Who Domesticated Humans?

Excerpted from Yuval Noah Harari’s book: “Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind”, wherein he deconstructs the prevailing narrative of the Agricultural Revolution as history’s biggest fraud:

"Scholars once proclaimed that the agricultural revolution was a great leap forward for humanity. They told a tale of progress fuelled by human brain power. Evolution gradually produced ever more intelligent people. Eventually, people were so smart that they were able to decipher nature’s secrets, enabling them to tame sheep and cultivate wheat. As soon as this happened, they cheerfully abandoned the grueling, dangerous, and often spartan life of hunter-gatherers, settling down to enjoy the pleasant, satiated life of farmers.

"That tale is a fantasy. There is no evidence that people became more intelligent with time. Foragers knew the secrets of nature long before the Agricultural Revolution, since their survival depended on an intimate knowledge of the animals they hunted and the plants they gathered. Rather than heralding a new era of easy living, the Agricultural Revolution left farmers with lives generally more difficult and less satisfying than those of foragers. Hunter-gatherers spent their time in more stimulating and varied ways, and were less in danger of starvation and disease. The Agricultural Revolution certainly enlarged the sum total of food at the disposal of humankind, but the extra food did not translate into a better diet or more leisure. Rather, it translated into population explosions and pampered elites. The average farmer worked harder than the average forager, and got a worse diet in return. The Agricultural Revolution was history’s biggest fraud.

"Who was responsible? Neither kings, nor priests, nor merchants. The culprits were a handful of plant species, including wheat, rice and potatoes. These plants domesticated Homo sapiens, rather than vice versa.

"Think for a moment about the Agricultural Revolution from the viewpoint of wheat. Ten thousand years ago wheat was just a wild grass, one of many, confined to a small range in the Middle East. Suddenly, within just a few short millennia, it was growing all over the world. According to the basic evolutionary criteria of survival and reproduction, wheat has become one of the most successful plants in the history of the earth. In areas such as the Great Plains of North America, where not a single wheat stalk grew 10,000 years ago, you can today walk for hundreds upon hundreds of kilometers without encountering any other plant. Worldwide, wheat covers about 2.25 million square kilometers of the globe’s surface, almost ten times the size of Britain. How did this grass turn from insignificant to ubiquitous?

"Wheat did it by manipulating Homo sapiens to its advantage. This ape had been living a fairly comfortable life hunting and gathering until about 10,000 years ago, but then began to invest more and more effort in cultivating wheat. Within a couple of millennia, humans in many parts of the world were doing little from dawn to dusk other than taking care of wheat plants. It wasn’t easy. Wheat demanded a lot of them. Wheat didn’t like rocks and pebbles, so Sapiens broke their backs clearing fields. Wheat didn’t like sharing its space, water, and nutrients with other plants, so men and women labored long days weeding under the scorching sun. Wheat got sick, so Sapiens had to keep a watch out for worms and blight. Wheat was defenseless against other organisms that liked to eat it, from rabbits to locust swarms, so the farmers had to guard and protect it. Wheat was thirsty, so humans lugged water from springs and streams to water it. Its hunger even impelled Sapiens to collect animal feces to nourish the ground in which wheat grew. 

"The body of Homo sapiens had not evolved for such tasks. It was adapted to climbing apple trees and running after gazelles, not to clearing rocks and carrying water buckets. Human spines, knees, necks, and arches paid the price. Studies of ancient skeletons indicate that the transition to agriculture brought about a plethora of ailments, such as slipped disks, arthritis, and hernias. Moreover, the new agricultural tasks demanded so much time that people were forced to settle permanently next to their wheat fields. This completely changed their way of life. We did not domesticate wheat. It domesticated us. The word “domesticate” comes from the Latin domus, which means “house.” Who’s the one living in a house? Not the wheat. It’s the Sapiens. 

A pair of oxen and an Egyptian farmer spent their lives in hard labor in the service of wheat cultivation (Tomb of Sennedjem, circa 1200 BC).

A pair of oxen and an Egyptian farmer spent their lives in hard labor in the service of wheat cultivation (Tomb of Sennedjem, circa 1200 BC).

The horseman serves the horse,
The neat-herd serves the neat,
The merchant serves the purse,
The eater serves his meat;
‘Tis the day of the chattel,
Web to weave, and corn to grind,
Things are in the saddle,
And ride mankind.
— Ralph Waldo Emerson (1803-1882)

"How did wheat convince Homo sapiens to exchange a rather good life for a more miserable existence? What did it offer in return? ... It offered nothing for people as individuals. Yet it did bestow something on Homo sapiens as a species. Cultivating wheat provided much more food per unit of territory, and thereby enabled Homo sapiens to multiply exponentially.

“The currency of evolution is neither hunger nor pain, but rather copies of DNA helixes. Just as the economic success of a company is measured only by the number of dollars in its bank account, not by the happiness of its employees, so the evolutionary success of the species is measured by the number of copies of its DNA. If no more DNA copies remain, the species is extinct, just as a company without money is bankrupt. If a species boasts many DNA copies, it is a success, and the species flourishes. From such a perspective, 1,000 copies are always better than a hundred copies. This is the essence of the Agricultural Revolution: the ability to keep more people alive under worse conditions.

“Yet why should individuals care about this evolutionary calculus? Why would any sane person lower his or her standard of living just to multiply the number of copies of the Homo sapiens genome? Nobody agreed to this deal: the Agricultural Revolution was a trap.

... and there is really no escaping it even today.

... and there is really no escaping it even today.

References:

  1. Harari, Yuval Noah (2015). Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind. Harper.

Work or Play?

Would a Family Play Scrabble in a Driverless Car of the Future? (Image Credit: Paleofuture, circa 1957).

Would a Family Play Scrabble in a Driverless Car of the Future? (Image Credit: Paleofuture, circa 1957).

ELECTRICITY MAY BE THE DRIVER. One day your car may speed along an electric super-highway, its speed and steering automatically controlled by electronic devices embedded in the road. Highways will be made safe — by electricity! No traffic jam... no collisions... no driver fatigue.
— America's Independent Electric Light and Power Companies (1957)
"They shouldn't allow humans to drive!"

"They shouldn't allow humans to drive!"

"Things are in the saddle, and ride mankind." — Ralph Waldo Emerson.

"Things are in the saddle, and ride mankind." Ralph Waldo Emerson.

The future of technology isn’t about replacing humans with machines — it’s about figuring out the most productive way for the two to collaborate.
— S. Barry Cooper
KidRidesPony.jpg

References:

  1. Vanderbilt, Tom (2012, January 12). Let the Robot Drive: The Autonomous Car of the Future is Here. Wired. Retrieved from: http://www.wired.com/2012/01/ff_autonomouscars/all/
  2. Jenkins, Holman W. (2015, January 6). Google and the Self-Driving Delusion. Wall Street Journal. Retrieved from: http://www.wsj.com/articles/holman-jenkins-google-and-the-self-driving-delusion-1420589644
  3. Mims, Christopher (2014, November 30). Why We Needn't Fear the Machines. Wall Street Journal. Retrieved from: http://www.wsj.com/articles/why-we-neednt-fear-the-machines-1417394021
  4. Parker, Laura (2011, September 30). Drive Time: RMIT's new in-car entertainment system. The Guardian. Retrieved from: http://www.theguardian.com/technology/blog/2011/sep/30/rmit-in-car-entertainment

Machine Intelligence

In practice, mathematicians prove theorems in a social context. It is a socially conditioned body of knowledge and techniques.
— William Thurston (1946-2012)

William Thurston, a Fields Medalist of 1982 for his work on Haken manifolds, wrote a wonderful 1994 essay “On Proof and Progress in Mathematics”, describing his vision for how to do mathematics. Thurston advocated a free-form, intuitive style  of mathematical discourse with less emphasis on conventional proofs, in part a reaction to the formal style in which he was trained, which emphasized rigorous proofs at the expense of exposition. Thurston is a gifted mathematician; his instincts about what is true in mathematics were often described as remarkable. “He kind of had a truth filter; …his mind rejected false mathematics,” recalled one of Thurston’s students. Thurston believed that mathematicians needed to improve their ability to communicate mathematical ideas rather than just the details of formal proofs. This human understanding was what gave mathematics not only its utility but its beauty.

In truth, the increasing complexity of modern mathematics today is already bumping up against the limits of human understanding. A case in point is Andrew Wile’s 109-page proof of Fermat’s Last Theorem, corrected and published in 1995 in the Annals of Mathematics after two years of intensive peer review by a small number of mathematicians who were capable of fully understanding at that time all the details of what Wile has done, 358 years after it was conjectured. Apparently Fermat had underestimated the length of this marvelous proof by a rather wide margin.

Normal
0




false
false
false

EN-US
JA
X-NONE

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

MicrosoftInternetExplorer4

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Cogito, ergo sum.

Cogito, ergo sum.

Practitioners are increasingly relying on computers to test conjectures, visualize mathematical objects and construct proofs. On August 10, 2014, Thomas Hales announced the completion of a computer-verified proof of the Kepler conjecture, a theorem dating back to 1611 that describes the most space-efficient way to pack spheres in a box (i.e., commonly known as the “fruit-packing problem”). What is perhaps unusual is that 15 years ago, Hales had already presented a computer-assisted proof that Kepler’s intuition was correct. Hales’ original proof in 1998 involves 40,000 lines of custom computer code and runs to 300 pages. It took 12 reviewers four years to check for errors. Even when the 121-page proof was finally published in the Annals of Mathematics in 2005, the reviewers could say only that they were “99 percent certain” the proof was correct; they were all too exhausted from checking the proof any further.

But not this time. Hales’ new proof was verified by a pair of “formal proof assistants” – software programs developed as part of the Flyspeck Project – named Isabelle and HOL Light. In effect, what Hales had done was to transform his earlier paper into a form that could be completely checked by machine – in a mere 156 hours of runtime. “This technology cuts the mathematical referees out of the verification process,” said Hales. “Their opinion about the correctness of the proof no longer matters.” Score one for the machines – in proof checking.

Not everyone wants to be a mathematician. Some might just want to play chess, for example – with a computer. Garry Kasparov came up with the idea of “collaborative chess” after he was defeated by Deep Blue in a 1997 rematch. In what is now called “freestyle” chess, humans are allowed unrestricted use of computer during tournaments. The idea is to create the highest level of chess ever played, a synthesis of the best of man and machine. Kasparov played the first public game of human-computer freestyle chess in June 1998 in León, Spain against Veselin Topalov, a top-rated grand master.

Each used a regular computer with off-the-shelf chess software and a historical database of hundreds of thousands of chess games, including some of the best ever played. The man-machine hybrid team is often called a “centaur,” after the mythical half-human, half-horse creature. Topalov fought Kasparov to a 3-3 draw, even though Kasparov was the stronger player and had trounced Topalov 4-0 a month before. The centaur play evened the odds. Kasparov's advantage in calculating tactics had been nullified by the machine.

Human strategic guidance combined with the tactical acuity of a computer,” Kasparov concluded, “was overwhelming.” Having a computer partner meant never having to worry about making a tactical blunder. The humans could then concentrate on strategic planning instead of spending so much time on calculations. Under these conditions, human creativity was even more paramount. “In chess, as in so many things, what computers are good at is where humans are weak, and vice versa,” observed Kasparov. “Weak human + machine + better process was superior to a strong computer alone and, more remarkably, superior to a strong human + machine + inferior process.”

Mechanical Turk: good old days of chess.

Mechanical Turk: good old days of chess.

Kasparov vs. Deep Blue: The Brain's Last Stand.

Kasparov vs. Deep Blue: The Brain's Last Stand.

But machines are rapidly encroaching on skills that used to belong to humans alone. For example, as Tyler Cowen recently noted, the turning point in freestyle chess may be approaching as centaurs are starting to lose ground against the Bots. This phenomenon is both broad and deep, and has profound economic implications. It is very likely that progress in information technology will exceed our expectations and surprise us in unexpected ways. Are the days far off before machines would start building hypotheses all by themselves – unassisted by humans – which they in turn can proceed to test automatically? It makes us wonder: “what are humans still good for?

I can change light bulbs, too!

I can change light bulbs, too!

References:

  1. Thurston, William (1994, April). On Proof and Progress in Mathematics. Bulletin of the American Mathematical Society, Vol. 30, No. 2, pp. 161-177. Retrieved from: http://www.ams.org/journals/bull/1994-30-02/S0273-0979-1994-00502-6/S0273-0979-1994-00502-6.pdf
  2. Hales, Thomas (2012). Dense Sphere Packings: A Blueprint for Formal Proofs. Cambridge University Press. Retrieved from: https://code.google.com/p/flyspeck/source/browse/trunk/kepler_tex/DenseSpherePackings.pdf
  3. Ellenberg, Jordan (2014, August 29). Will Machines Take Over Mathematics? Wall Street Journal. Retrieved from: http://online.wsj.com/articles/will-machines-put-mathematicians-out-of-work-1409336701
  4. McClain, Dylan Loeb (2005, June 21). In Chess, Masters Again Fight Machines. The New York Times. Retrieved from: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/21/arts/21mast.html
  5. Mueller, Tom (2005, December 12). Your Move. The New Yorker, pp. 62-69. Retrieved from: http://www.tommueller.co/s/New-Yorker-Your-Move.pdf
  6. Kasparov, Garry (2007). How Life Imitates Chess. Macmillan.
  7. Freeman, Richard B. (2014, May). Who Owns the Robots Rules the World. IZA World of Labor. Retrieved from: http://www.sole-jole.org/Freeman.pdf
  8. Thompson, Clive (2013). Smarter Than You Think: How Technology is Changing Our Minds for the Better. Penguin Press.
  9. Cowen, Tyler (2013). Average is Over: Powering America Beyond the Age of the Great Stagnation. Dutton Adult.
  10. Brynjolfsson, Erik and McAfee, Andrew (2012). Race against the Machine: How the Digital Revolution is Accelerating Innovation, Driving Productivity, and Irreversibly Transforming Employment and the Economy. Digital Frontier Press.

Cauldron of Changes

Divine inspirations from Cerridwen's cauldron of Awen (Image Credit: Mara Freeman).

Divine inspirations from Cerridwen's cauldron of Awen (Image Credit: Mara Freeman).

“Cerridwen is the shape-shifting Celtic goddess of knowledge, transformation and rebirth. The Awen, cauldron of poetic inspiration, is one of her main symbols. In one part of the Mabinogion, which is the cycle of myths found in Welsh legend, Cerridwen brews up a potion in her magical cauldron to give to her son Afagddu (Morfran). She puts young Gwion in charge of guarding the cauldron, but three drops of the brew fall upon his finger, blessing him with the knowledge held within. Cerridwen pursues Gwion through a cycle of seasons until, in the form of a hen, she swallows Gwion, disguised as an ear of corn. Nine months later, she gives birth to Taliesen, the greatest of all the Welsh poets.”

“Witchcraft to the ignorant, … simple science to the learned.” Is how Leigh Brackett, a science fiction writer, puts it in a 1942 story “The Sorcerer of Rhiannon.” Indeed, what's brewing in today’s cauldron of changes could easily have made Cerridwen green with envy. After all, we know very well that “any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.” Arthur C. Clarke (1962).

Hear the story of how bridges are built... ==>

Hear the story of how bridges are built... ==>

We live in an age of great technological change. Affordable access to ever greater processing speed and storage capacity is readily available through the cloud. The marginal costs of producing information goods in our networked society are rapidly falling. So here is an interesting question to ponder: what are some of the hardest problems of our times that can be solved with advanced financial technologies that work like magic?

You never change things by fighting the existing reality. To change something, build a new model that makes the existing model obsolete.
— R. Buckminster Fuller (1895-1983)

References:

  1. Heimans, Jeremy and Timms, Henry (2014, December). Understanding New Power. Harvard Business Review. Retrieved from: https://hbr.org/2014/12/understanding-new-power
  2. Piketty, Thomas (2014). Capital in the Twenty-First Century. Belknap Press.
  3. Rifkin, Jeremy (2014). The Zero Marginal Cost Society: The Internet of Things, the Collaborative Commons, and the Eclipse of Capitalism. Palgrave Macmillan. Talk at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5-iDUcETjvo