The following thoughts were prompted by Ray Audette's posting of 12 April
concerning diet and life span.
LIFE EXPECTANCY
The life expectancy of a group or a nation is a statistical figure based
on past mortality records. The life expectancy figure has nothing to do
with nutrition, sanitation, medicine, or environment. Whether any of
these factors have anything to do with life expectancy is arguable. There
is no doubt that certain conditions would LOWER a person's life
expectancy, but on the other hand there is no evidence - at least that I
am aware of - that a particular diet (all other things being equal) will
determine a person's life span.
A study of history, especially recent history, seems to indicate that
other forces are at work. The increase in life expectancy among the
peoples of ghettos and of the Third World can not be explained on the
basis of sanitation or of diet. The same can be said of the population
growth experienced in early Medieval times and at the time of the
Industrial Revolution - certainly the most unsanitary of times. (I dread
to think that there are evolutionary fores working over which we have no
control :-( )
WHY LIFE SPAN IS IMPORTANT
Life span is important for several reasons:
1. A short life span affects population growth. If life expectancy is
very short, as it probably was among the Paleoindians, for example, it
could mean
a. That there could be an equilibrium between births and deaths, in a
word, a stable population.
b. That there could also be an equilibrium between the group and the
available food resources.
c. That "family" would probably not exist because the necessity to
reproduce could not be dependent on individual initiative. I would
wonder, too, especially at that stage of our development, and in
particular in cold climates, whether the sexual function was still
periodic in nature.
2. A long(er) life expectancy would naturally lead to an increase in
population and thus population pressures:
a. There eventually could be an imbalance between population and food
supply. This usually has led to part of the group splitting off.
b. Social and political behavior in a larger population would develop
along entirely different lines.
It can be argued that over-population of groups is what led to the
eventual populating of the hemisphere.
DIET
In Linguistics, the statement used to be made that all languages were
sufficient unto themselves. I wonder if the same thing couldn't be said
of all "natural" diets. The diets of all the people we know, or know
about, seems to have been adequate to the daily tasks they had to
perform. This, unless I'm mistaken, would hold for peoples in all
climates and in all situations - except when faced with famine
conditions. It is almost as if having something to eat is more important
than what is eaten (which may be a heretical statement :-))
TWO CENTS WORTH OF OPINION
The subject of life expectancy has received very little attention from
the various disciplines studying our evolution. It has received a good
deal of attention in recent years because of the population explosion. It
is a sad commentary on the mentality of our times that what should be
looked upon as a wonderful development and a blessing has been twisted
into a condemnation of the same peoples who have been so thoroughly
victimized for the past six or seven hundred years. After all, an
increase in life expectancy should be looked upon with joy, as it should
enable people to devote more of their life-time to the development and
exploration of those skills, talents and meditations which could give a
life a meaning beyond the humdrum round of sleep and labor. It is clearly
insinuated that the peoples of the Third World should stop procreating at
the present rate: a classic example of blaming the victim.
robert [log in to unmask]
|
