Relevant detail about yucca/cassava/manioc: there are two varieties of the crop, "sweet" and "bitter". The bitter variety is mostly eaten in the Amazon, the Brazilian Northeast, and a chunk of the Gran Chaco; elsewhere - including the rest of South America - people stick mostly to the sweet variety.
Why? Because the sweet variety can be safely eaten after boiled, just like that hypothetical Tukanoan mother wanted. (You can even deep-fry it, cover with Parmesan cheese, bacon and chives. It's a great bar snack.)
Odds are that the sweet variety was bred this way, through artificial selection; I'm not sure who did it, if the Amerindians or the Iberians. Either way, it's only there because someone actively questioned the tradition, and was willing to break with it.
I'm saying this to highlight that tradition does not think on its own, because it's solely the replication of past knowledge. Tradition is not smart - what is smart, however, is to know when to follow it or when to ditch it.
I do think that tradition has a role, but the author's article is misled on how and why to present it. At the end of the day, tradition is what makes us part of a community; it gives us a sense of belonging, be it as random or as predictable as it might be.
The bitter variety is a bit more drought-resistant. That's actually relevant in the Gran Chaco and the Brazilian Northeast, as both regions are rather arid and prone to drought. In the Amazon though? Not really - and yet most recipes that I've seen using bitter yucca (some using the leaves, that are heavy on cyanogens) are from the Amazon.
So the cultivation of the bitter variety itself is a tradition in all three places. In one of them, the tradition already lost the meaning to exist, but it's still there.
Why? Because the sweet variety can be safely eaten after boiled, just like that hypothetical Tukanoan mother wanted. (You can even deep-fry it, cover with Parmesan cheese, bacon and chives. It's a great bar snack.)
Odds are that the sweet variety was bred this way, through artificial selection; I'm not sure who did it, if the Amerindians or the Iberians. Either way, it's only there because someone actively questioned the tradition, and was willing to break with it.
I'm saying this to highlight that tradition does not think on its own, because it's solely the replication of past knowledge. Tradition is not smart - what is smart, however, is to know when to follow it or when to ditch it.
I do think that tradition has a role, but the author's article is misled on how and why to present it. At the end of the day, tradition is what makes us part of a community; it gives us a sense of belonging, be it as random or as predictable as it might be.