Human Pre-History

This is an article on human compassion extending beyond homo sapien sapiens.

I have just finished reading a very interesting book by Alan Walker and Pat Shipman, _The Wisdom of the Bones_ (New York: Alfred Knopf, 1996). This book raises several issues which bear on the thesis I have advocated, namely, that in order to account for the anthropological data, Adam must have been either Homo habilis or Homo erectus. Most Christians are loathe to consider such a hypothesis, preferring to reserve the term “human” to those who look like us, i.e. anatomically modern humans. Unfortunately, this viewpoint ignores some of the most interesting details found in the fossil record. The record of care and compassion on the part of Homo erectus would seem to go beyond what can be expected of a mere ape. The case of a fossil known as KNM-ER 1808 exemplifies the care of a human, even if 1808 looked a lot different from us.

It has long been known that Neanderthal’s show much evidence of treating their companions with compassion and care. Klein (1989, p. 334) writes:

“However, the same skeletal pathologies and injuries that show that the Neanderthals lived risky lives and aged early also reveal a strikingly ‘human’ feature of their social life. The La Chapelle-aux-Saints and Shanidar 1 individuals, for example, must have been severely incapacitated and would have died even earlier without substantial help and care from their comrades. This implicit group concern for the old and sick may have permitted Neanderthals to live longer than any of their predecessors, and it is the most recognizably human, nonmaterial aspect of their behavior that can be directly inferred from the archeological record.”

Some christians have accepted such evidence and accept the humanity of Neanderthal but not of Homo erectus. John Wiester (1983, p. 181) wrote:

“There is additional evidence of those qualities associated with humanity at the Shanidar cave. The analysis of undeveloped bone structure indicates that another man, known as Shanidar I, was a severe cripple from birth. His right arm was entirely useless and may have been amputated just above the elbow. Extensive bone scar tissue indicates that he was blind in his left eye. He was apparently cared for by his people until his death at age forty, a very old age by Neanderthal standards. This is the first sign of compassion and tenderness in the archeological record.”

If you read farther from the beginning, which I quoted, you will note a group of scientists studying and observing chimps. You will notice how that regardless of what the human observers felt, they would not attempt direct intervention except in one case where the life of their subjects might be in danger. I bring this to your attention because along with compassion, self-rationalization and justification is also a human trait and part of the human condition. If you have ever heard of Star Trek’s Prime Directive, you will see the similarity.

I have my [own] theory and conclusion based upon this article. I tend to think that the human pair bonding and the human sociological group network of mutual support, did indeed create compassion amongst us. Compassion as defined by putting yourself into another person’s shoes and knowing that their suffering might be your suffering. The principle of reciprocity then begins working, in that you help others because you want others to help you. The principle of reciprocity or aka Meta-Golden Rule, requires abstract thought however. An imagination even.

I won’t pretend to know why our ancestors millions of years ago helped cripples. Perhaps it was love, compassion, or some other instinct at work. Perhaps it was even tribal suicide or just honor.

However, I do know that helping cripples back in their day was extremely resource intensive, resources that was not going into the greater tribe. It required taking additional risks for a member of the group that couldn’t pull their own weight, and remember that this was in the day of eat or be eaten. No electricity, no steel even. Regardless of their motivation for such an act, Nature would have been extremely harsh and punishing of such behavior.

But you know, perhaps some pairs survived, certainly some of them would have survived if it was just a bone break, a fracture that wouldn’t entirely cripple a man or woman. I say pairs because I tend to think the reproduction-survival instinct and bond would have been powerful enough for a person to help his or her partner. Certainly we see some of the same types of risk taking in lovers. Back then, risk taking was definitely helping a cripple and giving them food/water. You had to protect them when they were weak, take personal risks yourself to get food not only for yourself but for your partner. Not many people could have done this. Not many at all. And if you recall, most of human history is explained through dictators, tyrants, and military raids crushing the life out of people, farmers, etc. No amount of pair bonding dedication or love could stand up against that. [human civilization didn’t get organized to that level during Homo Erectus of course]

But in our hunter-gatherer days, perhaps it might have. Perhaps the genes for protector-ultimate killer were passed along. Certainly it could explain the US military, as both capable of immense destruction but also uncalculable good and construction.

Back in the day, you had to be a killer, to protect yourself and your folks/tribe. Both against inhuman threats and human ones. Perhaps not just in the day, given current events.

I am also reminded of what it took to go to America. We got the best people, the risk takers, that experienced horrible conditions but through their sacrifice, allowed a much better life for their sons and daughters. Working so that your loved ones can benefit or survive longer, is this not simply a more advanced version of what the fossil records showed?

I don’t think American compassion is genetic, but I do think it has been earned. As all genetic templates were earned, by someone in our past.

It takes strength, skill, and compassion to be able to take care of someone hurt and wounded, that cannot take care of themself. The same may be said for good government.

It doesn’t take much power to take a rock, splatter the brains of the crippled human, and then steal its stuff and eat its brain. Not much power at all, folks. Like taking candy from a baby. But that’s not true strength, you know, and nature only respected true strength. So humanity came to respect true strength, you can see it in how we wish for a strong leader, a leader that will give us great victories and glory.

People criticize American foreign policy as going into Iraq and Afghanistan, killing its people, and destroying the country, which causes all Muslims to justifiably hate Americans.

Like I said before, why would we need to feed and take care of a crippled human being when splattering its brains out with a rock would be both more profitable and easier? Why is simple to answer, because we are more powerful than the idiots and corrupt bureacrats in the rest of the world. Both as a nation and as individual human beings.

Only the powerful in our past have been able to afford compassion and mercy and the same is true for today’s world. The thing is though, those people acting as if they have compassion are already being protected by American power, so obviously they don’t want us to extend our protection to Afghanistanis or Iraqis. That would endanger their feel good safety, after all.

It’s time to let nature takes its turn on some folks. Only then can they grow. It is true that the United States cannot protect everyone, so why not leave Europe to die or live on its own merits, while we dedicate our energy to protecting people that actually wants to become stronger and better?

Strength will tell in the end, if not blood.

I think in a sense, my argument as I have laid out illustrates the world situation pretty well. Far better than the UN/WMD/etc debates.

There are two organizations with the motto, to Liberate the Oppressed. The ACLU and the Special Forces “De Oppresso Liber”. You decide which one is strong enough to make good on their promises.

Explore posts in the same categories: History, Humanity