4 ms·

I don't think it's a fallacy to conclude generally that consuming plants which coevolved with humans is safer than consuming chemicals which are completely exog

by elif 3y ago

I don't think it's a fallacy to conclude generally that consuming plants which coevolved with humans is safer than consuming chemicals which are completely exogenous to any stage of the human body's development. It would be a fallacy to suggest that one group or the other were unconditionally safer, but I find no dilemma in generalizing that the human body is more capable of processing plant-based substances. Just like I would generalize that consuming plant-based substances is healthier than consuming paint. Sure you can nit pick outliers, safe paint or oleander or whatever, but the heuristic is still of value.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
tptacek 3y ago
Tobacco coevolved with humans. So did areca nuts. And bracken ferns.
Natsu 3y ago
I believe that more when humans have had a long history of consuming the thing without noticeable problems. And even then, sometimes traditional ways of preparing it turn out to be rather important: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nixtamalization https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nixtamalization It makes me wonder if some of the things like, e.g. the supposed success of the Mediterranean diet, are due to bits of food culture like this that we've lost or never fully understood.
Mordisquitos 3y ago
I have no reason to believe that stevia increases the risk of cancer, but I'm afraid that arguing it is likely to be safe because it "coevolved" with humans is basically falling into the naturalistic fallacy with extra steps. For stevia to be arguably safer due coevolution with humans, the following would need to be true: 1. There is a selective pressure for stevia to not increase the risk of cancer in humans. 2. There is a selective pressure on humans to not have an increased risk of cancer from consuming stevia. In other words, it is firstly to argue that a stevia plant which had a tendency to increase cancer risk in humans would be significantly less likely to reproduce. This effect would be hard enough even if the hypothetical carcinogen were to be otherwise selectively neutral, but it could have a selectively positive pressure if it were an essential hormone or defence against insects, pathogens, competitors, etc. Secondly, it is to argue that if stevia were potentially carcinogenic, then humans that were susceptible to its effects were significantly less likely to reproduce. This fails on two levels. First, consider that even in the cut-and-dried cause of cancer that is smoking, lung cancer is still extremely rare among young smokers. Lung cancer patients are virtually always well past their reproductive age, meaning that even if a genetic mutation to be immune to tobacco were to appear (or indeed it may well already exist) then said mutation still has no selective advantage with regards to the consumption of tobacco. Second, even if a hypothetically-carcinogenic stevia[0] could exert selective pressure on humans to become unaffected by it, then that effect would only have taken place on the populations which consumed significant amounts of stevia over generations and not humanity as a whole. [0] Which I insist, I don't believe is the case.
- buu700 3y ago
  Selective pressure doesn't need to be perfectly foolproof to be valid. Humans are pretty observant, and have decent odds of noticing over time when particular things correlate with health problems. A plant known to cause health problems is less likely to become and remain a dietary staple. A plant that isn't a dietary staple misses out on a wealth of opportunity for propagation. I think you're also hyperfocusing on the issue of evolution. The point isn't that stevia is a plant which merely exists, but rather its longevity in human culture[0]. What you're saying makes sense for random plants picked up in the woods; less so for plants that have been consumed by humans since antiquity. By the same logic, there would be no a priori difference in risk profile between vegetables and random research chemicals. 0: https://www.britannica.com/plant/stevia-plant#ref350513 https://www.britannica.com/plant/stevia-plant#ref350513
  - Dylan16807 3y ago
    A small long-term increase in cancer risk is really hard to notice. And lots of cultivated plants have downsides. > By the same logic, there would be no a priori difference in risk profile between vegetables and random research chemicals. No, that's a strawman. Nobody is suggesting that "random research chemicals" should be considered safe. And extracting random chemicals out of plants would also be dangerous!
berniedurfee 3y ago
Though, there are many plants that coevolved with humans that are toxic in various ways.
KMag 3y ago
> I don't think it's a fallacy to conclude generally that consuming plants which coevolved with humans is safer than consuming chemicals which are completely exogenous to any stage of the human body's development. An optimal organism doesn't imply an optimal environment. fitness(org, food) = -2 org^2 + org * food + 7 If evolution had optimized fitness by adjusting "org" while keeping "food" constant, that wouldn't imply holding "org" constant and changing "food" wouldn't yield improvement. Evolution doesn't optimize the environment for the organism. Evolution performs stochastic gradient descent, improving the organism for the environment, which can easily get stuck at global optima. More importantly, it improves the organism for the environment/food/etc. The idea that the food is optimal for the organism gets the improvement mechanism backward.

by elif 3y ago

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

tptacek 3y ago

Tobacco coevolved with humans. So did areca nuts. And bracken ferns.

Natsu 3y ago

I believe that more when humans have had a long history of consuming the thing without noticeable problems. And even then, sometimes traditional ways of preparing it turn out to be rather important: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nixtamalization https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nixtamalization It makes me wonder if some of the things like, e.g. the supposed success of the Mediterranean diet, are due to bits of food culture like this that we've lost or never fully understood.

Mordisquitos 3y ago

I have no reason to believe that stevia increases the risk of cancer, but I'm afraid that arguing it is likely to be safe because it "coevolved" with humans is basically falling into the naturalistic fallacy with extra steps. For stevia to be arguably safer due coevolution with humans, the following would need to be true: 1. There is a selective pressure for stevia to not increase the risk of cancer in humans. 2. There is a selective pressure on humans to not have an increased risk of cancer from consuming stevia. In other words, it is firstly to argue that a stevia plant which had a tendency to increase cancer risk in humans would be significantly less likely to reproduce. This effect would be hard enough even if the hypothetical carcinogen were to be otherwise selectively neutral, but it could have a selectively positive pressure if it were an essential hormone or defence against insects, pathogens, competitors, etc. Secondly, it is to argue that if stevia were potentially carcinogenic, then humans that were susceptible to its effects were significantly less likely to reproduce. This fails on two levels. First, consider that even in the cut-and-dried cause of cancer that is smoking, lung cancer is still extremely rare among young smokers. Lung cancer patients are virtually always well past their reproductive age, meaning that even if a genetic mutation to be immune to tobacco were to appear (or indeed it may well already exist) then said mutation still has no selective advantage with regards to the consumption of tobacco. Second, even if a hypothetically-carcinogenic stevia[0] could exert selective pressure on humans to become unaffected by it, then that effect would only have taken place on the populations which consumed significant amounts of stevia over generations and not humanity as a whole. [0] Which I insist, I don't believe is the case.

buu700 3y ago
Selective pressure doesn't need to be perfectly foolproof to be valid. Humans are pretty observant, and have decent odds of noticing over time when particular things correlate with health problems. A plant known to cause health problems is less likely to become and remain a dietary staple. A plant that isn't a dietary staple misses out on a wealth of opportunity for propagation. I think you're also hyperfocusing on the issue of evolution. The point isn't that stevia is a plant which merely exists, but rather its longevity in human culture[0]. What you're saying makes sense for random plants picked up in the woods; less so for plants that have been consumed by humans since antiquity. By the same logic, there would be no a priori difference in risk profile between vegetables and random research chemicals. 0: https://www.britannica.com/plant/stevia-plant#ref350513 https://www.britannica.com/plant/stevia-plant#ref350513
- Dylan16807 3y ago
  A small long-term increase in cancer risk is really hard to notice. And lots of cultivated plants have downsides. > By the same logic, there would be no a priori difference in risk profile between vegetables and random research chemicals. No, that's a strawman. Nobody is suggesting that "random research chemicals" should be considered safe. And extracting random chemicals out of plants would also be dangerous!

berniedurfee 3y ago

Though, there are many plants that coevolved with humans that are toxic in various ways.

KMag 3y ago

> I don't think it's a fallacy to conclude generally that consuming plants which coevolved with humans is safer than consuming chemicals which are completely exogenous to any stage of the human body's development. An optimal organism doesn't imply an optimal environment. fitness(org, food) = -2 org^2 + org * food + 7 If evolution had optimized fitness by adjusting "org" while keeping "food" constant, that wouldn't imply holding "org" constant and changing "food" wouldn't yield improvement. Evolution doesn't optimize the environment for the organism. Evolution performs stochastic gradient descent, improving the organism for the environment, which can easily get stuck at global optima. More importantly, it improves the organism for the environment/food/etc. The idea that the food is optimal for the organism gets the improvement mechanism backward.