Agreed. Culture and food availability problem IMO. Like I said I don't see any solution to obesity other than pharma. Which doesn't have to be so negative if the drugs are fairly benign as far as serious sides.
I have very little idea about evolution but in general do you think there might be something that has been missed so far as far as human origins? Maybe this is a too complicated question for getbig, taking too much space and effort to answer. I've read some articles by a fella named Fred Reed who has some problems with the accepted view of human origins but I have no way of properly evaluating it...
https://www.unz.com/freed/darwin-unhinged-the-bugs-in-evolution/
Human origins or the origin of life? abiogenesis is a disputed topic but there are plenty of ideas that have been shown to work in actually biological systems. I do think the idea of life is problematic as is the idea of cognitive. Certain materials exhibit intelligent behaviour, tripaldi wrote a book called parallel minds which dives into this idea quite clearly and lucidly. We know that things like auto-catalytic sets, autopoetic systems and dissipative structures (systems far from equilibrium, like us) show order and organization that is self-propelled (self-organizing). Molecules show this behaviour. Chance and stochasticity is inherent in the system (we know this from chaos theory) and we know from complexity theory that local interactions lead to complex behaviour that is not co-ordinated except for simple local rules-- think of birds mumuring birds- each one follows simple rules based off the interactions adjacent or immediate to them and this forms complex patterns, simple cells do this to form complex organs etc.
I am not super up on evolution in terms of the newest stuff but it is very well established and makes a lot of predictions. Technically its a theory which is simply an explanation of facts, the fact that we have different species in explained by mutation and natural selection and the above concepts.
i think the idea that is missed in that article, which has been proven, is evolution is absolutely blind and requires chance/randomness. For example they have done studies with bacterial lines in which the exact same local environments are set up (so that whatever occurs is inherent to the bacteria) and the lines all evolve differently, one even learned to eat the medium (citrate) that the others could not. It was random mutation and chance. So evolution is non-teleological- we didnt have to evolve and this explains why some creatures are poorly adapted, it didnt have to happen and once you add in context and environment (the idea of ecology) its impossible to predict.
I am not sure if that answers your question in any way lolol but I think stuart kaufmann is right with respect to abiogenesis and auto-catalytic sets were the cause.
I do think philosophically deleuzes idea of virtuality and difference helps understand this stuff more clearly, there is no outside force (transcendent) that guides things along or was needed, its all immanent and the possibilities of life exceed the actualities we see, things self-organize or are autopoetic and recursive.
