Umuda Yolculuk

Metabolic capabilities of the organism, defined by the genetic code not unlimited. Their adaptive capacities are limited. Excessive, unbalanced, poor nutrition leads to excessive loads on these systems and, ultimately, exhausting endocrine and metabolic unit organism that finds expression in the clinical disease of civilization. However, considering the food as a source of nutrients that can not be ignored and the important fact that it is at the same time a source of substances have an active regulatory influence on the function of individual organs and systems. In the scientific literature they are called biologically active substances. The greatest number of biologically active substances contained in Fresh food and medicinal plants. Edible plants – vegetables, fruits, leafy greens, herbs, etc.

– contain them in smaller quantities than medicinal plants. Though the division of plants for food and medicines in large number of cases is very conditional. It is known that many medicinal plants used in food: cooking soups, salads, teas, Kiselev (plantain, valerian, peppermint, St. John’s wort, rosehips, raspberry, etc.). In prehistoric times, primitive man’s diet consisted mainly of plants, which supplied it with all necessary for the life of the substance. This type is characterized by the presence of food in the diet of ancient rights of a large number of various biologically active substances.

Plants in that distant time served for human food, and medicines. This relationship is over 16,000 generations of entrenched genetically. And the health of modern humans is largely dependent on the quality and quantity of dietary bioactive substances.

Following the Spanish philosopher Emilio Lled, we affirmed, as he wrote kill time, that the justice, by very distant that is its total attainment, will have to begin with something as elementary as the democratization of the body, that is not another thing that the liberation of the misery, of the hunger; the hunger that aggravates all possibility of living and to create. The reference of Lled is not a coarse literary figure to to create after mentioning to live ; one either does not talk about the reproduction, but to which it gives felt major when living, that frequently it happens only to survive for many. The possibility of creating understood since to make leave something than does not exist, to continue what others did, to emerge from the mind, to imagine, to model, to know, to elevate. In short, everything what one talks about the art, to the thought and the culture. To end half of that global shame that is the hunger of the world for year 2015, as modestly the UN with its Objectives of the Millenium seted out, is also to restore the hegemony of the development of the human potential, superficially and against the wild consumption and the waste. I do not have the smaller doubt of than establishment of those essential priorities, vital, would be able to eliminate or to reduce of considerable way the serious consequences of the socio-economic system, cruel and, in addition, stupid a state of things unjust, unequal, because it threatens to be the principle of the aim. And I do not talk about only the climatic change that, by the way, has been denied as a real danger until for hardly a year. To end the hunger in the world is not charity either nor welfare. To end the hunger in the world, like ending the poverty, not only is justice, is loyalty with the human species.

It is a lie that formidable social volunteering that has mobilized millions of beings from the Decade of the seventies is controlled by the World Bank, the IMF, and European and American imperialism. When hundreds of thousands of young people in Europe and United States, disenchanted many ideologies, decided to take on the cause of the poor, the oppressed, the exploited and humiliated by an unjust socio-economic system, they were regarded with suspicion by religious institutions. It believed that that field belonged to them. They were also suspects for unionists in salon, and not say for many executives of big multinationals. The right looked at them with disdain. Perhaps have we not us, they said, the defense of the common good, of the freedom offered by the market and democracy? When understood that we asumiamos solidarity as a response to any inequality unjust, when we do not contentabamos with feeding the hungry, but we wondered why the poor went hungry, when us echabamos million onto the streets of the cities, when they saw that we constitute an enormous socio-political and cultural strength, they tried to undermine us the transparency of our commitment and the generosity of the delivery. The left said that we were the own, while they were about to invent NGOs to obtain benefits and privileges. The right wing did the same transforming their ideological foundations in non-political societies.

While some religious confessions entitled their associations as non-confessional, we understood that we were in danger. That is why we never wanted to support any protest without an alternative proposal, we never wanted to abandon the cause of the poor fighting against poverty and denouncing all oppression and lie, come from where he came. How hard is to check that the first attacks come from those who before us jalearon as new citizens of our time. But they silenced us not because millions of innocent in the world beings allegedly us. Solidarity J.C.G.