These popped into consciousness yesterday, wanted to get them out of WIP inventory. First, I ran across this somehow, it has such obvious explanatory value for human cultural evolution :
Evolution of the Cannabis Genus
It has been suggested that humans were responsible for the divergence of C. sativa and C. indica. The hypothesis is that the progenitor of cannabis inhabited the steppes of Central Asia within the last 50,000 years, alongside populations of Upper Paleolithic hunter-gatherers that may have already begun to utilise the plant.
As the climate cooled leading up to the last glacial maximum (LGM; 26,000-19,000 BP), these groups began to migrate southward to warmer regions, possibly taking these early proto-cannabis seeds with them and thereby saving them from extinction as the cold weather advanced.
These migrating populations diverged and settled in two key refuges: the temperate foothills of southern and south-eastern Europe, where the putative hemp ancestor and progenitor of modern C. sativa was to develop, and the temperate mountain valleys of southern Asia, where the putative drug ancestor and progenitor of modern C. indica arose.
There is also speculation that C. ruderalis survived the LGM in more northerly refuges. Certainly, there is little dispute that outside of geographically-limited ‘refugia’, no cannabis species would have survived the LGM, and that speciation occurred during such a period.
However, it is considered more likely by some that C. sativa and C. indica diverged during a glacial period prior to the LGM, and had already become fully speciated by the time early humans encountered it.
Does this not explain the earlier development of western civilization? From cave paintings to writing, the advantages of our ancestors smoking intellect-stoking sativas instead of soporific indica strains went to us, while the advantages of body-high indicas stimulated Eastern culture’ meditation, religion and physical arts such as dance and the arts of love.
While considering a recent interchange with a racist, it occurred to me that anyone who valued their white Northern European heritage over their African ancestry in logic should not be bragging about all of their characteristics, as some identify them as more African. That is, of course, one of the major physical differences between the original and major parent African species and the hybrid of African and Neanderthal that modern Europeans are. Skin color, hair and body density are others, and Neanderthals’ genetics changed them all.
In logic, anyone bragging about their European heritage should emphasize their similarity to the Neanderthal in those things, the brawny physique so robust relative to the African immigrants, red hair of the Neanderthal later to mutate to blond, and of course the other major significant Neanderthal trait that drives so much of our civilization.
But you never hear those brags. I will ask in my next discussion with a Nordic racist.
Hard to know what to call such an elegant combination of elements so randomly assembled, but I like it. This was quickly done, there is no intentional propaganda element, a better measure of the deviousness of my thinking than most.
As an honestly honest member of the Honest Party, I approve of this message, and make no claims of accuracy relative to other scholarship.
Surely I don’t need to warn people about correlation not being causation? The difficulty of teasing out c&e in major systems, even when you have all the data? These are intellectual gaffaws, just funny possible ways of interpreting data points, but not necessarily nor obviously wrong.
A random set of data points can be fitted to any arbitrary accuracy by an infinitude of equations. Which one is right?
The follow-on scholarship possible with these as the base are endless. “On the relative importance of cannabis species and species inferiority complex in cultural achievement”. I will deserve another Iggy for this.