Date:   9/9/2006 12:57:42 PM ( 18 y ago)
Popularity:   message viewed 1479 times
URL:   http://curezone.com/blogs/c/fm.asp?i=998888

THINKING OUT OF THE BOX IS MUCH NEEDED.

http://www.dinogermani.com

THE NATURE OF NATURE:
Molecular Level Intelligence and Nature’s Balance
Copyright 1998

It is generally accepted that the survival and reproduction of all of the many life forms which inhabit the earth can be optimally assured by not disturbing Nature’s balance.

This writing is concerned primarily with the adverse effects to the human body which result when a person consumes foods or beverages which are perceived by the body itself as being incompatible with the maintenance of that balance of Nature which best safeguards the survival and reproductive capacity of the human race, and the concomitant survival and/or reproductive capacity of other life forms as well. I speak of the perception of the human body because I do not refer what we know or might think, but rather to the intelligence which was acquired by our bodies over time, on a molecular level, to work in concert with the laws regarding the balance of Nature as they were evolving. It is my belief that, on a molecular level, the human body has been evolutionarily endowed with the intelligence to react to the food that we consume in a way that insures “compliance” with the laws which were designed to preserve Nature’s balance even if compliance with these laws deleteriously affects the body itself. Indeed, in my opinion, this molecular level intelligence (MLI) is an integral part of the laws which govern Nature’s balance.

Some examples of the human body reacting adversely to itself when we consume food in a manner which the body’s molecular level intelligence perceives as leading to the destabilization of that balance, follow. Each time a person drinks the milk of a cow (or consumes other dairy products) the human body discerns (with its MLI) that the milk it has consumed is the milk of another species. The body’s MLI views the consumption of such milk on a regular basis as events which represent the deprivation of sustenance essential to the health of members belonging to another species, and thus, as events which seriously compromise their chances of surviving or maturing satisfactorily. In instances in which calves don’t survive or mature adequately, reproductive chains are interrupted and this leads to disturbances in balance; for example, in the natural state carnivores might not have enough to eat. The degree of destabilization of balance that a human body perceives is commensurate with the amount of cow’s milk consumed, the frequency of its consumption and other factors which will be noted later.

It is said that Nature abhors a vacuum. I think that Nature also so abhors any destabilization of its equilibrium that it instituted the laws referred to here to assist it in the maintenance of that equilibrium.

In the case of humans who on a regular basis consume the milk of another species Nature maintains balance by afflicting the body with ailments (sometimes cancer and cardiovascular diseases) that curtail the length of time that the body exists to engage in behavior that upsets balance! The speed at which the MLI of the human body acts to initiate the process of adversely affecting itself is commensurate with the amount of disturbance to balance that it perceives that the body is engaged in.

Some of the reactions of the human body to cow’s milk have been long understood. For instance it has been known for a very long time that cow’s milk contains many nutrients which the human body needs to maintain good health. What hasn’t been generally known up until recently (perhaps because it was not widely suspected) is that the consumption of dairy products can be both nutritional and at the same time conducive to poor health. Is this a contradiction of Nature? I think not. Cow’s milk would, of course, contain much that is of nutritive value to the human body because cow’s milk is, like all other milk, designed by Nature to sustain life. It is also at the same time harmful to the human body because it was designed to sustain the life of calves not humans, a fact which the human body, on a molecular level, is aware of. Because of the way we have been conditioned (and part of that conditioning is the fact that nowadays most of us obtain our dairy products neatly packaged at the supermarket), it may be difficult for some to accept that our bodies were programmed by Nature to view the consumption of dairy products as a disturbance of balance and that repeated disturbances of this type will cause the body to act to redress Nature’s balance by, in effect, initiating a self- destruct process. I am certain, however, that this balance of Nature/MLI hypothesis is the logical explanation of why the regular consumption by humans of dairy products, even though they are nutritional, often fosters life-shortening diseases while the consumption of nutritionally appropriate food, appropriate from a balance of Nature perspective, that is, not only nourishes the body but also assists it to ward off disease. Furthermore, I do not believe that Man can circumvent or invalidate the balance of Nature laws referred to here by manipulating the reproductive process of animals or by controlling their feeding patterns because these laws are of necessity immutable. The MLI of the human body, which is a component of these laws, is also of necessity immutable. Therefore, the fact that we know, that the milk that we drink comes from cows on a dairy farm, and the calves it was meant for are veal chops at some market, would, of course, not undo the molecular level programming human bodies have been endowed with; mind over matter does not apply here.

It may be reasonably asked if the fact that the consumption of skim milk (which is milk the composition of which has been altered in an attempt to mitigate the harm the consumption of whole milk does to the human body while taking advantage of milk’s high nutritional value) may not be harmful, or not as harmful, to the human body invalidates the balance of Nature/MLI hypothesis. The answer is no. The fact that the consumption of skim milk may not be harmful (or not as harmful) as whole milk is probably due to the fact that the body’s MLI either does not recognize skim milk as being milk, or if it does, perceives skim milk to be less milk, as indeed it is in a sense. It is even possible that the body’s MLI view’s skim milk as deficient and coming from an unhealthy cow that is unable to adequately nourish its offspring. Regardless of the way the body chooses to perceive the consumption of skim milk, the body’s conclusion is the same: Nature’s balance will not be as disturbed (or not disturbed at all) by the consumption of skim milk and therefore the need to shorten the amount of time the human body can upset balance is not as urgent, or perhaps no need exists to curtail the body’s ability to upset balance, so the body’s MLI does not initiate the process of inflicting a degenerative disease on itself, or if it does, does so much more slowly.

Very early in their lives humans stop consuming their mothers’ milk. If human milk is appropriate only for an infant, then by what logic would milk or milk products of another species be appropriate for humans throughout their lives? It would seem that the health interests of humans would be better served if we consumed the milk or milk products of another species only when foods of comparable nutritional value, and appropriate for Man from a balance of Nature perspective, are not available.

Another example of the human body reacting in a manner which ensures that Nature’s balance is not disturbed is the body’s negative (life shortening) response to the copious consumption of eggs. This negative response is due to the fact that eggs represent future generations of fowl, their consumption therefore, except perhaps in limited amounts, is viewed by the body’s MLI as threatening the reproduction of fowl in numbers sufficient to maintain balance.

The laws originally imparted to our bodies regarding balance apply to everything we consume. For instance, the regular consumption of leaner meat is less harmful (or not harmful) to humans than is the regular consumption of meat containing more fat. Is this so just by chance or is this a provision of Nature’s law regarding balance? I think this is due to a provision of Nature’s balance law and this is why: the human body’s MLI sees leaner meat as coming from a scrawny (perhaps sickly, old or poorly nourished), less reproductively capable animal while it sees meat containing more fat as coming from a healthy and more reproductively capable animal. The regular consumption of healthy, reproductively able animals is deemed by the MLI of the human body to be a threat to Nature’s balance while the regular consumption of scrawny animals either isn’t deemed to be a threat to balance or is viewed as less of a threat. This is so because the consumption of high reproductive capacity animals is viewed by the body’s MLI as a threat to the continued existence of the species being consumed in numbers sufficient to maintain balance. Therefore, Nature strives to maintain its balance by afflicting the human who on a regular basis consumes animals which the body’s MLI perceives to be best able to survive and reproduce with diseases that hasten that person’s demise. As previously noted, the laws regarding balance and the human body’s MLI on not alterable; therefore, the fact that the meat we consume might come from a fatty steer raised on a cattle ranch and the fact that one’s mind may be aware of this, does not undo the originally endowed reaction of the body to what it perceives to be threats to Nature’s balance. Thus, to avoid the negative consequences to the human body which ensue when the balance of Nature laws are ignored, fatty meat should be eaten by humans only if plant foods or animals suitable for human consumption (plants and animals suitable for human consumption from a balance of Nature perspective that is) of comparable nutritional value are not available.

A profusion of green leaves characterizes most plants and abundant plant life is found throughout much of the earth. It would seem, therefore, that if humans satisfied a very substantial portion of their dietary needs by the adequate consumption of nutritious leafy greens that it would not only foster good health, but that such consumption would also not be unfavorably viewed by the body’s MLI because such consumption would not be interpreted by the body’s MLI as a threat to Nature’s balance. However, since the seeds of plants (grains) represent future generations of plant life the prodigal consumption of the seeds (or seed based foods) would be viewed unfavorably by the body’s MLI because the body’s MLI interprets the excessive consumption of seeds as a threat to future generations of plant life. It seems, therefore, that we should consume more leafy greens than seed based foods. Here again, the evolutionarily endowed reaction of the human body to what its MLI perceives to be threatening to Nature’s balance is not affected by the fact that future generations of certain plants (like corn or wheat) are not threatened because their future reproduction is assured by man’s agricultural practices.

When wolves (or similar predators) hunt they often kill sickly or old (scrawnier) animals. Whether this is so because they are impelled by instinct (which could be driven by the MLI of their bodies) or because such are easier to hunt than are healthy animals at their prime, is not relevant. What is relevant is that were they to kill only healthy and high reproductive capability prey, Nature’s balance would be disturbed because the animals they prey upon would steadily diminish in number. In this hypothetical scenario (hypothetical because wolves do not kill only healthy animals in their prime), more wolves would then starve to death and the balance of Nature would then redress itself. The same process as just described would occur if too many wolves hunted in the same area. It would appear that one of Nature’s laws is that creatures, whether human or animal, which repeatedly behave (intentionally or not) in a manner which is harmful to Nature’s balance are circumstantially or molecularly impeded by Nature itself from continuing such behavior on a sustained basis.

As is generally known, a person who consumes fatty meat and dairy products and that engages in regular aerobic exercise (running, walking, bicycling, etc.), other factors being equal, does not as readily fall victim to degenerative illnesses as does a comparable individual who consumes the same amount of fatty meat and dairy products but fails to exercise aerobically. As a matter of fact, an individual who engages in regular aerobic activity could even consume more fatty meat and milk products than does an individual who is similar in all other respects but does not exercise aerobically and remain disease free longer than the non-exercising person. Does this circumstance in any way invalidate the MLI /Nature’s balance hypothesis? It would seem at first that it does. But such is not the case. Indeed, this circumstance appears to confirm the validity of this hypothesis. This is the reason why I think this circumstance is supportive: When a person runs or walks around a track, through a field or on a treadmill, and does so on a regular basis, or systematically engages in any other activity that is aerobic, the body’s MLI interprets such activity as travel for the purpose of obtaining food. (This is due to the fact that when the laws of balance were evolving, most of the traveling done by our ancestors was to obtain food). Thus, today, more aerobic exercise is viewed by the body’s MLI as more distance traveled while little and/or infrequent aerobic activity is viewed by the body’s MLI as minimal travel. (Incidentally, since the body’s MLI equates aerobic activity with travel for the purpose of obtaining food, and thus relieving feelings of hunger, one can see why a sense of well-being and diminished anxiety is experienced after one exercises aerobically).Distance traveled is viewed as the amount of territory covered by the body’s MLI (more travel represents more area covered). As Nature’s laws of balance were evolving, Nature concluded that the consumption by one of our very active ancestors of three healthy animals in a given period of time was less upsetting to balance than, say, the consumption of two comparable animals in the same amount of time by one of our more sedentary ancestors and the MLI of our bodies evolved accordingly. This is because the destruction of three such animals in an area of, say, twelve square miles (by the traveling ancestor) was seen by his body’s MLI as less upsetting to balance than was seen by the destruction of two animals in, say, three square miles by the MLI of the sedentary ancestor’s body. Thus, the MLI of the traveling ancestor did not initiate its self-destruct program as readily (if at all) as did the MLI of the less active ancestor.

As is well known, over-eating is harmful to one’s health (it shortens life). This further confirms the hypothesis here proposed because the MLI of the over-eater’s body interprets over-eating, even if the over-eater consumes food which protects the body from disease, as upsetting balance. The reason is obvious: if one over-eats plant food, the body views this phenomenon as leading to the deprivation of plant food necessary to the well-being of other plant eating beings. If one over-eats animals, the human body’s MLI views this as leading to the deprivation of prey necessary to the well-being of other animal eating beings. The more one over-eats, the greater the disturbance to balance the human body’s MLI perceives; if one over-eats animals the disturbance to balance is greater (generally) than if one over-eats a comparable amount of plants. The human body’s MLI recognizes these facts and commensurately inflicts diseases on the body which curtail the length of time that it can upset balance.

Human beings can best serve their own health interests (and, no doubt, the interests of other creatures) by, to the greatest extent possible, consuming plants and animals that are nutritional (in the correct proportions) and that are suitable for human consumption from a balance of Nature perspective. A “balanced” diet is really one which is perceived by the body’s MLI as not disturbing Nature’s balance!

 

<< Return to the standard message view