Jay Hanson wrote:
>
>
> It does make a big difference. But an observer from outer space would
> classify humans as the Third Chimpanzee (see Diamond's book of the same
> name). The most important difference between us and chimps is our innate
> technology: big brains, thumbs, and voice.
>
> The ONLY scientific explanation for human behavior comes from the
> evolutionary psychologists. Evolutionary psychologists are
> reverse-engineers -- they observe behavior and then try to understand how
> that behavior led to survival.
>
> If we reject their findings because we believe that humans transcend nature,
> then we are left with "unexplainable behavior". If we continue to deny our
> animal nature -- if we embrace superstition and ignorance -- then we condemn
> our grandchildren to certain death.
>
I have read the book "The third chimpanzee" by Diamond. It was a nice
book. What he writes is that some 7 or 8 million years ago the big rift
valley in Africa began to evolve, and at that time, and because of that,
our forefathers and the forefathers of the chimpanzees split.
But humans are a new, may be not more than 100.000 years old, less than
200.000 years. Our forefathers and foremothers living 100.000 years ago
were very few, maybe only a few families. They were living a simple and
difficult life at that time. But 50.000 years ago things had changed
very much. Humans had a rich culture. They had become very clever
hunters able to catch all kinds of game. They could make ropes and
nets.
They developed art as the cave paintings tell us. And from skeletons
and bones from humans living at that time it is possible to see that
they were never starving or suffering from malnutrition or sickness.
But about 10.000 years ago a catastrophe happened: agriculture was
developed. And from then on began humans to suffer from malnutrition,
starvation and suppression.
What happened between 100.000 and 50.000 years ago that made the lives
of humans so much richer? Diamond thinks the in those years language was
developed, and language made it possible to accumulate skills and
knowledge in a large scale, and to cooperate.
Diamond says that there once was a garden of Eden, but he does not say
that we are born sinners in any way, unlike what Jay Hanson says.
On another list I read that in Nature 11 june 1998 page 573-577 there
is an article by Martin Nowak and Karl Sigmund that shows that deception
strategies are doomed to failure for small and middle sized groups.
And this should actually be obvious: you cannot fool people you are
together with all the time, and you do not want to do it either.
I think that book by Diamond was rather promising: Most of the time
until the last 10.000 years humans were living a good life, and
The only persons I have met who believe in an "original sin", that we
are born sinners are old-fashioned christians, and Jay Hanson.
In Norway that "inherited sin" is a joke.
The notion about the orginal sin has been used to explain why people
should be ruled by others, and why there should be no freedom.
I don't like it, and it is very different from Diamond's book, which is
an optimistic book.
--
All the best
Tor F�rde
