From: steinly@topaz.ucsc.edu (Steinn Sigurdsson)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: The Return of Nasty, Brutish and Sh
Date: 12 Dec 92 19:45:23
Organization: Lick Observatory/UCO
NNTP-Posting-Host: topaz.ucsc.edu
In-reply-to: alanm@igc.apc.org's message of 12 Dec 92 08:35:00 GMT

In article <1466601975@igc.apc.org> alanm@igc.apc.org (Alan McGowen) writes:

   /* Written 11:47 am  Dec 10, 1992 by steinly@topaz.ucsc.edu in igc:sci.environmen */

   I wrote:
   >
   >   We've been here before.
   >
   >   The *factual* evidence is that hunter-gatherer societies often have *lower*
   >   infant mortality and birth rates than do peasant societies, and lower birth
   >   rates than early industrial societies did. Consult any standard modern intro 
   >   textbook on cultural anthropology for info and references.
   >

   Sigurdsson:
   >"... A nomadic lifestyle, for example, may have more inherent risks
   >to birth and life than does a sedentary existence. Consequently, most
   >hunting and gathering groups have a greater number of spontaneous
   >abortions and stillbirths, a higher infant mortality rate, and a
   >generally shorter life span than do most cultivators."
   >
   >from "Cultural Anthropology" F. Plog and D.G. Bates, p. 144 

   My  copy (third edition,  1990) doesn't contain this quote on  p. 
   144 -- nor anywhere in that chapter, which is on horticulture.

I was working from the first edition. ISBN 0-304-31972-9
It is in the second column, p 144 near the bottom. In my 
edition the horticulture chapter starts page 329.

If you have a citation to a standard text or a paper in
a refereed journal that contradicts the quote I made
I suggest you post it, in particular I owuld like to 
see a citation to a study suggesting that _on average_
hunter-gatherer groups had either lower infant death rates
or longer life expectancies than did average agricultural
or industrial societies.

   I suggest that the reader do a little library work before 
   accepting Siggurdsson's plausible-sounding asseverations. A great 
   deal of work has been done on birth rates, infant mortality, and 
   population sizes. The discussion of these topics in 

Alan, I gave you every break possible, to the point of restricting
my search to the list of books you posted last year as texts
you recommended for people interested in anthropology of
hunter-gatherer groups. The only claim I've seen even close to
your assertions is one from 1968 that the !Kung mortality
was not as high as previously estimated - using a methodology
of "relative aging" to establish the study groups ages - a method
with some possible problems.
Now put up or shut up.

   sci.environment proceeds in an intellectual vacuum, as if the 
   eyeball estimations of anyone with some training in physical 
   science or computer programming were the only equipment needed 
   for an instant assay of any topic. 

   What I find appalling is an intellectual arrogance which is 
   unwilling to attempt to learn something of a field and the 
   reasons for its methodology before condemning it as loaded with 
   contradictions -- which may well reflect problems with a 
   superficial understanding, rather than with the field. I have 
   seen that happen with concepts from ecology -- which Sigurdsson 
   once sneered at as "big eco-words" -- assuming that if *he* was 
   unable to see much in a concept, it must be the concept, rather 
   than his grasp of it, which is shallow. 

I have archived every post I made to sci.environment and cannot
find such a quote. I suggest you cite article number or date in which
I said this or apologise publicly for your lies.

*  Steinn Sigurdsson   			Lick Observatory      	*
*  steinly@lick.ucsc.edu		"standard disclaimer"  	*
*  Some people think they're really clever			*
*  Smash your head against the wall            Specials, 1979	* 




Newsgroups: sci.environment