This is wrong. Our bodies evolved to eat a diverse omnivorous diet and complex carbs + the antioxidants present in vegetables and fruits are anti-oxidative.
Humans have eaten complex carbs only for the last 10k years since agricultural revolution. Before that, outside of a small part of Africa, there physically wasn't enough carbs available to say that they made any substantial amount of our diet.
Most ancenstral carbs were uber high in fiber, and very low in glucose (starch) and fructose.
I've taken courses in primitive wilderness survival, and one of the staple foods was grass seed.
Also lots of roots are edible with cooking, and it looks like we've been cooking for about a million years. Then there's wild rice, cattails, beans, berries, all sorts of stuff.
I agree that most wild plants are high in fiber and low in sugar, but there are are a lot of complex carbs to be had, if you have fire.
What's possible depends on where you are. But for example:
> Pontzer, an evolutionary anthropologist who studies modern-day hunter-gatherers, says traditional diets vary widely, and the vast majority of them include a high percentage of carbohydrates.
> For instance, the Hadza, a hunter-gatherer group in northeast Tanzania that Pontzer has studied for the past ten years, spend their days walking eight to 12 kilometers, climbing trees and digging for root vegetables. Their diet consists of various meats, vegetables and fruits, as well as a significant amount of honey. In fact, they get 15 to 20 percent of their calories from honey, a simple carbohydrate.
> The Hadza tend to maintain the same healthy weight, body mass index and walking speed throughout their entire adult lives. They commonly live into their 60s or 70s, and sometimes 80s, with very little to no cardiovascular diseases, high blood pressure or diabetes—conditions that are rapidly growing in prevalence in nearly every corner of the world.
> Because humans initially evolved in Africa, where wild animals generally lack appreciable fat stores (2), it seems clear that they consumed a mixed diet of animal and plant foods, given the apparent limitations of human digestive physiology to secure adequate daily energy from protein sources alone (4).
> Hunter-gatherer societies in other environments were doubtless eating very different diets, depending on the season and types of resources available. Hayden (3) stated that hunter-gatherers such as the !Kung might live in conditions close to the “ideal” hunting and gathering environment. What do the !Kung eat? Animal foods are estimated to contribute 33% and plant foods 67% of their daily energy intakes (1). Fifty percent (by wt) of their plant-based diet comes from the mongongo nut, which is available throughout the year in massive quantities (1). Similarly, the hunter-gatherer Hazda of Tanzania consume “the bulk of their diet” as wild plants, although they live in an area with an exceptional abundance of game animals and refer to themselves as hunters (18). In the average collecting area of an Aka Pygmy group in the African rain forest, the permanent wild tuber biomass is >4545 kg (>5 tons) (19).
> Australian aborigines in some locales are known to have relied seasonally on seeds of native millet (2) or a few wild fruit and seed species (20) to satisfy daily energy demands. Some hunter-gatherer societies in Papua New Guinea relied heavily on starch from wild sago palms as an important source of energy (21), whereas most hunter-gatherer societies in California depended heavily on acorn foods from wild oaks (22).
> In nature, any dependable source of digestible energy is generally rare and when discovered is likely to assume great importance in the diet. Animal foods typically are hard to capture but food such as tree fruits and grass seeds are relatively reliable, predictable dietary elements.
>Our bodies evolved to eat a diverse omnivorous diet and complex carbs
Evolved to eats omnivorous diets yes no doubts, but to thrive on omnivorous diets, perhaps no. Most people I know thrive on meats and do worse otherwise.
You want immigrants that plunder the indigenous population while at the same time enriching the upper class at the expense of the lower classes, but you project your own nonsense on others, thereby proving you are full of it. Why do you support the ruling class using "immigrants" to plunder the non-ruling class? You do not even have the capacity to understand that, but you speak on it anyways.
I benefit immensely financially from "immigrants", but that does not mean it is just and I have the integrity to be honest about that. You clearly do not. Stealing by abstraction and supporting it makes you a bad person, not at all the good person you think you are by supporting "immigration", regardless of whether I get richer today than you make in one year or not because of immigrants.
That would be a health metric, not an environmental one. While brake dust is a major contributor to this, a suburb next to a freeway is going to be pretty damn bad too.
> While brake dust is a major contributor to this, a suburb next to a freeway is going to be pretty damn bad too.
Relative to the rest of the area, for that specific pollutant, yes. Relative to a city dwelling of the same distance, no. Volume (ie Traffic) matters when comparing health impacts.
Freeway traffic next to suburbs is really the major driver here, with high speeds and tire microplastics (the biggest source of microplastics in the SF Bay Area is tires).
A suburbanite driving on their river of pollution for 50 miles every day is a much bigger impact than somebody taking the bus and train in the city. And even city streets do not see the level of pollution caused by freeways that snake through suburbs throughout the Bay Area and LA.
But honestly the gas stoves in most California kitchens are the true killer, yet nobody seems to even bother talking about that.
In any case: environmental metrics I had always thought about things that impact the environment: reduction of ecosystem, death of a particular types of animals (especially the ones we like), unhealthy water ways, etc. On all these, suburban life is absolutely horrific, urban and very rural life is pretty good. If you can drive to the Costco, you are probably living in the least environmentally friendly way possible.
As far as health metrics, whether from environmental effects or crime or the actual real killers: obesity, smoking, blood pressure, and heat disease, cities do better than rural areas:
>> > While brake dust is a major contributor to this, a suburb next to a freeway is going to be pretty damn bad too.
> A suburbanite driving on their river of pollution for 50 miles every day is a much bigger impact than somebody taking the bus and train in the city.
This is moving the goalpost. Now it's distance plus traffic to reach for a pre-decided conclusion.
> As far as health metrics, whether from environmental effects or crime or the actual real killers: obesity, smoking, blood pressure, and heat disease, cities do better than rural areas:
Rural is not the same as suburb and not rural. A suburb is generally still a city, albeit smaller...depending on how one wants to define "city", I guess.
I have health conditions, originating from congenital defect. I have an electric stove. I moved out of a SoCal city, as I was raised next to a major (5) interchange. I live in the largest city of my state, which would be called a suburb somewhere else and my medical care is EXCELLENT for reasons that are particular to my area.
There's an argument to be made that cars provide economic and financial mobility, leveraged by the upper classes, which is why cars are not properly demonized. That's a separate topic from health.
I hope this helps you make stronger arguments in your next exchange, because I share some of these views as well.
> This is moving the goalpost. Now it's distance plus traffic to reach for a pre-decided conclusion.
What goalpost was moved? The freeway is the major producer of pollution, the major concentration of it. This is well documented in the literature on PM2.5: being close to a freeway is a major risk factor but urban areas are not a major risk factor.
If there's a freeway, it's not an urban area, it's a suburban area.
> I hope this helps you make stronger arguments in your next exchange,
I have no idea how you think you poked any holes at all in my argument, but this statement clearly thinks you have! Could you clarify what you think I said was wrong and how?
Living next to a major interchange is definitely living a huuuuge health risk, but again it's mostly a suburban risk.
> There's an argument to be made that cars provide economic and financial mobility, leveraged by the upper classes, which is why cars are not properly demonized. That's a separate topic from health.
If there's an argument, it's very weak. Cars are very expensive, draining the bank accounts of those on the lower end of the economic scale. Yet because we have capped density, those same people on the lower end of the economic scale must travel long distances from farther away, instead of being allowed a place in a city. Density plus transit offer a cheaper alternative without the burden of large car payments, the huge repair bills of cheap used cars, the monthly car insurance payments, and the debt trap of having to buy a car to even get a job.
It's ultimately a measure of the concentrations of pollutants in the air, which I would classify as an environmental measurement although perhaps a health one too.
Am I missing something or are they reporting that prices have "jumped" because they've increased 30% since 2020? That seems like a fair use of the word.
Are you not a practitioner if you contribute to the field...? Seems impossible to meet your criteria.
What's a pure philosopher? Are Frege and Decartes not philosophers because they also did math? Does Alan Turing count? What about Popper and Kuhn? Are they philosophy enough for the philosopher club? Where, when, how and by whom do you think the concept of 'empirical science' was derived?
To be clear, everyone, including scientists, do philosophy every single day. You don't think Darwin did some philosophy in on the origin of species?
The characterization of the scientific method as proposing hypotheses and then putting them to test was given by a philosopher in the previous century. While the hypotheses that this is the character of the scientific method is still very common, it was refuted long ago, both by observations and by logic reasoning.
I didn't say anything about the scientific method though, I'm simply making a distinction about two groups of people who both seem to claim to generate understanding of our reality.
One group can and does test hypotheses, the other does not
Like I could literally go forever because most breakthrough practitioners started as philosophers- note the PhDs
“Doctor of Philosophy”
I mean JFC people this is basic science history
But you know I’m sure that won’t satisfy somebody who doesn’t even understand the epistemological distinction between what a philosopher is or does and what somebody who’s actually doing experimental testing that turns into something great is because the distinction is basically zero
yeah, I also disagree with this. It's true Seurat is still heavily used for scRNA/scATAC but I see most new models increasingly being written/tooled for python and based on anndata. Geneformer, scGPT, scVI etc. I wish there was better operability between the scverse stuff and Seurat, but Seurat went their own way from SCE/bioconductor so that's probably not going to happen.
