gts:

>The paleolithic diet is sound for reasons of evolutionary biology and it is
>certainly interesting and enlightening to immerse onself in some of the
>habits and trappings of paleo life. That is however as far as it goes, at
>least for me. I think anyone who would actually prefer a real paleolithic
>lifestyle over this one needs to have his head examined.  :)

LOL.

Gordon brings up a point which will not be appreciated here but is
important nonetheless: the overwhelming tendency to romanticize
hunter-gatherer life (and by extension, esp for instinctos, wild animal
life). Whether this tendancy is simply a fad romance for relatively
unfulfilled people (no doubt because they are stuck in modern times instead
of Neanderthal, eat-them-CroMagnonbrains-get osteoperosous, times ;)) or
because there is some sort of spinal-cord-new-age calling to
get-back-to-basics, I can't say, but perhaps it is as simple as some folks
needing to feel _special_. Who knows?

The number of people born in my lifetime who have returned to a
hunter-gatherer lifestyle is zero, as far as I know. I have heard of a
group (not the Kool-Aide fellow) who started a substinance tribe in French
Guiana (sp?) several years ago but it broke up because the members missed
Paris. ;) And then there is the fellow who supposedly lived the life of a
wild primate (orang?) in SE Asia for several months. He survived, and
welcomed his return to civilization, from what I understand. Living proof
of evolution (as quoted from "Strange Brew"), no?

>[log in to unmask]:

>  Oh great, another flame!

Flame? If that was a flame, you have a tendency to blowtorch. ;)

>Lets see who did their homework. At least we know
>art goes back at least 100000 years. That's around 10 times longer than
>crops.

Art as a definition may go back 100,000 years if you tweak the
anthropology, but the consensus is 30-40,000 years ago, about the time that
Neanderthal supposedly went bust completely. If you have done your
homework, [log in to unmask], I am a room monitor. ;)

>On second thought, we only have so many postings a day on this list,
>and getting into an argument with this type of post, only limits our ability
>to answer pertinent questions, based on science.

Science?!? The pertinent question of whether h-g life is tremendously
romanticized by paleofolk is probably more important than whatever version
of "science" you have in mind. Your ego-posts also add to the the limit, or
don't they count? ;) Neotony vs. nepotism, that is the question. ;)

>Jade (responding to [log in to unmask]):

>With an attitude like that, you'd better stay away from the "Live-Food"
>list!  Which is why I'm here and no longer there... :-)

This is a fascinating comment to me. With the exception of jean-claude (and
me, for, probably, mutually exclusive reasons), I'm not sure anyone cares
about Aajonus (except maybe Mary when she's looking for a new angle). Are
you saying that [log in to unmask] is Dr. Science? That he would be
unwelcome at live-food because he is so carefully objective? Whatever,
you'll surely enjoy this list if you were unsatisfied with the other. ;)
It's on a whole new level!

Cheers,
Kirt