That statement doesn't make sense.

It was because agriculture contributed so mightily to human health and well-being that we survived and flourished to cover the surface of the earth and travel into space.

Even if some of our ancestors were bigger, it doesn't mean that they were "more healthy".

The decline in human health post-agriculture is pretty well accepted within anthropology. Jared Diamond's discussion has been widely cited:

http://www3.gettysburg.edu/~dperry/Class%20Readings%20Scanne...

Cultures didn't flourish because they were in good health. They likely flourished because agriculture supported a lot of people within that culture, which let them dominate other cultures.

I have a great deal of knowledge in the domain of the English language. "Health" can mean a lot of different things. Support of the survival and dominance of a species is a great indicator that the diet is "healthy".

flourished because agriculture supported a lot of people

All you have to do is to refer to modern organizations like the WHO to know that supporting life for a lot of people is a great deal of the meaning of "health".

[edit: clarity]

In my mind, existing is healthy than not existing.

For example, height decreased post agriculture. Did that mean that agriculture didn't allow people to grow as tall, or did agriculture decrease selective pressure on being big?

Anthropology is not as rigorous as math, physics, chemistry, or even economics. Anyone talking condescendingly about things that are "well accepted within anthropology" from 10k or 100k years ago are way overselling the discipline.

Yes we do, there are a number of countries where the average height is close to 183 cm (average in your article, though there are no citations given for that fact): The Netherlands, Denmark, Norway, Serbia, ... In the Dinaric Alps, it even reach 186 cm, so in fact we ARE taller today[1].

But another article[2] with actual sources point to an 176.2 cm average, much smaller than today.

> but it came at a terrible price on human health

[Citation needed]

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_height#Average_height_ar...

[2] http://archaeology.about.com/od/earlymansites/a/cro_magnon.h...

Here's a longer discussions (cited by 178):

http://www3.gettysburg.edu/~dperry/Class%20Readings%20Scanne...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cro-Magnon

They where discovered in Europe, but the current theory is they did not originate in Europe note the direct link from that Wikipedia page: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/be/Cro-Magno...

"The term "Cro-Magnon" soon came to be used in a general sense to describe the oldest modern people in Europe. ... However, analyses based on more current data[8] concerning the migrations of early humans have contributed to a refined definition of this expression. Current scientific literature prefers the term "European Early Modern Humans" (or EEMH), instead of "Cro-Magnon". The oldest definitely dated EEMH specimen is the Grotta del Cavallo tooth dated in 2011 to at least 43,000 years old."

Note: "the term 'Cro-Magnon,' which has no formal taxonomic status" current evidence suggests they where effectively genetically identical to modern humans. Their diet was simply better leading to larger growth vs any significant DNA differences.

Could you elaborate please.

Interesting, thanks for sharing.

Another very interesting fact - brain gets smaller in volume and unlike height, this trend is still not reversed (not sure about weight, though).

http://www.thelazycaveman.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/cav...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_expectancy#Life_expectancy...

Early 20th century was also 30 years. Ancient Rome was 20-30.

These expectancies were low chiefly because of high infant mortality. A life expectancy of "two days" really drags down your average.

Average life expectancy is not a good measure for everyday arguments. Paleolithic average life expectancy was actually quite high relative to the historical periods that followed.