Are we meat eaters or vegetarians ?

[RawZi]

I am not totally a vegetarian yet. But I stooped eating meat and other meat based products though sometimes I eat fish and egg.
Quinroxanne
Forager

 Online

Gender: Female
Age:   26
Location: Olongapo city, Philippines

Posts: 3

A blogger Mom, Proud Pinay

http://colonnews.com/

    Why are you going to become a vegetarian?  You're giving up milk, rice, honey and poultry flesh too?

[PaleoPhil]

On the contrary, you are the one who is reaching. I would certainly expect Inuit to feature prominently in Canadian universities(and the high-meat eating Nenets of Siberia among other similiar groups). ...

As I recall, the Bushmen eat the highest level of plant foods of all the hunter gatherers in the ethnographic atlas. There are reportedly twice as many Bushmen as Inuit, yet the Bushmen also don't feature prominently in African universities, nor do any of the other remaining hunter-gatherer peoples in the world--unless you can point to some. So the lack of HGs in universities is universal, and does not appear correlated to the level of plant foods they consume and singling out the Inuit or Nenets doesn't make sense. It appears to have much more to do with their puny numbers as compared to modern societies, and the fact that they choose to live in remote areas that often don't have universities or modern transportation or even books and many of them have no interest in attending universities where they could not live their lifestyle.

[TylerDurden]

Not a valid comparison. The Inuit already have their own nation within Canada, unlike the Bushmen, and are far less primitive(for example, the Inuit hunters are described as using rifles nowadays). So, the fact that Inuit aren't far more prominent in Canadian universities by comparison to other groups is a solid sign that they don't have any such advantage.

[PaleoPhil]

Not a valid comparison. The Inuit already have their own nation within Canada, unlike the Bushmen, and are far less primitive(for example, the Inuit hunters are described as using rifles nowadays). So, the fact that Inuit aren't far more prominent in Canadian universities by comparison to other groups is a solid sign that they don't have any such advantage.

But if they're far less primitive, ie, more modern, then they're probably eating more modern foods, which William and I repeatedly mentioned has been reported. The fact that most Inuit have adopted very unhealthy, substantially modern diets (a trend that Dr. Jay Wortman is trying to help reverse) is fairly common knowledge in Paleo dieting circles. So that actually makes the Inuit less likely to have higher intelligence than other more traditional HG groups, although differences in levels of plants, carbs and fats could offset that some.

[TylerDurden]

But if they're far less primitive, ie, more modern, then they're probably eating more modern foods, which William and I repeatedly mentioned has been reported. The fact that most Inuit have adopted very unhealthy, substantially modern diets (a trend that Dr. Jay Wortman is trying to help reverse) is fairly common knowledge in Paleo dieting circles. So that actually makes the Inuit less likely to have higher intelligence than other more traditional HG groups, although differences in levels of plants, carbs and fats could offset that some.

I'm afraid that's an incorrect assumption. I was specifically referring to those Inuit who still hunted traditional prey(such as whales, seals etc.), for their food . These are described as using modern rifles to kill whales etc., not  the traditional harpoon. They're one of the few people who can still get around anti-whaling laws.

[PaleoPhil]

I'm afraid that's an incorrect assumption. I was specifically referring to those Inuit who still hunted traditional prey(such as whales, seals etc.), for their food . These are described as using modern rifles to kill whales etc., not  the traditional harpoon. They're one of the few people who can still get around anti-whaling laws.

My understanding from articles, videos, etc., is there are only about 50,000 Inuit in the world today. All Inuit do not eat only traditional foods. Even among those that still hunt, most (not all) also eat crap like canned foods (which is why some are fat as hell). For example, this video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yGVdYiM5IXw shows Inuit who hunt with rifles and eat some traditional foods like raw seal (BTW, notice that they savor the organs too, eating nearly everything, and one granny mentions that the brains are her favorite part). The elders are all overweight (though not the worst I've seen by a long shot). They didn't get that way by eating only traditional foods.

Dr. Wortman has had to struggle just to get a tiny minority of Inuit and other First Nations people to eat only or mostly a traditional-type diet again (with splendid results among those who do it). If you do much research on the Inuit, reading about Dr. Wortman's work and stories on their current lifestyle and the problems they face, you'll find what I and William have been talking about--since first contact, and especially since the late 1970s, there has been increasing reliance on and consumption of imported processed foods, etc., resulting in increasing rates of the diseases of civilization.

I'm not convinced by your claims. If what you say is true, then Gray-Hawk's genius IQ is merely coincidence. I'm skeptical of that. I would need more evidence than just your assertion that the Inuit should be well-represented in the world's top universities. Most of the Inuit are eating a lot of crap, so I don't expect their current IQs to necessarily even match the avg American IQs today. I would expect the first-contact Inuit to have had higher intelligence than the avg American (although standard IQ tests would probably be too laden in modern culture to have been accurate measures for them), and Upper Paleolithic Stone age hunters to have had even higher intelligence. Unfortunately, it will be difficult if not impossible to prove this and I think the only way people will be convinced is if thousands of people eat RPD and many have children with above-avg IQs, like Gray-Hawk.

I guess Michael's child could be a test of this. If his wife stays mostly meat/fat-based-RPD during pregnancy and the child does during his/her early years, then if I'm right, we should expect the child to turn out with an above-avg IQ. If Tyler is right, then it will more likely have an avg IQ.

[JaredBond]

I'm not sure if anyone's mentioned this in the discussion, but it's worth mentioning again.  The idea's not so much that being a carnivore leads to big brains, as it is that being a carnivore allows for the reduction of the gut size.

Dr. Eades introduces us in Part II to the idea that BMR is determined solely by body weight.  So IF selective pressures favor a growth in brain size (that was his argument against other carnivores), something else that uses the calories has to shrink.  In other words, the brain just can't grow and everything else stays the same.  (And turning into giants might not have raised our intelligence either, according to the "encephalization quotient" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brain-to-body_mass_ratio).)  Meat (being filled with fats, whether it looks fatty or not) is the most dense source of both calories and nutrients.  This allowed our guts to shrink, so our energy hungry brains could grow (something like 20% of our total energy, vs the expected 8%, based on body size).

Of course, we see around us that refined carbohydrates can also be very calorie dense, so people can survive on them.  Regarding the cooked food idea, I can believe the idea that vegetables would have to be cooked in order to derive any amount of calories at once, them being easier to digest than raw vegetables.  (Think beyond enzymes to what are you going to absorb more easily-- a soup of vegetables or the raw vegetables?)  I think all the native peoples Weston Price visited cooked their vegetables.  Because they are still calorie poor and labor intensive, not to mention hard to come by in the ice ages, paleolithic man probably only considered vegetables as a last resort.  And this is why raw vegans probably suffer the worst calorie deficiencies (not to mention nutritional), unless they are constantly juicing.

[TylerDurden]

I'm not convinced by your claims. If what you say is true, then Gray-Hawk's genius IQ is merely coincidence. I'm skeptical of that. I would need more evidence than just your assertion that the Inuit should be well-represented in the world's top universities. Most of the Inuit are eating a lot of crap, so I don't expect their current IQs to necessarily even match the avg American IQs today. I would expect the first-contact Inuit to have had higher intelligence than the avg American (although standard IQ tests would probably be too laden in modern culture to have been accurate measures for them), and Upper Paleolithic Stone age hunters to have had even higher intelligence. Unfortunately, it will be difficult if not impossible to prove this and I think the only way people will be convinced is if thousands of people eat RPD and many have children with above-avg IQs, like Gray-Hawk.

I guess Michael's child could be a test of this. If his wife stays mostly meat/fat-based-RPD during pregnancy and the child does during his/her early years, then if I'm right, we should expect the child to turn out with an above-avg IQ. If Tyler is right, then it will more likely have an avg IQ.

Firstly, from what I understand, the remark re "Gray hawk" having genius intelligence seems to come from his father, which makes me very much doubt the claim. I mean, most parents think their child is superior/special in some way, without evidence.

Secondly, like I said before, having a higher intelligence means that you have a much higher competitive advantage compared to others(I'd imagine even a 5 points difference would be noticeable).There is no evidence of that in the Inuit in pre-Contact times(and one would assume that explorers like Stefansson would have noticed any such difference in the 19th to early 20th century). Also, intelligence on an overall basis is partly linked to stimulation, and use of your brain. In other words, it's quite possible that neolithic-era peoples were more intelligent than their palaeo-era ancestors simply because their whole culture was infinitely more complex than in palaeo times, requiring greater levels of organisation, more complex art/science etc.

Another reason for suspecting that the Inuit weren't significantly more intelligent is that their diet consisted partially of cooked food. I mentioned a while back re animals on cooked diets having a lower brainweight than their wild counterparts(re Dr Howell etc.)

[William]

Secondly, like I said before, having a higher intelligence means that you have a much higher competitive advantage compared to others(I'd imagine even a 5 points difference would be noticeable).There is no evidence of that in the Inuit in pre-Contact times(and one would assume that explorers like Stefansson would have noticed any such difference in the 19th to early 20th century).

Compete against whom? I'm not aware of any evidence for competition, and the available records indicate that they were even recently far more socially ept than we.
I suggest that it is the stupid who compete, while the wise cooperate.

Also, intelligence on an overall basis is partly linked to stimulation, and use of your brain. In other words, it's quite possible that neolithic-era peoples were more intelligent than their palaeo-era ancestors simply because their whole culture was infinitely more complex than in palaeo times, requiring greater levels of organisation, more complex art/science etc.

Intelligence is shown by language complexity, and it has been said by Inuit that they no longer understand the words of their hunter forbears. Note also the degeneration of most European languages mentioned by linguists.
We are not on the average becoming better.
Agrarian culture is not more complex than that of hunters.

Another reason for suspecting that the Inuit weren't significantly more intelligent is that their diet consisted partially of cooked food. I mentioned a while back re animals on cooked diets having a lower brainweight than their wild counterparts(re Dr Howell etc.)

I won't believe this without evidence of pre-contact cooking, and AFAIK there isn't any.
Dr Howell's animals ate cooked evil carbs; what else could we expect?

[PaleoPhil]

Firstly, from what I understand, the remark re "Gray hawk" having genius intelligence seems to come from his father, which makes me very much doubt the claim. I mean, most parents think their child is superior/special in some way, without evidence.

That's fine, I am merely in the hypothesis stage at this point and we don't have to agree. I didn't expect you to be convinced by the anecdotal evidence provided by Ray Audette about his son Gray Hawk or by Jared Diamond about the HGs he has studied. Like I said, it is essentially impossible to prove either way at this time, given the limited evidence we have to draw on. That's why I suggested keeping an eye on Michael's son's progress and let's see who's hypothesis bears out. Granted, it will still be mere anecdotal evidence, but it should be interesting.

One reason I like this hypothesis favored by Ray Audette, Jared Diamond, Michael Eades and others about (raw and/or low-cooked) meat/fat eating contributing to higher intelligence and perhaps brain/body ratio growth (largely via gut shrinkage--quite right) is it's fairly simple, doesn't require a lot of caveats, it fits in with many other things we've learned about the physiology of humans and other animals, and it would answer a lot of questions. That doesn't mean it's necessarily correct, partly or wholly, but it does have many of the characteristics of a useful and correct hypothesis and the circumstantial evidence up to this point is encouraging. Another more unscientific reason I like it is that I'm eating lots of raw meats and fats myself, I've been experiencing mental improvements and I'm selfishly hoping these will continue and advance further. If they don't, then I may end up reconsidering my hypothesis and try putting an alternative one to the test.

[TylerDurden]

That's why I suggested keeping an eye on Michael's son's progress and let's see who's hypothesis bears out. Granted, it will still be mere anecdotal evidence, but it should be interesting.

I doubt Michael's son's progress would be relevant. The only real way one could prove this claim is if there was a father on this diet who was slightly retarded(not due to accident) and who then managed to produce children who were all of well above average intelligence.

One reason I like this hypothesis favored by Ray Audette, Jared Diamond, Michael Eades and others about (raw and/or low-cooked) meat/fat eating contributing to higher intelligence and perhaps brain/body ratio growth (largely via gut shrinkage--quite right) is it's fairly simple, doesn't require a lot of caveats, it fits in with many other things we've learned about the physiology of humans and other animals, and it would answer a lot of questions. That doesn't mean it's necessarily correct, partly or wholly, but it does have many of the characteristics of a useful and correct hypothesis and the circumstantial evidence up to this point is encouraging. Another more unscientific reason I like it is that I'm eating lots of raw meats and fats myself, I've been experiencing mental improvements and I'm selfishly hoping these will continue and advance further. If they don't, then I may end up reconsidering my hypothesis and try putting an alternative one to the test.

I agree re certain mental improvements on diet. I myself have experienced things like improvement in concentration/alertness over the years due to this diet, plus my memory improved etc. Now, these things can, indirectly benefit me, and my brain has almost certainly increased in weight over the years(certain conditions like anxiety(which is what I had) apparently cause decreased brainweight etc., but that isn't really the same as boosting one's innate IQ.

One reason I'm taking all that  cod liver oil and krill oil is because I'm hedging my bets and hoping the omega-3 theory re bigger brains is correct. You never know.

[PaleoPhil]

I doubt Michael's son's progress would be relevant. The only real way one could prove this claim is if there was a father on this diet who was slightly retarded(not due to accident) and who then managed to produce children who were all of well above average intelligence.

It's not solid scientific evidence, but I don't know why it would be completely irrelevant from a lay person's perspective. After all, most of us based our dietary choices more on our own anecdotal experience than on solid scientific evidence.

It's not likely we'll ever have a case to follow of a retarded father eating RPD and then producing a genius child, so I guess it will remain an eternal mystery for you. I suspect you're afraid that Michael's son may turn out to be a genius, so you're not willing to put your money where your mouth is. Most children do not have IQs well above avg, obviously, so I've even stacked the odds in your favor. Why not have a little fun and take the bet? We don't even have to put money on it. Of course, definitions of "genius level IQ" vary, so I'll bet that Michael's son's IQ turns out to be 140 or higher if he sticks to a meat/fat-based RPD.

Your standards for evidence on this one are higher than mine. Scientific standards, such as a sufficiently large random sample of RPDer children showing IQs one or more standard deviations above the mean would be sufficient evidence for me, especially in the context of a scientific model that explains how it could happen and predicts the general result of higher IQs. In the meantime, Michael's son and two of my nephews are all I've got (unless Jared Diamond or someone else provides more evidence), so I'll be keeping my eye on them. Unfortunately, my nephews weren't Paleo from conception and they haven't tried RPD yet, so they're of less potential anecdotal value than Michael's son, but their diets are superior to the SAD, so I think they'll turn out with higher than avg IQs, but maybe not 140 or more.

I agree re certain mental improvements on diet. I myself have experienced things like improvement in concentration/alertness over the years due to this diet, plus my memory improved etc. Now, these things can, indirectly benefit me, and my brain has almost certainly increased in weight over the years(certain conditions like anxiety(which is what I had) apparently cause decreased brainweight etc., but that isn't really the same as boosting one's innate IQ.

Maybe we're just using different semantics. I'm just using "IQ" as a lazy shorthand for cognitive intelligence and because there are numeric measurements of it that can be compared. I doubt it would even be very applicable to a HG population, but for Michael's son I think it would be a decent, though imperfect, indicator.

One reason I'm taking all that  cod liver oil and krill oil is because I'm hedging my bets and hoping the omega-3 theory re bigger brains is correct. You never know.

Smart thinking.

[TylerDurden]

It's not likely we'll ever have a case to follow of a retarded father eating RPD and then producing a genius child, so I guess it will remain an eternal mystery for you. I suspect you're afraid that Michael's son may turn out to be a genius, so you're not willing to put your money where your mouth is. Most children do not have IQs well above avg, obviously, so I've even stacked the odds in your favor. Why not have a little fun and take the bet? We don't even have to put money on it. Of course, definitions of "genius level IQ" vary, so I'll bet that Michael's son's IQ turns out to be 140 or higher if he sticks to a meat/fat-based RPD.

The reason why your bet re Michael's son is ridiculous is because Michael is himself hardly a slow thinker, and therefore rather likely to have children of above average intelligence, regardless of diet.So, that's kind of illegally stacking the deck to your advantage. You might have a point re diet and IQ  if the guy ends up  the Nikola Tesla of his generation, but otherwise not.

Anyway, I deeply mistrust modern IQ tests. For one thing I noticed that I did even better with them the more IQ tests I did(implying that the tests really determined education rather than IQ) and now that there are claims that people are doing ever better on IQ tests than in previous generations, I am doubly convinced(yes  I know there are some fools that claim that the rise in modern IQ is due to increased intelligence but this is clearly scientifically invalid,it's just because of better education).

[PaleoPhil]

The reason why your bet re Michael's son is ridiculous is because Michael is himself hardly a slow thinker, and therefore rather likely to have children of above average intelligence, regardless of diet.So, that's kind of illegally stacking the deck to your advantage. You might have a point re diet and IQ  if the guy ends up  the Nikola Tesla of his generation, but otherwise not.

All right, then what if I make the bet that his son's IQ will be say 10 or more points above the avg of his parent's scores (almost one standard deviation--15 points--difference)? The Nikola Tesla example seems ridiculously extreme, though I don't know what his IQ was. Tesla was a one in a billion kind of person, it seems to me.

[TylerDurden]

All right, then what if I make the bet that his son's IQ will be say 10 or more points above the avg of his parent's scores (almost one standard deviation--15 points--difference)? The Nikola Tesla example seems ridiculously extreme, though I don't know what his IQ was. Tesla was a one in a billion kind of person, it seems to me.

Like I said, I deeply distrust IQ testing so I don't see it as a valid way to test intelligence. After all, all he'd need do is practice them a lot and he'll quickly up his score(In my own case, I experienced differences as high as 35 points(ranging from 135 to 170 - same for my brother who simply studied IQ tests ad nauseam until he consistently scored 170). I'd only be impressed if he entered University at the age of 12, or something like that. I mean if eating meat, raw or cooked, really helps that much, there ought to be some impressive results as well.

[RawZi]

Your standards for evidence on this one are higher than mine. Scientific standards, such as a sufficiently large random sample of RPDer children showing IQs one or more standard deviations above the mean would be sufficient evidence for me, especially in the context of a scientific model that explains how it could happen and predicts the general result of higher IQs. In the meantime, Michael's son and two of my nephews are all I've got (unless Jared Diamond or someone else provides more evidence), so I'll be keeping my eye on them. Unfortunately, my nephews weren't Paleo from conception and they haven't tried RPD yet, so they're of less potential anecdotal value than Michael's son, but their diets are superior to the SAD, so I think they'll turn out with higher than avg IQs, but maybe not 140 or more.

    My family are hardly RPD'ers, most eat thoroughly cooked store bought meat and vegetables from what I see.  We have geniuses among these.  So I don't think it's necessary to eat raw paleo to be genius, but I do think clearer eating RAF than not eating it.  Also, being vegan, I know this may sound strange and may not have been what was happening to it, but I felt like my brain was shrinking a little.  I do not feel that now, I feel better.

[PaleoPhil]

Like I said, I deeply distrust IQ testing so I don't see it as a valid way to test intelligence. After all, all he'd need do is practice them a lot and he'll quickly up his score(In my own case, I experienced differences as high as 35 points(ranging from 135 to 170 - same for my brother who simply studied IQ tests ad nauseam until he consistently scored 170). I'd only be impressed if he entered University at the age of 12, or something like that. I mean if eating meat, raw or cooked, really helps that much, there ought to be some impressive results as well.

So in other words, you accept the possibility that a RPD may indeed raise IQ by as much as 35 points over the average American IQ and you're not willing to bet against the RPD unless I make astronomical claims for it.

I deeply distrust IQ tests as well. If you have a better datum that we could use to measure intelligence by so that we can make alternative forecasts that we could compare and justify, let me know. I'm not interested in excuses as to why you can't do it, come up with something, no matter how flawed and we'll have fun with it. Maybe we'll lose interest in the future, but at least it will give me some idea where you're coming from now, because it's hard to pin down just what you're trying to say when you don't put it in concrete terms and keep varying it to suit your point of the moment.

[Michael]

Well, guys!  I've been missing out on this particular conversation!!  Nice to see the betting has begun on Charlie's progress!!  

My opinion?  I tend to agree with you both  (I'm a Libra after all!)    I think Charlie's IQ - or more accurately, cognitive intelligence - will be a useful barometer of RPD effectiveness in this regard.  However, I also tend to agree with Tyler's comments about the inadequacies of actual IQ tests as well as the importance of any inherited intelligence that may factor.  IQ tests I did myself 10yrs ago (when vegan and in a poor state of mental & physical health) put me in the top 1%.  My partner also has reasonable intelligence.  

I have an 11yr old daughter from a previous relationship too.  She is very advanced at her school in numeracy & literacy as well as being a talented musician.  She has a good chance of getting into one of the top girl's grammar schools in the country when she takes her 11+ later this month.  She's no Tesla but this is despite an absolutely AWFUL diet!!  Her mother and I were vegetarian throughout her conception/pregnancy and for the first years of her life.  Her mother (who recently died of breast cancer age 35!) fed her a terrible SAD diet for most of her life after we separated.  My point being - inherited intelligence is a BIG factor!

Good luck with the betting though.  My money is on Charlie being highly intelligent!  

[PaleoPhil]

I also agree with Tyler that IQ tests suck and it was never my point that they're any good. They're just the only measure I know of that we could easily make differing forecasts/bets on.

Let's try this, Tyler: no matter how flawed you think IQ tests are and assuming all things are equal, what would you expect an American eating a SAD diet from conception to end up with an IQ of when they reach say ten years old? Would the current avg be a good estimate?

In contrast to that, what would you expect an avg American who eats an RPD from conception to end up with for an IQ at age ten? Any difference?


Here's another way of putting it, if you don't like that one. Do you think Michael's son's IQ will equal, exceed or be lower than his parents' and why?


I agree with your bet, Michael and I'm betting that if your son is RPD throughout that his IQ will exceed yours significantly, if it's possible to measure and contrast them at that high a level, no offense intended to you. In other words, I am inclined to believe Jared Diamond's claim that the HGs he observed were more intelligent on avg than the avg moderner and I am not inclined to believe Tyler's claim that Neolithic people were possibly more intelligent than the HGs of that time. Sorry, Tyler.

[phatdave]

Hearing about michaels son growing up is really exciting. A first hand account of a child eating in such a way from birth is incredbly interesting.

[wodgina]

If he's not eating inflammatory foods like milk and wheat he will grow up to be good looking too because he will be a nose breather and his face will grow wide and healthy.

[RawZi]

If he's not eating inflammatory foods like milk and wheat he will grow up to be good looking too because he will be a nose breather and his face will grow wide and healthy.

    True store bought milk will do that, and does it to people all the time.

[TylerDurden]

I also agree with Tyler that IQ tests suck and it was never my point that they're any good. They're just the only measure I know of that we could easily make differing forecasts/bets on.

Let's try this, Tyler: no matter how flawed you think IQ tests are and assuming all things are equal, what would you expect an American eating a SAD diet from conception to end up with an IQ of when they reach say ten years old? Would the current avg be a good estimate?

This is arbitrary. I mean, like I said, IQ is largely hereditary and people all follow different kinds of SAD diet, some very highly processed some doing home-cooked meals mostly etc.

Here's another way of putting it, if you don't like that one. Do you think Michael's son's IQ will equal, exceed or be lower than his parents' and why?

There are too many other confusing factors. For example, there is regression to the norm.

Realistically speaking, given my own experience of IQ tests(re a 35  point IQ improvement due to knowing more about how to do IQ tests(these tests were all done long before this diet, incidentally), I reckon that I would require some form of alternate, more solid proof, such as going through education at a faster rate than his parents or maybe better university grades or whatever.

I agree with your bet, Michael and I'm betting that if your son is RPD throughout that his IQ will exceed yours significantly, if it's possible to measure and contrast them at that high a level, no offense intended to you. In other words, I am inclined to believe Jared Diamond's claim that the HGs he observed were more intelligent on avg than the avg moderner and I am not inclined to believe Tyler's claim that Neolithic people were possibly more intelligent than the HGs of that time. Sorry, Tyler.

Well, we shall have to agree to disagree on that. I certainly don't find that HGs have any kind of superior intelligence as, if that were the case, they would have dominated/devastated settled communities most of the time rather than the other way round. In short, higher intelligence gives one too great a competitive advantage, so either there is no difference in IQ or the more settled communities are brighter.
[/quote]

[alphagruis]

Well, we shall have to agree to disagree on that. I certainly don't find that HGs have any kind of superior intelligence as, if that were the case, they would have dominated/devastated settled communities most of the time rather than the other way round.

One can hardly agree with that. 

There were by far more settled agriculturists than HGs, by the time the latter were dominated/devastated. As Jared Diamond put it: 1 HG, whatever his intelligence, will finally be dominated when facing 100 agriculturists who need the land he lives from, to further proliferate and expand. The caracteristic feature of agriculture is precisely that it permits very rapid growth of the settled communities as compared to HGs. That's just elementary darwinism.

And success in terms of darwinian natural selection does by no means imply superior intelligence nor superior health.

[TylerDurden]

The point I made was that settled societies had more opportunity to use their brains due to living in more complex social systems - after all HG communities are essentially static while settled communities were more vibrant and changing.  Also, one could argue that having higher intelligence means one is more inclined to search for strategies promoting one's survival, so that being a HG would be a less intelligent choice in view of lower birth-rate etc.