The ‘four survival traits’ Goldman refers to should be more like 2.5, 3 traits. When Goldman stays in his area of expertise, he explains the science and it makes sense. When he doesn't stay in his field, you can't tell by his tone or words, which is alarming to me. My main issues are as follows:
- Goldman uses the same confidence to explain blood clots as he does to argue that ‘depression probably made people submissive in socially tense hunter gatherer situations’. Psychology is significantly more difficult to measure and test than blood pressure. The post-hoc justification theory-crafting of “it was probably helpful evolutionarily in X way…” should not be treated as fact. Plenty of things happen by accident and stick around, as he himself notes in other places. The jump from depression to 'submissiveness' is also quite a leap he never fully bridges, with a tendency to group PTSD, depression, and anxiety as one big trait. Even going so far as to claim depression might have been helpful to get people kill themselves during ‘high investment’ times of their life as old age and being a teen – that is a wild statement. That is a statement that can’t be tested. A more realistic alternative is “well that’s when your body is changing the most” and he doesn’t even touch on that. I don’t even know what to say about his bold, very poorly defended claim that PTSD is around because soldiers are just ‘turning the violence inwards’ that they need to get out.
- Goldman continually assumes modern hunter-gatherers are the same, or almost the same as ancient hunter-gatherers. They aren’t. We can’t go back into the past and test that, and the assumption hunter-gatherers simply ‘stopped evolving’ is short-sighted. Looking at hunter-gatherer tribes can be helpful, sure, but doesn't even attempt to be nuanced about the using modern examples.
- For blood pressure and clotting, I am amazed Goldman tried to split it up. He had to keep repeating information and stretching out the word count. They are two different measurable traits, yes. My issue is that he forced them into their own long chapters when his point probably would have been better served by one chapter on blood.
- Finally, it is stunning to watch someone: 1. Acknowledge dieting doesn’t work. 2. Acknowledge the numerous social reasons why losing weight is extremely difficult 3. Acknowledge the numerous physical reasons why losing weight is extremely difficult, and then somehow conclude that since calorie labels and fast food taxes didn’t work, policy change is impossible to enact. If there is a weight difference between *nations*, then clearly things like walkable infrastructure, access to cheap, healthy food, and the like make a difference.
Goldman's assumptions ruin this book for me. I wish he would have done the slightest research with his examples, or at least have some humility about the simplified version he presents. For a quick number: he assumes the bible is historically accurate, the Irish Potato Famine was 100% a crop issue, “if obesity was just a cosmetic issue, it would be dismissed as much about nothing”, claims 'full figure' marketing is encouraging people to be fat, etc. He also assumes everything will continue to get better (shockingly no mention of climate change and the stagnating growth of late capitalism). People have different perspectives, that's fine. But not acknowledging the state of the world shows Goldman is in a bizarre bubble, or at least was at the time of this book.
Surgeries and medicine probably will continue to be needed in the future, sure. I don't disagree with that claim. However, his view of the world is painfully limited. Goldman doesn’t think to question the effect of inequality, racism, sexism, etc. on access to healthcare. He dances around eugenics, and while being against it, gets dangerously close at times without mentioning the ethical implications of what he is saying. He talks briefly about how obese diabetic women aren’t able to have children the same way normal weight women can with no thought to how an obese diabetic woman might feel about learning such information. He makes vague motions towards respecting people but also says things like, “we can’t change the obesity epidemic if people don't feel bad about being obese.”
It shouldn’t be a bold statement to respect fat people as people, and actually NO, shame only makes people feel worse and leads to worse outcomes for everyone. It’s not a conducive way to help people, and frankly, I thought that was the point.