An Etymological Defense of 'Paleo'

'Paleo' has become a word. That much everyone can agree on.

It all went awry when it became a brand-philosophy. Suddenly, you had 'Ancestral'(?) thought leaders drawing arbitrary lines in the sands of progress. The movement that I had come to recognize as a loosely cohesive, diverse, and burgeoning discipline that was going to shed light on the true nature of our species and do the hard work of interpreting possible or even optimal manifestations of that truth, suddenly became a colleague-bashing, factional display of ego. There were all these people who wanted to interpret evolution in healthy debate about health -- yes, this is important -- but not wanting to participate in a cult brand or pseudo-philosophy.

So some of them disparage the word, avoid the word altogether, or even smite the logic of the word, all without offering a linguistic alternative. I'm not really here to judge the way that unfolded. I'm here to defend the simple use of the term 'paleo'. Not the brand, just the useful manipulation of an element of language.

Whether paleo-ancestral-primal-archevore-evolutionary-etc., the word 'paleo' has become a part of my vocabulary, and it will stay that way for one reason: it's useful.

When I look at my girlfriend and ask, "Is this paleo?" She knows exactly what I mean. I don't need to go into the intricacies of ratios and toxins and cooking methods and packaging. She knows exactly what I mean, and it has little to do with Cordain's Paleo Diet.

When I ask, "Is this paleo?" what I mean is, "Is this food natural to the human diet in evolutionary terms and healthful according to the general standards of ancestral health experts?"

There really is no other word that can accomplish that. It is a word rife with meaning and subtlety and complexity -- dare I say beauty -- and cannot be replaced. It has become the cutting edge of health language. The words before it, words like "organic" and "whole" and "natural" have been rendered obsolete in my eyes, because they have been captured in a word's simple evolutionary perspective. Phrases like 'all-natural feedlot beef' and 'organic whole wheat pasta' are an ancient useless language.

'Paleo' is a word that emerged from the ashes of ideological fragmentation, stronger and more comprehensive than before, and should be regarded as such.

Overcoming Nature Part II: Attraction and Marriage

Let's think primitively about the initial stages of love (and some of the mechanisms of attraction):

Step 1: Woman makes herself attractive (tight clothes, short skirts, make up, cleavage).

Step 2: Man is attracted, chases woman, makes himself attractive (dates, confidence, humor, pheromones(?)).

If attraction is developed by both parties in the initial stages of a relationship, much deeper and significant things happen. They discover common interests and passions. They develop trust and companionship. They find intimacy and love. You know, it gets all Disney and shit. (Well, not for long, some will argue.)

My beef with modern culture -- and one of the ways in which modern culture does not differ from the natural model -- is that we still play this simple game. I'm not saying that this 'game' is necessarily bad -- I'm just saying that this game can be played better.

Some degree of minimal attraction is necessary in order to tumble down the rabbit hole of love, but not much. We can be more strategic about the things we value in others from those initial points of attraction. Shouldn't men be chasing women with traits that are 'good' but outside the realm of biological attraction? Shouldn't women? Maybe it already is.

Also, the model itself can be -- and is -- manipulated at its most basic (e.g. man makes himself attractive, woman chases man). At some point, there must be attraction and an agent, someone who makes moves.

'Playing' this game all depends on individual goals. Men wanting sex will play a different strategy than men wanting marriage, for instance. And women wanting sex will...get it no matter the strategy it seems.

What has been called the 'cult of monogamy' is certainly at odds with human nature. We seem to be good at attracting and reproducing, bad at sticking it out 'til death (marriage). To some degree, there is a sense of duty and obligation to lover, family, community, and/or society that may transcend the natural compulsions of others or even some in the 'cult of monogamy' beyond religious indoctrination; that is, 'I owe it to society to stick this boring marriage out and raise this family in a stable household'. So then, why not? Why not choose the path to societal stability?

Boredom, for one. If the meaning of life is a healthy society, I might yawn while sort of agreeing. But can't that just be one goal among many? Is it even possible to balance the natural compulsions of the human animal with the communal obligation of the human being? Maybe we have already.

The modern 'cult of serial monogamy plus paramour' seems to match the ancient 'evolutionary model' to a surprising degree. Can it be that, for many, our natural compulsions are simply too strong to withstand? Has society evolved its norms and conventions in the direction of nature, all thanks to feminism?

I'll let you answer that.