Bartholomew Jones

Henry Ford betrays the human attitude about work in his autobiography when he explains his motive behind the design of the model-T production system. The automobile wasn't even his objective. It was a means to accomplish his objective of easier farmwork. He hated the rigour required on the farm for the production of what in his view was an insufficient return in comparison. A production system affording a probability for the population to each own a car guaranteed a highway system for the distribution of all the machine parts for all farming communities to assemble tractors. But the problem is people too often are grumblers because of work. The farm had become a profit center. Farms were competing in the sense of "keeping up with the Smiths." The village where everyone was in it together, directly, was a thing of the past. The village economy is the highest form of human economy, short of heaven. I remember munching on ants once when I was 4 or 5. I'm not bragging. Lol If that were the case, but it's not. That's what it's supposed to be. How is formulating a theory about human evolution; that is, humans evolving from a lower life form, then transforming that theory conveniently into fact, the observation of how nature works? You're treating speculation as principle.

Cover crops are a good way to enrich the soil. I usually let as much "competing" vegetation come up with my crop as possible. It works well in place, for example, of tomato stakes; and the alleged competition is negligible if not nil. It tends to balance the place out. For example, theres more roughage for the rabbit before he finds my carrots. Did you know alfalfa is a kind of clover?

When one human disrespects another, you won't get the utmost respect in return. 50% at least, of products purchased are packaged somewhat in plastic, or something not so biodegradable. The product itself is often refuse to the environment. The net product of the economy is hurtful, not helpful. There's plenty of earth stuff for the whole population to flourish. The only earth people shift around is for so-called development. If half the "work" being done for this kind of progress were done for food production locally, to restore land to what it was, people would be healthier and happier. The "have to for money" aspect depreciates the value of work. The value of work is for the works sake.

Hard work is refreshing and replenishing and rejuvenating. Your opinion is narrow minded.

I try these days to get my data from folks. Face to face preferably. Even this is downgraded.

Because it appears deliberate. The earth produces food free, with little human effort, an apple tree, e.g. And it improves the earth. The food is better when the processing takes place in the kitchen. Medicine is a dependency that the power players like. But it's presented as "better medicine." Overprocessed foods are presented as better foods. Maybe I should have stated it, Mass manufacturing robs the people of good wholesome living.

I see what you're saying, except what distinguishes a trace element?

Medicines commonly prescribed to be taken daily settle in the digestive tract because they're not foods and cause acidity. People develop acid reflux and their bodies generally reject various foods.

No, you haven't been antagonizing. I appreciate your help. No, you've been fair. Yes. I've read how it's always good to move the location of each type plant in successive years for the same reason. The main thing I try to drive home is that the more diverse your materials the better. When flowers came out early this past spring I harvested every day to get the new pollen on my ground. I didn't get to see the result, so I'll try again this next spring. I almost accepted that. But I can't. Everything in the soil is depreciating by decay; oxidation-reduction (redox) they call it. The air has some good stuff the plant can take. But there has to be some rich material source and it has to be the radiant energy. I can't budge on that. Sorry.

I have 2 years working with plants, soil and minerals from the woods; that is, with my hands. I've seen the work that nature does converting organic stuff to compost, to hummus to soil. In addition I've reviewed other people's more conventional ways. I don't read scientific discussions as a basis but as a fresh look. The more views I have into the actual nature the better my next, "aha" experience. Call it what you want. You people are willing to insult me because you despise what isn't serviceable to, your, money economy. I despise money. I treasure the created order.

Yeah. 2 years of doing it.

You're a mere person. Why should I care what you think of me? I'm here to say what I see in nature. I include science as one very useful angle into nature. You have a right to exalt it as high as like.

Good. What good deed are you going to leave to posterity? What I say is to a purpose. You must not know yours.

It has to be. The only substance a plant could get from co2 is carbon and oxygen. Carbon is that necessary material element for formation of living tissue (the carbon bond); but that tissue forms with an abundance of other elements. The oxygen aspect is required for the oxidation for the organic chemical changes constantly taking place. Oxidation means oxygen is passing through effecting changes. The abundance of substance is from the radiant energy which this guy recognizes at the very end at least as stored energy in the wood (the plant).

They didn't raise crops in equilibrium after the pattern of nature; replenishing the soil with materials from the woods. If people would farm and garden in equilibrium the volume and surface area of the earth would expand. The lions share of substance of flora isn't from the soil; the plant converts radiant energy to matter. The soil is primarily conditioning. That was in reply

I doubt so. To me it just makes sense that the digestive tract is for foods, not foreign substances. You don't have to prove, for example, by science, that proper applications of family-time is wholesome to the individual, and that lack thereof is detrimental, to reliably trust that those are fundamental truths.

Case-studies with patients.

The dietetics books I read and trust give reason to believe the human digestive tract/organs suffer for ingestion of non-foodstuff.

Okay, I will read that as an exercise in objective reading.

Yeah? Well look in the mirror. To me you look like a toad.

Trust me, that's slightly possible. I spend 4 hours a day translating 4 to 6 five gallon bucket fulls of forest stuff to my tiny field in town on foot for a crop this next summer. It would have to start with a radical reinforcement of algebra. Damnit. Your crucifying me.

Fascinating but way over my head. Well at the least, I'm learning to be fairer in my estimation of "you science people," damnit.

I can't afford too thorough a scientific study. I'm a strong believer that you may only, always ever have a partial set of all the relevant facts; which necessitates (for example a mother's) intuitive judgment.

Of course the older path is not always the good way. But I have to think, and I myself doubt that it's imagined, that the VERY origin is more perfect.

Now, Newton's law of gravity, as ascertained in college went precisely like this. It wasn't quite mathematical: "Every object in the universe is attracted to every other object in proportion to the quantity of mass of the two objects, and in inverse proportion to the distance between." That's what was in the text book. Mind you science didn't catch my attention until college (university).