The European Commission has just announced an agreement whereby English will be the official language of the European Union rather than German, which was the other possibility.

As part of the negotiations, the British Government conceded that English spelling had some room for improvement and has accepted a 5- year phase-in plan that would become known as ‘Euro-English’.

In the first year, ‘s’ will replace the soft ‘c’. Sertainly, this will make the sivil servants jump with joy.

The hard ‘c’ will be dropped in favour of ‘k’. This should klear up konfusion, and keyboards kan have one less letter.

There will be growing publik enthusiasm in the sekond year when the troublesome ‘ph’ will be replaced with ‘f’. This will make words like fotograf 20% shorter.

In the 3rd year, publik akseptanse of the new spelling kan be expekted to reach the stage where more komplikated changes are possible.

Governments will enkourage the removal of double letters which have always ben a deterent to akurate speling.

Also, al wil agre that the horibl mes of the silent ‘e’ in the languag is disgrasful and it should go away.

By the 4th yer people wil be reseptiv to steps such as replasing ‘th’ with ‘z’ and ‘w’with ‘v’.

During ze fifz yer, ze unesesary ‘o’ kan be dropd from vords kontaining ‘ou’ and after ziz fifz yer, ve vil hav a reil sensibl riten styl.

Zer vil be no mor trubl or difikultis and evrivun vil find it ezi TU understand ech oza. Ze drem of a united urop vil finali kum tru.

Und efter ze fifz yer, ve vil al be speking German like zey vunted in ze forst plas.

fin

It is especially funny to me because I have always supported the simplification of the English language, and I’m currently learning German.

However, these numbers quickly become cumbersome and are difficult to add: to add the numbers IVXLCMM and CMLXXXII, for example, one would first cancel out any numbers that are subtracted, then grouping like letters, then simplify from the highest to the lowest. Finally after a few minutes of effort it should end up with MMCMXXVI. Obviously, this is hard to do and takes a lot of time to add simple numbers (1944 and 982) and this process becomes even more complex when multiplying.

The second problem with Roman Numerals is that there are no fractions or decimals. Fractions can not be easily written out as 1/4 instead they would have to be written out in words. These factors combine and create bulky and inefficient system that actually hampered the spread and development of mathematical concepts such as pi.

In contrast the Hindu system, which was developed from around 2BC to 5AD in India, had three important innovations that would make it extremely useful. The first is that there was a 0. While this concept is not unique in the world, it did make it possible to do many new things. The second is the placement system: unlike the Roman system where numbers are not grouped, the Hindu system introduced the idea of columns and place values. Thus, by combining the 0 with the concept of base 10, we see the creation of a system where each column is 10 to a power (the 1′s column is 10^0, 10′s column is 10^1, 100′s column is 10^2 etc). To see the importance of this one can imagine a tower of champagne glasses, when the top is filed it over flows and fills the four below it, which in turn fill the 16 below them. Similarly when one column has a value of more than 9 the extra spills over into the next column making simple vertical addition possible. The third innovation that made the Hindu system unique is the decimal place. Unlike the roman system where you would have IV and twenty-two out of twenty-five the Hindu system allows a person to write 4.88. This idea is fundamental for calculating precise numbers, and the creation of many mathematical constants like pi could only be done with a decimal place.

However, even though the mathematical benefits of the Hindu system are obvious, it did not just spread across the world immediately. The numbers were first introduced in the 7th century AD, but it wasn’t until the 12th century AD that the entire system spread to Western Civilization.

The first wave was the numbers themselves which allowed people to write much more succinctly and easily. The Hindu’s had several different number systems over the period where the number system was developed, but the one we are most familiar with, and was absorbed by the Arabs, is the Nagari number system which is very similar to ours. In the system however there are a few modifications from its original form over the years; for example, originally the 1 resembled a 9, the number 4 was represented by an 8, a 5 was represented by a 4, the 6, 7 and 8 were quite unlike any of our current numbers, and the 9 was backwards. The numbers first spread to the Arabs around the 7th century — the earliest and most complete records come from the writings of a man named al-Biruni from the 11th century.

However, the mathematical concepts didn’t follow until the 12th century. A 9th century Arab named Al-Khwarizmi is credited with introducing the concepts of the mathematical possibilities of the numbers through his treatise which was translated into Latin in the early 12th century. After this the numbers quickly spread throughout Europe and the rest is history.

However, theoretically, in technologically advanced societies, which don’t provide for human needs as readily as harvesting fruits in the rainforest, an individual has to work harder to achieve their goals, so are more prone to innovate just to have the possibility of acquiring even basic things like food, and, as the assumption goes, this must make these people more intelligent and that, over time, they would be also be genetically more intelligent.

While to a point they were correct: a society that innovates would be more advanced and would seem to be more intelligent to some tests. However, if you were to trade a few children and raise them in their new society you would find very little difference intellectually between them and the members of their adopted society.

Although tests were used to prove that individuals from these “primitive” societies were indeed less intelligent, most times these tests were flawed in that they test the wrong things, or were specifically stacked against the taker through cultural biasing.

As a human brain develops, it will develop the parts of it that are needed: for example the brain of a rainforest inhabitant perceives depth differently than someone who lives in open plains, and if you were to have these people switch places, they would both have problems just seeing the environment the same way as an inhabitant would, but over time they would adjust.

Similarly, on tests that resemble IQ tests people from different regions and backgrounds test differently. These test traits such as spacial orientation and problem solving are tested, but on badly designed tests, these are biased towards one way of thinking, and because they are designed to test only one way of thinking, anyone who does differently will fail it. So a person raised in an environment where technological innovation is not needed will use most of their brain-power for different things, so even though they are just as intelligent as other children, they won’t find these tests, as easy.

Modern society has proven that these regionally and societally influenced differences were only in the imaginations of these personalities by allowing people to easily move from one society to another rapidly–individuals of a “primitive” society can easily walk into a “more advanced” society, live for a few years and the return home. Unfortunately, some people like to believe it is still the time of the Conquistadors, and assume that those who are different or less advanced, must be less intelligent, but the assumptions of such differences is more evident of cultural bias than anything else.

Of course, this thinking is nothing that hasn’t been in the mainstream thought for the past half a century, but this post is a direct response to a debate I had with someone recently where they argued that people that live in hot climates were categorically less intelligent than those who live in colder climates because the warmer climates have historically had less technologically advanced civilizations. (For those that care, I won that one.)

Benjamin Whorf claimed that scientific thought is a specialization of Indo-European cultural systems but this view ethnocentric at best, exclusionary at worst. Scientific thought has existed in many cultures throughout history. The ancient Egyptians and Arabs developed mathematics, the Maya had a calender accurate to todays standards, the Chinese developed gunpowder and the Assyrians were the first to smelt iron. Not only did all of these cultures developed great leaps in scientific understanding without having an Indo-European culture, Indo-European culture did not even exist at the point these advances were made. Modern western culture did not develop science nor does it specialize in it anymore than previous cultures, while it may seem to be at the forefront of research in modern society, it is not because of western culture, but rather of the advances that were created previously that allowed western culture to increase the percentage of its population able to devote their lives to science. Even if you were to take his comment to mean that Indo-European languages use the same term to refer to many different things based on perception, he has still made a very exclusionary comment.

He also stated that science finds it difficult to be strictly factual because of the conflicting ways that different disciplines approach concepts linguistically. However, this is not a fault of science but of the relativity that pervades language itself. When a simple word like set can have 119 different meanings how can a complex concept such as space have the same meaning when applied to very different fields. This argument should not be to question sciences factuality as it is, by definition, based in fact, instead it should question the ability of language to support and explain the science. Linguistics, unlike science, is not based in fact. Linguistics is a collection of symbols each with a different meaning that are agreed to represent a theme, object or idea by a group of individuals. Therefore, although there is overlap between the dialects of the sciences, this does not harm the science but rather the interpretation of the science by people from outside the group. Although Whorf uses science as his example and questions science on the basis of different meanings for the same word, this inaccurate symbolism of language is not limited to the sciences. Words like set with 119 meanings or the notorious there, they’re and their evidences that it is not science that causes the problems: current linguistics itself is incapable of adequately transmitting information in any sort of standard form.

The first poem is a modern reincarnation of “The Chaos” (1922) by G. Nolst Trenite, a.k.a. “Charivarius” (1870-1946). The original (which you can read below this one) was a little more Shakespearean.

Dearest creature in creation,
Study English pronunciation.
I will teach you in my verse
Sounds like corpse, corps, horse, and worse.
I will keep you, Suzy, busy,
Make your head with heat grow dizzy.
Tear in eye, your dress will tear.
So shall I! Oh, hear my prayer.

Just compare heart, beard, and heard,
Dies and diet, lord and word,
Sword and sward, retain and Britain.
(Mind the latter, how it’s written.)
Now I surely will not plague you
With such words as plaque and ague.
But be careful how you speak:
Say break and steak, but bleak and streak;
Cloven, oven, how and low,
Script, receipt, show, poem, and toe.

Hear me say, devoid of trickery,
Daughter, laughter, and Terpsichore,
Typhoid, measles, topsails, aisles,
Exiles, similes, and reviles;
Scholar, vicar, and cigar,
Solar, mica, war and far;
One, anemone, Balmoral,
Kitchen, lichen, laundry, laurel;
Gertrude, German, wind and mind,
Scene, Melpomene, mankind.

Billet does not rhyme with ballet,
Bouquet, wallet, mallet, chalet.
Blood and flood are not like food,
Nor is mould like should and would.
Viscous, viscount, load and broad,
Toward, to forward, to reward.
And your pronunciation’s OK
When you correctly say croquet,
Rounded, wounded, grieve and sleeve,
Friend and fiend, alive and live.

Ivy, privy, famous; clamour
And enamour rhyme with hammer.
River, rival, tomb, bomb, comb,
Doll and roll and some and home.
Stranger does not rhyme with anger,
Neither does devour with clangour.
Souls but foul, haunt but aunt,
Font, front, wont, want, grand, and grant,
Shoes, goes, does. Now first say finger,
And then singer, ginger, linger,
Real, zeal, mauve, gauze, gouge and gauge,
Marriage, foliage, mirage, and age.

Query does not rhyme with very,
Nor does fury sound like bury.
Dost, lost, post and doth, cloth, loth.
Job, nob, bosom, transom, oath.
Though the differences seem little,
We say actual but victual.
Refer does not rhyme with deafer.
Foeffer does, and zephyr, heifer.
Mint, pint, senate and sedate;
Dull, bull, and George ate late.
Scenic, Arabic, Pacific,
Science, conscience, scientific.

Liberty, library, heave and heaven,
Rachel, ache, moustache, eleven.
We say hallowed, but allowed,
People, leopard, towed, but vowed.
Mark the differences, moreover,
Between mover, cover, clover;
Leeches, breeches, wise, precise,
Chalice, but police and lice;
Camel, constable, unstable,
Principle, disciple, label.

Petal, panel, and canal,
Wait, surprise, plait, promise, pal.
Worm and storm, chaise, chaos, chair,
Senator, spectator, mayor.
Tour, but our and succour, four.
Gas, alas, and Arkansas.
Sea, idea, Korea, area,
Psalm, Maria, but malaria.
Youth, south, southern, cleanse and clean.
Doctrine, turpentine, marine.

Compare alien with Italian,
Dandelion and battalion.
Sally with ally, yea, ye,
Eye, I, ay, aye, whey, and key.
Say aver, but ever, fever,
Neither, leisure, skein, deceiver.
Heron, granary, canary.
Crevice and device and aerie.

Face, but preface, not efface.
Phlegm, phlegmatic, ass, glass, bass.
Large, but target, gin, give, verging,
Ought, out, joust and scour, scourging.
Ear, but earn and wear and tear
Do not rhyme with here but ere.
Seven is right, but so is even,
Hyphen, roughen, nephew Stephen,
Monkey, donkey, Turk and jerk,
Ask, grasp, wasp, and cork and work.

Pronunciation — think of Psyche!
Is a paling stout and spikey?
Won’t it make you lose your wits,
Writing groats and saying grits?
It’s a dark abyss or tunnel:
Strewn with stones, stowed, solace, gunwale,
Islington and Isle of Wight,
Housewife, verdict and indict.

Finally, which rhymes with enough –
Though, through, plough, or dough, or cough?
Hiccough has the sound of cup.
My advice is just give up!

Here is the original:

Dearest creature in creation
Studying English pronunciation,
I will teach you in my verse
Sounds like corpse, corps, horse and worse.

I will keep you, Susy, busy,
Make your head with heat grow dizzy;
Tear in eye, your dress you’ll tear;
Queer, fair seer, hear my prayer.

Pray, console your loving poet,
Make my coat look new, dear, sew it!
Just compare heart, hear and heard,
Dies and diet, lord and word.

Sword and sward, retain and Britain
(Mind the latter how it’s written).
Made has not the sound of bade,
Say-said, pay-paid, laid but plaid.

Now I surely will not plague you
With such words as vague and ague,
But be careful how you speak,
Say: gush, bush, steak, streak, break, bleak ,

Previous, precious, fuchsia, via
Recipe, pipe, studding-sail, choir;
Woven, oven, how and low,
Script, receipt, shoe, poem, toe.

Say, expecting fraud and trickery:
Daughter, laughter and Terpsichore,
Branch, ranch, measles, topsails, aisles,
Missiles, similes, reviles.

Wholly, holly, signal, signing,
Same, examining, but mining,
Scholar, vicar, and cigar,
Solar, mica, war and far.

From “desire”: desirable-admirable from “admire”,
Lumber, plumber, bier, but brier,
Topsham, brougham, renown, but known,
Knowledge, done, lone, gone, none, tone,

One, anemone, Balmoral,
Kitchen, lichen, laundry, laurel.
Gertrude, German, wind and wind,
Beau, kind, kindred, queue, mankind,

Tortoise, turquoise, chamois-leather,
Reading, Reading, heathen, heather.
This phonetic labyrinth
Gives moss, gross, brook, brooch, ninth, plinth.

Have you ever yet endeavoured
To pronounce revered and severed,
Demon, lemon, ghoul, foul, soul,
Peter, petrol and patrol?

Billet does not end like ballet;
Bouquet, wallet, mallet, chalet.
Blood and flood are not like food,
Nor is mould like should and would.

Banquet is not nearly parquet,
Which exactly rhymes with khaki.
Discount, viscount, load and broad,
Toward, to forward, to reward,

Ricocheted and crocheting, croquet?
Right! Your pronunciation’s OK.
Rounded, wounded, grieve and sieve,
Friend and fiend, alive and live.

Is your r correct in higher?
Keats asserts it rhymes Thalia.
Hugh, but hug, and hood, but hoot,
Buoyant, minute, but minute.

Say abscission with precision,
Now: position and transition;
Would it tally with my rhyme
If I mentioned paradigm?

Twopence, threepence, tease are easy,
But cease, crease, grease and greasy?
Cornice, nice, valise, revise,
Rabies, but lullabies.

Of such puzzling words as nauseous,
Rhyming well with cautious, tortious,
You’ll envelop lists, I hope,
In a linen envelope.

Would you like some more? You’ll have it!
Affidavit, David, davit.
To abjure, to perjure. Sheik
Does not sound like Czech but ache.

Liberty, library, heave and heaven,
Rachel, loch, moustache, eleven.
We say hallowed, but allowed,
People, leopard, towed but vowed.

Mark the difference, moreover,
Between mover, plover, Dover.
Leeches, breeches, wise, precise,
Chalice, but police and lice,

Camel, constable, unstable,
Principle, disciple, label.
Petal, penal, and canal,
Wait, surmise, plait, promise, pal,

Suit, suite, ruin. Circuit, conduit
Rhyme with “shirk it” and “beyond it”,
But it is not hard to tell
Why it’s pall, mall, but Pall Mall.

Muscle, muscular, gaol, iron,
Timber, climber, bullion, lion,
Worm and storm, chaise, chaos, chair,
Senator, spectator, mayor,

Ivy, privy, famous; clamour
Has the a of drachm and hammer.
Pussy, hussy and possess,
Desert, but desert, address.

Golf, wolf, countenance, lieutenants
Hoist in lieu of flags left pennants.
Courier, courtier, tomb, bomb, comb,
Cow, but Cowper, some and home.

“Solder, soldier! Blood is thicker”,
Quoth he, “than liqueur or liquor”,
Making, it is sad but true,
In bravado, much ado.

Stranger does not rhyme with anger,
Neither does devour with clangour.
Pilot, pivot, gaunt, but aunt,
Font, front, wont, want, grand and grant.

Arsenic, specific, scenic,
Relic, rhetoric, hygienic.
Gooseberry, goose, and close, but close,
Paradise, rise, rose, and dose.

Say inveigh, neigh, but inveigle,
Make the latter rhyme with eagle.
Mind! Meandering but mean,
Valentine and magazine.

And I bet you, dear, a penny,
You say mani-(fold) like many,
Which is wrong. Say rapier, pier,
Tier (one who ties), but tier.

Arch, archangel; pray, does erring
Rhyme with herring or with stirring?
Prison, bison, treasure trove,
Treason, hover, cover, cove,

Perseverance, severance. Ribald
Rhymes (but piebald doesn’t) with nibbled.
Phaeton, paean, gnat, ghat, gnaw,
Lien, psychic, shone, bone, pshaw.

Don’t be down, my own, but rough it,
And distinguish buffet, buffet;
Brood, stood, roof, rook, school, wool, boon,
Worcester, Boleyn, to impugn.

Say in sounds correct and sterling
Hearse, hear, hearken, year and yearling.
Evil, devil, mezzotint,
Mind the z! (A gentle hint.)

Now you need not pay attention
To such sounds as I don’t mention,
Sounds like pores, pause, pours and paws,
Rhyming with the pronoun yours;

Nor are proper names included,
Though I often heard, as you did,
Funny rhymes to unicorn,
Yes, you know them, Vaughan and Strachan.

No, my maiden, coy and comely,
I don’t want to speak of Cholmondeley.
No. Yet Froude compared with proud
Is no better than McLeod.

But mind trivial and vial,
Tripod, menial, denial,
Troll and trolley, realm and ream,
Schedule, mischief, schism, and scheme.

Argil, gill, Argyll, gill. Surely
May be made to rhyme with Raleigh,
But you’re not supposed to say
Piquet rhymes with sobriquet.

Had this invalid invalid
Worthless documents? How pallid,
How uncouth he, couchant, looked,
When for Portsmouth I had booked!

Zeus, Thebes, Thales, Aphrodite,
Paramour, enamoured, flighty,
Episodes, antipodes,
Acquiesce, and obsequies.

Please don’t monkey with the geyser,
Don’t peel ‘taters with my razor,
Rather say in accents pure:
Nature, stature and mature.

Pious, impious, limb, climb, glumly,
Worsted, worsted, crumbly, dumbly,
Conquer, conquest, vase, phase, fan,
Wan, sedan and artisan.

The th will surely trouble you
More than r, ch or w.
Say then these phonetic gems:
Thomas, thyme, Theresa, Thames.

Thompson, Chatham, Waltham, Streatham,
There are more but I forget ‘em-
Wait! I’ve got it: Anthony,
Lighten your anxiety.

The archaic word albeit
Does not rhyme with eight-you see it;
With and forthwith, one has voice,
One has not, you make your choice.

Shoes, goes, does *. Now first say: finger;
Then say: singer, ginger, linger.
Real, zeal, mauve, gauze and gauge,
Marriage, foliage, mirage, age,

Hero, heron, query, very,
Parry, tarry fury, bury,
Dost, lost, post, and doth, cloth, loth,
Job, Job, blossom, bosom, oath.

Faugh, oppugnant, keen oppugners,
Bowing, bowing, banjo-tuners
Holm you know, but noes, canoes,
Puisne, truism, use, to use?

Though the difference seems little,
We say actual, but victual,
Seat, sweat, chaste, caste, Leigh, eight, height,
Put, nut, granite, and unite.

Reefer does not rhyme with deafer,
Feoffer does, and zephyr, heifer.
Dull, bull, Geoffrey, George, ate, late,
Hint, pint, senate, but sedate.

Gaelic, Arabic, pacific,
Science, conscience, scientific;
Tour, but our, dour, succour, four,
Gas, alas, and Arkansas.

Say manoeuvre, yacht and vomit,
Next omit, which differs from it
Bona fide, alibi
Gyrate, dowry and awry.

Sea, idea, guinea, area,
Psalm, Maria, but malaria.
Youth, south, southern, cleanse and clean,
Doctrine, turpentine, marine.

Compare alien with Italian,
Dandelion with battalion,
Rally with ally; yea, ye,
Eye, I, ay, aye, whey, key, quay!

Say aver, but ever, fever,
Neither, leisure, skein, receiver.
Never guess-it is not safe,
We say calves, valves, half, but Ralf.

Starry, granary, canary,
Crevice, but device, and eyrie,
Face, but preface, then grimace,
Phlegm, phlegmatic, ass, glass, bass.

Bass, large, target, gin, give, verging,
Ought, oust, joust, and scour, but scourging;
Ear, but earn; and ere and tear
Do not rhyme with here but heir.

Mind the o of off and often
Which may be pronounced as orphan,
With the sound of saw and sauce;
Also soft, lost, cloth and cross.

Pudding, puddle, putting. Putting?
Yes: at golf it rhymes with shutting.
Respite, spite, consent, resent.
Liable, but Parliament.

Seven is right, but so is even,
Hyphen, roughen, nephew, Stephen,
Monkey, donkey, clerk and jerk,
Asp, grasp, wasp, demesne, cork, work.

A of valour, vapid vapour,
S of news (compare newspaper),
G of gibbet, gibbon, gist,
I of antichrist and grist,

Differ like diverse and divers,
Rivers, strivers, shivers, fivers.
Once, but nonce, toll, doll, but roll,
Polish, Polish, poll and poll.

Pronunciation-think of Psyche!-
Is a paling, stout and spiky.
Won’t it make you lose your wits
Writing groats and saying “grits”?

It’s a dark abyss or tunnel
Strewn with stones like rowlock, gunwale,
Islington, and Isle of Wight,
Housewife, verdict and indict.

Don’t you think so, reader, rather,
Saying lather, bather, father?
Finally, which rhymes with enough,
Though, through, bough, cough, hough, sough, tough??

Hiccough has the sound of sup…
My advice is: GIVE IT UP!

Mouse:
Mouse began as the Greek word m?s it the evolved over time to be (in chronological order) m?s in Latin, maus in German, m?s in Old English, then finally as mous in Middle English. This word is interesting for two reasons the first is that it has a rather long etymology and the second is that English first borrowed the word directly from Latin and then later borrowed it in a different form from the Germans.

Algebra:
Algebra began as the Arabic word al-jabr and then when introduced into Latin it was rewritten into Algebra where it remains. This word demonstrates how words are many times absorbed into English with only minor modification to fit the alphabet and phonetic structure. The word itself spread with mathematics allowing the word to popularize without much change. This evidences that technical vocabularies have a much easier time spreading in their original form than nontechnical vocabularies. This unchanging vocabulary allows the science to spread quickly and at the same time allows the different groups understand each other allowing scientists to be able to effectively transmit ideas and technology in ways that other groups cannot.

Tea:
Tea is a direct absorption of the Chinese (Amoy) word te. This word evidences the assimilation of words through commerce and trade. The word tea, like algebra, spread with the product it was named for. However, unlike algebra it remained in its original form not for scientific understanding but for marketing purposes. Tea began was a very expensive resource and to change its name would also remove the prior marketing and “buzz” that helped to popularize the product in the first place.

Juggernaut:
Juggernaut began as the word jagannthah from Sanskrit which is the title of the god Krishna. This word demonstrates the frequent perversion that occurs when new words are introduced and removed from their native dialects. The word Juggernaut was assimilated to mean a large and dangerous object because in its native India the word referred to Krishna whose idol would be pulled on a large cart through the streets. Allegedly when this occurred devotees would throw themselves on the ground in front of the cart to be trampled and crushed. This manipulation of meanings also occurred with the words dictator (Latin) and tyrant (Greek) which originally referred to a person appointed temporarily appointed in times of need and a person who came to power through extralegal means respectively. However, they were adopted into English to refer to people who were generally considered evil and cruel.

In non-human mammals, the family group is a heterologic system. Only three percent of mammalian species are monogamous with their mates and have both parents involved in the raising of the young. Humans rank in this three percent. Humans require both parents to ensure the survival of the young and humans, across all cultures, form pair bonds. This leads to a family group far removed from the groups of other mammals. The creation of the human family rests on three foundations: (1) the cultural phenomenon of the human family group evolved because of the instinct to protect ones genes; (2) the basis of the family group, the pair bond, is the result of the female desire to have an economically supportive mate during the developmental years of her offspring’s lives; it is also a result of the males desire to have a suitable mate for multiple children and ensure all offspring are genetically his, and (3) the extended family group is a result of the desire to pass on ones genes through any means available even if it means helping blood relatives to reproduce [kin selection], the extended family is also preferable because social and instinctual taboos prevent mating with blood relatives, thus further protecting the pair bond. The result of these instincts for modern humans is the cultural family unit, the provision of resources for offspring, and to pass on genes.

Outline

I. Culture through instinct
    A. Instinctual Basis
        a. Instinct Defined
        b. Instinct to protect your genes
    B. Culture transcended Instinct
        a. Define Culture
        b. Define Family
        c. How culture relates to family based on instincts
II. Family groups in non-Homo Sapiens
    A. Family groups in non-human primates
        a. Differences between human and primate families
        b. Chimpanzee family structure
        c. Gibbon family structure
    B. Family groups in human ancestors
III. The Pair Bond
    A. The evolution of the pair bond
    B.  Female desire for a pair bond
        a. Why the female would want a pair bond
        b. Genetic support for the female pair bond
        c. The cultural basis of the female pair bond
    C.  Male desire for a pair bond
        a. Why the male would want a pair bond
        b. Genetic support for the male pair bond
        c. The cultural basis of the male pair bond
    D. Exception to the rule, the human polygamist
        a. Genetic reasoning for polygamy in the male and female
        b. Cultural basis for polygamy
        c. Is polygamy in humans a result of culture or genetics?
        d. Is polygamy the future of humankind or the past?
IV. Interactions of Extended Family
    A. Instincts to protect the Families Genes, altruism
        a. Why would anyone decide to do this?
        b. Why does nature allow for this action?
    B. The inbreeding factor in extended families
        a. How culturally and instinctually inbreeding is taboo
        b. The exceptions to the rule
V. Conclusion
    A. Effects of the Pair bond on Natural Selection
        a. Why is the pair bond so ingrained in humans?
        b. Would humans be capable of being humans without pair bonding?
    B. Effects of the Family Group on Natural Selection
    C. Final Thoughts

I. Culture through instinct
An eternal debate exists that questions if humans are born with instincts that are comparable with the instincts possessed by other non-human species. It takes a certain amount of ego to declare humans are completely free of instincts. The term instincts is not generally used in reference to humans; because of this, humans are said to have innate predispositions although the terms are nearly interchangeable. However, the term instincts, in reference to humans, is generally defined as any innate predisposition including but not limited to the desire to eat, sleep, and reproduce. This is the definition that this paper will use.

Of all the instincts that humans share with each other arguably the most important instincts are the instinct to mate, reproduce, and protect ones offspring. The passing on and protecting of ones genes, and in turn ones offspring, is a universal trait throughout the human species. Humans are not alone in this desire to protect their genes; most other animals have this same driving urge to procreate. The instinct to procreate is the lifeblood of all species. Without a driving urge to pass on their genes most species would be incapable of long term survival; because over time, the number of individuals would diminish to a point where the gene pool is no longer diverse enough to support a healthy population. The human urge to pass on ones genes is a result of millions of years of evolution in which the ones that had the strongest urge to procreate passed on their genes far more successfully than those who did not. The success of the human species use of these instincts without having the ability to intellectually interpret them shows that a human’s innate predispositions are indeed valid (Merriman, 2000).

Culture is the manipulation of both the environment and instincts because of want rather than need. Most animals have a form of culture, although animal culture is based entirely on their instincts rather than on the modification of instincts, this primitive culture are the social dos and do nots that allow members to live together in a harmonious fashion. Other than humans, the only other animals to have routinely discovered culture in the human definition are primates. Primates are able to modify their environment with tools, and their instincts to adapt to a myriad of new situations; however, even this form of culture is extremely primitive when it compared to the human form. Human culture not only allows humans to interact with each other but it also governs the very essence of human lives. Culture is the entirety of the instinctual forces of humans channeled into institutions that allow for good and bad behavior, where those who follow the guidelines are good and the violators are bad (Titiev, 1959). Therefore, human culture is not completely separate from innate human desires or instincts; rather, it is an extension of human instincts that allows humans to manipulate their instincts to fit within whatever society, group, or environment they currently inhabit.

The term family does not contain as much controversy as instinct and culture does; although, the exact standards for determining family change, the basic definition does not. Because of what and of whom families consist has no set guidelines across all human cultures, this essay will use the most basic definition; therefore, any group whose members are related by blood to the other members of the group or are accepted as such are defined as a family. Due to cultural variations the term nuclear family refers only to one set of parents (male and a female) and their children; while the term extended family will refer to all other members of the family.

The family group is a logical offshoot of the innate desire in humans to protect ones genes. In a group, it is easier to fend off predators, find food, and raise offspring. It is also logical because the long period of gestation and post natal care required by humans and human ancestors wold ensure that many members of a single group would in some way be related. For all these reasons, and many more, the human family evolved. As with all human cultural and social groups, the family began as an instinctual group that one was born into and left upon maturation; as humans evolved the family group also evolved eventually the family became the cultural facet of human society as it is today.

II. Family groups in non-Homo Sapiens
Although humans and primates are closely related the human family structure is dissimilar to the general primate family structure. Of the parts of the human family group there are two features which are the most important to the human family group as a whole. The first of these features is the pair bond which is the basis of the family and society; the second is the altruism that exists between family members. Primates, the closest human relatives, for the most part do not participate in pair bonds as humans do. In fact, there are only five primate species where pair bonding is the normal behavior; these species include gibbons, siamangs, indris, titi monkeys, and tarsiers. This is not only important to the evolution of the family but also interesting because gibbons and humans split from a common ancestor nearly 40 million years ago, yet chimpanzees, who separated from a common ancestor with humans less than 5 million years ago, do not participate in pair bonds. This evidences that pair bonding is not an isolated event. The human pair bond evolved in humans because it was required for survival rather than always existing. Although most primates do not pair bond, nearly all primate species practice altruism (such as sharing food) with members of their group. The specific ways altruism plays out varies from species to species but generally includes an act such as one primate helping to raise another primates offspring so in the future when the benefactor has given birth to its own offspring the favor can be returned (Griffin and West, 2002). However, this is not the only way it plays out. Other examples are sharing food, banding together for protection, or one primate attempting to “rescue” another primate from a predator. For our purposes the two most similar primates to humans are the chimpanzee and the gibbon. The latter because the gibbon pair bonds for life, and the former because while the chimpanzee does not pair bond, it is the closest human relative.

In chimpanzees the community does not stay the same for long periods. The communities, rather than being a single male with several females or several breeding pairs, is open bordered from which members can leave or join almost at will. Female chimpanzees are, for the most part, more likely to leave or join the community; male chimpanzees however, stay within the same group, generally the one they are born into, for their entire lives. Chimpanzees do not have any form of pair bond; members of a group can freely mate with any other member (assuming the dominate male and the female do not object) and extra-group mating is common. Instead of genetic pair bonds, chimpanzees frequently form complex social pair bonds between males and females, with one male watching out for a particular female and her offspring. The only human-chimpanzee equivalent social group or function is the mother to child bond because unlike human males, male chimpanzees have little to no contact with except through the social pair bond with the mother (Geary, 2000). As a result chimpanzees lend credence to the fact that it is possible that the human family is a cultural rather than a solely instinctual institution.

Unlike the chimpanzee which lives in an extremely loose social family, the gibbon families consists of a pair-bonded male and female and their immature offspring. Upon maturation of the offspring, it will leave, either willingly or forcefully, at which point it forms its own pair bond. The gibbon does not live within a larger community; rather, each small family claims and protects its own territory. The pair bonded adults will protect and care for the young; the mother cares for the infants while the father cares for the juveniles (Immerman, 2003). This superficially nuclear family is one of the few examples in the natural world and is an extreme rarity in primates. In contrast to chimpanzees the gibbon family evidences that the human family is not entirely cultural and that there is evidence of instinctual families.

The human family has evolved along with the human body and mind. Although it is hard to be certain about the type of family groups human ancestors lived in, paleoanthropologists assumed that australopithecines lived in social groups, and most early theories suggested that australopithecines lived in groups much like chimpanzees. However new information suggests that because A. afarensis had less pronounced sexual dimorphisms than previously thought, that A. afarensis and other australopithecines lived in semi-monogamous groups (Reno and Meindl and McCollum, 2003). Anthropologists believe Homo habilis and early Homo erectus to be both monogamous and polygamous. However by 1 million years ago Homo erectus, with its significantly less sexual dimorphism – females were around eighty percent the size of males -, was mainly monogamous and lived in groups of bonded pairs (Wrangham and Jones and Laden and Pilbeam and Conklin-Brittain, 20003).

III. The Pair Bond
In human ancestors, the pair bond originally formed to allow the female to raise offspring without continually putting herself and her child in danger, which in turn allowed the male to ensure the survival of his genes into the next generation. Evidence of this is as early, as 2.5 million years ago Homo habilis used a form of base camp where food was brought back to and prepared. For a pregnant or nursing female, it would be extremely dangerous to scavenge on the savannahs of Africa with a wailing infant in her arms. Because of this, the females would stay local to a central area with or without other females and gather tubers, berries, or nuts in relative safely while the males would scavenge for meat from the kills of other predators. Upon returning, the males would share the meat with their mates and the females would reciprocate with tubers (Pennisi, 1999). This model provides protection for the female and offspring as well as food and nourishment for all concerned parties. As time went by, culture took over where instinct left off and the cultural overlay of marriage was conceived (Immerman, 2003).

For the female in the pair bond the benefits are numerous, the pair bond provides food for both her and her offspring, it provides a measure of protection, and provides a climate that makes child rearing easier. The economic support for the female would allow her to spend more energy raising her offspring, and in turn, increase the chance of survival for the offspring . Furthermore, having a single permanent mate would allow her to raise a single offspring without worrying about infanticide from other males competing for her attention. There are various other reasons why a pair bond is beneficial to a female, however they are far less important than the preceding ones.

The female hominid has several genetic and physical attributes that supports the pair bond. The first of these is the lack of visible estrus. For a non-monogamous species hidden estrus holds no evolutionary advantage; in fact it is a disadvantage. However, for a monogamous species the lack of visible estrus encourages the male to stay near the female to keep other males from cuckolding him. Another advantage of a lack of estrus is that sexual activity can take place throughout a female’s life, even after menopause, this creates a lasting pair bond because the male does not need to find a younger and more receptive female to satisfy his more base urges (Merriman, 2003). Historic female choice also promoted the pair bond mentality. Female’s instincts compelled them to specifically choose males who would be both good economic providers and loyal. If the female chose a mate that did not stay and provide for her, her offspring would be less likely to survive than the offspring of a female who did pick a stable mate. This female choice not only steered female evolution to be more likely to choose loyal mates, but also steers male evolution to become loyal mates.
The cultural basis of the female pair bond is the desire for companionship, economic support and a loyal mate. Economic support in modern human populations allows for the fulfillment of the females instinct to find a supportive and loyal mate so in turn she can fulfill her desire to protect her genes. The culture of the pair bond varies from culture to culture but a successful pair bond helps a females social standing, as she is not seen as an immediate threat to the pair bonds of other females.

For the male in a pair bond, the pair bond provides him with the ability to reproduce without spending energy fighting with other males for the right to mate, it also gives him an advantage over bachelors as he has someone to help him to watch for danger and gather food. A pair bond also allows him to repeatedly impregnate the same female providing for multiple successful offspring and removes the danger of infanticide from competing males. The pair bond also allows him to be sure of his paternity therefore he does not waste energy caring and providing for non-genetic offspring.
The human male also has many traits that suggest pair bonding behavior is preferable for the species. The first of which is the minor sexual dimorphism between males and females. Although males are in general 10% larger, it is common for females to be larger than the male average. The male testes is also made for semi monogamous behavior, in chimpanzees the testes are 4 ounces, but in humans are only about 2.5 ounces (Gallup, 2004) although humans are two to three times as large by body weight, this evidences that humans are not anywhere near as promiscuous as chimpanzees, but not completely monogamous. Other evidence of the male predisposition to pair bond is the preoccupation human males have with paternity. In a group that is similar to chimpanzees or bonobos males do not worry about paternity because females mate with most males. In gorillas the alpha male gorilla is also not worried about paternity because he has the entire harem. However, in humans, the male is preoccupied with paternity because the lack of paternity would require as much energy to provide for the offspring without the benefit of passing on his genes. In human males, testosterone also decreases when they are in pair bonds, allowing them to become satisfied with the single pair bond and lessen the desire to procreate with multiple partners (Burnham and Chapman and Gray and McIntyre, 2003).

In human males, status and loyalty in a mate are the cultural drives behind male pair bond. For human males the status drive is a major part of their lives; one of the forms of thestatus drive coincides with a female’s desires in a mate. The economic stability that males strive for is also one of the most important issues for females when choosing a mate; this facet of human culture coincides exactly with the natural instincts. The second cultural drive for the male pair bond is loyalty in a marriage; across most of human kind becoming a cuckold has a major effect on the male status drive. Therefore, the male uses a cultural pair bond to ensure paternity and avoid becoming a cuckold; this cultural pair bond has the overlay of marriage.
Humans are not solely monogamous; some physical features that promote polygamous behavior in humans remain even after 2.6 million years of primarily pair bonding. Although human males are very close in size to females by weight, there is still a big enough difference that sexual dimorphism would promote occasional polygamy (Merriman, 2003). In addition in human males, the size of the testes is smaller by ratio to the body than it is in chimpanzees but not as small by ratio as gibbons, who are monogamous. This demonstrates that although humans are less promiscuous than chimpanzees they still have some physical features that promote sperm competition with other males with whom the female may have recently copulated with (Gallup, 2004). Females also have physical traits that promote occasional polygamy, in the female an orgasm takes much longer than in males; promoting copulation with multiple males in succession as is common with chimpanzees or bonobos.

Some cultural concerns also promote polygamy in humans. The most common of which is the infant survival rate. In societies where the offspring’s survival rate is low, and a single female’s offspring are not likely to survive to maturity; polygamy is more common. For this reason polygamy effects warm climates the most (Merriman, 2000). In these climates multiple wives allow for not only more children and a higher chance of the families genes being passed on, but also allows a further division of labor in hunter/gatherer communities; which in turn, provides more food for offspring increasing their chance of survival (Hayase, 1997). Another cultural pressure behind polygamy is the status drive; in most human societies, the individual culture’s form of aristocracy uses multiple wives and mistresses (including concubines, female slaves, harems) as a status symbol. Because the average member of a community cannot afford five, ten or more wives and mistresses it becomes a display of a man’s wealth and power to be able to provide for so many wives and offspring. Other cultural pressures for polygamy are in areas where a larger number of females survive to breeding age than males, or where daughters are married disproportionately to men that are more successful or higher in class for the female’s families economic gain. Other cultural reasons for women accepting or preferring polygamy includes that many women see men who are already married as “successful” and “more likely to be good husbands” than men who have not been previously married (Hertrich, 1997).

However even in human societies where polygamy is allowed and practiced, the majority of people live in monogamous pair bonds. In the Middle East, only twelve percent of marriages are polygamous and in Africa, only thirty percent of marriages are polygamous (Hayase, 1997). The majority of humans have never practiced polygamy although the majority of cultures have allowed it; some studies have shown as many as 85% out of 859 recorded cultures accept polygamy (Merriman, 2000 and Titiev, 1959). Yet, out of these 859 cultures most are small tribal groups where the elders/chiefs/aristocracy are allowed polygamous relationships but where it is extremely rare for the other members. The fact that most humans even in cultures that allow polygamy are monogamous proves that it is not a genetic trait; genetically humans are predisposed to be monogamous with occasional adulterous affairs rather than lifelong polygamists.

As human evolution has continued from our primate ancestor’s polygamy, it has slowly become less common, while monogamy has become more common. This trend has resulted in the small sexual dimorphism that humans have currently, and as time progresses the females desire to mate and procreate with males who are genetically loyal will continue the human male’s trend toward monogamy. Culturally fewer societies support polygamy because of its drain on the human breeding populations, because humans have a nearly equal birth and survival rate for males and females, thus polygamy is a losing numbers game……. Also societies as a whole as they modernize look on polygamy as being necessary in the past where a larger labor forces were needed in families and more offspring died before maturity, but are no longer needed in modernizing societies where large families are a liability.

IV. Interactions of Extended Family
The desire to protect the family’s genes (also know as kin selection) is as important to the human species as is the instinct to protect ones own genes. Although the altruism aspects of putting members of the family before oneself seems like a losing arrangement for the altruist who risks his own genes, and thus does not pass on the gene for altruism. However the altruist does gain benefits. In insects like ants by helping the queen to breed a worker will on 100% of her own genes. If the same worker had her own offspring the worker could only pass along 50% of her genes (Griffin and West, 2002). In more complex species, altruism is a favor system; by helping a relative to raise their young, build their house, or hunt the altruist can later expect that the family member will return the favor. However, even if the altruist dies before the favor is repaid it helped to ensure the survival of the relative’s offspring and in turn a portion of the altruist’s genes (Griffin and West, 2002). This ensures that a portion of the altruist genes continue into later generations and satisfies the altruists urge to protect their own genes at the same time it satisfies their altruistic tendencies. Although this form of altruism is present in most social groups, it is most effective in family groups where the members are born into their role and the dominant member and hierarchical structure is firmly in place, which replaces the waste of an altruists efforts because of infanticide or challenges to the hierarchy.

Evolution favors the altruist, even though altruism puts the altruist at a disadvantage. By helping to ensure the survival of multiple members of the family’s group the altruist is helping to increase the numbers of members in the group. This increase in populations allow for more altruists to be born and in turn more helpers to help increase the overall population of the group. Even if a altruist is killed, the population of the group still increases enough that the family group as a whole benefits.

In human cultures one of the most universal rules is avoidance of inbreeding with relatives. Although each society decides how close the members can be differently and in many societies there are exceptions to the rules, the rule is still universal (Fox, 1972)vi. Inbreeding within families would be dangerous to the stability of the pair bond and the family group as a whole. Inbreeding would create a situation in families were it would put mothers in direct competition with daughters and father in competition with sons, this instability could lead infanticide in an attempt to ensure dominance. Because of this, individuals with the desire to replace the original member of the pair bond with offspring would be at a disadvantage to family groups that did not have this desire and in turn would not be able to compete effectively with the population at large. Instinctually because of this “anti-incest” gene in a large portion of the human species, incest is not an issue because the members of the family are just not sexually attractive to them. The reasoning behind this is that the human instincts lead them to find faces that are similar in appearance to be trustworthier, but also consider them less attractive than faces that are different (DeBruine, 2002). This has the double effect that humans prefer to mate with people that do not look like them and in turn spread their genes further and to keep relatives from finding each other sexually attractive.

Historically human societies have had exceptions to the taboo for incest. Generally, these exceptions were for royalty or the “divine” rulers, in ancient Maya and Egypt the leaders were expected to marry their siblings to keep the “divine” lineage genetically pure from outsiders. Incest was also allowed in farming communities in the remote parts of china, where property was passed along a matriarchal line to help to keep goods in the family when necessary (Lumsden and Wilson, 1980). Both of these forms of exceptions are to keep the family’s status as a whole in balance, culturally and instinctually the desire to protect the family’s genes and status outweighed the instinctual desire to avoid incest.

The desire to protect the family genes ties in with incest avoidance by minimizing the parent offspring competition and the resulting violence and possible death. In a significant portion of human societies brother/sister and parent/offspring pairings are forbidden except in special circumstances, but most human societies encourage first cousin marriages (Lumsden and Wilson, 1980). The first cousin marriages helps to reinforce the family ties by opposite ends of the families genes and to ensure that while the families genes are staying strongly in family they are also mixing with non-related genes. This provides for instinctually and culturally for both incest avoidance and protection of the families genes in a single bonding.
[b]V. Conclusion[/b]

The pair bond has been a large part of all human societies and species, for over 1.8 million years; throughout this time, the pair bond has evolved to become the foundation of most human societies. The pair bond over time has been breed into all humans, this instinctual desire for a pair bond is followed by a physical desire and reward system for the pair bond, which in turn, has been followed by a cultural desire for a pair bond. The reason for this breeding is the human requirement for long term care beyond gestation, without a desire to pair bond in either the female or the male their offspring would be less likely to survive until breeding age. Therefore, over time, the majority of offspring born would be born of pair bonded couples that would be able to support their offspring for the required ten or more years.

Because of the same human gestation and care periods that drove the evolution of the original pair bond, it also created a scenario were the human species could not have evolved to the point it is currently without it (Pedersen, 2004). Without the pair bond, the care of offspring would require a group effort like that of chimpanzees, however in chimpanzees constant internal strife within groups ensures that the dominant male sires a large portion of the offspring, not necessarily the most intelligent. In early humans intelligence allowed them to survive on the savannahs of Africa, human ancestors that were intelligent but not necessarily strong enough to compete were not at a disadvantage to alpha males. This allowed intelligence to determine an individuals breeding possibilities and consequently allowed the pair bond to be used as a way to allow not just the strongest individuals to breed but the most intelligent.

Culturally the extended family is universal, although slightly modified for each culture, whether it is the family-reunion-every-five-years style that is prevalent in the western family or the family of some nomadic tribes where the entire family stays together from birth to death. The family has been breed into humans just as the pair bond was. Family groups allow a group of individuals to live together and support each other without the conflict and hierarchical challenges that non-related groups would face. Even in modern cultures the family provides much support and assistance at far less economic and energy cost than the same help from a non-relative. The family also provides a measure of emotional stability and protection that cannot be afforded by people who do not share the same strong emotional bonds than most families do.

The desire or instinct to protect ones genes, is a powerful force in both human evolution and human culture, because of this desire the majority of cultures support both monogamy and supportive family groups. This allowed human and human ancestors to advance through the millennia from the Australopithecus to a point where they now are the dominant species. The instinct to protect ones genes promoted the pair bond and the family group, and consequently the culture that surrounds these institutions is also a result of the innate desire to protect ones genes. Although humans may still practice polygamy or may be genetically promiscuous at times, the future of human evolution lies in the trends human evolution has followed for millennia: permanent pair bonds, and strong family groups. The human family has slowly changed over the millennia from its creation as an instinct to survive, to the cultural institution it is today, but as all societies base their cultural around the family, it seems likely it will not be changing very much in the next few millennia.

Works Cited
Burnham T.C., Chapman, J. Flynn, Gray, P.B., McIntyre, M.H. “Men in committed, romantic Relationships have lower testosterone,” Hormones and Behavior 44, no. 2, (2003): 119-122
DeBruine, Lisa. “Facial resemblance enhances trust,” Proceedings: Biological Sciences 269, No. 1498, (2002): 1307-1312
Fox, Robin, “Alliance and constraint: Sexual selection in the evolution of human kinship systems,” in Sexual Selection and the descent of man, ed. B. Campbell (Chicago: Aldine Atherton, 1972), pp. 282-311
Gallup, Gordon G. “Semen Displacement as a Sperm Competition Strategy in Humans,” Evolutionary Psychology 2 (2004): 12 – 23
Geary, David. “Evolution and Proximate Expression of Human Paternal Investment,” Psychological Bulletin 126, no. 1 (2000): 55 – 77
Griffin, Ashleigh and West, Stuart. “Kin Selection: fact and fiction,” TRENDS in Ecology & Evolution 17, no. 1 (January, 2002): 15 – 21
Hayase, Yasuko. “Factors on Polygamy in Sub-Saharan Africa: Findings Based on the Demographic and Health Surveys.” The Developing Economies, 35, no. 3 (September 1997): 293″327
Hertrich V, Pilon M. “Matrimonial changes in Africa.” Chronicles CEPED, 26, (1997): 1-3.
Immerman, Ronald. “Perspectives on human attachment (pair bonding): Eve”s unique legacy of a
canine analogue,” Evolutionary Psychology 1 (2003): 138-154
Lumsden, Charles J. and Wilson, Edward. “Gene-culture translation in the avoidance of sibling
incest,” Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 77 no. 10 (1980): 6248-6250
Merriman, William. “The Evolution of the Human Family,” 2000, (accessed 10 February)
Pedersen, Cort. “How Love Evolved from Sex and Gave Birth to Intelligence and Human Nature” Journal of Bioeconomics. 6, no. 1 (2004): 39 – 63
Pennisi, Elizabeth “Did Cooked Tubers Spur the Evolution of Big Brains?” Science. 283, no. 5410 (1999): 2004 – 2005 Reno, P, Meindl R, McCollum M, and Lovejoy C. “Sexual dimorphism in Australopithecus Afarensis was similar to that of modern humans,” The National Academy of Sciences 100, no. 16 (2003): 94049409.
Titiev, Mischa. 1959. Introduction to Cultural Anthropology. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Pp. 261 ” 286.
Wrangham RW, Jones JH, Laden G, Pilbeam D, Conklin-Brittain N. “The Raw and the Stolen. Cooking and the Ecology of Human Origins.” Curr Anthropology. 40, no.5 (2003): 567-594.
[b]Bibliography[/b]
Boesch, Christopher and Tomasello, Michael. “Chimpanzee and Human Cultures,”Current Anthropology 39, no. 5, (1998): 591-
Gabora, Liane. “The Origin and Evolution of Culture and Creativity,” Journal of Memetics ” Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission 1, no. 1 (1997): 29-57
Epstein, Marcia. “Future Perfect: “Cultural Evolution” as Intercultural Education,” History of Intellectual Culture 1, no. 1 (2001), (accessed 7 February 2005)
Hemelrijk, Charlotte. “Cooperation without genes, games or cognition.” In 4th European Conference on Artificial Life, ed. P. Husbands & I. Harvey (Cambridge MA: MIT-Press, 2004), 511-520.
Hublin, Jean-Jacques, “The Quest for Adam,” Archaeology, July/August 1999, 26 ” 35
Miller, G. F. “How mate choice shaped human nature: A review of sexual selection and human evolution,” in Handbook of evolutionary psychology: Ideas, issues, and applications, Eds. C. Crawford & D. Krebs, (Lawrence Erlbaum, 1998), pp. 87-130.
Plavcan, J. Michael, van Schaik, Carel P. “Intrasexual competition and body weight dimorphism in anthropoid primates,” American Journal of Physical Anthropology 103, no. 1, (1997): 37-68
Schradin, Reeder, Mendoza, and Anzenberger. “Evolution and Proximate Expression of Human Paternal Investment,” Journal of Comparative Psychology 117, no. 2 (2003): 166-175
Schuiling GA. “The benefit and the doubt: why monogamy?,” Journal of Psychosom Obstet Gynaecol. 24 no. 1, (2003): 55-61.
Sussman, Robert. “Exploring Our Basic Human Nature”, AnthroNotes 1, no. 1 (1997): 29 ” 57

Cultural Anthropology deals with the aspects of human lives that are learned. It examines the way different groups keep societal control, delegate responsibilities and other such learned behaviors.

Physical Anthropology studies the way humans have evolved over time and how different environmental and cultural influences affected human evolution.

Archeology is the study of things humans have created in the past.

Linguistics is the study of how languages are formed, evolve and how culture and language interact with each other.

The divisions are made this way for three main reasons. The first is obvious in that it is impossible for a single anthropologist to be well versed in all four at the same time. To the contrary most anthropologists will spend their entire lives studying one small part of one subfield of one of the above main fields. The four groups although they interact and are helpless without each other makes it much easier to determine where and when one group of anthropologists must pass control to another group of specialists.

The second reason is that there are many different ways to study human behavior and one single discipline cannot cover them all. The only real link between linguistics and archeology is that humans created both and both are products of a single culture.

The third reason is the simplistic. Prior to the creation of a “field” of Anthropology the groups already existed as separate disciplines. An archaeologists would receive a degree in archeology; not a degree in anthropology with a specialization in archeology. Still not all scientific cultures agree with this method. Universities in England, for example, still awards degrees specifically in Archeology keeping it separate from Anthropology.

However, there are other classifications that categorize each sub field into either physical or cultural. In this approach the first three items listed below in both Physical and Cultural anthropology are pure research, while the last item in both lists is applied.

Physical

• Microevolution
• Evolutionary
• Primology
• Forensics

Cultural

• Archeology
• Ethnology
• Linguistics
• Medical Anthropology

As Baraka shows us there is great diversity throughout human civilization; no two are exactly alike. However, it also shows us that they are remarkably similar. In fact, they are too similar. If humans are completely separate from each other, any two cultures with little to no contact should be entirely different” as much as an octopus is from an eagle. However, elements of every culture are linked. Dances by Native Americans are similar to dances by aboriginal Africans or Pacific Islanders. Of course one could make the argument that random chance has made it this way (after all there are only so many ways one can “shake your groove thing”), but all things being equal if left to random chance only half of cultures should have a form of dance and I’ve never read of one that doesn’t (although this is specifically excluding religious groups that frown on it.)

Baraka tries to make the argument that there is no single cultural legacy but rather all aspects are important. However, the human cultural legacy is worthless. It isn’t something rare and valuable, it does not improve with time, it is destructive and it is selfish. Assuming there is other intelligent life in the universe, they wouldn’t be missing out on much if the entire planet were to disintegrate. Rather than putting our effort into improving the human race as a whole, the vast majority of the human species goes about their time not caring about anything around them. Unfortunately this is not just referring to “lazy” Americans but the entirety of the world. According to Titiev (1959) there are 859 documented cultures. Of these cultures exactly 0 put all the resources of their societies into improving the human species as a whole. It is amusing in my opinion that the only people who try to improve the human species (such as Hitler) are lunatics and murderers trying to shape the world into their perverted idea of perfection while the majority of reasonable people just go about there lives worrying only about themselves. Of course there are a few who are popularized for helping people (Mother Teresa comes to mind) however even she didn’t do anything notable. She only helped a few sick and poor people in India. To really do something worthwhile you must do something that effects the entirety of the human species even if they don’t realize it. The creation of nuclear energy didn’t have a direct effect on the lives of South American’s living in the rain forest; however, should they choose to build their own reactor, it will change their lives dramatically (not necessarily for the better.) Even if Mother Teresa saved ten million of India’s poorest and sickest inhabitants she hasn’t done anything for the human species a whole, just something for that small portion of the Earth’s population. Unfortunately the thought of self and group is inbreed into humans and thus the few that can overcome the pressures from theirs selves and society are the individuals that are worth anything. This is not to say that helping the poor and the sick is not a noble cause; it is a perfectly acceptable use of ones life and serves as a balance between the self and humans as a whole. However, everything dies. A life spent keeping away death is, in the end, a failure because one has only forestalled the inevitable. Of course one could argue that they spent their life warding off discomfort, but a hard blow to the head would have the same result.

Humans have a tendency to think of themselves as unique and as history has shown us time and time again they tend to gather around their “uniqueness” as a battle cry and as an excuse to think less of other groups. Unfortunately while this served humans in their developmental stages I believe this no longer has any place in our society. People like to magnify the differences, but the differences themselves are all artificial ” in other words just because the dance is unique doesn’t make the dancer unique. Unfortunately this is a very unpopular opinion; everything a person is told from birth to death is that they are special, humans are unique and humans are better than the animals. Even in Buddhist or Hindu societies which value all life, humans are still superior and all beings must become human before they can achieve enlightenment. However in the bigger scheme of things the way one-group dances is about as unique as a single grain of sand on the beach. It is only altogether that each grain makes anything special; similarly humans are only special when combined with others. It is not what one human can do that makes them special, but it is what all humans can do if they ever chose to work together.