[FrojoS]

All true, though, as far as I know, hunters and gathers who manage to survive childhood still die quite early, no? [1] They appear very healthy but thats partly because there are pretty much no grand parents. I might be wrong about this.

Also, a diet high in animal protein might make you very fit but it is thought to be a cause for cardiovascular disease [2]. Actually, afaik, this is the reason why government still gives out these fat making, carbohydrate rich, diet recommendations [3]. They might make you obese, but on the other hand, if you might live a sportive life just to suddenly die of a heart attack.

[1] I can't recall if it was Diamond, Kevin Kelly in "What Technology Wants", Campbell in "The China Study" or someone else, who wrote about this. Can anyone back or correct this? [2] This, Im sure you will find in "The China Study" by Campbell [3] Lustig and also Taubes in "Good Calories, Bad Calories"

[chipsy]

Nutrition isn't the only issue. Hunter-gatherers have a much higher chance of a violent death; not just because of the risks of hunting, but because tribal warfare drafts the majority of able-bodied men. Even the ritualized warfare commonly used among present-day hunter-gatherers is likely to cause deaths.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Before_Civilization

[FrojoS]

Christopher Ryan [1] denies this.

So which of my down voted post above was bullshit? I'd like to learn.

[2] http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/sex-dawn/201103/steven-p...

[berntb]

Christopher Ryan's blog post is low on examples, compared with that Wikipedia page about the book...

>>About 90-95% of known societies engage in war. [Etc.]

This is a sensitive subject for people with (political) axes to grind, so I'd prefer better references for the claim that Pinker is totally non serious?

(I was surprised to see that Eskimos had extermination wars?! You would think the population density made organised conflicts impossible?)

Edit: Clarity.

[FrojoS]

You might be right. I still think its worth reading. I still tend to prefer Christopher Ryan's point of view but this might change. Also, Pinker is afaik not a professional expert on anthropology [1].

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pinker

[berntb]

Pinker quoted an expert. Or not?

If the research consensus in the field really was different, Ryan would have pointed that out gleefully -- with many more references. Since Ryan didn't do that, he is either dishonest or ignorant. Either way, he can be ignored.