CopyRight @ 1997
Historical Western Humanity
Sumerians
Semites
Indo-Europeans
Local Populations
Celts
Primary focuses of evolution in history..faith, war, beauty intelligence
civil potentials - farmers, craftsmen...
This is an examination of humans in the time period that is
referred to as history. This is pretty well defined as the time
since the creation of the cities, when humanity started on a
new course of social development. The consequences are amazing
and overwhelmingly significant... and ongoing.
This chapter, as most of this book, focuses on the "West",
the Europeans, their ancestors and their descendents, the
Americans. This kind of examination will apply to all races and
eventually will be created for all races that survive. Most of
this chapter is based on the work of C.D. Darlington.
Who were your ancestors? What were they really like. What
was it about them that allowed all those ancestors, against all
odds, survive to produce yourself? What traits from your tribal
and historic ancestors, have you got that are what gave them the
potential to survive until this time? What are you that is more
than your ancestors were? Why and how is that other person
different from yourself? What are the similarities? By the way,
do you have a talent for mathematics?
Humans developed in small, relatively isolated tribes. With
the rise of agriculture and civilization, some of these groups
came together in cities. A stratified society developed to allow
the different groups to work together and make their contribution
to the society. Each tribe or caste specialized in an occupation
and basically stayed adjacent, but seperate.
Due to a slow continual mixing and hybridization of these
tribal groups, largely due to cities, war and slavery, present
humans are genetically different from the tribal groups that
created the stratified society.
About 400,000 years ago, humans developed the tools and
skills necessary to hunt big game. This was actually the time
that this present change in ecology was triggered. We still have
not reached another stable ecology since that time. About 70,000
years ago, some groups developed agriculture. It was quite
possibly conservative groups trying to preserve their way of life
by preserving and nurturing the local wild crops. This led to the
expansion of the "Neolithic" farming tribes that colonized much
of the world before there were any civilizations. Their methods
of cultivation were very crude and depleted the soil such that
the groups had to remain relatively mobile. Over time, crops,
livestock and the humans developed. Humans learned to build by
doing terrace farming. This was also a way to farm that did not
deplete the soil. It could be endlessly carried back up. They
then expanded to farming in the floors of the river valleys. Soil
was replenished by the flooding of the rivers and so the soil was
not depleted. This allowed the formation of cities on the deltas
between the Euphrates and Tigris Rivers. With the development of
cities came revolutions in cultural evolution. It should be
remembered that evolution always works to speed itself. With the
rise of the cities, massive changes become only benchmarks. We
developed agricultural technique, industry, early sciences,
moralities and complex religions. Humans colonized the world
primarily by boat. We developed metallurgy and went to the ends
of the earth to seek copper and tin to make bronze. The niche
of the warrior and the military ruler opened. Empires were
created and the stratified society was developed.
Much of human progress started as technical developments,
such as agricultural practices, animal husbandry, transport and
warfare. Iron usage was learned. It is hard to estimate the
importance of iron to the development of what humans are, but it
is very easy to see its importance in history. In response to the
rule of iron, very powerful ideologies and religions were born.
Advanced political forms were created, notably the American
Constitution.
When looking at present circumstances, what peoples have
created and thrived through these changes? This is a story of
how the Sumerians, Semites, Indo-Europeans and Celts came
together to make the core of the present occidental society.
Sumerians
So where did you come from? What were your ancestors like
and where did your character and potentials come from? Are you
any good at math? If you are a contemporary occidental, your
abilities to live in cities came from your Sumerian ancestors
who built agricultural cities in Turkey, Iran and Irag from about
6000 B.C. to 2000 B.C. Originally they were tribes, but over time
they became a race. The Sumerians developed most of the civil and
agricultural based industries including agricultural engineering,
stone working, pottery, bronze working, milling, baking, record
keeping and astronomy. Administration and organization was
originally by priests. If you are any good at math, you probably
got your talent for it from the astronomers and scribes of
Sumeria.
This was the first civil society of differing tribes and the
tribes had different moral systems. As the society developed and
the tribes became occupational castes, there was no one moral
system that would work for the different castes or that was
acceptable. The first moral systems of the cities were simple
and not adaptable enough to serve much more than the groups that
developed them.
The moral system of peasants and slaves are enforced by the
upper classes. The craftsmen and artisans would have required
manual skills, coupled with intelligence and training. The
knowledge of the earliest scribes, astronomers and priests may
not have been extremely advanced, but it was extremely complex.
These castes required very extensive education and disipline.
The history of Sumeria included back and forth raiding with
their neighbors. They were attacked at times by mountain tribes,
but mostly by shepherds. Peace was achieved by marriage. About
2400 B.C. they were conquered by Semitic pastoralists who
replaced the priestly ruling class with a military government.
For a thousand years, from the time of Sargon The Great,
these "civilized" Sumerian-Semitic peoples hybridized and spread,
selectively absorbing the local neolithic farmers and paleolithic
hunter-gatherers. The civil people expanded the most, as a class,
because the neolithic farming tribes had already expanded well
before the creation of the cities. The niche for cities and their
advanced techniques and organizational systems, was wide open.
Human variation in appearance is highly related to the local
populations that were encountered, but the ability to live in
cities and tradition of living in cities came from the earliest
civil groups.
The Semites added increased aggressiveness, intelligence and
organization to the potentials of the Sumerians. In time, their
development led to Egypt, Mesopotamia and the migrations of the
Phoenicians, Minoans and the Megalithic tribes.
All modern occidental people include this hybrid Sumerian-
Semitic base that included Semitic aggressiveness and
intelligence as well as the original Sumerian timidity and civil
and technical potentials.
Like all of the earliest civilizations, Sumerian agriculture
depended on the soil that was replenished by the river.
Agriculture probably originated as terrace farming on the side of
river valleys. It was only later, with the development of better
crops and farmers, that they progressed to the irrigation and
farming of the flat delta areas of the Tigris and Euphrates
Rivers. The consequence of this is that very early on, the
agriculturists developed rock building techniques for
constructing terraces. Obviously these skills left what we see
today as the most visible and lasting records of the earliest
civilizations.
Then came the impact of the Indo-European Tribes. They were
pastoralists from the area of the Caucus Mountains and south
western Russia. They have been miscalled Aryans, who apparently
were just one tribe and they went to the east rather than the
west. The names heard for the people that went west, are the
Sythians, Mittani and the Hittites. They were known to the
Sumerians as conquering invaders. Later in Greece, they were
called the Dorians and Ionians. They aggressively conquered what
civilization there was, culminating when the Indo-European Greeks
of Mycenea conquered the last great element of the Sumerian-
Semitic civilization, Minoan Crete. From then on, the written
history of western humans is how the Sumerian-Semitic civilized
peoples accommodated and then hybridized with the conquering
pastoralists. Historically, the pattern was marriage to create
peace.
According to C.D. Darlington, linguistics suggests that even
before the colonizing expeditions, the Sumerians had encountered
the Indo-Europeans. The Sumerians used the Indo-European words
for cattle and bronze.
So the Indo-Europeans selectively got the Sumerian timidity,
civil and technical potentials as well as some Semitic
aggressiveness and intelligence. The reason the Indo-Europeans
replaced the Semitics as the holders of the ruling position was
the degree, nature and organization of their aggressiveness. From
the Indo-Europeans, the Sumerian-Semites got intelligence,
aggressiveness and especially important at the time, organization.
It is time to pause to discuss a little of the meaning and
importance of aggressiveness. Aggressive is usually taken to mean
simply violence or threat of violence, yet it has many more
important meanings. It also means active. It can be associated
with the basis of personal survival, creativity, exploitation,
drive, violence, love, protectiveness and many other important
human attributes. Aggressiveness enhances all behaviors where an
active state works better than a passive state. This is the
importance of aggressiveness now. The directly violent aspects of
aggressiveness will actually be considered as a separate section.
At the time that the Indo-European tribes were conquering
the ancient east, aggressiveness simply meant the talent and
inclination towards wars of conquest. The rise of the cities
brought many peoples together. That created not only material
wealth, but also the potential for political power. The
pastoralist were used to fighting among themselves and so were
able to fill the power vacuum. The Indo-Europeans replaced the
Semitics as the ruling class due both to the nature of their
aggressiveness and their organizational ability.
Now the violent aspects of aggressiveness can be seen, but
more importantly are the positive effects of aggressive drive
when it fuels the creativity of a craftsman, artist or scientist.
Over time, the civil races selectively absorbed the aggressive
potentials of the aggressive tribes. This hybridization makes us
potentially much more aggressive than our early city ancestors.
We are aggressive enough that the niche that was completely open
at the beginning of the cities, is now almost completely closed.
Warfare is more costly now, because most peoples are potentially
good fighters now.
This does not discuss aggressiveness as a primary
reproductive behavior. That is for another chapter. but this does
give enough of a description of the breadth of the meaning of
aggressive behavior, to show some of its importance to humans.
Aggressiveness has created both destructive violence and much of
the creativity that has built civilization and allowed humans to
use their minds to understand and manipulate their world.
So far as these ancestral traits mentioned are concerned,
the easiest to observe are Sumerian intelligence, especially
indicated by mathematical ability, and Indo-European
aggressiveness. Both Semitic and Indo-European intelligence can
be observed, but they are less noticeable as primarily they add
to the Sumerian base. Predators tend to be more intelligent than
their prey and hunting or fighting other humans, as pastoralists
did due to the economics of their way of life, also requires more
intelligence.
The Indo-Europeans showed a talent for organization in the
beginning. They could organize what they conquered. Usually
competition at the top of the social structure, the ruling class,
is extremely tough. So the Indo-European ruling class survived
only if they improved their organizational skills.
The Sumerians created the multi-racial stratified
city. It was a civil plan that kept different peoples adjacent to
utilize their different talents, yet reproductively separate as
to perpetuate each groups contribution to the city. They were
separated according to occupational nature as different castes.
This was a step in social organization and represented Indo-
European talent for organization.
The Semites changed it from a society dominated by priests,
to a militarily dominated society. The Indo-Europeans followed
and replaced them. The Persians, Alexander, created great
empires. This whole system expanded, hybridized and evolved. It
culminated with the Romans whose law, precedence and tradition
still hold sway today. The system initiated by the Romans was
restructured into the monarchy and the Catholic church. The fall
of the monarchies of Europe was the end of the political entity
in the tradition of Babylonia, started by or before the first
Indo-Europeans. The end of the monarchies and the two world wars
show the end of the power vacuum that was created by the
creation of the cities.
CELTS
1.
The description of the development of the Sumerian/Semitic/
Indo-Europeans to present day is only to tell the written record
of the history of the time and peoples. At the same time there
was a different society developing in parallel that left a
different kind of record and developed different habits.
The contribution of the Celts to modern European society is
extremely important, but due to the lack of written history or
other sources, it is rather hard to describe. Also, the
importance of the Megalithics in this society can only be guessed
at.
The importance of the Celts seems to stem from the result
when the older civil races met and hybridized with them. This
always initiated historical changes.
A problem arises when talking about the importance of Celts
to the older European civil races. The discussion considers the
Celts to be the local indiginous tribes in the area of the
Eastern Atlantic. It may be that much of the importance of their
contributions came from their earlier encounters with very early
Sumerians.
The Megalithic tribes organized well planned colonizing
expeditions starting about the time of early Egypt. They were
Sumerian/Semitic hybrids including priests, builders and sailors.
They fit well into the societies they found along the
Mediterranean coast and European Atlantic coast where their ships
took them. They were urbanites that entered a tribal environment,
bringing techniques and beliefs that were readily assimilated by
the local peoples. Their genes were assimilated too. They left
behind characteristic tombs and cemeteries such as Stonehenge and
Car Nac.
They left the main centers of civilization before the main
Indo-European impacts. Communication was maintained for 2000
years by Phoenician traders, but there is little written record
of these people. Scribes could not expect employment in a colony,
so they did not go on the expeditions. Still the record is there
in the stones and the genes. There were astronomers and some
theories have been advanced that some of the expeditions may have
been scientific. They may have run a gold trade (Ross and Robbins).
The peoples that the expeditions met had low melanin levels
in response to the lower light level of the higher latitudes. One
race was distinctively red haired, light skinned, freckled and
quite aggressive. They might be called proto-Celts. They are well
represented today by appearance and their temperament might be
considered characteristic. They apparently correspond to the
Indo-Europeans in that they contributed useful aggressive
characteristics to the more timid Sumerian base. The only
representatives of these tribes, in behavior or appearance, are
now thoroughly hybridized with the Megalithic-Sumerian/Semitic
base or else they have trouble adjusting to the civil society.
The Sumerian/Semitics got aggressiveness and some characteristics
of intelligence as well as other characteristics of the
passionate hardy peoples of the shores and forests of Europe. The
local populations got the basic potentials of civilization.
Other Sources
The expanding civil tribes did not move into areas that
were completely empty. There were many local indiginous groups.
To the largest extent they failed to compete, but often, they
would have been selectively absorbed. Beauty would have been a
traite that would have been perpetuated by the civil tribes on
an individual level. Some tribes would have succeeded in
surviving by diplomacy, valuable local skills, or an aggressive
nature that promoted diplomatic solutions by the invaders.
Quite possibly the traveling Sumerians met and hybridized
with the Reindeer followers like present day Lapps. This could
be consequential because they are adapted to such an extreme
environment.
The beaker folk may well be one of the tribes that joined to
become the Celts. 1.
Obviously, from looking at modern Europeans, there is great
variation in physical appearance. To a large extent, this
represents the appearance of local tribal people that got
assimilated. The appearance of our psychologies are more similar.
Though you can recognize physical characteristics of these
ancestral racial sources, the psychological traits are much more
common. The adaptations to urban life, inherited from the
Sumerians, is almost universal to any occidental that is
comfortable with urban living. Your ancestors were some
survivors. You are far hardier and aggressive than your Sumerian
ancestors. Your aggressiveness primarily comes from the Indo-
Europeans or the red heads of the Atlantic coast or both. The
Indo-Europeans included the Greek colonizations and the Romans as
well as other ambitious groups that widely traveled and conquered.
In consequence, the Indo-Europeans aggressive characteristics are
more widely represented than that of the red heads. In general,
the further west in Europe, the less the presence of the Indo-
Europeans and the more the presence of the Megalithic. The method
of warfare of the Indo-Europeans was dependent on mobility of
chariot and horse. It did not work so well in the European
forest. Apparently the Indo-European descended iron smiths were
quite welcome though, because much of that period of history was
about the magic of the iron smith and the felling of the Great
European Forest. Other tribes and individuals were able to find a
niche in the city by aggressiveness, beauty, intelligence or some
other trait that fit into the city.
Through this all was the effect of slavery leading to
further mixing of the tribes.
2, It must be remembered that it is not just the potential of
any particular trait that determines the result of selection. As
important is the result when it is hybridized with the Sumerian
and other base races. If it does not act as a complement to the
base genes, it will be selected against, independent of its own
merit. All existing occidental traits hybridize well with the
traits of the base races. It can cause conflicting pulls, as will
be discussed later. 2.
3, The historic descriptions could actually be misleading or
even inaccurate. It has been said that there may not be a
connection between the Megalithics and the Celts. It seems
unlikely. In any case, it seems that the Celts did have very
special potentials. The observational descriptions might even be
questionable in some particular. The important point though, is
that the characteristics and potentials of our ancestors are
clearly visible today. Observation will certainly fail to
accurately describe the meanings and selective forces that have
led to the genetic combinations of present humanity. Chromosomal
study should accurately determine the racial and characteristic
makeup of our population and any individual. Modern racial
descriptions will tend to fall apart under close examination of
different genetic sources. We will have to utilize what
potentials are available. XXXpand 3.
Genetics - War, Faith and Disease
It is easy to see that the warrior often had great
competitive advantages in the civil society as it developed.
There were also great limitations. Once a warrior group conquored
a people they tended to get assimilated or eventually lose
control. Until the time of Alexander, warriors never learned how
to make warfare lead to a useful niche in the society. Warfare
does not inherently produce its own niche. The Greeks with their
incredible city state wars eventually learned the unprofitability
of war. As soon as the conquest was done, the talents of the
warrior tended to be less important than the talents of the civil
populations. Of course, by that time, the warriors owned or taxed
what they wanted. The net result tended to be that the warrior
had a reproductive advantage. His genes tended to be very
successfully hybridized with the civil populations. At present,
in the highly hybridized population in the United States, almost
everyone is hybridized enough with warriors to be able to act as
a warrior. This is true to a lesser extent in Europe. Many
traites would contribute to success as a warrior, including
speed, coordination, endurance, control under stress and
organization, as well as aggressiveness. During history the
traites of the warrior groups, primarily pasoralist groups,
increased greatly.
Another genetic potential that was focused on by selection
during this time, was a general responce to the overwhelming
problems presented by surviving and adapting to completely new
ecoloies. This was the basic survival instinct. The will to
survive under any condition and adversity. It was what allowed
cultures and individuals to survive while completely subjugated
as slaves by warrior societies. Many species are so fragile that
when their situation changes, they are basically paralyzed. They
die without much of an attemp to adapt. Humans are extremely
adaptive and will struggle against any odds. This basic survival
instinct operates within the context of the individual, family
and community/tribe. It is a behavior like others with a genetic
basis that comes into play under environmental stimulation. It
may grow slowly or burst forth suddenly when circumstances
demand. It is the genetic base that causes humans to learn and
use the learned survival strategies called moralities. It was
probably the main focus of evolutionary selection through most of
history and before. The only name generally given to this basic
survival instinct that has allowed us to survive and adapt is
Faith. It is a loaded word. Because of its importance to human
survival it has gotten associated with religions which claim to
be its source. Truely, faith is the source and religion is the
product. It seems quite likely that faith and morality, in the
context of the tribe, was what actually caused the rise and
expansion of the neolithics.
Another primary focus of evolution during this time would
have been a responce to disease. An inevitable consequence of
greater population density and greater communication between
populations, would be an increase in the rate of communicable
disease. The stories of plagues echo through history to the
present. Time and again, historical events can be related to
a specific event of disease. Part of the responce in some
cultures, were the development of sanitary practices, often as a
part of a moral system. The idea of the Kosher practices of the
Jews were primarily a responce to reduce disease. In Europe
though, people seemed in general to not associate disease and
sanitation, so they relied on natural selection. It could be
expected that human immune systems have constantly developed
from the time of the first cities.
Through the time period called history, it is basically a
story of the expansion and development of the occidental society.
In many cases the term development means an increase in
complexity. Humans main genetic potential for responding to their
society is intelligence. Through all of the development of human
society, selection has focused on intelligence. This is
especially true during the demanding period that has been recent
history.
These are considerations of general selective trends. Each
caste had selective pressures particular to their different
niches. The rulers got more talented at ruling and organization.
The warrior got better at the talents of war. The craftsman got
better at tool making and tool use. The farmer got better at
understanding plant, animals, weather and soil. The scribe
developed greater intellectual potentials. Many of these
improvements in potentials occured due to the results of
hybridizations between different castes as well as hybridizations
between different tribes of the same occupational caste. It seems
that the ruling castes, while often practicing marriage for its
economic and political functions, often tried selective breeding
of their caste. They knew the precariousness of their position.
Social Development
So these are the ancestral races of the occidental culture.
They are almost universally Sumerian/Semitics from the Ancient
East or else the Atlantic coast Megalithics. Also the Indo-
Europeans are about all pervasive as are the Proto-Celts, in the
areas of the Megalithics. Then there are the local tribes that
got selectively absorbed. So what is the context that these all
fit into? It is the culture that developed in and around the
cities. The way that the social system of the cities was
organized was called the stratified society. Human habit in
cities was to divide themselves according to the occupation of
the tribal components of the city. Each tribal component became a
caste. Each caste kept separate to preserve the traits that
allowed them to fill their occupational niche. Religion was what
each caste used to preserve its identity by promoting
perpetuation of the community. The simplest possible schematic
description of the stratified society, such as Sumeria, would
have at least three components. A base of peasant farmers to
provide food, craftsmen to make farming tools and to do
construction and a priestly class for leadership and
organization.
When Sargon conquered Sumeria, this social form was forced
to accommodate another component, a military ruling class. They
took on some of the functions of the priests, but mostly they
were filling the new niche that had opened up for warriors. At
different times and locals there were various tribes or castes
that specialized as woodworkers, potters, masons, metalworkers,
builders, miners, sailors and other occupations that could fit
into the cities. As wealth increased and different groups became
more affluent, such as the miller being more wealthy than the
farmer that produces the grain, economic classes developed that
corresponded to the tribal-occupational castes.
Not only did each tribal caste have the potential to fulfill
one particular occupational function in the city, but also the
best place to learn an occupation is in the home. Widely, the law
was that son shall follow father in occupation. Then the whole
system was formalized by Alexander and it is pretty much the way
it has remained until recently.
History lesson according to Darlington is over. Let's talk
turkey. ...ie consequences of this history ->5,
So did we make any progress in all this time, since the
beginning of the cities, agriculture, warfare, the stratified
society or any of these other changes we have already
experienced. We have learned a lot, about the arts, techniques
and we have developed science as a very useful tool. We have had
cultural revolution after cultural revolution within the space of
generations. Moralities and genetics evolve. It is a real problem
of our genetic potentials adapting to these changes and then
causing more cultural changes that require more adaptation. It is
a little amazing that we have been able to adapt this far. It has
been done by the hybridization and then adaptation of the tribal
or caste components of the society. Each nation or race has many
of the same basic requirements that have to be fulfilled be
different castes. The temperament and nature of the members of
the same caste from different races is likely to be more similar
than between members of different castes of the same race. That
is to say that the nature of a farmer or warrior of one nation is
more similar to a farmer or warrior from another nation than is
the nature of the farmer and the warrior from the same nation.
Racial, tribal, nations, families and castes all have mobile, but
useful meanings. The stratified society worked very well, but
there were social disruptions and practices that allowed
hybridization between races and castes. Slavery also had this
effect. These were followed by periods of social stability and
the castes were again effectively segregated by available
occupation (this is called assortive mating). Since the sixteenth
century, there have been signs of the growing effects of this
hybridization, including the Protestant movement. The rise of the
Protestants was a rejection of the existing social form. Those
groups were hybridized enough that they did not need or desire
the old social form with its excessive rigidity. The upper castes
and classes had enough reproductive advantage that a great
percentage of the population had the potentials and
characteristics of the upper classes. It ended up that they were
not as dependent or subject to the rule of the upper classes.
Many individual communities contained all the skills necessary to
their society including organization and defense. In ways this is
similar to a tribal situation. From before the time of Luther,
there were Protestant groups that though persecuted, continued to
grow. Then when Henry VIII replaced the Catholic Church in
England, many of the Protestants went there. They were not all
that welcome there, so funny thing, They ended up going to
America. 5.
Summary
6. That is you. Not necessarily your religion, but your
breeding. Most Americans, Europeans and some Middle Easterners
are this high quality hybrid of different races and classes. The
development of humankind has been the coming together of peoples.
Some groups are very widely represented, but the abilities of
innumerable tribes and races are still there and doing quite
well.
?? All modern occidentals have the Sumerian ability to
physically tolerate living in the physical conditions of the
city. They also have the aggressive potentials and intelligence
of the Semites.
This discussion of social habits of humans in the tribal and
stratified societies could be expanded and them compared with the
observable and predictable features of the technologically based
society that is presently developing.
Because biological systems are inherently conservative, the
discussion should be about the similarities between the tribal or
stratified societies and the technological society. It is
referred to as a technologically based society because of the
source of our energy and resources. The stratified society is
basically about tribes that live with other tribes and how they
have organized into a larger society. Mobility, communication and
technology are ending the basis of the tribe and the stratified
society by promoting hybridization between tribes. Hybridization,
by itself facilitated by the niches opened by technical and
social development, would eventually end the historic form of the
stratified society by changing aspects of what humans are. We
would no longer be tribal. Changes due to hybridization might
proceed slowly though, because the stratified society does work
pretty well and the system is very conservative. Politics could
slow social change, but there are other overwhelming factors,
especially genetics, that are going to rapidly propel us into
some fundamental changes in the nature of humans and society.
Both the Indo-Europeans and the Celtics contributed important
aggressive potentials to the civil populations. Though they both
contributed behavioral potentials that serve similar purposes, they
developed under very different conditions and so should be different
in many ways.
The hunter-gatherer ecology was relatively stable in
population size and resource utilization over a long period of
time. Population size and resource utilization are presently
undergoing drastic changes. Humans are in a transition between
stable ecologies. If the human specie survives, we will again
reach a state of stable population and resource utilization. At
least in some local context and time frame. This might be a
relatively non-technical ecology like the hunter-gatherer, but if
humans retain technology, the ecology will be very different from
anything before. Local is going to refer to planets and archology
habitats. The time frame is as predictable as human preference.
The overall transition has already shown a system where
technology is facilitated by specialization of reproductive
groups into occupational sub-niches or castes. Instead of hunter-
gatherer, it might be called "stratified". We may have reason to
use that system again, but it seems more likely that the
stratified society is just one step in the development to a
different social form that can be stable. The genetic basis of
the stratified society is inherently unstable, In any case, our
energetic acquisition strategy will be totally dependent on
technique and planning to exploit renewable or relatively
limitless resources, usually where there was no resource for the
tribal human.