On Fri, 18 Sep 1998, Hans Kylberg wrote:

> Among anthropologists there is used a differentiation between two types
> of h/g subsistence: immediate-return and delayed-return. The former one
> means that You use the food You collect directly, the other means that
> You work in advance for getting food later (f ex build fish traps, or
> storing food such as seeds or dry fish for a long time .
> In an immediate-return system You would not bother with food that needs
> a lot complicated preparing I guess, but stick to what is edible at once.
> There is no real consensus of wich type is the original. My _guess_ is
> immediate-return.

It seems like a good guess to me.  As a general thing, we tend to
prefer instant gratification to delayed gratification.  When we
can choose between the two, I think we probably choose immediate
return.

But sometimes the choice may be forced.  Clearly humans *have*
exploited delayed-return resources.  Agriculture is a clear
example.  I don't see why immediate-return and delayed-return
resources would not have been used at the same time, however.
The modest delays involved in sprouting beans or soaking them are
comparable to the delays that dogs accept in burying meat to be
eaten later when it is ripe.

As far as paleodiet is concerned, I guess my main point is that I
don't yet see any reason to suppose that foods that involve a
modest delayed return have not been part of the human food supply
for a very long time.  I imagine paleolithic humans to have been
very keen observers and very inquisitive.  As soon as someone
*noticed* that, for example, soggy lentils could be eaten, I
suspect that soggy lentils were eaten.  I would not argue that
people lived on them as a mainstay, but it seems reasonable to
believe that like various fruits, nuts, and berries, they were
eaten when available, i.e., seasonally and intermittently.

Todd Moody
[log in to unmask]