Evolution

Fermi's Paradox is "the apparent contradiction between high estimates of the probability of the existence of extraterrestrial civilizations and the lack of evidence for, or contact with, such civilizations."  The two common answers are 1) we've over estimated the likelihood of extraterrestrial life, or 2) all intelligent species eventually blow themselves up.

Here is Geoffrey Miller on another possibility:

I suggest a different, even darker solution to the Paradox. Basically, I think the aliens don’t blow themselves up; they just get addicted to computer games. They forget to send radio signals or colonize space because they’re too busy with runaway consumerism and virtual-reality narcissism. They don’t need Sentinels to enslave them in a Matrix; they do it to themselves, just as we are doing today. Once they turn inwards to chase their shiny pennies of pleasure, they lose the cosmic plot. They become like a self-stimulating rat, pressing a bar to deliver electricity to its brain’s ventral tegmental area, which stimulates its nucleus accumbens to release dopamine, which feels…ever so good.

Read the full thing to find out who he thinks will inherit the Earth.  I remember reading this piece when it originally came out at Edge in 2006.

Thanks to Marginal Revolution for the link and post title.

You're not the only one who could benefit from eating a species-specific diet.  Your pets could too.  Again, as if on cue, another feature article in the New York Times demonstrates that you, wise reader, are at the epicenter of the health revolution.  (It also demonstrates that the New York Times is completely idiotic in predictable ways -- more on that later.)

• Pet-owners are starting to feed their pets less processed food.  Why?

"Many of them say they made the switch out of desperation after their animals had lingering illnesses that resisted medicine and other remedies. With home-cooked meals, they say, those health problems cleared up."

...

"Many converts said their new food choices quickly resulted in healthier animals that no longer required endless trips to the vet. Charlene Smith, a project manager in publishing who attended Ms. Laino’s workshop last year, said that one of her two cats, Polly, had been on a steady diet of antibiotics to treat urinary tract problems before the switch to home cooking. Ms. Smith said that her other cat, Esther, “was angry most of the time” when she ate commercial food, and has a much better temperament now."

Sound familiar?  Yeah, it's become a bit of a refrain around here.

• Dogs and cats should not have diabetes and heart disease.  If they do, you're feeding them wrong.  But it's because they have such unnaturally long lifespans!  It's because they eat too much red meat!  It's because I don't exercise them enough!  No, it is because you are feeding them processed garbage that they are not adapted to eat.  Full stop.

But here's my question: how many billion dollar industries do we have to upturn?  Running shoes, podiatry, human food, and now, pet food.  This is getting a little ridiculous.  (If you are a company that would like to get ahead of the game, you can contact me for consulting services at john [at] hunter-gatherer [dot] com.  I charge $500 an hour, my billing rate from management consulting a few years ago.  I have done work for most of the largest CPG and financial services firms.)

And if you read the pet food article, then you'll enjoy this New York Times spoof article even more.  Note the Deuteronomy Diet.  Yeah, that's me getting lampooned.

UPDATE: Here's what I learned about health at the Westminster Kennel Club Dog Show.

1. Orthorexia nervosa (via Robb Wolf)
2. Recent Tibetan adaptation to high altitude
3. Sex at Dawn: The Prehistoric Origins of Modern Sexuality, and a Salon interview with Christopher Ryan
4. Advancements in tooth regeneration
5. Longevity genes

This is one of the first lessons we teach children. Don't talk to strangers, and never ever take candy from a stranger. But why do we have to tell this to our kids? Is it because they're naive? Is it because kids are just too trusting?

As it turns out, small children come equipped with a pretty strong preference to be physically close to their mother, father, and other relatives.  By relatives I mean genetic kin, or those living in such close proximity that they are presumed to be genetic kin. This is why children cry when mom and dad go out to a movie, why it's hard to drop off kids at school for the first time, and why kids are more likely to get homesick than adults. It's a pretty simple rule: Trust people who have the same genes as you.  It's no different in most of the animal kingdom.

Candy is a safety-override switch. The appeal of sugar, particularly once a child is hooked on it, is so strong that it overwhelms the evolutionary mechanism that has tended to keep children safe for time immemorial.  Of course, sugar is what most parents use to control the behavior of their children.  A devil's bargain.

So as not to be a total killjoy, here is Jerry Seinfeld on the power of candy (the first 1:30).  Sometimes it takes a comedian to point out the absurdity of the mundane.