4 ms·
My view has nothing to do with political correctness, but simply with the difference in difficulty between collecting plants and hunting/trapping animals with p
by usrbinbash 5y ago
My view has nothing to do with political correctness, but simply with the difference in difficulty between collecting plants and hunting/trapping animals with primitive tools, and the subsequent deduction that it's more likely for our ancestors to have relied more on the source of calories that was more readily available.
And the article itself explains how the current point of view on our ancestors life style may have originated.
- 0n34n7 5y agoYou are assuming edible plants to have been readily available at high enough concentrations at the hunter gatherer stage of human evolution. It is energetically more expensive to roam a large area to gather x calories than finding and killing an animal (herbivore) that did that for you - never mind the ability of the herbivore to release calories contained in leaves and grass (something humans cannot do) Then in winter this ratio increases even more. I don’t know if you’ve ever been to the African savannah, but early human evolution here was definitely not driven by the abundance of edible vegetation.
- goatsneez 5y agoPoint taken, and my judgement is not personally at you with the political correctness comment. It was a lament on the general recent (couple of years) development when we can see sprouting of and gaining undeserved media attention due to the socio-political climate in the west. This article is just point-in-case. There is overwhelming evidence (direct and indirect) even in the way our teeth and jaws evolved, collectibles and artefacts point to the fact that meat diet played overwhelming role in defining us as humans (in the wide context of things).