Timmy elsewhere

At the ASI.

If family size went up when the colonialists changed the South Seas diet then it cannot have been a worse diet, can it?

 

Or to make the same statement another way: the colonialists improved the diets of those who lived on such islands. It might not be an improvement by the standards of the modern prodnoses but population does respond quite well to food availability in a subsistence economy. That population and family size did increase is proof perfect that the diet was “better”.

4 comments on “Timmy elsewhere

  1. You get what you select for.
    Fat is stored energy.
    Take a source population and filter it through unreliable food supplies. Long periods in an open boat, small islands subject to crop failures. You will get people who can store energy, i.e. get fat.

  2. You could say that their old diet was better (healthier) but not always available (and there’s nothing as unhealthy as starvation). When given the choice between quality and security of supply, they chose the latter.

    But yes, BiF is right, many generations of natural selection would produce this outcome.

  3. I saw a summary in a newspaper: I thought that it made the work sound like a parody of dim-lefty-academic blames pet-hate-figure.

  4. Quality Fallacy.

    Omnivorous Man can eat most anything. There are no magic foods, health foods, etc. Nutritional issues are about quantity, not quality. But there’s no money to be made on that.

Leave a Reply

Name and email are required. Your email address will not be published.