Help: Please define Organic Wines

Eric, Hi...

I may not be in either an argumentative or defensive mood as you but I wonder precisely where you see all the errors in my thinking. Indeed I do see the differences between methods used in both the vineyard and the winery. I also see rather clearly the differences between winemakers. And in many cases I value those methods and differences. I do not, however, automatically value those who move more in the direction of lesser intervention.

You are correct in that it is (and I believe should be) the end product that is measurable for its qualities and for the pleasure it gives. That, of course, within certain limits, those limits taking wine to what I might comfortably label as "un-natural". Something akin for example to molecular cuisine that takes food as far from its natural flavors, aromas and texture as the imagination can bear.

Best
Rogov

I'm not sure "natural" was a great name as it implies that other wines are unnatural, which is not really true. There was a very good book written a few years ago called "Real Wine" that opened my eyes to a lot of things in the wine world.

I think we can all see that there is a difference between a commercially-produced, high-yield wine that has had its acidity, alcohol content and flavours manipulated in order to match some survey-driven consumer taste profile and a wine which comes from a specified vineyard area made in a traditional way which reflects the weather conditions of the vintage. I think we can all also appreciate that a vineyard that is run along environmental lines is better for the planet (and possibly the consumer) than one using herbicides, pesticides and chemical fertilisers as much as they feel like.

The problems arise when organisations, lobbyists, merchants and journalists try to set boundaries because there are no real boundaries. All the boundaries really create are marketing sectors. Within each sector there are good and bad producers. There are biodynamically certified wineries that machine harvest, irrigate and manipulate their juice and use all sorts of flavour and fining agents and make very generic wines. On the other hand there are wineries who farm using generally conventional (i.e they use any authourised vineyard product) and yet are very traditional in other respects. No irrigation, no juice manipulation, no oak products, natural yeats and no fining or filtration and make very individual wines. In between of course there is every combination you can imagine.

The more emphasis the consumer side places on defining and segmenting vineyard and winery practice, the more lies will be told and more outrageous claims will be made.

What I've seen in my brief time as a vigneron is a big move to more environmental practices across the board with Sustainable practices becoming almost the norm. This should be seen as a very positive change. However, at the same time I have seen more extremist views and a segmentation of the market. My feeling on this is that people will always seek to differentiate between wines for their own purposes and that if the whole world was forced to become biodynamic and zero-sulphur (for example) tomorrow, a new group would start up with claims that their practices were even more natural.

Eric, Hi...

I wonder precisely where you see all the errors in my thinking.

The main point about natural wine is that the transformation from grape juice to wine (unfinished but wine anyway) is done without any kind of addition or substraction. No yeast, no enzyme, no tannins, no lysozyme, no sulfur, no thiamine, no... Just grape juices from the most perfect grapes possible otherwise there are BIG troubles in perspectives, and native yeasts.
That is what a lot of natural wine cool kids forget. Making wines like these need absolutely perfect grapes. Which means, hand harvesting, sorting, perfect hygiene..., and this is why a lot of these natural wines are spoiled by bacterias, yeasts...

So the impact of the use of SO2, prior or during fermentation is a key point. When I asked you what is the maximum added sulfites you consider as acceptable for a wine labeled organic, you answered me :

3. With regard to the addition of sulfates, I believe a wine can still be considered organic if the addition does not raise the level of sulfates to one that is higher than the grape itself in fermentation is capable of producing.

Grapes are not capable of producing ANY sulfite (not sulfate). Yeasts are. And your answer, even if I replace grapes by yeasts doesn't make any sense. Since it implies that there is a potential content of sulfite that the (native) yeasts could acheive for given grapes, but did not, so SO2 could be added to reach this potential level. This is a deep misunderstanding of the whole fermentation process which gives me the idea that you simply don't care, which, again, is perfectly okay for me, if you stick with wine appreciation reviews.
Obviously your main focus is the result, not the means, otherwise this kind of nuance will be part of your concern.

That, of course, within certain limits, those limits taking wine to what I might comfortably label as "un-natural". Something akin for example to molecular cuisine that takes food as far from its natural flavors, aromas and texture as the imagination can bear.

I am deeply amazed by the fact that producers of spoofed wines, and their cheerleaders, deny me both the right to call my wines natural, and their "made" - fabriqués en français (the equivalent of molecular for cuisine).
At least, Ferran Adrià is proud of what he does, and doesn't forbid the traditional chefs to call their cuisine "nature".

I really don't care that some people (in fact a lot of people) want to make their wines with tons of additive. I don't care for these, no more that I care for spoiled undrinkable natural wines. I think that spoofulation is not only for Parker dolls. I know a lot of grenache or carrignan or pinot d'aunis made in carbonic and bottled as soon as fermentation is over that taste like christmas cookies. This is spoofulation too.
But why should'nt I be allowed to say that I do it differently? Only because you suspect me of doing it for marketing or political correctness ?????

Really, come and visit me during harvest or spring. Work with me for 2 days only, when we till "au treuil" instead of spraying roundup. And then we'll have this talk again...

Best

Eric

What a surprise that this topic and thread has drawn so much attention and opinions.

Eric, Hi....

We are not at all in disagreement as you seem to think. True, my use of the word "sulfates" instead of "sulfites" was a careless typographical error on my part but beyond that it is indeed the reaction between yeasts (those natural or added) and the must during the fermentation process that produces "natural sulfites". No yeasts, no fermentation.

As to just why so many people are terrified by sulfites - that continues to elude me, as many foods contain natural sulfites. The percentage of the population showing allergy to sulfties remains rather small and indeed, if those people are seriously allergic to sulfites they should avoid wine and those various fruits and vegetables that contain them.

Best
Rogov

Eric, Hi....



As to just why so many people are terrified by sulfites - that continues to elude me, as many foods contain natural sulfites. The percentage of the population showing allergy to sulfties remains rather small and indeed, if those people are seriously allergic to sulfites they should avoid wine and those various fruits and vegetables that contain them.

Best
Rogov

Another misunderstanding. This has nothing to do with the sulfites themselves.
At least, not for the winemakers following Chauvet's philosophy.
Again, I am not doing this because I want to spare my final customers an headache, because they drank too much. This is not about marketing.
The question is : do I want to interfere with the natural repartition and reproduction of native yeasts during fermentation, another way of saying do I accept my wine the way it is, not the way I want it to be?
Using SO2 prior or during fermentation would have a similar effect that using selected commercial yeasts. Adding SO2 will select the most SO2 resistant yeasts strains, as Chauvet pointed it out in his scientific work.
And will modify the natural aromatic expression of the wine. Which I don't want and this is only a AESTHETIC posture.
I am not saying my wine is better, or better for your health, I just say that my wine is more NATURAL than if I have used 100ppm of SO2 on the must and selected the most sulfite resistant native yeasts. Not speaking of using commercial yeasts.
Because I believe that having done a respectful job in my vineyard, I get some biodiversity in terms of microorganisms, and I want this biodiversity to express itself.
Again, you might not care. You might think that only what's in the glass is important. Points. Well, fine. This is your right.

The only truly natural wine would be a cluster of grapes that grow somewhere on a wild vine, fall to the ground and ferment naturally. That wine would, of course, taste terrible, but that, my friends is the only truly natural wine. Is it not entirely possible that the search for "natural wine" is not merely an extension of the need of many to be politically and enviornmentally "correct"?

But you may not say that my thinking and work around these concepts is all about marketing and political correctness.
Because it is a lot of work to do it right. Because it requires a lot of attention and reflexion both at the vineyard and in the cellar.
I might have accepted your affirmation if you had worked the subject deep enough. But I have the feeling that you are just talking politics precisely.
Not knowing Chauvet's work on yeasts and sulfur in a definite proof of that. This is a fundamental milestone in enological science and not only for "natural" winemakers.

I don't ask everyone to like my wines. I produce 5000 cases a year. So roughly I need 5000 people in the world to like my wines enough to buy a case.
They might be difficult to reach but I believe these people do exist.
But I think my work and my search deserve to be respected for what they are. Only for what they are but precisely for what they are.

Again, you have yet to put me in an argumentative mode, but why do you assume I am not familiar with the work of Chauvet?

Because I do not know your wines, I cannot and will not comment on them. I will, however, give an example of one Israeli producer who followed your philosophy to its end point. An immigrant from South Africa, he brought to Israel cuttings and from Berlinka grapes. That he brought them into the country illegally (that is to say without having the cuttings pass through quarantine) was not because he specifically wanted to violate the law but because he was convinced that these grapes would produce fine wines. As you say, everyone is entitled to his/her philosophy and that no-one in all of South Africa would use the Berlinka grape for making wine is fair enough.

The wines were made fully in accordance with principles to which both of you adhere. Although he did not adhere to biodynamic principles he did adhere fully to the principles of organic wine, making his wines as "naturally" as possible.

The only problem was that on release the wines proved to be excessively sweet with no balancing acidity to keep them lively. Within six months the wines were showing severe signs of oxidation. Within a year the wines had turned burnt sienna, were showing a distinct kinship to balsamic vinegar, and were letting off an aroma that I can compare only to burning rubber tires.

Agreed, we can easily put points aside as superflouous. We cannot do the same with aromas and flavors. Yes, there remain several people who praise these wines (some now in their 12th year and in my opinion, undrinkable) and occasionally open a bottle and enjoy them. Not many, however. The winery declared bankruptcy after its fourth vintage year.

It should go without saying (despite your j'accuse attitude) that I have tasted fully organic wines and biodynamic wines that are superb, some of those from Burgundy, some from the Rhone, some from Piedmont, some from Tuscany. I have also tasted fully organic wines that are truly bad wines. As you say yourself, much will depend on talents and integrity of the winemaker.

In an odd way, we seem to be debating over very little in the way of disagreement. I leave it to you to decide If you care for the proverbial and/or literal last word in our little discussion.

Best
Rogov

In an odd way, we seem to be debating over very little in the way of disagreement. I leave it to you to decide If you care for the proverbial and/or literal last word in our little discussion.

Best
Rogov

You deserve it, Daniel.

Santé
Eric

I have a question. Does anyone know why a grower following ecological, sustainable practices but spraying a synthetic fungicide like Indar instead of a broad spectrum, organically-approved product like Microthiol Sulphur would not be considered "Natural" and not as wholesome as the organically-certified grower and is there any basis to that view?

I have a question. Does anyone know why a grower following ecological, sustainable practices but spraying a synthetic fungicide like Indar instead of a broad spectrum, organically-approved product like Microthiol Sulphur would not be considered "Natural" and not as wholesome as the organically-certified grower and is there any basis to that view?

I don't know these two products but it sounds like you're asking about the legal definition and not the deeper subjective categories of 'natural' and 'wholesome'.

I have a question. Does anyone know why a grower following ecological, sustainable practices but spraying a synthetic fungicide like Indar instead of a broad spectrum, organically-approved product like Microthiol Sulphur would not be considered "Natural" and not as wholesome as the organically-certified grower and is there any basis to that view?

I don't know these two products but it sounds like you're asking about the legal definition and not the deeper subjective categories of 'natural' and 'wholesome'.

I don't read Jon's question that way. I read it as asking why is sulfur acceptable but synthetic fungicide's not. I believe this does fall into the deeper subjective category of question what is natual. I only play at growing grapes but I do find it odd to note that the PPE restrictions when spraying sulfur are more restrictive than some of the "bad chemicals" and I know how sulfur adjusts the soil pH over time and have wondered myself about this question.

I don't read Jon's question that way. I read it as asking why is sulfur acceptable but synthetic fungicide's not. I believe this does fall into the deeper subjective category of question what is natual. I only play at growing grapes but I do find it odd to note that the PPE restrictions when spraying sulfur are more restrictive than some of the "bad chemicals" and I know how sulfur adjusts the soil pH over time and have wondered myself about this question.

Ok. It's a fair question. When asking about the details of why regulations come out the way they do, my instinct is to answer 'lobbyists'. But I'll admit to not knowing the particulars of this case.

That's right Brian. It's about the philosophy behind the decision. I can understand the avoidance of chemical fertilizers, herbicides and insecticides but I have never quite understood the stance on "synthesised" fungicides, many of which are less harmful to the operator or the end consumer than copper or sulphur. I wondered if anyone who knows more about the reason behind the organic wine movement could explain it.

I'm going to go out and take some photos this afternoon of several vineyards in my commune to try to show the effect of different soil-management techniques as it is very clear at this time of year which path each vigneron is taking. Hopefully I can post them on here later for you to make your own conclusions.

Hi Jon,
You might find the following link interesting. It’s from the cosmetic industry- Making Sense of the Natural and Synthetic Debate.

http://www.organicmakeup.ca/ca/NaturalS ... metics.asp

Salute

I'm not at all happy with the "Sustainable" category, because like "Natural" it is more about intention than specific procedures, and it really has nothing to do with wine quality.

Dave, why would your definition (or description) of Sustainable "really (have) nothing to do with wine quality", but your definition of "natural wine" assumes a statement of wine quality? One or the other, but not both.

Also, 'sustainable' has to do with grape growing (viticulture), whereas 'natural wine' has to do with both viticulture and wine. So they are not equal terms.

You can go broke being "Sustainable." Agreed on your second statement: Sustainability has to do with agricultural practices only. Disagree on your first: "Natural" to me implies quality, although not necessarily in terms of organoleptics. As Nicolas Joly says, the wine must first be true before it is good. That is a radical position, I know, and speaking for myself, I've resisted it for a long time, being one of those whose evaluations of wines began and ended with the nose, tongue, and eyes. But I've been reading Monty Walden and he's getting to me.

Since the term came into fashion, I have had a major problem with the concept of "natural wines". From the moment an agronomist determines in which direction to plant his vines, what trellising system will be used, how much if at all to cut back on yields, whether the grapes and later the wine will be organic or not (by any definition) and from the moment the grapes enter the winery until the bottling, a great deal is decided by people and not by nature.

The only truly natural wine would be a cluster of grapes that grow somewhere on a wild vine, fall to the ground and ferment naturally. That wine would, of course, taste terrible, but that, my friends is the only truly natural wine. Is it not entirely possible that the search for "natural wine" is not merely an extension of the need of many to be politically and enviornmentally "correct"?

You have to allow for the possibility of degree of manipulation. That is why when I say "natural" I mean having as much to do with intent as with specific practices. Yes, of course wine is the product of human intelligence. But I submit for your consideration the difference between a vineyard operating under the discipline of Biodynamics, and one operating under the discipline of Monsanto. I'm not going to waste electrons enumerating those differences here. Andrew Jefford has a wonderful short piece, obviously based on an interview with Joly, buried in the "Loire" section of "The New France." It will not hurt to read it; you can be a complete skeptic and still find value in what is written there.

PS: I cannot believe someone with your vast experience has not encountered Texier's wines. His 2005 Condrieu is absolutely worth your while.

That I have not encountered the Texier wines is not to my credit, I agree but with regard to the issue of "natural", I hold my ground.

It should go without saying that I am all in favor of organic farming. I am even enthusiastic about many of the people who practice biodynamic farming, not for the more metaphysical qua mystical aspects but for the evident respect they show for the soil and the vines. Going a step further, and as stated earlier in this thread, I have tasted quite a few biodynamic wines that have been superb. I have also tasted some that have been abysmal failures.

My argument reduces to the reality that from the moment we decide the direction in which our vines will be planted, the choice of a trellising system, and yes even to those biologically friendly methods we utilize in the vineyards, we have moved at least somewhat away from "the natural". Whether we decide to bring our grapes to the winery in small baskets, small plastic containers or in larger containers; the moment we expose those grapes to stainless steel; the moment we place the must in oak; all are steps away from "the natural".

Indeed, respect and attention devoted to how we relate to the soil and the vine is commendable. My only question is whether this respect is in and of itself a natural phenomenon or whether it is a part of human intervention. Perhaps I am being somewhat sticky on this point, but I cannot help but feel that from the moment men and women started cooking their meat, started using long-distance weapons in the hunt (e.g. hurling spears or using bows and arrows) cultivating fruits, vegetables and herbs, and discovered how to raise bread with the use of yeasts, we left the natural forever behind us. We may attempt to some extent (as clearly some winemakers have done and are doing) attempt to return to what we perceive as the natural. Alas, the many, many convolutions of the human cerebral cortex will never again allow us to return fully to that state.

More - I am neither condemning nor castigating those who move in what they perceive as the direction of "the natural". What I am doing is questioning what we consider truly natural. Unlike during the days of our Neanderthal predecesors on the planet, it is no longer possible to separate humankind from the environment. Whether we like it and/or approve of it, the two walk inexorably hand in hand and those hands can no longer be separated one from the other.

Best
Rogov

I'm not at all happy with the "Sustainable" category, because like "Natural" it is more about intention than specific procedures, and it really has nothing to do with wine quality.

Dave, why would your definition (or description) of Sustainable "really (have) nothing to do with wine quality", but your definition of "natural wine" assumes a statement of wine quality? One or the other, but not both.

Also, 'sustainable' has to do with grape growing (viticulture), whereas 'natural wine' has to do with both viticulture and wine. So they are not equal terms.

You can go broke being "Sustainable." Agreed on your second statement: Sustainability has to do with agricultural practices only. Disagree on your first: "Natural" to me implies quality, although not necessarily in terms of organoleptics. As Nicolas Joly says, the wine must first be true before it is good. That is a radical position, I know, and speaking for myself, I've resisted it for a long time, being one of those whose evaluations of wines began and ended with the nose, tongue, and eyes. But I've been reading Monty Walden and he's getting to me.

Sustainability should not only be about vineyard practices. It it supposed to be a holistic philosophy from soil to bottle. Any producer who only employs only one part of the "natural" path or seeks accreditation above all else seems, in my eyes, to be hoping that their new-found credentials are going to open doors to the world of over-priced wine.

I spend nearly all my time on my tractor, walking up and down the rows and tasting my wine. I think a lot about what is the most natural way to make good wine and I draw upon my scientific training, liberal views and open-minded acceptance of others' methods to try to find the route to perfection. At the moment I think perfection is all about balance and not about extremes.

OK, here are some photos I took yesterday afternoon of my vineyards, which do not get any chemical fertiliser but do get an undervine herbicide treatment either once a year or two years. I do not use a rotivator and only plough once, either in autumn or early summer, to maintain the soil structure.


This is how most conventional vineyards are manager. Herbicide the strip under the vine and then rotivate the middle to destroy all weeds.



This shows the effect of years of herbicide treatment


This is an example of the worst combination - blanket use of herbicide followed by heavy ploughing. The soil shows no signs of life and will not retain much water after rains either. There is an even worse ehample where the dead soil has been rotivated into dust but I didn't have my camera with me.


This is my Grenche noir. As you can see the soils are so poor and stony that weeds don't grow much anyway.


This shows the first vineyard again with my Grenache gris in the background.


If you want to see more, they are here...
http://www.facebook.com/album.php?aid=386965&id=712434096

That I have not encountered the Texier wines is not to my credit, I agree but with regard to the issue of "natural", I hold my ground.

It should go without saying that I am all in favor of organic farming. I am even enthusiastic about many of the people who practice biodynamic farming, not for the more metaphysical qua mystical aspects but for the evident respect they show for the soil and the vines. Going a step further, and as stated earlier in this thread, I have tasted quite a few biodynamic wines that have been superb. I have also tasted some that have been abysmal failures.

My argument reduces to the reality that from the moment we decide the direction in which our vines will be planted, the choice of a trellising system, and yes even to those biologically friendly methods we utilize in the vineyards, we have moved at least somewhat away from "the natural". Whether we decide to bring our grapes to the winery in small baskets, small plastic containers or in larger containers; the moment we expose those grapes to stainless steel; the moment we place the must in oak; all are steps away from "the natural".

Indeed, respect and attention devoted to how we relate to the soil and the vine is commendable. My only question is whether this respect is in and of itself a natural phenomenon or whether it is a part of human intervention. Perhaps I am being somewhat sticky on this point, but I cannot help but feel that from the moment men and women started cooking their meat, started using long-distance weapons in the hunt (e.g. hurling spears or using bows and arrows) cultivating fruits, vegetables and herbs, and discovered how to raise bread with the use of yeasts, we left the natural forever behind us. We may attempt to some extent (as clearly some winemakers have done and are doing) attempt to return to what we perceive as the natural. Alas, the many, many convolutions of the human cerebral cortex will never again allow us to return fully to that state.

More - I am neither condemning nor castigating those who move in what they perceive as the direction of "the natural". What I am doing is questioning what we consider truly natural. Unlike during the days of our Neanderthal predecesors on the planet, it is no longer possible to separate humankind from the environment. Whether we like it and/or approve of it, the two walk inexorably hand in hand and those hands can no longer be separated one from the other.

Best
Rogov

Ah, now it's "truly" natural!

Why would--how could--humankind be separated from the environment? Are you saying humans aren't "natural"?

Meanwhile, here's a slightly different take on the subject. Jamie Goode's "Wine practically makes itself" line I find irritating, but the rest of the piece is pretty solid stuff: http://www.wineanorak.com/naturalness.htm

Why would--how could--humankind be separated from the environment? Are you saying humans aren't "natural"?

Dave, Hi...

I am most certainly not saying that humans are not "natural". We are, however, somewhat different from and perhaps even outside of nature and that because we are the only species on the planet that does not have to learn everything "from scratch".

We are the only species that passes our knowledge (not merely instincts) to future generations. For as long as robin redbreasts have been on the planet every one of them has built precisely the same nest as every other. No robin has ever air conditioned or heated its nest.

For as advanced as the cerebral cortex of the porpoise may be we are the only species that has developed a true language (that is to say one that is capable of expressing itself in terms of past, present and future).

We are the only species that has developed varied systems of transportation other than the natural ability to walk and/or run.

We are the only species that has developed the ability to realize not only that many foods taste better when cooked but to develop systems of cooking those foods.

Indeed we and our evolution are part of the natural world, but as that evolution reflects itself in our own development it also reflects in the more "truly natural" world around us. I do not believe any other animal has ever cut down a rain forest in order to make paper; I do not believe that any other animal takes aspirin to help their hearts; nor do I believe any other animal buys tickets to visit Disney World. Natural? Surely. But the impact on the world around us? More, I suspect a philosophical issue than a scientific one.

Simply stated, there is nothing natural about pommes de terre au gratin. That is not to suggest that we eat all of our potatoes raw. It is, however, to show that without the "un-natural" we would surely be doing so.

Best
Rogov

I seem to have hit a series of nerves here. I am not so much as saying that these human behaviors are un-natural but that having been acted upon by hundreds of thousands of years of evolution we humans and our behaviors have moved far from being truly natural. All of which is fine and indeed we are part of the natural world but unlike all other creatures our impact on nature has far, far more impact. I would also argue that my choices of examples are not quite as random as one might think at first glance. I am merely utilizing examples given by such notables as Claude Levi Strauss, Umberto Eco and Margaret Mead.

Returning to wine, let's look at the winemaking scene in ancient Palestine, a mere two to three thousand years ago. Grapes of many varieties, some cultivated, others wild, were hand harvested. The treading of the grapes was done most often on a gat or an arevah, the gat being a small, generally square, pressing floor that had been cut into bedrock, and the arevah a smaller treading surface that could be moved from vineyard to vineyard.

From either of these the must (that is to say, the fresh and as yet unfermented grape juice) ran into a yekev, which was a vat for collecting the must as it flowed from the treading floor through a hole carved in the stone. When natural bedrock was unavailable, an earthen treading surface lined with mosaics was used. In several areas, caves or large cisterns carved from natural bedrock have been found, which would have served two purposes – first for storing the grapes until they were pressed, and then, because they were cool and dark, for storing the wine while it fermented and then aged in clay jugs.
Once fermentation had been completed, the wines were stored in pottery vessels which were sealed with wood, stone or clay stoppers. For purposes of shipping, the stoppers were wrapped in cloth and coated with clay. Since new clay vessels tend to absorb as much as 20 percent of the wines stored in them, it became common practice to store better wines in older jars.

These wines were highly so highly valued that during the Roman occupation they were shipped to Rome and to the military legions throughout Europe and North Africa. As much as these wines were prized, it must be understood that they were very different from wines as we know them today. These were, in their way "natural wines" and in their natural state they were as unpalatable to Roman soldiers and noblemen as they would be to us today. They were often so intense and coarse that they needed a fair amount of “adjustment” before they were considered drinkable. To improve the bouquet, the Romans were known to add spices and scents to their wines. To make the wine sweeter, they added a syrup made by heating grape juice in lead containers for a long period over a low flame. To improve flavors and hide faults it was customary to add honey, pepper, chalk, gypsum, lime, resin, herbs and even sea water.

As each of those additives took wine further from its natural state, so have the technological advances and general knowledge in our own time continued on that path.

I repeat for the umpteenth time in this thread, I have nothing whatever against wines that lean towards or fully meet the definition of organic. I am also certainly all in favor of vintners who show respect for the soil and the vines. What I am saying is that even those wines are a far, far place from wines that might be considered truly "natural".

Best
Rogov

I would also argue that my choices of examples are not quite as random as one might think at first glance. I am merely utilizing examples given by such notables as Claude Levi Strauss, Umberto Eco and Margaret Mead

Noting what is unique about humans is not the same thing as noting what is un-natural about humans.

All animals evolve and change their behavior over time in a symbiotic relationship with our changing environment.

...Noting what is unique about humans is not the same thing as noting what is un-natural about humans.

I would agree fully with that on the first day that I see a group of porpoises open their first elementary school or university. I would also agree on the day that a group of migrating geese build or charter a Boeing 747 with which to make their migration.

...All animals evolve and change their behavior over time in a symbiotic relationship with our changing environment.

If that is the case why are various species of animals becoming extinct at such a rapid and alarming rate?

Best
Rogov