"Ideological Nonsense" Is What "Darwinists" Call Critical Thinking & Critical Thinkers Call the "Darwinian" Version of Evolutionary History "Ideological" Right Back

Maybe this is the image in your head when you read the title of this post?

In college in the late nineties, I devoured a fantastic new book called A Perfect Storm on a flight to Boston. I was on my way to visit my boyfriend in his hometown and to attend Fiesta in Gloucester, Mass. I don't know what Fiesta's like now, but in 1998 us youngsters were pretty happy that they opened the men's-only bars to women. 

Since then I haven't read any more of the Sebastian Junger's books, but I know that he has become a public intellectual. And recently,  he published an essay on Bari Weiss' site thefp.com.

It's called "How Democrats Lost Men" and you can read it for the low low price of giving them your email address so that they can send you their newsletter. (It only looks like you also have to sign up for a free trial with credit card number. You do not. The article will become available in full after you enter your email address.)

Now, why would such a thing with that title prompt me to write a post here on The Mermaid's Tale? 

You'll know immediately when you read the first big pull-out quote.

When you lose sight of the evolutionary pressures that underlie much of human behavior, you risk wandering into ideological nonsense.

These are claims to evolutionary truths, presumably about the differences between men and women. I cannot wait to read this piece and find out what those truths are! 

Of course I already know what they are. I guess I'm girding my loins with FUN so that the ideas don't hit as hard when I look at them.

I thought I'd make an athletic cup with "FUN" on it and post it here, but while grabbing a pic to use, I found this fun one that already exists. Which reminds me. When we moved into our home years ago, my then-5-year-old and I were exploring the plants in the garden and I found myself saying, "Oh, look at the cocks 'n balls! I don't know why they call them that. Isn't that funny?" That night, in my sleep, my brain remembered that they're called "hens and chicks." Maybe now you know why so many spelling and grammatical errors cock up my posts.

But before we consider Junger's ideas. I want to touch on what "ideological nonsense" reminds me of. Where have I heard that before? 

I've just been revisiting the columns of David Brooks, trying to find "the receipts" as they say for why, over the years, such a nice thoughtful person as he is could have disturbed me so. It was the evolution, obviously, but I needed to remember. The one he wrote about the infamous "Google Memo" and its author James Damore is one good example. 

Damore’s memo asserted that goals to bring more women into tech are simply unwise because of their evolved differences in cognition and psychology compared to men. About it, Brooks wrote that Damore “is championing scientific research.” About the diversity officer who said that Damore’s views, “advanced incorrect assumptions about gender,” Brooks said she “didn’t wrestle with any of the evidence behind Damore’s memo.” This behavior by the diversity officer, said Brooks, “is ideology obliterating reason.” 

Brooks supports reason over ideology in this discussion, but he does not question whether the “evidence” behind Damore’s memo is ideology.  Take a look at the wikipedia page about Damore's memo: it's not obvious to every expert that Damore's ideas are backed by evidence. Is everyone who disagrees with Damore and Brooks' evolutionary perspective (not just the "diversity officers" of the world) an idealogue? 

I'll answer that. To some people, YES. Anyone who questions the truth of a "Darwinian" perspective is an ideologue.  I teach evolution and am an atheist and yet because I have a different evolutionary perspective than the "Darwinians" of the world, I have been called a "cognitive creationist" ... in print... by a pseudonymous bleep in the Journal of Controversial Ideas whose editorial board boasts many Darwinians. 

Because I am a woman, I have been assumed to be more ideological, and less rational and reasonable, than the people who side with the ideas that I disagree with. Why wouldn't I be? Darwin said I am inferior. He used the logic of his theories of natural and sexual selection to arrive at that conclusion, by the way. 

Some people do not know that their view of evolutionary science is not the facts of life and natural law. Science is too much of a baby, still, to have accomplished such understanding. To do so would be equivalent to this: 

Evolution is true! I'm talking about assuming we know all about how it works. There are still so many fascinating mysteries. But you wouldn't know it if you didn't even think to ask any questions of the old ideas! 

But, some people are so confidently working with theories that are outdated, too simplistic, too narrow, too rigid, and even wrong to account for life on earth as we know it in 2026. 

When they believe that science knows the laws of nature, then why on earth would it even occur to them that theirs is one perspective among other legit perspectives? It wouldn't. It doesn't. So, when thoughtful, knowledgeable people disagree, what choice do "Darwinians" have but to assume others are idealogues, or worse? 

And, if ideological critics of Darwinism are cut from the same cloth as evolution-denying creationists, then why even listen to what they have to say? Why read their articles and books? When Darwinists don't, then of course they would never know that a legit, scientific alternative to their "Darwinian" view of life is evolution is true but we cannot know as much as you claim to know about how it occurred.  

And because they don't listen to other points of view, including current biological science, and because they, perhaps, don't read widely, like in history or philosophy, then they don't know that they have been part of a Victorian-born tradition that took the truth of evolution as license to tell stories which masquerade as science and carry the authority of science. They don't know that they are victims and perpetrators of an unscientific project, hardly different from faith-based religion, largely enabled by the banishment of love, scientific progress, new knowledge, and, most importantly, uncertainty from evolutionary science in the public square. 

Junger opens his essay with a scene from the civil war in Sierra Leone in 1999. He says that in the jungle town of Kenema women urged men to fight and did not fight, themselves. As an eye-witness to this moment in history, he's telling us that these sex or gender roles are ancient or universal or both compared to American society now where lots of people think that "the sexes are the same or at least interchangeable". 

That's not a very knowledgeable view of gender, how it functions and has functioned, over time and space. My first thought is to recommend a book that may not be a priority read for a lot of today's "Darwinists" but should. It's called, The Invention of Women by sociologist Oyèrónkẹ́ Oyěwùmí. 

To sum up Oyěwùmí way too briefly, there are known ways that cultures vary in their beliefs about, and practices of, gender. There is no reason to believe that one way is the ancient condition of our evolutionary past. And gender varies less, cross-culturally now, because of European imperialism and colonialism including the colonialism of academia that erased the existence of such cultural diversity. When you read about cross-cultural variation and how it's changed due to cultural interaction, then it's harder to see the present condition, anywhere, as "just how humans evolved" which is what Darwinians are often doing as if they're doing rock-solid evolutionary science. 

Back to Junger, with a long quote, 

"I’m not saying that a rebel attack in Africa should be the basis for our gender roles, or that men and women shouldn’t be exactly who they want to be in our society. But when you lose sight of the evolutionary pressures that underlie much of human behavior, you risk wandering into ideological nonsense. The far right tries to turn young men into political assets by convincing them they are the “true” victims of today’s society. And the far left tries equally hard to convince them that all masculinity is suspect and dangerous, and that the only proper thing for men to do is to back out of the room, apologizing. Both viewpoints would be absurd to anyone in Kenema."

I think that's a stretch, both of the political viewpoints and what people in Kenema would think of them. But I am just me, here, and I wasn't there. He was. So, I'm not going to argue or dwell. Next he says, 

"Given the awful binary of political messaging in this country, it’s not surprising that many young men have drifted strongly rightward over the last decade."

I agree. But also, the existing condition of patriarchy is probably more at fault or to blame than the current awful political messaging. Patriarchy needs patriarchy. And guess what it also needs? In our science-loving, STEM-prioritizing world, it needs "Darwinian" evolutionary perspectives like we're about to hear from Junger.

He lists some characteristics of men compared to women. I can only assume he believes that they are significantly due to evolved differences between men and women caused by sexual selection. All of them, not just the physical strength (which is about moving heavy weight) but the behavioral characteristics as well. This is mainstream stuff. He says he had a piece rejected at another outlet for saying so. Here's that passage:

"I also cited studies on female sexual preference, because male biology partly reflects thousands of generations of women choosing some men over others."

Well, maybe that editor knows, like many people know, that studies on sexual preferences of people today are not evidence, even "partly" so, that male biology reflects thousands of generations of women choosing some men over others. You can accept the truth of evolution on one hand and also, sanely and soundly, with the other hand, reject evolutionary psychological claims that what people say and do today is evidence for what their ancestors did and for how that imaginary behavior shaped our biology.

Junger's next sentence is, "It turns out that many male traits that qualify as “toxic” in liberal circles—dominance, strength, assertiveness—are particularly attractive to many young women looking for a mate."

This doesn't ring true to me—the "toxic" designation, I'm talking about, not what people report as attractive. [Note: A few hours after I published this, I noticed that I had mistakenly written the prior sentence as if I thought the studies reporting out what women find attractive weren't true. So I edited the sentence for clarity.] I wonder how all this is getting confused and muddled together, given how evolved sexual psyches have become so mainstream as a way to understand gender. I don't know. But I'm not out there believing that the evolutionary truth of humanity is exactly how a guy laid it out 150 years ago with no fossil record or genetics. So, maybe I'm not getting exposed to the backlash that Junger gets or sees others receiving. If I did, maybe I'd confuse rejection of old evolutionary storytelling as a personal attack on my maleness. Maybe it would be disorienting enough that I'd worry that all the young people have gone mad or stupid. Maybe I'd believe that if only they could grasp the science then it would all be better. Junger continues...

"Plenty of good men do not have those traits [dominance, strength, assertiveness], but men with those traits tend to have more sexual success than men without them. Which means that, over the eons, they will leave behind more offspring than their gentler brothers—and thus influence what men “are.”"

It's easier to assume that these things are all biological than to wade into the messiness of development and co-constitution. And, perhaps, people prefer to grant all the power to a god-like nature than to the families, cultures, and societies they're born into (a world that got increasingly weird in the Homo sapiens lineage, didn't it?). But to acknowledge the latter is to embrace the perspective not of sex or gender, not of sex and gender, but of gender/sex entanglement. Thanks to Anne-Fausto Sterling and other scholars, gender/sex makes a lot of sense to me and I co-wrote about it (open access) here: https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-031-91371-6_4.

About his rejection from the other outlet, Junger continues, "I made it clear in my piece that the violence and ugliness of the far right in this country is the exact opposite of masculinity, which is committed to protecting rather than attacking vulnerable people. But my editor still declined to run the piece, explaining, “The science seems solid, but the conclusions run counter to the political currents at this publication.”"

This is typical. No matter where you are on the political spectrum, there's really only one story that's "the science" on evolution, especially especially regarding sex differences, and it's the "Darwinian" one. For the right, it's what's right and meant to be. It's all in the Bible, after all! And for the left, it is the unfortunate or inconvenient truth... BUT we can rise above it!

I feel for Junger's frustration and anger about "toxic" labeling of masculinity, maleness, and men. But am I the only one who sees that a big part of the problem is the stubborn view of human nature, especially regarding evolved sex differences? 

The view from 2026 doesn't require that we hold Junger's view of the evolution of sex differences and so we don't have to reconcile "human nature" with what we experience right now, here and now, as we are, as humans are, today. What Junger and most everyone in the public square thinks we know about the past, we actually do not. We cannot know if sexual selection for masculinity gave us masculinity. 

Sure, I'm not speaking from consensus. I wish! But I am speaking as someone who has looked into these things. For example, here: https://ecodevoevo.blogspot.com/2026/02/whats-true-about-evolution-of-mens.html

What would this discourse look like if we had a realistic, not dogmatic and outdated, view of evolution? Evolution would be gone from the conversation, for one. And then maybe we'd be forced to realize that what we're dealing with is all sociocultural patriarchal stuff that WE DECIDE on. People would be forced to say that they want males to dominate and to perpetuate violence, rather than launder their ideas through the authority of science and shrug and say, whaddyagonnado, that's just how humans evolved.

If we realized we have the power then we might see actual progress on the problems that Junger laments. But that progress would mean fewer opportunities for men to be the real men he's imagining, it would mean fewer (or no) wars. And I guess that would ruin the economy. So I guess getting real about gender, all that hard work, no matter how great it would be for everyone, not just women, but everyone... that would be too tumultuous. Better not. Better just keep treating Descent of Man like the Bible and keep beating the drum for eternal wars...

I cannot wait for the mainstream view of human evolution, like Junger's, to remain in history where it belongs. I can't wait. Oooooh I can't wait. 

Sapiens, pages 14-15: " 'pure Sapiens' "

I took a little break to focus on some great books: 

1. The Content of the Form: Narrative Discourse and Historical Representation by Hayden White

2. Plainwater by Anne Carson

3. The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark by Carl Sagan and Ann Druyan

4. And my third time through Moby-Dick (within the last year!)— which I was planning to do later in the summer but after reading the wonderful Call Me Ishmaelle by Xiaolu Guo, I had to do it now.

And now I'm back to reviewing Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind by Yuval Noah Harari one page at a time, sometimes two.

It's so pervasive that I can't help but wonder if concocting a view of evolved human psychology as being fatally flawed—like, down to our bones, blood, and DNA—is a coping mechanism. 

(Yes, you can quote Paging Doctor Freud! right back at me.)

Maybe it feels good to believe that the people who traumatized you or your ancestors had no choice in the matter—or that they couldn't have grown up and turned out any other way—because their cruelty is "just how Mankind evolved." 

Maybe people don't realize that there is a difference between  living in reality where people do bad things and explaining them with evolutionary stories as if they are the scientific truth about human nature.

Just because evolution is true, there is no reason we must believe unknowable, untestable, unfalsifiable narratives of how that evolution happened, and what it means for us today, in order to live in the reality of today.

I can see someone using Harari's psycho-drama narrative of human evolution to cope with the Holocaust or with living in an eternally war-torn world. I think it's why some people believe that rape is an evolved adaption, as well. What people believe in order to live can be tragic, but that doesn't make it scientific. 

It's hard to imagine being alive without making sense and meaning of life. However, when that meaning is conveyed as good scientific sense or as the scientific truth, or if the lines are blurred so well that they're inseparable, then we have a problem. And that problem is exemplified in The Selfish Gene by Dawkins and On Human Nature by Wilson. 

But let's keep working on Sapiens, a blockbuster book that's some 50 years more futuristic than those and yet, here we still are... 

The section we're onto today, "Our Brothers' Keepers", begins just at the bottom of page 13. 

We've come up through several million years of hominin evolution and are now at 150,000 years ago. Here, we are "still marginal creatures" numbering "no more than perhaps a million". No citations are provided for this tricky estimate of population size. There is no way of knowing, and so the only fact checking I could do would be to look up estimates and provide citations. I'll pass. There's too much to do today. One million dispersed people sounds fine. Imaginary, but fine. 

page 14

Now we know why we're pausing to think at 150,000 years ago. At the time Harari was writing, this was the general agreed-upon emergence of Homo sapiens in East Africa, or thereabouts in space-time. 

He even says "most scientists agree" here which is a nice reminder that so much interpretation is involved in describing what little remains of the past in the dirt and in our genomes. 

Note: Nowadays, people are more likely to state 300,000 years ago as the start, since a cranium from a site in Morocco was called H. sapiens. 

https://www.nhm.ac.uk/discover/news/2017/june/oldest-known-homo-sapiens-fossils-discovered-in-morocco.html

So, here we are. We're at the point in time with "Sapiens that looked just like us" and who, around 70,000 years ago, spread into the Arabian peninsula and "quickly overran the entire Eurasian landmass". Again we're told that "scientists also agree" on this, which is good for adding nuance. 

But it also doesn't come close to conveying why there is agreement. And I don't mean why he can say there is agreement. Forget the details for a moment. Forget the evidence, or not, for there being agreement. I'm talking about why there would be agreement, as a phenomenon, at all in science. 

It's not because the truth is apparent! You don't have to agree with someone that a fossil exists, or that you're holding a fossil in your hand where you can both see that there is a fossil in your hand. Facts don't really need agreement. That's shared reality. 

In science, agreement is always about the more-than-meets-the-eye interpretation of what is plainly visible in hand, of the facts. Agreement is the construction of a shared reality. And sometimes that constructed shared reality becomes the facts themselves. Sometimes that's because new discoveries have been established as facts that no one disagrees are facts. But sometimes agreement becomes fact even though the agreement is still based only on interpretation, and yet people act like the agreed upon interpretation is the fact. But what happens when people forget that it's an interpretation? 

They do exactly that when interpretations are presented as the facts without any nuance or context. And when only the scientists know what facts and theories go into those interpretations. One of the many results of this phenomenon is that science ceases to exist in the public. They see it only as a set of facts rather than a perspective on the world and a way to find out about the universe. When we see it as the latter (a perspective, too, method, process), then we see the imperative to learn how to do it, even in a world where we have easy access to "the facts" in our pockets. 

(Too many thoughts today. Having just finishing re-reading Sagan and Druyan's magnificent D-HW, it is haunting me.)

And, with the human evolutionary past, two things are always working to shape agreement, either by confirming what was already agreed upon or by shifting what is agreed upon to something different, even if slightly: 

(1) New fossil and archaeological findings are always filling gaps in space-time and affecting how scientists agree and on what they agree.

(2) The fossil and archaeological record is necessarily incomplete. If everything preserved, then we wouldn't exist. Old molecules are recycled into new organisms. The deeper in time we go, the worse the preservation gets, the more empty space in the fossil and archaeological records. That leaves room for more interpretation, and more agreement or disagreement.

And of course there are other important shapers of scientific agreement, too: big personalities, national politics, preferences and priorities of funding agencies, etc.

These time estimates (150,000 and 70,000 years ago) have not only been revised and shifted and refined and debated since Harari's time of writing (and we won't bother to nit-pick because it doesn't affect his narrative), but they are absolutely affected by preservation bias. And preservation is biased towards the present and the very recent past. It's biased against the deep past.

And on top of that? This part of the story that Harari is telling is affected by how scientists categorize hominin fossils. As we've discussed a bit already, species are made up. Labeling fossils is not a 100% objective exercise because people are forced, by the conventions of science and language, to decide where to cut up a continuum of continuous variation, the unbroken thread, into slices of life that we call species. 

Within reason, there's no necessary right or wrong species label for a fossil hominin. So, as long as you're calling that fossil head from Morocco up there a hominin, and not a dinosaur, you're good. Keeping it in the genus Homo as opposed to Australopithecus? You're good there too, because it's more like you and me than it is like Lucy's kind. Calling it H. sapiens, and not some other Homo, is purely a judgment call, not a fact. And, if you're lucky, people will agree with you. If not, then you'll sweat it out once or twice a year when you have to face them at conferences. And you'll yell a swear word or many whenever you review their papers and grant proposals. That's how reality gets constructed above and beyond the facts themselves. 

There is enough variation over time and space in the hominin record over the last 500,000 years that there is no purely objective reason for all scientists lump it into Homo sapiens. Just as there is no purely objective reason for all scientists to split it up into many species. Right now, most aren't lumping. That's why there are "Neanderthals" and "Archaics" and "Homo heidelbergensis" and "Denisovans" and etc. etc. They could all be Homo sapiens if people wanted them to be, especially now that ancient DNA has linked us now to many of those fossils from the past.  

And the small-brained fossils of the most recent era are easier to set aside as other species, outside Homo sapiens, like Homo floresiensis and Homo naledi. Though, what we might imagine (or not) about these hominins' behavioral capacities is biased by their exclusion from H. sapiens, isn't it? 

What's in a name? "They're not like us," that's what.  

And now, after all that, I'm ready to face the main point of the pages, today: the different models for Sapiens origins. This is about where in space and time Sapiens first emerged and what happened between then and now as this single species spread far and wide all over where there were other hominins (as known from the fossil record). 

The overwhelming consensus by European and American schools of thought is that Sapiens first emerged in Africa. That's based not only on the fossil record but on analyses of living human genomes. The most genetic diversity exists in living Africans, everyone else is a subset of that variation. That tells us that the human genome has had the longest time to accumulate variation (as it always is doing, generation to generation, parent to offspring) in Africa compared to everywhere else. 

But even people who agree on that idea may hold very different views about what happened before and after and so there have been different models of the before and after proposed and debated. At first they were extreme opposites: the "Multiregional" model versus the "Out of Africa" or "replacement" model. The former thought that, once early Homo began dispersing across Africa and out into Europe and Asia, going back some 1.8 million years, gene flow between them kept evolving lineages reproductively linked, and that, over time, biogeographic diversity emerged, as it does, which helps explain present biogeographic variation. Essentially it put Sapiens back two million years. The latter saw Sapiens as only as recent as the genetic and archaeological evidence points: within the last 300,000 years (earlier it was much more recent like around 200,000 max) and since then, there had been no interbreeding with any hominins we call other names, like the Neanderthals and later Homo erectus. 

And I'd say that most people who debated these things believe that the models are valuable because debating them gets scientists as close to knowing as possible, like through agreement, via disagreement. They still won't know, but they'll have constructed a shared reality through agreement. (Whether this should be considered "science" is a whole other conversation. For now, it is and so we carry on, here.)

The subjectivity and debate involved in species designation in the fossil record is one reason that different models of human origins have been difficult to parse over the years. And still another obstacle has been the racism—real, perceived, plucked from, and projected onto—the different models. And still another, which is hardly ever explicitly stated is that the models have run their course, they've done their jobs, they've gotten us closer to the truth by showing us that they're not the truth, or at least, not the whole knowable truth. 

When I began grad school in 1999, genetics had just begun to have a huge impact on paleoanthropology and so it was playing a major role in the field's debate between two opposing models of human origins: the Multiregional Hypothesis on one hand and "Out of Africa" or "Replacement" on the other. 

The Multiregional model was an underdog from the start. The names had been named and so things were already established to be separate. How to think about them as actually just one big interconnected gene pool going back further in time than the first agreed upon Sapiens, is asking a lot, then. Not only that, but it sounds like old ideas of polygenesis. That different human races evolved independently or separately was a mainstream belief among some of the earliest evolutionary thinkers, but famously excluding Charles Darwin who believed that all humans shared one origin, as in "monogenesis." But the Multiregional model is not polygenesis. (And monogenesis is not the antidote to racism.) 

The Multiregional model is about how the evolutionary phenomena that contribute to biogeographic variation today (selection, drift, and gene flow, or lack thereof) must have occurred for as long as hominins have occurred. As hominins spread further around Africa and then, especially, across other continents, these processes would have been involved in how the local populations changed over time, as lineages. And if they all retained the ability to interbreed with other lineages, then that means, under the biological species concept, that they are one species. So, thinking with this model means that perhaps Sapiens extends to who people have long called Neanderthals, and to other hominins over the last million or even two million years ago. Remember, species change over time, and must include change over time, or else we're ignoring the reality of constant change over time. So species don't only contain variation over space, but also over time. 

So, a Multiregional model of human origins would link modern Europeans to fossil Neanderthals, modern Asians to fossil hominins there, and modern Africans to fossil hominins there. 

Lots of evolving going on in lots of places, going back further in time than 150,000 (or 300,000) years ago, perhaps back to two million years ago!

Again, to many people this seems racist perhaps because it's rooting the fact of contemporary biogeographic variation deeper in time than 300 kya or 150 kya or 70 kya. But why would a deeper origins of biogeographic variation be any more racist than people already are? The fossils don't have IQ or agression or sex drive or laziness or all the bullshit behavioral stuff people believe to be in the blood and bones of different "races" so it really shouldn't matter how old we label "Sapiens" and, in fact, it doesn't because it's a made up label. We cannot win over the racists with any model of human origins because science cannot falsify racism, it's an unscientific faith-based phenomenon! Science cannot falsify that which is based on faith. 

The multiregional model still has humans as one big, diverse, genetically-linked species over space time. That's what we are right now and no one is saying that fact is inherently racist. I'm not clear on why starting that process earlier in time and including more weirdos from the past (like Neanderthals and late erectus) in on the fun is inherently racist.  Maybe that's because I know that race is the sense we make of human variation and not any inherent system that nature devised. We are born into race, not with race. So, because of that I know that the Multiregional model is only racist if people see it that way, not because its possible truth about human origins would mean that human variation really is what racists believe it to be.

Anyway, there were reasons that model was not popular. But probably the most important reason was that another model was seen as better and so it was the popular one. And, by the way, it's got no less potential for encouraging racism!

That's the "Out of Africa" or "Replacement" model. 

In the 1990s, genetics of living people had come down on the Out of Africa or Replacement side. And then, as scientists developed the science of ancient DNA, first with mitochondrial DNA (the many copies per cell of the ancient bacterial genome that our cells use to make energy in the organelles called mitochondria), it looked like Neanderthals were a totally separate species from us, today. Okay, another strike against the  Multiregional model. When I got to grad school in1999, this debate was SNIDE as hell. The genetics appeared to make the Multiregional model look so bad. Clearly, when Sapiens dispersed out of Africa, they remained a separate species from the other hominins.

(I know it's from 2013, and back before more genetic advancements were made, but this article gives a nice overview of what goes into the scientific debate about human origins: https://www.nature.com/scitable/knowledge/library/testing-models-of-modern-human-origins-with-96639156/)

And then... and then...

Geniuses developed the methods for amplifying and studying the ancient DNA from the nucleus... the genome of fossil hominins who were preserved in persnickety enough contexts like cold dry caves to still have any of the precious molecules. And, holy fucken shit, the Neanderthal genome is right there in the living human genome. At first, it looked like it was only in Europeans and Asians, but as methods improved it was then shown to be worldwide. We all have a little Neanderthal in us, different parts of the Neanderthal genome, yes, but a little bit is there, nonetheless. And this was the emerging understanding right when Harari was writing Sapiens.

But so far we have no reason to believe he was aware of it. (We will see that he is aware of this on page 16.)

He presents the "Interbreeding Theory" (IT) which is the Multiregional model, I suppose. Though he's done so with a twist. He describes the results of the hypothetical possibility of Sapiens and Neanderthals merging in Europe as "not pure Sapiens". I think he's being cheeky. I think he's saying that if the "Interbreeding Theory" is correct, then it's the Europeans who are "impure," while the Africans whom their ancestors (and many living people today) deemed racially inferior are pure stock. 

So, yeah, I think he's being subversive, but he's using pseudoscientific habits of thinking to make his point which severely weakens it, given how I doubt most readers know what he's doing and how so many still believe in biological purity. I do think I'm reading this right but, regardless, it's a mistake to use "pure Sapiens" without saying there's no such thing, at least to an American readership! We're a bunch of racists and not too long ago our science journals were all about showing the believed-to-be disastrous effects of "miscegenation". 

Anyway, the "Interbreeding Theory" is presented rather neutrally compared to the other one. Brace yourself. 

According to Harari, the "Replacement Theory" (RT) is a doozy. It "tells a very different story--one of incompatibility, revulsion, and perhaps even genocide."

And then he says that "according to this theory, Sapiens and other humans [like Neanderthals] had different anatomies, and most likely different mating habits and even body odours. They would have had little sexual interest in one another."  

page 15

First of all, the mating habits and odors are imaginary and not knowable, so they're not anyone's scientific theory. But also, it's not clear if he's is only presenting this idea or if he's also endorsing it over the other one. Keep that in mind because it will be a pattern you see again and again throughout the book. 

Now, the Replacement Theory, he says, if true, would make us "all 'pure Sapiens'". That time he puts it in scare quotes. I'm not sure how to take that, now. 

He says a lot hinges on the debate. He says that if the RT is correct then racial distinctions are negligible but if the IT is correct the racial differences could be really old and saying so could lend power to the racists. Well, I already arrived at this implication and how I see it, which is to say, who cares? Race is made up. It's what we're born into not what we're born with, so in a racist world it doesn't matter to racists how old or young the genetic differences are between people. The differences are there and so racists can still be racist. 

At the end of this post I'm worried about two things.

1. How long it was. What the hell? 

2. That he sets up the Multiregional model/ Interbreeding Theory as the one racists will love, which is (a) not necessarily true and, like I said, pointless to worry about because race/racism is only pseudoscience, belief, and faith-based and can keep going despite the facts or because of them, either way, and (b) because the Replacement Theory is just as lovable by racists. Hopefully we'll have a chance to talk about why in the next post! Wheeee!

Page 16-19 are next. To be continued... 

Sapiens, pages 12-13: Taco Tuesday

I'm reviewing Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind by Yuval Noah Harari one page at a time, sometimes two.

We are still in Chapter 1, but I'm feeling a little punchy. I'm kind of dying to get to Chapter 8 (p. 133-159). And then I cannot wait for the bombshell on page 196. But those pages are so far away. And... the only way to get there is to get through the pages before. So... 

One foot in front of the other. It's taco Tuesday and we're onto cooking. There is a source! "Beliefs" are conveyed instead of 100% fact-sounding fictions! Let's get fired up.

Page 12

Okay! Cooking enables us, today, to...

1. eat more kinds of food 

2. devote less time to eating, specifically chewing

3. make do with smaller teeth

4. make do with smaller intestines

And as far as thinking about ancestral hominins goes... as in, what cooking would have enabled for them, as far back as Homo erectus times...

The first seems revolutionary. Cooking would have made more kinds of food digestible and therefore available for consumption. Do we know they were cooking hard to digest things? I don't believe that starches (from potato-like foods, which really should be cooked!) stick to teeth for very long and think it's only for like 50,000 years. And, here we really grasp Harari's perspective on hunting for so much of the last two million years: there was next to none of it. Well, that's an opinion, and it's nicely conservative given how little evidence there is, but (but!) there is still evidence that Homo erectus were hunting (and not necessarily only scavenging). 

And here's the bigger but. Were they even cooking? Here's some evidence to suggest they were cooking fish around 800,000 years ago.  The record doesn't really have much more than that, until we get closer to the present. 

The second seems revolutionary too when he says that chimps spend five hours chewing everyday and we spend up to one. I'm not going to fact check that. I'm sorry but I don't care about the details right now. I'm sure I masticate less than a chimpanzee. I bet I don't even spend an hour a day chewing and I buy it that chimps spend more time chewing than I do. Australopiths probably did too. Check out the trees in the A. sediba teeth! 

The third? Well, there is actually a way to look at the evidence for this one. Hominin molars do shrink over the last two million years. Why? We cannot know exactly. Like, someone might describe all the genes that contribute to the phenomenon and even then we wouldn't know why teeth got smaller. They did though.

The fourth? People have tried to estimate gut size from the shape and size of the pelvis, but it's not as straight forward as estimating brain size from the space inside the cranial bones. And so, it's really tough to know gut size of fossil hominins. So it's not easy to know if the hominins who were cooking were having smaller guts as well. And that's doubly hard to do because we have so little evidence for cooking until very recently. 

Of course when we see evidence of fire we'd love to imagine it was used for cooking but that's science fiction. Evidence for hominin control of fire is evidence for hominin control of fire. 

Harari doesn't even get into the question of how hominins could even think to control fire. It's fascinating to imagine. I think a lot of people fantasize about some genius who strikes two rocks together, notices the spark, and invents the greatest thing since sliced buffalo. But here's my own favorite fantasy about hominins who, at various times over the eons, definitely lived near hot lava:

A ready source of fire. Just poke it with a stick and go. https://petapixel.com/2013/07/13/photographer-gets-so-close-to-lava-that-his-shoes-and-tripod-catch-on-fire/

Page 13

Oh finally. He's prefaced some ideas with, "Some scholars believe..." This nuance is overdue by page 12, but at least it's here. Which scholars? He cites this news piece which contains them:

1. Ann Gibbons, "Food for Thought: Did the First Cooked Meals Help Fuel the Dramatic Evolutionary Expansion of the Human Brain?" Science 316: 5831(2007), 1, 558-60.

The idea is that cooking enabled the shortening of the gut, which is expensive tissue. And then, with what energy is freed up from growing and using big guts, our ancestors could evolve to embiggen the expensive tissue in our heads, whose higher costs were met by eating cooked food. (The idea being that cooking allows us to get more energy and nutrients from our food, and from food we wouldn't normally eat without cooking. I do not know the current evidence that goes into these ideas, but they are mainstream and I know this study has contributed to them.) 

The link between cooking, guts, and brains is made in the spirit of the expensive tissue hypothesis, but instead of emphasizing the digestive needs of plants over those of meats, it's emphasizing the even lower digestive needs of cooked food and the caloric rewards of cooked food. 

And, to digress, I think this line of thinking, about how shrinking one cost enables the ballooning of another, is what inspired the idea that our relatively smaller testicles, compared to chimpanzees, may be how we got larger brains. Why would evolution shrink anyone's balls, or keep them smaller than chimpanzees'? Well, what chimpanzees are working with sounds expensive, energetically. And so, people who think in terms of evolutionary tradeoffs might imagine that testes are some of the first things to downsize if the opportunity arises. That's selection-themed thinking. But subtly different, passive evolutionary thinking is just as legit. If size isn't a matter of life and death, then size can ride the waves, up and down, of genetic drift--a creative evolutionary process that's always changing everything that can change without killing off the lineage. 

But back to the point. Fire.

The regular control of fire for at least the last 400,000 years has been transformative in so many imaginable and unimaginable ways. Witnessing any of that transformation in what preserves of the past, however, is a major challenge! Still, we have fire. And while fire has a lot going for it, it's also destructive. Sounds exactly like a certain lineage, doesn't it? True to form, Harari ends this section by making fire an ominous harbinger of "things to come."

Page 14 is next. To be continued...

Sapiens, pages 11-12: Bratwurst and shillelaghs. Paging Doctor Freud!

I'm reviewing Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind by Yuval Noah Harari one page at a time.

Harari's portrayal of human evolution as an epic psychological drama forms the basis for this book's conception of human nature, which forms the basis for this book's narrative about history, science, tech, and the future. 

It's an understatement to say that lots of readers like it.

Perhaps they like it because it's a story they've heard before (from the Bible, Rousseau, Hobbes, so many of their religious leaders, political leaders, and college professors, and so on). And perhaps it's a story that they've already accepted to be true. And, so, perhaps they are comforted or thrilled by Harari's rendition, with added fossils!

I think there's just something about being told who you are... 

So far we've had some hints, but today's pages tell us WHO YOU ARE. 

You are a bone-smashing carrion-eating underdog, and not the good kind. 

And you didn't even give him your birthday or your palm. How did he know??????

Calm down. It's probably just more metaphors...

Page 11

Coming off the last page, we've got an appreciation for the long human childhood and all the socializing that entails. All the cooperation over all that time, while a kid's big-brained body is molded by complex cumulative culture (that's entangled with the environment) that the kid was born into. By being born into that world, the kid becomes part of it and dependent on it. It's absolutely mind-blowing when you think about it. 

Harari is right to say it feels impossible not to assume that this phenomenon is responsible for what we do, what we're like, right now. Okay.

But then there's an urge to wonder when it all began. And then there's the assumption that what preserves from the ancient past tells us when that was (or ever could). He refers specifically to "a large brain, the use of tools, superior learning abilities and complex social structures." And then just assumes that "humans enjoyed all of these advantages for a full 2 million years." 

Fact check: Brains the size of ours today did not emerge until after 500,000 years ago. So, regarding brains, Harari is talking about having a larger brain than before. It's misleading. 

Then, sure, tools. But the record could be missing so much tool use across the entirety of hominin evolution because of preservation issues. Stone is hearty, but so many more materials make great tools. 

Superior learning abilities aren't preserved unless you want to talk about learning to make stone tools, so... okay. But is that superior learning or the same learning but with superior hands? How could we know? There are no Homo erectuses to cage up or to stalk with binoculars. 

And, finally, complex social structures? He must be assuming that with larger brains comes more dependent babies with longer childhoods and that whatever it is to care for them is "complex social structure." That's not only debatable but, again, it's not verifiable because it's really not preserved. 

So while it's basically habit among scientists and scholars to point to two million years ago as the beginning of a new phase in hominin evolutionary history, to assert with no nuance what he already asserted isn't great. 

But then, to assert that during this time hominins "remained weak and marginal creatures" is just going too far. 

Perhaps, he's simply recounting the backlash to Raymond Dart's "killer ape" view of human evolution. C.K. Brain and others helped to expose the problems with calling fossilized fragments of antelope bones weapons (that ol' "osteodontokeratic" culture of theirs).  Sure those bone fragments could be used as weapons but there was no way to say that they were. 

Plus, there were examples of hominins falling prey to carnivores. So, as opposed to being "killer apes", the narrative could just as easily be that australopiths were "weak and marginal creatures" and maybe that's what Harari is carrying over and up into the genus Homo, in the last 2 million years. But there is simply no evidence to support this depiction of hominins over any other. All we know is that they were as good at leaving descendents as all the other animals who did. 

He says that our ancestors over the last 2 million years "lived in constant fear of predators." It's an engaging way to remind us what life was like. I for one would not want my flux capacitor to fail me in the Pleistocene. So... okay, constant fear. 

But now I have to pick it apart, literally, even if it was meant more rhetorically. Have you seen a herd of animals, like zebras, when there is a known predator nearby? It's in all the nature documentaries. It doesn't look like fear; it looks like vigilance. And then, if chased or eaten, then there's the fear, but that's not living in constant fear, that's momentary. 

Let's ignore the confident assertions about what Homo erectus hunted and ate, and how frequently they ate what. Let's just skip to the fun he has (and we can have) drilling down on the fact that these hominins used stone tools to bash open animal bones for their marrow. Yes. And if you haven't spread roasted bone marrow on toast, then you don't know what you're missing.

But, does such a lifestyle really earn Homo erectus the description of weak, marginal, and fearful? I'm not saying they were badass but I'm saying that saying they were badass is just as easy as saying they were weak, marginal, and fearful.  So what does that mean? It means we're not talking about facts. We're talking about feelings.

What kind of animal, like ever, in the history of earth is weak, marginal, and fearful? Who exists well enough to keep existing like that? Resorting to a life of stealing from top predators--if indeed this was a big part of hominin history (and not some overhyped aspect due to its preservation over so much other behavior)--was just as good as doing what those carnivores were doing (which often includes carrion-eating, by the way). 

So, what makes bashing bone marrow lesser than clubbing bratwurst? (What a horrible attempt to make my title make sense. I'm not sorry. "Paging Doctor Freud" is running through my head as I'm writing this post.)

Why rank behavior? Oh, that's just how evolutionary storytelling has traditionally done things, I suppose The past was worse. Progress is how things work. Evolution is when advantages over the past take over and become typical. So the thinking has gone and, unfortunately, so the thinking still goes. 

Well, if the past was so bad, then how on earth is the present?

Now, here's a sentence that escaped my grumpy pen on the page. Get a load of this:

"This is a key to understanding our history and psychology."

"This" being his imagineered day in the life of a hominin with half-to-three-quarters of our current brain size imbued with how Harari might feel as a carcass-stealing bone-smasher. It's science fiction. Science fiction is great! It's fun! It offers truths that science cannot! HOWEVER, right now, on this page, science fiction is "key to understanding our history and psychology."  

Should it be? Isn't this believed to be, even purported to be, a science book?

In the last graf (which spills over onto page 12), he asserts that other lineages who evolved to be top predators, like sharks and lions, did so more gradually than we did. Even if you could carefully make this case with evidence, like, about the rate/pace bit, you'd run into a problem with the next part: 

Those animals kept their mental health, as a result. But us? We are traumatized, like, in our evolved psychology. 

Page 12

Why was our ancestors' ecological shift a problem? It happened so fast that "humans themselves failed to adjust." We suffer from underdog mentality? Those bone-bashers had underdog mentality? And, he's saying, we still carry it forward despite, now, being masters of the planet. And so, that makes us like "banana republic dictators" who are "full of fears and anxieties over our position, which makes us doubly cruel and dangerous"... like... as a species... in our evolved psychology. 

And maybe readers read this as all metaphor. 

Or maybe they read it with a grain of salt. 

And so when they see him end this section by once again emphasizing how fast these changes in our ancestors ecology occurred, then maybe they think we're back to facts and that he's got a point. 

But this is the dangerous part! Because even calling it a "hasty jump" is not a fact, it's meaning made of some evidence, not all of which he has a very good command of (as we've seen on previous pages).  

What am I saying? I'm saying that he's getting away with armchair psychoanalysis of long dead people and with imputing their ghosts into our bodies, by occasionally dropping facts and ideas that sound like facts. 

There are readers who will just agree with his story about our psychology and there are readers who won't. But for the latter, how much of that rhetoric are they absorbing anyway? Are they habituating to the science fiction in a science book? How much of this engaging storytelling is wearing down their ability to identify it as something separate from the facts, as the book proceeds? 

The rest of page 12 is next. To be continued... 

Sapiens, page 10: Postscript Incumming!

I'm reviewing Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind by Yuval Noah Harari one page at a time.

Last time, I forgot to include something fun. 

Imagine if you will, trying to orgasm in a lit-up hospital room, on an empty stomach, with strangers (or close to it) streaming in and out to check to see how you're doing. Just as you're entering your zone, escaping into the void, or wherever you go... an intern (who is also an undergrad who took a course with you last semester and who will now be seeing your naked tits and ass and all) barges through the door to ask what you will want for breakfast after all this is over. 

Imagine how, perhaps, simply being at the hospital gives you a constant undercurrent (or worse) of fear, given what hospitals are for and what awful things happen in them (despite heroic efforts). Those are just some of the conditions we're talking about when we contextualize hospital labor and birth. 

I don't know about you, but they are not the conditions I associate with getting there, getting off, busting a nut, etc., etc., etc. (drink if you can't think of another euphemism for cumming!). I'm not equating orgasm to birth. Not at all, but many of the same awesome processes involved in human orgasm are in play in human birth. 

Where would you prefer to orgasm? Could you orgasm at all in a hospital room with other people around? Maybe that's a yes for lots of people, but would they want to? Maybe it's not so hippie-dippie, ignorant, or anti-science for people to prefer home birth after all...

I could talk about birth forever, but Sapiens does not.  

Page 11 really is next. To be continued...

Sapiens, page 10: The One With the "Obstetrical Dilemma" On It

One page at a time, I'm reviewing Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind by Yuval Noah Harari. 

Already, what we've seen on the pages pairs nicely with something Rebecca Solnit wrote in her essay called Woolf's Darkness.

"Nonfiction has crept closer to fiction in our time in ways that are not flattering to fiction, in part because too many writers cannot come to terms with the ways in which the past, like the future, is dark. There is so much we don't know, and to write truthfully about a life, your own or your mother's or a celebrated figure's, [or a Plio-Pleistocene hominin's], an event, a crisis, another culture is to engage repeatedly with those patches of darkness, those nights of history, those places of unknowing. They tell us that there are limits to knowledge, that there are essential mysteries [...] Filling in the blanks replaces the truth that we don't entirely know with the false sense that we do. We know less when we erroneously think we know than when we recognize that we don't. Sometimes I think these pretenses are authoritative knowledge are failures of language: the language of bold assertions is simpler, less taxing, than the language of nuance and ambiguity and speculation."

Page 10

The first time I read Sapiens, back in 2015 or so, I was already 8 or 9 years into doubting and critiquing the "obstetrical dilemma". (What is it? Hang on... we're getting there! If you cannot wait, then read the picture where I scribbled "OD".) 

The first years of my antagonistic entanglement with the obstetrical dilemma were off the record. Then in 2011, I gave a conference presentation about the paper that I wrote with some colleagues that came out shortly after in 2012. Harari wrote Sapiens before 2011 and even if he had written it after our 2012 paper, there's no reason to expect him to have known about it or to have been convinced by it. The obstetrical dilemma was, and still is, as good as fact to so many people. It's a perspective on human evolution that is default or preferred by a significant number of researchers.

After that 2012 paper I kept going. Not only were there scientific issues at stake, but, over time, other issues piled on. In 2014, I gave birth and, when I did, I learned a thing or two about how childbirth works (or... does not) in hospitals. That experience did not line up with many assumptions in the "obstetrical dilemma" literature where the understanding of birth is largely based on what's reported of hospital births, and where the size of the pelvis and the baby are made out to be the basis for the difficulty and "danger" of birth. 

Then, years later, to process my traumatic hospital birth, I finally, actually learned, from the experts, about how childbirth works when it's unobserved, undisturbed, and uninhibited (which is a tad difficult to experience in a hospital). Six years overdue, I took birth classes from Flor Cruz and Lia Berquist. And I've been reading like crazy, like Ali Yarrow's excellent book Birth Control, and learning from so many other great sources like Intentional Birth, Latham Thomas, Rebecca Dekker for Evidence Based Birth, Henci Goer, Robbie Davis-Floyd, Orli Dahan, etc. I read about how people who birth outside hospitals, and people around the world, describe birth. It's not always "painful" to so many people. And I'm still learning as I watch birth in a steady stream on Instagram, thanks to @badassmotherbirther.

The learning never ends because there is a lot to learn about birth and there are lots of mysteries! But one thing we do know is that birth emergencies are rarely about the pelvis or a big baby (even if that's how someone, even a medical professional, describes the ordeal). 

And another thing we know is that, under healthy conditions which are typical conditions, being in a hospital, period, makes childbirth more challenging than not. If nothing else, it can slow down the two bodies involved.  

A slow-down wouldn't be so bad if it didn't require more endurance on the part of the birther (and maybe strain the whole two-body system)... and if the hospital staff weren't afraid of rare complications that they were (thankfully) trained to treat and if the staff weren't constrained by hospital budgets and liability. So, instead, that slow-down--caused by being observed, disturbed, and inhibited in a hospital--looks like an problem or rare complication whose fix is what staff know how to do better than they know how to assist unmedicated birth (yes, this is often true). And that slow-down looks like something that can and should be fixed with a procedure that brings in the big bucks from the insurance companies. 

So, the hospital staff perform a c-section and then let the family believe it was necessary, life-saving surgery. And so, the myth of the poorly evolved female body, a problem needing a technical-medical solution, carries right on. 

Of course, I'm not talking about every hospital birth. I'm describing a trend. An overwhelming trend.

Unfortunately those truths about childbirth and so many more are not known to, I'd guess, most people in the U.S. or to many people around the world. And so much ignorance about normal healthy unmedicated birth, I'm sorry to say, extends to many nurses and doctors. That's because normal healthy unmedicated childbirth is decreasingly the normal healthy outcome in hospitals. Where would they learn about it? So, here we are, medical interventions in childbirth (including being in a hospital under the staff's control) have not only been normalized, but naturalized. 

In our culture, the mature, correct, scientific perspective on birth is not based on people in society actually knowing much about birth with personal autonomy and informed consent. Their knowledge comes mainly from Hollywood dramatizations, highly controlled (read: inhibiting) hospital conditions, and very rare complications that benefit from medical care. None of those are normal healthy unmedicated birth. What's obviously natural to these folks, because it's so obviously necessary to their minds, is techno-medical assistance. Ironically, if you talk about "natural" birth you're seen as the ignorant one! And you're assumed to be against all medical involvement. You're a hippie or a tin-foil hattie for knowing something about actual birth. I'm not going to lie. The whole thing is enraging.

If everyone learned more about actual birth, not just people who will birth, might birth, or could ever possibly give birth, but EVERYONE who knows anyone who might, then everyone who actually does the birthing would have a much much much much much much better time of it. And wouldn't that be lovely? 

For now, we've got to read human evolution books that talk about birth with such confidence from a place of such ignorance. 

And Harari's rendition of the "obstetrical dilemma" is, as they say, *chef's kiss*:

"An upright gait required narrower hips, constricting the birth canal—and this just when babies’ heads were getting bigger and bigger. Death in childbirth became a major hazard for human females. Women who gave birth earlier, when the infant’s brain and head were still relatively small and supple, fared better and lived to have more children. Natural selection consequently favoured earlier births. And, indeed, compared to other animals, humans are born prematurely..."

But can you blame him for stating the "obstetrical dilemma" as if it's fact? I mean, I know he's been stating speculation as fact, already in the earlier pages. But about the OD, I can't blame him. It's still, more than ten years after he wrote this book, a fact to so many scientists and beyond. It's still being taught in universities and medical schools as the perspective on the evolution of birth and helpless babies.  And, before I turned against it, the OD was the fact that I taught my students back when I was a graduate student teacher and that I wrote into a 2007 reference volume. [Human Origins 101, a book on human evolution whose publisher graced the cover not only with the guy from that Metallica video (love) but also with a dinosaur skeleton (stupid)]. 

My perspective on the OD changed in 2006 when I taught my very first course as the head instructor. Because I was now a teacher of my field's understanding of human evolution that meant that I was now responsible for more than my little dissertation on fossil ape feet. So, I looked into the evidence for the OD and saw none. 

And so... let me, as pithily as I can, share a little of what I meant when I wrote that there is no obstetrical dilemma and there is no evolutionary obstetrical dilemma.

Let's breakdown the story:

1. "An upright gait required narrower hips, constricting the birth canal—and this just when babies’ heads were getting bigger and bigger."

You can have a legit scientific evolutionary perspective and not believe that what evolves was needed, as in what exists evolved because it was necessary for the lineage to keep evolving and not go extinct. And so, that's why I can say the following: we can't know if an upright gait "required" narrower hips. Or, said another way (as is often done), we don't know whether hips cannot evolve to have a more capacious birth canal. That's just not something we can know, not about the past and not about the present and, when we're in the future, we also won't know. We cannot know the limits to evolution. That's god stuff, if you're into that. So, already, our premise is fraught. 

It's true that, as adult brain sizes increased in the fossil record, we can assume that newborn brain sizes did too. That's fine. that's in line with the pattern we see across living primates. The ones with big adult brains have big neonatal brains too. Of course, fossil organisms are weird, so we can't know for sure, but our babies' brains are bigger than any other primates' and so our babies' brains had to have gotten bigger and bigger over time. Harari's good there. 

2. "Death in childbirth became a major hazard for human females."

No one knows this or could ever know this. But it's what everyone believes isn't it? And deaths in childbirth today are overwhelmingly NOT about the tight fit between pelvis and baby.  

3. "Women who gave birth earlier, when the infant’s brain and head were still relatively small and supple, fared better and lived to have more children. Natural selection consequently favoured earlier births. And, indeed, compared to other animals, humans are born prematurely..."

No. The belief that we're born early is false. I've written against it in the links above. Even the people who see the evolution of childbirth with the OD perspective agree that human babies are not born early or prematurely and so they have redefined the OD to omit that "solution." 

Our long childhood is explained by our large adult brains. It takes more time to grow a big brain than to grow a smaller one. 

Our babies are weird, too. Not under-developed though! The feet don't grasp like other baby primates'. Their whole bodies are so adorably fatty. And, their head is huge and heavy, to boot. But it holds a brilliant brain. 

Being a human baby is not easy and that's interesting and has probably had profound consequences on human development and parenting over the course of our lineage. Harari is onto that, though asserting so confidently that mothers could not forage for themselves and their babies is just foolish. That's not even true now, so why would it be true back in our ancestry? We can both be amazingly selfless, sharing and caring apes while retaining female competency. We can have it all. 

We don't need the OD story to get to to revelations about the profound consequences of our big brains. Evolution is still true without the OD. Our helpless babies and our lovely parenting of them, our long, intense period of childhood learning, and our extremely cooperative nature are all still true without the OD.

Look, I know that focusing on the dangers of childbirth is a tactic to fight for abortion rights. I think we can fight for abortion rights without telling tall tales about what an evolved "dilemma" the female pelvis and the big fat human baby face. I think we can fight for science to pay attention to female bodies without telling tale tales about how "garbage" the female body is. 

So all that (plus so much more that I left unsaid today) is why, when I read Harari's words, "women paid extra", I can't help but answer with some prickly questions...

How do you mean? 

Like, we paid extra when our ancestors evolved bipedalism + big brains by (supposedly) having fucked up, weaker, inferior bodies compared to men? 

What about all the "extra" that women have paid by living in a culture that has believed that about women? 

The last graf is also something else. Scientists are all done assuming that we are the only creatures for whom the nature-and-nurture experience applies. Other animals also have a brilliant becoming in the world. They are not meat-robots. They learn like crazy in their bodies in the world. "Instinct" is now understood to be a problematic term and concept. If you prefer to take that sentiment about instinct from a luminary in animal behavior like Frans de Waal, please do. It's in his books. 

Whew. Happy to have this page behind us. Was dreading and procrastinating about this page. Don't 100% love revisiting my trauma for science. Hope people who love people will visit the links I included in this post and learn more about childbirth. It is a wonderful thing to learn about! It saved me! It makes me love the world, too. If you don't, then maybe learning about birth will make you love the world too. 

Page 11 is next! To be continued...