Читать книгу Pioneer Islands - Dr. Steve Rolland DC - Страница 3

Let us now regress in time from our Orwellian present and re-examine the type of social structure our ancient ancestors existed in. Even the deepest roots of human prehistory millions of years before our primitive ancestors were compelled to leave the safety of the trees of Central Africa and hobble from one patch of trees to the next as the rift valley rose to change the climate from dense jungle to drier savannas; and continuing, for some human groups, until the memorable past, we have lived in small groups of a few dozen at least to a couple thousand at most. Living as peaceful hunter/gatherer/ scavengers, it was natural and ecologically economical for us to live in small tribes lest we over consume and deplete the plant and animal resources of our local environment.

Like other animals in nature there existed competition between males for mating privileges and between groups for control of optimal hunting or gathering territories. Within groups of social animals there is always a pecking order, with some members dominant over others when there were scarce resources to compete for. Natural selection endows each species hoof, claw, beak, horn or some other weapon for defense or to kill its prey. Few species actually battle “to the death” over breeding rights, food or territory. Usually, in short order, a winner is determined and a loser retreats to lick his wounds and await future opportunities. To do otherwise would severely limit the species’ ability to survive.

Before the development of hand held weapons, sometime in our ancient primate past, a common ancestor what would eventually evolve into humans and Chimpanzees fought mostly with its only natural weapon, its teeth. Primates had long since evolved fingernails that replaced claws, because these were superior in the task of separating small items they manipulated, like to separate a handful of dirt and foodstuffs, or to pick insects off of themselves or each other. Nails, while useful for some new abilities such as tying knots and other precision tasks, were ineffective for self-defense and only the teeth remained as a weapon. Probably near this point in evolution male pattern balding developed in our Human and Chimpanzee ancestors. The survival advantage offered by male pattern balding became apparent to me as I raised a pet spider monkey as a family member from 1992 to 1995 while living in Mexico. Spider monkeys, and I am sure all monkeys, love to pull hair. I know from almost 40 years of studying and practicing martial arts, especially kung-fu, that by closely grabbing someone’s hair, you can control their head and greatly influence their balance. Biting is also a powerful self defense weapon, as a human can generate 1500 pounds of pressure per square inch by biting, it can inflict serious pain and tissue damage.

Spider monkeys have a small tuft of hair, like a Mohawk, on the crest of their head. I noticed that when I would grab my pet monkey by this scalp hair, try as he did, he was unable to maneuver into a position where he could bite my hand or arm to defend himself. If I were to grasp him by hair on the sides or back of his head, he could and would twist around to bite me. This effect was crystallized for me one day when a friend of mine arrived at my home wearing a baseball cap. In his typically simian way, my monkey came to play with this friend and knocked his hat off so he could grab a hold of some hair; however, when his cap was removed, it revealed a freshly shaved head. My monkey went ape shit and literally screamed in frustration that, try as he might, he could not grasp a handful of hair from this “bald” man. At this moment it dawned on me that this was the biological mechanism underlying the evolutionary significance of male pattern balding in primates. Let’s call it the “bold-bald fighting ape hypothesis”.

Simple observation had revealed to me the advantage conferred by lacking hair on the top of the head. Notably, in male pattern balding, the hair on the sides and back of the head grow normally, as they do not allow the attacker to immobilize the biting apparatus. Furthermore, the pattern balding only typically occurs in males who have reached sexual maturity, when this would prove most advantageous in procuring a mate. The first primate male who possessed this trait could attack with teeth that could not be controlled by his normally haired rivals, while he could still negate their ability to defend with their teeth by grabbing their full head of hair. He would have been the “superhero” fighter of his era. As he procured mates and passed on this new trait, it became more and more frequent in human and primate populations until today where about two thirds of human males exhibit pattern balding owing to this ancient advantage.

This “bald advantage” lost its original significance as ancient primates began using “fighting tools” of wood or stone. Modern Chimpanzees make a great display of screaming, pounding, or throwing objects when they are threatened. Modern human children, including my own, are often amazingly adept at accurately throwing objects, a trait quite unique among animals.

Because hominins have used weapons for over six million years, there would almost surely be more evidence in the archaeological record if humans had engaged in large scale killing within our own species. Other than a few skeletons of Neanderthals in current day Spain, there is scant evidence of systematic human cannibalism. Conversely, there is prolific evidence of distinct butchering marks on the bones of almost every conceivable species of animal that shared a home range with humans in excavations of ancient human settlements.

If we, very logically, conclude that humans have existed for 10,000 years as hunter/gatherer/scavengers out of the known 6,200,000 years since our species has walked upright, used tools, and had brains at least the size of chimpanzees, that would mean that we have lived as hunter/gatherers for 98.489% of our evolution in that sort of cultural state and only 1.511% of our existence has been as agriculturalists. Most people would agree that roughly 98.5% of our existence could be considered as the natural human state. So what exactly is the natural, normal cultural conditions or our species, Homo Sapiens?

By studying archaeological evidence we can gain some limited insight on human cultural evolution, but in reality much of this is purely speculative. Because time machines have not yet been invented that could send cultural anthropologists back into human prehistory to study the intricacies of their society, observations of a historical nature of our more recent ancestors from say, the last five hundred years might lend some insight. Although enlightening and valuable, older reports of first contacts with these types of cultures lack the scientific methodology of our present generation. Today, true hunter/gatherer societies that have had very little contact or influence from our current modern society, are vanishingly few. In the last one hundred years there have been a few contacts with isolated groups in remote regions of the earth, the last remnants of indigenous peoples living a literal stone-age existence on this planet. Fortunately, dedicated cultural anthropologists embedded themselves into these “primitive” cultures and meticulously detailed the intricate features of their social structures. Having read many of these reports myself, I can summarize that stone-age cultures, in general, exhibit a radically different social structure than our current western society.

For Example Marshall Sahlins in 1966 at a symposium in Chicago entitled “Man the Hunter” presented his theory derived from his ethnographic study of the !Kung tribes people of South Africa “…they all had what they needed or could make what they needed, for every man can and does make the things that men make and every woman the things that women make... They lived in a kind of material plenty because they adapted the tools of their living to materials which lay in abundance around them and which were free for anyone to take (wood, reeds, bone for weapons and implements, fibres for cordage, grass for shelters). or to materials which were at least sufficient for the needs of the population...In the non subsistence sphere, the people's wants are generally easily satisfied. Such "material plenty" depends partly upon the simplicity of technology and democracy of property. Products are homespun: of stone, bone, wood, skin-materials such as "lay in abundance around them". As a rule, neither extraction of the raw material nor its working up take strenuous effort. Access to natural resources is typically direct- "free for anyone to take"- even as possession of the necessary tools is general and knowledge of the required skills common. The division of labour is likewise simple, predominantly a division of labour by sex. Add in the liberal customs of sharing, for which hunters are properly famous, and all the people can usually participate in the going prosperity, such as it is.”

Sahlin pointed out emphatically that hunter gatherer societies typically need invest only about 20 hours work each week to procure all that they need for their existence, and that the majority of their time is spent at leisure. Although I envision a far more productive use of leisure time, this illustrates the amount of time that would be freed for human productivity by eliminating all the extraneous babble that absorbs most waking moments in our current society, either satisfying the endless demands of the beaurocratic juggernauts or hopelessly engrossed in the mindless bullshit of the, heavily manipulated, mass media and “entertainment industry”.

It appears that the “natural state” of human society is the hunter/gatherer culture, they are typically based on familial and extended family ties. Kinship is what binds them together. Although they may mate outside their group, there are often protocols for who moves into whose house or tribe. Marriages may be arranged or not, with or without a dowry. Mating patterns can range from a broad spectrum of normals, being life-long monogamous, serial monogamy, or versions of polygamy such as polygyny with one male with several wives, polyandry with a single female and multiple males, or communities where everybody fornicates with everybody, without jealousy.

For example, in many ancient Amazonian cultures (and currently in a few “primitive” tribes), extramarital sexual affairs were common, these peoples believed that when a woman became pregnant, each of her sexual partners would be part biological father. Sexual promiscuity was considered normal, and therefore acceptable. It was considered bad manners for a man to be jealous of his wife’s other partners, and abnormal for one to not have multiple partners. Cousins were considered preferred sex partners and it was especially rude to deny their sexual advances. Women in these cultures appeared to benefit from this cultural norm because all the “fathers” gave gifts and helped support the child, which in turn increased its chance of survival. Because intertribal warfare was frequent in ancient Amazonia, having multiple fathers reduced the chance that a child might lose all its father figures. The men in these cultures benefitted because they typically formed alliances with co-fathers. This system of multiple paternity reinforced familial ties, especially because brothers often shared wives. This form of multiple parenting was believed to be the norm in approximately 70% of ancient Amazonian cultures [Walker, Finn, Hill; “Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 2010”].

So, in regards to the question, “What is the normal mating pattern for humans?” the answer appears to be somewhere between, “it depends on the society” to, “anything goes.” There are some “recently discovered” modern Amazonian tribes in which the males will leave the village on extended hunts that may last several days, upon their return each male will copulate with each female of the group without apparent jealousy. This would be considered unusual or immoral to many societies today, but perhaps the cure for jealousy, which can be an extremely destructive emotion for both societies and families in our culture, can be cured or completely averted using a “what is good for the goose is good for the gander” philosophy. In both my personal history and in many other cases, I have observed that jealousy can be extremely destructive, with consequences ranging from ruined careers to severe psychological damage to all family members even remotely involved, monetary and legal repercussions, or even murder. The legal concept of marriage, adultery, and divorce can be ruinous in many ways, with consequences lasting a lifetime or even generations. Personally, I feel that in an optimal society there should be no institution of marriage or divorce. Two people should be a “mating couple” only for as long as they each find it to be a positive experience, whether it is for a single sex act, or for life, the decision should belong to each individual to make, with no moral repercussions.

Jealousy, however, I considered to be a biologically adaptive emotion, and therefore natural. Between siblings for example, if a parent were to give food and attention to only one of a set of twins, and the other were to make no demand for attention and sustenance, it would very likely decrease the survival potential of the silent twin. Similarly, if a male allowed his mate to copulate at will, it would decrease his chances of producing a biological heir of his own with that woman. I do not know if there exists a “jealousy advantage” in evolution, but it makes sense that those individuals who attempt at least to enforce sexual faithfulness in their mates would be more likely to have offspring that carry that same jealousy gene. This could be an example of “cultural evolution” where behavioral patterns that become engrained in a society assist in the achievement of a survival advantage to some individuals. There would be, I think, general agreement among geneticists and evolutionary biologists that there appears to be some evolutionary advantage for the occurrence and therefore inheritance of promiscuity in light of the fact that individuals who have children by two or more partners certainly have an increased likelihood of passing on their genes by combining them with the inherited factors of a variety of mates. A method of placing one’s eggs in several baskets as it were. Each different genetic combination increases the likelihood that some of their children might acquire genes that could be beneficial to them in specific environmental situations like disease resistance or enhanced ability to efficiently metabolize certain foods (carbohydrates, dairy products) which may offer them a distinct survival advantage in extreme conditions. But, any emotion or behavior, I contend, natural to animals or not, is capable of being changed through the use of operant conditioning and/or social constraint. Therefore we, as cultural designers, have the ability to form morals, life views, and values in the new society that we might undertake to construct.

We can see that there are distinct evolutionary principles working in both directions in regard to the jealousy-promiscuity spectrum and realize that the combination of jealousy in regards to an individual’s mate coupled with promiscuity on their part might offer the greatest genetic advantage. Our modern societies have evolved a variety of cultures with a great spectrum of traditions, laws, and taboos that regulate this strong drive.

For the three years that I owned a male spider monkey while living in the Yucatan Peninsula in Mexico. I endeavored not to teach him tricks, but to raise him, as much as possible, as an equal family member with my two sons (he was the only one of the boys that wore a leash). We often were intrigued by his “natural” behavior. If we were ever to bring another pet, a kitten in one instance, into the household, petting it and giving it attention, he would absolutely throw a fit. Whistling and squealing shrilly, if he was able, he would tear the newcomer from our grasp, and pushing it away with his foot, he would embrace us making cooing and clucking “love” sounds. Taking up on this jealous display, we would often tease him by showering attention on a stuffed animal toy to his great protest. When we approached across the room to where the toy was finally within reach, straining against his leash, he would snatch the toy from our hands, bite it and throw it behind him as he hugged us while making his “love sounds.” Because jealousy is within the range of normal responses I feel that it is “natural” but it is also plastic and is an emotional response that can be modified through operant conditioning. We humans are, I believe, unique among mammals in that we may choose to change our reactions, and with serious effort, accomplish that goal.

Humans have evolved as omnivores, eating both plant and animal foods for our entire 6.2 million year history as a species. Archeological evidence as well as our own teeth and digestive tract anatomy are evidence of that we were not ever strict herbivores. However, in only the recent past some groups have made the moral decision to become strict vegetarians. This is not our biological nature, but it is an obvious fact that our Homo Sapien intellect has endowed us with the ability to purposefully evolve culturally beyond our biological predetermination.

Because ancient humans spread out across the globe over many thousands of years, there was not a need for warfare between groups for territory. The humans that eventually ended up inhabiting the Australian continent, for example, averaged less than about one mile per year, as little as a 20-minute leisurely walk annually, in their trek to that remote continent, spread over a period of several thousands of years. Expansion was the release valve for competition. Even when humans inhabited vast tracts of territories, there was still room to expand rather than fight as areas to the interiors were settled. Largely, human migrations occurred along seashores or ice shelves. Later still, less desirable ranges were occupied by those groups that felt compelled by adventure, conflict or opportunity to form new civilizations. Just as lab rats or domestic animals become unnaturally aggressive when overcrowded, so will individual humans when confined, and often form aggressive gangs that compete viciously for territory and resources. I hold that the incidence of violence rose as territories and resources became less sufficient for some populations, who then cast a greedy eye on their neighbors whose possessions appeared to be easy to pillage.

In the past as now, societies began to establish defined borders. Initially these ranges were probably small, being just enough to support their populations of hunter/gatherers. There is an efficient size limit for pre-agricultural peoples’ population size which appears to top out at about two to three thousand in most cases, although there have been some civilizations that were able to form rules of cooperation that enabled them to number into the tens of thousands. Rather than outright genocidal war, they typically resolved border disputes through less lethal skirmishes. Before a situation would become so severe as to cause war, there usually existed the option of migration.

Agricultural societies very gradually became more prevalent. The ability to harvest and store foodstuffs increased the carrying capacity of the land and these civilizations prospered and grew in numbers. In small hunter/gatherer tribes members had migrated easily between groups. If you didn’t like the rules in your own tribe, groups or individuals were free to leave. With the rise of agricultural population centers people were compelled to stay within the culture they were born into and endure whatever laws or custom that were present.

The archaeological record of humans shows a distinct divide between hunter/gatherers and agriculturalists in terms of health and famine. When some cultures became more “civilized” and depended increasingly upon grains for their sustenance, diabetes, tooth decay, osteoporosis, malnutrition, and obesity became more prevalent. Third molars (wisdom teeth) which would erupt normally in “less civilized” populations increased in frequency of impaction or non-eruption. As groups became more dependent on agriculture to feed their societies, they needed to increase their holdings of arable land. Being dependent on just a few crops and practicing monoculture of those crops also produced a food source for herbivores and insects. As the food supply for certain insects rose, so did their populations, and pestilence arose. Bacterial, viral, or mold infections of crops, as well, could cause a catastrophic loss of food stores that might result in famine for those human populations that have grown dependent on them. In nature a variety of plant life inhabits almost any given area, but with the rise of agriculture native varieties of plants are usually burned off, plowed under or weeded out to leave plots where only the food crop planted would be allowed to grow. Because many insects and plant diseases are host specific, feeding on only the crop being grown, they can quickly move from one plant to another under monoculture conditions, multiplying in numbers as they go. Today, insecticides are used extensively to combat this natural consequence of an unnatural human designed ecosystem. Improper storage of grain crop as well, especially among historically novice agriculturalists, lead to rodents, insects and microbes rendering many harvests unusable to their farmers. Add to this the theft of food stores by other hostile tribes, and the result was frequent and unexpected famine. There existed an unfounded perception that life was hard, brutish and short for our hunter/gatherer forbearers, but archeological evidence points to quite the opposite reality. Because agricultural societies staked their future on the viability of one or a few food crops, they suffered tremendous hardship if the crop was somehow lost.

Hunter/gatherers, on the other hand, were quite adept at relying on a variety of food sources for survival. If there were some upsurge of a natural pest that affected a particular species of food plant, which is rare under natural conditions, hunter/gatherers would simply consume other species of plants or animals that were unaffected. So, although famine and malnutrition was quite common among farming civilizations, it was extremely rare among hunter/gatherers. Agriculturalists who experienced such crop failures might therefore be obliged to use aggression against more fortunate neighbors under adverse conditions in order to survive. A textbook example of this would be the difficult times and frequent famines experiences by the first European (farming) settlers who arrived in the Americas in the 1500’s, many which would not have survived if not for aide from indigenous Americans.