On Fri, 27 Jun 2003, Amadeus Schmidt wrote:

> One explanation why a big brain has advantages without the demand of
> increased intellectual heights. Then, much later (100k or 40k y ago) the
> big brain prooved advantageous for more storage and processing (instead
> of just redundancy).

Highly unlikely because as I mentioned earlier our brain (and opposable
thumbs) is our defense mechanism. Without our handiness and wit, we'd be
nothing but a naked piece of meat waiting to be munched on. It is our
brain that gave us the ability to mimic the defense mechanisms found in
nature and hence protect ourselves and survive.

> As a tiny australopithecus - who evolved into bigger homo erectus 1.9
> mio years ago - the onset of ice ages and developement of savannah out
> of rainforest... well as such a tiny creature equipped with only some
> stones and sticks.. I would prefer not to meet a hungry lion on the open
> field. Even not today, as a full grown human.

You and ten of your paleo buddies encounter a lion. You immediately form a
circle with your backs inward and 15 foot long spears facing outward
(symbolic porcupine).

Today when modern people travel in lion country they are usually packed
inside of an exoskeleton like a toyota landcruiser (symbolic turtle).

Today as in paleo times, it is unikely that the human species would
travel alone and unarmed under the threat of predation.

The modern urbanized backpacker will often travel unarmed in grizzly
country where they are infrequently harvested by grizzlies. Most Alaskans
(where bears are thicker) don't take that risk though and usually pack
some sort of firearm. When two backpackers from Los Angelas were attacked
by a grizzly in Glacier National Park, they sued the park service! So I
guess you could say that the lawsuit is the defense mechanism of Homo
Urbanis.

> Do we? Did we? Does anybody? except when in direct threat of starving?
> To invest much time and energy - ok. time and energy is plenty for humans.
> Those huntergatherers, say !Kung. They shoot an poisoned arrow at a
> gazelle and just collect it a few hours later.
> Inuit? Even they don't fight with icebears. They kill them with bone
> traps in food. And wait.
>
> I think we don't and didn't.

I wasn't implying that the danger involved in acquiring meat involved
heroic fights to the death with large predators. It's more the mundane
things like recovering a wounded deer and taking an antler in the face, or
running through the forest and breaking your leg while trying to keep an
eye on your prey.

Nature seems to be very efficient when it comes to the conservation of
energy. I can't see why our energies would be conentrated on hunting
unless there was a very specific reward involved like good nutrition.

The greenlanders routinely risked their lives hunting seals from small
kayaks in a frigid ocean. The Makah tribe here in the NW hunted whales
from canoes. If they could have just stayed on the land eating tubers I'm
sure they would have. It can't be argued that they hunted these creatures
under the threat of starvation because the Pacific NW is rife with plant
life, berries, mushrooms. In hard times, the Indians of the Pacific NW
didn't eat meat (it they had meat it wouldn't be "hard times") they ate
the bark of the Western Red Cedar.

So once again I ask for an explanation of why we would take the risks and
expend the energy required to acquire meat? I won't even bring up the fact
that we have binocular vision and canine incisors.

Craig