Lol at bitcoin being a revolt against fiat money--maybe a revolt against government-backed fiat money, but it's still fiat money.



I think this actually applies fairly well to Paleo 2.0. A few years ago, when Dr. Kurt Harris started talking about how paleo shouldn't be reenactment, I was agin it. There are some paleolithic groups that have fairly well worked out diet--we're not talking prehistory when we look at the traditional Inuit diet, or the traditional Australian aboriginal diet, or the traditional Hawaiian diet. The Kitivans aren't paleo, but they also have an example of a less processed diet where we're not just guessing at what they ate.

My problem with reenactment--take somebody from Japan, eating as the Japanese ate fifty years ago. They'll have less of certain diseases, like heart disease, breast cancer. Move them here, rates of these diseases go up, move their children back--can't know for sure but it's very reasonable to suppose the kid's rates of disease will go down with that change in diet and lifestyle. Epidemiology might show correlation, not causation--but change just about everything, reenact as closely as possible the conditions that showed less disease, and it seems to me you're more likely to hit on the things that actually make a difference, without actually knowing what they are. In fact it seems to me that you're more likely to be tragically wrong if you believe that you know more details of why the approach should work. That could get you, our ancestors ate meat, so so can I. They had honey and nuts, so I can have honey-nut cookies. Seal fat is safe for the Inuit, sweet potato is safe for Kitivans, so I can have sweet potato french fries made with seal oil. I don't think so.

Of course this means you're going to have to know something about how people lived and ate if you want to benefit from a paleo approach. Which removes the "we don't know what all those paleolithic peoples ate" problem entirely, anybody approaching paleo based on what people ate way back when we can't be certain what people actually ate is working blindfolded, only paleo groups we have clear data on should be considered relevant. Nobody needed to make up a carnivorous past, we have small groups of carnivorous people even up to the current day.

I consider the Inuit a bit of an exception, in that their diet was simple enough by necessity that it's a little easier to understand why a diet that approaches theirs is therapeutic.