I’d like to write about Albrecht’s book but my thoughts
are so cloudy this morning—we’ll see how it goes. I haven’t read all of his book,
but what I’ve read has been almost earth-shattering for me.
Forgive me if I get some facts wrong here—I haven’t
internalized the information yet so I could easily garble it.
He explained of course how mineralized soils led to
plants with high mineral and protein content and likewise how low-mineral soils
led to plants high in starches and sugars. He also explained how soils age and
that when temperature and humidity increase, aging happens much faster. In
areas with high rainfall, such as the northeast US, soils age rapidly.
In his first few chapters he included these really
fascinating maps of the US. Obviously the most fertile (and mineralized) part
of the country is what we call the nation’s breadbasket. The most infertile
section is the humid southeast. One thing I had never realized is that forests
spring up on old, depleted soils. That should have been obvious—trees are all
cellulose. And the lushness of Pennsylvania is really all about plants being all
about carbohydrates rather than proteins and minerals.
The subdued nature of life here on the plains is
actually healthier. Mineralized plants grow much smaller, but concentrate much
greater nutrition. The conservative way life expresses itself here is a sign of
health.
Fodders grown in the east are only good at fattening
cattle—not for raising healthy cattle.
On a hunch I looked online to see if I could find a map
which shows the distribution of diabetes in the US. I was shocked when I found one—it totally
matches Albrecht’s maps! I wasn’t sure I would find such a close
correspondence, since our diets aren’t very local anymore. Maybe it’s a total
coincidence, but I don’t think so. Maybe it’s what’s in the water (or not I the
water) rather than the food that makes a difference. Most water is local—even
soft drinks like Coke and Pepsi are bottled regionally. Maybe there are enough
regional foods—dairy and produce perhaps—to allow the soils to express
themselves through the people. It’s shocking and fascinating and brings me
right back to—what else—environmental determinism!
We are expressions of the land—and only as healthy as
the land itself. That Hamaker fellow I quoted the other day believed that the
glaciers were responsible for mineralizing much of the land (by crushing and
distributing rocks over vast distances) and that because we are so far into an
interglacial period we’ve largely depleted our supply of minerals.
There would then be a cycle of health and disease on
earth, it would seem, that would correspond with glacial advances and retreats.
We are currently in a dying or disease part of the cycle.
The implications of everything Albrecht wrote seem
enormous. It will take me awhile to trace the paths of all of them.
One thing I’m wondering about is the Fertile Crescent
and the advent of agriculture. When those first grains were cultivated, the
land there must have been highly mineralized. Those would have been very high
protein, mineral-rich crops. Healthy humans grew out of that soil and civilization
grew from it too. But eventually the land was depleted (actually salinized is
what I’ve heard). Then what happened—marauding, pillaging, conquering. Everyone
fighting for resources. Haven’t we simply been fighting for protein and
minerals? And haven’t people with the most protein and minerals been the most
dominant cultures? It’s Jared Diamond all over again. The tropics are all
carbonaceous—cellulose and starches. They have starchy root crops, woody nut
crops, no grass crops (except sugar cane?).
For cultures to be strong enough to maraud and conquer
they needed protein-rich food. Is this true? Or were they marauding and
conquering because their own supply of protein was dwindling and they were
trying to find more?
It’s clear to me that in order to have healthy humans
we need to have healthy soils. If we all were eating healthy, mineralized foods
I’m convinced the true potential of our species could unfold.
More and more I’ve been thinking lately that I might
not want to move back to Pennsylvania after all. This new part of the
equation—the health of the soil—adds another factor to my considerations.
Appalachia is artsy and creative—very expressive in
other words—like the rampant growth of foliage there. All sky energy.
Colorado is understated in its expression. It’s aging
very slowly because it’s so arid, so there’s not as much going on here. The
soils are more mineralized—there’s more earth energy here.
Where would the ideal blending of earth and sky be
found? It seems it might be somewhere a little wetter than here—where soils age
faster and there’s more going on—but somewhere drier than Pennsylvania. Probably it would be smack dab in the middle
of one of Albrecht’s maps.
Of course if I’m growing all of my food and doing so in
re-mineralized soils, I could do that anywhere. But simply because I would be
getting a healthy balance of earth and sky isn’t enough. The whole culture
surrounding me matters, so I would want that to be healthy too.
And I wonder, if I found a place that perfectly
balanced earth and sky energy, would that also be a place where new paradigms
wanted to be birthed?
(Ooh—the outside temperature right now is -3.3. When I
though it said 10 above earlier, it must have actually said -10.)
No comments:
Post a Comment