In a message dated Sun, 31 Oct 1999  7:35:33 AM Eastern Standard Time, Todd Moody <[log in to unmask]> writes:

> 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]

..I'm at the tail end of this issue, but seems to me the addictive quality of starch would have been reason enough to keep cultivating it...I, for one, only need a few bites of the stuff and I'm hunting it for the rest of the day....no pun....besides the sweet flavor...the stuff makes us feel good...but like y'all said...only for a while...poor man's heroin...

Just a thought.

Anna 8-)