The problem of making peace with our anarchic impulses is one which has been too little
studied, but one which becomes more and more imperative as scientific technique
advances (Bertrand Russell).
Human beings currently live in conditions that are so remote from our ancestral environment that they give rise to deep psychological conflicts and pose a risk to life on this planet.
A cultural (re)evolution has been taking place in parallel with technological evolution, which tends towards the abandonment of natural instincts in favor of an ideal of self-domestication. In biology, this phenomenon has a parallel known as domestication syndrome (DS) and is associated with “increased docility and tameness, coat color changes, reductions in tooth size, changes in craniofacial morphology, alterations in ear and tail form (e.g., floppy ears), more frequent and non-seasonal estrus cycles, alterations in adrenocorticotropic hormone levels, changed concentrations of several neurotransmitters, prolongations in juvenile behavior, and reductions in both total brain size and of particular brain regions” (Wilkins, Wrangham and Fitch, 2014).
Domestication syndrome was first identified by Darwin (1868) and he attributed it to two possible causes, one environmental (or in contemporary terms, epigenetic) and the other genetic: 1) The gentler conditions of living under domestication; 2) That it is the result of hybridization.
However, hypothesis 1 is severely challenged by findings that these changes are non-reversible even after many generations in the wild (Kruska, 2005). The second hypothesis has been fairly well disproved as well (Wilkins et al., 2014).
Selective pressures on tameness and docility are widely regarded to be a prerequisite for domestication (Darwin, 1875; Belyaev, 1974; Trut, 1999, Wiklins et al., 2014).
A deficit in neural crest development has been proposed as the chief cause of DS, and this deficit has been hypothesized to have a polygenic basis (Wilkins et al., 2014). The neural crest comprise a group of multipotent cells which through migratory patterns give rise to a diverse cell lineage—including melanocytes, craniofacial cartilage and bone, smooth muscle, peripheral and enteric neurons and glia (Huang & Saint-Jeannet, 2004).
A recent study employing ancient vs modern genomes comparisons provides tentative support for this hypothesis with regards to human (self) domestication (Theofanopoulou et al., 2017), by identifying genomic regions with signatures of selection that overlap between humans and other domesticated species..
Curiously, depigmentation (lighter or white fur color due to lower melanocyte activity), is one of the most well-established effects of domestication-induced deficits in neural crest development (Wilkins et al., 2014). The HBD community might like to interpret depigmentation as a marker of domestication for human populations or individuals, given that selection pressures due to UV intensity are not sufficient to explain worldwide pigmentation patterns. I am not aware of any studies about the relationship between lighter skin/hair color and domestication in humans but it is a promising line of research.
A clear prediction is that lighter skin is correlated to other DS traits and more generally, behavioral and anthropometric traits should load on a general DS factor both within and across populations.
Reduction in tooth size, brain size and jaw size are some of the best studies phenotypic changes associated with domestication that also differentiate modern humans from Neanderthals and our Paleolithic ancestors (Theofanopoulou et al., 2017).
Behaviorally, reduction in stress/fear response and decreased aggression are markers of domestication among animals (Kunz and Sachser, 1999) and the former manifests itself in a longer “socialization window”, during which young animals become familiar with humans without developing a fearful response that would result in aggression later in life (Wilkins et al., 2014).
Domestication levels or (in binary terms) frequency of domestication syndrome probably vary between individuals, social classes and races. This likely has a genetic basis, but possibly an epigenetic one as well. It is possible that living under “gentle conditions” created by socioeconomic development triggers epigenetic switches resulting in lower expression of neural crest development genes. This was proven to occur in the landmark study of fox domestication by the Novosibirsk group (Belyaev, 1979; Trut et al., 2004, 2009).
There is evidence that DNA changes due to self-domestication are responsible for the long-term and slower behavioral and morphological changes associated with civilization. Agriculture and living within state-societies are thought to have created selective pressures for tameness.
There is evidence that feminization has been subject to a long-term evolutionary process, resulting in craniofacial feminization from the Pleistocene to contemporary humans, a putative anthropometric marker of lower levels of adult circulating testosterone or reduced androgen receptor densities (Cieri et al., 2014).
I believe that the “sheltered” living conditions of developed societies, which are relatively well shielded from disease, violence, famine and social unrest have triggered epigenetic changes leading to a dramatic increase in the domestication syndrome over a few generations.
The decrease in most types of violence over the last century and the change in social attitudes is too fast to be accounted for by DNA changes , hence it is a clear hallmark of epigenetically-induced domestication syndrome.
However, this process took also an independent cultural form, and produced all social movements commonly associated with the left, such as feminism, gay rights activism, belief in racial equality, and psycho-social developments such as kindness towards animals including veganism and animal rights activism, pet stores and pet-cemeteries: these are all symptoms of the domestication syndrome.
The syndrome referred by Ted Kaczynski (aka the Unabomber) as oversocialization and leftism is a behavioral marker for the human domestication syndrome. TK protested against the excessive docility and the strict moral code of modern Western society, and believed that college professors were the most docile,left-wing and over-socialized segment. Accordingly, in TK’s view leftists are a product of oversocialization (in our terms, domestication syndrome or DS) and are only superficially rebel: in fact, they are exposed as conventional and moralistic at a fundamental level (Kaczysnki, 1995).
In a possible scenario, initially epigenetic changes brought about by better living conditions triggered a cultural phenomenon leading to values of social tolerance and lower aggression (i.e. leftism). However, this phenomenon later took a life of its own, creating a runaway process of cultural evolution that cannot be explained in terms of genetic or epigenetic changes alone. The dramatic acceleration of technological evolution also worked in the same direction as that of cultural evolution, thanks to the creation of living conditions where social tolerance is more adaptive (overcrowding, increased contact with other ethnic groups, faster communication and transportation, etc). The values of social tolerance and tameness in turn favoured technological progress through encouragement of formal education and communication. Technological and social evolution thus were mutually reinforcing and have been increasing roughly at the same pace in a positive feedback loop.
This condition is unlike what took place until the industrial revolution or even more so until the Neolithic, when technological and social evolution were slow enough that genetic evolution could keep pace. Moreover, natural selection has been relaxed because today there is no (or even a negative) correlation between socioeconomic and reproductive success. Hence, there currently is a gap between the optimal level of domestication necessary to function properly and avoid psychological (depression, frustration) or social problems (crime, social exclusion) and the average phenotypic domestication level of contemporary humans.
Also, since all psychobiological traits are more or less normally distributed within populations, some individuals will be closer to the optimal domestication level than others.
Political ideas probably correlate with one’s level of domestication as well, with leftists being the most domesticated and to the right of the optimum value, centrists being near the optimum level of domestication, followed by conservatives and then libertarians. Finally, anarchists and anarcho-primitivists in particular belong to the wild-type humans and are those that psychologically suffer the most from living in a highly domesticated technological society.
It is also possible that there are differences between populations in their genetic predisposition to domestication and that these account for the different social outcomes of racial groups living within the same countries. However, such differences are small compared to the gap between cultural and genetic development. The demands imposed by contemporary developed society on our natural instincts are so strong that no degree of epigenetic change can accomodate them.
Figure 1 reports the hypothetical trend in domestication on three levels: genetic, epigenetic and techno-cultural.
Cultural domestication creates stresses either by dramatically changing environmental conditions or by lowering the threshold for an emotional response to normal behavior. As an example of the first instance, corporate capital brings about huge wealth disparities that humans were not evolved for. This creates the need for progressive taxation. However, sooner or later people find that taxation is not enough to distribute wealth equally within society. Hence, people start inventing norms such as laws that put a limit to how much the CEO can earn in relation to the employees.
To the second kind belongs the recent increasing sensitivity to sexual aggression. Feminism and theories of gender equality make it a standard for men and women to share the work-place. This closer contact makes sexual attraction inevitable. Feminist values in turn trigger emotional reactions to behaviors that have been always present throughout human history. A new norm preventing sexual bullying is then enacted. Of course, what constitutes sexual bullying is heavily dependent on the cultural values of a society.
The left operates by advocating blind technological progress, which creates conditions where normal instincts can have unprecedented consequences, and it tries to solve these problems by imposing more and more norms and restricting individual freedoms. For example, D.S. Wilson thinks that it is possible to get rid of fake news simply by enacting laws against them and by close monitoring of the internet, forgetting that the immensity and anonymity of the web makes this impossible. The pattern is the same: technology expands powers, thus making it necessary to create new norms.
Unfortunately, most anthropologists see primitive societies through leftist spectacles, and provide biased guidelines for the development of society (see for example David S. Wilson’s blog). They advocate the need for more norms, forgetting that primitive societies were much smaller and simpler and had no need for so many norms. Another important difference is that the norms were forced informally and with a good dose of common sense, unlike the formal process of law enforcement typical of modern society. Wilson’s delusion is that the social mechanisms that worked for groups of a few dozen individuals can be applied to modern mega-states (https://evolution-institute.org/focus-article/blueprint-for-the-global-village/). Mega-states, empowered by technology require a massively larger degree of regulation and a much more formal (hence less natural) enforcement of the law. At least Wilson is not so naive and he acknowledges that the social processes that worked in small communities don’t work for nation states. According to Wilson, “a smarter approach is to understand why moral indignation works at the scale of a village, why it doesn’t work at the scale of the global village, and how it can be made to work with the implementation of the appropriate social controls”. His proposed solution is then to increase social controls, by which he means increasing the power of the state and the number of regulations. Actually, he wants to increase the powers of super-statal agents and ethics committees. We can all see what kind of society this vision will lead to.
In the following sections I will discuss the problems created by an excessive technological development and the associated cultural domestication syndrome.
Wilderness
Natural parks were created to protect wilderness, but even there the intervention of the state is increasingly strong. The equilibrium of the ecosystem was so disrupted by industrialization that biologists have to carefully monitor species and artificially introduce preys or predators in order to re-establish the “natural” equilibrium. Regulations on one of the most fundamental rights, that of foraging to collect food for survival, are becoming increasingly strict. In most countries, one needs to buy a license to go hunting and to follow all the rules related to seasonal wild game hunting. This makes it impossible for a hypothetical community to autonomously live off the land without breaking some laws on poaching or wild plant gathering. In traditional societies, there were taboos about killing some species that allowed people to live in harmony with the land, but hunting was necessary for survival and not subject to strict regulation.
We have transformed nature into a museum where people have to walk, or hike, without being able to take part in their surroundings. In reality, unconditional respect for wildlife is as far from nature as it gets. Animals kill each other, and humans kill other animals and any departure from this state is a departure from nature.
Among many species, instincts of food acquisition are distinct from food intake, neither are they satisfied by the latter. Lorenz reports that predatory animals frequently eat insufficiently in captivity because the stimulus situation that in the wild would allow them to perform the food acquisition behavior is absent. Conversely, geese that were well fed and in a state of satiation still performed the instinctive up-ending behavior in order to fetch food located under water. Similarly, geese that were provided with food in bowls on the shore still performed the up-ending behavior on an entirely barren lake, as if this activity were supplying their food requirements (Lorenz, 1937). Lorenz curiously observed how his 5-year-old daughter over-ate berried when left to herself among bilberry bushes, whereas she would normally eat them with restraint when they were provided in a bowl (Lorenz, 1937).
Hence, conservation biologists, vegetarians and vegans, and animal right activists are only living in a textbook-created bubble and enforcing a distorted view of nature.
Recreationism
Hiking and exploring new lands are beautiful, healthy activities. However, they are recreational activities that techno-humans perform because they cannot live in communion with nature. Similarly, aristocracies used to hunt wild game massively, although they did not need it for their survival.
Animal psychologists call these vacuum activities, that is to say innate action patterns that are performed in the absence of an external stimuli that under natural conditions would elicit them (Lorenz, 1981).For example, the squirrel in a metal cage that scratches the floor as if it was burying a nut, or the bird observed by Lorenz whilst it napped at the air when flying as if it were catching insects though there were no real insects there. Frustration can also result in a similar phenomenon called displacement activity, whereby instead of performing the forbidden instinctual behavior, animals discharge their energies into another act. Displacement activities can be used as a tool to measure stress in animals and possibly humans (Troisi, 2002).Bertrand Russell expressed a similar concept when he discussed the use of substitute activities as a means to release antisocial impulses, articulating it within an evolutionary framework: “We have all kinds of shocking impulses and also creative impulses which society forbids us to indulge, and the alternatives that it supplies in the shape of football matches and all-in wrestling are hardly adequate.Anyone who hopes that in time it may be possible to abolish war should give serious thought to the problem of satisfying harmlessly the instincts that we inherit from long generations of savages ” (Russell, 1948). However, he apparently belonged to the more domesticated type, as he admitted that he found “a sufficient outlet in detective stories where I alternatively identify myself with the murderer and the huntsman-detective, but I know there are those to whom this vicarious outlet is too mild, and for them something stronger should be provided” (Russell, 1948).
Ted Kaczynski saw this tendency in a negative light, pointing out in his manifesto the exaggerated dependence on surrogate activities in contemporary societies, and the problem that these activities rarely are really fulfilling (Kaczynski, 1995).
People are increasingly being sedated by Netflix, airing TV series rich in violence, nepotism, power struggles, etc.: basically all the instincts that humans have had to give up in order to function in modern society.
Foragers vs farmers
Should we go back to farming? Well, not exactly. “Natural living” is not farming, which is based on the exploitation and domestication of nature. Hunting-gathering is the natural state of mankind and departure away from it creates instability in the natural environment (including the DNA) and psychological suffering.
Philosophers (e.g. Rousseau) and anthropologists have long known that farming has increased social and economical inequalities and it is responsible for the creation of authoritarian forms of government (e.g. religious and warrior elites) and increasingly formal social relationships. Recently, this has been proven using quantitative methods (Kohler et al., 2017). With an average Gini coefficient of 0.17, hunter-gatherers put to shame any socialist or Nordic welfare type of society, which have Ginis at least twice as high.
There has been debate about the comparison of the typical Western work week with that of hunter gatherers. It seems that the early estimates of anthropologists were optimistic, although there is growing consensus that the work week was shorter than in contemporary Western societies. It’s true, life among hunter-gatherers can be nasty, brutish and short and requires physical effort for foraging and preparing food and tools. But we only apparently got rid of the need for physical exercise because doctors recommend us that we need to work out regularly if we don’t want to get fat or increase our risk of cardiovascular disease.
In any case, anthropologists don’t include tasks that we still need to do in order to survive into their calculation of the work week, such as going to the supermarket, filling out tax forms, and driving to and from work. I would also add gym time to the Western work week. The fact that some people enjoy hitting the gym is not a good reason not to count it as work, because work can be pleasant, and hunting expeditions or bonfires can be a lot of fun for foragers as well, yet they’re counted as work.
An interesting question is how much the Neolithic revolution changed the human genome and what types of changes were created. Lactase persistence is an example of adaptation to herding, but it is likely that there have been subtle psychological adaptations as well, although not as marked. At present it’s still unclear whether differences between super-populations in psychological attributes are a result of self-domestication (another word for gene-culture coevolution) or of different environmental pressures. For example, there is some evidence that East Asians gained a genetic advantage in school-related intellectual abilities (and possibly IQ) in “agricultural” times because this process post-dates their split from Native Americans (Piffer, 2013; Piffer, 2015; Racimo, Berg & Pickrell, 2017).
However, it’s clear that the pace of genetic evolution did not match with that of cultural change that was kickstarted by farming. Hence, crowding, wealth inequalities, hierarchical power structure and pervasive rule of the law create psychological suffering due to a mismatch between evolutionary and cultural adaptations. Animal domestication, with harnessing of animal power for physical labour and later industrial technology via harnessing of natural power (coal, oil) resulted in a runaway model of social evolution that produced an increasingly unstable system. Humans imposed suffering on other animals via domestication, and in the process also domesticated themselves.
Leftism
Leftists desperately try to put stitches here and there, by proclaiming the virtues of veganism, animal rights and racial equality. We have to treat pets with the same respect as we treat other humans.How far do we have to go till we will be required to love and respect harmful bacteria that cause sickness and can be lethal?
Courting nowadays is almost synonymous with stalking and the threshold for reporting rape or sexual harassment is getting lower and lower. A natural instinct such as appreciation of female beauty has become “objectifying” and is increasingly considered “degrading”. The double-standard is evident because when females appreciate male bodies they are never accused of objectifying or degrading the victim.
People have to sacrifice their nepotistic instincts for the good of the system, hence what were once natural, healthy impulses are considered nothing but evil tendencies to be eradicated in order for the industrial machine to work efficiently.
Before modern transportation was invented, inter-racial contact was almost absent. There were exchanges and conflicts between neighbouring tribes, but these were genetically much more similar than the races that live together in contemporary societies. In any case, what we would call racism was present also among our ancestors, as can be inferred from the discriminations that Bantu and Pygmies inflict upon each other.
Social justice warriors and many lay people don’t accept a rational discussion about racial differences in IQ (or differences of any kind). The reason they do this is because IQ is particularly advantageous in techno-industrial societies, and allows acquiring the signs of status of upper middle class that IQ bashers secretly conform to.
Aboriginal cultures were perfectly fine before Europeans arrived to disrupt their equilibrium or before IQ tests were invented. Classifying the different races into different intellectual categories is at most a biological curiosity and should have no emotional content attached to it, unless we believe that the Western techno-industrial system is superior to horticultural or foraging economies. Arguably, a high IQ helps learning math and technical subjects but is not necessary to thrive in a hunter-gatherer community. Those most concerned about the IQ differences between populations are the same people who think Western values should be imposed on everyone, in the same fashion that the Christian missionaries preached the Bible to jungle people. It is likely that a certain degree of IQ is necessary for survival in a foraging economy, but all human races survived and thrived for thousands of years, hence they were perfectly fit to their ecological niche. However, IQ will become increasingly important in technological societies as predictor of wealth and status, hence if one accepts the current system, any genetic differences between individuals and races will become deeply emotional subjects.
Finally, even if IQ were as important in hunter-gathering economies as it is today, foragers would be more ready to accept genetic differences in IQ because handgrip strength or running abilities would be equally good predictors of success. The single-minded emphasis on IQ is a by-product of Western society, where the body has lost its importance for reproduction and survival.
I believe that formal education has caused so much suffering and boredom among most children and teenagers that getting rid of it would be a sufficient reason to destroy the Industrial system. Moreover, there is mounting scientific evidence that the universally early start time for school is unhealthy (Kelley et al., 2017) and disregards individual variation in chronotype, in the typical conforming and machine-oriented manner of Industrialism. Unfortunately a system is composed of interrelated parts that are necessary for its survival, and an Industrial society without formal education would hardly be competitive on the globalized market. It’s true that it is possible to enact drastic reforms of the school system that would make it less alienating, but a competitive country is unlikely to get rid of requirements for computer programming, math or English that will be increasingly tough given their importance in the global economy. Moreover, school is considered a boot-camp for the work place, hence the schedules are unlikely to be changed in order to accomodate our chronobiology.
Leftists are those that hate the values of Islamic society the most (Sharia law, gender inequality, harsh treatment of pets, etc), yet they desperately want to assimilate them into Western countries. However, such assimilation is possible only by a slow killing of the substantial cultural differences of Islam, which the leftists aspire to reduce to exotic aspects such as cuisine or clothing, whilst getting rid of the more fundamental aspects (i.e. adherence to Sharia law) via a slow absorption into the system. The conviction of the inherent superiority of Western culture and a disregard for cultural and genetic differences are basic elements of the leftist psyche. However, as TK correctly pointed out, right-wing ideologies are equally deluded because they celebrate the superiority of the techno-industrial system whilst ignoring the fact that it is the very system responsible for the birth of leftism and its closest ally in the ongoing process of cultural domestication.In the same masochistic fashion, alt-righters celebrate the superiority of the very ethnic group that kickstarted the industrial revolution and is the champion of socially progressive values, particularly universalism and the abolition of clannishness. In fact, Germanic people are particularly docile and emasculated: being the highest embodiment of the domestication syndrome, they provided a fertile ground for the development of the Industrial revolution and the associated socially progressive developments. It is an interesting question how much the DS of northern Europeans is due to genetic or cultural factors. It is possible that a genetic predisposition kickstarted the process in the 18th century. However, the evolution of technology proceeds with such speed that cultural domestication went overboard, creating an environment that would probably take several dozens of generations for our DNA to catch up. Unless…
Dysgenics and genetic engineering
Medicine has put many old people on benefits and crowded hospitals, and a huge stress was put on the welfare system because the cost of keeping alive a population too old to work and too frail to be self-sufficient has to be sustained by a shrinking younger segment of the society.
Medicine is also slowly weakening the human genome. This process, called dysgenics, is a cancer that most people today still refuse to acknowledge. However, geneticists and knowledgeable doctors know that medical treatment relaxes selection pressures and is inevitably leading to an increased load of deleterious mutations in the human genome. This problem will eventually be acknowledged by more and more people, but only too late, when it will appear in the form of widespread decreased immune function and lowered intelligence. Only then will people start to come to grips with it and look for solutions to this problem, and technology will be called in to solve the very problems that it created. Embryo selection and CRISPR will be used to get rid of all those harmful mutations. However, at first and probably for a long time only the wealthiest segment of the population will have access to such technologies, thus increasing the disparities in the genetic offspring of the different social strata.
The genome is too complex for lay people to understand, so everyone will be in the hands of scientists when deciding the genetic makeup of their children. The widespread genetic correlations between physical and behavioral traits imply that you cannot alter a single phenotypic trait without affecting a wide array of apparently unrelated traits. Thus, people will do best to leave the decision in the hand of scientists. Another problem is the reduction in genetic variability that will result from the elimination of undesirable alleles.
My interest in genomics is purely historical, because it offers a text that scientists can read as an aid to reconstructs social dynamics and migration patterns. The problem with genetic engineering is not simply that its long-term consequences cannot be foreseen. There is also the psychological problem due to alienation from the decision process and the instinctual basis of mate choice that has always governed human life across the animal kingdom. We will be told over and over again that our instincts cannot be trusted to produce beautiful, healthy babies. This inevitably creates a conflict, like every time humans had to give up their natural rights and put them in the hands of an abstract entity.
A few possible solutions
There are three main possible solutions to the problems created by civilization and industrial technology:
1)The Unabomber’s solution: this is a very radical approach and its consequences are more radical than most people would think. It advocates a total destruction of technology in all its aspects, including the scientific knowledge that made it possible, hence all the scientific works published since the beginning of the scientific revolution. Hospitals would shut down and all the works of arts would perish in the absence of public facilities and authorities in charge of preserving them. Life would be more physically challenging and less secure but people would be more fulfilled and happier. Leftism would disappear and people would live within small communities, with more meaningful and deeper social relationships. People would go back to farming, herding or a hunter-gathering lifestyle. Unfortunately, a revolution involving destruction of industrial society is possible only following extreme geopolitical events such as a global nuclear war or epidemics. Furthermore, nothing will prevent people from re-starting an industrial revolution and this will not be too hard since it is impossible to destroy all paper and digital archives containing scientific knowledge.
2)The more moderate one, advocated by Bertrand Russell, which consists in the channelling of our repressed impulses into more and more surrogate activities. However, we see what this amounts to: more Netflix, internet trolling, video games and consumerism in general. This process is inevitable if we accept technological evolution, which puts too much destructive power into our hands. To his credit, Russell acknowledged that more security does not lead to more happiness: “A quiet life may well be a boring life. The unadventurous existence of a well-behaved citizen, engaged in earning a moderate living in a humble capacity, leaves completely unsatisfied all that part of his nature which, if he had lived 400,000 years ago, would have found ample scope in the search for food, in cutting off the heads of enemies, and in escaping the attentions of tigers” (Russell, 1948)
3)I believe that the stress imposed by the too rapid social and technological changes will lead people to resort to genetic engineering in order to speed up the domestication at the genomic level. CRISPR and embryo selection will soon be available for humans as well. The genetic variants associated with more docile, social, less impulsive behavior, being tolerant towards outsiders,academically successful but less family oriented, will be the favored targets of artificial selection, and of course blue eyes and blonde hair which are themselves a phenotypic marker of the domestication syndrome.
The perils of over-domestication are evident, being that it leads to a more easily brain-washed population. Will we become a race of obedient dogs or more likely, a colony of giant ants?
None of the three solutions is completely satisfying although my personal psychology makes me lean towards the first one.
References:
Belyaev, D. K., 1979 Destabilizing selection as a factor in domestication.
J. Hered. 70: 301–308.
Robert L. Cieri, Steven E. Churchill, Robert G. Franciscus, Jingzhi Tan, and Brian Hare (2014).Craniofacial Feminization, Social Tolerance, and the Origins of Behavioral Modernity. Current Anthropology,55:4, 419-443
Darwin, C., 1868 The Variation in Animals and Plants under Domestication.
John Murray, London
Huang, X.; Saint-Jeannet, J.P. (2004). Induction of the neural crest and the opportunities of life on the edge. Dev. Biol. 275: 1–11. doi:10.1016/j.ydbio.2004.07.033
Kelley P., Lockley S. W., Kelley J., Evans M. D. R. (2017). Is 8:30 a.m. Still Too Early to Start School? A 10:00 a.m. School Start Time Improves Health and Performance of Students Aged 13–16. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 11, DOI=10.3389/fnhum.2017.00588
Kaczynski, T. (1995). Industrial society and its future. Washington post
Kohler et al. (2017). Greater post-Neolithic wealth disparities in Eurasia than in North America and Mesoamerica.
Kruska, DTC (2005). On the evolutionary significance of encephalization in some eutherian mammals: effects of adaptive radiation, domestication, and feralization. Brain, Behavior and Evolution
Künzl, C., and N. Sachser, 1999 The behavioral endocrinology of domestication: a comparison between the domestic guinea pig (Cavia aperea f. porcellus) and its wild ancestor, the cavy (Cavia aperea). Horm. Behav. 35: 28–37.
Lorenz, K. (1937). The establishment of the instinct concept. In Lorenz, K. (1970), Studies in Animal and Human Behavior, Vol. 1, 259-315 Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Lorenz,K. The Foundations of Ethology, trans. Konrad Z. Lorenz and Robert Warren Kickert, New York: Springer Science+ Business Media, 1981. (in English)
Piffer, D. (2015). A review of intelligence GWAS hits: Their relationship to country IQ and the issue of spatial autocorrelation. Intelligence, 53: 43-50.
Piffer, D. (2013). Factor Analysis of Population Allele Frequencies as a Simple, Novel Method of Detecting Signals of Recent Polygenic Selection: The Example of Educational Attainment and IQ. Mankind Quarterly, 54, 168-200.
Racimo, F., Berg, J.J., Pickrell, J.K. (2017). Detecting polygenic adaptation in admixture graphs. https://doi.org/10.1101/146043
Russell, B. (1948). Authority and the individual.
Theofanopoulou C, Gastaldon S, O’Rourke T, Samuels BD, Messner A, Martins PT, et al. (2017) Self-domestication in Homo sapiens: Insights from comparative genomics. PLoS ONE 12(10): e0185306. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0185306
Troisi, A., (2002). Displacement activities as a behavioral measure of stress in non-human primates and human subjects. Stress, 5: 47–54
Trut, L., I. Oskina, and A. Kharlamova, 2009 Animal evolution
during domestication: the domesticated fox as a model. Bioessays
31: 349–360.
Trut, L. N., I. Plyusnina, and I. N. Oskina, 2004 An experiment on
fox domestication and debatable issues of evolution of the dog.
Russ. J. Genet. 40: 644–655.
Wilkins,A.S., Wrangham, R.W. & Fitch, W.T. (2014). The “Domestication Syndrome” in Mammals: A Unified Explanation Based on Neural Crest Cell Behavior and Genetics. Genetics, 197, 795-808. doi: 10.1534/genetics.114.165423
Wild type anthropology 