Interestingly, not quite, the while not dominant the futurists made up a decnet chunk of fascism and thier cooking ideas were... Not like that. (they had an anti-pasta league! In ITALY!)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Futurist_cooking
The anti-pasta thing was 50% one of their moments of "maybe if I say something ridiculous enough somebody will notice me", 50% very thinly veiled anti-Southern "racism". Futurists and most early Fascists were mainly from the North (where pasta was not very well known at the time), and given that Northeners considered "terroni" (Southeners) as uncivilized and almost-Arab savages, they had an attack of reeeeeee when Southern delicious food, such as pasta, started spreading in all Italy.
So it is *exactly* like the bullshit Bret is spreading now, rationalization of little-town xenofobia
I think the most charitable points you could give the argument are specific things like lacto-intolerance is much much less common in white people than other groups, & that our bodies are more likely to absorb nutrients from food that feels familiar and enjoyable to us (which for a lot of people is the cuisine the grew up in and often reflects their ethnic background). Like if you weren’t trying to extrapolate it to such a weird and misplaced scale there probably could be lots more interesting little trivia about the way people backgrounds influences their relationships to foods.
I was about to raise the lacto-intolerance and Europeans point.
There is also that some Asians breakdown alcohol differently causing a more toxic byproduct to be circulated for longer.
On the timespan of evolution; it seems like it might be the case that acquired immunity can be inherited and therefore there could be evolution within a generation; in a sense.
Reminds me of the copypasta about the dude who thought his family was Scottish, and in the middle of collecting relevant paraphernalia he found out his grandfather was actually a Polish immigrant who picked up "MacWhatever" from a boat name or something.
> E: I don't think these people (If this is about the Bret Weinstein and Heather Heying) are Rationalists however, more the IDW.
I was going to agree but their book also includes the phrase [Chesterton's Fence](https://mobile.twitter.com/thebirdmaniac/status/1440104952467267584), which I'd associate with rationalism. Perhaps it's escaped into the wider neo-racist lexicon?
Chesteron’s Fence is a very common phrase in a lot of circles, LessWrong included
I believe it originates in that formulation in jurisprudence (which is itself a borrowing from Chesteron’s own century old parable)
Thank you for the explanation. If you have the time/remember, could you send me the title of a document that has the phrase and predates the 2011? I don't have access to legal databases, otherwise I'd search for it myself.
Chesterton was an influential author in general and the phrase comes from his 1929 book *The Thing: Why I Am a Catholic*. Referencing Chesterton's fence has been a cliché about political reform for as long as I can remember.
Apart from that, since we're talking about Chesterton, I recommend reading *The Man Who Was Thursday*.
But has the specific phrase "Chesterton's Fence" been common? I assume the content or idea is older, but when did the specific phrase hit the scene?
Edit: Using Google Ngrams, can't find the phrase at all. Using Google trends, phrase appears to pick up steam in 2012. Searching Google Books, I think the earliest book I saw used the phrase in 2016. Another book used it in 2020 by Julia Galef. The phrase certainly isn't sounding like an old expression to me. Perfectly possible I missed earlier usages though.
I have no idea but I'd presume it's only a little younger than the idea itself as the way to reference the idea. Personally, I associate more with pretentious conservatives in the 90's than LessWrong.
> I have no idea but I'd presume it's only a little younger than the idea itself as the way to reference the idea. Personally, I associate more with pretentious conservatives in the 90's than LessWrong.
Well, I think we just figured out where LW got it from.
Wrt to your edit: Perhaps I am conflating the idea with the phrase and the latter is much more recent, or at least the popularization of it.
Which is regrettable by association with LW since, in my opinion, the idea is valuable but too often misunderstood and used to discourage even intelligent, commonsensical reform.
Sorry about the edit. Thought I was quick enough that it'd be there before your reply.
Eh. Honestly, I'm pretty sure you've been rationalist watching longer than me, so I'd be willing to trust you. It could also be one of those virtue signal-type situations. Where I encountered the term first by LWers, but it both predates and is used by people who aren't them.
I almost want to see if I can search the history of this term now though.
While I also learned of Chestertons Fence via Rationalists, apparantly it isnt a sign of Rationalism. (So im also taking a lack of knowledge L here). And it could be that Ratioism is breaking containment. NRx certainly is. But I just assumed Sturgeon here just make a mistake or meant 'rationalist' as a slur, and not Rationalists.
I think it’s interesting how some people use evolutionary biology to
smuggle in a view of history as fundamentally a regression such that our
present selves represent a deterioration of a better or more fit past
rather than our present selves as continuous toward future states of
affairs.
I’m so curious when their start date is. Ignoring stuff like the
Columbian Exchange, I remember reading in Death in Hamburg
about the monotony and low quality of average working class food in the
late 19th to early 20th century. So like are they excluding that because
it’s too late or urban? Should those of peasant stock eat peasant food,
those of bourgeois bourgeois, and those of noble noble?
Actually now that I think of it. Height is normally used as a proxy
for health. Human height has been increasing for awhile. I think it hit
a local maximum in Europe during the high middle ages, then declined,
before rebounding sometime during the 19th/20th century. Could be wrong.
Long time since I read that literature. So like, should we discard food
ways developed from 1250 to 1900? Or do they attribute human height
increase to something like parasite reduction rather than nutritional or
caloric improvements? Or do they think that ethnic foods from were
optimal but budgetary constraints prevented people from accessory them?
Or do they just not think height is a good proxy for health?
Dr. Valter Longo at USC sort of makes the same recommendation. Other
than his general plant-based/pescatarian diet template he also has a
rule of thumb to eat mostly how your great-great grandparents ate in
order to avoid novel irritants which may be causing chronic problems
even without you being aware. If you’re not east asian than don’t eat
soy everyday, or no daily avocado for europeans, etc. This isn’t the
major component of his regiment (fasting is), but it’s a practical
consideration he has stated various times.
It would be interesting to see real research put into it. What would be the time frame too. Like would you expect Italian people to not respond well to tomatos since those are new to them in terms of relative history? Seems very counter intuitive.
Longo’s goto Italian meal example is green bean pasta, heavy on the beans and pretty light on the pasta, with generous olive oil, no tomatoes, no cheese. That’a a traditional Italian plate eaten many days a week vs what we see popularized.
The time frame can be lengthy, he mentions people consuming dairy for decades with low-level autoimmune issues that aren’t very noticeable but still add up over time. I mean it’s probably nitpicking and if you have everything else dialed in it shouldn’t be a big issue, but it’s maybe something to think about.
There is some interesting caveats to that. Eg. my great-great-grandparents all had various kind of nutritional deficiencies that largely got solved in the 50s by eg. additives to bread and such.
but obviously that means food from before your ethnic cuisine was polluted by culinary miscegenation with other tribes
if you are Italian, that means no tomatoes or noodles; dust off your nonna’s recipe for delicious garum
What timespan do these people think evolution takes place over, a week?
So, what are those of us who don’t know our ethnic heritage to do? Do I need a 23andMe test before I fire up Doordash?
Next up: optimal real estate for your tribe.
I live in a modern apartment building but my ancestors lived in thatched huts. Does this explain my sleep disorder?
Coincidentally, my skin has never looked better since I gave up sun screen for dung.
But the protestant food ethic destroyed the food associated with my ancestors/country.
(the religion bit is not totally true, but what is considered Dutch (at least non poor dutch, the poor only get gruel) food changed a lot over time)
E: I don’t think these people (If this is about the Bret Weinstein and Heather Heying) are Rationalists however, more the IDW.
I’m gonna say that, no, my multicultural diet is probably a lot better for me than corned beef, cabbage, and sausages day in and day out.
I think it’s interesting how some people use evolutionary biology to smuggle in a view of history as fundamentally a regression such that our present selves represent a deterioration of a better or more fit past rather than our present selves as continuous toward future states of affairs.
[shoves Chinese takeout and Reese’s Easter eggs into my face hole]
don’t shame the food of my people
I refuse to touch gefilte fish, I wouldn’t even care if they were actually right.
“Evolutionary psychology opposes cultural appropriation” is like the holy grail of horseshoe theories.
I only eat Chinese food, anything else would totally be cultural appropriation and I’m no racist!
When someone offered me a free burger, I took that and throw it on the ground!!!
no 🥔
I’m so curious when their start date is. Ignoring stuff like the Columbian Exchange, I remember reading in Death in Hamburg about the monotony and low quality of average working class food in the late 19th to early 20th century. So like are they excluding that because it’s too late or urban? Should those of peasant stock eat peasant food, those of bourgeois bourgeois, and those of noble noble?
Actually now that I think of it. Height is normally used as a proxy for health. Human height has been increasing for awhile. I think it hit a local maximum in Europe during the high middle ages, then declined, before rebounding sometime during the 19th/20th century. Could be wrong. Long time since I read that literature. So like, should we discard food ways developed from 1250 to 1900? Or do they attribute human height increase to something like parasite reduction rather than nutritional or caloric improvements? Or do they think that ethnic foods from were optimal but budgetary constraints prevented people from accessory them? Or do they just not think height is a good proxy for health?
I’m Italian and Irish… I cook mostly Mediterranean, Mexican food… And I eat Asian when I go out to eat….
Dr. Valter Longo at USC sort of makes the same recommendation. Other than his general plant-based/pescatarian diet template he also has a rule of thumb to eat mostly how your great-great grandparents ate in order to avoid novel irritants which may be causing chronic problems even without you being aware. If you’re not east asian than don’t eat soy everyday, or no daily avocado for europeans, etc. This isn’t the major component of his regiment (fasting is), but it’s a practical consideration he has stated various times.
We should add a third group making it a dumbass triad. Idpol freaks who cry about x race “appropriating” y race’s supposedly ancestral cuisines
Dr. lawless