Why Humans?
I am drawn to unusual articles from sources like National Geographic that challenge the very foundations of our existence on this planet. Today I saw an article that, in some ways, does a better job of challenging those foundations than most. I think we all understand that human life began, for one reason or another in East Africa. A great deal of recent research indicates that this precept is a bit mistaken in that anthropological evidence shows that while still focused on the African continent, much of this early man activity was from a variety of tribes from various parts of Africa, some as distant from Kenya as Morocco. I have never seen much to disclaim that man’s origins are from Africa, so I assume that there was some swamp juice near Africa that made that evolutionary transition possible there more than anywhere else. I feel that if there was evidence to the contrary it would have surfaced by now.
But that man started in Africa and gradually migrated through the Fertile Crescent into the steppes of Asia Minor and from there to Europe to the west, to China , Russia, the Bearing Straights and the Americas to the east and through the subcontinent to Australia eventually to the south seems reasonably clear. But what might have happened in Africa to make that all happen is harder to say. The article I just read is about a recent discovery in a dig in Kenya where they found several curious things. They found the fossilized remains of a butchered hippopotamus alongside a set of stone tools clearly used for carving up the carcass. Two added facts made that discovery very unique. The first was that it was all set is a sludge that was carbon dated to be over 300,000 years old, older than any other known stone tools ever found and before a time when current anthropological thinking placed the origins of modern Homo Sapiens. The second factoid was that rather than Homo Sapien bones at the site, they found hominin bones. Hominins are a now-extinct species of ape-like creatures that pre-dated the rise on Homo Sapiens and were generally thought to be less able to use cognitive capabilities to do things like make stone tools. That thinking is now changed.
In fact, this latest discovery pushes back the timing of the evolution of mankind and gives rise to an interesting question. We have always thought that Homo Sapiens have prospered and dominated because we were the smartest species on earth. We knew there were larger or more fierce species, but none who had the mental capability to problem solve complex survival problems. This new discovery suggests otherwise. In fact, what this tells us in anthropological terms is that while we were out there hitting trees with sticks wondering how to kill the wildebeest, the Hominins were way ahead of us, turning rocks into sharp instruments to help hunt, kill and butcher other mammals. Previous to this discovery, it was thought that the sharp and large teeth of Hominins allowed them to simply do what other predators do, which is to bite their way to a successful meal.
The interesting evolutionary issue with all of this is that when one species makes an advance as meaningful as the use of tools, it is generally very hard for another species to overcome that differential. So, the anthropological conjecture goes that something caused Homo Sapiens to gain an edge over Hominins and take back the advantage that their slower-wittedness had resigned them to. Homo Sapiens were the underdogs and yet they prevailed over Hominins, who have died off into obscurity and left the world to only rediscover their dominance by sheer luck after 300,000 years. At that time, there were nine species of humans around the world. There were the Neanderthals of Europe, the Denisovans of Asia, the Homo Erectis in Indonesia, the Homo Rhodesiensis from Central Africa, Homo Naledi from South Africa, Homo Luzonensis from the Philippines, Homo Florensiensis also from Indonesia and the so-called Red Cave Deer People of China. But it was Homo Sapiens from Kenya that prevailed, leaving them alone as humans for the last 10,000 or so years.
Anthropologists have looked for another mass extinction events of natural origins to explain how the other eight species of humans were eradicated, but have been unable to find one. Instead, they have determined that Homo Sapiens are the cause of what they are calling the sixth mass extinction event. While we like to think of this mass extinction as starting with many endangered species that we have systematically annihilated over the past hundred or so years, and perhaps our very ecosystem that sustains life through our industrialization efforts over the past one hundred fifty years, it probably began well before that. The thinking that is coming to light, aided by these new archeological finds, is that Homo Sapiens, who are generally considered to be the most dangerous species ever to walk the earth started their mass extinction by eliminating the other eight sub-species of humans, who they saw as competing for the same resources for survival. This did not happen necessarily by sheer force, but was probably the result of very devious tactics. It is generally considered intrinsic to human nature that we have genocidal tendencies. We are territorial, violent and intolerant, and some would say that this is the true mark of humanity. History shows us that violence has been with us since our most primitive moments. Long before the use of modern weapons of war, mankind was in the business of annihilating his competition with a vengeance.
And what is our most dangerous weapon as humans? Some might think it is the gunpowder that allows for projectiles or perhaps nuclear fusion, but the current thinking is that the cognitive ability to communicate and strategize is by far the most powerful and destructive weapon we possess and has always been so. Our ability to manipulate and deceive are indeed at the forefront and the threat has always been and continues to be that of population growth. This all sounds a lot like what I hear happening every day on cable news between Fox News and MSNBC. We live in an eight billion person world and while none of us like that, we seem to have two approaches to that problem. It all makes me wonder if we are now splitting into two new evolutionary sub-species that are doomed to combat one another to extinction over this population growth issue.
In order to try to eliminate the politics, I would call the two the Haters and the Lovers. The Haters feel helping others unlike them is illogical. the Lovers want to help all mankind, whether that is possible of not. The Haters believe that it is their God-given right to bear arms to ostensibly protect themselves, but ultimately also to attack those that they feel threaten them and their growth. The Lovers want weaponry banned and feel there is no justification for violence and want us to work together to give every human a chance to prosper. Haters think Lovers are stupid and Lovers think haters are cruel. The question is, which of these tendencies is more human and which will prevail.
Unfortunately for Lovers, the history of mankind favors the Haters. But then again, the evolution of mankind has created a dependence on collectivism against the ravages of the natural world. That makes the ways of the Lovers more easily identifiable with prosperity since peace is a far better medium for growth than war. It is fairly easy to prove empirically that the policies of Lovers creates better economic and political outcomes than those of the Haters, but that never seems to alter the thinking of the Haters because their base of calculus is far narrower and, by its nature far more short-sighted. Haters care less about the long term than do Lovers and Lovers are more prepared to make sacrifices in the short term. Who is to say which is wiser?