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