SERIES OF FIRSTS: When did humans start cooking their food?

 

It's unlikely that nuclear families as depicted in this 

illustration existed at the time, but the drawing is sweet!

Evidence suggests humans started cooking food with controlled fire between 780,000 and 1.9 million years ago-

with widespread habitual cooking established by roughly 250,000 to 400,000 years ago. While early Homo erectus may (or may not) have cooked food to aid brain growth 1–2 million years ago, clear evidence of early cooking includes charred fish teeth (780,000 years ago):

• 780,000 years ago: Researchers found evidence of cooked fish at Gesher Benot Ya’aqov in Israel, indicating early controlled fire usage.
• 1 million years ago: Evidence of burned plant ashes and bone fragments in Wonderwerk Cave, South Africa, suggests fire control without proving yet cooking.
• 1.8–2 million years ago: Anthropologist Richard Wrangham and others argue that anatomical changes in Homo erectus—smaller teeth/jaw and larger brains—suggest a cooked diet began around this time, even if direct archaeological evidence is rare.
• 400,000 years ago: By this period, archaeologists find consistent evidence of hearths, burnt bone, and established cooking habits.
  

Why Cooking Started
Cooking makes food easier to chew and digest, allowing for increased calorie intake to fuel larger brains, which is thought to be a key driver in the evolution of our ancestors' intelligence. 

So why eat raw? From the time we started eating cooked food, we have evolved tremendously genetically. While some foods are healthier raw, many are more readily absorbed if they are cooked. That's why we became so smart and can write and read blogs!

 

Il est peu probable que les familles nucléaires telles qu’elles sont représentées dans cette 

illustration ci-dessus aient existé à l’époque, mais le dessin est charmant !

Les données suggèrent que les humains ont commencé à cuire leurs aliments à l’aide d’un feu maîtrisé il y a entre 780 000 et 1,9 million d’années, la pratique courante de la cuisson s’étant généralisée il y a environ 250 000 à 400 000 ans. S

i les premiers Homo erectus ont peut-être (ou peut-être pas) cuit des aliments pour favoriser le développement de leur cerveau il y a 1 à 2 millions d’années, les preuves évidentes des débuts de la cuisson comprennent des dents de poisson carbonisées (- 780 000 ans) :

Il y a 780 000 ans : des chercheurs ont découvert des traces de poisson cuit à Gesher Benot Ya’aqov, en Israël, indiquant une utilisation précoce et maîtrisée du feu.

Il y a 1 million d’années : des traces de cendres végétales et de fragments d’os calcinés dans la grotte de Wonderwerk, en Afrique du Sud, suggèrent une maîtrise du feu sans pour autant prouver la cuisson/consommation.

Il y a 1,8 à 2 millions d’années : l’anthropologue Richard Wrangham et d’autres chercheurs affirment que les changements anatomiques observés chez l’Homo erectus — des dents et une mâchoire plus petites, un cerveau plus volumineux — suggèrent l’apparition d’un régime alimentaire cuit à cette époque, même si les preuves archéologiques directes manquent.

Il y a 400 000 ans : à cette période, les archéologues trouvent des preuves cohérentes de foyers, d’os brûlés et d’habitudes culinaires bien établies.

Pourquoi la cuisson a-t-elle commencé ?

La cuisson rend les aliments plus faciles à mâcher et à digérer, permettant un apport calorique accru pour alimenter des cerveaux plus volumineux, ce qui est considéré comme un facteur clé dans l’évolution de l’intelligence de nos ancêtres. 

Alors, pourquoi manger cru ? Depuis que nous avons commencé à consommer des aliments cuits, nous avons énormément évolué sur le plan génétique. Si certains aliments sont plus sains crus, beaucoup d’autres sont mieux assimilés lorsqu’ils sont cuits. C’est pour ça que nous sommes devenus si intelligents et que nous pouvons écrire et lire des blogs !

Humans, free will, and genetics

 
 

As I read Isaiah Berlin’s analysis of the relationship between Romanticism and Kant (there is one), I find myself thinking about nature and free will. The trend, at least in the United States, is to attribute more and more behaviors to genetic causes. Aggression is supposedly on chromosome 12 (I'm inventing the #), solidarity on chromosome 6, mysticism on 18. We would be automatons whose programmed behavior is passed down from generation to generation. 

During the sequencing of the human genome, geneticists were surprised by the number of genes detected. 25,000 at most. Far fewer than the 100,000 predicted. 

http://www.ornl.gov/sci/techresources/Human_Genome/faq/genenumber.shtml

I’m delighted. Humans have only twice as many genes as a primitive animal like the nematode. Where are they all, these behavior genes? Attributing behavior to genes relieves humans of the need to make free choices, but above all, it relieves society of its responsibility to provide social justice, equity, egality. If some young people commit crimes instead of studying, if some fathers fail to fulfill their obligations, if some young girls become mothers too early, it’s genetic. Solution: medication? Genetic manipulation? Embryonic selection? Aldous Huxley? 

In the world of research, there is an unscientific tendency to exonerate society, and there is an unscientific tendency on my part to believe with all my heart that human beings can make responsible decisions as long as society provides them with a suitable environment. It has been found that apes that are being harassed by others are actually the most aggressive. If we harass the young males in our society by depriving their environment of the necessities of life and of dignity, they are likely to show aggressive behavior. It has nothing to do with their genetics, everything to do with society that fails them.

May all of humanity’s most beautiful dreams of justice, equality, and solidarity not be thrown away in the name of science.

Contributed by  - -  Arabella von Arx

Jamaica without concessions

I was really there to hear Jamaica Kincaid.  Her prose awes me.  So powerful and fluid.  While there are few dialogues, her texts have a cliffhanger quality to them. Yet not a trace of sentimentality.  How does she do it?  From the moment she made her way up the stairs on the side of the stage, her whole person exuded pain.  That grand old dame, bent over by pain.  That interior pain that flows in her texts, is it the price paid to escape sentimentality? To produce such powerful prose?  She takes the microphone and tells of being up a lot of mischief when she was in school and always getting punished.  At the age of 7, she had to copy down books 1 and 2 of Milton's Paridise Lost.  "It ended up not being a punishment at all, I fell in love with its character, Lucy.  And later named a novel after her.  I'm going to read from book 2."

In the exchange of love between the reading performer and the audience, that's all she was prepared to give.  She came fully prepared to disappoint her lover's expectations.  If she had given us a reading of her work, we would have loved her all the more for it.  But she didn't come for our love. Her reading had a deep, beautiful stance to it.  It's a hard text to listen to, and the audience was fretting.  She left, standing straighter in her raw loneliness.

The age gap in Hollywood movies: not happy ever after

41 year difference between De Niro and his life partner Chen

The average age gap between the male and female leads in Hollywood is 15 years. I don't need to tell you which gender is the older one. And that's average, meaning that in some movies, the male lead is 20 years older or more.

At the end of the movie, it is usually expected that the male and female leads will live for ever happy together. Well, that "forever" is not going to last long. 

Women in the US live on average 5 years longer than men. That means our female protagonist is likely to spend 20 years crying over her love interest's grave. Women's roles peak around age 30, whereas men's roles peak at 46, often with men in their 40s or 50s paired with women in their 20s or early 30s.

It would make much more sense for the woman to be older than the man. By about 5 years. Then they could leave our planet at about the same time!

The gender gap in movies ends up creating a model of normality. People go to the movies and identify with the protagonists. Men will think: oh, I can have a partner that is 10 or 15 or 20 years younger than me. Women will think: oh, I won't get a partner that's my age, I'll have to be in a couple with an older man. 

Marriage fits right in the capitalist market model. De Niro is a celebrity hence his value is top, and he can "afford" a woman 41 year younger. If he were retired in Bayridge, he would be no match for her. Women are supposed to look young and fresh whereas it's ok for a man to look seasoned: he's wise and has made money. Hence at 40 or 50, their market value differs markedly in our society. There are couples were the woman is older, but they tend to be discreet or they get ridiculed or worse, see French President Macron and his older wife who were targeted by US media.>