African Americans

I often wonder why the name African Americans is applied to black people from the USA. Humans love to classify and define everyone and everything. Everyone who lives in the USA is an African American no matter what colour their skin is. The Human Species originated in Africa and every person in the world can trace their ancestry and their genes back to Africa. Our sub-species migrated out of Africa about 100, 000 years ago but of course many of our group remained there.

Recent discoveries (see my previous post) suggest that Modern Humans interbred with Neanderthal man. Even though Neanderthals originated in either Europe or the Near East, their predecessor the Heidelberg man originated in Africa. Heidelberg Man was also a predecessor of Modern Man. The recent evidence suggests that all three of us Modern Man, Neanderthal Man and Heidelberg Man are in fact sub-species of Homo Sapiens. Even though Neanderthals (Homo sapiens neanderthalensis) took a separate path out of Africa, about 500,000 years ago, to Modern Man (Homo sapiens sapiens), we were able to interbreed when we met again in Europe or the near East 450,000 years later. The Neanderthals and Heidelbergs died out to leave genetic markers in the last remaining sub-species -Us.

What does this mean? It means that for hundreds of thousands of years Human Beings have been migrating to and from Africa, from where we all originated and they have been exchanging their genes to leave just one sub-species, Modern Man, who now populates the whole world.

There are practically no differences between members of our sub-species no matter where we come from.The colour of our eyes, skin or hair makes no difference. The shape of our bodies makes no difference either, whether we are from the Arctic, North Africa, Central Africa or Europe, we are all one sub-species. Even though Neanderthals looked different to us, our similarities far outweigh the differences and the evidence suggests that they were just as intelligent and capable as us. They were adapted as well to their environment as we are to ours and part of their genetic inheritance survives in us today. Their genome was 99.7% the same as ours.

Any belief that one group of Humans is superior or different to another is clearly irrational. It is time to stop classifying people into specific groups; we all have the same mental and physical capacities and instincts. It is time to change public policy to reflect the facts contained in our genes. We are all Africans by heritage.

Come back Neanderthal all is forgiven

The news that Neanderthal man interbred with modern humans should now put the final nail in the coffin of racism. Ever since our Neanderthal cousin was discovered in Germany in 1856 there has been heated debate about whether he was the same species as modern humans or not. Initially, he was classified as Homo Sapiens Neanderthalensis, but latterly he was placed into another species of his own; Homo Neanderthalensis. Our cousin was portrayed as a crude and aggressive half ape, half man creature until well into the 20th century. But more recent evidence suggests that he was much more human than previously considered. Our cousin died out in Spain about 28,000 years ago. Some palaeoanthropologists believe that Neanderthals interbred with modern humans and now it looks as if there is proof that this did in fact happen. Svante Paabo at the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Leipzig, Germany has discovered that the genome of modern humans contains between 1 to 4 percent Neanderthal DNA. Further studies suggest that the genome of modern man is 97.7 percent similar to the DNA of our cousin.

But what has this got to do with racism? We humans are obsessed with classifying nature. We are constantly trying to assert that there are major differences between closely related animal and plant species. For instance, the dog and the wolf freely interbreed with one another and the domestic dog descended from the wolf, so nature regards them as the same species but humans classify them as separate. Unfortunately, we have tried to do the same with human beings and we have falsely asserted that there are substantial differences between human populations where none exists. And from that assertion we have assumed racial differences that do not really exist and have supplied "oxygen" to the false assertions of racists. Modern human beings are almost clones of one another and there is no substantial difference between a person originating from China and a person originating from India or anywhere else.

Jonathan Marks in his excellent book "What it Means to Be 98% Chimpanzee" put forward the point of view that Neanderthals and Modern human beings should be referred to as sub-species of Homo Sapiens. The Neanderthals (Homo Sapiens Neanderthalensis ) died out to leave just one sub-species , Homo Sapiens Sapiens, or us. The latest evidence vindicates this point of view. The last surviving humans are all in the same group. There is no scientific basis for racism which should now be defeated once and for all.

The new findings also put modern humans, firmly, in their rightful place within nature: we have believed that we were somehow superior to our Neanderthal cousins, but we are not. They were our equals and they were sufficiently human to interbreed with us. No modern human group, therefore, is superior in nature to another and racism is a dangerous and unnecessary contrivance.

UK Government

Perhaps, we should now start to consider a coalition government between all the major parties. Gordon Brown has done the decent thing and resigned as party leader but remains as Prime Minister at the behest of the Queen until a new government can be formed. David Cameron has offered changes to the voting system and economic management. All of the major parties have talented politicians who could help lead the country out of a possible crisis. It should be possible to negotiate common ground between all parties. No one party is able to dominate. The wishes of the minor parties can also be taken into account. Many British people would agree to this; perhaps they are tired of the tribal politics visible every day in parliamentary debate and they are tired of an all powerful Prime Minister who is effectively Head of State and Government rolled into one.

A grand coalition of all the parties would save them all "losing face" before the electorate. What would be wrong in David Cameron being Prime Minister under these circumstances?

We need constitutional change and therefore a coalition of the three parties could put a referendum before the people about changes to the election system, including proportional representation and a fully elected House of Lords.

One change that should be most carefully thought of , however, is the change to a directly elected Prime Minister. We are a parliamentary democracy. The Prime Minister has never been selected by popular vote. Prime Ministers have been selected either by the monarch, without reference to Parliament, or latterly by the the most powerful political party in terms of the number of seats in the House of Commons. We have got used to the one of the two major parties dominating the House of Commons. Each of the two parties select their own leader who could then possibly become Prime Minister. Our choice of Prime Minister effectively rests in the hands of the tens of thousands of party members not the electorate in general. It is not possible to have a general election every time a leader of a party resigns , retires or is deposed.

Politicians who claim that a Prime Minister should be elected by the public are either being disingenuous or they are ignorant of the British constitution. Neither Gordon Brown, David Cameron nor Nick Clegg have been or can be elected Prime Minister. Gordon Brown can not be pushed out of office at present because the Head of State needs someone to lead the country until another government is formed.

To elect a Prime Minister by popular vote would mean that we were electing a President. What would be the relationship with Parliament and what would be the monarch's powers ? Are those who advocate a directly elected Prime Minister proposing a full republic as well as parliamentary democracy? Let them come out and say it.

The demand for a directly elected PM is being fuelled by the media. The British people should watch out : we would need another referendum to ensure that the effective Head of State and Government does not exceed his powers. Public opinion suggests that we want to keep a constitutional monarchy, where the powers of the Head of State are moderated by Parliament.

I would prefer to keep a parliamentary democracy which has all the checks and balances required to prevent any abuse of power. A fully elected House of Lords or a Senate would be part of this democaracy. The President of this house could then advise the Queen - who the British people want to retain as Head of State - of what to do in the event of a hung parliament or government abuse of power. Both Houses of Parliament would then have better control over who is Prime Minister and who is appointed as government minister.

Effectively, we would have a full democracy and some of the powers rested away from the Queen could return to her. Why should the Prime Minister be able to veto the appointment of the Archbishop of Canterbury? An elected House of Lords would also be allowed to reselect a monarch who was challenging our social mores or constitution. This would be preferable to the Church of England or the Prime Minister having to intervene, as was the case with Edward VIII when he was forced to abdicate.

I, also, say to those who want a Prime Minister who is directly elected by the people; "be careful what you wish for as you may unleash unpalatable forces for change." The Prime Ministers' debate may become more than a beauty contest.

Badger's Demise

The Welsh Assembly has approved a cull of badgers, in Pembrokeshire, in an attempt to stamp out the spread of Bovine Tuberculosis. Why is this cull necessary?

I was at a petrol station in West Wales a couple of weeks ago and saw a cattle lorry full to the brim with cows. I wondered where they were going to. I also wondered if any of the cows were carrying TB, even though they all looked quite healthy.

Why is the disease called Bovine Tuberculosis and not Badger Tuberculosis. Yes, you have guessed it, the principal carriers of Bovine TB are cattle and not badgers. The cows are spreading the disease to the badgers not the other way around. Of course, we must support the farming community; but why must wildlife suffer when there is a possible conflict between the natural environment and farming? A small percentage of badgers have been infected with Bovine TB and no doubt small percentages of rats, rabbits and other animals are infected too. So why just pick on the badger's? Perhaps they are an easy target.

Mankind has got a dreadful record of slaughtering wildlife "competitors" to agriculture and animal husbandry. This killing is often justified on dubious scientific and moral grounds. Eagles have been persecuted because farmers have seen them eating lamb corpses, but quite often they are "carrion feeding" on animals that are already dead. Buzzards and other indigenous birds of prey have been wiped out from substantial areas of the UK because they threaten game bird species, some of which are introduced aliens. Bears, Wolves and Lynxes have been completely eliminated for similar reasons. Anything which seems to threaten the economic usage of animals or plants is wiped out. Sometimes these threats are very small.

We live in a very rich society; and yes, some Eagles do take live lambs but it does not threaten any farmer's existence and we can afford to pay compensation.

But back to the badger's; what would happen if they too were of economic importance? We would no doubt find an alternative solution. We could learn a few tricks from human disease control. We have vaccinated our population against TB. We have improved human sanitation and our living conditions to such an extent that tuberculosis no longer poses a serious problem. What is good for the humans is also good for cows. A vaccination programme will probably reduce the infection rates in both cows and the wildlife population.

The life of cows is also becoming increasingly stressful. Is there a need to herd thousands of cows into a barn to be milked three times day? Why are we transporting live animals long distances in crowded conditions? Improved animal husbandry would also help to reduce infections.

We are a rich and resourceful society we can afford to improve the living conditions and health of all animals on the farm. Lets do that and leave the poor badgers alone.

The 2010 UK General Election

I have still not decided whether to vote in the 2010 election or not. There are three parties which I seriously consider as fit to govern. Having read the manifestos of the three major parties, I conclude that there is really not much difference in policy.



I believe that the nation will benefit from constitutional change. A proportional representation system seems a much fairer way of electing members to a Parliament which represents the views of all of the British people. I also believe that we should have a fully elected House of Lords or a Senate which would have full powers to review all legislation including the budget. This House of Lords would also approve cabinet appointments and organise committees to question government policy. The House of Lords would also be elected on the principle of proportional representation.



If the parties are not able to agree to a proportional representation election system, I would agree to a system where third and fourth place candidates etc. would drop out of the election and there would be a fresh count to select one of the two remaining candidates. This system is used for the presidential elections in France.



It is blatantly unfair that a party which comes third in the popular vote could achieve the most number of seats, if not a majority. How could that government claim the authority to rule?



The political system in the UK allows a Prime Minister to become the Head of Government and Head of State in one. If no one party achieves a majority the Queen cannot exercise real power to appoint a Prime Minister either on the basis of most votes or most seats. The existing Prime Minister is conventionally given the right, first choice, to form a government even a minority one. Only, as a last resort is the Queen allowed to appoint a Prime Minister, from a minority party, to avoid a constitutional crisis.



Our Head of State is virtually powerless in all matters of the constitution and government as most of his or her powers are delegated to the Prime Minister. In a democracy, of course, an unelected Head of State cannot be allowed to interfere in the affairs of an elected government; this is why we need an all elected House of Lords to review the government's actions and to achieve checks and balances. Our country would then effectively become a full democracy and a "respublica" in the true meaning of the word. There is nothing to stop us retaining the monarch as Head of State for ceremonial and official occasions. The Queen or King could be advised by the House of Lords as to the possible course of action when there is a hung parliament or an abuse of power by the government. The House of Lords would also be able to approve the appointment of ministers on behalf of the monarch.

The House of Lords would also approve changes to the constitution. It would then allow Britain to become a truly secular state; as it could swear in (or remove) the monarch rather than the Church of England. The monarch would then be allowed to marry a Roman Catholic or the member of another religion; if that is what the British public really want. The monarch would still give royal assent to legislation and represent Britain overseas and would head up the Commonwealth.



The general election campaign has been conducted as if it was an election for a President. The "Prime Minister" debates have been organised as if the general public were electing the Prime Minister, rather than the political parties deciding who will be their leader and subsequently the Prime Minister. In a parliamentary democracy, such as Britain, the political parties decide their leader and this is difficult to change. If the Prime Minister were to be directly elected we would need substantial constitutional change. What would happen if a Prime Minister were elected but his political opponents were in the majority in parliament?



I believe we will only achieve constitutional change if there is a hung parliament, one of the minority parties will then be able to force a change. If I do vote, this will influence my decision.

starry, starry night

Our council in London, has started to introduce street lighting which directs the light towards the ground and reduces the escape of light into the sky. I have noticed a small improvement to the view of the night sky. There is still a long way to go however, but any improvement should be welcome. There are few places in the UK where we are able to see the full magnificence of the night sky. To do so one would need to go to the more remote areas of Scotland, Wales and Northern England.



When I was a boy, a half mile walk from my village would reveal completely dark skies My father used to point out the most noticeable constellations such as the Great Bear, Orion, Cassiopeia . I am have always held a fascination for the night skies ever since. I used to watch out for Yuri Gagarin and John Glenn in orbit but I was always in the wrong place at the wrong time.



From London I can still make out the brighter constellations but where has Ursa Minor gone? I can just about identify Castor and Pollux but where is the rest of its constellation? Where is the Milky Way? They are lost in the orange glow unfortunately.



In 1997, the comet Hale Bopp was able to penetrate the light and particle pollution over London and the sight was inspiring. A trip to the Auvergne in France, and away from much of the light pollution, shewed the comet in its magnificent glory; the size of its tails was truly amazing. This is a sight everyone should have the privilege of seeing.



Later, in France again and during Christmas 1999, hurricane force winds had turned off all the lights in the Champagne region where I was staying. A trip out into the country showed me how spectacular our skies could be again if the light pollution disappeared. The wind and rain had cleared the air but it was difficult to pick out the constellations because of a surfeit of stars; we simply were not used to seeing so many. I had almost forgotten what the Milky Way looked like.



Of course, it is now impractical to provide completely dark skies in our cities but we have made a good start. It should now be possible to improve, substantially, the visibility of the skies from our suburbs and villages. Children would, then again, not be so far from a location where they could see the full magnificence of the Milky Way. Hopefully, they would be inspired and the spirit of Gagarin, Glenn and Jim Lovell would live on indefinitely.

Crude Speculation

The Deep Water Horizon crisis, in the Gulf of Mexico, should provoke discussion beyond the immediate problem of preventing crude oil damaging the livelihood of fishermen and others in the States affected. The wildlife also needs protection. People can been protected, to some extent, from the economic ravages of the spillage but protecting the environment is a different matter.



No doubt, the organisational skills of the American people will temporarily alleviate the economic and environmental damage. We must all, however, consider the long term consequences of our actions and our attitude to nature and to our ultimate survival.



Industrialisation commingled with our ever increasing population growth is straining the environment, which supports all of us, to breaking point. It is feeding the demand for oil which needs to be sourced from more problematic locations. When there is an oil leakage or spillage, effecting repairs will become increasingly difficult. This trend is set to continue.



When there is an oil spillage, next to heavily populated areas, the crude oil does not just create a new environmental problem but adds to an existing one. The environment will already have been degraded and weakened by industrialisation; the recovery then becomes that much more difficult.



The risks to our survival result not just from what we actually do, but also from the dimensions of our activity. It is the scale of the oil spillage that causes the problem. The risks of environmental and economic damage lie solely in the numbers: it is a triumph of quantity over substance. The environment can easily cope with a small natural spillage of crude oil; but industrial scale quantities present a severe problem. The same principle applies to all human activity.

How long can we continue to live in an increasingly industrialised society where the need for fossil fuels is encouraged by population growth? The risks to our well being are now starting to be recognised by politicians, and the governor of California is now questioning whether prospecting for oil should continue offshore from his state.

The USA, or the rest of the world that matter, cannot stop prospecting for oil as we need it to drive our flourishing economies. But, overuse of the very fuel that secures our livelihood will eventually choke us.

The business and financial world has taught us to recognise that benefits should be weighed against costs. It has also demonstrated that risks and rewards are closely correlated and that the higher the reward the the higher the risk. When these two principles are ignored, business and economic systems run out of control and grow until there is a collapse.

Human activity is not immune from these principles . We run the risk of social collapse if industrialisation and population run out of control. I cannot understand why humanity cannot appreciate the risk to our survival of continued population expansion. There is a trade off between the benefits of growth against the costs of environmental degradation. Does anyone seriously believe that the planet is able to support multiple billions of people in industrialised comfort?

History provides many examples of social and economic collapse; the Roman Empire and the Soviet Union are but two. We are trying to create a Globalised society, and of course there are many benefits such as cheap consumer goods and free and easy travel. But what are the costs of increased industrialisation and rapid population growth? What is the risk? Will it, eventually, lead to social, economic and environmental collapse? These are the questions we should all be asking. The evidence suggests that we are heading for danger.

Every person alive deserves to benefit from the apt use of technology and industrialisation. But we cannot achieve this unless we manage our population; we need to stop its growth and eventually reverse it until the numbers operate in our favour. The result will mean that spillages of of oil etc. will be less dangerous. We will not have to search for resources in remote and wild areas. We will, also, be able to recycle most of the material needed for an industrial society.

We cannot expect Nature to help us if we overextend ourselves. It will not, altruistically, generate a favourable wind to direct the the crude oil away from our shores. Equally, it is not motivated to cruelly blow the oil to our beaches and marshlands. We are the masters of our own destiny. If we chose to operate in harmony with a natural world that does not care whether we live or die, then we as a species will survive to follow our evolutionary path. If we chose to act in disharmony, our species will probably perish.