On Fri, 26 Jul 2002, Marilyn Harris wrote:

> I think that agriculture begat specialization of labour which then would
> have ensured agriculture's continued existence.

I agree. And it entailed the giving up of a way of life-- Once
people became farmers they forgot how to be anything else.

> I'm not convinced that early man would be affected in ways similar to that
> of the people of the Amazon cited in an earlier post. The comparison is not
> applicable since it was stated that the Amazonians ate junk food and not
> fresh, whole grains which would have been consumed by very early man.

We, like other primates, have the ability to deal with small
amounts of toxins and antinutrients.  These substances are
present in all primate diets.  But wild primates do not bombard
their systems with massive quantities of the same toxins and
antinutrients, day after day, decade after decade.  And I don't
think paleolithic humans did either.  This had to wait for
agriculture.

I think it's interesting that, as Don noted, signs of grain
harvesting go back to the Upper Paleolithic, the decline in
health and stature is a mark of the Neolithic.  This is enough to
show that it was not the mere presence of grains in the diet that
caused the decline, but something more.  My guess is that it was
the complete *inversion* of diet that did the dirty work, in
tandem with a number of non-dietary factors.

> Also, I consider stress an extremely important factor and it should be noted
> that there must be a huge difference in stress between our enormously
> complicated lives of today compared to the simple lifestyle of the early
> hunter gattherer?
>
> This difference must have a significant impact on digestion, growth and life?

Absolutely.  And the practice of primitive farming must have
presented immense stress, in addition to the dietary stress of
now having to live on large amounts of a few crops.

Todd Moody
[log in to unmask]