cooperative breeding

On Saturday 4 November 2017 Saudi Prince Mohammed bin Salman placed “30 of Saudi Arabia’s most senior figures, among them blood relatives of senior rulers,” as five-star prisoners at the Riyadh Ritz-Carlton, “accused of corruption”. [1] A year later most, possibly more, remained locked up and shaken down.[2] Many of them were billionaires. This must be the only country that locks up billionaires, especially if they are relatives of the ruler. The ‘corruption’ charge may be true, but it also serves as an excuse to control the activities of rivals to the throne and their supporters. Although such practices are not unknown in elites outside Islam,[3] this it is very traditional in the Ottoman Empire sense. Before the 16th century Ottoman rulers used to execute all their rivals. When Suleiman came to power in 1520 he commuted this to simply locking princes up in a big harem, where, “they were kept in a perpetual state of preadulthood, denied the right to marry or to father children by concubines.”

I quote from some of a fascinating history of such practices in the Ottoman Empire – part of a much larger multi-author anthropology book on palace women [and men] all over the world. The quotes below come from Leslie P. Prince, “Beyond Harem Walls, Ottoman Royal Women and the Exercise of Power,” in Anne Walthall, (Ed.), Servants of the dynasty, Palace women in world history, University of California Press, 2008, p.85-86)

Harems were not confined to women; they were private spaces in households and sometimes men were kept there.

“The system of succession that prevailed in that period [before Suleiman’s accession in 1520] – all princes were considered eligible for the throne and the heir was the one who could eliminate all other claimants – inevitably rendered them rival foci of political factions. Each prince was accompanied to his provincial post by his mother, who was expected to support her son’s efforts to win the throne. The practice of fratricide (whereby, in the interests of security, a new sultan executed his defeated brothers and their sons) meant that both a prince and his mother had as their highest priority his political survival. Only a mother of a victorious prince would return to the imperial capital, as queen mother to the new sultan. The fate of a royal wife or concubine thus depended almost entirely on that of her son. [...]

[In the 16th century, with the accession of Suleiman in 1520] The last support in the edifice of dynastic decentralization – the princely governorate – was dismantled by Suleiman’s son and grandson. With the demise of their political role, princes became faceless individuals, strictly confined to the palace; there they were kept in a perpetual state of preadulthood, denied the right to marry or to father children by concubines. By the end of the sixteenth century, no members of the royal family except the sultan left the capital. Indeed, the only members of the family to leave the palace residence were married princesses. As a consequence, the imperial harem expanded greatly in size as it absorbed the suites of mothers and sons and acquired the requisite administrative structure."

NOTES

[1] Phrasing and documentation of this incident from Martin Chulov, “How Saudi elite became five-star prisoners at the Riyadh Ritz-Carlton,” 7 November 2017, https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/nov/06/how-saudi-elite-became-five-star-prisoners-at-the-riyadh-ritz-carlton
[2] https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/a-year-after-the-ritz-carlton-roundup-saudi-elites-remain-jailed-by-the-crown-prince/2018/11/05/32077a5c-e066-11e8-b759-3d88a5ce9e19_story.html?utm_term=.6b3dd97cff44 and https://www.tatler.com/article/ritz-carlton-in-riyadh-arrests-saudi-princes
[3] One is reminded of Trump vs Hillary, "Lock her up!" and we are also seeing a bit of this by anti-Trump aspirants in the Mueller Russia probe in Washington at the moment. Anyone studying the history of ruling classes understands the utter corruption of power, with rulers knocking off their rivals all through history, although not usually ALL their relatives, then proceeding to substitute slaves and immigrants.

I was inspired to write this short article after reading evolutionary sociologist Sheila Newman's multi-species population work on cooperative breeding and incest avoidance in Demography, Territory, Law: The Rules of Animal and Human Population, Countershock Press, 2013, chapters 3 and 4. Newman gives theory plus examples of self-controlled populations in variety of species. My primary observation of dingo breeding habits in their native habitat supports this theory and is supported by it.

Dingoes have the ability to self-regulate their population, and avoid breeding when times are lean, by suppressing their own estrus (female) and testrus (male) cycles. In normal circumstances, the alpha male and female are able to suppress breeding in subordinate pack (family) members, so that only one pair out of each pack reproduces. A stable dingo pack includes the alpha male and female, and surviving pups from the previous year’s litter. These pups have a vital role as beta pack members, who perform the task of ‘alloparental helper’, to wet-nurse, regurgitate food and deliver food (carcasses) for the pups and to provision the mother.

I have personally witnessed a beta female wet nurse pups of an alpha female (therefore the large litter of 8 pups was well provisioned), and have also seen an alpha female assist a young Mother from a different pack by nursing her pups as well as her own. There was also a case of an alpha female who provisioned her own pups by nursing, and then provisioned another (deceased) female’s litter on the other side of the Island, thus altruistically self-sacrificing for the sake of survival of another dingo’s litter.

Dingoes therefore have an innate ability to help each other survive, indeed, help the species survive, by cooperatively nurturing their young. I have also seen adoption of pups between packs, if numbers in the packs are low and beta members required.

When this role is successfully completed, in most cases, the beta pack members disperse to find new territories and make new alliances, bonding with dingoes from outside their own territory and staring their own packs.

Despite circumstances of provisioning each-other’s packs beyond their own territorial boundaries, in stable dingo packs, incest is non-existent. There is a complete avoidance of inbreeding, producing successful population control (to either raise or lower the population as required), promotion of genetic diversity, maintenance of social hierarchies, with territorial boundaries fixed and serving an important role.

However when pack social structure is disrupted, or entire packs are destroyed, this all changes.

I have seen one circumstance of near-incest and one of incest in unstable dingo packs.

In the first instance, the alpha female’s brother, whose own pack was completely wiped out, and who had no other females within his territory, followed his sister around desperately when she was in ovulation and ready to mate. I watched as the sister and her mate attempted copulation, but were constantly interrupted by the brother. The most fascinating observation of their behaviour was that although they were firm with the brother, insisting that he couldn’t mate, they were kind and gentle while pushing him away. The desire for him to mate was so strong that he had little choice but to continue to try and mate his sister, but there is no doubt that if his pack had survived, and he was able to find an appropriate female, he would not have been in a position to attempt to mate his sister.

In another circumstance, an entire pack was wiped out, except for a male and a female pup. The pair mated when they were 10 months old. Dingoes don’t usually have their first estrus until they are 2 years old, and it was a clear indication that there was something very wrong. Surprisingly, the female produced a very healthy litter of 8 pups. I believe she had a large litter to compensate for the fact that the rest of the pack was gone and the population needed boosting. I am convinced this was a form of preservation of the species, allowing for the fact that the carrying capacity of her territory was large enough for 8 new pack members.

These incestuous occurrences only took place because of loss of stable pack social structure, and bespoke of a species in crisis.

See also: Help Save Koalas From Extinction! (9/1/2014) on the Australian Wildlife Protection web site.

With the destruction of yet another juvenile dingo on Fraser Island, the Australian Wildlife Protection Council (AWPC) and the National Dingo Preservation and Recovery Program (NDPRP) today issued a joint criticism of the Queensland Government for its continuing mismanagement of the Fraser Island dingo population.

The juvenile male dingo was destroyed by Queensland Parks and Wildlife Service staff this week after it allegedly stalked tourists near Eli Creek on the Island and nipped an 11 year old child.

Spokespersons for the Australian Wildlife Protection Council Inc. (AWPC) and the National Dingo Preservation and Recovery Program Inc. (NDPRP), Ms Jennifer Parkhurst and Dr Ernest Healy, respectively, stressed that:

‘Such allegations of aggression by dingoes on Fraser Island are frequently subjective, often being misinterpretations of innocent dingo behaviour, and have characterised the mismanagement of dingoes on the Island for a long time. The Queensland authorities have a long track record of manufacturing perceptions of dingo ‘aggression’ on Fraser Island, at times even encouraging a fear mentality against dingoes amongst tourists’.

Ms Parkhurst, a wildlife photographer who studied dingoes on the Island at close hand for many years, stated that, this most recent destruction of a juvenile dingo on Fraser Island, after contact with tourists, highlights an even deeper mismanagement issue.

‘The underlying problem with the Queensland government’s approach to managing the Island, which is World Heritage listed, is the sheer volume of tourists that it allows onto Fraser Island, currently running at well over 400,000 per year. The dingoes are literally over run by tourists, including beach areas which are traditionally places where dingoes forage for food. Efforts by the authorities to virtually confine dingoes to the central areas of the Island, where they can be ‘wild’, without contact with people, are ill-conceived and unachievable. While this prioritisation of commercial values over biodiversity values continues, more dingoes will die and their ability to survive on Fraser Island in the medium to longer-term will be in doubt.’

Ms Parkhurst said hopes that the Newman government would mean a fresh approach to dingo management on Fraser Island have now proven unfounded.

‘Despite a review of the Fraser Island dingo management policy on coming to government in 2012, the current Queensland government has fallen into the same old mismanagement practices. Part of the problem is that there has not been a sufficient turnover of Queensland Parks and Wildlife Service staff to ensure departmental cultural renewal in relation to dingo management on the Island.’

Dr Healy emphasised that the ongoing culling of Fraser Island dingoes is being permitted by the Queensland authorities without sufficient base-line dingo population data to know whether the authorised killing of dingoes is undermining the viability of the Island’s population:

‘Convincing answers are yet to be provided by the Queensland Parks and Wildlife Service as to the total dingo population of Fraser Island, the population age structure, including the number of breeding pairs, and the genetic health of the dingo population. This is essential knowledge for any responsible dingo management policy. It has been lacking.

At present the authorities simply keep citing a figure of between 100 and 200 animals, a figure that has been blindly thrown around by the authorities for years without adequate research to substantiate it. The fact that the Queensland authorities have only recently put forward a detailed research agenda to address these dingo population questions bears out the inadequacy and potential risk of dingo management practices up to this point.’

The AWPC and the NDPRP are concerned that the majority of animals killed on Fraser Island have been juveniles. Without accurate population data on the Island’s breeding population, the impact of culling juveniles upon the overall dingo population’s survival prospects is not known. Destruction of juveniles impacts negatively upon future generations because they perform an important role as parental helpers in raising subsequent litters and they disperse to form new packs.

January 8, 2015

There is now a long record of interventions in foreign countries that have been followed by floods of refugees. For Ethiopia modern development began at the end of the 19th century. In a recently recirculated 2008 article, Irish journalist, Kevin Myers wrote despairingly of Ethiopia's overpopulation and the hopelessness of giving more aid. "By 2050, the population of Ethiopia will be 177 million; the equivalent of France, Germany and Benelux today, but located on the parched and increasingly Protein-free wastelands of the Great Rift Valley." Myers grimly anticipates a massive overflow of emigrants with poorly nourished brains to Ireland, to America, to Australia.[1] So, why is Ethiopia in such a mess? Was it always thus?

I think that Ethiopia's problems go back to the end of the 19th century and were caused by industrialisation and furthered by 'development aid' in the cause of more industrialisation.

How long has Ethiopia been overpopulated for?

In the late 19th century Ethiopia's population was only 4 or 5 million, when Mennilik II began 'modernisation'.

After Mennilik's modernisation programs, which included massive land 'reforms' (enclosures), Ethiopia's population climbed to 10 million. In 1950, as development continued, the population climbed to 18.3 million. In 2010 it is 83 million and climbing rapidly still.

What changed?

Ethiopia is one of the oldest sites of human civilisation and international trade. It had a variety of populations within, mostly rural, including hill tribes who farmed using ploughs. The various tribal populations mostly kept to their traditional areas and were sustainable within them, although for a long time there have been conflicts between adjacent states and an ancient slave trade along certain routes.

Ethiopia after 'development':

In the late 19th century there were massive land 'reforms':

The land 'reforms' coincided with dispossession and 'integration' of clans and tribes with Mennelik II who was influenced by Russian imperialists. Thrown off their land - particularly those on the plains, the people drifted to the cities, which were growing as agriculture was industrialised and roads and electricity were installed.

This process destroyed local self-government and sustainable local economies where there was probably still men's and women's land, and marriage opportunities would have been kept low through kinship rules that limited approved spouses, [2], with late menarche the rule, and low fertility through local traditional birth control practices, including contraception, spousal non-cohabitation, abstinence, delay of coitus [3] and co-operative breeding [4] (where people live in an extended family around a principal fertile couple, taking the roles of servants, aunts, aunties).

As happened in the Netherlands and in Britain,[5] local populations were disorganised by classes that got control of the food production and government and, lacking the land that had once brought them independence, they were obliged to move to new settlements, with only their labour to sell. This is the kind of system where women and children become slaves to their husbands, fathers, uncles and brothers.

Irrigation was put in place and former grazing ranges were intensively cultivated, which required dispossessing the peoples that had led sustainable lives there for millenia, without overpopulation. Malaria became a huge problem, indicative of land-disturbance and new population movements.[6]

In the 1970s there were more huge land reforms.

In the 1980s there were mass government resettlements.

The 'reform' has not stopped. It has accelerated.[7]

It is not difficult to find many accounts of how foreign aid assisted in all these 'modernisation' projects that led to the dispossession of the peoples of Ethiopia and the surrounding regions and to the current overpopulation problem and enslavement of women, for which more 'development' continues to be recommended, under the malignant pretext that overpopulation was Ethiopia's eternal burden.

What is in it for the countries driving more 'development' in Ethiopia, Somalia, Eritrea, Egypt etc? One of the major reasons for foreign powers to maintain these countries in disorder is so that the foreign powers can continue to dominate the surrounding region with military forces, supposedly to safeguard international investments. The pretence is that these African countries and all those around the Red Sea and to the North of Syria need international aid and management, however it is clear to anyone aware of the petroleum in this region that Ethiopia could be a source of primary wealth, as it was for other reasons in Ancient Egyptian, Greek and Roman times. [8]

Development, War and Refugees

Australians rightly complain that their country is overpopulated.[9] They also rightly complain that refugee and asylum-seeker numbers are adding to this problem. But they fail to link these problems to the wars the Australian government backs in the regions where the asylum seekers come from. Australia, like the United States in the film, Mother of 7 Billion,[10] adds over-consumption to its overpopulation problem. To maintain our commodity production and our importation of new residents to keep our land-sales up, we rely on huge amounts of petroleum and one of the most important sources of petroleum is the region bordered by the Land of Punt.

If Somalia, Eritrea, Ethiopia and Sudan had maintained their efficient local economies, there would be no excuse for foreign troops and corporations to be in the region, but Somalia, Ethiopia, Eritrea and Sudan would probably all be wealthy through association with the oil producing countries.

Instead the oil producing countries and the regions buffering them are in constant state of flux, overpopulation, poverty, and war and the foreign powers actually rule the region. We hear of Somalian pirates, trying to get control of the oil, but we call our own pirates 'peace keepers'.

NOTES

[1] Kevin Myers, "Somalia is not a humanitarian disaster," The Irish Independent, 2008

[2] Fertility opportunities would have been kept low through kinship rules requiring endogamous marriages that reflected the local environment with up to 8 degrees of incest avoidance and other variations that greatly decreased mating opportunities. See Sheila Newman, Development, Territory, Law: The Rules of Animal and Human Populations, Countershock Press, 2013.

Details of the wide variety of these kinship impediments to marriage and fertility in Ethiopia can be found in Siegbert Uhlig, (Ed.), Encyclopaedia Aethiopica: He-N, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Germany, 2007, pp. 55, 405-406, cited by hbdchick at https://hbdchick.wordpress.com/tag/exogamy/. Although the afore-cited Encyclopaedia states that being unmarried is not an option in Ethiopia, this is contradicted by the presence of extended families. "The extended family arrangement is frequently found among Ethiopian families since children, male or female, who have married continue to live with their family. In some cases, unmarried aunts, uncles, cousins and even close family friends continue to dwell with the nuclear family. " http://www.africa-expert.com/ethiopia/family-and-housing/ ftp://ftp.cgiar.org/ifpri/ElizabethB/Ethiopia%20papers/diFalco_Bulte_2013.pdf,
Mhairi A. Gibson and Eshetu Gurmu, "Land inheritance establishes sibling competition for marriage and reproduction in rural Ethiopia"http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3038728/#!po=21.4286: "We use rich anthropological, demographic, and socioeconomic data from five traditional rural villages in Ethiopia (Table S1), where wealth remains positively correlated with reproductive success (characteristic of preindustrial societies)."

Another likely indication of earlier prevalence of local birth control methods would be family-size trends in older women who may have had more links to traditional villages. The results varied according to tribal origins as well as religion. A survey in 1986 showed that childlessness varied from 20% to 3% in the earliest cohorts (women aged 59 or older) compared to 12% to 2% in the most recent cohorts (women aged 30-39). Although much of this was attributed to successful treatment of sexually transmitted diseases the article concludes that there is more to it than that.- See more at: http://www.popline.org/node/372469#sthash.OatvN3Yl.dpuf

[3] John Knowles (Lead author), Report, "History of Birth Control Methods," Katharine Dexter McCormick Library and the Education Division of Planned Parenthood Federation of America, 2012, http://www.plannedparenthood.org/files/2613/9611/6275/History_of_BC_Methods.pdf

[4] Cooperative breeding is similar to the extended families described (which existed in most pre-WW2 societies) in note [2] Traditional Ethiopian societies were comparable to traditional European ones in many ways, so I don't mean for the following references to imply that they were all hunter-gatherers, However, for some modern evolutionary research of the phenomenon in terms of inclusive benefits etc in human societies, see, for instance, Smaldino, Paul E., Newson, Lesley, Schank, Jeffrey C., Richerson, Peter J., "Simulating the Evolution of the Human Family: Cooperative Breeding Increases in Harsh Environments," http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0080753 and Hill, Kim, and Hurtado, A. Magdalena, "Cooperative breeding in South American hunter–gatherers, " School of Human Evolution and Social Change, Arizona State University, PO Box 872402, Tempe, AZ 85287-2402, USA, http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/early/2009/08/18/rspb.2009.1061.full.pdf+html

[5a] Sheila Newman, Demography, Territory, Law 2: Land-tenure and the Origins of Capitalism in Britain, Countershock Press, 2014.

[6] David N. Weil, "The Impact of Malaria on African Development over the Longue Durée,"
Brown University and NBERhttp://www.indiana.edu/~econdept/workshops/Fall_2010_Papers/Malaria_and_Early_African_Development.pdf: "The current geographic distribution of malaria impact may not accurately represent the historical burden of the disease. Packard (2007) gives numerous examples of how human activity has changed the intensity of malaria. Clearing forests and introducing irrigation often produces the marshy environment needed for breeding of Anopheles mosquitoes. When large tracts of land are consolidated and controlled by a small number of landowners, people living on these lands are often deprived of the tools for properly tending to it and for avoiding malaria infection. This problem is exacerbated when seasonal labor is used, as migrants may come from non-malarious zones and lack immunity, then return to these zones carrying malaria with them. As for Africa, he notes that “while climate and the presence of highly efficient vectors contributed to the persistence of malaria, conditions of production played an equal if not greater role." Webb (2008) similarly describes how the introduction of agriculture led to malaria endemicity in lowlands throughout the Eurasian landmass. Population density is also important to the nature of malaria burden. Packard argues that in the African contexts, low population densities associated with mobile hunter-gatherer populations would have been unable to support the P. Falciparum infection because of the speed with which the disease exits or kills the human host. The emergence of Anopheles gambiae is also believed to closely associated with the development of agriculture. For all these reasons, the current distribution of malaria in Africa today is potentially a poor proxy for the historical distribution." See also malaria references in Sheila Newman, Demography, Territory, Law 2: Land Tenure and the Origins of Capitalism in Britain, Countershock Press, 2014.

[7] "Ethiopia, 30 years after the famine," by David Smith (23 October 2014). "Three decades after images that shocked the world, country has become darling of the global development community – and the scourge of the human rights lobby." http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/oct/22/-sp-ethiopia-30-years-famine-human-rights

[8] "This is pure common-sense commercial logic,” ... “There are numerous discoveries along the East African Rift in other nations and also it ends basically in Yemen, which is a known oil-bearing territory." "http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-07-21/gazprombank-s-gpb-global-signs-oil-exploration-deal-in-ethiopia.html; Ogaden Basin in Ethiopia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ogaden_Basin; "Africa's next Frontier - Ethiopia?" http://oilprice.com/Energy/Crude-Oil/Africas-Next-Oil-Frontier-Ethiopia.html]

[9] And some of us can see that the same thing is happening here, with 'development' as has happened to Ethiopia.

[10] I spoke at a screening of Mother of 7 billion in 2013 and was uncomfortable at some of the assumptions made in the film. Most difficult for me was the assumption that Ethiopians had always had huge families. There was seemingly no inkling that Ethiopia had ever been anything except poor and overpopulated - of the sudden leap from 4 million to 83 million. When one considers Ethiopia's remarkably long and impressive history, this is quite an oversight. It was because of this film that I started writing an article on Ethiopia's long and different past, but it has taken me until today to get this short version up.