For shits n gigs, I'm watching 'How Beer Saved the World' and although filled with shaky claims IMO, I think their theory on the origin of agriculture has some merit. After all, why else go through tons of processing in order to make grains edible? They taste like crap by themselves, but ferment them, and you have beer (albeit at first, no hoppy taste). I think it's a plausible theory?
asked byJ_wisor (233)
Get FREE instant access to our Paleo For Beginners Guide & 15 FREE Recipes!
on August 23, 2013
at 06:35 PM
It actually has some merit. I think I read that the earliest piece of writing is a recipe for beer from the ancient Sumerians. The Egyptians paid a lot of the pyramid builders in beer as well. For a long time, beer was a source of liquid that wasn't tainted, since settling down somewhere meant, uh, waste buildup and foul water supply. In that sense, beer and grain helped people settle in one place so they can begin the agricultural neolithic era.
This, of course, is very narrow in the sense that this only considers one branch of humanity that spreads out from the middle east to the Western world. This doesn't take into consideration the far East and Mesoamericans who have very low tolerance for alcohol, but still farm.
If this were Mythbusters, I'd call it "Plausible."