This article by Max Borders is a good reminder of a maxim I always use in evaluating human behavior - the bodies and minds of our species evolved under the conditions of the Pleistocene, conditions very different from today. A quote Borders captures says it:
"The environment that humans -- and, therefore, human minds -- evolved in
was very different from our modern environment. Our ancestors spent well over 99
percent of our species' evolutionary history living in hunter-gatherer
societies. That means that our forebears lived in small, nomadic bands of a few
dozen individuals who got all of their food each day by gathering plants or by
hunting animals. Each of our ancestors was, in effect, on a camping trip that
lasted an entire lifetime, and this way of life endured for most of the last 10
million years."
Borders says that this shows in a fundamental human urge toward egalitarianism - something that has been seen in ethnographic hunter-gatherer societies. He also says that this shows in the "magic number 150" observed in Malcolm Gladwell's Tipping Point. This number appears to be the cut-off point for simpler forms of human organization. Informally organized groups larger than that tend to break down. That is also about the size limit of macro-bands observed in ethnographic hunter-gatherers. One of the best descriptions of societies at this scale is provided by Elman Service in his classic Primitive Social Organization.
Another factor I like to point out in understanding Pleistocene societies is that of foreshortened demographics. Imagine a society where the very few oldest members are probably in their late-30s to early-40s. The majority of the mature members of the society (by mature I mean able to reproduce) are going to be teen-agers to early-20s. Anyone who remembers their teen years or that has has raised teens knows the tremendous urge to conformity and need for peer acceptance that they have. In my opinion this urge is so strong that it must be hard-wired. So imagine a small society whose entire tone is shaped by this urge. It would be like a contemporary high-school clique - you are either one of the "cool kids" or you are expelled. And being expelled from a primitive society is a death sentence so you will do anything to fit in.
Borders points out the stresses and strains that predispositions like this cause in modern society. Humans have hard-wired emotional responses to unequal life status: guilt, envy, and indignation. Borders calls these the Stone Age Trinity.
5 comments:
Wow! This perspective of life-or-death fitting in will be helpful in my upcoming years of teenager mothering!
My sister and I had a chat about how our bodies haven't caught up to our modern way of life. I got married at 20 and by 25 had my birthing years out of the way. She took the university/career path and at 33 hasn't started a family. I assured her that in our family fertility is not an issue, (!) but it was interesting to hear her say that realistically, human bodies are meant to reproduce in the teen years. Teenagers, these days, are not prepared for it, but 2000 years ago, when all we had to do was kill our supper and stay alive, we were perfectly equipped.
Oh geez. Suddenly I feel old. Ha ha!
Are we all that sure that some people didn't live until late middle age back then?
My impression from contemporary hunter-gatherers is that if you make it to 20 you have a moderate chance of making it to 60.
When I was in remote Mongolia I saw a surprising amount of octogenarians, but I got the impression that the selection process on infants etc was pretty harsh!
Tight social cohesion--conformity--would be a big factor, but then it seems that many small-group societies had a highly ritualized alternative role for those who just could not fit in: an official "crazy person" role. You would still have to provide some utility to the group, however, or no one would sew moccasins for you.
Steve Sailer - I didn't mean to say that no one would ever make it to an advanced age. Elders would be the "spindle top" on that demographic curve and it would be thinner and shorter than what we see in more recent curves. You are right that some ethnographic band societies do have some folks that make it into their sixties. There is debate (of course!) on whether this is directly applicable to Pleistocene/Early Holocene populations. In Eurasia conditions were quite tough with harsh climate, quite an array of major predators (see Steve's post on Giant Hyaenas today) and megafauna prey species that were dangerous too. It would have been tough. Look at the recent analysis of Kennewick Man. He had two arthritic knees, one arthtritic elbow and also in his back. His teeth were shot and he walked around for 20 years with a spearpoint in his hip. And he died at 40.
Chas - you are right, many do show tolerance for divergeant behavior if it isn't a drag on the group. I have never seen the juvenile "group-think" behavior addressed as a factor in any anthropological publications. Probably should look in social psychology books.
Post a Comment