Re: [Marxism] question re Mary Leakey

2013-02-06 Thread Mark Lause
==
Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
==


My recollection is that the Leakey's provided most of the fossil
evidence that argues for the African origins of the human race in its
various qualitative leaps along the evolutionary line.  This is
accepted (outside Australia and China) as the best explanation for
what we have, included the DNA.  Yet, it remains one of those things
that can still get a rise out of many of those who just can't imagine
any personal connection to the continent at all.

Behind this, of course, is the scientific underpinnings of the
cultural nature and social construction of "race."

ML


Send list submissions to: Marxism@greenhouse.economics.utah.edu
Set your options at: 
http://greenhouse.economics.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com


Re: [Marxism] question re Mary Leakey

2013-02-06 Thread Einde O'Callaghan

==
Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
==


On 06.02.2013 19:25, Brandon Frey wrote:


"As far as I know, the label "reactionary" applied to them as
anthropologists is a bit puzzling because most of their work is as
archaeologists rather than anthropologists. Studying bones hardly strikes
me as the sort of thing that might led to reactionary conclusions."

Louis, I've heard that archaeology is considered a branch of anthropology.
Wikipedia says this is the case in the US, but not Europe...


Leakey has written a number of very good books on human evolution - 
books I would describe as anything but reactionary, even if L. isn't a 
Marxist.


Einde O'Callaghan



Send list submissions to: Marxism@greenhouse.economics.utah.edu
Set your options at: 
http://greenhouse.economics.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com


Re: [Marxism] question re Mary Leakey

2013-02-06 Thread Brandon Frey
==
Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
==


"As far as I know, the label "reactionary" applied to them as
anthropologists is a bit puzzling because most of their work is as
archaeologists rather than anthropologists. Studying bones hardly strikes
me as the sort of thing that might led to reactionary conclusions."

Louis, I've heard that archaeology is considered a branch of anthropology.
Wikipedia says this is the case in the US, but not Europe...

Send list submissions to: Marxism@greenhouse.economics.utah.edu
Set your options at: 
http://greenhouse.economics.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com


Re: [Marxism] question re Mary Leakey

2013-02-06 Thread Louis Proyect

==
Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
==


On 2/6/13 8:46 AM, Andrew Pollack wrote:


Today's Google doodle says it's the centenary of Mary Leakey's birth.

I don't know much at all about her  and when I mentioned it to a
friend she said the Leakeys are part of a backward anthropological
tradition.

Anyone know details?



I guess that this is a reference to Louis Leakey's opposition to the Mau 
Mau. His son Richard ran for office in Kenya against the entrenched 
corrupt party in power. As far as I know, the label "reactionary" 
applied to them as anthropologists is a bit puzzling because most of 
their work is as archaeologists rather than anthropologists. Studying 
bones hardly strikes me as the sort of thing that might led to 
reactionary conclusions.


I do have a copy of Richard Leakey's "Sixth Extinction". Here's the sort 
of thing that he argues:


http://www.mysterium.com/sixthextinction.html

Homo sapiens is not the first living creature to have a dramatic impact 
on Earth's biota, of course. The advent of photosynthetic microorganisms 
some three billion years ago began to transform the atmosphere from one 
of low oxygen content to one of relatively high levels, reaching close 
to modern levels within the last billion years. With the change, very 
different life forms were possible, including multicellular organisms, 
and previously abundant forms that thrived in a low oxygen environment 
were consigned to marginal habitats of the Earth. But that change was 
wrought not by a single, sentient species consciously pursuing its own 
material goals, but by countless, non-sentient species, collectively and 
unconsciously operating new metabolic pathways. The reason and insight 
that emerged during our evolutionary history bestowed a behavioral 
flexibility on our species that allows us to multiply bounteously in 
virtually every environment on Earth. The evolution of human 
intelligence therefore opened a vast potential for population expansion 
and growth, so that collectively the almost six billion humans alive 
today represent the greatest proportion of protoplasm on our planet.


We suck our sustenance from the rest of nature in a way never before 
seen in the world, reducing its bounty as ours grows. We are, as Edward 
Wilson has put it, "an environmental abnormality." Abnormalities cannot 
persist forever; they eventually disappear. "It is possible that 
intelligence in the wrong kind of species was foreordained to be a fatal 
combination for the biosphere," ventures Wilson. "Perhaps a law of 
evolution is that intelligence usually extinguishes itself"' If not a 
"law," then perhaps a common consequence. Our concern is: Can such a 
fate be avoided?


When I talk about reducing nature's bounty, I'm referring to the 
extinction of species that is currently occurring as a result of human 
activities of various kinds. In chapter 10 I described the trail of 
biotic destruction humans left in their wake as they swept into new 
environments in the prehistoric and historic past: settlers of new lands 
extirpated huge numbers of species, through hunting and clearing of 
habitats. Some modern scholars argue that this was but a passing episode 
in the human career and that, despite massive population expansion 
today, talk of continued species extinction is fallacious. It should be 
obvious from the tone of the preceding few paragraphs that I am not 
among their number. I believe that human-driven extinction is continuing 
today, and accelerating to alarming levels.


In the remainder of the chapter I will develop the argument for my 
concern. In the final chapter I will ask whether or not it matters to us 
and our children that as much as 50 percent of the Earth's species may 
disappear by the end of the next century. I will also address the 
longer-term future, which puts our species in a larger geological 
context with the rest of the world's inhabitants. And I will suggest 
that the insights we have gained from the current intellectual 
revolution I formulated in the previous chapter demand that we adopt a 
certain ethical position on the impact of Homo sapiens on the 
biodiversity of which we are a part.


Humans endanger the existence of species in three principal ways. The 
first is through direct exploitation, such as hunting. From butterflies, 
to song birds, to elephants, the human appetite for collecting or eating 
parts of wild creatures puts many species at risk of extinction. Second 
is the biological havoc that is occasionally wreaked following the 
introduction of alien species to new ecosystems, whether deliberately or 
accidentally. I talked earlier about the biological convulsion 
experienced by the Hawaiian archipelago through countless species of 
birds and plants taken there by the early Polynesians and later by 
Eu

[Marxism] question re Mary Leakey

2013-02-06 Thread Andrew Pollack
==
Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
==


Today's Google doodle says it's the centenary of Mary Leakey's birth.

I don't know much at all about her  and when I mentioned it to a
friend she said the Leakeys are part of a backward anthropological
tradition.

Anyone know details?


Send list submissions to: Marxism@greenhouse.economics.utah.edu
Set your options at: 
http://greenhouse.economics.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com