something feels weird about arguing that x or y is better for us (humans) bc it more closely resembles something in the ancestral environment

my flinch is something like "well I guess we can't colonize other planets then, guess we're just fucked!"

I don't have an airtight argument against all possible claims that lean on beliefs about "natural" and "evolutionary" but here is a loose, incomplete collection of my objections

-how do we know what the ancestral environment looked like (esp quality of life and lifespan!)
-how far back do you wanna go, huh?
-how fast can humans adapt, is there any reason to believe that 1000 years or smth isn't enough time to adjust to, say, grains as a staple?

-how do you know that there aren't subtle problems with trying to replicate one aspect of ancestral conditions in your life, since you very much cannot replicate all of them?

I am open to softer claims like "hey this massive change happened over the course of 100 years and you may feel better if you try to do something more like the things people did before that"

and the whole "things are changing too fast for us to adapt" argument feels intuitive

but I also don't know *why* it would be correct

I want to say..."we are already transhumanist"

but what I mean is, there is no hard line between human and inhuman, natural and unnatural, humans often have the option to make changes not just reflexively but also reflectively

I'm down with calls to look at what your ancestors knew, to take and keep and refine what you can

babies and bathwater, Chesterton's fences, etc

but I'm also down with pioneering and weird self-experimentation and trying our hardest to thrive in a world hostile to our biology