Bromo > wrote in
:

> On 2/15/04 3:22 PM, in article
> , "Frogleg"
> > wrote:
>
>> The caveman (and his family) was mostly after enough calories to
>> support life. It doesn't matter much if you eat a carrot and have
>> enough vitamin A to keep your vision good when that's *all* you
>> have to eat.
>
> Keep in mind that the hunter-gatherer life would have a varied
> diet - whatever they could find or catch - and would probably be
> pretty close to balanced on average. For those of us subscribing
> the evolutionary theory - that is exactly the type of diet we
> evolved to eat!

Archaeological reports of food remains of North American natives
(excluding the Inuit) show that their diet was composed on average of
about 80% starchy foods and other vegetable matter (gathering) and
about 20% meat (hunting). Of course the average lifespan was around
20, with elders being in their late 20's to early 30's. This is not
to say the diet is bad for the place and time.

Europeans had longer lifespans. My ancestor who arrived here in 1634
died at the age of 82, his wife at the age of 84 and many others of
his contemporaries lived well into their 80's.

I doubt it was the presence of meat in the diet. It had more to do
with the salubrious environment and the relative lack of diseases
that ran rampant throughout the cold moist climate of northern
Europe. The Jesuit Relations state that the recovery rate at the
Hôtel-Dieu in Québec was 90% (whereas is was nearly 0% in northern
France). Of course, that could be sheer prpoganda, but there is no
reason to doubt that the recovery rate was significant.

--

"I'm the master of low expectations."

GWB, aboard Air Force One, 04Jun2003

On 2/15/04 5:11 PM, in article ,
"Michel Boucher" > wrote:

> Europeans had longer lifespans. My ancestor who arrived here in 1634
> died at the age of 82, his wife at the age of 84 and many others of
> his contemporaries lived well into their 80's.

It was not until the more recent era that lifespans became increased - you
ancestor and that crew were quite an exception, though through basic hygiene
lifespans reaches about 40-55 or so, previously it was unusual for someone
to last that long given disease, etc.

Still, the life of a primitive person is nasty brutish and short.

>
>Still, the life of a primitive person is nasty brutish and short.
>
>

On the contrary, most "primitive" people had/have a relatively decent life.
Take the San (Bushmen) of southern Africa. They have lived in one of the most
inhospitable places on the earth for almost tens of thousands of years. Today,
the men hunt on average 6 hours a day. That's it.

Best evidence on other hunter/gather societies is that they had life spans of
up to 50 years. This was not duplicated in "civilized" societies until about
1900.

Andy Smith

On 2/15/04 5:40 PM, in article ,
"ASmith1946" > wrote:

>>
>> Still, the life of a primitive person is nasty brutish and short.
>>
>>
>
> On the contrary, most "primitive" people had/have a relatively decent life.
> Take the San (Bushmen) of southern Africa. They have lived in one of the most
> inhospitable places on the earth for almost tens of thousands of years. Today,
> the men hunt on average 6 hours a day. That's it.
>
> Best evidence on other hunter/gather societies is that they had life spans of
> up to 50 years. This was not duplicated in "civilized" societies until about
> 1900.

I know that in Europe and most of the world that, including infant
mortality, that 35 was about the average age of death. Without infant
mortality it was about 45-50 or so.

There is something about hunter-gatherer life that appeals.

(ASmith1946) wrote in
:

>>Still, the life of a primitive person is nasty brutish and short.
>
> On the contrary, most "primitive" people had/have a relatively
> decent life. Take the San (Bushmen) of southern Africa. They have
> lived in one of the most inhospitable places on the earth for
> almost tens of thousands of years. Today, the men hunt on average
> 6 hours a day. That's it.

Anthropological comparison of household labour between French nuclear
families and Amazon tribes shows that "primitives" perform only as
much labour as is necessary, usually about 2 hours a day for
gathering and cleaning. Hunting takes a bit more time but it removes
the men from the female controlled environment, which is part of its
purpose.

Marx argued that capitalism was not possible if people could not be
constrained to work. This was the problem of most colonies where the
natives could live freely off the land. Private ownership of all
subsistence resources was capitalism's answer. Obviously, if only
two hours a day of not particularly gruelling labour is necessary to
produce subsistence level resources and that these resources are
available without the obligation of binding agreements to work 12
hours to earn 6 hour's worth of wealth, then no one could be
constrained to work for a pittance in unsanitary and unsafe
conditions.

--

"I'm the master of low expectations."

GWB, aboard Air Force One, 04Jun2003

On 16 Feb 2004 14:58:30 GMT, Michel Boucher >
wrote:

>Anthropological comparison of household labour between French nuclear
>families and Amazon tribes shows that "primitives" perform only as
>much labour as is necessary, usually about 2 hours a day for
>gathering and cleaning. Hunting takes a bit more time but it removes
>the men from the female controlled environment, which is part of its
>purpose.

I, too, have read that the change from hunter/gatherer culture to
purposful agriculture and animal husbandry *increased* the difficulty
of daily life. The idea of lying in a hammock and plucking fruit from
surrounding trees, supplemented by trapping a few fish or shellfish
sure sounds good. Not many opportunities for same in, say, northern
Europe.

In fact, I have a hard time understanding why human emigration
apparently followed a path from Asia north to some problematical
crossing to Alaska and then down through North and South America.
Following herds of animals? It surely couldn't have been "whoopee --
we've found the perfect natural freezer!"

>Hunting takes a bit more time but it removes
>the men from the female controlled environment, which is part of its
>purpose.

Nag, nag, nag. :-)

On Mon, 16 Feb 2004 19:27:58 GMT, Frogleg > wrote:

>On 16 Feb 2004 14:58:30 GMT, Michel Boucher >
>wrote:
>
>>Anthropological comparison of household labour between French nuclear
>>families and Amazon tribes shows that "primitives" perform only as
>>much labour as is necessary, usually about 2 hours a day for
>>gathering and cleaning. Hunting takes a bit more time but it removes
>>the men from the female controlled environment, which is part of its
>>purpose.
>
>I, too, have read that the change from hunter/gatherer culture to
>purposful agriculture and animal husbandry *increased* the difficulty
>of daily life. The idea of lying in a hammock and plucking fruit from
>surrounding trees, supplemented by trapping a few fish or shellfish
>sure sounds good. Not many opportunities for same in, say, northern
>Europe.
>
>In fact, I have a hard time understanding why human emigration
>apparently followed a path from Asia north to some problematical
>crossing to Alaska and then down through North and South America.
>Following herds of animals? It surely couldn't have been "whoopee --
>we've found the perfect natural freezer!"

The climate back then was different. A hunter/gatherer ecosystem
requires a pyramidal food chain. Man, at the top of the pyramid, can
only sparsely populate an area. Thus, as the human population increased
in an area it had to expand or die.

The extinction of many large herbivore species (and competing carnivore
species) of animals in North America coincides rather remarkably with
man's migration into the area.

The domestication of food animals and cultivation of food crops provided
more efficient and predictable use of the land and permitted a larger
population in an area.

Frogleg > wrote in
:

>>Hunting takes a bit more time but it removes
>>the men from the female controlled environment, which is part of
>>its purpose.
>
> Nag, nag, nag. :-)

Along the same lines, I believe that Roman soldiers were more than
anxious to go to war when the doors of the temple of Mars opened in the
Spring. It was most likely considered less dangerous to be fighting
bloodthirsty barbarians with pointed sticks as opposed to having to
stay home with the uxor and pueris throughout the hot summer months.

:->

--

"I'm the master of low expectations."

GWB, aboard Air Force One, 04Jun2003

In article >, Frogleg
> wrote:

> The idea of lying in a hammock and plucking fruit from
> surrounding trees, supplemented by trapping a few fish or shellfish
> sure sounds good. Not many opportunities for same in, say, northern
> Europe.

Why? Strawberries, mushrooms, apples, blackberries still grow wild all
over the place. Northern seas are far more fruitful for fish than
tropical ones, and the rivers run with salmon and trout.

L

--
Remover the rock from the email address

On Tue, 17 Feb 2004 10:39:47 +0000, Lazarus Cooke
> wrote:

>In article >, Frogleg
> wrote:
>
>> The idea of lying in a hammock and plucking fruit from
>> surrounding trees, supplemented by trapping a few fish or shellfish
>> sure sounds good. Not many opportunities for same in, say, northern
>> Europe.
>
>Why? Strawberries, mushrooms, apples, blackberries still grow wild all
>over the place. Northern seas are far more fruitful for fish than
>tropical ones, and the rivers run with salmon and trout.

And come October? :-)

On 2/16/04 9:58 AM, in article ,
"Michel Boucher" > wrote:

> Marx argued that capitalism was not possible if people could not be
> constrained to work. This was the problem of most colonies where the
> natives could live freely off the land. Private ownership of all
> subsistence resources was capitalism's answer. Obviously, if only
> two hours a day of not particularly gruelling labour is necessary to
> produce subsistence level resources and that these resources are
> available without the obligation of binding agreements to work 12
> hours to earn 6 hour's worth of wealth, then no one could be
> constrained to work for a pittance in unsanitary and unsafe
> conditions.

Marx had an explanation for everything, didn't he? I don't buy his
explanations very much, because there was no capitalism to speak of when the
first farms were created - it may have evolved to avoid having to move
around a lot and to try to make sure there was enough to eat always.

Bromo > wrote in
:

> On 2/16/04 9:58 AM, in article
> , "Michel Boucher"
> > wrote:
>
>> Marx argued that capitalism was not possible if people could not
>> be constrained to work. This was the problem of most colonies
>> where the natives could live freely off the land. Private
>> ownership of all subsistence resources was capitalism's answer.
>> Obviously, if only two hours a day of not particularly gruelling
>> labour is necessary to produce subsistence level resources and
>> that these resources are available without the obligation of
>> binding agreements to work 12 hours to earn 6 hour's worth of
>> wealth, then no one could be constrained to work for a pittance
>> in unsanitary and unsafe conditions.
>
> Marx had an explanation for everything, didn't he?

Actually, he was remarkably terse on many topics that have been
widely attributed to him, and cogent on many topics that are ignored.

> I don't buy
> his explanations very much, because there was no capitalism to
> speak of when the first farms were created

Marx was writing about the 19th century. I think you will find that
by that time mercantilism and its ******* child capitalism had
already spread their oleaginous presence throughout the planet.

Why do you think he spoke (once) of ownership of land as theft?

--

"I'm the master of low expectations."

GWB, aboard Air Force One, 04Jun2003

On 2/16/04 4:52 PM, in article ,
"Michel Boucher" > wrote:

> Bromo > wrote in
> :
>
>> On 2/16/04 9:58 AM, in article
>> , "Michel Boucher"
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> Marx argued that capitalism was not possible if people could not
>>> be constrained to work. This was the problem of most colonies
>>> where the natives could live freely off the land. Private
>>> ownership of all subsistence resources was capitalism's answer.
>>> Obviously, if only two hours a day of not particularly gruelling
>>> labour is necessary to produce subsistence level resources and
>>> that these resources are available without the obligation of
>>> binding agreements to work 12 hours to earn 6 hour's worth of
>>> wealth, then no one could be constrained to work for a pittance
>>> in unsanitary and unsafe conditions.
>>
>> Marx had an explanation for everything, didn't he?
>
> Actually, he was remarkably terse on many topics that have been
> widely attributed to him, and cogent on many topics that are ignored.

He had explanations for many things - some of which may have validity, some
of which has been largely discredited. For instance, the economic theory of
history may explain a few things, but is rather limited or be a stretch for
other things.

>> I don't buy
>> his explanations very much, because there was no capitalism to
>> speak of when the first farms were created
>
> Marx was writing about the 19th century. I think you will find that
> by that time mercantilism and its ******* child capitalism had
> already spread their oleaginous presence throughout the planet.
>
> Why do you think he spoke (once) of ownership of land as theft?

To support the hunter gatherer lifestyle?

Bromo > wrote in
:

> On 2/15/04 5:11 PM, in article
> , "Michel Boucher"
> > wrote:
>
>> Europeans had longer lifespans. My ancestor who arrived here in
>> 1634 died at the age of 82, his wife at the age of 84 and many
>> others of his contemporaries lived well into their 80's.
>
> It was not until the more recent era that lifespans became
> increased - you ancestor and that crew were quite an exception,
> though through basic hygiene lifespans reaches about 40-55 or so,
> previously it was unusual for someone to last that long given
> disease, etc.

You missed the point. They were NOT the exception; they were the
first generation of Europeans to live on this continent. There were
few diseases to start with, and fewer still that the French did not
have the secret to curing, including scurvy, which gave them a
comparative advantage over the English for two hundred years, in
terms of long-term establishment in the colder climate of the Saint-
Laurent valley.

Of course, I failed to say "Europeans arriving in North America had
longer lifespans", but as I was referring to native lifespans, I
thought the juxtaposition was obvious. I overestimated. My
apologies. Next time I'll be more explicit.

--

"I'm the master of low expectations."

GWB, aboard Air Force One, 04Jun2003

On 2/15/04 7:47 PM, in article ,
"Michel Boucher" > wrote:

> Bromo > wrote in
> :
>
>> On 2/15/04 5:11 PM, in article
>> , "Michel Boucher"
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> Europeans had longer lifespans. My ancestor who arrived here in
>>> 1634 died at the age of 82, his wife at the age of 84 and many
>>> others of his contemporaries lived well into their 80's.
>>
>> It was not until the more recent era that lifespans became
>> increased - you ancestor and that crew were quite an exception,
>> though through basic hygiene lifespans reaches about 40-55 or so,
>> previously it was unusual for someone to last that long given
>> disease, etc.
>
> You missed the point. They were NOT the exception; they were the
> first generation of Europeans to live on this continent. There were
> few diseases to start with, and fewer still that the French did not
> have the secret to curing, including scurvy, which gave them a
> comparative advantage over the English for two hundred years, in
> terms of long-term establishment in the colder climate of the Saint-
> Laurent valley.
>
> Of course, I failed to say "Europeans arriving in North America had
> longer lifespans", but as I was referring to native lifespans, I
> thought the juxtaposition was obvious. I overestimated. My
> apologies. Next time I'll be more explicit.

Fair enough. I suppose I misunderstood. Without disease we saw some people
settling in N. Am having exceptionally long lifespans. After the first few
generations, the length seems to have settled down to the more typical
average.

BTW, did your anscestors settle in Jamestown area or Boston?

Bromo > wrote in
:

>> Of course, I failed to say "Europeans arriving in North America
>> had longer lifespans", but as I was referring to native
>> lifespans, I thought the juxtaposition was obvious. I
>> overestimated. My apologies. Next time I'll be more explicit.
>
> Fair enough. I suppose I misunderstood. Without disease we saw
> some people settling in N. Am having exceptionally long lifespans.
> After the first few generations, the length seems to have settled
> down to the more typical average.
>
> BTW, did your anscestors settle in Jamestown area or Boston?

Québec. We usually made mincemeat (viande hachée) our of the
Bastonnais :-)

When my ancestor arrived (with his eldest son), there were only three
houses in the colony. He had taken a contract to build a fourth (he
was a stone mason) and elected to stay, sending for his wife and
small children the following year.

There are strong indications that he was a friend (or at least a
supporter of) Champlain as he is the first person mentioned in
Champlain's will.

--

"I'm the master of low expectations."

GWB, aboard Air Force One, 04Jun2003