Why are agricultural diets assumed to always be better than the wide range of possible hunter-gatherer diets that our species has spent megayears on? I mean sure, often more stable and efficient in terms of labor. But that's not the same thing. To be fair there will be places with, say, iodine deficiency here and there.
There's also the fact that a shitload of the areas conquered in the colonial rush were fully agricultural and even urbanized...
Why are agricultural diets assumed to always be better than the wide range of possible hunter-gatherer diets that our species has spent megayears on?
Agricultural diets are actually worse and led to a documented decrease in health -- see e.g. here.
This thread is for asking any questions that might seem obvious, tangential, silly or what-have-you. Don't be shy, everyone has holes in their knowledge, though the fewer and the smaller we can make them, the better.
Please be respectful of other people's admitting ignorance and don't mock them for it, as they're doing a noble thing.
To any future monthly posters of SQ threads, please remember to add the "stupid_questions" tag.