I did some literature research a couple of years ago on the spread of milk tolerance in human populations. A single mutation decides whether or not human beings can digest animals’ milk and this mutation spread very fast through human populations in the last 10,000 years. Obviously this correlates with the practice of dairying: it is thought to be an example of co-evolution between genes and a cultural practice. The geographical spread of this mutation is extremely interesting and has been linked to one of the world’s great unsolved puzzled: the Indo-European language question. The Indo-European language family is one of the largest and links all of Europe to the Near East and India. The question is where did this language originate?

Key to the Indo-European language question is India. Indian cattle were domesticated from a different wild species to the European cattle but there are cultural similarities in ancient Hindu writing that suggest that pastoralists spread both east and west taking the milk mutation with them.

Or did they? African pastoralists have lactose tolerance but their mutation is slightly different, so this is a case of convergent evolution. But now in a major genetic study, Professor Mark Thomas and his team have shown that the genetic background of Indians with the lactose tolerance mutation is identical to that of Europeans. This is an enormous boost to the idea that pastoralism and the Indo-European language originated in Turkey or somewhere north of the Black Sea and then spread both East and West.

There has been much argument over whether farming spread by means of cultural transmission or whether it was taken by physical migration of peoples. The Indian study is powerful evidence and it is further backed up by a paper by another team involving Thomas showing that within Europe it was southern populations that took farming to the north rather than merely showing the northerners how to do it. It does rather look as if that single base pair mutation shaped the destiny of about half the human race.

Romero et al, ‘Herders of Indian and European Cattle Share Their Predominant Allelle for Lactase Persistence’, Mol. Biol. Evol. 2012, 29 (1), pp. 249-260.

Skoglund et al, ‘Origins and Genetic Legacy of Neolithic Farmers and Hunter-Gatherers in Europe’, Science, 2012, 336 (No 6080), pp. 466-9.

 
 
I get up early on a snowed-up, foggy freezing morning and, not yet alert, see a headline from the corner of my eye: “What does it mean to be British today”. My first thought is: “Oh, is it some special day – St Georges’; some date in the Royal calendar; or perhaps the government has just done something particularly shaming? A second later the other meaning kicks in: “today” means “the time we’re living in”.

I’ve been reading a lot about Alan Turing recently so the Turing Test came to mind: “a human judge engages in a natural language conversation with a human a machine designed to generate performance indistinguishable from that of a human being... If the judge cannot reliably tell the machine from the human, the machine is said to have passed the test” (Wikipedia).

So how would the machine deal with this? We already know the answer thanks to Siri, the phone’s speak-your-answer service. The machine would Google up the day, discover nothing very significant and conclude, if it’s been well programmed, that the other meaning applies.

Or perhaps it would be smarter? It wouldn’t bother goggling because probabilistically on most days of the year the second meaning would apply. But even if the computer always matched a human answer in questions like this its mode of operation would always be different. For us “What does it mean to be British today” is not a question about knowledge, but one of identity, emotional engagement with a concept –“Britishness” –that is undefinable but understood by all. I’ve always felt that the Turing test misses the point. We should like to know – or some of us would – how the human mind comes up with its answers. We know the computer does it differently so developing computer power to the point where it can pull off this party trick isn’t the point.

 
 
There’s a stopped clock on my local tube station with a notice pasted over it, saying “This asset has been decommissioned”. It’s been there for months, waiting for the operative who hung this asinine notice to come and do the deed and put the dead clock out of its misery.

Then there was Senator John McCain saying of the US military’s backseat role in Libya: "It's too bad and I would love to see our assets back in the fight." He wasn’t talking about stopped clocks but from NATO’s pathetic performance since that US step-back he might as well have.

Why would anybody call an A10 tank buster plane an asset? Partly, for the same reason passengers on trains are now called “customers” or hospital patients “clients”. It is managerialism run riot. In military matters, the reason is creepier: it is to obscure the fact that these weapons kill people (“collateral damage” comes from the same stable). But what earthly purpose is served by a doctor calling an expectant mother by the dehumanizing appellation “client”?

Civilization progresses by way of finer and finer distinctions. If you start to reduce the distinctions between different things, there is a loss of sensitivity of understanding. There are perhaps 2-30 million living species on the plant but, hey, why bother with names, let’s just call them all “bioforms”.

Again, perhaps the rise of the “asset” reflects a society dominated by bean-counters. Whatever the reason, it should be resisted. These “assets” are dead liabilities.  

 

Google Analytics Yahoo