We evolved and thrived as a species engrossed in a particular cultural system known as immediate-return foraging (gathering-hunting). To this day and throughout the 200,000 year human history, there is a significant amount of cultural similarity among all immediate-return foragers. (Note: "Immediate-return" or "Simple" gatherer-hunters eat their food within days of collecting it, while "Delayed-return" or "Complex" foraging societies process and store food for longer periods, changing the cultural dynamic significantly. It is likely the delayed-return societies came to exist sometime around the adoption of agriculture and it's accompanying technological advancements in food storage.)
This blog is about the many aspects of the gatherer-hunter lifestyle that upheld human happiness, health, pleasure and abundance while protecting against stress and violence. One of those lifestyle factors is the diet* of prehistoric peoples.
It's a well-accepted fact among anthropologists today that human health rapidly declined as agriculture replaced foraging. The measurements available to us 10,000 years later paint a dismal picture: our stature dramatically decreased (and we still haven't recovered our pre-agricultural heights), a measure of overall health called the Pelvic Inlet Depth Index fell precipitously (and again, we're still well below our earliest measurements) and median life span dropped. Infectious diseases increased as we began living in close proximity to each other and domesticated animals. And likelihood of famine and starvation increased, as well.
Ignoring the two latter concerns (although they are still important concerns for human health & agriculture today), the former provide plenty of evidence that the diet of gatherer-hunters better supported human physical well-being than any since. And, given we know a lot about what prehistoric people ate, we have a pretty good idea what you or I could eat to reap those health benefits for ourselves. (Add in a good deal of walking and take away our chronic anxiety and you have the gatherer-hunter triumvirate of excellent physical health).
The hunter-gatherer diet looked like this: we ate lots of fruit (during summer/fall) and wild vegetables (greens, fungi) but got most of our calories from the protein and fat from animals, and to a lesser extent, nuts. For accuracy's sake, let me say that women provided a majority of the foragers' protein daily through small game like rodents, often, insects, and the nuts referenced above. When the men were successful on a large game hunt, we probably ate only meat for a couple of days (and every part, too: flesh, organs, marrow). We also ate a small amount of wild, unprocessed grains, likely in porridge. And compared to everything that's come after it, our diet offered spectacular variety, preventing nutrient deficiency.
Agriculture was born when we began to domesticate grains, and all agricultural cultures around the world zero in on one high carbohydrate food (wheat, rice, corn, potato, etc) as the staple of their diet (enter: monodiet). It's important to remember that during the period of drastic reduction in health associated with the adoption of agriculture, humans were eating entirely "whole grains" (refining came later) and there was no increase in sugar consumption (or high fructose corn syrup!). Those are bad guys, don't get me wrong. But a diet founded on complex carbohydrates, one without a lick of white bread or soda, is tied to the dramatic decrease in human health described above.
There is so much more to say, a lot about the ethics of eating a high meat diet in our highly populated world, but this post is already overlong, so I'll save it for another day.
*I'm using the term diet here to denote the entirety of foods eaten by a population, not in any way intending any calorie-minimizing implications. As a MS, RD who works with clients with eating disorders, I am a huge activist against all those 'diets' in our culture that fit into the latter category. Those 'diets' Just Don't Work!
Thursday, December 29, 2011
Monday, December 26, 2011
Agriculture and War
I have learned, after 10 years together, to tell me husband exactly what I want to receive for birthdays and other gift-giving occasions. (This used to seem intolerably unromantic, but now it simply feels empowering.) So it was with great relish on Christmas Eve that I unwrapped a book I've been waiting patiently (for months!) to receive-- Sex At Dawn: The Prehistoric Origins of Modern Sexuality.
Between cleaning up after the Christmas Eve dinner I'd made of Gigot d'Agneau with roasted potatoes and garlic, braised fennel with gruyère and roasted tomatoes, hosting Christmas Brunch and fielding 'sharing' conflicts between my two daughters surrounding the new toys received, I've only finished the Intro and Chapter 1, but so far, the book has been jam-packed with good things. Like this, from page 14: "With agriculture, virtually everything changed: the nature of status and power, social and family structures, how humans interacted with the natural world, the gods they worshipped, the likelihood and nature of warfare between groups, quality of life, longevity and certainly, the rules governing sexuality."
The authors, Christopher Ryan and Cacilda Jethá, also included this great graphic on page 13, which delineates the changes agriculture wrought on our species:
War, violence, possessiveness, jealously, male aggression and dominance...these are not the cornerstones of human nature, as so many seem to casually, tragically, believe. These are our species' compensatory responses a the sudden lack of abundance post-agriculture. And exploring the culture we, as gatherer-hunters, shared for 190,000 years, and how that culture offered us that original sense of abundance is exactly what this blog is about.
Post Script: I'm sure I'll write more about Sex At Dawn as I continue to read it, but in the meantime, find it here at Amazon.
Monday, December 19, 2011
The Possession Paradigm
Once upon a time, we walked the earth in nomadic tribes, taking what we needed for the day and thanking Mother Earth for her bounty as we did. If, our bellies full after a successful hunt, we saw another red deer within our arrow's range, we let it go its way...why take what we don't need? Historically, as gatherer-hunters we stored very little food from one week to the next, trusting nature to provide what we needed as we needed it. Earth was our benevolent provider, our children were blessings of the tribe, and our lovers were playmates we enjoyed when mutually desired. Each of us may have possessed a handful of things--the clothes on our back and a few tools--but for the first 190,000 years the concept of possession played a very finite role in our minds.
Sometime after women invented the cultivation of plants, after we became to rely on agriculture and our control of nature, after the accompanying population boom, and after the scarcity that accompanied these changes, some created and propagated a myth that land could rightfully be owned, first by a group, and then by an individual. "I work this land, this land is mine, and any bounty this land provides is mine alone." Now serial monogamy and the tribal raising of children became inconvenient, so women and children became possessions of the landowning male. Hierarchy, servitude and slavery followed. Next, warriors were needed to protect one individual's possessions from others (for instance, if one family had enough food plus a surplus, and another family was starving because their agricultural attempt had failed) and violent conflict between humans became suddenly more common. In short, adoption of the possession paradigm set a lot of awful things in motion.
Today, while most of us will say the attempt to own another human is morally repugnant, the possession paradigm is still reigning supreme. We (well, maybe not you or I) will pepper-spray fellow shoppers for the chance at possessing undeniably unnecessary items, and can undertake complicated debate over whether putting something in one's own shopping cart constitutes ownership, or if only the swiping of a piece of plastic through a small machine can grant that. God forbid a mother at the playground advises a child not born from her womb on appropriate behavior--"how dare she! That is MY child!" And not only might a man or woman feel anger or fear at the thought of his or her spouse kissing or flirting with another that same day, many will even experience distress thinking of the sexual experiences one's spouse had prior to the married couple meeting. That's how possessive we feel.
At this time of year when many of us become preoccupied with the procurement of (more) possessions, we could all stand to learn from those who came before us: humans can be quite happy with only a few possessions, we need a lot less than we think we do, and the urge to possess causes more unhappiness than joy.
Sometime after women invented the cultivation of plants, after we became to rely on agriculture and our control of nature, after the accompanying population boom, and after the scarcity that accompanied these changes, some created and propagated a myth that land could rightfully be owned, first by a group, and then by an individual. "I work this land, this land is mine, and any bounty this land provides is mine alone." Now serial monogamy and the tribal raising of children became inconvenient, so women and children became possessions of the landowning male. Hierarchy, servitude and slavery followed. Next, warriors were needed to protect one individual's possessions from others (for instance, if one family had enough food plus a surplus, and another family was starving because their agricultural attempt had failed) and violent conflict between humans became suddenly more common. In short, adoption of the possession paradigm set a lot of awful things in motion.
Today, while most of us will say the attempt to own another human is morally repugnant, the possession paradigm is still reigning supreme. We (well, maybe not you or I) will pepper-spray fellow shoppers for the chance at possessing undeniably unnecessary items, and can undertake complicated debate over whether putting something in one's own shopping cart constitutes ownership, or if only the swiping of a piece of plastic through a small machine can grant that. God forbid a mother at the playground advises a child not born from her womb on appropriate behavior--"how dare she! That is MY child!" And not only might a man or woman feel anger or fear at the thought of his or her spouse kissing or flirting with another that same day, many will even experience distress thinking of the sexual experiences one's spouse had prior to the married couple meeting. That's how possessive we feel.
At this time of year when many of us become preoccupied with the procurement of (more) possessions, we could all stand to learn from those who came before us: humans can be quite happy with only a few possessions, we need a lot less than we think we do, and the urge to possess causes more unhappiness than joy.
Friday, December 16, 2011
OWS' take on direct democracy
First off, let me say, I'm a "fan" of Occupy Wall Street. I not only support what the movement is fighting for, I'm deeply impressed with its approach. The occupiers have shown themselves to be non-violent, persistent, smart, and willing to be physically uncomfortable (and sadly, threatened) for what they believe in. This is the stuff Gandhi and Martin Luther King, Jr. were made of.
Secondly, I must admit the first time I saw the hand gestures, etc, created by the occupiers to communicate within a large group, I laughed out loud. (Ok, so it was on a Daily Show bit, and it was framed in a funny way, but really, at first it does look a little silly, even unaccompanied by Stewart's dry wit). But the more I've thought about it, the more interested I am in these tools OWSers have created, spontaneously, to solve the problem of approaching direct democracy in large groups.
Although you wouldn't know it from a high school history class, democracy didn't begin with the Declaration of Independence, or even the Greeks. Way before hierarchy or patriarchy or governments or churches, for the vast majority of human time, we lived in egalitarian groups practicing direct democracy: nomadic tribes of gatherer-hunters. Yes, democracy is a rare and beautiful thing when you look only at the last 5,000 years (and compared to the rest of the shit that has happened in that time, representative democracy is a huge step up). But if you look at the whole of human history, democracy is the norm; I'd say it's in our very nature.
The (very real) problem has been how to tweak democracy to fit countries instead of tribes, millions instead of hundreds. The compromises that have been made have very real downsides, all of which we're living with today, and many revolving around 'representation' (who's interests are really being represented?) and the necessity for politicians (no explanation needed on the downside of politicians).
As far as I know, OWS is one of the first experiments with direct democracy in the U.S., outside of Native tribes. And we're not talking about 150 people here and there, deciding things in their own small groups. Instead, thousands of people have communicated, innovated, brainstormed, planned and enacted powerful strategies without hierarchy or government. Unlike the civil rights movement, I cannot name a leader of Occupy movement. I have no doubt the OWS jazz hand is one potent tool they've used (alongside social media, of course) to pull off this amazing feat. Maybe it's not really so silly, after all.
Secondly, I must admit the first time I saw the hand gestures, etc, created by the occupiers to communicate within a large group, I laughed out loud. (Ok, so it was on a Daily Show bit, and it was framed in a funny way, but really, at first it does look a little silly, even unaccompanied by Stewart's dry wit). But the more I've thought about it, the more interested I am in these tools OWSers have created, spontaneously, to solve the problem of approaching direct democracy in large groups.
Although you wouldn't know it from a high school history class, democracy didn't begin with the Declaration of Independence, or even the Greeks. Way before hierarchy or patriarchy or governments or churches, for the vast majority of human time, we lived in egalitarian groups practicing direct democracy: nomadic tribes of gatherer-hunters. Yes, democracy is a rare and beautiful thing when you look only at the last 5,000 years (and compared to the rest of the shit that has happened in that time, representative democracy is a huge step up). But if you look at the whole of human history, democracy is the norm; I'd say it's in our very nature.
The (very real) problem has been how to tweak democracy to fit countries instead of tribes, millions instead of hundreds. The compromises that have been made have very real downsides, all of which we're living with today, and many revolving around 'representation' (who's interests are really being represented?) and the necessity for politicians (no explanation needed on the downside of politicians).
As far as I know, OWS is one of the first experiments with direct democracy in the U.S., outside of Native tribes. And we're not talking about 150 people here and there, deciding things in their own small groups. Instead, thousands of people have communicated, innovated, brainstormed, planned and enacted powerful strategies without hierarchy or government. Unlike the civil rights movement, I cannot name a leader of Occupy movement. I have no doubt the OWS jazz hand is one potent tool they've used (alongside social media, of course) to pull off this amazing feat. Maybe it's not really so silly, after all.
Thursday, December 15, 2011
On Happiness
Given modern American culture isn't the ideal petri dish for growing happy humans (and I assert it is a given) then we have a few tasks at hand:
1) Understand what does make humans in general fulfilled, joyful, at peace
2) Understand what makes you in particular fulfilled, joyful, etc
3) Align your behaviors based on your understanding of what makes you truly happy
4) Advocate for social change based on your understanding of what supports human happiness in general
I've been fascinated by the exploration of what makes us happy since I was a child. Many people would disagree, but being "happy" (for me, fulfilled, playful, safe, open to pleasure) is my answer to the question of the meaning of life. I don't believe in an afterlife, and I don't believe we were "put" on this earth for a purpose. I would worry that being happy is a selfish lifetime goal, but thankfully, it turns out, it's hard (impossible?) to be truly happy without actively working to support other people. Why? Because, as even a cursory glimpse at human "prehistory" (those first 190,000 years) proves, humans are, down to our very essence, social creatures.
Why did we evolve the way we did? Why did we lose the physical power and defensive body features of our primate ancestor in favor of soft flesh and bigger brains...especially given we evolved into predators? Our bodies are not the fastest, strongest, biggest, best camouflaged, or best defended, and yet we still successfully moved to the top of the food chain...because we did social relationships better than any other animal. (Picture the small group of human men, working together with a plan communicated in advance, to take down the mammoth.) So instead of evolving speed or brawn, evolution has polished our social skills for millennia. Not only did we perfect tongue anatomy and brain capacity necessary for complicated speech, we also have positive feedback loops of socialization in our DNA. Because the better we became at cooperating, innovating in groups, communicating, and offering loyal, "I've got your back" relationships, the more we thrived as a species. So the genetic mechanisms that provided internal motivation (pleasure, laughter, happiness, etc) for socialization have been singled out and rewarded by evolution for a hundred thousand years.
And living in single-family homes in groups of 4 instead of tribal clans of 150 hasn't changed our DNA one bit. We are still hard-wired to feel good giving to others, to laugh more in groups, to feel safer and less anxious as we create and maintain loyal friendships. And yet the "American Dream" is to own a home and live in it without extended family, to never need the financial support of friends or family, to "pull yourself up by your own bootstraps." The American Dream is founded on the principal that the INDIVIDUAL is solely responsible for his or her own happiness...self-reliance is idolized. And the important flip side of this paradigm is that the Individual has very little responsibility to anyone else (the taxes-as-horrible-affliction-on-society philosophy is one offshoot of this perspective).
Clearly, we need to act intentionally, to swim up-current, to cultivate meaningful and mutually supportive relationships in this culture. But it is possible, and it is worth it.
1) Understand what does make humans in general fulfilled, joyful, at peace
2) Understand what makes you in particular fulfilled, joyful, etc
3) Align your behaviors based on your understanding of what makes you truly happy
4) Advocate for social change based on your understanding of what supports human happiness in general
I've been fascinated by the exploration of what makes us happy since I was a child. Many people would disagree, but being "happy" (for me, fulfilled, playful, safe, open to pleasure) is my answer to the question of the meaning of life. I don't believe in an afterlife, and I don't believe we were "put" on this earth for a purpose. I would worry that being happy is a selfish lifetime goal, but thankfully, it turns out, it's hard (impossible?) to be truly happy without actively working to support other people. Why? Because, as even a cursory glimpse at human "prehistory" (those first 190,000 years) proves, humans are, down to our very essence, social creatures.
Why did we evolve the way we did? Why did we lose the physical power and defensive body features of our primate ancestor in favor of soft flesh and bigger brains...especially given we evolved into predators? Our bodies are not the fastest, strongest, biggest, best camouflaged, or best defended, and yet we still successfully moved to the top of the food chain...because we did social relationships better than any other animal. (Picture the small group of human men, working together with a plan communicated in advance, to take down the mammoth.) So instead of evolving speed or brawn, evolution has polished our social skills for millennia. Not only did we perfect tongue anatomy and brain capacity necessary for complicated speech, we also have positive feedback loops of socialization in our DNA. Because the better we became at cooperating, innovating in groups, communicating, and offering loyal, "I've got your back" relationships, the more we thrived as a species. So the genetic mechanisms that provided internal motivation (pleasure, laughter, happiness, etc) for socialization have been singled out and rewarded by evolution for a hundred thousand years.
And living in single-family homes in groups of 4 instead of tribal clans of 150 hasn't changed our DNA one bit. We are still hard-wired to feel good giving to others, to laugh more in groups, to feel safer and less anxious as we create and maintain loyal friendships. And yet the "American Dream" is to own a home and live in it without extended family, to never need the financial support of friends or family, to "pull yourself up by your own bootstraps." The American Dream is founded on the principal that the INDIVIDUAL is solely responsible for his or her own happiness...self-reliance is idolized. And the important flip side of this paradigm is that the Individual has very little responsibility to anyone else (the taxes-as-horrible-affliction-on-society philosophy is one offshoot of this perspective).
Clearly, we need to act intentionally, to swim up-current, to cultivate meaningful and mutually supportive relationships in this culture. But it is possible, and it is worth it.
Wednesday, December 14, 2011
On making a giant mess of things
So, basically, we’ve fucked a lot of things up. You know,
destroying, plundering and wasting finite resources, casually but
drastically reducing biodiversity on the planet, altering the natural
environment so radically that not only are species we depend on (take bees, as
one example) struggling to survive but humans will suffer directly from the
changes as well.
Yeah, yeah, you’ve heard it all before. But the really
obscene thing about the whole mess is that we haven’t really enjoyed ourselves
in the process. We—at least Americans, whom, being a born and bred American
myself, I feel more qualified to comment on, and whom represent the
quintessence of the consumerist culture heading up all this destruction—aren’t
very happy. I know it’s no news flash, but owning stuff doesn’t make us feel
content, joyful, awe-inspired, or importantly, safe. Anxiety is a major
buzzkill, and many of us Americans hold more than our fair share of it (most of
us don’t live in war zones, but our adrenaline levels may look like it). I’d
even venture to guess that the richest among us—the top 1%— aren’t deeply
fulfilled and joyful people on the whole. However, not being in the first
percentile financially myself maybe I have no business speculating.
The way I see it, the consumerist years have been akin to a big
binge on a store-bought birthday cake…the consumption brings very little
pleasure in and of itself, but we avoid the discomfort of denying ourselves the
gluttony.
I don’t believe, however, that consumption itself causes
unhappiness. There is pleasure to be had
in owning beautiful things or eating delicious food. It seems to me that the
real problem is that consumption, the new king, has displaced those things that make humans, by nature, truly
happy. More on this to come…
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)