Men Eating Meat

[JackLuis]

Discovery: Humans hunted for meat 1.6 million years earlier than previously thought

In his study, Bunn and his colleagues looked at a huge butchery site in the Olduvai Gorge in Tanzania. The carcasses of wildebeest, antelopes and gazelles were brought there by ancient humans, most probably members of the species Homo habilis, more than 1.8 million years ago. The meat was then stripped from the animals’ bones and eaten.

As a result, over the next two million years our crania grew, producing species of humans with increasingly large brains – until this carnivorous predilection produced Homo sapiens.

Nothing worse than a hungry alpha male!

 

[Stella_Omega]

Bunn believes these early humans probably sat in trees and waited until herds of antelopes or gazelles passed below, then speared them at point-blank range.

Not exactly the kind of smexy spear-brandishing Alpha behavior one would imagine...

These sound like the sort of conclusions that will be argued about for a long time.

 

[TxRad]

Not exactly the kind of smexy spear-brandishing Alpha behavior one would imagine...

These sound like the sort of conclusions that will be argued about for a long time.

They still do that, only now it's called a deer stand and they use rifles or bows and arrows.

 

[Handley_Page]

Good job they got going with the steaks, then.
If they'd stayed vegetarian, we'd either be extinct or a race of thick midgets.

 

[rjordan]

They still do that, only now it's called a deer stand and they use rifles or bows and arrows.

Or a hunt club where they get drunk and shoot one another in the face, not realizing that the staff had set up "game" for them to shoot instead.

 

[voluptuary_manque]

It's more likely that H. habilis scavenged more than he hunted. Screaming, throwing rocks and branches, and waving firebrands would drive off the hyenas and even possibly the lions so that great x 10 to the 10th grandpa/ma could rush in, carve off a chunk or so and beat a hasty retreat. Additionally, knocking leopard kills out trees requires nothing more than a long stick when the leopard isn't around.

And I should like to remind the commentatti that alpha males don't do the majority of the breeding. That's an old theory, now completely out of date.

 

[Cruel2BKind]

I didn't even know that people were arguing about this.

Chimps and bonobos, our closest cousins will eat meat. They even eat each other now and then.

http://news.softpedia.com/news/Fema...avily-Infanticide-and-Cannibalism-54687.shtml

Maybe you could argue about when we actively hunted, or when we developed spears, but I assumed that our ancestors were always eating insects and rodents and picking up the leftovers from big kills.

 

[Tio_Narratore]

Yes. likely scavenging for a long time before hunting. The earliest stone tools are all for processing, not hunting. And there are finds where a mark from a stone tool overlays marks from carnivore teeth.

 

[ProxyAccount]

It's more likely that H. habilis scavenged more than he hunted. Screaming, throwing rocks and branches, and waving firebrands would drive off the hyenas and even possibly the lions so that great x 10 to the 10th grandpa/ma could rush in, carve off a chunk or so and beat a hasty retreat. Additionally, knocking leopard kills out trees requires nothing more than a long stick when the leopard isn't around.

Given that chimpanzees and bonobos, our closest genetic relatives, will both hunt monkeys, it's likely that until technological and social development allowed hominids to reliably increase their ability to inflict wounds, smaller prey that could be treed or otherwise trapped would be the primary focus of individual hunters or small hunting groups.

And I should like to remind the commentatti that alpha males don't do the majority of the breeding. That's an old theory, now completely out of date.

To my knowledge, that's never been a widely held theory by zoologists or ethologists. Rather, it has long been theorized and supported by research that dominant males were disproportionately successful in breeding. This was confirmed by a study of chimpanzee paternity, where the highest ranking males (two different males over a period of 22 years) were the biological fathers for about a third of all chimpanzees tested. (This is also supported by records of tribal marriages in North America. While polygyny (multiple spouses) was considered desirable and indicative of high social ranking, the majority of marriages were monogamous.)

It should be kept in mind that the same study of chimpanzees noted that there were a number of competing strategies that younger, lower-ranking males adopted--the most successful being that they simply went after the lower-ranking females that the higher-ranking males ignored!

It should be noted that modern control of fertility has turned the model upside-down. Now, couples that would be considered to be high-ranking, socially, tend to have proportionately fewer children than couples that would be considered to be lower-ranking. This has contributed to the disproportionate allocation of wealth to a small percentage of the population. Because the wealthiest/best educated individuals have fewer heirs, generational wealth remains concentrated.

 

[Cruel2BKind]

Given that chimpanzees and bonobos, our closest genetic relatives, will both hunt monkeys, it's likely that until technological and social development allowed hominids to reliably increase their ability to inflict wounds, smaller prey that could be treed or otherwise trapped would be the primary focus of individual hunters or small hunting groups.


To my knowledge, that's never been a widely held theory by zoologists or ethologists. Rather, it has long been theorized and supported by research that dominant males were disproportionately successful in breeding. This was confirmed by a study of chimpanzee paternity, where the highest ranking males (two different males over a period of 22 years) were the biological fathers for about a third of all chimpanzees tested. (This is also supported by records of tribal marriages in North America. While polygyny (multiple spouses) was considered desirable and indicative of high social ranking, the majority of marriages were monogamous.)

It should be kept in mind that the same study of chimpanzees noted that there were a number of competing strategies that younger, lower-ranking males adopted--the most successful being that they simply went after the lower-ranking females that the higher-ranking males ignored!

It should be noted that modern control of fertility has turned the model upside-down. Now, couples that would be considered to be high-ranking, socially, tend to have proportionately fewer children than couples that would be considered to be lower-ranking. This has contributed to the disproportionate allocation of wealth to a small percentage of the population. Because the wealthiest/best educated individuals have fewer heirs, generational wealth remains concentrated.

It's smart to have fewer kids.

Fewer kids will get more resources, more love, more personal time.

Less of a strain on the parents.

Maybe I shouldn't talk about this. I never want to have kids.

 

[ProxyAccount]

It's smart to have fewer kids.

Fewer kids will get more resources, more love, more personal time.

It is certainly a reasonable hypothesis. A 1990 study comparing single children to children from multiple child households, found that only-children (singletons), firstborn, and children from two-child families had near-identical outcomes when it came to emotional development. However, other studies noted that singletons were much more likely to be overweight (even when controlling for behavioral factors), require more medical attention, and be less socially-developed in some ways than children with other siblings.

So, at the very least, even if they do receive "more resources, more love, more personal time", there's little advantage to it and some disadvantage if they're an only-child. We are social animals from infancy onwards, and like other social animals, socialization with siblings are an important part of our development.

Less of a strain on the parents.

This is probably much closer to the truth. People are much more selfish when it comes to usage of resources. That's why there are more and more childless couples where both spouses are working--it enables them to spend far more resources on personal luxuries, vacations, and so forth, rather than spending several hundred thousand dollars on a child, over eighteen or so years.

As a developed, Western society, we are paying the price for well-off couples not have more children. First, they can afford to spend more to raise their children. (Though in general, each successive child tends to be less expensive than the previous one, due to reusable resources.) Second, educational outcomes are better for two-parent households above the median income, but not much better in households beyond the third quintile. So, parents making several hundred thousand aren't giving their child that much of a leg-up when it comes to educational accomplishment, if they only have one. Third, our tax base is partly eroding due to a declining percentage of workers that are high-educated and highly-paid workers. (Education being a major factor affecting long-term income potential. Fourth, a greater number of heirs, helps ensure that more children--born from the heirs and their spouses--will benefit from the family's resources.

 

[voluptuary_manque]

Given that chimpanzees and bonobos, our closest genetic relatives, will both hunt monkeys, it's likely that until technological and social development allowed hominids to reliably increase their ability to inflict wounds, smaller prey that could be treed or otherwise trapped would be the primary focus of individual hunters or small hunting groups.


To my knowledge, that's never been a widely held theory by zoologists or ethologists. Rather, it has long been theorized and supported by research that dominant males were disproportionately successful in breeding. This was confirmed by a study of chimpanzee paternity, where the highest ranking males (two different males over a period of 22 years) were the biological fathers for about a third of all chimpanzees tested. (This is also supported by records of tribal marriages in North America. While polygyny (multiple spouses) was considered desirable and indicative of high social ranking, the majority of marriages were monogamous.)

It should be kept in mind that the same study of chimpanzees noted that there were a number of competing strategies that younger, lower-ranking males adopted--the most successful being that they simply went after the lower-ranking females that the higher-ranking males ignored!

It should be noted that modern control of fertility has turned the model upside-down. Now, couples that would be considered to be high-ranking, socially, tend to have proportionately fewer children than couples that would be considered to be lower-ranking. This has contributed to the disproportionate allocation of wealth to a small percentage of the population. Because the wealthiest/best educated individuals have fewer heirs, generational wealth remains concentrated.

While the Pan species are genetically closest to us, socially we have a strong resemblance to baboons and it is in studies of that species that the breeding success of 'kinder, gentler' males surprised primatologists.

 

[ProxyAccount]

While the Pan species are genetically closest to us, socially we have a strong resemblance to baboons and it is in studies of that species that the breeding success of 'kinder, gentler' males surprised primatologists.

What do you mean, "kinder, gentler"? Studies of baboons indicated that reproductive success was based upon dominance ranking and socialization: grooming the target female. Also noted was market behavior--higher ranking males tended to groom higher ranking females and were more successful in their approaches. This was not a matter of being "kinder, gentler", but being able to socialize with the female without being driven off by the female or other males.

 

[Cruel2BKind]

It is certainly a reasonable hypothesis. A 1990 study comparing single children to children from multiple child households, found that only-children (singletons), firstborn, and children from two-child families had near-identical outcomes when it came to emotional development. However, other studies noted that single children were much more likely to be overweight (even when controlling for behavioral factors), require more medical attention, and be less socially-developed in some ways than children with other siblings.

So, at the very least, even if they do receive "more resources, more love, more personal time", there's little advantage to it and some disadvantage if they're an only-child. We are social animals from infancy onwards, and like other social animals, socialization with siblings are an important part of our development.


This is probably much closer to the truth. People are much more selfish when it comes to usage of resources. That's why there are more and more childless couples where both spouses are working--it enables them to spend far more resources on personal luxuries, vacations, and so forth, rather than spending several hundred thousand dollars on a child, over eighteen or so years.

As a developed, Western society, we are paying the price for well-off couples not have more children. First, they can afford to spend more to raise their children. (Though in general, each successive child tends to be less expensive than the previous one, due to reusable resources.) Second, educational outcomes are better for two-parent households above the median income, but not much better in households beyond the third quintile. So, parents making several hundred thousand aren't giving their child that much of a leg-up when it comes to educational accomplishment, if they only have one. Third, our tax base is partly eroding due to a declining percentage of workers that are high-educated and highly-paid workers. (Education being a major factor affecting long-term income potential. Fourth, a greater number of heirs, helps ensure that more children--born from the heirs and their spouses--will benefit from the family's resources.

Two is the perfect number, economically, socially, and financially speaking.

But I don't want to have kids, because I hate the little fuckers. I don't want to be one of those abusive mothers in the news. Why take the chance?

 

[ProxyAccount]

Two is the perfect number, economically, socially, and financially speaking.

2.1 children is the minimum, average number for population sustainment of a developed nation. Nations with lower numbers face serious problems with aging workforces and insufficient new taxpayers to support existing programs. Even the U.S., with an average of 2.65 children per household, faces program sustainment problems. As with any Ponzi scheme, Social Security relies upon having far more workers paying into the system than are taking out. If the ratio of payers to payees drops too low, the house of cards collapses. This isn't rocket science and certainly isn't a secret.

"Due to demographic changes, the U.S. Social Security system will face financial challenges in the near future. Declining fertility rates and increasing life expectancies are causing the U.S. population to age. Today 12 percent of the total population is aged 65 or older, but by 2080, it will be 23 percent. At the same time, the working-age population is shrinking from 60 percent today to a projected 54 percent in 2080. Consequently, the Social Security system is experiencing a declining worker-to-beneficiary ratio, which will fall from 3.3 in 2005 to 2.1 in 2040 (the year in which the Social Security trust fund is projected to be exhausted). This presents a significant challenge to policymakers."
- Social Security Bulletin, Vol. 66 No. 4; United States Social Security Administration, 2005.

As a reminder, the "trust fund" doesn't really exist as a standalone set of funds set aside in some bank account. It's just a bunch of IOUs on the liability/obligation side of the federal ledger sheet and dependent upon current taxpayers making up the shortfall. Extended periods of high unemployment/underemployment, such as the one we've been in since 2009, moves the supposed "day of reckoning" forward, but the reality is that program is "pay as you go". With the impending fiscal cliff, there will be insufficient incoming funds to pay beneficiaries unless the federal cuts benefits, raises the age of eligibility, and raises taxes. (And prints more money.)

But I don't want to have kids, because I hate the little fuckers. I don't want to be one of those abusive mothers in the news. Why take the chance?

Certainly a valid viewpoint. However, many career-minded women didn't want any kids until their biological clocks started running out. People can and do change their minds.

 

[voluptuary_manque]

What do you mean, "kinder, gentler"? Studies of baboons indicated that reproductive success was based upon dominance ranking and socialization: grooming the target female. Also noted was market behavior--higher ranking males tended to groom higher ranking females and were more successful in their approaches. This was not a matter of being "kinder, gentler", but being able to socialize with the female without being driven off by the female or other males.

What studies are you reading? High ranking baboon males are subject to stress-related diseases and shortened life-spans. They spend so much time demonstrating their dominance that they rarely groom females at all. The grooming is more often done by males who ditch the dominance game and spend their time grooming with attendant greater reproductive success.

 

[voluptuary_manque]

2.1 children is the minimum, average number for population sustainment of a developed nation. Nations with lower numbers face serious problems with aging workforces and insufficient new taxpayers to support existing programs. Even the U.S., with an average of 2.65 children per household, faces program sustainment problems. As with any Ponzi scheme, Social Security relies upon having far more workers paying into the system than are taking out. If the ratio of payers to payees drops too low, the house of cards collapses. This isn't rocket science and certainly isn't a secret.

"Due to demographic changes, the U.S. Social Security system will face financial challenges in the near future. Declining fertility rates and increasing life expectancies are causing the U.S. population to age. Today 12 percent of the total population is aged 65 or older, but by 2080, it will be 23 percent. At the same time, the working-age population is shrinking from 60 percent today to a projected 54 percent in 2080. Consequently, the Social Security system is experiencing a declining worker-to-beneficiary ratio, which will fall from 3.3 in 2005 to 2.1 in 2040 (the year in which the Social Security trust fund is projected to be exhausted). This presents a significant challenge to policymakers."
- Social Security Bulletin, Vol. 66 No. 4; United States Social Security Administration, 2005.

As a reminder, the "trust fund" doesn't really exist as a standalone set of funds set aside in some bank account. It's just a bunch of IOUs on the liability/obligation side of the federal ledger sheet and dependent upon current taxpayers making up the shortfall. Extended periods of high unemployment/underemployment, such as the one we've been in since 2009, moves the supposed "day of reckoning" forward, but the reality is that program is "pay as you go". With the impending fiscal cliff, there will be insufficient incoming funds to pay beneficiaries unless the federal cuts benefits, raises the age of eligibility, and raises taxes. (And prints more money.)


Certainly a valid viewpoint. However, many career-minded women didn't want any kids until their biological clocks started running out. People can and do change their minds.

Social Security was designed to give you enough money in your few remaining years to avoid being a burden on your children. Few people lived to 65 in 1935 so that was the accepted age for retirement. Today anyone who fastens their seat belt, doesn't smoke and brushes their teeth stands an excellent chance of lasting to 80 or longer. Raising the eligibility age is not some bureaucratic tyranny but simply a recognition of demographic reality.

And given the coming enormous advances in life extension technology, why not just forget about 'retirement' and spend the rest of your very long life being useful instead of pottering around a damned golf course?

 

[ProxyAccount]

What studies are you reading? High ranking baboon males are subject to stress-related diseases and shortened life-spans. They spend so much time demonstrating their dominance that they rarely groom females at all. The grooming is more often done by males who ditch the dominance game and spend their time grooming with attendant greater reproductive success.

One of the most recent studies, Henzi 2010, would explain how some studies indicating that subordinate males had greater reproductive success, whereas other studies more closely followed the primary model. It's ultimately about whether the alpha male spends too much time away from home and has to concede reproductive opportunities in exchange for having other males protect his offspring.

"Alpha male chacma baboons experience uncontested access to individual estrus females. Consequently, alpha male paternity certainty is high and underpins significant levels of infanticide by immigrant males that, in turn, has selected for male defense of infants. There is also, however, a high probability that alpha males will be absent during the period when their own offspring are vulnerable, suggesting selection for additional countermeasures. We use data from a long-term study to test the prediction that alpha male chacma baboons cede reproductive opportunities to subordinate males and that this leads to the presence of other fathers that can serve as a buffer against infanticidal attack. We found that subordinate males obtained significantly more conceptive opportunities than predicted by priority of access alone, and that this occurred because alpha males did not consort all receptive periods."

 

[ProxyAccount]

Social Security was designed to give you enough money in your few remaining years to avoid being a burden on your children.

Many people rely on it as their sole source of retirement income--which is not what it was designed to be! It wasn't intended to be a retirement account, just a supplemental insurance in addition to reasonable savings and familial support. Familial support was an assumption made at the time of it's creation. Social security was intended to reduce the burden, not eliminate it. Otherwise, contributions would have needed to be greater.

Few people lived to 65 in 1935 so that was the accepted age for retirement. Today anyone who fastens their seat belt, doesn't smoke and brushes their teeth stands an excellent chance of lasting to 80 or longer. Raising the eligibility age is not some bureaucratic tyranny but simply a recognition of demographic reality.

I'm not saying it's tyrannical or wrong, just that it will be done. I personally don't hold out much hope that much of the program will be around by the time I'm actually eligible.

And given the coming enormous advances in life extension technology, why not just forget about 'retirement' and spend the rest of your very long life being useful instead of pottering around a damned golf course?

Keep in mind that many more are finding that they have to work past retirement because their savings are insufficient to sustain them, for whatever reason.

 

[voluptuary_manque]

Uh-huh! And where were the 'subordinate' males during the receptive periods? Making nice to the ladies. Plus they live longer and their overall contribution to the gene pool is therefore greater. Laid back and friendly wins.

 

[ProxyAccount]

Uh-huh! And where were the 'subordinate' males during the receptive periods? Making nice to the ladies. Plus they live longer and their overall contribution to the gene pool is therefore greater. Laid back and friendly wins.

43 alpha male impregnations vs 21 subordinate male impregnations is a win? I guess, if you're talking about relative effort. Keep in mind that there are many more subordinate males than alphas, meaning that an alpha male had about eight times the chance of reproducing than a subordinate male. Also, keep in mind that almost half of the successful "subordinate males" were older, formerly dominant males. If their successes are grouped with the alpha males, then subordinate successes are even lower.

 

[Cruel2BKind]

2.1 children is the minimum, average number for population sustainment of a developed nation. Nations with lower numbers face serious problems with aging workforces and insufficient new taxpayers to support existing programs. Even the U.S., with an average of 2.65 children per household, faces program sustainment problems. As with any Ponzi scheme, Social Security relies upon having far more workers paying into the system than are taking out. If the ratio of payers to payees drops too low, the house of cards collapses. This isn't rocket science and certainly isn't a secret.

"Due to demographic changes, the U.S. Social Security system will face financial challenges in the near future. Declining fertility rates and increasing life expectancies are causing the U.S. population to age. Today 12 percent of the total population is aged 65 or older, but by 2080, it will be 23 percent. At the same time, the working-age population is shrinking from 60 percent today to a projected 54 percent in 2080. Consequently, the Social Security system is experiencing a declining worker-to-beneficiary ratio, which will fall from 3.3 in 2005 to 2.1 in 2040 (the year in which the Social Security trust fund is projected to be exhausted). This presents a significant challenge to policymakers."
- Social Security Bulletin, Vol. 66 No. 4; United States Social Security Administration, 2005.

As a reminder, the "trust fund" doesn't really exist as a standalone set of funds set aside in some bank account. It's just a bunch of IOUs on the liability/obligation side of the federal ledger sheet and dependent upon current taxpayers making up the shortfall. Extended periods of high unemployment/underemployment, such as the one we've been in since 2009, moves the supposed "day of reckoning" forward, but the reality is that program is "pay as you go". With the impending fiscal cliff, there will be insufficient incoming funds to pay beneficiaries unless the federal cuts benefits, raises the age of eligibility, and raises taxes. (And prints more money.)


Certainly a valid viewpoint. However, many career-minded women didn't want any kids until their biological clocks started running out. People can and do change their minds.

I almost want to get my tubes tied. That way my stupid genetics wont kick in and force me to drop my crotch-dumplings later in life.

It certainly is a lot harder to convince people to breed than to get them to stop.

Look at poor poor Japan.

Now that I've mentioned Japan, maybe LJ reloaded will spring out of the woodwork and accuse me of ruining his life with my vulva.

 

[JackLuis]

Here is a twist!

Oregon farmer eaten by his pigs​

The good news is he wasn't a Muslim.

 

[ProxyAccount]

Here is a twist!

Oregon farmer eaten by his pigs​

Most people don't realize that pigs can be dangerous. I hunt feral hogs and you have to be cautious when in tall grasses or dense brush. They'll not only kill hunting dogs, but the large sows and boars can maim or kill an adult with their powerful jaws. Farm-raised pigs are used to humans and are less aggressive, but the instincts and jaws are there.

The good news is he wasn't a Muslim.

Tasteless. Do you realize that Jews and Seventh Day Adventists are also prohibited by their beliefs to eat pork?

 

[JackLuis]

Most people don't realize that pigs can be dangerous. I hunt feral hogs and you have to be cautious when in tall grasses or dense brush. They'll not only kill hunting dogs, but the large sows and boars can maim or kill an adult with their powerful jaws. Farm-raised pigs are used to humans and are less aggressive, but the instincts and jaws are there.


Tasteless. Do you realize that Jews and Seventh Day Adventists are also prohibited by their beliefs to eat pork?

Yes.

Do you realize the danger of making a pet out of a 700 pound eating machine?