Was it a mistake?
No; it enabled modern civilization, but it did so at a cost to human health. I haven’t read the whole thing yet, it’s long.
[Update a few minutes later]
OK, I got all the way through it. She doesn’t really address the health effects of a grain-based diet.
I do think the emphasis on grain based diets did help to feed the masses. I’m not sure if the world could be readily fed on a pure paleo diet. Certainly, it would be difficult to feed billions are a high protein meat diet. So in that way, I completely agree with grain based diets helping to enable modern civilization.
Still, the enforcement of such diets through things like school lunch programs will be looked upon by history as outright abuse.
Wow, that was long. His argument falls apart at the end there, IMO, when he switches from describing the history of improvements in food security through technology to saying we are all naughty children for wanting to eat better foods.
I counter argue that food security is not anywhere near universal, nor has the idea been accepted anywhere for more than a brief generation. Society has not yet come to terms with how to handle food that does not have to be rationed.
I reject the idea that dietary fads like Paleo are wrong. Try them for a while if you want to. The market will decide if they stick around. As long as people choose their foods by taste and accurate information as to the benefits, let them try whatever they choose to afford.
She.
Yeah, sorry about that.
Wow, that was long. His argument falls apart at the end there, IMO, when he switches from describing the history of improvements in food security through technology to saying we are all naughty children for wanting to eat better foods.
Would we want to live in societies that have optimized for low space and energy consumption food? My view is that if the only thing your society has to brag about is the efficiency of its food production, then it’s time to move.
I’m reminded of the parable of the paper clip optimizer, an powerful AI programmed to make paper clips and ultimately capable of converting the entire accessible universe to either paperclips or things for making paperclips. It’s as much a warning of the flaws of optimization as it is of the perils of high end AI.
I’m tired of people who are obsessed about the efficiency of food production (or for that matter, any other human process) without regard for the tradeoffs with other human interests.
Here, after all, the obvious solution for reducing the space and energy footprint of food production is not to force humanity to eat the same efficient, tasteless crap, but instead to kill off seven billion people. Not eating at all is the most efficient diet.
Grains, grains, the civilizing fruit
The more you grow, the more bureaucrats can redistribute.
Isn’t a majority of grain grown in the US consumed by livestock? (I’m not sure where to get definitive figures, but a quick search reveals a lot of articles claiming that 60% of US grown corn and 47% of soy is used as animal feed.
What a pile of tedious drivel. The Breakthrough Institute looks like another insidious leftist organisation. No doubt eating meat and fresh veggies contributes to “global warming” and that is the real reason for the stupid female’s diatribe.
I’ll take issue with “carbs are essential” too. What for? You get enough from fresh veggies (the above ground type). Very small quantities may be nice as the very occasional treat for variety.
I agree with Leland. Grains allowed a larger population. You can hunt and fish out an area in no time at all. or, like American Indians, your population stays small if you limit the take from the buffalo herds. Which gets you wiped out by people with lots of food.
Plus no one gets stomped by an angry wheat plant.
The poor dietary aspects of grains mattered not at all back then because life spans were short anyways. It was a net gain:
The benefits of easily obtained food far outweighed the negatives of a grain-fed diet. There is a cross-over point of course and we hit that long ago.