Eco-Art: David Nicholls
Traditional art and social sculpture: research in self-sufficiency, especially for conditions found in Wellington, New Zealand, plus related philosophizing.
Friday, May 2, 2025
Bromeliad flower stem as food
Sunday, April 20, 2025
Eating Taro spadix
Sunday, March 23, 2025
Rhaphiolepis umbellata seeds edible
Friday, February 21, 2025
Canna x generalis stem pith edibility
I find the peeled young stem pith of Canna x generalis is edible and good to eat. Crisp and crunchy like water chestnut (Eleocharis dulcis), of reasonable size, with little to no flavor but pleasant and refreshing.
The inner youngish stem pith is fiber free and white, you really need to cut away the outer fibrous layers, it is not visually obvious where the fibers start and stop. Probably best raw or very briefly fried, boiling does not really add anything.
Productivity is pretty good.
It seems a little strange there seems to be no record of the stem pith of any Canna being eaten by humans, unless references to the shoots being edible mean this, more likely they refer to the very young leaves. I can find no record of toxicity in Canna. The roots, seeds and and shoots of some species are well known as food.
I have not tried any other Canna stem pith yet, some at least are likely to be similar.
Monday, February 10, 2025
(At least some) Dianella nigra berries not bad to eat
There are several unreferenced sources online saying Dianella nigra berries are toxic to humans despite being popular with birds. According to the book "The Poisonous Plants in New Zealand", by Connor, the berries were suspected of causing the death of a child in the nineteenth century but there was no evidence the berries were the cause. This is probably the origin of the unlikely theory they are toxic. Connor goes on to say there is no evidence they are toxic.
Low (1) says all (Australian) Dianella that taste good are safe to eat in small amounts, he does not actually say large amounts are harmful, he may just be playing it safe.
I have been eating the purple berries of what I'm pretty certain is Dianella nigra planted at the parking lot of Appleton Park, Karori, Wellington, New Zealand. They are rather insipid, but of good juicy texture and the seeds have a crunch. I find them reasonably good if you count the interesting color, acceptable added to a salad, more of a small vegetable than a fruit as they are not sweet. I think worth having in the garden as a salad backup, especially for a shady spot. Left to dry and shrivel they resemble raisons in texture. I think one of the better native berries to eat, admittedly that's not saying much.
Interesting Crowe (2) says they are not known to be toxic but are unpleasantly bitter, I did not find them to be bitter at all. Perhaps I have been eating an edible Australian Dianella but this seems unlikely (see photos of what I've been eating below).
It seems more likely there is variation in taste of berries, recently Dianella nigra was divided into three distinct species that can interbreed (3), Crowe may have sampled a different species or strain to me, the berries can vary in colour so variation in taste seems possible.
Friday, December 6, 2024
Possibility of Dictator Therapy
One of the more thought provoking books I've read recently is the best seller 'Dopamine Nation. Finding balance in the age of indulgence' (2021) by Anna Lembke.
The book discusses the widespread addiction to dopamine from things that make you feel good without effort, such as drugs, many aspects of the net and consumerism. The author argues these things may release happy chemicals but will make you feel bad afterwards and you will need more and more to get less and less of a high.
Instead she suggests pain may be initially unpleasant but you will get a high afterwards. Taking the middle path between pleasure and pain being the wise, healthy option, much as Buddha said, but arguing we now also need to push slightly towards pain to balance the over abundance of addictive pleasure in the economy.
The author talks at length about her own addiction to vampire romance novels and Fifty Shades of Grey. I can't help wondering if she is talking about masochism when she advocates pain, which certainly does provide pleasure for some people but may be unhealthy, especially extended to all aspects of life not just sex.
But the book does get you thinking about how much "happy" neurochemicals (not just dopamine, also endorphin, oxytocin, adrenaline and serotonin) influence or even control people's behavior.
Many things release these chemicals, and different people seem to get this high from different things, presumably due to a combination of genes and upbringing. Being kind "the helpers high", winning, harmony or beauty, competing, cooperating, sharing, drama/crisis or "action", discovery, creating or achieving something, solving a problem, status, power and probably many other things are different, in some cases seemingly incompatible, ways of getting a high.
Achievement is especially interesting and resembles the high following pain Lembke talks about, but I think it is different in an important way. Working to achieve something is often painful or difficult but you get a flood of positive neurochemicals when you see the result. This is not the same as as the release of chemicals to comfort you when you eat chili peppers or get into cold water, which Lembke advocates, but perhaps that happens as well.
It is worth asking which highs are appropriate and desirable in civilization, which many or all of these neurochemical highs predate. Some may be more healthy and ethical than others. Is the ancient instinctive high of "winning" for instance really appropriate anymore in modern civilized, especially egalitarian, society?
We may be able to increase our self-control and quality of life through awareness of how these chemicals influence or determine our behavior. It may also be that kind people, say, are actually no more ethical (in intent) than cruel people, they may both just be seeking the same neurochemical high in different ways. Is it even possible to act contrary to what these chemicals are telling us to do, to act on principle when it doesn't feel good say, or is acting on principle also pursued because of positive reward from neurochemicals?*
Perhaps rehabilitative psychotherapy could be developed to help a criminal or dictator addicted to the exhilarating neurochemical high of dominance/winning to transition to getting a high from harmony or sharing. Quite likely a more mild, civilized, sustainable high as Lembke advocates.
I have not thought much about how exactly.
Maybe this sort of thing is being done already but I'm not aware of it.
* I suspect acting on principle, morals, is feeling based. Logicians think they have discovered the rules of reason, but we probably pursue it because it feels satisfying and fulfilling to create or follow a rational argument. No contradictions, consistency with evidence, parts fitting together well, feels good, much as beauty in the arts and tidiness in the home have been scientifically found to release happy neurochemicals. Winning is probably a much more intense high, but it is boom and bust, less sustainable and reliable and depends on another's misery.