5 ms·

>Even if we have less nutritious food, which is debatable It really isn't, it has been measured. With increased atmospheric CO2, plants grow faster and end up

>Even if we have less nutritious food, which is debatable It really isn't, it has been measured. With increased atmospheric CO2, plants grow faster and end up with a much higher calorie:micronutrient ratio. We also consume vast quantities of industrial waste products now like "vegetable oil", HFCS and soybean by-products. >we have an abundance of it, sufficient to feed us all and we don't suffer famines and shortages, or nutritional deficiencies. Famine wasn't as common as you seem to think it was, unless you include impoverished states, in which case famine is killing more people now than it was back then. You can't just look at rich countries now compared to everyone centuries ago. You have to compare like to like. We suffer plenty of nutritional deficiencies, and we suffer huge amounts of diet caused diseases like "type 2 diabetes" and osteoporosis. >We have an "epidemic" of mental illness because most of our day is no longer solely focused on scrounging for survival. People were not scrounging for survival then either. They were producing significant surpluses of food, enough to feed massive armies. And while they worked hard in spring and fall, they essentially had summer and winter as vacation time. They had more holidays/vacation time than modern Americans do. >Perhaps community bonds have something to do with it, but that's also debatable. We literally have hundreds of thousands of people killing themselves entirely because they have no social bonds. Everything is debatable, but this debate in particular has overwhelming evidence in support of it being correct. As population density grows, social cohesion, trust and relationships all decline. We just didn't evolve to be friends with 5 million people.

naasking 8y ago
> With increased atmospheric CO2, plants grow faster and end up with a much higher calorie:micronutrient ratio. Citation please. > We also consume vast quantities of industrial waste products now like "vegetable oil", HFCS and soybean by-products. Naturalistic fallacy. "Industrial waste" isn't necessarily harmful. > Famine wasn't as common as you seem to think it was, unless you include impoverished states, in which case famine is killing more people now than it was back then. "More people" is an irrelevant metric, what matters is the percentage of people relative to the total. That's a meaningful measure of progress. > We suffer plenty of nutritional deficiencies Such as? > and we suffer huge amounts of diet caused diseases like "type 2 diabetes" and osteoporosis. The latter of which was either common back then also, or uncommon because they didn't live long enough to develop it. As for type II diabetes, it's a disease of abundance, which proves my point. You can't overeat if you don't have enough to eat. > They were producing significant surpluses of food, enough to feed massive armies. That often starved during campaigns. > And while they worked hard in spring and fall, they essentially had summer and winter as vacation time. They had more holidays/vacation time than modern Americans do. During which they had to ration food, developed nutritional deficiencies, and died of exposure. Some vacation. You're awfully selective about how you compare "like to like". > We literally have hundreds of thousands of people killing themselves entirely because they have no social bonds. Citation please. Also, there is very little real data on historical suicide rates [1,2]. It consists mainly of conjecture from the writings of artists at the time, like Dante speaking about hell and suicide. So your claims that modern rates are higher are also pure conjecture. [1] https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/the-british-journal-of-psychiatry/article/suicide-or-accident-selfkilling-in-medieval-england/66195F6D981CEE48B35C155E6F7A948F https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/the-british-journal-... [2] http://psychiatry.queensu.ca/assets/Synergy/synergyfall12.pdf http://psychiatry.queensu.ca/assets/Synergy/synergyfall12.pd...
- agsdfgsd 8y ago
  >Citation please. https://www.google.com/search?q=co2%20plant%20nutrition https://www.google.com/search?q=co2%20plant%20nutrition >Naturalistic fallacy. "Industrial waste" isn't necessarily harmful. It is not a naturalistic fallacy. The things I mentioned are harmful. Industrial waste may not be necessarily harmful, but it is also not necessarily food. We consume it because it is industrial waste, not because it is food. It is harmful, we consume it in vast quantities, it did not even exist before the early 1900s. >"More people" is an irrelevant metric, what matters is the percentage of people relative to the total. That's a meaningful measure of progress. It is more as a percentage. >Such as? Do you think nutritional deficiencies don't exist any more? Common deficiencies include iron, B12, D, calcium, A, iodine, magnesium, zinc and folate. People now eat fewer vegetables, which contain fewer micronutrients, and we have almost completely removed organ meat from our diets altogether. >The latter of which was either common back then also, or uncommon because they didn't live long enough to develop it. Those are conflicting explanations. You can't dismiss a problem by throwing out random conflicting excuses. No, osteoporosis was not common then. "Type 2 diabetes" and heart disease both didn't even exist, and now are so widespread that they are top killers. >As for type II diabetes, it's a disease of abundance, which proves my point. No, it is a disease of consumption of toxic omega 6 polyunsaturated fats. Fat people existed in medieval times. They did not get "type 2 diabetes". And it still would not prove your point, as overeating is not the same as healthy. I said people ate healthier. People eating high calorie low nutrient food and getting morbidly obese now supports my point, it does not contradict it. >That often starved during campaigns. Only if you have an unusual definition of "often". And those incidents were due to being cut off from supplies. Another army preventing your food from getting to you is not an indication that you are unable to grow enough food and thus "everyone is spending all day trying to stave off starvation". >During which they had to ration food, developed nutritional deficiencies, and died of exposure Except none of those things. Those are the times they spent feasting. We still have several of the same traditional feasts, just renamed to pretend they are christian. >So your claims that modern rates are higher are also pure conjecture. Modern rates are higher than any other point in recorded history. We have poorer data from ancient times, but we do still have data. You even linked to some. And it indicates that suicide was rare, and when it did happen it was mainly out of shame or a sense of honor having done something wrong. There is no reason to assume suicide rates were higher in medieval times just because you want to believe the iron age was some horrific time. Again, the people who still live in the stone age today and are healthier and happier than us right now, and have essentially no modern "mental illnesses" like depression or social anxiety and no modern dietary diseases like "type 2 diabetes", even the ones with BMI scores in the "morbidly obese" category. Because they do not possess the technology to create petrochemical solvents necessary to extract toxic seed oils. We are just supposed to ignore that because they inconveniently point to modern society being harmful?
kortilla 8y ago
>but this debate in particular has overwhelming evidence in support of it being correct. Yet you provide none despite you making the extraordinary claims. Worrying about society overeating wasn’t even a thing in the US until the 50s.
- agsdfgsd 8y ago
  I have not made any extraordinary claims, I have repeated the very standard scientific consensus, which is constantly repeated in the popular media. I do not presume that every piece of common knowledge is going to be considered an "extraordinary claim" by someone who hates search engines. >Worrying about society overeating wasn’t even a thing in the US until the 50s. So, our modern lifestyle is good because we've only been worried about it killing us since we've had it?
  - kortilla 8y ago
    It is not common knowledge that a hunter gatherer lifestyle without medicine/food science/etc is better. It is not reported in popular media and it’s not backed by scientific research. It is an extraordinary claim. >our modern lifestyle is good because we've only been worried about it killing us since we've had it? Nope. It’s good because it’s provided us with abundance to the point where we are no longer struggling just to feed ourselves.
    - kortets 8y ago
      >It is not common knowledge that a hunter gatherer lifestyle without medicine/food science/etc is better. Nobody claimed it was. >It is an extraordinary claim. Which nobody made. The claim was that they worked fewer hours and had more nutritious diets. You should really consider reading the posts you reply to. >It’s good because it’s provided us with abundance to the point where we are no longer struggling just to feed ourselves We haven't been struggling just to feed ourselves in over 2000 years. Obesity and diet caused diseases are not an improvement over healthy diets. An excess of food is not superior to the correct amount of food.

naasking 8y ago

> With increased atmospheric CO2, plants grow faster and end up with a much higher calorie:micronutrient ratio. Citation please. > We also consume vast quantities of industrial waste products now like "vegetable oil", HFCS and soybean by-products. Naturalistic fallacy. "Industrial waste" isn't necessarily harmful. > Famine wasn't as common as you seem to think it was, unless you include impoverished states, in which case famine is killing more people now than it was back then. "More people" is an irrelevant metric, what matters is the percentage of people relative to the total. That's a meaningful measure of progress. > We suffer plenty of nutritional deficiencies Such as? > and we suffer huge amounts of diet caused diseases like "type 2 diabetes" and osteoporosis. The latter of which was either common back then also, or uncommon because they didn't live long enough to develop it. As for type II diabetes, it's a disease of abundance, which proves my point. You can't overeat if you don't have enough to eat. > They were producing significant surpluses of food, enough to feed massive armies. That often starved during campaigns. > And while they worked hard in spring and fall, they essentially had summer and winter as vacation time. They had more holidays/vacation time than modern Americans do. During which they had to ration food, developed nutritional deficiencies, and died of exposure. Some vacation. You're awfully selective about how you compare "like to like". > We literally have hundreds of thousands of people killing themselves entirely because they have no social bonds. Citation please. Also, there is very little real data on historical suicide rates [1,2]. It consists mainly of conjecture from the writings of artists at the time, like Dante speaking about hell and suicide. So your claims that modern rates are higher are also pure conjecture. [1] https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/the-british-journal-of-psychiatry/article/suicide-or-accident-selfkilling-in-medieval-england/66195F6D981CEE48B35C155E6F7A948F https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/the-british-journal-... [2] http://psychiatry.queensu.ca/assets/Synergy/synergyfall12.pdf http://psychiatry.queensu.ca/assets/Synergy/synergyfall12.pd...

agsdfgsd 8y ago
>Citation please. https://www.google.com/search?q=co2%20plant%20nutrition https://www.google.com/search?q=co2%20plant%20nutrition >Naturalistic fallacy. "Industrial waste" isn't necessarily harmful. It is not a naturalistic fallacy. The things I mentioned are harmful. Industrial waste may not be necessarily harmful, but it is also not necessarily food. We consume it because it is industrial waste, not because it is food. It is harmful, we consume it in vast quantities, it did not even exist before the early 1900s. >"More people" is an irrelevant metric, what matters is the percentage of people relative to the total. That's a meaningful measure of progress. It is more as a percentage. >Such as? Do you think nutritional deficiencies don't exist any more? Common deficiencies include iron, B12, D, calcium, A, iodine, magnesium, zinc and folate. People now eat fewer vegetables, which contain fewer micronutrients, and we have almost completely removed organ meat from our diets altogether. >The latter of which was either common back then also, or uncommon because they didn't live long enough to develop it. Those are conflicting explanations. You can't dismiss a problem by throwing out random conflicting excuses. No, osteoporosis was not common then. "Type 2 diabetes" and heart disease both didn't even exist, and now are so widespread that they are top killers. >As for type II diabetes, it's a disease of abundance, which proves my point. No, it is a disease of consumption of toxic omega 6 polyunsaturated fats. Fat people existed in medieval times. They did not get "type 2 diabetes". And it still would not prove your point, as overeating is not the same as healthy. I said people ate healthier. People eating high calorie low nutrient food and getting morbidly obese now supports my point, it does not contradict it. >That often starved during campaigns. Only if you have an unusual definition of "often". And those incidents were due to being cut off from supplies. Another army preventing your food from getting to you is not an indication that you are unable to grow enough food and thus "everyone is spending all day trying to stave off starvation". >During which they had to ration food, developed nutritional deficiencies, and died of exposure Except none of those things. Those are the times they spent feasting. We still have several of the same traditional feasts, just renamed to pretend they are christian. >So your claims that modern rates are higher are also pure conjecture. Modern rates are higher than any other point in recorded history. We have poorer data from ancient times, but we do still have data. You even linked to some. And it indicates that suicide was rare, and when it did happen it was mainly out of shame or a sense of honor having done something wrong. There is no reason to assume suicide rates were higher in medieval times just because you want to believe the iron age was some horrific time. Again, the people who still live in the stone age today and are healthier and happier than us right now, and have essentially no modern "mental illnesses" like depression or social anxiety and no modern dietary diseases like "type 2 diabetes", even the ones with BMI scores in the "morbidly obese" category. Because they do not possess the technology to create petrochemical solvents necessary to extract toxic seed oils. We are just supposed to ignore that because they inconveniently point to modern society being harmful?

kortilla 8y ago

>but this debate in particular has overwhelming evidence in support of it being correct. Yet you provide none despite you making the extraordinary claims. Worrying about society overeating wasn’t even a thing in the US until the 50s.

agsdfgsd 8y ago
I have not made any extraordinary claims, I have repeated the very standard scientific consensus, which is constantly repeated in the popular media. I do not presume that every piece of common knowledge is going to be considered an "extraordinary claim" by someone who hates search engines. >Worrying about society overeating wasn’t even a thing in the US until the 50s. So, our modern lifestyle is good because we've only been worried about it killing us since we've had it?
- kortilla 8y ago
  It is not common knowledge that a hunter gatherer lifestyle without medicine/food science/etc is better. It is not reported in popular media and it’s not backed by scientific research. It is an extraordinary claim. >our modern lifestyle is good because we've only been worried about it killing us since we've had it? Nope. It’s good because it’s provided us with abundance to the point where we are no longer struggling just to feed ourselves.
  - kortets 8y ago
    >It is not common knowledge that a hunter gatherer lifestyle without medicine/food science/etc is better. Nobody claimed it was. >It is an extraordinary claim. Which nobody made. The claim was that they worked fewer hours and had more nutritious diets. You should really consider reading the posts you reply to. >It’s good because it’s provided us with abundance to the point where we are no longer struggling just to feed ourselves We haven't been struggling just to feed ourselves in over 2000 years. Obesity and diet caused diseases are not an improvement over healthy diets. An excess of food is not superior to the correct amount of food.