A New Ancestor in a Cave – Separate Studies of Human Development Go Hand in Hand

A New Ancestor in a Cave – Separate Studies of Human Development Go Hand in Hand

Prior to our ancestors being developed enough to build their habitats, they often lived in caves where and when the weather required them to shelter. Whether for sun, rain, heat or cold.

So simple information about how a cave develops is critical when considering any ape or human ancestors being able to access them. And what would impede them. Even rock changes form depending on the type of stone and dampness/aridness of the area. This changes over time as well, when looking at climate trends. Like the ice age and younger dryas. Like the change from Savannah to desert in central Africa. What might have been a fairly clear thoroughfare may in centuries be full of formation changes.

And the mobility styles of an ape and an early human ancestor would change their ability to access the cave too. Dependent on these formations.

Caves may also be varied in temperature from the area, whether they are above or below ground. (How far below) Which would change the status of the experience for the ape or humanoid sheltering there. As well as how well the remains and artifacts stood the test of time.

Caves may also be lacking in safe air flow and reduce ability to breathe. Dependent on the number of entrances, opening sizes, and the gases inside the cave. This is also relevant to how the ape or humanoid got there and died there or was considered buried there. Since there was no evidence of struggle. Or reason to believe an animal dragged them there to eat them.

So a lot of interesting things to consider, besides the finding of a new form of hominid.

Though that’s prob the coolest part of this journey in South Africa.
Meet Homo Naledi everyone! Don’t worry, he can’t hurt you!

But Monkeys Did it First! (transoceanic migration)

But Monkeys Did it First! (transoceanic migration)

Oh dem monkeys!

You have to wonder why they left Africa? Was it weather? A new threat? Lack of food?

They latched onto something and rafted across the ocean to a new land. Brave monkey! Holy banana! Do you think they could swim? If they couldn’t, it’d be scary to go out in the ocean!! Yet they did it!

Just remember…. when you think we’re the ones who did it first? Oh no! It was our monkey cousins! Just how closely are they related to us? I guess that depends….Have you ever had your genomes done? It seems some of us (more than others) still carry chromosomes from neandertals and denisovans!!

Do you have a mad urge to scratch your pits, pick lice out of your mate’s hair and eat a banana?

The Debate on Graham Hancock – Archaeology or …. Bust?

The Debate on Graham Hancock – Archaeology or …. Bust?

At least Twitter and Youtube have been going nuts on this poor guy’s head. Lots of posts about who he is and if he has things right. And worse, if he has the right to say anything. (Free speech vs bigotry?)

So I thought I’d raise a few issues in the debate…. (in case you’ve been living under a rock lol)

  • GH has a Bachelor in Sociology. It’s true that that isn’t archaeology, but it IS a well respected field of human study. And shy of an MA and PHD thesis, he’s done a lot of the work of being an academic. He’s obv learned to research and write. Two things that get you tenure in the academic world. One could argue that his books and the Netflix program prove that he has these skills. But he made the fatal decision to go private…. (Academics hate that!! Academics also have grudge matches between fields and accepted theories!!)
  • GH also has a long background in journalism. So he knows how to tell a story and what questions to ask. He can and has shown that he can teach. He knows how to do research. Which is key in academics. You can argue his conclusions (Nephilim or visitors from Atlantis taught the early people), and maybe some of the sources he considers to be credible… But again that is a field issue. Academia isn’t monolithic. Just because archaeology doesn’t buy his theories, it doesn’t mean no field would. Though I doubt sociology would either. Unless they were considering it to be a modern myth & their origin view. And there are sociologists who study that very thing. So not that off.
  • GH is getting people really excited about topics that are pretty dry. Like weather patterns, migration of peoples and why they did that, human evolution, stone age cultures…. So that’s a good thing, right? (Are archaeologists jealous? Are they being protectionist? Duh!)
  • GH has picked up on common myths told by many Indigenous groups and brought them to today. One of a ‘visitor’ or origin people who taught them what they needed to know to survive. And included scientific sources/interviews and tests that even archaeology accepts as valid and tested the myth or theory he has against those tests. He has noted that the world of the sea and underneath cities cannot be fully explored. So much has been lost in even that context. And some entire cultures no longer exist. Not even as ancestors to current peoples.
  • Yes GH is a white man going around telling tales. Ahem! So are a LOT of archaeologists. And at least he’s interviewing the locals. He’s not considering them to be savages who can tell him nothing….
  • GH is also not saying no one was in the Americas prior to the Clovis era. He’s also not saying the Beringia bridge is the only plausible explanation for how the first people came here. That is a pretty ‘easy’ explanation, dependent on early peoples not inventing things like boats or rafts. Which stone age people did indeed have. Which they are now known to have had. If you do consider the one land bridge possible, why aren’t you looking to see if others were? What about land shifts or islands that once were bigger during earlier iterations? Placing them closer to each other?
  • GH has not ever claimed to be anything but a guy who goes around interviewing people and checking records. Armchair research is commonly used by many fields and inside their fields they don’t seem to consider it to be junk. Whether or not they should? It’s not like they have much of a choice when looking at lost peoples.
  • Is GH right? Plato (who many social fields consider to be a ‘father’ of their field) was the one who raised the Atlantis ‘myth’ in the first place.
  • And as I said, many cultures have the story of an other or other people, a god, demon or alien who arrives to teach them things. So saying this doesn’t make GH racist. Not in and of itself.
  • Academia is full of money woes and jealousy over who gets the funds for their depts, research grants, and publications. And it is a live or die fight, You can’t keep yourself on the tenure track without proving you have the stuff to make them money or bring cachet to their school. And again going private was all it took to make GH their target. Whatever he said.


If you have been following the debate, what do you think of the fuss?

The Legacy of MLK – voting rights

The Legacy of MLK – voting rights

We’ve just passed another birthday-anniversary of MLK’s and had all the usual quotes from politicians and media. Mostly about the ‘I have a Dream’ speech.

One of MLK’s life passions was voting rights. And in 1965, the act that held US to account was passed.

It’d be great if that’s where the story ended. But there have been many manipulations of people’s rights since.

To the point where John R. Lewis felt an update was needed. And proposed the changes. He died waiting for that new act.

And the USA is still waiting, It’s passed thru the house, but is stuck in the Senate..

And yet they mouth his words and carry on working to destroy his dream. Are they hoping the act changes will time out?

Q – When you ask for/need support, do you have your ‘go-to crew’?

Q – When you ask for/need support, do you have your ‘go-to crew’?

In the past few years, we’ve certainly been in a situation that only comes along every century. So it’s no shame when we need help.

  • We were instantly in need of extra money in our budgets to cover what seemed like incidentals at the beginning. But they have been shown to be life savers. (masks, tests, delivery services for groceries or other goods), babysitters because our kids can’t always go to school or daycare. Did you have it? Did you need to borrow from friends or family more often?
  • When there was a lockdown, did you need things you couldn’t run for? Who did you ask to borrow things from? Knowing they might be low themselves?
  • Did you change habits like buying used or making at home instead of getting new all the time? Did you ask friends or family if they had clothes their kids had grown out of to let your kids wear?
  • Were your friends and family willing to wear masks when they came over to your house or you went to theirs?
  • What about just having a person on the phone or zoom when you were low/lonely and needed a chat?
  • How did you handle things like wanting a cuddle? Or a date? Sex partner? If you were single?
  • Have things gotten easier or harder over time in getting the support you need?

Call it mutual aid or just support, it is necessary to life. And it makes it hard when people aren’t willing to keep giving what you need, when it’s gone on so long. But you still need what you’re asking for.

I hope you’re ok, And I hope you continue to be so. Because much as we may want it to be, it’s not over yet.

Q – What is your social media footprint like?

Q – What is your social media footprint like?

In case you hadn’t noticed, my nick on here isn’t my legal name. And that’s how you begin. But it’s not just about safety or kids trying to avoid being bullied. It’s also about being smart about what you view and believe. If you want to know about science or medical sources, it’s best not to rely on social media sites.

If someone claims they know something, ask google if what they say is widely known. You should find google scholar articles or ones in reputable field journals.

If someone has a theory about humanity, there should be plenty of reasons why it makes sense. Like the biological chain is direct to us. ie You don’t jump from a lobster or a rat to humanity for eg. We don’t have the same genetic makeup or social dynamics as they do.

Their information shouldn’t forward racist/bigoted agendas.

And they shouldn’t have a conflict of interest. Like wanting to sell a book, vs an article their colleagues would read. Or marketing a diet you need to buy specific foods for. Or promoting a product or drug that is in direct competition to what they are saying is a bad idea.

If someone is eminently qualified, their path is thru a group of colleagues, or at least agreed with by colleagues. It isn’t going on a conspiracy theorist’s show to talk about something that alienates marginalized people.

Ultimately, you do decide who you believe. But sometimes, it’s better to pre-screen the person before you start nodding along. Let alone sharing their information.

Most People Work and Study in Associations/ Groups/ Unions

Most People Work and Study in Associations/ Groups/ Unions

Most people like to believe that they are free citizens and can do anything they want. So long as they follow the rules of the country. In other words, don’t be a criminal and you’ll do fine, right?

But it just isn’t that simple, is it?

All your life, you work to belong. To your family, your peers, your culture/religion, and whatever field of study &/or work you are interested in.

And sure you’d like to believe that they’d stand behind you whatever you did…. But don’t they have a reasonable expectation that you won’t shame them if you speak as their member?

Does your partner/spouse have a reasonable expectation that you won’t talk about your sex life, or flirt with intention to cheat, or share something they told you in confidence?

If you have a job that has high security or privacy involved, aren’t you supposed to keep your mouth shut about what goes on at work? Even who your clients are?

I think you get the point, that your speech is curbed by your associations. And so it should be,

So why is it a surprise, or even up for discussion, when you get told your speech isn’t completely free?

I’d think as an adult, you’d know by now, discretion is expected in all your life dealings. It’s part of the social contract you have with those you belong to.

….. samples of associations

  • You went to school where you did.
  • You were trained in your job at school or at work.
  • You pay fees to boards or committees that allow you to claim you are their member in ‘good standing’ and take their guidance seriously.
  • You’re a member of a union.
  • You live in a community and agree to live by it’s laws or face the consequences.
  • neighbourhood association, where you agree to their input on paint colour and external decor
  • (in Canada) Even as a business owner, you join local business groups, and the Better Business Bureau.
  • And some groups like govt, military and police not only have to regulate themselves, but everyone else.

Q – Do you know what ‘junk science’ is? And why it’s so so bad?

Q – Do you know what ‘junk science’ is? And why it’s so so bad?

definition –

faulty scientific information or research, especially when used to advance special interests.


If you go around saying 1 + 1 = 3 when you’re ignorant, most people can laugh you off. But it gets harder when you know the person saying it is a mathematician, doesn’t it? And it damages the credibility of the field of math and some of the harder sciences and statisticians are undermined too. It’s not just about the idiocy of the one saying it.

And what do you do when saying it also undermines the safety and trust of vulnerable people in society? People who need the truth to be told so they can survive, take their rightful place in society and be treated fairly and kindly.

And all they hear is how 1+ 1 = 3. It wears at their self identity and their relationships. Right?


Then what if your junk science puts info into the hands of bigots, that you know isn’t true or relevant, yet forwards their cause? Or at least doesn’t challenge it. What if this is your intention of posting this view?

Should you be allowed to continue posting this junk? When should you be challenged or censured?


I think it’s critical to the advance of science and the humanities to discuss current topics and challenge held theories. And yes sometimes you should put forward less accepted theories. But not as gospel. Please put a caveat on it. Esp if you have a license or known research in the area. And you should note any conflicts of interest you have so people know what your skin is in the game. Because all lay people are not able to discern what is accepted and why.

These days, science and humanities’ articles can be viewed by lay people. So I think there should be a waiver saying that the topic under discussion isn’t anything more than a posit. So enjoy the engagement, but don’t spread it as fact. It’s not. And that can be harmful.


What do you think?

Extending the Scope of a Pharmacist

Extending the Scope of a Pharmacist

Ontario is looking to extend what a pharmacist is able to do to reduce the workload and traffic in overloaded doctors’ offices and ERs.

the plan

Ontario isn’t the province that would rely heaviest on pharmacists. But it is an issue when you consider such things as elderly and vulnerable people who need to safely access these services. When many pharmacies are located in open stores, or sell products that are not drug related. So how would they safely support the frailest citizens in an open store? Would they put in more counselling areas so there is more privacy than they have now?

And there is why Ontario’s Conservative govt would want to do this as well…. Because Weston (ie Shoppers Drug Mart, Zehrs Pharmacy) is a major donor to the party. Oh that looks legal!

What do you think of this idea?

Q – Can a Society Run on Linear Thinking?

Q – Can a Society Run on Linear Thinking?

We’re taught from an early age to think in linear/polar terms. And kids think that way anyways, so if ever there was a time, that should be it. Right?

But life is more complex than black & while terms can cover. People are more complex.

Yet we learn that if we don’t follow this type of thinking then we’re unethical. Situational ethics is a bad thing.

And what a person in power does for the group(s)’ interests can often leave people behind. Yet if they’re acting responsibly, following their guidelines and well, trying…. Aren’t they doing everything they can to minimize risk & harm? Should they face consequences for the few who get harmed or neglected if the many are ok? Or is that politicking?

Do we build forgiveness into society’s power structures? Do we have ways to reconcile the harmed people back into the systems that haven’t served them well? How do we buffer them in the future? When they (quite rightly) don’t trust power now?

And what about the people who are less trusting of power? How do we reassure them and encourage them to cooperate as needed?

I think this discussion is at the heart of so many issues we’re facing in society. And ignoring it means that dissent and distrust are growing.

And in that growth, we have a power response of becoming more oppressive, rather than tolerating differences. Which solves nothing. For eg, when the pandemic has been at the forefront of society, there should have been:

  • more education of citizens in media
  • more spending on clinics and frontline health care/testing and support.
  • more spending on research on the virus and it’s post viral conditions as compared to others we do know of
  • and frankly on compliance and misinformation.

But instead, the govt response has been to increase policing budgets (again!). Is their aim really to have automatons? And batter those who refuse to be robots?

And what risk is acceptable? What loss of life is tolerable? WHOSE loss of life is tolerable? Are men really more valuable when most of nursing and teaching are done by women? Are white people more valuable when most of the service, nursing, and lower grade teaching is done by BIPOC? Yet we have govt refusing them safety and increased sick time and increased wages….

How will we survive as a society in the future if we continue to risk these workers till they no longer will take those jobs?

And in the choice of policing and military over services, we may value these fit young people (still mostly men) but we place them at higher risk of injury, stress reactions and loss of life.

Also media and those in power spend a lot of time and effort distracting us (slight of hand tactics) with things like music, theatre, and sports. But put entire industries of gifted people at higher risk as a result. Is that ok?

And perhaps worst of all, disinformation by so called professionals is encouraged, or at least tolerated.

It’s gotten really pathetic on social media. Not that it wasn’t an issue before. But it’s worse now. Even into year three, citizens still don’t seem to be getting educated appropriately.

Is there some way of dealing with this all so that we can do better in the future? Do we even want things to improve? Because it seems like far too many people are stuck inside the matrix of deception and oppression.