> Nothing about the food we eat is "natural" What a quality reply. Next, a lecture that everything is a "chemical"? I took (university) biochemistry, thank you

> Nothing about the food we eat is "natural" What a quality reply. Next, a lecture that everything is a "chemical"? I took (university) biochemistry, thank you very much. > but I think you're assuming we're not already doing that. We are not. Proof: Monocultures that require lots of stored sun energy and lots of fertilizers (even more stored ancient sun energy) and lots of pesticides (even more energy, plus incalculable side effects). > without cultivation, plants are not going to be food. How about you read what I wrote? I mean, all of it, not just a few words that triggered you to lecture me as if I had said something on a child level. HN has interesting discussions, let's keep the level up a bit. If you read into my comment that I propose to let nature run all on its own, like some state park or nature preserve, than you did not really read much of it. If I have to explain what I wrote to someone who didn't read it I feel like I'm wasting a lot of time and comment space.