In fairness to Mark, I don’t think he’s explicitly pushing for everyone to eat nuts; he seems to be talking to those who are avoiding nuts solely for concerns over omega 6.
He discusses why he perceives nuts as different to eating vegetable oil, because they provide a number of other minerals and vitamins - whereas vegetable oil provides nothing in the micronutrient stakes.
He talks about how steady year-round access to food has meant that people are consuming nuts too frequently, rather than at the height of the season.
He suggests eating nuts within such constraints - “biologically-appropriate, evolutionarily congruent availability patterns”.
He explains that they’re not meals but should be seen as treats, and that they shouldn’t comprise the bulk of someone’s diet.
Personally, reading the article, I feel as if he’s trying to placate those who are avoiding nuts solely out of omega 6 concerns. I think there are other reasons to avoid nuts, which aren’t addressed, but that from a paleo standpoint (which has been said, was Mark’s original stance - even though he has since gone keto and is recently touching more on carnivore discussions) his argument makes logical sense.
I think the bigger concern with nuts is the way they’re consumed in high quantities in keto-friendly foods; nut powders, nut butters, nut milk. They’re all very tasty and/or can be combined to be tasty, and I think you can overload your body with something that doesn’t even resemble a nut.
I think that’s partly what he’s getting at; none of those three things are ancestrally appropriate.