On Sun, 31 Oct 1999, Hans Kylberg 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.
>
> People 10+ kya were at least as inventive as today. When there was
> a shortage of other food they of course investigated everything that
> was around to see if it could be used.
> Humans of all times have invented only what they need.

I'm not aware of any evidence that agriculture was the result of
a shortage of other food.  And since there were plenty of plants
known to be edible, it would have made no sense at all to
cultivate inedible plants in response to a food shortage.  But
agriculture supposedly started in the Fertile Crescent, an area
of supposed natural abundance.  For hundreds of thousands of
years the customary response to a local food shortage was to move
to a better location.  That is an immediate and effective
solution.  Agriculture takes much time and planning.  What you
plant today does not become food for a long while.  In the case
of grains, it doesn't become food until you harvest it, thresh
it, and process it.  I think this wouldn't make much sense to
people worried about running out of food here and now.

Todd Moody
[log in to unmask]