Kiwi Cats: An Endangered Species?

Some people in New Zealand, and no doubt in other places, would like to exterminate the domestic pussycat because of its environmental impact, specifically on native wildlife. But the double standards applied here condemn the people advocating them way more than the objects of their condemnation.

Humans somehow have this ingrained idea that they can best manage the natural environment that Mother Nature created and evolved over billions of years before mankind was ever thought up in anyone’s philosophy. The end result of human management has been an unmitigated and ever ongoing environmental disaster. The latest in a long, long, long line of ‘humans know best’ has been a proposal to eliminate the domestic pussycat.

In early January 2013, the idea was floated in New Zealand that the domestic moggy, the dear old and much loved companion animal the pussycat, be phased out. All cats should be de-sexed and no further cats be obtained upon the natural death of existing moggies. Therefore, within 15 to 20 years, New Zealand would be pussycat free, and native wildlife, especially flightless birds, would be eternally grateful, because pussy cats like to eat little native flightless birds and other native wildlife too. Needless to say, the claws are out and fur is flying over the issue.

From the various online debates and commentaries I’ve seen, there seem to be three equally divided points of view. Point One: kill them all – the cats that is – or more humanely let them go extinct through natural attrition by neutering them all. Point Two, sharp and to the point, all jaws, paws and claws out and firing, touch my cats and you die. Companion animals are good for human well being, and besides cats catch mice and rats and other undesirable vermin*. Point Three is probably the most relevant – it’s a variation on the pot calling the kettle black; the all too frequent human double standard.

If you take the argument to its logical conclusion, perhaps one should exterminate spiders because they kill native flies; exterminate birds that eat pretty native butterflies; kill the lions that eat native zebras; or for that matter eliminate anything that kills and feeds off of anything else native. Sorry, the fundamental principle in nature, tooth and claw, is the relationship between prey and predator; eat or be eaten. Cats are just one of millions of species that kill to eat. It’s hardwired into their brains. If they kill and eat a native flightless bird, it’s not their fault. Puppy dogs hunt and kill too, but I don’t hear any equivalent about killing them off humanely or otherwise despite the fact that some dogs, pet dogs, have maimed and killed humans; the same cannot be said about the domestic moggy. And no doubt some native species hunt and kill for food other native species. Where do you draw the line in this quest to save native species? And just who self-anointed human beings to be judge, jury and executioner?

Prey animals, flightless birds or otherwise, have presumably over millions of years evolved natural abilities to avoid most predators most of the time; otherwise they wouldn’t be around for us to talk about them. That’s the natural way of things – a natural evolutionary arms race. Prey evolves ways and means to avoid predators; predators evolve better ways and means of catching prey. Failure results in extinction, and that too is nature’s way. Most species that have ever existed are now extinct.

While we don’t wish to see native wildlife hunted down and killed, the hardcore truth of the matter is that this is nature’s way, and if you have a problem with that, take it up with God – it’s His master plan. If you don’t accept a deity, blame Mother Nature. In any event, that’s the way it is and you can’t do anything to change that fundamental fact of life. Cats kill; dogs kill; spiders kill; lions kill; birds kill; sharks kill; and guess what – humans kill too. That’s part of the pot and kettle side of things. But humans don’t kill animals just for the need to put food on the table. Humans kill for the pure pleasure of killing things, just for fun, from hunting as a so-called ‘sport’, often with a semi-automatic rifle, and often in enclosed wildlife parks for that purpose where the animals can’t escape, to squashing ants who are outside in their own natural environment and bothering no one.

As for that other common reason given to cull the moggie – the neighbour’s cat uses my garden as a litter box. If that’s the most pressing problem this person has, well I’d like to be that person! Seriously, you get free fertilizer that’s 100% biodegradable and while the cat is around, it’s helping to keep your property free of mice and rats. I’ve been on the receiving end of both gifts and that doesn’t bother me at all. In any event, as a problem, personal or environmental, cat poo in the garden pales compared to doggie poo on the sidewalk.

There are several of the newer suburbs in Canberra (Australia) bordering on native grasslands and in these suburbs cat owners are legally required to confine their cats to their own property, say by using outdoor cat runs or keeping them indoors. I have no problem with that. The cat owners are happy (or should be); the cats should be happy too; and naïve wildlife can relax and worry about other things – like humans and humans who will probably build an ever newer suburb as the population expands, on that very native grassland. 

Confining your cat to your own property helps keep the cat safe too from other humans and traffic. You wouldn’t want your companion animal to end up as road kill.

Legally required or otherwise, human owners are morally responsible for the actions or their companion animals, and it is up to the owners of pets to ensure that other valued animals and people are not in harms way through the actions of animals under their control. That moral requirement exists because you cannot expect cats (hardwired to act in certain ways) to conform to human standards in the same way that you can teach a child.

Australia has declared war on the Cane Toad, the Common Indian Myna Bird, the Rabbit, Carp, the European Wasp, etc. in order to save native species and native habitats on which they depend. Yet every day hundreds of native Australian animals are killed by the motor car, deliberately shot, poisoned, trapped, etc. The Australian Capital Territory government routinely culls thousands of native Kangaroos because there are, allegedly, too many of them, allegedly, destroying native grasslands. Humans reek of the double standard!

Now IMHO, if ever there was a species that needed culling because of their environmental impact, including the extermination, intentional or otherwise, of native wildlife, its dear old Homo sapiens.  The pot has indeed called the kettle black. For some unfathomable reason, it’s A-OK for humans to condemn any and all non-human species for doing what comes naturally, yet when do humans point the finger at humans?  Those who advocate such extreme measures or controls on cats would never ever dream of applying that same logic to themselves and their fellow human companions. De-sex the moggies? That’s all fine and well and I agree on the grounds of animal welfare, but on the other foot, I’ve seen more than one news story or item about these mega-families where a couple revel in having literally offspring cheaper by the two dozen, all products from their own privates and private interactions.  Talk about your environmental impact! Even four of more kids is too many.

Kids or no kids, any one human being in any advanced first world country (New Zealand, Australia, Canada, USA, Europe, Japan, etc.) has a vastly greater detrimental environmental impact per day than any cat has had over the cat’s entire lifetime.

And don’t talk back to me about how cats torture small animals – that absolutely pales in significance with comparison to the daily tortures humans infest on animals, examples way, way too numerous to mention, though in very recent times we’ve seen some very graphic livestock cases of barbaric cruelty in Indonesia, Pakistan and even Israel. And what would the world come to without children pulling the wings off of flies, or as one disgusting co-worker of mine did, throwing live grubs onto a red hot barbeque just for ‘fun’.

When it comes to cats vs. humans, well, you don’t see cats driving 4WD gas-guzzlers on the freeway, one cat per car. You don’t see cats requiring vacations and holiday days off. You don’t see cats shopping down at the mall. You don’t see cats peddling drugs. Cats don’t litter. You don’t see cats going hunting with semi-automatic rifles shooting anything that moves; everything in sight. You don’t see cats maxing out their credit cards and going bankrupt. I’ve yet to see cats invent, build and test an atomic bomb. Cats have way too much sense to believe in deities, they don’t even deify their human ‘masters’.

Cats ask for nothing more than the basic necessities of life, and all their waste products are 100% biodegradable and recycled. Can humans make the same claim?

There is already at least one place that bans pussy cats to protect native wildlife – Lord Howe Island, off the coast of New South Wales, Australia. I imagine there are some similar small islands set aside as wildlife refuges that ban cats and dogs and other predators. I have no problem with that. Of course keeping them out from the get-go is not quite the same issue as eliminating or exterminating them once established, and when it comes to New Zealand, you can hardly claim the entire country as a native wildlife refuge, and cats are already well established there playing the role of companion animal and making lots of people happy.

Ultimately the New Zealand scenario is not going to happen – there are too many cat and companion animal lovers who vote. Then there’s the cat industry from veterinarians to the producers and manufacturers of cat food, kitty litter and litter boxes, cat collars, food bowls, etc. All of this and more means cats are a major employer as it were, given the number of moggies in residence not only in New Zealand but around the world. Human self-interest will ensure that cats will be with us for generations to come. 

*In fact that’s why the cat was accepted into human company in the first place. Back in the days of primarily rural settlements, agricultural-based communities and farms, cats kept in check the mice and rats and daresay the birds that would otherwise feed on the grains, etc. the farmers were trying to grow. There was no question back then what side the cat sided on with respect to human tolerance.

Prehistoric Migrations: Issues Arising: Part Two

Author’s Note: The scenarios within are those of a timeframe from roughly 13,000 to 200,000 years before the present, and thus way before the era of agricultural settlements. We’re dealing with our nomadic hunter-gatherer ancestors here. Key dates are: African origin of modern humans, Homo sapiens, at about 200,000 years ago; an Out-of-Africa migration started roughly 70,000 years ago; our global colonization (except for Antarctica and Oceania) was completed by 13,000 years ago.

Modern humans originated in Africa some 200,000 years ago – give or take. Further on down the timeline, some band(s) of African humans eventually migrated Out-of-Africa and ultimately colonized Planet Earth. That’s the standard anthropological model. However, within that standard scenario lie a lot of anomalous issues, some of which are explored here. An attempt to resolve these anomalies is presented.

Continued from yesterday’s blog…

Problem Three: Connect the Dots

There are two main types of clues that reveal our likely migration patterns. Firstly, there are those archaeological sites and from those trained professionals one can usually deduce what hominid species was present and from various dating methods, when. The problem is that such sites are all too few and far between. So, maybe you have an Australian Aboriginal site around the Perth area (S.W. coast) dated to say 30,000 years ago. Then say you have another site around the Sydney area (S.E. Coast) dated to 20,000 years ago. So the conclusion is that some Aborigines migrated from Perth to Sydney over the 10,000 year interval. But there is no sites in-between, so you don’t really know if they migrated in a straight line between the two areas or was it all just a total zigzag. Maybe neither if there is yet an undiscovered third site, say in Darwin (mid-North Coast) from 40,000 years ago, and some Darwin Aborigines followed the west coast route to Perth taking 10,000 years and some others the east coast trek to Sydney taking a span of 20,000 years. You can just about connect the dots anyway you damn well please if it gives evidence to your pet theory.

The second line of evidence is using mitochondrial DNA found in modern humans to try and work back migration routes. For example, if mitochondrial DNA in modern Australian Aborigines has a closer mitochondrial DNA match to modern Indonesians than to modern Fijians, then one might conclude that the Aborigines migrated to Australia from Indonesia and not from Fiji. I personally don’t like this sort of genetic evidence. Firstly, DNA mutates over time. Evolution would be screwed if it didn’t. Secondly, there’s been an awful lot of comings and goings since these initial Out-of-Africa migrations commenced. Thirdly, there’s been an awful lot of breeding between the races so that by now hardly anyone is ‘pure’ anything. Still, the experts put a lot of faith in the testing, so who am I to dispute their ways and means?

So, how do you get from Point A to Point B tens of thousands of years ago when Points A and B are separated by vast ocean distances? Why do you go from Point A to Point B when Point B is relatively undesirable? How in fact do we really know that Points A and B are the be-all-and-end-all of start and finish?

Let’s say Point A is lovely Hawaii, and Point B is the vast arid desert of outback Central Australia. How do you get from A to B? You can’t walk and follow the coastline. You can’t drive or ride a horse. You could build a boat and sail but that’s a hell of a leap of courage you’ve got to master, and in any event you haven’t any idea what direction to head in or that Australia even exists. And even if you did, why would you want to leave Hawaii (Site A) for the Australian Outback; and if you did reach the Outback (Site B) why wouldn’t you turn right around and head back to Hawaii again?

Well, you could be flown non-stop from Hawaii to Central Australia. We crossed over ocean barriers because we were airlifted over them. You could be flown to Central Australia and stranded there. For the same reason, we didn’t voluntarily adopt the tundra as home – it was forced on us as an adapt do-or-die experiment. Flight would also explain the lack of relevant archaeological sites between A and B. If our ancient ancestors nomadically walked thousands of miles between Point A and Point B, you’d expect archaeological evidence to be found along the assumed connect-the-dots route. But if you fly, or are flown, then of course you wouldn’t find any in-between sites containing any relevant archaeological evidence.

Resolutions

Right about now every physical anthropologist reading this is sticking very long and very sharp pins in J.P. voodoo dolls and calling me all sorts of unprintable names. Of course our ancient ancestors didn’t have the technology at hand to fly, so of course no flying machines have been found in the prehistoric archaeological record either. My obvious suggestion here is that ancient astronauts, the ‘gods’ of old (and there’s some evidence that even 30,000-50,000 years ago our ancient ancestors had grasped the concept of the supernatural and of supernatural entities), genetically engineered all of the various Homo something or other from earlier hominids which in turn were artificially selected and bred from African primates, like the chimpanzee. We collectively, Homo something or other, were genetically engineered and given all those anomalous traits associated with Homo something or other, like a super-high IQ, bipedal gait, racial facial and individual facial uniqueness.

From their central African laboratory, Homo something or other was then dispersed over thousands of years as specific and individual experiments in colonization. We were transported here and there, left to our own devices to survive or not – sink or swim.  In most cases it was sink and extinction. But, now and again, it was survival – we floated and we swam. Ultimately nearly all of the Homo something or other went kaput, but Homo sapiens achieved a positive result. We were that robust species (us – modern humans) the end product of all of the engineering and colonization experimentation. At that stage, we were given or taught the gifts of civilization, especially agriculture roughly 10,000 years ago then left petty much alone and to our own devices, with only at-a-distance surveillance – modern UFOs – though some experimentation continues – alien abductions.

There are, IMHO, a couple of other anomalies supporting this wacky idea.

One other anomaly, if we are so crash-hot good to colonise the world (apart from Antarctica and Oceania) and cross some ocean barriers to get to some parts, hence completing the job in the Americas by 13,000 years ago, maybe even way earlier, why didn’t we colonize the Pacific Islands, Oceania east of Australia and west of South America, until really quite recently – starting only some roughly 4000 years before the present, finishing off with New Zealand (except for Antarctica), last cab off the rank way after the start of the Common Era, or A.D. to some. Australia was first populated 50,000 to 60,000 years ago, and New Zealand is just across the road and over the hill, at least compared to the distance back to our African point of origin. Depending on source, it took but 10,000 to 20,000 years to get from Africa to Australia, yet some 70,000 years to get from Africa to New Zealand. Something’s screwy somewhere, but that reinforces the idea that ocean voyages are a relatively recent ability of ours, and therefore, way back when, we didn’t sail across the oceans blue to Australia, Japan, Sri Lanka, etc. but were taken there.

Another apparent anomaly – while it takes but roughly 60,000 years to colonize the world once we’re Out-of-Africa (except Antarctica and Oceania), it took roughly 130,000 years just to get Out-of-Africa, as if something or someone was blocking our path until they were good and ready to release us into the global wild!

Now reports of aerial machines, flight technologies, are not unknown in the archaeological and/or historical record, albeit not prehistorically far back, rather in the era of recorded ancient history, say the last 10,000 years or so. From the ‘Star’ of Bethlehem, to the Wheel of Ezekiel, to the ‘Sun’ and ‘Moon’ that Joshua stood still (Biblical Mythology); the ‘flaming cross’ of Constantine, to Vimanas which are Hindu mythological flying machines (mythical self-moving aerial cars, a flying chariot of the gods) as related in various Sanskrit epics; to ‘airplane’ models discovered in both ancient Egypt (dated to about 200 BCE) and little gold model ‘airplanes’ from Pre-Columbian Mesoamerican and South American regions, dating from roughly 500 to 800 CE. Scaled-up replicas of these American and Egyptian ‘aircraft’ have found them to be aerodynamically flight worthy. There are also no shortages of art works from antiquity that at face value appear to show what today would be called Flying Saucers, or Daylight Discs, or just plain Unidentified Flying Objects. Finally, aerial ‘chariots’ and extremely large ‘birds’ that ferry the ‘gods’ around are more the norm than not in many mythologies. 

Prehistoric Migrations: Issues Arising: Part One

Author’s Note: The scenarios within are those of a timeframe from roughly 13,000 to 200,000 years before the present, and thus way before the era of agricultural settlements. We’re dealing with our nomadic hunter-gatherer ancestors here. Key dates are: African origin of modern humans, Homo sapiens, at about 200,000 years ago; an Out-of-Africa migration started roughly 70,000 years ago; our global colonization (except for Antarctica and Oceania) was completed by 13,000 years ago.

Modern humans originated in Africa some 200,000 years ago – give or take. Further on down the timeline, some band(s) of African humans eventually migrated Out-of-Africa and ultimately colonized Planet Earth. That’s the standard anthropological model. However, within that standard scenario lie a lot of anomalous issues, some of which are explored here. An attempt to resolve these anomalies is presented.

When it comes to humans, here defined as Homo something or other, not necessarily just Homo sapiens, colonizing the world from Ground Zero, that’s Africa, well several problems arise.

Humans (as in Homo sapiens) originated in Africa and some ultimately did, slowly, ever so slowly, migrate Out-of-Africa (not that they actually were aware of this), eventually spreading out and colonizing the world (apart from Antarctica and Oceania east of Australia and west of South America) by at least 13,000 years ago. Exactly how is not fully understood, least of all by me. The central, but not exclusive, issue I have is with respect to our ways and means of trading in being exclusively nomadic land-lubbers for acquiring sophisticated maritime abilities as well; abilities required if our global colonization scenario is to be believed.

Problem One: Boats Required but No Show-Boats Found

When it comes to human migrations, there are certain lands that have been colonized by both Homo sapiens and Homo erectus that involved crossing reasonably vast expanses of ocean – vast at least for those cultures that existed over 60,000 years ago, when, for example, Australia was colonized by what’s today known as the Australian Aborigine. Even earlier, Homo erectus island-hopped the numerous Indonesian islands as attested to by fossil evidence. In both cases, these ancient cultures had to have acquired rather extensive boat-making, sailing and navigation skills that would allow a large enough population to cross over the ocean waters, since even during Ice Age conditions, these Indonesian islands, and Australia, were still isolated by oceans.

Sailing the oceans blue: that’s a pretty big ask for primitive humans all those tens upon tens of thousands of years ago. But, there’s another way of crossing the ocean blue – we do it all the time today. We don’t sail, we fly. Perhaps our ancient ancestors were flown to Australia and the Indonesian isles! Since aerial technology is even more outlandish than maritime technology, well, perhaps the aerial technology belonged to advanced beings – ancient aliens or ancient astronauts. One other observation in favour – there are fossil finds of this or that hominid species at A, B & C. Alas, geographical points A, B, & C are separated by thousands upon thousands of miles. No fossils are found at any points in-between A & B, or B & C. An obvious explanation, they didn’t migrate between A & B and B & C at several tens of kilometres per generation; they were flown from A to B to C, thus explaining the lack of fossils in-between - but more about that shortly.

Sooner or later in your nomadic hunter-gatherer wanderings you’re going to intersect the seashore! Rivers and streams you can wade across or swim across, maybe use a buoyant log to hold on to if need be. Lakes can be walked around. But the ocean!!! The oceans offshore must have been terrifying to our very ancient ancestors, and rightly so. The ocean is nothing if not unpredictable and dangerous: from huge waves, gales, riptides, strong currents, razor-sharp rocks and shoals, sharks, jellyfish, hypothermia, and just all sorts of unknowns lurking beneath the surface to add to your terrors. The tides must have seemed to be a purely supernatural manifestation, without natural explanation, an unexplainable action of the gods somehow saying “this is our domain, keep away”.

Would you rather be high and dry 10 miles inland or 10 miles out to sea trying to keep your head above water and not ending up as fish-food? It takes way less effort sit on the beach than to swim or sail in or on the ocean, and it’s a lot safer too!

Further, in most cases with no other land in sight, you haven’t a clue what’s on the other side of the ocean, if anything (maybe it goes on forever and forever), or how far across it is to the other side, and in any event you and your band of nomadic hunter-gatherers have more pressing needs, like finding today’s food and tonight’s shelter. The coastlines and seashores offers an abundance of food stuffs and resources: shellfish, crabs, turtles, seals, seabirds, fish, even seaweed (dried for fuel). Coastlines and seashores are good.

Are you really going to stop, make a raft and go sailing out into the pure unknown out of pure curiosity, though curiosity you probably have? No, in the daily hunt for survival you’ll probably ignore the ocean and just follow the coastline – which eventually will bring you to most places. If you come to an impassable barrier, it’s probably easier and far safer to trek inland for awhile than divert resources to swimming or rafting around the barrier with all the dangers that could entail. In any event, it’s not all that east building and sailing and navigating a seaworthy boat or raft from scratch without any handy-dandy how-to manual available. Further, you can’t drink the seawater so freshwater would have to be carried on any hypothetical voyage. Do you have leak-proof containers? If so, how much do you need to take? Who knows?

There are four possible or realistic routes out of Africa. Even during the Ice Ages when sea levels were lower, three involve an ocean crossing, which, I suggest our ancient ancestors would avoid. I think it is far easier, and safer, to just follow the coastline, so I opt for the sole land route, up the west coast of the Red Sea and on up either into the Levant, or back down the east coast of the Red Sea and on into Arabia. You can follow the African coastline ‘Out of Africa’ and eventually reach China, but not Australia, or Japan, or lots of S.E. Asian islands, the Channel Islands (off Southern California), Sri Lanka, etc. Yet you find ancient human and human artefact remains in these places, so our migrating nomadic ancestors obviously did build boats or rafts and sail the ocean blue and satisfy that curiosity, but the real why is unexplained – curiosity is not motive enough to put yourself in harms way. The fly in the ointment, in any event, and alas and alack, there are no boats or rafts to be found, actual remains or pictorial representations, in the prehistoric archaeological record. Boats and rafts are all probable boats and rafts; boats and rafts are assumed but not proven by any actual evidence. It’s a sort of ’Catch-22’. Boats and rafts must be, yet we can’t find them!

It must be said that because of the Ice Ages, ancient coastlines then are now underwater and presumably relevant telltale archaeology (as in remains of boats) is therefore also underwater. Even so, the issue remains that I find it difficult to believe our ancient ancestors would have been brave enough to stick their toes in the oceans without a damn good reason, yet, there were places colonized by early man that even at the height of the Ice Ages there existed no land bridges for them to cross over, say to Australia, New Zealand, Oceania, Japan, lots of S.E. Asian islands, and presumably lots of other islands, large and small. Conclusion: That’s a big anomaly that needs a resolution.

Problem Two: Paradise Lost

Crossing the oceans blue is just the start of anomalous migration issues. If money, language barriers, cultural differences, political systems, passports and visas, etc. were of no concern and you could travel to and live anywhere you wished, where would it be? Well, probably somewhere not too hot, not too cold, not too wet, nor too dry, a place where there are abundant natural resources of food, fresh water, wood, stone, and probably some sort of ascetically pleasing scenery, etc. With the exception of the scenery, all those other geographical and climatic factors would be even more pressing for our ancient ancestors with no access to supermarkets, hardware stores, air conditioning, central heating and tap water on demand. So the question arises, given a lack of population pressure way back when, a lack of pressure not driving migration away from paradise and toward hell, why did some of our ancient ancestors adopt a nomadic lifestyle in what we’d consider extreme environments, like arid regions, the tundra, etc.? 

Unlike today’s travellers, when our very remote ancestors roamed the plains of Africa, their nomadic wanderings or migrations were not geography directed. In an era where there was no radio and TV, newspapers and magazines, GPS and the Internet, encyclopaedias and travel agents, there was no knowledge of what was over the hill, beyond the horizon. Food availability directed your travels and migrations. You exhausted one patch of turf – you moved on to the next, and the next, and the next in a sort of random drunkards walk. Logic dictates that even so you didn’t wander out of paradise or a reason facsimile thereof. But eventually, like a drop of ink diffusing through a glass of water, the rest of the world, paradise, hell and points in-between, got invaded by our African out-of-towners – an invasive pest species that was to bring total death and destruction in their wake, but that’s another story. Anyway, why we colonized extremely hostile environments when more pleasant alternatives were available needs a resolution.

To be continued…

Origins of Agriculture

We’re aware that once upon a time our ancient ancestors lived day-to-day as nomadic hunters and gatherers. Then, roughly 10,000 years ago, in various locations around the globe, we ceased our wanderings, put down roots as rural agricultural-based settlements, and became civilized. Anthropologists cannot tell us why. Mythology does tell us why – the gift of agriculture was from the gods. What to those cultures were gods, we can interpret as ‘ancient astronauts’. 

One of the bigger mysteries in modern anthropology is the transition from nomadic hunter-gatherer lifestyles to agricultural-based settlements. This is known as the “Agricultural Revolution”. There are as many ideas and theories for the independent and relatively sudden transition from hunter-gatherer to settlements dependent of farming, as there are anthropologists who have pondered the issue. There are proposals for external factors vs. internal (social, cultural, economic) factors; global conditions vs. local conditions; climate related vs. population related; or a combination of circumstances: maybe even just the “it’s time” factor. The issue is the transition all happening at roughly the same time – about 10,000 years ago, give or take, in Europe, Mesoamerica, the Andean cultures, Egypt, the Middle East, Asia, etc. especially in the Fertile Crescent, N.E. China and Central America. Only North America (with the exception of the eastern half of what would become the United States), Australia and the far northern regions, like Siberia, retained for the most part a nomadic lifestyle.

But the really anomalous thing is that ever since our ancestors came down out of the trees and started walking upright, for all those millions of years, until roughly 10,000 years ago, we were hunter-gatherers or nomads. Then all of a sudden, wham, we settle down and raise crops and become ‘civilized’ just about universally across the social, cultural and geographical board. No one really has solid evidence to explain why.

The only idea NOT given or advanced is in fact the very one which human culture’s themselves give – in their global mythologies. Agriculture (including the domestication of various species of wildlife – cattle, sheep, goats, horses, etc.) was a gift from their gods. Human mythologies presumably written down and/or orally passed from one human generation to the next human generation, gives no credit to humans for the transition. Humans rarely pass up an opportunity to pat themselves of the back, but this is an exception to that generality. 

Humans have certain basic needs: air, water, sleep, certain temperature range and food. We’re instant experts at breathing (air) and sleeping. We don’t need to seek out, grow or harvest these. We have some control over temperature, and water supplies are usually pretty constant – rivers, springs, lakes, ponds, etc. Food is the dicey item.

The hunter-gatherer method of finding food takes less effort than agricultural tilling-the-fields settlements, so why settlements and why the shift from hunter-gatherer to agriculture is relatively short time frames in diverse parts of the world. Well, what the gods want, the gods get. And if the gods give you a gift, by the gods you’d better make use of it!

These gods (a sampling) oversaw and gave the gift of agriculture to humans thus explaining our transition from hunter-gatherers to settlements and civilization.

* Ninurta was the god of agriculture in the ancient Near East who taught all about crop production.

* Kumarbi: The Hittites had Kumarbi, the father of the gods and a grain deity.

* Osiris (Ancient Egypt): Before being bumped off and dismembered by his brother Seth (Set), and reassembled and resurrected by his sister-wife Isis, and promoted to god of the underworld, he was the god of agriculture who taught men (and women) how to raise corn and vines. That’s why ancient Egyptians depicted him with green skin. 

* Ceres was the Roman goddess of grain and agricultural fertility (from which we get the term cereal).

* Demeter was the Greek goddess and counterpart to Ceres; she was the goddess of corn, crops and fruit groves as well as fertility of the fields who taught humans agriculture.

* Triptolemus, under the direction and guidance of Demeter, brought people the gift of wheat and who spread the benefits of agriculture around the world.

* Chaac was the Mayan god of rain, hence a patron of agriculture like maize and vegetables and hence fertility.

* Xipe Totec was the Aztec god of maize and vegetation.

* Viracocha was a top Inca god who walked among humans, and, among other subjects, instructed students on agriculture. Further, Viracocha fathered two deities, Inti and Mama Quilla, who in turn had an offspring Manco Capac, the first Inca ruler, who also taught agriculture to his human subjects. The odd thing about Viracocha, the highest god in the Inca pantheon, was that he was depicted as pale, bearded with Caucasian features and with green eyes. This is quite akin to the Aztec deity Quetzalcoatl (Kakalcan to the Mayan and otherwise known throughout Mesoamerica under various aliases). They both, Viracocha and Quetzalcoatl departed their respective regions to head over and across the sea with an “I’ll be back” promise. That the Aztecs mistook the Spaniard Cortes for the return of Quetzalcoatl# speaks volumes about what Quetzalcoatl looked like – white, bearded, with Caucasian features. Alas, the enigma here is that there never was any cultural contact between Mesoamerica and the Incas, so why the similarity between Viracocha and Quetzalcoatl? Some New Agers view these white bearded deities of the Americas, who mysteriously vanish, as Jesus in the flesh. That aside, the important point is that Viracocha was a travelling professor of agriculture.

* Shennong: In Chinese mythology there’s Shennong, the farmer god who invented the plough and taught people how to farm.

* Inari was in Shinto Japanese mythology a rice and fertility god.

* Bulul was a Philippines rice god who looked over seeds and the harvest.

* Nummo or Nommo (hybrid creatures) of the African Dogon culture of Mali were teachers (from the star Sirius according to some) who taught farming to mankind.

Of course what our ancient ancestors viewed as supernatural gods and goddesses, we think of them today more akin to flesh-and-blood extraterrestrials (‘ancient astronauts’) who came to Earth long ago with powers and abilities far beyond those of mortal humans of that era. The ‘gods’ would have conducted their worldwide agricultural tutorials at roughly the same time, say about 10,000 years ago. Being practical, they ignored regions impractical for low-tech sustainable agriculture like vast deserts, the tundra, tropical rain forests, etc.

Now the obvious question is why would the ‘gods’ want to give us the gift of agriculture in the first place? That can probably be summed up by the Biblical phrase “be fruitful and multiply”. In a hunter-gatherer society, babies are a burden. They contribute no labour, consume resources, and divert time and energy required for their care away from the daily survival tasks at hand. Since you have to carry your newborn brat around, being a nomadic troop, it hinders your hunting-gathering, so it is best to keep your brats well spaced – every four or five years apart minimum, so one brat can start to contribute a bit to the greater good before your next one pops out into the world.

But once in a settlement scenario, with a reliable food supply, you can start dropping your little bundles of joy nearly every year. There will be the establishment of a sort of child care centre or facility where one person, unable for health or elderly reasons to work the fields can look after all the little darlings, leaving mum free to toil away in the rice paddies or whatever. Though infant mortality will take its toll in either a hunter-gatherer society or in a settlement community, the more frequently bundles are dropped, the faster the population will increase; more workers to produce new and widen fields already under cultivation; build buildings, etc. And of importance too, once you take up a settlement way of life, then you have a need to defend that territory since a lot of sweat and toil went into staking out the community’s land claim and making it productive. A rapid population increase makes defending your turf easier.

But what’s in it for the ‘gods’? Two things - first mythologies around the world are full of references that the ‘gods’ created humans to do the hard work, just like the CEO and Board of Directors of a mining company hires the great unwashed to actually do the hard work – go down into the mines with picks and shovels, etc. while the CEO and company watches from on high: more population – more workers. That’s probably the real reason Adam and Eve got booted out of Eden and directed to start the daily grind and toil of farming (Genesis 3:23). It was probably all a setup from the get-go.

Secondly, what do ‘gods’ want? Well, to be worshiped. Do you get a greater buzz out of a hundred people bowing and scraping down and building small monuments to you, or a thousand or a million doing the same and building great big monuments to your glory? No dictator ever wants to appear in public and not have anyone turn out to render a worshiping salute. 

Having achieved their objective, well it’s on to the next inhabited planet for another challenge in civilizing the great unwashed.

And so, thanks to the ‘gods’, or ‘ancient astronauts’, most of us no longer have to wander the lands in search of our daily bread!

# In all fairness, not all scholars believe there actually was a connection.

We’re Still Sheep in Human Clothing – More Baa! Part Two

I said it before, I’ll say it again: nearly all of us conform to the sociological norm and rest comfortably within the cultural box society demands of us, because, ultimately it’s too much effort to really be an outsider, a free thinker and doer due in part to the social consequences of being, well, different. Let’s face reality; most of us are sheep most of the time. Here’s round two of ‘what the flock’ just to further drive home the point.

Most humans end up being garbed in sheep’s clothing most of the time. For some further examples: 

Continued from yesterday’s blog…

Giving

Some charity comes knocking on your door for a donation. You get an email request from a bona fide organisation you donated to in the past asking for you to volunteer some of your time for another really worthy cause. You get a phone call seeking support for those who are in need, or for medical research, or some other worthwhile cause. Your near neighbour down the street asks you to buy some of his daughter’s Girl Scout cookies. Your office colleague comes around hat in hand for the office sweeps, or asking for a donation for a gift for some worker who you’ve never met who’s about to retire. The collection plate is passed around at your local church service. Someone is always in your face with their grubby little paw sticking out asking for your money, or time, or both. Meekly, because it’s only $5 or just a couple of hours of your time, you cave in – again and again and again. The sheep can be relied on. They’re a soft touch since hardly anyone wants to be seen or known as a cheapskate. Baa!

Hype, Hype and More Hype

Hands up anyone that’s never experienced being on the receiving end of HYPE! No hands? I thought so. We’ve all experienced over-enthusiasm, especially when and where $$$ are concerned. The prime example is the super-ultra over-the-top month-long (plus) from which I cannot escape hype of all things Christmas. I asked a staffer at a local supermarket why we (staff and customers alike) were being saturated with in-store Xmas music. Well the obvious answer was to get those customers in the proper Xmas spirit and mood, which translated, meant customers spending, spending and spending their money in the staffer’s store (helping of course to keep staffers employed).

The British Royals get the Royal Hype by the press. It’s saturation media coverage for any Royal bit of news at all, including obviously any birth, death, marriage, divorce, or scandal, the sexier the better. Why the intense interest in these dysfunctional idiots is beyond me. I’ve never figured it out and I probably never will. 

Sports are another hyped up category, especially the Olympic Games, but all others like the NFL Superbowl, grand finals of any kind, the Red Sox – N.Y. Yankee rivalry, etc. are grist for the hype mill. The more people that tune in, the bigger the target audience for the advertisers.   

Then we have all those over-the-top at what seems like 100 decibel levels TV commercials hyping you to be the first on your block; try this new and improved; with a brand new taste; be the envy of your neighbours; never to be repeated; easy terms; it’s better than ever; it won’t last long; ends soon; act now; limited quantities; don’t miss out; and on and on and on it goes.

Then you get the saturation exposure to the premier of the newest must see ‘blockbuster’ film. What new fashion shows aren’t just pure hype and another form of planned obsolescence.

Why? Without all the manufactured hype, the average person just wouldn’t give nearly as much of a damn. And it works too! Baa!

The End of the World on the 21^st December 2012

Every time some nutcase makes an end-of-the-world prediction, you can bet the family farm that he or she or they will attract a flock of sheep who believe that specific end-of-days prophecy. Often that ends in tragedy as the flock sell their family farm and possessions; leave behind family and friends, only to have to crawl back on hands and knees looking the absolute fool they were. Sometimes it’s more serious than that – mass suicides have taken place by the true believers. The latest in a very, very  long line of case histories has been taken from the Mayan calendar which, much like our going from the 31^st of December to the 1^st of January, clicks over from one cycle to the beginning of a new cycle. Alas, the deluded, and/or those out to make a fast buck, have convinced many a human sheep that the end of the cycle is in literal fact the end of the world. The upshot, a lot of these end of the world soothsayers made a lot of money selling their tall tales to the great unwashed. They were the winners; the sheep, as usual, got fleeced. The world went on its merry way. As is now obvious to even the densest of morons, the world did not end on the 21^st of December 2012, as any sane person tried to tell you before-the-fact. For those who believed regardless, sucker! Baa! 

Anniversaries

There’s something very sheepish about nearly all humans attributing some special significance to the Earth making one complete orbit of the Sun, or in other words, returning to a specific point* one year later – otherwise known as an annual anniversary. Though it’s of no cosmic significance and purely a human invention and observation, god help you if you miss someone’s birthday or forget your wedding anniversary or fail to show proper respect for local, state, regional or national holidays, like the Fourth of July, or ANZAC Day, Washington’s Birthday or the Queen’s Birthday, VE or VJ Day, etc. Why a human invention? When’s the last time you observed your companion animal(s) or any animal in the wild ‘celebrate’ one of their anniversaries? They could care less – no muss and no fuss. Perhaps we should take a leaf out of their book; follow their example. Not even real sheep celebrate anniversaries! Baa!

*That’s actually incorrect since it’s not the Earth orbiting a stationary Sun, rather the Earth orbiting a rapidly moving Sun that’s moving it it’s own orbit around the central core of the Milky Way Galaxy. When the Earth orbits once around the Sun, it does NOT return to the exact same coordinates in space. And just to further complicate things, the Milky Way Galaxy isn’t standing still either, but moving position with respect to other galaxies, or whatever other points of reference you care to name. 

New Year Resolutions

Speaking of cosmically non-significant anniversaries, the annual renewal of the New Year Resolution list comes close to top-of-the-pops. Most people make them; most people break them; year-in-and-year-out. There’s only one New Years resolution anyone need make, and that is to “never make any more New Years Resolutions”. I did that decades ago, and lo and behold, I’ve never broken that commitment. As to the rest of you, Happy New Year (which, truth be known, you’ll probably be wishing good riddance 364 days later). Baa!

Diets

Probably the New Years Resolution that’s top-of-the-pops is to lose weight, as fast and as painlessly as possible. To cater for that segment of the human population, nearly every week some new fad diet is put forward and just as predictable a flock of human sheep gobble it up only to move on to the next newest diet fad and the next when each in turn is found wanting and doesn’t provide the painless quick-fix promised. Baa!

To conclude, there’s just no end to those facets of society and culture that see those humans garb themselves in sheep’s clothing. Baa! Baa! Baa!

We’re Still Sheep in Human Clothing – More Baa! Part One

I said it before, I’ll say it again: nearly all of us conform to the sociological norm and rest comfortably within the cultural box society demands of us, because, ultimately it’s too much effort to really be an outsider, a free thinker and doer due in part to the social consequences of being, well, different. Let’s face reality; most of us are sheep most of the time. Here’s round two of ‘what the flock’ just to further drive home the point.

Most humans end up being garbed in sheep’s clothing most of the time. For some further examples: 

Sales

Black Friday, Cyber-Monday, Boxing Day (post-Xmas) – There are sales and sales days; then there are SALES and SALES DAYS. There’s something extra special about those SALES and SALES DAYS that drives your average mild mannered person-in-the-street into a raging maniac. “All’s fair in love and war” should be updated to “all’s fair in love, war and sales shopping”. Strike first, strike hard and strike often. It is pure road rage only in the department store isles. The name of the game is doing unto others before they do it unto you. Let’s just say when shoppers hit the SALES, the sheep turn into rams on steroids! But a sheep by any other name is still a sheep. Baa!

Women’s Magazines

There are serious newspapers and then there are the tabloids. There are serious magazines, and then there are the magazines for the average great unwashed bored out of her ever-loving mind female, usually just plain Jane housewife whose idea of a good time is playing the pokies and whose IQ is struggling to reach triple figures. Porn sites probably contribute more towards human culture than what passes for titillation for the female masses, where any similarity between fact and the written word is purely a matter of coincidence. Yet these ‘true confessions, celebrity scandals, who’s sleeping with who, how I lost 100 pounds in one week’ magazines sell by the millions each week, every year. Readers, you are being fleeced. Baa!

Celebrities

Just taking one example, and examples could be numbered in the thousands, there’s a certain female celebrity, Kim Kardashian, who seemingly gets more coverage, more press stories, more interest accrues to her than the POTUS. For the life of me I can’t figure out why this person is important and why anyone gives a damn, yet millions do. I’m stumped, other than to conclude the obvious. Only mindless sheep would think this person should rate more than one second worth of their time, if that. Baa!

The Royal 2013 Brat

Within literally 24 hours of the announcement that, what’s her name, the  Topless Royal, oh yes, Kate, was in a family way, not only did the whole Internet light up and explode like some super Fourth of July fireworks display, but the first Royal Baby 2013 Souvenirs were on the retail shelves, ready to be gobbled up for all those Royal Lovers, oops, Lovers of all things Royal to take into their homes, no doubt to gather dust like all other non-eatable Royal kitsch, oops, knickknacks. What does this tell you about the nature of the human species? What does this tell you about the nature of human priorities? Baa!

Clothing Doesn’t Make the Man - The Suit and Tie

There are just certain occupations where certain items of attire are mandatory, usually for safety reasons, like batting helmets for baseball batters and the mask, chest protector, shin-guards, etc. if you’re a baseball catcher. Ditto shoulder pads and helmets in gridiron football. Hardhats are common sense if you’re a miner or construction worker; ditto bright safety vests if you work outdoors, say road construction, and need to be highly visible. Some professions do require uniforms, as in the military. However, many occupations require certain ‘uniforms’ that actually contribute bugger-all to the ability of that person to perform the job in question. I refer in particular to the civilian white-collar worker, who, if male, is just about required to wear a suit and tie, or at least a jacket and tie. Why? The ability to perform the function you are employed to do has nothing to do with what you wear. Your ability comes from whatever mental and physical abilities you have. Okay, you could perform equally well, in theory, in your birthday suit and in a tuxedo. Eliminating those extremes, you do your best work when you are attired in what is most comfortable. I would suggest that a suit and tie is not that attire; a clean open collar shirt and comfortable pants would suit 99.9% of those otherwise required to wear the suit-and-tie ‘uniform’. Given white-collar workers just meekly dress according to what fashion dictates, instead of wearing that conductive to productivity enhancing comfort, well, all sheep wear wool. Baa!

On the Run

What is it about our society that the sheep have to do everything as if the butcher were after them? I mean they eat on the run; they are not content to let the escalator take them up or down, they have to shove past you, gaining maybe five whole seconds – so where’s the fire? They talk on the run on their mobiles, they text on the run, and while they may have the runs, at least they have to stop and smell the roses when going to the loo. And since they are paying attention to anything and everything except the direction they’re headed in, let’s just be thankful they aren’t behind the wheel of a car! Oops, in fact that’s exactly where all too frequently they are. Driving or otherwise, it’s a sin to waste a moment not doing something, and you should probably feel guilty for sleeping! Baa!

Family Ties

The basic philosophy here is that if it was (or is) good enough for Mom and Dad, then it’s good enough for me – they can do my thinking for me. I mean many offspring usually settle themselves, at least initially, relatively close to where they grew up. Offspring often tend to follow in the same employment-related footsteps as their parents; like father – like son. If your parents were of this particular brand of religious faith, odds are that you will be too. If Mom and Dad drove W, used X, smoked Y, drank Z, chances are you too will be a WXYZ person. If your parents had particular interests, say fans of a particular sports team, well it’s likely you will root for that team too. The same applies to their politics; it’s your politics too. If your parents attended a specific type of educational institution, the odds are you will follow suit. All of the above of course isn’t set in concrete, but moe often as not, because of family ties, you’re a sheep. Baa!

To be continued…