Science, medicine, and quackery

[kerbiloid]

1 minute ago, Green Baron said:

the latter is not a very intelligent remark.

I'm just trying to understand why did they leave the paradise of our Mother Africa and spread around the world when their life was so rich and healthy,
Crossed the cold Beringia, crossed the straits of Oceania, occupied Siberia.

They did it long before the neolithocalypse.
I guess, not a hunger was inspiring them, but the itch for adventure.

[Green Baron]

3 minutes ago, kerbiloid said:

I'm just trying to understand why did they leave the paradise of our Mother Africa and spread around the world when their life was so rich and healthy,
Crossed the cold Beringia, crossed the straits of Oceania, occupied Siberia.

They did it long before the neolithocalypse.
I guess, not a hunger was inspiring them, but the itch for adventure.

Ok, sorry for that. I thought it was one of your usual jokes ;-)

Clothing is available to humans at least since 200.000 years.

"Why ?" Nobody has no idea. Curiosity ?

Edited January 10, 2019 by Green Baron

[kerbiloid]

3 minutes ago, Green Baron said:

Ok, sorry for that. I thought it was one of your usual jokes ;-)

Clothing is available to humans at least since 200.000 years.

(Actually, I was quoting the paradise description out of memory, but maybe the translations differ, )

Edited January 10, 2019 by kerbiloid

[Green Baron]

2 minutes ago, kerbiloid said:

(Actually, I was quoting the paradise description out of memory, but maybe the translations differ, )

Ah ! Now i see ... no, i didn't get that, again, sorry. Adam & Eve dressed in maple leafs in paradise ? That is early/high medieval thoughts :-)

[kerbiloid]

Just now, Green Baron said:

Adam & Eve dressed in maple leafs in paradise ?

That happened later, after some regrettable incident.

[tater]

Hunter gatherers seem to have done pretty well for a long time. Agriculture allowed more people to be around, not necessarily more people leading better lives.

[StrandedonEarth]

7 hours ago, Green Baron said:

Clothing is available to humans at least since 200.000 years.

 "Why ?" Nobody has no idea. Curiosity ?

Probably started as protection from thorns while tracking down wounded prey. Footwear for really rough, cold, or hot ground. 

Then they noticed it kept them warm on cold nights 

[mikegarrison]

7 hours ago, Green Baron said:

Clothing is available to humans at least since 200.000 years.

What provides the date for that? I've seen some studies that show the DNA of lice and mites that preferentially live in clothing rather than hair dates back to some time around then, but the dates from those studies are more like 70,000 - 170,000 years.

[Green Baron]

27 minutes ago, mikegarrison said:

What provides the date for that? I've seen some studies that show the DNA of lice and mites that preferentially live in clothing rather than hair dates back to some time around then, but the dates from those studies are more like 70,000 - 170,000 years.

I am just conservative to avoid discussion :-). Another study on the same subject says 540,000.

The reason to say 200,000: Ante-Neandertals in central Europe (and possibly in Siberia but until now without direct finding) during OIS-6 (pre OIS-5) could not have survived without effective protection.

-----------

Side note, and the reason to say "at least":

Some anthropologists conclude that some form of protection must have been available even for the Homo erectus when they left Africa towards Europe and Asia, like Dmanisi. Since there is some evidence that one individual was probably taken care of by the group (no teeth), the survival of these in that time and climate is not guaranteed by adaptation alone. So, maybe, much earlier, like 1.8 million years ? But that is speculative, and surely the upper limit.

Edited January 10, 2019 by Green Baron
j -> t

[sevenperforce]

Relatively accurate identification of the emergence of clothing can be made by identifying the genetic divergence of head lice and clothing lice.

[Green Baron]

Well, assuming that there actually is a co-evolution between lice and clothing, which is debatable, lice can have evolved elsewhere and then chosen the new host, or they can have evolved on the new host but much later. And, where things are even more debatable, if not shaky, that a certain mutation rate over a long period is maintained. Which is needed to estimate the moment of speciation in the past. The rest is statistics.

The argument can contribute to the discussion, but it is less than secure.

-------------

Composite tool making (wood hafting, birch tar, stone) and traces of tannic acids in the last warm phase:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1040618213004084

A nearby find site is 70.000 years older (Neumark Nord 2), and thus dates to the beginning of mis 6/end of mis 7(*), but does not show the same technological level. Future will tell moar :-)

(*) climatic stages in the pleistocene, measured by stable oxygen isotope ratios from foraminifera, numbered from today on backwards. pair=cold/impair=warm. They roughly coincide with milankovic cycles of 40/100,000 years. Just to not loose the space connection totally :-)

Edited January 11, 2019 by Green Baron

[kerbiloid]

2 hours ago, Green Baron said:

lice can have evolved elsewhere and then chosen the new host, or they can have evolved on the new host but much later.

Every lice have their area, and they usually don't mistake with it. A head louse, a clothing louse, a pubic louse.
Hard to imagine how could they come from different sources, when they live on humans, not on rats or dogs.

(Requesting DNA comparison)

16 hours ago, StrandedonEarth said:

Probably started as protection from thorns while tracking down wounded prey.

As African and Amazonian _{(not Wonderwoman, but Brazilian)} forest tribes wear something around the crotch, that's definitely not against cold.

***

Chimps don't wear skirts btw. Probably our small humble loyal friends can talk us also when the human started walking on his/her/mostly his two and needing a protection.

Edited January 11, 2019 by kerbiloid

[Green Baron]

Even if you accept that as being set in stone (which many don't out of their understanding of how evolution works), dates in lice studies are spread between 75,000 and 540,000 before now.

Parasites actually do jump from different hosts. Example the bed louse, which apparently seemingly came over from cave bats.

Edited January 11, 2019 by Green Baron

[KerikBalm]

On 1/10/2019 at 1:00 PM, Green Baron said:

You judge from the viewpoint of a sedentary organism. Approach it from the other side: the lifestyle is not nomadic (nomadic lifestyle emerged in the neolithic) and it is not forced. Groups moving are not as exposed to the "whims of the environment" as sedentary ones. The do not depend that much because they adapt their behaviour quickly. It is a good solution for the given situation, the niche of humans, and it worked well for 100.000s of years. Which was far more sustainable than what we do now. It'll not last that long ;-)

His point about population growth is valid. Sedentary or not, "rich environments" become scarce environments in short order due to population growth. "life is not thriving, its merely surviving"

Times of richness and thriving are short lived (in the grand scheme of things, it can last for a few/several generations), then its back to always a struggle to find enough food and maintain population.

As to the whims of the environment: again its not clear cut. Having a diverse set of food sources is good. Indeed omnivores and "generalists" survive extinction events better than those with more specialized niches... but the food supply still is at the whim of the environment.... Diversity of sources protects against complete collapse, but not hunger. If your tribe has 150 individuals, and this year the herds, fruits, small game, etc, are only enough to support 50... you have a problem... if you migrate elsewhere, you may find the area already occupied, now there's an inter-tribal war...

Agriculture was generally more stable, it certainly supported higher populations (it was a gradual transition, not a sharp one). Monocrops are vulnerbale to collapse, but a diverse set of crops (as there would be during the gradual transition, and as in some areas in recent history, but not others [ie irish potato famine]) protects against a lot of the variability (particularly diseases). Other innovations like irrigation brought the environmental variability (as far as what is needed to produce food) down. Grain can also be stored for a long time, enabling societies to better withstand short term variability (but not multiple years in a row of bad harvests).

Just eat a variety of stuff. Humans clearly evolved as generalist feeders. We moved into many new environments, changed lifestyles and diets, and thrived, with our population exploding (and we're reaching a breaking point, but that is for another thread).

[Green Baron]

Quote

Times of richness and thriving are short lived (in the grand scheme of things, it can last for a few/several generations), then its back to always a struggle to find enough food and maintain population.

Paleolithic lifestyle was stable for 100.000s of years. There was only little population growth, rather movement and coming and going. While a bottleneck might have happened (though that is unclear), usually humans where well integrated in the environment. That these people were "struggling" is a modern existentialists view, the being in the face of a harsh world, and temporarily a struggle may have happened, driving the groups for example out of stressed environments to warmer areas, but not generally. Human expansion in the paleolithic can rather be seen as being curiosity driven than by need.

Quote

As to the whims of the environment: again its not clear cut. Having a diverse set of food sources is good. Indeed omnivores and "generalists" survive extinction events better than those with more specialized niches... but the food supply still is at the whim of the environment.... Diversity of sources protects against complete collapse, but not hunger. If your tribe has 150 individuals, and this year the herds, fruits, small game, etc, are only enough to support 50... you have a problem... if you migrate elsewhere, you may find the area already occupied, now there's an inter-tribal war...

If. But that was apparently not the case in the European upper paleolithic. The areas where probably not all occupied. Population pressure is not a driving factor then (*).

Quote

Agriculture was generally more stable, it certainly supported higher populations (it was a gradual transition, not a sharp one). Monocrops are vulnerbale to collapse, but a diverse set of crops (as there would be during the gradual transition, and as in some areas in recent history, but not others [ie irish potato famine]) protects against a lot of the variability (particularly diseases). Other innovations like irrigation brought the environmental variability (as far as what is needed to produce food) down. Grain can also be stored for a long time, enabling societies to better withstand short term variability (but not multiple years in a row of bad harvests).

With the onset agriculture 10.000s of years of stability are lost. "Suddenly" there are periods of build-up and decline now, war over resources or world views and generally individuals have to struggle much more than before to earn a living, which is reflected in lore as well as in archaeological reality. Pressure drive people out of places and into others, only stopping when the technology must be adapted when new conditions demand so (ground, climate, forests).

A late paleolithic hunter had much less work a day as a neolithic farmer (though those never saw each other).

Irrigation depends greatly on a stable environment. People start to talk about the weather, and suddenly a year without rain causes hunger and population decline, or war over resources, because people reach a carrying capacity much faster. While it is true that "suddenly" more mouths can be filled, the group is much more vulnerable to changes than before.

Quote

Just eat a variety of stuff. Humans clearly evolved as generalist feeders. We moved into many new environments, changed lifestyles and diets, and thrived, with our population exploding (and we're reaching a breaking point, but that is for another thread).

Signed and given :-)

-------------

(*) Edit: or, which paleolithic or even mesolithic find situation makes you think of hunger and intertribal war ? And as a follow up question: which post paleo- or mesolithic find situation makes one think of hunger intertribal war ?

Edited January 15, 2019 by Green Baron

[kerbiloid]

1 hour ago, Green Baron said:

Paleolithic lifestyle was stable for 100.000s of years. There was only little population growth, rather movement and coming and going. While a bottleneck might have happened (though that is unclear), usually humans where well integrated in the environment. That these people were "struggling" is a modern existentialists view, the being in the face of a harsh world, and temporarily a struggle may have happened, driving the groups for example out of stressed environments to warmer areas, but not generally. Human expansion in the paleolithic can rather be seen as being curiosity driven than by need.

So, why did they leave Africa if the population was stable?
What had the dwellers of the African paradise lost in the unknown America(s) to get from the warm Africa and MidEast into the cold Siberia, then cross the cold Beringia?
Why has the Pasific coastline and Oceania been occupied in several waves?

All this happened long before the horror of the neolith.

1 hour ago, Green Baron said:

But that was apparently not the case in the European upper paleolithic. The areas where probably not all occupied.

Why have the Northern Europeans gotten big and blonde?
And why do many of them have eyes and genes of Siberian origin?
All this happened before the neolith.

1 hour ago, Green Baron said:

With the onset agriculture 10.000s of years of stability are lost.

A stable nomadding of small groups has been replaced with a stable growth of agricultural societies and stable expansion.

1 hour ago, Green Baron said:

A late paleolithic hunter had much less work a day as a neolithic farmer (though those never saw each other).

 

Much less of handwork. But much more daily mileage to find a bunch of 'shrooms and berries or to do a fatality when finding something wounded but not eaten by a friendly pack of wolves.
There was a crowd of 50-100 humans to feed every day. The Discovery-style fairy videos show just several hunters having to feed several persons, not a whole crowd of eaters.

1 hour ago, Green Baron said:

Irrigation depends greatly on a stable environment. People start to talk about the weather, and suddenly a year without rain causes hunger and population decline, or war over resources, because people reach a carrying capacity much faster. While it is true that "suddenly" more mouths can be filled, the group is much more vulnerable to changes than before.

They can dry and keep the grain (and the holy cats help to do this). An easy runner can carry food just for several days.
And if you meet another tribe, same weak and hungry, your first thought will be: "Friends!" "Meat!"

1 hour ago, Green Baron said:

which paleolithic or even mesolithic find situation makes you think of hunger and intertribal war ?

When these are wars between 100-person tribes, all of them are just domestic conflicts and finish with a gala dinner with the defeated tribe in the role of the main course.
Unlikely you'll find some traces of war even a year after.

Spoiler

He-he, unless it's a cave populated for millenia where they drop the bones right on the floor,

 

Edited January 15, 2019 by kerbiloid

[Green Baron]

While i love this discussion, i prefer a factual basis as a foundation from which to start. A question "why" cannot be answered without speculation, but we can describe what we find, the material, hardware that makes a noise when dropped :-). Some interpretation and depiction does not harm, as long as we don't let our own cultural background narrow our view, which is frequently the case in popular publications, books etc.

 

Anyway, we all apparently agree that a broad diet of meat, veggies, fruits, as fresh as possible, is the most healthy nutritional way for us. And with that, i quit for lunch :-)

 

[kerbiloid]

31 minutes ago, Green Baron said:

While i love this discussion, i prefer a factual basis as a foundation from which to start. A question "why" cannot be answered without speculation, but we can describe what we find, the material, hardware that makes a noise when dropped :-).

So, we can assume that the paleolythic colonists were just tourists crossing the oceans for pure interest.

[Green Baron]

Прия́тного аппети́та ! (German: Mahlzeit !, English ... hmm what do working class people say when they go for lunch ?) :-)

22 minutes ago, kerbiloid said:

So, we can assume that the paleolythic colonists were just tourists crossing the oceans for pure interest.

You haven't marked that as a spoiler but i understand it is meant as a joke because

- there is no paleolysis

- the concept of a colony is not applicable

- tourism neither

- ocean crossings are very improbable, but cannot totally be excluded towards the late-/end-/epi-paleolysis

- interest rates are much too low these days for a sustainable economy

Wait, scrub that, it is too far off topic :-)

Hey, i am just trying to be funny *kerbalwithfoolscap*

Edited January 15, 2019 by Green Baron

[kerbiloid]

It was not a trolling which you probably meant. It was a "reductio ad absurdum" argument.

_{(That's exactly why I haven't hidden it in a spoiler).}

Edited January 15, 2019 by kerbiloid

[Green Baron]

I was actually serious with my statement that i need a reasonable argument on a factual basis in contrast to speculation and populism to carry on with the discussion. If you think that that is absurd then, yes, then you are just trolling.

Anyway, there is no new insight in here for me.

Edited January 15, 2019 by Green Baron

[YNM]

2 hours ago, kerbiloid said:

So, why did they leave Africa if the population was stable?
What had the dwellers of the African paradise lost in the unknown America(s) to get from the warm Africa and MidEast into the cold Siberia, then cross the cold Beringia?
Why has the Pasific coastline and Oceania been occupied in several waves?

Because we're human.

49 minutes ago, Green Baron said:

- the concept of a colony is not applicable

- tourism neither

- ocean crossings are very improbable, but cannot totally be excluded towards the late-/end-/epi-paleolysis

I think that every single of our human endeavor has been conducted only by the most brave, clever, hardened yet the most kind of us.

[kerbiloid]

1 hour ago, YNM said:

Because we're human.

So, why we the human did it except for food?

1 hour ago, YNM said:

I think that every single of our human endeavor has been conducted only by the most brave, clever, hardened yet the most kind of us.

Undoubtedly.

Spoiler

 

Upd.
There are only two reasons for some people expansion:

1. No food.
They seek for food. Just so.

2. A lot of food.
A lot of food allows them to make a lot of new humans.
A lot of youngsters make the society unstable, they send them as far away as possible to found a new colony and live there. Qart Hadasht.

If they were crossing Siberia and Beringia for decades, it could be an enterprise, p.2. 
But it took millenia, so the p.2. is excluded.

Edited January 15, 2019 by kerbiloid

[tater]

Off topic, but people always fail to realize that water connected people to other places, it didn't separate them.

People (with stone age technology) in the Pacific crossed that ocean in canoes.

You don't need massive population pressure for humans to move. It's not like a large mass of people decided to leave Africa implicitly to colonize new lands. A large band could be wandering around, and they see 2 possible directions to look for food in some tough situation. They can't agree, so some head left (North), the others go straight (East). Next thing you know, there are 2 bands, one a little North, the other a little East. Do this over time, and eventually some people have moved pretty far.

Edited January 15, 2019 by tater

[kerbiloid]

1 minute ago, tater said:

Off topic, but people always fail to realize that water connected people to other places, it didn't separate them.

It connects and separates depending on circumstances.

Oder vs Odra, Laba vs Elba. A two millenia divider between Germans and Slavs.
English Channel / La Manche. An island kingdom, opposed to the continental ones, Battle for Britain, so on.
The thalassocracies of Ancient Crete, Medival Italian Republics, later Spain (hi, Mr. Drake), then British Empire.
Black Sea, a divider first between Ellinistic world and Slavic barbarians, later states, then a divider between Muslim and Christian worlds.
Oceans around the Americas were separating American humans from the other ones till just XV cent. 
Japan, self-isolated for centuries thanks to the sea and the ocean.
Australia, the fartherst habitable continent because it's beyond the ocean.
A "frontier river" term itself. As well as a "natural water barrier".

So, the water connects when you own it, and doesn't if not.

15 minutes ago, tater said:

People (with stone age technology) in the Pacific crossed that ocean in canoes.

I'm not sure if the Native Australians had canoe 20ky (or how much) years ago.
But anyway even when one youngster crosses a straight just 4lulz, the whole tribe wouldn't follow him unless they really need.

18 minutes ago, tater said:

You don't need massive population pressure for humans to move.

A pressure of hunger is enough.
Otherwise the villagers will just say "You are our champion, young hero! We are proud of you! Come on, go find something else and stay there as long as possible."