On Thu, 26 Jun 2003 17:22:21 -0700, Craig Coonrad <[log in to unmask]>
wrote:

>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. ...

Our *intelligence* (not necessarily brain size) contributes to our defense
(and much more to our versatility). Ok, that's one reason and advantage of
intelligence, which is, say supported by a bigger brain.
That doesn't mean that the brain didn't evolve quite big for other reasons
in the first place. And dominated later for other reasons.

For example early hominids had shoulders which supported climbing trees.
Also a good defense against striving predators. If some trees were there.
At a certain point that changed (I think this is mentioned in the other
Wrangham article). Maybe bacause of less trees.
Maybe because now fire was the night-time protection.
What else? In the night defense with a wooden spear agains lions should be
much more difficult.

>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).

Ok, thats a scenario I could imagine as successful (for defending but not so
for walking around gathering).

Still it would be of advantage to walk around on smaller groups and without
the threat of lion. An evolutionary advantage to be able to stand bigger
heat thatn lions.
Gathering should be easier when walking around in smaller groups than a
soccer team.
Where are the females and children? Might take even bigger groups.
There's a limit in group size for huntergatherers.
One hg needs a quite bit area to survive on.

>The greenlanders routinely risked their lives hunting seals from small
>kayaks in a frigid ocean....

I also thought of that scene as one of the most dangerous for huntergatherers.
But no human (ar animal too) would risk it's life with a probability that
one would die before the time of reproduction.
If you'd be living on cave bears for example. Then one bear would nourish a
hunting group for say 5 days. If the risk to be killed would be big - for
example 1:100 per hunt - then after 100 hunts you would probably be dead.
100 hunts * 5 days means a life expectation of 500 days about 1.5 years.
No society could afford that - it would die out quickly.
Either they didn't hunt so much.
Or only the older ones hunted (which had reproduced and secured their
offspring).
Or the risk is much much lower.
I consider points 1 and 3 to be realistic.

>So once again I ask for an explanation of why we would take the risks and
>expend the energy required to acquire meat?

To extend the ecological niche, the basis of nourishment.

>I won't even bring up the fact
>that we have binocular vision and canine incisors.

Just bring it up. I like such details.
I think our incisors are much less dangerous than incisors of chimps even.
They develped smaller when in the genesis of homo.

Binocular vision - you consider it handy for hunting?
If it would be somewhat deciding, than real predators should have it.
But lions and wolfes have quite limited binocular vision.
For them a wide-angle vision seems more advantageous.

Binocular vision *is* deciding if you try to climb around in trees-
and reach out to fruit. That's why primates have it well developed. (IMO)
The ability to see colours good is an adaption the coloured fruit as well.

regards

Amadeus