On Thu, 12 Oct 2000, Philip Thrift wrote:

> >That is, the more plant foods are available,
> >the less meat is eaten.  See
> >http://biology.uindy.edu/Biol345/LECTURE24/lecture24.htm, for
> >example.  This suggests that when HGs have a choice, they gather
> >more than they hunt.
>
> When I read this, it just seems say that plant eating increases
> when animal sources are more difficult to get. It still leaves the
> impression with me that if there were abundant hunting opportunity, or
> even if meat vs. plants were handed to them "on a plate",
> they would eat the meat first.

The point may be that animal foods are in general more difficult
to get, except in the higher latitudes where plant foods just
aren't available at all (or hardly so).  Langdon writes, for
example,

        Plant foods are more important in the diet than animal
        foods, except in high latitudes. Plant foods are more
        abundant and diverse and contribute the majority of bulk,
        calories, and nutrients to the diet.

He doesn't say, nor is it plausible to believe, that animals
are scarce in the lower latitudes.  And it's not a question of
what would be preferred at a buffet table.  Rather, it's about
getting food into hungry mouths every day and Langdon's point is
that in climates where both hunting and gathering are options,
gathering dominates the food supply.  He indeed states that "meat
is preferred," so we have to ask why, in regions where both meat
and plant foods are available, meat is not dominant in the diet.

The answer, I think, is the same as why some of my preferred
foods are not dominant in my diet.  I can't afford them.

Todd Moody
[log in to unmask]