Two finals from today

Boom, two papers that I turned in today. I hope it works out alright, I need good grades on both to pass each class respectively. Despite my inability to focus and all my new liver medicine and pretty much the world is raining shit I still cranked both of these out today. Wish me luck, robot me wrote them, I couldn’t do otherwise. If it was a test, I rolled it up and smoked it. I’m not sure if that’s what we were supposed to do, but whatever. Boom.

 

 

 

 

Hip Hop Culture from an Ethnographical Perspective:

Examining the Underground with a Mainstream Lens

 

Tuscanooga B. Keith

University of New Mexico

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Abstract

This paper explores the subculture of hip hop, spending careful time to address it in comparison to other relatively recent global artistic movements. Subcultures offer a unique opportunity for anthropological research, complicating the science from its fundamentals by defining their members via different parameters and qualifications. Present during one of the most massive technological shifts in human history, hip hop offers cultural and anthropological opportunities never present before and defines a large and ever increasing group of people in an ever unfolding world. Positioned uniquely on either side of the border of a mass technological diffusion, the genre and its peoples offer insight into human existence like never before seen. The same principles can be transposed to smaller scenes. The study of these smaller scenes movements in relation to global trends shifts as if meteorological or tidal, shifting with currents, the social mapping of which could reveal a great deal about humanity.

Hip Hop Culture from an Ethnographical Perspective: Examining the Underground with a Mainstream Lens

Music as a Mode of Cultural Transmission

Music plays an interesting role in the transmission of ideas and thoughts. Many have postulated on the usage of musical abilities as a gauge for other competencies, yet on the other hand the ‘savant’ is a known phenomenon as well. Much research has been done on the subject of the ‘savant,’ revealing various focused, specialized, intensified, and isolated abilities in individuals who are often defined as disabled (Heaton 1998). If music is viewed within its parameters as a culture, one could conceivably map out the world in entirely new dimensions. Music, in many cases, goes so far as to influence other normally visual arts. It can also influence the attitudes of people or peoples, and even upon occasion the policy making of lawmakers.

Hip Hop and Its Unique Role in the World

It is interesting to ‘view’ one musical cultural phenomenon at a time. As the predominant genre during a global shift for the global power of its time, hip hop is interesting to ‘view.’ In a similar way, other world musics are interesting to view as basis for demographic mapping as well. Rock and roll and jazz were also global genres, but more specified and localized mapping based on musical tastes could provide interesting objectivity and insight about the cultures and peoples that are so traditionally mapped based on archaic genetic lineage and geographic positioning. The appropriation hip hop’s, cultural attitudes, ideals, practices, and beliefs amongst the global population is astounding, reflecting a mass movement (Bennet 1999). Hip hop was also poised as the vessel for the electronic and information ages and played a very interesting role in a key period of human development. Hip hop is additionally interesting to view because of the potential neurological correlates that it seems to so readily map itself onto, those of syntax, cadence, volume, etc.

Hip Hop as a Means of Cultural Definition

However, hip hop is more than just music, and both visual and kinetic aspects of the culture add to the auditory influence. Remaining widely misunderstood, the genre of music has become its own sort of institution, a movement acting independently of one individual force, expanding to the horizons (Forman 1997). Hip hop dance is said to predate the entire genre and to have been the foundational building block upon which the culture was carefully yet capitalistically built. The classic ‘deejay’ element was the first of its kind, building both an instrument out of a turntable on the one hand and a vehicle for social movement on the other (meaning the role of the ‘deejay,’ or disc jockey, was a recently developed position in society based upon technological advances which flourished during the hip hop age). So called ‘aerosol art,’ or graffiti, utilized similar advances, the new, postmodern, almost space age versions of classical arts morphed and subsequently dubbed ‘hip hop.’ But this was more than just classical art, it was a renaissance in its own right, a culture overarching several artistic, social, and economic movements. Hip hop was the future, and everything about it screamed that. Largely based in American ideals, the subculture embraces the new and the old in strangely sustainable materialistic culture (Forman 1997). Archetypes and characters are created and entire pieces could be divulged simply based upon individual caricaturized versions of hip hop’s time tested roles, hip hop borders on voodoo and Santeria with one hand while embracing spiritualism with the other. Representative of the selective spiritualism of modern developed cultures, hip hop is infamous for recycling and shaping old ideas into new ones (Forman 1997). Created alongside the technology that embraced it, hip hop paired seamlessly alongside the increasingly urban lifestyles of much of the world’s populations.

When examining a culture that spans as broad in range as one which hip hop’s parameters span, it is important to note other similar cultures. From a global paradigm, hip hop culture has helped urban youth the world over to reestablish themselves and their neighborhoods as creative and empowered individuals in a social context, shattering old stereotypes of low income families. Hip hop is rooted in grass roots and word of mouth folk movement ethos (Mitchell 2002). In order to best qualify and quantify the cultural effects of the movement, it is practical to compare hip hop with other dance, music, visual art, and poetry movements both domestically and globally, historically and presently, as a means of examining the culture on a functional level. Demographically speaking, hip hop spans a wide variety of other subcultures and modes of categorization (Forman 2002). It may be prudent to view alternative means of demographic redistribution in order to better analyze peoples from a variety of different angles.

A New Basis for Trait and Demographic Analysis

When ‘viewing’ music as a cultural phenomenon, one may find new basis for trait grouping. Local heroes are idealized and deified within the culture and values differ greatly from mainstream norms (Forman 2002). Hip hop often values the ‘grind,’ preferring snub-nose stubborn stick-to-it-iveness over inherited ability or wealth (Forman 2002). As traits may be reorganized, a fuller understanding of human interaction may emerge. What this means is that, in stark contrast to both structuralism and functionalism, hip hop has redefined itself so many times and thusly revealed a strange, ethereal, zen-like value system occurring virtually naturally. The hip hop culture’s fermentation and recycling of old ideals is indicative of entirely new yet classically familiar means for demographic purposes, perhaps allowing for perspective into certain realms of human existence not visible or comprehendible otherwise. In other words, certain cross cultural commonalities may reveal themselves amongst partakers in a subculture or counter culture. Modern culture has folded back onto itself so many times as to make it a sort of structural functionalism multiplied times itself. When a culture as focused on recording itself as hip hop starts to look at itself, it gains its own sort of ‘institutional consciousness,’ utilizing the Pythagorean theorem as well (in reference to the ability to view similar if not the same phenomena through multiple lenses and from multiple viewpoints in order to best determine what is actually happening).

Hip hop as a culture is filled with a diverse group of people spanning across many languages, continents, cultures, peoples, ages, and more. As a subculture and in some cases a counter culture, hip hop is unparalleled in its ability to unite people in pursuit of positivity. As an example of a culture influencing language, hip hop demonstrates the abilities of a culture to provide not just one but multiple forms of language and, indeed, lifestyle manipulation. Hip hop as a ‘scene’ exists in a supernatural realm, as in the idea that while it may have been more materialistic than any other culture before it the culture itself is based strictly on the nonphysical, the ideal, the ‘swagger’ of various innovators (Forman 2002). The concept of fame being a central theme in hip hop, graffiti, breakdancing, emceeing, deejaying, and all of the subsequently adopted elements share a love for the obscure, its practitioners utilizing nicknames and aliases oddly reminiscent of superheroes, avatars, and mobsters.

Hip Hop and the People’s Pursuit of Positivity

The music’s listeners and specialists share many traits, lifestyles, and artistic tastes. Could they share other traits, such as neurophysiological phenotypic similarities? Current research has shown that cadence, rhythm, pitch, and many other factors can have specific neural correlations. Melodies do, in fact, spark specific reactions on a neurophysiological level. As a culture, music is a form of transmission, perhaps to the level of being a source of sexual selection. Perhaps it could be postulated that the preference for or ability with music may be indicative of high quality neurophysiological capabilities and thus be a form of accelerated self-selection in humans. If nothing else, it does seem to be a mode of selection.

In addition to the social contexts influenced by hip hop, the music itself seems to lend itself to a sort of therapeutic use. The poetic cadences utilize older folk methodology and make reference to both the sacred and the mundane, dancing over imagery and inciting movement in its listeners. The instrumentals sample the most vivid of moments, capturing nostalgia and building tension all towards painting a new, abstract world of feelings and thoughts, beliefs and ideals for the peoples.

Syntactical Similarities and Differences with Language

As a form of syntax, music demonstrates similar neurophysiological reactions to language. Indeed, it, amongst other things, is referred to as a ‘universal language.’ Other things include love, money, and slapstick (hip hop has many famous clowns). On the other hand, individuals can develop ‘amusia,’ a musical version of aphasia, and not exhibit aphasia. The opposite is true as well, particularly and notably of the composer Shebalin. Current research, however, has not yet revealed significant differences in response. Syntactically similar in nature, these two do indeed demonstrate strange correlation.

Approaching Hip Hop from Economic and Social Points of View

The economics of the ‘game’ remain much the same today as ever. At once rumored to be almost solely based in the black market, drug and alcohol usage is rampant amongst the hip hop community. The two faces of hip hop represent a vital dualism that is ever present in art, that of aggressive pacifism. Almost Rastafarian in nature, marijuana has been adopted as a substance of leisure and economy by much of the people in this culture.

Like rock and roll, hip hop has played and continues to play a major role in the romantic lives of its people. Much has been made of various ‘star’ musicians lives, and mimicry is prominent amongst practitioners. Indeed, the archetypes of various figures have morphed with time, as with rock and roll and jazz. Much is made of ‘street credibility,’ ‘keeping it real,’ and other raw, gritty ideals. Hip hop has its own versions of other subcultures, containing various offspring with skateboarding, sport, and club lifestyles amongst others. Race, sex, crime, morality, religion, homosexuality, life, death, politics, and many other topics are addressed to varying degrees by the genre and a single and unified belief about any one subject is impossible to nail down. Instead, an almost Zionist sort of manifest destiny overtakes the movement and slowly winds the world down the road, like all things.

Possibilities and Future Directions

As far as possible future directions, electronica offers a diverse variety of opportunities in many fields, the combination of the knowledge from which may lead to more understanding of human nature. The various genres and subgenres, niches and cliques and scenes all carved out of one another, look similar to tribes and families from a superficial standpoint. Material possessions, economics, social mobility, and much more all appear to mimic older forms of social division. Much of the world could be deduced by determining which music people listen to at different times, new and more precise modes of bias could be snuffed out for good. The almost tribal nature of many of these ‘trends,’ ‘scenes,’ and ‘movements’ offers modern anthropologists opportunities to update older techniques of study to fit modern speed and dynamics.

Additional research could be done into specific genotypic and phenotypic characteristics of various subcultures’ practitioners. Precise mapping of the culture in a multi-dimensional realm could provide more specified and accurate data about specific economic functions of hip hop in capitalist societies as compared with non-capitalist societies and the exact role of the black market in an astoundingly large subculture. Specific value systems could be charted in order to determine the whether trait values differ and if so to what degree they differ from mainstream trait systems. Further research could be done to see the degree to which neurophysiological similarities and response to the actual sensory stimulation process caused by hip hop and indeed other cultural movements’ artistic mediums play a role in determining which movement an individual will demonstrate a preference towards, perhaps indicating underlying personality types impossible to comprehend from a traditional standpoint.

Conclusions

To conclude, hip hop is a group of diverse people united over seemingly artificial items. The songs and art is frequently ephemeral and the culture lives for the present. Interesting similarities may arise for people of seemingly different ‘types’ from a structural point of view, indicating a wider dimension of possible evaluative tools. This paper suggests that approaching ethnography and anthropology with different demographic dividing themes may be beneficial to a researcher’s overall understanding and conceptual solidarity. In other words, further research in the realms of alternative demography methods could yield great anthropological gains, possibly implying usefulness in a variety of academic and nonacademic realms.

Additionally, hip hop’s practitioner’s preferences may be indicative of larger human adaptive themes and motifs. For one, human self-selection has yielded many serendipitous advances, the exact functions of which have yet to be firmly defined. Music, as well as other art forms and perhaps even science, is one of these advances. Language is also one of these advances and the neural links between music and language indicate the need for further research. What exactly is it that differentiates the two? Are humans primed for language? Are humans primed for music? Is this indicative of historical phenomena? There are many questions to be asked.

Finally, the connection to the Earth which hip hop endows its practitioners is indicative of the individual integrating with the society, a reoccurring theme in an increasingly global world. Hip hop has good sides, bad sides, and in between, all of which differ from the mainstream and other subcultures. Hip hop, like other genres, has a value system unique to itself, existing partially hidden from the entire mainstream, different from the norm. Simultaneously playing to the global and local perspective, hip hop is the glorified projects of the subculture world, provided a diverse array of specialized niches for its ‘users’ to inhabit.

Works Cited

 

Heaton, Pamela and Hermelin, Beate and Pring, Linda.

1998 Autism and Pitch Processing: A Precursor for Savant Musical Ability?

Music Perception 15 (3): 291-305.

Bennet, Andy.

1999 Hip Hop Am Main: the Localization of Rap Music and Hip Hop Culture.

Media Culture Society 21 (1): 76-91.

Forman, Murray.

2010 Hip-Hop Culture, Youth Creativity, and the Generational Crossroads. In

Art and Human Development. Cynthia Lightfoot and Constance Milbrath,

eds. Pp. 59-65. New York: Psychology Press.

Mitchell, Tony and Pennycook, Alastair.

2009 Hip Hop as Dusty Foot Philosophy. In Global Linguistic Flows: Hip Hop

Cultures, Youth Identities, and the Politics of Language. H.Samy Alim

and Awad Ibrahim and Alastair Pennycook, eds. Pp. 25-42. New York:

Routledge.

Forman, Murray.

2002 The ‘Hood Comes First: Race, Space, and Place in Rap and Hip-Hop.

Connecticut: Wesleyan.

Second one now, this one was, ugh, brutal to write. Definitely not what I want to study, one of those classes that kills you to take it, knowledge you don’t really want but a ‘well rounded’ person would have…I don’t mean to make it seem like drudgery, but the class cornered me and a subject that I have a lot of ideas about really, uh, really came through in the clutch is what I meant to say. Here it is…be warned, it’s depressing subject matter, kinda like building a treehouse out of dead elephant bones.

Breastfeeding, Co-sleeping, and a Healthy Baby: A Review of Current Infant Health Practices

 

Tuscanooga B. Keith

University of New Mexico

Abstract

 

This paper aims to superimpose current health practices with archaeological findings, analyze the data, and suggest possible directions for further research. Five different articles were analyzed in order to collect data for this paper. The papers were cross examined with one another to determine possible correlations, the implications of which could extend to better understanding of optimum infant health circumstances. Areas of interest prior to examination of the articles include optimum breast feeding patterns across cultures, the effects of co-sleeping on infant health and possible correlations between breast feeding, bed sharing, and co-sleeping. Prevention of Sudden Infant Death Syndrome and encouragement of healthy mental and physical development of both mother and infant are of primary concern. The relationship that these outcomes may have with possible factors breast feeding, co-sleeping, and bed sharing, is discussed.

Breastfeeding, Co-sleeping, and a Healthy Baby: A Review of Current Infant Health Practices

 

            Throughout history there have been many factors influencing human development. Specifically in the realm of nutritional health and overall absence of deficiencies, humans, like many other mammalian living organisms, have utilized milk as a form of transmitting nutrition from the maternal unit to its young (Schwarcz 1998). Environmental factors, such as co-sleeping, can be indicative of other health behaviors (McKenna 1997). Of primary concern is the prevention of Sudden Infant Death Syndrome, operationally defined as an unexpected and sudden death of a child under the age of one year old for which an autopsy does not reveal an explainable cause of death (Ball 2007). This can be due to a number of factors, such as problems with the ability to wake up, inability to properly regulate carbon dioxide levels in the blood, and more. Because of the complex nature of the diagnosis, Sudden Infant Death Syndrome can be difficult to differentiate from accidental crushing or suffocation (Ball 2007). This is especially true as one takes into account the reluctance that parents involved in such accidental deaths may exhibit both internally and externally to attributing causal factors to themselves. Infants are at an increased risk of Sudden Infant Death Syndrome if they are around cigarette smoke while in the womb or shortly after being born, if they share a bed with one or more parents, if they sleep on their stomach (however, experts also note that infants are an increased risk of choking and strangulation if they sleep on their back), if they are a twin, if they were born prematurely, if they are impoverished, if they were born to a teen mother, if a sibling had Sudden Infant Death Syndrome, if their mother smokes or uses illegal drugs, if they received late or no prenatal care, or if there is soft bedding in the crib. Many of these, however, correlate highly with bed sharing (McKenna 1997). The effect of bed sharing should be controlled for in future research. Being a twin may correlate highly with bed sharing and thus the actual effects of being a twin may prove to be negligible, but further research is required.

When examining maternal patterns across cultures, various patterns can be ascertained from the wide, diverse variety of practices. These practices include infant rearing, education, nutrition, housing, and much more (Rowshan 1997). This paper specifically examines breastfeeding practices that have been common in the past, are common today, and other activities such as bed sharing and co-sleeping in order to determine a possible optimum infant sleep environment. Bed sharing is defined as an infant or child sleeping in the same bed, couch, or other surface upon which parents also sleep; parent and child habituating the bed for the purpose of sleep at the same time (Ball 2007). Co-sleeping is defined as the sharing of the same room but not necessarily the same bed unit by one or more parents and the infant (McKenna 1997). Again, this involves simultaneous timing, both infant and parent spending more or less what amounts to the same time and times in bed and attempting to sleep (Ball 2007). According to the American Academy of Pediatrics, co-sleeping is recommended as it encourages breast feeding. Bed sharing, however, is not recommended by the American Academy of Pediatrics.

Additionally, several other articles are reviewed in a literature review fashion in order to better explain the findings of this process. In spite of the predominance of such healthy behaviors as diurnal breastfeeding, nocturnal breastfeeding, and supposedly bed sharing, misinformation is rampant amongst many new mothers (Rowshan 1997). Specifically in the case of the Bangladesh mothers, individuals may place more responsibility on the supposed ‘quality’ of the mother’s breast milk in regards to infant health outcomes, specifically blaming the mother for sudden infant death or deaths (and perhaps the syndrome which can accompany it) (Rowshan 1997). As this paper discusses, mothers may seek out resources or options to ensure maximum breast milk intake for the infant. One such optional behavior could be seen as bed sharing (Ball 2007). Bed sharing is shown to correlate with increased nocturnal breastfeeding (Ball 2007). Co-sleeping is also shown to correlate with increased nocturnal breastfeeding (McKenna 1997), but not to the same degree as bed sharing (Ball 2007). However, bed sharing correlates with increased risk of infant death (McKenna 1997). Increased nocturnal breastfeeding without bed sharing is shown to be the best option in reducing accidental infant fatality (McKenna 1997).

Knowledge is often an indicator of ability to provide care (Rowshan 1997). The prevention of Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS) or other accidental infant death is often generalized as heavily influenced by the ‘quality’ of the provider’s breast milk (Rowshan 1997). Knowledge from these articles effectively minimizes and debunks colloquial and false information and beliefs about breast milk ‘quality’ (which is not measured, operationalized, or defined in said colloquial circumstances) and the prevention of infant death (Rowshan 1997). The quality of breast milk was not demonstrated in these articles to quantitatively affect infant development outcomes, though the possibility of breast milk quality having influence over these processes should not be ruled out indefinitely (Rowshan 1997). Specifically links which show the ability of bed sharing to influence nocturnal breastfeeding without emphasizing the possible deleterious effects of said bed sharing can be misleading (McKenna 1997). Neglecting to recognize that almost triple the breastfeeding occurred for bed sharing families, new mothers may falsely believe that bed sharing and not increased breast milk consumption is responsible for many nutritional benefits (Ball 2007).

Breastfeeding Patterns across cultures

 

Many experts today agree that breastfeeding is an unparalleled manner of integrating a necessary mother-infant bonding process with a specialized nutritional intake process that often leads to high levels of healthy growth for the infant involved in the equation (Schwarcz 1998). The World Health Organization recommends as a global health measure that infants be breastfed exclusively for six months beginning at birth to achieve the best outcome in regards to development of the infant. While maternal report of breastfeeding has proven to be unreliable (McKenna 1997), self-report measures have been shown to correlate with higher levels of bone density in infant skeletal remains (Herring 1998), presumably indicating better skeletal health. The implication here is that increased breast feeding provides necessary nutrients which are specialized in human breast milk to encourage healthy bone growth in infants. Fragile, frail bones are combatted with the nutritional components of breast milk, the exact formula for which cannot be replicated in a lab (Ball 2007). With variable levels of different essential nutrients at different times of the day, month, and infant’s life, breast milk provides a shifting and customized ingredient in order to best encourage infant growth and development. When discussing pediatric nutrition, note that breast-fed children have exhibited a higher resistance to disease and infection early in life, more so than a control group fed only formula. According to the Natural Resources Defense Council, breast-fed children are also less likely to contract diseases later in life, including cancer, heart disease, multiple sclerosis, and juvenile diabetes. An interesting aside is that mothers who breastfeed are less likely to develop osteoporosis, experience lower risk levels in regards to breast, uterine, and ovarian cancer, and report an easier time losing weight gained during pregnancy.

Past findings indicate that breastfeeding may have been practiced for a longer duration of time than is currently commonly practiced (Schwarcz 1998). With working mothers receiving more and more pressure to return to work, many mothers in first world and developed countries do not breastfeed for the six years of infancy once considered commonplace. One such indicating study was the study done in the 19th Century St. Thomas Anglican Churchyard in Belleville, Ontario (Herring 1998). A large infant graveyard with well-preserved skeletal remains was unearthed, the findings of which indicated high levels of breastfeeding (Herring 1998). To be precise, stable nitrogen isotope analyses, colloquially and commonly referred to as ‘carbon dating,’ and historical demographic analysis was used in order to determine the weaning behaviors and the later implications of these behaviors on overall infant survival and death rates (Herring 1998). Ancient findings, such as this indicate that breastfeeding may have been much more prominent in past cultures (Schwarcz 1998). This is to be expected in some aspects if one considers the possible food shortages which may have existed in the not so distant past. When testing carbon and oxygen isotopes, more enriched enamel was discovered on molars present in older infant skeleton, indicating the beneficial effects received for Guatemalan infants when breast feeding between 700 B.C. and 1500 A.D (Schwarcz 1998). Modern practices often include the cessation of breast feeding at the reaching of the second year of life, but archaeological evidence demonstrates that, in the past, breastfeeding was common for infants between the ages of two and six years (Schwarcz 1998).

Many findings may indicate that breast milk provides infants and young children with nutritional advantages when compared with control groups, both historically and today (Herring 1998). The implications here are vast. As a specialized food source, breast milk has historically provided infants with their sole source of nutrition as well as an additional source of nutrients after solid food has already begun to be consumed (McKenna 1997). Increased breastfeeding sessions are commonly believed to provide infants with increased nutritional opportunity (Ball 2007).

Co-sleeping and Bed Sharing: The Differences, Risks, and Benefits of Each

 

            Current evidence indicates that co-sleeping and bed sharing can have mixed effects on overall outcomes of infancy, particularly in regards to Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (Ball 2007). Both bed sharing and co-sleeping are shown to correlate with increased nocturnal breast feeding (Ball 2007). Bed sharing, is defined as the sharing of a single ‘bed’ unit by one or more parents and the infant (McKenna 1997). Current evidence indicates that bed sharing correlates highly with healthy development for the infant except for in extemporaneous death situations (Ball 2007). Further examination indicates that co-sleeping often results in similar levels of nocturnal breast feeding (McKenna 1997). However, frequency of breastfeeding per hour is at its absolute highest when a mother-infant dyad is present and bed sharing occurs (Ball 2007). These levels are even higher than when a crib is attached to the bed, indicating that much of the feeding may be a result of ease of access and proximity for the infant (Ball 2007). Lower levels of infant death during co-sleeping in comparison with bed sharing may be attributable to decreased risk of oxygen deprivation for the infant, accidental crushing death, and other accidental injuries which may occur when a parent rolls over on an infant unknowingly during sleep (McKenna 1997). Risk of death and injury may be perceived to be elevated for parents who experience difficulty waking from sleep or are obese.

The implications of these current studies indicate that breast feeding occurs at a higher rate when a mother sleeps in the same room as the infant (McKenna 1997). This is presumably due to the notion that increased proximity allows for easier responding to signals given off by the infant indicating a willingness to feed. However, despite risks such as crushing injury, bed sharing seems to provide infants with optimum access to the food source (Ball 2007). Co-sleeping coupled with increased attention to infant signals and routine offering of food may provide a safer environment (McKenna 1997).

While some experts claim that sleep-sharing may actually reduce the risk of Sudden Infant Death Syndrome, the subject is heavily debated (McKenna 1997). Bed sharing is thought to have been a prominent practice for many world cultures throughout much of history (McKenna 1997). Bed sharing and nocturnal breastfeeding have commonly been linked and in fact were considered almost exclusive to one another as recently as one hundred years ago according to (McKenna 1997). Overall, bed sharing and co-sleeping have both been common practices throughout history (Ball 2007). Bed sharing allows for increased opportunity for food intake for the infant, but also affords a greater risk of accidental death or Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (Ball 2007). However, with the knowledge that bed sharing infants feed three times more per night than non-bed sharing infants and marginally more than co-sleeping infants, new mothers can take steps toward achieving an optimally nutritionally healthy infant while at the same time reducing the risk of infant death (Ball 2007). Pediatric sleep medicine has provided data and knowledge which can allow for healthier development (McKenna 1997). Possible steps to achieve optimum infant health include increased offering of breast during nocturnal hours, even when the infant does not signal, while simultaneously decreasing bed sharing.

Conclusions

 

 

To conclude, breastfeeding is a prominent practice throughout much of the world and has been for much of history (Schwarcz 1998). Misinformation about the effects of breast milk is common on a global scale (Rowshan 1997). Breast milk provides a specialized, nutrient dense formula which allows for maximum infant development (McKenna 1997). Evidence for this has been provided in infant skeletal remains across cultures (Herring 1998). Co-sleeping and bed sharing have both showed increased nocturnal breast feeding for the infant involved (Ball 2007). Bed sharing, however, correlates slightly more highly with Sudden Infant Death Syndrome than does co-sleeping (Ball 2007). Conversely, bed sharing infants show roughly triple the amount of nocturnal feedings than their non-bed sharing counterparts (Ball 2007). Implications here show that more comprehensive breast milk offering systems as well as possible increased responsiveness to infant signaling in a non-bed sharing environment may provide an optimal infant sleeping and feeding environment.

Further research could be done in the realm of demographic specificity. Additional research could be conducted in infant skeletal remains worldwide in order to determine regional prominence of structures indicative of breast milk usage. Specific contents of breast milk could be analyzed in order to ascertain the specific levels of each individualized element (vitamins, minerals, and essential substances) at different times during infancy, during a monthly cycle, and during a yearly cycle. Contents of breast milk could be analyzed for stressed mothers, mothers with low levels of nutritional resources, mothers who smoke, mothers who drink, mothers who use illegal drugs, mothers who use legal drugs, mothers with conditions such as anemia, lactose intolerance, cancer, or other conditions or illnesses which could cause changes in the levels of nutritional elements present within breast milk. Analyses could be run for older mothers, mothers that experience sleep difficulties, mothers who report being depressed or other psychophysiological conditions, and for many other conditions. Single mothers could be cross-examined in conjunction with traditional mothers. Breast milk could be examined in relation to hormone levels and the effects of birth control on the levels of nutritional element in breast milk could be determined.

Annotated Bibliography

 

Herring, D.A., Katzenberg, M.A., Saunders, S.R. “Investigating the Weaning Process in Past

Populations.” American Journal of Physical Anthropology 105.4 (1998): 425-439. Online

Article.

This article contains information regarding an anthropological dig done in Ontario, Canada. A biometric model was applied to infant skeletal bones from the 19^th century St. Thomas’ Anglican churchyard in Belleville, Ontario. Many well preserved infant skeletal bones and high quality record keeping of the church have been evaluated in order to determine primary infant dietary sources and breast feeding practices of the time. The article aims to determine whether or not breast-feeding was a common practice and, if so, at what age was it common for mothers to wean infants.

D. A. Herring has a Ph.D. and is currently on research leave from McMaster University in Canada. Her work focuses on health in Canada, including preventative health. Her primary emphasis is on Aboriginal health. The source is reliable, especially considering the journal within which it is published. The documentation is well done and the source is scholarly, being from 1998 it is current as well.

Ball, H.L., Gettler, L.T., McKenna, J.J. “Mother-Infant Cosleeping, feeding, and Sudden Infant

Death Syndrome: What Biological Anthropology Has Discovered About Normal Infant

Sleep and Pediatric Sleep Medicine.” American Journal of Physical Anthropology 134.45

(2007): 133-161. Online Article.

This source discusses pediatric sleep medicine and various variables that have been posited to be linked to Sudden Infant Death Syndrome, including breast-feeding and co-sleeping patterns. The article reviews literature and other previously published sources, data on non-human primates, comparative evolutionary and cross-cultural studies, insights, and perspectives in order to potentially stimulate more research in the area of pediatric sleep medicine.

The source of this article is scholarly. Dr. McKenna received his Ph.D. from the University of Oregon in 1975 and is an esteemed and world-renowned expert on infant sleep. Once again, the journal it is published in is a highly credible source.

The final determination of the article is that more research is needed. Current research indicates that many co-sleeping patterns are not beneficial to the infant and in fact hospitals are now leaning more and more towards recommending separate sleeping habitations for mother and infant. Sustained contact between mother and infant is not recommended despite the fact that sustained contact increases the probability of successful breast-feeding encounters, attachment, and general infant and maternal health. This article recommends further research be done in order to more successfully determine the optimal strategy to decrease the risks involved with co-sleeping while simultaneously reaping the benefits of -feeding (possibly decreased chances of Sudden Infant Death Syndrome). Bedding infants with other infants is also discouraged and deemed ‘dangerous.’ This article recommends further research.

Rowshan, R., Zeitlyn, S. “Privileged Knowledge and Mothers’ ‘Perceptions’: The Case of

Breast-Feeding and Insufficient Milk in Bangladesh.” Medical Anthropology Quarterly

 11.1 (1997): 56-68. Online Article

This article examines a specific case of breast-feeding in Bangladesh and the effects, positive and negative, that practitioner’s and health care provider’s beliefs and ‘perceptions’ of the efficacy of -feeding had on various health outcomes. The article determines that many popular beliefs attribute the illness of a child to the lack of health of the mother (somewhat falsely), including the implication that the breast-feeding woman whose infant becomes ill may have been affected by spiritual forces. This is a strange and complicated situation due to the combination of modern medical beliefs and traditional beliefs, perhaps leading to false persecution of mothers. While gender roles are changing, some traditionalists imply that female sexuality has a negative effect on overall infant health, attributing perhaps too much credit to breast milk in maintaining infant health when other factors are present.

Both authors of this article appear to be credible and the article is listed on major databases. Both are employed at the International Centre for Diarrhoeah Disease Research in Bangladesh. The article emphasizes the negative effects that limitation of knowledge, medically speaking, can have.

The article is credible but somewhat skewed and biased. It focuses on gender roles and socialization and attempts to evaluate a developing medical practice, one which often combines religion and science, and determine possible reasons for a decline in breast-feeding. The source is credible and focuses on the role that mothers’, doctors’, and societies’ have on encouraging or discouraging breast-feeding. The final conclusion is that there are many factors to be considered, not the least of which are the perceptions of increased maternal responsibility on a physiological level when breast milk is utilized.

McKenna, J.J., Mosko, S.S., Richard, C.A. “Bedsharing Promotes Breastfeeding.” Pediatrics:

Official Journal of the American Academy of Pediatrics 100.2 (1997): 213-220. Online

Article

Breast-feeding is postulated to be protective against Sudden Infant Death Syndrome. This article examines practices which encourage breast-feeding, specifically bed sharing and co-sleeping. The study was conducted amongst the Latino population. The study examined practices through videography, amongst other methodologies, and concludes that infants in co-sleeping environments breastfed nearly three times longer than their non-bed sharing counterparts.

This article appears to be credible, again being written by three well established Ph.D. holders. McKenna is a renowned expert. The article concludes by suggesting bed sharing in some contexts as a preventative measure against Sudden Infant Death Syndrome.

Schwarcz, H.P., Wright, L.E. “Stable Carbon and Oxygen Isotopes in Human Tooth Enamel:

Identifying Breastfeeding and Weaning in Prehistory.” American Journal of Physical

Anthropology 106.1 (1998): 1-18. Online Article

This article seeks to determine common breast-feeding and weaning practices of prehistoric mother-infant pairs via the utility of carbon and oxygen isotopes in a group of fossils discovered in Guatemala. The article concludes that breast-feeding may have been a common practice (as determined by more rich tooth nutrition and the presence of aforementioned isotopes), even up to the age of six years old. While infants appear to have begun consumption of solid foods at the age of two years old, breast milk appears to have played a major dietary role for several years after this introduction.

This source appears to be credible, being published in such a major journal. Dr. Wright is an associate professor at Texas A&M and received her Ph.D. from the University of Chicago. She is an esteemed scholar.

idea on global warming

Idea I wrote for a paper for class, hope nobody steals it, if they do, well, my lawyer will find ya.

Global warming is a big issue in today’s world. Specifically the release of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, in addition to other small particles of carbon, creates an increasingly warm climate in the world today. This can have many consequences, some of which may be adverse to human survival. These consequences may adverse to the survival of other species living on Earth as well.

To sum it up, global warming is thermal energy. As has been demonstrated in this class, increasing the number of particles in a set area increases the temperature in said area. Basically, this amounts to friction. As more particles are condensed into an area (while in a gaseous form), they continue moving. The movement is sprinkled with tiny collisions of particles. These tiny collisions are measured in terms of heat, but in reality they are simply the manifestation of thousands of tiny particles utilizing kinetic energy. In other words, what we as humans feel as heat is actually just the rapid collision of particles against us. As more particles in a gaseous form are condensed into an area, the collisions happen more frequently. When gravity is added to the equation, these particles centralize, pulling themselves towards the center. In our particular case, the center would be the Earth. As matter is diffused within a system, heat is diffused. So basically, the average temperature of the Earth and it’s atmospheric system will be roughly the same throughout time. However, if matter (in particulate form) is transferred from one region to another, the ‘heat’ will be transferred in an echoing fashion. So, as matter moves towards the center of a gravitational system, the center will increase in the number of collisions an therefore increase in heat. In a similar fashion, the outer edges of the system will decrease in ‘heat,’ ‘temperature,’ or basically thermal energy. Thermal energy is, of course, the micro-friction that occurs as particles collide. Conversely, if matter from the center of a system is distributed to the outer edges of said system, the temperature at these regions can increase. The average temperature of the system remains the same, the thermal energy is just distributed more evenly. A less dense ‘nucleus’ of a system implies a more even distribution thermal energy throughout the entirety of that system. While no system is completely independent (systems are affected by other systems), there is some semblance of internal consistency.

With this in mind, one can logically reason that global warming is real. Contrary to the common belief that releasing carbon dioxide acts as some sort of ‘greenhouse’ type of barrier, allowing heat in but not out of the Earth’s atmosphere, global warming is more accurately the redistribution of thermal energy due to increasing the amount of particulate matter present in the outer reaches of the atmosphere. Basically, when removing coal, oil, natural gas, and other fuels, one is decreasing the thermal energy in the deeper regions of the Earth (regions which are already intolerably hot to most living organisms). In redistributing this matter into the atmosphere, one increases the temperature of the air. Due to gravity, the ash will quickly settle. However, the carbon dioxide takes longer, thus distributing higher temperatures throughout the atmosphere.

It is with this in mind that I suggest a new approach (or at least a novel twist on an old idea). Plants convert carbon dioxide to oxygen, and it has been suggested numerous times that increases in various types of plants and reforestation techniques may be an adequate solution for global warming. My idea, however, is to specially ‘breed,’ or select, plants in a genetic engineering fashion in order to create a ‘super’ carbon reducer. Plants such as hemp and corn have been greatly altered over the course of human history to meet a great diversity of human needs. Algae is a common idea for this, and correct placement of various plants in between the burning and emission process present in the creation of most energy (those which involve burning and the creation of carbon dioxide) could greatly reduce the effects of global warming. However, other variables should be considered. Accidental creation of a ‘super’ carbon dioxide consumer could prove fatal and have devastating effects, so control for such breeding must be included. Resistance to heat and ‘pollution’ should be selected for. Finally, rapid consumption of carbon dioxide and growth could leave researchers with an end product which drastically reduces carbon emissions at the ground level. The abundance of a plant could leave us with a problem from an ecological standpoint, so the benefits of selecting an organism or plant which can be used to feed other organisms or plants (such as cattle, another producer of carbon emissions) could be vast. Additionally, if said plant could be burned upon dehydration for additional fuel, a relatively self sufficient system could possibly be developed.

To conclude, a blueprint for a possible solution to global warming has been presented. Global warming has been explained in detail, and further research is suggested. With careful planning and more funding, this seems like a viable solution. More research and peer review would be needed and it should be noted that this idea has been discussed publicly. However, all ideas presented in this paper were a result of personal thought by the author (Tuscanooga Keith) and have not been confirmed, negated, devalued, or edited in any way, shape, or fashion.

Illuminate eliminate

various anthro musings, repeats possible, theorizing and all that

Before I explain one of my questions and hypotheses I think it is important to establish a firm foundation of constructs with which to approach said questions. Not only is it appropriate to apply evolutionary theory to the study of human behavioral variation, in my opinion it is necessary! Proponents of intelligent design and alternative theories to evolutionary theory may explain that evolution is not a proven fact but rather a theory and advocate alternative methods and considerations. These are important, however, the fact of the matter is that intelligent design and evolution are fairly closely linked when it comes to constructs and concepts. The point here is not necessarily that evolutionary theory is directly applicable to everything in human behavioral variation or that evolution is a fact (cannot yet be proven, perhaps can never be proven) but that the application of the theories of evolution can be used to better our understanding of human behavioral variation.
Very few people would argue against the concept that traits are heritable (one of Darwin’s four postulates). This is fundamental in evolutionary theory but has its applications in other theories and sciences and must be taken into account in such alternative theories as intelligent design. I can’t really make an argument for or against evolutionary theory in comparison with intelligent design (what little I know of it), and indeed it does seem like the functions in life are much too complex to have occurred by chance. However, this is not the underlying concept of evolutionary theory, which, in fact, seems to make little to no inferences about the actual point of creation. Several key public figures, however, make it fairly easy to refute the ‘intelligent’ portion of intelligent design (politicians, etc.). I believe that it is important to distinguish between the portions of these theories which apply to actual science and the portions which pointlessly conjecture about whether or not there is a greater abstract entity or not. The starting point of the development of living organisms, as it were, has played a very small role in the actual science and information portion of the science of anthropology.
Phenotypic variation obviously occurs. However, certain phenotypes appear to have different adaptive values in different environments. For instance, a Chihuahua is obviously suited for hot, arid environments. It is skinny, nearly hairless, small, and nocturnal. These traits are all advantageous in the Chihuahua’s natural environment. A dog which is more hairless than the other dogs may be able to conserve energy. The hairlessness allows the dog to maintain a cooler temperature and therefore expend less energy on panting or things like that. The dog will also dehydrate at a slower rate. This has obvious advantages in a hot environment and may preserve the dog’s life in certain circumstances, thus allowing genetic continuation via mating. If a drought or heatwave hits, the other dogs may die off leaving only the more hairless dogs alive. Over time, dogs may begin to select mates for hairlessness out of preference. This is a chance happening, however, over generations and generations more and more droughts and heatwaves may occur. Eventually, survival would be selected based on hairlessness and preference for hairlessness in a mate. A dog may survive one generation due to hairlessness and reproduce, having for example five offspring. Three have hair, one is hairless, and one has hair but also a behavioral mutation which gives the organism a preference for hairless mates. Perhaps no droughts and heatwaves occur, or at least none as extreme as the previous generation, and the second generation of dogs may find mates and reproduce. The three with hair and no preference for hairlessness mate with other normal haired Chihuahuas, the hairless one mates with a haired Chihuahua, and the one with a preference for hairlessness finds a hairless mate. All of the normal haired Chihuahua’s offspring are hairy. However, fifty percent of the hairless one’s are hairless. Additionally, fifty percent of the dog with a preference for hairless mates’ offspring are hairless as well. A drought and heatwave hits the region and all normal haired Chihuahuas die off. In this fashion, not only have environmental consequences selected for the trait of hairlessness but they have also selected to an equal extent for the behavioral trait of hairless preference. 
Without explaining too much more about the Mendelian constructs explained in the reading, these evolutionary concepts can be applied to more organisms that simply Chihuahuas. The same selection pressures are occurring on humans. Well, not exactly the same; humans are relatively impervious to many natural selection risks that other organisms still face. For instance, heat and drought have effectively been redirected with indoor plumbing and air conditioning. Humans still face natural threats from outside organisms but to a much lesser extent that other members of the plant and animal kingdom. The primary pressures faced by humans are artificial and societally generated. As we are constantly in a progressing world and stasis is impossible, these traits are advantageous in certain areas of the world (or events, or timeframes, or social groups) but not necessarily in others. Consider the Chihuahua lashed to a dogsled in the Yukon. This brings me to my question.
Given that selection pressures are unique to individuals, one may postulate that individuals raised in impoverished or ‘starving’ environments may display a preference for mates with high yield nutrient storage. In other words, do resource hungry people display a behavioral preference for large body type mates? Using the a priori method, this seems relatively logical and highly testable. My hypothesis is that yes, resource hungry people unconsciously seek out mates with high nutrient storage body types (efficient, fat, whatever) as a behavioral means of increasing the functioning level of the next generation in an impoverished environment. The variables that could be measured are socio-economic status and availability of food and other resources as well as body fat percentage in preferential mates. This would of course require refinement on several levels and there are many variables to be accounted for…However, I still believe that the evidence could be collected (evidence being measurements of abundance of resources for the region, mate preference of the region, abundance of resources to the individual in relation to the region, mate preference in relation to the region, and perhaps some measurements of prior abundance for the region or the individual as some areas may have experienced the environmental stimuli to trigger a behavioral shift followed by a change in level of resources). The hypothesis could be refuted with data that proves the contrary.

 

 

Some seemingly maladaptive traits may develop in societies for a variety of reasons. The two traits I would like to examine are the underfeeding of women in pregnancy the phobias about bathing in Europe (the two examples given). Maladaptive traits are, in my opinion, more likely to appear in cultural domains that are more controlled by humans and less decided by threats in nature.
In the specific example of Indian mothers reducing food intake, underfeeding the fetus while in utero and also immediately after birth seem maladaptive for nutritional reasons. However, fitness is not based solely on the survival of the single organism, as explained in the readings, but rather includes the Hamilton Effect. This maladaptive trait probably first developed out of necessity. There may not have been food around during drought and famine years and so fetuses that required higher levels of food intake in the womb died off. Premature children may have required less food intake after birth and therefore been more adapted to life in a starving community. Additionally, the risk of death for the mother may have been reduced with a smaller infant, thus decreasing the fitness of the infant may have increased the fitness of the mother and child tandem and therefore increased the fitness for the child. These maladaptive traits are difficult to truly describe as maladaptive considering they are quite obviously adaptive in certain environments (otherwise they would not have developed). Indeed, in the example of reduced levels of bathing in Europe, the ‘phobia’ of bathing (actually more likely a general overarching phobia of water) probably served humans well for countless winters. In a frigid environment, exposure to water means a dramatic increase in risk for hypothermia. Contracting an illness, however dangerous and painful it may be, was often a better option (before the plague) when it came to survival than the quick freezing death that came with bathing during winter time. 
The former of these two examples (mothers reducing their food intake) could be studied in a variety of ways. Surveys could be given to populations in which this occurs in order to measure food distribution, level of socioeconomic status, and expectations for future resources. The hypothesis would be that this seemingly maladaptive practice occurs primarily in societies in which starvation is a real and pressing issue. In the latter of the two examples, constructing a study would involve surveys detailing the place of residence and geographical origin of the genetics (a family from Japan that immigrated to Sweden would not be expected to display the same practices as an indigenous family), the temperature of the region, and the prevalence of water and disease in the area. The hypothesis would be that organisms from colder regions would be less likely to optional exposure to water than those from warmer regions. Conversely, these organisms would hypothetically also be more fit for dealing with hypothermia and water in general; however, a phobia of a threat and an ability to cope with a threat are not exclusive adaptations and most likely occur together.

 

 

If we ignore the male population completely, the offspring at generation 5 should be composed of roughly 3.02% non-handwashers and 96.98% handwashers. If we include the first generation, generation 0 or the initial 200 total female individuals being measured, we end up with 5.87% of the population being handwashers after five generations (including generation 0 as the first of the generations).

Many traits that may seem maladaptive can gain prominence in a population due to variable selection pressures. A turtle’s shell seemed maladaptive until it proved through trial and error (and much loss of turtle life) to be an effective defense technique. The difficulty with explaining adaptations as adaptive or maladaptive arises when one considers that effective and ineffective are artificial terms being used to describe natural processes. Additionally, they can only be truly measured in the past tense after determining whether or not something worked (an adaptation). To utilize another idea from nature, the suckerfish that cleans the sharks teeth would seem to have developed a horrible and suicidal adaptation if not for data that point to the contrary. 
Human brains have developed in cognitively complex fashion and have elevated beyond the usual pressures found in the world by other organisms (those of starvation, predation, and other elemental forces not created by man) and increasingly live in a world defined by hypotheticals. A seemingly maladaptive brain which shows no response to threat situations involving its own life showing indifference to mortality could develop for a variety of reasons. It could be an adaptation to another adaptation that occurs in the population. For instance, one adaptation within a species may begin to develop which utilizes caution and backs down from confrontation in order to increase survival odds. This behavior and trait combination may become prominent in the population due to the high level of reproductive success that individuals which avoid fights enjoy. In contrast to this, a mutation and subsequent adaptation may develop in which a member of the cautious species becomes overly aggressive. In this instance, let us assume that the selection pressures acting on the species are relatively similar to humans in that there are few threats from other species. In this example, the single organism which develops a hyper aggressive stance, or perhaps an indifference to mortality threats, may have much to gain. In competitions for mates and resources, we can safely assume that a behaviorally dominant organism will demonstrate superior ability in competition with other more submissive members of the same species. In this fashion, indifference to mortality may be adaptive in a population which enjoys few threats from other species and has adapted a cautious and passive approach. In other words, indifference to mortality is beneficial in a population which is hyper sensitive to mortality despite its relatively low level of statistical prominence.
Because mortality is not a very large problem for most human populations (in comparison with other species), a low level of caution can be expected to develop in these populations. Since humans only real selection pressures come from mate selection and competition with other human beings, it can be expected that the species would develop two distinct survival techniques. These are referred to as ‘fight or flight.’ Humans in less densely and more recently populated areas are more than likely those which have elected the ‘flight’ portion of this dichotomy, electing not to confront other humans in such situations but rather to move to different habitations with less competition for resources and mates. Those which develop a ‘fight’ response can be expected to remain relatively near their place of origin. This can be deduced when analyzing this archetype. Utilizing an A Priori method, these organisms are likely the progeny of generations of organisms which stayed in densely populated regions and succeeded (through some sort of ‘fight,’ though this does not necessarily imply physicality) in achieving resources and mates. Thus Mesopotamia, the first known region of inhabitance by man, can be expected to be a relatively violent region. Indeed, it does seem the case that the regions with the longest duration of occupation by humans tend to be the most violent, regardless of their resource composition. It stands to reason that those organisms who best utilized game theory and Machiavellian intelligence survived and reproduced. It also stands to reason that those who feared mortality would eventually seek out other habitations in areas with high levels of warfare. Eventually, I would postulate, if a region remained populated and disputed over for a long enough period of time, the population would dwindle in number of members which acknowledged mortality. Basically, in times of war, if reproduction is constant and warfare is constant then all surviving members would eventually shed the maladaptive fear of mortality behavior in favor of a less inhibiting adaptation, specifically that of fearlessness and even hostility.
To sum it up, to claim that a trait or behavior is maladaptive is often a one sided and ethnocentric evaluation of such adaptations. Cultural selections and natural selections can be difficult to distinguish. Cultural traits, seen in this light, seem to contribute to and be influenced by natural selection. They cannot really be disentangled. Additionally, indifference to mortality is difficult to quantify at best. Is a possum indifferent to mortality? Traits that may seem strictly cultural can often be seen developing in other species which do not exhibit culture. The violence in Mesopotamia is equally explained by equatorial trends, socioeconomic structures, political strife, systematic and institutional exploitation, and resource distribution. On the other hand, these selection pressures dictate the adaptations that occur. It is in this manner that the two are forever intertwined. So, to conclude, the defining of a trait or behavior as adaptive or maladaptive is tricky to do in the present tense. Indifference to mortality could conceivably develop as an adaptive and maladaptive trait in a variety of environments and modes of development. Indifference to mortality is probably impossible to measure and so cannot really be defined, especially when considering that feigned indifference to mortality is a very adaptive possibility as well. Natural selection and cultural traits are infinitely linked because the two have never existed independently according to the history of the world presented. A brain which is indifferent to mortality could exist in certain contexts and environments and not others (for example, it could be triggered by things such as adrenaline, aggression, fear, hunger, etc.) as is shown relatively obviously in pit bulls.

 

 

Altruism (not the real kind) relies on a cultural phenomenon of what amounts to ‘IOUs.’ The explanation that altruism exists amongst humans due to the need for individuals to enhance their reputations is a valid one but it explains false altruism, not true altruism. Enhancing a reputation is a form of bartering as it is in a sense raising the stock of the individual. It is interesting to look at this phenomenon as being not strictly human. The explanation of altruism as occurring for reputational needs relies and reciprocation. Here it should be noted that this is not true altruism because reputation is a representation of power in the same way that money is. Reputation can be viewed as a representation of abstract resources. In this fashion, reputation is not a sufficient explanation for altruism. It explains half of altruism. The unexplained half is that the behavior is selected for in other organisms. In other words, the reputation preceded the man. The complex reciprocity would have to be selected for due to the effectiveness of the behavior of increasing a reputation. However, the disappearance of this need for reciprocity, or true altruism, would have to be selected for by a population which valued altruism. In other words, humans would have to influence their own evolution and adaptation in order to become truly altruistic. However, this behavior would still be maladaptive and therefore could only exist as long as the species maintained its position of dominance within the environment.
Traditional examples include physical altruism such as that demonstrated by spiders and mantises after mating. The male sacrifices himself in order to provide the female with which he has recently mated a better nutritional intake. In doing so, he increases the likelihood of his brood developing fully. However, he also eliminates any further chances of spreading his genetics. In this way, it is somewhat a gamble. This is probably why most species do not demonstrate this behavior. For some reason, however, this has proven to be a useful adaptation for these predatory insect like creatures. This could be for a variety of reasons, not the least of which being the species’ unique niche in the environment. The position occupied within the food chain by these creatures is very different than many other species. The organisms are not social. In fact, mating is the only real need these organisms have for interacting peaceably with any other creature. While they have many natural predators, they are not the primary food source for any of them, perhaps due to the wide variety of species of insects and arthropods. However, the risk of predation for these species is high. When they reproduce, they reproduce by laying hundreds of eggs. When one takes into account the relatively low chance of meeting another member of the same species let alone a female receptive to mating and compare it with the relatively high chance of death before such an encounter, it is no wonder these species interact as such (especially with clutch sizes so large). These species incorporate an all or nothing approach to reproduction. 
In larger and more human like creatures, specifically mammalian species, herd animals will occasionally demonstrate what appears to be altruistic behavior. This is understandable and one would think that all social animals would demonstrate altruism. However, this is not necessarily true. Upon closer inspection, many of these animals simply rely on a safety in numbers approach and actually demonstrate very little ‘care’ towards other members of the group. Cattle and bison protect their young by keeping them in the middle of the herd, but this is much more an instinctual behavior than altruism. The same could be said for the insects, however, and perhaps for humans as well. When one considers that cultural adaptations that we deem to be ‘conscious’ and not ‘instinctual’ as uniquely human and a side effect of being greater in some way compared with the rest of the animal kingdom, it is easy to see humans as demonstrating altruism. However, even the usage of the scientific method could be broken down as an adaptive behavior. If one insists on distinguishing ‘culture’ as a uniquely human phenomenon, then altruism appears to be genuine and not just a vague attempt to garner favor and reciprocity. However, culture in humans can also be viewed as an advanced form of the territorialism demonstrated in other species. Prides of lions and packs of monkeys will fight of other competing groups, even of the same species. Wolves demonstrate complex hierarchies and power structures between members. Many of the behaviors are consistent across individuals within the species, but from an non-human centered perspective these behaviors carry the same weight as human interactions.
One ability that separates humans from other species is our ability to think from different perspectives. Certain high functioning apes have demonstrated the ability to use a mirror, a seemingly simple concept, but most animals cannot. This is because the cognition needed to think objectively is theorized not to be present in most species. Therefore, humans may see reciprocity as having slightly more dimensions than other species. In fact, this is true. Humans are capable of not only judging who has resources in the moment but also who will have resources in the future. The concept of agriculture, or horticulture, the concept of farming in general is a clear demonstration of humans’ ability to plan. Other species do demonstrate such behaviors, like birds migrating, but with less ability to manipulate the environment and less resource control amongst these species, ‘altruism,’ real or feigned, does not seem to have any benefit to the organisms. 
Humans trade with one another and have adapted a vastly superior means for extracting resources from the environment than any other species. Superior, in this case, is operationally defined by the ability to amass these resources, sheer quantities. Humans have discovered means to utilize many naturally occurring things that are generally overlooked by other species. In this manner, humans have adapted towards specialization. In a wolf pack, there may be certain members which perform the kill and hunt, but in human beings, the hunt has become so complex and the quarry so abstract that a stratified specialization has occurred on an in group level and proven to be adaptive, especially in intergroup competition. Because of this specialization and the territorial nature of humans, barter and trade has long been a staple of human survival. This really does not occur in other species, definitely not to the extent in which it occurs in humans. This bartering is the fundamental driving force behind much of human adaptation since natural threats such as starvation and predation were essentially eliminated due to advanced cognitive functioning, a mutation that has affected humans in such complex ways as to make it impractical to write about at this junction. Possession probably preceded bartering, as one human or group of humans probably attempted to act as gatekeepers to a required resource and restricted other humans’ access to it. Eventually, there could be enough of these possessors that trade would not be an option for survival. The distribution of resources can never be even but it can also never be stable as the relative value of resources is changing all the time. If this is the case, then a human can never really be certain which other human’s help or resources it will require next. In this manner, it is adaptive to keep all other organisms on good terms.
One modern example of altruism could be the act of a wealthy person donating money to a charity. This seems self-defeating from a strictly economical perspective. This individual could be doing it for a variety of reasons. They could be attempting to garner public respect and fame for themselves or others they are affiliated with. They could be doing it for tax breaks. They could have a genuine concern for the charity. However, regardless of the person’s intentions, they have appeared generous. Humans value genuine generosity in others because it signals to them that they may qualify for some free stuff. Altruism could occur under certain complex situations. First of all, the human must have enough resources to both be altruistic and survive. Giving away all of one’s resources is not adaptive, especially if the organisms receiving the resources are not altruistic or reciprocity prone in return. Reciprocity is different from altruism in that it implies an expected return. However, if the individual has continuous access to a resource and is encouraged be altruistic (the environment selects in favor of altruism), this behavior may exist in a population for a short period of time. Eventually, however, this adaptation seems unnatural and fundamentally weak in nature and only seems possible in artificial environments. Conversely, humans have lived in artificial environments for a great deal of time now. Since humans have cracked the code of natural selection, the ability to pass on traits and behaviors that may be maladaptive has increased. There is no telling what traits a species will select in favor of if the natural selection pressures of its environment are nullified. 
To conclude, it has taken me a long time to figure out why altruism may occur. False altruism may occur for a variety of reasons, all of which are some preemptive format of the reciprocity trait. Performance of a task with expectation of reciprocity is not altruism. However, true altruism (giving without any conscious or subconscious expectation or hope for reciprocation) could only develop in a manipulated environment. Considering nearly all humans are now raised and bred in a test tube of their own design, such a behavior could hypothetically become adaptive (since being adaptive and maladaptive have become much more plastic due to humans ever increasingly safe niche in the environment in which we live). However, it seems improbably that such a behavior or trait would be longstanding in a population due to the simple existence of other strategies for resource collection. The behavior could become prominent, but since false altruism is so difficult to detect in humans it seems inevitable that the behavior will become maladaptive. Altruism is a side effect of humans’ robust dominance of their habitat. This dominance often leads to selection for reasons other than fitness and often times leads the species in such a position to extinction. To conclude, altruism is maladaptive and so could only occur in a situation in which a species had no external threats for an extended period of time.

 

 

The way in which to maximize return rate would be to expend as little energy as possible. In order to maximize foraging return rate, fishermen can be expected to do as little travelling as possible. Time spent at the fishing hole is a fixed rate, being four hours, or two hundred and forty minutes. If the fishing holes are spaced out fifteen minutes apart, then each additional fishing hole that the fishermen attended would cost an additional fifteen minutes in the denominator, thus increasing the total expenditure of energy by using kilos at a faster rate.
If we find, for instance as given in the example, that fishermen actually spend seventeen minutes fishing at each hole, there could be a variety of explanations. One explanation may be the variability of the viability of each fishing hole. Spending time fishing at a hole that is frozen in or void of fish is time wasted. Perhaps after trial and error the fishermen have either intuitively or subconsciously formulated a theory for statistical success, this being that time spent fishing beyond the said seventeen minutes is time wasted. This could be due to the efficacy level of the fishermen’s ability, meaning that after seventeen minutes, they safely assume that the entire localized area of the fishing hole has been surveyed and fished clean, yielding either the catch from that area or nothing, either way indicating completion. This could occur for a variety of reasons and is understandable. If one were gathering plants, one would not spend unnecessarily large amounts of time harvesting a small region, and in fact we see a trend with horticulturalists to disperse crops. This probably translated into fishing techniques, and in fact, yes, we notice that modern fishing techniques involve dispersal of nets. This leads me to believe that it is simply more effective to vary the grounds on which one ‘hunts’ or fishes. While spending all four hours fishing at one location may allow a maximum intake of kilos, it may not be the best technique long term due to the nature of the resource, fish. The men could conceivable fish the area dry or the fish could begin to avoid the area due to the high likelihood of being eaten. 
The fishermen may also spend limited time at one fishing hole for other reasons. It probably helps to avoid predators or competition from other fishermen. Also, this may couple with other mechanisms, such as territorialism. In fishing multiple holes, the men are simultaneously patrolling the region. This is adaptive and many species exhibit this behavior. Along this line it is important to note that maximizing foraging return rate is not the only thing that organisms are concerned with, as survival is much more complex than that. Movement from hole to hole requires exertion, which ends up being exercise. Higher levels of physical fitness correlate with higher survival and reproduction rates. Additionally, there are many advantages that organisms experience from increased territorial range. These include but are not limited to a larger likelihood of meeting more potential mates and therefore a higher propensity for reproduction, a larger body of experience and therefore knowledge of the real world from which to pool knowledge and therefore power, and access to a greater amount and diversity of other goods besides simply fish along the way. 
To conclude, in order to maximize caloric intake, it would be expected that the fishermen would simply fish at the closest hole all day. They do not because caloric intake is only one of many needs driving the fishermen.

Apologies for the crude nature of yesterday’s…

excerpt. Numerous complaints have been lodged and I feel it necessary to make a statement regarding this unfortunate incident. The post began as an experiment in crudity, meant to capture the cruel and foul nature of the world, but it quickly deteriorated into a disconnected rant, specifically on the predatory nature of the relationship between eagles and ducks. The fact is, I meant no harm to the duck population, but only meant to use the analogy to illustrate the nature of the quacks in charge. With that said, I apologize for offending you, it was for your own good, I hope it rattled you.

Excerpts from a discussion on the nature of adolescence

Here is a little somethin somethin that I wrote during a discussion on adolescence for one of my classes over the summer, nerd is the word. For now, I am waiting for my fMRI/EEG/MEG lab to start and researching grad schools. I have a new laptop! Thanks to my Mama, she got me a new laptop and a new backpack for my birthday (was this past weekend, I’m 26!). My girlfriend got me an autographed baseball from Cal Ripken Jr., all things considered it’s been pretty good. I’ve been going to the doctor, trying to get insurance so that I can get somethin legal to take the edge off, lol, I don’t really want to explain more right now, haha, but long story short I’ve been up and down. Anyhow, boom, discussion of various theories of adolescence…

 

I would have to say that I agree with various aspects of each theory. I would have to say that the historical and anthropological theories make the most sense to me, specifically the concept of adolescence as an invention. I do not believe that adolescence is completely and one hundred percent a social institution created in order to occupy the time of the young renting class in an ever industrializing world with decreasing need for more new workers (especially considering people are living longer and require consistent incomes perhaps into their seventies), however I do believe that many aspects of adolescence are social inventions. The idea of the identity crisis and finding one’s self is a novel one and a strange one at that. To explain this, puberty has almost certainly almost always happened considering humans require a growth period (childhood) before a reproduction period (adulthood) and a transitional period is required. However, this transitional period (adolescence) has been increasing over the years. Coming of age rituals are present in many societies and have been for some time (as noted by the textbook), however in our culture it is not as simple as standing on a cliff for a full day or undertaking a week long hike. Rather, our society introduces increasingly stringent limiting mechanisms such as years of schooling at varieties of institutions, military service, or simply being a modern day apprentice at an institution of employment. The rites of passage that take days or even hours in some culture have been stretched out to fill decades in ours. This statement is exemplified by a pop culture which markets video games and other items formerly conceptualized as children’s toys to adults. It is also reflected in increasingly older ages for couples purposefully engaging in conception in industrialized ‘first world’ countries.  While adolescence is undoubtedly real in our culture, I believe it is important to distinguish between puberty (the physical growth and maturation that occurs during teenage years) and adolescence (the social position occupied by those mature enough physically to perform work but not yet mature enough in relation to other potential workers to occupy the adult roles in society). For what it is worth, the increased period of adolescence our culture experiences may be much better than an expedited adolescence that has been experienced in some historical cultures and is perhaps still experienced in cultures at home and abroad (or more specifically in individuals), the latter forcing children to behave as adults without training. However, an overabundance of ‘training’ to be an adult may be harmful to our society as well, leaving the next generation of adults habituated to less responsibility and physiologically incapable of making the changes in lifestyle necessary to fill the shoes of what will be a rapidly exiting generation of adults (the baby boomers) due to a lagging of the sociocultural changes that the individual usually undergoes synchronistically with the physical changes experienced during puberty. To conclude, I believe that adolescence is a social construct but puberty is a biological fact. The two usually coincide, but do not necessarily have to. I believe that extending adolescence may have harmful effects on our culture.

variable traits or the up and coming style prospector

Yeah, another day…applying to schools, printing tshirts, working on the movie, exercising, ya know. School. Juggling and managing many things. So basically, Caid of BlackDragon.com is pressing up tshirts for McNa$ty and TigerTankDemolition…we’re in the organizational phases of a sales tent, so we’re collecting merchandise. We have one album pressed up, McNa$ty, and are working on more soon. The magazine is also in the organizational phases, and the movie is still being scripted. Funds are accumulating, stickers will be distributed. There are many more elements to this, but for now, I’ll leave you all with this…Updated things a little bit more, just a little bit more…anyway, check out this paper on variable traits

Many traits that may seem maladaptive can gain prominence in a population due to variable selection pressures. A turtle’s shell seemed maladaptive until it proved through trial and error (and much loss of turtle life) to be an effective defense technique. The difficulty with explaining adaptations as adaptive or maladaptive arises when one considers that effective and ineffective are artificial terms being used to describe natural processes. Additionally, they can only be truly measured in the past tense after determining whether or not something worked (an adaptation). To utilize another idea from nature, the suckerfish that cleans the sharks teeth would seem to have developed a horrible and suicidal adaptation if not for data that point to the contrary.

Human brains have developed in cognitively complex fashion and have elevated beyond the usual pressures found in the world by other organisms (those of starvation, predation, and other elemental forces not created by man) and increasingly live in a world defined by hypotheticals. A seemingly maladaptive brain which shows no response to threat situations involving its own life showing indifference to mortality could develop for a variety of reasons. It could be an adaptation to another adaptation that occurs in the population. For instance, one adaptation within a species may begin to develop which utilizes caution and backs down from confrontation in order to increase survival odds. This behavior and trait combination may become prominent in the population due to the high level of reproductive success that individuals which avoid fights enjoy. In contrast to this, a mutation and subsequent adaptation may develop in which a member of the cautious species becomes overly aggressive. In this instance, let us assume that the selection pressures acting on the species are relatively similar to humans in that there are few threats from other species. In this example, the single organism which develops a hyper aggressive stance, or perhaps an indifference to mortality threats, may have much to gain. In competitions for mates and resources, we can safely assume that a behaviorally dominant organism will demonstrate superior ability in competition with other more submissive members of the same species. In this fashion, indifference to mortality may be adaptive in a population which enjoys few threats from other species and has adapted a cautious and passive approach. In other words, indifference to mortality is beneficial in a population which is hyper sensitive to mortality despite its relatively low level of statistical prominence.

Because mortality is not a very large problem for most human populations (in comparison with other species), a low level of caution can be expected to develop in these populations. Since humans only real selection pressures come from mate selection and competition with other human beings, it can be expected that the species would develop two distinct survival techniques. These are referred to as ‘fight or flight.’ Humans in less densely and more recently populated areas are more than likely those which have elected the ‘flight’ portion of this dichotomy, electing not to confront other humans in such situations but rather to move to different habitations with less competition for resources and mates. Those which develop a ‘fight’ response can be expected to remain relatively near their place of origin. This can be deduced when analyzing this archetype. Utilizing an A Priori method, these organisms are likely the progeny of generations of organisms which stayed in densely populated regions and succeeded (through some sort of ‘fight,’ though this does not necessarily imply physicality) in achieving resources and mates. Thus Mesopotamia, the first known region of inhabitance by man, can be expected to be a relatively violent region. Indeed, it does seem the case that the regions with the longest duration of occupation by humans tend to be the most violent, regardless of their resource composition. It stands to reason that those organisms who best utilized game theory and Machiavellian intelligence survived and reproduced. It also stands to reason that those who feared mortality would eventually seek out other habitations in areas with high levels of warfare. Eventually, I would postulate, if a region remained populated and disputed over for a long enough period of time, the population would dwindle in number of members which acknowledged mortality. Basically, in times of war, if reproduction is constant and warfare is constant then all surviving members would eventually shed the maladaptive fear of mortality behavior in favor of a less inhibiting adaptation, specifically that of fearlessness and even hostility.

To sum it up, to claim that a trait or behavior is maladaptive is often a one sided and ethnocentric evaluation of such adaptations. Cultural selections and natural selections can be difficult to distinguish. Cultural traits, seen in this light, seem to contribute to and be influenced by natural selection. They cannot really be disentangled. Additionally, indifference to mortality is difficult to quantify at best. Is a possum indifferent to mortality? Traits that may seem strictly cultural can often be seen developing in other species which do not exhibit culture. The violence in Mesopotamia is equally explained by equatorial trends, socioeconomic structures, political strife, systematic and institutional exploitation, and resource distribution.  On the other hand, these selection pressures dictate the adaptations that occur. It is in this manner that the two are forever intertwined. So, to conclude, the defining of a trait or behavior as adaptive or maladaptive is tricky to do in the present tense. Indifference to mortality could conceivably develop as an adaptive and maladaptive trait in a variety of environments and modes of development. Indifference to mortality is probably impossible to measure and so cannot really be defined, especially when considering that feigned indifference to mortality is a very adaptive possibility as well. Natural selection and cultural traits are infinitely linked because the two have never existed independently according to the history of the world presented. A brain which is indifferent to mortality could exist in certain contexts and environments and not others (for example, it could be triggered by things such as adrenaline, aggression, fear, hunger, etc.) as is shown relatively obviously in pit bulls.

She walked in and I was like, DAYUM!!!

You’re not supposed to say stuff like that, it’s not polite. Manners, manners, manners. I’ve started noticing how people use manners a lot more lately. I think it’s less about whether the manners are correct or not, because, well, manners change from region to region, from time to time, and from house to house, even within the same person. What is expected and considered appropriate changes constantly. It’s totally arbitrary.

That’s why I’ve just started randomly getting offended at people. It’s pointless to try to fit into some mold that the world may or may not have for you, so nobody really does. All people really do is try to make the mold fit around them, or, well, the people who are happy at least.

I think I’m just going to ‘mold’ my set of manners to what suits me best. If you look at it as a sort of game, the game of manners, you can see that there are certain positions of power. The game of manners, like the game of poker, can be won. Also like the game of poker, it can be fixed. I mean, cards can be stacked. If the moral and polite ground is established to be the ground in one particular area, well, that effectively allows for persecution of those outside or ignorant to the arbitrary rules. I think the best policy would be to act as though everything that benefits me is completely appropriate and the things that don’t are utterly insulting.

That’s not to say I want to be greedy, no, actually, I’d rather be generous. It’s the Robin Hood Theory, RIP Guru. Also, my website is a Robin Hood Theory.

Haha, speaking of which, it seems like it’s pretty much impossible to get around paying a bunch of money per month to some existing website to do things. I mean, I don’t know, I guess I’ll just have to sell my stuff on Amazon like all the rest of us now Amazon formerly Independent recording artists. Small world, who’d have thunk it, huh? No way, the internet? MONOPOLIZED? Whoa. So, yeah, I’m creating an Amazon account, but to do that I first have to go through some steps. Mission for the weekend.

Also I need to keep stockpiling items to sell. Then I link them together and voila, I have something to promote, a bookmark, so to speak, indicating that I exist. Then I pretty much repeat the process, invest money into a cool thing and demonstrate it online with advertisements for cool items, until, you know, people like it or I die. That’s business for me.

Public Speaking is enthralling, and the semester is almost halfway over! I can’t wait, I have to do some grad school admissions even though, you know, school is like a wizard of oz with only flying monkeys and shi*t like that and the f*ckin scarecrow shanks you in the back halfway to the emerald city, and everybody keeps calling you Todo or Dorothy but really they’re all just a bunch of talentless hacks whose only opportunity to get ahead is by holding others back, thus sabotaging everybody in the process.

I guess that’s a little harsh. I meant to be a lot harsh, hahaha, I held back. The point is that it’s really all just smoke and mirrors. There are cheaters and deceivers all over the place, but the truth is that they are weak in nature and can be bulldozed by simply walking through them. It is in this way that I tell the annoying person who sits too close to me and is too nosy to go away forever. You see, in copying others they are only digging themselves into a hole. The deceivers create their own code of conduct and morals which allow them to persecute. They are then shocked and disgusted when the same technique is used against them. Justification can be a brutal thing. They are the false ones.

Haha, but enough about the false ones, here’s another random stuff I was thinking about, I guess it’s about the randomness of the world. I mean, we understand why certain things happen in the world, like, you know, that humans walk on two legs because it’s better than four for us. But why? We can trace things back really far, but eventually it’s just a random chaos. That’s where most people give up and say none of it matters, but that’s wrong too. Anyway, think what you think, you bring your ideas and I’ll bring mine, then let’s smash them together and keep the unbroken parts.

      Making any generalizations or drawing conclusions about data from an adaptivity based point of view is difficult if not impossible to do when it comes to organisms’ or groups’ traits and behaviors in the present tense. In isolated environments, such forces interact differently. Throughout the world there is a large variety of different partially isolated people. Depending on the interaction of the current environment, the amount of influence from external sources both present and past, as well as forces from within, these people exhibit different behavioral strategies. Due in a large part to a lack of outside threat, many different behavioral strategies have developed and been able to thrive. A similar example in the animal kingdom would be certain parrot species mate selection being based on color of plumage. While the color and style of the plumage may be symbolic of various other survival factors, the actual trait itself is practically useless. In fact, the bright colors probably hinder the birds in certain environments.

     It is with this in mind that I would respond to the argument proposed. One mating strategy is not able to be proven indefinitely superior to another without the passage of time. Determining future events and the effects that they will have on mate selection and survival is teleological at best.

     The only truly effective way in which to evaluate the rate of adaptivity (or is it adaptiveness, have found mixed results*) seems to be to assume that the present is the end. This is of course a false assumption and makes measures of adaptivity pretty much arbitrary. We can tell that having a trunk has been adaptive for elephants so far because there are no elephants without trunks. They either never existed or they all died off. The wooly mammoths are all dead, so similarly we can assume that being ‘wooly’ was maladaptive. This means one of several possibilities. The mammoths may have all died off or they may have mated with other elephants.  On the other hand, we can’t say that being an African elephant is more adaptive than being an Asian elephant, even in spite of the stark population difference.

     People argue that the mammoth is a different species altogether and could not genetically mated with the other elephants. This neglects another idea I thought of (I doubt I was the first, though, if anyone has any more readings about this I’d be interested), the idea being that another in between ancestor may have existed which was capable of mating with both species despite the fact that they could not mate with each other. In other words, a donkey and a horse makes a mule, but the product of a donkey and an ‘x’ combined with the product of a horse and an ‘x’ makes a, well, whatever it is.

     It makes MULEX. Next time you have a tough kitchen cleaning duty, reach for MULEX brand cleaning material.

     No, that’s ridiculous, I’m just kidding. Anyway, combination of these would have just been seen as either a mammoth or an elephant, so who knows? Basically, there are a lot more ways this stuff could happen.

Anyway, it’s a work in progress, I’ll add more onto it eventually, you know, for now I’ve got to read and muse a bit, I suppose…

Bloggo tiger tank o

So, having a lot of fun getting the website up and running. Tigertankdemolition.com is a mission not a small time thing, hahaha, there has been a lot going on here the past few days. I’m about eight months away from having my BA on mostly my own dime. My car ‘troubles’ have been a blessing in disguise, and the broken wheel on the bike means my brother finally gave me a longboard.

Oh, and did I mention MCNA$TY is here?

I finally have a reason to get on the net again. For the longest time I felt this weird guilt about using it, and don’t get me wrong, it still gets me paranoid. I decided a while ago that I wouldn’t use it unless it had some sort of benefit. Now that I finally have a spare resource and some ideas I think it’s time to make that push. MCNA$TY, btw, is the name of the first solo album that I’ve ever done…yes, rap.

So yes, I have been making promotional pages now that I actually have something to promote. All I can do is invest my time, energy, and creativity into the process and hope for the best. 

Hah, so that’s that, I’ll try to keep this moving up and getting more interesting and stuff, post some videos of stunts or songs and stuff like that, probably post some random weird stuff that I come up with, maybe some stuff I find around I’ll comment about, cool stuff I suppose. If you know how to work this internet thing and are a cool person, definitely see what’s up, 🙂

 

Ramblings About Altruism

First post, figured I’d throw down a little writing I did for a class a couple weeks ago. The topic was the adaptive nature of ‘altruism.’ Every educational institution I find these days seems to be skewed in one direction or another (contrary to popular belief there may actually be more directions that just left and right). The class is an evolutionary anthropology one, necessary for my degree. Whether you believe in natural selection or divine creation or some combination of existing theories or a completely unique one, I hope that this will satisfy:

     Altruism (not the real kind) relies on a cultural phenomenon of what amounts to ‘IOUs.’ The explanation that altruism exists amongst humans due to the need for individuals to enhance their reputations is a valid one but it explains false altruism, not true altruism. Enhancing a reputation is a form of bartering as it is in a sense raising the stock of the individual. It is interesting to look at this phenomenon as being not strictly human. The explanation of altruism as occurring for reputational needs relies and reciprocation. Here it should be noted that this is not true altruism because reputation is a representation of power in the same way that money is. Reputation can be viewed as a representation of abstract resources. In this fashion, reputation is not a sufficient explanation for altruism. It explains half of altruism. The unexplained half is that the behavior is selected for in other organisms. In other words, the reputation preceded the man. The complex reciprocity would have to be selected for due to the effectiveness of the behavior of increasing a reputation. However, the disappearance of this need for reciprocity, or true altruism, would have to be selected for by a population which valued altruism. In other words, humans would have to influence their own evolution and adaptation in order to become truly altruistic. However, this behavior would still be maladaptive and therefore could only exist as long as the species maintained its position of dominance within the environment.

     Traditional examples include physical altruism such as that demonstrated by spiders and mantises after mating. The male sacrifices himself in order to provide the female with which he has recently mated a better nutritional intake. In doing so, he increases the likelihood of his brood developing fully. However, he also eliminates any further chances of spreading his genetics. In this way, it is somewhat a gamble. This is probably why most species do not demonstrate this behavior. For some reason, however, this has proven to be a useful adaptation for these predatory insect like creatures. This could be for a variety of reasons, not the least of which being the species’ unique niche in the environment. The position occupied within the food chain by these creatures is very different than many other species. The organisms are not social. In fact, mating is the only real need these organisms have for interacting peaceably with any other creature. While they have many natural predators, they are not the primary food source for any of them, perhaps due to the wide variety of species of insects and arthropods. However, the risk of predation for these species is high. When they reproduce, they reproduce by laying hundreds of eggs. When one takes into account the relatively low chance of meeting another member of the same species let alone a female receptive to mating and compare it with the relatively high chance of death before such an encounter, it is no wonder these species interact as such (especially with clutch sizes so large). These species incorporate an all or nothing approach to reproduction.

     In larger and more human like creatures, specifically mammalian species, herd animals will occasionally demonstrate what appears to be altruistic behavior. This is understandable and one would think that all social animals would demonstrate altruism. However, this is not necessarily true. Upon closer inspection, many of these animals simply rely on a safety in numbers approach and actually demonstrate very little ‘care’ towards other members of the group. Cattle and bison protect their young by keeping them in the middle of the herd, but this is much more an instinctual behavior than altruism. The same could be said for the insects, however, and perhaps for humans as well. When one considers that cultural adaptations that we deem to be ‘conscious’ and not ‘instinctual’ as uniquely human and a side effect of being greater in some way compared with the rest of the animal kingdom, it is easy to see humans as demonstrating altruism. However, even the usage of the scientific method could be broken down as an adaptive behavior. If one insists on distinguishing ‘culture’ as a uniquely human phenomenon, then altruism appears to be genuine and not just a vague attempt to garner favor and reciprocity. However, culture in humans can also be viewed as an advanced form of the territorialism demonstrated in other species. Prides of lions and packs of monkeys will fight of other competing groups, even of the same species. Wolves demonstrate complex hierarchies and power structures between members. Many of the behaviors are consistent across individuals within the species, but from an non-human centered perspective these behaviors carry the same weight as human interactions.

     One ability that separates humans from other species is our ability to think from different perspectives. Certain high functioning apes have demonstrated the ability to use a mirror, a seemingly simple concept, but most animals cannot. This is because the cognition needed to think objectively is theorized not to be present in most species. Therefore, humans may see reciprocity as having slightly more dimensions than other species. In fact, this is true. Humans are capable of not only judging who has resources in the moment but also who will have resources in the future. The concept of agriculture, or horticulture, the concept of farming in general is a clear demonstration of humans’ ability to plan. Other species do demonstrate such behaviors, like birds migrating, but with less ability to manipulate the environment and less resource control amongst these species, ‘altruism,’ real or feigned, does not seem to have any benefit to the organisms.

     Humans trade with one another and have adapted a vastly superior means for extracting resources from the environment than any other species. Superior, in this case, is operationally defined by the ability to amass these resources, sheer quantities. Humans have discovered means to utilize many naturally occurring things that are generally overlooked by other species. In this manner, humans have adapted towards specialization. In a wolf pack, there may be certain members which perform the kill and hunt, but in human beings, the hunt has become so complex and the quarry so abstract that a stratified specialization has occurred on an in group level and proven to be adaptive, especially in intergroup competition. Because of this specialization and the territorial nature of humans, barter and trade has long been a staple of human survival. This really does not occur in other species, definitely not to the extent in which it occurs in humans. This bartering is the fundamental driving force behind much of human adaptation since natural threats such as starvation and predation were essentially eliminated due to advanced cognitive functioning, a mutation that has affected humans in such complex ways as to make it impractical to write about at this junction. Possession probably preceded bartering, as one human or group of humans probably attempted to act as gatekeepers to a required resource and restricted other humans’ access to it. Eventually, there could be enough of these possessors that trade would not be an option for survival. The distribution of resources can never be even but it can also never be stable as the relative value of resources is changing all the time. If this is the case, then a human can never really be certain which other human’s help or resources it will require next. In this manner, it is adaptive to keep all other organisms on good terms.

     One modern example of altruism could be the act of a wealthy person donating money to a charity. This seems self-defeating from a strictly economical perspective. This individual could be doing it for a variety of reasons. They could be attempting to garner public respect and fame for themselves or others they are affiliated with. They could be doing it for tax breaks. They could have a genuine concern for the charity. However, regardless of the person’s intentions, they have appeared generous. Humans value genuine generosity in others because it signals to them that they may qualify for some free stuff. Altruism could occur under certain complex situations. First of all, the human must have enough resources to both be altruistic and survive. Giving away all of one’s resources is not adaptive, especially if the organisms receiving the resources are not altruistic or reciprocity prone in return. Reciprocity is different from altruism in that it implies an expected return. However, if the individual has continuous access to a resource and is encouraged be altruistic (the environment selects in favor of altruism), this behavior may exist in a population for a short period of time. Eventually, however, this adaptation seems unnatural and fundamentally weak in nature and only seems possible in artificial environments. Conversely, humans have lived in artificial environments for a great deal of time now. Since humans have cracked the code of natural selection, the ability to pass on traits and behaviors that may be maladaptive has increased. There is no telling what traits a species will select in favor of if the natural selection pressures of its environment are nullified.

     To conclude, it has taken me a long time to figure out why altruism may occur. False altruism may occur for a variety of reasons, all of which are some preemptive format of the reciprocity trait. Performance of a task with expectation of reciprocity is not altruism. However, true altruism (giving without any conscious or subconscious expectation or hope for reciprocation) could only develop in a manipulated environment. Considering nearly all humans are now raised and bred in a test tube of their own design, such a behavior could hypothetically become adaptive (since being adaptive and maladaptive have become much more plastic due to humans ever increasingly safe niche in the environment in which we live). However, it seems improbably that such a behavior or trait would be longstanding in a population due to the simple existence of other strategies for resource collection. The behavior could become prominent, but since false altruism is so difficult to detect in humans it seems inevitable that the behavior will become maladaptive. Altruism is a side effect of humans’ robust dominance of their habitat. This dominance often leads to selection for reasons other than fitness and often times leads the species in such a position to extinction. To conclude, altruism is maladaptive and so could only occur in a situation in which a species had no external threats for an extended period of time.