Love: An Analysis Part II: The Evolutionary and Psychological Stance

Last time, on the Science Liaisons:

Intrigue! Drama! Humor! Sex! Drugs (Mentioned)! Hormones! Hot Girls! In his discussion on the biological processes behind love, Craig? delved deep into the brain and its related hormones to find out just what exactly causes those feelings we call "love" and "emotions". There he found oxytocin, dopamine, vasopressin and other amphetamines. As he shifts his focus to the evolutionary advantages and psychological reasoning behind love will he learn anything about himself? Will he open a door that can never be closed? Will you, his loyal reader, buy him a chicken finger sub for all of the hard work he puts into entertaining and informing you? All of these questions have answers, and to find them all you have to do is keep reading...

Being a dork for the majority of my life, I've had my fair share of ups and downs. I've seen success in love, but mostly failure. I've rebelled against my best instincts, swearing myself to a life as a bachelor. I've embraced my basest needs and chased multiple partners. I've overcome those same needs and dedicated myself to monogamy. I've analyzed what I want in a partner, and I've analyzed why someone would or wouldn't want me. In conclusion, I've spent a lot of time thinking about what love means, where it comes from, and how it affects us. This is obviously because of how lonely I actually am.

I had just sat down...

The Evolutionary Advantages of Monogamous Love

If there is one indisputable truth about the world we live in it's this: People are awesome creatures. It's not because God made us that way, because God didn't seem to give us any advantages over most types of other animals. If anything, He stacked the deck against us. What makes people so special, to me anyhow, is at how well we exploit the advantages we were given, such as opposable thumbs and the intellect to use tools. We've used this simple advantage to become the most adaptable creatures to ever walk the Earth, physically changing habitats to suit our needs. We've evolved so far we've overcome nature, to a point.

That being said, we're still weak creatures. If an average person were to physically go up against almost any other animal, insect, or plant in the wild, even with a weapon, they'd be dead within minutes. It's because of this weakness that we've evolved to love.

In David Funder's The Personality Puzzle he details how the English psychoanalyst John Bowlby theorized that love had it's origins in staking a claim on survival. Whenever we feel alone or are sick and/or injured we have an almost unexplainable innate desire to have someone who loves us by our side. Mr. Bowlby believes this is for protection; We want someone who is invested in us to help protect us and increase our chances of survival.

Children are in an even worse position. The worst kept secret in the history of the universe is that children suck, mostly because they smell bad and they're selfish. Here's another reason children are a plague to humanity: They're useless and take up valuable resources. So why bother taking care of them? The reason for maternal and (sometimes - definitely not in my case though...) paternal love is so the child can survive and continue the species. Steven Johnson wrote the following quote summing up what I just said in the article Addicted to Love from Discover Magazine: "The biological capacity for love is one way the brain prepares us for offspring who are born young and helpless and need tending to have the slightest hope of survival." For homo sapiens, any hope of survival depends on relying on others. Following this logic, the best way to know you can rely on someone is to be sure they love you. Which is exactly why women can never rely on me.

Whoops, I broke your heart again.

It's unclear what sort of evolutionary processes resulted in the necessity for people to love, but according to Helen Fisher there are "three basically different brain systems that evolved for mating and reproduction". First, there is the sex drive, or lust. This helps us find a partner; Why we choose who we choose is a psychological thing (maybe). When we initially find someone we're physically attracted to hormones are released and we've already narrowed down the field from 3.4 billion to one. The second brain system is romantic love, or focus. This is what old timey people from the middle ages may have called "courting". It conserves mating energy by allowing one to focus on an individual in order to decide whether or not it would be good to get all up in their genes (see what I did there?). The final brain system is the attachment phase. Helen Fisher describes it as "tolerating (your mate) long enough to raise a child".

Between this stage and the romantic love phase is usually when people find themselves becoming possessive of their mate - another evolutionary advantage. There are several evolutionary advantages to this, such as that whole protection and caring for thing I talked about earlier. However, before DNA testing became such a popular way of figuring out who your parents were, this possessiveness was also one of the only ways for men to know the child was theirs and they had successfully passed on their genes.

While I was finishing one of my many years of college (because I'm so smart) I took a personality psychology course. One day our professor (her name escapes me, so I'll call her Professor Womanface) took an impromptu survey of the class. The sampling size was probably around 200. Professor Womanface asked how many people would rather their mate be monogamous over successful. Mostly men raised their hands. She then asked the inverse of the question and mostly women raised their hands. She explained that these gender-dominated answers are because women prefer their men to be able to provide for them and their child since there can be no doubt that the child is theirs - the thing does pass through their vagina-hole after all. Men, on the other hand, have no such security in knowing the child is theirs, so it's much more important that their mate be monogamous. Which is funny considering that according to women, most guys go for sluts anyway.

Especially Corporate Sluts

Speaking of personality, those differences that stand-up comedians like to talk about between men and women? Could be evolutionary differences. Check it: Women like to talk and men like to do things for a reason. When estrogen levels are up in women their verbal ability goes up. Estrogen levels go up during times such as childbirth and breastfeeding. Women talk to their child, it's an attachment thing. Men on the other hand have spent thousands of years sitting side by side in the bush with their friends, hunting or fighting or protecting or watching porn and playing ookie cookie. Men and women simply have different ideas of intimacy; Women's being talking and men's being doing things side by side. Miss Fisher said it best when she said, "... (men have spent) millions of years facing enemies (and) sitting side by side with friends".

The Psychological Reasons for Love

We've all wondered what was going through our partners heads at one point or another. The most true stereotype I've ever come across (outside of white people not being able to jump) is the "she has daddy issues" stereotype. People are affected by what's happened in their past, and that weighs heavily on their present, for better or worse. For example, when I was a child my family was brutally murdered in front of me in an alleyway outside of a theater. It scarred me quite badly psychologically leading to a fear of things with erratic flight patterns, an intense desire to practice martial arts while dressed as something with an erratic flight pattern, and an emotional distance one can only describe as erratic.

That's right... I AM MOTHMAN!

It's pretty well accepted among, well, everyone that a person's personality is outlined by their relationships. In attachment theory (originated with John Bowlby and expounded upon by Mary Ainsworth) different adult behaviors are assigned to things that happened in childhood. Sweet, more theories and lists to remember.

Anxious-Ambivalent attachment means that a person's caregivers growing up were inconsistent in their behaviors. They would reward only some of the time, and discipline only some of the time. Perhaps the caregiver also contradicted themselves in their discipline and reward patterns, sometimes rewarding for one behavior and later disciplining for the same behavior. This can lead to a clingyness that is on par with the gravitational pull of the sun. So perhaps the "daddy issues" in all women's cases stems from this inconsistency.

There is also the avoidant/distant caregiver. This person's caregiver didn't give them enough attention so, being used to that form of independence, this person is now distant themselves. Most men will tell you that they had an avoidant/distant caregiver when they don't want to talk about their feelings. The flip side to this is a general social retardation: anxieties and a complete lack of understanding of others emotions may abound.

The final type of caregiver is the secure caregiver. Generally, this caregiver gave our hypothetical person a good home life, and they've grown up to be respectful, well-adjusted, independent individuals. I've never met anyone in my life that had a secure caregiver, especially any women.

It is interesting to note, however, that in attachment theory there isn't much mentioned about spoiling one's child. This is assumed to be OK and does not lead to such things as inflated ego, trouble identifying with peers, a disproportionate value placed on material things, and a general annoyingness.

I hate him.

This brings us to ORT, or Object Relations Theory. Melanie Klein outlines four principal themes in ORT:

1.) Pleasure/Pain Relationship

2.) Love/Hate Relationship

3.) Distinguishing between "love object" and whole person

4.) Awareness and Disturbance by Contradictory Feelings

The basic principal behind this theory is the idealization of the people around you. Most adults do it still, like when you first meet that hottt grl at the bar and think she's totally cool and smart and you love her only to find out she's actually kind of a bitch and your friends hate her but you keep telling them what a good person she is anyway even though she's clearly not and no this isn't from personal experience stay out of my business you jerk.

As bad as adults can be with things of that sort, children are worse because they lack what us scientists like to call "common sense". There is also the fact that adults tend to hide more things from children (especially their own) than from one another, usually in an effort to protect some sort of innocence which they know will just be brutally ravaged somewhere down the line anyway. Regardless, this theory leads us to a thing called neurotic defense, which is the contradiction of idealizing what you want to destroy. Nobody can live up to an ideal, except me because I am one, and this leads to hard feelings sometimes.

Often, at least according to D.W. Winnicott, children will put the feelings they have for their "love object" into something inanimate - like a stuffed animal. This comforts the child through the loss of their "love object", whether it be on a literal level like death or a more subtle, emotional and psychological level like realizing their parents are actually meth dealers. Silly parents!

In conclusion, love is a battlefield. Or something like that.

And that concludes Craig?'s two part series on love. There was laughter, tears, epiphanies, and several other things not appropriate for your age level, dear reader. If you've taken anything from this opus of a masterwork, we hope it's been that you're bound by love regardless of whether or not you wish to be. Biologically and psychologically we are destined to need love in our lives. Even evolution got all up in this bitch. And that never happens!

Algae: The Most Green Idea EVER

Disasters seem to be running rampant in the energy industry as of late. Maybe it's all just a sign from God telling us that we should rethink the state of our energy sources. Naw, probably not. I must say, however, that both explosions shined the necessary light on both energy issues. In fact, one of Mr. Obama's* tasks is to figure out the future for off shore drilling. Well, thanks BP for showing the president and the idiots off-shore drilling supporters, that off-shore drilling is one of the most dangerous activities a civilization can inflict upon their surrounding ecosystem. ANYWAY, stepping off of my dendrophiliac-pedestal/soapbox let us shift to some ideas for safe, renewable energy.

Both BP and Massey Energy (the company whose West Virginia mine exploded, due to a methane leak, leaving 25 dead) were both awarded with recognitions of safety before their respective disasters. Unfortunately, employees of BP were celebrating the award the night the Deepwater Horizon oil rig exploded, leaving 11 families without their loved ones.

These energy sources are dangerous and detrimental to the environment, not to mention the humans who mine them. There has got to be a better way, right?

YES!

The problem with other energy sources is that there is a lack of Big Money, and Big Companies invested in them. Let's get this straight: corn and soy are NOT the renewable energy sources that we, as Americans, should choose for the future. This thought needs to be squashed, quickly. We can NOT use a food source to power our automobiles. I will spare you the reference and analogy of how dumb that is. So why are we still talking about it? Because the Big Companies understand it is a silly endeavor, they understand that if the public is preoccupied with a pipe dream of corn as a combustion agent, then they won't question the lack of advancement in other fields; it is a way to whet the appetite of the public yet still keep them in check.

Right now, the Buffalo Water Authority is using a bacterium that eats poop and farts fuel. Just think of it, an animal that not only gets rid of our, ever increasing, fecal matter but also exhausts a gas that can be used as a combustible. The methane produced by the bacteria is then used to fuel the incinerators that burn off the excess gunk from the water. Not only is the Buffalo Water Authority using its smarts, so is a prison...in Rwanda. This story is absolutely incredible, read it and start creating your own biogas fermenter, I know I will.

If petroleum was the first visit by Christ, then the gas exchange performed by algae is definitely the second coming that we have all been waiting for. As of right now, algae can be manipulated to produce two types of gases, methane and hydrogen. A company called Cereplasthas also been able to substitute algae for petroleum in the development of plastics. Not only that, but algae could also be used as a natural carbon dioxide and nitrous gas scrubber for smokestacks. Since algae respires oxygen in exchange for CO2, the organism can gather up the harmful gas and produce something helpful. Once the algae have sequestered the necessary gas, it could then be harvested and be "stripped" of its biofuel and plastic properties and used accordingly.

Using algae as a biofuel is not as easy as it sounds. We aren't talking about the algae that grow like wildfire in your aquarium because you set your tank near a window. These algae need to be loved and are very sensitive, much like Nathan Lane in the Birdcage. Although it isn't the easiest way to harvest fuel, it is by far one of the safest, and the most, dare I say it, green.

Getting back to the devastation of the Massey and BP accidents, we must keep in mind that the government controls where the funding for the future goes. As terrible as it sounds, both disasters needed to happen. They were both the largest disaster of their kind in the history of the United States. They were the wake-up-call that we all needed, and the president suspending off-shore drilling for the next 6 months is a great start. So, keep exploring options. I understand the impossibility of throwing petroleum and coal by the wayside, but we have got to start thinking a little more reasonably. We are responsible for all future oil and coal disasters if we do not act on the precedents made this past year, and learn from our mistakes.

*isn't it funny that everyone just calls him Obama, like he's Gandhi, Jesus, or Madonna...I mean no other president has been called by his last name alone, right?

Nothing science related, just a great throwback worthy of attention

Love: An Analysis Part I: The Biological Stance

My, what a valid and thought-provoking question Mr. Haddaway, if that is your real name. Throughout the ages love has been one of the most talked about things probably... ever. It's an obsession of some (that ex-girlfriend that wanted to get married, and when you refused because you were only 19 she left you for some other guy, got married to said guy, then had a kid with said guy), and a bane of others (me).

But why do we feel love? What does it mean to feel love? How do we feel love? What I'm proposing, and what I'm going to do because none y'all can stop me, is to analyze love from biological, psychological, and evolutionary stances - in two parts. If you're not interested in understanding your deepest urges, turn back now. Like those puppies I sacrificed to Lord Byron in 1823 as he lay on his deathbed asking me to help him find eternal life, this will get messy. But if you're of a sound heart, rigid disposition, and a clear conscience, read on.

We've briefly discussed this before. Many of the emotions that people feel on a day-to-day basis originate in the brain. Love is no different, even if it is an emotion that is a bit harder to define than the others. Allow me to sum it all up in one word: Hormones.

Bam! Puberty!

To put a name to the fist, the actual feeling of love has to do with hormones such as norepinephrine, serotonin, vasopressin, oxytocin and dopamine. These are all amphetamines, meaning they stimulate the pleasure center in the brain. Pheromones such as testosterone and estrogen also play a big role. However, most of the research (that I've found, but I'm also very lazy; I can't stress that point enough) talks about vasopressin, dopamine and oxytocin, so we'll focus on those for the time being.

According to the 2002 edition of the World Book Encyclopedia, dopamine is "a chemical that acts in the brain to influence a wide range of feelings and behaviors... also plays a key role in motivation, pleasure, and addiction." Whoa! Hold on there World Book, you're telling me that dopamine influences addiction? I was under the impression that only my favorite celebrities could influence my addictions! I'm going to have to find someone else that shares your opinion, just to be sure. How about Helen Fisher? In her second talk at TED in February of 2008, she describes romantic love as having all the signs of addiction.

1.) Tolerance - I'm getting used to having you around.

2.) Withdrawl - What do you mean you want a life of your own? No! You stay here with me! I can't get enough!

3.) Relapse - I'm sorry.

Still not enough for ya? How about the fact that under CT Scans, the brains of those shown pictures of the people they felt love for had activity in the same areas of the brain as those under the influence of cocaine. If you ask me, love's some pretty serious stuff that we should probably declare war on. Or at least educate our children on.

It's Taking Over Our Schools!

In the Discover Magazine Special Issue: The Brain, the article "Addicted to Love" by Steven Johnson discussed an experiment done by Larry Young of Emory University. In this experiment he took the genes that encode one of the vasopressin receptors in the prairie vole (a monogamous mammal) and injected it into the forebrains of the meadow vole (a polygamous mammal). The meadow voles given these genes suddenly started forming pairs, and mating with their partners for life. Johnson writes, "Apparently a change in the expression of a single gene, in a context of preexisting genetic and neural circuits, could profoundly alter social behavior." So to all those ladies that are sick of their significant others it looks like you may have two choices: 1.) Leave that deadbeat for me, who will love you unconditionally forever* or 2.) Get him some new genes.

So where does oxytocin fit into all of this? Well considering it's probably the biggest puzzle piece in our little mystery we like to call love, I'd say anywhere it damn well pleases. Much like dopamine, oxytocin is responsible for a lot of different emotional states. According to this article from the April 4th, 2007 issue of Cell Metabolism, oxytocin "modulates social behaviors, including maternal care and aggression, pair bonding, sexual behavior, social memory and support, and human trust, and downregulates stress responses, including anxiety."

That's a lot of commas to go with a lot of responsibilities for this one little hormone to be handling. To dig a little bit deeper, oxytocin has a hand in regulating the neuroendocrine system (local amino acid and noradrenaline release), autoregulation (autoexcitation during birth and suckling), emotional states (positive mood, passive stress coping, and trust), social tenets (maternal behavior, maternal aggression, pair bonding, sexual behaviors), and cognitive aspects of a person (social memory, olfactory memory, and spatial memory).

Hey, where are you going? I told you this was going to be a rough trip! Hurry Craig?... You're losing them... Think quickly! Bam! Hot Girl!

I Knew That'd Get Your Hormones A-Ragin'!

Alright, now that I've got your attention again, the article from Discover Magazine discussed above elaborates on some of these things, and adds to the conversation a reason for some of the physiological things that happen to those of us in love - which has never been me by the way. I'm far too much of a man for falling in love. That gut-tightening feeling I've read so much about? Could be oxytocin's job of downregulating the bodies stress-axis system. That warm fuzzy cliché that people like to drone on and on about? Could be oxytocin working with your bodies other natural opiates and triggering that drive for companionship.

Did I forget to mention that oxytocin seems pretty good at building relationships of its own? In that prairie vole experiment I mentioned earlier, another reason for the prairie voles monogamy (besides that gene) seems to be the placement of their oxytocin and dopamine receptors. In the monogamous prairie voles, their oxytocin receptors overlap with dopamine receptors in their nucleus accumbens. This doesn't seem to be the case in more polygamous species. These voles brains developed in such a way as to make attachment pleasurable. The same is true in people - oxytocin receptors are found in several dopamine rich areas of the brain.

Why? Because oxytocin seems to work in tandem with a lot of other hormones. It is now supposed that oxytocin isn't directly responsible for any sorts of easily describable feelings itself, but instead only heightens the effects of other hormones. This may explain why in monogamous species it is paired with dopamine receptors, dopamine being responsible for addictions and boners and all.

This goes hand in hand with why women seem more obsessed with love than most men; Estrogen seems to heighten oxytocin's effects while testosterone dampens it. So next time your girlfriend is looking for commitment, just calmly explain to her that isn't what she really wants - it's only the estrogen talking. Then gently kiss her forehead and force her into making you dinner, because that's a woman's job**!

Stay Tuned for the Second Half of This Article - Evolution and Psychology!

* Not True - At All.

** This Works for me Every Time.

All of this Guilt is Making Hungry

Um, pardon me Mr. Darwin, I just want to clarify a few things, well really just one in particular. Upon completion of your wonderful book, The Decent of Man, I see you have come to the conclusion that us humans are really just an extant group of the hominid genera. On top of this, you also say we evolved from a common ancestor...could this be true?!

If we are in fact merely an extant group of the hominid genera, and we share a common ancestor with modern apes, is it safe to assume that our ancestors ate similarly? And if this is the case, what did our ancestors eat? Even more, should we still be abiding by these evolutionary grandfather clauses? Or should we create some sort of omnivorous diet that consists of many different types of food?

So where am I going with all of this? We need a nice backdrop for our discussion, or really just me talking at you, on what we humans are supposed to be eating. If we want to go the route of evolution, which I would like to, we can discuss the purposes of our anatomy and how it interacts with regard to our diet. If we want to just forget about our possible ancestors, or if you are a creationist (Weldon), let's just talk about contemporary problems with the diet most Americans have adopted. I warn you, I will be discussing three of the most debated items in the public's scientific field right now. Evolution, global warming, and vegetarianism (because everyone hates a pretentious, I'm-better-than-you, I only eat non mobile food vegetarian)... Which brings me to the campaign put out by Wendy's to combat this evil vegetarian fad that is quietly taking over our youth: The Meatatarian Campaign


An historical account for the reasons of
my choice to abstain from red meat and pork

or

Pig Slaughter and Cow Farts

The truth is, I don't really hate vegetarians, nor do I think it is a completely terrible idea. Personally I abstain from pork and red meat, but I still take pleasure in eating one form of poultry or another. In a strange twist of fate, while traveling throughout Guatemala my diet went through a transformation. My reasons for staying away from pork is somewhat ethical. The relatedness of a pig to human is uncanny, especially its scream, and if you have ever heard a pig scream during the final moments of its life you might feel the same way as I. Ashley and I were stuck in a desolate "beach town" on the pacific coast of Guatemala. The place was a ghost town, save for the 3 employees and their animal companions who were working to treat us to a less-than-mediocre lunch. During our wonderfully awful meal we were treated to the slaughter of a pig. Thankfully this act was not portrayed in the open, instead it was hidden by a shoddy wooden post fence; all we witnessed was the sound.

That was the day I stopped eating pork.

The cow story is not so traumatic. Ashley and I had made it to a little island town in the northern jungle area of Guatemala, where we stayed in a European-run Hostel. This particular hostel only served vegetarian and vegan friendly meals. Speaking with the owner, I found out the reason for his commitment to not eating meat, and in particular beef...

Where's the Beef (from)?!

The larger farms that most Americans and other westerners get their food from tend to sometimes exploit their opportunities. In the case of the cattle farms, the byproducts of the cattle industry are effecting our environment. "Globally, ruminant livestock produce about 80 million metric tons of methane annually, accounting for about 28% of global methane emissions from human-related activities."
In case you were unfamiliar with methane: "Methane (CH4) is a greenhouse gas that remains in the atmosphere for approximately 9-15 years. Methane is over 20 times more effective in trapping heat in the atmosphere than carbon dioxide (CO2) over a 100-year period..."




Cow farts can be a real pain, but considering only about 4-6% of greenhouse gases are related to Methane production, I will let that fact slide (even though if we did some simple math we would come to find that because of its effect on the atmosphere, even a little methane is more dangerous than a larger amount of CO2). I won't attack the cattle farmers for having WAYY too many cows hanging out in one area. After all, they are only meeting the demand of their customers, who are eating progressively more and more meat. What is slightly more disturbing comes from the products needed for production of such meats. Would you ever give someone a 10 dollar bill so that he could give you 5 dollars in exchange? I didn't think so, but this is exactly what happens in cattle farming, with relation to energy input versus output. In order to raise a cow unto maturity, that cow needs to eat, as well as drink. "...Beef cattle production requires an energy input to protein output ratio of 54:1." In other words, for every fifty pounds of energy producing food that could benefit humans, only one pound of red meat is produced. Not only is food in the form of grain misused, water is too. "Every kilogram of beef produced takes 100,000 liters of water." It is as if we have a really leaky faucet that starts out with a ton of water but only ends up with a few drops when it reaches its destination. There are far too many useful resources being misused on the production of cattle for consumption. The website I have linked above is quite scary, and it is a glaring reminder that we are taking agriculture too far, after all it isn't only cattle and their needs that are causing harm, it is also the crops themselves.

Our current state of agriculture is kind of like losing a hockey game in overtime:

you get a point but you still lose

The Meatatarians are not the only ones to blame for our current situation, anyone who eats any sort of agriculturally grown product also wreaks havoc on our environmental systems (indirectly, of course). When land is constantly being used to grow large amounts of crops, it gets drained of its usefulness. This is where crop rotation comes in handy, the only problem is that not all farms adhere to this theory, and even if they do they lose sight of just how much damage they are doing to the land they hold so close to their heart for survival. We take over large areas of land to grow the crops necessary to meet the demands of humans, however we forget that this land is not ours for the taking. Other animals inhabit this land just as we would like to. I am not saying that we bow down to the bull weevil, but I am saying let us use a little restraint when it comes to Totalitarian Agriculture. Needless to say, land is not ours for the taking, but even if it is we must be responsible. Rachel Carson was a wonderful science writer who got the attention necessary to change things in our world. Like Upton Sinclair and Harriet Beecher Stowe, Carson was able to attract the attention of the public and unleash a firestorm of information that led to huge changes within her country. She confronted the issue of pesticides and their effect on birds and insects within the environment. Because of her efforts, DDT was banned in the USA and eventually banned worldwide for agricultural use. This was a step in the right direction, however just with vaccines, pesticides create newer more resistant insects that require different types of chemicals to be manufactured and released into the crop fields. So before I get too crazy on this whole agriculture thing, just keep one thing in mind: we produce more than we need, we eat more than we need, and we throw away more of what we did not need.

Diets based on global location and access to foods

We are the only animal that is able to live in and exploit every single environment on the Earth. We live in the coldest and highest altitudes, the most dry deserts, the hottest savannas, the temperate zones and the tropics, and we even have the ability to live out at sea for months and even years at a time. We live on coastlines, in rural countrysides, atop mountains, in valleys, and metropolitan cities. There is skeletal evidence of the current human being dating back 160,000 years ago, but we find tools that date back even further. Tools that could have been used by some other hominid, which date back to 2.6 million years ago. Of course, if you are a creationist (Weldon) you don't believe a word I just typed, and you know very well that the earth is only 6,000 years old, after all the Bible told you so. But, putting all biases aside, we take the evidence for the existence of hominids and run with it. If Humans have been around all this time, they must have had changing diets to cope with their constant migrations and environmental changes. Before the current modes of food transport, we were limited to what kinds of food we had surrounding us to feed our appetites.

Home is where the Food is

Just take a step back from your comfortable life where all food is essentially provided for you so long as you have the means to purchase it. Let us imagine a world where we have to go out on a daily basis and search for food. Chances are, had it not been for animal domestication and agriculture, we would not have spread out as we did throughout the world in all different directions. Think about the first humans, then think about what they must have eaten (it definitely was not corn nuts, gushers, and tofurkey). If they lived near the coast they most likely had a diet that was heavy in fish. If humans lived more inland they may have been more of terrestrial-animal hunters or gatherers of some other form of nutrition. Actually, humans were big fans of nuts, root vegetables, and insects based on skeletal remains of our first ancestors. What about fruit? What about large amounts of meat? Our current diet is one that is related to our large pallet of experience founded by the exporting of foods from many different countries. Before the age of enlightenment, the industrial revolution, and even the age of travel and exploration, humans were largely food-slaves to our immediate surroundings. It was only when we met one another, from lands not like our own, that we were able to exchange diets and recipes and agricultural techniques. Humans are a wonderful example of societal evolution and cultural transmission. Even though we are genetically bottlenecked, humans have been able to adapt to a number of situations, especially those that require us to change our diets, which may be why we have been such a successful species.

Sooooo...

The most important thing to take away is that no matter what we eat we need to be conscious of the process of its production. We can also remember that our bodies are made for a wide array of diets that include fruits, vegetables, nuts, meats, numerous liquids, and bad things like cupcakes. This site explains the differences in herbivores, carnivores, and omnivores and stakes the claim that humans are built for an herbivorous life, however I think because we can take advantage of such a large variety of diets, we will. It is because of this advantageous adaptation that we are able to live in such different places and eat such varying foods.

So what is your diet?

(I expect only sarcastic and witty comments, if any)

check this out for more information:

http://www.thevegetariansite.com/env_animalfarming.htm

My Adventures in Time Travel III: My Time With Lincoln and Darwin

Now that we've covered how the time machine mentioned in the heading to this blog works (kind of), and how we avoid the paradoxes that seem to naturally occur with such a thing as traveling through time (sorta), I feel it is my duty to share with you my most recent adventure through time. Seeing as how I am one of the most important living beings ever by the time my life is up - trust me on that - I decided to go visit two other extremely important historical figures that I also happen to share a birthday with. On February 12th I decided to take a trip back in time to visit Mr. Abraham Lincoln and Charles Darwin.

Preparing to go back in time can be kind of a hassle. Much like taking a long vacation, you must pack accordingly. I grabbed my suitcase and loaded up on my leather pants and silver jackets (because that's what they believed people in the future would be wearing and I didn't want to blow their minds too much), grabbed my toothbrush (but forgot my damn toothpaste - and apparently you can't buy any in the mid-1800's; there were only "tooth powders" that seemed kind of unhealthy), charged up my Blackberry and iPod (in case I had some downtime), made sure my audio recorder worked (so I could have an accurate transcript for you, my dear readers) and sat down to choose a date.

In my 3 1/2 minutes of research I learned that Lincoln and Darwin never met, and were in fact barely aware of each others existences. This would simply not do. I photoshopped some fake invitations to a "World Leadership Conference featuring All the Great Leaders of Science, Politics, and Miscellaneous Things", and packed them away with my iPod. The date would be February 16th, 1861 in Buffalo, New York (my hometown, coincidentally enough). Lincoln would already be staying there on his way to accept the presidency so it would make it that much easier. Darwin wouldn't have shit going on, so he would make it as well. Plus, it was around our birthday. Perfect...

I hopped in my time machine and set the date. I decided it would be a good idea to just time travel my way right to Darwin's residence about a month before the date of the "conference" to drop off the invitation. That would give him enough time to show up. So I did just that and then time traveled to Buffalo.

I appeared in the back alley of the American Hotel on Main St. on Valentines Day, 1861. I reached in my pocket for money to get a room and realized I only had $5 bills. I'm not completely sure, but I had a sneaking suspicion that Lincoln didn't have his picture on American money yet. That would give me away as a time traveler, and I ran the risk of being hung as a witch. Thinking quickly, I realized that I'm an expert in 19th century security systems (there not really being any) and could just break into the hotel, kill one of the inhabitants of a room, and steal his identity. I did just that, and ended up finding myself as Hernando Escobar-Gonzalez, a wealthy merchant from... somewhere.

Hernando was a good man. Until I murdered him and stole his identity.

With the pieces now in place, all I had to do was wait. I stalked around the hotel for those two days, wearing Hernando's ill-fitting clothes and pretending I knew whatever language it was he spoke. Spanish? French? Russian? I couldn't figure it out, and soon had ended up killing in cold blood anyone who seemed like they might have known who he was.

Finally, on the morning of February 16th, 1861, Lincoln walked in with his security. He got a room on a floor and headed up. I thought it best to wait for Darwin. He arrived not long after Lincoln, and I felt the nervous gas of a brilliant plan coming together. I stopped at my room to use the bathroom, and then waited for them to knock on the door for the "conference". I had put 7 p.m. Eastern Time on the invitations, and at around 6:30 p.m. both showed up. I answered the door, turned on my audio recorder, and had the following conversation:

Craig?: First off, let me just say happy belated birthdays.

Lincoln and Darwin: Thank you.

Craig?: So... Mr. President, Mr. Darwin, welcome to the "World Leaders Association Conference for Stuff".

Lincoln: I was under the assumption that this was called the "World Leadership Conference featuring All the Great Leaders of Science, Politics, and Miscellaneous Things".

Craig?: Um... it goes by many names. Regardless, welcome.

Darwin: I'm sorry good sir, but I must ask: What are you wearing?

I was waiting for this question and took it as an opportunity to allow them in on my secret: I am a time traveler.

Craig?: Ah! Excellent question Mr. Darwin! I can see why many worship you and your ideas almost religiously where I come from!

Darwin: And where is that?

Craig?: Well, I come from Buffalo, New York.

Lincoln: We're in Buffalo.

Craig?: Yeah, I know. Let me finish. I'm from Buffalo, New York in the year 2010.

At this point there was a long, awkward silence. Darwin and Lincoln both looked at one another, looked at me, and then just sat. I waited for one of them to say something, but neither seemed capable of digesting the insanely awesome information I had just given them.

Craig?: 2010. You guys caught that, right? I'm from the future.

The Future, as they thought it would look like. Probably.

Again, there was a silence. Darwin stood up and started making his way toward the door.

Craig?: Where are you going?

Darwin: I'm leaving. This is clearly some kind of a joke.

Craig?: But don't you want to know what the future is like? The three of us are the most important figures in World History! At least that's how it is in the year 2162.

Lincoln: I thought you said you were from 2010?

Craig?: I also said I was a time traveler. I'm here now, aren't I? Stop cherry-picking things to call me on.

I heard my door slam and realized that Darwin had gone. My hopes dashed, I thought I would make due with Lincoln. I turned around to find him standing, his 6'3 frame fairly imposing.

Craig?: Well Mr. President, I guess it's just you and I.

Lincoln: My sincerest apologies boy, but I have much more worthwhile things to do with my time.

I stepped in front of him.

Craig?: I don't think so, Mr. President. The 3 people who read my blog in my present, before I'm practically the savior of mankind, want to know what you were really like. Who the man behind the myth really -

At that point Lincoln grabbed me and put me in an arm-bar. The most intense pain I've ever felt shot through my body and I lost control of my bowels. This was the worst possible scenario that could have happened. I passed out from the pain and awoke to find myself in jail. I jimmied the lock (they were pretty simple back then) and escaped to find my time machine. Upon securing it again - murdering several guards in the process - I returned to 2010.

And now here I am, ashamed and beaten for my journalistic failure. However, I hope that my few moments with Lincoln and Darwin gave you a sense of who they were as men, and not as giants of history. I also hope that any time travelers reading this prepare better than I did.

I know I learned that lesson.

"if people don't know who you are, nobody cares" -anonymous

Isn't it funny when people say college career? Did I completely miss the boat, we got paid to wake up early, drive to a place where you are almost guaranteed to find no parking spots, sit uncomfortably in a room where old people talk at you, and be depressed most of the semester and suicidal during finals?


...I digress, in fact college wasn't a huge butt plug, I enjoyed most of the time I spent there. College was a means for me to sort through all of the crap I had been fed, and discern for myself if it was indeed straight booty, or factual in some dubious, convoluted way. Every single day facts and figures are thrown my way via the television, newspaper/magazines, internet, and friends and family. Most statistics that are shown in popular media outlets are really just used for shock factor. They are attention grabbing, and hopefully life altering. But let's be clear, not everything you read, see, or hear is accurate. Not everything in our surrounding environment is as it seems. It is imperative that you understand that critical thought is the most powerful weapon in your arsenal of life-living and decision-making.

Unfortunate or not, we are a product of our environment and we pick up on each other. The current population of humans is all thanks to generations and generations of failed-and-learned-from mistakes; Social evolution, all thanks to our ancestors. I am a firm believer in building off of one another, learning from one another, and creating new thoughts for ourselves. Just look at all of the information and technology booms in the last few decades. We must keep in mind, however, that we must bring a commitment to accuracy and understanding in order for us to excel and move onto the next generation of learning.

Just because something is in quotes doesn't give it merit, plain and simple. If there is a statistic for it, it doesn't mean it is truthful. Let's get together and talk about some things that you think are so stupid but still exist in people's minds.

Let's bring creativity and critical thought back, cool?

The Fact is, there are no facts.

p.s.
I am the one to credit with that quote, so don't go posting it elsewhere unless I get my royalties!!