In the discussion section of the last post, the eternal argument about non-industrial people arose: were their lives (a) "nasty, brutish and short" (Hobbes), or were they (b) "noble savages" (Shaftesbury) living in Eden? The former argument states that they had awful lives, and we should be glad we're living int he 21st century. The latter argument implies that we should emulate them as much as possible. Each side is bursting with anecdotes to support their position.
Any time the discussion reaches this point, it stops providing us anything useful. The argument is a false dichotomy, one in which neither answer is correct. The correct answer is (c): none of the above. Some aspects of hunter-gatherer life are preferable to ours, and some aspects of our lives are preferable to theirs. Understanding that we spent a lot of evolutionary time as hunter-gatherers, as well as a few thousand years in small, tightly knit agricultural communities, may be useful in understanding how to work constructively with our own bodies and minds in the modern world.
So please, let's leave behind the false dichotomy and foster a more nuanced understanding of hunter-gatherer life.
Labels
April fool's
archaeology
book review
cancer
Cardiovascular disease
celiac
cholesterol
cob
dementia
dental health
diabetes
diet
disease
diseases of civilization
environment
evolution
exercise
fat-soluble vitamins
fats
Food reward
French paradox
genetics
gluten
gout
hormesis
hyperphagia
hypertension
infection
Inuit
Kitava
Kuna
lard
lectins
leptin
liver
low-carb
Masai
meditation
metabolic syndrome
minerals
native diet
natural building
nutritionism
overweight
paleolithic diet
phytic acid
Pima
presentations
real food
research bloopers
salad
San
sleep
smoking
soup stock
success stories
superstimuli
thrift
thyroid
Tokelau
yogurt
0 comments:
Post a Comment