The origin of Homo Species

National Geographic

Vol. 220. No.2. August 2011

Part Ape Part Human

Author: Josh Fischman

Fischman introduced one possible theory about the origin of our species, Homo sapiens.  In 2010, Lee Berger, a paleoanthropologist at the University of theWitwatersrand in Johannesburg, and his colleagues excavated a human-like species in a limestone cave Malapa in South Africa.  They determined the species is Australopithecus sediba (in short A. sediba).  Their fossils are well preserved and retain 40% of entire body, which is amazingly rare to preserve most of the body parts for fossils that are under the ground for more than two million years.

Berger believes that A. sediba might be the direct ancestor of Homo sepiens due to its intermediate physical characteristics between the primitive australopiths and more advanced Homo.  This theory is the newest as oppose to an alternate theory of the origin of Homo sapiens.  In the latter case, Hadar jaw, in Homo species, is thought as the origin and gave rise to Homo habilis, which in turn gave rise to Homo erectus, giving then rise to Homo sapians (see the diagram below from this article).

Fischman describes several evidences why A. sediba could be our direct ancestor but also points out some problems about this theory developed by Berger.  The problem is that if A. sediba is the true ancestor of Homo, it cannot give rise to older species, Hadar jaw, which lived before A. sediba and is already assigned as Homo.  One possible answer for this is that the Hadar jaw might not be Homo at first place.  This is because Hadar jaw retains only an upper jaw and it is hard to fully determine whether it is Homo from just one part of the body.  Another possible answer is that dating of Hadar jaw might be wrong if it is actually Homo.  In this case, Hadar jaw might live later than A. sediba.

Fischman explained well about theories of our ancestor with lots of pictures and diagrams.  It is easy to read and understand even if there is little knowledge about archaeology and tree of human evolution.  To me, it is the most interesting part of this article to explore the origin of our spices, Homo sapiens.  However, a description of the comparison between two contradict theories, A. sediba and Hadar jaw, is clumped into only the last page.  For the rest of pages, Fischman focuses more on anatomical characteristics of the A. sediba and a uniqueness of Malapa cave that meets criteria to preserve fossils in a good condition.  It would satisfy my curiosity if there is at least one more page about the comparison of the two theories.  If so, I would be able to collect enough information to judge which theory might be more reasonable or believable to me at least.

The following is the edited version:

National Geographic

Vol. 220. No.2. August 2011

Part Ape Part Human

Author: Josh Fischman

Fischman introduced one possible theory about the origin of our species, Homo sapiens.  In 2010, Lee Berger, a paleoanthropologist at the University of the Witwatersrand in Johannesburg, and his colleagues excavated a human-like species in a limestone cave Malapa in South Africa.  They determined the species is Australopithecus sediba (in short A. sediba).  Their fossils are well preserved and retain 40% of entire body, a retention rate that is rare for fossils that are under the ground for more than two million years.

Berger believes that A. sediba might be the direct ancestor of Homo sepiens due to its intermediate physical characteristics between the primitive australopiths and more advanced Homo.  This theory is the newest as oppose to an alternate theory of the origin of Homo sapiens.  In the latter case, Hadar jaw, in Homo species, is thought as the origin and gave rise to Homo habilis. Homo habilis, in turn gave rise to Homo erectus, which then gave rise to Homo sapians (see the diagram below from this article).

Fischman describes ample evidence why A. sediba could be our direct ancestor but also points out some problems about this theory developed by Berger.  If this is true, Hadar jaw, which is Homo, must have evolved from A. sediba. However, the problem is that Hadar jaw lived before A. sediba.  One possible answer for this is that the Hadar jaw might not be Homo at first place.  This is because Hadar jaw retains only an upper jaw and it is hard to fully determine whether it is Homo from just one part of the body.  Another possible answer is that the dating of Hadar jaw might be wrong if it is actually Homo.  In this case, Hadar jaw might have lived later than A. sediba.

Fischman explained in detail the theories of our ancestor with lots of pictures and diagrams.  It is easy to read and understand even if one has little knowledge about archaeology and the tree of human evolution.  To me, the most interesting part of this article is the exploration of the origin of our spices, Homo sapiens.  However, a description of the comparison between the two contradict theories, A. sediba and Hadar jaw, is all clumped together on the last page.  For the rest of pages, Fischman focuses more on anatomical characteristics of the A. sediba and a uniqueness of Malapa cave that meets criteria to preserve fossils in a good condition.  It would satisfy my curiosity if there were at least one more page about the comparison of the two theories.  If so, I would be able to collect enough information to judge which theory might be more reasonable or believable to me at least.

Robots

 National Geographic

Vol. 220. No.2. August 2011

Us. And them.

Author: Chris Carroll

It is a very catchy subtitle; "Robots are being created that can think, act, and relate to humans. Are we ready?" I was chilled when I read only this subtitle with a picture, taken by Mas Aguilera-Hellweg, of an android which is very alike a human except wires and chips coming out from his back head (shown above).  Are we ready for what?  For accepting such a human-like creature in our daily lives?

Carroll introduced some short stories about androids that are under development for different kinds of use: for an elder care, a babysitter, a house work, and army.  He calls such robots a social robot, because they interact with people in a way that they self-govern and alternate their behaviors according to people's reactions and responses in unexpected/non-programmed situations.  This feature gives a crucial difference from industrial robots, which are programmed to carry out a specific function in a well controlled environment such as assembling or painting cars in a factory.  On the other hand, social robots must identify, for example, a difference between a milk and a juice and pick up a correct one from someone's untidy refrigerator.

This article also focuses on people's emotional and ethical aspect toward the android.  According to Japanese roboticist Masahiro Mori, people feel positive toward human-like androids but feel suddenly disguised when robots become too alike to human.  Also, one experiment done by psychologist Peter Kahn, University of Washington, revealed that people treat the android as fair as they do for other humans.  For instance, in his experiment,  most children and adolescents agreed on unfairness when the android, with which they played card games, was treated unjustly.

If it is succeeded to attain human attribute of ethical aspect, a researcher, Ronald Arkin of the Georgia Institute of Technology, says that it is possible for such androids to fight in a war.  He claimed that the difficulty of this is to program criteria and limitations when to fire with a proper choice of arm.  However, if this programming achieves a practical level, Akin believes that such robots will be able to make a better decision than human soldiers do in a chaotic battle field, because human tends to make a wrong decision due to a rage and a confusion under the tumult environment.

Are we ready for having self-governing androids in the near future?  The answer might be yes for some cases and no for some other cases.  Personally, it is very beneficial to have such robot in my apartment to do all house works while my husband goes out for work and I go out for school.  The extra time made by the robot can then be spent by us, human beings, for a leisure.  In this case, I am more than ready to have the robot if I do not need to care about the cost to own it.

On the other hand, I have to ask myself if it is ok to use such robots for an elder and baby/child care.  Even though such androids are autonomous and are able to carry all tasks, taking care of people might not limit to the physical cares.  Through interacting with people, we, human beings, build a reliable relationship that means a love, a trust, a friendship, or more.  This relationship might enrich our lives in a way that we can feel our existence is worthy enough for ourselves and for others.  I wonder if robots can truly obtain such human attributes.  If they can, my answer for the question changes to "yes, I am ready."  It is much safer to own such care-giving androids than to hire human care-giver, because the androids have no danger to cause a possible child abuse or crucial mistakes which human care-givers might do.  However, it is very hard to imagine that an android is capable of understanding other's feelings such as happiness, sadness, and pain that are necessary to build the relationship between people.  Thus, at this point, my answer for the question stays "no," because it is too sad to isolate baby/child and elders from human contacts that might be essential in order to enrich their lives as human beings.

 National Geographic

Vol. 220. No.2. August 2011

Us. And them.

Author: Chris Carroll

It is a very catchy subtitle; "Robots are being created that can think, act, and relate to humans. Are we ready?" It gave me a chill when I read this subtitle with a single picture, taken by Mas Aguilera-Hellweg, of a human-like android with wires and chips coming out from his back head (shown above).  Are we ready for what?  For accepting such a human-like creature in our daily lives?

Carroll introduced some short stories about androids that are under development for different kinds of use: for elder care, babysitting, house work, and the army.  He calls such robots social robots, because they interact with people in such a way that they self-govern and alternate their behaviors according to people's reactions and responses in unexpected/non-programmed situations.  This feature makes social robots distinct from industrial robots, which are programmed to carry out a specific function in a well controlled environment such as assembling or painting cars in a factory.  On the other hand, social robots must identify, for example, the difference between milk and juice and be able to pick the correct one from someone's untidy refrigerator.

This article also focuses on people's emotional and ethical response toward the android.  According to Japanese roboticist Masahiro Mori, people feel positive toward human-like androids but feel suddenly repulsed when robots become too much like humans.  Also, one experiment done by University of Washington psychologist Peter Kahn revealed that people treat the android as fair as they treat other humans.  For instance, in his experiment,  most children and adolescents agreed on unfairness when the android, with which they played card games, was treated unjustly.

If androids can attain ethical human attributes, Ronald Arkin, a researcher of the Georgia Institute of Technology, says that it is possible for such androids to fight in a war.  He claimed that the difficulty would be the programming criteria and the limitations of when to fire and choosing the proper firearm.  However, if this programming achieves a practical level, Akin believes that such robots will be able to make better decisions than human soldiers do in a chaotic battle field.  Humans tend to make wrong decisions due to rage and confusion under the/a tumultuous environment.

Are we ready to have self-governing androids in the near future?  The answer might be yes for some cases and no for some other cases.  Personally, I think it would be very beneficial to have such a robot in my apartment to do all the house work while my husband goes out for work and I go out for school.  The extra time made by the robot can then be spent by us, human beings, for leisure.  In this case, I am more than ready to have the robot if I do not need to care about the cost of owning it.

On the other hand, I have to ask myself if it is ok to use such robots for elder and baby/child care.  Even though such androids are autonomous and are able to carry all tasks, taking care of people might not be limited to a physical task/ the physical.  Through interacting with people, we build reliable relationships such as love, trust and friendship.  These relationships might enrich our lives in a way that we can feel our existence is worthy enough for ourselves and for others.  I wonder if robots can truly obtain such human attributes.  If they can, my answer for the question changes to "yes, I am ready."  It is much safer to own such care-giving androids than to hire human care-givers, because with the androids there would be no danger of potential child abuse or fatal mistakes which human care-givers can make.  However, it is very hard to imagine that an android is capable of understanding the feelings of others such as happiness, sadness, and pain that are necessary to build relationships between people.  Thus, at this point, my answer for the question is still/ would still be "no," because it is too sad to isolate babies/children and elders from human contact that might be essential in order to enrich their lives as human beings.

Food Ark

National Geographic

Vol. 220. No.1. July 2011

Food Ark

Author: Charles Siebert

I had been blind about what's going on around me and what will come to us in the future!  The article, Food Ark, by Siebert opened my eyes.  According to this article, the food supply must be doubled to satisfy our growing population in a few decades, and one of the important keys to accomplish this is to preserve biodiversity.  Siebert alerts that a large number of species in plants and animals has been extinct due to a selection of particular species by human beings.  These selected species are high-yield crops and easy to be cultivated by humans, but they do not give us only good sides.  They are sometimes vulnerable to insects and diseases, so they require high dose of chemical treatments such as insecticides.  As a result of this selection, only a small number of species are cultivated on earth, and this will give us a devastating consequence once a disease spread among them, because we have lost so many other species for backups.  In order to avoid this disaster, some people store variety of plant seeds, so-called seed banks.  Once selected plants are vanished by a disease or a climate change, these seed banks will be able to provide a stored plant that is resistant to the disease and to rescue the possible crisis of famine on earth.

Until I read this article, I did not know the fact that

1) the food production will be required to be doubled in a few decades,

2) a large number of plant and animal species has been already extinct due to a human selection,

and 3) there are seed banks to preserve biodiversity for future.

 It first seemed counterintuitive that biodiversity is necessary for increasing a food production for future, but here is an explanation.  We know that a natural selection is done by an environment, and only species, which well fit in the environment, can pass on their genes to next generations.  Thus, these species tend to be strong and resistant to some diseases.  However, selection of species was not only done by the environment but also by human beings in our history.  Farmers chose species that are easy to take care of and produce large number of offsprings, but this is not necessarily that these species are strong.  In fact, according to this article, there were devastating famines in the past due to stem rust (Ug99) that spread from Africa to China and killed most of wheat.  For not only diseases but also for a climate change, preserving biodiversity will give us a big benefit as backups in case when such famine occurs again.

In order to keep biodiversity on earth, the seed bank is a fascinating idea to preserve variety of plant seeds.  However, how about animal species?  It is easy for plant seeds to be preserved under a cool, sterile condition, but it cannot be the same way for animals.  If animal species are stored in a "bank," it should be in a way that is similar to a sperm/egg bank for humans, which requires high cost to maintain freshness under a liquid nitrogen.  Have scientists already stored variety of animal species in this way, or in what way? This article did not give us a clear explanation about this, but despite the fact, it does tell us an importance of biodiversity for our future food production of both plants and animals in order to avoid a possible famine.


The following is the edited version:

National Geographic

Vol. 220. No.1. July 2011

Food Ark

Author: Charles Siebert

I had been blind about what's going on around me and what will come to us in the future!  The article, Food Ark, by Siebert opened my eyes.  According to this article, the food supply must be doubled to satisfy our growing population in a few decades, and one of the important keys to accomplish this is to preserve biodiversity.  Siebert warns that a large number of plant and animal species have become extinct due to a/the selection of particular species by human beings.  These selected species are high-yield crops and are easy to be cultivated by humans, but they do have a downside.  They are sometimes vulnerable to insects and diseases, so they require a high dose of chemical treatments such as insecticides.  As a result of this selection, only a small number of species are cultivated on earth.  The consequences will be devastating once a disease spread among them, because we have lost so many other backup species.  In order to avoid this disaster, some people store varieties/a variety of plant seeds, so-called seed banks.  Once selected plants are extinct due to disease or climate change, these seed banks will be able to provide a stored plant that is resistant to the disease, thus preventing the possible crisis of famine on earth.

Until I read this article, I did not know the following facts:

1) the food production will be required to double in a few decades,

2) a large number of plant and animal species have already become extinct due to (a) human selection,

and 3) there are seed banks to preserve biodiversity for the future.

 It first seemed counterintuitive that biodiversity is necessary for increasing food production for the future, but here is an explanation.  We know that a natural selection is done by the environment.  Only those species which can adapt to the environment can pass on their genes to future generations.  Thus, these species tend to be strong and resistant to some diseases.  However, the selection of species was not only done by the environment but also by human beings throughout our history.  Farmers chose species that are easy to take care of and produce a large number of offspring, but this does not mean that the offspring species are strong.  In fact, according to this article, there were devastating famines in the past due to stem rust (Ug99) that spread from Africa to China and killed most of the wheat.  Preserving biodiversity will give us the big benefit of (having) backup species in the event of disease or climate change.

In order to keep biodiversity on earth, the seed bank is a fascinating way to preserve varieties of plant seeds.  However, how about animal species?  It is easy for plant seeds to be preserved under a cool, sterile condition, but it cannot be done in the same way for animals.  If animal species are stored in a "bank," it should be in a way that is similar to a sperm/egg bank for humans.  This type of preservation requires high costs to maintain freshness with liquid nitrogen.  Have scientists already stored varieties/ a variety of animal species in this way, or in some another way? This article did not give us a clear explanation about this, but despite the fact, it does stress the importance of biodiversity for our future food production of both plants and animals.

Cleopatra

National Geographic
Vol. 220. No.1. July 2011
The Search for Cleopatra
Author: Chip Brown

Where is Cleopatra's tomb?  Many archaeologists have been trying to find it or hopefully mummified Cleopatra herself for years, but no one has succeeded it. However, The Search for Cleopatra by Brown brings a new hope about the burial place.   A young, intelligent woman, Kathleen Martinez, developed an extraordinary theory in 2004 that Cleopatra's tomb might be buried in a tumbledown temple in Taposiris Magna, which is very far from the ancient capital Alexandria.  She believes that Cleopatra was wise enough to make sure her body and her loved Antony would be buried in a place where no one could disturb their eternal love. She assumes that the place might be the temple in Taposiris Magna and not in Alexandria where many archaeologists have believed that the burial place might be.  After years of attempts, she convinced finally Zahi Hawass, who is secretary-general of Supreme Council of Antiquities, to explore the temple.  It has been years since the excavation begun in 2006, but Cleopatra's tomb has not been found.  However, new discoveries of many objects and a large cemetery outside the temple walls further convinced Martinez that someday she would find Cleopatra's tomb there.

This article was interesting by showing brief backgrounds of Cleopatra and excavation history of finding her tomb that made readers with little knowledge about this history interested.  As a person who does not know much about this history, I was able to easily understand how it is difficult to find the tomb partially because a part of old Alexandria sank under the ocean where some archaeologists believe the tomb might be there, and how it is exceptional that Martinez's idea about the burial place is.  Personally, I hope that Martinez's theory is right and she will discover Cleopatra's tomb someday, because as a woman, I would rather be buried in a calm place with my loved one than politically, socially chaotic palace if I were Cleopatra.  Even though she lived more than two thousand years ago, the way women think would not change so easily.


The following is the edited article:

National Geographic
Vol. 220. No.1. July 2011
The Search for Cleopatra
Author: Chip Brown

Where is Cleopatra's tomb?  Many archaeologists have been trying to find it or hopefully mummified Cleopatra herself for years, but no one has succeeded it. However, The Search for Cleopatra by Brown brings a new hope regarding the (location of) burial place.   A young, intelligent woman, Kathleen Martinez, developed an extraordinary theory in 2004 that Cleopatra's tomb might be buried in a tumbledown temple in Taposiris Magna, which is very far from the ancient capital Alexandria.  She believes that Cleopatra was wise enough to make sure her body and her loved Antony would be buried in a place where no one could disturb their eternal love. She assumes that the place might be the temple in Taposiris Magna and not in Alexandria where many archaeologists have believed that the burial place might be.  After years of attempts, she finally convinced Zahi Hawass, who is secretary-general of the Supreme Council of Antiquities, to explore the temple.  It has been years since the excavation began in 2006, but Cleopatra's tomb has not been found.  However, new discoveries of many objects and a large cemetery outside the temple walls further convinced Martinez that someday she would find Cleopatra's tomb there.

This fascinating article provides a brief backgrounds of Cleopatra and the excavation history of finding her tomb.  Even readers with little/relevant knowledge would find this article to be interesting/ to be of interest.  As a person who does not know much about this history, I was able to easily understand how it is difficult to find the tomb. Part of the old Alexandria sank under the ocean where some archaeologists believe the tomb to be, however, I find Martinez's idea about the burial place to be exceptional.  Personally, I hope that Martinez's theory is right and that she will discover Cleopatra's tomb someday.  I would rather be buried in a calm place with my loved one than a politically and socially chaotic palace if I were Cleopatra.  Even though she lived more than two thousand years ago, I believe that the women think would not change so easily over time.