TaN: In general, nature does not have uniformity in its products and it is precisely for this reason and characteristic that it supports and maintains biodiversity. Nature thrives on variations and diversity. Biodiversity ensures the continuity of life — for it provides variety (in the genetic pool). It is because there are a myriad though slight variations within a species that ensures there is a high degree of survivability and continuity of the species.
It is a known fact that life is a constant struggle against death. Death comes either in predation or accidents or weakening of the immune system resulting in susceptibility to microorganisms causing bacterial or viral or fungal infections and eventual death — or, in the case of man, self-inflicted stupid life decisions (such as eating junk and not healthy food and not living active and purposeful lives) that result in lifestyle diseases or medical conditions such as hypertension, cancer, diabetes, osteoporosis, arthritis, thrombosis, atherosclerosis, Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s, autism, and many more.
But it is likewise this “attack” by microorganisms that life becomes or is resilient — as in the saying, “What does not kill you only makes you stronger” (for it teaches or trains our immune system with new pathogens and adversities so we adopt and adapt and our immune system learns or remembers its past encounters).
As to other aspects of nature, like the production of honey, the taste and quality of honey is not consistent in the sense that its subtle differences for every batch depends entirely on what flowers the bees encounter or can find — unlike our commercial producers which always follow a standard set of ingredients and claims it to be quality control. [Actually, the essence of quality control is not so much that each batch look as identical as possible but that the care and dedication to the work quality and the assurance the the ingredients are of the highest quality can be guaranteed.] The color deepens with age as evaporation makes it look darker in hue.
The same thing goes for each litter even though the father may be the same. Each individual offspring will exhibit something that sets its apart from the rest of the litter — be it physical or behavioral. There will always be variants in nature. This is to ensure that, in cases of unfortuitous events (like deaths and such), there will be survivors to perpetuate the species.
This is likewise exhibited when people in the enclosed space do not all get sick — catch a cold — even though they have all been exposed to the same pathogen.
And this is not confined to animals but even to plants. But the most obvious of all is among the smaller forms of life with their shorter lifespans like insects and microbes and especially viruses. It is for this very reason that (pseudo) science claims that people, especially those with weakened or compromised immune systems, must have annual or regular flu shots. [This is of course a myth, which is unknown to the uninitiated. Since it is all agreed and accepted that viruses evolve many times over within a year, the vaccine of the previous year may no longer be effective for the next year. However, if that is the argument, then the vaccine received would likewise and surely be ineffective because by the time the vaccine has been developed, mass-produced, distributed, and applied, the time lapse would have rendered the vaccine useless.]
Finally, this is blatantly true with pesticides as well. Like the proliferation of MRSA or methicillin-resistant staphylococcus aureus in hospitals which have become resistant due to man’s able assistance of using ever more powerful antibiotics to fight the staph a, pesticides have become ever more powerful because we help weed out the weak pests with our pesticides leaving only those that are naturally resistant and now we are having great difficulty combating pests. It is our own doing.
TaN: One must be choosy when it comes to what we eat and how we live. The problem is our choosiness is incorrectly implemented or applied.
It is not choosing between what we eat and do but how we prepare what we eat and how we live our lives.
In eating, practically 99.99 percent of us think that it is what we eat that determines our state of health. This is due to the deluge of mis- and dis-information everywhere and incompetently propagated by legions of expert ignoramuses and mostly (and happily and obligingly) supplied by.commercial interests.
In truth, what we eat plays only a small role in our health; it is how it is prepared and eaten that determines our health. Please permit me to elaborate.
People think that being a vegetarian or even a vegan is the healthy way. It looks like the “prophecy” of a certain Dr Steven Bratman made years ago (sometime in 1997; please refer to: http://www.orthorexia.com/original-orthorexia-essay/) is coming true — orthorexia nervosa.
There is so much (un- or mis-informed) hype and propaganda regarding what is truly healthy (and what is not) in circulation that it is endangering people more than it is helping. People trustingly and ignorantly put their complete and absolute confidence in people who are utterly in the dark concerning true health and overlooking the obvious clues and evidence in and from nature — as in eating raw (like the traditional Inuits and Okinawans).
Actually restoring or staying in health is both the easy and simple as well as complicated and convoluted. It is easy and simple because it is a no-brainer. However, it is complicated and convoluted because it requires that we take things into our own hands and do all the legwork and careful research with the use of common sense and critical thinking.
It is easy and simple because it is all around us, whereas it is complicated and convoluted because we must first unlearn what we have been indoctrinated with by commercial interests. We, likewise, must not be lazy and be determined to apply a hands-on approach.
They say that vegetables are good and meat is bad but the traditional diet of the Inuit/native Alaskan is at least 70 percent fat and the rest as meat or muscle yet they are very healthy. And, research after research show the different foods that promote health and they are all plants — not a single case where meat is being promoted.
We eat what animals eat yet they remain fit and disease-free and seldom seek medical attention — i.e., they do not have “animal physicians” or physicians that are animals and not physicians who treat animals — while we constantly and persistently get sick and need (increasingly more expensive) medical professionals and treatments.
Something seems to be amiss and we cannot seem to comprehend or isolate the reason — i.e., until we realize that the difference is animals eat raw (THEY CANNOT COOK!) but we heat our food with some of us doing it to the point of burning the food (as in broiling, barbecuing, frying, and roasting). In fact, in my younger years, I had a Japanese friend who ask me why we have so many good and fresh food that are so nutritious and good tasting (in their own right) then we over cook all that those nutrients away.
However, the sad fact of matter is today most people prefer to believe in lies than in the truth. This is because lies have evolved to be more believable than truths — aside from the other facts such as (1) truths are more difficult to believe, (2) lies are less complicated and more convenient to believe, and (3) people are just too lazy to do their own research and too stupid to see the obvious truth seen everywhere in nature, preferring to put their (blind) trust in commercial greed-driven interests that seek only to make profits without the slightest consideration for the public well being.
TaN: It is arrogant of man to think and claim that he is the center or the end all of everything. A good case in point would be contests and pageants where we declare someone to be the Something of the Universe — Miss or Mister or whatever.
How can one claim to be, say, the (supposed) most beautiful woman in the universe when, as of yet, only this planet is known to be inhabited and not even every woman on this planet joined the contest. For all you know, there are thousands of other women who are most beautiful.
Moreover, since tastes and preferences vary from one individual to another, how can it be now that a mere handful in a panel of individuals — and let us grant that it is even extend it to a large number but not a majority of digitally connected people (who participate electronically) — determine what is purely a subjective matter. And this is not to mention the point that not every person joined the contest so there could very well be many who are far better or more beautiful or of higher caliber is being judged.
Man thinks too highly of himself to such an extent that he opines, for example, (1) the pig is associated with being dirty when, in fact, man is much dirtier because the pig has no choice but to be “dirty” due to man confining it in its sty and (2) the cockroach is considered gross or yucky as it is usually seen among garbage when, in fact, it is one of the cleanest insects and cleans its whole body (including the antennae) immediately after passing through garbage or anything dirty.
This is especially true with the United States of America where it has such events as the World Series but the teams participating are confined to themselves. How they can make such a claim is beyond me. How they have the gall to make such declarations and pronouncements — in the name of all peoples of the world and without their knowledge or permission or consent — is really arrogant and self-serving.
It is not right to make sweeping generalizations that encompass every individual or all things in the planet when not even a majority — and sometimes or oftentimes not even a quarter of the global population — has been canvassed, consulted, invited, informed, enjoined, and otherwise included in the supposed event, occasion, or endeavor to make a credible and responsible conclusion or declaration.
Although it is understood that frequently the generalizations are actually an expression of not everything but a great portion of the actual complete population concerned, it still does not justify the “biased” universalized conclusion.
It is best that we be very prudent and cautious regarding making sweeping generalizations when we do or have not actually included all that should be included before making the conclusion.