Ward,
Re evolution: There are many uncertainties in my mind regarding
evolution. It's hard to "take a stand" on issues where you have an open
mind. First of all, is modern man the endproduct of millions of years of
evolution? It sounds plausible, but I don't know. If we did evolve, and
evolution means adapting genetically (when possible) to inimical
environmental influences, what is the rate of adaptation? I don't know.
Dr. Wardovski says 10's of thousands of years (maybe less); Dr.
Guy-Claude Berger says millions of years [Manger Vrai]. Who's right? I
don't know. Does the evolutionary paradigm consider that what you call
"genetic" adaptation may be just as weakening to the species as an
individual's adaptation to a poison? In other words, if we could
suddenly presto-chango zip ourselves into whatever environment we
originated from, would we do better in that environment than we would in
a more modern environment to which we had become "adapted?" In other
words, in the individual who smokes tobacco, a type of adaptation occurs,
but it results in chronic disease and a shortened lifespan. Removal of
the tobacco results in reverse adaptation, called withdrawal symptoms,
and a partial restoration of structural integrity and lifespan
potential. Does genetic adaptation work the same way? Should I eat the
diet to which I've become genetically adapted, or is this diet inimical
in the same way tobacco is to the individual? Should I eat a modern diet
or the diet originally designed for our species (whatever that is) in
order to optimize health and longevity? Does anyone know the answer to
this question? Furthermore, environmental pressures are ever in flux.
The pressures that prehistoric man was eating in relation to were
different from the ones we are eating in relation to. It's all fine and
dandy to say that we adapt to evolutionary pressures, but when the
pressures themselves are constantly changing, what are we left with? A
species that's always evolving, never "arrived."
But my biggest quibble with the paleolithic diet is simply this: Why
should I emulate the dietary of a group of people that had an average
lifespan of 30-40 years, when I could live on junk food and be likely to
double that lifespan? I don't see where their diet did them any good
whatsoever, or any reason to believe it would do me any good either.
When you have constantly changing evolutionary pressures, constantly
changing diets, a history of human abuse and maladaptation to every
environment man's been involved with, how do you tease out the various
factors and come up with anything meaningful? I don't know.
I prefer to take the empirical approach, which is what Natural Hygiene
does. What kinds of foods do people actually digest well and thrive on.
The original hygienists of the 19th century tested various diets and
found that raw vegan foods were less stressful to our organisms than
non-vegan foods, cooked foods, refined and atificial foods. So I try my
best to live within my physiology and not to some hypothetical historical
standards, though I do keep an eye out in that direction.
Satisfied? As I said, when I get it all figured out, I'll let you know.
Bob Avery ([log in to unmask])
|