part of their culture, they brush the dirt off with a bunch of grass instead. 

 

I always get a kick out of those "cute" interspecies interactions videos and see way more than cuteness.  A cat adopts an orphan baby squirrel, baby squirrel learns to purr! -- that's not instinct, that's upbringing, cultivation, empathy...  culture.  A snake snatches a mouse, starts slithering up a tree, another mouse attacks it from behind, bravely, bites its tail, forces it to release the mate.  That's cultivation -- courage, decision-making, even self-sacrifice (although in this case it ended well.)  An elephant befriends a dog, the dog gets sick, stays in an animal hospital, the elephant stands under the window the whole time, a couple of weeks -- I'm guessing praying?..  sending healing vibes?..  or just experiencing the deepest emotions over the friend's misfortune that we usually think of as "civilized" and that are anything but?.. 

 

My own cats have always developed a way to express to me that they "get" humans and what humans do.  When I was learning to write as a kid, my cat would put his paw on my pen to "help" and wouldn't let go.  We were learning to write the ABC together.  My other cat saw people cover food leftovers with lids, and decided it's a smart way to protect them, so she started covering her bowl with the plastic mat it was standing on whenever she had any leftovers.  My current cat invented water basketball, he plays with a rubber band and then throws it into his water bowl from a distance. 

 

Culture is what we do when no one forces us to do it.  Pure free will.  Civilization and culture have nothing in common.  An archeology professor once gave an assignment to his students to make a stone ax, using any tools they like, but replicating exactly the 250,000-year-old original.  How hard can it be with all the modern technology at their disposal?..  Well, everybody failed.  They had six months and they couldn't do it.  They couldn't figure out how.  That design was in continuous use for close to a million years, no changes.  No changes were necessary -- it was perfect.  A modern, sophisticated, educated human was unable to even come close.  This ax, too, was culture...  and since there was no money to be made off a patent, once it was perfect, no further improvements were needed.  For a million years.  For some reason I feel deeply moved by stories of things culture that last...  Trends for a season...  not so much.  Sorry for rambling...

Edited September 7, 2015 by Taomeow

[Taomeow]

Back to the OP though.

 

This is the actual sugar amount in each of these:

 

 

 

 

[liminal_luke]

Thanks Taomeow. You just cured me.

[Stosh]

I like native Americans as much as the next daoist but civilization is genetic engineering just like natural selection.

Those who do well in civilization pass on their genes and those who do not don't reproduce. My body can't go out in the woods and eat mice... Maybe a few generations ago!

Why cant you eat mice ?

[Karl]

Why cant you eat mice ?

 

Can't catch them. They are crazy quick and good at hiding. You can use cheese to catch them, but then, it was easier to eat the cheese and tastier. Less bones in cheese.

[liminal_luke]

I haven´t checked it out personally, but my mother-in-law tells me that when people in nearby Fresnillo are hungry for mice -- or, more accurately, "country rat" -- they don´t have to catch them. They just go to the market.

Edited September 7, 2015 by liminal_luke

[Stosh]

Ive read they are relatively fatty, and quite nice, if you arent squeamish. Perfect for Atkins, or an afternoon snack...but yeah ,theyre quick, and you just dont see many nice wild mice running around.Country rat however ,could use some improved marketing angle.

Edited September 7, 2015 by Stosh

[Taomeow]

In the Food Street in Beijing, I've seen it all, but couldn't eat it all.   Not the skewered live scorpions anyway.  

 

I've never eaten a reptile, a rodent, or an insect, but guess what -- neither did our paleolithic ancestors if they could help it.  Everybody always went for the fattest animal in the environment, not the easiest-to-catch.  Mammoth, mastodon, whale, walrus --  and that was universal, no exceptions.  They ignored lean meat until they would be running short on fat varieties.  I'm pretty sure the Tarahumara only eat mice because the bison are gone.  During the WWII Leningrad Blockade, which resulted in 1.5 million starving to death, the residents of the city ate to local extinction all cats, dogs, mice, rats, everything people there had never eaten before. 

[Stosh]

Easy source of fats, depends on how one looks at it.I think Its easier to kill one seal than, its equiv weight in mice but I agree fats are the paleo food of choice ... if you can get it and the alternative is more carbs.But a mouse on a ratio of fat to protein is similar to a lamb chop, pork chop , salmon, at about one third fat. Which isnt as high as domestic beef, but its still a decent ratio. Paleodiets, seem to depend on which peoples youre talking about. Not everyones dietarily applicable ancestors were eskimos or masai.

People ate what was local, and supplemented with what they brought with them and took pains to come up with a sound diet. Apparrently that was was possible almost anywhere despite the differences in local supplies. Some diets had to be varied, others could be restricted.

[Geof Nanto]

Here is some information on traditional diet of Australian Aborigines living in arid Central Australia and in the tropical northern Australian coastal regions. Their cultural heritage stretches back at least 30,000 years and the traditional way of life is maintained by some. (See  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indigenous_Australian_food_groups )

 

From the Yolngu people of northern Australia.....

 

The old people would talk about the need to eat from both murŋyan' (plant or vegetable food) and gonyil (meat, shellfish, eggs) food groups and the need to supplement their diet with gapu (fresh water). While this balance was maintained, the people knew they were eating correctly. When the men would come back from the magpie goose hunt, they would be craving murnyaŋ foods after having eaten so much meat and eggs. Meanwhile, the women, children and old people back in the camps would be looking forward to gonyil, magpie goose meat and eggs, after eating so much murnyaŋ'.

Edited September 8, 2015 by Yueya

[Taomeow]

Here is some information on traditional diet of Australian Aborigines living in arid Central Australia and in the tropical northern Australian coastal regions. Their cultural heritage stretches back at least 30,000 years and the traditional way of life is maintained by some. (See  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indigenous_Australian_food_groups )

 

From the Yolngu people of northern Australia.....

 

The old people would talk about the need to eat from both murŋyan' (plant or vegetable food) and gonyil (meat, shellfish, eggs) food groups and the need to supplement their diet with gapu (fresh water). While this balance was maintained, the people knew they were eating correctly. When the men would come back from the magpie goose hunt, they would be craving murnyaŋ foods after having eaten so much meat and eggs. Meanwhile, the women, children and old people back in the camps would be looking forward to gonyil, magpie goose meat and eggs, after eating so much murnyaŋ'.

 

I hope people are noticing that grains or legumes weren't part of their diet.  They weren't part of anyone's natural diet. 

 

Wild wheat is inedible, but modified, edible modern wheat is not exactly food either.  NIH researchers showed that gluten-derived polypeptides cross into the brain and bind to the brain’s opiate receptors.  This is a super drug -- given the euphoria from eating it is mild and the alterations to the thinking process subtle and gradual enough to go unnoticed, a lifelong addiction is guaranteed.  Sugar doesn't come close -- it only stimulates serotonin receptors.  Nicotine doesn't come close -- it only binds to proprietary nicotine receptors (yes we have those in the brain) and stimulates (and also preserves) dopamine receptors.  The only things that come close to the milder but metabolically identical effects of wheat are opium, heroin, cocaine, LSD (because the gut also releases LSD-like substances in response to being exposed to gluten) and crystal meth.  Bon appetit...    

Edited September 8, 2015 by Taomeow

[Geof Nanto]

I hope people are noticing that grains or legumes weren't part of their diet.  They weren't part of anyone's natural diet. 

 

 As far as I'm concerned feel free to eat whatever you want. I know from years of trial and error what sort of foods work best for me. Grains and legumes are both seeds and seeds certainly play an important part in traditional diet. There is much worldwide evidence for this.

 

For instance, Australian aborigines extensively harvested and ate the seeds and gum of Acacia trees, a legume.  

 

"Of the sixty or so species of Acacia in central Australia, Latz (1995) states that some 50% were, or still are, eaten by Aboriginal people and it is not only the seed which is consumed. Several species exude an edible sugary gum from wounds in the stem or branches which supplies a source of energy. Others are fed upon by insects which themselves secrete an edible substance while species such as A. kempeana are the host for various edible grubs often referred to by non-Aboriginal people as witchetty grubs."

 

(From the paper "Acacia in Australia: Ethnobotany and Potential Food Crop" )

Edited September 8, 2015 by Yueya

[Karl]

In the Food Street in Beijing, I've seen it all, but couldn't eat it all.   Not the skewered live scorpions anyway.  

 

I've never eaten a reptile, a rodent, or an insect, but guess what -- neither did our paleolithic ancestors if they could help it.  Everybody always went for the fattest animal in the environment, not the easiest-to-catch.  Mammoth, mastodon, whale, walrus --  and that was universal, no exceptions.  They ignored lean meat until they would be running short on fat varieties.  I'm pretty sure the Tarahumara only eat mice because the bison are gone.  During the WWII Leningrad Blockade, which resulted in 1.5 million starving to death, the residents of the city ate to local extinction all cats, dogs, mice, rats, everything people there had never eaten before. 

 

I think we went there during our tour. I was more careful to check out what was in the dim sum after seeing all those beetles, rodents, insects and snakes. The tea gardens in Shanghai were more my style.

[Geof Nanto]

Here's another reference for information about the consumption of grains and legumes by Australian Aborigines.....

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_bread

 

 

"Bush bread, or seedcakes, refers to the bread made by Australian Aborigines for many thousands of years, by crushing seeds into a dough, after which it is baked. The bread was high in protein and carbohydrate, and helped form part of a balanced traditional diet.

 

With the arrival of Europeans and pre-milled white flour, this bread-making process all but disappeared (although women were still recorded to be making seedcakes in Central Australia in the 1970s). The tradition of cooking bread in hot coals continues today.

 

Bread-making was a woman's task. It was generally carried out by several women at once, due to its labour-intensive nature. It involved collecting seasonal grains, legumes, roots or nuts, and preparing these into flour and then dough, or directly into a dough."

[Taomeow]

 

 As far as I'm concerned feel free to eat whatever you want. I know from years of trial and error what sort of foods work best for me. Grains and legumes are both seeds and seeds certainly play an important part in traditional diet. There is much worldwide evidence for this.

 

For instance, Australian aborigines extensively harvested and ate the seeds and gum of Acacia trees, a legume.  

 

"Of the sixty or so species of Acacia in central Australia, Latz (1995) states that some 50% were, or still are, eaten by Aboriginal people and it is not only the seed which is consumed. Several species exude an edible sugary gum from wounds in the stem or branches which supplies a source of energy. Others are fed upon by insects which themselves secrete an edible substance while species such as A. kempeana are the host for various edible grubs often referred to by non-Aboriginal people as witchetty grubs."

 

(From the paper "Acacia in Australia: Ethnobotany and Potential Food Crop" )

 

Yeah, what "grains" and "seeds" have in common is that both are words.  And oxen and centipedes are both animals.  So?..

 

I have acacia gum in my pantry.  I use it in cooking on occasion, when I get adventurous and cook Indian.  But acacia gum is the dried up sap of the tree, not a "seed" or "grain' or "legume."  Acacia seeds are eaten just as peppercorns are eaten, which are also seeds...  or like caraway seeds, cumin seeds, sesame seeds...  one gram of that per one hundred or so grams of whatever is seasoned with them.  "Staple" and "seasoning" are also words, and they mean very different things.   

 

Also, most people who used grains before the forceful installation of grain agriculture (and make no mistake, it was installed by brute force, no one ever chose to be bondage peasants willingly) made alcohol out of them, not food.   Our ancestors realized they were dealing with drugs, see.  Poppy seeds for opium drink, barley and cassava for beer, ergot in wheat and rye for a shamanic LSD trip, everybody discovered a grain that would get them wasted, they liked playing with different states of consciousness, it was not illegal.  But they were never permanently stuck in just one altered state brought about by grains for ten thousand years.  We are...     

Edited September 8, 2015 by Taomeow