Human Race.

Digit · Post by **Digit** » Mon May 11, 2009 11:49 am

because there is no alternative.

Yes there is, you stay where you are, better than drowning!

Roy.

Post by **Minimalist** » Mon May 11, 2009 12:23 pm

Yeah, that's a good point. We still have not decided WHY people migrate in the first place but the leadership of the clan had to have entered into some kind of risk benefit analysis. How many drownings would have been considered an acceptable loss risk?

Digit · Post by **Digit** » Mon May 11, 2009 12:34 pm

In the programme last night Min they suggested that the number of people who crossed was about 200, so they were well organised.
The strange thing is, at that time the whole of Africa seems to have been 'green' from the Cape to Cairo, so, yes, why risk it it?
And with four miles of tidal water to cross, and over 100 mtres deep in places, they must have been pretty determined.
Also to get that number across, regardless of how many started, has to mean water craft and a considerable experience in their usage as well.
According to the programme the colonists originated on the banks of the Omo, so they very probably were familiar with water craft from way back.
Makes sense at least.

Roy.

Post by **Minimalist** » Mon May 11, 2009 1:07 pm

so, yes, why risk it it?

Pressure from those remaining behind. These were the losers in some sort of power struggle. On this point I agree with Rokcet. People flee an immediate threat.

It's like the old story about if you drop a frog on a hot plate he'll jump off. But if you put him on a cold plate and slowly raise the temperature, he'll sit there and cook.

Digit · Post by **Digit** » Mon May 11, 2009 1:16 pm

From my understanding Min there weren't enough people there to be a threat, people normally need something to fight over, but who knows.
Wanna bet the leader's name turns out to be Moses?

Roy.

Post by **Minimalist** » Mon May 11, 2009 1:24 pm

people normally need something to fight over

I don't know, Roy. Somehow they always seem to find a reason.

Digit · Post by **Digit** » Mon May 11, 2009 1:28 pm

Regretably so Min.

Roy.

Rokcet Scientist · Post by **Rokcet Scientist** » Mon May 11, 2009 2:52 pm

Pressure didn't necessarily have to have come from other 'people'. Animals or bush fires can be very threatening. Pressuring. Nor did the number of other 'people' need to be a threat, but if their m.o. was (think Hutu vs. Tutsi slaughter with stone axes) the others would move allright!

Count the Somali peasants in refugee camps in Yemen today! People from deep in the African desert, who never before in their lives had even seen a real boat fled from the sadistic misery, abuse and opression, and managed to cross the 100 kilometer Gulf of Aden somehow. Mainly 'rowing', paddling more like. Precisely like Cuban refugees sometimes do to come to America. But you don't want to see what they use for 'boats'! Just about anything that might remotely float is being used! Yet they DO get across (those that do anyway; those that don't simply vanish of course). Pressure is an undeniable motivator.

Post by **Minimalist** » Mon May 11, 2009 8:01 pm

Just a thought, on this. I have no evidence off hand to back it up and Dig gets upset when I get all logical on him.

I doubt that animals would be that threatening to them. They lived around animals and probably would have welcomed any hunting opportunities that presented themselves. Brush fires must have been a constant menace every dry season. Unpleasant as all hell but not something new and threatening. We've been through climate change and while some people move many just sit there on their asses.

A tsunami or asteroid impact would either kill them outright or be so widespread that there would be little reason to suppose that the grass was greener elsewhere. Volcanoes might be an explanation except there aren't a lot of active volcanoes in East Africa as far as I know.

So maybe we have to stop looking for a single cause and look for a cascade effect? Modern famines generally lead to strife over resources. Perhaps a drought which led to conflict over waterholes or such?

Rokcet Scientist · Post by **Rokcet Scientist** » Mon May 11, 2009 8:34 pm

Minimalist wrote: [...] Volcanoes might be an explanation except there aren't a lot of active volcanoes in East Africa as far as I know.

Lemme bring you up to speed then:

Look at the cluster at the horn of Africa! Exactly where you'd expect the pressure points to be!

Post by **Minimalist** » Mon May 11, 2009 8:48 pm

Compelling. There are certainly quite a few. Unfortunately, they are clustered at the crossing point.

Would someone flee a volcano by walking towards it?

Digit · Post by **Digit** » Tue May 12, 2009 2:29 am

Dig gets upset when I get all logical on him.

Who, me? Never!

Logical? Like this you mean?

Would someone flee a volcano by walking towards it?

Roy.

Rokcet Scientist · Post by **Rokcet Scientist** » Tue May 12, 2009 8:29 am

Minimalist wrote:Compelling. There are certainly quite a few. Unfortunately, they are clustered at the crossing point.

Would someone flee a volcano by walking towards it?

Of course not. But that wasn't the situation. The situation was, as we have hypothesized, that HE was beach combing. So he was at the waterline. So that cluster of volcanoes is/was inland relative to HE's location. When they erupted HE's land routes were cut off. He couldn't go towards the volcanoes, so he obviously fled them in the only other direction left: across the water!

HE's jump-off point:

Tada!

Digit · Post by **Digit** » Tue May 12, 2009 8:53 am

Any evidence of volcanic activity at that time?

Roy.

Rokcet Scientist · Post by **Rokcet Scientist** » Tue May 12, 2009 9:16 am

Would you wager that any volcano can ever be considered 'dead'? To me the definition of a volcano is "an opening in the earth's crust that is usually dormant for millions of years, but spews fire, ash, and lava, at the most unexpected (inopportune) moments, sometimes for very long periods of time, and that can never, ever be trusted not to!"

Like Vesuvius. Which had been sitting there for millions of years without activity, then suddenly erupted violently in 79 AD. And subsequently hasn't (yet) erupted since.

The Afar region is extremely volcanically active. Always has been. For hundreds of millions of years at least! I've seen dozens of open, 'live' craters in that region that afford a peek at hell below. That on-going activity is splitting east Africa and creating the "East African Ocean" as we speak! It is arguably the most volcanically active region on the planet, and has been uninterruptedly so for hundreds of millions of years.

So, to answer your question, it is the other way around: there is NO evidence that region was NOT extremely volcanically active around 2 or 3 million years ago.