Evolution and Economics

The Economist asks whether we survived as a species because we are Homo economicus?. Jason Shogren, of the University of Wyoming, had posed the question "Did Use of Free Trade Cause Neanderthal Extinction?" in a press release at NEWSWISE. The Economist writes

... For Dr Shogren is suggesting that trade and specialisation are the reasons Homo sapiens displaced previous members of the genus, such as Homo neanderthalensis (Neanderthal man), and emerged triumphant as the only species of humanity.

Is this really a case of a Capitalist Economist projecting back onto the past the current economic system? We are in the midst of political upheavals centring around "free trade". Is The Economist trying to say that trade is intrinsic to human nature? And that the antiglobalisation crowd going against human nature. The article continues.

One thing Homo sapiens does that Homo neanderthalensis shows no sign of having done is trade. The evidence suggests that such trade was going on even 40,000 years ago. Stone tools made of non-local materials, and sea-shell jewellery found far from the coast, are witnesses to long-distance exchanges. That Homo sapiens also practised division of labour and specialisation is suggested not only by the skilled nature of his craft work, but also by the fact that his dwellings had spaces apparently set aside for different uses.

These trade networks were also found among Australian Aborigines of ochre among other things. However, the NEWSWISE press release emphasised the cultural exchanges for the diffusion of innovations among Homo Sapiens. I think this is the more likely than what The Economist was proposing when they continue thus:

Initially, the researchers assumed that on average Neanderthals and modern humans had the same abilities for most of these attributes. They therefore set the values of those variables equal for both species. Only in the case of the trading and specialisation variables did they allow Homo sapiens an advantage: specifically, they assumed that the most efficient human hunters specialised in hunting, while bad hunters hung up their spears and made things such as clothes and tools instead. Hunters and craftsmen then traded with one another.

According to the model, this arrangement resulted in everyone getting more meat, which drove up fertility and thus increased the population. Since the supply of meat was finite, that left less for Neanderthals, and their population declined.

Unfortunately, there is no supporting evidence among the many indigenous societies studied over the past few centuries. The problem is that of food preservation. Sea shells may well have been traded up from the coast but the shellfish would have stayed behind in the stomachs of the original gathers. The only way you would give prawns to your inland neighbour if really hated their guts.

The idea of a finite supply of meat is a bit simplistic. Australian Aborigines increased the supply of meat by increasing the amount of newly green grassland that their prey fed upon. Here the judicious use of fire increased the number of animals by keeping forests at bay and encouraging green shoots in the grasslands.

From a Marxist point of view, human evolution was driven by the need of humans to labour to get their food. That is, we cannot eat many things directly. We have to make tools to catch, kill, skin, and cook meat and some vegetables. There are not many things we can go outside and eat: the birds and animals are too fast; carrion makes us ill; we cannot eat leaves and tubers; our teeth cannot cut through animal hide; nor tear off chunks of flesh. Without tools and knowledge, we are helpless. We developed tools and knowledge, and those things help us to develop further. It was the free flow of knowledge throughout the human world that helped out compete the Neanderthals.