Content-Type: |
text/plain; format=flowed; delsp=yes; charset=utf-8 |
Date: |
Sun, 18 Mar 2007 21:45:53 -0500 |
Reply-To: |
|
Subject: |
|
From: |
|
Content-Transfer-Encoding: |
7bit |
In-Reply-To: |
<000301c7698c$6b886fb0$42994f10$@fm> |
MIME-Version: |
1.0 |
Sender: |
|
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
On Sun, 18 Mar 2007 13:37:00 -0500, Paleo Phil <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> Robert Kesterson:
>> If you believe that evolution works (which is the whole premise for
>> this diet), then the fact that we are here and primitive man is not must
>> mean that we were superior in some way.
>
> This is the same sort of rationale that led Europeans to determine that
> they were "superior" to American Indians, Africans, and other peoples
> they
> conquered.
I certainly didn't mean it that way, and apologize if I offended anyone by
it.
> The fact that there are many more modern people today than primitiveonly
> means that agricultural populations outbred hunter-gatherer populations,
> decimated HG populations with the epidemics that result from agriculture
> and cities, and slaughtered many of the HG survivors.
Aside from the slaughter part (which I certainly don't condone),
"out-breed and out-live" *is* how evolution works.
> Jared Diamond, Daniel Quinn, Loren Cordain and others make a strong case
> that rather than being seen as "superior," modern civilization and modern
> people have experienced some downsides from abandoning the
> hunter-gatherer way of life.
Oh, I agree wholeheartedly. I just mean that the notion that primitive
man was "superior in every way" was just a bit much.
--
Robert Kesterson
[log in to unmask]
|
|
|