Humans Hunted by Herbivores

As with many of my flighty or subterranean ideas ruminating in and out of consciousness, this is one narrative of deep anthropogenical “predicting of the past” that has heretofore not had a landing space on the surface for which it could clearly be elaborated and connected. Now a clear and propelling catalyst has emerged—thanks to the awesome possibilities ¿unEarthed? by a recent post by Ria Montana—so that this anthropogenic chapter in the human story can emerge without a stark aloofness. This narrative (for lack of a better word) is in answer to the direct and perhaps simplified question:

Why did the proto-human primate-types leave the trees and become the upright humans that we see today?

In rough terms my answer is the following:

→ Our ancestors as forest animals were deeply embedded in the fungal dominated forest eco-system and were quite connected to the needs of the forests, and were acutely aware of encroaching grassland herd species of animals (large ruminants, mostly) that were chipping away at the forest edges over the generations and quickly bringing the land to a succession towards bacterial dominated grass lands. Frugivorian humans turned hunters were the forests’ answer to these “herbivore” predators displacing the forest ecosystem at a cancerous rate (in an Eon-ic time scale) in to a new bacterial dominated savannah and grassland. Humans were the paleo (but not pale) white blood cells of the forest’s immune system, the animals most fit to restore a balanced relationship between the fungal soils and the bacteria soils. Up to this point the Earth had not yet evolved an effective ecological control on the indomitable marauding masses of unsizably large ruminants, but that was to change with the ascent of humans in to this new “grand-stewardship” role.

→ Possible origins of our nearer-side nomadic patterns and our shift to an omnivorous diet (away from a more strictly frugivorian one) can now be offered, as these humans leaving the full ecosystem of the forest would now be exposed to the lands of two annual seasons: wet and dry. During the peak dry and peak wet seasons humans would preferably migrate to forest ecologies where a water and fruit supply could be attained, and their sensitive bodies could better thermally modulate and keep from being too hot and burning or two wet and shivering; during the intermediary times when faring in the less protected grassland ecology was more plausible and the rivers and springs ran with fresh strong water, humans would do a greater deal of hunting and carrying out of their forest immuno-responsibilities. This bi-modality of shifting nomadically from open grasslands to the retreat of a protective forest could be looked at as humanity’s first engagement in geographically and climatologically determined guerrilla warfare. Unfortunately, this lifestyle, given that it eventually unbalanced to bring surplus rather than sustenance, might have planted the seeds that saw human vigilance begin to wane, and the human championing of life’s cause be replaced by human’s championing themselves, from the species on down now to the individual, against the world.

→ The not innately-violent humans—used to being a link in the life cycle eating the freely given fruits of the forest—had now become the champions of the forest. They had to devise ways and methods to “dehumanize” the fellow mammals they were sent to slaughter, and such symbolic methods of separation became our downfall and the current downfall of the Earth, roughly stated.

→ Regardless of the low points we have come to now, understanding this part of the human story is very reassuring, for it is one of our most important embarkations as stewards of life on Earth, which I believe is a natural role to which humans are inclined and predisposed. We were very threatened and sensitive enough to realize we were threatened not by a direct predator, but by a predator that threatened the whole entire ecosystem of which we were a part. This awareness is astounding and reaffirming of much deeper connections of life than science has yet discovered via its dissective and anti-life methodology. In a very noble attempt to keep back these bacteriological grassland conquerors, our ancestors chose to stand up (literally) and fight back on part of a series of organisms which we held in community and in high regards. We died hunting and evolving ways to attack these animals and lessen their populations to save the forest eco-systems we held so dear. And I’d like to believe that for a time the transitioning middle was extended before we made our wrong turn, and we held both the forests and the grasslands in high regard; we let ourselves be a bridge, a common ground through our not favoring one ground over the other, and these two very different worlds of vital development were given a relationship through us and our migrations. They could peacefully co-exist for this epoch as long as humans were to fill in our new niche responsibly, not overdoing it or underperforming. Unfortunately we overperformed in our specific species successes and became conquering and predatory without keeping in mind the long view that we were to be eating away at our future selves; a disease is a blind act of suicide.

→ And lastly, I offer an allegorical way to put this transition in terms of “rock-paper-scissor”. Ruminant herbivores came along (the paper) ready to swallow up our friend the forest (the rock); in order to get back at the paper and defend our friend, we fashioned ourselves out of the rock minerals in to the scissors with which we could now cut back at the engulfing paper. We made the enemy of our friends our enemies and created ourselves as the scissors, the third length in an important cycle. Unfortunately, the scissor moniker has been taken to heart, and now we cut down everything, including rock! But the choice is ours, even at this seemingly late stage, to reemerge as the stewards the Earth borne us to be.

notes 4 today: 2016-10-13

title: Parenting Possessions

In addition to lacking multi-generational and inter-generational support in the nuclear family (the biggest nuclear disaster, to date), go-it-alone parents are faced with a burdensome task that is unprecedented in its scope. Parents are now divided among many possessions which require maintenance or demand orderliness, existing in generally confined spaces (homes, yards) where accumulated objects block bodily movement, and time confined circumstances where accumulating objects block alternate activities. These possessions effectively block time that could be used for connection between the parent and the child; because children need some level of parenting to keep them safe—if not keeping them loved and attended to—possessions such as toys and screen-based entertainment are used to parent the child in the parent’s relative absence. The mediums that come between children and parents—from physical possessions referred to here, to the time spent in the acquiring of money—are squeezing to a very narrow margin the direct time and space for immediate human bonding.

Even sans children, possessions dictate our internal states and external motions (or lack thereof) far more than we dictate theirs. This begs the question: are the possessions truly the parents of us? They certainly center us more and more to a specific location, a crib as some already call the modern dwelling. Migratory needs of humans are moved away in the margins of the margins, with possession dominance gaining an ever tighter grip, a la the consumerism ethos. Being that many possessions are made of long lasting persistent plastics, combined with our possible extinction woes, a cruel irony may come to exist that caps this anti-life epoch of ours: the parents may outlive their children.


title: The Original Welfare Recipients

Northward bound migratory people who turned their backs on the sun were to put themselves (perhaps in ignorance) in a situation where their own efforts would not be enough to sustain themselves, and they would henceforth be forced to draw on nature ceaselessly without any ability to repay or replenish their withdraws. Had circumstances been different, they might have adapted to these colder climates as other plants and animals had in previous times, achieving instinctive lifestyles such as hibernation and deciduousness. Instead, however, these humans quickly got in to the habit of taking out larger and larger unsustainable loans from the ecosystem in the form of resources to build technologies—clothing, shelters, and storable foods such as grains and domesticated livestock. They also opened themselves up to the cold and flu season without any compensation in other regards to health. Anyways, this depletion of natural resources, of treating nature as a welfare state rather than an intimate family member, has its beginnings (albeit minimally and barely detectable at first), in these early mismatchings of humans with their environment.
Along the way of nature’s being refashioned in to a welfare state, a reconceptualization of nature as something separate from humans developed in their minds to parallel their removing of themselves and various resources from the natural flow. The dehumanization of nature is to develop both as an idea and an external reality when nature is viewed as separate and is misunderstood as a thing rather than a process. The insults and injuries that came to be commonplace in human interactions with “nature” evolved as a means of preserving the fragile human psyche that can’t endure feelings of guilt. Culture becomes naturalized to distract and delude its consumers from the constant injustice that had become their modality of life. These snow whitened cultures even have had a tendency for allowances of character such as “self made men” when this is further from the truth than typical compared to the long stretch of homo sapiens inhabiting the Earth; they are the most dependent, straying further on a continuum than most others from the more common interdependency. Such wide strays are generally short lived and constitutive of diseases, rogue lifeforms that cast themselves outside the greater society of planetary life.
A related point to be made during this anthropogenical speculation is regarding the relation and need for the sun’s light (which is to be denied by this anti-equatorial trek. Those people (and their descendants) who made the poor choice to stray farthest from the sun, those who would become the whitest of skin, would come to first create in artificiality the blue light of the sun that they so missed.


title: Urine Therapy and Pyroluria

“Don’t piss on the fire, sip your own piss,
then both itself and you, the fire shall miss”

This is a hypothetical offering which could be very incorrect stemming from my ignorance and misunderstanding of the processes on my part. In other words, health researchers and experts would need to apply what they know to evaluate if this therapy has any legitimacy or not.

So basically, pyroluria, which causes the excrement through the urine a higher amount of a metabolite kryptopyrroles, carry away with them before their excretion zinc and vitamin B6. Because more of these kryptopyrroles exist in people said to have the condition pyroluria, they have a greater deficiency of these important nutrients. They can supplement and in fact this is the recommended route, but I am putting forth that supplementation may be effectively done through the drinking of one’s own urine. Urine therapy for general health has been highlighted by different people for similar and different reasons of replenishment. Could not the lost B6 and zinc, tied up in kryptopyrroles, be redigested and perhaps enzymatically separated and reabsorbed? There is the risk that the kryptopyrroles would also re-enter and sweep away even more B6 and zinc, which would make this therapy quite literally a back firing (pyro again). Read this as merely a hypothesis until more information or more informed people can chew on this idea, and decide if it should be spit or swallowed.


title: Chess Variants— 1) Ground’s-eye View, and 2) Aging Chess Pieces

1) Chess is played with a bird’s eye view that gives full information of static piece position, the only unknown being the future moves. An alternate I have thought of is a game style where a player can only see what is going on with the pieces immediately in front of his/her own, as would be seen from the ground of your own pieces (taller pieces would be blocked by shorter closer pieces, as a 30 story building can block a 100 story building behind it). Exploratory pieces can be sent in to the opponent’s camp to discover pieces of information depending where the intrusion is made—but never without the risk of being taken. As far as visual capabilities of pieces, it could be that all pieces have a 360 degree view, or that the piece is limited to view by the moves available. This latter version would then really only be possible to play in a digital version, or with several referee helpers and several other boards where the temporarily “hidden” (or blocked) moves are being made. The more former, more simple version where vision isn’t limited by a pieces own movement capabilities (rooks only see straight, bishops only see diagonals), just by the blocking of their opponent’s fronting pieces (their own pieces would never then block their own vision, it would rather be an extension of where they can view from), would need 3 boards. One shared board for the pawns to start, and two separate “private” boards where each player, black and white, would house their own pieces until they were revealed and transferred on to the main board. These hidden pieces could still be taken, the only dilemma is that a piece may “attack” an empty square and then be taken, though how much knowledge would be allowed to be revealed during this capture to the captured team before their pieces was murdered is a source in need of clarification, too.
Also in this variation there could be much debate over whether or not kings can be captured and thus ending the game, allowing a king to fatally move in to a check or be checked un-beknownst. As far as a king being check unbeknownst and not responding, I don’t know if this would “visually” be possible, even if by a knight. There is also the question of whether vision can expand before committing, i.e. taking one’s finger off the piece, allowing a sneak peak. My leaning is to say no, this is not allowed, as this whole variation is to add in the theme of immediate imperfect knowledge. Though the knowledge may seem imperfect, a great deal can still be deduced logically to get a sense of the game. Another variation on this variation is to only have king’s-eye view (or queen’s eye view), which would push the idea of partial information to an even greater threshold.

2) This variant isn’t as flushed out in my mind as the previous one, but perhaps each piece has a limited number of moves before it dies and is removed because of old age, or it is stuck in it’s final position (a gravestone) until it can capture and resurrect. Pawns would be exempt and perhaps kings could be as well, unless a goal was to make king’s dance around the board with persistent checking so that they may then be killed by exhaustion as it were.

Some Previous Notes 4 You

notes 4 today: 2015-09-04 – Thoughts On Patriarchy, Colony of China, Sedentarism
notes 4 today: 2015-10-19
notes 4 today: 2015-11-08
notes 4 today: 2015-11-29