From: L' Ermit (lhermit@hotmail.com)
Date: Sat Jan 12 2002 - 07:14:34 MST
[Hermit 2] I have forwarded, after some minor shuffling and reformatting,
this interesting conversation with "Karl Hallowell" <khallow@hotmail.com>,
as he seems to be the only person who picked up on the deliberate puzzle I
set in the original email. The issues he raises are interesting. I have
added his name to the cc list as he is not subscribed to the CoV. Please cc
him and you reply.
[Karl Hallowell 0] I stumbled across a recent email by you on the "virus"
mailing list (I'm not clear what this list is - propagation of desireable
memes?) and read a comment that I'd like to see elaborated:
[Hermit 1] The Church of Virus has a descriptive website at
http://virus.lucifer.com. Our archives may be found at
http://forum.javien.com.
[Hermit 1] We are a rational, atheist group, providing a forum which, while
having the core function of discussing the evolution of memes and more
generally, Darwin's "dangerous idea out of control", also serves as a place
to learn & teach and a more general discussion and support forum for our
members - hence "church."
[Karl Hallowell 1] Ah, I've forgotten about the Church of Virus. Been a
while since I last looked.
[Karl Hallowell 0 quotes Hermit 0*] This is the fact that prior to
approximately 120-130 kyears BCE we could not have talked even if we had
wanted to, as our throat/tongue structure would not have allowed us to. We
do know that we developed our ability to speak somewhere around then (from
skull and jaw muscle anchorages), at the cost of becoming able to choke -
which suggests that being able to speak was one of the three most costly
selection processes we have indulged in. And that also gives us the answer
to the question of what is "most important" to humans, as it was not until
we learnt to communicate by speech that we began a cycle of rapid
development...
[Karl Hallowell 0] "one of the three most costly selection processes"?
[Karl Hallowell 0] So my question is what are the other two of the three
most costly selection processes? I'm guessing that the brain is probably the
most costly since its large size results (among other things) in a lengthy
growth stage for young human beings and causes significant troubles for
mothers giving birth. At a guess, the second would be culture and the social
environment and rules surrounding mating and child rearing. A third would be
the generally weak physique of the human body. I'm pretty sure it couldn't
be diminished sense of smell and hearing.
[Hermit 1] I deliberately placed that "throw-away" comment in the hope of
inducing exactly the line of thought you followed, you certainly get a
passing grade and I'm sure would be welcome in the Church of Virus* <grin>.
[Karl Hallowell 1] Sneaky sneaky. ;-)
[Hermit 1] Now as to "costs" - naturally the following is my opinion - but I
think that it is well supported.
[Hermit 1] You are spot-on on the number one trade-off having been
brainsize, as even with the soft skull of the neonate, and our extended
(compared to other apes) pelvic girdle (which in itself introduces huge
problems of leverage (hip-replacement is necessarily the most frequent
geriatric procedure for females)), it is still only just possible for most
mothers to give birth (and even so, we have a very high maternal and infant
mortality rate due to frequent difficulties in the delivery process), and as
you mention, the human infant takes far longer than any other animal to
mature - which imposes great costs and risks to the community as, like other
apes, we value (and will generally defend at the cost of adult lives) our
young.
[Hermit 1] The second most expensive was the transition from a predominantly
horizontal to a vertical orientation, which allowed us to see further than
most apes when foraging, yet slowed us down, places huge strains on all of
our organs (especially the heart), makes us far more prone to accidental
injury (less compact, less aware of our extremities, involved the loss of
our prehensile foot capabilities (cf Leaky, Kenya, hominid tracks)), and
makes spinal injuries the most common of all self-inflicted damage.
[Hermit 1] The third-most expensive transition was speech, due to the
aforementioned greatly increased probability of choking to death. So far as
I am aware, we are the only animal that suffers from this problem.
[Hermit 1] As to your other suggestions:
[Hermit 1] I don't see our culture as being different enough from other apes
(cf the studies of sexual and social interaction in e.g. bonobos) to allow
us to assert a cost here.
[Karl Hallowell 1] Hmm, I still think there's a number of directions that
can be taken here. Apes don't need to hold down a steady job (often with
some sort of health risk) while most humans do. Some of these jobs involve
significant responsibilities as well. Look at mortality causes among the 45
and under set (roughly the potential fertile group). Two leading causes of
accidental death are automobile accidents and suicides.
[Karl Hallowell 1] You can't kill someone with automobiles unless you have
automobiles (involving a high degree of sophistication in a society).
Suicides seem to me to be driven by social pressures - not sure what suicide
rates are like in the average primate population, but I bet they are much
lower (I dimly recall some anecdotal stuff so it happens). Finally, our diet
(and environment) has deviated tremendously since the development of
agriculture leading to increased rates of obesity, diabeties, alcoholism,
and tooth decay.
[Karl Hallowell 1] A condensation of the above ideas would be that human
society has provided a set of rewards for humans to perform various highly
specialized tasks involving risk and responsibility. Also, current society
is very insensitive to certain types of common risks. Our diet is very
different from what our evolutionary ancestors ate. Finally, the relatively
common occurance of suicide (and possibly other stress-related illnesses)
indicates a society that brings a large amount of pressure on some of its
members.
[Karl Hallowell 1] So the costs I see here are: 1) we assume risks and
responsibilities completely unrelated to our needs, 2) our bodies (and
eating behavior) is mismatched somewhat with our diet, 3) our society brings
a greater deal of pressure on some of its members - to the point of suicide.
[Karl Hallowell 1] Finally, we spend a inordinate amount of resources on
mating rituals and tricks for inproving the chances of successful mating.
Look at the costs of makeup, dates, clothes, fancy cars, etc. No other
primate conducts an expensive wedding (and exchange of gifts and rings) that
costs the bride and groom effectively months of their life (though gifts are
common in primate societies). Infertile couples now have access to many
expensive medical treatments for getting pregnant and creating offspring.
Education is another expense (though usually shouldered by society).
[Karl Hallowell 1] In fact, if you consider the culmative health costs of
society with the costs associated with mating, giving birth to and raising
off-spring (in a social "acceptable" manner), this probably is the second
most expensive selection process in modern societies, but not in some
primitive societies. My guess is that originally, agricultural societies
sacrificed overall health for increased fertility and vastly increased
carrying capacity. People then had more time and resources (particularly for
the elites that controled the society) to devote to reproduction. However,
medical and nutritional advances in recent centuries have lead to a society
that is physically healthier than a corresponding primitive human society
(and oddly enough less fertile).
[Hermit 2] I do see Kurt Hallowell's comments above as being somewhat off
the mark but worth discussiong. As I perceive it, the issues he raises are
"choices" rather than evolutionary adaptation. To my mind, almost all humans
are in a much better position (health, life-expectancy, nutrition, choices)
than apes (and suspect that the apes would agree). I think that cars offer
benefits (relatively fast, no horseshit and a lower ecological and economic
impact than animal drawn vehicles) as well as disadvantages (they are smelly
and relatively inefficient) but where we have clearly decided that cars are
better than the available alternatives. Suicide is a choice which
individuals make and while some societies may put more pressure on people
than others, we have the societies we choose to create - and it is not too
difficult to choose to live differently than the majority. We also eat the
food we choose - and the fact that we are in a better position to satisfy
our desire more than other animals - who share our sweet tooth - is good.
Perhaps what we need to learn to do is to make better decisions for
ourselves.
[Hermit 1] I do see the yielding of the frontal lobes in order to think
(rather than using it for scent differentiation) as having been a very
worthwhile trade - but I admit that I may be prejudiced <grin>.
[Hermit 1] PS May I ask where you saw this letter?
[Karl Hallowell 1] I was looking for the archives for the Foresight Exchange
(or "FX") when I slid briefly into the Church pews. FX (so I understand) was
originally created by people who had a long running hand in the Church of
Virus. I'm thinking of Sean Morgan, Robin Hanson, Mark and Sean Morgan (to
name a few). Perhaps, the names ring a bell? Some of them currently work at
Javien which hosts the virus mailing list as well as the mailing list I was
looking for. You can view the workings of the Foresight Exchange at
www.ideosphere.com.
[Karl Hallowell 1] Having mentioned FX, you won't be able to get rid of me
until I have explained it a bit. Basically, it's a betting market (operation
is very similar to a stock market) where the participants are betting on the
outcome of a number of decidable outcomes. Eg, a mundane example would be
that the US balances the "on budget" portion of its budget in 2002
(something that the US currently isn't doing). Those who guess right often
tend to accumulate money and thus their opinions hold more weight. It's
pretty neat way not just to estimate what the future looks like, but also is
a nice way to keep an issue in the public mind.
[Hermit 1] *Although I should warn you that we do ocassionally indulge in
magnificent flame-fests where the language sometimes becomes less than
decorous - and I am not infrequently somewhere near the center of them. It
all helps to alleviate boredom, supress stupidity and promote consideration.
[Karl Hallowell 1] Heh, I've been on that kind of thing before.
[Karl Hallowell 1] If you have time for flame wars on the virus mailing
list, then you certainly have some time for FX. There's no excuse! :-P
[Hermit 1] PPS If you do not object, may I post this message to the forum
after a suitable gap to see if anyone else notices the above? If you prefer
I would supress your name and/or email address.
[Karl Hallowell 1] Sure go ahead and mention my name/address. I'm not
subscribed to the list so I wouldn't mind being CC'd.
[Hermit 2] His contact details are: Karl Hallowell <khallow@hotmail.com>
_________________________________________________________________
MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos:
http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Sep 25 2002 - 13:28:39 MDT