(written May 15, uploaded July 30)
I’d outlined a piece tentatively titled “Douglas, Deng and Diocletian” as I cycled to Vancouver’s new convention centre along the largely-empty downtown bike lanes. ;) But alas, attending the Epic Vancouver “green consumerism” show threw those plans off-kilter. Musings about historical figures are “evergreen” projects — they can be written up any time — but event-driven patter has a best-before date. (Which I am gleefully violating here, with a two-month-old upload. :) )
I was surprised that Cadbury didn’t have a booth at the conference; they were the first major confectioner to switch a major product line to all-fair trade chocolate a few years back (their flagship “Dairymilk” bars) and you’d figure they’d want to make sure everyone knew it. Heck, according to the Tommy Douglas bio I just finished, our Greatest Canadian hired one of the Cadbury heirs to help set up government-run enterprises (insurance, bus services) to help improve Saskatchewan’s finances so the province could finally move ahead with universal healthcare in 1962. Being able to tie the Cadbury name to Canadians’ most treasured institution, would seem like a marketer’s dream…!
The Vancouver Electric Vehicle Association had a century-old electric vehicle on display (model year 1912). I was shocked (ha) to see steering was accomplished with a bunch of levers — like a modern military tank. I guess the automotive Steve Jobs hadn’t yet reinvented the human-car interface with the steering wheel. (“We think this steering-wheel thing is going to be big — it’s insanely great!!“)
As is typical of these trade shows, the headline sponsors were environmentally-conscientious corporate behemoths, but the exhibitor mix went well into the “granola” spectrum. ;) One of these was the raw food society of BC, who seemed a pleasant if misguided bunch. Which isn’t to imply that the rest of us aren’t misguided — we surely are, just in a more mainstream way. ;)
As I understand it — possibly incorrectly — the idea is that raw food is closer to what humans evolved eating, meaning it’s better for us. As such, it belongs to a family of beliefs which considers technology unnatural, and hence bad, or possibly dangerous. Of course, while we may chuckle at the raw-fooders, most of us are a little uncomfortable with GMO’s. The sad hilarity is that it’s more logically consistent to reject all technology from fire onwards, than to pick and choose an arbitrary point between “natural” technologies and “unnatural” ones!
To adapt an analogy I heard in some podcast, cooking is a convenient technology, just like writing. It allows cooking pots and pans to serve as an external stomach in which our food is pre-digested (using heat) for easier nutrient absorption. In a similar way, paper and other media give us an external brain to store data for easy information retrieval. And while cooking probably destroys some nutrients, it kills off microbes which cause food-borne illnesses, too. In earlier eras before modern healthcare technologies, that was pretty important! Heck, the Chinese have been cooking water for at least three thousand years: tea is lightly-flavoured boiled water with a caffeine kick. It was the Red Bull of its day! ;)
I imagine most Canadians who go on raw food diets lose weight, if for no other reason that junk food options must be pretty meagre. Eating less calorie-dense foods, they’d probably feel full sooner, and presumably their bodies would have to work harder to pull nutrients out of the food they did wind up eating. Since modern urbanites tend to be on the thick side of fit, this probably nets out positive on health, but mainly as a result of better eating habits, as opposed to prehistoric ones.
One species that could definitely benefit from cooking is pandas, who eat 12 hours a day. Their carnivorous digestive system can’t extract nutrients from bamboo very easily — not that there are many to begin with! And given all the fiber they take in, they’re not just regular, they’re frequent: dozens of times a day. Reminds me of when our son was a newborn. ;)
I didn’t see any vegetarian groups at Epic, though the crowd was probably their target market. While Westerners could probably benefit from reducing meat in their diet, avoiding meat may be more of an ethical issue than a “natural human condition” issue. One theory has it that meat-eating is a big reason why we spread across the earth, and our largely-vegetarian chimp brethren didn’t.
The premise is that meat enriched the milk of human mothers so much, they could wean babies earlier than other primates (traditional societies wean at around 2 years; largely-vegan chimpanzees at about 5 years). This meant humans could reproduce faster and dominate the world the way we’ve been doing, for the past tens of thousands of years. It would also imply that to enjoy a truly representative Paleo diet, raw food enthusiasts would want to get used to all manners of sashimi. :)
Considering how much flack TIME magazine got [in May] for putting a woman breastfeeding a three-year-old on its cover, this all seemed topical enough to justify swerving my writing plans [as of, again May]. As strange as that may seem to the rest of us, if she was a paleo-diet vegetarian, five years might be scientifically justified (!). It seems weird to us since it’s so far from our cultural norms, but most cultural norms are laughably arbitrary: while my Ukranian grandmother looked queasy when I told her I ate raw fish, my Japanese mother-in-law was astounded that I sometimes ate carrots, uncooked…! :)