A non-adaptive feature that pre-historic humans fortunately overcame

In an entry posted last December, “Was pre-historic man dirty?”, I argued that from the very moment the human species came into existence, they had certain biologically unique features, such as continuously growing hair on the head, which required that they also have tool-making and culture-making abilities to handle the problems created by those biologically unique features. The conclusion is that man did not slowly evolve tool-making and culture-making abilities by accidental random mutations and natural selection; he had those abilities built in to his nature from the start.

Looking over the entry last night, I added a new last sentence to the below paragraph:

The first point is that such behavior in animals is instinctive, while human beings have to make tools and figure out techniques in order to supply their bodily needs. Without blades for cutting hair or some technique for binding and tying it, continuously growing hair would get in people’s faces and eyes and become an impossible burden. Like Ann Coulter, they would have had to keep pushing their hair out of their face every few seconds, leaving them no energy for anything but snarky comments, and they would quickly have gone out of existence.

- end of initial entry -

Sage McLaughlin writes:

That’s perhaps the funniest line I’ve read at VFR since I started reading it years ago. Nicely done.

February 9

Patrick H. writes:

Subject: Hair, adaptation, and Ann Coulter

A drink modeled on your sense of humour would be: dry as the driest martini, with a splash of sardonic delight at the folly of humanity, finished with the rub about the rim of a very black olive. But just a rub! I call the drink The Traditionalist, which will be ordered by those in the know as The Auster, as in “Gimme another Auster, I just read the New York Times Op-Ed page.”

In darker moments, the Auster can be ordered not “straight up” but “from the right.” This version is for those bleaker times, such as the upcoming re-election of Barack Obama, who will win a landslide victory against the Rick Santorum/Rich Lowry ticket, the race billed by the press as Shallow vs. Callow. This version lacks the splash of sardonic delight, and has the whole black olive macerated then dropped into the drink to help darken the tone.

Respectfully (really!),

Patrick H.

P.S. I am at a loss to understand those who say you have no sense of humour. I guess the Auster is an acquired pleasure. It’s subtle, it’s dry, but it has body … and bite. I recommend it for those with adult tastes.

LA replies:

Thank you. I look forward to having my first “Auster.”

I think the reason some people think I have no sense of humor is that when I am serious about something, I am serious.

Patrick H. replies:

You said that people think you have no sense of humour because when you’re serious about things, you’re serious. Of course, what they don’t realize is that only serious people can have a sense of humour. Someone said that all humour is conservative. Perhaps. But all humour is definitely serious. You cannot be funny and shallow. And you definitely can’t be funny and un-serious. The immature lightweights of the “funny” left aren’t funny people because they’re not serious people. So keep on keeping on with the serious. That way I’ll keep getting some great laughs.

So, thank you.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at February 08, 2012 10:47 AM | Send