The Paleo Movement and the New Naturalistic Fallacy
I'm an Instructor at Harvard, a consultant in risk perception and risk communication, author of How Risky Is it, Really? Why Our Fears Don't Always Match the Facts, and principal co-author of RISK, A Practical Guide for Deciding What's Really Safe and What's Really Dangerous in the World Around You. I run a program called Improving Media Coverage of Risk. I was the Director of Risk Communication at the Harvard Center for Risk Analysis, part of the Harvard School of Public Health, for 4 years, prior to which I was a TV reporter, specializing in environmental issues, for a local station in Boston for 22 years.
We are stardust
We are golden
And we've got to get ourselves
Back to the garden
Oh, how those words from Joni Mitchell touched me in the Woodstock days. Listening to her sweet voice and simple music, you couldn’t help but believe that you were “a cog in something turning” and that it was indeed a special "time of Man,” in which we were finally facing the reality that humans were despoiling the natural world. How badly we needed to get back to the garden, back to Eden, back to the pure, unspoiled, healthy world humans had fouled up, the world the way it was supposed to be, except for, well, us.
How sweet it was to be so passionately, black-and-white certain--and, looking back, so innocently naïve. We have indeed done despicable damage to the natural world. But nature is way more resilient than back-to-the-garden environmentalism gives it credit for and it operates on far grander time scales than our anthropocentric arrogance acknowledges. Long before we were here, nature was going about its inexorable business. And long after we’ve gone and left behind a world altered by the human animal, just as the biosphere has been altered by so many other natural forces over the last 4.5 billion years, it still will be.
Yet when we view the natural world through the lens of human time, it can be tempting to adopt the idea that nature before humans was better, that to save ourselves going forward we need to get back to an idealized past. It’s hard to say why we devote ourselves so ardently to this rescuing hope; perhaps it’s a way to deal with the guilt and powerlessness we feel about the profound ways we have harmed the environment, to pretend we can undo the mess. Whatever the reason, the appeal of back-to-the-garden thinking shows up in countless ways: in agriculture (organic food, small farms, eating locally), in medicine (homeopathy, natural and herbal remedies), in energy policy (the faith that wind and solar energy can power the modern world), and, most recently, the Paleo movement. As this recent New York Times piece sums up, Paleo purists believe that if we ate and lived as "naturally" as our ancestors did, we and our world would be better off. As one Paleo diet website puts it:
Just like any other animal, humans suffer when we stray from our natural diet, but when we return to it, everything changes.
Some refer to this concept as “Ancestral Health,” a phrase that brilliantly captures both the appeal of the idea and its dangerous naïveté. Consider this description from the website of the Ancestral Health Society:
Modern humans suffer from numerous diseases linked to the metabolic syndrome, such as diabetes, yet these health maladies were virtually nonexistent during most of our ancestry.
While this claim may be true, it is a stupendously simplistic view that ignores the brutal reality of human health in ages past. And not just the caveman past we so blithely idealize: as recently as 130 years ago, back when diets were closer to Paleo, life for most people was brutal, disease-ridden (with plague, smallpox, cholera), and marked by unavoidable health problems (decline in vision, hearing, and the number of teeth necessary to chew food). It was also way, way shorter than it is now. In 1880, average life expectancy around the world was around 30 years. It’s up to roughly 70 years now.
Much has been written about the pros and cons of the Paleo diet. I cannot judge those nutritional arguments, both for lack of expertise and because my own poor diet disqualifies me as an objective observer. (My five basic foods groups are solid, liquid, fatty, salty, and sweet.) I do judge, however, that there is a danger in what the Paleo movement essentially proposes: that rejecting modernity will improve human health and establish a way of life more in sync with, and less harmful to, nature.
This is back-to-the-garden naïveté. Industry and technology have brought immense benefits as well as harms. The Paleo movement, like all the other movements that worship a premodern past, ignore those benefits to our peril. The simplistic view that the past was cleaner (it was) and therefore better (not necessarily) and healthier (it definitely was not) breeds resistance to modern technologies and products, like:
---Biotechnological improvements in agriculture that can improve food security and make agriculture more sustainable, but which beloved environmental advocate Vendana Shiva has called genocide
---Carbon- and particulate-free power sources like nuclear energy, which classical environmental advocates just can’t bring themselves to support, even in the face of climate change
---Modern medicines, including childhood vaccines, which are rejected by a small group of parents who prefer "natural" (and potentially fatal) diseases to "unnatural" interventions
Joni Mitchell acknowledged this conundrum in her beautiful anthem “Woodstock,” writing in the last chorus that we are “caught in the devil's bargain”, the trade-offs between the costs and benefits of the modern world. The problem is that Mitchell, classical environmentalism, and a public concerned about the dreadful damage we’ve done to the natural world see only the costs.
That puts us at great risk. By ignoring the benefits of technology and focusing only its harms, modernity itself seems to be the problem and a return to an idealized past the solution. The sad irony is that the back-to-the-garden viewpoint makes it harder to realize how a careful application of modern tools could reduce some of the harm that our rush into modernity has caused.
Image credit: Wikimedia
We all know sleeping with your ex is a bad idea, or is it?
- In the first study of its kind, researchers have found sex with an ex didn't prevent people from getting over their relationship.
- Instead of feeling worse about their breakup after a hookup, the new singles who attempted sexual contact with their ex reported feeling better afterwards.
- The findings suggest that not every piece of relationship advice is to be taken at face value.
Want a happy, satisfying relationship? Psychologists say the best way is to learn to take a joke.
- New research looks at how partners' attitudes toward humor affects the overall quality of a relationship.
- Out of the three basic types of people, people who love to be laughed at made for better partners.
- Fine-tuning your sense of humor might be the secret to a healthy, happy, and committed relationship.
Tiny and efficient, these biodegradable single cells show promise as a way to target hard-to-reach cancers.
- Scientists in Germany have found a potential improvement on the idea of bacteria delivering medicine.
- This kind of microtargeting could be useful in cancer treatments.
- The microswimmers are biodegradable and easy to produce.
Metin Sitti and colleagues at the Max Planck Institute in Germany recently demonstrated that tiny drugs could be attached to individual algae cells and that those algae cells could then be directed through body-like fluid by a magnetic field.
The results were recently published in Advanced Materials, and the paper as a whole offers up a striking portrait of precision and usefulness, perhaps loosely comparable in overall quality to recent work done by The Yale Quantum Institute. It begins by noting that medicine has been attached to bacteria cells before, but bacteria can multiply and end up causing more harm than good.
A potential solution to the problem seems to have been found in an algal cell: the intended object of delivery is given a different electrical charge than the algal cell, which helps attach the object to the cell. The movement of the algae was then tested in 2D and 3D. (The study calls this cell a 'microswimmer.') It would later be found that "3D mean swimming speed of the algal microswimmers increased more than twofold compared to their 2D mean swimming speed." The study continues —
More interestingly, 3D mean swimming speed of the algal microswimmers in the presence of a uniform magnetic field in the x-direction was approximately threefolds higher than their 2D mean swimming speed.
After the 2D and 3D speed of the algal was examined, it was then tested in something made to approximate human fluid, including what they call 'human tubal fluid' (think of the fallopian tubes), plasma, and blood. They then moved to test the compatibility of the microswimmer with cervical cancer cells, ovarian cancer cells, and healthy cells. They found that the microswimmer didn't follow the path of bacteria cells and create something toxic.
The next logical steps from the study include testing this inside a living organism in order to assess the safety of the procedure. Potential future research could include examining how effective this method of drug delivery could be in targeting "diseases in deep body locations," as in, the reproductive and gastrointestinal tracts.
SMARTER FASTER trademarks owned by The Big Think, Inc. All rights reserved.