I acknowledged in my post that the Paleo diet does pose some benefits because it forces the dieter to choose more whole foods and lean proteins over processed and fatty foods/meats, which can definitely induce significant weight loss. I agree with you in the sense that I do not believe that it would benefit the human population to make a complete 180 back to our primitive eating styles. That species of human died, while we survived, so clearly we have at least some nutritional knowledge that benefits us more than our historical diet. The issue with dieting overall is that most are too extreme to maintain, and we can never be sure exactly what our body needs to find optimal health, so we should aim for balance, not primitive.

In response to your musings on milk specifically, I too have often wondered what prompted someone to drink milk in the first place, maybe they figured if it’s good for babies, why not get it somewhere else for adults. This theory clearly has no backing, but it’s difficult to find many possibilities, like you stated. I wonder then, after milk was first introduced, how we had so much of it that we eventually evolved the enzyme necessary to digest it, especially given that apparently we could not even properly digest it. Why did we continue to consume it? Did our bodies become dependent on it? Is this what “made us fat?”

I found this article on the history of milk:
http://www.nature.com/news/archaeology-the-milk-revolution-1.13471

“During the most recent ice age, milk was essentially a toxin to adults because — unlike children — they could not produce the lactase enzyme required to break down lactose, the main sugar in milk. But as farming started to replace hunting and gathering in the Middle East around 11,000 years ago, cattle herders learned how to reduce lactose in dairy products to tolerable levels by fermenting milk to make cheese or yogurt. Several thousand years later, a genetic mutation spread through Europe that gave people the ability to produce lactase — and drink milk — throughout their lives. That adaptation opened up a rich new source of nutrition that could have sustained communities when harvests failed.”

This excerpt at least explains how we began to develop the ability to digest it, and according to this article, our bodies did not necessarily make the whole change; rather, the way we began processing milk made it easier to digest. It also gives brief insight into why milk became a prominent nutrient source

So basically we used to only have that enzyme as babies, but now we have evolved to have that enzyme throughout our whole life? If so, that clarifies Dunn’s argument a lot; thank you for the insight.

Oh I love this post because it ties two of my main interests — the human-animal relationship and the power of the internet together so well. Thank you! I can’t wait to talk about this more in class but just wanted to throw in a couple of things here: 1) the computer-internet is a technology but one of a fundamentally different sort than a “tool” (whether used by animal or human — and I loved the dolphin fishing article!). The internet puts the wisdom (and wisecracks) of a global network at your fingertips and makes any one individual “smarter” than their unplugged selves. 2) the relationship between brain size and intelligence is complicated (thankfully). Although I definitely support the humans as domesticates project, we need to be careful about making unilateral assertions about the brain size / intelligence issue. http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/how-think-neanderthal/201309/does-brain-size-matter

The cow-human relationship is pretty intriguing! As for dogs and the broader question you pose about where domesticates would be without humans, what happens when you turn it around? Since we have co-evolved with our domesticates for such a long time, where would we be without them? What insight does Dunn offer as to how they have changed us?

Calvin and Hobbes definitely got this one right! I agree that Zeder’s theories about different “pathways” to domestication make so much sense. And by extension, it seems we should also resist the temptation to see domestication as an event that “happened” in the past. Dunn and Zeder both emphasize relationships of interdependence and interaction that are (always) dynamic. What happens if we think about domestication this way?

I’m not sure whether I agree with gene therapy for weight loss, but I don’t think it should be necessary. It’s pretty easy to see why we have a weight problem in this country. Our economic system has produced a ridiculous number of sources of food that difficult to resist (e.g., sugar, fat, salt) and very easy to obtain. I was reminded of this when I traveled to Orlando this week. I haven’t traveled outside the Virginia-Maryland-North Carolina region in a while, and the number of restaurants and food stores in northeast Orlando is astonishing in comparison to most places around here. Gene therapy would just be a means to circumnavigate the obvious problem of food availability and consumption created by our economic system.

I agree that desperation may have been a reason for the development of agriculture, but I am also skeptical that it’s the only reason. In my opinion, it wouldn’t have been difficult for ancient humans to observe plans growing an connect the dots that placing seeds in the ground, watering them, and giving them sun exposure causes them to grow. Sure, growing enough for entire populations is more challenging, but the I don’t see agriculture as being such a large hump for humans to get over in the process of their evolution.

I like your skeptical approach towards the theories presented. Your musings or objections are presented thoughtfully and clearly without being aggressive or overbearing (like mine often come off). Also, very punny…

The idea of gene therapy for weight loss is intriguing, and not solely for the massive market for such a product or therapy. You mention market for “lazy” ways to lose weight, which suggests such methods may be inherently bad or at least frowned upon. However, look at it from another angle: if we can use gene therapy to regulate obesity, we can use it to regulate all sorts of things, including previously untreatable genetic diseases. Now, because the market for a fat reducing gene therapy is so huge, it gives a huge financial incentive for such therapies to be researched and tested. If the only way to get gene therapy for cystic fibrosis is as an offshoot of the funding for lazy weight loss cures, I’ll take it!

As I think I’ve mentioned before, I know a few people who have used the Paleo diet (for a short term, not as a permanent lifestyle) as a way to lose weight and become healthier and were very successful, with no detrimental effects to their bodies. I actually have a Paleo cookbook at home because I like the creative use of vegetables as a healthier choice of side than, say, french fries. However it’s true that this can’t work for everyone, just as no formulaic diet can be generalized for everyone on the planet. When people choose their diet and lifestyle they need to keep in mind their individual needs and metabolism- as Dunn points out, everybody is a little bit different in how much they are able to process.