How to Make America Great (An 8-Point Plan)

Make America Great

#MAG

My optimism stems largely from a belief in progress. Progress is the inevitable outcome of accumulated knowledge and enlightenment. As we understand the world better, understand ourselves better, we come to understand how to improve the world and our place in it.

The Progressive approach is guided by reason and virtue. In many regards (hunger, poverty, human rights) the world is in a better place than it’s ever been, and this is largely the result of people who utilize our scientific and intellectual advancements wisely.

At the same time, the world remains awash in fucked uppedness. With climate change, the cracks in the levy are rapidly becoming fissures, which promises to exacerbate all kinds of fucked uppedness unless we get somebody to stick their thumb in it, right quick.

Make America Suck Again

Here in the United States, we would only be so lucky if the Trump administration were merely fiddling while Rome burns (to mix metaphors slightly); instead, they’re throwing their fiddles and whatever else they can find onto the fire, whipping it into an inferno.

Long before Trump, though, the Regressives in this country, led by plutocrats, have been crapping on democracy. In addition to buying (or becoming) politicians, Regressives sow division, disinformation, and dysfunction, as they reap a bounty in the wake of discontent deflected away from their devious designs.

Put more concretely, certain Regressive elites in this country (present President included), primarily in an effort to entrench their power and wealth, have endeavored to:

  • Divide Americans:  From the Southern Strategy to welfare queens to Willie Horton to Donald Trump, Regressives (in this case, primarily Republicans) have been stoking white fear and anger toward people of color. Misogyny, xenophobia, and homophobia are other tools in the divisiveness toolbox. And among whites, Regressives promote tribalism via Fox News (Liberal Elites vs. Real Americans), the NRA, religion, etc. Here it must be said that liberals and Democrats are also guilty of regressive tribalism when they ridicule and show disdain for poor and rural white folks.1
  • Spread Disinformation: There’s a certain element of my news feed that’s tragicomic. Stories from Fox News2 seem to focus on either the crookedness of Hillary Clinton, tabloidy bullshit, people of color and immigrants doing bad things, or female teachers having sex with their male students.3 When there are stories that make Regressives look bad, they are downplayed or ignored; when the stories make liberals look bad, they are pounced on. The tabloidy crap serves to distract people from real issues. Fox is a pusher of the Regressive ideology. Limbaugh, Breitbart, The Blaze, and InfoWars follow the same playbook (to varying degrees of insanity). It’s funny how people of this ilk rail against the mainstream media, claiming it has a liberal bias. Well, to the extent that some mainstream media believe in facts and reason, I guess that would make them appear more progressive – that said, in the interest of appearing balanced, I still think mainstream media give too much credence to regressive ideas. Fair and balanced, indeed!
  • Create Dysfunction: Defund public education, diminish access to health care, destroy unions, deter people from voting, drown government. Weaker public education leads to a less enlightened populace, and has the added bonus of empowering for-profit education, which primarily benefits the wealthy. Reduced access to health care, lack of unions, and poverty in general distract people from political engagement (and of course create more wealth for the elites). Voting restrictions and gerrymandering, combined with artificially divided Americans, disinformation, and ignorance, help keep Regressives in power, even though their interests are aligned with a tiny minority of the population. When they do attain power, they follow the advice of Grover Norquist and try to drown government in a bathtub. A shittily functioning government works perfectly for Regressives: See, told you government sucks! Discontent and ignorance breed yet more Regressives.
  • Promote Plutocracy: All of this division and disinformation and dysfunction is made possible by a government that is easily bought, thanks to Citizens United and other systemic failures that allow money to infiltrate our government. Since money equals free speech in this country, the loudest voices don’t belong to you or me. Thus we have the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017, where the only “jobs” being given are to the Republicans’ wealthy pimps.

What could be more unpatriotic, more un-American, than the way these Regressives defile democracy?

What Do Americans Want?

Thomas Jefferson wrote that the doctrines of Epicurus (which he described “as containing every thing rational in moral philosophy which Greece and Rome have left us”) included the moral that:

  • Happiness is the aim of life.
  • Virtue the foundation of happiness.
  • Utility the test of virtue.

From the Koch brothers to Rush Limbaugh to Donald Trump to Grover Norquist to my in-laws, what the Regressives have failed to grasp is that their own happiness is integrally tied to virtuous action.

Wealthy Americans (I include myself in this category) have been afforded, whether we realize it or not, enormous opportunity by virtue of living in this country. Isn’t it our patriotic duty to ensure that all Americans receive similar opportunities? Premium taxes in return for premium opportunities.

Ultimately, I believe most Americans, most people, want a system that provides opportunity and fosters happiness (in the fulfillment sense). While the system is necessarily quite complex, there is precedent for what works and what doesn’t to achieve happiness and prosperity.

The Regressive way seeks to destroy; the Progressive way seeks to build.

Make America Great

So now let my lamentations and railing give way to an optimistic, Progressive path forward. Here’s my 8-Point Plan to Make America Great:

1. Return Government to The People

  • Enact campaign finance and lobbying reform that gets big money out of politics
  • End gerrymandering
  • End voter suppression

At a time when politicians brazenly pander to their big donors rather than their constituents, we are in dire need of substantive Campaign Finance Reform. Other than the small minority of Regressives, who wouldn’t agree that politicians should be focused on the vast concerns of their constituents, not just the concerns of a few large donors? Something like the Fair Elections Now Act would address this.

Gerrymandering is some of the most Un-American bullshit out there. Both Democrats and Republicans have been guilty of drawing districts that favor them over the years, but Republicans have taken it to new lows of late, with state and federal houses across the country receiving disproportionate representation by Republicans due to partisan gerrymandering. Soon, the Supreme Court will decide Gill vs. Whitford,4 a case that could provide a metric for what constitutes partisan gerrymandering. If we believe in reason and virtue, districts should be drawn using a nonpartisan metric that most accurately reflects the will of the people, not partisan manipulators.

One other strategy that Regressives use to stay in power is voter suppression. If your interests only align with a few wealthy elite, then, aside from those you’ve duped into voting for you, you want to ensure that less people have access to vote. You do this through restrictive voting laws, making it onerous (or impossible) for people to register or vote. As people who believe in facts understand, voter fraud is negligible. Rather than extinguishing it in the gutter of voter suppression, we should light the beacon of democracy by making voting as simple and straightforward as possible.

2. E Pluribus Unum

  • End divisiveness and promote a vision of unity in which all Americans are working to attain the same goal: a happy and prosperous society
  • Re-establish that knowledge, science, facts, truth are attainable, and that they should guide policy
  • Reach out to different demographics (rural, urban, black, white, Latino, conservative, liberal) to better understand their concerns5
  • Work with local community leaders to disseminate information about the benefits of a Progressive platform
  • Spread the message that purveyors of divisiveness and hate are undermining American values

In case you didn’t know (and you’re not a true patriot!) E Pluribus Unum is a motto of the United States, meaning “out of many, one.” The Regressives seem bent on a mission that would change that to E Pluribus Pluribus. Here’s a real quote I found in the comments section of an anti-Obama piece after he won the 2012 election:

I seriously think dumbocraps have at least 50% less brain power than normal people. Otherwise how can they continiously over look the damage that he’s already done, not see it, and want MORE of it????

Aside from the comical placement of the “sics,” the troubling thing about this statement is how emblematic it is of the tribalism that has done, and is doing, so much damage in our country. I actually agree with the commenter that far too many people on the left aren’t informed consumers of media. But far more pervasive than this ignorance is the disinformation and divisiveness spread by Regressives,6 of which this guy is an eager adopter.

Dumbocraps is a new one to me, but we’ve all heard of libtards and snowflakes, and from the other side, rednecks, white trash, Bernie Bros; all of these are Regressive pejoratives meant to divide. And of course, playing on people’s fears via racism, misogyny, homophobia, and xenophobia further divides us. As mentioned above, it’s a Regressive tactic to pit people against each other who would actually benefit from working together. The Regressives will be shitting their slacks when the rest of us figure this out.

Conservative rural voters feel under siege by liberal elites, and I think they’re right to feel abandoned by Democrats, who have mostly ceded this bloc to Republicans (who pay lip service but not much else). A true Progressive platform (not all dumbocraps) encompasses the needs of rural whites as much as it does those of urban blacks, or liberal elites, or the working class, or poor folks. 

Not to get all kumbaya-y or anything, but Progressives need to make it abundantly clear that our policies are inclusive of all working class folks (defined as anybody who works for a living, wants to work for a living, can’t work for a living, is retired, or is a child). In other words, E Pluribus Unum.

3. Invest In Us

  • We are a big country – we need big government to administer equal opportunity
  • Ensure that our big government runs smoothly and efficiently
  • Enact fair regulations that ensure government, businesses, and individuals work for the benefit of society
  • Incentivize businesses to empower and reward employees
  • Establish that taxes are investments in the happiness and prosperity of our country and its citizens
  • Publicly account (via a simple website) for how our taxes are spent – our investments should pay dividends in the form of safety, security, education, health, convenience, and sustainability
  • Make filing taxes free and easy on a government website

According to the 2017 Happiness Report, Denmark is one of the happiest countries in the world (#2 after Norway). Danes pay 41-56% income taxes. For this, they receive free health care, education, and a financial safety net. They work less than 40 hours a week and get at least four weeks of vacation a year. Between them, parents get over 50 weeks of parental leave when a child is born.

Among advanced economies, the United States ranks 2nd highest in net income inequality. Out of these same 30 countries, the U.S. is 13th in happiness. They say money doesn’t buy happiness, but with about 40% of the world’s total wealth, it seems like we could be doing better.

Wagner’s Law states: “The advent of modern industrial society will result in increasing political pressure for social progress and increased allowance for social consideration by industry.”

In other words, wealthy nations have a tendency to provide more opportunities for their citizens over time. So, why, while much of the rest of the wealthy world (including Denmark) moved toward greater opportunity, has the U.S. remained relatively flat in that regard? Why, it’s those pesky Regressives, convincing people that what we really need is smaller government and less regulation – meanwhile, even as production increases, the Regressives have concentrated more and more of the resultant wealth among themselves at the top.

4. Invest In Education

  • Provide equal opportunity for all public schools by increasing and equally distributing funding among schools
  • Promote excellence in education by properly valuing and incentivizing teachers
  • Reward innovative and effective curricula that energize students
  • Integrate schools and communities more closely – many learning projects (gardens, food, building, service, technology, research, etc.) can also benefit the community
  • Use evaluative procedures that aren’t one-size-fits-all and that don’t force schools to teach to the test
  • Provide free preschool and college
  • Institute a year or two of mandatory national service after high school in which students work on national or international projects (military or civilian)

Preach a crusade against ignorance; establish and improve the law for educating the common people. Let our countrymen know that the people alone can protect us against these evils, and that the tax which will be paid for this purpose is not more than the thousandth part of what will be paid to kings, priests and nobles who will rise up among us if we leave the people in ignorance.

This is Thomas Jefferson again. Note that one could substitute “Regressives” for “kings, priests and nobles.” Sadly, it seems that the Regressives have used this quote prescriptively: Hey, if we crusade for ignorance, we should be able to rise up among the people!

Of course, Jefferson didn’t mean for this to be a recipe for plutocracy, but rather against it. His prescription was that we must invest in education to enlighten the common people so that we may be informed participants in democracy.

5. Invest In Health

  • Enact universal health care
  • Establish a network of health advisers who work with individuals to promote preventive health care through healthy lifestyles and preemptive diagnoses
  • Regulate standard rates for various procedures and prescriptions
  • Regulate the ability of pharmaceutical, hospital, and other medical institutions to influence research, doctors, and hospitals
  • Provide adequate funding for impartial scientific research on health, medical procedures, and pharmaceuticals
  • Create a national database that tracks health issues to provide researchers with data to establish cause and effect for both illnesses and their cures (or prevention)
  • Include DNA, microbiota, and environmental information in this database
  • Focus more resources on determining the causes, prevention, and cures of mental illness, as well as creating more opportunities and better care for the mentally ill
  • Provide better detection, education, counseling, care, and monitoring for people with unhealthy or dangerous sexual or violent tendencies
  • End the war on drugs and utilize the resources saved (as well as taxes from alcohol, tobacco, and marijuana) to regulate dangerous drugs, and provide education, counseling, and care (not punishment and prison) for those who are addicted
  • Educate people better about diet and exercise, and properly regulate and tax unhealthy foods
  • Promote measures that will reduce traffic deaths – such as less reliance on vehicles, better urban design, and self-driving vehicles
  • Recognize that guns, like vehicles, can be much better regulated to promote safety

6. Invest In America

  • Rebuild infrastructure to make it smart infrastructure, geared toward a sustainable and lower-impact 21st century America
  • Design urban space that promotes community, civic pride, safety, enjoyment, and of course happiness and prosperity
  • Create nationwide, public internet access
  • Research and reward smart and sustainable agricultural practices
  • Regulate and reward businesses and cooperatives that foster positive community and societal ideals
  • Provide amnesty for the 11 million or so undocumented immigrants living in this country
  • Establish fair and effective immigration laws, and work with Mexico and other countries to establish worker exchange programs that benefit both those countries and the United States
  • Maintain and create more open space and wilderness
  • Recognize that equality of opportunity makes a stronger society

7. Invest In The World

  • Recognize that the United States has had a huge, often negative, impact on the rest of the world, especially through our outsized use of resources, but that we can also have an outsized positive impact
  • Invest in developing countries to help them develop in a sustainable manner – more than just altruism, these investments are repaid in the form of greater security, climate change mitigation, and ultimately more prosperous nations with which to cooperate
  • Work with the United Nations to strengthen its mission of maintaining world peace and security
  • Change the Department of Defense to the Department of Global Development, with the primary mission of advancing peace around the world7 – the vast resources afforded to our military could be better spent by fostering goodwill toward the United States
  • Create a leaner, smarter, stealthier military, ready to step in when power is needed
  • Work with countries to establish fair trade

8. The Environmental Moonshot

None of the above will ultimately matter much if we don’t address climate change now. Luckily, there are multiple economic factors involving renewable energy, battery storage, electric vehicles, lighting technology, agricultural practices, and other innovations that are increasingly making it more feasible for the world to drastically reduce its carbon footprint.

What we need now is the moral leadership and vision to accelerate into this new sustainable age. This could also be an effort that galvanizes our country around an existential cause (similar to the war effort during World War II, but with some of the energy and excitement surrounding the Apollo Mission). This environmental moonshot can and should be a massive jobs creator, and a boon to the U.S. economy as a whole.

  • End subsidies for fossil fuel and other polluting industries
  • Provide training to help people in these industries shift to new ones
  • Enact a carbon tax, with proceeds going toward sustainable energy innovation and endeavors
  • Become the world leader in green energy technology and goods
  • Shift to primarily electric transportation
  • Shift to an integrated and sustainable agricultural system
  • Work to restore and preserve biodiversity nationally and internationally
  • Work with impoverished, environmentally degraded communities to rebuild sustainably
  • Become a zero-waste nation by 2035
  • The Moonshot: become a 100% renewable energy nation by 2035

America, Fuck Yeah

I can hear all the naysayers laughing at my idealism, calling me Pollyanna. But this is ‘Merica, dadgummit, and when we want something, we take it! Many of the above ideas are already underway, if not here, then in other nations. We can see the success that they’re having – we can emulate and improve upon it.

Who would’ve thought in 2010 that, in just a few years, the Supreme Court would find that same-sex couples have a fundamental right to marry under the Constitution, or that pot would be legalized in multiple states? When there’s a good Progressive idea, the dominoes often fall pretty quickly. And, of course, many of the above ideas work synergistically, amplifying the domino effect.

Maybe it’s time to throw down the gauntlet to the rest of the world and show them what American exceptionalism is really about. Instead of internecine fighting, Americans need a common enemy we can unite against… the Danes, of course – fuck the Danes! We need to knock their shiny happy asses down a peg or two. Too tribal? Fine, then let’s just unite against Regressive thinking and fight for a Progressive America.

 

Hands Off My Car

“From my cold, dead hands”

Car rights supporters are up in arms about measures that have curbed their freedom.

The most egregious of these car controls is speed limits on how fast one can drive. “By imposing these limits on how fast I can drive,” Carl, a car rights activist said, “they have taken my freedom to go as fast as I want away from me. There will always be people who will kill people with reckless driving, but I drive safely when I’m going 150 miles an hour. Cars don’t kill people, bad drivers do.”

Another huge freedom killer is the requirement that drivers register their vehicles and have licenses. “This is all part of a slippery slope that will lead to car control liberals banning cars outright,” Republican Senator Paul Ridin complained. “What possible reason could they have for registering our vehicles and forcing us to prove that we can drive them, other than that they want to create a government database that they can use to track vehicles and their owners, which destroys our freedom.”

On top of all that, vehicles are required to have a myriad of burdensome equipment, like seat belts and headlights and bumpers. “All these safety and environmental regulations have stripped car drivers of their freedom,” said Wayne LeCar, the head of AAA,* the primary lobbying group for car rights. “Next thing you know, they’ll be making self-driving vehicles, and we won’t have any freedom at all.”

Where will it all end? Maybe they’ll ban tanks on our roads… Oh, they’ve already done that? See! We need more freedom!

Expressing ourselves with our vehicles is a right given to us by the Founding Fathers. No one will ever forget George Washington declaring “I cannot conceive one more honorable, than that which flows from the uncorrupted choice of a brave and free people” as he sped off in his shiny red Ford Mustang.

Let Freedom ring from our un-mufflered tailpipes! Vroom vroom, baby!

At a gathering of car rights activists, the eminent and eloquent William Wallace spoke:

Sons of America, it is tyranny what they’ve done to our vehicles: putting limits on our speed, forcing us to accept their rules and regulations, keeping us from taking our cars and trucks on airplanes, into schools, into libraries. Debasing us via prima nocta on our vehicles. I see a whole army of my countrymen in defiance of tyranny. You’ve come to fight as free men, and free men you are. What will you do without freedom? Will you fight?

 

Editor’s Note: Traffic deaths in the U.S. have decreased from about 50 per billion vehicle miles in the 1950s to about 12 per billion vehicle miles today.

*AAA, much like the NRA, spends much of its members’ dues lobbying for items that don’t necessarily benefit its members.

Save The World: Eat Insects

A few years ago I worked with some colleagues to write a paper about the potential for entomophagy to address undernutrition. We titled it, fittingly enough, “The potential for entomophagy to address undernutrition,” and it was published in the Ecology of Food and Nutrition journal. Entomophagy is the fancy word for insect eating.

My brother and I had been doing research on entomophagy and I came across a paper in which somebody surmised that we could feed all of the world’s hungry people using insects produced in just a few buildings. I did some calculations of my own and brought this up in a phone conversation with Dr. Florence Dunkel, one of the world’s preeminent entomophagists. She was intrigued, and enlisted my brother and me and another professor, Dr. Frank Franklin, to collaborate on a paper based on our calculations of how much land it would take to grow enough insects to meet the food deficit of all of the world’s undernourished people.

While not quite as optimistic as those first estimates I had read, our calculations indicate that insects could represent a radically more efficient source of calories, protein, and other nutrients, as compared with conventional Western livestock.

Here’s a brief summary of our findings:

  • There are almost 800 million undernourished people in the world (undernutrition is “the result of prolonged low levels of food intake and/or low absorption of food consumed.”)
  • As of 2014, the average food deficit is 84 calories per person per day. Food deficit describes “how many calories would be needed to lift the undernourished from their status.” Some areas, especially in Sub-Saharan Africa, experience much higher average food deficits.
  • Increasing population and food consumption patterns, coupled with pressures from climate change and overutilized resources, may cause more food shortages.
  • Humans knowingly and willingly eat over 1900 species of insects worldwide.
  • More than 2 billion people eat insects on a regular basis, in spite of centuries of Western pressure against it.
  • Many insects have similar nutrient profiles to conventional Western livestock meat and products.
  • Yet farming insects uses far fewer resources, less energy, less water, less land, creates less waste, and reduces global warming potential, as compared with conventional livestock.
  • Many insects can utilize organic side streams for feed. Organic side streams are biowaste from agriculture, forestry, and household processes. Insects also have huge potential as recyclers of organic side streams, in turn becoming feed for conventional livestock (see Mad Agriculture for more information).
  • On less than 50,000 acres, one could raise enough mealworms (in a light industrial operation utilizing organic side streams for feed) to erase the world’s food deficit. That’s about 0.0004% of the world’s 12 billion or so acres devoted to agriculture.
  • On less than 250,000 acres, one could raise enough crickets (in a small farming operation utilizing organic side streams for feed) to erase the world’s food deficit.

Our calculations were meant to illustrate the enormous potential for entomophagy to help reduce hunger while reducing pressure on our resources, but, clearly, increased entomophagy represents only one component in a complex approach to combating hunger (including reduced poverty, better education, better food distribution, less wasted food, better agricultural yields, and less environmental degradation).

Just for fun, though, how much land would it take if we derived all of our calories from mealworms? There are about 7.5 billion people in 2017. If we should eat an average of about 2000 calories per day (2400 for men, 2000 for women, less for children), that’s a mere 15 trillion calories a day. Since one could theoretically grow about 10.7 million calories of mealworms per acre per day (not including the feed for the mealworms), it would take about 14 million acres to feed the entire world all-mealworms, all the time (that’s less than one-thousandth the agricultural land we have in production today).

“What’s for breakfast, dad?” “Mealworms!” “Again? We always have mealworms….” “Yes, that’s all we eat.”

Getting back to the present situation, I’ll draw your attention to the first bullet point above. There are 800 million undernourished people in the world today. Let that sink in for a second. While that number has fallen fairly significantly over the past few decades (from close to a billion in 1990), that’s about one in nine people in the world that are going hungry. Most of us are so far removed from this tragedy that it can be hard to connect to the very real suffering. This recent New York Times video by Nicholas Kristof helped make that connection again for me – we are living in a world where we let children die in a dystopian climate change-induced landscape. These kinds of stories will become more common if we don’t work on solutions.*

One part of the solution, as detailed in the 2013 UN Food and Agriculture Organization report Edible insects: Future prospects for food and feed security, is entomophagy. This report came out before our paper, and did not include detailed calculations about the land and other resources needed for farming insects, but it establishes entomophagy as a very real component of the FAO’s approach to combating hunger.

Wageningen University in the Netherlands is where the rock stars of entomophagy research reside. There is some skepticism there that insect calorie production will be as efficient as our calculations indicate. But, on the one hand, even if our numbers were off by a factor of ten (or a hundred), insect farming is still far more efficient than farming conventional livestock. On the other hand, I believe that our numbers could be too conservative, if anything. Consider that insect farming is currently very primitive relative to much conventional agriculture. As insect farming technologies improve, I believe we will see leaps and bounds in its efficiency, which could far surpass what we suggest is possible in our paper.

Of course there are a lot of unknowns, but that’s where organizations like MightI and Aspire come in. MightI is a nonprofit working with local communities in Sub-Saharan Africa to study the feasibility of implementing insect farming there. They are also doing research into how different feeds affect insect nutrient profiles, as well as the health impacts of insect consumption. Aspire is a for-profit that is using higher tech farming to create cricket flour in the U.S., and is also working with local communities in Africa to farm insects.

In the U.S., meat-eating is one of the largest contributors to climate change. Entomophagy represents one way to curb the amount of conventional meat we eat. Culturally, most Americans are averse to eating insects, but are generally open to new culinary experiences (witness the explosion in sushi eating over the past few decades). And flours made from some insects can provide a protein boost in things like soups, shakes, baked goods, protein bars, etc. that, if anything, adds to the flavor. I could envision a time when we add a little mealworm or cricket powder to almost everything we eat, allowing us to cut back significantly on more expensive and wasteful (and some would say unethical**) proteins.

 

Where do we go from here? My plan is to keep evangelizing entomophagy. Practicing a little of what I preach, I’ve been growing mealworms in the basement now for over a year. My next move will be to see if I can grow enough to meet my protein needs for a week. I’ll also do some experimenting with organic side streams (mostly our erstwhile compost) as feed, to see if I can get decent mealworm growth with nary an ounce of high-grade feed. In agriculture, I see a lot of potential in indoor vertical farming, especially with advances in solar power, LED lighting, lithium battery, and other technologies); entomophagy fits right in with this (imagine taking old abandoned warehouses in places like Detroit and Baltimore and turning them into beautiful farms).

Want to grow your own mealworms (GYOM)? Or start your own insect factory? Or maybe travel to developing countries to see how you can help with entomophagy projects there? If you’re interested in getting involved in entomophagy in any capacity, check out the great resources below.

Warning: A lot of insects are great to eat, but don’t just go out grabbing insects willy nilly and eating them. Some insects are poisonous. Some insects carry pathogens. And some insects may contain pesticides.  

Entomophagy Resources

Organizations Working With Entomophagy in Developing Countries:

  • MightI: “Aims to use robust, multidisciplinary research to investigate ways edible insects can contribute to sustainable food security and improved health and well-being globally. Our vision is to generate applied research on edible insects that has the potential to improve lives and protect our precious environmental resources.”
  • Flying Food Project: “Aims at rearing and eating crickets as a delicious, affordable and healthy solution for malnutrition.”
  • Aspire: “To celebrate, innovate, and advance responsible farming and healthy eating of insects. We will continue to research and invest in sustainable insect farming practices to bring this protein alternative to market.”

A Small Sampling of Companies Raising Insects or Selling Insect Products in the United States and Canada:

  • Aspire: “We raise food-grade crickets on a commercial scale, and are actively working to normalize the consumption of insects in the western world.”
  • Tiny Farms: “To enable adoption of insects as a source of sustainable alternative protein, Tiny Farms Inc. applies designs thinking, IoT, and automation to build smart, easily scalable farming systems.”
  • Mad Agriculture: “We harness the nutrient recycling abilities of insects to turn food waste into a protein rich feed supplement so we can be less dependent on unsustainable ingredients like fishmeal and soy.”
  • C-fu Foods: “A new approach to protein that comes from a more sustainable source, insects. Through our innovative process we’ve created a healthy meat replacement that helps you create culinary staples like burgers, schnitzel, or nuggets.

DIY Insect Farming:

  • A series of videos detailing how to start a mealworm farm
  • Third Millennium Farming: Small-scale cricket farms
  • Open Bug Farm: From the Tiny Farms folks, open source instructions for building mealworm farms
  • Livin Farms: Countertop mealworm farms. Looks sleek and high tech, but fairly spendy at $649. Harvest over a pound of mealworms a week.

Articles, Books, and Videos on Entomophagy:

 

*I’m hopeful that, just as with the Millennium Development Goals, we can work together to achieve the even more ambitious Sustainable Development Goals, which call for ending hunger and extreme poverty by 2030.

**We know pigs and cows and chickens experience consciousness and pain and suffering. Do insects feel? Here’s an interesting disquisition on that. Insects may have a form of consciousness, but probably do not feel pain as we define it.

Scientific Policy

science president

One of these guys is doing his own thing (i.e. ignoring facts and science) – OK, maybe two of these guys are…

What kind of world would we live in if politics were largely guided by science rather than greed or special interests? Under new prime minister Justin Trudeau, Canada is revamping its environmental policy to “ensure that decisions on major projects are based on science, facts, and evidence.” Funny that this is, in the words of Science magazine, likely to fuel fierce debate: “What’s with all the facts and science when we’re trying to make policy decisions, eh?”

In the U.S., where money is far more entrenched in politics than it is for our friendly northern neighbors, facts often take a back seat to feelings. If you believe something enough, it must be true. John Oliver thought this was the main theme of the Republican Convention in July.

Facts, science, and knowledge are routinely ridiculed on the far right. Which isn’t to say that people on the left don’t fall victim to fantastic thinking as well. But in order to push a conservative agenda that is almost entirely beholden to big-money special interests and in no way helps the vast majority of those whose votes they need, the conservative demagogues must push an agenda that requires the suspension of disbelief.

It is one week from the U.S. presidential election, and Science magazine has compiled a list of six areas of science in which the new president will need to be well-versed in order to lead our country down the right path.

  1. Pathogens: In the U.S., 23,000 people die each year from antibiotic-resistant infections. Globally, drug resistance is increasing for a number of deadly diseases. And new pathogens have the potential to reach epidemic or even pandemic proportions. Policy needs to fund tracking and safe research on these pathogens, fund new drugs and approaches to combat them (these drugs are not very lucrative, so free-market capitalism will not fill the void), and regulate the overuse of antibiotics that leads to resistance.
  2. Gene Editing: Clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats – that’s what it’s all about. CRISPR, as it’s called (because nobody can remember what it stands for (I will forget by the end of this paragraph)), is a new innovation for editing genes that has vast implications, from creating higher yielding crops to combating genetic diseases to resurrecting extinct animals to making super-human genetic freaks that can fly and breathe underwater. Regulations will be needed to harness what is allowed, both ethically and pragmatically (e.g., curtailing the production of flying humans). And funding will be needed to realize the enormous potential of this technology. Imagine a world without cystic fibrosis and other genetic diseases.
  3. Sea Level Rise: I know I’m not supposed to call climate change deniers idiots (because they will stop listening to me), but can I call them something more endearing, like nincompoops? Climate change isn’t theoretical; it’s here. Sea level has already risen a few inches in the last two decades, and if current emissions trends continue, it could rise another couple feet or more by century’s end. In the U.S., the rate of sea level rise on the East Coast is double the average. This is already threatening communities and ecosystems. Globally, displacement from sea level rise will lead to civil unrest and increased immigration (we will have a lot more wall-building to do to keep these tired, poor, huddled masses from breathing free on our shores*). If a president refuses to believe in climate change, will he also refuse to believe it when his people are being inundated by yet another flood? Policy-wise, we need a president who will act globally for prevention and locally for mitigation. The president will need to act to strengthen climate agreements like the Paris Agreement (not “cancel” it), while simultaneously coordinating and funding local and regional efforts to mitigate the effects of rising sea levels.
  4. Brain Health: Most of us use our brains a fair amount, so it’s a tragedy when they’re affected by things like autism, mental illness, and dementia. In 2016, treatment for people with Alzheimer’s and other kinds of dementia cost $236 billion, two-thirds of which was paid for by government health programs. Mental illness is a major factor in homelessness, drug addiction, and crime. One in 68 kids has autism, which costs an average of $60,000 per family per year (which, if my math is correct, means families spend over $65 billion per year in the U.S. on autism). In short, hundreds of billions of dollars is spent on treatment, law enforcement, prison, and other programs each year because of problems with people’s brains. This doesn’t even take into account all the suffering and lost productivity because of these issues. So putting more funding into understanding the causes of brain maladies could ultimately lead to cures that enrich our whole society immensely (or should I say “bigly”?). Many brain diseases also have a genetic component, so, using CRISPR, we may one day stop them before they start.
  5. Artificial Intelligence: Advances in AI, and technology in general, are moving so fast these days that it’s hard to keep up with what’s going on. As someone who worked in the electric vehicle industry for a few years beginning in 2008, I witnessed firsthand the dizzying rise of battery technology. In addition to electric vehicles and lithium batteries, solar power has undergone amazing innovation and price drops, and LED lights have revolutionized that field. Self-driving cars and trucks are here now, and will soon be much more widespread. More automation in production has already led to increased productivity (far outpacing the rise in workers’ wages) and the loss of many jobs; as this automation increases, many workers will become more and more obsolete. And, if many of the smartest people in the world are to be believed, artificial intelligence will soon reach a point where computers are much much smarter than humans, which has the potential for unlimited unintended consequences (for a fun, and slightly terrifying, disquisition on this, see Wait But Why’s post “The AI Revolution”). So, the next president will have to be adaptable and willing to listen to a team of nerds that can keep her apprised of what’s going on in the tech world. As innovation effects rapid change, policy will have to keep up to avoid becoming outdated. What will we do when much of our workforce is replaced by machines? As production increases due to automation, most of the extra rewards flow to the owners of production, and this trickle up economy has already begun to increase inequality in the U.S. One way to stem this is to tax the beneficiaries of this automation so that we can spread the bounty among the general population; some have even proposed a universal basic income of, say, $1000 a month, which would allow people to pursue their interests rather than driving a Budweiser truck around the country (see self-driving truck above).**
  6. Gut Instinct: And this is kind of what this whole post is about. Our guts are often not the best place to do our thinking (even if they do have some neurons). We often miss when we shoot from the hip. Risk assessment isn’t about how you feel, it’s about what actually is. For example, immigrants pose very little, if any, risk to American jobs. Violent crime is down significantly over the past 20 years. Terrorism deaths are a tiny fraction of those due to heart disease. We may feel that immigrants and violent criminals and terrorists pose an increasing risk, but the fact is there are other concerns that are much more pressing; which isn’t to say that immigration and violent crime and terrorism shouldn’t be addressed at all, but we should address issues based on actual risks. If special interest groups and their puppet politicians do enough fear mongering about smaller issues (or non-issues), it’s easier to dupe people into ignoring the giant, flatulent elephants in the room: elephants with names like climate change and big money that have major negative impacts on public health, happiness, and the environment.

One picture that emerges here is that we need BIG government – we need big government because we need an institution that coordinates massive efforts. We need to pool our money to invest in things that don’t fit in to the supply-and-demand scheme of free-market capitalism (hey, maybe we could call this pooling of money “taxation”). We need smart regulation because, without it, laissez-faire might as well mean “let us be assholes.”

Looking at the list above, which of our presidential candidates is least likely to turn the Oval Office into an utter shit show***? Of course, science can’t answer all our ethical questions. But being armed with facts helps guide us as we make ethical decisions that lead to policy. If we know the direction we want to go (a cleaner environment, a healthier society, more freedom, more prosperity, fewer abortions, less violence, happier people, a Greater America), applying science and knowledge is the best way to help us get there.

 

*To continue the metaphor from The New Colossus sonnet that graces the Statue of Liberty, many of these people will be literally “tempest-tost” from their homes. Rather than raising a lamp to them, too many of us want to get out the torches and pitchforks.

**To many, this will sound far-fetched, but in a way it’s not unprecedented. If we think of technology as a resource that belongs to us all, it could be compared to a physical resource, like oil, that exists in the ground beneath our feet. When we tap it and sell it, the profits can be shared. This has been occurring for decades in Alaska, as Alaskans receive distributions each year for their shared oil riches. And this is why Alaskans are of course so sympathetic to socialist and left-wing politicians like Sarah Palin and Don Young (bunch o’ commies!).

***Many of you will be reading this after the election has taken place, so perhaps the shit show is already underway? [Update 11/10/16: The shit show is underway]

Sugar Conspiracy

sugar conspiracyI’m in my fourth month of time-restricted intermittent fasting – primarily eating in a six-hour window between 2 and 8 p.m. Along the way, I’ve been getting my cholesterol tested (results forthcoming). In addition to intermittent fasting, I’ve instituted three different diet phases. After the initial whatever/whenever diet (not so good for my cholesterol or weight), I began with a month and a half of intermittent fasting without any restrictions on what I ate: the whatever/not whenever diet. Then I did about a month where I kept my carbohydrate intake to about 200g per day. And I’m currently in the final phase, wherein I’m limiting my carbs to an average of 100g per day.

I’ve briefly discussed the benefits of fasting and intermittent fasting, and there is growing evidence that intermittent fasting could have a number of positive health benefits. I’ll delve into this more deeply once my study of one is done. I’ve also discussed the benefits of eating fewer carbs. Thus far on the intermittent fasting diet, I’ve lost over ten pounds, and my genetically shitty cholesterol numbers have been moving in a positive direction.

Obesity is up there with tobacco as one of the predominant killers in the United States (obesity and tobacco laugh in the face of those puny, ineffectual terrorists). These scourges kill hundreds of thousands of people a year. And, just as with tobacco, it turns out there were people pulling the trigger of the big fat obesity gun. Way back in the 60s, the sugar lobby (then the Sugar Research Foundation, now the Sugar Association) paid some Harvard scientists to promote the idea that saturated fats were the primary culprit in heart disease, and to downplay the role of sugar. These ideas were published in no less than the New England Journal of Medicine. One of the shills (er, scientists), D. Mark Hegsted, went on to become the head of nutrition at the USDA, and helped draft what would become the U.S. dietary guidelines, which, surprise, promoted the low-fat diet (i.e. high carb, high sugar, highly processed).

This information was recently brought to light in JAMA Internal Medicine, another well-respected medical journal. The researchers found evidence that the sugar industry had conspired with scientists to get sugar off the hook for its role in heart disease. There is a lot of smoke coming from this gun, but presumably that gun was fired numerous times before and after. In fact, as recently as last year, Coca Cola was hitting us with a nuclear blast of bullshit about how we don’t really need to worry about what we eat, just about how much exercise we get. Poor health, obesity, heart disease, early death: Coke Is It!

The good news is that we are finally starting to realize that sugars (simple carbs, high glycemic foods) are much more pernicious than we were led to believe. Those scientists who would sell their souls for a few bucks (Hegsted and two others received the equivalent of about $50,000 for that one incident) do a huge disservice for truth and science.

But, of course there will always be people willing to sell out, and as long as big money is allowed to infiltrate research, the outcomes will be questionable. There may be more transparency when it comes to disclosing research funding than there was in the 60s, but, because public funding for research has waned, industry funding has filled that gap with a vengeance. Journals like the New England Journal of Medicine and JAMA publish research that has largely been funded by big pharma, big ag, and big medical. And our health guidelines continue to be written by many folks who are on the boards of these giant special-interest corporations. Which isn’t to say that all the science is bad, only that it’s less good than it could or should be.

In the case of the promotion of the low-fat diet, the result has been devastating: hundreds of millions of people have had their health compromised, and millions of people have died prematurely.

Me, I’m slightly hangry at the moment, given that it’s 11 a.m. and I still have three hours before breakfast. I won’t be eating much in the way of sugars, but I will have a teaspoon of honey in my decaf. I do loves me some sugar, though, so as soon as this intermittent fasting dealio is done, I’ll permit myself a few instances of excess. Ultimately, though, all of my wacky dieting and monitoring has taught me that I would do best to moderate my excess when it comes to sugars.

I’ll leave you with this little tidbit; after all, sugar’s really only bad for our teeth, right?

 

More Reading On This Subject
“How the sugar industry shifted blame to fat” by Anahad O’Connor. The New York Times article that precipitated this post.

Overdosed America: The Broken Promise of American Medicine by John Abramson, M.D. A highly informative book about how American medicine has been compromised by big business.

“Coke and Pepsi Give Millions to Public Health, Then Lobby Against It” by Anahad O’Connor. What better way to get organizations to drop opposition to things like soda taxes than to give them a few million dollars?

“The shady history of Big Sugar” by David Singerman. Another Times article that exposes a long history of the sugar industry working against our well-being.

 

Gut Reaction

bariatricBariatric surgery often helps people lose weight – just ask Al Roker. But it turns out the weight loss associated with bariatric surgery may have less to do with having a smaller stomach and more to do with how the surgery permanently changes one’s gut microbiota. A new study found that people who have undergone bariatric surgery have different gut microbiota from obese people who haven’t undergone the surgery. When these microbiota were introduced to germ-free mice, the mice that received microbiota from people who had had bariatric surgery gained less weight than mice who had received microbiota from people who hadn’t had the surgery.

As we’ve mentioned here before, once they start figuring out which microbes promote healthier weights and which don’t, it will revolutionize how we approach weight loss. What the current study portends is that risky bariatric procedures may soon be unnecessary for helping people lose weight.

Or, if you’re really desperate, you can undergo some extreme stress to lose weight. Another recent study has shown that extreme stress can induce white fat cells to turn into higher-energy-burning brown fat cells. Um, don’t try this – wait until they figure out the gut microbiota thing.

Fast and Endurious

fountain of youthA few years ago I embarked on a three-day fast after reading a Harper’s article by Steve Hendricks, Starving your way to vigor (sorry, you have to subscribe to Harper’s to read it), about the many potential health benefits of fasting. I wrote about my experience on the Mr. Money Mustache blog. It was a fun challenge; enough so that I thought I might make it a semi-annual or annual event. Alas, almost three years later, my longest fasts have resulted from skipping breakfast.

Some of the most exciting research cited in Hendricks’s article centered on how fasting affects cancer: cancer may be less likely to develop in fasting individuals, and if one does get cancer, fasting can intensify the positive effects of chemotherapy while reducing the negative effects. This chemo/fasting synergy occurs because, at a certain point during fasting, healthy cells go into a more quiescent, maintenance mode, whereas cancer cells keep on happily trying to reproduce. Thus chemo more effectively targets those rambunctious cancer cells and has less of an impact on healthy cells, resulting in less side effects.

Fasting may also help reduce seizures. Hendricks tells a compelling story about a young child who was having multiple seizures per day. The child’s parents had exhausted most medical options, to no avail, when their research led them to a century-old practice of fasting to alleviate seizures. Under their doctor’s guidance, they tried this, and it had immediate and enduring effects in reducing their child’s seizures, allowing him to lead a normal life.

Some studies have shown that fasting can protect the brain and slow aging in mice. Many people promote the idea of caloric restriction as a means to increase lifespan. For me, though, ongoing caloric restriction would feel like an unnecessary deprivation – who cares if I live a few more months if I have to endure a somewhat shittier existence for the next 40 years to achieve it? Likewise, outright fasting can be onerous, and not many people are going to adopt it as part of their lifestyle.

Enter intermittent fasting. A new study has shown that many of the benefits of fasting or caloric restriction may also accrue when one practices caloric restriction for just a few days a month. Mice fed a low-calorie, low-protein diet for two periods of four days per month lived an average of three months longer than mice on a regular diet (three months is a big deal when your lifespan is only 2-3 years – that’s like adding 5-8 years to a human life). The study also looked at humans, and found that just a few months of intermittent calorie restriction (five days per month of eating 725-1090 calories) resulted in reduced blood glucose, less abdominal fat, and lower levels of a protein associated with cardiovascular disease. Additionally, there were higher levels of some stem cells in the blood, suggesting that intermittent calorie restriction may produce some rejuvenating effects.

So is the long search for the Fountain of Youth over? Probably not, but there’s a lot of promising stuff. There’s a followup study underway with more people, and there are a lot of questions to answer. Meanwhile, there’s always the opportunity to do a study of one.*

As an eclectic, intermittency is a pretty appealing thing to me; it’s fun to mix things up. So I like the idea of incorporating some occasional, not very structured, caloric restriction into my regimen. In fact, I might give it a rip for a few days starting today – I could stand to lose a few pounds anyway.

 

*I haven’t read this book, but it looks like The Fast Diet could have some good info on how to set up an intermittent fasting regimen.

 

A Quarter a Day

Food is a problem for a good chunk of the planet. There are over 800 million undernourished people in the world, and millions more that have other forms of malnutrition. According to Mark Bittman, the problem is more one of poverty than of a lack of food. Maybe this is true, but almost all of the potential agricultural land on the planet is currently in use (with an enormous toll on the environment), and with a growing population and complications from climate change, it will be harder to produce enough food to meet the world’s needs.

National Geographic currently has an ongoing series called The Future of Food, and in the November 2014 issue, there’s a blurb with some interesting facts. They mention bug eating as part of the solution to hunger.* Additionally, it only costs a quarter a day to give a child a school meal with enough for leftovers. So that would be about 0.002% of the annual U.S. budget to end hunger in the world? Seems worth it.

The good news is that, largely thanks to the UN Millennium Development Goals, hunger is dropping quickly worldwide. And, with the follow-up to the MDG, Sustainable Development Goals, the plan is to effectively end extreme poverty and hunger by 2030. There is some skepticism about these goals, but that shouldn’t deter us from trying. Imagine what an incredible human accomplishment this would be.

 

*I’ve had some involvement with the idea of entomophagy. My colleagues and I calculated the amount of land potentially required to meet the caloric needs of the world’s undernourished via insects, and it’s astonishingly small. Our paper was published in the Ecology of Food and Nutrition journal, and I’ll have more details on it in a future post.

 

Check Yourself

good mood

I’m outside, I’m with my brother, I’m drinking booze, it’s evening: I must be Happy!

2014 was the year of self-tracking for me. I created a mood tracking spreadsheet (download it for free), to which I also added my data from MyFitnessPal. Now the results are in, and what they reveal will shock you (not so much).

The primary purpose of building my mood tracking contraption was to see which variables in my life have the largest effect on my mood, happiness, energy, creativity, stress, grumpiness, day-to-day satisfaction, and life satisfaction (we’ll call these the affects, in the psychological sense). Some of the variables I looked at were food, booze, sleep, activity, time outside, weather, season, money stress, and family time.

There was a time when I used to be able to do some simple statistical analyses, but those days are (thankfully) gone.* So in this case, I plotted some of my variables versus certain affects and looked at the trendlines for simple correlations.

Results
Happiness, day-to-day satisfaction, and mood were strongly correlated, possibly because I didn’t do a very good job of distinguishing between them. Thus, the results were similar for all three, so I lumped them together under “mood” below. Note that all results are correlations, so the variables aren’t necessarily causal – although they could be.

  • my mood (and happiness and day-to-day satisfaction) gets slightly worse the more I weigh (I fluctuated from the low 160s to the low 180s), with more tv, and with more driving
  • my mood is worse with more sleep and more stress (go figure)
  • my mood is not changed with strength training, on vacation, and with different forms of work
  • my mood improves slightly with more family time, new activities, and more booze
  • my mood improves with more cardio exercise, golf, more time outside, and more food
  • my mood gets better as the day goes on
  • my mood is best in the spring and fall, and worst in the winter
  • my creativity decreases with booze, time spent outside, more driving time, and more tv time
  • my creativity increases slightly with more sleep and more calories
  • I’m most creative in the winter
  • I have slightly less energy with more calories
  • I have less energy the more I weigh and the more tv I watch (or, more likely, I watch more tv when I have less energy)
  • I have more energy in the spring and fall
  • I had 10 moments of feeling bliss/euphoria over the course of the year
  • My life satisfaction was very steady

The design of my mood tracking spreadsheet is pretty rudimentary, and there are endless areas for improvement (go ahead and add your own tweaks to make it better, and share it with the group). Nonetheless, it was a good tool for me to learn more about how I operate.

Over the years, in conjunction with less valleys, the peaks in my mood aren’t as lofty, kind of like an attenuating sine wave:

attenuating sine wave

 

 

 

 

Maybe in exchange for more stability, one sacrifices the intensity of one’s moods, both on the down- and upsides. Maybe in my more volatile days I felt a greater sense of relief after being in those deeper valleys, resulting in a more intense joy and excitement about having left the valley.

Lessons
So what did I learn from The Year of Tracking?

  1. Tracking oneself is onerous. Overmonitoring and spending too much time trying to be perfect can also cause stress. It’s been a few months since I stopped tracking stuff, and now that I’m just L-I-V-I-N,** I generally feel more relaxed and, well, happy – albeit fatter…
  2. Tracking my food intake does help me lose weight. Tracking can help one be more disciplined.
  3. Tracking teaches one certain things that can be carried beyond tracking. Because I’m more attuned to many of the variables that affect my mood, I probably do a better job now of avoiding negative actions and doing more positive things (without obsessing about them).
  4. Overmonitoring oneself and obsessing about one’s every action can be somewhat self-centered. Worrying about tiny fluctuations in one’s mood is a Rich Person Problem. Self-improvement is fine, as long as it’s a vehicle for virtue.
  5. Stress can be a good thing. Some of the day-to-day stress I experience (solving a difficult work problem, putting in a physically exhausting day, cleaning roots and shit out of a tenant’s backed up sewer, writing a time-consuming post) leads to highly rewarding feelings (and higher peaks on the old sine curve).
  6. Although not having enough food or sleep affects my mood, stressors like money, conflict, and other real-life issues ultimately have a more pronounced and lasting impact on my mood.***

In fact, a 2010 paper by Daniel Kahneman and Angus Deaton indicates that the less one’s household income is, below about $75,000/year, the more money stress exacerbates other issues, and affects one’s happiness (or emotional well-being, as the authors call it). Above the $75,000 threshold, people generally don’t experience greater happiness. But people’s life evaluation (similar to what I call life satisfaction here and fulfillment in other posts), continues to rise with household incomes above $75,000. Certainly this varies with different circumstances in different households, but it’s an indication that money woes may be one of the primary issues affecting people’s happiness.

So it’s as simple as making $75,000 a year to be happy, right? Or maybe it’s about learning to live a more frugal and less consumer lifestyle to avoid the stress associated with living on less than $75,000 (this guy did it on $7000 a year). Probably it’s some of both: paying people a living wage while simultaneously working toward a less consumerist society.

Beyond the obvious stresses associated with money, doing a little tracking to figure out which variables most affect your mood can be a growth exercise. Download the spreadsheet, tweak it to fit your needs, and let us know what you come up with.

 

*If there’s somebody out there who loves to play around with SAS and wants to do a real analysis of my data, let me know.

**This is Wooderson’s sage advice, coming from a twentysomething-year-old guy who still hangs out with high schoolers (“I get older, they stay the same age”). If the sequel to Dazed and ConfusedDallas Buyers Club, is any indication, Wooderson’s advice didn’t pan out too well (Leto’s really good as Slater, though).

***And of course genetics plays a role in our moods, too.

Dutch Treat

rik smits shaquille o'neal

Rik Smits (The Flying Dutchman), guarded by that pipsqueak (and Irish poet) Shaquille O’Neal

I like me some Dutch people. I lived in Holland for half a year back in the ’90s for a “study” abroad during college. Mostly I just drank beer and played soccer and ate Chinese food with my Dutch roommate Huub (“Wil je chinees” he would ask me: “Do you want to Chinese?” I always got the foe yong hai met krab). When you’re in Holland and you’re standing in a crowd of people, it quickly becomes apparent that you are short, and not just compared to the men; most of the women also tower above you (if you’re a wee little 5’11” lad like I am).

The bottom line is that the Dutch are just em-effing tall. A new study posits that the Dutch (who were shorter than Americans in the 19th Century) have become taller in the last sesquicentury not only because of better nutrition, but because of natural selection – tall genes have been selected for. I would say that this is better described as sexual selection – Dutch folks are attracted to tall folks, which tilts the evolutionary odds in favor of taller folks. It should be obvious, but this is further proof that humans didn’t just stop evolving at some point.

Tot ziens!