From: Lee Daniel Crocker (lee@piclab.com)
Date: Wed Apr 23 2003 - 17:10:54 MDT
> >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.
It's worse than that--even his imaginary story isn't really helpful.
The fact is, Mr. Hugh M. Species did not do "just fine" on fish, fowl,
etc. In fact, he was probably near starvation most of the time, and
just managed to reproduce once or twice before dying in his twenties
of disease or injury. That started to change with agriculture. One
can certainly argue that eliminating starvation alone is the only cause
of that benefit, and that nutrition actually decreased, but that has
to be shown rather than assumed. It is true that it was statistically
unlikely for him to have acquired adaptations to those agricultural
products that were unlike his former foods during that time, and he
certainly did acquire adaptations to the foods that were available to
him (and by accident those like them), so that certainly suggests that
learning what those foods were is a worthwhile thing to investigate.
But as you say, the argument is no less weak for happening to support
a good conclusion.
-- Lee Daniel Crocker <lee@piclab.com> <http://www.piclab.com/lee/> "All inventions or works of authorship original to me, herein and past, are placed irrevocably in the public domain, and may be used or modified for any purpose, without permission, attribution, or notification."--LDC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Apr 23 2003 - 17:22:26 MDT