The Evolution of Human Diet: A Scientific Perspective

[Curious3141]

It's hard to know that. You're comparing societies that had both husbandry and agriculture with societies that just had husbandry; it's not a case of comparing just husbandry to just agriculture.

But that's the point. What they have in common (husbandry) doesn't distinguish them. It's what one group has over the other (agriculture) that makes the difference.

If you're saying that I should be comparing against societies that practice purely crop rearing to the exclusion of animal husbandry, those are a little hard to come by. No historical examples come to mind.

Also, "advanced civilization" isn't a word that modern anthropologists use very often. It's typically used by a non-academic groups in an ethnocentric manner to justify occupation, missionary work, and codification.

Well, I acknowledge that nasty things have been done, and continue to be done, on the basis of pseudoscientific "cultural anthropology". But we can definitely infer some distinctions between different societies that allow us to estimate "how far along they are", at least in modern technological terms (which is often held to be a good indicator of the further development of human civilisation). Would you quibble with me if I stated that a jungle-dwelling animistic tribe was a less advanced civilisation *in technological terms* than an urban city-dwelling society? Because I think that's self-evident.

The distinction between nomadic tribes and agrarian societies is not as stark, but it's clear to me the latter is "further along" in the same sense.

 

[russ_watters]

Thanks for the article, interesting read! About the quote above, I always find it silly that something that was important for evolution 6 M years ago is being cited as a reason to eat meat in modern days.

I'm not seeing that at all in the excerpt or reviews of the book. What I'm seeing is excruciating background detail on how we got here, with no implication that that's a reason to continue on course and an author unwilling to give the often preferred one-word answer to the question.

 

[Pythagorean]

Would you quibble with me if I stated that a jungle-dwelling animistic tribe was a less advanced civilisation *in technological terms* than an urban city-dwelling society? Because I think that's self-evident.

In your cherry-picked example, sure, but you have to recognize you're cherry-picking. Particular nomadic peoples had advancements of their own that allow them to dominate geological regions. For example, consider the Mongols. Once you start adding qualifiers then it becomes a more reasonable claim. But making a generalization about a society just being overall "advanced" requires a careful analysis of what you actually mean by advanced.

Underlying all of this is the implication that eating vegetables is more advanced than (aka superior to) eating meat. Otherwise, then the discussion is completely irrelevant to this thread, no? So, intentional or not, it gives the impression of a snobby vegetarian stance.

 

[Monique]

I'm not seeing that at all in the excerpt or reviews of the book. What I'm seeing is excruciating background detail on how we got here, with no implication that that's a reason to continue on course and an author unwilling to give the often preferred one-word answer to the question.

I was questioning why Evo brings up that quote.

 

[Pythagorean]

I qualified that I meant "technologically advanced".

Your point about the Mongols is valid (although it's also cherry picked). But consider this: after an empire is established by fire and the sword comes a period of consolidation and stabilisation. That task fell to Genghis' grandson, Kublai Khan, who was actually very pro-agriculture, according to historians.

Source: http://asiasociety.org/countries/traditions/mongol-dynasty

Quote:
So Kublai Khan (who has been almost universally lauded as a great and fairly enlightened ruler for his time, and is even celebrated in Coleridge's verse) recognised the value of agriculture over the strictly nomadic lifestyle that is typical of Mongol culture.

I agreed with you about the SA article, but then you seemed to keep carrying it out, as if to give it validity, but only after you reframed it in favor of a particular lifestyle. I wasn't cherry picking, since I wasn't using a specific example to support a generalization. Cherry-picking is formally known as "proof by example", a logical fallacy. What I did was "proof by counterexample", rebutting your generalization (which only requires a single counter-example). I made no claim generalizing what kind of society was more advanced. I'm not arguing that nomadic people are more advanced based on the example of the Mongols.

 

[Evo]

Actually, I don't insist on any of what I said. I merely wanted to point out the fallacy inherent in the Scientific American article (that Evo quoted), which argues that the meat-eating lifestyle is evolutionarily linked to higher intelligence. I wanted to demonstrate that it's easy to argue the other way too, as I have.

You didn't demonstrate anything. Please post the peer reviewed studies that show that we would have evolved as we did without meat. It is widely accepted that meat was responsible for the changes that made us the way we are today.

So I am no more "snobby" than the author of that SA article. If you agree with him, my argument is a reasonable counterpoint. But if you (rightly) think he's full of it, feel free to assume that I am making a purely rhetorical point.

No, just because you say so doesn't work here, you need to actually post mainstream studies that show your personal theory has scientific backing.

You might wish to read this study, if it's too much, then specifically http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK53561/#ch1.s3 will show why adding meat changed us.

I was questioning why Evo brings up that quote.

Because it would help the Op to understand why our bodies developed to be omnivores. It makes no claims that we don't have modern means in some parts of the world to make a vegetarian diet completely adequate.