Domestication, Semi-Natural Selection, and the Neolithic

Ever wonder why you don't see corn in the wild? Ever see a dog too pitiful for the test of nature? This kind of thing has fascinated me for some time. That is, (gasp) the Neolithic has fascinated me.

One of the hardest things to come to terms with in Paleo is that there is almost nothing we can eat that "our ancestors ate." You hear it a lot -- hell, it's a sales pitch on the covers of half the paleo books out there ("Eat what your ancestors ate") -- but the truth is that what we eat is a faint genetic echo of what our ancestors ate.

But before I get off topic, I want to point out what's truly fascinating about all of this: it's evolution at play. And it helps to refine exactly what we should mean when we say 'Paleo'.

In May of this year, the New York Times ran an article tracing the ancestry of corn back 9,000 years to the "cradle of Maize" in southern Mexico. It reads like a palegomaniacal wet dream:

"For most of human history, our ancestors relied entirely on hunting animals and gathering seeds, fruits, nuts, tubers and other plant parts from the wild for food. It was only about 10,000 years ago that humans in many parts of the world began raising livestock and growing food through deliberate planting. These advances provided more reliable sources of food and allowed for larger, more permanent settlements. Native Americans alone domesticated nine of the most important food crops in the world, including corn, more properly called maize (Zea mays), which now provides about 21 percent of human nutrition across the globe.

But despite its abundance and importance, the biological origin of maize has been a long-running mystery. The bright yellow, mouth-watering treat we know so well does not grow in the wild anywhere on the planet, so its ancestry was not at all obvious. Recently, however, the combined detective work of botanists, geneticists and archeologists has been able to identify the wild ancestor of maize, to pinpoint where the plant originated, and to determine when early people were cultivating it and using it in their diets."

The study that the article is based on ultimately concludes that rather than the multiple-origins theory, all forms of maize originated in a single location. There are two things worth interpreting here.

First, the example of corn highlights the fact that even among a tremendously diverse range of genetic expressions, genetic heritage can be strikingly simple (one place, one time, relatively recent). What this means is that all the human beings around you are not only remarkably different from each other, but they are remarkably different from their common ancestors, Evolutionary Adam and Evolutionary Eve (that's National Geographic's verbiage for our East African Savannah-dwelling ancestors from 60,000 years ago, not my words). This doesn't mean that we're so different as to render 'paleo logic' useless, because the adaptive pressures of the last several thousand years are identifiable (more on this below). On average, we got short, pale, and weak at the same time that we got smart, adventurous, and innovative. But we still can't chronically consume pizza without consequences.

Second, note the rapid pace of neolithic evolution. Go ahead and take another look at the corn/teosinthe picture above. That's just 9,000 years of artificial selection (reproductive selection by man, rather than by nature). Melissa McEwen's recent post on the book, The 10,000 Year Explosion, went over how human evolution was 100x faster in the Neolithic than in the Paleolithic. Now, that's still three million years of paleo versus ten thousand years of neo, but neolithic evolution can't just be dismissed. Plant and animal domestication, sedentary living and farming, and the rise of civilization should be considered as part of the big picture (NeoPaleo Diet, anyone?).

Another helpful example of neolithic evolution is the animal component of domestication. Take dogs, for example. Just like corn, all domesticated dogs descend from a single ancestor, but this time it's an ancestor way more badass than teosinthe: the gray wolf. Even wild wolves today have been tamed, but it's difficult. The reason that some dogs are easy to tame and train is because those genetic traits (friendly, social, smart) were artificially selected for by humans over thousands of years, just like the traits of big, tender, and sweet were selected for corn. Notice that friendly, social, and smart are non-physical traits. Most people think of evolution as physical change, but genetic variation includes psychological/neurological triggers too (emotion, intellect, etc.). The question is: how does this apply to humans? Well, get ready, because I'm about to coin a phrase.

Natural selection: the reproductive preference of certain genetic traits, selected for by nature.

Artificial selection: the reproductive preference of certain genetic traits, selected for by humans.

Semi-natural selection: the reproductive preference of certain genetic traits, selected for by civilization (the Neolithic's version of nature).

The Implications of Semi-Natural Selection and Neolithic Evolution

We've been evolving rapidly over the last 10,000 years while we thrived and multiplied on corn and wheat, so we evolved to eat them right? The answer is a general no, but a partial yes.

Some people today have tremendously negative reactions to neolithic foods (gluten, for instance), and it's sensible that the most severe cases at the turn of the Neolithic may have resulted in the removal of those genes from the gene pool (death, I mean), especially in times of challenge (food scarcity, disease, etc). The number of people who suffer immediately after grain consumption is small (celiacs, for instance), but the number who suffer from chronic grain consumption is high (obese, autoimmune?, diabetic).

Beyond acute suffering, the adaptive pressure to digest neolithic food wanes due to the time scale required. The chronic diseases take so long to develop that they don't significantly affect health until after reproductive age. So all the genes that lead to chronic health conditions stay in the gene pool. This is one major reason why we are not evolved to tolerate neolithic food on a chronic basis.

With the fall of hunting tribes and the rise of unstable societies, the reproductive advantage shifted away from the physical and toward the intellectual. In a Neolithic world of monetary systems, socio-political hierarchy, and generally unprecedented complexity, the genes that fared better in survival/reproductive terms were not the ones with advanced physicality, but those with advanced intellectuality. Political and social maneuvering, mastering advanced professional specialties, and innovative ideas were required for reproductive success and, in many cases, survival. Anthropologists universally confirm that we got shorter and weaker, but the paleo community seems to only attribute this to a less nourishing diet of Neolithic foods. I would add the dwindling importance (adaptive pressure) of physicality to that hypothesis.

As social success shifted away from the tribe, Neolithic evolution saw new genetic traits that were favored and thereby selected for through what I call semi-natural selection (see above). The development of a monetary system created a zero-sum world, one based on materials, wealth, and economic status. Clearly, the genes that win out in this world are ones that are not only intelligent, but conniving, selfish, and over-competitive to the point of deceit. To be clear, I am arguing that the Neolithic world may inherently favor those that are individualistic rather than social, autonomous rather than empathetic, and competitive rather than cooperative, for the adaptive pressure of the Neolithic world has shifted, however slight or profound, in these directions. I covered the adaptive pressure of empathy in the Paleolithic. It's reasonable to surmise that the same mechanisms of evolution would apply to the Neolithic if the adaptive pressures sufficiently changed.

It is vitally important to note the influence of geography on Neolithic evolution, because almost all variation in the species today is the result of geographic-specific adaptation. The reason that skin color changed among humans was because of an adaptation to low UVB levels in latitudes away from the equator. In order to manufacture more Vitamin D from UVB rays, skin lightened and became more sensitive to the less available light. The reason that Eskimos have more subcutaneous fat on their cheekbones and lips is because their evolutionary process took place in very cold climates. The reason that higher rates of Northern Europeans retain the ability to digest milk is because they developed lactase persistence (through Neolithic evolution), which is the enzyme that breaks down lactose. They do so remarkably better than people across the globe, and even better than they did themselves 4,000 years ago. They were among the first humans to rely on dairy as a substantial nutrient source; the Northern European climate provided significant adaptive pressure due to the lack of stable food alternatives, unlike other dairying cultures. Again, the pace of evolution is strikingly clear. Evolution occurs as fast as genes can vary, but as slow as the adaptive pressures dictate.

We can also run with the idea of geographic-specific Neolithic adaption in order to shed light on modern anthropology. For sure, many folks hinge hypotheses (and even conclusions) on the anthropological study of remote hunter-gatherer tribes. However, there is no doubt that geographic-specific adaptation has taken place for these modern hunter-gatherers. Looking at the carb-loading, coconut fat-gorging Kitavans can definitely be a helpful example for exploring a healthy lifestyle, but you have to take this information with a grain of salt, because you can't assume that your body will react the same way their geographically adapted bodies will. This isn't to discount anthropology. We're simply broadening our thought process to include Neolithic evolution in the consideration of what constitutes the big picture.

Paleo or Faileo?: The Bicycle

Before I get down to brass tacks, let's get people's sensitivities out of the way. Yes, the bicycle is the messiah of environmental restoration. Yes, the bicycle is the best invention since the wheel. Yes, biking is still a great way to go long distances. And yes, biking is a far better choice than driving.

Call me extreme, but I like to look at the facts before making up my mind. But sometimes, things are so ingrained into my day-to-day life that I don't even think about questioning it. Until I get a wakeup call. So it was with the bicycle when one nearly took me out of the gene pool.

I have heard plenty of horror stories about the bike throughout my life, always shrugging them off as freak occurrences or misinformation, things that could have happened whether or not the bike was involved. The story that should have opened my eyes was the one about my girlfriend's father. He took a big white work truck head-on at about 30 mph while going 15 mph himself rounding a blind turn on a quiet mountain road. He was nearly killed.

Even when Andrew at Evolvify recently broke his clavicle mountain biking I thought, "Terrible news, but it could've happened anywhere, anytime -- bike or no bike." I'm writing this post in admission of my previously faulty logic.

Every method of transportation has costs. The problem is that many of those costs are hard to measure, and some are hard to think of measuring in the first place. I believe strongly that risk of personal injury and the opportunity cost of bicycling are two of those things.

I'm not talking about erectile dysfunction or arterial iliac endofibrosis, which has been argued compellingly before; I'm talking broken bones, missing teeth or -- lord forbid -- a curb to the temple. Helmet or not, you're screwed. Most people don't even wear their helmet correctly to begin with.

The very first car-related death in our country's history was in 1896 when a car crashed into a bicyclist. And per mile, a bicyclist is 3 to 10x more likely to die at any given moment than a motorist. Under a thousand bicyclists die each year and 90% of them are men, which may imply speed and/or risk-taking as major factors. That's Lesson #1: Understand the real dangers.

But perhaps the most overlooked aspect of the bike debate is the opportunity cost, something that I didn't consider until I threw a disc with an avid cyclist. He was the pillar of youth and health: sun-kissed skin, powerful calves, a lean physique. I was a little nervous to display my rusty Frisbee-throwing skills ... until I saw him attempt to run and jump. It was a little bit like actual running and jumping, except he never left the ground with stride or hop, and he just looked old, like he was manipulating the skeleton of a decrepit elderly man. I'm not exaggerating. This guy ran with shoes on over grass like it was hot coals on his bare feet. It was shocking to see such lethargy from someone who looked so fit.

And then it hit me: If you spend all your exercise time on a bicycle, you are replacing time that could be spent moving naturally, developing useful and lasting strength and body coordination. You know, things like lifting, running, jumping, throwing, etc. Things that are paleo. So Lesson #2: Don't let bicycling replace real exercise.

I don't think die-hard fans of the bicycle should quit, but the dangers should be known and the alternatives should be flushed. Consider walking instead. Long walks are the base of the paleo exercise pyramid. The benefits are profound, the dangers are nil, and the opportunity cost is little. It's better for fat burning, too. But don't take my word for it.

"If the body be feeble, the mind will not be strong. The sovereign invigorator of the body is exercise, and of all the exercises walking is best. A horse (read: bicycle) gives but a kind of half exercise, and a carriage is no better than a cradle. No one knows, till he tries, how easily a habit of walking is acquired." - Thomas Jefferson

Saprotrophs, Apex Predators, and the Circle of Life

Plants eat sunlight. Herbivores eat plants. Carnivores eat herbivores. And saprotrophs eat everything. They are the decomposers, the living things that consume dead organic matter. They are earthworms, bacteria, fungi, and protozoa. They are what complete the ignoble Circle of Life.

Please excuse my simple illustration of the delicate complexity of nature, but hey -- at least it's not as simple as yin and yang. Anyway, the moral discourse begins and ends with the ecosystem, so we have to speak in terms that everyone understands.

The apex predator (lion, bear, human) plays an integral role in the balance of an ecosystem. In particular, they control prey species' population dynamics, the impact of which ripples down to the level of plant ecology.

Ecological systems are naturally self-balancing, but they can be dynamic. Even without human interference, plant and animal species can still disappear due to changing climate, changing food sources, competing species, etc. Oddly, the very chaos and dynamism of nature is the 'balance' that sounds so warm and fuzzy off the tongue.

But just because nature is dynamic does not mean that we should sit at the sidelines. There are ecological principles that will bolster entire ecosystems in a way that increases net life -- that is, more lifeforms at all levels, all giving and taking within a robust circle of life.

Organic farming is one great example. But to understand organic farming, we need to first understand industrial farming (where you get you're grains).

Industrial farming first wipes out all life from the given plot of land. Including bacteria. Then, they plant a crop that is genetically altered to tolerate a specific herbicide/pesticide that will continue killing all life on that plot of land, until... Boom. You got grains. So you cut 'em down utilizing cheap labor (migrant illegal labor), ship it across the country on a big truck with a huge engine, and sell them to unsuspecting customers. This is great for grain prices, but bad for human health and the environment.

On the other hand, organic farming uses manure and compost to naturally create nutrient-rich soil that grows healthy vegetables. It uses biological pest control to control pests. Lastly, it's sold locally so it doesn't spoil or make a big carbon footprint. The end result is more lifeforms, no toxins, and better health.

So what about animals? Well, harmony in nature cannot be achieved without predation, and human beings are ancient apex predators. We rely on animals for a complete array of fats and proteins, and it is our duty to participate in this vast, interconnected ecosystem. It only makes sense to hunt overpopulated species and protect endangered ones, and to farm in a way that promotes life at all levels, where each animal lives healthily and happily, and in turn provides nourishment to the next member of the food chain. Pain on an individual level pales in comparison to life on a comprehensive level.

Building Ideological Bridges

A handful of fringe disciplines relate to the ancestral/evolutionary paradigm in some interesting ways, and I'd like to discuss them a bit here. By no mean is what I have to offer conclusive; rather, I simply find the ideas fascinating and want to explore these complex topics with you. So please share your thoughts in the comment section below about any or all of these.

Feminism. Uncomfortable word for some, I know. And I thought so too, until I took Feminist Theory and Literature (honors-level) at university. I'll say this: Once you read the foundational scholarship yourself and get to know the actual philosophy behind it's early leaders, you'll realize pretty easily that true feminism is unlike the popular notion of man-hating bra burners. It's an intellectual movement at it's core, and is what eventually evolved into Gender Studies, which intersects with race, class, queer, and other

minority studies to be the foundational scholarship for social justice today. 'Gender equality' is the more common, acceptable word used today, but it's just a different brand for the same product.

It's relevant to the ancestral paradigm because feminism is about personal freedom and inherent rights. It's a sociocultural dissection and critique that looks at women AND men. Most notably, it took the idea of gender and defined it against sex (man vs. male). The distinction: I was born a male, but acculturated a man. So gender covers the cultural impact on learned behaviors, not instinctual ones.

And that's why it's important. Today still, we are taught cultural values, norms, and ideals that vie with our nature and limit our freedoms. Acknowledging how culture forms gender might shed light on how your own life can be improved. I think immediately of the He-men out there that don't dance or hug because it's girly, or the anemic standard of female beauty, and the list goes on. Looking at gender from a paleo perspective can make things much more clear.

Urbanization. A good friend of mine introduced me to the concept of 'urban sprawl' and the 'rise of surburbia'. In Europe, urbanization worked out: walkable towns and cities, tight communities. In America, during the age of oil, we constructed our communities around extensive suburbs. Nice to live out by the countryside right? Yeah, 'cept it's not actually the countryside and the 'burbs are anti-social and isolationist by design. Most urban public space serves only to fragment communities.

What can evolution tell us about urban design? We are social creatures that require positive social interaction. Big concrete cities induce psychoses on the cultural level and pollution on the environmental level, which is certainly not the ideal. But small or moderately-sized, tightly-knit, well-designed communities might be a step in the right direction for social well-being.

Gay rights. Whether or not homosexuality occurs in nature is an non-issue from the scientific perspective. Ask any naturalist and the answer is clear. A nearly unanimous: gay happens. (I'm reminded of Stephen Colbert's gay bearorist, ha!) Moreover, this is an issue about freedom. And what is more natural than freedom?

Veganism. Ultimately, everyone wants social justice and environmental restoration. But getting there is gonna take a long look at the facts and the acknowledgement of some admittedly dark truths about reality. We already agree about factory farming and corn subsidies. The detriments of agribusiness are not a far cry. Vegans can totally get on board with respecting nature's harmony and striving to keep balance in the world's ecosystems.

Politics. I'm not gonna take a position here, but this is fascinating. When you think about politics in terms of a vast political spectrum, you get anarchy on one end and socialism on the other. Zero government all the way to pure government. Libertarians would be right next to anarchy (minimal government). This is interesting to me because some paleo leaders are outwardly libertarian, but that seems at first to vie with an evolutionary perspective. If tribes share resources and America is just one big tribe, then socialism would be the paleo model for the modern world.

So why the difference? Perhaps because America is not one big tribe, but millions of little ones. Contemporary culture defines the tribe as the nuclear family (rather than the extended family in the Paleolithic). So in a political sense, we only share resources with our own 'nuclear tribe'. And perhaps libertarianism is a way to make sure government doesn't interrupt that model.

What do you think?