Subject: | |
From: | |
Reply To: | |
Date: | Sun, 31 Oct 1999 07:30:38 -0500 |
Content-Type: | TEXT/PLAIN |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
On Sun, 31 Oct 1999, Hans Kylberg 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.
>
> People 10+ kya were at least as inventive as today. When there was
> a shortage of other food they of course investigated everything that
> was around to see if it could be used.
> Humans of all times have invented only what they need.
I'm not aware of any evidence that agriculture was the result of
a shortage of other food. And since there were plenty of plants
known to be edible, it would have made no sense at all to
cultivate inedible plants in response to a food shortage. But
agriculture supposedly started in the Fertile Crescent, an area
of supposed natural abundance. For hundreds of thousands of
years the customary response to a local food shortage was to move
to a better location. That is an immediate and effective
solution. Agriculture takes much time and planning. What you
plant today does not become food for a long while. In the case
of grains, it doesn't become food until you harvest it, thresh
it, and process it. I think this wouldn't make much sense to
people worried about running out of food here and now.
Todd Moody
[log in to unmask]
|
|
|