I dont study philosophy as you can probably tell by my post, the thoughts and conclusions made by people before me don't interest me all that much. Maybe you can tell me how studying it has personally effected your worldview and how it might benefit me, but I just don't like the idea of studying the endpoint of people's philosophy
There's a lot to discuss in that regard, of course if we argued about each point spinoza and humes made instead of abstractions this argument wouldn't end, philosophy it has only made me ask more questions or be depressed by figuring out that someone already has reached a profound idea that I had in me before, it is mostly fruitless to go deep here, most of the time atleast.
I dont study philosophy as you can probably tell by I don't see how nature being seemingly chaotic would make it not perfect? The strong survive, sounds good to me. Might seem disorderly to the prey, I'm sure the predators find it works like a charm.
Why would anything be considered perfect to begin with? perfection is just a human construct, it is not an innate idea found in existence.
For the human part of it, would you consider jackson pollock work as art? I wouldn't, it's too chaotic, but for other people it's a perfect form of art and thus such fluid man-made constructs fails to fit within the boundaries of the claimed "objective rational" model to analyze them.
The strong survives the weak falls and other Nietzschean constructs, all fail to address that there is more to nature and existence than just strong and weak, prehistoric animals, or even if we go to biblical texts, we found that the weaker actually prevailed and the strong diminished, larger prehistoric species, extinct, tribes of hominen who were tenfolds stronger than homo sapiens, extinct, tribes of giants in biblical texts, extinct, actually all that left remain are things that were better at adapting, following or thinking.
We're not going to discuss the definition pf strength and ehat else it could be so all this could be summarized by two words, shit happens and shit does actually happen, in such a chaotic environment in which shit happens, nothing goes "perfect" or "smooth", it's just a repeated cycle of shit happens.
We require exactly 0 carbohydrates to survive. You can get sufficient energy from fat. Yes all isolated tribes ate some vegetables or maybe even starch, because they took advantage of every single resource that was in their proximity. They've developed the ability to digest these foods, just as an example, beta carotene found in vegetables can only be converted to true vitamin A by about 50% of the population, and only at a ratio of 1:21. I, as a modern human, have no shortage of food in my proximity. What's in my proximity are butcher shops, farmer's markets, don't see why I wouldn't exploit that. Since the start of agriculture our brains and jaws have shrunk by about 10%.
.
Since I'm on a related diet, I can tell you that the body needs carbs in moderation and there are lots of reasons for it, as I stated before read about glycogen and how eukaryotic cells work. carbohydrates sit in the middle between protein and fat in terms of TEF ratio, which is 5-10%, FAT being the lowest, which actually makes it the worst in this argument, fat requires the least amount of energy to digest, at the same time fat has the highest gastric emptying rate, so not only that it is stored without a thermic effect, no but it also gets absorbed noticably slower than protein and multiple times slower than carbohydrates. the power of carbohydrates come from supplying the living tissue with glucose without overworking the liver and pancreass to make bile and enzymes from the body's fat and proteins to digest fat, instead it is worked directly by the liver itself (well with the exception of fructose, not all sugars, glucose mostly, which is what most sugars in nature and fruits and starches have in a 50% ratio AT THE MINIMUM, even including the table sugar, sucrose, this is exactly why high fructose corn syrup is worse than regular sugar) .
We take omnivorous animals as an example, our most look alike in the animal kingdom, chimps and bonobos have up to 60% of their diet in fruits, and most of those wild fruits are closer to vegetables like potato in their starch and soluble fiber content unlike the modified fruits that human consume that tend to be more sweet to presence of free sugars.
-The claims that soluble fiber slows down the metabolic rate of nutrients is misleading at best, because it slows the absorption of sugar and has absolutely nothing to do with the most important nutrient there is, protein.
-The claims that fiber is useless are also false, fiber slows the absorption of sugar, which comes in handy paired with a high carb intake that keeps the insulin levels from dropping too low, it is like a hack in a diet with carbs since it slows the absorption of sugar without overworking the body, as well as being close to a probiotic as possible and actually satisfying hunger by volume.
Brain size doesn't matter in any argument even within the same species, is the neuronic count and ratios and density that counts, our skulls used to be bigger and housed almost bigger brains or of the same size, heidelbergs and neanderthals to name a few, a blue whale's brain is 9 times bigger than a human's, yet it has almost quarter of the cerebral cortex neurons and a low neuron to glial ratio, are those smarter or more capable than a human? no, they're all going to the extinction bin of mother nature sooner or later and most importantly way before homo sapiens do. human brains developed in more ways than just size but in density and function, as for the jaw size, since the emergence of sapiens it has been highly dependent on genetics and inheritance more than any other factor, anyone who says homo sapiens jaws or bone structure changed with a diet is outright lying and perpetuating a current myth that is echoed amongst nutritionists and redpillers who want to sell courses, mainly due to this simple, obvious clear and objective refute:
extending on that topic about dietary choices and genetic performance, it's notable that many copers think the steppe tribes relied on milk and meat only, in reality the people of the steppe were among the first european cultures that transitioned to farming, the most hilarious detail is that IGHG was actually taller and had more bone density than the people of the steppe and yamnaya cultures, 2000 years ago before they established as tribes, and he ate meat as well, but regularly ate fruit instead of milk and even began the transition to farming before the steppe nomads were a thing, rendering this whole "farming ruined humans" theory as a mere cope since both of these cultures did transition to farming activities and left the HG activities, what really mattered was the golden genetics passed from both EHGs and WHGs, in which the IGHG had more percentage of than the yamnaya, we're talking about the WHG chad, a 6 foot male 10000 years ago, perfect blue eyes and tanned skin and muscle density with ectomorphic limbs, so those genes mattered much more than farming, diets, environments and everything people put blame on to run away from the fact that the looks and genetics of their subgroups/subfamilies and cultures heavily deteriorated, in reality they just intra and inter bred so much with inferior tribes and cultures like anatolics (whom weren't even close to farming back then) that they just became chuds, almost everything was inherited and predetermined and that deviation between the incel and the chad happened at 10-20 thousand years ago way before any major farming revolution among homo sapiens cultures.
