Crazy World News - 8 - Inter species marriage.

First there was the Russian Siberian guy, Boris Gabov, who sought permission by asking the president if he might be permitted to marry his beloved cow claiming that all the girls in the village had left already, moving to the city..

I'm unaware if the president ever replied, but likely this mans ridicule was not nearly as bad as a young Balinese guys, who caught with his pants down with a cow, was consequently forced to marry it by other locals. Apparently he passed out from the humiliation of the ceremony, and his new wife, the innocent victim, was immediately drowned (I thought the Balinese were Hindu and that thus the cow was considered a sacred animal!). I always found the Indonesians to be a majoritively bizarre lot.. (see: The Jakarta Globe).

In a somewhat similar incident, a Sudanese man was also forced into marrying an animal, in his case, it was a goat. Unlike In Bali, it's still possible the couple have remained together. (See: BBC News)

Those last 2 aren't exactly cases of people willingly entering into wedlock with different species, but bizarrely enough, that happens sometimes too.. Just relatively recently a millionairess British woman, and self proclaimed nonpervert, Sharon Tendler, of her own free will, married a dolphin in Israel. (See: Sydney Morning Herald) - How did she know that the dolphin wasn't already married? I thought they were supposed to be monogamous creatures..

Then, over in Taiwan, there's the story of the Taiwanese office worker who unable to find a suitable partner, and tired of waiting, decided instead to marry herself. (See: Taiwanese Woman Marries Self).. She's even honeymooning by herself in Australia.

Then if you think that's weird, there's a Japanese guy, who so engrossed in his virtual make believe fantasy world of some alternate reality game he plays on his Nintendo, has now married his virtual girlfriend.. (See: Japanese guy Marries Virtual Girl).

Enough already? One last one first though:

The most recent example I've seen of clearly one sided obsession that leads some humans to act strangely with mostly full disregard for their objects of desire, is a British guy who is in love with and wishes to marry his christmas tree.. (See: Man In love with Christmas Tree)

Actually, wikipedia even has a page dedicated to human-animal marriages:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human-animal_marriage

It would certainly seem to me that in such cases, humans, as per usual, generally have little respect for other species, doing with them as they wish with no real thought or concern given to the welfare or desires of the animal in question..

Questioning greens on a fruitarian diet.

OK.. on the subject of greens, a friend has just emailed the following question: "What i would like to learn is that greens are not only unnecessary, but harmful to human bodies. This would be great information. Do you have an article on this, please paste me a link.". and, also relatively recently, another friend asked me "I'm just wondering if you had a list of reasons as to why greens are not an optimal food for humans? One of my clients keeps saying she is *craving* greens and I highly doubt it..".

OK, the first thing I'd like to establish is that much as I am heavily left brain centric, I consider myself to be more a man of faith than a man of science, and if all you're after is a simple yes/no answer, then I'll cut straight to the chase and tell you I don't know of any scientifically sound writeup as to why greens might be consistently harmful, or either for that matter, why someone might legitimately be craving them.

You've likely heard me quote this before, that Doug Graham once stated that if you eat only fruit, and no nuts, greens etc, you will die, and as far as I know, he also gave no valid explanation as to why he believes that. Personally, I want to make it clear, that being more someone of faith, than science, I don't like to state anything as stone cold fact. I'm just a bod with opinions who blogs them, is all, and I'll be the first to admit that they (my opinions) may not always be correct - even if I stand firm to them, and remain convicted that they are, this doesn't actually make it categorically the case.

Actually, even the so called "scientists" among us, are at heart really people of faith, for at the end of the day, it is in science they place their faith, and we all know how fickle a beast science can be. Some theories may have been reached that are difficult to dispute as fact, but concerning nutritional science, I believe we are barely scratching the surface. If you want to prove that meat is necessary for human consumption, there is internet information that will fully support that theory, blinding you with science to essential amino acids and B12s, and more. If you want to find support for the opposite, that too is out there.. they all try to blind each other with their own brands of science, each one trying to outsmart the other.

My approach is very different. Much as I once absorbed the protein books after turning vegan pushing 25 years ago, being able to recite the 9 essential amino acids names, and state their individual functions and effects their presence (or lack of it) might have upon human physiology, I soon saw that it was effectively all nonsense, and realised the truth is not complex. The truth is simple. You don't need to be a rocket scientist to get nutrition right. That, to me at least, is the truth.

But it's my truth.. my belief, if you will, and I am not robbing anyone else of their free will to find their own, even if it should vastly contradict mine. That is the individuals prerogative.

Back in the 60's there was that big hippy movement, seeing in the advent of supposed free thinking, live and let live, love, peace and flower power.. Unfortunately it came accompanied with its fair share of mind altering drugs and psychedelics, baring with them apathy and a gradual loss of ability to fully think straight, but I believe they were fully on the right track with the love and peace thing.. They saw the innecessity and folly of wars, some realised that we are all brothers and sisters, and one giant family. Others even took another step and embraced compassion for fellow animal species, turning vegetarian, and an even smaller minority likely saw yet beyond that, and adopted vegan diets and lifestyles, avoiding as much as they could all animal suffering. These were awakening people. At least, some of them were.

What they were experiencing was a widening of their circles of compassion. Where we go from initially being predominantly egocentric, to extending an enveloping sphere of love and compassionate protection around immediate family, to experiencing sympathy and empathy for friends and acquaintances, and yet further for members of other races, countries, ethnicities, beliefs, cultures, and supporters of other football teams etc.. Seeing them all as human and worthy of respect and dignity.. Widening the circle yet further, we learn to embrace other species too.. Seeing there is no real logical reason why they, purely based upon their difference of appearance and or intellectual capacities, should be any less respectfully treated and honoured.

The good thing about the circle of compassion, is that it sees no boundaries. One can forever keep extending the outer limits. Looking beyond the mistreatment and abuse of animals inherent throughout most of society as we know it, we can see the destructive effect our presence has on the environment and the rest of nature, and do our darnedest to try and minimise it. In defense of keeping the circle tight, people will often argue that you can't possibly ever encompass everything, and thus it's pointless even trying, but this argument is so irrelevant. Even if there are compromises and things still "get hurt", that is not reason for us to not make efforts and grow through doing so. It does not make us hypocrites if we acknowledge that there are times where our presence is unavoidably linked with the hurt of others. As we grow, we can learn to avoid such situations, not judging each other, but judging actions. Again, I'm not saying that anyone has to live their lives any given way, only stating how I chose to live mine, and how I chose to see mine progressing, and yes, how I believe the world would be better off, if others followed suit.. None of us are perfect, least of all me, (and i speak from experience!) but that should not prevent us from trying to improve ourselves.

Floating like an otter, and hopefully
breaking the monotony of my monologue.

But I've wandered off course from the greens topic. My point is, it is my belief that the old much quoted Beatles refrain "love is all you need" is true. It is love that makes the world go around. Not vitamins, colostrum, glycogens, omega 3s or fat soluble acids.. Even the most hardened cold blooded killers in the animal kingdom, crocodiles and the like, if it were not for love, they too would not survive. See how protectively the mother looks after her hatched young. guarding them with love until they are big enough to fend for themselves. Some might argue that this was some form of instinct, not love, but maybe in such cases, instinct and love are one and the same.. Of course, crocodiles are hardly brimming, bubbling and overflowing with love.. far from it, their circles of compassion barely extend beyond their known family within immediate territorial range, but this still doesn't stop love being the predominant driving force that keeps the species continuing.

Now armed with my "love is all you need" belief, and again, I emphasise the word belief, (because much as I myself stand firmly convinced I'm fully on the right track, I don't really know anything!), I think that taken to it's logical conclusion the universe must work and be at it's most harmonious and gentle, balanced when this principle is fully embraced, accepted and worked upon.

To this end, it would seem natural that we try to minimise the destruction of plant life, as well as animals.. And it would seem that nature has indeed provided us with a way to accomplish such an end, by providing us with the sensory appealing fruit pulp that generally bears within it the seeds of the plant. This appears to me to be the pinnacle of foods, and the only food, as such, that is truly "given". Of course, let's suppose hypothetically one could sustain oneself on minerals, rocks and sand and gritty soil, then that too could be considered as valid ethical fair, but to be sure, nowhere near as appealing!!

I believe the essence of Eden, where all life forms interact and live harmoniously symbiotically side by side in a perfectly natural balance void of medi-evil food chains, hunter/predator, live and let die, survival of the fittest, pecking orders and alpha pack leaders. I cannot fully grasp every final detail, but this does not concern me, I have every faith that the kinks will iron themselves out, and that Eden can and inevitably (the optimist within me!) will become a reality.. at least for those that see fit to let it into their hearts.

I like to think that I am extremely fortunate reaching fruitarianism through predominantly ethical reasons. Having first gone through the revelation call of suddenly waking up to the reality of how animals are used and abused.. Unfortunately probably a good many of raw fooders don't have that same foundation. Many having never fully grasped veganism, and seeking purely benefits to their own health. I won't name any names, but there's a good many outspoken raw fooders, some that many consider leaders in the movement, that still push animal products on the masses, and there's no way their belief system could extend to seeing "just fruit" as a valid choice. Of course they may push their dried fruit potions on us, as super foods and the like, and love fruit too.. but let's face it, they don't even really get raw food. (dried and preprocessed is not raw!).

So what holds us back? because I know that I am not alone in feeling these feelings. I think there's an awful lot of fear involved. people doubt themselves.. they doubt their beliefs and their budding convictions.. they say "what if..?" And they are of course perfectly within their rights to do so.. Having doubts is part of what makes us human. Becoming fruitarian is about taking a leap of faith, because we're ahead of our time, and science is not ready to support us yet. Clearly science is predominantly backed by marketing interests.. Research is rarely done unless there can be some financial gain for someone somewhere, and until that changes, it's unlikely that someone will seriously bother to look into pure fruitarianism, and the way things are at the moment, if someone does, it is more likely that they would do so to discredit and disprove it.. The current powers that be resist change!

UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF PLANTS' RIGHTS

Was taken aback and pleasantly surprised to stumble upon this youtube video this morning (thanks Rudolf!):

It seems finally that the silent plight of plants is beginning to be heard. Reflected also, I believe by the increasing awareness among some of the truth of a fruit diet.

With the advent of humans on the scene, with likely especial emphasis on the most recent centuries of our existence, indiscriminate killing of plants, probably more fittingly labeled as "plant genocide", has become a global phenomenon. Even in the mid 80s when I turned Vegan, I remember reading a PeTA pamphlet that declared that rain-forest the area of Denmark (a country I was coincidentally living in at the time) was being felled each year, and although I no longer follow closely such saddening statistics, I have little doubt that the trend continued, and dread to think of the devastation and environmental plant destruction caused within the past 2 and a half decades alone.

Also, apparently, recently, the Swiss Government's Federal Ethics Committee on Non-Human Biotechnology concluded that plants are worthy of some rights, and that they should be treated appropriately. A majority of the panel concluded that "living organisms should be considered morally for their own sake because they are alive."

So I immediately began wondering if this Ethics committee, and the authors of this declaration of plant rights could themselves be fruitarian, as to me, it seems that such a lifestyle would be the most compatible with someone who truly sympathises with the injustices plants are generally subjected to.

But after a little further research, including reading this less than favourable review of the Swiss Ethics group's conclusion written up and published a while back in the Weekly standard: Here. I noticed the immediate honing in on the discrepancy of the example given about the farmer who is harvesting monocrops as a supposedly ethically acceptable action, whereas were he to destroy wayside flowers, this would be considered morally wrong. Of course, clearly this team of philosophers haven't fully grasped the subject at hand, and still wish to justify their bread and cakes.

No, I'm not trying to say that through adopting a fruitarian lifestyle, harm to plants would cease. At least, surely not initially, but certainly I have no doubts it could be greatly lessened. Much of a fruitarians fair obtained commercially is grown through very destructive farming methods, perhaps especially the annual monocrops of tomatoes and cucumbers. And to be sure, some degree of "weeding" will likely be necessary for a good while longer. I'm not in denial of any of that, but in the long run, even such annual foods could be grown sustainably, especially if people begin taking responsibility for their own food cultivation to as little or great extent as possible.

Fruitarianism would mean a shift toward fruit tree based agriculture, and ultimately shift the consciousness of humans to make them understand and apply better more biodiverse farming methods that are in harmony with healing the planet from the devastation we've cruelly and ignorantly inflicted upon it. Humans, animals and plants would all ultimately benefit.

Topsy-Turvy World - 16 - Truly Weird Diets

Now if you happen to consider fruitarianism as extreme and radical, perhaps you need to look around you more..

I mean, to me, the real reason why fruitarianism may be viewed as way out there, and unbalanced, is because generally speaking, the average diet of the average citizen has moved so far off the track of sanity, that the garden of Eden diet has suddenly become some whacko weird abnormality.. Whereas  the general run of the mill omnivorous diet has through time adopted a glow of normality that makes it difficult to see beyond it.

Recently a bunch of school kids in the US were taken on a field trip to see how "beef" was produced. Faced with the plain cold bloody goriness of the reality behind their burgers, the trip had to be cut short, with many children left traumatised from the experience.

Traumatized kids after a field trip to a slaughterhouse

From the loading bays, to the pneumatic bolt to the brain stunning process to the blood on the floor and anguished cries from the cows and stress loaded air, to the chained back legs and brutal "bleeding to death" end..

Now that's extreme! Extremely unnecessary! Read more of the pleasant days outing here:

http://newsweak.com/exclusive/school-field-trip-tour-of-slaughterhouse-traumatizes-children

Compare instead a trip to an apple orchard where apples are being harvested.. The kids would potentially have great fun and get home happy without the need for counseling.

OK.. I've just this second been informed via facebook, that newsweak actually provide 100% fictional stories, but fiction or not, the results of such a supposed day trip would likely result in a similar outcome..

But wait! Things can get even more bizarre, people all over the globe eat things that are just so weird it'd make any sane alien wonder just what's wrong with this planet..

I've even heard several reports of human fetuses being a valid culinary fair in certain parts of East Asia..  Apparently they're considered a delicatessen and, obtained through abortion clinics, fetch a high restaurant price. Some of the pictures supplied as evidence for this practise are pretty disturbing so if you search around for it, be warned.. Here's write up I recently stumbled upon..

http://www.weirdasianews.com/2007/04/02/cannibalism-in-china-acceptable-if-for-health/

From an online Swedish newspaper, I also read recently that people are even eating shit medicinally, - And not even their own!

http://www.aftonbladet.se/kropphalsa/mage/article8091641.ab

In my opinion not anywhere nearly as bizarre, in Italy one prized (and illegal!) dish eaten is called Casu Marzu, and is a decomposing sheeps milk cheese, infested with maggots! - Make sure you chew the maggots fully, as apparently they can survive the stomach acid and take up internal residency, -  even making use of diabolical mouth-hooks that can lacerate your stomach linings or intestinal walls as they attempt to drill through your internal organs! Yummy!

Over in China, if you're a russian roulette fan, one can feast on blood clams, they're found on the Shanghai black market at exorbitant prices, and are famed for harbouring hepatitis, typhoid, and dysentery, but only a small percentage (less than 10%), and supposedly delicious, so worth the risk (I think NOT!)..

Maybe in light of such meals, a bowl of strawberries doesn't seem so unappealing?!

Well.. some might point out that pointing from one extreme to another doesn't stop extremes being extreme, and I'm not denying that. I believe humans have somehow fallen from grace, and from living one-time purely natural healthy existences in a garden of eden setting where compassion and love ruled supremely, they have fallen into a deep dark pit of despair anguish and suffering fully reflected by demented food choices.. I do not believe the middle of these 2 extremes is a healthy balance.