Speaking as a mammal, who has gone to some efforts to be well preserved,
it now appears that I am carcinogenic if consumed. I am unsure as to
whether to be disappointed or elated. Certainly a caution to those of
cannibalistic bent.
This does raise the issue that if I am indeed carcinogenic, why am I
less so to myself in the similar way that I might be to others?
Ticks carry other nasty things, even without the Lyme problem. I know
people who have Lyme, it is unpleasant for them. I like beets, and
curry, irrespective of their supposed benefits, so am predisposed to
hear nice things about their benefits. I believe most diagnoses of
arthritis are bogus because I don't wish to believe I am of an age
susceptible to such and because I can with some attention to detail fix
it most of the time. Smoking is an obnoxious habit, perpetrated by
those who have little regard for themselves or others. I'm sorry if it
causes them cancer. I believed animal fats caused cardiovascular
issues since some hyperlipidemia runs in my family and have seen first
hand the devastation cardiovascular diseases can cause. However, I
have become convinced that (a) I feel noticeably better with some meat
in my diet and (b) my social group thinks that cholesterol is perhaps
not as strong a factor in heart disease as other things and (c) as I
read up on these things I see that the disease (like cancer) is not a
single thing with unique causes per individual. I live next to pigs
and goats and chickens and am likely under no illusions about what "farm
fresh" in the grocery store means. I am trying to make an organic
garden at my hut and am increasingly impressed with the difficulty of
defining the term. Generally, I try to follow a fish and rice and
veggies Japanese diet; it feels "cleaner", which is an mental model
brought on by my very long standing Japanophilia as much as anything else.
There. I see statements to the effect of "statistically, meat causes
cancer" and I laugh. Thanks for playing. Two Martian potatoes out of
a possible five.
C
On 10/27/15 11:06 PM, Nick Thompson wrote:
Dear Friam members,
As those of you in the mother church are already aware, I have been trying
to foment a conversation about what rationality consists of and how does it
relate to a purported scientific consensus. I assume that you are all, more
or less, rational people. How exactly, then, did each of you come to the
conclusion that, say, animal fats do or do not cause heart disease, smoking
does or does not cause cancer, human activity does or does not cause global
warming, that tick bites do (or do not) cause a syndrome called chronic Lyme
disease, that, say, beet powder improves metabolism (?), or that turmeric
does or does not alleviate arthritis. Or, perhaps more important, how did
you decide to act on these beliefs? Or not?
A friend of mine is always trying to change my eating habits and now
assaults me with evidence that red meat, particularly if processed, is
increasing my risk of cancer. She includes in her email several links that
are designed to convince me. I include those below.
The question I would like us to consider is not really the substance of the
matter. I am effing 77 years old, with a dozen things wrong with me that
are likely to kill me long before tomorrow's hotdog will. I am more
interested in the process by which each of you will decide whether or not to
change your habits on the basis of this new evidence, or try to change the
habits of your children or grandchildren. In what sense will that process
be "reasonable?"
Discuss.
Nick
Nicholas S. Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology
Clark University
http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/
-----Original Message-----
From: EMAIL
Sent: Tuesday, October 27, 2015 8:31 PM
To: Nick Thompson <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Meat
Here's a thoughtful look at what the WHO had to say about meat and cancer:
http://examine.com/blog/scientists-just-found-that-red-meat-causes-cancer--o
r-did-they/?utm_source=Examine.com+Insiders&utm_campaign=34d0d95b1b-Red_mead
10_27_2015&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_e4d662cb1b-34d0d95b1b-70203945&ct=t(R
ed_mead10_27_2015)&goal=0_e4d662cb1b-34d0d95b1b-70203945&mc_cid=34d0d95b1b&m
c_eid=3edf56d922
Apparently the WHO looked at 800 different studies. That's a lot of
studies. Is it a meta study?
R
On Oct 27, 2015, at 4:40 PM, Nick Thompson wrote:
R
I always wait for the metastudy.
n
Nicholas S. Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology Clark University
http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/
-----Original Message-----
From: EMAIL
Sent: Monday, October 26, 2015 3:35 PM
To: Nick Thompson <[email protected]>
Subject: Meat
Nick,
Are you freaking out about the meat/cancer news? Here's an article
that puts it in perspective:
http://www.theguardian.com/science/sifting-the-evidence/2015/oct/26/me
at-and
-tobacco-the-difference-between-risk-and-strength-of-evidence?CMP=fb_a
-scien ce_b-gdnscience?CMP=fb_a-science_b-gdnscience
.
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
