3 ms·
On the other hand, those million years of evolution did not select specifically for ”delicious and nutritious”.
by vnorilo 7y ago
On the other hand, those million years of evolution did not select specifically for ”delicious and nutritious”.
- dzhiurgis 7y agoIt did plus it's healthy (to an extent) It didn't select to be environmentally friendly. Humans scaled up animal growth fairly recently too, so we hadn't had enough time to figure out pathogen issue and ethics.
- blaser-waffle 7y agoI disagree. Evolution has created signals -- "tasty" -- for things that are good for us. Fats, salts, and sugars are comparatively rare in a wild environment, and thus they taste good.
- vnorilo 7y agoSure, but that's us evolving, not the animals, right? We have made quite a few other nutrient-dense foods that hack those signals. Evolution did not make cheese or chocolate in all these years, because it doesn't target our palate, rather the other way around. (Notable recent counterargument is the selective breeding of cattle for food, but that's thousands, not millions of years.) I don't think the evolution of cattle is a good indicator of the difficulty of creating great plant protein products.