Re: Maybe thinking meat is a good idea

In article <2T8Uj.13532$GE1.8847@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
Nobody in particular <nobody@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>"Mike Schilling" <mscottschilling@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
<news:Zk4Uj.2197$nW2.1518@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>...
>
>> Or maybe thinking is a bad idea entirely.
>>
>> "If it's so great to be smart," Dr. Kawecki asks, "why have most
animals remained dumb?""
>>
>>
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/06/science/06dumb.html?_r=3&ref=science&oref=slogin&oref=slogin&oref=slogin
>
>Sure, our big brains are costly, yet our lifespans are rather long for
mammals
>of our approximate size.  I suppose longevity was selected for
independently
>of our intellectual capacity?

I take it that was said with a sceptical raise of the eyebrows, as it's
certainly conventional wisdom that they are strongly linked. "Intellectual
capacity" => long childhood in which to learn => long adulthood in which
to care for children, and maybe even => advantage of living on even when
no longer reproducing, as you can still pass on experience to relatives.

But of course the adaptions necesary to make us live longer are probably
"costly" themselves (in the sense that we've had to give up other things)
as well as the more direct consequences of our larger brains, 

-- 
Chris Thompson
Email: cet1 [at] cam.ac.uk