Humans Have the Intelligence; Animals Have the Smarts: Part Three

There’s no question that of all species on Planet Earth, modern humans, Homo sapiens, are top of the pops when it comes to intelligence (IQ). All other species, however close they might be in evolutionary terms to modern humans, pale in comparison. BUT, and there’s always a BUT, animals are way smarter, which raises questions about our actual relationship to them. Here I give numerous examples where animals are top of the pops when it comes to pure smarts.

Continued from yesterday’s blog…

MENTAL CONCEPTS

Birth, Death & Deities: Animals have no concept of their own death, hence an afterlife. They have no remembrance of their conception and probably their birth and of the concept of creation. Animals therefore have no need of religion and deities. Animals therefore have to carry around a lot less philosophical baggage. Humans however are obsessed with these concepts, really all unnecessary philosophical baggage IMHO.

Economics & Finance: No animal jumped out of windows at the start of the Great Depression. They lose no shuteye over the tax man, and bills are something on ducks.

Lifestyle: Animals don’t need to go to the ‘beauty’ parlour for a quick pick-me-up. The whole idea of a social scene – the right venue, the in-crowd, being seen with the ‘right’ people – is totally foreign to them. What to wear is a non-issue. The current must have fashions (doomed to be out of date within months if not less) is just so much ho-hum. There’s no need or desire for tattoos and body piercing. The latest celebrity scandal in the tabloids is a non-event. Collectables aren’t. A snazzy sports car or any other boy toy is boring. Animals don’t suffer from information overload. Because animals don’t purchase any products, they can’t be held responsible for any litter that arises (of which there is plenty). Humans however engage in this ever ongoing, never ending, pursuit in quest of the ‘good life’ and are usually never satisfied. Animals just enjoy life as best they can one day at a time – they live for the moment. 

Drugs: Animals do not wilfully harm themselves with substances foreign to their day-to-day survival. Humans – well there’s caffeine, smoking, drinking alcohol, all sorts of recreational drugs with varying degrees of mental addiction and artificial ‘stimulation’. Need one say more!

Harmful Habits: Animals do not engage in habits harmful to their wellbeing other than what’s required for basic survival, like say a predator taking on prey way larger than itself, defending your offspring from attack, or herds crossing a raging river on an annual migration. Then there are head-butting type contests over mating rights, but they usually result in a back-down, not death or extreme injury. Of course animals are still hardwired for the natural environment. Their eons ago development and evolution hasn’t caught up with our modern civilization yet, and so dogs may chase cars, and the road kill is additional evidence of how humans put animals in harms way – they don’t do it because they are suicidal. Humans, well from tattoos to body piercing to baking in the sun for an unnecessary suntan to extreme sports, humans like to take on risk without any possible actual additional benefit. Habits aside, humans, usually young macho males with way too much testosterone, like to put themselves in harms way – demonstrate the ‘right’ stuff. Pity more of them didn’t end up with a Darwin Award and remove themselves from the gene pool! I’ll drink to that since such self-destruct events wouldn’t bother me one iota.

Mental Health: Animals, left to their own devices, are in no need of a shrink. It’s only when humans try to force a (square) companion animal into their requirement of a (round) behavioural hole that problems arise. Companion animals under the influence of their human associations have ‘need’ of pet psychologists, or at least some of them apparently do according to the human, and really it’s ultimately the human’s fault. Do you think any wild animals have any such need of a shrink? No? I didn’t think so. Humans of course are often on the couch for counselling and therapy of one sort or another; the list way to long to detail in a short essay.

Isms: Animals do not discriminate on the grounds of gender or appearance. A ginger male cat will accept or reject a black male cat on grounds that have nothing to do with fur colour. A white female cat might pick and choose between lots of male cats and reject them all – that doesn’t mean she’s sexist or prefers female cats. Humans on the other hand, accept or reject other humans on just such distinctions, plus a whole host of other ‘isms’ that animals have no conception of in the first place. 

Opinions: Animals ask no questions; tell no lies; mind their own business; take everything at face value. Humans – can you say the same about you and the rest of the human race? Let’s face it; humans do anything but mind their own business. They happily pass judgements on any other lifestyle (especially one involving sex in any shape manner or form) that doesn’t conform to their own moral standards.

HUMAN-ANIMAL INTERACTIONS I’D LIKE TO SEE

What about jockeys carrying the horses around on their backs as they run around the race track! Now that would be worth watching!

How about a human three-ring circus with an animal audience!

In fact, just about any human-animal role reversal would be interesting.

CONCLUSIONS

So what does this analysis tell us about the differences between humans and ‘mere’ animals? We’ve seen there are many fundamental differences between way overrated humans (overrated by our own human opinions of ourselves of course) and way underrated animals (again, underrated according to the relatively biased opinions of humans). If the human-animal differences are due to natural selection, then there is a puzzlement in why did the rest of the animal kingdom take the ‘smart’ and commonsense road while humans took the intelligence road? While I’m sure there is an evolutionary connection between animals and the human animal, I also think there is some hidden variable(s) that caused the human branch to head off into uncharted territory (and go off the rails). If these differences (the hidden variables) are due to God, what does that tell you about what God is like?  Nothing good, that’s for sure! If it’s artificial selection, but not due to anything supernatural, then things get interesting.

The celebrated astrophysicist/cosmologist Stephen Hawking, among many others, is a strong advocate of humans boldly going and colonizing space as the only viable way of ensuring our long term survival. The Big Question however in my mind is should humanity infect the wider cosmic scene? Isn’t it enough one ‘pale blue dot’ has to suffer our lot? So, ET, if you are out there; be afraid, be very afraid!

Humans Have the Intelligence; Animals Have the Smarts: Part Two

There’s no question that of all species on Planet Earth, modern humans, Homo sapiens, are top of the pops when it comes to intelligence (IQ). All other species, however close they might be in evolutionary terms to modern humans, pale in comparison. BUT, and there’s always a BUT, animals are way smarter, which raises questions about our actual relationship to them. Here I give numerous examples where animals are top of the pops when it comes to pure smarts.

Humans have the highest IQ; but animals have vastly more commonsense. How so? Let’s consider various settings, starting with one we all share – time and space.

Continued from yesterday’s blog…

PHYSICAL ACTIONS

Good vs. Evil: Animals are neither good nor evil – those are human inventions or concepts. There are no animal equivalents of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. There’s no point in saying “good doggie” or “bad pussy cat” since they have no concept of “good” or “bad”. They may have learned what is and is not acceptable behaviour (what does and does not piss you off) but they do not understand why. While not every human transforms from good to evil and back again, and again, every human, unlike an animal, is theoretically capable of having a dual good/evil personality. Individuals’ aside, when looking at any large sample of humans, the dual nature becomes obvious.

Revenge & Justice: No animal deliberately plots and executes revengeful actions or has hidden agendas. What you see is what you get. Animals don’t fly planes into skyscrapers. Animals couldn’t even conceive of such a scenario in their wildest dreams. Humans on the other hand – need I say more?

Law & Order: All animal societies have some sort of internal regulation system which almost seems to be ingrained or hardwired. Such regulation usually doesn’t go much beyond the parents keeping the cubs in line and ensuring they don’t put themselves in harms way. Humans on the other hand have formalized their regulation of themselves to such an extreme degree that comparing the regulation of human society to say self-regulation of massive ant, termite or bee colony societies (which does just fine without cops and lawyers), is comparing not so much apples and oranges as the simplicity of a single electron with the complexity of the global weather system. How is it that an animal society can regulate itself without the need for a massive judicial infrastructure and requirement for highly specialized legal eagles and law enforcers?

Killing #1: Animals kill only as necessary for their own survival, both in defence as well as obtaining food for themselves and perhaps offspring. Humans kill out of sheer sadistic pleasure, for so-called ‘sport’, often just because they can. My cats, if they wanted to, kill garden snails – the weight of one paw would do it. However, snails are not food and pose no threat to them, so it’s live and let live. That’s unlike many humans who if they see a snail, a snail doing no harm to them or anything else, just delight in stomping on them – an 80 kg human vs. an 8 gm snail is no contest. Now that’s if the snail is lucky. All too often the sadistic human will just step on the animal lightly enough to crack the shell, leaving the snail helpless to either dry out in the sun or be at the mercy of the ants. It’s a very sad state of affairs that such examples can be expanded on by many orders of magnitude over a very wide range of species. 

Killing #2: If an animal wants to kill a human it has to get up close and personal. The reverse isn’t of necessity true. I wonder how brave our so-called ‘sportsmen’ hunters would be if the animals they hunted could shoot back. The concept of ‘sport’ is about equal contests and the same rules for all. Hunting animals therefore is not sport and it is high time the glorification of sport was divorced from hunting, which is anything but a glorious activity. The exception might be if the hunter is putting food on the table, but again, that’s not a ‘sport’.

Creativity & Technology #1: Some animals can be creative and ‘manufacture’ and use ‘technology’ like animals that pull off twigs and fashion them to stick into termite mounds in order to pull out a termite snack, or making use of materials to build a nest. But that ‘technology’ never backfires and bites them on the bum. Humans invent cars, but we have a road toll. We have electricity and accidents happen. We construct nuclear plants then have to worry about terrorism. We have created computers, and thus evolved the inevitable computer hacker and the computer virus. We manufacture all sorts of synthetic chemicals then wonder what to do with the toxic waste (actually we don’t wonder at all what to do with it – we dump it in the sea or the air since the solution to pollution is dilution).  

Creativity & Technology #2: Animals get along quite nicely thank you very much without Facebook, Twitter, iPads, email, mobile phones, Internet message boards, text-messaging, etc. Any human being, especially under the age of 40, and really, really especially under the age of 20, deprived of such technology becomes a basket case in nanoseconds! Attention to all those who feel the need to SMS 24/7: freedom is not being tied to your mobile phone; in contact with the rest of the world 24/7! Once upon a time, not all that long ago, human civilization (including teenagers therein) survived and thrived via communications that depended on smoke signals, semaphore flags and the pony express. If you really needed fast, there was the overland telegraph! It’s gotten to the point, maybe way beyond it already, that technology controls us; we are slaves to our own creations.

Domination: Humans Rule, OK? Left to itself, Mother Nature finds its own non-static, ever changing balance, in good times and bad times. Animals clearly affect that balance and in turn are affected by it. However, no animal species seeks to call the shots and exert ultimate control over that balance – no species except one of course, and no prizes for guessing what that species is. Humans decide, via some sort of divine right the fate and makeup of Earth’s ecosystems; what lives, what dies, in what ratios, what the landscape will be like, ever manipulating to find that balance that best suits us, which is going to be as far removed from a natural balance as it is possible to get. Take any human dominated environmental landscape. Remove the human element. Will that environmental landscape or ecosystem remain as is, as humans made it, or undergo a radical shift back to Mother Nature’s balance? Look no further than the typical backyard ecosystem/garden. It wouldn’t take long before natural change would render it unrecognizable if neglected by the garden’s occupants. If humans went poof, Earth would soon (in relatively minor geological time frames) become equally as unrecognizable as that household garden, or rather as recognizable as it was before humans came along with delusions of grandeur.

To be continued…

Humans Have the Intelligence; Animals Have the Smarts: Part One

There’s no question that of all species on Planet Earth, modern humans, Homo sapiens, are top of the pops when it comes to intelligence (IQ). All other species, however close they might be in evolutionary terms to modern humans, pale in comparison. BUT, and there’s always a BUT, animals are way smarter, which raises questions about our actual relationship to them. Here I give numerous examples where animals are top of the pops when it comes to pure smarts.

Humans have the highest IQ; but animals have vastly more commonsense. How so? Let’s consider various settings, starting with one we all share – time and space.

TIME & SPACE

Wake Up: Animals will wake up when their biological clocks tell them it’s time to wake up. Humans wake up when the alarm clock rings!

Going to Sleep: Animals go to sleep when their biological clocks tell them to go to sleep (including catnaps). Humans go to sleep after their favourite TV program finishes, like the late, late show! Humans push the boundaries and often refuse to rest even when their bodies tell them it’s desirable. An afternoon catnap ultimately increases productivity, but how many workplaces encourage napping (even briefly) on the job?

Time: All animals have a sense of time, a biological clock. However, unlike humans, one cannot suggest that animals are anywhere near as obsessed with time as are humans. Humans, like animals, regulate their activities by the ‘clock’, only with humans it tends to be not a vague time, like with animals – just sometime soon as long as the Sun’s up - but timed to not only the minute, but often the second. The factory whistle; the timing (start and stop) of a sports event; the start of your TV program, are all programmed down to the second. New Years Day isn’t New Years Day until precisely the tiniest split second post midnight. Scientific measurements are down to the nanosecond; that phone call is expected at exactly 9:15 a.m., etc. You’d be hard-pressed to imagine an animal needing to wear a wristwatch or operate a stopwatch! 

Holidays & Anniversaries; Animals attach zero importance to holidays and anniversaries. Humans are obsessed with them, an obsession which often takes a financial, social, physical and mental toll.

Vacations & Weekends: Animals don’t need a break from their daily routine. Humans require (or at least think they do) annual (or more frequent) time off and away from the routine, not to mention the “thank god it’s Friday” syndrome. What does that really say about modern human society?

Territory: Animals will occupy and defend as much territory as is necessary for their survival and the continuation of their species. Humans however will often try to possess and rule over as much territory, property, as possible, sometimes for economic (investment) reasons; often for sheer power for the sake of power. Humans are rarely satisfied with what they control – they always want more and More and MORE. [See also: Domination]

MATTER & ENERGY

Possessions: Animals have no urge to acquire things, other than that required for survival (like building a nest or storing away food for the winter). Humans – well, what’s the expression, “keeping up with the Jones family” or “shop till you drop”!

FILL WHAT’S EMPTY

Eating #1: Wild animals, who don’t know when and where their next meal might come from, will make hay while the sun shines. Humans, even when they know where and when their next meal comes from, will still over indulge, especially on certain festive or special occasions.  [See also: Obesity]

Eating #2: An animal, assuming food is available, will eat when it is hungry – a natural state of affairs. A human will eat according to a schedule, at fixed times, when the dining room is open, when the office clock and the boss says “go to lunch now”, regardless of need – an artificial (phoney) state of affairs.

Eating #3: A wild animal eats natural foods, as Mother Nature (natural selection & evolution) intended it should. Humans tend to eat processed foods, full of preservatives and other artificial chemicals (all to after-the-fact found to be harmful, maybe even carcinogenic), often laden with additional salts, sugars, fats, and other tasty bits that don’t usually give the human any additional nutritional benefits.

Obesity: A few companion animals are allowed to overeat and put on too much weight, because their owners, out of ‘kindness’ overfeed them. However, most cats and dogs, etc. are pretty good at self-regulating their intake and saying “enough” when it’s enough, even if presented with an unlimited food supply. In humans, the obesity epidemic in the developed world, like the USA, Australia and similar countries is totally out of control despite thousands of diet books, articles, DVDs, websites and fitness gyms seemingly on every street corner. Now I have a normal quota of male hormones, but a good third of all females between 15 and 35 don’t rate a first glance, far less a second because they are very unpleasingly plump (and that’s being kind).

EMPTY WHAT’S FULL

Bathroom/Toilet: Animals go potty when the need arises. Humans go after the meeting or during intermissions, whatever. Such restrictions are often unpleasant, but humans impose such restrictions on themselves. Animals have no sympathy for us.

Greenhouse Gases: My cats can certainly pass wind. Cows and methane are a well know duo. Humans are expected to refrain from emitting greenhouses in the presence of others other than exhaled carbon dioxide and water vapour.

SCRATCH WHERE IT ITCHES

Itches & Twitches: If an animal itches, it scratches and doesn’t give a damn if anything or anybody is observing. Humans, in the company of polite society at least, usually refrain from scratching, especially in certain places. They suffer the itchy/twitchy consequences!

To be continued…

Humans Enslaved: Part Two

Humans can be enslaved in all manner of ways. By force by others is the usual image, but there is conscription and of course the bowing and scraping that’s part and parcel of being a law-abiding citizen. You probably feel a slave at work, but at least its voluntary and you do get paid for it. What I’m on about here is self-enslavement and how you willingly dance to the many tunes of the numerous pied pipers.

By “humans enslaved” I mean not so much physical ownership and physical slavery imposed on you by others, the form of slavery that has been and often still is practiced in the world, but often self imposed mental slavery. You are a slave and what is enslaving you is in fact you. But if you want a scapegoat, you can pin the blame on society for brainwashing you in the first place since none of what follows is hardwired or innately carved into your little grey cells.

Continued from yesterday’s blog…

TRADITIONS & HABITS: More likely as not, you’re a slave to various traditions and personal habits. You might say something like “that’s the way my parents did it; that’s the way their parents did it and their parents before them and as far back as you care to go – it’s tradition and we observe tradition and no correspondence will be entered into on the matter!” Or, it’s such-and-such a time; such-and-such a day or date, therefore such-and-such will be done or observed. Sound slightly familiar? We’re often creatures of, slaves to, tradition and habits without ever stopping to question “why”?

CHRISTMAS: Christmas just has to be singled out especially from the rest of the book of days because it’s at the extreme end of our numerous traditions and habits. By any way you care to measure things, Xmas can be the best of times but it’s usually the worst of times (conveniently forgotten one year on). The Xmas propaganda (i.e. – the Xmas Season) starts months before the appointed date and is relentless in its build-up and intensity. It extends several weeks past the use-by date when the Xmas wrapping paper and Xmas cards are now 50% off, and those post Xmas sales where you’re tempted to by next years Xmas gifts now. And then the Xmas bills arrive just to remind you about all those fun times you had over the past several months.

Do you do Xmas because you want to, or because society has so shoved this concept down your throat ever since you were knee high to a cockroach that you now just go through the motions by rote because you have got to appease that great deity called “Shop Till You Drop”? Translated, do you do Xmas just because it’s expected of you? The latter you admit? I thought so. I mean what sane person voluntarily desires to max out their credit cards for gifts for others who probably don’t need or want them and will just shove them towards the back of their closet? What sane person voluntarily spends hours in crowded stores just for the pleasure or satisfaction of maxing out their credit cards on behalf of others? There’s hardly a store you can shop in that isn’t loaded to the rafters with Xmas trimmings. What sane person would voluntarily, laughing all the way (Ho, Ho, Ho), spend hours writing and addressing Xmas cards to persons they really don’t give a damn about? And isn’t it just jolly good fun wrapping up all those gifts? Do you honestly look forward to hearing all those Xmas songs for the millionth time?  There’s hardly a shop in town (not to mention buskers) that doesn’t bombard you with endless repetitions of Xmas music. How the staff can stand it is quite beyond me.

I’m sure you just love being exposed to Xmas spin multi-thousands of times per Xmas Season and not just the repetitious music and endlessly reading the word “Christmas” or “Merry Christmas” but those endlessly repeating Xmas images and Xmas colours. It hardly qualifies as subtle or subliminal – you’re clobbered over the head and you love it – “pay attention stupid, it’s time to do your Xmas bit or else there’s no Santa for you!” Now this isn’t some national emergency as in “Uncle Sam Needs You!”, rather the Chief Executive Officers of the retail sector need you, especially if they are to get their Xmas bonuses!

And what about slaving over the kitchen stove preparing that special Xmas meal for all those relatives you’d really rather poison? Speaking of Xmas dinner, why not try something different for a change, like pizza, spaghetti, macaroni & cheese, chicken pot pie or even sirloin steak. Fish & chips would make a nice change too! No? It has to be ham or turkey and plum pudding / mince pies / Xmas fruit cake according to someone’s (whose long since dead) tradition. Actually it’s not your fault. That’s the Xmas dinner fare that the supermarket catalogues and store displays feature, in LARGE PRINT, that twist your arm and in a manner of speaking end up shoving this must-have-because-it’s-traditional Xmas fare down your throat; this time literally! Boring! Same old fare! No imagination! So, being an independent minded SOB, its fish & chips for Xmas dinner for me (and no leftovers either).

So why do you do it, year after year after year? Because society says it’s that time of year to test your ‘right stuff’, to see if your heart (and sanity) can stand the pressure one more year. Society says you snap to attention at Xmas and you reply, via your wallet, “Yes sir! I will sir. Thank you sir”! Society says you will run the annual Xmas obstacle course, and run it you do, and aren’t you proud of yourself, huffing & puffing, when you cross the finish line. So, if you do Xmas for any reason other than because you want to, you really honestly and truly want to, then you’re enslaved, hook, line and Xmas sinker.

Quite apart from the commercial aspects, you’re enslaved to Xmas if you do Xmas for religious reasons because you’re still being led up the garden path by the nose. Why? It’s because you’re celebrating Xmas for the wrong ‘religious’ reason. Xmas is all about a natural rebirth, not about a supernatural birth. The latter, the alleged birth of a Christ, was superimposed by the Christian church over the real pagan reason for celebration around the late December period. That original celebration centred on the return of lengthening daylight after the Northern Hemisphere’s Winter solstice. Therefore, celebrating Xmas as the birth of Christ is not only incorrect, but irrational in that the date of Christ’s birth isn’t know by anyone. And celebrating Xmas for any reason in the Southern Hemisphere is ludicrous for either of the above possibilities. You’ve all been suckered yet again. 

TECHNOLOGY: We’re enslaved to our technology fixes, and to those repairmen and their extravagant bills who fix our fixes when those fixes need fixing. I mean when the TV goes on the blink; when the hard drive crashes, the fridge conks out, even when there’s a power failure, well we may not panic, but we get a tad close to it. We’ve all seen those quasi end-of-the-world movies where the few survivors have to rebuild civilization from scratch without all those modern technological conveniences like gasoline and electricity, and it’s not easy. Could you survive without supermarkets and clothing stores or modern hardware shops? How many drivers are now totally dependent on GPS? Would you like the task of separating a teenager from her Twitter or Facebook? Video game addiction is well known. The commuter who has to, shock horror, take the bus because the car broke down is NOT a happy camper. So what bits of technology are you enslaved to, and who forced you to adopt those bits in the first place?

AUTHORITY: I haven’t received my bill – I’m not at fault yet if I don’t do something the powers-that-be are sure to cut off my (fill in the blank) for non-payment. Do you ever find yourself in that sort of situation? The onus is always on you to rectify things even when you’re totally innocent of any wrongdoing. I’ve found myself, usually several times a year, having to chase up items which could result, if I fail to do so, in some bureaucratic authority figure come crashing down on me even though I’m not at fault of any wrongdoing. That’s enslavement. We’re enslaved to another deity – the great god of bureaucracy. We’ve all had experiences akin to banging our heads against a bureaucratic stone wall. It’s always the ordinary person who has to prove, out of fear of some authority, that it was the system at fault, and since when does any authority figure admit that the bureaucratic system to which they are a part of is flawed? The ordinary person is guilty till proven innocent; it’s never the fault of the system.

POWER: Power may not always corrupt and absolute power may not always corrupt absolutely, but we tend to seek power; we’re all slaves to seeking power and all slaves to keeping what power we have. It may be very local like the husband who beats the wife who in turn screams at the eldest kid, to the older brother who was screamed at now in turn bullying his younger sibling, to that brat kicking the dog, who then chases the cat. I guess it stops with the cat. Of course it might be power at the office – always seeking promotion so that you have more people under your command/supervision. It might be seeking political power, from local mayor to prime minister. But we all feel good having someone, or something, we have power over.

LEAVING YOUR MARK – LEGACY & POSTERITY:  You don’t have to leave any physical record of yourself behind, not even a carved tombstone, but you’re a slave to whatever inner drive compels you to do so. People tend to be obsessed (a form of mental slavery) with being noticed, even after death and even if only anonymously. There’s architecture, from the pyramids to Stonehenge to modern skyscrapers and houses. There’s graffiti (not a modern phenomenon). There’s artistic works from hieroglyphs and cave art and petroglyphs to all the various arts and crafts we have today as well as those that form part of our cultural legacy. The upshot is that in the long term, while most try, few succeed. How many of those hundreds of thousands of Ancient Greeks are remembered today, yet probably nearly all sought some sort of long-term legacy.

HOBBIES: Hobbies are any dedicated activity not normally related to day-to-day survival, usually, but not always involving collecting things. If you started to list now the various hobbies engaged in by peoples around the world, past and present, you’d probably still be jotting them all down this time next year! The critical point is that all too often the hobby controls you and not the other way around. Much of your entire existence and purpose revolves around your personal hobby obsession. It’s that transition from fan to fanatic that marks you as enslaved.  

RECREATIONAL DRUGS: Pills, caffeine, nicotine, alcohol, magic mushrooms and other ‘good’ stuff, etc. Do you control them or do they control you?

CONCLUSION: Not all of the above will apply to everybody all the time, but something(s) will apply to most people at least some of the time. If any of the above is relevant, if the shoe fits, well, wear it and admit that you have to some degree or other enslaved yourself.

Humans Enslaved: Part One

Humans can be enslaved in all manner of ways. By force by others is the usual image, but there is conscription and of course the bowing and scraping that’s part and parcel of being a law-abiding citizen. You probably feel a slave at work, but at least its voluntary and you do get paid for it. What I’m on about here is self-enslavement and how you willingly dance to the many tunes of the numerous pied pipers.

By “humans enslaved” I mean not so much physical ownership and physical slavery imposed on you by others, the form of slavery that has been and often still is practiced in the world, but often self imposed mental slavery. You are a slave and what is enslaving you is in fact you. But if you want a scapegoat, you can pin the blame on society for brainwashing you in the first place since none of what follows is hardwired or innately carved into your little grey cells.

TIME: The basic premise here is that when the clock ticks, you jump. How often do we say “Can’t talk now”; “I’m late”; “Gotta run”; “Its kick-off time” or its time for (the meeting, catching the train, the dinner party, etc.). It never ends. Alarm clocks, the factory siren, the referee’s whistle, your life is regulated by the clock from the moment you get up in the morning till the moment you lie down at night. You are indeed a slave to Father Time!

MONEY: Money is not always of root of all evil. Some people are just born nasty! Still, the average person worships the great dollar bill (or equivalent), and for good reason – you avoid getting a “go to jail” card since you can pay your bills. But quite apart from the necessities – bills, the rent/mortgage, food, clothing, heat, education and medicine – we tend to be slaves in not just needing, but wanting, more and more and more, and more and more and more requires more and more and more money. And thus, a major part of our existence and purpose is to acquire wealth – and that’s hardly something that’s modern to the here and now. It’s been that way since Methuselah was a brat in diapers (and even before that when you consider those Ancient Egyptian tomb robbers). If your bank account is bigger than anyone else’s, well it’s the golden rule – them who has the gold makes the rules. Be it gold or the dollar bill, you’re a slave in pursuit.  

POSSESSIONS: Be it gold or the dollar bill, you’re a slave in pursuit. Why? You want things, stuff, possessions. You get bragging rights if your (fill in the blank) is bigger, more expensive, and/or larger in quantity, than that of your peers. You are a slave to obtaining stuff way above and beyond the basic necessities for all sorts of psychological reasons. Instead of the application of “enough is enough”, you let the concept of “shop till you drop” rule your mental roost.  

FADS & FASHIONS - THE LATEST MUST-HAVES: You are blitzed with hundreds of ads per day, in print, on TV, on the radio, on the Internet, even non-promotional ‘ads’ in the form of news stories, articles, etc. that note and log trends in society. You are told, via these ads and ‘ads’ what’s hot and what’s not. What’s the latest style in ladies shoes? What are the latest in-colours? Should you get carpet or tiles? What’s the newest kitchen gadget? What’s the newest toy? What’s all the latest rage in laptops? What’s the hottest new TV show either on TV or on DVD? The list of fads and fashions that you MUST HAVE are as lengthy as a telephone book! From the hula hoop to the whitewall tire; from the microwave to the convertible; from the espresso coffeemaker to the miniskirt (or hotpants); now what’s the latest bestseller in books? Who’s the latest artist with a top ten hit? Of course multi-millions part with their $$$ all in pursuit of owning the latest MUST HAVE – actually it’s MUST HAVES, hundreds of MUST HAVES. And so we are slaves to Madison Avenue and equivalents around the county and around the world. And it must work. The ads have enslaved us (though the buck stops with you) otherwise there’d be no new fads and MUST HAVE fashions. But of course today’s MUST HAVE is next week’s BORING, to be replaced of course with a newer version of MUST HAVES! It never ends. 

MARKETING: Even if you apparently don’t want unnecessary possessions and don’t partake of the latest fads and fashions, there’s a whole marketing enterprise out there designed to make you reconsider and dance to their tune; grab you by the privates and make your heart, mind and wallet follow to the beat of their drum. You’re hopelessly outnumbered and outgunned. There are numerous ploys or tricks into making you cough up your money, often slogans and buzz phrases.  See if you recognize a few: “Last chance”; “Never to be repeated”; “Our pain is your gain”; “Below cost”; “No extra cost to you”; “Hurry, last days”; “On sale”; “Exclusive to”; “Limited offer”; “Limited edition”; “Once in a lifetime offer”; “Sale ends…”; “Limited time only”; “Buy two get one free”, and hundreds more buzz phrases. There are many variations on the theme. I mean this type of strategy works; otherwise the strategy would have been abandoned eons ago. You may think you’re immune, but the odds are your enslaved just the same. 

APPEARANCES: If there ever was an obsession, this is it. From time immemorial, anyone and everyone has been a slave to how they appear to anyone and everyone else. But if you stop and think about it, what counts is the real you, what you represent; your characteristics; your personality. How you dress, your hairstyle, your makeup, your adornments, your house, your car; your social smarts and etiquette are really irrelevant. If you go to work in a smart suit and tie, or in your birthday suit, neither has anything whatever to do with how competent you are to do the job you are paid to do. A Nobel Prize winner is still a Nobel Prize winner even if he plays the bongo drums, likes to visit strip clubs, womanise, and lists safecracking as a hobby! Without naming names, the late Nobel Prize winning theoretical quantum physicist Richard P. Feynman’s book “What Do You Care What Other People Think?” should sum up the concept that superficial appearances are just that – superficial. Would you sooner go down in history as a snappy dresser without a hair out of place, or as an Einstein, notorious for having a rather poor sense of adornments or dress sense?  

LIFESTYLE: You can accept the fact that some people are better athletes than you; some people are smarter than you; some people are better at leadership than you. But you probably cannot accept that some people have, and deserve to have, a better lifestyle than you.

Humans constantly compare themselves to others. It’s hard not to when the lifestyle of others, especially the rich and famous, are thrust in our faces by all manner of ways and means; from quality news sources to the tabloids. And much like the often artificial desire for stuff, to have the latest gadget, to be attractive to the rest of the world, so too do we cultivate in our mind’s eye an idealistic lifestyle that we can strive for, but never achieve, since we keep rasing the bar because someone else’s bar is above ours. No matter what your lifestyle level is, you know someone who has a better lifestyle, and since you feel you are their equal (or probably their better) you acquire an attitude “I deserve”.

Two points: someone has to be ‘top dog’, and that ‘top dog’ is relative. ‘Top dog’ could mean wealth; it could mean health; it could mean education, it could be fame; it could be achievement, it could mean lots of things, but it’s not going to all of the above simultaneously. So, you have to pick-and-choose what lifestyle means to you. But whatever criteria you choose to pursue, of course someone else will have already scaled that Mount Everest. Rather than accept your place in life as somewhat below the summit, you often become enslaved to reach the summit too. Of course with lots of people desiring the same, that summit in theory could get awfully crowded, and as we all know from childhood, there can only be one “king of the mountain” at ay one time. That fact however never seems to reduce your enslavement to climb, ever climb and knock that other bastard off their perch!

To be continued…

Human Evolution: By Natural or Artificial Selection? Part Two

If you’re reading this, I’d be 99.99% sure you’re human. That being the case, you probably are aware that humans evolved from our primate ancestors, most likely the chimpanzees, starting many eons of time ago in deep, darkest, equatorial Africa. From that point of origin, humans colonized the globe, including whatever part of Planet Earth you currently call home. That’s the be-all-and-end-all of the origin, evolution and colonization of and by the human race. Well, I think there are some flies in that ointment, especially the bit about our evolution.

Continued from yesterday’s blog…

Now humans are smart. We’re top of the ‘food chain’ when it comes to IQ. We have very large brains relative to our body size. We have very complex brains. But all that size and complexity has a cost. An infant’s head has to be pretty soft and squishy and malleable and hence very vulnerable in order to fit through the birth canal, and even then it’s a struggle and a pretty dicey part of an infant’s and mother’s life.

Another high IQ evolutionary drawback is that it takes a lot of energy from the food we consume to power the brain and brain functions/activity, including thinking and processing thoughts. Higher IQ translates into the need to consume more calories. In the ancient world that took additional time to find or harvest food; in the modern era, it costs you more, say pound for pound to feed you vis-à-vis your lower IQ companion animals. 

Now intelligence, the ability to figure things out, must have a degree of natural survival value. Cats and dogs and pigs and many wild birds and dolphins and the humble octopus and our primate cousins aren’t dumb. Again, unlike the universal vertebrate backbone, rib cages, and skulls millions of vertebrate species have (or had) only one has excelled – top-of-the-pops – in IQ. BUT, we’re not just a little bit more advanced in the IQ department. We’re massively more advanced.

One might expect, based on natural selection, that if our average IQ was 100, perhaps our primate relations might have an average IQ of say, 90. That’s not the case. Most of the mammalian kingdom is clustered around a relatively narrow range of IQ way lower than ours. A dog isn’t a 100 times smarter than a cat or vice versa. But, humans are a 100 times smarter than our mammalian (and all other vertebrate) relations. Why? What natural evolutionary pressure did we face than thousands of other vertebrates, especially mammals, and especially, especially the primates, didn’t? Some human-only evolutionary pressure drove up our IQ levels to such extraordinary heights, but what evolutionary pressure?

You’d be hard pressed to think of any other terrestrial bipedal, high IQ species that could build the pyramids – in fact the answer is no other terrestrial species could.  Again, why were humans so blessed? And if we’re not so blessed with a high IQ by natural selection, then perhaps it must be by artificial selection; selection by, or genetic bioengineering by, the ‘gods’?

Moving on down the line, as each step in the ‘gods’ enforced artificial evolution of humans was achieved, slightly more upright posture; slightly higher average IQ, the previous lot – the less advanced hominoid species – were left to their own fate – extinction. There’s a lot of extinct hominoid species (for example, Homo habilis, Gigantopithecus or the Neanderthals) that are evolutionary links separating us from our primate ancestors, most probably chimpanzees, now our closest modern kissing cousins. 

When the ‘gods’ had at last achieved a reasonable facsimile of their objective, they gave us the gifts of knowledge (the basics anyway) and helped kick-started us on our road to civilized society. At some point or other we probably – ungrateful twerps that we tend to be – pissed them off and they packed their bags and left, perhaps leaving behind a token presence (UFOs) to monitor us to ensure we don’t ever become a threat to them and reverse the roles of slave and master.

Are there any other bits and pieces that set humans apart that might be suggestive of us getting some sort of special evolutionary treatment, translated artificial evolutionary treatment?

Since all humans are one species because we can all breed with one another, and since we presumably originated from small beginnings (population wise) in Africa, all humanity must have been akin to one not-quite-so-big melting pot.  We were a uniform cup of coffee – one species; one race. Then we started spreading out throughout the world (minus Antarctica) and for some unexplained reason diverged into different breeds or ethnic classifications or races. The Big Question is - as Big Questions always tend to be – WHY?

And here I want to focus on facial features. What’s so different or unique about the Asian environment(s) so as to evolve in humans’ typical Asian facial features, say vis-à-vis the Australian environment and her indigenous aboriginals who also have distinguishable but different facial features versus Europe, the European environment and Caucasian facial features vis-à-vis Polynesia and Polynesian facial features, etc. Something is screwy somewhere!  I can’t see how this aspect of human biology can be accounted for by Darwinian natural selection.

But what if human breeds – one species, now different races – were created or manufactured in the same way we artificially select and create different cat breeds, or cattle breeds or different plant varieties like the many varieties of roses or orchards?

Just like cats and cattle; roses and orchards – one general species; many created breeds or varieties – so too for humans – one interbreeding species now existing as many (artificially selected?) breeds all capable of interbreeding. Darwinian survival-of-the-fittest natural selection can not explain this. There’s no explaining the breed differences in racial facial features other than to resort, IMHO, to artificial selection, and the only beings capable of doing that were the ‘gods’ – the extraterrestrials who have this thing for advanced bioengineering genetics!

Now if you have a species, and that population gets separated by some geographic barrier, then over time the two split halves will slowly evolve into I guess first two separate breeds (that in theory can still interbreed), then eventually two separate species that can no longer breed and produce viable offspring. But, if you postulate that the one-species, one-breed humans scampered out of Africa and migrated around the globe without undo hindrance, then presumably there were no insurmountable geographic barriers big enough to then keep the various migrating clans or tribes or human herds forever and ever apart and thus prevent any interbreeding. Yet the one-breed one-species became multi-breeds, one-species as if there were now in place geographic barriers and isolation between the clans, tribes, herds; whatever. At least this alleged isolation of the tribes only lasted until the ‘modern’ age of travel and exploration and then all manner of human tribes discovered all manner of other human tribes. That’s of course if you accept the traditional view of things. But the question remains – why no barriers in getting from A to B, but once at B, not being able to get back to A again. I repeat that there’s something’s screwy somewhere.

Perhaps a more far-out but ultimately better or more plausible explanation is that the extraterrestrial ‘gods’ genetically engineered or designed the various human breeds in the African ‘laboratory’ and then transported the various types of human races to various locations throughout the world. The Asian-looking human population were transported, not surprisingly, to what we call today Asia! And thus the various human breeds, located in their separate abodes having been transported over natural geographic barriers by ET, where they had to pretty much stay put, came up with their own unique cultural and ultimately mythological variations or versions of their ‘creator’ god’s creations having been pretty befuddled by all the super technology that really ‘created’ them. And so in mythology we have universal tales of the gods (or IMHO ‘gods’) creating humanity, with individual cultural variations on that theme.

In a similar way, other things associated with the ‘gods’, say their pets or other entities, there being more than one type of ET present, translated into some of the near uniform and near universal mythologies surrounding say dragon-lore and dragons (pets) or fairy-folk (another variety of ET).

Something I find puzzling is why did humans, the Neanderthals and later the Cro-Magnons, choose to live in the harsh conditions of Ice Age Europe 30,000 to 60,000+ years ago? Presumably the human population was low enough back then that there would have been ample room for all in more pleasant climates. Why not follow the Sun and migrate south? Perhaps if my way out ideas are true, they were transported there by the ‘gods’ and couldn’t leave!

Anyway, why would the ‘gods’ create and transport different human breeds to different geographical locations – why do it this way? Two possible reasons suggest themselves. ET is the ‘farmer’ and they have, say, ten fields. They can plant one corner of one field (say a part of Africa where their ‘lab’ is) and wait for Nature to spread the seeds around to the rest of that field and hence to the other nine fields, or, they could plant parts of all of their ten fields at one go. That’s the same crop in all ten fields. But perhaps it’s better to have diversity. The second scenario is that you plant one crop (human breed) in one field (say Africa), another (human breed) in another (say Asia), a third human breed in the field called Europe, and so on though all ten. Why do this?

If Nature doesn’t take her normal course – if humans don’t spread out, if all the fields don’t naturally produce crops, then all isn’t lost by taking the above action. By deliberately planting a diversity of ‘crop’ breeds in all ten fields you’ve maximized your return on your investment by not putting all your eggs in the one-species, one-breed in Africa basket. 

It’s doesn’t strike me as being a natural state of affairs to naturally have way back when just Black Africans in Africa; Caucasians in Europe;  Asians in Asia; Aborigines in Australia, etc. That’s because it’s not as if Asians can’t survive and thrive in Europe; Caucasians can and do live okay in Australia; Black Africans have made the USA home as Afro-Americans. Every human breed can find a successful biological niche in every geographic area, so why the initial geographic separation when human traffic could presumably go both ways, and segregation and evolution into breeds or races, if one assumes a natural state of affairs, puzzles me. Something is indeed screwy somewhere!

Human Evolution: By Natural or Artificial Selection? Part One

If you’re reading this, I’d be 99.99% sure you’re human. That being the case, you probably are aware that humans evolved from our primate ancestors, most likely the chimpanzees, starting many eons of time ago in deep, darkest, equatorial Africa. From that point of origin, humans colonized the globe, including whatever part of Planet Earth you currently call home. That’s the be-all-and-end-all of the origin, evolution and colonization of and by the human race. Well, I think there are some flies in that ointment, especially the bit about our evolution.

We come in breeds. The proof of that pudding stares you in the face everyday as you observe the racial variety of people around you. I don’t recall anything in Genesis that explains this, so maybe God had nothing to do with this – assuming the existence of a bona-fide supernatural creator God of course in the first place – though I stand to be corrected on the lack of a Biblical explanation by appropriate authorities.

But if the Bible doesn’t explain the origin of the various breeds of humans neither does Darwin’s natural selection, in the same way that natural selection didn’t create, and doesn’t explain our dog breeds. Survival of the fittest didn’t produce the French Poodle – we did that! But who (or what) created our diversity of breeds or races?

To quell the immediate curiosity of the reader, my answer comes down solidly in favour of our evolution by ‘artificial selection’, which detracts not one jot from the Darwinian principles of evolution via natural selection. The difference between the two is that artificial selection is selection deliberately guided by intelligence; natural selection is, well natural, and not by design.

Humanity, mankind, human beings, however you label us, are collectively made up of breeds just like our own domesticated and bioengineered (artificial bred) animals (companion, farm or other) and plants (crops or garden varieties). The key words are ‘domesticated’ and ‘bioengineered’. We’ve been domesticated and bioengineered too, but we didn’t domesticate and bioengineer our own human breeds like we domesticated and bioengineered our domesticated plants and animals. Somebody or something else will take that credit.

Now I’m not really talking here about the so-called scientific phrase now substituted for creationism – ‘intelligent design’. Intelligent design has the philosophical baggage of having a supernatural creator, a God, behind the design. Alas, in the case of the human being, if God designed us from scratch; from the ground up, well He really failed Bioengineering 101. The various aches and pains and ailments we suffer because of bad biological design testify to that!

No, I’m referring here to the sort of artificial selection we humans employ when we breed dogs or cats or cattle or drought-resistant crops or whatever for our particular real (or imagined needs). I’m just turning the tables here a bit in what’s good for the goose is good for the gander. As we do, so has it been done to us! The question again is, done unto us by whom? 

To further quell the immediate curiosity of the reader, the ‘who’ collectively are the mythological gods, who aren’t really mythical, nor are they supernatural, but flesh-and-blood extraterrestrials who happen to have a special interest in, and abilities toward, genetics.

The basic premise, as expounded upon by universal cultural mythologies, is that the gods created humans, creating humans to relieve the gods of, and do the hard work instead, and to also serve the gods – and I don’t just mean by kneeling and prayer and building edifices to them. Translated, in more modern terminology, the flesh-and-blood extraterrestrials, which came upon Planet Earth many hundreds-of-thousands, perhaps millions of years ago, set up shopkeeping. Eventually known, if not loved, as the gods, these ‘gods’ genetically engineered humans from primate stock with again the ultimate goal of making the ‘gods’ life easier and more rewarding. Because of genetic similarities to our modern selves, that initial primate stock more likely as not were the chimpanzees.

One of those ‘more rewarding’ bits; one of the ‘gods’ tricks in their genetic engineering experiment, a design element designed to appeal to the ‘gods’ was to ensure humans were sexually compatible with them, and by Jove, did they ever make use of that engineered compatibility – at least if you take at face value and believe what transpired according to the mythological tales. Not suitable reading for the kiddies!

Now, the initial question is, if the overall intention of the extraterrestrial ‘gods’ is to create slaves to do the housework for the ‘gods’, and to serve the ‘gods’ (sexually or otherwise), and all you have to work with is terrestrial life (minus humanity), what sort of traits do you need to select for in order to get a life form that can build the pyramids and monumental structures that are constructed in order to serve the purpose of worshiping you? Clearly only humans can build a pyramid, so what skills or attributes do we have now that all other terrestrial life forms didn’t have then?

Two particulars stand out. One is that in order to build a pyramid, etc. one needs a free pair (or more) of appendages in order to manipulate stuff. How do you get a free pair of appendages? Well, you have got to go from a quadrupedal stance to a bipedal stance, thus freeing up two appendages (i.e. – arms). From a Darwinian point-of-view, that’s a problem. There’s a cost. Now we’re clearly bipedal. But will a bipedal posture be selected for naturally? Not usually, for again, there’s a price to be paid.

The second particular is that you need some degree of smarts! Translated, to build a pyramid you need a relatively large and complex brain. Many animals might be strong enough to build a pyramid, but they just don’t have a high enough IQ to pull it off. However, again from a Darwinian perspective, a high IQ comes at a high cost. Will high intelligence be selected for naturally?

Though there are some limited advantages to standing upright (apart from freeing up two arms to do things with like grab forbidden fruit slightly higher up in the trees)  – you can see farther; wade slightly deeper waters, in general a bipedal stance comes at a considerable cost. Two limbs now have to take up all the body weight instead of four legs (or six - if you’re a bug; or eight – if you’re a spider). If one of those two limbs fails, you’re in deep poo. However, survival is more probable if you have four (or six or eight) legs and one fails.

Further, if you’re bipedal, your centre of gravity shifts, making you way more prone to losing your balance and falling over. Also, bipedal animals tend to run slower than a quadrupedal one. Most dogs whose backbones are at my knee height or more, and cats, can easily outrun me. The same goes for alligators, even with their splayed out limbs when they’re going full tilt. The upshot of all of that is that in the animal kingdom, only birds (and their ancestors, the theropod bipedal saurischian dinosaurs) are (or were) bipedal – for fairly obvious reasons. Two of their four ‘legs’ have evolved for flying. Humans have no such fallback since we can’t flap our arms and fly.

You don’t have to be a professional zoologist or expert in anatomy to realise that any creature going from a quadrupedal gait to a bipedal one has to have a massive amount of anatomical alterations to its basic structures. Bone and muscle lengths and widths will change; there must be alterations to the various joints, nearly all muscle attachments to the bones will alter; support structures for many internal organs will need rethinking, etc. Imagine the anatomical changes you’d have to make in your dog or cat or horse for that animal to walk in the same manner you do; imagine the changes that would have to be made in your anatomy for you to walk like a dog, cat or horse. It’s a big ask of natural selection to go from quadrupedal to bipedal without some clearly defined survival advantage(s); perhaps not so much of an ask if the shift is artificial selection; guided by an intelligence using bioengineering or genetic engineering techniques.

Now various animals can, and do, for brief periods, stand upright, say prairie dogs, chipmunks, bears, etc. Some animals can be taught to briefly stand up like circus elephants. Kangaroos, wallabies and related are usually bipedal, but they hop, not walk or run. Not even our primate relations routinely walk around on two legs although many can and do so for brief periods.

I think the advantages of a bipedal way of posture and locomotion are overstated, otherwise way more animals would have evolved that posture; you’d expect our cats and dogs to not so much as sit-up and beg but stand-up and beg for special treats. Out of millions and millions of vertebrate species that have existed over the past 300 or so million years of geologic history, only a relative tiny handful have adopted the bipedal mode of lifestyle. It’s not proved to be exactly an evolutionary success story unlike the more universal backbones and rib cages and skulls all vertebrates have.

Overall, in the biological scheme of things, we’re not just a little bit more advanced in a bipedal way, we’re WAY MORE advanced. The question is, why? Again, why are humans so obviously bipedal? And if we’re not so inclined to be bipedal by natural selection, perhaps then we’ve been so evolutionary inclined by artificial selection – by the ‘gods’ to free up our upper limbs, a useful trait if the ‘gods’ put us to work.

To be continued…

Mythology’s Hybrids: Human Imagination or Alien Genetics?

Various mythological beasties, associated with the polytheistic gods include a generic type commonly referred to as hybrids, but which I term the ‘half-and-halves’. That is to say, these mythological beasties are a composite of two (sometimes more) distinct life forms.  There are the half-and-halves that are half human–half animal, and the half-and-halves that are half animal–half some other form of animal.  My premise is 1) these half-and-halves weren’t mythological; neither were the gods. The gods were really extraterrestrials, and the half-and-halves among the end products of ET’s genetic engineering experiments.

There are many puzzling features in mythology, if taken as purely mythology, regarding the so-called gods. I say so-called because to my way of interpreting things, the gods weren’t mythological but flesh-and-blood extraterrestrials with advanced technology, especially in the field of bioengineering or genetic engineering. A puzzling feature regarding the ‘gods’ and related tales, or even tails, are the half-and-halves (my phrase – you probably won’t find it lasted in any index in any mythology text). But these half-and-halves, for example there were the Centaurs, Cupid (or Eros), the Harpies, Mermaids or Mermen, the Minotaur, Satyrs, Sirens, the Sphinx, the Chimera, Dragons, the Gryphon (or Griffin – alt spelling), the Hydra, Pegasus and the Questing Beast, are just scratching the surface of the sum total of those represented in our ancient mythologies.

The interesting point is that these hybrids are universal within that collective mythology. That is, they appear across all cultures; all geographies. Anytime something supposedly mythological, is represented everywhere, it’s time to sit up and take closer notice that things might not be quite as mythological as things first appear.

Where’s the body-on-the-slab-in-the-lab evidence? With no fossil evidence of any such hybrids, perhaps this is where mythology overrides reality. Perhaps it is just a natural pondering to wonder ‘what if’ human abilities could be combined with some other animal’s abilities; or what a composite of one animal’s body parts attached to another animal’s body parts might achieve.

But then again, maybe that’s not the case.

Now clearly, a lot of people, our ancestors, went to a lot of valuable time and effort to create or depict in often quite considerable detail all over the world, the who’s who, and what’s what, in tens of thousands of paintings, literature, statues, figurines, murals, monuments, carvings, pictograms, hieroglyphs, etc. to what we (their descendents) would call nonsense – purely imaginary entities. But I maintain our ancestors would not go to extraordinary lengths to devote precious resources into making images of beings they knew to be imaginary. Translated, they believed with all their hearts and souls that these beasties, globally numbering in the multi-hundreds, whether ‘gods’ in various combinations or lesser mortals (human-animal) or purely animal-animal forms, really existed. Multiply that by more multi-hundreds of ‘normal’ mythological characters that have been honored with thousands of monuments, and well there’s apparently a whole ancient expensive and often backbreaking industry devoted to what again, we superior modern descendents of theirs, believe to be nothing at all.

As an exact parallel, ‘modern’ human have built and erected all manner of monuments, memorials and statutes to really real historical people. Many are on display in all manner of public parks for the pigeons to rest their weary wings on.

Then again, in our modern era, nobody designs and builds cathedrals just to provide work for the construction industry, but rather because the relevant powers-that-be, the instigators and designers and fundraisers of cathedrals firmly believe there is a being who deserves such monuments to be built in his honor. Now the fact that being probably doesn’t exist, at least as a supernatural creator deity, but rather just one of many of an advanced race of extraterrestrials is irrelevant. You build the cathedral because you believe that being exists – full stop. Atheists don’t build cathedrals. Okay, our smart-as-we-are ancestors believed the half-and-halves really existed.     

Now that we’ve seen some of the puzzling anatomical features associated with the half-and-halves, beasties that are composites of two or more terrestrial life forms, here’s a hard as solid rock case study that not only illustrates time and effort but might highlight why human imagination is not at work. There’s a very large life-size statue from ancient Assyria housed in the British Museum of a winged, human-headed bull (probably representing Shedu or Lamassu). That would be odd enough, but in this statue of a bull with wings and a human head, you find that the bull is depicted with five legs (please note I can count up to five!).  Now, if you were to design from scratch a mythological beastie, one thing I’m pretty convinced of is that you would NOT give it five legs! So, I ask instead, is this statue a representation of one of the ‘gods’ genetic experiments?

Now before pursuing that tack, we’re all aware of the various plants and animals we’ve artificially selected for via breeding pairs of organisms that have the sorts of characteristics we desire such as leading to faster horses; disease resistant wheat, cuter puppy dogs, etc. Sometimes we interfere at the cellular level to increase the pace of the changes we want. We’ve all heard of genetically modified food or genetically modified organisms; of DNA from one species being spliced onto the DNA of another species. We’ve heard of harvesting animal tissues and organs for transplantation into humans. We’ve come into the era of the designer baby, or at least prospective parents undergo genetic counselling and testing before having children. Having children is no longer hit or miss and take your chances. And it won’t be long before babies will be made-to-order if the parents so wish.

Now imagine the genetic tricks a highly advanced, if somewhat amoral race of ET’s were to use terrestrial stock to further their genetic research and agenda. Even several hundred, far less thousands of years in advance technologically of us could produce the half-and-halves of our mythologies.

So, were the half-and-halves of our mythologies evidence of genetic and bioengineering experiments by the ‘gods’, the ‘gods’ own version of “The Island of Dr Moreau”?  If these hybrids are not the wild imaginations of our ancestors, and standard Darwinian natural selection cannot adequately account for them, then it’s clear an alternative artificial selection mechanism must be contemplated instead. What on Earth (or off Earth) could be the driving force behind such artificial selection – behind the required bioengineering or genetic engineering required? Well, unless your best guess is better than my best guess, ET, that’s who.

But then it all ceased to be; then they all went away, either literally (as I suspect) or within the human imagination (and if so, why?). I can imagine first and foremost that these non-deity hybrids (assuming their reality) were probably sterile. Thus, they were rather limited in population. One didn’t have a sphinx litter from which to choose a family sphinx pet. 

One thing I’m convinced cannot adequately for the massive range of our mythological hybrids are fossils. Fossils cannot explain the half-and-halves. There aren’t going to be too many buried skeletons of a lion minus its head that just happens to have a human skull in the immediate vicinity to explain the Sphinx. And what about the odds of finding the skull of a falcon minus body that just happens to rest next to a headless human skeleton and thus explain several of the Egyptian ‘gods’?

Now clearly some of these half-and-halves beasties are going to ultimately prove to be mythical – figments of the human imagination invented for reasons now lost and buried by the sands of time. Some cases are probably of real beasties we all know today but embellished for reason or reasons unknown and probably unknowable. There’s going to be cases of linguistic misinterpretations or misunderstandings or errors in translations. Then too there’s going to be cases of someone who told someone who told someone who told someone who told someone over many miles and probably generations before the tale was written down. The 20^th generation retelling of an ‘eyewitness’ account explains some of the half-and-halves.

But are the mythological half-and-halves all really products of pure human imagination and embellishments and 20^th generation retellings? If that be the case, why are there no more recent equivalents, in the multi-hundreds, in our ‘modern’ (say within the last 300 years of fictional literature, later films and TV) apart from those taken directly from our mythological ancient history like Mermaids? Nearly all ‘modern’ literature’s creations are human (Sherlock Holmes, James Bond, Harry Potter, and Captain Kirk as examples – even if they do come from another planet like Superman or Mr. Spock). The Creature from the Black Lagoon was humanoid; ditto the Wolfman who at no time was represented as being a wolf’s head on a human body or vice versa. Frankenstein’s Monster was still human, even if patched together. Dracula may have been able to shape-shift into a bat, but he never was actually half-human and half-bat – ditto Batman. Even Donald Duck was still a duck; Mickey Mouse was just a clothed talking mouse. Some of the Egyptian gods were represented as half-and-halves, but The Mummy wasn’t! So, if all is assumed to be human imagination, then there’s this discrepancy between way back then and recent history. The one obvious ‘modern’ exception is the well known novel “Island of Dr. Moreau”.

The “Island of Dr. Moreau” was originally a novel published in 1896 by H.G. Wells with film adaptations in 1933 (as the “Island of Lost Souls”), 1977, and 1996. It basically deals with vivisection and an obsessed scientist who conducts profane experiments in evolution, eventually establishing himself as the self-styled demigod to a race of mutated, half-human abominations. This all takes place on a remote island, the inhabitants being those experimental animals being turned into strange looking humans by one Dr. Moreau – the obsessed mad scientist in question. I’m just substituting the ancient ‘gods’ for the more modern Dr. Moreau; the so-called mythological half-and-halves for those modern fictional experimental animals turned into abominations.

That ‘modern’ novel aside, you may think the ancient mythological menagerie – if entirely imaginary - exhibits quite an intense range of the human imagination in the creation of half-and-halves. I’d beg to differ. There’s an immense array of potential half-and-halves possibilities that apparently have never been realized, or at least popularized. The whole plant and invertebrate communities have largely been ignored, which may make sense from the biological reality of a genetic engineering standpoint. I do realize that Hollywood has rectified this with several versions and sequels to “The Fly” and B-Grade films like “The Wasp Woman”, and probably several other B-Graders in that vein. But 1) those cinema features were relative rarities in terms of modern half-and-halves images and 2) there was never any possibility of mistaking those films for anything else other than social commentary and/or entertainment, just like the novel by H.G. Wells.

Anyway, as to what might have been imagined by our ancient ancestors, but never really was, though I do seem to recall a mythological human head on an octopus body, but that was about it when it came to the invertebrate and plant kingdoms – no lobster heads on a human body; no human heads on a slug; and as for humanoid rose bushes – forget it! 

However, when talking real modern half-and-halves, one would be remiss not to mention Mothman, a winged hominoid with glowing red eyes, associated with the Point Pleasant area of West Virginia around the period of November 1966 through December 1967. Mothman’s been the subject of several books, dozens of articles, and at least one motion picture (“The Mothman Prophecies” – 2002). However, there have been no sightings since. Perhaps Mothman’s a purely imaginary half-and-halves case, one never before or after seen. Maybe.

Finally, there might be a really real modern version of the ‘gods’ and their half-and-halves. If UFO / alien abductions are to be believed, taken at face value, (somewhat backed up and supported by animal mutilation cases), then the alien ‘gods’ – collective now called the ‘Greys’ – are still manipulating human genetics and further progressing with the evolution via artificial selection (breeding) of the human species, as well as their own, for the apparent objective is nothing less than a human-alien (or human-grey) hybrid. That this is implausible, well, recall from mythologies around the world those human-animal hybrids like the Satyr, Sphinx, Minotaur, Mermaid, and a host of others.

A Hairy Issue for Humans

The amount of your hair from the neck up is different from your hair (what little there is of it) from the neck down. There are sexual differences with respect to hair between the human male and female as well both from the neck up and from the neck down. The curious part is that neither neck up or neck down or sexual differences tend to have close parallels with nearly all the rest of the terrestrial mammalian kingdom, mammals we presumably naturally evolved from. The 64 cent question is why?

Humans vs. Mammals: Humans tend to have way less body covering usually termed hair and/or fur relative to other mammals, our size or below, including our primate ancestors. That our first uniqueness. Why is that? Now apparently our lack of fur, why we lost the fur we presumably once had way back once upon a very remote time ago, was because we developed sweat glands to regulate heat, which, IMHO was a retrograde development.

Fur is a good regulator whether retaining or allowing body heat to escape. Some animals, like cats, shed some fur as the warmer weather approaches, though it thickens again as winter approaches. Sweat glands are only a cooling mechanism. That’s okay. But be that as it may, the ‘why’ question now becomes one of explaining why humans alone out of all our primate cousins developed sweat glands thus contributing to the evolutionary loss of our fur. You’d think what’s good for the human is also good for the gorilla, chimpanzee, gibbon, orang-utan, etc. So, why were humans and humans alone selected to be ‘the naked ape’? Was it a normal natural selection, an evolutionary fluke or by design?

Neck Up / Neck Down – Distribution: For the human species, there’s an obvious dichotomy between the amounts of hair we have from the neck up relative to the neck down. But any breed of cat, or dog say will tend to be just as furry neck up as neck down. Why do we have a neck up / neck down division to our relative hairiness? Was it normal natural selection, an evolutionary fluke or by design?

Neck Up / Neck Down - Haircuts: From the neck up, humans tend to need to have the occasional trim or haircut, or shave. But, humans, like the rest of the mammals, don’t need haircuts from the neck down. To b honest, the rest of the mammals don’t need haircuts from the neck up either, unlike humans. Why is that? Why do humans need haircuts? Was it normal natural selection, an evolutionary fluke or by design?

Sexual Differentiation: Hairiness or furriness has no obvious sexual differentiation in nearly all the rest of the mammals. You can’t normally tell the sex of a mammal by the amount of fur it has. Male cats of any particular breed will have as much hair on their bodies as their female counterparts, although male lions have manes that lionesses don’t have. Still, lions and lionesses apart, that sexual distinction is part and parcel of the human species. In humans, males tend to be way more the hairier in terms of overall body covering. Males also tend to have far more hair on the front of the face – beards and moustaches. But that’s not always true on top. When it comes to hairiness, there’s not only a neck up / neck down division but a differential between the sexes. Why is that so? Was it normal natural selection, an evolutionary fluke or by design?

Natural Pattern Baldness: I need start here by making a distinction between thinning hair which a goodly percentage of human males and females experience as they age, and baldness. Some human males, percentages increasing with ever increasing age, tend to lose, for reasons apart from disease, stress, chemotherapy, etc., more of their hair up top – the common occurrence called male pattern baldness or partial baldness or massive thinning of the hair on top. But whether to a greater or lesser degree, there’s not an inevitability of hair thinning and total loss of hair up top with age in human males. That alone suggests that aging isn’t the be-all-and-end-all of the condition.

Human females, though to a far lesser extent, will also tend to exhibit hair thinning (as opposed to total baldness), again, percentages going up as one’s age goes up and up. On balance however, you see far, far fewer females than males with bald spots relative to gradual hair thinning.  

It’s an unfortunate fact of life that I’ve got a lot less hair up top today than I had in my teens. That applied to my father and equally as well to my father’s father. The question is why is baldness an unfortunate fact of life for some since baldness isn’t a fact of life for all human males; it certainly isn’t as much of an issue for the female of the species (another of those sexual differentiations noted above). Baldness certainly isn’t a fact of life for most hairy or furry species (another human vs. animal data point to be added to the above), like our companion animals, be they cats or dogs, mice or rats, rabbits or guinea pigs, ferrets or alpacas. However, the thinning of the hair isn’t quite uniquely confined to humans. Some primates, but only a relatively few species, show some progressive thinning of their scalp hair following their version of puberty.

So baldness tends to be fairly obviously a sex-linked genetically transmitted condition that arose as the result of some genetic mutation in an ancestral primate and/or human male multi-thousands upon thousands of years ago, way before the start of written history. But lots of questions arise. Why balding on just the top of the head; why not, especially with inevitable aging, the entire head (and face)? Why not the entire body’s covering of hair? Humans have so little fur that the thinning and loss of the rest of it shouldn’t matter really. [There are medical conditions that do involve total facial, even in extreme cases total body hair loss, but they aren’t related to normal hair thinning and baldness.]

If hair thinning and eventually baldness (in some individuals) confers no evolutionary advantage or disadvantage why is there nothing similar in any other non-primate mammalian species? Actually there might be an evolutionary advantage in that genetically linked hair thinning and eventual baldness presumably started with one mutation in a statistical sample of just one individual (perhaps even one of our ancestral primate cousins) which has now spread to include a reasonable minority of adult males (or majority of adult males, even females if you count just hair thinning and those over 60 or so). However, why did that original mutation spread as it obviously did? What could that evolutionary advantage actually be? And if there is an evolutionary advantage, why isn’t the condition more widespread throughout mammalian species? For the moment, those questions stump me. Was it normal natural selection, an evolutionary fluke or by design?

Spots / Stripes / Plain: Humans, from the neck up, have a single natural hair colour. Human hair tends to be blonde, red, brown or black (I’ll ignore grey/white since that’s an aging issue). So here we have one species, four different hair colourations. Mammals of any one species tend to be one of two colour patterns, neither of which has a parallel akin to the human condition. Either all members of a species are just one plain colour and only that colour; polar bears are white; brown bears are brown (the very rare condition of acquiring the genetic mutation and ending up an albino is a separate issue), or else all members are multi-coloured with spots, stripes; often an irregular pattern. All humans, one species, aren’t all the same with respect to hair colour like brown bears – some humans are blonde, or black or red-haired. Now I’m aware that there are black cats and white cats and grey cats too; my next door neighbour has two dogs of the same breed, one cream and one black. Then there’s the normal grey mouse and the (laboratory) white mouse. But cats and dogs and similar mammalian companion animals have been bred or ‘created’ by humans via artificial selection criteria. While the grey mouse is probably natural, the white mouse again has been ‘created’ for laboratory use. Tigers have stripes; leopards have spots; calico cats tend to be multi-coloured with an irregular symmetry. Humans have neither stripes, spots nor an irregular colouration pattern. Why are humans different from other mammals when it comes to the general rule of one species – one hair colour, or one species - multi-coloured fur patterns? Was it normal natural selection, an evolutionary fluke or by design?

But the biggest anomaly of all is what natural environmental changes – triggers – survival-of-the-fittest scenarios transpired that could account for all these differences between the human mammal and the rest of the mammals blessed with fur? It’s not an advantage one would think to need a haircut; the amount of relative hairiness between males and females, including baldness, is great enough to require an explanation, but I can’t think of one; and there would appear to be no advantage in humans coming in four basic hair colours, yet no combinations of those. It is all very strange.

Summary: Non-human mammals our size or less are way more covered in hair or fur than humans. Non-human mammals show no sexual differentiation in their hairiness or furriness. Nearly all non-human mammals show no neck up/neck down differentiation with respect to hair covering. Non-human mammals don’t need haircuts. Non-human mammals don’t go bald though some primates exhibit hair thinning. So what’s up with humans? Were all these anomalies just normal natural selection, an evolutionary fluke or by design? And if by design; whose design? And what was their ultimate purpose? It’s a hairy issue!