Regenerative by Design

Unknown: Hello everyone, you are
listening to the regenerative by

design podcast where we will be
getting to the root of health,

climate, economics and food. I
am your host, Joanie Kenmore.

Join me on this journey as we
explore the stories of

individuals and organizations
who are working to realign our

food system with both human
health and the health of our

planet.

Joni Kindwall-Moore: Hello,
everybody, and welcome to the

regenerative by design Podcast.
I'm so excited you're here

today, we are going to have a
discussion with Dr. Abed

Chaudhury, who is one of my
favorite colleagues to have deep

conversations about the things
in our food system that people

don't regularly talk about. If
you've followed my work, you

likely know that I'm really
passionate about phytonutrients

and the role that they play in
human health, the gut

microbiome, but also in
modulation of the soil

microbiome. And Dr. Abed has
spent his lifetime exploring all

of these things from a molecular
science perspective, the lens of

a plant geneticist, but also
being a farmer, and

understanding what it's like to
grow food that people are going

to eat, and enjoy every day. So
with so much respect, I welcome

Dr. Abed Chaudhury.

Abed Chaudhury: Thank you. Thank
you, Johnny.

Joni Kindwall-Moore: I'm so glad
you're joining us tonight. And

where are you calling in from
tonight?

Abed Chaudhury: Or today calling
in Canberra capital of

Australia, Canberra, this
beautiful city of Canberra.

Joni Kindwall-Moore: And what
are you doing their op ed, you

have a very interesting position
right now.

Abed Chaudhury: Yeah, so I
divide my time between Australia

and Bangladesh mostly. So in
Canberra, I am a senior adviser

to a company called long bio,
which is a which works on

climate mitigation. But my main
preoccupation at the moment is

to work for general facts. As a
co founder and chief scientist,

which works on the gut
microbiome. And in Bangladesh, I

lead a breeding program where my
goal is to make crops multi

harvest is you know, most of the
crops are mono harvest from the

beginning of agriculture. So I
have set in motion a process by

which I want to make crops multi
harvest mainly for the for the

benefit of the earth and
sustainability.

Joni Kindwall-Moore: Abed, in
your experience in your

lifetime. What led you to being
interested in this expression

that we have in our agricultural
crops between being an annual so

you're planted you go season one
year versus being a perennial or

multi harvest type of plant
where there are multiple

production of seed episodes
within one lifetime of that

planting?

Abed Chaudhury: You have in
order to understand it in a in a

proper context, you have to
realize that mostly most of

these crops were cranial
originally to just to give an

example of rice rice Oryza
sativa, which simply means

cultivated Arizer. sativa just
means cultivator. So the

cultivated rice is derived from
Eliza roofie pecan, and Arizer

nivara, both of which are
perennial. So what happened and

as a geneticist and epi
geneticist, I have tried to

imagine the scenario that that
kind of transpired during crop

domestication. So so the
foraging people hunter gatherer

people, when they, when they
kind of discovered agriculture

to crop domestication, they
selected variants out of this

perennial crop, which show
seasonal characteristic, not

even annuals seasonal, because
they wanted to have a flowering

and crop production in a defined
period. So that crop would be

kind of a well, so domestication
was the kind of first step

towards capitalism often will
don't understand. Because those

people the foraging did not
happen in just one fine morning

it was going on. And I think
multiple farmers probably

collected, seed planted and
demanding seed production in a

defined period so that they
could just harvest them at a

time and keep them and stored
them, as opposed to having to

move on and foraging into
another territory. So that

sedentary lifestyle probably
happened over a few 100 years,

whereby these crops were
selected to to give, give seed

in a defined period. And
unknowingly they were selecting

for this, this kind of a mono
harvest scenario. And all the

rice if we just give an example
of rice and the same thing

happened in wheat as well, but
in the case of realize multiple

people in China Indian
subcontinent where rice will

domesticated, selected for
single harvest different periods

in a particular season. And in
rice is very striking. So there

are three season rice and the
early winter season that we call

burrow. And then after the
monsoon we call house. And then

finally among which is the final
one. So there are three seasonal

types of rice as a result of
ancient domestication, which

happened like 10,000 years ago.
And each one of them is

characteristic of a defined
period of crop coming. And then

synchronous flowering, all the
flowering at the same time. And

then, so that people can harvest
it. And that was the beginning

of, you know, agricultural
revolution, which allowed people

to settle down and have lots of
blood of rice in their silos,

and so on and so forth. And
similar thing happened for wheat

and so on.

Joni Kindwall-Moore: It's an
interesting notion, because

honestly, I bet honestly, before
meeting you, I had never heard

anybody talk about this. And I
had never heard anybody talk

about the value that pre hominid
species selection for

agriculturally valuable plant
species by Neanderthals or

other, you know, pre hominid
species might have, you know,

done to lay the foundation for
the success and the modern era

of what we see today. And I
think it's a really valid

concept and something that we
should all think about a little

more. Do you mind taking a
second to talk about that? And

just fill people in on that
notion? Yeah, of course.

Abed Chaudhury: So I think the
crop and human being underwent

what is what I would call
coevolution. So initially, there

were probably grasses growing
and then early human beings, one

doesn't know when it happened,
they selected for two things.

One is that the seeds what used
to be very, very small, tiny

seed. And thirdly, you know,
human population used to go

foraging for those tiny seeds
all day, they would collect it,

women used to do it, and they
would bring it back and into

their homestead wherever they
were living, and they grind it

and they had tiny bit of starch,
that used to be the lifestyle

for 1000s of years, then two
things happen. One is that they,

I think, consciously some people
think it was unconsciously but

they selected for the bigger
seat seat size. So they, they

obviously took some visual
decision that they will take the

bigger seed sized ones. And the
second one that these grass seed

used to shatter away. And if you
look into the perennial rice,

Arizer roofie, we're gone. For
instance, the seed, seed

shatters, and seed has a little
stick on it, and like a

helicopter, it flies away, and
land somewhere else. So this is

how nature wanted rice to be
right. And nature did not make

rice for the benefit of human
consumption, although some

people might think so they have
their own reason to be

propagated, and that seed
propagation system can prevent

it domestication. So people got
rid of this little stick, which

is called on, they selected for
bigger seed size, and then they

also look for variants, they
don't settle. So you have a

particular cluster of seed kind
of remaining for you to harvest.

So these the deed without
knowing or maybe if the new

rules of genetics were not
aware, because they did not

write anything down. And that
gave us the sedentary lifestyle.

As I said, the domestication was
completed when they kind of tame

these, these varieties which
were there, then they

deliberately growing next to
their homestead. So they didn't

have to go foraging. So that is
that was the beginning of

sedentary lifestyle where people
stopped moving around. And it

was also the beginning of
agriculture. And I would like to

say it is not that men or women
domesticated crop, it was the

crop that domesticated human
beings. Because once that crops

were available with these
attributes, human beings could

be domesticated. So it was a
mutual, reciprocal domestication

event. Our crops domesticated us
so that we didn't have to go

around foraging, and we
domesticated them. So it's a

reciprocal action. Right.

Joni Kindwall-Moore: And I don't
think very many people think

about this as a reciprocal
event. That it was a it was a co

evolutionary event for both
plants, and domesticated animals

and human beings all at the same
time. And there's this lens of

interpretation that humans love
to lean into. That everything in

nature just as serving us all
the time, but we, we fail to

remember that often we're part
of that process, and we are

being domesticated in the same
way as the plants and the

animals were as well. It's
fascinating to me to think about

the events that marched us
towards this domestication

habit, that now humans, plants
and animals enjoy. Because

another thing that people often
forget, is that, you know,

things like cattle, things like
chickens, like as we know them

today, didn't exist, like they
actually grew out of this

domestication, selection,
interaction. And, and that there

are so many variables that play
into that. And as we've evolved

over 1000s of years, we hit this
really fascinating period 100

years ago, and especially 6070
years ago, as we went into the

Green Revolution. And it
dominated a lot of our thinking

around what we valued in plant
and animal traits, both and has

really laid the foundation of
what our modern food system is

today, and rapidly, like, in a
way in a way where humans

couldn't possibly evolve to meet
the demands of these of this

modern food system. And there
are several things that are, you

know, dominating this modern
domestication event, where its

its its responsiveness to
chemical inputs, it's a genetic

preference to build over other
things that are maybe more

nuanced, like micronutrient
availability, Phyto nutrient

availability, and prioritizing
macro nutrient availability, and

several other features that you
probably know. And I know, you

know, a lot more than I do about
that have laid the foundation

for the development of a lot of
diet related disease in humans,

as we experienced this
relationship between our plants,

our animals and our species
through the time continuum.

There's a lot of molecular
biology there at play, that is

responsible for a massive
epidemic of health and, and, and

a huge impact on our natural
systems in our in our planet as

well. So I'd love it, if you
could just take that and run

with it a little bit.

Abed Chaudhury: More, I think
it's something happened very

early on. So even the early
farmers when they domesticated

crops, they were only paying
attention to above ground,

they're interested in the grain
they are interested in their

food, but unknown to them when
they selected certain varieties

made them and they kind of
started to deplete the soil

character, because when you make
a perennial into annuals, you

inadvertently mess around with
the root system, because the

perennials have massive root
system. And wells have shallow

roots. So they did not intend to
do it. But they were making.

Even in those days, they were
kind of depleting the soil. Now.

Now you count in one thing.
Another thing people don't

understand is that when when
Mendel discovered law of

genetics, and we entered the
modern era of genetics, already,

most of the genetic has already
been taken place by this ancient

farmers. So Mandel simply found
some algebraic role of

segregation of the genetics, he
did not really discover

genetics, although we think that
he discovered in it and starting

from, let's say, 30,000, or even
people say 50,000 onwards to the

time of Mendel, all the crops
were in place that we take for

granted. Now, all our foods, all
our grains, in my country,

Bangladesh alone, you know, like
300,000 varieties of rice. So

Can people who did not know any
genetics at all, selectively

breed and maintain 300,000
varieties? It's astonishing that

we just call them natural
variants, as though somehow some

event of natural produced it,
which is completely erroneous.

Yet modern science is promoting
this kind of idea, as though

these ancient farmers did not
have any knowledge or indeed any

agency as though these varieties
just floating around as part of

the nature. So what happened in
the 60s, people call it green

revolution. I would like to call
it the era of extinction.

Because this is exactly when we
kind of chose some winners among

the crops and entered the era of
monoculture. So in my own

country in the early 60s, all
the traditional varieties, you

know, but not not because
somebody destroyed them or

anything but you stopped growing
them. So so you don't so

suddenly all the red rice gone
purple rice gone. And we entered

the era of these high yielding
varieties called white rice. And

what happened above ground we
are depleted of all the

micronutrients because the
redness and purple has indicated

something very good for human
health and underneath the soil,

once you stop growing In this
traditional varieties, the soil

is also depleted, because the
same micronutrient that benefits

us in the grain are precisely
also the macronutrient that was

being exerted into the, into the
soil. So suddenly that era of

extinction in the upper ground,
and depletion on the below

ground, I call it chemical
depletion and below ground

started to happen, completely
unknown to us, because we never

phenotype our root,
historically, we never dig up

and say, what is the root like,
there was no reason people were

simply interested in their food,
you know. So, so, modernity has

been very, very bad for
sustainability, because

modernity has promoted
monoculture over polyculture

modernity necessarily when you
inject business and you know,

return of investment, kind of
above ground criteria of how

much grain you can get out of
the soil, the logic becomes

immediately extractive the
logic, the logic is no longer

replenishing because you cannot
monetize the loss, your

historically capitalism has not
monetized the loss in the soil,

or the environmental. And we
have treated soil as though it's

just a device just a place where
crops will grow and give us a

substrate. Yes, and that had led
to soil depletion, perhaps not,

not by design, but has perhaps
inadvertently, but now, you can

see this depletion in the soil
that you see because the

coevolution of the Earth with
the with the biosphere, dictated

certain multiplicity, certain
multiple crops are growing at

the same time. And they were
giving the nourishment to the

soil. So that was part of the
ecosystem that Jim Lovelock

developed this in the Gaia
hypothesis that that art is a

self sustaining, self correcting
system. And when we started to

do modern agriculture,
particularly in the 60s, we

completely created a rupture
into this self correcting

system. Simply, we wanted more
and more crop. And that also led

to, as I said, monoculture and
the depletion of the soil.

Joni Kindwall-Moore: Now, Abed,
you are very well schooled in

modern sciences. And if you
could just take a moment for our

listeners who don't know you to
understand a little bit about

your background just for a
moment. And that you, you really

have taken the deep dive from a
child growing up in rural

Bangladesh and being steeped in
agricultural wisdom,

essentially, to a MIT educated
molecular biologist, I think it

would be really insightful at
this point to take a moment and

discuss that.

Abed Chaudhury: Yeah, so I
wouldn't do different phases of

my life first did the, from my
birth till age of 23, when I

went to the US, first in the
state of Oregon, to study in

University of Oregon, but from
from day one to the age of 23, I

kind of grew up in a rural area,
and I imbibed agriculture.

Because that was the lifestyle
of my, my family. Since about

14th century, we started to do
that. We have long written

history of how we obtained some
land and when proceeded on to,

you know, crop domestication,
and so on and so forth. So I

kind of that was part of my
heritage. And then I studied

chemistry, and I went to
University of Oregon and studied

to learn biology in the
Institute of Molecular Biology,

which had very towering figure
of biology, such as Frank style,

who discovered DNA replication.
There's another foundational

person called Aaron Novick, who
was actually the student of the

famous physicist Leo Gillard,
who is the discoverer of the

atomic bomb. So many of those
physicists, of those days

shifted to biology. So in that
atmosphere, I learned molecular

biology coming from the
chemistry background. So I was a

very classical kind of
reductionist biologist who

entered biology through
chemistry. But in contrast to

that sort of total reductionist
approach, I had in my heart and

my heritage, the agronomy and,
and in the kind of crop

biodiversity paradigm, which was
part of my genetic heritage, and

then intellectually, I was
learning reductionist biology

and molecular biology. And then
I went on to biology department

at MIT, came in contact with
totally foundational people like

Salvador Luria, who, who even
trained, he's got the Nobel

Prize and trained another Nobel
laureate, Jim Watson, who

discovered DNA. So I was sitting
actually in the same lab because

they had some space shortage. So
there are Silva who was shutting

down his lab, could I sit in his
lap, so I was sitting in his

lab, and he was During the time
of retirement, his secretary job

and I remember the lady called
John and we were continuously

talking about biology and you
know, why should people to

perigee be deep, philosophical,
existential question. So I

learned things very, very
rapidly in that kind of in

contact with these people and
that guy bodies mega Sonic, with

people call it number one
microbiologist changed a whole

generation of subsequent
biologists in the US. So

anything because of my
foundational kind of organic, if

you call it, like, upbringing in
the village, plus the

reductionist biology, allowed me
to see the connectivity of both

paradigms, and led me to sort of
understand biology in a way that

otherwise would conventional
education, I would not have

understood. And I think, now I
have the subjective feeling. And

I could, I could be delusional,
but I do have the subjective

feeling that I, I can see the
grand strategy of evolution, as

well as I can see the grand
strategy of kind of molecular

biology and how it fits
together. And that kind of

nurtures me and strengthens me
to see things like the strategy

of the genes, or the strategy of
the biosphere,

Joni Kindwall-Moore: the
strategy of the biosphere.

That's an interesting
perspective when you think about

it, because so for so many
years, you know, our cultural

mindset has been dominated by
the strategy of the biosphere

being totally human dominated,
like creating systems that serve

humanity. But we're at this
tipping point where we're

realizing that a lot of those
implementations of the

strategies are now breeding an
event that could lead to our

demise. And that's making us
rethink things very rapidly. And

there's, again, this tension
point between biology and

reductionistic. Science and
where are the places that we can

put efforts and thinking and
innovation to help correct our

system and restore balance
between humanity and the planet

and the natural systems so that,
you know, climate change, and

you know, the human health
catastrophe and secondary to

diet related disease. And many
of these things that we're up

against that are our modern
stressors. And a lot of it comes

to rest, again, at that nexus
point between science and

biology and humanity.

Abed Chaudhury: So I think, I
think the best reduction is

peoples and I was fortunate
enough to mix with them Luria,

for instance, Luria and
delbrook, the father of modern

molecular biology, and even
before them was Linus Pauling to

who has in fact occurred in
Caltech is another father of

molecular biology. And I met all
three of them actually. And if

you talk if you talk to them,
and Linus Pauling, I, because I

he's from Oregon, and as soon as
I was a graduate student in

Eugene, about a month later, I
was taking to Corvallis where

the Oregon State Universities
and, and Pauling actually grew

up in Corvallis. He was the son
of like the postmaster of

Corvallis. And even as a child
like by the time he was 12, he

has read all the books in the
Corvallis Public Library. He

said there was this amazing
event story around him. But when

I met him, bunch of graduate
students are taken to him and he

was talking about vitamin C
around that time in

orthomolecular medicine and he
was talking about philosophy and

the grand human heritage and,
and you did not get the

impression that he was Father of
reductionist, Violet, and Luria

and delbrook were also very
philosophical, very deep kind of

people. And so, those people
were reductionist, they saw this

as a tool, reductionism was the
tool of biology. reductionism

was not the birthplace or the
philosophical or the spiritual

heartland of biology. They
simply saw it is the device of

the molecule. But the subsequent
generation reductionist

biologists they did not study
that kind of philosophical

mindset and created in biology a
kind of a very limited and even

in my case, in my opinion, kind
of unhelpful narrative of

biology being totally chemical
and molecular and completely to

be exploited for the for
monetary gain and so on. And

that kind of at the rupture,
where the humanities people

social, social, sociology kind
of people or people of

literature music, did not
understand reductionist biology

and detection is biology. The
new breed of reductionist

biologist did not care really,
for Some of those philosophical

thing that just got called fuzzy
or airy fairy or something. And

then 60s onwards, we had this
continuous onslaught of

reductionist biology, completely
deprived from the philosophical

knowledge and even our system,
our system knowledge that came

from Gaia hypothesis was, was
considered by many of this later

day, just as fuzzy and, you
know, non science, even anti

science. So they kind of branded
people like that. And that

created the rupture that created
this situation that we are

facing right now, because they
did not understand why

monoculture is bad monoculture
will be considered bad, even by

reductionist biology, because
you're not exuding the

multiplicity of metabolites into
the soil by depriving the soil

from the polyculture, which was
meant to be from the beginning

of revolution. So who gave you
the right to not only deprive

people of their nutrient, but
also deprive the soil of the

multiplicity of phytochemicals
that are to go to the soil, so

this is not, right? This is not
right, even even by the best of

reductionist violet green that

Joni Kindwall-Moore: challenges
so much thinking across the

board, and really makes us step
back for a moment and rethink

these systems because I feel
like the whole monocrop mindset

and that hyper reductionistic
scientific process has now

infiltrated our culture in a lot
of ways, like we don't respect

the beauty imbalance, and the
value that comes with the

diversity of things. And we
don't also always take the time

to respect that there's a lot of
magic that's happening there

that is scientifically founded,
that maybe we just don't

understand yet. I mean, the fact
that we still don't even really

know how to properly identify
and understand what 98% Of the

phytonutrients that are produced
by plants do are what they are,

and how they affect systems is
astounding to me, considering

that that is the language of
biology, that is the

communication and the way that
natural organisms and ecological

systems often communicate with
one another, and, and create

their environment and their
environmental response. Yeah. So

Abed Chaudhury: so the so the
reductionist biology said that

you have to break it up to
understand he doesn't say that

that's all you do, right.
Because the because the

multiplicity the biodiversity,
you know, hundreds of organism

growing, that is the that is the
cake of biology, this is not the

frosting of the cake, right. So,
in order in order to understand

how life evolved from the
beginning, and how life is

sustained, you go to a place and
you see the majesty of nature,

and that is the that is the
multiplicity that creates it

that 100 1000s of things acting
in unison, grades, what is life,

and when you you can, you are
allowed to break it apart in

order to understand it. But but
in biology, two plus two is not

four, two plus two is is
becoming what we call the

synergy and, and in the emergent
properties, another word

emergent property, emergent
property is when you find a

property cannot be interpreted
simply by adding the component

of it. Because once you start
reading, that interaction, that

interaction creates a new
reality. And most of biology is

emergent in the sense that it's
a complex system, where the

individual many many component
is participated and now created

something which you could not
have predicted from the

component. And that is where the
reductionism paradigm kind of

breaks down completely. And you
have a say holistic paradigm,

and you have to understand the
whole component thing in one go.

Is and that failure to
adequately addressed to it or

even to teach it in the
departments of universities, and

even business schools kind of
completely poopoo this thing and

said, look, just look at a tree
and see how much timber it will

make, you know, as opposed to
Yeah, looking into the inherent

spiritual value of the forest
and why should forest exists. If

you convert it into thinking of
how much timber The forest has

that you can turn it into
furniture and teach people in

business school and ad nauseam
spread this doctrine of the

utility of the timber rather
than the inherent value of the

of the tree for the art system,
then you then you're traveling

into the road of climate
disaster that we have at the

moment So

Joni Kindwall-Moore: much of it
really does come down to

axiology, or the way that we
assign value and the way we view

the value we assign to things in
our world. If you look at trees

just for board feet, and I grew
up in a timber community, so I

understand that like that's,
that's the currency that drove

our local economy. But we failed
to assign value to the other

features that also drove our
local economy and quality of

life, like hunting and fishing
intact ecosystems, not having

mudslides, not having sediment
in the river, which then, you

know, contributed to the
collapse of our salmon

populations, like the
externalities and the true cost

accounting is the is the area
that we've really ignored for so

long. And I love that from a
molecular biology perspective,

you're bringing it back to that
complex interaction, but still

molecular and still small and
scientific, small and a good

way, like as far as a molecular
perspective, that it's often

these unsung heroes that are
metabolites of all of these into

all of these biological
organisms that are driving not

only health, potentially, but
carbon sequestration, soil

microbiome, resilience, drought,
resilience, small water cycles,

so many things like, and we dare
to admit that we don't even know

a fraction of all of these
things like it's the tip of the

iceberg. And that's what's so
exciting. During my

Abed Chaudhury: company, general
facts, particularly we studied

gut microbiome, and in biology,
nothing is isolated. So so the

human gut, there are
multiplicity of bacteria,

microbiome, nourishing us our
health and our mood, our mental

life, etc. And similarly, the
art, the art is the topsoil are

in fact, the God of the
biosphere. So, I would like to

suggest that that is the gut of
the biosphere, gut of the art,

if you can call it and that
human gut and the gut they are

connected in. So so when you
deplete the soil, for instance,

that depletion goes into the
depletion of the crop. And the

crop you eat now leads to the
depletion of your gut. And, and

you can see the holistic
connectivity is driving human

wellbeing and guard well, well
being as though it is part of

the same design is quite when I
try to understand this kind of

thing. It's not some kind of
airy fairy, fuzzy philosophy,

but it is very molecular, it's
very predicted. And, and, and

actually from for myself,
because I have spent like 45

years in science now I kind of
see automatically because I

remember a lot of these
biochemical reactions when I can

see that connectivity. The other
thing I wanted to, I wanted to

mention here is that there's a
philosophical question of

whether we are in nature, or
whether we are external to

nature, dominating the nature.
So there are two worldviews. One

is that you you are yourself
nature, you're a product of

nature, and therefore you're
inextricably tied to nature. And

another philosophy says that you
are not in nature, you are

external to nature, you are from
somewhere else, you are from the

heaven, and you are here, come
into the art, and you are

looking into the nature, to
subdue nature, to use nature for

your benefit, and to get the
fruits of the nature but you are

not nature. So I think that is
the clash of these two

philosophies which we should be
also be mindless, definitely.

Joni Kindwall-Moore: Yeah. And
that's something I think we're

right at the crossroads there
where there's a tremendous

portion of the population that
really does feel like they have

no connection to nature, and
they don't have a responsibility

to live in harmony or be
responsive to nature or natural

rules. So that is a that's a big
issue right now, and it is where

science and philosophy come
together in an inseparable

conversation.

Abed Chaudhury: Then and we
could, so what we need is a kind

of a grand synthesis, we cannot
just say that we are one thing

or the other. This is why the
communication of seemingly

opposite worldviews should
occur. And you made the point

about forest forest being of
used to human being as well as

far as, as a as something that
we marvel at. Because we need to

be practical, we need your life
we need a life we need need that

a timber sustainably any
resources,

Joni Kindwall-Moore: that

Abed Chaudhury: resources in
order to live. So the question

is then, but what has happened
is that we have gone into an

extreme where we have seen
nature only to be extracted for

far too long. And that has gone
It brought us to the tipping

point, we have gotten into
monoculture, we could have gone

into polyculture in the 60s. And
this whole food security, or

we're gonna run out of food and
only by having monoculture we

can have. These were faulty
assumptions, these were not

corrected. And looking back, you
know, I collected a lot of the

traditional varieties, and I
grow them after recovering them.

And their yield is very good, in
fact, so So the bad name that

was attached to them that there
are so hopeless, and they're

only give us famine is a premise
that is not correct. And I

completely refuse it. So So in
my own land, we were kind of

virtually forced to grow this
child in variety and get rid of

all the traditional variety,
almost like forced into it was a

was it was a period of
dysbiosis. I don't, I don't

actually praise that it was such
great thing. And it was green

revolution, and it saved us from
famine. That's a very truncated

version of what actually
happened. Because by getting rid

of all these traditional
varieties, we also depleted the

soil, we also and we have to
monetize of this thing, we have

to monetize what is lost. We
cannot just be selective and

congratulate ourselves for the
game and not notice what we have

lost. And for the new synthesis
to occur is a pathway for future

we have to be mindful of what we
have lost and find an economic

paradigm, which actually
monetizes what is being lost.

Joni Kindwall-Moore: I think a
lot of that economic paradigm is

manifesting itself in health
care costs. And, and of course,

like climate, you know, soil
degradation and climate change.

But when you look at the actual
like direct effect, and the the

rise of diet related disease,
that's largely in response to

eating a diet of plants and
animals that are only eating

seven species, like it's like
incredible, you know, what they

say we've lost 75% to 90% of all
of our genetic, biodiversity and

our food crops in 100 years, and
you look around and we don't

even, we can't even begin to
understand, like, how to rebuild

that, because we have to rebuild
the gut microbiome, we have to

rebuild all of the diverse
phytonutrients, micro and macro

nutrients. And we need to
restore the soil, all three

things have to happen
simultaneously to realign Food

and Ag systems with the goals of
positive human health and

positive climate resiliency. So
it's a heavy lift. But you know,

honestly, I think a lot of
people feel really hopeless in

this. But by starting to eat
more foods that have richer

phyto, nutrient profiles, rich
and colors, rich, and Newton,

you know, like diversity, you're
that you're suddenly humans are

part of the process. Again, it's
like we're part of nature,

again, we're part of a natural
cycle, because our consumption

demand is actually triggering an
event at the field that

stimulates the reintroduction of
all these phytonutrients into

the soil and into our gut.

Abed Chaudhury: It's amazing
that you bring the issue of

colors. So I had this ad hoc
idea a few days ago, and I think

I shared it with you. I thought
that what if people how, what if

the what I was just trying to
entertain the possibility that

the color in the above ground
crop is somehow necessarily

related to soil enrichment or
depletion. So there's a paper I

found like in the smoking gun
almost as soon as they talked

about it on paper eight. So when
people studied colored tomato

versus etiolated, or color less
tomato, they found that the root

branching was very different.
And in a way that no one

understand but you know how the
genome is set up under

selection. So what we get some
genetic chromosome we call it

and the whole genome of an
organism is not something that

came from heaven but but has
been constructed under

selection. So it looks to me and
I'm suggesting this ad hoc idea

that when people selected for
colored fruit, let's say tomato

being an example. So what
happened when the tomato is very

red, then people like to have
red tomato, so they selectively

propagated red tomato, so very
soon there is red tomato

everywhere. And without
realizing and simply by

selecting red tomato, they are
also enriching the soil because

red tomato have more root
branching, then then tomato that

is not red. So you are
benefiting the art without

really intellectually realizing
it. And that is a bit like what

Jim Lovelock was saying in the
guide that the human decision or

the decision of other people
with agency is In a subterranean

way, creating this new
ecosystem. And that's why your

own decision. And of course,
people did not study molecular

biology and did this in an
instinctive kind of way. But

they were doing things that they
did not realize they're doing.

And when I understood this kind
of grand design, if you will, of

the whole nature, interactive
manner, and human ecology is

part of it, because you go to
the forest and all this mist in

there, and now we know that it
mister, really helping your

brain. And you're, you're coming
down. We know that we know that

the house next to water has 10
times more value than the house

which is not next to water. And
we never ask why is that? Why is

it that we intrinsically like to
be near water? Why is it that we

really want to be in the forest?
This is something we take for

granted, and we never
investigated?

Joni Kindwall-Moore: Yeah, all
those questions, and I love the

the reference to lovelock's Gaia
hypothesis, we'll have to be

sure to put a link for people to
read about it, because it is a

very provocative concept. It's
actually makes a lot of sense

and feels very natural to so
many people. But it's still, you

know, a very contested concept
really, out there. So I'll let

the listeners take a moment
we'll put the link in so they

can read and decide on their
own. What how they feel about

it. But, you know, I'll bet I
feel like we've just scratched

the surface, there's so many
conversations, we need to have a

bet. And I have fantastic
conversations. Not as often as

we should. And I finally said,
we need to just record this,

these are so great. Because I
know there's other people that

long for this kind of thinking
and challenging of the really

status quo of what is operating
our modern systems and how we

put in that design process to
realign our modern era with

resiliency for both human health
and, and planetary health. So

I'll put in a number of links
for our listeners up so they

can, you know, do some more
research. And let's just

consider this session, one of
many, we'll have to have you on

again, because there's so many
topics that we need a deep dive

on. And I'm just I'm just
thrilled you joined me tonight,

or today this morning. It's
morning in Australia.

Abed Chaudhury: Very much. It's
been well, yeah. It's exciting

to be able to sort of blurt it
out, so to speak from the heart

so to speak. Yeah,

Joni Kindwall-Moore: absolutely.
And I think we'll have some more

sessions just purely on
genetics, because you're

teaching an online course on
genetics. Is that right? Do you

want to quickly tell our
listeners if they want to hear

and participate in a deeper dive
with Dr. Shari and the genetics

and really more of that
scientific rigor? Where can they

sign up for that?

Abed Chaudhury: Yeah, so so it's
an online course 25 people at a

time, the massive number of
people who have signed up now we

have a kind of a waiting list.
It's called genetics with abit

Choudry is it's the way genetics
is not taught in universities.

So I bring in a lot of these
ancestral or traditional ideas

about genetics, Bremen, DeLeon
genetics, as well as genetics

that I feel that has not been
covered as part of my genetics,

education, kind of a genetics
for the new reality genetics for

climate mitigation genetics for
sustainability, I would call it

so it's it's a six hour course
to our time, and I tried to do

it in a kind of a new touchy
feely, organic genetics, if you

want to call it that.

Joni Kindwall-Moore: Well, that
is wonderful. And I will also

make sure that we put a link for
our listeners, so if they want

to sign up for that course they
can. And, um, you know, I bet

thank you so much again, we'll
have you back later this season

so we can take another deep
dive. And for you listeners

tonight, please, if you loved
this content, if you're inspired

by Dr. chattery. Please take a
moment to share and rate the

podcast. We would love to have
more people here this incredible

thought leadership and really
just getting aligned with this

regenerative by design process
of there's so many things that

need to happen so that we can
realign our modern world with

nature and regenerative systems
and give our great grandkids a

better hope for the future. So
thanks for joining us and op

eds. So fantastic to see you.
Thank you.

Abed Chaudhury: Thank you
Jeremy.

Ed Bejarana: This episode of the
regenerative by design podcast

is brought to you by snack
diverse nation, elevating

climate smart crops and
regenerative supply chains

through innovative products and
transparent market development.

Thank

Unknown: you for joining me on
the regenerative by design

podcast. Please take a moment to
review our channel on your

favorite podcasting service and
share this session with your

friends and colleagues. via
LinkedIn Twitter Instagram

Facebook or wherever you connect
with your community