4 ms·

>If you're going to put some faith in evolution, put it in our ability to adapt to available food sources. If we were as brittle as needing to consciously micro

>If you're going to put some faith in evolution, put it in our ability to adapt to available food sources. If we were as brittle as needing to consciously micromanage nutrient input, I doubt we'd have made it nearly this far. It depends on your definition of "need." You can obviously live to be old enough to reproduce on extra value meals from McDonald's - people do - but that doesn't mean its good for you. >Anyway, I don't see any particular reason to expect 'natural' food to be more healthy. Most of nature, given its druthers, would like to kill you. Because we're adapted to it and we're messing with systems that are not well understood. Some of this is obvious and well-known - for example, the link between sugar consumption and diabetes.

Dove 17y ago
> Because we're adapted to it and we're messing with systems that are not well understood. Well, at least we try to understand them. Nature doesn't even do that. Bananas--in any form--are new; a 10,000 year old irreproducible hybrid. Corn and cattle have undergone extreme selection and no small amount of random variation in that time. Nature produces viruses and parasites and mutations on proteins and poisons, none of which have us in mind. And it does it much, much faster than human evolution is going to be able to adapt to changing available food sources. Our generations are long, and little things like cancer at the end of life just don't hurt our offspring that much. In a contest between engineered food -- whether cloned or GM -- and food that's just been genetically drifting for a few thousand years, I'll take the engineered food every time. Sure, the engineers are working with systems far beyond their ken. I get that. But nature wouldn't be shy about doing even relatively obviously dangerous things. Engineers might make sweeter apples and we discover many years down the road that some protein interaction upsets some delicate balance if you eat them with too many fish and it causes your teeth to turn blue. But nature might decide to make an apple all cyanide and not just the seeds. Humans are pretty robust and adaptable. We can handle the random, arbitrary garbage nature throws at us. We wouldn't be here if we couldn't. So I'm sure the mistakes of a few engineers who trying very hard not to hurt us won't amount to much of anything.

Dove 17y ago

> Because we're adapted to it and we're messing with systems that are not well understood. Well, at least we try to understand them. Nature doesn't even do that. Bananas--in any form--are new; a 10,000 year old irreproducible hybrid. Corn and cattle have undergone extreme selection and no small amount of random variation in that time. Nature produces viruses and parasites and mutations on proteins and poisons, none of which have us in mind. And it does it much, much faster than human evolution is going to be able to adapt to changing available food sources. Our generations are long, and little things like cancer at the end of life just don't hurt our offspring that much. In a contest between engineered food -- whether cloned or GM -- and food that's just been genetically drifting for a few thousand years, I'll take the engineered food every time. Sure, the engineers are working with systems far beyond their ken. I get that. But nature wouldn't be shy about doing even relatively obviously dangerous things. Engineers might make sweeter apples and we discover many years down the road that some protein interaction upsets some delicate balance if you eat them with too many fish and it causes your teeth to turn blue. But nature might decide to make an apple all cyanide and not just the seeds. Humans are pretty robust and adaptable. We can handle the random, arbitrary garbage nature throws at us. We wouldn't be here if we couldn't. So I'm sure the mistakes of a few engineers who trying very hard not to hurt us won't amount to much of anything.