What We Inherited From Hunter Gatherers. (The genetic memory of the past).

[Aberdeen]

Chimps are known to hunt smaller monkeys and eat meat rather regularly. I would be surprised if it was different 4 million years ago with our common ancestor and early hominids.


There is another, more primitive, hunting technique. Well trained humans can run many animals to their exhaustion. It is an easy kill at the end when the prey have no strength to run anymore and collapses. I wrote about this, and other complementing evolutionary changes, in "Anatomy and Mobility" chapter. Just posted.

The Bushmen of South Africa still hunt that way, but it only works on open grassland where grazing animals are common and easy to find and there are few obstacles to running. I think that in a forested area where game is scarce and can easily hide but there's lots of fish in the rivers and lakes, fishing would be easier. Humans are very adaptable. And I think one reason most of us love the sea shore is because that's where early humans found it easiest to find food.

 

[Aberdeen]

I think that the way we use language is to a large extent a cultural thing, both in terms of differences between countries and differences between men and women. It seems to me that women often use language in order to facilitate bonding and reach consensus whereas men are apt to use language to announce decisions we've made, because men and women are generally socialized to behave differently. Of course, there are always exceptions to cultural norms.

 

[LeBrok]

The Bushmen of South Africa still hunt that way, but it only works on open grassland where grazing animals are common and easy to find and there are few obstacles to running. I think that in a forested area where game is scarce and can easily hide but there's lots of fish in the rivers and lakes, fishing would be easier. Humans are very adaptable. And I think one reason most of us love the sea shore is because that's where early humans found it easiest to find food.

I guess they must have stayed in grasslands for extended period of time only hunted by running. Weapons, like arrows, stone tips and fishing hooks or nets are almost recent inventions. Perhaps all wooden spear is much older but it is impossible to find any artifact, due to wood rotting easily. I believe, before the spear, they were throwing stones at the prey, like birds or small mammals. There must be a reason why we have good few highly popular games based on throwing a small balls. Hard stone like balls which we throw with joy.

 

[hope]

There is another, more primitive, hunting technique. Well trained humans can run many animals to their exhaustion. It is an easy kill at the end when the prey have no strength to run anymore and collapses. I wrote about this, and other complementing evolutionary changes, in "Anatomy and Mobility" chapter. Just posted.

How about chasing them into traps..such as dug out ditch? They could then finish them by stoning perhaps.

 

[LeBrok]

How about chasing them into traps..such as dug out ditch? They could then finish them by stoning perhaps.

Maybe not dug out by people, as it is extremely difficult to dig deep hole without tools, but a natural trench or drop could be easily used by group of hunters to chase animals into it. This was one of prefered methods of prairie Indians to hunt buffalo. They've scared them into a stampede and directed the flow into a, so called, Buffalo Jump. They have gotten more meat than they could eat from tens of kills at any given time.

 

[LeBrok]

Skepticism about origin of pubic and armpit hair

I’m getting a second thought regarding pubic hair. Kids don’t have them, and the only hair on kids’ body is the head hair. It makes head hair very important for kids and adults. The insulation factor from sunlight or cold make quite a sense here. However if it comes to other body hair, kids are completely naked. They run and sweat same as adults and they live perfectly fine without armpit or pubic hair, protecting them against, supposed by me, skin burns and infections. It would mean that body hair serves, or has served our ancestors, only a special function and only in adulthood. It is also surprising that unlike other primates, human genitals are hidden in a “cloud” of hair. Interestingly all primates have rather thick body hair except on genitals, but it is reversed in humans. We don’t have much body hair except on and around genitals. Judging by other primates, our common relative must have had no hair on genitals either. It seems almost like humans developed pubic hair to hide reproductive organs from the view, and only in adulthood. At the time of full usefulness of these organs.

What is (was) the function of pubic hair? Any ideas, anyone?

I doubt that it was done by sexual selection, otherwise we would perceive pubic hair very sexy, but we don’t. Although, it must have been a terribly important reason, that this mutation held place in spite of our esthetic desires.

I don't have better idea at the moment but going back to these first HGs who hunted by exhaustion factor. Therefore did most of running ever in human history. I think they needed all the cushioning they could get around their jewels during these long runs. Also keeping testicles cooler and off direct sunlight comes essential to sperm motility.

 

[arvistro]

Wow, good question indeed.

 

[Maleth]

addiction to smoke maybe? why do so many people still smoke even they know its bad for you?

 

[Angela]

I’m getting a second thought regarding pubic hair. Kids don’t have them, and the only hair on kids’ body is the head hair. It makes head hair very important for kids and adults. The insulation factor from sunlight or cold make quite a sense here. However if it comes to other body hair, kids are completely naked. They run and sweat same as adults and they live perfectly fine without armpit or pubic hair, protecting them against, supposed by me, skin burns and infections. It would mean that body hair serves, or has served our ancestors, only a special function and only in adulthood. It is also surprising that unlike other primates, human genitals are hidden in a “cloud” of hair. Interestingly all primates have rather thick body hair except on genitals, but it is reversed in humans. We don’t have much body hair except on and around genitals. Judging by other primates, our common relative must have had no hair on genitals either. It seems almost like humans developed pubic hair to hide reproductive organs from the view, and only in adulthood. At the time of full usefulness of these organs.

What is (was) the function of pubic hair? Any ideas, anyone?

I doubt that it was done by sexual selection, otherwise we would perceive pubic hair very sexy, but we don’t. Although, it must have been a terribly important reason, that this mutation held place in spite of our esthetic desires.

The things I wind up discussing on this forum! It's a good thing the conversations are brokered by the internet.:ashamed2:

See:
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/aug/07/pubic-hair-has-job-stop-shaving

"Pubic hair does have a purpose, providing a cushion against friction that can cause skin abrasion and injury, protection from bacteria and other unwanted pathogens"...

'Pubic hair removal naturally irritates and inflames the hair follicles left behind, leaving microscopic open wounds...When that irritation is combined with the warm moist environment of the genitals, it becomes a happy culture medium for some of the nastiest of bacterial pathogens, namely Group A Streptococcus, Staphylococcus aureus and its recently mutated cousin methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA). There is an increase in staph boils and abscesses, necessitating incisions to drain the infection, resulting in scarring that can be significant. It is not at all unusual to find pustules and other hair-follicle inflammation papules on shaved genitals. Additionally, I've seen cellulitis (soft-tissue bacterial infection without abscess) of the scrotum, labia and penis as a result of spread of bacteria from shaving or from sexual contact with strep or staph bacteria from a partner's skin. Some clinicians are finding that freshly shaved pubic areas and genitals are also more vulnerable to herpes infections due to the microscopic wounds being exposed to viruses carried by mouth or genitals. It follows that there may be vulnerability to spread of other STIs as well."

So, the question would seem to me to be why this fashion, which goes against "fitness" and "survival" according to these authors, is sometimes adopted. (It has gone in and out of fashion over history, LeBrok; the current resurgence of it is only about a decade old.) My feeling about this and other bodily hair removal is that, in part, it's perhaps a desire to seem less "animalistic", or the feeling perhaps that smooth skin is the most sensuous? Another factor has to do, I think, with the increased infantilization of our society. Hairlessness in the genital area is a sign of pre-pubescence. The preference makes me slightly uncomfortable, on that basis, to be honest, as it seems to have a slight whiff of pedophelia about it. Part of the sex tourist trade draw to Thailand, Cambodia etc. is not only that these men have easier access to minors; it's also their expressed belief that even the post-pubescent women are more hairless and therefore look "younger." I don't actually know if that's true, but that's what they say. These women also less "busty", i.e. more "childish" looking.

 

[LeBrok]

The things I wind up discussing on this forum! It's a good thing the conversations are brokered by the internet.:ashamed2:

If I was asking people about their personal fashion around this area you could have a point.

"Pubic hair does have a purpose, providing a cushion against friction that can cause skin abrasion and injury, protection from bacteria and other unwanted pathogens".

To general for my liking.

Actually there used to be a very nasty pathogen loving this place, the crab louse.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crab_louse

Despite of more difficult hygiene and breeding ground for lice hair took roots in this area. I don't have better idea at the moment but going back to these first HGs who hunted by exhaustion factor. Therefore did most of running ever in human history. I think they needed all the cushioning they could get around their jewels during these long runs. Also keeping testicles cooler and off direct sunlight comes essential to sperm motility.

Pubic hair on women could have been a side effect of men developing hair there. Possible mutation of genes affecting both sexes equally. Not having a negative effect it could have persisting for women.
In modern world pubes don't serve much purpose, I suppose.

So, the question would seem to me to be why this fashion, which goes against "fitness" and "survival" according to these authors, is sometimes adopted. (It has gone in and out of fashion over history, LeBrok; the current resurgence of it is only about a decade old.) My feeling about this and other bodily hair removal is that, in part, it's perhaps a desire to seem less "animalistic", or the feeling perhaps that smooth skin is the most sensuous?

I'm not sure if it is just a fashion. As long as we have god technology to remove hair people in general tend to remove as much hair as possible, with exception of head hair. Regardless of fashion women remove most of eyebrows, and most men will always shave. Actually there wasn't a fashion trend yet for women to wear natural eyebrows. High hill, no hill, skirts long then short, but eyebrows always at minimum. I'm seeing some general dispassion for all kinds of body hair, and it is transracial. Women seem to be more affected than men in this regard.

Another factor has to do, I think, with the increased infantilization of our society. Hairlessness in the genital area is a sign of pre-pubescence. The preference makes me slightly uncomfortable, on that basis, to be honest, as it seems to have a slight whiff of pedophelia about it. Part of the sex tourist trade draw to Thailand, Cambodia etc. is not only that these men have easier access to minors; it's also their expressed belief that even the post-pubescent women are more hairless and therefore look "younger." I don't actually know if that's true, but that's what they say. These women also less "busty", i.e. more "childish" looking.

I'm hoping it is more about looking younger, without looking childish. It is interesting that people with head hair look younger than bold ones. This observation is reversed for face hair. Men with beards look older than men who shave. Exactly the way youngest humans look, the kids, with hair on top of head only.

Do women remove body hair to look younger, because they (subconsciously or not) know that men always look for younger women?

 

[hope]

There is a theory this hair may have something to do with partner selection and breeding.
First however, recall the sweaty t-shirt study:
http://www.eoht.info/page/Sweaty+T-shirt+study

Now the theory regarding pubic hair goes, that around the same time this hair makes an appearance, coincides with the time the Apocrine sweat glands begin working.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apocrine_sweat_gland

Oddly, the time when we cease being able to successfully procreate, coincides with the time this hair starts thinning a little.
So mate selection perhaps? I`m not sure how much I subscribe to this, but at the moment it seems plausible.

 

[Angela]

There is a theory this hair may have something to do with partner selection and breeding.
First however, recall the sweaty t-shirt study:
http://www.eoht.info/page/Sweaty+T-shirt+study

Now the theory regarding pubic hair goes, that around the same time this hair makes an appearance, coincides with the time the Apocrine sweat glands begin working.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apocrine_sweat_gland

Oddly, the time when we cease being able to successfully procreate, coincides with the time this hair starts thinning a little.
So mate selection perhaps? I`m not sure how much I subscribe to this, but at the moment it seems plausible.

Thanks for the link, Hope...interesting articles. I've read about the "attraction to those with slightly different immune systems" before, and it makes some sense I guess, but like a lot of these kinds of studies, the results are based on very small sample sizes. There's also the fact that there are studies which show that people are actually attracted to people related to them, and the accompanying theory that only incest taboos stop that kind of mating. Or perhaps it involves a happy medium, as in related, but not too related?

I have to say that one of the studies they cited goes against my own personal experience..."In 2003, American electrochemical electrical engineer Libb Thims conducted a study of 83 individuals, based on the findings of the MHC sent attraction studies, wherein, knowing that each MHC profile, per person, is based on one’s average ethnicity, i.e. the latitudes of existence of the ancestors of each individual person, in the sense that each latitude will tend to yield species that survive owing to certain disease susceptibility trait resistances, he polled each person as to what (a) ethnicity they were most sexually-attracted to and (b) their own ethnicity. The results of the study found that people, on average, were least sexually attracted to individuals of their own latitude of ethnicity, something already known from the Claus Wedekind (1995) study, and “most” sexually-attracted to individuals ±15° in latitude, above or below their own latitude of ethnicity. [6] This has since been referred to as the 15 degree rule of mate selection, in regards to physical traits attraction compatibilities." This couldn't be more incorrect in my own case.

All of that said, I think it's suggestive that lack of pubic (and underarm) hair indicates not enough hormones for procreation, whether it's because of pre-pubescence or a diminution of male and female hormones later in life. Visual cues may also not be the only factor. It could also be related to the fact that this is where the "scent" would be strongest.

This all raises the question for me as to why hairlessness in the genital area is currently preferred. It is a current fad, by the way...just take a look at Victorian pornographic plates some time. (I hasten to add that I saw them in a perfectly respectable academic setting...a university class in Victorian English society and literature. What I do in the interests of education!) For a more high brow experience, you can look at the nudes of Van Gogh, Modigliani (His Reclining Nudes are some of my all time favorite paintings) or, going back further in time, Titian (The Venus of Urbino), Goya (La Maja Desnuda) and on and on. It's also apparent that the preference for the stick thin, boyish figure is a twentieth century phenomenon.

 

[LeBrok]

Skills and Personalities updated:
http://www.eupedia.com/forum/thread...y-of-the-past)?p=444876&viewfull=1#post444876

 

[hope]

I`m not sure about this one but here goes. Our love of high fat foods.
I watched a very good documentary recently regarding high fat foods and our liking for them. The brain was scanned as foods were eaten. Low fat and fat free registered low. However within less of a second from the tongue tasting high fat food the brain registered its presence and a few seconds after this it then registered pleasure. The theory they gave was it could be a carry over effect from our ancient past when searching out high fat foods to help sustain, between hunting success and animal availability, would have been important.
So maybe we can blame our ancestors each time we give in to fat.

 

[LeBrok]

I`m not sure about this one but here goes. Our love of high fat foods.
I watched a very good documentary recently regarding high fat foods and our liking for them. The brain was scanned as foods were eaten. Low fat and fat free registered low. However within less of a second from the tongue tasting high fat food the brain registered its presence and a few seconds after this it then registered pleasure. The theory they gave was it could be a carry over effect from our ancient past when searching out high fat foods to help sustain, between hunting success and animal availability, would have been important.
So maybe we can blame our ancestors each time we give in to fat.

Definitely Hope, thanks for reminding me. I think the HGs of the North were and still are hooked on fats. Writing about food, in one of the posts, I was concentrated more on Africa, the place of origin of HGs, that I completely missed the higher latitudes HGs, of more recent past, who are really infatuated with fats. From medical research we know that Norther Europeans can eat more fatty diet (animal fats) than people from south, and stay healthy. This should be a gift from European HGs. Inuit in Canada and Eskimo's diet is to a large extend based on seal blubber. They wouldn't survive up there without animal fats. I expect that soon we will find genetic predispositions, of these peoples, to consume and digest mountains of fat and stay healthy. There are clues but nothing concrete in research about "fat loving" mutations. It's been said that animal fat is an excellent food to keep human body warm in cold climates. It was of paramount importance before we invented nice warm houses and cars.

I will include this next time I have time to indulge in the subject of this thread. Probably on my next lazy vacation someday in the future. Work and more work became a theme of recent months. Sigh.

 

[hope]

Work and more work became a theme of recent months. Sigh.

There`s no getting away from it ,LeBrok....sigh back...............................Still on a positive note, summer is, as you say, just around the corner, chance of a break then...maybe..

 

[LeBrok]

The Perfect Runner

There is a brilliant award winning documentary about evolutionary physiology of running. They take you for a journey from beginning of running 2 million years ago, persistent/exhaustion hunting, hunter gatherers and recreational running. They explain how to run naturally and healthy, and physics behind proper running. A must see for anyone interested in evolutionary biology and enthusiasts of running (it can save your knees and trips to hospital).
This is the type of "eye opener" movie.

Unfortunately not on Youtube yet.
http://theperfectrunner.com/
Canadian viewers can see it here:
http://www.cbc.ca/natureofthings/episodes/the-perfect-runner

Here is a trailer:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W0TEukG-6Mg

 

[LeBrok]

Fundamental sense of fairness.

This is how wall street protest started:

Throwing away good cucumber (free meal), because the other got the grape!

 

[LeBrok]

Fear, rage, anger, aggression, the function of subconscious brain.

[FONT=georgia, serif]Neurobiologist Douglas Fields article, and book behind it, about how much is going on in subconscious part of brain, and why.
[/FONT]http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/c...918879&spReportId=NzIyOTE4ODc5S0#.VqF-9vkrKUk
Part related to HG tribal life:

[FONT=georgia, serif]F:[/FONT][FONT=georgia, serif] Two that we are seeing are the “Tribe” trigger and the “Environment” trigger. The “Tribe” trigger is that human beings will separate into groups, us versus them, and they will use violence to maintain those groups. In early times, strangers, or a strange group, was a threat. A lot of what we see going on in talks about refugees and how to handle borders are all examples of the “E” and “T” trigger.[/FONT]
You can define “us and them” in many terms, and we have to be careful in how we are manipulated into defining “them.” In any election, we should be aware when politicians are pushing on these triggers. The hopeful side is that these triggers will also unite us. When we saw that picture of the refugee whose family had been killed and washed up on the beach, everything changed. When we saw that man in the picture, we saw ourselves. We saw that he was part of our tribe. He may be a Syrian, but he was a father, a family man. He was us.

 

[LeBrok]

http://www.eupedia.com/forum/thread...nce-adaptations-in-humans?p=493073#post493073