Content-Type: |
TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII |
Sender: |
|
Subject: |
|
From: |
|
Date: |
Sun, 31 Oct 1999 07:34:59 -0500 |
In-Reply-To: |
<001801bf2386$35796040$6d61868b@ben> |
MIME-Version: |
1.0 |
Reply-To: |
|
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
On Sun, 31 Oct 1999, Ben Balzer wrote:
> > >And consider. If humans themselves never ate wild grains, why
> > >would they go to the trouble of domesticating and cultivating the
> > >things? Why would they choose an inedible food as a crop? There
> > >is a paradox here.
> >
> No paradox. Grains have some excellent qualities- they store without a
> refrigerator, are energy dense (more calories per pound if you're on the
> move), high yields, have a short life cycle- so if you move on, you can
> start farming them the immediate next season cf fruit trees take years.
> Sounds too good to be true- only problem is if you want to live past 45 in
> good health.
Paradox remains. None of this would be evident or relevant to
hunter-gatherers who were not already in the habit of eating
grains.
Todd Moody
[log in to unmask]
|
|
|