Destroying The False Doctrine of Mainstream Genetics
-
@Rawsei said in Destroying The False Doctrine of Mainstream Genetics:
It evolved with a specific set of foods, microbes, textures, compounds, visuals, and relationships.
How long would that take for the human body?
@Hunterskull Good question.
I personally don't have enough data regarding this exact topic, and Ecological Psychology doesn't actually give you a clean number of years, because this is impossible.
You'd want to look at this in terms of the geological time regarding Homo Sapiens, which is around 300,000 years. The Primal Diet argues that, since agriculture is only around 10,000 years old, then that's too short of a time period for meaningful genetic adaptation. I don't necessarily disagree with the argument, but I reject the gene-centric framework.The gut microbiome, for example, can shift dramatically within days. Epigenetic markers can change within a generation.
Now, if organisms construct their niches, then the food environment and the organism co-constructed each other across evolutionary time. The Homo sapiens gut did not passively adapt to available foods, rather, human behavior actively shaped which foods were available, how they were obtained, and what microbial ecosystems surrounded them.Given the circular causation and the actively maintained state of the organism-environment, in principle, the system has plasticity. This means it can reorganize around new inputs given enough time and the right conditions. This would point to the claim that adaptation to agricultural foods is possible, but it's slow and incomplete at the population level, and extremely variable at the individual level.
Does this mean that we could eventually adapt to UPF? In the most theoretical way, yes...But there are important limits to this. Firstly, the timescale would have to be enormous. Secondly, adaptation through niche construction works when the new niche offers a stable, rich organism-environment relationship that selection can progressively refine. UPF is not a stable niche, because it keeps constantly changing through arbitrary whims. And the organism can not co-evolve with something that keeps changing arbitrarily. There are of course the thermodynamic arguments to be made for this. One I can think of rn is that living systems are autocatakinetic. This means that they exist by maintaining their organization through continous interaction with their environment. A food environment that degrades the system's capacity to maintain its own organization is objectively worse (UPF). Therefore, an argument could be made that UPF is actually thermodynamically impoverishing, which means we could never actually adapt to it.
Hope this somewhat answered your question. If it didn't just clarify, I'm down to answer any questions regarding this topic.
Aristotle, Ayn, Aajonus.
-
@Hunterskull Good question.
I personally don't have enough data regarding this exact topic, and Ecological Psychology doesn't actually give you a clean number of years, because this is impossible.
You'd want to look at this in terms of the geological time regarding Homo Sapiens, which is around 300,000 years. The Primal Diet argues that, since agriculture is only around 10,000 years old, then that's too short of a time period for meaningful genetic adaptation. I don't necessarily disagree with the argument, but I reject the gene-centric framework.The gut microbiome, for example, can shift dramatically within days. Epigenetic markers can change within a generation.
Now, if organisms construct their niches, then the food environment and the organism co-constructed each other across evolutionary time. The Homo sapiens gut did not passively adapt to available foods, rather, human behavior actively shaped which foods were available, how they were obtained, and what microbial ecosystems surrounded them.Given the circular causation and the actively maintained state of the organism-environment, in principle, the system has plasticity. This means it can reorganize around new inputs given enough time and the right conditions. This would point to the claim that adaptation to agricultural foods is possible, but it's slow and incomplete at the population level, and extremely variable at the individual level.
Does this mean that we could eventually adapt to UPF? In the most theoretical way, yes...But there are important limits to this. Firstly, the timescale would have to be enormous. Secondly, adaptation through niche construction works when the new niche offers a stable, rich organism-environment relationship that selection can progressively refine. UPF is not a stable niche, because it keeps constantly changing through arbitrary whims. And the organism can not co-evolve with something that keeps changing arbitrarily. There are of course the thermodynamic arguments to be made for this. One I can think of rn is that living systems are autocatakinetic. This means that they exist by maintaining their organization through continous interaction with their environment. A food environment that degrades the system's capacity to maintain its own organization is objectively worse (UPF). Therefore, an argument could be made that UPF is actually thermodynamically impoverishing, which means we could never actually adapt to it.
Hope this somewhat answered your question. If it didn't just clarify, I'm down to answer any questions regarding this topic.
-
@Hunterskull Good question.
I personally don't have enough data regarding this exact topic, and Ecological Psychology doesn't actually give you a clean number of years, because this is impossible.
You'd want to look at this in terms of the geological time regarding Homo Sapiens, which is around 300,000 years. The Primal Diet argues that, since agriculture is only around 10,000 years old, then that's too short of a time period for meaningful genetic adaptation. I don't necessarily disagree with the argument, but I reject the gene-centric framework.The gut microbiome, for example, can shift dramatically within days. Epigenetic markers can change within a generation.
Now, if organisms construct their niches, then the food environment and the organism co-constructed each other across evolutionary time. The Homo sapiens gut did not passively adapt to available foods, rather, human behavior actively shaped which foods were available, how they were obtained, and what microbial ecosystems surrounded them.Given the circular causation and the actively maintained state of the organism-environment, in principle, the system has plasticity. This means it can reorganize around new inputs given enough time and the right conditions. This would point to the claim that adaptation to agricultural foods is possible, but it's slow and incomplete at the population level, and extremely variable at the individual level.
Does this mean that we could eventually adapt to UPF? In the most theoretical way, yes...But there are important limits to this. Firstly, the timescale would have to be enormous. Secondly, adaptation through niche construction works when the new niche offers a stable, rich organism-environment relationship that selection can progressively refine. UPF is not a stable niche, because it keeps constantly changing through arbitrary whims. And the organism can not co-evolve with something that keeps changing arbitrarily. There are of course the thermodynamic arguments to be made for this. One I can think of rn is that living systems are autocatakinetic. This means that they exist by maintaining their organization through continous interaction with their environment. A food environment that degrades the system's capacity to maintain its own organization is objectively worse (UPF). Therefore, an argument could be made that UPF is actually thermodynamically impoverishing, which means we could never actually adapt to it.
Hope this somewhat answered your question. If it didn't just clarify, I'm down to answer any questions regarding this topic.
-
@Elliott87
I could understand what he was saying. -
@Staff With all due respect best of the best doesnt automatically mean you're choosing one opinion or viewpoint over another, its simply a place for high quality information to live. There's botb threads on every other forum and all of those botb sections have threads that disagree with one another but the information is high quality enough that people can see all the best information and make their own decision. Also, genuinely good info and high quality threads shouldn't just be lost to the depths of the forum cause then people would be scared to comment or ask questions in fear theyd get banned for necroposting + it'd be really difficult for newer users to see the quality info.
Just my thoughts
-
@Staff With all due respect best of the best doesnt automatically mean you're choosing one opinion or viewpoint over another, its simply a place for high quality information to live. There's botb threads on every other forum and all of those botb sections have threads that disagree with one another but the information is high quality enough that people can see all the best information and make their own decision. Also, genuinely good info and high quality threads shouldn't just be lost to the depths of the forum cause then people would be scared to comment or ask questions in fear theyd get banned for necroposting + it'd be really difficult for newer users to see the quality info.
Just my thoughts
Thank you for your opinion. Truly.
Sorry if this comment sounds like information dump. It's just stream of consciousness.
The problem with favouring the mainstream standard of "high-quality" which seems to be long and highly reasoned opinion that is favoured by most people is problematic in my opinion. It strives for behaviour that only creating those kind of posts is "high-quality" even when a long comment to random topic or even a short comment is seen as lower quality. This can drift people away from making such shorter topics or shorter comments that can have a lot of value also, not always but sometimes they do.
Even one sentence can be as "valuable" as 1000 words. It's kinda subjective on whats even "valuable". I would see to seek the "higher" value in my opinion which is truth over the easiness of beginner people finding "high-quality" information, which is already easy as we have the resource section, search tool and people can sort posts by upvotes so highly upvoted posts are seen even if old.
And we can get closer to the "truth" the more debate we have, and thats why the only principle we all agree on this forum is raw animal foods are healthier than cooked animal foods, it's the only principle that I can comfortably be sure is 100% true. And then we can build from there long-term to more complex ideological structures.
We also don't see it as problem when people ask the same questions again and again, the more arguments and debating the better.
If we choose standard for high-quality topics that go to BOTB, then we indirectly say that specific thing is even little bit truer (limits the human mind) than something else, it drifts us away from all of the possibilities. in my opinion all posts, short, long have the possibility to be "high-value", we just don't know yet the absolute truth.
Also we don't care about "necroposting" at all. You can comment to the first topic in this forum and it doesn't matter. Such as in social media people comment years later "this aged like wine" or "this aged like milk", and it's normal.
Rawprimal.org stance: raw animal foods > cooked animal foods. We don't have even slightest opinion on any other food, protocol or method, even the "obvious" ones. Even if we say something "obvious" like "junk food is bad" then the ball starts rolling and we need to start having opinions on next thing, this goes until we have opinion on everything, but we don't know if those opinions are true, it's slippery slope.
I know people who make long, highly reasoned topics fear their topics go hidden but yes, that might happen, but that's natural. People will still have the ability to find it but it is what it is. if it's truly great it will be found and resurfaced again and again. And most importantly the knowledge on those threads will be stored in peoples brains for a long time and will spread and evolve.
So basically the only truth we all can know is 100% true is that raw animal foods are healthier than cooked animal foods, we already have huge part of the puzzle, but I believe we are not all the way to here. I don't know if the strongest Aajonus fans believe we know everything already but I would prove otherwise: "As people are still seeking of the "Detoxification book by Aajonus", if that would be real and unpublished hidden somewhere and we operate in the frame work that "everything Aajonus says is 100% true" then we can conclude big part of the truth is still hidden".
But I would also say "If you want to seek the truth, treat even the opinions of smart people critically and with skepticism".
So even if I amplify post A by putting it to BOTB which is the enemy of B and put it also to BOTB then still I could be indirectly censoring posts C,D,E, etc.
TLDR: The forum’s only absolute truth is that raw animal foods are healthier than cooked. Beyond that, no opinion is off-limits. Long, highly reasoned posts shouldn’t be the sole “high-quality” standard, short comments can hold equal value. Seeking truth requires open debate, skepticism even of experts, and allowing all ideas to surface naturally rather than curating or gatekeeping content, which risks censorship and closing off possibilities.
-
Thank you for your opinion. Truly.
Sorry if this comment sounds like information dump. It's just stream of consciousness.
The problem with favouring the mainstream standard of "high-quality" which seems to be long and highly reasoned opinion that is favoured by most people is problematic in my opinion. It strives for behaviour that only creating those kind of posts is "high-quality" even when a long comment to random topic or even a short comment is seen as lower quality. This can drift people away from making such shorter topics or shorter comments that can have a lot of value also, not always but sometimes they do.
Even one sentence can be as "valuable" as 1000 words. It's kinda subjective on whats even "valuable". I would see to seek the "higher" value in my opinion which is truth over the easiness of beginner people finding "high-quality" information, which is already easy as we have the resource section, search tool and people can sort posts by upvotes so highly upvoted posts are seen even if old.
And we can get closer to the "truth" the more debate we have, and thats why the only principle we all agree on this forum is raw animal foods are healthier than cooked animal foods, it's the only principle that I can comfortably be sure is 100% true. And then we can build from there long-term to more complex ideological structures.
We also don't see it as problem when people ask the same questions again and again, the more arguments and debating the better.
If we choose standard for high-quality topics that go to BOTB, then we indirectly say that specific thing is even little bit truer (limits the human mind) than something else, it drifts us away from all of the possibilities. in my opinion all posts, short, long have the possibility to be "high-value", we just don't know yet the absolute truth.
Also we don't care about "necroposting" at all. You can comment to the first topic in this forum and it doesn't matter. Such as in social media people comment years later "this aged like wine" or "this aged like milk", and it's normal.
Rawprimal.org stance: raw animal foods > cooked animal foods. We don't have even slightest opinion on any other food, protocol or method, even the "obvious" ones. Even if we say something "obvious" like "junk food is bad" then the ball starts rolling and we need to start having opinions on next thing, this goes until we have opinion on everything, but we don't know if those opinions are true, it's slippery slope.
I know people who make long, highly reasoned topics fear their topics go hidden but yes, that might happen, but that's natural. People will still have the ability to find it but it is what it is. if it's truly great it will be found and resurfaced again and again. And most importantly the knowledge on those threads will be stored in peoples brains for a long time and will spread and evolve.
So basically the only truth we all can know is 100% true is that raw animal foods are healthier than cooked animal foods, we already have huge part of the puzzle, but I believe we are not all the way to here. I don't know if the strongest Aajonus fans believe we know everything already but I would prove otherwise: "As people are still seeking of the "Detoxification book by Aajonus", if that would be real and unpublished hidden somewhere and we operate in the frame work that "everything Aajonus says is 100% true" then we can conclude big part of the truth is still hidden".
But I would also say "If you want to seek the truth, treat even the opinions of smart people critically and with skepticism".
So even if I amplify post A by putting it to BOTB which is the enemy of B and put it also to BOTB then still I could be indirectly censoring posts C,D,E, etc.
TLDR: The forum’s only absolute truth is that raw animal foods are healthier than cooked. Beyond that, no opinion is off-limits. Long, highly reasoned posts shouldn’t be the sole “high-quality” standard, short comments can hold equal value. Seeking truth requires open debate, skepticism even of experts, and allowing all ideas to surface naturally rather than curating or gatekeeping content, which risks censorship and closing off possibilities.
@Staff DNR
-
Thank you for your opinion. Truly.
Sorry if this comment sounds like information dump. It's just stream of consciousness.
The problem with favouring the mainstream standard of "high-quality" which seems to be long and highly reasoned opinion that is favoured by most people is problematic in my opinion. It strives for behaviour that only creating those kind of posts is "high-quality" even when a long comment to random topic or even a short comment is seen as lower quality. This can drift people away from making such shorter topics or shorter comments that can have a lot of value also, not always but sometimes they do.
Even one sentence can be as "valuable" as 1000 words. It's kinda subjective on whats even "valuable". I would see to seek the "higher" value in my opinion which is truth over the easiness of beginner people finding "high-quality" information, which is already easy as we have the resource section, search tool and people can sort posts by upvotes so highly upvoted posts are seen even if old.
And we can get closer to the "truth" the more debate we have, and thats why the only principle we all agree on this forum is raw animal foods are healthier than cooked animal foods, it's the only principle that I can comfortably be sure is 100% true. And then we can build from there long-term to more complex ideological structures.
We also don't see it as problem when people ask the same questions again and again, the more arguments and debating the better.
If we choose standard for high-quality topics that go to BOTB, then we indirectly say that specific thing is even little bit truer (limits the human mind) than something else, it drifts us away from all of the possibilities. in my opinion all posts, short, long have the possibility to be "high-value", we just don't know yet the absolute truth.
Also we don't care about "necroposting" at all. You can comment to the first topic in this forum and it doesn't matter. Such as in social media people comment years later "this aged like wine" or "this aged like milk", and it's normal.
Rawprimal.org stance: raw animal foods > cooked animal foods. We don't have even slightest opinion on any other food, protocol or method, even the "obvious" ones. Even if we say something "obvious" like "junk food is bad" then the ball starts rolling and we need to start having opinions on next thing, this goes until we have opinion on everything, but we don't know if those opinions are true, it's slippery slope.
I know people who make long, highly reasoned topics fear their topics go hidden but yes, that might happen, but that's natural. People will still have the ability to find it but it is what it is. if it's truly great it will be found and resurfaced again and again. And most importantly the knowledge on those threads will be stored in peoples brains for a long time and will spread and evolve.
So basically the only truth we all can know is 100% true is that raw animal foods are healthier than cooked animal foods, we already have huge part of the puzzle, but I believe we are not all the way to here. I don't know if the strongest Aajonus fans believe we know everything already but I would prove otherwise: "As people are still seeking of the "Detoxification book by Aajonus", if that would be real and unpublished hidden somewhere and we operate in the frame work that "everything Aajonus says is 100% true" then we can conclude big part of the truth is still hidden".
But I would also say "If you want to seek the truth, treat even the opinions of smart people critically and with skepticism".
So even if I amplify post A by putting it to BOTB which is the enemy of B and put it also to BOTB then still I could be indirectly censoring posts C,D,E, etc.
TLDR: The forum’s only absolute truth is that raw animal foods are healthier than cooked. Beyond that, no opinion is off-limits. Long, highly reasoned posts shouldn’t be the sole “high-quality” standard, short comments can hold equal value. Seeking truth requires open debate, skepticism even of experts, and allowing all ideas to surface naturally rather than curating or gatekeeping content, which risks censorship and closing off possibilities.
@Staff Read every single molecule.
Your point makes a lot of sense, and I appreciate you explaining your reasoning in detail. I was looking at it more from the perspective of making the forum easier to navigate, but it makes sense that curating certain posts as "best" could unintentionally signal that those ideas are closer to the truth than others, even if that isn't the intention, especially when as you said there's many works by Aajonus, for example, which we're not aware of.
I also agree that valuable ideas aren't determined by length but what I meant more so what that high effort threads carry things low effort threads don't. But yes, I agree that a short comment can contribute just as much as a long, highly reasoned post, and that open debate is what allows the strongest ideas to emerge over time.
It didn't cross my mind that curation can subtly shape how people think even without censorship but it makes a lot of sense. It's better for ideas to compete on their own merits and be continually challenged rather than be treated as settled. Thanks for taking the time to explain your perspective it means a lot I appreciate it.
-
@Staff Read every single molecule.
Your point makes a lot of sense, and I appreciate you explaining your reasoning in detail. I was looking at it more from the perspective of making the forum easier to navigate, but it makes sense that curating certain posts as "best" could unintentionally signal that those ideas are closer to the truth than others, even if that isn't the intention, especially when as you said there's many works by Aajonus, for example, which we're not aware of.
I also agree that valuable ideas aren't determined by length but what I meant more so what that high effort threads carry things low effort threads don't. But yes, I agree that a short comment can contribute just as much as a long, highly reasoned post, and that open debate is what allows the strongest ideas to emerge over time.
It didn't cross my mind that curation can subtly shape how people think even without censorship but it makes a lot of sense. It's better for ideas to compete on their own merits and be continually challenged rather than be treated as settled. Thanks for taking the time to explain your perspective it means a lot I appreciate it.
@TrenAndTartare ur English teacher must touch herself to you
-
@TrenAndTartare ur English teacher must touch herself to you
@Elliott87 I have a 100 in English lol
-
@Staff its not that you would be favouring voices over others it's that there are some threads the community might all find very informative and good and we should make people feel encouraged to make high quality threads, what encouragement his there for some one to a make a high quality thread on this site ?
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login