[ExI] Technology, specialization, and diebacks...Re: I love the world. =)

[Mike Dougherty]

On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 5:04 AM,  <lists1 at evil-genius.com> wrote:
> It is well established that the hunter-forager diet is superior to the
> post-agricultural diet in all respects:
> http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/81/2/341

ok.

> ...as corroborated by the fact that all available indicators of health
> (height, weight, lifespan) crash immediately when a culture takes up farming
> -- and skeletal disease markers increase dramatically.
> http://www.environnement.ens.fr/perso/claessen/agriculture/mistake_jared_diamond.pdf

ok.

> And it wasn't until the year 1800 that residents of the richest countries of
> Europe reached the same caloric intake as the average tribe of
> hunter-gatherers.
> http://www.econ.ucdavis.edu/faculty/gclark/papers/Capitalism%20Genes.pdf

ok.

> Which brings me back to my original point: it takes substantial intelligence
> to make stone tools and weapons, memorize a territory of tens (if not

agreed.

> I'm genuinely not sure whether you're objecting to my point, or just
> throwing up objections with no supporting evidence because you like messing
> with people.  I'm going to start asking you to provide evidence, instead of
> just casting a bunch of doubts with no basis and no theory to replace what
> you're attacking.  That's a creationist tactic.

I wasn't objecting.  I misread your original point, you clarified, I
tried to explain my error.  I agree with you.  I thought to go in
another direction.  I'd like to believe in the Hegelian principle of
thesis-antithesis-synthesis.  It seems however that most people on
lists are content to remain in antithesis and counterproductive
arguments instead of dialog.  Note, I'm not accusing you of such,
'just commenting that the default mode of list-based discussion is
argument rather than cooperation.  too bad for that, huh?

> Everything is selected for running away from things we can't kill first.
>  Even lions and crocodiles run away from hippos.

At least the smart and nimble ones do.  :)

>> Have you considered that perhaps intelligence is only secondarily
>> selected for?  Perhaps the more general governing rule is energy
>> efficiency.
>
> Everything is secondarily selected for, relative to survival through at
> least one successful reproduction.  I'm not sure that's a useful
> distinction.
>
> And I refuse to enter into a "define intelligence" clusterf**k, because it's
> all completely ancillary to my original point.

I thought your original point was about the supremecy of intelligence.
 I was attempting to posit that energy efficiency may be an easier
rule to widely apply than intelligence.  It was just a thought.  I
wasn't trying to counter your point; I had accepted it as given and
was hoping to continue.  Thanks for reading.