Sender: |
|
Date: |
Mon, 26 Feb 2007 10:32:52 -0500 |
Reply-To: |
|
Subject: |
|
MIME-Version: |
1.0 |
Content-Transfer-Encoding: |
7bit |
In-Reply-To: |
<op.tobs0sdsi9dzqs@localhost> |
Content-Type: |
text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" |
From: |
|
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
William:
> Sent: Sunday, February 25, 2007 5:35 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: No Neolithic Mortality Increase After All?
>
> On Sun, 25 Feb 2007 12:25:52 -0500, Paleo Phil <[log in to unmask]>
> wrote:
>
> While I was disappointed to learn
> > recently that the decrease in lifespan with the dawn of the Neolithic
> was
> > rather small
>
> I disagree with the postulated germ theory as a cause of population
> control...
I agree with you that disease does not seem like a strong explanation for
the lack of major population growth during the Paleolithic era, though I was
unaware that STI's had been discovered as being prevalent among !Kung, which
challenges the diet, breastfeeding and exercise reasons posed by Paleo diet
advocates for 4-year spacing between hunter-gatherer births. However, my
guess is that other HG groups also have 4-year birth spacing despite lack of
STI's, but I don't have data on that at hand.
> Cannot agree that there was only a small decrease in lifespan with the
> invention of farming.
The data I had seen on this a few months ago was from a post in this forum
that cited Lawrence Angel's data:
http://www.beyondveg.com/nicholson-w/angel-1984/angel-1984-1a.shtml. While
the decrease in lifespan was significant, it was not as dramatic as I had
expected, based on what had been written about it. Instead of a decrease of
2.3 years in men and 0.8 in women, I guess I was expecting something more
like 5 years or so in both sexes.
|
|
|