From: Eliezer S. Yudkowsky (sentience@pobox.com)
Date: Wed Apr 23 2003 - 15:56:53 MDT
gts wrote:
>
> For millions of years you've done fine on a diet of only lean meats,
> fish, fowl, eggs, vegetables, fruits and nuts. This is the diet on
> which you were raised and to which you are genetically adapted. Then,
> overnight, along come the dairy and grain farmers. You awaken one
> morning to a Neolithic world in which people are trying to foist dairy
> and agricultural products on you.
> Would it not be unreasonable to ask those dairy and grain farmers to
> first prove their case that these new-fangled foods are good for human
> health and longevity? i.e, would it not be unreasonable to take the
> position that the diet you've followed for millions of years is the
> default diet hypothesis in need of being disproved?
For millions of years you've done fine on a diet of "things that taste
good", following the decision rule of, if two foods are available,
preferring to eat the one that tastes the best. Suddenly you awaken one
morning to find paleodiet theorists claiming that this evolved instinctive
simple rule no longer works and must instead be replaced with a much more
complex and conscious decision process. Would it not be unreasonable to
ask these paleodiet theorists to first prove their case that this
new-fangled decision rule is good for human health and longevity?
Paleodiet theory is one of exactly *two* accidental hits I can think of
for the precautionary principle. In all other cases I know of, "the old
way is the good way" has rarely been a good heuristic once matters get to
the point of there being an argument at all.
-- Eliezer S. Yudkowsky http://singinst.org/ Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Apr 23 2003 - 16:08:41 MDT