Andrew Bonci writes:

>You know I'd have the following questions about philosophizing.  I for
>one am prone to philosophizing perhaps to a fault or perhaps to some
>end-stage neurosis.  I like to philosophize it seems okay.  However, as
>of late I have been wondering ... To what extent is philosophizing
>necessary to a paleodiet-end?  To what extent is philosophizing
>necessary to diet, period?

Well, to me Paleodiet is very much connected with the appeal of a
philosophy of naturalism. I think most of us already into Paleodiet
probably take it for granted, but without it, or without some amount of at
least marginal assent to the appeal of that type of philosophy, most people
hearing about it aren't going to be very interested. The reason I
personally first got into "natural foods" at all was because of a general
idea that "natural is better"--at least where biological things like health
are concerned. I am always amazed that the basic wisdom of doings things
like eating natural foods, and--now that we know more about the
evolutionary past--Paleodiet as an extension of that, wouldn't be perfectly
obvious, sensible, and eminently reasonable to everyone.

But I have been so steeped in this type of thinking, it didn't occur to me
for the longest time, and it has ended up surprising me, that most people
just don't think this way. Especially, and paradoxically, a lot of
scientists. I think this is at least one reason Paleodiet is not more
well-received in the scientific community yet. Things like natural foods
are loosely associated in the public's mind (and scientists are part of the
public just like anyone else) with flakey new-age thinking and practices,
and no respectable scientist wants to be thought of as a flake. Of course,
now the proper government-endorsed dietary authorities are starting to get
in on the act, do mainstream America is perhaps not as resistant as it used
to be. But here in Kansas where I live, you are still thought of as weird
if you want to eat mostly natural foods, and refuse good ol' jello, gloppy
casseroles, and such at cafeterias and family reunions.

Also, I tend to think that most Americans, at least, subscribe to the
general idea of "technological progress" for the betterment of society.
Nobody wants to "go back" to the past except those elements of society
often perceived as holding the rest of us back. Amidst a society mesmerized
by computers, jet transportation, genetic engineering to breed frost-damage
resistant tomatoes, the internet, fantastic new materials like composites
for Learjets, and ceramics for high-tech superconductors, and so on, the
latest medical technology, amidst all that, a philosophy of naturalism
often seems somehow quaint and retrograde, out of phase with the movement
of society in general. Of course, there is starting to be a backlash
against some of the more dehumanizing aspects of over-technologizing
society, but anyway...

Even when you get into the idea of naturalism, there are many different
ideas of it. For instance, to start with, you have the vegetarians with
their ideals of a past Eden where all animals lived in nonviolent harmony.
You have those of Judeo-Christian persuasion for whom anything smacking of
evolutionary overtones is anathema, and for them, "naturalism" means going
back to God's creationist utopia of seven days. Even among those familiar
with evolution to some degree, many of the more avant-garde non-scientists
(and even some scientists, particularly genetic engineers) have the idea
that we need to exercise our freedom and break as free of our evolutionary
past as possible, and not let it shackle us in any way.

While it is slowly changing, there seems to be this attitude on the part of
many scientists doing medical research for instance, that, by George, if
the body breaks down, well dagnabbit, let's just fix 'er right up like a
car where we can just switch out parts, and we shouldn't be constrained by
the limits of these imperfect bodies we have inherited from the imperfect
process of evolution. If they are breaking down too easily, then yes
indeedy, we will just up and genetically engineer them to withstand all the
shit-for-food we throw at them these days. Never seeming to occur to them
that evolution has had millions of years to fine-tune the process, but
while it may not be perfect (nothing is) there are probably good
survival-of-the-species reasons for the in-built limits and mechanisms that
seem to them like things designed only to go awry and send us to premature
deaths or something.

So I think there is much to be gained by looking at these philosophical
questions and how we might be able to frame the appeal of Paleodiet in a
way that might induce people to see the logic in it, and the "paradigm" of
cooperation with the body's inheritance rather than fighting the body with
a warfare model of nuke-the-imperfections-into-submission type of thinking.
What it comes down to is a communications and public relations question,
actually, not just philosophy, although the PR does flow directly from the
underlying philosophy. Needless to say it won't be easy, but I think it is
well worthwhile to look at what about Paleodiet can be made appealing to
people from the logical and philosophical standpoint. Many people of course
don't make their decisions based on logic alone, but on feelings too, and
that is another angle where the idea of "naturalism" or "working with"
(rather than "against") nature comes in as an appeal.

--Ward Nicholson <[log in to unmask]> Wichita, KS