do we want to
can do to
Whatever happened to the ear of sweet
corn pictured above?
|"People are simple to feed"
Humans get oxygen, a macronutrient we require, directly from molecular oxygen in the air, ourselves. The water we require can come either from green plants, or from the earth's surface-water (or water slightly below the surface). Except perhaps for some (not unimportant) micronutrients (but, by definition, required in small quantities) that we get from micro-organisms living in our gastro-intestinal systems (or from eating animals that got these micro-nutrients from micro-organisms living in their gastro-intestinal systems), or from micro-organisms in the soil, when we ingest small amounts of soil clinging to soil-grown plants, or ingest animals that ate small amounts of such soil (see Medical Doctor Michael Klaper's web-site; scroll down the page until you come to the section on vitamin B12, otherwise known as cyanocobalamin), the remainder of the nutrients we require come almost entirely either directly from green plants (metaphytes), or indirectly from green plants when we eat animals that ate green plants, or animals that ate animals that ate green plants, etcetera.
We need air, water, and green plants --
"green plants extract nutrients from the soil for us."
Iodine, iodine, get your fresh iodine
But don't eat too much of it
Why not volunteer to be deprived?
Most of what most people eat these days, where I live, and in some other places, is what they eat out of habit, not what they eat as a result of having knowledge, experience, and wisdom, in regard to what is nutritive, or in regard to what really, truly has good esthetic value.
Their habits are strong enough so that, rather than do the trying work of changing these habits, people, even nutrition professionals, will have a tendency to lie about the facts, in a strategy to make their assertions about what changes someone needs to make in their diet, conform to what changes they can conceive of the person making, rather than conform to what changes the person really needs to make, in order to make a substantial improvement to their diet -- because they believe the person would have a very difficult time putting all the changes they need to make, to make a substantial improvement, into actual practice. They assert that a diet that is only slightly different from what someone eats, would be an ideal diet, rather than asserting the truth, that a diet that is very different from what someone eats, would be an ideal diet -- for some reason they just don't believe that people can change to a diet that is very different from their current habitual diet.
This is extremely unfortunate. And something I would like to change. Why? Partly for me...
agenda for creating these food pages
To put it a little less politely: wherever I go, people offer me things to eat, sometimes even in a sincere attempt to try to please me. I am offered the things that people like to eat themselves, or that they would feed their most loved family members, or their most honored guests, sparing no expense, with choices based upon their own esthetic values, and upon their knowledge, or mistaken beliefs, about nutritional value -- but very likely the net result of all this is that people eat garbage themselves and they offer me garbage. So I have a "hidden" agenda for creating these food pages, that I've ostensibly created altruistically, for their educational value. My hope is that perhaps if enough people read these food pages, I might no longer have to take my own food with me all the time.
People have appreciated, for thousands upon thousands of years, that green plants grew, for the most part, with roots penetrating the top layer of the land (called soil, in contemporary English, as I am sure you know), and stems and leaves in the air, and further, people knew that they could subsist on a diet containing either the green plants, or animals that ate the green plants (including some non-human animals), or animals that ate the animals that ate the green plants, etcetera, or any combination of these.
Ashes to ashes, dust to dust, earth to earth
But it was not until only about a hundred years ago, that the exact relationships between water, aerial nitrogen, soil micro-organisms, soil ammonia, and soil nitrogen salts, in enabling green plants to grow, was elucidated by investigators. Today the relationship is kind of clear -- to a small class of people with education in life-sciences. But large amounts of these facts-of-life that have been elucidated by experimenters, and communicated with their languages -- via relatively low-tech experiments that can be duplicated, by any individual, without going to great expense -- are nevertheless still poorly appreciated by a large part of the human population -- we have dramatic classism in many cultures, in many societies, including North American "democratic" society.
I am trying to put existing information together, for your convenience, in one spot, where perhaps they have not all been together, before. There is nothing new about any of the information I am presenting.
Not only have human beings learned about the natural biological processes of how green plants become available to people, as food, but human beings have learned how to wildly accelerate the process -- by turning aerial nitrogen into bottles and bottles and bags and bags of concentrated nitrogenous materials that people can transport from place to place, and can add to soil ( see Nitrogen ) -- materials that metaphytes (green plants) will convert into the nitrogenous substance of metaphytes. Then humans can have plenty of nitrogenous metaphyte substance, to convert into the nitrogenous substance of humans.
Nitrogen in the Biosphere
Soup or Chemistry?
If you are describing the use of water to make soup, you don't describe the water you use as being a chemical, you describe it as being one of the ingredients you use. However should you decide to use the exact same water as a reactant in a chemical reaction, or if water was produced as a result of a chemical reaction you took an interest in, then you describe the water as being one of the chemicals you used, or a chemical that was produced. That is, one doesn't term a substance as being a chemical, or not being a chemical, in order to communicate a quality of the substance to one's listeners, rather, terming a substance as being a chemical, or not, is done to communicate something about the context in which one is discussing the substance. That is, being a chemical, or not being a chemical, is an ascriptive attribute of a substance (an attribute ascribed to the substance) and not a descriptive attribute of the substance.
If someone were to ask is water a natural substance or a chemical, the answer is that any particular quantity of water can correctly have ascribed to it, the attribute of being either one, the other, both, or neither, and that whether any quantity of water should have ascribed to it the attribute of being a natural substance, or have ascribed to it the attribute of being a chemical, or the attribute of being neither, or of being both, depends upon the context in which it is being discussed, the context in which information about it is being communicated, and not upon any quality of the water itself. Water that is being discussed in the context of a beaker of water that is being used in a chemical reaction with other substances, is a chemical (this does not imply that it is not a natural substance); water that is being discussed in the context of a puddle of water that you find on the ground, and wet your foot in, is a natural substance.
The same goes for hydrochloric acid. If you are talking about using hydrochloric to clean metal, it is a cleaning agent; if you are talking about hydrochloric acid in a stomach helping to digest food, it is a natural substance; if you are talking about throwing a glassful of concentrated hydrochloric acid in someone's eyes, it is a weapon; if you are talking about electrolytic production of hydrogen gas and chlorine gas, from hydrochloric acid, it is a chemical.
Asking whether a substance is chemical or not, is not asking anything about the substance -- rather, it's asking only about what people have been thinking about, at a particular time, when thinking about and discussing the substance, or when deciding what to do with it.
If something is described as a chemical, there has been an implication that the substance was intentionally used in a chemical reaction, or that it was known to have been involved in a chemical reaction, or that the substance was produced, intentionally, as result of a chemical reaction, or that it was known to have been produced as a result of a chemical reaction. So far I have been talking about relatively formal language, used correctly. Language can also be used informally, and informal use is often vague. Any further implications about a substance that someone intends, by calling the substance a chemical, informally, are connotations, rather than denotations, that may be applied in informal language, or colloquial language, but do not really tell us anything specific about a substance; rather, they tend to tell us more about the speaker, and how they feel about the substance, or even about how they feel about the people that have been using the substance, or selling it.
Of course, not everyone always uses language correctly. Even supposedly educated speakers and writers, with legitimate university degrees, often use words incorrectly. Some do this more frequently than others.
It is interesting to note that in the field of biology, or botony, the word fruit is used descriptively. In the field of produce marketing, the word fruit is used ascriptively.
Actually, you could say that the term fruit is really at least 2 different words that sound the same, and the meaning of these 2 homonyms depends upon which language it is used in, the language of plant anatomy or the language of produce marketing. What's defined as a fruit, in the language of produce marketing, has little to do with what's defined as a fruit in the language of plant anatomy.
Asking whether a tomato is a fruit or a vegetable is sort of like asking whether a trombone is a musical instrument or metal tubing. If you can make music with it, it is a musical instrument. It is metal tubing, no matter whether you can make music with it or you utilize it as part of a drip irrigation system in your vegetable garden, where one of the vegetables you are growing is tomatoes -- a vegetable variety that produces edible red fruits.
|The Earthly Origin of Commercial Materials Educational Organization|
|Where does our food come from? (page 1 of 3)|
|Home||Top||next (page 2 of 3)|