Chances are, if you're reading this, you share your space with an animal. A new scientific theory is making the rounds that suggests you owe them some thanks — not only for the unconditional love and companionship, but for actually making you human. According to Penn State University paleoanthropologist Pat Shipman, animals played a big part in helping early humankind evolve into what we are now — scientifically-minded, curious, organized.
And, oh yeah, carnivorous.
Around 2.6 million years ago, humans suddenly switched from a mostly vegetarian diet to a carnivorous one, a quick change (in evolutionary terms) Shipman calls it a "shortcut [in] the evolutionary process." From hunting animals for food, it was a relatively short leap to growing our own, as it were, and animal domestication and husbandry were born. And, since hunting animals for food was still a part of the diet as well, our ancestors started domesticating the first dogs.
Managing a herd of cattle or goats is somewhat more complicated than picking up your stone-tipped spear and jogging out to bring down a wild animal; it requires a different skill set. You have to be able to organize data about grazing, and keep at least rudimentary records of where to graze your herd and when. It's not too far out of bounds to speculate that animal husbandry was the among the first information sciences.
And from those humble beginnings, implies Shipman, came humankind as we know it. Johannes Gutenberg, Copernicus, the Industrial Revolution, the atomic bomb, the Beatles' White Album, and (Heaven help us) American Idol — animals helped them all come into being.
Is Shipman's theory plausible? As Shipman notes, the concept of early man spending his time and resources tending to the needs of animals is, "a poor strategy for survival ... a very weird behavior." Put into Shipman's context, it becomes explainable. Some of the implications might be disturbing, especially the implication that animal domestication had little or nothing to do with compassion and a lot more to do with utility.
We like to think of ourselves as compassionate animals, not to mention compassionate to animals. If you buy into Shipman's theory, there's still room for compassion to play a role in our evolutionary history with animals. After all, taking Shipman's logic, animals were a key factor in teaching us to organize and communicate information. It's just as easy to suggest that they also taught us, as a species, to be gracious, compassionate, and caring.
Around 2.6 million years ago, humans suddenly switched from a mostly vegetarian diet to a carnivorous one, a quick change (in evolutionary terms) Shipman calls it a "shortcut [in] the evolutionary process." From hunting animals for food, it was a relatively short leap to growing our own, as it were, and animal domestication and husbandry were born. And, since hunting animals for food was still a part of the diet as well, our ancestors started domesticating the first dogs.
Managing a herd of cattle or goats is somewhat more complicated than picking up your stone-tipped spear and jogging out to bring down a wild animal; it requires a different skill set. You have to be able to organize data about grazing, and keep at least rudimentary records of where to graze your herd and when. It's not too far out of bounds to speculate that animal husbandry was the among the first information sciences.
And from those humble beginnings, implies Shipman, came humankind as we know it. Johannes Gutenberg, Copernicus, the Industrial Revolution, the atomic bomb, the Beatles' White Album, and (Heaven help us) American Idol — animals helped them all come into being.
Is Shipman's theory plausible? As Shipman notes, the concept of early man spending his time and resources tending to the needs of animals is, "a poor strategy for survival ... a very weird behavior." Put into Shipman's context, it becomes explainable. Some of the implications might be disturbing, especially the implication that animal domestication had little or nothing to do with compassion and a lot more to do with utility.
We like to think of ourselves as compassionate animals, not to mention compassionate to animals. If you buy into Shipman's theory, there's still room for compassion to play a role in our evolutionary history with animals. After all, taking Shipman's logic, animals were a key factor in teaching us to organize and communicate information. It's just as easy to suggest that they also taught us, as a species, to be gracious, compassionate, and caring.
No comments:
Post a Comment