comm check

 5x5

THE MISSING LINK--Australian Town and Country Journal, 02 July 1870--STONE TOOLS.

The Australian Town and Country Journal, 02 July 1870, page 21.

Ethnologists and Paleontologists have so generally used the terms "stone age" and "cave dwellers," as appertaining to periods of very remote antiquity, that the general public have come to regard all such subjects as exclusively belonging to pre-historical times. Evidences, however, are not wanting to show that, although this may be the case with regard to European countries, both terms are applicable to what are almost things of today in Polynesia and Australia. Another erroneous idea that seems very prevalent is, that the use of stone tools and weapons by a people indicated that they had not emerged from the very lowest stage of barbarism; and having this notion present to their minds, some recent writers have puzzled themselves and their readers by trying to account for the enormous quantities of chipped flints, such as arrow-heads and other weapons, which have been found in certain localities in Europe. They could not imagine that savages in the lowest stage of human existence, as they erroneously took it for granted that the stone age people were, could have had what, for want of a better term, we must call great manufactories of stone implements. Yet it appears certain that the stone age folks had such centres of industry, and it is probable that the results of their labours were widely distributed by means of channels of communication and commerce,

not very unlike those which prevail at the present day in many semi-barbarous countries. If this was the case, many races of mankind, during the ages in which stone implements were exclusively used, must have been very much further advanced in their progress towards civilization than is generally believed. I have been led into these remarks from reading an account of recent explorations and investigations in the Sandwich Islands by Dr. Beratz, a German traveller. He has described caves and large quantities of stone implements which he found in Hawaii, evidently of recent occupation and make; and yet these things, if found in Europe, would be referred to as the habitations and productions of savages in the lowest state of existence, in times almost incalculably remote. In speaking of the caves near the top of Mount Kea, Dr. Beratz says "In every one we found a fire-place near the entrance, showing that the hands of men had completed what nature had left unfinished. Where the natural entrance to a cave was too large, we found rocks piled up like a wall, and the fissures and openings between them filled up with chips and small stones. In other caves again where the entrance had proved too steep or too rough to be comfortable, there Hat stones had been placed like steps, down which we descended into these little mountain habitations. This part of the mountain-where these caves and the quarries from which the material for the adze manufacture

was procured are situated-is destitute of vegetation. On examining the interior of the caves, we found pieces of Kapa of various texture and colour, bones of dogs and pigs, cocoa-nut shells, banana stems, pieces of awa- root, and sugar-cane, old mats, firewood, and heaps of Opihi shells. Outside of the caves, the ready made stone adzes were put up in large heaps on both sides of the entrance. The most striking thing of this whole stone adze manufactory, and which at the same time gives us somewhat of an idea of the extent to which it was carried on, the number of ages during which it was continued, and the amount of people working constantly at it, are the large mounds of little chips, thin and sharply pointed, in front of every cave, 20 to 30 feet in height and thickness. In fact, these wonderful mounds, visible for some distance, led to the discovery of the other caves. It is only a short time since the 'stone age' of these islands closed, and the first iron tools and metal instruments were imported by foreigners." In connection with this matter of flint implements, it may not be out of place to mention that some of the Australian tribes, particularly those on the north-western coast, show an almost marvellous degree of dexterity in their manufacture. In Captain King's account of his visit to Hanover Bay, he says:-

"What chiefly attracted our attention was a small bundle of bark, tied up with more than usual care; and upon opening it we found it contained several spear-heads, most ingeniously and curiously made of stone; they were about six inches in length, and were terminated by a very sharp point;

both sides were serrated in a most surprising way; the serrature was evidently made by a sharp stroke with some instrument, but it was effected without leaving the least mark of the blow; the stone was covered with red pigment, and appeared to be a flinty slate. These spear-heads were ready for fixing, and the careful manner in which they were preserved, plainly showed their value: for each was separated by slips of bark, and the sharp edges protected by a covering of fur. Their hatchets were also made of the same stone, the edges of which were so sharp, that a few blows served to chop off the branches of a tree."

It is evident from the foregoing facts, that no very reliable conclusion, as to the stage of advancement to which a people had attained, can be arrived at from the fact, that they used stone implements. -B.

New South Wales--

---

ENG409C.1001--Genetics, Ethics, Natural Selection and Extinction -- U OF NEVADA, FALL 2020

ENG409C.1001
James L’Angelle
University of Nevada, Reno
Dr. C. Chaput
04 October 2020

 
Genetics, Ethics, Natural Selection and Extinction

 
     The genre of modern day dinosaurs in film is nothing new. What was new in the Michael Crichton novel, “The Lost World,” adapted for the big screen by Steven Spielberg and produced as “Jurassic Park,” (1993) was the concept of genetic engineering to recreate the extinct creatures from millennia past. The billionaire John Hammond (Richard Attenborough) invites three scientists to his island showcase for a safety check where the newly hatched and fully grown dinosaurs serve to function as a theme park. The outcome is anything but a success and it is prefaced in a particular scene of the film where the scientists debate with Hammond on the ethics and dangers of the enterprise. The scene has come to be known as “The Lunch Debate.” 

      In that scene, the first to criticize Hammond is Dr. Ian Malcolm (Jeff Goldblum), a rather cynical mathematician who raises the specter of ethics in a forensic attack on the role of the scientists involved in developing the dinosaurs. Critical of genetic engineering, but also the part played by nature in condemning dinosaurs to extinction, Malcolm unravels Hammond’s plans to promote his island sanctuary as a tourist mecca in a scathing frontal assault; “Don't you see the danger, John, inherent in what you're doing here? Genetic power is the most awesome force ever seen on this planet. But you wield it like a kid who's found his dad's gun.”
     Hammond makes an attempt to defend himself by comparing what he is doing to, in effect, saving some endangered species from extinction, like the condors. Malcolm again takes the offense;
     “Hold on - - this is no species that was obliterated by deforestation or the building of a dam. Dinosaurs had their shot. Nature selected them for extinction.”
     Combining factual evidence with history, Malcolm has made a substantial forensic statement using the past, natural selection and recent events, deforestation and land reclamation, to prove his argument. Hammond turns to Dr. Ellie Sattler (Laura Dern) hoping to defend his position. Sattler is a paleobotanist and bases her analysis on epideixis;
     “The question is - - how much can you know about an extinct ecosystem, and therefore, how could you assume you can control it? You have plants right here in this building, for example, that are poisonous. You picked them because they look pretty, but these are aggressive living things that have no idea what century they're living in…”
     Once again, the role of rhetoric takes center stage in the lunch debate but this time in the present, what is known as the “here and now.” Without referring to the dinosaurs, Sattler illustrates yet another erroneous assumption made by Hammond and his genetic engineers, which characterized in Malcolm’s words, “your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could that they didn't stop to think if they should.” Bewildered by the barrage of reason, Hammond finally turns to the de facto leader of the safety commission, Dr. Alan Grant (Sam Neill), the paleontologist. Having exhausted two out of three rhetorical roles, Grant takes the deliberative approach;
     “Dinosaurs and man - - two species separated by 65 million years of evolution - - have just been suddenly thrown back into the mix together. How can we have the faintest idea of what to expect?”
The past, present and future arguments from the scientists anticipate the failure of Hammond’s dream as the dinosaurs eventually run wild all over the island, feasting on whichever human was made available.
Certainly a more formal method might have been used to analyze the scene but the three Aristotelian components of forensic, epideictic and deliberative proved the best match. Each scientist used a different technique to challenge Hammond’s assertion, his defense of unethical methods for the sake of financial gain. Malcolm, Sattler and Grant exhibited, as well, ethos, pathos and logos in their challenges. Malcolm saw an ethical question, Sattler appealed to Hammond’s pathos and Grant’s citing evolution made a convincing logical extrapolation into what was on the horizon. Are their arguments convincing?
From the standpoint of their rhetoric, genetic engineering is dangerous, whether used for purely esoteric purposes or incorporated into a living, breathing theme park environment. If the view can hold that it is dangerous for the latter, it may well pose a threat for the former. Using modern Frankenstein techniques to bring back to life what nature has condemned to extinction has moral and evolutionary challenges that need to be addressed before the fact, not after. The lunch debate addressed those concerns in no uncertain terms that could be firmly established through rhetorical discourse.

Cited
Jurassic Park, (1970) “The Lunch Debate,” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ldD_4Puw6RM
Garver, Eugene. “Aristotle on the Kinds of Rhetoric.” Rhetorica: A Journal of the History of Rhetoric, vol. 27, no. 1, 2009, pp. 1–18. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/10.1525/rh.2009.27.1.1. Accessed 4 Oct. 2020.
WRÓBEL, SZYMON. “‘Logos, Ethos, Pathos’. Classical Rhetoric Revisited.” Polish Sociological Review, no. 191, 2015, pp. 401–421., www.jstor.org/stable/44113896. Accessed 4 Oct. 2020.

ANTHROPOGENUS --Definition by Artificial Intelligence--GOOGLE BARD EXPERIMENT

---

..

---

...

DRAFT 001:

The term "anthropogenus" is a neologism coined by Uli Westphal to describe the way in which elephants were depicted in European art and literature from the fall of the Roman Empire to the end of the Renaissance. During this period, there were very few elephants in Western Europe, so artists and writers had to rely on oral and written descriptions to reconstruct the animal's appearance. This led to a wide variety of depictions, many of which were highly fantastical.

Westphal's project, "Elephas Anthropogenus," collects and analyzes over 170 of these illustrations. He shows how the image of the elephant evolved over time, as artists incorporated new elements from their own cultures and imaginations. The result is a fascinating glimpse into the way in which our understanding of nature is shaped by our own cultural biases.

The term "anthropogenus" literally means "man-made." In the context of Westphal's project, it refers to the way in which the image of the elephant was "reinvented" by artists and writers who had no real knowledge of the animal. This process of reinventing nature is something that we still do today, as we continue to interpret the natural world through our own cultural lenses.

Here are some examples of how elephants were depicted in European art and literature during the Middle Ages:

• Elephants with wings. This was a common depiction of elephants in medieval art, and it is thought to have originated from the Physiologus, a collection of animal fables that was popular in the Middle Ages. The Physiologus describes the elephant as a "king of beasts" that is able to fly.
• Elephants with trunks that reach up to the sky. This depiction of elephants is also found in the Physiologus. It is thought to symbolize the elephant's ability to reach up to heaven.
• Elephants with castles on their backs. This depiction of elephants is found in the writings of Marco Polo, who claimed to have seen elephants with castles on their backs in India.

These are just a few examples of the many ways in which elephants were depicted in European art and literature during the Middle Ages. These depictions reveal a great deal about the way in which people in this period understood the natural world. They also show how our own cultural biases can shape the way we see nature.

DRAFT 002:

The term "anthropogenus" is a neologism coined by Uli Westphal to describe the way in which elephants were depicted in European art from the fall of the Roman Empire to the end of the Renaissance. During this period, there were very few elephants in Western Europe, so illustrators had to rely on oral and written descriptions to reconstruct the animal's appearance. This led to a wide variety of different depictions, some of which were quite fanciful.

Westphal's project "Elephas Anthropogenus" collects and analyzes these illustrations, showing how they reflect the changing cultural and religious attitudes towards elephants. He argues that these images are not simply inaccurate representations of the animal, but rather they are "reinventions" that reflect the human imagination.

The term "anthropogenus" is derived from the Greek words "anthropos" (meaning "man") and "genos" (meaning "kind"). It literally means "man-made kind." In the context of Westphal's project, it refers to the way in which elephants were depicted in European art as a product of human imagination, rather than as a realistic representation of the animal.

The term "anthropogenus" has been used by other scholars to describe the way in which other animals have been depicted in art and literature. For example, the scholar David Freedberg has used the term to describe the way in which lions were depicted in medieval art as symbols of Christ's victory over death.

The term "anthropogenus" can also be used in a more general sense to refer to the way in which we perceive and represent the natural world. Our understanding of nature is always mediated by our own cultural and historical biases. As a result, the way we depict nature is always a "human-made" product.

DRAFT 003:

The term anthropogenus is a neologism coined by the German artist and designer Uli Westphal to describe the way in which elephants were depicted in European art and literature from the fall of the Roman Empire to the end of the Renaissance. During this period, elephants were virtually unknown in Western Europe, and so artists had to rely on oral and written descriptions to reconstruct their appearance. This led to a wide variety of depictions, many of which were highly fanciful and inaccurate.

The term anthropogenus literally means "man-made" or "made by humans." In the context of elephants, it refers to the way in which human imagination and cultural bias influenced the way these animals were depicted. For example, many medieval artists depicted elephants with human-like features, such as faces, arms, and legs. This was likely due to the fact that elephants were seen as symbols of wisdom and power, and so artists wanted to emphasize their similarities to humans.

Westphal's project Elephas Anthropogenus collects and analyzes a wide variety of these elephant illustrations. By doing so, he demonstrates how our perception of nature is shaped by our own cultural and historical context.

Here are some of the most common features of anthropogenous elephants:

• Human-like features: Many anthropogenous elephants have faces, arms, and legs that resemble those of humans. This is likely due to the fact that elephants were seen as symbols of wisdom and power, and so artists wanted to emphasize their similarities to humans.
• Wings: Some anthropogenous elephants have wings. This is likely due to the fact that elephants were seen as creatures of the earth, and so artists wanted to give them the ability to fly.
• Armor: Some anthropogenous elephants have armor. This is likely due to the fact that elephants were seen as fierce and powerful creatures, and so artists wanted to make them appear even more formidable.
• Ethnic features: Some anthropogenous elephants have ethnic features, such as African features or Middle Eastern features. This is likely due to the fact that elephants were seen as exotic creatures, and so artists wanted to give them the appearance of being from different parts of the world.

The term anthropogenus is a reminder that our perception of nature is not always objective. The way we see animals is influenced by our own cultural and historical context, and this can lead to some very fanciful and inaccurate depictions.

(Image: Elephas anthropogenus - ScienceDirect)

Notes: Bard doesn't give data on "physiologus: "I'm designed solely to process and generate text, so I'm unable to assist you with that."

---

..

---