Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Wolves were the first communists, or why canines taught hominids how to be social
CeJ wrote: > Another problem is, one we have no science of > human behaviour and society to refer to, not really. CB: Speak for yourself on this, smile. ___ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Wolves were the first communists, or why canines taught hominids how to be social
You've demonstrated a certain special symbiosis between human and canine populations through history. It seems that just as humans have gotten into feuds and wars between each other, so have some human and canine populations fallen out at various levels. Maybe, when humans are hunters, canine friends, domesticated dogs, might help a lot. When humans aren't hunting as much as a main source of food, canine's become pets and monsters , dogs and werewolves; or dogs become food. For one thing, we might not worry about being too vulgar materialistic in hypothesizing about the causes of the changes in the symbiosis. ___ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Wolves were the first communists, or why canines taught hominids how to be social
Well, first it has been noted that chimps and bonobos have very different societies. Another problem is, one we have no science of human behaviour and society to refer to, not really. Two, observations about wolves are usually made on captive ones. Ditto chimps (which is what makes Goodall's work different--she interacted with the chimps like an anthropologist of her era did). And then we have to work out how and why wolves and domesticated dogs differ so much in behaviour and social behaviour even though they are the same species. Also, you seemed to have missed the points about (1) paternal nurturing and (2) how alpha male leadership in wolf packs works (unlike chimps, little macho domination--indeed, the leader might not be the most physically imposing male but rather the male that most of the pack feel to be the best leader). You might find this material interesting: http://spiritualdeepdish.wordpress.com/2009/07/20/glenn-close-interviews-jane-goodall/ Glenn Close: You have had a life-long curiosity about how animals and humans impact each other’s existence. Chimps have obviously played an important role in your life, but what about dogs — a species that coexists with mankind possibly closer than any other? Why do you think humans have been so connected to dogs over the millennia? Jane Goodall: I find it easy to believe there was a symbiotic relationship between wolves, from whom all dogs are descended, and our earliest ancestors. The humans hunting and the wolves getting some of the food in return for protecting the humans from predators such as bears. (Wolves can see off grizzlies.) There is growing evidence of close bonds that used to exist — maybe still — between wolves and the Native American and first nation people. So the relationship seems to have been handed down. GC: Have you ever observed a dog having a special relationship with a chimpanzee? JG: I am absolutely fascinated by this. Every dog I have known that had an opportunity to have a relationship with a (captive) chimpanzee did so. The book I wrote, Rickie and Henri, is a true story. One little five-year-old orphaned rescued chimp would play wild games with a huge Rottweiler. She pulled his ears and poked his eyes and even made him sometimes whimper. He never hurt her, except accidentally, when she whimpered. http://www.serpentfd.org/section2hominidevolution.html There are a series of characteristics of human beings at issue here, some that explain influential elements of human character and the nature of culture. Neoteny, as a result of sexual selection, could explain why wonder and play established themselves so firmly in the behaviors of human adults relative to their evidence in the adults of other species. A number of authors have noted the potential association between neoteny and wonder in humans (Robbins, 1980; Montegu, 1989). We have explored the influence of art and feelings-of-something-larger-than-the-self on the evolution of our species. We are proposing that the effect of the sexual selection/prolonged development feedback loop and the feeling of feeling-part-of-something-larger-than-the-self brought humans to a recent point in our pre-history, approximately 40,000 years ago. We emerged with big brains, an adept vocal apparatus, closely tied communities, and a metaphoric language of touch, gesture and dance. We hypothesize that this was an ambidextrous culture, characterized by a kinesthetic or physical language that used both hemispheres when communicating using symbol or metaphor, communicating often through ritual and myth. There was one tense (Whallon, 1989), no negatives, and only here and no where else, the same characteristics of dream, deep hypnotic trance: the unconscious (Bateson, 1972). http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/07/3/l_073_03.html Why, then, have chimps not evolved this social structure? The answer may lie in the history of the habitats they occupy. Both species of primates live in tropical forests along the Zaire River -- chimps north of the river, bonobos to the south. Their environments seem to be quite similar today. But about 2.5 million years ago, there seems to have been a lengthy drought in southern Zaire that wiped out the preferred food plants of gorillas and sent the primates packing. After the drought ended, the forests returned, but the gorillas did not. Chimpanzees in this environment south of the river had the forest to themselves, and could exploit the fiber foods that had previously been eaten by gorillas -- foods that are still eaten by gorillas to the north. With this additional food to tide them over between fruit trees, they could travel in larger, more stable parties, and form strong social bonds. They became bonobos. On the north side of the river, the chimps had to share their niche with gorillas, which eat the fiber foods. The chimps have to compete for fruit, and occasionally meat, food resources that tend to be widely scattered. Female chimps disperse into
[Marxism-Thaxis] Wolves were the first communists, or why canines taught hominids how to be social
Chimps , who correspond to pre-hominid primates, are at least as social as wolves. CB ^^^ Social brain hypothesis The model was proposed by Robin Dunbar, who argues that human intelligence did not evolve primarily as a means to solve ecological problems, but rather intelligence evolved as a means of surviving in large and complex social groups. Some of the behaviors associated with living in large groups include reciprocal altruism, deception and coalition formation. These group dynamics relate to Theory of Mind or the ability to understand the thoughts and emotions of others.[4] Dunbar argues that when the size of a social group increases, the number of different relationships in the group may increase by orders of magnitude. Chimpanzees live in groups of about 50 individuals whereas humans typically have a social circle of about 150 people, which is now referred to as Dunbar's number. According to the social brain hypothesis, when hominids started living in large groups, selection favored greater intelligence. As evidence, Dunbar cites a relationship between neocortex size and group size of various mammals.[5] Evolution of human intelligence >From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to: navigation, search The evolution of human intelligence refers to a set of theories that attempt to explain how human intelligence has evolved. The question is closely tied to the evolution of the human brain, and to the emergence of human language. The timeline of human evolution spans some 7 million years, from the separation of the Pan genus until the emergence of behavioral modernity by 30,000 years ago. Of this timeline, the first 3 million years concern Sahelanthropus, the following 2 million concern Australopithecus, while the final 2 million span the history of actual human species (the Paleolithic). Many traits of human intelligence, such as empathy, theory of mind, mourning, ritual, and the use of symbols and tools, are already apparent in great apes although in lesser sophistication than in humans. Contents [hide] 1 History 1.1 Hominidae 1.2 Hominina 1.3 Homo 1.4 Homo sapiens 2 Models 2.1 Social brain hypothesis 2.2 Sexual selection 2.3 Ecological dominance-social competition model 2.4 Intelligence as a resistance signal 2.5 Group Selection and Evolvability 2.6 Nutritional Status 3 See also 4 Notes 5 Further reading ___ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
[Marxism-Thaxis] Wolves were the first communists, or why canines taught hominids how to be social
Hey, Romulus and Remus were raised by wolves, so wolves were the first fascists , too. (smile) ___ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Wolves were the first communists, or why canines taught hominids how to be social
Hey, Romulus and Remus were raised by wolves. On 4/22/10, CeJ wrote: > Name highly intelligent social species that organize as groups and > cooperate to protect three successive generations in extended families > and clans (one key aspect being nurturing fathers in addition to > nurturing mothers). Humans and wolves come to mind. But isn't even > more fascinating that these two species should be so intimately > involved with each other since the start of 'human civilization'? > > The wolf becomes the enemy of humans once humans are with wolf-dogs. > The wolf represents a social top-of-the-food chain cooperative hunter > who is still in the niche we have aimed to monopolize for ourselves > (throwing the scraps to our wolf-dogs) but stands off and away from > human civilization. > > Regardless of chromosomes and theories of co-evolution, it's hard to > argue against the profundity of human-animal social cooperation in the > case of these species: wolf-dogs (we become transgenerational hunters, > manipulators and masters of huge herds of herbivores), the 'house' cat > (we can store huge amounts of grain, at least in dry climates like > Egypt, Mesopotamia), and the horse (look how quickly the Mongols and > the Lakota Sioux organized themselves once they had the horses). How > can you care what your ancestors knew and wanted to pass on to you if > you don't give a toss about your own grandparents? Wolves and humans > do. > > In areas of Central Asia, there is still this stand-off between humans > and wolves. Wolf packs know not to prey on the humans' herds (managed > with wolf-dogs). Central Asians do not attempt to hunt down wolves in > order to eliminate them from their herding/grazing territory. The only > wolf that preys on humans' herds is the occasional 'lone wolf' that > can not join a pack or form a new one with a mate. This lone wolf will > be hunted down and killed. One method is to use trained eagles who > literally trail the lone wolf from the air until it is exhausted and > then they kill it. I wonder if this is one of the reasons why the > eagle became such a revered animal among North American tribes (I > don't know enough about animal husbandry amongst these peoples, but > the Incans were great domesticators of herbivores). > > > I am also thinking that the ancients had hunches about social > human-wolf origins. > See: > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feral_children_in_mythology_and_fiction > > In mythology and ancient literature > > Enkidu, raised by unspecified beasts, becomes the friend of the hero > Gilgamesh. (see also Epic of Gilgamesh) > > The brothers Romulus and Remus, raised by a wolf, become the founders of Rome. > > In Turkic mythology, the female wolf Asena finds an injured child > following a devastating battle and nurses him back to health. He > subsequently impregnates her, and she gives birth to ten half-wolf, > half-human boys. Of these, Ashina becomes their leader and founder of > the clan that ruled the Göktürks and other Turkic nomadic > empires.[2][3] The legend has parallels with folktales of other Turkic > peoples, for instance, the Uyghurs. > > In Ibn Tufail's Hayy ibn Yaqdhan, Hayy is raised by a gazelle on a > desert island and becomes an autodidactic philosopher. > > In Ibn al-Nafis' Theologus Autodidactus, Kamil is also raised by > animals on a deserted island, and becomes an autodidactic scientist > and theologian. > [edit] In modern prose > > An early modern example of a feral child comes from Rudyard Kipling's > The Jungle Book. His protagonist, Mowgli, is raised by wolves and > becomes the ruler of the jungle. > > Tarzan, raised by apes, has become an iconic hero of novels, comic > strips, and motion pictures. > > Peter Pan, created by J. M. Barrie, is a boy who fled to the magical > Neverland and refused to grow up. > > Shasta of the Wolves (1919) by Olaf Baker, in which a Native American > boy is raised by a wolfpack in the Pacific Northwest. > > Jungle Born (1924) by John Eyton, in which a boy raised by apes in > northern India inadvertently saves a teenage girl from her abusive > father. > > The theme of young adolescent runaways seeking shelter with wild > animals and learning their ways is seen in novels such as the Newbery > Medal-winning novel Julie of the Wolves by Jean Craighead George. > > Jane Yolen's Passager (1996), the first of the Young Merlin trilogy of > short novels, depicts a slightly more realistic view of such > childhood. Abandoned in a Welsh forest at the age of seven years, the > boy who will become Merlin lives in the forest for a year nearly as > well as its natives, until a falconer who is used to domesticating > animals captures him and begins the long and difficult task of > educating him in human behavior. > > In Karen Hesse's The Music of Dolphins, a young girl called Mila is > found after having been raised by dolphins for over a decade. In the > book, Mila is taken to a clinic with other undomesticated human young, > none of wh
Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Wolves were the first communists, or why canines taught hominids how to be social
Name highly intelligent social species that organize as groups and cooperate to protect three successive generations in extended families and clans (one key aspect being nurturing fathers in addition to nurturing mothers). Humans and wolves come to mind. But isn't even more fascinating that these two species should be so intimately involved with each other since the start of 'human civilization'? The wolf becomes the enemy of humans once humans are with wolf-dogs. The wolf represents a social top-of-the-food chain cooperative hunter who is still in the niche we have aimed to monopolize for ourselves (throwing the scraps to our wolf-dogs) but stands off and away from human civilization. Regardless of chromosomes and theories of co-evolution, it's hard to argue against the profundity of human-animal social cooperation in the case of these species: wolf-dogs (we become transgenerational hunters, manipulators and masters of huge herds of herbivores), the 'house' cat (we can store huge amounts of grain, at least in dry climates like Egypt, Mesopotamia), and the horse (look how quickly the Mongols and the Lakota Sioux organized themselves once they had the horses). How can you care what your ancestors knew and wanted to pass on to you if you don't give a toss about your own grandparents? Wolves and humans do. In areas of Central Asia, there is still this stand-off between humans and wolves. Wolf packs know not to prey on the humans' herds (managed with wolf-dogs). Central Asians do not attempt to hunt down wolves in order to eliminate them from their herding/grazing territory. The only wolf that preys on humans' herds is the occasional 'lone wolf' that can not join a pack or form a new one with a mate. This lone wolf will be hunted down and killed. One method is to use trained eagles who literally trail the lone wolf from the air until it is exhausted and then they kill it. I wonder if this is one of the reasons why the eagle became such a revered animal among North American tribes (I don't know enough about animal husbandry amongst these peoples, but the Incans were great domesticators of herbivores). I am also thinking that the ancients had hunches about social human-wolf origins. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feral_children_in_mythology_and_fiction In mythology and ancient literature Enkidu, raised by unspecified beasts, becomes the friend of the hero Gilgamesh. (see also Epic of Gilgamesh) The brothers Romulus and Remus, raised by a wolf, become the founders of Rome. In Turkic mythology, the female wolf Asena finds an injured child following a devastating battle and nurses him back to health. He subsequently impregnates her, and she gives birth to ten half-wolf, half-human boys. Of these, Ashina becomes their leader and founder of the clan that ruled the Göktürks and other Turkic nomadic empires.[2][3] The legend has parallels with folktales of other Turkic peoples, for instance, the Uyghurs. In Ibn Tufail's Hayy ibn Yaqdhan, Hayy is raised by a gazelle on a desert island and becomes an autodidactic philosopher. In Ibn al-Nafis' Theologus Autodidactus, Kamil is also raised by animals on a deserted island, and becomes an autodidactic scientist and theologian. [edit] In modern prose An early modern example of a feral child comes from Rudyard Kipling's The Jungle Book. His protagonist, Mowgli, is raised by wolves and becomes the ruler of the jungle. Tarzan, raised by apes, has become an iconic hero of novels, comic strips, and motion pictures. Peter Pan, created by J. M. Barrie, is a boy who fled to the magical Neverland and refused to grow up. Shasta of the Wolves (1919) by Olaf Baker, in which a Native American boy is raised by a wolfpack in the Pacific Northwest. Jungle Born (1924) by John Eyton, in which a boy raised by apes in northern India inadvertently saves a teenage girl from her abusive father. The theme of young adolescent runaways seeking shelter with wild animals and learning their ways is seen in novels such as the Newbery Medal-winning novel Julie of the Wolves by Jean Craighead George. Jane Yolen's Passager (1996), the first of the Young Merlin trilogy of short novels, depicts a slightly more realistic view of such childhood. Abandoned in a Welsh forest at the age of seven years, the boy who will become Merlin lives in the forest for a year nearly as well as its natives, until a falconer who is used to domesticating animals captures him and begins the long and difficult task of educating him in human behavior. In Karen Hesse's The Music of Dolphins, a young girl called Mila is found after having been raised by dolphins for over a decade. In the book, Mila is taken to a clinic with other undomesticated human young, none of whom adapt to main-stream humanity as easily as she does. At the end of the book, Mila returns to the dolphin pod, showing her rejection of human society. In the series starting with Through Wolf's Eyes by author Jane Lindskold, a young girl's family a
Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Wolves were the first communists, or why canines taught hominids how to be social
On 4/16/10, CeJ wrote: > >>Well, same genus (smile). They can't interbreed, which defines a species.<< > > Actually you could cross a toy dog with a wolf and get viable > offspring. CB: Yes, you are correct. Evidently, doesn't have to be a toy dog. By the way, the test of intra-species is _fertile_ offspring, but evidently dog-wolf hybrid offspring are fertile. (Horse-donkey offspring are viable mules, but I think mules are not fertile). Wolf-dog hybrid Main article: Wolf-dog hybrid The domestic dog (Canis lupus familiaris) is a domesticated form of the Grey Wolf (Canis lupus lupus), and therefore belongs to the same species as other wolves such as the Dingo (Canis lupus dingo). Therefore crosses between these sub-species are unremarkable, and not a hybridization in the same sense as an interbreeding between different species of Canidae. People wanting to improve domestic dogs or create an exotic pet may breed domestic dogs to wolves. Grey wolves have been crossed with dogs that have a wolf-like appearance, such as Siberian Huskies, and Alaskan Malamutes. The breeding of wolf-dog crosses is controversial, with opponents purporting that it produces an animal unfit as a domestic pet. There are a number of established wolfdog breeds in development. The first generation crosses (one wolf parent, one dog parent) are generally back crossed to domestic dogs to maintain a domestic temperament and consistent conformation. First generation wolf-dog crosses are popular in the USA, but retain many wolf-like traits. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canid_hybrid ^ But there is the physical difficulties of them having > intercourse. And domesticated dogs' offspring don't make good > nurturing fathers, a socialized trait that wolves, coyotes and dingoes > have. > So there are more considerations than genomes and chromosome counts > when we talk about inter-breeding (or intra-breeding). You could say > just as the wheat genome is really the combined genome of 6 grasses > and the wolf genome actually comprises wolf-coyote-dingo-domesticated > dog, with a few exceptions. > > So as some have pointed out that is what makes the eastcoast US > 'coy-dog' problematic. However, I think it is possible in the case of > some sort of coyote-wolf-dog mix taking over new territory, > considering how quickly dogs that go feral can form cooperative packs > and how dingoes were domesticated dogs but are now more like wolves > and coyotes. CB: Here's some more on what you discuss http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canid_hybrid Genetic considerations Many members of the dog family can interbreed to produce fertile offspring. Molecular analysis indicates 4 divisions of canids: Wolf-like canids including the domestic dog, gray wolf, coyote, indian wolf, and the jackals The South American canids Old and New World red-foxlike canids, for example, red foxes and kit foxes Monotypic species, for example, bat-eared fox and raccoon dog The wolf (including the dingo and domestic dog), coyote, and jackal, all have 78 chromosomes arranged in 39 pairs. This allows them to hybridise freely (barring size or behavioural constraints) and produce fertile offspring. The wolf, coyote, and golden jackal diverged around 3 to 4 million years ago. Other members of the dog family diverged 7 to 10 million years ago and are less closely related and cannot hybridise with the wolf-like canids: the yellow Jackal has 74 chromosomes, the red fox has 38 chromosomes, the raccoon dog has 42 chromosomes, and the Fennec fox has 64 chromosomes. Although the African Wild Dog has 78 chromosomes, it is considered distinct enough to be placed in its own genus. > > I don't think gnats are. I think the birds that come in to feed on a > lot of the nuisance insects on large herbivores is, whatever the > technical term, not contentious. The birds know the big juicy bugs > will be near the herds. The animals know the birds will bring some > relief. CB: Well , you know the general term for inter-species cooperation is symbiosis. There is quite a bit of it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symbiosis Symbiosis Clownfish amid sea anemone tentaclesThe term symbiosis (from the Greek: σύν syn "with"; and βίωσις biosis "living") commonly describes close and often long-term interactions between different biological species. The term was first used in 1879 by the German mycologist Heinrich Anton de Bary, who defined it as "the living together of unlike organisms."[1][2] The definition of symbiosis is in flux, and the term has been applied to a wide range of biological interactions. The symbiotic relationship may be categorized as mutualistic, commensal, or parasitic in nature.[3][4] Others define it more narrowly, as only those relationships from which both organisms benefit, in which case it would be synonymous with mutualism.[1][5][6] Symbiotic relationships include those associations in which one organism lives on another (ectosymbiosis, such as mistletoe), or where one p
Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Wolves were the first communists, or why canines taught hominids how to be social
>>Well, same genus (smile). They can't interbreed, which defines a species.<< Actually you could cross a toy dog with a wolf and get viable offspring. But there is the physical difficulties of them having intercourse. And domesticated dogs' offspring don't make good nurturing fathers, a socialized trait that wolves, coyotes and dingoes have. So there are more considerations than genomes and chromosome counts when we talk about inter-breeding (or intra-breeding). You could say just as the wheat genome is really the combined genome of 6 grasses and the wolf genome actually comprises wolf-coyote-dingo-domesticated dog, with a few exceptions. So as some have pointed out that is what makes the eastcoast US 'coy-dog' problematic. However, I think it is possible in the case of some sort of coyote-wolf-dog mix taking over new territory, considering how quickly dogs that go feral can form cooperative packs and how dingoes were domesticated dogs but are now more like wolves and coyotes. I don't think gnats are. I think the birds that come in to feed on a lot of the nuisance insects on large herbivores is, whatever the technical term, not contentious. The birds know the big juicy bugs will be near the herds. The animals know the birds will bring some relief. Speculation leads me to think of our out-of-Africa ancestors as domesticating with/co-evolving with a wolf-dog before they ever left Africa. That is a pretty nifty dialectic--a top-of-the-food chain socialized predator coming out of the North meeting up with a socialized omnivore learning to be a predator coming out of the South. Maybe it is just an accident that our ancestors had the capacity to both compete with but also co-evolve with the wolf while Neanderthal could only parasitize them (follow them around to find herds of animals to hunt, even eating wolves when they needed to). CJ -- ELT in Japan http://eltinjapan.blogspot.com/ Japan Higher Education Outlook http://japanheo.blogspot.com/ We are Feral Cats http://wearechikineko.blogspot.com/ ___ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Wolves were the first communists, or why canines taught hominids how to be social
On 4/15/10, CeJ wrote: > CB>>The great enhancement of sociality that language and > culture give bestows and enormous adaptive advantage on humans, from > the beginning of the species.<< > > > One thing that came up in my reading that throws a spanner in the > spandrel is this: based on the evidence we have now, we can say that > the Cro Magnons out of Africa weren't anymore biologically, socially > or culturally well-adapted for survival than the Neanderthals already > outside of Africa. In fact, for a long time Neanderthals were more > successful. They might even have been more intelligent. They show the > same signs of culture and language use that we look for in Cro > Magnons. ^^^ CB: Definitely. Cromagnons and Neanderthals both have culture. Culture arises long before them. Pithecanthropines have culture, It think. > > Now I have tried to recapitulate the theory that somehow Cro Magnons > developed socially beyond what Neanderthals had, and this might > account for their eventual success. One of the differences, at least > in some of the readings, was the 'domestication' of the wolf-dog. This > might have brought adaptive value to both Cro Magnons and to > wolf-coyote-dog (they are arguably all the same species). CB: Well, same genus (smile). They can't interbreed, which defines a species. ^ It might > reflect the fact that Cro Magnons had some sort of capability to adapt > themselves to living with another species. CB: It's an early domestication of animals. Interesting idea that this is an extension of the social. I imagine the early hominids were fantastic zoologists and botanists. They probably were very knowledgeable and coordinated with many , many other animal and plant species, both predators, prey and neutrals. Culture and language , myths , stories , kinship systems allow the accumulation of knowledge across generations. ^^^ Which then leads to a > number of things, but perhaps most importantly are more advanced > social structure (that takes care of individuals across 3 generations, > and takes in extended family to fulfill planned social activities for > survival, such as a bison hunt, or passing on information as to where > a herd of wild goats is going to be next spring, etc.). ^^^ CB; Yes, this is what I am getting at. ^^^ The strongest > analogy that can be found among other animals is that wolves can also > do this, although how they achieve this is not the same as how humans > would do it. How proto-humans did it, we don't know. ^^^ CB: Proto humans were in touch with many dead generations. ^^^ > > So Cro Magnon moved from being a bunch of small bands preying off > herds (and competing with wolves) to being a society that in-gathered > the bands for more ambitious activities--such as burning fires, to > create pasture, to increase bison populations so Cro Magnon and the > wolf-dogs could hunt/herd them. ^^^ CB: Usually, it is said that domestication of animals doesn't come until much later, like about 12,000 bc. ^^ > > I guess one question is: since wolves and humans shared the same range > and fed at the same niche, when did this inter-species cooperation > start? And why couldn't Neanderthals do this? > > In the case of the wolf, this animal shows the ability to cooperate > with other species besides humans. It cooperates with badgers because > badgers are better at digging out prey, while wolves are better at > driving to a place that a badger can dig it out. ^ CB: Well, you know knats on the backs of bison are cooperating species, too. > > It makes for interesting speculation anyway. > > > CJ > > > -- > ELT in Japan > http://eltinjapan.blogspot.com/ > > Japan Higher Education Outlook > http://japanheo.blogspot.com/ > > We are Feral Cats > http://wearechikineko.blogspot.com/ > > ___ > Marxism-Thaxis mailing list > Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu > To change your options or unsubscribe go to: > http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis > ___ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
[Marxism-Thaxis] Wolves were the first communists, or why canines taught hominids how to be social
CB>>The great enhancement of sociality that language and culture give bestows and enormous adaptive advantage on humans, from the beginning of the species.<< One thing that came up in my reading that throws a spanner in the spandrel is this: based on the evidence we have now, we can say that the Cro Magnons out of Africa weren't anymore biologically, socially or culturally well-adapted for survival than the Neanderthals already outside of Africa. In fact, for a long time Neanderthals were more successful. They might even have been more intelligent. They show the same signs of culture and language use that we look for in Cro Magnons. Now I have tried to recapitulate the theory that somehow Cro Magnons developed socially beyond what Neanderthals had, and this might account for their eventual success. One of the differences, at least in some of the readings, was the 'domestication' of the wolf-dog. This might have brought adaptive value to both Cro Magnons and to wolf-coyote-dog (they are arguably all the same species). It might reflect the fact that Cro Magnons had some sort of capability to adapt themselves to living with another species. Which then leads to a number of things, but perhaps most importantly are more advanced social structure (that takes care of individuals across 3 generations, and takes in extended family to fulfill planned social activities for survival, such as a bison hunt, or passing on information as to where a herd of wild goats is going to be next spring, etc.). The strongest analogy that can be found among other animals is that wolves can also do this, although how they achieve this is not the same as how humans would do it. How proto-humans did it, we don't know. So Cro Magnon moved from being a bunch of small bands preying off herds (and competing with wolves) to being a society that in-gathered the bands for more ambitious activities--such as burning fires, to create pasture, to increase bison populations so Cro Magnon and the wolf-dogs could hunt/herd them. I guess one question is: since wolves and humans shared the same range and fed at the same niche, when did this inter-species cooperation start? And why couldn't Neanderthals do this? In the case of the wolf, this animal shows the ability to cooperate with other species besides humans. It cooperates with badgers because badgers are better at digging out prey, while wolves are better at driving to a place that a badger can dig it out. It makes for interesting speculation anyway. CJ -- ELT in Japan http://eltinjapan.blogspot.com/ Japan Higher Education Outlook http://japanheo.blogspot.com/ We are Feral Cats http://wearechikineko.blogspot.com/ ___ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Wolves were the first communists, or why canines taught hominids how to be social
On 4/14/10, Carrol Cox wrote: > I like a speculation by the aughor of The Monkey in the Mirror (I forget > his name just now) as to the origin of language. First, he assumes > (which seems right to me) that the cpacity for language was a spandrel, > not a trait in itself seleced for. Then he tells the story of a tropp of > monkeys who lived by a beach, & most of their food was sandy. Some > infants begin washing it in the surf, and after a time the whole monkey > tribe was washing their food. It was a pure invention rather than an > evolved trait, and it was an invention of the young. Then he notes that > Neanderthals and humans shared the earth for about 60k years, but > suddenly in Europe, over a 5k period, the Neanderthals disappeared 40k > years ago: at the same time that symbolic as well as playful cave > paintings appeared. His sdpeculation: language was invented by children; > probably invented several times in different places before at some point > it caught on among adults, at which point it would have become > species-wide almost instantly. > > The idea of language as an invention emerging from play (which is a kind > of ritual) makes a lot of sense. For the most part language would have > been no selective advantage, and perhaps a handicap, for ealry > paleolithic life. They only needed signals, not symbols. (We are still > apt to use signals rather than symbols or discourse in emergency > situations.) And there have been reports of children ignored by the > adults developing their own language among themselves: it's a real > possibility. > > Carrol > ^^^ CB: My speculative story is that language and symboling was invented by mothers to communicate with their children, toys and such. On Carrol's discussion of the relationship of language to human adaptation and natural selective advantage, I'd say that language , culture and symbolling were _the_ major adaptive advantage for the human species _especially_ in its earliest years. Language may have arisen as a spandrel, but it very early on became selected for, i.e. gave enormous adaptive advantage over those species in a similar niche who did not have language. On the idea that the early humans "only needed signs" and in emergencies, their behavior in non-emergency and pre-emergency situations are just as important to adaptation and selective advantage as behavior in emergencies. "Emergencies" would be largely avoiding falling prey to predators. But in the role of predator-hunter and food gatherer, hunter-gatherer-forager, planning is critical, not reaction to ermergencies. And language would give great advantage in planning. Overall, all human labor including in that of the earliest humans is enhanced enormously by its _social_ nature. Language, myths, stories about ancestors hunting and gathering expands this social nature back generations. A hunting and gathering group of humans has its ancestors hunting and gathering with them because of language, myth, kinship systems, and this makes it highly social. The great sociality is an enormous adaptive advantage compared to species that do not have this sociality. The great enhancement of sociality that language and culture give bestows and enormous adaptive advantage on humans, from the beginning of the species. ___ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Wolves were the first communists, or why canines taught hominids how to be social
Tie these two sets of information together, and we might be able to theorize some plausible scenarios for Neanderthal extinction. When you look at Neanderthal vs. Cro Magnon, you have to ask why in particular Cro Magnon survives and carries on the human line, but Neanderthals go extinct. One expert on Neanderthals and Cro Magnons argues that Cro Magnons mastered fires, burnt woodlands (hunting in which Neanderthals were better at) which created at least pockets of plains, which were better for herds of animals to be hunted (and then later managed and hunted, and then later domesticated). This seems plausible because we know that MesoAmericans and AmerIndians did this--creating areas for larger buffalo populations. They later got the horse when the Spaniards brought them, so before this they would have had to hunt buffalos on foot with dogs. Another point: burning woodlands drives the wolves off the land (even if they adapt to prairie they lose their social cohesiveness and live in smaller numbers) but perhaps helps turn them into dogs? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neanderthal Additionally, Neanderthals evidently had little long-term planning when securing food. French caves show almost no salmon bones during Neanderthal occupancy but large numbers during Cro-Magnon occupancy. In contrast, Cro-Magnons planned for salmon runs months ahead of time, getting enough people together at just the right time and place to catch a lot of fish. Neanderthals appear to have had little to no social organization beyond the immediate family unit. Why Neanderthal psychology was different from the modern humans that they coexisted with for millennia is not known.[36] Due to the paucity of symbolism that Neanderthal artifacts show, Neanderthal language probably did not deal much with a verbal future tense, again restricting Neanderthal exploitation of resources. Cro-Magnon people had a much better standard of living than the hardscrabble existence available to Neanderthals. With better language skills and bigger social groups, a better psychological repertoire, and better planning, Cro-Magnon people, living alongside the Neanderthals on the same land, outclassed them in terms of life span, population, available spare time (as shown by Cro-Magnon art), physical health and lower rate of injury, infant mortality, comfort, quality of life, and food procurement. The advantages held by Cro-Magnon people let them by this time to thrive in worse climatic conditions than their Neanderthal counterparts. As weather worsened about 30,000 years ago, Jordan notes it would have taken only one or two thousand years of inferior Neanderthal skills to cause them to go extinct, in light of better Cro-Magnon performance in all these areas.[36] About 55,000 years ago, the weather began to fluctuate wildly from extreme cold conditions to mild cold and back in a matter of a few decades. Neanderthal bodies were well suited for survival in cold climate- their barrel chests and stocky limbs stored body heat better than the Cro-Magnons. However the rapid fluctuations of weather caused ecological changes that the Neanderthals could not adapt to. The weather changes were so rapid that within a lifetime the plants and animals that one had grown up would be replaced by completely different plants and animals. Neanderthal's ambush techniques would have failed as grasslands replaced trees. A large number of Neanderthals would have died during these fluctuations which maximized about 30,000 years ago. [102] Studies on Neanderthal body structures have shown than they needed more energy to survive than the Cro-Magnon man. Their energy needs were up to 350 calories more per day compared to the Cro-Magnon man. When food became scarce this calorie for survival difference played a major role in Neanderthal extinction. [102] Jordan states the Chatelperronian tool tradition suggests Neanderthals were making some attempts at advancement, as Chatelperronian tools are only associated with Neanderthal remains. It appears this tradition was connected to social contact with Cro-Magnons of some sort. There were some items of personal decoration found at these sites, but these are inferior to contemporary Cro-Magnon items of personal decoration and arguably were made more by imitation than by a spirit of original creativity. At the same time, Neanderthal stone tools were sometimes finished well enough to show some aesthetic sense.[36] As Jordan notes: "A natural sympathy for the underdog and the disadvantaged lends a sad poignancy to the fate of the Neanderthal folk, however it came about."[3 http://www.swampfox.demon.co.uk/utlah/Articles/origins1.html Paxton then takes this theory another step forward. By using carbon dating and other anthropological techniques it is known that mankind itself was undergoing a radical evolutionary change during the same period that dogs were being domesticated. We now know that there were actually two separate bipedal ape species aro
Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Wolves were the first communists, or why canines taught hominids how to be social
This is an absolutely fascinating page about wolves and other wolf-like canines. What strikes me most when reading it, is that the sheer utter success of the wolves and coyotes in being top-predator in all the places that humans eventually got to. It also shows me I know very little about wolves, but they are a fascinating group of beings to co-evolve with. It seems most likely that the coy-dogs of E. US are not coyote-dog mixes but red wolf-dog mixes, although the coyote is hybridizing with red wolves. I like the story of a coyote who made a point with a dog owner: he attacked the guys shepherd and didn't kill him, but left him 'emasculated'. http://hal_macgregor.tripod.com/kennel/wolves.html CJ ___ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Wolves were the first communists, or why canines taught hominids how to be social
And here we see the co-evolution of gesturing. Humans have gestures, wolves have gestures, but wolves do not understand human gestures. However, dogs do. The example of the dingo is most illuminating: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dingo#Social_behavior Other forms of communication During observations, growling made up 65% of the observed vocalizations. It was always used in an agonistic context, as well as for dominance and reactively as a defence sound. Similar to many other domestic dogs, a reactive usage of defensive growling could only be observed rarely or not at all. Growling very often occurs in combination with other sounds, and was observed almost exclusively in swooshing noises (similar to barking). Mix-sounds, mostly growl-mixes, are mostly emitted in an agonistic context.[15] During observations in Germany, there was a sound found among Australian dingoes which the observers called "Schrappen". It was only observed in an agonistic context, mostly as a defence against obtrusive pups or for defending resources. It was described as a bite intention, where the receiver is never touched or hurt. Only a silent, but significant, clashing of the teeth could be heard.[15] Aside from vocal communication, dingoes communicate like all domestic dogs via scent marking specific objects (e.g. spinifex) or places (waters, trails, hunting grounds, etc.) using chemical signals from their urine, feces, and scent glands. Males scent-mark more frequently than females, especially during the mating season. They also scent-rub whereby a dog rolls on its neck, shoulders, or back on something that is usually associated with food or the scent markings of other dogs.[4] Unlike wolves, dingoes can react to social cues and gestures from humans. [ ___ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Wolves were the first communists, or why canines taught hominids how to be social
A couple more things about wolves, coyotes and dingoes. The wolf pack in the wild tends to be an extended family group, but it is also important to remember it is across several generations. Second, a new pack of any of these species is formed between unrelated animals, most usually a male and female progenitor hooking up and starting. I think it is also possible that packs can fragment and the new groups disperse. While evolutionists have argued that one way the Eurasian gray wolf has survived the depredations of humans is by morphing into the domesticated dog, the related coyote (a new world evolutionary development) tends to thrive where the wolf has been extirpated. A complication on this is that in the areas that are well-inhabited by humans, coy-dogs are also part of the mix. And the dingoes of Australia are the descendants of domesticated dogs (when domesticated dogs were wolf- or coyote- like hunting, herding, guarding, fighting companions to humans) are now threatened by inter-breeding with escaped domesticated dogs of Australia, but I would bet the greater threat is simply human incroachment and predation. As for the sort of evolutionary pressure humans can exert on such species, it can happen quickly and profoundly. In E. Russia where families keep foxes in order to kill them for the fur and sell it for cash, a pattern emerged: many families would adopt a favorite fox kit because it was the cutest of the bunch. With the breeding of such 'cute' foxes, in several generations a new 'type' of fox emerged, one that looked much more like the human 'archetype' for 'dog'! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dingo#Social_behavior Social behavior A pair of dingoes Although dingoes are usually seen alone (especially in areas where they are persecuted), most belong to a social group whose members meet from time to time and are permanently together during the mating season in order to breed and raise pups. Dingoes are generally highly social animals and form, where possible, stable packs with clearly defined territories, which only rarely overlap with the territories of neighbouring packs. Intruders are mostly killed. These packs as a rule consist of 3–12 individuals (mostly the alpha-pair, as well as the current litter and the previous year's litter), who occupy a territory throughout the whole year. However, there are regional variants which show the flexible social structure of the dingo. Apparently, specialization on bigger prey boosts social behaviour and the formation of bigger groups. During times of drought, packs in Australia fragment and the mortality rate of all the members, regardless of social status, is very high.[8] Packs have different (but not completely separate) hierarchies for males and females, and the ranking order is mostly established through ritualized aggression, especially among males. Overawing and agonistic behaviour occurs only in a reduced state among Australian dingoes. Serious fights could only be observed rarely and under extreme circumstances. Dogs of higher rank show this behaviour from time to time, to confirm their status, while those of lower rank are more prone to show conflict-preventive behaviour.[15] Bigger packs are often splintered into sub-groups of flexible size. Additionally, lone individuals can occur in already occupied areas and can have loose contact with the groups, including participation in foraging for food. Desert areas have smaller groups of dingoes with a more loose territorial behaviour and sharing of the water sites.[31] On Fraser Island, dingoes had pack sizes of two to nine dogs with overlapping territories. However, they had a very high rate of infanticide, probably due to the high density of the island's dingo-population when compared to the size of the island and prey population.[27] Four dingoes on a research station in Germany Territory size and individual areas change over time depending on the availability of prey, but are not connected to pack size. Wild dogs only rarely move outside of their territories. The areas of individuals can overlap. When territories of neighbouring packs overlap, the packs tend to avoid contact. How big the territory and home range of dogs are depends for the most part on the availability of prey. Home ranges are generally stable, but can change over time due to outside circumstances or changes in social organization. Individuals who start to detach themselves from the pack have bigger home ranges at first before they finally disperse.[8] Territories around human dominated areas tend to be smaller and contain a relatively higher number of dingoes due to the better availability of food. According to studies in Queensland, the local wild dogs in urban areas have smaller territories of occasionally only two to three square-kilometers in diameter. There, the existence of a territory of a single dingo could be proven, which only consisted of a small patch of bush near the fringe of a primary school in the heart o
Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Wolves were the first communists, or why canines taught hominids how to be social
I wrote:>>However, as the canine research and speculation gets at: apes are pretty much socially selfish and have no extended social sense. Moreover, their grasp of meaningful gesture is less than canines.<< This could be a weakness in the argument if it could be shown that great apes do organize socially to the extent that wolf packs. Now the thing to remember about a wolf pack is that not only does it take in a considerable number of wolves, it doesn't necessarily just include close family, and perhaps more importantly, it organizes in order to hunt and manipulate large herds of animals for future hunts. I do not think there is anything comparable in the great apes. Certainly not orangutans. The meat-eating chimps supplement their diet, hunt monkeys in small groups, and do not take the meat back to the larger group. The isolated, vegetarian mountain gorillas look to be the most socially organized, but I'm not an expert on great apes. So perhaps another key shift here is how our homonid ancestors out of Africa became omnivores who tended more towards carnivore. It would be ironic that dogs helped us to become carnivores (which we now imitate by mass animal husbandry, culminating in the corporate burgers people eat everyday). While one of the ultimate carnivores, little desert cats, helped us to become grain eaters. Now there is a connection between the two in modern day life because our mass animal husbandry relies on mass production of grain (100% all-American CORNFED beef), and we re-pay our debt to the two species by feeding them unhealthy corn-based dry foods. CJ ___ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Wolves were the first communists, or why canines taught hominids how to be social
CC>>Then he notes that Neanderthals and humans shared the earth for about 60k years, but suddenly in Europe, over a 5k period, the Neanderthals disappeared 40k years ago: at the same time that symbolic as well as playful cave paintings appeared. His sdpeculation: language was invented by children; probably invented several times in different places before at some point it caught on among adults, at which point it would have become species-wide almost instantly.<< I think this theory is somewhat out of date--although the way these things work, it could be closer to right than current speculation. Humans and the great apes share somewhat similar vocalization abilities. But then again, a parrot can produce an understandable imitation of a patch of human speech. Which is not to say ape vocalizations are like parrots. However, as the canine research and speculation gets at: apes are pretty much socially selfish and have no extended social sense. Moreover, their grasp of meaningful gesture is less than canines. Current consensus about the Neanderthals is, guess what? They had speech. They had some form of spoken language. They could communicate vocally. They also hung out in small groups following wolf packs that preyed on herd animals. The arguments being made in some of the material I posted seem to be going in a different direction: the hominids that our direct ancestors somehow differentiated from being able to do what Neanderthals did, and one factor seems to be co-evolution of what became human and what became 'domesticated dogs' (the wolf-like, dingo-like canines that could hunt and herd cooperatively with humans--indeed, dingos are the descendants of domesticated dogs that went back to wild, and therefore they are a fascinating species between the wolf and the domesticated hunting-herding-guarding dogs). And somewhere along the line we no longer think of ourselves as selfish apes but rather as extended group animals, like the wolf-dogs we had earlier learned to follow in order to find large herds of edible herbivores and ruminants. The other thread that possibly converges here is the relationship between highly motivated, embodied language, starting with gesture and its subsequent development into gesturalized speech (which is how we speak today--try speaking without using your body in a patterned way, it can't be done--thank you Merleau Ponty for pointing it out). But the great apes lack this gesturing ability, and they then never developed the more abstract, somewhat arbitrary ability to, as CB would say, 'symbolize' (isn't that your choice of words CB?). It's of course very speculative but I like the idea of what ultimately separated us from the other hominids and the surviving great apes is our co-evolution with another highly intelligent, highly socialized animal, the wolf. That is can also be reconciled with and made to support the 'language as gesture' origins of human language also is appealing. And I can even cite direct evidence that indicates something tantalizing--that humans can communicate gesturally better with dogs (with the wolf-like Border Collie being the most exceptional example, perhaps matched by the even more wolf-like German Shepherd) than they can with great apes (which is not to say great apes do not have highly developed cognition or can not vocalize or can not communicate). CJ -- ELT in Japan http://eltinjapan.blogspot.com/ Japan Higher Education Outlook http://japanheo.blogspot.com/ We are Feral Cats http://wearechikineko.blogspot.com/ ___ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Wolves were the first communists, or why canines taught hominids how to be social
I like a speculation by the aughor of The Monkey in the Mirror (I forget his name just now) as to the origin of language. First, he assumes (which seems right to me) that the cpacity for language was a spandrel, not a trait in itself seleced for. Then he tells the story of a tropp of monkeys who lived by a beach, & most of their food was sandy. Some infants begin washing it in the surf, and after a time the whole monkey tribe was washing their food. It was a pure invention rather than an evolved trait, and it was an invention of the young. Then he notes that Neanderthals and humans shared the earth for about 60k years, but suddenly in Europe, over a 5k period, the Neanderthals disappeared 40k years ago: at the same time that symbolic as well as playful cave paintings appeared. His sdpeculation: language was invented by children; probably invented several times in different places before at some point it caught on among adults, at which point it would have become species-wide almost instantly. The idea of language as an invention emerging from play (which is a kind of ritual) makes a lot of sense. For the most part language would have been no selective advantage, and perhaps a handicap, for ealry paleolithic life. They only needed signals, not symbols. (We are still apt to use signals rather than symbols or discourse in emergency situations.) And there have been reports of children ignored by the adults developing their own language among themselves: it's a real possibility. Carrol ___ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Wolves were the first communists, or why canines taught hominids how to be social
Cats may have helped the age of exploration as well. They kept the rats off the ships, the sailors ate their safely stored food, and perhaps the sailors gave the cats some fish they caught (how else to explain a small desert or forest cat liking pellagic fish?). When things got desperate, I would suppose a few cats got eaten too along the way. OTOH, a cat can go a lot longer than a human without freshwater or food. CJ ___ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Wolves were the first communists, or why canines taught hominids how to be social
Only the world wide waste could take me this far. I had to click one last google search result, just to find out that naivete about the danger of wolves turns out to be still yet another STALINIST PLOT. From gesturing grunting hominids to blogging grunting hominid nonsense-makers in something like 100,000 years. Evolution just has to be progressive. http://canadahuntingtoday.com/blog/index.php/2008/12/30/commentary-the-dangers-of-wolves/ To the above one must add two factors, the first being: the global impact of a very popular book by a famous Canadian author, Farley Mowat, depicting wolves as harmless, lovable mouse eaters. While Canadian biologists did not fall for this prank , the literati did and are still falling for it. Secondly, this book was most welcome to the Communist Party in Russia, which had systematically suppressed information about man-killing wolves since 1917, but especially during and after World War Two, in order to forestall the call for arms by the populace. So western environmentalists and eastern communists shouted with one voice praising the harmlessness of wolves. The Russian scientist Mikhail P. Pavlov disclosed the matter in a book on wolves after the fall of Communism . His work, upon translation into Norwegian, was denounced with furor leading to the responsible ministry destroying the translation. It was subsequently published in Swedish . An English translation lingered unpublished, as nobody wanted to touch it. It has recently been published . The historical and current evidence indicates that one can live with wolves where such are severely limited in numbers on an ongoing basis, so that there is continually a buffer of wild prey and livestock between wolves and humans, with an ongoing removal of all wolves habituating to people. The current notion that wolves can be made to co-exist with people in settled landscapes (in multi-use landscapes surrounding houses, farms, villages and cities) is not tenable. Under such conditions wolves becoming territorial will confront people when such walk dogs or approach wolf-killed livestock. In addition even well fed habituated wolves will test people by approaching such, initially nipping at their clothing and licking exposed skin, before mounting a clumsy first attack that may leave victims alive but injured, followed by serious attacks. While a healthy man can fight off a lone wolf with some chances o ___ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Wolves were the first communists, or why canines taught hominids how to be social
Of course the next chapter has to be something about co-evolution with cats. With mass storage of grain, domesticated cats provide a necessary service--apparently it helped to keep incidence of plague down too. This co-evolution is not as long, but I do note one interesting aspect: convergence of diet. If you check the ingredients of modern-day cat food, often the first one listed is our first one listed: CORN. Cats are not very good at making use of carbohydrates for energy, they are carnivores that best use protein for energy. So now we see once-unheard-of health issues with cats--like diabetes. Feeding corn to cows is a misuse of their stomachS as well, but in the opposite direction. As one of the professors on the documentary 'King Corn' says, "Feeding corn to cows is like putting humans on a diet of candybars." That's ironic because Homo Sapiens Americanus seems to be moving towards such a diet (with the additon of high fructose CORN syrup in nearly everything). And ever since 1973 the plan has been to force export it to the rest of the world. CJ -- ELT in Japan http://eltinjapan.blogspot.com/ Japan Higher Education Outlook http://japanheo.blogspot.com/ We are Feral Cats http://wearechikineko.blogspot.com/ ___ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
[Marxism-Thaxis] Wolves were the first communists, or why canines taught hominids how to be social
If our predecessors developed full-blown spoken language (from gesture to speech) while 'domesticating' dogs (from wolves), perhaps we need to reconsider the possibilties for co-evolution, with one result being full-blown language for humans. Consider that wolves have a more complex social structure than the great apes, and they understand human gesturing better than great apes do. Something has been going on here. Our destiny was to become post-modern humankind, and the canines became post-modern pets (and escaped wolf extinction). http://www.uwsp.edu/psych/s/275/Science/Coevolution03.pdf excerpts follow: Lupification of Canids When we talk about our own primate descent, about the hominization of Australopithecines, we are easily led to believe that our ancestors had nothing better to do than to leave their beastly existence behind and let those not worthy of becoming “humans” die out (Neanderthals, bushmen, or the like). In spite of accepting the new creed of Darwinian natural selection , we find comfort in our cherished belief to be fruitful, multiply, replenish the earth, and subdue it… to have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth. In other words, instead of seeing ourselves as part of the complex system of nature, we continue to pretend to be the very crown of creation. If wolves could dig up the dens of their ancestors in Europe, Asia, and North America, sniffing at the old bones of their dead and the bones left of their meals, what would they find? How would wolves view the lupification of their canid ancestors? --- Only during the last few thousand years did humans propel themselves in mass to the top of the food pyramid, displacing the canid pack hunters. -- In a fair comparison, Neanderthals were superior to wolves only in (1) having greater cognitive ability and foresight (reflected especially in their scouting and scavenging skills), (2) seeing better at longer distances (having an eye level twice that of wolves, able to cover four times an area in the steppe), and (3) being able to hit a distant target. The latter is especially significant in dealing with herds of ungulates, which tend not to run away from every little disturbance, but approach a serious predator with curiosity: --- Wolfkind Today Once a few Neanderthals had learned to live with wolves and adopt the pack algorithm (going beyond the close ties of kinship, learning to cooperate closely, and sharing risks) many alternative ways to make a living became available. Within this process of coevolution, technology transfer and diversification began to thrive. Humans became better gatherers, better hunters, more successful fishermen, gardeners, astronauts, you name it. Wolves became hunting companions, guards, sled pulls, beasts of burden, baby substitutes, toys, food, human substitutes in experiments, and the first “astronauts” to circle our planet. Today, man sits atop the food pyramid throughout the entire world. Reindeer are mostly out of sight, and of all the non-human mammalian species that roamed Eurasia 1 Ma BP, wolves were the most successful in increasing their numbers as dogs, that is, presumably followed by the aurochs -- Wolves meeting humans in a phase of the latter’s apprenticeship in wolf pastoralism and, in a subsequent process of coevolution, wolves becoming dogs and early humans becoming modern man, is a good alternative hypothesis to the current theories of domestication with man conquering beasts, including wolves, through cognitive superiority and to the bootstrapping theory of hominization with man domesticating himself (e.g., BUDIANSKY’s idea that wolves weaseled their way into our hearts as scavengers). --- As noted above, humankind separated from chimpanzee- like tree-dwelling and fruit-eating ancestors in Africa around 6 Ma BP and moved as true humans (Homo erectus) into the open savanna. In the absence of fruit trees, early humans turned into omnivorous gatherers and scavengers. Thanks to their superior brain power, they learned to discriminate among a multitude of resources, to avoid peril, e.g., by carrying a big stick and speaking softly (at least, at first) and to bluff the fierce predators into deserting their quarry. As cunning scavengers, they moved into the plains of Eurasia during the mild interglacials of the Ice Age, culminating in the successful Neanderthal of Europe and adjoining Asia. Meanwhile, around 150 ka BP the tribe of the legendary African Eve had emerged, and her daughters entered the Neanderthal domain. At this point, a strange coincidence occurred: at some time during the last ice age, our ancestors teamed up with pastoralist wolves (Figure 6). First, some humans adopted the wolves’ life style as herd followers and herders of reindeer, horses, and other hoofed animals. Wolves and humans had found their match, and “dogs” diversified and moved into other human culture
