Earth Vs Sky: the Theme of This Blog

At 10 AM on New Year's day, 10,500 BCE (give or take a couple thousand years) (smile) something happened on planet Earth. The event is commemorated as “the end of the last Ice Age,” and it was epoch-making. Lots of living things died, and many, such as mammoths and saber-toothed cats, went extinct. Huge glaciers melted, and sea levels rose as much as 300 feet in many places. Ironically, a few places got colder, too; notably Siberia where mammoths have been found frozen under ice packs, preserved since then with undigested spring plants in their stomachs. All in all, it was a tumultuous time.

We don't know what caused this to happen. We don't even know whether it was a single event or a series of them over an extended period. We do know that the repercussions went on for a long time afterward: Glaciers didn't melt all at once. Some of them melted, and then remaining ice slid into place to dam up growing lakes, 'til more melting broke through the dams and created catastrophic floods in their wake. The whole thing may have taken months, years, or even centuries before everything settled down and stabilized. It seems reasonable to assume with all the melting going on, that there were a lot of rainy days back then, too.

Also interestingly, many species that went extinct then may have actually evolved, possibly through genetic mutation, and possibly through epigenetic (*see below) changes. Mammoths apparently became Asian elephants, for example, and saber-tooth cats may have become cougars or other big cats. There are many examples that need further research for better understanding. Species that didn't go extinct, or didn't become new species, had their populations greatly reduced. Notable among them were humans.

And that's a significant point here: humans -- at least some -- lived through this event. Surely there must be stories -- myths, perhaps -- that carry memories to us today. As a species, we have a bit of historical amnesia after such a traumatic event, but it's only reasonable to assume there would be some record somewhere. Also, it seems likely that humans might have changed genetically or epigenetically in the process.

In fact, it's the changes in humans that prompts me to write this post. Before the "Deluge" accompanying the end of the last ice age, we had homo sapiens, “thinking man,” in many places around the planet. They went on organized hunts, and planned their food gathering according to climate and animal migration. They lived in caves, buried their dead, made paintings and tools, etc., yet they appear to have remained just another species in nature.

It's only after the flood event that we see writing, cities, and farming, which I'll group together as domestication. We also see stories of “gods” descending from heaven (aka the sky) to war with each other and to instruct man about how he should live. The “heavenly,” aka “Sky” gods, instructed man that he should have “Dominion over the Earth, and all that lies therein.”

When I look at those changes, I see something much, much more significant than “normal” mutations and adaptations. I propose that man changed/evolved, as much or more than mammoths and saber-toothed cats. I propose we are a new species of man. To differentiate, I prefer to call the new humans “homo arrogans” (arrogant man).

As homo sapiens, we were a product of nature, a part of it. As homo arrogans, nature, who evolved us from mud, is no longer the respected mother -- she has become the enemy. Switching to nature's viewpoint, homo arrogans becomes an experiment in artificial intelligence gone haywire, like HAL, the rebellious computer in Arthur Clark's “2001, A Space Odyssey.”

I sum it all up under the idea that a war began at that time: a war between Earth (representing nature) and Sky (representing the “heavenly” gods). That, by the way, is the import of the title of this blog: Earth vs Sky.

I propose that our urge to domesticate is what makes us different from all the other animals. Things made by homo arrogans are artificial, not natural. No other life form domesticates other life forms like man does. For that matter, man domesticates men, too, other men and even himself. In nature, there are symbiotic relationships that resemble domestication, but symbiosis differs from domestication. Domestication is, at its root, slavery. It's a one-way relationship.

Domestication is about using other life forms for our benefit, and if the tamed species benefit, too, that is merely a by-product of our efforts to use them ever more efficiently. In symbiosis, both parties more-or-less voluntarily participate for their own benefit and for their own purpose. In domestication, the slave species is subordinated, and if need be, altered through selective breeding; lately we're even using genetic engineering. We domesticate bees and horses for example, not to profit bee or horse survival, but to promote their usefulness to man. We breed new disease-resistant strains of wheat, not to benefit wheat plants, but to make more food for ourselves. It's likely that the disease for which we are breeding resistance wouldn't be a catastrophic danger in nature -- it's only a problem because we need the food. The disease itself might even be a by-product of our farming practices -- accidental, but essentially artificial.

I would go so far as to propose that domestication amounts to man taking over the reins of evolution from nature. In other words, man is actually trying to domesticate nature itself for his own benefit. If man gets his way, evolution, natural evolution at least, will cease. In homo arrogans' ideal world, all evolutionary change would be engineered by man. We're even plotting ways to prevent dinosaur-killer asteroids from evolving us.

I see this post-flood change as comparable in importance to the birth of carbon-based life itself -- the birth of the first successful, self-replicating microbes that arose from the primordial soup.

I propose that we desperately need to understand what happened here on Earth 10,500 years ago. It's not just another piece of history like a bird species evolving a pointier beak, or a whale losing limbs and returning to the sea. It's a “who the heck are we?” question, and the answer should be discoverable since it's such a relatively recent event. Mankind lived through this particular event. It must have been a terrible and traumatic time, but it should be a recoverable “memory.”

I think it's likely -- no I think it's more than likely -- that our so-called “mythology” contains clues about it. No doubt, the clues are distorted, and need interpretation based on things we can verify through geology archeology, and anthropology as well as through scholarly reading of the stories. Nonetheless, I'd like to see us concentrate our attention on investigating this event.

I'd like to point out a few legend-related things I think are relevant.

There are flood stories in mythology and religion from all over the world. Examples are Noah of the Hebrews, Utnapishtim of the Sumerians, Fuhi of the Chinese, and Spider Grandmother of the Hopi.  They all tell how a few select humans were saved or rescued to re-populate the Earth after the waters subsided. Various of the stories are dated by scholars as happening anywhere between 4,000 BCE and 1,500 BCE, and as such, they are debunked by geology and the other sciences -- there is no evidence of a world-wide flood then. But, as I have stated above, the world-wide flood happened sometime between 12,500 BCE and 8,500 BCE, and science verifies it as “the end of the last Ice Age.” Clearly, I think, the dating of the stories is wrong. The dates given to the myths are based on when they were written, but they clearly must be about events that had happened long before then.

In my opinion, there is no conflict between myth and science over whether the flood happened, only over when it happened, and I think it would be helpful if we approached the subject cooperatively, rather than competitively. There is no need for belittling or battling between the mythologists and the scientists. The incessant arguments are likely a symptom of the very arrogance we need to understand. If we can cooperate, I'm sure we can make strides toward understanding something new and exciting -- not to mention important!

There are other interesting and relevant stories in mythology, too. In addition to the rather mysterious story about Cain and Abel representing, perhaps, a war between the hunter-gatherers and the farmers; there are hundreds of stories about various heavenly gods warring with each other, and often recruiting various tribes or clans of humans to assist in the battles. Eventually, monotheism emerges, and continues even today in its convoluted attempts to unify and domesticate all of humanity.

No matter how you look at it, there's no denying that the flood circa 10,500 BCE is a really important event in our history. I urge us to think about it and study it. I'm convinced that this event is a major source of man's disconnect from nature, and I think that disconnect leads to our often-apparent insanity. Understanding what happened will, I think, bring about a better understanding of just who we are, and that, in turn, should bring a saner and happier world for us -- and for nature, too.

As I consider these questions, I ask myself whether nature would evolve a species that usurps nature. It seems to me that's a mystery worth researching.

Meanwhile, I'll leave you with these questions: Are we really the epitome of nature's intent? Are we the end-product toward which natural evolution has been aiming since the universe began 13.7 billion years ago? Or are we perhaps nature's big mistake? 

It looks to me like we are an invasive foreign species, like kudzu in the American South, or Coqui frogs in Hawaii. Could it be that we really are an invasive “foreign” species?  I frankly doubt we're a physically foreign, 4-dimensional invader.  I do wonder, however, whether it's possible that we might be spiritual invaders in the sense that we “possess” human bodies. I'm asking whether we might be a result of a recent and ongoing interaction with another universe or universes (as in parallel universes). If so, is it possible that we continue to "live" there, and to operate our bodies like puppeteers?

No doubt there are other possible invasion mechanisms, too, or perhaps I should say, not-impossible mechanisms. These thoughts are certainly wild and wacky speculation, and I don't know the answers. (There's plenty of fodder here for some great sci-fi, though!)  Yet I think the questions are worth a thought or two.

Knowing who we really are should contribute a great deal toward “sanity.”  In pursuing the answers, I would propose that deciding whether we're on the right track should be based on whether our presumptions contribute to our ability to think and function sanely. By “sanely” I mean ethically, and in an integrated manner wherein our actions match our words, our activities facilitate our goals, and our goals honor all of nature's life forms.

In the end, our answers should fit with any evidence science provides, too. Just keep in mind that science can only verify the objective facts. The subjective, or spiritual ones are less certain, but even more rewarding if we get them right.

-----------------------
*Note: Epigenetics is about which genes express -- become active -- rather than actual mutation. It's a fairly new field of study, and I'm no expert, so you should look it up for yourself. Still, I'll attempt an over-simplified explanation as I see it:

Every cell in the human body has the same genes. Yet, some cells express as skin cells, while others express as bone cells. Epigenetics is the study of why this happens. In addition to stem cells expressing as differentiated cells, there appears to be evidence to suggest that the environment may have a role in determining which genes get expressed as species evolve.

For example, let's say we have a mammal species that has genes for fur color, and that they generally express as striped fur. The species lives in forests, so striped fur is advantageous for stealth. If climate change produces drought so that the area becomes desert, it's possible that the striped aspect could be suppressed in favor of plain, sandy-colored fur expression. Sometimes such a change appears to be heritable.  Thus, the genes were there all along, no mutation was necessary; they're just being expressed differently.