3 ms·

Arguing that our current lifestyle is not what evolution optimized for is not a fallacy. There is no "ought" or "good" in the original quote. Many of the mode

• JumpCrisscross 5y ago
  > our current lifestyle is not what evolution optimized for It's not. But neither is a senior person living healthily and happily into their late years something evolution considered. We're trying our biology in ways evolution doesn't care for, aiming for goals it never considered. Rhetorically, I can construct arguments for (coastal communities being historically healthy and consuming more salt) and against (ancient civilizations were chronically salt starved) modern salt consumption with this form of argument. There are too many degrees of freedom amidst sparse evidence in a diverse, heterogenous archaeological record. > modern differences in environment from earlier humans would be considered "good" by most people Those people tend to consider the nutrient-rich versions of plants we've bred for millennia while disregarding the toxins, pathogens and general wear-and-tear a Paleolithic human would have been subjected to.
  • laurencerowe 5y ago
    > But neither is a senior person living healthily and happily into their late years something evolution considered. People living into their late years was not uncommon historically. The huge changes to life expectancy in modern times are largely explained by so many fewer dying in childhood and child birth. https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20181002-how-long-did-ancient-people-live-life-span-versus-longevity https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20181002-how-long-did-anc...