Who is Gary Johnson?

From our pay-stubs, to our soft drinks, to our light-bulbs, to our bedrooms, to our toilets, the government is demanding more and more control of our lives.  When will we finally say enough is enough? When will we reach our "John Galt" moment?  When will we take our government back?

Last November Gary Johnson set a record for the Libertarian Party at one percent of the vote.  He might have gotten far more except that most of America had no idea there was a viable third choice.  Indeed, most of America agrees with more of his actual policies than any other candidate.  Gary WILL make an excellent president and help back government away from our door:

So how do we help gain awareness for Gary Johnson over the NEXT four years?  I have an idea.

In Atlas Shrugged, "Who is John Gault?", was a rhetorical question reflecting the futility of the system.  The question was asked over and over by the hopeless, but it also became hope itself for those who KNEW John Galt.

A similar question needs to be asked again, but not in fiction this time.  If every time we see injustice in big government we reply with this question, maybe the nation will come to realize there IS an alternative.

If you agree, each time you see a Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn or Blog post describing government taking away your freedom, simply leave this comment:

"Who is Gary Johnson?"

At first these comments may annoy and confuse people, since anyone can Google the answer.  And many will.  That's important:

The Battle for Freedom NEVER Ends

Wikipedia - Gary Johnson

But for the rest of us, it'll be a way of reminding others how critical we believe our freedoms are.

And in time the question itself will take on a life and meaning of it's own.

So... will YOU ask a question for freedom?

Who IS Gary Johnson?

Keep asking until we get some answers.

Benjamin Franklin on the Minimum Wage

I've always thought of Ben Franklin as the playboy founding farther based on all the stories from Paris as well as his letter about older women:

Advice to a Friend on Choosing a Mistress

Wiki Background

Of course I'm aware of all his science, political and pithy writings but I didn't realize what a Libertarian he was.  I'm especially impressed with his economic understanding and foresight in this particular piece:


On the Labouring Poor

by Benjamin Franklin, posted on April 1, 1768

SIR, I have met with much invective in the papers for these two years past, against the hard-heartedness of the rich, and much complaint of the great oppressions suffered in this country by the labouring poor. Will you admit a word or two on the other side of the question? I do not propose to be an advocate for oppression, or oppressors. But when I see that the poor are by such writings exasperated against the rich, and excited to insurrections, by which much mischief is done, and some forfeit their lives, I could wish the true state of things were better understood, the poor not made by these busy writers more uneasy and unhappy than their situation subjects them to be, and the nation not brought into disrepute among foreigners by public groundless accusations of ourselves, as if the rich in England had no compassion for the poor, and Englishmen wanted common humanity.

In justice then to this country, give me leave to remark, that the condition of the poor here is by far the best in Europe, for that, except in England and her American colonies, there is not in any country of the known world, not even in Scotland or Ireland, a provision by law to enforce a support of the poor. Every where else necessity reduces to beggary. This law was not made by the poor. The legislators were men of fortune. By that act they voluntarily subjected their own estates, and the estates of all others, to the payment of a tax for the maintenance of the poor, incumbering those estates with a kind of rent charge for that purpose, whereby the poor are vested with an inheritance, as it were, in all the estates of the rich. I wish they were benefited by this generous provision in any degree equal to the good intention with which it was made, and is continued: But I fear the giving mankind a dependance on any thing for support in age or sickness, besides industry and frugality during youth and health, tends to flatter our natural indolence, to encourage idleness and prodigality, and thereby to promote and increase poverty, the very evil it was intended to cure; thus multiplying beggars, instead of diminishing them.

Besides this tax, which the rich in England have subjected themselves to in behalf of the poor, amounting in some places to five or six shillings in the pound of the annual income, they have, by donations and subscriptions, erected numerous schools in various parts of the kingdom, for educating gratis the children of the poor in reading and writing, and in many of those schools the children are also fed and cloathed. They have erected hospitals, at an immense expence, for the reception and cure of the sick, the lame, the wounded, and the insane poor, for lying-in women, and deserted children. They are also continually contributing towards making up losses occasioned by fire, by storms, or by floods, and to relieve the poor in severe seasons of frost, in times of scarcity, &c. in which benevolent and charitable contributions no nation exceeds us. — Surely there is some gratitude due for so many instances of goodness!

Add to this, all the laws made to discourage foreign manufactures, by laying heavy duties on them, or totally prohibiting them, whereby the rich are obliged to pay much higher prices for what they wear and consume, than if the trade was open: These are so many laws for the support of our labouring poor, made by the rich, and continued at their expence; all the difference of price between our own and foreign commodities, being so much given by our rich to our poor; who would indeed be enabled by it to get by degrees above poverty, if they did not, as too generally they do, consider every increase of wages only as something that enables them to drink more and work less; so that their distress in sickness, age, or times of scarcity, continues to be the same as if such laws had never been made in their favour.

Much malignant censure have some writers bestowed upon the rich for their luxury and expensive living, while the poor are starving, &c. not considering that what the rich expend, the labouring poor receive in payment for their labour. It may seem a paradox if I should assert, that our labouring poor do in every year receive the whole revenue of the nation; I mean not only the public revenue, but also the revenue, or clear income, of all private estates, or a sum equivalent to the whole. In support of this position I reason thus. The rich do not work for one another. Their habitations, furniture, cloathing, carriages, food, ornaments, and every thing in short that they, or their families use and consume, is the work or produce of the labouring poor, who are, and must be, continually paid for their labour in producing the same. In these payments the revenues of private estates are expended, for most people live up to their incomes. In cloathing and provision for troops, in arms, ammunition, ships, tents, carriages, &c. &c. (every particular the produce of labour) much of the publick revenue is expended. The pay of officers civil and military, and of the private soldiers and sailors, requires the rest; and they spend that also in paying for what is produced by the labouring poor. I allow that some estates may increase by the owners spending less than their income; but then I conceive that other estates do at the same time diminish, by the owner’s spending more than their income, so that when the enriched want to buy more land, they easily find lands in the hands of the impoverished, whose necessities oblige them to sell; and thus this difference is equalled. I allow also, that part of the expence of the rich is in foreign produce or manufactures, for producing which the labouring poor of other nations must be paid; but then I say, that we must first pay our own labouring poor for an equal quantity of our manufactures or produce, to exchange for those foreign productions, or we must pay for them in money, which money, not being the natural produce of our country, must first be purchased from abroad, by sending out its value in the produce or manufactures of this country, for which manufactures our labouring poor are to be paid. And indeed if we did not export more than we import, we could have no money at all. I allow farther, that there are middle men, who make a profit, and even get estates, by purchasing the labour of the poor and selling it at advanced prices to the rich; but then they cannot enjoy that profit or the incomes of estates, but by spending them in employing and paying our labouring poor, in some shape or other, for the products of industry — Even beggars, pensioners, hospitals, and all that are supported by charity, spend their incomes in the same manner. So that finally, as I said at first, our labouring poor receive annually the whole of the clear revenues of the nation, and from us they can have no more.

If it be said that their wages are too low, and that they ought to be better paid for their labour, I heartily wish any means could be fallen upon to do it, consistent with their interest and happiness; but as the cheapness of other things is owing to the plenty of those things, so the cheapness of labour is, in most cases, owing to the multitude of labourers, and to their underworking one another in order to obtain employment. How is this to be remedied? A law might be made to raise their wages; but if our manufactures are too dear, they will not vend abroad, and all that part of employment will fail, unless by fighting and conquering we compel other nations to buy our goods, whether they will or no, which some have been mad enough at times to propose. Among ourselves, unless we give our working people less employment, how can we, for what they do, pay them higher than we do? Out of what fund is the additional price of labour to be paid, when all our present incomes are, as it were, mortgaged to them? Should they get higher wages, would that make them less poor, if in consequence they worked fewer days of the week proportionably? I have said a law might be made to raise their wages; but I doubt much whether it could be executed to any purpose, unless another law, now indeed almost obsolete, could at the same time be revived and enforced; a law, I mean, that many have often heard and repeated, but few have ever duly considered. SIX days shalt thou labour. This is as positive a part of the commandment as that which says, the SEVENTH day thou shalt rest; but we remember well to observe the indulgent part, and never think of the other. St Monday is generally as duly kept by our working people as Sunday; the only difference is, that, instead of employing their time, cheaply, at church, they are wasting it expensively at the alehouse. I am, Sir, &c. MEDIUS.

Gentleman’s Magazine, April, 1768

Lindsey Stirling

My shortest blog post ever:  Click the title.

Burning Girl on the 4th of July, 2013

Discover Burning Girl this 4th of July.  Here's how:

If you've been to Burning Man you know you can't do it all, but when you get back home and look at all the pictures you discover so many things you didn't see.  It makes you wonder if you attended the same event.  I call this the Tao effect - your Burning Man experience is defined by the path you take across the playa.  There is always much to miss.

And the very same thing seems to happen in the local Burner community.  Even though the Reno area only has a few thousand Burners I constantly get surprised by some local project or place I've never heard of before. This was the case last night when Melinda and Rick invited me to a BBQ at Rancho Rico, about 100 miles from Reno, and ten miles down a gravel road south of Yerington.

To be candid, I HAD heard of the event they host at the location called Burning Girl, but it was always in a Shangri la sort of way, kind of a myth about a paradise out on the Walker river somewhere.  To my regret, I hadn't chased down the myth until now.  But I'm getting ahead of myself.  Let me first describe the venue.

Rancho Rico

Rancho Rico is indeed on the Walker river, or it would be more accurate to say, the Walker river winds it's way through Rancho Rico.  Even though the property is only a quarter mile wide, the river manages to log nearly a mile of turns through the cottonwoods and river brush.  I'm told it takes 25 minutes to float from one end to the other.  But floating the river is just the beginning of Rancho Rico's Tao.

Having been to Burning Man, Rick and Melinda have created a personal space consistent with many of the principles of the larger event.  They have "theme areas" all over the property, each supporting a different experience, each encouraging a different mood.

There's a log house which is their main vacation residence.  Inside it's a beautiful open design but otherwise the most conventional structure on the property, which says a LOT about everything else.

There's also a large barn with a shop well populated with machine tools along one wall.  It's decorated in such a fine / rustic manner, it's nicer than many living rooms I've encountered.  It's so nice, it almost makes you NOT want to turn on the drill-press.

Above is a large open loft apartment with a view of the mountains.  It sleeps 8 and again, it's decoration is another experience in western art.  This barn also has one of the "exposed" showers in the main shop area.  Sometimes you just get too dirty to be shy.

Near the barn is an adult sized swingset - not to be missed when the stars are out.  And at the front of the barn is "Mustang Sally" who's lights create a whole different drama at night.  There also are solar trail lights on  most paths (or soon will be).

There are fire pits, both gas and conventional since fire has to be carefully controlled.  There's just too much available stuff to burn, and the fire department is too far away.  Glo-poi for spinning is a requirement here.

There is a shaded massage and meditation area next to the river.  As a matter of fact, with it's winding nature, MOST of the areas are next to the river in one way or another.  For instance, the tee-pee camping area is also river front and nicely isolated.

There are multiple outdoor (and indoor) hot and cold showers, one of which has a beautiful mosaic created by Melinda.  I think it's of Burning Girl.  Or is it a self-mosaic?  Or both?

There's an RV area with 100 amp service as well as four or five other hidden camping areas along this mile of river bank, one of which would be excellent for an isolated sound camp.

Up a secret trail is access to the "nude beach" on a sandy turn of the river.  Other areas are limited to topless or clothed to keep it family-friendly.

And of course there's a hot-tub next to the river to provide contrast with the surging snow melt.  But that's only in the winter.  In the summer this river is controlled and fed by the Bridgeport reservoir so it stays reasonably high (2-3 feet) and warm all summer long - just what you need to float along.

Away from the river is the marriage pit.  It's an amphitheater where Rick and Melinda were married.  It's also an excellent camping or performing area more remote from the other camps.

The center-piece on the river is a stage for the musicians.  This is where over the years they've hosted live rock and roll, bluegrass, raggai, jazz, blues as well as country AND western - just about every music except for droning dubstep (save it for the remote sound camp?).

Going around the river bend and into the woods is a shaded trail that surprisingly leads to a full-size old west saloon complete with a whore's loft (and bed).  There's also a poker table and very impressive bar with hand-holds (why haven't I seen this feature before?).

Across the river on Rick's telephone pole bridge is Money Hill where the generous drop coins for children to "discover" later on.  It reminded me of the "penny toss" I attended as a kid.

At the top of Money Hill is Rick's "grave site", again consistent with the wild west theme and worth the climb for it's view of the mountains and river valley to the east.

The final concession to fire is the Burning Girl which is actually a 10-foot metal sculpture of a female in a fire-safe area.  On the Saturday of the camp-out this girl is loaded with straw and wood then set ablaze, which gets us to the event Melinda and Rick have been hosting for the last five years:


Burning Girl

Not having been to the event, I won't guess at the experience, but as you can imagine this venue seems like it would be a party all by itself - just add people.  And when those people are participating artists, it seems that Rancho Richo would come alive with fun and wonder.  My guess is, that's exactly what has happened each 4th of July for the last five years as Rick and Melinda invite their bay area friends out to the wilds of the Walker river.

But this year they want to mix it up a bit.  They are looking for some local talent.

In the past the focus has been live music along with a kid-friendly family camp-out, and they plan to continue that.  But this year in appreciation for the inspiration Burning Man has provided, Melinda and Rick would also like to extend the Burning Girl invitation to some of the Reno / Tahoe Burners.  That will be their generous gift to our local Burner community.

I just returned from another organizational meeting and a few changes have been made.  The event will be limited to 500 Burners for 2013. Also, only the dogs that have already been registered will be admitted.  Finally, ATVs will only be allow for registered service work or art cars.

Here is a summary of the principles of Burning Girl:

No fee of any kind, this is a gift to the Burner community

Radical Self-expression - except no fire, guns or fireworks

Gifting of  your art unconditionally through participation

Family-friendly - Topless sunbathing contained to the beach. Bottoms on!

Dogs - limited to already preregistered dogs, no new ones

Art cars - but very slow on property

ATVs - only for registered service or art cars at the event

Radical Self-reliance, use their resources in moderation

Communal Effort, be part of the solution, part of the event

Civic Responsibility - all activities in accordance with local, state and federal laws.

Decommodification - no commercial activities

This is a Leave No Trace event

Even thought this is not an official Burning Man event and is in no way associated with the Burning Man organization, it would still be nice to have Rangers, a first aid tent and volunteer managers for other functions.  So far we have volunteer leads for directing Gate, Placement, Music, Medical and Volunteers.

If you'd like to be part of this wonderful event on the 4th of July, click the registration button below and fill in your contact info.

Register

Any other questions, email:

sudden.net at gmail dot com

First come, first on the invite list - limited to 500.

Here are the details.  Be sure to click through all the pages:

Burning Girl

Facebook Event Page

Register for the event here:

Attend Burning Girl

Rotate Your Second Display!

Have you noticed how web content and computer displays are pointed in different directions?

If you open almost any webpage on a laptop or desktop computer you'll see blank white bands along the sides.  Even worse, you won't see much vertical depth of content.  This is because most documents and web content scroll vertically; yet most displays are presented horizontally.  And the sites that ARE formatted horizontally, are so wide they are difficult to read.

Why is this?  It's because of the movies.

Since movie and TV's 1080P format with their 16 by 9 aspect ratio is now the sweet spot in volume display manufacturing, we have this strange situation where computer content does match the display presentation.

This is why you see people rotating their phones and tablets so often.  Unfortunately with a laptop or desktop computers it's a bit more clumsy to rotate the display.  But the very factor that has cause the problem (volume price point), provides a reasonable solution - buy a second monitor and turn it vertical.

This is actually easier than you might think.  There are lots of optional vertical monitor stands, and most computers (including laptops) already have a second video port.  So get a second display, turn it sideways, configure Windows screen settings and poof!  The problem is solved.

Give it a try.  It's like having a whole new second computer - and one that actually fits your work.

The Emergence of Man

First posted 08-03-12

As a boy I was impressed with "2001 A Space Odyssey", and the idea that a spark from space vaulted man beyond the other primates.  I of course have my doubts, but the idea has been fun to think about as science tried to define that special edge between us and our cousins.

The line that separates humans from the other primates seems to keep moving backwards in time, and getting blurry in definition.


When I was a kid walking erect was the differentiator, but many exception were quickly found, the obvious being Bonobos once it was determined they weren't pygmy chimps.  Walking erect - no big deal:

Walking Upright

Then there was self-awareness, which was disproved in spite of Darwin's original mirror observations:

Mirror Test

And a nice test of abstract thinking is metacognition:

Chimps: Ability to 'Think About Thinking' Not Limited to Humans

Next was language.  Well until the chimp Washoe laid that one to rest in the 1960s.  Also bonobos now respond to spoken language with keyboard feedback.

The next test to fall was tool making which chimps and other species have now demonstrated.

In response, those who think humans are special have gone on to defined "culture" or the ability to transfer new knowledge from one generation to another as human.  But alas, that too has been demonstrated by chimps...

And WHALES

About six million years ago some things happened that genetically separate us from the other apes.  Even though it's only a one percent difference in coding, it seems to have had a profound result.  About half of that difference is in some way associated with the size and complexity of our brain.  Our jaw muscle strength decreased to allow longer and greater growth of the brain cavity.  Along with these new smarts came the opposable thumb which incidentally allowed for fine motor control as well as stronger grasp.

By about two million years ago another change happened.  We became marathon runners and developed some new hunting scripts largely stolen from wolves, which begs the question, who domesticated whom?

The spear which was developed about 500,000 years ago is a clear line.  So far we've seen no other species accomplish this trick, though a weapon may become a possible learned behavior for some other primates as other tools have been.  Is it just a matter of time?

Moving forward, fire is clearly on the human side of the line.  It also allowed our gut to shrink as digestion improved.  But isn't fire simply another form of using a tool and teaching the technique to another?  The real trick was getting close enough to use the flame but not get burned, and then of course, not letting the fire go out.  How many thousands of our ancestors played with fire before we learn to pass on these two tricks?  And was this the brain and thumbs at work?  We know of no other primate using fire independently, (thought some Bonobos have now been trained to do so with a lighter, and even use water to put it out).  Man's sustained use of fire is estimated to have begun about 400,000 years ago:

Who Mastered Fire?

Still, isn't the difference between us and other primates simply a matter of DEGREE in thinking and manipulating our environment?  Scripts and tools are certainly learned and used effectively by other species.  But our fore-brains allowed for abstraction, delayed gratification and far more complex scripts as demonstrated by the wide range of different human behaviors.  So is our main difference from other primates the complexity of behaviors created by individualism and hyper-specialization?  That is at the very least, the result.

When Did Humans Begin Hurling Spears?  - 90,000 Years Ago?

World's Oldest Portrait - Symbolic Abstraction 26,000 Years Ago

Not all hunter-gatherers moved around.  How could they have carried all these pots?

What 15,000 Years Of Cooking Fish Tells Us About Humanity

The key to real civilization seems to be the domestication of plants and animals - agriculture.  It's often described in terms of specialization and our ability to withhold gratification until the resource matures (wheat, cows or eggs into chickens).

This may be the key to Domestication 14,000 years ago:

We Didn't Domesticate Dogs.  They Domesticated Us.

Another line blurred:

Baboons Kidnap and Raise Feral Dogs as Pets

Even the line of first settlements are moving backward and becoming blurred.  In school I was taught civilization started about 5,000 years ago.  Then it was 7,000 years.  Then 10,000.  And now:

12,000 Year-Old Gobekli Tepe

(Wiki says Gobekli Tepe is only dated to 9559 projecting to 11,000 years old) That's still some impressive stone work which must have taken a few thousand years to develop.  20,000 years seems like a more safe number for now.  We just need to find more sites and map progress, but we're definitely blurring back into our ancestors.  When exactly did we become "human"?

As a side note, dogs have been with us for about 14,000 years according to bone evidence.

But then Border Cave takes some level of symbolic culture and the ownership of property back to 44,000 years:

Border Cave

Could "owning things" be that line between us and chimps?  This is one of the ideas put forth in Sex at Dawn.  Maybe Christopher Ryan is on to something.  Will this mystery lead us back to ourselves?  In any case, twelve to twenty thousand years ago was an exciting time for man.

And here is an even broader overview taking evolution into our culture - a lot of good ideas here:

How Culture Drove Human Evolution - Joseph Henrich

This next post strays a bit far from the origins of man, but contains so many useful observation about humanity:

State of the Species - Charles C. Mann

Maybe the missing mechanism is EPIgenitics working with genetics. It's an example of how evolution can go well beyond sexual preference:

Scientists claim that homosexuality is not genetic — but it arises in the womb

Here is a fun idea about how the n-grams of our cultural evolution is reflected in our language:

Evolution of the most common English words and phrases over the centuries  12-12-12

World's Oldest Wooden Water Wells Discovered From About 5000 Years Ago  12-24-12

Is a long childhood the key difference?  Maybe:

Why Are We the Last Apes Standing?

Believe it or not, this was published long after I published this post (which like primates is still evolving). Mark Changizi to seems to agree that we differ only by degree ("quantitatively so, not qualitatively").  Interesting post.  I need to get his books on my list:

Bursting the Bubble of Human Intelligence  04-09-13

It seems this puzzle is filling in literally day by day.  Stay tuned for more updates.

It appears we must guard against cultural imperialism in our Inquisition of knowledge. And does human behavior vary to try all possible combinations in the same way a species replicates to fill the physical range of it's environment?

Why Americans Are the Weirdest People in the World  02-25-13

Is This the Droid for Which I'm Looking?

Originally posted on 11-12-09

At first I was impressed with the screen, the quick interface and the impressive package. But when you get just below the surface, Motorola's (and by association, Google's) new Droid is guilty of chasing the Apple inspired fashion of sizzle over substance, of image over content. For me, it's not as much about how it LOOKS. It's more about how it WORKS.

I've always held the position that one shouldn't "upgrade" just because there's a new release of anything. I generally wait until there is significant improvement. Because of this, I'm often "pushed" into upgrading just to remain compatible with critical applications. Such was the question last year when Palm introduced their new Web OS, and turned their back on the classic Palm OS. I can hold off for a while, but it's just a matter of time until I will have to move to something new.

I've been using the Palm OS since 1996, when I bought a Palm Pilot three days after introduction. The Palm WAS a significant improvement over my Sharp Zarus. The most impressive thing was it's ability to sync my content with my desktop computer. I can't remember how many times over the last 14 years either my computer OR my phone crashed and had to be reformatted - but NEVER at the same time. Yes, I still have files from 1996 on my current Palm Centro.

If you wonder what was so great about Palm, here's a link to a retro-view of Palm's design philosophy:

The Zen of Palm 03-10-13

Anyway, back to the Pre.  I spent about an hour with the Palm Pre and was also dazzled by it's UI. But Web OS didn't support memos - nor their syncing. Plus the screen and keyboard were small compared with the state of the art. Also, Palm, like Apple had made the development less open. When I heard that you were REQUIRED to upgrade Web OS within one week of any new release or your phone was disabled, that was the deal-breaker. My love affair with Palm was over and my hope was the Droid would offer a significant advancement using a more open approach, and finally take me away from my old Palm.

You may have guessed where I'm going with this. Even though Google's Android (and the Droid phone) do a great job of syncing the Calendar and Contacts, they too forgot all about Memos. Not only did they forget to sync them, they didn't even INCLUDE an application to edit text. That's right, there is no memopad, notepad or wordpad included with the Droid. Sure, you can compose an email to yourself in Google's cloud, but then things get mixed up with thousands of other emails and it's clunky to get into those drafts because mobile drafts don't show up on the desktop.

Has America quit writing? It seems so. And Apple's partly to blame. The first iPhone didn't even have Copy, Cut and Paste. I guess we're now supposed to express ourselves in 140 characters or less. I obviously haven't yet learned how to do that. So far, memos are the missing sync of the Droid.

But what about all the sizzle of Flick, drag and pinch? Yes, the Droid (and Palm Web OS) deliver in this area. Well, except for pinch to zoom like the iPhone does, which I'm sure Droid will add shortly.

And the Droid does indeed dazzle. The music, the movies and all the media deliver. Sky Map is fun. And everyone's talking about the nav features, which ARE impressive. But where are the topos for hiking? With such a beautiful screen, GPS can finally deliver on it's promise in the wild. Why not some topos?

Like the iPhone, web surfing on the Droid is indeed a significant improvement, even though still slower than a PC. Still, it's fast enough to be useful and way ahead of the Centro. The camera and the keyboard are not as bad as all the reviews suggest, but can be improved.

That's what I have so far. I'll continue to update this post as I discover new features.

And failures.

12-09-09 Update

Yep. I kept the Droid past 30 days so I'm now committed. The sizzle continues to dazzle, and memos are still the missing sync, but I am now using 3Banana's social post tool as a memo solution. It a bit clunky on the Droid, but better on the desktop browser. Still not bad considering how I'm bending it to my purpose.

In almost every other area, the Droid continues to amaze with it's app base. WeFi helps with the battery and WiFi typically improves web performance. Advanced Task Killer is helpful in managing resources. I've gone for more than a week without rebooting - not bad considering all the apps I've tried.

Aldiko is a nice book reader; Listen is great for grabbing podcasts; Pandora works great; RPN Calculator works great but needs bigger buttons. So far, I haven't found a bad app, but I've been careful to cream the list. There are also lots of great games from what I've had time to try. The good news is, the Droid hardware is solid, and new apps are coming fast, so I'm hopeful all my needs will soon be met. I already wouldn't go back to my Centro. Palm, RIP.

The Droid hardware is a solid 8 on the 10 scale, software is 6 and climbing.

Let me know what YOUR experience is.

11-06-10 Update

DropBox finally solved the file synch problem and I can now use any desktop editor INCLUDING Sudden View.  :)

VW Redefines "Car" With A 261-MPG Diesel Hybrid

As you can read, light efficient cars have been one of my favorite topics for a long time:

07-04-06 1974 VW Dasher

Update 03-06-13:

The Volkswagen XL1 just debuted in Geneva and claims a range of 261 mpg, with a curb weight of about 1,750 pounds. Its coefficient of drag is extremely low at 0.189. It’s powered by a 47-hp, two-cylinder turbodiesel paired with a 27-hp electric motor. VW says it will make 250 examples with a price near $100,000

Autoblog Roadtest

Top Gear First Drive: the VW XL1

Update 01-25-11:

Formula XL1 Concept 

First posted on 02-18-10:

Finally!

261-MPG Diesel Hybrid 

Top 11 Biggest Lies of Mainstream Nutrition

It's nice to see a rational summary on nutrition:

Top 11 Biggest Lies of Mainstream Nutrition

Sex at Dawn and the Dawn of Property

This is my second review published on November 12, 2012:

Sex at Dawn has issues, but they are eclipsed in significance by one VERY important idea - the emergence of "property" in human behavior.

Yes, the book presents lots of other useful ideas, and the many challenges to the "standard narrative" are far more valuable than the minor confusion encountered when the book crosses the line from science to wishful thinking in its return to Eden. Discounting the value of civilization is naive, but this too does not get in the way of the book's most important concept - the emergence of property.

Most other reviews deal with the obvious sexual consequences of a shifting culture, but this single underlying idea of how property became a critical behavior and distorted our primal nature puts Chistopher Ryan among Desmond Morris, Sigmund Freud and even Charles Darwin when it comes to understanding human behavior and evolution.

Before 20,000 years ago humans "owned" only what they could carry. They were typically chasing game or grain. The property they might own would be as little as a spear, or a basket.  Even these simple things made sense to share as portability was half the value. When they found food, it also made sense to share. After all, you couldn't "own" more than you could physically eat or carry.  And there was little reason to "own" another person you couldn't control once out of sight.

But domestication of plants and animals changed everything.

Not only COULD humans own property, they HAD to own property in order to gain its advantage. Whether it was an acre of grain or a heard of cows, a person HAD to take responsibility for their care in order to enjoy the benefit from the behavior of husbandry.  You can imagine the first person who personally withheld and guarded enough grain to plant again year later.  He might have been considered a sociopath for fighting and hording grain, but became a hero at the harvest.  A year is a long time to withhold gratification in the mind of a beast, but once mastered the behavior amplified personal effectiveness dramatically.

Agriculture required holding title to things that were not only out of sight, but often out of mind. It required the abstraction of property ownership, but the results were a phenomenal leveraging of effort. This success lead these farmers to apply the abstract idea of ownership to everything in their environment, and then over-apply ownership to other people, ultimately producing slavery and marriage.  From a cow to a wife, the concept was extended with literally strong-armed force, even though it likely conflicted with our historical and primal nature of sharing as is pointed out in Sex at Dawn.

The impact of owning property on our sexual behavior is what this book is all about. How this motive contrasts with our primal nature is the main reason we have so many issues with sex and monogamy, mostly because monogamy is all about ownership of others. But that's only part of the consequence. The impact of property on religion, politics and relationships in general has a far greater scope. Ownership of property at a distance became the basis for feudalism, the most common lifestyle of the last few thousand years.

The idea of owning property now permeates and dominates who we are, even if it's not always reflected in our more primal behavior.  Wouldn't it be ironic if our primal behavior turned out to be more altruistic and our new "civilized" behavior more selfish?  How do we begin testing these ideas?

Sex at Dawn opens one amazing can of worms.  And it's also a fun read.

This is my conclusion after a second reading. Below was my first impression:

First impression posted on 02-04-12:

This may well be the most significant book published so far this millennium.  OK, it's only been 12 years but what Dr Christopher Ryan and Dr Cacilda Jetha have brought together in such a candid fashion is at the very least a breakthrough in the understanding of the human condition, if not a road-map to the entire field of primate psycho-sexual behavior.

Sex at Dawn doesn't just challenge Charles Darwin, Sigmund Freud, and Desmond Morris; it drives a bulldozer right through their conclusions using their own observations as diesel fuel.  Like so many breakthroughs, this one starts with a whole new perspective.

These two start by recognizing the standard narrative as a war of the sexes where women are less sexual and men need to "own" the outcome of the battle, until death do us part.  That this narrative doesn't really work is patently obvious to the most casual observer, and they point out the reasons.  For instance, why do we grow bored with our partners?  Why do so many cheat?  Why is it so difficult to live happily ever after?  Instead of blaming exceptions to the rule, Sex at Dawn actually provides answers to these questions by taking a fresh look at old data as well as drilling back into history in some interesting and creative ways.

All my life I've read history full of inconsistency between dictum and action.  From your mother to Jerry Falwell or even the Popes down through the centuries, we've gotten the same message: do as I say, not as I do.  And sex is often at the core of this behavioral paradox.  Sex has almost created the concept of double-standard and hypocrisy all by itself.

Unfortunately for millions, this "fashion" as been driven forward by force of culture and law.  And the powers that be, have tried to explain away all the exceptions when at that end of the day, all there are, are exceptions. The modern industry called soap opera is proof of how silly the king looks without his clothes.

I've often observed about paradoxes, if something doesn't make sense, you simply don't have enough data.  But that's not the only factor.  Sometimes we aren't looking at the data in the most effective way.  Dr Ryan and Dr Jetha have found a fresh perspective on what we've learned about human sexuality over the last few hundred years.  Then they dig back thousands and millions of years in ways that make sense.  Sex at Dawn not only vividly present the contradictions of the narrative, it provides a more natural alternative.

Even though this is an easy and entertaining read, don't let that diminish the significance of these concepts: these are world changing ideas.  From linking ownership of property to agriculture, to shared parentage, these are significant changes in how we think about our ancestors, and by inference, ourselves. I believe these two have opened a Pandora's box that will not close.  I think these ideas will have the general public laughing at our recent sexual history in only a generation from now.

Before I conclude, let me say I don't think they got it all right.  I believe they've under-represented not only the power of the prude but how monogamy can sometimes be natural and healthy; at least for a while.  And I don't believe we can dismiss jealousy as entirely cultural or only the result of the agricultural age.  It varies from person to person but seems primal in some.  Also, it's hard to accept that a paradise won't expand until it's no longer a paradise.  And most hunter gatherers did not even start with paradise.  These points aside, there are enough great ideas in this book to prompt a hundred more books on the topic.

And Sex at Dawn is the place to start the process.

In any case, read Sex at Dawn and tell me what YOU think.







The most concise reason to read this book:

Let the Critics Critique

Let the critics critique. Then read this amazing book anyway., April 14, 2013
By KID VOLTRON

I love critics. All the time they invested in studying the critic arts. Going to critic college. Getting their critic's degree. Then taking the time to set up critic social programs that teach inner city children the ins and out of becoming critics themselves, so as to further enrich society's cornucopia of, well...criticism. Oh, none of those things exist? Probably because critics are too busy spreading negativity and self loathing to truly make a positive difference in the world. Ok, now that that's been cleared up...*ahem*...

* If you've ever had your heart broken from a cheating other, read this book.

* If you've ever felt like you were trapped in a dead end relationship, but didn't know why you felt that way, read this book.

* If you've ever wanted more than your significant other seemed capable of providing, but felt selfish about asking, read this book.

Basically, anyone in a relationship anywhere should be aware of the text in Sex At Dawn. After my wife and I separated because I felt neglected and trapped, I went searching for answers. This book cleared up so many things that she and I were both unaware we were dealing with that we're now reestablishing the friendship we once had. Who knows if we'll ever be a couple again? The point is that we're both better people for having taken the time to research where our troubles stemmed from. And this book could've saved all that heartache had we read it before getting married.

I tip my hat to Ryan/Jetha for tackling a side of human nature that has been cast aside into the shadow of shame for far too long. Take control of your love life and give this book a chance. It will change your life, and the life of those you love, forever.

The most significant Chris Ryan interview Chris Ryan I've found:

The Ultrasound Wars, a Better Use for McMansions, and the Surprising Truth About Group Sex: an Interview with Christopher Ryan, co-author of “Sex at Dawn”.

Here are a few other reviews:

Sex at Dawn

How Sex at Dawn is Blowing My Mind

And it's rare for me to link the International Socialist Review but:

Anything Went

Don't Feed the Animals

The Psychology of Human Sexuality Review

The book is always better, but if you'd rather see the movie...

This is another fascinating read on the topic.  While it's not a review of Sex at Dawn but illustrates many of the contradictions brought up in the book:

11 Strange, Horrific, or Just Plain Weird Ways Societies Have Policed Sex Throughout History

... and makes one appreciate the sexual freedom we now have.

Here's one alternative to the standard narative:

Polyamory and the Elephant in the Room

Sexual Behavior in Pre Contact Hawai‘i: A Sexological Ethnography

Don't let the title scare you. Yes, this may be a bit academic for some but it's fascinating and supports Sex at Dawn in many ways. Some of it I read in Michener's Hawaii, but this work has much more detail.

What amazes me most is the contrast with western society. In many ways it's inverse. This makes me realize how arbitrary yet critical customs can become. For instance, one could be put to death for wearing a wet swimming suit in front of royalty (nude would be proper). It might be hard to believe but many western ideas are just as crazy.


OK.  Not everyone agrees Sex at Dawn is the book of the century:

01-23-13 - Still Trying to Read "Sex at Dawn" Without Actually Killing Myself


A friend of mine has given me permission to include her review here, which I'm doing because it's such a through and excellent counter-point to many of the important ideas of Sex at Dawn, and because she shares some of the political reservations I do.  Later I plan to read Sex at Dawn again and then review Roberta's review.  So standby for updates:


Roberta's Review of Sex at Dawn


"There are some subtle and many not-so-subtle leanings toward forwarding socialism and communism as the main point of the book. Aiming at a target audience that wants to hear that sexual freedom is good and natural, it attempts to connect the reasons they feel bad about it to the repressive capitalistic, property-based, dogmatic, religiously zealous, Western society they live in. It then posits that egalitarian, free-loving, communal tribes lived with no sociosexual repression, making the logical conclusion that a communist society would be free of the social repression that keeps polyamory repressed.

I have attached several Citation Points to show a clear spin in favor of communism and against all forms of personal property rights:

1) pg. 43, Marx is stated to be one of “three intellectual giants of his century, Darwin, Freud, and Marx”
2) pg. 13-14, Equating the rise of agriculture to the advent of personal property & possessiveness (unfounded and stated as undeniable fact in the face of contradictory scientific proof in archeological records; see below)
3) pg. 151-212, A complete narrative on the evils of capitalism, personal property rights, and how economic theory points to large-scale communism not as totalitarian, but “misguided”. (pg. 171)
4) pg. 172, Unintentionally negating the entire theory, one line states, “Marx’s fatal error was his failure to appreciate the importance of context. Human nature functions one way in the context of intimate, interdependent societies, but set loose in anonymity, we become a different creature.” This undermines the entire thesis that communism is misguided and reinforces the fact that it is unworkable beyond small bands of close-knit people. (anonymity defined as being part of a group of more than 150 individuals; the limits of the human brain to create close-knit personal relationships)
5) pg. 180, The assumption is made (without cited archeological evidence) that agriculture societies caused the chronic food shortages seen in fossilized skeletal evidence of the age while ignoring evidence that food shortages were in fact due to massive megafaunal extinctions during the Younger Dryas cooling, (the last ice age circa 10,900-9,500 BC) thus leading to the rise of agriculture-based societies in order to survive. (see Mithen, Steven J.: After The Ice: A Global Human History, 20,000–5000 BC, pages 46–55. Harvard University Press paperback edition, © 2003 which offers three alternate theories of the rise of agriculture) The authors even admit on pg. 13 that agriculture actually leads to food surplus, thus allowing for large population growth, leading to higher population densities. Such a statement is in direct contradiction to the thesis and the insistence that agriculture leads to famine. (one could argue it does lead to malnutrition through adoption of a mono-diet, but agriculture can hardly be blamed for the lack of dietary diversity through the Younger Dryas cooling)

My conclusion is that the entire concept of sociosexual repression is turned upside-down in order for the authors to promote a pro communist agenda. The hypothesis that humans are naturally promiscuous can be proven without the repeated attempts to undermine the validity of personal property rights as it relates to the objects we own. (but then the book would only be about 80 pages long instead of 416) One can have a deep sense of pride of ownership over things we have earned through our labors (such as land and other artifacts) and still not hold a sense of “property” over our partners. People are not things… they are people.

Archaeological evidence shows that the very hunter-gatherers that the authors state practiced open sexuality did in fact own personal possessions, evidence that undercuts the thesis that the concept of personal property did not exist prior to agriculture. For citation, see articles on the Wadi Hammeh 27 dig site in Jordan, dating back 14,000 years. (4,000 years before the rise of agriculture) “Although a lot of individual [sic] stone age tools and items have been discovered, it is very rare to find a collection, one person's possessions.” (emphasis added) Among the items found in the dig were “a cluster of gazelle phalanges (toe bones) which were used to make decorative beads”. These are not tools of necessity as the thesis states were the only possessions of the hunter-gatherers, but pure adornments, possessions that served no practical purpose, carried around simply because they were valued. Doesn’t sound like a society free from materialism, does it? Other archaeological evidence shows many ancient hunter-gatherers were buried with prized possessions (see Lieberman, Philip Uniquely Human: The Evolution of Speech, Thought, and Selfless Behavior pg. 153) to prevent anyone else from possessing them. That is not egalitarian, but highly possessive.

While the authors cite many experts that agree with the thesis, they omit others that offer refutation, even when presented with unbiased scientific reasoning. The book cites many examples of modern egalitarian hunter-gatherers as evidence of the way of life of ancient hunter-gatherers, but fails utterly to mention refutations that modern hunter-gatherers show historical evidence as having themselves once been pastoral agriculturists that had been displaced into returning to a hunter-gatherer life. Thus “tainted” by an agricultural ancestry, they cannot be used as scientifically viable evidence of ancient hunter-gatherer lifestyles. (see Kelly, Raymond (October 2005). "The evolution of lethal intergroup violence" and Wilmsen, Edwin (1989). Land Filled With Flies: A Political Economy of the Kalahari. University Of Chicago Press) Put simply, because they have no unbroken ancestral history to ancient hunter-gatherer ways of life, their behaviors and ideologies are completely original constructs, not examples of ancient societies reborn.

Furthermore, ideas that the pre agricultural hunter-gatherers were relatively peaceful are fallacious. Anthropological finds show cave drawings over 15,000 years old depicting battles fought between tribes of these “peaceful egalitarian people” over tribal god images, especially good hunting grounds, feuds between family groups, and so on. (reference Chris Scarre’s “The Human Past: World Prehistory & the Development of Human Societies” Copyright © 2008 Thames & Hudson) Certainly it gives lie to the thesis that agriculture created warfare if warfare existed 5 millennia prior. Again, the authors ignore these facts as inconvenient to their thesis that agriculture and the rise of materialism is the cause of most of our social woes. (including sociosexual repression)

The authors go so far as to cite the poorly researched dissertation by Professor Steven Pinker to demonstrate that accepted prehistoric war theories are invalid. This is nothing more than a blatant attempt to intimidate opposing theories by holding up one of the worst examples and calling it “typical”. (akin to stating that all spiritual beliefs are evil because of the Spanish Inquisition) The thesis tries to dismiss warfare among hunter-gatherers by raising the question, “What would they have to fight over?” while ignoring whole lists of reasons humans fight one another.

A note on disease: The authors pontificate on the evils of agriculture having introduced many diseases to humanity through close contact with livestock and make the unsubstantiated claim that disease was rare among the hunter-gatherers who lived prior to agriculture. Furthermore, they do so without citing any verifiable evidence. The authors’ citations on this matter, once researched, reveal only the unsubstantiated opinion of other theorists, not any actual evidence. Were there fewer diseases then? Scientific evidence says that bacteria and viruses have been a part of life on this planet for as long as there has been life here. (and unlike the authors, I can cite evidence in the fossil record; see Nesse, Randolph M., Williams, George C., Why We Get Sick: The New Science of Darwinian Medicine; Times Books, New York © 1994) Were humans susceptible to fewer diseases? Probably, but the diseases we fell victim to (like common infections from skin abrasions) were often fatal. (see previously cited text) Theory without evidence is not science; it’s opinion.

On the primate ancestry front, the authors cite human common ancestry with bonobos more times than I can count, while understating the relative ancestral ties to the equally distant chimpanzee. (except where it benefits the thesis, see pg. 223) If one cites ancestral ties to the bonobo as proof of their hypothesis, it is scientifically irresponsible not to cite chimps as being equally valid comparisons. The authors do grudgingly admit that the two species are equally distant from us ancestrally, but dismiss chimp’s aggressive behavior as unique. Why are chimps unique from humans and bonobos aren’t? Did I miss something in the concept of “ancestral equidistance”? Shouldn’t we look at both for signs of common ancestral behavior? Trying to dismiss cited examples of chimp aggression as “tainted observation due to provisioning” (giving chimps food to keep them close enough for study) while failing to cite studies that support the theory lacks scientific credibility. You can’t just propose a theory and then state it as fact without evidence and simply citing a book where the results are not stated doesn’t count as evidence. (see pg. 189)

While I find a great deal can be learned from the commonalties between humans and bonobos, genetically there is just as much that we have in common with chimps… such as our innately aggressive nature. (and ability to cope with stress without dying, see footnote 22, pg. 338) Often in life, we find the truth lies not in the extremes, but somewhere in the middle. We are not chimps who aggressively kill strangers just because they wandered into our territory, but neither are we bonobos, satisfied to the ideal of “make love, not war”. (and drop dead from cortisol shock the first time we hear a large explosion) We are humans; a species of our own with our own drives, our own instincts, our own failings, built on millions of years of our own unique evolution. We are innately kind, yet innately cruel. We are innately generous, but innately selfish. We are innately gentle, yet innately harsh. We are innately tyrannical, but innately freedom loving. We are the unwritten books; mixed drives, emotions, and experiences that make us want to be the “horrifying saints” we are as a species.

From the bad to the good, the chapter on the biomorphic evidence for human polygamy is very well considered. Comparative gender dimorphism is very clear that humans males are not designed to compete physically against other males for the “right” to father a woman’s children, but rather they are designed to let their sperm fight it out in the womb. (though as a woman I find Mr. Ryan’s obsession with penis sizes a bit too self-interested) But even through this section, the authors take a time-out to bash industrial capitalism for poisoning men’s testicles into reduced fertility without mentioning the more likely cause being the natural human response to overpopulation.

I half-remember a study I read years ago that compared fertility rates to population density. I was unable to find the study to cite, so I did a quick comparison of 222 countries comparing fertility rate versus population density. The results are clear and immediate: the countries with the highest population densities all had the lowest fertility rates with an average deviation of less than 6.5%. (data obtained from CIA World Factbook, 2011)

For reference, here are the ten countries with the lowest fertility rate to population density ratios:

Country	Pop density (#/km²)	Fertility rate (births/woman)
Macao	20,319.26	0.92
Monaco	15,269.50	1.50
Singapore	6,801.63	1.11
Hong Kong	6,451.55	1.07
Gibraltar	4,454.77	1.96
Gaza Strip	4,603.21	4.74
Bahrain	1,598.30	1.88
Malta	1,292.19	1.52
Maldives	1,325.50	1.81
Saint Marten	1,100.85	1.70

And to compare, ten countries with the highest fertility rate to population density ratios:

Country	Pop density (#/km²)	Fertility rate (births/woman)
Zambia	18.44	5.98
Bolivia	9.21	3.00
Kazakhstan	5.70	1.87
Somalia	15.57	6.35
Republic of the Congo	12.41	5.68
Canada	3.41	1.58
Angola	10.70	5.97
Mali	11.42	6.44
Central African Republic	7.95	4.63
Niger	13.00	7.60

Note that with a few exceptions (generally caused by countries such as Canada with large tracts of unoccupied land and most of its population in high-density cities) the countries with the highest population densities have the lowest fertility rate. Of note, Macao has both the highest population density in the world and the lowest fertility rate, while Niger has the highest fertility rate and is in the bottom 10% of national population densities. When so many countries show the same pattern, and are a mixed variety of lifestyles from 3rd world to industrialized, with such a small deviation, the reasonable conclusion is that low fertility rates are linked to putting too many people in one place. Sounds to me like biology is just adjusting fertility to compensate for overpopulation.

The authors also make connections between low fertility and the consumption of red meat and soy. While reasonable sounding at first, one has to ask the question, “If red meat causes infertility, why were the people who lived 50,000 years ago more fertile than people today when they ate even more red meat per capita than we do?” (see Smil, Vaclav “Population and Development” ©2002 Colorado State University Press pg. 604 “Eating Meat”) The fact is that there is no scientifically verifiable link between male infertility and the consumption of any particular food, but there is a direct correlation between infertility and population density. The authors are using the fear most men have about their virility (or perceived virility) to try to spur changes in their behavior. The fact is that most men are very concerned about their virility, even if they are not interested in conception. So much so that they will go to great lengths to avoid anything that they believe may jeopardize it, even when no evidence can be cited. Humans have been eating soy and red meat for 700,000 years that we know of, but certain activists intent on altering our innate behavior are misleading people to believe that now it is causing infertility. Peak US per capita beef consumption was in 1976, long before the “fertility crisis” had been conceived of. (see previous citation, pg. 613) Why does eating red meat now cause infertility and not 35 years ago, or 50,000? What changed? (hint: nothing changed except the demonization of “big beef” corporations by radical vegans)

Moving on, the authors’ treatments of the suppression of female libido in Chapter 18 is heartbreaking in the knowledge that any society could be so cruel to it’s wives, daughters, sisters, and mothers. False diseases such as hysteria and the horrifying practice of clitoridectomy are as evil a practice as slavery. To take from a woman her natural right to have sexual pleasure is a fate nearly worse than death. (Death might be kinder, for what value is your life even to yourself once you are doomed to toil without reward?) That this evil is still carried out in parts of the world today sickens me near to tears of rage. If any proof were needed on the nature of the potential of human evil, one need look no further than this infamous practice. I cannot help but become angered at the evil of men who thought it a good way to enslave their wives and daughters. Disgusting! (any wonder why I’m a lesbian?)

Speaking of being a lesbian, the authors demonstrate an overwhelming tendency to focus strictly on heterosexual intercourse and give only fleeting mention to homosexual attraction. In the section on the anatomy of female bosoms and buttocks, the attraction is only noted by the authors as a “transcendent influence over heterosexual male consciousness”. (pg. 259) This, and other sections of that chapter, push the idea that a woman’s body is specifically attractive only to heterosexual males and that this is the purpose of the beauty of the female body. God forbid you should suggest that a woman’s body be universally considered attractive, even by heterosexual females and homosexual males. To do so might drag the topic off into discussing human sexual behavior and away from agriculture bashing.

On the section regarding female copulatory vocalizations, that term is in itself heterocentric. Copulation is defined as sexual intercourse between males and females. Calling it “copulatory vocalization” implies that women are only vocal if a man is having sex with them and that heterosexual sexual excitation is it’s only purpose. (as if women don’t ever get turned on by the sound of another woman’s orgasm, even if they are heterosexual) This phrasing is not only insulting to me as a woman, but to me as a homosexual.

Further on that, the book is absent a significant set of data: namely the vocalizations of female bonobos when engaging in homosexual activity with other female bonobos. With all the time and page space that the authors dedicate to making comparisons between humans and bonobos, the complete lack of data on how female bonobos vocalize during homosexual encounters is notable in its absence. If the authors are so adamant that human sexuality is very closely related to that of bonobos, why this complete dead space? Does the data show something that could be used to negate the author’s thesis? The biology of female sexual vocalizations (a much more accurate term) when engaged in sexual activity with other females could give great insight into the sexual appetites of women in general. (but again, we might get dragged off the real topic of blaming capitalism for all our woes)

That the authors completely ignored this line of inquiry makes me suspect that the findings were not supportive to the claim that female sexual vocalization is designed to spur multiple male copulation. Could it be that female vocalization is simply a side effect of the fact that a woman’s orgasm is just better than a man’s and women can’t help but cry out because it just feels that good? (i.e. men would vocalize too if their orgasms were nearly as good as ours) I’m not trying to start a ‘women are better than men’ fight, but I have a unique perspective on the issue. I was born with male anatomy and went through puberty as a male and enjoyed intercourse before transition, however I can attest that sex before transition was a much lesser experience. True, I had body image issues then (wouldn’t you if you were a woman trapped in a man’s body?) which could have inhibited my enjoyment of sex as a man, but the actual degree of pleasure was greatly increased after Hormone Replacement Therapy, by multiple orders of magnitude. (both in duration and intensity, as well as the ability to have multiple orgasms)

Mr. Ryan likely did not include data on bonobo female sexual vocalizations in homosexual experiences because it forced him to face the uncomfortable fact that sex is just better for women than for men. Biology doesn’t care about fairness though, it only cares about results. A female that enjoys sex more than the male of the species will have sex more often than the males, including with other females, which creates social bonds between the females to strengthen the tribe’s unity. That males are turned on by female sexual vocalization is not conclusive to the thesis that it spurs sperm competition because females are aroused by it as well. It would seem that its purpose is to spur the entire tribe to sexual activity with whoever is willing in order to bind all closer together as a tribal unit, not just the males for the purpose of reproduction.

Again, bias forces the subject away from the purpose of the book. (the truth of human sexual history) Even though the admission of human sexual gratification dimorphism (the difference in the pleasure that men and women perceive during sex) would serve to prove that humans are naturally promiscuous, that’s not what the authors want to hear or write about, so it gets ignored.

Think about it logically, simply as a numbers game. Just using average figures, the following data points are known:
1) A woman would generally need 2-3 male partners over the course of one sexual experience to be fully satisfied
2) Men only generally are able to copulate with one woman in that same time span
3) Men and women crave sex with an equal frequency
4) There are an equal number of males and females
If viewed as an equation, this set function demands that women must be designed to enjoy sex with multiple male partners as well as with other women to balance the equation, otherwise we have to conclude that women are designed by nature to be unfulfilled. (which makes no sense from an evolutionary point of view) This would explain why nearly all women are turned on by the sexual vocalizations of other women, however it implies another uncomfortable truth; that likely only about 10% of women are heterosexual, 10% are homosexual, and the vast majority (80%) are bisexual.

If the set function is altered to force there to be an equal number of bisexual females as bisexual males, the result is that 49.6% of the time, women will not be satisfied with their sexual encounters. That is, there are not enough men to keep an equal number of women satisfied when women require 2-3 times the time spent having sex versus the males. The only way to balance that equation is to add an additional data set requiring men to have sex 2.5 times as often as they wish to. (or 2.5 times longer than the time it takes for them to be satisfied) From an evolutionary point of view, this serves no purpose, so why would nature breed for a species to have females that crave more sex than they can get, even in a promiscuous society? The answer is that it wouldn’t, unless a large amount of sex between females is allowed. Interestingly, the book touches on that on pg. 276-279, but quickly abandons the subject in favor of bashing the Catholic Church. (pg. 281)

Back to the good, the section on “The Perils of Monotomy” is very well considered for a while. The idea that we have a built-in desire for sexual variety and to avoid the overly familiar as a feedback against incest makes a lot of sense from a biological viewpoint. Of course, the chapter loses my interest by focusing completely and totally on male heterosexuals, so it’s a mix of good and “where’s the rest?” To make it worse, the authors imply that women have no “need” for sexual diversity when on pg. 300 they say “if you’re a woman whose husband is ‘cheating’, your options are no better… have your own revenge affair (even if you don’t feel like it)”. The implication of the choice of language is staggering and flies in the face of the idea that women seek sexual diversity just as much as men do. Reversion to the ‘standard narrative’ is also found in other passages about women when discussing male sex drives, leaving me to question the authors’ scientific objectivity.

In conclusion, I cannot recommend this book for a serious exploration of human sexual nature. It is too rife with overtly socialist propaganda and male egocentrism that the few nuggets of truth are so buried you can’t see the light of day. As a Libertarian bordering on Rational Anarchist, I find the scientific conclusion of agriculture being the root of sexual repression as presented suspect at best and fraught with intentional lies of omission at worst. The authors would have been better to just write about their social concepts within the bounds of a book on that subject and left the conclusions regarding the natural promiscuity of humans to another volume that is actually interested in exploring the subject without prejudice and with scientific objectivity."




Here's another excellent  review from our group:

And now, from a woman’s perspective… 

Sex at Dawn is a book that needed to be written.  It is time to open up the discussion not just about the theoretical/evolutionary underpinnings of sexual pair-bonding but how we view male and female sexuality generally. The book is important because it sets the stage for discussion.  Is it scientific literature?  No.  But in the same way that Desmond Morris’ work brought the discussion of evolution to America’s dinner table, Ryan and Jetha’s book brings sex.  Well, maybe.  So far, we have not shown ourselves to be capable of having a conversation about sex without titters and awkward innuendo.

Most of the book reviews I have read on Dawn found fault with it for the right reasons (according to me, and I am writing this review) and loved it for the male reasons.  That’s because almost all of them were written by men.  Allow me to digress so you might gain some understanding of my perspective before dismissing me as a strident feminist whose mucous membranes are all dried up. 

The science fiction view of the future in the 1960s and 1970s was one of sexual freedom without the bonds of monogamous marriage.  It was a sexual freedom that included young, scantily clad or body-painted women.  The men would take care of the women and treat them well in exchange for sex on demand.  The women would enjoy being sex objects because they were creatures borne of the author’s limited vision:  They would have no unmet needs of their own and they would enjoy the sex.  What could possibly be missing?  It was a strictly male perspective on sexual freedom that projected the stereotypes of the day into the future. 

Any speculation about the future or the past is necessarily colored by the present.  I think Dawn is guilty of some of the so-called “Flintstone-ization” it heaps on others, but its agenda is based on a different model than the monogamous ‘ideal’ we’ve been hobbled by for many years. It pushes this agenda while it denies having one.  It is an important book.  I enjoyed it.  I recommend it. I would respect it more if it would own the truth:  Like science fiction writers, the best any of us can do is to interpret a body of evidence subject to our own necessarily biased perspective. It does not make Ryan and Jetha right while proving Helen Fisher wrong.  And it does not allow that there might be other interpretations.

The male reviewers of this book seem to embrace Dawn’s perspective as a more accurate and, perhaps less damning explanation of their experience.  This is legitimate as far as anecdotal evidence is acceptable.  Anecdotally speaking, in my experience as a woman, monogamy has not been so much a choice as a perceived social expectation.  At some point in longer-term relationships, exclusive access becomes an issue as part of our social order.  The only time I feel “naturally” monogamous is when I have strong love feelings; under their influence I simply lose interest in others. 

Dawn’s arguments against monogamous pair-bonding (woman exchanging exclusive access to her body for access to a man’s protection and resources) are welcome and refreshing.  (I once got into a very vocal disagreement in my college dorm when a young man equated marriage with prostitution using  similar reasoning.)  The truth is that men know women enjoy sex as much or more than they do (the orgasm differential being a sore spot, ahem).  And men have put a lot of time, energy and creativity into controlling the female sex drive: clitorectomies (sp?), chastity belts, etc. The present day GOP presidential candidates would have women only participate in sexual activity for the purpose of procreation.  They better not push too hard – they might just get what they push for!  

In the rush to equate our sexual needs and to support the notion that neither males nor females are “naturally” monogamous, let’s take care not to say that men and women are alike.  That has not been my experience and is not, I think, what Ryan and Jetha’s book is trying to put forward either. Part of the traditional formulation is that women seek sex for intimacy (rather than for pleasure) while men seek sex for pleasure.  This suggests that intimacy is not pleasurable.  To whom?  Women  seek sex for pleasure and for intimacy and not always at the same time.  Men also seek intimacy.  Do they do it differently?

Intimacy is a rare commodity – aren’t we all seeking it in the sex act literally naked and vulnerable?  Among my male and female friends, there is pretty good agreement that the best sexual experiences are those that involve emotional connection and physical attraction.  Once again, this is only anecdotal evidence.   But I say: Get as much of that as you can.