---
Don Matesz <[log in to unmask]>
Response to:
>Thu, 5 Aug 1999 16:46:28 -0600
>From: Richard Keene <[log in to unmask]>
>Subject: Re: Population, Breastfeeding, Reproduction, etc.
>
>
>The only point I was making is that the over-reproduction
>by people that can not afford to support the children
>is not caused by an agricultural diet.
Yes sir. Just how do you know that? What makes you so sure that diet is
not the cause? How do you explain the fact that before agriculture, the
rate of populaton growth was only one-one thousandth of one percent per
year, that it jumped one hundred fold to .1 percent per year with the
adoption of agriculture, that it tripled with the Industrial revolution
which increased available carbohydrates (refining), and that it has
increased to 2 percent per year with the "green" revolution (increased grain
crop yields). That means the rate of population growth since Paleo times
has increased 2 thousand fold. Yet the rate of growth among HGs remains
like that of Paleo times.
The fact is, high carb diets increase fatness and hence estrogen levels,
which lengthens reproductive lifetime by promoting early age of menarche and
late age of menopause, whihc increases the fertility of human poulations.
But even if we lay all of this aside, there is the basic biological law, if
you increase the amount of food energy (calories) available to any animal
population, the population will grow, and if you reduce the food supply, the
population will shrink. Babies just aren't made out of thin air--they are
made of food. Agriculture increases the supply of food, so it naturally
increases the population.
>It is caused by lack of impulse control, lack of money to buy
>simple birth control devices, lack of education about
>birth control, and lack of motivation to limit
>family size, and in some cases, social or religious coercion
>to have large families.
Lack of impulse control is a big part of it, and that is a factor heavily
influenced by diet. Why do you think the suitor brings his lovely a box of
chocolates? Surely you are aware that ingestion of alcohol reduces impulse
control. Alcohol is a carbohydrate product. It alters balance of
neurotransmitters, specifically it depletes serotonin, resulting in lack of
impulse control, increased propensity to depression and violence. This is
scientific fact. It is also scientific fact that other components of diet
alter serotonin and other neurotransmitter levels. Serotonin is derived
from tryptophan, an essential amino acid found in abudance in animal
protein, but scarce in vegetable proteins. DHA, an EFA found only in animal
fats and phytoplankton (who eats much of that?), is essential component of
the brain and regulates serotonin. Trials with low cholesterol diets ahve
found increased rates of depression, suicide, and violent death--due to
reduced serotonin levels. Plus, a high carb diet alters intestinal flora to
favor those that ferment carbohdyrate--and what is the result of fermenting
carbohdyrate? Alcohol. So a vegetarian or near vegetarian diet slowly
depletes serotonin, which leads to lack of impulse control. That's why
many long time vegetarians become depressed and easy to fly off the
handle--and I believe that this all explains why, compared to HGs,
agriculturalists lack sexual self-control.
>Yes, diet plays a role in reproductive rate, but that is not
>the problem. The problem is dumb choices.
The dumbest of the dumb choices is the grain-based diet, because people make
more dumb choices when living under the influence of grain--just as they
make dumb choices when under the influence of alcohol.
>To classify Christianity as a simple evolutionary offshoot
>of the invention of agriculture is a gross missunderstanding
>of Christianity. Religions were not "invented" by people
>(at least not most of them) but were given by God.
If Christianity is not an offshoot of agriculture, why was it never found
among any non-agricultural people? Certainly all modern religions are
descended from early HG beliefs. However, agricultural religions ,
including Hinduism, Buddhism, Islam, and the many variants of Christianity,
all have one thing in common: They all state that man needs "salvation".
That is the mark of agricultural religion. Non-agricultural religions do
not have the belief that man must be saved. Why the difference?
Here it is. So long as man lived as he was designed by Nature, by hunting
and gathering, he never felt as if he did not fit. Therefore, he never
needed salvation or saviors. However, man is not suited to agricultural
life in high density populations, i.e. "civilization". In such
circumstances, he tends to become "not-nice", because the diet and lifestyle
conflict with his Nature and cause distress. So the religions state that
man is "not-nice" because he is "fallen" and needs "salvation" and a
"savior". They state that civilization is right, its just that man is
wrong, man is not OK, man needs to be fixed.
Now, suppose that you try on a pair of shoes and the shoes are too small.
Do you say "Those damn feet, they're the wrong size. They need to be fixed.
Let's cut them down to size, so they fit in these shoes." Everyone would
think you are nuts if you did that. Yet for 10, 000 years man has been
trying to cut himself down to the size required for agricultural life,
constantly berating himself for being "not-nice" enough, telling himself
that he is "flawed" or beset with "original sin", pining to God to send him
a savior. THE PROBLEM IS WITH THE SHOE, NOT THE FOOT!
Judaism is a bit different than other modern religions in that it is closer
to its HG roots. If you go back to the Old Testament and read the story of
Cain and Abel, you will see a story of how the tiller of the soil killed the
keeper of sheep. It clearly tells that Cain was cursed because he embraced
agriculture and wished to force it upon everyone else. That story is told
from the perspective of the keeper of the sheep, i.e. the nomadic
hunter-turned-herder. Abel saw Cain as one who had broken the Law by eating
from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil; Cain was motivated by the idea
that he had the right to choose who should live (good) and who should die
(evil).
The herders (Abel) who were attacked by the agriculturalists (Cain) were the
Semites--the ancestors of the Hebrews. I have no doubt that Hebrew law was
originally the law of Abel, the non-agricultural Semites. (For more
detailed look at this, read Daniel Quinn's ISHMAEL.) That is why Hebrew law
has so many Man-and-Earth friendly laws, such as those regarding sexual
continence mentioned by Midas Gold in a recent post. However, over time
Judaism was polluted by various agricultural beleifs--the beliefs of
Cain--eventually producing Christianity, Islam, and who-knows-what else to
come.
BTW, all religions were invented by people.
Don
|
