Quote:
>: >How do you know? I object to the claim that they did so in a highly
>: >efficient way when you clearly cannot know one way or the other. Nor
>: >do I accept that each society created both social and technical
>: >specializations if that implies they all did. It is more likely
>: >that dozens of societies tried and failed. Only a few managed to
>: >combine social structures with technology (which they probably
>: >borrowed anyway) to create a successful way of life. We just
>: >don't see the failures.
>: I don't know for certain, but I can reasonably suppose that
>: paleolithic moderns adapted to habitat in the same way as did the
>: traditional peoples studied by ethnologists.
>I don't think that is reasonable. I don't even think it is
>reasonable to generalise from modern "traditional" people to
>pre-modern "traditional" peoples. Much less further back.
It would be reasonable if we could determine universal modes of human
adaptation: ways of adapting to habitat that all peoples at all levels
of technological development share and that can be associated with
species-wide behavi{*filter*}abilities and dispositions. I think that we
can do that within the conceptual framework provided by the
indirect-specialization theory. If we can indeed do so, then it is
highly reasonable to suppose we inherited the innate behavi{*filter*}
dispositions from our immediate ancestors, the paleolithic moderns.
Quote:
>: As far as I can
>: determine, all such peoples had both technological and social
>: specializations. The Inuit are a prime example. Physically they are,
>: like the rest of us, tropical animals, but they managed by means of
>: technological and social specializations to survive in a habitat that
>: would seem to be very hostile to creatures of our physical
>: characteristics.
>True. Although it is worth noting that the Inuit have also evolved
>for their environment to some extent. The question is not whether
>the Inuit have managed to do it, but if they do so efficiently, or
>if all groups that tried to do it succeeded. Given the Inuit are
>not exactly over-whelmed with other ethnic groups competing for the
>same resources I would think not. The Inuit are the exceptions.
They do have certain physical adaptations to habitat such as a stocky
build and increased {*filter*} flow to the extremities. There is nothing in
the indirect-specialization theory that would preclude such
adaptations. But without cultural specializations they never could
have even penetrated into the far Northern regions. The effectiveness
of their adaptations was attested to by arctic explorers who
eventually adopted Inuit clothing, transport and techniques in
preference to "advanced" Western tools and methods. The Inuit's
harpoon, ice-hut and other cultural specializations allowed them to
live in a region and to exploit habitat resources that otherwise would
be completely unavailable. In this sense they were highly efficient.
It was this very efficiency that precluded competition from other
groups. It was a simple case of competitive exclusion, just as happens
among other species. In a given region, no two species can occupy the
same niche simultaneously. The better adapted species will exclude the
other. The same ecological dynamic is operating, though the
specializations are culturally created and maintained and the
competing groups are all humans sharing the same underlying survival
strategy.
Quote:
>: But even peoples such as the !kung developed
>: specialized hunting and tracking techniques.
>I'm not sure how specialised they are, but let's leave that aside
>and say they did. But how many other peoples tried to join the
>!Kung and failed? There was a mass movement of "Bantus" into S.
>Africa and yet none of them seem to have been able to adapt to
>the !Kung's territory. Which suggests to me it isa lot harder
>thanyou seem to imply.
I didn't mean to imply that it is easy to create a specialized way of
life that is well adapted to a particular habitat. It requires the
development of both technical and social skills. The !Kung were very
good at what they did. I don't think migrating Bantu peoples tried to
join hunter-gatherers in their ways of life. They were primarily
agriculturalists and pastoralists. They had their own specialized ways
of life based on different patterns of interaction with habitat.
Quote:
>: And the "primitive" pygmy
>: peoples seem to have been very good at developing specialized cooking.net">food
>: processing techniques for rendering poisonous rain forest plants
>: edible.
>And the pygmy peoples have been able to survive, unlike the pygmies
>of southeast Asia, because no one else has been able to adapt to
>their environment. Outside the forest they could not go safely. Nor
>anyone else in. Again evidence I would think that adaption is much
>harder than you think. Moreover peoples might not adapt socially
>at all - people with the correct social structures may be able to
>succeed while peoples without won't.
I don't think adaptation is easy. I think it is a structured process
that can have many different possible outcomes.
Quote:
>: Borrowing certainly occurred and many attempts no doubt did
>: fail. We possess innate "conservative" tendencies that tend to
>: "buffer" societies against the equally innate "radical" tendencies
>: associated with niche-shifting.
>No doubt. And when it comes to social structures we are even
>more conservative.
>: >: Yet, if the need arose,
>: >: they could shift their behavior patterns. They could create a new
>: >: ecological niche.
>: >Again why do you think you know this? Some probably could. Most
>: >probably couldn't. Again we only see the survivors because those
>: >that couldn't wouldn't last.
It's true we see only the survivors. All the archaic humans are gone.
There is considerable evidence to suggest that archaics were less
developed as indirect specialists. There was less variety in their
tool kits, for one thing, and although they became the most widely
distributed of all large terrestrial mammals, they never seemed to
gain the ability of moderns to make a living anywhere on earth (except
in antarctica) in any kind of habitat.
Quote:
>: I know it because we see it all around us. People are shifting
>: behavior patterns now all across the earth. It happened in the past
>: also, but usually more limited to single societies, as when they
>: migrated into new regions with different habitat conditions, or when
>: they adjusted on an individual basis to climate change.
>But more oten than not they are merely copying a way of life
>they have seen elsewhere. They are not inventing it anew. The
>spread of agriculture was slower than walking pace and may
>have been spread by the physical expansion of farmers rather
>than any copying of technique. Not a good sign that people in
>the pre-modern period were able to shift niches well. Past{*filter*}
>nomadism is another good example where it took centuries for
>all the pieces, once they had been invented, to come together
>and then centuries again for it to spread across Eurasia. The
>picture is far far more complicated than you mkae out.
If members of a particular society can copy techniques and customs
that provide them with a survival advantage, and that do not unduly
disrupt an established way of life, it may be to their advantage to do
so. Borrowing of techniques and the integration of these techniques
into established ways of life is one aspect of the
indirect-specialization strategy. But in the past, a group that
invented or otherwise obtained some advantageous technique or set of
customs also might simply displace other groups who live in other
ways. The spread of agriculture could very well have been slower than
walking pace. The migrating farmers had a well developed way of life
with established techniques customs and values. Hunter-gatherers who
encountered these migrants, and who did not share their beliefs,
values and customs, might see the agricultural lifestyle as repugnant
and alien rather than attractive. We are biologically equipped to
shift niches, but we also form emotional attachments to established
ways of life. This helps insure that untested modes of adaptation will
not be rushed into blindly. It can be disadvantageous, however, in
some cases.
Quote:
>: >Well some of them perhaps. Or maybe they just lucked out. How
>: >do you know either way?
>: Because all societies develop a variety of specialized skills,
>: technologies and social practices.
>Or do they just inherit them?
During most periods the great majority of techniques and customs would
be inherited from previous generations. This is the primary advantage
of the indirect-specialization strategy. Ways of life can be worked
out over periods of generations. Periods of invention or borrowing
will lead to eventual assimilation of innovations and the
reestablishment of a fairly stable pattern of interactions with
habitat. At least this was often true among traditional peoples. The
ability to assimilate innovations into a new or modified way of life
involves a number of innate abilities and behavi{*filter*}dispositions.
Quote:
>: >Unstable in what sense? Life is *easier* for agriculturalists and
>: >that is why people adopt that lifestyle.
>: Unstable in the sense that it was more difficult to settle back into a
>: fairly unchanging way of life with stable ecological relationships. I
>I agree that once you take up agriculture life is rarely unchanging.
>Surpluses give you the opportunity to specialise, to trade, to join
>a variety of uneconomic specialisations. But I don't see what is
>unstable about it as far as the ecology goes. In both cases early
>agriculture and "hunting and gathering" simply involved too little
>impact to do much to the environment either way. Although that has
>not stopped major changes being caused by goats and the like.
Egypt remained fairly
...
read more »
the hunter-gatherer fallacy