Note that the whole idea is about taking very small amount of sugar at the right time. It's completely unrelated to levels that cause metabolic syndrome.

33:33:33 seems to arise fairly naturally when I try to eat reasonably limited amounts (for purely cosmetic temporary reasons; and all unrelated to the entire willpower business) of the tastiest food (most of which hits diminishing returns very quickly).

Here's some data on what people eat based on spreadsheetscripting out FAO data. As you can my current protein intake is indeed highly unusual - but then so are your very high fat and extremely low carb intake. Pretending what you're doing is the norm when it's really out of the norm is weird.

33:33:33 is similar to what is recommended for zone diet and paleo diet, so I cannot be the only person doing that. Similarity to zone diet purely accidental. Similarity of my constrained optimization for best taste with paleo diet is quite likely not accidental at all.

Survey question:

If someone asks you how to spell a certain word, does the word appear in your head as you're spelling it out for them, or does it seem to come out of your mouth automatically?

If it comes out automatically, would you describe yourself as being adept at language (always finding the right word to describe something, articulating your thoughts easily, etc.) or is it something you struggle with?

I tend to have trouble with words - it can take me a long time (minutes) to recall the proper word to describe something, and when speaking I frequently have to start a sentence 3 or 4 times to get it to come out right. (I also struggled for a while to replace the word 'automatic' in the above paragraphs with a more accurate description. I was unsuccessful.) Words also don't appear in my head when I'm spelling them aloud, which suggests to me that I might be missing some pathways that connect my language centers to my conscious functions.

So then what did you mean by this?

I think "making the argument that humans have some special moral place in the world" in the absence of an eternal soul is very easy for someone intelligent enough to think about how close humans and goldfish are "in the space of 'things that one can construct out of atoms.'"

I agree that they would probably have that reaction, but that's not the question; the question is whether that's a rational reaction to have given relatively simple starting assumptions.

The question might be less "do humans have some special moral place in the world" than "do human beings have some special moral place in the world". For example: are we privileging humans over cows to an excessive extent?

Would you please share? I would really, really like to know how the argument that "humans have some special moral place in the world" would work.

Another test:

Could smoking during pregnancy have a benefit? Could drinking during pregnancy have a benefit? It's not necessary that someone know what the benefit could be, just acknowledge the nicotine and alcohol are drugs that have complex effects on the body.

As for smoking, it's definitely a bad idea, but it reduces the chances of pre-eclampsia. I don't know of any benefit for alcohol.

Most people's moral gut reactions say that humans are very important, and everything else much less so. This argument is easier to make "objective" if humans are the only things with everlasting souls.

Once you get rid of souls, making the argument that humans have some special moral place in the world becomes much more difficult. It's probably an argument that is beyond the reach of the average person. After all, in the space of "things that one can construct out of atoms", humans and goldfish are very, very close.

You're right that that was too strong; I should have said it's determined largely by the mother's genetics (but also to lesser degrees by the father's genetics and environmental factors.) But note that the strongest known environmental factor, alcohol consumption, is at least somewhat genetic (http://psychiatry.healthse.com/psy/more/alcoholism), and other factors like susceptibility to smoking addiction probably are as well.

What sort of human variable doesn't correlate with race? Are any of weight, height, blood pressure, athletic ability, or any other more measurable characteristic uncorrelated? How about if we measure these at birth, to work around environmental effects?