Showing posts with label Jane Goodall. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Jane Goodall. Show all posts

Sunday, January 24, 2016

THE BEAUTIFUL FOREHEAD


Here’s the message of the “radical anthropologists” as simply as I can state it with my current level of understanding.

The enormously expanded knowledge about human fossils, the genome of various homonins, the neurology of brains, the weather of the past, molecular geology, have presented an amazing wealth of information about the deep past before there was writing, or speech, or anything resembling apes — much less hominins.  We’re far beyond the days when educated people still believed the Bible was a literal account or even that a mega-humanoid made little humans out of clay and breathed life into them.  But there are echoes.  

A little group of people who studied ancient skulls of humans and their predecessors were very aware of the well-known fact that at some point there was an expansion of the brain in what came to be called the “pre-frontal cortex” that pushed out the skull into a forehead.  Experts know that the brain responds to use by creating more neurons, so strongly that like a dandelion pushing up the cement over it, the neurons can bulge the skull.  But what use did these very early pre-humans have for the part of the brain we know houses things like the “working platform” of the senses, empathy through bits like mirror cells, ethics, self-management, much of what makes us human— all the things that JFK’s sister and Tennessee Williams’ sister lost when they were lobotomized.  A lobotomy erases a million millennia of evolution.


by Lucian Freud (l.) and Carracci (r.)

Trauma to this area means a higher likelihood of being involved in violence, more likelihood of ending up in prison, less ability to hold a job or develop a relationship with another human.  I had both a brother and a father who suffered “closed skull trauma”.  My brother fell and my father was in a car crash in 1948.  If you’re keeping up with the conversation about football and boxing damage, you know what I’m talking about.  It can be very subtle and develop over time.  Both had rage attacks, but none became violent except that my father spanked us for small infractions.  My brother was dependent on my mother to guide him, though he seemed normal, and my father changed into an erratic and domineering but passive man. 

What these anthropologists wanted to know was what made that forehead area bulge in the first place.  It happened too early in evolution to be speech, too early to be tool-making, way too early to be agriculture.  At the time the species involved were hunter-gatherers, moving around in small groups, just on the verge of figuring out how to use fire.  Once cooking was invented, the human body suddenly took in far more calories of higher quality, easier to digest, extra energy for thought.  Brains burn calories rapidly. 

They stood up, which meant they could carry and throw, and some of the gender dimorphism faded, since the massive jaws and robust bodies of males were not so crucial.  A smaller area could supply enough food for more people so the group size expanded a bit.  This is what we call “the Stone Age” because most of the fossils from the time are stone.  Bones, too.  Body-stone.  These Brit scientists speak of “lithic times” — “lith” means stone.


The trouble is that aside from flint-knapping edged tools of enormous effectiveness (surgeons have reported that flint-knapped scalpels exceed metal edges in sharpness) and considerable beauty, the rest of their material culture has disappeared except for remnants in deep caves.  No one was making pecked out or painted images yet.  The remnants were incredibly stable — nothing seems to have changed for another million years and more.  So — these scientists asked — if these hunter-gatherers have this pre-frontal cortex with its developing working platform, essentially the brain’s dashboard, and we can’t see anything physical, what might have been going on in those neurons.  What are we missing?  What is the dashboard managing?

Their answer was social collaboration, partly for hunting and partly for relationships among themselves.  Of course, a big part of the relationships was managing hunting and the products of hunting and gathering.  “You go with Herb to track grazers and Alf and I will circle the mountain to see what’s ripe now.”  When they got back, they shared out the food, in conformity with the group's customs.  You want to be quiet while hunting, so a gesture language developed.

Some of this was happening before physical evolution created the larynx/pharynx shapes and placements that allow language sounds: the vowels; the hisses, stops, smacks, trills, and clicks of consonants.  I listen to my cats communicate  quite clearly without words.  The Striped Terror bursts through the cat flap and announces, “I’m back safely!”  The Dust Bunny goes looking for his beloved Terror, calling, “Where are you?”  More relentlessly than any alarm clock, the two of them come to my pillow and say, “Catfood.” 


Maybe you’ve seen a little group of humans working on some project that they agree about.  They watch the main person, adjust to them, learn from them, interrupt them — all without words.  It’s why YouTube works when you want to learn about plumbing: you can watch.  Gambling is one of the things people watch most intently and a game like stick game is the most absorbing of all because it’s watching other people to see the "tells" of what they’re doing with that little marker.  One of the earliest stone artifacts is a little marker with diagonal lines on it that looks very much like a stick game marker.  Africa.  Blombas.

So the Radical Anthropologists are saying that watching and interacting with each other developed all those pre-frontal cortex neurons until finally something triggered the explosion of art, music, and language that until now we have thought were the first signs of being human.  It wasn't the development of the pre-frontal cortex that caused elaborating humanness but the USE of that tissue for material objects that suddenly clicked.  Someone made a gift for a beloved and said, "I love you."

Here’s the real-life, right-now significance.  The assumption of the Victorians, etc., was that people without writing were without culture (written words WERE culture), therefore could be morally oppressed and treated like animals.  To them it was very important to be distinguished from animals, which is why evolution was such a terrifying shock.  It meant that humans could be treated like animals, as meat, which was self-evident to armies, cops, doctors and cannibals.  It challenged religion.  



The problem of indigenous non-European people who had only oral cultures was something like the problem of early Euros who didn't have metal yet, and thus were assumed to be dumb.  Experts kept labeling Indians "Stone Age."  American Indian culture had no churches, no writing, no metal, no flags and no boundaries.  To Europeans, that meant they were not quite human, fair game for oppression.  The Euros had no ability to perceive the intricate, spiritual, and powerful systems of the North American people, just as they never speculated about the extremely early lives of pre-humans and portrayed them as hairy knuckle draggers.

Much attention has been paid to the idea that agriculture was what pulled us into modernity, technology, and the other wonders of science.  This is probably true, at least partly, but there was a lot more out there before agriculture than we are used to assuming.  An intricate pattern of useful soft materials has been lost, though we can see chimps with their little twigs and sticks, prying insects out of their holes or knocking down high fruit.  The whole reason that Leakey was so determined for Jane Goodall and those other women to go “be a primate” was for them to learn the social culture that underlay everything else.  And they did.  A lot of it was “monkey business,” tricking, hiding, hoarding, “look-over-there!” and other poker shenanigans.  But also compassion, grief, and attachment.



I think that in this vid of a release, recognition by the chimp took even Goodall by surprise.
This is all before the appearance of language — oral or written — and though even a bonobo can learn human behavior and words, they have no sentence syntax.  We don’t know about their consciousness. They certainly know where they are and what to do. 

The next step is learning how to use metaphor and the use of material culture to mean things.  This is the verge of modern thought, though that, too, continues to evolve, partly because of the internet.  That’s the next step that I’ll pursue, and it means doubling back to 1957 and Dean Barnlund’s “Language and Thought” class at Northwestern and to sweep up Turner’s and Lakoff’s ideas about perception and expression, being in the world, creating meaning.

Monday, November 30, 2015

THE SHADOW OF THE CHIMP


The idea of humans evolving from “apes” is horrifying in particular to the Abrahamic religions. One of the insults meant to control unwanted behavior is to call it “bestial”  Religion says that God chose only humans (and only the ones who are members of the sponsoring institution, namely theirs) to have souls and go to heaven.  It is heresy to deny that; it is worrying if some people don’t care.  But we like the shiver of considering it in movies.

It’s more arousing if the male half of a couple is the ape.  As a gift for my husband, I once bought a tiny ivory Japanese figure of an ape clasping a nude woman.  He loved it, esp. since it was so easily hidden.  Bears, which can be seen as humanoid, fill the same role, but a bear might be the female, maternal.  Japanese are quite frank about such matters.

If Jane Goodall had been less of a nun-like figure, she might have been in trouble, living with chimps as though they were human, even though they were in family groups. Indeed Dian Fossey, a more passionate sort of woman, got into trouble that caused her death by machete in her bedroom, imposed by emotionally threatened human males acting bestial.

Jane Goodall and friend

______________

From Wikipedia:

The humanzee (Homo sapiens sapiens × Pan troglodytes) (also known as the Chuman or Manpanzee) is a hypothetical chimpanzee/human hybrid. Chimpanzees and humans are closely related (sharing 95% of their DNA sequence and 99% of coding DNA sequences[1]), leading to contested speculation that a hybrid is possible. However, such a human-animal hybrid has not actually existed outside of fictional works that have explored the concept.

Humans have one pair fewer chromosomes than other apes, with ape chromosomes 2 and 4 fusing into a large chromosome. 
_________________

A mix of human and primate would almost certainly require artificial insemination such as using a pipette to insert a sperm into an ovum in a petri dish.  No hot sex.  (Anyway, primates and bears have small penises.)  However, when the chimps and humans diverged from a common ancestor sometime between 8 million and 25 million years ago, they could produce fertile hybrids for another million years or so.  This is not linear descent, evolution is a bush rather than a tree, and we’re working on fossil bone morphology more than DNA, with almost unimaginable time spans.  It’s barely short of fantasy.


But chimps themselves are such compelling personalities and interact with us in such humanoid ways, that they are always suspected of knowing more than they let on.  The point is that if HIV had been a disease of ungulates or big cats, the dynamics would have been entirely different.  Of course the blood machinery of those animals is entirely different.  You can’t catch HIV from a sheep, nor would it catch HIV from you.  There are plenty of other diseases a human could catch from a sheep, most of them bacterial zoonoses.  Leprosy can be caught from an armadillo and is stigmatized not from its source but from its ability to reduce a human to looking like a strange animal with eerie human qualities.  Un-treated AIDS is along those lines, with emaciation and Kaposi’s sarcoma acting as disfiguring markers, though they are not directly caused by HIV -- they are opportunists, like pneumocystis pneumonia fungus.

Bonobos are even more humanoid than chimps and have the added feature of using sexual intercourse as a social element: greeting, comforting, just fooling around.  Film of them acting like humans -- walking through the door on two feet, wearing clothes, getting a beer out of the fridge, sitting on the sofa with legs crossed . . .  eeks!  What might they do next?  Adult male apes are so much stronger than humans that they could tear a person limb-from-limb.  Maybe you’ve seen a photo of a woman whose face was snatched off by a friend’s “pet”.  Therefore, what you see interacting with humans is mostly immature apes, kids.


There are cultures and “sub-cultures” that consider women sub-human and feel free to confine, abuse, and infect them -- then not allow them medical care.  Children likewise. These are cultures of HIV death, often based in drugs as much as sex.  Isolated, alienated people might turn to needles for comfort.  “Chemsex” combines drugs with sex, trying to go “over the top”.  It’s a steep drop on the other side.  

The fantasy is that somehow there must be a way to escape the troublesome social and emotional consequences of sexual relationships, which are not just a matter of desire -- though they are that, too.  In fact, they are a strong drive and it’s lucky that most human arms are just long enough to reach the crotch.  I’m working on a followup about sexual emotions derived from the recent Mark Holms lecture about the unconscious.  This link will take you to the lecture I’m trying to digest.


This post is meant to illustrate that a big part of our panic over HIV-AIDS is worry that it might mean we are not human, or that being human is NOT being chosen, being elevated among other animals, but having to suffer the same consequences as being just mammals, another kind of ape.  It was a big shock to find out that at some point Neanderthals, always considered barely superior to gorillas, interbred with modern humans.  We do have some neanderthal genes.

Richard Sapolsky

Going back to chimp genes, it is said that we are separated only by 2% of genes.  I’ve added a chart. The following quote is by Sapolsky, a male expert hairy enough to compete with orangutans but smarter by far.


“Yet that tiny portion of unshared DNA makes a world of difference: it gives us, for instance, our bipedal stance and the ability to plan missions to Mars. Scientists do not yet know how most of the DNA that is uniquely ours affects gene function. But they can conduct whole-genome analyses—with intriguing results. For example, comparing the 33 percent of our genome that codes for proteins with our relatives' genomes reveals that although the sum total of our genetic differences is small, the individual differences pervade the genome, affecting each of our chromosomes in numerous ways.”

When we read that humans have only 2% more genes than chimps or bonobos, we think of a line (maybe a chromosome?) in which the last 2 units of measurement are a different color and we try to think which 2% makes us superior: bipedalism?  less hair?  reading?  But genes don’t code for such things.  Genes are about proteins that interact, making more proteins (the proteome) producing different results in different situations (epigenomes can record results), and different results if there is more than one copy of the gene, or if it’s in a different place on the chromosome, or if the epigenome has turned it off or if a gene that codes for timing turns the gene for, say, a prominent larynx on or off at the wrong time.  

The proteome (list of possible proteins) is so long and complex we may never complete it, computer or no computer.  Then beyond that, there is the impact of social systems and the plain old environment.  And now we add the biome of parasites on and in us.  There seems to be no end to it, but that’s not what we want anyway, is it?  HIV and the pressure of AIDS can take us on a journey.  Far along the human path, or maybe we are evolving as we go.




The point remains that we are animals, a specialized sort of primate, which we have not sorted out yet.  Therefore we get excessively worried over issues that mix our essential molecular plan with religious rules from ancient times and also sexual desire, no matter the object.  The larger culture is vitally interested and entitled to interfere in order to preserve their own existence.