Are you suggesting human dietary behaviors have not changed since the inception of agriculture thousands of years ago? Because they have, and that clearly demonstrates that how and what people eat is driven by complex cultural processes. But the only source of behavior you identify is in-born and determined by genetics.
Our genetics have been influenced by agriculture, already. I don't know what it means to 'move beyond' behavior. Humans are very good at changing their behavior at time scales far, far shorter than any evolutionary time scale. Even for behaviors that one would consider particularly basic, like sex or... eating behavior.
All I see is an assertion that some behavior is 'logical', actual human behavior is 'irrational', and the reason why humans are acting so irrational is because its ingrained in their DNA. The allegedly logical argument for eating Soylent is left unexplained. I doubt there is one. I doubt modern humans could yet design a single nutrition product that outcompetes a diverse diet in all benefits. I think you just use the word logical to designate things as good, and irrational to designate things as bad.
Instead of actually considering why people eat the way they do, you're not saying anything at all except that you think it's dumb. It's a very boring point to make and it looks flimsy and downright silly when your justification is Argumentum Ad DNA.
Boring, boring, boring, and unfortunately incredibly prolific on the Internet.
You seem to be incredibly smart and well educated and would do the world a great service if you worked to shift your energy towards compassionately sharing in knowledge exchange rather than venting anger at why others don't have the same knowledge you do.
I want to open this up again and give you free reign here to explain to me why my thoughts are incorrect, but with the condition that it's done without attacking the structure of my words or me personally.
I have two theories about neuroscience, but I have no formal education in science and my knowledge comes from the university of HN, wikipedia and google. I want to know why I'm wrong about these theories and become educated on the reasons why they are wrong. If you can help me, I would be very thankful.
The first theory is that grocery stores and home cooking are our last proxy for primitive food scavenging behavior (I believe this is called dopamine reward seeking). This is why Soylent will never be successful and why online food shopping will always be a niche business.
Second - I've never been sold on the idea that our brain ships without any software preinstalled. It's hard to debate in favor of this since the science is murky and, of course, I'm no scientist. The only thing I can point to is this http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/science-news/1048647...
If you can help explain to me why I'm mistaken with these thoughts, you'd make a positive impact on my life and hopefully improve your own outlook as well.
Or you can tell me to fuck off. But know that I did give a shit about what you had to say and it's stuck with me for almost 24hrs now.
No worries. Honestly don't sweat responding to my comment, there are some very silly reasons why I'm interested in the topic in the first place.
I wish there was a better medium to read your work than HN comment history. If you don't already write professionally I hope you are pursuing it. You're very talented and thorough. I want to read more of what you have to say.
But a parting word of advice - that writing talent of yours makes your criticism feel like the intellectual equivalent of being punched by the incredible hulk. If you're pursuing ambitions in technology, anyone on HN could either be a valuable asset or a particularly shitty enemy. Best not to risk crushing the wrong person
It might be a while, I got even more busy with life than when I initially commented to you. Do you have an account at a place with direct messaging? I can send you my thoughts there.
The truth is, it's very easy to talk the way I did, and very hard to talk in a constructive way.
Comments
Are you suggesting human dietary behaviors have not changed since the inception of agriculture thousands of years ago? Because they have, and that clearly demonstrates that how and what people eat is driven by complex cultural processes. But the only source of behavior you identify is in-born and determined by genetics.
Our genetics have been influenced by agriculture, already. I don't know what it means to 'move beyond' behavior. Humans are very good at changing their behavior at time scales far, far shorter than any evolutionary time scale. Even for behaviors that one would consider particularly basic, like sex or... eating behavior.
All I see is an assertion that some behavior is 'logical', actual human behavior is 'irrational', and the reason why humans are acting so irrational is because its ingrained in their DNA. The allegedly logical argument for eating Soylent is left unexplained. I doubt there is one. I doubt modern humans could yet design a single nutrition product that outcompetes a diverse diet in all benefits. I think you just use the word logical to designate things as good, and irrational to designate things as bad.
Instead of actually considering why people eat the way they do, you're not saying anything at all except that you think it's dumb. It's a very boring point to make and it looks flimsy and downright silly when your justification is Argumentum Ad DNA.
Boring, boring, boring, and unfortunately incredibly prolific on the Internet.
Sorry for making such a "boring" point that was apparently also worth committing several paragraphs to debunking.
Of course it was worth it. You're worth it. <3
Now that this is off the front page...
You seem to be incredibly smart and well educated and would do the world a great service if you worked to shift your energy towards compassionately sharing in knowledge exchange rather than venting anger at why others don't have the same knowledge you do.
I want to open this up again and give you free reign here to explain to me why my thoughts are incorrect, but with the condition that it's done without attacking the structure of my words or me personally.
I have two theories about neuroscience, but I have no formal education in science and my knowledge comes from the university of HN, wikipedia and google. I want to know why I'm wrong about these theories and become educated on the reasons why they are wrong. If you can help me, I would be very thankful.
The first theory is that grocery stores and home cooking are our last proxy for primitive food scavenging behavior (I believe this is called dopamine reward seeking). This is why Soylent will never be successful and why online food shopping will always be a niche business.
Second - I've never been sold on the idea that our brain ships without any software preinstalled. It's hard to debate in favor of this since the science is murky and, of course, I'm no scientist. The only thing I can point to is this http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/science-news/1048647...
If you can help explain to me why I'm mistaken with these thoughts, you'd make a positive impact on my life and hopefully improve your own outlook as well.
Or you can tell me to fuck off. But know that I did give a shit about what you had to say and it's stuck with me for almost 24hrs now.
I will reply comprehensively when I can. I apologize for being so extremely confrontational.
No worries. Honestly don't sweat responding to my comment, there are some very silly reasons why I'm interested in the topic in the first place.
I wish there was a better medium to read your work than HN comment history. If you don't already write professionally I hope you are pursuing it. You're very talented and thorough. I want to read more of what you have to say.
But a parting word of advice - that writing talent of yours makes your criticism feel like the intellectual equivalent of being punched by the incredible hulk. If you're pursuing ambitions in technology, anyone on HN could either be a valuable asset or a particularly shitty enemy. Best not to risk crushing the wrong person
It might be a while, I got even more busy with life than when I initially commented to you. Do you have an account at a place with direct messaging? I can send you my thoughts there.
The truth is, it's very easy to talk the way I did, and very hard to talk in a constructive way.
Sure there's an email at the bottom of rwds.co, best way to get in touch