Good post - some very interesting points there. It’s nice to hear some new opinions/new takes on the issue.

(that was a bit boring, wasn’t it!!! Oh well)

Ah, ok, I can understand that one. I still think that a bit of dependence on your partner is a good thing - if you truly didn’t feel like you needed them (to be happy or whatever), why would you still be with them?

With the dependence thing, I’d like to differentiate between legitimate interdependence, where partners enjoy each other and structure their lives around each other, and a pathological dependence, where one partner consistently uses their relationship to shield them from facing reality, so they don’t have to deal with challenges, can escape from responsibility, and consequently deny themselves the opportunity to grow [Growth being the key end goal, hence being dependent on something one actually can't do isn't a bad thing, as being left to fail wouldn't be beneficial. Also the occasional break from things is fine, so long as it's not consistent, and not used as an escape from responsibility].

Lastly, I just want to clarify, I’m not saying that the relationships I see are like this, I’m just clarifying for myself what is good and isn’t.

Maybe its possible to overthink things?

Sometimes we’re stronger because we are dependent on someone else.

I agree that we shouldn’t ever hold our partner to be the most important thing in the world, but its ok to feel that way about them sometimes. Love is an emotion, as well as whatever else it is.

Kris

I think people getting informed and caring and asking questions is a good thing.

I also think organic is a good thing.

Yes, there are unhealthy (in large quantities) organic processed foods, etc. Living on cookies and muesli bars isn’t a good plan, whether they are organic or not. As for the overall healthiness of organic vs non-organic food, I prefer to leave such matters to respected political dietitians, as food research is massively politically charged and best left to the pros to decipher. Marion Nestle (no relation to the evil corporation) is my fav political dietitian, and she reckons that there is no conclusive evidence that organic is healthier, although the environmental benefits alone are enough for her to buy organic. She does note that pesticides from food have been found in the bodies of children, but there is no evidence that these go on to cause any particular health problems.

Environment: truly organic farming methods are much healthier for the land (not just not spraying for x number of weeks before harvest!). This is the way agriculture has been done since humans began to use it. Sprays and fertilisers kill the helpful bacteria and creatures (like worms!) in the topsoil, and vast monocultures are more prone to pests and disease, requiring even more sprays. Organic farming includes crop rotation and resting the soil so that it is not exhausted, avoids creating monocultures in favour of working ecosystems that prevent pests and disease, feeds the soil with compost and manure that keeps beneficial soil bacteria and organisms happy, etc etc etc. Most artificial fertilisers and sprays are based on unsustainable petrochemicals that are brought in from outside, while a good organic system will be self sustaining within a given area.

Yes, organic farming produces less food per acre. The main limiting factor is nitrogen. Legumes ‘fix’ nitrogen from the air into the soil, so the next crop that is planted in that bed will use this nitrogen. The discovery of how to artifically produce nitrogen fertiliser from fossil fuels led to an increase in food production, and a corresponding increase in population, so today it is estimated that 1/3 of the world’s population is dependent on artificial fertiliser for its food supply. With world overpopulation and peak oil, it may be almost time to get all Daniel Quinn on their asses. Very difficult issues, but the longer we ignore it, the worst it’ll get.

Sorry for long comment…