6 ms·

It's an aphorism suggesting the importance of the Lindy effect: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lindy_effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lindy_effect The longe

It's an aphorism suggesting the importance of the Lindy effect: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lindy_effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lindy_effect The longer something has been around, the longer it will continue to be around. The longevity of something also validates its efficacy and resiliency. If people have been eating figs and drinking wine for thousands of years, then it's probably good and safe for you to do as well. If traditional salad recipes avoid the use of conium maculatum, then you should probably avoid it too. If your ancient ancestors didn't cook with margarine, then you probably shouldn't cook with it either.

pfdietz 2y ago
If lead pipes were good enough for the Romans, they should be good enough for us!
PaulDavisThe1st 2y ago
> If people have been eating figs and drinking wine for thousands of years, then it's probably good and safe for you to do as well. This is ignores the amounts consumed. Just because a thing is safe at N mg/day doesn't mean it is safe at all doses. The change circumstances of human existence make attempts to come up with simple, eternal rubrics at best a bit chancy, and at worst completely misleading.
- pfannkuchen 2y ago
  Are you cautioning against overdosing on figs?
- VoodooJuJu 2y ago
  It also ignores the particular size of the figs that should be consumed. And it ignores the season that they should be consumed. And it ignores the weather conditions that you should consume them in. And it ignores the hour at which they're consumed. And it ignores the gender of the person that should consume them. And it ignores the eye color of the person that should consume them. And it ignores the hair length of the person that should consume them. And it ignores the precise composition of nitrogen in the soil with which the fig tree has been grown in. And phosphorous. And potassium. And it ignores the day of the week in which the fig should be consumed. And it ignores the material of the utensils used to consume the fig. And it ignores the age of the person that consumes them. Just enjoy your figs, Paul.
myrmidon 2y ago
I can see the appeal of simple, science-sceptical traditionalism. But it does not pass the smell test. There is a plethora of substances and practices that are quite harmful, but have been used for millenia. This is because your suggested methodology fails to detect really anything that does not cause traceable and observable harm before the next generation is raised. And that's a lot of things. "Science" adds value compared to pure traditionalism because it analyzes precisely how things are harmful, and helps discover mitigations and strategies that pure outcome-driven traditionalism would never have explored. Examples: - Lead pipes (used successfully for over two millenia-- harmless? no.) - Basically every carcinogen ever (e.g. Radon: people in affected regions did simply not know about keeping it out of cellars/dwellings, and just died of lung cancer sometimes) - Salmonella, syphilis, cholera and other pathogens-- they are non-issues with proper prevention and/or countermeasures-- without those, people just suffer and/or die. - Alcohol consumption during pregnancy edit: I'm not saying that "sticking with what worked in the past" is wrong, or useless information, but its just that-- a statistical prior for harm. It won't reliably tell you neither which things are harmless nor which are harmful, it just gives a rough indication of which it might be.
jcranmer 2y ago
It's funny that you use wine as an example of "obviously safe" drink. Because wine is chock full of not-safe-for-human-consumption chemicals (e.g., tannic acid) that would be illegal to use if it were synthetically prepared, but since it's "natural", it gets a free pass. And if you tried to remove all of those chemicals, you'd find that the resulting flavor profile is absolute garbage. I can also point out--we've been drinking out of lead pipes for thousands of years, so they're obviously safe, right? ... right?

pfdietz 2y ago

If lead pipes were good enough for the Romans, they should be good enough for us!

PaulDavisThe1st 2y ago

> If people have been eating figs and drinking wine for thousands of years, then it's probably good and safe for you to do as well. This is ignores the amounts consumed. Just because a thing is safe at N mg/day doesn't mean it is safe at all doses. The change circumstances of human existence make attempts to come up with simple, eternal rubrics at best a bit chancy, and at worst completely misleading.

pfannkuchen 2y ago
Are you cautioning against overdosing on figs?
VoodooJuJu 2y ago
It also ignores the particular size of the figs that should be consumed. And it ignores the season that they should be consumed. And it ignores the weather conditions that you should consume them in. And it ignores the hour at which they're consumed. And it ignores the gender of the person that should consume them. And it ignores the eye color of the person that should consume them. And it ignores the hair length of the person that should consume them. And it ignores the precise composition of nitrogen in the soil with which the fig tree has been grown in. And phosphorous. And potassium. And it ignores the day of the week in which the fig should be consumed. And it ignores the material of the utensils used to consume the fig. And it ignores the age of the person that consumes them. Just enjoy your figs, Paul.

myrmidon 2y ago

I can see the appeal of simple, science-sceptical traditionalism. But it does not pass the smell test. There is a plethora of substances and practices that are quite harmful, but have been used for millenia. This is because your suggested methodology fails to detect really anything that does not cause traceable and observable harm before the next generation is raised. And that's a lot of things. "Science" adds value compared to pure traditionalism because it analyzes precisely how things are harmful, and helps discover mitigations and strategies that pure outcome-driven traditionalism would never have explored. Examples: - Lead pipes (used successfully for over two millenia-- harmless? no.) - Basically every carcinogen ever (e.g. Radon: people in affected regions did simply not know about keeping it out of cellars/dwellings, and just died of lung cancer sometimes) - Salmonella, syphilis, cholera and other pathogens-- they are non-issues with proper prevention and/or countermeasures-- without those, people just suffer and/or die. - Alcohol consumption during pregnancy edit: I'm not saying that "sticking with what worked in the past" is wrong, or useless information, but its just that-- a statistical prior for harm. It won't reliably tell you neither which things are harmless nor which are harmful, it just gives a rough indication of which it might be.

jcranmer 2y ago

It's funny that you use wine as an example of "obviously safe" drink. Because wine is chock full of not-safe-for-human-consumption chemicals (e.g., tannic acid) that would be illegal to use if it were synthetically prepared, but since it's "natural", it gets a free pass. And if you tried to remove all of those chemicals, you'd find that the resulting flavor profile is absolute garbage. I can also point out--we've been drinking out of lead pipes for thousands of years, so they're obviously safe, right? ... right?