Hybridization (WAS: Thank You!)

[Guest guest]

" ...In a sense, all sexual reproduction constitutes hybridization. For

example,...

 

Sort of reminds me of an old George Carlin joke: " Life is a terminal disease

sexually transmitted. "

 

Sorry, I couldn't help myself.

 

Shari

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Elchanan,

 

While man's hybridization of plants may be borrowing a natural process

it is quite different (IMO) than natural selection, such as the human

reproduction you refer to. It is the birds (like hummingbirds) and

bees, and other insects, etc. that pollinate plants. When humans step

in, put bags over branches, prevent other creatures from accessing

plants, and then use " unnatural " methods (I say that because I don't

think millions of years ago humans were bagging branches, scraping

pollen from one plant then putting it into another) to cross-

pollinate, that, to me, is not a natural process. When I referred

earlier to hybridized produce, that is what I was referring to; the

human hybridization to exaggerate some features, bypassing nature's

design. At one time humans may have been a natural part of this, and

to some extent and in some areas still are, where humans will select

the fruits from the trees or bushes, etc. that they wish, eat the

fruits, then later (after digestion) relieve themselves, leaving some

of the seeds behind to grow new plants.

 

Jeff

 

On Jan 21, 2008, at 6:01 AM, Elchanan wrote:

 

> Jeff,

>

> All foods that occur in Nature are hybridized in some fashion. The

> only

> question lies in how the hybridization occurred.

>

> As with all human creations (technological and otherwise), the

> inventions

> themselves are neither " good " nor " bad " . Rather, our intent in

> creating them

> and the use(s) to which we put them determine their value for us and

> in

> Nature's larger context.

>

> In a sense, all sexual reproduction constitutes hybridization. For

> example,

> when you cross a man with a woman, you get a new creature, similar

> in many

> respects to the man and the woman, but not identical.

>

> Change is the only certainty throughout Nature. The fruit growing

> today on a

> given tree is not identical to the fruit that grew on that same tree

> last

> year. Similar, of course, but not identical.

>

> Best,

> Elchanan

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Jeff,

It's also not natural to dig a hole, put a seed in, bring water that wouldn't be

there naturally, fertilize, weed, and do all the other things we do to grow

food. What I think we need to bear in mind is that there are many unnatural

methods that initiate the growing process but the end product is still produced

by nature. We're not tricking nature into thinking that the soil is sufficient

to support life, we have to actually make sure it IS adequate to support life

before it'll give us the food. Fruit is about propagation, and no species will

be able to reproduce itself if the conditions that it requires for life are not

present.

 

I don't miss any opportunities to eat wild fruit and I wish I didn't have to eat

cultivated fruit at all. But I think it is a mistake to vilify certain fruits

on the basis of hybridization and other similar issues. Often this leads people

to do destructive things like avoiding certain otherwise very healthy fruits or

taking supplements to try and make up for perceived inadequacies in their food.

 

Best wishes,

Nora

 

--------------------

 

When humans step

in, put bags over branches, prevent other creatures from accessing

plants, and then use " unnatural " methods (I say that because I don't

think millions of years ago humans were bagging branches, scraping

pollen from one plant then putting it into another) to cross-

pollinate, that, to me, is not a natural process. When I referred

earlier to hybridized produce, that is what I was referring to; the

human hybridization to exaggerate some features, bypassing nature's

design