|Demand for Resources - on the right to be poor|
|An updated English translation of the Swedish version from 1991-92 is to be expected here.
also see A dedication to Edith Södergran
Words and concepts
Primitive and civilized consumption (From Ibn Khaldun's theory on the production and consumption of luxuaries to Levi-Strauss' social thermodynamics)
Existence-centrism (Only the less than allmighty can be biased and feel him/herself allmighty)
Evolution (The basis for existence is motion/dynamics, i.e. disturbed entropy with hypercycles emerging into life)
Social entropy and the social state (The individual eaten up by the public)
Stability, motion/dynamics and consciousness (Doxic vs. dynamic socities)
Human evolution (Brain development driven by olfactory receptions - compare how strongly childhood memories are associated with smells - and adaptations no longer at work))
Civilization (investment and its defence)
Epistemology (Who should be the critic of humans?)
Science and references (You learn what you are learned to learn)
The individual and the cultural heritage (You are a product of your cultural heritage and usually you contribute very little yourself)
Family, kinship and sex roles (From an incest taboo aimed to protect the biofamily/kin group to an incest taboo that is aimed to destroy the biofamily/kin group)
Needs and demands (See summary below!)
Expanded demands for resources (see summary below!)
Khoi, San and Bantu (Three examples of A, B and C societies below - for physical and genetic approaches see Out of Africa as Pygmies and back as global "Mongoloids")
Sedentism is a consequence of expanded demands for resources (EDFR) but not a necessary outcome. What was needed was a suitable climate with domesticable plants/animals (i.e. what was missing in other places during late Pleistocene/early Holocene, which produced high quality artefacts and sofisticated cultural traits without evolving into what we use to name civilizations). Jordan Valley seems for long to have been a cradle (albeit not as perfect as the big river deltas that created the "real" civilizations) for social transition due to its sensitive climatology.
Summary: Why have humans been both progressive and static in their cultural development over time, and how is this connected to evolution? You want/demand what you need but you do not necessarily need what you want/demand.The latter is here described as Expanded Demand For Resources (EDFR). By using this as a basis a new way of characterizing human societies/cultures becomes possible. Departuring from C. Levi-Strauss idea on "warm" and "cold" societies, civilized societies are here described as representing dynamics, hence contrasting against the more static appearance of the economic setting (lack of investment) of e.g. hunter-gatherers. As a result the following categories emerge:
A. Uncivilized without EDFR
B Affected by EDFR but still retaining a simplistic, "primitive" way of life.
C. Civilized with EDFR
These categories are, of course, only conceptual. Applied to a conventional classification the following pattern appears:
1 The primitive stage when all were hunter/gatherers (A, according to EDFR classification).
2 Nomads (A, B, C).
3 Agrarians (B, C).
4 Civilized (C).
As a consequence EDFR is here used as a concept tied to civilization (and its preliminary stage) The above also suggests a critique against our conventional conception of a simplistic connection between intelligence and performance as exemplified by C. Popper's scenario of a World 1-3 transition of human cultural development (Implications of this view can be seen at the page EMAH - The Even More Astonishing Hypothesis, which deals with the mind/body problem and the closing gap between not only humans and other living things but also humans and machines).
In 1984 in northern China (Jinniushan) the remains of a youngster, some 280.000 YBP, revealed an estimated brain capacity of abt 1.400 cc, i.e. well in line with the average brain size of today. However, the cultural contributions due to this development seems weak. For more on this trail and an emerging alternative view on human evolution see Out of Africa as Pygmies and back as global "Mongoloids".
Out of the Levant or multiregional social transition?
Not only Jordan valley/South East Asia Minor, but also parts of Central/Southern-Asia seem especially interesting for the early transition to EDFR in the light of archeology, liguistics and genetics. However, the early "gardening" in South East Asia etc. is puzzling if we want to explain the transition out of a common environmental perspective. A speculative and certainly challenging connection would emerge from "Klevius' Mongoloid hypothesis" , i e that modern humans evolved as a result of their odyssey in Siberia that took them back to the South (where neolitic cultivation was possible) via two main channels: West and East of the mid-Asian high plateau (which doesn't exclude passing through it as well).
...to be continued...
|Klevius' human rights INFO DESK: Arab/Islamic Sudan genocide, gang rape culture, Arab/Islamic racism etc.|
|Klevius' hypothesis on human gene diaspora: Out of Africa as "Pygmies" and back as global "Mongoloids" (May 2004)|
|"The archeologist of knowledge
in his/her digging
(P. Klevius 1991)
|Correspondence Peter Klevius/Georg Henrik von Wright (under construction).|
|The main pillars of Islam: Submission under sex segregation & exploitation
KLEVIUS' INTERDISCIPLINARY NEWS: "Monolitheism" and vanishing Christianity
SEX SEGREGATION, FEMINISM & RELIGION: Chatham terror House
|The concept of freedom is created,
only under pressure
(P. Klevius 1991)
|The civilized wo/man walks
back in her/his foot steps,
strikes a light and lets her/himself be enlightened
Only the forgotten suffering,
and the shadow behind her/him,
hanging over the future,
are greater (P. Klevius 1991).
|P. Klevius 1991:"A cultural revolution fueled by alienation and followed by a renaissance of the 'proto-European' should not surprise anyone" (may apply globally).
Sex segregation is a pain in the butt for all of us but the problem peaks in Islam!
What is sex segregation?