>>> Jim Devine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 04/10/00 12:44PM >>
Louis quotes a FINANCIAL TIMES review of Diamond's "Third Chimp" book:
>To a disinterested observer from another planet, he reminds us, humanity
>would be classified as just another large ape, a very close cousin to the
>chimpanzees. We share more than 98 per cent of our genes with the two
>chimp species, giving a closer correlation than between birds like the
>Chiffchaff and Willow Warbler that are indistinguishable to the casual
>observer. But that extra two per cent has made all the difference, and has
>been responsible for everything that stems from our upright posture,
>larger brains and strange sex and social lives. Those behavioural
>differences, Diamond argues, have been at least as important as sheer
>brain capacity in lifting us above our congeners.
It would be interesting to compare Diamond's perspective with that of
Engels on the transition from ape to human. Engels, if I remember
correctly, embraced the then-popular Lamarckian theory of evolution (since
he didn't know about Gregor Mendel's work). But otherwise Engels'
manuscript (which Stephen J. Gould says is pretty good once you get past
the Lamarckism) doesn't seem to contradict Diamond as sketched above. Is
there an expert in the house?
_____________
CB: Engels is famous for emphasizing the role of labor in the transition. Actually, I
think our use of symbols and language, keys to our expanded sociality, including
extended to dead generations, is the key leap in humans. The important thing about our
labor is it enormous sociality or communality. The leap for humans is that we are
communists compared with apes. In what sense do we have strange sex lives, and how is
that "important" ? Our social lives are "different" than other species, but "strange"
is a somewhat strange way to describe that. It is the enormity of our social
(socio-HISTORICAL ) lives that is important in making us different than other species.
CB
