Re: Tobias 1995

On Dec 7, 4:31 pm, Algis <algiskuliu...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Dec 8, 2:12 am, Paul Crowley <dsfdsfd...@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Algis wrote:

Thanks for being civil this time, Paul. I apologise for reacting too.

If you had first stated an awareness of
"the violence of recent human history",
this line might have some credibility.
It hasn't.  You simply work within your
framework of modern liberal values --
based on a highly-civilised and well-
policed state, and ASSUME that all (or
almost all) your ancestors lived under
much the same conditions.

I don't think I do assume that. You only assume I do because you have
a particular model in your head that makes sense to you and you can't
see why it makes less sense to others.

Well stated. Paul has visualized his scenario to such a degree that
he mistakes it for evidence. Frankly, Algis, this seems to be the
same thing you've done with your silly wading-causes-bipedalism
notions.

One thing I was definitely struck by in Elaine Morgan's work was her
scepticism about the 'Killer Ape' ideas of Robert Ardrey etc. I think
she made a good point. Most people's lives in known human history have
not been dominated by violence to the extent that they need to carry
weapons around with them at all times.

I agree. Humans are, primarily, communal creatures. And sometimes
our communities have conflict and sometimes this results in genocide
or genocide-like behaviors. But this is, actually, pretty rare.
Pau's scenario (in addition to its other absurdities, which I've
discussed previously) is inconsisttent with this observation.

If it had been such a key factor in our evolution as you imagine, we'd
undoubtedly have evolved much more robust (and not gracile) bodies,
we'd be much more muscular than we are, our skulls would be massively
thick etc. If it had been a factor in the origin of bipedality we'd
see this kind of evidence  in the fossil record very early, but we
don't.

Yes. (Hominids have always been, primarily, agricutural. Bipidalism
emerged as a means of pest control. Pest control [most notably from
inmigrating food-competitor species during the depths of the dry
season] was the key to their avoiding predatory massacres during the
dry season, which could and often did result in the extinction of
whole communities--this being the group-selective factor in human
origins.)

What are you talking about? Perth? Of course, having made
so many enemies in their ham-fisted way of dealing with the
Nyoongar people, there would have been violent reprisals
against the early British colonialists. This doesn't mean
that this must therefore be the defining characteristic of
Homo sapiens though, does it?

I had no idea you were in Perth. But the
detail of your local history are irrelevant.
ALL the 'local histories' (under those general
conditions) followed much the same pattern.
The better-armed tribe (here the British)
wiped out the worse-armed locals.  In this
case, it was under a rule of law. In most
cases there is not the slightest pretence
of law.

I dispute that. There are, as far as I am aware, many documented cases
where tribes have been discovered by explorers where they were clearly
very trusting and friendly to newcomers.

I agree.


Compared to all other mammals we are much more altruistic.
That is one of the key human characteristics to explain.
How does your "club wielding" theory explain it, by the
way?

Militarist societies (i.e. the great bulk)
require altruism.  Young men are, in effect,
programmed to take huge risks, often
amounting to suicide, in defence of the
rest of their tribe.  Populations with
a higher proportion of such 'altruistic'
young men, do better than the rest, and
their genes become more common.

The fact you had to put the word in quotes shows that you, yourself,
don't quite see this as the sort of altruism we know we're talking
about. For some reason, humans will take pity on someone (or even
something) unrelated and, at cost to themselves, help that individual.
That is completely the opposite of what any other animal would do and
it is completely the opposite of what your model of human origins
would predict they'd do. In the military scenarios you describe
they're much less likely to do that, which implies that this uniquely
human behaviour could not have been selected for through such
scenarios.

Exactly! But it also indicates that human/hominid evolution *must*
have involved some kind of communal/group selection.


 .  if all men had to carry clubs around with them at all times
- enough to be a pressure for bipedalism?

What is the problem?  The proto-hominid
society required all fit males (and maybe
some females) to carry their weapons with
them at all times.  That was more than
enough for bipedalism.

Why not just evolve bigger, more robust bodies, lethal teeth and
massively strong forearms like gorillas and chimps?

Right. Or, more succinctly, clubs are not that useful to animals that
have already have 7 times the strength of humans. The original
hominid adoption of weapons/tools could not have primarily involved
directly attacking or defending attack with the outcome being
immediate death. As indicated in my hypothesis, it involved
collective threat displays with the outcome being territorial
(communal territorialism--which continues in humans to this day).


[..]

Well, if you think the reason humans became bipedal was
because they had to carry clubs around with them at all
times, I can only roll my eyes and put on a sickly,
patronising grin.

That's about as 'scientific' a response
as any you got from your academic peer-
reviewers. In fact, that IS the response
you got from them.  You complain that
they cannot engage in rational discussion.
It's the pot calling the kettle.

At least I'm engaging with you and challenging your arguments. If I
were the editor of a journal I would publish your ideas with pleasure.
I don't think that's the sort of reception I've received. I don't
expect anthropologists to accept the waterside arguments, They can
roll their eyes and smile stupidly all they like. I just expect them
to allow evidence-based ideas to be published in their journals even
when they don't agree with them, so that they may be discussed on
their merits. If they had done that 50 years ago, waterside hypotheses
of human evolution would be taught in schools and universities as the
de facto default by now.

Your 'waterside' notions is one of many sets of notions that fail to
account for the communal adaptations that are so plainly apparent in
our species. It does seem strange to me how you can roll your eyes at
Paul's notions and sitill maitain such a silly and plainly non-
scientific notion as your wading-causes-bipedalism nonsense.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Some gutter trash
    ... They covered religious stories, they had some real history, they celebrated famous Vikings, and they were - perhaps above all else - entertainment. ... think the Mongols called the Romans "bloody", but I'm assuming you meant that the Mongols were another group who have a reputation of being "bloody". ... Yes, the Mongols killed a great many people and destroyed a great many cities, and are certainly justly known for their violence and mercilessness. ...
    (comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage)
  • Re: No Country for Old Men
    ... human domestic history. ... The numbers are in and even experts who study violence are surprised: ... during the Middle Ages -- and high in the United States during the early ... *Professor Stone has estimated that the homicide rate in medieval England * ...
    (rec.arts.mystery)
  • Re: Commentary: The ability to see what is there, and to see what is not
    ... The history of the world is replete with good examples, ... I do not finally condemn the late Darwin himself, a reasonably honest ... a lie elevated to the status of truth is still a lie no matter how ... So there you have the origins of: ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: WOT: Australians
    ... I didn't pursue a higher degree in either history or literature ... Australian history again. ... But I did grow up in the country in western NSW where many assimilated Aboriginal families were pretty much indistinguishable from the rest of the community, but where mission-based Aborigines were very much second-class citizens, even invisible. ... The land can already be opened up to mining companies and is being done so every day with the consent of the communities, and mining companies are not stupid. ...
    (rec.arts.mystery)
  • Re: Safety, Love and Life
    ... ask what happened to him to make him have a history of violence? ... vandalism in that area. ...
    (soc.culture.scottish)