Jump to content
The Corroboree
☯_☯

species wide brain damage and plant/human symbiosis

Recommended Posts

interesting read new member double ying yang underscore.

kind of all makes sense doesnt it, ancient man eats fruit veges herbs and entheogens and magically the brain and body develops and evolves, a kind of medicine for the brain as to vitamin c was to scurvy and sailors and that is only recent evolution itself along now with anti-biotics etc.

what happened 200000 odd years ago that we started shrinking our brains, is that when the ancients started creating fire for themselves thus breathing in more smoke than usual which was as in most carcinogens probably bad for delicate brain chemistry, mayby evolution dictated that due to the nature of gravity which is the most defining characteristic of evolution itself that we were getting too top heavy thus started shrinking the brain to re-centre our centre of gravity's.

i suppose the basic premise to to article is that via the correct usage of plants we can continue to expand our minds and continue to evolve. maybe too you could read into it that plants are the slow architects of the demise of the human species and really are cunning and cold manipulators of the world and have a master plan to eradicate us.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting read, but I don't buy it. For starters, the premise that we are experiencing a mass insanity is unsubstantiated and clinically incorrect. Yeah, as a species we make a lot of terrible decisions, but many of them are comprehesible, even rational, in the context of our evolutionary history and innate qualities.

Plant/human symbiosis and biocultural evolution are really interesting topics, but a lot of the arguments given here don't hold much water. The interviewee presents a false and romanticised version of human history, in which we lived in a garden of eden for most of our recent evolutionary history with an abundance of highly nutritious fruit. If this was the case, humans never would have bothered to develop our early technologies (which WERE important factors in biocultural evolution) which were mostly developed for hunting purposes.

The claim that our brains have been shrinking for 200,000 years is misleading in that it implicitly rejects the fact that our brains have actually become more complex organs over that period, developing our executive faculties like language and theory of mind which are definitive parts of being human.

A couple of points from near the top of the article:

by incorporating more and more of these DNA-reading plant chemicals into our diet we basically shifted from a typical mammalian developmental environment to more of a plant developmental environment.

What does this mean? Is he suggesting that hormones are able to be produced in every cell of the human body?

this highly advanced molecular engineering cocktail we call fruit. Each generation would pass down a progressively modified neuro-endocrine system as a result.

Calling fruit an 'engineering cocktail' is a bit far fetched, and purposely loaded to suggest that fruit permanently alters our brain chemistry over the course of a single lifespan. The suggestion that by eating fruit we modify our brain chemistry, then pass along those changes to the next generation misunderstands evolutionary processes and seems to be ignorant of epigenetics.

lost and replaced by progressively worse substitutes irrelevant to our evolution.

This is a fundamental misunderstanding of evolution which frames the process as a quasi-religious, teleological process. This is not the widely accepted process of natural selection that Darwin proposed.

today’s ‘junk’ food. Ironically much of this actually has the opposite effect of fruit bio-chemistry on our hormones, causing the unique process to reverse.

This suggests that the brain shrinkage implied as the reason for our degeneration into civilisation has occurred over the last century or so, and has somehow made our brains less complex, which is simply not the case. It does not in any way explain how junk food supposedly reverses the effect fruit has on our brains, but rather plays on our suspicion of highly processed, 'unnatural' foods.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This whole theory makes no sense. Firstly, there is no evidence what so ever to indicate our brains have began to shrink. Also, from all known evidence, large brained Bipedal hominoids evolved after we left the fruit rich forest and started hunting meat as a staple source of food.

If a fruit rich diet was what was responsible for our large brains and complex emotional thought pattern. Then why have our ancestors (the chimpanzees) who remained in the fruit rich rain forests of Africa not developed these traits?

what happened 200000 odd years ago that we started shrinking our brains, is that when the ancients started creating fire for themselves thus breathing in more smoke than usual which was as in most carcinogens probably bad for delicate brain chemistry,

Our bipedal ancestors have been using fire for millions of years. Something did happen around 200,000 thousand years ago, which caused us to become a separate species and gave us a evolutionary advantage over other hominoids that had all ready left Africa and populated the rest of the world. But considering we left Africa for the purpose of following the herds, which was obviously our main source of food, I very much doubt a diet high in fruit had much to do with it.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i thought initially mayby smelting of some sort jabez (theoretically that is) as a possible brain shrinkage (once again theoretical) suspect. but the metal ages are only a few thousand years old i presume. i theorised that mining as in lead, copper, bronze and the by products caused chromazonal problems down the chain, like mayby cancers. certainly though im only commenting what comes to mind i dont really agree or believe the article as a whole.

its a funny analogy that raketmensch brings up though, is a shrinking brain shrinking intelligence (if indeed the brain has shrunk) or is it a more compact and efficient mode of survival. the analogy could be the best computer today compared to the best computer 20 years ago, just because the computer has shrunk does that mean its less capable, at the end of the day survival is the key to life and body to weight ratio a blue whale has a bigger brain than cockroach, but i believe the cockroach will outlive the blue whale, going on brain size as a life comparison then the size of the brain really means jack shit and i would rather be reincarnated as a cockroach than a blue whale if evolution was my number one priority (notice the re-incarnation evolution conundrum).

as for the fire, who knows....how many years back bear grylls caveman could do it for himself with his own starting methods ie sticks, i believe certainly that it could be utilised for years once it was started by lightening but to create it from scratch is a different story, but i read this was achieved approx 200000 years ago thus my shrinking brain comparison theory.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I suggest taking a look at the book before coming to such quick and shakey conclusions. It seems you guys don't understand even the basic and heavily evidenced biology behind this and the mechanisms/points of the theory which are very well supported even by orthodox data and are just rejecting it outright instead of searching for the truth- no offence. For example the history outlined in the beginning is actually in alignment with evolutionary theory that accepts the idea that we spent the majority of the past 70 MILLION years in the tropical forests.

Around 200,000 years ago there was also a major drying of that area and so its expected that groups would periodically, as the contraction of the forest continued, have to look elsewhere for food. This is all outlined on the authors site and in his book here in great detail. If the general theory that our perception is compromised is even remotely correct then we need to be very careful because that means the instrument we're using to look at the data is distorting everything coming in...

free .pdf from the author of the entire book (reviews and links to website included):

http://leftinthedark.org.uk/sites/default/files/Left%20in%20the%20Dark%20free%20edition.pdf

"by incorporating more and more of these DNA-reading plant chemicals into our diet we basically shifted from a typical mammalian developmental environment to more of a plant developmental environment."

What does this mean? Is he suggesting that hormones are able to be produced in every cell of the human body?

? No..He's merely pointing out how what we call "fruit" (which is incredibly unique and not just another food) is actually the womb (aka developmental environment) and reproductive organ of angiosperms (flowering plants, which actually have a genome that is WAY more complex than our own). There is often over 10,000 different kinds of phytochemicals in a single fruit alone, and all of these flavonoids (which are also MAOI, by the way) affect DNA transcription, which is the process where DNA-blueprint is read and expressed. Changing the elements of the reading mechanism changes everything, especially since these chemicals would have been flooding out system from 24/7 for evolutionary time scales- even before birth, when the most important developmental period of the brain takes place..which is why he says we started to shift from These alter how every cell is built on the most basic level of biology

The flavonoids in fruit also dramatically alter the activity of our own major hormones such as testosterone, which is explained in the article. This alone has a massive impact. They are also neuro-active, and heavily modulate the activity of our own endocrine system

The flavonoids in fruit also stimulate the pineal gland to produce chemicals like pinoline (another MAOI) and melatonin; both of which mimic the things the fruit chemicals do but are much more powerful.

This may sound strange but all of this biochemical data is very well evidenced. We just haven't been looking at it this way before in an evolutionary context until recently. Read the book and fact check for yourself if you don't believe me.

Calling fruit an 'engineering cocktail' is a bit far fetched, and purposely loaded to suggest that fruit permanently alters our brain chemistry over the course of a single lifespan. The suggestion that by eating fruit we modify our brain chemistry, then pass along those changes to the next generation misunderstands evolutionary processes and seems to be ignorant of epigenetics.

Well first off the article isn't intended to present the bulk of the theory. Read the book for that.

Secondly, did you even read the article? This comment of yours makes absolutely 0 sense. Calling it an engineering cocktail is entirely accurate, given that it ALTERS HOW CELLULAR STRUCTURES ARE BUILT ON THE MOST BASIC LEVEL OF DNA TRANSCRIPTION AND HORMONE ACTIVITY..as i already outlined.. in my response above..

The molecules in our food are directly involved in building and fueling the brain on the most basic level. And when you get to plants like fruit the biochemical complexity of it is off the fucking charts. If you change the build materials and fuel of a car, you can dramatically change how that car runs (or whether it runs at all)..even a 5% change could have a massive impact..

This logic when applied to our technologies, which are totally dwarfed by the complexity of the brain, makes perfect sense. Why do we assume the same doesn't go for the brain!? The things you build and run the most chemically sensitive and complex tissue in the known universe will OBVIOUSLY have a massive impact on its overall structure and functioning. Katherine Milton found that we've lost 95% of the chemicals that went into building and fueling the brain for evolutionary time scales since leaving the tropical forests.

This is a fundamental misunderstanding of evolution which frames the process as a quasi-religious, teleological process. This is not the widely accepted process of natural selection that Darwin proposed.

So you're suggesting that the biochemistry of junkfood (which is what that quote was referring to) is just as relevant to our evolution as the chemicals that went into building and fueling the most complex organ in the known universe for millions of years? I think you need to educate yourself about simple biochemistry a bit before dismissing things so absolutely...

This suggests that the brain shrinkage implied as the reason for our degeneration into civilisation has occurred over the last century or so, and has somehow made our brains less complex, which is simply not the case. It does not in any way explain how junk food supposedly reverses the effect fruit has on our brains, but rather plays on our suspicion of highly processed, 'unnatural' foods.

You are totally twisting things around here and confusing yourself. Its not saying that junkfood alone caused the degeneration, just that it has quickened it. Look into the links and do some research. Junk food does damage to the brain. This is very well established.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This whole theory makes no sense. Firstly, there is no evidence what so ever to indicate our brains have began to shrink. Also, from all known evidence, large brained Bipedal hominoids evolved after we left the fruit rich forest and started hunting meat as a staple source of food.

If a fruit rich diet was what was responsible for our large brains and complex emotional thought pattern. Then why have our ancestors (the chimpanzees) who remained in the fruit rich rain forests of Africa not developed these traits?

Our bipedal ancestors have been using fire for millions of years. Something did happen around 200,000 thousand years ago, which caused us to become a separate species and gave us a evolutionary advantage over other hominoids that had all ready left Africa and populated the rest of the world. But considering we left Africa for the purpose of following the herds, which was obviously our main source of food, I very much doubt a diet high in fruit had much to do with it.

This guy has been researching this in depth for 20 years and has been in touch with some of the sharpest neuroscientists, ethnopharmacologists, biologists, and anthropologists in the field, who agree with his theory...So do you really think these points haven't been considered?

I suggest taking a closer look at the information with a more open mind before discounting it so flimsily. I mean the first point just makes no sense..primates already have a massive brain/body ratio compared to other mammels, and they are mainly centered in the tropical forests. We're nearly identical to them, so to think there were 2 separate causes for this explosion in brain size in this part of the mammalian tree is just ridiculous and baseless once you really look at the evidence.

Just take a look at the book, or even just the FAQ section of his site for the answer to many of these sort of questions..http://beyond-belief.org.uk/node/9

"Isn’t there evidence for our ancestors living in non-forest environments and hunting, eating meat and cooking their food?

Yes there is significant evidence going back millions of years for our ancestors and our existing relatives inhabiting various types of forest and non-forest/non-fruit habitats and adapting their behaviour to survive. The evidence for non-forest habitation is cited as part of the long-standing presumption that such environments were essential to explain key traits during our recent evolution, particularly in regard to our large ‘structurally advanced’ brain and related intelligence. This presumption ignores the much more substantial and extant evidence that large intelligent brains were and still are the product of symbiotic evolution in the relatively benign tropical forests.

There is also the related and equally flawed presumption that finding evidence for some of our ancestors inhabiting non-forest environments accounts for the whole of our ancestral lineage. It’s as if one day all the members of any given ancestral lineage got together in the benign and bio-chemically rich forest and agreed to move en-mass to a much more hostile and bio-chemically impoverished habitat.

Evidence for non-forest habitation by some of our relatives tells us nothing at all of any ongoing forest habitation by others. For example the Olive Babooncan be seen today inhabiting a wide range of environments from semi-arid desert like environments through savannah and woodland to wet tropical forest. Now or in the future, evidence for their existence will be more easily preserved and discovered in arid climates with little chance of finding any evidence for their relative abundance in the wet tropics.

There seems little doubt that individuals and large groups of our ancestors did find themselves in such hostile environments for any number of reasons and using their forest evolved brain and related intelligence survived for significant periods even adapting and speciating. It does seem a bit odd that in the environments that supposedly built and honed our ancestor’s large intelligent brain did not prove to be such a great place to survive. A number of relatively large brained apes still inhabit the forests, yet only one of the many examples found in non-forest habitats still survives and even in its current guise it can still inhabit the forest.

So as the continued evolution and function of our advanced neural system was entirely dependent on a highly specialised symbiotic relationship with plant developmental environments (fruit) any breakdown in that relationship would result in the stall in expansion and erosion of advanced neural architecture. Adaptation would be possible but at the expense of the continued evolution of those highly unique symbiotic traits. Even switching to a greater % leaves and surviving arboreally in the seasonal tropics let alone surviving by hunting and fire use on the savannah would result in regression. The advanced traits emerged and depended on continued and high % fruit specialisation (only possible in non-seasonal lowland tropics). If this is broken the feedback mechanism will stall regardless of returning to same ecology."

Edited by ☯_☯

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For example the history outlined in the beginning is actually in alignment with evolutionary theory that accepts the idea that we spent the majority of the past 70 MILLION years in the tropical forests.

The article is talking about the development of the specifically human brain, which dramatically reduces the frame of time that we're discussing. As Javez pointed out, if fruit is an "engineering cocktail" then why didn't it engineer chimp or bonobo brains in the same way as human brains?

[fruits] affect DNA transcription

Why is this different from any other food or environmental factor? Why haven't people who lived for longer periods in the forests or savannahs of the EEA developed higher executive faculties/more intelligence as a result of a lengthier period of this diet?

Secondly, did you even read the article? This comment of yours makes absolutely 0 sense.

I think you misunderstood me, I'm talking about the way the article suggests that fruit alters our brain in some directly heritable way. Am I incorrect in thinking that changes due to environmental factors (including diet) would be epigenetic changes, and therefore only heritable when modulated as a selective pressure?

- So you're suggesting that the biochemistry of junkfood (which is what that quote was referring to) is just as relevant to our evolution as the chemicals that went into building and fueling the most complex organ in the known universe for millions of years?

Of course it is, whatever makes up the bulk of our diet is part of selective pressures that drive the process of evolution. Evolution isn't a teleological process that is benefited by our eating well and diminished by our eating badly, its a process of adaptation for which diet is a crucial factor.

Junk food does damage to the brain.

I don't think I'm confusing myself on this point. Damage to a single human brain, and de-evolution (misnomer in itself) is not the same thing at all. Even if it were true that "junk food does damage to the brain" (I have no idea whether it is true or not, but if you point me to some peer reviewed studies I'll read them) that doesn't mean the "brain damage" will be passed on to the next generation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"The article is talking about the development of the specifically human brain, which dramatically reduces the frame of time that we're discussing. As Javez pointed out, if fruit is an "engineering cocktail" then why didn't it engineer chimp or bonobo brains in the same way as human brains?"

Look if you want to understand the time frame just read the book that i linked already. Its all explained very clearly in there on how this symbiosis seemed to have progressed and initated a feedback loop with our pinea/endocrine system.

And last i check primates like chimps and bonobos were actually very intelligent. They're largely regarded as the second most intelligent beings on the planet. Just an example:

There is a clear connection between fruit-eating species and intelligence. Just look at apes, fruit bats, parrots, etc.

But of course as the rainforests progressively dried they would have gone through the same bottleneck as us, not to mention our physiology seems to indicate (as the book goes into) that we are even more adapted to fruit-eating than them. So in us the symbiosis became even more pronounced

"Why is this different from any other food or environmental factor? Why haven't people who lived for longer periods in the forests or savannahs of the EEA developed higher executive faculties/more intelligence as a result of a lengthier period of this diet?"

Its massively different than any other environmental factors. Fruit has unimaginably complex biochemistry, which does many things including reading dna- which means its involved in building cellular structures on a very basic level. The book explains all of this and your other questions. Instead of just trying to punch holes in it why not read the book and come up with your own conclusions instead of dismissing it outright without really even understandint he general idea, much less the details?

"I think you misunderstood me, I'm talking about the way the article suggests that fruit alters our brain in some directly heritable way. Am I incorrect in thinking that changes due to environmental factors (including diet) would be epigenetic changes, and therefore only heritable when modulated as a selective pressure?"

They are epigenetic changes, meaning that they are a change in how the DNA is read and expressed, not the dna itself...but these can be carried down into the offspring. The mechanism for how this complex jungle biochemistry hijacked our own hormone system is very well evidenced and clearly indicated that this would have real-time affects not only during life but most importantly in the womb when the brain and nervous system are at their most sensitive and important developmental stages. These chemicals would have flooded that system because the mothers blood is the fetus's as well, and on into the breastfeeding stage, and then on into life. They heavily modulate how the endocrine system develops as well and so each generation would have a progressively modulated system. His site explains this better than i can.

Heres links showing how diet can affect the offspring: http://www.medicalda...ritish-hear.htm

http://www.independe...na-2269557.html (it doesn't alter dna like the title says, it alters how the dna is read and expressed- which is even more important)

"I don't think I'm confusing myself on this point. Damage to a single human brain, and de-evolution (misnomer in itself) is not the same thing at all. Even if it were true that "junk food does damage to the brain" (I have no idea whether it is true or not, but if you point me to some peer reviewed studies I'll read them) that doesn't mean the "brain damage" will be passed on to the next generation."

See my links above..bad diet choices do indeed influence the offspring. Its pretty obvious that the chemicals you flood the developing child with in the womb will affect how it develops.

just examples:

http://www.dailymail...arm-memory.html

http://www.huffingto..._n_1173487.html

http://theweek.com/a...se-brain-damage

http://dlglawfirm.co...o-brain-injury/

Edited by ☯_☯

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, it seems that this discussion has good points on both sides. There's a few things I'd like to add:

1) The idea that chemicals from fruit being absent causing irreversible losses of certain chemicals and processes is possibly mostly incorrect.

The brain is a lot like a "Control system" (Engineering concept), and when a disturbance is present, the brain will damp it to return to the ideal operating point. This mechanism is most evident during addiction, where the brain tries its best to anticipate, and reduce the effect of chemicals that appear quasi-periodically in the brain of the addict. The resulting "tolerance" is the disturbance rejection in action. Similarly when compounds that the brain has been anticipating go missing, it will do its best to adjust for it from other sources. For example, if you suddenly stop consuming protein - your body will catabolize itself for protein, using less and less protein each day. The entire time of course, you will be acutely aware of your desire for protein.

So, the body can "find" much of what it needs, and force the operator (you) to go and find them. I suppose that if the body is unable to derive certain required compounds (as in the case of Vitamin C), AND it doesn't know it needs / would benefit from certain compounds, OR does not know where to derive certain nutrients from - then it's in big trouble. I get the feeling that many people deficient in Magnesium are completely unaware of it.

2) Fruit and vegetables have been artificially bred for at least hundreds of years, and today are scarcely the same as what was eaten in the past. Have you seen the size of an apple from the supermarket today? :o They are also mostly full of water, and very nutrient poor (studies confirm the relative lack of nutrients in produce today compared to yesteryear ).

3) Most of the studies espousing the benefits of various plant chemicals, just put cells into contact with these chemicals. In reality, many of these delicate chemicals are almost-wholly decomposed by the stomach pH and abundance of optimized enzymes. What's left often has very poor transference to the bloodstream.

4) The part of our brain that results in our supreme level of abstract thinking, is the neocortex. As far as I know, this part of the human brain has not shrunk by any means. The other areas of the brain may have just lost some redundancy, but might still retain 100% functionality, or become even more functional. It is a gigantic mistake to assume that any decrease in size, has decreased capacity for the brain function we determine to be meaningful.

5) "Insanity" (defined here as repeated aversion to the truth) is probably necessary for our survival, at least throughout the short-term. How much more complex would the world be if our eyes did not adjust for our blindspots, or didn't make the corrections to make the world appear how we think it should. We're not looking through eye-sized windows when we "see", we're taking the blips and beeps of chemical pulses and interpreting them deep within our brain. Your brain does all sorts of funny things it doesn't tell you about. If your brain didn't compensate for the differences in nerve density - this is how would you feel yourself to be:

64.png

Right this very instant you're staring a Haidinger's brush (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haidinger%27s_brush) right in the face and I can all but guarantee you would never have heard of it, and didn't have a clue.

In other words, our very brain is "wired" to snip the truth out sometimes, so it's really nothing to do with the brain shrinking. As long as our brains remain the same functionally - they will promote certain "lies" (e.g. that you don't have a blindspot, that Haidinger's brush isn't there).

6) Lastly, de-evolution is not happening, by definition. Just as if you started running, then quickly stopped and started running backwards - at no point are you "de-running", you're just running in another direction.

I think the idea is interesting, and I think it definitely contains some truth. However, the logical conclusion I'm sure is WAY too wrought. I think that while the idea that there is an institution of insanity is largely true, it's almost nothing to do with the simple absence or presence of food chemicals. I think that it's much more to do with the function of our society. I'll elaborate once I've worked out some ideas to do with the idea of short-term thinking being necessary for our survival.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i don't have time to reply in full at the moment..But i think its worth noting again that virtually all of the points made in this thread stem from not having looked in depth at the material, which is understandable, given the subject matter

Again i invite you to just take an open minded look at the free .pdf of the entire book..check it out and decide for yourself- but keep in mind how the functionality of our comprehension kit may be compromised, and so recognizing it would inherently be tricky for some: http://leftinthedark.org.uk/sites/default/files/Left%20in%20the%20Dark%20free%20edition.pdf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am going a wild-sourced fruitarian diet for 6 months, hopefully I will understand that I was lacking in the right biochemicals to really understand the value of the book, which is worth exactly how much $ ? Damn I feel stupid

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a big mfing ask, to ask someone to read 200 pages, of a book, that starts out by stating sureties and with poor grammar (again, just circumstancial evidence of someone not qualified [through knowledge, not a piece of paper] to be making these claims).

Nevertheless, I will read what I can of it. :)

Edit:

Began to read it. These claims of a golden age of men seem unsubstantiated. Referring to ancient people who also referred to "better times before" is as credible as asking gramps what "his day" was like. Secondly, I think the skeletons of men will attest to the distinct lack of good times and existence of war. Secondly, chimpanzees engage in tribal warfare for land acquisition and are still living the life the book seems to be espousing.

It seems so far this book has many assumptions that are implicitly assumed. I'll keep reading however, as it's still interesting.

Edited by CβL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Evolution can occur quite quickly, over just a few generations it seems some species quickly gain and lose certain abilities, I heard of a recent study on Chrysanthemums which saw an isolated group lose the ability to deal with certain pests over 8 generations, this apparently occurred at the genetic level, which is surprisingly fast. However, one would also expect such species to have a similar ability to change back (or switch the genes back on?) were they in different conditions, otherwise species would quickly be wiped out when climate or environmental conditions change. Only the more robust (genetically variable) species tend to survive, and over time they change and develop with the changing climate, environment, and other species around them.

While humans have developed an ability to adjust the environment around them as another ability to help them survive within that environment, it doesn't preclude genetic change as well. It is very possible that humans have lost and gained some abilities over their more recent time on this planet. The ability to digest certain foods, for example. The ability to readily use tryptamines and other substances to gain insight into other realms may be another. It's an interesting concept, but the body's ability to convert all sorts of different foods into what it requires is pretty extraordinary as it is, so without reading the paper I do have a few doubts about the finer details. As others have pointed out, the main drawback to the theory is that there are monkeys and other animals that survive on a diet much more rich in fruit than ours, and yet they don't appear to show the same signs of intellectual development that we do.

While I agree that we also live in a collective insanity, I think that's a cultural / learned response. I eat hardly any fruit (except tomatoes), yet I have the ability to stand outside our society and see it for how it appears from a different perspective, this inability to see what is happening from a different perspective is exactly the problem all modern cultures suffer from, whether their diets are low in fruit or not. Being born into what essentially amounted to a cult, I quickly learned new perspectives when exposed to the rest of society, and use of certain psychedelics expanded on that considerably, as well as reading massive amounts of imaginative material, which all fueled my imagination and gave me new perspectives. Sadly, fruit had very little to do with this as I ate almost none until quite recently.

I am reminded of all those books my partner reads regarding diet and health, and the vast quantities of minerals and vitamins and other extraordinary amino acids and proteins that make up the "perfect diet", and yet my health is generally much better than hers, despite my refusal to eat anything but basic undercooked veggies, nuts, and a bit of chicken and fish because I like to and because I get hungry if I don't! (I don't eat wheat and have no added salt and no sugar although I will eat honey, yes. In fact, when I do take (under duress) Vitamin pills or any other additives, most of them seem to upset the happy balance I have in my diet rather than provide any useful boost to my health. My body converts the things I eat into the things I need, and I am sure that the human body quite readily coped, over so many generations, with the adjustments in diet it needed to make when it moved away from the fruit-rich rainforests to the varied environments spread across the planet.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow you guys are coming to some big conclusions/confusing things without even having a basic understanding of this theory..

"Even if there is only a 1% chance our neural system is seriously retarded/compromised the only sane response would be to rigorously investigate the evidence as an urgent priority. Unfortunately if the condition is real then the response will reflect its severity."

Perhaps this recent interview with the author can clarify some things

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×