2 ms·
I agree that the system is complicated. But it's hard to make the argument that we were genetically well adapted, or that said adaptation didn't come up with su
by SketchySeaBeast 4y ago
I agree that the system is complicated. But it's hard to make the argument that we were genetically well adapted, or that said adaptation didn't come up with sub-optimal tradeoffs to everything we suffered through when we were paleolithic as well. Evolution is very good at building "good enough" systems for an organism to survive in whatever environment it's in based upon what energy it has available.
I too don't like rejecting things outright, but knowing that, I also don't accept things outright either. We have no reason to believe that eating rotten meat wasn't a choice made out of necessity rather than out of some sort of optimal health.
- mlyle 4y ago> We have no reason to believe that eating rotten meat wasn't a choice made out of necessity rather than out of some sort of optimal health. First, basically every choice could be said to be made out of some kind of necessity. There's a big middle ground even from this. E.g. "eating rotten meat caused a lot of harms, but it also happened to fulfill a couple of somewhat important functions, and thus there was no evolutionary pressure to meet these requirements in any other way" Thus, even if eating rotten meat today would be a net negative for many, many reasons (and I strongly suspect this is the case), it makes a lot of sense to think about and study what possible benefits it could have had besides merely being available.
- SketchySeaBeast 4y agoFair enough. It's not outside of the realm of possibility there is some benefit.