At 06:15 PM 3/17/01 -0600, Dori wrote:

>> To me, the concept has always been what we should eat is that which can be
>eaten without technology.
>

I don't disagree with this.  And I haven't disagreed with any discussion of
present day hunter-gathers, etc.  I think there is much to learn from
them--especially in light of the fact that we can only make a lot of
educated guesses about stuff that went on 2.5 million years ago and our
conditions are significantly different even if we had a paleolithic diet
sheet carved in stone with exact measurements...

I do disagree with using the anthropological term "paloelithic" to describe
a modern group of people, especially when talking about things like
biological evolution.  The adaptations of a relatively small group of
people to their environment really only applies to that group.  If you
start citing the adaptations of a particular group as being applicable to
everyone, then there is nothing remotely edible that wouldn't be just fine
for everyone, and we know that's not true.

Perhaps I've read the books and the archives of this list incorrectly, but
I was under the impression that the idea was that combining what we know
and what we can infer about life in [lower] paleolithic times, we establish
the baseline.  From there, we try to apply and adjust as necessary.  The
"naked with a sharp stick" seems to me to be a loose guideline for figuring
out what's probably as close as we can get in our day and age.

Obviously, I'm not making myself clear and sorry if I've pissed anyone off.
 Call it an occupational hazard, but I've made my living for quite a few
years trying to sort out the confusion folks get into by using technical
terms in a sloppy manner... so while I'm pretty laid back about most
things, red flags do pop up when I see a potential pitfall in muddled
terminology :)

Equally obviously, I'm the only one that sees this is a point of confusion,
so I'll just drop it...

Dianne