The article supports that agricultural diets were worse—but the hunter-gatherers were, as well. Nobody ate a lot back then, abundance is fairly new to humanity. The important part about agriculture is not that it might be healthier—far from it.
Agriculture (and the agricultural diets that go with it) allowed humanity luxuries that the hunter-gatherer did not have—a dependable food supply, and moreover a supply where a person could grow more food than they actually needed for subsistence. This is the very foundation of civilization, and all of the benefits derived from that—the freed up workers could spend their time on other things like permanent structures, research into new technologies, trade, exploration, that were simply impossible in hunter-gatherer society. You can afford to be sickish, as a society, if you can have more babies and support a higher population, at least temporarily. (I suspect that beyond this, adapting to the diet was probably a big issue, and continues to be—look at how many are still lactose intolerant...)
Over time, that allowed agrarian culture to become far better nourished—to the point where sheer abundance causes a whole new set of health issues. I would suggest that today the issues with diet are those of abundance, not agricultural versus hunter-gatherer types of food choices. And, today, with the information we have—you can indeed have a vegan diet, and avoid all or nearly all of the issues the article cites. Technology rocks.
I don’t think this is true. Contemporary hunter-gatherers leading traditional lifestyles are not malnourished or permanently hungry. They certainly have problems (like the parasite load or an occasional famine), but I have a strong impression that their quality and amount of food is fine.
allowed humanity luxuries that the hunter-gatherer did not have
Yes, of course—the agriculture people did win and take over the world :-) My understanding is that the primary way they won was through breeding faster: nomads have to space their kids because the mother can’t carry many infants with her, but settled people don’t have that problem, their women could (and did) pop out children every year and basically overwhelmed the nomads. Though what you are saying about the food surplus allowing luxuries like specialized craftsmen, research, etc. is certainly true as well.
you can indeed have a vegan diet, and avoid all or nearly all of the issues the article cites
The article supports that agricultural diets were worse—but the hunter-gatherers were, as well. Nobody ate a lot back then, abundance is fairly new to humanity. The important part about agriculture is not that it might be healthier—far from it.
Agriculture (and the agricultural diets that go with it) allowed humanity luxuries that the hunter-gatherer did not have—a dependable food supply, and moreover a supply where a person could grow more food than they actually needed for subsistence. This is the very foundation of civilization, and all of the benefits derived from that—the freed up workers could spend their time on other things like permanent structures, research into new technologies, trade, exploration, that were simply impossible in hunter-gatherer society. You can afford to be sickish, as a society, if you can have more babies and support a higher population, at least temporarily. (I suspect that beyond this, adapting to the diet was probably a big issue, and continues to be—look at how many are still lactose intolerant...)
Over time, that allowed agrarian culture to become far better nourished—to the point where sheer abundance causes a whole new set of health issues. I would suggest that today the issues with diet are those of abundance, not agricultural versus hunter-gatherer types of food choices. And, today, with the information we have—you can indeed have a vegan diet, and avoid all or nearly all of the issues the article cites. Technology rocks.
I don’t think this is true. Contemporary hunter-gatherers leading traditional lifestyles are not malnourished or permanently hungry. They certainly have problems (like the parasite load or an occasional famine), but I have a strong impression that their quality and amount of food is fine.
Yes, of course—the agriculture people did win and take over the world :-) My understanding is that the primary way they won was through breeding faster: nomads have to space their kids because the mother can’t carry many infants with her, but settled people don’t have that problem, their women could (and did) pop out children every year and basically overwhelmed the nomads. Though what you are saying about the food surplus allowing luxuries like specialized craftsmen, research, etc. is certainly true as well.
One can, but doesn’t mean that all vegans do.