Now that even language differences between man and other primates, such as bonobo chimpanzees, are not so sharp as thought hitherto, what is emerging as probably our only unique characteristic as a species is man's ability to trade. Evidence of the trading of ornaments and pigments between normally antagonistic scavenger/hunter-gatherer groups of early man goes back to at least 65,000 BC. Future discovery of early sites by archaeologists will probably push this date back even further.
Trading between groups probably arose because of the need for genetic intermixing, in order to avoid excessive concentration of harmful genes in any one group.
In the case of the other primates it is normally the case that the young post-puberty males leave the group and become mature adults in small bachelor gangs. These bachelors then break their way forcibly into other groups in order to be chosen by the females and thus have sex. This phenomemon is called matrilocalism -- that is, the females stay in the group in which they were born and were raised.
In the case of man, the opposite applies. We are a patrilocal spcies. In almost all societies yet observed, with very few exceptions in unusual circumstances, it is the females who leave their family or their group in order to find their future spouse. This has even emerged today in developed countries where, since the legal equalisation of women, no longer oppressed as in previous agricultural times, girls are now forging ahead of boys at school and university in order to find better jobs and more chance of finding husbands who offer the economic security needed to raise children.
But back to trading: Why should man have developed this behaviour while the other primates didn't? It is my guess that, with larger brains -- more precisely, larger frontal lobes -- man was more adventurous and capable of fending for himself in the open savannahs of Africa with very few trees available to be climbed for safety when attacked by predators. However, because this was a more dangerous habitat than his predecessors' existence on the margins of the rain forests, then even bachelor groups would have found this too dangerous.
But if a mutation occurred in some groups where the post-puberty girls were more inclined to wander then these wandering girl-groups, being physically smaller and less strong than bachelor males would have been in greater peril. Unless, instead, they were directly exchanged between groups when the groups met occasionally at territorial boundaries! But what would have happened if there had been -- as one would normally expect -- a sexual imbalance between the sexes of the two groups? It is not too much to speculate that other prized goods would have been used as a "balance of trade" between two groups.
We can still see the original direct linkage between sex and trade in the form of dowries which still obtains in many more "primitive" societies, such as in the agricultural areas of Asia, Africa and South America. Indeed, it is not too much to suppose that the surge of young Saudi Arabian suicide bombers flowing into Iraq is primarily caused because millions of young males in Saudi Arabia are totally without jobs and cannot ever save enough money to buy themselves a wife. Thus they are easily manipulated into believing that their plight is due to other causes.
Man, unlike all other primates, lives in two worlds it appears. Firstly, there is the usual bitter antagonism between adjacent groups, each defending its territory and mode of economic survival. This survives today in the form of modern nation-states, each with its own armed forces, and each with a strictly defined territorial boundary. At the same time, the culture of trading still runs strong by which the goodies of one country can be exchanged for the goodies of another.
Yet the temptation to take the goodies of another country by force is always present. So we have paradoxical behaviours going on between nation-states with wars very frequent between those without nuclear bombs. On the one hand, politicians -- often urged on by their "military-industrial complex" (to use the phrase of President Eisenhower) -- constantly make aggressive noises against politicians in other nations. On the other hand, many other inhabitatns are quietly trading across their territorial boundaries.
Thus, at one and the same time, we have the US Congress and the US Treasury Secretary making aggressive noises about China while tens of thousands of American firms are investing and setting up operations in China, and --so far -- hundreds of Chinese firms are investing and setting up operations in the US. And, be it noted, half the "Chinese" profits that Congress is shouting about -- at the expense of America, they suppose -- are, in fact, profits of American firms in China!
I'm minded of this when reading an account of a CNN broadcast in China on the occasion of the Global Forum of the world's largest and most powerful firms meeting in Beijing and hosted by the American magazine Fortune. This is an entirely different scene from that in the Senate where some Congressmen are going apoplectic about the Chinese and wanting to raise tariffs against Chinese-made goods even though ordinary Americans will have to pay more!
It 's a curious world -- and a dual one as between the militant nation-state and the trading corporations. Which will win? Without a doubt, the traders will win. Developed nation-states, becoming increasingly top-heavy with bureaucrats and too expensive armaments, are all now going bankrupt and cannot support their inhabitants with the care and welfare that have been promised. (Nor can developed countries recruit enough young men into their full-time armies these days.) Nation-states will not collapse totally, of course, but they are atrophying badly at the moment and have hardly a promising future unless they develop new and less costly methods of governance.
Whereas, among commercial corporations, where bankruptcy is the norm for those that can't cut it, the more successful and adept will continue to survive. And they are interested in the ordinary customer just as much as, if not more than, governments are interested in the voter -- that is, roughly half their people at the present time, but reducing year by year. And corporations are interested in all potential customers in order to maximise profits. Unfortunately, not all potential customers can afford the goodies on offer because nation-states so arrange their taxation schedules so that the poorest always pay a higher rate of tax than the rich, and the very richest, of course, can get away tax-free by employing cleverer accountants and lawyers than governments can afford.
Keith Hudson
<<<<
CHINA RISING
Beijing -- Following BBC's Question Time program on China, CNN's celebrated senior journalist Jim Clancy hosted a roundtable discussion about China's role in the world called "CNN Connects China Rising" Tuesday in Beijing.
The program featured a panel of distinguished speakers and a live studio audience of 120 people, including some of the chiefs of global businesses, heads of state, and leading thinkers, currently gathering in Beijing for the on-going Fortune Global Forum.
"By airing the program, CNN deepens its commitment to examining China's movements on the world stage, its impact on Asian and neighboring countries," said Rena Golden, senior vice-president of CNN International.
On the panel were heads of brand-name companies like Irwin Jacobs, chairman and CEO of Qualcomm, Luc Vandevelde, chairman of Carrefour, Peggy Yu, founder of Dangdang.com, the largest on-line bookstore, and Li Shan, CEO of the Bank of China International Holdings. Clay Chandler, Fortune Magazine Senior Writer, Robert Friedman, International Editor of Fortune Magazine, Han Sung-Joo, Professor of Korea University, and Wu Jianmin, President of the China Foreign Affairs University also attended the roundtable discussion.
Participants debated on various subjects, ranging from China's economic growth to China's foreign relations. Panelists agreed that China's rise means more gain for the world, rather than fear. Their consensus coincided with the result of an on-line poll by the CNN.com. Answering the question of "Does the world have more to gain or more to fear from the emergence of China as an economicpower?" 69 percent of voters voted for "more to gain" while 31 percent voted for "more to fear" at CNN's website, according to Clancy.
With China set to become the world's largest economy by mid-century, and with its international influence on the rise, CNN is airing a unique week of live and special features from Beijing, named "Eye on China".From May 14 to 22, "Eye on China" will give CNN audiences in more than 200 countries and regions a comprehensive look inside China, one of the world's fastest growing economies. The coverage will focus on China's swiftly evolving role in global politics and business, and the impact of the country's rapid modernization on its people and culture.
"A team of award-winning journalists have traveled from the United States and Hong Kong to join Beijing-based correspondents for the week of "Eye on China" coverage, which aims to give our viewers a greater understanding of the many complex issues facing modern China," said Golden.
Xinhuanet -- 17 May 2005
>>>>
Keith Hudson, Bath, England, <www.evolutionary-economics.org>
_______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list [email protected] http://fes.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
