On the Origin of Human BehaviorAnd the laws of Human selection.

Adriaan J.P. de Lange PhD, MBA

Essential 'modern' human group behavior: trading on a market.

Copyleft © 2018 A.J.P. de Lange

All parts of this book may be reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording or by any other information storage and retrieval system, by virtue of this permission from the author and publisher when properly referenced.

1 | Page

Contents

1. Introduction............................................................................................................................................52. Evolution................................................................................................................................................63. The Brain..............................................................................................................................................104. Emotions..............................................................................................................................................135. Human History.....................................................................................................................................16

5.1 Introduction................................................................................................................................165.2 Basic Themes.............................................................................................................................20

5.2.1 B1: Food & a Roof..........................................................................................................225.2.2 B2: Offspring and parenting...........................................................................................235.2.3 B3: Family life................................................................................................................245.2.4 B4: Power distribution and individual Rights and Duties...............................................255.2.5 B5: Cosmology or Belief................................................................................................275.2.6 B6: Value of (an individual) Life....................................................................................285.2.7 B7: Tools, Weapons and Clothes....................................................................................305.2.8 B8: Music, Art, Symbols & Basic Counting...................................................................31

5.3 Next Level Themes....................................................................................................................325.3.1 N1: Agriculture & Land..................................................................................................325.3.2 N2: Belief & Medicine....................................................................................................335.3.3 N3: Power distribution and individual rights and duties.................................................345.3.4 N4: Division of Labor...................................................................................................385.3.5 N5: Cities & Countries....................................................................................................395.3.6 N6: Law, Economics and Taxation.................................................................................435.3.7 N7: Philosophy, Science, Games and Sports..................................................................46

6. Contemporary Themes.........................................................................................................................496.1 Introduction................................................................................................................................496.2 Contemporary Themes...............................................................................................................50

6.2.1 C1: Power........................................................................................................................506.2.1.1 C1a: Politics................................................................................................................................526.2.1.2 C1b: Government........................................................................................................................536.2.1.3 C1c: Business..............................................................................................................................556.2.1.4 C1d: Banks..................................................................................................................................57

6.2.2 C2: Religion....................................................................................................................596.2.3 C3: Health, Care & Hygiene...........................................................................................626.2.4 C4: Science & Technology.............................................................................................646.2.5 C5: Education..................................................................................................................676.2.6 C6: Sports........................................................................................................................686.2.7 C7: Entertainment & Art.................................................................................................696.2.8 C8: News or Information exchange................................................................................70

7. Daily Business......................................................................................................................................727.1 Introduction................................................................................................................................727.2 Themes Hierarchy......................................................................................................................727.3 Some Practical examples...........................................................................................................76

7.3.1 Why no new (sub)Themes started during the Roman Empire and the Middle Ages......767.3.2 Marriage and divorce......................................................................................................777.3.3 Mental illnesses...............................................................................................................787.3.4 Is the use of drugs favorable or bad to a society?...........................................................797.3.5 Balance between Humanities and "Hard" Sciences........................................................797.3.6 Infinite Stupidity.............................................................................................................81

2 | Page

7.3.7 Is social behavior lagging behind recent discoveries in Science and Technology?........817.3.8 Why do Women perform worse when in a group?.........................................................827.3.9 Why is immigration sometimes accepted and at other times rejected............................837.3.10 Is Human group Behavior a struggle between our Emotions and Rationale ?.............847.3.11 Falling in Love..............................................................................................................857.3.12 Why was and is coercion so extensively used and is a democracy coercive?..............857.3.13 The interaction between emotions and behavior: the case of Nostalgia.......................867.3.14 Bureaucracy, is it a separate Contemporary Power subTheme ?..................................867.3.15 Which (sub)Theme influenced population growth most?.............................................877.3.16 Which (minimum) set of (sub)Themes constitute a Culture?.......................................897.3.17 About Artificial Contraception and Homophobia.........................................................907.3.18 Are 'the Rich' getting richer and - if so - is it Bad for Society?....................................907.3.19 Ideologies where do they fit in the Themes Theory?....................................................947.3.20 Why some Nation States beco(/a)me wealthy and others stay(ed) poor?.....................957.3.21 Do emotions like gloating help in group dynamics?.....................................................977.3.22 Does Themes Theory predicts a Clash of Civilizations ?.............................................987.3.23 Was pre-historic Homo a happier human being?..........................................................997.3.24 Why is death so emotional ?.......................................................................................1007.3.25 Can racism be explained by Themes Theory?............................................................1017.3.26 Are we rational or irrational?......................................................................................1027.3.27 How to get rid of the 'Big Man' ?................................................................................1037.3.28 Is Fashion part of C7: Entertainment and why does it change so quickly?................104

8. More Practical Examples...................................................................................................................1058.1 Conquering North America......................................................................................................1058.2 European Union.......................................................................................................................1068.3 The fall of the Berlin Wall.......................................................................................................1078.4 The financial and credit crises.................................................................................................1078.5 The End of the Western civilization........................................................................................1108.6 Is the Refugee-flow into Europe in 2015 .. going to disrupt it ?..............................................1118.7 Mahatma Gandhi in India compared with Nelson Mandela in South Africa...........................1128.8 Why has the number of violent deaths gone down?................................................................1138.9 Why were Rome and e.g. the Aztecs so violent.......................................................................1148.10 Why is civil war so brutal?....................................................................................................1158.11 One Child Policy in China.....................................................................................................1168.12 China or India, who is going to be the new Superpower?.....................................................1188.13 What groups do you want and can you belong to..................................................................1188.14 Why is Power: Politics and Business constantly changing?..................................................1198.15 Why is the Law business so competitive?.............................................................................1208.16 Why do we need management in Business?..........................................................................1218.17 Is abundant energy going to increase or decrease the number of (global) conflicts?............1228.18 A more quantitative comparison between Rome and the US................................................1228.19 How were societies of millions possible around 1,000 CE in China and South-America?...1248.20 Drivers for the rise and fall of the most Powerful Societies over the course of History.......1258.21 Are pension systems going to disrupt Western societies ?....................................................1268.22 Why do some 'backward' societies survive ?.........................................................................1278.23 Why do Religions survive for millennia, while Political ideologies quickly disappear........1278.24 Was Bernie Madoff a fraud ?.................................................................................................1288.25 Can we expect (fresh) water-wars ?.......................................................................................1298.26 Are any new (sub)Themes emerging in the 21st century ?....................................................1298.27 Are we creating an Anthropocene and is it dangerous ?........................................................130

3 | Page

8.28 Is the behavioral Themes theory any different from Jared Diamonds theory?......................1318.29 Why did the Egyptian society disappear after 2500 years ?..................................................1328.31 Is Detroit's bankruptcy a sign that the N4 subTheme: Cities is disintegrating ?...................1338.32 Is Greece's or Spain's almost default a sign that N4: Countries is disintegrating?................1348.33 What is 'Marketing' doing with the Themes Theory ?...........................................................1358.34 Can we explain the Millennium-hype with Themes Theory ?...............................................1358.35 Do we need NGOs and what is the best NGO ?....................................................................1368.36 'Save the Economy' and how to do it.....................................................................................1378.37 What exactly is The Economy, and does it need to be saved?...............................................1378.38 Environmental movement: Global Warming & Biodiversity................................................139

9. Practical Implications.........................................................................................................................1429.1 What can we do with (sub)Themes Theory ?..........................................................................1429.2 Looking at Countries: their main (sub)Themes and Eras........................................................1449.3 Looking into the Future............................................................................................................148

9.3.1 On prediction.................................................................................................................1489.3.2 Books with predictions..................................................................................................150

A) The Future of Industrial Societies by Clark Kerr......................................................150B) The End of History and the Last Man by Francis Fukuyama....................................152C) Management Challenges for the 21st Century by Peter Drucker..............................152D) One World by Peter Singer........................................................................................156E) The Breaking of Nations by Robert Cooper..............................................................158F) The Third Industrial Revolution by Jeremy Rifkin....................................................164G) And the Weak Suffer What They Must? by Yanis Varoufakis.................................164H) The Great Degeneration by Nial Ferguson................................................................164I) The Future as a Cultural Fact by Arjun Appadurai.....................................................164J) Secular Stagnation: Facts, Causes and Cures by Baldwin & Teulings.......................165K) This Changes Everything by Naomi Klein................................................................165L) The Physics of the Future by Michio Kaku...............................................................165

9.4 Future Themes: can we detect any trends?..............................................................................16910. Closing Remarks..............................................................................................................................17211. References........................................................................................................................................17912. List of Figures..................................................................................................................................19213. Appendices.......................................................................................................................................194

Appendix 1: Speed of Human Behavioral Evolution.....................................................................194Appendix 2: Table with Economic and Social numbers................................................................196Appendix 3: Lotke – Volterra model for Religions.......................................................................197

4 | Page

1. Introduction

Human Behavior is what fills our ways and days. It is inescapable. Our brains are wired for it. Even if we live completely isolated lives we have to accept our own behavior /a/ but most people do not restrict themselves to just their own and live in groups. Whereby it is very rare indeed that groups do not want any interaction with other groups. Only the Sentinelese /b/ seem to resist any contact with other human groups for maybe as long as 60,000 years since they fend off everybody for as long as we know.

Why do we interact with one another?

That is the subject of this book.

Human Behavior is fascinating. Since the beginning of (oral) History and Literature it has been the main theme of any utterance or writing.

Why is it so fascinating? Because it is essential to our individual survival and continued existence as a family, group, society or whatever subset of the total population of humans we would like to define.

We have our senses and our limbs in helping us to stay alive by finding food, running from fire or fighting off an opponent. But we have mirror neurons to interpret other humans who could help or threaten our existence.

In this book Human Behavior is to be understood as the result from reasoning to interpret the signals from the mirror neurons or reasoning to interpret our senses - sight, feeling, taste and smell - and not the Behavior that stems from the combination of the amygdale and the hypothalamus interpreting our senses directly /c/.

This book is mainly about the nurtured parts of "system 1" (more or less automatic) and learned "system 2" (much more energy consuming) reasoning "machines" we have in our brains /d/ and what we do with it on a group level. And even though on a personal level our behavior is everything but rational it is sometimes predictable /e/ whereas on a group level I will show that group behavior is 'rational' however not necessarily predictable. I.e. I will show 'evolutionary' forces to be the main driver for -change in- group behavior. I will label these forces: Themes and will show that the development of these Themes goes through several stages: Themes Era's: i.e. periods in the (pre-)history of Homo Sapiens that are rather distinct: Basic Themes Era (~Pre-History), Next Level Themes Era (~Neolithic) and Contemporary Themes Era (~Common Era: CE). Or in terms of Dan Ariely's investigations: on a group level -does the other person belong to 'another' group- we nowadays act according to Market norms which requires us to expect a (financial) reward for services given whereas on an individual level -does the other person belong to 'our' group- we act according to Social norms which requires us to help without a reward. So, group evolution works because we act towards other groups in a Darwinian way: survival of the fittest and towards 'our' group in an empathetic way.

In Evolution several layers of neuron cells (brain layers) were developed. It started with a central nerve system to have some kind of central control over the body upon which ever more layers were added until the neo cortex was added which enabled that life-form to evaluate different sets of inputs (situations) for probability and to behave accordingly and even go against earlier instructions from the `older`/`deeper` brain layers: in humans we see this for instance in braking the basic fight / freeze / flee reaction by the pre-frontal lobes.

/1.a/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Grothendieck/1.b/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sentinelese_people/1.c/ Emotional Intelligence, Daniel Goleman, 1996/1.d/ Thinking: Fast and Slow, Daniel Kahneman, 2011/1.e/ Predictably Irrational: The Hidden Forces That Shape Our Decisions, Dan Ariely, 2009

5 | Page

2. Evolution

When Charles Darwin showed Evolution by natural selection to be the best explanation for the occurrence of all the species living and found in the fossil record /a/ it was not immediately accepted and the driver: 'struggle for life with survival of the fittest' had to prove itself. However since then many proofs have been found /b;c;d;e/ and other `explanations` like Intelligent Design have been falsified /f,g,h/. Therefore, the possibility of Darwin not being right is not taken into account in this book.

On the one hand I accept the process of Evolution as it unfolds but extend it to groups / societies of Humans as did Darwin himself in 'The Descent of Man' /i/ but was amazingly only recently acknowledged by Wilson & Wilson in 'Rethinking the theoretical foundation of sociobiology' /j/ or by Robin Dunbar in 'Human Evolution' /k/ or by Joseph and Natalie Henrich in their book 'Why Humans Cooperate' /l/ and is further supported by e.g. Frank Niele in his book 'Energy: Engine of evolution' /m/ in which he sees a seamless connection between biological natural selection and cultural natural selection by energy regimes, e.g. when bacteria 'invented' photosynthesis or when humans mastered fire. However, I do not agree with Frank Niele's idea that it is energy regimes which drive (cultural) evolution. I think that all learned behavior / culture is the driver for human existence or life itself for that matter and the idea that ‘learned behavior helps in Evolution’ is further supported by e.g. recent visualizations of cooperative and competitive behavior -explicitly phenotype- in Bacterial Societies in micro-environments /n/. And supported by the ideas of Daniel Lieberman who thinks that cultural evolution is for humans much more important than normal evolution but often dysfunctional or even harmful to our bodies /o/. To which I add: that is exactly the point of cultural evolution: to create an 'environment' that makes humans struggle to survive (see chapter 5). And Human Behavioral Evolution evolves much faster than Natural Evolution since in Natural Evolution mutations grow with Fibonacci series /p/ or exponentially /q/. Whereby Behavioral Evolution does this as well -as culture is part and parcel of any educational system anytime and anywhere in the World- but in addition a mutation / new idea can be taught to already ‘educated’ people who then can start acting accordingly and spread the word as soon as they see the advantage of it and thereby start an new Fibonacci series or exponential curve. And even coercing a ‘new’ idea on to a group can achieve some level of acceptance which is why we have so many wars / fights among us.

The difference between -the speed of- growth in biological evolution and growth in behavioral evolution is nicely shown by Matt Ridley in his book ‘The Evolution of Everything’ /h/ when he compares the eukaryotic evolution when cells harbored simple bacteria as energy suppliers (mitochondria) which took about two billion years to come about and the another billion years (i.e. ~365 billion generations) to have fully developed proton-pump energy-supplies in every cell, and the Industrial Revolution when Humans invented steam engines which took about 50 thousand years to come about and started to use coal to generate work in e.g. factories which took about 50 years (i.e. two generations) to develop.

On the other hand this book is not presenting a theory on human behavior with an inevitable outcome such as e.g. Karl Marx presented in his well-known book 'Das Kapital' nor is it a reprint of e.g. the ideas of Herbert Spencer on Lamarckism /r;s/ who at the end of the 19th century used the ideas of a forerunner of Darwin to define a Social Darwinism for evolution in groups to justify social inequalities like class, wealth and welfare and opposed the rise of the Tories but was brushed aside from the 1920s on-wards by Franz Boas and his pupils such as Margaret Mead on grounds that you should judge other civilizations only from an inside point of view and not from your own cultural background /t/. This controversy in Anthropology smoldered all through the rest of the 20th century /u/ with the apparent result that Behavioral progress can still come slowly and the insight that social or cultural evolution is very real, important and continues until eternity but this view had to wait a long time :-|

This book was written in the ‘Dutch visual tradition’ aptly named by Svetlana Alpers: ‘the art of describing’ and builds -among others- on an idea voiced by Joseph Schumpeter: "For mankind is not free to choose ...Things economic and social move by their own momentum and the ensuing situations compel individuals and groups to behave in certain ways whatever they may wish to do" /v/. And on the idea that ‘progress’ is achieved only with “the continuous ‘negation’ or overturning of traditional morality” as was exquisitely formulated by Goethe in Faust /w/. So, progress is achieved only when we go against the current ‘things economic and social’.

This book is comparable to the book by Norbert Elias on Civilization /x/ (though less thick ;-). However, where Elias's book tries to explain how Europeans became more civilized (social manners between classes and individuals) from the 16th century onwards, this book tries to resolve the how and why of all group behavior from the beginning of mankind some 100.000 years ago up to and including 21st century current affairs in a Darwinian way which - incidentally - circumvents the teleological problem of how and why it all started /y/. In this respect this book is like the books by Francis Fukuyama: Origins of Political Order and Political Order and Decay /t;z/. Be it that those books are basically

6 | Page

written from a historical point of view (which may be the cause for their thickness ;-) whereas this book is written from an evolutionary point of view.

And this book is comparable to Jared Diamond's book: Guns, Germs and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies /aa/ (though less well written ;-) in which Jared Diamond analyses how groups or societies scattered around the globe became so different. His conclusion: it was the environment and not the abilities of the peoples that made the difference could be true even though Gregory Cochran and Henry Harpending believe that it was the abilities (probably 'taken' by interbreeding with Neanderthals) and not - as a first cause - the environment /ab/. Others think it was "Culture and Numbers" /l/ that gave the necessary push and again others think it was brain size (determines group size) and time budgets (time needed for social functions <--> foraging / feeding) /k/, whereby the changes in the environment / ecosystem are a major influence again because they influence the time needed for foraging to feed the - enlarged - brain which time cannot be spent on social functions so they restrict the upper limit of the group size.

As Desmond Morris in his book: 'The Naked Ape', states: "Because of the size of the task, it will be necessary to oversimplify in some manner" /ac/. I must do the same however, I will not ignore the (detailed) ramifications of technology and verbalization, and as opposed to Desmond Morris I will concentrate on Homo (Sapiens) but as Desmond I cannot go into all detailed aspects of our cultural existence. So please excuse my brevity on most aspects of culture -or (sub)Themes as I call them- I come across. And maybe -as The Naked Ape will now be read- I will be wrong on some or most speculations. However, most of what I write will be based on some piece of evidence which I will refer to in each paragraph or chapter and all references are listed in chapter 11 in alphabetical order of the writers or sources.

In this book it is analyzed with what behavioral structures people / groups reacted to the environmental differences and (accidental) genetic changes that occurred. And seen from the evidence it seems likely that the behavioral structures / groups we see with all Homo races and Sapiens were made possible because of (genetic) changes in brain development (see § 5.3 Next Level Themes Era). But ‘learned’ and group behavior has been around a long time in Nature as can be clearly seen from cooperative and competitive behavior by Bacterial Societies when put in a inhomogeneous World –connected compartments- as compared to the homogenous World -standard reaction tube- they are normally studied in /n/.

Furthermore, this book is the sequel to or next step in the multilevel or group evolution theory proposed by Edward O. Wilson in his book The Social Conquest of Earth /ad/. Wilson prepares the grounds that (genetic) social or group evolution is the only way to explain how the Human species conquered the World. However, he does not explain how Human societies evolved beyond the small groups of Homo Sapiens that inhabited the World some 75000 years ago (75 kya). That is neatly shown by Robin Dunbar in his book Human Evolution /k/ for all the Homo species up to and including Homo Sapiens. Therefore, this book is the sequel to his book as well since it tries to explain the (further) development of Homo Sapiens from around 100.000 years ago up to the present.

In fact, this book tries to answer the Tinbergen’s Questions /ae/ on how Homo Sapiens did manage to become and stay so Omnipresent:- What is the Mechanism? How does it seem to work?- What is the 'Ontogeny' of the Behavior of Homo Sapiens? How do we observe it develop over time?- What is its function? What are all the possible reasons it is done?- What is its origin? What are the many ways in which it could have arisen?

So, this book is a 'search for underlying patterns of thought in all forms of human activity' as Claude Levi-Strauss defined his structuralism in his Trites Tropiques /af/. And this book tries to introduce a much-needed framework to Anthropology if Dan Sperber is to be believed as he states in his book: "Explaining Culture" /ag/. This 'germline of culture' /ah/ contains hopefully enough materialistic aspects to be of any value.

But first: How did/does - normal - Evolution work?

By successive - mostly gradual (as seen from a Human perspective) - changes in the abilities of a group or species life adapts to the environment it finds itself in. If one set of changes brought about in one group / species better fits the requirements of that environment than the set of changes in other groups or species the former multiplies as compared to the numbers of the latter and eventually the weaker group(s) / species become(s) extinct.

Please note the Environment is to be understood as all the physical properties of the `World` the life forms live in.

So, given enough time a multitude of species is `created` ensuring two things: the strongest species for every environmental niche survives and life itself survives even if major changes in the environment occur because the more

7 | Page

species are alive at a certain moment in time the higher the chance that one or more species can survive even if a major shift in the environment occurs.

However, if Evolution produces a species that can adapt itself better to environmental changes than any other species a potentially Life-threatening situation can occur because a major shift in the environment can now cause the number of species to drop considerably and even Life itself could become extinct because this 'one' species might not be able to cope with the shifted environmental parameters as e.g. we have seen with the dinosaurs.

To remedy this situation Evolution 'does' two things: on the one hand it produces species which can, if necessary, change relatively quick to produce many species which could be much better adapted to the new environment(s) /i/.

And on the other hand - given enough time - Evolution will eventually produce one or more species which can change the (physical) environment itself thereby ensuring that major changes or disruptions in the environment can be prevented or much better withstood.

Homo Sapiens is such a species that has evolved to be able to adapt to new environments without real physiological changes to its body /q/. The fact that it was Homo Sapiens that came out of the melting pot is probably just a coincidence as can be read in the book by Chris Stringer /ai/. So - by the same token - it could have been any other Homo species as well which Edward O. Wilson almost regrets /ad/.

So now it appears Human Evolution has stopped /aj/ because Homo Sapiens is - as a species - in its current form able to adapt to almost any `normal` shift in the environmental parameters of the World we live in and is able to adjust / amend the environment itself to help its existence. However, on the one hand it is convincingly showed that Human Evolution has not stopped but in fact accelerated as can be read in the very good book: The 10.000 Year Explosion by Gregory Cochran & Henry Harpending /ab/.

And on the other hand, even an accelerated Human Evolution - with mutations in a few thousand years as e.g. the Bajau-divers in Indonesia, with 50% bigger spleens than normal, went through /ak/ as opposed to millions of years of normal rate evolution /ab/ - is still a dangerous development since an "out of the box" change like a meteor collision or a very threatening disease could still eradicate Humans and maybe Life as a whole.

But by 'creating' the Human Brain with its power to create ideas / imagined worlds Evolution has bypassed this dead end since now whole new 'Environments' were and are created in which Humans were and are put to the test on a daily basis ensuring the continued "struggle for life" even for Humans /o/. In fact, everything can be seen as evolutionary -or something that unfolds in the original meaning of the word- as Matt Ridley convincingly shows in his book: “The Evolution of Everything” /h/. And maybe this idea was already thought about by the Greek Epicurus /al/ as transpires through from the writings of e.g. Titus Lucretius Carus in his work De rerum natura /am/. Or as David Deutsch sees it: the Human Brain (or any intelligence for that matter) can create any knowledge to survive in any physical environment if there are just three things: mass, energy and evidence /an/. To which I add: The Human Brain can and will create any knowledge to struggle and survive in any physical and human environment. However, there are persons who think we have reached the end of the line and all creativity has died with modern science because this has estranged itself from modern society /ao/.

/2.a/ On the Origin of Species, 1st. Ed. 1859 by Charles Darwin/2.b/ The Genetical Theory of Natural Selection, R.A. Fisher, 1930/2.c/ What Evolution is, 1st. Ed. 2002 by Ernst Mayr/2.d/ The greatest show on Earth, Richard Dawkins, 2010/2.e/ Evolution: The Remarkable History of a Scientific Theory, Edward J. Larson, 2004/2.f/ Intelligent Thought: Science versus the Intelligent Design Movement, John Brockman, 2006/2.g/ The Meaning of Science, Tim Lewens, 2015/2.h/ The Evolution of Everything. How Small Changes Transform Our World, Matt Ridley, 2015/2.i/ On the Decent of Man, Charles Darwin, 2nd. Ed. 1874/2.j/ Rethinking the theoretical foundation of sociobiology, D.S. Wilson & E.O. Wilson, 2007/2.k/ Human Evolution, Robin Dunbar, 2014/2.l/ Why Humans Cooperate: A Cultural and Evolutionary Explanation (Evolution and Cognition), Joseph & Natalie Henrich, 2007/2.m/ Energy: Engine of Evolution, Frank Niele, 2005/2.n/ Bacterial Societies: Cooperation, Colonization, and Competition in Micro-Scale Ecosystems, Felix Hol, 2014/2.o/ The Story of the Human Body: Evolution, Health and Disease, Daniel Lieberman, 2013/2.p/ https://brilliant.org/wiki/Fibonacci-series/

8 | Page

/2.q/ https//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exponential_growth/2.r/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herbert_Spencer/2.s/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lamarckism/2.t/ The Origin of Political Order, Francis Fukuyama, 2011/2.u/ Great Feuds in Science, Hal Hellman, 1998 /2.v/ Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy, Joseph Schumpeter, 1942/2.w/ How Much Is Enough: Money and the Good Life, Robert & Edward Skidelsky, 2013/2.x/ The Civilizing Process (Ueber den Prozess der Zivilisation), Norbert Elias, 1969 (1939)/2.y/ Darwin's Dangerous Idea, Daniel Dennett, 1995/2.z/ Political Order and Political Decay, Francis Fukuyama, 2014/2.aa/ Guns, Germs, and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies, Jared Diamond, 1997/2.ab/ The 10.000 Year Explosion: How Civilization Accelerated Human Evolution, Gregory Cochran & Henry Harpending, 2009/2.ac/ The Naked Ape, Desmond Morris, 1967/2.ad/ The Social Conquest of Earth, Edward O. Wilson, 2012/2.ae/ Tinbergen’s Questions. Irene Pepperberg in ‘This Explains Everything’ by John Brockman, 2013/2.af/ Tristes Tropique by Claude Levi-Strauss, 1955, translated by John Russell, 1961/2.ag/ Explaining Culture, Dan Sperber, 1996/2.ah/ Defining and explaining culture: comments on 'Not by genes alone', Dan Sperber and Nicolas Claidiere, 2005/2.ai/ Lone Survivors: How We Came to Be the Only Humans on Earth, Chris Stringer, 2012/2.aj/ Human evolution is over, Steve Jones, 2008: www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/science/article4894696.ece/2.ak/ Indonesian divers have evolved bigger spleens to hunt underwater, Melissa Ilardo, Cell Apr. 2018/2.al/ Epicurus: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epicurus/2.am/ Lucretius: http:://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucretius/2.an/ The Beginning of Infinity, David Deutsch, 2012/2.ao/ The Creative Moment, Joseph Schwartz, 1992

9 | Page

3. The Brain

The Human Brain was most probably the result of several mutations which helped the primate mutants first to better survive by more thoughtful ways to find food or to fight off enemies and second to better reproduce by impressing the females of the time in more imaginative ways /a/. But some people say that the evolution of the Human Brain was the result of a mutation that caused the first 'Homo' to lose its fur /b/. This then caused a chain of evolutionary steps one of which was the development of a much larger brain to help in social / group activities. However, Robin Dunbar and some other people are quite convinced it all has to do with Brain size versus Time budgets /c/. Brain size defines (maximum) group size and larger brains make larger groups possible - because of mentalizing capabilities - but require (much more) time for social activities - like grooming - which cannot be spent on foraging needed to feed the (much) larger brain. However, in the last 20,000 years or so our brains have become smaller by some 10-15% /d/. This phenomenon is not easily explained but was probably caused by self-domestication -i.e. become less aggressive and learn to cooperate- maybe like the Bonobos are self-domesticated Chimpanzees /d/.

Although learning and a (basic) reasoning mind had been formed in Evolution long before Homo in several species the Human Brain is rather unique in its creativity with the use of special tools and the crafting of art, i.e. the creation of objects with no direct use /e/. Even though the latter can also be seen with several other species which create all kinds of contraptions with no direct use other than the seduction of the other sex (females mostly) and some species even have what we call tools like Chimpanzees /f/ the Human Brain is much more versatile because of its ability to communicate.

With the invention of language - probably some 100 kya /c;g/ - (Anatomically Modern) Human creativity could not only be used to craft 'beautiful' objects but also to conjure up beautiful stories which most certainly were used by the more agile men to impress the females as is nicely shown in 'The Mating Mind' by Geoffrey Miller /a/ where - as a literary example - two young imagined males: Carl and Candide try to impress a young female on the plains of Africa at the dawn of Homo Sapiens. Carl tells a story of cold (scientific) facts about the future of their children to be (facts as we now know them to be true) whereas Candide conjures up an image of a God: 'Wug' which has chosen him to foretell the future with beautiful projections of a long, happy and protected life which even in death goes on in heaven where all the family members will eventually 'live' happily ever after.

From the above example it is immediately clear what choice the female will make but on the side, it also becomes clear that (scientific) knowledge and reasoning will not help the 'bearer' in any way to improve his chances of reproduction. So language did not develop to discuss 'simple' observable / Worldly facts but most probably to solve Homo Sapiens Time Budget squeeze by storytelling during evening hours around a camp fire /c/ and the most beautiful stories were certainly meant to impress the females.

That language is innate to humans and key to identifying the most basic group structure (family or clan) was shown in a simple experiment whereby very young babies suck much longer on an artificial breast without getting any milk when they hear their mother tongue /h/. However, if you look at a more abstract level you find that all Humans have the same ‘conversation machine’, i.e. all Humans use the same one-second timing to decide to begin early, on time or late in a back and forth conversation /i/ which -I think- points to a single mutation and that it is this ‘conversation machine’ that makes us Humans. And points to the strong possibility that small talk / conversations between Humans is comparable to the grooming with Primates. With our conversation machine we tune in to each other and next to giving each other attention we convey moral judgements and check these with the other(s) thereby building trust and groups /i/.

Language could therefore be a basic evolutionary Theme (see Chapter 5) for Human (group) behavior as is e.g. shown by Steven Pinker in: The Language Instinct /j/ even though it is still debated whether speech stems from evolutionary adaptations or exaptations - evolutionary byproducts - as can be read in Anne Fernald in: Ch. 10 of The Adapted Mind /k/. But it is safe to say that language first and foremost identifies a group or society /c/.

Another typically Human trait is 'Social Learning' a term coined by Mark Pagel /l/ and neatly shown in action by Alex Pentland /m/. Only Humans show the ability to exactly replicate something which they see (or hear) and only Humans can understand and explain why this something is done because they have a "Theory of Mind" or "Intersubjectivity" /c;n/. And humans even show the ability to immediately improve upon the idea. The former: replication is seen with animals as well: e.g. the otter with stones to smash shells but the latter: explain and improve is typically Human /o/.

So, knowledge and reasoning are an artifact that is only kept within a group when it improves the group’s chances of reproduction or survival and only then when the group has established a certain level of existence the group is willing to invest some time in searching for practical knowledge. And only when the group has reached an abundant way of life

10 | Page

scientific knowledge is sought after but still only when its helps in the survival of the group, or it must be that the group wealth is such that the research for scientific knowledge and thereby non-productivity of certain members of the group is an indulgence that can be sustained.

But let's go back to the Human Brain.

This organ consumes 20% of the calories we eat while only consisting 2% of our body mass /c/ and sitting on top of our central nerve system and bloodstream it controls almost all parts of our body and certainly all our movements. This is because it is the origin of our feelings, thoughts and utterances. So, our brain equals our behavior. Or as Dick Swaab says: "We are our Brain" /p/ which means that when our brain is formed in the uterus and the first few years of our lives this development decides whether we will have uncontrollable urges and become alcohol or drug addicts or cannot control ourselves when having the urge to kill or steal etc. or we develop as relatively normal members of society. However, the situation is probably not as passive as Dick Swaab wants us to believe. According to Harald Merckelbach /q/ this passiveness is (much) too simple since almost everybody is capable of lying and / or simulating, i.e. showing or explaining behavior that would - according to Dick Swaab - just be forced upon us. But maybe that is because ‘self’ or consciousness is a post-hoc phenomenon, i.e. after the fact concoction by our brain as Matt Ridley explains in: The Evolution of Everything /r/. And so free will does not exist but we are free to concoct a nice myth around our behavior as if it was all planned.

To which Cochran and Harpending add: "We are what we eat" /s/ which means that the things we eat decide our physiology and health: e.g. the advent of agriculture made people live on a much less nutritious diet than meat as hunter-gatherers had which caused many changes in physiology through selective pressure on favorable 'mutants' such as a shrinkage of the average length by as much as 10 centimeters.

Since the Brain evolved from nerve cells designed to exchange signals between different parts of a lumped group of cells a Brain is first and foremost just that: an exchange mechanism between stationary (relative to one another) cells for the benefit of - all cells within - the organism.

When cell differentiation occurred: different parts / cells started specializing, it became necessary to have some kind of central control and the first rudimentary Brains did just that which we can still find in simple life forms like worms. But before this evolutionary stage 'identical' solitary living cells formed colonies acting as one lifeform with something like a central control -and thereby specializing- to survive hardship like drought, which e.g. the slime mould Dictyostelium discoideum still does today /t/.

After a brain had formed in colonies of cells permanently living together more complex functions were added as the senses of the lifeforms evolved with every evolutionary step from basic movements with some simple pressure sensor system to much more sophisticated sensors to get a better grip on direction. To, eventually, taste, eyes and ears developed to be able to react even better as life left the depths of the crest of the Earth as proto bacteria /u/ and entered the Seas and started to move purposefully and therefore needed more distant signals to be processed. And when life crept on the shores and began exploring the Land the senses had to develop even further.

Then some learning skills had to be and were added to predict what would happen if a certain direction or movement was taken. This urge for meaning or prediction is still found in the Human Brain /v/ and could explain why -in the end- e.g. Religion developed.

At this moment in evolution everything was in place to let a species survive in its contemporary environment and so evolution produced very many species that did just that with minimal brain power like (fish) worms, insects or - further on in evolution with ever more brain power - sharks, dinosaurs or the first mammals.

But only warm-blooded life forms could develop much bigger brains (because such brains require a large percentage of the calories) because they can, absolute and percentage wise, feed enough energy to a brain with more than the most basic functions. Those warm-blooded life forms, gradually or in bursts, developed larger brains like: mice, hyenas, lions, elephants, horses or whales. But still these life forms cannot create imaginary Worlds like humans. Even though some of them can have empathy and other more advanced emotions like moral sentiments as Frans de Waal showed for primates /w/.

The Human Brain can do all the things the brains of other life forms can do and in addition it can create ideas and communicate these ideas with other humans through speech, art, tools, music, writing, machines etc. (all forms of Social Learning /l/). And if the other Human is convinced by the idea conveyed, he or she changes his or her behavior accordingly. And although other life forms do communicate - like e.g. ants, bees, birds, whales, elephants and primates -

11 | Page

their communication is much more rudimentary via smells, movements, sounds or touches and again they cannot explain let alone improve upon what they have seen (smelt, felt and/or heard).

In another measure: The Human Encephalization-Quotient (EQ) - the extra brain mass on top of the brain mass necessary to manage our body - is higher than any other animal /c;p/.

So, we are unique in the ease with which we have ideas and in the versatile and extensive ways we can communicate them and let ourselves be influenced by them. Even though some 70 to 80 % of our behavioral decisions is taken by our sub conscience (animal brain mass) based on smells, movements, sounds or touches.

And although the physical development of the Human Brain is still going on, the changes are so gradual that - for now - we can take our Brain (and Brain mass) to be static.

Please note that even though Descartes' distinction between Mind and Body is implicitly made in the above it is not essential to the discourse and the more intertwined view - see e.g. Descartes' Error by Antonio Damasio /x/ - follows automatically from the evolutionary path of the Human Brain. As Spinoza /y/ has been telling us ever since his Ethics was published after his death /r/.

/3.a/ The Mating Mind, Geoffrey Miller, 2001/3.b/ Homo Nudus: De naakte mens ("The Naked Human"), Dick Slagter, 2012/3.c/ Human Evolution, Robin Dunbar, 2014/3.d/ The Domesticated Brain, Bruce Hood, 2014/3.e/ The Nature of Paleolithic Art, R. Dale Guthrie, 2005/3.f/ Through a Window: 30 years observing the Gombe Chimpanzees, Jane Goodall, 1990/3.g/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_linguistics/3.h/ 'Nonnutritive sucking' in Journal of Infant Behaviour and Development, Christine Moon, 1993/3.i/ How We Talk: The Inner Workings Of Conversation, N.J. Enfield, 2017/3.j/ The Language Instinct, Steven Pinker, 1994/3.k/ Human Maternal Vocalizations to Infants as Biological Relevant Signals: An Evolutionary Perspective, Anne Fernald in 'The Adapted Mind' Ch. 10, Ed. Jerome H. Barkow, 1992/3.l/ Wired for Culture: The Natural History of Human Cooperation, Mark Pagel, 2012/3.m/ Social Physics: How Social Networks Can Make Us Smarter, Alex Pentland, 2014/3.n/ Mothers and Others: The Evolutionary Origins of Mutual Understanding, Sarah Blaffer Hrdy, 2009/3.o/ The Meme Machine, Susan Blackmore, 1999/3.p/ Wij zijn ons brein ("We are our Brains"), Dick Swaab, 2010/3.q/ De leugenmachine ('The lying machine'), Harald Merckelbach, 2011/3.r/ The Evolution of Everything. How Small Changes Transform Our World, Matt Ridley, 2015/3.s/ The 10.000 Year Explosion: How Civilization Accelerated Human Evolution, Gregory Cochran & Henry Harpending, 2009/3.t/ Critical mass: how one thing leads to another, Philip Ball, 2004/3.u/ The Deep Hot Biosphere, Thomas Gold, 1992 & 1999/3.v/ Superforecasting: The Art & Science of Prediction, Philip Tetlock & Dan Gardner, 2015/3.w/ Primates and Philosophers: How Morality Evolved, Frans de Waal, 2006/3.x/ Descartes' Error: Emotion, Reason, and the Human Brain, Antonio Damasio, 1994/3.y/ Baruch Spinoza; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baruch_Spinoza

12 | Page

4. Emotions

This chapter was added after more than four years of writing on this manuscript because although I implicitly came across many instances where emotions are the essence of what is going on in Human Behavior it was almost never that explicit that it needed special treatment. However, then I encountered the work of Darwin: 'The Expression of the Emotions in Man and Animals' /a/ whom apparently came to the conclusion that emotions are key because he wrote the book on emotions before his book on human evolution: 'On the Decent of Man' /b/. In 'The Expression of the Emotions' Darwin categorizes Emotions and shows by what expressions one can recognize an emotion. Charles Darwin also shows that emotions are not unique to man but were developed in the animal kingdom -so must have evolutionary significance- whereby e.g. Frans de Waal shows that in primates quite a few human emotions can already be found /c/. So emotions are an integral part of Human Evolution. The question is however, how do they help / drive it ?

Emotions drive our actions -if we are to believe the large amount of idiom that we use e.g. 'he carries his hart in the right place' or 'she was overwhelmed by his appearance'- or if we look at the total of all films recorded in Hollywood, Bollywood etc. combined where emotions are always the main theme of a movie. To begin with the silent movies by e.g. Charlie Chaplin. This being so because emotions are the filter through which we see the World around us. And e.g. Francis Fukuyama clearly sees emotions like: guilt, shame, pride, anger, embarrassment and admiration as natural / non-learned primary drivers for people to follow societal rules. But especially 'recognition' as the main driver for the development of larger human societies /d/. Where Francis Fukuyama is of the opinion that emotions are something with a natural cause, i.e. genotype, so universally present in every human being, I am of the opinion that a large part of emotions is phenotype, i.e. -at least- slightly different in every human being. Be it that I think that our basic tendency for emotions is certainly genotypic present and Francis Fukuyama is clearly of the opinion that emotions are culturally embedded when he talks of: "The highly developed suit of emotions related to norm following ensure, however, that no mental model of how the world works is ever regarded as a simple theory that can be discarded when it no longer conforms to observed reality".

But where do emotions come from?

Well understandably they stem from the brain and most probably from those parts of the brain that were formed long ago in the evolutionary path our species has followed. But what we now call awareness was probably formed as recently as 100 kya (thousand years ago) /e/ or even as recently as 20 kya /f/ with the final step in the development of the neo cortex and the frontal lobes in our brain. And therefore, the idea / recognition of emotions is only a very recent development because you need to be aware to recognize / have emotions.

I think emotions can be explained as the signals from our older brain parts to the neo cortex whereby these signals are interpreted through some kind of reasoning. Since -even- our most basic behavior can be influenced /g/ and we can build 'networks' or 'systems' of believes within the boundaries of which we 'behave' ourselves and when someone else does not adhere to these social norms we get agitated because our expectation is different and we are confronted with a situation which is partly unknown and could be(come) dangerous.

Especially when we cannot calm ourselves with our frontal lobes /h/ with respect to safety, food or sex or abstractions thereof like: 'being in a house with closed doors', 'belonging to a wealthy / powerful group', 'having money to buy food' or 'having a steady partner' then we get emotionally agitated which has a cultural color because the circumstances are culturally embedded both within our personality and social surroundings.

So we cannot define absolute -genotypic- emotions, they are always culturally dependent / embedded -i.e. phenotypic- even when we grieve over a passed away relative or close friend this grieving is not universally done in one specific way, and when asked people will give a wide range of descriptions of what they feel under comparable circumstances most certainly when widely different cultural backgrounds are at play. And even though crying is probably best understood as the breaking by the frontal lobes of the hormonal highjack by the amygdala, people cry in different situations for a wide variety of reasons. So even a basic emotion such as crying is culturally embedded.

And e.g. another basic emotion: jealousy is also culturally colored even when you look at first children who are -early in life- confronted with a younger brother or sister whom attracts attention which used to be given to them. The reaction of the oldest child to the younger brother or sister is always called jealousy be it in Europe or India and is expressed in more or less the same way in that the younger brother or sister is rudely treated or hit or pinched by the first born but the exact reaction is already culturally colored in that when the youngest gets different food nothing is done but when it gets a different toy this is pulled from their hands so that the meaning of a toy and what constitutes a toy is already clear. And –

13 | Page

of course- this is the exact reason why we give toys: to teach the child a few things about ownership and how its mother culture sees the World, i.e. what is basic and what is luxury, who is family and who is not etc.

And although many basic emotions like: guilt, shame, pride, anger, embarrassment & admiration are seen by Francis Fukuyama not as learned but somehow acquired after birth in a natural and standardized way and another deep emotion: recognition is even seen as the main driver for homo to cooperate with each other in groups /d/, they are all nevertheless culturally embedded because about what you feel guilt, are proud of or from whom you get recognition and for what traits or deeds is again highly culturally colored.

But when you analyze a specific group like the Dutch at a specific moment in time like the beginning of this 3rd Millennium under specific circumstances living in peace and under the impression that they are -as a nation state- invincible you can find recognizable similarities which look like Laws of Emotion /i/. However, you should understand that it is only a snapshot and that the 'same' emotion: like Nostalgia at different moments in time has a more or less totally different meaning /j/.

What do we use emotions for?

The way I see it is that we use emotions: i.e. unpredictable / irrational (basic) behavior, to steer the individual towards a much more rational group behavior which thereby becomes -on average- predictable in the short run for the individuals we encounter on a daily basis. Group behavior in the longer run though, is still unpredictable but not a thread to the immediate survival of the individual. Quite the opposite: predictable group behavior soothes the emotions like grooming in primates and with that it nicely fits within the time-budget squeeze we must solve continuously /e/.

That the individual is very much irrational can be read in e.g. the book by Dan Ariely /k/ and the fact that we built culture with basically irrational behavior in e.g. the book by Joseph and Natalie Henrich /l/.

Books by e.g. Daniel Kahneman /m/ or Antonio Damasio /n/ give a nice insight in how the individual functions psychologically and books by e.g. Norbert Elias /o/ or Dirk Draulans /p/ give a nice insight in how we are formed to individually function within a group. We do this e.g. with our ‘conversation machine’ which gives us universal politeness rules to respond within a second or to respond more slowly when we will give a negative response to a question /q/. So conversation is Human grooming (AdL) and probably evolved through laughing /e/.

So, through emotions we are formed to function within a group with the aim to appease our basic fears / emotions over survival.

The way we –as a species: Homo (Sapiens)- have done this will be further discussed in the next chapters.

But in short: we use Myths, i.e. common ideas about what should be and what not, to form our groups / societies and these Myths change or even stronger: must change over the course of Human History.

The fact that Myths (/ culture: a set of Myths) are coupled to emotions and that emotions can change is nicely shown by EMDR (Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing). This technique enables someone with a trauma or even addiction to forget this emotional and impulsive behavior and become a less emotional bystander (again) for the situations (/Myths) which were so stressful /r/. In my opinion EMDR proves that the natural environment, i.e. eye movement predominates the cultural environment, i.e. memories of cultural (/Myths) environment.

I will call these Myths: Themes and parts of a Myth: subThemes. And I will discuss their development through the history of mankind, their daily and practical appearances and their implications in the rest of this book.

That especially life related Themes such as Health, Care & Hygiene (please refer to § 6.2.3) were strongly influenced by emotion can be seen from the story of the Greek physician Galen (~200 CE) /s/ whom halted all progress in medicine for around a thousand years with his overconfident statements /t/ until some sort of doubt crept in at the start of Universities in the 12th century CE /u/.

But as we will see in fact all (sub)Themes are solely created and molded by emotion. And one way we learn them is through nursery rhymes and / or fairy tales when we are very young like 'Humpty Dumpty' or Grimm's fairy tales /v/.The amount of cultural information packed in such a Rhyme or Tale is staggering and everything is taught through (basic) emotions like an egg is pitiful and should be helped even by the King's consort or the punishment of villains is good e.g. the witch in Hansel & Gretel.

14 | Page

The fact that these Nursery Rhymes and Fairy Tales are a relative modern phenomenon is puzzling but might be explained that babies and children have, throughout history, been taught in the sanctuary of their (extended) family /w/ and were not confronted with modern large societies -with their specific rules / Myths- until the advent of Cities -and Countries- and for those circumstances there were Tales like Gilgamesh /x/ or -later on- Religious stories like the Torah, old Testament and new Testament. And the Fairy Tale was only recently developed / decoupled from Belief or Religion.

And in paragraph 5.3.3. N3 "Power distribution and individual rights and duties" you can find a discussion on how especially emotions were used to mold this Next Level Theme.

Another not to obvious example of emotions used to steer group behavior can be read in ‘The Breaking of Nations’ /y/ where Robert Cooper comes up with a non-typical explanation of Fascism and Communism. He states that these ideologies were specifically 'invented' to give the citizens of Germany and Russia respectively a refuge against the loneliness and uncertainty of life, the Enlightenment and Industrial Revolution created with the global economic Arena which fully blossomed at the beginning of the 20th century, through a 'village feeling' or feeling of belonging.Even if one does not agree with the idea that 'a refuge feeling' was the main driver to fuel these ideologies with people, the idea that emotions drive group behavior can now be understood. And personally I think that the emotional explanations is much nearer to the truth than a historical one like e.g. in ‘The Age of the Extremes’ /z/.

/4.a/ The Expression of the Emotions in Man and Animals, Charles Darwin, 1872/4.b/ On the Decent of Man, Charles Darwin, 2nd. Ed. 1874/4.c/ The Bonobo and the Atheist. In Search of Humanism among the Primates, Frans de Waal, 2013/4.d/ The Origins of Political Order, Francis Fukuyama, 2011/4.e/ Human Evolution, Robin Dunbar, 2014/4.f/ The Domesticated Brain, Bruce Hood, 2014/4.g/ Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion, Robert Cialdini, 1984/4.h/ Emotional Intelligence, Daniel Goleman, 1996/4.i/ The Laws of Emotion, Nico Frijda, 2007/4.j/ Nostalgia: Conceptual issues and Existential functions, Constantine Sedikides et al., 2004/4.k/ Predictably Irrational: The Hidden Forces That Shape Our Decisions, Dan Ariely, 2009/4.l/ Why Humans Cooperate: A Cultural and Evolutionary Explanation (Evolution and Cognition), Joseph & Natalie Henrich, 2007/4.m/ Thinking: Fast and Slow, Daniel Kahneman, 2011/4.n/ Descartes' Error: Emotion, Reason, and the Human Brain, Antonio Damasio, 1994/4.o/ The Civilizing Process (Ueber den Prozess der Zivilisation), Norbert Elias, 1969 (1939)/4.p/ Samen voor ons eigen ('Together for ourselves'), Dirk Draulans, 2012/4.q/ How We Talk: The Inner Workings of Conversation, Nick J. Enfield, 2017/4.r/ EMDR; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eye_movement_desensitization_and_reprocessing/4.s/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galen/4.t/ Superforecasting: The Art & Science of Prediction, Philip Tetlock & Dan Gardner, 2015/4.u/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University/4.v/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grimms’_Fairy_Tales/4.w/ Mothers and Others: The Evolutionary Origins of Mutual Understanding, Sarah Blaffer Hrdy, 2009/4.x/ Economics of Good and Evil, Tomas Sedlacek, 2011/4.y/ The Breaking of Nations: Order and Chaos in the Twenty-First Century, Robert Cooper, 2003/4.z/ The Age of the Extremes, Eric Hobsbawn, 1994

15 | Page

5. Human History

5.1 Introduction

Human history is extremely vast but short compared to the number of generations (~25 years) and the average number of people - Homo Erectus, Neanderthals or Sapiens - on earth (on average a million or so in every Human era /a/) over the course of time.

Other life forms like bacteria, insects, fish, birds or mammals have much less change in their daily environment compared to the length of a generation and number of individuals per generation.

Please note that environment for Humans is to be understood as the sum of the physical and imagined 'Worlds' put together. So, put together all changes other life forms experience in their physical environment - Change in Physical Environment (CPE) - and all changes in e.g. an area with agriculture or a city with its farming or building activities but especially all (cultural) changes in the groups we live in like family, other relatives through created bonds e.g. for sharing food, neighboring people, and all changes in religion or the power structure in the groups we belong to. The latter to be Changes in the Cultural Environment (CCE). That this cultural environment is overwhelmingly important in contemporary times is obvious, but it already played a crucial role in the advent of Homo as is nicely described in Human Evolution by Robin Dunbar /b/. In this book Dunbar shows that the rise of Homo Sapiens or Anatomically Modern Humans (AMH) passes through five stages: 1) bipedalism, 2) use of primitive tools through larger brain, 3) 1st wave out of Africa through a 2nd enlargement of the brain, 4) 3rd enlargement of the brain and thereby enlargement of social structure to ~150: clan and 5) pure cultural change with the start of agriculture. That changes in the cultural environment or 'myths' play an ever more important role in the evolution of human behavior from then on is further nicely described in the book Sapiens by Yuval Harari /c/ with his comparison between the Code of Hammurabi (~1750 BCE), the laws of biological evolution and the United States Declaration of Independence (~1750 CE). Harari shows that both the Code of Hamurabi and the United States Declaration of Independence contain opposing and completely inconsistent elements in their myths when compared with biological evolution. But still most people in Babylon and now most people in the West fiercely believe(d) in their version of the myths and because of this Babyloniers back then and Westerner’s nowadays are prepared to live and work together.

To put the Change in Environment (CE) in a number - even though life and social phenomena in particular are very difficult to be modelled in numbers /d;e;f/ - I define: CE = (CPE + CCE) / N, total Change in the Physical and Cultural Environment per generation / number of individuals per generation: N. This CE is much higher for Humans than for any other life form. E.g. even with the aboriginals of Australia or the San of Southern Africa (~comparable to pre-historic or stone-age man) a more or less constant change in created bonds was found such that groups separated by hundreds of kilometers assimilated 'cultural' changes in a matter of decades (so within one generation) /g/.

We might even see a trend: with simple life forms CE = CPE / N is normally rather low because of the large number (N) of individuals per generation (~bacteria). With more complex life forms CE rises considerably e.g. with birds or mammals because the number of individuals per generation (N) drops considerably and CPE rises as hopping over to another tree results in a huge change in the physical environment. And for Humans CE rises even further because of the Human made changes in the physical environment and (daily) changes in the specific Human / cultural (non-physical) environment: CE (Humans) = [CPE + CCE] / N. If we compare these changes with the brain size of the specific lifeform a clear correlation between CPE and brain size emerges which was extended to the different species of Homo but then for the correlation between CPE + CCE and brain size (especially frontal lobe size) /b/.

By defining another measure 'Change in Makeup' (CM) which consists of two parts: Change in Physical Makeup (CPM) which is the change in the physical (~bodily) makeup in a generation divided by the number of individuals per generation and Change in Behavioral or Cultural Makeup (CCM) in a generation divided by the number of individuals, we can create a measure for the Speed of Evolution: SE = CM / CE = (CPM + CCM) / (CPE + CCE). Please note that the denominator of each change measure: 'number of individuals per generation' drops out of the equation so SE is independent of the number of individuals.

The change in physical makeup (CPM) is what we perceive as normal evolution and CPM is therefore what we could define as the speed of evolution for non-Human life forms. However, looking at the different life forms over the course of evolution we see that higher life forms like e.g. mammals appear to have lower Speeds of Evolution because their physical makeup does not change - percentage wise - that much per generation as compared to lower life forms like e.g. bacteria where small changes in their physiology occur all the time and are - percentage wise - noticeable changes /h/.

16 | Page

If, however we also look at the 'environment' a life form lives in we get a different picture.

For higher animal life forms CPE increases but CCE is still low - e.g. birds flying from one place to the next to find food and flying large distances from summer to winter areas and vice versa or wilde beast trekking from one place to the next, the Change in Physical Environment is larger than e.g. with bacteria. So, with some Changes in Physical Makeup (navigational organ) and some Changes in their Cultural or Behavioral Makeup (a partner for life, trekking to and from the same areas) birds can adapt to the higher CPE they perceive compared to e.g. bacteria to keep their speed of evolution: SE above a certain level. But for Humans CPE is still higher and next to that Human Change in Cultural Environment (CCE) is - by definition - much higher still since cultural evolution is with humans by far the most important form of evolution as Daniel Lieberman sees it /a/. Although Daniel Lieberman sees cultural evolution in the strict sense that humans change their physical environment, e.g. living or eating habits, to which the body reacts with adaptions during growing up. I see Cultural Evolution -and Change in Cultural Environment- in the sense that it is all about habits or group behavior not individual physiological adaptations. E.g. by going from one place to the next Humans must deal with culturally different or even hostile communities whereas this is almost non-existent with higher animal life forms. So, to keep their SE above a certain level Humans had to respond by changing their behavioral or cultural makeup (CCM) to fit in the new group environment.

A nice example of a Change in the Cultural Environment and its impact is the excommunication of the City of Venice by Pope Julius II in 1509 /i/, in an attempt to curb the ‘Power’ of this mighty but not very religious city. Analyzing this in terms of Myths we find: the religious 'strong' man -a completely abstract Idea since the Pope is always an old and weak man (he died in 1513)- of one group -defined by an another abstract and not anatomically recognizable Idea of Religion- forbids its members to communicate with the members of another group -defined by again an abstract and not anatomically recognizable Idea of a City- to weaken 'the Power' -yet another abstract Idea- of the latter group. By the way: things soon got out of hand -culture is a set of Myths and can be changed and reinterpreted with the blink of an eye- with that the Allies -another subjective Idea- started killing traders from Venice and conquered several of its satellite cities -both very real and threatening acts- so Julius II reversed his position and retracted the divine order -again both very abstract Ideas: i.e. 'divine' and 'order'-. This very sudden change in how the cultural World functions repeated itself in 1606 with Pope Paul V. But then the Allies were on the side of Venice which therefore had the power to summon the priests to keep preaching but e.g. the Jesuits -very strong supporters of the Catholic Church and Pope- were expelled from the City so that some 50 years later the last defender in Italy of the forbidden mathematical theory of Indivisibles -also a purely abstract and rather peculiar Idea: forbidding a mathematical theory-: Stefano Angeli escaped 'the Power' of the Pope -or in fact the Jesuits- and a very real threat to his life by going to Venice /j/.

And an example of the start of a Myth / cultural change that did not fly can be read in Disordered World by Amin Maalouf /k/. In this book Maalouf analyzes the recent events around 9/11 and what they will bring. ‘9/11’ is one of the major breaks in recent World history / Western Myths. And a direct result of the attacks on the US on 9/11 was the decision to invade Iraq. The reasons for this invasion were -of course- diverse but of the ones that have been suggested: the fear for a rogue state developing Weapons of Math destruction，the desire to get rid of a leader who threatened the monarchies of the Gulf，building a democratic ‘Greater Middle East’ or a ‘New Middle East’ under the leadership of the US / the West the latter misfired on a grand scale /k/. After stating this Maalouf does not elaborate any further but I think that this example shows that humans -and politicians in particular- know that we live in a World build on Myths and that we can, therefore, change them. However，to which I must add that this change is evolutionary and major breaks will only work for as long as they fit in the general trend, which was aptly described by Joseph Schumpeter: “For mankind is not free to choose ...Things economic and social move by their own momentum and the ensuing situations compel individuals and groups to behave in certain ways whatever they may wish to do” /l/. What, by the way, was really going on with 9/11 and its aftermath was -and, in the Contemporary Themes Era, always was, is and will be-, of course, the fight for Power, as I will show throughout this book.

From the above you see that cultural evolution is much, much faster because it is not linked to physical abilities and this is precisely why Culture was / had to be developed.

So, it is plausible that the Speed of Evolution: SE = Change in Makeup / Change in Environment = CM / CE = (CPM + CCM) / (CPE + CCE)

could have some kind of minimum value below which a life form is not feasible or becomes extinct in the long run (please refer to Appendix 1 for further reading). And that is why we developed Culture in the first place and Pope Julius

17 | Page

II tried -and succeeded- to lower the SE of the Venetians (but his own as well as his 'Allies' figured ;-) so he had to reverse his Cultural stance almost immediately.

From that point of view Homo started with a (too?) low SE when the first species with a higher than usual EQ /m/ branched off. That species had the get used to the extra brain mass and develop ways to use it and communicate with it. First the extra brain mass probably led to tools like sharp stones for cutting meat or killing prey which lowered SE even further since this effects CCE. But then probably Homo gradually developed speech, i.e. a Change in Physical and Cultural Makeup (CPM + CCM) and with that (oral) Human history really began and accelerated progressively.

In their book: The 10.000 Year Explosion: How Civilization accelerated Human Evolution, Cochran and Harpending show that Homo Sapiens language capabilities were probably 'inherited' by interbreeding with Homo Neanderthalis some 40 to 30 thousand years ago /n;o/. However, Robin Dunbar thinks that even though Neanderthals had several characteristics which are required for language they probably had no or a much more rudimentary speech since their mentalizing capabilities were much less than Anatomically Modern Humans /b/. For Homo Sapiens its language abilities were one if not the requirement for the Neolithic explosion or The Next Level Themes Era as I will call this step in Human (Behavioral) Evolution (see § 5.3 for further reading).

Please note that with the introduction of typically human behavior like speech / language both the numerator and the denominator of the ratio SE are - by our own doing - influenced which could be the cause that we have to keep on changing our culture to stay above certain minimum SE but other equally debatable theories have been proposed like e.g. the Extinction Formula /p/.

From then on Human evolution probably developed basic ideas in what constitutes a group, what is good and bad food, what can be individual possessions versus power in the group, how to choose (sexual) partners to have and raise offspring, how to take / make cover from the elements (i.e. ~housing), when to live where and - of course - how to 'explain' strange / mystical phenomena: i.e. belief. And although many of the basic ideas like: moral sentiments, social pressure and reasoned judgment had already been tested in the precursors to Homo as can be seen in chimpanzees or the bonobo /q/, the variations and combinations with Homo were much more widespread even though they probably occurred in burst and with the increasing number of people on the surface of this planet they occurred with increasing speed. And with the reconnection of migrated branches 'new' ideas got tested in ever larger populations /n/.

However, a certain advancement in one Homo species or group in group behavior or technology did not necessarily led to the advancement of that trait because that Homo species or group could become extinct before this idea was spread to other groups. So only ideas that were spread became an integral part of the culture of that Homo species or group and those changes in culture most certainly came in bursts. And it seems to have been a matter of chance that Homo Sapiens survived with its (much) greater brain mass because by the same token it could have died out before it had multiplied in favor of other Humanoid species /r/.

Interwoven with Human History is - of course - the history of fights and wars because that is The Event whereby ideas are really tested to the limit since the greater the numbers of combatants fighting for a specific cause the higher its chances of winning and survival /s/. To avoid the negative aspects of fights and wars - over the millennia or centuries - we developed other ways of deciding which ideas are better for our survival. However, a clash of ideas is never to be avoided because it is essential to our advancement or human evolution. Not even today in e.g. science and technology which we (falsely) perceive as objective /t/.

And from psychology we know that (civil) war has –next to direct casualties- other adverse effects especially on the population under attack. I.e. this group / these people live in constant fear for uncontrollable attacks which causes their stress systems to be on constant alert which cause all kinds of side-effects such as that children and even unborn babies will have lower IQ’s, have higher chances of e.g. depression and in general function at a lower level than would have been the case without the constant threat of being attacked. So, war ‘helps’ the aggressor in destabilizing the other party / group long into the future /u/.

But although the move from a nomadic (Hunter-Gatherer) lifestyle to living in permanent settlements with farming as a means of survival was a very big Behavioral change - which some say /m/ was just like e.g. speech only made possible by chance genetic adaptations - it most certainly caused many disputes within and between groups /g/ and therefore caused many adverse effects on the own group as well as the competing groups but - in the end – was a stimulus to develop ways to reduce the number of disputes by - over time – figuring out who was entitled to what property. And so, the land / region could - with improved social structures - provide for a larger number of people /v/.

18 | Page

Along these lines of thought I will develop a theory, called ‘Themes Theory’ which divides Human Behavioral Evolution in three distinct stages or Era’s as I call them: Basic Themes Era (see § 5.2), the Next Level Themes Era (see § 5.3), and the Contemporary Themes Era (see § 6.2). This idea to look for stages in human societal development is not new as e.g. Arnold Toynbee /w/ developed a three-stage theory as well with: the first phase: ~ pre-history (up to 3000 BCE) with very slow development because the speed of communication was very slow, the second phase: 3000 BCE – 1500 CE with more rapid change because the speed of transmission of ideas was much faster, and the third phase: 1500 CE – now with an even much higher speed of information that caused the speed of behavioral change to be even higher /k/.The stages in Themes Theory are a little bit different but like Toynbee it’s basic idea is Speed of Evolution (SE).

/5.1.a/ The Story of the Human Body: Evolution, Health and Disease, Daniel Lieberman, 2013/5.1.b/ Human Evolution, Robin Dunbar, 2014/5.1.c/ Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind (In Dutch), Yuval Noah Harari, 2014/5.1.d/ The Tyranny of Numbers, David Boyle, 2001/5.1.e/ Weapons of Math Destruction, Cathy O’Neil, 2016/5.1.f/ Economics of Good and Evil, Tomas Sedlacek, 2011/5.1.g/ The Creation of Inequality, Kent Flannery & Joyce Marcus, 2012/5.1.h/ The Deep Hot Biosphere, Thomas Gold, 1992 & 1999/5.1.i/ Excommunication of Venice; http://www.historytoday.com/richard-cavendish/venice-excomminicated/5.1.j/ Infinitesimal: How a dangerous Mathematical Theory shaped the Modern World, Amir Alexander, 2014/5.1.k/ Disordered World: A Vision for the post-9/11 World, Amin Maalouf, 2009/5.1.l/ Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy, Joseph Schumpeter, 1942/5.1.m/ Wij zijn ons brein ("We are our Brains"), Dick Swaab, 2010/5.1.n/ The 10.000 Year Explosion: How Civilization Accelerated Human Evolution, Gregory Cochran & Henry Harpending, 2009/5.1.o/ Homo meanderthalis, sex between Homo Sapiens and Homo Neanderthals by Reich and Paabo, Nature Dec. 2010/5.1.p/ The Celestial Factor and the Formula to Explain or Predict all Extinction of the Fossil record, Pieter van den Noort et al., J o P, Jan. 2012/5.1.q/ The Bonobo and the Atheist. In Search of Humanism among the Primates, Frans de Waal, 2013/5.1.r/ The Origin of Our Species, Chris Stringer, 2011/5.1.s/ How Did Humans Evolve?: Reflections on the Uniquely Unique Species, Richard Alexander, 1990/5.1.t/ Science in action, Bruno Latour, 1987/5.1.u/ The Domesticated Brain, Bruce Hood, 2014/5.1.v/ The Better Angels of Our Nature, Steven Pinker, 2011/5.1.w/ Arnold Toynbee; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arnold_J._Toynbee

19 | Page

5.2 Basic Themes.

Although we do not exactly know how the first 'humans' developed we can be pretty sure that their first priority was survival as a (small) group /a/ with most likely issues: 1) Food & a Roof, 2) Offspring & Parenting, 3) Family Life, 4) Power in the group, 5) Cosmology or Belief, 6) the Value of (an individual) Life 7) Tools, Weapons & Clothes and 8) Music, Art, Symbols & Counting.

Please note that I do not consider Language as a (basic) issue since for Food & a Roof, Tools & Weapons (for hunting) speech / oral communication was not directly necessary as they can be learned by showing. The choice of a mating partner and the raising of the children becomes already a bit more difficult but can also be done without speech. However, with hunting (in a group), the (re)distribution of power, the assigning of tasks etc., speech (with grammar) becomes indispensable /b/ and it is even suggested that language and intelligence evolved in humans to enable us to create social structures which thereby gave us the much-needed edge over other animals in finding and processing food /c/. And -as we study languages through the use of computers- it becomes clearer through every step of the research into proto-languages that language has co-evolved in the precursors to the AMH /d/ so that language was indeed available to e.g. the Neandertals or Denisovans and we are even able to guess at certain words, such as: five ~ ‘penkwe’ their languages had.

Nevertheless, I still consider language (speech) not a Basic Theme (see next paragraphs) for Human group behavior because it is key to all human activity and therefore the ability to speak does not discriminate between different Human groups. Even though different languages and dialects were and are widely used as an important identifier for a group as has been shown by Steven Pinker in his book The Language Instinct /e/ and in research on sucking babies /f/. But it was probably well before "Homo" swarmed out of Africa for the second time some 40 - 30 thousand year ago (kya) that most groups were orally well capable /a;g/. As can also be deduced from the fact that Homo Erectus and Homo Neanderthals as a subspecies had the same FOXP2 gene (now seen as what we call a 'strong sweep' single gene mutation: takes much longer but is -in the end- prevalent in each and every individual. See also § 5.3.5) as we (Homo Sapiens) do. Which has been coupled to the development of language abilities /h/, even though Homo Sapiens was probably much better able to vocalize /i/ and / or had a better tuned universal ‘conversation machine’ with its one second window as Nick Enfield shows in ‘How We Talk’ /j/.

So, the social dynamics of small groups -only possible because of elaborate speech- formed the first Culture(s) whereby humans started to create and let ideas evolve for best survival of the group without significant changes in the physical appearance and physical abilities of humans. This probably happened in the Upper Paleolithic some 50 kya -so well before Anatomical Modern Humans (AMH) swarmed out of Africa- and was an enormous step change -if not the biggest step change- in the evolution of Homo /i/.

I will call these cultural ideas or characteristics of Human Behavior: Themes because they are collective ideas but have no physical side. They are "bigger" though than the Memes Richard Dawkins coined in 1976 for nuclei of ideas that replicate and evolve /k/ and were further defined by Susan Blackmore in her book: The Meme Machine /l/ as the 2nd replicator. But like these Memes, Themes do evolve. And to define them further: Culture is the sum of all Themes and subThemes at any one time in a group or society (see also § 7.3.16). Please note that my 'Themes' are not the Technology Memes or 'Temes' which Susan Blackmore defines as the 3rd replicator.

The way the small groups organized and developed their basic Themes: 'best adaptations to the physical and social environment' or the way these small groups organized 'the flow of ideas' was key to their survival /m/ and if some groups were more successful (in terms of their numbers) they started to overtake neighboring groups or more precisely their territory /n/. And in the ensuing fights or wars military organization but also the development of weapons and fighting ability of (part time) soldiers became important and ever more important as the size of the groups grew. Such can e.g. be seen from the way the Zulu's in Southern Africa were organized. They fought wars with well-trained part time soldiers whom had to work the land when e.g. the harvest season arrived. That this was apparently a very successful system can be seen from the fact that this system was still in place by the end of the 19th century when a Zulu army put up fierce opposition against the British army /o/.

So, in my view especially behavioral or cultural advantages 'decided' which groups grew and overtook other groups and not so much genetic advantages as is claimed by Cochran and Harpending in 'The 10.000 year Explosion' /p/. This cultural view is shared by e.g. Joseph & Natalie Henrich as can be read in their book: Why Humans Cooperate: A Cultural and Evolutionary Explanation (Evolution and Cognition) /q/. They show that especially social learning based on

20 | Page

cultural context by copying either: successful or prestigious people is key to the transmission of cultural (or any for that matter) traits. And this cultural view is shared by Mark Pagel who places cultural evolution even above genetic evolution in his book: 'Wired for Culture' /r/. Mark Pagel shows that it was cultural evolution which decided how H. Sapiens did survive and not genetic evolution except -of course- for the development of the human brain. And Mark Pagel shows that groups are what he calls 'cultural survival vehicles', so he turns the argument around in that culture is the new evolutionary replicator instead of genes to keep life afloat. I think this is a step too far since culture does not have a physical side whereas genes do. But anyway, we can at least agree / conclude that groups can and do differ on many subtle cultural traits through which they compete -if they meet- for survival.

Of course, genetic advantages played a role as well but the claim by Cochran and Harpending that genetic advantages cannot be copied whereas behavioral / cultural advantages could and thereby did not make the difference does not hold since many behavioral advantageous differences were (and still are) embedded in a mix of behavioral differences which could not easily be copied like e.g. Religion. People do not simply believe that a 'God' of the other group or tribe will help them if they copy the worship customs of the 'stronger' group. At least they are unsure of the correct copy behavior and therefore some insignificant 'sign' would have made them wonder and probably not fight as hard and long as a totally convinced army would fight.

And it can be shown that social or group learning -which defines Humans- is essential for the development / evolution of cumulative Culture, i.e. traits that are specific to a group and passed on from one generation to the next, and that these group specific traits cannot be transmitted –let alone be copied by other groups- by genetic advantages, rare individual invention or simple imitation. The cultural context in which social learning takes place is essential /s/.

And as a more modern example of cumulative Culture we could look at the difficulties the French have in keeping their businesses competitive on the World Market. So, Mr. Sarkozy once said that he wanted to copy the success of Siemens which should be very simple - according to Cochran & Harpending - since no genes are involved but nevertheless it turns out to be quite difficult because the success of Siemens is embedded in the German economy / society and that is not easily copied. Not even by the French who live 'next door'. As can also be read in 'The Breaking of Nations' by Robert Cooper /t/ who with his five Maxims explains why it is difficult to change a group or individual. And his Maxim 1: Foreigners are different, explains that everybody has a different cultural makeup which started to form at birth and even though cultural backgrounds might look very similar the small differences are difficult to change.

So behavioral differences between groups / societies can and most probably did make the difference.

And because of these behavioral advantages Human History really took off with basic Themes like, food, individual rights and duties (family life), power distribution in the group, where to live, how to live, group identity, religion, teaching the young, treatment of the less able and elderly and some other (sub)Themes.

/5.2.a/ Human Evolution, Robin Dunbar, 2014/5.2.b/ 'Language and Natural Selection' in 'This Explains Everything' John Brockman Ed., Keith Devlin, 2013/5.2.c/ The Creation of Inequality, Kent Flannery & Joyce Marcus, 2012/5.2.d/ On the antiquity of language, Dan Dediu & Stephen Levinson, Frontiers of Psychology, 2013:4:397/5.2.e/ The Language Instinct, Steven Pinker, 1994/5.2.f/ 'Nonnutritive sucking' in Journal of Infant Behaviour and Development, Christine Moon et.al. 1993/5.2.g/ 'Phonemic diversity supports a serial founder effect model of language expansion from Africa' in Science 332, Q. Atkinson, 2011/5.2.h/ 'The derived FOXP2 variant of modern humans was shared with Neanderthals', J. Krause et al., in Current Biology # 17, 2007/5.2.i/ The Story of the Human Body, Daniel Lieberman, 2013/5.2.j/ How We Talk: The Inner Workings Of Conversation, Nick J. Enfield, 2017/5.2.k/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meme or 'The selfish Gene', Richard Dawkins, 1976/5.2.l/ The Meme Machine, Susan Blackmore, 1999/5.2.m/ Social Physics: How Social Networks Can Make Us Smarter, Alex Pentland, 2014/5.2.n/ FIELDS of BLOOD: Religion and the History of Violence, Karen Armstrong, 2014/5.2.o/ Field Guide to THE WAR IN ZULULAND and the defense of Natal, JPC Laband and PS Thompson, 1983/5.2.p/ The 10.000 Year Explosion: How Civilization Accelerated Human Evolution, Gregory Cochran & Henry Harpending, 2009/5.2.q/ Why Humans Cooperate: A Cultural and Evolutionary Explanation (Evolution and Cognition), Joseph & Natalie Henrich, 2007/5.2.r/ Wired for Culture: The Natural History of Human Cooperation, Mark Pagel, 2012

21 | Page

/5.2.s/ Not by Genes Alone: How Culture Transformed Human Evolution, Boyd & Richerson, 2005/5.2.t/ The Breaking of Nations, Robert Cooper, 2003

5.2.1 B1: Food & a Roof.

Since without food and drinks (water) no Human being can survive longer than a few days and eating or drinking the wrong food can kill an individual in minutes this was the most important Theme "to agree upon" in the early human groups.

Of course, this Theme came from predecessor species who long before the ascent of Humans found what was edible and nutritious but (Anatomically Modern) Humans 'quickly' changed the game into a multitude of possibilities with the use of fire, tools and weapons /a/.

Because of its basic value to human existence Food was and is - of course - intertwined with other (basic) Themes such as family life or more modern (see below) Themes like Religion and especially Food might even have triggered the evolution of the Human Brain when predecessors of Homo Sapiens ate certain types of proteins as follows from e.g. Molecular Insights into Human Brain Evolution /b/.

What certainly distinguished certain groups from other groups was cooking. Groups that started to cook overcame the danger of biological or bacterial poisoning and made many more foods edible and released more nutrients from them even for the weaker members of the group. So these groups had a much richer diet which must have helped them tremendously in the struggle for life. This probably happened in the Homo Erectus Era (H. Heidelbergis) some 300.000 years ago (300 kya) as is explained in Human Evolution by Robin Dunbar /a/. Seen from the evolutionary perspective H. Erectus had to develop cooking to solve its time budget problem which was created by its bigger brain and therefore larger group size which required its members to spend more time on 'grooming': a social activity to overcome the extra stress created by the larger groups. This probably with early forms of conversation like laughing which can be easily plotted on the function of grooming (AdL) if we think of the universal conversation machine with its politeness rules we now all have /c/.

The next big evolutional step was the development of farming i.e. not using the foods as they appear in the biological environment but the deliberate growing of certain crops and animals for a secured and safe food supply.

From then on food became the integral part of the "culture" of a group or society and reflected its identity by the products used and the amount of time spent on growing and preparing for and the way of eating a meal.

A Roof over one's head must also have been an integral part of this most basic theme and a distinguishing sub-Theme as well.

A group that lived wide-open on the Plaines with no protection whatsoever was easily raided whereas a family / group living in a cave was much better protected. And a group living in huts could choose where to live -and build their huts / fortifications- and they were much better protected against the weather, big predator animals and / or other humans than a group living in tents or with no roof over their heads at all as can be deducted from e.g. the Bushmen or San tribe whom lived in caves, under overhangs in e.g. the Drakensberg or huts in South Africa in pretty much a stone age (hunter-gatherers) way up to the 20th century only to forcibly switch to farming (see Next level Themes) in the 1950s under the pressure of modern governments /d;e/. Or the Pygmees who lived in dark Africa for thousands of years without much contact to Agricultural / Next Level Themes (please refer to § 5.3) civilizations: only one traceable contact with Egypt during the reign of the Pharao Phiops II Nefer-ka-Re -c. 2200 BCE /f/ - as can be read in the book 'Pygmeeen' by Paul Julien /g/. In this book it is clearly shown that Pygmees lived in simple huts made of twigs and leaves to protect against the tropical sun and rain. And it can be read in the book by Jared Diamond: 'The World Until Yesterday' /h/ where we see e.g. pictures of stone age style living Papua's with stone tools and again huts to protect them. In this book Jared Diamond also notes that hunter-gatherer style living peoples are first and foremost occupied by food because if they don't have enough food - in the end - the complete group / extended family dies of starvation. And the importance of 'A Roof' can also be seen from prehistoric fortified (farm)houses in Ireland like the Dunbeg Promontory Fort /i/ from which you can derive that protecting oneself against other people came at least second because this fort is very close to Beehive huts in the neighborhood which were used by the Stone, Bronze and Iron age man for the protection against the daily weather. But were not suited to protect against other people and for that reason the fort was build.

I do not take 'Land' as a Basic subTheme because although it is -of course- important where a group lives but private entitlement to -a piece of- land did not exist, not even by leaders or 'Big Man' /j/ because the land belonged to all living,

22 | Page

dead ancestors and future generations. And even though the tribal structure -of which an extended family was part- did entail a system of defense against other tribes and a system of rights which (extended) family held what lands within the tribe, the (extended) family did not hold the land for eternity /k/. My assumption is that this system works until private property rights for many citizens becomes the norm, then a tragedy of the commons /l/ can occur since people see that working / using something for yourself gives you a higher return for your endeavors as might have happened in 18th and 19th century England from the time the Industrial Revolution had started.

However normally when a group of people know they are dependent upon a common property / piece of land they will make some system that prevents freeriding. E.g. the Qanats /m/: underground waterways that bring water from a mountain ridge to several or even tens of kilometers away from those mountains. They were ‘invented’ somewhere in what is now Iran in maybe the third or second millennium BCE -probably to counter the effects of climate change- and spread all over the Middle and Far Eastern World where you find deserts.

/5.2.1.a/ Human Evolution, Robin Dunbar, 2014/5.2.1.b/ http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1065704//5.2.1.c/ How We Talk: The Inner Workings of Conversation, Nick J. Enfield, 2017/5.2.1.d/ Bushmen: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bushmen/5.2.1.e/ Drakensberg: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drakensberg/5.2.1.f/ Pygmeeen (in Dutch), Dr Paul Julien, ca. 1950 (based on research from 1933 & 1948)/5.2.1.g/ Nefer ka Re: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pepi_II_Neferkare/5.2.1.h/ The World Until Yesterday, Jared Diamond, 2012/5.2.1.i/ Dunbeg Fort: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunbeg_Fort/5.2.1.j/ The Origin of Political Order, Francis Fukuyama, 2011/5.2.1.k/ The Creation of Inequality, Kent Flannery & Joyce Marcus, 2012/5.2.1.l/ Rules, Games and Common Pool Resources, Elinor Ostrom et al., 1994/5.2.1.m/ Qanat: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qanat

5.2.2 B2: Offspring and parenting.

The choice of a partner to produce offspring is with animals the most important aspect in their lives because with this choice almost all physical features of the offspring and their chances to be raised to maturity are set. Therefore this choice is completely based on physical features and abilities and many "higher order" animals make this choice only after a more or less elaborate courting process.

For Humans this courting process has changed to a more indirect choice based on physical features to include 'character' as well. To get acquainted with 'the character' of the opposite sex our courting involves a lot of verbal and/or written communication. However the initial interest is still very much based on appearance - say 70% - which must then be confirmed by talking or any other form of human communication.

As with many species, in its most basic form, it is the Human male who makes the choice with whom he wants to mate whereby he tries to impress the female with his physical and intellectual abilities and it is then up to the female if she accepts this "invitation". On this theme very many variations have developed and have been tried over the course of Human history and it is clear that systems whereby the female has more say in the matter and where the bond / marriage has some sort of official status the group or society as a whole is better served as can be seen from societies where this is the case /a/. Furthermore this Theme is completely intertwined with the Family and the Belief Themes and it could be argued that those two Themes: Family and Belief are not as basic as Offspring and Parenting children.

With Humans the family wants a say in the choice of the partner in order to preserve the family status and (religious) beliefs. This because humans have a concept of death and want to preserve (some of) their ideas with future generations which serves the group / society the family belongs to as well. In fact it could be argued that ideas about kinship were first and foremost developed within a clan in order to be able to correctly decide who is an acceptable mating partner and who is not /b/. And maybe language specifically evolved to do just that: naming Kin /c/. And moreover Maternity or Paternity structures were developed to be able to do that: name your Kin and quickly know who is going to help your future generation and to what degree.

To make this (Family) influence happen and because of the (much) higher chances of survival Human children were and are taught in many ways such as basic skills like walking and swimming but also hunting, herding, making tools,

23 | Page

fighting/warring, building huts, working the land, making clothes and less basic skills like belief, family/group history and dancing & singing /d/.

This parenting and teaching over an extended period of time up to around 30% of the average lifespan of an individual is typically Human. No other species takes such a long period to teach offspring, e.g. primates take around 5 to 6 years which amounts to around 15% of their average lifespan. What is done is conditioning / wiring the already preconfigured brain into socially accepted adults /e/. During their upbringing children learn from their parents but already early in life start to look at other persons and mimic them exactly even if there is no obvious benefit to the many rituals children learn other then that children behaving in this or that particular way are easily recognized and accepted by the group they live in.

The reason that other family or group members of the extended family (alloparents) become involved in the process of parenting / teaching: i.e. "the cooperative raising hypothesis" by Hrdy and Hawkes /f/ is clearly that the parents can feed and teach their children only so much whereas the larger group has much more to offer. However this (group) effort is a choice and there still are some societies which have not adopted this system e.g. even in contemporary history the Dogon people in Mali still do not use this system as was investigated by Beverly Strassman /g/. Strassman shows that young Dogon children have to compete with each other and elderly family members for food and that the mother is the only one who takes care of her children which results in a much higher child mortality in the first 5 years of their life (up to 45%).

So this example shows Human evolution in a very harsh way. The Dogon have not adopted the cooperative raising of children concept thereby losing the competition with all other groups or societies and their survival up to the contemporary era can probably only be explained because their region does not contain interesting natural resources.

Already early in history the rich and powerful called in special teachers to learn their children specific traits and knowledge. But although only the privileged in history got an education almost every child got to be taught one or more specific skills as was needed in the group or society such as the specifics of a life as a fisherman, farmer, carpenter, warrior etc. and a few people who got to be noticed for their specific skills learned to became a medicine man, holly figure or other special function.

And in most groups / societies some - not necessarily privileged - children had the opportunity to get learned however, most of the time this was interwoven with 'religious' tasks which gave them the freedom to explore other areas of knowledge as well.

/5.2.2.a/ Marriage: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage/5.2.2.b/ Evolution and Human Kinship, Austin L. Hughes, 1988/5.2.2.c/ Human Evolution, Robin Dunbar, 2014/5.2.2.d/ Parenting: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parenting/5.2.2.e/ The Domesticated Brain, Bruce Hood, 2014/5.2.2.f/ Mothers and Others: The Evolutionary Origins of Mutual Understanding, Sarah Blaffer Hrdy, 2009/5.2.2.g/ 'The Dogons' in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Beverly Strassman, 2011

5.2.3 B3: Family life.

Although many mammals live in a family (small subgroup) the Human form of family life differs in many aspects:1. The rearing of children takes much longer, in pre-historic times probably around 10 years and in more modern times this has even increased to around 18 years or more whereas the rearing of whales, elephants or chimpanzees takes a maximum of around 5 years.2. Taking care of the elderly who in turn help with advice in matters less to do with fitness but more to do with experience in social matters like teaching the young /a/. As opposed to other "higher order" species where the unfit and/or elderly are left to die when their contribution becomes cumbersome or negligible. But maybe this 'left to die' of the elderly was also a common practice with the Homo Sapiens hunter gatherer communities which roamed the Earth up to 10 kya as was found in Eskimo graveyards where the number of people older 40 was less than 4% /b/. And so taking care of the elderly only became the norm when the Agricultural revolution happened some 10 kya. 3. Early Human family life revolves around some 'property': camp site in a cave or with huts around it on a piece of land 'owned' by a couple of (extended) families or exclusively used by the (extended) families /c/. And even though this is seen with certain mammals as well: e.g. beavers with their castle, they do not form 'villages' or clusters of 'houses' and if animals do: e.g. breeding colonies of penguins there is no social structure. So animals do not have social 'super' structures in which the family structure is embedded.

24 | Page

4. Within the human family there is some kind of work division between males and females with males usually doing the work that requires more physical strength and the females doing the work that is necessary for rearing the children, preparing the meals and keeping the 'property'.5. And within the (Anatomically Modern) Human family there is some kind of meal ritual: sitting around some kind of fireplace at specific moments during the day - or evening to solve social time budget problems - to eat a meal with your family members. This reinforces the family bond over and over again and corresponds with the larger brain size which is used for social interactions /b/.

So the family: mother (w. father) & children is the first and foremost subgroup a person lives his or her life in. However since Homo Sapiens and most of its predecessors with their 2D:4D finger ratio sit ambiguously between monogamous or polygamous relationships /c/ it is not quite clear whether the family structure was typically one of the two in all Homo groups. But it is quite clear that the family structure was typically embedded in a social superstructure with several layers: first the extended family - with relatives like others females / mothers (& fathers) and e.g. grandmother(s), nephews & nieces - of around 15 people (so three families) and then as a second layer the Band or camp site community consisting of around 50 people (so three extended families) and then as a third layer the community or clan of around 150 people (so three Bands). This goes even on beyond the community with the mega-band of around 500 people up to the tribe of a size of around 1500 people, i.e. the maximum number of people we (and probably Anatomically Modern Humans: 'AMH' as well) are able to put names to /c/. With the first three layers we (and therefore the AMH) spend the most of our time around 60% but within those three layers we (and probably AMH as well) spend the most time with our family. The family structure one grows up in is only to be replaced by another family structure when a person decides to start a family or to live on his / her own. Then depending upon the prevailing system / culture the newly formed family adheres to the male or female family ideas about family life whereby usually the social superstructure stayed / stays more or less the same.

Here we can see Human Behavioral evolution at work in that the 'constant' social superstructures became ever larger over the course of (pre-)history: i.e. first a newly formed family stayed in the same village / same clan, then more new / extra families left the village but stayed in the same city / same region, then the same country / same culture etc. So over the course of AMH evolution ever more layers have been put on top of the basic layers: family, extended family and clan of social organization.

And what we also see is that over the course of (pre-)history a Theme does change: i.e. the family structure is nowadays almost universily monogamous and we see that a Theme can give birth to other (sub)Themes such as e.g. Cities&Countries (see Next Level Themes in § 5.3). Whereby in especially China the lineages -mega-band or tribe- did evolve further but when they were to be 'ousted' during the rise of the Qin-dinasty in the third century BCE by the so called Legalists and their 'avant la lettre' impersonally administrated State, they managed to 'kling' to power through Confucianism and effectively stopped and turned this development around only to pop up again in 19th century Europe /d/. So (sub)Themes can be very resilient.

And in modern times this Basic Theme has evolved even further whereby a new family more often starts a completely new life in a region or city far away from the male and / or female family and its social superstructure. But for many people the basic social superstructures still prevails and so they choose to live (culturally) nearby from where they grew up. So this Theme is still 'alive' but apparantly less 'kicking'.

/5.2.3.a/ Mothers and Others, Sarah Blaffer Hrdy, 2009/5.2.3.b/ The Nature of Paleolithic Art, R. Dale Guthrie, 2005/5.2.3.c/ Human Evolution, Robin Dunbar, 2014/5.2.3.d/ The Origins of Political Order, Francis Fukuyama, 2011

5.2.4 B4: Power distribution and individual Rights and Duties.

This theme: 'Power distribution and individuals rights and duties' - next to family life - must have been and still is the most important issue in the evolution of mankind because it is key to the future of a group.

In their most basic form power structures constitute a kind of triangle (see fig. 1) with at its three corners structure no. 1: 'No formal power structure' i.e. every individual or (extended) family for itself which usually amounts to loosely defined groups called band-level groups /a/. At the next corner of the Power Triangle we find structure no. 2: 'a Ruler with some kind of Nobility to help in ruling and at the last top corner we find the most complicated power structure no. 3: 'Some kind of power sharing' between a greater section of the group (i.e. some form of democracy).

25 | Page

Figuur 1 - Power Triangle

Power structure no. 1 (no formal power) will - eventually - be conquered or eradicated by groups or subgroups with structure no. 2 (Ruler / Nobility) and this thereby became the dominant power structure until cities came along (with power structure no. 3) with citizens with more or less self-rule but still functioning as group which could defend itself or even attack with a well-structured, well trained and well equipped army if deemed necessary. Please note that a group in this context means some form of bond beyond the extended family /b/.

However, in their book: 'The Creation of Inequality' Flannery and Marcus claim that humans in pre-Neolithic or Ice-Age times lived in 'clans' (small groups but specifically larger than the extended family) that had no real inequality i.e. power structure no. 1 and that this power structure survived until the 20th century in e.g. Eskimo's in Canada and Greenland, the San in Southern Africa or Aborigines in Australia /b/. And although it is immediately clear that this ‘No-formal power’ structure can only function in low density populations /a;c/ this is certainly true for the pre-Neolithic era as is also found by Luca Cavalli-Sforza /d/ in e.g. Pygmies in Africa.

Flannery and Marcus also explain that this No-formal or equality power system evolved from our ape ancestors power structure with (one) alpha(s), several betas and the rest gammas or followers in a group. Whereby with Homo this system evolved into one or more supernatural alphas (God or Gods), several dead ancestors: the betas and the living family and/or group members as the gammas or followers which do not fight for dominance since there are only untouchable ancestors or an even more untouchable and awe inspiring God or Gods.

So until the population became significantly more dense – at the beginning of the Neolithic period (~10.000 years ago) – this equality power system among widely spread band-level groups /a/ prevailed. However when more abundant food supplies became available hunter-gatherer groups usually created (some) inequality as e.g. the Natufiers in the Middle East who had obvious social differences already some 14000 years ago. I.e. well before the start of agriculture with some families living in much larger pithouses and being buried with 'expensive' tools and jewelry /e/. And it is widely believed that these groups laid the basis for the Neolithic / Agricultural revolution.

Therefore the rights and duties in an extended family or clan in hunter-gatherer societies were more or less evenly spread among its members. Men and women had different tasks and youngsters had other duties than grown-ups but no living man or woman was subservient to any other and e.g. a homicide was not automatically retaliated with a kill of the perpetrator by the 'wounded' family or clan but by doing penance or by killing the perpetrator by its own family or clan /f/.

That 'No formal Power' structure or social / sex equality was -most probably- the rule in pre-neolithic hunter-gatherer groups was found through modern research into (family) relatedness in still existing hunter-gatherer campsite groups. This relatedness is found to be surprisingly low and membership of these groups to be very fluid which can (only) be

26 | Page

explained when one accepts sex equality in the decision in which campsite / group a couple and their young offspring want to live: at some moments in time they choose to live with the family of the wife (e.g. because of a pregnancy) and at others they choose to live with a group related to the husband (e.g. to go on a seasonal hunt) /g/. And the fact that the couple is allowed to make this decision shows equality between the members and couples of a group or clan.

/5.2.4.a/ The Origins of Political Order, Francis Fukuyama, 2011/5.2.4.b/ The Creation of Inequality, Kent Flannery & Joyce Marcus, 2012/5.2.4.c/ Guns, Germs, and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies, Jared Diamond, 1997/5.2.4.d/ The Great Human Diaspora, Luca & Francesco Cavalli-Sforza, 1995/5.2.4.e/ Pathways to Power - New perspectives on the emergence of social inequality, D. Price & O. Bar-Yosef, 2010/5.2.4.f/ The World Until Yesterday, Jared Diamond, 2012/5.2.4.g/ Sex equality can explain the unique social structure of hunter-gatherer bands, Mark Dyble et al., 2015

5.2.5 B5: Cosmology or Belief

Cosmologies are - as far as we know - a solely Human phenomenon. Every Human group or society has some kind of cosmology whereby 1) phenomena beyond comprehension are thought to be the work of one or more super ‘beings’ with powers beyond Human capabilities and 2) the cosmology gives guidance for morality of how to interact with each other. Please note that the debate is still open whether belief in Witchcraft was / is the other side of Cosmology, i.e. incomprehensible / superpowers but controlled by 'wicked' humans and whether it existed in pre-historic times or was 'invented' by groups / societies when they came into contact with Western technology / capabilities / colonialization just to have 'comparable' weapons /a/.

Belief in a Cosmology could have come from our ape ancestors which like modern primates must have lived in groups with one alpha male, several beta's and the rest gamma's (or followers). With Humans this became one or more supernatural ‘beings’ (the alpha(s)), several or many deceased forefathers still overlooking and helping (the beta's) and the living! members of the group who were equal among themselves (the gamma's) /b/.

And although members of the group 'working' in Belief were not directly productive, all groups - however small - seem to have had such a function and if barely possible this function was full time.

At this moment in time: early Human group development, I speak of Belief. Later on I will speak of Religion.

Cosmology or Belief took, over the course of Human history, many forms but the Basic Theme was to give meaning to inexplicable and / or mysterious phenomena. From a mental point of view it can probably be explained as an extension of our amygdale/hypothalamus system (system-1 /c/) which tries to protect us with memorizing and recognizing associations: if I see this or smell that, that particular phenomenon seems to occur because I learned this 'causal' connection. However for the more inexplicable phenomena the cause was / is laid in the hands of one or more "Gods" as to make the world seem logic again. But more simple explanations have been suggested. E.g. Francis Fukuyama suggests that it is simply the fear for the power of dead ancestors over the living in the lineages of band-level societies /d/.

Early in Human history it must have been clear that the average person in a group was, after being taught ('brain washed') in the customs of the group's Belief, eager to follow this Belief and prepared to defend the group against the influence of other "Gods" (/Beliefs) or more worldly powers to gain (eternal) fame and other privileges. And people who could convince others of the 'correctness' of the group's Belief and make them behave in certain ways became the first religious dignitaries, i.e. shamans /e/.

Be it that the word shamans or 'samas' stems from the Siberian or at best Northern Hemisphere hunter-gatherer and agrarian / pastoral like living peoples and does not include the religious dinitaries of the peoples in the Middle East, Africa, Asia, Australia or Central & South America living at the time /f/. However shamanic practices must have existed all over the World as we can see e.g. from the Rock Art in Southern Africa where many pictures must have been drawn by persons in a trance state /g/ as Peter Slingsby interprets. And this trance state was surely true for the Siberian shamans as has been described by many researchers from the 18th century CE onwards /f/. And e.g. with Indian tribes in North America /h/.

In the beginning people / groups originated from the same ancestry so the early Beliefs were not that different between groups. However as time passed and Humans spread out Beliefs became more diverse although basic characteristics must have stayed the same such as the burial of the dead. These customs / rituals - on the one hand - help the living come to

27 | Page

terms with the death of a relative or group member but - on the other hand - these customs / rituals were used to reinforce the group identity and structure.

The strong identification of people with Belief as an important characteristic of a group made it a perfect vehicle to enlarge groups by this theme. So many Beliefs have been and still are being used to first identify / define a group and then - forcibly - enlarge this group by it especially when Beliefs developed into Religions with the start of Judaism, Christianity and the Islam /i/ (see also Contemporary Themes § 6.2.2 Religion).

Even a peaceful religion like Christianity which started as a religion 'to turn the other cheek when hit in the face' became very violent towards other groups after some 1000 years (or 40 generations) when threatened in its core places /j/. And Christianity stayed violent even among itself and certainly towards other religions until its supremacy (in the West) was very obvious. However this can change when its position again becomes threatened by e.g. today’s secularism, the Islam or the very large populations / religions in China and India which dwarf the West and Christianity as its main religion.

Even the current spade of violence caused by some followers of Islam can be seen in that perspective. Being a harsher / more strict religion as compared to e.g. Christianity /k/ Islam is currently under thread of other much less rigid lifestyles which force its clergy to react vehemently against the decline of their influence and the worldly rulers of Islamic societies.

Belief was and Religion is never the only Theme onto which a group is formed but almost always it is part of its basic social structure probably because it differentiates, especially through rituals, clothes, food etc.

/5.2.5.a/ Witchcraft, Intimacy & Trust, Peter Geschiere, 2013/5.2.5.b/ The Creation of Inequality, Kent Flannery & Joyce Marcus, 2012/5.2.5.c/ Thinking, Fast and Slow, Daniel Kahneman, 2011/5.2.5.d/ The Origin of Political Order, Francis Fukuyama 2011/5.2.5.e/ Human Evolution, Robin Dunbar, 2014/5.2.5.f/ The Archaeology of Shamanism, Neil Price Ed., 2001/5.2.5.g_1/ Sevilla Rock Art Trail, Peter Slingsby, 2013 (6th edition)/5.2.5.g_2/ Cederberg Rock Art, Peter Slingsby, 2012 (5th edition)/5.2.5.h/ Petroglyphs of Western Colorado and the Northern Ute Indian Reservation as Interpreted by Clifford Duncan, Carol Patterson, Am. Phil. Soc. Press 2016/5.2.5.i/ Jerusalem. A Biography, Simon Sebag Montefiore, 2011/5.2.5.j/ Der Deutsche Orden (The Teutonic Order), Juergen Sarnowsky, 2007/5.2.5.k/ In the Shadow of the Sword, Tom Holland, 2012

5.2.6 B6: Value of (an individual) Life.

The first Human groups - one or more families without a real leader or 'Big Man' - valued an individual life if one was a member of that group or family. That is: no one was badly hurt or murdered out of a whim and if someone had committed a homicide in his or her group or even in a neighboring group his or her own 'family' was expected to take action: usually kill the person /a/. And even if members of other groups or families settled in a group their life usually was not under threat since their presence would improve the new groups chances of survival and certainly would increase the gene pool.

As Human groups became larger i.e. formed clans – specifically larger than one ‘family’ /a/ - the protection or safety of one's life became valued over the family borders as well even if one did not go to live with the other family or group but just happened to come into contact with them e.g. to trade or exchange news about herds of pray.

What did develop was what is called multi-generational lineages and/or clans (ancestor-based descent groups) /a/. These social structures created a bond beyond the extended family and thereby facilitated the use of family and extended family behaviors to larger groups. I.e. rules like “thou shall not kill thou family” was extended to hold for a much larger group.

However the right to kill - and thereby the value of an individual life - developed very gradually even in clans or larger than clan societies as can be seen in already very advanced societies like the Chinese in 500 BCE where a person could be killed for a simple reason as is described in SUN TZU on The Art of War /b/. In that story one of the many concubines of the King is killed simply to teach spectators discipline. So at the time the right to life (concubine) and the right to take life (emperor) was very unevenly distributed in the Chinese society.

28 | Page

And - apparently - this has not change much over the centuries / millennia since a Chinese life was still easily lost under Mao /c/ although now no direct orders were given as under SUN TZU.

From these short stories we can deduce that the "right" to kill must have been restricted early in Human existence to members of other groups and then probably only in times of war. This because indiscriminate killing is an immediate threat to the continued existence of the group(s) and mankind itself.

With animals this is quite different since larger than 'one family' animal groups do not have much of a social superstructure. E.g. when a big antelope herd crosses a river it is every animal for itself and if one animal can survive drowning by tramping upon another animal this is mindlessly done. And although this phenomenon occurred with Humans as well this behavior is not treated as normal and if possible perpetrators were / are punished afterwards.

But the balance is delicate because under what circumstances is saving your own skin in fact murder or when is a war between groups in fact just the result of a personal fight between their leaders or other esteemed group members. A fight between "kings" or rulers is - almost automatically - a war between their groups. And creating an idea which attracts followers to create a (sub)group could quickly turn into a fight over almost anything and - more or less - 'legitimizes' the killing of members of the other group. E.g. under the banner of Belief and Religion people have - almost up to modern times - been sacrificed to appease the "God(s)". This is only explained by the fact that these examples united the group in which these acts occurred and helped the group in its struggle for survival as a large(r) group.

And even within the (extended) family the 'Value of Life' for the sick and / or elderly varied enormously between (hunter-gatherer) groups in that under scares food conditions the sick and / or elderly were 'abandoned' in five different ways: 1) simple neglect, 2) intentionally abandoned when shifting camps, 3) 'encouraged' to commit suicide, 4) assisted suicide or killing with victim's cooperation and 5) kill the victim violently without consent /d/. This last method was / is widespread and clearly shows that a 'Value of Life' Theme is only really possible if a group or society has overcome food shortages, i.e. has entered the Next Level Themes Era (see below).

The development of the 'Value of Life' from the early days with implicit rules, through explicit rules to a formal system of laws took many forms and the full length of Human evolution and is even today still going on within democracies such as the USA or more centralized societies as the PRC (Peoples Republic of China). And quite often a group or society has a relapse especially in times of (civil) war, e.g. Cambodia in the 1970s with its 'killing fields' /e/ but sadly there are many more examples.

Another aspect or subTheme in this Theme is slavery. In all historic accounts we find references to slaves, i.e. Human beings whose life did not have the same value as that of the citizen of the society who held them against their will.

This practice probably began in pre-historic times when neighboring groups took prisoners of the other group and held these as hostages and / or workers for all kinds of (unpleasant / dangerous) jobs. And even though this subTheme was officially ended in the 18th and 19th century in the West and the slave trade had been forbidden in China as early as the 9th century CE, economic slavery still exists today in e.g. India, the USA or even the Netherlands.

However one can state that a society which has abolished slavery and encoded heavy punishments in its legal system if one practices slavery is probably better off than a society who does not do much against it. But the evolutionary advantages of abolishing slavery cannot be great since economic slavery is still abundant and the absolute number of people living as slaves has never been larger /f/.

The fact that (sub)Themes keep evolving even though other (sub)Themes are created and become more important becomes clear from the fact that the percentage of violent deaths in society is decreasing over the course of history and more significantly in the past century as Steven Pinker shows in his book: The Better Angels of Our Nature /g/.

So the Basic Theme: 'Value of Life' is still evolving and - of course - will keep evolving.

/5.2.6.a/ The Creation of Inequality, Kent Flannery & Joyce Marcus, 2012/5.2.6.b/ SUN TZU on The Art of War, c. 500 BCE, by Lionel Giles M.A., 1910/5.2.6.c/ MAO: The Unknown Story, Jung Chang & Jon Halliday, 2006/5.2.6.d/ The World until Yesterday, Jared Diamond, 2012/5.2.6.e/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khmer_Rouge_rule_of_Cambodia

29 | Page

/5.2.6.f/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery/5.2.6.g/ The Better Angels of Our Nature, Steven Pinker, 2011

5.2.7 B7: Tools, Weapons and Clothes.

The often said most distinguishable Human trait: the use of tools, weapons and clothes is not limited to the Human species but Humans most certainly use tools & weapons in the most versatile ways. Whereas clothes are a unique Human phenomenon since even early Human societies in equatorial areas used some form of 'clothes' to distinguish between groups and sexes.

Already with the Australopithecines sharp stones were used as tools and weapons for cutting and digging /a/ but as ideas about hunting - with H. Ergaster - and cooking - with H. Erectus - developed tools as such were being used on a regular basis /b/. And with farming and war more advanced tools and weapons were developed and when metals were discovered the scene changed even more as a multitude of reproducible tools and weapons became available, e.g. pottery for cooking was already in use around 20.000 years ago in Jiangxi China /c/, flax to make linen for clothes was already in use some 30.000 years ago /d/ or thousands of bored beads in a two children grave in Sungir Russia of some 22.000 years ago. This must have taken thousands of hours of skilled workers and the use of fine tools to prepare and bore the beads /b/.

And although a division of work had evolved throughout the stone age(s) /e/ the emergence of copper, bronze and iron between 6500 BCE and 2500 BCE /f/ forced a further division of labor - e.g. bone thimbles were replaced by bronze thimbles which had to be made by specialized people /g/ - and an increase in trade within and between groups since societies without the knowledge how to make copper, bronze or iron and without the knowledge to make tools & weapons had a much lower chance of survival.

So even though this Theme had a very big change in the next step in Human Behavior: Next Level Themes (see 5.3) it still belongs to the first era Basic Themes because it started here.

The change from stone tools to bronze and later copper tools created another force to form larger groups - main issue in Next Level Themes - since in smaller groups the division of work could not be as specific as in larger groups. These latter groups thereby became stronger in number and in capabilities which multiplied the advantage over an opponent group. This spawned all kinds of ideas / (sub)themes within and between groups to distinguish themselves, e.g. in social structure or work division like farming, herding, mining or warring or groups which started to live together in bigger and bigger 'villages' each with specific knowledge and cultural traits recognizable in their way of life with tools, weapons and e.g. clothes.

Especially the bigger villages or 'cities' had the advantage of having many different 'specialist' living together on a relative small area which induced a faster development of new ideas or 'flow of ideas'. In Alex Pentland words: the rate of idea flow is intrincically a function of the ease of access and interaction between residents living in the same city (or close area; AdL) /h/, tools, weapons and solutions to 'old' problems and e.g. pushed for larger public buildings and structures for the better of all, such as temples and city walls.

Since the emergence of cities had in fact started before metals were discovered it seems a good guess to assume that metals were discovered in the early cities that emerged after the start of the Neolithic development /i/. For this hypothesis archeological proof has been found in early 'city'-settlements like Majdanpek around 2000 BCE /j/.

The development of cities was certainly not a rectilinear process as can be seen from cities like Babylon, Rome or in Mesoamerica /k/. and in Europe there is even a clear path of devolution after the fall of Rome in 476 CE to be picked up again only around 1000 CE with the emergence of towns which quite soon developed into the first medieval cities where the citizens started to free themselves from the ruling class and started on a path of developing social structures for larger societies /l/ and started to develop independent ideas like e.g. Pierre Abelard /m/. And with the advent of the Renaissance and later the Industrial Revolution slowly developed into modern cities / societies with sewer and more advanced energy systems than wind, water or wood.

The enlargement of groups in cities and elsewhere also stimulated the development of a more complex social structure with different rights and (individual) power, see e.g. Religions of Mesoamerica by David Carrasco /k/.

/5.2.7.a/ http://www.crystalinks.com/earlytools.html/5.2.7.b/ Human Evolution, Robin Dunbar, 2014

30 | Page

/5.2.7.c/ Pottery in Jiangxi: http://www.archaeology.org/issues/63-features/top-10/271-top-10-2012-neolithic-china-pottery/5.2.7.d/ http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flax/5.2.7.e/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stone_Age/5.2.7.f/ Timelines of Science, Patricia Fara et al., 2013/5.2.7.g/ http://www.fingerhutmuseum.de//5.2.7.h/ Social Physics: How Social Networks Can Make Us Smarter, Alex Pentland, 2014/5.2.7.i/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City/5.2.7.j/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Majdanpek/5.2.7.k/ Religions of Mesoamerica, David Carrasco, 1990/5.2.7.l/ De ontdekking van de Middeleeuwen - Geschiedenis van een illusie, (The discovery of the Middle Ages - History of an Illusion), Peter Raedts, 2011/5.2.7.m/ Les Intellectuel au Moyen Ages, Jacques Le Goff, 1957

5.2.8 B8: Music, Art, Symbols & Basic Counting

In the early Human groups music must have played a role since e.g. flutes have been found in German caves which are around 40.000 years old /a/.A possible explanation is that music is a social activity which replaces the 'grooming' found in primates. This grooming releases endorphines which helps to cope with the extra stress caused by the larger groups we live in. And community singing or making music apparently does the same: i.e. releases endorphin whereby singing is not a one to one activity: like grooming but a many to many activity so it is much more time efficient to sing with a group than to groom one another. Therefore music / singing solves the larger part of the social time budget problem created by the much larger brains - which relate one to one with larger groups and larger stress - of Homo as compared to primates. However since singing requires language which probably only started with the advent of H. Sapiens between 200 and 100 kya /b/, so music / singing cannot be much older.

Art - the creation of something without direct use - however, is probably younger than music. Early art forms like pictures of animals or Humans /c_1,2/ or mystical statues like the lion figurine of Stadel /d/ stem from the late paleolitic - oldest c. 30.kya so made by H. Sapiens - and were mostly simply 'for fun', to impress the other sex /e/ or indirect use as a symbol for Belief and / or Power. Only superfluous 'tools' like 'beautiful' hand axes could be older since H. Erectus or even H. Ergaster already used tools /b/ which were not always used as such.

In some paintings already the use of abstract symbols like squares or circles can be found and it is apparent that one, two or more abstract symbols, pictures of humans or animals means one, two and then more than two or many. So basic counting was already present in early Human groups to express good hunting spots, the number of enemies or the days since the last period for females as was discovered by a bone with 29 distinct notches of some 35 kya /f/. And the fact that basic counting is natural has been shown by Karen Wynn with ingenious experiments in very young infants /g/ and can be nutured extensively even in non-humans by Marc Hauser /h/. So we have the born ability to count and can improve that ability manyfold by learning.

And - for certain - symbols were used to express religious ideas or power. Only when agriculture and later early cities developed the symbols became hieroglyphs - around 3400 BCE in the Middle East /i/ but e.g. not until around 1000 BCE in Mesoamerica with the Olmec /j/ - and later still into demotic writings. By then managing agriculture, herds, trade and religious and basic civil functions like wedding dowries required more advanced counting than 'one, two, many' which then started the development of more advanced counting / arithmetic in pre-historic societies and later mathematics in historic societies like e.g. Babylon and Egypt /k/ but that is part of the Next Level and Contemporary Themes.

/5.2.8.a/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flute#section_1/5.2.8.b/ Human Evolution, Robin Dunbar, 2014/5.2.8.c_1/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lascaux/5.2.8.c_2/ http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cueva_de_Altxerri/5.2.8.d/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lion_man_of_the_Hohlenstein_Stadel/5.2.8.e/ The Nature of Paleolithic Art, R. Dale Guthrie, 2005/5.2.8.f/ The Man of Numbers, Keith Devlin, 2011/5.2.8.g/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karen_Wynn, Nature, 1992/5.2.8.h/ What Do Animals Think About Numbers, Marc Hauser, American Scientist, Vol. 88, No. 2, 2000/5.2.8.i/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hierogliphs/5.2.8.j/ Religions of Mesoamerica, David Carrasco, 1990

31 | Page

/5.2.8.k/ The Bedside Book of Algebra, Michael Willers, 2009

32 | Page

5.3 Next Level Themes

While the Basic Themes were still (partly) inherited from the animal kingdom the Next Level Themes were exclusively developed by Human groups to have an advantage over other groups. These Next Level Themes were not thought out first and then implemented but developed in small steps and passed on from one generation to the next because their use put these groups in a noticeable advantage over other groups.

The start of this Next Level Themes Era might have been triggered when Homo - Sapiens this time - had come out of Africa for the second time and migrated into Europe and Asia and interbred with Homo Neanderthals in Europe and Denisovans in Asia which probably triggered a favorable change in 'our' brains which made 'us' the modern Homo Sapiens much more creative /a/.

The Next level Themes are: 1) Agriculture & Land, 2) Belief & Medicine, 3) Division of Labor, 4) Cities & Countries, 5) Law, Economics (money) and Taxes and 6) Philosophy, Science and Sports.

/5.3.a/ The 10.000 Year Explosion: How Civilization Accelerated Human Evolution, Gregory Cochran & Henry Harpending, 2009

5.3.1 N1: Agriculture & Land

The move to Agriculture - the Neolithic period started some 10500 years ago (around 8500 BCE in South-west Asia and the Middle East /a,b/ and 6500 BCE in Mesoamerica /c/) - enabled much larger groups to live of a certain area or region even though the living standard of the individual did not necessarily improve /d/. That this is still advantageous to the evolution of a species can be understood from the fact that a larger gene pool creates exponential gene variations which creates much more chances for survival of the fittest. However other views have been proposed one being that first some groups started to live in settlements / villages with some form of common protection against raiding other groups. The larger the settled group the better the deterrent but this created the problem that the surrounding area could not support this settled group with just foraging and hunting unless its yield could be dramatically increased. And so Agriculture evolved / was developed /e/.

However the development of this idea was a necessary step towards the development of cities and because it enabled much larger groups to live in a certain area it enabled / required the further development of the division of labor next to farming.

The agricultural development did not come easily and required special races of fruits and e.g. grasses (wheat, rice and others) many of which were domesticated at the beginning of the Neolithic period in the Middle East /f/ or nuts and roots (cassava / manioc and potatoes) in the America's at the beginning of their Neolithic period /g/ and required special races of animals like chickens, goats, pigs or cows and oxen.

Agriculture needed a totally different lifestyle than the hunter-gatherer lifestyle used until then such as living in a settlement with permanent housing and sheds for storage of produce and it needed quite different skills for farming the land & herding instead of hunting & travelling. So some say that plants like wheat were evolutionary extremely successful in domesticating humans and that the Neolithic period was not at all for the benefit of the individual H. Sapiens /h/. But I would like to oppose that if the individual would have had a free choice he / she probably would have chosen this life anyway since it gave more time - as compared to the hunter gatherer way of life - to interact socially, even though the farmer had to work harder /i/ but there were simply more people in the group.

Whatever came earlier: herding or farming is difficult to say. Domestication and herding follow quite simply from hunting but what food do you give domesticated animals like goats, sheep, pigs or cows when you want them in easily protected surroundings. That is when you need to feed them and for that you need grass or in fact special races of grass which Humans can digest as well /j/ since then you can put your efforts in skills for a settled way of life.

So most probably the development came in small steps: first a bit of crossbreeding to get a better domesticated animal, then the larger livestock needed (some) herding on local grazing meadows - this seems to be the case for a very early 'domesticated' cow of which a 10,500 year old jaw was found in North China with specific domestication wear on its teeth /k/ - , then followed some development in farming e.g. in one particular fertile area with abundant grass and one or more kinds of human digestible plants triggered the development of settlements which put pressure on people trying to find and cultivate certain plants for Human and/or Animal consumption which then triggered more crossbreeding of

33 | Page

animals and/or plants whichever suited the particular situation best. I think this is the more logical sequence even though the archeological records show an opposite development for East Asia /l/: domestication of plants around 8500 BCE and domestication of animals around 8000 BCE. This latter sequence is also supported by e.g. the growing and use of Flax for ropes and linen which was already in use around 30.000 years ago /m/ and was 'domesticated' at the start of the Neolithic period around 8500 BCE /n/.

This whole process must have been going on for thousands of years in different parts of the globe - as can be deduced from the first Neolithic developments some 11.000 years ago in Asia and e.g. the first signs of milk cows around 7.000 years ago in a then very fertile Sahara /o/ - with the outcome that with the start of cities / larger settlements in that part of the globe people were able to farm greater areas of land and to herd greater herds than was needed for just their own group or (extended) family. This enabled the development of larger settlements such as e.g. in ancient Egypt on the fertile banks of the river Nile with its Kemet ('black soil') /p/ or in the Amazon region where a special soil: Terra Petra was developed to withstand the torrential tropical rains without being bleached to allow for food production for larger settlements which would otherwise have been very difficult if not impossible to feed /q/.

That this comparison between ancient Egypt and (Middle) American pre Columbian Societies not only holds for fertile lands and the development of Agriculture but also for conquering behavior in warfare and 'writing' is neatly shown by a comparison between the Iconography of the Narmer Palette (Egypt c. 3000 BCE) and e.g. the Lintel 8 at Yaxchilan (Mayan c. 750 CE) /n/. This is remarkable and shows in my opinion that the evolution of Human Group Behavior has to follow certain paths.But these paths are not irreversible as can be deduced from the development of the Mikea of Madagascar who became hunter-gatherers again in the 17th or even 19th century CE /r/. Or the ‘devolution’ of e.g. the Jews who rejected City- / State-life to become pastoral villagers again after they had been forced to live as ‘citizens’ of Egypt /s/.

From the above description it is clear that agriculture requires control over the land which is needed to feed the group or tribe and although the area could be much smaller as compared to the hunter-gatherer lifestyle the control must be much stronger in order to reap the benefits from earlier efforts -i.e. sowing and developing the herds-. So, land had to be identified as to belong to a certain group or tribe and defended against raids by (members of) other groups who did not help in growing the produce or raising of the animal stocks.

This demanded a central control, i.e. Cities & Countries (see N5), a Division of Labor like farmers, tradesmen and warriors (see N4) and -of course- a system of deciding who is entitled to what, i.e. Power distribution and individual rights and duties (see N3) which made Law, Economics and Taxation (see N6). So, the step to agriculture caused a totally different behavior and therefore the afore mentioned (sub)Themes -and others- had to be developed.

/5.3.1.a/ Domestication of Plants in the Old World, Daniel Zohary et al., 2012/5.3.1.b/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neolithic/5.3.1.c/ Religions of Mesoamerica, David Carrasco, 1990/5.3.1.d/ The 10.000 Year Explosion: How Civilization Accelerated Human Evolution, Gregory Cochran & Henry Harpending, 2009/5.3.1.e/ Human Evolution, Robin Dunbar, 2014/5.3.1.f/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cereal/5.3.1.g/ 1493: Uncovering the New World Columbus Created, Charles C. Mann, 2011/5.3.1.h/ Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind (In Dutch), Yuval Noah Harari, 2014/5.3.1.i/ The Story of the Human Body: Evolution. Health and Disease, Daniel Lieberman, 2013/5.3.1.j/ The Evolution of Hominin Diets, Staffan Lindeberg et al., 2009/5.3.1.k/ 10,500 year old domesticated cow jaw in China, Nature communications online, Nov. 8th 2013/5.3.1.l/ Guns, Germs, and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies, Jared Diamond, 1997/5.3.1.m/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flax/5.3.1.n/ Katoenkabaal ('Cotton noise'), Rene De Herdt, 2007 MIAT/5.3.1.o/ Wadi Teshuinat: Palaeoclimate and Prehistory in South-western Fezzan (Libyan Sahara), M. Cremaschi & S. Di Lernia, 1998/5.3.1.p/ Ancient Egypt: A very Short Introduction, Ian Shaw, 2004/5.3.1.q/ 1491: New Revelations of the Americas Before Columbus, Charles C. Mann, 2nd Ed. 2011/5.3.1.r/ Genome-wid evidence of Austronesian-Bantu admixture and cultural reversion in a hunter-gatherer group of Madagascar, Denis Pierron et al., PNAS Jan. 6 2014/5.3.1.s/ FIELDS of BLOOD: Religion and the History of Violence, Karen Armstrong, 2014

34 | Page

5.3.2 N2: Belief & Medicine

When a group changes its lifestyle from hunter-gatherer to farming it must learn to deal with the disabled and/or elderly because in a settled society - on the one hand - such a person can still be productive in and around the house or on the land and - on the other hand - to get rid of such an individual would require the sending away instead of leaving behind. Furthermore the combined knowledge of the group could be used to learn much more about certain aspects of life such as plants with nutritious value or healing properties because the level of existence rose above the continuous daily struggle to find food. This made a further division of labor possible whereby the disabled or elderly could be of value.

One of the functions the physically less fit could perform was dealing with Belief (Basic Theme). In addition to their basic function these individuals had an interest and had the time to learn and teach a thing or two about 'medicine'. So next to developing a Belief around local places he or she had an interest in the effects of certain plants with a particular smell or color when eaten to cure or rubbed onto to heal and - of course - this person had knowledge of plants which could bring about hallucinations or a trance state /a/ even though it could be argued that trance states require a fit person both psychologically and physically.

So the basic Belief Theme was extended to include more than just a system to explain strange and dangerous phenomena into a Theme to 'help' and control the members of a group through imagined and real dangers and because the group size grew considerably from say ~150 to ~500 and beyond Belief systems probably underwent a critical change from a shamanic form which spectators just watched or participated in at irregular intervals to appease the social stresses build up over time into a more doctrinal form whereby every member of the group has to observe certain rules and participate in certain services at regular intervals to create a common base of understanding which had to be reinforced very regularly because the endorphine surge at such occasions is much lower than when somebody participates in a wild dance. Because of this the Neolithic has been dubbed 'the Religious revolution' instead of 'the Agricultural revolution' /a/.

The sequence though: first agriculture and then religion could have been the other way around as is suggested by Klaus Schmidt in his theory about Gobekli Tepe: a place in Turkey which looks like the first temple (stone circles) in Human history erected and used around 9000 BCE /b/. He argues that the people who built this temple needed agriculture to feed the number of people worshipping at the same time. This view is also expressed by David Carrasco in his book about the Religions of Mesoamerica /c/. The fact that 'temples' or special houses were already build by hunter-gatherer groups can be read in 'The Creation of Inequality' by Flannery and Marcus /d/. So the idea that temples came first and large groups or clans celebrating at a temple required agriculture to feed the large gatherings is a very logical evolutionary path through which agriculture probably was developed. However not necessarily as can be seen from the Warren Field 'monument' in Scotland - a row of shallow pits to function as a Moon calendar - which was built more or less at the same time as Gobekli Tepe by a rather large community of hunter-gatherers in a rich natural environment with fish and animal life which apparently did not force them to develop agriculture /e/.

Anyway the step from (pagan) Belief in a supernatural force and ancestors /d/ with some 'explanations' for the inexplicable to a mixture of a more doctrinal Belief with Medicine to (help) and control the group or clan and give direction to its common ideals by one or more (usually elderly) persons - who were thereby more powerful than the 'normal' group member - is the Next Level Theme: Belief & Medicine.

That Belief & Medicine went hand in hand can be deduced from the fact that during the agricultural revolution plants and animals were demoted from 'equals' to man to the property of man and had therefore to be controlled by e.g. fences but more complicated aspects like e.g. fertility and health could not be controlled so more universal gods were invented and these replaced animism: i.e. this animal or that plant has supernatural powers. So Animism was replaced by Polytheism: universal - powerful everywhere on Earth - gods that were responsible for a certain aspect of life /f/. However to appease the gods offerings had to be given and it must have dawned upon some priests that certain plants helped the gods - and the ailments of the domesticated animals or plants - much more than certain rites. So 'medicines' were probably invented but certainly used by the priests and witches /g/.

/5.3.2.a/ Human Evolution, Robin Dunbar, 2014/5.3.2.b/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gobekli_Tepe/5.3.2.c/ Religions of Mesoamerica, David Carrasco, 1990/5.3.2.d/ The Creation of Inequality, Kent Flannery & Joyce Marcus, 2012/5.3.2.e/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_Field/5.3.2.f/ Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind (in Dutch), Yuval Noah Harari, 2014/5.3.2.g/ Witchcraft, Intimacy & Trust, Peter Geschiere, 2013

35 | Page

5.3.3 N3: Power distribution and individual rights and duties

This theme: 'Power distribution and individuals rights and duties' - next to Family life - must have been and still is the most important issue in the evolution of mankind because it is key to the future of a group. It is revisited here since it underwent a major change during this Next Level Themes or Neolithic Era as the Ruler / Nobility model was developed.

In their most basic form group power structures can be visualized by a Power Triangle (see § 5.2.4 and fig. 2 below) with at its three corners; structure no. 1. 'No formal power' structure i.e. every individual or (extended) family for itself which amounts to no group at all; structure no. 2. a 'Ruler with some kind of Nobility' to help in ruling and structure no. 3. 'Some kind of Power Sharing' between a greater section of the group (democracy).

Figuur 2 - Power Triangle

During this era structure no. 1 was (eventually) conquered or eradicated by groups or subgroups with structure no. 2 (Ruler) which thereby became the dominant power structure until cities came along (power structure no. 3) and citizens with self-rule but still functioning as group which could defend itself or even attack with a well-structured, well trained and well-equipped army if deemed necessary. And although some people claim that pre-historic or Ice-Age Man lived in 'clans' (small groups larger than the extended family) that had no real inequality (structure no. 1) and that this power structure survived until the 20th century in e.g. Eskimo's or Aborigines /a/ power structure no. 1 could only ‘survive’ in areas with low population densities.

And even though power structure no.3 (Shared Power) proved - already during this Next Level Theme era - under certain conditions to be superior over power structure no. 2 (Ruler/Nobility) e.g. in some Greek cities and early Rome, it was not until the 16th century CE that Shared Power became a dominant force (Holland's Golden Age) and finally the dominant power structure as this Theme evolved into the modern democracies of the 19th and 20th century (see the paragraph on Power and Politics in the chapter on Contemporary Themes). That a full 'democracy' took so long to develop and was here to stay was according to Francis Fukuyama caused by tribalism / kinship kept creeping in when something democratic arose. E.g. in China where very early on -in the last millennium BCE- the first impersonal states were founded with a ruling cast of which a person could only become a member of when he passed a centrally organized very strict exam (except for the king / emperor and his family) but this system was time and again flouted by local lineages / well-to-do kingroups /b/.

What parameters did away with power structure no.1 'No formal Power' in favor of power structure no.2 'Ruler/Nobility model ?

36 | Page

In their book: The Creation of Inequality /a/ Flannery & Marcus explain that the shift from the hunter-gatherer lifestyle to farming and herding created larger and sedentary groups or clans - i.e. larger than the extended family - which put pressure on some of the 'living gammas' (see 5.2.4) to distinguish themselves from the other living clansmen in order to solve emerging disputes over property and / or resources. They did this by claiming to have special knowledge from the alphas (Gods) or betas (ancestors).

These 'special' gammas set themselves apart through the possession of valuables like special quarters, garments, tools, weapons & jewelry to be recognized as powerful (as the ancestors) and by keeping for themselves (or their extended family) products of 'their' land or water instead of sharing it with the other families or clansmen. This was a definitive break from the hunter-gatherer rule that individuals should share excess food and other excess resources generally as an insurance against bad times but also as a way to (re-)establish the bonds between the members of a clan. However on the one hand with growing populations there simply were too many clansmen to share 'your' gains or products with and farming and herding on the other hand demand a certain reserve or stock to survive until the next crop or slaughter for seeds and some animals for breeding. So property rights and rules for the possession of products were developed which then demanded disputes over these possessions to be solved. This introduced wars between clans and fights between clansmen and they demand a Ruler to function as a group / army but within clans it also demanded a Ruler to solve disputes between (extended) families.

And on a genetic level a group with a 'strong' Ruler / Elite has the advantage that the Ruler's (Elite's) genes spread much more widely than the genes of the average male through the 'Elite reproductive advantage' /c/. For instance (in)famous Rulers such as: Niall of Ireland (4th century CE) or Genhis Khan of Mongolia (12th century CE) have millions of direct descendants now living. So their 'strong' genes / characteristics helped their group over competitor groups.

Once a family head was an established phenomenon it became necessary to rank these family heads among each other within a clan which introduced the idea of prestige and so a clan-Ruler (or alpha) was created who then wanted to distinguish himself against other clan-Rulers by 'expensive' power artifacts and he had to distinguish and to defend himself against internal rivalry from other family-heads (betas) by e.g. lavish festivities.

What parameters decided which power structure no.2. strong Ruler or power structure no.3. (more) Democratic rule, or anything in between, prevailed?

Please note that the difference between power structure no.1: No formal power and power structure no.3: Power Sharing is subtle but significant. In structure no.1 all members of the group are - in principle - equal (all gammas) whereas in structure no.3 a certain proportion of the group members is more powerful than others but - in principle - every individual has the possibility to become a member of the elite (alphas & betas) and - in modern societies - this elite is a (very) broad and flexible idea and typically not hereditary.

So Rulers had to defend their position against rivals but - at first - against reactionaries who wanted less power for the rulers (power structure no.1) and -as human evolution progressed- against progressives who wanted a more democratic rule i.e. more power for themselves and others (power structure no.3).

It is rather difficult to evaluate what made the difference each time a Ruler had to be replaced since the decision which structure prevails depends first and foremost on the number of individuals in a group or society in favor of one or the other model and the system for deciding on change - as with most life changing events - depends for a large part on simple chance /d/. And to win people over for one model or the other almost anything was (and still is) used to trigger one of the basic emotions: fight / freeze / flight response or love / jealousy response or one of the more advanced emotions: excitement <-> anger; happy <-> scared and tender <-> sad balances /e/.

Single rulers / dictators often use the urge for gain of wealth or extra personal power / favors or the fear for loss of wealth / freedom to appeal to the happy <-> scared emotional balance. Whereby more democratic rulers / structures use indignation over dictatorial structures or happiness / anxiety over new freedoms to appeal to the excitement <-> anger emotional balance.

And on a more advanced level nowadays the tender <-> sad emotional balance is often used through associations with e.g. the environment or animal rights to make people vote / choose for a specific cause.

Examples of rulers using the excitement <-> anger or the happy <-> scared emotional balances are:

Real life examples,

37 | Page

Alexander the Great (356 - 324 BCE) /f/ conquered the greater part of the Middle East and South East Asia, i.e. the Archaemenid Empire led by: Cyrus, Darius I, Xerxes I & II had conquered and kept together with the Persian and Medean tribes, by using a well-trained army with soldiers whom got huge esteem for their courage but the soldiers of the opposing armies were slain except for those who surrendered whom were all but killed. And -not unimportant- the Archaemenid Empire had started as a fearsome opponent but after the surprise victories in the 6th century BCE the Empire had changed its focus to a more peaceful and rent-seeking mentality as can be seen from the erection of Persepolis started around 500 BCE and still under construction when Alexander destroyed it in 330 BCE /g/. So Alexander was lucky -as the Archaemenids before him- that at that time in history he created and used a relatively small evolutionary advantage: a highly motivated and well trained army against a -in the meantime- lazy opponent.

The Age of the Extremes, 1914 - 1991 /h/ In this book Eric Hobsbawn underpins his notion of failed States under: Socialism, Capitalism or Nationalism. And although his view is a bit bleak Hobsbawn has a point that the notion of larger and larger group structures is apparently not easily realizable not even with the skillful or brutal use of (basic) emotions but nonetheless very many societal forms were tried over the course of history with the ultimate forms so far in Socialism, Capitalism and Nationalism.

MAO Tse-tung (1893-1976) ruler of China who created Maoism /i/, a huge personal cult. He started several campaigns like 'The 1050 Flowers' Campaign (1958) to identify his opponents, 'The great Leap Forward' (1958-1961) to show his (idiotic) power which led to unimaginable societal problems like famines etc. and almost to his downfall and finally 'The Cultural Revolution' (1966-1976) to regain power. In these campaigns he unsettled millions of people of which many died - rough estimates add up to some 70 million /i/ - but no real opposition was able to unsettle him. Only after Deng Xiaoping (1904-1997) became the de-facto ruler of China in 1979 and allowed much more personal economic freedom and thereby introduced a kind of merged model of dictatorial Socialism and restricted Capitalism the full potential of the vast population of China was - again /j/ - released.

Literature examples,

Medea, Hecabe, Electra and e.g. Heracles by Euripides /k/ in these tragedies betrayal, jealousy, guilt and hatred are the main emotions which steer the behavior of the characters.

King Lear by Shakespeare /l/ in this tragedy an old King wants to transfer his rule to his most beloved daughter(s) but in the process he mistreats his only really loving daughter which causes all kinds of mishap and leads to the death of the entire family and so the rule goes to someone outside the family. In this play love, jealousy and treason are magnificently exposed as main drivers for human behavior.

So in Europe for two millennia or some 80 generations: from Alexander the Great (350 BCE) to Hitler (1950 CE) or from Euripides (500 BCE) to Shakespeare (1600 CE) we see that the individual (basic) emotions did not change and the basic ideas to create and rule a group or society did not change much either but in detail these ideas changed considerably. Since - for one thing - the number of people affected (in Europe) has increased enormously from the start of the Greek culture (~ few million) up to modern times (~ few 100 million).

This would have decreased the Change in Environment: CE (and thereby the Speed of Evolution: SE) because the number people per generation sits in the denominator. However, each person brings (many) different ideas and work to the melting pot so the numerator increases by at least the same amount and usually even more because the interaction between people creates a multitude of ideas and therefore many new things / aspects to the 'environment'. As a result SE increases as the number of people in a group or society increases.

Whereas with other life forms an increasing number of individuals per generation does usually lower CE which paves the way for mutations or changes in physical makeup to keep up a minimal SE when the environment changes.

In other parts of the World than Europe the same trend: basic emotions did not change but the number of people affected increased considerably, was seen as well. E.g. in China /j/ -although that number could vary considerably when the mood changed and a swing back to less democracy occurred /m/- or (Meso) America /n/ the number of people increased by a comparable factor as in Europe over a comparable period of time with the Power Theme (structure no.2 one ruler) as the main driver as well since larger densities of people require Inequality /a/. This will be elaborated upon in the next chapters.

Individual rights and duties change considerably as well with an increase in the size of a group / society. In a basic group (extended family) a member has the right to life and the right to food and has the duty to defend the group. But as the

38 | Page

group size increases the rights of a person increases such as e.g. the right to property but at the same time with the duty to run manage / maintain the property like a farm with all the people living / depending on it.

So in the beginning of Human evolution Power and Rights & Duties in a group are intertwined and form one Basic Theme which in next level strata in social behavior become more and more separated to form (sub)Themes and then fully developed other Themes but this is not a linear process and often larger entities like States fall back to the ruler / nobility form of power.

Which e.g. can be seen from the development of the modern democratic (Nation) State. Even though many modern States look democratic they are in fact neopatrimonial like Nigeria, Mexico, Russia or Indonesia /o/. Of which clearly Mexico and Russia have had more democratic / impersonal pasts but have dropped back to the level of a clan of powerful people who share the profits of 'extortion'.

The transition from 'Ruler with Nobility' to an impersonal 'shared Power' is not automatic and goes through stages like strong military competion /o/. To which I add: 'war is the event whereby ideas are being ultimately tested and more democratic societies fight much better because of better motivation'. Or through more free economic development / industrialization /o/. To which I add: 'if a greater part of society is well off these people are better motivated to defend / help their society'.

When a society made the transition from patrimonialism to impersonal 'shared Power' it formed so called basic institutions: 1) 'a State' within which borders the State has the sole right on the use of power, 2) 'Rule of Law' which means that rulers have to abide by the same rules as commoners and 3) 'Accountability' which means that rulers have to take the interest of the general public into account not just their own narrow clan interest /b/. These basic institutions characterise the modern democratic society such that even modern dictators put up show institutions like Nigeria, Mexico, Russia or Indonesia /o/. However these institutions and changes therein are the result of social changes in a society, i.e. it is group behavior that drives the culture / social order in a society, something which Fukuyama himself acknowledges as well. And therefore I do not take 'the State', 'Rule of Law' and / or 'Accountability' as (Power) (sub)Themes (see § 6.2.1) since they are expressions of these.

/5.3.3.a/ The Creation of Inequality, Kent Flannery & Joyce Marcus, 2012/5.3.3.b/ The Origins of Political Order, Francis Fukuyama, 2011/5.3.3.c/ The 10.000 Year Explosion: How Civilization Accelerated Human Evolution, Gregory Cochran & Henry Harpending, 2009/5.3.3.d/ Thinking, Fast and Slow, Daniel Kahneman, 2011/5.3.3.e/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emotion/5.3.3.f/ Alexander the Great, Jacob Abbott, 1876/5.3.3.g/ The Authoritative Guide to Persepolis, A. Shapur Shahbazi, 3rd Ed. 2015/5.3.3.h/ The Age of the Extremes, Eric Hobsbawn, 1994/5.3.3.i/ MAO The Unknown Story, Jung Chang & Jon Halliday, 2006/5.3.3.j/ 1421: The Year China Discovered the World, Gavin Menzies, 2002/5.3.3.k/ Medea and other plays, Euripides, c. 440 BCE/5.3.3.l/ King Lear, William Shakespeare, 1623/5.3.3.m/ The Chinese Market Economy 1000-1500, William Guanlin Liu, 2015 /5.3.3.n/ 1491: New Revelations of the Americas Before Columbus, Charles C. Mann, 2005/5.3.3.o/ Political Order and Political Decay, Francis Fukuyama, 2014

5.3.4 N4: Division of Labor

With the ability to feed larger groups - next to farming & herding and the basic belief & medicine functions - jobs like: tool & weapon manufacturers, potteries, bakers, tailors, traders and warriors, became possible.

And although some people place the development of something like 'Division of Labor' in the Basic Themes Era I see this Theme more narrowed down to 'special jobs' like, metal smiths, water workers e.g. for qanats /a/, potteries or baker. However, Edward Wilson sees the separation of groups into 'functions' such as 'fire keeper' or 'strong man' already as 'Division of Labor' /b/. And evidence suggests that groups of Homo Erectus were already structured with some special functions. So we agree upon the importance of Division of Labor but not on its exact definition. In addition, Raoul Naroll showed that special functions: notably religious functions, emerge as groups become larger than 500 souls, i.e. the fifth layer of acquaintance /c/ and this fact places the emergence of special functions not earlier then the emergence of Homo

39 | Page

Sapiens or Anatomically Modern Humans (AMHs) say around 100.000 years ago (100 kya). However more likely not earlier then shortly before the start of the Neolithic.

With the development of these labor functions the further (cultural) need arose to develop even more specializations. As can be seen from the ancient Egyptian culture /d/ which was built upon the development of large scale agriculture and triggered the development of many other functions than farming and basic religion. Such as military, literacy & basic mathematics, building, medicine and art as can be seen from the polymath Imhotep who is said to have worked on medicine, mathematics, building and was one of the few non holy persons to get a special grave to honor his special contributions to many traits and - thereby - the Egyptian society /e/. And other functions included: tools manufacturing for farming, ship building for fishing and maybe even fish cultivation since the tilapia has been found to have fed thousends in ancient Egypt and it looks like that this fish has so many good qualities especially for humans like the eating of mosquito larvae which helps to fight malaria /f/ that these qualities were - inadvertently - bred into the species.

Division of labor was essential since it enabled the parallel improvement / cross fertilization of ideas about tools, weapons, buildings, farming, plant cultivation and e.g. the crossbreeding of animals. This becomes clear from the change from the Stone Age into the Bronze Age - some 8000 years ago - and Iron Age - some 5000 to 3000 years ago - when much better tools and weapons were developed.

This development took place in the early 'cities' / larger settlements where there were enough people to enable the cross fertilization of ideas as e.g. in Egypt or Mesopotamia.

/5.3.4.a/ Qanat; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qanat/5.3.4.b/ The Social Conquest of Earth, Edward Wilson, 2012/5.3.4.c/ Human Evolution, Robin Dunbar, 2014/5.3.4.d/ Egypt; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Egypt/5.3.4.e/ Imhotep; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imhotep/5.3.4.f/ Tilapia; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tilapia

5.3.5 N5: Cities & Countries

Cities & Countries with surrounding walls or other common defenses around a larger area and with common (public) buildings like palaces and temples developed at different moments in time in different parts of the World like in the Middle East when this was very fertile and not yet the desert it is nowadays as e.g. in Uruk around 3400 BCE /a/ or Akkad around 2400 BCE /b/ in early Mesopotamia and around 1400 BCE with Olmec cities like San Lorenzo Tenochtitlan in Mesoamerica /c/ and around 500 to 200 BCE in China when respectively the city of Ji (early Beijing) or the first stretches of the Great Wall were build /d/.

The first places where people lived together were -of course- camp sites. They held around 50 people - to protect against predators but especially raids by other human groups - and were already embedded in several layers of social superstructures, i.e. the clan (~150 people), mega-band (~500 people) and tribe (~1500 people) /e/. However these structures lived over a spread out area with no clear recognizable common buildings or defense hardware like walls. Only when clans, then mega-bands and then tribes started to build common 'buildings' - probably first with some belief or religious function - the step towards cities had been made.

That it took so long from the early nuclei of cities to the first real cities (and later Countries) is not simply explained but if you look at the number of people easily communicating (because of proximity and living standard) it becomes clear that in the early development of cities inhabitants had to develop ways to feed & defend themselves and grow to a certain size with efficiency gains /f_1,f_2/ and attract a certain population density to reap the benefits of living in a city, especially a good balance between engagement (~safety) in neighborhoods & exploration (~new ideas and behaviors) in the city 'center' mostly /f_2,f_3/ which needed many social 'experiments' (power struggles) and generations before real cities could take off like e.g. Babylon which had a short golden period in around 1900 BCE and again a longer golden era in around 600 BCE after it was founded in the beginning of the 3rd millennium BCE as a small town /g/. And genetically it is clear that the downsides of living in a city: diseases develop and spread much more easily, do not easily outweigh the benefits: much greater gene-pool /h/. This greater gene-pool can be used for what we now call soft sweep gene mutations: small multi gene mutations, which however, spread much more quickly than strong -single gene- sweep mutations (see also § 5.2) but are -in the end- prevalent in only part of the total population.

40 | Page

In cities a balance had to be struck between individual rights and duties and openness towards produce & trade from surrounding peoples and reticence towards conquering peoples. This balance was very delicate and certainly not static as can be read in the oldest epic: The Epic of Gilgamesh for the very first cities in the World /i/, the Vedas story for first cities in India /j/ or e.g. the story of Confucius for the first cities in China /k/. So like in animal or plant evolution a relative balance in one era (compare with an eco-system) was no guarantee for the next era (major change in the eco-system) when other cities (peoples) had shifted to a different position through new skills or new allegiances.A good example of such a balance is the story of Jerusalem /l/ which began as a small town on a rather illogical spot somewhere on a hill - for protection - at some moment in the Mesopotamian history. Was then conquered by king David around a 1000 BCE who made it the 'capital' of the Jews and from then on was captured, destroyed, rebuild and recaptured an incredible number of times to become the Holy City for the three Abrahamic religions: Judaism, Christianity and Islam. And this balance is still going on -be it on a larger scale with Nations and Empires- as can be read in:The Breaking of Nations /m/, where Robert Cooper shows that within the time frame and region he chooses to analyze: 17th to 21st century Europe, exactly the same balance between openness and reticence plays the role in the structuring of Nations and (democratic) Empires. And Walter Scheidel convincingly shows in The Great Leveler /n/ that before a city or state can develop the birth society has to have stratification / inequality which only occurs when there is a surplus in the products needed for survival. So only a society which had a rich natural supply or could develop agriculture – after the last Ice-Age (c. 11.500 years ago)- developed cities or states which took many generations because stratification / inequality -access to the surpluses- is not something which comes in one form and one form only, i.e. culture can take many forms.

Stratification with cities developed probably because a simple strategy to survive with your group’s land, crops and herds is clear: enlargement of the number of individuals bound to your group. So create a city where many people -with different roles like warriors and tradesmen- can live. And so the conquering of or forming of allegiances with neighboring regions (and their peoples) became a necessity thereby creating entities which can be seen as the first (proto) States, Countries or Empires which introduced more stratification and a larger base from which the top layer could reap the benefits /n/. The very first state entity ever was Sumer in c. 2400 BCE under the rule of the Akkadian kings who replaced all local kings with their kin /n/. This state had already the full range of Basic and Next Level (sub)Themes developed at that moment in time and encompassed several cities like -of course- Akkad but also Girsu, Lagash, Ur and Uruk each having several tens of thousands of citizens /o/. Other examples of power structures with such an additional hierarchical layer was in Athens in c. 600 BCE /p/ or the birth of greater China under the Qin dynasty in 220 BCE /q/ who brought the remaining 7 city-states / polities -after centuries of wars- under their rule thereby effectively creating the very first state with impersonal rule: i.e. not based on kinship administration / stratification /r/, and still other examples are e.g. the allegiances of Jerusalem with Egypt, Greece, Rome, Islam or Christianity /l/.

That this development: Village, to City, to State, to Empire was not uni-directional is e.g. clear from the Old-Testament where the opposition of Yahweh (God of the Jews) against a stratified society is laid down and this document can therefore best be seen, as a political statement against an oppressive agrarian / stratified society like the Egyptian Empire or the Hittite-Jebusite City-states /s/. Even though the Jews could not escape from their era and had to unite under the banner of a king: Saul, David, Solomon … and live in cities like Jerusalem which required … stratification.

To defend these States, Countries or Empires the same principles were used as with cities: large armies were kept under arms and sometimes large defenses were built like the "Limes" in North West Europe (including the Hadrian Wall in Great Britain) built by the Romans in the 1st century CE or the Great Wall in China built by the victorious State Li in the 2nd century BCE. This latter strategy probably popped up when a civilization was in fact on the retreat and would not or could not conquer the attacking people but had vast other (economic) resources on its hands (like the US planning -in 2017- to build Trump's Wall to Mexico ;-). When an Empire chose not to build such defenses its demise came quicker like the Persian Empire of the Archaemedeans in the 5th century BCE which built Persepolis: a splendid city of palaces, which effort did not help in defending / extending the Empire and maybe therefore they lost a decisive war against the Greeks / Athenians at Marathon in 490 BCE /t/ and some 150 years later Alexander the Great -a simple Macedonian as the Athenians would say- could conquer the entire Persian Empire in one big sweep and destroy Persepolis with ‘the blink of an eye’ which some Iranians still regret /u/.

One reason that (City-)States, Countries or Empires did and still do rise and fall all the time is - again - the same as to why it took so long for cities to become the most important way of living in the first place: many experiments in social and / or power structures had to pass before it was clear that a bigger entity than cities are the better way of living as - again - can be seen from e.g. early Athens where already in the 5th century BCE an 'experiment' with democracy and a very modern economy based on - overseas - trade instead of agriculture was carried out but did not survive because the citizens were not capable to handle their newly gained power as Plato has written in many of his writings /v/. Or the experiments with principalities (City-states) on the great plains of China in the last millennium Before the Common Era as is neatly described in Fields of Blood by Karen Armstrong /s/.

41 | Page

Another reason could be that living in a city does change the structure of the brain, i.e. the amygdala is more active in people who grew up and / or lived in a (bigger) city /w/ and since the amygdala is one of the most central parts of our brains it is crucial to our (group) behavior. So living in cities had / has to be developed / evolve. Furthermore it has been shown that in locus groups a pressure –like a food shortage- changes the expression of certain genes so they start swarming. These genetic adaptations to group behavior have to develop / evolve which certainly takes time. Such adaptations have been found in humans as well as is described in the article: 'How culture shaped the human genome' by Laland et al. in 2010 which shows that e.g. adult lactose tolerance evolved like that. However this type of evolution is typically faster than normal evolution so 'gene-culture co-evolution' could be the dominant form of genome evolution in humans /x/.

The evolution of Cities and Countries is nicely recorded in the Architecture build over the millennia especially for buildings which attracted / could hold a greater number of people like Roman Theaters: e.g. the Coliseum or Temples /y/ or more recently: Churches /z/. The fact however, that Churches -with their symbolism like crosses- exist at all and are in the centers of most villages or cities is not automatically logic since at first in Christianity -as in Judaism- it was forbidden to have any kind of physical representation of God and so even crosses were forbidden. But this was probably too impractical and so Augustine of Hippo (354-430 CE) brought relief by bending the Myth on no representation at all with a separation in the city of God (civitas Dei) and the city of humans (civitas terrena) /aa/. A feat only possible if you are allowed to write the name of God, so the Myth had been bended before and the idea of a separation between a sacred city / place and an Earthly place was not new since -one of- the first temples / sacred places were stricktly build for Belief purposes /ab/ as happened in different places of the Globe (completely ?) independently as is neatly described by David Carrasco for Mesoamerica /ac/.

The evolution of this very important Theme is - of course - still going on as in contemporary times (see Chapter 6) empires broke down and countries became nation states /ac/ - with a more democratic / impersonal order /p/- and are themselves surpassed by federal entities in the Twenty-First Century which allow / arrange for meddling in each others internal affairs /ad/.

From the history of Russia, before, during and after the Sovjet era –which was a huge experiment with central planning /ae/-, you can see that social experiments - especially with cities and countries - is the bread and butter of human life. In Perestrojka /af/ Michail Gorbatsjov gives a nice overview of the why and how for the step from a communist to a more capitalistic country. This change was inevitable because the lack of freedom in especially economic affairs made it impossible to keep up with the West in the arms and motivational race. So none of the citizens of Russia was taking any (economic) risks since this was very much discouraged and only when Gorbatsjov c.s. opened up the Russian society with Perstrojka people started to 'live' again and Russia again became something people wanted to invest their time and effort in. However, under Putin this has led to some excesses - e.g. the invasions in the Ukraine in 2013 & 2014 - but it is quite clear that in the post Sovjet era Russians can and are again proud of their country which is the only viable way to live somewhere: you must be happy with / proud of your ‘neighbors’.

And you can also see this from e.g. a relatively small scale social 'experiment' in city development as was done in Cape Town South Africa under Apartheid that the Next Level Theme N5: Cities & Countries is a very delicate affair. In a speech for the race bureau - part of the ministry of internal affairs - in 1954 Dr. W.W.M. Eiselen (South African Secretary of racial affairs) states his views on race separation especially for the Western Cape province /ag/ which more or less directly led to the raising to the ground of district Six in the 1960s. This district was a part of the city of Cape Town where many people with all kinds of different cultural / racial backgrounds lived happily together /ah/. By bulldoze over this part of the city the Apartheid regime tried to steer the social development of this multi-culture melting pot but failed, I think, because once a larger group has evolved: the melting pot of cultures / races, you cannot devolve it unless you use so much force that you have to kill almost all its members. You can suppress it though, but it will pop up again as soon as the repression is (slightly) eased.

And in China, in the 21st century, a de-evolutionary trend is seen with that the development of Megalopolises /ai/ is explicitly promoted to help the Western and North-Eastern regions. So more local -political & economic- forces must help the economic development of the masses.

So, Cities (and Countries) are the path via which Human societies develop. It is a Cities in which a certain culture starts and then spreads out. Starting in the Next Level Themes Era and then continuously developing / evolving further in the Contemporary Themes Era as can e.g. be seen from a nice commute map of the USA in which it is clear that we do not any longer live in cities but in Mega Regions /aj/. Why is this? Why did culture not develop as fast through non-City based societies like the Indians in North America, the Mongolian society around the beginning of the Common Era or during the reign of Djengis Kan or the sub-Sahara African societies all through the Millennia?

42 | Page

Most probably this is because in Cities the 'Idea Flow' is much denser and richer /f_3/ or Serendipity /ak/ occurs much more often than in more spread out -agrarian / hunter-gatherer- societies. And so Cities simply outperformed other societal organization forms and then attracted & raised more people as was clearly shown in Sumer: the very first state entity with most of its people living in cities which stood at the cradle of the use of the wheel, division of labor on a large scale and with a stratified society with laws for which they needed writing, the use of bronze and later iron and e.g. early mathematics /n/ and even tales to teach the young morality: Gilgamesh /i/.

And therefore -in contemporary times- we see it all around us with over 50% of the World population and over 80% of the US population living in cities. The reasons why are e.g. neatly shown by Luis Bettencourt et al. in ‘Growth, innovation, scaling, and the pace of life in cities’ /al/ or Geoffrey West in a very interesting TED-talk /am/. They show that in cities the use of common hardware like infrastructure grow sublinear (~0.8) with the growth of the number of people and therefore give citizens economies of scale and the growth of Ideas / Myths like Businesses or Innovations grow super linear (~1.2) with the number of people and therefore give citizens more pleasure. But (eventually) super linear ‘things’ / (sub)Themes die -this because the Speed of Evolution or SE (please refer to § 5.1) for these ideas and their inventors drops – and therefore they must be renewed over and over again, which is probably the cause why e.g. Fashion renews itself so fast (see § 7.3.28).

And another example that living / working in a larger group helps idea-flow is Apple Inc. which clearly is lagging e.g. Google, Alibaba or Amazon where the development of Artificial Intelligence / artificial assistance: Siri is concerned. This because Apple employees are not allowed to share any of their ideas, which -in mid-2017- noticeably makes Siri less capable than Google Assistant or Amazon Alexa /an/. And already the bright young AI researchers are choosing not to work for Apple because they are not able to learn as much as with Google or Amazon, which -of course- makes matters worse.

So, sharing is -even with your ‘enemies’- the best way forward. But that is not new, as natural evolution is doing exactly that all the time: sharing Protein, RNA and / or DNA as much as possible without killing the originating nor the receiving party. Because if that happens an opportunity for improvement is lost.

/5.3.5.a/ Timelines of Science, Patricia Fara et al., 2013/5.3.5.b/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akkadian_Empire#City_of_Akkad/5.3.5.c/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olmec/5.3.5.d/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_History/5.3.5.e/ Human Evolution, Robin Dunbar, 2014/5.3.5.f_1/ A unified Theory of Urban Living, Luis Bettencourt et al., Nature 2010/5.3.5.f_2/ Why Innovation thrives in Cities, So Wei Pan et al., Nature Com. 2013/5.3.5.f_3/ Social Physics: How Social Networks Can Make Us Smarter, Alex Pentland, 2014/5.3.5.g/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Babylon/5.3.5.h/ The 10.000 Year Explosion: How Civilization Accelerated Human Evolution, Gregory Cochran & Henry Harpending, 2009/5.3.5.i/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epic_of_Gilgamesh, 2100 BCE/5.3.5.j/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vedas, 1500 BCE/5.3.5.k/ The Authentic Confucius. A Life of Thought and Politics, Annping Chin, 2007/5.3.5.l/ Jeruzalem. A Biography, Simon Sebag Montefiori, 2011/5.3.5.m/ The Braking of Nations: Order and Chaos in the Twenty-First Century, Robert Cooper, 2003/5.3.5.n/ The Great Leveler: Violence and the History of Inequality from the Stone Age to the Twenty-First Century, Wlater Scheidel, 2017/5.3.5.o/ Sumer: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sumer/5.3.5.p/ On Politics: A History of Political Thought from Herodotus to the Present, Alan Ryan, 2012/5.3.5.q/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qin_Dynasty/5.3.5.r/ The Origins of Political Order, Francis Fukuyama, 2011/5.3.5.s/ FIELDS of BLOOD: Religion and the History of Violence, Karen Armstrong, 2014/5.3.5.t/ Battle of Marathon; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Marathon/5.3.5.u/ The Authoritative Guide to Persepolis, A. Shapur Shahbazi, 3rd Ed. 2015/5.3.5.v/ Plato, de aanval op de democratie ('Plato, The Assault on Democracy'), Gerard Koolschijn, 1990/5.3.5.w/ 'City living and urban upbringing affect neural social stress processing in humans' in Nature, Lederbogen et al., 2011/5.3.5.x/ How culture shaped the human genome, Kevin Laland et al., Nature Reviews 2010/5.3.5.y/ Architecture, Visual Encyclopedia, The Pepin Press, 2001/5.3.5.z/ The Master Builders, John Harvey, 1971

43 | Page

/5.3.5.aa/ https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augustine_of_Hippo/5.3.5.ab/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gobekli_Tepe /5.3.5.ac/ Religions of Mesoamerica, David Carrasco, 1990/5.3.5.ad/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nation_state/5.3.5.ae/ Economics: The User’s Guide, Ha-Joon Chang, 2014/5.3.5.af/ Perestrojka: A New Vision for my Country and the World, Michail Gorbatsjov, 1987/5.3.5.ag/ Die Naturel in Wes-Kaapland ('Natives in the Western Cape'), Dr. W.W.M. Eiselen, 1954/5.3.5.ah/ District Six: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_Six/5.3.5.ai/ Supersized cities: China's 13 Megalopolises, Economist Intelligence Unit, 2012/5.3.5.aj/ Mega Regions: https://www.wired.com/2016/12/mesmerizing-commute-maps-reveal-live-mega-regions-not-cities/?mbid=nl_12216_p2&CNDID=38114307/5.3.5.ak/ Serendipity: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serendipity/5.3.5.al/ Growth, Innovation, scaling, and the pace of life in cities, Luis Bettencourt et al., March 2007/5.3.5.am/ Geoffrey West, Supercreativity: https://www.ted.com/talks/geoffrey_west_the_surprising_math_of_cities_and_corporations/up_next/5.3.5.an/ Apple Siri: www.cnbc.com/amp/2017/06/08/siri-may-be-lagging-behind-amazon-alexa-and-google.html

5.3.6 N6: Law, Economics and Taxation.

Division of labor can function only when property rights to someone's own labor, house & land and produce are known and relatively stable. If e.g. a man would make a pot knowing that when finished he cannot use, sell or get something in return for it because his labor, the clay, water and / or wood - for fire - he used are somebody else’s and therefore the pot belongs to that person he will not start the effort. And when the pot would be his but he himself already possesses enough pottery and cannot trade or sell it for the non-existence of 'money' or useful other goods to barter /a/ it with, he will not start the effort as well.

Law;

So, each society / social entity (city, country) must have a system of property rights and this system of 'laws' must have some system to enforce it upon non-abiding people / citizens.

The simplest system of law and its enforcement was that the ruler(s) held some kind of court meetings where they gave verdicts on cases brought before them and exercised their power if citizens / people did not abide. And for larger entities the ruler(s) delegated this power to other functionaries like in China a class of judges was created who were placed in the various corners of the Empire and who held court sessions as e.g. judge Di Renjie /b/ who lived around 650 CE in China.

The Law the rulers or their delegates (judges) upheld was written law to give it a sense of eternity be it - in the beginning - not an extensive set of laws. Even though such a system of written laws was supposed to be stable / unchanged it was in fact changed / "improved upon" by every ruler. But to make it accessible throughout the country it was copied as e.g. the oldest surviving written Codex (of) Ur-Nammu in c. 2100 BCE in the Kingdom of Sumer with some 57 'laws' whereby mostly 'fines' were used as punishment except for the capital crimes: murder, robbery, adultery and rape /c_1/ or the Hammurabi Code in Babylon in c. 1700 BCE which was copied onto many clay tablets thereby - for a large part - codifying laws which were in fact some 200 years older /c_2/. This code deals for around 50% of the rules with matters of trade and property and punishment based on the idea 'an eye for an eye'.

With a system of Law established in a city or country the Economy could develop. Usually as a mixture of a Barter and Money economy. This because the concept of money was developed quite early in Human History: around 3000 BCE in Babylon with the sjekel (8.3 g of silver) /d/, and the concept of minted coins of precious metals was developed around 650 BCE in a State called Lydia /d/ in what is now Turkey. But on the one hand for larger trades a shortage of money could occur and on the other hand the very poor did not have any money, so barter trade was still a major factor until the end of the Middle Ages.

That Law / a Ruler or 'Commonwealth' are important is (in)famously described in 'Leviathan' by Thomas Hobbes written in 1642 during the Interregnum in Britain about the cause of Civil War: 'fear' which leads to a struggle for power between individuals and groups because the only way to secure your needs: food, sex and some comforts is to take them from your neighbor and if you have them to defend them against that very same neighbor /e_1,e_2/.However, that this fear and fights with thy neighbor leads to but one conclusion: a Leviathan or almighty ruler is not the conclusion I, and history for that matter, would like to draw. It is but one of the extremes in the Power Triangle (see § 5.2.4 fig. 1 or § 5.3.3 fig. 2).

44 | Page

And that Law can have a large influence on the Economy can be seen from the fact that e.g. the creation of the Limited Liabiliy Company (Ltd.) at the end of the 19th century /f/ created a whole new world of opportunities for the less wealthy people because you only need(ed) a small amount of money to enter in / participate in business and could -if you fail(ed)- not be held accountable with your private money. Although you would expect that this idea would create 'a monster' that would usurp 'the commons' such as the company’s Equity by management or unemployment security by the share-owners in no time, i.e. create a 'tragedy of the commons' everywhere /g/ this never really happened for a long time. Not in continental Europe, not in the UK and not in the USA. So, this idea has proved itself to be very robust to 'cheaters' and brought and brings economies much more advantages than disadvantages. Which explains why almost every country in the World has adopted the ‘Ltd’.

Religion was always an important way to control collective action against cheaters / free riders in larger societies /h/ which explains why the Ltd. Company had to be implemented differently in different societies.

Economics;

The decision of how and how much money was circulated was more or less done by default since money was coupled to rare shells at first and further on in history to rare and therefore precious metals. So, if the number of these shells or the amount of precious metals was not synchronized with the growth or shrinkage of the Economy, prices could fluctuate considerably /i/. E.g. prices could drop when the Economy grew: more goods but the amount of precious metals stayed the same.

Although unpredictable fluctuations in the value of money were unwanted the system of precious metals for coins guaranteed a relative stable value of money which could not easily be influenced by a ruler, city or country which was a good thing since otherwise a ruler could pump much more shells or coins into the system and cause inflation. This system of 'the golden standard' held out until the 20th century and therefore more than 2500 years. And it provided cities or countries with a well-accepted currency with a considerable advantage over cities or countries with a less accepted currency since they could buy more and better weapons and attract more trade which generated more money. Or in terms of Fisher's equality: M.V = P.T with M the total amount of money, V the circulation velocity, P the price per product and T the total amount of produce, all in one economy. So, if T rises and M & V stay the same P must drop, i.e. deflation has to be the result.

With money and thereby the Economy coupled to natural sources Humans copied nature in a very direct way. Like plants and animals our welfare was thereby directly dependent on natural resources not easily to be fiddled with by Humans. When the intrinsic value system was gradually dropped for the representative value or promissory notes system with the introduction of banknotes in the 7th Century (some say 806 CE) in China /j/ we do not see a great change in the stability of the value of money. But with the introduction banks in Europe (Northern Italy) in the 14th Century /k/ some real instabilities in the value of money were introduced. And with of the lifting of the representative value system - and effectively totally decoupling the value of money from natural resources - a lot of instability like hyperinflation was unleashed like e.g. in the Weimar Republic or during the Great Depression in the United States of America.

On money many books have been written but the one by Georg Simmel: The Philosophy of Money (1907) /l/ stands out as very original and complete even in the 21st century. And although Simmel says he did not write a Philosophy on the Economic aspects of money: “Not a single Line of these Investigations is meant to be a Statement about Economics” his book certainly is but also much more because money and the economy tough upon almost all aspects of culture as we will see from the (sub)Themes of this Next Level Themes Era and the next: the Contemporary Themes Era (see Chapter 6).

So, we see the concept of money gradually changing in some 5000 years but -in my opinion- only when money is decoupled from natural resources / nature to a large extent (some 100 years ago) the basis of the concept of intrinsic value is apparently lost and the financial system starts to be instable. And this happens again - with ever greater consequences - when public markets for derivatives were introduced in the 1980's. The credit crisis of 2008 is then caused by this ever-greater decoupling of money from its trust basis: (unchangeable) natural resources / nature (in the short run).

However, Yanis Varoufakis makes a case for the fact that Politics and Money (both imagined) are strong intrinsically coupled and should be handled in that order: Politics oversees / is responsible for Money. And that if a currency is run by non-democratically checked bureaucrats: The Euro, disaster / ultimate instabilities are unavoidable and causes existing political unity to fall apart /m/. This idea is quite easily explained within Themes Theory if we look at the Power

45 | Page

Rectangular (please refer to fig. 3 in § 6.2.1), whereby Government functions like a currency must reside under Politics even though it must be at a minimal social-distance to be independent / trustworthy.

But, we had seen such instabilities much earlier in e.g. the 18th century when the first derivatives were introduced in the Netherlands they were easily falsified as can be read in /n/ and this caused major upheavals at the time on the market or as happened in the 17th century with the (wind)trade in still non-blossomed tulip bulbs in the Netherlands /o/.

So, each time the idea is the same i.e. the instabilities are caused by a decoupling between the Market - a human imaginary thing - and the physical restraints of the real World we live in. But as we progress in history we want the real World to be more and more 'moldable' to our imagined World(s), which causes instabilities because imagined Worlds can easily change overnight if a large proportion of a society thinks the new (or old) idea is better.

Taxes;

Every city, country or empire needs money to keep an army under arms, to build common buildings or structures like a defense wall and - the more advanced civilizations - to build roads for trade and army transport. And to keep up the splendor of the ruler(s) with palaces and the like even more money was / is needed. This money must be brought up by the citizens in the form of Taxes.

Before formal money was established the members of a family or group 'paid' their duties / Taxes in form of labor / time for the community or ruler and if they owned land, cattle or property the duty was paid in form of goods like e.g. in the Persian empire of Darius the Great the 28 conquered tribes had to pay / bring their goods at the end of spring in Persepolis /p/. This was what we call a gift-economy because it worked vice versa as well with that the ruler had to hand out / share the accumulated wealth with the family / group. This system of a gift-economy can still be seen in non-developed countries with e.g. food aid to famine stricken regions or normal aid by developed countries.

The wealth of a city or country could be measured by the height of its taxes and so its power was / is directly dependent upon its tax-system. Formal taxes started as early as 3000 BCE in Egypt and by 500 BCE in Persia it was inescapable for the citizens of the more civilized societies /q/.

Although taxes are inescapable for citizens rulers / governments could and cannot enforce any level of taxes they want. Many social unrests started with too high taxes and people objecting to them. E.g. the Dutch in the 16th Century objected against what they saw as too high taxes by Spain /r/ or the French Revolution /s/ started when the very regressive tax system had to be reformed but this reform faulted because the Nobility refused thereby effectively keeping the tax overburden on the common citizens of whom the newly rich especially objected against the heavy duties they had to pay to / for the ruling class.

That taxation must be based on what is perceived to be bearable can be seen from a campaign by Oxfam (an NGO) in 2015 in the Netherlands that taxheavens should be dismantled because -in their view- millions of people in developing countries live below the poverty line because their country cannot raise enough taxes since the multinational corporations -Starbucks in this campaign- can move their profits to taxheavens like the Netherlands. On the side we also see that politics and taxes are one and the same as 'non-politicians' start levelling the moral ground for higher taxes to gain more power.

/5.3.6.a/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barter/5.3.6.b/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Di_Renjie/5.3.6.c_1/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_of_Ur-Nammu/5.3.6.c_2/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_of_Hammurabi/5.3.6.d/ Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind (In Dutch), Yuval Noah Harari, 2014/5.3.6.e_1/ Infinitesimal: How a dangerous Mathematical Theory shaped the Modern World, Amir Alexander, 20145.3.6.e_2/ Leviathan: The Matter, Forme and Power of A Commonwealth Ecclesiasticall and Civil, Thomas Hobbes, 1651/5.3.6.f/ Economics: The User's Guide, Ha-Joon Chang, 2015/5.3.6.g/ Rules, Games and Common Pool Resources, Elinor Ostrom et al., 1994/5.3.6.h/ The Logic of Collective Action: Public Goods and the Theory of Groups, Mancur Olson, 1965/5.3.6.i/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Money/5.3.6.j http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banknotes/5.3.6.k/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bank/5.3.6.l/ The Philosophy of Money (Die Philosophie des Geldes), Georg Simmel, 1907/5.3.6.m/ And The Weak Suffer What They Must, Yanis Varoufakis, 2016

46 | Page

/5.3.6.n/ De vlugtende Banqueroetier, Jan Wigmans, 1746/5.3.6.o/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tulip_mania/5.3.6.p/ The Authoritative Guide to Persepolis, A. Shapur Shahbazi, 3rd Ed. 2015/5.3.6.q/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxes/5.3.6.r/ The Dutch Republic, Jonathan Israel, 1995/5.3.6.s/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_revolution

5.3.7 N7: Philosophy, Science, Games and Sports

This Next Level Theme is a bit different from the other Next Level Themes since especially Philosophy does not necessarily bring a direct evolutionary advantage whereas Science only brings an advantage through its improved understanding of and control over technology and biology, Games are just for fun and Sports prepares for war but a good sportsman is not necessarily a good fighter.

Nevertheless, these activities started long before the modern era as can be seen from the Greek Philosophers, Scientists and Olympic Games. And - of course - they started under the banner of other Themes, e.g. the Power and / or Religious Theme for Philosophy; Weapons & Tools and / or the Food & Land Theme were the birthplaces for Science; Offspring & Parenting, Family Life and Art, Symbols & Basic Counting probably gave birth to (symbolic) Games and the Division of Labor Theme gave birth to Sports: i.e. warriors introduced Sports to train the soldiers and keep them busy during the many days they were not fighting.

But gradually - with the further division of labor - these subThemes developed into their own.

It is often said that Philosophy started Science since e.g. Pythagoras was a Philosopher who preached a mathematical way of life - who by the way did not invent the geometry rule named after him but gave one of the earlier proofs /a,b/ - and Euclides or Archimedes started as Philosophers as well. However Philosophy probably started as a 'course' on 'how to execute power' for people destined to rule whereas Science is probably an offspring of people working on - the improvement of - weapons, tools and / or food.

Although the first clear evidence of Philosophy, Science and Sports developing into separate and fully respected activities was in the ancient Greek Cities, with the disappearance of the Greek culture Philosophy and Science seemingly disappeared in Europe as a separate activities for at least some 2000 years during the Roman Empire [which was all about the Next Level Power Theme N3, see this chapter] and the Middle Ages [which were all about the Contemporary Religious Theme: Religion (C2), i.e. Christianity, see next chapter]. Be it that the Arab culture (rise of Islam) in the Middle East partly took over in the 7th century CE /c/. Therefore, it is fair to say the Greek culture was the starting point for this next level Theme and not e.g. the Renaissance. From this fact it becomes apparent that a society has to have a certain level of wealth before the Philosophy, Science and Sports Theme emerges and e.g. the Romans did not contribute much to Science /d/ since they favored Rhetoric and Sports and not the further development of Philosophy and Science.

As formal Philosophy can probably be seen to have been started by the Greek Thales of Miletus around 600 BCE /e/ it was the Greek Euclid of Alexandria to have started formal Science with his book 'Elements' in around 300 BCE. And it was also with the Greeks that special schools for Philosophy were founded to teach the young in these ideas like the first Academy started by Plato in Athens in c. 387 BCE.

And it was with the Greek mathematician Pappus of Alexandria around 320 CE /f/ and the closure of the Academy of Plato in 529 CE /g/ that the first era of Science & Philosophy ended as a separate theme until its reemergence at the start of the Renaissance.

On the one hand it looks as though that Philosophy and Science did not flourish in other European / Middle Eastern cultures following the Greeks because only at the end of the Middle Ages Science seems to have surfaced again /d/. However this is very illogical since it had brought the Greek many good things like great wealth in Athens during its democratic days and e.g. a very effective defense against overwhelming numbers of Romans in Syracuse by Archimedes with his understanding of the lever and building skills. And indeed Philosophy but especially Science was picked up by the Arabs at the start of the Islam in the 8th century CE and carried on for around 7 centuries /c/ which brought them great wealth and immense power just like the Greeks.

But on the other hand the demise of the Greek culture is not so strange since Greek Philosophers were rather rigid as e.g. Aristotle /h/ who's simple model of the forces of nature seemed to have chained progress in Science in Europe for about

47 | Page

2000 years /i/ and e.g. Plato /j/ who's attack on democracy and his theory of forms is not open to any other / new Philosophies. It looks as though that this can be compared to the emergence of a new species in nature. With e.g. birds you see fierce competition on niches in eco-systems and very rigid separations like feeding on a slightly different fruit whereas when a species is established it becomes much more flexible in its habits. Which compares nicely with the battle between Islam and Christianity and the very rigid approach first by Christianity and now by Islam.

However unlike Philosophy and Science the Sports subTheme was much more clearly passed on to following cultures like the Roman Empire with its focus on Power through well trained and maintained armies. But with the Romans the Sports theme became much less free riding as killing the opponent became an integral part of the 'game'. And after the Romans - during the Middle Ages - the Sports theme stayed on as an important subTheme where agile men could show their abilities in tournaments but in a much less brutal way than the Roman Games.

After the Romans i.e. after 476 CE with the fall of Rome (and 1453 with the fall of Constantinople) you see that societies look for a different (sub)Theme than mere Power to develop upon. In the West it is Religion i.e. Christianity which becomes the focal Theme since it had shown to be capable of withstanding the Romans with the conversion of one the last Roman Emperors: Theodosius to Christianity in the 4th century and declaring it to be the official religion.

In other parts of the World, i.e. Asia and the Americas a different / delayed path was followed: in Asia Religion never became as important as in Europe whereas in the Americas - with e.g. Olmec's and Maya's - the development during Europe's Middle Ages is comparable to the much older development with e.g. the Sumerians or Egyptians in Eurasia.

However, the Catholic Church cannot entirely take on the role as a new way to organize / guide society since it preaches peace and 'do not kill' but to control a group or society one needs to be prepared to kill and go to war. So a balance with worldly powers was struck like e.g. with Charlemagne /k/ or with people like Richelieu /l/ in that the Church helped in organizing and guiding the masses. And in order to keep the Church superiority every Philosophy and Scientific advancement which could derail its grip on society was suppressed as is nicely seen with e.g. meteorites (stones from heaven): when found they were brought to Rome and put in the dungeons of the Vatican as became clear in 1993 CE when Guy Consolmagno /m/ was asked to catalogue them and found that the cellars of the Vatican held thousands of meteors which had been 'collected' over a period of 2000 years just to keep them from the eyes of the prying general public.

And e.g. progress in Mathematics was hindered as is nicely described in 'The History of Pi' /c/ or Infinitesimal /n/ because with mathematics people could possibly become equally perfect to God and could prove the Church to be wrong as happened with Galileo Galilei /o/. The fact that mathematics was not used to predict the stability or strength of things can also be seen from monumental buildings which were, until the times of the Renaissance (Robert Hooke and Christopher Wren started using mathematics and physics to design buildings after the great fire of London in 1666), build according to trial and error method or what God or nature would accept although the mathematical structures: geometries like the circle & triangles with their inherent rigidity, were known since Euclid /p/ and before that time had been used by e.g. the Egyptians to build the pyramids.

So the abstract idea of Religion / Christianity caused a setback in other abstract (sub)Themes like Science which had consequences in very real things like buildings, agriculture and medicine.

Superficially looked at: symbolic Games such as board-Games are just for fun. However they have been found in the early civilizations in the Middle East as early as 8000 BCE /q/ and seen from their sophistication must have developed from the beginning of the Neolithic period.

The logic behind symbolic Games is on the one hand that people such as soldiers have a way of killing time. While on the other hand this time is well spent because when playing a Game rules and their use (tactics) are tested and social bonds are strengthened /r/.

So symbolic Games served a purpose as well. They educated the young and the elderly and were a way to find those who made clever use of the rules, e.g. the Royal Game of Ur /s/ which had like 60 / 40 % for luck to strategy so if you used the rules cleverly and maybe even changed them ‘organically / evolutionary’ then you could show your intelligence. And since intelligence is not necessarily coupled to strength and agility which usually decides who becomes a leader in a group, Games were a way to find and select the more intelligent members of a group.

Strength and agility as such were learned and tested in Sports which prepared for war. However since hunting is served with strength and agility as well (rudimentary) Sports must have been present in pre-Neolithic times as well. But I

48 | Page

presume that sportive Games between neighboring groups were only developed when bigger societies emerged whereby neighboring groups lived – more or less friendly - under the umbrella of a larger society or cultural entity.

So even though many aspects of this Next Level Theme: Philosophy, Science, Games and Sports (N7) really developed in the last Millennium before the birth of Christ their (rudimentary) origin is much older and can be traced to at least the beginning of N5: Cities & Countries or well before that time at the start of the Neolithic, i.e. ~ 8000 BCE because then groups / societies started to produce enough food to sustain a small non-producing elite with interests in 'frivolous' activities like: Philosophy, Science, Games and Sports.

/5.3.7.a/ Euclid's Window, Leonard Mlodinow, 2001/5.3.7.b/ The great Equations, Robert P. Crease, 2008/5.3.7.c/ Pathfinders: The Golden Age of Arabic Science, Jim Al-Khalili, 2010/5.3.7.d/ A History of Pi, Petr Beckmann, 1971/5.3.7.e/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thales/5.3.7.f/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pappus_of_Alexandria/5.3.7.g/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Platonic_Academy/5.3.7.h/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aristotle/5.3.7.i/ De ontdekking van het weten ("The discovery of knowing"), Chunglin Kwa, 2005/5.3.7.j/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plato/5.3.7.k/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlemagne/5.3.7.l/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cardinal_Richelieu/5.3.7.m/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guy_Consolmagno/5.3.7.n/ Infinitesimal: How a dangerous Mathematical Theory shaped the Modern World, Amir Alexander, 2014/5.3.7.o/ Great Feuds in Science, Hal Hellman, 1998/5.3.7.p/ A history of the circle, Mathematical Reasoning and the Physical Universe, Ernest Zebrowski, 1999/5.3.7.q/ Games of the Ancient World: How Ancient Board Games Were Disseminated, Irving Finkel on YouTube, 2012/5.3.7.r/ Rules, Games and Common Pool Resources, Elinor Ostrom et al.,1994/5.3.7.s/ The Royal Game of Ur, Tom Scott vs Irving Finkel, Youtube 2017

49 | Page

6. Contemporary Themes

6.1 Introduction

The contemporary or main Themes in the modern era are a further development of the Basic and Next Level Themes of the past in several ways. They incorporate or make use of some or more of these earlier Themes but have different accents and they created new / untested aspects in the earlier (sub)Themes and were thereby reformed into new (sub)Themes.

The modern era starts with the Renaissance in the 16th and 17th century since that is a real break with societal organizing structures i.e. the Church and the State even though the real changes occurred much later e.g. the French Revolution in France and the Glorious and ensuing Industrial Revolution in England. The basis for these changes, however, was laid with the Renaissance. The fact that the Chinese had a society: an empire of maybe 100 million people or more, and technologies: e.g. agriculture, porcelain, knowledge of how to navigate longitude and gunpowder & guns, at a level of at least 18th century Europe as early as the 10th and 11th century under the Song-dynasty /a/ is not taken as the start of contemporary Themes because this Market economy crumbled to pieces under the Ming-dynasty because they changed the Agrarian Market economy into a command economy and rather effectively as we can read in Gavin Menzies /b/ . But it must have served as an example to the Europeans through trade and stories, through e.g. Marco Polo /c/.

The Renaissance in Europe came forth as a product of the enormous increase in wealth from the first worldwide trade which can be deduced from e.g. the first European circum navigation around the World in the beginning of the 16th century CE /d/ - even though some speculate the Europeans might have been beaten by the Chinese by at least a century /b/ - and a trip around the World by buying fares on several trade ships around 1600 CE /e,f/ which made it possible to combine products and ideas from all over the World and e.g. spawned the production of porcelain in the West (discovered in Meissen, Germany in 1708 to be followed by the French with a copy of the Chinese process), introduced potatoes and corn (Maize) from America and - course - spread the insight that enormous amounts of people lived completely different lives from what was customary in Europe at the time.

Of course doing away with the suppressing ideas of Christianity in the 14th and 15th century that e.g. the Earth was flat was a necessary step to develop this worldwide trade and therefore the Renaissance must be seen as an evolutionary development as can be read in 'The Measure of Reality' by Alfred Crosby /g/. But nevertheless it was an enormous break with the past with its development of ideas about society (e.g. Thomas More /h/ with his Utopia /i/, Miguel de Cervantes /j/ with Don Quixote /k/ and Desiderius Erasmus /l/ with The Praise of Folly /m/), nature (e.g. Jan Baptista van Helmont /n/), science (e.g. Robert Hooke /o/ or Isaac Newton /p/) and physiology or medicine (e.g. Paracelsus /q/ be it still with mystical and astrological annotations).

Some say this burst of ideas and change in Human evolutionary Themes was only possible because the book press had been invented by Johannes Gutenberg in around 1450 /r/ but the printing press had been invented long before that time in China (8th century CE) and the new ideas would have spread anyway because many more people were globally getting into contact on a regular basis and although books helped in spreading information, the old way: mouth to ear tales through travelers reached all walks of life whereby books only reached the few literate people. Be it that books cannot be read in a totally unintended way, which with storytelling is certainly possible.What we do see however is that - after the arrival of printed books - illiteracy becomes a real issue /s/ and ever more people are taught to read and write and in the end - mid 19th century - schools for everyone become an integral part of society in England and other continental countries. Be it that in continental Europe - especially Northern protestant countries - at the end of the 19th century literacy is already far more spread than in Southern countries or England /t/ because the Protestant Religion requires this. This gave especially Germany a significant advantage with the development of its society and industry and consequent improvement in buildings, industry, health, population size and weapons.

That Evolutionary progress in Human behavior started with the Basic Themes, through the Next Level Themes into the Contemporary Themes can also be clearly seen in the drop of the number of murders per 100,000 citizens yearly in a society: in his book "The better Angels of Our Nature" /u/ Steven Pinker finds e.g. that this number has dropped considerably since the Middle Ages from 30 to on average 7 Worldwide and to 1 in contemporary England.

This drop can be seen as a direct measure of Human evolution which tries - through the development of (sub)Themes like "Value of Life" ; "Law, Economics & Tax" to "Power with Government (see below)" - to let the greatest number of people survive since they are the carriers of Themes. And this is comparable to normal evolution which tries to let the

50 | Page

greatest number of the "best" genes survive through the greatest number of individual beings (Please note that this is not equal to the greatest number of species!).

With the rise of contemporary (sub)Themes Basic methods of building trust [~willingness to go along with certain Myths / (sub)Themes] like the food sharing networks became information sharing networks within the larger societies we live in. We became information brokers /v/ giving each other pieces of information vital to our survival in the completely Mythical / (sub)Themes World we have created. So this Idea-flow creates and strengthens social ties in the networks / groups we live in and the frequency and intensity of social contacts is a measure of trust within those groups. Therefore within each of the (sub)Themes we actively participate in / have to engage in: Information-brokering.

/6.1.a/ The Chinese Market Economy, 1000-1500, William Guanglin Liu, 2015/6.1.b/ 1434: The Year a Magnificent Chinese Fleet sailed to Italy and Ignited the Renaissance, Gavin Menzies, 2007/6.1.c/ Marco Polo; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marco_Polo/6.1.d/ Ferdinand Magellan; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ferdinand_Magellan/6.1.e/ Francesco Carletti; http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francesco_Carletti/6.1.f/ Reis om de Wereld ("Trip around the World"), Francesco Carletti, c. 1610/6.1.g/ The Measure of Reality: Quantification and Western Society, 1250 - 1600, Alfred W. Crosby, 1997/6.1.h/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sir_Thomas_More/6.1.i/ Utopia, Thomas More, 1516/6.1.j/ Miguel de Cervantes; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miguel_de_Cervantes/6.1.k/ Don Quixote; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don_Quixote/6.1.l/ Desiderius Erasmus; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erasmus/6.1.m/ Lof der Zotheid (The Praise of Folly), Desiderius Erasmus, 1503/6.1.n/ Van Helmont; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_Helmont/6.1.o/ The Man who knew too much, Stephen Inwood, 2002/6.1.p/ Isaac Newton, James Gleick, 2003/6.1.q/ Paracelsus; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paracelsus/6.1.r/ Johann Gutenberg; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johannes_Gutenberg/6.1.s/ Literacy; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Literacy/6.1.t/ Education; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Education/6.1.u/ The Better Angels of Our Nature, Steven Pinker, 2011/6.1.v/ Social Physics: How Social Networks Can Make Us Smarter, Alex Pentland, 2014

6.2 Contemporary Themes

The Main Themes in current 21st century societies are: C1) Power; C2) Religion; C3) Health, Care & Hygiene; C4) Science & Technology; C5) Education; C6) Sports; C7) Entertainment & Art and C8) News or Information exchange.

But earlier (sub)Themes still account for a large part of our behavior, e.g. the homeless in New York are primarily concerned with food or alcohol and only when their most basic need: Family or belonging to a Group is fulfilled homeless people will reintegrate into a further developed society.

Other Themes could be taken or defined however, as I will show, most of those ‘other’ Themes can be thought of as being part of the defined Contemporary Themes C1 … C8.

6.2.1 C1: Power When for the greater part in a society the Basic Themes: Food & Family have been taken care off the next Basic Theme is Power (compare with the Maslow hierarchy /a/) to distinguish the society or individual by. In modern societies Power is contained in various new or further developed Contemporary subThemes: C1a: Politics, C1b: Government, C1c: Business and C1d: Banks.

But Politics, Government and later on Business & Banks need larger groups / societies in a limited area -so a certain population density- to be of any value. Since only then you need a system to coerce certain factions of a society into compliance while if not physically constrained people can go their own way in the next valley or on the other side of the river. So, Politics and Government arise only when we have States and these arose only in certain areas like Egypt, China or Europe where people were 'forced' to cooperate /b/.

51 | Page

In fact, Francis Fukuyama sees four prerequisites for statehood to arise /b/:1) a physically constrained area where2) a rather large society can be sustained by either 3a) abundant natural resources or -much more likely since then people must cooperate (AdL)- 3b) abundant produced resources, i.e. an agrarian society and4) people must be motivated by the threat of being conquered or by a charismatic religious leader to cooperate.

That Egypt did not make it to the present as a leading state was caused by the rise of the Greeks and later on Rome and that China could not hold on to its early form of an impersonal state was caused by internal strive mixed with external tribes which conquered this huge empire regularly but had to adept to this impersonal state system so lost their tribal hold on society and in the end China had to succumb to the Europeans. So only in Europe statehood survived and the Nation State developed but maybe Europe is still in for a surprise /c/ ;-)

And -of course- the development / evolution of the Basic: B4 and Next Level: N3 Power Themes into the Contemporary Power Theme C1 with the currently recognizable subThemes: C1a: Politics, C1b: Government, C1c: Business and C1d: Banks caused a lot of blood to flow. But -in Western democracies- this development / evolution eventually created the relative social position of these subThemes best shown in what I call the Power rectangular:

This development caused -like every development in the Power Theme- a lot of individual hardship at the citizen level but probably less and less victims -percentage wise- over time and, after the peace of West Phalia in 1648 /d/, this trend really continued its downward movement. Because then the Nation State was formed, and the Contemporary Power subThemes are explicitly defined within the judicial system of a country. However civil war -which erupted many times since 1648- caused many deaths like the French Revolution and maybe civil war had to come about when the Nation State emerged to give the nature of Behavioral Evolution a means to function as becomes clear from the analysis of Walter Scheidel whom in his book ‘The Great Leveler’ /e/ finds that the only way to redistribute wealth and curb / redistribute the wealth of the Leisure Class /f/ was through Wars and Plagues. And maybe natural disasters like the Little Ice age (1570-1700) triggered a reshuffle of Power as Philipp Blom finds in his book ‘Nature’s Insurgency’ /g/. However, maybe modern society has -after the French Revolution- found a way to do this leveling through other / economic means /h/ with much less violence /i/, even though Nation States in Europe and North America had to regularly make war to keep their exclusive position /j/. And civil war is certainly not a phenomenon of the past as becomes clear when Keith Mines warns in 2017 -though he is not a Superforecaster /k/- that even the US is -with a 60% chance- heading for a civil war ! /l/. And reading between the lines Keith Mines is not alone since Larry Summers writes in Secular Stagnation that he sees a rather gloomy future for the US & Europe economies: ‘Secular Stagnation’ with that they are heading for this dismal state of economic affairs unless a (civil; AdL) War breaks out because that is the only way to steer free of such a state of economic affairs as happened in the 1930s when a Secular Stagnation was predicted for the first time /m/.

In his book ‘Very Different, But Much The Same: The Evolution of English Society Since 1714’ /n/ sociologist Garry Runciman finds that at least in Britain Politics & Government systems change much slower than Businesses and Banks, and e.g. technologies, clothing, language and music. But this phenomenon is much wider and why this happened, will be discussed in this chapter (see e.g. § 6.2.7. C7: Entertainment & Art.)

Please note that the ‘Power rectangular’ tries to depict the social 'distances' between the four Contemporary Power subThemes which are key for a modern democratic society to function (please refer to § 7.3.20 for further reading). But -as a first- let's define the Contemporary Power subThemes. /6.2.1.a/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslov's_heirarchy/6.2.1.b/ The Origins of Political Order, Francis Fukuyama, 2011/6.2.1.c/ The Breaking of Nations: Order and Chaos in the Twenty-First Century, Robert Cooper, 2003/6.2.1.d/ World Order, Henry Kissenger, 2014/6.2.1.e/ The Great Leveler – Violence and the history of inequality from the Stone Age to the 21st century, Walter Scheidel, 2017/6.2.1.f/ The Theory of the Leisure Class, Thorstein Veblen, 1899

52 | Page

Politics Business

Government Banks

Politics Business

Government Banks

Politics Business

Government Banks

Politics Business

Government Banks

Politics Business

Government Banks

Politics Business

Government Banks

Politics Business

Government Banks

Politics Business

Government Banks

Politics Business

Government Banks

Politics Business

Government Banks

Politics Business

Government Banks

Politics Business

Government Banks

Politics Business

Government Banks

Politics Business

Government Banks

Politics Business

Government Banks

Politics Business

Government Banks

Politics Business

Government Banks

Politics Business

Government Banks

Politics Business

Government Banks

Politics Business

Government Banks

Politics Business

Government Banks

Politics Business

Government Banks

Politics Business

Government Banks

Politics Business

Government Banks

Politics Business

Government Banks

Politics Business

Government Banks

Politics Business

Government Banks

Politics Business

Government Banks

Politics Business

Government Banks

Politics Business

Government Banks

Politics Business

Government Banks

Politics Business

Government Banks

Politics Business

Government Banks

Politics Business

Government Banks

Politics Business

Government Banks

Politics Business

Government Banks

Politics Business

Government Banks

Politics Business

Government Banks

Politics Business

Government Banks

Politics Business

Government Banks

Politics Business

Government Banks

Politics Business

Government Banks

Politics Business

Government Banks

Politics Business

Government Banks

Politics Business

Government Banks

Politics Business

Government Banks

Politics Business

Government Banks

Politics Business

Government Banks

Politics Business

Government Banks

Politics Business

Government Banks

Politics Business

Government Banks

Politics Business

Government Banks

Politics Business

Government Banks

Politics Business

Government Banks

Politics Business

Government Banks

Politics Business

Government Banks

Politics Business

Government Banks

Politics Business

Government Banks

Politics Business

Government Banks

Politics Business

Government Banks

Politics Business

Government Banks

Politics Business

Government Banks

Politics Business

Government Banks

Politics Business

Government Banks

Politics Business

Government Banks

Politics Business

Government Banks

Politics Business

Government Banks

Politics Business

Government Banks

Politics Business

Government Banks

Politics Business

Government Banks

Politics Business

Government Banks

Politics Business

Government Banks

Politics Business

Government Banks

Politics Business

Government Banks

Politics Business

Government Banks

Politics Business

Government Banks

Politics Business

Government Banks

Politics Business

Government Banks

Politics Business

Government Banks

Politics Business

Government Banks

Politics Business

Government Banks

Politics Business

Government Banks

Politics Business

Government Banks

Politics Business

Government Banks

Politics Business

Government Banks

Politics Business

Government Banks

Politics Business

Government Banks

Politics Business

Government Banks

Politics Business

Government Banks

Politics Business

Government Banks

Politics Business

Government Banks

Politics Business

Government Banks

Politics Business

Government Banks

Politics Business

Government Banks

Politics Business

Government Banks

Politics Business

Government Banks

Politics Business

Government Banks

Politics Business

Government Banks

Politics Business

Government Banks

Politics Business

Government Banks

Politics Business

Government Banks

Politics Business

Government Banks

Politics Business

Government Banks

Politics Business

Government Banks

Politics Business

Government Banks

Politics Business

Government Banks

Politics Business

Government Banks

Politics Business

Government Banks

Politics Business

Government Banks

Politics Business

Government Banks

Politics Business

Government Banks

Politics Business

Government Banks

Politics Business

Government Banks

Politics Business

Government Banks

Politics Business

Government Banks

Politics Business

Government Banks

Politics Business

Government Banks

Politics Business

Government Banks

Politics Business

Government Banks

Politics Business

Government Banks

Politics Business

Government Banks

Politics Business

Government Banks

Politics Business

Government Banks

Politics Business

Government Banks

Politics Business

Government Banks

Politics Business

Government Banks

Politics Business

Government Banks

Politics Business

Government Banks

Politics Business

Government Banks

Politics Business

Government Banks

Politics Business

Government Banks

Politics Business

Government Banks

Politics Business

Government Banks

Politics Business

Government Banks

Politics Business

Government Banks

Politics Business

Government Banks

Politics Business

Government Banks

Politics Business

Government Banks

Politics Business

Government Banks

Politics Business

Government Banks

Politics Business

Government Banks

Politics Business

Government Banks

Politics Business

Government Banks

Politics Business

Government Banks

Politics Business

Government Banks

Politics Business

Government Banks

Politics Business

Government Banks

Politics Business

Government Banks

Politics Business

Government Banks

Politics Business

Government Banks

Politics Business

Government Banks

Politics Business

Government Banks

Figuur 3 - Power Rectangular

/6.2.1.g/ De opstand van de natuur. Een geschiedenis van de Kleine IJstijd (1570-1700) en het ontstaan van het moderne Europa, Philipp Blom, 2017/6.2.1.h/ How was life - Global well-being since 1820, Jan Luiten van Zanden, 2014/6.2.1.i/ The Better Angels of Our Nature, Steven Pinker, 2011/6.2.1.j/ Global Economic History: A Very Short Introduction, Robert Allen, 2011/6.2.1.k/ Superforecaster, Philip Tetlock (& Dan Gardner), 2015/6.2.1.l/ US headed for Civil War?; http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/is-america-headed-for-a-new-kind-of-civil-war, interview with Keith Mines, aug. 2017/6.2.1.m/ Secular Stagnation: Facts, Causes and Cures, Coen Teulings & Richard Baldwin Ed., 2014/6.2.1.n/Very Different, But Much The Same: The Evolution of English Society Since 1714, Garry Runciman, 2015

6.2.1.1 C1a: Politics

Politics is how to rule with a small(er) group over a large(r) group [or how to extract wealth from a large(r) group by a small(er) group].

Although all forms of rule are still seen in Politics (see § 5.2.4 Power triangle) some kind of democracy is nowadays present in every contemporary society. Please note that democracy means that members of the small(er) ruling group come from the large(r) 'ruled over' group and are 'refreshed' every couple of years by some kind of elective system. So modern politicians have to include the feelings among and ideas of the general public. Like e.g. in China where the assembly of the socialist party has the official final say in important appointments and other high level decisions and not just a non-elective body like the secretary of the communist party. So, politics is nowadays not simply power play - if it ever was - but requires a less or more complicated / open process of negotiations between interest groups.

All variants have been and are tried out and every situation must be handled differently. E.g. a strong and self-confident Germany at the beginning of 20th century first required an enormous loss of life of millions of soldiers from itself and neighboring more democratic countries because in WWI everybody fought in a rather silly way against the new - mostly German - weapons /a/. Then in WWII it required again an enormous loss of life and an enormous production power (of the USA) to out produce the Germans because many of their weaponry and military organization was still much better. And after WWII it required a huge new "federal state" i.e. the European Union, to see to the fact that the Germans would never take up arms again /b/. But through all this for more than 100 years the basic idea of the Germans stayed the same: they wanted and want more say in the European matter because their society is more capable: especially in manufacturing than neighboring countries. So they adopted different politics: Kaiser, democracy, dictatorship and then again democracy to reach that goal and the other European countries had to respond to this ever changing opponent and are still 'losing' the battle because during the debt crisis (2011) it becomes ever more clear that the Germans are calling the shots although even they are incapable to rescue / buy out the complete Euro zone. This becomes even more clear in 2015 with Germany's stance against Greece with the possibility of a 'Grexit' to force the Greeks into some kind of austerity program. And although the Greeks said 'No' in a direct democratic Referendum to the measures laid upon them by a representative (so much less democratic) Europe with Germany at its helm, the Greeks had to concede.

So it is rather peculiar that Politics as a real separate (sub)Theme was already created by the Greeks in Athens where around 500 BCE a kind of democracy with an assembly ('ecclesia' with 500 members out of some 40,000 citizens) which voted on all matters of state (in modern terms: legislature, judiciary and executive) like going to war or setting rules over conquered opponents /c/. This democracy was quite unlike modern democracies but as complicated /d/. E.g. on the city of Mytilene on Lesbos after an uprising against Athens the Athenian assembly voted that every man in the city was to be killed and every woman and child was to be sold off as slaves. To execute this ruling a ship was sent but the next day this ruling was revoked in the famous Mytilenian debate and a very fast ship had to be sent to stop the first ship from executing all men in the city /e/. After the Greeks the Romans created a kind of democracy as well with again an assembly: the senate which however became almost powerless after the ascent of the Caesars - just like the Athenian democracy was overpowered by Philip of Macedon and his son Alexander the Great. But even the Ceasars - however powerful - had to listen to the senate and every Caesar after Julius was 'chosen' from amongst the senators. So the Roman Empire was largely about the Power Theme and the balance between a single ruler and a more democratic way to rule.

During the Middle Ages mostly the non-democratic rule of Kings and Nobility was the dominant form of power. At the courts politics was complicated but only accessible to a small privileged group. However in the cities - which re-emerged around 1000 CE - a new more democratic form of power sharing which gave power to a larger proportion of society, arose. And with the rise to power of the Dutch Republic in the 16th century 'modern' democratic politics entered the arena /f/.

53 | Page

In his book: On Politics /d/ Allan Ryan neatly describes all the twists and turns in political thinking that apparently had to pass to get from the Greeks to the Dutch Republic and he neatly describes everything that came after the Dutch Republic until the present day, be it that Dr. Ryan does not see the Dutch Empire as a republic and coins the founding of the USA as the first modern republic. Be it as it may from the history of political thinking one thing stands out above all else: Politics is about ruling - ever larger - groups, however defined.

/6.2.1.1.a/ Good-Buy to All That: An Autobiography, Robert Graves, 1929/6.2.1.1.b/ De Euro (in Dutch), Andre Szasz, 2001/6.2.1.1.c/ Athenian Democracy; http://h2g2.com/dna/h2g2/A805952/6.2.1.1.d/ On Politics: A History of Political Thought from Herodotus to the Present, Alan Ryan, 2012/6.2.1.1.e/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mytilenian_Debate/6.2.1.1.f/ The Dutch Republic, Jonathan Israel,1995

6.2.1.2 C1b: Government.

In this book we use the definition that Government is the keeper / regulator of the total set of rules to be applicable for a group, city or country. In Politics the decisions are made which rules or set of rules apply and in Government these rules are put into practice and are enforced.

On the one hand Government is the successor subTheme of the Next Level Theme N6: Law, Economy and Taxation, be it that for Economy only the regulation side was incorporated into Government. And several aspects of Cities & Countries have been incorporated / evolved into Government as well: e.g. centralized protection and common artificial structures like roads now belong to the Contemporary subTheme Government as well.

In this respect this subTheme came to its full potential when Empires (as the next level of N5: Cities & Countries) broke down and the Nation State: a unification of Culture and Geography /a/ was born somewhere between the founding of the Dutch Republic (1581 CE) and the French Revolution (1789 CE) or in 1648 with the Peace of Westphalia if we want a single moment in time /b/ after it had grown since ancient times and e.g. in a city like Florence in the Middle-Ages. And as an important note on the side: every Government started as a Mafia like ‘citizen’ extortion racket and developed from there into a little more benign entity but this origin will pop up all the time /c/.

On the other hand, Government has also added and is still adding aspects to other Contemporary (sub)Themes like e.g. the Trias Politica /d/ which creates a power balance between the different power forces: Politics, Government and the Judicial System. And Government created – more or less standardized since the French Revolution - ministries and (local) governmental organizations for roads, water, postal services, sewer systems, (train) transport, telegraph and later gas, electricity and telephone. The products of these organizations, although for the greater good of the people in general, do not differ much from products of normal businesses and sometimes even competed with those products. However, in every country different solutions were found with some specific public services in the public domain and others in the private domain. And over the course of history in many countries several changes in which public organization or private business was responsible for which specific public services took place. E.g. in the 1990s the European Union started to privatize several public services like telephone, public transport, postal services and gas & electricity. This (r)evolution led to several problems - especially for the number of people working in these public sectors - but not to a standstill of these services. So, it is quite clear that many so called public services do not necessarily need to be in the public domain, even in (a 'socialistic') Europe. In this context a nice anecdote is that people do not automatically understand the difference between Human Behavior: which can be changed and Physical "Behavior": which is fixed (as far as we know) and because of this Politics & Governments make doubtful choices in e.g. which service should be in the public and which in the private domain; In the beginning of the 1990s Members of the European Parliament were informed about the 'behavior' of electricity grids: i.e. these grids obey the so called "laws of Kirchhoff" which dictate that electricity does not necessarily flow along the paths / lines you want it to flow but rather take the path of least 'resistance'. After this had been explained to the Assembly a MEP asked: if electricity does not do what we want it to do why don't we change the laws of Kirchhoff? This misunderstanding of Physics is quite common in Humanities and - in my opinion - could be the major cause why it took so long before we really started to use physics and technology.

Both Politics and Government must have evolved from the use of Common Pool Resources (CPRs) by a group. The theory and practice of CPRs is extensively described in e.g. the book by Ostrom, Gardner and Walker: 'Rules, Games and Common Pool Resources' /e/. And most probably the Next Level Themes N1: Agriculture & Land, N3: Division of Labor and N4: Cities and Countries played a key role in the development of the Contemporary subThemes; C1a: Politics

54 | Page

and C1b: Government. But still a considerable section of modern societies is not automatically convinced that modern Government is better capable of taking care of CPRs such that they are not depleted without everybody entitled gets a fair share. E.g. future generations are - in their opinion - entitled to current resources like clean air, oil etc. and since they cannot vote they are not able to influence the use of CPRs. However, my answer to that criticism is: if modern Government was/is not better capable of dividing the gains and burdens over its people it would not have evolved as the keeper of CPRs ;-).

Ideally in modern societies Government would be fully independent from Politics. In practice however, there are - even in highly democratic societies - all kinds of interdependencies which can cause a more or less fraudulent and corrupt Government. But this is not a specifically Contemporary or even Human problem since every Human or animal group for that matter had / has its free riders as can be read e.g. in Robin Dunbar's book /f/ or Edward Wilson's book /g/.

For external protection Government must maintain a military force and for internal safety issues it must maintain a (localized) police force to enforce the rule of law: i.e. keep citizens in check and bring them before the Judicial System if they pass a legal line.

A major problem with the military is that they can take over Politics or form an alliance with and help certain factions within society and certainly help themselves. This suppresses the survival of the 'best' or most popular ideas in a country or society such that such a society usually cannot freely develop / evolve. This problem with the military has been around a long time since the first State was created by forming a military i.e. the Qin state in 221 BCE in China /h/ and played a key role almost ever since in the development of societies e.g. with the Inca's around 1000 CE /i/ or Prussia -later Germany- in the 18th century which was 'an Army with a Country', probably because war is the event whereby idea's / culture / societies are tested to the full. This last example is especially interesting because Prussia made the first step towards disentanglement between civil and military administrations /j/.

An exception could be China, although China certainly needed the lifting of the most suppressing socialist ideas to unleash the power of its masses in the 1980s, it did not need the total disentanglement of the military as was shown on Tiananmen Square in 1989. Maybe because the number of people was / is so vast that no other country can compete /k/. Not even the USA with its (much) more democratic Government. Only India is a threat to China's World domination because they do / did not have the one family, one child policy and are quickly catching up in numbers since they solved the other major prerequisites for a successful society: food for everyone, enough freedom and an education for a large enough percentage to escape poverty /l/ in a totally different and much more democratic way. E.g. food for everyone - a typical CPR-dilemma - was solved in India by the 'Green Revolution' in the 1960s. Whereas this dilemma was solved by the very undemocratic 'one-child per family' rule in China.

If a country or society has a weak Government, it usually will not develop into a modern first World country. Its public servants are then more often than not underpaid which causes corruption to be more widespread than in countries with stronger Governments.

And the type of Law or Government is important as well. In a system whereby there are collective property or market rights as was the case in e.g. the Netherlands up to the 20th century /m/ or in communist countries up to the 1990s /n/ or is still the case in e.g. Melanesia it is much more difficult to develop a Western style economy since individual people do not directly benefit from their effort which is key to their motivation to start the effort /h/ (please refer to § 5.3.6: N6: Law, Economics and Taxation, as well).

For a full development of the Economy in a country Government furthermore has to supply the currency, to make business / market rules and to maintain the Law with its police and civil law to make a level playing field for all citizens / businesses under its cloud.

And to pay for it all Government has to set the rate of taxes and collect them. So, Government is a crucial part / role in modern societies and some say the crucial part / role. About which a nice book by Michael Barber has been written: 'How to Run a Government. So that Citizens Benefit and Taxpayers Don't Go Crazy' /o/. For which Michael Barber develops 57 rules with the rules on Taxes as the most important ones. And rule #53, ANSWER THE QUESTION: WHO IS YOUR EDMUND DUDLEY as the most important one about (other people's) Money. Edmund Dudley was the 'tax-collector', 'minister of Finance' of Henry VII of England in the beginning of the 16th century, who was key to the success of Henry VII in the hostile world of the Nobility, the Clergy and the Merchants of London from which sources Dudley was able to wring a big surplus in the State's coffers at the end of the Reign of Henry VII. A huge and very uncommon feat for Governments at the time. There was one catch however, when Henry VIII took over Dudley was beheaded to appease the three sources of State income. So, it will always be difficult to find an Edmund Dudley ;-)

55 | Page

/6.2.1.2.a/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nation_state/6.2.1.2.b/ World Power, Henry Kissinger, 2014/6.2.1.2.c/ The Evolution of Everything. How Small Changes Transform Our World, Matt Ridley, 2015/6.2.1.2.d/ http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trias_politica/6.2.1.2.e/ Rules, Games and Common Pool Resources, Elinor Ostrom, Roy Gardner and James Walker, 1994/6.2.1.2.f/ Human Evolution, Robin Dunbar, 2014/6.2.1.2.g/ The Social Conquest of Earth, Edward O. Wilson, 2012 /6.2.1.2.h/ The Origins of Political Order, Francis Fukuyama, 2011/6.2.1.2.i/ David Carrasco; Religions of Mesoamerica, David Carrasco, 1990/6.2.1.2.j/ Political Order and Political Decay, Francis Fukuyama, 2014/6.2.1.2.k/ The New Asian Hemisphere, Kishore Mahbubani, 2008/6.2.1.2.l/ From Heaven Lake, Vikram Seth,1987/6.2.1.2.m/ Collective property rights in the Netherlands; http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erfgooier/6.2.1.2.n/ Perestrojka: A New Vision for my Country and the World, Micheal Gorbatsjov, 1987/6.2.1.2.o/ How to Run a Government. So that Citizens Benefit and Taxpayers Don't Go Crazy, Michael Barber, 2015

6.2.1.3 C1c: Business.

The beginning of Business could be put in Italy when it started to develop as a major trade hub for World Wide Trade when they invented Banks (see next subTheme) but a more logic choice is when the Dutch society developed shared ownership for ships and enterprises with the first publicly owned company: ‘VOC’ in 1602 /a/ and developed ‘de Beurs’ in 1611 /b/ as the place where you could buy and sell shares: part-ownerships in Businesses. At first only VOC shares were traded but later on other newly founded companies were traded as well. But some would say Business started with the start of modern economics with the publication of 'The Wealth of Nations' by Adam Smith in 1776 /c/. And still others think that ancient Rome was already home to 'modern' business models like shares /d/.

Before that time running a business was something done by families / individuals with single "products" like a farmer, bakery, blacksmith or fisherman mostly under the protection of the local ruler like e.g. in ancient Egypt, Mesopotamia, ancient Greece, ancient Rome, China under the Song-dynasty /e/ or the Middle Ages or as a trader buying goods at one place and selling them at another. A nice example of which was the production and trade in terra sigillata products (plates, vases etc.) in the Roman Empire which were produced at first by high ranking patricians like Gnaeus Ateius but when it became popular started to be produced by societate (co-operations) at several production centers spread over the Empire and was traded by traders who apparently looked for the same drivers as we look now, i.e. minimize transportation costs /f;g/ to maximize profit. This idea of progress / profit stems from the Jewish people who in their Old Testament had the first example of linear time towards something new: the coming of the Messiah /h/. Before that time the thinking was cyclical: everything ended where it began as e.g. in the very first Epic story of Gilgamesh /i/.

But from the beginning of the 17th century a business became more like an enterprise as we know them now, with holdings spread out over a large area which had to take care of itself under varying circumstances like different rulers with changing interests / allegiances, different shareholders, different employees etc. So different stakeholders in an ever changing environment or ever changing markets with competition. Or stated differently: with the rise of Business as we now know it in the Western World several survival / power (sub)Themes merged into this subTheme for the average citizens of the (major) cities of the day. And this has not changed for the modern businesses of the 21st century as can e.g. be read in the very good book by Peter Drucker /j/ in which he -at the turn of the Millennium- predicts many of the now apparent problems of the Western economies like: instable financial system, unsustainable pension systems, a great divide within the EU and ever changing politics in Nation States which cannot be influenced by business management. To which I add: Nor should business management be able to influence these uncertainties because that is exactly why the Western World has risen to its current status: a real separation between the four subThemes of Contemporary Power: C1a: Politics, C1b: Government, C1c: Business and C1d: Banks (please refer to § 7.3.20). Businesses have to adapt to each change and be structured such that they can adapt quickly or at least more quickly than their competitors. I.e. evolution at its very best!

On the one hand the fact that Business is indeed very much a return to / merger with the very basic 'gift networks' of the hunter - gatherer lifestyle like the 'hxaro' of the !Kung (or Bushmen) of the Kalahari desert where reputation is valued more than possession can be nicely read in: Mothers and Others by Sarah Blaffer Hrdy /k/.

On the other hand, Businesses as we know them now enable a larger part of society to personally take part in the daily struggles for survival, to take matters into your own hands as opposed to being dependent on the favors / whims of your

56 | Page

rulers. With Businesses you can choose to what group you belong in the same way as the hunter - gatherer could choose with whom he or she had a gift relationship to ride through hard times.

This two-sided, coin behavior we still see today in that we are prepared to do things for someone else based on two types of behavior: Social norms (family/friend relations) whereby we do something as a gift or Market norms (business relations) whereby we do something only for money /l/. And as long as money is not mentioned we are prepared to do real jobs without direct payment but as soon as money is mentioned we expect to be paid like a worker for the same services even if we did them before on a friendly basis.

Or in terms (sub)Themes Theory: modern Businesses creates - for a larger part of a society - the possibility to (increase the) Change your Cultural Makeup (CCM) which increases your Speed of Evolution (SE) which is what it is all about. However, in its wake Businesses change (increase) the Cultural Environment (CCE) of your society as well when other groups / businesses take on the same idea so then it lowers your Speed of Evolution (SE) again (see also Chapter 5: Human History). As a result, new initiatives - within this subTheme - are constantly needed to maintain a certain SE for you just as the hunter- gatherer had to maintain his or her 'gift networks'.

With the industrial revolution in England a new dimension was added to Business i.e. the dimension of innovation: whom or what process could best produce wool or cotton products: spinning Jenny, could produce the best steam engines: James Watt & Co or could make the best guns: Smith & Wesson etc. This pushed enterprises / companies -and countries /m/- even further. But that businesses as we know them now could concur the ‘free’ World only succeeded because England and Richard Cobden as its primary proponent in the second half of the 19th century became a fervent advocate of both free people and free trade / no tariffs, so liberalism and libertarianism /n/. Had this not happened, businesses would not be where they stand now within the Contemporary Power Theme but probably something else would have developed in their place.

Running a company required / requires many skills: a good social network, in depth knowledge of the product(s), in depth knowledge of the market(s), good ties with or good knowledge of the local Government(s), good psychological skills etc. So, all in all it requires very many aspects - if not all - of human existence. It is therefore that this (sub)Theme emerged and evolved.

And in the beginning, it required even more as can be seen from the fact that the VOC in its first 100 years of existence had to maintain an army / fleet to protect its interests. I.e. it had at that moment in time to take care of other (sub)Themes as well nowadays normally residing under the (sub)Theme Government which had -at the time- not developed to its modern form as a Nation State which only evolved after 1648 /o/. The VOC did this by shipping an enormous amount of ships (1.755) and an even more staggering number of people (973.000) to the East over the course of the 17th century. Which they could do because of the excellent maps that were made by the Blaeu family /p/ as the companies official cartographer. This could be compared to normal evolution where a new species has to fight off its predecessor from the environmental niche in which it is developing in. Nowadays this is no longer required or even acceptable in business as is clearly stated by Ben van Beurden (CEO of Royal Dutch Shell) that he tries to stay away from politics as far as possible /q/.

And although all businesses use other (sub)Themes to do their business, e.g. C3: Health, Care & Hygiene, C4: Science & Technology, C5: Education, C6: Sports and C7: News or Information Exchange or sometimes even exclusively (sub)Themes from previous Era’s like the Life Theatres of e.g. the San, it is not in the interest of a society / country when businesses use the Contemporary Power (sub)Themes: C1a: Politics, C1b: Government or C2: Religion. This because then a fraudulent collusion is easily made (please refer to § 7.3.20). An example of which is the Church of Scientology /r/ which is quite clearly a business: ‘education in meditation’ but with a dubious business model. However, it is recognized by the IRS as a Religion and is therefore exempted from taxes which helps enormously in profitability. But many countries other than the US government regard the organization a cult, a pseudo-religion or even a criminal organization and therefore you find this ‘company’ in just the few countries who recognize it as a Religion. Which shows that taxes are the most important aspect of the Business subTheme (C1c) for both the country it operates in and for the businesses themselves.

The fact that running a business requires many human skills can also be deduced from the fact that a successful businessman / businesswoman gets many rewards: including (great) wealth and much attention by the other sex exactly as in the animal kingdom. This also explains why the wealth (and attention) cannot be forever because then the rewards would be no longer coupled to current performance but to past victories. So wealth or success in general is / must be a passing phenomenon. Or set in the idea of Human Speed of Evolution: increase of Cultural Makeup erodes as the individual becomes part of the Cultural Environment.

57 | Page

Because running a business is rather complicated / diverse, within this subTheme very many sub(sub)Themes were and are created like different product columns and as a more general subTheme: management with the idea that a certain subset of the required skills to run a business is product independent. Especially in the USA this subTheme has been perfected by the business schools with their MBA diploma's but although American consumer businesses have conquered the World: e.g. McDonalds, Starbucks or Apple, product based businesses like manufacturing, energy or heavy industry have flourished elsewhere: Japan, Germany and now China and are on the decline for decades in the US. It is my guess that this is because the applicability of management sec is limited, i.e. you need to know what you are managing.

But although businesses introduced management with its above given side-effects it is still needed to give entrepreneurs the possibility to pursue their innovative ideas in products and / or markets. The entrepreneurs are driving business along in an evolutionary modified Schumpeterian way /s/ and it is management which 'expands' these endeavors to be overtaken by a new entrepreneur with a new business a few or many years later.

Businesses introduced another type of group, i.e. a much more loosely defined group with a membership by choice for the individuals / stakeholders involved. This as opposed to the other (basic) groups an individual is part of: Family, extended Family, City, Region or Country of which a person is a member until he or she becomes of age and can choose where to live and whom to marry. But even in modern Western societies 'old' Family or Regional bonds are usually stronger than the bond with groups you join for a living.

The freedom to choose and end your membership (or get it ended because of e.g. a bankruptcy) introduces special characteristics to businesses and e.g. the Rhineland model styled businesses try to be like a family / house as opposed to Anglo Saxon model styled businesses which try to be much more free riding and just a way to earn a living where the individual or the business for that matter can change its allegiance quite easily. This characteristic creates a totally different dynamic for businesses which are founded and live their useful life (purpose) but disappear quite easily when their purpose has become out of date. So - at least in modern times - businesses do not fight real wars for survival but all surrogate phenomena: like price wars or market dominance do - of course - occur.

/6.2.1.3.a/ 1st Company: VOC; http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vereenigde_Oostindische_Compagnie/6.2.1.3.b/ 1st Stock Exchange; http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amsterdamse_effectenbeurs/6.2.1.3.c/ An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of The Wealth of Nations, Adam Smith, 1776/6.2.1.3.d/ The Origins of Value, W. Goetzmann (Ed.) & G. Kouwenhorst (Ed.), 2005: Ch. 2 'Roman Shares' by U. Malmendier/6.2.1.3.e/ The Chinese Market Economy 1000-1500, William Guanglin Liu, 2015/6.2.1.3.f/ Terra Sigillata; http://www.rgzm.de/transportroutes/6.2.1.3.g/ Modes of Transport in Roman Empire; http://orbis.stanford.edu/#/6.2.1.3.h/ How much is enough, Robert & Edward Skidelsky, 2012/6.2.1.3.i/ Economics of Good and Evil, Tomas Sedlacek, 2011/6.2.1.3.j/ Management Challenges for the 21st Century, Peter Drucker, 1999/6.2.1.3.k/ Mothers and Others, Sarah Blaffer Hrdy, 2009/6.2.1.3.l/ Predictably Irrational: The Hidden Forces That Shape Our Decisions, Dan Ariely, 2009/6.2.1.3.m/ Robert Allen; Global Ecomic History: A Very Short Introduction, 2011/6.2.1.3.n/ The Evolution of Everything. How Small Changes Transform Our World, Matt Ridley, 2015/6.2.1.3.o/ World Order, Henry Kissinger, 2014/6.2.1.3.p/ A History of the World in Twelve Maps, Jerry Brotton, 2015/6.2.1.3.q/ Interview with Ben van Beurden, NRC Weekend 6&7 sept. 2014/6.2.1.3.r/ Scientology; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientology/6.2.1.3.s/ Economics: The User's Guide, Ha-Joon Chang, 2014

6.2.1.4 C1d: Banks.

Banks were introduced in the 14th Century in Florence (Northern Italy) /a/. Although other cultures had money and banks long before that time, e.g. the Persians under Darius the Great at the end of the 6th century BCE /b/. Through banks it became possible to order and pay for goods from distant places in local currency with their exchange services and it became possible to lend money, do a business transaction, repay the loan and pocket the profit through so called letters of exchange which decoupled / replaced time & interest - forbidden by the church - with distance & exchange rates. This brought the bankers (e.g. De Medici) extreme wealth and in direct conflict with the Church - i.e. the other helpers of the rulers of the time: Kings & Nobility - because money lending was against the Usury laws and the extreme wealth of the bankers devalued the 'help' of the Church in controlling the people. And even sharing the wealth with the Church and a part of the Citizens by financing many artists and innumerous pieces of Art and financing the building of

58 | Page

extremely luxurious churches could not prevent that by the end of the 15th century some factions within the Church tried to suppress the frivolity and disobedience of the Church laws with e.g. a Friar Savonarola who took power in Florence and imposed strict behavioral laws on the city. However, within a few years the citizens rioted against his rule - because he was against trading and banking - and a befriended and very worldly Pope had him burned to death /c/.

So, banks and bankers managed to oppose the Church which had been the way to control the people for centuries. This served as an example to oppose the Church in other areas like the teachings on natural history such as the earth is flat and the Centre of the universe.

However, the introduction of indirect payments with letters of credit and money lending with letters of exchange by the Banks introduced 'virtual' money with no longer a direct 1-1 link to something scarce like gold or silver. These letters or this system was / is based solely on trust: do I trust the person and/or bank who is presenting me with a letter of credit and vice versa the bank must trust the person to whom it is lending money with a letter of exchange.This system was further perfected - leveraged - in London in the 19th century as can be read in the good book by Walter Bagehot /d/. This decoupling led first of all to an explosion of wealth because of the leverage: 1 real florin in the coffers of a bank could achieve much more by the many letters of credit which were based upon it. But it also led to all kinds of instabilities with people spending too much money, e.g. rulers on wars or traders on goods. However - in the end - these instabilities were always 'solved' by the loss of a war and/or bankruptcy of a business or bank which resettled / settled the debts and corrected for the misplaced trust by the lenders of money or the misplaced trust by the people (business partners) whom had accepted the letters of credit. Before that time - without Banks - one simply would not do business because of the lack of exchangeable currencies and only barter trade was possible.Another explanation could be that with the introduction of the decimal (Indian / Arabian) number system in the eleventh century in Europe - which is inherently unbounded - trade (and later banks) became unbounded where before that time it was always bounded by the coupling between countable goods and the numeral systems - with bounded maxima like M (Myriad) in the Greek numbering system - to count them /e/.

The fact that banks could develop is most probably due to the fact that calculations with money or promissory notes became much simpler and well accepted once Leonardo de Pisa made the decimal (Indian / Arabian) number place system accessible to the mercantile community of 13th century Italy (Pisa) by his scholary and practical books like: 'Liber abbaci' (Book of Calculation) in 1202 or 'Libro di merchaanti detto di minor guisa' (smaller book for merchants) /f/. With these texts and teachings, he changed the face of mercantile -and probably scholarly- medieval Europe so that calculations became much simpler and thereby more widely used.

Whichever explanation is better: not bounded by physical entities or not bounded by numerals: with the lifting of the representative value system in the beginning of the 20th century - and effectively a total decoupling of the value of money from natural resources - a lot of real instabilities like hyperinflation were unleashed like e.g. in the Weimar Republic (Germany) in the 1920s or the Great Depression in the United States of America in the 1930s. And with the introduction of derivatives on a large scale -indirect promissory notes on value papers- in the 1980s even further instabilities were introduced because the coupling to natural resources became even more indirect. This decoupling caused - in the end - the credit crises in 2007, the financial crisis in 2008 and the ensuing debt crises in 2011 in Europe or the federal debt ceiling crises in the US. And although many people believe that it was the absence or the abolishment of regulations / laws on banks which caused these crises /g/ I believe that the more fundamental idea of unboundedness is what really causes the instabilities in the financial markets. But again, that is evolution: there is a system, people find new ways, some fail, the system is changed, and the cycle repeats itself but then with all the history / past included.

Or in terms of economy: we learn to specialize, start to trade, have wars over resources and skills, create money, trade on a greater scale, get instabilities because of too much or too little 'money', regulate 'money', invent banks, trade on a much larger volume -and specialize more-, get banks which default on their promissory notes, introduce central banks and restrictions on money creation, 'invent' the lifting of the representative value system, get Worldwide depression, introduce stricter bank laws but lift them again, introduce derivatives on a large scale and get the financial crises: first in East Asia (1997) and then in the Western style economies in 2007/2008. And now we are looking for some kind of next step which will -eventually- come but with -of course- the inevitable downturn at some time in the future. Nothing to worry about ;-)

Seen from a different angle: the instabilities occur because we do not let the system quickly correct itself by letting the people with too much trust pay for their "stupidity". But instead we try to keep them afloat with public money, so we socialize their mistake(s) which is against the most basic law of evolution: survival of the fittest (group or individual). What we apparently try to do is to let the system (=market economy with banks as their pivotal element) survive. But most probably - in the end - it will not survive because we do not let its fundamental rule: 'every entity or everybody for him or herself', do its work fast and hard enough.

59 | Page

Please note that within the Contemporary Power subTheme Banks a split had to be made between Politics & Government on the one side and Business & Banks on the other side of the Power Rectangular (please refer to fig. 3 in § 6.2.1: Power) because otherwise a Ruling Class could create Money as much as it likes to stay in Power with no restrictions whatsoever and then this currency would not be trusted. So, the creation / overseeing of the amount of Money rests with the Government or an independent Central Bank and the lending of Money to Businesses and the General Public rests with commercial Banks. That this scheme is not fool proof is nicely shown by Yanis Varoufakis in his book: ‘And The Weak Suffer What They Must?’ when he discusses the demise of the Bretton Woods system of fixed exchange rates between the major currencies of the World when in 1971 Pres. Nixon ends the fixed exchange rate between Dollars and Gold so Countries like Germany, France and Britain could no longer exchange their build up Dollar Reserves into Gold. And in 1980 when the US / FED’s Paul Volcker increased the interest rates to staggering heights thereby effectively sucking up all the surplus Money / Dollars the US was printing to pay for its huge trade deficits. This unique feat in fact increased the Power of the US paid by … the rest of the World /h/.

So, through the eyes of Themes Theory we see the development of a newer subThemes (money / economy and Banks) take over from an older 'controlling' (sub)Theme: Religion. And maybe some of the Islamic fundamentalism: e.g. against the USA can be explained by this evolutionary development that Religion becomes less and less influential and seen from this perspective the Arabic spring movement of 2011 in a number of North African and Middle Eastern countries for a more democratic way of life might be comparable to the rise of the Banking system and its 'frivolous' way of life in medieval Toscany and the actions by Friar Savonalora /i/ in Florence against the frivolity comparable to the suppression by Islamic / reactionary forces like e.g. the Muslim brotherhood in Egypt.

/6.2.1.4.a/ Palazzo Strozzi, Exhibition Money and Beauty, by Claudio Pescio (Ed.), 2011/6.2.1.4.b/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darius_I/6.2.1.4.c/ The Prince, Machiavelli, 1513/6.2.1.4.d/ Lombard Street, Walter Bagehot, 1873/6.2.1.4.e/ The Beginning of infinity, David Deutsch, 2012/6.2.1.4.f/ The Man of Numbers, Keith Devlin, 2011/6.2.1.4.g/ Economics: The User's Guide, Ha-Joon Chang, 2014/6.2.1.4.h/ And The Weak Suffer What They Must?, Yanis Varoufakis, 2016/6.2.1.4.i/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Girolamo_Savonarola

6.2.2 C2: Religion

Around the time that the Jewish bible or Torah was written /a1;a2/ Religion became a fully separate Theme, i.e. around 1200 BCE /b1/ or around the 8th century BCE as some others say /b2/ or even as late as the 1st century CE as Steve N. Mason argues because after the destruction of Jerusalem including the Jewish Temple in the Judean-Roman war the Jewish believers could no longer make offerings and Judaism had to become something not related to a special place but to something else for which they chose the Scriptures /c/. Even though there were monotheistic precursors like the Zoroastrian Belief /d/ in around 1800 BCE which was probably later -in c. 550 BCE- used by Darius the Great /e/ to give the Persian Empire a Religion, or the Belief in the all-powerful Aten who was declared the only God in the Egyptian pantheon by the Pharao Achnaton in around 1350 BCE but this Religion was pushed aside by the next Pharao /f/ but the idea had apparently been born. The revolutionary idea of Judaism -and its precursors- was to unite all Godly power into one ‘being’ who was - after creation - still in every day contact with the World. Before that time Belief was not a rigid idea as the person(s) who carried the knowledge / specifics of a Belief handed these ideas to the next generation orally which caused the Belief-system to change from generation to generation /g/. Only with written texts Belief-systems became rigid and it is this step which we will call the Contemporary Theme: Religion. And for e.g. the Jewish People Religion became the distinguishing characteristic of their group. That Religion must have helped –in a Darwinian way- this group can be read in ‘Wired for Culture’ by Mark Pagel /h/. Even though it is difficult to accept this Darwinian view knowing what we know now about the history of this particular group / society.

Some sources say that the Jewish belief was explicitly 'invented' / written by Persian or Egyptian clerics around 500 BCE /i/ who wanted to appease and unite the Bedouin peoples of the land of Canaan. And it is more or less certain that the Islam was invented around 700 CE by the first Caliph (=ruler) of the Arabic unified Bedouin people: Abd al-Malik for exactly that same purpose: keep the Bedouin peoples united under the strain of the external forces of Judaism and Christianity /j/. And if you read the Old Testament with an evolutionary view /k/ you could conclude that it describes human development from the hunter-gatherer lifestyle into the agricultural lifestyle with all its twists and turns and -according to the autors- (much) higher rate of violence and that comparison needed a monotheistic Belief -i.e. Religion- to have a single / common denominator for all human activity.

60 | Page

Anyway the Jewish example paved the way for other Religions in the West & Middle East like Christianity and later Islam. Be it that these Religions did not and do not identify just one group or society but a cluster of groups or societies. Smaller groups within a cluster had and have their fights / wars but those were mostly over non-Religious (sub)Themes like Power over a region or even such ideas as mathematics as is brilliantly described by Amir Alexander in Infinitesimal /l/. However major divisions within these main Religions did and do fight for survival like Catholic Christianity against Orthodox Christianity e.g. during the Crusades when Crusaders destroyed and took over Constantinople or presently Sunni Islamists against Shia Islamists but they usually do not develop into all out wars because of the danger that it could be a Pyrrhus victory.

Another reason why Belief became disentangled from Power and became Religion could be that Greek philosophers started to doubt the existence of the supernatural like e.g. Democritus who started atomism around 450 BCE and then Epicurus /m/ who – as a supporter of Democritus- saw the World made up as nothing but atoms (indivisible building blocks) randomly interacting with one another and thought that all happiness lay in the absence of fear: fear of pain, fear of poverty and fear of death. And Lucretius who around 50 BCE stepped in the footsteps of Epicurus and wrote: “The reason why all mortals are so gripped by fear is that they see all sorts of things happening on the earth and in the sky with no discernible cause, and these they attribute to the will of a god. Accordingly, when we have seen that nothing can be created out of nothing, we shall then have a clearer picture of the death ahead, the problem of how things are created and occasioned without the aid of gods” /n/. With this stance Lucretius could be seen as the Richard Dawkins of antiquity /n/.

In other parts of the World, i.e. Asia and the Americas other faiths prevailed which were (and mostly still are) less intertwined with Power like e.g. the Maya faith in central America /o/ or Confucianism & Buddhism in China. These faiths were (and are) generally not key to identifying the group or society in which they are practiced but part of a larger pattern of (sub)Themes (i.e. Culture) even though in China Confucianism & Buddhism arose to help the elite but these faiths were not key to their grip on power which was mainly done by political coercion /p/. Except in India where Brahmanism -around 600 BCE- was key to the rise of the Varnas or stratification of the Indian society in four main social classes: Brahmins (priests), Kshatriyas (warriors), Vaishyas (merchants) and Sudras (the rest) and from that moment on India was controlled by an elite: Brahmins. However, that elite held ritual power and therefore did not need to coerce its subjects since their power came from the supernatural. And even though Hinduism in India was the response to Brahmanism and its inequality, it never went so far as to overthrow the Varnas /p/. So this Theme was really oscillating between two extremes: the first 'one God' system in e.g. Egypt -which was very coercive-, the Jewish Religion which was not coercive and the main identifier of the Jewish people /q/ or the development of the faiths in Asia which were not coercive and not the characteristic of a society like in China or rather characteristic to the society but still not coercive like in India. Whereby coercion became the main theme of Christianity and Islam when they fully blossomed in around 800 - 1000 CE.

With the rise of Christianity and Islam: e.g. the East Roman Empire, Religion became the main organizing Theme to align Societies in Europe and the Middle East. Even so far that real wars were fought between Christianity and Islam e.g. during the times of Charlemagne /r/ and the Crusades when the Islam was especially expanding. These clashes were ferocious /s/ but in fact nothing more than an evolutionary fight for the survival / supremacy of an ideology [=Behavioral (sub)Theme]. And it is probably fair to say that the Middle Ages were used to organize this Contemporary Theme: Religion or stated differently the Middle Ages were used to reorganize societies according to the most advantageous Religious / Christian way. See e.g. ‘Der Deutsche Orden’ /t/ in which the history and influence of the Christian 'Noble' Teutonic Orders is told or the history of the conquering of contemporary Mexico from the Aztecs by the Spanish /u/. And from the ‘Hereford mappamundi’ made in 13th century England Religious / Biblical thinking ran supreme to which other contemporary (sub)Themes had to concede. I.e.: the main theme of the ‘Hereford mappamundi’ is the Biblical timeline and not a realistic map of the World according to contemporary knowledge and the more than a millennium old tradition of map making started by Ptolemy /v/. But maybe it was made to counter ‘new’ thought-trends like the ideas of William of Ockham (1287-1347) with his razor who was certainly not alone /w/.

A comparable fight with Islam is still going on. Be it that now the existence / power of Islam is probably at stake and the opponent - this time - is not a Religion as such but a way of living - especially with banks, modern businesses and consumer markets. Or in the words of Amin Maalouf this fight with Radical Islamism is about identity -this is who we are and don’t make us feel inferior- and not ideology -we are superior, and everybody must follow- /x/. And Maalouf is underpinning his theory with a strong argument that every culture is confronting every other culture on a daily basis and therefore every identity is experiencing the need for virulent self-affirmation. But maybe this fight can be compared to the fight between the Catholic Church with Friar Savonarola and the bankers and citizens of Florence over Usury laws and an ascetic / religious way of life at the end of the 16th century. Especially Al Qaida c.s. tries to destroy (the symbols of) the frivolous Western style of living because the strict Islamic way of life is threatened in its existence and this fact was / is - of course - used for the personal Power interests of Osama bin Laden or the Caliph of the Islamic State: Abu

61 | Page

Bakr Al-Baghdadi in eastern Syria and northern Iraq be it that Baghdadi claims to act for when the end of the World sets in /y/. So not directly for Worldly Power which is probably why this movement is so extremely violent which will -most certainly- be the main cause why it will soon disappear / be conquered because everybody else is not interested in being killed (please refer to § 7.3.22 also).

So, Religion is a natural human phenomenon in the sense that there is nothing mystical about it /z/ even though Dennett - in the same book - tries to disentangle (break the spell) Religion from the other most natural human phenomenon: Power. But that will be difficult since Religion has been entangled with Power for millennia as can e.g. be read in the New Testament where directly before Jesus crucifixion a woman uses a very expensive oil to balsam Jesus. This is directly against the Christian idea that you should help the poor and powerless within your capabilities first, but this act is then 'explained' by Jesus with the reasoning that it is OK since he will only be around temporarily while the poor will always be there /Marcus 14:7/. I.e. we can give our scarce resources to the rich and famous and still act within the main idea of this Religion which is very peculiar to say the least and against all logic since every single poor and/or powerless person whom this woman could have helped would be mortal i.e. really be only temporarily around. But Jesus ‘reasoning’ is -of course- simply explained by the fact that otherwise the rich and famous could not have used this religion as an organizing force to align their societies. Which even the Skidelsky’s see as the main goal of Religion and unexpectantly as something positive /aa/.

And as a last note it is interesting to discuss modern ‘Religions’ like e.g.: ‘the Gospel of the Flying Spagetti Monster’ /ab/ or ‘the Church of Scientology’ /ac/. Both were created for a purpose, i.e. to help a group to overcome a certain aspect of modern (more and more secular) society. For ‘the Gospel’ it was the fact that it wanted the primary and secondary schools in the US to teach the theory of evolution which quite a few did not because of their Christian background and by defining this faith its creators had a right to be given time in the course schedules of those schools in which (next to the Gospel which was presented with a very thick wink ;-) Darwinian thought was presented. And ‘the Church’ wanted tax exemption for its rather dubious business model in courses of meditation. This it got after a very interesting battle with the IRS which it won because its members filed a huge amount of complaints against the IRS and FBI-officers that handled the case. Both ‘Religions’ however, deviated from their original goals with that ‘the Church’ is now primarily a platform to launch and support movie stars like: John Travolta and Tom Cruise and ‘the Gospel’ is now sometimes used to pose as a real religion which makes matters difficult for e.g. deans of universities confronted with people who want to defend their thesis dressed as a Pastafarian (believer in the FSM=Flying Spagetti Monster) which is with a colander on your head!

So, Religion was, is and will be used to any end but always to unite a certain group or individual against the very real interests like power or money of another group or the rest of society.

/6.2.2.a1/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torah or /6.2.2.a2/ http://www.truthnet.org/Bible-Origins/4_How_was_Bible_written/index.htm/6.2.2.b1/ Jeruzalem. A Biography, Simon Sebag Montefiori, 2011/6.2.2.b2/ A History of God. From Abraham to the Present: The 4000 - Year Quest of Judaism, Christianity and Islam, Karen Armstrong, 1993/6.2.2.c/ Josephus, Judia and Christian origins: methods and categories, Steve N. Mason, 2009/6.2.2.d_0/ Fire-temple in Yazd (Iran), personal visit in 2016 or /6.2.2.d_1/ Fire_temples; http://www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fire_temple or/6.2.2.d_2/ Zoroaster (Zarathustra); http://www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoroaster or/6.2.2.d_3/ Zoroastrianism; https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Zoroastrianism/6.2.2.e/ Darius the Great; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darius_I/6.2.2.f/ Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind (in Dutch), Yuval Noah Harari, 2014/6.2.2.g/ The Creation of Inequality, Kent Flannery & Joyce Marcus, 2012/6.2.2.h/ Wired for Culture: The Natural History of Human Cooperation, Mark Pagel, 2012/6.2.2.i/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorship_of_the_Bible/6.2.2.j/ In The Shadow Of The Sword, Tom Holland, 2011/6.2.2.k/ Het Oerboek van de mens: de evolutie en de bijbel (in Dutch), Carel van Schaik & Kai Michel, 2016/6.2.2.l/ Infinitesimal: How a Dangerous Mathematical Theory shaped the Modern World, Amir Alexander, 2014/6.2.2.m/ Epicurus: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epicurus/6.2.2.n/ The Story of Western Science, Susan Wise Bauer, 2015/6.2.2.o/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maya_religion/6.2.2.p/ The Origins of Political Order, Francis Fukuyama, 2011/6.2.2.q/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Egypt/6.2.2.r/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlemagne/6.2.2.s/ The Crusades through Arab Eyes, Amin Maalouf, 1984

62 | Page

/6.2.2.t/ Der Deutsche Orden ("The Teutonic Order"), Juergen Sarnowsky, 2007/6.2.2.u/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexico/6.2.2.v/ A History of the World in Twelve Maps, Jerry Brotton, 2012/6.2.2.w/ The Measure of Reality: Quantification and Western Society 1250-1600, Alfred W. Crosby, 1997/6.2.2.x/ Disordered World, Amin Maalouf, 2011 (English Ed.)/6.2.2.y/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Bakr_al-Baghdadi/6.2.2.z/ Breaking the Spell: Religion as a natural phenomenon, Daniel Dennett, 2006/6.2.2.aa/ How much is enough, Robert & Edward Skidelsky, 2012/6.2.2.ab/ The Gospel of the Flying Spagetti Monster, Bobby Henderson, 2006/6.2.2.ac/ Church of Scientology; https//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientology

6.2.3 C3: Health, Care & Hygiene

Health (& Care) became a Theme of its own only by the end of the 19th century with the introduction of antiseptic surgery since then it became clear that Hygiene & treatment -through precursors of thorough scientific testing- gave much better forecasts on the reliability of treatments than experience and perception of physicians with a usually very big ego such as e.g. the 2nd century CE Greek physician Galen /a/ who has halted progress single handedly for a thousand years with statements like: "All who drink of this treatment recover in a short time, except those whom it does not help, who will all die"..."It is obvious, therefore, that it fails only in incurable cases" /b/.

And only after World War II this Theme became a decisive 'force' for a group / society for survival because from then on with rigorous testing it really saved many lives /b/. But before that time it had been an important subTheme e.g. in the Greek and Roman armies to help in keeping up the morale of the troops that surgery would take care of head, chest, arm and leg wounds /c/ or in Medieval times with the start of universities which provided curricula in Theology, Medicine and Law (in that order of importance!) /d/.

But already with the Egyptians prominent people could fall back on dentists and the like and were operated upon to try to extend their lives /e/ and the Egyptian polymath Imhotep (ca. 2700 BCE) is even seen as the father of medicine although there are some severe doubts about that /f/. As can be concluded from the find by Stefano Benazzi and his team of dental care in a 14000-year-old tooth with clear signs of dentistry /g/.

So the development of this Theme has taken a very long time even though it had long ago been recognized as a way to distinguish / advance (a part of) a society and had been tried several times before like in Greece and in Rome but also in Florence in the 13th to the 17th century in a much more consistent way as can be seen in the Bibliotheca Medicea Laurenziana /c/. And e.g. in the 18th century it helped the British Navy to build their Empire when Capt. Cook recognized that fresh vegetables and fruits indeed helped against scurvy as James Lind had found 1747 /h/. And inoculation (variolation) against smallpox had helped the British aristocracy from 1721 onwards after Lady Mary Wortley Montagne had seen it in Constantinople and introduced it in England with the upper class. This brought the upper class a clear gap of some 20 year in life expectancy from 1750 onward but with the invention of vaccination -against smallpox- in 1799 it also -eventually- helped the general population /i/. But the greatest boost of life expectancy: 40 in 1850 and around 80 in 1980 in the developed world, did not come from medical treatments but from social / economic progress with better food and better housing as became available with especially the Industrial Revolution /j/. Although germ-theory -which became available in the mid 19th century- must have been important as well but can only be of help if people believe it and government has the capacity and the money to provide basic sanitation like sewer systems which took even countries like England or the USA up to the mid 20th century to have it everywhere installed. As expected this (sub)Theme and understanding of germ-theory was used as well to 'compete' between cities with some cities claiming to be healthier than others /i/.

Nowadays the Health & Care Theme has grown a whole tree with many branches using up more and more of a developed or 1st World country's Gross National Product with larger and larger institutes & companies solely working in that domain e.g. hospitals, medicine companies, university faculties, general practitioners, (up to 50 branches of) medical specialists, dentists etc. which results in the US in around 20% of GDP /i/. But could have been much lower if the system of friendly societies as existed in the UK at the start of the 20th century would not have fallen victim to the insurance paradox /k/. And although hospitals have been around since Ancient times /l/ the modern hospital is completely incomparable to the first 'hospital' in Mihintale around 400 BCE and later hospitals in the Middle Ages e.g. in Baghdad in the 9th and 10th century or in Milan in the 15th century. Although their basic floor plan was the same with one or more (big) wards with patients and maybe some separate operating theaters, a modern hospital has a huge number of other functions unknown in the old days.

63 | Page

The development of antiseptic surgery -based on germ-theory- by the end of the 19th century was not a unique phenomenon as other branches like medicines were developed in parallel e.g. painkillers: Aspirin which had been known from extracts of several plants like the willow bark but could not be produced on a large industrial scale until Bayer developed the process in 1897 /m/ or Antibiotics with the discovery by Louis Pasteur in 1877 /n/.

Next to Health, Care for the disabled and/or elderly developed as well. This as a refinement of the basic Theme "Value of life". When a society is able to help the sick and wounded with ever improving medical treatments it follows naturally to improve the living conditions of the mentally or physically disabled and the elderly with special institutions like elderly homes, special schools for disabled or mental "hospitals". As with Health this development has been going on for a long time and was strongly coupled to the wealth of a society e.g. in the Dutch Golden Age in many cities 'hofjes' were founded where the less well-off elderly could live protected lives until their deaths and e.g. the very first hospital in Mihintale was much more a Care institute than a medical institute since real medicines were rare. Care was the main function in hospitals up to the moment that medical treatments became a real option and from then on the care component became separated from the medical component with e.g. hospices where people wait for their death if treatments no longer help.

And last but certainly not least the subTheme Hygiene was an important factor already early in Human development as can be seen from the fact that traces of soap have been found in archeological findings in Babylon of around 2800 BCE and a recipe was written down on a Babylonian clay tablet in around 2200 BCE /o/ and maybe soap is the explanation why the idea of McNeill: 'Plagues' played a key role in the (population) History of Man / Peoples in that many plagues decimated societies but did not wipe them out since next generations quickly adapted themselves to the newly arrived germ /p/, cannot be found in Mesopotamia when you analyze the length of the Reigns of the Kings of the Cities of Mesopotamia /q/.And from the Religions of this region with their Kosher (Judaism) and Halal (Islam) meat eating habits /r/ it is clear that the peoples / societies / cities / groups in the Middle East learned a thing or two about Hygiene (and germs) over the course of their history. Something later Civilizations in China and Europe had to learn again from harsh experience /p/.

So even though very fast genetic responses to the onslaught of infectious diseases like Malaria /s/ or the Plague /m/ kept societies alive only the full development of the behavioral Health, Care and Hygiene Contemporary Theme really helped societies to explode in numbers /t/ by the middle of the 19th century CE and can be explained e.g. from the story of Semmelweis who discovered that washing your hands by midwifes helped enormously against the prophylaxis of Childbed Fever which the other doctors did not do in their ward but other doctors did not except this fact until only after Semmelweis had been put in a mental asylum and died /u/.

However, the rise of Health, Care & Hygiene to a full blown Theme by the end of the 19th century -when germ-theory became widely accepted /i/- would not have been possible without the rise of Science & Technology Contemporary Theme (C4).

Unfortunately, the Myth creation does not stop when a (sub)Theme has proved itself - because that would stop evolution - so even very effective cures get tested time and again by sometimes outright lies. This happened when e.g. vaccination was questioned in a ‘study’ as to be the cause of the increase in the number of children showing autistic behavior. This immediately led to a small percentage of children not to be vaccinated with -a few years later- measles and whooping cough breakouts as a result. And, even though this 'study' had been falsified within a few years, the -now urban- Myth keeps circulating with very bad consequences /v/.

/6.2.3.a/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galen/6.2.3.b/ Superforecasting: The Art & Science of Prediction, Philip Tetlock & Dan Gardner, 2015/6.2.3.c/ Consilioque manuque, surgery in the manuscripts of the Bibliotheca Medicea Laurenziana, Donatella Lippi, 2011/6.2.3.d/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University/6.2.3.e/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Egypt/6.2.3.f/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imhotep/6.2.3.g/ http://news.discovery.com/history/oldest-dentistry-found-in-14000-year-old-tooth-1507156.htm/6.2.3.h/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Lind/6.2.3.i/ The Great Escape: health, wealth and the origins of inequality, Angus Deaton, 2013/6.2.3.j/ The modern rise of population, Thomas McKeown, 1976/6.2.3.k/ The Evolution of Everything. How Small Changes Transform Our World, Matt Ridley, 2015/6.2.3.l/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hospital/6.2.3.m/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aspirin or Aspirin, Diarmund Jeffreys, 2004/6.2.3.n/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antibiotic

64 | Page

/6.2.3.o/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soap/6.2.3.p/ Plagues and Peoples, William H. McNeill, 1977/6.2.3.q/ Plagues and Peoples in Mesopotamia, Daniel Snell, JotANES #14 p.89-96, 1982/6.2.3.r/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_Islamic_and_Jewish_dietary_laws/6.2.3.s/ The 10.000 Year Explosion: How Civilization Accelerated Human Evolution, Gregory Cochran & Henry Harpending, 2009/6.2.3.t/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population/6.2.3.u/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignaz_Semmelweis/6.2.3.v/ http://www.healthcare-management-degree.net/autism-vaccines/

6.2.4 C4: Science & Technology

As a first, please take the split between Science & Technology not too explicit and certainly not the linearity of the Baconian idea, that Science comes first and Technology follows /a/. Usually it is the other way around /b/. What is meant by the name of this Theme is that the border between these two ideas is not clear cut and even though engineers were until recently not seen as academics the fruits of their endeavors: Technology was often seen as Science and technologists as scientists.

The history of (Western) Science & Technology is long as can be read in e.g. “The STORY of WESTERN SCIENCE” /c/, "A cultural history of Mathematics" /d/, "The discovery of Knowing" /e/ or "A Brief History of Science" /f/ but Science & Technology started only fairly recently as a separate Theme. Depending on your perspective modern Science started at the end of the 16th or the beginning of the 17th century as part of the Renaissance with Galileo Galilei /g/ or with Descartes /h/ for Mathematics and Pascal /i/ for Physics and Boyle /j/ for Chemistry and with the Industrial Revolution in the 18th century for Technology with James Watt /k/ for the steam engine or James Hargreaves with Spinning Jenny /l/. Although the latter development: Industrial (Technology) Revolution does not necessarily follow Scientific development as that only happened in Britain because of a combination of two factors: 1) high wages and 2) low energy (coal) prices of which the first was essential as can be read in the book by Robert Allen /m/.

But like Health, Care & Hygiene both Science & Technology were part of the Human heritage long before those times. Back then as part of other themes e.g. Tools, Weapons & Clothes (B7) or Philosophy, Science and Sport (N7).

On the one hand it is suggested that the Western Renaissance did not auto start but started with a Chinese visit to Venice and Florence / Toscany / Italy in 1434 who are said to have shared much of their advanced knowledge with the Italians at the time /n/. That the Chinese had developed advanced Science & Technology like decimal numbers, suspension bridge, parachute, propellers, matches, etc. centuries and sometimes millennia before Europe was even 'born' can be read in 'The Genius of China' by Robert Temple /o/ but still Gavin Menzies’ claim seems outrageous.

On the other hand, it can be argued that Western Science started in the last millennium BCE with e.g. the Greek Archimedes /p/ with his knowledge of mathematics and discoveries or understanding of the lever and hydrostatics. Archimedes may even have been aware of differential calculus /q,r/ be it that without formulas this concept must have been hard to describe or pass on. It was Archimedes who proved the direct value of Science and Technology by defending Syracuse against an overpowering number of Romans with his 'machines'. And its value has been shown e.g. by the stunning mechanical 'computer' of Antikythera /s/ probably build in the 2nd century BCE [by (a pupil of) Archimedes ?] to calculate eclipses, positions of Venus or when the Olympic games should take place. But - of course - the value of Science & Technology had been shown before that time with mining and the production of metals, with the development of agriculture on a large scale or the construction of the pyramids in Egypt /t/ or over the course of pre-historical man with inventions like the knife, the spear, the bow and arrow or the plow. Just how much value Science & Technology adds to the Human Behavioral Evolution or economic growth or increasing returns was estimated by Robert Solow in the 1950s /b/. He came to a staggering 87.5 %, and only 12.5% driven by economist’s favorites: Capital and Labor.

Because in the Renaissance (natural) philosophers had much less restraints on developing and discussing ideas compared to the Middle Ages where ideas could and were isolated by the Catholic Church, new ideas were 'quickly' shared on a much wider scale which then spawned a multitude of other ideas. E.g. the idea by Descartes to combine graphs and numbers via a Cartesian system of axes helped Newton (and Leibnitz) to develop differential calculus or e.g. the development of imaginary numbers by Bombelli (1572), Wessel (1797) and others thereby overcoming the irrational fear for √(-1) /u/.

65 | Page

Once Science & Technology had really started, first within certain cities in Italy but quite soon it spread to other cities in other countries like e.g. Holland, whereby Protestantism played an important role /r/. And then there was no way back as had been successfully arranged by the Catholic Church up to that moment in time with every deviating step or idea since the end of the West Roman Empire as can be read in 'A History of Pi' /q/ or with the suppression of the mathematical theory of Calculus by the Jesuits as can be read in Infinitesimal /r/.

The cause that Science & Technology succeeded in the Renaissance where before that time it had failed was for a multitude of reasons summarized with: "the social environment was rife for it". This is nicely explained in the book 'The Measure of Reality' by Alfred Crosby /v/ in which he tells about the emergence of measuring: putting a reproducible number to something. This idea emerged in Western Europe in the late Middle Ages: 13th to 16th century in many walks of life. It was started with the reintroduction of the abacus in the 10th century which paved the way for all other developments e.g. in music with the introduction of written music - i.e. notes - which incidentally made time an absolute measure. Then with time itself with accurate clocks measuring time in fixed quanta, in trade with the double-entry system of accounting, in the movement of planets by tabling their movements and then finding geometric relations and in painting by perspective drawings. But an often overlooked aspect could have been that the bankers in Florence had won their plight against the Church with the execution of Friar Savonarola by the end of the 15th century which then paved the way for a multitude of ideas not automatically in line with the 'official' thinking of the Church.

And another overlooked aspect for the cause of the late evolutionary development of the Science & Technology Theme could be that the Human brain is wired for evolutionary survival whereby associations are much more important than reason /w/. I.e. in the brain the amygdale is leading, and the neo-cortex is just a bystander. Through this we are wired to think that some kind of unseen influence is changing the course of the World: e.g. as a child we learned that "when this happens that 'always' happens before" or "when we do this that will follow" both without understanding because the development of the pre-frontal lobes only takes place when we are long past this early learning stage. Therefore, as adults we are still very much inclined to think that for phenomena we do not really understand such an association is still true and for this association we then fill in that 'gods' (and other 'creatures') are the causal relationship instead of hidden, emotionless and difficult to understand natural phenomena. And because of this idea of unseen 'creatures' running our World we try to influence these creatures by e.g. gifts to (semi) gods, exorcism of demons or astrology. The notion that all these acts do not change anything in the course of unchangeable natural phenomena was (and still quite often is) not acceptable because then you as a person are not able to influence your (immediate) future which is very much against the elementary evolutionary idea of "survival of the fittest" (and YOU are the fittest ;-).

The evolutionary development of Science and Technology /x/ - in conjunction with other (sub)Themes - has brought the West immeasurable advantages over other societies who could not follow in its footsteps because even though the West shared its ideas - like the Ancient Philosophers/Scientists - this was mostly within itself at Universities like Bologna, in Libraries, in Books like Newton's Principia and in 'private' clubs like the Royal Society in Britain founded in 1662 with its first secretary Robert Hooke /y/ or the Académie des Sciences in France founded in 1666 with Giovanni Cassini as the first director of its observatory to map out France in order to be better able to ‘manage’ the Kingdom on a scientific basis. The Académie was started by ‘the finance minister’ Jean Baptiste Colbert under Louis XIV who apparently already saw the economic potential of science and good maps / registers in particular /z/. All these clubs organized lectures and numerous publications as can e.g. be read in: "Great Experiments in Physics" /aa/ or "The Great Equations" /ab/. In other societies / countries -on the one hand- the social environment, with differently structured (sub)Themes in Education and Power: Government and Business, was not suitable for the free development of Science and/or Technology. Or -on the other hand- the development of Science & Technology in those societies had lost against other Basic, Next Level or Contemporary (sub)Themes like Power as happened e.g. in China some centuries earlier /ac/, in Europe during the Middle ages in favor of Religion as is neatly shown by the Hereford mappamundi /z/ set against the Portolan maps /ad/ or in ancient Rome more than 1500 years earlier also against Power.

Only when these countries (societies) adapted the relevant (sub)Themes to more Western look alike arrangements such as e.g. Japan at the end of the 19th century or more recently in India and China, they could use Science & Technology in comparable ways to the West. And from then on, they can - because of sheer numbers - overtake the West as is already happening in several fields of endeavor which can be seen from the number of scientific publications coming from those countries or the home countries of the latest Nobel laureates compared to e.g. 30 years ago. A nice example of which is the Nobel-prize for Medicine in 2015 awarded to Tu Youyou for her find of the ‘mother of all malaria medicines’ /ae/. Tu Youyou used Science & Technology to search through thousands of age-old Chinese recipes to find her very effective medicine. So, she combined traditional Chinese wisdom with modern Science & Technology. Please note that she used Science & Technology ideas and not its fruits during the Cultural Revolution since she was directly appointed by Mao Zedong and he started the Cultural Revolution to counter the upcoming Westernized ideas /af/.

66 | Page

Is it a dangerous development that China and India redefine Science & Technology and use it to outclass the West? Yes, for the Western style of living with its specific ways of Science & Technology. But No for the Human race as a whole. An important Human evolutionary driver has simply taken a turn which in fact Science & Technology caused when it came about in the 18th century and pushed China and India out of business in the first place /ag/.

Is 'fundamental' Science coming to an end as e.g. John Horgan /ah/ or stuck in a dead alley as e.g. Lee Smolin /ai/ is suggesting? Even though it is probable that the number of 'fundamental' scientific discoveries will not be as large in the 21st century as it was in the 20th century and it might even happen that 'fundamental' Science is largely settled it is highly unlikely that the end of scientific discovery is near /b,aj/. And even then, the number and depth of technological advancements will steadily grow since they help us to live nicer / healthier life’s. That is why we keep ‘tinkering’, we simply must to adhere to evolution /b/ even though we sometimes know that we already have the best explanation for the phenomena we want to master, like Maxwell’s laws. So maybe Science was - as a contemporary subTheme - necessary to overcome especially the Western Religious Contemporary Theme inhibitions. But now that we have largely replaced the hand of God by fundamental theories we can freely reap the benefits of our scientific insights by improving our standards of living more and more, thereby fulfilling the promise Francis Bacon made in 'The New Organon' with his statement: 'Knowledge is Power' /a/. Be it not in the linear way he intended: first theory & science and then technology. No mostly the other way around: first some theory, then tested through experiments /ak/: tinkering with technology, and then a useable product which is still changed repeatedly to check if it is still the best ‘solution’ and regularly finding out: it was ;-(

And even though Economics is not a Science itself with predictable outcomes /al/, Science & Technology are –when other & older (sub)Themes like Law, Taxes and e.g. Government are working ‘properly’ in a specific society- the main drivers for 'the Economy' -whatever that may be (please refer to § 8.37)- of that society. This should not amaze because in a report: 'Science: The Endless Frontier' report by Vannavar Bush on the request of Pres. Franklin D. Roosevelt, Dr. Bush sketched how Science & Technology advancements made during WW II could (and with hindsight most certainly did) help the US to further improve (its) Society /am/. And e.g. Intuitionism /an/ states that even the most fundamental science: mathematics, is just a product of the human mind. So that -in my opinion- even mathematics -as the purest science- is molded to serve the human / societal needs. Which is seen by Angus Deaton as well with his statement: "Science develops according to the social and economic environments in which it exists, just as those environments themselves depend on science and knowledge" /ao/.

/6.2.4.a/ The New Organon, Francis Bacon, 1620/6.2.4.b/ The Evolution of Everything. How Small Changes Transform Our World, Matt Ridley, 2015/6.2.4.c/ The STORY of WESTERN SCIENCE, Susan Wise Bauer, 2015/6.2.4.d/ Een cultuurgeschiedenis van de wiskunde ('A cultural history of mathematics'), Machiel Keestra Ed., 2006/6.2.4.e/ De ontdekking van het weten ("The discovery of knowing"), Chunglin Kwa, 2005/6.2.4.f/ A Brief History of Science: As Seen Through the Developments of Scientific Instruments, Thomas Crump, 2001/6.2.4.g/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei/6.2.4.h/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/René_Descartes/6.2.4.i/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blaise_Pascal/6.2.4.j/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Boyle/6.2.4.k/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Watt/6.2.4.l/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spinning_jenny/6.2.4.m/ The British Industrial Revolution in Global Perspective, Robert Allen, 2009 /6.2.4.n/ 1434: The Year a Magnificent Chinese Fleet sailed to Italy and Ignited the Renaissance, Gavin Menzies, 2007/6.2.4.o/ The Genius of China: 3,000 Years of Science, Discovery and Invention, Robert K. G. Temple, 1998/6.2.4.p/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archimedes/6.2.4.q/ A History of Pi, Petr Beckmann, 1971/6.2.4.r/ Infinitesimal: How a dangerous Mathematical Theory shaped the Modern World, Amir Alexander, 2017/6.2.4.s/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antikythera_mechanism/6.2.4.t/ A history of the circle, Mathematical Reasoning and the Physical Universe, Ernest Zebrowski, 1999/6.2.4.u/ An Imaginary Tale, Paul J. Nahin, 1998/6.2.4.v/ The Measure of Reality: Quantification and Western Society, 1250 - 1600, Alfred W. Crosby, 1997/6.2.4.w/ Thinking: Fast and Slow, Daniel Kahneman, 2011/6.2.4.x/ The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, Thomas Kuhn, 1962/6.2.4.y/ The Man who knew too much, Stephen Inwood, 2002/6.2.4.z/ A History of the World in Twelve Maps, Jerry Brotton, 2012/6.2.4.aa/ Great Experiments in Physics, Morris H. Shamos (Ed.), 1959/6.2.4.ab/ The Great Equations, Robert P. Crease, 2008/6.2.4.ac/ 1421: The Year China Discovered the World, Gavin Menzies, 2002

67 | Page

/6.2.4.ad/ Portolan maps; http://www.uu.nl/nieuws/oorsprong-middeleeuwse-zeekaarten-weerlegd, Roel Nicolai, 2014/6.2.4.ae/ Tu Youyou; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_Youyou/6.2.4.af/ MAO The Unknown Story, Jung Chang & Jon Halliday,2006/6.2.4.ag/ Global Economic History, Robert Allen, 2011/6.2.4.ah/ The End of Science, John Horgan, 1996/6.2.4.ai/ The Trouble with Physics, Lee Smolin, 2006/6.2.4.aj/ The Beginning of infinity, David Deutsch, 2012/6.2.4.ak/ Karl Popper; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Popper/6.2.4.al/ The Meaning of Science, Tim Lewens, 2015/6.2.4.am/ Science: The Endless Frontier; https://www.nsf.gov/od/lpa/nsf50/vbush1945.htm , V. Bush, 1945/6.2.4.an/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intuitionism/6.2.4.ao/ The Great Escape: health, wealth and the origins of inequality, Angus Deaton, 2013

6.2.5 C5: Education

Like Science & Technology, Education has been around a long time. Even in pre-historic times children were educated in the ways and cosmology / belief ideas - which were key to their survival - of the group they were born in. But a formal education with civil law and some mathematics for a greater public than just the happy few is only a fairly recent phenomenon. The best moment in time to recognize as the start of the Education Theme is probably the founding of the University of Bologna in 1088 /a/ which taught civil and the then just rediscovered Roman law. However Education had been a very important way to improve one's standing in China well before the start of Universities in Europe with the 'education' (self-study) and exams /b/ for civil duties beginning in 605 CE e.g. to become a judge /c/.In Europe the Bologna example spawned many copies throughout the Continent e.g. the University of Paris (c. 1150, later associated with the Sorbonne), the University of Oxford (1167), the University of Palencia (1208), the University of Cambridge (1209) or the University of Salamanca (1218) /d/. At these universities and many to follow three curricula were taught: Theology, Medicine and Law in that order of importance!

Although with the start of Universities in Italy, France or England those countries did not immediately gain an advantage over their 'competitors' - simply because the competition between countries was not yet on that level - but the cities in which the universities were founded gained much over their 'competitors' and it was certainly not a coincidence that Banks and the first Worldwide trade started in Italy and that Science started - depending on your perspective - in Italy or France and that the Industrial Revolution (Technology) started in England /e/. And it was not a coincidence also that Germany - after becoming a Nation in 1848 - became an industrial powerhouse and demanded more economic and worldly power in the 20th century after the founding of the first Technical University in Berlin in 1770 /f/ and the first PhD's in technology in 1899 and 1900 at the Technical Universities of Preussen /g/ which was done by the German Kaiser to put a Scientific Technical Education on the same level as normal Universities which was a revolution but was quickly followed by other countries /h/ because of the clear advantages.

In all those cases education was key to the development of the dominance of the city or country which had invested in its educational system. And the latest rises to power by e.g. India, China or Brazil was / is only possible because they have adopted a more Western style higher educational system thereby creating the momentum to develop and push their country to the forefront of Science & Technology and consequential global dominance. Although Matt Ridley /i/ makes a strong case against public education with his account of the development of literacy in England, the US or e.g. India whereby those countries had a good functioning private schooling system -with literacy above 90%- when a compulsory state / public system took over probably to get what Prussia had achieved with their military style (public) education system from 1806 onwards created by the likes as Wilhelm von Humboldt /j/ to create good soldiers for their armies to defeat Napoleon. However Ridley’s plea for the return of non-governmental schooling, i.e. no centralized system at all because that would put the children / individual at the center (again) instead of the nation state is strange because it would reverse behavioral evolution and that -as we know- cannot be (easily) undone.

It can also be argued that having first rate universities is not the only factor to success for a country but that the elementary and secondary school systems are as important as prime universities because fully prepared pupils for all walks of life - not only higher education - is an important aspect of the development of a country or society as can be seen from the German example where - because of the predominantly Protestant faith in the North of the country people were on average more literate than e.g. England which needed the Elementary Education Act of 1870 /k/ to improve literacy among the general public. Although the headstart of Germany might have been the result of the (Catholic) Jesuits (founded in 1540 /l/) who with their superb schools raised the level of education all over Europe or indeed the World but especially in Germany since the creation of the Society of Jesus and their focus on education was the answer of the

68 | Page

Catholic Church to the rise of Protestantism /m/ after Martin Luther had published his 95 Theses in Wittenberg in 1517 /n/. But these schools were not permitted to open in England because the Church of England -after its denouncement of Papal authority in 1530- did not allow this.

Nowadays Education is - apart from a Theme for countries - a very important Theme for every individual because in our highly specialized economies everybody is, when starting in a job or changing between jobs, next to his or her experience measured by the type and level of his or her education. Many jobs are regulated like in the medical professions and for unregulated jobs not many companies hire people who have nothing in their education and / or experience to support their fitness for a specific vacancy. Therefore the way in which a society has arranged its educational system is key to the way its citizens function in life. If primary education is not strictly maintained and a smaller or larger percentage of the children does not get a basic education a very different society emerges compared to when all children are forced to participate in primary school as Vikram Seth shows in his comparison between China and India of the 1980s /o/.

A third aspect of Education is employment. What percentage of the population is involved in teaching, how is this profession ranked among the many job routes possible and what people are involved in the different educational levels.In many rising societies one sees that an educational profession is highly respected and reasonably well paid which attracts many of the best people to help build the nation. However when a nation has been build another phase is entered whereby the amount of money spend on Education becomes an important issue which then triggers a different approach and attracts different - usually less involved - people to this profession. This has a noticeable effect on the level of the educational system and after some time the economic performance of such a country drops as can be seen from e.g. the US, Japan or the Netherlands.

However, it is difficult to set (minimum) levels of GNP to be spent on Education but playing with this percentage is noticeable and sometimes disastrous for a country's economic performance.

/6.2.5.a/ University of Bologna; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Bologna/6.2.5.b/ Imperial Examination acient China; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperial_examination/6.2.5.c/ Judge Di; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Di_Renjie/6.2.5.d/ University; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University/6.2.5.e/ Global Economic History: A Very Short Introduction, Robert Allen, 2011/6.2.5.f/ TU Berlin; http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technische_Universitat_Berlin/6.2.5.g/ Dr.-Ing.; http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dr.-Ing./6.2.5.h/ Rede ter gelegenheid van de plechtige opening van de technische hoogeschool te Delft (in Dutch), J. Kraus, 1905 ("Speach at the Opening of the Technical Highschool in Delft")/6.2.5.i/ The Evolution of Everything. How Small Changes Transform Our World, Matt Ridley, 2015/6.2.5.j/ Wilhelm von Humboldt; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilhelm_von_Humboldt/6.2.5.k/ Elementary Education Act; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elementary_Education_Act_1870/6.2.5.l/ Society of Jesus; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Society_of_Jesus/6.2.5.m/ Infinitesimal: How a Dangerous Mathematical Theory shaped the Modern World, Amir Alexander, 2014/6.2.5.n/ Martin Luther; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Luther/6.2.5.o/ From Heaven Lake, Vikram Seth, 1987

6.2.6 C6: Sports

This Theme stems from the next level Theme N7: Philosophy, Science & Sport whereby Sport has become a way to earn a (good) living for an individual athlete: e.g. in tennis, golf or boxing and a way to distinguish a country: e.g. in the World or Olympic championships for football, hockey or cricket or a way to distinguish a loosely self-defined group like Manchester United (for football) or the New York Mets (for baseball).

As in ancient Greece or Rome nowadays many good athletes specialize themselves in the sport they are good at from a (very) young age onwards. And although this specialization was used before - e.g. in Rome by gladiators - to earn a living, nowadays the number of people and the number of sports involved make this activity a separate Theme which started probably around the 1920's as e.g. Hitler used the 1936 Olympic games in Berlin to show the World (and the German people itself) the power of Nazi Germany but even Hitler had to accept that Jesse Owens (black American) won 4 gold medals, among them the men's 100 and 200 m /a/ which are seen as the supreme athletic sports.

Because of the prestige (and money) involved there are many examples of cheating (or 'bending the rules') like e.g. East Germany during the Cold War with its many winning athletes in a wide range of sports: swimming, rowing or running by in the end a very small country (around 15 million) with a rather backward economy. But after the fall of the Berlin wall

69 | Page

it was found - as suspected - that most of the athletes got steroids from an early age onwards. And e.g. in cycling capability enhancing drugs are more or less endemic because the rewards are so enormous.

Why is it that the prestige and money rewards are so huge when a team or individual wins at a certain game? That has still to do with our hunter - gatherer past and / or man to man battles in a war whereby capable men could mean life or death for a group or society. And because of this the choice of a mating partner by the female is still based on the physical appearance and capabilities of the male although signs of power or wealth are important as well /b/. So when a team or individual has shown to be superior many (fe)males want to share in their success and buy tickets to the game or paraphernalia to be associated with this success.

So through sports an individual can really distinguish him or herself and a society can unite itself through it.Therefore, this Theme is so important, everyone remembers a great sportsman / sportswoman or great sporting event and also remembers his or her home country. E.g. the 2000 Olympic games were in .... or who won 7 Olympic gold medals for swimming?

/6.2.6.a/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesse_Owen/6.2.6.b/ Social psychology and Human sexuality: essential readings, Roy F. Baumeister, 2001

6.2.7 C7: Entertainment & Art

Entertainment can - at least - be divided into Arts, Literature, Music and Film. One could argue that Film is more a business than a separate subTheme. However, the message conveyed and the identification of the public with this message is an important and not so much a profit or business driven aspect of this line of entertainment.

With the other Art-forms this is more or less the same: the painting / photo, statue / structure, book, composition or song and film must be entertaining for the artist(s) as well as for the audience / consumer but it conveys a message as well. This message usually identifies / addresses some aspect or (sub)Theme of the group or society which should be changed or strengthened. It is this message which is not part of business but acts as a separate theme.

Arts probably started in pre-historic times with craftsmen showing their ability to make tools and / or weapons but quite soon some artifacts had no specific purpose but were made to impress especially females. And in Egyptian, Persian, Greek, Etruscan and Roman times already quite a significant number of people made a living with making pieces of art for the rich and powerful and when wealth spread to a greater portion of society by the end of the Middle Ages an ever growing number of people were involved in making art, be it that the art was often an extra feature of useful objects like vases, glasses, cups, plates or knifes & forks.Pure artists: sculptors & painters like Michelangelo (~1500 CE), Rubens (~1600 CE), Rembrandt (~1650) or Picasso (~1930) could only make a living in societies where the living standard had risen even further and then only because of their exceptional skills. In other parts of the World than Europe it was more or less the same be it that their developments happened at different moments in time as compared to Europe. E.g. in America the latter phase with pure artists was only possible after the Europeans invaded that part of the World and history was well under way in the 19th century. Although the artists of the Olmec, Mayan or e.g. Easter Island societies probably were full time artists as well.

For literature it took much longer even though many would argue that Shakespeare (~1600) should be taken as an example. However some people think that Shakespeare was no more than a business man who staged the plays of someone else /a/. Also the early romantics: Keats, Byron and Wordsworth had other means for providing their bread. Probably only by the mid of the 19th century writers could earn a living which was probably coupled to copyrights being acknowledged first in England as of 1709 and the US 1787 /b/. Then full time writers like Edgar Allan Poe (~1830) said to be the first, Charles Dickens (~1850), Mark Twain (~1870) and Oscar Wilde (~1880) made a living from writing.

Music probably started with singing in hunter-gathrer family or extended family groups later on helped by some kind of instruments and became a real art form around the time of the Greeks who had the lute and a sort of flute (aulos) on which some people studied to become experts something which Aristotle was opposed to because he thought that enjoying music should be the way and not by becoming an expert on an instrument /c/. Note: In ancient Greece it was thought that with music (& texts) you could influence a person's thoughts and feelings.

From then on (~500 BCE) we find many examples in all walks or (sub)Themes of life who use music but especially Religion and the Rich and Powerful use it to have a pleasant time passing and to create a certain atmosphere for special occasions.

70 | Page

When some kind of music notes system was invented in the 10th century /d/ it became possible to pass music on from one generation to the next and when a consistent music notes system was invented in the 13th century it became possible to create music without actually hearing it /e/. And as with other forms of entertainment when societies became so wealthy that people could make a living out of music alone, music was standardized and codified and whole new branches were added to the music subTheme, e.g. what we now call the Common Practice Period in classical music /f/ from around 1600 CE onwards.

Because all forms of entertainment or art help in the cohesion of a group or society by addressing a (hot) topic in a not directly coupled to real life way which helps people to recognize the topic / (sub)Theme and think about it but not get completely emotionally involved. So every self-respecting society - city, country - helped / helps its artists and set / sets up places where the rich and / or the general public could / can enjoy the pieces of art, e.g. Florence in its churches (~1400 onwards), palaces or the loggia and newer cities like London in e.g. the National Gallery (~1820) or in Amsterdam in 'Stedelijk museum' (~1880).

/6.2.7.a/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shakespeare_authorship_question/6.2.7.b/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright/6.2.7.c/ A History of Western Music, W.W. Norton & Company, 1988/6.2.7.d/ The Measure of Reality Ch. 8, Alfred Crosby, 1997/6.2.7.e/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guido_d'Arezzo/6.2.7.f/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_music

6.2.8 C8: News or Information exchange

News and newspapers (or look alike) are very old as e.g. government information was already written on silk in China in the 2nd & 3rd century CE or in the Roman Empire written on metal or clay tablets. But information from and for the general public stems from the early 17th century with e.g. in 1605 in Germany's Strasbourg and 1609 in Wolfenbuttel with general news or in Amsterdam Holland - trade Centre of the World at the time - with more specific trade news from foreign countries in the "Courante uyt Italien, Duytslandt, &c" in 1618 or in English "Corrant out of Italy, Germany etc." in 1620 /a/.

However spreading news by travelers & traders has been longstanding. They brought 'news' from one place to the next ever since mankind started to talk with many famous examples e.g. Marco Polo around 1300 CE who travelled to China from his native Venice and informed both very different societies about each other /b/.

News is - of course - essential for the survival of a city or country in both the short (e.g. diseases) and the long run (e.g. rumors about a famine or war preparations). Because of this many big / rich cities or countries in the past had a network of informants - 'Ambassadors' - on which it relied for trustworthy information. And this system is still in place in the modern era even though we have almost faster than light and very reliable news e.g. the Netherlands has embassies in Germany, Belgium or Denmark all neighboring countries or even within countries like Germany whereby each of the "Bundesländer" has a representation in Berlin. One might say: the diplomatic system is a good example of 'old habits die hard' or within the framework of this book: a valuable subTheme is kept alive because you never know when and how it still might be of help.

And on a more personal level local news or information exchange with neighbors and the like is essential for the immediate safety and short-term future of an individual. In this respect news is one of the evolutionary causes for language.

Because of the importance of (reliable) news incredible efforts have been put into the gathering and spreading of news with many famous examples like the Legendary run of the Greek soldier who ran from Marathon to Athens (42.195 km) to tell the citizens of Athens of a victory over the Persian army at Marathon in 490 BCE but died of exhaustion on arrival after exclaiming: 'We have won' /c/.

Spreading and gathering news probably started in many pre-historic / rural societies with systems, next to messengers, like fire / smoke signals or drums. And the early cities & countries quickly developed more reliable methods like messengers on horseback (with fresh horses every so many hours) and special ships to cross waters and they used pigeons to carry messages back to the city of origin like the Greek or the Romans did /d/. And further on in history - for trade and family information - postal services, mostly along trade routes, were created. But with the growth of trade and the growth of influence spheres more formal postal services - also available for a more general public - were created which can be deduced by e.g. the first house numbering system in Paris in 1512 /e/.

71 | Page

Nowadays modern inventions like the telegraph, telephone, radio, television & lately mobile phones and the internet have taken over and everybody can communicate with almost anyone else at the press of a button.A nice example of the importance of simple communication is the development of sms or text messages. When mobile phones were developed by the mid 1980's operators figured they needed a way to send short messages and so the Short Message Service was born. When mobile phones became more common in the 1990's people started to use this service - because of a flaw the first use could be without being charged. Then quickly more manufacturers and operators stepped into this new market and it grew to spectacular amounts of messages e.g. in the year 2000 already 35 messages per user per month were send and in 2010 an incredible number of 192,000 per second were send globally. This brought the operators huge profits up to the moment mobile internet and smart phones took over with some simple applications created an even simpler way to communicate with short messages /f/. And modern communication makes it possible to work and live in many flexible groups anywhere on this planet without losing contact with our Basic and Next Level Theme groups like Family (B3) and Cities & Countries (N5). So modern communication makes our lives and group Behavior (~culture) more flexible which causes its development to grow exponentially whereby in the past good ideas were confined to the small circle we lived in even after the invention of writing, paper, printing, books, the telegraph and then the land locked telephone. Each and every step improved our flexibility, but the Internet and now Mobile communication has made exponential growth of the past look like talking by boy scouts over the ‘can telephone’. It is now possible to work and live in Moscow or Kuala Lumpur while your next of kin resides in Durban, New York or Amsterdam. So modern communication is in fact a blessing in disguise. However, Henry Kissinger thinks otherwise when he states that 'Now the culture of texting produces a curious reluctance to engage in face-to-face interaction, especially on a one-to-one basis'. He thinks that computers have diminished human interaction and conceptual thinking with the possibilities of the Internet and its ease to lookup 'facts' and this may cause modern leaders not to see the broader picture which is dangerous for World Order / World politics /g/. I think -on the other hand- that the more interaction the better -even if it is based on short factual information which can and will change all the time- and the so praised conceptual thinking will come anyway as -if I may say so- can be seen from the emergence of this book ;-)

So, news or information exchange helps a group to function and to keep its identity. And where groups used to exist with a strong geographical background because of the limitations on fast and easy news exchange: e.g. the liberation fight of the people of North America against the English was supported by the Pamphlet: The American Crisis /h/, nowadays groups can and are formed and extended using modern media: e.g. the Arabian Spring uprising in 2011 in Tunisia, Egypt and other countries was only made possible by the Internet with e.g. Twitter.

So, news is the lubricant for a group or society to function or even to create or extend the group. In this way it is not a real Theme because the way news or information is exchanged within the group is not an evolutionary development by itself, but it helps groups or societies to develop their specific Themes faster and more precise. And - because of this - a repressive force can slow down or even hinder the forming of 'opposition' groups by controlling news and communication channels as was e.g. done in the Middle Ages by the Catholic Church or is e.g. done today by the Communist regime in China or the Islamic regime in Iran. But they cannot stop the group development(s) as all the above examples show all through the ages.

And news channels change themselves as new ways of communication become available as well. E.g. the BBC Radio Worldservice once the authoritative source of World News presently (2016) has switched to a much more cultural content since almost every citizen of the World has access to all the news at the touch of a fingertip.

And another example of the change in the News & Information Theme is the discussion about Fake-News. Introduced by Donald Trump at the start of his presidency it has now taken a turn that even long-time democratic European countries discuss this issue in parliament and seriously consider making laws against it. Whereby Germany already passed a law which had immediately absurd consequences. This because it is very strange and undemocratic indeed to pass laws about what is Real and what is Fake-News. I.e. News has always been ‘fake’ for many a reader or listener because it was / is a report about an idea / item from another group that is presented to you to convince you of that idea which -otherwise it would be a non-issue- is something you not automatically believe in and is therefore ‘fake’ to start with. Therefore, to make a law against Fake-News is -if at all possible and the German example shows otherwise- very undemocratic since then politics & government in a democratic country decide what is ok and what not ok to think and talk about, which is exactly what dictatorial regimes do. So, evolution in (sub)Themes is -like biological evolution- not a straightforward process and it could certainly happen that developments in one (sub)Theme change the course of another (sub)Theme. Which is exactly why we have cultural evolution.

/6.2.8.a/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newspaper/6.2.8.b/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marco_polo/6.2.8.c/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marathon

72 | Page

/6.2.8.d/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pigeon_post/6.2.8.e/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_numbering/6.2.8.f/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SMS#History/6.2.8.g/ World Order, Henry Kissinger, 2014/6.2.8.h/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_American_Crisis

73 | Page

7. Daily Business

7.1 Introduction

All Basic, Next Level and Contemporary (sub)Themes discussed above - and probably even more - play a role in our everyday lives. We are constantly influenced by them and consciously or subconsciously must make choices between them: whom will we marry, how will we educate ourselves, if and where will we work, with whom will we spent our spare time, how will we let our children grow up and how will we educate them etc.

In fact, when we grow up we go through most if not all stages / (sub)Themes of Human evolution, i.e. first the Basic Themes like Family, Power, Belief, Tools, Weapons & Clothes, then through the Next Level Themes like Belief, Division of Labor and Cities & Countries and finally through the Contemporary Themes like Power, Religion, Education or Sports. We could see a (sub)Theme as an ecological pattern of psychological phenomena /a/. The development through all stages eras of Human evolution is comparable to the development of the fetus in the womb: the unborn child goes through all forms / stages of evolution like: group of cells, worm, fish, animal and human.

As we have seen Human development / history took quite some time, so it is therefore not surprising that growing up to adulthood took / takes quite some time as well or on a more quantitative level up to around 40% of the average lifespan. And after a human is fully grown up (in modern times around its 25th birthday) he or she must keep learning to adapt to / survive in an ever-changing social environment or imaginary order /b/. This is unlike e.g. animals or even primates where adulthood is reached at the age of 5 or so or 15% of the average lifespan and after that they can no longer adapt to 'big' changes in their environment.

So when we grow up to adulthood and beyond we are guided (by our parents, family and chosen role models) and finally have to make choices of our own within and between the major (sub)Themes, especially during our education but also - in our modern societies - in friends, religion, marriage, children, country, city, work and very many smaller daily choices. Each time we make these choices we choose between - slightly - different groups and this process is difficult because basically deep down we are still 'wired' for the small hunter-gatherer group size - camp site size of around 50 individuals mostly /c/ - and if we move away from one group we are more or less seen as traitors and in the new group we are seen as intruders.

So, every choice / step / move is difficult but instinctively we know we must make them even though most humans like to think that these choices are destiny or - the opposite - pure chance. Neither is true though. In everyday life many things happen just by chance but on a grander scale we can choose in which environment - combination of (sub)Themes - we want to be and these choices: in friends, religion, education, marriage, children, country, city or work decide how our lives will pass by. Be it that the choices we cannot make: who will be my parents, what mother tongue will I speak, what 'landscape' is my 'home', greatly influence our so called 'free' choices thereafter.

/7.1.a/ Explaining Culture, Dan Sperber, 1996/7.1.b/ Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind (In Dutch), Yuval Noah Harari, 2014/7.1.c/ Human Evolution, Robin Dunbar, 2014.

7.2 Themes Hierarchy

As we have seen in the previous chapters Themes and their subThemes have a certain order. This order is predominantly the sequence in which they emerged in history and the order every human being passes through when he or she grows up and lives his or her life.

We could draw a kind of Themes graph just like the species graph in normal evolution but that is probably too simple because it is not fully clear which (sub)Theme came before or after another (sub)Theme and therefore the relationships between Themes and subThemes is not fully clear. Which can also be deduced from the fact that every (sub)Theme we invent has its flaws - ways to cheat - /a/ or as Trichotomy dictates every thesis creates its antithesis which merge into some kind of synthesis /b/. So, after a while it is impossible to tell what came first or how it developed.

Nonetheless we will try to depict all (sub)Themes in a 3-dimensional graph with time on the vertical or z-axis, Basic-, Next Level - and Contemporary (sub)Theme Eras on the horizontal depth or y-axis and the (sub)Themes on the horizontal width or x-axis. Since time covers quite a large period of Themes evolution we take the z-axis logarithmic to

74 | Page

compress the time scale since it took the Basic Themes at least hundreds of thousands of years to develop, the Next Level Themes tens of thousands of years and the Contemporary Themes hundreds to one or two thousand years to develop.

Fig. 4a Time frames of Themes Theory (sub)Themes (activate animation by double click).

Fig. 4b Themes in Time Graph (as in fig. 4a in reversed order seen from below)

Figuur 4 - History of (sub)Themes

On the vertical axis you find Log(time) from a million years ago (1 Mya), one hundred thousand years ago (100 kya) to NOW. The Letter Number combinations - like B1 - on the horizontal axis stand for the Basic, Next Level and Contemporary Themes:

75 | Page

The moments in time at which the different (sub)Themes start is - of course - an estimate but much care has been taken to make an educated guess. On a grand scale the Basic Themes Era starts - with the predecessor(s) of Homo Sapiens - around 1 million years ago, the Next Level Themes Era starts around 10,000 BCE -with the start of the Neolithic period- and the Contemporary Themes Era around 0 CE. And the subThemes within these Eras start at more specific moments e.g. B6: Value of Life ~ 500,000 years ago, N5: Cities & Countries ~ 4000 BCE and C1d: (Power) Banks ~ 1300 CE.

Please note that in this graph (Fig. 4) the two Contemporary (sub)Themes: C1a: Power Politics and C2: Religion already started during the Next Level Themes Era be it at its end. This is a logical development because they are an extension of the Next Level Themes: N3: Power and N2: Belief (&Medicine). In fact, this happens with every new (sub)Theme that emerges: each develops from existing (sub)Themes.So C1a: Power Politics (democracy) and C2: Religion (Buddhism, Judaism, Christianity and Islam) belong to the Contemporary Themes Era because of their great changes compared to N3: Power, 'Strong/Big' Man to Ruler of City / Country and even the first steps to Democracy in Greece and N2: Belief with all kinds of Paganism to Religions as a binding force for groups. And furthermore, changes in C1a itself such as modern democracy or secularism in C2 developed only fairly recently and caused / are causing much further development / evolution in these main Contemporary Themes.

Other (sub)Themes like N5: Cities & Countries clearly started during the Next Level Themes Era and are - of course - still developing but the change in their structure is not so dramatic that we can speak of a new (sub)Theme for the Contemporary Themes Era. Although Francis Fukuyama sees especially the further development of 'the State' (democratic Country) as a very separate force for the evolution of Politics /c/.

Figure 4 assumes and shows that especially the Theme clusters: Basic, Next level and Contemporary were started in very different Eras of the Human evolution which suggests that the development of different (sub)Themes occurred in bursts and - once started - (sub)Themes stayed more or less recognizable and separate.

However the latter: the (continued) separation of (sub)Themes quite the opposite is true: a (sub)Theme evolves from one or more older (sub)Themes, e.g. Law, Economics & Taxes, evolved from the Basic (sub)Themes: Power, Cosmology or Belief and Value of Life but from the moment it gets started it will further evolve still influenced by all old and new (sub)Themes existing at that moment in time. So, in the end every moment in time is a horizontally plane cut from the evolution of (sub)Themes or '(sub)Themes-tree': i.e. a cut from / plane through fig. 5: ‘Development of (sub)Themes in Time’, whereby all (sub)Themes do not have clear boundaries but are - let’s say - colored circles unevenly spread over the time-plane with unclear borders which merge from one (sub)Theme into the next. Examples of such a simplified ‘time-planes' are shown in fig. 6. But even though these figures suggest one could draw a clear-cut system of (sub)Themes and thereby suggests a more or less 'materialistic' terminology /d/ in practice this is not intended and even impossible as will be explained further on.

76 | Page

Figuur 5 - Development of (sub)Themes (abstract example)

77 | Page

An example of a (sub)Theme developing / evolving and then encompassing other (sub)Themes by becoming more and more important and then devolving again by 'losing' its central role is Religion in Europe, i.e. Christianity. At the end of the Roman empire it was Christianity which emerged as the stronger and more stable force other than Power which had been the main theme with the Romans. Christianity - i.e. the Catholic Church with Rome at its center - usurped sectarian power / governmental roles like being judge or doing civil administration in the cities of the early Middle Ages /e/ and they held onto that role until the Renaissance and at the top of its power the Catholic Church even took on the military role by issuing Crusades against the Islam /f/.

So, the situation is (very) fluid in every (sub)Themes Era and even every moment in time. All (sub)Themes developed until a certain moment in time exist at that moment in time but some are more prominent than others and some are on the rise while others are in retreat. This entanglement is recognized by Francis Fukuyama whom with his 6 Dimensions of Development theory sees 'Economic Growth', 'Social Mobility', 'Ideas/Legitimacy', 'The State', 'Rule of Law' and 'Democracy (Accountability)' as 6 separate forces which steer social evolution but also sees that they are all linked together in a multitude of ways /c/.

Seen from a mathematical perspective Fukuyama uses 6 basis vectors to span the world of social evolution but recognises that his basis vectors aren't independent where I use (much) more vectors to span the same world but know that it is never possible to find a really independent set of vectors to span the world of social / behavioral evolution in all its refinement.

78 | Page

Figuur 6 - Time-planes in abstract (sub)Themes Development: 100,000 and 1,000 years ago

Another aspect of the development of (sub)Themes is that -next to helping the intergroup Human evolutionary dynamics- they help the intragroup dynamics since when a group / society is successful because of a certain -set of- (sub)Themes the people who developed that particular -set of- (sub)Themes usually want and get more power. E.g. Imhotep in Egypt; 'Citizens' of Babylonian cities; army Officers/Legionnaires in the Roman Empire; the Pope and Cardinals in the Christian Middle Age societies; bankers like De Medici in Tuscany; traders like those in Amsterdam in the Dutch Republic; Galilei, Newton and e.g. Laplace during the Renaissance and e.g. pharmacologists in Western societies at the start of the 20th century and computer wizards like Bill Gates at the end of the 20th century.

Each and every time you see some kind of clash with the 'bearers' / leaders of the previous leading (sub)Themes or an assimilation by those leaders of that particular (sub)Theme in order to stay in power.

So the development of (sub)Themes also cause a group / society to stay 'healthy' / 'strong' by helping individuals / subgroups on the 'battlefields' for power within.

/7.2.a/ Samen voor ons eigen ('Together for ourselves'), Dirk Draulans, 2012/7.2.b/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trichotomy_(philosophy)/7.2.c/ Political Order and Political Decay, Francis Fukuyama, 2014/7.2.d/ Explaining Culture, Dan Sperber, 1996/7.2.e/ Karel de Grote ("Charlemangne"), P.J. Rietbergen, 2009/7.2.f/ The Crusades through Arab Eyes, Amin Maalouf, 1984

7.3 Some Practical examples

In this section I will discuss a colorful array of human (group) behavior which will highlight historical trends or current (sub)Themes.

7.3.1 Why no new (sub)Themes started during the Roman Empire and the Middle Ages

Looking at the graph in figure 4 it is obvious that during the time of the Roman Empire and the Middle Ages (~500 BCE to ~1500 CE) - certainly in Europe - no big (sub)Themes were started.

What happened - in Europe - during this period in history that no great changes in the cultural - please refer to § 7.3.16 - makeup of Europe occurred?

Seen from the Themes perspective one can conclude that some big (sub)Themes were rearranged: Cities & Countries, Power & Politics and - of course - Religion.

Basically, this period in history was a power struggle between all forms of power (see figure 1 in § 5.2.4) and the balance between the (sub)Themes: Power Politics, Cities & Countries and Religion changed. For the Roman Empire this is neatly described by Tacitus in his Histories and Annals /a/.

The Next Level Power theme with a ruler and his or her ‘nobility’ ruling over a region tried to stay in power - and had glorious triumphs with the many Empires /b/ that emerged and disappeared again such as: Achaemenid (Persia, peak ~500 BCE), Maurya (India, peak ~250 BCE), Eastern Han dynasty (China, peak ~ 100 CE), The Roman (Europe, peak ~120 CE), Hunnic (Central Europe, peak ~440 CE), Abbasid Caliphate (Middle East, peak ~ 750CE), Charlemagne (Western Europe, peak ~800 CE), Song dynasty (China, peak ~980 CE), Genghis Khan (Mongolia, peak ~1300 CE) or Ottoman (Mediterranean, peak ~1680 CE) Empire - but gradually this form of strictly centralized power - in Europe at least and helped by Religion - lost its influence in favor of Cities and then Countries with a more democratic rule. It must be noted however that democratic rule was also tried elsewhere such as under the Song in China /c/. In Europe Cities and Countries took over heraldic customs from the Nobility to identify themselves as a group as is e.g. described in a book by Von Volborth /d/. And by the end of the Middle Ages these (sub)Themes: centralized Power and Religion – and the single ruler concept - lost their grip on society and (many) new (sub)Themes emerged to take over control like in the Netherlands /e/.

Maybe this period can be compared to the puberty phase in humans. In this phase the pre-frontal lobes of the brain which have grown to their full size from the age of 9 until 12 are (better) coupled / interlinked with 'older' / 'deeper' parts of the

79 | Page

brain and (better) organized. And compare that to during the Roman Empire and Middle Ages the (sub)Themes: Cities & Countries, Power & Politics and Religion were remixed / reknitted with the older (sub)Themes Food, Family, Law, etc.

So, no new (sub)Themes survived but existing ones were rearranged and levelled the road for e.g. C4: Science & Technology to pop up from the 16th century CE onwards /f/ which may have been triggered by Fibonacci /g/ but most probably was the work of many more.

/7.3.1.a/ Tacitus; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacitus/7.3.1.b/ List of empires; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_empires/7.3.1.c/ The Chinese Market Economy: 1000 – 1500, William Guanglin Liu, 2015/7.3.1.d/ Heraldry, Customs, Rules and Styles, C.A. von Volborth, 1981/7.3.1.e/ The Dutch Republic, Jonathan Israel, 1995/7.3.1.f/ The Measure of Reality: Quantification and Western Society, 1250 - 1600, Alfred W. Crosby, 1997/7.3.1.g/ The Man of Numbers, Keith Devlin, 2011

7.3.2 Marriage and divorce

Marriage is a universal phenomenon in all cultures / social environments of the World and probably already evolved with Homo Heidelbergis, i.e. some 800 kya, as that was the moment in time when the balance for males living in groups between roaming about or bond monogamously was pushed towards the latter /a/. Basically marriage is a merger between the Basic Theme: Family life (B3) and the Next Level Theme: Law, Economics & Taxes (N6). This merger has many implications for the married couple and their offspring (if any). So when we enter into a marriage we make many choices at once. In most cultures / social environments this choice is meant for life and a breakup is not possible or easily done. That marriage is really an evolutionary phenomenon is nicely shown by Matt Ridley in his book the ‘Evolution of Everything’ /b/. Among hunter-gatherers humans were monogamous with herders / pastoralists, say around 15 kya, polygamy became an evolutionary advantage so they developed it and then agrarian societies took polygamy to a different form with upper class men / aristocrats taking many wives and lower class men getting only accidental sex if any. So the best could reproduce and nobody else. But then -in the Middle East and later Europe- Monotheism like Judaism and Christianity came along and this returned the West to monogamy again. This was to the advantage of both upper class women -who do not have to share- and lower class men -who get sex-. But then Islam turned the scales again and nowadays we see that marriage -and therefore sex- for everyone is changed again with that divorce and thereby a serial-polygamy becomes more easy to attain and marriage for everyone as well with same sex marriages legalized in several Western societies already. So we see what Robin Dunbar shows: i.e. we are on the edge of the mono- / polygamy divide because our Digit-ratio is just in between both /a/, all through human history / behavioral evolution.

However in the Western World divorce has become -I think- a too accepted or even 'fashionable' phenomenon. This shift towards individuality has advantages: every human being is individually tested / has to survive on his/her own which creates the strongest persons and ideas but the disadvantages are quite large since a divorce quite often results in a 'fight' which has severe emotional and economical costs especially for any children who are found to develop severe traumatic experiences, loss of contact with one parent (usually the father /c/) and are quite often much less off economically afterwards because the money has been spent in legal proceedings to disentangle the common possessions with the usual outcome that both parties get percentage wise exactly what they are entitled to but in absolute figures much less than the value of the possessions in the marriage. This in conjunction with the emotional damage the West is best advised to simplify divorce procedures with legally bounding simple rules/procedures about the care for the children - preferably a 50/50 % split between the parents - and the disentanglement of common possessions.

That such a system would help the West as a society as a whole can be understood from the (sub)Themes: Family and Law, Economics & Taxes. It has been tested for millennia that growing up in a Family is the best way for children, so breaking up this entity is bad in itself but breaking it up completely - by sending the kids to one or the other parent - is even worse and the disentanglement of the common possessions in a marriage - a big industry for lawyers - looks careful and honest if done according to a special agreement for each divorce but it only helps the lawyers whereby a simple law enforcing mediation with simple rules about the children (with 50/50 as a mandatory starting point) and simple rules about the split of the common possessions (an official valuator followed by a binding agreement from a mediator) precludes all kinds of fights between the former couple.

So the evolution of the combined subTheme Marriage and the Themes Family life (B3) and Law, Economics & Taxes (N6) is - most certainly - not over and never will be because Humans are on the edge between polygamous / promiscuous and monogamous relationships with about 50 % of the males and females being on either side of the divide /a/. So all

80 | Page

else equal - ceteris paribus - only about 25% of marriages should last and not surprisingly that is what we find in the West where as much as 2/3 of the marriages break up.

/7.3.2.a/ Human Evolution, Robin Dunbar, 2014/7.3.2.b/ The Evolution of Everything. How Small Changes Transform Our World, Matt Ridley, 2015/7.3.2.c/ http://www.fathers-4-justice.org/

7.3.3 Mental illnesses

Although the cause of mental illnesses as a phenomenon cannot fully be explained from Human group behavior alone since they primarily originate from individual brain dysfunctions they have a very big impact on individual Human behavior and thereby group behavior. And - of course - it can be said that Human group behavior revolves around the capabilities of the brain and its abnormalities.

E.g. it is suspected that Homo Neanderthals was (much) less stable than Homo Sapiens because it had brains with much smaller frontal and temporal lobes /a/ - one or more seemingly indiscriminate group killings were found - and that that could be one of the reasons for their extinction. However it is much more reasonable to assume that several aspects of their bodily and cultural makeup did not let them survive in the Ice Age of around 40 kya. Whereby their much smaller mentalizing capabilities - because of smaller frontal and temporal lobes - and therefore group size played a key role /a/. But interbreeding with the Neanderthals could have given us the instability that our frontal and temporal lobes do not always grow / interlink with the older parts of our brain with the result that that that person is more prone to asocial behavior.

Until recently the mentally ill /weak persons were at best left alive and given some food to survive and the seemingly normal persons but without normal inhibitions - e.g. with regard to killing or taking unrealistic risks - were / had to be accepted when they could function normally and quite often even became leaders especially in critical situations like wars. Compare e.g. the biblical King Saul /b/ or more recently the Zulu King Shaka: Chief of the Zulus who was a ruthless leader but was accepted for his military skills until he killed 7000 of his own because he grieved for his mother /c/. Then he was murdered by two of his half-brothers most probably because this mass killing of his own endangered the existence of his tribe. Or compare Jesus Christ who possibly was mentally ill - having visions - and therefore acted like he did /d/.

Since the 17th century /e/ mental illnesses became treatable (see e.g. Joseph Guislain /f/) because madness was no longer seen as caused by daemons or the devil however doctors - in the beginning - had very little medicines to treat a patient. Nowadays this has not changed much even though there are several drugs to suppress the worst effects of severe mental illnesses.

If we distinguish hereditary (nature) and learned (nurture) mental afflictions, the latter: e.g. a narcistic personality, can severely worsen the hereditary and/or physiological abnormalities in the brain. But in our modern group behavior we see quite often that action is only taken when a person crosses a line by endangering one or more members of the group or society. And even in the most advanced societies this has worked in the direction that obviously mentally ill people on the streets are tolerated and sometimes some shelter and food is given such that they stay alive as long as they do not endanger others. Only mentally ill people with relatives helping them or mentally ill with money of their own and the intelligence to ask for help are treated in mental institutions. The mentally ill who severely cross the line: e.g. sexual abuse or (attempted) murder end up in the courts and the prison system which have then severe problems dealing with their mental illness /g/.

So group behavior in modern society fulfills the most basic needs / (sub)Themes like: Food & a Roof for the mentally ill and others who deviate from the norm but all other (sub)Themes have evolved to do just the opposite. I.e. modern society has little or no compassion with the weak but sees to the fact that the strongest persons survive and weaker ones are weeded out or at best left alone to live on the edge of society.

On the one hand when abnormal behavior helps the group e.g. by unrealistic risk taking an - in principle - mentally ill person is allowed to function and help the group of which Kevin Duttons gives many examples in his book 'The Wisdom of Psychopaths' /h/.

And on the other hand mental illnesses are more and more seen as cultural deviations which cannot be tolerated as can be deduced from the latest catalogue of mental illnesses DSM-V /i/ which - being illnesses - should be treated as such.

81 | Page

/7.3.3.a/ Human Evolution, Robin Dunbar, 2014/7.3.3.b/ Jerusalem, A Biography, Simon Sebag Montefiori, 2011/7.3.3.c/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shaka/7.3.3.d/ A History of God. From Abraham to the Present: The 4000 - Year Quest of Judaism, Christianity and Islam, Karen Armstrong, 1993/7.3.3.e/ De onttovering van de waanzin (The Disenchantment of Madness), Marius Engelbrecht, 2010/7.3.3.f/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Guislain/7.3.3.g/ De leugenmachine ('The lying machine'), Harald Merckelbach, 2011/7.3.3.h/ The Wisdom of Psychopaths, Kevin Dutton, 2012/7.3.3.i/ Betere Mensen, over gezondheid als keuze en koopwaar, Trudy Dehue, 2014

7.3.4 Is the use of drugs favorable or bad to a society?

Drugs have been found in mummies and ancient ruins all over the World as early as 4500 years ago, so why is the modern World so strict against drugs?

In India, China, Meso- & South America, the Middle East, Mediterranean Europe (soft) drugs have - over the course of history - been found and in the more Northern countries alcohol (wine & beer) has been used since the beginning of time. But in the Southern countries - especially the Middle East - alcohol is forbidden /a/ and in the Northern countries (soft) drugs are forbidden /b/. However in all Religions around the World local drugs were and are used in Religious practices. Why is this?

Probably because of the availability of indigenous drugs even before the Law, Economics & Taxes Next level (sub)Theme was developed in a society the Law, Economics and Taxes were formed such that they could accommodate for this very human thing: an escape from the harsh reality even for a limited amount of time. But when World trade started to develop and many societies became very open the indigenous drugs had to compete with the foreign drugs which most certainly did and does two things: 1) people get - conspicuously - hurt (or even die because they do not know how to handle the new drug and / or their physiology is not able to handle the drug) and 2) the Contemporary subThemes: Government and Business see a drop in Tax revenue or Sales respectively. Both things are very undesirable so a stop / ban is put on the foreign drug which is pretty simple because it does not fit into the local religious practices as well so it is seen as a threat to the Contemporary Theme: Religion which draws on very strong emotions as we have seen even in very recent history.

So foreign drugs are seen as a threat to the local society because of the Contemporary (sub)Themes: Religion, Government and Business. But they are not necessarily bad for a society because they have - probably - been in use since pre-historic times in all societies.

/7.3.4.a/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_alcohol_consumption/7.3.4.b/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegal_drugs

7.3.5 Balance between Humanities and "Hard" Sciences

The role Humanities and Hard Sciences /a/ play in modern society is slowly changing and the balance between them as well.

Humanities are based in contemporary (sub)Themes like Power (Politics, Government, Business & Banks), Religion, Education, Sports, Entertainment & Art and Hard Sciences play a role in Business, Health and Science & Technology.

Therefore, on the face of it one might conclude that if a youngster is to choose a profession in life he or she is best advised to go for an education in one of the humanities even if one's ability is more systematically / mathematically inclined. And when we oversee history the same conclusion must be drawn since e.g. the first universities taught religion, medicine and law with religion firmly ranked as the most important faculty and the role of medicine was very limited.

And although many societies in the Anglo-Saxon world scream that people should seek a career in hard sciences the pay for a job in hard sciences is systematically less than in management or just comparable to a job in humanities as opposed to the dropout rate for a study in hard sciences which is systematically higher than for a study in humanities.

Contrary to the Anglo-Saxon world in contemporary non Anglo-Saxon (Asian / Developing) societies it is usually the hard sciences which are preferred by young students like e.g. in Japan, China or India but after a while most of these

82 | Page

students - in the Anglo-Saxon world and elsewhere - end up in management because of the better pay. But even then management still has the highest percentage of people with a background in humanities often even in organizations working in or with many products / ideas of hard sciences, except for Health where some specialists are better paid. Only when new technologies are used by entrepreneurial 'nerds' - usually without a formal education - like James Watt, Werner von Siemens, Alfred Nobel, Thomas Edison, Henry Ford, Anthony Fokker or Bill Gates it pays to "do" hard sciences.

So for Anglo-Saxon societies the choice is quickly made: humanities or management (economics) and only nerds should start in science or technology.

This trend might lead to a systematic disadvantage as compared to non-Anglo-Saxon societies - because there a much higher percentage of young students tends to choose for a (start in a) career in hard sciences or technology. But strangely enough this problem was already foretold in the US before WWII by e.g. the director of GE (General Electric: the biggest company in the World back then) Gerald Swope when he wrote an Editorial in a Journal of the AIEE that the US (and GE in particular) needed more people like Steinmetz /b/ instead of people who pursued a business degree. However until now history has proved him wrong even during the rise of Japan. But recent developments in Banks (credit crisis) and the rise of China may prove him right some 80 years later.

So my guess is that the Anglo-Saxon world is best advised to change this outlook for youngsters like in Germany where there has been a much higher appreciation of hard sciences as e.g. can be seen from the introduction of the Dr.-Ing. (Doctor of Engineering) title at the end of the 19th century /c/, its appreciation and the state of the German economy as is made clear time and again even though the number of effective working hours per year is much lower in Germany: 1500 than in the US: 1850 /d/.

Another aspect is that with the introduction of more and more systematics / technology in life our brains start to adept to it. In my opinion this can be seen from the fact that many more people are diagnosed with ADHD, dyslexia or likewise 'abnormalities'.Of course the diagnoses of an increased number of people with these 'disabilities' is easily explained by the fact that such an abnormality has to be defined first in order to be diagnosed but on the other hand the fact that they have been defined - by people working in humanities (psychologists, pedagogues) - is a sign in itself.

If these disabilities or behavioral abnormalities are really abnormal depends on your perspective: I - with some experience in hard sciences and education - see them as an adaptation of the brain of people already inclined to more systematic thinking (less amygdale and more neo cortex). And so I think these 'disabilities' are a sign of a physiological change in the brains of ever more people caused by behavioral evolution ploughed back into the brain. For which there is new evidence as well: research on old (hunter-gatherer) and more modern (farming & herding) skeleton remains has shown that African agriculture came from people re-emigrating into Africa from the Middle East where it was invented at least twice /e/. And a DNA comparison shows a big correspondence (~40%) between the modern humans living in Africa (~Bantu’s) and people from the Middle East /f/. So it is likely that behavioral changes, i.e. the move to Agriculture -eventually- find their way into our DNA and then spread because their bearers have a behavioral advantage over competitors.

The fact that cultural circumstances like eating or living habits cause mismatches or even diseases in humans is well documented by Daniel Lieberman in his book: 'The Story of the Human Body' /g/ in which many examples like cavities & scurvy (with the introduction of agricultural revolution) or obesity (with the introduction of the industrial revolution) are given.

And the fact that social / behavioral circumstances can influence at least the development of the brain becomes clear from a study whereby the brain size development during childhood from socio-economic backward families living on or under the poverty line is significantly smaller than of children of the same age in families which have twice that income /h/.

/7.3.5.a/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_and_soft_science or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanities/7.3.5.b/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Proteus_Steinmetz/7.3.5.c/ http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dr.-Ing/7.3.5.d/ Management Challenges of the 21st Century, Peter Drucker, 1999/7.3.5.e/ Farming invented twice in Middle East, Ewen Callaway, Nature 2016/7.3.5.f/ Ancient DNA data fills in thousands of years of human prehistory in Africa, David Reich et al., 2017/7.3.5.g/ The Story of the Human Body: Evolution, Health and Disease, Daniel Lieberman, 2013 /7.3.5.h/ Children Brain Development; http://archpedi.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=2381542

83 | Page

7.3.6 Infinite Stupidity

On the website of The Edge /a/ and in his book: 'Wired for Culture' Mark D. Pagel states that Humans are unique in Social Learning but that this leads to ever less creativity / originality because it is much simpler to copy successful ideas tested by someone else than to invent and test them yourself.

However I think the opposite is happening. People use ever more ideas of others - made possible by ever increasing communication - but most of the time in slightly different ways and this 'adding to' makes ever more people creative whereby in the past there were a few very creative people to come up with something groundbreaking like the bow and arrow as an improvement on the spear to be copied over and over again for millennia until someone else came up with something totally new again like e.g. guns although gunpowder had been invented long before.

Nowadays many small inventions from many people build up the new concepts and Themes faster and faster: e.g. the airplane which was made possible by the invention of the fossil fuel engine only a few decades before and new ideas by the Wright brothers on control of unstable machines and efficiency of propellers /b/ or more recently the internet in the 1990s which was made possible by the invention of computers and communication between them whereby these ideas had been around only a few decades with the first computers in the 1940s and the first useable computers in the 1970s and radio and television since the 1930s & 1950s but available on a large scale since the 1950s and 1970s.

Or on another path of Human endeavor: shares in businesses or the spreading of risk with insurances the development is comparable. Shares were invented in the 17th century in the Netherlands and the idea of the spreading of risks (basically the same as shared ownership) was improved upon by e.g. Lloyd’s in London but it really took off with the share and commodity markets in the US in the 20th century and it exploded after the introduction of computer trading. Probably because in an almost completely transparent market arbitrage is impossible.

So Social Learning does not lead to less intelligence but to a better shared / used common intelligence which helps / forces more people to participate and use their intelligence / creativity to get ideas tested as is e.g. neatly shown by Erik Brynjolfsson and Andrew McAfee in their book "The Second Machine Age" /c/.

/7.3.6.a/ http://edge.org/ or Wired for Culture: The Origins of Human Social Mind, Mark Pagel, 2012/7.3.6.b/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wright_brothers/7.3.6.c/ The Second Machine Age, Erik Brynjolfsson & Andrew McAfee, 2014

7.3.7 Is social behavior lagging behind recent discoveries in Science and Technology?

Are modern societies able to cope with the recent discoveries in Science and Technology, i.e. Contemporary Theme C4 ? This question is now and again openly raised by many World thought leaders but much more often implicitly raised by all kinds of news commentators, e.g. on Global Warming or by ordinary citizens when discussing trends in daily events.

First we have to define what is meant by recent. The most logical choice is: since the Renaissance because from this moment (15th century CE) on an ever increasing number of technologies has entered our societies. But before that moment in time Human history had seen numerous technological changes which had turned the dials for quite a number of people which then had to adept, e.g. the change from the stone age into the bronze age, the invention of paper or gunpowder in ancient China or the perfection of canons & guns in Europe from the Middle Ages onwards.

However in recent history discoveries like the steam-engine, electricity, flying, (bio) chemistry and especially nuclear physics have caused tremendous change for the World Outlook in an ever increasing frequency and variety. Even though some say that 'economic' change is not increasing at least not if you look at economic growth. In his book Robert Gordon states that contemporary economic inventions like Computers, Robots or the Internet do have a much lower impact on growth than e.g. 19th century inventions like Cars, Electricity or the Telephone /a/. And implicitly states that therefore social responses to contemporary changes have a lower impact. Even though some of his statements: inventions like "living in a city" (invented in the middle east at around 4000 BCE, AdL) or "central heating" (invented by the Romans at around 0 CE, AdL) can give only the inventor society an advantage and once invented no other society can use it to its advantage are peculiar because the American society did not invent these but certainly used it to its advantage by redefining the scale / compactness they were used, Robert Gordon might have a point that scientific / technological changes are not necessarily increasing in number or speed and certainly not necessarily causing a larger impact on the individual. But is it the individual that counts or is it the number of individuals ?

84 | Page

So the question remains: are societies able to cope or is an ever greater proportion of people left out or even killed by the new technologies ?

Taking the examples: steam-engine, electricity, flying, (bio) chemistry and nuclear physics we can easily see that society is time and again able to adept within a few generations or even faster. And yes some people (or even groups) have died but proportionally that number has decreased in sync with the number of violent deaths /b/ (see § 8.8 also).

And furthermore societies seem to want to adept as quickly as possible to new technologies as can be read in e.g. Made in Holland /c/. Wherein you can read that every modern invention was quickly picked up by Dutch industrialist and when the product was accepted by the general Dutch public the originally clumsy production with problematic working conditions were improved rapidly because of the pressure by unions and then politics in its wake. So the Dutch society as an example proved to adept very well to modern science and technology.

So although we are time and again warned by alarmist people that certain developments can (and in their view must) be devastating to the Human population or the World as a whole these fears never materialized. Even to a World nuclear war or a dirty nuclear bomb we did not come close.

And for the threats to the environment like Global Warming, Genetically Modified Organisms or Biodiversity please refer to § 8.38.

So in my opinion Human behavior adapts (by evolutionary behavioral forces) to each change in our scientific or technological capabilities without threatening a greater proportion of Humans (or the World). As was seen by Niels Bohr with his statement: 'Technology has advanced more in the last thirty years than in the previous two thousand. The exponential advancement will only continue.' /d/. It is the outbursts in social unrest - though becoming less and less over time /b/ - that deliberately kill by far the most people sometimes aided by new technologies but never caused by it. One could even argue the opposite: new technologies have reduced the number of deaths - on the battlefield and in the civilian population - e.g. with nuclear bombs at the end of WWII or precision bombs in the second Gulf war these conflicts ended much faster than a 'conventional' war would have and therefore many possible victims were 'spared'. As did President Truman reasoned when he decided to throw the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki /e/.

/7.3.7.a/ The Rise and Fall of American Growth, Robert Gordon, 2016/7.3.7.b/ The Better Angels of Our Nature, Steven Pinker, 2011/7.3.7.c/ Made in Holland: Een techniekgeschiedenis van Nederland [1800-2000], Harry Lintsen, 2005/7.3.7.d/ Niels Bohr (1885 - 1962): http://www.brainyquote.com//7.3.7.e/ Atomic bombings: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki

7.3.8 Why do Women perform worse when in a group?

Read Montague's group in neuro-imaging at Virginia Tech found that the IQ score of the majority of women working in small groups on competitive tasks is significantly lower when their performance is made public than when they work for themselves /a/. And it had already been shown that in meetings whereby the participants are anonymous and have to type their contributions a different type of contributor gets the floor as compared to oral discussions and furthermore the ideas shared are of a (much) higher quality.

How can this be explained?

With brain imaging techniques Montague's department showed that group dynamics cause especially the women to be fully aware of the members of the group and their status which activates the deeper / emotional brain layers like the amygdale in favor of the more rational / human brain layers like the prefrontal lobes /b/. The latter being the part of the brain used for solving more complex problems.

Seen from (small) group behavior many women fulfill the part in a group whereby they see to the fact that their "Family" has the highest chances of survival by helping the children and less able. And they avoid a status conflict - which alerts / activates the amygdale in everybody - to make the group - as a whole - perform better, even if this makes them less conspicuous / intelligent.

So in my opinion it is simply part of our (behavior) evolution.

85 | Page

The remark made by Kenneth Kishida that this group dynamics is very important to human existence since most of our human interactions is in small groups like School or Work but also in the National Assemblies or the United Nations is very true indeed and with Kenneth I think it needs further research.And like Kenneth I am of the opinion that taking out the status element from important meetings or gatherings should improve their decisions / rulings by a significant factor.

So it could be a good idea to take out the extreme competitiveness from practicing law (and other very competitive environments) to improve the decisions made in these environments.

Further / parallel research by Alex Pentland and his team at MIT shows that group IQ can be (much) higher than the individual IQ's of group members /c/. So it could be that women intuitively know this and seek to maximize group survival which is best for the(ir) children. Alex Pentland however, sees this as proof that we -as Homo Sapiens- have evolved to function better as group minds than as individual minds. Furthermore Alex Pentland finds that the productivity and creativity are (much) better for exploring and well engaged groups as compared to isolated groups. So he sees a social intelligence which is -of course- much better for (cultural) survival.

/7.3.8.a/ http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/01/120122201215.htm or/7.3.8.b/ Journal of Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, Kenneth Kishida et.al. Jan. 23rd, 2012/7.3.8.c/ Social Physics: How Social Networks Can Make Us Smarter, Alex Pentland, 2014

7.3.9 Why is immigration sometimes accepted and at other times rejected.

Very many civilizations often had - during growth - the policy to let people from 'outside' become a member of their society, e.g. the ancient Egyptians /a/, the Romans (and more than only slaves) /b/ or the USA during the 19th and 20th century /c/. However other societies like the Chinese were at times much more closed and did not want to have to do with the rest World and never let many people in voluntarily.

Why is this ? And what (sub)Themes play a role in this phenomenon ?

One of the first things is the thirst for power / supremacy for what purpose the society needs a work / fight-force, i.e. because of the division of labor and not enough 'own' people to fill in the demand. Societies like the Egyptians, the Romans or the Americans had a real shortage to help build their power with show-off buildings and armies whereas the Chinese never had any real shortage in people in fact sometimes clearly the opposite /d/.

The same can be seen in the present day Dutch society: in the 1960s, 1970s and even the 1980s many people from Turkey or Morocco were let in to do the low paid jobs but now that the booming economy has turned for the worse xenophobia is growing and all kinds of measures are taken to keep people out and even make people return to their ‘home’ countries. And a more or less objective evaluation concluded that immigration did - in the end - cost the Dutch society a lot of money and will, year after year, cost more and more because the benefits were and are lower than the costs.

So here as well we see that as long as there is a direct benefit to a society immigration is allowed but as soon as groups of citizens in a society are having trouble with immigration it is downsized or reversed. This is explained by the fact that group behavior in e.g. Basic; Family Life; Next Level; Law, Economics & Taxes and Contemporary; Power: Politics & Business (jobs), Religion and Education (sub)Themes are influenced too much and then group members start to oppose the (pressure on) changes in these (sub)Themes. This releases all kinds of official and unofficial actions against immigration which often lead to effectively blocking (mass) immigration in this particular society. As can now be seen in Germany with the attacks on immigration homes sharply on the rise in sync with the rising number of immigrants coming from the Balkan, Middle East or (North) Africa.

/7.3.9.a/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Egypt/7.3.9.b/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plebs/7.3.9.c/ Ellis Island Guide, Oscar Israelowitz, 2006/7.3.9.d/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-child_policy

7.3.10 Is Human group Behavior a struggle between our Emotions and Rationale ?

86 | Page

In his book "Thinking, Fast and Slow" Daniel Kahneman /a/ makes a plea that most of our (economic) behavior can be explained by two decisional systems: ‘No. 1’ and ‘No. 2’ in our Brains. No. 1 is fast and coupled to the amygdale and No. 2 is slow and coupled through the pre-frontal lobes to the neo cortex.

The No.1 system is a biased system in this respect that it tries to avoid losses. So, it estimates the costs of a loss much higher than is realistic whereas system No.2 takes (much) longer to take a decision but this conclusion is often much more realistic. However, system No.2 can still be (very much) wrong because it draws from (long term) memory which is certainly not flawless.

Which system is used depends upon many factors not the least if the situation at hand requires a quick decision or if we are somehow agitated or not. When the situation requires a fast decision like fleeing, freezing or fighting from a life-threatening situation system No.1 is exclusively used but when buying a house or selling your second-hand car to the first bidder that comes along system No.2 should be used but in practice seldomly is. The latter is probably caused by the biological evolution of system No.1 for survival with fast reactions to certain superficial advantages. But my guess is that Human Behavioral evolution is directed towards an ever-increasing use of system No.2.

If we look at the Basic (sub)Themes and compare them with our biological predecessors: i.e. primates, I think that all (sub)Themes are - if rudimentary present in primates - with Humans (much) more rational. E.g. Family and Offspring: have with our race many rational aspects like: the children of the women in the group are not exclusively from the group leader but mostly from other males and e.g. the number of children is leveled to the resources available. With Power within the group something similar can be seen: with Humans it is not simply the strongest male who is the leader but a rational aspect: wisdom or cleverness enters the equation as well. With Value of Life, Tools or Art we see rationality to an even larger degree. And even with Belief there is a rationale behind it, in that the group can recognize / predict other group member behavior better since the belief systems / rituals have created a common ground which can be very beneficial to group survival. Even if the groups grow so large that we do not meet all its members on a daily basis.

With the Next level (sub)Themes: e.g. Agriculture & Land, Division of Labor or Law, Economics & Taxes decision system No.2 is used to an even deeper degree than with Basic (sub)Themes. With Agriculture people must postpone the urge to eat the produce directly and prepare seeds or seedlings instead. This ability to restrain oneself probably came from a genetic mutation /b/. With Division of Labor people must work - sometimes solely - on things not at all related to food or basic survival and rely on their fellow group members to supply them with those necessities. And with Law, Economics & Taxes people must make an even more abstract decision - and suppress the urge to act themselves - and accept a higher authority to protect their interests.

But with most Contemporary (sub)Themes: Power (Politics, Government, Business, Banks); Religion; Science & Technology; Education; Sports and Entertainment & Art the connection with people's basic needs becomes ever more indirect which makes system No.1 even less prominent. Except for Health, Care & Hygiene where peoples’ basic survival depends directly upon decision system No.1 which is therefore very much at the forefront of things which makes it e.g. very difficult to run Hospitals efficiently or to deal with soaring Health costs in a society. This because you cannot argue with some elderly person in need of open heart surgery that it is better for society to spend the money on 20 youngsters with a learning disability.

So, in my opinion Human (group) Behavior is very much the result of the balance between the fast and slow decision-making parts of our Brains whereby the use of system No.2 over system No.1 is driving the evolution of Human group Behavior and maybe even vice versa: that the evolution of Human group Behavior is slowly changing the makeup of our Brains in favor of system No.2, i.e. the more and more elaborate use of the neo cortex /c/.

At least the way we teach our children for a large percentage of their expected lifespan is very much proof to the idea that we hope to change their brain structure forever.

/7.3.10.a/ Thinking, Fast and Slow, Daniel Kahneman, 2011/7.3.10.b/ The 10.000 Year Explosion: How Civilization Accelerated Human Evolution, Gregory Cochran & Henry Harpending, 2009/7.3.10.c/ Borderline Times, Dirk de Wachter, 2012

7.3.11 Falling in Love

Falling in love is a biological thing /a/. However, the way we humans deal with it is different from the animal kingdom. There we see all familiar forms: mate with whatever partner is available, mate with a partner for life, mate with the group

87 | Page

leader etc. However, we Humans have all forms as well but not set by our biological disposition but by our behavioral arrangements. I.e. different cultures at different moments in history have different arrangements: in Western societies we have - in principle - just one partner for life but in the Middle Ages this used to be the rule for just the Nobility whereby the Commoners had a less regulated sex life. And in Asia it was for a long time the rule that a man's wealth decided how many wives he could have but under the increased influence of World dominance of Christian societies this has now changed. Whereas in the pre-Columbian Americas the arrangements were probably something in between.

The change from biologically governed sexual behavior to (mainly) culturally governed sexual behavior is most likely one of the main causes why it took Homo so long to develop, i.e. around at least 1.5 million years /b/. Only when this was 'settled' and behavioral arrangements took care of our "hormones" we could further develop a stable group life and then the full array of human (group) behavior could evolve.

This evolutional change had to be (in part) biological to counter the build-in biological urge - our 'animal mindset' / basic instinct - to reproduce. And that is why - I think - this change took so long to develop the Basic Themes: B1 to B8 (see § 5.2). When these prerequisites were developed - maybe in a way as described in "The Mating Mind" /c/ - we could create higher behavioral structures which enabled us to thrive in the face of fierce animal competition. And when that was settled and we ruled the World some 50 kya our group evolution based on Myths (~ Culture) really took off /d/.

/7.3.11.a/ Why we love and lust, Theresa Crenshaw, 1996/7.3.11.b/ The Creation of Inequality, Flannery & Marcus, 2012/7.3.11.c/ The Mating Mind, Geoffrey Miller, 2001/7.3.11.d/ Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind (In Dutch), Yuval Harari, 2014

7.3.12 Why was and is coercion so extensively used and is a democracy coercive?

In his books ‘The Origins of Political Order’ /a/ and ‘Political Order and Political Decay’ /b/ Francis Fukuyama tells the story of the creation –and start of their demise- of the (Nation) States as we know them in the 21st century.

The one group behavioral aspect Fukuyama trumps as being key to the rise of the (Nation) States is coercion. Fukuyama uses the term and its meaning with little explanation of why coercion works as a means to guide group behavior: he talks of the rise of political –for especially China- and the rise of religious –for especially India- power which explains some of it. But this does not explain the why and -only in part- the how of coercion.

Basically coercion stems from the animal kingdom, e.g. wolves teach their young to adhere to certain rules like the very young run in the middle of the pack, the young males at the back since they are the fastest and the strongest and the old males run at the front since they have the most experience but are the slowest. This is taught the young wolves by coercion since if they do not adhere they get bitten or growled at.

However, coercion with humans for one thing is only possible if we believe that if we do not adhere to the 'forcible' social norms we will be punished and the greatest punishment is being put outside the group. So adherence to specific cultural power structures must be taught while we are young and completely dependent upon our parents, family, extended family, village, city and / or state we grow up in, in order to prevent us from fleeing / going away, which is exactly what young adolescents do. And Francis Fukuyama explains the rise of coercive political systems as e.g. in ancient Egypt by the fact that such a region is surrounded by uninhabitable land so after we have passed the age of being totally dependent upon our direct family -around the age of 12 in hunter-gatherer societies- we still have to adhere because there is nowhere to go. Although I can imagine that the Sahara in ancient Egyptian times was not that big yet and going somewhere else was still very much possible.

/7.3.12.a/ The Origins of Political Order, Francis Fukuyama, 2011/7.3.12.b/ Political Order and Political Decay, Francis Fukuyama, 2014/7.3.12.c/ The Creation of Inequality, Flannery & Marcus, 2012

7.3.13 The interaction between emotions and behavior: the case of Nostalgia

Over the course of (written) history our view of certain emotions has changed enormously. Take the case of Nostalgia: this emotion was beautifully described by Odysseus emotions in The Odyssey by Homer in the eighth century BCE /a/

88 | Page

but has been regarded a very negative emotion to even a disease with physical causes to a mere emotional affliction over the course of history /b/.

And although these changes appear not to be bounded to some Themes Era or (sub)Theme and do not change overnight it is clear that the change in the view of this emotion is proof of the interaction between (this) emotion and our (group) behavior. Societal view changes the emotion and vice versa. So even certain emotions – which seem to stem from our nature instead of being the result of our nurture- are very much part of the imaginary or mythical World we have created /c/ and therefore play a role in (sub)Themes. This despite the fact that nurture seems not to exist at all, as has been found by Judith Rich Harris in her book ‘No Two Alike’ /d/.

And even a societal view on e.g. psychiatric disorders did change significantly over a relative short period of time at the end of the Middle Ages and the beginning of the Renaissance /e/. First, at the end of the 16th century madness was seen as caused by a Daemon or Witchcraft whereas one and a half century later a much more modern stance dominated the public discourse in that madness is a disease of the brain. From which we see as well that the Contemporary Health, Care & Hygiene Theme (C3) gained in importance over the Religious Theme (C2).

So emotions are not a fixed concept but are different compared between groups and are different over time and with that our Worldview changes all the time as was probably the case in many tribes in Africa with the concept of Witchcraft with the start of the colonial period /f/. Before that time, it was just one of the explanations for incomprehensible things that happened. After that time, it became a way for the Africans to have comparable prowess as Western societies with their Guns & Machines to control the World.

/7.3.13.a/ Odyssey, Homer, c. 700 BCE/7.3.13.b/ Nostalgia: Conceptual issues and Existential functions, Constantine Sedikides et al., 2004/7.3.13.c/ Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind (In Dutch), Yuval Noah Harari, 2014/7.3.13.d/ No Two Alike. Human Nature and Human Individuality, Judith Rich Harris, 2006/7.3.13.e/ De onttovering van de waanzin ('The disenchantment of madness'), Marius Engelbrecht, 2010/7.3.13.f/ Witchcraft, Intimacy & Trust, Peter Geschiere, 2013

7.3.14 Bureaucracy, is it a separate Contemporary Power subTheme ?

Bureaucracy seems to be the new power (or disease) of modern 'democratic' Societies /a/. Where in the past - e.g. the Middle Ages in Europe - Rulers (such as Dukes or Kings) decided what was 'Rule' or 'Law' or what was going to happen next. In democracies 'Laws' are voted upon and when accepted enforced by the 'judicial' system. However when written down the text is not automatically absolutely clear and in addition - because a Law has to be general - not every specific situation is covered for. And next to that Societies change i.e. over time ‘new’ political winds blow (new / other subThemes become the norm) which cause Laws to (gradually) become obsolete. All these situations cause that people constantly - have to - turn to certain 'offices' or 'desks' (Bureaus) who decide which is which, such as the Municipality in a City or within any organization: Management. The Officers 'behind' these offices or desks must then - as objectively as possible - decide what to do.

But deciding what to do is always in favor of some person or group and against another person or group and almost never clear cut. This takes time and bestows a certain power on the bearer of the office, i.e. the Bureau has power: Bureaucracy.

So in general in a modern democratic Society every situation or organization has Bureaucracy but the meaning of the word is narrowed down to situations / organizations whereby the decision process is (much) slower than somebody perceives to be acceptable which accounts for the negative connotation /a/. Logically the larger the group involved the slower the decision process will be and therefore public offices but also larger (commercial) organizations will have more Bureaucracy.And next to slowing down the decision-process Bureaucracy can - and according to Murphy's Law: always will - take ridiculous or downright malicious decisions. A famous example of which is laid down in: 'Das Prozess' by Franz Kafka /b/.

Another way to look at Bureaucracy is through The Peter Principle: 'in an organization people get promoted up to a level where they are no longer competent' /c/. In this 'theory' every organization consists of a large proportion of people who no longer help with the goal of the organization but have risen to a position where they should take small or large decisions but can not / dare not. And therefore real decisions are not really taken but go through a more or less pre-defined route via small part-decisions by management who are not yet fully incompetent. But this takes 'unneccesarily' amounts of time.

89 | Page

However should Bureaucracy be a separate Contemporary Power subTheme ? My clear cut answer is: No. All Contemporary Power subThemes: (C1a) Politics, (C1b) Government, (C1c) Business and (C1d) Banks have more or less Bureaucracy since they are organizations with management which wants to stay in 'power' but are more or less incapable of doing the right things required for the job.

Can it be avoided ? Again my clear cut answer is: No, although in a distant future when Contemporary Power (sub)Themes have been reshuffled and certain societies have made it possible to separately address Bureaucracy and thrive in comparison to groups or societies which cannot, it might be possible to avoid the downsides of Bureaucracy.

And downsides it has which can be seen from the huge sums of money eventually spent on projects which no longer are necessary or useful: e.g. The Maginot Line built before WW II in France or Sustainable / Wind Energy now being built in Europe or time and money wasted on finding consensus: on e.g. Global Warming, which in my view is just a proxy for a totally different Power game. But seen from that perspective it is maybe time and money well spent because 'talking' is economically usually much better than 'fighting'.Which is why we 'invented' Human evolution in the first place as can be nicely read in The World Until Yesterday /d/ with an example of a tribal war between North and South Dani's in Papua New Ginea which did cost the lives of 125 men or 5% of the members of one group in one day of warfare as compared to the Hiroshima bomb which did cost - with its absolute death toll of around 100'000 - less than 0,1% of the population of Japan and did cause the Japanese to stop fighting and start talking which they did very well and became a World Power within three decades by assimilating the American Contemporarry Power subTheme Business (C1c).

/7.3.14.a/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bureaucracy/7.3.14.b/ Der Process, Franz Kafka, 1925/7.3.14.c/ The Peter Principle: Why Things Always Go Wrong, Laurence J. Peter & Raymond Hull, 1969/7.3.14.d/ The World Until Yesterday, Jared Diamond, 2012

7.3.15 Which (sub)Theme influenced population growth most?

All (sub)Themes which are still around have proved their usability in the ultimate goal: group / population growth. Whereas (sub)Themes which did not further the group / city or civilization in which they were developed (must) have ‘died out’ or are on their way to do so like e.g. Communism.

If we look at the expansion of humanity over the last ten thousand years in Figure 5 /a/ we see that only recently a real exponential growth has set in.

As we know from predator-prey dynamics /b/ restricted exponential growth is the result of growth rate ‘constants’ which –in real life- are not constant but change with the circumstances / environment.

The first game changer is around 5000 BCE when a ‘stable’ World Population starts to grow. This is some time after Theme N1: Agriculture was developed but it was when humanity changed its behavior from a hunter-gatherer style of

90 | Page

Figuur 7 - World Population Growth 10,000 BCE – 2000 CE

living into an agricultural style of living i.e. when the Next Level Era with its initial (sub)Themes: N1, N2: Belief & Medicine, N3: Power and N4: Division of Labor came under full steam.

The next step in the World Population Growth is shortly after 1000 BCE when the Greek (&surrounding, e.g. Etruscan) civilizations got underway i.e. when N5: Cities / Countries fully blossomed.

Then there is a constant World Population of around 200 million from around 300 BCE to 1000 CE. This flat period in World History is probably explained by the development of Countries / Empires through War and the fact that relatively dense populations in the 'new' Cities had the learn to cope with all kinds of diseases: e.g. Plague /c/ and Leprosy /d/ which were easily spread because of the lack in Hygiene. In Europe this period coincides with the Romans and the rise of Catholic Church both of which did not contribute much to e.g. Science & Technology, as was aptly stated by St. Damian (3rd century CE): ‘What can Christians’, he asked, ‘gain from Science’ /e/ and read in e.g. ‘A History of Pi’ by Petr Beckmann /f/. But a thousand years hence this Contemporary Theme would become a game changer for the World Population as the jump in the rate of rise in fig. 7. around the year 1800 CE clearly shows. So, we can achieve anything if there is ‘mass, energy and evidence’ /g/ to which I add: ‘and believe in it’ but most probably this believe is tightly linked to evidence.

In around 1200 the World Population starts to grow (again) which coincides with the further development of Cities and freedom / more democratic rule (i.e. the subTheme C1a: Politics) of their citizens and their Government(s) (subTheme C1b) as opposed to the Rulers (Kings) of the Countries (with their feudal systems) they are part of. In Italian Cities Banks (subTheme C1d) with a much more flexible money system for ‘long distance’ trade is developed. And these spawns a multitude of developments as can be read in for instance ‘The Measure of Reality’ /h/.

And in around 1700 the exponential growth really sets in caused by the Mechanization / Industrialization of production processes for food, clothes etc. I.e. the Industrial Revolution /a/ made possible by the Science & Technology Contemporary Theme C4). This combined with the already available World trade system and the development of the Business subTheme (C1c) really made the World Population grow.

Then by the end of the 19th century the Health, Care & Hygiene Theme (i.e. Theme C3) is fully developed by Science & Technology (C4) as well which causes the progressive exponential growth of the 20th century which only now starts to slow down because of e.g. Education (C5) for the masses which tunes down the 'constants' driving the exponential growth because if people become aware of the minuteness of earth and their role they become afraid and ideas like environmentalism set in, e.g. Paul Ehrlich in 'The Population Bomb' /i/, even though there is in fact limitless supply to feed every mouth: we only have to start looking for it as David Deutsch shows in his book 'The Beginning of Infinity' /g/.

From this narrative we see that it is not so much a single (sub)Theme but Themes Eras that cause the biggest change in population growth. But still it is impossible to define a Themes Era: e.g. Next Level Themes Era as the biggest influence on population growth because the (sub)Themes Eras were loosely chosen and furthermore every (sub)Theme is compared / competing to contemporary (sub)Themes and not with (sub)Themes from other Era's.

But if a choice must be made a comparison my vote goes to the Science & Technology Theme as was e.g. shown by the Green Revolution made possible by the scientist Norman Borlaug /j/. And certainly not to Bureaucracy /k/ which through the One-Child Policy cause some 400 million children in China not to be born /l/.

That Science & Technology is not the ultimate answer to all World-problems can be seen from the fact that China had developed a medicine against Malaria in the seventies /m/ but did not share it with the World. On the one hand Tu Youyou had used Science & Technology to decide upon the effectiveness of thousands of age-old recipes but all these recipes came from age-old traditional Chinese wisdom / experience which did not use Science & Technology mostly because it had not been invented yet. On the side we can see from this example that indeed all (sub)Themes are used in the fight for Power / Dominance in this case between countries since it was by accident that the rest of the World learned of this ‘mother of all Malaria-medicines’ and even then it took the World Health Organization years before it recognized its potential. And when awarding the Nobel prize for Medicine to Tu Youyou many biases had to be overcome since Tu Youyou used traditional Chinese wisdom to find her cure / medicine, did not have a degree in modern medicine and did not have a PhD. So, the West had to come around to a very large degree upon its predispositions.

/7.3.15.a/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population/7.3.15.b/ Coupling in Predator-Prey Dynamics: Ratio dependence, Roger Arditi & Lev Ginzberg, J theor. Biol. 1989/7.3.15.c/ Plagues and Peoples, William H. McNeill, 1977/7.3.15.d/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leprosy

91 | Page

/7.3.15.e/ A History of the World in Twelve Maps, Jerry Brotton, 2012/7.3.15.f/ A History of Pi, Petr Beckmann, 1971/7.3.15.g/ The Beginning of Infinity, David Deutsch, 2012/7.3.15.h/ The Measure of Reality, Alfred W. Crosby, 1997/7.3.15.i/ The Population Bomb, Paul Ehrlich, 1968/7.3.15.j/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_Borlaug/7.3.15.k/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bureaucracy/7.3.15.l/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-child_policy /7.3.15.m/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_Youyou

7.3.16 Which (minimum) set of (sub)Themes constitute a Culture?

In Anthropology and Sociology, one speaks of a Culture which defines a group or society. This is loosely defined as the total set of 'Norms and Values' which is shared by a group, tribe or society /a/.

As we have seen in e.g. Chapter 4 such a definition cannot be stated in a precise mathematical form since the individual interpretation is already different from the (extended) family interpretation let alone the group, tribe or societal interpretation which becomes - in general - less strict when more people become involved.

So since (sub)Themes do not have precise definitions as well we cannot define a precise minimum set of (sub)Themes which constitute a Culture but can we 'loosely' state a set of (sub)Themes which must be part of e.g. the 'Western' Culture and possibly a different set of (sub)Themes which are part of the 'Near East' Culture or again a different set of (sub)Themes which are part of the 'East Asia' Culture?

In his book The World Until Yesterday /b/ Jared Diamond suggests that the Culture of the hunter-gatherers of Papua New Ginea is superior to the Western Culture on several accounts: food, 'law', belief/religion and others implying that the Next Level Themes Era and Contemporary Themes Era did not produce valuable (sub)Themes which should be taken into account for the essence of a Culture. However I do not think likewise and will test one or more of these more modern (sub)Themes if they have to be taken into account to define a Culture.

But the first (sub)Themes to be taken into account are –even Jared Diamond agrees- the Basic (sub)Themes:B1: Food & Land, B2:Offspring, B3:Family, B4:Power, B5:Cosmology / Belief, B6: Value of Life and B8:Art, Symbols & Counting. For each and every one it is quite obvious that they belong to the idea of Culture. Except for maybe the subTheme Counting which could be viewed as just a skill. However larger groups had to develop Counting to a greater depth and to do this had to incorporate 'advanced' Counting which requires a different attitude i.e. a different 'Culture'. Only B7: Tools & Weapons are - in my view - not automatically part of a Culture since - on the one hand - every culture will try to make use of the best Tools & Weapons available but - on the other hand - we see hunter-gatherers (certainly when they are still in the Stone-Age) as culturally different. So - in the end - every Basic (sub)Theme is part of Culture.

For the Next Level (sub)Themes this no longer applies. Again e.g. hunter-gatherers did (/ do) not make use of N1: Agriculture, N4: Division of Labor, N5: Cities & Countries, N6: Law, Economics & Taxes and N7: Philosophy & Science. But most other groups or societies did and do use all of these (sub)Themes except for the Ancient Egyptian Culture which did not have Cities since they were later developed in Mesopotamia and later ancient Greece.

And in several modern societies like modern Egypt this N5: Cities subTheme is still not used in a way as was developed in Europe. This also applies to the Cities in Asia e.g. in India, China or Thailand. Their Cities were and are not more or less homogeneous with e.g. just one religious background or one 'tribal' background but they were and are home to a multitude of people with different backgrounds / Cultures. This certainly was not the case in the (Medieval) Cities in Europe, there the citizens had - and quite often still have - a rather uniform background: 'all' Roman Catholics / 'all' Protestants or 'all' Frisians / 'all' Saxons. But even though (part of) this N5 subTheme Cities was not part of the Egyptian or Asian Culture(s) all these societies did and do use the efficiency a City offers /c/. So the N5 subTheme Cities is still part of their Culture.

For the Contemporary (sub)Themes something similar applies. I.e. every modern society uses almost all contemporary (sub)Themes; C1a: Power, C1b: Government, C1c: Business, C1d: Banks, C3: Health, Care & Hygiene, C4: Science & Technology, C5: Education, C6: Sports, C7: Entertainment & Art and C8: News or Information exchange in one way or the other.Except C2: Religion - as defined as a monotheistic Belief - is not used by indeed many societies e.g. in Asia with Hinduism. However if we take one step back in Human Behavioral evolution and realize that N2: Belief & Medicine as

92 | Page

the predecessor of C2: Religion is used by more or less all other societies (which do not use C2: Religion) and N2: Belief more or less encompasses C2 we see that the distinction: yes or no use of C2 is rather fictitious since all groups or societies use some kind of 'Religion'. Even secular groups use at least some aspects of Religion since they are certainly not returning to the pre Basic Themes Era with alpha, beta and gamma 'citizens' but - of course - implicitly use all kinds of religious rules like: 'thou shall not kill'.

So there is no minimum set of (sub)Themes to define a Culture. It is simply so that in one Culture some (sub)Themes are more prominent than in another Culture. And - and this is important - the (sub)Themes Theory is just another way to define or look at the phenomenon Culture which Anthropology is - according to Dan Sperber - very much in need of /d/ .

/7.3.16.a/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Culture/7.3.16.b/ The World Until Yesterday, Jared Diamond, 2012/7.3.16.c/ Why Innovation thrives in Cities, So Wei Pan, Nature Communications 2013/7.3.16.d/ Explaining Culture, Dan Sperber, 1996

7.3.17 About Artificial Contraception and Homophobia.

In his book "The Social Conquest of Earth" /a/ Edward Wilson argues that both Artificial Contraception and Homophobia are counterproductive for (genetic) group evolution because:1) non reproductive sex is good for bonding males to their families and2) homosexuality has been around for a long time and in many species to reduce reproductability in times of overpopulation.

Of course both reasons are true on a genetic level however on a Cultural / Themes level there can be advantages for social / cultural groups e.g. the Catholic Church or the Islam to strengthen their group by ruling against Artificial Contraception: Catholic Church and / or Homosexuality: Islam. The reasons for this are at least two fold:1) such a stance promotes increased growth relative to other non-genetic groups and2) such a stance / banner strengthens group identity for these non-genetic groups

So Themes evolution overrules / works against genetic evolution in some instances. But other situations can occur as well: e.g. both levels of multilevel (genetic) evolution: individual and group evolution working in the same direction as e.g. happened in lactose tolerance /b/.

In conclusion: I think multilevel evolution is more than just a genetic thing - as Edward Wilson sees it - and I believe that nowadays the Cultural or Themes aspects of evolution in Human groups are much more prominent then genetic evolution because their evolutionary speed is much higher for which exact reason - I think - it evolved (please refer to Chapter 3 as well).

/7.3.17.a/ The Social Conquest of Earth, Edward O. Wilson, 2012/7.3.17.b/ The 10.000 Year Explosion: How Civilization Accelerated Human Evolution, Gregory Cochran & Henry Harpending, 2009

7.3.18 Are 'the Rich' getting richer and - if so - is it Bad for Society?

In his book: 'Capital in the Twenty-First Century' Thomas Piketty describes his 20-year research into the Wealth distribution in - especially - Western society over the past two centuries /a/. His conclusion: 'Yes the Rich are getting richer and richer and this is bad for Society, so a World Tax on Capital / Wealth must to be introduced', sounds convincing but several remarks, without and within the context of the Themes theory, can be made.

On the one hand: not everyone is convinced that Piketty’s analysis about the cause of the Rich getting richer is that the return on capital is higher than the return on labor, i.e. wages, neither that this phenomenon is bad for Society /b/. And Carlos Goes remarks about Piketty’s methodology are: ‘Piketty offers nothing more than weak correlations and no formal empirical testing of his theoretical causal chain’. So you could think that these phenomena ‘the Rich’ and ‘getting richer’ do not really exist or that they are a moderate and rather new phenomenon.

However -on the other hand- if you define the Rich as the top 1% in a society you find that this top 1% has been around since time memorial or at least since Babylonian times as Walter Scheidel finds in his very thorough research written down in his book: ‘The Great Leveler’ /c/. Walter Scheidel finds that since the first ever state: the Akkadian kingdom founded in the twenty-fourth century BCE, the top 1% was able to extract the surplus a society generates to such a degree

93 | Page

that they lead (very) comfortable lives whereas the masses (the other 99%) had to make do with a bare minimum. A very good but chocking description of the top 1% comes from Bruce Trigger when he describes the Aztec pipiltin who:“wore cotton clothes, sandals, feather work, and jade ornaments, lived in two-story stone houses, ate the flesh of human sacrifices, drank chocolate and fermented beverages (in moderation) in public, kept concubines, entered the royal palace at will, could eat in the palace dining hall, and performed special dances at public rituals. They did not pay taxes” /c/.And furthermore Marcus & Flannery find that hunter-gatherer societies living in relative food rich environments developed the concept of a ‘Big Man’ and sometimes ways to make this wealth / geographical spot hereditary which caused one (extended) family to be much better off than other (extended) families in the tribe /d/.So ‘the Rich’ is certainly not a new phenomenon and all through the ages and cultures they were able to get richer as societies developed but -by the same token- lost much or all their wealth (and power) when a society went through rough times.

Remarks without using Themes theory:- Piketty is certainly not the first economist / researcher into this subject. People like Joseph Priestly /e/ already in the 18th

century or the Italian Vilfredo Pareto at the end of the 19th century who concluded that 80% of the wealth was in the hands of just 20% of the people and this would lead to hunger and ill health for the masses /f/. Or Simon Kuznets who for the first halve of the 20th century for the USA defined the so-called Kuznets-curve /g/ which shows that wealth per capita in a society goes through several stages as the economy develops, i.e. at first the inequality increases but at a certain point inequality drops again, and this leads to the opposite prediction that a developed society will give a happy life to the masses /h/.- Democratic (liberal) Capitalism: allow every citizen to acquire and accumulate capital /i/, is better for a society since - especially in the democratic West - less and less people live under the poverty line /j/ as defined by Charles Booth /k/ for 19th century London / England. And even on a Global scale we see that poverty is decreasing since in relative and absolute terms less and less people live under the poverty line as is shown e.g. by Bjorn Lomborg in The Skeptical Environmentalist /l/.- When you ask people though -like in the Great British Class Survey (GBCS) /m/- they only look at current affairs and respond with: 'we see indeed increasing class divisions, but I feel quite happy knowing that I am just a 'Traditional working class' or 'Technical middle class'. However, the response to the GBCS was highly skewed towards the higher classes and the lowest classes: Precariat and Emerging service workers, were very much underrepresented, probably because they are unhappy with their position in society. But this probably is not seen as a real problem because of social mobility, i.e. the number of people moving from one social class to another in his or her lifetime. In pre-Industrial Revolution times this mobility was very low but has increased ever since with the result that in the Elite class only 55% had parents from the same class (table 6.1 in /m/) and much of the same applies for the other classes, e.g. for the Precariat only 40% of parents came from the same class. So, people are not stuck in their born class which used to be very different in e.g. the Middle Ages. And this is exactly why Human group behavior evolution occurs and will occur for the indefinite future.

And this result corresponds with the results from the everlasting Nature vs Nurture debate: in 1995 Judith Harris /n/ published an article in Psychological Review which -eventually- caused an uproar because she stated that nature accounted for some 50% in the upbringing of Humans and nurture –understood to be a directed effort of parents and teachers- had nothing to do with it /o/. In later publications (2006) Harris pinpointed the other 50% to be peer upbringing, i.e. teenagers tend to look at their peers and ‘decide’ how they fit in and this is largely independent of parents, teachers etc. So the debate should have been: Nature vs (evolutionary) Culture ;-) with the outcome: both equally influential!

And with other aspects of 'Richness' like education it is even better with more than half of the total population following some kind of higher education and this applies for most Western countries as can be seen from the table in appendix 2.

So even if the Rich are getting richer the Poor are better off and have a fair chance of getting much richer still.

Remarks using Themes theory:- Pikettys definition of 'the Rich' as a (sub)group in society is vague and seen from the perspective of individuals. It is based on (tax record) statistics so specifically not coupled to any named person or set of named persons. And what we know from recent (economic) history is that the members of the group 'Rich People' change all the time because of the rise and fall of successful (sub)Themes (see § 7.2: Themes Hierarchy). Some people gain a fortune and others lose theirs. So seen from the definition for a group in Themes theory: a certain number of individuals who share a common - family, cultural - background, 'the Rich' is not a fixed or stable group holding on to Power (wealth) and in modern democratic societies almost every citizen can become a member of the (Super) Rich, e.g. Bill Gates, a dropout from Harvard who had the luck to sell DOS to IBM or Freddy Heineken, who transformed a small Dutch brewery into a Global Player or the new 21st century Billionaires in China. So even extreme wealth inequality is accepted as long as everybody is - in theory - able to acquire it.

94 | Page

- The function of the Rich in a society is that they experiment with what luxury goods or lifestyle item is most wanted, e.g. medieval castles for hundreds of people together to the modern (family) house or the Roman carriage to the modern (luxury) car. And when a certain item is wanted it gets copied over and over again and this starts the development of this item for - in the end - the masses. So the Rich are the showcases for a society, they live the life (almost) everybody wants.This argument -though not used against Piketty- is given by the Skidelsky’s /p/ as to how civilization has developed. They state that the leisure class has been boon to civilization as the showcase for the masses.- To create / own experimental luxury goods or lifestyle items the Rich have to be able to control many many hours of labor by the Poor. And since the Poor have become relatively less poor in recent centuries the Rich must get relatively more and more rich to be able to keep on experimenting with new luxury goods or lifestyle items. E.g. rich Roman citizens had many slaves to build and row their ships to travel to Spain or North Africa, but modern private Space travelers have to spend millions of dollars to pay for just one - short - trip into Space because this requires the assistance of thousands and thousands of highly specialized people.- In the past the judicial system: N6: Law, Economics and Taxes and C1b: Government, were less well developed as today in especially Western countries. So, in earlier times the rich had to spend a (considerable) part of their wealth to protect their safety and wealth. And this expense made considerable inroads into their accumulated wealth as we can still see with e.g. the Moroccan King who has many palaces but each and every one is completely shut off from the general public and guarded by many security guards. Whereas the heiress to the Heineken fortune lives a much less protected life even though her father was kidnapped for ransom.- In his book Piketty shows that the lessening of inequality in the first halve of the 20th century in the USA as found by Kutnetz /h/ was in fact caused by the first and second World Wars. These extreme social events caused the return on capital: r to be lower than the rise in income and wages: g. And Piketty shows that as of the 1980s this trend has been reversed and the ratio: r/g > 1. He sees this as a bad sign but implicitly gives society's 'solution' to great wealth inequalities, i.e. (civil) War. The privileged group in a society wants even more power / wealth and starts a war or series of wars which in the end causes them to lose their wealth and power. Or the masses do not accept the rule of a relatively fixed set of people and rise against it like in e.g. the French Revolution. And - of course - (civil) War is bad but I think - in the end - unavoidable because it clears the obstructions to Human Evolution, i.e. a fixed society. And that is exactly what Walter Scheidel finds in his book ‘The Great Leveler’ /c/. Walter Scheidel finds -in his extensive study based on estimated Gini-numbers mostly- that the only moments in time that inequality is reduced is when a social shock levels so much that many positions / institutional structures are no longer tenable for the privileged and new people can take those positions. Walter Scheidel sees four horses that do leveling: 1) mass mobilization warfare, 2) transformative revolution, 3) state failure and 4) lethal pandemics. The first three are exclusively man made the fourth is not but the means to curb its ‘effectiveness’ have been known for a long time. I.e. live more spread out, do not have physical contact (on a large scale) and do not let the feces contaminate the fresh water sources. And since those measures were not automatically available to the poor only quick and very contagious diseases hit the rich as much as the poor /q/ and only then level their privileged positions. - And last but not least: if life is the pursuit of happiness (emotional / cultural wellbeing) then extreme wealth does not help much as above a certain threshold (c. 70,000 US$ in 2005) the coupling between money/income and happiness seems to be flat fig. 7 in The Great Escape by Angus Deaton /r/. And Angus Deaton explains this with that there is not one indicator for happiness, but it appears that happiness is coupled to many parameters /r/. To which I add: -of course- it is culture and therefore the set of all (sub)Themes mixed together at a certain moment in time for the group or society the individual is part of to relate his or her happiness to. In another study /s/ it was found that the communist's and social-democrat's idea in East- and West-European cities respectively in the 1960s up to the 1990s to mix rich and poor people in neighborhoods was reversed and segregation is on the increase (again).

Is this a logical trend in the 21st century?

Apparently, this mixing of Rich and Poor in neighborhoods is not wanted and local / municipal politics has come round on this idea because new politicians came with new ideas about how to handle the rights of the Rich and Poor in recent years. And this is completely understandable looking at the trends in other subThemes whereby the base values of the French Revolution: Freedom, Equality & Brotherhood have taken a turn (again) in the evolution of Western 'European' culture. Whereby we should note that this neighborhood mixing of Rich and Poor was never really promoted in e.g. Southern European countries / cities probably because (local) politics did not have the means to impair / redistribute 'the wealth' of the Rich to that degree. And it was probably only possible in Northern / mainly cold-weather communities / cities because of centuries long efficient use of scarce means to heat homes which forced the bourgeois rich to share but was no longer necessary from the 1960s onwards because whole countries became extremely rich and therefore safe to live in ‘mixed’ neighborhoods.

95 | Page

So, yes 'the Rich' are getting richer and even though this is in every aspect a political / contemporary Power subTheme argument /t/: this has to be in order to let the Rich experiment with luxury goods and lifestyle and thereby create 'evidence' /u/ for the poor. And this is not automatically bad for a society as long as the group 'the Rich' does not consist of a fixed set of named persons because if this happens, as happened all through history, they are - in the end - stripped from their wealth and removed from power /c/. This latter phenomenon: (civil) War, is not good for a society since it annihilates enormous wealth including public inheritances, but this is evolution in its purest form: 'survival of the fittest' and therefore I think it cannot be avoided or even should not be avoided because that would run against the most basic natural force: Evolution.

A contemporary example is the US or the North-Western European countries like Germany or the Netherlands. For the US Nassim Taleb thinks that its economy creates the better paid scalable jobs -which earn exponentially as compared to non-scalable jobs which are paid by the hour or unit of product produced- because of the creativity of a large part of the US workers. And several countries in Europe get the next best -but non-scalable- jobs because they are (culturally) better educated and better in math /v/. And although I agree with Nassim that the US has a higher standard of living per capita than almost any country in the World -see appendix 2- I don’t think that is because of the creativity of US workers but because of the outcome of the 20th century World Wars whereby Europe destroyed much of its wealth by infighting and in the US, this did not happen. And I agree with Nassim that the North-Western European countries still have the better paid jobs as compared to the rest of the World like Russia or countries in the Middle East or Africa -see appendix 2- but this is explained by a stronger contemporary Power Theme whereby ‘the distances’ in North-Western European countries are (much) greater as compared to other countries (please refer to § 7.3.20). But anyway, it is clear that the US, Germany or the Netherlands are exponentially richer than other countries and that on average rich people in these countries are very much richer than the rich in other countries /r/. But also, that almost every citizen -including the poor- in these rich countries are much richer -wealth & health- than almost anybody else in the rest of the World and that this development has been going on since the Industrial Revolution /w/. So ‘the Rich are getting richer’ because of behavioral evolution.

On the one hand the idea that getting rich(er) makes you happier originates in 18th century England /x/ but was already doubted back then by e.g. Adam Smith in his 'Theory of Moral Sentiments' /y/. And more contemporary economists see this as well like Deirdre McCloskey with her thoughts on ‘The Great Enrichment’/z/. She finds that it was freedom of Ideas / Innovation that caused all Englishmen (including the poor) to get 30x richer since 1800 and not putting capital upon capital (i.e. Capitalism). There is only one flaw in her reasoning, i.e. that it never happened before that time, since the Song Dynasty made it happen in the 11th, 12th and 13th century CE in China /aa/ with the important connotation however, that it can be quite easily reversed as happened under the Ming Dynasty in the 14th century.

And on the other hand, the idea that wealthier makes you happier is nowadays debunked by Angus Deaton in his book 'The Great Escape'. Up to c. 70.000 US$: ‘the wealth gap’ indeed wealth goes hand in hand with happiness: the richer the happier. Though not on a linear scale but exponential scale: you have to be 4× richer to be 1 point happier -on a scale from 0 to 10- as Angus Deaton clearly shows for almost every country in the World. But above this threshold being wealthier does no longer add to happiness /r/.

However, what Angus Deaton also finds is that if you look at personal income -not average income or just in one country- but all over the total World population there is a good case of the opposite of what Piketty is trying to prove: i.e. Deaton finds that there is good reason to believe that -although increasing in some countries- on average for the World as a whole income-inequality is decreasing since 1960 /q/. So, this is proof to the fact that the Rich want / have to become richer than the Poor in order for a society to function, as was neatly shown by the fall / disintegration of the USSR /ab/ and the rise of its Oligarchs. But when the Rich have become much richer than the Poor, the Poor catch up because of the Rich example. Which is exactly what evolution always does and behavioral evolution -apparently- as well.

One aspect of the contemporary Superrich is that they are trying to become ‘Gods’ by pursuing real immortality with e.g. the quest by Google with the project Calico /ac/. This was ‘not-done’ under the ‘auspices’ of Religions like Christianity, Islam or Hinduism because they ‘received’ their power from the Gods and were therefore quite tolerant to Death /ac/. But -the way I (AdL) see it- the influence of the Contemporary Theme (C3): ‘Health, Care & Hygiene’ has caused many to see the impracticality of the notion of a God / Religion deciding over your life and secularized a larger and larger part of (Rich) Western societies in the 20th century which probably paved the way to look anew for means to extent the human lifespan beyond the 80 odd years the body is apparently made for /r/. So, the Rich are again trying to show the way for the masses and maybe even the way how to leave this planet (see chapter 10).

And yet another aspect of this uneven wealth distribution can be deduced from the Refugees going to Europe who -coming from war-torn countries in the Middle East and Africa- started to arrive in 2015 in such numbers that Europe had to accept this and start sharing its wealth -especially the North-Western countries- with those newcomers which makes the Europeans -in the end- less Rich or -if they will not share- will destabilize those countries like Germany (and their

96 | Page

upper class) and make them loose their wealth anyway. So, yes again, the Rich are getting richer but ultimately have to share their wealth. But 'rest assured' the newly created society will produce other (extremely) wealthy people and the cycle will repeat itself :-(

/7.3.18.a/ Capital in the Twenty-First Century, Thomas Piketty, 2014/7.3.18.b/ Testing Piketty’s Hypothesis on the Drivers of Income Inequality, Carlos Goes, IMF WP/16/160/7.3.18.c/ The Great Leveler – Violence and the history of inequality from the Stone Age to the 21st century, Walter Scheidel, 2015/7.3.18.d/ The Creation of Inequality, Kent Flannery & Joyce Marcus, 2012/7.3.18.e/ Joseph Priestly on Rank and Inequality, Margaret Canovan in Enlightenment and Dissent, 1983/7.3.18.f/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vilfredo_Pareto/7.3.18.g/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuznets_curve/7.3.18.h/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon_Kuznets/7.3.18.i/ On Politics: A History of Political Thought from Herodotus to the Present, Alan Ryan, 2012/7.3.18.j/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_threshold/7.3.18.k/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Booth_(philanthropist)/7.3.18.l/ The Skeptical Environmentalist, Bjorn Lomborg, 2001/7.3.18.m/ Social Class in the 21st Century, Mike Savage, 2015/7.3.18.n/ The Evolution of Everything. How Small Changes Transform Our World, Matt Ridley, 2015/7.3.18.o/ Judith Harris: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judith_Rich_Harris/7.3.18.p/ How Much is Enough: Money and the Good Life, Robert & Edward Skidelsky, 2013 Paperback edition/7.3.18.q/ Plagues and Peoples, William H. McNeill,1977/7.3.18.r/ The Great Escape: health, wealth and the origin of inequality, Angus Deaton, 2013/7.3.18.s/ Socio-Economic Segregation in European Capital Cities, Tiit Tammaru et al., 2016/7.3.18.t/ Economics: The User's Guide, Ha-Joon Chang, 2014/7.3.18.u/ The Beginning of Infinity, David Deutsch, 2012 /7.3.18.v/ The Black Swan: The Impact of the Highly Improbable, Nassim Nicholas Taleb, 2007/7.3.18.w/ Global Economic History: A Very Short Introduction, Robert Allen, 2011/7.3.18.x/ The ends of life: Roads to fulfillment in early modern England, Keith Thomas, 2009/7.3.18.y/ The theory of moral sentiments, Adam Smith, 1767/7.3.18.z/ Deirdre McCloskey on The Great Enrichment: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=1bmXl_pt9fQ/7.3.18.aa/ The Chinese Market Economy 1000-1500, William Guanglin Liu, 2015 /7.3.18.ab/ Perestrojka: A New Vision for my Country and the World, Michail Gorbatsjov, 1987/7.3.18.ac/ Homo Deus: A Brief History of Tomorrow, Yuval Harari, 2015

7.3.19 Ideologies where do they fit in the Themes Theory?

The great political Ideologies like Capitalism versus Communism or nowadays: Liberalism versus Socialism where do they fit in the (sub)Themes theory ?

Well of course they belong to the C1a: Power _Politics subTheme even though some people see these Ideologies as Religions ruled by a universal law like Boeddhism /a/ but if you go for the most logical sphere the question remains: is Power_Politics the only subTheme where these Ideologies belong ?

I would say no, since these Ideologies regulate – as one of their goals - how a society arranges its Government, its Businesses and its Banks. More precise the Ideology regulates which activity belongs to the public domain and which to the private domain and how and how much Government and/or Business a Bank can or must finance.

And for Banks in particular it became clear that the balance is delicate because when they were allowed to do too much (insurance / mortgage) business themselves – instead of financing it - the power balance between the different Power subThemes was not right and Banks became too large / influential thereby endangering the overall economic order of Western societies (please refer to the next § 7.3.20 as well).

So even though it seems that it is a simple choice of Ideology: Liberalism versus Socialism, all in the political domain, this is not so and at least the other three Power subThemes are influenced as well.

So Politics regulates all the other Power subThemes but – of course – all the other Themes as well since e.g. in some States there is a State Religion or explicitly No State Religion or Health & Care are provided by the State or explicitly

97 | Page

Not by the State or – as a last example – does a State help certain Arts & Sports or does it explicitly Not help these activities.

So Politics or the somewhat broader Contemporary Power Theme (C1) is what it is all about and influences all other (sub)Themes, be it Contemporary, Next Level or even Basic.

/7.3.19.a/ Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind (in Dutch), Yuval Noah Harari, 2014.

7.3.20 Why some Nation States beco(/a)me wealthy and others stay(ed) poor?

In his book 'Why is Africa Poor' /a/ Greg Mills comes up with an economic theory why most countries on the African continent are poor and will stay that way. His theory involves - like every economist - a lot of numbers / parameters especially for comparing countries like East Asian and South American or former Sovjet countries with the Nation States in Africa. Time and again he concludes that most basic statistics and historic facts look alike however that economic development in more or less all countries is positive or even progressively positive except in Africa.

Greg Mills’s analysis as to why this is the case is again typically economic but somewhere in his book he lists a number of non-numbered parameters like:- Accept differentiation- Security is a Critical First Step- Social Cohesion is Important- Infrastructure is Not the First Step and- Leadership is Key

And these parameters are - in my eyes - in fact key since they point to groups, group (sub)Themes / group identity or culture.

What you see in African countries, and much less in other developing countries, is that in African countries the tribal structures still rule the waves. I.e. African culture is still in the Basic Themes Era with very strong family, extended family and tribal bonds which are not based on free choice whereas in other countries the Next Level Themes Era and Contemporary Themes Era have strongly been entered which gives people much more freedom of choice: where / in what city do I live, where / for whom do I work, whom will I mary etc. In African countries these 'modern' free choices are curbed / restricted in that you belong to a tribe and do those things within the boundaries of the tribe which restricts your opportunities and usually adherence to the tribe is socially enforced so that you have to make the choice which helps the tribe as well as you which cuts off tons of better opportunities for you.

On a city level you see that African cities are just a conglomerate of two or more 'tribes' with no real common city identity as developed in the first Sumerian cities /b/, the ancient Greek city states or the cities in Europe during the Middle Ages. This city culture or these citizens feel that they belong to something common can also be found in the cities of (East) Asia, South America or Eastern Europe and it is this group feeling / identity that makes the difference. People choose to live in a particular city.

On the Nation State level you see that in many African countries all Contemporary Power subThemes: C1a: Politics, C1b: Government, C1c: Business and C1d: Banks,

are very much intertwined: (influential) people belong to more than one of these (sub)groups, wear more than one cap so to say, and this phenomenon is much 'stronger' as compared to more modern countries. Put in a graph (please refer to fig. 8 below) we could for each country draw a rectangular with the four Contemporary Power subThemes at its corners and find that the distances between Politics and Government (distance to be seen as the inverse of the -relative- number of influential people belonging to / or easily shifting between both subThemes) and the distance of these two to Business and Banks (again distance to be seen as the inverse of the -relative- number of people belonging to or easily shifting between Politics/Government and Business/Banks) is much less –and thereby the number of people belonging to / easily shifting between these subThemes is much more- in African countries as compared to Western styled countries. From these graphs we could conclude that if these distances are relatively short a country is much more prone to fraud or tribal & family favorism.

98 | Page

Politics Business

Government Banks

Politics Business

Government Banks

Politics Business

Government Banks

Politics Business

Government Banks

Politics Business

Government Banks

Politics Business

Government Banks

Politics Business

Government Banks

Politics Business

Government Banks

Politics Business

Government Banks

Politics Business

Government Banks

Politics Business

Government Banks

Politics Business

Government Banks

Politics Business

Government Banks

Politics Business

Government Banks

Politics Business

Government Banks

Politics Business

Government Banks

Politics Business

Government Banks

Politics Business

Government Banks

Politics Business

Government Banks

Politics Business

Government Banks

Politics Business

Government Banks

Politics Business

Government Banks

Politics Business

Government Banks

Politics Business

Government Banks

Politics Business

Government Banks

Politics Business

Government Banks

Politics Business

Government Banks

Politics Business

Government Banks

Politics Business

Government Banks

Politics Business

Government Banks

Politics Business

Government Banks

Politics Business

Government Banks

Politics Business

Government Banks

Politics Business

Government Banks

Politics Business

Government Banks

Politics Business

Government Banks

Politics Business

Government Banks

Politics Business

Government Banks

Politics Business

Government Banks

Politics Business

Government Banks

Politics Business

Government Banks

Politics Business

Government Banks

Politics Business

Government Banks

Politics Business

Government Banks

Politics Business

Government Banks

Politics Business

Government Banks

Politics Business

Government Banks

Politics Business

Government Banks

Politics Business

Government Banks

Politics Business

Government Banks

Politics Business

Government Banks

Politics Business

Government Banks

Politics Business

Government Banks

Politics Business

Government Banks

Politics Business

Government Banks

Politics Business

Government Banks

Politics Business

Government Banks

Politics Business

Government Banks

Politics Business

Government Banks

Politics Business

Government Banks

Politics Business

Government Banks

Politics Business

Government Banks

Politics Business

Government Banks

Politics Business

Government Banks

Politics Business

Government Banks

Politics Business

Government Banks

Politics Business

Government Banks

Politics Business

Government Banks

Politics Business

Government Banks

Politics Business

Government Banks

Politics Business

Government Banks

Politics Business

Government Banks

Politics Business

Government Banks

Politics Business

Government Banks

Politics Business

Government Banks

Politics Business

Government Banks

Politics Business

Government Banks

Politics Business

Government Banks

Politics Business

Government Banks

Politics Business

Government Banks

Politics Business

Government Banks

Politics Business

Government Banks

Politics Business

Government Banks

Politics Business

Government Banks

Politics Business

Government Banks

Politics Business

Government Banks

Politics Business

Government Banks

Politics Business

Government Banks

Politics Business

Government Banks

Politics Business

Government Banks

Politics Business

Government Banks

Politics Business

Government Banks

Politics Business

Government Banks

Politics Business

Government Banks

Politics Business

Government Banks

Politics Business

Government Banks

Politics Business

Government Banks

Politics Business

Government Banks

Politics Business

Government Banks

Politics Business

Government Banks

Politics Business

Government Banks

Politics Business

Government Banks

Politics Business

Government Banks

Politics Business

Government Banks

Politics Business

Government Banks

Politics Business

Government Banks

Politics Business

Government Banks

Politics Business

Government Banks

Politics Business

Government Banks

Politics Business

Government Banks

Politics Business

Government Banks

Politics Business

Government Banks

Politics Business

Government Banks

Politics Business

Government Banks

Politics Business

Government Banks

Politics Business

Government Banks

Politics Business

Government Banks

Politics Business

Government Banks

Politics Business

Government Banks

Politics Business

Government Banks

Politics Business

Government Banks

Politics Business

Government Banks

Politics Business

Government Banks

Politics Business

Government Banks

Politics Business

Government Banks

Politics Business

Government Banks

Politics Business

Government Banks

Politics Business

Government Banks

Politics Business

Government Banks

Politics Business

Government Banks

Politics Business

Government Banks

Politics Business

Government Banks

Politics Business

Government Banks

Politics Business

Government Banks

Politics Business

Government Banks

Politics Business

Government Banks

Politics Business

Government Banks

Politics Business

Government Banks

Politics Business

Government Banks

Politics Business

Government Banks

Politics Business

Government Banks

Politics Business

Government Banks

Politics Business

Government Banks

Politics Business

Government Banks

Politics Business

Government Banks

Politics Business

Government Banks

Politics Business

Government Banks

Politics Business

Government Banks

Politics Business

Government Banks

Politics Business

Government Banks

Politics Business

Government Banks

Politics Business

Government Banks

Figuur 8 - Power Rectangular = 'distances’ between Contemporary Power subThemes

Any minimal distance (or relative maximum number of people belonging to / easily shifting between) does not automatically work either, since it will be a cultural thing, i.e. what works in one society does not automatically work in another. The distances between State intervention, i.e. Politics & Government and Private enterprise, i.e. Business & Banks have to be carefully balanced to make them work /c/. And it is quite clear that it is not one or the other alone, i.e. State intervention or Private enterprise, and so the great capitalistic examples like the USA and its predecessor the UK have fared very well because their 'distances' were ok. But lately the more socialistic oriented China and India are on this road as well and might do even better if they find the right balance whereby their 'distances' between the Power subThemes are obviously less. And we might see a shortening in distances / become more intertwined between the four contemporary Power subThemes in Western styled countries as well as is nicely put by Peter Drucker in /d/ whereby he sees that e.g. private ownership of businesses has come round to be now more and more in the hands of the knowledge workers through their pensionfunds as opposed to the capitalist owners of the 19th and beginning of the 20th century. And e.g. the election of Donald Trump as 45th President of the US might be a sign that the US will shift back as well to keep up with China or India.

So, I am - like Greg Mills - not surprised that African countries are in a desolate state and that this state has become worse since the colonial powers withdrew their influence / lost their influence. But I see a totally different cause: i.e. no freedom of choice to which group you belong.

An interesting note on Africa is made by Robert Allen, who in his book 'Global Economic History' /e/ comes to the conclusion that the tribe system -as we know it now to exist in almost all African countries- has not been eternal but was put in place in the 19th century by the colonial / imperial powers of Europe who replaced the traditional rulers by chiefs who had strong allegiances to the colonial power with the biggest change being that a despotic ruler could be overthrown or left (compare e.g. Shaka Zulu /f/) but a despotic chief -under colonial rule- was there to stay and fleeing / running to another tribe (as could be done with a pre-colonial ruler) was not an option either as a neighboring chief ruled under the same colonial power and therefore was not likely to give you shelter.

In his ‘Very Short Introduction’ Robert Allen also shows that countries which had the highest Gross Domestic Product per person in 1820 like the UK, the USA and e.g. the Netherlands still have the highest GDP per capita at the start of the 21st century and had –over the last two hundred years- the highest growth rate as well. So that the gap with the poorest countries like those in sub-Saharan Africa has widened since the beginning of the 19th century. Again Robert Allen uses statistics: like the price of palm oil relative to fossil oil and daily wages / income to show his points but he looks into other aspects of human societies like education, tariffs and Banks as well. These latter aspects point in the direction of the above four 'independent' Contemporary Power subThemes whereby the independence should be measured by the 'distance' between them. In my view Robert Allen's statistics are certainly true but they can be amended when certain Power / (sub)Themes are 'set' right so people feel that they can take matters into their own hands / can choose to which group - that serves their interest best - they belong.

And so even though Robert Allen thinks that the path to economic development is a once in a lifetime opportunity and countries like China or India -after having lost their position in the 18th century CE or Africa immediately at the start of the economic boom in Europe in the 15th century CE, won’t be able to ‘win’ it back in contemporary times, I think that is too pessimistic even though it can and probably will take considerable time before a country at the bottom of the list to work its way to the top. But wars, e.g. France after the French Revolution, and hopefully gradual development in Power subThemes mostly will make this possible, which is what I think we are witnessing in contemporary times in e.g. China or India. Especially China is booming in such a way /g/ that one must conclude that it has surpassed many Western countries like France or even Denmark already. And the cities in China e.g. Beijing (officially 21 mln citizens but unofficially maybe double that number because of the Chinese system that you can only get healthcare and welfare support in your home province or city but people can earn much more in booming cities), Xi’an (officially 9 mln.), Shanghai (officially 23 mln.) or Hang Zhou (officially 5 mln.) are -as of this writing /h/- wealthier than most cities in the US or Europe and a drop to levels at the start of the 21st century is not likely as millions and millions have experienced these hard times and do not want to go back but accept that the power of the communist party will only gradually diminish and that the accompanying corruption is there to stay. So the gap with the West is not unsurpassable but the direction of the societal evolution in the new Rich countries is certainly not a copy of the West and the distances between the four Contemporary Power subThemes will be different to the West.

99 | Page

And e.g. the Volkswagen emissions scandal /i/ shows that in a country like Germany the distances between: Politics & Government on the one side and Businesses & Banks on the other side are not OK indefinitely. At the end of the 19th century they worked perfectly well but that powerhouse led to both World Wars and after the second Word War Germany could build up under the umbrella of the US which they did fantastically but apparently with not enough distances between the Contemporary Power subThemes for an indefinite future. Until now most people believed in 'Das Wirtschafstwunder' (Economic Miracle) but clearly State owned businesses like Volkswagen tend to have the same problem as everywhere else: they think that they are "above the law" and can think so since people on the board are from that domain. That said however, some side notes can be made: e.g. that NOx emissions can only be so strict for diesel engines since 80% of the air is N2 and a diesel engine inherently works at a higher temperature and compression (pressure) as compared to sparked fuel engines which automatically causes more NOx. So if you want to reduce NOx -which is also debatable- then automatically you cut short diesel as a fuel. Which is exactly what Chinese cities are doing by handing out number-plates to car owners at different prices per engine type and letting fuel cars drive at only 50% of the time. Whereby electric car owners do get their number-plates immediately at very low prices and are allowed to drive on any day. So the choice is yours: either you buy two Ferrari’s, Maserati’s or Porsche’s or just one Tesla model S. Which is exactly what Chinese people do: they buy two fuel sports cars -with fancy number-plates- which enables them to show their wealth.

/7.3.20.a/ Why Africa is Poor, and what Africans can do about it, Greg Mills, 2010/7.3.20.b/ FIELDS of BLOOD, Karen Armstrong, 2014/7.3.20.c/ The Entrepreneurial State: Debunking Public vs. Private Sector Myths, Mariana Mazzucato, 2014/7.3.20.d/ Management Challenges of the 21st Century, Peter Drucker, 1999/7.3.20.e/ Global Economic History: A Very Short Introduction, Robert Allen, 2011/7.3.20.f/ Shaka Zulu: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shaka/7.3.20.g/ The New Asian Hemisphere: The irresistible shift of Global Power to the East, Kishore Mahbubani, 2008/7.3.20.h/ Personal trip to China in September 2017, AdL, 2017/7.3.20.i/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volkswagen_emissions_scandal

7.3.21 Do emotions like gloating help in group dynamics?

In their book 'Schadenfreude' /a/ Wilco van Dijk and Jaap Ouwerkerk analyze when gloating or 'guilty pleasure' occurs, what it does to the individual and (partly) what it does to groups. The first important aspect of guilty pleasures is that it is socially not done / not acceptable to show this emotion and there are even cultures / societies which do not have a word for this emotion. So it is immediately clear that - the absence of - this emotion - in the vocabulary - must have a social function which is that it restrains people from causing misfortune / awkward situations to others because if you do you are out of line and all the others who gloat upon it are out of line as well.

So Schadenfreude keeps people and therefore groups between the lines of civil behavior and this is very important because thereby 'you' can steer a society in certain directions which is exactly what one wants in a society where the rule of law is established but it is not automatically established whether you behave rude or not /b/. So this emotion is used as a subTheme to guide a group within the broader context of the rule of law.

On a wider scale one might find that emotions are indeed ruled by laws: i.e. the Laws of Emotion /c/.In this book Nico Frijda shows that many emotions follow quite predictable patterns of responses. E.g. when one thinks a personal loss is irreversible most people’s response is one of grief and when somebody thinks he or she is offended most people’s response is with anger. The is the Law of Situational Meaning. This works both ways: i.e. if someone’s response to the death of a close relative is not one of grief it could very well be that this person -illogically- thinks this death is not irreversible or if someone’s response in a simple conversation is one of anger it could very well be that this person feels offended, even if the intent and/or content of the message are not meant to be insulting.

Next to this law of situational meaning Nico Frijda sees many more laws guiding / ruling over our emotions which implicitly or explicitly can be used to guide or steer a group’s behavior. And this probably what people use to manage (sub)Themes like Value of Life or Religion. With these ‘predictable’ emotional responses leaders can lead groups.

/7.3.21.a/ Schadenfreude: Understanding Pleasure at the Misfortune of Others, Wilco van Dijk & Jaap Ouwerkerk, 2014/7.3.21.b/ The Civilizing Process (Ueber den Prozess der Zivilisation), Norbert Elias, 1969 (1939)/7.3.21.c/ The Laws of Emotion, Nico H. Frijda, 2007

100 | Page

7.3.22 Does Themes Theory predicts a Clash of Civilizations ?

In his book 'The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order' /a/ Samuel Huntington predicts that future (21st century) conflicts will be between Civilizations rather than between Nation States. Civilizations he defines as e.g. Western, Chinese or Arab which are - in his view - fundamentally / completely different and therefore the main source of conflicts. Although Huntington seems to be right for certain factions of the Muslim faith, like Al-Qaida or IS, his idea that groups / people within these main cultures differ to such an extent that they are prone to clash with people of the other culture(s) is -in my view- way beyond actual reality.

For one thing - as Huntington defines it as well - culture is everything of our behavior lumped together and therefore characterizations like Westerner, Chinese or Arab includes all economic behavior as well. Which -as we can clearly see- is greatly preferred above fighting in most cases. So his statement that the division in first, second and third World countries does -after the fall of the Berlin Wall- no longer apply and Nation States or their level of economic development is no longer the main driver for human development is evidently untrue because many, many trades between Countries, groups and / or individuals of these Civilizations take place. Which is only possible if these Countries, groups or individuals think that the other party has something they want and it is more beneficial to trade instead of fight which was (of course ;-) already known during the period of the Warring states in China in the last millennium BCE as can be read in the 'Art of War' by Sun Tzu /b/.

For another thing –as we can clearly see as well- most of the fighting is done between groups within these main Civilizations, e.g. IS in Syria & Iraq, Pakistan <-> India over the Punjab, East Ukraine or Boko Haram in Nigeria so in fact between (proto) Nation States. Only Al-Qaida is not trying to become a Nation State – but hides in failed States – and might be considered to be seen as a Cultural aggressor. But most of the time this aspect is overshadowed by aggression against cultural icons with many anonymous people around and / or very populated areas of Nation States –so almost certainly including non-informed ‘members’ of their own group-, i.e. WTC in New York at 10:00 AM, busses in London at Noon or a train in Madrid during the morning rush hour, instead of a (dirty) bomb placed in St. Peter’s Cathedral in the Vatican (not a Nation State), St Paul’s Cathedral in London, the Great Wall of China or the Terra Cotta Army in Xian, all to be exploded at midnight with no people around. So Al-Qaida’s aim is certainly not only cultural and not only promoting Islam.

Themes Theory for that matter predicts an eternal evolution / clash between groups on whatever level and on whatever aspect of a culture or (sub)Theme but these 'clashes' serve one purpose and one purpose only: they harden the groups involved in such a way that they intend to grow in size and therefore clashes between groups will be less and less violent since dead people do not count as members of your group and the possibility / risk of dying makes most people think twice if they want to belong to a group (of choice). Which is exactly what Steven Pinker writes / concludes in his book 'The Better Angels of Our Nature' /c/. And these clashes become more and more civilized which process Norbert Elias describes in his book 'The Civilizing Process' /d/ since working together towards a Win/Win-situation not only works between individuals within a group but in most cases between groups as well. Which is nicely summarized with arguments from Norbert Elias and Steven Pinker by Matt Ridley in ‘The Evolution of Everything’ /e/ with: 1) ‘Government’ makes revenge for murder something the state does and not a privatized wrong to be righted and 2) ‘Commerce’ leds people to value the opportunity to be trusted by a stranger in a transaction.Or as Matt Ridley himself puts it: “Killing the shopkeeper makes no sense”. And this is also exactly the way evolution works or in this case: ‘social evolution’ works as described by Edward Wilson for ‘normal’ evolution in his book 'The Social Conquest of Earth' /f/. Ants and bees are –certainly within groups- working together with specialized ‘jobs’ in order to benefit from the increased (and improved) output.

And even though it looks like Homo has conquered Earth, we have only explored 1% of its crest and with Contemporary Themes like Science & Technology (C4) we will be able to live longer and better lives for an ever greater part of all individual Homo Sapiens for milennia to come before the Earth / our Solar System becomes exhausted and we have to migrate into the Universe which will -most probably- be equally successful since we only need: mass, energy and evidence /g/.

So yes, Themes Theory predicts -like Samuel Huntington- a clash between Civilizations / Cultures as every encounter between 'groups' is a clash between Cultures. But no, these clashes can be on any (sub)Theme not just what distinguishes these groups being Western, Chinese or Arab and these clashes are becoming less and less violent since the aggressor is -in the end- not helped by an aggressive stance. Trade is much better and this is seen by many -e.g. in Europe since the treaty of Westphalia in 1648 /h/ - if not all groups which accounts for the development of the Contemporary Power subThemes: i.e. Business (C1c) & Banks (C1d) with their necessary counterparts: Politics (C1a) & Government (C1b). The latter in Nation States in contemporary times but eventually probably in social structures which will include all

101 | Page

Humankind, if that has not already happened long ago and current affairs is nothing but a (small) optimization / ripple in the process of Human Behavioral Evolution.

/7.3.22.a/ The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order, Samuel P. Huntington, 1996/7.3.22.b/ Sun Tzu on 'The Art of War', c. 500 BCE. by Lionel Giles, 1910/7.3.22.c/ The Better Angels of Our Nature, Steven Pinker, 2011/7.3.22.d/ The Civilizing Process (Ueber den Prozess der Zivilisation), Norbert Elias,1969 (1939)/7.3.22.e/ The Evolution of Everything. How Small Changes Transform Our World, Matt Ridley, 2015/7.3.22.f/ The Social Conquest of Earth, Edward O. Wilson, 2012/7.3.22.g/ The Beginning of Infinity, David Deutsch, 2012/7.3.22.h/ The Breaking of Nations, Robert Cooper, 2003

7.3.23 Was pre-historic Homo a happier human being?

In his paper "The Worst Mistake in the History of the Human Race" /a/ Jared Diamond explicitly states that the Hunter-Gatherer lifestyle was a happier lifestyle than the way we currently live. This view is from then on stated by quite a few environmentalists, anthropologists and historians like Peter Singer in his book One World /b/, Flannery & Marcus in their book "The Creation of Inequality" /c/ or Yuval Harari in his book Sapiens /d/.

Although Jared Diamond probably based himself on the ideas of people like Marshall Sahlins 'the original effluent society' who picked up these ideas at the 'Man the Hunter' conference held in 1966 in Chicago /e_1/ and wrote a book ‘Stone Age Economics’ /e_2/ about this idea. So, Jared Diamond based himself on ideas from the 20th century decade which culminated in the Flower Power movement in the US and the student riots in Paris in 1968.

Assuming that we are able to say anything about the feelings of people who lived more than 10 kya and left nothing but bones, rock paintings and some artifacts /f/ and apart from the fact that happier implies that these people were happier with a much more violent life / society compared to now as Steven Pinker clearly shows in 'The Better Angels of Our Nature' /g/. And the fact that people lived much shorter lives than is currently the norm as Angus Deaton clearly shows /h/, this must have meant that people do NOT want to have / to live by an ever-greater number of Myths /d/ or (sub)Themes as I call them. Since the number of (sub)Themes in the Basic Era was much less than in the Next Level Era and again much less than in the current Contemporary Era because all Myths / (sub)Themes add on. But this is clearly untrue because that is precisely what happens: every generation 'creates' new (sub)(sub)Themes and if they stick / 'work', they are passed on to the next generation who (slightly) alters or adds to them for their specific needs.

The reason why every generation adds to / creates new (sub)(sub)Themes is because they feel more happy with them and if more people do, these (sub)Themes survive so apparently more (sub)Themes lead to more happy people because if they don't these Myths / (sub)Themes will die out. Maybe this is so because these new or altered Myths / (sub)Themes label (negative) emotions which activates the prefrontal cortex and thereby calms down the amygdala /i/ and so clams down the 'included' young individual.

So -on the one hand- even if a (sub)Theme leads to (slightly) less long and less secured lives of the members of this particular group because of the danger of other humans threatening your life or your possessions and/or the daily diet becomes less nutritious -which is probably what happened when we started Agriculture and is seen by Jared Diamond as ‘the Worst Mistake in the History of the Human Race’- we still pursued this path because it encompassed (much) more people -in your direct environment- /j/ who made us happier. And this: 'more people make the World a better place' is argued by the economist John Broome as well on economic grounds /k/. And even the 'father' of 'the happy primitive life': Henry David Thoreau spent -during his hermit years- every few days in the then modern society to enjoy the fruits of company and modernity /l/. And this was well before the Contemporary Theme: C3 "Health, Care and Hygiene" really took off so Mr. Thoreau was not aming for a healthier life while living as a hermit.

And -on the other hand- at the start of the Neolithic we were unable to see the fact that we lived -a bit- shorter and less healthier lives because we could not compare one generation to the next on these issues since statistics is only a very recent phenomenon / (sub)Theme /m/ and does not necessarily make us happy /n/. Humans probably only saw that more mouths were fed.

Therefore, I think that especially Agriculture as the start of the Next Level Era was a good thing to happen since the Human Race flourished because of it and therefore it certainly was not ‘the Worst Mistake in the History of the Human Race’.

102 | Page

Even in the Contemporary Themes Era we see that when it is tried to suppress a new (sub)Theme like e.g. Banks, as did father Savonarola in 15th century Florence /o/, he is burned at the stake because people were happy with it even though it triggered a lifestyle which was clearly against a much older Theme: Religion. But the new (sub)Theme befitted an ever-larger group. So more and more people were happy with it and were not happy with the old Theme Religion and its strict / ascetic lifestyle rules: people wanted a better life with more Myths even though it meant more insecurity with who could become rich and who stayed poor: a new 'ruling' class was created. And we can also see this from the fact that almost all Hunter-Gatherer groups who came into contact with Western colonialism chose to adopt at least part of this culture with many more Myths like Money, Science or living in Cities. And only very small groups chose not to adopt this lifestyle like the !Kung-San, the Dogons, the Aborigines, a part of the North American Indians /p/ or the Sentinelese /q/. Of which only the last group still resists any contact and therefore still lives in the Basic Themes Era.

And last but not least: what would you do if you had to choose between a life with computers or one without 'them develish things' ? Many people 'On the Internet' 'complain' about them /r/. But yeah complain 'On the Internet' because thereby you reach the most others !

/7.3.23.a/ The Worst Mistake in the History of the Human Race, Discover 8, no.5, Jared Diamond, 1987/7.3.23.b/ One World: the ethics of globalization, Peter Singer, 2002 /7.3.23.c/ The Creation of Inequality, Flannery & Marcus, 2012/7.3.23.d/ Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind (In Dutch), Yuval Harari, 2014/7.3.23.e_1/ Man the Hunter, Irven DeVore & Richard Lee, 1968/7.3.23.e_2/ Stone Age Economics, Marshall Sahlins, 1972/7.3.23.f/ The Nature of Paleolithic Art, R. Dale Guthrie, 2005/7.3.23.g/ The Better Angels of Our Nature, Steven Pinker, 2011/7.3.23.h/ The Great Escape: health, wealth, and the originsof inequality, Angus Deaton, 2013/7.3.23.i/ The Upward Spiral, Alex Korb, 2015/7.3.23.j/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population/7.3.23.k/ Weighing lives, John Broome, 2006/7.3.23.l/ The Story of the Human Body: Evolution, Health and Disease, Daniel Lieberman, 2013/7.3.23.m/ Annotated Readings in the History of Statistics, Davids & Edwards, 2001/7.3.23.n/ The Tyranny of Numbers, David Boyle, 2001/7.3.23.o/ father Savonarola: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Girolamo_Savonarola/7.3.23.p/ Petroglyphs of Western Colorado and the Northern Ute Indian Reservation as Interpreted by Clifford Duncan, Carol Patterson, 2016/7.3.23.q/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sentinelese_people/7.3.23.r/ https://alphabytesoup.wordpress.com/2012/07/15/evolution-of-man-and-technology/

7.3.24 Why is death so emotional ?

As opposed to primates -let alone other mammals- humans are much more emotionally toughed when another human being -and even more so when a group member- dies /a/. Why is this ?

For one thing, a death deminishes the number of believers of -your- 'Myths' or -set of- (sub)Themes. So the Change in -your- Cultural Environment (CCE) becomes smaller which makes the total cultural Environment shrink and therefore it feels as though some of your environment disappears even though your Speed of Evolution: SE = Change in Makeup / Change in Environment = CM / CE = (CPM + CCM) / (CPE + CCE) does not really shrink and in fact rises a little. So it feels as though a part of your cultural World disappears.

For another, it is quite clear that after a death in the physical World nothing changes and the Earth: in exactly the same state as before, keeps on making its rounds around the sun.

So a death is very confronting in that it shows that our cultural World is fragile and changes -somewhat- every time someone dies and will die out when our 'group' will cease to exist.

This latter idea might have been the cause for Cosmology or Belief (Basic Theme: B5) to be created and for Homo Sapiens to start to bury its deceased since a Cosmology or Belief is supposed to be -as the Earth obviously is- eternal.

The fact that a death is so confronting is further neatly described in the 'Law of Situational Meaning': the first 'Law of Emotions' by Nico Frijda /b/. In this paper Nico Frijda defines emotions by this 'Law' and he gives a 'Law' for every generalized situation which is probably the best way to define emotions since they are all about Culture, Myths or

103 | Page

(sub)Themes. Nico Frijda recognizes the following 'laws': 1) Law of Situational Meaning, 2) Law of Concern, 3) Law of Apparent Reality, 4) Law of Change, Habituation, and Comparative Feeling, 5) Law of Hedonic Asymmetry, 6) Law of Conservation of Emotional Momentum, 7) Law of Closure, 8) Law of Care for Consequences and 9) Laws of the Lightest and the Greatest Gain.

So every generalized cultural situation has its own emotion and even every physical situations like: 'the planets circulating the sun' can only have meaning in our cultural / mythtical World and therefore have their 'own' emotion as well. I.e. what is a planet, what is the sun, what is circulating only have meaning because of their cultural background / definition /c/. And therefore emotions change over time like Nostalgia /d/.

So a death is emotional in a very specific way. And differently emotional in different cultural settings in the past as well as now. But always deeply emotional because a mythical / cultural part of the people that stay behind disappears and / or becomes even less tangible. Which is probably why modern people start to doubt our mythical World and would like it to be more in sync with the death of a relative as can be seen on Youtube in these TEDx lectures: 1) Dead is Dead by Phillis Sommer /e/ and 2) I Don’t Believe Everything Will Be OK by Huy Dao /f/.

/7.3.24.a/ Primates and Philosophers: How Morality Evolved, Frans de Waal, 2006/7.3.24.b/ The Laws of Emotion, Nico Frijda, 2007/7.3.24.c/ Explaining Culture, Dan Sperber, 1996/7.3.24.d/ Nostalgia: Conceptual issues and Existential functions, Constantine Sedikides et al., 2004/7.3.24.e/ Dead is dead: euphemism and the power of words; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UUqr4P7P3gM, Phillis Sommer, 2015/7.3.24.f/ I Don’t Believe Everything Will Be OK; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oos_abG3Kpo, Huy Dao, 2015

7.3.25 Can racism be explained by Themes Theory?

In many societies -past and present- we have seen racism: i.e. people being ostracized / excluded / harassed because of their skin color and / or physiological features.

That races do not exist: we are genetically very much alike, and races are just a construct of our imagination is neatly described in Chapter 5 of the book 'Ontjoodst door de Wetenschap' by Machteld Roede: Rassen, waan of werkelijkheid ('Races, Imaginary or Real') /a/ or in ‘The Myth of Race’ by Robert W. Sussman /b/.

Racism is a rather recent phenomenon constructed in 16th and 17th century Europe to justify the slave trade within the Christian doctrine and was even more recently -in the 19th century- falsely 'scientifically confirmed' by people like Ernst Haeckel. This scientific approach started with Linnaeus, Buffon and especially Blumenbach who draw up a table with the five races defined by Linnaeus but then in an order: A. Caucasian, B. American Indian and Oriental and C. Malay and African. Whereby A was at the top and the two downward branches B and C were degenerate races. This map or table is used until this day when people -unconsciously- think about races and has been very detrimental to the multi-cultural debate and societies which we have more and more. But other walks of life –Basic-, Next Level and Contemporary (sub)Themes- were involved as well to create the Myth that non-whites are inferior, e.g. B3: Family, B6: Value of Life, N6: Law, Economics & Tax, N7: Philosophy, Science, Games & Sports, C2: Religion and C4: Science & Technology. Especially C2: Religion, the Catholic Church vehemently opposing the pre-Adamite theory- and N7: Philosophy -promoting the Degenerate theory- ‘helped’ build the Myth of Race with people like Giordano Bruno, David Hume or Immanuel Kant /c/, who in 1764 wrote: “The Negroes of Africa have by nature no feeling that rises above the trifling. Mr. Hume challenges anyone to cite a single example in which a Negro has shown talents, and asserts that hundreds of thousands of blacks who have been transported elsewhere from their countries, although many of them have been set free, still not one was ever found who presented anything great in art or science or any other praiseworthy quality….. So fundamental is the difference between these two races of man, and it appears to be as great in regard to mental capacities as in color”. Sadly, these thoughts have probably had the most influence of all writings on this subject /b/. So, I would like to add: Mr. Kant did not care to look which is -for a Philosopher- unforgiveable. But from this example it becomes clear that we make up Myths and most -if not all- of us are incapable of escaping the general trend of the day as Joseph Schumpeter correctly states: “For mankind is not free to choose ...Things economic and social move by their own momentum and the ensuing situations compel individuals and groups to behave in certain ways whatever they may wish to do” /d/.

So, racism is nothing but a Myth and therefore a purely cultural thing used by people to gain power / suppress groups. In this respect racism is 100% explained by Themes Theory: racism helps in steering Human group behavior. Therefore,

104 | Page

this false idea: 'races are something real' is sadly here to stay as becomes clear from the book by Robert Sussman as well. No matter whatever bad things are done in the name of this false idea or how often this idea is proved to be unsustainable. Only when other (sub)Themes always give more leverage on whatever group or society one wants to suppress this idea will fade away.

And another note that can be made is: with social Class it is the same. Classes are used to feel to belong in a too large society to feel naturally comfortable with -which is the family, extended family or clan structure we belong to /e/- but do no longer live with because of our work or other circumstances. So, to feel safe we now identify ourselves with other 'groups' and quite often this is a Class of people within your society.

Like Culture ideas about social Class do vary over time. E.g. Charles Booth defined Class in; Lowest class: ‘vicious, semi-criminal’, through Middle class: ‘fairly comfortable’, to Upper class: ‘wealthy’. But nowadays these divisions are no longer applicable and changed in; Elite, Established Middle class, New affluent workers, Technical Middle class, Traditional working class, Emerging service workers and Precariat /f/. Which shows that the need to belong is very strong and forces us to group our surroundings in just such a way that befits that situation to feel safe.

/7.3.25.a/ ‘Rassen, waan of werkelijkheid’, Machteld Roede, Ch. 5 in 'Ontjoodst door de wetenschap', 2015/7.3.25.b/ The Myth of Race: The troubling persistence of an unscientific idea, Robert W. Sussman, 2014/7.3.25.c/ Immanuel Kant; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immanuel_Kant/7.3.25.d/ Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy, Joseph Schumpeter, 1942/7.3.25.e/ Human Evolution, Robin Dunbar, 2014/7.3.25.f/ Social Class in the 21st Century, Mike Savage, 2015

7.3.26 Are we rational or irrational?

In the last few decades and especially in Internet-times we are more and more able to analyze our at first sight irrational (economic) behavior.

In his book: ‘Predictably Irrational’ Dan Ariely /a/ is able to show that we as individuals are rather irrational even though most economic theories want us to be quite the opposite /b/.

That this is not so, even for economic decisions, can be read in e.g. Tom Sedlacek’s book: ‘Economics of Good and Evil’ /c/ but although he offers a nice explanation from history: ‘The Epic Gilgamesh’ and shows that we believe in Myths or (sub)Themes as I call them he does not explain the phenomenon.

One explanation is given by Daniel Kahneman whom has found in his lifelong research that we have two levels of decision machines in our brains in his book Thinking: Fast and Slow /d/: one fast –system 1- which can be irrational and one slow –system 2- which tries to reason as much as possible.

But all these explanations focus mostly on how we operate as individuals however, in recent times –through the Internet and smart phones- it is possible to digitalize group behavior as is done by e.g. Alex Pentland. In his book: ‘Social Physics: How Social Networks Can Make Us Smarter’ /e/ he is able to show how people (on average) operate in (large) groups and he can draw conclusions from that.Of course the mapping from real life situations to the digital representation is difficult and not mathematically flawless but by using the individual to do this he or she automatically makes choices of how a certain action is translated into digital data and from there on Pentland c.s. are able to manipulate these data with computers.And because in his studies the data of a large number of people is used the average (mean) or most common (median) does tell something.

Pentland investigates e.g. how traders on eToro behave, how people react to a weight increase by their peers or whom people group with during election times. From these datasets he can draw conclusions and one of them is that: even if people behave individually irrational on a group level it can become quite rational.

Pentland shows that through social learning and a process called “social voting” quite rational consensus is reached in most groups. Of course there are all kinds of exceptions to the rule, e.g. with explicit or implicit social pressure but as a group we can come to much better decisions than as individuals. And this was found before in group psychology or even practiced by animals when they have to take a decision for a group, herd or plaice.

105 | Page

So when in a hury or when ‘lazy’ individual people can be quite irrational but when in a group and taking time to reflect, discuss or vote upon something the decisions become much more rational.

And therefore consumer businesses are often confronted with irrational markets and have to spent a lot of effort and money on Marketing whereas business to businesses have to put much more effort in really good products.

/7.3.26.a/ Predictably Irrational: The Hidden Forces That Shape Our Decisions, Dan Ariely, 2009/7.3.26.b/ The General Theory of Employment, Interest, and Money, J.M. Keynes 1935/7.3.26.c/ Economics of Good and Evil, Tomas Sedlacek, 2011/7.3.26.d/ Thinking: Fast and Slow, Daniel Kahneman, 2011/7.3.26.e/ Social Physics: How Social Networks Can Make Us Smarter, Alex Pentland, 2014

7.3.27 How to get rid of the 'Big Man' ?

As we have seen in the Next Level Themes like N3: Power the concept of 'Big Man' /a/ ruling our societies has been part of our cultural evolution since the beginning of the Neoliticum. But others see this concept already present in the Basic Themes Era B4: Power /b/ or even before that time in the group dynamics of the 'primates' we once used to be /c/. But some are quite tenacious that in pre-agrarian times societies were completely egalitarian /d/ and any form of inequality was not hereditary but based on the authority of a person and not on his (or her) power.

But in contemporary times / all through the Contemporary Themes Era we see several things happening:1) the power of and the wealth which a Big Man 'controlls' has the tendency to increase in ease of use and 2) a gradual decline of the concept of the Big Man in certain parts of the World: especially democratic Western Nation States like United States and in Europe: France, Great Britain, and e.g. the Netherlands.

How did this happen, how did these societies -in the end- succeeded in circumventing this instinct brought to us by Nature and later Nurture ?

For one thing the Christian Religion clearly played a major role first by opposing Worldly power during the Roman times and by forcing its Emperor to convert to Christianity: Theodosius I. Then by crowning Big Man in the name of God: Charlemagne. Then by waging war against the other Religion: Islam /e/ and when the political pendulum swung towards more democratic societies like in the Netherlands, the US or France through 'creating' / letting take hold the Contemporary subTheme: C1c: Business with businesses which still had / have many characteristics of groups lead by Big Man.

The way it went in the Netherlands is probably a case in point:

In the late Middle Ages cities in the Netherlands became ever more prosperous and their businesses like whaling and trading with Scandinavian countries caused these cities to want more independance from the Nobility on which lands these cities rested. Then when they became even more properous they wanted even more freedom, i.e. pay no more taxes to any Duc or King. So they started an independance war against Spain /f/. During the Haydays of the Republic they invented modern businesses, at least something which very much resembled modern businesses. But to run and expand these businesses they needed Big Man like Jan Pieterszn Coen, Jan van Riebeeck or Michiel Adriaanszn de Ruyter. So the Dutch still had Big Man all through their Golden Age even though they did not recognise (foreign) Nobility, not even Michiel de Ruyter (as a Danish Duc) or the Orange family whom had helped their freedom fight in the first place through the Duc William of Orange who paid for a liberation army out of his personal funds to fight the Spanish King. But then -after the French Revolution- the Netherlands suddenly became a Kingdom under the rule of a side branch of the Orange family whom (re)instated a Nobility. So still Big Man were running this 'democratic' country. Only in 1848 under the pressure of a(nother) revolution King William II succumbed to a really democratic constitution. But then the Nobility and several other customs were still in place to favor Big Man in government and business. These customs were gradually moulded through a long proces of e.g. women voting rights at the beginning of the 20th century and positive discrimination for more women in the boardroom of businesses and in science at the end of the 20th century. All of which was only made possible by the 1848 constitution and the few amendments which were added over the years. To arrive in the current situation whereby still a minority of the people in management, government and science is a woman but on the other hand the reverse is probably soon a reality since it is the girls and yong women who do best in the educational system.

106 | Page

So this natural and nutured instinct is -through a very long and winding road- wrapped in many nurtured customs and law not automatically favoring men, i.e: many (sub)Themes, changed into the current situation whereby the Big Man is no longer the normal state of affairs.

/7.3.27.a/ The Creation of Inequality: How Our Prehistoric Ancestors set the Stage for Monarchy, Slavery and Empire, Kent Flannery & Joyce Marcus, 2012/7.3.27.b/ Human Evolution, Robin Dunbar, 2014/7.3.27.c/ Chimpanzee Politics: Power and Sex among Apes, Frans de Waal, 1982/7.3.27.d/ The Origins of Political Order, Francis Fukuyama, 2011/7.3.27.e/ The Crusades through Arab Eyes, Amin Maalouf, 1984/7.3.27.f/ The Dutch Republic: Its Rise, Greatness, and Fall 1477 - 1806, Jonathan Israel, 1995

7.3.28 Is Fashion part of C7: Entertainment and why does it change so quickly?

On the one hand Fashion with its 'murderous' pace for change can be seen to belong to the Entertainment & Art Theme because it does - like Entertainment or Art - try to convey a message: I (want to) belong to this and this (sub)group. However, on the other hand, Fashion has some very distinct properties: it changes every 6 months or so which is much faster than any other Entertainment- & Art-form and it tries to get sold and convey its message to just a limited group which is not necessarily a large part of society.

Another aspect is that like jewelry it is very old and probably started several tens of thousands years ago as distinguishable 'clothing' used by 'big men' to show their difference /a/. But even before that time - pre-Neolithic era - distinct groups used different patterns or color to identify themselves with. So in this respect it should belong to one of the Basic Themes. However back then its rate of change was very low: changes took a generation or more probably because the low population density did not require to impress 'new' people (not clansmen) all the time.

So because of its current association with an extreme high rate of change it must belong to the Contemporary Themes. And because of this distinct property it could easily be regarded to be a separate Theme or at least a mentionable subTheme within Entertainment & Art. However I chose it to be an implicit part of the Contemporary Theme 'Entertainment & Art' and did not mention it as a subTheme because of the 'strong' overlapping characteristics with both Entertainment and Art.

Now: why does Fashion have this 'murderous' rate of change with different looks and colors every 6 months or so even within fashionable trends at a specific moment in time ?

You could see Fashion as an extension of the human physical body, i.e. belonging to the physical makeup of a person but because it is human made it certainly belongs to the cultural makeup of an individual (see § 5.1: Human History). So for the individuals who start with a new fashion line or are the early adaptors it increases their Speed of Evolution SE = Change in Makeup / Change in Environment = (CPM + CCM) / (CPE + CCE). However the more people who adopt the new 'look' the more the cultural environment changes (CCE) thereby lowering the Speed of Evolution for early and new adaptors again. This latter aspect does 'force' Fashion to constantly change in order to enable individuals to switch to a new look to retain their 'high' Speed of Evolution.

But any other explanation for the extreme rate of change in Fashion is probably equally interesting.

A nice example of the fact that Fashion highlights Inequality could be seen in early Asian communist countries like China or Vietnam. There Fashion was banned and everybody had to wear the same nondescript clothes. But apparently Inequality is so engrained in our behavior that this practice could not be upheld and people still wore different clothes and therefore the idea by Flannery & Marcus to go back to an 'equal' society /a/ is an Utopia.

/7.3.28.a/ The Creation of Inequality, Flannery & Marcus, 2012

107 | Page

8. More Practical Examples

Even though the theory of Human behavioral evolution is logical and can - in retrospect - explain most group behavior it is - just like Darwinian evolution - not a theory that can - overall - easily be falsified. Falsifying parts of the theory though is possible if knowledge of our history is enlarged with hard facts that counter certain earlier ideas.

And - also just like Darwinian evolution - it is not a theory that can give reliable predictions. Knowing how social structures came to be does not help in the way to predict how things will develop. However, we can extend trends and assume that things will not change overnight.

And we can - where practical - quantitatively analyze what (sub)Themes or set of (sub)Themes - percentage wise – made / make up a successful society. With these numbers we can analyze how – again percentage wise - which (sub)Themes (did) build a contemporary society and how these compare to historical data. Be it that 1) just like Darwinian evolution the contemporary environment of historical societies played an important if not all important role in what set of (sub)Themes led that society to become successful and 2) the (sub)Themes of Human Behavior identified in this book are most probably not the final word on this topic.

For quick reference purposes we repeat the labels each (sub)Theme has been given:Basic (sub)Themes:B1) Food & a Roof, B2) Offspring & Parenting, B3) Family Life, B4) Power in the group, B5) Cosmology or Belief, B6) the Value of (an individual) Life B7) Tools, Weapons & Clothes and B8) Art, Symbols & Counting.Next Level (sub)Themes:N1) Agriculture & Land, N2) Belief & Medicine, N3) Power, N4) Division of Labor, N5) Cities & Countries, N6) Law, Economics (money) & Taxes and N7) Philosophy, Science & Sports.And for the Contemporary (sub)Themes:C1) Power: C1a) Politics, C1b) Government, C1c) Business and C1d) Banks ; C2) Religion; C3) Health, Care & Hygiene; C4) Science & Technology; C5) Education; C6) Sports; C7) Entertainment & Art and C8) News or Information exchange.

8.1 Conquering North America

Inhabiting the full width of North America in the 19th century by the Europeans was only possible because of their Technological superiority, especially in Weapons /a/, means of Transport /b/ and because of the bad circumstances the common people of many European countries were in, especially Ireland (great famine) and mainland Europe after the French (1789 & 1848), German and many other revolutions (1848) which had brought them hope but no real benefits in form of freedom and economic improvements.Especially the rights of the common people were in theory improved but in practice nothing much had changed and the upper and middle class people held on to their - newly acquired - power. So the Themes: Law: Property and Power: Politics, Government & Business should have changed but did not change that much (which is exactly evolutionary !). This in conjunction with the vastness of the new World, the possibility to help create a newly structured society - with different Law and Power structures - and the possibility to own property and / or businesses led millions of people from the beginning of the 19th century until 1920s to set sail for America /c/. And seen from this perspective the American civil war in the 1860s between the Northern and Southern States is a direct effect of the influx of common Europeans with revolutionary ideas and the will to fight inflexible power (planters/landowners) /d/.

And on the other hand the original inhabitants had died by the millions since the first Europeans had set foot on the American shores /e/. So it was not so much conquering but simply inhabiting the new continent and almost everybody could get a piece of the cake.

So this newly formed group / country expanded by taking on more and more immigrants to become the most powerful Nation State at the end of the 19th century. A feat which several groups / societies tried to copy: e.g. the South African Boers after the first World War but could not because of the unique circumstances in North America that the indiginous Indians had more or less died out because of disease. Whereas the vast emptyness of the South African Karoo was gradually 'invaded' by Northern tribes once the Boers made it inhabitable -after the Great Trek- for civilized society. So the indiginous people 'reclaimed' the land simply by outnumbering 'the Boers'.

/8.1.a/ Winnetou I, Karl May, (1893)

108 | Page

/8.1.b/ Westward by Rail, William Fraser Rea, 1871/8.1.c/ Ellis Island Guide, Oscar Israelowitz, 2006/8.1.d/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_War/8.1.e/ 1491: New Revelations of the Americas Before Columbus, Charles C. Mann, 2005

8.2 European Union.

The problem with the European Union, which came to light in 2010 with the debt crises in countries like Ireland, Greece, Italy, Spain, Portugal, Belgium and others, is that it is no real union. This problem is significant and structural and popped up in the common currency: the Euro.

The problems with the European Union look like a purely financial / economical thing but they can be understood with Human Behavioral Evolution or Themes Theory.

On the one hand the EU was not created as an evolutionary step from the Next Level Themes Cities & Countries but from the desire to counter the effect of this Theme, i.e. war between countries /a/. Instead of being a (Super) Federal State - the next step in line in City, Country, Empire, Nation State, Federal State /b/ - the European Union is a technocratic undertaking by Nation States -especially created to avoid 'identity' issues and therefore its founders 'enlarged the context' and focussed on business interest (/ subTheme) /b/ instead of on common emotions among the general public /c/. And therefore - in my view - it is quite likely that it will fall apart unless it can overcome the clear internal frictions and then it might become the next step in the evolutional series: City, Country, Central command Empire and Democratic Empire.

And - on the other hand - individual countries joined the EU out of very different perspectives e.g. Greece and Italy just to get the backup for their unsustainable pension-systems, Spain and Ireland to get access to EU development funds, France to stay on top of the diplomatic pyramid and again their non-sustainable pension-system and Germany because it still felt guilt over its role in the 1st and 2nd World Wars and - of course - to keep / gain power. But none of these Countries - or their politicians - is prepared to hand over real power to "Brussels". Even though Robert Cooper thinks otherwise but clearly sees the problem -no real common identifying emotion- as well /b/.

That the individual countries are not prepared to refrain from their countries identity and autonomy is nicely shown in global sports events like World Championships or the Olympic Games where the member states of the European Union all compete under their own flag which is very much different with (federal) states like e.g. the US, China or India.

So unless the European Politicians are able to find some kind of positive common identifying emotion to support the idea of a unified Europe it is doomed to fall apart because no Dutch, Polish or even German citizen accepts the heavy net transfers to e.g. Greece, Italy or Spain when it really hurts their buying power and no Greek, Italian or Spanish citizen accepts a directive from 'Brussels' which will really force them to cut back in salaries or pension rights. As can be clearly seen from the Greek example whereby the in 2015 chosen new prime minister Tsipras simply flouts any agreement with the EU, which in itself can be understood from the history of modern Greece which became a 'Nation' because the European 19th century Powers made it a country when the Ottoman Empire fell apart after the Napoleontic Wars but never in the history of the area which is now Greece all the cities / city states had been united /d/. So, the modern Greek feels no emotion with the Myth: Greece and therefore is not willing to sacrifice anything for it. And seen from a financial perspective it can be read in the good book ‘And The Weak Suffer What They Must’ by Yanis Varoufakis (briefly the Greek Minister of Finance in the Tsipras Government) /e/ who correctly states more than once that a single currency like the Euro cannot be without a political unity. So, the road the European Union (France and Germany) chose: i.e. first a single Market and Currency and then the EU will steer into a single political entity, is doomed. Markets, Finances and Currencies follow Political Power; please refer to the Power Rectangular, fig. 8 in § 7.3.20).

And we see it by the Brexit caused by the UK referendum on June 23rd 2016 /f/. And although the aftermath shows that most probably a majority wanted to stay in the EU, the UK politicians will have to execute this vote.

So consequently, it is my guess that all European citizens - be it from the net paying countries or the net receiving countries - will vote European minded politicians out of office. But some people - like Robert Cooper /b/ - think otherwise ;-)

/8.2.a/ De Euro, Andre Szasz, 2001/8.2.b/ The Breaking of Nations: Order and Chaos in the Twenty-First Century, Robert Cooper, 2003/8.2.c/ Economics of Good and Evil, Tomas Sedlacek, 2011

109 | Page

/8.2.d/ The Making of Modern Greece, Michael Herzfeld, 1982/8.2.e/ And The Weak Suffer What They Must, Yanis Varoufakis, 2016/8.2.f/ Brexit: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_withdrawal_from_the_European_Union

8.3 The fall of the Berlin Wall

The fall of the Berlin Wall came to many as a surprise but on hindsight it is quite easily understood in terms of Human behavioral evolution. And back then many - especially people within the secret services of the West - had a pretty good idea of what was about to happen. As e.g. can be inferred from the fact that president Reagan had - in front of the Brandenburger Tor - in 1987 appealed to Mr. Gorbachev to: "tear down this Wall". Only they did not know if the regimes behind the Iron Curtain would take desperate actions to extend their survival.

In short too many people within the former East Bloc countries were discontent with their political and economic ‘freedom’ and were quite aware of the big differences with the West. Especially citizens of the neighboring countries of Germany and Austria. And these citizens intuitively knew that their regimes were too weak to defend the communist society: with only a minimal personal belongings and no Political (C1a) & Religious (C2) freedom, i.e. the freedom to choose to what group you want to belong.

In other values or (sub)Themes like societal support for childcare, poverty or education the Communist block was - on average - better than Western countries but the (emotional) balance had swung against these. People wanted TVs and cars and were no longer interested in food, a house –often in dismal state- or an education for everybody. Since even during the heydays of Communism some of the Basic (sub)Themes were not fulfilled to acceptable levels, e.g. Food & a Roof (B1) and Cosmology & Belief (B4) [/ Religion (C2)] or in China e.g. Offspring (B2).

So in 1989 DDR-citizens started to flee in ever greater numbers to places where they hoped the Iron Curtain could be crossed (e.g. Hungary) and eventually they forced their way through the official checkpoints and started to break down the Berlin Wall on the Eve of November 9th with border guards doing little to nothing to stop the flow /a/ because even the VoPo's knew that shooting would be suicide or at least very unwise because they would most certainly be tried in a West German court of law in the foreseeable future.

And thereby a carefully built up and protected Myth or political subTheme fell apart and the more evolutionary befitting Western / Democratic lifestyle ‘concurred’ the Communist system in the USSR because Gorbatsjov had from the middle of 1980s understood that the USSR with its collective property and central planning was no longer sustainable /b/.With the rise of Putin and his nationalistic tendencies we see the pendulum swing back in the direction of another less democratic society which does not fit into the modern World either and therefore will most likely disappear as well but could –in the process- do much damage to both Russia and its former Allies and the West. So, the West has to tread carefully.

/8.3.a/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berlin_Wall/8.3.b/ Perestrojka: A New Vision for my Country and the World, Michael Gorbatsjov, 1987

8.4 The financial and credit crises

As the financial crisis unfolded in 2008 there had been several implicit warnings like the bankruptcy of Enron in 2001 and the near default of LTCM in 1998. Many banks and companies at the time like LTCM and Enron were playing with Brownian motion models /a/ to hedge the risks in their portfolios. And there had been explicit warnings like the one from George Soros with his book: The Crisis of Global Capitalism in 1998 /b/.

The idea that mathematical models can predict something in Humanities and especially in Economics stems from Jan Tinbergen who in 1929 wrote a dissertation on "Minimization Problems in Physics and Economics" with prof. Paul Ehrenfest /c_1,c_2/ which was a mathematical analysis of certain phenomena in Physics e.g. energy have the tendency to go to a minimum and that the same effect can be found in Economics for e.g. investments. So, Tinbergen started to practically quantize Economics - and thereby founded Econometrics - and showed this to be useful with a mathematical model of the Dutch Economy in 1936 with 24 linear equations with - of course 24 endogenous - variables with which he could explain a pricing phenomenon of Herring /d/. However, mathematics had been used before to show how economic decisions are being made by e.g. F.Y. Edgeworth in 1881 with the use of calculus to treat utility /e_1/ or with the use of statistics / Brownian Motion in 1900 by Bachelier in his doctoral thesis /e_2/ which was even written before the paper by

110 | Page

Einstein on Random Walk in 1905 and long before Kolmogorov published his defining paper (1931) on the use of statistics in finance /e_3/.

One of the critics of Jan Tinbergen was John Maynard Keynes who wrote in the Economic Journal in 1940 in a reply to Tinbergen that: he still had some doubts of this statistical alchemy but Newton, Boyle and Locke all worked in alchemy and no one but prof. Tinbergen could be more frank so let him continue /f_1/. For his work Jan Tinbergen received the first "Nobel" Price in Economics in 1969. The fact that Keynes did not believe in mathematics and / or statistics to accurately explain let alone predict economic phenomena can be read in his famous book: The General Theory of Employment, Interest, and Money /f_2/ in which he uses simple mathematics to underline trends but never anything beyond that. For which he had even more reason since Keynes -like Veblen- had lost all his money in the stock market crash of 1929. Keynes recovered financially but Veblen had to live on a stipend form one of his former pupils.

The idea that you can aggregate / model Human (Economic) Behavior on Markets is based on the idea from Physics that one can model the behavior of a system on an aggregate level with a relatively simple mathematical model when a huge (and I mean huge!) number of molecules / particles is involved each with constant and relatively simple interactions /g/. This really works well for many systems in physics like the flow of water in a pipe with variables like flow, pressure and resistance, the yield of a chemical reaction in a process, the heat produced in a nuclear reactor or the energy exchanged in an electrical power system. The reason behind this predictive success of aggregate mathematical models like e.g. Newton's laws /h_1/ or Maxwell's equations /h_2/ is that in each of these systems an incredible huge number of molecules / particles is involved (please refer to the Avogadro constant N=6x10^23 /i/) and each particle / element has a relatively 'simple' and certainly fixed behavior under identical conditions like e.g. Photons and Hadrons /h_3/ or any other standard model particle /h_4/. And another argument comes from Eugene Wigner who states that the possibility to do physics only stems from the fact that invariance principles are applicable /h_5/: i.e. dropping a stone in Pisa (in a vacuum tube) is the same -or unmeasurably close- as dropping it on the moon many months, years or centuries later -or earlier-.

The above is certainly not true for a Market. On a Market a relative small number of entities is involved at the most a few million "particles" in some of the most transparent and liquid consumer Markets so a difference of at least 10^17 !! when comparing the number of Market elements involved to that of the number of elements involved in physics system and on top of that each Market element / person does not have a simple and invariant behavior - Homo Economicus does not exist /j/ - and does not necessarily do the same thing under more or less equal Market conditions so the invariance principle does not apply also.

So mathematical modeling of Markets and / or Economies maybe helpful in understanding the most basic "mechanics" but cannot describe what will happen in the (near) future within any acceptable level of accuracy even though many multi-variable models can be "fitted" onto any series of historical data with great accuracy. In fact portraying this statistical fitting with a certain level of significance as a scientific model of the economic reality and base your policies on it is by -most- economists seen as a (big) scam but used nonetheless /k/ just to give the idea that Economics is a Science which it clearly is not /l/.

The idea that Economic Behavior can be modeled and thereby predicted has been used to the extreme in (Price) Risk modeling based on Brownian Motion models - used by Einstein in one of his 1905 publications to predict the average travel distance of a particle in a gas or fluid - and introduced by Black and Scholes in 1973 (and Merton in 1971) to explain and model the idea of hedging your exposure in stocks or bonds with derivatives /m/ (predict the average price change over time of an economic good and buy a derivative to insure yourself against this risk) for this work Scholes and Merton received the "Nobel" Price in Economics in 1997.

But basically, this idea never worked - only if the Market is very liquid and constant (very many people trading and who behave simple and standardized) - as was shown by the near bankruptcy of LTCM in 1998 /n/ and the bankruptcy of Enron in 2001 /o/.

In 2008 it became public that many banks in the US and elsewhere had traded in packages of mortgages from US banks who had given out subprime mortgages and had thereby spread the risk of default by combining subprime and prime loans into one package using the idea of Brownian Motion to Price these packaged loans /p/, a practice widely accepted and (mis)used by clever people /q/. However, the people who had given these mortgages had often bought their house on a rather flimsy income basis and had - with the money lenders (banks) - speculated on ever rising real estate prices which - when a Market saturates - does not hold true. So, when the economic tide turned, an increasing number of people could not pay their monthly mortgage bills and started to behave quite differently and in ever greater numbers than assumed by the Pricing models. So many banks "suddenly" had a much lower income which resulted in huge losses combined with doubtful values for Assets on their balance sheets. This stopped all money transfers between banks because this system is

111 | Page

based on trust [~willingness to go along with certain Myths / (sub)Themes] (see § 6.2.1.4) and thereby halted the greater part of all economic activity and so would have triggered a wave of bankruptcies had Governments not intervened by supplying liquidity to the banks (but Lehman Brothers had to go under as a showcase /r/). Yanis Varoufakis /s/ adds however, that in Europe the Banking / Euro crisis was unavoidable for several (financial) reasons but agrees that the loss of trust was the root cause and that trust could not hold on forever because of flaws woven into the fixed exchange rates systems of Bretton Woods and later the EMS and Euro. This because trade imbalances either force exchange rates to change and when that is not possible, force deficit countries to keep on lending with devastating consequences.

This loss of trust would not have happened if people - and especially bankers - would not have trusted the pricing models but most of them did not understand what the 'quants' were doing and human evolutionary behavior along the lines of Basic, Next level and Contemporary (sub)Themes does not help in preventing such instability. On the contrary, such instability phenomena help in finding the way forward in these (sub)Themes.

If there is one thing that history has shown it is that we need instabilities in the (sub)Themes of the times - fights, wars, market breakdowns etc. - to find which (sub)Themes work and which do not work and so evolve the best group behavior for that moment in time to produce the strongest Human groups.

And second thoughts or guilty feelings about the harsh evolutionary behavior of the financial institutions -like the ones of Cathy O’Neil /t/- are unnecessary. In her book ‘Weapons of Math Destruction’ she correctly describes the fact that all the mathematical models used in finance before the Global financial crises are bollocks or even criminal towards ‘John Doe’ who suffers the most during the fall out and must foot the bill afterwards. But her feelings of guilt are beside the point: every human being will group with other human beings to find / create some advantage over other groups to live a better life.

But even the nearest economic equivalent of raw nature: the free market economy has its problems in creating the "hardest environment" as can be read in a nice book by Hans Achterhuis: Utopia of a free Market Economy /u/. And the free market economy was shown to have its shortcomings since it caused the Great Depression and a more regulated capitalism which was built during –Bretton Woods- and after the 2nd World War with institutions like the IMF and IBRD or World Bank made the Golden Age of capitalism (1945-1973) possible /v/. Although I would like to add that this Golden Age with growth rates of 4.1 % on average in Western Europe with 5% in Germany, 2.5% in the US, and 8% in Japan were made possible because of the destruction of Buildings, Infrastructure but also e.g. the abolition of old style labor regulations and the development of new ideas during WWII. If this war would not have happened this destruction and innovation would not have been possible. So next to its very severe negative effects a war has upsides as well.

So, trying to prevent an (economic) instability from happening - if rightly foreseen / guessed - will most probably just cause a delay and "the problem" will arise in some other (sub)Theme hopefully - but not necessarily - with less severe consequences.

And in the case of the financial crisis (Contemporary Power subTheme, C1d: Banks) the problem resurfaced as the credit crisis (Contemporary Power subtheme, C1b: Government) which has - in my opinion - more severe consequences for a greater number of people than a kind of implosion of the banking system would have had. Such an implosion would have directly hit the right people for their irresponsible behavior - as is neatly described in the book about the Lehman Brothers /r/ - and another "banking" system would probably have emerged quite soon. Where until this has happened especially many of the citizens of Europe are/were in dire straits.

But this has happened all through history when rulers ('Kings') pursued their own personal interests at the expense of the common people in a group or society /w/. And although new economic thinking is emerging like "Secular Stagnation'' /x/ in which it becomes clear that there is too much money and only negative interest rates will rebalance savings, investments and full employment it is also clear that the economists do not have a real solution. Which -in my view- is easily explained by the fact that especially Western societies are probably on their retreat –certainly in numbers- and Human group behavioral evolution has taken a turn so other (sub)subThemes within the Contemporary Power Theme become important. But maybe 'the West' is not yet defeated and the election of Donald Trump as President is going to extend the hegemony of the West and the US, be it in a less integrated World where self-interest trumps ;-) global moral issues like the environment and standard evolutionary behavior: 'we against them' becomes the norm again.

/8.4.a/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brownian_motion/8.4.b/ The Crisis of Global Capitalism, George Soros, 1998/8.4.c_1/ Minimumproblemen in de Natuurkunde en de Ekonomie, Jan Tinbergen, 1929/8.4.c_2/ Jan Tinbergen; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jan_Tinbergen/8.4.d/ Tinbergen lectures on economic policy, A. Knoester and A. Wellink, 1993

112 | Page

/8.4.e_1/ An Essay on the Application of Mathematics to the Moral Sciences, F.Y. Edgeworth, 1881/8.4.e_2/ Theorie de la Speculation, Louis Bachelier, 1900/8.4.e_3/ Kolmogorov; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kolmogorov_equations/8.4.f_1/ Citation by J.M. Keynes in ‘Obituary Jan Tinbergen’ (in Dutch), P. de Wolff, 1994/8.4.f_2/ The General Theory of Employment, Interest, and Money, John Maynard Keynes, 1935/8.4.g/ "The Rise of Mathematical Modeling" (in Dutch), G. Alberts, March 2000/8.4.h_1/ The Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy, Isaac Newton, 1687/8.4.h_2/ Maxwell on the Electromagnetic Field, Thomas Simpson, 1997/8.4.h_3/ Photon-Hadron Interactions, Richard P. Feynman, 1972/8.4.h_4/ Facts and Mysteries in Elementary Particle Physics, Martinus Veltman, 2003/8.4.h_5/ The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences, Eugene Wigner, 1960/8.4.i/ Avogadro; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avogadro_constant/8.4.j/ Economics of Good and Evil, Tomas Sedlacek, 2011/8.4.k/ The Vices of Economists - The Virtues of the Bourgeoisie, Deirdre McCloskey, 1997/8.4.l/ The Meaning of Science, Tim Lewens, 2015/8.4.m/ Black, Scholes, Merton; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black-scholes-merton/8.4.n/ LTMC; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_Term_Capital_Management/8.4.o/ Enron; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enron/8.4.p/ Stochastic Differential Equations fifth edition, Bernt Oksendal, 2000/8.4.q/ The Quants, Scott Patterson, 2010/8.4.r/ A Colossal Failure of Common Sense, Lawrence G. McDonald & Patrick Robinson, 2009/8.4.s/ And The Weak They Suffer What They Must, Yanis Varoufakis, 2016/8.4.t/ Weapons of Math Destruction: How Big Data increases Inequality and threatens Democracy, Cathy O’Neil, 2016/8.4.u/ De Utopie van de vrije markt ("The Utopia of a free Market Economy"), Hans Achterhuis, 2010/8.4.v/ Economics: The User’s Guide, Ha-Joon Chang, 2014/8.4.w/ The Iliad, Homer, c. 700 BCE/8.4.x/ Secular Stagnation: Facts, Causes and Cures, Coen Teulings and Richard Baldwin, 2014

8.5 The End of the Western civilization.

In his latest books Niall Ferguson /a;b/ talks about killer apps: Competition, Science, Democracy, Medical science and Consumer capitalism and about the degeneration of Western Institutions as the cause of Western decline. He predicts that the Western civilization will face total decline because the West does not uphold these killer apps and Institutions in their purest form any longer but accepts a mixture of these key values of the Western civilization with other cultural preferences creating weak surrogates of the killer apps like Democracy based on the Islam or Chinese capitalism and the West accepts fraudulent use of Institutions like unbearable pension systems. In Niall Ferguson's view this is the sign that the Western civilization is fighting a losing battle.

That Niall Ferguson is not alone and was certainly not the first to foretell the end of the free World can be read in e.g. the book by George Soros: ‘The Crisis of Global Capitalism and its subtitle: The downfall of the Free World’ /c/. Although this book is first and foremost about finance more than once the link between the Contemporary Power subThemes: C1a: Politics, C1b: Government, C1c: Business and C1d: Banks is used to describe the context in which certain developments take place. And even though George Soros does not distinguish these subThemes the way I do in fig. 8, he touches upon the same interconnectedness of these subThemes and what goes wrong if they are too much intertwined: i.e. the ‘distances’ between them are too small (please refer to § 7.3.20).

And that Niall Ferguson is also not the last to predict the degeneration of the West can be read in Francis Fukuyama's book: Political Order and Political Decay /d/. In this sequel to 'The Origins of Political Order' Francis Fukuyama tells the story of the World from the French Revolution to the present and -as the title suggests- he touches on the same ideas as Niall Ferguson, i.e. that Western Institutions: 1. the State, 2. the Rule of Law and 3. Democratic accountability are decaying which Fukuyama sees as a problem. However, seen from the evolutionary perspective: 'decay' is all but unnatural, so -in my eyes- nothing out of the ordinary is happening including our worries ;-) But still others are not that pessimistic: e.g. Angus Deaton who in his book 'The Great Escape' /e/ is cautiously optimistic about the future of the West or the World as a whole that 'the good life' as developed by the West with the Industrial Revolution will survive and not too many people(s) are left behind. And, that economic pessimism is not a contemporary thing but has been around for quite some time can be read in an essay by John Maynard Keynes written in 1930: 'The Economic Possibilities of our Grand Children' /f/. Keynes turns the generally felt pessimism at the time around in that he predicts -under certain prerequisites like: no important wars and no important population increases- that in 2030 most people will be so prosperous that they will only work 15 hours per week and that just to feel fulfillment. This did not materialize -as

113 | Page

is quite clear already- the why of which is analyzed by the Skidelsky's in their book 'How much is enough' /g/. But Keynes was certainly right that the gloom -predicted at the time- was not going to happen, even though his prerequisites for unimaginable prosperity did happen.

But back to an analysis of "The End of Western Civilization" through Themes Theory:

On the one hand: seen from the evolutionary Human Themes perspective the combination of Western (sub)Themes /h/ is no longer successful and other mixtures like Chinese capitalism are winning and the mixture of (sub)Themes in the US and Europe: Christianity, Banks and Business have lost their cohesion with especially Banks and their global trade in derivatives are beyond their edible date as can be read in the book by Hans Achterhuis: ‘De Utopie van de vrije markt’ (The Utopia of a free Market Economy) /i/ about the very short sighted Ideology of the free Market as described in the Utopian novel 'Atlas Shrugged' by Ayn Rand /j/. Which had and has cult status among many -neoliberal- Americans not the least with Alan Greenspan /k/ who -as the chairman of the FED- did much more than just being a proponent of Objectivism (Rand’s ideology).

The fear of Niall Ferguson and others that this is bad however, is unfounded. In the short run it could be not so good for the Countries in the West and the US in particular -as is suggested by many with the election of Donald Trump as the 45th President of the USA- but in the long run it strengthens the Human race as a whole. And Donald Trump might indeed by devolving / rearranging the independence / 'distances' of the Power subThemes C1a, C1b, C1c & C1d to 'strengthen' the US and maybe the rest of the West for that matter when they follow suite (please refer to § 7.3.20).

And although Niall Ferguson's fear for Islamization of the West seems real, the phenomenon ‘Islam’ is most probably 'fighting a losing battle'. This however in the form of a real battle as becomes clear from the fight by Al Qaida or IS (see also § 5.2.5. Cosmology or Belief) and that -of course- is in the end unacceptable since it -in these modern times- does not help the spread of Islam but does quite the opposite.

And, on the other hand: the large numbers of refugees trying to escape the failed states in the Middle East and Africa and trying to enter the European Union these days because there a much safer and economically much better future is looming, is testimony of exactly the opposite: the West is the place to be! And therefore 'the West' or the Western culture will not demise soon.

Of course, the larger the number of non-Western raised people entering Europe the sooner its culture, i.e. the mix of Basic-, Next Level- and Contemporary (sub)Themes, will change which -in fact- is what Niall Ferguson sees as the demise of the West.

/8.5.a/ Civilization, Niall Ferguson, 2010/8.5.b/ The Great Degeneration, Niall Ferguson, 2012/8.5.c/ The Crisis of Global Capitalism, George Soros, 1998/8.5.d/ Political Order and Political Decay, Francis Fukuyama, 2014/8.5.e/ The Great Escape: health, wealth and the origins of inequality, Angus Deaton, 2013/8.5.f/ The Economic Possibilities of our Grandchildren, J.M. Keynes, 1930/8.5.g/ How much is enough: Money and the Good Life, Robert & Edward Skidelsky, 2012/8.5.h/ Open Society and Its Enemies, Karl Popper, 1945/8.5.i/ De Utopie van de vrije markt (The Utopia of a free Market Economy), Hans Achterhuis, 2010/8.5.j/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlas_Shrugged or Atlas Shrugged, Ayn Rand, 1957/8.5.k/ Alan Greenspan: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Greenspan

8.6 Is the Refugee-flow into Europe in 2015 .. going to disrupt it ?

Simple answer: Yes, it is going to disrupt Europe, i.e. the Christian, Judean mainly white societies will (have to) change and maybe will even cause its disintegration.

Is it preventable ? Again simple answer: No, this is not preventable. Europe and the West as a whole have simply shown that it has generated much more wealth than any other form of society so people from war-torn countries but many peaceful but backward countries as well have -through modern social media- come to know this and want a piece of the pie.

So Europe -and the West as a whole- has to share its wealth through letting these people in which -in turn- will change Europe and e.g. Germany in particular and cause the average standard of living to drop and also change the cultural

114 | Page

characteristics of the European countries with e.g. 'Das Oktoberfest' in Munich /a/ where a lot (and I mean a lot ;-) of beer and wine is consumed in less than three weeks by literally millions of people which will become a bit of an embarrassment when -let's say- a million or more Muslims live in and around the city of Munich.

But this phenomenon has happened many times in history before: e.g. with the Barbarian Invasions /b/ in the 3rd until 6th century CE which caused -or was caused by- the fall of the Roman Empire in 476 CE. And e.g. in contemporary times with the millions and millions of people from the Caribbean or Middle- and South America which have 'immigrated' into the US. And the influx into Europe is only a very small proportion of the total Refugee problem around the World which is estimated to be around 60 million whereas the number trying to get into Europe is only around a few million /c/.

But many of those immigrants are very determined as can be seen from their sacrifices during their journey: e.g. when Turkish border patrols encounter them on the Aegean sea in their inflatable boats often the migrants threaten to throw their babies into the sea if the border patrols would take them back to Turkey /c/. From which you can see that they have emotionally parted from their background / families and no longer value many of the Basic (sub)Themes so integration into another set of (Basic) (sub)Themes like the ones in Europe will not be that difficult. However on the other hand by parting from those (sub)Themes they have become disentangled from any group-pressure and could become violent against their new cultural environment as easily as well. However whatever the nationalists tell you Europe and e.g. Germany in particular needs the immigrants because otherwise the demographics would reduce its standard of living anyway since -given their birthrate- the numer of German citizens it estimated to drop by more than 10% up to the mid of the 21st century which has always been accompanied by a drop in economic activity and thus wealth.

So maybe the solution to this demographic / economic problem and coupled and guaranteed cultural change for Europe can be found in the US: create different communities like Hispanics, Chinese, etc. or like Puerto Ricans, poor Whites ('Jets' ;-) or Dutch and do not try to integrate all these people down to the level that they all do not want to shop on Sundays or do want to eat sliced bread with Dutch cheese for lunch.

If you let them do their own thing they will create their own neighborhoods with temples, mosques or churches and their own shops -so recreate their version of the relevant (sub)Themes of where they grew up- and they will live their partly integrated lives whereby the host society will in general benefit from their presence when otherwise -if these peoples are more or less forced to change their lifestyle(s)- they will certainly take jobs from the hosting nation since they cannot create their own.

But yes the welfare state(s) in Europe will have to be partly dismantled and the autochthone people will have to work harder to lead their -still very rich- lives.

/8.6.a/ Oktoberfest; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oktoberfest/8.6.b/ Barbarian Invasions; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Migration_Period/8.6.c/ The Great Migration, Times Magazine, Oct. 19th 2015

8.7 Mahatma Gandhi in India compared with Nelson Mandela in South Africa

The first difference between Ghandi /a/ and Mandela /b/ is that Ghandi was completely peaceful whereas Mandela did not actively engaged in violence in the beginning of his political activism but this changed when he became the leader of the militant wing of the ANC in the 1960s. So the Basic Theme "Value of Life" was used differently and this is reflected in the societies of India and South Africa. In the latter (gang) murder, rape and robberies are happening every day whereas in India this is the exception and in absolute numbers South Africa even 'outperforms' India not withstanding its enormous population and notwithstanding the fact that in both countries the English brutally suppressed uprisings at the beginning of the 20th century.

The fact that Ghandi was completely peaceful and Mandela was not can probably be explained by their different religious backgrounds. Ghandi believed in Hinduism whereas Mandela was raised as a Christian in mission schools - Christianity is not so peaceful - and had his - much more violent - Xhosa background. Or in terms of empathy Ghandi was empathetic even to people outside his group whereas Mandela was - in his youth - only empathetic to people inside his group(s). Which on a more personal level could mean that Mandela was - in some situations - zero-empathetic /c/ to people outside his group.

Furthermore Ghandi opposed the English - a group from outside the country - whereas Mandela opposed the whites or Boers a group embedded in the country. Uprooting the English was - after WWII and its enormous loss of life - not so

115 | Page

difficult. Whereas uprooting the Boers in South Africa meant - in the end in practice - trying to make them leave the country without their property and without much prospects for finding a livelihood abroad. So again a Basic Theme: "Food & a Roof" had to be dealt with under totally different circumstances which probably explains why the non-violent opposition of Ghandi worked - the English could leave the country and go 'home' - and the non-violent opposition of Mandela in the beginning did not work (fast enough) so he changed tactics and co-founded the armed wing of the ANC in 1961.NB. In 2010 around 50% of the original 4 million whites who lived in South Africa in 1993 had left the country but these had mostly a British background. Of the Boers most - in 2010 - were still there be it more and more concentrated in the Cape Province leaving the other parts of South Africa to the blacks.And seen from a slightly different Theme angle Ghandi founded a new or independent Country whereas Mandela took over an already independent Country. So Mandela could not use all of the strong emotions paired to the Next Level Theme: City & Country.

Both also used the racial card, i.e. their colored skin against the white oppressors. So the rulers which they both opposed are from a different group. This is the Basic Theme: Power in the group or - on a higher / later stage - which (sub)group rules in a City or Country.

Ghandi further used the Next Level Theme Religion with (his) Hinduism, Buddhism and Islam as the main religions in India (and Pakistan) against Christianity of the British. Whereas Mandela could not use this card to the full because he was raised in the teachings of the Catholic / Anglican Church whereas the Boers are Protestants mostly and although there is still some animosity between Catholics and Protestants the great power struggle of the late Middle Ages between these two forms of Christianity is over.

In summary: Ghandi could use the full emotional strength of the Basic Themes: Value of Life and Power in the group and the Next Level Themes: Cities & Countries and Religion whereas Mandela figured he had to resort other means: i.e. violence, to reach the same goal: oust the ruling whites.

/8.7.a/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohandas_Karamchand_Gandhi/8.7.b/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandela/8.7.c/ Zero Degrees of Empathy - A new theory of human cruelty, Simon Baron-Cohen, 2011

8.8 Why has the number of violent deaths gone down?

In his book "The Better Angels of Our Nature" /a/ Steven Pinker shows that the number of violent deaths has gone down since the first humans set foot on this planet from c. 1000 per 100.000 citizens per year in pre-historic times to c. 100 in medieval times to c. 1 in contemporary times in modern civilizations per 100.000 citizens per year.

What has caused this drop?

Seen from the (sub)Themes perspective it is - of course - explained by the Basic Theme: Value of life which has evolved into Next level (sub)Themes like: Law and Contemporary (sub)Themes like: Politics and Government, each of which knits the net ever more tight around the evolutionary idea: thou shall not kill (of your own kind) because that lowers the chances of your species and thereby - under most circumstances - your own chances of survival.

And seen from the human group behavior perspective history has created ever bigger groups / societies so the chance of killing a fellow group member - when someone is killed - has increased considerably and that is exactly what one is inclined NOT to do since that lowers the chances of your group and thereby your own survival.

And the trend to create ever bigger groups / societies is simply explained by the idea that bigger groups / societies increases the chances of survival of your group / society and thereby your own chances of survival.

So I don't think it is The Better Angels of Our Nature that caused this drop in violent deaths but simple survival of one's self and ideas through which Human behavioral evolution: Basic, Next level and Contemporary (sub)Themes have been the main driver.

And even Steven Pinker mentions this in his book as one of the most important drivers when he talks about the six Trends, five Inner Demons, four Better Angels and five Historical Forces that - in his view - drove violence down. Because the one trend he starts with is the "Civilizing Process" (by Norbert Elias /b/) or a combination of Leviathan as

116 | Page

Steven Pinker calls it - a reference to the work of Thomas Hobbes /c/ - and gentle commerce which is exactly the trend in larger and larger societies: one trades instead of fights.

Having pinpointed the cause of the downward trend in violence does not help however, in predicting what will happen in the future because the current level could dramatically change to former (higher) levels when the trend in larger and larger societies is reversed. And even that is very much uncertain because any Human Behavioral theory but certainly Themes Theory 'explains' Human history but cannot predict it.

/8.8.a/ The Better Angels of Our Nature, Steven Pinker, 2011/8.8.b/ The Civilizing Process (Ueber den Prozess der Zivilisation), Norbert Elias, 1969 (1939)/8.8.c/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leviathan_(book) or Leviathan, Thomas Hobbes, 1651

8.9 Why were Rome and e.g. the Aztecs so violent.

From historical records and e.g. buildings it is clear that both cultures Rome and the Aztecs were much more violent than we are in contemporary times. Steven Pinker shows this trend in his book: The Better Angels of Our Nature /a/ in which he finds that the number of violent deaths per year per 100.000 citizens has gone down from around 100 or more in (pre-)historic times to around 1 for modern societies.

For Rome and - of course - the Aztecs Steven Pinker does not give exact numbers but it is clear that they must at least be around 100 per year per 100.000 citizens. In Rome you had special buildings like the Circus and the Colliseum where people died in all kinds of games and in Tenochtitlan great temples for the War God(s) were used to sacrifice humans so the basic Theme 'Value of Life’ had been developed in both societies since someone was not killed out of a pure whim but a life was not a precious 'commodity’.

Why was this? Which Next level (sub)Themes come into play or are not yet developed which make societies violent or which Contemporary (sub)Themes make societies much less violent.

First of all we have to check whether the Aztec civilization had developed according to the same Basic and Next level (sub)Themes as Rome had.

Because the (Meso) American civilizations had developed some kind of writing - of which some survived the destruction of the Spanish - we know quite a lot about their culture but even more from other sources than their books like buildings (in Tenochtitlan and other cities) and Spanish records from the 16th century CE /b/.

From the origins of the peoples in North, Middle and South America - they came from Asia between some 30.000 to 7.000 years ago - it is clear that they had - more or less - gone through the same evolutionary path as the other peoples scattered around the globe until they passed the Bering strait and became isolated from the rest of the World.

So all the Basic (sub)Themes: 1) food & a Roof, 2) offspring & parenting, 3) family life, 4) power in the group, 5) belief, 6) the value of (an individual) life 7) tools, weapons & clothes and 8) art, symbols & counting are part of their culture / group behavioral dynamics as can be recognized in the remnants of their peoples and found in their books, buildings and descriptions by the Spanish conqueror /b/. However Next level (sub)Themes: 1) Agriculture & Land, 2) Religion & Medicine, 3) Division of Labor, 4) Cities & Countries, 5) Law, Economics (money) and Taxes and 6) Philosophy, Science and Sports are not necessarily part of their culture.

However Agriculture: the (Meso) American cultures had developed very advanced agriculture in e.g. Middle America (maize) or South America (potatoes and in the Amazon region which was a sort of park with nut trees /c/), Religion & Medicine, Division of Labor and Cities & Countries were apparently also inherited / taken from before the separation / isolation since the (Meso) American cultures had developed all of these Next Level (sub)Themes /d/.

So only Law, Economics & Taxes and Philosophy, Science & Sports of the Next Level (sub)Themes as well as all the Contemporary (sub)Themes: Power: Politics, Government, Business & Banks; Religion; Health, Care & Hygiene; Science & Technology; Education; Sports; Entertainment & Art and News or Information exchange had to be - if at all - developed by themselves.

Of these: Law, Economics & Taxes can be recognized in some way in the (Meso)American cultures since their social stratification - certain groups had special rights, trade routes - different centers / cities exchanged goods - and pyramids & art - must

117 | Page

have been made by specialized persons / groups - show that each of these (sub)Themes was developed however quite different from the European or Asian region.Philosophy, Science & Sports had been developed to a level comparable to that of European level of the 16th century although Technology had not been developed as far as in Europe or even Asia since there were no tools / instruments such as the wheel (except for toys /c/), the cart, the plough, iron or stringed instruments until the Spaniards arrived /d/. But they certainly had a Philosophy about life, a Scientific World view about the cosmos with mathematics: e.g. their 3 calendars and Sports: e.g. ball games.

And as for Contemporary (sub)Themes it is clear that:Politics & Government, e.g. warfare was developed to a comparable level as in Europe but Business & Banks were certainly not present. They still had Barter trade and money or banks were therefore not necessary.Religion had been developed to a level certainly comparable to that of Ancient Egypt or beyond but a comparison to e.g. Judaism, Christianity or Islam is difficult.Health, Care & Hygiene were at a comparable level to that of the Romans and maybe even further since real surgery was performed on brains and other organs and they had knowledge of the fetus beyond that of the Romans.Again Science & Technology was not as advanced as the European or Asian branch of the human race had reached since the wheel, the cart, the plough, circular building structures, i.e. arches or cement were not (yet) invented and there is no proof that e.g. mathematics like Pythagoras law was known but they had a very precise calendar: the Long Count developed during the classic Maya period which required the idea of zero /d/.Education, Sports, Entertainment & Arts were probably at a comparable level as in Europe or Asia but News or Information exchange was certainly not as extensive / advanced since their writing system was more comparable to hieroglyphs than to modern scripts.

So all in all the (Meso) American cultures: 'New World' by the time the Spanish arrived were in many aspects more or less as advanced as the Europeans or Asians but had different accents and were in some (sub)Themes like Science & Technology behind the 'Old World' and still on a level as e.g. the Egyptians and - maybe - the Romans.

Therefore a comparison between the (Meso) American and Romans can be made and it could be said that because of this comparable level of scientific and technological development such societies: the Aztecs and the Romans had to be more 'cruel' or give less value to an individual life to have a high level of wealth in constructing buildings (temples, palaces) and luxurious lifestyle for the privileged (kings, noblemen & priests) a huge number of people had to be deployed to make this possible and if an individual life would be held high such a level wealth could not be reached or maintained.

So I would like to coin the thesis that modern technological societies have become (much) less violent because of science & technology which makes a luxurious lifestyle possible for a high percentage of a the people of a society without the need for human machinery.

/8.9.a/ The Better Angels of Our Nature, Steven Pinker, 2011/8.9.b/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florentine_Codex by Friar Bernardino de Sahagun, 1545 - 1590/8.9.c/ 1491: New Revelations of the Americas Before Columbus, Charles C. Mann, 2005/8.9.d/ Religions of Mesoamerica, David Carrasco, 1990

8.10 Why is civil war so brutal?

Since war might be a genetic thing of humans /a/ and if so this behavior stems from our ape predecessors as can be seen in large ape groups going to ‘war’ /b/ it is certainly explainable with Themes Theory: i.e. we have to keep fighting to keep ourselves strong and thereby evolve. As was recognized before, e.g. by the British military or the Italian: Filippo Marinetti around 1900 CE with phrases like: “war, the sole hygiene of the world” /c/ and -regrettably- using it to start wars and clean the World. Comparing a war between groups / cities / countries - not linked under one power system / umbrella / governmental structure (group structure No.1) - with a war between groups which were - in the recent past - under one power system / umbrella / governmental structure (group structure No.2) it is easily recognized that wars between groups of structure No.1 is (much) less violent than wars between groups of structure No.2, i.e. civil war. Why is this?

A civil war is a war between groups for existence whereby a 'normal' war between No.1 structured groups is a war for dominance which is useless if the 'loser' group would be wiped out or its people would hate the 'winner' group so much that they will not accept its rule.

118 | Page

So a war between No.1 structured groups is much more civil out of the pure necessity for the time after victory and a war between No.2 structured groups is as brutal as is necessary to stay alive.

With that in mind it is easily explained that religious wars - even between groups of structure No.1 - are much more brutal than wars over land / resources since it is much more unlikely that the members of the conquered group will submit themselves to the other religion since this contemporary Theme has been imprinted upon their brains since childhood.And by the same token civil wars often flare up between different religious groups - it could even be said that when the central control in a country fails to rule the first disobedience occurs by religious groups - and are thereby among the most brutal of them all.

However sometimes with No.1 wars - wars between groups / countries not having been under one umbrella / power structure in the recent past - some soldiers start taking indiscriminant lives and human trophies and/or start desecrating dead enemy bodies /d/.

Simon Harrison explains these acts in his book with group hunting behavior whereby the offending soldiers do not see their enemies as (fully) human anymore since these acts normally only occur with animals which - when hunted by humans - are often taken as trophies to show off with at home.

This looks rather barbarous but is - even though very uncivilized - not as brutal as the killings with No.2 wars whereby the hideous acts are meant to maximize pain and fear.

The indiscriminate killing and body parts trophy taking is never on a 'large' scale and never accompanied with maximizing pain and fear. Some opponents are 'just' killed and after death body parts are taken and sometimes 'nicely' prepared for display.

So this - very uncivilized - group behavior is meant for the home front to testify of the soldier(s) capabilities and resolve not for the opposing group / army to spread maximum fear. Then people would be openly tortured by e.g. hacking of body parts while still alive and in the end the usually beheaded body and head would be on display without much preparation left to rot for everyone to see.

/8.10.a/ One World: the Ethics of Globalization, Peter Singer, 2002/8.10.b/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baboons/8.10.c/ The Evolution of Everything. How Small Changes Transform Our World, Matt Ridley, 2015/8.10.d/ Dark Trophies-Hunting and the Enemy Body in Modern War, Simon Harrison, 2012

8.11 One Child Policy in China

The one child policy in China for non-minority and non-single child couples living in urban areas (around 36% of the population) was introduced in 1978 to alleviate: social, economic and environmental problems /a;b/.

With this "law" the contemporary subTheme: Government intervened in two of the most basic (and oldest) Themes in human behavioral evolution: Family and Offspring & Parenting.

According to some estimates this intervention has - since 1978 until 2011 - prevented the birth of around 400 million babies.

Why did the Government choose to enact such a policy and why did most common people of China had to accept this intervention in their most personal / family choices in life.

On the one hand this Governmental intervention shows that the balance between the rights of smaller and bigger groups is - under certain circumstances - tipping towards the former and for another thing it shows that the Chinese way of thinking is probably the way of the future: curb the individual rights of your citizens - even in their most basic needs - when required. And for the record: this is exactly what every development in (sub)Themes does: restrict individual rights and bring them to a higher / group level.

On the other hand the people of India chose to follow another route in the 1960s when a population explosion threatened daily food rations for millions. In Indian its scientists took the Green Revolution /c/ of Norman Borlaug /d/ instead of curbing the population with the result that the Indian population will surpass the Chinese population before 2025 /e/.

119 | Page

So the choice the Chinese made shows that when a 'socialist' society sees its future threatened it is prepared to curb the most basic individual freedoms and even keep these policies when the economic tide turns. Whereby a 'capitalist' society chose to provide more for its citizens - basically a socialist idea - so they could keep their most basic personal freedom and reap the 'benefits' of a bigger and thereby stronger society in the future.

So the decision which route to follow not only depends upon the problems in one (Basic) Theme: Food & a Roof but also upon the ideas in other (sub)Themes, i.e. Politics which shows that all (sub)Themes - in a varying mix - can influence the course a society takes.

And after some 30 years of the One-Child Policy it now becomes clear that the problems China tried to avoid in 1978 return in a different guise /f/ as it becomes obvious that the One-Child Policy has skewed the demographics of modern China to such an extent that the miracle economic growth is on the verge of collaps since by 2030 one working child has to provide for 2 parents and 4 (still living) grand-parents, the so called: "4-2-1" model. And it has become obvious that the costs China paid and pays to avert 400 million new borns since 1980 were appaling: some 335 million (forced) abortions, some 200 million sterilizations, some 330 billion US$ in 'levies' which have been paid to officials for looking the other way when more children were born in a family and some 125 billion (2013 figure) has to be spent annually on 'stability maintenance' i.e. money spent to keep people (especially young unmarried men) quiet which is more than the entire Defence budget.

So after all The Indian solution: a Government should not interfere with Basic Themes but find the solution to social problems in Contemporary Themes like Science & Technology because restricting / changing Basic Themes undermines the foundation of contemporary societies.

This can be seen by looking at the Speed of Evolution: SE = Change in Makeup / Change in Environment = CM / CE = (CPM + CCM) / (CPE + CCE). See Chapter 2 and Appendix 1.

What China did was Changing the Cultural Makeup by disallowing a large part of its people to behave according to some of their most Basic Themes: B2: Offspring and B3: Family in order to solve the squeeze in the Basic Theme: B1: Food (& Land). By doing so China changed the Base of its society so the whole structure 'on top of it' had to shift in order to regain its balance. Of course it worked exceptionally for the Contemporary subTheme: C1c: Business - which is near the top of the Themes-structure - but apparantly that shift caused other / extra problems which together with the Change in Offspring- and Family-values introduced the major imbalances in the boys/girls-ratio and the elderly/young-ratio. So by Changing B2 & B3 the Cultural Makeup was changed considerably - and the speed of evolution: SE rose accordingly - but in itself and by the very large change in C1c the Cultural Environment - with some time lag - changed considerably as well causing the SE to drop again. And so in the end nothing much changed except for the major shift in wealth which - hopefully will get China through this bottle-neck e.g. by letting a large quantity of people from India to immigrate into China.

India on the other hand did not tamper with any Basic or Next Level (sub)Themes but instead used the very logical Contemporary Theme: C4: Science & Technology (with the Green-revolution in the 1960s) for what it is exactly intended for: introduce change within the existing structure of (sub)Themes.

A step within the Science & Technology (sub)Theme with a new variety of Rice which produced a higher yield and could be grown three instead of two times a year does not change the Speed of Evolution: SE = (CPM + CCM) / (CPE + CCE).

So Indias society could maintain its 'course' with an almost unaltered (sub)Themes-structure: Basic-values from Basic Themes and the 'normal' change in e.g. the Next Level Theme: N5: Cities&Countries or Contemporary Themes: C4: Science & Technology with no imbalances in e.g. boys/girls- or elderly/young-ratio as a result. And - of course - their choice did not result in a spectacular change in any other (sub)Theme like C1c: Business but it certainly did overcome the problem of food shortages for a large part of society. And India can reap the benefits of a modern industrial society as well - be it on a more subdued / realistic level - since proven / good ideas will always arrive in 'your' society and certainly if 'you' are still around with a large(r) number of people (with strong Basic values) to pick up the new ideas.

/8.11.a/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-child_policy/8.11.b/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_People's_Republic_of_China/8.11.c/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Revolution_in_India/8.11.d/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_Borlaug

120 | Page

/8.11.e/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_of_India/8.11.f/ China's One Child Crisis, Time Magazine, December 2, 2013

8.12 China or India, who is going to be the new Superpower?

Seen from the demographics it is quite clear that India is going to be the next superpower in the 21st century. However seen from the contemporary (sub)Themes perspective another picture arises.

Both countries - in their modern form - were formed directly after the Second World War and both countries were in a league of their own seen from their population size, i.e. around 1950 there were 600 mln. people in China and 400 mln. people in India. And both countries have a much different religious background (Buddhism, Hinduism, Confucianism) compared to Christianity in the West.

Already in the 1960s and 1970s China tried to educate its people more equally spread than India /a/ but it also tried to control its people on the level of individuals by all kinds of restrictions / rules / programs - in Basic (sub)Themes like Family - whereas India then and now did not change its rules - on the level of an individual - that much after becoming independent in 1948 but really tried to feed its growing population instead with the Green Revolution /b/. Whereas during the Cultural Revolution in China millions and millions of people died of starvation /c/.

Seen from a (sub)Theme background one can conclude that China restricted the Basic (sub)Themes: Food & a Roof (both during the Cultural Revolution) and changed contemporary (sub)Themes like Politics, Business and Education considerably. Whereas India did not (try) to change Basic (sub)Themes at least did not worsen them for "higher" goals but tried to improve the Basic (sub)Themes - especially food - while at the same time trying to change the Next Level Theme: City & Country by forming a stronger and more united India from the 30 or so very different regions, a process China had long since walked through however, with much more violence along the way /d/.

So restricting Basic (sub)Themes is, directly and in the end, (much) worse than gradually trying to improve Next Level: Country and Contemporary (sub)Themes: Politics and Government. A country whereby its people has the freedom to choose personal Basic and Next Level (sub)Themes "wins" (in the end) from a country with many restrictions on these basic rights. I.e. it is most probably India that is going to "win" the new superpower "game".

Even though -on the one hand- if you look at China now (2017) you see incomparable wealth in the major cities and the rise of the average wealth of its middle class -compared to say 40 years back- is fascinating. Both of which could be the result of the Cultural Revolution (1966-1976) and its One Child Policy (1979-2016). The Cultural Revolution leveling the power of the ‘old’ intelligentsia and the One Child Policy clearing the way for (grand-) parents to put all their efforts and attention into this one child who could thereby have all the benefits of the small wealth families had in the 1970s and 80s and go to school and university. Both of which resulted in a generation used to be able get everything if you study and work hard which mentality will bring China far but I thing not as far as India with its more democratic system.

Even though -on the other hand- China is driving and thriving to become the World No. 1 in Science and Technology by 2050 with its huge investments in more than 50 science parks on all thinkable fields of scientific & technical endeavor /e/ which leads e.g. Henry Kissinger to be almost certain that China will be the next superpower /f/.

But I may be wrong because even I am not a superforecaster 😉. And after a personal visit to China in 2017 I am inclining towards Kissinger’s vision. But anyway, it could be e.g. that the future World order entails cooperation between countries which does not allow the one or the other to be really superior and levying "taxes" on "lesser" countries.

/8.12.a/ From Heaven Lake, Vikram Seth, 1987/8.12.b/ Norman Borlaug: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_Borlaug/8.12.c/ MAO The Unknown Story, Jung Chang & Jon Halliday, 2006/8.12.d/ The Authentic Confucius. A Life of Thought and Politics, Annping Chin, 2007/8.12.e/ The New Asian Hemisphere, Kishore Mahbubani, 2008/8.12.f/ World Order, Henry Kissinger, 2014

8.13 What groups do you want and can you belong to.

When growing up as a child and in adulthood we are constantly confronted with choices about groups. As a child we do not have much of a choice but as we grow up our influence on which groups we want to belong to increases. First we

121 | Page

have to adapt to the family, pre-school and primary school but with 'friends' or with whom we play as a child we start to make choices and as we progress through life we learn how to make the 'right' choices for ourselves. This is a delicate process since when young our family and other people who surround us have to agree. But as we go to secondary school (first world) or start in an apprentice job (third world) our own influence grows. And as we go to College or University or choose a full time job / profession our influence on which group to belong to has become quite large.

In this process we probably do not constantly consciously weigh all the different options or (sub)Themes like: Family, Religion, Education or Power (Politics, Business) but quite a few are implicitly weighed: does my family agree, do my friends agree, do I like what I will be doing etc. While doing so we make an (implicit) estimate of what is best for our immediate future / survival.

For a catholic Irish woman: do I infuriate my family and befriend a non-catholic boy, do I stop with my study in business economics and learn to play the flute, do I buy this nice house in this Jewish neighborhood, do I immigrate to Australia and leave my beloved but economically stricken Ireland.

For a Chinese country girl: how do I best please my parents by going to study in Beijing to become an engineer or by marrying my cousin in the USA.

For a Japanese boy: do I finish my high school with the highest grades and study 5 hours each day at home or do I play with my Nintendo instead.

For a Nigerian street boy: do I stay here in Lagos or do I try to get to Morocco and from there to Europe.

For a New York based bank manager in Q1 of 2008: do I stay with Leman Brothers or move on to Toronto to start a restaurant.

And for a Indian Hindu woman with a degree in information technology: do I marry an Indian man and live a traditional life or do I pursue a PhD and career in Europe.

So many (sub)Themes are (implicitly) taken into account when at the crossroads of some major moment in life however most of the time just one or two important (sub)Themes - depending on the moment in life and / or the situation at hand - decide what we will do and we do not consciously weigh all the relevant (sub)Themes according to some mathematical model. In addition to this simplification we are also biased for a positive outcome as was shown in the Nobel Prize winning Prospect theory /a/ and the outcome is also biased for what we see as the most difficult route or choice even if we know a specific choice is better. People with less willpower tend to choose for the quick gain but this personal trait can be nurtured in your upbringing /b/. So Family is - even in adulthood - a very important Theme. This also leads to the conclusion that in the nature versus nurture debate, nature - but then who are your parents - is still the most deciding factor ;-)

Another aspect of the choices we have in belonging to certain groups is when we do not or perceive not to have much of a choice, e.g. with Family, Country or to a lesser extent a Business or Governmental organization. We do have the choice - namely - to change the structure of (sub)Themes or value-system of the group we must belong to. I.e., which (sub)Themes do I want to be the (more) important ones and what can I do about it to get them higher on the value-system ladder.

This leads some people to become Politically involved in a Country of which they think the (sub)Theme structure should be changed and other people to become a 'Shaper' and / or 'Chairman' in the Belbin group structure model /c/ when a Governmental or Business organization is involved. And within a Family this happens with almost every teenager going through puberty and adolescence when he or she is busy to entangle the pre-frontal lobes into the rest of the brain /d/. The 'youngster' often wants to change every behavioral structure within the family just for the sake of it.

/8.13.a/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prospect_theory/8.13.b/ Willpower, rediscovering the greatest Human Strength, Roy Baumeister, 2011/8.13.c/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meredith_Belbin or http://www.belbin.com//8.13.d/ Wij zijn ons brein ('We are our Brains'), Dick Swaab, 2010

8.14 Why is Power: Politics and Business constantly changing?

122 | Page

Overseeing history in the light of the Themes Theory we see that the Basic Themes do not change that drastically over time - although they do change - whereas Next level Themes and certainly Contemporary Themes and within those especially Politics and Business, change at a much higher rate.

Probably this has to do with 1) the structure of our brains: animal like base on top of the central nerve system with on top of that the more human neo cortex and the pre-frontal lobes as regulator between them and with 2) the way this structure grows as we grow up through childhood and adolescence.

The things we learn in childhood are concerned with the basic (sub)Themes and stored in the deeper layers of our brain e.g. amygdale and when formed they do not change much whereas the things we learn during puberty and adolescence are stored in the neo cortex and thereby consciously more readily available. And the latter structures are formed when we oppose ourselves against our parents / family and start to explore the world which we want to form according to our ideas.

We identify ourselves during this phase - the formative years /a/ - with our peers and thereby form a new generation which wants its share of the World. And as this generation grows up and gets more influence - because of their relative number and positions in society - it starts changing the structure of (sub)Themes of the previous generations.

Especially in the subThemes: Politics and Business have to take the new generation(s) into account because - in a democratic and free market society - their influence is quickly felt and these (sub)Themes have to align themselves accordingly.

And if a political movement does not adept itself it is voted out and then disappears /b/ and if a business does not adept itself it loses market share and can go bankrupt /c/.

In less democratic and more closed market societies the political changes go more abrupt with revolutions because gradual change is not allowed e.g. 'Arabic spring' and for businesses they simply disappear or are completely restructured when a power shift (usually a revolution) occurs e.g. the privatization of state businesses in the former USSR countries of which many went bankrupt after the fall of the Iron Curtain.

And when big political differences between countries occur usually a war is the result. I.e. a pre-emptive war started by the threatened or politically isolated (regime) country to defend their value system or (sub)Themes structure otherwise their society will gradually become smaller and smaller and disappear.

/8.14.a/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolescence/8.14.b/ West European Communist parties after the revolutions of 1989, Martin Bull & Paul Heywood, 1994/8.14.c/ Good to Great, why some companies make the leap ... and others don't, Jim Collins, 2001

8.15 Why is the Law business so competitive?

In Anglo-Saxon Countries and their imagers working in Law is highly competitive, why is that? And why is working in other branches of business less competitive?

First of all working in the Law business means - in this paragraph - working in a Law firm not working in the judicial system.

Law firms and their lawyers help people / companies settle their disputes over modern sub(Themes) like Power; Politics, Government, Business and Banks or Health, Sports or Education. So instead of taking up 'arms' over e.g. property rights one tries to 'prove' / 'defend' his / her rights before the representative of the people: the judge. This is a fight in every aspect of the word but for the use of real arms. And seen in terms of human behavioral (sub)Themes disputes over property and other Basic (sub)Themes: Food & a Roof, Power in the Group, Value of Life are settled not by conquering or killing as in the very beginning of human development but within the context of Next level (sub)Themes: Division of labor, Cities & Countries and Law, Economics & Taxes.

So arguing in a judicial dispute is equal to fighting but for the arms so it is highly competitive and therefore the lawyers in a law firm have to be fighters which explains their highly competitive nature.

123 | Page

People in other professions like e.g. medicine, fundamental research all have to be competitive but the real fighting has been pushed to the background and disputes have become more and more rational: what costs me / the company the least amount of money. Of course being competitive: 'I will get the highest grades' occurs during the learning / growing up phase for individuals, basis but further on in life it is just groups: one scientific group / university against the other or one company against the other. So the individual does not have to be a real fighter.

Harsh competitiveness also occurs in Sports but there it is also highly regulated and just for the fun of the people who watch, the stakes are not for Basic or Next level (sub)Themes although with betting and high salaries some elements of livelihood / property fights is introduced.

And last but not least it occurs in military organizations. However, since the invention of weapons like firearms man to man fighting occurs less and less so - individual - competitiveness is not the most important characteristic any longer.

Only in marketing and sales the competitive edge is a necessary trait but still very much regulated in groups: one company against the other and seldom in direct contact. So still much less competitive than working at a law firm.

And seen from a different perspective working in a law firm can be seen as working at the core of our Myth based societies /a/. Lawyers have to deviate from the common understanding of one or more Myths in favor of certain subgroups or individuals who have ‘broken’ these Myths or want to append or change them to their advantage. And appending or changing a Myth is dangerous to a society because it destabilizes the always delicate balance.

/8.15.a/ Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind (In Dutch), Yuval Noah Harari, 2014

8.16 Why do we need management in Business?

Of course management in Business stems from leaders in groups or leaders in the military. But as opposed to these leaders who really had to lead in the past with acute situations like a fire in the village or an attack on enemy barracks modern businesses do not have really acute situations, except maybe situations like the Volkswagen group who cheated on emission rules for diesel engines for years but were demasqued in september 2015 /a/. Normal management decisions are at best situations where someone has to be fired on the spot to set an example or a budget quote has to be given without proper preparation. All other situations allow for time to prepare a decision and even the demasque of VW could have been prepared by management -since they knew for years already- and maybe was so. So as opposed to leadership it is necessary that management in modern businesses exerts its power in a much more refined way than instantaneous leadership requires. This requires a different set of skills than leadership. But still Businesses are groups which require general guidance, alignment of the goals for subgroups and a system to solve differences of opinion.

In Government the same applies to an even larger degree because there is seldom an acute situation or it must be in police matters but the main function of the police and judicial system is to isolate the trouble[maker(s)] in order to buy time to think matters over.

And in politics this is the case to an extreme degree because all politicians do is aligning the differences of opinion of sections, groups and / or individuals of a society as can be neatly seen in the refugee-crisis in Europe in 2015 / 2016. This could have been and probably was foreseen but still the politicians buyed time by going through the political motions step by step. And maybe even this crisis was amplified / let to run out of hand to avert attention from other more fundamental problems like the default of Greece. In politics this happens all the time.

So over the history of mankind the requirements for its leadership have changed dramatically - exactly what evolution is for: test (sub)Themes and / or individuals to the max - and nowadays the requirements change ever more faster, so some leadership is again required but the leadership skills for emergencies are seldomly needed since we always have / create time to consider the options.

In summary: every Business, Government or Political entity require exquisitely fine-tuned 'management' and adequate general management skills are hard to define since only a good understanding of the business and / or situation leads to good decisions. Except maybe for 'good communication skills' with the type of people that work in the specific business or organization.

A nice example is the utility industry (gas, electricity) when their environment was changed from a fully regulated or Governmental environment to something like a real commercial Business environment at the end of the 20th and beginning of the 21st century. In the beginning they required management able to appease the sitting employees and with

124 | Page

good connections to politics because that was driving the change. But then a more money focused management was required and after that phase it became clear that the industry could not be steered on financials only so a more knowledgeable type of management was required.

This change in management requirements is seen in management literature as well: buzz-words change all the time /b/ and even if some more general theory is presented, see e.g. 'The Goal' with its Theory of Constraints by Eliyahu Goldratt /c/ or a dissertation on learning decision making /d/ , the 'scientific' basis of management is debatable because its subject is changing all the time. So we see that even classic ideas like The Theory of Constraints or the much older 'Taylorism' or Scientific Management /e/ which worked perfectly fine for blue collar workers and can even be seen as the cultural gift of the USA to the World, runs dry on the white collar / knowledge workers which fill 90% or more of contemporary ranks within Western styled / modern businesses since the 1970s /f/.

So again we see that Human Behavior evolves - and nowadays faster and faster - unlike 'Physical Behavior' of e.g. elementary particles, which is exactly what Peter Drucker states in his book: Management Challenges for the 21st Century /f/. For 'Physical Behavior' we can find 'laws' for the aggregate behavior of billions and billions of particles in some kind of 'reaction' / 'interaction' whereby this is nonsense for Human interactions especially for organizations in which we 'produce' for our daily survival and evolutionary test every 'new' idea to the full.

Therefore management has to adapt all the time and will always be needed even though some people think otherwise /g/ which evolutionary makes sense because every possible variation -even the stationary one- has to be tried. And the stationary option is always the easiest one to try since it maintains the 'current' power balance but in the end it will always fail.

So management is best seen as the political section of each business, (non) governmental organization or whatever entity we want to consider in the modern or contemporary World that is involved to earn a living for its 'employees'.

/8.16.a/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volkswagen_emissions_scandal/8.16.b/ Organization Theory: Challenges And Perspectives, John McAuley, 2007/8.16.c/ The Goal: A Process of Ongoing Improvement, Eliyahu Goldratt, 1984/8.16.d/ Training of Complex Judgment, Annechien Helsdingen, 2008/8.16.e/ Frederick Taylor: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frederick_Winslow_Taylor/8.16.f/ Management Challenges for the 21st Century, Peter Drucker, 1999/8.16.g/ Holacracy: www.holacracy.org, by Brian Robertson

8.17 Is abundant energy going to increase or decrease the number of (global) conflicts?

With the timely and speedy development of the abundant shale gas /a/ is the number of (global) conflicts going to increase or decrease?

One could easily talk both ways but seen from a Human group Behavioral point of view it is quite clear that since the - already found - shale gas reserves are quite evenly spread over the face of the earth many - formerly - energy deprived countries (could) now have quite easy access to abundant reserves of energy. So probably even expressing the intention of exploiting these reserves will bring down their energy bills creating the possibility to spend money on other things which eases the pressure on Contemporary power (sub)Themes: i.e. politics, government, business and banks. This in turn makes it possible to spend the money on other (sub)Themes like Education, Sports or Entertainment & Art and the supporting contemporary Themes: Religion and Science & Technology.

And all of these (sub)Themes are for the pleasure of the citizens, i.e. no need to start a war to divert attention or have access to more energy reserves.

Therefore abundant shale gas which is geographically much more evenly spread over the globe will ease social tensions and reduce the number of armed conflicts. Be it that in some spots the tension will first rise since newly found energy-reserves will first destabilize the existing balance as e.g. happened in Ukraine with the Crimean.

/8.17.a/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shale_gas

125 | Page

8.18 A more quantitative comparison between Rome and the US

Rome was and the US is a superpower. What were the main drivers which led to their rise and which led to the fall of Rome and which (sub)Themes are leading towards the downfall of the US?

The first problem is what (sub)Themes can be identified in the historical society of Rome and which of these (sub)Themes played an important role in the rise and strength of Rome.

In Rome all Basic and Next Level (sub)Themes were - of course - present. So B1 to B8 and N1 to N6 because they had been developed by the time Rome rose to power. Whereby in the US all contemporary (sub)Themes are present as well, so C1 to C8. However both C1a: Power Politics (see § 6.2.1.1) and C2: Religion (see § 6.2.2) were started at the end of the Next Level (sub)Theme strata and were at least partly present in Rome.

And especially C2: Religion can be pinpointed as a (sub)Theme that was on the rise in Rome over the Next Level (sub)Theme N2: Religion & Medicine.

And with the conversion to Christianity of the Roman Emperor: Theodosius /a/ in the 4th century after Christ it was clear that the Roman society build on the set of Basic and Next Level (sub)Themes with especially N2) Religion & Medicine, N3) Division of Labor, N4) Cities & Countries, N5) Law, Economics (money) and Taxes and N6) Philosophy, Science and Sports were on their way out and to be replaced by especially C1: Power and C2: Religion with a much higher regard to e.g. B6: The Value of (an individual) Life.

In the US something similar can be seen with the (sub)Themes: C1) Power: C1a) Politics, C1b) Government, C1c) Business and C1d) Banks and C2) Religion. Banks are in turmoil, Business is on the decline - against first Japan and now China - and Secularism is on the rise. This makes Politics and Government difficult.

Quantifying these trends in Rome and the US can be roughly done by estimating what percentage of the people were inclined to one kind of (sub)Theme in the respective societies at the start of their rise and what percentage of the people were / are inclined to those (sub)Themes when the decline set in. And by trying to identify where Future (sub)Themes might be going for the US (and contemporary World).

It is quite obvious that at the start of the Roman empire in let's say the 2nd century BCE C1a: Contemporary Politics had been started by the Greeks and this idea was taken by the Romans to improve the strength of their city [(sub)Theme N4] with the Roman senate. So even though Political Power was only for a small percentage of the citizens of Rome: i.e. Patricians, everybody or at least the great majority of the people of Rome's society had accepted it as a fact of life.

And only a small number of the people falling under the influence of Rome were - at the start of Rome as a superpower - inclined to the then new (sub)Theme C2: Religion. Only Judaism existed already and in fact if we are to believe the new Testament it was Rome who created Christianity by executing Christ and executing the Christians in the Circus as a spectacle for the citizens of Rome in the following centuries in an effort to crush the single most strong force against their way of life.

And at the end of the rule of Rome it can be assumed that a large percentage of the people under the influence of Rome and its citizens had converted to Christianity thereby undermining one of the fundamentals of its society.

So the rise of C2: Religion and Christianity in particular led to the fall of Rome. While the C1a: Politics subTheme as it was started by the Greeks had been 'corrupted' by the creation of an Emperor which idea was further developed in the Middle Ages in Europe by the Royalty in the respective societies.

At the start of the US especially the subTheme C1a: democratic Politics was the big change against the remnants of the feudal Political system of Europe. A change started by the Dutch Republic in the 16th century and then - end of the 18th century - already undermining much of Europe. And C2: Religion (i.e. Christianity but then Protestantism with its greater regard for individual rights) was also very much part of the start and rise of the US.So the great majority of the people accepted the variant of C1a: democratic Politics and the variant of C2: (protestant) Christianity. And it was in the protestant part of the new US that democratic Politics was further improved upon in the 19th century by the abolishment of slavery which immediately led to the civil war between the North (mainly protestant) and South (mainly catholic).

126 | Page

Now in contemporary US these (sub)Themes are still very much alive but on the decline and - compared to other rising societies - becoming a hindrance for the survival of the US as a superpower.Now with the large percentage of non-white citizens of e.g.: African, Hispanic or Asian origin, protestant rule is no longer the norm which makes the democratic and individual rights system (much) less focused.This undermines what the US is all about and forces it to search for its common values which in turn makes it look less to the rest of the World and less capable of defending its interests in the World.

So as with Rome the intricate combination of C1a: Politics and C2: Religion build and destroys the US as a superpower.

Which way it will go is difficult to tell but especially C2: is over its top since e.g. in China a renewed forms of N2 and a renewed form of C1: Power in all aspects: Politics, Government, Business and Banks are on the rise and are doing (much) better than the Western form of C1.

/8.18.a/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodosius_I

8.19 How were societies of millions possible around 1,000 CE in China and South-America?

The societies in China and Meso & South America had developed to sizes with an 'impossible' number of people at a time Europe was still in the Dark Ages even though they did not have any of the modern technologies like steam engines and / or electricity. And stating the question in the theory of Human evolution: was a special mix of Basic, Next Level and/or Contemporary (sub)Themes responsible for this immense difference: in Europe at the time lived around 10 - 20 million spread over societies / cities / countries of at max 1 million citizens (England and part of France under William the Conqueror) ?

For one thing their N1: Agriculture & Land (sub)Theme was much better developed since they had more and better crops to feed the masses with Rice for China and Mais, Potatoes or Casava for Meso- and South-America.This is peculiar because the weather in Europe cannot be blamed since there was a Medieval Warm Period /a/ which can e.g. be seen from the fact that the Normans had a settlement on Greenland.

Was this 'lead' over Europe in Agriculture caused by a special mix in other (sub)Themes or was it just chance / raw Human evolution comparable to natural evolution whereby under a certain subset of environmental / natural parameters certain life forms get the upper hand like e.g. the capybara in South America /b/ (but maybe that animal is also the result of breeding programs by the Indians of South America just like potatoes) ?

All the Basic (sub)Themes can be dismissed as being (part of) the cause for this lead since China and the Americas were inhabited long after they arose (see figure 2 in § 7.2) and most of the Contemporary (sub)Themes can be dismissed as well since they started long after 1000 CE.However both C1a: Power Politics (see § 6.2.1.1) and C2: Religion (see § 6.2.2) were started at the end of the Next Level (sub)Theme strata.

The latter period: around 10.000 BCE to 1000 BCE is exactly the time that groups of Homo Sapiens had migrated from Africa, through the Middle East to China and over the Bering Strait into the Americas and setup 'camp' in those areas /c/. While contacts to the Middle East and Europe for China were not widespread and for the Americas almost non-existent, they could and did develop their own subset of Next Level and Contemporary (sub)Themes: N1 to N6 and C1a and C2.

The move from Hunter-Gatherer to Agriculture probably started in the sub-tropical region of South-West Asia at around 8000 BCE /d;e/. And from there it spread to Europe, the Middle East, South East Asia and even China. In Meso- and South America it probably auto started around 1000 BCE. So both China and the Americas had their own N1 development which apparently together with the predominant precursors of Contemporary Religions (C2) did lead to much bigger societies in cities and countries (N4) than Europe which had a late start - say around 1000 BCE - as compared to the far East.Furthermore Europe's moderate climate did not allow a high yield crop like Rice to be grown. And Wheat - the European crop - has a much lower yield per m2 since it grows slower and can be harvested just once per year.

But N2: Religion & Medicine and C2: Religion played an important role as well since in both China and the Americas the older Next Level Religions: Buddhism, Hinduism or e.g. Maya or Aztec Religions were widely accepted whereas the Greek, Roman and German N2:Religious systems during that period were more disorderly because of the multitude of Deities and less widely accepted. This did not help in Europe in creating a common basis between N4:Cities / cultural

127 | Page

centers. This common ground between cultural centers was more easily found in China or Meso- and South America because of the more comparable N2:Religions. So in Europe an invention / improvement at some place was not easily accepted somewhere else because of differences in rituals / customs prohibited that.

And on the other hand after Europe developed from N2 Religions to C2: Christianity - which strongly prohibited to tamper with life because that is something exclusively for God and should not be intervened or changed [this forbidding rule can still be found in e.g. GMO (Genetically Modified Organisms) rules in the EU on which developments are all but prohibited] - the development stopped more or less altogether.

So in Europe before c. 400 CE Agricultural breeding attempts were done in a haphazard way and after c. 400 CE they were more or less prohibited and what was done was done by the Church (in Abbeys and Cloisters) in a controlled way in order not to disrupt the teachings / rulings of the Church.

This difference in Religious worldviews probably resulted in the fact that in China the double plough /f/ was invented which in one go rolls over the top layer of the soil to clear it for the next growing season and that in South America: Terra Petra was developed and applied on large scale in tropical areas to make the unprotected soil useable under the barrages of tropical rain for Agriculture for much longer periods than the currently used slash and burn tactic /g/.

So the feeding of centers with millions of citizens was possible in China and Meso- and South America because of their superior Agricultural techniques which in turn were developed because their N2: Religions 'allowed' such developments. And these techniques were specifically not developed in Europe since that meant tampering with the creation of God. A nice example of which is the reaction of the 16th century Europeans to rubber (or latex) which the Indians of the Amazonas had been using since around 1500 BCE for e.g. balls and rain clothing but when it was brought to Europe people thought this material was bewitched and the persons who brought it to Europe / Spain were put before a Religious tribunal /h/.

/8.19.a/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_Warm_Period/8.19.b/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capybara/8.19.c/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_human_migrations/8.19.d/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neolithic_Revolution/8.19.e/ Domestication of Plants in the Old World, Daniel Zohary, 2012/8.19.f/ 1421: The Year China Discovered the World, Gavin Menzies, 2002/8.19.g/ 1491: New Revelations of the Americas Before Columbus, Charles C. Mann, 2nd Ed. 2011/8.19.h/ http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rubber

8.20 Drivers for the rise and fall of the most Powerful Societies over the course of History

The rise and fall of Empires is seen in all era's and on all Human time scales e.g.: Middle East, Far East, Europe, America's and within a certain region and/or time: Mesopotamia (Babylon), Egyptian (Pharaos), Indian, Greek (Athens, Alexander the Great), Rome (Emperors), Arabian (Sultans), Maya's, Holy Empire (Charlemagne), Chinese (Dynasties), Spain, Dutch Republic, Great Britain, USA.

In the mix of the Basic - (B1 - B8), Next Level (N1 - N6) and Contemporary (C1 - C8) (sub)Themes it is certainly a different mix for every era and region which helps in the rise and subsequent downfall of Powerful Societies but as with standard history we find that - on the one hand - especially Power distribution (B4, N4 and C1) is the most important driver and - on the other hand - especially Religion (B5, N2 and C2) is the second most important driver with its restrictive or stimulating influence. And in the mix these two are probably each time decisive which way it will go.

Other (sub)Themes like different branches in Philosophy or Sports are each time created to help in identifying a society and branches in Science & Technology or Health & Care are used to stud a society.

Both Power and Religion use the emotional (Amygdala) part of our brains which is explained by the fact that without emotions Humans are unable to make decisions. Many other (sub)Themes stem from the rational (Neo Cortex) part of our brains and are used to help our emotions to look rational.

However over the course of Human history it is clear that rational (sub)Themes - slowly - gain more influence which makes (civil) war and other destructive Human behavior less and less important.

128 | Page

So Power and Religion become more and more 'rational' with every step in the development in Human behavior as can be seen by the development of Basic to Next Level to Contemporary (sub)Themes and - most probably - beyond.

8.21 Are pension systems going to disrupt Western societies ?

Although the financial crisis started in the US over subprime mortgages - an euphemism for bad loans - it soon jumped to EU banks and then EU countries where apparently the inequality on budget austerity seemed to be the cause. However the root cause: very different pension systems, surfaced quite soon after that. I.e. the level of reliance of individuals on the group to support them in their old age was the real problem for at least countries like Greece and Italy.

But this problem: current pensioners are (very) well looked after and the young(er) generation has to work hard to supply all the wealth for themselves, their children and their (grand)parents is found in many more countries e.g. Germany and the Netherlands. And this problem is even found in the US where public - state and city - employees were given a younger and younger retirement age in return for moderate wage rises during the booming years.

What happened in terms of the Behavioral Themes Theory is that Law, Economics and Taxation (N5 Theme) was (mis)used by the generation in power to arrange for their old age. This is what Francis Fukuyama calls repatrimonialization /a/ a decaying 'force' in modern democracies to protect rent-seeking-elites or Leisure Class Thorstein Veblen /b/ found to be present in every society since the rise of farming.

And even though both pension systems: Collect and Pay-out system or the Capital savings system seem to differ considerably in the end they do not differ much in the end result i.e. the working generation has to supply for themselves, their children and their (grand)parents. Be it that with a Collect and Pay-out system the problem arises earlier and more acute but the Capital savings system has in essence the same flaw that investments have a momentarily market value (Marked to Market) which depends solely on the wealth generated by the working generation(s) /b/ and if they decrease in number, the number of pensioners increases or the demands of the (future) pensioners become too high there is simply not enough wealth to disperse.

All these phenomena can be seen in many countries - even in China - and as a result we see that high level group structures: e.g. the European Union, are the first to fall apart because of misuse of their Law, Economics and Tax systems to supply for these excessive demands. But after their demise other structures like countries - and maybe even cities - might follow suit because the solidarity between those groups / social structures is not elastic beyond any measure. Or as a Dutch saying goes: "the shirt is nearer (to the heart) than the skirt". Which is exactly what Walter Scheidel found in all of history since the rise of farming: every now and then a (Civil) War or Plague breaks out and levels the inequality /c/ is reduced again but then it builds up again around a new rent-seeking or leisure class.

So we will quite probably see a disintegration of the EU because no EU citizen feels him- or herself part of a 'EU group' and probably soon after that we can see a weakening of countries like Germany, the Netherlands, the US and maybe even China because the solidarity between generations is probably not so strong as to disperse the generated wealth unevenly more to the elderly /d/. And so we will see internal strife to correct decades if not centuries of Law, Economic and Tax systems towards a more bearable part of the pie for the unproductive. This will weaken these societies even more so as compared to other societies which do not have this problem: e.g. India will be able to produce at a (much) lower cost level and thereby attract a greater part of the World's Gross Domestic Product. Thereby regaining the ground they lost at the beginning of the Industrial Revolution /e/.

So Human Evolution Theory 'predicts' a disintegration of one of the larger democratic Law, Economic and Tax units: i.e. EU for the medium term (5 - 15 years). For the short term (0 - 5 years) social unrest will increase in the countries forming the EU like Greece, Spain and Italy and for the long term we will see 'new' pension systems arise in both the countries with social unrest where there will be a forced adjustment but also in several other countries like Germany, the US or even China where they will try to avert the build-in instabilities by downgrading the 'rights' of the pensioners.

Did these problems arise in the past ?

No, because health and war in the past lead to the death of the greater part of the people in past societies at a much younger average age so people's outlook was not to become (very) old which apparently caused them not to arrange for their old age other than by having a greater number of children. But in the post Industrialized World we now live in whole countries that have become rent-seeking-elites, e.g. Holland, which unbalance will -in the end- be corrected by the

129 | Page

demise of the 'society' they extract rent from, in the case of Holland: Europe. And then the Dutch have to fend for themselves again.

So seen from this perspective: Yes, the World has seen this phenomenon many times over. E.g. with the demise of ancient Egypt, ancient Greece, ancient Rome or the Maya cities like Tikal & Calakmul or more recent examples like the 'Ancient Regime' in France or the decay of the Britsh Empire.

So nothing new, just Human group evolution in full swing !

/8.21.a/ Political Order and Political Decay, Francis Fukuyama, 2014/8.21.b/ The Theory of the Leisure Class, Thorstein Veblen, 1899/8.21.c/ The Great Leveler – Violence and the history of inequality from the stone Age to the 21st century, Walter Scheidel, 2017/8.21.d/ The Great Degeneration, Niall Ferguson, 2012/8.21.e/ Global Economic History, Robert Allen, 2011

8.22 Why do some 'backward' societies survive ?

It is a rather counter intuitive situation that some backward groups / societies survive amidst (faster) evolutionary active societies. Take e.g. the Amish in the US who are still living in the 19th century as far as their social and technological behavior is concerned.

But also (much) less disconnected societies manage to keep their specific identity amidst a very much different evolving surroundings like e.g. the village of Wilamowice (Poland) managed to keep its own language: a mixture of German and Dutch for hundreds of years even though it was very much into contact with the rest of the World.

Another obvious example i.e. the Jewish people is not a good example because they were shunned from their surroundings i.e. the Christian societies in which they lived but could not participate because they were not allowed in many walks of life and thus could not evolve along the same lines as their compatriots and in fact evolved within their specific 'social' environment which made a significant proportion significantly more intelligent than their 'neighbors' /a/ so they could survive even in a rather hostile 'social' environment.

Another example are the hunter-gatherer societies like the Dogons or the !Kung in Africa and the Aboriginies in Australia. These groups kept their Basic era way of life during a time when the rest of the World was already fully Contemporary so they were backward by thousands of years. The latter group: the Aboriginals, is easily explained in that they until recently (19th century) were not exposed to the 'modern' lifestyle with agriculture and large settlements. So they were not driven from their lands and tempted to 'defect' until the 20th century came along /b/. The former groups: Dogons /c/ and !Kung /d/ is more difficult to explain since they retreated into inhabitable lands like the Southern Sahara desert or the Kalahari desert. But these parts were not that disconnected from the rest of the World as the Aboriginals were. Another aspect could be that when confronted with the modern way of life the shock was significant and so they retreated step by step into inhabitable lands and the ones remaining reinforced their culture / 'set of (mostly Basic) Themes' step by step.

So for a number of reasons some groups / societies keep their 'backward' / separate culture but the common denominator is that some strong group identifier / (sub)Theme - mostly Belief or Religion - keeps them apart from their surroundings. And this is directly comparable to separate species evolving from a common ancestor. In the beginning the different subspecies can still interbreed but don't and are highly competitive against each other. And after some time - a number of generations - the subspecies cannot interbreed any longer and the separate species has to stand on its own feet /e/.

/8.22.a/ The 10.000 Year Explosion: How Civilization Accelerated Human Evolution, Gregory Cochran & Henry Harpending, 2009/8.22.b/ War in Human Civilization, Azar Gat, 2006/8.22.c/ 'The Dogons' in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Beverly Strassman, 2011/8.22.d/ Mothers and Others: The Evolutionary Origins of Mutual Understanding, Sara Blaffer Hrdy, 2009/8.22.e/ On the Origin of Species, Charles Darwin, 1859

130 | Page

8.23 Why do Religions survive for millennia, while Political ideologies quickly disappear.

It is easily observed that e.g. communism has all but disappeared in less than a century whereas the Islam - the youngest of the main Religions - is already shaping societies for over a millennium.

Apparently the direct clashes between and within societies in the Power-Theme is done with much less faithfulness than in the Religious-Theme. People change sides much more easily with a Power-clash than with a Religious-clash.

This is simply explained by the fact that Power is coupled to living people or social structures. Whereas Belief / Religion is coupled to the eternal supernatural. And people grow up learning about religion from a very young age - so this notion gets anchored deeply into the brain and probably the brain is hardwired for it - whereas Power is first coupled to your parents and much later to someone / something 'stronger' than your parents - so this notion of a higher Power is much less deeply anchored into the brain -.

Or as we saw with the Basic Power Theme: Homo (Erectus) lived for more than a million years in ape-like structured groups with one male alpha, some betas and the rest gammas, Homo Sapiens lived for more than 100 thousand years in equal groups / societies with some form of Belief whereas inequality only emerged in the last ten thousand years /a/ with the start of the Neolithic era.

So Religion is much more engrained into our brains such that even if we get conquered by a different Belief or Religion several generations have to pass before this Belief or Religion can have died out and in practice people find ways to secretly "stay in touch with their old Belief or Religion" - usually in their minds - whereas allegiance to an old / overturned Power structure is much less likely also because they cannot openly show any signs for that.

/8.23.a/ The Creation of Inequality, Flannery & Marcus, 2012

8.24 Was Bernie Madoff a fraud ?

Bernie Madoff /a/ was found to be the biggest embezzler of all time by having run a simple pyramid scheme for decades which in the end ripped off some 50 billion dollars in total of many rich and famous including e.g. the Dutch Royal Family.

In the biography by Adam Lebor /b/ Madoff's fraud was more realistically estimated to be around 10 billion: 17 billion invested of which 7 billion was recovered but still this was by far the biggest private fraud in history.

How did he do it and was this fraudulent behavior ?

First we have to define what is meant by fraudulent behavior: i.e. when is behavior purposefully trying to circumvent universally recognized rules.

That Madoff's behavior mislead many people is clear but his customers should have known better: year after year above Market returns and that without clear explanations. If Madoff's customers did not bend the rules themselves they must have hoped that Madoff did this for them. And that he certainly did and with some very simple 'rules' as well: i.e. he simply told his customers a lie about what he did with the money entrusted to him and a lie about its returns. Both are fraudulent according to civilized rules but certainly not uncommon when seen from an evolutionary perspective.

Every group / species has its free riders who take from the 'Common Pool Resources' without giving anything back usually taking advantage of some or more implicit rules or group dynamics /c/. Of which there are numerous examples e.g. in the financial system like "The Quants" /d/ who fooled the system and especially Wall Street with seemingly complicated mathematics but became distrusted over the 2007 and 2008 events with the financial crisis and following debt crisis as a result. Which to a large extent were caused by their speculative trading. And having second thoughts after the fact like e.g. Cathy O’Neil now has /e/ is simply a bit dumb or worse because every individual joins or makes groups to find an advantage over others in order to earn a living. And thereby everything is used and allowed -even mathematics- as long as it is not explicitly forbidden by law. So Weapons of Math Destruction is nothing unusual, just human behavior in yet another subtheme: Science & Technology (C4).

131 | Page

Bernie Madofff however went a step further by fooling the system by explicit lies for which he could be persecuted and was sentenced in due course.

Bernie was trusted because of his apparent relationships with the 'old Jews' of New York with whom he browsed / mixed and pretended to be very well acquainted with which gave him access to exclusive clubs where he met most of his lifelong clients. So he misled everybody by pretending to be a member of a loosely defined but very influential group and when people entered into business with Madoff only then he started to 'selling' explicit lies but no one checked because of his excellent 'credentials'. His alignment with a pretended group opinion is what makes us easily go along /f/.

So Madoff - on the one hand - used the basic Theme B3: (extended) Family (and clan) Life which most people more or less automatically trust and therefore he could get away with his unchecked lies for so long. And -of course- he misused our engrained inclination to conform with ‘the group’ we want to or do belong to.

The Quants - on the other hand - used the new Contemporary Theme C4: Science & Technology to stand out from the crowd and through their highly advanced mathematical skills which they - falsely - pretended to be objective /e/ and of great predictive value, people trusted them with their money. However they never explicitly lied about the actual returns / results. So in the end they could not be persecuted.

/8.24.a/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernard_Madoff/8.24.b/ The Believers: How America Fell for Bernard Madoff's $65 Billion Investment Scam, Adam Lebor, 2010/8.24.c/ Samen voor ons eigen ('Together for ourselves'), Dirk Draulans, 2012/8.24.d/ The Quants, Scott Patterson, 2010/8.24.e/ Weapons of Math Destruction: How Big Data increases Inequality and threatens Democracy, Cathy O’Neil, 2016/8.24.f/ The Domesticated Brain, Bruce Hood, 2014

8.25 Can we expect (fresh) water-wars ?

Quite often someone important suggests that with the total population increase /a/ we have to take care of the access to drinking water for every region of the World otherwise we could face serious conflicts over water. There even is a page for it on Wikipedia /b/.

Even though this arguments sounds convincing over the course of history not one war was fought over just fresh water alone /b;c/. The `water wars` that have been fought were those between groups / countries for access to seaports. And yes some skirmishes between `neighbors` have occurred when access to fresh water for one group was suddenly blocked by another group e.g. when an army beleaguered a city or castle. However, for one thing the blockage to fresh water was just one of the weapons in an already ongoing fight / war, and for another the city or castle had usually taken precautions with storage or wells within their walls like the Roman `cisternas` the Romans built in every city that could be faced with a water shortage and did not have access to enough fresh water within its walls.

And if a community / group was faced with a more than temporary fresh water shortage usually some kind of sharing system was created to see to the fact that everybody had `equal` access to this scarse resource /d/. As a comtemporary example one can look at the considerations / deliberations China is now taking to create equal access to underground waterreserves in the Tarim Basin /e/. That a community / group / country / international community takes such elaborate precautions is quite logical because seeing a larger group or even your neighbor die from thirst is unbearable.

So a severe water shortage for a larger group for a prolonged period of time never occurred and will never occur suddenly to just deprive them of fresh water and nothing else. Therefore a group did and will take precautions such as a water storage, rules for sharing or - in the past - split and make a part of the group go - voluntarily - elsewhere.

And therefore freshwater wars did and will not happen.

/8.25.a/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population/8.25.b/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_conflict/8.25.c/ Global Ecomic History: A Very Short Introduction, Robert Allan, 2011/8.25.d/ Rules, Games and Common Pool Resources, Elinor Ostrom, 1994/8.25.e/ The Tarim Basin II project, The World Bank, 2005

132 | Page

8.26 Are any new (sub)Themes emerging in the 21st century ?

In an article in Time magazine in 2012 Bill Clinton - former US president - states that 5 new Ideas [(sub)Themes AdL]: 1) Technology, 2) Health, 3) Economy, 4) Equality and 5) Justice are changing the World for the better /a/ since;I1: In Technology: (mobile) Phones mean freedom for the masses even for those in developing countriesI2: In Health: the reduction in price for HIV/AIDS drugs and the effort to spread of a health-care system makes societies prosperI3: In Economy: Regions / Countries which pursue Clean Energy tend to prosper even through the current economic crisisI4: In Equality: the spread of Women Rule causes societies to prosper since women tend to invest in their families, property and businessI5: In Justice: Even though countries are at odds such as China & Taiwan or Pakistan & India, their young citizens tend to cooperate instead of fight.

Looking at these Ideas we immediately recognize the Contemporary (sub)Themes: C1c) Business in I3: Economy and I4: Equality; C3) Health, Care & Hygiene in I2: Health; C4) Science & Technology and C8) News or Information exchange in I1: Technology and again the Basic Theme: B3) Family and B4) Power in I4: Equality.Only I5: Justice is not immediately recognized. However this is an extension of the Next Level Theme N4: Cities&Countries since those social structures are the institutions that stand for cooperation.

So in my view Clinton does not point at any 'new' (sub)Themes but he is right about the fact that the evolutionary development of these Ideas or (sub)Themes as I call them is indeed changing the World and usually for the "better", as in principle all Human Behavior Evolution is.

New (sub)Themes that really do emerge are e.g. Environmentalism, Empathy or Anarchism.

Environmentalism /b/ is new in a way to form a group that does not build on older (sub)Themes like B3: Family or N5: City & Country but on something an individual cannot have ownership of or directly profit from, i.e. the World. It is therefore a totally new way of emotional group bonding / group formation for which -I think- it is difficult to fight for. However, apparantly it is succeeding because we see many conferences being held on the subject and indeed some people even fight for this cause, i.e. Greenpeace.

Empathy is seen by Roman Krznaric /c/ as a new banner to motivate people to help each other but can -in my opinion- never develop as a new (sub)Theme because not many people will fight for this cause, let alone kill -the ultimate deed to show your allegiance- for this cause.

Anarchism is neatly analyzed by Noam Chomsky in his book On Anarchism /d/. In this book Chomsky shows that Anarchism could be a new political trend and certainly word but that living in an Anarchy could be very unfree for the individual because of group pressure(s) to conform with the majority. So it could become a new (sub)Theme as e.g. the Occupy movement shows.

/8.26.a/ The case for optimism: 5 Ideas that are changing the World, Bill Clinton, Time magazine, Oct. 1st 2012/8.26.b/ One World: the ethics of globalization 2nd ed., Peter Singer, 2004/8.26.c/ Empathy: A Handbook for Revolution, Roman Krznaric, 2014/8.26.d/ On Anarchism, Noam Chomsky, 2013

8.27 Are we creating an Anthropocene and is it dangerous ?

In the last couple of years environmentalists and others started talking about an Anthropocene, i.e. the age of Man /a/. According to these people we are creating a very clear signal in the geological record like the K-Pg extinction event at the end of the Mesozoic /b/. Some of these events might have been caused by a (very) significant rise in CO2 in the atmosphere -even though there is strong evidence for the opposite: temperature rises first causing CO2 levels to rise has been found in the (Ant)arctic boreholes - which caused seawater temperatures and acidity to rise significantly causing massive extinction especially of calcium binding organisms. Apart from the fact that Homo Sapiens has done several things which had a much more direct impact like the extinction of the big Marsupials in Australia some 45,000 years ago /c/ or the felling of most of the forests in Europe /d/ which we (and Mother Earth) survived without a glitch, this ‘new’ thinking has created some ‘interesting’ debates.

133 | Page

According to these alarmists this is now happening again - caused by human CO2 - and is causing much strain on sea life and human settlements on sea shores because of the sea level rise caused by the rise in Global temperatures which causes sea water expansion. And according to these people it is not so much the total amount of CO2 emitted by humans into the atmosphere as well as the rate at which it is happening. Their great concern is: are we able to stay ahead of this change or not because if it happens in just a few decades we might not be able to adept fast enough to the new circumstances. But -in my opinion- most probably these forecasts about Global Warming are just 'made to advance political agendas and galvanize action' /f/ and are not based upon a real thread.

Apart from the fact that the rise in Global temperature has stopped since ca. the year 2000 it is very much questionable that massive extinction of sea life or a sea level rise of 1 or 2 meters in several decades is really going to threaten our societies. Man's ingenuity and behavioral changes have shown to be able to cope with an incredible number of different situations in the last ten thousand years or so that this change - if it occurs - will be dealt with, see e.g. 'The Beginning of Infinity' by David Deutsch /e/ or see 'The Ultimate Resource' by Julian Simon /g/.

Furthermore, the real question is: 'is it really happening'? Even though all discussions about Global Warming suggests otherwise this question is nothing else than yet again groups of people and / or individuals trying to gain power or money for them to lead a 'better' life. So they are using a scientific debate from the contemporary Science Theme to improve their standing in one or more Contemporary Power Themes, i.e. Politics, Government, Business and Banks as is e.g. neatly shown by Ivo Vegter /h/ or Matt Ridley in The Evolution of Everything /i/ who shows that ‘The Environment’ is made like the new Religion and that dissenting sceptics are to be treated as heretics.

So, this phenomenon, though certainly a new (sub)Theme to make groups, is nothing but just this: a new Contemporary (sub)Theme and not the death throes of Mother Earth. And when something is really bad for us, like the Great Smog of London in 1952 /j/, it is dealt with in a relatively short period of time.

/8.27.a/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropocene/8.27.b/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cretaceous-Paleogene_extinction_event/8.27.c/ Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind, Yuval Harari, 2014/8.27.d/ The Skeptical Environmentalist, Bjorn Lomborg, 2001/8.27.e/ The Beginning of infinity, David Deutsch, 2012/8.27.f/ Superforecasting: The Art & Science of Prediction, Philip Tetlock & Dan Gardner, 2015/8.27.g/ The Ultimate Resource, Julian Simon, 1981/8.27.h/ Extreme Environment: How environmental exaggeration harms emerging economies, Ivo Vegter, 2012/8.27.i/ The Evolution of Everything. How Small Changes Transform Our World, Matt Ridley, 2015/8.27.j/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Smog_of_London

8.28 Is the behavioral Themes theory any different from Jared Diamonds theory?

In his book Guns, Germs, and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies /a/ Jared Diamond analyses why different human societies scattered around the Globe developed such huge differences in terms of societal capabilities, i.e. why Polynesians, the San in Southern Africa and Aboriginals in Australia stayed Hunter-Gatherers whereas Europeans and Asians developed into Modern Societies and e.g. Incas and Aztecs in the Americas had developed some modern features like cities and countries but did not have steel and were for their tools still in the stone age.

Apart from the fact that Jared Diamond did not have as many insights into Human behavioral evolution in 1997 as we have to date because since then many subjects were investigated further like the theory of "Inequality" /b/ or the theory of "Value of Life" /c/, our theory tries to model (different) Human group behavior whereas Jared Diamond tries to find specific causes why the differences evolved.

So you could say that the "Evolutionary behavioral Themes theory" presented in this book tries to model human internal group responses to Jared Diamonds external causes and on top of that tries to find common internal interactions between the behavioral responses.

And my answer to Jared Diamond's question: "why e.g. agriculture or iron tools were developed at specific spots at specific moments in time and sometimes thousands of years later at a completely comparable but different spot", is that human behavioral responses to 'evidence' /d/ is a chance factor and by no means a must occur factor and what happens next - i.e. is the new challenge taken up and further developed - is also a matter of chance and again not a must occur factor. Both the 'spark' / new idea and its development are one-to-one comparable to the mutation in biological evolution

134 | Page

and the (different) evolutionary paths such a mutation can follow. Therefore the Human Brain is 'The Ultimate Resource' /e/ but - like biological evolution - by no means predictable.

And even though Jared Diamond is probably right with his idea that there was less 'evidence' in e.g. the Americas, Southern Africa or Australia to start farming because there were much less self-fertilizing (high yield) seasonal plants and less suitable animals for domestication and / or abundant wild life and wild plants to live a comfortable hunter-gatherer life. It is probably likewise true that the 'spark' / new idea for such inventions occurred all the time but was not further developed because the group or (extended) family would not gain a significant advantage over neighboring groups. On the contrary: the first stages of farming are probably disadvantageous to a group for at least several generations. So only when there is the thread of extinction those groups that have experimented and - by chance - found the right ingredients like domestication of certain plants will survive in the new physical and / or social environment and these extinction pressure(s) did apparently not occur in e.g. the Americas, Southern Africa or Australia.

At some point in his book - Chapter 14: "From Egalitarianism to Kleptocracy" - Jared Diamond turns also to explaining internal behavioral group responses to external pressures but the four the "Agents" he recognizes: 1) Government & Religion, 2) Germs, 3) Writing, and 4) Technology, are rather randomly chosen and do not point to some kind of evolution even though he hints at that in the same chapter with that the development of social structures is towards larger groups but as history has shown certainly not unidirectional and mostly unpredictable.

/8.28.a/ Guns, Germs and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies, Jared Diamond, 1997/8.28.b/ The Creation of Inequality, Flannery & Marcus, 2012/8.28.c/ The Better Angels of Our Nature, Steven Pinker, 2011/8.28.d/ The Beginning of infinity, David Deutsch, 2012/8.28.e/ The Ultimate Resource 2, Julian Simon, 1996

8.29 Why did the Egyptian society disappear after 2500 years ?

The Egyptian (Pharaonic) period lasted from around 3000 BCE to around 300 BCE after which its culture gradually became less and less influential to end with Cleopatra /a/.

From the archeological remains as well as hieroglyphs it is clear that the Egyptian society ruled supreme for thousands of years. A feat not equaled by any other culture, certainly not in modern times, but also not by the Chinese or Romans or smaller societies on any continent and not even by much more inhomogeneous groups like 'Christianity'. Maybe Budism comes anywhere near /b/. How was that possible and why did it end ?

It probably was made possible because of 'lucky' factors like a stable and fertile river Nile delta but certainly also because the Egyptians were the first society who developed most Next Level Themes to the full: N1) Agriculture & Land, N2) Belief & Medicine, N3) Division of Labor, N5) Law, Economics ('money') and Taxes with a very well organized and specialized system of Agriculture with vegetable gardens /c/ and a highly centralized system of Power by their Pharaos /a/. And although these themes were still very much based in the Next Level Themes era (ca. 10.000 BCE to 0 CE) you could already see traces of Contemporary Themes like: C1) Power; C2) Religion; C3) Health, Care & Hygiene and C4) Science & Technology. But the Next Level Themes N4) Cities & Countries and N6) Philosophy, Science and Sports were not really developed which caused the Egyptian society to be less stratified on a group level: people belonged to their family, clan and then - with one great leap - the Country. The intermediate step i.e. Cities / region which is very important to function as an individual and - seen from the other perspective - to steer / rule a society was not available at the start of the Egyptian empire e.g. Akkad was founded in around 2400 BCE. And therefore the other Next Level (sub)Theme: Sports was not strongly developed as well so people could not identify themselves with 'state' institutions outside their family and/or clan except for Belief but that was forced - and very successfully - upon them.

With this mix of Next Level (sub)Themes they were far, far ahead of their time only to be overtaken by the Greeks Millennia later who took up the challenge and improved all the Next Level (sub)Themes, e.g. N3) Division of Labor and N5) Law, Economics (trade) & Taxes and used the Next Level Themes N4) Cities & Countries and N6) Philosophy, Science and especially Sports to their advantage to bond people at the intermediate level: Cities in their society. The Greeks had - at the start of their Golden Era - a very much different approach to Power and Belief since they tried a first form of 'democracy' which is much 'stronger' than the single ruler model (see 5.2.4 fig. 1) if a group or society can agree upon the way forward. And with Belief they had more than one immortal God which were not part of the power-system whereas the Egyptians had one mortal God: the Pharaoh who was also the supreme ruler of their country. And what he or she said / ruled could - in the end - be overruled by the next Pharaoh whereas the Greek Gods were typified by fixed / eternal myths and much less powerful human Oracles who only gave advice.

135 | Page

So the Greeks had astonishingly a more 'constant' and fair culture which was genuinely accepted because people could bond to 'state' institutions whereas the Egyptians had to cope with the whims of one mortal and his/her clan.

So to the rise of the Greeks in the seventh and sixth century BCE /d/ the Egyptians posed no real opposition and they retreated into their own. The Greeks could 'beat' the Egyptians with their own 'weapons' i.e. much stronger / successful Next Level (sub)Themes N3: e.g. areas with agriculture for corn, wine etc. and N5: trade between agricultural areas and cities, 'new' Next Level (sub)Themes N4: Athens and Sparta and N6: Philosophers like Aristotle and Plato, Scientists like Euclid or Archimedes and - not to forget - Sports in form of the Olympic Games. And on top of that tries into the Contemporary Themes: C1: Power: e.g. Democracy vs. Alexander the Great or C4: Science & Technology: e.g. the stunning mechanical 'computer' of Antikythera /e/ but also their elegantly built palaces and temples using the qualities of the building materials with much greater finesse and.e.g. mathematical precision /f/.

/8.29.a/ Ancient Egypt. A very short Introduction, Ian Shaw, 2004/8.29.b/ World Religions; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Major_religious_groups/8.29.c/ Domestication of Plants in the Old World 4th Edition, Daniel Zohary et al., 2012/8.29.d/ Ancient Greece; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_ancient_Greece/8.29.e/ Antikythera mechanism: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antikythera_mechanism/8.29.f/ Architecture, Visual Encyclopedia, Pepin Press, 2001

8.30 Why do we use IT to organize our Behavior ?

Why is it that we use Information Technology (IT) - known for its rigidness through fixed programs - for organizing human behavior which is in essence very flexible ?

In fact IT can be seen as a further development from writing with which we have (been trying to) organize(d) human behavior through law, religious texts (e.g. Torah, Bible & Qu'ran), property & trade documents and books /a/.

With all these 'tools' we try to fixate behavioral patterns in such a way that the individual better serves the group or society. And IT has made the reverse possible as well: register and recognize behavioral patterns such as through the internet with the accumulation and analysis of 'Big Data'.

So IT - just like writing and all other recording methods for human behavior - is used to direct / modify this very same behavior. And therefore its rigidness is an asset instead of a liability.

/8.30.a/ http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_technology

8.31 Is Detroit's bankruptcy a sign that the N4 subTheme: Cities is disintegrating ?

After years and years of population shrink the city of Detroit announced in 2013 that it could no longer pay its debts.Detroit had - by the mid-20th century - been one of the richest cities in the US if not the World and was - at the time with General Motors - the automobile Centre of the World but all that changed and Japanese and German car manufacturers outclassed GM and thereby the decline and now ultimate downfall of Detroit was sealed.

Is this a sign that one of the oldest Next Level subThemes: Cities is losing its group appeal?

On the one hand over the course of history many cities have been abandoned for all kinds of reasons e.g. the Greek city of Troy, the Olmec city of Tenochtitlan and e.g. the Viking King town of Sliasthorp. And on the other hand, many more cities have declined to insignificant or useless 'piles' of buildings / ruins. Each with its own story of why it happened but one thing stands out clearly: the citizens to come of such an abandoned city moved to ... another City.

Only rarely the citizens dispersed to all become farmers or 'worse', hunter / gatherers 'again'. The only case I know of are the Indians of Meso and South America who - after their demise to less than 10% of the original population by illnesses /a/ (and defeat) around the mid-16th century - retreated into their 'Park' forests i.e. the Amazon region. And maybe another example is the Maya’s who abandoned their cities on the Petén lowlands between 800 – 1000 CE –e.g. Tikal & Calakmul- because of continuous warfare between them (i.e. their Kings) which led to major trade routes to be

136 | Page

changed to less dangerous routes along the coast which then led to the demise of their incomes/taxes and thereby to their abandonment. However the citizens of these cities moved into the mountains where they built … smaller Cities /b/.

And even though there are many modern North American cities like e.g. Toronto or New York who really slumped in the 1970s & 1980s, recovered in the 1990s & 2000s but have driven out the Blue Collar and the Service Class -i.e. Middle Class- in favor of a small Elite (<1% of total population) or Creative Class because only they can afford the souring costs of living in these cities /c/, this exodus does not prove the subTheme N5: Cities & Countries to be disintegrating. However, Richard Florida sees this trend as a very bad sign and the cause for e.g. Brexit or the election of Donald Trump. To which I agree but this is a normal evolutionary development and a clear signal that the appeal of cities is certainly not over and they still function as an efficient 'Idea Machine' /d,e/. And the exodus from these cities of large groups or the demise of some other cities is just proof of Human Behavioral Evolution at work. And so I do not share the fear of Nassim Taleb that only a small group of Americans (Richard Floridas Creative Class) will reap all the benefits of the Global Economy leaving the rest of the World forever behind /f/.

Which can also be seen from the attempt of the Indian government PURA-program initiated by the then Indian president Dr. Abdul Kalam /g/. With this program –started in 2003- the Indian government tries to bring a city like infrastructure of knowledge and schools to the 600,000 or so towns and villages where around 70% of the 1.2 billion Indians live. This however, will not make the Indian City superfluous but tries to bring the majority of the Indians into the crib of one big -nationwide- ‘City’ by giving them the modern benefits of a city: i.e. knowledge and education to use that knowledge. So the city-boundaries are stretched to encompass a full nation and this idea certainly does not try to dismantle existing cities. And on another note this program tries to circumvent the ‘inevitable’ civil war or transformative revolution (the second horse) if we are to believe Walter Scheidel /h/. Which personally I strongly do so if India is going to succeed is -in my opinion- very doubtful, but still cities will survive and probably India as a country as well only with a different Class structure then the one prevailing since c. 600 BCE /i/, i.e. the Varnas /j/.And last but not least urbanization in China is still accelerating as can be seen from the 2010 census as compared to the 2000 census /k/. In 2010 the Urban vs Rural population ratio was approx. U/R_2010 ~ 50 / 50 an increase of approx. 13% of the urban population or around 180 mln. people. Whereby in 2000 it was just U/R_2000 ~ 37 / 63 or 2/3rd of the population lived in rural areas. This phenomenal increase was necessary to enable this high-rise apartment construction work /l/. And it was so successful that the Xi Jin Ping Government is now (2017) trying to reverse this trend by means of the permit system: you can only get social (security) benefits like free Schooling for your children or Medicare if you have residency in the city or province where you apply for these services and China took care to register everybody according their age-old system that a new born is registered in the region of origin of the parents and so the majority of the Chinese is still booked as a farmer. However, it is my guess that this attempt to fight of (air) pollution in the cities of China will be in vain and the Chinese urban population will grow close to 100% even if that means that now remote rural areas are -in the long run- simply converted into cities.

/8.31.a/ 1491: New Revelations of the Americas Before Columbus, Charles C. Mann, 2nd Ed. 2011/8.31.b/ Maya sites: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Maya_sites/8.31.c/ The New Urban Crisis: How Our Cities Are Increasing Inequality, Deepening Segregation, And Failing The Middle Class-And What We Can Do About It, Richard Florida, 2017/8.31.d/ Why Innovation thrives in Cities, So Wei Pan, Nature Communications 2013/8.31.e/ Social Physics: How Social Networks Can Make Us Smarter, Alex Pentland, 2014/8.31.f/ The Black Swan: The Impact of the Highly Improbable, Nassim Taleb, 2007/8.31.g/ Indian Urban development: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Providing_Urban_Amenities_to_Rural_Areas/8.31.h/ The Great Leveler – Violence and the history of inequality from the Stone Age to the twenty-first century, Walter Scheidel, 2015/8.31.i/ The Origins of Political Order: From Prehumen times to the French Revolution, Francis Fukuyama, 2011/8.31.j/ Indian Cast System: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Varna_(Hinduism)/8.31.k/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sixth_National_Population_Census_of_the_People’s_Republic_of_China/8.31.l/ China Urbanization: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urbanization_in_China

8.32 Is Greece's or Spain's almost default a sign that N4: Countries is disintegrating?

Countries are the logical extension of Cities and therefore the question arises: should the almost default of Greece, Ireland or Spain - whom were saved by the European Union (or Germany plus a few others) - be seen in the same light as the default of Detroit (see § 8.31) ?

137 | Page

Even though Countries almost never go bankrupt - but instead force their Bondholders to accept write-downs of e.g. 90% - this is the same thing since the creditors loose a big chunk of their money and other stakeholders such as government employees loose - a part of - their income / pension and the citizens of those countries such as e.g. Argentina in the 1980s often have to pay much more taxes even though the economy is going down.

So the citizens of Greece, Ireland or Spain have to bear the burden of sometimes decades of failed politics but - on average - they can go nowhere so have to accept the hardship forced upon them and these countries will `survive` for decades to come even though the forming of the EU is a way to force single countries to accept meddling into their internal affairs as we see from Greece, Ireland or Spain as is neatly described in 'The breaking of Nations' /a/. But that is in fact the same evolutionary development from villages, cities, empires, countries to federal states / entities.

So countries like Greece, Ireland or Spain probably will not disintegrate but (slowly and uggly ;-) integrate into some larger entity.

And all the rhetoric by the leftish Greek party “Syria” after their election victory in 2015 is just to get a better deal in / with this bigger entity / EU.

/8.32.a/ The Breaking of Nations: Order and Chaos in the Twenty-First Century, Robert Cooper, 2003

8.33 What is 'Marketing' doing with the Themes Theory ?

When businesses became disentangled from (local) rulers and tried to reach for a larger market than just the nextdoor neighbor the advertisement industry got started. This was already taken up by the very first companies such as for the James Watt steam engine by the Boulton & Watt company /a/ with show case projects as e.g. in the Netherlands where Boulton & Watt build a steam engine to pump water from a polder priced well below its costs /b/ and this activity has been with us ever since thereby becoming more important over time with e.g. an annual budget spent on advertising by Apple Computer in 2010 of 690 million US$ which was just 1% of its revenues of over 65 billion in that same year /c/.

In a nutshell Marketing is trying to convince possible customers they should buy your company's product. When people do so they become part of 'your' group and before that time they were a member of one (or more) of the target groups. How do you convince people to change their allegians and than especially with the Themes Theory in mind ?

Well allthough almost everything is used to let people choose your company's product you will often see that this choice is about the feeling that people get when they buy the product and especially a feeling that they become part of 'a family' - mostly with women - or the feeling that they will become part of a 'winning' group - mostly with men -. So the Basic Theme B3: Family or the Power Themes: (B4, N1 or) C1c come into play. But other (sub)Themes are used as well. E.g. with Ben & Jerry's icecream it was about the feeling that you did something good for society (2% of sales went to community projects) so a Ben&Jerry customer belonged to the group who mind their less well off fellow city-dweller instead of just living your life with no regard for the human being, so N5: Cities&Countries comes into play. Nowadays with many companies it is that when you buy their products that you belong to the group that minds the environment which is linked to a good candidate for a Future (sub)Theme F1: 'Environmentalism' (see also § 8.38). And yet another avenue walked by e.g. Porsche is all about the feeling that you are powerful (and able to impress women) which is - of course - linked to C1a,b,c or d since all those guys (not very many women ;-) drive such a car when they want other people - and certainly competitors - to see how powerful they are.

So in fact all Basic, Next Level, Contemporary and even Future (sub)Themes are used in Marketing to help in defining your group and thereby selling your product. So we can also conclude that Marketing is a cultural phenomenon - every (sub)Theme is used - and therefore selling your product has to be and is done differently in different cultural environments.

/8.33.a/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Watt/8.33.b/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_Hoogendijk/8.33.c/ Form 10-K, Apple Inc., filed Oct. 27th, 2010

8.34 Can we explain the Millennium-hype with Themes Theory ?

In 1998 and 1999 many people in Western Governments got really worried that modern societies would break down because of its supposed dependency on computers which had been developed since the 1970s and back then did have

138 | Page

very little memory so program code and data storage was 'optimized' by representing a year by two digits: yy (instead of yyyy). And when the year 2000 would come - legacy - programs would not recognize 00 for the newest year but for the oldest /a/.

In many countries conversion programs were started e.g. in the Netherland where semi-governmental and real businesses spent a considerable effort and money to avert the problem: e.g. KLM (Royal Dutch Airline) spent some 60 million Euros but when 00:00 hours on Jan 1, 2000 came and started rolling over the globe it became immediately obvious that nothing much happened in modern societies like Japan and South-Korea so the money was completely wasted.

But why did it become a hype in the first place especially since nothing happened, not in the Netherlands, not in Europe and not in the World? And can we explain this with Themes theory?

Well as a first: only first World countries were at risk, so the Contemporary Power theme (C1) with political forces, some geopolitical -one country against the other-, some ideological (people with Anarchistic tendencies against people with Nationalistic tendencies) and some business forces -how to earn good money on this fear- can and did exploit this idea.

And on the other hand older (sub)Themes like the Next Level Theme Cities & Countries (N5) were probably at play with that people feared that the necessary interdependencies / highly divided fields of Labor for Cities & Countries to function would break down.

So there was -in first World countries- an overall fear that the ‘house of cards’ of modern society would break down. Which fear is probably always nagging at the back of our heads when we pay for a service or product with a piece of paper or credit card or we really go out of our ways by spending over 40 – 50 hours in an office every week to be paid at the end of the month with digital numbers on an account on a computer which is not even under our control. And indeed there were several persons who retreated into huts in the middle of wild forests in the US and elsewhere over a year before Jan 1, 2000 waiting for the apocalypse and blogging about their fears and experiences thereby really heating up sentiments.

/8.34.a/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Year_2000_problem

8.35 Do we need NGOs and what is the best NGO ?

Non-Governmental Organisations (NGOs) /a/ are a part of everyday war or disaster zones and even more so a part of 'normal' development programs to help third world countries to improve /b/. Why is this, why can’t Countries (N5: Cities & Countries) help each other without NGOs as a go between? And if we have to accept the existance of NGOs which one is the best measured against the Themes Theory stick ?

The neccessity of NGOs is easily explained: when a natural disaster hits a country other countries usually cannot react very quickly because most of the time all kinds of political sensitivities hinder their operability, e.g. the earthquake that hit Haiti in Jan. 2010: where the US could not immediately help on a grand scale because why would it help now when it could have helped – with the extreme poverty – long before. And in political conflicts, e.g. in the Arabic Spring uprising in Libya against Khadaffi it was not possible since many countries have ties to the sitting regime and cannot switch sides or help both sides in case of a humanitarian disaster. This political sensitivity does not hinder NGO’s which are also much faster then e.g. a neutral body like the United Nations which first has to vote on the matter.

However being quickly on the scene does not guarantee that the effort spend is allways rightly spend. It has been a known fact that many NGOs spend high percentages of 'their' money on their own bureaucracy / personnel and on local personnel on the ground who spend the money and goods within their family or extended family first and sometimes even take the money and run. So apart from the different causes: anti-political, medical, food, shelter etc. the percentage of the money really spend on the cause is a good measure for deciding which NGO is the Best.

All the causes however, fall into one or more Themes, such as: anti-political by e.g. Amnesty International in C1a: Politics and C1b: Government, medical aid by e.g. Medicins sans Frontieres in C5: Health, Care & Hygene or food by e.g. FOODAID International in B1: Food & Land. And the causes or Themes are difficult to rank be it that if a region or group of people still need aid for Basic Themes this should – in principle - have a higher priority than Next Level or Contemporary Themes. But who decides what is needed most because most disaster or war zones degenerate to the most Basic of Human existance - because of the loss of the land (B1) and a working economy (N1 or C1c & C1d) - and only when a certain percentage of the people is reinstated to their former 'Themes levels' become higher / younger Themes Levels / Eras relevant. And who decides who is reinstated first and why ? This is a political question which cannot be

139 | Page

resolved by NGOs. So this is another reason why NGOs exist, they simply start helping but sometimes have to mingle in the conflict at hand by bribing certain people to get to the needed people. And then by definition they are not rightfully spending 'their' money. So comparing NGOs by percentages of their money arriving in the hands of the needed is also quite impossible.

And for standard development aid this also applies as can be read in the book by Emma Crewe & Elizabeth Harrison: 'Whose Aid' /b/ in which they show that the success of any aid program -by GOs or NGOs alike- depends heavily on the point of view you have / who benefits. Successful programs seen from the perspective of the local community can be utterly beside the mark as seen from the perspective of e.g. the United Nations or the World Health Organization.

So the person or organisation who wants to give money to a NGO has to decide on his or her subjecctive grounds which NGO should be the benificiary and a best (Themes) cause or a most efficient NGO cannot - value free - be nominated.

/8.35.a/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-governmental_organization/8.35.b/ Whose Development: An Ethnography of Aid, Emma Crewe & Elizabeth Harrison, 1998

8.36 'Save the Economy' and how to do it.

‘The Economy’ has been the subject of many books and ideas since it was invented as a subTheme in the 17th century by the Dutch whereby then there was not much of a theory to go by except for simply observing the value of trade as e.g. Joost van den Vondel did in his rhyme: ‘Aen de Beurs van Amsterdam’ /a/.After that time theory for this new subTheme was slowly developed by e.g. Adam Smith /b/ but this theory was never a united body of ideas and was certainly not always recognized as being helpful. Take e.g. the now famous phrase for the Bill Clinton campaign in 1992: “It’s the Economy, Stupid” /c/.

In the foreword of the book: The Entrepreneurial State /d/, Carlota Perez -writer of Technical Revolutions and Financial Capital: The Dynamics of Bubble and Golden Ages- calls for Governments to 'Save the Economy' in these times of financial crises. And she points to the analysis of Mariana Mazzucato: States should fund high risk investments in R&D for e.g. green technology instead of taking austerity measures and then -when an idea / new technology starts to fly- let business take over. So in fact old fashioned Keynesian anti-cyclical stimulation of the economy. Apart from the fact that a State economy is -in principle- never lost and can only shrink or not grow, entrepreneurial action by the State can -as is shown by Mazzucato in several examples like the Internet or the iPhone- stimulate succesful (technological) developments. However, it is equally possible that the State can waist enormous amounts of money as Mazzucato gives herself examples of such as the Concorde, and Robert Allen gives several historical examples of like Japan or India in the 19th century with spinning machines /e/ and gives a clear analyses that the nowadays most powerful economic States had a head start at the beginning of the 19th century with the standard model: railways, tariffs, banks and schools, but for currently Third World countries it is almost impossible to bridge the gap.

So it is certainly not as clear cut as Perez and Mazzucato want us to believe and the recovery that is beginning to show in 2015 cannot be explained by their idea to invest in especially green technology because the US, China or India (indeed now -after two hundred years- closing the gap) did not heavily invest in green technology. Whereby Europe tries to do so but is clearly losing momentum on the World stage and e.g. the UK is showing much faster recovery than continental Europe with much less green investments.

What has Themes Theory to say about 'Saving the Economy' and how to do it ?

Well for one thing 'the modern Economy' is the most modern form of the playing field of Human group evolution and its development through (sub)Themes like: N6: Law, Economics and Taxes and C1a: Power_Politics, C1b: Power_Government, C1c: Power_Business and C1d: Power_Banks is simply evidence that the Economy does not have to / cannot be saved since it is the modern way to evolve further and will take care of itself. And when it becomes obsolete apparently we don't need it any longer for Human evolution which will -most probably- not happen very soon.

For another thing if Perez and Mazzucato mean that Europe should fight to save its economy -i.e. develop such that it stays in the top league of countries- by taking an example of the US Government high risk endeavors, they have a point but again it is not clear what exact technology or technologies the European States should bet on. And probably the European States should not choose one or more 'high risk' technologies but reform their C1a: Politics and C1b: Government subThemes along the lines of the US institutions to encourage them to take more risks, i.e. more readily act in the context of Human group evolution / competition. They will then find out what to do.

140 | Page

/8.36.a/ Aen de Beurs van Amsterdam, Joost van den Vondel, 1640-45/8.36.b/ Adam Smith; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam_Smith /8.36.c/ Bill Clinton campaign; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/It%27s_the_economy,_stupid /8.36.d/ The Entrepreneurial State: Debunking Public vs. Private Sector Myths, Mariana Mazzucato, 2014/8.36.e/ Global Economic History: A Very Short Introduction, Robert Allen, 2011

8.37 What exactly is The Economy, and does it need to be saved?

Underneath the question of the last paragraph (§ 8.36: ‘Save the Economy and how to do it’) lies the question of what The Economy’ precisely is and why should we try to save it anyway?

Economics is a relatively new subject in the social studies domain. Since the start of this domain it included (Christian) Religion and / or Law as can be seen from the founding of the first universities or the studies to become a judge in China and Natural Philosophy came much later with e.g. Galileo or Newton. Economics however, is a merger of both main domains: i.e. Social Studies and Natural Philosophy be it that I think it clearly belongs in the social domain. But what is: The Economy?

On the one hand there are economists who state that Economics is about the ultimate question: 'Life, the Universe and Everything' /a/. However, that would be too easy since the answer to that question was found to be: 42 /b/ ;-) But seriously, many economists think Economics is about Everything /c/ and show this in their research like Steven Levitt in Freakonomics /d/.

On the other hand, the Economy is the manifestation of the Trust people have in the society they live in, and ‘Trust is the expectation of continued, stable exchange value’ and 'Trust is developed by stable, frequent interactions with others' /e/. Although this seems a play with words: just trading one word for another, in fact we go from an abstract idea: The Economy to the emotional world: Trust, which is difficult to define also but at least completely cultural embedded. And therefore, we have arrived at: the Economy is a representation of the Culture -or the set of (sub)Themes lumped together- it functions in. Furthermore, the Economy is not something static but much more fluid / changing than we could imagine and although we generally treat 'the Economy' as something in an equilibrium state it was / is constantly changing /e/. Which could be one of the reasons that the 'atmosphere' in an economy can change overnight which now can be seen / shown -more or less- in real time with Big Data and Social Physics /e/ and e.g. happened when Donald Trump became president of the US. Before that moment on Jan 20, 2017 the US and The World were very much entangled in e.g. the Paris Climate Accord but after that moment things began to shift and after the withdrawal from the Paris Accord the US and Trump -in particular- is seen as something extra-terrestrial or at least as a persona non-grata as Kofi Anan once called the Climate Sceptics.

So, with an idea about / model of ‘the Economy’ we hope to be able to tell something about the Culture and its future it is embedded in. Of course, we know that this is, difficult /f/ but we try it anyway /g/. This idea was started by William Petty with his 'Political Arithmetic' /h/ posthumously published in 1690. And although lately it is even quite clear that all our macro-economic theory is faulty we keep on trying /i/. However, where macro-economic theory cannot predict much micro-economic theory sometimes really works be it -most of the time- un-expectantly / irrationally /j/.

Why do we keep on trying even though it really does not help?

Because we feel very unsecure if our culture / environment is changing /k/ or possibly on the verge of collapse /l/ since the groups we live in are our -individual- ticket to survival. A very good example of which is found in the Chinese history when the Song Dynasty (960-1279 CE) was followed by the Mongol: Yuan-Dynasty (1271-1368 CE) and then the Ming-Dynasty (1368-1644 CE). The flourishing Market Economy which arose under the Tang and Song dynasties was brutally discontinued under the Yuan and then reversed into a Command Economy under the Ming, so comparing the Chinese economy in 1381 CE and 1077 CE (of which we have very reliable numbers) we see a reduction in population size of one-third and a trade volume to less than 1/7 to 1/10 per household of what it was under the Song /m/.So, individuals want to know what short, medium and long term outlook ‘the Economy’ has and if and how it will improve before we really start an economic activity. And therefore, in recent history every country or economic region has started a Bureau of Statistics (BoSs), like the first founded by Charles Booth /n/, which helps them / the citizens to see trends and -nowadays- many, many (macro) economists to interpret these trends /i/. The trends these BoSs are looking for all relate to group or class differences, whereby a class is defined as: the economic, social and cultural capital combined a certain group has /o/.

141 | Page

Do all the statistics and consequent projections help?

Well since nowadays human survival is almost completely in the Mythical or (sub)Themes domain statistics certainly help people feel better, but in reality, the projections do not help (much) since every medium or long-term prediction is flawed (please refer to § 9.3). However, that is not a real problem since even if an Economy changes because its embedding Culture -drastically- changes, Culture itself will never disappear and so the same people can survive in a different cultural -and therefore different economic- environment. Only their position in life can -and probably- will change /n/ which is exactly why these changes do occur: societal change –mostly through something which has to do with War /p/ - is the driver for human behavioral / cultural evolution.

And this is precisely what Angus Deaton does NOT see in his book The Great Escape /q/. In this book Deaton analyses the last 250 years on two aspects: health and wealth and concludes that the development of the modern Western World / Global Economy has created much inequality which might cause a collapse of the (Western) World like what happened on Easter Island /r/ (which incidentally did not collapse but petered out). But this is a very bleak and unrealistic view: the Egyptian, Persian, Greek, Roman, Chinese, etc. societies did not collapse but were internally divided, overruled or conquered, mostly by ‘freer’ Market economies /s/. And no citizen in these once great societies demised because of their so called, collapse. This because even if we talk about ‘collapse’ this terminology is greatly exaggerated, and it takes at least decades but usually centuries -as is meticulously researched by Karl Butzer /t/- before the Power of a once mighty society has eroded that much that its citizens chose to live elsewhere. So yes, these societies disappeared over time, but their citizens lived their lives and the next generation or the ones after that simply became citizens of another society which took over or they moved to another neighboring society by themselves. And thereby the well-off classes lost their privileges -they could no longer protect their position- and a different group claimed these benefits. And this is ….: Human Behavioral Evolution at its very best.

So, if anything needs to be saved, it is democracy and the free Markets that automatically come along. Whereby it is debatable how much democracy / freedom is needed to make your citizens happy. And this is the objective of every ruler or government as was e.g. recently found by the British when they voted for a Brexit. I.e. less regulation (not the Rhineland style model) and more individual freedom (like the Anglo-Saxon style model) even though the rest of Europe seems not to understand. But if you look at the English Common Law system and notice it is very different from the Civil Law system of all the other European states, the choice becomes very logical indeed /s/. And something similar is happening with the ‘Energiewende’ in Germany. Germany had built a very reliable and rather cheap Electrical Power System with Coal, Gas and Nuclear Power Plants to supply its loads. But apparently this was / is not what the citizens want(ed) and so Angela Merkel had to adapt and proclaim the ‘Energiewende’ which is –of course- only possible because of the extreme wealth the free market economy in Germany has generated.

/8.37.a/ Economics: The User's Guide, Ha-Joon Chang, 2014/8.37.b/ The Hitchhikers Guide To The Galaxy, Douglas Adams, 1979/8.37.c/ The Economic Approach to Human Behaviour, Gary Becker, 1976/8.37.d/ Freakonomics: A Rogue Economist Explores the Hidden Side of Everything, Steven Levitt & Stephen Dubner, 2005/8.37.e/ Social Physics: How Social Networks Can Make Us Smarter, Alex Pentland, 2014/8.37.f/ The Tyranny of Numbers, David Boyle, 2001/8.37.g/ The General Theory of Employment, Interest, and Money, John Maynard Keynes, 1935/8.37.h/ William Petty: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Petty/8.37.i/ Secular Stagnation: Facts, Causes and Cures, Richard Baldwin & Coen Teulings, 2014/8.37.j/ Deaton's paradox: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angus_Deaton/8.37.k/ The Great Degeneration: How Institutions Decay and Economies Die, Nial Ferguson, 2012/8.37.l/ Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed, Jared Diamond, 2005/8.37.m/ The Chinese Market Economy 1000-1500, William Guanglin Liu, 2015/8.37.n/ Charles Booth: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Booth_(philanthropist)/8.37.o/ Social class in the 21st Century, Mike Savage, 2015/8.37.p/ The Great Leveler – Violence and the history of inequality from the Stone Age to the twenty-first century, Walter Scheidel, 2017/8.37.q/ The Great Escape: health, wealth and the origins of inequality, Angus Deaton, 2013/8.37.r/ Easter Island: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Island/8.37.s/ The Evolution of Everything: How Small Changes Transform Our World, Matt Ridley, 2015/8.37.t/ Collapse, environment, and society, Karl W. Butzer, PNAS vol. 109 no. 10, March 2012

142 | Page

8.38 Environmental movement: Global Warming & Biodiversity.

Since the beginning of the 1990s the environmental movement made large inroads into global politics especially on the subject of Man Made Global Warming which states that the rise in temperature is caused by Man Made extra produced CO2 by burning fossil fuels. This debate has seen many forms from very sophisticated scientific analyses, through fraudulent IPCC reports to downright ugly threats by e.g. Kofi Annan in 2006 in a meeting in Nairobi that Global Warming Skeptics should be treated as persona non grata.

But the debate was started by Margareth Thatcher in the mid-1980s to have an argument against coal (and thereby against the power of the National Union of Miners of Arthur Scargill) in favor of the nuclear industry. Thatcher thought that she could use this 'scientific' effect of CO2 in a highly political debate over the privatization of the coal market in England /a/. This false start made it a highly controversial subject almost from the beginning and certainly much more than a scientific debate. Had it been just that: a scientific debate it would have died in infancy because the Science behind this effect of CO2 which had been discovered by Svante Arrhenius /b/ had been dismissed by others soon after it was discovered in 1896 /c/.

But it did not end right away and every pressure group or political entity used it for its own ends not in the least the European Union to create a new way to levy taxes on its businesses (and citizens). And it was used by some countries of the West to try to curb the economic potential of what we now call the BRIC countries and e.g. it was used by the Germans to build many wind power mills in the former East Germany (DDR) to ensure a sustainable economic development of this region after the fall of the Berlin Wall because investing in something is much better than paying out unemployment benefits.

However in the current financial and credit crisis this rather inefficient spending of money is quickly becoming unsustainable so the political debate will peter out as if nothing has happened and the scientific debate will at last take the form it should have: a debate with arguments and experiments with the physics behind the phenomena as the judge. And - if I may - with the final conclusion that the Sun - directly and indirectly - is the driver - and not humans - behind Global Warming /d/.

With Biodiversity something similar happened / is happening. This debate was started at more or less the same time - the same pressure groups / new generations looking for political influence whereby for this subTheme they based themselves on E.O.Wilson /e/ who is still going strong some 25 years later /f/- but in a less scientific way because in biology the definitions of biodiversity (and related experiments) are much less well defined than phenomena in physics.

But still on a scientific level it becomes clearer over the years that it is very difficult to find species which tip the ecological balance, i.e. when they would disappear an ecological system will collapse - except maybe for bees - and therefore and because of the pressure on spending less and less money on 'nice to have things' -which is exactly what most people want to have-, this debate will peter out as well. This is - most probably - not a great thread to the existence of the human race, since e.g. we can find around 100 plants which contain already 90% of all DNA. So life is a very robust system which should be obvious since it has survived incredible onslaughts from nature and the human race is precisely the species that can adept to almost any change in the environment.

So both debates (and probably most environmental debates) - although they have been running through several contemporary subThemes like politics, government, business and banks - will end in Science & Technology where they will be decided upon with simple arguments like a risk / return ratio as long as the science is not fully settled or with a definite answer if the science is settled.

On a different level Environmentalism can be seen as a Future (sub)Theme since it certainly is a completely new way to define a group stemming from the 1960s peace movement against warring Governments within the (Cities &) Countries Theme. In this respect Environmentalism is competing with other (sub)Themes such as N5: (Cities &) Countries, C1a: Politics and C1b: Government over supremacy as can be nicely seen from e.g. the confiscation by Russia of the Greenpeace ship the Arctic Sunrise 'defending' the North Pole against Russian 'pollution' in 2013. Then Greenpeace promptly filed a complaint with the 'International Tribunal on the Law for the Sea' in Hamburg which Russia promtly did not recognize in this matter /g/ even though Russia had undersigned the treaty regulating the jurisdiction of this court /h/. So Environmentalism is really 'fighting' with all possible means against Politics & Government within the (Cities &) Countries Next Level Theme like a new biological species would do against the existing species at that moment in time.

And this fight is recognized by contemporary subThemes like e.g. Business (C1c) in that large players like Shell try to be in this camp as well with e.g. a book like Frank Niele's: Energy: Engine of Evolution /i/. In which Frank Niele shows that

143 | Page

biological evolution and cultural evolution fit seamlessly together. However his analysis that sequential energy regimes: Fire regime (food cooking: some 200 kya to 10 kya), Agrocultural regime (food growing 10 kya to 400 ya) and now the Carbocultural regime (400 ya to now) are driving shorter and shorter cultural evolutionary cycles which points in the direction of a Sustainable (energy) regime is -as I see it- taking the similarities one step too far because e.g. the Dutch golden age was fed by windpower and was clearly overtaken by the British Industrial Revolution driven by coal (i.e. the first Carbo energy carrier). And the other way around -as is now suggested- does not seem logical, certainly not with abundant and therefore cheap Carbo-energy available.

So I think it is the mix of (sub)Themes -of which we see more and more- that is -at any one moment in time- driving cultural evolution (see § 7.1) and maybe the Speed of Evolution (SE) as perceived by the competing groups (see § 5.1 and/or appendix 1).

/8.38.a/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Scargill/8.38.b/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svante_Arrhenius/8.38.c/ Man-Made Global Warming: Unraveling a Dogma, Hans Labohm c.s., 2004/8.38.d/ The Chilling Stars: A new theory of climate change, Henrik Svensmark & Nigel Calder, 2007/8.38.e/ The Diversity of Life, E.O. Wilson, 1992/8.38.f/ Half-Earth: Our Planet's Fight for Life, Edward O. Wilson, 2016/8.38.g/ Russia-Greenpeace; http://rt.com/news/russia-reaction-ship-greenpeace-207/8.38.h/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Tribunal_for_the_Law_of_the_Sea/8.38.i/ Energy: Engine of Evolution, Frank Niele, 2005

144 | Page

9. Practical Implications

9.1 What can we do with (sub)Themes Theory ?

So the development from Basic to Next Level and now Contemporary (sub)Themes is a logical evolutionary development which can 'explain' many aspects of current Human group behavior but can it be used to extend certain trends i.e. predict Future (sub)Themes ?

If we are to believe Western Science Fiction literature and / or films the Future (sub)Themes will - almost - be the same !E.g. as we might deduct from A Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy, 2001: A Space Odyssey, Dune or Star Trek and older books like 20.000 Miles under the Sea, the main (sub)Themes will still be Power helped by Religion and furthermore aided by (very) advanced Science & Technology and e.g. Health & Care.

Other Cultural regions like the Far East do not have such literature and / or films (although in 'Bollywood' India is building its own film base) from which we might conclude that their rise to power holds something different in store for the Future. However, looking into the recent history of e.g. China with Mao /a/ leads to the inevitable conclusion that under their supremacy Power will still be the main (sub)Theme probably applied differently as Religion was applied differently when the Chinese were one of the most advanced societies of the World in the 14th century however they did not oppress their way of life / religion onto the visited civilizations if we are to believe Gavin Menzies /b/. As a side note: these Chinese adventures -if they reached America or not- definitely overstressed the 15th century Chinese society and most certainly caused its ensuing breakdown. And this is probably one-to-one comparable with nature whereby on face value many animals - e.g. birds of prey - spend a great deal of time idle but if you force them to "work" much longer than they are normally capable of you find that their chances of survival decline drastically, and much greater numbers do not survive the next winter /c/.

But to me one thing stands out pretty clear: Western / Middle Eastern Religions (C2 Theme) will slowly disappear /d/ to be replaced by new forms of 'Religious systems'. For now, the known Religions reign supreme certainly if we look at their numbers: Christianity 2.2 billion and Islam 1.6 billion as the number one and two respectively /e/ however the downward trend can be seen from many current affairs like the Arabic Spring with their Islamic "backdraft" or the abdication of Pope Benedictus to help the Catholic Church adapt to the secular trends in Europe and the rise of Protestantism in South America. But by the same token this is just a (small) hiccup and these Religions will flourish for millennia to come as e.g. Daniel Dennett warns us as one possible outcome /f/ or as we have e.g. seen from the Egyptian culture which survived for 3000 years or the Chinese culture which survived for some 2000 years both through several periods under 'foreign' rule.

To make more definite qualitative or even quantitative predictions we can use e.g. a multi variable modified Lotka-Volterra model /g;h/ on Religions. This gives nice graphs (see fig. 9 below and Appendix 3) that could even be made to fit the actual past 2000 years - the total number of people is grossly overstated up to 1950 or so /i/ and is from then on probably slightly overstated - however its predictive value will still be negligible because the parameters for the differential equations are -in reality- not constant –and principally unpredictable- so that beyond the present time they would say nothing and therefore this 'Theory' - and in my opinion any other Theory for that matter - cannot predict the future.

145 | Page

Figuur 9 - Religions in Time: absolute & relative

On a more general level (model) predictions cannot be any good because of the very nature of Human behavior: it adapts to the circumstances as seen by the lumped group and tries to find / create the most favorable situation under any set of rules / power system even the most general ones as e.g. 'The Law of Peoples' as formulated by John Rawls /j/ and if this means a violation of the rules then that is what will happen. That different Humans / groups see things differently and thereby can 'bend' the rules without 'violating' them is nicely described by the French philosopher Michel Foucault in his book 'The Order of Things' /k/ in which Foucault shows that every era or every culture has a (totally) different way of looking at things which causes any model used then or now will rather sooner than later be completely beside the point because of a (major) shift in the behavior of the participants / members of the group(s) and thereby the group behavior itself.

And not even the multi-level variation selection Price-equation /l/ can make reliable predictions of Human selection behavior for the near future because defining to which phenomenon something belongs is difficult if not impossible since the 'border' of a behavioral phenomenon [(sub)Theme] is never clear cut but fuzzy /m/ and never constant under comparable circumstances which makes it difficult to express it in numbers / mathematical terms which in turn makes it difficult to put it in a mathematical model with e.g. deterministic (or stochastic) difference (or differential) equations. This last point is nicely shown in a paper by Brown et al. /n/ on the (in)famous "Positivity Ratio" in Psychology /o/. And e.g. Sherman Kent /p/ found that even professional forecasters (CIA) are not inclined to put clear ranges of chances '75% +/- 12%' to their predictions but rather stay with a term like 'probable' which is interpreted differently by different people and so very important decisions can go spectacularly wrong /q/. So professional forecasters at least know that things are very hard to define and thereby and because of very different World views and therefore YOU should not have too much confidence in numbers for describing social phenomena.

What does seem to work however, are mathematical / physics models for simple social phenomena like swarming or aggregate walking / traffic behavior /r/ or is what is called 'Social Physics' /s/ or 'Data-Mining'. In this new line of research digitalized human behavior is taken as the representation of human behavior. So even though the mapping of human behavior into the numbers domain is left to the individual and thereby certainly not a uniform / well defined affair the outcome is a digitalized dataset which can -after (subjective) interpretation- be nicely manipulated on a computer. If you do this for e.g. weight gain or political views to see if people make their own decisions or just follow the pack you find interesting things: apparently weight gain is strongly coupled to whom you often socialize with, whereby political views are much more -in a democratic society- your own thing and when these views are going to be tested / discussed -e.g. during a presidential election- you seek a social environment which reflects your views instead of you fit your political views to the social environment you live in. So explaining human behavior whereby the data is mapped or digitalized by the individual and predicting / extending a short term trend seems to work /s/ as long as the analyses are based on large datasets and people are aware that every rule in a model is -in the end- a subjective interpretation of one or a few people who wrote it /t/. However long term predictions are -of course- out of the question because the social environment in which the individuals did their mapping and the subjective model rules were formulated has by then (dramatically) changed.

Another way to visualize and give a qualitative assessment of the interaction between one (sub)Theme and another would be the use of Fitness Landscapes as introduced by Sewall Wright /u,v/ for evolutionary geno-/ phenotype interactions. However just as a more quantitative analysis works fine when the interacting 'particles' (individual bacteria / fishes) have a standard behavior and the number of 'particles' is large so 'a few' abnormal particles do not amount to any significant influence percentage wise, (sub)Themes give a rather messy picture anyway - see e.g. § 7.2 - because there are only a limited number of (sub)Themes with - by definition - rather fuzzy borders. Therefore a Fitness Landscape of (sub)Themes cannot help to 'predict' the future as well. Never mind the neat attempt by Austin Hughes in 1988 with a theory of evolution of behavioral phenotypes plasticity changing towards inclusive fitness maximization /w/ which gives a good start on explaining behavior surrounding kinship but fails to explain e.g. suicide bombers.

So quantitative / mathematical predictions of the future Human condition will amount to nothing as is nicely shown in e.g. World Modeling /x/. In this paper a simplified model: HANDY is used to give equal results to a much more refined World3 model about the course of Human societies: that is most societies develop a split between an Elite group and the rest: the Commoners and the drive of the Elite to become richer and richer will eventually starve the Commoners which will then cause the collapse of this society because the commoners produce all the goods in this society. The authors come up with examples like the Romans in Italy or the Han in China and extrapolate their fate as the fate of the Human race as a whole. And this is where this prediction is completely beside the point namely: Human history has shown that indeed civilizations may parish but the Human race does not because there is always another society which takes over since it is this new society which makes the 'old' society go under. And please note that in all such events the number of people parishing is (very) limited since people shift allegiances and simply cross over to the other society.

146 | Page

But the statement by Joseph Schumpeter that 'We are not free to choose ......' /y/ or 'The course of history is restricted by biological, ecological or economic restraints....' as formulated by Yuval Harari /z/ may be true for the individual person but is certainly not true on a group or society level for a group can create some - for that moment in time - inconceivable goal as is stipulated by the many historic examples like: Christianity (4th century CE), the Islam (8th c. CE), Banks (13th c. CE), Communism (20th c. CE) or a trip to the Moon (first Jules Verne 19th c. CE then John F. Kennedy 20th c. CE).And maybe therefore Yuval Harari more or less reversed his position in his book: Homo Deus /aa/ in which he shows that Homo Sapiens is heading for immortality, bliss and divinity as has been the goal for Humanism for the last 300 years but that this future is not carved in stone because ‘the single constant in history is that everything changes’.

/9.1.a/ MAO The Unknown Story, Jung Chang & Jon Halliday, 2006/9.1.b/ 1421: The Year China Discovered the World, Gavin Menzies, 2002/9.1.c/ Vis in bad ("Fish taking a bath"), Tijs Goldschmidt, 2014/9.1.d/ A Secular Age, Charles Taylor, 2007/9.1.e/ World Religions; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Major_religious_groups/9.1.f/ Breaking the Spell: Religion as a natural phenomenon, Daniel Dennett, 2006/9.1.g/ Lotka-Volterra; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lotka-Volterra_equation, Lotka 1910 & Volterra 1926/9.1.h/ Coupling in Predator-Prey Dynamics: Ratio dependence, Roger Arditi & Lev Ginzberg, J theor. Biol. 1989/9.1.i/ The World at Six Billion, United Nations, 1999/9.1.j/ The Law of Peoples, John Rawls, 1999/9.1.k/ The Order of Things, Micheal Foucault, 1970/9.1.l/ Price Equation; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price_equation/9.1.m/ Explaining Culture, Dan Sperber, 1996/9.1.n/ "The complex dynamics of wishful thingking: The critical positivity ratio.", Nicolas Brown et.al, American Psychologist, Dec. 2013 p. 801-813/9.1.o/ "Positive Affect and the Complex Dynamics of Human Flourishing", Barbara Fredrickson & Marcial Losada, American Psychologist, Oct. 2005 p. 678-686/9.1.p/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherman_Kent/9.1.q/ Superforecasting, Philip Tetlock & Dan Gradner, 2015/9.1.r/ Critical Mass: how one thing leads to another, Philip Ball, 2004/9.1.s/ Social Physics: How Social Networks Can Make Us Happier, Alex Pentland, 2014/9.1.t/ Weapons of Math Destruction: How Big Data increases Inequality and threatens Democracy, Cathy O’Neil, 2016/9.1.u/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fitness_landscape/9.1.v/ Evolution: The Remarkable History of a Scientific Theory, Edward J. Larson, 2004/9.1.w/ Human Evolution and Kinship, Austin L. Hughes, 1988/9.1.x/ Human-Nature Interaction in World Modeling with Modelica, Rodrigo Castro et al., March 2014 Modelica Conference, Lund, Sweden/9.1.y/ Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy, Joseph Schumpeter, 1942/9.1.z/ Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind (In Dutch), Yuval Noah Harari, 2014/9.1.aa/ Homo Deus: A Brief History of Tomorrow, Yuval Harari, 2015

9.2 Looking at Countries: their main (sub)Themes and Eras.

What are the main (sub)Themes that characterize the Countries of this World and consequently what is their main Theme Era they 'live' in. I do this analysis because it is clear that the Theme N5: Cities & Countries or with its contemporary name: Nation States will dominate the stage for the foreseeable future even though some people see this differently /a/ but others clearly do not /b/.

Because it is impossible to analyze every Country in this World I will discuss a representative subset of the 206 Countries /c/ or - to be more precise - a subset of the 193 members of the United Nations /d/.

Of the Developed or 1st World Countries with a yearly average income per capita > 40.000 US$ I will discuss:* United States: A fully developed big size Country with all the Contemporary (sub)Themes [C1 .. C8] completely matured and with clear signs of Future (sub)Themes. Because of its history the step through clans [B3:Family and N3:Power] and strong Cities and States [N5:Cities&Countries] could be bypassed thereby bypassing many 'mistakes' and emotions: like 'undemocratic' Politics or a fragmented Government. However the melting pot of all the different 'Cultures' - especially after the American Civil War which was all about the Union of the States i.e. N5: Cities&Countries, Slavery i.e. B6: Value of Life and old type economic activity i.e. C1c: Business and created a huge country which needed a great influx of immigrants - like Europeans, Blacks, Chinese or Latinos cause the US-society to be rather inhomogeneous which causes distrust and all kinds of tension, e.g. the KKK in the 1950s and 1960s. This

147 | Page

causes a mentality of everybody for him- or herself which hinders the evolution of ideas but on the other hand the competitive nature of US-Businesses which picks up every true (Government led or otherwise) innovation causes many (business) avenues to be explored as becomes clear if we compare the US to other countries.* Germany* Netherlands

Of the Developed or 1st World Countries with a yearly average income per capita > 30.000 US$ I will discuss:* Great Britain* France* Spain

Of the Developed or 1st World Countries with a yearly average income per capita > 20.000 US$ I will discuss:* Israel* Saudi Arabia* Russia

Of the Developing or 2nd World Countries with a yearly average income per capita > 10,000 US$ :* Hungary* Turkey* Brazil

Of the starting to Develop Countries with a yearly average income per capita > 1,000 US$* Mexico* China: The oldest country in the World with very characteristic features because of its history. (More or less) united for over 2200 years and therefore clear signs of all Next Level (sub)Themes could still be seen until very recently. Agriculture & Land (N1): What the civil war and communist takeover did with the millennia old feudal system did the cultural revolution with the intelligentsia in the -still- ‘medieval’ cities and then the big shift in policy by Deng Xiao Ping started China on a path of modern (industrial) development. And although the cultural revolution (1966-1976) was a reactionary move back to the old -Next Level Era- ways the result was that the small but centuries old intelligentsia was forced to give up its position and get re-educated in the country which freed up the way for the new intelligentsia able to adapt to modern industrial life. And agriculture became (much) less prominent. So a shift from N1 to C4: Science & Technology.Belief & Medicine (N2): Confucianism and Buddhism rule(d) supreme until very recently because the Contemporary Era religions like Christianity and the Islam were a too great deviation from the cultural / (sub)Themes mix that was already in place when they were created and started spreading. And although the Islam was able to get a foothold all over China it never became larger than a small percentage and Christianity was and is probably geographically too far away. And medicine is still very much in the grip of the traditional ways. Even in 2017 you see traditional pharmacies in luxury Mall’s stuffed with modern products like computers, phones and clothes. So people still believe in their millennia old ways.Power distribution & individual rights (N3): the old feudal system was dispensed of after the first World War but it lingered on until communist takeover and then was replaced by the communist party whereby e.g. Mao was leaning towards e.g. the highly centralized Ming dynasty for cultural heritage and not towards e.g. the Song dynasty with its Agrarian Market economy. So the differences in Power distribution and (the absence of) individual rights as compared to e.g. the West is great. In China the government can make the Three Gorges Dam and relocate 2 million people without much opposition whereas the development of a motorway or airport in Western countries like Germany or the Netherlands takes decades because a small number of people oppose them and they live on a (small) plot needed for the development of this infrastructure. And another example is the One Child Policy after 1979 to be able to feed the population. This caused 400 mln. Babies not to be born. Unthinkable in the West or even India but no so in ‘modern’ China.Division of Labor (N4): Even now the official registration of occupation is restricted to: farmer, worker and government official, even though the young generation do work like: tour guide, PHP backend programmer or electronics engineer. This reflects the old China very clearly with warriors, farmers, laborer’s and officials. And this administrative simplicity is holding back development since e.g. the One Child policy was meant for workers not for farmers. So farmers could and can have more than one child which causes the businesses in the cities to hire farmers with possibly less qualifications than people from the city.Cities & Countries (N5): the recent building boom in cities to house the many people trekking from the country side to the city is changing the character of this Next Level subTheme considerably. Cities used to be more medieval than anything else and were thereby unable to help in the modernization of the Chinese society. But if you look now in e.g. Beijing, Shanghai or even Hong Kong almost all ‘Hutongs’ (= Shanty towns) have been raised to the ground and high rise offices and apartment blocks have been built instead. And all around the 1st (>20 mln), 2nd (>10 mln) and 3rd (>5

148 | Page

mln.) tier cities satellite cities or ‘villages’ (still several 100,000 people) are being and have been build. And between and inside all those clusters /e/ a large network of high speed trains has been put into operation to allow for quick and easy travel which creates -exponential- growth /f/. So now this subtheme has caught up with Western cities and in many cases already surpassed them.Law, Economics & Taxation (N6): With its very long history these N6 subThemes could be cause for concern since every entity in World history had its own way(s) to deal with the rights of its citizens. And those systems were leveled in / or after their respective Era. For China it is clear that the World looked totally different in 200 BCE -when the first Emperor united China- than now which difference can still be seen in current day China since a very capitalistic economy can function under a still communist political system. Which is something unthinkable elsewhere but although there must be still many outdated laws in place, apparently the system works for the Chinese. So the evolutionary grown system of Laws /g/ can apparently function without (many) total turnovers -Wars- as Walter Scheidel has found to be the only way to change things /h/. Or it is that the Cultural Revolution was so devastating that this one civil War was enough to change the system forever, for which -indeed- there is much proof.Philosophy, Science, Games & Sports (N7): Again because the Chinese society is very old clear remnants of the past can be found in its Philosophy, Science, Games & Sports. These were and still are quite different from the subThemes developed in the West. Of course since the religious beliefs are much more Pagan / practical, e.g. houses were built with outside walls to keep the ghosts outside, medical ‘surgery’ like acupuncture is still very common, board Games like Mahjong are descendants from e.g. ‘the Royal game of Ur’ but in a totally different way and Sports never developed like something similar to the Greek Sports. The last Emperor played tennis but his predecessors played totally different sports. Of the people -in most era’s- the warriors practiced martial arts like Kung Fu and the commoners were toiling to stay alive. Except in the Tang and Song dynasties where a much greater part of society had leisure time but only when the communists opened up the Chinese society after 1979 and commoners rose (again) above the level of subsistence did Western sports became something of the general public and now you see that China excels at many branches.

And of course this is a sign that China has -at last- entered the Contemporary Era with its (sub)Themes:Power Politics (C1a): The communist party is a one party system but it has its democratic institutions like the general assembly. Different from the Western system, yes, but nevertheless the Power lays with the people and there is a more or less open system of reckoning. And that it is different was clearly shown at the 19th National Congress of the Communist Party of China /h/ where a new party doctrine from Xi Jinping: ‘Xi Jinping Thought on Socialism with Chinese Characteristics for a New Era’ was Mao style unanimously accepted by the delegates. Even though it is quite clear to Xi Jinping himself and many Chinese think that a centralized economy is a delicate thing and people should have a certain amount of freedom to make it work. But maybe this acceptance of the will of the group over the will of the individual stems from the different genetic background of Asian Homo Sapiens by interbreeding with Denisovians and not Neanderthals as with European Homo Sapiens /i/.Power Government (C1b): Government is very centralized, like it always was. So this subTheme has not changed much. Officials have much power and corruption is rife. Probably because the ‘distances’ between the Power subThemes are to short (please see § 7.3.20). However there are regional differences –or regional Kingdoms / ‘Thiefdoms’- and there regional Government officials rule the waves. And e.g. the law is much less independent compared to the West. However people accept this as a fact of life and when e.g. an upper neighbor has a waterflood because the drainage system does not work properly, affected downstairs neighbors with heavy damage to the furniture do not go to court or a lawyer but settle through ‘extended’ family ties, e.g. my father knows the brother of the father of this upstairs neighbor.Power Business (C1c): Still highly centralized with that (local) Government –in principle still- decides which factory may produce what and every business –even with a listing on the Shanghai Stock Exchange- depends heavily on this system. However some real competition arises because of regional differences and the public whom want Western goods. So if there is a Chinese car manufacturer like BYD it has to compete with BMW, Mercedes, Audi, Lexus and for the real high end cars with Porsche, Ferrari and e.g. Maserati. So BYD has to adept to consumer wishes. And e.g. all the High Tech companies / applications of the West like: Google, Facebook, Amazon, WhatsApp, Wikipedia are mostly inaccessible and have Chinese counterparts but because of the Western examples have to keep up with functionality and they do. Often even outperforming their Western equivalent like WeChat or Alibaba.Power Banks (C1d): Although banknotes / paper money is a Chinese invention from the Tang and Song dynasties /j/, modern Chinese banks have given rise to some curious situations: e.g. when people buy a house in one of the booming cities they can get a mortgage with a bank. And because the terms on which one can get a mortgage are flexible many people get a mortgage which drives up the prices of apartments and so they see an easy gain and buy a second mortgaged house often exceeding their buying power or even their total income. But then the banks do not foreclose the houses even when the payments on the mortgages are not payed because: 1) that would pop the bubble but 2) that would be against the interest of the government -and every bank is State owned- since they were chosen by the very same people that are gambling in this way. So the boom in China is clearly visible and according to Western standards instable (like the financial crisis). But if this boom will collapse is questionable because there are no clear cut differences of interests between groups / Power subThemes which could be a clear sign of corruption which is indeed rife if you are to believe tour guides or taxi drivers.

149 | Page

Religion (C2): Because of its very early formation as a State -before modern religions like Christianity and the Islam emerged and could get a foothold- China is still very much in the Next Level Theme: Belief and Medicine (N2) and not so much in this contemporary Theme: Religion. And therefore China does not have a zealous goal like conquering the World and converting every conquered people to its State Religion because it has none. You see Buddhist and Taoist Temples everywhere but you are not forced to convert to any of these Beliefs since especially Buddhism teaches: be happy. And e.g. Confucianism gives you rules to lead an honest life /k/ but again does not force you to do so.So the latest Western fear that China will rule the waves is greatly exaggerating this trend. Yes China will -together with India- rule the waves for probably centuries to come but not in a Western way that the West has to convert to some other Religion or way of living. The Chinese society will simply benefit from its hegemony in financial terms but that’s it: no Inquisition, Holy Wars or repressive Sharia.Health, Care & Hygiene (C3): As with Religion China is still very much in the Next Level Theme: Belief and Medicine (N2). You see e.g. in the middle of a hiper modern shopping street or mall a traditional pharmacy doing good business, and it must be said: many treatments do help. And you see e.g. a mixture of the two views: traditional Chinese and modern Western medicine with the Nobel prize for Tu Youyou in 2015 for a Malaria medicine /l/. And with Care & Hygiene China is catching up quickly where the were -of course- millennia ahead of the West with sewer systems, toilets and baths.Science & Technology (C4): Although some people want us to believe that it was a visit from the Chinese admiral Zeng He to Venice in 1434 what started the Western Enlightenment /m/ it is absolute clear that many modern technologies started in China centuries before the West /n/ started to recover from the influence of ancient Rome and following Catholicism after the Egyptian, Persian and especially early Greek developments on the path of Science & Technology.However having said that it is also clear that modern China only started very recently on the path of modern Science & Technology, i.e. 1979 since before that time even communists / Chairman Mao strived to use as simple as possible technologies for e.g. farming /o/. So it has been a bumpy road but now China is rapidly catching up and surpassing the West with many of the Western technologies: electronics, the internet, electrical power system, space program and e.g. high speed trains and t will probably come up with its own inventions -again- soon since many Nobel prize winners are Chinese nowadays. So China is using this very important contemporary Theme to its full potential at last and reaping the benefits. Education (C5): Apart from the Greeks the Chinese were probably the very first society with a schooling system and formal exams /p/. And next to education for the aristocrats quite early the masses could get educated e.g. at the Hundred Schools of Thought founded and run by Confucianists (500 BCE). These schools -and schools before them- taught The Six Arts: Rites, Music, Archery, Charioteering, Calligraphy and Mathematics /q/. And men who mastered these arts were so called ‘perfect gentlemen’ and earned significantly better than non-educated men. So in this respect the Chinese society has been a meritocracy for a very long time. And although in contemporary times during the Cultural Revolution (1966-1976) there was an enormous set back with Mao sending all intellectuals -especially teachers- to the countryside to be re-educated and so effectively shutting down the school system and e.g. forbidding children of intellectuals to go to school at all, this lost generation pushed their children to do exceptionally well at school from the 1990s onward. So now primary school (age: 6-11) and middle school (12-14) -both provided for by the State- teach children the basics in reading, writing, counting and -of course- how silk is made but especially how to behave, i.e. how to live in a group. But then at high school (15-18) -all privately paid- the teenagers are put in a pressure cooker and they have to learn from 8 am to 10 pm to do as good as possible on the exams to enter the best universities in China or abroad. And this very non-Western approach is noticeable in e.g. the streets of China where you see very few teenagers.Sports (C6): As can be seen from the school curriculum of the ancient schools it is clear that sports made an integral part of (cultural) life. And e.g. an early form of football: cuju was recorded to be played as early as the Qin dynasty /r/ as an exercise for the military. But widely played in the Tang and Song dynasties. And in modern times China is fast catching up in e.g. the number of medals in the Olympic Games, especially since 2008 when China hosted the Olympic Summer games.Entertainment & Art (C7): In contemporary times these subThemes are exquisitely represented in China’s cities. And since the internal market has risen to phenomenal proportions the level of entertainment is almost unsurpassed. E.g. in Hangzhou on the West Lake China created in 2016 an incredible show with light, dance, water and music with parts of many famous entertainment shows like Swan Lake, first for the visiting World leaders of the G20 Summit but then continued this show for the general public. And for the subtheme: Art, the new Well to do and Elite strata within China’s society have sparked an enormous demand for Art such that in many Mall’s you see one or more art shops / galleries where artists help the general public to develop their skills in whatever art-form and sell their art. This is quite unlike the West where an artist works alone and then tries to sell the products through a gallery or other channel.News & Information (C8): Unlike many countries in the West every News or Information channel in China is controlled by the State / Communist Party. This looks very dictatorial and e.g. Google had to adept to this ‘whish’ by shutting off every search request from within China on e.g. ‘Tiananmen Square’ but apparently the Chinese people can live with this restrictive policy. On the one hand China’s Google: WeChat, is different and on the face of it more like Whatsapp but unlike Whatsapp allows the Chinese to look up and exchange an enormous amount of information as the West does with search engines like Google, Bing or Yahoo. And on the other hand even though e.g. officially Mao is still revered, many

150 | Page

people can and will point at the great flaws his policies had on the Chinese society. So not even the Chinese Communist Party can stop the spread of what really happened during the Cultural Revolution. So indeed this Contemporary Theme is very much different when compared to the Western equivalents however every modern social media is used and -in the end- apparently people are able to find the information they want or need.

* India

And last but not least of the Underdeveloped or 3rd World Countries with a yearly average income per capita < 1,000 US$ :* Bangladesh* Rwanda: A very young country which had - like most of the African Countries - its borders forced upon it in the 20th century. Before that 'Rwanda' had a very strong clan structure [B3:Family which evolved into N3:Power with strong rulers] but certainly not strong Cities with Agriculture around them [no N5:Cities&Countries with N1:Agriculture]. The missing fabric of developed Cities in an established Country played into the hands of the clan-forces which led to the genocide of 1994.Contemporary Themes like C1c:Business, C3:Health,Care&Hygiene, C4:Science&Technology or C5:Education are still in their infancy.* Haiti

For the above descriptions I pulled the information mostly from Wikipedia /g/ and compared it to (statistical) data as shown in Appendix 2.

/9.2.a/ The Breaking of Nations: Order and Chaos in the Twenty-First Century, Robert Cooper, 2003 /9.2.b/ The Entrepreneurial State: Debunking Public vs. Private Sector Myths, Mariana Mazzucato, 2014/9.2.c/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states/9.2.d/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_General_Assembly/9.2.e/ Supersized cities: China's 13 Megalopolises, Economist Intelligence Unit, 2012 /9.2.f/ Exponential growth: https//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exponential_growth /9.2.g/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/<Name_of_Country>/9.2.h/ 19th CCPC; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/19th_National_Congress_of_the_Communist_Party_of_China/9.2.i/ Svante Pääbo; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svante_Pääbo /9.2.j/ Banknote; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banknote/9.2.k/ The Authentic Confucius. A Life of Thought and Politics, Annping Chin, 2007/9.2.l/ http:/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_Youyou/9.2.m/ 1434: The Year a Magnificent Chinese Fleet sailed to Italy and Ignited the Renaissance, Gavin Menzies, 2007/9.2.n/ Timelines of Science, Patricia Fara et al., 2013/9.2.o/ MAO The Unknown Story, Jung Chang & Jon Halliday, 2006/9.2.p/ Education in China; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_education_in_China/9.2.q/ Six Arts; http://en.wikipedia.org/Six_Arts /9.2.r/ Cuju; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuju

9.3 Looking into the Future.

9.3.1 On prediction.

Since we developed a non-cyclical Worldview –with the Old Testament- very many utterances have been about the future. In more or less every society since that change there were people who were occupied with predicting the future like the priestesses of Delphi in the ancient Greek society /a/.

And every group or society used its most newest ideas / (sub)Themes to predict the future since that is, apart from the immediate threat of death by a very angry opponent, fire or the next meal –for which we have all kinds of prewiring in our brains- the most important aspect of human existence.

The more or less immediate and more personal threats have always been ‘predicted’ by shamans /b/. But the more impersonal / distant and non-cyclical future by more rationally inclined thoughts as were expressed in Delphi with the power of word riddles, by Pythagoras with the power of pre-calculus math or contemporary ‘economic’ developments with the power of calculus or (very) sophisticated math and / or physics /c/ and –of course- everything in between, like this book ;-)

151 | Page

That those predictions have to appeal to something of the past or present is clear from the many history books that have been written about Power (Politics, Government, Business or Banks) or Religion and even most popular fiction books have these aspects of life as their subject, compare e.g. the books by Dan Brown. And the predictions of (immediate) doom clearly appeal to something of the present since they often appeal to the fear for the loss of the Basic (sub)Themes like ‘your Life’ or ‘your Offspring’ or the loss of the Next Level (Sub)Themes like organized Food supply or your Village / City / Country or the loss of Contemporary (sub)Themes like the loss of the modern Power structure you live in or lately the World you live in by e.g. Global Warming.

So many people have tried to say something ‘useful’ about the future.

In this paragraph I will discuss several books with predictions to see what we can learn from them and to see where they fit into Themes Theory.

Some of the Western classics are: ‘Utopia’ by Thomas Moore, ‘The New Organon’ by Francis Bacon, ‘Leviathan’ by Thomas Hobbes, ‘An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of The Wealth of Nations’ by Adam Smith or ‘Das Kapital’ by Karl Marx or ‘Paris in the Twentieth Century’ by Jules Verne. These books have proven their value because they appealed to one or -usually- more Basic, Next Level or Contemporary (sub)Themes. From which we immediately see that predicting a path / trajectory for a ‘Western’ society only started after the Roman Christian Church lost its monopoly on thoughts about how to live.

In his book Utopia Thomas Moore discusses e.g. the Basic Theme Family (B3), the Next Level Theme Cities & Countries (N5) and the Contemporary subTheme Government (C1b). Francis Bacon discusses the Contemporary Themes Science & Technology (C4) -then only just starting- and modern Education (C5) then also still in its infancy. Adam Smith discusses the Next Level Theme Cities & Countries (N5) and the Contemporary Power subThemes Politics & Government (C1a & C1b). And Karl Marx discusses the Contemporary Power subThemes Business & Banks (C1c & C1d) and tries to influence the Contemporary Power subThemes Politics & Government (C1a & C1b). Whereby Jules Verne -in 1863- describes almost exclusively the possible products of Science & Technology (C4) about 100 years into the future with an eerie accuracy with e.g. glass skyscrapers, air conditioning, TV, elevators, high-speed trains, gasoline powered automobiles, fax machines, and even something like the Internet /d/. This book: ‘Physics of the Future’ by Michio Kaku shows -in my opinion- that it is much more simple to extrapolate the hard sciences than the soft sciences / behavior because the latter can -within social boundaries- go anywhere whereas the former is hard bounded by the laws of physics.

However, in the East the more distant future was not discussed –probably because Buddhism and Hinduism are a more natural extension of Pagan Beliefs with more cyclical Worldviews- just the immediate and mostly personal future with traditional methods like offerings or fortune tellers and the somewhat more modern methods like horoscope’s that appeal to these cultures.Please note that even modern Western Scientists like Newton spent more time on alchemy and horoscopes then on the “Principia of Natural Philosophy”. So it is our nature to think cyclical which is natural because of the cyclical nature of Day & Night, the phases of the Moon or the yearly Seasons.

A very good book on -short term- predictions is: Superforecasting by Philip Tetlock /e/. In it Philip Tetlock tells about several decades of research for verified predictions: he coined the term: “just as good as a dart throwing chimpanzee" and he comes up with a very compelling story about who / what type of person can really do it and how. He does not tell however, why forecasting social phenomena can be done and why e.g. modelling -like physics- do not work. About which I can now add that since social phenomena are -in the long run at least /f/- moldable events, i.e. all social phenomena are events within Myths / (sub)Themes -as we saw in this book-, you can guess at how likely they will occur and even more so if you consult / think about other people perspectives, which is exactly what Superforecasters do all the time /e/.

So forecasting is not really difficult but it is hard work outside your comfort zone and that is something most people do not like since it involves thinking with system 2 /g/. And especially public figures like top economists or advisors to governments tend to claim to be certain where this -in reality- is completely impossible.

The most dramatic of which was the need of eugenics -society should not be mild to the weak and/or poor- to protect the West against degeneration as it came to be by Malthusian thinking /h/ but really took off through the combination with evolutionary thinking and eugenicists and top advisors like Francis Galton or Leonard Darwin (son of Charles) directly or indirectly influenced people like: Lord John Russell (British Prime Minister around 1840), Benjamin Disraeli, Theodore Roosevelt, Winston Churchill and e.g. Adolf Hitler and this led to the Irish potato famine in 1840 whereby available food was not distributed by the English and laws like the Poor Law in 1834 in England, and almost to marriage

152 | Page

laws in England around 1920 trying to forbid the weak and poor to marry, the Immigration Act in 1924 in the US, forced sterilization laws in 30 US states -especially California- in the 1930 & 1940s and -of course- to the Nazi WW II concentration camps as is aptly described by Matt Ridley in ‘The Evolution of Everything’ /i/. And Malthusian thinking directly led to the environmental movement we now see everywhere, which -exactly like the eugenics movement in its time- one cannot objectively ask questions let alone criticize at the risk of being ostracized.

So strong predictions are not only always wrong but often also trying to build Myths that can be very undemocratic and thereby very dangerous to the lives of a great many people as nowadays the idea that we should live in close contact with nature like the small farmer of the 19th century CE and not use mass produce food and products, which is a ‘direct’ death penalty for millions and millions of people! But I am sure this book will not be read because of this prediction :-(

But maybe this is too bleak a prediction since Steven Pinker in his book ‘Enlightenment Now’ /j/ shows that as opposed to all the anecdotic rhetoric we see and hear in the daily news about future catastrophes we are about to face unless we agree to less wealth, less science, more nature and more spirituality in fact the lives of everybody have improved tremendously since the start of the Enlightenment in 18th century England with more science, less nature and less religiousness.

/9.3.1.a/ De antieke wereld: Het oude Egypte, Het oude Griekenland en Het oude Rome, teleac, 1981/9.3.1.b/ The Archaeology of Shamanism, Neil Price (Ed.), 2001/9.3.1.c/ Jan Tinbergen: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jan_Tinbergen/9.3.1.d/ Physics of the Future. The Inventions That Will Transform Our Lives, Michio Kaku, 2011/9.3.1.e/ Superforecasting, Philip Tetlock & Dan Gardner, 2015/9.3.1.f/ Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy, Joseph Schumpeter, 1942/9.3.1.g/ Thinking: Fast and Slow, Daniel Kahneman, 2011/9.3.1.h/ Thomas Malthus; http://en.wikipeda.org/wiki/Thomas_Robert_Malthus/9.3.1.i/ The Evolution of Everything. How Small Changes Transform Our World, Matt Ridley, 2015/9.3.1.j/ Enlightenment NOW: The Case for Reason, Science, Humanism, and Progress, Steven Pinker, 2018

9.3.2 Books with predictions.

Modern books do the same as the early Western classics, i.e. discuss one or more (sub)Themes as their main trajectory, as I will now show by several modern books about the future:

A) The Future of Industrial Societies by Clark Kerr

The main theme of this book /A1/ is: Convergence or 'continued' Diversity, especially in the age of Industrialism. Then in 1983 -with the Iron Curtain- a very important issue. Convergence should be interpreted as: are societies -especially Communism and Capitalism- going to be comparable or the opposite: will they continue to stay (so) different. Kerr arranges this question around 'Laws of Motion': i.e. 'inevitable' courses of development.

The book starts with an historical overview of the most important futurists of the industrial age rewritten in form of a Law of Motion as Kerr sees their predictions: Henri Saint-Simon (~1830): Convergence on Christian industrialism; all societies will become industrialized, when so these societies will be governed by 'an educated elite' and this will be the end stage in which morality would be governed by Christian philosophy.Karl Marx (~1850): Convergence on Communism; socialism: everybody is equal, is only the first stage, Communism: no-one owns more than anybody else is the second and last stage.Friedrich von Hayek (~1930): Convergence on Capitalism: centralized economic planning cannot work. Capitalism will bury Socialism and the economic 'war' will continue forever with a dualism whereby these societies will either be governed by the impersonal discipline of the Market or a small group of individuals, i.e. dictators.Jan Tinbergen (~1950): Convergence on the optimum: by trial and error the same solutions will be found to the same societal problems be it in Capitalism or Socialism. So a State plan economy and a Market driven economy will -in the end- reach the same end stage through cost / benefit evaluations. This -of course- is completely in line with Tinbergen’s doctural thesis with Paul Ehrenfest "The minimization problem in Physiscs and Economics".Bertrand Russell and others (~1960): Convergence on the pragmatic: there is not one best way but the basic test is results, which societal model gets the best results will win. And this is situational, so in one era a different model wins than in another. Clark Kerr et al. (~1960): Convergence on pluralistic industrialism: Industrialism has a logic of its own, mamagement and labor in business and government have to succumb to this -system independant- logic. Kerr saw the evolution of the

153 | Page

work force come to accept the economic structure. So groups and group interests play a major part along with the State. A sort of tripartite -State, Management and Labor- will develop with multiple sharing of power in a diversity of economic arrangements.

On another axes Kerr divides the theories of Convergence into Key aspects:Bureaucracy and Rationalism: e.g. Max Weber sees Bureaucracy become the superior form of administration based on technological know how and modern business methods.Planning: e.g. John Kenneth Galbraith sees planning to become the convergence point for large organizations, be it corporations or government.Management: e.g. Peter Drucker sees management as the new ruling group in society. Its policies and principles determine to a large degree the character of a society. And David Graninck sees a clear convergence between capitalistic management becoming political and socialistic management becoming professional.

In the remainder of the book Clark Kerr first analyses whether and in what segments of society you see trends on Convergence: knowledge, mobilization of production resources, organization of production, patterns of work, patterns of living and patterns of distribution of economic rewards and where you don't see them: economic structure, political structure and patterns of belief. He divides this into:

1) the “Near Future of Industrial Societies” and analyses Forces for Convergence: a) pursuit of modernization, b) competition, c) education & communication and d) common human needs & expectations and Forces for continued Diversity: a) historical points of origin, b) different industrializing elites, c) conflicting ideologies and d) contrasting goals, diverse beliefs.What he certainly does not foresee is the collapse of the communist Block. There are some hints but that's it. Which in my opinion proves how difficult it is the look predictably into the future. And

2) the “New Stage of History” in which he analyses in what ways the more distant developments might go.In this last chapter Kerr paints several Scenario’s: a) continued economic growth, b) slow-down, c) economic decline, d) mixed directions, e) superpowers handicap themselves and f) the importance of small differences.In this chapter Kerr hints at evolutionary developments: ‘mixed directions’ and ‘importance of small differences’ and he hints at other influences [(sub)Themes] than just economical. However in the end he thinks it all revolves around economic development: growth / no growth, which might be true but not necessarily in economic wealth.

Kerr cannot conclude on his main question: Convergence or continued Diversity. He can only point at trends and he foresees that economics and its ideologies: Capitalism and Socialism might be replaced by new ideologies which in some cases put emphasis on other aspects of life, i.e.: a) production, b) distribution, c) environmental protection, d) glorify the past and e) counterculture.

In conclusion Clark Kerr more or less ‘finds’ the same thing as e.g. Charles Booth /A2/ did find. I.e. you cannot model society in numbers as economists always try to do and extend those number-series into the future. This is only possible on a scenario basis but then you cannot tell which scenario will –in the near future- become true and all scenarios are completely beside the point for the more distant future because of the Black Swans (Statistical Outliers) always flying somewhere in the sky /A3/.

Seen from a Themes Theory point of view you see that the recent historical ‘clairvoyant’ / superforecasters /A4/ persons each use one or two of the Contemporary (sub)Themes besides Government & Business. E.g. Friedrich von Hayek whom based his ‘Capitalism will bury Socialism’ on the free Market –i.e. Politics & Government- and hard-core Business or Clark Kerr himself with ‘management in pluralistic Industrialism’ which is based on Government & Business in conjunction with Science & Technology. So all these predictions do not add a new or other idea to what will happen to Homo Sapiens in the future but are as a predictions in fact pretty good /d/.

P.S. Clark Kerr (1911-2003) was as an academic administrator and surprisingly quite controversial for his liberal stance during the student protests in the sixties in the USA / California /A4/.

/9.3.2.A1/ The Future of Industrial Societies, Clark Kerr, 1983/9.3.2.A2/ Charles Booth: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Booth_(philanthropist)/9.3.2.A3/ The Black Swan: The Impact of the Highly Improbable, Nassim Taleb, 2007/9.3.2.A4/ Clark Kerr: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clark_Kerr

154 | Page

B) The End of History and the Last Man by Francis Fukuyama

In 1992 this landmark work /B.1/ attracted much attention. In it Francis Fukuyama /B.6/ predicted that every country / society would in the end have a liberal democracy since all great other political systems had failed or were about to do so, i.e. Colonialism, Dictatorialism, Fascism, Socialism or Communism and everything in between.

History had –after the fall of the Iron curtain- proved itself to be unidirectional and therefore universal and no country or society could escape the final stage: liberal democracy. This because the rise of Natural Sciences and Industrial Revolution in the 16th & 17th and 19th & 20th century respectively forced every society to follow the path of industrialization for 1) Military - and 2) Economic reasons.

That the World proved to be less predictable Fukuyama writes himself in his more recent works: 'The Origin of Political Order' /B2/ and 'Political Order and Political Decay' /B3/ in which he presents a theory of political development with six elements: three Institutions: 'The State', 'The Rule of Law' and 'Accountability' and three Dimensions of development: 'Economic Growth', 'Social Mobilization' and 'Ideas / Legitimacy'. But this development is no longer predictable and / or unidirectional as he himself more or less states with statements like: 'evolution of political systems'. And -as we know- evolution is -in the long run- unpredictable (please refer to e.g. § 9.4) even Natural Evolution, let alone Behavioral Evolution. But Behavioral Evolution is restricting: in the medium run a country or society cannot go it alone, even though some countries like North Korea, Saudi Arabia or the Islamic State try to do just that.

In one respect, Myth or Theme though, I think that history has proved itself to be really unidirectional: on average the individual life of Humans is improving all over the course of (pre-) history whereby it does not matter from what perspective or what cultural background you look at it. This is largely caused by the exponential development of Natural or Myth-independent Sciences (please refer to the Contemporary Theme C4: Science & Technology in § 6.2.4) which itself is caused by the development potential of ever more people living together: i.e. living in larger and larger groups. So everybody in every culture or society wants a 'better' & 'longer' life (on Earth that is !) and this sets the stage for a rather uniform development path in the structure of societies with the result that any society must in some way or the other be 'liberal' since that is the only way to give everybody -who wishes to be part- a piece of the highly interdependent 'cake' of scientific knowledge.

In 'the End of History' Fukuyama quite often refers to a book by Samuel Huntington: Political Order in Changing Societies /B4/ published in 1968 which contains many ideas Fukuyama agrees with but also differs with in important ways. E.g. the relative stability in many developing countries at that moment in time (1968) even though they lack or have only weak Institutions. According to Fukuyama this was -at the time- caused by the relative short time they had been freed from the joke of Colonialism and not because they were indeed stable as Huntington thought they were. However, this critique is with hindsight just like Fukuyama's change in stance since 1992 and voiced in 'The Origin of Political Order' /B3/ or 'Political Order and Political Decay' /B4/. And has been countered by Huntington himself in e.g. 'The Clash of Civilizations' /B5/ in 1996. So the debate looks more like a clash of Myths created by Huntington and Fukuyama themselves (to sell more books ? ;-)

/9.3.2.B1/ The End of History and the Last Man, Francis Fukuyama, 1992/9.3.2.B2/ The Origin of Political Order, Francis Fukuyama, 2011/9.3.2.B3/ Political Order and Political Decay, Francis Fukuyama, 2014/9.3.2.B4/ Political Order in Changing Societies, Samuel Huntington, 1968/9.3.2.B5/ The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order, Samuel Huntington, 1996/9.3.2.B6/ https//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Fukuyama

C) Management Challenges for the 21st Century by Peter Drucker

In this book /C1/ –written in 1999- Peter Drucker /C6/ extends trends he has seen in his lifelong work as a management consultant. Those trends and his conclusions are not very shocking but mostly very well to the point. This book is not about (macro) economics although it discusses both: government- & business-managerial problems already piling up at the turn of the century. With the power of 15 years of hindsight it turns out that Peter Drucker was rather good at extending trends.

In Chapter 1 Peter Drucker defines the New Management Paradigms for the 21st century:

155 | Page

I) Management is confined to Businesses and does not belong in Government. Drucker shows that this was never true and will certainly not be true in the 21st century.II) That there is only one correct way to organize a certain organization. This idea was false from the beginning at the end of the 19th century and will become an anachronism more and more. (Management) structures should be flexible in order to adept to the ever changing -societal- tasks an organization has to fulfil in the course of its existance.III) That there is only one way to manage people. Either you do it by theory X: people dislike work and are lazy or by theory Y: people like work and are in general creative and seek responsibility, whereby theory Y is preferable as was shown by e.g. Douglas McGregor or Peter Drucker himself. However shortly after this dichotomy was described Abraham Maslow showed how wrong it was with his motivational pyramid /C2/. Money is not the one and only motivator for work but the remunerations of people who have the most value for the organization -the specialists- should get 'enough' certainly compared to the management who are dependant on them.IV) Technologies and their usage are fixed. The more the global economy develops the faster technologies change and the more diverse uses are 'invented'. So Technologies and their usage are not fixed.V) Management-responsibility is dictated by Law. Because an organization has more non-customers than customers management responsibility reaches far beyond the scope of the organization.VI) Management-responsibility is politically bounded. Since organizations have to work –more and more- in a global market, management has to deal with multiple political systems and therefore ever more influences dictate what management can do.VII) Management should be completely occupied with the own organization. Even though long-time organizations as e.g. the Catholic Church reacted with structural changes to every major societal change like the downfall of Rome or the revival of Cities it is widely believed that management is exclusively busy within the confines of its own borders. But in the 21st century management must be working on defining what goals the organization must fulfill and to arrange that these goals will be met. Since the goals are set by the customers and non-customers alike management should be occupied to a large extent with trends outside the organization.

In Chapter 2 Peter Drucker discusses strategy:In this chapter he does several quite accurate predictions like unsustainable financial - and pension systems. He defines five certainties which management should take into account but normally ignores:I) birthrate in rich / Western countries will dropThis has severe consequences and is historically unprecedented. It leads to unsustainable pension systems, so the age at which we can go into retirement must rise and therefore older people should be kept at work probably as knowledge workers. Furthermore it is clear that the high birthrate in third World countries will drop as well and therefore no real problems with food or raw materials supply will arise and even though some environmental problems will emerge but these can and will be solved as was done at the beginning of the 20th century in many countries in Europe. For business it probably means that people will spend more on fewer children.II) drop in percentage of income used on material goodsThere were, are and will be four sectors for which a larger percentage of income must be used: a) government, b) healthcare, c) education and d) time-off. Especially government uses more and more as a percentage of BNP which cannot be spend on material goods like cars or food. The other three themselves use material goods but do not produce them, their products are immaterial. Sectors where the percentage of BNP is rising is e.g. the financial / pension industry because people more and more realize that their very old age is not covered for. However because the old style bankers saw a large increase in savings they responded by expanding their products for their tradional customer: large corporations which did not need them so the enlarged banks started to trade on their own account which cannot lead to something other than huge losses and -we know now- a crash in the financial system.III) redefine business / organizational goalsSince the middle class holds -through pension funds- a majority share in many large businesses this ownership forces organizations to redefine for whom they produce what output. Stock companies existed and produced their output in the past for shareholders with a short term interest in profit and employees with a short time interest in salaries. But nowadays the shareholders do not want a quick win but a long term return and the security the company still exists in say 30 to 40 years. So the output and investments must be such that especially the long term shareholders are satisfied. So the strategy must be redefined.IV) global competitionAny company or organization is exposed to transregional / transnational 'competition'. Which is not automatically just low wages elsewhere but high(er) productivity. Even (semi-)governamental organizations like waistwater treatment plants or trainbased transportation providers are benchmarked to other 'comparable' organizations to keep them in check. So management has to be aware of the outside world and follow its trends otherwise the company or organization becomes obsolete. This goes for all activities a company is involved in. Even the finance department of an oil company or a local bus company can be outsourced if that is 'cheaper'.V) economic globalization vs political splintering

156 | Page

Even though 'the economy' is just one global economy the political environment an organization works in is a very local affair and these differences will not disappear no matter what transnational economic treaties try to this achieve like the EU, NAFTA or MERCOSUR. What we see is an increase in political entities each with its peculiarities and e.g. worldwide fiscal or monetary entities have not and probably will not form. In fact there ar three economic spheres: 1) global economy for money and information, 2) regional economies where goods and services can be traded and 3) national & local economies where politics has a large influence.

In Chapter 3 (continuous) change is discussed.Every organization should change to adept to the continuous change in the economic / social environment. This change should also be more or less continuous as to have the best results. Societal change is unmanageble but to become the (global) change leader an organization has at least to take these steps:I) Have a strategy to set its own courseInnovation is difficult and restructuring by way of cutting is the most difficult but usually the only way forward. A good example is the downward spiral General Motors found itself in the sixties, seventies and eighties. It did not cut unprofitable models and did not put enough money into promising new models.II) Have a systematic way to look for change / innovations and to anticipate itAn organization should have a systematic way to recognize success and failures and learn from them in an early stage. But an organization should be careful to: a) follow an innovation that does not fit the strategy, b) mistake a small improvement for an innovation and c) should not restructure just to get things moving but only restructure in line with planned action.III) Have a best practice to execute the changeThe best practice for change is to do a try-out or pilot and only if that is successful to execute the change full scale. A good way to do this by having two budgets: one for normal operations and one for change / restructuring, so that in times of a downturn there is still enough budget to restructure.IV) Be able to unite change and continuityThe normal course of an organization is continuity. Therefore change is very difficult and to unite the two is even more difficult. A way to do this is through partnerships and the most important aspects of partnerships is reliable information. So every partner should have reliable information about the partnership and therefore every partner should continuously improve upon the information given as to help the partner(s) improve their performance as well.V) Building your own futureDrucker sees one clear characteristic of the future, change: change in politics, change in society, change in philosophy and –above all- change in worldview. All these changes make economic / social theories ineffective. These will come years / decades later. But, even though, guidance to anticipate future developments are difficult, especially ‘now’ successful organizations will get into trouble if they think / hope everything will be more of the same. And from this Drucker states: trying to anticipate future trends is almost useless because the future cannot be predicted. However not predicting is even more dangerous, so every organization has to try.

In Chapter 4 Peter Drucker discusses challenges in the information age. He reminds the reader of the wrong predictions made in the fifties about what the computer would do or change: i.e. help top level management to make decisions. And if he looks at current (~2000) uses he sees that the computer is still not much use in decision making. How come ? Years ago it became clear that leading an organization has not much to do with daily management and / or accounting. I) Going from I to T in IT; What is important is creating value and capital not technology. Drucker reminds us that this -fourth- information revolution is not unprecedented. I.e. with the invention of printing -third information revolution- something similar or even more revolutionary happened in the space from 1450 - 1500 and by 1570 a whole new mature industry had developed. He therefore thinks (~2000) that publishers are going to be the winners, as in the past. Now (~2015) we know Drucker was wrong because of the likes of Google and Facebook and that Sachbuecher / non-fiction information is for free (Wikipedia).II) What information do organizations need; Organizations 1) go from cost calculations to activity based cost control, 2) have to go from juridical fiction to economic reality, 3) need information to build wealth, 4) need to know how money is madeIII) Information management needs; to get information management needs to communicate about the work so people who supply the information know how and management knows how and whom they supply information to. To get this done management: 1) needs to (re)organize the information so it can recognize successes and failures and to do this it is important to have a threshold to identify successes and failures and to recognize trends, 2) should organize to help to preempt surprises, 3) should gather information about the outside of the organization, i.e. the non-customer by interact with them.

In Chapter 5 Peter Drucker discusses the productivity of the knowledge worker; The productivity of the manual / blue collar worker has been the basis of the rise in economic prosperity in Western style countries. It started with Frederick Winslow Taylor /C3/ who investigated how a certain production task could be split up

157 | Page

into several subtasks which could be easily learned by several workers -and then performed at a much higher rate and much higher quality- without special / undefinable skills of an overall craftsman. From that moment on ~beginning of the 20th century- this idea of Taylorism or Taskanalysis has been reinvented / reenacted many times over under different names like: Scientific Management, Industrial Management, Total Quality Management (Kaizen), Just-In-Time-Delivery, Business Proces Reengineering and Six Sigma as one of the latest (AdL). This idea has made a rise in blue collar worker productivity 50 times over possible in just one century. Which is a spectacular rise never seen before in the history of mankind and in fact the gift of the USA to the World.This same feat must now -in the 21st century- be repeated for knowledge workers. However, with these workers or that type of work there are several hickups, since you must first define, arrange for the following order:- define what the task of the knowledge worker precisely is and- define what the quality of the task should be.Both are extra ordinary difficult since it is the knowledge worker only who knows best and (general) management is mostly not capable to pinpoint either. Therefore this is the Management Challenge for the 21st century: increase the productivity of the white collar worker comparably to the increase in productivity of the blue collar worker in the 20th century.The knowledge worker has already and will in the future even more redefine Business within Capitalism. Since only he/she knows best about his or her work and businesses more and more get goals that fit their bill and e.g. pension systems have been created which have already become the majority shareholders in most of the large publicly listed companies. So management has to take the wishes of the knowledge worker into account from two opposite sides: from their subordinates because they know best about the work and from their shareholders (proxies for the same knowledge worker) as their bosses. This has already changed Capitalism in a fundamental way: the focus on short term gain and discontinued Businesses if the profitability is too low has shifted to a much more long term survival to guarantee pension payments in 30 years or more.So raw Capitalism: ‘take the money and run’ is -even in the USA- no longer the way to do business. Which converges the Anglo-Saxon and Rhineland economic models since the latter already had this long time focus with their much more socialistic approach with e.g. powerful –white collar- labor unions (AdL).

And in Chapter 6 Peter Drucker discusses Self-Management.Peter Drucker notices that self-management becomes more and more important since in modern businesses people are to an ever larger degree responsible for their productive actions. Where blue collar workers could and can still claim that management / business owners / capitalists were responsible for how they performed as is exquisitely shown in the film 'Modern Times' by Charley Chaplin /C4/ white collar / knowledge workers can no longer do so. They are responsible for their work and development and management can only facilitate which is nevertheless an enormous task.How can white collar / knowledge workers manage their own work and development ? According to Peter Drucker the best way is the use of the feedback analysis as was developed by an unknown clergyman in around ~1400 in Europe. This method: "write down your expectations when you start a specific task and check some 9 - 12 months later what has become of it" was picked up by two newly formed groups within the Religious world some 150 years later: Johannes Calvijn (Calvinism ~ predestination) and Ignatius de Loyola (founder of the Jesuit order) and within some 30 years they dominated religious life all over Europe: the Jesuit order inside the Catholic Church and Calvinism outside the Catholic Church, i.e. Protestantism.

In conclusion: Peter Drucker is able to extend several trends for apparently –at the moment of writing this text- some 15 years already and it looks as though some of these trends will be true for at least some time to come. So he is a true Superforecaster /d/. However, his ‘predictions’ are only true within the Western cultural setting. Transponding them to e.g. India, China or Africa and even Middle & South America annihilates much of their trueness since in these cultures Management is seen in a totally different way maybe comparable to the distinction between the Hammurabi code and the American Declaration of Independence /C5/. Furthermore in his analysis Peter Drucker touches upon several (sub)Themes such as: Contemporary Power: Politics, Government, Business and Banks but since his focus is on the American way of life it does not go -historically- any deeper. However, interestingly Peter Drucker thoughes implicitly upon the very essence of the evolution of group behavior in his analysis of how Self-Management / Self-Discipline (Chapter 6) was introduced: by the Calvinists and the Jesuit Order whom used a contemporary Theme; C2: Religion and their newly created sub(sub)Theme: Self-Management to further their newly formed group's progress / evolution in grouplife. Please note that these groups were -to a large extent- groups of choice which -more or less for the first time- could be formed within the larger -forced upon- groups, i.e. the Catholic Church and the Protestant community. And maybe this expression of free will and the result was one of the triggers that sparked the Enlightenment.

P.S. Peter Drucker (1909-2005) has been a teacher and management consultant throughout his life. Always interested in the behavior of people and not -as many of his contemporaries- in the financials / numbers that represent an organization. Furthermore he was the founder of the first executive MBA program in the USA in 1971 in California /C6/.

158 | Page

/9.3.2.C1/ Management Challenges for the 21st Century by Peter Drucker, 1999/9.3.2.C2/ Maslow's Hierarchy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslov's_heirarchy/9.3.2.C3/ Frederick Taylor: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frederick_Winslow_Taylor/9.3.2.C4/ Charley Chaplin's Modern Times: https://www.youtu.be/DfGs2Y5WJ14/9.3.2.C5/ Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind (In Dutch), Yuval Harrari, 2014/9.3.2.C6/ Peter Drucker: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Drucker

D) One World by Peter Singer

As a first: please be aware that this book was explicitly written from a Christian Religious point of view as it was first given as a Dwight H. Terry lecture at Yale University and subsequently published by the Dwight Harrington Terry foundation. This leads e.g. to Peter Singer rejecting relative morality: every culture is as good as any other culture and therefore from that you cannot say my / our group morality prevails. However, in these instances Peter Singer argues that you can intervene on moral grounds as long as you do not do upon the other what you do not want to be done upon yourselves, i.e. the Golden Rule of Ethics. But that is a very Christian -and of other Belief-systems- idea. And not necessarily upheld by all other cultures. So I think that relativistic morality cannot be upheld because it simply is in conflict with the Golden Rule of Evolution: ‘survival of the fittest’ = ‘strongest’.

But anyway, the contents of this book /D1/ is One long plight by Peter Singer for a democratic and therefore peaceful (in the Christian moral tradition) World society which resolves its conflicts of interests over: trade, climate change, justice and poverty (sic) through democratic negotiations in a body comparable to the United Nations. So the millennia old expressions of Human endeavor ‘trade’, ‘justice’ and ‘poverty’ are put on the same level as ‘climate change’ which assumes that the latter is 100% caused by Human activity which is highly unlikely /D2/.

In chapter 1: 'A Changing World' Peter Singer starts with the comparison between 9/11: the attack on America by Al-Qaida and Global Warming: the attack on the World by the drivers of 'gas-guzzling sport utility vehicles'. Both are testimony to the One World we now live in but the first is much less dangerous than the second since it will in the foreseeable future kill much more people as Peter Singer explicitly sees it. Well at least his stance -right from the beginning- is very clear but -of course with hindsight available- it is now quite clear that this prediction is very much beside reality which -incidentily- Peter Singer did already know back then since he cites from e.g. The Skeptical Environmentalist by Bjorn Lomborg /D3/ in chapter 2. But One World was probably written to counter the logical reasoning of Bjorn Lomborg and others.

The association with the 9/11 attack is furthermore very telling in that a real killer in human societies: group evolution, is taken to show the danger of Global Warming, so very basic emotions learned from millennia of human historic experience are used to activate the reader.

Furthermore Peter Singer counters the contemporary reality that a system of Nation States is the best way forward. In such a system Peter Singer sees politicians who can only choose for their citizens and against citizens of other Nation States. What Peter Singer knowingly overlooks is that this system is precisely how normal evolution and human group evolution works and that a tragedy of the commons as he sees it -see chapter 2: One atmosphere- will not occur and therefore the World does not need a World government like the United Nations with a strong central mandate. The system as it stands will evolve according to the need that arises as it came into being to past needs.What also becomes very clear is that Peter Singer is strongly opposing free Market Capitalism which he calls a 'Golden Straitjacket'. So again this book is a highly political almost communist -highly centralized government except for the Christian undertones- statement.

In chapter 2: 'One atmosphere' Peter Singer further develops the idea that the fact that we live in One Atmosphere forces us to rearrange our political system towards a centralized 'Government'. It started with CFC's which had to be banned to save the World from an ozone hole disaster as he sees it apparently not knowing that the ozone protective layer is fluctuating all the time influenced by many physical and chemical interactions /D4/. Peter Singer sees this event as just a curtain raiser for the main tragedy of the commons: Global Warming. He then recites the history of the Global Warming alarm from the 1990s onwards -knowingly ?- overlooking its start with the Thatcher government.

In chapter 3: ‘One Economy’ Peter Singer debates the uselessness of a body like the World Trade Organization (WTO) by its publication: 10 Common Misunderstandings about the WTO. Singer shows that its goal: Free Trade is undemocratic since its forces some Nation States to import products and services which were produced in an abject way like e.g. with the use of child labor or coal produced electricity. And therefore he concludes that Nation States should be

159 | Page

autonomous in deciding which products or services they let in and which not.What Peter Singer does not see however, is that this line of reasoning is exactly the opposite of One World society under a central rule. He does not accept that a democratic body like the WTO can for its member states agree upon a common set of rules which also restrict a Nation States autonomy, so he wants a centrally governed World according to his wishes, which is highly undemocratic. And, by the way, is exactly what is predicted by Hans Labohm what will happen when we fall into the trap of ideas like Global Warming /D2/.

In chapter 4: ‘One Law’ Peter Singer talks about the tendency by humans to be violent as can e.g. be read in the Jewish Torah: The Book of Numbers /D5/ or a book by Lawrence Keely: War before civilization /D6/.Peter Singer hypothesizes that, “since evolution is best seen as a competition between genes, individuals, and perhaps small, genetically related groups, than between species”, it is that war and massacre have played a major role in human history and pre-history. With which he comes close to ‘Themes Theory’ which assumes a central role for evolutionary forces in the development of Human Group Behavior or Culture over time.

And from that Peter Singer concludes that culturally developed humans cannot and do not live together without Laws enforced by larger entities, i.e. Nation States in modern times /D7/ which deter brutality always present in humans. And that therefore for Nation States the same should apply i.e. a system of international Law with universal jurisdiction in order to deter governments and bring perpetrators of crimes against humanity to justice before a court in any country of the World irrespective of the scene, place or country of the crimes.

Although this line of thought is logical it will never happen since wars with every thinkable brutality and even more brutal civil wars will always be with us since it is the event whereby (sub)Themes in group behavior are tested to the limit. I.e. we need wars to have human group / cultural evolution. Whereby we can conclude however, that cultural evolution creates exactly that what Peter Singer calls ‘circumstances’ that cause most people or groups to behave less vicious most of the time than raw evolution calls for. So cultural evolution helps to prevent the worst group behavior most of the time but sometimes it erupts and that cannot be prevented.

What can and had already in 1998 with the treaty of Rome been achieved is an International Criminal Court /D8/ in addition to the International Peace Tribunal /D9/. And although countries like the USA have not ratified its treaty -in fear of their military or political leaders might be tried- the fact that it started in 2002 and has indicted several high profile crimes like genocide is testimony that such a court can function without One Supreme Law. Although, its legitimacy is already crumbling after only one year in its new offices in 2016 with many African States withdrawing.

Peter Singer ends this chapter with a discussion about the United Nations Security Counsel. In his view this World peace should be best served by this counsel when it was backed by a World parliament with proportional representation like the European Union example, i.e. every State -of the ca. 200- by a number of representatives proportional to its population. And States that do not sign its treaty by just one representative so that at least such States are included.

This idea has two major problems:1) The total number of representatives in this World parliament would be around: 7 billion / 10 thousand (size

smallest country) = 700 thousand. This is unworkable for any discussion let alone unacceptable for the poorest countries if every delegate should be paid a comparable salary and

2) This is unacceptable for the richest -and most powerful- countries for they would lose much power as we now -2016- see in the EU parliament where the richest countries provide for themselves like Germany by ruling over others, Norway or Denmark by having special arrangements or the UK with its Brexit.

In Chapter 5: ‘One Community’, Human Equality: Theory and Practice, Peter Singer comes up with a very interesting example of Human Behavior, i.e. the 9/11 attacks and how the World reacted to that.

He finds that the families of those who died (around 3000): e.g. the fire and police workers but also those who had to cope with the aftermath because of difficulty in their daily lives, were grossly overcompensated for their loss by all donations through NGOs and the like. This he compares with the loss of life in e.g. third World children (around 30,000 daily) on that same day who were not helped or whose families were not compensated at all.

Of course Peter Singer is right that this is a huge inconsistency if you take every human to be equal. But that is exactly the point: we humans do not see everybody as equals, we cannot because of human (group) evolution. We always have been and always will form groups to fight for the survival of the fittest.So by noticing this seemingly huge inconsistency Peter Singer correctly points at the greatest obstacle to a ‘One World’. An Obstacle he thinks must, can and will be changed. Something I do not agree with however sympathetic this idea -especially to someone who grew up in the Jewish / Christian tradition- looks like.

160 | Page

The ‘Every Human is Equal’ idea is simply unworkable as Human history / Themes Theory proves ☹.

Although Peter Singer touches upon evolutionary restrictions in that Humans automatically restrict themselves to family and kin when ‘unconditional’ help is required he still thinks that this is morally wrong and every human should treat every other human as equals under whatever circumstances. And this is simply against our nature as e.g. Frans de Waal has shown /D9/. And he even touches upon the very basis of Themes Theory with that he wonders about the feelings of reciprocity in an imagined group as the ‘Nation State’ for which he concludes that people indeed feel connected to other non-related citizens. However, Peter Singer thinks that our / the World problems are now too intertwined to be solved by a system of Nation States. So he pleas in favor of a syste m with a World Government. For which he refers to John Rawls: The Law of Peoples /D10/. To which I say: we are going a step further than the Nation State with large entities like China, the US or the EU which however, proves to be very difficult because we need opposing groups to evolve.

In the final chapter (6): A Better World? Peter Singer discusses that the World must create a Global Government since we face Global Warming. And on that his whole idea hinges: Global Warming threatens our existence and this is enough to install a Global Government: i.e. a dictatorial rule. That all the fuss about Global Warming could be a political leverage to gain power for certain groups / ideas apparently does not spring to mind neither that the problem could not exist /D2/ nor that if it indeed exists the solution could be fairly simple /D11/ that a global government is not needed and a system to crunch and spread out Olivine on a Global scale is more than enough.

So we can conclude that this book is nothing more than a way to create a Myth in order to gain influence / power. Totally within Themes Theory even though Peter Singer tries to avoid any such logic. And this book does not give any real predictions except for a plea for a Global Government based on one probably much too simple concept.

A book that does give a prediction on how the World will look in 100 years and builds upon the same ideas as Peter Singer is: ‘De vloeibare samenleving’ (The fluid society) by Peter Hagenoord /D12/. The prediction is that we will then have a global legal framework for the digital World we already live in -which necessitates this framework- and that Nation States cannot provide this framework because in the digital world everything created anywhere is instantly everywhere so this framework has to be something supranational. Even though I think this will not happen because a global World court cannot enforce it decisions unless it is undersigned and its decisions accepted by every Nation State, which is very unlikely as we see e.g. with Greenpeace actions against Russian Arctic pollution which were brought before the International Tribunal on the Law for the Sea but promptly dismissed by Russia or see with Donald Trump stepping out of the Paris Climate Agreement because especially his voters are convinced that they do not benefit, the idea is sympathetic and something different from today’s ‘Wild West Internet’ will -of course- emerge / evolve and disrupt current Myths or (sub)Themes exactly because that is what every development is used for.

P.S. Peter Singer (1946-..) is/was Professor of Bioethics at Princeton University. He has written many books on ethics like: Animal Liberation or Practical Ethics /D12/.

/9.3.2.D1/ One World: the ethics of globalization, Peter Singer, 2002/9.3.2.D2/ Man-Made Global Warming: Unravelling a Dogma, Hans Labohm et al., 2004/9.3.2.D3/ The Skeptical Environmentalist, Bjorn Lomborg, 2001/9.3.2.D4/ Nader Bezien ("With Hindsight"), Huib van Heel, 2005/9.3.2.D5/ Book of Numbers: http://en.wikipedia.org/Book_of_Numbers/9.3.2.D6/ War before civilization, Lawrence Keely, 1996/9.3.2.D7/ The Breaking of Nations, Robert Cooper, 2003/9.3.2.D8/ International Criminal Court: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Criminal_Court/9.3.2.D9/ Primates and Philosophers, How Morality Evolved, Frans de Waal, 2006/9.3.2.D10/ The Law of Peoples, John Rawls, 1999/9.3.2.D11/ The Olivine Foundation: http://www.innovationconcepts.eu/Deolivijnstichting.htm/9.3.2.D12/ De vloeibare samenleving (The fluid society), Peter Hagenoord, 2017/9.3.2.D13/ Peter Singer: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Singer

E) The Breaking of Nations by Robert Cooper

Please note that Sir Robert Cooper /E10/ is a Briton who worked in diplomacy all his life and the greater part with the European Union. Robert Cooper (RC) wrote The Breaking of Nations /E1/, or essay as he calls it, in 2003 and he must be

161 | Page

one of the Britons who in 2016 voted to stay inside the EU. A vote which quite unexpectantly turned out -under the leadership of Boris Johnson /E2/- in the opposite.

The book itself touches upon several (sub)Themes of Themes Theory like the Idea / Myth of the Nation State however quite often with opposite conclusions. E.g. Robert Cooper (RC) sees the Middle Ages in Europe -I think correctly- as an era in which the struggle for power dominated everything however he sees this struggle as one led by the (Catholic) Church which ruled an ‘Empire’. Whereas I think that the Christian Religion or ‘Christendom’ as RC calls it was just used as a means to control and motivate the fighting parties. But in the end the power struggle was between groups that wanted control over their existence. And e.g. RC sees the relatively small Nation State which in his view emerged out of the Middle Ages -to be pinpointed in 1648 with the peace of Westphalia- in Holland as the unique invention / contribution of Europe. Whereas I think that the small (Nation) State had emerged long before that moment in time in several places e.g. Mesopotamia, China before the Qin era, meso-America or the Mediterranean, all in form of City states (see §5.3.5) and even though many City states had a dominating Belief or Religion this was not the banner under which every citizen felt united. And his view of the struggle for power as a dichotomy -before Europe contributed the small State- in a large Empire or Chaos is rather narrow. But OK RC quite clearly gives a prediction in this book: democratic Alliances will take over and the Nation States within these Alliances will behave radically different in that they will interfere into each other’s affairs and will therefore have much less authority within their borders. So Empire behavior will become less and less. To substantiate this claim Robert Cooper reasons as follows:

Part I: THE CONDITION OF THE WORLD.

In chapter 1: ‘The Old World Order’ is typified. This was -according to RC- a world of Empires: Alexander’s, Roman, Mongol, Ottoman or Chinese Empires. And a World based on a balance of power with regions outside the Empires where there was Chaos. And since Empires are ill designed to promote change this was a World of stasis. In Europe -after the Middle Ages which was in the eyes of RC a time under the yoke of a Christian Empire: Catholic Church- the small Nation State arises and this concept was rather successful and promoted change: Enlightenment and Industrial Revolution even within a balance of power system, until the unification of Germany in 1871. Then the ‘balance of power system’ between Nation States: ‘entities in principle sovereign within their own borders’ which were created in the peace of Westphalia in 1648, was completely disrupted and the World needed two World Wars to restore some kind of balance.

In chapter 2: ‘The New World Order’ RC discusses how the World developed after the German unification -so the 20th century mostly- and especially what drivers there were for the rise and fall of colonialism. RC -in line with Themes Theory- states that Religion plays an important role in (colonial) Empires: ‘the Emperor receives his power from God’, but that the underlying Nation States are basically secular and their governments democratically chosen. One of the things RC and I very much agree upon is that: ‘people / groups are not easily motivated by force but ideas are what it is all about to get them moving’. And RC gives some very accurate predictions:

- Imperialism could pop up when a region of chaos threatens a nearby State as we have recently seen with: Afghanistan, Yemen and ISIS and

- An Islamic State could quite easily pop up because Islam is a cause people get fired up by. However, such a State: i.e. ISIS, would have been a much greater threat to the pre-modern World with Empires and regions with chaos than it now is with a skeptical Europe or a realistic United States of America.Please note that this second part of RC’s prediction looks inaccurate since especially Europe has real problems with the refugees spilling over from this conflict region however, no real war inside Europe occurred and -although this problem is costing Europe a significant amount of money- the death toll for Europeans is very low.

Robert Cooper (RC) sees The New World Order or the Modern World end when the CFE Treaty was signed in 1990 and a process started with the Treaty of Rome in 1957. After 1990 the World becomes Postmodern since the logic of the CFE Treaty is totally counter intuitive with agreements on challenge inspections of troops and the destruction of a large number of heavy weapons.

RC sees the EU as a totally new -or Postmodern- way of Nation States to deal with each other. On the one hand military force / war is no longer an option since that would disrupt all the carefully build trust and resulting trade so both the aggressor as well as the defendant will loose and next to that populations will simply not cooperate in the killing of their 'neighbors'. And on the other hand the separation between domestic and foreign affairs no longer holds since EU is a massive meddling in each other’s in- and external affairs from foreign policy right down to the way in which beer and sausages must be produced or toilets must work. So -within the framework of the EU- the Nation State is tamed and becomes something much more civilized.

At this particular point in his Essay RC predicts that although no State Interest is eternal and specific Interests change all the time -as in Themes Theory- the friendship or marriage bond between States -which the EU in essence is- could be

162 | Page

seen as the only eternal Interest and if that fails the Postmodern World will have failed. However, with the hindsight of the Brexit I dare so say ;-) ‘I don’t think so’. But indeed it may signify the end of the EU which will then be replaced by something else which fulfils the Interests of the States at that moment in time. And curiously enough this is exactly what RC predicts for Japan: that State can -under the umbrella of the US- be Postmodern but when the Modern balance of power between the USA and e.g. China changes it can no longer afford to be Postmodern. So Themes Theory in its very basic form.

About the USA RC states that it is in fact an Imperialistic State in that it tries to spread its founding idea: 'capitalistic democracy' on any level except the military. That it only uses for defensive purposes when it or its allies are threatened in their existence. So the USA is firmly locked in the Modern World order but by its defensive attitude enables its allies to be Postmodern.

About Fascism and Communism RC writes that these political ideologies were developed to resist the effects of modernization the Enlightenment and the Industrial Revolution created in Germany and Russia respectively. Both ideologies tried to create a 'village feeling' for its people in an impersonal and hostile Global World as developed at the beginning of the 20th century. Therefore these ideologies tried to create a refuge for the individual against the loneliness and uncertainty of life in a modern society through the all protective centralized state with total control over its citizens /E1/. I think that this analysis is very accurate since in chapter 4 we have seen that emotions play a crucial role in (group) behavior and much more to the point than most historical analyses trying to explain Fascism and Communism like e.g. in The Age of the Extremes /E3/.

In chapter 3: 'Security in the New World' RC discusses how different interests of States are being dealt with in the Postmodern era. However time and again it becomes clear that all the ideas / rhetoric of the Postmodern is made possible only because their is a (hegemonic) superpower who struts the house of cards the Postmodern world is. When RC discusses Gulf War I he states: Iraq (Saddam) violated Western interests by invading Kuwait so it had to be punished by liberating Kuwait but not by the removal of Saddam. That was done under the banner of a fight for 'Values' as voiced by e.g. Tony Blair but was immediately criticized by Henry Kissinger with a reference to the Thirty Years War and the peace of Westphalia of 1648 where Europe decided not to interfere in a State its internal affairs because then: 'virtue runs amok'. And although RC tries to counter Kissinger’s argument with the idea that under certain circumstances Postmodern interference in the internal affairs is a logical step as e.g. in the former Yugoslavia crisis since now there is a relative narrow concensus on values, i.e. no competing universal truths. And under such circumstances a humanitarian catastrophe in one country can be prevented by an intervention by other States. However, especially during the Yugoslavia crisis an international intervention went totally wrong in Sebrenica when Dutchbat asked for air support but was not helped because -apparantly- there was no consensus on the danger a Serbian army posed to the islamic citizens of Sebrenica. Which in my opinion points to at least a flaw in the pre-Modern, Modern and Postmodern Thesis RC tries to prove which is -in my opinion- caused by the fact that in every group you can find common as well as opposing ideas or values. And a clash between groups with more or less the same values and interests but slightly different ideas is more fierce than between groups that stand further apart: e.g. civil war is much more brutal than war (please refer to § 8.10). This becomes especially clear when RC talks about Empires as opposed to the (European) Nation States. In his opinion the Empire is diverse with a multi-cultural background whereas the Nation State is uniform and cannot absorb foreigners easily. However the small Nation State par example: Holland created in the peace treaty of Westphalia only 'worked' because it absorbed Hugenots from France and e.g. Antwerp. So was multi-cultural right from the beginning.

The strongest opposition to the idea of the Postmodern State: i.e. ‘a State that is embedded in Alliances and that can interfere in the internal affairs of other States and allows -especially the allies- other States to interfere in its domestic affairs’, comes from Henry Kissinger who -to counter Tony Blair- immediately stated: ‘Now virtue runs amok’ and is further duly quoted by RC with: “The Nation State created in the peace of Westphalia (1648) with its sovereignty over domestic affairs solved a specific problem of the time, i.e. Empires -and States- had been fighting for 30 years or more over the idea of a universal truth and this had allowed them to (try to) take control in neighboring States when they had a different version of this universal truth. Please note that these wars were mainly between Catholics and Protestants. These wars led to the death of some 40% of the population in Central Europe.” After the introduction of the sovereign Nation State a balance of power system was created and interfering in each others afairs no longer became the norm. But now with the EU interference in domestic affairs of by another State is reintroduced as e.g. a coalition of the willing in the former Yugoslavia unleashed the old daemon again as Kissinger neatly voices in: World Order /E4/. In which book Kissinger also describes a much more logical and evolutionary way to go forward with the World Order whereby China -who had no part whatsoever in the system of Westphalia- first joins this system -as is happening now- and then slowly but certainly starts to change it. Probably in unision with the US who was, is and always will be ambivalent to this system because it also had no part in creating it. Even though the US was, is and probably for some time will be its sole supporting pillar as Kissinger predicts.

163 | Page

Despite the above voiced criticism RC tries to ‘sell’ the idea of the Postmodern ‘Empire’ with other examples of that moment in time: i.e. Turkey which had just abolished the death penalty and established minority rights only to be invited to sit at the table of the EU Empire. However, with our present hindsight we know that democracy is on the retreat in Turkey exactly because its wants to be a Nation State and not a Postmodern State which allows other States / Allies to interfere in its domestic affairs. Furthermore, RC does an interesting prediction: i.e. within a Postmodern Empire smaller ethnic entities within Nation States can get more freedom to express their identity since the Postmodern Empire is -like in the old style Empires- much more relaxed to deviations from the main stream. And again with hindsight we now know that after the Brexit Scotland wants to part from the UK and become a separate entity within the EU.All the reasoning falls -as far as I can see- completely within Themes Theory because it is all about the evolutionary path of the Next Level Theme N5: Cities & Countries. Whereby I think that really large entities will not emerge on the basis of free choice because fighting is the norm within Evolution and Robert Cooper’s analysis is a bit shallow /simplistic which seemingly makes it possible to do predictions but who can predict the future anyway? Themes Theory certainly not ;-)

Not so Robert Cooper (RC), he clearly hopes that his pre-Modern, Modern and post-Modern theory uncovers a definitive step for mankind with statements like:during pre-Modern times -i.e. before 1648- you had the choice between chaos and empire, then -until 1990- you had the choice between nationalism and empire, and now -after 1990- you have the choice between nationalism and integration or, as RC states: at the end of the process, freedom of the individual. First freedom protected by the State and after integration freedom protected from the State (by the democratic ‘empire’ / integrated body). Please note that this is a rather wild and illogical prediction because history -or human evolution for that matter- will never stop. Something RC knows and therefore immediately states: "This categorization is not intended to be exclusive - the future is full of surprises (and so, indeed, is the past). Nor is it intended to represent some inevitable Hegelian progression". So although it feels good "freedom of the individual" and it certainly is important ever since the Basic Themes Era Theme B6: 'Value of (an individual) Life', it is obviously not the only (sub)Theme by which Human Behavior is regulated and -to give one prediction myself- never will be.

What RC’s pre-Modern, Modern and post-Modern theory can do however, is neatly deduce why States or Empires should or should not intervene: usually they do NOT intervene from a humanitarian perspective and do intervene from an interest or risk/return perspective. However, these aspects are difficult to compare as seen from a State perspective and only become comparable / in line when the problem in a neighboring State really runs out of control and spills over into the neighboring State. But then -of course- it is too late. Only if you take all momentarily (sub)Themes -next to N5: Cities & Countries- into account you can guess whether a neighboring State will intervene before the problem spills over. And since we have not seen anything near that idea -or it must be ‘Somalia’ /E5/- RC’s theory does help in predicting because until the problem / chaos spills over nothing will happen.

Another prediction RC makes is that the pre-Modern, Modern and post-Modern World, i.e. the World at large, is threatened by 1) the pre- Modern with chaos, 2) the Modern with Weapons of Mass Destruction and 3) the post-Modern from within that Nation States become too disinterested with security and in the long run the new system disintegrates. Well this sums up in very general terms what evolution is all about: a constant struggle with an uncertain outcome, so this is again not much of a prediction :-| And especially threat no. 2 is far fetched since the very reason that RC wrote this book: 'the fall of the Berlin Wall' and its aftermath is testimony to the opposite.

Part II: THE CONDITIONS OF PEACE: TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY DIPLOMACY

In this part Robert Cooper (RC) tries to find an end solution to the World order, which is -again- pretty strange because he clearly sees that no one perceives the World circulair any longer, and he clearly sees that the 'linear' development -as came about with the Enlightenment- and rather crudely subdivided by him with his uni-directional: pre-Modern, Modern and post-Modern theory is by no means inevitable. Apparently he does not see that a line is endless and only closes into a circle in infinity but that most historical lines are crossed by other lines which lead in totally different endless directions.

He puts his quest like this: 'If neither balance nor hegemony is going to provide security then another solution must be found. Something like a post-national, post-imperial community on an international scale will be needed: the beginning of a real international society'.

RC goes ahead on this quest with 5 Maxims: 1. Foreigners are different2. In the end, what matters is domestic politics3. Influencing foreigners is difficult4. Foreign policy is not only about interests

164 | Page

5. Enlarge the context

Five very intriguing statements, each and every one touching upon quite a few (sub)Themes like e.g.Maxim 3; where B3: Family life, B4: Power distribution and individual rights & duties, N5: Cities & Countries, N6: Law, Economics & Taxation, and C1: Power with Politics, Government & Business, C2: Religion and last but not least C5: Education, play a role. With the Contemporary (sub)Themes as the most obvious ones but underneath the older (sub)Themes do play their part in setting people apart and make it more difficult to convince them of the logic of certain rules and customs in their new home country. Let's see how RC handles his Maxims;

For starters RC deduces from his five Maxims a common denominator: they are the obstacles to bring about change. However, I think that he is mistaken that the West / democratic Coutries want change, they do NOT. It is the outside / non-Western individuals that want change, mostly in their economic and sometimes safety status. The West is simply defending itself since they are the rent seeking group /E6/.

In Maxim no. 1: 'Foreigners are different' RC gives a very nice description of what constitutes (a) culture, he says: "Foreigners have been brought up differently, their thoughts are structured differently by the different language they speak and the different books they read, their habits have been influenced by different schools, different social customs, different national heroes, different churches, mosques and temples; they may watch the same sitcoms, but the TV news still comes from a different studio and from a different point of view; their ideas of justice and legitimacy may be quite different from ours." From which we see that RC touches upon many (sub)Themes with this statement. E.g. B3: Family life, B4 & N3: Power distribution and individual Rights and Duties, B6: Value of (an individual) Life, N6: Law, Economics & Taxation, N7: Philosophy, Science, Games & Sports, C2: Religion, C5: Education, C7: Entertainment & Art, C8: News & Information exchange.

In Maxim no. 2: 'In the end, what matters is domestic politics' RC correctly states that foreign policy only comes second or third and he underpins my statement that the (powerful) citizens -of a country- do not want change, it is the powerless foreigners that want change. And he gives a crude but very true example: "In the Middle East / Arab countries no one is interested in the Palastinian problem until someone comes foreward and proposes real solutions. Then this person is a risk because he or she can influence domestic opinions / affairs". And he gives another example that European member States should see the EU as important because it has great influence on domestic affairs: exactly why the Brexit came about. So this Maxim is proof of the very impossibility of RC's theory: an end state to World affairs whereby Nation States give up large parts of their sovereignty. What is true though is that in post WW II democracy and human rights have become integral part of (Western) foreign policy.

In Maxim no. 3: 'Influencing foreigners is difficult' RC gives a clear goal of any World Order: a lasting peace. And he sees three 'tools' to achieve that: words, money or force. Neither of which usually achieves the goal on its own and in combination is seldomly successful as well. Only words: bringing about a change in the view of the World: i.e. the Myths or set of (sub)Themes a country believes in, and used in combination with money over a longer period of time and maybe -to get things started- preceded by the use of military force, sometimes achieves the goal of a lasting peace as e.g. with Germany and Japan after the 2nd World War. However, I think this is still temporary because both Germany and Japan indeed no longer are the agressor but not for long will be defending themselves and Western values by military means against outside agressors: Russia / China which will force them to use force again and after that the cycle might restart be it that it is in their interest as as much as Western interest. That such a scenario will occur is easily seen from the fact that in Earth's evolution there is no such thing as a final stage (or it must be that the Vogons destroy Earth and no-one escapes ;-).What RC implicitly finds however, is that this Maxim no. 3 goes to the hart of what culture / group identity is all about. With a statement like: 'Getting foreign governments to change their policies is difficult enough; getting factions in a civil war to stop fighting is even more so' you feel the depth of culture / group identity. And the longer a conflict goes on, the more proud groups / identities can be hurt for all kinds of reasons / (sub)Themes and the more (smaller) groups might gain from a particular fight / situation. So very many (sub)Themes can and will be used to identify a group / faction when in conflict but this however, RC does not make clear, he only uses the term 'words'.

In Maxim no. 4: 'Foreign is not only about interests' RC really dives into what human behavior is all about: (chosen) identity. This is 100% culture. Interests come from these (chosen) identities and not the other way around. We always talk about interests but that is -according to RC- only to be able to negotiate. You cannot negotiate good or bad. With examples like Britain at the start of the 19th century which chose to abolish slavery and then had to fight 50 years or more to get its allies to reduce slavery and in the end abolish it too, never mind it was highly profitable certainly for British companies and never mind the costs of war defending this principle. So following this decision Britain could negotiate on interests derived from this stance like: the number of slaves and the timespan for its reduction and

165 | Page

abolishment or the living conditions of slaves in the mean time. It is a pitty though that RC does not elaborate on why such pivoting moments occur and why Nation States take a principle stance as opposed to a practical stance.

Intermezzo: Why do (some) Nation States take such a principle stance as e.g. Britain on slavery at the beginning of the 19th century? Well as a first: it must -and if you dive deep enough into history- always does depend on current -mostly internal- affairs. This still sounds like: interest based but is directly followed by 'current affairs' equals all (sub)Themes taken together that define that group or country best. And that is 100 % culture with the only interest: 'We' against 'Them' or 'they are different'. In the case of Britain against the rest of the World on slavery [B6: Value of (an individual) Life], it was probably the rise of the Middle class with the industrial revolution which opposed the old society of the Upper class / Nobility which needed unskilled laborers on its land whereas the new Middle class needed skilled laborers in its factories and -of course- wanted more power for themselves. So the idea was to undermined the power base of the Upper class. But the Middle class could have chosen any other (sub)Theme or mix of subThemes to fight for its proper place at the table and probably only chose slavery because of the ideas of the French Revolution which was also directed against Nobility.

In Maxim 4 RC furthermore gives some very good analyses of why WW I & II happened, what were the key players: USSR & USA and their drivers: force & greed after these wars and what reshaped Germany and Japan. And he gives a clear insight in what human group behavior is all about: emotion, with the statement: "The questions about war and peace are emotional as well as rational.....nations are communities and communities are, in their essence, non-rational."

In Maxim no. 5: 'Enlarge the context' RC discusses the idea that one cannot take one issue -in a conflict-. into account. One should broaden the scope of possible issues as to be able to negotiate one issue against another. One of the founders of the EU: Jean Monnet called this 'enlarge the context' and this is exactly what happened with the founding of Europe, do not look at the differences in identity but look for common (business) interests, in particular German industry and French farmers. This indeed circumvents emotional / unsolvable situations around identity but -of course- creates something which nobody really gets heated up by because you do NOT have an emotional bond to these 'bureaucratic tactics'. Business issues do not sell identity and that is what YOU want to spread. So it creates peace and intermingles the opposing identities, hopefully to an extent that nobody wants to dig up the differences in identity that were at stake, but it does not solve these differences in identity. So with the EU it meant that in the end ..... Britain sails Westward towards its brother / sister (a society coming from the same -identity- background). And this is what RC sees as well when he gives statements like: 'Only in the context of a wider vision can a permanent peace be assured'. In which the word 'context' or current affairs refers to the evolutionary side of group behavior and that is uncontrollable / unpredictable, 'a wider vision' refers to the effort to find interests that can be negotiated without hurting identity, and 'a permanent peace' is an Utopia since evolution changes everything continuously and therefore nothing is permanent.But on the last page of this Maxim RC handles the prospect of a permanent solution -through enlargement of the context- ij a much more realistic way with statements like: 'when it comes to security issues and the use of force, it is still largely a world of every country for itself. And security is the foundation of all things. It is a mistake therefore to exaggerate the degree of order and legitimacy in the world'. So RC shows that he understands that a permanent peace is unrealistic but he hopes for the better with statements like: 'But it is also a mistake to believe that such a community could never exist...'.So he is unable to give a clear analysis. Not from his pre-modern, modern and postmodern theory and not from his Maxims.

Therefore Robert Cooper's Maxims do not really help in changing the Western / European Nations into the start of One World /E7/.

PART III: EPILOGUE: EUROPE AND AMERICA

In this epilogue RC gives a nice view on the identity / cultural differences of these two Western blocks and the drivers behind the Cold War. The Cold War was a contest between different conceptions of legitimacy: liberty and equality.The West: the United States and Europe defended liberty with force and diplomacy and the USSR tried to spread equality with force. So the ultimate goal of liberty was only possible because of the US and its military spending and European diplomacy with all those different identities and ineffective armees is not going to make the difference. The Europeans would prefer to live in a world of law rather than one of power and that has steered Europe towards diplomacy and less spending on military power. This is a reverse situation compared to the start of the 20th century when the US had limited power, eshewed power politics and was attached to legal concepts while European countries indulged in arms races, realpolitik and started two World Wars. To which George Kennan /E8/ -speaking of the US foreign policy- said: I see as the most serious fault of our past policy to lie in something that I call the legalistic-moralistic approach to international problems

166 | Page

So on many accounts Robert Cooper reasons with ideas which align with Themes Theory but his analysis and predictions fall short of being very thorough and therefore I do not count him as a Superforecaster /E9/.

Sir Robert Cooper has been a British diplomat for all his life mostly with the European Union. He is the special representative for foreign affairs since 2014 which will probably end -because of the Brexit- in 2018 /E10/.

/9.3.2.E1/ The Breaking of Nations: Order and Chaos in the Twenty-First Century, Robert Cooper, 2003/9.3.2.E2/ Boris Johnson http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boris_Johnson/9.3.2.E3/ The Age of the Extremes, Eric Hobsbawn, 1994/9.3.2.E4/ World Order, Henry Kissinger, 2014/9.3.2.E5/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Operations_in_Somalia_II/9.3.2.E6/ Political Order and Political Decay, Francis Fukuyama, 2014/9.3.2.E7/ One World: the ethics of globalization, Peter Singer, 2002/9.3.2.E8/ George Kennan: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_F._Kennan/9.3.2.E9/ Superforecasting, Philip Tetlock, 2015/9.3.2.E10/ Sir Robert Cooper http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Cooper_(strategist)

F) The Third Industrial Revolution by Jeremy Rifkin

G) And the Weak Suffer What They Must? by Yanis Varoufakis

H) The Great Degeneration by Nial Ferguson

I) The Future as a Cultural Fact by Arjun Appadurai

In this book Arjun Appadurai shows his extensive knowledge of the anthropological scene and what is especially important in this line of science: i.e. define a common ground.

Appadurai does this with several essays on the Global Condition and in them he tries to extend current affairs into the Future. However, although I can immediately identify with the idea that the Future is something molded by the present and Myths about the Future, this idea is not presented by Appadurai. Instead Appadurai shifts his focus from essay to essay which causes his goal: ‘to build a systematic and fundamental anthropological approach to the future’, to fade away.

I think that his idea to compare ideas about the ‘Good Life’ in different societies is a very good way to try to find a common ground in ideas about the Future but as soon as he mixes economic ideas and trends therein –so restricts the Good Life to economic wealth mostly- Appadurai’s analysis becomes too narrow. And his aligning himself with Naomi Klein on ‘Disaster Capitalism’ reduces this book to just another book with rather ‘loud’ predictions which pitifully are certainly not Superforecasts /I2/. Therefore -in my opinion- this book is second to e.g. Thorstein Veblen’s book: ‘The Theory of the Leisure Class’ /I3/ or -much more modern- the book by the Skidelsky’s: ‘How much is enough’ /I4/, even though these books do not contain many predictions apart from their implicit predictions: that societies will always evolve toward a situation like one with a leisure class or the precisely the opposite will evolve into one without a leisure class and everybody is just content with a certain standard of living.

Arjun Appadurai was born in India in 1949 and after receiving a B.A. in Bombay went to the USA to do a M.A. and PhD in Chicago where he later became a professor of anthropology. He also functioned as the director of the city and globalization center at Yale University. Dr. Appadurai holds an honorary doctorate of the Erasmus University in Rotterdam the Netherlands /I5/.

/9.3.2.I1/ The Future as a Cultural Fact, Arjun Appadurai, 2013/9.3.2.I2/ Superforecasting, Philip Tetlock & Dan Gardner, 2015/9.3.2.I3/ The Theory of the Leisure Class, Thorstein Veblen, 1899

167 | Page

/9.3.2.I4/ How Much Is Enough: Money and the Good Life, Robert & Edward Skidelsky, 2013/9.3.2.I5/ Arjun Appadurai: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arjun_Appadurai

J) Secular Stagnation: Facts, Causes and Cures by Baldwin & Teulings

K) This Changes Everything by Naomi Klein

L) The Physics of the Future by Michio KakuUnlike all of the above books the predictions in this book /L1/ relate mostly to hard science which makes them more reliable because Physics is -as far as we know- unchangeable and therefore extrapolating Inventions up the year 2100 must always be within the known framework of Physics. However, if societies are going to use possible technologies is always unclear because it can be that we choose to pursue impossible ideas or -almost as strange- pursue known useless ideas. This because everything in Human societies is based on Myths and as long as a society is rich enough to feed its citizens and -the same time- pay for the extravagance the system stays intact. But in the end, such a situation must stop, and the laws of physics then guide us where we can go. As was e.g. shown in Physics & Math which were developed in the ancient World by people like Archimedes -who was maybe even aware of the Theory of Calculus- but this development was halted for some 1,500 years, 1st by the Romans and 2nd the Catholic Church as can e.g. be read in ‘A History of Pi’ /L2/. Or shown in Medicine where Galen –a Greek physician- was one of the great influencers of this field but his ideas stifled it for some 1,500 years as can e.g. be read in ‘Superforecasting’ by Philip Tetlock /L3/ for especially Germ Theory. So, societies can derail and / or delay a development but not -eventually- overcome it. Therefore, the predictions of Kaku will materialize, be it not necessarily in the 21st century.

But now to the book itself. Michio Kaku /L12/ describes the road to the year 2100 on a multitude of subjects: computers, artificial intelligence, medicine, nanotechnology, energy, space travel, wealth, humanity and ‘A Day in the Life in 2100’. Most of which end with a question, often with a positive connotation but some as doomed as the books discussed in this paragraph. This is probably because Kaku knows that Physics is unchangeable, but group behavior is unpredictable. And Kaku’s prediction that several major cities will have drowned because of sea level rise seems strange, amidst superconducting roads for maglev and self-drive cars, and completely automated homes. With that in mind it is rather odd that an automated system for water-defense and water-removal in case of an emergency has not been invented / build because that was -at least in China or the Netherlands- exactly what was tackled first by these societies long ago. But maybe Kaku foresees a group fixation on this -I think- highly overvalued issue.

The book begins with two earlier publications on the future of science & technology:1) The first by Leonardo da Vinci from the end of the 15th century CE with his sketches for all kinds of ‘modern’

machines like airplanes, helicopters, parachutes, mechanical calculators, diving gear, army tanks etc. Even if he took these from a Chinese encyclopedia /L4/ it is still a miracle that all those machines -when built- proved to work perfectly. But maybe that is proof of the inventiveness of the Chinese in their golden era during the Tang (618-907) and Song (960-1280) dynasties /L5/.

2) The second by Jules Verne who wrote a book in 1863 with the title: ‘Paris in the Twentieth Century’ which was only published in 1994 /L6/ when a great grandson found the manuscript in which Jules Verne predicted that there would be glass skyscrapers, air conditioning, TV, elevators, high-speed trains, gasoline powered automobiles, fax machines and even something like the Internet. So quite remarkable predictions, much better than the ones in the previously discussed books on prediction.

And from there on the book is a magnificent whirlpool of thinkable and possible technologies in all walks of life except for the last two subjects: Wealth and Humanity which are not about physics but about the way Human Behavior deals with science and technology. Each subject is divided into a History and three future parts: Near Future (Present to 2030), Midcentury (2030 – 2070) and Far Future (2070 – 2100) which give a nice view of the logical evolution each subject ‘most probably’, ‘probably’ and ‘might’ go through [depending on the (sub)Themes on the forefront of Human Group Behavior at that time in that society or societies, AdL]. And the book closes with: ‘A Day in the Life in 2100’.

168 | Page

Computers with e.g. contact lenses that show any information / augmented reality you -literally- think of, tricorders i.e. a small scanning device that will scan the body for any irregularity and e.g. telekinesis when computers all around us will pick up our thoughts and do exactly what we want simply by the power of thought.Artificial intelligence with e.g. robots with the power of the human brain and beyond. Again, this is a point where Kaku puts in a lot of doom & gloom with his idea that robots with more brainpower than humans will take over. Although his statement that that is then the path of (human) evolution is -of course- quite correct. Medicine with e.g. a long and healthy life by cloning and growing new organs or more, by genomic medicines i.e. medicines that are tailored to our individual DNA and thereby molecular interactions in our individual cells.Kaku’s summary of the history of Medicine is telling: Medicine went thru three stages: pre-history with an average life expectancy of some 20 years and nothing but some very simple herbs like aspirin and knifes and saws, then came Germ theory with hygiene at the end of the 19th century raising life expectancy to some 40 years and the third stage that started with the book: ‘What is Life’ by Erwin Schrödinger /L7/ in which he predicted that life was nothing but information encoded onto a molecule. This inspired James Watson whom then started a search for this molecule. So, what we see from this story is that (sub)Themes play a major role in Human Evolution and only when we disentangle from all the Myths we build around our lives we can make a new step onto the path to become ‘Gods’ ourselves /L8/. With DNA unraveled and the function of proteins understood a whole new path: molecular medicine was started and life expectancy in modern Western societies went up to some 80 years /L9/. And now -with miraculous scanning devices, stem cell technology and cloning- probably far beyond.Nanotechnology with quantum mechanics which explains why we cannot pass through a wall or why molecules are bonded atoms. So, when you put single atoms together you can form almost any construct like: microelectromechanical systems (MEMS), nanobombs, nanocars, (DNA) laboratories on a chip, carbon nanotubes, atomic transistors, quantum computers, programmable matter that transforms its shape, and maybe the replicator capable of assembling anything, etc. which can act or react on any atom or molecule in or outside our bodies. So, nanotechnology is the ultimate technology however, I think that there must be a societal / behavioral need first before something will be adopted and e.g. a post stamp with 200 million X-mas cards sprayed onto it is not something, I think, one can boast with because you need extraordinary machines / microscopes to be able to see it. So, nanotechnology has little ‘boasting value’ and that was and still is a very important aspect of Human Behavior all through the Themes Era’s. So, until at least the year 2100, I think, the advances in nanotechnology will be modest. And Kaku himself is skeptical because replicators are going to be (very) expensive which could be a big hurdle to their development.Energy Kaku discusses this item with nuclear fusion always looming around the corner (but not materializing) while oil and other fossil fuels to be ‘depleted’ or unusable soon. At least according to King Hubbert who predicted in 1956 that the USA would soon start importing oil because its reserves would be emptied for more than 50% between 1965-1971. And because King Hubbert’s prediction proved to be perfectly on the spot this will / must happen to the Globe as well. This together with the rise of the middle class in China and India will cause an energy squeeze which will cripple economies. Even though Kaku explains that there are many alternatives to oil like hydrogen to make and store useable renewable energy for all kinds of mobile applications, Kaku rightly sees that these sources cannot replace fossil fuels. However, I think that this prediction will not materialize because it does not take Human ingenuity and the fact that we have only explored a mere 1 or 2 percent of the Earth’s crest, into account. In my opinion there will only be a squeeze when we / societies accept the ‘terror’ of Global Warming and -if a problem at all- do not use ideas like Olivine to chemically bind CO2 /L10/ in order to use fossil fuels until we have developed a real alternative. And that the terror of Global Warming is not unanimously accepted can be seen in China: that society has used coal to modernize its economy and is now a fully developed economy / society that is taking steps to overcome smog in mega poles like Beijing, Hangzhou or Xi’an but not to conquer Global Warming.Kaku ends this subject with correct views about solar energy from space and magnetic travel with hovering cars and trains to use this abundant electricity at the end of the 21st century. Space Travel with starships to reach for the stars. However, Kaku -in my opinion- correctly states that reaching for the stars is literally a pie in the sky but going the other planets like Mars or moons like Europa in our solar system is certainly within reach and could extent then scarce resources on Earth. Furthermore, Kaku discusses techniques like the laser gun powered rocket (invented by Freeman Dyson) or the gas gun powered rocket (invented by Hertzberg) to do space travel in an economic way. And still futuristic techniques like nuclear, ramjet or antimatter rockets.Wealth In this chapter Kaku deviates from the idea to stick to Physics and its well understood restrictions only and discusses group behavior in all its richness by the rise and fall of civilizations like the Roman, Ottoman or Chinese empires. For this he takes the year 1500 and compares Europe to the two main geopolitical blocks at the time, i.e. the Chinese and Ottoman empires. And Kaku then concludes that no one would have given a penny for Europe at the time because Europe was very divided, and Religion was ruling the waves. But then the Chinese lost interest in the rest of the World -after having explored it through seven expeditions by admiral Zheng He- and isolated themselves (again) and the Ottomans turned to Religion only and lost interest in science and technology which had brought them so much. And Europe … started on its incredible journey of exploring everywhere and everything, especially science & technology.So, then the tables turned -according to Kaku- because Europe found ways of mastering the four fundamental forces of physics: Strong Nuclear force, Weak Nuclear force, ElectroMagnetic force and Gravity.

169 | Page

Of course, Kaku has a point but I think that the social / group behavioral changes with the Catholic Church slowly retreating into the Contemporary Theme: Religion (C2) only and the rise of the bourgeois / middle class with a focus on making money through efficient labor processes, i.e. the Contemporary Power subThemes; (C1a): Politics, (C1b): Government, (C1c): Business and (C1d): Banks, is of more importance. China largely fell back / stayed in its old fashioned Next Level Era and the Ottomans, after having explored many of the Contemporary (sub)Themes, retreated into Religion (C2) as well but -as opposed to the Christian world- all the other (sub)Themes were throttled down for the glory of Islam. Not entirely unexpected since they had been explored for that aim, and that aim only, anyway.

Like me -in this book- Kaku concludes that especially science and technology is the pillar for wealth. For that -Kaku postulates- technologies go through four basic stages: early on (in stage I) technologies / products are very precious (like iron used in e.g. swords, of which one of the first was given to the Egyptian Pharaoh in around 1300 BCE), then in stage II the technology becomes spread wider so that -in principle- everybody can have one or two products, but it is still quite expensive. Then in stage III the price for the products drops to such a level that -almost- everybody can have many products and use its functionality without thinking about wear and tear, then you take another one. This is the stage where the technology has become a utility. And in stage IV the technology / products become a fashion item: it is used for all kinds of applications, not necessarily one for which it was intended like paper for wall decoration, water for fountains or chips for throwaway / single use toys. And although Kaku does not give an explanation why many products do not evolve until stage IV but stay in e.g. stage II or III, like trains (between stage I & II) or cars (between stage II & III) I think his analysis is very good and the cause for technologies / products not going to a next stage is probably because Human Behavioral Evolution is not ready yet since that goes through bubbles and busts.

Kaku’s theory on bubbles and busts / crashes is interesting since he couples them to technologies still in their infancies, i.e. stage I. E.g. trains and their development caused -the way Kaku sees it- the crash of 1850 and the (mini)crashes that followed every decade thereafter. This because trains were being developed ‘slowly’ since 1800 but the stock markets wanted to speed up this development beyond its possibilities. Kaku shows that this is also true for the crash of 1929 -caused by the feverish developments of cars and stock markets completely out of touch with the real developments- and the crash of 2008 -caused by the wealth earned / made possible through electronics & computers going into real estate-.I think Kaku’s theory is good in pointing to (stock) markets which absorb increased wealth and then overdo their function and create Myths on what is really going on, which (other) people then believe and start buying stocks or real estate far beyond their real value. But his theory neglects why Myths are created: i.e. Myths are part and parcel of human (group) behavior and they are created about everything, just to create an environment in which humans can compete so that (human group) evolution can take place.Take e.g. China that jumped the West and especially Silicon Valley after only 25 years of development and has taken over ICT development against conventional wisdom that Chinese can only copy what Western engineers create. But looking at its educational performance in Math & Science makes it much more logic.Humanity In this chapter Kaku describes his ‘technological’ view on the future of Humanity: ‘we will -as soon as- possible jump to the other planets in the Solar system, i.e. become a planetary civilization’. To categorize this quest Kaku defines civilizations -like Nikolai Kardashev- in terms of the amount of energy they command: type I: 10^17 Watts Planetary civilization, the part of the Sun’s energy that falls onto the Earth’s surface; type II: 10^27 W Stellar civilization, all of the Sun’s energy and type III: 10^37 Galactic civilization, the energy of all the stars in a Galaxy. On that scale we are still type 0 because we do not use all the energy that falls onto the Earth’s surface.

Looking closely, at the beginning of the 21st century we are a 0.7 Planetary civilization and probably will be a full Planetary civilization by 2100 commanding all the energy the sun is beaming onto the Earth’s surface. Looking back, we see that it took many, many years to command more than the 0.2 Horse Power our bare hands can muster but by 500 BCE we commanded 1.0 HP. E.g. the first Chinese emperor: Qin-dynasty in 200 BCE had two very lovely carriages build in bronze -scale 1:3- drawn by four horses to go with him into his grave to show his might and to help him in afterlife. Then it took some 2000 years before we built the steam engine with which we were able to command ten to several hundred HP. From then on it went relatively quick via the reciprocating combustion engine -for cars- to the large nuclear-powered steam turbines for powerplants with which we command up to two million HP. And by 2100 Homo Sapiens will probably command 10^14 HP (~10^17 Watts), i.e. around 15,000 HP 24/7 per human being. Which is doable if you realize that an airplane passenger -at the beginning of the 21st century- already ‘commands’ ten times this amount during a flight. So, taking this development as a guideline Kaku predicts that it will take another 2,500 years to become a full type II: Stellar civilization commanding all the energy the sun is emitting and probably some 100,000 years to become a Galactic civilization. But that is: -I must add- speculation 😉. And -of course- the prediction that we will be a type I: Planetary civilization by 2100 is far from certain as well, but it will happen at some moment in the future notwithstanding the power struggles we -apparently- must have /L11/ to reach that goal. Of which Kaku correctly states that not too many people are aware of this goal anyway and quite a few are -knowingly or unknowingly- opposing it. People / groups like: Dictatorships and Islamic terrorists (or -my addition-: Environmentalists). But the Kardashev / Energy classification is certainly not the only scale to weigh civilizations, another would be an Information scale which

170 | Page

Carl Sagan proposed: type A – Z civilizations. Type A is a civilization that processes only a million pieces of information (bits), i.e. a civilization that has only a spoken language but not a written one, a type C is a civilization that processes a billion bits, like e.g. ancient Greece and our contemporary civilization would be around type H. So, our civilization would be a 0.7H civilization. But if we want to put more parameters into the basket we could e.g. look at pollution and waste by taking Entropy -the amount of chaos added for every converted / used kW- as well.

So Kaku is correct when discussing the Physics of the Future but starts being speculative when discussing the social / behavioral side of technological developments like Hubbert’s peak which is Economics, Global Warming which is Politics or the classification of (extraterrestrial) civilizations and predict when we will have reached a certain level. This because the behavioral side of Human evolution is much less constrained than Physics.

Seen through a pair of glasses with a Themes Theory filter you see that Kaku firmly starts in the contemporary Theme: Science & Technology (C4) and places that above all other (sub)Themes and then transgresses into Power (C1) with Politics (C1a), Government (C1b), Business (C1c) and Banks (C1d) of which he clearly sees that it is all about Power but also thinks that the Laws of Physics will determine the fate of Homo Sapiens and not the Mythical World we have created to deal with them. And of course, he is right that Physical constraints will have to be ‘obeyed’ but I think that within the harsh Laws of Physics there is so much room for Myths that these will determine the way we live and whether that is bound to our organic Bodies and Solar System or to some kind of bionic Body and the Milky Way or the Universe is of less importance than the way we feel about our social environment. Even though Yuval Harari is not that optimistic and very much afraid for Artificial Intelligence and / or Biotechnology for those can produce superbeings and split the World into Have’s with all the benefits such as long levity, bionic body parts and a super brain and the Have Not’s with normal mortality and no artificially enhanced bodies /L8/.

/9.3.2.L1/ Physics of the Future. The Inventions That Will Transform Our Lives, Michio Kaku, 2011/9.3.2.L2/ A History of Pi, Petr Beckmann, 1971/9.3.2.L3/ Superforecasting, Philip Tetlock & Dan Gardner, 2015/9.3.2.L4/ 1434: The Year a Magnificent Chinese Fleet Sailed to Italy and Ignited the Renaissance, Gavin Menzies, 2008/9.3.2.L5/ The Chinese Market Economy 1000-1500, William Guanglin Liu, 2015/9.3.2.L6/ Paris in the Twentieth Century, Jules Verne, 1994 (1863)/9.3.2.L7/ What is Life, Erwin Schrödinger, 1944./9.3.2.L8/ Homo Deus: A Brief History of Tomorrow, Yuval Hariri, 2015/9.3.2.L9/ The Great Escape, Angus Deaton, 2013/9.3.2.L10/ The Olivine Foundation: http://www.innovationconcepts.eu/Deolivijnstichting.htm/9.3.2.L11/ On Politics: A History of Political Thought from Herodotus to the Present, Alan Ryan, 2012/9.3.2.L12/ Michio Kaku: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michio_Kaku

References on predictions:/9.3.1.a/ De antieke wereld: Het oude Egypte, Het oude Griekenland en Het oude Rome, teleac, 1981/9.3.1.b/ The Archaeology of Shamanism, Neil Price (Ed.), 2001/9.3.1.c/ Jan Tinbergen: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jan_Tinbergen/9.3.1.d/ Superforecasting, Philip Tetlock & Dan Gardner, 2015/9.3.1.e/ Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy, Joseph Schumpeter, 1942/9.3.1.f/ Thinking: Fast and Slow, Daniel Kahneman, 2011

/9.3.2.A1/ The Future of Industrial Societies, Clark Kerr, 1983/9.3.2.A2/ Charles Booth: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Booth_(philanthropist)/9.3.2.A3/ The Black Swan: The Impact of the Highly Improbable, Nassim Taleb, 2007/9.3.2.A4/ Clark Kerr: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clark_Kerr/9.3.2.B1/ The End of History and the Last Man, Francis Fukuyama, 1992/9.3.2.B2/ The Origin of Political Order, Francis Fukuyama, 2011/9.3.2.B3/ Political Order and Political Decay, Francis Fukuyama, 2014/9.3.2.B4/ Political Order in Changing Societies, Samuel Huntington, 1968/9.3.2.B5/ The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order, Samuel Huntington, 1996/9.3.2.B6/ https//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Fukuyama/9.3.2.C1/ Management Challenges for the 21st Century, Peter Drucker, 1999/9.3.2.C2/ Maslow's Hierarchy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslov's_heirarchy/9.3.2.C3/ Frederick Taylor: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frederick_Winslow_Taylor/9.3.2.C4/ Charley Chaplin's Modern Times: https://www.youtu.be/DfGs2Y5WJ14/9.3.2.C5/ Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind (In Dutch), Yuval Harrari, 2014/9.3.2.C6/ Peter Drucker: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Drucker

171 | Page

/9.3.2.D1/ One World: the ethics of globalization, Peter Singer, 2002/9.3.2.D2/ Man-Made Global Warming: Unravelling a Dogma, Hans Labohm et al., 2004/9.3.2.D3/ The Skeptical Environmentalist, Bjorn Lomborg, 2001/9.3.2.D4/ Nader Bezien ("With Hindsight"), Huib van Heel, 2005/9.3.2.D5/ Book of Numbers: http://en.wikipedia.org/Book_of_Numbers/9.3.2.D6/ War before civilization, Lawrence Keely, 1996/9.3.2.D7/ The Breaking of Nations, Robert Cooper, 2003/9.3.2.D8/ International Criminal Court: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Criminal_Court/9.3.2.D9/ Primates and Philosophers, How Morality Evolved, Frans de Waal, 2006/9.3.2.D10/ The Law of Peoples, John Rawls, 1999/9.3.2.D11/ The Olivine Foundation: http://www.innovationconcepts.eu/Deolivijnstichting.htm/9.3.2.D12/ De vloeibare samenleving (The fluid society), Peter Hagenoord, 2017/9.3.2.D13/ Peter Singer: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Singer/9.3.2.E1/ The Breaking of Nations: Order and Chaos in the twenty-first Century, Robert Cooper, 2003/9.3.2.E2/ Boris Johnson http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boris_Johnson/9.3.2.E3/ The Age of the Extremes, Eric Hobsbawn, 1994/9.3.2.E4/ World Order, Henry Kissinger, 2014/9.3.2.E10/ Sir Robert Cooper http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Cooper_(strategist)/9.3.2.F1/ The Third Industrial Revolution, Jeremy Rifkin, 2011/9.3.2.G1/ And The Weak Suffer What They Must, Yanis Varoufakis, 2016/9.3.2.H1/ The Great Degeneration: How Institutions Decay and Economies Die, Nial Ferguson, 2012/9.3.2.I1/ The Future as a Cultural Fact, Arjun Appadurai, 2013/9.3.2.I2/ Superforecasting, Philip Tetlock & Dan Gardner, 2015/9.3.2.I3/ The Theory of the Leisure Class, Thorstein Veblen, 1899/9.3.2.I4/ How Much Is Enough: Money and the Good Life, Robert & Edward Skidelsky, 2013/9.3.2.I5/ Arjun Appadurai: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arjun_Appadurai/9.3.2.J1/ Secular Stagnation: Facts, Causes and Cures, Richard Baldwin & Coen Teulings, 2014/9.3.2.K1/ This Changes Everything, Naomi Klein, 2014/9.3.2.L1/ Physics of the Future. The Inventions That Will Transform Our Lives, Michio Kaku, 2011/9.3.2.L2/ A History of Pi, Petr Beckmann, 1971/9.3.2.L3/ Superforecasting, Philip Tetlock & Dan Gardner, 2015/9.3.2.L4/ 1434: The Year a Magnificent Chinese Fleet Sailed to Italy and Ignited the Renaissance, Gavin Menzies, 2008/9.3.2.L5/ The Chinese Market Economy 1000-1500, William Guanglin Liu, 2015/9.3.2.L6/ Paris in the Twentieth Century, Jules Verne, 1994 (1863)/9.3.2.L7/ What is Life, Erwin Schrödinger, 1944./9.3.2.L8/ Homo Deus, Yuval Hariri, 2015/9.3.2.L9/ The Great Escape, Angus Deaton, 2013/9.3.2.L10/ The Olivine Foundation: http://www.innovationconcepts.eu/Deolivijnstichting.htm/9.3.2.L11/ On Politics: A History of Political Thought from Herodotus to the Present, Alan Ryan, 2012/9.3.2.L12/ Michio Kaku: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michio_Kaku

9.4 Future Themes: can we detect any trends?

As said before: "prediction is very difficult, especially about the future" ;-) /a/ but some trends within the Themes Theory can be extrapolated as we saw in the previous paragraph. Apparently, some of these writers are so called Super forecasters /b/ which is a trait that can be learned if you are not too sure of yourselves and / or do not want to change the course of the World in a completely new direction within the foreseeable future like the grand 'futurists'. Of course, the Future is almost 100% cultural /c/ and only extreme natural phenomena could wipe out or drastically change our Future but it is also 100% evolutionary. So only probable trends can be detected but nothing else.

After the second World War the new generation grew up with their backs towards war and when war still continued e.g. in Vietnam because of imperialistic - extension of the next level Theme N5: Cities&Countries - and poorly understood other tendencies / (sub)Themes /d/, they revolted against it with the student protests in France in 1968 and the Flower Power movement in the US. Especially this movement changed into something else when it transformed from a movement 'against': War - but in the end against the imperialistic mentality of Countries - into a movement 'in favor of': The Environment - but in the end- still against the imperialistic mentality of Countries.

172 | Page

So, let's see if we are -by now- any better than the grand 'futurists' we have seen in the last paragraph such as e.g. Peter Singer, Francis Fukuyama and Naomi Klein and let's see if Themes Theory is of any help to spot some trends.

Trends quite easily recognized are:1) continuation of Imperialism as the extension of the N5: Cities & Countries into Empires on a World scale (which has been practiced since Alexander the Great and especially practiced since the 18th and 19th century when the European Powers tried to conquer the World to find Markets for their industries), all to help C1: Power with all its contemporary subThemes: Business and Banks and2) Environmentalism as a new Contemporary (sub)Theme since it is the answer for the young generations to set themselves apart from their 'Power hungry' parents.

Another trend could be Secularism. This as the counter movement of C2: The Contemporary Theme Religion.Especially in the West we see that the (Christian) Church is less and less visited and e.g. the new Pope elected in 2013: Fransiscus is openly busy to turn this trend especially in South America.

If we combine Secularism and Environmentalism we could -on the one hand- conclude that people need something 'good' outside themselves to guide them: like alpha and beta 'leaders' /e/ and instead of a God, they take Nature itself as becomes clear in the book by Peter Singer: 'One World' in which he advocates that Environmentalism and especially the fight against 'Man Made Global Warming' is a better guidance for World rule than self-interested Nations /f/. I think however, that Peter Singer is overstretching it and that Environmentalism could be a new way to guide Homo societies through their power struggles, but these struggles will never disappear in 'One World' with 'One Government' since they are Bread and Butter of group life or Human Evolution.

And on the other hand, we can also see an opposing trend to group or Themes Theory: Individualism whereby more 'autistic inclined people' /g/ might become the larger proportion of our societies. But maybe this is just a return to our pre-human roots because we see almost no intersubjectivity in our most next of kin species: primates /h/.

Yet another possible trend within the Contemporary Power subTheme Politics: Anarchism /i/ could win some ground from Democracy in especially the West. However, I think that this will always be a marginal affair because since the Next Level Themes Era (Neolithic) we see that some kind of centralized Power has been in place.

And another trend could be: Empathy /j/. However, I think it will be difficult to motivate people to really fight -and that is what evolution is all about- for this cause even though Roman Krznaric is doing his very best to make us believe in this idea.

And one trend: the prolonging of individual lifespans as a result of the Contemporary Theme C3: Health, Care & Hygene looks very promising /k/ but will not -I think- go on into infinity because that would break both Natural and Behavioral Evolution since Life and Human group dynamics need limited generation lifespans (see also § 5.1) to reshuffle / renew genes or (sub)Themes. However, Yuval Harari thinks that this trend for prolonging individual lifespans belongs to wider trend for immortality, bliss and divinity which touches upon several (sub)Themes like C2: Religion, C4: Science&Technology and C7: Entertainment&Art, sprang from Humanism /l/. This is an interesting thought since it assumes -I think correctly- that all (sub)Themes are interconnected and that from one idea: Humanism many and unpredictable things can shoot. Harari predicts -by the way- that this / these trends will cause the downfall of Humanism, which I think is not a prediction at all since every (sub)Theme will ‘die’ / transform into something else.

So, some very different trends can be detected: (Democratic) Imperialism, Secularism, Humanism, Individualism, or the opposite ‘over protective group sense’ but Environmentalism looks like the most promising to really become a new (sub)Theme and could very well be decisive in the 21st century and beyond. Even though some aspects of Environmentalism have their clear downsides such as: Veganism /m/ because such a lifestyle deprives the body of important nutrients: proteins which have been proven essential like at the start of Agriculture /n/ and thereby children of these idealists have less chance to survive and reproduce. But maybe such ideas won’t hold in a next generation which always chooses an opposing lifestyle because all behavioral Ideas, Myths or Themes have only one aim: enlarge the Power (~number of members) of a Group.

/9.4.a/ Niels Bohr on http://www.quotationspage.com//9.4.b/ Superforecasting, Philip Tetlock & Dan Gardner, 2015/9.4.c/ The Future as a Cultural Fact, Arjun Appadurai, 2013/9.4.d/ The breaking of Nations, Robert Cooper, 2003/9.4.e/ The Creation of Inequality, Flannery & Marcus, 2012/9.4.f/ One World: the ethics of globalization, Peter Singer, 2002

173 | Page

/9.4.g/ Samen voor ons eigen, Dirk Draulans, 2012/9.4.h/ Sarah Blaffer Hrdy, Mothers and Others: The Evolutionary Origins of Mutual Understanding, 2009/9.4.i/ On Anarchism, Noam Chomsky, 2013/9.4.j/ Empathy: A Handbook for Revolution, Roman Krznaric, 2014/9.4.k/ Aubrey de Grey: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aubrey_de_Grey/9.4.l/ Homo Deus, A Brief History of Tomorrow, Yuval Harari, 2015/9.4.m/ Veganism: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veganism/9.4.n/ The Worst Mistake in the History of the Human Race, Discover 8, no. 5 p. 64-66, Jared Diamond, 1987

174 | Page

10. Closing Remarks

So, we are 'groupies': we form groups in every thinkable way and at every thinkable level because we are 'wired to cooperate' /a/. We do this since it gives us an advantage. First against nature and other species but then - after having won the World some 50,000 years ago by e.g. inhabiting Australia and wiping out many of its 'oversized' marsupial species /b/ - against other human groups. And today we see it all around us, grouping permeates our societies which are - of course - themselves ... a group.

How did it come about and how will it evolve?

Well of course genetic evolution 'created' Homo. Maybe through losing our fur /c/, by being infected by the tuberculosis bacterium which provided Homo Sapiens with the necessary vitamin B3 for extra brain growth even while on a relatively meager meat diet /d/ or some or more other gene mutations. And it is for certain that genetic evolution 'decided' about some favorable traits which helped to further our existence and probably 'decided' on several very specific traits such as basic morality /e/ or lactose tolerance which 'guided' the specific group evolution of Indo-European pastoralists by giving these groups a big advantage over pre-state farmers /f/. Which in itself could have triggered or at least strengthened the development of cities and / or countries by farming groups / societies to defend themselves against the warring lactose tolerant pastoralists.

But in my opinion the evolution of Human (group) Behavior has - over the course of history - become more and more disentangled from genetic evolution and has 'created' a (cultural) dynamic of its own that is much faster than genetic or normal evolution and revolves around (sub)Themes /this book/ or Myths /b/ which are not directly connected to specific genes and their mutation(s).

This being said, in contemporary times some individualistic trends - brought about by behavior and genetic coevolution - can be seen as well as is discussed in e.g. Borderline Times by Dirk de Wachter /g/. In this book Dirk de Wachter shows that current more individualistic trends lead to a significant increase in psychological deviations from the norm, i.e. the number of people - absolute and percentage wise - with a recognized psychological asocial 'abnormality' like e.g. ADHD or Asperger has risen and still rises significantly. He argues that this is self-amplifying and that - even though these 'abnormalities' have always been present - current societies are changed in ways that these 'abnormal' behaviors are the better fit to in these societies. To which I add that these behavior(s) have at least a reproductive advantage and apparently (regulatory behavioral) gene 'mutations' can adapt themselves extraordinary quickly (over the course of a few Millennia or even faster, so 100 generations or less) and that multilevel (social) evolution /h/ is clearly working even to such an extent that - changes in - social behavior cause a favorable environment for specific gene mutations as clearly happened with the Ashkenazi Jews of Northern Europe during the Middle Ages who had specific selective pressures on intelligence /f/. So behavioral evolution can be 'ploughed back' into genetic evolution and in this way behavioral / cultural evolution - with its multitude of (sub)Themes developed over the course of (pre-)history - has become The Driver for the survival of the human race. Which is certainly the view of Mark Pagel who sees Culture as the new carrier and replicator for Life and (human) groups as the new survival vehicles /i/. This is quite a nice extension of the Memes idea of Richard Dawkins voiced in his famous book 'The Selfish Gene' and was further worked out by Susan Blackmore in her book 'The Meme Machine' but in my opinion, cannot work because Life would become to much detached from its main expression: 'Biology'. But if we see sets of (sub)Themes -Culture- carried by groups / societies as just another way for Life to strengthen itself through Evolution, then -in my opinion- this is a perfectly logical thing. Please be aware that I use ‘’ around words like created, decided, ploughed back, because the intentionality of these words is not what is meant since even though humans have done this, it was certainly not on purpose but just evolved / unfolded as Matt Ridley brilliantly describes in his book: The Evolution of Everything /j/.

But anyway, maybe the current individualistic trends are nothing more than a generation change as discussed by Christian Scholz in his book: 'Generation Z' /k/ in which he sees a totally counter movement to the developments after WW II in Germany whereby corporatism with companies like Siemens took the lead and working people became a member of these corporations for life. But now Generation Z is very opportunistic in every step they take, and they certainly do not take work or World politics as the most important aspects of their life. Which is a luxury -I am afraid- they probably cannot afford for long because Human evolution will make them ‘fight’ one way or the other.

What can be said about future changes in Basic (see § 5.2), Next Level (please refer to § 5.3) and Contemporary (sub)Themes (see § 6.2) as discussed in this book?

175 | Page

As a first - on a general level - we can conclude that Human Behavior will for the foreseeable future revolve around 'Power' [something on the wide scale between N3: Power and C1: Power] and 'Religion' [B5: Cosmology or Belief and C2: Religion] and that other (sub)Themes will always be used to 'help' these main Themes. And it can be said that all (sub)Themes are used to control as large a group as possible and since groups (have to) live somewhere (taking) control over Land [N1: Agriculture & Land] is the first manifestation of Power, especially N3-styled - i.e. centralized - Power. This was e.g. neatly shown by the (re)annexation of the Crimea by Russia when Ukraine became openly pro-Western in the beginning of 2014.

And in a broader perspective the move from a hunter-gatherer way of life to a more residential - with agriculture - way of life proved successful since the residential groups had a higher survival rate and therefore grew in size and overpowered the hunter-gatherers whereby the Basic Theme Power (B4) played a key role since the residential groups had a much more centralized power structure as opposed to the hunter-gatherers who had a much less centralized / much more egalitarian power structure /l/. And the first agricultural societies created much better techniques for providing food like breeding crops, livestock and / or had higher yields - like the Egyptians - and therefore had a higher growth rate and could therefore overpower / fend off neighboring (hunter-gatherer) groups / societies. And on a more contemporary level we can point at the Chinese Market Economy during the Song-Dynasty whereby an agrarian Market Economy evolved with exceptionally high per family incomes and state tax returns /m/. Or the Dutch Golden Age whereby the Dutch made better use of the qualities of their citizens with their new Business model of shared ownership and could therefore fight off the much larger Spanish Empire and rule the World for a century or more /n/.

Secondly, I would like to stress that I am not at all as pessimistic as Jared Diamond is, who in his book "Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed" /o/ foresees that especially the modern Western World will collapse. Jared Diamonds proof is weak since his definitions of societies and collapse are rather vague and he cannot pinpoint a single person -not even on Easter Island- who died suddenly because of such a collapse. On the contrary: if a certain group (or society) did collapse it did so because people / individuals chose to live elsewhere so chose to live in a different society which is social / behavioral group evolution at its very best.

And even if a certain group really died a rather sudden death - because of thirst or starvation - other societies - 'next door neighbors' - lived on and this is exactly what will happen if the West would collapse. The Western individual might have to endure 'hard' times but certainly not a sudden death and societies like in China or India will take over and so the human race is - in my opinion - not at all endangered. That the modern / 'escaped' society is likely to survive is seen by others as well, e.g. Angus Deaton is cautiously optimistic in his book The Great Escape /p/. And Deaton analyses only two Contemporary (sub)Themes: Health (C3: Health, Care & Hygiene) and Wealth (C1c: Business, C1d: Banks) over the last 250 years so he bases himself on a rather narrow subset of human activity. Of which he himself admits that a broader analysis would be better but these two are within his capabilities and already give a much better view than one just within one domain.

So, all through human history we see that the Power Theme changed / evolved from its rather humble basic start (B4) to a more prominent role in the next level Era (N3) and now as the most prominent Theme in contemporary matters (C1).

As an example, we can point at the German society which was formed in mid-19th century and chose Education but especially Science & Technology to outperform competing societies and even though they lost two World Wars Germany is still in the driving seat in Europe (or the World for that matter) as can be seen from the fact that Angela Merkel was able to summon president Obama to Germany in 2013. And it is Germany that is calling the shots in Europe even with a relative small population of around 80 million - compared to some 450 million European citizens and has an even smaller birthrate of 1.4 per female in 2013 (see appendix 2) than the European average. So direct numbers -population size- matter less and less. And we can point at the American society which has from the mid-19th century onward been able to push the contemporary subTheme: Business to incredible innovative flexibility often made possible by investments in Science & Technology by other Governments / Countries around the World /q/. However, even though this suggests that economic power drives all else as is e.g. stated by Robert Allen in his booklet 'Global Economic History' /r/, I don't think so. I think that a somehow united society which by military means overpowers or impresses other societies is what is key to (Global) dominance. As can e.g. be read between the lines in Robert Allen's booklet with England and the USA as examples which (are able to) spend much more on a military apparatus in their time than their (direct) competitors and then acquire (Global) dominance. Of course, they are able to afford this expenditure, but it is the common resolve / unitedness that starts this buildup process and - if successful - the economy follows and is able to bare this expenditure.

So, Power is what it is all about /s/ and Belief / Religion was, is and probably will be for the foreseeable future, its closest companion /t/ even though Daniel Dennett tries to speed up the process of disentanglement of these two most important Themes with his book 'Breaking the Spell' in which he scientifically investigates Religion /u/. And Karen Armstrong

176 | Page

does support this vision in her book ‘FIELDS of BLOOD’ /v/ in which she explains that although most people blame Religion for all the violence in this and past Worlds it was, is and will be Power which caused all the misery. Incidentally she uses a slightly different definition for Religion which she lets begin in the 18th century, i.e. after the 30 years’ war in Europe and the peace of West Phalia in 1648 /w/. However, this view: Religion is not to blame, is not fully accepted by Amin Maalouf, who in his book ‘Disordered World’ /x/ points to the fact that Religious Radicalism in the Arab-Muslim world was during the bipolar 20th century first opposing Atheist Communism but when that crumbled down and ended with the fall of the Berlin Wall became opposed to mainly Christian Capitalism. So, in that view Religion is causing all the violence. But, as Maalouf points out, not backed by Religious Ideology -this is the best way forward and everybody must see that, i.e. a feeling of superiority- but by Religious Identity -this is who we are and don’t mingle with that, i.e. a feeling of inferiority-.

But other (sub)Themes are not to be neglected as can be seen from the many examples in World history which ruled - part of - the waves during their moments of fame.Egypt: agriculture with strong godlike central powerPersia: tribute / taxes paid by the 28 tribes to a benevolent central power with a well-trained armyGreece: strong cities, first ‘democracy’ in Athens and the first attempts at science & technology.China: agriculture, cities (& city states) and strong central powerRome: highly trained armies and a ruthless centralized power including some 'democracy'Charlemagne: Christianity and a strong central commandVikings: sailing ships and a strong central command and -not unimportant- a Karolian empire falling to pieces /y/or more recently:Italy: a number of very rich (through trade) City States with extremely successful family Businesses and the advent of BanksHolland: federal Government of Autonomous Provinces each with several cities, the advent of 'modern' shareholder Business and Ships & WindmillsEngland: Strong Nobility - bordering on democracy -, Sea Power and then Industrial RevolutionUnited States: a new balance: Politics & Government <--> shareholder Business & Banks and vast resources: Land and People to test every opportunityGermany: 'Democratic' central Power, Education and Science & Technology

From the above we would expect that a society's population size is mainly the result of won wars or the overpowering of neighboring societies. However if we look at the growth of World Population over time /z;aa/ or figure 5 in § 7.3.15 we find that disease had a much bigger impact than all of the other factors combined. E.g. the Black Death (Plague) in 541 CE in the Eastern Roman Empire wiped out about 50% of the 40 - 60 million citizens /ab/ or (again) the Black Death in 1340 CE in Europe decimated Europe's population at the time from around 450 million to 350 million /ac/ or the European diseases which killed about 90% of the population (from over 100 million to around 10 million) of the Americas in the 100 years following Columbus's discovery because the indigenous people did not have antibodies against them /ad/. And the many other examples like the resistance against cholera in East-India (Bangla Dash) which was not present in other parts of the World so when this disease started to spread at the end of the 19th century it killed many people around the World /ae/.

And only when we started on the path of the Contemporary Theme: Health, Care & Hygiene (C3) in the middle of the 19th century World Population really exploded /z/.

Still - on the one hand - I think the Power Theme has been and still is the most important Theme because we have felt its influence all through the ages whereas the Health, Care & Hygiene Theme was out of reach for most societies until the middle of the 19th century and its 'revenues' are quite evenly spread over all living societies even though some hiccups occur (e.g. HIV medicines for Africa). This equality is quite simply explained with the realization that currently 'winning' societies are very much democratic and therefore their population - with current information sharing systems - do not accept a blockade of an effective medicine to the members of a 'losing' society.

And - on the other hand - the Power Theme will always be helped by all other (sub)Themes as they are seen fit by the respective societies / leaders. E.g. with the rise to prominence of C4: Science & Technology in 17th century England - which directly led to the Industrial Revolution - Francis Bacon already stated that - in his words - this 'Instrument' would help the user to (more) power: 'Knowledge is Power' /af/. In fact, this is an amazing feat / prediction since the real industrial revolution only got started some 150 years later.

So, Power or 'recognition' as Francis Fukuyama calls it /t/ - with all its quirks and twists - is and - most probably – will be the most prominent Theme until the indefinite future. And Land and Population size will be its most recognizable manifestations. And all the fears and worries of an extinction of the human race or life on Earth as a whole are - in my

177 | Page

opinion - greatly exaggerated. Struggle for life / group Competition is in our veins because it helps us to survive and therefore will not 'help us' to become extinct. Even the latest fear: computer super-intelligence which could take over /ag/, is greatly exaggerated. Like the fear for Industrialization at the beginning of the 19th century in England as was voiced by the Luddites /ah_1/. These skilled weavers and other textile workers were afraid for their jobs and indeed their skills became less and less in demand, but other skilled jobs replaced them which were occupied by ... people of the same intellect and background so they or their children still found jobs. Or the fear of the Neo Luddites in contemporary times /ah_2/ which is equally unfounded: yes, some people will lose their jobs but other jobs will replace them as -at least- Garry Kasparov thinks as well /ai/.

In the case of computer super-intelligence taking over we as humans do not have to fear because such intelligence is not the product of evolution and therefore does not have the drive for survival and thus Power. And it is exactly our fear - which leads to books on such matters or initiatives like 'OpenAI' /aj/- that will protect us from such dangers, fears that such a super-intelligence will not have and therefore it will not be protected from us pulling the plug if it starts behaving erratically. Although Matt Ridley makes a good case that e.g. shutting down the Internet with its autonomous whispering is already impossible and, in the end, every technological product shows evolution and therefore wants to stay alive /j/. If, however, you turn the argument around and see super-intelligence as the new survival vehicle /i/ of the set of Memes bundled by this super-intelligence then you might become afraid that -such a- superintelligence takes over but even though it would be the end of the human race it certainly would not be the end of the human culture because that is exactly what the set of Memes bundled by this superintelligence entails.

What could be dangerous to the survival of our culture though is robot evolution, i.e. robots 'mating' and producing 'offspring'. Such an idea now realized /ak/ could become the new form of living because it really evolves, slow at first but probably much faster later. And then -through the force of evolution- robots will out compete us. Which is a creepy idea but again nothing to worry about since it will not kill 'us' instantaneously because there will be a period during which both living species will compete for resources and that is part and parcel of every era we have seen so far.

I think, however, that Computers / Artificial Intelligence / Robots are a very good thing indeed. Now that they are interconnected, and we start using this Internet as a common storage and retrieval system instead of books and / or written documents; Texts / Information / Ideas / Myths / (sub)Themes become much more flexible over time. On the one hand when we feel that alterations should be made the author(s) simply make(s) them and even programs can autonomously make such alterations. This changes the way we can deal with texts enormously because up to now once a book / document / text was written -especially books like the Torah, the Bible, the Quran or medical texts like Galen's papers /al/- it could / should not be changed and after a while when human history progressed inevitably a clear discrepancy with contemporary views emerged. This led to many discussions on how one should read the 'old' text in the new times or how one should strictly behave according to the written text. Only texts like 'The Bhagavad Gita' /am/, which was so carefully written that there was something for everybody to feel attracted to / comfortable with, which is precisely the Hindu World view, did not inspire people to grab their weapons and force the 'other' group(s) to live by their interpretation(s). And e.g. the common law in England –which is not a statutory law made by one or a few people at a certain moment in time but based on all (court) decisions from a certain moment in time: 1066 CE and from then on added to by what happened in society and loosely used by each judge when a decision is to be made- was / is another example of such a flexible system /j/. If now such and other texts -created and maintained on the Internet- become much more flexible they could / will stay much more aligned with current views in (a) society and therefore many interpretation 'fights' become unnecessary. And on the other hand, computers / the Internet have made it much more simple to switch what you are reading / viewing: so when you feel that you are forced into some Idea / Myth you can simple jump to another text whereby with books you can only start skipping pages or -in a library switch to another book- but the reader is still locked in the world of the author(s). So, seen from this angle on the Internet there is much less cause for friction. Of course, however, we will think of other ways to test 'new' ways / have a human evolution playing field for the Power 'games' we simply must play. As an example of how flexible texts on the Internet function see Booking.com: a website that is constantly -like 40x a day- changing its layout / wording -on a comparative basis via so called A/B testing- to see what works best for the moment. But -of course- the basic idea of its content stays the same.

And if I was to make a guess for the near future which new (sub)Themes will pop-up I think 'Environmentalism' is a good choice as it is a completely new way to define a group: not based on family, city / country or belief (an Idea learned through upbringing) but a real-life thing 'outside' humans. That this Idea or (sub)Theme is already warming up we see from all the conferences being held -like the Paris Climate Agreement in 2015 /an/- on this subject and the pressure groups using it such that it can be seen as the replacement of Religion as the companion of Contemporary Power: Politics, Government, Business & Banks, as can be seen from the reactions to the withdrawal of the USA by president Donald Trump. On the other hand, however, it could also peter out as there is no real problem with the environment which cannot be solved by just another / better way of looking at it /ao/ or - if ultimately necessary - making some small changes in our behavior. Like e.g. the Israeli's did with tapwater: they had / have a severe drought since 2005 but solved

178 | Page

it by a combination of water desalination & water reclaiming technology and -small- behavioral changes that made everyone aware to be extra efficient with water /ap/.

And Environmentalism could be a sign that the Contemporary Power Theme is in for a major reshuffle, i.e. the subTheme Banks is becoming outdated which can be deduced from the financial crisis and the fact all three geographical power-blocks: China, USA and Europe (in that order ;-) use(d) unlimited amounts of money to stimulate their economies / save their banks. This will result in a major shift in the balance between Business and Banks in that Business already dictates under what conditions they can get loans if only they pay a little more interest. And although this might look rather harmless it is in fact undermining the whole system developed since the start of Banks in Toscany / Florence since the 13th century CE and the notion of making money and weighing projects on their earning power since the start of the VOC in 1602 in the Republic of the Seven Provinces (Holland). What you see is companies desperately looking for other measures to weigh projects. E.g. in China you see large internet operators luring customers with (electric) bikes distributed by the millions in every major city or in the USA you see tech companies doing all kind of projects for society, like e.g. Microsoft (Bill Gates) investing in all kinds of projects like the development of medicines or free learning systems like Kahn Academy or Google investing in all kinds projects to spread the (use of) internet like the self driving car and in Europe you see heavily subsidized projects for renewable energy whereby companies are jumping on the bandwagon by developing renewable energy projects which have a low or negative ROI but a good (perceived) Return On Environmental Impact. Because this is an evolutionary behavioral development it cannot -and should not- be avoided but it will give a major upheaval of current power structures as can be read in Secular Stagnation /aq/, which is exactly what it is intended to do.

Another new (sub)Theme could be immortality. Though not quite new it is for the first time that we really logically contemplate immortality /ar/. And as Yuval Harari rightly states in his book: ‘Homo Deus’, we are thereby pursuing to become Gods. For now, it is the Superrich that can pursue this and made e.g. Google founders Sergey Brin and Larry Page launch the project Calico /as/ but if they / we have reached this goal it -in the end- will be spread to everyone on the planet and probably be used to leave the planet (see below).

A 'new' (sub)Theme that most probably will not make it as a separate (sub)Theme is 'Empathy' /at/. Even though Roman Krznaric is trying his very best to show that it could and should fly high. And he is certainly right in that empathy is what makes most people tick so that you can almost speak of 'Homo Empathicus'. However, it is counter evolutionary to put 'the other person' first. Yes, it is built into our veins as e.g. Robin Dunbar /d/ or Frans de Waal /e/ show but built in for a purpose: i.e. to -as a group- have a higher chance of survival. So, you feel or should feel more empathy towards a group member than towards a non-group member. That this is so can be seen from the very real and extremely difficult choice a fresh South African conscript had to make in the Angolan war in the 1980s when he arrived at his first posting and was told to finish off a deadly wounded Swapo fighter /au/.

So, Power is what it is all about and we -have to- use everything including empathy to reach that goal. On that level empathy is the same as language: we simply use it, but we cannot get people to fight for it.

An existing subTheme that might see great change is 'Money' /aq/. This subTheme is the basis for the more general Contemporary subThemes: C1b: Power_Government, C1c: Power_Business and C1d: Power_Banks because with Money we can decide which possible future path / opportunity a group, business, society or country should follow but it appears we have -in the Western World at least- too much of it so this function has eroded. And probably will create a World whereby Money / Currency does not carry the Prowess it used to. And although I think it is not likely this subTheme will disappear, and we have to resort to barter trade, we have to find new ways to restrict its abundance since -if too much of it is available- it is impossible to find to 'best' way forward. And you see societies / countries spend extraordinarily sums of money on things that are not used: e.g. office buildings all over the Globe in the (financial) Centers of the World, Railway links in the Netherlands, Ghost cities in China or you see a very quick reduction of the value of existing infrastructure through a significant reduction of the reliability of those systems: e.g. Wind & Solar Power in Germany destabilizing the German / European electricity grid. The latter could in fact destabilize the German Economy, which in itself is exactly the natural evolutionary process of Human Behavior: what (sub)Theme -and thereby subgroups- is going to win. So the value / use of Money for deciding which way forward is best is eroding because many more aspects that are not expressible in Money enter the (political) decision process.

This idea is not new however and is vividly described by e.g. Yanis Varoufakis in his book: ‘And The Weak Suffer What They Must?’ /av/ in which he tells the story of the demise of the Bretton Woods system of pegged to the Dollar Western Currencies until the US becomes a net importer of goods -and is in fact losing Prowess- in the 1960s and the history behind the EMS / Euro with its almost fatal Problems during the World financial crisis in 2010 and onwards with the decision to take complete Countries hostage by not writing off their unsurmountable debts and keep on printing / crating

179 | Page

Money (Quantitative Easing by the ECB all during the 2010s) in order to appease the Banking World but in fact making Money so cheap that it can no longer function as a way to compare alternatives.

And for the far future - long before Earth will be exhausted - I foresee that we will make the jump to other planets in our solar system and maybe other solar systems after that, since we only need: matter, energy and evidence to live anywhere in the Universe /aw/. When we make that jump I think we can speak of -the start of- a new Themes Era because then we must make considerable changes in our behavior to adapt to this new environment and a whole range of new (sub)Themes must and will emerge as can e.g. be read in /ax/ (in particular drinking beer and finding the questions to answers we already have ;-) Or can be deduced from the idea that we must have at least near immortality to accept travel times of a 100 years or more to reach other solar systems. But until that moment we will -without a doubt- improve upon the Contemporary (sub)Themes as can be read in e.g. Enlightenment NOW: The Case for Reason, Science, Humanism, and Progress /ay/. So, we do not have to worry about exhausting the Earth, polluting the Earth to such an extent that it becomes inhabitable or an annihilation of Humans by an all-encompassing World War.

And -as a final note- the fear that eventual contact with extraterrestrial intelligence would lead to our slavery or demise as Jared Diamond predicted /az/ are grossly overestimating our capabilities with physics for a long time to come because interstellar travel requires -if at all possible- immense energies which -when we acquire the skill to use them in that way- means that we have entered into a totally different league of civilizations which most probably entails a completely different mindset, culture and Themes Era which might have a totally different way to deal with Power and -at least- is that far away into the future that having worries about it now is far beyond any point.

There is one pessimistic note however, I hereby must declare that -according to Themes Theory- every non-fiction ‘item’ we have ever invented and talked or written about is fiction as well, but for some of us this is the most optimistic sentence ever written ;-).

/10.a/ Mothers and Others: The Evolutionary Origins of Mutual understanding, Sarah Blaffer Hrdy, 2009/10.b/ Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind (In Dutch), Yuval Noah Harari, 2014 /10.c/ Homo Nudus: De naakte mens ("The Naked Human"), Dick Slagter, 2012/10.d/ Human Evolution, Robin Dunbar, 2014/10.e/ Primates and Philosophers: How Morality Evolved, Frans de Waal, 2006/10.f/ The 10.000 Year Explosion: How Civilization Accelerated Human Evolution, Cochran & Harpending, 2009 /10.g/ Borderline Times, Dirk de Wachter, 2012/10.h/ The Social Conquest of Earth, Edward O. Wilson, 2012/10.i/ Wired for Culture: The Natural History of Human Cooperation, Mark Pagel, 2012/10.j/ The Evolution of Everything: How Small Changes Transform Our Worlds, Matt Ridley, 2015/10.k/ Generation Z: Wie sie tickt, was sie verändert und warum sie uns alle ansteckt, Christian Scholz, 2014/10.l/ The Creation of Inequality, Flannery & Marcus, 2012/10.m/ The Chinese Market Economy 1000-1500, William Guanglin Liu, 2015/10.n/ The Dutch Republic, Jonathan Israel, 1995/10.o/ Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed, Jared Diamond, 2005/10.p/ The Great Escape, Angus Deaton, 2013/10.q/ The Entrepreneurial State: Public vs. Private Sector Myths, Mariana Mazzucato, 2014/10.r/ Global Economic History: A Very Short Introduction, Robert C. Allen, 2011/10.s/ The Great Leveler – Violence and the history of inequality from the Stone Age to the twenty-first century, Walter Scheidel, 2015/10.t/ The Origins of Political Order, Francis Fukuyama, 2011/10.u/ Breaking the Spell: Religion as a natural phenomenon, Daniel Dennett, 2006/10.v/ FIELDS of BLOOD: Religion and the History of Violence, Karen Armstrong, 2014/10.w/ World Order, Henry Kissinger, 2014/10.x/ Disordered World, Amin Maalouf, 2011 (English Ed.)/10.y/ Vikingen: Noormannen in de Lage Landen, Luit van der Tuuk, 2015 /10.z/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population/10.aa/ The World at Six Billion, United Nations, 1999/10.ab/ Justinian Plague; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plague_of_Justinian/10.ac/ Black Death; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Death/10.ad/ 1491: New Revelations of the Americas Before Columbus, Charles Mann, 2nd Ed. 2011/10.ae/ Plagues and Peoples, William H. McNeill, 1977/10.af/ The New Organon, Francis Bacon, 1620/10.ag/ Superintelligence: Paths, dangers and strategies, Nick Bostrom, 2014/10.ah_1/ Luddites; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luddite

180 | Page

/10.ah_2/ Neo-Luddism; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo-Luddism/10.ai/ Deep Thinking. Where machine intelligence ends, and human creativity begins, Garry Kasparov, 2017/10.aj/ OpenAI; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenAI/10.ak/ Baby Robot; http://www.scientas.nl/primeur-s-werelds-eerste-robot-baby-geboren-amsterdam//10.al/ Transmitting a Text Through Three Languages: ‘Peri Anomalou Dyskrasias’, Gerrit Bos et al., 2014/10.am/ The Bhagavad Gita, W.J. Johnson, 1994/10.an/ Paris Climate Agreement; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_Agreement/10.ao/ Extreme Environment: How environmental exaggeration harms emerging economies, Ivo Vegter, 2012/10.ap/ The water crisis is over: http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4340554,00.html, 2013/10.aq/ Secular Stagnation: Facts, Causes and Cures, Richard Baldwin & Coen Teulings, 2014/10.ar/ Aubrey de Grey; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aubrey_de_Grey/10.as/ Homo Deus: a Brief History of Tomorrow, Yuval Harari, 2015/10.at/ Empathy: A Handbook for Revolution, Roman Krznaric, 2014/10.au/ Private conversation with a white South African man in 2009/10.av/ And The Weak Suffer What They Must, Yanis Varoufakis, 2016/10.aw/ The Beginning of Infinity, David Deutsch, 2012/10.ax/ The Hitchhikers Guide To The Galaxy, Douglas Adams, 1979/10.ay/ Enlightenment NOW: The Case for Reason, Science, Humanism, and Progress, Steven Pinker, 2018/10.az/ The Third Chimpanzee, Jared Diamond, 2006

181 | Page

11. References

Jacob Abbott;/ Alexander the Great, 1876 /5.3.3.f/Hans Achterhuis; De Utopie van de vrije markt (The Utopia of a free Market Economy), 2010 /8.4.u/8.5.i/Douglas Adams; The Hitchhikers Guide To The Galaxy, 1979 /8.37.b/10.ax/G. Alberts; "The Rise of Mathematical Modeling" (in Dutch), March 2000 /8.4.g/Amir Alexander; Infinitesimal: How a dangerous Mathematical Theory shaped the Modern World, 2014 /5.1.j/5.3.6.e_1/5.3.7.n/6.2.2.l/6.2.4.r/6.2.5.m/Richard Alexander; How Did Humans Evolve?: Reflections on the Uniquely Unique Species, 1990 /5.1.s/Jim Al-Khalili; Pathfinders: The Golden Age of Arabic Science, 2010 /5.3.7.c/Robert Allen; The Britsh Industrial Revolution in Global Perspective, 2009 /6.2.4.m/Robert Allen; Global Economic History: A Very Short Introduction, 2011 /6.2.1.j/6.2.1.3.m/6.2.4.ag/6.2.5.e/7.3.18.w/7.3.20.e/8.21.e/8.25.c/8.36.e/10.r/Arjun Appadurai; The Future as a Cultural Fact, 2013 /9.3.2.I1/9.4.c/Apple Inc; Form 10-K (Annual Report), filed Oct. 27th, 2010 /8.33.c/Roger Arditi et al.; Coupling in Predator-Prey Dynamics: Ratio Dependence, J. theor. Biol. 1989 /7.3.15.b/9.1.h/Dan Ariely; Predictably Irrational: The Hidden Forces That Shape Our Decisions, 2009 /1.e/4.k/6.2.1.3.l/Karen Armstrong; A History of God. From Abraham to the Present: The 4000 - Year Quest of Judaism, Christianity and Islam, 1993 /6.2.2.b2/7.3.3.d/Karen Armstrong; FIELDS of BLOOD: Religion and the History of Violence, 2014 /5.2.n/5.3.1.s/5.3.5.s/7.3.20.b/10.v/Q. Atkinson; 'Phonemic diversity supports a serial founder effect model of language expansion from Africa' in Science 332, 2011 /5.2.g/

Louis Bachelier; Theorie de la Speculation, 1900 /8.4.e_2/Francis Bacon; The New Organon, 1620 /6.2.4.a/10.af/Walter Bagehot; Lombard Street, 1873 /6.2.1.4.d/Richard Baldwin & Coen Teulings; Secular Stagnation: Facts, Causes and Cures, 2014 /6.2.1.m/8.4.x/8.37.i/9.3.2.J1/10.aq/Philip Ball; Critical Mass: how one thing leads to another, 2004 /3.t/9.1.r/Michael Barber, How to Run a Government. So that Citizens Benefit and Taxpayers Don't Go Crazy, 2015 /6.2.1.2.o/ O. Bar-Yosef & D. Price; Pathways to Power - New perspectives on the emergence of social inequality, 2010 /5.2.4.e/ Simon Baron-Cohen; Zero Degrees of Empathy - A new theory of human cruelty, 2011 /8.7.c/Susan Wise Bauer; The STORY of WESTERN SCIENCE, 2015 /6.2.2.n/6.2.4.c/Roy F. Baumeister; Social psychology and Human sexuality: essential readings, 2001 /6.2.6.b/Roy F. Baumeister; Willpower, rediscovering the greatest Human Strength, 2011 /8.13.b/Gary Becker; The Economic Approach to Human Behaviour, 1976 /8.37.c/Petr Beckmann; A History of Pi, 1971 /5.3.7.d/6.2.4.q/7.3.15.f/9.3.2.L2/Luis Bettencourt et al.; A unified Theory of Urban Living, Nature 2010 /5.3.5.f_1/Luis Bettencourt et al.; Growth, Innovation, scaling, and the pace of life in cities, March 2007 /5.3.5.al/Ben van Beurden (CEO Royal Dutch Shell) ; Interview in the NRC Weekend 6&7 sept. 2014 /6.2.1.3.q/Susan Blackmore; The Meme Machine, 1999 /3.o/5.2.l/Philipp Blom; De opstand van de natuur. Een geschiedenis van de Kleine IJstijd (1570-1700) en het ontstaan van het moderne Europa, 2017 /6.2.1.g/Gerrit Bos (& McVaugh & Shatzmiller); Transmitting a Text Through Three Languages: Peri Anomalou Dyskrasias, 2014 /10.al/Nick Bostrom; Superintelligence: Paths, dangers and strategies, 2014 /10.ag/Robert Boyd and Peter Richerson; Not by Genes Alone: How Culture Transformed Human Evolution, 2005 /5.2.s/David Boyle; The Tyranny of Numbers, 2001 /5.1.d/7.3.23.n/8.37.f/John Brockman; Intelligent Thought: Science versus the Intelligent Design Movement, 2006 /2.f/Jerry Brotton; A History of the World in Twelve Maps, 2012 /6.2.1.3.p/6.2.2.v/6.2.4.z/7.3.15.e/John Broome; Weighing lives, 2006 /7.3.23.k/Nicholas Brown et.al.; "The complex dynamics of wishful thingking: The critical positivity ratio.", American Psychologist, Dec. 2013 p. 801-813, /9.1.n/Erik Brynjolfsson & Andrew McAfee, The Second Machine Age, 2014 /7.3.6.c/Martin Bull (&Paul Heywood); West European Communist parties after the revolutions of 1989, 1994 /8.14.b/Vannevar Bush; Science: The Endless Frontier, Report to the President, 1945 /6.2.4.am/Karl W. Butzer; Collapse, environment, and society, PNAS vol. 109 no. 10, March 2012 /8.37.t/

182 | Page

Ewen Callaway; Farming invented twice in Middle East, Nature 2016 /7.3.5.e/Nigel Calder (&Henrik Svensmark); The Chilling Stars: A new theory of climate change, 2007 /7.3.11.d/8.38.d/Margaret Canovan; ‘Joseph Priestly on Rank and Inequality’, in ‘Enlightenment and Dissent’, 1983 /7.3.18.e/Francesco Carletti; Reis om de Wereld ("Trip around the World"), c. 1610 /6.1.f/David Carrasco; Religions of Mesoamerica, 1990 /5.2.7.k/5.2.8.j/5.3.1.c/5.3.2.c/5.3.5.ac/6.2.1.2.i/8.9.d/Rodrigo Castro et al.; Human-Nature Interaction in World Modeling with Modelica, March 2014 Modelica Conference Lund, Sweden /9.1.x/Luca & Francesco Cavalli-Sforza; The Great Human Diaspora, 1995 /5.2.4.d/Ha-Joon Chang; Economics: The User's Guide, 2014 /5.3.5.ae/5.3.6.f/6.2.1.3.s/6.2.1.4.g/7.3.18.t/8.4.v/8.37.a/Jung Chang & Jon Halliday; MAO The Unknown Story, 2006 /5.2.6.c/5.3.3.i/6.2.4.af/8.12.c/9.1.a/9.2.o/Annping Chin; The Authentic Confucius. A Life of Thought and Politics, 2007 /5.3.5.k/8.12.d/9.2.k/Noam Chomsky; On Anarchism, 2013 /8.26.d/9.4.i/Robert Cialdini; Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion, 1984 /4.g/Nicolas Claidiere & Dan Sperber; Defining and explaining culture: comments on 'Not by genes alone', 2005 /2.y/Bill Clinton; The case for optimism: 5 Ideas that are changing the World, Time magazine, Oct. 1st 2012 /8.26.a/Gregory Cochran; The 10.000 Year Explosion: How Civilization Accelerated Human Evolution, 2009 /2.ab/3.s/5.1.n/5.2.p/5.3.a/5.3.1.d/5.3.3.c/5.3.5.h/6.2.3.s/7.3.10.b/7.3.17.b/8.22.a/10.f/13.1.b/Jim Collins; Good to Great, why some companies make the leap ... and others don't, 2001 /8.14.c/Robert Cooper; The Breaking of Nations: Order and Chaos in the Twenty-First Century, 2003 /4.y/5.2.t/5.3.5.m/6.2.1.c/7.3.22.h/8.2.b/8.32.a/9.2.a/9.3.2.D7/9.3.2.E1/9.4.d/Robert P. Crease; The great Equations, 2008 /5.3.7.b/6.2.4.ab/M. Cremaschi; Wadi Teshuinat: Palaeoclimate and Prehistory in South-western Fezzan (Libyan Sahara), 1998 /5.3.1.o/Emma Crewe & Elizabeth Harrison; Whose Development: An Ethnography of Aid, 1998 /8.35.b/Theresa L. Crenshaw; Why we love and lust: How our sex hormones influence our relationships, 1996 /7.3.11.a/Alfred W. Crosby; The Measure of Reality: Quantification and Western Society, 1250 - 1600, 1997 /6.1.g/6.2.2.w/6.2.4.v/6.2.7.d/7.3.1.f/7.3.15.h/Thomas Crump; A Brief History of Science: As Seen Through the Developments of Scientific Instruments, 2001 /6.2.4.f/

Antonio Damasio; Descartes' Error: Emotion, Reason, and the Human Brain, 1994 /3.x/4.n/Charles Darwin; On the Origin of Species, 1st. Ed. 1859 /2.a/8.22.b/Charles Darwin; The Expression of the Emotions in Man and Animals, 1872 /4.a/Charles Darwin; On the Decent of Man, 2nd. Ed. 1874 /2.i/4.b/Davids & Edwards; Annotated Readings in the History of Statistics, 2001 /7.3.23.m/Richard Dawkins; The selfish Gene, 1976 /5.2.k/Richard Dawkins; The greatest show on Earth, 2010 /2.d/Angus Deaton; The Great Escape: health, wealth and the origins of inequality, 2013 /6.2.3.i/6.2.4.ao/7.3.18.r/7.3.23.h/8.5.e/8.37.q/9.3.2.L9/10.p/Dan Dediu & Stephen Levinson; On the antiquity of language, Frontiers of Psychology, 2013:4:397 /5.2.d/Trudy Dehue; Betere Mensen, over gezondheid als keuze en koopwaar ('Healthier People'), 2014 /7.3.3.i/Daniel Dennett; Darwin's Dangerous Idea, 1995 /2.y/Daniel Dennett; Breaking the Spell: Religion as a natural phenomenon, 2006, /6.2.2.z/9.1.f/10.u/David Deutsch; The Beginning of Infinity, 2012 /2.an/6.2.1.4.e/6.2.4.aj/7.3.15.g/7.3.18.u/7.3.22.g/8.27.e/8.28.d/10.aw/Keith Devlin; The Man of Numbers, 2011 /5.2.8.f/6.2.1.4.f/7.3.1.g/Keith Devlin; 'Language and Natural Selection' in 'This Explains Everything' John Brockman Ed., 2013 /5.2.b/Irven DeVore & Richard Lee; Man the Hunter, 1968 /7.3.23.e_1/Jared Diamond; The Worst Mistake in the History of the Human Race, Discover 8, no. 5 p. 64-66, 1987 /7.3.23.a/9.4.n/13.1.a/Jared Diamond; Guns, Germs, and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies, 1997 /2.aa/5.2.4.c/5.3.1.l/8.28.a/Jared Diamond; Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed, 2005 /8.37.l/10.o/Jared Diamond; The Third Chimpanzee, 2006 /10.az/Jared Diamond; The World Until Yesterday, 2012 /5.2.1.h/5.2.4.f/5.2.6.d/7.3.14.d/7.3.16.b/Dirk Draulans; Samen voor ons eigen ('Together for ourselves'), 2012 /4.p/7.2.a/8.24.c/9.4.g/Peter Drucker; Management Challenges for the 21st Century, 1999 /6.2.1.3.j/7.3.5.d/7.3.20.d/8.16.f/9.3.2.C1/Robin Dunbar; Human Evolution, 2014 /2.k/3.c/4.e/5.1.d/5.2.a/5.2.1.a/5.2.2.c/5.2.3.c/5.2.5.e/5.2.7.b/5.2.8.b/5.3.1.e/5.3.2.a/5.3.4.c/5.3.5.e/6.2.1.2.f/7.1.c/7.3.2.a/7.3.3.a/7.3.25.e/7.3.27.b/10.d/Kevin Dutton; The Wisdom of Psychopaths, 2012 /7.3.3.h/Mark Dyble et al.; Sex equality can explain the unique social structure of hunter-gatherer bands, 2015 /5.2.4.g/

Economist Intelligence Unit; Supersized cities: China's 13 Megalopolises, 2012 /5.3.5.ai/9.2.e/F.Y. Edgeworth; An Essay on the Application of Mathematics to the Moral Sciences, 1881 /8.4.e_1/

183 | Page

Paul Ehrlich; The Population Bomb, 1968 /7.3.15.i/Norbert Elias; The Civilizing Process (Ueber den Prozess der Zivilisation), 1969 (1939) /2.x/4.o/7.3.21.b/7.3.22.d/8.8.b/Nick J. Enfield; How We Talk: The Inner Workings Of Conversation, 2017 /3.i/4.q/5.2.j/5.2.1.c/Marius Engelbrecht; De onttovering van de waanzin ("The Disenchantment of Madness"), 2010 /7.3.13.e/Desiderius Erasmus; Lof der Zotheid ("The Praise of Folly"), 1503 /6.1.m/Dr. W.W.M. Eiselen; Die Naturel in Wes-Kaapland ("The Native in Western Cape"), 1954 /5.3.5.ag/Euripides; Medea and other plays, c. 440 BCE /5.3.3.k/

Patricia Fara et al.; Timelines of Science, 2013 /5.2.7.f/5.3.5.a/9.2.n/Niall Ferguson; Civilization: The West and the Rest, 2011 /8.5.a/Niall Ferguson; The Great Degeneration: How Institutions Decay and Economies Die, 2012 /8.5.b/8.21.d/8.37.k/9.3.2.H1/Anne Fernald; Ch. 10 in 'The Adapted Mind', Ed. by Jerome H. Barkow, 1992, /3.k/Richard P. Feynman; Photon-Hadron Interactions, 1972 /8.4.h_3/Irving Finkel: Games of the Ancient World: How Ancient Board Games Were Disseminated, 2012 on YouTube /5.3.7.q/Irving Finkel: The Royal Game of Ur, Tom Scott vs Irving Finkel, Youtube 2017 /5.3.7.s/R.A. Fisher; The Genetical Theory of Natural Selection, 1930 /2.b/Kent Flannery (&Joyce Marcus); The Creation of Inequality, 2012 /5.1.g/5.2.c/5.2.1.k/5.2.4.b/5.2.5.b/5.2.6.a/5.3.2.d/5.3.3.a/6.2.2.g/7.3.11.b/7.3.18.d/7.3.23.c/7.3.27.a/7.3.28.a/8.23.a/9.4.e/10.l/Richard Florida; The New Urban Crisis: How Our Cities Are Increasing Inequality, Deepening Segregation, And Failing The Middle Class-And What We Can Do About It, 2017 /8.31.c/Michel Foucault; The Order of Things, 1970 /9.1.k/Barbara Fredrickson; "Positive Affect and the Complex Dynamics of Human Flourishing", American Psychologist, Oct. 2005 p. 678-686 /9.1.o/Nico Frijda; The Laws of Emotion, 2007 /4.i/7.3.21.c/7.3.24.b/Francis Fukuyama; The End of History and the Last Man, 1992 /9.3.2.B1/Francis Fukuyama; The Origins of Political Order: From Prehumen times to the French Revolution, 2011 /2.t/4.d/5.2.1.j/5.2.3.d/5.2.4.a/5.2.5.d/5.3.3.b/5.3.5.r/6.2.1.b/6.2.1.2.h/6.2.2.p/7.3.27.d/8.31.i/9.3.2.B2/10.t/Francis Fukuyama; Political Order and Political Decay: From the Industrial Revolution to the Globalisation of Democracy, 2014 /2.z/5.3.3.o/6.2.1.2.j/7.2.c/8.5.d/8.21.a/9.3.2.B3/9.3.2.E6/

Dan Gardner (& Philip Tetlock); Superforecasting, 2015 /3.v/4.t/6.2.1.k/6.2.3.b/8.27.f/9.1.q/9.3.1.e/9.3.2.E9/9.3.2.I2/9.3.2.L3/9.4.b/Roy Gardner (& James Walker); Rules, Games and Common Pool Resources, 1994 /6.2.1.2.d/Azar Gat; War in Human Civilization, Azar Gat, 2006 /8.22.b/Peter Geschiere; Witchcraft, Intimacy & Trust, 2013 /5.2.5.a/5.3.2.g/7.3.13.f/Lionel Giles M.A.; SUN TZU on The Art of War, c. 500 BCE, 1910 /5.2.6.b/James Gleick; Isaac Newton, 2003 /6.1.p/Carlos Goes; Testing Piketty’s Hypothesis on the Drivers of Income Inequality, IMF WP/16/160 /7.3.18.b/Jacques Le Goff; Les Intellectuel au Moyen Ages ("The Intellectuals of the Middle Ages"), 1957 /5.2.7.m/Thomas Gold; The Deep Hot Biosphere, 1992 & 1999 /3.u/5.1.h/Eliyahu Goldratt; The Goal: A Process of Ongoing Improvement, 1984 /8.16.c/Tijs Goldschmidt; Vis in bad ("Fish taking a bath"), 2014 /9.1.c/Daniel Goleman; Emotional Intelligence, 1996 /1.c/4.h/Jane Goodall; Through a Window: 30 years observing the Gombe Chimpanzees, 1990 /3.f/Michail Gorbatsjov; Perestrojka: A New Vision for my Country and the World, 1987 /5.3.5.af/6.2.1.2.n/7.3.18.ab/8.3.b/Robert Gordon; The Rise and Fall of American Growth, 2016 /7.3.7.a/Robert Graves; Good-Buy to All That: An Autobiography, 1929 /6.2.1.1.a/R. Dale Guthrie; The Nature of Paleolithic Art, 2005 /3.e/5.2.3.b/5.2.8.e/7.3.23.f/

Peter Hagenoord; De vloeibare samenleving (The fluid society), 2017 /9.3.2.D12/Jon Halliday & Jung Chang; MAO The Unknown Story, 2006 /5.2.6.c/5.3.3.i/6.2.4.ae/8.12.c/9.1.a/9.2.o/Henry Harpending; The 10.000 Year Explosion: How Civilization Accelerated Human Evolution, 2009 /2.ab/3.s/5.1.n/5.2.p/5.3.a/5.3.1.d/5.3.3.c/5.3.5.h/6.2.3.s/7.3.10.b/7.3.17.b/8.22.a/10.f/13.1.b/Yuval Noah Harari; Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind (In Dutch), 2014 /5.1.c/5.3.1.h/5.3.2.f/5.3.6.d/6.2.2.f/7.1.b/7.3.11.d/7.3.13.c/7.3.19.a/7.3.23.d/8.15.a/8.27.c/9.1.z/9.3.2.C5/10.b/Yuval Harari; Homo Deus: A Brief History of Tomorrow, 2015 /7.3.18.ac/9.1.aa/9.3.2.L8/9.4.l/10.as/Judith Rich Harris; No Two Alike. Human Nature and Human Individuality, 2006 /7.3.13.d/Simon Harrison; Dark Trophies-Hunting and the Enemy Body in Modern War, 2012 /8.10.d/

184 | Page

John Harvey; The Master Builders, 1971 /5.3.5.z/Marc Hauser; What Do Animals Think About Numbers, American Scientist, Vol. 88, No. 2, 2000 /5.2.8.h/Huib van Heel, Nader Bezien ("With Hindsight"), 2005 /9.3.2.D4/Hal Hellman; Great Feuds in Science, 1998 /2.u/5.3.7.o/Annechien Helsdingen; Training of Complex Judgment, 2008 /8.16.d/Bobby Henderson; The Gospel of the Flying Spagetti Monster, 2006 /6.2.2.ab/Joseph & Natalie Henrich; Why Humans Cooperate: A Cultural and Evolutionary Explanation (Evolution and Cognition), 2007 /2.l/4.l/5.2.q/Rene De Herdt; Katoenkabaal ('Cotton noise'), 2007 MIAT /5.3.1.n/Michael Herzfeld; The Making of Modern Greece, 1982 /8.2.d/Paul Heywood (&Martin Bull); West European Communist parties after the revolutions of 1989, 1994 /8.14.b/Thomas Hobbes; Leviathan: The Matter, Forme and Power of A Commonwealth Ecclesiasticall and Civil, Thomas Hobbes, 1651 /5.3.6.e_2/8.8.c/Eric Hobsbawn; The Age of the Extremes, 1994 /4.z/5.3.3.h/Felix Hol; Bacterial Societies: Cooperation, Colonization, and Competition in Micro-Scale Ecosystems, 2014 /2.n/Tom Holland; In The Shadow Of The Sword, 2011 /5.2.5.k/6.2.2.j/Homer; The Iliad, c. 700 BCE /8.4.w/Homer; Odyssey, c. 700 BCE /7.3.13.a/Bruce Hood; The Domesticated Brain, 2014 /3.d/4.f/5.1.u/5.2.2.e/8.24.f/John Horgan; The End of Science, 1996 /6.2.4.ah/Sarah Blaffer Hrdy; Mothers and Others: The Evolutionary Origins of Mutual Understanding, 2009 /3.n/4.w/5.2.2.f/5.2.3.a/6.2.1.3.k/8.22.d/9.4.h/10.a/Austin L. Hughes; Human Evolution and Kinship, 1988 /5.2.2.b/9.1.w/Samuel P. Huntington; The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order, 1996 /7.3.22.a/9.3.2.B5/Samuel Huntington; Political Order in Changing Societies, 1968 /9.3.2.B4/

Melissa Ilardo; Indonesian divers have evolved bigger spleens to hunt underwater, Cell Apr. 2018 /2.ak/Stephen Inwood; The Man who knew too much, 2002 /6.1.o/6.2.4.y/Jonathan Israel; The Dutch Republic, 1995 /5.3.6.r/6.2.1.1.f/7.3.1.e/7.3.27.f/10.n/Oscar Israelowitz; Ellis Island Guide, 2006 /7.3.9.c/8.1.c/

Internet; Apple Siri; www.cnbc.com/amp/2017/06/08/siri-may-be-lagging-behind-amazon-alexa-and-google.html /5.3.5.an/Internet; Athenian Democracy; http://h2g2.com/dna/h2g2/A805952 /6.2.1.1.c/Internet; Baby Robot; http://www.scientas.nl/primeur-s-werelds-eerste-robot-baby-geboren-amsterdam/ /10.ak/Internet; Belbin; http://www.belbin.com/ /8.13.c/Internet; Bible; http://www.truthnet.org/Bible-Origins/4_How_was_Bible_written/index.htm /6.2.2.a2/Internet; Niels Bohr (1885 - 1962); on http://www.quotationspage.com/ /9.4.a/Internet; Niels Bohr (1885 - 1962); on http://www.brainyquote.com/ /7.3.7.d/Internet; Charles Booth (1840 - 1916); http://booth.lse.ac.uk/static/a/2.html /13.2.g/Internet; Brain; http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1065704/ /5.2.1.b/Internet: Charley Chaplin's Modern Times: https://www.youtu.be/DfGs2Y5WJ14 /9.3.2.C4/Internet: Children Brain Development; http://archpedi.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=2381542 /7.3.5.h/Internet; Dead is dead; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UUqr4P7P3gM, 2015 /7.3.24.e/Internet; Demographics; http://www.indexmundi.com/<name_of_country>/demographics_profile.html /13.2.d/Internet; Pre-historic dentistry; http://news.discovery.com/history/oldest-dentistry-found-in-14000-year-old-tooth-1507156.htm /6.2.3.g/Internet; 10,500 year old 'domesticated' Cow Jaw found in China; Nature Communications Online, Nov. 8th 2013 /5.3.1.k/Internet; F.Y. Edgeworth; https://archive.org/details/mathematicalpsy01goog /8.4.e_1/Internet; Modes of Transport in Roman Empire; http://orbis.stanford.edu/# /6.2.1.3.g/Internet; The Evolution of Man; https://alphabytesoup.wordpress.com/2012/07/15/evolution-of-man-and-technology/ /7.3.23.r/Internet; Fathers for Justice; http://www.fathers-4-justice.org/ /7.3.2.c/Internet; Fibonacci-series; https://brilliant.org/wiki/Fibonacci-series/ /2.p/Internet; Irving Finkel: Games of the Ancient World: How Ancient Board Games Were Disseminated, Youtube 2012 /5.3.7.p/Internet; Holacracy; http://www.holacracy.org /8.16.g/Internet; Deidre McCloskey on ‘The Great Enrichment’; https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=1bmXl_pt9fQ /7.3.18.w/

185 | Page

Internet: Mega Regions; https://www.wired.com/2016/12/mesmerizing-commute-maps-reveal-live-mega-regions-not-cities/?mbid=nl_12216_p2&CNDID=38114307 /5.3.5.aj/Internet; US headed for New Civil War?; http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/is-america-headed-for-a-new-kind-of-civil-war, interview with Keith Mines, aug. 2017 /6.2.1.l/Internet; Everything Will Not Be OK; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oos_abG3Kpo, 2015 /7.3.24.f/Internet: The Olivine Foundation: http://www.innovationconcepts.eu/Deolivijnstichting.htm /9.3.2.D11/9.3.2.L10/Internet: Portolan maps; http://www.uu.nl/nieuws/oorsprong-middeleeuwse-zeekaarten-weerlegd /6.2.4.ad/Internet; Pottery in Jiangxi; http://www.archaeology.org/issues/63-features/top-10/271-top-10-2012-neolithic-china-pottery /5.2.7.c/Internet: Russia-Greenpeace; http://rt.com/news/russia-reaction-ship-greenpeace-207 /8.38.g/Internet: Science: The Endless Frontier; https://www.nsf.gov/od/lpa/nsf50/vbush1945.htm /6.2.4.ah/Internet; Statistics; http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/economics/country-statistical-profiles-key-tables-from-oecd_20752288 /13.2.c/Internet; Terra Sigillata; http://www.rgzm.de/transportroutes /6.2.1.3.f/Internet; Thimble museum; http://www.fingerhutmuseum.de /5.2.7.g/Internet; Tools; http://www.crystalinks.com/earlytools.html /5.2.7.a/Internet; Vaccines; http://www.healthcare-management-degree.net/autism-vaccines/ /6.2.3.v/Internet; Excommunication of Venice; http://www.historytoday.com/richard-cavendish/venice-excomminicated /5.1.i/13.1.c/Internet; The water crisis is over: http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4340554,00.html, 2013 /10.ap/Internet; Geoffrey West, Supercreativity: https://www.ted.com/talks/geoffrey_west_the_surprising_math_of_cities_and_corporations/up_next /5.3.5.am/Internet; Wolfram Alpha; http://www.wolframalpha.com/ /13.2.b/Internet; Women IQ; http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/01/120122201215.htm /7.3.8.a/

Diarmund Jeffreys; Aspirin, 2004 /6.2.3.m/Steve Jones; Human evolution is over, 2008: www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/science/article4894696.ece /2.aj/W.J. Johnson; The Bhagavad Gita, 1994 /10.am/Dr Paul Julien; Pygmeeën (in Dutch), ca. 1950 (based on research from 1933 & 1948) /5.2.1.f/

Franz Kafka; Der Process, 1925 /7.3.14.b/Daniel Kahneman; Thinking: Fast and Slow, 2011 /1.d/4.m/5.2.5.c/5.3.3.d/6.2.4.w/7.3.10.a/9.3.1.g/Michio Kaku; Physics of the Future. The Inventions That Will Transform Our Lives, 2011 /9.3.1.d/9.3.2.L1/Garry Kasparov; Deep Thinking. Where machine intelligence ends and human creativity begins, 2017 /10.ai/Machiel Keestra; A Cultural History of Mathematics (in Dutch), 2006 /6.2.4.d/Lawrence Keely; War before civilization, 1996 /9.3.2.D6/Clark Kerr; The Future of Industrial Societies: Convergence or Continuing Diversity ?, 1983 /9.3.2.A1/13.2.e/Kenneth Kishida et.al.; Journal of Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, Jan. 23rd, 2012 /7.3.8.b/J.M. Keynes in; Levensbericht Jan Tinbergen, P. de Wolff, 1994 /8.4.f_1/John Maynard Keynes; The General Theory of Employment, Interest, and Money, 1935 /8.4.f_2/8.37.g/J.M. Keynes, The Economic Possibilities of our Grandchildren, 1930, /8.5.f/Henry Kissinger; World Order, 2014 /6.2.1.d/6.2.1.2.b/6.2.1.3.o/6.2.8.g/8.12.f/9.3.2.E4/10.w/Naomi Klein; This Changes Everything, 2014 /9.3.2.K1/Gerard Koolschijn; Plato, de aanval op de democratie (Plato, "The Assault on Democracy"), 1990 /5.3.5.v/Alex Korb; The Upward Spiral, 2015 /7.3.23.i/A. Knoester (& A. Wellink); Tinbergen lectures on economic policy, 1993 /8.4.d/J. Kraus; Rede ter gelegenheid van de plechtige opening van de technische hoogeschool te Delft (in Dutch), 1905 ("Speach at the Opening of the Technical College in Delft") /6.2.5.h/J. Krause et al.; 'The derived FOXP2 variant of modern humans was shared with Neanderthals' in Current Biology 17, 2007 /5.2.h/Roman Krznaric; Empathy: A Handbook for Revolution, 2014 /8.26.c/9.4.j/10.at/Thomas Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 1962 /6.2.4.x/Chunglin Kwa; De ontdekking van het weten ("The discovery of knowing"), 2005 /5.3.7.i/6.2.4.e/

JPC Laband and PS Thompson; Field Guide to THE WAR IN ZULULAND and the defense of Natal, 1983 /5.2.o/Hans Labohm c.s.; Man-Made Global Warming: Unraveling a Dogma, 2004 /8.38.c/9.3.2.D2/Kevin Laland et al.; How culture shaped the human genome, Laland et al., Nature Reviews 2010 /5.3.5.x/Adriaan de Lange; Private conversation with a white South African man in 2009 /10.au/Edward J. Larson; Evolution: The Remarkable History of a Scientific Theory, 2004 /2.e/9.1.v/Bruno Latour; Science in action, 1987 /5.1.t/

186 | Page

Adam Lebor; The Believers: How America Fell for Bernard Madoff's $65 Billion Investment Scam, 2010 /8.24.b/F. Lederbogen et al.; 'City living and urban upbringing affect neural social stress processing in humans' in Nature, 2011 /5.3.5.w/Claude Levi-Strauss; Tristes Tropiques, 1955, translated by John Russell, 1961 /2.af/Stephen Levinson & Dan Dediu; On the antiquity of language, Frontiers of Psychology, 2013:4:397 /5.2.d/Steven Levitt & Stephen Dubner; Freakonomics: A Rogue Economist Explores the Hidden Side of Everything, 2005 /8.37.d/Tim Lewens; The Meaning of Science, 2015 /2.g/6.2.4.al/8.4.l/Daniel Lieberman; The Story of the Human Body: Evolution, Health and Disease, 2013 /2.o/5.1.a/5.2.i/5.3.1.i/7.3.5.g/7.3.23.l/Staffan Lindeberg et al.; The Evolution of Hominin Diets, 2009 /5.3.1.j/Harry Lintsen; Made in Holland: Een techniekgeschiedenis van Nederland [1800-2000], 2005 /7.3.7.c/Donatella Lippi; Consilioque manuque, surgery in the manuscripts of the Bibliotheca Medicea Laurenziana, 2011 /6.2.3.c/William Guanglin Liu; The Chinese Market Economy 1000-1500, 2015 /5.3.3.m/6.1.a/6.2.1.3.e/7.3.1.c/7.3.18.aa/8.37.m/9.3.2.L5/10.m/Bjorn Lomborg; The Skeptical Environmentalist, 2001 /7.3.18.l/8.27.d/9.3.2.D3/Jan Luiten van Zanden; How was life – Global well-being since 1820 /6.2.1.h/

Amin Maalouf; The Crusades through Arab Eyes, 1984 /6.2.2.s/, /7.2.f/7.3.27.e/Amin Maalouf; Disordered World, 2011 (English Ed.) /5.1.k/6.2.2.x/10.x/Machiavelli; The Prince, 1513 /6.2.1.4.c/Kishore Mahbubani; The New Asian Hemisphere, 2008 /6.2.1.2.k/7.3.20.f/8.12.e/Ulrike Malmendier; The Origins of Value, W. Goetzmann (Ed.) & G. Kouwenhorst (Ed.), 2005: Ch. 2 'Roman Shares' /6.2.1.3.d/Charles C. Mann; 1491: New Revelations of the Americas Before Columbus, 2nd Ed. 2011 /5.3.1.q/5.3.3.n/8.1.e/8.9.c/8.19.g/8.31.a/10.ad/Charles C. Mann; 1493: Uncovering the New World Columbus Created, 2011 /5.3.1.g/Joyce Marcus (&Kent Flannery); The Creation of Inequality, 2012 /5.1.g/5.2.c/5.2.1.k/5.2.4.b/5.2.5.b/5.2.6.a/5.3.2.d/5.3.3.a/6.2.2.g/7.3.11.b/7.3.18.d/7.3.23.c/7.3.27.a/7.3.28.a/8.23.a/9.4.e/10.l/Steve N. Mason; Josephus, Judia and Christian origins: methods and categories, 2009 /6.2.2.c/Karl May; Winnetou I, (1893) /8.1.a/Ernst Mayr; What evolution is, 1st. Ed. 2002 /2.c/Mariana Mazzucato; The Entrepreneurial State: Debunking Public vs. Private Sector Myths, 2014 /7.3.20.c/8.36.d/9.2.b/10.q/Andrew McAfee & Erik Brynjolfsson, The Second Machine Age, 2014 /7.3.6.c/John McAuley, Organization Theory: Challenges And Perspectives, 2007 /8.16.b/Deirdre McCloskey; on The Great Enrichment: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=1bmXl_pt9fQ /7.3.18.z/Deirdre McCloskey; The Vices of Economists - The Virtues of the Bourgeoisie, 1997 /8.4.k/Lawrence G. McDonald; A Colossal Failure of Common Sense, 2009 /8.4.r/Thomas McKeown, The modern rise of population, 1976 /6.2.3.j/William H. McNeill; Plagues and Peoples, 1977, /6.2.3.p/7.3.15.c/7.3.18.q/10.ae/Bibliotheca Medicea; Consilioque manuque, surgery in the manuscripts of the Bibliotheca Medicea Laurenziana, 2011 /6.2.3.a/Gavin Menzies; 1421: The Year China Discovered the World, 2002 /5.3.3.j/6.2.4.ac/8.19.f/9.1.b/Gavin Menzies; 1434: The Year a Magnificent Chinese Fleet sailed to Italy and Ignited the Renaissance, 2007 /6.1.b/6.4.2.n/9.2.m/9.3.2.L4/Harald Merckelbach; De leugenmachine ('The lying machine'), 2011 /3.q/7.3.3.g/Geoffrey Miller; The Mating Mind, 2001 /3.a/7.3.11.c/Greg Mills; Why Africa is Poor, and what Africans can do about it, 2010 /7.3.20.a/Leonard Mlodinow; Euclid's Window, 2001 /5.3.7.a/Simon Sebag Montefiore; Jeruzalem. A Biography, 2011 /5.2.5.i/5.3.5.l/6.2.2.b1/7.3.3.b/Christine Moon et.al.; 'Nonnutritive sucking' in Infant Behavior and Development, vol.16 iss.4 p 495-500 1993 /3.h/5.2.f/Thomas More; Utopia, 1516 /6.1.i/Desmond Morris; The Naked Ape, 1967 /2.ac/

Paul J. Nahin; An Imaginary Tale, 1998 /6.2.4.u/Isaac Newton; The Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy, 1687 /8.4.h_1/Roel Nicolai; Portolan maps; http://www.uu.nl/nieuws/oorsprong-middeleeuwse-zeekaarten-weerlegd, 2014 /6.2.4.ac/

187 | Page

Frank Niele; Energy: Engine of Evolution, 2005 /2.m/8.38.i/Pieter van den Noort; The Celestial Factor and the Formula to Explain or Predict all Extinction of the Fossil record, J o P, Jan. 2012 /5.1.p/W.W. Norton & Company; A History of Western Music, 1988 /6.2.7.c/

OECD; Society at a Glance: Asia/Pacific 2011, 2011 /13.2.f/Bernt Oksendal; Stochastic Differential Equations fifth edition, 2000 /8.4.p/Mancur Olson; The Logic of Collective Action: Public Goods and the Theory of Groups, 1965 /5.3.6.h/Cathy O’Neil; Weapons of Math Destruction: How Big Data increases Inequality and threatens Democracy, 2016 /5.1.e/8.4.t/8.24.e/9.1.t/Elinor Ostrom et al.; Rules, Games and Common Pool Resources, 1994 /5.2.1.l/5.3.6.g/5.3.7.r/6.2.1.2.e/8.25.d/

Paabo (& Reich); Homo meanderthalis, sex between Homo Sapiens and Homo Neanderthals, Nature Dec. 2010 /5.1.o/Mark Pagel; Wired for Culture: The Natural History of Human Cooperation, 2012 /3.l/5.2.r/6.2.2.h/7.3.6.a/10.i/Carol Patterson; Petroglyphs of Western Colorado and the Northern Ute Indian Reservation as Interpreted by Clifford Duncan, Am. Phil. Soc. Press 2016 /5.2.5.h/7.3.23.p/Scott Patterson; The Quants, 2010 /8.4.q/8.24.d/Alex Pentland; Social Physics: How Social Networks Can Make Us Smarter, 2014 /3.m/5.2.m/5.2.7.h/5.3.5.f_3/6.1.v/7.3.8.c/8.31.e/8.37.e/9.1.s/Pepin Press; Architecture, Visual Encyclopedia, 2001 /5.3.5.y/8.29.f/Irene Pepperberg; ‘Tinbergen’s Questions’ in ‘This Explains Everything’, 2013 /2.ae/Claudio Pescio; Palazzo Strozzi, Exhibition Money and Beauty, 2011 /6.2.1.4.a/Laurence Peter & Raymond Hull; The Peter Principle: Why Things Always Go Wrong, 1969 /7.3.14.c/Denis Pierron et al.; Genome-wide evidence of Austronesian-Bantu admixture and cultural reversion in a hunter-gatherer group of Madagascar, PNAS Jan. 6 2014 /5.3.1.r/Thomas Piketty; Capital in the Twenty-First Century, 2014 /7.3.18.a/Steven Pinker; Enlightenment NOW: The Case for Reason, Science, Humanism, and Progress, 2018 /9.3.1.j/10.ay/Steven Pinker; The Better Angels of Our Nature, 2011 /5.1.v/5.2.6.g/6.1.u/6.2.1.i/7.3.7.b/7.3.22.c/7.3.23.g/8.8.a/8.9.a/Steven Pinker; The Language Instinct, 1994 /3.j/5.2.e/Karl Popper; Open Society and Its Enemies, 1945 /8.5.h/D. Price & O. Bar-Yosef; Pathways to Power - New perspectives on the emergence of social inequality, 2010 /5.2.4.e/Neil Price Ed.; The Archaeology of Shamanism, 2001 /5.2.5.f/9.3.1.b/

Ayn Rand; Atlas Shrugged, 1957 /8.5.j/Peter Raedts; The discovery of the Middle Ages - History of an Illusion (in Dutch), 2011 /5.2.7.l/William Fraser Rea; Westward by Rail, 1871 /8.1.b/John Rawls; The Law of Peoples, 1999 /9.1.j/9.3.2.D10/David Reich et al.; Ancient DNA data fills in thousands of years of human prehistory in Africa, 2017 /7.3.5.f/Peter Richerson and Robert Boyd; Not by Genes Alone: How Culture Transformed Human Evolution, 2005 /5.2.s/Reich (& Paabo); Homo meanderthalis, sex between Homo Sapiens and Homo Neanderthals, Nature Dec. 2010 /5.1.o/P.J. Rietbergen; Karel de Grote ("Charlemangne"), 2009 /7.2.e/Jeremy Rifkin; The Third Industrial Revolution, 2011 /9.3.2.F1/Matt Ridley; The Evolution of Everything: How Small Changes Transform Our World, 2015 /2.h/3.r/6.2.1.2.c/6.2.1.3.n/6.2.3.k/6.2.4.b/6.2.5.i/7.3.2.b/7.3.18.n/7.3.22.e/8.10.c/8.27.i/8.37.s/9.3.1.i/10.j/Machteld Roede; Rassen, Waan of Werkelijkheid, Ch. 5 in 'Ontjoodst door de wetenschap', 2015 /7.3.25.a/Garry Runciman; Very Different, But Much The Same: The Evolution of English Society Since 1714, 2015 /6.2.1.n/Alan Ryan; On Politics: A History of Political Thought from Herodotus to the Present, 2012 /5.3.5.p/6.2.1.1.d/7.3.18.i/9.3.2.L11/

Friar Bernardino de Sahagun; Florentine Codex, 1545 - 1590 /8.9.b/Marshall Sahlins; Stone Age Economics, 1972 /7.3.23.e_2/Juergen Sarnowsky; Der Deutsche Orden ("The Teutonic Order"), 2007 /5.2.5.j/6.2.2.t/Mike Savage; Social Class in the 21st Century, 2015 /7.3.18.m/7.3.25.f/8.37.o/Carel van Schaik & (Kai Michel); Het Oerboek van de mens: de evolutie en de bijbel (Book of primeval development: the Bible seen through the eyes of evolution), 2016 /6.2.2.k/Walter Scheidel; The Great Leveler – Violence and the history of inequality from the Stone Age to the twenty-first century, 2017 /5.3.5.n/6.2.1.e/7.3.18.c/8.21.c/8.31.h/8.37.p/10.s/Christian Scholz; Generation Z: Wie sie tickt, was sie verändert und warum sie uns alle ansteckt, 2014 /10.k/Joseph Schumpeter, Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy, 1942 /2.v/5.1.l/7.3.25.d/9.1.y/9.3.1.f/Joseph Schwartz; The creative moment, 1992 /2.ao/

188 | Page

Constantine Sedikides et al; Nostalgia: Conceptual issues and Existential functions, 2004 /4.j/7.3.13.b/7.3.24.d/Tomas Sedlacek; Economics of Good and Evil, 2011 /4.x/5.1.f/6.2.1.3.i/8.2.c/8.4.j/Vikram Seth; From Heaven Lake, 1987 /6.2.1.2.l/6.2.5.n/8.12.a/A. Shapur Shahbazi; The Authoritative Guide to Persepolis, 3rd Ed. 2015 /5.3.3.h/5.3.5.u/5.3.6.p/William Shakespeare; King Lear, 1623 /5.3.3.l/Morris H. Shamos; Great Experiments in Physics, 1959 /6.2.4.aa/Ian Shaw; Ancient Egypt: A very Short Introduction, 2004 /5.3.1.p/8.29.a/Georg Simmel; The Philosophy of Money (Die Philosophie des Geldes), 1907 /5.3.6.l/Julian Simon; The Ultimate Resource, 1981 /8.27.g/Julian Simon; The Ultimate Resource 2, 1996 /8.28.e/Thomas Simpson; Maxwell on the Electromagnetic Field, 1997 /8.4.3.h_2/Peter Singer; One World: the ethics of globalization, 2002 /7.3.23.b/8.10.a/8.26.b/9.3.2.D1/9.3.2.E7/9.4.f/Robert & Edward Skidelsky; How Much Is Enough: Money and the Good Life, 2013 /2.w/6.2.1.3.h/6.2.2.aa/7.3.18.p/8.5.g/9.3.2.I4/Dick Slagter; Homo Nudus: De naakte mens ("The Naked Human"), 2012 /3.b,10.c/Peter Slingsby; Sevilla Rock Art Trail, 2013 (6th edition) /5.2.5.g_1/Peter Slingsby; Cederberg Rock Art, 2012 (5th edition) /5.2.5.g_2/Lee Smolin; The Trouble with Physics, 2006 /6.2.4.ai/Adam Smith; An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of The Wealth of Nations, 1776, /6.2.1.3.c/Adam Smith; The theory of moral sentiments, 1767 /7.3.18.y/Daniel Snell; Plagues and Peoples in Mesopotamia, JoANE #14 p.89-96,1982 /6.2.3.q/George Soros, The Crisis of Global Capitalism, 1998 /8.4.b/, /8.5.c/Dan Sperber; Explaining Culture, 1996 /2.ag/7.1.c/7.2.d/7.3.16.d/7.3.24.c/9.1.m/Dan Sperber & Nicolas Claidiere; Defining and explaining culture: comments on 'Not by genes alone', 2005 /2.ah/Chris Stringer; The Origin of Our Species, 2011 /5.1.r/Chris Stringer; Lone Survivors: How We Came to Be the Only Humans on Earth, 2012 /2.ai/Beverly Strassman; 'The Dogons' in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 2011 /5.2.2.g/8.22.c/SUN TZU on The Art of War, c. 500 BCE, by Lionel Giles 1910 /5.2.6.b/7.3.22.b/Robert W. Sussman; The Myth of Race: The Troubling Persistence of An Unscientific Idea, 2014 /7.3.25.b/Henrik Svensmark (& Nigel Calder); The Chilling Stars: A new theory of climate change, 2007 /8.38.d/Dick Swaab; We are our Brains: From the Womb to Alzheimer's, 2010 (NL), 2014 (E) /3.p/5.1.m/8.13.d/Andre Szasz; De Euro (in Dutch), 2001 /6.2.1.1.b/8.2.a/

Nassim Taleb; The Black Swan: The Impact of the Highly Improbable, 2007 /7.3.18.v/8.31.f/9.3.2.A3/Tiit Tammaru et al.; Socio-Economic Segragation in European Capital Cities, 2016 /7.3.18.s/Charles Taylor; A Secular Age, 2007, /9.1.d/Teleac; De antieke wereld: Het oude Egypte, Het oude Griekenland en Het oude Rome, 1981 /9.3.1.a/Robert Temple; The Genius of China: 3,000 Years of Science, Discovery and Invention, 1998 /6.2.4.o/Philip Tetlock (& Dan Gardner); Superforecasting, 2015 /3.v/4.t/6.2.1.k/6.2.3.b/8.27.f/9.1.q/9.3.1.e/9.3.2.E9/9.3.2.I2/9.3.2.L3/9.4.b/Coen Teulings & Richard Baldwin; Secular Stagnation: Facts, Causes and Cures, 2014 /6.2.1.m/8.4.x/8.37.i/9.3.2.J1/10.aq/Keith Thomas; The ends of life: Roads to fulfillment in early modern England, 2009 /7.3.18.x/Jan Tinbergen; Minimumproblemen in de Natuurkunde en de Ekonomie, 1929 /8.4.c_1/Time Magazine; China's One Child Crisis, December 2, 2013 /8.11.f/Time Magazine; The Great Migration, October 19, 2015 /8.6.c/Luit van der Tuuk; Vikingen: Noormannen in de Lage Landen, 2015 /10.y/

United Nations; The World at Six Billion, 1999 /9.1.i/10.aa/

Yanis Varoufakis; And The Weak Suffer What They Must?, 2016 /5.3.6.m/6.2.1.4.h/8.2.e/8.4.s/9.3.2.G1/10.av/Thorstein Veblen; The Theory of the Leisure Class, 1899 /6.2.1.f/8.21.b/9.3.2.I3/Ivo Vegter; Extreme Environment: How environmental exaggeration harms emerging economies, 2012 /8.27.h/10.ao/Martinus Veltman; Facts and Mysteries in Elementary Particle Physics, 2003 /8.4.h_4/ C.A. von Volborth; Heraldry, Customs, Rules and Styles, 1981 /7.3.1.d/van den Vondel; Aen de Beurs van Amsterdam (‘At The Amsterdam Shares Market’), 1640-45 /8.36.a/Jules Verne; Paris in the Twentieth Century, 1994 (1863) /9.3.2.L6/

Frans de Waal; Chimpanzee Politics: Power and Sex among Apes, 1982 /7.3.27.c/Frans de Waal; Primates and Philosophers: How Morality Evolved, 2006 /3.w/7.3.24.a/9.3.2.D9/10.e/

189 | Page

Frans de Waal; The Bonobo and the Atheist. In Search of Humanism among the Primates, 2013 /4.c/5.1.q/Dirk de Wachter; Borderline Times, 2012 /7.3.10.c/10.g/So Wei Pan; Why Innovation thrives in Cities, Nature Communications 2013 /5.3.5.f_2/7.3.16.c/8.31.d/A. Wellink (& A. Knoester); Tinbergen lectures on economic policy, 1993 /8.4.d/Jan Wigmans; De vlugtende Banqueroetier ("The fleeing Bankrupter"), 1746 /5.3.6.n/Eugene Wigner; The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences, 1960 /8.4.h_5/

Wikipedia; Academy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Platonic_Academy /5.3.7.g/Wikipedia; Adolescence: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolescence /8.14.a/Wikipedia; Alcohol: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_alcohol_consumption /7.3.4.a/Wikipedia; Altxerri: http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cueva_de_Altxerri /5.2.8.c_2/Wikipedia; American Civil War; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_War /8.1.d/Wikipedia; American crisis: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_American_Crisis /6.2.8.h/Wikipedia; Amsterdam Stock Exchange: http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amsterdamse_effectenbeurs /6.2.1.3.b/Wikipedia; Ancient_Greece; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_ancient_Greece /8.29.d/Wikipedia; Anthropocene: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropocene /8.27.a/Wikipedia; Antibiotic: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antibiotic /6.2.3.n/Wikipedia; Antikythera mechanism: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antikythera_mechanism /6.2.4.s/8.29.e/Wikipedia; Arjun Appadurai: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arjun_Appadurai /9.3.2.I5/Wikipedia; Archimedes: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archimedes /6.2.4.p/Wikipedia; Atomic bombings: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki /7.3.7.e/Wikipedia; Augustine of Hippo: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augustine_of_Hippo /5.3.5.aa/Wikipedia; Avogadro constant: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avogadro_constant /8.4.i/Wikipedia; Aristotle: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aristotle /5.3.7.h/Wikipedia; Svante Arrhenius: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svante_Arrhenius /8.38.b/Wikipedia; Aspirin: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aspirin /6.2.3.h/Wikipedia; Atlas Shrugged: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlas_Shrugged /7.3.6.d/8.5.j/Wikipedia; Babylon: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Babylon /5.3.5.g/Wikipedia; Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Bakr_al-Baghdadi /6.2.2.y/Wikipedia; Bank: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bank /5.3.6.k/Wikipedia; Banknotes: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banknotes /5.3.6.j/9.2.j/Wikipedia; Barbarian Invasions: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Migration_Period /8.6.b/Wikipedia; Barter: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barter /5.3.6.a/Wikipedia; Belbin: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meredith_Belbin /8.13.c/Wikipedia; Berlin Wall: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berlin_Wall /8.3.a/Wikipedia; Bible, Authorship of: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorship_of_the_Bible /6.2.2.i/Wikipedia; Black Death: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Death /10.ac/Wikipedia; Black, Scholes & Merton: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black-scholes-merton /8.4.m/Wikipedia; Book of Numbers: http://en.wikipedia.org/Book_of_Numbers /9.3.2.D5/Wikipedia: Charles Booth: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Booth_(philanthropist) /7.3.18.k/8.37.n/9.3.2.A2/Wikipedia; Norman Borlaug: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_Borlaug /7.3.15.j/8.11.d/8.12.b/Wikipedia; Robert Boyle: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Boyle /6.2.4.j/Wikipedia; Brexit: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_withdrawal_from_the_European_Union /8.2.f/Wikipedia; Brownian Motion: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brownian_motion /8.4.a/Wikipedia; Bureaucracy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bureaucracy /7.3.14.a/7.3.15.k/Wikipedia; Bushmen: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bushmen /5.2.1.d/Wikipedia; Capybara: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capybara /8.19.b/Wikipedia; Francesco Carletti: http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francesco_Carletti /6.1.e/Wikipedia; Cereal: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cereal /5.3.1.f/Wikipedia; Cervantes: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miguel_de_Cervantes /6.1.j/Wikipedia; Charlemagne: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlemagne /5.3.7.k/6.2.2.r/Wikipedia; Chinese Census: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sixth_National_Population_Census_of_the_People’s_Republic_of_China /8.31.k/Wikipedia; 19th CCPC; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/19th_National_Congress_of_the_Communist_Party_of_China /9.2.h/Wikipedia; Chinese History: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_History /5.3.5.d/Wikipedia; City: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City /5.2.7.i/Wikipedia; City of Akkad: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akkadian_Empire#City_of_Akkad /5.3.5.b/Wikipedia; Classical music: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_music /6.2.7.f/Wikipedia; Bill Clinton campaign; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/It%27s_the_economy,_stupid /8.36.c/Wikipedia; Code of Hammurabi: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_of_Hammurabi /5.3.6.c_2/

190 | Page

Wikipedia; Codex of Ur-Nammu: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_of_Ur-Nammu /5.3.6.c_1/Wikipedia; Consolmagno: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guy_Consolmagno /5.3.7.m/Wikipedia; Sir Robert Cooper http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Cooper_(strategist) /9.3.2.E10/Wikipedia; Copyright: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright /6.2.7.b/Wikipedia; Country descriptions: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/<Name_of_Country> /9.2.c/Wikipedia; Cuju; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuju /9.2.r/Wikipedia; Criminal Court: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Criminal_Court /9.3.2.D8/Wikipedia; Culture: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Culture /7.3.16.a/ Wikipedia; Darius the Great: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darius_I /6.2.1.4.b/6.2.2.e/Wikipedia; Deaton's paradox: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angus_Deaton /8.37.j/Wikipedia; Demographics China: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_People's_Republic_of_China /8.11.b/Wikipedia; Demographics <Name of Country>: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_<Germany | United_States> /13.2.a/Wikipedia; René_Descartes: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/René_Descartes /6.2.4.h/Wikipedia; District Six: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_Six /5.3.5.ah/Wikipedia; Kosher and Halal Dietary Laws: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_Islamic_and_Jewish_dietary_laws /6.2.3.r/Wikipedia; Drakensberg: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drakensberg /5.2.1.e/Wikipedia; Dr.-Ing. http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dr.-Ing. /6.2.5.g/Wikipedia; Peter Drucker: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Drucker /9.3.2.C6/Wikipedia; Illegal Drugs: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegal_drugs /7.3.4.b/Wikipedia; Dunbeg Promontory Fort: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunbeg_Fort /5.2.1.i/Wikipedia; Imperial Examination: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperial_examination /6.2.5.b/Wikipedia; Early Human Migrations: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_human_migrations /8.19.c/Wikipedia; Easter Island: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Island /8.37.r/Wikipedia; Education: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Education /6.1.t/Wikipedia; Education Act: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elementary_Education_Act_1870 /6.2.5.k/Wikipedia; Education in China: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_education_in_China /9.2.p/Wikipedia; Egypt: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Egypt /5.3.4.d/6.2.2.q/6.2.3.e/7.3.9.a/Wikipedia; EMDR: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eye_Movement_Desensitization_and_Reprocessing /4.r/Wikipedia; Emotion: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emotion /5.3.3.e/Wikipedia; List of empires; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_empires /7.3.1.b/Wikipedia; Enron: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enron /8.4.o/Wikipedia; Epicurus: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epicurus /2.al/6.2.2.m/Wikipedia; Erasmus: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erasmus /6.1.l/Wikipedia; Erfgooiers: http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erfgooier /6.2.1.2.m/.Wikipedia; Exponential growth: https//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exponential_growth /2.q/9.2.f/Wikipedia; Florentine Codex: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florentine_Codex /8.9.b/Wikipedia; Ice Age Flute: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flute#section_1 /5.2.8.a/Wikipedia; Fire_temples; http://www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fire_temple /6.2.2.d_1/Wikipedia; Fitness Landscape: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fitness_landscape /9.1.u/Wikipedia; Flax: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flax /5.2.7.d,5.3.1.m/Wikipedia; French Revolution: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_revolution /5.3.6.s/Wikipedia; Francis Fukuyama: http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Fukuyama /9.3.2.B6/Wikipedia; Galen: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galen /4.s/6.2.3.a/Wikipedia; Galileo Galilei: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei /6.2.4.g/Wikipedia; Ghandi: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohandas_Karamchand_Gandhi /8.7.a/Wikipedia; Gilgamesh: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epic_of_Gilgamesh /5.3.5.i/Wikipedia; Gobekli Tepe: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gobekli_Tepe /5.3.2.b/5.3.5.ab/Wikipedia; Green Revolution: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Revolution_in_India /8.11.c/Wikipedia; Alan Greenspan: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Greenspan /8.5.k/Wikipedia; Aubrey de Grey: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aubrey_de_Grey /9.4.k/10.ar/Wikipedia; Grimm Brothers: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grimms%27_Fairy_Tales /4.v/ Wikipedia; Alexander Grothendieck: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Grothendieck /1.a/Wikipedia; Guido d'Arrezzo: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guido_d'Arezzo /6.2.7.e/Wikipedia; Joseph Guislain: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Guislain /7.3.3.f/Wikipedia; Gutenberg: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johannes_Gutenberg /6.1.r/Wikipedia; Hard and Soft Sciences: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_and_soft_science /7.3.5.a/Wikipedia; Judith Harris: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judith_Rich_Harris /7.3.18.o/

191 | Page

Wikipedia; Van Helmont: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_Helmont /6.1.n/Wikipedia; Hierogliphs: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hierogliphs /5.2.8.i/Wikipedia; Steven Hoogendijk: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_Hoogendijk /8.33.b/Wikipedia; Hospital: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hospital /6.2.3.l/Wikipedia; House numbering: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_numbering /6.2.8.e/Wikipedia; Humanities: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanities /7.3.5.a/Wikipedia; Wilhelm von Humboldt: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilhelm_von_Humboldt /6.2.5.j/Wikipedia; Imhotep: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imhotep /5.3.4.e/6.2.3.f/Wikipedia; Information Technology: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_technology /8.30.a/Wikipedia; Intuitionism: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intuitionism /6.2.4.an/Wikipedia; Boris Johnson: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boris_Johnson /9.3.2.E2/Wikipedia; Jesuits: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Society_of_Jesus /6.2.5.l/Wikipedia; Michio Kaku: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michio_Kaku /9.3.2.L12/Wikipedia; Immanuel Kant; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immanuel_Kant /7.3.25.c/Wikipedia; George Kennan: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_F._Kennan /9.3.2.E8/Wikipedia; Sherman Kent: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherman_Kent /9.1.p/Wikipedia; Clark Kerr: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clark_Kerr /9.3.2.A4/Wikipedia; Khmer Rouge: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khmer_Rouge_rule_of_Cambodia /5.2.6.e/Wikipedia; Kolmogorov Equations: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kolmogorov_equations /8.4.e_3/Wikipedia; K-Pg extinction: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cretaceous-Paleogene_extinction_event /8.27.b/Wikipedia; Kuznets Curve: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuznets_curve /7.3.18.g/Wikipedia; Simon Kuznets: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon_Kuznets /7.3.18.h/Wikipedia; Lamarckism: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lamarckism /2.s/Wikipedia; Lascaux: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lascaux /5.2.8.c_1/Wikipedia; Tribunal on the 'Law for the Sea': http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Tribunal_for_the_Law_of_the_Sea /8.38.h/Wikipedia; Leprosy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leprosy /7.3.15.d/Wikipedia; Leviathan: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leviathan_(book) /8.8.c/Wikipedia; James Lind: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Lind /6.2.3.h/Wikipedia; Linguistics: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_linguistics /3.g/Wikipedia; Lion figurine: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lion_man_of_the_Hohlenstein_Stadel /5.2.8.d/Wikipedia; Literacy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Literacy /6.1.s/Wikipedia; Lotka-Volterra: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lotka-Volterra_equation /9.1.g/Wikipedia; Lucretius: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucretius /2.am/Wikipedia; Neo Luddism: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo-Luddism /10.ah_2/Wikipedia; Luddites: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luddite /10.ah_1/Wikipedia; Martin Luther: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Luther /6.2.5.o/Wikipedia; Bernie Madoff: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernard_Madoff /8.24.a/Wikipedia; Ferdinand Magellan: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ferdinand_Magellan /6.1.d/Wikipedia; Majdanpek: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Majdanpek /5.2.7.j/Wikipedia; Thomas Malthus: http://en.wikipeda.org/wiki/Thomas_Robert_Malthus /9.3.1.h/Wikipedia; Long Term Capital Management: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_Term_Capital_Management /8.4.n/Wikipedia; Mandela: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandela /8.7.b/Wikipedia; Maslow: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslov's_heirarchy /6.2.1.a/9.3.2.C2/Wikipedia; Maya Religion: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maya_Religion /6.2.2.o/Wikipedia; List of Maya cities: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Maya_sites /8.31.b/Wikipedia; Marathon: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marathon /6.2.8.c/Wikipedia; Battle of Marathon: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Marathon /5.3.5.t/Wikipedia; Marco Polo: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marco_polo /6.2.8.b/Wikipedia; Marriage: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage /5.2.2.a/Wikipedia; Medieval Warm Period: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_Warm_Period /8.19.a/Wikipedia; Meme: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meme /5.2.j/Wikipedia; Mexico: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexico /6.2.2.u/Wikipedia; Millennium bug: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Year_2000_problem /8.34.a/Wikipedia; Money: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Money /5.3.6.i/Wikipedia; Thomas More: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sir_Thomas_More /6.1.h/Wikipedia; Mytilenian Debate: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mytilenian_Debate /6.2.1.1.e/Wikipedia; Nation State: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nation_state /5.3.5.ad/6.2.1.2.a/Wikipedia; Neolithic: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neolithic /5.3.1.b/Wikipedia; Neolithic Revolution: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neolithic_Revolution /8.19.d/

192 | Page

Wikipedia; Newspaper: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newspaper /6.2.8.a/Wikipedia; NGOs: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-governmental_organization /8.35.a/Wikipedia; Oktoberfest: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oktoberfest /8.6.a/Wikipedia; Olmec: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olmec /5.3.5.c/Wikipedia; One Child Policy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-child_policy /7.3.9.d/7.3.15.l/8.11.a/Wikipedia; OpenAI; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenAI /10.aj/Wikipedia; Jesse Owen: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesse_Owen /6.2.6.a/Wikipedia; Svante Pääbo; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svante_Pääbo /9.2.i/Wikipedia; Pappus: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pappus_of_Alexandria /5.3.7.f/Wikipedia; Paracelsus: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paracelsus /6.1.q/Wikipedia; Parenting: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parenting /5.2.2.d/Wikipedia; Vilfredo Pareto: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vilfredo_Pareto /7.3.18.f/Wikipedia; Paris Climate Agreement; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_Agreement /10.an/Wikipedia; Blaise Pascal: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blaise_Pascal /6.2.4.i/Wikipedia; William Petty: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Petty /8.37.h/Wikipedia; Pharao Phiops II Nefer-ka-Re: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pepi_II_Neferkare /5.2.1.g/Wikipedia; Pigeon post: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pigeon_post /6.2.8.d/Wikipedia; Plague of Justinian: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plague_of_Justinian /10.ab/Wikipedia; Plato: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plato /5.3.7.j/Wikipedia; Plebs: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plebs /7.3.9.b/Wikipedia; Marco Polo: http://en.wikipedia.org/Marco_Polo /6.1.c/Wikipedia; Karl Popper: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Popper /6.2.4.ak/Wikipedia; Population India: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_of_India /8.11.e/Wikipedia; Poverty Line: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_threshold /7.3.18.j/Wikipedia; (George) Price Equation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price_equation /9.1.l/Wikipedia; Prospect Theory: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prospect_theory /8.13.a/Wikipedia; Qanat: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qanat /5.2.1.m/5.3.4.a/Wikipedia; Qin Dynasty: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qin_Dynasty /5.3.5.q/Wikipedia; Don Quixote: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don_Quixote /6.1.k/Wikipedia; Di Renjie: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Di_Renjie /5.3.6.b/6.2.5.c/Wikipedia; Richelieu: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cardinal_Richelieu /5.3.7.l/Wikipedia; Rubber: http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rubber /8.19.h/Wikipedia; Father Savonarola: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Girolamo_Savonarola /6.2.1.4.i/7.3.23.o/Wikipedia; Arthur Scargill: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Scargill /8.38.a/Wikipedia; Erwin Schrödinger: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Erwin_Schrödinger /9.3.2.L7/Wikipedia; (Church of) Scientology: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientology /6.2.1.3.r/6.2.2.ac/Wikipedia; Semmelweis: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignaz_Semmelweis /6.2.3.u/Wikipedia; Sentinelese people: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sentinelese_people /1.b/7.3.23.q/Wikipedia; Serendipity: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serendipity /5.3.5.ak/Wikipedia; Shaka Zulu: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shaka /7.3.3.c/7.3.20.f/Wikipedia; Shakespeare: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shakespeare_authorship_question /6.2.7.a/Wikipedia; Shale gas: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shale_gas /8.17.a/Wikipedia; Peter Singer: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Singer /9.3.2.D13/Wikipedia; Six Arts; http://en.wikipedia.org/Six_Arts /9.2.q/Wikipedia; Slavery: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery /5.2.6.f/Wikipedia; Adam Smith: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam_Smith /8.36.b/Wikipedia; SMS history: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SMS#History /6.2.8.f/Wikipedia; Great Smog of London: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Smog_of_London /8.27.j/Wikipedia; Soap: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soap /6.2.3.o/Wikipedia; Somalia intervention: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Operations_in_Somalia_II /9.3.2.E5/Wikipedia; Sovereign States: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states /9.2.c/Wikipedia; Herbert Spencer: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herbert_Spencer /2.r/Wikipedia; Spinning Jenny: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spinning_jenny /6.2.4.l/Wikipedia; Baruch Spinoza: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baruch _Spinoza /3.y/Wikipedia; C.P. Steinmetz: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Proteus_Steinmetz /7.3.5.b/Wikipedia; Stone Age: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stone_Age /5.2.7.e/Wikipedia; Sumer: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sumer /5.3.5.o/Wikipedia; Tacitus: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacitus /7.3.1.a/

Wikipedia; Taxes: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxes /5.3.6.q/

193 | Page

Wikipedia; Frederick Taylor: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frederick_Winslow_Taylor /8.16.e/9.3.2.C3/Wikipedia; Technische Universitat Berlin: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technische_Universitat_Berlin /6.2.5.f/Wikipedia; Thales: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thales /5.3.7.e/Wikipedia; Theodosius: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodosius_I /8.18.a/Wikipedia; Tilapia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tilapia /5.3.4.f/Wikipedia; Jan Tinbergen: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jan_Tinbergen /8.4.c_2/9.3.1.c/Wikipedia; Torah: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torah /6.2.2.a1/Wikipedia; Arnold Toynbee: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arnold_J._Toynbee /5.1.w/Wikipedia; Trias Politica: http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trias_politica /6.2.1.2.d/Wikipedia; Trichotomy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trichotomy_(philosophy) /7.2.b/Wikipedia; Tulip mania: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tulip_mania /5.3.6.o/Wikipedia; United Nations: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_General_Assembly /9.2.d/Wikipedia; University: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University /4.u/6.2.3.d/6.2.5.d/Wikipedia; University of Bologna: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Bologna /6.2.5.a/Wikipedia; Indian Urban development: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Providing_Urban_Amenities_to_Rural_Areas /8.31.g/Wikipedia; China Urbanization: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urbanization_in_China /8.31.l/Wikipedia; Indian Cast System, Varna(s): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Varna_(Hinduism) /8.31.j/Wikipedia; 1st 'company', VOC: http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vereenigde_Oostindische_Compagnie /6.2.1.3.a/Wikipedia; Warren Field: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_Field /5.3.2.e/Wikipedia; Water wars: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_conflict /8.25.b/Wikipedia; James Watt: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Watt /6.2.4.k/8.33.a/Wikipedia; Karen Wynn: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karen_Wynn, Nature, 1992 /5.2.8.g/Wikipedia; Story of Vedas: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vedas /5.3.5.j/Wikipedia; Veganism: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veganism /9.4.m/Wikipedia; VW scandal: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volkswagen_emissions_scandal /7.3.20.i/8.16.a/Wikipedia; World Population: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population /6.2.3.t/7.3.15.a/7.3.23.j/8.25.a/10.z/Wikipedia; World Religions: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Major_religious_groups /9.1.e/8.29.b/Wikipedia; Wright Brothers: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wright_brothers /7.3.6.b/Wikipedia; Tu Youyou: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_Youyou /6.2.4.ae/7.3.15.m/9.2.l/Wikipedia; Zoroaster (Zarathustra); http://www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoroaster /6.2.2.d_2/Wikipedia; Zoroastrianism; http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Zoroastrianism /6.2.2.d_3/

Rand R. Wilcox, Fundamentals of Modern Statistical Methods, 2001 /7.3.18.c/D.S. Wilson & E.O. Wilson; Rethinking the theoretical foundation of sociobiology, 2007 /2.j/Edward O. Wilson; The Social Conquest of Earth, 2012 /2.ad/5.3.4.b/6.2.1.2.f/7.3.17.a/7.3.22.f/10.h/Edward O. Wilson; The Diversity of Life, 1992 /8.38.e/Edward O. Wilson; Half-Earth: Our Planet's Fight for Life, 2016 /8.38.f/Michael Willers, The Bedside Book of Algebra, 2009 /5.2.8.k/The World Bank; The Tarim Basin II project, 2005 /8.25.e/

Ernest Zebrowski; A history of the circle, Mathematical Reasoning and the Physical Universe, 1999 /5.3.7.p/6.2.4.t/Daniel Zohary et al.; Domestication of Plants in the Old World, 2012 /5.3.1.a/8.19.e/8.29.c/

194 | Page

12. List of Figures.

Figuur 1 - Power Triangle............................................................................................................26Figuur 2 - Power Triangle............................................................................................................35Figuur 3 - Power Rectangular......................................................................................................51Figuur 4 - History of (sub)Themes...............................................................................................73Figuur 5 - Development of (sub)Themes (abstract example)......................................................75Figuur 6 - Time-planes in abstract (sub)Themes Development: 100,000 and 1,000 years ago...75Figuur 7 - World Population Growth 10,000 BCE – 2000 CE....................................................87Figuur 8 - Power Rectangular = 'distances’ between Contemporary Power subThemes............96Figuur 9 - Religions in Time: absolute & relative.....................................................................142

Open research:-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

// http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regiomontanus// http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guo_Shoujing// http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paolo_dal_Pozzo_Toscanelli// http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_organization// http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_history

/$20/ Hans Achterhuis, Erfenis zonder testament, 2015/$18/ Robert Allen; The British Industrial Revolution in Global Perspective, 2009/$17/ Graham Allison; Destined for War: Can America and China escape Thucydides’s Trap?// Graeme Barker; The agricultural revolution in prehistory: Why foragers become farmers?, 2006/$30/ Jerome H. Barkow; The Adapted Mind: Evolutionary Psychology and the Generation of Culture, 1992// Tim Barrett; The woman who discovered printing, 2008/$30/ Philipp Blom; De opstand van de natuur. Een geschiedenis van de Kleine IJstijd (1570-1700) en het ontstaan van het moderne Europa, 2017// Nick Bostrom; Superintelligence: Paths, dangers and strategies, 2014/$32/ Andrew Bourke; Principles of Social Evolution, 2011// John Broome; Weighing lives, 2006On paper: /$27/ Erik Brynjolfsson & Andrew McAfee; The Second Machine Age, 2014// Nathan Cohen; Health and the rise of civilization, 1991/$17/ Irven DeVore, Richard Lee; Man the Hunter, 1968/$23/ Trudy Dehue; Betere Mensen, over gezondheid als keuze en koopwaar, 2014// Jared Diamond; The Worst Mistake in the History of the Human Race, Discover 8, no.5, 1987/$65/ Wilco van Dijk & Jaap Ouwerkerk; Schadenfreude: Understanding Pleasure at the Misfortune of Others, 2014On paper: /$24/ Patricia Fara et al.; Timelines of Science, 2013/$17/ Nick J. Enfield; How We Talk: The Inner Workings of Conversation, 2017/$15/ Matthew Engelke; Think Like an Anthropologist, 2017// Irving Finkel; Ancient Board Games in perspective, 2007// Robert Frank; Choosing the Right Pond: Human Behavior and the Quest for Status, 1985// George Friedman; The Next 100 Years, 2009/$40/ Nico Frijda; The Law of Emotions, 2007// John K. Galbraith; The Affluent Society, 1958/$23/ Azar Gat; War in Human Civilization, 2006// Peter Gay; The Enlightenment, Volume 1: The rise of modern paganism, 1966// Peter Gay; The Enlightenment, Volume 2: The science of freedom, 1969/$20/ William Goetzmann; The Origins of Value, 2005/$12/ John Gray; Straw Dogs: Thoughts on Humans and other Animals, 2002// David Hand; The Improbability Principle, 2014/$18/ Judith Rich Harris; No Two Alike. Human Nature and Human Individuality, 2006/$40/ Joseph Henrich; Why Humans Cooperate: A Cultural and Evolutionary Explanation, 2007// Michael Herzfeld; The Making of Modern Greece, 1982

195 | Page

/$25/ Geoffrey Hodgson; Darwin's Conjecture: The Search for General Principles of Social and Economic Evolution, 2013On paper: // Austin Hughes, Human Evolution and Kinship, 1988/$16/ Samuel Huntington; Political Order in Changing Societies, 1968/$11/ Samuel Huntington; The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking Of World Order, 1996// Garry Kasparov; Deep Thinking. Where machine intelligence ends and human creativity begins, 2017/$19/ Lawrence Keely; War before civilization, 1996/$31/ Kevin Laland et al.; Sense and Nonsense: Evolutionary Perspectives on Human Behavior, 2002// prof.dr. Luuk de Ligt; 2000 cities in the Roman Empire, 60 mln citizens and just 2000 bureaucrats, Rome 1 mln/$155/ Staffan Lindeberg et al.; Food and Western Disease: Health and Nutrition from an Evolutionary Perspective, 2010On paper: /$/ Staffan Linder; The Harried Leisure Class, 1970 ***/$21/ Steve Lohr, DATA-ISM, 2015/$52/ Jan Luiten van Zanden et al.; How was life? - Global well-being since 1820, 2014// Steve N. Mason; The Roman, Judain War 66-70 CE: The most important War for Western Culture ??, 2014// Thomas McKeown, The modern rise of population, 1976// Ian Morris; Why the West rules - For Now: The Patterns of History, and What They Reveal About the Future, 2010/$13/ Sylvia Nasar; Grand Persuit: The Story of the People Who Made Modern Economics, 2012/$76/ Paul Nicholson & Ian Shaw; Ancient Egyptian Materials and Technology, 2009/$10/ David Noble; The Religion of Technology: The Divinity of Man and the Spirit of Invention, 1999// Douglass North; Violence and Social Orders: A Conceptual Framework for Interpreting Recorded Human History, 2009// William Petty; Political Arithmetic, 1690/$19/ Steven Pinker, Enlightment NOW: The Case for Reason, Science, Humanism, and Progress, 2018// O. Bar-Yosef & D. Price; Pathways to Power - New perspectives on the emergence of social inequality, 2010// K. Polanyi; The Great Transformation: The Political and Economic Origins of our Time, 2001/$20/ Peter Richerson & Boyd; Not by Genes Alone: How Culture Transformed Human Evolution, 2005/$25/ Garry Runciman; Very Different, But Much The Same: The Evolution of English Society Since 1714, 2015// Marshall Sahlin; Stone Age Economics, 1972/$28/ Carel van Schaik & Kai Michel, Oerboek van de mens, 2016/$20/ Christian Scholz; Generation Z: Wie sie tickt, was sie veraendert und warum sie uns alle ansteckt, 2014// Hernando De Soto; The mystery of capital: Why capitalism succeeds in the West and fails everywhere else, 2000/$5/ Robert Sternberg; Love is a Story, 1999/$6/ Chris Stinger; Lone Survivors: How We Came to Be the Only Humans on Earth, 2012// Charles Taylor; Sources of Self, 1989/$35/ Charles Taylor; A Secular Age, 2007/$11/ Richard Thaler; Nudge: Improving Decisions About Health, Death, and Happiness, 2008// Keith Thomas; The ends of life: Roads to fulfillment in early modern England, 2009// Arnold Toynbee; A Study of History, 1934-61On paper: // Thorstein Veblen; The Theory of the Leisure Class, 1899// Jan De Vries; The first modern economy, 1997// Max Weber; The theory of social and economic organization, 1947-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

196 | Page

13. Appendices

Appendix 1: Speed of Human Behavioral Evolution.

The Speed of (Human Bahavioral) Evolution: SE = Change in Makeup / Change in Environment = CM / CE = (CPM + CCM) / (CPE + CCE) is defined such that the Number N of individuals per generation drops out of the ratio.

I.e. Change in Makeup = [(Change in Physical Makeup and Change in Cultural Makeup over a certain period) / (Number of individuals per generation)] divided by Change in Environment = [(Change in Physical Environment and Change in Cultural Environment over the same period) / (Number of individuals per generation)].

Therefore this measure becomes solely dependent on the species and era for which it is determined.

However to put Change in Makeup or the Environment into a number is rather arbitrary as will be shown by a few examples.

Take e.g. the shift from a Hunter-Gatherer lifestyle to an Agricultural lifestyle:

Some even call this: 'The Worst Mistake in the History of the Human Race' /a/ but I would not go that far. Although it certainly worsened the fate of the average individual for about 10.000 years. It also created a whole new way for Behavioral Evolution to develop and thereby further the fate of humanity which could otherwise have ended there and then.

How exactly this big change in Behavior came about: by autonomous Behavioral invention or because of genetic adaptations as some people are convinced of /b/ is not the point here. Just that probably something like that had to happen and what it did to the Speed of Evolution: SE of the species Homo.

A Hunter-Gatherer group of let's say a Pygmies tribe /c/ lives e.g. in a savanna environment. They are well adapted to this environment, so the Change in their Physical Makeup is minimal (what could change is e.g. their ability to hear or smell or their ability to endure longer periods of drought) and their Change in Cultural Makeup is probably small as well. Although to overcome periods of drought and / or little game to hunt they could develop pottery to keep water or e.g. meat conservation techniques (drying) to keep food. And they could develop cultural ways of deciding whom can live and whom should die in order to let the group survive a sustained period of drought. To put this in a number is arbitrary but could be done e.g. like:Change in Physical Makeup (with respect to durability to live through 5 days without water): 0.05, that is in 20 generations the whole group is able to do it. Change in Cultural Makeup (with respect to develop accepted behavioral ways to decide who can live and who should die): 0.2, that is in 5 generations it is fully accepted that someone old or sick must be 'euthanized' if circumstances require it.And in the denominator: The Change in the Physical Environment (with respect to drought): 0.5, that is in two generations the prolonged drought (e.g. for several months) has disappeared. And the Change in Cultural Environment (with respect to drought): 'euthanasia' is accepted by all groups in that area: 0.25, that is in four generations all groups would have an identical behavioral response.

So SE = (0.05+0.2)/(0.5+0.25) = 0.33. That is in three generations the combined change to prolonged drought is no longer beneficial. Please note that this is not fast enough as compared to the change in the physical environment.

If now a (extended) family changes its behavior and increases the Change in Cultural Makeup to 0.3, i.e. in already three generations euthanasia of the old and sick is accepted then this change might become favorable because the speed of evolution for this extended family is increased to SE = (0.05+0.3)/(0.5+0.25) = 0.47 ~ 0.5 so in two generations this behavior could take place and in this instance could take hold if a particular period of droughts would be longer than two generations.

And the same applies if another tribe -e.g. Kung!- would have a ‘stiffer’ behavioral response, i.e. it takes e.g. just one generation to accept a change in all of groups of this tribe. Then this tribe would have a SE = (0.05+0.2)/0.5+1) = 0.16. So an extended family in this tribe would not gain an advantage over the other extended families. However, Pygmies might gain an advantage over this tribe in this area if some drought periods would take longer than two generations.

Another example:

197 | Page

Going from a paternal society: married women move to the group of their husbands to a maternal society: married men move to the group / region of their wives.

In ancient societies you very often see the phenomenon that young women are married off to the extended family / group of their newly acquired husbands. In these systems it is even often so that the family of the bride pays the family of groom who must keep her 'alive'.

In more modern / Western styled societies we now often see that this is the other way around: the husband moves to the region / city where his wife stems from.

Why did this fast and purely (?) cultural change come about?

So, could SE have some kind of minimum value below which a life form is not feasible or becomes extinct in the long run.

And as a last example:

The Excommunication of Venice by Pope Julius II in 1509 /d/.

/13.1.a/ The Worst Mistake in the History of the Human Race, Jared Diamond, Discover 8, no. 5 p. 64-66, 1987/13.1.b/ The 10.000 Year Explosion: How Civilization Accelerated Human Evolution, Cochran & Harpending, 2009/13.1.c/ Pygmeeen (in Dutch), Dr. Paul Julien, ca. 1950 (based on research from 1933 & 1948)/13.1.d/ Excommunication of Venice; http://www.historytoday.com/richard-cavendish/venice-excomminicated

198 | Page

Appendix 2: Table with Economic and Social numbers.

I pulled the data from several sources like Wikipedia /a/, Wolfram Alpha /b/, OECD-Statistics /c/, CIA-Statistics /d/ or older sources in books /e/ and compared the most recent but comparable data like e.g. 2010 for Population, 2009 for Health [%Health/GDP] or 2010 for Urbanization [10C/T(%)]. And I compared these to the general / cultural descriptions found on the Internet even though contemporary statisticians /f/ and one of the earliest statisticians: Charles Booth admit that trying to frame social phenomena in numbers is (almost) impossible /g/.

/13.2.a/ Demographics: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_<Germany | United_States>/13.2.b/ Wolfram Alpha: http://www.wolframalpha.com//13.2.c/ Statistics: http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/economics/country-statistical-profiles-key-tables-from-oecd_20752288/13.2.d/ Demographics: http://www.indexmundi.com/<name_of_country>/demographics_profile.html/13.2.e/ The Future of Industrial Societies: Convergence or Continuing Diversity ?, Clark Kerr, 1983/13.2.f/ Society at a Glance: Asia/Pacific 2011, OECD, 2011/13.2.g/ Charles Booth: http://booth.lse.ac.uk/static/a/2.html

Abbreviations:

GDPpP = Gross Dom. Prod. per Person $10C/T(%) = Pop. % 10

largest CitiesMedianAge = Median

Age of PopulationFR = Fertility RateIMR/1000 = Infant Mortality RateDepRatio = Dependancy Ratio%Ec_Child = % Econ. active ChildrenRoF = Road Fatalities

%3_Edu/GDP = 3rd Grade Education

%Edu/GDP = % Education expenditure

%Health/GDP = Health expenditureGPs/1000 = General PractitionersTax/GDP = % Tax of GDPR&D/1000 = Research & Development TPES(Mtoe) = Total Primary En.SupplyTPES/# = Tonnes oil equiv. / Person

199 | Page

Appendix 3: Lotke – Volterra model for Religions.

The public domain numerical simulation program: Octave has been used to generate the graphs from fig. 9 in paragraph 9.1 with the scripts below:

relReligions.mtime_band = [0, 5000]; init_vals = [0.02; 0.005; 0.10; 0.14; 0.0001; 0.10];ODS = odeset("RelTol",1e-8,"AbsTol",1e-6,"InitialStep",2.00,"MaxStep",2.00,"NormControl","on");

% Follows a coeffcient matrix C for a multi-variable Lotka - Volterra model% Row = x, Column = y so C(row,column) = C(x,y).% C(1,y) = row 1 is the growth for Christianity,% C(2,y) = row 2 is the growth for Islam,% C(3,y) for Hinduism, C(4,y) for Budism,% C(5,y) for Secularism and C(6,y) for the Rest% C(x,1) is the inhibiting factor for each Religion% And the gain of one Religion is the loss of the other Religion.% So e.g. C(x,x+1) is the autonomous growth of Religion x AND% gain Religion x is loss Religion y: C(x,x+y-1) = -C(y,x+1)

C = [-0.000500 0.00160000 -0.00010000 0.00070000 0.00050000 -0.00070000 0.00100000 -0.000600 0 0.00200000 0.00070000 0.00050000 -0.00070000 0.00100000 -0.000200 0 0 0.00160000 -0.00005000 -0.00035000 0.00035000 -0.000300 0 0 0 0.00180000 -0.00035000 0.00035000 -0.000400 0 0 0 0 0.00300000 0.00070000 -0.000600 0 0 0 0 0 0.00160000];

disp (C);

[t,x] = ode45(@Religions_odes,time_band,init_vals,ODS,C);

C = x(:,1); I = x(:,2); H = x(:,3); B = x(:,4); S = x(:,5); R = x(:,6);

T = C .+ I .+ H .+ B .+ S .+ R;

Cr = C ./ T; Ir = I ./ T; Hr = H ./ T; Br = B ./ T; Rr = R ./ T; Sr = S ./ T;

figure;plot(t,C,'r--','linewidth',1,t,I,'b-:','linewidth',1,t,H,'c-:','linewidth',1,t,B,'m-:','linewidth',1,

t,S,'k-:','linewidth',1,t,R,'y-:',t,T,'g-:','linewidth',1);xlabel('Time, year AD'); ylabel('Population size, billions');title('Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Budism, Secularism and Rest, Solution over time');legend('Christianity','Islam','Hinduism','Budism','Secularism','Rest','World Population');print('Religions.png','-dpng');

figure;plot(t,Cr,'r--','linewidth',1,t,Ir,'b-:','linewidth',1,t,Hr,'c-:','linewidth',1, t,Br,'m-:','linewidth',1, t,Sr,'k-:','linewidth',1,t,Rr,'y-:','linewidth',1);xlabel('Time, year AD'); ylabel('Relative population size');title('Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Budism, Secularism and Rest, Solution over time');legend('Christianity','Islam','Hinduism','Budism','Secularism','Rest');print('relReligions.png','-dpng');

Religion_odes.mfunction deriv_vals = Religions_odes(t,x,C)deriv_vals = zeros(size(x));deriv_vals(1) = C(1,1)*x(1)*x(1) + C(1,2)*x(1) + C(1,3)*x(1)*x(2) + C(1,4)*x(1)*x(3) + C(1,5)*x(1)*x(4) + C(1,6)*x(1)*x(5) + C(1,7)*x(1)*x(6);deriv_vals(2) = C(2,1)*x(2)*x(2) - C(1,3)*x(2)*x(1) + C(2,3)*x(2) + C(2,4)*x(2)*x(3) + C(2,5)*x(2)*x(4) + C(2,6)*x(2)*x(5) + C(2,7)*x(2)*x(6);deriv_vals(3) = C(3,1)*x(3)*x(3) - C(1,4)*x(3)*x(1) - C(2,4)*x(3)*x(2) + C(3,4)*x(3) + C(3,5)*x(3)*x(4) + C(3,6)*x(3)*x(5) + C(3,7)*x(3)*x(6);deriv_vals(4) = C(4,1)*x(4)*x(4) - C(1,5)*x(4)*x(1) - C(2,5)*x(4)*x(2) - C(3,5)*x(4)*x(3) + C(4,5)*x(4) + C(4,6)*x(4)*x(5) + C(4,7)*x(4)*x(6);deriv_vals(5) = C(5,1)*x(5)*x(5) - C(1,6)*x(5)*x(1) - C(2,6)*x(5)*x(2) - C(3,6)*x(5)*x(3) - C(4,6)*x(5)*x(4) + C(5,6)*x(5) + C(5,7)*x(5)*x(6);deriv_vals(6) = C(6,1)*x(6)*x(6) - C(1,7)*x(6)*x(1) - C(2,7)*x(6)*x(2) - C(3,7)*x(6)*x(3) - C(4,7)*x(6)*x(4) - C(5,7)*x(6)*x(5) + C(6,7)*x(6);endfunction

200 | Page