[seadan83]

Okay, and when your feisty neighbors take all your jerky and have hunted all the animals that are not in hibernating - then what?

While "simple", that does not equate to abundant nor easy. Or, would you agree that there was plenty of abundance even during northern winters?

If there was such abundance, and things were as simple as hunting every now and then- why so many famines in history [1]? Surely any cause of famine could be remediated by going out and doing a little more hunting?

[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_famines

[antimemetics]

Simple doesn’t mean it’s easy or without risk

[seadan83]

Indeed. I really would want my questions answered.

I believe noting that simple is not easy was my point already: "While "simple", that does not equate to abundant nor easy"

Which goes to my other point - getting food on your own is hard. Doing so in the winter is even more difficult. Hence, calorie deficits was a serious problem for many.

[wrycoder]

No argument - simple doesn’t mean easy. When the food runs out, only the the most fit (or ruthless) survive.

[seadan83]

Appreciate the concession. I was thinking as well that fruit leather would also be a really important food source in winter. Your last comment I find interesting:

(1) in famines, it is the muscular men that die first, followed by the muscular women, then men die and finally women (essentially follows the ratio of calorie demands to fat reserves)

(2) natural selection can be a bit random. Those that survive a disease might not be the most fit, just immune. Natural selection does not necessarily select for a globally optimal population, just local maxima. For example, all those surviving might also have some negative trait that would then be present in all of the surviving population.

I find those two points very interesting and thought I would share them.