Barry Bogin, THE GROWTH OF HUMANITY, Foundations of Human Biology Series, John Wiley & Sons, New York, 2001.
Reviewed by
Niccolo Caldararo, Ph.D.
Dept. of Anthropology
San Francisco State University
1600 Holloway Ave.
San Francisco, CA 94132
This book by Barry Bogin, a professor and biological anthropologist at the University
of Michigan, Dearborn, addresses issues related to the evolution of human development and
ontogeny and the biocultural consequences of the increase in density in human populations.
Comparisons of the evolution of human society and demographic structures have been
made in other fields (Cipolla, 1962;1970). Nevertheless, this is a valuable and compelling
work not only for its achievements in elucidating aspects of demography with the context of
human development, but because it is written from an anthropological perspective.
The goals of this book are ambitious, 1) "to provide an introduction to the key
concepts, methods of research and essential discoveries of the fields of human demography
and human growth and development", and 2) "to show that demography and human
growth are two closely related fields". Both of these tasks are admirably accomplished.
Bogin early on describes the evolution and function of life history stages in a study called
"life history theory." He proceeds to demonstrate that during human evolution of the last
2 my hominids added a childhood stage to the life cycle and that in the past 100,000 years
Homo sapiens added a "distinct adolescent stage".
The introductory chapters provide an outline of terminology and a historical sketch of
the development of the discipline of demography and the methods and theories which have
been applied to understand population growth and the relation of population to resources.
His discussions of Malthus and Gompertz are particularly helpful. He makes a few
forgivable mistakes in the process, however.
The important features of this book are clouded by some essential contradictions
which may reside in poor editing rather than confusion on the part of the author. The
explanation of the growth of humans in the context of other mammals and primates is
comprehensive and clear as is the demonstration of socio-economic status (SES) in human
growth and development.. However, the author makes a clear distinction about the features
of stages of human growth in his initial definitions but then uses the terms childhood,
juvenile, adolescence, early adulthood in varying ways which tends to undermine the clarity
of his definitions. The transitions from infancy to childhood and the role of childhood and
adolescence are often unclear or contradictory. The conclusive establishment of the idea of
a stage of human development as "childhood" and "juvenile" is lacking as it was in his
earlier book (Bogin 1999). It would be instructive for the author to provide data on other
vertebrates to support this concept in a precise fashion. In fact, the presentation of data
concerning the release of FSH, LN and GnRH in Macaca seems to contradict the authorıs
theory, as does data for other primates (Plant, 1994). Parallel patterns of adrenal steroids
related to adrenarche are noted in dogs and rabbits (Cutler, et al., 1978). Comparisons with
other vertebrates show a considerable variation in growth rates, survival of young, size, etc.
(Case, 1978) but building separate stages out of this is questionable. Bogin attempts to
support his thesis by stating 1.) That in humans there is a long period between puberty and
adulthood as opposed to monkeys and apes which is less than three years and 2.) That there
is a human adolescent growth spurt. However, even in the authorıs 1999 publication to
which we are referred, there is no data to support this idea as a median event or distinct from
other mammals or vertebrates.
This problem makes the authorıs position more difficult due to the introduction of
definitions which are meant to establish support but are not always logical. For example,
"fertility does not indicate reproductive maturity" page 95 and that neither does viable
sperm and ova. The problem here is that the author is setting cultural proficiency as a
category which we cannot apply to other animals and which ignores the fact that many
humans have children without achieving his supposed "reproductive maturity".
What is a very interesting sideline to the discussion is Boginıs remark that while
growth and development have evolved under selection, aging and death in human society are
recent by-products of cultural development for which no predictable pattern has been
established by evolution. Perhaps what Gould might call an exaptation. Bogin explains life
history theory and proposes 5 stages to explain human evolution from apes and the
different biological events which punctuate stages including some biosocial examples like
care and feeding which certainly vary by SES, culture, technology and economic history.
Fabrega (1997) considers some aspects of care which impinge on sickness to be
pathological and nearly parasitic. In reading this section one is caught in a web of socially
constructed variation in degree of each aspect of these stages in both "care and feeding" of
infants and "sexual maturity". Nevertheless, the scheme is utilitarian in allowing for a
bracketing of human development within a general discussion of the more important theme
of human life history evolution.
Bogin stumbles into the debate over neoteny and hypermorphism in another attempt to
separate humans from the animal world. This constant theme seems strange. Why make
such an effort to draw such distinct lines when natural science has made such profound
strides since the days of Cuvier to demonstrate how well man fits into the natural world?
Do chimps and humans differ concerning adrenarche? Does the data indicate a
"childhood" for chimps? The "learning hypothesis" to support the evolutionary need for
childhood in hominids is confounded by a constant shuffling of the terminology of stages:
infancy, juvenile, adolescence, young adulthood, adult, with references to work by Pereira &
Fairbanks (1993) who provide a tripartite plan: infancy 0 to end of lactation, juvenile feeding
independence to sexual maturity, adulthood sexual maturity to death. Then we are not given
a cultural or biosocial definition of childhood and there are no cross-cultural comparisons.
The chimp is argued to have M1 erupt at 3.1 years ( a mean again) but is still dependent
after 5 years to learn foods necessary for survival for at least another year. This seems to
argue for childhood in chimps, but Bogin goes off without detailing means of clarifying this
but does return to the issue on pages 207 and 215 in discussing qualities of childhood to
adolescence with changes of a developmental nature associated with social-cultural
conditions, density of population and food supply regularity. But this model is presented
without data to convince us that this is unique to humans and applies to all human societies
and is not just an artifact of some. His statement that Homo habilis had the first childhood
requires skepticism. The assumption being that this is man with tools and thus more food,
while many paleoanthropologists would argue that human life at 2.2 mya was likely to be
rather less sunny than he supposes. This idea of tools equal bigger brains is no longer
generally accepted just as the idea that big brains led to bipedalism is out of favor. As
Harvey and Bennett argued in 1983," some mammals, notably the primates lie above the
typical mammalian line (scale of brain size to metabolic needs) and thus have larger brains
for their metabolic needs than most other mammals." Plus simple arrangements of brain
size without reference to patterns of brain growth do not reflect accurately evolutionary
patterns as noted by Kaas and Collins (2001). Why the feeding of Homo habilis infants
and children should be different in learning food types from chimps is unclear and several
definitions of childhood do not help. The learning of lid technique in birds to get at
contents denotes "plasticity" or among macaques learning to wash potatoes, but does this
mean their young have a stage we can call childhood? Again, a special quality is placed on
human or hominid behavior as opposed to other animals for no reason, as in the emphasis
Bogin places on Homo erectus being able to leave Africa. This exaggeration of the
biocultural edifice is unnecessary since there was a hominoid exodus from Africa too, once
the environmental conditions provided an opportunity in the Miocene. Stringer now argues
for a similar environmental stimulus circa 2mya in lowered sea coasts for a littoral
environment which propelled hominids to Asia. I see no difference between the hominoid
success and the hominid one. Further, the ideal of the tool being so advantageous in
survival is questionable, as an adaptation we can assume that scavenging was promoted, but
toolmaking might not have been any more significant than birdıs nest construction or
beaver dam and lodge building. Also Bogin seems to forget that humans are not the only
animals that make tools. Certainly the uniformity of Achelean tools brings into question a
unique cognition different from a generality of ability which is necessary for the
construction of a birdıs nest or tools crows make. This is especially so when one considers
the manipulative limitations of claws.
In some cases one might believe that Bogin was expressing anthropocentric views as
when he gushes over human parenting but ignores widespread alloparenting in other
mammals and birds. This gets extreme is his reproduction of Alleyıs experiment which
involved no actually parenting but only attitudes and was not cross-culturally challenged, but
in light of Harlow and Harlowıs experiments in the 1950s I must be skeptical of Boginıs
proposal of a genetic component to parenting. I am sure this would hardly explain current
levels of child abuse or abandonment. This essentialism goes on to page 126 where we are
asked to believe that nhp infants will die if their mothers leave them. He later describes how
during industrialization in Europe children were left to die on the streets as their parents
could not feed them. As one student of childhood has stated, "The history of childhood is
a nightmare from which we have only recently begun to awaken. The further back in
history one goes, the lower the level of child care, and the more likely children are to be
killed, abandoned, beaten, terrorized and sexually abused." (deMause, 1974). Is there a
contradiction here? The argument returns with an attack by behavioral scientists on the
cultural construction of childhood at the beginning of chapter 6 and a restatement that
human children cannot fend for themselves when evidence supplied on page 161 from the
Hadza demonstrates their ability to collect food. Bogin also cites evidence from the
Industrial Revolution of children working long hours and being quite adaptable for jobs, so
much so that businesses preferred to hire children. Recent research by Douglas and
Rebecca Bliege Bird (e.g. 2000) shows just how competent children are in collecting food.
That human children are able to endure terrors, torture, abuse, starvation and still survive is a
fact that Bogin might have chosen to use as a distinction where nhp young would die.
Bogin argues on page 108 that special diets are required by young humans which
demands special adult care. I am left wondering "what diet"? Bogin obviously recognizes
the developmental problems of the Guatemalan children who are underfed, but he
continually idealizes humanity in contrast to other animals. The idea that our hominid
ancestors were successful in the Pliocene over apes and monkeys because they could
provide their young with a unique diet necessary for hominid children to survive when the
diet of a perfectly "successful" child of 8 living on the streets of Rio is essentially garbage
produces a rather absurd feeling. G.A. Harrison warned of such "fishing expeditions" in
his 1982 article on "Life-styles, well-being and stress". This tendency of Bogin is
compounded by a continual reference to means, "brain complete at 7 years", "first molar
at", but his use of archaeology, comparative anatomy, paleoanthropology, endocrinology
and other fields provides such a rich panorama of human biosocial evolution that these
bizarre side trips can be overlooked. It is in Boginıs discussion of the affects of the
transition from food collection to agriculture and then to complex society and the industrial
revolution that the real value of this book explodes. His information on disease, morbidity
and mortality from the 1400s to the present and the comparisons of developing and
developed countries as adaptations to density where he gives full expression to his genius
and knowledge. The use of this material for policy makers will be immense as in educating
a new generation of anthropologists who must develop methods and plans for the adaptation
of complex societies to the developed population profile from the developing pyramid. His
comparisons of situations as different as the Maya and Nubians in time and space is
excellent as is his critique of the Demographic Transition Model. His explanation of the
historic human population response to disease and industrialization appears at a crucial time
in the popular debate over development and growth. I cannot stress enough how important
the information is which this book contains. The section on diet and disease, food and
technology is excellent so are his remarks on "fresh food".
It was disappointing that we had to go through 6 chapters to read his opinion on
population history and optimum population size, but apparently the idea that there is a
relationship between the study of human population growth and human development does
not include an awareness that there is a relationship between aspects of human population
complexity and the environment as Redman points out (1999). Also what is the relationship
between human population structure and sustainability? It would be interesting to see how
another edit of this book might deal with the ecological context and perhaps to integrate his
discussion with the idea of social complexity in the past and population structure on a scale
produced by Tainter (1988). What is the relation of "well-being" (even as defined on page
229) to an integration of human population growth and human physical growth? I cannot
agree with his criticism of Japan or his solution to overpopulation in the developing world.
If developing countries benefit from the importation of the healthiest workers from
developing countries, who then suffer discrimination and provide a fertility spurt to the
flattening fertility of developing countries, is this not a drain on these developing countries?
It seems obvious for the example of Portugal. Bogin argues that allowing these immigrants
to come and work relieves population pressure at home, results in healthy babies now and
healthy workers for these developed countries in the future, but that in the developing
countries fertility is falling faster than it did in Europe and the other developed nations, so
they will also face an aging problem in the near future. Since most of the health problems
stem from corrupt political structures in these developing nations why not change those
structures and concentrate efforts in Japan and the developing nations on utilizing the drop
in fertility to adjust human society for sustainability? The great fear expressed in the
popular press is echoed here of an aging human population unable to support or reproduce
itself. Rather, I think there is another way of looking at this, as an adaptive change one
which involves a departure from fear and relies on existing trends that indicate that a crisis
may not be coming, as Theodore Roszack has argued (1998).
Bibliography
Bird, Douglas and Bird, Rebecca B., "Ethnoarchaeology of juvenile foragers: shellfish
strategies among Meriam children", J. Anth. Arch., v. 19, n. 4, 2000:461-476.
Bogin, B., Patterns of Human Growth, Cambridge U. Press, 1999.
Cancian, F., Economics and Prestige in a Maya Community, Stanford U. Press, 1965.
Case, T.J., "On the evolution and adaptive significance of postnatal growth rates in the
terrestrial vertebrates", The Quarterly Review of Biology, v. 53, Sept 1978:243-276.
Cipolla, Carlo M., ed., The Economic Decline of Empires, Methuen, 1970.
Cipolla, Carlo M., The Economic History of World Population, Penguin Books, 1962.
Cutler, Jr., G.B., Adrenarche: A survey of rodents, domestic animals, and primates",
Endocrinology, v. 103, n. 6, 1978:2112-8
deMause, L., "The evolution of childhood", in L. deMause, ed. The History of Childhood,
Harper Torchbooks, 1974:1-74.
Fabrega, Jr., H., Evolution of Sickness and Healing, U. of California Press, 1997.
Garn, S.M., Human Races, Charles C. Thomas, 1965.
Harvey, P.H., & Bennett, P.M., "Brain size, energetics, ecology and life history patterns",
Nature, v. 306, 24 November 1983:314-5.
Hulse, F.S., The Human Species , Random House, 1963.
Kaas, J.H. & Collins, C.E., "Evolving ideas of brain evolution", Nature, v. 411, 10 May
2001:141-2
Muller, J. Nielsen, C.T. & Skakkebaek, N.E., "Testicular maturation and pubertal growth
and development in normal boys", in J.M. Tanner & M.A. Preece, Eds., The Physiology of
Human Growth, Cambridge U. Press, 1989:201-7.
Pereira, M.E., & Altman, J., Eds., Juvenile Primates: Life History, Development and
Behavior, Oxford U. Press, 1993.
Plant, T.M., "Puberty in primates", in E. Knobil & J.D. Neill, Eds., The Physiology of
Reproduction, 2nd ed., Raven Press, 1994:453-485.
Redman, C.L., Human Impact on Ancient Environments, Arizona U. Press, 1999.
Roszak, T., America the Wise: The Longevity Revolution and the True Wealth of Nations,
Hougton Mifflin, 1998.
Tainter, J.A., The Collapse of Complex Societies, Cambridge U. Press, 1988.
Thomas, Jr.,W.L., Manıs Role in Changing The Face of the Earth, U. of Chicago Press,
1956.
****************************************************************************
Primate-Science Book Reviews are supported in part by grant RR15311-01 from the
National Center for Research Resources, National Institutes of Health. P-S Book
Reviews may be reposted or republished, but must cite the author and
Primate-Science. This review should be cited as follows:
HOW TO CITE THIS REVIEW:
Caldararo, Niccolo. Review of The Growth of Humanity, by Barry Bogin, Foundations of
Human Biology Series, John Wiley & Sons, New York, 2001. Primate-Science Book
Reviews, Primate-Science List Serve, July 2002.
[URL: http://www.primate.wisc.edu/pin/review/growthcaldararo.html]
****************************************************************************
URL: http://www.primate.wisc.edu/pin/review/growthcaldararo.html
Page last modified:
July 8, 2002
Maintained by the WRPRC Library