Magic Mushrooms and Human Evolution

I have written this article about magic mushrooms in relation to human evolution.

Magic Mushrooms and Human Evolution

 

Have you heard Mckenna's theory about psilocybin mushrooms and human evolution?

Basically, a long time ago, we were tree-dwelling primates. As Africa began to dry up, we were forced down from the canopy and into the savanah. In the savanah were lots of ungulate (cow-like) droppings. Under these droppings are often larvae and grubs, so we quickly learnt to look under them (monkeys and apes still do this today).

Mushrooms also grow from cowpies, and they are quite visually distinctive. As we nibbled on them to test for edibility, a relationship began. Low doses of psilocybin increase visual acuity, so if you're a ground-dwelling scavenger, this is invaluable. We began to regularly nibble on these as we found them. Larger doses of psilocybin cause arousal; monkeys who ate them regularly, reproduced more.

Soon, most monkeys were eating mushrooms. In still higher doses, psilocybin causes utterances of vocal sounds; this is thought to be the moment in which we realized we could communicate with noise from our throats.

it gets better

as we finally ate large doses of these mushrooms, we entered the psychedelic trance of the 'trip', which caused ego dissolvement and led to wild orgies. Mckenna thinks these were probably lunar in cycle, ie. we would eat them whenever there was a full moon or something.

This led to a society of happy, ego-less primates who had monthly orgies and were very successful. Unfortunately, the very force that caused this situation, the drying of Africa, eventually ended it.

African continued to dry. Ungulates moved further and further away. Cowpies, and with them the mushrooms, became incredibly scarce. We learnt that keeping mushrooms in honey preserved them; unfortunately, honey ferments.

Enter the force of Alcohol.

As we began to eat our foods with honey, we began to regularly ingest alcohol. Alcohol has virtually the opposite effects of psilocybin; it promotes ego, it deadens the mind and senses, and it promotes violence and laziness.

As we settled along the Nile and similar places, we learnt large-scale agriculture as a more efficient means of storing food, and our alcohol consumption continued rising, giving birth to social hierarchies (a consequence of ego), male-dominated societies (a consequence of violence) and the first city-states.

We are still at this point today.

 

I don't know about McKenna's theory, especially the reproductive part. I am significantly less dominated by my sexual instincts under the influence of psilocybin, and I think most people are. Animals usually breed a lot, and psilocybin makes us more spiritual, and less like animals. If there is an evolutionary advantage from magic mushrooms, it is because it makes us more clever, not because it makes us more horny.

It is much more likely that people will mate on alcohol, than on psilocybin, and maybe that is why alcohol is so popular today. Because alcoholic monkeys breed a lot.

I agree that alcohol has the opposite effect of psilocybin. Psilocybin stimulates the higher functions of the brain, while alcoholic drinks depresses the higher functions of the brain.

Mating is a very primitive function of the brain. All animals can do it, and there is nothing clever about it.

Spiritual sex on the other hand, that might be a a higher brain function, but it usually doesn't produce a lot of babies.

 

There are a few things I would like to point out:

"Most paleoanthropologists agree that the first humans should be defined according to when our ancestors developed a "symbolic language", and gained the ability of "collective learning" - which made our pool of collective knowledge increase from one generation to the next."

This is not true. In fact, most paleo-anthropologists agree that the advent of bipedal locomotion marks the beginning of what would eventually become the anatomically modern homo sapien sapien. Language did not come into the equation until significantly later.

"Why would a species choose to break out of its typical animalistic behavioral pattern, unless some kind of shock was applied to the species? I wouldn't spontaneously invent numbers, form religious doctrines, and complex social structures, if I was a chimpanzee. However, if some kind of shock pushed my mind out of my typical animalistic behavioral pattern, I might start to do such things."

There was, in fact, such a shock: the dwindling of available resources and living space in African forest. This is where bipedalism comes in: Our ancestors were able to come down from the trees to where the food was, and return with the food because being bipedal left them with two limbs to use for purposes other than locomotion.

"More than 96% of human DNA is identical to chimpanzee DNA, so of course we are related to them in some ways, but I prefer to think that the good qualities in men, like the ability to think abstractly and the ability to have spiritual values derives from the usage of magic mushrooms in ancient times. I feel a much greater kinship to the deep spiritual experience of magic mushrooms, than to those stupid chimpanzees. I really hope that I originate just as much from divine mushrooms, as from those stupid chimpanzees!"

Why do you have so much against the chimpanzee? Our behavior can be as barbaric as the most uncouth of the great apes, but we also see strong social bonds among them. It is vital to take into consideration our shift to bipedalism (it really is extremely important). A gradual shifting of the foramen magnum (the hole in your skull where your vertebral column originates) led to increased cranial capacity, which made it possible for us to develop larger brains, which made all subsequent human achievement possible.

For what it's worth, chimpanzees do possess the ability to use language. It's been done; humans have communicated with apes. Of course, they didn't say anything of substance back.

Your thesis is actually quite easy to test. We ought to feed some chimps magic mushrooms and see what happens.

I do not deny that entheogens played a potent role in human cultural evolution. Hell, I think we still have a host of ways to benefit from them, 200,000 years into the game. But to say that they are responsible for the biological evolution of humanity...I'm sorry, but I don't buy it.

 

####This is not true. In fact, most paleo-anthropologists agree that the advent of bipedal locomotion marks the beginning of what would eventually become the anatomically modern homo sapien sapien. Language did not come into the equation until significantly late in the game.####

That is not what I have heard recently from professors in paleo-anthropology. I have heard that the definition of modern humans due to bipedal locomotion is outdated, and that modern humans should be defined according to 'symbolic language' and 'collective learning'. If bipedal locomotion is what defines a human, then the Neanderthals and homo erectus sould be considered human. Paleo-anthropologists living today doesn't consider Neanderthals and certainly not homo erctus to be human.

####Why do you have so much against the chimpanzee?####

I think they are brutal and egoistical, much like the alcoholic humans living today. They are also very hostile towards other chimpanzees that doesn't belong to their groups, just like humans are hostile towards other people that doesn't belong to their country, culture, religion, or whatever. I hate this aspect of humanity. I think we should consider all of humanity to be our group, not just our nation, culture, religion, or whatever. Then there would be no war.

####For what it's worth, chimpanzees do possess the ability to use language. It's been done; humans have communicated with apes. Of course, they didn't say anything of substance back.####

Not a symbolic language, and I was talking a lot about abstract thinking. Chimpanzees cannot communicate abstract things with their language.

 

How are you defining human? If you only mean "anatomically modern homo sapien sapien" then of course neanderthals nor homo erectus are not human. Homo erectus was a type of human, one that was a direct antecedent of our species. Neanderthals were also a type of human, but more of an unsuccessful novel branch than an ancestor.



<<I think they are brutal and egoistical, much like the alcoholic humans living today. They are also very hostile towards other chimpanzees that doesn't belong to their groups, just like humans are hostile towards other people that doesn't belong to their country, culture, religion, or whatever. I hate this aspect of humanity. I think we should consider all of humanity to be our group, not just our nation, culture, religion, or whatever. Then there would be no war.>>

Can't really disagree with that, except you seem to imply that without alcohol our species would suddenly abandon greed and war.

 

####How are you defining human? If you only mean "anatomically modern homo sapien sapien" then of course neanderthals nor homo erectus are not human. Homo erectus was a type of human, one that was a direct antecedent of our species. Neanderthals were also a type of human, but more of an unsuccessful novel branch than an ancestor.####

Well, I have changed the text. Now it says "Most paleoanthropologists agree that the first modern humans should be defined according to when our ancestors developed a "symbolic language", and gained the ability of "collective learning" - which made our pool of collective knowledge increase from one generation to the next."

####Can't really disagree with that, except you seem to imply that without alcohol our species would suddenly abandon greed and war.####

Then you misunderstood me. I think the main problem is our genetic heritage. Chimpanzees doesn't drink alcohol, but they are still brutal.

The solution is more magic mushrooms, to make us more spiritual, and less brutal.

 

Mckennas theory = complete BS. end of story.

 

i love all of these theories. i dont believe in god but the mushrooms is the closest thing i have to religion. if these theories are true it would make me very happy.

 

That's because you are not taking them in doses where arousal is the primary effect; you are taking them in much higher doses, with the aim of reaching the psychedelic level.

Some animals only breed once in their lifetimes.

That is one of the greatest mistakes of reasoning a human being can make.

Thanks for your contribution, or something?

from wiki

 

####Some animals only breed once in their lifetimes.####

Yes, but these animals have a much greater survival rate for their children. The whole mechanism behind evolution is to a great extent based on reproductive success, and people living in prehistoric times probably mated as much as they could anyhow.

The evolutionary advantage from psilocybin is much more likely to have been in a very difficult time, where only the people consuming magic mushrooms were able to survive, due to what might have been their superior ability to find abstract solutions.

 

You really don't see how 1) improved vision 2) increased arousal 3) glossolalia can be evolutionarily advantageous?

 

Improved vision is advantageous, but not nearly as important as the heightened ability to find abstract solutions.

I don't believe in "Arousal", mostly because prehistorical humans probably mated as much as they could anyhow, and making them even more horny wouldn't have produced any more children capable of surviving.

 

Right, but now take those historical horny humans, and give them viagra. You don't think there will be a difference in succesful incidences of copulation? I just don't understand your logic, you're saying that making 2 members of homo sapiens sexually aroused will not increase likelihood of sexual intercourse?

 

I am saying that viagra wouldn't have given prehistorical humans better reproductive success.

How many intercourses do you think a woman needs before she gets pregnant? A normal man below the age of 30 ( like most men were back then ), can easily fuck a woman many times each day without viagra.

The reason why prehistorical humans didn't overpopulate the planet, wasn't because they didn't have enough sex, it was because they didn't have enough food. Once agriculture started ( about 10 000 years ago ), people density immediately increased drastically, because they got more food. This gave rise to the first civilizations: like Sumerian civilization, the Egyptian civilization and The Indus Valley Civilization.

Do you know what a limiting factor means in biology? Food was the limiting factor for prehistorical humans.

Information about what a Limiting Factor is in biology