arugula wrote:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ns62KBGiWaQ
1:02:01 (Sep 4, 2015) (Webinar About Obesity Part 1) (from above post)
.
wow, 51:08-52:53
"i tell you the problem with heart disease and breast cancer.
these diseases, strokes, fatal complications of diabetes.
these diseases are learned. you learn to eat certain foods that
give you these diseases. the problem with these diseases is that
they kill only after reproduction. you see if they killed before
reproduction we'd wipe out the stupids and the stupid people who
would be eating the meats and the chickens and the rabbits and so
on like that, they'd be wiped out in a generation.
but unfortunately these diseases only kill after you've had
children. you've taught the children to eat at burger king. and
kentucky fried chicken. and mcdonald's and so you can't select
the stupidity out of the population. so these diseases will keep
going on and on and on."
----
i love this man! even more so when he does not edit.
I was thrilled when I heard Dr. McD mention this during that webinar. It is something I had been thinking about after re-reading Doug Lisle's book,The Pleasure Trap, a couple of months ago.
I began to consider a scenario when it actually could begin to effect the survival of the species as a whole. (This is just spit-balling here...)
We have been witnessing the increase in childhood obesity over a few decades now. We know that obesity effects fertility in a negative manner. Youth, having been obese for most of there life, may enter into their child-bearing years less fertile.
In the future, it is possible we will see rates of children to obese people decline and rates to non-obese/non-overweight people increase (how that would be measured is beyond this conjecture).
The offspring would then represent a selection of sorts towards an ectomorphic body type. This ectomorphic phenotype represents the group of people that would fall into the tail end of a bell curve of our current population, those naturally slender people whom diet does not negatively effect as much, possibly because they absorb or recognize dietary fat differently, respond to hormones, stretch receptors,blah bah blah, some mechanism or other that we don't need to explore right now to continue with my little theory. If this were to continue over many, many generations it could become the dominant phenotype.
Maybe this would be great, maybe this would represent an adaptation to our current toxic food environment, or more specifically the consistent abundance of food. Human beings could all live happily ever after having our cake and eating it too!
The trouble would then lie in a disruption of that environment. Any sort of widespread/global disaster, be it war, environmental, etc, anything leading to famine conditions, that disrupts the food supply for a generation or two.
The new dominant phenotype (naturally skinny people- or should I say unnaturally
) may not be as resilient to this change in the environment as our current population.
Well that's all I've got... many if, thens...
Any thoughts?