Can you analyse this theory?
THE EDITOR: In a book entitled Origins by Richard E Leakey, copyrighted in 1977 on page 28 we read: "Among animals which produce their food by means of their agility, strength or delicacy of sense (quoting Edward Blyth 1835), the ones best organised must, therefore, become physically the strongest and be thus enabled, by routing its opponents, to transmit its superior qualities to a greater number of its offspring." On page 66 we read: "It is safe to say that this period of prematurity is devoted to learning skills of two sorts, first, the social rules of the group, and second, those skills required for survival as a member of the group, in an outside world that contains both potential food and potential danger (by the sweat of thy brow shall thou eat bread). The longer this period of prematurity, the more there is that can be learned. "If a parrot is taught how to speak but can use only emotion it should be called a macaw. If a chimpanzee is taught how to speak but can use only emotion it should be called a Hutu. And it does not need a Noah to prophesy that the emotional Hutu and the macaw must be mere hewers of wood and drawers of water (that is to say, consumers) until the end of time." Continuing on page 66, we read further that: "For an animal to learn effectively about its environment it must be part of a group and the group cannot operate efficiently over long periods unless its members can cope with social encounters, hence the need to learn the rules (formulae) for those encounters. Another benefit of group learning represents the beginning of culture. As a social entity a troop of chimpanzee, say, has access to a period of knowledge greater than any one individual, would possess." In this information age, how many persons, who would boast about mastering the computer, can use the computer to interpret or analyse the above theory? DENNIS R JAMES St Joseph
Comments
"Can you analyse this theory?"