I read a fascinating article the other day, on wheat (imagine that, me reading on wheat).
One of the arguments of the article was that grains like wheat have always been suboptimal nutrition: modern wheat has amplified nutritionally-undesirable traits, but those traits have always been there. Examples would be so-called anti-nutrients (that bind other nutrients and cross the blood-brain barrier) and other “self-defense” toxins that are especially good at worming prematurely through the gut wall barrier.
One could go back and forth all day about this – some of us would have fun with that! – but regardless, two things seem pretty well-established and self-evident to me: (1) the wheat (or grains generally) that we eat today are very different than the wheat from 150+ years ago, HOWEVER, (2) strictly speaking, “ag-based” civilizations are generally less healthy than hunter-gatherer civilizations. And, let me clarify that last point: In other words, as a generalization, if you look at ag-based civilizations vs. hunter gatherer societies, you’ll find that the latter are generally peak healthy, while the former are less so. Man-to-man, individually, hunter gatherers will be healthier.
However, there’s an obvious observation to be made here. If you were a tribe leader in ye-olden days hunger-gatherer days, and your competitor, Tribe #2 (also a hunter-gatherer tribe), was out to kill you, you’d look for an edge, to beat your competitor. If you were smart, you’d eventually figure out that by growing fields full of cheap, readily available-storable-transportable food, you could support a wider population base: ergo, more army, more R&D, more everything. And if your competitor doesn’t figure this out: eventually, you win.
In other words, there’s a clear tradeoff here: individually, your civilization won’t be as healthy as Tribe #2 members. But collectively, your food structure can support a whole lot more people, and meet more flexible food needs (long excursions, voyages, low-time-high-demand situations, famine relief, etc.), and thus, you win. In short: shoddy food means more scalability and flexibility collectively, while high-quality food means better individual health.
Here’s the problem: Civilizational leadership generally want as much power as possible – in other words, they want as cheap, shoddy food. Individually, we want our food as robust and healthy as possible. But we’re not the ones crafting relevant social structures: corporate law, contract law, trade agreements, public health messaging, research grants, etc. Even if the leadership is the “salt of the earth” type, they don’t know any better: they go with what they know. And all they know is the same policy that’s always ever been: cheap, scaleable food. There’s a reason the food pyramid is the proffered state-sponsored model – and it has nothing to do with your individual health.
Now, some of you may be pointing out: shoddy food has alot of bad collective effects! Which brings me to my next point: as always (post-Enlightenment at least), we’ve overdone it. And, since it’s all the civilizational equivalent of an arms race, short of a complete meltdown, I don’t see how it can be reversed.
We’re extremely primitive in our discernment of nature and tradition these days, but we’re very very good at anything technological. And our technological juggernaut has done it’s job: we’ve found innumerable ways to make our food wildly scalable, infinitely shelf-stable, unimaginably flexible (crops that double as bio-fuel?!??) – and, simultaneously, nutritionally bankrupt. As with everything it touches, Usury is eating its own tail; an ever-tightening snare: Farming is largely a government-funded enterprise that prioritizes the profits of the lending machines that sustain it; that in turn demands cookie-cutter crops like GMO corn and soy to enable subsidization and market predictability; which in turn leaves food manufacturers with little choice to either use the cheap junk or get beaten by competitors – which in turn leaves you and I with air, soil, and foods riddled with the most horrifying poisons known to history, and a dependency on a vast precarious supply chain.
From where you and I are standing, we’re not impressed. But, having spent a bit of time in politics, I’ll attest that, from from being opposed to what’s happening, what we have today is exactly what government leadership wants. It’s an arms race: we can’t back down now, or China [or somebody] will win. You want local food? Poison-free air and soil? Actual food culture, contained by meaningful borders and traditions? Forget it, you’re on your own; the world will leave you behind. The food pyramid is a prime example: we call that “corruption.” Civilizational leadership calls that “progress.”
This is not to say that “shoddy” food production (e.g. grains, etc.) is all bad with no benefits, or that we should all be hunter-gatherers. Far from it: “shoddy” food, and the scalability it brings, has real benefits. It gives us time to worship, to enjoy our family and friends, to study, to relax, and to defend ourselves against enemies (a very nice feature). I don’t know about you, but I’m all about that stuff, as opposed to running down a mangy deer and stabbing it with a sharpened stick every few days, brb.
I’m not exactly sure why, but I take comfort in finally understanding this story. I think it elucidates what I’ve slowly started to realize all along: in order to offset the ill effects of this recklessness, you have to opt-out, in so many ways. Your priorities as a Christian, a family, a healthy human, are not the Government’s priorities as a World Power. You can’t opt out completely: the poison is in your air, in your soil, in your water, in your food; everywhere. But still we do our best. I suppose if I had to sum up: they can take our Freedom, but they can never take our Principles.
