Craig Coonrad wrote:
> When I was in the north of Brazil during a blazing summer. People would
> concentrate most of their activities during early morning and evening
> (like other predators) to avoid the heat of the midday. It seems people do
> that everywhere in hot climes. In the U.S. air conditioning is ubiquitous.
> I doubt we would have such a heat aversion if we evolved to thrive in the
> midday sun.

Thet's true, also my observation.
However if we lived in a savannah, with few trees and lions all around
there might be few chances to come around except exploiting the time
when the lions are not there. They avoid the hot sun too and the
mornings and evenings are enough of time for them the make their living.
Then the question is who can last longer in the heat.
Between the cooler morning and evenings and the time when it's too hot
for all bigger mammals there will be a time free of predators.
When it's so hot that lions are gone but some creatures still could bear
the heat. We, not comfortable but surviving. It could be a deciding
ecological niche.
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).

If we now live in a very hot climate of course we prefer the cooler
hours as well. At last now it's not a risk of beeing eaten anymore, in
the morning.

> Also, given our cerebral cortex and opposable thumbs, I'm sure we picked
> up sticks and stones as defensive weapons pretty early on. So that
> co-mingling with other predators was of course dangerous but less so.

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.


 > We
> probably wouldn't have developed such a close relationship with the dog if
> we weren't out hunting at the same time and thinking "boy we could sure
> make a good team with those dogs, they chase down the prey and corner it,
> we come in with sticks and stones for the kill".

Well that's an explanation for the relationship with dogs.


> You addressed many of the points of my email accept the last one. That is
> we didn't become meat eaters because it tastes good. There is a reason.
> If all these children seem to grow up fine without lcFA, and they
> synthesize it themselves.

Actually they do grow up nicely, without other sources the must have
synthesized it themselves (plus the breastfeeding mother).
Children of vegans have brains just as big as inuit's.
Indian Jains (strict vegetarian) just like Thais (eating fish).
Non brain-eating americans just like vegetarians.
My vegetarian son at last managed to pass the general qualification for
university entrance. Whithout eating brain, even without eating meat or
fish. It looks as if it wasn't necessary.

 > Why is it that we would risk life and limb to
 > acquire meat?

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.

regards

Amadeus