'k Roger, thats kinda the response I thought I was going to get.
1st: Animals don't mind monotony because they are animals. They are not humans, with a humans love of variety, ability to appreciate changes and decyphefr patterns. And if you don't think some animals get bored with fodod, own a parrot sometime. Oy vey. I can tell if for certain if I give the cockatoo parrot chow every day with no variety I will have a very sad cockatoo.
The language that people are cooked food 'addicts' is the kind of rhetoric that people complain about when trying to have a rational discussion with hard core lifestylers of any lifestyle. Exactly what am I addicted to? Specific chemicals in cooked food? Variety? I'm addicted to variety?
As for being able to appreciate subtlety in food if I hadn't been raised with variety - yeah, I'm sure thats somewhat true. But you can argue the same thing for an endless number of things. If only I had been allowed to only wear one color, I would appreciate nuances in that one color more. If I was only allowed to read from the Bible for reading material I would appreciate the different Biblical writers styles more acutely. If I was forced to only listen to one style of music, etc etc. That's all true but I'm not sure how it's right, per se, and germain to my question.
Variety - and experiencing same - is a basic building block for forming a wider variety of experience, stimulating different parts of the brain, and helping us to grow. Sure, taking time to focus to learn nuances is important, but I don't know....your response seems to not address my question. I expected a "there may be less variety but its ok - I don't mind, my mind adapted, its worth it!" sort of answer that smacks of "i HAVE to believe this is ok otherwise I'm admitting that a potential negative exists in my viewpoint". For my thinking, anytime someone suggests a new lifestyle and says there are NO negatives, and any perceived "bugs" are "features"...well, those of in the computer world get the analogy. It has that religious overtone, y'know?
Also: one of the prime arguments for raw foodism (I think) is the old chestnut that its closer to the way our ancestors ate, that its more like our genetically evolved primitive diet. Yet a diet of hundreds of different foodstuffs is nothing like what our primitive ancestors ate. An ape in the eurals wouldn't be eating lemons and avocados along with apples and kale - I think. Citrus fruit grow in one place; mangos and papayas someplace else, etc. And the supergreen drink - unless you are preparing it yourself from real greens i don't see the connection. Wouldn't it be more accurate to take a region of the world that the bonobos or chimps or whatever actually live in and just eat what is local to that?
If not - why are you looking for 'variety' from foods elsewhere? (Good natured grin).
Of course the counter to this argument of mine is that not-so-primitive man, even today, often exists on a limited diet. South americans in recent history (hundreds of years) lived on beans and corn almost exclusively - cooked , of course. They got by. I'm sure, however, they enjoyed variety when it was available. I'm sure if nothing was available they made do, as people always do - when they have to. I'm not sure I want my brain to be in a 'make do' mode, if that makes any sense.
This is all my good natured, non-attacking opinion and open search for answers. I'm not even arguing with the health benefits or energy increase that is suggested by the diet at all - I admit those are spot on.
Anyway - I can appreciate the shades of blueberry, and enjoy and be satisfied with small differences in them - but they will never taste like curry, cinnamon, or scotch bonnet, no matter how gourmet my buds get.