On Sun, 4 Jul 2004 09:35:06 -0700, Ken Stuart <[log in to unmask]>
wrote:

... a few "shoot from the hip" comments - true to his usual form; if you
search the archives - Ken enjoys putting people down and dismissing their
ideas from his uniquely well-informed position.  It must be fantastic to
be like Ken and have his degree of certainty about his rightness and the
inability of others to meet the standards he sets for them.

Any apparent vulnerabilities in the quotations, Ken, are bound to be due
to MY selection of the quotations - out of context - rather than lack of
care or intellectual rigour in The Biology of Civilization.

>In my experience, it's been a long time since anyone wrote a book
>where they did not write the conclusions first, and then base their
>premises and "evidence" to fit the conclusions.
>
>No one these days seems to understand that it is far better for us in
>the long run to know how things really are, and then base our world
>view on that.   Instead, everyone seems to (arbitrarily) choose a
>world view, and then cheer for it as if it were a football team.

This appears to be a negative criticism by Ken of a book he hasn't read,
so not worth responding to.

I spent a delightful and inspiring couple of hours re-reading The Biology
of Civilization over the weekend, while waiting for that jerky to dry.
The book more than withstands Ken's hasty comments and gives me great hope
for the future.

This book bridges the gaps between our paleolithic past and the technocene
present, drawing in not only the changes in food, patterns of pathologies
and human behaviours, but tying them in neatly to anthropogenic changes to
the biosphere.  The inspiring thing in that the author, after covering
this - and more - in an integrated way, has a solution for the HEALTHY
survival of the human species.  For some, his may seem to be a foredoomed
Enlightenment project, but to me it offers a practical solution if we are
not to face catastrophe for our species by 2040 - 2050.

Incidentally, although Ken appears to have evidence that "there is
certainly no greater boredom in modern obese societies that there was
100,000 BC...", this flies in the face of research done over the part 20
years on the rise of boredom. Ken, look more carefully into the rise of
the concept since the mid-18th century and what there was before then - in
both English and the other main European languages.

Another neat thing about The Biology of Civilization is that it offers a
number of principles by which to judge which foods, behaviours,
technologies etc. are likely to lead to human and planetary health and
well-being and which will not.  A bold endeavour, but one that may appeal
to many of the people who post to this list asking if such-and-such a food
is permissible.

Keith