Still life is an oxymoron.
Once we cross the clichés about smelling roses, we find that life is indeed beautiful and in abundance. I have concluded one thing—what is good for Man is available in abundance by design and not by coincidence. It is when man decides to change the face of earthly goods, makes them scarce, that he finds that whatever he has stumbled into is not good for him. I will support my argument by three specific examples and then let your imagine run wild. Man needs food, the fuel that runs his body cells. Ever wonder how did man first decide how to fulfill his desire for food? For those of you who were not around then, say a few million years ago, man likely wandered around and perhaps tasted all what came in his way and then settled on whatever he could digest and retain in his body; taste developed much later. These were the times when the satanic designs to pollute the world with the likes of a fast hamburger and a sugar-laden soda were in the infancy stage. The decision man made what to make as his regular staple depended to a great degree on what was readily available. If he liked the shoots of a rare tree, that was probably left for a gourmet meat for friends but not for daily use. It did not make any sense given our genetically driven tendency to be lazy. At this point I will invoke a philosophic argument. Did the genetic code made man lazy or man’s laziness evolved the genetic code? My take is that Nature did not want man to over spend his fuel cells. Today, who want to bust their rear end; most people think their first job is there only to groom them for retirement. Back to the question of man’s choice. Nature could not be and is not cruel to man. So there it was available in abundance whatever was good for man. What is easiest to grow, a what crop or porterhouse steak? A bushel of apples or spoonful of sugar? What is more natural and available in abundance? Grains, vegetable and fruits is what man started with and ended up with Big Mac, fries and Coke. It is immaterial whether you agree with my argument or not but you can not deny that Big Mac does not grow on tree tops. One can draw many parallels. Grains are good for us but the processed baked bread is not, even though it contains vitamins good for us. Shredded wheat is better than the processed cereal that contains nothing but sugar. Back in the 1980s I recommended to the FDA to margarine is worse than butter. It took them twenty years to pay heed to me and require that foods contain trans fat label. I feel good winning this battle twenty years later. Butter is good margarine is not. Got that! Again the same argument that what comes from nature, and in abundance, is what we need—note I am not saying good for us. We can binge and kill ourselves on many things natural, so do not get sold on the argument that things natural are good for you. Poison Ivy is natural, remember. I am suggesting that whatever Nature offers in abundance is good for man just anything natural—because everything is natural---man has never been able to create molecules. He did however do a good job converting them to other types. It is easier to grow grains; in fact, millions of ponds of crops are dumped to give price protection to farmers. Ever thought about why? Because man has decided to digress from patronizing these crops to patronizing processed food. That is why? But one must ask a question why do we do things not good for us. The answer is Madison Avenue. Every woman is made to believe that the perfect size is 36-26-36, Marilyn Monroe notwithstanding. Fact is if all women were, Madison Avenue will change their target. It is an unending battle. To fit the model of Madison Avenue is a job of a model, not of a mother of 3 children or of a CEO of a thriving company. Whatever makes us keep healthy active is our right size, staying within Madison Avenue dictates is fashionable, at best and therefore exploited, at worse. I would have no problem spending an evening with a pleasingly plump women with a good sense of history than a blonde who would not know if Timbaktu is a fruit or an island. Let me put me back in focus and continue talking about what I started. I am done talking about food. Processed foods whatever is difficult to grow is worse than whatever is available in abundance: grains, fruits and fruits over meats and processed foods.
My second example refers to our environment. Again invoking the argument that whatever is available in abundance is good for us leads to fresh air, pedal power and natural fibers. I am neither a believer of Amish nor of Dr. Andrew Weil or Deepak Chopra, though the latter has strongly recommended my book on the translation of Ghalib, a famous poet of the east. All what I am proposing is that we should occupy with whatever Nature offers in abundance, whether it is petroleum or good old sunshine. Millions of years of metamorphosis produce motor oil from old fossils of bones, we all know this. It is a rare commodity (rarity is defined in my argument as a measure of how easy is it to replicate or reproduce it) and thus burning this fossil fuel only leads to environmental hazard. Should we then ride bikes. No. Look at the other source of energy is great abundance—solar energy. Because fossil fuel was easy to extract, it was cheap, we adopted this as our desired commodity. Had there been no fossil fuel, where do you suppose we would have ended up? Nothing but highly efficient solar energy panels! Imagine, this would have avoided our dependence on the Arab oil and all other repercussions appended to it including but not limited to the Iraq War.
My final example to close the argument that I presented that whatever is in abundance is good for man refers to human relations. Yes, this was my curved ball. What do we have in abundance around us—other like ourselves. Human interaction is known to be the most useful, healthy interaction. But look at where we spend 4-6 hours daily, in front of the dumb tube— TV. What a shame! Those days of interacting with our colleagues, our family and our neighbors bite dust, replaced by oft repeated episodes of Friends, Married with Children and General Hospital. In this process of interacting through a third media, we have just about lost on the art of communication, became insensitive to human need for interaction and became a remote-control happy nation. Don’t we always assume subconsciously that with a click of a remote control we will change our lives; fact is we cannot. There are still fewer TVs than human beings, though we are catching up fast.
I am always arguing points that often make little sense to close minds, whether it is telling them that love is merely a chemical reaction to telling you know that you should shun whatever is expensive and rare. My friends, eat cheapest foods, dress in cheapest fabric, take the lowest cost to entertainment and live happily hereafter.