Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by stcredzero 6145 days ago
I don't think the original commenter was thinking along these dogmatic lines. I think he's coming from the direction that there's a lot that we don't know about food, and how our metabolism works. Sometimes, it's best to leave well enough alone, until we understand more.

As for hybrid rice, yes, it saved lots of lives. But many argue that there were negative side effects.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Revolution

Here's a story that predates the Green Revolution. I think it might be illuminating.

A long time ago in China, there was a public official named Confucius. (Yes, that Confucius.) For the betterment of his nation, he engaged in a huge campaign to popularize the eating of polished (white) rice. He did this because white rice is much easier to store for longer periods, and more conducive to warehousing and other logistical activities. Thus did Confucius greatly reduce the incidence of famine in his country. However, in the following years, there was an epidemic of beri-beri in China.

Human beings didn't discover vitamin B1 until the late 1800s.

1 comments

Informative example, but metaphor != empirical evidence. Why not claim that USDA approved organic food is the "white rice" of our times?
In the absence of solid evidence, metaphorical reasoning is a valid technique to use to explore the possibilities.

> Why not claim that USDA approved organic food is the "white rice" of our times?

Why not indeed. It could be true. How does one work out the a priori likelihood of this being true to know whether it is worth looking into further? Metaphors might be one valid method. I can see an argument that some pesticides actually enhance human health. An analogue here would be the decline in iodine levels in milk when farmers stopped using iodophors.

http://www.mja.com.au/public/issues/184_06_200306/letters_20...

I'm not saying I think the proposition is likely to be true but I wouldn't dismiss it out of hand and I wouldn't assume you are being unscientific for proposing it without proof.