On Wed, 1 Sep 1999, alexs wrote:

> >    Since milk is in the stomach of young animals, and many HGs eat
> >    the stomach contents of their prey, it follows that dairy, in
> >    this form at least, has been available to humans for a long time.
> >    I've yet to see an argument that they *didn't* eat it.
>
> One of the tenets of logic is that one can never prove that something
> did not occur; rather one must use specific evidence to support an
> hypothesis about something that did.

That is false.  For example, if we can prove that tomatoes, prior
to Columbus, existed only in the Americas, and that our
paleolithic ancestors were not in the Americas, we have adequate
proof that our paleolithic ancestors did not eat tomatoes.

And if you have been paying attention at all to the logic of
paleodiet implementations such as Neanderthin, you will have
noticed that arguments that purport to show what paleolithic
people *did not eat* are absolutely fundamental to it.

Why, for example, are grains "forbidden fruit"?  The reason given
is that our paleolithic ancestors didn't eat grains.  Whatever
its merits, that *is* the argument.  Do you reject it because it
violates your alleged "tenet of logic"?

Do you have specific evidence to show that our paleolithic
ancestors ate strawberries?  I think you don't.  Do you consider
them paleo?  If so, why?  The answer is that they are considered
acceptable because (a) they *could* have been eaten; and (b) they
probably *would* have been eaten, where available.

If you wish to limit the paleo diet to only those foods for which
we have specific positive evidence then you are proposing a diet
much more restrictive than Neanderthin or any other paleo
implementation that I have heard about.  Is that what you
propose?

> And dairy from the stomaches of prehistoric animals is not available
> to anyone today, HG or not.

No one denies that there are significant differences between the
foods -- all sorts of foods -- available to us today and those
that our paleolithic ancestors ate.

> >    How many calories' worth of oregano do you suppose HGs ate in the
> >    course of a year?  How much dill weed?  Indeed, why would they
> >    bother gathering these things at all, given their extremely low
> >    caloric density?
>
> Because they might have liked the flavor, and most herbs are harmless...
> unlike dairy, which is not harmless in quantity or when eaten regularly.
> There is plenty of evidence for this if one cares to investigate.

Fine, but then you are proposing a different set of criteria for
determining which foods belong in the diet.  Your beliefs that
herbs are harmless and dairy is not are based on information
irrelevant to the dietary choices of paleolithic people.

My point is that dairy, in the form of fermented stomach contents
of young animals, was as available to paleolithic
hunter-gatherers as spice herbs were.  The basic principle of
paleodiet is to eat only those foods that were available to our
paleolithic ancestors.  If you take that principle seriously then
you must conclude that it allows dairy, fermented at least, and
excludes tomatoes.  If you wish to override that principle with
what you take to be the results of modern research, then you are
doing something different.

> >    So, while I grant that adult human exposure to dairy was probably
> >    intermittent, not constant,
>
> ...coinciding in nature with the spring birthing and lactation season
> of the animal in question. Excluding the manufacture and storage of
> curds/cheese, there is no way dairy could have been eaten year-round.
> But then that's the product of an agricultural/industrial activity and
> therefore not Paleo.

The seasonal nature of the availability of dairy is comparable to
the seasonal availability of fruits, nuts, eggs of certain
species, some fish, and many other foods.  Do you propose that
only those foods that were available to our paleolithic ancestors
year-round are acceptable?  Again, that's a considerably more
restrictive diet than Neanderthin or any other implementation
that I have heard about.

> No. Dairy is different, especially in the light of biochemical findings
> about its unsuitability as a long-term human food source.

Perhaps so.  But then we must question the principle that what
was available to our paleolithic ancestors is okay for us.  What
shall we do with the fact that the majority of studies still
correlate meat consumption with colon cancer?  Do you accept as a
general principle that scientific findings override
considerations of paleolithic availability?

> >    > Milk-drinking is the pinnacle of neoteny.
> >
> >    Perhaps.  Have we declared war on neoteny?
>
> In a sense, because adherence to an such an infantile food source,
> especially one that is demonstrably unhealthful, can only be sustained
> through Neolithic technology. And one could make the case that another's
> irrational defense of adult dairy consumption, paleolithic or not,
> in the light of modern evidence against it and zero archeological
> evidence as well, smacks of infantilism/neoteny itself.

Maybe.  Perhaps you should go ahead and make the case, and then
we can see if it has merit.  It might be more productive to do a
better job showing that the defense is irrational.  Your
arguments so far have not done so.

Todd Moody
[log in to unmask]