I guess this post is a bit of a typical mind-fallacy check for me, on the “not everyone has read In Defense of Food (or something similar)” front.
Defense of Food has a bit of the naturalistic fallacy going on, but I think it’s core point is at least a hypothesis worth talking about and being able to make distinctions around.
Yup, a book. Not sure whether it’s super important to read in full (I think my comment here roughly covers the most important bit, but if it seemed interesting you may want to check it out)
Also, I wrote a LW Post on it many years back (I think it’s possible this was literally my first LW post, and if not was my second or third, so it has a bit of the “newbie introducing themselves” vibe.)
What’s this now…? A book, or what?
Yup, a book. Not sure whether it’s super important to read in full (I think my comment here roughly covers the most important bit, but if it seemed interesting you may want to check it out)
Also, I wrote a LW Post on it many years back (I think it’s possible this was literally my first LW post, and if not was my second or third, so it has a bit of the “newbie introducing themselves” vibe.)
Amazon link for the book is here.