I watched an excellent documentary on TV recently about orangutans. Richard Attenborough spoke the commentary. The animals were studied in considerable detail and orangutan society was revealed as having many similar human aspects. Although, as individual animals they live relatively isolated lives, orangutan ‘society’ is based on well established behaviours which serve to maintain stability and continuity and avoid conflict. How do we compare? Given that we evolved from earlier primates which would have developed similar social structures and relationships which protected individuals and prevented conflict, have we retained any similar behaviours? They are not involved in destructive wars. The sexes regard each other with respect and they raise their young with great care. Perhaps we can we learn from our distant ancestors.

Continuing with my previous proposal that the world should be run by women, not men, and that the female human is less likely to resort to armed conflict, have you ever thought about how outstanding individuals are recognised and rewarded? Who get the medals and why? Soldiers, police and a few other professionals earn gongs in recognition of outstanding service and exemplary behaviour, In particular, we are keen to recognise examples of great bravery, and success despite overwhelming odds. These features are regarded as desirable and admirable in the male human, but rarely recognised or rewarded in women. They are, in fact, widely recognised as laudable male characteristics.

But what are the desirable, universally recognised and rewarded female characteristics? Previously, these would have been considered as those of a ‘good mother or compliant wife’. In other words, women would have been approved of (but rarely rewarded) for behaving in ways considered appropriate by men. But is this the best we can do? Even now, I can think of several circumstances involving women, and you will too, worthy of public recognition (much more than a medal). For example, but not in order of importance:

1. The young women with one or more children who have been abandoned by their husbands or partners, or where they have died, and are then forced to rear their families single-handed while also holding down a job.
2. The older woman who is solely responsible for an ageing relative not capable of looking after themselves.
3. Those women who sacrifice their careers and risk their lives in caring for those humans, both civilians and combatants who are injured in war. The volunteers in Medicins Sans Frontieres come to mind.
4. And, of course, every pregnancy warrants a medal. Bringing a new human animal into existence and rearing one is a sacrifice beyond the ability of males.

Dedication, worthy of recognition and medals, is much more than bravery while facing injury or death. but should include long term service and sacrifice for others.

In previous blogs I pointed out that, compared with other species, humanity is cursed with proportionally too many males and that this imbalance is the major cause of so much strife and misery in the world. I suggested a couple of ways in which we could reduce the number of male babies born and that societies run mainly by women would be less competitive and more cooperative. But reducing aggressiveness and thereby preventing violence from male animals is what vets do now! There would be very few male dogs or cats kept as pets which have not been desexed. Entire (uncastrated) males are more liable to fight and to roam, and female animals which have been spayed (ovaries removed) cannot give rise to unwanted offspring.

So is a veterinary approach the answer to the unending worldwide problems of overpopulation and conflict? This is a question of human rights and then only if individual males were to voluntarily sacrifice their ability to produce children. At present, it is common for some male humans to undergo vasectomy when they no longer wish to sire children, without losing the ability to have sexual intercourse with their spouses. But for males to become less aggressive, and to reduce the tendency to become violent, this would involve removal of the testes – castration.

Given that nearly all societies are now dominated by men, and male dominance determines the relationships between nations, a veterinary solution to preventing wars and conquest seems unlikely in the near future. However, legal castration could go a long way to reducing the danger from abusive violent men to women and children.

In a previous blog I suggested that we human animals are still evolving and that our social and international problems stem from the fact that, at this stage of our evolution, unlike other species, we are cursed with too many males. It is possible that by removing the surplus of males through war the world population of Homo sapiens may move towards stability, but there is no evidence that this is likely to happen in the near future. There is also no widespread recognition that the surfeit of males in the world is the cause of so much misery and destruction. In fact, in most societies, the birth of a male rather than a female child is preferred and celebrated. Perhaps we need to turn to Science to solve this problem?

Here’s an interesting question – how could Science change the female:male ratio such that many more female than male children are born? Perhaps women of child-bearing age could be vaccinated against producing and/or nurturing male foetuses. Perhaps semen from artificial ejaculates could be sorted into the two halves with the potential to give rise to male or female offspring, and the former half abandoned. Do we have the technology to do this? Probably not at this point in the development of reproductive expertise, as the present aim is to assist women who have difficulty becoming pregnant irrespective of the outcome with regard to the sex of their offspring. Perhaps it will take a female revolution to initiate the necessary research.

Leaping ahead, what would a society, where the majority of its members are female, look like? One would hope that the great disparity in the ratio of the sexes would prevent conflict. But how would this major change affect government, politics, and human relationships? I understand there are a few examples of female dominated societies, both historical and contemporary which we could study. Time for a new university discipline?

In a previous blog, I suggested that many human problems stem from the fact that, as animals, we are still in an early stage of our evolution. Fully evolved species are in harmony with their environments, and, unlike human animals, the members do not devote energy and resources to attacking and exterminating each other. Comparison with other mammalian species reveals a fundamental difference in the ratio of female to male humans. Perhaps our unceasing and destructive problem in relating to each other stems from the fact that there are roughly equal numbers of males and females, and there are far too many males!

Simplistically, female mammals have evolved to maintain their species by giving birth and rearing their young; males exist mostly to inseminate females and, in a few instances, protect females and their offspring. In many species, excess males are driven away to die in isolation. We confirm this natural ratio of females to males in agriculture and other animal ventures. In order to maintain an economically successful dairy farm, for example, the ratio of cows to bulls is somewhere around 100 to 1. In many enterprises, there is no local male and insemination of cows is carried out artificially. Male calves born on dairy farms are not reared but sent for slaughter early in their lives (‘bobby calves’).

Would human society be more stable and less destructive with fewer males? Perhaps the function of wars is to reduce male populations and recreate the balance? Nature works in mysterious ways

As pointed out before, we humans are all of the same species: Homo sapiens, and despite assumed differences because of race, colour, nationality, religion, politics etc, we are all capable of tolerance and respect. As one species, we are also capable of interbreeding, despite these assumed differences. The human problems in this world are not the outcomes of our biology, but stem from beliefs, which are the outputs of our more evolved brains. Individual animals may oppress, fight and occasionally kill others of the same species in the pursuit of sexual dominance or access to territory, but we intimidate, oppress, enslave, slaughter and exterminate whole populations of our own species, for reasons that are not biologically rational, but based on beliefs. Beliefs are different ways of thinking that inevitably have many origins: parents, religion, nationality, history, education, and individual circumstances. Unfortunately, beliefs become much more entrenched than pure knowledge. Try convincing an anti-vaxxer why scientific knowledge is more valuable than belief in promoting and maintaining health!

Add passion and single-mindedness to belief, and the outcome is often fatal. The human animal is easily persuaded that there is only one way to reach a goal, that the goal is worth suffering or even dying for, and that other humans who think differently are not worthy of their existence. This tendency to extreme belief is easily harnessed and manipulated by unscrupulous leaders. The human brain, although capable of logical thought and valuable achievements, is all too easily persuaded by argument to reject respect for other human animals and to treat them as inferior and unworthy of help and compassion.

So, this is why I think we are only part way in our evolution. We are not fully developed compared with other mammalian species. Until we regard all humans as worthy of respect, until we protect and sustain all refugees, until we provide a full education and medical support to all of our citizens irrespective of their financial situation, until we treat everyone equally legally, we have some way to go compared with other animals. And, unless we advance to parity within our species, we will also suffer the fate of other species which failed to adapt, and go extinct.

As explained previously, human animals are as influenced by evolution as all other animals. And unless we understand and control our evolved features we are liable to go extinct. Our most dangerous attribute is belief. Our ancestors and related hominims were probably the first to develop beliefs. Beliefs arise from observation and thinking about phenomena. Other species do not need to explain events and circumstances, they just react. Through evolving a larger brain we have acquired the ability to consider what has occurred to us or others and suggest a cause. In the past our explanations were based on imagination and fantasy as only recently in our history has the development of Science resulted in rational explanations. We have largely moved on from magic, witchcraft and stories to the results of experiments and careful observation.

However, we still have some way to go – our thinking is still evolving. Reality for many people is still shaped by entrenched beliefs. To believe is not the same as knowing and understanding the scientific facts. Much of humankind has yet to abandon unproven beliefs and think rationally based on facts. The outcomes of unsupported beliefs, unfortunately, are war, nationalism, racism, religious intolerance and sexual bias, A dog knows another dog, a horse knows another horse, but we human animals differentiate, judge and, too often, injure or kill others of our species, on the basis of differences in belief – whether about race, sex, class, religion, politics, age, history or behaviour. Beliefs can kill. Until we accept that all human animals are entitled to, and deserve,, equal recognition and respect, we will continue to exclude, hate, and attack those with different beliefs.

In my previous blog I suggested, based on the evidence of the few thousand years of our existence as a species, we are still evolving. And that unless we change our ways we are liable to go extinct before we reach stability within our environment – the Earth. While thinking about our ongoing evolution, it is interesting to to examine those features which we have perfected so far. One in particular interests me greatly – our voice – the ability to make sounds with the voice box, the larynx. We are probably unique in that we can make sounds (pitches) both high and low, both quiet and loud, and change both pitch and volume rapidly, purposefully and with the addition of emotion. The human voice is a subtle and powerful means of communication, compared with our distant animal ancestors. Of course, it is not possible to know how and why hominims such as Neanderthals and Denisovans communicated, and what sort of voices they had – the larynx is probably the organ least likely to survive fossilisation and there are no CDs. However, a few ancient instruments have survived, which suggests music at least was important to our ancestors.

But that is not the end of the topic. Why and how have we evolved such a versatile organ and its output, the voice? As anyone who sings or is merely interested in singing and singers, we should ask why we have this ability? Surely the voice has evolved to be used for more than regular communication? Perhaps we have the ability to mimic other animals in order that they may be captured and eaten. Perhaps a powerful voice, alone, or from a group, could have been used to scare away predators. Try watching and listening to the New Zealand All Blacks rugby team performing a haka (war song) before a match! And then of course, there is the love song. Perhaps women and men have evolved gentle voices in order to attract partners prior to mating? Perhaps the singing voice is important in soothing children before they can speak?

And a final comment, guaranteed to provoke controversy! As a singer, I say to all those who “Can’t/don’t sing’ that they could and should take the opportunity, as we have all evolved the apparatus and the ability to control the voice. Let yourself be heard!

According to the ‘ologists we humans, Homo sapiens, evolved from pre-human species, or hominims. And examination of our DNA reveals that some of our ancestors interbred with Neanderthals, Denisovans and other pre-humans. We are, in fact, mongrels. And given the relatively short space of time that H.sapiens has been around as a species, we are still evolving.

Evolution serves to fit new species into their environments, and this process is long drawn out and painful. Many of Nature’s experiments leading to new species fail for a variety of reasons – deficiences in their environment, changes in climate, failure of food resources, volcanism, and predation. If we accept that modern humans have only recently arrived on Earth, have multiplied to invade most areas of land, and are still adjusting to the limits of the environment and to the presence of other animal species, what are our chances of surviving as a species? Not very good when one considers what we have done in such a short time to this planet and the other species we share it with. We cannot even live alongside other humans without competing violently for land and resources.

Evolution has equipped us with brains that are capable of amazing feats of imagination and invention, but we have yet to evolve to a state of existence where interpersonal relations do not result in racism, sexism, personal violence and war. We are clever enough to understand and record the process of evolution in other species, but have so far failed to acknowledge its importance in ourselves.