Week 4 Bio - "Our common ancestors may be from Europe, not Africa" & the "Gaia Theory"
Common ancestors from Europe?
Based on the evidence of an ape tooth found in Bulgaria which was dated to 7 million years ago, scientists believe they have found the youngest hominin fossil, belonging to Graecopithecus. A similar jaw bone was found in Athens in 1944 - so was our last common ancestor from the Mediterranean? From the birthplace of democracy? Of the Olympics?
It's very exciting to think that maybe we've finally found that our common ancestor is Graecopithecus - a European ape, our human ancestor. But I also question why else this discovery might be exciting. Maybe we want to show that in some way, we are not all from out of Africa. Who has to gain from this theory?
I wonder if this discovery holds ground because it's only based on two fossils. Can two fossils really generate an entirely new theory? Or are theories conveniently generated anyway because some powerful people have something to gain.
The more we read these articles on human evolution, the more complicated our history looks. Something new is being discovered everyday. I can't help but wonder how much of our inquiry into the question has to do with the "publish or perish" mentality so that researchers and universities stay competitive and relevant. I am increasingly skeptical, and that seems like the safest position to take for the moment.
Thoughts on Gaia Theory
I didn't know how to answer the question on what people think about Gaia theory today as I really don't know in general how other people feel. Instead I wanted to comment on this quote referring to James Lovelock, the chemist responsible for Gaia theory.
"Lovelock has suggested that global biological feedback mechanisms could evolve by natural selection, stating that organisms that improve their environment for their survival do better than those that damage their environment" - but how this self regulation of the planet alongside habitants promoting it takes place has not been explained.
What troubles me about this idea is that it seems like we are testing the limits of our earth and of the atmosphere in particular, our human activity destroys the ozone layer and causes climate change which is not sustainable for all life: plants, animals, people. Changes in the atmosphere are harmful for our health. So if his theory is correct, we will not survive or at least not "do well" since we are not helping our environment out.
But humans evolved as the ultimate adapters. What makes us different from other animals, monkeys & apes is that we learned to adapt in many ways, for example, we can survive on many food sources (the millions of crazy diets out there is really testimony to that!) - so can we adapt to not be so harmful to the environment? Some might view that as regression, but perhaps we would really thrive since we could possibly be a benefit to the environment rather than a harm.
I'm reminded of a good friend who studies a modern Japanese religion called Sukyo Mahikari. I don't know a lot about the religion, but when we would hang out she'd clean up every mess she made, everywhere, and say: "not a trace!" . It's one of the tenets of her religion to preserve the environment and not leave traces - it's to honor the environment and make the human footprint smaller. I always admired that. I have a long way to go personally: I should really pack a to-go cup or mug (which I sometimes do), I should pack my own cloth napkin for lunch rather than use paper ones. I should be careful about the water I use and not just because the state is in a drought. There are many more things which I probably haven't even thought of, or I've thought of it but it seemed too daunting a task - like not buying packaged food products and only shopping from the produce section or bulk section with my own re-usable bags - that would save a lot of recycling/waste!
If you have any suggestions or tips, I'm very open to that. I'm curious to know what this looks like for you. Oh, and I found an inspiring blog about a family that has had a "zero waste home" since 2008. They have a motto: Refuse. Reduce. Re-use. Recycle. Rot. Pretty nice. :)
Based on the evidence of an ape tooth found in Bulgaria which was dated to 7 million years ago, scientists believe they have found the youngest hominin fossil, belonging to Graecopithecus. A similar jaw bone was found in Athens in 1944 - so was our last common ancestor from the Mediterranean? From the birthplace of democracy? Of the Olympics?
It's very exciting to think that maybe we've finally found that our common ancestor is Graecopithecus - a European ape, our human ancestor. But I also question why else this discovery might be exciting. Maybe we want to show that in some way, we are not all from out of Africa. Who has to gain from this theory?
I wonder if this discovery holds ground because it's only based on two fossils. Can two fossils really generate an entirely new theory? Or are theories conveniently generated anyway because some powerful people have something to gain.
The more we read these articles on human evolution, the more complicated our history looks. Something new is being discovered everyday. I can't help but wonder how much of our inquiry into the question has to do with the "publish or perish" mentality so that researchers and universities stay competitive and relevant. I am increasingly skeptical, and that seems like the safest position to take for the moment.
Thoughts on Gaia Theory
I didn't know how to answer the question on what people think about Gaia theory today as I really don't know in general how other people feel. Instead I wanted to comment on this quote referring to James Lovelock, the chemist responsible for Gaia theory.
"Lovelock has suggested that global biological feedback mechanisms could evolve by natural selection, stating that organisms that improve their environment for their survival do better than those that damage their environment" - but how this self regulation of the planet alongside habitants promoting it takes place has not been explained.
What troubles me about this idea is that it seems like we are testing the limits of our earth and of the atmosphere in particular, our human activity destroys the ozone layer and causes climate change which is not sustainable for all life: plants, animals, people. Changes in the atmosphere are harmful for our health. So if his theory is correct, we will not survive or at least not "do well" since we are not helping our environment out.
But humans evolved as the ultimate adapters. What makes us different from other animals, monkeys & apes is that we learned to adapt in many ways, for example, we can survive on many food sources (the millions of crazy diets out there is really testimony to that!) - so can we adapt to not be so harmful to the environment? Some might view that as regression, but perhaps we would really thrive since we could possibly be a benefit to the environment rather than a harm.
I'm reminded of a good friend who studies a modern Japanese religion called Sukyo Mahikari. I don't know a lot about the religion, but when we would hang out she'd clean up every mess she made, everywhere, and say: "not a trace!" . It's one of the tenets of her religion to preserve the environment and not leave traces - it's to honor the environment and make the human footprint smaller. I always admired that. I have a long way to go personally: I should really pack a to-go cup or mug (which I sometimes do), I should pack my own cloth napkin for lunch rather than use paper ones. I should be careful about the water I use and not just because the state is in a drought. There are many more things which I probably haven't even thought of, or I've thought of it but it seemed too daunting a task - like not buying packaged food products and only shopping from the produce section or bulk section with my own re-usable bags - that would save a lot of recycling/waste!
If you have any suggestions or tips, I'm very open to that. I'm curious to know what this looks like for you. Oh, and I found an inspiring blog about a family that has had a "zero waste home" since 2008. They have a motto: Refuse. Reduce. Re-use. Recycle. Rot. Pretty nice. :)
Nice post! I love the idea of "not a trace" as being a tenet of a religion. It reminded me of the national parks motto - "take only pictures, leave only footprints," which I also love. It made me wonder what would happen if we tried to use this motto not only in places designated as preserves, but everywhere. What if we viewed the whole earth as something wondrous - something captivating enough to take pictures of, and sacred enough not to change? This can be hard in cities where we are so removed from nature. Very rarely are we even in contact with the earth - always though cement or concrete. This I think makes it harder to remember that we are leaving a trace. I know I'm far more aware of my affect on the earth when I go out and spend time with it in nature.
ReplyDelete