🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <50274@dime.cs.umass.edu> yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu (victor yodaiken) writes:

>>>How's about a reference to the biological investigations which form the
>>>basis of your idea that private property is rooted in biology?

I mentioned an article in Liberty Magazine, which turned out to be May 1992.
The article is entitled "The Economics of the Emergence of Humankind,"
by Vernon L. Smith.  I will attempt to summarize it here, but it is a long
article, and I really dont have the time to give it the full treatment
it deserves.

The article begins with the teaser: "Tools, investment, cost-accounting
and mass killings of non-human animals are not limited to history's 
great civilizations: they are part of prehistory as well.  And economics
can help us understand why."

The first paragraph is something of a disclaimer, lest we think that 
some propertarian is spewing some party line dogma:  "This is about who 
we were in prehistory, and how we were shaped by economic principles.
It is an exciting story, perhaps humanity's most important story; it
may even be true!"  

I like that touch.  It is an admission of the inevitable speculation
which accompanies any knowledge of prehistory, and it invites further
discussion.  It is not presented as some kind of a closed theory
justifying current property schemes.

The author begins with a discussion of the fact that life emerged early
on Earth, but *Homo* very very late.  The author notes that bipedalism
may have been an economizing response, making the carrying of food
and young easier, reducing heat stress by exposing less body surface to
sunlight, lessening the energy requirements of locomotion, increasing
defensive capabilities, and freeing the hands for the making of tools.


H. Habilis was replaced by H. Erectus,
who is generally thought to be the direct ancestor of H. Sapiens.  
We are even now in the Pleistocene Epoch, enjoying a warming interglacial period
that began 17,000 BP (before present).  The history of Earth is mostly of
periods of glaciation, lasting on average 100,000 years each, with warm
periods lasting only 10,000 years.  (Perhaps this will comfort global
warmers).

The article asserts that prior to Cro-Magnon, body form and behavior
evolved together, but that subsequently, behavioral evolution has
accelerated within our current body form.  Long discussion on the
development of crafts and hunting tools.

Modern H. Sapiens spread from Africa thru Europe and Asia in the last
50,000 years, reaching the Western Hemisphere by 14,000 BP.  They 
encountered an unprecedented "home on the range" for dozens of now-
extinct species.  Since there was no property in live animals, there
was no incentive to stay the spear in anticipation of tomorrow's
reproductive value.  The resulting mass harvesting pressure may
have caused or contributed to the megafauna loss that occurred
in North America after 11,000 BP. 

Surprisingly, the horse became extinct 8 to 10 thousand years ago,
only to be reintroduced by the Spanish in the 16th Century.

The author cites Paul Martin of U. of Arizona as advancing the theory
that the late Pleistocene extinctions were all ideal prey for
human hunters, with a control case being the large oceanic islands
of New Zealand and Madagascar which were only colonized 1000 years ago,
which only then suffered a wave of extinctions.

The author's interpretations and hypotheses follow:
 
    1. Hunting and gathering provided the technology and institutions
       for the first affluent society.  The author calls Hobbes'   
       characterization of paleolithic life as "solitary poor nasty 
       brutish and short" a modern myth.

    2. Opportunity cost conditioned the cultural and economic development
       of the human race.  All great migrations and adaptations were
       driven by environmental changes or by human learning, or both.
       [cites R.S. Lee's 1968 study of hunter gatherer societies]
       Long discussion on economic models of human development.

    3. Prehistoric H. Sapiens accumulated crucially important human
       capital.  "Economic success in hunting and gathering required
       an endowment of human capital normally associated only with
       the agricultural and industrial revolutions: learning, knowledge
       transfer, skill and desing in tool fabrication and social
       organization."   Long discussion.

    4. Property rights are likely of ancient origin.  Discussion
       includes similarities between the cultural materials of 
       late-Pleistocene and aboriginal peoples, suggesting that
       such social traditions originated as early as 40,000 to 
       20,000 BP.  After many examples, author states: 
       "Evidence for the existence of property rights
       and social contracting in stateless societies is
       incontrovertible."  [cites G. Dalton, 1977, "Aboriginal
       Economies in Stateless Societies -- Academic Press]
       
    5. Humankind was an intense user of the environment for self-
       interested needs.  It is likely that prehistoric humans
       had a comparable if not more severe impact on their environment
       than industrial society.

    6. Long plateaus without change are punctuated by revolutionary
       leaps in biological and economic development.  Long discussion 
       on the emergence of language, which made possible the accumulation
       and diffusion of knowledge on an unprecedented scale.


The auther then goes into the Agricultural Revolution, especially as
it relates to the influence of opportunity costs on tribal choice of
culture.

He closes by saying that through all the sweeping changes of prehistory,
there is discernible the blurred unconscious outline of continuity
in humankind's development of the capacity to respond to effort prices,
to create cheaper techniques and products to substitute for dearer ones,
and to accumulate and preserve knowledge, our most precious capital
asset.

[A different version of this article appeared in Jan. 1992 Economic
Inquiry].



Back to Yodaiken:
>Doubt all you like. Private property as we know it now, did not exist
>throughout most human history. And many tribal societies found the concept
>of one person eating while others starved to be repugnant.
>

You are probably wrong.  The private property of today is an evolution
from previous forms.  And many tribes had no problem with rewarding
some hunters more than others.

>
>If you claim that biology proves X, then you need a somewhat stronger
>argument than "show me a counterexample". But, there are plenty of counter
>examples e.g.,  most native american societies. These societies were no
>utopias, but the
>idea of private ownership of land was completely foreign to them and many
>had very concepts of communal "ownership" of other resources. Traditional
>Western European peasant society revolved around the concept of the
>"common". 

But even this is an evolution from non-ownership of resources.

So it's clear that there is no biological requirement for title
>deeds and lawyers, sad to say.

Unfortunately, you are probably wrong here also.


--Al Date