Re: Waking up covered in dew
Richard Foy (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Sun, 18 Aug 1996 00:37:44 GMT
In article <email@example.com>,
Paul Crowley <Paul@crowleyp.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <rfoyDw75Bs.FEp@netcom.com> firstname.lastname@example.org "Richard Foy" writes:
>I think I should have said "probably monogamous or possibly
>polygamous". What I was trying to get at was that the weaker
>members of the society: females, infants and juveniles would have
>needed special protection to prevent the robbery of property on
>which their lives depended. Theft by an adult male from a
>juvenile would have had to entailed risks. So a strong male-
>dominated family structure would have been essential.
See alt.polyamory for another possibility. If there is not estrus nor
indication of fertility males may well be willing to protect more of
the infants than are their direct descendents.
>I can't see personal property developing without fixed home
>bases. It would be much easier when these also acquired some
>kind of accomodation or shelter. But by then dew would not be a
>problem. So, in short, I don't see a viable hominid society
>outside dew-free areas until it was capable of erecting night
>shelters: H.erectus, at least.
I would think it depends on the personal property. Owning for example
a single good stone or wooden weapon or tool would not IMO cause a
need dor a fixed home base.
Western Kundali; Chakra 3 awakening,
"Winning is not the most important thing. It is the only thing."
My votes will all be third party votes except for Debra Bowen for CA State