Comment · Wed, November 28, 2012 · Ceretropic
"Adaptogens" seem to provide a "free" fitness benefit. This is unexpected from an evolutionary perspective. What is the explanation?
Original post in this thread
rotflol · 7 points
Rhodiola and ginseng, both mentioned in the FAQ, are considered "adaptogens". Adaptogens reputedly induce "non-specific resistance", i.e. increased general resilience, without any apparent side-effects.
This seems weird, because if there was a simple biochemical adjustment through which we could obtain a "free" fitness benefit, presumably evolution by natural selection would have ensured that our bodies already work that way (cf: Algernon's Law).
For some substances, it makes sense why they could violate Algernon's Law: for example the argument can be made that vitamin D supplementation could work because our bodies have been fine-tuned to the sunlit ancestral environments near the equator, not modern flats and offices at temperate latitudes, so there is a suboptimality that we could conceivably "fix". In other cases, we might deliberately opt for trade-offs that lower our overall reproductive fitness but provide benefits we subjectively value (e.g. increased mental alertness vs risk of heart problems in the case of caffeine).
But how could "adaptoge…
What they were answering
Direct reply to the original post — see the thread post above.
u/MisterYouAreSoDumb · Ceretropic
Our bodies and brains are a product of our genetic heritage. Certain plants did not exist in all regions, or would have been consumed by all ancestors. Genetic traits may have been passed on for natural selective reasons other than intelligence. There are a number of different possibilities that could lead to an "inefficiency" of cognition.
I feel as though Algernon's Law is irrelevant on an individual basis. The notion that a human cannot learn to use his or her brain in a more efficient manner, seems silly to me. However, on a societal basis, I can see it being relevant. Intelligence does not necessarily correlate to increasing fitness. More intelligent and self-aware people will probably have less children than those of lesser intelligence. Given enough time, that can drastically change the demographics of a species.
As far as "free" positive effects are concerned, we may just not be seeing the side effects. Take an engine for example. Put a turbo charger on the engine, and you see good gains for seemingly no performance loss. However, there is more heat generated. There is more friction generated. There are changes to the chemical composition of the exhaust gasses generated. So the performance gains seem like they do not have trade-offs, but we are simply just not looking in the right places. Sorry for the silly equivocation, but hopefully it gets my point across.
Perhaps adaptogens do give cognitive improvements for seemingly little cognitive trade-offs. However, the trade-offs may just be in places where we are not looking.