Track your comments!
[x]


When you register, comments on your articles and replies to your comments appear here. Register Now!

Sign in to your account
[x]

Not a Scientific Blogging member yet?

Register Now for a Free Scientificblogging.com Account

  • Customize your profile with pictures, banner, a blogroll and more.
  • Leave comments on articles, add other members to your friend lists, chat with people on the site.
  • Write blog posts that can be seen by hundreds of thousands of readers.

It's free and it only takes a minute!

Already a Scientific Blogging member?

Sign In Now

Banner
By Hank Campbell | April 22nd 2009 02:45 AM | 18 comments | Print | E-mail | Track Comments
.

More Science 2.0 articles

All

About Hank Campbell

A wise man once said Darwin had the greatest idea anyone ever had. Others may prefer Newton or Archimedes.

Probably no one ever said a website was the greatest idea anyone ever had, but a website... Full Bio

It's Earth Day, in case you can't tell by our swanky green Earth logo in the header, and that means people will be thinking about Nature (the bitch, not the magazine) and our impact on her.   I didn't say people would be thinking clearly, but they will be thinking.

So instead of shocking and awing you with my dark humor and divine genius, I will instead ask a question; what kind of science could you do if you got sent back to 10,000 BC?

I ask because a whole lot of people who are interested in Earth Day are also interested in making us more primitive.   There was once an America where cranky old conservatives wanted society to stay frozen in time or even go backwards.  Progress was the enemy.   More recently, some progressives think progress is the enemy and want to stay frozen in time or even go back.   I am older than most here yet as a young guy in Florida the term 'conservationist' already meant 'someone who wants things to stay the same as the week they moved here' so making fun of the wrong sort of pop environmentalism was popular even then.

Unfortunately, most people who regard themselves as environmentalists don't know much about actually living in the environment.    They regard environmentalism as some kind of Thoreau-inspired bucolic paradise, a big happy love fest where every writes a sequel to "Walden; or, Life in the Woods".  As our resident Big Thinker, Howard Bloom, so aptly put it:
Thoreau never chucked technology at all. He pretended it didn’t exist.
...
Mother nature didn’t build the cabin in which Thoreau lived. 125,000 generations of human ingenuity made the axes, saws, and mills that allowed men to fell trees and to slice their trunks into boards inexpensively. A thousand generations of even more techno-lust and techno-innovation went into inventing the wall, the floor, the roof, and the frame of beams and joists that holds a cabin upright.

And that's the downside to retro- environmental thinking.   Those people have no idea what they are talking about.  Starving and freezing and dying were messy business.    They're instead living in a world where they don't realize Thoreau had a rich family to support him and all the conveniences of modern life keeping him alive while he wrote his famous book.

So I decided in honor of Earth Day to go back in time and see what scientists and environmentalists would really have been tackling in an all-natural world.  I picked 10,000 B.C. for two reasons; first, it's a nice round number and we were solidly coming out of the last Ice Age so there were advancements being made.   Second, I literally just watched a movie called "10,000 B.C.", directed by Roland Emmerich, which was better than I thought it would be, science mistakes aside.



Who Were We In 10,000 BC?

In movies, primitive people were always chasing some huge animal or another.    I have news for you.   In 10,000 BC (the Neolithic period, not the movie) we spent our days grubbing around for snails and sessile nuts.   In "10,000 BC" (the movie, not the Neolithic period)  they were doing all kinds of fun things; hunting big game and rescuing attractive women from God-Emperor despots.    Maybe those were the Lapps who migrated north as the reindeer herds escaped global warming but I know my people, the Indo-Europeans, at most 50,000 of us total, instead settled into the world we had, being bereft of politicans talking about 'mitigation' and capping how much we consume.


All the cavegirls in 10,000 BC looked like Camilia Belle.

That meant cold winters, but it left us time to do other things, like paint on rock walls.  Yes, archeologists have gone out of their way to incorporate magic and religion and symbolism into all that but it's more likely 6 months of winter trapped in a cave made us bored.(1)


Le Portel cave painting, 10,000 BC.   Courtesy: Bradshaw Foundation.

But the world is changing a lot during that time.   The Scandinavian ice-cap disappears, giving us Scotland, where my folks will last for many a generation, inventing head-butting and then kicking opponents when they're on the ground.   The  sea level will rise by 50 meters (take that, "Day After Tomorrow" screenwriters - real life is a lot more devastating than anything you made up) but vegetation also spreads northward quite a bit, giving us more land to live in.

Scientifically, the advancement seems inconsequential now but, if you were trapped in the wilderness, it would make your jaw drop with its difficulty; wooden saws that used chipped flint for teeth, increasingly ubiquitous bows and arrows and canoes.  Someone invents pressure flaking, which revolutionizes the utility of tools.  


A Clovis point, made via pressure flaking.  Credit: Government of the Commonwealth of Virginia

How could it happen?    Human ingenuity and necessity, that's how.

As our tribe grows from perhaps 50,000 people in the entire culture to  hundreds of thousands among many competing tibes, game becomes scarce.   Do we have leaders start rationing resources and deciding who gets to eat?    No, prehistoric scientists will instead invent agriculture.   When that happens, families won't need to move, so we can settle down and have more kids and grow more food and create a community and then a culture.

Without the science, and then the technology, of 10,000 BC (the Neolithic period, not the movie) we wouldn't have the culture of today, including the people who don't much like it.   Back to "10,000 B.C." (the movie, not the Neolithic period) - it's better than you might expect, mostly because the special effects are spectacular.

It has its flaws, sure, just like stone spears and anthropology and environmentalism but, like all those, it has its good points too.   Environmentalism, for all its zealotry, is still way over in the good category when it comes to improving society; our economy did not evaporate because we eliminated CFCs or cleaned up our rivers.    And the movie has some interesting action sequences.  

So ignore the nets (didn't exist for thousands of years), the  domesticated horses (5000 years later), the metal tools and weapons (4000 years later), sabre-toothed tigers (dead for 500,000 years but what movie can be made without them?) and no slavery to be forced into.  Okay, ignore everything scientific about the movie but just you try and build your own hut some time.

So I'll answer my own question.  Who would I be?  I'd like to say D'leh, but I was probably TicTic.

NOTES:

(1) That's just us.  Our cousins of the Russian steppes lived life a little more like we expect, building houses out of mammoth bones - no caves to live in.    The villain in The Highlander was called The Kurgan because they had to be pretty tough to hunt the big game.   How many smelly activists want to give that a try?


Mammoth bones used for the construction of houses during the last ice age at Kostenki.   Photo: Vladimir Gorodnjanski, 2006

Comments

As a geologist, I'd find a nice, sturdy cave, use my feminine wiles to get some guy to shoo out the bear or tiger living in there, build entrance barricades and live in it.  I'd be more worried about food.

Knowing how and when to plant your own garden or hunt your own food is not going backwards. Not always being at the mercy of a store or chemicals is a good thing. It's hypocritical to eat pre-packaged meat but not turn around and hunt it yourself. In fact, we've thrown the baby out with the bathwater with what we term technological progress. I love my computer and paved roads, but feel it is time for us to engage in "old" practises like community gardening as well as independent, sustainable food collection. (Seriously, if the earth went all nook-yu-lar tomorrow, how many of us would know what nuts and berries to pick and eat?) This will help us form helpful social relationships and grow our own strength, i.e. let's get away from physical and social "sterile."

Becky Jungbauer's picture
Your suggestions about community gardening and sustainable food collection are good ones, I think - they let us "get back to our roots" while still using the technology we've grown to depend on for our daily existence. Would we know where community gardens are, or where we can find local sustainable farmers, without the internet? Yeah, probably, but it sure makes it a lot easier to find (and consequently spread the message). There has to be a happy synergism - it would be silly to throw out the beneficial advances we've made just for the sake of simplifying our lives.

Community formation would have to come first, starting with belonging to a tribe, which is what we did then and kinda what we do now online.  If community gardens don't exist, one would have to take the personal initiative to begin a plot.  Of course, it takes knowing what to grow, what will work, etc. Having just moved back to farm country, I have a whole new appreciation for those who understand the nuances of how the earth produces our food. It's not some crunchy, hippy matter, but one of survival, if we are faced with that.

Becky Jungbauer's picture
Of course, it takes knowing what to grow, what will work, etc.

Exactly. There was a story on NPR - last week, maybe? - about picking mushrooms and how a lot of people are clueless when it comes to safe versus poisonous mushrooms. Bet a lot of trial and error went in to our ancient ancestors figuring out safe foods. Controlled the population, I'd guess.

Controlled the population, I'd guess.

Speaking of controlling the population, sad/interesting thing about moving to the country from a city during the spring:  Each time the sun peeks out and the temperature rises, the newborn or just-waking-up-from-hibernation critters get frisky, run around and some become roadkill. Lots of dead bunnies, raccoons, possum around after one nice day.  But there is an overabundance of deer and geese now. Getting back to the topic of the post, I wonder what animals our ancestors knew to pick off, when and how they developed animal-specific tools. Then again, geologic history is a long, long time and they had a lot of time for trial and error. Can we afford such trial and error within one human lifetime?

Hank's picture
I certainly agree with much of the naturalist, nature-based sentiment but I was tweaking faux enviromentalists, which are the majority.   Given my druthers, I would personally kill, clean and cook everything that touched my family but when I tell far too many people in California (the home of fake environmentalism) that I hunt, I might as well tell them I was a guard in Auschwitz.

Environmentalism has become a war on commerce and progress on one side and a coalition-of-the-oppressed endorsement of fringe animal activism on the other.  As I have said before, if Al Gore in his 29,000 squ ft house and his minions had been in charge of my 50,000 person tribe when there wasn't enough game to hunt, there would have been rationing and mitigation and a lot of talk - 'scientists' of prehistory instead learned to domesticate livestock and created agriculture.

Environmentalism is way over on the positive column for society so far but the children and grandchildren of the people who did the great works are a disappointment.   Like Berkeley residents today who protest things because they are supposed to and not because they know what they believe in or what they are talking about, it's disappointing that more environmentalists aren't coming up with positive solutions.   They instead think buying a Prius is doing a darn bit of good.

Given my druthers, I would personally kill, clean and cook everything
that touched my family but when I tell far too many people in
California (the home of fake environmentalism) that I hunt, I might as
well tell them I was a guard in Auschwitz.

But, if you tell them you were doing it because you're Native American or have severe dietary allergies/restrictions that cause you to find your food "raw," they'd relent and maybe even go hunting with you.

I'm left of the dial as compared with you, but agree very much that there is doing actual good vs. feeling good about the environment.   Take this for instance.

All this said, I still feel awful for, 16 years ago, having killed a mouse for my boa constrictor and accidentally running over a bunny.  My favorite movie is a comedy based on the UP's deer hunters, but once that critter looks me in the hairy eyeball, I'm mush.  My husband, OTOH, will kill and eat cattle he helped birth, without a second thought.  See, it all comes back to bartering talents and community building.  :-)

Hank's picture
I went to boingboing and read her article but mostly laughed about this:
Photo by Bob Daugherty/AP, posted under fair use.

You'd think with their million dollars in revenue, the boingboing guys would be smarter than this.   Declaring 'fair use' of a copyrighted picture does not actually give you permission to violate someone's copyright, or all our articles would have pictures of Paris Hilton and Barack Obama, just with 'fair use' slapped on them.

AP is suing Google for indexing their news stories and telling everyone else that the poaching party is over.  Why would this Maggie Koerth-Baker person, who is apparently a journalist, not know better?

Fossil Huntress's picture


Living in California, you'd probably need to focus your efforts on the wolves and cave bears. If you want to see who might be considering eating your family, check out Ian Lange's "Ice Age Mammals of North America: A Guide to the Big, the Hairy, and the Bizarre." 

 



I agree.

rholley's picture
sabre-toothed tigers (dead for 500,000 years but what movie can be made without them?)


According to the telly I watch (and I've checked on Wikipedia so it must be right) Smilodon died out only about 10,000 years ago.  But they were American sabre-tooth puddies, so if you're referring to the Old World you're right about the human interaction.

Hank's picture
In editing (and I have to edit broadly - I can't order a meal in a restaurant under 1,000 words) I seem to have eliminated most reference to sticking with Indo-European because that seems to be what the filmmakers meant (hodgepodge of cultures and geographies aside) and also where most of us reading here came from.

But I didn't want to slap around the movie too much; mixing Beringia and bamboo forests and, apparently, the Sahara was a storytelling convention as was the huge feline. Homotherium was still around in 10K BC but the big cat you see in the clip above, the actual African saber-tooth, had been long gone.

Fossil Huntress's picture
And Camilia Belle would likely need to watchout for both kinds of wolves, lupus and sapien.

Hank's picture
She didn't look like that in the movie.  Instead her hair was a little tousled and she was wearing a fur outfit ... oh, wait, I see your point now.

Very nicely written. I linked this on my Facebook and mentioned that my before falling asleep thoughts have been about what I, personally, know and could utilize if I found myself either mysteriously teleported back in time or in a similar technology free zone. Some good suggestions on the lovely Earth Day.

Hatice Cullingford's picture

Where was I? I was not in Canada as this NOAA figure illustrates the Agassiz Ice Cap melt during the last 10K years of warming.



Melt record of Agassiz Ice CapA line was drawn in the figure to compare the amount of ice melting in the 20th Century with the variability during the last 4K years. The 20th Century melting is greater than almost all periods in those years.

Thank you for writing this. Very thoughtful on Earth Day.



I would have been a long-time dead. I am 54 and I would have died in childbirth nearly 30 years ago. (Nearly did anyway even in the 20th c). Of course if I had lived I would have died since then from a serious heart condition for which I have to take pills every day, and my husband would have died 25 years ago from a ruptured appendix.

Of course if I had survived that I would now be a wise woman and a very good one at that!

Earth day is not about becoming a caveman. Rather it is about reminding ourselves for example about how we can lower our use of fossil fuels. This could be growing a vegetable garden, turning off your computer when not using it, or riding your bike to work. These things are not about being trendy it is about making the earth inhabital forever. If you think you can just get up and move to the moon when there's nothing left on earth well good luck. If this is possible one day it will only be for people with the funds which will for surely be only a small percentage of the worlds population. Mabye we should stop making a joke about the whole thing and try to think more "clearly"

Add a comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <sup> <sub> <a> <em> <strong> <center> <cite> <code> <TH><ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd> <img> <br> <p> <blockquote> <strike> <object> <param> <embed> <del> <pre> <b> <i> <table> <tbody> <div> <tr> <td> <h1> <h2> <h3> <h4> <h5> <h6> <hr> <iframe>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
CAPTCHA
If you register, you will never be bothered to prove you are human again. And you get a real editor toolbar to use instead of this HTML thing that wards off spam bots.