Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind on Radio 4 is excellent !!!!!

[Sir Velo]

So now consider this, horses and donkeys (which can produce sterile mules) are further apart that H. sapiens is from either Pan troglodytes of Pan paniscus (chimpanzee and banobo).

I'm not quite clear what you seem to be saying. Are you inferring that humans can mate with chimps and produce offspring; or even, Heaven Forfend, that this may have already happened?

[Pabmusic]

I'm not quite clear what you seem to be saying. Are you inferring that humans can mate with chimps and produce offspring; or even, Heaven Forfend, that this may have already happened?

Unhappily, I am. There was a French chap who tried it in the 1920s (without success) but that's the only known instance (or so I believe). The point is that we're closer to chimps than horses are to donkeys (that's definite) and horses can mate with donkeys; that implies that, perhaps…

[Edit] I think I'm disparaging the French; it was a Russian:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanzee

We have only 23 pairs of chromosomes, whereas the other apes have 24 (our chromosome 2 is the result of the fusion of two others at some time within the last 6 million years or so) and that might have been a barrier, but apparently not.

[Sir Velo]

So the rather hirsute, simian little chap who appears in the Conan Doyle short story The Six Napoleons may be descended from...but surely the world is not ready for such a story.

[Pabmusic]

So the rather hirsute, simian little chap who appears in the Conan Doyle short story The Six Napoleons may be descended from...but surely the world is not ready for such a story.

What about The Creeping Man? Perhaps Conan Doyle knew (nudge, nudge, wink, wink, say no mowah) something we don't. After all, he was awa' with the fairies!

[mercia]

hmmmm - finding it difficult to understand that a 'belief' in the existence of a car manufacturing company (his example) is the same as a belief in a god or fairies - i.e. that they are all equally imaginary. [Except they are all inventions of the human mind, but for rather different reasons.]

His point about Peugeot Cars seemed to be that, despite the death of its 'inventor' Monsieur Peugeot, it still exists as a company and that even if, overnight, all its employees died and all its plant was destroyed it would still 'exist' as a company. True I suppose, but it seems to me he could equally have chosen the East India Company or the Hanseatic League or the Roman Army, other human 'inventions', which by any usual understanding of the word no longer 'exist' ... except as names in history books.

oh dear, I obviously didn't have a clue what he was getting at, and having listened again, I'm still not 100% sure. Never mind. My conclusion from Episode 3 is - we should never have given up hunter-gathering. It has all been downhill since.
My pocket says I shall have to wait for this book to come out in paperback.

[ardcarp]

Tom A. Thanks so much for bringing this book to our notice! Just heard episodes 1 & 2 on i-player and am about to catch up on 3 & 4.

What amazing clarity of writing and of reading. Its style reminds me (although the subject matter couldn't be more different) of This Sceptred Isle...of many episodes, long ago; very authoritatively read by Anna Massey.

hmmmm - finding it difficult to understand that a 'belief' in the existence of a car manufacturing company (his example) is the same as a belief in a god or fairies - i.e. that they are all equally imaginary. [Except they are all inventions of the human mind, but for rather different reasons.

His point about Peugeot Cars seemed to be that, despite the death of its 'inventor' Monsieur Peugeot, it still exists as a company and that even if, overnight, all its employees died and all its plant was destroyed it would still 'exist' as a company.

Mercia. I almost laughed out loud at the Peugeot analogy! It was, agreed, a reductio ad absurdum to make his point about 'belief'. But it is true that the capitalist model we have constructed only works if we believe in it. The stock market and the world economy would collapse if we didn't. I agree, other examples of anything that isn't 'concrete' or 'of the earth' could have been chosen, e.g. monarchy, republics, fishing rights, perhaps especially money.

Can't wait to continue.....

[Richard Tarleton]

A strange experience ordering this. Automated reply from Amazon giving estimated delivery date of 15 March 2015 - I'm certain I didn't order the paperback. I cancelled, reordered, delivery Monday.

[aka Calum Da Jazbo]

A strange experience ordering this. Automated reply from Amazon giving estimated delivery date of 15 March 2015 - I'm certain I didn't order the paperback. I cancelled, reordered, delivery Monday.

it is still Amazon eh?

[ardcarp]

...and for Sapiens, the ultimate question about life the universe and everything is:

What do we want to want?

[doversoul1]

I’ve listened to the first two episodes but I don’t think I’ll bother with the rest. I found the manner of reading too patronising and a lot of what the author is saying seems to be based on a kind of comforting (not sure if this is the right word but it seems to be reflected in the voice of the reader) assumptions about how and what ‘we’ do which no other animals are capable of doing. You never know. It maybe that no other animals were foolish enough to do what our ancestors started, which we still do.

I have to admit that I listened to the programme with a rather low opinion about the author, having read (started reading to be precise) this article.

Does modern life make us happy? We have gained much but we have lost a great deal too. Are humans better suited to a hunter-gatherer lifestyle?

http://www.theguardian.com/books/2014/sep/05/were-we-happier-in-the-stone-age

As far as I read, the author talks about happiness as if there were a thing called happiness like water or empires. These days, I don’t seem to have much patience to read this sort of articles.

[Serial_Apologist]

I’ve listened to the first two episodes but I don’t think I’ll bother with the rest. I found the manner of reading too patronising and a lot of what the author is saying seems to be based on a kind of comforting (not sure if this is the right word but it seems to be reflected in the voice of the reader) assumptions about how and what ‘we’ do which no other animals are capable of doing. You never know. It maybe that no other animals were foolish enough to do what our ancestors started, which we still do.

I have to admit that I listened to the programme with a rather low opinion about the author, having read (started reading to be precise) this article.

Does modern life make us happy? We have gained much but we have lost a great deal too. Are humans better suited to a hunter-gatherer lifestyle?

http://www.theguardian.com/books/2014/sep/05/were-we-happier-in-the-stone-age

As far as I read, the author talks about happiness as if there were a thing called happiness like water or empires. These days, I don’t seem to have much patience to read this sort of articles.

From what I've heard the recommendations here are a bit exaggerated.

[Bryn]

I intend to listen to all 5 extracts, but from what I have gleaned so far, there's not much new. The late lamented Malcolm Caldwell made most the points about agriculture versus hunting and gathering in his "The Wealth of Some Nations" (1977), and what he had to say about the relative labour intensity of the two owed a heavy (acknowledged) debt to Romanian enonometrist Nicholas Georgescu-Roegen's "The Entropy Law and the Economic Process" of 1971.

[ardcarp]

I think it's worth a listen Bryn. We're not maybe getting the latest slant on the science of anthropology. There are some genuinely original and amusing thoughts here, e.g. wheat is the villain that has cultivated man. It's one person's ideas and his way of expressing them...and clearly and forthrightly read. I was entertained, and did not feel in the least 'patronised' .