Origin of Agriculture

Future Farms Will Be Run By Robots

gregladen — Tue, 26 Sep 2017 09:45:51 +0000

Future Farms Will Be Run By Robots

I have a love-hate relationship with farmers. I have a great deal of respect for the enterprise and for those who dedicate their lives to it. But, I also become annoyed at the culture in which modern American farming embeds itself. And, I don't feel a lot of reticence talking openly about that.

Having done plenty of farming myself, I don't feel the need that so many others do to be extra nice to farmers out of lack of understanding. I know when the farmers complain about too little or too much rain, they are studiously ignoring the fact that if it is harder to plant or harvest, they make out like bandits with the price of their product. Farmers talk about how hard that life is, and yes, it is indeed very hard, but they seem to not mention that a typical large scale farm these days (as most farms are) is a multi tens of millions of dollars business sitting on enormously valuable land. Whenever things go really wrong with farms in the US, they get help. As it is now, we have some of the most bone-headed agricultural policies ever invented mainly to keep farmers happy, because so many US Congressional districts span vast farmland and little else.

And what does America get back for giving farmers so much help in producing a product that we have no choice but to buy? We get a lot of crap. Red counties are farm counties. Red districts give us a Republican House. Farmers mainly backed trump, even though Trump policies are almost all bad for almost all farmers.

As a brief aside, and to illustrate the disconnect between farmer culture and actual farmer self interest, I can give you this example.

Have you ever heard of Mexican cheese? Or, more to the point, have you ever been to Mexico, and then, while there, had some cheese? That cheese might have been made in Mexico, but they don't really make cheese in Mexico. Most of the cheese eaten there is imported. From where? From Wisconsin. Nowhere else. Why? Because of Clinton's trade policies. Clinton made a bunch of sweet deals for American farmers and that was one of them. Rural farmers in Wisconsin voted for Trump, and Trump was the guy who was going to end NAFTA (and still might, who knows?). NAFTA keeps Wisconsin dairy and cheese in business. Get rid of NAFTA, Wisconsin becomes the West Virginia of cheese. Why? Because Mexico would rather buy its cheese from South America because it is cheaper, and the moment the Wisconsin dairy industry is not propped up by NAFTA, the free market takes over and California ends Wisconsin agriculture.

Look around the world. Farmers are taking it in the neck in many other countries, often because of the very climate change so many farmers pretend to believe is a hoax. But not in countries that take care of their farmers. America takes care of its farmers. And at every opportunity, the farmers screw over America.

Therefore, perhaps it will be with great pleasure that Modern Civilization advances to the next level. Robot farmers.

Hands Free Hectare is a project run by Harper Adams University and Precision Decisions Inc. The idea is to develop robots that will plant, tend, and harvest crops.

Now, of course, there will still be farmers, but fewer. So few, perhaps, that most people who are all "oh, I'm a poor farmer, living out in the farmlands, help me help me," can stop whinging and move to the city. A small number of technologists, mostly the children of former Mexican migrant workers because immigrants or the children of recent immigrants or migrants are the only people in America who still have ambition, will learn the technology and run the farms and, we hope, keep the robots happy and busy.

Anyway, HFHa, as it calls itself, has been at this a while, and the latest iteration involved a major harvest of barley without humans touching anything but buttons and software. HFHa robot expert Martin Abell working for Precision Decisions, noted “This project aimed to prove that there’s no technological reason why a field can’t be farmed without humans working the land directly now and we’ve done that. We achieved this on an impressively low budget [and] we used machinery that was readily available for farmers to buy; open source technology; and an autopilot from a drone for the navigation system.”

Notably, much of the large equipment used was decades old, with the new technology added to it.

Here is the site for Hands Free Hectare, which is a British enterprise.

I for one welcome our new farmer-robot overlords.

gregladen Tue, 09/26/2017 - 05:45

Tags

Origin of Agriculture

agriculture

Automated farming

robots

Categories

Technology

NAFTA's impact on Wisconsin dairy is overstated. There was a preexisting federal law that set prices based on distance from some place in Wisconsin.

MikeN #1:

Yes - Eau Claire I believe.

Government price fixing at its finest.

It hurts Wisconsin farmers and helps California farmers (who get to charge much more for their milk).

Totally unfair in the modern world, with refrigerated vehicles.

They should get rid of that law and let the market decide what the price of milk is.

Mexico is second behind Canada in importing Wisconsin products, and it takes in over half of the annual "cheese product" from Wisconsin. The market has been growing, and analysts in WI lay it to provisions in NAFTA, contrary to the naysayers.

A bigger issue is what removing NAFTA agreements could do to the general economy in WI, where a good percentage of the workforce is tied to the dairy industry. Big hits to dairy could translate to big losses -- not a simple thing to predict, however.

This is even more complicated by the absurdly high subsidies paid to (dairy and non-dairy) farmers to keep prices low. (The same issue applies to subsidies paid to fossil fuel suppliers.)

Dean I was speaking only of cheese. Wisconsin exports a lot of things to Canada, some of which is agricultural, and some of that is dairy, and some of that is cheese. Wisconsin makes about 3 billion pounds of cheese a year, and over half of that goes to Mexico. A bunch goes elsewhere in the US. Canada does not take over half of Wisconsin cheese. If so, that has changed in just a few months and it is not recorded anywhere obvious.

But yes, you are correct in that we can expand the argument without damaging it at all, to include all dairy from Wisconsin or all agriculture from Wisconsin, and we find that NAFTA, which applies to both Canada and the US, keep Wisconsin from becoming West Virginia.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DZ0JGjKYVdU

" Wisconsin makes about 3 billion pounds of cheese a year, and over half of that goes to Mexico."

That's what I said. My primary point was to counter the idea that NAFTA did not influence this, because that isn't what the data says.

The secondary point was that the system of subsidies simply makes the problem worse.

they seem to not mention that a typical large scale farm these days (as most farms are) is a multi tens of millions of dollars business sitting on enormously valuable land. /blockquote>
Yup, and they screw over smaller farmers at every opportunity.
Many of the large scale "farmers" now wear suits and live in mansions, while sending others out to do the work.
Subsidies have majorly screwed up what food production and farming should earn, as well as costs to consumers. Government subsides severely distort food costs - and why are we subsidizing products like high fructose corn syrup anyway?? They are very damaging to health.
ugh

What is a small farm?

>It hurts Wisconsin farmers and helps California farmers

Required to charge more -> less sales.

Automation in agricultural has allowed cities to expand well beyond what was possible before the age of fossil fuels.

I just finished picking some pears and table grapes from our little orchard (vs a row crop farm). Existing vineyards and orchards in hilly areas were not designed for automated picking.

It’s been 25 years since I spent time in Beijing so I don’t know if the new generation of technical, and governmental, elites still think the cultural revolution was worthwhile in terms of ensuring the lives of the poor are considered in developing plans/strategy.

Ref point 10 and 11 https://creativeconflictwisdom.wordpress.com/2017/09/25/strategy-by-any…

The Hydraulic Hypothesis and the End of Civilization

gregladen — Mon, 02 Mar 2015 08:16:48 +0000

The Hydraulic Hypothesis and the End of Civilization

OK, I admit the title of this post is possibly a bit extreme but I could not resist the symmetry. Here, I refer to both ends of civilization, the start and the finish.

I'd like to talk about a recent review published in Science, titled "Systems integration for global sustainability" written by my colleague Peter Gleick of the Pacific Institute together with Jiangou Liu, Harold Mooney, Vanessa Hull, Steven Davis, Joane Gaskell, Thomas Hertel, Jane Lubchenco, Karent Seto, Claire Kremen and Shuxin Li. But I want to put this paper in a broader perspective, dipping into my training as an archaeologist. But first a relevant digression.

The so called "Hydraulic Hypothesis" is an idea first fully characterized by the historian Karl Wittfogel. His original idea was part of a larger model for the origin of civilization that we see today as having several problematic aspects, but the key idea is still valid. If agriculture is the basis for a society, and it is carried out in a semi-arid region, then the management of water through various forms of irrigation and the centralized control of the agricultural cycle lends itself to centralized despotic leadership. or at least, some kid of cultural and social change allowing for organized effort to predominate over individual self interest. (In fact irrigation based systems have emerged without despotic leadership, and complex society has emerged absent a hydraulic beginning, so this is an oversimplification, just so you know.) But in its simplest form we can correctly say that the emergence of stratified, hierarchic, complexly organized societies was often linked in no small part to the emergence of organizational (and technological) solutions to growing food where there is not enough rain at the right time of year. There is a great advantage to growing food in this manner. The crops become, in essence, invasive species, because human activity provides the crops with a leg up on all the other plants in the region. A plant that in wild form is found primarily in limited microhabitats, out competed everywhere else by more arid-adapted plants, suddenly has a free ride across a vast landscape. Despite the fact that the Hydraulic Hypothesis is an oversimplification, we can appreciate the fact that the beginnings of human "civilization" (as a social and economic system, which we retain today by and large) is linked partially but importantly to managing water to grow food.

At present the news story that never fails to occupy the front page is ISIS, the Islamic State, making a nuisance of itself in Syria and Iraq. It is generally thought that ISIS emerged in large part because of the quasi-failure of Syria. Syria transited from being a run of the mill Middle Eastern Kingdom with some powerful connections to a quasi-failed state for a number of reasons, but one of the big factors turns out to be water. Or, really, lack thereof. In a recently published paper (not the one in Science mentioned above), Peter Gleick made this point:

The Syrian conflict that began in 2012 has many roots, including long-standing political, religious, and social ideological disputes; economic dislocations from both global and regional factors; and worsening environmental conditions. ... key environmental factors include both direct and indirect consequences of water shortages, ineffective watershed management, and the impacts of climate variability and change on regional hydrology. Severe multiyear drought beginning in the mid-2000s, combined with inefficient and often unmodernized irrigation systems and water abstractions by other parties in the eastern Mediterranean, including especially Syria, contributed to the displacement of large populations from rural to urban centers, food insecurity for more than a million people, and increased unemployment—with subsequent effects on political stability. There is some evidence that the recent drought is an early indicator of the climatic changes that are expected for the region, including higher temperature, decreased basin rainfall and runoff, and increased water scarcity. Absent any efforts to address population growth rates, these water-related factors are likely to produce even greater risks of local and regional political instability, unless other mechanisms for reducing water insecurity can be identified and implemented.

Two key graphics from Gleick's paper demonstrate the role of climate change. First, the drop in available water due to decreased rainfall and, probably, increased evaporation:

Second, the decrease in annual average discharge of a key river in the region:

Adaptation to an arid environment allowed the development of agriculture, and required the development of complex states, thousands of years ago, in this region. Subsequent increases and decreases in aridity and other natural climate factors have been recognized as creating local collapses around the Mediterranean during subsequent millennia. But now, climate change (together with the other factors Gleick mentions) has pushed the system over the edge. Thousands of years of technological adaptation and cultural evolution to address the problem of growing grains and orchards in dry country together with modern technology to the extent it has been applied have been insufficient to allow the system to continue in some localities, and everything we know about climate change strongly suggests that this is going to get worse, eventually encompassing the entire region. Expect most of the Middle East to become a client region for global agricultural production over the next decade or two. The term Arab Spring is deeply ironic; the spring is running dry.

So this is how the Hydraulic Hypothesis bookends civilization. Cultural technological management of limited or badly timed natural water were adaptations to semi-arid climate conditions and contributed to the development of what we call civilization. As climate conditions shift to the point where these adaptations become unreliable, the system fails. And, the failure is in part because of prior success. As a highly integrated but organic system it is unable to manage deep and causative change. If Vulcans ran the Earth, the Syrian farmers would have been, logically, put on some sort of dole and eventually retasked, and there would not have been a civil war. But since we rely so much on organic system evolution (which includes in part the much vaunted "free market") that is not what happened.

The review in Science addresses the large scale system dynamics. From the paper:

Global sustainability challenges, from maintaining biodiversity to providing clean air and water, are closely interconnected yet often separately studied and managed. Systems integration—holistic approaches to integrating various components of coupled human and natural systems—is critical to understand socioeconomic and environmental interconnections and to create sustainability solutions. Recent advances include the development and quantification of integrated frameworks that incorporate ecosystem services, environmental footprints, planetary boundaries, human-nature nexuses, and telecoupling. Although systems integration has led to fundamental discoveries and practical applications, further efforts are needed to incorporate more human and natural components simultaneously, quantify spillover systems and feedbacks, integrate multiple spatial and temporal scales, develop new tools, and translate findings into policy and practice. Such efforts can help address important knowledge gaps, link seemingly unconnected challenges, and inform policy and management decisions.

The study focuses on biofuels and "virtual water" to illustrate the broader concepts. Since we're talking about Hydraulic adaptation at the beginning and end (maybe) of human civilization, let's look more closely at the virtual water.

What is virtual water, you ask? Let's say you and I are the farmers (there are no other farmers) and together we produce all of the food. We live in different places and the food gets traded back and forth. You may be surprised to hear that for every liter of water the people who live in our hypothetical two-farm world drink as refreshment, we farmers require something like 100 liters of water to match that in food (that is a very rough estimate). But the water requirement varies tremendously by the kind of food. Let's say I grow wheat and you grow eggs. That means that every person-year of food (in terms of calories) that I grow requires a very small fraction of the water that you need to grow one person-year of calories. Plants generally require a fraction of the water that animal products require. Even among plants the differences are rather large.

So, if we trade wheat and eggs (I give you wheat and you give me eggs) evenly by calorie, than we are simultaneously trading water, but very unevenly. When I give you 1000 calories of wheat, I'm giving you something like 1000 liters of water, virtually. When you give me 1000 calories of eggs, you are giving me perhaps a million liters of water, virtually. If you are farming in a water rich region and I'm farming in a water poor region, that makes sense and it may even be the reason I grow wheat and you grow egg chickens. Or, if we started out with plentiful water relative to production in both regions, but your farms experience increasing aridity, there is now a pressure for us to change our virtual water trading practices. You should be growing some wheat and I should be growing some chickens.

Alternatively we could eat less animal product. Or, if you like you can experience a regional civil war in your part of the world and create a religious state that everybody hates. Whatever.

In real life, virtual water is quite complex. From the review:

The main virtual water exporters (sending systems) are water-rich regions in North and South America and Australia, whereas Mexico, Japan, China, and water-poor regions in Europe are the main importers (receiving systems)... Asia recently switched its virtual water imports from North America to South America. On the other hand, North America has engaged in an increased diversification of intraregional water trade while trading with distant countries in Asia. China has undergone a dramatic increase in virtual water imports since 2000, via products such as soybeans from Brazil (nearly doubling from 2001 to 2007 and amounting to 13% of the total global world water trade). The spatial shift in the use of soybean products in Brazil from domestic to international has led to water savings in other countries, but at the cost of deforestation in Brazilian Amazon. Within-country virtual water transfer is also common. For example, virtual water flow through grain trade from North China to South China goes in the opposite direction of real water transfer through large projects, such as the South-to-North Water Transfer Project, that aim to alleviate water shortages in North China.

Or, in the form of a picture, from the review:

To me one of the key issues raised when taking a system level look, and this refers back directly to the Hydraulic Hypothesis, is the role of regulatory process and government. After all, we created these governments (as part of civilization) for the exact reason of managing the emerging complex system of agriculture (oversimplified again ... and there were other reasons of course). So I asked Peter Gleick what he thought about the relationship between free market economics, regulation, and government (or higher level) involvement. He told me, "Free markets are both a solution and a problem. There is growing evidence that for a number of critical global challenges, government oversight and regulatory institutions are critically important to correct the failure of free markets. We encourage trade in goods and services worldwide, which has led to a remarkable trade in "virtual water" -- the water required to make those goods and services. This is a good thing, in my opinion, because it permits countries that could never possibly be self sufficient in food because of insufficient water (most of the Middle East and North Africa) to use their limited water for higher valued economic activities and then buy food on the market. But the market failure here is that natural ecosystems do not compete or play a role in such "markets" -- permitting the complete extinction of endemic fish from the Aral Sea to grow cotton in the Central Asian republics for export. I could give other examples of gross free market failures with global consequences (ozone hole, climate change). So, yes, balance markets with strong government regulatory oversight to protect public goods."

This makes sense because of one of the things people almost always forget when it comes to market forces. The free market model assumes that the system is made up of "ideal free actors." Ideal free does not mean free of ideals! (Maybe there should be a comma there.) The actors in the market are "ideal" in that they are identical in their access to information and ability to act on it, and they are free in the sense that there are no external constraints on those actions. So, ideal actors regulated (not free) do not make up a free market (that is the point usually made by Libertarians) but more often than not, the actors are not "ideal." It is a major failure of integration of economics theory and social theory to place the non-ideal parts in the category of "external costs" and ignore them. One actor's external costs is another actor's non-idealness.

I also asked Gleick to elaborate on the relationship between regional collapse and the global system, as a means of integrating the two studies I cover above. He responded, "... can regional collapses influence or perturb global systems, rather than the other way around? I would argue for example that perturbed global systems are influencing regional collapses (for example, climate, drought, and Syria). A functioning global systems approach would have to be able to handle regional perturbations. Could you argue that the political collapse in the US Congress is a major barrier to a global systems approach to cut greenhouse gas emissions? Yes. But that US government failure can be bypassed by other mechanisms, as we're seeing now with California's cap/trade system; collaborative state efforts; federal efforts that bypass congressional constraints using other mechanisms."

Peter Gleick has written up his own comments on the Science review, on his blog, here.

______________________________________________________

Citation: Liu, J. H. Mooney, V. Hull, S.J. Davis, J. Gaskell, T.Hertel, J. Lubchenco, K.C. Seto, P.H. Gleick, C. Kremen, S. Li. 2015. Systems Integration for Global Sustainability. Science, Vol. 347, No. 6225. 27 February 2015. DOI: 10.1126/science.1258832

______________________________________________________

Did you ever wonder how you are going to die?

gregladen — Wed, 07 May 2014 11:37:58 +0000

Did you ever wonder how you are going to die?

I'm thinking it will be the food you eat that gets you. Here's why.

Humans eat a wide variety of foods; as a species, the diversity of species we eat is greater than any other animal by a very large margin, with the only quirky exception being the animals that we take along with us, the commensals such as rats and cockroaches. Most primates eat a high diversity of foods, but about two million years ago or a bit less, according to the “Cooking Hypothesis” (which a lot of people think is correct) we took an already diverse primate diet and added to it anything we might encounter in the environment that could be made edible with heat and added that to our diet. More recently, beginning about 10,000 years ago, we applied additional technology and the new practice of plant husbandry to convert other foods, some edible some not, into more useful items for our diet. Humans around the world did this independently over several thousand years, in parallel.

Then we got boats that were capable of doing magical things like sailing up wind, and navigation technologies that allowed humans to be less lost when doing so over great distances. Some humans had done this much earlier at a smaller scale, but by the 15th century there were big wooden boats criss crossing the seas, bringing people to places they had never been before, and along with them the foods people ate all over the world.

Have you looked at photographs of traditional people living in traditional, seemingly timeless, ways in places like Africa, the Amazon, or New Guinea? Look again, and focus on the things that form the backdrop for the scenes shown in those photographs. One of the things you’ll see in many pictures is the plantain, or the banana. You might notice the huge elephant ear leaves of taro plants. If you look closely you might notice cassava growing in the fields, or maize.

Maize was domesticated in Mexico, taro, plantains, and bananas in various different locations across south and southeast Asia. Cassava comes from the lowlands of South America, and potatoes come from the Andes. Some Yams come from Africa, some from South America (I oversimplify a bit). You can’t find a modern traditional diet, as it were, that does not include ingredients from continents other than where the traditional diet lives today, except perhaps in Ethiopia. Everybody eats everybody else’s food all the time. The main determinant of where food is grown is not where it was first domesticated, but rather, the limitations of seasons, rainfall, heat and cold. And even there, the limitations are relaxed. Maize only grows in the colder regions because varieties have been developed to do so, and many plants are grown in regions normally too arid for them, by virtue of irrigation.

Adding all this up – the diverse primate diet, the addition of cooked foods otherwise not edible, the artificially selected crops, and the global exchange of horticultural goods and practices – and you get a huge variety of food, the largest variety of food any species has ever managed to include in its diet. (Other than the rats and cockroaches, of course.)

Despite all this diversity, something has remained more or less the same all along. The “traditional” diet for humans, though much altered with cooking, is relatively low quality. I use the term “low quality” in the way an ecologist uses it. How many usable calories do you get out of a kilo of the food item under consideration? Or, related, how much work do you, using food preparation, chewing, and digestion (including the work done by the friendly microbes living in your gut) to convert that kilo of food into energy?

It is easy to see how our traditional diets are low quality by comparing them to the diets of a handful of primates that live almost entirely off of insects, or tree sap, or nectar. If we look at birds, we see the same thing; many species of birds eat pure sugar of one form or another. A few other animals have very high quality diets. Generally, carnivores have higher quality diets than herbivores. There are no carnivores that use multiple stomachs or habitually regurgitates and re-consume their animal prey in order to digest it. Herbivores that eat grass or leaves spend a lot of time feeding, have massive digestive systems designed by natural selection to digest the hell out of the food, and sometimes they have to “eat” the same food multiple times to get enough energy out of it to survive. Humans are somewhere in between. Some of our digestion is done pre-consumption by cooking and processing, but for the most part our natural, traditional diet takes a fair amount of work to process. We don’t live off of sugar water like hummingbirds and many insects do.

And this is why the leading cause of death in the United States and some other countries has shifted from the usual panoply of causes – infectious disease, accident, homicide, etc. – to our diets. Our diet is the most likely thing to kill us, and lately, the primary mediating factor in this particular cause of death is obesity and/or diabetes.

The “traditional” diet of any group of people, as I’ve already outlined, is relatively recent historically, being the result of 10,000 years of developing plants and a few hundred years of transferring crops and growing methods across the world. That traditional diet was prominent globally through the 19th century and well into the 20th century. The food came from farms, and although many amazing novel technologies were being applied on those farms, such as better plows and various other things that could be drawn behind oxen, a team of ponies or horses, or a small tractor, those technologies did not change the diets too much.

But as technologies developed, farms began to scale up. This is the reason that the New England countryside is graced with young forests criss-crossed with quaint stone walls. Those stone walls were field boundaries in the old days. But as farming scaled up, it became economically inviable to have small fields on small farms. A few other things went wrong on some of these New England farms as well, including some climate glitches and some other economic effects that drove farmers off the land and in some cases into cities where there were jobs working in mills. But some of those farmers took part in the great Westward Migrations, as the country grew, and established a new kind of agriculture in the vast regions of the midwest and plaines.

Add a growing urban market for foods, government help in the form of extension and agricultural colleges, more technology such as combines, railroads to move produce to market, mills to process the produce, add some water (irrigation) as needed and salt to taste. It took decades, but we went from an agrarian economy where the same traditional diet we had been eating was produced on a somewhat larger scale, to an agricultural economy that produces mostly one single thing. This product:

OK, I’m exaggerating there. It isn’t really true that the entire US agricultural system has been converted over to the production of sugary drinks. But sometimes it seems that way. Vast expanses of corn are grown in the midwest and plains, and that corn is used to produce vast amounts of ethanol (as fuel), alcoholic beverages, sugary substances including cola, feed for animals, and some of it even makes it to the table as … well, corn. But lets step back to the original comparison of “traditional diet” and the diet many Americans eat today.

When you eat a traditional meal, a good amount of that food is low quality, relatively hard to digest, carbohydrates with a mix of proteins. There will be a little simple sugar here and there and a bit of fat here and there.

The simple sugars go right away to the liver, where they supplement the body’s immediate energy stores. The complex sugars, the carbohydrates that consist of much larger and more involved molecules, take time to digest and break down to eventually use as fuel. So the sugar gives you a small amount of immediate energy and the complex carbohydrates give you energy over the coming hours.

The fats are simply stored up. If you eat fat, the fat molecules are minimally processed, moved to your hips or wherever, and are pasted there for later use. Or, forever, depending.

When you eat a modern diet, it will have two major difference from the traditional diet. The foods at the two ends of that spectrum of availability will be in greater proportion. Instead of having a bunch of low quality food in the middle, with a little fat (for later) on one end of the spectrum, and a little simple sugar (for immediate use) on the other end of the spectrum, the modern diet will have piles of fat and piles of simple sugar and not much in between.

So, what happens? The fat goes where fat goes, as stated already, but there is more of it. The sugar overloads the liver, which detecting an overabundance of energy, converts the sugar to some form of storage, and some of that is fat that joins up with the other fat. There is also a kind of molecule the liver converts some of that sugar into, stored in your liver, for in case you get hungry between meals. That molecule reduces the chance your body will use any of that stored up fat as energy.

Two thousand traditional calories provides you with energy for now, energy for the next several hours, and a bit of energy for much later. Two thousand modern calories provides you with way more energy than you need for now, and a huge amount of fat that you’ll never use because you are never going to let much time go between meals. Because there is a fast food joint just down the street. And your refrigerator and cabinets are full of junk food.

And that’s not all. Our system of agriculture has all sorts of other negatives as well. The following is from the Food and Agriculture page of the Union of Concerned Scientists:

Food and Agriculture: Toward Healthy Food and Farms
Our agricultural system has lost its way.

Millions of acres of corn, soybeans, and other commodity crops, grown with the help of heavy government subsidies, dominate our rural landscapes.

To grow these crops, industrial farms use massive amounts of synthetic fertilizers, herbicides and pesticides, which deplete our soil and pollute our air and water.

Much of this harvest will end up as biofuels and other industrial products—and most of the rest will be used in CAFOs (confined animal feeding operations) or in heavily processed junk foods, which seem cheap only because their hidden costs don’t show up at the cash register.

Industrial agriculture is unhealthy — for our environment, our climate, our bodies, and our rural economies.

A Better Way: Sustainable Agriculture

There’s a better way to grow our food. Working with nature instead of against it, sustainable agriculture uses 21st-century techniques and technologies to implement time-tested ideas such as crop rotation, integrated plant/animal systems, and organic soil amendments.

Sustainable agriculture is less damaging to the environment than industrial agriculture, and produces a richer, more diverse mix of foods. It’s productive enough to feed the world, and efficient enough to succeed in the marketplace—but current U.S. agricultural policy stacks the deck in favor of industrial food production.

… and there is much much more than that, visit the page.

Yesterday, I went to a symposium hosted at the Humphrey Institute at the University of Minnesota and organized by the Center for Science and Democracy at the Union of Concerned Scientists. A description of the symposium is here and the entire thing was “taped” and will be available. I’m not going to tell you anything major about the symposium now; I’ll wait until the video is available, then I’ll provide you with my thoughts on it. For now I’ll just say it was quite good, eye-opening, and that you’ll definitely want to watch it. In fact, you should feel a little bad that you weren’t there.

Stay Tuned.

gregladen Wed, 05/07/2014 - 07:37

Tags

Evolution of Diet

Origin of Agriculture

Now compunding the above problem is http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/may/07/climate-change-food-… rising CO2 levels are reducing the nutrient value of the foods we do grow.

This is really interesting. Any thoughts on how this could counter our enormous effort to destroy the planet?

I think that this was not up to par. Do you claim that 2000 calories of one food promotes more weight gain/fat accumulation than 2000 calories of some other food? Really?

Please see if you can find any *closed ward* studies supporting that premise.

Ole

Yes, essentially. 1000 calories of fat will give you fat. 1000 calories of non-fat complex carbohydrates might do a good job of giving you hours of energy as it is digested, and chances are some of it won't be digested into usable energy. 1000 calories of simple sugar, all at once, is too much too fast to use as energy so some will be converted to stored energy, and depending on what the liver already has stored up, some/much of that will be converted into fat.

It simply isn't the case that 1000 calories is 1000 calories. It depends on what form it comes in and the rate of ingestion.

This is not controversial or even particularly new.

See this, a writeup of the event with the video: http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2014/05/21/forum-science-democracy-an…

Seven Thousand Year Old African Dairy

gregladen — Thu, 21 Jun 2012 15:44:01 +0000

Seven Thousand Year Old African Dairy

Pastoralism is the practice of keeping and herding animals such as cattle, goats and sheep, and using the products they produce, including meat, hide, bone, horn and of course, dairy. In the old days, armchair archaeologists thought that pastoralism would have been a phase of cultural adaptation following hunting and gathering and preceding horticulture (the growing of plant crops). Why did they think that? No really good reason, just a guess. However, over time evidence came along and ideas where altered and minds were changed and now it is generally thought that in Europe and West Asia horticulture cam along about 12,000 years ago and less (depending on where you are) and much later than that, pastoralism started to be practiced.

However, in Africa, things were different in two major ways. First, more so than Europe (though it happened there as well) we find mixed strategies going on side by side in Africa. This is true even today. Not only might we find foragers living near pastoral people living near tourist hotels, but people may move between these culturally and economically distinct lifestyles. N!xau, the actor who played the lead in "The Gods Must Be Crazy" was at the time the first movie was filmed living a forager living among one of the groups studied by anthropologists in the 1960s. I've heard that his father worked for pastoral farmers and a hotel, and the actor himself became a farmer after Gods II.

Historically we now think that pastoralism arose in many areas of Africa before horticulture. It is probably more complicated than that. The total number of relevant archaeological sties excavated in the entire region of the Sahara and Sub Saharan Africa (so, let's not count the upper Nile and the Mediterranean coast because of the intensity of European based work there) is probably far less than the number of sites excavated in Israel, Lebanon Syria, the Sinai, Jordan, Turkey, Iraq and Iran, yet these countries combined represent a tiny fraction of the land area of Africa. So, don't be surprised if an agricultural hearth or two turn up in Africa predating the earliest pastoral manifestations. But at the moment, pastoralism is early in Africa and predated Horticulture.

But what about dairy specifically? There is a new study that shows that the use of milk in the Sahara emerges as early as 5,200 BC, which is quite early.

This work uses the occurrence of organic material found in pottery that can be extracted and characterized using gas chromatography-mass spectrommetry (C-MS) and chromotography-combustion-isotope ratio mass spec (CG-C-IRMS). Lipids, which are preserved for very long periods of time, can be characterized using these methods in ways that allow inference about their origins and the way they are processed.

Bottom line: Lipids are found in many pottery sample (a larger proportion than one usually finds) excavated from the Takarkori rock shelter located in the southwest Fezzan, Libyan Sahara. Early pottery has a range of lipids including non-domestic animals. However, lipids indicating the production of dairy products from cattle show up in the samples dated to the "Middle Pastoral" (5200-3800 bc).

From the paper:

Of the 29 animal fat residues selected for GC–C–IRMS analyses, 22 originate from Middle Pastoral levels, 3 from the Late Acacus, 2 from the Early Pastoral and the remaining 2 from the Late Pastoral period ... The comparison of the Δ13C values of the modern reference animal fats with those of the archaeological pottery residues from the Middle Pastoral period (approximately 5200–3800 BC) show that 50% of these plot within, or on the edge of, the isotopic ranges for dairy fats, with a further 33% falling within the range for ruminant adipose fats and the remainder corresponding to non-ruminant carcass fats ... Notably, the residues originating from earlier periods do not contain dairy fats, and plot in the non-ruminant fat range, probably deriving from wild fauna found locally. The unambiguous conclusion is that the appearance of dairy fats in pottery correlates with the more abundant presence of cattle bones in the cave deposits, suggesting a full pastoral economy as the cattle were intensively exploited for their secondary products.

...

Our findings provide unequivocal evidence for extensive processing of dairy products in pottery vessels in the Libyan Sahara during the Middle Pastoral period (approximately 5200–3800 BC), confirming that milk played an important part in the diet of these prehistoric pastoral people.

__________________________________________

Dunne, Julie, Evershed, Richard, Salque, Melanie, Cramp, Lucy, Bruni, Silvia, Ryan, Kathleen, Biagettti, Stefano, & di Lernia, Savino (2012). First dairying in green Saharan Africa in the fifth millennium bc Nature, 486, 390-394

Photo of cattle by angies

gregladen Thu, 06/21/2012 - 11:44

Tags

Africa

Origin of Agriculture

archaeology

Origin of Agriculture

pastoralism

This is very interesting.

But, bottom line:
That milk you left in a cup under the couch? Yeah, it's still there.

A word or two about tobacco, and some neat and new research

gregladen — Wed, 11 Jan 2012 13:44:32 +0000

A word or two about tobacco, and some neat and new research

Over the last few weeks I've run into a few misconceptions about tobacco, as well as some interesting news, so I thought I'd share. If you already know some of this, forgive me, not everyone else does.

First, tobacco, Nicotiana tabacum, is a member of the Solanaceae family of plants, which from a human perspective has got to be one of the most interesting plant families out there. It includes Belladonna, peppers, potatoes, and tomatoes. So, from this one family of plants, you can kill your neighbor, have a nice meal, and a smoke a cigar afterward.

Tobacco is a Native American cultivar. Native Americans discovered a wild version of this plant and domesticated it. By the time Europeans arrived in the New World, tobacco was widely grown and used. Its use was probably a combination of recreational and ceremonial or religious, with emphasis on the ceremonial. The exact extent of its growth is not clearly known, but certainly it was traded well beyond the regions it was grown. (The plant will grow under a fairly wide range of conditions.)

People in Western countries or with access to Western goods, who smoke, are generally smoking a very mild form of tobacco. If you don't smoke at all or have not for a long time, and you take a few puffs on a cigarette, you get an instant high which may be accompanied with a bit of hacking up of the lungs and a feeling of Nausea. Stronger tobacco provides a somewhat less intense instant high but one that lasts longer, in my experience smoking with Efe Pygmies, who have incorporated tobacco in their own ritual and recreational activities. (They usually mix it with Cannabis, but I've tried their home grown tobacco on it's own quite a few times, as for some of my time living with them I was a smoker.)

The key ingredient in tobacco ... the one you become addicted to and which causes the mild psychoactive effects ... is Nicotine. I'm sure you knew that. Nicotine is an alkaloid molecule, which probably evolved as a defense used by plants to deter consumption by some kind of herbivore or another. While the molecule may vary across plants, some form of Nicotine is found at some level in a number of plants in the family Solanaceae, but it is very concentrated in tobacco. It is extremely addictive and has a number of negative health effects. It is a bit ironic, or at least, problematic, that most people seem to associate smoking tobacco with lung cancer, but the effects of Nicotine on health (which is not lung cancer) are certainly much more widespread and more likely to affect a smoker.

Although Nicotine is found in a number of species, it is generally true that specific molecules like Nicotine originally evolved as anti herbivore defenses, which also have other uses enjoyed by humans (many of our spices as well as a number of drugs) and are mostly species or genus specific. In other words, if you find a bunch of Nicotine in a sample inside a container in an archaeological setting, it was probably Tobacco being stored (or burned) there.

And this brings us to an interesting study that just came out: The detection of nicotine in a Late Mayan period ï¬ask by gas chromatography and liquid chromatography mass spectrometry methods. From the abstract:

Several ancient Mayan vessels... were examined for the presence of alkaloids. One of them, a codex-style ï¬ask, bears a text that appears to read ... 'the home of its/his/her tobacco'. Samples extracted from this Late Classic period (600 to 900 AD) container were analyzed by gas chromatography/mass spectrometry (GC/MS) and liquid chromatography/mass spectrometry (LC/MS) methods. Nicotine was identiï¬ed as the major component of the extracts. LC/MS analyses also yielded signals due to nicotine mono-oxides. ... These analyses provided positive evidence for nicotine from a Mayan vessel, indicating it as a likely holder of tobacco leafs. The result of this investigation is the ï¬rst physical evidence of tobacco from a Mayan container, and only the second example where the vessel content recorded in a Mayan hieroglyphic text has been conï¬rmed directly by chromatography/mass spectrometry trace analysis.

The research was done by people at a couple of schools I used to have stuff to do with, so that's fun: RPI and SUNY Albany. Jennifer Loughmiller-Newman of SUNY Albany said this of the research: "Investigation of food items consumed by ancient people offers insight into the traditions and customs of a particular civilization. Textual evidence written on pottery is often an indicator of contents or of an intended purpose, however actual usage of a container could be altered or falsely represented."

The neat thing about this study is that it proves the obvious: The Maya are known to have used tobacco from way back, based on the occasional picture they carved of some guy smoking. Vessels that say "Tobacco" on them are likely to hold tobacco. But, in fact, the use of the substance and the specified use of the containers is conjectural. This research, then, represents basic forensic documentation.

RPI's Dmitri Zagorevski notes, "Our study provides rare evidence of the intended use of an ancient container. Mass spectrometry has proven to be an invaluable method of analysis of organic residues in archaeological artifacts. This discovery is not only significant to understanding Mayan hieroglyphics, but an important archaeological application of chemical detection."

Zagorevski, Dmitri, & Loughmiller-Newman, Jennifer (2012). The Detection of Nicotine in a Late Mayan Period Flask by GCMS and LCMS Methods Rapid Communications in Mass Spectrometry, 26, 403-411

Image of artifact supplied by Wiley-Blackwell.

gregladen Wed, 01/11/2012 - 08:44

Tags

Anthropology

archaeology

Origin of Agriculture

I hope that's a typo about what the Efe Pygmies mix with their tobacco. Presumably the cannabis helps counteract the nausea?

I'm not sure of the point of the cannabis is to counteract nausea, or if the tobacco is simply being added to the cannabis to make it all more interesting .

So what is the final point ?

A wonderful post. I'm particularly glad that you noted:
"The neat thing about this study is that it proves the obvious: The Maya are known to have used tobacco from way back, based on the occasional picture they carved of some guy smoking. Vessels that say "Tobacco" on them are likely to hold tobacco. But, in fact, the use of the substance and the specified use of the containers is conjectural. This research, then, represents basic forensic documentation. "
This sort of empirical confirmation is often overlooked in archaeological interpretations... and I happen to know 1st hand that it was a major point of the author's research. By the way, she enjoyed your post here quite a bit as well.

Plus, this research was conducted in the Intellectual and Cultural Hotbed of America: The Tri City Area! (I grew up in Albany.)

So, the Myan vessels' inscription is equivalent to todays "For Tobacco Use Only" even though the design of many of these smoking implements is ill-suited towards any member of the Solanaceae family and downright fubar'd for tobacco.

The Origin of Wine

gregladen — Wed, 27 Jul 2011 16:20:38 +0000

The Origin of Wine

With Julia spending the summer and most of the fall in The Republic of Georgia, I've been thinking about various political and historical aspects of that country, and one of the things that is claimed to be true is that wine was first invented there.

Recently, someone asked me (always ask the archaeologist esoteric stuff like this) where wine was first invented. And, recently, we scored some Concord Grapes, which are native to North America (presumably thanks to some bird a long time ago) as opposed to most grapes, and which provide the roots for most (nearly all?) wine grape stock. And, a paper on the genetics of wine came out recently and has been staring at me for a few weeks now. All these things together made me want to update my current knowledge of the origin of wine.

The short and snarky answer to the question of the origin of wine is that we don't know. Grapes can ferment on the vine, so if that's wine, then it does not have a cultural origin, but is rather a part of nature, getting birds and small mammals drunk for a very very long time. But that is not what we really mean when we say "wine." What we mean is something you make from grapes, it contains alcohol, and is stored in some sort of vessel for consumption later. Or sooner. By people, not birds.

Of course, everyone must check Wikipedea these days for everything. I typically check what Wikipedea is saying about what I'm writing on because a) it may have something interesting, b) it may have something annoying and c) if I don't check some wise guy who reads my blog will and I'll get any discrepancies between Teh Wiki and Teh Blawg pointed out to me. Frankly, these days Wikipedia is usually pretty good on a wide range of topics, but for the history of wine, I was struck with something annoying:

The history of wine spans thousands of years and is closely intertwined with the history of agriculture, cuisine, civilization and humanity itself.*

Sorry folks, but wine emerges in human history half way through the history of agriculture and only in a limited range of where humanity has lived and has nothing to do with the vast majority of traditional cuisines. No matter how enamored your typical occidento-normative wikicontributoid is with modern haute culture, wine != humanity. In fact, that's a pretty terrible thing to say, implying that all those people around the world with a history (or a present) unconnected to wine may also be somehow unconnected to humanity. I assume that will be fixed.

It is said in many places, including in Wikipedia, that there is direct evidence of wine manufacture in Georgia about 8,000 years ago but as far as I know, that evidence is either equivocal or not well dated. Patrick McGovern of the Biomolecular Archaeology Laboratory at the University of Pennsylvania has made the case*, based on domesticated grape pips and residue found in pottery, that Georgian wine dates to between 9 and 8 thousand years ago, but I've yet to locate a peer reviewed paper that firmly makes this case. But it is believable.

Wine residue was found on vessel fragments from Hajji Firuz Tepe, Iran (Northern Zagros Mountains) dating to about 7,000 years ago.* There is chemical evidence for wine about 6,000 years ago in Armenia.* (Armenia is right next to Georgia.) And, genetic studies suggest that domestic grapes come mainly from the "middle east" (which is a vague term) and inter-pollinated with local European wild grapes after domestication.

The study I mentioned above was published in PNAS and happens to be OpenAccess, so you can read it yourself. Here's a scaled down version of the abstract from that paper.

... we characterize genome-wide patterns of genetic variation in over 1,000 samples of the domesticated grape, Vitis vinifera subsp. vinifera, and its wild relative, V. vinifera subsp. sylvestris .... We ﬁnd support for a Near East origin of vinifera and present evidence of introgression from local sylvestris as the grape moved into Europe. High levels of genetic diversity and rapid linkage disequilibrium (LD) decay have been maintained in vinifera, which is consistent with a weak domestication bottleneck followed by thousands of years of widespread vegetative propagation. The considerable genetic diversity within vinifera, however, is contained within a complex network of close pedigree relationships that has been generated by crosses among elite cultivars. We show that ﬁrst-degree relationships are rare between wine and table grapes and among grapes from geographically distant regions. Our results suggest that although substantial genetic diversity has been maintained in the grape subsequent to domestication, there has been a limited exploration of this diversity. We propose that the adoption of vegetative propagation was a double-edged sword: Although it provided a beneﬁt by ensuring true breeding cultivars, it also discouraged the generation of unique cultivars through crosses. The grape currently faces severe pathogen pressures, and the long-term sustainability of the grape and wine industries will rely on the exploitation of the grape's tremendous natural genetic diversity.

The article doesn't really provide a better way of dating the origin of wine or placing it on the map, but the genetic results are consistent with prevailing thinking on a "middle eastern" (which here would include Georgia) origin and a Neolithic but not beginning of the neolithic date.

So wine was probably made from grapes first cultivated in the southern Caucasus. From there the technology or the idea spread into the Anatolian region and nearby areas. So, between around 8,000 years ago (or somewhat less?) and 6,000 years ago, wine became established in places where people were settled, could grow the fruit, and had the interest. Like beer, I would guess that wine served the purpose of preserving those calories grown on early farms. (Beer was probably first made in the near east as a way to store barley.) But of course it would also get everybody drunk. So, you harvest your food, make the wine, eat all the fresh stuff and sometime in the middle of winter, you are consuming more and more wine and less and less bread. By January or February everyone is running around drunk and by planting season you need a sort of alarm clock to wake up and start working the farm again. Thus, one would have to invent astronomy to make calendars and stone-henge like structures to tell you when to get back to work. Yes, yes, I know this is all wild speculation but it all makes so much sense. I wonder if you could tell the difference between the effects of beer on society in areas where barley was grown vs. the effects of wine on society in areas where grapes were grown. One of the major downsides of Islam is, of course, wiping out the beer tradition in the Levant and surrounding areas, so we may never know!

It is also interesting that wine arrives so late in Western Europe. Various estimates put the arrival of wine in that region less than 3,000 years ago.

Finally, getting back to Georgia, we have this: As I've discussed elsewhere, Feasting is a phenomenon that either emerged early in human prehistory and stuck, or was reinvented again and again by various groups, such that it is widespread and seems to have common cultural trappings in many places it is found. The Georgians have a traditional feast, and at this feast there are toasts. And with each toast, I'm told, one must drain one's glass, and traditionally that glass is filled with wine. Georgian wine is not strong, so this works. (And by the way, Georgian wine is good, at least the stuff I've had, so do give it a try.)

The problem is the Russians. The Russians have given the Georgians a long list of problems ever since Peter the Great and Catherine decided it was an important region to invade and stuff (and invading Georgia has become a tradition in Russia, apparently). And one of the problems the Russians gave to Georgia is, of course, Vodka. It is my understanding that during Georgian feasts, the glasses are the same as they always were .... large wine glasses ... and they are always filled to the brim and they are always emptied at every toast during the feast. But vodka has replaced wine. That's a problem.

So, as they say in Georgia: "მივესალმო"

_______________________

Myles, Sean, Boyko, Adam, Owens, Christopher, Brown, Patrick, Grassi, Fabrizio, Aradhya, Mallikarjuna, Prins, Bernard, Reynolds,Andy, Chia, Jer-Ming, Ware, Doreen, Bustamante, Carlos, & Buckler, Edward (2011). Genetic structure and domestication history of the grape PNAS

McGovern PE (2003) Ancient Wine: The Search for the Origins of Viniculture
(Princeton Univ Press, Princeton).

gregladen Wed, 07/27/2011 - 12:20

Tags

archaeology

Origin of Agriculture

origin of wine

republic of georgia

Categories

Social Sciences

"southern Caucuses" Greg? Did they spend a of time discussing wine? But nice article.

That would be a LOT of time.

Do we know what was stored in the oldest jugs or pots? Do we know when pottery originated?

Not quite related to wine, except in that they became two of the common trade goods at some point, is when the olive was first cultivated for its oil.

Another question: when were skillets first available? Did the bronze age have anything like a skillet or griddle? Cooking had to be quite different before metal.

I'm pretty sure the skillet is very recent. Pottery is quite a bit older than wine, and when it originates varies from region to region.

The earliest pottery vessels in the near east are probably around 7,000 years ago.

Greg Laden: "Pottery is quite a bit older than wine.

How do we know? If the oldest evidence for wine is pottery residue, that leaves open the possibility that prior to pottery being used for the purpose, wine was fermented and carried in leather bladders, that never survived. Whenever I think about archaeology, there are two things that I try to keep in mind. 1) It's unlikely that the oldest example we have of some technology is contemporaneous with its first use. 2) Our views of the past are shaped by the technologies that leave a trace. Many don't.

Now, yeah, I would turn my nose up at wine fermented in a leather bladder. Blech! But the question at the time wasn't wine-in-leather-bladder vs. wine-in-oak-barrel. It was wine vs. no wine. And that's a pretty damned easy question to answer!

"And, recently, we scored some Concord Grapes, which are native to North America (presumably thanks to some bird a long time ago) as opposed to most grapes, and which provide the roots for most (nearly all?) wine grape stock."

At least a dozen grape species are native in North America, and they are widely distributed -- there are several species in the eastern US, several more in Mexico, 2 in CA and there's at least one more in AZ. Probably more in the middle part of the country, where I never go. N Am. may have more species than Europe. No need to invoke a bird to explain grape distribution. Vitis is widespread in the northern temperate zone. But it's mostly just one species (V. vinifera) out of 60 worldwide that's been selected for wine production, and that one is normally grafted onto North American roots, as you note. Concord and a couple of others are used directly to a limited degree or locally.

Living on nearly the same latitude as St. Petersberg, I can understand the Russian fixation with the Georgian Republic. Viticulture, even with a warming world, fails if one lacks a greenhouse. Itâs the wine, I tells ya.

Not only binds and small mammals become intoxicated. In late November several years ago, a mature bull moose in downtown Anchorage (moose are all over here and fully adapted to urban living) was seem eating fermented crab apples (much used as an ornamental) and becoming noticeably intoxicated. This, after entangling his rack in some of the lights strung, during the winter months, in the trees of the town square open space in the heart of the city. He was dubbed Buzzwinkle.

http://www.adn.com/2007/12/18/239052/buzzwinkle.html#id=239298&view=lar…

Achrachno, I had no idea there were so many wild North American grapes. Concord grapes are, of course, a cultivar. In any event, grapes did disperse from the Old World to the New World and I'll continue to invoke birds as a distinct possibility. Or are you suggesting that they predate 65mya or so and were present when the Atlantic was closed? Could be, I suppose.

Splatter, I think it may also have been part of the plan to have a southern port free of ice all year round. And the vacation spots on the sea.

There is an interesting map om a similar subject here http://bigthink.com/ideas/21495

which splits Europe into Alcohol consumption bands (spirits, beer and wine).

One other thing which doesn't seem to be covered in the post is the question of safe hydration. For much of human history and in many places, local water supplies were not guaranteed to be safe. There is a reason that turning water into wine is listed among the miracles attributed to Yeshua bin Yosef: wine was safe to drink (the alcohol kills certain harmful bacteria) but water, at that time and place, was not. The Chinese hit upon a different solution to this problem: tea (boiling the water is another way to make it safe to drink). Sewage systems and water treatments were great advances in human technology precisely because they allow people access to drinkable water without the dehydrating side effects of ethanol or caffeine.

As the author of the "annoying" Wikipedia line, I think you misunderstood what it is stating. It is not stating that wine lead to humanity or what not.

Rather, it is saying that the history of wine *is influenced by* the history of agriculture, cuisine, civilization and humanity. It is so closely intertwined that you can't really get a full scope on the history of wine without understanding the history of the other four since they all influenced how wine developed.

In fact, if anything the article implies that wine doesn't exist without humanity, not the other way around.

But, anyone can read into text what they wish to read into, and I apologize for the annoyance. However, you are free to recommend a better way of conveying those sentiments and I encourage you to post on the article's talk page with your thoughts on this or any other Wikipedia article that you find annoying or confusing.

I worked on a neolithic archaeological site one summer. If I recall correctly, pottery showed up in a layer that was about 7000 years old. And this was on a remote Greek island that never had much of a population center, so it must have been a widespread technology at that time.

The first fermented foods were likely not alcohol generating. Lactic acid fermentation is pretty common.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0956713597000753

and is probably a better way to preserve food than fermentation to alcohol, alcohol content needs to be pretty high to inhibit spoilage. Low pH can do the same thing but with less calorie loss and can be used to preserve vegetables (and vitamin C) and proteins (pickled fish). Low pH also kills many pathogens.

"And one of the problems the Russians gave to Georgia is, of course, Vodka".

Georgians very seldom drink vodka during the feast as Russian do. Vodka- "araki" or grappa "Chacha" in Georgian, is drunk from small glasses usually in winter or in Mountainous regions of Georgia.

George, thanks for the input and I'm sure you're right. But I know of these other Georgians who use the big glass for the Vodka.

Of course, they are archaeologists so that could be the reason.

Falsehood: "If this was the Stone Age, I'd be dead by now"

gregladen — Sun, 01 May 2011 11:30:36 +0000

Falsehood: "If this was the Stone Age, I'd be dead by now"

This post has moved HERE. To the stone age blog!

gregladen Sun, 05/01/2011 - 07:30

Tags

Origin of Agriculture

Origin of Modern Humans

I'm not entirely sure that's the way that all people mean that statement. For example, when I say "If this was the Stone Age, I'd be dead by now,"âa phrase I've used more than onceâI'm not referring to life expectancy at all. I'm referring to the more than one occasion when modern medical technology has saved my life. If I lived in a time without IV fluids and modern antibiotics I would in fact be dead by now.

Great article. My assumptions about life expectancy got a slap upside the head a few years ago when I discovered one of my ancestors, Elizabeth Poole Stillwaggon. Born in 1750, she died in 1853 quite by accident: her clothes caught fire when she was lighting her pipe and, according to the newspaper of the time, "the old lady burned to a crisp". A friend of mine said it inspired her to switch from cigarettes to a pipe, but I don't recommend pipe-smoking as part of a lifestyle if one is planning to live to 103.

Another way I've heard of putting the menopause argument: grandmothers are good for you. But I, too, would have been dead long before now in the Paleolithic: I'm a Type 1 diabetic. And I can't help wondering how much the increase in my disease is due simply to the fact that we can now live long enough to have children.

Kelly, I'm sure people do mean many different things when they use a phrase like this, and here I've specifically addressed the issue of life expectant and what that means to people. But even the way you have meant it may apply here: Most people who get IV's in a trauma setting were either in a car accident or a shooting incident (or a handful of other similar situations) none of which could have happened during the paleolithic! Most antibiotics are used to treat infections that only occur today because of post-agriculture and/or post-industrial changes in demography or movement of people. Measles, tuberculosis, most venereal diseases, malaria, etc. etc. are either zoonitic, occur because of large scale movement of people, or the development of agriculture. You would be perfectly happy in the Paleolithic! And I exaggerate only somewhat!

@Stillwagon
*lol*
My great-grandma died at age 80-something when she broke her neck. She was jealous of her husband chatting with "that young hussy" (a widow of 60+), leaned over a bit too far and fell down the stairs.

@Life-expectancy fallacy
I've heard this in refference to jobs, that college professors have a much higher life-expectancy than roofers and so on.
Only, it's pretty hard to be a college professor at 20, but to be a roofer at age 20 is entirely possible.

I have another idea of why there is menopause in humans. So as to provide non-reproducing females for older males to be bonded to and have sex with so they don't fight the younger males to the death for fertile females.

I've wondered if menopause could have anything to do with the patrilocal pattern (females, rather than males, wandering from their birth group to find mates.) That's an unusual pattern in pimates, but occurs in both chimps and humans-- so quite possibly could have started with our joint ancestors. The result of patrilocality is that a successful female will eventually find herself in a troupe where all the best breeding males are her sons and grandsons. Of course, it doesn't seem to have caused menopause in chimps, but it might have been a factor.

On average you would be dead by now. You'd probably have died in infancy, but dead is dead. Although I'm sure lots of people don't get the lifespan vs expectancy issue, the statement made is correct.

An additional factor that Greg doesn't mention distinguishes most near-modern foraging societies from those much farther in the past: the global prevalence of infectious diseases.

For the fairly large number of them which are more or less human-specific (smallpox, polio, measles, mumps, ...) the relatively large distances between groups and relative infrequency of contact made those diseases a relatively minor threat. By the 19th century, however, the epidemiological stats had changed pretty dramatically even in sparsely-populated areas. Witness the Plains smallpox epidemic of 1845.

Infectious disease has been the #1 killer even in remote areas in recent times -- but twenty thousand years ago the epidemiological picture was different, and quite likely somewhat less hostile.

anthrosciguy: I don' think it is reasonable or fair to assume an exceptionally high infant mortality among paleolithic foragers. Most of the causes of high infant mortality among such folk today would not have been a factor; It may have been comparatively modest. Also, one of the main reasons to avoide LE at birth is because of high variability. IN other words, data based on LE at birth suck. So why make an argument based on it? Going past infancy, then, LE of foragers is not especially low.

Putting it another way, the statement is a falsehood even if true because it usually involves multiple misconceptions that are important, including the assumption of high infant mortality rates among paleolithic foragers.

It is true, though, that I didn't mention in the OP that modern LE estimates are high not only because the old get older but because the young do also.

An additional factor that Greg doesn't mention distinguishes most near-modern foraging societies from those much farther in the past: the global prevalence of infectious diseases.

That's a very important factor.

When I think about how life expectancy has changed over time, and people who say or think that "they'd be dead in such and such a time already" or however they phrase it - I wonder instead of average life expectancy, what the median or mode life span was for a given time or place. That to me would be a better comparison it seems to me. Is this thinking mistaken? Is it consonant with what you've written here?

"...it is possible that menopause is actually an evolved loss of reproductive function. This has been proposed and explained as older females shifting their efforts from reproduction to foraging on behalf of their offspring..."

Then again, it may be just that they have nothing better to do after menopause. Just because they are using this part of their lives to get food for their offspring does not make it an adaptation. I don't have a background in reproductive biology, but it seems plausible that menopause is a side-effect of mucking around with the reproductive cycle in humans. Human females are not bizarre, but their reproductive cycle is not exactly typical of mammals, either.

Until Greg's comment 10 I thought of suggesting that it would be valuable to compare LE at different ages for an individual and how that has changed through time. Of course, in response to comment 10, I would say that one of the reasons LE at birth is not necessarily a difficult measure to use is that perinatal death used to be common for children AND mothers. Once the mothers who were going to die at childbirth were out of the way, birth was a much less dangerous process for both. So modern medicine is responsible for many more children being born and living, and for many women bringing up children who would not have. But the more general point that these things are not only a contrast between an unimaginably remote then and a now which includes all of the history that we think is familiar. There was, in the 1970s, a nice paper about how rare menstruation was among some small group of recent people with strange beliefs. The point being that women were either breast feeding on demand with resultant amenorhea (spelling can't check, not at home) or pregnant almost as soon as they ceased. The variation in reproductive practices and hence in LE are much more variable than the stereotypes of "Plaaeolithic versus us" would have us believe.

Thanks! Great article. You used a word I have been looking for for weeks; zoonitic. I could not find it in any of my references or dictionaries. :) Now I will file this word where I can find it, if I need to use it again!

Most mammals don't have menopause, as most mammal offspring are independent from their mother in a year or less. You have to correlate menopause age with the length of time before offspring independence. Elephants, for example, take 20 years before they go out on their own. Menopause is around age 50, and elephants die at around age 70.

Iain: The problem is getting reliable information on the medical risks of childbirth when people (in all cultures) are busily interfering with that process.

Don: Maybe. There are a dozen correlations like that one that have been proposed to explain 'menopause' at some level, and one or more may actually work, but that is still a proximate explanation at best. The elephant's life history plan drags along human menopause in an explanatory way no better than the Orca's relative brain proportions. But, I do think there may be something to the elephant story. Elephants and humans share something else: Reliance on generationally enhanced knowledge of diet, a kind of deference for "elder" and burial of the dead. Maybe.

Another explanation for menopause is that there were evolutionary advantages for reductions of senescence in other organ systems but there were no advantages for reduction of senescence in female reproductive systems so it never evolved.

One of the big killers was puerperal fever. That only went away with antibiotics. I suspect that blood loss during birth was a survival adaptation to reduce death from puerperal fever.

Thanks for this article--MadeMeThink, at least a little bit.

On a tangent, a large proportion of the 6.9B people alive today would be dead with pre-agricultural and pre-oil levels of technology. A quick wikipedia glimpse says 1-15M people, so perhaps 99.8% of us depend on and wouldn't be here without such tech.

"For instance, in many areas, when agriculture was introduced the overall health of the population with this new technology and diet seems to have gone down. " - An important fact a lot of people don't know.

Some people use this line in a way that isn't addressed in the post, if one has been actually saved by modern medicine. I have that multiple times over. I'm not using bad statistics to make the claim, just my own medical history.

I don't think the "I was saved by modern medicine" idea works because you have to take into account why you needed it to begin with, whether it was a modern affluent health issue or something spanning across the whole of human history.

Anyone, valid points. In my case, the health probles had nothing to do with modern affluence.

Joshua, I and at least one of my sons would be dead by now,if we lived in a preindustrial age. Even had I lived two generations earlier, I would have died..several times.

Yep, I'd be dead, because of severe pneumonia when I was a kid, combined with severe asthma my whole life, combined with the high-risk birth of my first child, which would have left me with a fistula at the very least.

I don't think the "I was saved by modern medicine" idea works because you have to take into account why you needed it to begin with, whether it was a modern affluent health issue or something spanning across the whole of human history.

This.
A friend of mine needed her two C-sections because her babies were too big to get out the normal way.
But: She's big, too and that means she also ate quite a lot during pregnancy. In any pre-industrial time, would she have had the ability to gain that much weight, both she and the fetuses that she wouldn't have been able give birth naturally?
I had severe problems breastfeeding because my boobs are too big (and that is only funny if you're not suffering from baby-blues and feeling like shit because you're not able to even feed the crying baby). Without formula and safe ways to prepare it, there's a chance they would have starved or suffered damage from malnutrition.
But I doubt the whole situation would have come up 10.000 years ago.

In discussing the things that would kill you if this was the paleolithic, please keep in mind the following, in order of importance:

1) Some things only seem like they would kill you in the paleolithic but really are a function of the current context. Birth size and other childbirth related problems are probably much more linked to context than people think, for instance.

2) You were supposed to die in the Paleolithic because you lost the lottery in some sort of interesting polymorphism or tradeoff. But don't worry, your parents had a higher inclusive fitness. Sorry, best we could do.

3) Some of your ancestors would have been weeded out but were not (they were saved by medical intervention). There has been some meaningful (in terms of this conversation) evolution since the origin of agriculture, metallurgy, etc. and that's why you exist at all.

(And, finally, remember that LE is an average. Statistics don't care if it was you or someone else who died any more than they care if it is you or someone else of fails or succeeds in some free market event or another... The Aggregate, The Average, etc. .... these are cruel friends.)

@Greg: "Most people who get IV's in a trauma setting were either in a car accident or... "

Can we really assume that getting hit by a car (or, for Americans, a bullet) in an industrial society is more probable than getting hit using a spear of biface in the paleolithic? AFAIK 30% of deaths in natural societies around the world are homicides (source: Pinker's TED talk about the history of violence), and the number of (initially) nonfatal wounds might be even higher.

Can we really assume that getting hit by a car (or, for Americans, a bullet) in an industrial society is more probable than getting hit using a spear of biface in the paleolithic?

Yes, we can assume that. Pinker is wrong. Homicide rates in foraging societies are probably very low, and the data he uses are not the appropriate data to the extent that I have to question his sanity or his ethics. His choice, I suppose. This is part of a trend that is very worrisome and annoying among evolutionary psychologists.

Why would the number of non-fatal wounds be higher?

Socrates was 70 when he was executed 2500 years ago.

The guess about non-fatal wounds was purely mine.

Concerning Pinker: Might he be stuck with a selection bias? The peoples which really were relatively untouched by the thing we call civilization (until now or at least until recently enough to be documented reliably) might be those who were the fiercest warriors (e.g. Yanomani), and everybody else has been murdered, colonialized, or at least culturally modified by Westerners.

This confusion about LE is used by the foes of social security who claim that when it was established the average LE was about 65 so the assumption was that most people would never collect! A useful counter is the chart on infoplease.com for LE by age 1850-2004. Around 1940 a 60 yr. old white male had a LE of about 15 years, ie. 75. He would now have about 21 years of LE. So the difference is not nearly as great as is usually stated.
Another frequent confusion is LE versus old age. One reads that a "Stone Age" man would have been quite decrepit at 38 (or whatever) because that was his LE. And conversely, that we should work longer because 65 is no longer old. This may be true for professors but plumbers, carpenters, nurses, etc. who depend on their bodies aren't any younger at 65 than they were 50 years ago.

Ralf, the Western effect can't be ignored, but Pinker is i this case struck by simple ignorance. The Yanomamo are not foragers. Period. Using their way of life, which is based primarily on an economy of growing plantains and other plants is incorrect. Plantains take over a year to mature, are a highly vulnerable resource that requires protection and allows one to do serious damage to an enemy (by destroying their garden) and requires that movements of a village be coordinated way in advance and done carefully because of the long time cycle on which they grow. And, they are introduced from Asia.

The evidence for the Yan is that they descend from "Foot Indians" of the region, foragers, and adopted the horticultural lifestyle some time between around 1890 and 1940. To me, the Yanomomo lifestyle resembles what one would expect if a group of foragers suddenly obtained these resources, which promotes the "fierce" approach to local politics, as it were, but had not settled down yet to an equilibrium of mutually assured asshatitutde that seems to reduce homicide rates in other cultures.

The data used by Pinker is the same data set used recently by evolutionary psychologists who for some reason want the human condition for the entire Pleistocene to be one of continuous warfare. They have selected fierce societies and claimed that they represent the forager society. They are simply making this all up.

There is no reliable data on homicide rates for modern human foragers of the Pleistocene or Holocene. The ancient record of violence we read about in the fossil record pertains mainly to archaics and is not widespread for our species. The homicide rates for the Ju/'hoansi, Efe, Aka, Ache, etcl is almost impossible to calculate. The total number of living foragers that have been studied systematically with carefully collected data on demography and death rates is probably less than five thousand individuals over fifty years on three continents.

But those of us who have lived for long periods of time with foragers have mainly seen a lack of violence and a tendency to avoid violence. I'm going with what I've seen and not with what Pinker makes up.

He has good hair, though.

Diane: "One reads that a "Stone Age" man would have been quite decrepit at 38 (or whatever) because that was his LE."

That is a very good point, and I'm sorry I did not address it in the post. Next re-write, I will. Adding to this is the interesting and quirky fact that one of the main groups representing "ancient foragers" is, of course, the Ju/'hoansi (Bushmen/!Kung) who have this interesting local adaptation (I think, to being outside in the sun all the time) of skin that gets all wrinkly earlier in life than other groups.

The other example of violence in fgh societies is from Australia. Again, the figures are massively distorted by observations after the introduction of alcohol.
But there is an unbiased data set which derives from the skeletal material. Here there are large numbers of skeletons with defensive injuries on the forearm and fractures to the skull. But the significant point here is that these were mostly healed fractures in both locations. So the ethnographic accounts of "ritual" violence seem to be born out.
There is a good chapter on traditional violence in Peter Sutton's book Sutton, P. 2009 The politics of suffering. Indigenous Australia and the end of the liberal consensus. Melbourne: Melbourne University Press. (Which I reviewed for American Anthropologist)
But violence it was. And there was also a lot of genital mutilation as part of initiation.

The infant mortality thing is big. Far, far too many people who should know better think people actually died of old age at 30 or 40. (I was taught in school that 'people in the Dark Ages died of old age at 30 because they had so many children'.)

... and, although Australia is very important, every single thing (but one) behavioral/ethnographic/ethnoarchaeological trait of foragers that I can think of that is found in multiple cultures outside the obvious cultural sympleiseomporhies is different in Australia (generally).

I'm not arguing, by the way, that any human group is not capable of violence or even sustained day to day violence. I am, however, arguing that the multiple cases of high homicide rate cited by Pinker are not foragers. They aren't.

In the broader sense, the evidence for violence at this level (approaching Highland PNG and 1980s Detroit) are not universal to human foragers and there is no reason to expect these things to be universal to the Pleistocene after some point in time. Before some point in time, the evidence is a bit stronger. Even settlement patterns seem to change prior to the last interglacial in Africa suggesting the emergence of a more cooperative San-like strategy.

During various periods of warfare in the Congo, it has proven almost impossible to turn Pygmies into soldiers of any kind. One would think a murderous violent group would not be so hard to recruit. Similarly during the Namibian conflict, the SADF had a very difficult time getting Bushmen on board. The best they could do was to spread rumours as to how dangerous bushmen special forces soldiers were and go with that. Decades of warfare in SE Asia converted foraging mountain Hmong to soldiers, but I'm close to a couple of people who had that job in the early 60s (training them) and it took a generation to get real results there. Native American basal culture (trending in a number of way to various similarities) tends to have a strong warrior-like thing going, but you don't see actual evidence of this manifest in the Amazonian foragers and similar overall cultural patterns as seen with the Efe and other African groups seem to have been common to Native American foraging groups (in contrast to non-foraging groups).

This is a complicated issue. The simplified assumption that everyone in the paleolithic was beating on everyone else's head is kinda 19th century. As is the simplified Rousseauian assumption. Especailly the Rousseauian assumption as applied, say, to Polynesia!

Random side note:

Height is actually a pretty good indicator of quality of life (at least availability and quality of early childhood food). In the statistical sense of course.
Also, there are good records for height in at least some populations going way back... notably military.

My favorite factoid... During the American Revolution, American soldiers had, on average, 4 inches on their British counterparts. The Brits were mostly people from a background of "join the military or starve", while the Americans included an awful lot of landowners (and children of landowners).

Ok, tangential to the OP, but as my Chinese history prof in college said... Historians who don't use statistics are wusses (of course China has been doing a census for a very long time, so it was easy for him.)

Hehe, travc.
My mom is really into researching her French ancestry, and one day she told me how remarkable it was that all those soldiers in Napoleon's army were so short. I told her that it was because of the metric system; when the Revolution adopted the meter, they re-defined a foot as being 1/3 of a meter for all the people who still wanted to measure things in feet. So all those people who were 5'4" in their enlistment records were actually 5'9" tall. She still doesn't quite believe me, as math is not her strong point.

I'm with the first commenter. My experience with that phrase is not in reference to life expectancies, but people talking about their life-saving operation or medication. Mind, some of the things people were treated for probably wouldn't have happened if they had been living a Paleolithic life, but then again, no one in the modern era gets trampled by mammoths.

"The reason this is important is that simplifications of the past (or for that matter, the present) is often associated with a false belief in certain causalities. We live in a "modern" world with certain features, including agriculture, industrial production of goods, lots of time spent on education, and iPods. We have a longer life expectancy. Therefore, iPods, our industrialized world, agriculture, etc. gave us our longer life spans."

Good grief, I've seen you build strawmen in the past but this one takes the cake, who the hell thinks ipods are responsible for our longevity? - And you have the gall to claim Pinker is misrepresenting the past when you write utter shite about the present like the quote above?

Vaccines, antibiotics, and public sanitation are the things people are thinking about when they say our "modern world" has given us a longer life expectancy. I suspect the reason you can't see that obvious truth is because you have your head too far up your arse on this one.

Alan, the iPod reference was an obvious joke. The argument overall is not as straw man. I'm a teacher. I encounter misconceptions on the ground on a daily basis. You may chose to ignore them if you like but I don't have that luxury.

Samantha and Alan: The comments about why people actually say "I'd be dead by now" that you two have made and others have cause me to rethink my post.

First, leading off with the "I'd be dead by now" phrasing was a bad idea because what I was thinking (and other people do in fact think this ... even if you don't) is not the same as what a fair number of people (as indicated in the comments) are thinking. SO, at least, I should revise to help people past that bit.

Second, another level of fallacy has been revealed, which I do address to some extent but which has been missed and could be more emphasized. The lucky break you got that kept you alive may well have killed you in the palolithic, but it is not that simple.

Many, many of the things that didn't kill you because of modern medicine would simply not have happened in the paleolithic (which is, I re-stress, NOT a monolithic thing). We know that there have been shifts in morbidity and mortality. A lot of dental work that actually saved your life (most people don't realize how often their dentist or oral surg. save their lives!) treat conditions that are common now but rare before the Neolithic. Etc. A second facet of this part of the fallacy is that what you think will kill you and what you don't think will kill you is, as Alan would put it in his inappropriately crude way, you with your head up your arse. Most people don't have the information needed to really assess that at all. As I just noted, few people will mention in this sort of conversation that their dentist has saved their life many times, but rather focus on a heart-related treatment that would not have been necessary if they had been consuming a healthy paleolithic diet and experiencing healthy levels of paleolithic exercise all their lives. (Unless, of course, they lived in one of the unhealthy versions of the Paleolithic, which is, again, not a monolith.)

In fact, I'd venture to say that there is a very poor relationship between what people think is killing them vs. saving them and what is actually happening to them. Added to the point of the OP, that people have little clue as to what would have been happening in "the paleolithic" and you have a Major Fallacy Complex.

Finally, Alan: "And you have the gall to claim Pinker is misrepresenting the past when you write utter shite about the present like the quote above?" I didn't realize that I needed to pass some test you have in your head to be allowed to call Pinker on what is clearly a misuse and misunderstanding of data. I'll be sure to check with you next time I have a thought about my main field of research and study. If you want to throw support behind Pinker's argument, why don't you try doing it with information or reasoned argument or something rather than this strange back handed withholding of permission?

Thanks Greg. First of all, unless you want to go WAY BACK (50-100,000 years?) there is no "Paleolithic person" of some uniform archetype and I'm not sure about even then. There is no reason to believe that cultural groups were not as diverse 20,000 years ago as today, and 'we' are probably less diverse in lifestyle today than any human population in history. In a substantial sense humans today are more helpless than any time in history -- think of how many people do not even know how to swim or stay afloat in the water. We were all taught in grade school about the 'short, harsh, brutish lives' of our early ancestors, but are there any facts to support it? Or are we just telling ourselves a story to make us feel better about our own station in life? I think the latter is more plausible.

As one short add. While inferring the past from modern 'hunter-gatherer' cultures is always risky, examples of optimum physical conditioning, prowess and stamina are well reported. Colin Turnbull's time with Pygmies in the Ituri in the 1950s contains remarkable accounts of the kids and young adults running for miles and miles in the rainforest without any signs of getting tired, ie. optimum physical conditioning. Southwestern U.S. cultures, same thing, ie. a fascinating passage in Jim Thorpe's biography about Hopi kids in the late 1800s running non-stop for 40 or 60 miles on a lark (one of Thorpe's college roommates was Hopi and was with him on the 1912 U.S. Olympic team). If we infer health and longevity as connected to optimal physical conditioning, the 'longevity' trend line might be go in the opposite direction from what most people assume today.

?? What is this BS that Stone Age ended with introduction of agriculture?????? This casts severe doubt on the credibility of this article.

Plenty of Egyptian mummies and bonesets showing plenty of disease causing stunting and early death. Seems to me a better method of calculating average age of death at that time than by extrapolating from present-day foraging societies. Admittedly I'm not up on the data on age at death of bonesets from other countries than ancient Egypt.

BTW Douglas Watts, Hobbes wrote that the life of man in a society without law would be solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.

What is this BS that Stone Age ended with introduction of agriculture?????? This casts severe doubt on the credibility of this article.

No one is saying that. I'm not convinced from your comment, though, that you are totally on board with what the "Stone Age" is. Like this: "Plenty of Egyptian mummies and bonesets showing plenty of disease causing stunting and early death. Seems to me a better method of calculating average age of death at that time than by extrapolating from present-day foraging societies."

You seem to be implying that Egyptian mummies represent "stone age" populations. They don't.

Anyway, I'm not sure I get what you are driving at here.

The most obvious meaning of 'stone age' is a culture which does not fabricate metals from natural ores via smelting and forging. The use of metals in their native form (gold & copper) is a different matter. The concept of 'agrarian' poses similar problems of interpretation. For example, the best way to 'cultivate' tree nut crops is to do selective burning. The squirrels do all the planting. Much is made by New England archaeologists about the lack of corn cultivation until 1,000 AD or so; but corn is still not an easy plant to grow today in northern climes, which is not surprising since it did not evolve in NE. Acorns (soaked, of course) are as easy to gather as picking up pebbles on the beach and they are highly nutritious and storable as flour or what-not. Not to mention the American chestnut. So even the line between 'agrarian' and 'gatherer' is really ill-defined when you look closely.

Greg, I'm glad to see you can respond to agressive critisisim and revaluate your claims, self-skepticisim is a rare and highly admirable personality trait.

Personally, I credit the "modern world" with saving my life 3 times since the age of 35 - one tooth abscess, and two bouts of pneumonia. Of course that's just speculation, there is a slim chance I may have survived without antibiotics.

PS: I would be delighted to edit your thoughts for you, you have my email. ;)

Alan, you may or may not have survived those three encounters without antibiotics, but you may well have not gotten them in the Paleolithic. Tooth abscess is one of those things we can see in bones and they are almost non-existant in the "paleolithic" and among modern foragers, compared to among agricultural groups. With the pneumonia, it depends. Strep (a common cause of the most serious pneumonias) is probably widely available to humans today as a result of globalization and other processes and may not have been a wide spread forager thing. That may be true of viral pneumonia as well.

So that could be good example of the phrase used in modern context having some ambiguity in what it really means.

I've been saved by dentistry at least three times (assuming my upside down wisdom teeth would have led to abscess, though maybe not, and two other abscesses no, wait, three... so three or four times by the dentist). The injury I suffered to my knee a year ago would have left me as one of those corpses indicating that others brought me food and drink for a time before I died years after the stump heeled. You and I were both probably saved by modern medicine via vaccines a number of times. Most of those vaccines, though, are for diseases that we would not have gotten during the "paleolithic"

Greg, you seem to think I'm defending Pinker, I'm not and in fact haven't even watched his ted talk (yet). My original statement was meant as a "stones and glasshouses" comment.

I do however believe that humans had a significantly shorter life expectancy before the advent of germ theory and the technologies that came from it. I'm also pretty sure that the degree to which LE was shorter varied from one society to another and was affected by other things such as culture, and access to natural resources.

I readily admit that I'm not well versed in the subject of mortality rates in paleolithic foragers. AFAIK the main differences between a troglodite, a medieval peasant, and a modern urbanite, are the level of technology and the size of the tribes we belong to.

Perhaps we will lose the deep rooted tribal "us and them" instinct one day, stop fighting over territory and resources, and become more like our bonobo cousins, but I'm not holding my breath.

Alan, remember, the whole point of the "falsehoods" series is to take commonly held beliefs and use them to expose a more nuanced and interesting reality that often partly (but not necessary wholly) serves as part of a critique of said belief. So, in that spirit:

"I do however believe that humans had a significantly shorter life expectancy before the advent of germ theory and the technologies that came from it."

But the germs that many of our anti-germ technologies address would not have affected most "Paleolithic" populations. So, while what you say here may be partly true, there is an important missing element. One could say that police are killed less often today than they were in the palolithic because they have bullet proof vests.

"I'm also pretty sure that the degree to which LE was shorter varied from one society to another and was affected by other things such as culture, and access to natural resources."

Absolutely, and not getting that is one of the common ways in which this whole concept is typically misunderstood.

I'm not sure what a troglodite is in this context.

Anyway, you may enjoy the podcast when it comes out!

This is a fascinating post, and discussion in the comments. Thanks for putting this up.

I'd love to see a follow-up about the sources of mortality in various times and places for our species. The point about modern deadly things simply not occurring prior to the advent of agriculture in a population is well made, I'm wondering what did kill foragers 20 000 years ago.

As a bit of speculation, while the nasty infectious diseases that killed so many humans up until the widespread adoption of vaccination and antibiotics (and decent sanitation & sewage disposal - how many lives were saved by the flush toilet?) were primarily related to livestock and human population density, some of the ways to die that have been tamed by modern medicine include opportunistic infections. It's hard for me to imagine a lifestyle at any technological level in which minor cuts and scrapes on hands and forearms are really, really rare. Similarly, there are opportunisitc pathogens such as the organism that causes tetanus in pretty much any environment, agricultural or otherwise. Do deaths from such infections show up in fossilized skeletons?

I'm not sure about deaths from those infections in skeletal material, but infections like this certainly show up in forager populations.

hahaha

Today is someone else's stone age in the future

A first rate bit of thinking.

Why do women shop and men hunt?

gregladen — Tue, 12 Oct 2010 13:45:26 +0000

Why do women shop and men hunt?

Or, when the hunting season is closed, watch teh game (the guys), or when there are no sales, admire each other's shoes (the gals)?

This is, of course, a parody of the sociobiological, or in modern parlance, the "evolutionary psychology" argument linking behaviors that evolved in our species during the long slog known as The Pleistocene with today's behavior in the modern predator-free food-rich world. And, it is a very sound argument. If, by "sound" you mean "sounds good unless you listen really hard."

I list this argument among the falsehoods, but really, this is a category of argument with numerous little sub-arguments, and one about which I could write as many blog posts as I have fingers and toes, which means, at least twenty. (Apparently there was some pentaldactylsim in my ancestry, and I must admit that I'll never really know what they cut off when I was born, if anything.)

Before going into this discussion I think it is wise, if against my nature, to tell you what the outcome will be: There is not a good argument to be found in the realm of behavioral biology for why American Women shop while their husbands sit on the bench in the mall outside the women's fashion store fantasizing about a larger TV on which to watch the game. At the same time, there is a good argument to be made that men and women should have different hard wired behavioral proclivities, if there are any hard wired behavioral proclivities in our species. And, I'm afraid, the validity from an individual's perspective of the various arguments that men and women are genetically programmed to be different (in ways that make biological sense) is normally determined by the background and politics of the observer and not the science. I am trained in behavioral biology, I was taught by the leading sociobiologists, I've carried out research in this area, and I was even present, somewhat admiringly, at the very birth of Evolutionary Psychology, in Room 14A in the Peabody Museum at Harvard, in the 1980s. So, if anyone is going to be a supporter of evolutionary psychology, it's me.

But I'm not. Let me 'splain....

I want to first provide the argument from bottom up. Over the next few paragraphs I'll outline why evolving during the Pleistocene made us what we are today, and what some evolved features of our species may be. Later, I'll deconstruct the argument.

Organisms have genes that vary (the variants are called alleles). Sometimes a variant arises that, when interacting with the environment, confers a negative or positive effect. Those that confer a positive effect with respect to the process of passing on genes to future generations are over-represented (on average) in the next generation while those that confer a negative effect are under-represented. If the strength of this selection is sufficient and random effects do not overpower it, there may be a shift in allele frequencies over time.

That's evolution.

Some behaviors vary because of underlying genes. The pattern of foraging by fruit fly larva, for example, varies in a way that has been mapped directly to specific base pair differences between alleles for a gene. There are a handful of other gene-behavior links (a handful relative to the total amount of behavior out there to study) but in most cases, the link between the underlying genetics and the resulting behavior is not directly documented, but assumed. This is reasonable. The link between phenotypic variation and the underlying genetic variation is almost always assumed and hardly ever documented directly.

Humans are mammals and thus have internal fertilization, internal gestation, and lactation. Each of these three important features of mammalian reproduction means a striking difference between males and females in the risks and benefits of behavioral practices, and in the very nature of reproductive strategies. Consider the very act of mating. A single copulation may have consequences that are extraordinarily different between a female and a male. A pregnancy followed by nursing and so on is a huge investment for a female, but virtually zero investment for a male. Copulating with the "wrong" mate (i.e., one that is somehow genetically not the best choice) has almost zero consequences for a male, who can simply copulate with some other female. A bad choice in mate for a female, however, may blow a huge percentage of her total reproductive career.

(Pause: In the above paragraph, I was writing about mammals. Voles, for instance. Or aardvarks. You may have been putting humans in there as your mammal of choice, but since the vast majority of mammals are rodents or bats, that may have been a bad idea. Please consider re-reading the paragraph and placing a wild, non-domestic 'typical' mammal in there as the fill-in organism, just in case your assumption that I was talking specifically about you was influencing your thinking on this.)

It is not at all unreasonable to expect that any mammal, including humans, would evolve such that there are male-female differences in things like risk-taking behavior, mate-preference, child-care proclivities, etc.

In particular, and this is very important, humans are the result of evolution over two million years or so of the Pleistocene, during which time our ancestors lived in a social setting that is represented today by the likes of the Ju/'hoansi Bushmen of southern Africa, who were intensively studied during the 1960s in part to learn about what the lifeways of our ancestors may have been like.

Furthermore, it has been proposed that the behavioral tendencies of humans are often fairly specifically hard wired protocols. We have the ability to do certain things because our brains are really a set of many different organs, including a set of cognitive structures called "modules" which were shaped by natural selection over these millions of Pleistocene years, a time that was pretty much similar from generation to generation, among people living in Ju/'hoansi Bushman like groups in the tropics and subtropics of Africa.

These modules provide the ability to be very good at certain things. When these modules are tested or challenged in modern-day humans living in the West, we see that we are still good at doing some of the things that we did back in the Pleistocene but no longer need to do today, and we often show poor performance when it comes to modern, western, industrialized, non hunter-gatherer or non-Pleistocene problems or contexts. Just as our hand eye coordination evolved to facilitate the use of tools, our brainy bits evolved to detect certain kinds of cheaters but not others, have a taste for rare but not common nutrients, and so on. Most importantly relative to the current discussion, males have a module that facilitates promiscuous sexual behavior and females have a module (probably the female version of the same module, according to the theory) that makes them relatively prudish and careful about sexual relationships. Males have abilities to orient things in time and space in order to better shoot the antelope with the spear, while women have the ability to remember details of things in space in order to better find and select the proper plant foods. And so on. Thus, males show off, fight other males, and practice hunting by playing hockey, baseball, and football, or at least, watching the games and knowing every detail of the statistics, while females ... shop and stuff.

It's a nice theory and there have been a lot of studies supporting the basic idea as well as a number of specifics. However, there are some problems.

Let's start with the Pleistocene. The Pleistocene is, among recent geological time periods, considered to be the most variable in terms of climate change, and thus, overall ecology, habitat distributions, etc. There is no expectation that any given population making up part of a species like humans or their close relatives would have had any long term consistency in natural environment. Indeed, the post-Pleistocene life of the horticulturalist, buffering their food supply by growing crops, is probably more consistent over time than any period in the Pleistocene, with respect to basic ecology. Furthermore, when we look at foragers across Africa today, and at the archaeology which tells us something about their past, we see a huge amount of variation in habitats and adaptations to habitats. Humans have lived in very arid environments and very wet environments, coastal and inland, riverine and woodland, grassland and forest. Post-Pleistocene food producing human groups tended to avoid several of these habitats and have lived in a much narrower range of contexts.

One might argue (and this is the usual argument) that it is really the social setting in which humans lived, not the habitat, that was consistent over two million years, thus the Pleistocene as a variable time period argument goes out the window. But I should point something out about that counterargument: It wasn't ever made until people like me (mainly me, in fact) started arguing, mainly at conferences, that the Pleistocene varied too much to be thought of as a stable habitat in which certain behaviors would evolve and get "stuck." You see, part of the Pleistocene argument is that it was a long time compared to the subsequent Holocene (two million vs. 10,000 year) so we are essentially Pleistocene creatures. But when it was pointed out to evolutionary psychologists that the Pleistocene varied tremendously compared to the Holocene, the "oh, it's the social argument" was raised to salvage the idea.

But that doesn't work. We know that habitat determines social structure in humans, with technology as a major factor. Foragers vary a tremendous amount in their behaviors, depending in large part on the ecology in which they live. Forager group size, often considered to be an important intermediate variable between ecology and social structure, varies tremendously with habitat. There are even foragers with stratified societies and slavery, and there are foragers who live in such small isolated groups that they need special cultural conventions to get together now and then in order to socialize, find mates, and so on.

There is also variation in important social norms beyond that which can be explained easily by ecology. For instance, it is probably fairly rare for an Efe Pygmy woman's offspring to have been fathered by anyone other than that woman's husband at the time of birth (though with serial monogamy a woman may have different children fathered by different men). In contrast, the Ache and other foragers of the Amazon seem to pay little attention to who is the father of whom, and it is common for a woman to have children fathered by several different men other than her long-term husband. These are very, fundamentally, even dramatically different social systems, found in tropical rain forest foragers. Efe Pygmy men compared to Baka Pygme men spend dramatically different amounts of time caring for their own children. Add to these examples the diversity that must arise in groups living across a range of different habitats, and we pretty much have destroyed the argument of one social environment in which we evolved for two million years. If the basis of the modern evolutionary psychology argument is falsified, the rest of the argument may be ... well, weak at best.

When this argument ... that the social Pleistocene was a weak idea ... was proposed, the counter argument was this: Sure, the social environment changed, but there are still some basic things that are always the same: Predators and the need to mate being key.

Fine. So now, the Environment of Evolutionary Adaptiveness (EEA), which this thing ... this time period ... is called is "Predators and mating." How do we distinguish, then, between evolution in humans vs. evolution in mammals, or even tetrapods, or for that matter, organisms, in general?

We don't.

Then, consider the foragers used as exemplars in the studies done today in evolutionary psychology. A disturbing trend has emerged over the last five or ten years: The use of groups that are not foragers as though they were foragers. For some reason, it is very common today to see evolutionary psychologists claim that the homicide rate and level of violence among Pleistocene foragers was very high. There is, however no evidence whatsoever to support this. When we look at the evidence that is being adduced, we find that several groups of food growers, horticulturalists such as the Yanomamo of the Amazon, have somehow been included in the sample of "foragers." I can't decide if this is ignorance (the researchers have no clue what they are doing), intellectual dishonesty (the researchers need violent ancestor so they cook the data) or merely a tradition of indifference (the researchers use some data they got somewhere that someone else used, so they use it uncritically).

The Yanomamo and other groups like them do indeed have high rates of violence and homicide. It has been effectively argued that this violence arises because thy have horticulture. The thing that makes them different from foragers in terms of habitat and ecology also makes them different from other groups in terms of behavior.

Then there is the argument about the modules. Let's assume that the research that shows how modules seem to work and what they seem to "look like" functionally is good. The fact that humans are running around with modules today does not mean that these modules are genetically programmed. It is very possible that module-like structures in our neocortex arise during development, de novo, in each of us, and that these modules are similar across groups (but perhaps different sometimes by gender) because of overall similar developmental trajectories. The cases of modules failing, say, to detect cheating if the cheating is modern (non-Pleistocene, if you will) in context is unimpressive. In one famous study, people were shown to be very good at detecting cheaters when the cheater was someone possibly lying about their age to get a drink in a bar, but very poor at detecting cheaters when the cheater was a file folder in an esoteric filing system that may or may not have been filed correctly. In other words, when comparing actual social cheating to a glitch in a filing system, humans were pretty good at the social cheating part but not so good at the arbitrary artificial strange filings system. We are not impressed.

There are dozens of reported gender differences, with piles of research demonstrating them. But when we look more closely, we often see that the either a) the methodology of the research sucks or b) the gender difference, while likely real, changes, goes away, or even reverses as times change, suggesting that the difference is (was) cultural.

I'm sure there are gender differences. Part of the reason I think that is an inappropriate argument: I think there are gender differences in behavior because there must be. Such an argument is not evidential and does not lead us to a legitimate conclusion. Rather, it leads us to a set of valid hypotheses, if done right. However, I am utterly unconvinced that most gender differences are hard wired. There are probably some. Testosterone poising of neural tissue (indirectly) during development probably accounts for the fact that there are almost no male simultaneous translators. The neural ability to do this difficult thing is retains in some females but lost in almost all males during puberty. That is not genes coding for neural connections, but it is genes coding for different endocrine systems which then, through a series of negative and positive feedback systems, cause hormonally mediated changes in the body (including the brain).

Perhaps hormones make men like sports and women like shoes. But if so, it is not very consistent. My wife has three pairs of shoes and one purse. I have two pairs of shoes and four laptop bags. My brother-in-law knows more about sports than anyone in my wife's sports-oriented family. But his new wife knows twice as much as he does, even though no one in Andrew's family has quite admitted this out loud yet. I can track my own interest in both baseball and football as a function of a female mate or friend who had such an interest, with my involvement being a way to socialize and get along. I find sports interesting enough to pay attention and to enjoy it, but if I want to know what is going on, I have to ask the female I'm watching the sport with (often, but not always, my wife). Yes, I guess I'm following my true genetic nature: I'm somewhat promiscuous as to whom I watch the game with.

Sex differences are probably real and probably important, but they may not be hard wired as often as people think they are, or hard wired in the manner people think. We would expect a species like humans, born with this big blank brain and subjected to many extra years of learning as children, to develop these differences as a function of culture rather than genes. That, to me, is the most likely null model. I'm not sure I would attribute a priori much likelihood to a genes-up model of human behavior. How the heck would that work, anyway?

If you enjoyed this, or even, if it made you mad, you might want to check out these two posts:

This post is part of the Falsehoods II series, which are also explored on "Everything you know is sort of wrong" on Skeptically Speaking, with Desiree Schell.

And, please do feel free to tweet, digg, redit, stumble, etc. this post by using the buttons below!!!!

gregladen Tue, 10/12/2010 - 09:45

Tags

Gender and Sexual Orientation

human sexuality

mammals

Nature-Nurture

Origin of Agriculture

Sex Differences

Categories

Brain and Behavior

Thanks for this nice post.
I didn't know about the bit on simultaneous translation.

If there is not a differene between genetic men and women then why are there genes to start with?

You see the way children are shaped into (some kind of) man or woman by culture, but if so much of gender is cultural how is gender orientation so definitively not cultural but rather hard wired?

Is this going to be discussed on the radio show? If so, I'll make every effort to listen in! A little more than interesting.

This blog post could make Stephen Pinker's hair droop. Or is he not a fully formed evolutionary psychologist?

Certainly there must be effects of having all those different hormones, and the neural systems to support that, but I agree that the kind of detailed difference people attribute to genetic gender is crazy.

I just finished reading "Brain Storm" by Jordan Young. Very interesting and not far from what you are saying here.

Bah Humbug! Men hunt to impress the ladies and ladies shop to get away from the men, just like in the old days!

Caveman mike: I think I may have dated you in high school.

"Modularity" in a system composed of many interacting parts turns out to be a very hard thing to define, let alone measure. Even for something so idealized as a network of nodes connected with links, finding the optimal division of that network into modules is an NP-complete problem, and in general, it's not so clear whether that "optimum" you found is substantially better than other partitions which could look very different. Then you face the challenge that "modules" in the gene-interaction network of a developing organism do not necessarily map to functional modules in the spatiotemporal interactions of the grown brain. It's really a remarkably thorny problem.

Thank you.

I am physically female and am het, but I turn up male on most polls.

I hate shopping. I only own enough shoes to be legal & comfortable. I never wanted or had children.

So much of this crap is assumed to be genetic.

I have so many pairs of shoes! I have my summer hiking boots and my winter hiking boots (yak leather! Birthday present from my husband), and the most awesome pair of trail sandals... And then my trainers that I wear every day and another pair that I use for sports... And my bike shoes, and climbing shoes... Oh, and a black pair for when I have to be smart.

Donna, there may be a large difference between what gender one is reproductively and what cultural gender one acts as. The gender differences (shopping v sports etc) are very superficial, while producing sperm and eggs is not so much so.

Blake, just to be clear: The Evol Psych concept of a "module" is a functional complex that has a relatively well circumscribed structure and is not an emerging system of nodules nudged along by the developmental process. Like an arm: An arm does army things and is different from a leg. The speech center of the brain is located in a certain spot and does a certain set of things and is different from the cheating recognition module, each coded for by a fairly independent set of genes.

Don't be surprised to find evol psychs backing off from this position once they are confronted with the absurdity of it, but that's their position.

I always thought "honor killings" were a pretty big stumbling block to EP.

One of my beefs with Evolutionary Psychology is that will assume that any behavior (like the urge to go shopping) is a "trait" that has evolved in response to environmental pressures. Then they go looking for anything in ancestral humans' environment that could provide the push. In fact, behavior is some function of a combination of traits which actually HAVE evolved because of environmental pressures. This function is non-linear, and really tough to analyze.

To illustrate how silly this is, one might argue that a propensity to write blogs is a "trait", and go looking for reasons that it evolved as a response to evolutionary pressures. Obviously not, since blogging has been around for less than a generation.

Take Greg;s example of simultaneous translation. True, there are clear differences between men in women in the ability to do this, but it has absolutely nothing to do with the evolutionary fitness of having this ability.

To illustrate how silly this is, one might argue that a propensity to write blogs is a "trait", and go looking for reasons that it evolved as a response to evolutionary pressures. Obviously not, since blogging has been around for less than a generation.

Ah, but you see blogging is merely the modern expression of what men used to do in the wild. Which was hunt and have sex. That's why most blogging is about hunting and having sex.

"I was drunk, angry, stupid and blogging"

I have the shoe thing licked: I found one style of moccasins that are particularly comfortable. I wear them for everything, keep three pair in use -- dress, every day, and field use -- and order a couple of new pair when the oldest falls to pieces and my stock is low.

Some time back I got interested in hobby robotics which lead to artificial intelligence, which led to ..... so I'm reading your blog post and thinking "wow, this makes sense" but then I'm no expert on early evolutionary forces for human mammals.

What I like about your ideas is that they give credence to those males who are not overtly competitive or sports oriented in a way that does not required that they be feminine in nature. I certainly am not feminine, but have no interest in sports or shopping. I have privately theorized that what makes me good at the things I'm good at affects what activities I'd be interested in. In terms of Pleistocene eating habits, I'm more of an opportunistic scavenger, though I can raise crops and hunt... and yes shop and cook. I'm rather happy to just eat what is available. Likewise I am thus socially oriented, preferring neither best friends nor solitude. I'm happy with what is available at the time in terms of social interactions. Feeling that I'm different from most I meet, I have looked for something which 'as a theory' helps to explain how this is natural and not abnormal. For a theory of evolutionary psychology to be acceptable it must needs explain all the variation of human psychology today in an acceptable manner. Thus it is for artificial intelligence. There are many definitions, but none which explain all the variation of intelligence that we know of today. As physicists search for the theory of everything, so should each field of scientific endeavor search for the theory that adequately explains all variants and outliers without harsh criticism of those outliers.

I have been interested in finding a link between evolutionary psychological profiles to what we today call sociopaths. To myself sociopaths seem to be capable of over-riding some general brain functions to accomplish tasks which are difficult to others. This is important for artificial intelligence groups to understand. If you will, in an artificial intelligence, genetics and cultural pressures still exist, but as firmware, software, and data. Using this analogy sociopathic traits must then be programmed, but not hardwired... or are they? I've been looking for ideas that explain all these interrelated ideas, and just wanted to say thanks for your work and ideas. In my search for the perspective that makes sense of these problems your post has made much sense. We humans and mammals generally are wired for adaptive behaviors, while having some genetic traits hardwired. It is the adaptive abilities which matter most, leaving hardwiring functions to care for basic reproduction elements.

Reproduction can be assumed to be irrelevant for robotics and artificial intelligence but I think you have put the right perspective on behavior origins, or rather where they did not arise from and why. I personally think this gives deference to adaptive behaviors and that explains why I am normal though I fit none of the typical male or female behavior patterns we see in modern cultures. At least, I fit none of them well, but am normal on the far edge of the curve.

The trick is now to translate this understanding to thoughts on artificial intelligence.

Thanks

Brilliant article! I will pass it on!

Do you have any sources on the testosterone / translation thingy?

Yes. Yes.
I am female, love football, don't care much about shoes, love science, wear makeup sometimes, almost always have earrings on, didn't have kids, at one time was very promiscuous, now monogamous! WTF does this make me? It is culture that made me feel out of the loop, not genes. Read "Reviving Ophelia"--I raised my hand too much in class to be socially accepted. The more tolerance and acceptance there is for different behaviors, the more the true variability in human behavior is revealed. Acculturation is a STRONG trimmer of the bell curve.

There is not a good argument to be found in the realm of behavioral biology for why American Women shop while their husbands sit on the bench in the mall outside the women's fashion store fantasizing about a larger TV on which to watch the game.

Oh, I beg to differ: There definitely is. It just happens to be about enhanced group cohesion through adherence to (essentially arbitrary) cultural norms. ;)

I can't wait to hear the show this will be discussed on.

I was under the impression that Margaret Mead crashed the idea of gender roles and genes decades ago, and I always did wonder why we still have this fixation.

@Greg - Starting off with... "[support of evolutionary psychology] is normally determined by the background and politics of the observer and not the science."

then segueing into...

"I am trained in behavioral biology, I was taught by the leading sociobiologists, I've carried out research in this area, and [establish authority by association, yada yada] So, if anyone is going to be a supporter of evolutionary psychology, it's me."

...is a non sequitur. I'm not a scientist, but I know enough about marketing and logic to call shenanigans on this smoke screen. It doesn't at all follow that your training in the subject would implore you to be a supporter of EP. Backlash against one's training is so common that religious cults have their own savory word(s) for it (apostates, infidels, etc.). And hey, there's hay to be made in nearly any contrarian stance. I don't begrudge anyone for that, but setting yourself as the unbiased oracle of behavioral biology is going to make us skeptics hold you to the same standards to which you hold others. The "culture as science ~ science as culture" tagline tells us what we really need to know to accomplish this... Your coming at this with a nurture bias. And hey, that's fine. Social scientists have breathlessly clung to that bias since Darwin's second masterpiece, "The Descent of Man" threatened to do to the careers of social scientists what "Origin of Species" did to the careers of creationist clergy.

This is already getting longer than I intended, so I'll just try to argue one quick point. The root of your critique is the variable ecological pressures that would have been encountered during the Pleistocene. Fair enough. The problem I have with your subsequent arguments is that you discount the recent out-of-Africa event the current population was (not insignificantly) funneled through while ignoring that multiple strategies, therefore multiple alleles (and more importantly, groups of alleles) could/would have been successful and passed on. The DRD4 7R being a salient example which dates to that event.

Many of the outlier anecdotes in the comments make this same mistake. If evolutionary psychology does provide accurate insight, we wouldn't expect to find Homo homogeneous with the only variable being reproductive organs.

Since you attack EP in its entirety, and not any of the specific hypotheses which attempt to address explanations for shopping and sports, I found your arguments as unconvincing as you find those you critique.

I promise, this is totally coincidental, but I wrote a post yesterday hypothesizing a link between Deaner, Khera, & Platt's 2005 paper Monkeys pay per view: adaptive valuation of social images by rhesus macaques from Current biology and the stereotypical male sports fan. In brief, the low-status monkeys who pay to gaze at high-status monkeys demonstrate quite similar behavior to ardent fans (low-status) in relation to the players (high-status), and vise versa. Sure, I also dragged Andrews, Bhat, & Rosenblum's 1995 work on the willingness of macaques to forgo food to watch videos of other macaques, but hey... I went to art school. ;)

@Ellen - The methodology of the research with which Margaret Mead graced us frankly "sucks". This is amply documented, but many in the nurture camp have bestowed sainthood upon her and conveniently ignore this.

It doesn't at all follow that your training in the subject would implore you to be a supporter of EP.

You are absolutely correct. I stated it poorly. My expertise and experience leads me to NOT be a supporter in a way that I can document and demonstrate. I'm suggesting here that I may know what I'm talking about. More importantly, I'm suggesting here that not everyone in the field of behavioral biology is an evolutionary psychologist.

Calling what I said a smoke screen is inaccurate and a bit obnoxious.

You declaring that I have a bias does not make me have a bias. Rather, you are clearly "coming at this" with some preconceived notions and feel hurt that you were wrong, and thus you have started out a weak counter argument with an ad hominem remark followed by the accusation that whatever I say must be recalibrate to be more like what you say.

The rest of your comment strangely states that my post is wrong because I did not address the specific subject matter you were thinking I should address. That does not make a whole heck of a lot of sense.

EP modules would require thousands of alleles distributed among hundreds of genes. Name ten. Gene, protein or other product, neural structure shaped by the gene, details of how the neural structure differs, and a description of the neural structure's variation and the behavior's corresponding variation.

Twenty five years after the proposal of genetically coded modules with allelic variation across groups, in a world full of the equipment necessary to describe them, has not produced a result.

There is reason for that, other than the fact that they don't exist. I wonder if you know the lit. well enough to enlighten us on that?

Oh, by the way, everyone should go look at Andrew's site. I'd not seen it before. A wonderful parody!

(It is a parody, yes?)

Not bad for an art major, though. (Oh, and I'm not really a "social scientist" so much as I'm a "biological anthropologist" .... which can be hard to classify. Please don't imply that I'm a cultural anthropologist or sociologist. That would be getting yet another thing wrong.)

I doubt that it's valuable for us to debate whether my claim of your bias is any different from your charge that those in the other camp are merely beholden to politics and training. So... back to the topic...

The bit about you not really discussing what I "wanted" was in reference to your italicized assertion that there are no good arguments explaining shopping habits. You didn't mention a single argument specifically pertaining to this assertion. Arguments abound (Geoffrey Miller, Gad Saad, etc.), so you could have at least set up the weakest one as a straw man and knocked it down. How are we to know that you didn't just overlook the "good argument". Rather, you launched into a "deconstruction" of perceived flaws in the methodological foundations of evolutionary psychology as a monolith. Interesting approach, as I (not coincidentally) find Derrida's post-modernist insistence on a lack of referents to be a virtual mirror to the general discounting of the philosophy of evolved morality hypothesized by Darwin and elucidated others.

Nobody said evolutionary psychology and its ilk are easy. Yeah, everyone from the Pleistocene is dead. That makes it harder, not stillborn. Further, the genetic science required (and that you requested of me) is in its own infancy. Science on the former may improve marginally, but the latter will improve by orders of magnitude. After a few years of maturation I'll likely be able to oblige your request. You know there are no living Pleistocene chaps so it's easy to point out that this path is limited and declare the line of inquiry "wrong". You know that genetics is the limiting factor so it's easy to make that request, then suggest throwing the baby out with the bathwater. But, is that what an unbiased person would do? This simply isn't the solved science you make it out to be. And... what fun would it be if it was easy?

I'll just echo my unchallenged positive defense: If the predominant theory - placing all modern humans in the same lineage subsequent to a singular out of Africa event 40K-50K years ago - is true, then the variability of global Pleistocene ecology is drastically reduced as an important variable, and thus concentrates the adaptive pressure within the smaller range. If the predominant theory holds, you've dramatically overstated the ecological variability in the Pleistocene as a factor precluding further inquiry. No accounting for the evolved behavior of evolutionary dead ends is required. Even in that case, the dead ends may actually inform evolutionary psychology, rather than the contrary. Work on Neanderthals may illuminate strategies that don't work in certain ecological frameworks.

Further, evolutionary psychology isn't restricted to the 2.5ish million years of the Pleistocene as you imply. Just like all of the other sciences based on evolutionary biology, EP gets to synthesize from everything from fruit flies to primates. The game theory aspect of EP in particular has made predictions that have held up quite well in such instances.

Frankly, there is so much non-evolutionary-psychology specific work debunking the blank slate theory that it almost pains me to refrain from continuing.

I first heard the term "evolutionary psychology" 391 days ago. Rather than feeling hurt and wrong, I'm elated that I can read the arguments of someone who's been at it a couple decades longer, understand it, and perceive flaws.

And yes, I can do parody. Careful what you wish... :)

Andrew, your argument that the science just isn't there yet but we'll find it completely ignores (as most of these arguments about inherent differences do) the null hypothesis. We have a good preliminary understanding of the social forces shaping gender differences. We have nothing from the genetics camp, despite the fact that they have been trying.

The appropriate response to that is not "Wait for it, and prepare to be called arrogant if you argue the other side in the meantime." The appropriate response is "While it might change in the future if we get different results than we have to date, our current understanding is that these differences are created socially." That is what the evidence says, and that's what Greg has said, generally.

If the predominant theory - placing all modern humans in the same lineage subsequent to a singular out of Africa event 40K-50K years ago - is true, then the variability of global Pleistocene ecology is drastically reduced as an important variable, and thus concentrates the adaptive pressure within the smaller range.

That is true and very well stated, I think. Henry Harpending would disagree with you. This has little to do with the lack of a mechanism for genes coding for modules, and it does not speak to the criticism that the Ju/'hoansi bushmen ala Lee and DeVore of the Kalahari are the modal humans of the EEA.

The Kalahari humans are merely a backwater of migration and the assertions that those tribes being the origination of humanity is old inaccurate science and not currently held to be accurate.

The Bushmen tribes apparently represent an ancient migration out of East Africa towards Southern Africa and their relatively isolated and unmixed DNA has been preserved as a relic population. Although some studies years ago suggested that they held a lowest common denominator Y-chromosome(hypothesizing their place in the origin of humanity), this is no longer widely held. While they do represent a very old civilization, one of the oldest (along with the Ituri forest Efe pygmies), they cannot be held as the prototypical human civilization. They are merely adapted to their environment (which has been the area of Southern Africa for thousands of years), which is likely much different, however, than the original human environment of Ethiopia.

Recent DNA studies all map the lowest-common denominator DNA to the area around Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, where there are no surviving relic populations (the original DNA having been admixed with successive waves of migration through Ethiopia).

I just want everyone to know, for the record, that the comment by perpsectoff is riddled with factual errors that I do not have time at this moment to repair. One might ask how one maps a "lowest common denominator" (a novel use of this term) to a place where there is no remaining evidence. And so on.

(I'll also quickly ad that the ESA-MSA transition in east and northeast africa is firmly dated to 250K, while the same transition in southern Africa looks more like 400K, so the "origin of modern humans" is not likely to be Ethiopia).

Stephanie, I agree with you. However, critics of evolutionary psychology too often use the reverse of your argument to dismiss the line of inquiry out of hand. Both tactics are equally unscientific.

The following quote is from a scientist with a blank slate lean, but offers a view that, to my mind, is more scientifically sustainable than Greg's criticisms afford:

"I have presented arguments for the conclusion that the SSSM is closer to the truth than EP... I do not suggest, [however], that EP is an intellectually bankrupt research program. It has already produced important and informative hypotheses concerning human behavior and history, and there is reason to expect it to continue to do so." (Levy 2004)

Since there was never any attempt above to directly support the stated hypothesis regarding shopping, I'll spare everyone from the research addressing it directly. To the actual argument being made, I've included a reference that touches on the histrionic question of evolutionary psychology as a bankrupt monolith (Confer et al. 2010). Additionally, I've included a reference that touches on the question of the political bias of evolutionary psychologists (Tybur et al. 2007).

Confer, Jaime C, Judith A Easton, Diana S Fleischman, Cari D Goetz, David M G Lewis, Carin Perilloux, and David M Buss. âEvolutionary psychology: Controversies, questions, prospects, and limitations.â The American psychologist 65, no. 2 (2010): 110-26.

Levy, Neil. âEvolutionary Psychology, Human Universals, and the Standard Social Science Model.â Biology and Philosophy 19, no. 3 (2004): 459-472.

Tybur, Joshua M, Geoffrey F Miller, and Steven W Gangestad. âTesting the Controversy: An Empirical Examination of Adaptationist Attitudes Toward Politics and Science.â Human Nature 18, no. 4 (October 2007): 313-328.

Andrew, what theory do you think Greg is putting forth? He's critiqued a number of specific lines of thought. I think you're reading in more than exists in the post.

This assertion is so grandiose that it's verging on impossible to read more into it than it implies...

"There is not a good argument to be found... I'm afraid, the validity from an individual's perspective of the various arguments that men and women are genetically programmed to be different... is normally determined.. not [by] the science."

Greg has critiqued a number of specific lines of thought, indeed. However, after critiquing them, he finishes with an unjustified and fantastic leap to...

"We would expect a species like humans, born with this big blank brain and subjected to many extra years of learning as children, to develop these differences as a function of culture rather than genes."

We would? No, "we" did. It's been tested and the results say otherwise. The specific lines of argument Greg makes simply do not bear out his far-reaching absolutist conclusion. Buyer beware anytime someone takes a binary position on the nature vs. nurture question. The "big blank brain" hypothesis is the fringe position in 2010. It was convincingly refuted by Steven Pinker (despite @Markella's quip that this trumps Pinker) in "The Blank Slate" (2002), a zillion other times, and I'd again refer everyone to (Confer et al. 2010 [full-text from author]) for a thorough overview, numerous clarifications, and empirical studies that render the "culture rather than genes" position absolutely untenable. It's completely on point as it answers the following questions:

1. Can evolutionary psychological hypotheses be empirically tested or falsified?

2. Donât people just solve problems using rationality?Wouldnât one domain-general rationality mechanism be more
parsimonious than postulating many domain-specific mechanisms?

3. Arenât human behaviors the result of learning and socialization, not evolution?

4. How does evolutionary psychology take culture into account?

5. How do recent novel environmental phenomena affect human evolutionary psychology?

6. What role do genes play in the framework of evolutionary psychology?

7. What is the practical value of evolutionary psychology?

8. What are the limitations of evolutionary psychology?

Judging by many of the comments preceding my first one, many would benefit from the more balanced treatment of evolutionary psychology found in the above paper. Bonus: it's about 379 pages shorter than Pinker's book.

Andrew, you are being an arm waving dick, and I'm not entirely sure why. You really have set up a straw man here, and when I've replied to you, you haven't listened or adjusted your argument one bit. I also wonder why you do that.

If you were actually aware of my position on the evolution of the human mind and of hominid behavior, you would likely find that we are closer to each other than you claim. (Though still, not too close, I'm sure, as I'm not a genetic determinist and you are). What you have done instead is read one of my posts, misunderstood it, and thrown numerous references out to refute what you claim incorrectly that I'm saying. And, you've done little more than sidestepping the real questions at hand, such as how can you be so certain that there are genetically coded behavioral modules that we are born with when none can be demonstrated to exist other than saying that the genetics is still in it infancy (which is an absurd thing to say)?

The references are great, I love it when people provide them and the actual PDF is a nice touch, I'm sure my readers will appreciate that. But you need to stay more focused and be less dogmatic.

Interestingly, when I wrote this post (and did the recording for tomorrows show) I very purposefully narrowed my discussion to focus on the EEA and one or two other topics. I suppose that perhaps I should have covered everything about everything.

Aside (not for Andrew) to other readers (Andrew, stop reading)....

What you are seeing here folks is the reaction of someone who has a very closely held view of how life works and who does not want to see that view challenged. The 'comebacks' are canned, the reaction predictable, and I promise you that if a real discussion were to start the side stepping and back pedaling would be frantic. Shades of Brian Pesta, as you may recall. ... will we have threats of law suits if I don't succumb to Andrew's demands as to what I say, and how I say it?

OK, back to you, Andrew: You still have not answered my question: Given the way evolutionary psychology is actually treated in the literature, by actual evol. psychs, don't you see a conflict between the concept that modules are coded for by genes that have a potential great range of allelic variation and the homogeneous nature of those modules? Can you tell us how evolutionary psychologists treat that problem?

Greg, First... Point of fact: There is a gaping expanse between genetic determinism and the position evolutionary psychologists take. "Evolutionary psychology forcefully rejects a genetic determinism stance and instead is organized around a crisply formulated interactionist framework that invokes the role of the environment at every step of the causal process." (Confer et al. 2010, page 11) Pejoratively using this label is a common "argument" made by blank slaters.

Now, Sir... You assumed a certain amount of work by laying down a foundational assertion that there are "no good arguments". Sorry, but if someone makes those claims, they should be expected to provide examples of the not good arguments. You simply didn't do that. Instead of arguing your manageably narrow hypothesis, you argued broadly against evolutionary psychology as a monolith. You then concluded it's "culture rather than genes", which is wholly reliant upon an assumption of a "big blank brain".

As to your blank slate conclusion, Yes... I'm afraid you do have to just about "cover everything about everything" to make that case. You assumed the burden of proof by making the claim.

What's bracketed between your hypothesis and conclusion is interesting and debatable, but even if you were right on every point, your conclusion still wouldn't follow without piles more support. Why is it put to me debate them point by point within the context of a standard they can't hope to achieve? Simply put, if your hypothesis and conclusion were tighter, or if the 4th and last paragraphs had been omitted, this conversation would have gone completely differently.

So... I've simply been arguing against your hypothesis and conclusion while you've been expecting me to debate the disconnected middle. How that's nefarious is a mystery. Yet... I continue to be told you didn't make the claims I've been copying and pasting from your post. And now that makes me a dick who's going to side-step, back-pedal and sue people? I guess you could amend your original hypothesis and conclusion to something more fitting and test this new Brian Pesta hypothesis. I mean... unless the name calling and imaginative character speculation is your idea of a coup de grÃ¢ce.

Andrew, I take it back. There are good arguments, which I happen to not be terribly impressed by myself.

I am not a blank slatist.

I did not present a hypothesis and conclusion, though you seem to have produced one from my post. That's rather more your problem to deal with than mine.

You would have a more productive time arguing with people over interesting issues like this if you did not show up at the table both offensive and defensive the same time.

Mr Z -

I just wanted to point out that sociopaths aren't overcoming something in their brains, that something is simply missing. That is, to be clear, unlikely an absolute. Sociopathy is a discrete set of traits, given an arbitrary definition, so there is an extremely high likelihood that there are actually many possible causes of a given individual having those traits. But underlying those is generally a lack of something,* rather than overcoming something. Neuroplasticity, combined with any number of environmental conditions can foster the loss far more easily than someone being born that way.

To be clear, this is the best understanding we currently have, based on the best evidence we currently have. I would also like to note that in aggregate, most sociopaths aren't crazed murdering maniacs. They merely lack what is commonly known as a conscience and tend towards nearly pathological narcissism. But while they don't have a clear sense of right and wrong, they are capable of discerning right and wrong in their cultural/social context. Being mostly concerned for their own wellbeing, they tend to keep themselves within those bounds.

Andrew @ 34 -

The arguments made in that article are commonsensical, as are most such arguments I have seen. They take what are very reasonable assumptions and try to imbue them with the veneer of science. This is the thing that really irritates me about evopsych - the notion that we can make rather broadbased assumptions about the evolution of human behaviour over the past two hundred thousand years (though I would argue we shouldn't start with homo sapien), based on the behaviour of humans today. I'm sorry, but no matter how you want to slice it, claims made by evopsych simply aren't falsifiable.

That doesn't mean it can't be valuable. The more I continue with my education and explore my interests, the more I am inexorably nudged towards evolutionary psychopathology. I'm pursuing degrees in neuropsych and linguistics, with the intention of researching addiction and the various contributors to addiction across cultures. In short, I am going into evopsych and very excited to do so.

But I don't harbour the illusions that a lot of evopsychologists seem to hold dear, about the nature of that research. Even assuming that we keep up the current pace of increasing our understanding of neurobiology and genetics, it is unlikely we will ever clearly delineate genetics versus environment. Unless and until we are able to do so, all we have is supposition. Much of that supposition may be well educated and even foster useful results (evospychopathology has), but at this point it cannot be anything but supposition.

The biggest problem I have with a lot of evopsych claims though, is that they can be just as reasonably explained by neuroplasticity and the environment. Take the example the Psychology Today mentioned, the one about survival words. It is just as likely that survival words are so important because they denote critically important ideas. While it is easy to sit here and assume that they could only carry that importance due to evolution, it is just as easy to say that base needs conditioned by the generational transmission of culture. That they are important ideas that are firmly embedded in childhood and which subsequently become hardwired.

I'm not claiming that either is correct or incorrect, I am merely trying to point out that both assumptions have equal or nearly equal validity, given the evidence we currently have to work with. I do tend to assume rather more from the environment, because of how profoundly environment can and does shape our brain - before we're even born. That doesn't mean that I am a "blank slater" any more than Greg's position implies that he is. Frankly, it's inconceivable to me that genetics doesn't play a role or even that evolutionary traits don't.

But making the sweeping claims that many evolutionary psychologists like to make is completely unjustified.

* There are exceptions to this, but they are rare and arguably not manifestations of sociopathy. I would argue they are, because such people fit the definition. Anyhow - it is possible to torture/condition a person to exhibit all the characteristics of sociopathy, only to have said shaping completely break down. It is also extremely rare.

DuWayne -

"...claims made by evopsych simply aren't falsifiable."

Based on the rest of your comment, it appears you read the article. Since it provides multiple references and brief analyses of specific hypotheses which were put forth by evolutionary psychologists, and were subsequently falsified, your claim seems to be falsifiable as well.

In your biggest problem with EP, you make an assumptions that is similar to a point in Greg's OP. Namely, an insistence upon a requisite reliance upon unknowable behaviors of our EEA/Pleistocene ancestors. Yet, in the next sentence, you use an example that is not reliant upon a video record of our ancestors to make a useful hypothesis which can be tested. The study used evolutionary theory to hypothesize about, then measured whether a memory bias exists in humans relating to survival-domain-specific words. Unless natural selection is falsified, we can reliably assume a general and powerful survival bias in the behavior of any and every species. Thus, we can test the hypothesis in any species that has both memory and language. If we assume (I think fairly) that all species with language must have memory, we can test the hypothesis in any species with language.

"It is just as likely that survival words are so important because they denote critically important ideas."

It's possible, but in light of the study, not "just as likely". Nairne & Pandeirada (the study referenced therein) controls for this by the "updated" Battig and Montigue norms. The reliability of this methodology can be challenged and it's certainly possible that other studies could be conceived to more accurately control for domain-specificity. In any case, your alternative explanation is testable; the authors invited further study. As such, this example too refutes a blanket claim of EP's unfalsifiability.

Greg -

Arguing issues without a bias to offense and/or defense is, by definition, not argument. Though I do understand your point that the psychology of the participants influences the discourse. I operate under the assumption that scientists are biased to relish challenge and appreciate candor. I think of it as an error management theory (EMT) compatible heuristic to save time in a world of a billion bloggers, and apparently some call it being a dick. But hey, EMT predicts that cost in some cases, so I'll probably be okay with it.

My mountain bike and the dwindling number of sunny fall days momentarily require my attention elsewhere.

@DuWayne (and anyone that wants to comment)

sociopaths are not just high functioning humans, they excel at many important occupations in this world. The 'something' you say is missing has not yet been identified and could simply be an under production or over production of some protein or chemical mixture. It's still quite important in my book as sociopaths stand out as that not quite human example of how we can all be at a given time. We see this difference played out in dramatic movies and such. Self preservation over cooperative behaviors is important to understand. I think (IMO) self preservation is primal while cooperative behavior is an addition to that.

If you like, it's what makes us what we commonly call human rather than animal, or rather part of. Whether it is genetic, chemically based, or some other mechanism, it's more prevalent than anyone likes to admit so is part of the wide spectrum of human experience. For me, it is important because it represents the human intelligence sans need for cooperative behaviors which include personal risk... if that makes sense. I think it fits the profile of hunter gatherer in my mind, rather than the farmer.

Well, just my thinking

Andrew -

The study used evolutionary theory to hypothesize about, then measured whether a memory bias exists in humans relating to survival-domain-specific words.

Which is all fine and dandy, except that there are equally likely reasons for that memory bias that don't involve evolution. All that is falsifiable here is whether or not that memory bias exists. The notion that evolution is responsible is not - at least not with the tools we currently have at our disposal.

We can continue to study this, but doing so would require looking for this phenom in other social structures and cultural contexts. Does this phenom exist in more egalitarian, inherently cooperative social structures? Does it happen and as strongly in high context cultures? Would we see it in functional welfare states, such as the UK?

Mind you, even then we are still looking at a phenom that cannot be incontrovertibly explained by evolution. The same alternatives that exist in Western, low context, low socialist social structures, also exist across cultures.

Unless natural selection is falsified, we can reliably assume a general and powerful survival bias in the behavior of any and every species.

Evolutionary biology isn't that simple. There have been a lot of animals that existed and survived for a time, some for very long periods, merely by accident. The perfect set of environmental variables existed, wherein they could thrive. A very good modern example of this would be Lemurs, which still thrive and in great variety. Put them into any number of other environments and it is unlikely they would survive, precisely because they don't have a strong enough survival instinct.

Thus, we can test the hypothesis in any species that has both memory and language.

And many behavioural experiments have been done that would indicate that survival memory can be easily overcome in a variety of species. These are imperfect experiments, because we don't have the common language to communicate abstract ideas with any other species. But a number of behavioural studies have indicated that survival memory can be easily supplanted for other variables.

It's possible, but in light of the study, not "just as likely". Nairne & Pandeirada (the study referenced therein) controls for this by the "updated" Battig and Montigue norms.

Umm...You do realize that while useful, the updated B&M norms are reliable only for a specific cultural context and social structure, do you not? As such, they are virtually useless as a control, in the context of evopsych research. They only take into account the cultural context and social structure of the United States.

In any case, your alternative explanation is testable; the authors invited further study. As such, this example too refutes a blanket claim of EP's unfalsifiability.

No more so than the assumption that evolution made it happen. We can test for this phenom under conditions that might indicate that it is an environmental variable, rather than a evolutionary one, but we would be left with the same uncertainty. While we may be able to sort this out with more certainty in the future (I am actually fairly confident we will - neurobiology and genetics are fields that are producing breakthroughs at a fairly rapid clip), the tools just don't currently exist.

The problem I have with your statements is the problem I have with a great deal of evopsych - it makes assumptions about phenom that can just as easily and with just as much likelihood be explained through shaping and the environment. The changes that happen to contextual memory over time and on a neurobiological level would indicate that environment has a profound effect on our most basic levels of thought. Merely learning a new language can cause significant changes in our abstract reasoning.

Given our understanding of how our brains adjust based on our environment, it is entirely reasonable to assume that the phenom evo psych attributes to evolution is caused by environmental factors.

Mr Z -

First:
I think it fits the profile of hunter gatherer in my mind, rather than the farmer.

Indeed and only the profile of the hunter/gatherer in your mind. Actual hunter gatherers are almost entirely in polar opposition to what you are describing. Hunter/gatherer social structures are very nearly entirely cooperative. It's the only way one can survive in a nearly perfectly egalitarian social structure.

Ironically, it is the farmer who can actually afford to start acting with "selfish" self interest. Urban structure offers some complications to this schema, but not really. While all of us depend on others, any of us could logistically cut ourselves out of the cooperative loop of social function. There are a hell of a lot of millionaires and billionaires who do just that - not to mention lower income level trust funders.

As for your notions of self-preservation and cooperation, you really fail to understand the functions of both and assume there is some utility to putting them at odds. Let me assure you that cooperation is far more primal than self-preservation at odds with cooperation. Let me further assure you that these are not mutually exclusive and in point of fact, are critically important as complimentary phenomena.

Our protohuman ancestors lived in cooperative groups, much like many successful species do today. It was only by living in such groups that such strange creatures as ourselves could survive. Individually we are (in terms of naked animals) really rather weak and indefensible. It is only in groups that we can thrive - whether we're talking modern humans or our protohuman ancestors.

I am quite curious how you think that putting self-preservation at odds with cooperation provides an advantage. I am very curious why you believe a society made up entirely of such people could survive. Eliminating cooperative behaviours that entail risk means that we have no police, no fire control, no interest in rescuing anyone from dangerous situations - including children, our own or otherwise. This also means no one willing to group up to fight off invaders. Presumably this would also mean no engaging in any profession that creates some factor of significant personal risk - which means no new construction, no mining and a serious curtailment, if not the complete breakdown of manufacturing.

Not all sociopaths are evil, most aren't. But most also understand that following a given set of social norms (to some degree) is in their best self-interest.

Oi - and:
The 'something' you say is missing has not yet been identified and could simply be an under production or over production of some protein or chemical mixture.

Whatever causes the lack, it is most certainly a lack and we know in general terms what is missing. The whole of our thought processes, including emotions, are made up of neural pathways. While we don't understand all that much about the brain, in relative terms, we do understand where many specific connections are probably made. We also have a pretty good idea that some pattern for morality is very likely universal and we know what region of the brain is active when we are forced to make moral/ethical/values judgements. For most sociopaths, that region stays dark when they are forced to consider such judgements.

I am not saying that it is perfect, by any stretch of the imagination. There is all too much we really don't understand about it. But I can say with an extremely high degree of certainty that socipathy is a lack of certain neural pathways that seem to be otherwise universal to humans.

Please keep in mind that I'm not making a values judgement here. I am not saying this is an inherently bad thing.

A comment worthy of expansion (someday soon?) into a post but I'll make here: Evol. Psych is an educationists program. That would kill it for some people, but not for me. I'm an adaptationist, accepting Pagel's Wager. But consider this: What are all those VERY COSTLY adaptations for that relate to human growth and development ... extreme (for a primate) altriciality, an extra five years of required high level parental investment, delayed post natal brain development, etc. etc. ... if not for maintaining a highly local-adaptive complex behavioral system?

We already knew this existed in primates, and we know that apes without ape culture are not behavioral apes (most people have never seen the apes they WON'T show you at the zoo, but it is quite astonishing). Humans are "more so" in this regard.

Bottom line (my hypothesis, not a firm conclusion): Human behavioral systems (modules) should be selected to be less specified, not more specified, by genetically canalized developmental processes, to the extent that they should be NOT built in, but rather, very reconstructible/reniventable on an individual case by case basis. That is my model for the Darwinian mind.

Greg, there are some serious logical flaws in your argument arising from a mixing of the arithmetic with the boolean. For example, you present your basic thesis as:

There is not a good argument to be found in the realm of behavioral biology for why American Women shop while their husbands sit on the bench in the mall outside the women's fashion store fantasizing about a larger TV on which to watch the game.

Just what do you mean by "good"? Likely to be correct? Highly likely to be correct? Absolutely, totally correct? You start with this fuzzy notion of correctness and then leap to the conclusion that, because is not a "good" argument, all such arguments are flat-out wrong. While your basic argument has many solid points, your conclusion is logically flawed. Your evidence demonstrates that some conclusions regarding the role of genetic factors in behavior are weak; your evidence does not contradict the basic notion that genetic factors exert influences on human behavior.

You repeat the basic mistake in your discussion of Pleistocene environmental variability. You correctly observe that there was some variability in Pleistocene environments. But again, you fail to recognize that variability is an arithmetic concept, not a boolean one. For any two Pleistocene environments A and B, there were some similarities and some differences. But you conclude that, because there were some differences, there could not possibly be any selective pressures on the human genome. That's an invalidly boolean conclusion from non-boolean evidence.

Here's a third example of the mistake you're making: your use of anecdotal evidence (your relatives who demonstrate behaviors contrary to predictions that one might make from genetic factors). Such evidence serves to refute boolean statements regarding the role of genetic factors in human behavior. It does not in the slightest refute arithmetic statements regarding the role of genetic factors in human behavior. The statement that "all men are promiscuous" is a boolean statement easily refuted. But the statement "men tend to be more promiscuous than women" is an arithmetic statement that can be supported or undermined only by statistical evidence.

My core point here concerns a common error I observe in a great many arguments: the confusion between the arithmetic and the boolean. Some truths are boolean: black-or-white, yes-or-no, one-or-zero. Other truths are arithmetic: matters of degree, likelihood, or intensity. If you want to draw boolean conclusions, you need boolean evidence and reasoning. If you have arithmetic evidence, then you can only draw arithmetic conclusions, not boolean ones. That's the mistake you're making here: drawing boolean conclusions from arithmetic evidence. The evidence we have regarding genetic factors in human behavior is arithmetic; the conclusions we can draw from this evidence are arithmetic in nature. The very notion of "genetic determinism" is a boolean absurdity; "genetic influence" is a more appropriate term. The evidence of genetic influence on a great many human behaviors is overwhelming. The range and degree of such influences is subject to debate, but the existence of such influences has been common knowledge for millennia.

Chris Crawford -

The evidence of genetic influence on a great many human behaviors is overwhelming. The range and degree of such influences is subject to debate, but the existence of such influences has been common knowledge for millennia.

I find it terribly amusing that you go through such great lengths to explain to Greg how he is wrong (and mistaking the Greg in your head for the one who wrote this post). You tear into the logic of his argument with claims that he is making factual claims (which he is not. He did not, for example, claim that the Pleistocene had no effect on the human genome), that he is inappropriately using anecdote for evidence (actually that appeared to be an illustration to me) then take him to task for making a boolean claim (when he did not in fact claim that there were no evolutionary pressures on our behaviors).

Then you turn around and make a commonsensical claim that isn't even remotely accurate. You use a vague metric (the sort you damn Greg for) with your claim that genetic influences have been "common" knowledge for millennia, when such influences haven't been common knowledge in any meaningful sense of the word for more than a hundred years, I would argue considerably less. Even as rather uncommon knowledge, such influences weren't really seriously considered until about two hundred fifty years ago and then the assumption was traits were passed on directly from the parents (i.e. characteristics developed in their lifetime). At that, there is little evidence that behaviour was taken into consideration even then.

You might argue that early naturalistic history might have made this assumption, but that is a weak argument indeed and again, was very uncommon knowledge even in it's time and certainly through the centuries. Only a fraction of the elites throughout history would have read works that discussed naturalistic philosophy and no small number of them would have thought much of it absurd.

Finally, even when we come to a time when the assumption that behaviour might be heritable to some degree, it was the subject of heated debate - even among so called scientists. Unfortunately it is still something of a debate (in much the same way "design" versus evolution is a debate) even today, though few scientists actually take it seriously.

So after all that erroneous ranting about Greg's "mistakes," you then make a fallacious statement using a unbelievably vague metric and actually engage in the very worst you accuse Greg of doing.

Good job Bob...

DuWayne, you assert that Greg is making no factual claims. If so, then what kind of claims is he making: fantasy claims? Is he merely making random statements with no claim that they have any truth in them? As I read his post, he seems to be making some very strong assertions.

You take me to task for claiming that "the existence of such influences has been common knowledge for millennia." You deny that such common knowledge has existed for millennia. Perhaps you have forgotten the fact that poets and writers have been commenting on something called "human nature" for a long time. They don't refer to it as "human nurture", they call it "human nature". We see comments about fundamental human behavioral proclivities in Homer, Gilgamesh, Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, the Bible, the Koran, Confucius, the Vedas, Boethius, Shakespeare, Erasmus -- it's quite a long list. The belief in genetically conferred behavioral traits underlies all notions of aristocracy and hereditary monarchy. In many cases, of course, such beliefs were incorrect, but the belief in human nature is simply too deeply imbedded in human knowledge to be denied.

But you knew that.

Well Chris, you're welcome to point out where Greg is making factual claims, all I see is someone doing exactly what you accused him of not doing.

As for the rest, forgive me for assuming that this discussion about specific individual, inherited behaviours was about specific individual, inherited behaviours, rather than very generalised and non-specific societal behaviours. Also forgive me for assuming we were actually talking science, rather than commonsensical bullshit. That same common knowledge you are describing also assumed that the earth is flat and that most natural phenomena were the purview of the gods or ancestors.

In the context this conversation is taking place, behaviour and heritability have very specific meanings. The commonsensical understanding you are describing has absolutely nothing to do with those definitions.

But then, you probably knew that too.

all I see is someone doing exactly what you accused him of not doing.<.i>

Your language here is confused. Is "someone" a person other than those referred to as "you" or "him"? Please clarify your statement.

forgive me for assuming that this discussion about specific individual, inherited behaviours was about specific individual, inherited behaviours

Actually, neither you nor Greg have discussed at length any specific individual inherited behaviors. There have been vague and oblique references to male promiscuity, hunting, gathering, shopping, and sports, but none of these have been analyzed specifically. This has been a very high-level theoretical discussion. I think it would be improved if we discussed some specifics, so I'll start off with what should be an easy one: would you agree (as Greg apparently does) that the relatively greater degree of male promiscuity is an inherited trait?

Also forgive me for assuming we were actually talking science, rather than commonsensical bullshit.
Ah yes, the young scientist's dismissal of the arts and humanities as bullshit. This is a common trait but one that usually evaporates with continuing education. I felt much the same way when I was young -- it was just a matter of ignorance. Suffice it to say that your low opinion of the arts and humanities is not shared by mature scientists. While it's true that the knowledge accumulated in the arts and humanities is of a different nature than the knowledge accumulated by the sciences -- it lacks rigor and strict consistency -- that knowledge nevertheless commands the respect of more broadly educated people. Shakespeare didn't have a shred of scientific evidence to support his claim that "Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned" -- but his assertion nevertheless comports well with what we have learned by rigorous methods. You can reject it or you can learn from it.

I only have a moment, so I will clarify two things quick.

First, "someone" = you.

Second, I do not have the least bit of scorn for the humanities you patronising shit, where would you get the idea that I do? I'm more writer/poet/musician than I am scientist, the scientist bit being a very recent addition to my life and my only being an undergrad at that.

There is however, a significant difference between commonsensical, bullshit definitions and operational definitions. Behaviour and heritability, in the context of what is being discussed here, have specific definitions that are not interchangeable with the vagaries of artistic license. That doesn't make the humanities useless, even in the context of science. It does however, make it less than useful in the context of a discussion about specific science.

you patronising shit
It would seem that your behavior refutes your argument. After all, if you have not inherited the aggressive emotional constitution of Pleistocene males, why in the world you inject such strong emotion into a purely intellectual discussion? ;-)

I'm more writer/poet/musician than I am scientist, the scientist bit being a very recent addition to my life and my only being an undergrad at that.

I am honestly surprised that a self-declared writer/poet would characterize the works of Homer, Gilgamesh, Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, the Bible, the Koran, Confucius, the Vedas, Boethius, Shakespeare, and Erasmus" as "bullshit". You must be a very good writer indeed to be able to look down on these people! ;-)

Behaviour and heritability, in the context of what is being discussed here, have specific definitions that are not interchangeable with the vagaries of artistic license.

Really? The human behavior that artists address is beyond the ken of science or has no connection with the issues discussed here? I suspect that you're struggling to articulate a reasonable point, but botching the effort. Let me try to make your point for you: you seem to be trying to say that evidence from the arts and humanities cannot be applied to scientific research into specific human behaviors. For example, Shakespeare's "Hell hath no fury" quote has zero evidentiary value in analyzing the behavioral response of human females to male rejection. I agree with this assessment. However, this true statement is inappropriate as a rejoinder to the point I made, which is that the existence of human nature -- a set of behaviors so immune to cultural variation as to be most likely due to "nature" rather than "nurture" -- has been acknowledged for millennia. To state my point more briefly: human nature really does exist, and people have known that for millennia. As I pointed out in my original statement, the range and magnitude of human nature is subject to debate, but its existence is beyond denial.

Does that sort things out for you?

Greg #42, your hypothesis is exactly right.

Quite interesting that you said it in #42.

Sailor, I think that honor killing could be the maladaptive extreme of an adaptive trait, that of violence against women while they are pregnant. (not that that excuses it, it doesn't)

A leading cause of female death is death during childbirth due to cephalopelvic disproportion. In the absence of medical C-section that is about 1% per pregnancy. Beating the crap out of your mate while she is pregnant does cause a smaller fetus and might save her life (women who are victims of domestic violence while pregnant do give birth to smaller infants (meta analysis, 95% CI = 1.1- 1.8 ). The risk of cephalopelvic disproportion is largest for a first pregnancy and declines with each one.

Saving a woman's life by preventing her death due to cephalopelvic disproportion also saves the lives of her as yet unborn children. We might expect violence against women to be more severe when by her relatives who share genes with all her offspring than by her current mate who is only the father of the fetus she is currently carrying. Honor killings are usually by a woman's male relatives, either her father or male siblings.

It turns out that the MAO A1 gene is on the X chromosome and has been associated with violent behaviors. A woman has her father's X chromosome, and has a 50% chance of sharing one with each of her male siblings.

Violence against females while pregnant also epigenetically programs the fetus to have a different phenotype. Behavioral differences can be measured in experimental animals due to exposure to stress in utero. In humans there is what is called the âcycle of violenceâ. If your fetus is going to be born into a violent world, better to epigenetically program him/her to be violent first.

There are some other things that seem to fit violence against women being a âfeatureâ. I have looked in the literature for any other examples of males being violent toward a female while that female is pregnant with that male's fetus and could not find any. However, humans are unique in having a high incidence of death in childbirth and cephalopelvic disproportion due to the gigantic brain that infants are born with.

I have no intelligent nor clever comments to contribute with, I just wanted to say that for me who is "only" genetically and biologically female - yet not transgender, this is like balm. Since a very young age, society has constantly implied and sometimes outright told me that I am not a girl, yet I've never felt like a guy either. Not belonging to the center area of the bell curve sucks sometimes, though mainly only when you get social repercussions for not fitting neatly in the stereotype of what your sex's gender is supposed to be like.
The ability to generalize - one of homo sapiens's greatest survival strengths as well as one of its greatest weaknesses... Bah.

( I probably should clarify - by "biologically" I mean big tits, vagina, regular periods and all that crap. I suspect my brain would be abnormal biologically, especially since I am likely to have been doused with an above average amount of testosterone for a female fetus in the uterus, because of the mother suffering from chronic stress among other things. Yet I clearly have a high amount of estrogen in my body (as well as higher amounts of testosterone than average). )

Chris -

You're being a patronising shit, which would be why I said you were. That you happened to be being a patronising shit in an intellectual conversation is neither fresh nor relevant to whether or not you're being an unmitigated asshole.

And please, prey tell, explain where I call those works and thinkers bullshit. Though throwing religious texts in there is rather a drag on your implied assertion they are not, I said no such thing. If you had the reading comprehension that my eight year old possesses, you might have noted that I was and still am, talking about the validity of definitions, not the works in question or any other.

However, this true statement is inappropriate as a rejoinder to the point I made, which is that the existence of human nature -- a set of behaviors so immune to cultural variation as to be most likely due to "nature" rather than "nurture" -- has been acknowledged for millennia.

Bullshit. The point I am making here is that this is bullshit.

You are trying to apply U.S. American(/Western) ideals, cultural context and definitions to an idea that has seen a great deal of variance throughout history, social structures, cultural contexts and co-cultural contexts. You want to interject Shakespeare and that particularly famous quote as though it means something where it certainly does not. While for quite a while that did in fact stand the test of time in the context of Western culture, it is not universal across cultures.

What you are throwing under this ill defined "human nature," includes a great deal of behaviour that doesn't span cultural divides. You're failing to account for the greatest flaw in most Western world psych experiments - especially in the U.S. - they mostly tell us about the behaviours of Western undergraduates, mostly white Western undergrads. You can't reasonably even generalise results to our entire culture, much less a completely different culture.

With that understood, lets explore this "human nature" you keep going on about. For a good bit of history, the same "heritability" that translated "human nature" also translated a person's station in life and generally their profession. This is not even close to universal, but it was a common theme in many cultures - including that of Shakespeare. The same archetype model that drove the "Divine Right of Kings," also fostered the transition of station and profession generationally through the parents. In other words, people commonly accepted this as the will of the gods or a given god.

We aren't talking about the same thing, which is why definitions are important and using bullshit definitions is useless. It is most certainly not possible to use them interchangeably. Words have different meanings, when used in different cultural contexts, even different intracultural contexts.

As I pointed out in my original statement, the range and magnitude of human nature is subject to debate, but its existence is beyond denial.

And as I have pointed out, both Greg and I agree with you on that. I have just been responding to your sloppy, slapdash critique of Greg and the ironic twist of the same sort of slop you erroneously accused Greg of. It is more than a little obvious you aren't actually reading what either Greg or I have written.

Take Greg's "agreement" with you, that promiscuity in men is hardwired. It's rather amusing, given that he has actually illustrated that promiscuity and sexual behaviours aren't universal across cultures. While in Western culture women may be less promiscuous than men, that is changing as it both becomes more culturally acceptable for them to fuck around and as they are able to better and better control their odds of getting pregnantAs I pointed out in my original statement, the range and magnitude of human nature is subject to debate, but its existence is beyond denial (there are, of course, cultures wherein the concerns about pregnancy don't apply to the equation).

Neither is male promiscuity universal. In cultural contexts where there is a particularly strong taboo against promiscuity in males, there may well be a very strong compulsion for monogamy.

Greg makes a very important point @42. While there is obviously a evolutionary impact on how we think, by necessity it needs to be extremely adaptable and it is. Culture is largely defined by our environment. Who we are is defined largely by our culture - or our environment defines who we are and we define culture (these are entirely the same, which is why I mention it). Homo sapeiens exists today because not only our protohuman ancestors were adaptable, but because we're adaptable too.

JL -

That is something that I understand quite well. When it comes to gender surveys, I tend to score quite fem, in spite of some rather protypical alpha male characteristics (being bipolar does impact this some, but atypically for bipolar). I am who I am and comfortably so. This includes both loving to hunt and being a better nurturer to my children than their mother and the equal of many mothers in that regard.

When you come down to it, people cross gender norms a lot more than they usually assume. As I pointed out in my original statement, the range and magnitude of human nature is subject to debate, but its existence is beyond denial. There are certainly some very strict gender norms that are exceedingly pervasive and even dangerous, but they are intracultural gender norms that generally don't translate across social structures and cultural contexts - at least not very well.

Take for example, masculine gender norms in Mexico and contrast them with U.S. American masculine gender norms. In the U.S., masculine gender norms aren't nearly as dependent on machismo as they are in Mexico. Mexican males (throughout most, not all of Mexico) are expected to be hyper-alpha male. U.S. American males, on the other hand, while expected to strictly adhere to certain gender norms, tend to actually look down on such extreme masculinity.

Yet when it comes to trans-women, Mexican males (depending on geography), uber-masculine as they are, don't think twice about a male born woman (vestidas - which doesn't translate quite perfectly to our conception of trans-women). Yet when we take a gander at U.S. American males and their attitudes about male born women, we see a very different response. Often a very violent one.

JL, all behaviors are products of a brain, which is a product of neurodevelopment which produces a phenotype. Behaviors are not products of a genotype, they are products of a phenotype. A genotype must be able to support the physiology that leads to the development of each and every phenotype that the genotype can support, but the number of phenotypes that a particular genotype can support is quite large but mostly unknown.

The development that happens in the utero environment is the most important environmental influence on the development of the adult phenotype, where the phenotype goes from a single cell (the fertilized egg) to ~ 10^12 cells at birth. The change from the infant at birth to the adult is tiny in comparison. It is only because we are ignorant of what those changes are that the changes in utero are discounted.

The infant brain at birth may or may not be a âblank slateâ (what ever that means). The fertilized egg is certainly a lot "blanker" than the infant brain at birth. The fetus in utero is certainly not being filled with cultural information, there isn't a pathway for that to happen. Until the brain forms and can decode language, environmental sounds can't convey meaning. There can be signaling due to stress reactions, blood pressure, hormones, cytokines, and my favorite nitric oxide. But the data transfer rate of these signaling pathways is very small. They can't convey enough information to specify complex behaviors. What they can do is trigger the production of a complex structure with enough plasticity that later development can tune that structure to produce anything.

It is analogous to how the immune system can produce 10^12 to 10^16 different antibodies. There isn't a gene for each antibody, there are genes that do essentially random stuff, and then the products of that random stuff are sorted into the ones that do what the immune system needs them to do.

That is probably what happens in the brain, the genes specify for sufficiently complex random stuff that later neurodevelopment can sort out into what is useful and what is not. Stress in utero tends to produce a larger brain, and tends to shift the developing fetus more on a autism-like phenotype. Testosterone in utero does that too. There is Simon Baron-Cohen's âextreme male brainâ hypothesis of autism (which I think is not correct, it is more an âextreme low nitric oxide brainâ, which male brains happen to overlap with).

In the context of behaviors, there is an overwhelming tendency to pathologize what ever one is not familiar with, to consider such things as âabnormalâ. This is bad and the wrong way to consider development. Development is a process. A normal âprocessâ may produce results that are not good, for example anaphylaxis is a ânormalâ process, but it can kill you. Because an anaphylactic reaction can kill you, is an individual that has an anaphylactic reaction âabnormalâ? No, organisms have immune systems that can support anaphylaxis because an immune system that can support anaphylaxis is superior to an immune system that cannot. Organisms evolved to minimize deaths due to infection (from too âweakâ an immune system) and from anaphylaxis (from too âstrongâ an immune system). It is the sum that is minimized, so there have to be instances where either one can be fatal.

It is the same with behaviors. Normal physiology supports normal development that can produce a whole range of human behavioral phenotypes. They are all ânormalâ, in that they are products of normal human development. Certain individuals pathologize those phenotypes of normal human development solely to give themselves justification for xenophobia, homophobia, bigotry and bullying behaviors. They are ânormalâ human behaviors too, I think that Stockholm Syndrome is a human behavior that develops in response to severe bullying in an attempt to prevent it from becoming lethal. I think preventing the bullying is a better approach, but bullies don't see it that way, hence obnoxious comments on blogs like this.

DuWayne, you offer a variety of opinions; I'll respond to a few before getting to my main point.

You'd like me to identify the place where you dismissed all those writings as bullshit. Please re-read the second paragraph in my #45, where I listed those writings as evidence against an earlier claim of yours. Note that in message #45, I offered no evidence other than those writings. Yet in your #46 you responded with this statement:

"Also forgive me for assuming we were actually talking science, rather than commonsensical bullshit."

The most important point is that you agree with me on my original point that the existence of human nature is beyond question. Thus, this entire argument has been without issue; you agree with my core point while violently and abusively disagreeing with my arguments in its favor.

But now I'd like to turn to my new point, guaranteed to amplify your anger into white-hot rage. You accuse me of being a patronizing shit. I cannot speak to the question of whether I am fecal matter, as my nose adapts to strong odors and so I would not be aware of it if I were. However, I can certainly confirm your statement that I am patronizing, because in fact I am certainly "patron" in the Latin sense. That is to say, I am your educational and intellectual superior and so I am teaching you rather than stooping to argue with you. I do not base my confidence in my intellectual and educational superiority on anything I was born with; rather, I attribute them to the decades of additional time I have had to acquire knowledge and refine my thinking. You are still early in your education; you have had only a few years to study serious topics. I'm in my sixties; I've had decades to build my intellectuum. With that kind of background, the only way I could fail to be your intellectual superior would be for me to be a drooling idiot, and since I observe no drool on my keyboard, I conclude that all those years of study have given me a huge advantage over you. When I was your age, I was just as ignorant as you are now; I expect that, with the passage of time, you'll learn and improve, just as I did. Sometimes, as an exercise in humility, I peruse some of my old writings from my twenties; it serves to remind me that my skills are the product of decades of labor, not any natural genius on my part.

Your verbal violence reminds me of a great scene from the book "Jurassic Park". The lawyer confronts a young tyrannosaurus and attempts to save himself by waving his arms and yelling ferociously. The small tyrannosaurus regards him silently for a moment, then eats him. All that verbal violence was without any significance, a mere posturing. Your attempt to enlarge your appearance through verbal fireworks is similarly impotent.

My reason for dispensing these humiliating observations -- a sinfully cruel act, I confess -- is to combat the assumption of intellectual egalitarianism that underlies so many discussions on the Internet. The blogosphere reeks with young testosterone-poisoned studs slinging their featherweight ideas around, secure in the knowledge that their zits and their ignorance can be hidden from view. It's a ploy to wrap oneself in the robes of adulthood. Like little girls wearing their mother's clothing as part of their play, these Internet studs drape their meager educations around themselves like Oxford dons in their doctoral robes. For the most part, I humor them, recalling how I did much the same thing at that age. However, I am today inspired to remind you and the world that we tyrannosaurs still have big teeth, and might just use them if it seems appropriate to your education.

Your best defense is to adhere strictly to the facts. The true egalitarianism of the world of ideas is that anybody armed with facts and logic can participate, regardless of age or education. Facts, evidence, and logic are like steel armor against the teeth of the tyrannosaurus. In a contest of opinions, my big teeth will rip through your soft flesh. But my true and valid facts, evidence, and logic are in no wise superior to anybody else's true and valid facts, evidence and logic. Confine yourself to true and valid facts, evidence, and logic, and you really can stand up to me.

Good luck, kid, from a patronizing old tyrannosaurus.

Chris, your comments are among those I was referring to in #55. I agree with you that there is such a thing as âhuman natureâ. Greg and DuWayne agree with that too. There is such a thing as âhuman natureâ. âHuman natureâ is what human beings exhibit. If a human exhibits a ânatureâ, then by definition that ânatureâ is âhuman natureâ.

âHuman natureâ so defined does not mean what you want it to mean; âbehaviors that you and individuals that you consider to be 'normal humans' exhibitâ.

Greg, DuWayne, and I, do not agree that there are âhuman naturesâ that are devoid of cultural influence. There is no data that supports that there are such things either. Virtually all of what some individuals have claimed to be âhuman natures devoid of cultural influenceâ are simply their personal ideas and preferences they are trying to impose on others and to use to denigrate others into âthe otherâ so the different behaviors they exhibit can be characterized as ânon-humanâ, so that the individuals exhibiting those behaviors can be characterized as ânon-humanâ, so the human niceties of respect and fair treatment can be dispensed with and such people can be maltreated, and in the limit enslaved and killed.

You don't have facts and logic on your side, you have bullying, obnoxious bullying based on xenophobia. Exhibiting xenophobia is a âhuman natureâ too, a rather obnoxious, petty, mean spirited human nature based on ignorance.

http://daedalus2u.blogspot.com/2010/03/physiology-behind-xenophobia.html

The reason people like you consider people with different behaviors to be non-human is because you are stunted. You are unable to appreciate that actual human beings can be different than you, can have different thinking processes, can have different ideas, can look differently and yet still be human. Your inability to perceive the behaviors of some humans as âhuman behaviorsâ is about your stunted ability to perceive things. Your inability to perceive them does not mean they are not there, only that you are so blind that you cannot see them.

Wow, daedalus2u, I don't know where you got the impressions you describe, but they have nothing whatsoever to do with either my statements or my beliefs. I am in complete agreement with the notion that human nature is subject to cultural influence. I have elsewhere summarized my own belief as follows: genetic factors establish the foundation for human behavior, and cultural factors build on that foundation to produce actual behavior. I strongly suspect that this is a statement that all of us would agree with. Thus, this discussion strikes me as having lots of loud disagreement over vapors, and a great deal of wild supposition. Why then don't we start from the italicized statement above and see where we might agree or disagree?

I don't agree that genetic factors establish the foundation for human behaviors other than in producing a brain that is "human enough" to support human behaviors.

There is no data to support this "genetic foundation" of human behaviors that you talk about. Lots of people want to believe it, and lots of people write as if it was true, and lots of people claim that there is data, and that the data supports their beliefs, but they are not correct.

OK, now we're talking about something substantial! Your position is ill-defined: you accede only that genetic factors produce a brain that is human enough to support human behaviors. What does this mean? For example, it has previously been acknowledged that genetic factors induce human males to promiscuity. Do you accept this statement? If so, then "a brain that is human enough to support human behaviors" means "a brain that is genetically included toward promiscuity". If that be so, then how can you draw a line between behaviors such as male promiscuity and any other behavior?

You argue that there is no data to support a genetic foundation for human behaviors. Do you deny the data regarding male promiscuity? Or is male promiscuity some sort of special exception? I think some further explication on your part would greatly clarify matters.

Chris, not all males are promiscuous. Promiscuity is a trait that some male brains have, some male brains do not have it. Promiscuity cannot be a âgeneticâ trait of a male brain if some genetically male brains do not have it.

Whether a particular male brain exhibits promiscuous behavior or not depends on the social environment that male brain was brought up in. There is no âdefaultâ behavior in the absence of a social environment.

Humans brought up in the absence of a social environment (i.e. feral children) exhibit pretty dysfunctional social behaviors. Are dysfunctional social behaviors the âdefaultâ? What does that even mean? The number of feral children is very small over human evolution. They are not significant in human evolutionary terms, only humans brought up in a social environment are.

However, I can certainly confirm your statement that I am patronizing, because in fact I am certainly "patron" in the Latin sense. That is to say, I am your educational and intellectual superior and so I am teaching you rather than stooping to argue with you.

If it makes you feel better to believe that, then by all means believe it. That I am in my mid-thirties and you are in your sixties doesn't make it true. You know virtually nothing about me and my experience in life and I know virtually nothing about you - it is impossible to say.

I will clarify a couple of things though, so as to make a little clearer where I am coming from. While I am new to formal education (second year of college, since dropping out of high school 18 years ago), I am most certainly not at the beginning of my education. I have been an avid reader since the age of two and have always been precocious enough to find people capable of clarifying things I don't understand. While I spent much of my early adulthood dealing with substance abuse problems and other mental illness, I was also spending time on college campuses the country over - finding people who could help me understand problems with psychology, philosophy (heavy on logic), sociology and a host of other interests.

Starting with professors I knew locally, I got letters of reference for my travels and hitched all over the U.S. I also read voraciously. While certainly not on a level with the professors I talked to, I was and am rather more knowledgeable than the average laymen. Philosophy, sociology, psychology and rather obscure aspects of music theory were my main focuses and I know my shit. My knowing my shit is illustrated by my managing 4.0s in all my psych classes, without doing a lick of studying and writing papers my instructors would expect from grad students.

Having managed to get on top of my substance abuse issues and my mental illness, I am thriving in the college environment. I am sucking everything I can out of my classes and my instructors, loving most every minute (though the stress can be a bit much on occasion, but that is because I am fulltime and a half). I was accepted without hesitation, to UofT, Knoxville - in spite of not meeting all of the qualifications (math is my downfall). Things have changed in my personal life and I will not be going, instead transferring locally and taking custody of my kids. The psych department I will be going into is excited to have me, as is the language department.

I am not saying this to claim I am your intellectual and educational superior. I am saying this because you seem to assume you know a lot more about me than you do. I was cutting my teeth on theology at nine and moved into logic (which I admittedly applied poorly to religion) and critical thinkers when I was eleven. I am not a pup and I am not beneath you in any meaningful sense of the word.

As for your concerns about "verbal violence," quit being a sanctimonious fucking prat. People who assume inadequacy, just because another person uses strong language are missing a depth of understanding of what it is to be human right now, here in this culture. You are assuming that I am using such language to be provocative or because I have nothing. This is not the case. I use that kind of language, because that is the language of my cultural context.

In your presumption of superiority, you seem to have missed understanding what it is I am talking about. That is sad for you. At your age, I have little doubt that in the field of behavioural psychology, you are decades behind the times - if you were ever actually there. I am arguing against your suppositions, because you seem rather keen on assuming that psych studies have something to say about humans in aggregate. That they indicate something about evolutionary components of human behaviour.

They do not. Mostly they tell us about the behaviour of young, white college students. Other studies - neurobiological studies - indicate that it is entirely possible that everything behavioural could very plausibly be environmental. There are few scientists who take that notion seriously - at least few worth mentioning, but that does call into question everything we assume about evolution/genetics driven behaviour. At some point it is likely that we will have more definite answers to these questions. With so much more to learn, we are constantly learning new and interesting things about the human brain and genetics.

It's in there somewhere and someday we will figure a lot more of it out. But making assertions about, say, human sexual behaviour and the influence of evolution on it are just not possible, except in very general terms. Like we can safely say that promiscuity among men and women isn't something that can be explained in evolutionary terms, because cultural contexts have an obviously profound influence on sexual behaviours. At the same time, it is patently absurd to say that evolution didn't play a role in human sexual behaviours. We can't know what that influence is at the moment, but we can know what it is not, because we can and have observed human sexuality across a great many cultures and found few universal behaviours.

But I suppose you will notice that I said fuck and shit a few times and decide that I have nothing valuable to contribute to the discussion. That's your loss, because your presumption of superiority aside, I am an exceptionally clever and extremely well read individual. I understand how science works and understand what it cannot tell us, based on the majority of psych studies.

Quite simple, oh mighty bright one; the data regarding male promiscuity is woefully incomplete. All that it tells us, is that in a few specific groups, male promiscuity is extremely prevalent compared to promiscuity in women.

Any more questions?

Actually DuWayne, I am not even sure the data actually says that.

If we count the number of times a man has sex with a woman, and the number of times a woman has sex with a man, the two numbers are exactly equal.

Here we have as perfect an example of the boolean error as I have seen:

You claim that, since some human male brains do not manifest this behavioral trait, it cannot be genetic in nature. There are some people who have genetic makeups that cannot be characterized as either male or females -- therefore, by your reasoning, there cannot be any such thing as males or females.

The basic mistake you make is the same one that Mr. Laden made earlier: extrapolating a simple boolean fact to contradict an arithmetic one. The fact that some males are not promiscuous does not provide evidence against a genetic proclivity towards male promiscuity. You believe that because something isn't absolutely, totally, black, it must therefore be white. The truth is that the matter is dark gray: most males are promiscuous, some are not.

Read again what I wrote:

genetic factors establish the foundation for human behavior, and cultural factors build on that foundation to produce actual behavior.

The fact that some males are not promiscuous does not contradict this statement in the slightest. Indeed, the fact that some males are not promiscuous is completely consistent with my statement.

Stop thinking in terms of absolutes, in terms of black and white, yes-or-no. Think instead in terms of tendencies, likelihoods, inclinations, and probabilities. James Clerk Maxwell wrote "The logic for this world is the calculus of probabilities." Take that to heart.

DuWayne, I'm glad that you've been learning. Keep at it. And now, if you please, let us return to discussing the issues.

Chris, again, you have no data to support your statement. You have no examples of humans exhibiting sexuality when those humans have not grown up in a social context. You are the one who wants to make gender and sexuality solely a genetically determined construct. I know it is more complicated than that.

Development is neither arithmetic nor boolean. It is chaotic. It is highly non-linear. (speaking of which Mandelbrot just died)

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/17/us/17mandelbrot.html?ref=mathematics

What do âinitial conditionsâ mean in a highly non-linear coupled chaotic system? Not very much.

Suppose we accept your premise, what does it add to any understanding? Nothing. You have made a non-falsifiable statement.

If we look at the genotype of a brain, does it tell us if the person is promiscuous or not? No, it does not. Does it tell us if the person is male or female or not? No, it does not. So why are you so hung up on wanting a âgenetic foundationâ for human behaviors?

We know why most people want a genetic foundation for human behaviors, so they can âotherâ people with a different genetic background and consider them to be inferior. So they can justify the visceral hatred and disdain they already feel towards those people. So they can justify treating those people badly and denying them the human rights that ânormalâ people deserve.

I don't know for sure why you want so badly for there to be a genetic foundation of behavior, but I suspect it is for the same reasons that most racists and bigots do. So you can âotherâ people with a different genetic background. So you can justify not spending money educating people of ethnic backgrounds that are not your own.

So why do you so badly want there to be a genetic foundation for human behavior that you make it up? Is there any data that supports a genetic foundation for human behavior? Any data that is of sufficient fidelity to falsify the hypothesis that it is virtually all a product of social development with minimal genetic input?

I know there isn't, but you want to assume there is and make that your premise. Sorry, we are a bit more rigorous than that here.

Daedalus2u, you are babbling a great deal of nonsense; I really must insist that you take the time to assemble coherent thoughts if you wish me to take the trouble to respond. For example, you declare:

You have no examples of humans exhibiting sexuality when those humans have not grown up in a social context.

Inasmuch as we don't have any but a few extremely rare cases of humans (wolf children) who have not grown up in a social context, it's meaningless to discuss what kind of sexuality they exhibit. EVERYBODY grows up in a social context! Could you please confine your comments to something other than absurd fantasies?

Development is neither arithmetic nor boolean. It is chaotic. It is highly non-linear.

Again, you present logical absurdity. I never said that development is arithmetic or boolean. Here is what I wrote: "Think instead in terms of tendencies, likelihoods, inclinations, and probabilities." Again, please connect 2 and 2 to get 4, not Hinduism with citric acid to get horsemanship.

You write: Suppose we accept your premise, what does it add to any understanding? Nothing. You have made a non-falsifiable statement.

Really? First you deny the truth of this statement: "genetic factors establish the foundation for human behavior, and cultural factors build on that foundation to produce actual behavior", then you claim that it adds nothing to our understanding -- and then you claim that it is non-falsifiable. Which is it? False, uninformative or non-falsifiable? If it's false, as you claimed, then it must surely be falsifiable. Please make up your mind!

I can refute any of those claims singly, but I'd rather not waste my time, so if you could clarify, I'd appreciate it.

If we look at the genotype of a brain, does it tell us if the person is promiscuous or not?

That's not correct; the genotype does indeed specify an inclination or proclivity towards promiscuity. I can predict that the possessor of male genes will likely be more promiscuous than the possessor of female genes. We can then measure promiscuity rates among large groups of such persons and determine whether the prediction is statistically confirmed. Have you the slightest doubt that the outcome of such measurements will bear out the prediction? I expect that you'll engage in some shabby arm-waving to deny the promiscuity of males. If so, all I can do in response is to shake my head at the lack of intellectual integrity demonstrated by such perversity.

If we look at the genotype of a brain, does it tell us if the person is promiscuous or not? No, it does not. Does it tell us if the person is male or female or not? No, it does not.

There are these things called "X chromosomes" and "Y chromosomes" that do indeed tell us the gender of the individual. I suggest that you consult a high-school biology text for confirmation of my claim.

why are you so hung up on wanting a âgenetic foundationâ for human behaviors?

I don't want a genetic foundation for human behaviors; I don't impose my personal preferences on truth. I instead observe the truth and follow it wherever it takes me, regardless of whether I find the results distasteful. Indeed, when I find my tastes in conflict with reality, I chide myself that I must be out of syntony with reality. Do you impose your tastes upon your perception of truth?

We know why most people want a genetic foundation for human behaviors, so they can âotherâ people with a different genetic background and consider them to be inferior

Perhaps this is so; I don't pretend to understand other people's motivations. I do, however, have a clear understanding of my own motivations, and I can tell you with absolute certainty that none of your speculations about the motivations of other people have any relevance to my own thinking; I suggest that you abandon such speculations as they have zero relevance to my own case.

Is there any data that supports a genetic foundation for human behavior?

I suggest that you consult any of the fine books of Mr. Steven Pinker, Leda Cosmides, Sara Blaffer Hrdy, Steven Mithen, Christopher Wills, Terence Deacon, or even Robert Wright or Geoffrey Miller. I can provide titles and ISBN numbers if you wish. The evidence in support of the basic notion that genetic factors play an important role in human behavior has been around for years; you really have to keep your head buried deeply in the ground to lack awareness of it. I would especially recommend Ms. Hrdy's work "Mother Nature" as a rigorous and thorough presentation of a life's work on this subject. And guess what: Ms. Hrdy is neither a bigot, a racist, a misogynist, nor a homophobe. She's a scientist.

DuWayne, I'm glad that you've been learning. Keep at it. And now, if you please, let us return to discussing the issues.

Oh, you mean like I did and you ignored? Fucking prat.

Check it out:

http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2010/10/the_evolution_of_football_and…

The basic mistake you make is the same one that Mr. Laden made earlier:

Sorry, I was out of town. What did I do wrong? I'm sure I've not made any boolean errors. The suggestion is preposterous, as a matter of fact.

Greg, how can you dismiss as preposterous a comment that you haven't read? Please read my comment #43 and then tell me what you think.

Our culture (most cultures?) defines male and female historically by their phaenotype or today by the presence of X and Y chromosomes. There is an abundance of archetypical people whose personality fits well with all the stereotypes developed over time by convenience but also empirically. The big mountain peak of the bell-curve.
BUT gender expression, or rather personality expression (within a culture that more or less supports or at least tolerates it) seems to cover a much wider, overlapping range - probably controlled by hormone levels/balances, which are probably mainly controlled genetically. So you get spacially-oriented huntresses and male closeted shoe-collectors.

What? I am guessing this post is supposed to be tongue n' cheek. But are you really trying to compare your self to all of humanity? Populations evolve not individuals. I am sick of this chicken and the egg type argueing.

Are you really going to tell me that 'culture' can or did exist independently of each other? The only arguments that makes sense for are religious pre-deterministic arguments. If you believe that everything you are was created by god before you were even born, then ok. If you believe in evolution, then culture evolved. It's an adaptive measure that creates group cohesion and probably helped a lot of prehistoric humans to survive. It's basically mammal herd mentality on steroids. Anyways, not bad for a evo article comparing football and shoes./s

Chris, I told you what I think. I'll rephrase: I think your critique is bizarre. I don't have an answer for it other than cover up that one paragraph that has made you crazy if you really think it is that hard to take.

Greg, the concept I argue is straightforward and logically substantive. I'll therefore take your inability to provide a cogent rebuttal to my critique as acquiescence. Although it could conceivably be due to a gaping hole in your comprehension, I rather doubt that, as you're obviously a bright person. Perhaps you simply don't want to take the time to provide a rebuttal; that's understandable (especially since, IMO, it would take you a lot of effort to compose a decent rebuttal). Your task in this blog is not so much as to be right as to command eyeballs, and you can get more eyeballs with less effort by writing new stories.

Best wishes.

Greg, the concept I argue is straightforward and logically substantive.

No, no it isn't.

Or, it's very logical and straight forward, but in a sophistic kinda way. Such arguments can be very distracting.

Well, DuWayne, I'm sure that you can substantiate your denial with some logic and evidence, all of course laced with a vocabulary of obscenities certain to entertain. Perhaps some "fucking prat" syllogisms? After all, if one obscenity is good, then two must be better, and fifty even better than that. Indeed, why bother with any words other than obscenities? For your purposes, it's all the same! ;-)

Greg, I didn't see your comment before posting my response to DuWayne. As to your response: fair enough; the distinction between sophistry and sophistication is a subjective matter. Let's call it a day.

Chris! OK, I decided to directly address your comment.

Greg, there are some serious logical flaws in your argument arising from a mixing of the arithmetic with the boolean. For example, you present your basic thesis as:

There is not a good argument to be found in the realm of behavioral biology for why American Women shop while their husbands sit on the bench in the mall outside the women's fashion store fantasizing about a larger TV on which to watch the game.

That was not my basic thesis. This post has more than one "basic thesis" including: 1) The pleistocene is not what evolutinoary phsychologists have traditionallyi said it is; 2) When confronted with that backpedaling that is nonproductive happens; 3) modules may well exist but there is no compelling reason to believe that they are hard coded by genes that were subject to selection as EP's claim; and 4) a couple of other things. The comment that you cite as my "basic thesis" was a literary device and a pretty clear statement, and verged on an absurd joke.

Therefore, this stuff:

Which has virtually nothing to do with what I said in my post, and which I found sufficiently annoying that, I admit, I stopped reading your comment.

While your basic argument has many solid points, your conclusion is logically flawed. Your evidence demonstrates that some conclusions regarding the role of genetic factors in behavior are weak; your evidence does not contradict the basic notion that genetic factors exert influences on human behavior.

Here is where you are totally wrong. No one is failing to recognize that genetic factors influence mammalian behavior. Evolutionary psychology does not, however, assert that. It asserts something much more specific and qualitatively different. Their assertion can not be assumed to be a "basic notion" ... and I assume by "basic notion" you mean something that we assume to be true until proved untrue. Quite the contrary. The assertions of Evolutionary Psychology are novel and revolutionary, even extraordinary.

Chris, you are telling me that I've got it wrong because I have not disproved the presumption that genes influence behavior. However, I did not address that presumption. So, perhaps we can adjust what you are saying: Perhaps you are telling me that I've got it wrong because I have not disproved the assertions of evolutionary psychology, which you take to be "basic notions" .. i.e., assumed to be true.

This is the problem with this whole discussion. Your typical Western trained person comes to the table "knowing" that certain things are "true" including the existence of races, the detailed genetic coding of behavior, and so on. Like the Victorians coming to the table "knowing" that they deserved to rule the world. Give me a break!

Then there is this:

Huh? During the 12 thousand years of the Holocene in the region where the Ju/'hoansi bushmen lived, they lived there in an environment much like it is today except in one or two spots that may have been a tiny bit dryer or weter. Durin the previous 24,000 years of the terminal Pleistocene, the environment in that region fluctuated fro one in which the Okavango overflowed a lake that does not exist today and formed a new, enormous lake in Central Botswana, and a period of time when the entire region was so dry that no archaeological evidence of any human has ever been found for that time period.

Your whole Boolean logic thing is something that one might apply to a philosophical question. This, however, is not a philosophical question. This is a question of measurement and data. The evolutionary psychology literature very clearly makes out the Pleistocene as a consistent, unary, long period of time with little variation. This assumption was made by psychologists, who did not know what they were talking about. They were wrong. Boolean? Arithmetic? Bah, humbug!

You are correct that my relatives are arithmetic and not Boolean. You are incorrect that this is the evidence for this argument. That's just me relating the reality that bell curves not only overlap but they sometimes utterly disappear (as has happened with some sex difference measures), occasionally revers, or are often highly suspicious for one reason or another.

Do you write/edit Wikipedia articles?

I'll keep that mind, but you are making part of this up. The term "genetic determinism" has never been a boolean concept (in the hands of actual behavioral geneticists). Have you read any of the literature? Had you, you would have seen that that is not what is meant by "genetic determinism." The terms "genetic determinism" and "genetic influence" are roughly interchangeable to behavioral geneticists. You have made the error of thinking of "determinism" as a strong thing, strong enough to be on or off (boolean), and "influence" to be a vaguer thing, something that might run along a spectrum.

You have taken two terms that are similar, both of which refer to arithmetic properties of relationships, and dichotomized them. You have, indeed, booleanized them!!!!11!!1

Which is obviously some kind of really serious error.

Oops, didn't see your comment while I was posting my comment.

"the distinction between sophistry and sophistication is a subjective matter"

actually, it's a clear boolean distinction. Which you are arithmeticized!

Chris -

I did in fact address your comment and with a minimum of swearing even. But rather than actually addressing the comments, you went all in for your bullshit superiority complex. I understand that your understanding of behavioural psychology is woefully out of date, but that is no excuse for being a fucking prat when it is pointed out to you. I also understand that you believe that commonsensical definitions throughout the centuries is relevant to a discussion about the science of behaviour. That is no excuse for being a dismissive, condescending asshat when someone points out that and explains how you're wrong.

But I suppose when you've got nothing, it is nice to have language that offends your delicate sensibilities, to give you an excuse for ignoring your ignorance.

Greg, thanks for your detailed response to my points in the blog. I have taken some time to think over your points, and written up a long rejoinder.

You reject my characterization of your basic thesis, offering instead the explanation that what I was objecting to was more light-hearted in style. OK, I can happily say, "Oops, my sense of humor failed me." However, you then proceed to offer these as your basic points:

1) The pleistocene is not what evolutinoary phsychologists have traditionallyi said it is; 2) When confronted with that backpedaling that is nonproductive happens; 3) modules may well exist but there is no compelling reason to believe that they are hard coded by genes that were subject to selection as EP's claim; and 4) a couple of other things.

I am appalled by these statements: they're drivel! Let's go over them one at a time. First: The pleistocene is not what evolutinoary phsychologists have traditionallyi said it is;

For this to make any sense, you have to specify what it is that you claim evolutionary psychologists have traditionally said it is. This looks for all the world like one of those "some say" statements: "Some say that Greg Laden is an orphan-raping litterbug, but that's not quite the truth". Your statement is so devoid of detail that it could really mean almost anything. Yes, it's absolutely true that the Pleistocene is not what some people have said it was (some people said it was a time of wild orgies and lollipop manufacturing). If you want to make a point, Greg, MAKE IT! Don't just dump a vague nothingburger statement onto the world. That's an abuse of electrons.

Moving on to your next point: 2) When confronted with that backpedaling that is nonproductive happens; Who? What? When? Where? How? What in the world are you talking about? If I'm going to ask my reader to take the time to read what I have to say, I actually SAY something! This statement lacks content.

3) modules may well exist but there is no compelling reason to believe that they are hard coded by genes that were subject to selection as EP's claim;

As written, this concedes that there may be compelling reasons to believe that mental modules are hard coded by genes that were subject to selection in ways other than that "EP" claims. Are there mental modules that are hard coded by genes that were subject to selection in ways consistent with the writings of Sara Blaffer Hrdy? Leda Cosmides? Steven Pinker? Your statement certainly suggests the possibility.

4) a couple of other things. Only a couple? ;-)

I'm reminded of a quote by Abraham Lincoln to the effect that he knew a politician who could pack more words into fewer ideas than anybody he'd ever met. Your post and your response both present a roiling ocean of words that, under careful analysis, don't say anything. In this sense, your case against EP is rather like the creationist's case against evolution: when all is said and done, they don't say anything. As much as I hold the global warming deniers in contempt, I have to confess that they're way ahead of you on one point: they actually have some points to make. Their points are way wrong, usually involving some sort of twisting of the science, but at least there's a "there" there. I can't say as much for either your original post or your response.

No one is failing to recognize that genetic factors influence mammalian behavior.

You're not saying that, but several of the commentators here are doing so. Some of my responses are to them. I really should ignore these ignorami.

Evolutionary psychology does not, however, assert that. It asserts something much more specific and qualitatively different.

WHAT? You are maddeningly unspecific here. You say that they're wrong, but you won't reveal what they're wrong about.

Their assertion can not be assumed to be a "basic notion" ... and I assume by "basic notion" you mean something that we assume to be true until proved untrue.

No, that's not what I mean. Evo Psych is a theory now (a broad collection of related hypotheses) that must stand the test of criticism. But you're not offering any criticism: you're just rejecting the theory without explanation.

The assertions of Evolutionary Psychology are novel and revolutionary, even extraordinary.

WHAT assertions?!??! Again with the complete lack of specificity! Are you attacking a label or a theory?

Perhaps you are telling me that I've got it wrong because I have not disproved the assertions of evolutionary psychology, which you take to be "basic notions" .. i.e., assumed to be true.

Nope. My original criticism was specific to the logical error of using arithmetic evidence to arrive at boolean conclusions -- but at this point I think we're arguing more fundamental questions.

Whoa! Talk about prejudice! This is the kind of statement that leads me to suspect that the opponents of Evo Psych are merely intellectual bigots. I'm not a Victorian, nor am I a racist, sexist, homophobe, Nazi, Tea Party Proponent, or any other such person. I am interested in a scientific question, and if your contribution to the question is to dismiss your opponents as racists, then I can safely conclude that you have no useful contribution to make. And, BTW, are you suggesting that Eastern trained persons (or Northern-trained or Southern-trained?) are intellectually pure?

Huh? During the 12 thousand yearsâ¦ â¦found for that time period.

Did you have a point to make?

Your whole Boolean logic thing is something that one might apply to a philosophical question.

No, my point is about logic -- your argument is logically flawed. That's not a philosophical argument -- that's a scientific argument.

This is a question of measurement and data.

Not quite. It's a question of measurement and data analyzed by means of logical reasoning -- and your logic is flawed.

The evolutionary psychology literature very clearly makes out the Pleistocene as a consistent, unary, long period of time with little variation.

Perhaps so. Perhaps the Evo Psych literature is full of idiotic statements. But your observation is without issue. If you want to challenge a claim, then you have to first state what the claim is, then provide evidence and logic against it. Your evidence is that the Pleistocene was not absolutely, positively, 100% stable. I doubt that any period in evolutionary history was absolutely, positively, 100% stable. What you have to show is that the instabilities in the Pleistocene were so great that consistent evolutionary pressures could not exist. This will be rather difficult to establish, given that Homo Sapiens (and a great many other species) did in fact undergo evolutionary change. If those changes were not consequent to evolutionary pressures, what caused them? Bubble gum machines?

bell curves not only overlap but they sometimes utterly disappear (as has happened with some sex difference measures), occasionally revers, or are often highly suspicious for one reason or another.

Yes, and bubble gum machines aren't bell curves. Perhaps you had a point to make with respect to Evo Psych?

Do you write/edit Wikipedia articles?

I've contributed to only one, in which I had some special expertise to contribute.

Have you read any of the literature? Had you, you would have seen that that is not what is meant by "genetic determinism." The terms "genetic determinism" and "genetic influence" are roughly interchangeable to behavioral geneticists.

Hoo, boy. What does a term mean? We can argue about this all day, because the term "genetic determinism" has been used in many different ways. I deny your claim that its use in scientific discussions is well-defined. It's true that, the closer you get to laboratory genetics, the narrower the meaning of the term. Unfortunately, its meaning in Evo Psych is nowhere near as clear as you suggest. I sense a semantic drift away from the term "genetic determinism" and towards "genetic influence". This drift seems to be concomitant with the growing distaste for using the term "nature versus nurture", for much the same reason: it's a polarizing term that casts the scientific issues in simplistic black-and-white terms.

You have made the error of thinking of "determinism" as a strong thing, strong enough to be on or off (boolean), and "influence" to be a vaguer thing, something that might run along a spectrum.

Uh, gee, perhaps you might want to look up the two terms in a dictionary, Greg.

Having followed the subject for nearly twenty years now, I've been on the lookout for some counterbalancing arguments. It's a character oddity of mine: I went so far as to read Mr. Behe's anti-evolution book (yes, it really is tripe) as well as to spend some time following the global warming denier sites of Anthony Watts and Steve McIntyre (yep, they're tripe, too). In the same way, I've been looking for something similar for evo psych -- and I have yet to find anything with as much actual substance as I've found in Behe, McIntyre, or Watts. There's lots of emotional denialism, but no sober reasoning. I was hoping that you might be able to provide as much, which is why I poked at you. I think you can do a real service by putting together a solid, well-reasoned critique of evo psych. I looked at one book (whose title escapes my Swiss cheese memory) that purports to critique evo psych, and it did offer some actual arguments, but I found it unsatisfyingly vague. Perhaps you can tackle the problem.

I hope that you are not personally insulted by the ferocious intellectual arguments I present. I operate on a "render unto Caesar" philosophy with regard to ideas versus people: I am a Tyrannosaurus Rex towards ideas and a teddy bear towards people. I have enjoyed your blog and recommend it to others.

Oops! I failed to include in italics a quote from you, thereby rendering my post rather confusing. Here's the correct rendition of that portion:

For this to make any sense, you have to specify what it is that you claim evolutionary psychologists have traditionally said it is.

Chris, you seem to have gotten so caught up in the superiority conferred by your years that you've forgotten there's a blog post here. See paragraph 13 (or thereabouts, if I've counted incorrectly).

In fact, you might want to read the entire post again. Or not, since you really just seem to be trolling rather than engaging with the topic in any specific way yourself.

Stephanie, I have read Greg's post several times to make certain that I'm on track here, and Greg's assertions regarding the position of Evo Psych are vague. That's why I have taken so much time to try to get him to clarify his statements. If you have any constructive comments to offer (aside from accusing me of trollery), I'd be happy to discuss Evo Psych.

"I am appalled by these statements: they're drivel! Let's go over them one at a time. "

I'm a busy man, Chris. Don't give me an 1800 word comment that starts with a statement like that. It just could not possibly interest me enough to read it. I've spent much of the last 25 year studying this issue. Your comments do not really draw my attention, though it is possible that brief clearly worded questions posed in a civil and polite manner would.

I really did look back at your first comment thinking there might be something there. I gave you that chance. You failed then. I'm not giving you the chance this time.

No, Chris, I don't think you have read the post very carefully. If you have, you haven't put the pieces together very well.

Take your favorite topic of male promiscuity. The evo psych argument Greg is taking on here is that men are genetically predisposed to being more promiscuous than women based on human evolution over a particular period. His argument is not that some men aren't relatively promiscuous, thus no go. His argument is that if you look at the (actual) people living under the (actual) conditions that evo psych postulates shaped modern human behavior, those specific populations are not where you find the tendency toward male promiscuity. Those conditions don't select for male promiscuity.

Is that an argument that no males are genetically predisposed to promiscuity? No. Is it saying that no one doing any kind of evolutionary psychology has a leg to stand on? No.

It is, however, a falsification of the framework that evo psych is using to argue that male promiscuity must be genetically coded for. The same goes for other standard male/female behavior patterns that evo psych is used to justify. If you don't find those patterns selected for under those conditions, it's time to find a new framework.

This isn't that hard.

First, a response to Stephanie: I believe that you misstate the relevant issues here. Male promiscuity is not the result of Pleistocene evolutionary pressures, and I don't recall anybody making that claim. Instead, male promiscuity, as Greg has pointed out, is a trait arising from the different metabolic investments of males and females in procreation, a difference that can be traced back far earlier than the Pleistocene. Greg himself made this point. Your confusion over this matter illustrates the problem we have: you folks (as a group) are so intent on making grand generalizations that you just can't be bothered to nail down with any precision what it is that you're arguing. These last 88 comments are studded with mismatches between arguments and evidence and a complete absence of clear definition. The entire discussion has been a mishmosh, and my efforts to get some sort of precision have been met with obscenity, denial, or just plain "I'm too busy to get specific."

Greg, I understand your desire not to get involved in a long discussion of the actual science; that's a lot of work, and you've got eyeballs to attract and ads to sell. So I'm willing to walk away from this. But I think you deserve to hear my hidden agenda. I'm a fierce advocate for the intellectual independence of science, and a ferocious opponent of the tendency to inject non-scientific ideologies into scientific inquiry.

For example, I am very much opposed to the intrusion of religion into science. Creationists attempt to impose their spiritual beliefs upon science. I find that heinous, and I oppose it at every opportunity. In the same way, global warming deniers are not really arguing science; their agenda is political, not scientific, and they subordinate scientific honesty to political ideology. I oppose that just as fiercely.

This discussion is no different: you and several other people have been reluctant to get into the science itself. While you (as a group) have occasionally brought up a few scientifically worthy points, the great bulk of this discussion has been ideological rather than scientific in nature. You (the group) have made lots of grand statements without bothering to provide even a precise wording of your meaning. It is especially telling that several persons, yourself (Greg) included, have raised matters of social policy (to wit, racism) that have no bearing on the science itself. I believe that you are no different from the creationists and AGW deniers in subordinating science to your political ideology. You don't like racism -- an admirable sentiment that I share -- but the difference between us is that you reject open, honest scientific inquiry because of your concerns about racism. I subordinate my personal tastes to objective truth; if science were to discover that left-handers tend to be sexual perverts, that blue-eyed people tend to have difficulties with math, or that purple-skinned people score lower on tests of social cognitive performance, I won't scream bloody murder -- I'll shrug my shoulders and accept those tentative results. What we do about those scientific results is an entirely different matter. If society chooses to discriminate against left-handers, idolize blue-eyed people, or send purple-skinned people to death camps, that's a political matter, not a scientific one. We shouldn't mix science with religion, and we shouldn't mix science with politics. Science can inform our political deliberations, but political preferences should never, ever intrude upon scientific inquiry.

I acknowledge again that there have been some attempts at scientific arguments here, but they have been brief, elliptical, secondary, or overly vague. I very much hope that someday I'll find somebody who can offer a robust case against some specific claims of Evo Psych. But after many attempts, I am abandoning hope that I'll find such a person here. Like Diogenes, I'll just have to take my search elsewhere.

Best wishes, and adieu to you all.

Chris, wow. You are one fucked up dude. Do you know that you are not making any sense at all? Time for an adjustment in the meds, old boy.

Could someone please kill this troll? This was an interesting discussion until he hijacked it.

I heard the show and loved both parts of it! I've read the Adapted Mind and I think this is a fair critique of the ideas in it. Modules have some traction as entities, but not so much as evolved structures, any more than cultural traditions do, really.

"Your confusion over this matter illustrates the problem we have: you folks (as a group) are so intent on making grand generalizations....."

sometimes words just speak for themselves.

Chris, you are an insulting, stupid twit. You claim that one blog post that summarizes an entire field of study should have all of the details that your tiny little brain seems to think are important. You claim that everyone else lacks the ability to think logically, yet your ranting is almost aphasic in it's rambling. You have insulted several people on this thread, and now you are ranting about the "group" of us who all have it wrong.

You need to go back to your computer games and your self-written and self-aggrandizing wikipedia bio. You say good bye in your last comment, but I have enough experience with obsessive neurotics such as yourself to know that you'll be back because you can't control yourself. And if you do post another comment, unless it is a) very very brief and b) a very sincere apology, I'll delete it, because I really and truly want to help you keep your promise.

It might have been possible for you to actually contribute to this conversation. But you are a paranoid obsessive megalomaniac. You can get help for that, but until you do, you are too annoying to be tolerated. Until you get help for your condition, you are of no use in this conversation or anything like it.

Greg, this statement is for your consumption only; I expect that you won't publish it, which is fine with me. By treating this as a fight rather than a discussion, you set yourself up for failure. And the fact that you refuse to publish my post demonstrates that you have decided that you lost that fight. If I were rude, calling people "fucking prats", I could understand your refusal, but we already know that you have no problems with people being that rude. And you're the one who's been calling names ("insulting, stupid twit", "tiny little brain", "aphasic", "obsessive neurotic", "paranoid obsessive megalomaniac", etc), not me. Until you can figure out the distinction between disagreeing over ideas and personal confrontation, you will continue to experience the disappointments that have already marked your career. Some Eastern philosophy would serve you well: the sinner hurts himself most. Your anger is killing you.

I sent that previous post to your email address so as to keep this out of public view, but your contact address is broken.

Oh, and I had nothing to do with that Wikipedia bio. My contribution was on Erasmus.

As I said, you can not stay away. You are obsessed. I think maybe you have fallen in love with me and are now stalking me.

Chris, my email address works. Emailing should not be hard. If you find it to be hard, something may be wrong with you. Again, adjust the meds.

My career and my life in general has been nothing like a disappointment, but thank you very much for your concern. And, all of my insults were sincere. Well, toned down a bit, but accurate and heart felt.

I know the difference between disagreeing on an issue and a personal attack. I have not disagreed with you on a substantive issue because you did not present substantive claims. You came to the table with insulting babbling gibberish. That is why no one has responded to you positively or respectfully. It is not going to get any better.

The Chris Crawford breakdown is now part of the Googlosphere. I wonder how long it will take before it is added to your Wikipedia bio?

That is all, Chris. No more blog for you.

Primitive Cultures are Simple, Civilization is Complex (A falsehood) III

gregladen — Wed, 23 Sep 2009 09:01:13 +0000

Primitive Cultures are Simple, Civilization is Complex (A falsehood) III

This is the third of three parts of this particular falsehood. (Here is the previous part)

I previously noted that to survive as a Westerner, you can get away with participating in a culture that asks of you little more than to understand the "one minute" button on the microwave, while to survive in a foraging society you needed much much more. Moreover, I suggested that the level of complexity in an individual's life was greater among HG (Hunter-Gatherer) societies than Western societies.

However, this is not to say, in the end, that one form of economy and society is more complex than the other. I happen to think that the maximum level of complexity ... of thought, social interaction, of meaning generation and use/misuse ... that can happen in close quarters, in human relationships and the human mind is very high. One clue to this is the fact that a person who does have a job that involves great complexity working in a big complex company and so on can remain confounded by the day to day personal while s/he readily handles the world of systems analyses or air traffic control or whatever. I also concede that "complexity" compared across the social vs. the cultural may not in fact be (quantitatively) comparable. So it is quite possible that the total mount of "complexity" (though this surely can't really be measured non-trivially) in a forager's life may be much higher than you think, and as high as that experienced by, say, an industry in the West.

Whether or not that is true is not important. But consider a similar idea anyway: Imagine that there is a rule that says that he total amount of complexity is, say, kN, where N is the number of people in the system and k is some made up number that never changes (you always need that made up number). (The "Conservation of Complexity" concept, if you will.) But, in some systems the complexity is distributed mainly in the cultural realm, and in other systems it is distributed as well in the social realm. These are different scales. The cultural realm is the group effort among HG's to get the meal on the table. The social realm is what it takes to get the microwave on the table.

I know there are major objections to this (I'll make them myself in a moment) but just stick with this as a short term thought experiment.

Given this, in reference to the falsehood we are dealing with, people would be making the mistake of claiming personal (or ethnic, or job-related,etc.) complexity that they don't "deserve" to claim. Being associated with a system with piles of complexity does not give YOU credit for coming up with the complexity, or effectively dealing with the complexity. Never mind the fact that people who are self assured of their superiority over "primitives" are doing so on the basis of "complexity" which we have not agreed is a good (or bad) thing.

In other words, the same amount of complexity is out there, and it is kind of strange that people living in The West (as an example of a system where the complexity is mainly social and not cultural) are taking credit for something they don't deserve personally.

Of course, the idea of a fixed amount of complexity that is differentially distributed among the cultural vs. social realms is probably wrong. And here we actually get to the most salient part of this discussion. The guy who lazily pulls the Lean Cuisine out of the fridge and microwaves it can be a very non-complex person and survive in our society. He can know almost nothing, be able to do almost nothing, be utterly devoid of the abstract thoughts that foragers are constantly managing in their efforts to survive the complexities nature throws at them all the time, and the cultural complexities of face to face small scale society. But, the microwave and the lean cuisine themselves came to be, and came to be where they are, from a system of enormous complexity, as well as energy and resource use.

The forager gets the same meal using a system that is pretty complex but that is also quite manageable and flexible, that can be adapted as conditions change, and that almost always works ... You don't hear about foragers who are left alone starving to death too often. But the microwave/Lean Cuisine system uses probably two or three orders of magnitude more resources and energy to produce the same effect. For this reason, as population size increases, the entire system becomes unsustainable and downright dangerous. Complex societies, it turns out, have this little thing they do now and then, that they have always done, that no complex society has ever escaped:

They collapse.

Mayhem, chaos, widespread death and suffering occurs and few or none are spared generations of misery as the system falls, remains unworkable, and only slowly begins to piece itself back together again. Civilizations are moments of self-congratulatory faux brightness against a background of dark. As in dark ages. The Hobbsian dark ages that post-forager societies have been living in much of the time, in most places, is the 'norm' thanks to the rise of economic and social complexity. The crown civilizations speak to us loudly from their archaeological graves and we fetishize them, convincing ourselves that those impressive monuments, fine pottery and art, evidence of commerce among specialized entities and long-distance trade, and occasional interesting writing, accurately represent the days of old. In truth, most of the people contemporary with those shining bits of history were not involved in the glory (but rather enslaved, exploited, sometimes literally eaten to make the glory happen), and the moments of glory were fleeting and most of the time things were not that way.

Complexity. It is the hallmark of civilization, and it is one of the main features that gives "Teh Civilized" a sense of superiority over what they define as the primitive.

But really, complexity is a bitch.

Please have a look at the Archives, where you will find the other posts in the Falsehoods Category.

gregladen Wed, 09/23/2009 - 05:01

Tags

Anthropology

archaeology

Falsehoods

Origin of Agriculture

Categories

Social Sciences

I like this post best of the series.

I've been thinking on something you mentioned in the first post, that many would take offense to being called primitive. I would take offense to it, because it indicates I am ignorant of certain more recent knowledge that I value more others. I value understanding of astronomy, physics, and above all, biology, more than I value the understanding of how to effectively forage and hunt for food. My skill set may be far far less than a hunter-gatherer, nevertheless, I value it more. This is not an objective condemnation, simply my own preference.

Sam, what would have been your preferences if you grew up in an HG society?

I honestly can't say, but would I be able to make an informed choice? Raised as a Westerner, I have had the opportunity to experience parts of the hunter-gatherer lifestyle (certainly not the full experience). Additionally, I have the opportunities to dabble in a great deal of other types of skills, be it legal, mechanical, or social, and I have found a preference in certain sciences.

That is not to say I don't value other skills, far from it. I would be happy to learn more about foraging, but it comes at a cost of learning less of my current studies: at a cost to my preference.

As a hunter-gatherer, would I really have as broad exposure to such disparate skills (I am interested in other people's take on this statement, perhaps my classifications of skills are too unevenly distributed, as I would lump hunter-gatherer skills in a few categories compared to skills distributed throughout Western society). Would I be able to make as informed of a choice?

Jeebus, I have clients who can't consistently paste content from Microsoft Word into Notepad before dropping it into a blog entry. They'd die painfully if left to survive without a microwave. Wouldn't trust them to attempt using a pocketknife unless I had some disinfectant and a suture kit handy.

All of our industry is aimed at reducing complexity for the consumer. For example automobiles are way simpler to own than they were back in the day, or even more so, before the day. But how is complexity measured? It's tempting to think an iPod is more complex to operate than a record collection, until you try to carry a record player around with you. Makes that little wooden flute look like a model of simplicity, except for the complexity of learning to play it well.

Mostly we just enjoy the benefits of collective process scaling. We don't generate our own electricity, design our own microchips, or build them, or write our own software. The little bit we contribute back feeds into the whole effort. That's collapse-proof, isn't it? I mean, as long as nothing fundamental goes wrong?

What is the complexity of social networks in HG societies versus Western societies? I have the impression that HG groups are largely based around family connections, so the people you work with, socialize with, and call family all overlap significantly. Whereas for many (most?) of us in the west, social networks are split into work colleagues, friends, and family, plus all the people we interact with on a more limited basis, often without much overlap. I assume the latter incurs a greater cognitive load to maintain, and we can "afford" that extra load because we don't have the daily pressures that HGs have. Is that in any way accurate?

I don't mean this to be a value judgment, so I hope it's not taken that way. And of course my assumptions about HG social networks or Western social networks could be completely wrong. Just interested in your thoughts.

I'd very much like to agree with you, but your argument is all over the place and, frankly, doesn't make a lot of sense to me overall.

A few things...

Could you please define society vs culture as you are using them?

On collapse, you do have a point. But I think you are underestimating/discounting the much smaller scale but more frequent 'collapses' in HG groups. It leaves a mark when a 'civilized' settlement is abandoned, but how much more frequently to small bands of HGs die out or dissolve due to their own fragility/failings? I don't know the answer, but my gut feeling would be "quite often".

"You don't hear about foragers who are left alone starving to death too often."
True, but ...
1) You don't hear jack about foragers too often since they are small disparate groups with little communication/contact with outside groups.
2) Foragers do regularly die of common diseases which they don't even understand, much less have the technology to deal with.
3) Foragers do frequently exploit local resources to the point of exhaustion (especially when they are otherwise fortunate enough that their population has grown substantially over a few generations). In those cases, they have to move or face starvation.
ect ect...

Societal complexity can be (and probably is) much more of a stabilizing factor than a disruptive factor. Again, the 'fall' is big when it happens, but a lot of that is probably due to it being relatively stable to begin with.

Complexity is not even remotely conserved. I think your really need to take a shot at defining it (or perhaps better, a metric or two).

I think we need to make a distinction here -- the complexity that an individual deals with, and the complexity of a society as a whole. I get the point that someone living in a HG society has to deal with just as complex a world as I do. In fact, I would probably argue just that if any of my students made the opposing argument. However, at a society-wide level, there is a big difference. In a typical HG society, there is very little differentiation in roles between individuals. While every individual in the society is unique, the ways in which they make a living are very similar, as is the knowledge base they utilize to do so. In a modern industrial society, there are a multitude of potential roles to fill, each with it's own knowledge base, only partly overlapping with others. Thus the overall complexity of the society is much greater.

travc, I think you make some excellent points regarding collapses, but that said I would probably prefer life as an HG than living in the shanties of Tijuana or Mumbai, or fighting some ridiculous war to enrich folks living thousands of miles away. Our society is stable, I would prefer it be stable without the exploitation. Even if HG groups frequently collapse, it seems no worse than the vast portions of modern societies that face a similar fate through exploitation. In that sense, Greg's right that complexity is a bitch.

I like to think its possible to both have societal complexity, and its accompanying stability, without exploitation. I don't see anything, in principle, that would make such a society impossible.

Posted by: Sam N "I like to think its possible to both have societal complexity, and its accompanying stability, without exploitation. I don't see anything, in principle, that would make such a society impossible."

I think the problem with complex societies is that increased complexity needs increased use of resources (including energy) to maintain and eventually those resources get used up in all the easy to access and cheap locations, resulting in a rise in costs as more distant and expensive sources need to be found and exploited to maintain the society. Eventually costs (money, labour, war, human life) gets high enough that it is impossible to maintain the society and it has to collapse.

"Complex societies, it turns out, have this little thing they do now and then, that they have always done, that no complex society has ever escaped:

They collapse."

Um, no. They are collapsed. The vast majority of 'complex societies' - and in this context, I'm guessing, you mean any agricultural society from Sumer on down - come to an end due to outside forces, ie, invasion, or internal struggle between leaders, ie, civil war. And if you think war is a trait unique to homo agricolis, or that HG societies don't suffer from it, I have some coastal property in Florida you might be interested in.

"Civilizations are moments of self-congratulatory faux brightness against a background of dark. As in dark ages."

Tremendously exaggerated, unless you use definitions of 'dark ages' involving human rights, standards of living, etc, so stringent that all of human society until the 19th century was living in a 'dark age'.

"Complexity. It is the hallmark of civilization, and it is one of the main features that gives "Teh Civilized" a sense of superiority over what they define as the primitive."

""The guy who lazily pulls the Lean Cuisine out of the fridge and microwaves it can be a very non-complex person and survive in our society.""

Oh, the irony.

Nice read.

There are some weak points in the comparisons (which many commenters seemed happy to seize on rather than see the overall picture); but I'm happy to see someone taunting the sacred cow of "progress".

I don't know if I feel it's instinctive or cultural, but there is a firmly entrenched religion of technical and educational advancement; recycling the old tenets "You shall have no other god" and "Seek first these things and everything else shall be given you".

The main message being proclaimed is that mental, moral, and social progress are automatically carried along by the momentum of our technical and intellectual achievements. But television has not eradicated racism, the information age and complex economic theories have not eliminated fraud or unemployment.

The author even goes a step beyond my normal objections by questioning whether we as individuals are even losing intellectual and technical progress in the momentum of societies advancement; questions that can properly be asked and addressed in a scientific context.

I find this article very disappointing and too sloppy.

I previously noted that to survive as a Westerner, you can get away with participating in a culture that asks of you little more than to understand the "one minute" button on the microwave,...

First, what is get away? You definitely need more skills to survive in the western world (unless you are a newborn in which case you don't even need the "one minute" button).
Second, the complexities of living in the western world is not concentrated in operating the microwave but on how to acquire (afford) the microwave and the piece of meat. That you chose to compare the most complex part of a process from one culture against the simplest part of the same process from a different culture is intellectually dishonest.

Complex societies, it turns out, have this little thing they do now and then, that they have always done, that no complex society has ever escaped:

They collapse.

Given enough time we'll go extince so obviously all societies will collapse at some point (including the hunter-gatherer ones). Disregarding this trivial point, you seem to say that since all the societies that we know of have collasped (which btw, is obviously false, unless you believe US and Europe are not complex civilizations), then it follows that all the future complex civilizations will collapse as well; this is of course sloppy reasoning. Furthermore, you seem to ignore all those HG societies that have collapsed during history, or wiped out by neighboring societies.

You definitely need more skills to survive in the western world (unless you are a newborn in which case you don't even need the "one minute" button).

Sorry, you're wrong. I could cite various sources of evidence for that, but instead I'll just cite my own experience as a person who grew up in the western world (and lives there now) but who lived for a few years in a foraging society.

Second, the complexities of living in the western world is not concentrated in operating the microwave but on how to acquire (afford) the microwave and the piece of meat.

I think you think that shopping at Target is a lot more complex than it really is!

all societies will collapse at some point (including the hunter-gatherer ones). Disregarding this trivial point...

You speak out of a different orifice than your mouth. Can you name a foraging society that went extinct on it's own? Can you name fifty? You'd need to be able to name at least a dozen to be even a tiny bit credible in making your generalizations.

And no, no one thinks that civilization collapsing is a ... trivial point. That made me lol.

In referring to historical societies that have collapesed, we are not referring to those that are not historical. Obviously.

Furthermore, you seem to ignore all those HG societies that have collapsed during history, or wiped out by neighboring societies.

Name them. I.e., show that you have a clue about actual facts. Name the forager societies that went under because of their own internal workings.

I suspect that tossing in this last bit about those wiped out by neighboring societies was your brain tapping on your head and telling you that you were stepping off an intellectual cliff by blurting out facts that were utterly fundamental to your argument yet little more than something you just made up.

That, by the way, is sloppy. So now you know.

Oh yeah, you are right. Afterall buying a Ferrari Enzo simply requires knowing the rules of its auction and the minimal writing skills to write a cheque, kinda makes me wonder why nobody around me owns one. So yeah, you win, I don't argue with the absurd, I rather waste my online time not arguing with bloggers who demand dozens of pieces of evidence from the opposition while themselves providing none.

I like how the hypothetical systems analyst is a s/he and the idiot eating microwaveable meals is a guy. Reverse sexism is still sexism. And political correctness is a bore.

Everything else I found much more rewarding to read.

I came this blog because I wondered why my poop was green. I deduced it was from the orange frosting on some Halloween cupcakes I had eaten while visiting friends in Orange County CA.

I was reminded that in the nearby (and not ironically named) city of Fountain Valley CA. my green poop and otherwise colored pee along with millions of gallons of other people's poop and pee along with whatever illegally flushed bio-hazardous waste or pesticides or performance enhancing or mind altering substances and so on and so forth is collected and turned into perfectly safe and high quality drinking water.

see here: www.gwrsystem.com

I'm sure the HG societies figured out how to bathe downstream, poop and pee even further downstream and drink the water from upstream.

I'm kind of wishing I had a stream right about now.

Explaining the Spread of Agriculture into Europe

gregladen — Mon, 31 Aug 2009 13:51:49 +0000

Explaining the Spread of Agriculture into Europe

The practice of growing food and keeping livestock was invented numerous times throughout the world. One 'center' of agriculture is said to be the Middle East. Despite the fact that calling the Middle East a "center" in this context is a gross oversimplification, it is true that agriculture was practiced in Anatolia and the Levant for quite some time before it was practiced in Europe, and it seems that the practice more or less spread from the middle east across Europe over a fairly long period of time.

Archaeologists have long asked the question: Was this a spread of agricultural people, or the spread of the practice of agriculture, or, even, the independent invention of agriculture by various groups independent of earlier manifestations of this practice elsewhere?

The earliest archaeologists made simple claims of population movements and conquest, and it was easy for them to see Indo Europeans marching across the landscape displacing the local hunter-gatherers. Later, there were shifts in the way archaeological problems were conceived and dealt with which made diffusional, and especially conquest-based models impossible to sustain politically regardless of any merit they may have had. During this period, strong arguments were made against diffusion.

One thing we see during this period of time is the shift in head shape from what is called dolichocephalic to what is called brachycephalic, both across time and across space. This head shape variation (seen by some as a dichotomy with intermediate forms, and by others as a continuum) was essentially a proxy for race for earlier archaeologists. It was proposed that brachycephalic people were more advanced and that they were the bearers of agriculture and other supposedly advanced practices across Europe.

Both scientifically oriented questioning of this theory, and politically motivated revisionism caused this model to eventually go away. Franz Boaz demonstrated that this variation in head shape was highly labile and likely to be an effect of environment rather than an indication of ancient racial affinity. Subsequently, over the last 10 years or so, a number of studies have been done on this topic showing that Boaz was wrong -- that this is genetic -- and that Boaz was right, and that it is not genetic. Other studies have indicated that it might be both, and still other studies have indicated that it could be adaptive (as opposed to random variation).

If head shape change (though conceived in a more sophisticated, or at least, obtuse, manner by modern physical anthropologists than the brachy-dolichocephalic model) is labile and environmental, then changes in craniometrics across time and space do not necessarily tell us much about the movement of people with agriculture in Europe over th last 10 thousand years. If it is adaptive or results from some environmental change, then the head shape changes could easily be explained as reactions to agriculture, and would not indicate movement of people. If the variation in craniometrics is neutral and very heritable, then it may be considered as almost unambiguous evidence of the movement of people across the landscape.

If there are enough skulls and burials, and if the association between the actual adoption (or invention) of agricultural practices and the appearance of changes in skull shape can be correlated. Which, at the moment, is tenuous at best.

Well, a new paper in PLoS ONE makes the claim that we should believe that these craniometric changes are genetic, selectively neutral, and indicate the movement of people across the landscape rather than the movement of head-changing ideas.

From the paper:

Here, we employ measurements of Mesolithic (hunter-gatherers) and Neolithic (farmers) crania from Southwest Asia and Europe to test several alternative population dispersal and hunter-farmer gene-flow models. We base our alternative hypothetical models on a null evolutionary model of isolation-by-geographic and temporal distance. Partial Mantel tests were used to assess the congruence between craniometric distance and each of the geographic model matrices, while controlling for temporal distance. Our results demonstrate that the craniometric data fit a model of continuous dispersal of people (and their genes) from Southwest Asia to Europe significantly better than a null model of cultural diffusion.

Therefore, this study does not support the assertion that farming in Europe solely involved the adoption of technologies and ideas from Southwest Asia by indigenous Mesolithic hunter-gatherers. Moreover, the results highlight the utility of craniometric data for assessing patterns of past population dispersal and gene flow.

...

Our null model of cultural diffusion allows for admixture between Mesolithic and Neolithic populations living contemporaneously under a model of isolation-by-distance. However, the results show that it is more likely that the arrival of farming in Europe was accompanied by the active dispersal of people from SW Asia, which created a barrier to gene flow between hunters and farmers during the period of co-existence. We, therefore, do not rule out some gene flow between hunters and farmers but argue that the craniometric data does not support strong admixture between Neolithic and Mesolithic populations.

Plausible. The paper does not cite the most important critique of the genetic proposal for craniometric variation. Furthermore, my gut feeling is that of the half dozen papers that have come out over the last ten years on this issue, I could have predicted the conclusion by knowing the authors name rather than looking at the authors' analysis a little more than I would like. There are no identified genes affecting head shape in the ways postulated. I personally have no problem with people moving, and I think the shift away from the movement of people during the 1960s, 70s, ad 80s was absurd in archaeological studies. Nonetheless, I have similarly cynical feelings about head shape. To me, the jury on this one is still out.

The paper is published in an Open Access journal, so you can read it for yourself!

Pinhasi, R., & von Cramon-Taubadel, N. (2009). Craniometric Data Supports Demic Diffusion Model for the Spread of Agriculture into Europe PLoS ONE, 4 (8) DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0006747

Gravlee, C., Bernard, H., & Leonard, W. (2003). Heredity, Environment, and Cranial Form: A Reanalysis of Boas's Immigrant Data American Anthropologist, 105 (1), 125-138 DOI: 10.1525/aa.2003.105.1.125

gregladen Mon, 08/31/2009 - 09:51

Tags

Anthropology

archaeology

Origin of Agriculture

Race and Racism

I'm not in a position to express an opinion on the papers, but this summer, I was struck by the similarity of pre-industrial farms tools on display in a folk musuem in Galacia, Spain and anything I've seen in the US. The exhibits were labeled in Galician, which in writing is not similar enough to the Spanish I learned in school to make much head way in reading the labels. However, after a childhood spent going to historical museums, restored homes, and living history museums, I was pretty sure I could identify most of the items.

I'm decidedly long-headed, to the point that comfortable stetsons can be a bit of a challenge to find.
Perhaps that's why I have lately been wondering if the criteria by which we identify "agriculture" in the prehistoric record would pick up the signals showing that a woodland landscape that had been consistently modified with selection by humans to produce in a not-entirely naturally dispersed way. Heavily forested prehistoric Eurasia seems to be considered a sparsely populated wilderness but the forests along the Amazon River it has been suggested might have been more like a garden; being neither the wild untamed wilderness nor agriculture as it would be recognized by Eruopeans of that brief era of contact.

Interesting, I'll take a look at that paper. Without strong admixture though, wouldn't you expect to see a dramatic reduction in genetic diversity at the point of adoption of agriculture? And I'm not aware of evidence for that, although it's not something I follow closely. Certainly in the UK and NW Europe where agriculture came late and we have plenty of Neolithic human remains, it should be easy enough to test.

Later, there were shifts in the way archaeological problems were conceived and dealt with which made diffusional, and especially conquest-based models impossible to sustain politically regardless of any merit they may have had.

Academic PC run amok?

When was "later", and what events made historically-educated people refuse to contemplate invasions as a plausible model?

Not even, e.g., Riane Eisler (who popularized mother-goddess-centered prehistoric utopia scenarios) went that far 'round the bend!

Pierce, it was the New Archaeology of 1967/8 (longacre, hill, chang, early binford, ascher, etc.) The post-Childe phase. I oversimplify. But about 1968 through 1979 saw the publication of hundreds of papers putting the breaks first on migration then later, difussion. I'm sure migration was way overplayed before this period and it was probably good to get away from that, but the anti-diffusionist literature is sometimes over the top.

I have long considered a scenario in which 'replacement' does not require displacement or conquest. It involves disease. Settled agricultural societies were breeding grounds for disease, which would have selected for resistant genotypes. Hence measles, chicken pox and influenza are relatively benign to them (us). Then, as the society expanded, it encountered non-resistant hunter-gatherers and disease eradicated them, leaving empty lebensraum for the farmers. The fate of native North Americans in the 1500s is an example of how this could happen.

The agriculturalists may net even have noticed what they were doing.

What little I've read on this topic seems to indicate that the process was different for different parts of Europe (slow migration from the SE up to around the Danube; selective diffusion along the coast in Southern Europe, with only some aspects of the 'agriculture package' being adopted.) So the answer would depend on location. I presume the studies above are for SE and Central Europe, not Italy and Spain.

... it was the New Archaeology of 1967/8...

Yeah, I had a strong hunch that this was some sort of backlash (maybe the more appropriate term would be backwash) from the US war against Vietnam.

Though you'd think, even while the conquest itself was clearly failing, that the admixture of new genes into the population of Indochina would have been recognized (not to mention the new technologies).

djlactin @ # 6: Settled agricultural societies were breeding grounds for disease...

William H. McNeill's Plagues and Peoples has a great chapter about how the culture which grew rice in paddies thereby took over all of southern China - and would have even if they'd lost every battle, just by breathing on the other guys.

Origin of Agriculture

Future Farms Will Be Run By Robots

The Hydraulic Hypothesis and the End of Civilization

Other posts of interest:

Did you ever wonder how you are going to die?

Seven Thousand Year Old African Dairy

A word or two about tobacco, and some neat and new research

The Origin of Wine

Falsehood: "If this was the Stone Age, I'd be dead by now"

Why do women shop and men hunt?

Primitive Cultures are Simple, Civilization is Complex (A falsehood) III

Explaining the Spread of Agriculture into Europe