Speculations on the Demise of the Neanderthals

At one time, the Neanderthals occupied all of Europe or at least all of Europe not covered by the ice and tundra of the ice age. The ice itself was as far south as the English-Scottish border, but what are the rich farmlands of France today, were tundra without forest to break the cold winds constantly blowing off the glaciers toward the south. Winter was ten months each year, with only two months of warmth that might have grown grasses for migrating herds of caribou. The northern extent of even the Neanderthal was the coniferred valleys in the mountains of southern France. Here, the Neanderthals could prey on the migrating herds as the crossed streams and passed through valleys, killing enough to keep them supplied through the long winters. Refrigeration was free.

Neanderthal was built like a short version of WWE wrestler or NFL lineman. They could bench press 350 to 500 lbs, and hunted with a spear. Brain capacity was larger than homo sapiens, but language and other capabilities are unknown. Since many have healed bone breakage, it appears they killed up close and personally rather than having standoff killing capabilities.

Their range at one time extended over the entire southern tier of Europe, extending into the Sinai connection between Africa and Asia. One author (Nicholas Wade, Before the Dawn) speculates that homo sapiens left Africa 50,000 years ago, crossing the twenty-miles wide southern narrows of the Red Sea because Neanderthals inhabited the Sinai. It does appear that homo sapiens moved east for thousands of years, even sailing to Australia, before moving north and west into Europe.


Instead of Neanderthals being an impediment, it may have been just too damned cold. This was 30,000 years before the ice age began to thaw, and about the time the ice age became harsher yet. Homo sapiens were coming out of Africa, a much warmer climate, and when given a choice between north or east, picked east as the logical choice. Instead of population pressure from homo sapiens, Neanderthals may have been overly challenged by the increasing harshness of the ice and may have already been diminished by a second factor that had almost eliminated homo sapiens, even in relatively warm Africa.

Based on variations in human or homo sapien mitochondrial DNA, the breeding population of females was reduced to around 2000, but no more than 10,000, between 70,000 and 80,000 years before present. This small remaining population was located in Africa. The only known event that could have had this effect occurring during that period was the explosion of Toba, 74,000 years ago. Toba is one of ten or so super-volcanoes on earth, the explosion left a lake 30 by 60 miles in the mountains of the island of Sumatra.  This was many thousands of times more detrimental than Mount St. Helens, and dropped the temperature during the ice age by as much as 5-degrees Centigrade. Compare this to today's most dire warnings of possible global warming of 2-degrees Centigrade.

Considering such a drastic impact on homo sapiens in Africa, could if not have an equally severe impact on Neanderthals in Europe and Homo Erectus in Asia? I think it could not fail to reduce their population and also their range. When, 25,000 years later, homo sapiens went to leave Africa, there may have no longer been Neanderthals in the Sinai.

Later during the ice age, the temperatures recovered a couple of degrees, then fell even further about 30,000 years ago. At that time, there were still Neanderthals in Europe, but, by 25,000 years ago, they had been reduced to a few cave dwellers on Gibraltar.  By 20,000 years ago, when the world began to warm and the glaciers retreat, the Neanderthal and Homo Erectus were gone. Homo sapiens began their move en mass into Europe and more northern Asia, then into North America.

Homo sapiens had at least two advantages over Neanderthals: First the atlatl gave a higher velocity, longer range spear throwing capacity--or a stand-off kill capability. That eventually evolved into the bow and arrow. Second was the sewing needle, which gave tailored clothes to better protect the person from the cold. Neanderthals did not have these, although they did have equal or superior flint knapping ability.

In spite the favorite hypothesis being that homo sapiens killed off the Neanderthals as they would later supposedly kill off the mega-mammals, a cold nine-degrees lower than the current average after the detrimental impact of Toba seems a more likely explanation.

Note to Shara Jo

Shara Jo, let an old person assure you the world was worse in the past, and is getting better. Don't let the news coverage convince you otherwise, which it tries mightily to do so it can increase its ratings.

In August of 1914, 100 years ago, next year, World War I started. The British alone lost 3000 men per week, when nothing was happening. They called it "wastage." When something was happening like the Battle of the Somme, they lost 60,000 men before breakfast and 400,000 in the next few months.

In total, an estimated 11-million were lost in the four years of World War I. In 1918, the Spanish flu broke out and killed an estimated 50- to 100-million in the next year. In the US, 625,000 were lost, exceeding the number killed in our Civil War over four years. The average age of death in the US fell to 37.

In the decades of World War II, an estimated 57-million died worldwide. Since the nuclear bombing of Japan in 1945, only a million have died worldwide per year on average because of the horrific constraint of nuclear war. More people are lost to malaria each year than war.

Because of hyper-conventional war, war appears to have been reduced to small incidents. In ten years of Iraq and Afghanistan, we have lost less than 10,000 killed. Compare this to the 58,000 lost in Vietnam over ten years, or the 52,000 lost in Korea over three years.

In spite of the news, crimes are actually going down each year, and have been for years. Two out of three gun deaths in the US are suicide, not homicide. Most gun homicides occur in cities that have the most stringent laws against being armed, and happen in big cities. I suspect most happen in gang warfare, and involve fighting over drugs and turf. They are easily avoided by staying out of big cities, especially the impoverished parts.

But the news would lead you to believe otherwise simply because of their unofficial motto: "If it bleeds, it leads." Tonight, with the Boston coverage, we will get 24 hour coverage of 2.4 minutes of news. Don't let it depress you, because that is the intent. It increases ratings and, in spite of one channel's BS, they are NOT looking out for you. All TVs come with an OFF switch. Don't be afraid to use it.

Stormy Times Return

During the 1950s, "beach cottages" along the Gulf Coast in Florida were uninsulated shacks furnished with stuff a second-hand, consignment furniture store wouldn't take. The reason was simple. Hurricanes were common, hitting each year, so the uninsurable "cottage" was sure to be destroyed sooner or later.

Hurricanes went into a thirty-year hiatus and special interests (read: realtors, banksters, and government entities profiting from property taxes) got the federal government to insure property along the coast and in flood plains for a fraction of the eventual cost. You might remember that $9 billion of the $61-billion Sandy relief funding was to replenish the exhausted insurance fund. Attempts to regulate building in these areas was ruled by the Supreme Court as "a taking" so had to be compensated by the regulating authority. The gold rush was on.

Seems the storm hiatus is over and storms are back. In the 1993 flood of the Mississippi flood plain,  the insuring authority paid for the homes destroyed, but said they would not insure any replacement housing built in the same location, unless elevated. One town moved its entire population to higher ground. These folks were rural middle-class citizens, so the insuring authority has greater leverage. On the coasts, the recipients are more often rich and influential, so the insuring authority less often dictates.

Of course, the reason often heard for new restrictions is that the ocean level is rising because of global warming. The ocean is rising, but the rate is 2.5 millimeters per year, probably from warming coming out of the Little Ice Age.. However, there seems no shortage of stories that speculate "if the oceans rise 3 feet..."  

CO2 and Temperature Correlation

Al Gore, in An Inconvenient Truth, had a two-story graph on CO2 buildup as the temperature rose. It does, but with one problem he didn't tell us about--the CO2 lags the temperatures coming out of glacial periods by 800 to 1300 years. I guess it was difficult to make a cause-and-effect case with this correlation.

This relationship is determined from ice cores drilled in Greenland and Antarctica. The graph shows two Antarctic core results, clearly showing temperature leading CO2 content. The interglacial or warm period between periods of glaciation shown is the previous one, named the Eemian. It started 132,000 years ago, then ended 118,000 years ago. Not only did CO2 lag the temperature rise, its high level did not prevent the drop back into a new period of glaciation.

 It won't prevent this interglacial period from dropping into another glacial period either. It might be noted this interglacial is aging and another glacial period may be near. We might well wish CO2 did have the capability of maintaining warmth.

In the meantime, we might better spend the tens of billions of dollars now expended to prevent global warming by control of CO2 in technology to grow food and keep warm during an ice age  -- economically. The need is inevitable.

Carrying Capacity

Carrying capacity is an ecological concept concerning the population any environment can maintain. A maximum is determined by the availability of food, water, and shelter from adversity such as weather or predators. In a meadow with a stream, for example, the number of mice would be determined by the amount of food available.

In 1856, when the first commercial oil well was punched, world population was 1.2 billion. Today, 166 years later, world population surpasses seven billion, and for the most part people are better fed than the 1.2 billion in 1856. For example, 4% of the population of the United States are involved in agriculture, but American agriculture feeds 16% of the world. Considering United States population is 4% of world population, 1.6% of the world population is feeding 16% of world population. That's truly astonishing.

This is made possible by the energy liberated by that and follow-on oil wells. Perhaps this is best illustrated by the increase of GDP per capita in spite of the six-fold increase in population.  Note how well it correlates with bringing petroleum online after centuries of virtually flat or little progress.

In 1968, the book, The Population Bomb, became a best seller. It began "The battle to feed all of humanity is over. In the 1970s hundreds of millions of people will starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now. At this late date nothing can prevent a substantial increase in the world death rate..."

That, of course, didn't happen, and won't unless the greens realize their goal of de-developing the world. Almost every energy project, whether just another well or a major pipeline such as Keystone XL, meets opposition using any means possible.  The United States is already crisscrossed by numerous pipelines, so another hardly merits the attention it is getting. Note, too, many pipelines already cross the borders with both Canada and Mexico, so Keystone XL is nothing new.  The heavy oil of the Canadian tar sands is meant to replace the heavy oil now coming from Venezuela. Converting the refineries that now handle heavy oil would be difficult and expensive, and Canada would be able to receive an additional $30 per barrel they now must discount their oil because of the transportation difficulty and expense.

In other words, factual truth seems no impediment to stopping any energy project. Were the greens able to "get rid of oil," the consequent question would be "How do you intend to kill the six billion increase of population petroleum supports?"

Tyranny of the Immediate

I am aware of the tyranny of the immediate. We lived during the time Noyce, Moore, Grove, Hoff, et al, changed our futures and we could have, if nothing else, been employees of their company. They initiated stock sharing and options for everybody in Intel.

I contracted for a few months at Microsoft in Charlotte, NC. They have a help center there as well as Texas and Washington. Some of the long-term (10-15 years) employees were still making in the $20-$30 per hour range, but their stock sharing and options had long ago rendered them millionaires. One in the Excel group wasn't married (and never would be), had several dozen kids pictures over his desk. He was currently supporting them through various organizations all over the world at the then going rate of $19 per month each, basically his entire salary.

We indeed lived through a special time in history, and weren't really aware of it, mainly because of the tyranny of the immediate.

Another, more mundane example involves my experience with Chrysler. During the management of Lee Iaocca, Chrysler had dropped to near $1 per share when Iacocca was negotiating a special loan guarantee from the federal government. I thought to go down to the credit union of the company I was then working for, borrow a thousand or so, to buy 1000 shares of their stock. I got caught up in whatever were the tasks of the day, and forgot about it until sometime later. It was up to $10 per share. It finally peaked at $43 per share.

Yep, there is tyranny in the immediate.

Society has changed

Society has changed. LBJ started two wars and we've lost them both. First, of course, was 'Nam. Second, was the War on Poverty. Welfare became a profession since government paid "bucks for bastards." A single mom could draw until their kid was 18, as long as no male capable of support was present longer than sperm-donor requirement time. Further, when their daughter came into puberty, she could start a second check coming into the household. Culture became tolerant.

 'Nam also made an entire generation disrespectful of authority. You can still see that in the history of Kerry and Hagel. Many stayed in education to maintain their 2S draft status, and perhaps that explains the uber liberal position of much of education, even to this day. After World War II and that GI Bill, I assure you that wasn't so before 'Nam. Shacking up became common.

 Illegitimacy rates went from single digits to their current over 30% overall, and over 70% for blacks.

Many single moms go to heroic efforts to raise good kids; many don't. Males, especially, are kicked to the curb when they become old enough to support anyone. They joined gangs in droves. The crime rates skyrocketed.

During the 1990s, crime rates began dropping. Although many tried to claim this came from increased policing efforts, the correlation was to Roe v Wade. Abortion was taking them out early. Six states legalized abortion two years before it became national, and, sure enough, the crime rates dropped two years earlier in those six states.

Another tread was the change in economics for the middle class. At one time, the norm was one wage earner per household. It began shifting to where it required two wage earners, and single parenting became impoverishing.

This was, as we now know, finance taking over the world. At the start, finance was 10% of the total economy; it is now over 40%. We went from making stuff to making stuff up. Now, they need to remove the safety nets to extract those last billions. That requires a disarming of America. Starvation drives people to violence.