ANYWAYS - Main point of the book: environment determines how societies grow and develop. In the beginning of time - the people who lived in environments where food could be farmed and domesticated fared better than those who lived in places where food remained wild and untamed. The first farmer Joes (fertile cresentites and their european grandkids) were the ones to develop guns, germs and steel - which allowed them to conquer people in far away lands that were still hunting/gathering without guns/germs/steel (book of mormonites in south america).
From my dietitian perspective: People who ate more protein had more brain power/energy/time to build societies and such. food is important - what we eat determines who we are - also, food is linked to the environment - thus how we treat the environment is important.
Its interesting that once people started eating a grain based diet they started developing diseases. The author points out that influenza and such developed when people domesticated animals (swine flu/bird flu)- but I wonder if their change in diet was part of the problem. (and of course their seasonal changes in melatonin from living at higher latitudes)
The book isn't trying to make a point of which is better - hunting/gathering vs. "civilization" and I don't think there is an answer to that.
But it seems to me that we should have just stuck with hunting and gathering - hanging out all day in the garden of eden - picking flowers - eating berries - that's the life! Dying from attack of a cheetah - or from old age when you were 30 - no such thing as getting arthritis living the paleolithic way. If you're too lazy to find your food - - you die by your own accord -- no such thing as welfare. But then you'de end up living with your extended family you whole life. Nobody wants that.
From what I've seen/read/heard it seems that people are just about as happy as they make themselves to be - no matter where/how they live. In the end it doesn't really matter. It's just interesting to think about. That was a long post - anybody have similar/opposing thoughts?
4 comments:
Wow, that was a very thoughtful post. Maybe I should read that book so that I can make an intelligent comment... opps, too late!
I agree that we as human beings, are very adaptable and tend to make our own happiness or not regardless of circumstances. However, I also believe there are forms and systems that when applied are able to sustain man in his quest for happiness more easily than other systems. The way we eat is one of these.
It's interesting to think about the affect agriculture has on freedom as well. Some say only agrairian societies can be truly free.
An interesting book along these lines is Crunchy Cons. I think you'd both find it interesting.
I think if we reverted back to nudity EVERYONE would be happier and no one would want to fight becuase we'd all be be laughing too much to hate.
Janette- thanks for the thoughful comment! I've that thing about freedom - one interesting thing is how much of our food comes from other places........crunchy cons looks interesting....we'll have to read it - it sounds similar to my way of thinking.......
shepherd - AGREED ABOUT THE NAKEDNESS (: that would be wiggidy wack.
Post a Comment