oaks-and-willows

[oaks-and-willows]

Put me back in the water right now or ill die

[oaks-and-willows]

Randy Ortiz - Happy Person Having a Pleasant Conversation in Public

[oaks-and-willows]

[oaks-and-willows]

has the spirit of the Trader Joe taken the people i follow

[oaks-and-willows]

Hey don't cry, okay? We just found Attenborough’s long-beaked echidna, a species thought to be extinct for the past 60 years.

[oaks-and-willows]

It is important to remember that the cuse of all of this is ancient Mesopotamian petroleum djinns. Which are sexual in nature.

[oaks-and-willows]

[oaks-and-willows]

[oaks-and-willows]

has to be the greatest idea anyone ever came up with

[oaks-and-willows]

[oaks-and-willows]

[oaks-and-willows]

[oaks-and-willows]

Fun fact from Jan van Aken's How Wars End

[oaks-and-willows]

does anyone want to play drugs and alcohol with me

[oaks-and-willows]

There is an obvious objection to evolutionary models which assume that our strongest social ties are based on close biological kinship: many humans just don’t like their families very much. And this appears to be just as true of present- day hunter-gatherers as anybody else. Many seem to find the prospect of living their entire lives surrounded by close relatives so unpleasant that they will travel very long distances just to get away from them. New work on the demography of modern hunter-gatherers — drawing statistical comparisons from a global sample of cases, ranging from the Hadza in Tanzania to the Australian Martu? — shows that residential groups turn out not to be made up of biological kin at all; and the burgeoning field of human genomics is beginning to suggest a similar picture for ancient hunter-gatherers as well, all the way back to the Pleistocene. While modern Martu, for instance, might speak of themselves as if they were all descended from some common totemic ancestor, it turns out that primary biological kin actually make up less than 10 per cent of the total membership of any given residential group. Most participants are drawn from a much wider pool who do not share close genetic relationships, whose origins are scattered over very large territories, and who may not even have grown up speaking the same languages. Anyone recognized to be Martu is a potential member of any Martu band, and the same turns out to be true of the Hadza, BaYaka, !Kung San, and so on. The truly adventurous, meanwhile, can often contrive to abandon their own larger group entirely. This is all the more surprising in places like Australia, where there tend to be very elaborate kinship systems in which almost all social arrangements are ostensibly organized around genealogical descent from totemic ancestors. It would seem, then, that kinship in such cases is really a kind of metaphor for social attachments, in much the same way we’d say ‘all men are brothers’ when trying to express internationalism (even if we can’t stand our actual brother and haven’t spoken to him for years). What’s more, the shared metaphor often extended over very long distances, as we’ve seen with the way that Turtle or Bear clans once existed across North America, or moiety systems across Australia. This made it a relatively simple matter for anyone disenchanted with their immediate biological kin to travel very long distances and still find a welcome.

love the idea that humans avoiding their annoying family by moving hundreds of miles away is part of our ancient evolutionary inheritance

[oaks-and-willows]

take everything i say with a hint of lime

[oaks-and-willows]

my friend wrote this in his notes app while extremely drunk