We might like to believe we are all unique snowflakes, but for the majority of things that matter, we aren't very different from each other at all, especially in how we have evolved. For hundreds of thousands and even millions of years, we have shifted genetically based on our environment and behaviours, where as our capabilities to make decisions and act improved, we affected our own evolution. And one of the things that helped us evolve, was our ability to get sugar, because the brain needs sugar and the more we were able to get, the larger our brain grew.
The brain needs about 130 grams of glucose daily.
That isn't 130 grams of added sugar.
Because the body breaks down complex carbohydrates from vegetables and whole grains into glucose, but there is even more to it than that. Because the body can also get sugar from ketones, which are acids that break down fats for fuel in the absence of sugar in the diet. This is why if you look at old photos from Australian Aboriginals, they were pretty much fit. On top of being active hunters and gatherers, they didn't have much additional sugar in the environment, so their bodies broke down the fat they would get from their largely meat and diet, and the bit they could get in carbs from native plants.
Look at the old fella in the middle.
But because of the benefits of sugar for our body, we evolved a mechanism that craved it, so that when it is there, we will want it, regardless of how much we have and how available it is. And now obviously, sugar is not hard to find, it isn't a luxury and companies are incentivised to put it into our diets as it improves their profits - It is cheap as an ingredient, plus addictive for the consumer. And it is this last part that is important to note, because the average consumer is geared to consume sugar and is going to struggle to control impulses by evolutionary design.
But because companies are made to generate profits and that is the only mechanism they align themselves to, with no concern over the consequences of their business model. This puts the onus on the consumer who is always going to be at a disadvantage due to evolution itself. And perhaps in the not too distant past this was a little easier to manage for the consumer, because there was less choice, less availability, and less distraction and draws on attention to contend with. Now, again driven by for profit models, we are surrounded by various mechanisms that not only reduce our ability to contend with something like a sugar craving, but put us in environments that are going to add and emphasise our desires.
The hunter gatherer had the same desire for sugar as we do today, but they had very limited access to it and in order to get it, had to both work for it, and be lucky in the sense that they might come across a beehive. They weren't surrounded by impulse triggers and they didn't have a fridge filled with desire fillers, or packets of sugared ingredients that they could dig into whenever they felt like it. Since corporations profit from our lack of impulse control, there is no incentive to choose to change the offering to things that improve our available environment.
Quite the opposite.
And similar to our craving for sugar, our evolution has generated a whole range of mechanisms like our ability to seek security, comfort, convenience and ease, that benefit us, or can be leveraged to work against our best interests. Similar to the food companies targeting our cravings for sugars, fats and salts, media companies target other mechanisms to gain our attention, often to sell products like foods that will make us worse off for consuming them. It isn't that we are completely helpless against the assault on our evolutionary triggers, but we definitely don't come equipped to repel them.
And this is the problem, because the ball is in our court to deal with an attack that is far more refined than our natural abilities, and far more invested into than the skills to repel them. We are at a massive disadvantage because not only do we have to defend against a constant bombardment, we also have to live a life, work, spend time with loved ones and do all the little daily tasks that life is full of. We just don't have the bandwidth to manage it all.
As I see it, we should build an economy that incentivises wellbeing at the core and limits the negative exposure and outcomes to things that target mechanisms that evoke behaviours that reduce us. Companies shouldn't be rewarded for making us worse, only when they make us better, because if we shift the direction of this, most of the companies on earth today, will have to change. Not only that, the amount of resources that go into "correcting" our bad outcomes, is immense. If we can redirect that toward good outcomes, we are very quickly going to see massive leaps forward for humanity.
Our daily lives shouldn't be having to contend with negating the attack on and the negative impacts upon our health and wellbeing. Instead, we should be living lives where we are able to be increasingly free to be the best version of ourselves, in an environment that encourages us to be just that. To grow, improve, and evolve for a better future.
Now that would be sweet.
Taraz [ Gen1: Hive ]
Be part of the Hive discussion.
- Comment on the topics of the article, and add your perspectives and experiences.
- Read and discuss with others who comment and build your personal network
- Engage well with me and others and put in effort
And you may be rewarded.
