Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site psivax.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!whuxlm!whuxl!houxm!vax135!cornell!uw-beaver!tektronix!hplabs!sdcrdcf!psivax!friesen From: friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen) Newsgroups: net.origins Subject: Re: A case of mistaken identity Message-ID: <813@psivax.UUCP> Date: Fri, 25-Oct-85 18:46:43 EST Article-I.D.: psivax.813 Posted: Fri Oct 25 18:46:43 1985 Date-Received: Wed, 30-Oct-85 03:46:35 EST References: <434@imsvax.UUCP> Reply-To: friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen) Organization: Pacesetter Systems Inc., Sylmar, CA Lines: 50 Summary: In article <434@imsvax.UUCP> ted@imsvax.UUCP (Ted Holden) writes: > >Chris Lewis writes: > > This would come about >due to the fact that it is too cold to ever take showers in Siberia; anyone >who hunted that way THERE would never smell right again until the day of >judgement, and St. Peter would probably laugh at him then. Now, I claim >that this would result in a problem for these hunters when they sought >wives for themselves. I mean, have you ever walked into a bar all covered >with bullshit and tried to pick up women? I've never tried it but I have >to believe it would be pretty near impossible. Thus, I claim that natural >selection would have favored hunters who went out and killed deers and rabbits >and ducks, and that those who smeared bullshit over themselves and went out >after mammoths would have had no progeny. > Several doubtful assumptions here. First you are assuming that modern NA civilized man's ideas about the pleasantness of odors are universal, they probably are *not* since the affective response to odors is largely a *learned* response in humans. Perhaps the Siberian women *liked* the odor since it indicated a successful hunter and a good provider! Then you assume that a shower is the only way to get clean, it is not. I am sure they had ways of getting clean. Besides the temperature was that cold only during the winter, during the summer it could well have gotten into the 70's. > What about the stories you hear about Masai or Pigmy tribesmen killing lions >and elephants? From what I can gather, talking to people who have spent time >in Africa, this invariably amounts to a once-in-a-lifetime initiation rite or >something, and that about half the people attempting such things get killed. >This couldn't put a dent in elephant or lion populations; humans would have to >be hunting lions or elephants on a regular basis to pose any real threat to >them, and nobody is going to be doing anything that dangerous on a regular >basis. But an initiation ceremony is an *individual* doing the hunting, and as such is not at all comparible to an organized tribal hunt. Then there is the fact that Mammoths were not as large as Elephants. What is usually assumed to have happened is that man's hunting during a time of stress(the retreat of the glaciers) pushed the population over the edge, below the maintenance level. Remember, ecologically similar animals, like the Yak, *still* exist in the same areas as the Mammoth used to. -- Sarima (Stanley Friesen) UUCP: {ttidca|ihnp4|sdcrdcf|quad1|nrcvax|bellcore|logico}!psivax!friesen ARPA: ttidca!psivax!friesen@rand-unix.arpa