On Wed, 23 Nov 2005 09:11Thomas Bridgeland wrote:

>On Wednesday, November 23, 2005, at 04:51  AM, [log in to unmask] wrote:
>
>> Rosedale also raises an interesting question about being blindly paleo
>> in eating.  He argues that from an evolutionary (i.e., reproductive)
>> standpoint, the diet that would thrive would not be a diet that
>> fosters longevity because there is no evolutionary reason for humans
>> to live beyond the point that they can reproduce!  Thus, what would be
>> favored would be a diet that supports vigorous competing for the
>> availability of reproduction rather than for longevity.
>>
>> Any thoughts?
>
>Not strictly true, according to the 'grandma hypothesis', which is that
>old folks help their grandkids survive by babysitting, passing along
>folk wisdom and the like. But mainly true in my opinion. Once we are
>past reproductive age it is simply a countdown till something important
>breaks. That is where calorie reduction comes in, slowing the pace of
>breakdown.

It's easy to extrapolate from the (very reasonable) grandmother hypothesis to an "old man
hypothesis", too: that older men would have the knowledge gained over many years of where
water was found in a drought, on which other tribes could be relied upon in a crisis, how to
survive an unusually harsh winter, which putrefying meat was edible etc.

But Johneley raises another question which Rosedale apparently cannot comes to grips with: why
is longevity (beyond, say, 45 years) regarded as the prime criterion of good health? Our
contemporary culture has created the fantasy that eternal life is the default condition and so treats
death as a disaster, rather than what it really is: something exactly as natural as birth. We load one
up as a negative event and the other as a positive. In fact they are neither - they just happen. Our
civilization is obsessed with finding out the "secret" of old people's longevity and of extending the
lives of decrepit human bodies clearly past their use-by date. There is a cultural meme about
longevity which some people find it repulsive even to think about, let alone to question.

I'm 56 now and hope I have a few more decades left in me. But once I cease being of net positive
utility to the survival of my family and my community, then there is not much to be said in favour
of my living beyond that point - I'd be better off as fertilizer in the garden, where I know I could
do some good.

We turn to age because it's easy to measure - like body weight or blood test results. Gimme the
numbers! But I reckon the things that are far harder to measure are more significant than those we
can readily put a number to.

What has this to do with Paleofood, I hear Don asking. Simply this. Just because a particular food
promotes long life, do not assume - for that reason alone - it would necessarily have had a
positive impact on the survival of our species when a natural selection process or event was
encountered.

So, in Palaeolithic as well as present times, the purpose of an older person living one day was NOT
to live on again the next day. It was to contribute - directly or indirectly - to the well-being of the
coming generation. And if individuals were not doing this (then as now), time to shuffle off!

Keith