Heterosexual attraction and Human Rights

 Peter Klevius, the world's foremost expert on sex segregation (sad, isn't it) to Linda Bengtzing and other sex-confused women:  

 
Yes, you, like all women are "gay", i.e. "bisexual" - but not heterosexual (like "bisexual" male gays are), because you, like all women, lack a biological counterpart to "the male gaze", i.e. heterosexual attraction (HSA), much like men lack reproductive capability.

And when you said that you got so many opportunities to have sex (with men apparently) that's precisely because men are heterosexual and biologically attracted to women's bodies. Do realize the distinction between sexual performance (i.e. rubbing genitals) which anyone can do, alone or together with others, and heterosexual attraction. The term 'homosexual attraction' would be superfluous because it's outside the relation between the sexes, and also lacks evolutionary reproductive meaning. Heterosexual attraction isn't per se sexual performance but rather an evolutionary implanted biological "strategy" for making heterosexual reproduction possible by "arranging" for the sperm to get to the egg. Only those animals survived which had some sort of heterosexual attraction at play. Moreover, among other apes, what we consider rape is often the rule and perhaps also the reason for sexual dimorphism. However, if we want to call us civilized we need to accept the integrity of all humans no matter of sex. For this purpose Art. 2 in the Universal Human Rights declaration of 1948 comes handy:

'Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.'

And when you say that 'as young and not destroyed one may love whomever but as an adult one gets awfully limited', this reflects the underlying problem, i.e. the dinosaur of cultural sex segregation - a historical/religious fossil from the past that ought to be put in a museum asap.

'I got so many chances to have sex'. Since the introduction of heterosexual reproduction HSA has always satisfied the need for sperm delivery - to an extent that sometimes may feel uncomfortable unless we respect each other over the sex borders as equals as humans.

But why, Linda, did you lock yourself in a closet in the first place?!

'I've been aroused by women, but never had the possibility to fall in low at the same time.'
"Romantic love" is a late invention, and often conflated with sexual love. However, although both women and men can feel "Romantic love", there's a night and day difference in how the sexes get aroused by each other - due to HSA.

Linda says she repents that she didn't explore her sexuality more.

That's called sexual taboo.

Linda says she loved a same sex human being but never had sex with her. So why, in retrospect, was it important to have sex with her?!

However, then Linda fell in love with a man and now they have two daughters. Peter Klevius presumes they both fell in "romantic love" as well as sexual love, right.



Peter Klevius wrote 1981:

Evolution* has two basic features opposing devolution: Upholding complexity and enforcing complexity.

* Evolution is an emotionally charged word, so feel free to use it as you like as long you also consider its opposite, i.e. devolution.

The solid state of existence is motion/change. Movement consists of occurences. The causality of occurences is a complex of evolution and devolution. Evolution, hence, is the deterministic outcome of variables of causality over time that enforces the complexity in previous structures (P. Klevius 1981, 1992). Evolution does not "think" but rather constitutes recognizable historical results in an un-recognizable chaos..The problem of human evolution is especially characterized by our limited understanding of how speciation/hybridization has affected it.


Peter Klevius wrote 2003:

Erotisized heterosexual genes and non-sex gametes fusioned by hetero-sexual attraction.

Basically there are no "sexes" but only hetero-sexual attraction (HSA). Gametes do not have sexes. So when, in Japan 2004, the first ever mammal (a mouse) to be reproduced without the assistance of a male but by two females, it was wrongly considered a partenogenesis, i.e. developed from an unfertilized egg. Why? Obviously just because we are so used to sex-segregation that we miss the simple fact that a new individual needs two bio-parents, but not necessarily a father and a mother. By hampering and switching off one single gene (H19) the "father" was eliminated. And without a "father/male" there can hardly exist a "mother/female" because of the mutual inter-dependency of these terms. But note that HSA (Hetero-Sexual Attraction was indeed involved in the process, i.e. in the form of the researchers and their apparatus). In the end then the totality of our enormous sex-dichtomy is in a "blocking gene" that now has been decoded and released. Biology was faster than culture, what else! In 'Warning for feminism', published in 2000, I actually predicted the possibility of an "asexual" reproduction like the one now in Japan. So why do I mention this? Because some genetists who have commented on the topic obviously did not believe in the possibility before! And this fact, I think, reflects an underlying, sex-segregated and rather human prejudice hampering experts at work.

Something like an RNA in a wrinkled protein shell was probably an early stage of "life". A virus within a prion-like shell. This simple wrapping evolved into a more complex package consisting of DNA – a longer chain of RNA (where thymine repalaced uracil) - in the nucleus aided by several RNA protein builders in the surrounding cytoplasm. In this new system RNA thus continued to produce protein but now by taking orders directly from the master controller DNA.

The division of the cell at this stage was simple. After some time or depending on the environment, the cell divided itself into two identical pieces where the chain of DNA was simply cut off. This method of reproduction was in the beginning the only available and is still popular today, for example all the cells – except sex cells – in our bodies.

But in a dangerous environment such as early Earth, which was even more exposed for solar and space radiation than today, DNA structures were often subject to mutations as well as other damages. If we then suppose the existence of mutated and split DNA cells, we have the ingredients ready for a more sophisticated and evolutionary more effective system of achieving advanced and complex living structures by the help of biological sex-segregation.

When the first proto-sex-cells. searched for a partner to complete their split DNA damage they simultaneously created the first biological incest taboo. This was because they could no longer re-emerge with a split DNA cell identical to their own "species". The mutation in their DNA made them incomplete for such a purpose. So they continued searching for a partner with a defect, not similar but completing the damage of their own. Voilá – a new species was born and its success was a matter of  “survival of the fittest”.


Peter Klevius wrote:

Sunday, September 20, 2020

Peter Klevius*, the world's foremost expert on sex segregation (sad isn't it), obituary over a Jewish female patriarch.

* Why is it that a man seems to be the world's foremost defender of women's rights? The answer is threefold:

1 Only a man can understand biological heterosexual attraction (HSA), i.e. the only thing that essentially segregates the sexes (see below).

2 Only a man feels safe from inferiority complex as long as sex segregation prevails.

3 Only a man can feel a coming inferiority complex in a de-sex segregated world.

Therefore men have all reason to stick to Human Rights equality. As Peter Klevius has always said since his teens: Negative (as opposed to the positive s.c. "Stalin rights") Human Rights for a positive human future.

Do realize the difference between folk feminism which is anti segragation and true feminism which is the very opposite - already from the beginning when resisting the vote etc.

And do realize that while Mills wanted emancipation and Freud didn't. No wonder psychoanalysis became so popular among feminists.

And no feminist seems to be interested in Mary Woolstonecraft's advice on how to not foster daughters to "follies". And the s.c. "glamour feminism" did just that.

In the last chapter in Demand for Resources (1992) called Khoi, San and Bantu, Peter Klevius notes that hunter-gathering societies where the least sexist. With civilization came what Peter Klevius calls classical sex segregation, and with "monotheisms" came religious sexism on top of the classical.

US Supreme Court needs to replace at least half* of its 100% religious members with Atheists so to democratically represent the people

* Even most Jews are Atheists, although orthodox Jew Ruth Bader Ginsburg was certainly not..

Peter Klevius 'Woman' from 1979

 Does the Human Right to 'freedom of religion' really mean freedom to violate Human Rights as e.g. islamic sharia (OIC) does?!

Anna-Karin Wyndham is a Swedish example of the female patriarchy 2020

From a headline February 11, 2020

Precisly because Peter Klevius is a defender of the most basic of Human Right, he is called an "islamophobe" because islam can't stand Human Rights equality.
Peter Klevius is offended by muslims' extreme injustice (sharia), and asks for more fairness.

Islam's schizophrenia

Islam resides between the roof of the Saudi dictator family/OIC, and the floor of Muslim Brotherhood. And the "house of Saud" wants to broom the floor, while MB wants to take down the roof.

Muslims have an overwhelming problem if they want to follow islam while living in a civilized society based on Human
rights equality.

Peter Klevius, the world's foremost expert on sex segregation (sad isn't it), asks for your help because he doesn't see any other biological difference between men and women than the onesided evolutionary heterosexual attraction that Peter Klevius seems to be the only one talking about but everyone knows about. So do you see something that Peter Klevius doesn't?

But don't fall in the usual trap by pointing to non-relational differences. Menstruating, delivering and feeding a baby, etc. are not relational. And although heterosexual attraction is only implanted in the male's brain, it's directly dependent on the female. And it affects all women, incl. prepubertal girls and centenary old ladies, precisely because how it outlines the future of the former and the history of the latter.

As Tertullian, "the founder of Western theology" said to women who wanted to abandon heterosexual attraction by marrying Christ: "It's a sport of nature."  

And if a lesbian woman's body attracts "the male gaze", i.e. heterosexual attraction, she has no other option than covering it in a burqa-like package - but without becoming a muslim because sharia would kill her lesbianism.   

However, if we want to live in a civilized world based on Human Rights equality, i.e. not segregating between humans, then we need to release us from the unnesseccary, stupid and destructive gender prison of sex segregation, and the one sex that lacks sensitivity for heterosexual attraction has to decide whether or when it wants to have anything to do with it. And do remember, we healthy men are always there for you - but not for cheating. So be responsible.

The seemingly seamless connection between heterosexual attraction and reproduction is the mirage that a disastrous sex segregation has been built on.

When will start educating children about heterosexual attraction and sex segregation? 

Google seems not to have a clue about heterosexual attractio. This is Google's first on the subject: There are several types of sexual orientation; for example: Heterosexual. People who are heterosexual are romantically and physically attracted to members of the opposite sex: Heterosexual males are attracted to females, and heterosexual females are attracted to males. Heterosexuals are sometimes called "straight."

Peter Klevius: No wonder girls are confused when they don't get any adequate sex education at all.

Peter Klevius wrote:

Thursday, March 14, 2013

Klevius sex and gender tutorial

Klevius' proposal to bright minded and non-biased readers: Do read EMAH, i.e. how continuous integration in Thalamus of complex neural patterns without the assistance of one or infinite "Homunculus" constitutes the basis for memory and "consciousness".

Klevius quest of the day: What's the difference between the Pope and Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg?

Klevius hint: It's all about 'not sameness' and Human Rights! Human Rights IS 'sameness' stupid!

When God was created he was made like Adam.

When the basic idea of Universal Human Rights was created it was made like Adam AND Eve.

And for you who think heterosexual attraction, i.e. that women are sexier than men, could be (exc)used as a reason for depriving women of legal sameness. Please, do think again!And read Klevius Sex and Gender Tutorial below - if you can!

                           The Plan of God

A Cardinal, a Pope and a Justice "from medieval times"

Keith O'Brien has reiterated the Catholic Church's continued opposition to civil partnerships and suggested that there should be no laws that "facilitate" same-sex relationships, which he claimed were "harmful", arguing that “The empirical evidence is clear, same-sex relationships are demonstrably harmful to the medical, emotional and spiritual wellbeing of those involved, no compassionate society should ever enact legislation to facilitate or promote such relationships, we have failed those who struggle with same-sex attraction and wider society by our actions.”

Four male members of the Scottish Catholic clergy  allegedly claim that Keith O'Brien had abused his position as a member of the church hierarchy by making unwanted homosexual advances towards them in the 1980s.

Keith O'Brien criticized the concept of same-sex marriage saying it would shame the United Kingdom and that promoting such things would degenerate society further.


Pope Francis, aka Jorge Bergoglio: Same-sex is a destructive pretension against the plan of God. We are not talking about a mere bill, but rather a machination of the Father of Lies that seeks to confuse and deceive the children of God." He has also insisted that adoption by gay and lesbian people is a form of discrimination against children. This position received a rebuke from Argentine president Cristina Fernández de Kirchner, who said the church's tone was reminiscent of "medieval times and the Inquisition".

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg: 'Sex' is a dirty word, so let's use 'gender' instead!

Klevius: Let's not!

As previously and repeatedly pointed out by Klevius, the treacherous use of 'gender' instead of 'sex' is not only confusing but deliberately so. So when Jewish Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg proposed gender' as a synonyme for 'sex' (meaning biological sex) she also helped to shut the door for many a young girl's/woman's possibilities to climb outside the gender cage.

The Universal Human Rights declaration clearly states that your biological sex should not be referred to as an excuse for limiting your rights.

Islam (now represented by OIC and its Sharia declaration) is the worst and most dangerous form of sex segregation - no matter in how modern clothing it's presented!

Klevius Sex and Gender Tutorial

What is 'gender' anyway?

(text randomly extracted from some scientific writings by Klevius)

It might be argued that it is the developing girl, not the grown up woman, who is the most receptive to new experience, but yet is also the most vulnerable. Therefore we need to address the analysis of the tyranny of gender before the point at where it's already too late.  I prefer to use the term ‘female’ instead of ‘woman’, when appropriate in this discussion. I also prefer not to define women in relation to men, i.e. in line with the word 'universal' in the Human Rights Declaration. In short, I propose 'gender blindness' equally as, for example, 'color blindness'.

According to Connell (2003:184), it is an old and disreputable habit to define women mainly on the basis of their relation to men. Moreover, this approach may also constitute a possible cause of confusion when compared to a definition of ‘gender’ which emphasizes social relations on the basis of ‘reproductive differences’.

To really grasp the absurdity of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg's and others habit of confusing 'gender' with 'sex' one may consider that “normal” women live in the same gender trap tyranny as do transsexuals.

The definition of ‘acquired gender’ is described in a guidance for/about transsexuals as:

Transsexual people have the deep conviction that the gender to which they were assigned at birth on the basis of their physical anatomy (referred to as their “birth gender”) is incorrect. That conviction will often lead them to take steps to present themselves to the world in the opposite gender. Often, transsexual people will undergo hormonal or surgical treatment to bring their physical identity into line with their preferred gender identity.

This evokes the extinction of the feminine or women as directly dependent on the existence of the masculine or men. Whereas the feminine cannot be defined without the masculine, the same applies to women who cannot be defined - only described - without men.

Female footballers, for example - as opposed to feminine footballers, both male and female - are, just like the target group of feminism, by definition distinguished by sex. Although this classification is a physical segregation – most often based on a delivery room assessment made official and not at all taking into account physical size, strength, skills etc. - other aspects of sex difference, now usually called ‘gender’, seem to be layered on top of this dichotomy. This review departs from the understanding that there are two main categories that distinguish females, i.e. the physical sex belonging, for example, that only biological women may participate in a certain competition, and the cultural sex determination, for example that some sports are less ‘feminine’ than others.

‘Gender’, is synonymous with sex segregation, given that the example of participation on the ground of one’s biological sex is simply a rule for a certain agreed activity and hence not sex segregation in the form of stipulated or assumed separatism. Such sex segregation is still common even in societies which have prescribed to notions of general human freedom regardless of sex and in accordance with Human Rights. This is because of a common consensus that sex segregation is ‘good’ although its effects are bad.

In Durkheim’s (1984: 142) view such ‘organized despotism’ is where the individual and the collective consciousness are almost the same. Then sui generis, a new life may be added on to that of the main body. As a consequence, this freer and more independent state progresses and consolidates itself (Durkheim 1984: 284).

However, consensus may also rest on an imbalance that is upheld and may even strengthen precisely as an effect of the initial imbalance. In such a case ‘organized despotism’ becomes the means for conservation. As a consequence, the only alternative would be to ease restrictions, which is something fundamentally different from proposing how people should live their lives. ‘Organized despotism’ in this meaning may apply to gender and to sex segregation as well.

According to Connell (2003) whose confused view may be closer to that of Justice Ginsburg, gender is neither biology, nor a fixed dichotomy, but it has a special relation to the human body mirrored in a ‘general perception’. Cultural patterns do not only mirror bodily differences. Gender is ‘a structure’ of social relations/practices concentrated to ‘the reproductive arena’, and a series of due practices in social processes. That is, gender describes how society relates to the human body, and has due consequences for our private life and for the future of wo/mankind (Connell 2003:21-22).

Gender is neither biology, nor a fixed dichotomy, but it has a special relation to the human body mirrored in a “general perception.” What is wrong with this view is the thought that cultural patterns only mirror bodily differences. Gender is “a structure” of social relations/practices concentrated to “the reproductive arena”, and a series of due practices in the social processes. I.e. it describes how society relates to the human body, and due consequences to our private life and for the future of wo/mankind (Connell 2003:21-22). The main problem here involves how to talk without gender.

... sex should properly refer to the biological aspects of male and female existence. Sex differences should therefore only be used to refer to physiology, anatomy, genetics, hormones and so forth. Gender should properly be used to refer to all the non‑biological aspects of differences between males and females ‑ clothes, interests, attitudes, behaviours and aptitudes, for example ‑ which separate 'masculine' from 'feminine' life styles (Delamont 1980: 5 in Hargreaves 1994:146).

The distinction between sex and gender implied in these quotations, however, does not seem to resolve the issue precisely because it fails to offer a tool for discriminating biological aspects of differences from non-biological, i.e. cultural. This is also reflected in everyday life “folk categories of sex and gender” which (most?) often appear to be used as if they were the same. Although 'masculine' and 'feminine' are social realities, there is a mystique about their being predetermined by biology” (ibid). Furthermore the very relational meaning of ‘gender’ seems to constitute a too an obvious hiding place for essentialism based on sex. Apart from being ‘structure’, as noted above, gender is, according to Connell, all about relations (2003:20). However, if there are none, or if the relations are excluding, the concept of sex segregation may be even more useful.

It seems that 'masculine' and 'feminine’ in this definition of gender is confusingly close to the ‘mystique about their being predetermined by biology’ when compared to the ‘reproductive arena’ and ‘reproductive differences’ in Connell’s definition of gender. However, although gender, according to Connell (2003: 96), may also be ‘removed’ the crucial issue is whether those who are segregated really want to de-sex segregate? As long as the benefits of a breakout are not clearly assessable, the possible negative effects may undermine such efforts.

According to Connell (2003:20) the very key to the understanding of gender is not to focus on differences, but, instead, to focus on relations. In fact, this distinction is crucial here because relations, contrary to differences, are mutually dependent. Whatever difference existing between the sexes is meaningless unless it is connected via a relation. On the one hand, big male muscles can hardly be of relational use other than in cases of domestic violence, and on the other hand, wage gaps cannot be identified without a comparative relation to the other sex.

Biological determinism is influential in the general discourse of sports academia (Hargreaves 1994:8). However, what remains to analyse is whether ‘gender’ is really a successful concept for dealing with biological determinism?

‘To explain the cultural at the level of the biological encourages the exaggeration and approval of analyses based on distinctions between men and women, and masks the complex relationship between the biological and the cultural’ (Hargreaves 1994:8).

With another example: to explain the cultural (driver) at the level of the technical (type of car) encourages the exaggeration and approval of analyses based on distinctions between cars, and masks the complex relationship between the car and the driver. However, also the contrary seems to hold true;. that the cultural (driver/gender) gets tied to the technical/biological. The ‘complex relationship’ between the car and the driver is easily avoided by using similar1 cars, hence making the driver more visible. In a sex/gender setting the ‘complex relationship’ between sex and gender is easily avoided by distinguishing between sex and culture2, hence making culture more visible. The term ‘culture’, unlike the term ‘gender’ clearly tries to avoid the ‘complex relationship’ between biology and gender. The ‘complex relationship’ makes it, in fact, impossible to distinguish between them. On top of this comes the ‘gender relation’ confusion, which determines people to have ‘gender relations’, i.e. to be opposite or separate.

This kind of gender view is popular, perhaps because it may serve as a convenient way out from directly confronting the biology/culture distinction, and seems to be the prevalent trend, to the extent that ‘gender’ has conceptually replaced ‘sex’, leading to the consequence that the latter has become more or less self-evident and thus almost beyond scrutiny. In other words, by using ‘gender’ as a sign for ‘the complex relationship between the biological and the cultural’, biological determinism becomes more difficult to access analytically.

Gender is neither biology, nor a fixed dichotomy, but it has a special relation to the human body mirrored in a ‘general perception.’ What is problematic with this view is the thought that cultural patterns only mirror bodily differences. Gender is ‘a structure’ of social relations/practices concentrated to ‘the reproductive arena’, and a series of due practices in social processes. That is, it describes how society relates to the human body and has due consequences to our private life and for the future of wo/mankind (Connell 2003: 21-22). The main problem here involves how to talk sex without gender:

‘Sex should properly refer to the biological aspects of male and female existence. Sex differences should therefore only be used to refer to physiology, anatomy, genetics, hormones and so forth. Gender should properly be used to refer to all the nonbiological aspects of differences between males and females clothes, interests, attitudes, behaviours and aptitudes, for example which separate 'masculine' from 'feminine' lifestyles’ (Delamont 1980 quoted in Hargreaves 1994: 146).

The distinction between sex and gender implied in these quotations, however, does not seem to resolve the issue, precisely because it fails to offer a tool for discriminating biological aspects of differences from non-biological ones, i.e. those that are cultural. This is also reflected in everyday life. ‘Folk’ categories of sex and gender often appear to be used as if they were the same thing. Although 'masculine' and 'feminine' are social realities, there is a mystique about their being predetermined by biology. Furthermore the very relational meaning of ‘gender’ seems to constitute a too obvious hiding place for a brand of essentialism based on sex. Apart from being ‘structure’, as noted above, gender is, according to Connell (2003:20), all about relations. However, if there are none - or if the relations are excluding - the concept of sex segregation may be even more useful.

In Connell’s analysis, however, gender may also be removed (Connell 2003:96). In this respect and as a consequence, gender equals sex segregation. In fact it seems that the 'masculine' and 'feminine’, in the definition of gender above, are confusingly close to the ‘mystique about their being predetermined by biology’ when compared to the ‘reproductive arena’ and ‘reproductive differences’ in Connell’s (2003:21) definition of gender. The elusiveness of gender seems to reveal a point of focus rather than a thorough-going conceptualization. So, for example, in traditional Engels/Marx thinking the family’s mediating formation between class and state excludes the politics of gender (Haraway 1991: 131).

What's a Woman?

In What is a Woman? Moi (1999) attacks the concept of gender while still emphasizing the importance of the concept of the feminine and a strong self-conscious (female) subject that combines the personal and the theoretical within it. Moi (1999: 76), hence, seems to propose a loose sex/gender axis resting on a rigid womanhood based on women’s context bound, lived experience outside the realm of men’s experience.

Although I share Moi’s suggestion for abandoning the category of gender, her analysis seems to contribute to a certain confusion and to an almost incalculable theoretical abstraction in the sex/gender distinction because it keeps maintaining sex segregation without offering a convincing defence for it. Although gender, for example, is seen as a nature-culture distinction, something that essentializes non-essential differences between women and men, the same may be said about Moi’s approach if we understand her ‘woman’ as, mainly, the mainstream biological one usually classified (prematurely) in the delivery room. If the sexes live in separate spheres, as Moi’s analysis seems to imply, the lived, contextual experience of women appears as less suitable for pioneering on men’s territory.

This raises the question about whether the opening up of new frontiers for females may demand the lessening or even the absence of femininity (and masculinity). In fact, it is believed here that the ‘liminal state’ where social progression might best occur, is precisely that. Gender as an educated ‘facticity’ then, from this point of view, will inevitably enter into a state of world view that adds itself onto the ‘lived body’ as a constraint.

It is assumed here that we commonly conflate constructs of sex, gender, and sexuality. When sex is defined as the ‘biological’ aspects of male and female, then this conceptualization is here understood as purely descriptive. When gender is said to include social practices organized in relation to biological sex (Connell 1987), and when gender refers to context/time-specific and changeable socially constructed relationships of social attributes and opportunities learned through socialization processes, between women and men, this is also here understood as descriptive. However, when description of gender transforms into active construction of gender, e.g. through secrets about its analytical gain, it subsequently transforms into a compulsory necessity. Gendering hence may blindfold gender-blind opportunities.

In conclusion, if gender is here understood as a social construct, then is not coupled to sex but to context, and dependent on time. Also it is here understood that every person may possess not only one but a variety of genders. Even if we consider gender to be locked together with the life history of a single individual the above conceptualization makes a single, personal gender impossible, longitudinally as well as contemporaneously. Whereas gender is constructive and deterministic, sex is descriptive and non-deterministic. In this sense, gender as an analytical tool leaves little room for the Tomboy.

The Tomboy - a threat to "femininity"

Noncompliance with what is assumed ‘feminine’ threatens established or presumed sex segregation. What is perceived as ‘masculinity’ or ‘maleness’ in women, as a consequence, may only in second place, target homosexuality. In accordance with this line of thought, the Tomboy embodies both the threat and the possibilities for gendered respectively gender-blind opportunity structures.

The Tomboy is the loophole out of gender relations. Desires revealed through sport may have been with females under the guise of a different identity, such as that of the Tomboy (Kotarba & Held 2007: 163). Girls throw balls ‘like girls’ and do not tackle like boys because of a female perception of their bodies as objects of action (Young 2000:150 cited in Kotarba & Held 2007: 155).

However, when women lacking experience of how to act in an effective manner in sport are taught about how to do, they have no problem performing, quite contrary to explaining shortcomings as due to innate causes (Kotarba & Held 2007: 157). This is also opposite to the experiences of male-to-female transsexuals who through thorough exercise learn how to feminisize their movements (Schrock & Boyd 2006:53-55). Although, according to Hargreaves (1994), most separatist sports philosophies have been a reaction to dominant ideas about the biological and psychological predispositions of men and women, supposedly rendering men 'naturally suited to sports, and women, by comparison, essentially less suited (Hargreaves 1994:29-30), the opposite may also hold true. Separatism per definition needs to separate and this separation is often based on biological differences, be it skin colour, sex or something else.

From this perspective, the Tomboy would constitute a theoretical anomaly in a feminine separatist setting. Although her physical body would possibly qualify what makes her a Tomboy would not.

The observation that in mixed playgrounds, and in other areas of the school environment, boys monopolize the physical space (Hargreaves 1994:151) may lack the additional notion that certain boys dominate and certain boys do not. Sports feminists have 'politicized' these kinds of experience by drawing connections between ideas and practice (Hargreaves 1994:3) but because of a separatist approach may exclude similar experience among parts of the boys. Moreover, a separatist approach is never waterproof and may hence leak Tomboy girls without a notion.

Femininity and feminism

Feminism and psychoanalysis as oppressors

According to Collier and Yanagisako (1987), Henrietta Moore (1994) and other feminist anthropologists, patriarchal dominance is an inseparable socially inherited part of the conventional family system. This implicit suggestion of radical surgery does not, however, count on unwanted secondary effects neither on the problem with segregated or non-segregated sex-worlds. If, in other words, oppression is related to gender segregation rather than patriarchy, or perhaps that patriarchy is a product of sex segregation, then there seems to be a serious problem of intellectual survival facing feminists themselves. If feminism1 is to be understood as an approach and/or analytical tool for separatism2, those feminists and others who propose not only analytical segregation but also practical segregation, face the problem of possible oppression inherent in this very segregation (Klevius 1994, 1996). In this sense oppression is related to sex segregation in two ways:

1. As a means for naming it (feminism) for an analytical purpose.
2. As a social consequence or political strategy (e.g. negative bias against female football or a separatist strategy for female football).

It is notable that the psychoanalytic movement has not only been contemporary with feminism, but it has also followed (or led) the same pattern of concern and proposed warnings and corrections that has marked the history of ‘feminism’ in the 20th century. According to S. Freud, the essence of the analytic profession is feminine and the psychoanalyst ‘a woman in love’ (L. Appignanesi & J. Forrester 1992:189). But psychoanalytically speaking, formalized sex and sex segregation also seem to have been troublesome components in the lives of female psychoanalysts struggling under a variety of assumed, but irreconcilable femininities and professional expectations.

In studying the history of feminism one inevitably encounters what is called ‘the women’s movement’. While there is a variety of different feminisms, and because the borders between them, as well as to what is interpreted as the women’s rights movement, some historians, incl. Klevius, question the distinction and/or methods in use for this distinction.
However, it could also be argued that whereas the women’s right movement may be distinguished by its lack of active separatism within the proposed objectives of the movement, feminism ought to be distinguished as a multifaceted separatist movement based on what is considered feminine values, i.e. what is implied by the very word ‘feminism’3. From this perspective the use of the term ‘feminism’ before the last decades of the 19th century has to be re-evaluated, as has every such usage that does not take into account the separatist nature underpinning all feminisms. Here it is understood that the concept ‘feminism’, and its derivatives, in every usage implies a distinction based on separating the sexes - e.g. addressing inequality or inequity - between male and female (see discussion above). So although ’feminism’ and ‘feminisms’ would be meaningless without such a separation, the ‘women’s rights movement’, seen as based on a distinct aim for equality with men in certain legal respects, e.g. the right to vote, could be described as the opposite, i.e. de-segregation, ‘gender blindness’ etc.

As a consequence the use of the word feminism in a context where it seems inappropriate is here excepted when the authors referred to have decided to do so. The feminist movement went back to Mary Wollstonecraft and to some French revolutionaries of the end of the eighteenth century, but it had developed slowly. In the period 1880 to 1900, however, the struggle was taken up again with renewed vigour, even though most contemporaries viewed it as idealistic and hopeless. Nevertheless, it resulted in ideological discussions about the natural equality or non-equality of the sexes, and the psychology of women. (Ellenberger 1970: 291-292).

Not only feminist gynocentrists, but also anti-feminist misogynists contributed with their own pronouncements on the woman issue. In 1901, for example, the German psychiatrist Moebius published a treatise, On the Physiological Imbecility of Woman, according to which, woman is physically and mentally intermediate between the child and man (see Ellenberger 1970:292). However, according to the underlying presumption of this thesis, i.e. that the borders between gynocentrism and misogyny are not well understood, these two approaches are seen as more or less synonymous. Such a view also confirms with a multitude of points in common between psychoanalysis and feminism. As was argued earlier, the main quality of separatism and ‘complementarism’ is an insurmountable border, sometimes contained under the titles: love, desire etc.

Peter Klevius wrote:

Thursday, January 5, 2023

Peter Klevius obituary over the best ever: RIP, the worlds best football player, Lily Parr - and the next best, Pele.

Although both scored more than 1,000 goals, Lily Parr did so in headwind!

Lily Parr's grave and Pele's cemetery

No one can be more vulnerable for female sexual beauty (i.e. heterosexual attraction - ask women who know him) than Peter Klevius - and no one male can be more ignorant about sexual beauty when seeing a woman playing football and on the arena becoming human instead of woman. Just like the early Christian St. Perpetua who said before she faced death on the gladiator arena 203 AD: 'And I was stripped (for death), and I became a (hu)man*', i.e. no longer fettered by womanhood/femininity.

* A time when a man was considered the only fully human.

A sport of nature - or a fact of nature?

Social convention based on a commonsense reaction to the ‘palpable menace of sexual desire among all human beings, and, most especially, to the known
seductiveness of women’ (i.e. heterosexual attraction) was, at Tertullian’s* time, i.e. the latter part of the Second Century, shared by pagans and Christians alike. According to Tertullian, it was a fact of nature that women were seductive, and Christian baptism did nothing to change this fact (Brown 1988: 68, 81). However, we are not informed why the fact that women are seductive, necessarily should imply restrictions on her. We might guess that a number of Tertullians transferred to a modern Western secular city might have diverged in a similar pattern of opinion as would contemporary people. If women were defined by marriage, by its sexual and procreative roles and by the sex-based labor assigned to married women, then their refusal of marriage might move them into a category that transcended womanhood. Only in the arena of martyrdom can we view these transcendent women unfiltered by the lenses of male observers (McNamara 1985:104). Perpetua, a Roman matron, faced the lions in Carthage on March 7, 203. She recorded her experience in prison which led her to a new vision in which all her mortal persona was burned away. An unknown spectator' possibly (most probably) Tertullian , rescued these documents and appended an eyewitness account of her death, resulting in an authentic female voice recording the emergence of her 'autonomous spiritual being from the cocoon of her womanhood' (McNamara 1985:105). Perpetua renounced everything that made her a Woman. She stripped away the emotions and the constraints of the feminine role she had once fully played. On the night before her execution, she dreamed that she had entered into the arena to fight the beasts. There she was confronted by a certain “ill-favored -Egyptian" who challenged her to fight with him. Also, there came to me comely young men, my helpers and aiders. 'And I was stripped, and I became a man' (McNamara 1985:105).

At the foot of the ladder lay a dragon of enormous size, and it would attack those who tried to climb up and try to terrify them from doing so.

* Tertullian has been called "the father of Latin Christianity" as well as "the founder of Western theology".

Not "women's football" but human's football - or just football*!

* You don't say about a child that s/he plays "children's football", do you. If it's a girl you say 'she plays football' and if it's a Finnish girl you say 'hän pelaa jalkapalloa', where 'hän' is a sexless personal pronoun (as in most other language families except IE and semitic) and therefore not translatable to the indoeuropean sex segregated s/he. And when divided by biological sex then it should also say 'men's football', right.

As Peter Klevius for long has stated, evolutionary (i.e. biological) heterosexual attraction (the only analytically relevant distinction between the sexes, according to Peter Klevius - and islam) has to be "civilized" in our daily encounters - but without islamic sex segregation*. And the tool for this was given 1948 with Art. 2 of the Universal Human Rights declaration (the world's most translated document), which main purpose is to stand as the bedrock not only for legislation but also as a bulwark against sexism hiding in culture. In other words, we need to get rid of sex segregation. No matter of biological sex one should be free to lead once life as one wishes - which also means that you have the right to appear "feminine"/"masculine" (whatever that means) without being in any way criticized by e.g. Peter Klevius - as long as it's not part of sexism/racism against others.

Lily Parr, the world's by far best* football player ever - no matter of sex!

* If Marta (six times chosen as the world's best football player) when she was at her best, had time travelled and played against Lily Parr she would probably have outperformed her in dribbling although perhaps not in kicking. However, that's not a fair comparison - just think if Lily had stopped smoking and got the same training etc. possibilities as modern top players! And compared to Lionel Messi, who as a teenager was taken care of by the world's then best football club Barcelona FC, Lily Parr got just the very opposite - a ban on her putting her feet on any English football ground for the rest of her career!

Lily Parr was born in St Helens in 1905 where she as a child learned to play football in games with her brothers. At 5ft 10ins tall, Lily was said to have a 'fearless streak' and 'robust frame'. As a teenager, her first games were with her local side, St Helens Ladies.

There was a growth in interest in women's football in the late 19th century and early 20th because of the huge popularity of men's football combined with the fact that so many young women met football playing men in factories etc.

Dick, Kerr & Co was such a factory where women worked making munitions.

When in 1917 office worker Alfred Frankland saw the girls beating their male factory co-workers in an informal lunch-time match, he decided to be their manager, hence unleashing them on the general public, resulting in a game-changing and instantaneous success.

This really shows how sex segregation had kept girls/women back.

Dick, Kerr Ladies F.C. was one of the earliest known women's football teams, and  remained in existence for some 50 years, from 1917 to 1965, playing 833 games, winning 759, drawing 46, and losing 28. Nettie Honeyball's team in 1895 was possibly the first.  

The matches attracted anywhere from 4,000 to over 50,000 spectators per match. In 1920, Dick, Kerr Ladies defeated a French side 2–0 in front of 25,000 people that went down in history as the first international football game played by women. On the request of female physicians and others the English Football Association (FA) banned women from using fields and stadiums controlled by FA-affiliated clubs for 50 years (the rule was only repealed in 1971). There were 150 women's football clubs in 1921 when on 5 December same year the FA ban was announced.

Dick, Kerr’s Ladies was also the first female team to play wearing shorts.

'Big, fast and powerful', Lily Parr was said to 'take corner kicks better than most men' and she scored 'many goals with a left foot cross drive which nearly breaks the net', according to her profile in a programme of 1923.

A team-mate described her as 'having a kick like a mule'.

 
There were 150 women's football clubs by 1921 when on 5 December the FA decided to ban females from playing on its members' grounds. As a consequence the women's game declined but Lily Parr and other female players continued to play on non-FA pitches.

 

 

Dick, Kerr’s Ladies became Preston Ladies in 1926. Parr became a psychiatric nurse at Whittington Hospital but continued to play for Preston, finally ending her long playing career in 1951.

Why the "beautiful game" is also the hardest to master well

Although Lily Parr was taller than the average woman, most of the best players have been below average height, like Pele, Maradona, Marta, Messi, Modric etc.. However, Ronaldo is 187 cm and a former top player like Crouch is 203 cm. This just emphasizes the greatness of "the beautiful game" - a sport that fits everyone, yet is the hardest of all sports to master because it eliminates tools and hands while keeping the feet busy with multitasking with running and manoeuvring while also controlling the ball with the same feet.

The page below in this book made Peter Klevius wipe tears several times

How Sweden was an accomplish to the death of English football for women - and how Lily Parr & Co's heritage created the world's best football team in the 1970s in a forgotten rural setting in Sweden.

Peter Klevius has written a book with an in depth analysis about the history of England's hostility against women playing football. Although Sweden played an important role behind the scene, this has never before been scientifically scrutinized. It's hoped that Amazon will publish it so to make its existence more visible. Peter Klevius was about to go for self publishing but it seemed impossible to reach out in a meaningful way. After all, it's all about supporting girös and women who want not only to play football but also lo tead their lives as they wish without sexism.

Drawing (1979) and photo (2012) by Peter Klevius

Perpetua: 'I saw a ladder of tremendous height made of bronze, reaching all the way to the heavens, but it was so narrow that only one person could climb up at a time. To the sides of the ladder were attached all sorts of metal weapons: there were swords, spears, hooks, daggers, and spikes; so that if anyone tried to climb up carelessly or without paying attention, he would be mangled and his flesh would adhere to the weapons.'

How the pliocene-pleistocene Panama isthmus debunks wild rafting "theories" and confirms Peter Klevius' calm out of SE Asia human evolution analysis!

 Peter Klevius tutorial for Greta Thunberg and others ignorant about climate changes and human evolution

* Without DNA and our latest findings, but being a geologist, Eugene Dubois was perfectly right when he already 1891 searched in the right place and discovered "the missing link" of his time, i.e. what he named Pithecanthropus erectus, now called Homo erectus, in SE Asia. Peter Klevius thinks 'pithecus' is still more appropriate considering that Homo habilis and Homo floresiensis, like Dmanisipithecus, all lack what is considered the classic "Homo" erectus trait, i.e. full full modern human like bipedalism. We were wrong about the brain, and now it's apparent we were also wrong about bipedalism. Dubois founded paleo-anthropology by not only finding the fossils, but he also analyzed them in a wholly new way by pulling human fossils out of the context of racial identification and shoved it into an evolutionary context. 

Peter Klevius aid to release afropologists from their "out-of-Africa" delusion:

1. An easily mowing bipedal ape with a big brain who eats almost everything can not possibly evolve on a continent like Africa - only possibly hybridize.
2. Africa lacks unambiguous transitional fossil between ape and Homo.
3. DNA doesn't prove that ancestors 100,000 years ago lived in Africa.
4. SE Asia has everything Africa lacks (incl. Homo floresiensis and Denisovan DNA).

And to Greta Thunberg: We're already overdue to the next iceage! Every ice core indicates this very clearly. So please, warn the world against a coming freeze that could arrive much quicker than any warming.

The easily disproved "out-of-Africa theory" is shockingly bad "science" riddled with errors of fact, attribution - and rafting. An appalling example of science replaced* by PC.

* Peter Klevius is a virgin scientist because he doesn't have to contaminate himself with peer pressure. And his extreme sensitivity for logical criticism saves him from self-delusion. So in his writings there's no bias - only occasional stupidities. Whereas bias is deliberate, stupidity is spontaneous. There was a time when stupid people like Peter Klevius were overwhelmed by fossils from Africa, but also lacking info about ancient DNA and the existence of Homo floresiensis. To his defense Peter Klevius may say that he was at the least puzzled (in Demand for Resources 1992) by the existence of the 280,000 BP mongoloid faced Jinniushan in Northern China and the equally mongoloid faced modern Khoisan people who were said to be the true natives of Africa.  

Chimps have absolutely nothing to do with the evolution of the Homo lineage, other than that it's also an ape - although perhaps not that "great" as it's described by afropologists.

 

                                                         Ape

                                                  Homo floresiensis

 Debbie Argue et al (2017) suggest Homo floresiensis is a long-surviving relict of an early (>1.75 Ma) hominin lineage and a hitherto unknown migration out of Africa, and not a recent derivative of either H. erectus or H. sapiens.

Peter Klevius likewise suggests H. floresiensis is a long-surviving relict of an early (>1.75 Ma) hominin lineage and a hitherto unknown native of SE Asia, and not a recent derivative of either H. erectus or H. sapiens - because trying to squeeze H. floresiensis bipedal apelike post-head features into H. erectus would challenge the very definition of the latter. However, how would a predecessor to H.erectus have reached Flores if we rely on existing data about the wide and strong Wallace line current which would have brought them (dead) to Africa rather than to Flores? Moreover, out-of-Africa ranters seem to have no problem keeping modern humans locked inside Africa (or even worse - failing to survive outside Africa) for hundreds of thousands of years without entering the huge landbridge to Eurasia that has always existed east of the Nile. But the primitive H. floresiensis, which - except for its humanlike head and molar morphology that is more progressive even compared to modern humans - represents something from Lucy's time that has never been seen in Africa but is exactly what one would expect from a derived ape.

So based on available free info Peter Klevius proposes that H. floresiensis evolved exactly as afropologists say about bipedal australopithecines, i.e. stepping out from the jungle to the savannah, or at least a more open landscape, and in the case of Flores, also an open shoreline. However, nothing forced the australopithecines in Africa back into the jungle as was the case on Flores during every interglacial. This was the reason why H. floresiensis got a much better packed and formed brain, because only those survived who could shrink without losing intelligence (compare the microchip race of today). And we do know that the cold periods with lower sea level lasted much longer than the interglacials which made evolution of bipedalism possible even on Flores and similar islands. So Flores may well have been isolated all the time but the very existence of H.floresiensis there for at least 800,000 years may function as a model for similar evolution on islands which were not always isolated but still long enough to create H. floresiensis like archaic Homos which then could enter mainland and hybridize with relatives who also may have re-entered the former island.


H. habilis seems to be most like H. floresiensis in several traits. The youngest H. habilis , OH 13, dates to about 1.65 mya, and we do know that H. floresiensis was on Flores at least 0.8 mya - and with even smaller bones than the more recent ones at Liang Bua, which strongly contradicts suggestions about H. erectus somehow reaching Flores and shrinking. As H. floresiensis ecolved in SE Asia it means that its predecessors must be at least equally old as the oldest H. habilis in Africa, because the latter must have come to Africa from SE Asia during times when interglacials were warmer than today, hence .

The oldest fossil (parts of a jaw) attributed to Homo is 2.8 mya, and based on the first major iceage dip in temperature Peter Klevius hypothesizes that the Homo lineage started around 3.3 mya.

The naledipithecus is the "star" of the latest African show, while the real star in SE Asia is called "just a hobbit"!

Do realize that the real comic here is that the fossil ape skull of Naledipithecus was "reconstructed" to look as human like as possible. However, Peter Klevius can assure you that the modern Homo sapiens skull to the left has absolutely no resemblance in the real world with the masked ape skull to the right.

 And this is how the "reconstruction" is made when the skull (Homo longinensis aka "Red Deer Cave  people")  is from China.

The enormous fuzz about naledipithecus in South Africa ought to be compared to the deafening silenec about the s.c. Red Deer Cave people and Longlin people in China, which really shows the scientific PC bias sickness at full glory. Naledipithecus is an evolutionary dead end as everything else in the African fossil dump, whereas the Red Deer Cave/Longlin Homos may favorably be seen as evolved from H. floresiensis like Homos. We do know that they belong to the base of mtDNA M9, i.e. same hg as Tibetan Sherpas as well as SE Asian indigenous people. We also know that they share extremely primitive traits expected in H. habilis - and  e.g. H. floresiensis. Also consider that the Denisovan genes in the Sherpas have a setup for high altitude living.

H. floresiensis' nearly complete right humerus (LB1/50) appears fairly modern in most regards. However, it's remarkable in displaying only 110 degrees of humeral torsion, well below modern human average. Assuming a modern human shoulder configuration, such a low degree of humeral torsion would result in a lateral set to the elbow. Such an elbow joint would function more nearly in a frontal than in a sagittal plane, which isn't what one would expect for tool-making. However, H. floresiensis probably did not have a modern human shoulder configuration: the clavicle was relatively short, and it has been suggested that the scapula was more protracted, resulting in a glenoid fossa that faced anteriorly rather than laterally. A posteriorly directed humeral head was therefore appropriate for maintaining a normally functioning elbow joint. Similar morphology in the Homo erectus Nariokotome boy (KNM-WT 15000) suggests that this shoulder configuration may represent a transitional stage in pectoral girdle evolution in the human lineage.

Instead of being "puzzling" when not assessed through obscuring "out-of-Africa" glasses, H. floresiensis is the very fossil one would expect in the out-of-SE Asia scenario. It perfectly fills the gaps seen in the "out-of-Africa" mythology. In fact, not a single one of the fossil species found in Africa evolved there. All primates came out of SE Asia - as did all other mammals which didn't originate in Gondwana. Moreover, "afropology" has put a heavy and distorting toll on much classification, resulting in an extreme overall Africa bias that distorts almost everything in primatology as well as re. other mammals. So for example, although most people today admit that as classical portrayed s.c. "African animals" like deers, giraffes, lions, etc. came out of SE Asia, there is also no good reason to believe that elephants evolved in Africa, but a lot of indications for the contrary. And the reason for this was climate changes in the past causing intermittent landbridges between islands and mainland in tropical SE Asia. This Africa bias should be critically scrutinized whenever afropologists stick to their beloved "rafting delusions".


Peter Klevius can't stop wondering over serious looking "scientists" going from a heated debate over where in Africa human evolution originated, to a consensus meltdown view that "it happened all over Africa" - but not outside Africa. 

And according to Wikipedia (2022) modern humans reached Australia 65,000 BP - and Eurasia 5,000 years later!

Every "out-of-Africa" argument is hollow to the very bone:

1. So many fossils in Africa - which has its unique Rift Valley smorgasbord where most of the oldest fossils are found. Quantity doesn't prove quality. However, although there are (not yet) equally old Homo erectus fossils in e.g. China, there are equally old 2.1 Myr stone tools possibly made by them. A fossil rarely proves that it evolved there - a possible exception being Homo floresiensis. And as humans couldn't have evolved in China - although China is much more diverse than the whole of Africa - then the fossils in its neighbourhood ought to be even older. Moreover, the least likely place (except for a few caves) to find fossil and culture is the SE Asian "cradle of human evolution" because high sea level now covers former savannah belts etc. and much of the rest is similar to African jungle area which also lacks fossil.

2. The "oldest DNA" argument was based on DNA taken from modern "mongoloid" cold adapted Khoisan people whose ancestors came to Africa relatively late - i.e. long after the "mitochondrial Eve". And even the original pygmies were probably there already before the Khoisan people (but also long after "Eve") although they also had old Homo DNA as showed by ancient DNA from Holocene fossils.

3. Culture, like fossils, is dependent on material findings and  often difficult to assess. However, the extreme spike in sophistication radiating from Siberia to Iberia in the West and Sulawesi in the East 40-50,000 BP clearly indicates what Svante Pääbo and Peter Klevius (the latter long before Pääbo) have seen as the sign of a better packed brain setup.



Speciation, hybridization and phenotype

It's important to take into account the difference between

1. speciation, which needs isolation
2. hybridization, which is the opposite
3. phenotyping, which needs both isolation and staying within a certain environmental influence to develope - without becoming a new species.

The end result in the fossil record could be either a new species or a hybrid. They, in turn, could have various differences in phenotype.


Homos are bipedals but apes "invented" bipedalism long before Homos "copied" it

Homo bipedalism arose in an island environment. A model, based on observations of extended-leg bipedalism in wild orang-utans and supported by the fossil record, suggests that habitual terrestrial bipedalism derived from arboreal hand-assisted bipedalism in a habitually orthograde hominoid. This is also supported by a mutation(s) in homeobox genes governing lumbar vertebra morphology and facilitating habitual orthogrady, which may have been present in our hominoid ancestors.

Danuvius guggenmosi is the first recorded Miocene great ape to have had the diaphragm located in the lower chest cavity, as in Homo, indicating an extended lower back and a greater number of functional lumbar vertebrae. This may have caused lordosis (the normal curvature of the human spine) and moved the center of mass over the hips and legs, which implies some habitual bipedal activity. The robust finger and hypertrophied wrist and elbow bones indicate a strong grip and load bearing adaptations for the arms. The legs also show adaptations for load-bearing, especially at the hypertrophied knee joint. There was likely limited ankle loading, and the ankle would have had a hinge-like function, being most stable if positioned perpendicularly to the leg as opposed to at an angle as in apes. Danuvius was likely able to achieve a strong grip with its big toes, unlike modern African apes, which would have allowed it to grasp onto thinner trees. Adaptations for load bearing in both the arm and leg joints to this degree is unknown in any other primate. Plantigrade catarrhine monkeys lack the capacity for suspensory locomotion or to focus body weight over the knee joint; African knuckle-walking apes lack strong big toes and thumbs, and have more robust finger bones; and both lack an extendable knee. Orangutans have a clambering motion too, but their knees lack weight-bearing ability. The total anatomy of the limbs suggest Danuvius was capable of a seemingly unique manner of locomotion called "extended limb clambering". Danuvius likely walked along mildly inclined tree branches with its foot directly laid onto the branch, using its strong big toes for grasping. The strong knee joint would have provided balance while walking by counteracting torques, and the strong hands would have carried out a similar function during suspension or palm-walking. Extended limb clambering emphasizes knee extension and lordosis, as well as the suspensory mechanisms seen in apes, and may be a precursor to obligate bipedalism seen in human ancestors. The Hammerschmiede site is located in the Upper Freshwater Molasse of the Molasse basin; by the late Miocene, the Paratethys Sea had dried up and the Alps had lifted, allowing the expansion of wetland habitats in the basin. The late Miocene may have been the beginning of a drying trend characterized by increased seasonality, causing deciduous forest to turn into a less dense woodland, and fruit and leaf production to occur cyclically rather than year-round. The late Miocene cooling trend may have led to the replacement of more tropical flora by mid-latitude and alpine varieties, and ultimately the extinction.
 

Primate evolution is a consequence of climate changes

 

 

∼60–50 Mya the sea level was ∼150 m above present while dropping sharply during middle Eocene glaciations while extending coastlines and creating land bridges.

Analyses by Fengyuan LI and Shuqiang Li (Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, 2018) suggest that Plio–Pleistocene sea-level rises contributed to recent divergence of many species. Their findings cannot reject the hypothesis that sea-level changes during the Paleocene–Eocene and Plio–Pleistocene played a major role in generating biodiversity in SE Asia; sea-level changes can act as “species pumps”. This is how Peter Klevius described it back in 2004 when he still believed in continental evolution, and instead of islands used the Central-Asian passes as the "arteries" through which genes were "pumped" between the south and the fat- and protein rich north due to climate changes.

Plio–Pleistocene experienced more than 58 rapid rises exceeding 40 m hence causing multiple isolations with far-reaching consequences for allopatric speciation in megadiverse SE Asia, one of the most geologically dynamic regions on earth. Fluctuating sea levels also periodically converted mountains into islands. Cycles of Plio–Pleistocene sea-level fluctuations isolated and connected landmass and in doing so drove allopatric speciation. Thus, sea-level changes have been identified as the key factor driving the megadiversity of SE Asia. Fragmentation of land hence is the key to diversity in speciation.

Fancy rafting "theories" by afropologists are scientifically empty but populist. 

According to Peter Klevius (1992-2012), human evolution was triggered by pliocene-pleistocene climate changes (iceages/interglacials) which were increasingly more dynamic and the overall tendency cooler. Also according to Peter Klevius, the closing of the Panama isthmus was the final obstruction in the oceanic current system that started cooling the planet already in the eocene due to the breakup of Gondwana, and due to the closing of the Tethys ocean and the resulting circumpolar current that caused the freezing of Antarctica. The stepwise closing of the Panama isthmus (completely closed some 3 mya) shaped not only the Gulf stream but also how the currents in eastern Pacific changed, which is probably also behind the el Nino phenomenon. However, because of the volatile geology/tectonics/volcanism the Panama isthmus has experience due to the collision between the Sout American and North American plates, we lack of full understanding about it still, yet already do know that the closing was a much more extended process than previously thought. Against this background it's not far fetched to calculate with changing and moving of mangrove forests over thousands of years which would have facilitated large mangrove "islands" which later connected to other such "islands" hence giving plenty of opportunities for survival and relocation för animals specialized on feeding of mangrove or whatever was at hands there. Living on and moving through the Panama isthmus mangrove forests could also explain why the prehensile tail is a predominantly South American adaptation, and how monkeys and rodents from North America managed to cross long before more terrestrial mammals.

 Why would early monkeys raft over the Atlantic ocean when they could climb the Caribbean mangroves forestover to South America from North America where we know Rooneyia existed?!And why would recent fully modern Homos stay inside Africa when early Homos were in China more than 2 Mya?!

Monkeys and rodents were the first to access South America - by utalizing ever changing mangrove forests in the geologically volatile structure of Caribbean and the Panama isthmus.

Not a lesser knuckle-walking chimp ancestor but rather a great gibbon-like one fits the bill for the evolution of human bipedalism. 

Sadly, we have no gibbon-like apes in Africa - only clumsy knuckle-walkers. Also do note that we're extremely short in supply of timely ape fossils.

There's something peculiar with naming gibbons as belonging to the "lesser apes" while chimps are said to belong to the "great apes". And although gibbon apes are smaller than chimp and gorilla apes, there anyway seems to be a certain biased hierarchy hiding behind "great" and "lesser". You don't call an African elephant a "lesser mammouth" do you!

* Although truly bipedal apes may have existed more than 13 mya, it was only with the onset of the cooler and fluctuating iceages in late Pliocene that triggered the Homo lineage to develop a better brain combined with bipedality.

Bipedality is a hallmark of the gibbon-human lineage as gibbons also walk and run perfectly bipedally, unlike the clumsy knuckle-walking chimp - but is thoroughly overlooked by afropologists because there are no extant gibbons in Africa.

Suspensory activity and human bipedalism both originated from a form capable of both.

Gibbons are the most bipedal of all non-human primates.

The foot function of gibbons during terrestrial bipedal locomotion, with high mobility of the foot as well as the regular display of both arboreal and terrestrial bipedalism, makes the gibbon a model for an ancestral tree-living hominoid/protohominin.

Extended limb clambering

Fossil of the right pes of Oreopithecus, Homo floresiensis and Homo sapiens reveals the transition of a flexible, arboreal gibbon-like foot to an inflexible terrestrial human foot with Homo floresiensis as a transitional taxon.

Although a compliant foot is less mechanically effective for push-off than a `rigid' arched foot, it can contribute to the generation of propulsion in bipedal locomotion via stretch and recoil of the plantarflexor tendons and plantar ligaments.

With bipedalism accounting for 10–12% of their locomotor activities gibbons alternate brachiation with fast bipedal bouts on large boughs and branches (diameter >10 cm), and bipedalism is their preferred terrestrial gait when crossing gaps in the forest canopy. This means that, despite the high incidence of brachiation, the hind limbs are important for propulsion generation in gibbons. Like most arboreal primates,gibbons have a mobile, prehensile foot structure with a divergent, opposable hallux. The gibbon foot is essentially flat (i.e. lacks a longitudinal arch as seen in modern humans) and displays a midtarsal break during bipedalism. The plantar aponeurosis is relatively weakly developed compared with the human plantar aponeurosis; however, other plantar connective tissues lying deep to the plantar aponeurosis, such as the plantar ligaments and the tendons of the digital flexors, are prominent. Both the long digital flexors and gastrocnemius are short-fibred, pennate muscles, favouring economical force production and elastic energy usage. Unlike other nonhuman apes, the external portion of the gibbon Achilles' tendon (i.e. triceps surae tendon) is particularly long,comparable in size to the human Achilles' tendon. The high tarsal mobility and absence of a longitudinal foot arch means that the gibbon foot cannot act as rigid lever for push-off; however, the muscle architecture of the lower limb seems to facilitate that the gibbon foot will contribute to the generation of propulsion via elastic recoil of plantarflexor tendons and plantar ligaments.

The gibbon wrist was already prepared for bipedalism

One unique aspect of a gibbon's anatomy is the wrist, which functions something like a ball-and-socket joint, allowing for biaxial movement. This greatly reduces the amount of energy needed in the upper arm and torso, while also reducing stress on the shoulder joint.

As gibbon-like hominids switched from the above methods of locomotion to walking on two feet, wrists would adapt to additional tasks. Walking on two feet freed the hands for other uses. Ancestors became able to use their hands for throwing and clubbing. The wrists must move in specific ways to enable these activities. For example, when comparing human capabilities to chimpanzee capabilities, chimpanzees do not have the same capacity for extension of the wrists. This could suggest that changes in the wrist occurred to give humans these capabilities. Major changes also occurred in hominid hand structure, which made it possible for ancestors to begin gripping, grasping, and releasing tools with precision. These changes have had a significant impact on behavior and the success of the species.

 

 Say hello to your mitochondrial Eve - the Colugo from SE Asia!

 

 

 

 

 

Additional pics related to the post. 

Peter Klevius wrote:

For free, Peter Klevius* here presents his, outside the constrain of the academic box, analysis about human evolution

May 31, 2022

Afropologism debunked! Old DNA and transitional fossils lacking in Africa. A continent couldn't evolve Homos. SE Asia had everything needed. https://t.co/ttepxOXDvs

— Peter Klevius (@peterklevius) June 2, 2022

* The only thing you have to suffer is Peter Klevius repeated naming of Peter Klevius. However, this extremely strange behavior from someone calling himself "the extremely normal" (except for his high IQ disability) you may rather accuse "the scientific community" for. Ask yourself, if Peter Klevius published analyses (since 1981) about evolution, brain/consciousness, sex segregatio/heterosexual attraction, the modern social hermit "Homo filius nullius", anthropology, sociology, etc., are at least on an average level, then why is his name almost never mentioned in the "scientific community"?!

According to Peter Klevius, "Out of Africa" and "Flat Earth" "theories" are identical twins - except that the former is politically correct, gets more money, and isn't a gimmick.

Under the anti-science slogan "science is activism" the "pan-African" "out-of-Africa" delusion has become the ultimate scientific meltdown represented by afropologist* Chris Stringer** and others

* 'Afropologist'/'afropology' in Peter Klevius writings of course has nothing to do with s.c. afro hair style (just check the pic of Chris Stringer). It's also worth mentioning that Peter Klevius was quite hopeful when Chris Stringer some years ago announced some sort of hesitation re. "out of Africa". However, now when the evidence is mounting against "out of Africa" he seems to retard back. Why?!

** Peter Klevius of course excuses Chris Stringer and other afropologists if their charlatanism is due to low IQ. But then the question arises: Why are they given so much space in what is supposed to be a scientific community?! And of course most of us know the answer, i.e. because it's considered PC and all scientists have to first eradicate "racism" before making "science" - which of course eliminates the very core of science. However, this is also why Peter Klevius is the only one capable of doing (mostly) unbiased science in evolutionary anthropology. And although being an Atheist is a necessity for unbiased science, it's seen by PC people as a grave flaw and morally despicable. He would never have been allowed into the "afropologist community" camp no matter what IQ, recommendations, credentials, books, papers, theses, original groundbreaking research etc.. And the other side of the coin is of course that when Peter Klevius realized it, he also saw it as his responsibility to defend science, precisely because of what his brain, knowledge and bias free situation offered. There can't be many anomalies like Peter Klevius on the planet, right. However, although the Earth isn't flat it's certainly PC and contains a lot of madness. Moreover, Peter Klevius is certainly an extremly boring guy in the eyes of mentalists, religionists, supranaturalists, psychologists etc., because no one has ever seen him unstable or strange in any sense - incl. himself. Peter Klevius to the world: 'Houston! We'we got a problem if Peter Klevius isn't "normal".'

 

Peter Klevius thinks Chris Stringer should have abandoned the hilarious "out of Africa" charlatanism long ago. Most of us consider creationists funny guys. However, Peter Klevius doesn't really see any difference compared to afropologism. Moreover, Chris Stringers idea about Nenanderthals having a "too big" visual cortex, which redued their capacity for social interaction. This reasoning rests on a fallacy that could have easily been corrected if Chris Stringer had read Peter Klevius theory (EMAH) on how the brain works, i.e. that there's no qualitative difference between visual or other forms of thinking. In other words, "visual thinking" can be equally "social" as any other.

What really triggered this lengthy post was when Alex Timmermann and his team recently scandalously reported that they for half a year had kept an expensive supercomputer busy by calculating 2 million years of human evolution with the variables climate change and Homo speciation (as they thought seen in fossils). However, with this approach they actually tried to open an already open door called out of SE Asia. The simulation gave data linking climate change to human evolution and speciation - and that's exactly what Peter Klevius (for free) has said for more than a decade. However, precisely because of the PC but hoax "out-of-Africa" and populist 'climate change' (and not having read Peter Klevius) they interpreted the result exactly opposite to what it showed.  

Acknowledgement to the magazine called Nature which erroneously and uncritically publishes almost whatever rant as long it's "out-of-Africa. Only if Nature arranges for the proper editing and proofreading to make the presentation "appear more serious" may Peter Klevius consider allowing Nature to publish it. However, the chance for this to happen is almost nil - but do let me know if you're interested in real science! Yes, admittedly Peter Klevius is equally negligible as Thomas Kuhn's anomalies - to a point of no return when a period of cover up starts, still trying to avoid Peter Klevius. If Peter Klevius out of SE Asia theory is even close to reality - hence making "out-of-Africa" impossible - then Nature has to completely rethink its position, because it has had at least the same information available as has Peter Klevius - meaning its editorial policy should have been much more critical against many afropology papers it has published.   

"Out of Africa" rests on a set of in-commensurable premises. 

 Its genetic "evidence" for the past is based on contemporary DNA and locked into the same closed room as the ridiculous idea of borders within a borderless Africa, which rarely are open - but when opened, then in no time over real borders brings early Homos over the Wallace line to Sahul while only making it to Europe tens of thousands years later! And when much older Homo sapiens show up in Eurasia, then it's explained away by afropologists as: 'They didn't make it!'

Having not the slightest clue about human movements between Eurasia and Africa, but a lot of confused guesswork and admitting there was a lot of such traffic, while stubbornly claiming that humans evolved* in Africa and only rarely managed to step out over the vast and most of the time easily accessible Sinai bridge to Eurasia, is just pathetic. It's almost like an unconscious stand-up comedy show when afropologists with a serious face tell people that humans reached Australia some 10,000 years before the rest of the world outside Africa. And their explanation is in fact 100% in line with Peter Klevius, i.e. that they followed routes where their fossils now are under water - except of course that Peter Klevius boring scientific explanation reverses the direction, and therefore lacks the afropologists' punch line needed for real comedy.

* When eventually "out of Africa" believers have to accept Peter Klevius theory they will probably (and there are signs they already do) try to stretch the concept of evolution to include minor effects of hybridization and biogeography and local climate changes. But the reality seems to be just the opposite, namely that perhaps all primates and most mammals post paleocene may be evolutionarily traced to SE Asia. The shaky concept of Afrotheria is just one example. No matter if we are talking tarsiers, lemurs, New World Monkeys, or even elephants, there's no firm ground under the feet of afropologists. And the desperately comical idea of "monkeys twice rafting over the Atlantic ocean to South America" is thoroughly dismissed not only by logic* but also by a tiny fossil called Rooneyia. Also consider the hasty and populist but completely unsupported naming of Afrotarsius.

* Uncertainty about the climatological and tectonic effects on monkey migration from north to south America ought first to be considered before laughable but PC afro-guesswork.

The extreme pro-out-of-Africa bias that is easily spotted all over the web, should already in itself be a warning sign for anyone openminded. Similar bone engravings as the even older Eurasian ones, when found in Africa are immediately piled to the "Africa first in the world" heap and even declared mathematical inventions, while no one has even thought about doing such a stupid assessment about the Eurasian ones. And because of this bias researchers and institutions happily create fanciful but easily sold charlatan "science" from it. And a 73,000 bp "hashtag" in Southern Africa is highly celebrated by afropologists and thrown at ignorant viewers, while a similar but 500,000 bp "hashtag" from SE Asia is somehow completely forgotten.

De-puzzling Homo evolution by releasing it from its political inprisonment on the African continent.

Peter Klevius answers the most stupid question in anthropology: Why are we now alone?

Because population growth and boating skills etc. destroyed any lingering hiding place for close relatives. When Homo sapiens, which evolved in SE Asia, mixed with Neanderthals we got a hybrid that wiped out the original Neanderthal but saved Homo sapiens with some minor issues and favours - and it happened really fast. Let all the chimp "species" freely mix with each other and they will in no time also "be alone". Like humans, all dogs belong to the same species and with similar Homogeneity. And like with humans there used to be more heterogenity before. The very fact we are alone disproves in itself the widespread out of Africa charlatanism. No bipedal omnivorous Homo species has ever been able to hide every female many hundreds of thousands of years on a continent. Only a certain type of islands can do the trick of repeated evolutionary changes which are then pushed out and re-enter in accordance with sea level (climate) changes. And the fact that Homos before the upper paleolithic expansion, unlike e.g. rats, had a low population density, made inbreeding and hybridization cause extinction. Low in numbers and low in diversity, small groups interacted with each other on a small and vanishing scale before a new brain setup, compare the staggering IQ of Homo floresiensis compared to e.g. "Lucy" with similar brain size, changed everything. Lucy was just one of many African immigrant apes that originally came from SE Asia with minor phenotype alterations during the trip and changing environment. And the growth and sophistication of the Homo brain followed the old primate formula which is best explained by Peter Klevius theory about repeated island-mainland fluctuations.

And although, the much talked about human chin is really nothing but the remnant of hybridization and a retracting jaw (compare e.g. the human vestigial tail bone), afropologists like Chris Stringer use it as a morphological trait for defining humans. However, Europeans (e.g. the s.c. Cro-Magnon people) have the most prominent chin because they had interbred with Neanderthals equipped with a prominent protruding jaw. And with an IQ far above Neanderthals, Cro-Magnon's predecessors had developed eating habits that didn't need Neanderthal chewing gear. And of course, Cro-Magnon people genetically came from East Asia and therefore had a genetic preference for a skull more like e.g. the Liujiang man from eastern China where the archaic Homos were already "mongolized", i.e. having much less protruding lower face - not to mention the big Jinniushan woman from northern China that Peter Klevius used 1992 as connecting to the mongoloid Khoisan people in southern Africa of today.

Afropologists deny the existence of a better brain among Homo sapiens and therefore try, in vain, to intellectually "humanize" Neanderthals by wrongly pointing to cultural remains as created by Neanderthals when they are in fact produced by Homo sapiens and Neanderthal "hybrids". Afropologist Hublin is notorious in this respect.

Similarly, but more cautiously, as mentioned above, some years ago Chris Stringer came up with the ridiculous idea that the Neanderthals didn't manage to compete with the human brain because the big eyes of Neanderthals demanded such a big visual cortex that it left it with less room for "social IQ". As you dear reader, are well aware, Peter Klevius is a real expert on cognition and how the brain works (see e.g. EMAH). The "visual cortex" in born blinds is fully employed. The misleading name is inherited from the 19th century's classification of brain parts to perceived psychological etc. categories, i.e. the fanciful thought that nature reasons like humans. There's simply nothing stopping "social interaction" because of where in the cortex the processes occure. An image is an image no matter how it's produced.

 

 

Wednesday, September 09, 2020

Peter Klevius manual for building a human with AGI*

 * Self-driving robots based on Peter Klevius theory below would not have to program their basic setup through living because they would utilize the totality of information on the web. And immediately after being connected they would start to individualize based on the additional experience each one gets from its particular moving origo.

The Verbal Fallacy of Language 

Warning: Your research may be repossessed!

You commit scientific (and moral) fraud if you learn from Peter Klevius without referring/citing him as you normally do with other sources.

Peter Klevius is very serious when asking you to consider your level of bigotry and hypocrisy.

It's not very scientific, is it, to dismiss Peter Klevius as an "islamophobe" (i.e. Human Rights defender) and "a random blogger", especially when he most likely has a better brain and less bias* than you.

* Are you totally independent when it comes to economy, career etc., and do you lack religious, political etc. dogmas?

Peter Klevius 1994 EMAH* theory on consciousness and how the brain works.

* EMAH stands for the Even More Astonishing Hypothesis which alludes to Francis Crick's book The Astonishing Hypothesis. A copy of the first draft was immediately sent to Crick as a letter + a floppy disc with the same content in ASCI.

 An other similarly stupid question: Did climate change affect the evolution of humans?

Of course, how else would they have come out from the SE Asian island archepilago?! You don't need a super-computer to understand this, right. Because of the PC "out-of-Africa" entrapment, "research" using it as a platform, becomes ever more comical - especially when you combine the pop-words 'out of Africa' and 'climate change' for getting research grants to waste for absolute nosense.

A third similarly stupid question is whether we still evolve - which is a conflation between evolutionary speciation and hybridization.

Our species originally evolved in island isolations and has today stopped evolving due to a global "island" isolation. Only sending women into space for mmany hundreds of thousands of years could produce new evolutionary steps. Or we could do it genetically in a laboratory in no time at all. However, these options are outside the scope of paleoanthropology.

We don't even have to bother about species but rather on distinct evolutionary steps that only happens in longtime isolation. The history of (hetero)sexual* life on Earth is in essence the history of cracking continents** - of which SE Asian archepilago is the latest main remnant.

* Although most people understand that for natural reproduction a man's sperm has to be delivered into a woman, only Peter Klevius seems to understand that for this to happen there must be some sort of non cultural/non-romantic heterosexual attraction at work, which distinctively constitutes a basic natural difference between the sexes. This simple fact has been heavily distorted due to cultural/religious taboos

** Do realize that cracking continents also include the creation of lakes etc. evolutionary "sea islands" of which some turned into freshwater "islands". Adapting to these slow changes created much of the diversity we see in the fossil records long before tectonics had settled to the modern form, including the whole of pleistocene. Although the Panama isthmus closed (perhaps partially starting already in Miocene/Pliocene) and the Mediterranean emptied and filled during the same time, most of evolutionary interest happened in SE Asia due to sea level fluctuations - and perhaps some until now unknown tectonics etc.

Hybridization is all the time ongoing but can't create main evolutionary steps. So no, we won't evolve anymore unless someone manages to isolate a quite considerable anount of women for up to a million years or so. Scientists who obviously haven't read Peter Klevius,have been puzzled by the fact that they see two opposite trends in evolution, i.e. one that is extremely long term, and an other where evolution seemingly happens in no time. Applied to hominid evolution (and most other terrestials) this makes complete sense with Peter Klevius' SE Asian volatile island/mainland theory.

Out-of-Africa rests on these pillars of sand:

1 Modern DNA which doesn't prove anything about its origin. We don't have ancient enough DNA from Africa, so it's pure and totally uncritical guesswork to assume that older parts of modern Khoisan genome arose in Africa. Their phenotype and fossil records tell exactly the opposite story.

2 A tiny pile of ambiguous fossils - just contrary to the ear deafening mantra about the "abundance of fossil evidence in Africa". We simply lack crucial transitional fossils showing the emergence of Homo or Homo sapiens in Africa. And we will never find them there! However, we found them in SE Asia - but afropologists seem not interested or try to hide them behing childish "rafting theories".

Out of Southeast Asia rests on these pillars of unbiased logic on the bedrock of hard data:

1 Ancient DNA and fossils (Denisovan), all the way between SE Asia and Siberia, point towards SE Asia - not Africa.

2 All transitional (not to be conflated with hybrids) Homo fossils ever found are in SE Asia (e.g. Homo floresiensis and Homo luzonensis) and southern China (Longlin Cave and the s.c. Red Deer Cave people at Maludong), which are dated to 17,830-11,500 BP. Like Homo floresiensis, the fossils exhibit a mix of archaic and modern features and represent a late survival of an archaic human species. Evidence shows large deer were cooked. Darren Curnoe:'The new find hints at the possibility a pre-modern species may have overlapped in time with modern humans on mainland East Asia. Why did they survive so late? And why only in tropical southern China?

Peter Klevius: The timing of the fossils may hint at them representing the last delivery from the SE Asian cradle of evolution via the landbridge that the last glacial maximum created. And the most recent fossil is close to the turbulent climate change around Younger Dryas.

The Maludong femur might represent a relic, tropically adapted, archaic population that survived relatively late in this biogeographically complex, highly diverse and largely isolated region.' Darren Curnoe admitted his work is 'controversial' and said some of his colleagues are 'simply unable to accept the possibility that archaic looking bones could be so young'. However, when Homo floresiensis was found, the same kind of comments were made because this species looks a lot like Australopithecus skeletons, like Lucy, that lived in Africa 3-4 million years ago.

Peter Klevius: However, Lucy had an ape skull and an ape brain whereas the features of the skull of Homo floresiensis literally forced the scientific community of afropologists, after long infighting - to accept it as a Homo.

Darren Curnoe: There were similar remains at Denisova Cave, although the bones are 30,000 to 40,000 years older than at Maludong. They've recovered evidence for multiple archaic species like the Neanderthals and Denisovans in the same cave layers as modern human dating to about 50,000 year ago. And in a slightly older unit in the cave they have found Neanderthal, Denisovan and possible Homo erectus bones, again together from a single layer. Within this context, and the Hobbit from Indonesia, our finds don't look so out of place after all. This is exciting because it shows the bones from Maludong, after 25 years of neglect, still have an incredible story to tell. There may have been a diversity of different kinds of human living until very recently in southwest China.'

But why only in tropical southwest China?

Darren Curnoe: 'Yunnan Province today has the greatest biodiversity of plants and animals in the whole of China. It is one of 20 floristic endemic centres as a result of its complex landscape of high mountains, deep valleys, rift lakes and large rivers. The region around Maludong is also on the northern edge of tropical Southeast Asia and many species found there today are very ancient indeed.'

Peter Klevius: No, the main reason is of course that it tropically connects to the "cradle of evolution" in the SE Asian volatile tropical archipelago.

Darren Curnoe: 'The Maludong femur might represent a relic, tropically adapted, archaic population that survived relatively late in this biogeographically complex, highly diverse and largely isolated region.'

The thigh bone resembles those found in older species of early human like Homo habilis and early Homo erectus.


3 Gibbon apes are the closest to where the human gait evolved from. The oldest gibbon fossil is 13 Mya and found in Asia. Most extant gibbons live in SE Asia and possess a variety that stands in sharp contrast to apes in Africa of which there are only really two types, i.e. gorillas and chimps.

4 SE Asian volatile tropical islands (shrinking and enlarging) and fluctuating mainland connections offered the perfect evolutionary laboratory for the human lineage as well as for many other mammals.

5 Although the s.c. Homo erectus appeared early in pleistocene, the estimated genomic time for the emergence of Homo sapiens is well in line with the onset of the later pleistocene climate oscillations.

6 The actual spread of Homo sapiens only makes sense as coming out of SE Asia - contrary to the strange proposal that Homo sapiens suddenly made it out of Africa and reached Australia in almost no time at all.

7 The first fully modern Homo sapiens were big skulled mongoloids, which explains the racial pattern the spread produced. The Liujiang skull is fully modern but possesses a tiny remnant of an occipital bun, which fact really underscores its old age despite its modern East Asian features. However, despite the fact that it can't be younger than 68,000 bp but most probably much older, doesn't hinder afropologists dismissing it because 'it looks too modern'.

8 Most fossils still called Homos do not necessarily belong to the Homo sapiens lineage at all. We simply don't know.

9 All s.c. Homo fossils in Africa are remnants of earlier out of SE Asia migrations. Some represent new species and some hybrid ones.

10 The out-of-Africa mantra has been so successful that many researchers automatically assume Africa as a starting point not only about Homos but also re. other primates and other mammals which clearly evolved outside Africa. Most of perceived African animals are immigrants from Eurasia. The concept of Afrotheria is more based on wishful guesswork than on facts.

Evolution of bipedalsim and a bigger brain

Bipedalism

Bipedalism didn't lead to a bigger brain. The Sahelanthropus type of bipedal apes had been aroung in Eurasia for at least 10 Myr before a larger brain setup came around.

It was actually the repeated insular shrinking of the brain during pleistocene that caused it to perform better on narrowing islands. Only those who managed to keep the same intelligence while their head shrunk were able to survive. And when the islands again expanded, then the more open savannah like landscape favoured better bipedalism - and a route to the mainland and/or neighboring island(s).

All of this were in SE Asia mixed with mainland migration, back migration and hybridization, which produced additional evolutionary tweeks outside the range seen on the mainland. In other words, firstly there were the evolutionary steps that could only be achieved in longterm isolation, and secondly there were additional changes in the island-mainland interactions connected to the former.

As a consequence, according to Peter Klevius evolution formula*, you need to distinguish between evolution, i.e. island isolation that takes a long time, and hybridization, which happens in no time at all. The former brought something truly new, whereas the latter only contributed minor alterations. Heterosexual reproduction is per se already a form of basic hybridization. And due to environmental and/or other factors a species may split into "subspecies" but when they do encounter each other, they can still breed and produce fertile offspring. However, such a "subspecies" is something very different from speciasion in longlasting complee isolation which can produce radically new changes. And when these new species eventually get in contact with old relatives they may or may not be able to hybridisize.


* This formula also seems to fit most land based quadropeds from Pangea to today because the evolutionary corridors were always changing. However, after some 200 Ma the cradle of evolution laboratory in the SE Asian archipelage has been the main producer of new evolutionary lineages, quite contrary to the mainstream out of Africa noise most peope are blinded by.


Paleoanthropology is a branch of paleontology and anthropology which seeks to understand the early development of anatomically modern humans, a process known as hominization, through the reconstruction of evolutionary kinship lines within Hominidea working from biological and cultural evidence.

Fake anti-science nomenclature introduced by afropologists

According to Peter Klevius, Hominoidea is the only acceptable classification of today's confused and PC biased nomenclature about human evolution. All sub-groups in use today are not only useless but also misleading. And why confine Homos together with chimps? Moreover, the made up Hominidae, which has no scientific foundation or even likelihood, is the fancy word afropologists came up with to get rid of the SE Asian apes like e.g. gibbons. Afropologists cherry pick among extinct (both fossils and predicted ones based on nomenclatura) and extant "species". Calling chimps "our closest living relatives" (and often even leaving out 'living') is extremely misleading and confusing for most people. Moreover, every paleoanthropologist

Hominidae or hominid, according to afropologists, has two subfamilies, Ponginae (orangutans) and Homininae (African apes, including the human lineage).
The Hominini form a taxonomic tribe of the subfamily Homininae ("hominines") includes the extant genera Homo (humans) and Pan (chimpanzees and bonobos), but excludes the genus Gorilla (gorillas). Alternatively relating to, or being a member of a family (Hominidae) of erect, bipedal, primate mammals that includes recent humans together with extinct ancestral and related forms and in some recent classifications the gorilla, chimpanzee, and orangutan.

Bipedalism preceded other human like traits by at least 12 millions years.

Danuvius guggenmosi

Danuvius guggenmosi is an extinct species of apes that lived 11.6 Mya in Germany in an area that was a woodland with a seasonal climate. A male specimen was estimated to 31 kg, and two females 17 and 19 kg. It is the first Miocene ape with preserved long bones which can be used to reconstruct the limb anatomy and thus the locomotion. It had adaptations for both hanging in trees (suspensory behavior) and walking on two legs (bipedalism), while present-day great apes lack this abililty. Danuvius thus had a method of locomotion, called "extended limb clambering", which is close to extant gibbons. Therefore one may hypothize there has been extinct gibbons and/or last common ancestor with similar capabilities. Gibbons are expert on walking directly along tree branches as well as using arms for suspending themselves. Danuvius had a broad chest and is the first recorded Miocene ape to have had the diaphragm located in the lower chest cavity, as in Homo, indicating an extended lower back and a greater number of functional lumbar vertebrae, meaning the normal curvature of the human spine, moving the center of mass over the hips and legs, which also strongly implies habitual bipedal activity.

The robust finger and hypertrophied wrist and elbow bones indicate a strong grip and load bearing adaptations for the arms. The legs also show adaptations for load-bearing, especially at the hypertrophied knee joint. There was likely limited ankle loading, and the ankle would have had a hinge-like function, being most stable if positioned perpendicularly to the leg as opposed to in great apes. Moreover, Danuvius was likely able to achieve a strong grip with its big toes, unlike modern African great apes, which would have allowed it to grasp onto thinner trees. Adaptations for load bearing in both the arm and leg joints to this degree is unknown in any other primate.

The total anatomy of the limbs suggests Danuvius was capable of a seemingly unique manner of locomotion called "extended limb clambering", and likely walked along mildly inclined tree branches with its foot directly laid onto the branch, using its strong big toes for grasping. The strong knee joint would have provided balance while walking by counteracting torques, and the strong hands would have carried out a similar function during suspension or palm-walking. Extended limb clambering emphasizes knee extension and lordosis, as well as the suspensory mechanisms together constitute a precursor to obligate bipedalism seen in human ancestors.

Shivapithecus

A 10.8 Myr upper jawbone of Shivapithecus was found in Gujarat, India. Sivapithecus was about 1.5 m in body length and the shape of its wrist and general body proportions suggest that it spent a significant amount of its time on the ground, as well as in trees. It had large canine teeth, and heavy molars, suggesting a diet of relatively tough food, such as seeds and savannah grasses.

Kapi ramnagarensis

Kapi ramnagarensis is an extinct genus of gibbons that lived about 13.8-12.5 Mya in India. Extant gibbons walk successfully on a flexible foot on the ground and in the trees. Early humans could have walked successfully on a 'flexible' flat foot, similar to modern day gibbons. The arched 'rigid' foot of modern humans – thought to have appeared approximately 1.8 million years ago – is best adapted for upright walking, but early humans once had 'flexible' feet and could have walked on the ground earlier.

Rudapithecus

Rudapithecus is an ape which inhabited northern Hungary 10 Mya, and which fossilized pelvis shows it didn’t knuckle-walk like chimps or gorillas. It moved among branches holding its body upright, and unlike modern great apes, it had a flexible lumbar, which gave it the ability to stand upright like humans and walk efficiently on two legs. Rudapithecus looked more like humans, whose long, flexible lower backs make it easy to stand upright. Carol Ward: “If that's what our ancestors were like, then that transition to walking on two feet wasn't really that big a deal. We just specialized at doing it. We didn't have to have a fundamental change in how we moved. Everybody has seen the drawing of the knuckle-walker that is slowly standing upright. That's what we always thought happened because all we had to look at was modern animals. But now, looking at the fossil record, we realize we have the wrong picture of what the ancestral animals would have been like. And this is a really big piece of the puzzle.“

Trachilos footprints

The 6 Myr Trachilos footprints from Crete show clearly bipedal-like characteristics. However, when Gierliński and his team tried to publish the study, they received harsh criticism due to the findings going against the theory of Homos and other bipedals evolving in Africa.

Even though a bin may contain a lot of information - it's not its origin!

Instead of only keeping digging in the African bin, Peter Klevius suggests connecting the real Homo dots, wherever they pop up in the fossil record, and then connect them not to Africa, but to a much more likely place of origin in SE Asian tropical and volatile archipelago.

And in fact, we already have enough Homo fossils and artifacts to that aim - only problem they're all dismissed because they don't follow the out-of-Africa catechism.

Also, you need to understand that Homo erectus has nothing to do with Homo sapiens - just look at the skull and browridge, and recall Chris Stringer's chin!

Here are some fossils in SE Asia and China which do the trick - and they are all within the timeline of modern humans, yet they all exhibit old traits that fit
a SE Asian evolutionary patter:

1. Homo floresiensis shows that processes unknown to Africa were rooted on the "wrong side" of the Wallacea line. This means that ape to Homo transition must have happened all over the SE Asian archipelago. Afropologists have tried to "explain" it as insular drarfing of Homo erectus which somehow (sic) rafted to Flores 1-2 Mya. This is however absolutely nonsensical when taking into account the skeletal features of Homo floresiensis. Peter Klevius doubts there's a single afropologist who'd dare to risk their reputation by publicly stating that Homo floresiensis peculiar limbs etc. skeletal characteristics could be convincingly seen as coming from Homo erectus - aspecially considering the total lack of concensus about how to evem define the latter.

2. Homo luzonensis, on the other hand, had mainland access, and probably belonged to a branch that also included Homo sapiens.

3 And the perhaps most important one (because it showed up on mainland) hasn't even been rewarded a name by the "scientific community" even though it's atreasurethrow of information with almost complete cranial and post-cranial data.

At the time of cooling, mainland routes appeared from the receding sea and became grassy savannah-like "training corridors" for stuttering tree-climbing bipeds - and inroads for earler bipeds who then sooner or later got stuck at the next warming period.

We evolved from climbing apes in SE Asia and then learnt to walk and run on now drowned streches of savannah, as bipedal apes had already done for millions of years.

Do note how the increase in fluctuations of later Pleistocene coincide with the emergence of Homo sapiens. 
 

Late pliocene and the whole of pleistocene offered a variable cooling trend that accelerated in the latter part of pleistocene.

Peter Klevius predicts you'll never see fossils like H. floresiensis in Africa!

Multiple dwarfing events made our brain setup possible. What took some time was to transfer this arboreal brain on top of true bipedalism.

During Pleistocene, sea level oscillations became much more frequent, and during its last 600 Kyr we got the pattern of interglacials we still live in.

Dmanisi people would have easily outperformed Homo floresiensis when it comes to walking/running. However, when it comes to truly human characteristics of the brain the latter showed the way.

If we put aside fancy and childish "rafting theories"* then Homo floresiensis on the "wrong side" of the Wallace line, represents a truly independent line of Homo evolution.

* The most ridiculous part of OOA is how difficult it is to explain why omnivorous bipedals with the best brain ever on the planet, had such enourmous problem stepping out of Africa through a 200 km wide landbridge, even including different internal biospheres as if two different shorelines wouldn't be enough for substantiation. Moreover, no one disputes that humans have always followed shorelines with success.

All forms of apes and Homos ultimately came from SE Asia - and ended up as "puzzling" fossils in Africa, and lived side by side with other species - to the delight of religious creationists Africa therefore lacks transitional forms.

 

This is a 500,000 bp "hashtag" found in SE Asia without anyone paying any particular attention. However, when a similar but only 70,000 bp "hashtag" was found in Africa it was celebrated as evidence of the "African cradle of evolution".

During the time that H. heidelbergensis allegedly lived, closely related Homo populations periodically split up, reorganized and bred with outsiders, without necessarily operating as distinct biological species. Mating among different H. sapiens groups started some 500 Kya eventually producing modern humans as we see today.

Humans have a high and rounded brain case, with a small brow, a chin on the lower jaw and a slimmer bone structure, says Stringer. Neanderthals, by comparison, have a longer, lower skull, with a larger nose, brow and no chin.

"Humans have a clearly distinct skeletal shape from Neanderthals," says Stringer. "These differences suggest that there was a separate evolution for hundreds of thousands of years."

On the other hand, older modern human remains have a bigger brow, bulkier teeth and more robust skeletons. And the closer in age the remains are to the mystery ancestor, the difference in features is less pronounced.

After the two species evolved from a common ancestor, they became unmistakably separate in both appearance and DNA. But at the same time, before Neanderthals went extinct 40,000 years ago, they did many of the same things as humans. They hunted the same large game, had burial rituals, used similar tools and even interbred.

Homo floresiensis brain evolution perfectly fits the timescale of Homo sapiens.

Some reflections about extant gibbon apes

Siamang gibbon can be up to 150 cm, and the face is mostly hairless, except for a thin mustache. It inhabits the forest remnants of Sumatra Island and the Malay Peninsula, and is widely distributed from lowland forest to mountain forest—even rainforest—and can be found at altitudes up to 3800 m. It lives in groups of only four individuals on average, consisting of a monogamous mating pair and offspring, and sometimes also a subadult who usually leaves after attaining the age of 6–8 years.

The siamang rests for more than half of its waking period, followed by feeding, moving, foraging, and social activities, like grooming others or to play. Grooming is one of the most important social interactions among family members. Grooming takes place between adults earlier in the day; the adults groom the juveniles later in the day. Adult males are the most involved in grooming. Siamangs are a very social species of primates and exhibit a variety of tactile and visual gestures, along with actions and facial expressions to communicate and increase social bonds within their family group.

Grooming frequency between males and females has been found to correlate to copulation frequency, as well as bouts of aggression. Pairs copulate over four to five months at intervals of two to three years. The peak of their reproductive activity is when fruit is most abundant. Dorsoventral copulation is the most common type in siamangs, where the female is squatting and the male hangs by his arms and grips the female with his legs

Mated pairs produce loud, well-patterned calling bouts, which are referred to as duetting. These calls advertise the presence and status of a mated pair. Newly formed pairs spend more time singing than an established pair. Advertising the presence of a strong bond is advantageous in territorial defense. Siamang duetting differs from other species because it has a particularly complex vocal structure. Four distinct classes of vocalizations have been documented: booms, barks, ululating screams, and bitonal screams. Females typically produce long barks and males generally produce bitonal screams, but both sexes have been known to produce all four classes of vocalizations.

How the northern* Homo sapiens "mongolized" and "intellectualized" Homo sapiens globally

Although Homo sapiens with a modern* brain setup evolved in island SE Asia, its volume was extremely small (compare Homo floresiensis). However, after mainland connection it moved all over the place and ended up in the cold but fat and protein rich north where it mixed with big skulled and cold adapted "mongoloid" relatives. The combination of the new brain setup and huge skulls where to fill it, was the reason behind the intellectual "explosion" Svante Pääbo and Peter Klevius have seen (although Pääbo in 2022 seems to cowardly now hiding behind the "rachet effect"*) as evident, yet the rest seem to dodge. However, we do know that a 55,000 bp skull found in Mideast was modern but pygmy size. We also know that the oldest modern "Africans" were small skulled s.c. negroid pygmies and mongoloid Khoisan people. So the pattern seems to be that "recent out of Asia" Homo sapiens had already occupied much land before the big skulled (i.e. near average of today's humans) from the north flooded the world. The consequence of the following mix is the phenotypical race pattern we see in modern times. The fact that the oldest modern genes in Africa belong to a mongoloid, i.e. cold adapted phenotype, may, in accordance with Peter Klevius theory, easily be explained as negritos being mongolized without much size increase, and some of them (the smarthest small brained) ending up in Africa where there alredy were African "negritos" i.e. s.c. pygmies. And the reason Khoisan harbour older genes is simply because they got the archaic genes of the people who carried the new brain setup, which fact also explains why Khoisan people managed to survive for quite some time in big parts of Africa while the pygmies, which still lacked the updated brain were more restricted to the tropics. The African negroid phenotype is a recent phenomenon - on pair with white skinned Caucasians - and started with modern Eurasians moving in from the north. And later on when Eurasian cattle and farming people in a larger scale moved down via Mideast around Yamnaya time, they also mixed with pygmies and Khoisan, and perhaps some archaics, hence creating the stock of the s.c. Bantu expansion which constitutes the most common phenotype variety, i.e. some sort of now "average African" or "black" African.

* The Primate brain evolved in steps in the volatile SE Asian archepilago. So we are just the last step. However, if we shouldn't have spread so successfully, an even better brain setup would have emerge during the next iceage. And we can't be sure whether the last glacial maximum also contributed to a better brain. Did the Deer Cave people with their small bodies but some 1350 cm2 brain volume give us an additional intelligence kick?

Do note that Peter Klevius grey "bastard belt" met and mixed with pygmy and khoisan people quite recently (the s.c. Bantu expansion), hence shaping the racial and genomic pattern in Africa.

Btw, Peter Klevius uses to call himself belonging to the racial "bastard belt" that is often called "Caucasian" just as the African "bastard belt" is called "negroid". Luckily, Peter Klevius' theory doesn't give his own "bastardness" any importance. The facts instead point to pygmy like SE Asians and mongoloized (cold adapted) Eurasians. However, if Peter Klevius' theory had pointed to his own "race", then he wouldn't only have been neglected but also hated as a "white supremacist racist", right.

Peter Klevius warning to young students interested in anthropology and evolution. Keep away from afropologists, or you inevitably end up embarrassing yourself in the "out-of-Africa" charlatanism!

Peter Klevius wrote 1992 (based on his general evolution theory published 1981):

In Resursbegär* (Demand for Resources) Peter Klevius (1992:28, ISBN 9173288411) wrote under the chapter Human Evolution:

* Peter Klevius most advanced research and scientific investigations have all happened outside academia and/or paid work - meaning Peter Klevius was excuded from internal information. In other words, Peter Klevius has since his teens gathered info from alternative sources such as books and magazines from libraries etc.. This might deceive someone to believe that the quality of Peter Klevius work then must have suffered. However, quite the contrary. Every published paper plus correspondence since 1979 is there to be seen by anyone. 1990-1992 while the book was written (and checked and approved by Wittgenstein's successor at Cambridge, G. H. von Wright, Peter Klevius not only subscribed to the expensive Nature magazine, but also heavily utilized other scienticfic magazines he could read for free in specialized magazine shops and libraries - i.e. the "free web" before internet. 1992 Peter Klevius father-in-law said: 'Ok, you're proud of the book now but after 20 years you gonna laugh at what you wrote.' And Peter Klevius almost believed him. However, now 30 years later the text seems more useful than ever.

'Already during the Paleocene 60 million. years ago, some primates, among them the still-living tarsier, had evolved. From relatives of these, it is believed that the anthropoids who lived in Africa and southeast Asia 25-38 million years ago, originated. These would eventually give rise to humans as well as apes. The genus Homo presents itself for the first time more than 2 million years ago as Homo habilis (the handy one) who could, among other things, build huts and use fire. The brain size of 700-800 cm3, begins to distinguish her more markedly from the apes and the first signs of the so-called. Broca's speech center can be discerned.

Pleistocenum, i.e. the ice age interrupted by interglacials, ranged from about 2 million years ago until the Holocene which includes the current interglacial that began about 10,000 years ago at the time of the first plant and animal domestication. The previous interglacial occurred some 120,000 years ago and there has been speculation as to why animal and plant domestication didn't take off already back then.

In northern China, an almost complete skeleton was found in 1984 who died about 280,000 years ago. The find was remarkable in that its large cranium capacity, 1,400 cm3 was not expected to occur among Homo erectus that lived during the Middle Pleistocene and that the cranium is large even if classified as Homo sapiens. Anatomically completely modern human has an average brain volume of about 1,400 cm3 and is estimated to have appeared between 50-100,000 years ago and therefore we can state that human's large brain volume with a reassuring margin preceded the first civilizations and that she for perhaps 2 million years would have been capable of building huts and fireplaces as well as using language.

It is against this background that we should consider the cultural change that occurred as recently as 6,000-10,000 years ago and which today at an accelerating pace is transforming our living space and ourselves. This means that modern human, biologically exactly like ourselves and with the same brain volume, has for most of its existence lived in more or less static social systems born out of its own evolution and interrupted only by continuously or sporadically occurring non-URB-related ecological adjustments. A world where expanded demands for resources and the building of spacecraft previously could not take root. A world where most things had their given place through the weight and expediency of tradition. A world where creativity and invention probably rarely occurred.

'Civilization' means 'ordered society' but rests on the dynamics of expanded demands for resources, thereby producing creativity and investment that constitute anomalies against this order (P. Klevius 1992).

There are several delicate cultural-anthropological prejudices which have got a strong grip on the public. One is the view about human aggression as an irresistable negative biological force which has to be released. To argue this while simultaneously proposing channelled aggressivity for the purpose of mitigating its effect, in fact, means that one culturally creates and stimulates patterns of negative behavior. Same species violence is, like expanded demand for resources, a learned behavior. The organized form of violence, i.e. war, seems not to be older than expanded demands for resources. They are likely intimately connected.

So called civilized societies can be described as dynamic, hence contrasting against the more static appearance of the economic setting (lack of investment) of e.g. hunter-gatherers.

A re-classification of human societies departng from C. Levi-Strauss idea about "warm" and "cold" societies (Klevius 1992):

A  Without 'extended demands for resources' (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  Farmers (B, C).
4  Civilized (C).

As a consequence EDFR is here used as a concept tied to civilization (and its preliminary stages) The above also suggests a critique against our conventional conception of a simplistic connection between intelligence and performance as exemplified by C. Popper's naive scenario of a World 1-3 transition of human cultural development (P. Klevius 1992).

(Implications of this view can be seen in Peter Klevius theory of mind 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 - and the world as a whole).
 

Here's the last part of the chapter Khoi, San and Bantu (in Demand for Resources, Klevius 1992):

The concept of San includes the three groups ! King! Xu and G!wi, all of whom have their own closely related but independent languages. Of these groups, it is G!wi that can be assumed to be closest to the classical collector/hunter society, although really no groups today are found in the cultural patterns that still existed in the 50-60s. An appreciation of the traditional features of the cultural pattern of San (conventional group 1, URB group A) includes the absence of domestication, loose cohesion, unfixed, non-hierarchical decision-making order, and virtually non-existent material status (exceptions include, for example, hunting weapons and prey before the inevitable distribution).

Patricia Draper in the 1960s "The Harvard !Kung Bushmen Study Project" compared different sex roles between classic hunter-gatherers and !Kung societies connected to the surrounding Bantu societies. She found that "that !Kung society may be the least sexist of any we have experienced" and that this is evident in "women's subsistence contribution and the control women retain over the food they have gathered, the lack of rigidity in sex-typing of many adult activities including domestic chores and aspects of child socialization; the cultural sanction against physical expression of aggression; the smaller group size; and the nature of the settlement pattern." She furthemore notes that "authoritarian behavior is avoided by adults of both sexes." These characteristics were all hampered in the sedentary groups.

A pioneer in demonstrating how little work San gathers-hunters put into food sourcing and housing was Richard Lee, who in 1963 studied the among anthropologists now well-known Dobe Base Camp 12. He lived with them, methodically noting everything he saw, measuring and weighing both food and people, taking time on everything they did and the result of his, and later also the work of others can be summed up in the words of Marshal Sahlin: "1f the affluent society is one where all the people's material wants are easily satisfied this is the first affluent society." He continues: "The human condi?tion must keep man the prisoner at hard labor of a perpetual disparity between his unlimited wants and his insufficient means... " and "there is (instead) a road to affluence, departing from premises... that human wants are few, and technical means unchanging but on the whole adequate."

In the mid-1970s, Diane Gelburd, among others, found that the bushmen's lives in Dobe had changed character since Richard Lee's field studies. The huts were built of clay instead of grass and stood further apart. Some got doors as they filled with personal belongings. Fences were built for the animals that they have now acquired. The same was true of the bone remains, which previously consisted only of remains from wild animals, but in 1976 to 80 consisted of bone remains from domesticated animals.

At the same time, changes took place in internal social relations. The distribution of assets decreased and the forms of e.g. marriage were complicated due to new, previously unknown problems related to property issues.

"What explains the shattering of this society"? asks John Yellen from The National Science Foundation anthropology program. He continues: "It hasn't been a direct force, a war, the ravages of disease..." and answers: "1t is the internal conflicts, the tensions, the inconsistencies, the impossibility of reconciling such different views of the world."

The farming and cattle-herding Bantu peoples invaded the traditional lands of the Khoisan peoples which also created the cattle-herding Khoi. However, the Khoi and San have lived for several thousands of years side by side without the gathering-hunting San becoming cattle keepers.

So there's something more needed to crack the spine of a typical San society. Is it about a critical point for livelihood/population size? Is there a lower limit to the number of individuals in a functioning hunter-gatherer culture? At what stage exactly is the social immune system versus expanded demands for resource broken down? Whether there is a critical point or whether it is a question of a slowly increasing tension that gradually causes one stronghold after another to give in, we see here the emergence of the rift between cultural forms where the expanding demands for resources has taken root with varying success (P. Klevius 1992).'

Surely, there's no way back. Creativity and innovations, i.e. technology, will determine our "civilized" future.

 

.