Timber Framed Structure 476kya Predates Homo Sapiens
This is an astonishing find that reveals humans have been far more sophisticated and capable than we have thought. Due to the constant saturation by it's proximity to Kalambo Falls, Zambia, the wood was preserved in the absence of sufficient oxygen to sustain microorganisms, that would ordinarily rot wood in a few centuries, for hundreds of millennia.
IMG source - Ancient-origins.net
Homo erectus by 500kya had extended it's range to the entirety of the habitable old world, from S. Africa to the Caucasus, from Iberia to China, and, surprisingly, to the Philippines. The surprising thing about finding pre-sapiens humans in the Philippines is that there are extremely strong currents in the sea between the Philippines and the Asian continent, that has created a boundary for land mammals called the Wallace Line. Even strong swimmers like the Asian Elephant were unable to cross the Wallace Line to reach the islands, yet a new human species, H. luzonensis, was found to have colonized the island of Luzon by ~700kya.
This discovery caused a great deal of controversy, because it is very unlikely that humans could have reached the Philippines without blue water capable watercraft. A boat that can withstand the rigors of the sea is necessary, and lesser craft such as small rafts suitable for in shore waters simply wouldn't make the journey. However, earlier human species were claimed by some to be incapable of such construction, and no physical evidence of such construction had been found, until now. The polished plank from Gesher Ya'aqov is believed to be a stand alone artifact, not part of a structure. But the notched logs clearly show pre-sapiens humans were capable of building large and complex structures, meaning watercraft were not inconceivable either.
IMG source - https://www.nature.com/
Papers published in 2017 by Posth and 2020 by Petr show that H. denisova diverged from NEA (H. neanderthalensis) ~700kya. Then NEA and AMH (H. sapiens) diverged ~450kya [likely interbreeding with H. antecessor produced AMH, because only H. antecessor and H. sapiens of all hominids are known to have chins, Ed.]. Then by ~370kya interbreeding between NEA and AMH replaced NEA Y DNA (Y DNA is passed from fathers to sons. Only males have Y DNA) throughout their range. Subsequent to that, by ~270kya AMH mtDNA replaced NEA mtDNA across it's range. This is extremely significant, because mtDNA is passed only from mothers to their offspring (while mtDNA comes only from the mother, both males and females have mtDNA). For AMH mtDNA to replace NEA mtDNA, AMH females would have to completely replace NEA females across the entire range, and not just for quickies but to successfully rear children to adulthood.
This establishes that AMH did not arise in Africa, because NEA never lived in Africa. AMH females had to live with NEA males to replace NEA mtDNA, so at least female AMH were living across the entire NEA range. However, I find the idea that all NEA males would travel to Africa to kidnap AMH females and bring them back to Europe utterly preposterous. AMH populations were inhabiting the same range as NEA, or range contiguous with it across Eurasia, if but further south. There are other finds that further deprecate the hypothesis humans evolved in Africa.
Hominines arose in Eurasia and migrated to Africa according to the fossil evidence we have now. Anadoluvius turkae has recently been described to have lived in Anatolia 8.7 million years ago. After that Ouranopithecus and Graecopithecus lived in Greece and the Balkans 7.2mya.
H. erectus is now thought to have arisen in the Caucasus, not Africa.
Very large Homo fossils have been found near Harbin, China, dated to ~150kya.
Indeed, these fossils from long before the Out of Africa theory proposes AMH emerged from Africa show derived traits that are present in Asian populations today, demonstrating that they were ancestral to present AMH populations. We have very few known Denisovan fossils, but there are claims that H. denisova averaged more than 7 ft tall. Given there is no DNA evidence from H. longi, I strongly suspect that their great size and location in the heart of where we think H. denisova ranged, suggest H. longi are in fact H. denisova, or AMH/denisova hybrids. E. Asian AMH populations do carry DNA from H. denisova today, and Philippine Negritos, Papuan, and Australian Aboriginal populations have as much as 6% Denisovan admixture (from the Oceanic Denisovan population, which is different than the Siberian Denisovan people).
The Out of Africa theory is based only on mathematical calculations of the rate of evolutionary changes in mtDNA, and the remarkable homology of AMH mtDNA today, which led Alan C. Wilson and Rebecca L. Cann to suggest 'Eve' came from Africa ~75kya. However, 73kya was one of the most cataclysmic events that has occurred since humans arose, the eruption of Mt. Toba in Indonesia. This eruption was so violent that it buried S. Asia west of Indonesia under ~6M of ash, making the are uninhabitable. It would have taken a lot longer than 2k years for the area to recover enough to make it more attractive than Africa, which was largely unaffected by the catastrophe.
Numerous researchers have noted that it was much more likely that AMH living in the Levant and S. Asia fled the destruction into Africa, a refugium. The L, M, and N haplotypes the OoA theory supposes to have arisen in that small African region and spread from are better explained as arising across Eurasia, and then ending up in Africa as a result of flight from the Toba devastation. The OoA theory was proposed before aDNA (ancient DNA) was able to be measured, so there is now much genetic evidence, such as Petr and Posth, and much else, that completely contradicts the evolution of AMH in Africa, and while I am eager for more evidence of these matters, from what is available now, there is no basis for claiming AMH arose in Africa. Overall I am left with the impression from all the interbreeding humans have been shown to do that AMH evolved as a breeding complex across Eurasia rather than a species very constrained in it's features.
Here's a podcast from Bruce R. Fenton, who proposes the Into Africa theory.
So H. erectus was capable of building ocean faring watercraft and timber framed structures before AMH even evolved, at the extreme reaches of it's range in Africa to the west, and the Philippines to the East, thousands of miles apart. This suggests it is almost certain the capability was expressed across that entire expanse, by H. erectus. Denisovans, NEA, and AMH are more intellectually advanced than H. erectus, so all human species on Earth since ~2mya, when H. erectus is known to have arisen, have been capable of building timber framed structures, and ocean going watercraft. That is astounding!
It is very difficult to find artists' representations of people before the Bronze Age living in structures, wearing anything but hides flung over their shoulders, or perhaps tied with a cord at the waist, or using tools capable of boat building and building construction. It is very obvious that people capable of building houses would have measuring tools. Knotted string, notched or painted measuring sticks, plumb bobs, and a square are about the minimum requirements for residential construction. I know, because I am a carpenter.
This kind of tool use completely breaks the image of a brute with a cape of tanned hide for formal attire. It is also obvious that Siberian Denisovans and NEA at the northern limits of their range must have had tailored clothes to survive extremely cold conditions at the margins of the glaciers that were present for most of the time they lived in N. Siberia and N. Europe. They may well have had far better adaptations to cold weather than AMH, but they did not have adaptations nominal to enable them to survive and do useful work without well fitting parkas, pants, and boots. They didn't have thick layers of fat or fur like other mammals adapted to winters in Arctic conditions, where temperatures can plunge to -40C and stay there for weeks at a time. If you have ever experienced temperatures in that range, you will know that exposed skin freezes in seconds, and nothing about the remains and DNA we have of either Denisova or NEA suggests they had any adaptations that would have prevented them from suffering such harm from those temperatures, and they lived in habitat that sustained such winter temperatures.
This is something I have understood for some time, but apparently isn't understood by National Geographic or any artists that produce images of our human ancestors and cousins for scientific publications. I have never seen a Neanderthal depicted in tailored clothes that wasn't a comic. It has been possible to think that NEA, Denisova, and H. erectus never had a tent, a hut, or a boat, from the archaeological evidence we haven't found, until now. Finding just two members from a timber framed structure built almost half a million years ago changes everything. These people had to have had those things, their lives would have depended on their parkas, pants, and boots in glacial winters, but we have never found any of those clothes, or tools to make them, like needles, older than ~50kya. If they could make timber framed houses, they could sure stitch up a pair of pants or a parka, so it is impossible they didn't have them. We haven't found any yet because clothes, wood, and string rot pretty quickly.
Were there ever actually any cavemen at all?
I hope this information sparks your imagination and you find it as exciting as I do.
Dear @valued-customer!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graham_Hancock
I have read Graham Hancock's books with interest.
I think his argument is fantasy fun, but has little relevance to modern history!
The Bible talks about unknown civilizations that flourished and then fell before Noah's great flood.
However, I don't think those civilizations have anything to do with us now!
Tabloid-style articles about the amazing high technology of ancient civilizations are simply gossip for commercial gain!
I believe that modern civilization is more advanced and superior than the ancient civilizations!
That's why I value the geniuse of the New World @valued-customer more highly than the geniuses of ancient China, India, Islam, and Europe!😄
By the way, Do you believe in the theory of biological evolution?
I believe that the beings Homo sapiens and erectus were born from fictional imagination!
I don't think human bones are strong enough to survive for millions of years!
The only evidence I saw of Homo sapiens and erectus was a few fossilized teeth and skulls!
I am amazed at the imagination of Westerners who can create genealogies of humans as they appeared two million years ago using a few bones that may be fossils of extinct monkeys and gorillas!
Can you tell for sure from skull and tooth fragments that the apes that appeared 2 million years ago are our ancestors?
I guess it's possible that they are monkeys that went extinct hundreds of thousands of years ago!
I believe that cavemen still live today!
@joeyarnoldvn
My dear brother Joseph would make a great caveman if he lived in a cave for five months!😆
It's a shame that East Asians like me don't have such a nice, lush beard!😄
I try to think in ways that are based on evidence, and to not think in ways that don't have any evidence. When it comes to trying to understand the living things we see around us, we have many tools to examine and consider them with. From a casual glance we see that birds all have feathers. Unless we look closer, we might assume that all feathers are the same, but when we look closer we see that no two feathers on a bird are the same, that feathers on particular parts of birds, like the neck, or the wings, are similar. By making many observations someone could become an expert in bird feathers, so that if you find a feather on the ground and show it to them they might be able to tell you what kind of bird it came .from, and what part of the bird it grew on
This same technique of making a great many observations and noting patterns applies to all sorts of things. Japanese swords, WWII German Naval ships, monkey teeth, and etc. When you examine teeth from monkeys, and apes, and people you can see patterns in how many roots, cusps, and other features teeth have that suggest teeth started one way and gradually changed over time to end up the way they are now, for each of the different kind of primate you study the teeth of. This is a very useful specialty, because there is so much information you can learn from teeth, like what things eat, how old they were when they died, and you can sometimes tell very specifically what kind of creature had that tooth from little details. I read a study that tried to understand if hyenas, bears, and wolves, whose bones and teeth were found in Denisova cave, might have been responsible for bringing in fish, whose scales and bones were also found in the cave, and could not have walked up to the cave from the river where they lived.
By taking little samples of the plaque left on the animal teeth, and by studying the isotopes contained in different food sources in the area, comparing bones of animals with known diets to all these and many more different observations, they were able to show it was very unlikely that any of those animals brought fish into the cave, and that meant it was likely that the people who used to live in the cave did, which meant that fishing was part of how they lived. I thought that was a very interesting investigation that enabled learning things about people that lived many thousands of years ago, from a few scales in the ancient dirt.
When it comes to evolution, that generally describes how a kind of creature might change over time. I read 'The Beak of the Finch' by Stephen J. Gould, and he observed Finches during cycles of drought, and found that their beaks changed one way when the rains came, and another when there was a drought. Because the weather patterns were cyclical, the changes came and went as the weather patter cycled. This is a pretty strong argument for evolution, for living things changing to adapt to changing conditions. By examining DNA, we can literally compare a living thing with it's parents one gene at a time, and we can do this for creatures that breed quickly over many generations, and we can see exactly which genes change and how they change how fast, what causes what changes, and all sorts of things.
I have no doubt these kinds of changes happen, and that we can observe them, so I would say that I can support evolution as a theory to explain such changes in a changing world.
When you start looking at bones and making very careful observations, you can see how species in the fossil record evolve over time. It's not fair to say that people imagine these things. People make very careful observations, pool their knowledge and discuss the different ways to explain those observations. They don't just make up something. Maybe authors writing books to make money make up stories that entertain people who buy books that entertain them do just make things up, but paleontologists, palaeobotanists, archaeologists, and geologists study for years to learn how to understand what they can observe in their field, whether it's rocks, feathers, or teeth, and they get paid to make those observations and base their conclusions on factual evidence that others can examine theirselves, that support their arguments. Unless you do examine that evidence yourself, it's very unreasonable to make statements about what they say about their observations.
I try not to do that. I try to examine evidence, or the descriptions of evidence people that have examined it provide, and ascertain if their conclusions make sense based on evidence. Obviously I don't have a lab where I extract aDNA from fossils, so I have to consider the statements of those that do. They include sections on the methods they use to make their observations, and their published papers have been examined by experts in that field to ascertain if their methods and claims are sound. It would be pretty hard to get away with making stuff up in that kind of environment, but it does happen.
People fake evidence, because they want to lie and say different things than are able to be supported by factual evidence. Sometimes people pay them to come to certain conclusions, such as that a new medicine is effective, or isn't dangerous, so peer reviewers are important to catch such frauds, and other researchers can try to duplicate their results they report in papers, and discover their claims aren't able to be duplicated. There is a lot of this, but more in the pharmaceutical industry literature today than in archaeology.
I notice your caveman is wearing tailored clothes and eyeglasses, and living in a wood framed house. The evidence suggests he's not a caveman at all!
Thanks!
Dear @valued-customer !
Thank you for kindly responding to my hasty and awkward English sentences like an American elementary school student!
It occurred to me that maybe I misunderstood your intentions!😂
I will translate your excellent English sentences and then give you a great answer!😄
Perhaps not. Perhaps I disregarded your specification that Joey live in a cave to reinforce the main thrust of the OP that our image of cavemen has always been false. Humans, including pre-sapiens, have always been relatively civilized, practiced agriculture, lived in villages, but we have no evidence because, as you point out, the artifacts are too soft and squishy to be preserved. It is extremely rare that fossils or artifacts are preserved and only happens in very rare conditions, such as the two interlocked timbers in Zambia being in such a stable and oxygen free environment that no earthquake wiggled them apart, and they were several orders of magnitude less decayed than is usual. Preservation of fossils is always only through very rare conditions, so we have almost none of the massive mountains of bones all the dead have been, because that bone has rotted. Same with wood, leather, wool, cloth, and etc.
Dear @valued-customer !
I do not believe in the theory that humans evolved from apes because I believe in the Genesis passages!
Hitler insisted on the theory of evolution that the Aryan race was superior to East Asians like me, and when he experimented with the evolution of the Aryan race, he revealed the worst barbarism of humanity!
So, I think Darwin's theory of evolution is a theory that justifies the white supremacy of European imperialists!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_human_experimentation
https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/josef-mengele
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unit_731
During World War II, the Japanese military used Chinese, Mongolian, Manchurian, Korean, Soviet, and American prisoners of war for biological experiments.
The United States acquitted Shirō Ishii and his group in exchange for receiving biological experiment data from them.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shir%C5%8D_Ishii
The number of Chinese people who died due to the crimes of Shirō Ishii and his group is estimated at 300,000.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unethical_human_experimentation_in_the_United_States
So, I don't believe in theory of human evolution!
Civilized people are more cruel than barbarians!
I don't believe there's a conflict between Genesis, which is drawn from older textual sources, and evolution of living creatures and physical processes, which you can confirm occur yourself. Perhaps you could specify how they conflict, and differentiate between the actual text of Genesis from interpretive claims about it.
You seem to be unaware of far worse things humanity has done than anything ascribed to Hitler, or Nazis, such as cannibalism, the global slave trade, and Roman circuses, in which women were subjected to rape by animals in public spectacles. Without discussing whether or not anything laid at the feet of Nazis actually occurred, even the gravest accusations scarcely even point towards far more barbarous acts other cultures celebrated. Communists committed the Holodomor, the Purge of the Kulaks, and the Great Leap Forward, each of which quantitatively far exceeds any claim of genocide by the Nazis, the latter two by an order of magnitude. Pol Pot made children murder their parents. That seems qualitatively more barbaric than anything the Nazis are claimed to have done.
Mean people wear clothes, but that doesn't prove wearing clothes makes people mean. Hitler also petted Goldie, but that doesn't make petting dogs a crime, or German Shepherds evil. Simply because there are claims Hitler or the Nazis believed this or that has no relevance to whether such claims are factual, or whether those beliefs are factually superable or not. Hitler publicly expressed favorable opinions towards Christianity. In 1904, he was confirmed at the Roman Catholic Cathedral in Linz, Austria. Does that make Christianity evil?
The bare fact is that claims made about the Nazis cannot all be true, and it is necessary to separate the lies from the facts in order to support any claims about Nazis. This is why Godwin's Law exists.
It is apparent that any excuse can be derived from any claim from a plethora of derangements, like flat Earth, germ theory is a lie, perpetual motion, aylium abductions, Bigfoot, lizard overlords, and any number of religious traditions involving utterly insuperable claims, many of which purport to be Christian, like snake handlers, polygamous Mormons, or the Children of God that used prostitution to gain converts. Whether or not some theory is factually correct or not has nothing to do with social movements that claim it as a logical basis for their political endeavors.
Every race has some members that proclaim their race is superior to all others, and that all other races must be subjugated to them politically. That is a political matter that has nothing to do with evolution, but rather reveals the barbarity of centralization, collectivism, and war that results from institutional power.
Living things are all part of one terrestrial organism, and I have repeatedly stated this precept at different times here. It clearly isn't rational to claim the head is superior to the feet, or the liver to the stomach, and I don't believe or say any such thing, neither regarding polities, societies, or cultures. Understanding how things change over time and describing present circumstances that result, which is what Genesis and the theory of evolution both do, has nothing to do with Nazis or oppression.
I am content truthfully stating I don't know things, vehemently opposed to oppressing people for political purposes, and against false claims about the universe that have no basis in fact. The corollary is that I also state understanding I do have despite it conflicts with political purposes of oppressors that depend on provably false claims, such as that people are superior to other animals, animals are superior to plants, plants to protozoa, or, most ridiculous of all, that one person, or people, is superior to another. These things are all different from one another and have different roles, abilities, and evolved because life is necessarily complex and all those different roles and abilities are necessary to life for the complexity of the entire organism, and that is necessary for it's sacred nature to be fulfilled in the coming diaspora across the inconceivably vast, barren universe where and when prophecies of felicity in paradise will be realized.
Living is an act of war against other living things. Nothing alive can continue to live without killing other living things. Since all living things are parts of one immortal organism, there are rules of engagement that living things must observe to be tolerable, and transgressing those rules results in extinction, either of the transgressor(s), or the sacred whole of life, in due time. I believe that sentient life is bound to be merciful, to eschew cruelty insofar as it has the capacity to understand suffering and felicity, and that the laws of physics will enforce the rules of engagement on living things inexorably and inerrantly, in due time. For this reason I strive to be kind above all else factually superable. I believe that is the fundamental benefit that derives from sentience and it's utility to life, and will ultimately facilitate our felicity as our persons proceed to subsequent phases of existence, which persists beyond our experience trapped in a sack of meat. The No Hiding theorem and the laws of physics demonstrate information cannot be lost to the universe. Our persons are demonstrably information, and while we have no idea how this will happen, it is impossible that it won't happen insofar as our understanding of physics has any basis in reality.
I note that every substantial religious tradition has some concept of the soul, and that today physics agrees that persons aren't merely matter, but comprise something else, that isn't simply consumed and recycled when we die. I find the preponderance of evidence supports this conclusion, and therefore I act accordingly.
Edit:
I agree. There are more slaves today than all the slaves that have existed before. I myself have been held captive and enslaved for years by the State of Oregon, which has become the first and only state in the USA to rescind the exception of government from the ban of slavery in it's state constitution. The governments of the United States collectively hold more than 2M slaves today, over and above those oppressed by other criminals. Nothing is more barbaric except murder, and none more guilty than those that know better. For centuries the United States has claimed that humanity are sovereign in all it's founding documents, yet continues to this day to criminally enslave free people, including Oregon still, despite repealing it's exception from the ban on slavery in it's constitution.
The more civilized the guilty, the more barbaric their guilt.
Dear @valued-customer !
Your great, brilliant, and vast English sentences would be difficult for an American elementary school student to understand! 😄
I fully hope you will give me time to translate your great English sentences!😄
I hope your happy and longlife!
May you experience every blessing and joy in a long and prosperous life.
There is a hot way to kill and there is a cold way to kill. I think the Nazis epitomise a cold and calculated killing apparatus, with the act of keeping records of numbers of those killed and the neat recording of their scientific experiments being the real horror for which many thinkers mention the Nazis. As Hannah Arendt once said, the horror consists in the banality of evil, which shows no honour, involves no real oath, in which the individual defeats another individual in a physically waged battle, bloody though it may be.
What contemporary man understands by barbarism, however, means the bloody confrontation, the stabbing or beheading, the impaling and spearing, and understands it as killing for the pure lust of murder.
Here we find a paradox, because in order to kill another warrior as a warrior, murderousness is indeed a state of mind into which one must bring oneself. Otherwise he could not go into battle.
But since the lust for murder is not only on his side but also on the side of his adversary, the outcome of the battle is uncertain and so anyone can lose his life. If a warrior emerges victorious and alive, the joy may be not malice but the logical consequence of a battle fairly fought, and where the so called barbarian believed in deities he had to believe in order to remain sane and have a divine justification for killing another, this is the most ideal justification, for there is no other superior to it.
Since it is a fact that warfare is as much a part of man as his capacity for cooperation and clever diplomacy, it cannot be ignored. Creation and destruction seems to me to be a cosmic principle.
It is impossible for us modern humans to think and feel this way because we are not warrior peoples but city dwellers.
Modern methods of killing, on the other hand, are impersonal, distant and enable the death of masses in one fell swoop. Since modern man is not a warrior, and he sees shredded human corpses in the war zone, he becomes traumatised and injured in mind and soul. He is physically and mentally no match for a hail of bombs, the sheer overwhelming power and volume of the machines over his vulnerable body can give him nothing but horror. He can see no sense in this form of battle since, indeed, it is senseless.
It is utter madness for armed groups to gather against unarmed ones and then imprison them en masse and kill them with mass extermination methods (gas chambers, mass shootings). Anyone who does this is worse than a barbarian, yes.
Honour would dictate that a real fight be organised where the conditions are similar on both sides. But to take prisoners without there having been any battle at all, without where the prisoners are a result of victory, is simply abominable.
As repugnant as the methods of former cultures seem to us today, we are not entitled to condemn them because they had a local cultural background, such as your example of cannibalism. Whereby I think that cannibalism may never really have been a mass culture, rather a kind of desperate affair.
The Roman Empire, on the other hand, and what I think I know of it, is another matter. The "Brot und Spiele" in the arenas seem to mirror a cultural decay.
The problem I see is not mutual combat, but the institutionalization of combat.
I vehemently disagree, because we have innumerable examples of non-institutionalized combat that reveal it is institutionalization that creates the bloody battlefield, while warriors counting coups suffices for sovereign individuals contesting.
We see the animal world contesting existentially for access to feeding grounds, for mates, for leks of every kind, without strewing battlefields with corpses. it is the antichrist, the undead, undying, unloving and unsuffering institution that mandates death and wanton destruction, because it feels no bite, no sword in the guts, that men and stag do feel.
Modern technology enables the eschewing of institutions, of overlords and collective industry and battle. Means of production are now automated, simple to use, and fit on a kitchen table, in a sunny window, in our garage, and no longer require us to be subjugated to overlords to earn taxable wages or be protected by their armed gangs of thugs to prevent being enslaved by barbarians bursting from the steppes on their war-mad ponies. Our microwave moats and laser arrays can blind and cook meatbags seeking to oppress us, and we can build them ourselves, and have no need of shartmart selling them to us.
Governments are institutions, corporations, the antichrist, not society, not people themselves working together to secure themselves and their community from marauders or overlords. We transcend centralization with decentralized means of production of every good and service, including our security. Modern tech makes all collective subjugation obsolete.
We the people can still interact, still do ritual battle like stags for mates, for leks, for our stomping grounds, and like stags not battle to the death, like Native American warriors count coups instead of scalps the institutions of nation states and priest kings can collect and count. Individual sovereignty is created by modern decentralized means of production. Terran 1, the first 3D printed spacecraft, launched in March 2023. This clinal boundary is just beginning to be transcended, the infrastructure of freedom is just beginning to roll out, to develop and disperse across the population. We have evolved in largely egalitarian meritocracies where Stone Age tech required individual households to themselves manufacture their necessities of life, until collective industry began with agriculture to create surpluses that could be parasitized by psychopathic overlords to support armed gangs of thugs to conquer and control society that have centralized production for recent millennia. The advance of tech has been long and slow, and all of history has been of subjugation to overlords through their exclusive monopoly on armed gangs of thugs that have been the leading edge of security tech.
But that's over. Armed meatsacks are obsolete. Modern tech that can be produced on a kitchen table can prevent squishy meat from kicking down our doors, can prevent armies from projecting force for acquisitive overlords. All we have to do is make it ourselves, to return to the egalitarian meritocracy we evolved in that can today enable sovereign individuals to possess and employ decentralized means of production of modern tech to secure our castles and produce our goods. Centralization is shown to be a temporary phase humanity has suffered to enable tech to advance from the Stone Age to the Space Age, and that transition is now complete.
And we stand of the edge of the abyss of stars, where illimitable resources await our whim to develop into inconceivable wealth in absolute, unfettered freedom. We can deliver our posterity the stars themselves as footstools for their feet, that they can enjoy unimaginable felicity in their good company, in perpetuity.
Oh, that's not what I meant, I thought my elaboration illustrated that. That man is a being who kills other men seems to me to be a historical fact. And the institutionalisation of wars is very old, if you start from the specialisation in ruler castes, warrior castes, priest castes and the peasant and artisan people. Which seems to have more to do with the fact that peoples came together in large numbers in cities. I would therefore relate the institutional aspect to the existence of cities and the early division of labour, on the basis of which people were given a certain status. Hence my reference to Chesterton.
I think that the larger a civilisation settled somewhere and formed a kingdom, the more difficult it is to imagine the ruling caste without intrigues and power struggles, which were not only external but also internal.
When has there ever been peace over a long period of time?
But because man is a creator as well as a destroyer, he mimes this principle of cosmic events, which also include earthly ones (I don't know a better way to put it). Because he has consciousness, he finds conflict, for being conscious of oneself inevitably leads to fears that are irrational. At the same time, consciousness is also responsible for reason and love. These two are in constant conflict and because this is so, there is no end point, there is not the fixed state for peace forever, but a constant struggle for it, a seesaw moving for as long as humanity may exist.
It seems to me that the only protection, the fear of war and the fear of the oppression of the rulers over the ruled, is to take away their fear, of which they seem to be afflicted a thousand times more than the ordinary citizen.
To be a state within the state, it needs the family. The basis of the family is man and woman, the only ones who can create such sovereignty.
I am far too little interested in technology. My skills lie elsewhere. You and I sometimes like to talk past each other, because the feminine and the masculine often complement each other so well precisely because they are so different from each other. Your ideas of freedom in terms of technological application are difficult for me to discuss in detail with you, and I suspect my ideas of it may also be of rather little interest to you.
Ruling seems to fuel fears, to lead to more irrational fears and assumptions than not ruling. Those who rule over the people need a people who can rule themselves, yes, I totally agree. But that is obviously what immatures who want to rule at all costs cannot realise, otherwise they would not be tyrants. Paradox is the constant companion of people.
Just like a teenager who opposes his parents and constantly judges and fights them, rulers are bad parents if they take the immature and life-experienceless child too seriously. A ruler who falls for a people who want everything regulated is led by the false assumption that the people should love him. Whoever falls for it from among the people that everything should be regulated for him will get a despot instead of a ruler.
However, such knowledge and other related knowledge is only gained in the very first state, the family. You can't build up skills how to rule yourself if you never felt and lived being responsible for each other, for the children and for the household.
I want to deliberately insult you and tell you that your remarks seem to me to be megalomaniac in parts and probably mine seem too small and insignificant to you. This eternal dispute between man and woman belongs first of all to their intimate sphere and must be fought out and thus balanced. Otherwise, the matter goes outside and seems to fuel the nonsense of " fight between the sexes".
I did not start there, and humanity did not either. Where were ruling castes ~500kya? Where were cities, and artisans, and soldiers? I do not think they existed then. Tribes, extended families, existed, and they clearly were competent to make what they needed to survive, even structures of timbers, before our species even existed. These are human capabilities, not institutionally derived, but innate to us, like antlers are to stag.
Also innate to us is a family and tribal hierarchy, as it is to Elk, or cattle in their kinds, who do battle for primacy amongst their herd. But institutions have perverted our many instincts, including our combat, into collective endeavors and removed our mercy from us, prevented us from recognizing we have won and gaining the benefits.
Overlords take those benefits from soldiers, whom they have no concern over killing en masse. The are psychopaths, have no tribe, unlike us. We do not kill naturally, just as other creatures combatting for primacy in their herds do not.
Regarding the tension between the sexes, it is also natural for women to shit test men. These instincts have all been abused by our abusers. It isn't natural to women to destroy men, however, nor for men to subjugate women. We need each other, very blatantly obviously, because we are clearly one species, one humanity. Our instincts are twisted and men rape and demean women, while women also exceed their natural roles (which I will refrain here from discussing because there is no need, nor benefit to either of us from it). The best of women have tested men always to be availed the best of them, for the best for their families, and it is in a changed world these instincts are augmented with indoctrinations and propaganda to emasculate men, and infeminize women as well.
I am impressed most about you that you inherently grasp some sense of the right way to reason with a man, rather than to fall for any of the massive incentives you are given to strike killing blows, with power to do so that is dangling before you, from courts, from platforms, from feminism. That you ground yourself on your gut sense of what is right and then refine it by what your reason tells you is true, is admirable.
Thank you.
I have long enough fallen for the incentives given to me. I refuse to be any mans enemy. I always had a feeling of incoherence though, when I watched other females treating men like shit in general as if they had a valid reason in doing so. Instead, I felt they held invalid reasons. The deeper meaning behind women treating men like shit may be found in their own submission towards what is called "the males world". In wanting the same, women lost their power and became disoriented and weak. The "same" was unfortunately, what even men did not want if they were real. They were made to obey by coercion, manipulation, fraud and lure, yes.
Now, a strong minded man cannot be made doing what he does not want to do, right? But even a strong man can be blackmailed if he cares for his wife and children and so complying isn't something which can be always avoided if what a man complies to on the outside is not something he agrees with inside. There are times where hiding your intentions is wise and there are times when it is not. To find the right timing, is crucial.
One man - like the figure of Jesus (and other leading figures throughout history) - can indeed change the peoples perspectives once he gained enough attention through a big enough audience. He then is too widely known as to be killed and even though he may be killed and destroyed, it's already too late to assassinate him, since what he has gained in the meantime is a huge followership.
The unfortunate thing about those figures is oftentimes that the masses admire the figure more than the message - but the few who do not want to partake in the fame of the figure but to keep the message (faith) may "forever" live as disciples.
The two of us do admire the other one in the ability to feel challenged and not insulted when met with non agreement. I very much see that trait in you. Some insult is justified when it hits a nerve. While other insults misunderstand ones state of mind. To distinguish one from the other is an art, I think.
I would like to answer first with G.K. Chesterton who wrote:
It was for this very reason of a crowd no longer believing in gods - or the sacred - such as they were called Romans and of whom it is commonly said that decadence ruined this empire, that Christianity set out, which also began as a small current and became so strong, rather stronger, than the old Roman Empire. Man always seems to create and get both, so that modernity has its blessings as well as its misfortunes. How many true Christians are actually left to oppose the ever-rising oppression depends, I think, on the degree of suffering of the people. I fear that it is not yet great enough (though I do not wish it to be) and until those among the people have had enough of everything that makes them be unfree, we have probably not yet reached the top.
I don't think that technology and the pursuit of freedom alone will make any difference without the basis of Christianity. (And the faiths of other cultures). Where that base has died or is too weak, hopefully it may be revived.
I cannot answer for God or gods, but I can answer for me. My lifesblood, and that of my people, is that sacred oath, that vow of fealty I owe. Humanity isn't individuals alone. Our felicity is the good company of our peers, our families and friends and neighbors. It is only the infestation of brutes that drives many of us to seek solitude, where we are free from molestation and bloody oppression by barbarians and overlords that use them to isolate and fractionate our number.
When we can be secure because we can manufacture modern security tech that makes collective force obsolete, we can freely associate without fear of brutalization and bloody subjugation again, and we will, because that is wealth, our good company.
It is not fealty to overlords that creates that wealth. It is not faith in rumors whispered by oracles and priests in hazy miasma of hallucinogenic incense. It is the perversion of that holy and sacred society of people that has been effected by corrupt priests and psychopathic overlords that has driven us from faiths.
It has driven us to reason instead of dogma, to knowledge instead of faith, to fellowship instead of subjugation. I seek not to dissuade people from their lifelines, from their grasp on goodness by whatever means has made sense to them, but I do espouse securing what is good by such power as God or gods has availed us, to create modern means of security from thugs barbarian and overlord, to produce goods and services we can share for goodwill and exchange for those goods and services our friends, families, and neighbors produce.
In time the truth will out, and security from overlords and coercion will facilitate ascertaining the truth, not obscure it. The laws of physics aren't caprice, aren't false witnesses to reality, but either delivered by God or Providence for our edification, adoption, and felicity.
No objections.
However, I see that the family is largely destroyed and that neighbourliness, which is a consequence of family, became as weak as weak it can get. So that the individual actually feels isolated and at the mercy of the powers and therefore believes that he has to be saved by other powers. The publicly expressed total rejection of such powers is what scares those who want to rule with force or within the shadows.
It is as if you were asking those who cannot be expected to turn the left cheek to do just that. To expect a weak opponent to want to see him dead or deprived of power (which implies non-recognition of those in power from their point of view) creates fear in him.
Any talk of their replacement or annihilation only feeds their fear or offends their ego, which is the same thing. I make a distinction between freedom of thought and freedom to express one's opinion. One is strong because it is not so obvious, the other weaker because it is too obvious.
To suggest to a fearful and weak character that you want to see him disempowered seems to me to have rather the opposite effect. Since he has no confidence and faith of his own apart from his power, he clings to what seems to give him security. Even my talk here about such characters would not be taken as friendly, but hostile.
My concern is therefore to support the return of family and to respect the oath of marriage again.
It is quite possible that such things will happen after the aberration of the present comes to an end through the dying of my generation, who as old people will soon be no more. Birth rates are falling drastically worldwide and, as always, man is distracted by time lags and still striving in a direction that has already been taken (until he becomes aware that it is no longer needed to be less people, but more). Not seeing that the so-called population explosion is already becoming the past.
What I do not comprehend is your fascination for space travel.
This has been manufactured, by the priests and politicians, blackmailed and bribed to bamboozle our best.
So has this. Centralization cannot compete with decentralization, because dispersing the means of production across the population utterly overwhelms the relatively feeble hierarchies, whose benefits to their slaves are the remnant of their productivity after overlords and their minions take their lion's share. Free men keep what is theirs, and eventually, these facts cut through the indoctrination that cannot eliminate reality.
Therefore the population must crash for overlords to retain their wealth and power, reduce the productivity of the free people by reducing how many free people there are to produce. But the majority have grasped their exigency today. Before, when they were told to take the jabs, wear the masks, isolate for their safety, most of them did, but the survivors have seen reality intrude on their indoctrinations and observed the deaths and disaster that has resulted, proving without any doubt their indoctrinations were false, their idols are their enemies, and they are crushed, adrift, without any leaders, any faith, any remnant of culture, philosophy, or a people they can cling to that has always been possible in history. The history is all of centralization, and is being transcended.
Humanity is not evolved to be a slave race. We evolved to be a meritocracy, and despite it has been tens of millennia, that fundamental basis remains yet. It has not been eradicated. Almost no one understands this. It's foreign to everything anyone has been taught. It can only be grasped from first principles, by those that have been stripped of their illusions, who are left to their own devices, their own intelligence and the facts of our circumstances to either give up and die or craft reasons to live.
Evolution proceeds by the death of those unfit in environments that evolve as natural processes create change, usually through cataclysms that remove the unfit and the unlucky. Not everyone will make the leap.
I am sure enough will. I am not the author of the plan, of the circumstances we are in, nor am I an inventor who created a way forward. I am simply an observer who was availed scandalous lessons early enough in life to prevent me from falling for the majority of bullshit that lured and lulled so many to their dismay today. I was still a child when I learned cops kill people to steal their money, and was surrounded by people that couldn't believe that even if they watched it happen, even when it was provable from the claims of the cops themselves. That was an eye-opener, but what it really did was shut my doors to most of the fantasies I could have fallen for, and I was left to peer around to find out what was left.
This is what is left to humanity today. When they grasp that believing in the political system, in corporations and profits, are traps that will kill them, as is blatantly obvious today, many, many doors are shut, making the world appear to be bleak and every potential way forward closed off. Everyone faced with this realization is demoralized, and that demoralization is a weapon exacerbated and wielded against us.
Not everyone gets past it, but those that do are suddenly walking on marbles, dancing on wet ice, seeking their footing. What can support them? What isn't a trick, a weapon? The things that are superable from the facts afford them footing, and what is that? Producing ourselves what we need to proceed. Adopting the means of production suitable to our personal circumstances and making the blessings of civilization we intend to enjoy. That is what survived the catastrophic treachery we are being served. Groveling minions choose the wrong ending to their stories, and them as find the merit endemic to free people will demonstrate that merit or lack thereof.
As to space, it is our purpose, our destiny as life. Earth is not our grave. It is our womb.
Now we are being born into the universe, to bring abundant life and prosperity to a barren waste where illimitable resources await our whim, our posterity to develop into inconceivable wealth for their felicity in perpetuity.
I don't think there has ever been such a thing as an ideal state. Even if I have the idea that in pre-civilised times, i.e. in the times of nomads and hunter-gatherers, there may have been the best of times for human beings, that doesn't help me very much today to talk about freedom with my contemporaries if what they want is security or prosperity (I just have realized this, something I did realize in times but then always forget about this very important point).
If I take your lines about a glorious space age future, I don't see very much difference from the speeches of those who - to use your words - have institutionalised their power. So, in thinking about your use of words, I better should have said instead of "I do not comprehend your fascination", "I do not comprehend your reasoning", for I find, at the same time, contradictions, which I highly welcome.
To build empires, it has always taken the great visions set in symbols turned to stone, the architecture of which stood and stands for the magnificence of such human, seemingly outgrowing, abilities. Although it must strike the seeing eye that the skyscrapers are imposing, I suspect that living in one is the opposite of grandiose.
As wonderful as space looks from the earthling's perspective, his journey in a ship he built, cut off from the vast dimensions of planet Earth, into the smallness of its construction, becomes narrow if you lack in being an adventurer. To me, this mindset makes about as much sense as wanting to build a small biosphere within a large biosphere (a project I'm sure you've heard of) if the reason is security or prosperity.
While my view on this matter is a conservative one in its true sense, I can understand the spirit of adventure that I also associate with it. If I start from the female-preserving principle, because the female gives birth to children and wants them to grow up in a secure future, I can also understand and even welcome the male principle. To simplify, there is the down to earth and the up in the sky notion.
The most important component of adventure is uncertainty.
Therefore, I would argue that space travel is desirable not because "inconceivable wealth for their felicity in perpetuity" but because the outcome is uncertain. Space travel may be undertaken by people who do not know where it will take them and who live their lives like a play rather than an overly serious business. It's them who build the paths for others with lesser ideals.
Uncertainty is a great friend, but is wrongly considered an enemy.
When I send my son off on a scouting trip, it is not so that he will return safely (which of course I want!), but so that he will learn to cope with uncertainty.
Not knowing exactly what to expect on a journey is the reason why you set out in the first place. The holy grail or treasure - untold fortunes - is, in my eyes, merely a lesser advertisement than what constitutes the real adventurer: possibly dying (and, attenuated, getting hurt, coming close to drowning, almost falling off a cliff or being attacked by someone).
So the first skyscrapers were built by adventurers, not by men who imagined themselves living in such abominations, but balancing from their tops on a steel beam and having breakfast there with a magnificent view of the sunrise. They may have been slaves at the foot of the building, but on the higher floors they had the adventure of a lifetime, whenever they could have fallen off at any time.
In this sense, I welcome those - you included - who strive for something other than being safe.
My conviction, on the other hand, that there will never be an end to conflict as long as man lives, is unwavering and I do not believe for a second that there will ever be prosperity for all, because never everyone is equally presently prosperous. It is an impossibility and the proclamation or advertisement is simply a lie to oneself in my eyes.
Therefore, my respect for men (and women) is rather low, so they never get out of their offices (if not physically, then mentally) where the thrill of defeating an opponent or inspiring another to do business is second hand.
This is why I had such a fight with a former neighbour who curtailed, limited and belittled her son in a way unworthy of a mother and woman. The father, a more than feeble figure, not only failed to stop her from acting out her hideous need for security on the child they have together, but also supported it. She cannot help but despise him. Women, if left to their own devices, can become the worst of characters when they trample on the honour and adventurousness of sons and husbands. In order not to exaggerate either one or the other, they need each other as a balancing force.
The first free man is the child which is being set free from his mothers worries and his fathers ideas of success. Nobody would say to his son "Now, get on your journey and die", of course not. One says "Good luck on your journey and return home safe". But if the son gets back home and tells about events within which he almost died, all will listen with delight and have a feast.
That is also the reason why the father forgives his son who disobeyed and left the tribe and favored him instead of the other son who stayed and fulfilled his duties. But this biblical story also tells us that we are all different and inasmuch we need sons who leave, we also need those who stay. This is existing in the ever lasting tension between what is to be preserved and what is to be abandoned. There is no solution but only living artistically with these contradictions.
To return to the topic, perhaps it is that in order to trick the power-hungry, you get their admiration. You can only do so as a man, not as a group.
What a wonderful answer! I am made aware of your earlier observation we seem to talk past each other, because of our fundamentally different biologies, our sex directs our understandings in different directions based on our separate life histories and evolutionary purposes. Yet reason is blind to these differences, so even from our discrete viewpoints our common application of reason creates common understanding we at least can find we are dancing around.
I have reread our entire discussion here as I awoke at 130 am and cannot go back to sleep, and nothing interests me more than understanding what you mean and I have not grasped, because I do often seize on my first impulse and fail to explore more carefully, and have missed much nuance in what you said here. There is a prescience available only in the middle of the night, when distractions in the light of day are absent, that I am striving to take advantage of at the moment. As a result I have noted how many times I have seemed to dodge your intended point and seized on my own interests in things you tangentially address.
One of these is our fundamental difference in how we consider risk and adventure. Men, or at least me, tend to feel like gamblers, that a pot is going to be won and only players have a chance of being the winner. Regarding a scouting expedition, or space exploration, or building skyscrapers, there is a pot to be won by those gambles. The scout will gain knowledge of bushcraft, how to pitch a tent, build a fire, tie knots, treasures that will inform them all their lives and grant them boons of understanding and perspective, joy, and memories of good times to sustain them all their days. Builders of skyscrapers aren't the same men that own the real property, that pay the architects and steel workers. They have different prizes they gain from venturing. Steelworkers their wages and skills, and property owners the immense wealth to come from rents of the vastly increased number and quality of rental units their property will bring. They don't seek the risk. They seek the prize, and undertake the risk of failing to gain the prize through many potential calamities that could strike.
You are still right to point to the risk as a reason to venture. No doubt men and women both take risks for the thrill they bring, and despite my own rationalization of my personal motivations, I cannot honestly claim the prize of doing the things I have done on motorcycles was the skill I gained. It certainly was that thrill of danger and how that pared away for those moments in mid-air the problems of taxation, of bills due and payable from income not yet received, or the myriad mundane and banal evils that beset us. Nothing existed at such moments but the need to perfectly wield the bike to land it without crashing, and the horrific pain of crashing - which I experienced many times - was powerful motivation, fear of suffering agony was clearly what I sought by riding as I did, and that meditative release from bullies at school, mean parents, and algebra quizzes. I find this actually very silly, and strange, when I consider things rationally (which is why I gave away my motorcycle when I started to have dreams about jumping a particular ravine on property I owned, to lose the ability to gain that particular thrill without delay), but it is the fact, as unreasonable as it shows me to be.
There is a certain prize from most every gain of power over men that men seek. This is what men consider in their strivings, 'eyes on the prize', yet it is undeniable there are also those whose participation isn't for some wealth or treasure to be gained, but the thrill of battle.
This is particularly what I mean to convey isn't the prize of seizing resources in space. It isn't such thrills and challenges that I think will drive exploration and diaspora across space, but vast, palatial personal properties. Not cramped quarters and recycled air, but whole planets terraformed and paved with gold and jewels, brimming with verdant growth of bespoke ecosystems, and availing unimaginably sybaritic luxury to the family that created it. While the challenge of living through decades and centuries of hard and mean circumstances are a prize that will draw some, the prize of personal possession of entire solar systems after they have been developed are what I expect to be the more powerful draw. Today wealthy people expect as children to have their own bedroom, but in happy days to come they will have their own planets, their own solar systems, crafted to their personal preferences and specifications. Wealth and felicity orders of magnitude beyond what can be conceivably attained on Earth beckons. Also, no competition, no subjugation of others is necessary to it. Neither could some army profit by conquering such a possession, nor overlords impose taxes, or rule such a family profitably. Freedom from oppression is perhaps even a greater prize, once such development is completed. The temporal constraints on interstellar travel mean that every such conquest is essentially the only one an overlord with an army could undertake, and it would be vastly more profitable to simply make such estate rather than take it, and this true for every soldier in an army, as well as their overlord.
Generally, I, at least, intentionally consider only the eventual prize and disregard the thrill of questing for it. I think it is an evolved trait in me to consider things in this way, and that as a woman you may have evolved to do the opposite, to note the rewards of risk itself, and that biologically caused because of the very different roles our sexes have to cope with very different definitions of success, fulfillment of our purposes, of the purposes of our genes.
Men tend to prefer dogs, and women cats, which I think reveals this difference in our evolutionarily created differences in how we think (lest you consider this generality chauvinist, I will admit I have a cat and no dog). Dogs have a variety of jobs, security of their owners, of a flock, ability to herd the flock, to track game, and etc., prizes to be gained, while cats eliminate vermin but mostly rule humanity like no satrap has ever enjoyed. I have belabored the point in an effort to dispel my shame over that chauvinism I see revealed in my discussion with you, but, of course, not that alone, but also reveling in the prize, the understanding I have gained, however obvious it may be to you, and you may marvel I find it a rare thing to have some clue about how I, or women, and you specifically, think. Men have such fragile egos they must crow about their achievements of even such puerile nature. At least, so I seem to be here.
Men tend to have survived many battles with their fellows, and to have killed none of their opponents. We do very much like stag have a ritual of battle that does not have as it's end the death of our enemy, but establishes familial and communal hierarchy, natural and evolved in us. Women have different contests they undertake for the same purpose, rather than violence. The enmity of teens is also natural, an evolved mechanism that impels them to start their own households and families. We clearly should marry them off when they get prickly, and they are evolution's goad and encouragement to do so. Even at their barbaric extreme, when men fail all reason and resort to violent words and acts to compel their fellows and families to obey them, it is almost never murderous. We innately are disgusted and revile such men, and none more than those that have so failed their families or communities by murdering them.
This too is compelled to us by evolution, that has cause to promote charm and persuasion, but yet can use force. People have innate submission behaviours, acts and sounds we make universal across cultures, displays to end such violence, and innate behaviours and actions to accept submission and crow about our victories, just like stag, frogs, and birds. This prevents murderous intraspecific violence, because that isn't advantageous to the genes that actually rule us, that we serve with our feeble monkey brains.
But that prize of national power, of taking the land of a neighboring people, isn't available to overlords or their institutions, from accepting that submission. The whole nation has to surrender and submit for that loot to be attained, and this is why I stress that murderous violence isn't natural to men, but is imposed by institutions. This inhumanity isn't innate to humans. It is to inhuman institutions, however, and why I call them antichrist. Only psychopaths desire to murder, and that is evolutionarily encouraged only in the presence of institutions that aren't humane. This is the difference between institutions and society as I understand them, antichrist and christ respectively.
It isn't often understood that nomadism requires complex international relationships. We think of the migrations of wildebeests and reindeer as exemplary of human migrations, but those are actually rare examples, caused by specific monsoonal climates, and dramatically presented on TV as spectacles. Most animals aren't migratory as most climates aren't so predictably monsoonal. It is necessary for nomadic peoples to negotiate longstanding agreements with nations and peoples for temporary access to grazing lands. If they had to fight to access a particular place yearly, nomadic pastoralism would become impossible. It's not as simple as hunting and gathering, but actually requires advanced sophistication of diplomacy and intercultural relations, and depends on international stability, which is why it remains so rare. All the world is under very new governance, and national stability just doesn't exist anywhere as it has perhaps in prior ages.
I think even our expectation that prehistoric ages were times of being able to freely roam searching for better hunting grounds naive in the extreme. I am pretty confident that people rapidly expanded to fill the environment with occupied territories, and moving over the ridge to the next valley required joining the neighboring tribe or driving them away. The nations of the Earth have existed conceptually for almost the entirety of the duration of our genus, and by the time AMH evolved had already been ongoing for more than a million years, with every habitable place inhabited by people that depended on it for their lives.
So I agree with you that there never was an idyllic time in which people could just freely roam and live here or there, that the present is perhaps the most idyllic of times humanity has lived. It is interesting that men and women have uniparental DNA packages that pass from fathers to sons, or from mothers to their children, unaltered by sexual reproduction, and reveal much now that we can access aDNA. What we see looking at the uniparental DNA is that in 'modern' times, from the Neolithic forward, Y DNA is replaced entirely by invasion and conquest. Men are put to the sword by their conquerors since the advent of agriculture, while mtDNA is continuous, as women become commodities and continue to contribute to the gene pools of conquered nations. The evolutionary forces on the sexes are very different since centralization arose. Before professional militaries arose, much more persistence of Y DNA seemed to happen, as peoples mixed, rather than were conquered.
The Petr and Posth papers regarding the replacement of these packages in NEA are therefore cause for very great wonder, because how did AMH women replace NEA women across all of NEA range? Did warrior women put NEA women to the sword when their tribes conquered NEA family groups? It is baffling. This hasn't been proposed by any peer reviewed source I am aware of, but since mtDNA and Y DNA aren't admixed the replacement of mothers and fathers amongst NEA had to happen for those uniparental packages to be replaced - or a very great duration of slow replacement through evolutionary action, during which NEA and AMH were continually mixed, which isn't shown in nuclear DNA that is admixed. These events happened hundreds of millennia ago, long before any evidence of agriculture or metallurgy, or of institutions and warfare. How this happened yet NEA nuclear DNA continued to exist for hundreds of millennia, indeed, ~60% of NEA nuclear DNA continues to this day in AMH, is baffling, because it happened to both uniparental packages, which implies replacement of both men and women of NEA.
This baffling mystery is strongly informed by the discovery of complex structural building half a million years ago, before AMH had even evolved. Did institutions and overlords pre-exist AMH? Is archaeology so impoverished of evidence we have had no clue to such momentous human endeavors until now?
I think we have no way of knowing because of that poverty of physical evidence. I cannot express my gratitude adequately to you for giving me new avenues of consideration of these mysteries I am obsessed with.
Thanks!
Your ideas are to me very fantastic. I find it difficult to follow these imaginations of yours because I do not cherish them myself and am only able to reconstruct from films/books what you might mean. But I must admit I don't understand them.
Why would you want planets and solar systems of your own? Who is it, this "your own"?
Having a garden, just like having a forest, requires great planning and care, and even more prudence, consideration and measured intervention to make a whole nation flourish. Between exploitation and pampering of those who live in these spheres, there is a constant struggle because people lack the overview the bigger a space becomes and they cannot maintain it as central rulers.
Terraform a planet? No offence, it seems too gigantic to me and perhaps because what lives in your imagination cannot be captured in language that is used in everyday speech.
I can't make the mental leap from spaceships into what you described. Maybe in my dreams. I do not rule out that there might be a future of the nature you painted but then it has little relevance for me here and now.
I am sorry but I did not understand the whole paragraph about DNA. Could you put it into words which translate them differently?
I tend to think in this direction. Overall, many many "ordinary" people could and still can enjoy what technology has brought.
A catastrophe mood took hold of the whole world, as it seems. Which is irritating, to say the least.
I am happy that you found my answer inspiring and thank you for the conversation so far.
Consider automated means of production developing resources of such immensity for your personal benefit. This level of wealth is literally beyond human experience, and why I call it unimaginable. Millennia ago something comparable was only potential through massively centralized hierarchies with hordes of bureaucrats, military forces, and even more slaves to perform labor, however skilled and unskilled. Each of those people, however, has their own wants and needs that inevitably create a tension with the whims of the Satrap. Not only that, but the resources available to develop are a tiny fraction of what will be available exclusively to whoever takes it. There is no competition (we are aware of, yet) for everything across the entirety of the universe. We don't have to buy it. No one or thing has a claim on it. It's free. It's also impossible to profitably take it by force once it's been claimed. It takes centuries to reach a star system at sublight speed. It's much more profitable to spend that time developing something else that no one else has claimed than on traveling to where someone has claimed a place and trying to take it from them. Trying to use an army to do that - when every soldier could just instead seize their own - is silly, especially considering automated means of production of WMDs that make armies of armed meatsacks utterly obsolete. We're just too squishy.
With automation no such tension between overlords and slaves is engendered. I am imaginative, even a dreamer, but I can only glimpse the onramp to such totality of wealth, of the eventual industrial might utterly focused on the whims of one family, or even one individual. Whatever might have appeared to be sybaritic, unmatched wealth in history isn't an appreciable fraction of what is potential to automated development of the resources of an entire solar system. Why this matters today is that means of production of modern goods and services have become available to individuals in every field of industry, and AI potentiates complete automation of these individually owned means of producing modern goods and services.
Seizing the means of production today enables beginning to create personally owned means of developing space, starting with producing what we need right here and now on Earth, that defunds centralized collective production that enables overlords to parasitize our production. This is the beginning of transcending all of history in which overlords, armies, governments and corporations have power and wealth, and restoring pre-centralized egalitarian meritocratic society in which no overlords, no corporations, no armies, existed and had power over free people. The sooner, and the more, people adopt decentralized means of production suitable to their personal circumstances, the more they retain the wealth of goods and services they produce, cutting off overlords and institutions from wealth they can only parasitize from collective production.
Just in economic terms, why will anyone work for a collective that takes most of the wealth they produce, when they can keep what they produce themselves? Why work for taxable wages to buy potatoes when potatoes are automatically produced by your automated aquaponics system? Multiply that potential across every possible product, and it becomes impossible to see how overlords, armies, and corporations could parasitize collective production anymore.
It is hard to overstate the dramatic changes this will bring, how society will outcompete government, armies, and overlords for wealth and power, reversing the trend that has been ongoing for millennia. It is significant, beyond my ability to conceive or describe.
Regarding uniparental DNA packages, and how aDNA technological advances have changed our understanding of prehistory, there are three kinds of DNA: Y DNA, in which a complement to the X chromosome is exclusive to males, passed from father to sons, while a father's daughters have one of the mother's X chromosomes and the father's X chromosome. Since women do not have a Y chromosome to admix with the fathers, the Y DNA of men isn't teased apart and admixed but is passed entire from fathers to sons. This enables male lineages to be utterly obvious generationally, and shows that extinction of male lines has been common since the advent of centralization where invading militaries replace all male lines in a conquered place. This is a change from pre-Neolithic cultural contacts, in which new male lineages joined the old, and diversified populations.
Nuclear DNA consists of the other 22 paired chromosomes, which are teased apart and bits of either of each pair are assembled into one chromosome that is then encapsulated in an egg or sperm to be combined with the other parents 22 contributions in providing the DNA the next generation has. This mixes and muddles nuclear DNA each generation.
And then mtDNA is the separate DNA in mitochondria, which were once bacteria that became symbionts during the time that eukaryotic life, essentially multicellular colonial creatures, evolved, and these mitochondria are passed down exclusively inside the egg, causing them to pass only from mothers to their children without being teased apart and mixed with the mitochondrial DNA from the father. Both Y DNA and mtDNA aren't mixed but pass entire from fathers and mothers, while the nuclear DNA is mixed during sexual reproduction.
Since Y DNA and mtDNA come only from one parent whole and entire, they are referred to as uniparental DNA packages. By tracking these packages it is possible to know the evolutionary history of people and animals in places where we can get enough samples of DNA from ancient bones. We are now able to extract aDNA (ancient DNA) from bones millions of years old, where cold has preserved the easily fractured DNA, because of the rapid advance of technology in this field. Since Africa has almost no such cold climate preservation, the oldest DNA I am aware of being collected from Africa is ~18kya.
Examination of NEA (Neanderthal) DNA samples of all three kinds has shown that Homo sapiens Y DNA and mtDNA completely replace NEA uniparental DNA across the entire range of NEA, first Y DNA ~370kya, and then mtDNA ~100kya later. The fathers of NEA were replaced with AMH (anatomically modern humans, Homo sapiens - us) fathers, and then the mothers were replaced with AMH mothers. Finally, NEA no longer existed as a separate species at all, and all NEA nuclear DNA is now part of AMH nuclear DNA, except what has been bred out by evolution. They didn't die out, but were absorbed into Homo sapiens, as ~60% of NEA nuclear DNA remains in AMH genes after ~40kya, in small fragments that comprise ~2-4% of each non-African individual.
It is difficult to understand the cultural and societal conditions in which these interspecific interactions occurred, but what is certain is that NEA and AMH were inhabiting contiguous ranges, if not sharing the Eurasian range NEA occupied during that entire time. The range of NEA never included Africa, which is why only non-Africans have NEA DNA (except for tiny bits that have resulted from modern immigration into Africa). For decades there has been a claim that AMH evolved in Africa, and only emigrated out of Africa ~75kya.
The above aDNA evidence of continual admixture of NEA and AMH over hundreds of thousands of years proves that the Out of Africa theory is impossible. This is a major scientific revolution, upending understanding of human evolution entirely - but politics, which controls funding for research, is vehemently opposed to this fact because it derails the racist political power being imposed on the world today.
If you aren't grasping why some part of this explanation is relevant, or what some part of my attempted explanation means, please ask specifically about whatever seems nonsensical or unclear and I will try to better explain that specific thing. I realize the above is an attempt to convey understanding an entire field of technology in a few paragraphs, and I probably am assuming understanding of terms or mechanisms that simply aren't familiar to someone with specific expertise in other fields, and I am prepared to accept I have probably not done a good enough job to make it understandable to someone without specific knowledge of the field already.
Thank you for your effort in explaining what you have said. Unfortunately, I must confess that it is still not clear to me and I have not understood how what you say about DNA is relevant to your space-travelling human. I heard somewhere that the cradle of humanity was in Africa, but that didn't spark any further interest in me either, so I can't share the fascination that this changes the theory of how exactly and by means of which genes humans have spread across the globe. Are you aiming at the fact that whoever takes off in a spaceship as a single person or a group of four and finds a planet will artificially create humans there because he has DNA samples with him that will prevent him from inbreeding or that he will be able to reproduce them?
I don't need technical details when I'm rather sceptical about what reason a human being should have for setting off into space and what he thinks, how he can take what makes him an earthling with him to be able to wait in a completely alien environment, where there is nothing familiar, to be able to terraform a planet, how he can stay sane in the meantime?
But it is more likely that I reject the thought and your visions of the future, and therefore do not wish to travel mentally in that direction.
Unimaginable wealth is not something that attracts me, perhaps because I once tried to imagine what I would do if I had unlimited means and resources at my disposal and as soon as I moved from that theoretical notion to the practical detail, I encountered all sorts of hurdles that require more than one person and cannot be solved in mental space.
Nowadays people answer this by "Use artificial intelligence".
But oftentimes I came to the conclusion that things are insoluble and only the too strong effort to want to solve them creates problems. Whereas turning away from it at some point leads to solving a problem by not focusing on it like a burning glass but rather in a random and artful way. Does that make sense to you?
Sure, it makes sense. Not everyone seeks wealth, nor freedom, nor anything anyone else does, and that's actually great. I am not either chasing wealth, but I see that most people do. This is why I think it will be a primary drive of most people going forward. I am greatly motivated to be free of the noxious influence I have had to endure from institutions in my life, far more than I seek wealth for it's own sake. However, freedom requires resources to effect, so I have to make accord with such matters in my own life.
I am not aiming at anything about our incipient diaspora from the details of our evolution. I'm just fascinated with the prehistory of humanity, so cannot help but compare features from my diverse interests when I note them.
The pursuit of wealth is not per se something that I perceive in my fellow human beings. However, since I am not at home in the spheres where big business takes place, my perception is limited to what the normal average citizen does. He wants to live and live well and not lose what he has. I guess that's called wanting to preserve material and physical security. However, I believe that this is not enough to counteract the forces that are acting on all of us. It rather leads to the fact that we can become mutual despots when we are afraid for our lives and our belongings. And we turn to those very forces or support what comes from "above" and thereby fight each other horizontally. How shall I put it? Those who do not listen to their own conscience when something is ordered or sold to them as a virtue ignore their conscience in favour of lesser things. But you are of course right that freedom requires means.
The forces humanity has faced in prehistory are orders of magnitude more hazardous than what we today confront. The Toba eruption blanketed S. Asia from the Levant to Indonesia in ~6M of ash, extinguishing every living thing for centuries across the majority of human habitat, for just one example. The event that began the Younger Dryas rendered almost all mammals over ~20 kilos extinct, 77 genera. If our self preservation was inadequate to our present exigency, we would have long been extinct.
This is exactly what I predict. The atomization of sovereignty, and the cessation of collective governance by monopolization of force by institutions, or 'states'. In such condition, faced with illimitable real estate and resources that are able to be developed with automated means of production individually owned and operated, a diaspora to develop those resources is the obvious result. As the whole universe becomes potentially available, people will avail themselves of it, because the alternative is to be a resource others possess for their benefit.
Correct.
Commercial Agriculture vs Backyard Farming..
The most ancient known poem is the Sumerian creation story where humans are the slaves/workers of these extraterrestrial beings. Even Judge Anna conceeds that is our origin.
Humanity is a matter of seasons. When the myth of dragons was still a myth I would agree with the whole biosphere living organism, but ever since I'm treading on the carcass of giants so massive we wouldn't be a hair's size next to them, so that when they spoke of gods it is the only explanation why a giant 1200mile long dragon standing half that on its thousands of snake like legs lies across north Africa with it's throat cut, as nothing else, not evolution, not "precious biosphere" can account for that. The same for the giant fish next to the dragon which can easily be discerned from Google Earth across Mauritania, it being visible from hundreds to thousands of miles altitude and who's carcass was seemingly present during the last great flood event which was recorded throughout the world which is traced in the deposits of mud across the tail not far from the geographical anomaly that has the signature of a plasma strike by, you guessed it, a dragon, called Eye Of The Sahara, and what looks more and more likely, to have been Atlantis as it corresponds precisely in geographical description to the account given by Plato, which at the time would have been living with the carcass of these two monumental creatures. This is only further corroborated, as there's seemingly a shapeshifting "machine" on the moon which IIRC is 500 miles long, and this "machine" might be the what the ancients described in China, while Atlas is what the ancients in pre Atlantis witnessed around Africa Middle East and Europe.
The whole thing about us being alien hybrids would explain our prevalence with space, I saw a documentary a couple years ago about our origins being from a humanoid race that was for some reason escaping their homeland and was at the time orbiting earth, I want to say circa 170kya, which apparently was destroyed above the earth, pieces of which are recorded by a purpelish rock that I believe was called T-something which all specimens have a distinct teardrop shape. The more you look into this the more They Live is a documentary, even flat earth might have been a thing, as the ancients say.
There's enough here for a trillion years with another eternity to spare.
Early human ancestors were much more advanced than they are given credit for, because all evidence rots away after a few hundred years. This find just goes to show how little we really understand about the origins of our species.
That is very clearly the case.
Thanks!
Congratulations @valued-customer! You have completed the following achievement on the Hive blockchain And have been rewarded with New badge(s)
Your next target is to reach 54000 upvotes.
You can view your badges on your board and compare yourself to others in the Ranking
If you no longer want to receive notifications, reply to this comment with the word
STOPCheck out our last posts: