A lot of people mentioning willpower but not as much attention is given to the fact that everything in our millions of years evolutionary design is biased toward heavy reward for caloric foods, and within the past 100 years we are suddenly in an environment where those cravings can be fulfilled in abundance.
> ... "within the past 100 years we are suddenly in an environment where those cravings can be fulfilled in abundance."
And an environment where a massive completely out of control advertising industry that's injected into pretty much everything these days abuses every psychological trick in the book to capitalize on those evolutionary cravings.
This. If the ad industry put half as much effort into promoting healthy eating, we wouldn't train everyone to eat poorly and/or excessively at a young age.
FFS, look at how long it took to get calorie counts on menu signage! And that's the lowest hanging fruit.
1. Fix fast food + the ad industry by financially penalizing pushing unhealthy food.
2. Rework the food supply chain to support healthier eating. (Less ultra-processed, shelf-stable items, more easy-to-cook healthy options + increase availability in food deserts)
Between lost productivity and end of life health expenses, I can't believe there isn't an economic argument for this.
It's difficult to drive systematic changes in the food supply chain because there are so many different entities involved, each trying to maximize profit. But we are finally seeing limited positive steps with some states banning junk food purchases with food stamps (SNAP) and the FDA banning some synthetic food dyes.
For the most part, supply follows from demand than the other way around. If people cared more about healthy food more than convenient and tasty food, then companies will sell and advertise healthier food. Chinatowns were historically poor, but they never turned into food deserts because vegetables are a quintessential part of Chinese cuisine.
Taxing unhealthy food may work, but that would also piss a lot of people off who have their palates destroyed from eating too junk food, especially since you'd need taxes to be high enough to basically force people to change their habits. Subsidies for healthy food tend to benefit the the upper-middle class the most. Subsidizing school lunches that are both healthy and not disgusting is the only option I see as both feasible and effective.
> Chinatowns were historically poor, but they never turned into food deserts because vegetables are a quintessential part of Chinese cuisine.
The key component you're talking about here is culture, which is absolutely malleable to advertising over intermediate timespans.
Look at the Chinese shift towards greater amounts of meat consumption, driven by its promotion as a symbol of wealth.
And many of these beliefs are set in childhood. Imho, the rest of the world would do well to follow the Japanese/French tradition, where introducing children to healthy food options is taken seriously.
A modern diet is a restrictive diet. We live in a time when half of our produced food is thrown away. That's why veganism makes so much sense nowadays. Nothing about the modern diet is "natural" for most people.
Meat was awesome when calories were sparse/intermittent. Now it's just excess for the sake of a status symbol. Same can be said about a lot of our foods.
>We live in a time when half of our produced food is thrown away.
I don't see how this is a relevant fact. If we threw away 10x the food does that make our diet even more unhealthy? Moreover if technological innovations like refrigeration decreases food waste, does that magically make our diet healthy again?
>That's why veganism makes so much sense nowadays. Nothing about the modern diet is "natural" for most people.
>Meat was awesome when calories were sparse/intermittent. Now it's just excess for the sake of a status symbol. Same can be said about a lot of our foods.
If you turn back the clock even more (ie. pre-agriculture), you'd probably see the reverse (ie. more meat consumption).
> If you turn back the clock even more (ie. pre-agriculture), you'd probably see the reverse (ie. more meat consumption).
I believe you're agreeing with the comment you're commenting on. Before calories were easily available, meat was the most reliable form of protein and fat in most environments.
>If you turn back the clock even more (ie. pre-agriculture), you'd probably see the reverse (ie. more meat consumption).
I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. Or really your entire reply doesn't make much sense.
Pre-agriculture people starved on a regular basis. Calories were scarce in general which is why meat was important. It was a calorie and nutrient bomb when those were irregular/hard to come by.
And even then their diets were primarily plant based, think about 80%. Analysis of human scat remains has repeatedly confirmed that ancient diets were primarily plant based. Most of this research comes from academia in countries not obsessed with beef(not the US).
Modern misinformation directly contradicts fact in this area and much of it is driven by cattle/dairy industries and bro-science marketing that the carnivore diet makes ya stronk/patriotic/manly. In reality, the meat heavy western diet is associated with a long list of preventable diseases and ailments. Gotta love heart attacks at 40 yrs old cuz of these beef heavy diets.
Which is easier(and burns less calories) to harvest: an animal you have to spend hours tracking/killing/processing or stationary plants you can forage throughout the day? Remember, they didn't have guns, vehicles, etc. This was spears and running in the elements.
>I don't see how this is a relevant fact.
Meat was great when calories and nutrients were scarce. Nobody is denying that. However, we live in 2025, not 10000BC, which means calories and nutrients are so abundant to the point we throw away half of what we produce. This means the benefit of meat is no longer a benefit.
Meat is awesome when you need an optimal mix of nutrients — not just empty calories. Of course it's certainly possible to get the right proportions of macronutrients and sufficient micronutrients on a vegan diet but it takes a lot more planning and attention to detail.
not much: meats lacks A. fibers and B. carbohydrate. Some can argue removing B isn't a bad idea, it certainly is quire restrictive. Removing A. have many short and long terms effects that are not very desirable.
Therefore most meat eaters also eat thinks like vegetables, beans, grains etc... which "unbalance" the "right proportions" (if that exist) of meat. It's very hard to achieve near perfect macro and micro nutriments if not with an artificial and perfectly calculated meals taking into account daily physical activity, psychological state, temperature, infections exposure etc... I'm not even sure ISS guys get such a calculation.
> sufficient micronutrients
This is easily done by eating plenty of plants -which is exactly what non meat eaters do- and a pill of B12. One can count but it's not more necessary than if they want a perfectly balanced meat diet, which also have its "problems" when not perfectly balanced.
Think of it this way: Meat is a junk food. It's a calorie bomb that lacks essential macronutrients, fiber being a key one. Without managing your intake it leads to health problems. It can be addictive("But meat is soooo delicious I could never give it up"). It's not necessary for your survival; it is optional in 2025.
Sure sounds like a junk food.
Then there is the long list of benefits of giving up meat. Not just for you but the environment, which means it benefits every living creature on the planet.
> [...] I still don't, and that's despite the temptation by "evolutionary design".
This too, is downstream of evolutionary design. What drove us into becoming that which cares about discovering and conforming to complex social structures / rules?
