[

ASM 101
Human origins and the development of culture

Gould made a comment about the fact that what separates us from the rest of nature is our ability to talk about ourselves and the rest of nature. We are the only ones having a discussion about things like evolution.

His talk focused on our desire in western culture to continue to want progress and direction. While Gould argues this is not the intention of nature nor Darwin, we as a society don't want neutrality. We wish to still place ourselves at the top of the ladder of progress so to speak.

Gould used the analogy of the Eifel Tower. He was drawing from Mark Twain in saying that we really represent only the thin crust of paint on the top of the Eifel Tower in relation to the rest of evolution. We can only conclude with this view that there is a progression up to the point where we are the paint...in other words the foundation of nature is there for us to exist at the top. Gould argues this is a false view. More to follow....

In response to the bit about the paint at the top of the tower, it's true that, as a species, we're actually less sucessful than even the Boisei were.. ^_^ --there's a lovely science-fiction book and Britcom series based on the last human in the universe(maybe).. --he was in stasis for three billion years, and even the clean-living dinosaurs didn't last that long, so they're sure the Human race is dead.. ^_^ --it's hilarious, check it out.. --er, but anyway, this is all irrelevant..

How are we different from (other) animals? --well, if you're talking about physically, it's those four Genes.. ..once they figure out what those genes(the ones we've not got in common with chimps) *are*, they'll know. --however, nobody really cares about that. --We've got an inexplicable desire to prove we're even *more* different.. --if anyone knows *why* this is so important to us, let me know? --it feels like insecurity of a sort..

Anyway, we're obviously looking for an inherent mental or social condition.. --Tool use doesn't work. Animals use and create tools. Animals can also manipulate things in their minds, and then enact them in the real world(as a kid, I read a wonderful book named _The Human Side of Animals_.. ..well worth reccomending to anyone in elementary school, or anyone who likes neat stories about animals..). --true, as far as we know, Humans have a far superior ability to do these things.. ..but that's only a matter of scale. The frontal sexual position also doesn't work--but, that was an idiotic idea in the first place.. --the bonobo's don't use toys in copulation either--but that's only because it's not physically conceivable.. (Ever try to gnaw a stick smooth? --but, I'm getting crude.. --and no, I havn't either.) --The ability to love--well, in one of our texts, they mention that a scientific study of the universality(new word!) of romantic love won the Golden Fleece award. --I think it deserved it. (Fleece as in cheat) --animals obviously have emotions.. ..if you've ever had a dog, you already know that. --and, lastly, the ability to talk, teach, or wear digital watches is also not unique to us humans. --If there are any theories I havn't mentioned yet, I give them a courtesy rasberry in passing..

Of course, this is where I give *my* opinion.. ^_^

As far as I'm concerned, the jury isn't out yet on whether humans have instincts.. ..it seems likely, though. Assuming we do have instincts, we're obviously not slaves to them.. --Culture, I'd go so far as to say, is a much greater force in our lives..

Do animals ever resist their instincts? --In the experiment where the chimp was given a choice of piles of gumdrops, and whichever he chose would go to his opponent, he couldn't seem to resist his urge to grab the bigger pile.. ..even though resisting would have benefitted him. --The idea of deferred gratification isn't alien to chimps, but it was obvious the choosing chimp *wasn't* doing it in exchange for future favors. --the animal was being thwarted--by it's instincts. --chimps *do* share.. ..but, I'd argue that sharing *is* an instinct.. --one reinforced, rather than replaced, by the idea of deferred gratification.

Are there any animals that can act against their instincts? --there are dogs that will risk their lives to save their owners. --is this against the instinct of self-preservation? --or is it merely that another, stronger, instinct won out? --the herd instinct, for instance?

Anyway, that's my submission.

Galen

Martin Harris, in his book Our Kind, says, "I am prompted...to raise the question of just how 'human' the anatomically modern sapiens of Kasies River and Qafzeh really were. Did they posses the program for human linguistic competence?" Harris makes a distinct correlation between being human and the capacity for language. While I could never begin to explain it, I think this is a key issue in the puzzle of what makes us human.

Language gives us the ability to be more expressive and the ability to pass on information more efficiently. This effective transfer of data gives more thrust to cultural evolution. Through language we are able to work on a social basis with other humans and form larger alliances for support. Language is another tool for survival.

But in the same paragraph from which I quoted Harris earlier, he suggests a troubling question to me. He explains, as many believe, that "prior to 45,000-35,000 years ago the linguistic and cultural capacities of anatomically modern sapiens were not yet fully formed and were no more advanced than the Neandertals." So does this mean that early modern sapiens were not "human"? Or were they "human", but just not so advanced as us now? And if early sapiens were "human", but had a linguistic capacity the same as the Neandertal, could the Neandertal have been "human", too?

So if language even was the key to being human, then the question would still remain as to what classifies language? Is a system of grunts and hand gestures a language? Surely Neandertal, and even Bosei could communicate by some system like this. So does that make them human? But an ape can do this too. So it comes back to the question of scale. We can do it to a better degree.

I cannot explain how language makes us human, but it is through language, I think, that we get culture, which gives rise to learning, which produces progress. And the progression that "humans" have made in this world is what makes us distinct from any other living creature.

Homo Sapiens: The species within a group of animals called primates who have evolved into an animal with the abilities to communicate and utilize a highly specialized brain. With this technology followed reasoning, learning, and of course an unlimited amount of curiosity.

Are these characteristics of complete uniqueness only to the Homo Sapiens? My opinion would be no. You can find expections in all other definitions except one. The only clear definition explaining the uniqueness of the Homo Sapien lie's in their DNA sequencing.

This is in response to Galen's question: Why is it so important for us to prove we're different than animals? I think it is true that it is an insecurity in the human race.

As we continue to study the evolution of all life on this earth, we are learning more about those that did not survive to the present day. And we learn that we as humans are rather new to this world and that actually we, as 'modern' humans are even more new. So our existence on this earth is small compared with many other things.

So actually, we as humans, while we think we are so smart, are quite insignificant in the whole evolution process of the world. Living creatures have come and gone over all the billions of years, so whose to say that we, now that we have come, will not soon go?

I think it was answered in the first lines of Galen's comment, that we, as a species are less successful than the Boisei were. Which I question how that is, but it supports my point anyway. Dinosaurs were great and yet disappeared a long time ago. The Neandertal was very strong, but could not out live the fragil-boned homo sapien. Is it just a matter of time before homo sapiens disappear, too?

I think by proving that we are so different, then we may gain a sense of signifigance, though it may be a false sense. By proving that this difference makes us so much more intelligent that all animals we gain a sense of security in thinking that it could not be possible for us, also, to become extinct.

Anthropology Discussion Web : ASM 101 : Discussion Area
service provided by

URL: http://www.mcli.dist.maricopa.edu/proj/anthro/asm101/discuss.html