Antropologiske betraktninger om pelshvaldrift

Month: April 2025

Homo

The Australopithecus, our distant forebear (e.g. “Lucy”), lived during a period (the Pliocene) when global temperatures started by rising to 2–3 °C above our current global average before eventually dropping to the point where much of the planet was periodically covered by a thick coat of ice (the Pleistocene) for 2 million years (a scenario possibly resembling what awaits us).

Yet, even during the ice ages, humans were still on the scene, to begin with in the shape of Homo erectus, some of whom left Africa during the Pleistocene, colonised Eurasia and used fire. Resourceful as they obviously were, these vagabonds were probably not our direct forebears, as H. sapiens are believed to have originated on the Horn of Africa between 300,000 and 200,000 years ago.

Fairly recently, we learnt of the migratory wave of H. sapiens via the Middle East to Eurasia and eventually Australia and South America that set off a mere 70.000–50.000 years ago. There had been several previous migratory waves, and there is even “evidence that modern humans had reached China around 80,000 years ago.”

Practically all of these early waves seem to have gone extinct or retreated back, and present-day humans outside Africa descend mainly from a single expansion about 70,000–50,000 years ago.

Since then, we have seen the rise and fall of empires. We have seen massacres, genocides, devastating wars. To be fair, some of us have also been privileged enough to enjoy the arts, sciences, delicious foodstuffs, vacations abroad… Some humans have devoted their lives to others, to the study of chimps, for instance, to the protection of ecosystems, etc.

Moreover, we are now so scientifically advanced that we know that we share nearly 99 % of our DNA with chimpanzees and bonobos.

Now that is not encouraging, because chimps, intelligent as they may be, are a nasty piece of work. To be precise, they are male chauvinist, rapist killers. For some reason, popular culture has refused to focus on these obnoxious traits. And to the extent that people had to admit that there were 21 chimp-on-chimp murders in a single national park in Uganda, they have tended to blame proximity to humans. However, several studies have shown that chimp violence is not a result of contact with humans.

In fact, we found that the site with the least violence had the largest human impact, and the site with the most violence was one of the least impacted.

True, bonobos (who have female leaders, by the way) are not murderous though they too engage in fierce but non-lethal quarrels. We share, I repeat, nearly 99 % of our DNA with them too. Similar to the chimps in appearance, bonobos are not carnivorous. (Moreover, they are on the verge of extinction.)

The reason we share so much DNA with chimps and bonobos is that they and we have a common ancestor. According to Wikipedia:

The split between the human and chimpanzee–bonobo lineages, took place around 8–4 million years ago, in the late Miocene epoch. During this split, chromosome 2 was formed from the joining of two other chromosomes, leaving humans with only 23 pairs of chromosomes, compared to 24 for the other apes.

The famous primatologist Jane Goodall (born 1934), having devoted much of her life to chimps, wrote about chimp violence in her 1990 memoir Through a Window: My Thirty Years with the Chimpanzees of Gombe, quoted by Wikipedia in an article about the Gombe Chimpanzee war:

For several years I struggled to come to terms with this new knowledge. Often when I woke in the night, horrific pictures sprang unbidden to my mind—Satan [one of the apes], cupping his hand below Sniff’s chin to drink the blood that welled from a great wound on his face; old Rodolf, usually so benign, standing upright to hurl a four-pound rock at Godi’s prostrate body; Jomeo tearing a strip of skin from Dé’s thigh; Figan, charging and hitting, again and again, the stricken, quivering body of Goliath, one of his childhood heroes.

Youtube footage of a chimp grieving for a dead relative or performing acts of kindness tends to move us: “So human!” we exclaim. I take a different tack. Hearing the war cries of human alpha males (and “alpha females”!), I exclaim: “So ape-like!”

Alas, today as in the past, the shots are called by ape-like killer-humans. With such leaders, do we even want to be here after WWIII and climate meltdown?

My worry is not that the human species may disappear. My greatest fear is that those of us who are not ape-like, not killer-humans will suffer immeasurably on our route to extinction, just as the Gazans are suffering today.

But I do not believe the species will be entirely extinguished.  Homo has survived in the most uncongenial of circumstances and will as a species survive, even WW III and climate meltdown.

The hunter

Months before the last election, seeing that the Democratic Party had dug its own grave, Jeffrey Sachs sighed that Trump is “all over the map”. I liked the expression. Trump is more than merely “unpredictable”.

In polite company he is said to be “transactional”, meaning – I believe – that he conducts affairs of the state in the same manner as he would try to seal advantageous business deals. I don’t see him that way at all. I see him as a hunter.

There was a time when hunting was a bona-fide way of making a living. Consider, then, the hunter, his dog, the game he is pursuing, the weather, the supplies he must carry on his back, etc. If he is a peasant, he even has to reckon with the landlord’s game keepers. (In much of Europe, landlords used to lord it over all the continent’s vast forests.) The wind may turn, the scent may suddenly vanish, a blizzard may whip up, the dog may get his throat slit, a river may turn into a torrent… anything can happen.

Trump is definitely not that sort of a hunter. He is more like one who hunts from a helicopter. The helicopter’s instruments may be able to determine the location of a fox under the canopy, but they know very little about the fox’s habits. However, the helicopter can certainly adjust to changes of weather, and if the fox manages to disappear, the helicopter will simply return another day.

Trump has to balance between the forces that have brought him to power. To my knowledge these are mainly 1) the disaffected former “middle class”, “working class” or whatever-class most of his voters belong to 2) the Zionists 3) US oligarchs who, for whatever reason, do not consider themselves “liberal”. Disparate forces, in other words. Trump has to please them all, just as the hunter on the ground has to adjust to the weather, the surroundings, the quarry and the dog.

I am not apologizing for Trump, merely trying to explain why he is so “all over the map”, for instance in the matter of tariffs. Added to the multifarious challenges that face him, we find that neither he nor members of his team appear to know much about China, Russia, Ukraine or the rest of the world.

The “tariffs” were a complete disaster, for very, very many reasons. Backing down on the tariffs appears to have raised universal distrust even further. Even “the 90-day pause has done little to quell market fears.”

A person who holds the top job in a country that considers itself the top dog will tend to feel, more often than not, omnipotent. Even long after the “fall of Rome” delusions of grandeur will surely have haunted Rome’s top-job holders. I suspect that when Sir Keir Starmer sings in the shower, his favourite refrain will be: “Rule Britannia, Britannia rule the waves”, long after Britain has turned into a basket case.

Overestimating one’s strength is definitely a weakness in the hunter, one the quarry may take advantage of if he knows his persecutor.

Likewise, fooling your adversary might also be a smart move. I can’t imagine Trump singing, in the shower or elsewhere. But he simply loves signing decrees. So while everybody was wringing their hands about his tariffs, he quietly went and signed an “executive order” the aim of which is for the USA to rule the seas of the world in all perpetuity.

Alas, though Team Trump seems willing to admit that “unipolarity” has come to an end, the White House has not yet lost sight of it.

Why so silent?

“What I don’t understand is that in a country that has so many political parties, not a single one challenges the view that Putin is the Devil incarnate who wants to conquer Europe.”

My interlocutor was clearly exasperated. Indeed, he had every reason to be since he is Russian. What struck me, however, was the point he had just made: Yes, we have, here in Norway, very many political parties. And yes, not one of them challenges the official narrative about the war. Not one! Standing vis a vis him, looking at the moon, it dawned on me that such monolithic support for the official narrative is definitely weird.

“After all, he continued,” you are sending an awful lot of money to Ukraine so that they can kill Russians and get killed. “Shouldn’t you instead be thinking of improving your educational system?” I responded meekly: “I suppose we imagine that our educational system is pretty good.”

But no, he is right. We have schools, yes, and for everybody, but there is nevertheless too much illiteracy here, and I know that lots of kids hate school and that a number of teachers hate their jobs. Sad, when you think of how many kids in other countries never get to go to school at all. Much could be changed, I guess.

The French have, or at least had, Marine le Pen: Her party is opposed to asking French tax payers to contribute to the slaughter of Russians and Ukrainians. She would certainly have won the next French presidential election, but she has been struck down with “lawfare”. Found guilty of using EU money to support her political campaign – as they all do, all the top dogs – she has been banned from political careers for five years. Dirty. Very dirty.

The German AFD and the Sara Wagenknecht party are both angry about how Germany has been used by the USA to support a proxy war against Russia. In France, too, the so-called “far” right and the “far” left share this perspective.

The so-called “centre” left and right label their political opponents “populist”, i.e capable of appealing to the general population, as though the act of attracting many adherents were intrinsically objectionable. A party that by the standards of Democracy garners many votes is bad, then?

Yes, yes, I know: The plebs are guided by disinformation, misinformation and other whatnots. Where they get all that “disinformation” from puzzles me, though, as I see not a sliver of criticism of Zelensky or NATO or Starmer in any corporate outlets.

The UK has Nigel Farrage’s Reform party, which according to recent polls would hold 20 % of the votes, which isn’t all that much, perhaps, but the other parties hold even less. Now the Brits, led by Starmer (mind I am exerting great self-constraint in not preceding his name with an outstandingly disagreeable epithet) slashed 5 billion pounds off disability pensions in January! Why, I ask, doesn’t Keir (I repeat, great resraint!) Starmer, offer disabled persons quick and painless death? That would be even cheaper.

The UK is a sinking ship, and more cuts to Britain’s poor were announced just the other day. The UK’s public sector debt has risen to 97.8 % of GDP, Like Germany, the UK will be running a gigantic permanent budget deficit. Yet it promises 3 billion pounds / year to Ukraine.

I am told that energy prices in the UK are the highest in the world and that the supply of gas is at a critically low level. I will add that what I feel about the British political elite, is not suitable for publication anywhere.

But what about Norway? Are we any better? Thanks to oil, our disability pensions are not being axed. But here, you will hear not a whisper opposing the continued killing in Ukraine. Just silence.

So Europe is a terrible mess – there is no doubt about it. Even the NY Times admits it.

Economies are stagnating, governments are unpopular and efforts to keep the far right out of coalition governments are barely holding.


But lo! Germany’s Merz (he even looks sinister), the EU’s santa Ursula and the UK’s Sir K. Starmer have a great plan: They are going to invest massively in war. Doing so will create jobs, “stimulate the economy” and contribute to killing fields all over the world. The Norwegian word for the scenario they are devising is “Ragnarok”. At least for the no longer so “liberal” West.

In other words: the history of the political West will have a grizzly denouement. The only comfort we can take is a) in the thought that the daily massacres committed by Netanyahu and like-minded vermin will have been overshadowed by the actions of the three deranged musketeers and b) that the well-behaved Norwegians will probably have refrained to the very end from succumbing to “disinformation”, “misinformation” and “conspiracy theories”.

Shall we be as complacent about our own fates as we have been about the dying Russians and Ukrainians?

© 2025 Pelshval

Theme by Anders NorénUp ↑