Musk allegedly said there's a 70% chance for him to move to Mars.
However, Klevius warns him that the ISS strains of Enterobacter were 79% likely to cause illness.
In
Demand for Resources (1992:31, ISBN 9173288411) in a discussion about the olfactory organ that we call the brain, Klevius warned for (over)hygien being the most important factor causing allergies etc. Apart from pure logic and knowledge about super bugs etc., Klevius had an other experience with his newborn child who had a bleeding navel that the nurses repeatedly cleaned with disinfection and asked us parents to do the same at home. However, we didn't and the navel was fine next day.
Newborn babies before modern hygiene got better used to their bacterial environment.
So what went wrong on ISS was that they didn't make the toilet dirty enough on Earth, in other words, surrounding it with a normal protective flora of germs. We don't live on oxygen and food alone, we need also to be embedded in a protective symbiotic "bubble" of a multitude of various germs.
Compare this to how Pygmies are protected against Ebola whereas the Bantu (i.e. Eurasian late comers to Central Africa
msee Klevius out-of-Asia theory below and on the web) are less well prepared.
Something similar will happen on Mars.
Also consider what Klevius wrote in
Klevius wrote:
Peter Klevius 1992 (and developing* ahead of others) theory on human evolution - and guts with brains
* It follows science, not bias, and is
powered with exceptional intelligence (what, a dirty word?) and
therefore seems to be at the ultimate edge of our collected
understanding (compare "the extremely normal") - yet the least commented
despite millions of viewers. And the few comments are usually from
tragic ignorants who don't even have the most basic understanding of the
topic.
"Ornamented" bacteria colonies (copyright* Peter Klevius - but do feel free to cite)
* Klevius texts are usually way ahead
of the time they're written down, i.e. truly original. However,
precisely because of this they rarely get the attention they deserve.
Moreover, due to general time-bound alterations in the discourse at
stake, not to mention particular alterations in attitudes and values,
connotations may vary and make reading more difficult, especially if the
text was progressive for its time. However, Klevius texts can usually
be safely "time-translated" because central concepts are thoroughly
presented at the time of writing (this is the delicate balancing act
Klevius mentions in the foreword to his book, i.e. connecting
associations between author and reader. This is also why Klevius loves
to "brag" by challenging readers to find serious thoughts by Klevius
anywhere else earlier than Klevius. A good example is EMAH - the Even More Astonishing Hypothesis on human cognition.
An other is sex segregation and the social state, a third one being
Klevius analysis of the so called Negative Human Rights from a sex
neutral point of view, a fourth is Klevius classification of human
societies not according to what they do but what they want (see e.g.
chapter Khoe, San, and Bantu in Demand for Resources), a fifth
being an analysis of Freud, his daughter, and Margaret Mahler, from a
sex segregation and "motherhood guilt" perspective (see e.g.
Pathological Symbiosis), and a sixth could be Klevius analysis of the
social state (see e.g. Angels of Antichrist), and a seventh... There are also loads of other minor discoveries made by Klevius, such as, for example, the crucial connection between Freud's emerging psychoanalysis and Caton's much earlier discovery of electrical brain activity, and a PhD thesis on Heterosexual attraction and the failure of feminist theory (compare Klevius web museum from 2007, klevius.info, and Gametes have nos sexes), etc. etc.,
All organisms, including us, are differently equipped bacteria colonies.
The first such bacteria colonies probably evolved from bacteria "mats"
that rolled into a membrane through which they could communicate
nutrition/metabolism. This evolutionary step resembles Klevius view on
how RNA much earlier cloaked itself in a protein capsid. Viruses may
have evolved from self-replicating molecules that later on created the
cells which conventionally have been seen as predecessors for virus.
Klevius first got the idea as a late teenager when he first heard about
prions, i.e. self-convoluting proteins. He wondered whether it could be
possible that prions at some point wrapped around loose RNA, hence
creating the first viruses. "Pre-life" amino acids capable of forming
foldable proteins would have made this possible. RNA would hence
constitute a proto-DNA.
When colonies of one-cell organisms got an outer membrane that could
communicate food supply and disposal (incl. disposal of parts of itself)
the next step was to create independent movement etc. This last stage
led to a diversity of different solutions and approaches depending on
environmental circumstances.
So in short, we are walking and thinking slaves of our guts. And the
brain and its intelligence that we are so proud of (as long as it's not
Klevius brain, of course) is created for the purpose of feeding our
guts. When it produces tech, innovations, art etc., this is just a
byproduct of its main duty to serve the gut bacterias.
Existencecentrism in an endless unimaginable Universe where the very
question "why are we here?" resides (with all its connotations etc)
inside existencecentrism, hence outside the very realm that it's
supposed to address.
In Demand for Resources (1992, ISBN 9173288411) - where Klevius called
this realm the unreachable - he sketched evolution and our position with
a tool called 'existencecentrism', i.e. a fundamental bias that we can
change but never get rid of. Klevius thought this axiomatic statement
could stand as a basis for hunting down lower level bias in science.
This approach was well received 1980 by George Henrik von Wright (the
Finland-Swedish philosopher who succeeded Ludvig Wittgenstein at
Cambridge) and was first published in the Finland-Swedish
Hufvudstadsbladet 1981. Payment was Fmk 500.00 (so quite a distance from
e.g. Hillary Clinton who gets enormous sums for opening her mouth in
accordance to her muslim sharia masters).
According to Klevius (1981, 1992) the basic element in our understanding
of Universe is motion that causes evolution and devolution in a causal
stream of changing complexities. This understanding, however, also
locks itself on our metaphysical explorations.
Although Einstein taught us about the
4-dimensional space-time continuum relativity, few seem to have
understood that this means that the farther we look the less we see.
Combine this with the crazy "monotheist" idea of "creation from nothing"
by a "god", and the confusion is total. Ever considered if this
cultural limitation is the clue to why e.g. East-Asian Atheists score
better IQ!
"The one Universe" in the middle of the pic below is just a part of
universe.
No wonder the "big bang" concept was invented by a cleric.
Klevius wrote:
Universe doesn't have limits - nor is it endless
In my book
Demand for Resources (Resursbegär1992:21-22) I pointed
out not only the dangers of such a senseless "model" as "Big Bang" but
also how this "model" is trapped in a "monotheistic" view demanding
"creation", i.e. a "starting point". Not only is such a "starting point"
conceptually impossible (apart from its very obvious other limitations,
e.g. how do you "bang" in "nothing") but it also fatally misdirects
research focus because it assumes "a universe" or "the universe" where
there's only universe.
A time trip back towards the "Big Bang" would only reveal a continuing
growth of neighboring "universes". The space/time continuum and warping
would make the "Big Bang" model laughable.
To my surprise I've noticed how many decently minded people seem to have
great difficulties understanding how the great distances and the great
limitations caused by the speed of light constant, warps every effort to
take even quite small thought steps, say for example only within our
own tiny galaxy.
Cameras never lie - pictures do!
All space cameras, from our own eyes to the Hubble space telescope and
its follow-ups, have in common that they don't take pictures of space
but of themselves, i.e. photo reactions on the retina, CCD etc. These
reactions are then interpreted by our knowledge. However, to describe
such reactions as a picture of space is extremely misleading.
Kleius wrote:
The illusion of a Universe
A ten billion year old supernova has been discovered. It means it died ten billion years ago, i.e. 5.5 billion years
before our Sun was born.
The black area on the pic above corresponds to the white area on Klevius' Origin of Universe pic.
The nearest star, Proxima Centauri, is 4.2 light years from the
Earth. Light travels at a speed corresponding to 7.5 laps around the
Earth in one second.
The light from the farthest objects detectable by Hubble and other
cameras (incl. radio waves etc), i.e. more than 13 billion years ago, marks the end of our capabilities, not
the end of Universe. Because there is no "end" or "beginning". These
terms are oxymorons and semantically absurd.
So next time you take a look at the stars do consider what you don't see.
Klevius wrote:
The Red Deer Cave people add more evidence for Klevius’ ape/homo hybridization theory
The irrefutable art track in Northern Eurasia (see map below) has no
contemporary equivalent in other parts of the world. Based on what we
know now it had no fore bearers whatsoever in any period of time.
Moreover, it seems that there was even a decline before "civilizations"
started tens of thousands of years later! Yet Klevius seems to be the
only one addressing this most interesting (besides genetics) fact!
According to Klevius (and no one else so far) the new and more efficient
brain evolved in a jungle environment (SE Asia?) and spread up until
meeting with big headed Neanderthals hence creating the modern human who
later spread and dissolved with archaic homos. In this process Homo
erectus was most probably involved as well.
Updated info about the origin of Klevius' theory
Keep in mind that mainland SE Asia possibly harbored physically truly
modern humans already before the time range (12,000/18,000 ybp - 98,000
ybp) of the Homo floresiensis remains in the Flores cave.
Liujiang, SE China (est. 100,000-140,000ybp)
If this Liujiang skull had been found in Africa or Mideast Wikipedia and
other media would be overfilled. But this is all you get now (summer
2015 update) from Wikipedia about this extremely important skull:
The Liujiang skull probably came from sediment dating to 111 000 to 139
000 which would mean it's older than the oldest Homo floresiensis
remains on Flores. Nothing even remotely close to this modern skull has
ever been found in Africa, Mideast or Europe this early. In other words,
we have the extremely archaic looking Red Deer Cave people 100,000
years
after this extremely modern looking Liujiang population at
approximately the same region. Even the least probable estimate of
70,000 bp would make Liujiang more modern looking than anything else.
Also compare Lake Mungo remains in Australia with an mtDNA that differs
completely from ours (incl. Australian Aborigines). Sadly the remains
have been kept out of further research because of stupid*
"Aboriginal"(?!) greed (for the purpose of making certain people more
"special" than others for no good reason at all (also compare the
ridiculous Kennewick man controversy). Does it need to be said that the
Mungo remains are as far from Australian Aborigines in appearance as you
can imagine. However, according to Alan Thorne, 'Mungo could not have
come from Africa as, just like Aboriginal Australians don't look like
anybody from Africa, Mungo Man's skeleton doesn't look like anybody from
Africa either. LM3 skeleton was of a gracile individual, estimated
stature of 196 cm, which all sharply contrast with the morphology of
modern indigenous Australians. Compared to the older Liujiang skull
Mungo man had a much smaller brain.
* There's no way anyone can state who
was "first" in Australia - and even if there was, then there's still no
way of making any meaningful connection to now living people.
In Demand for Resources (1992:28 ISBN 9173288411) in a chapter about
human evolution, Peter Klevius used only one example, the remarkable
Jinniushan skeleton/cranium:
In northern China near North Korean border an almost complete skeleton
of a young man who died 280,000 years ago. The skeleton was remarkable
because its big cranial volume (1,400cc) was not expected in Homo
erectus territory at this early time and even if classified as Homo
sapiens it was still big. The anatomically completely modern human brain
volume is 1,400 cc and appeared between 50-100,000 years ago. One may
therefore conclude that big brain volume by far predated more
sophisticated human behavior (Klevius 1992:28).
Today, when many believe the skeleton is female, the brain size becomes even more remarkable.
Updated map
Most "mysteries" in genetics disappear
by abandoning OOA and changing direction of HSS evolution. Only South
East Asia offered a combination of tropical island/mainland fluctuations
needed to put pressure on size reduction paired with evolutionary
isolation in an environment where only those survived who managed to
shrink their heads while keeping the same intelligence as their mainland
kins with some double the sized brain. Homo floresiensis is evidence
that such has happened there.
Denisovan is an extinct species of human in the genus Homo. In March
2010, scientists announced the discovery of a finger bone fragment of a
juvenile female who lived about 41,000 years ago, found in the remote
Denisova Cave in the Altai Mountains in Siberia, a cave which has also
been inhabited by Neanderthals and modern humans. Two teeth and a toe
bone belonging to different members of the same population have since
been reported.
Analysis of the mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) of the Denisovan finger bone
showed it to be genetically distinct from the mtDNAs of Neanderthals and
modern humans. Subsequent study of the nuclear genome from this
specimen suggests that this group shares a common origin with
Neanderthals, that they ranged from Siberia to Southeast Asia, and that
they lived among and interbred with the ancestors of some present-day
modern humans, with about 3% to 5% of the DNA of Melanesians and
Aboriginal Australians deriving from Denisovans. DNA discovered in Spain
suggests that Denisovans at some point resided in Western Europe, where
Neanderthals were thought to be the only inhabitants. A comparison with
the genome of a Neanderthal from the same cave revealed significant
local interbreeding, with local Neanderthal DNA representing 17% of the
Denisovan genome, while evidence was also detected of interbreeding with
an as yet unidentified ancient human lineage. Similar analysis of a toe
bone discovered in 2011 is underway, while analysis of DNA from two
teeth found in layers different from the finger bone revealed an
unexpected degree of mtDNA divergence among Denisovans. In 2013,
mitochondrial DNA from a 400,000-year-old hominin femur bone from Spain,
which had been seen as either Neanderthal or Homo heidelbergensis, was
found to be closer to Denisovan mtDNA than to Neanderthal mtDNA.
Little is known of the precise anatomical features of the Denisovans,
since the only physical remains discovered thus far are the finger bone,
two teeth from which genetic material has been gathered and a toe bone.
The single finger bone is unusually broad and robust, well outside the
variation seen in modern people. Surprisingly, it belonged to a female,
indicating that the Denisovans were extremely robust, perhaps similar in
build to the Neanderthals. The tooth that has been characterized shares
no derived morphological features with Neanderthal or modern humans. An
initial morphological characterization of the toe bone led to the
suggestion that it may have belonged to a Neanderthal-Denisovan hybrid
individual, although a critic suggested that the morphology was
inconclusive. This toe bone's DNA was analyzed by Pääbo. After looking
at the full genome, Pääbo and others confirmed that humans produced
hybrids with Denisovans.
Some older finds may or may not belong to the Denisovan line. These
includes the skulls from Dali and Maba, and a number of more fragmentary
remains from Asia. Asia is not well mapped with regard to human
evolution, and the above finds may represent a group of "Asian
Neanderthals".
Jinniushan and Floresiensis - the keys to Denisovan and the truly modern humans
Jinniushan had a bigger brain than anything in contemporary Africa
In
Demand for Resources (1992:28 ISBN 9173288411) in a chapter
about human evolution, Peter Klevius used only one example, the
remarkable Jinniushan skeleton/cranium:
In northern China near North Korean
border an almost complete skeleton of a young man who died 280,000
years ago. The skeleton was remarkable because its big cranial volume
(1,400cc) was not expected in Homo erectus territory at this early time
and even if classified as Homo sapiens it was still big. The
anatomically completely modern human brain volume is 1,400 cc and
appeared between 50-100,000 years ago. One may therefore conclude that
big brain volume by far predated more sophisticated human behavior
(Klevius 1992:28).
Today, when many believe the skeleton is female, the brain size becomes even more remarkable.
Since 1991 when Klevius wrote his book much new information has been
produced. However, it seems that the Jinniushan archaic Homo sapiens
still constitutes the most spectacular anomaly (together with Homo
floresiensis) in anthropology. So why did Klevius pick Jinniushan
instead of one of the more fashionable human remains? After all, Klevius
was a big fan of Rchard Leakey (he even interviewed him in a lengthy
program for the Finnish YLE broadcasting company) and there was a lot of
exciting bones appearing from the Rift Valley.
In the 1980s Klevius paid special attention to Australian aborigines and
African "bushmen" and noted that the latter were mongoloid in
appearance (even more so considering that todays Khoe-San/Khoisan are
heavily mixed with Bantu speakers). But mongoloid features are due to
cold adaptation in the north and therefore the "bushmen" had to be
related to Eurasia. Klevius soon realized that the Khoisan speakers had
moved to the southern Africa quite recently as a consequence of the so
called Bantu expansion. More studies indicated that the "bushmen" had
previously populated most of east Africa up to the Red Sea and beyond.
So the next step for Klevius was to search for early big skulled human
remains in the mongoloid northern part of Eurasia. And that search
really paid off.
This happened more than 20 years before the discovery of the Denisova bracelet and the human relative Denisovan in Altai.
Klevius book Demand for Resources (1992) in which these thoughts about
mongoloid traits were published also predates Floresiensis with more
than a decade.
Both fossils show clear cold adaptation (mongoloid) traits. However,
Jinniushan (right) is older and has a bigger cranial capacity although
it's female.
Peter Brown (world famous for discovering/defending Floresiensis in 2004
and who had big trouble getting his PhD accepted because of a biased
supervisor/institution): What makes Dali, as well as Jinniushan (Lu,
1989; Wu, 1988a), particularly important is that both of their facial
skeletons are reasonably complete. This is an unusual situation in China
as the only other middle Pleistocene hominids to have faces in China
are the Yunxian Homo erectus (Li and Etler, 1992), which are both very
distorted. Originating in the pioneering research of Weidenreich (1939a,
1939b, 1943) at Zhoukoudian, there has been strong support by Chinese
Palaeoanthropologists for evolutionary continuity between Chinese H.
erectus and modern humans in China. It has been argued that this is most
clearly expressed in the architecture of the facial skeleton (Wolpoff
et al., 1984). East Asian traits have been argued to include lack of
anterior facial projection, angulation in the zygomatic process of the
maxilla and anterior orientation of the frontal process, pronounced
frontal orientation of the malar faces, and facial flatness. While some
of these traits may occur at high frequency in modern East Asians (cf
Lahr, 1996) they are not present in late Pleistocene East Asians, for
instance Upper Cave 101 and Liujiang (Brown, 1999), or more apparent in
Dali and Jinniushan than archaic H. sapiens from Africa or Europe.
Recently there has been a tendency to link a group of Chinese hominin
fossils, including Dali, Maba, Xujiayao, and Jinniushan, previously
considered by some researchers to be "archaic Homo sapiens", with the
Denisovians (Reich et al. 2010; Martinón-Torres et al. 2011)
(http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v468/n7327/full/nature09710.html).
However, apart from a few teeth, the Denisovians are only known from
palaeo DNA. There is also a great deal of anatomical variation in the
Chinese "archaic Homo sapiens" group. It will be interesting to see how
this plays out over the next decade, or so.
Klevius: It turns the conventional anthropological map on its head!
For a background to Klevius' theory see previous postings and
Out of Africa as Ape/Homo hybrids and back as global Mongooids
First and third from the left are Red Deer Cave people 14,300-11,500
years ago. Second and fourth the so called Venus from Brassempouy in
France 25-26,000 years ago. The last pic is a reconstruction of a 1.9
Million year old Homo rudolfiensis skull. They all had flat broad
cheeks, no chin and rounded forehead.
From the left: Red Deer Cave, Sami, Cro-Magnon
Was the sculptural portrait of Venus of Brassempouy made because she
looked so different from Cro Magnon? Was she kept as a pet or something
by her Cro Magnon captors?
There were certainly completely different looking modern humans living
in Eurasia side by side some 26,000 years ago. And the only way to make
sense of these enormous differences is Klevius hybridization theory,
i.e. that the modern brain came from small ape-like creatures (compare
the "scientists" who didn't believe that the small Homo floresiensis
brain could be capable of tool-making, fire-making etc..
Debbie Martyr (an Orang Pendek* researcher): "the mouth is small and
neat, the eyes are set wide apart and the nose is distinctly humanoid"
* Orange Pendek is the most common
name given to a small but broad shouldered cryptid ceature that
reportedly inhabits remote, mountainous forests on Sumatra.
Venus of Brassempouy, one of the world's oldest real portrait
(this one slightly retouched by Klevius)
The
Red Deer Cave people, discovered in southern China and who lived some
14,300-11,500 years ago had long, broad and tall frontal lobes behind
the forehead, which are associated with personality and behavior.
However, they also express prominent brow ridges, thick skull bones,
flat upper face with a broad nose, jutting jaws and lack a humanlike
chin. Their brains were smaller than modern humans and they had large
molar teeth (just like Denisovan), and short parietal lobes at the top
of the head (associated with sensory data). According to Curnoe, "These
are primitive features seen in our ancestors hundreds of thousands of
years ago".
Unique features of the Red Deer Cave people include a strongly curved
forehead bone, broad nose and broad eye sockets, flat and wide cheeks
and wide and deep lower jaw joint to the skull base.
Klevius comment: Compare this description to Venus of Brassempouy
on the pic, one of the world’s oldest portrait/sculpture of a human
made some 25-26,000 years ago in what is now France.
This Cro Magnon could have been the captor of Venus of Brassempouy.
Compare e.g. his protruding chin with the retracting one on Venus of
Brassempouy. And keep in mind that the human chin has been an elusive
and quite recent feature in human evolution. The delicate features we
used to attribute to anatomically modern human while simultaneously
attributing high intelligence may, in fact, not be connected at all.
Slender and delicate skeletal features are not always connected with
high cultural achievement. Quite the opposite when looking at skeletal
remains outside the Aurignacian area..
In Dolní Věstonice, Eastern Europe a portrait of an almost modern Cro
Magnon is now scientifically dated to at least 29,000 BP. The
performance of its creator is on an extremely high cultural level when
considering it predates Mideastern civilizations with some23,000 years,
and that it evolved in a cultural tradition that has never been found in
Africa or Mideast.
Klevius comment: Consider the circumstances. Small population
and, at some stage, no previous "teachers". This northern part of the
Aurignacian struck almost out of the blue unles you also consider the
Denisova bracelet.
This extremely complicated to manufacture stone bracelet was made by the
ape-like "non-human(?) Denisovan hybrid in Siberia >40,000 years ago
by utilizing a drilling technology, comparable to modern machines,
according to the researchers who found it.
Professor Ji Xueping ( Yunnan Institute of Cultural Relics and
Archeology): “Because of the geographical diversity caused by the
Qinghai-Tibet plateau, south-west China is well known as a biodiversity
hotspot and for its great cultural diversity”.
Klevius comment: Compare what was said already 2004 (before the presentation of Homo floresiensis) on the web(and 1992 in book form): Genes
were "pumped" back and forth through mostly the same (Central-Asian)
geographical "veins" by frequent climate changes, hence prohibiting
speciation but encouraging local "raciation".
According to Klevius' theory we got our modern brain intelligence from
hybridization with apes (Pan?). These creatures were small and apelike
although bipedal. When they moved north they encountered cold adapted
Homos with large skulls. This combination created the most intelligent
people ever on the planet. However, when this extremely small population
began expanding it dissolved with the big headed but stupid Homos hence
empowering their intelligence while diluting its own. The mix became
today's humans.
Homo floresiensis on Java (i.e. north of the Wallace line as opposed to
thise found on Flores) may be, and the Denisovans in Siberia are
variants on this hybrid path.
"Racial" distribution in accordance with Klevius' "Out of Siberia and
back to Africa" theory (aka "Out of Africa as pygmies and back as
global mongoloids"
Mongoloids and Australoids are the races most distant from each other
because whereas Africa had a strong back migration of mongoloids
Australia due to its location came to be less involved. This is also why
the so called Caucasoid race (in a broad sense) came to populate what
in Klevius terminology is called the "bastard belt" (the grey area on
the map).
The senseless Mideastern "creation out of nothing" ideology got
popular only because it boosted patriarchal sex apartheid (Adam created
by "god" and woman created from Adam).
The incredibly stupid (see postings below) "Out of Africa" term only
competes with the equally misleading and stupid "Big Bang" term - see
Klevius new blog on the Origin of Universe (note that there's no 'the' in front of universe).
M130
Genetic traces of Denisovan
Klevius' human evolution formula from hot to cold
Ape/Homo hybridization (FOXP2 variant) + meeting/mixing with Eurasian
Homos = Denisovan (Floresiensis?) and leaves an early but misleading
genetic Africa label due to the back and forth movement between Eurasia
and Africa.
Denisovan (Floresiensis?) gets a better packed brain in island Indonesia
through sea level isolation. Later on the opposite effect releases some
of them into Asian mainland.
In summary, the oldest African genes are not human, and the later ones are just the result of mixing from back migration.
When Klevius in the 1980s got in contact with African aborigines he
immediately was struck by their mongoloid appearance. Why on earth would
African aborigines have traces of cold adaptation? Today we have the
answer in Siberia.
Klevius wrote:
John Hawks again missed (since 1992 in a book and since 2003 on the
web) Klevius' original science contribution re. social evolution of
human societies.
Among serious anthropologists John Hawks' blog is the most read while
Peter Klevius' blog is the least* read. Why? Is it because of Klevius'
"Saudiphobia"/"islamo(fascism)phobia"?
* So have patience with Klevius
self-citations (and do read the chapter Science and References in Demand
for Resources) which clearly are more important for general science
than for Klevius own satisfaction.
See Klevius 1992:40-44.
Richard Lee's
The !Kung San: Men, Women, and Work in a Foraging Society
came 1979 and was the main trigger of Klevius first letter to Georg
Henrik von Wright (Wittgenstein's successor at Cambridge) on the topic
and Klevius 1981 article Demand for Resources and 1992 book with the
same title.
Out of respect and as support for Lee's work Klevius also bought the expensive
Cambridge Encyclopedia of Hunter-Gatherers (1999), which, of course, was of no practical use for Klevius.
Here's John Hawks recent blog-post:
Hawks writes:
He (Lee) has written an article in
this year’s Annual Review of Anthropology that examines both uses and
misuses of hunter-gatherer ethnography in theory-building about human
nature: “Hunter-Gatherers and Human Evolution: New Light on Old
Debates.”
In the introduction to the article, he recounts a story involving his “Man the Hunter” co-editor, the late Irven DeVore:
Senator William Fulbright of Arkansas, a brilliant US legislator in the
1960s and the founder of the scholarship program that bears his name,
was just one public figure struggling to come to grips with the import
of Lorenz’s theses. I vividly remember the late Irven DeVore coming into
my office at Harvard University. “I just got off the phone with Senator
William Fulbright calling from Washington,” Devore said. “He asked me
‘Professor DeVore, if Konrad Lorenz is right, how are we ever to
negotiate a nuclear arms reduction treaty with the Soviet Union?’”
DeVore reassured Fulbright that Lorenz’s views were far from
universally accepted among anthropologists, that violence in human
history was a variable not a constant, and that its causes and
expressions were far more complex than could be explained simply by pure
animal instinct.
DeVore’s disclaimers appeared to calm
Senator Fulbright’s nerves, and in fact the United States and the Union
of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) went on to successfully negotiate a
series of nuclear arms reduction treaties over the years. Nevertheless,
the question of violence in human history continued to animate the
debate within anthropology, fueled by Robert Ardrey’s “killer ape”
hypothesis in his books African Genesis (Ardrey 1961) and The
Territorial Imperative (Ardrey 1966). Interest was sustained by Napoleon
Chagnon’s (1968) influential ethnography of the “fierce” Yanomamo and
more recently by the writings of Wrangham & Peterson (1996), such as
Demonic Males: Apes and the Origins of Human Violence. I have labeled
this persistent thread within anthropology and related disciplines as
the “Bellicose School” (Lee 2014).
I am spending some time
reading this review and taking notes, and it bears close reading. Lee’s
theme is that many people who use “hunter-gatherers” as a category are
actually lumping things that are quite different from each other. If you
want to use ethnographic studies of today’s people to say anything
about prehistoric people, you need to understand that any living group
may be like ancient people in some ways, and very different from ancient
people in other ways.
Klevius writes: When it comes to Konrad Lorentz I share Lee's view - as clearly stated on page 20 in
Demand for Resources (1992):
Det finns ett flertal delikata
kulturantropologiska fördomar som fått starka grepp på allmänheten. En
sådan gäller föreställningen om människans aggressivitet som en
oemotståndlig negativ biologisk kraft som måste få utlopp. Att hävda
detta och samtidigt förorda kanaliserad aggressivitet i syfte att
förmildra verkningarna av densamma innebär i själva verket att man
kulturellt skapar och stimulerar beteendemönster av negativ karaktär.
Fysiskt våld mot artfränder är liksom utvidgat resursbegär en inlärd
egenskap. Den organiserade form av fysiskt våld mot artfränder som krig
innebär verkar inte vara äldre än det utvidgade resursbegäret. Troligen
hänger de intimt samman.
And translated from original English, i.e. Swedish, to modern English:
There are several delicate cultural-anthropological prejudices which
have got a strong grip on the public. One is the view about human
aggression as an irresistible negative biological force which has to be
released. To argue this while simultaneously proposing channeled
aggressiveness for the purpose of mitigating its effects, in fact, means
that one culturally creates and stimulates patterns of negative
behavior. Same species violence is, like expanded demand for resources, a
learned behavior. The organized form of violence, i.e. war, seems not
to be older than expanded demands for resources. They are likely
intimately connected.
Demand for Resources by Peter Klevius (1992).
The civilized wo/man walks
back in her/his foot steps,
strikes a light and lets her/himself be enlightened
and glorified
Only the forgotten suffering,
and the shadow behind her/him,
hovering over the future,
are greater (P. Klevius 1992, title page).
"The archeologist of knowledge finds
in his/her digging
often him/herself"
(P. Klevius 1992:7)
The concept of freedom is created,
like diamonds,
only under pressure
(P. Klevius 1992:33)
More from Demand for Resources (1992, ISBN 9173288411):
So called civilized societies can be described as dynamic, hence
contrasting against the more static appearance of the economic setting
(lack of investment) of e.g. hunter-gatherers.
A re-classification of human societies departing from C. Levi-Strauss idea about "warm" and "cold" societies (Klevius 1992):
A Without 'extended demands for resources' (EDFR).
B Affected by EDFR but still retaining a simplistic, "primitive" way of life.
C Civilized with EDFR
These categories are, of course, only conceptual. Applied to a conventional classification the following pattern appears:
1 The primitive stage when all were hunter/gatherers (A, according to EDFR classification).
2 Nomads (A, B, C).
3 Farmers (B, C).
4 Civilized (C).
As a consequence EDFR is here used as a concept tied to civilization
(and its preliminary stages) The above also suggests a critique against
our conventional conception of a simplistic connection between
intelligence and performance as (wrongly) exemplified by C. Popper's
scenario of a World 1-3 transition of human cultural development.
(Implications of this view can be seen in Klevius theory of mind EMAH,
The Even More Astonishing Hypothesis, which deals with the mind/body
"problem" and the closing gap between not only humans and other living
things but also betweenhumans and machines).
Here's the last part of the chapter Khoe, San and Bantu (in Demand for Resources, Klevius 1992).
For those who don't master original English there are some modern English words as well in the text:
I begreppet San inryms de tre grupperna !Kung, !Xu och G!wi vilka alla
har egna närbesläktade men självständiga språk. Av dessa grupper är det
G!wi som kan antas stå närmast det klassiska samlar/jägarsamhället även
om egentligen inga grupper i dag återfinns i de kulturmönster som
förekom ännu på 50-60-talet.
En uppskattning av de traditionella egenskaperna i kulturmönstret hos
San (konventionellt grupp 1, URB-grupp A) inkluderar frånvaro av
domesticering, lös sammanhållning, ofixerad, icke hierarkisk
beslutsordning samt i det närmaste obefintlig materiell status (undantag
utgör t.ex. jaktvapen och byten före den oundvikliga fördelningen).
Patricia Draper har i anslutning till "The Harvard !Kung Bushmen Study
Project" gjort en undersökning om skillnader i könsroller hos
kringvandrande klassiska samlar/jägargrupper och stationära
"mångsysslande" !Kung grupper. Hon fann då bl.a. "
that !Kung society may be the least sexist of any we have experienced" samt att detta märks genom "
women's
subsistence contribution and the control women retain over the food
they have gathered, the lack of rigidity in sex-typing of many adult
activities including domestic chores and aspects of child socialization;
the cultural sanction against physical expression of aggression; the
smaller group size; and the nature of the settlement pattern." Hon
noterar vidare att "authoritarian behavior is avoided by adults of both
sexes." Alla dessa egenskaper naggades enligt Draper i kanten hos de
stationära grupperna.
En pionjär då det gällde att påvisa hur lite arbete som San samlar/jägarna lade ner på födoanskaffning och boende var
Richard Lee
som 1963 studerade den bland antropologer numera välkända Dobe Base
Camp 12. Han levde med dem, noterade metodiskt allt han såg, mätte och
vägde såväl mat som människor, tog tid på allt de gjorde och resultatet
av hans, och senare även andras arbeten kan sammanfattas i Marshal
Sahlins ord: "
If the affluent society is one where all the people's material wants are easily satisfied this is the first affluent society." Han fortsatte: "
The
human condition must keep man the prisoner at hard labor of a perpetual
disparity between his unlimited wants and his insufficient means... " och vidare "
There
is (instead) a road to affluence, departing from premises... that human
wants are few, and technical means unchanging but on the whole
adequate."
I mitten av 70-talet kunde bl.a. Diane Gelburd konstatera att
bushmännens liv i Dobe hade ändrat karaktär sedan Richard Lee's
fältstudier. Hyddorna var byggda av lera istället för av gräs och stod
längre ifrån varandra. En del fick dörrar i takt med att de fylldes med
personliga ägodelar. Man byggde stängsel för djuren som man nu
införskaffat. Likadant var det med benresterna som tidigare enbart
bestått av lämningar från vilda djur men 1976 till 80% bestod av
benrester från domesticerade djur.
Samtidigt skedde förändringar i de interna sociala relationerna.
Fördelning av tillgångar minskade och formerna för t.ex. äktenskap
komplicerades p.g.a. nya, förut okända problem kring egendomsfrågor.
"What explains the shattering of this society"? frågade sig John Yellen från The National Science Foundation anthropology program. Han fortsätter:
"It
hasn't been a direct force, a war, the ravages of disease..." och
svarar slutligen: "1t is the internal conflicts, the tensions, the
inconsistencies, the impossibility of reconciling such different views
of the world."
Till detta kan tilläggas att Khoi och San har levt i flera tusen år sida
vid sida utan att de samlande/jagande San blivit boskapshållare.
Dessutom har de jordbrukande ochboskapsskötande Bantufolken för
åtminstone 500 år sedan invaderat Khoisan?folkens traditionella marker.
Det är alltså något mer som skall till för att knäcka ryggraden på ett
typiskt San-samhälle. Handlar det om en kritisk punkt för
försörjningsunderlag/befolkningsstorlek? Finns det en nedre gräns för
antalet individer i en fungerande samlar/jägarkultur? I vilket skede
exakt bryts det sociala immunförsvaret gentemot utvidgade resursbegär
ner?
Oavsett om det finns en kritisk punkt eller om det är fråga om en
långsamt ökande spänning som efter hand får det ena fästet efter det
andra att ge efter så ser vi här uppkomsten av den spricka mellan
kulturformer där det utvidgande resursbegäret med varierande framgång
slagit rot.
