What (not) to Eat.

As never before many of us have huge choice of what to eat. From a past where most of us had to eat what was available, cheap and plentiful we now have a huge range of  foods. so which to choose? Are some foods more "natural" than others? If so are these foods more "health"?  Firstly we should note on inescapable issue. Mankind has changed its diet massively these last 50000 years or so and the biggest change from our remote ancestors is the use of cooking. So dramatic is this and so prevalent in daily use it is now widely believed that none of us could survive on a diet of uncooked food!
Next we might consider if any foods stand out as "unnatural". Let us consider all the things we might eat and see if there are any that are not eaten by animals. Animals of course in the wild do not eat cooked food. They do however eat fruit, vegetables, herbs, fish, meat, etc. So what is missing that we eat? Firstly cereals which we invented but at a stretch are just specialised grasses so might count as natural. The big thing missing fro animals diet in the wild and massive in ours (in much of the world) is dairy produce. We get through masses of milk and milk products. Wild animals beyond infancy consume none. Dairy produce is seriously unnatural. (and in much of the word milk causes serious health problems). Should we avoid it - its for you to decide. Me? Yoghurt and cheese give most taste - the rest I avoid.

The Flood

Much fun was had last week when a science supporting actor had a TV debate with a "young earth creationist". This species of person apparently goes about pretending to believe that the earth is about 7000 years old and every  word of the bible is true. There was it seems some discussion of Noah, the flood and all that. Here is a thing: the flood covered the entire earth, and the rains eventually stopped. The waters abated and dry land was exposed. Here's the question - where did the water go? If the whole earth was covered in water there would be nowhere for it to drain away to. If it evaporated it would fall again as rain and start the whole mess off again. So where did the water go? To my utter delight I now discover that Leonardo da Vinci made this exact point! Try this on your local friendly creationist. Harmless amusement.

A Non-Random Sample

USA for all its wealth has possibly unique problems not widely shared by other advanced (largely European) societies.  No healthcare for many, plutocracy run riot, guns, racism, obesity etc etc.
Why?
Non-native Americans are descended from assorted immigrants from around the world whose originating societies may currently be poorer but many of which in measurable ways  are doing better.
Who were those migrants and how were they selected? Randomly?  No.
The migrants were of two sorts - those who went willingly and those taken against their will.
Start with the latter. From Europe many were taken as indentured servants - slaves of a sort and not willing. Who selected them? Their masters.  African slaves made a substantial minority of immigrants. How were they selected? Firstly they lived within reach of the sea, secondly they were unlucky and thirdly they were out of favour with their masters who sold them.  Overall not a random sample.

Of those who went voluntarily? A mixture of poorer more dependent people lured by promises , some driven by threats and some clearly so socially disturbed that the perils and uncertainties of emigration were to be preferred. Notable among this group were those seeking religious (ie fractious sectarian religious) freedom a characteristic still evident though thankfully now in terminal decline. Again not a random sample.

So today USA is largely populated by the descendants of these non randomly selected migrants. And that it is how it is in all its unique bizarre splendour.

It is now down to the molecular biologists to study the DNA to discover how Americans differ from the current populations in those countries  from whence their ancestors came and offer insights which might help them recover and join the wider human community.

Religionists Rank Ingratitude Rankles.

The most depressing infuriating enraging aspect of the religionist is not the vapid tawdry nature of his purported but largely not effected beliefs. It is rather that he has spurned the efforts of better folks than himself who strove and took great risks to create a world in which this supernatural nonsense need no more terrorize and enslave him. The religionist is ungrateful. That is unforgivable. Men and women throughout the ages thought about things and demonstrated the falsity of religious pronouncements. We were freed from its clutches both mentally and in time physically. We were free!  The progression from ancient insights, the renaissance, the reformation and the enlightenment chart major steps on this escape and sensible persons have grasped and exploited the possibilities. But not the religionist. He affects to spurn this enterprise and clings or purports to cling to his discredited dogma yet revels in the benefits the overthrow of religion brought him.

Swivel eyed loons.

Big press brou ha ha. Press heard political associate of PM. calling party activists swivel eyed loons. He denies it. Why bother?  It is in the nature of political parties that they attract persons with a mission and the activists are such to a greater degree. Some at least are probably unhinged by their quest but it may well be they who are of most benefit to the party. Wear the badge with pride! For the rest of us who have no contact with politics this is of no consequence other than the need to get into government truly representative non party political people.

Niall Ferguson

Poor chap.Wants to be a historian but failed history 101. To be a historian you have to start with an open mind and without fixed views or prejudices. He didn't. He is some sort of right wing ideologue and all his work is an attempt to show that the right's predecessors did no wrong and that their legacy is pure and simple. It isn't. And so he fails from the outset. He has of course done well without doing any good. He has written books and made TV shows and loads of money. But he is at heart a failure. His version of history is pathetic and will not be a source of inspiration for anyone. He is still young however and who knows what the future holds.

Ashes

Scotland is in the grip of frenzied nonsense about what happend to the ashes of babies who were cremated. Crematoria are being condemned for not having returned ashes to the parents. Eh?  When a person, baby, child or adult, is cremated it is usually within a coffin made of some substantial material. Both are we suppose burnt together. Possibly in multiple cremations? In any event who can imagine which ashes were of the deceased and which were from the coffin? Did anyone ever believe that the ashes which were returned to families were solely and exclusively those of the deceased? Surely not. Let us get a grip grow up and get over this tedious nonsense. If we want to keep close to a deceased relative's remains let us bury them in the ground and let others be cremated.