3 ms·
I guess some people here dont understasnd the point of the article. There are 3 levels on which we can think about survival. 1. Population level On this leve
by majkinetor 14y ago
I guess some people here dont understasnd the point of the article.
There are 3 levels on which we can think about survival.
1. Population level
On this level, agriculture is clear benefit as it provided stable microenvironment to practice abstract sciences that led us here.
2. Individual level
On this level, we clearly lost it. Degenerative disease, particularly dental one and so called diseases of civilization. It may or may not reflect on u as individual depending on ur environment and genetics, but it reflects badly on majority of people. So this is middle ground heading bad way ATM and in what direction will it go depends on how fast we can adapt (epigenetics etc.)
3. Cell level.
Ask your enterocytes how they feel about glutens and friends. Ask your neurons how they feel about sugar surge and Coca Cola. Its total disaster here. Way to much for adaptation. Thats why we have rogue cells converting to metazoa 1.0 software (i.e. cancer).
- adamauckland 14y ago> 3. Cell level. Ask your enterocytes how they feel about glutens and friends. Ask your neurons how they feel about sugar surge and Coca Cola. Its total disaster here. Way to much for adaptation. Thats why we have rogue cells converting to metazoa 1.0 software (i.e. cancer). Is this true? (The bit about cancer)
- chii 14y agoi have heard that humans didn't used to eat so much sugar. It was a desirable food, high energy concentrations. but it was "hard" to get in nature. But with modern tech, it is now so cheap that the process of evolution hasn't really "selected" for people who could cope because it happened so fast.
- majkinetor 14y agoSee "Cancer tumors as Metazoa 1.0: tapping genes of ancient ancestors"