In Man: The Fallen Ape”, Branco Bokun offers the opinion that the human race stemmed from apes that were fringe dwellers of an ape troop which they had originally been born into but the hypothesis points to our ape ancestors as the failed apes that were made unwelcome by those living in the "mainstream" of the troop. The fallen apes - both male and female, lived separate from the larger group that abided by the instinctively embedded codes of conduct which ruled (and rule) ape society; which standards our ancestors failed to meet. They caused trouble, notably they behaved promiscuously, and they were ultimately chased by the larger group even from dwelling on the fringe of the ape society in the relative safety of the forests, into the "badlands" of the savannah. Whereupon this isolated and highly vulnerable group of apes survived at least long enough to hand on their genes to a very long line of creatures that led to humans - if the hypothesis be true - originally, due to the ministrations of the females among them, which creatures, due to their bearing offspring, had learned some abilities to nurture themselves and others, even in an alien landscape. The hypothesis speculates that the greatest offence was the "fallen apes" didn’t live in harmony with natural laws to mate seasonally which, I would think, would have caused the troop to dysfunction. The ejection of the Fallen Apes doubtless offered a short-term remedy for the troop to have things return to “normal”, but how many times did it happen that disordered apes were outcast; and how narrow a squeak was it that our ape ancestors survived to maturity where, I speculate of course, others similarly cast out, didn’t. And, yes, it is only an hypothesis. But it might explain something about the human impetus to copulate at any time without a “shared” rhyme or reason. There is no natural universal signalling among our species to premeditate coupling. We instead each have our own personal whims and foibles what is a turn on. If we accept Bokun's theory for the moment, to look at this splintering of the small group from the large group, the author seems to highlight a time when the "becoming humans" were at a turning point in their evolution from which there was no turning back; while ahead there could easily have lain extinction not too far away for these little apes. But with their enterprise succeeding, and Bokun believes it did - by an (unwitting) investment in a change of sexual habit they bequeathed to their descendents - so, that would us! - an incredible mind- broadening and body changing journey through distant eons. Anyway for your interest, an extract from the book. I've had it for years, and it is probably out of print by now: “Most anthropologists assert that human stock, the brightest of existing animals, came one day out of its natural, ideal environment, with food in abundance and no danger, and chose to start a new life in the hell of the savannah, with limited food, no safe shelter, and a savannah filled with dangerous predators … This theory is not acceptable by any natural logic. No animal will voluntarily leave a good environment for a bad one. … These explanations follow modern human logic, which is based on conceit. … I think that the most compelling evidence that humans were evicted from the woodlands into the savannah is the fact that the human mind, when it started to function, created the idea of paradise. … If any other animal ever became capable of creating abstract ideas, it would never imagine paradise. ... Paradise arises from an experience of humiliation which animals never face. No animal has ever been thrown out of its environment and survived. … Our human ancestors, our Adams and Eves, were evicted from Paradise. The only difference is that historically they were not evicted by Almighty God but by fitter apes.” You may not view it, as I do, a fascinating theory but, for me, it swings things around and almost compels the individual to understand that the words “strength” or "fitness" are relative to something, they don't exist independently even though our inclination towards biases might persuade us to think of them as having a static meaning. In the primitive ape world, perhaps the slowly "becoming" humans made bad apes and were unfit in ape society because they lacked a sexual instinct disciplined and controlled by oestrus but, contrarily, they might have made half reasonable humans, to the effect that increased coupling meant increased numbers, and our numbers are what has helped to give us a monopoly of the planet. In the close to the book, the author asks these questions: "Can it be that man's last chance is, once again, woman?" "Can the human female, who once saved the fallen ape in the savannah now save god-man, fallen with the onipotence of his mind?" "Is her instinct for the preservation of the species strong enough to prevent this catastrophe?"
And these are some of the statements Bokun makes: "When the adolescent male rebelled by taking the dominating role and inventing abstract ideas and beliefs, woman adapted herself to the absurd world man had created. " "By imitating man, woman has also succeeded in imitating ... man's most harmful vices. " "One can only hope that women will return to reality and induce man to listen to her natural wisdom. She can do this by ceasing to strive for equality with man. Equality with man means descending to man's pathetic and ridiculous level. Women should liberate herself from imitating man and from adapting to man's abstract world." "Woman's common sense is part of a woman's nature and that nature only comes to light when she is not imitating man or adapting herself to his world."
Proven, humans are not inately murderous of nature as some people have said.
