> On Thu, 02 Jul 2009 10:21:27 -0500, <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>> No, this isn't right.  The generally accepted view is that during a
>> cycle
>> of global cooling, the tropical forests shrank, and some apes or apelike
>> hominids living near the fringe of the forest were forced out into the
>> grasslands, and had to make a living there.  *They*, not the ones who
>> stayed in the forests, became our ancestors.
>
> Interesting.  (I knew we came from the forest, but didn't realize we were
> forced out.)  Before being forced out, though, my comment still seems
> valid.  (Of course I guess it just depends how far back you want to go.
> You could argue most anything if you go back far enough.)

That's right, but if you go that far back you're no longer talking about
the factors that turned us into the species that we are.  We have a common
ancestor with modern chimpanzees, and that ancestor probably lived in the
forests 5 million years ago.  So for quite a while, our ancestors were
just a different kind of forest-dwelling ape, living much as other apes
live.  Leaving the forest and having to make a living in a fundamentally
different way is really where *our* story begins.

>> In our world, where fruit and its
>> metabolic cognates (sugary foods and refined carbs) are constantly
>> available in overwhelming abundance and at low cost, it doesn't work so
>> well.
>
> By "low cost", I presume you mean in the sense of the energy we must
> expend to get it?  If we had to burn 90 calories climbing a tree to get a
> 100 calorie apple (or snickers bar or whatever), it might be different.
> (I have no idea how many calories it takes to climb a tree, it's just an
> example.)

I mean money, but money is a surrogate for energy, so yes.  In our world,
sugars and high-carb foods are not just *available*, they are virtually
forced upon us at every turn.  This is *not* the nutritional environment
that we are adapted to.  We may be descended from apes, but we're *not*
apes.

Todd Moody