Alan Levinovitz

It's awesome.

He's in a very different place.

Yeah.

And you talked about the peanut butter.

I mean, another reason you might opt for natural peanut butter is there isn't as much sugar in it.

So you feel sated more quickly.

Or it doesn't cause you to consume as many calories.

To me, that's really reasonable.

And so it's hard to separate out the kind of natural, unnatural binary from actually really reasonable claims like we now have extremely palatable, extremely cheap calories everywhere thanks to highly technological food processing.

And that technology, which is very unnatural, has been...

use to exploit our appetites in a way that is profoundly unhealthy for many, many people.

So that can be true, while it is also true that natural and unnatural are not kind of cosmic indicators of what's better or worse for us as human beings.

Absolutely.

It's a cognitive labor-saving device.

And we do that all the time with all kinds of things.

We believe all kinds of stuff.

just because it would be too much effort to check it ourselves, which is honestly, Michael, as it should be.

There's a brilliant historian of science named Stephen Schappen, who has, I think, a PhD in genetics or something like that.

And he's talking about how he understands climate science.

And he says, what it is to understand climate science is not to actually understand climate science, to go and do all of the research, to look at everything yourself.