4 ms·

I generally agree with you, but I don't think this: > the population is acting entirely naturally and appropriately given their adaptation to specific evolutio

I generally agree with you, but I don't think this: > the population is acting entirely naturally and appropriately given their adaptation to specific evolutionary conditions is the same as, or even necessarily implies, this: > there is nothing wrong I would say we're surviving rather sustainably right now, in the sense that we've adapted to our environment well enough where it isn't really a hindrance to our propagation as a species; but I highly doubt it's even close to being optimal. In the same sense that having long life expectancy doesn't necessarily imply having a good quality of life. The problem is that we're too quick to assume that we're already living in a 'future' where we know everything, and that things have been distilled to be so convenient, that it all had to be 'proven' or something by now, right? It plays out all the time: "Oh look, this conveniently packaged product has 0 carbs! Awesome, I can eat a ton of this now, cause I just heard of a study that said carbs are bad." Except that the product label is misleading because it only accounts for one tiny serving that was specifically chosen to fall below the "0 carb" requirement guidelines (which do have a bit of wiggle room), and that study was actually sponsored by the company who made that product you're now looking at. And this happens all over the place. It's unfortunate, but it does seem the whole setup we have going right now might be a bit too shaky to really say much conclusive about nutrition. Nutritionists aren't necessarily doctors; Doctors aren't necessarily scientists; and Scientists could always be swayed by the entities funding their research -- research which can go on to live safely in journals probably without many attempts at reproduction, so it's ok to fudge the numbers a tiny bit if you need things to work out a bit more. Despite what it sounds like, I'm actually not very cynical; I just think we need to gain a bit of perspective about where we are as a species right now. We'll figure it out eventually, but it is admittedly kinda tough to navigate the seas of nonsense out there right now.

TeMPOraL 13y ago
> I generally agree with you, but I don't think this: >> the population is acting entirely naturally and appropriately given their adaptation to specific evolutionary conditions > is the same as, or even necessarily implies, this: >> there is nothing wrong I think by "nothing wrong" GP meant "people are behaving exactly to specification", not "people are behaving in a way that benefits them". Lots of adaptations are quite wrong for life in XXI century, but humans executing them are acting correctly, with respect to the way their hardware is wired.
- oblique63 13y ago
  I'm aware that this was most likely the meaning of that statement, however I don't see the usefulness in presenting 'wrongness' this way when it basically deems any outcome that doesn't involve the extinction of the human race as 'working'. It's just a simplistic non-stance that doesn't really mean anything, so I figured it would be more productive to invoke the 'moral' wrongness of it.
  - TeMPOraL 13y ago
    It does mean something. It tells us that the problem isn't moral, so we shouldn't run around screaming of how human civilization is declining. It tells us that this is how things are supposed to work in the environment we set up, so we shouldn't tell people this is an illness. It reminds us that this failure mode is the default state, so we really do need to work and/or remodel our environment if we want to avoid it.
    - oblique63 13y ago
      There is a reason I put the word 'moral' in quotes, and you just explained it. The thing is, that I think it has already become sufficiently obvious that as a society, we see a need for change. Using vague terms like 'morality' make a lot more sense when you put them in a quantifiable context that represent the will of the populous. Thus I don't see the need to regress back to this 'default state' of pretending we don't know where we stand because it seems we've already established that much. Instead, presenting things that way seems to confuse and induce semantic arguments like this one because it removes knowledge that people already know; leading to [IMO] wasted brainpower -- unless a lot of people really are unaware of the current zeitgeist, in which case I would take back my arguments.

TeMPOraL 13y ago

> I generally agree with you, but I don't think this: >> the population is acting entirely naturally and appropriately given their adaptation to specific evolutionary conditions > is the same as, or even necessarily implies, this: >> there is nothing wrong I think by "nothing wrong" GP meant "people are behaving exactly to specification", not "people are behaving in a way that benefits them". Lots of adaptations are quite wrong for life in XXI century, but humans executing them are acting correctly, with respect to the way their hardware is wired.

oblique63 13y ago
I'm aware that this was most likely the meaning of that statement, however I don't see the usefulness in presenting 'wrongness' this way when it basically deems any outcome that doesn't involve the extinction of the human race as 'working'. It's just a simplistic non-stance that doesn't really mean anything, so I figured it would be more productive to invoke the 'moral' wrongness of it.
- TeMPOraL 13y ago
  It does mean something. It tells us that the problem isn't moral, so we shouldn't run around screaming of how human civilization is declining. It tells us that this is how things are supposed to work in the environment we set up, so we shouldn't tell people this is an illness. It reminds us that this failure mode is the default state, so we really do need to work and/or remodel our environment if we want to avoid it.
  - oblique63 13y ago
    There is a reason I put the word 'moral' in quotes, and you just explained it. The thing is, that I think it has already become sufficiently obvious that as a society, we see a need for change. Using vague terms like 'morality' make a lot more sense when you put them in a quantifiable context that represent the will of the populous. Thus I don't see the need to regress back to this 'default state' of pretending we don't know where we stand because it seems we've already established that much. Instead, presenting things that way seems to confuse and induce semantic arguments like this one because it removes knowledge that people already know; leading to [IMO] wasted brainpower -- unless a lot of people really are unaware of the current zeitgeist, in which case I would take back my arguments.