Lisa Sporleder wrote:

>There is one other thing not taken into account in the "4% meat" tally of the australopithicus
>diet:  insects.  Most primates eat a lot of them, and they sure don't qualify as fruits or
>vegetables!  I don't have any faith in that 4% figure.
>
>

I'm sure that would add to the non-plant total somewhat, but I have no
idea how much.  Insects wouldn't be counted as "meat" anyway, and for
the purposes of the Sussman/Hart thesis would be irrelevant.  The 4%
figure is for modern chimps, not Australopithecus.  Australopithecus
was, in my opinion, probably higher, precisely because they *were*
"edge" dwellers.  But I'm willing to grant that they didn't eat a lot of
meat; I think they fit at the beginning of the "hunting ape" curve.

There are so many things wrong with that Sussman/Hart idea that it's
disturbing.  For example, they claim to reject the notion that our ape
predecessors had the "killer instinct" for hunting, claiming instead
that social complexity was needed to avoid predators.  Well, even though
modern chimps only get 4% of their food as meat, they spend 38% of their
foraging time getting it!  And their favorite prey are small monkeys and
rodents, which they readily kill, crack open heads, etc.  That shows a
willlingness to kill and an eagerness to get that kind of food.  Sussman
and Hart offer no reason to suppose that Australopithecus were *less*
interested in meat than modern chimps.  It's certainly true that as
primates moved from the forest to the edges and thence to the savannas,
they had to cope with more predators, particularly the big cats.  And
they had to compete with hyenas for scavenging.  But all signs indicate
that they were successful in these enterprises.

Even today, tropical hunter-gatherers eat less meat than
hunter-gatherers in other climes do.  That's because they can get away
with that, living in regions where plant foods are relatively abundant
year round.  But the tropical forest is *not* where the transition from
ape to hominid to human took place.

It's interesting that Sussman and Hart mention the small teeth of
Australopithecus, but don't mention the rather large teeth of modern
gorillas, the species of great apes that is closest to being
vegetarian.  Gorillas don't need much in the way of tools; they eat
mainly foliage, which they just grab and stuff in their mouths.  But
they need to do a *lot* of chewing in the course of a day.

Oh well, what's the use?  The image of the peaceful, timid, near-vegan
hominid is just another version of Rousseau's "noble savage"
fantasy--another invention of Eden.

Todd Moody
[log in to unmask]