The Artificial Ape

Right before bed last night, I came across an interview with the author of a new book titled "The Artificial Ape."  His name is Timothy Taylor, and he is an anthropologist and archaeologist with some thought provoking ideas regarding the origin of humans.  I will preface this entire post by stating that I have not yet read the book (I ordered it this morning), and am basing the following exposition of ideas solely on the interview I read here:

Artificial ape man:  How technology created humans

Furthermore, I am merely an armchair sociologist with a passion for anthropology.  I only have a bachelor's degree, and do not claim to have the same expertise or experience as Mr. Taylor.

That said, I think that Mr. Taylor's argument that technology (and not competition, as Darwin postulated) was the impetus that led to the emergence of the Homo genus is very interesting and plausible.  However, I do think there are areas that can be scrutinized and questioned.

For example, Mr. Taylor states that the "smoking gun" proving his theory is a gap in the fossil record.  To explain more precisely, archaeologist's have discovered many stone tools dating to 2.5 million years ago.  However, the oldest known fossil of the Homo genus is 2.2 million years old.  This 300,000 year gap, according to Mr. Taylor, suggests "that earlier hominins called australopithecines were responsible for the stone tools."

If these tools were truly the impetus for the conversion of earlier hominins to the Homo genus, then why do apes that use sticks to catch bugs not evolve into a new genus as well?  I have seen the videos of gorillas in the wild using one stick to pick the bugs off of another stick.  Does that count as entailment?  Overall, I think that Mr. Taylor is definitely on the right track as far as seeing the use of stone tools as the spark, but why did the change take hold for us and not them?  There has to be more to it.  Maybe it has more to do with how we utilized the stones (big game to feed a family vs. bugs to feed oneself), then the fact that we created them in the first place.

I really do like the idea of the sling, and can't wait to read more about how it's creation lends credence to the overall theory Mr. Taylor is expounding.  Furthermore, it has me brainstorming about what other useful objects could have been created from skins, and plant fibers that changed the course of our development.  (One I thought of already is using a hide to make a rudimentary map, which would have allowed early hominins to keep track of important locations by punching holes of various shapes with the stone tools.)

When Mr. Taylor is asked about his "survival of the weakest" theory, I must admit I get a little confused.  "Technology allows us to accumulate biological deficits" is a bold statement.  How can our thinner fingernails and skinnier jaw bones be considered "biological deficits" if they serve their proper function at this point in our evolutionary history?  Is different necessarily better or worse?

Our eyesight is worse than that of our ancestors, but that may be due to the fact that we don't need to hunt wild game with bows and arrows anymore, not because our new technology like Lasik is changing folks vision.  How do our genes know that we have had corrective surgery or wear glasses?

I know that I am playing devil's advocate, but it is very rare that I find an author interview so interesting, and outright provocative.  The gears in my head are shifting and making new connections quicker than my swollen fingers can type.

As long as I am in an argumentative mood, let's continue.

"Evidence shows that over the last 30,000 years there has been an overall decrease in brain size and the trend seems to be continuing. That's because we can outsource our intelligence. I don't need to remember as much as a Neanderthal because I have a computer. I don't need such a dangerous and expensive-to-maintain biology any more. I would argue that humans are going to continue to get less biologically intelligent."

Wow.  Another bold statement.   I would argue that our decrease in brain size is as a result of our genes figuring out that we only use a small percentage of what's in our cranium to begin with.  Why would our brain eradicate functioning parts, even if they are only moderately useful to our current evolutionary stage, if there is tons of "dark matter" that is completely useless?

The idea that people don't need to remember as much as Neanderthal's also seems illogical to me.  Sure, i can put phone numbers in my HTC Evo (shameless Sprint promotion for my husband), but I still need to remember how to turn the darn thing on to retrieve them.  The same can be said for driving a car, riding a bike, surfing on a surfboard, dancing the tango  to I Pod music etc.  Sure, the technology is there, but we still need the intelligence to know how to use it.  I would argue that our brains are much more stimulated and inundated than Neanderthal's with information we should retain.

Overall, I can't wait for my copy of "The Artificial Ape" to arrive.  I will definitely come back to this post and revise my opinions once my eyes have devoured its pages.

___
Update:  8/31; 8:25 PM

As I have stated before on this blog, I don't believe in coincidences.  I just happened upon an article on Discovery Channel's website from April of this year titled "Ancient Hominids Had Human Like Grip."  I stared at the words, feeling the "connection" alarm bells going off in my head, but puzzled as to why.

Within a few moments, it came to me.  I had just read about Mr. Taylor's sling theory!  Eagerly, I clicked the link.  After reading the article, it turns out that it seems to have been written for me to find tonight.  If the fossil discussed is legitimate, and the evidence can be replicated, more than just the sling theory will need to be reconsidered.  Mr. Taylor may have an answer for Professor Tuttle regarding why a precision grip was needed by early hominins:  to cling to mom's back.  I would add that our thumbs seem pretty well adapted to holding and gripping each others hands.

But it is late, and my zucchini bread is waiting.  And, in fairness to Mr. Taylor, I really should wait to receive, and read his book before passing further judgment.

___
9/4
BBC-Earth News-Wild chimps outwit human hunters

In New Guinea, researchers have discovered that a certain group of chimps has learned how to deactivate traps set by hunters.  The implications for this discovery are numerous, but include a need for primatologist to re-evaluate our understanding of how chimps learn, and pass on knowledge from one generation to the next.  Chimps cannot learn this skill from basic trial and error, because a misstep results in death.  Therefore, another mechanism of awareness is present that we have not yet acknowledged.

10/13
Human Ancestors Hunted by Prehistoric Beasts  (Discovery News, Jennifer Viegas, 10/12/2010)

Before commenting on the above linked article, I feel that I need to follow-up on my neglecting the topic of this ongoing post.  I am still working my way through "The Artificial Ape."  It is a good topic, but I only read books right before bed, and this one tends to help put me to sleep faster than most.  Still, I love reading about human evolution, and am committed to completing this post someday, assessing the theory Mr. Taylor puts forth.  For now, I will stick to commenting on the above linked article, which indirectly relates to "The Artificial Ape."

I guess that I have always known our early human ancestors were lower on the food chain millions of years ago than we are today.  But I never really stopped to consider the implications of this fact.  I believe the chimp ancestor being discussed in the article lived so long ago, it is highly unlikely we possess any of the instinctual behaviors or habits they developed in response to being prey to wolfs and birds.  However, they may have continued to transmit some of the myths and legends about our time as the main course into early human civilizations, making sure the cultural heritage outlived the actual genetic adaptations.
 
I actually found the comments section more insightful than the article this time.  I have heard the idea that "man as predator" originated with the Judeo-Christian religion before.  The omnipresent God giving humans dominion over the world in Genesis seems to confirm this theory.  However, man had begun to dominate nature long before any of the early prophets wrote their poetry.  So, though the Bible may have confirmed it, the idea of man as the top predator definitely did not originate with any religion. '
___
10/18
Cavemen Ground Flour, Prepped Veggies  (Discovery News, by Jennifer Viegas, 10/18/2010)

The instant I spotted this article I whispered one of my mantra's to myself; there are no such things as coincidences.  Before my nap today, I reached a section in Mr. Taylor's book about cooking, and how the added energy correlates with the increased brain size, and thus intelligence, of early hominins.  So, as I read my favorite Discovery author, Ms. Viegas, article I got that weird tingly feeling you get when things in this vast universe just seem to connect too perfectly to be by pure chance.

The first paragraph alone seemed written for this thread:

"Dirty 'kitchen' tools reveal that cavemen were grinding their own flour and preparing vegetables for meals at least 30,000 years ago, according to new research."

Furthermore, Anna Revedin's insight, that cooking enhances digestibility, may help explain how modern humans are able to function with such short digestive tracts.  (I remember Mr. Taylor mentioning something about our decreased gut size).

The following line also seems to correlate well with Mr. Taylor's theory, that it was the technology like cooking that led to the conversion from neanderthals to modern humans.

"Since modern humans as well as Neanderthals inhabited these regions, the researchers think it's possible that either or both groups had cooking know-how."

Finally, for arguments sake, I think it is prudent for me to include the quote Ms. Viegas received from a critic of this new research, Silvana Condemi:

"I cannot help thinking that this capacity of Homo sapiens not only to collect but also to process plant food proved advantageous in competition with Neanderthals - who did not have this behavior - when Homo sapiens arrived in Europe.  This was undoubtedly one of the factors that contributed to the demise of Neanderthals." 

I will have to continue reading the Artificial Ape before bed tonight.  It has gotten far more interesting once I reached about a quarter of the way through. 
___
10/26/2010
Asian Neanderthals, Humans Mated  (Discovery News, by Jennifer Viegas, 10/25/2010)

Publication of information on the now famous "Zhirendong Mandible," has prompted archaeologists and historians to rewrite ancient history.  Previously, modern humans were thought to have arrived in eastern Asia around 40,000 years ago.  The mandible has pushed that date back an astounding 60,000 years, to 100,000 years ago.  It has also led scientists to ask many new questions.  One of the most intriguing puzzles, I think, is the following:

"It's also presently unclear why, despite the likely interbreeding, the various hominid populations in Eurasia, including our own, remained distinct for so long."

*

A quick follow-up on the namesake of this post:  I am three-quarters of my way through the Artificial Ape.  But the arrival of "The Count of Monte Cristo" has had me splitting my before-bed reading.  I am getting there, though!
___
11/5
Greater effort boosts the affective taste properties of foods  (by Alexander W. Johnson and Michela Gallagher)

It seems to make sense that if I work hard to obtain something, I will cherish it more than something else that was handed to me.  But what if the "something" I am working for is a Diet Coke, and the thing I'm given is a Cherry Coke?  According to dissonance theory, I will value whatever I work harder for to avoid the psychological conflict of struggling for something less desirable.  Evolutionarily speaking, this makes sense:

"In evolutionary terms, such mechanisms could benefit survival under conditions of scarcity when the chances of acquiring food are probably related to increased foraging effort. An increase in palatability accruing to lower value foods under such conditions would serve a dual purpose, both to boost consumption and to confer greater learning connected to the prevailing cues in the environment."

I guess if I ran five miles, that Diet Coke would look pretty darn good!

Though I still have a chapter to go in "The Artificial Ape," finding the link to this study on Discovery News made me recall the story from the book about the boy eating the travelers soap in the Arctic.  I promise to have my first reading of the "The Artificial Ape" complete by the end of the week, so I can begin an in depth discussion of the theory Mr. Taylor puts forth soon thereafter.  I will admit the material has become much more interesting the farther I have delved, but the 200 pages remaining in Mr. Dumas' classic are also beckoning my already strained eyes.
___
11/5
Early Humans Skipped Fruit, Went for Nuts  (Discovery News, by Jennifer Viegas, 11/9/2009)

What did our early ancestors eat?  According to a 2009 study conducted by Gabriele Macho, a professor of paleoanthropology at the University of Bradford, and colleague Daisuke Shimizu, it wasn't much fruit.  Based on tooth comparisons of chimpanzees, gorillas, and our ancestors from the same genus as famous skeleton "Lucy," "[t]he researchers...believe...early human[s] ate nuts, root vegetables, insects -- such as termites -- and some meat."  I am not sure if this will apply to Mr. Taylor's theory, but it is interesting nonetheless.
___
11/8
Human, Neanderthal Brains the Same Until Birth  (Discovery News,  AFP, 11/8/2010)

Fist, an announcement: I have finished reading "The Artificial Ape," and am working on my critique.  The above linked article actually fits quite well into the topic at hand.  According to German researchers, the first year of life is the key time as far as differentiating human and neanderthal early brain development.  Until birth, the brains are essentially the same.  This makes sense combined with Taylor's theory that technology, namely the sling, exposes the "plastic" brain of the human to "the way," that will stick with him or her throughout life.  All of this exposure fires neurons, which would coincide well with the German's research that showed:

"The human brain began much more activity in neural circuitry in the first year of life, which may have helped early Homo sapiens survive in the process of natural selection, the study said."

If one forgets for a moment Taylor's rejection of human's susceptibility to natural selection's forces, the rest of the above quote would fit well into his general theory.

But, coincidentally (or not), the article seems to point out the same major criticism I have after completing my first reading of "The Artificial Ape."  Namely, I believe brain size is irrelevant to intelligence, and recent levels of brain shrinkage have other causes.  So as to save some surprises for my final critique, I will only quote the Germans for now, and state that I agree with their assessment:

"'The interesting thing is within modern humans, the size of the brain correlates only very weakly with any measure of intelligence . . .It's more the internal structure of the brain that is important.'"
 ___
11/10

I was planning on waiting until my entire analysis of "The Artificial Ape," was complete before writing anything else about it.  However, after delving into Mr. Taylor's extensive, and quite honestly intriguing, notes section, I realized how long this may take.  Therefore, so as to both prevent myself from forgetting my ideas, and simultaneously keep my handful of readers updated, I will endeavor to formulate my preliminary theories today.

As I see it, the book attempts to answer the fundamental question of how humans, despite our disadvantages, came out on top.  Given our dependence on technology for survival, our useless offspring, and dangerous reproduction, it seems illogical.  But, according to Taylor, it is the former of these deficiencies that is the differentiating factor between us and the rest of the primates; technology. 

Taylor postulates that there was a distinct moment when humanity emerged, and it came when one of our female ancestors used her motherly instinct to create a sling.  From the safety of the sling, infant humans absorb "the way" into their absorbing brains so that before they are even done developing into functional beings, they have internalized their societies norms and values.  According to Mr. Taylor, "perhaps because of this profound and primal familiarity, I believe we have continually underestimated the effect of this physical reality in making us human." (Page 2)

Taylor postulates a theory of three systems that reminded me of Ken Wilbur's quadrants, minus the psyche.  The first system includes the laws of physics and inorganic chemistry, while the second incorporates all organic biology.  The third system, technology, is the arguably the reason we became different from our ancestors.  This dependence on entailed creations has allowed us to escape the laws of natural selection that governs the rest of nature.  However, there is a hefty price to pay for this dependence.  According to Taylor, our technologies have become so complicated that, "there is no soft landing into a quieter and more balanced world. . . the only way out is up." (Page 8, Page 11)  In fact, it's "unfolding logic" may ultimately result in technology's comprehension of it's own "personal existence.," just like in the sci-fi movies.  (And one of my favorite X-Files, where the killer computer operates the elevators and electricity to murder the corporate executives that were about to sell-out.)

But, unlike Kurzweil's "Singularity," or Keylly's "Technium," Taylor's fusion between man and machine has been present all along.  In fact,  his entire book is based upon the idea that technology "predates and underwrites," the very fact that we are human.  Indeed, we are already hybrid-human robots, belonging to not only system 2 (biology) but also system 3 (technology).
___
11/11

Yesterday, I did a decent job summarizing Timothy Taylor's general theory in "The Artificial Ape."  Today, I would like to offer my four biggest criticisms.

First, I would like to discuss this statement from Page 2, regarding the moment the first sling was created:

"In that moment, everything that we were going to become was made not just possible but inevitable."

I don't believe that possibility necessitates inevitability, and I don't think Mr. Taylor truly does either.  On page 11, he lists the types of disasters that can cause civilizations to collapse, and societies to breakdown.  There was no guarantee humanity would come through these catastrophes.  I am certain that our ancient ancestors faced the same potential for complete and utter failure.  In fact, the moment after the sling was created, a man could have decided to use it as a noose around the female inventor's neck.  I honestly think the quoted statement may have been what I call an "author's slip;" it sounds too good not to use it, even though we know it isn't quite accurate.

The next criticism is completely subjective, but I feel it is important to mention.  Taylor states that his "artificial system" is controversial, in the introduction and implies such on many other occasions throughout the book.  I don't necessarily agree with this sentiment, and think it does more harm then help to his overall position.  I would find "psychic" or "supernatural," controversial, but, as a student of history, technology as a major player in human evolution just doesn't seem that out-there to me. 

Now, for the meatier criticisms.

Just because technology provides modern humans with all of our basic needs, does not mean we are less intelligent.  As the author states on page 8, necessities "all can be provided to allow specialists in technological research and development to focus full-time on analyzing the microscopic inner-level functioning of materials."  It takes a great deal of intelligence to understand nanotechnology, string theory, or piezoelectronics.  Just because these concepts are specialized, and not general, in nature, does not mean the they are any less valuable, or require less brain power.  In fact, I would argue the opposite; technology has allowed us time to nurture and grow our intelligence, and has benefited reciprocally by being programmed with the hand-me-down intelligence of yesteryear.  

Which leads me to the final opinion I possess that is different from Mr. Taylor's.  I believe recent brain shrinkage is no more than biology realizing it promoted too much growth during the competitive period 100,000 years ago.  When we were battling neanderthals to see which of the great primates would prevail, I believe our brains grew exorbitantly, just like the Starbucks coffee chain while it was facing competition.  But, once we won, our brains were no longer genetically stimulated to compete, and, like Starbucks today, started to shrink after the adrenaline spiked.  Both humans and Starbucks won their games, but over-expanded in the process.

I will keep these critiques on the top of my priority list as I analyze the book chapter by chapter in the mornings to come.
___
11/14

I am taking the time to delve deeply into the notes section of Timothy Taylor's book, and am surprised by how much new, and quite honestly bizarre things I am encountering.  The one I wish to discuss this morning is a prime example:  The Berlin Wall - A Love Story

I have heard of women masturbating with various objects, and even came across a video of a woman using a full sized baseball bat once.  But I had never considered people may actually believe objects have the same feelings and emotions as humans.  Then I read Eija-Riitta-Berliner-Mauer's peculiar tale.  She considers herself an Objectum-Sexual, defined as "to be emotionally, and sexually attracted to OBJECTS, things - not human beings..."  In fact, she is the widow of the Berlin Wall.

Mrs. Berliner-Mauer's beliefs are not that far off from what anthropologist would term animism, or the belief that all objects are living, and have a soul, just like human beings.  Animist also believe that objects are able to communicate telepathically with humans via "thought transference, and, "have the same level of awareness..."  It is important to note that she does not think that objects are superior to us, but rather equal, as are plants and animals.  She calls this idea "Total Equality," whereas Timothy Taylor would probably refer to it as "Becoming the Machine."

Mrs. Berliner-Mauer has been communicating with objects this way since childhood.  She feels strongly that the rest of humanity treats objects terribly, and refers to the mutual respect that was required for her marriage to the Berlin Wall to work.  The Berlin Wall did not ask to be 'born' anymore than we did.  It is therefore due the same respect, and has the, "same right to exist and have a decent life," that you and I do.

Because of the truly passionate love Mrs. Berliner-Mauer has for objects, her sexual acts with them should not be considered masturbation.  Like heterosexuals, she is attracted to objects based on how they look. Specifically, "it must be a construction with parallel lines, usually horizontal." 

I find this woman extremely bizarre, but I don't know if she is sick.  I asked my girlfriend's daughter who is a psychologist what her impressions were, and she said it truly depended upon how much Mrs. Berliner-Mauer's perceived dysfunction altered her ability to maintain normal relationships.   Regardless, this story really made me think about how embedded in our global culture objects have become that I can even be writing about a topic like this.
___
11/18
The Axe Had Never Sounded

A second site Mr. Taylor recommended gave an excellent history of French exploration and aboriginal contact in Tasmania.  I ended up printing and highlighting several interesting facts; some of which I have comments to make about, some of which I just want to note somewhere before I recycle my printouts. 

Introduction, Chapter 1, and Chapter 2:

I learned that archaeologists believe aborigines settled Tasmania about 30,000 years ago.  The first Europeans arrived in 1792.

As a lover of the history surrounding the French Revolution, I found this quote most enlightening, and amusing:

"There is a tradition that, on his way to the guillotine in 1793, Louis asked whether any news had yet been received concerning the fate of La Perouse.  The day of his execution was the date when the expedition entered Recherche Bay for its second visit."

The French expedition was a "model of mutual respect and observation," as far as aboriginal contact is concerned.  This description is far different from the British encounters.

The title of the piece comes from this quote by botanist Labillardiere:

"We were filled with admiration at the sight of these ancient forests, in which the sound of the axe had never been heard."

I also was thrilled to learn about Louise Geradin, the first European woman, disguised as a man, to visit Tasmania.  My middle name is "Mary Louise," and I have always longed to read about a "Louise" as adventurous as Ms. Geradin seems.

Chapter 3:

It doesn't surprise me that the scientists on the voyage clashed with military ranks.

"Although the naturalists made exciting and important discoveries, they encountered indifference or hostility from the naval personnel."

I find it sad, but not surprising, that politics got involved in determining "Who Owns the Past," in the case of Tasmania and the aborigines. 

"Unfortunately, these French achievements do not accord with Australian national sentiment, as promulgated by the Howard government, which accords iconic status to British navigators.  Tasmanian waters, in particular, were sailed by heroes Cook, Bligh, Flinders, and Bass."

This sentiment is further elaborated upon in the introduction to Chapter 5:

"The dominant British orientation in the teaching of Australian history and science, together with the iconic status of James Cook and Matthew Flinders, has hampered the recognition of foreign contributions, none moreso than that of the d'Entrecasteaux expedition."

Chapter 4:

The plant commonly referred to as eucalyptus was first discovered by Europeans on this trip:

"Labillardiere could hardly have anticipated the great commercial advantages of his discovery:  that it was introduced rapidly around the world as a cultivar, becoming the species by which the genus Eucalyptus became internationally known; that by 1905 four million feet of its timber would be supplied to the British Admiralty for wharf piles; that today more than 1.3 million hectares of E. globulus are planted outside Australia and 0.4 million hectares of plantation within Australia; or that Tasmania would adopt it as its State floral emblem."

He also identified the type of eucalyptus favored by koalas, E. viminalis, or ribbon gum.

(I will continue with chapter 4 next time I write on this thread.)