Food shortages as the energy crisis grows and supply chains break?

Preface. This is a long preface followed by two articles about how supply chains and complex tractors may be affected by energy shortages and consequent supply chain failures in the future.Which we’re already seeing as massive numbers of ships sit offshore waiting to be unloaded, and a shortage of truckers to deliver goods when they do arrive.

Supply chain failures will only get worse, affecting food supply and making the prediction of 3 billion more people by 2050 unlikely.  We are running out of time to replace fossil fuels with something else that is unknown and definitely not commercial for transportation, manufacturing and other essential services and products. Even the electric grid needs natural gas to stay up, no matter how many wind turbines or solar panels are built (Friedemann 2016).

The reason time is running out is that global conventional oil, where 90% of our petroleum comes from, peaked in 2008 (EIA 2018 page 45), and world oil production of both conventional and unconventional oil in 2018 (EIA 2020).

In the unlikely event you don’t know why this is scary, consider that we are alive today thanks to heavy-duty transportation, which runs almost exclusively on diesel, four billion of us are alive due to finite natural gas derived fertilizer, 500,000 products are made out of fossil fuels, and much of our essential manufacturing (cement, steel, metals, ceramics, glass, microchips) depend on the high heat of fossil fuels. There is not much time to come up with processes to electrify or use hydrogen to replace fossil fuels, which don’t exist yet, let alone rebuild trillions of dollars of infrastructure and a new unknown energy distribution system, triple the electric grid transmission system, and replace hundreds of millions of vehicles and equipment to run on “something else” (Friedemann 2021).

So how can new wind turbines and solar panels be made? They are entirely dependent on these industries which depend on fossil fuels for every step of their life cycle.  The electricity they and nuclear generate doesn’t power heavy-duty trucks (tractors, harvesters, long-haul, mining, logging), locomotives, ships, airplanes, cement, steel, and so on.

As I write this in October of 2021, the economy has come rip-roaring back. But for how long? A looming energy crisis is likely as gasoline and natural gas prices keep increasing. Gasoline in my area is $4.69 today. But that won’t last — 11 of the past 12 recessions have been due to high energy prices (Hamilton 2013). Nor does it appear that Saudi Arabia will be able to increase production enough to lower oil prices (Watkins 2021).

A recession in turn is likely to drive businesses bankrupt, breaking essential supply chains. I’d nominate microchips to be the first to fail.   They are also very vulnerable to an energy crisis since fabrication plants have hundreds of long supply chains, an incredibly high amount of purity required for air, water, gases, and chemicals — which is highly energy intensive to accomplish, and chip makers can’t afford to have power outages because they need reliable electricity for months around the clock.

As microchip production fails, there goes the rest of civilization, of oil and natural gas drilling equipment, solar panels, wind turbines, computers, and vehicles, and even as really simple gadgets like toasters. To give you an idea of how vulnerable they are, here’s a summary of “The Fragility of Microchips“:

Creating a chip begins by cutting a thin 12-inch slice, called a wafer, from a 99.9999999% pure silicon crystal, one of the purest materials on earth. Wafers require such a high degree of perfection — particles 500 times smaller than a human hair can cause defects — that even a missing atom can cause unwanted current leakage and other problems in manufacturing later on. Consequently, sometimes only 20% make it to the end.  Traveling particles are insidious, and can cause a chip to malfunction, perform poorly, more slowly, or die later on. Since typical city air has 5 million particles per cubic foot but these  processes require a maximum of 1 particle per square cubic foot, building chip fabrication plants is expensive, $10 billion dollars or more. City water, chemicals, and gases need to be 99.999999% or more pure, requiring energy intense and extensive complex treatments.

It’s even more complex than that though, as shown in “How are Microchips Made?”.

And their need for reliable electricity (chips can take 4 months to make) is not going to be possible in an electric grid dependent on unreliable wind and solar power without the backup storage that natural gas and coal provide now. The only energy storage battery for which there are enough materials on earth for just 12 hours of world electricity are Sodium Sulfur (NaS) batteries (Barnhart 2013), and you’d need at least four weeks of storage due to the seasonality of wind and solar. Yet only lithium energy storage batteries are being made commercially, competing with electric vehicles for limited amounts of lithium. Nor can we scale up pumped hydro or compressed air energy storage enough to store electricity (see energy storage posts for details).

Wafer fabrication for a chip can require several thousand steps using many kinds of machines, and if any of these need a new part that can’t be obtained, or a replacement bought, then then manufacturing stops. Here are just a few of the kinds of equipment needed:  high-temperature diffusion furnaces, wet cleaning stations, dry plasma etchers, ion implanters, rapid thermal processors, vacuum pumps, fast flow controllers, residual gas analyzers, plasma glow dischargers, vertical furnaces, optical pyrometers, and many more.

The EROI of wind and solar don’t matter since they depend on fossil fuels for every step of their life cycle, especially for transportation, manufacturing, and products made out of fossil feedstocks.

On top of which the supply chains they and other technology depend on will break.  In fact they have been for decades, we just haven’t noticed. Take for example the tractors provided by NGOs to farmers in poor nations.  Years later the tractor breaks and rusts in the field due to lack of a part or mechanical know how.

The developed world is on the verge of these problems as well. Take tractors for instance.  Farmers in the U.S. and elsewhere take pride in their self-reliance. The can get parts and fix their own tractors without help.  But not any longer. On modern tractors the computer software that squeezes a bit more profit by precise planting, harvesting, and application of water, fertilizer and pesticides is proprietary. And parts that can be replaced are so hard to get that farmers are buying second planters and other equipment just to get replacement parts.

Liebig’s law of the minimum will grow as energy declines, supply chains break and eventually cause widespread failures, much as Ben Franklin put it: “for want of a nail a kingdom was lost”:

“For the want of a nail the shoe was lost,
For the want of a shoe the horse was lost,
For the want of a horse the rider was lost,
For the want of a rider the battle was lost,
For the want of a battle the kingdom was lost,
And all for the want of a horseshoe-nail.”

Alice Friedemann  www.energyskeptic.com  Author of Life After Fossil Fuels: A Reality Check on Alternative Energy; When Trucks Stop Running: Energy and the Future of Transportation”, Barriers to Making Algal Biofuels, & “Crunch! Whole Grain Artisan Chips and Crackers”.  Women in ecology  Podcasts: WGBH, Planet: Critical, Crazy Town, Collapse Chronicles, Derrick Jensen, Practical Prepping, Kunstler 253 &278, Peak Prosperity,  Index of best energyskeptic posts

***

Waldman P, Mulvany L (2021) Farmers Fight John Deere Over Who Gets to Fix an $800,000 Tractor. Bloomberg.com

There’s a grassroots campaign being waged by farmers to restore a fundamental right most people don’t realize they’ve lost—the right to repair their own farm equipment.

But tractor makers like $68 billion John-Deer, who sell over half of all farm machinery in the U.S. and a third sold world-wide, say farmers have no right to access the copyrighted software that controls every facet of today’s equipment, even to repair their own machines. That’s the exclusive domain of authorized dealerships, creating a monopoly and destroying the age-old culture self-reliance.

Tractors are insanely complex today. When the cab door is opened the computer onboard sends notice to the cloud using a cellular transmitter. It continues to transmit moisture and nitrogen levels in the soil, precisely calculate where to pout seeds, fertilizer, and pesticides.  With such real-time data, farmers can optimize when to plant and harvest crops and use less fertilizer and pesticides.

Meanwhile, these complicated tractors shut down at times due to a computer fault, and it can take technicians many hours to show up to do a software fix. On top of that, these tractors are vulnerable to cyberattacks – an enemy could shut down thousands of tractors right at harvest time for example.  Or a geomagnetic storm could do enough damage to shut the tractor down. Yet letting farmers update the software is risky, a mistake could send a 20 ton tractor to careen into the farmhouse.

Weinraub M (2021) ‘Desperate for tires’ – Components shortage roils U.S. harvest. Reuters.

Manufacturing meltdowns are hitting the U.S. heartland, as the semiconductor shortages that have plagued equipment makers for months expand into other components. Supply chain woes now pose a threat to the U.S. food supply and farmers’ ability to get crops out of fields.

As harvest ends, we will see farmers at equipment auctions not for the machinery – but for parts,” Peterson said. “We’re already hearing from guys talking about buying a second planter or sprayer, just for parts.”

For some farmers, the shortages are forcing them to reuse – or repair – old parts. Access to steel, plastic, rubber and other raw materials has been scarce during the pandemic, and manufacturers are preparing for even more shocks after power shortages forced several Chinese smelters to cut production in recent weeks.

One pain point for dealerships is an industry-wide shortage of GPS receivers, which are used to run tractor guidance and data systems.

At Ag-Pro, the largest privately-owned Deere & Co dealership in North America, staff in Ohio have been digging out GPS units that date back to 2004. Until now, they were essentially worthless.

Equipment manufacturers are faced with a painful choice this harvest season: Send parts to factories to build new tractors and combines to sell to farmers or redirect those parts into the field to repair broken equipment for existing customers?

CNH estimates that supply chain constraints ranging from increases in freight to higher raw materials prices have cost the company $1 billion. That lag has forced the company to turn some factory parking lots into storage lots. At CNH’s combine plant in Grand Island, Nebraska, hundreds of unfinished combines sit outside, waiting for parts.

References

Barnhart C et al (2013) On the importance of reducing the energetic and material demands of electrical energy storage. Energy Environment Science 2013: 1083–1092

EIA (2020) International Energy Statistics. Petroleum and other liquids. Data Options. U.S. Energy Information Administration. Select crude oil including lease condensate to see data past 2017

Friedemann A (2016) When Trucks Stop Running: Energy and the Future of Transportation. Springer.

Friedemann A (2021) Life After Fossil Fuels: A Reality Check on Alternative Energy. Springer.

Hamilton, J.D. 2013. Historical Oil Shocks in Routledge handbook of major events of economic history. Routledge.

IEA (2018) International Energy Agency World Energy Outlook 2018, page 45, International Energy Agency.

Watkins S (2021) The Facts Behind Saudi Arabia’s Outrageous Oil Claims. oilprice.com

Posted in Cascading Failure, CyberAttacks, Economic Decline, Interdependencies, Liebig's Law, Peak Critical Elements, Peak Oil | Tagged , , , , , | Comments Off on Food shortages as the energy crisis grows and supply chains break?

Review of Wrangham’s The Goodness Paradox: The Strange Relationship Between Virtue & Violence in Human Evolution

Preface. This is a fantastic, must read book if you’re at all interested in how we evolved to be who we are today, how we domesticated ourselves, gossip, conformity, violence and more.  It reminds me of why I don’t read fiction — you can read all the best selling fiction in the world and not have a clue about how human behavior and psychology actually work. Below are excerpts from the book.

Alice Friedemann  www.energyskeptic.com  Author of Life After Fossil Fuels: A Reality Check on Alternative Energy; When Trucks Stop Running: Energy and the Future of Transportation”, Barriers to Making Algal Biofuels, & “Crunch! Whole Grain Artisan Chips and Crackers”.  Women in ecology  Podcasts: WGBH, Planet: Critical, Crazy Town, Collapse Chronicles, Derrick Jensen, Practical Prepping, Kunstler 253 &278, Peak Prosperity,  Index of best energyskeptic posts

***

Wrangham R (2019) The Goodness Paradox: The Strange Relationship Between Virtue and Violence in Human Evolution

The key fact about humans is that within our social communities we have a low propensity to fight: compared to most wild mammals we are very tolerant.

Before governments intervened, even among people with continuous war, there was a huge distinction between “peace at home” and “war abroad.  Despite a high rate of lethal violence in interactions among villages, within villages—family lives were “very tranquil” and episodes of aggression were largely regulated into formal duels.

Because seriously evil men can have a gentle side, we hesitate to empathize with their kindness for fear of seeming to rationalize or excuse their crimes. Such men remind us, however, of a curious fact about our species. We are not merely the most intelligent of animals. We also have a rare and perplexing combination of moral tendencies. We can be the nastiest of species and also the nicest.

A great oddity about humanity is our moral range, from unspeakable viciousness to heartbreaking generosity. From a biological perspective, such diversity presents an unsolved problem. If we evolved to be good, why are we also so vile? Or if we evolved to be wicked, how come we can also be so benign?

Our biology determines the contradictory aspects of our personalities, and society modifies both tendencies. Our goodness can be intensified or corrupted, just as our selfishness can be exaggerated or reduced. Once we acknowledge that we are at once innately good and innately bad, the sterile old argument gives way to fascinating new problems. If Rousseauians and Hobbesians are both partly right, then what is the source of our strange combination of behavioral tendencies?

On the one hand, human variation is limited. We really do have characteristic forms of society. Nowhere do people live in troops, as baboons do, or in isolated harems, like gorillas, or in entirely promiscuous communities, like chimpanzees or bonobos. Human societies consist of families within groups that are part of larger communities, an arrangement that is characteristic of our species and distinctive from other species.

Hunter Gatherers

The Ituri people in the Democratic Republic of Congo were, at heart, hauntingly like the villagers in my native England—loving their children, quarreling over their lovers, worrying about gossip, looking for allies, jockeying for power, trading information, fearing strangers, planning parties, embracing ritual, ranting at fate—and very, very rarely getting into fights.  There was a police force, for instance. The police were mostly male kinsmen of the chef de la localité. They used their status less to uphold the law than to exploit the villagers. On the rare occasions when they toured the neighborhood, a few policemen would arrive in a village after a walk of a few hours. They never brought food. So they would find a trivial excuse for fining an unfortunate host a chicken, eat it that night, and then stay on for as many days as they could continue extracting meals. The mundane corruption was of course resented, so the police were not much respected.

New Guinea is one of the few places where small-scale societies have been documented while living in true political anarchy, free from even the remotest interference of a state.  Its cultures are particularly informative because they show how people behave when living with a constant threat of being attacked by neighboring groups.  The Dani had one of the highest killing rates ever recorded. Sometimes small groups of men set off on raids to ambush an unsuspecting victim. Occasionally, there were battles: in the no-man’s-lands between villages, minor skirmishes could dissolve into larger chaos, with up to 125 villagers killed at a time. In a macabre index of the bloodletting, fallen warriors were commemorated by the removal of a finger from girls as young as three years old; among the Dani there were hardly any women with intact hands.

If the rest of the world had been like the Dani, the 20th century’s sickening 100 million war deaths would have ballooned to an unthinkable 2 billion.

Beyond the intermittent mayhem, in the calm of ordinary life, Shangri-La really was a fair name for the Grand Valley. The Dani raised their pigs and tubers with a farmer’s typical steadiness. Heider wrote of the people’s low-key temperament, gentle demeanor, and rarity of anger. These were pacific, caring individuals who lived in systems of mutual dependence and support. When Dani households were not lulled by easy conversation, he said, they rang with song and laughter. Restraint and respect marked their daily interactions. As long as they had no war, the Dani were in many ways ordinary rural folks leading calm, thoroughly unaggressive lives.

The Dani proved typical of the remote New Guinea highlands in combining peace within the group with homicide of outsiders. Another New Guinea group, the Baktaman, occupied the headwaters of the Fly River. Every Baktaman community resisted trespass, often with violence. Territorial conflicts were so severe that they caused a third of the community’s deaths. Yet, within the villages, violence was severely controlled and “killing denied to be conceivable.” It was the same in the basin of the Tagari River, in west central Papua New Guinea, where the Huli terrorized their enemies but had no violence within their own villages.

Anthropologists documented intergroup fighting among the Aché hunter-gatherers of Paraguay shortly after an Aché group settled into a mission station. The Aché reported having previously used their hunting weapons of bows and arrows to shoot at strangers on sight. The result was a significant death rate.

In 1929, the anthropologist Maurice Davie summarized a consensus understanding that remains true today: people were as good to members of their own society as they were harsh to others. There are two codes of morals, two sets of mores, one for comrades inside and another for strangers outside, and both arise from the same interests. Against outsiders it is meritorious to kill, plunder, practice blood revenge, and steal women and slaves, but inside the group none of these things can be allowed because they would produce discord and weakness. The Sioux must kill a man before he can be a brave, and the Dyak before he can marry. Yet, as Tylor has said, “these Sioux among themselves hold manslaughter to be a crime unless in blood revenge; and the Dyaks punish murder. Not only is slaying an enemy in open war looked on as righteous but ancient law goes on the doctrine that slaying one’s own tribesmen and slaying a foreigner are crimes of quite different order.

Still, what about domestic violence? Even within a famously pacific group such as Botswana’s !Kung San hunter-gatherers, domestic violence has been recorded often. Furthermore, this form of aggression may have been systematically underreported. Early voyagers and anthropologists tended to be men from patriarchal societies. Wife beating tends to happen in private and can therefore escape the attention of anthropologists.

In the Aché, a settled group of people in Paraguay who had recently been hunter-gatherers, some individuals had a reputation for being generous, regardless of how much they were normally able to give. When those who were renowned for their generosity ran into difficulties, they were helped more than those with a reputation for stinginess. They were given more food, for instance. As predicted, reputations mattered.

Cooperation among the weaker individuals is needed. Among hunter-gatherers, women are not known to support one another in physical fights against violent men, so that can’t be how this trait evolved, as it did among female bonobos. In the Pleistocene, males were stronger and more robust than they are today, so it would have been even riskier for females to confront them in a fight.

Among hunter-gatherers, men are important as providers of food and as protectors, and women compete with one another to become the wives of the best husbands. There are no such dividing forces among female bonobos.

Among hunter-gatherers, as we will see, aggressors are stopped not by repeated coalitionary chases, and not by females acting on their own. When teasing and pleading and ostracizing and moving camp all fail to change a man’s violent behavior, the last resort of the coalition is execution, as Darwin foresaw.

Much like the combination of legal executions and mob lynchings in America, among hunter-gatherers communal support for killing was achieved in various ways. Sometimes executions were preapproved. Everyone might then want to be involved. In the Ju/’hoansi (or !Kung San), the famously peaceful hunter-gatherers of Botswana’s Kalahari desert, the community came together to solve the problem of a member of their group who had killed three men. The murderer’s name was /Twi. In a rare move of unanimity, the community…ambushed and fatally wounded /Twi in full daylight. As he lay dying, all the men fired at him with poisoned arrows until, after he was dead, all the women as well as all the men approached his body and stabbed him with spears, symbolically sharing the responsibility for his death….It is as if for one brief moment, this egalitarian society constituted itself a state and took upon itself the powers of life and death.

/Twi’s death was like Julius Caesar’s, whose body was said to be stabbed 35 times by the 20 or more senators who had conspired against him. They all wanted to show they were part of the coalition.

As in many societies, women were required not to intrude on the men’s secret goings-on on pain of death. Some years ago the Liagomir clan was holding a totemic ceremony, using its carpet snake totemic emblems (painted wooden trumpets). Two women stole up to the ceremonial ground and watched the men blowing the trumpet, went back to the women’s camp and told them what they had seen. When the men came back to camp and heard of their behavior, Yanindja, the leader, said, “When will we kill them?” Everyone replied, “Immediately.” The two women were instantly put to death by members of their own clan with the help of men from another group.

Rules were so important that an individual could kill for the sake of them regardless of his own personal preference. In Western Australia at the beginning of the 20th century, men were required to behave themselves in their sexual liaisons. They were killed for having sex with a betrothed girl, or for taking a woman away when she was supposedly secluded during her menstruation, or for having intercourse before he was initiated into manhood. When a young woman fell in love with a youth during the segregation period of his initiation, the adoring woman followed him to express her feelings. He knew the penalty. Rather than face being killed himself, the young man killed her.

A romantic view holds that life in a small-scale society is delightful. In many ways, this is true. Unlike centralized tyrannies, the leaderless bands of nomadic hunter-gatherers or villages of slash-and-burn farmers are genuinely pluralistic societies. Disputes are solved communally. Anyone’s voice can be heard. No one is allowed to be sad. The sense of social support is enormous, and, as we have seen, the tenor of daily life is very peaceful. To add to the pleasures, the bands or camps are not subjects of any polity. They are members of a larger network of groups in which everyone speaks the same dialect or language and shares the same culture. Neighboring groups may sometimes have disputes and can even turn to violence against one another, but they all operate at the same political level, without hierarchy among groups, or group subjugation.

But liberty has its limits. In the absence of domineering leaders, a social cage of tradition demands claustrophobic adherence to group norms. Gellner called it a “tyranny of the cousins.” The cultural rules are paramount. Individuals have limited personal freedom; they live or die by their willingness to conform. Gellner’s “cousins” did not have to be literally relatives. “Cousins,” in the context of a small-scale society, is a metaphor for the group of adults whose decisions held sway. Their power was absolute. If you did not conform to their dictates, you were in danger.

The selk’nam on the island of Tierra del Fuego would kill any men who revealed secrets to women or uninitiated males. A tattletale could be killed by his father or brother. The male coalition was more important than kinship.

Gossip among men could lead to someone’s being pushed out of the group. The Gebusi people live in a remote lowland rain forest of New Guinea. They are hunter-gardeners or slash-and-burn farmers who had first been briefly contacted in 1940, then brought under government control in the 1960s. Their society was small, about 450 people. Like mobile hunter-gatherers, they lived in small villages, averaging fewer than 30 people, with no leaders holding authority within the group. Social relations within the society were in the classically gentle mold: serene conversations, rich humor, no boasting. Their political system was egalitarian, but, as always, not everyone was equal. Among the Gebusi, sorcerers, like witches, could be accused of bringing misfortune to others.

If blamed, the sorcerer was in peril. If he gets angry and denies any responsibility for the illness, he may be seen as unrepentant. His best chance is to admit to a minor crime—in other words, confess to being a sorcerer, and agree to stop making the patient sick. That is what he does. Straining to maintain composure, he pleads for his life: “I don’t know either. I don’t know anything about it. He’s my own relative, too, I couldn’t make him sick. I don’t know….I was so sorry for him when I heard he was sick. I only heard a few days ago. We had been out in the bush and I didn’t even know. When I finally heard, I said to my wife right then, ‘We’ll have to go and make sure he’s all right. I wonder, what sickness could he have?’…I don’t know about it, but I’m sure that now the leaves are pulled…if you throw them away he’ll get better. I might have been a little angry from not eating enough fish lately, but I certainly wouldn’t make my own relative sick like that.

The accused man would likely leave the longhouse, right to be nervous about what might happen. The fate of the accused would depend on divinations following a death. Unless the outcome was clearly helpful to his case, he would almost certainly be executed within a few months. The accuser would quietly ensure the support of the community. He and his trusted friends might convene a séance at a time when they knew the guilty party had few male kin at home. During a sleepless night of joking and shouting in the longhouse, the men would grow more and more enthusiastic about the idea that the alleged sorcerer was responsible for the death. Consensus is reached. All decide the accused is guilty.

At dawn, they stage an ambush. They kill with clubs or arrows. Sometimes there is torture first. Then they butcher and cook him. In precontact times, cannibalism.

Hunter-gatherers offer a chilling example. If there was a conflict of interest between men and women, moral rules would typically favor the men at the expense of the women. Male hunter-gatherers throughout Australia used their women as political pawns. Wives could be required to have sex with multiple men at special ceremonies. They could also be lent to a visiting man, or given sexually by a husband to a man with whom the husband had quarreled, in order to erase a debt or make peace. Women could be sent on sexual missions into dangerous situations. When potential attackers were seen approaching a group, one response was to send women out to greet them. If the strange men were willing to forgo their attack, they signaled their intent by having sexual intercourse with the female emissaries. If not, they sent the women back and then attacked. The final stage of peacemaking between two tribes almost always involved an exchange of wives. Apparently, women did not enjoy these coercive encounters. In 1938, the anthropologist A. P. Elkin reported that Australian Aboriginal women would live in terror of the use that was made of them at ceremonial times. In those cultures, all this was the moral practice of ordinary men. The men behaved prosocially toward one another while exploiting their wives and female kin. To say that these behaviors were good for the group implies a very restricted definition of “the group.” The behaviors were designed to be good for the group of married men who made the rules, but not for the women.

Coercive practices and unequal expectations of self-sacrifice cast doubt on the idea that moral practices are necessarily good for the group.

In the initial phase of generating a more peaceful species, the moral emotions would be little affected. The target of the newfound coalitions was only the hyperaggressive males. The next stage would be critical for the evolution of moral sensibilities. In developing the ability to kill the physically imposing alpha, the subordinate males had discovered an irresistible coalitionary power. They could now coordinate to kill anyone. So all kinds of troublemakers became at risk. Any kind of noncompliance with the interests of the killing coalition could in theory provoke an intimidating threat. Women and young men were as vulnerable as domineering bullies to the power of the male elders.

In nomadic hunter-gatherers, as in small-scale societies in general, aspiring alphas are not the only victims of the tyranny of cousins. Young men can be executed for messing with the old men’s wives. Women can be executed for breaking a seemingly trivial cultural norm, such as seeing the magic trumpets, or treading on the men’s secret path, or for having sex with the wrong men. Anyone who flouts the rules that the men impose can be executed.

The result is a society in which the male coalition not only holds the power but uses it. The anthropologist Adamson Hoebel documented the legal systems of small-scale societies. He found that belief systems were typically founded on a religious statement such as “Man is subordinate to supernatural forces and spirit beings, which are benevolent in nature.” That kind of idea legitimizes the belief system by referring it to forces beyond human control. A series of postulates would follow. For the Inuit, women were socially inferior to men but essential in economic production and childrearing. In no society were men socially inferior to women.

The anthropologist Les Hiatt summarized the effects in Australian Aboriginal society. Women often had strong traditions of independence and cultural autonomy. In some places, they had secret societies. They could have the largest role in choosing whom their daughters married. But, even though women were not subservient, the genders were not equal. Sanctions against women for discovering male secrets included rape and death. By contrast, there were no physical reprisals for men who intruded into a women’s ceremony. Men could arrange for gatherings with neighboring societies; there was no equivalent for women. Men could insist that women provide food for the all-male secret ceremonies, or provide sexual services to whomever the men required. Religious knowledge, controlled by men, justified their dominance.

Among the Inuit: Threats and abuse may lead to the same end. The obnoxious person is first ostracized, then liquidated if he continues his bothersome behavior. The execution of liars was reported across the span of Inuit territory, from Greenland to Alaska. Everywhere the same was true. A coalition of men controlled life and death according to rules that they set. 

Once men dominate the society through their control of death, their word becomes law. Everyone knows the importance of conforming. People accept the inequities. Men get the best food, have the most freedom, and are the ultimate arbiters of group decisions.

The punishing of deviants occurs because people feel individually threatened or dispossessed by social predators, but also, in a larger sense, because socially disruptive wrongdoers so obviously lessen a group’s ability to flourish through cooperation.”

The suppression of theft, fighting, and antisocial play would tend to be good for everyone. It is also plausible that more selfish motivations applied. Men could have enforced patriarchal norms that allowed them to trade women, use them as sexual and political pawns, and beat them. So, although the coalition promoted prosociality by punishing deviants, it did not necessarily advance the welfare of the whole group.

The first rule of life in a dense web of gossip is: Be careful what you do. The second rule is: What you do matters less than what people think you did, so you’d better be able to frame your actions in a positive light. You’d better be a good ‘intuitive politician.’

Conscience is a mechanism of self-defense. Through natural selection humans became equipped with an increasingly sophisticated moral conscience for steering clear of moral mobs. These cognitive mechanisms would prospectively compare the individual’s potential actions against the set of moral wrongs in order to avoid actions that could trigger coordinated condemnation by third parties. Conscience protected our ancestors from the kind of behavior that could lead them to be accused of being deviants. Once again, self-defense explains our moral motivation.

The third puzzle is why humans are so sensitive to right and wrong that we not only try to do the right thing ourselves, but also monitor one another’s behavior and punish those who we judge to do wrong. The answer seems clear. Individuals need to protect themselves from being regarded as nonconformists.  Such sensitivity to moral values also became biologically embedded into novel emotional responses. Prominent human emotions not known to occur in animals include shame, embarrassment, guilt, and the pain of being ostracized, all of which are human universals.

Because shame signals acknowledgment of having violated a social norm, it offers the restorative power of an ingratiating apology. Shame thus seems designed to protect from the ostracism that can lead to social or physical death.

The same kind of argument applies to embarrassment, a social blunder. Emotionally it is felt as shame.

Within less than a second of having been offensive (which is normally unintentional), the embarrassed individual starts a signal that lasts up to three seconds. He looks downward, turns his head (mostly to the left), smiles, controls the smile such as by sucking his lips, gives furtive glances, and often touches his face. Meanwhile, a blush emerges over a longer period,

Embarrassment serves to restore social relationships that have gone awry. Individuals who do not show embarrassment after a social faux pas are more likely to be viewed negatively, whereas those who readily blush redeem their standing. The execution hypothesis offers an explanation of why social standing matters so much.

Guilt is another painful emotion that serves to mend social relationships. Defined as “a painful affect arising from the belief that one has hurt another,” guilt involves admission of a wrong. The acceptance of blame is supposed to inhibit self-assertive aggression toward others, turning it inward on oneself. The associated expressions of remorse again pave the way to being forgiven.

In a mere two or three minutes of play with strangers, followed by being excluded, people predictably became sad, angry, and had negative feelings of alienation, depression, helplessness, and even a reduced sense of meaning in life. The effects did not depend on the subject’s personality or whether he or she felt similar to the ostracizers. Experimental subjects experienced elevated activation of a part of the brain, the dorsal anterior cingulate cortex, that is also activated by physical pain. To be ostracized engages a swift and strong series of neurally encoded responses that are very unpleasant.

We have to use our thinking ability, because what a culture determines to be “right” and “wrong” can vary. Our ancestors had to learn what kind of behaviors the culture considered appropriate, and selection would have favored mentally internalizing the norm, recognizing norm violators and responding, such as ostracizing a violator.  Our moral psychology was forged during a period when being a social outcast was even more dangerous than it is for most people today.

***

From an evolutionary perspective, the human rate of physical aggression within social communities is already strikingly low. Because chimpanzees are one of humanity’s two closest relatives, they provide an illuminating comparison. Chimpanzees are not like people. A day spent with wild chimpanzees gives you a good chance of seeing chases, sometimes some hitting, while hearing fearful screams. Every month, you are likely to see bloody wounds. Primatologists quantified the difference between an ordinary group of chimpanzees and a particularly disturbed population of Australian Aboriginals who had recently stopped hunting and gathering. Among the Australians, social disintegration and alcohol were considered responsible for raising the likelihood of physical aggression to especially toxic levels. However, even in this comparison with an unusually violent group of humans, the chimpanzees were several hundred to a thousand times more aggressive. The difference in the frequency of fighting between humans and chimpanzees is enormous.

Bonobos are the other species most closely related to humans, a similar-looking ape with a well-deserved reputation for being much more peaceful than chimpanzees. They are not unaggressive, however. A recent long-term field study found that wild male bonobos were aggressive at about half the rate of chimpanzees, while female bonobos were more frequently aggressive than female chimpanzees. So, although male bonobos are less violent than male chimpanzees, the rates of aggression in both these species of great ape are far higher than the rates among humans.

Overall, physical aggression in humans happens at less than 1% of the frequency among either of our closest ape relatives. Compared to them we really are a dramatically peaceful species.

In 2005, the World Health Organization’s Multi-Country Study on Women’s Health and Domestic Violence produced detailed data from 24,000 women in ten countries. Physical violence by partners included slapping, shoving, punching, kicking, dragging, beating, choking, burning, and using or threatening the use of a weapon. In cities, the proportion of women who said that they had experienced physical violence by their partners averaged 31%, from 13% in Japan to 49% in Peru. In rural areas, the rates were higher, averaging 41%. Between 50 and 80% of the intimate-partner violence was considered “severe.” These rates appear to be slightly above those in the United States, where, in more than 9,000 interviews, 24% of women reported severe physical violence inflicted by an intimate partner.

A 2013 WHO study found that the proportion of women who had experienced either physical or sexual violence averaged 41% in cities and 51% in rural areas of their ten focal countries. The equivalent figure in the United States was 36%. Some 41 to 71% of women have been beaten by a man at some time during their lives. Yet this range is low compared with the incidence among our closest animal relatives. One hundred percent of wild adult female chimpanzees experience regular serious beatings from males. Even among bonobos, whose females are routinely higher-ranking than males, males attack females rather often. In subgroups averaging nine individuals, the primatologist Martin Surbeck saw a male bonobo physically attacking females every six days on average.

Overall tendencies are clear: compared with other primates, we practice exceptionally low levels of violence in our day-to-day lives, yet we achieve exceptionally high rates of death from violence in our wars. That discrepancy is the goodness paradox.

Delgado’s work was part of a wave of enthusiasm for the idea that violent tendencies might be controlled through biological science. A neurobiologist working with animal aggression, he thought that experiments like those that he conducted with the fighting bull might have wider implications. He fantasized about being able to “psychocivilize” people by “the use of implantable brain electrodes that could be modulated via remote control.

How people express their aggression also varies. Some are confrontational, some are passive-aggressive, some are gossips. Petty insults can flash to lethal aggression too quickly for the fighters to have second thoughts.

When the criminologist Marvin Wolfgang conducted the first major study of the reasons for murder in the United States, in 1958, he found that, during a four-year span in Philadelphia, character contests were responsible for 35 percent of the city’s homicides, the largest category of any type of murder. Similar frequencies have been found elsewhere.

Reactive aggression is variously described as hostile, angry, impulsive, affective, or “hot.” It always comes with anger, and often with a loss of control, such as losing one’s temper. It is a response to provocations such as a perceived insult, embarrassment, physical danger, or mere frustration. In the state of intense arousal that is typical of reactive aggression, a fighter easily lashes out at anyone around him or her. Reactive aggressors have no goal beyond getting rid of the provoking stimulus,

Reactive aggression is especially prominent among males fighting over status or mating rights.

During a study of rut fighting among male pronghorn antelope, 12% of conflicts over mating rights to estrous females led to the death of one or both males. In various populations of red deer, 13 to 29% of male deaths came from rut fighting.

Proactive aggression is characterized as premeditated, predatory, instrumental, or “cold.” Unlike reactive aggression, it involves a purposeful attack with an external or internal reward as a goal, rather than an effort to remove a source of fear or threat. It is the calculated act of the professional assassin.

The behavior is self-rewarding rather than serving to remove an aversive stimulus: the killer is pleased at achieving a goal. Proactive aggression can be triggered by a wide variety of motivating factors, including desire for money, power, control, or sadistic fantasy,

Individuals who have a greater tendency for proactive aggression than others have characteristic social emotions. They tend to have reduced emotional sensitivity, feel less empathy for their victims, and experience less remorse over their actions.

Whereas Marvin Wolfgang had found that 35% of Philadelphia murders resulted from character contests, he and criminologist Franco Ferracuti concluded that “probably less than 5% of all known killings are premeditated, planned and intentional.” Those percentages sum to only 40%, leaving it unclear how many of the remaining 60% of homicides were proactive or reactive.

Criminologist Fiona Brookman reported revenge as a motivation in 34% of British homicides in which both killers and victims were men, and since revenge always includes a component of planning, it can be considered proactive. A second reason for thinking that the 5 percent figure is too low is that because proactive murderers have had time to plan events carefully, they presumably get away with their crimes relatively often.

The U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation suggest that at least 35% of murderers in the U.S. are never brought to justice. For these reasons proactive killing probably occurs at a higher frequency than 5% of murders.

Evolutionary psychologists Margo Wilson and Martin Daly argued that most killings that result from trivial altercations reflect a drive to maintain status, a drive that would have been adaptive in a world with no alcohol and less effective weapons, but that today is no longer adaptive because it leads to the aggressor’s becoming homicidal. Criminologists Kenneth Polk and Fiona Brookman argue that fights over status are especially frequent among lower-working-class and underclass men because their material resources are scarce, making honor all the more important.

The majority of spousal batterers are readily classified as either a predatory (proactive) or an impulsive (reactive) type. Predatory batterers are more violent in general, more concerned to dominate and control their partners, and more likely to be violent, particularly when the spouses talk back. In contrast, it is when spouses try to withdraw from an argument that impulsive batterers are most likely to lose control.

Compared with nonmurderers, all of the accused had high neural activity in subcortical parts of the brain, including the limbic system, which is a brain network that processes emotional responses. This finding suggests that all of the accused murderers tend to experience particularly strong emotions. Just as Raine had anticipated, however, the brains of the accused murderers differed, depending on whether their murderous acts were characterized as reactive or proactive. The reactive murderers had less activity in their prefrontal cortex, the inhibitory part of the brain. The difference contributes to an explanation of why some people are more vulnerable to committing a crime of impulsive violence: they find it hard to control themselves.

Psychopathy is found worldwide. According to a standard rating scale devised by criminal psychologist Robert Hare, psychopaths tend to exhibit 20 features, including superficial charm, frequent lying, sexual promiscuity, and a low threshold for boredom. They are insensitive both to what others think and to what others feel. This can work in their favor at least in the short term, because despite their arrogance, ambition, and readiness to be deceptive, their confidence can make them attractive. They show less evidence of empathy than ordinary people, and they tend to feel less guilt or remorse. This lack of concern makes them relatively more liable to be aggressive. Finally, psychopaths are prone to try to get what they want, regardless of the means necessary. In sum, psychopaths are self-centered and uncaring people with impaired moral judgments. Not surprisingly, they are likely to be criminally delinquent, and they are also predominantly male.

A survey in the U.K. found psychopathy in less than 1% of the household population, which is probably the approximate proportion worldwide. Psychopathy is more common among men and younger adults than among women and the middle-aged or elderly. Psychopaths show more violent behavior than others. In the U.K., psychopathy was also associated with suicide attempts, imprisonment, drug dependence, antisocial personality disorder, and homelessness. Of the many features contributing to psychopathy, a lack of conscience is found to be particularly important.

The limbic system is a subcortical series of small structures deep in the brain that are connected with one another and are heavily involved in the production of emotional responses such as anger, anxiety, fear, and pleasure. In keeping with their stronger emotional reactions, wild mammals tend to have a larger limbic system than domesticated mammals. A well-studied part of the limbic system is the amygdala, a pair of almond-sized regions. An amygdala bigger than normal is associated with more fearful and aggressive reactions across individuals, and larger amygdalae are more typical of a wild than a domestic animal.

Psychopaths appear particularly fearless, a trait that seems to be supported by their tendency to have an amygdala that brain imaging reveals as smaller, sometimes deformed, and less active than in other people.

A cat cannot fight and hunt simultaneously—a useful adaptation to avoid the confusion of trying to do two incompatible things (fighting and feeding) at the same time. In rats, by contrast, connections between the mediobasal hypothalamus and lateral hypothalamus are minimal, so there is less inhibition of one type of aggression by expression of the other type. This means that if a rat initiates a premeditated, proactive “quiet biting attack” but finds the victim fighting back, the attacker can instantly respond with reactive aggression. Thus in rats, the absence of reciprocal inhibition allows proactive and reactive aggression to occur at the same time without one inhibiting the other.

A 2015 survey of all available twin studies of aggressiveness, of which there had been 40 in the preceding five years alone, found that the genetic heritability of aggressive behavior was typically in the range of 39 to 60%, averaging 50%. This means that, in those environments, genetic and socialization influences were roughly equally important in shaping individuals’ aggression. Interestingly, the same does not apply to some closely similar behaviors, such as rule breaking. Differences among children in the tendency to break rules, as opposed to being aggressive to one another, have been found to come almost entirely from socialization.

Proactive aggression might therefore prove to be more strongly influenced by genes than reactive aggression, but for the moment all we can say is that both types show important genetic influences.

Given that humans, compared with other species, are low on reactive aggression and high on proactive aggression, the question is why we have this mixture.

In 2000, his friend Erich Klinghammer, director of Wolf Park, Indiana, invited him into the cage of a captive wolf. Coppinger hesitated. “I don’t know much about tamed wolves,” he said. Klinghammer reassured him. His wolves were progeny from several generations of captive breeding, far removed from the wild. They had been hand-raised by human “puppy parents” since they were ten days old. Even as adults, they were still handled every day. They were used to being on leashes, and were as tame as wolves could be. “Just treat them like dogs,” Klinghammer said. So Coppinger did. He joined Klinghammer and the wolves inside their pen. Saying something like “Good wolf” to an adult female called Cassi, he patted her on her side. In Coppinger’s words: That was when she became all teeth. Not a nip, but a full war—a test of my ability to stay on my feet and respond to Erich’s excited command, “Get out, get out! They’ll kill you!” Note the wording “They’ll kill you!” I had a blurred vision of a collection of wolves gathering, and a wolf tugging on my pants as Cassi focused on my left arm. “Why did you hit her?” Erich said later, almost too softly to be heard over my pounding heart. “It wasn’t hitting! I was patting her! You said treat them like dogs and I pat dogs and if I do some social misconduct with a dog, I don’t get my head bit off, and why is it that all you people who socialize wolves have those nasty scars!” I said in a single breath while applying a tourniquet to the mangled arm of my goose-down jacket. Never again did I think that tame wolves could be treated like dogs.

Wolves are different from dogs. However much you tame a wolf, it will not become domesticated. After years of behaving well, a wolf can suddenly and unpredictably forget its training. You should not trust wild animals, because they are all too reactively aggressive. Domesticated animals, in contrast, have changed genetically from their wild ancestors; they are less easily stimulated into producing reactive aggression.

Humans’ place in this tamed/domesticated dichotomy is clear. We are calm compared with a typical wild animal—more like a dog than a wolf. We can look each other in the eye. We do not lose our tempers easily. We normally control our aggressive urges. In primates one of the most potent stimulus for aggression is the presence of a strange individual. But child psychologist Jerome Kagan reports that in hundreds of observations of two-year-olds meeting unfamiliar children, he has never seen one strike out at the other. That willingness to interact peacefully with others, even strangers, is inborn. Like domesticated animals, humans have a high threshold for producing reactive aggression. In this respect humans resemble domesticated animals much more closely than we resemble wild animals.

From 1713 until his death in 1740, King Frederick William I of Prussia, an arrogant and domineering man who was also a drunkard, wanted to make his Potsdam Guards regiment the most impressive in the world. To do so, he paid a thousand recruiters to roam 15 European countries to capture the tallest men and bring them to Prussia. The king committed vast sums to the effort. The tall soldiers were intended to be the pride of the army, but because they were there against their will they had to be imprisoned. The difficulties of building up his collection of “giants” were so great that the king turned to artificial selection as an alternative method of arranging for an army of tall soldiers. He decided that if giants could not be easily recruited he had better breed them.

Accordingly, his men searched peasant villages for tall women to marry his tall guardsmen, to whom they would be assigned as mating partners. No consent was sought, no inquiries were made as to previous marriage relations.  The Prussian king’s experiment is said to have led to some unusually tall people in Potsdam, but overall it was a failure. It was deeply resented by both husbands and wives, and when the king died the experiment ended. Obviously, artificial selection of humans was an aberration if even a powerful monarch could not make it happen.

How we domesticated ourselves

It was Darwin’s and Aristotle’s theory that different populations were domesticated to different extents. Darwin wrote, in 1811: “Man is a domesticated animal…born and appointed by nature the most completely domesticated animal…the most perfect of all sorts of domestic animals that have been created.”

Human domestication came to be seen not only as a cause of racial differences but also as an index of human value: some races or populations were thought to be better than others, depending on how domesticated they were. The divisive potential of this idea became explosive in the hands of Nazis and their associates.

Lorenz considered that, under the influences of civilization, humans had become overly domesticated, leading to unattractive, infantilized, and unviable people.  He considered more highly domesticated populations to be a degraded version of the natural ideal.

Humans became less reactively aggressive and increasingly docile around the time of our becoming Homo sapiens.  The list of traits associated with domestication, called the domestication syndrome, is useful, because it provides telling clues to the human past.

Critically, the domestication syndrome includes changes to bones. Leach listed four characteristics of the bones of domesticated, but not wild, animals that are found in contemporary humans.

First, domesticates mostly have smaller bodies than their wild ancestors.  The effect is so predictable in dogs or herd animals like sheep and cattle that archaeologists use it as one of their main criteria to recognize when domestication of different species has occurred.  Smaller human bodies in the past are also indicated by changes in the relative thickness of bones. The limb bones of our ancestors are thicker, both at the ends and in the midshaft, compared with their length. Cross sections also show that limb bones formerly had thicker walls surrounding the marrow cavity. The thicker the bones, the more weight they carried. Based on bone thickness, humans have been gradually weighing less since the time of Homo erectus, about two million years ago, including an especially pronounced weight loss since the appearance of modern-looking Homo sapiens. Such changes are often summarized as humans’ becoming less robust and more gracile.

Second, the faces of domesticated animals tend to be shorter, projecting relatively less forward, than those of their wild ancestors. Teeth also become smaller, and jaws smaller still.  Decline of tooth size has been noticed over the last hundred thousand years. Teeth diminished in size at a rate of approximately 1% per 2,000 years until 10,000 thousand years ago, when their decline accelerated to a loss of 1% of volume every 1,000 years.

Third, differences between males and females are less highly developed in domesticated than in wild animals, always for the same reason: males become less exaggeratedly male.  During the last 35,000 years, according to anthropologist David Frayer, males have become more like females not only with respect to stature but also to the size of the face, the length of the canine teeth, the area of the chewing teeth, and the size of the jaws. Further back in time, around 200,000 years ago, male faces were already becoming relatively feminized. An analysis by biologist Robert Cieri and colleagues showed that brow ridges above the eyes became less projecting in males, and the male face became shorter from the top of the nose to the upper teeth.

Finally, domesticates have a strong tendency to have smaller brains than their wild ancestors, whether mammals or birds. The average reduction in brain volume for a given body weight is around 10 to 15%, but some level of brain reduction is found in every domesticated mammal except for laboratory mice. Although human brain size, as measured by the volume inside a skull has steadily increased over the last two million years, the trajectory took a surprising turn around 30,000 years ago, when brains started to become smaller. In Europe, modern brains are some 10 to 30% smaller than those of people living 20,000 years earlier.

In domesticated animals the loss of brain size is not associated with any consistent reduction in cognitive ability. Indeed, the smaller-brained species sometimes outperform their bigger-brained ancestors

The differences between modern humans and our earlier ancestors have a clear pattern. They look like the differences between a dog and a wolf. Our ancestors were less docile than we are today. They would have had a greater propensity for reactive aggression, losing their tempers more easily, quicker to threaten and fight one another. But somehow we became domesticated.

What is the connection between reduced aggressiveness and smaller chewing teeth? No relationship is obvious. Animals do not fight with their chewing teeth, so there seems no reason for the teeth to become reduced in size.

When foxes were bred to be friendly, by the fourth generation, the experimenters were amazed to find a few pups approached by humans wagging their tails as if they were dogs. Unselected foxes had never wagged their tails. The sixth generation marked the appearance of a “domesticated elite.” Elite foxes not only wagged their tails, they even whimpered to attract attention, and they approached the experimenters to sniff and lick them.  By 1969, 40% of females were breeding three times per year, compared to once in the unselected lines. The change was evidently genetic, because it was concentrated in the same families. The shift from one to two annual mating cycles was not always beneficial: litters often failed. But even though there were no immediate practical benefits in terms of increased fur production, selection for docility alone had led to a loss of breeding seasonality. It also led to foxes’ reaching sexual maturity a month earlier than unselected foxes, having longer mating seasons, and producing bigger litters.  After 15 to 20 generations foxes had shorter tails and legs, and underbites or overbites. These are all features of the domestication syndrome.   Skull shape changed. The domesticated foxes had narrower skulls, with less cranial height, than the farm foxes, and the skulls of males were more like females.

This research evinced some immediate effects of selecting for tameness, but it did not show how long the domestication syndrome would last. This is critical. If features of the domestication syndrome are sufficiently maladaptive, natural selection would be expected to reverse them. So, in theory, although the domestication syndrome might be thrown up rapidly by selection for tameness, it could be lost equally quickly. Yet even in the wild, it turns out, lineages of originally domesticated animals can thrive for many generations without reverting to their ancestral type.

Europeans were so impressed by the commercial prospects of mink fur they imported the American domesticates for breeding. Unfortunately, many escaped into the wild, where they thrived. By 1920, these feral American minks were spreading fast. Hundreds of thousands of the invasive species established themselves throughout continental and archipelagic Europe, including Norway, Italy, Spain, Britain, Ireland, Iceland, Russia, and Belarus. In Belarus, the success of the domesticated American mink caused a substantial decline in the populations of two native species of carnivores, the European mink and polecats. The American mink outcompeted their wild cousins.  This raises a new puzzle. If traits of the domestication syndrome work well in the wild, in what way were the wild ancestors better adapted than the descendants of domesticates to the wild environment? If a small brain and short face are good enough for American mink on the loose in Belarus, why did the mink ancestors evolve a larger brain and longer face in the first place? The answer is unknown.

Only about 80 generations had been needed to produce aspects of the domestication syndrome; after 50 generations in the wilds of Belarus, the mink had shown no reversal to wild anatomy. Small brains and short faces appeared to be just as well adapted to the woods and waterways of Europe as to Canadian cages.

Dingoes are descended by thousands of generations from domesticated dogs, but even after at least 5,000 years back in the wild, they have brains no larger than those of dogs. Dingoes’ brains have not reverted to being large and wolflike.

Domesticated animals flourishing in the wild are found mostly in habitats where their wild ancestors are absent, such as the American mink in Europe, pigs on the Galapagos Islands, horses in the American Southwest, or dingoes in Australia.

In general, wolves are more aggressive toward humans than dogs are. Wolves are also significantly more violent toward members of other packs than are dogs. Wolves are so innately aggressive to wolf “strangers” that the leading cause of death in the wild is being killed by other wolves, accounting for as much as 40% of adult mortality. Among packs of feral dogs, by contrast, killing a “stranger” from another pack has been described only once. Within packs, too, dogs appear to be more tolerant of one another than are wolves, as indicated by their sharing breeding opportunities more equally.

That domesticated animals are restrained in their aggressiveness toward humans does not necessarily mean they are equally restrained in their aggressiveness toward one another. In general, however, animals that are managed by humans are doubtless often selected for being tolerant toward one another, since fights in the farmyard are costly to the farmer.

The domestication syndrome is produced by selection against reactive aggression, not merely by living with humans. The implication is remarkable. It means that a domestication syndrome should be produced any time that reactive aggression is selected against. Since aggressiveness must sometimes be selected against in the wild, there should be many cases of domestication syndromes in the wild.

If selection against reactive aggression were to produce the domestication syndrome in an animal living in nature without contact with humans, it would be a real-world example of domestication happening without a domesticator. It would strengthen the likelihood that humans, too, could have become domesticated.  And there is such a species: the bonobos. The feature that points most directly to bonobos’ being self-domesticated is their relatively muted tendency for aggression. Bonobos are much less aggressive toward one another, and much less fearful of one another, than chimpanzees are. Zookeepers find bonobos easy to accommodate, because groups readily accept new individuals without any serious tension.

Introducing chimpanzees to one another, by contrast, tends to be a painfully slow process, weeks or months of gradually familiarizing strangers with one another through wire mesh in order to minimize the risk of violence. Even after such cautious preparation, when chimpanzees who have not spent time together finally meet, they might easily fight. They regularly charge at one another in displays intended to demand clear expressions of subordinacy. If the target does not give any signal of submissiveness, fighting tends to erupt. Usually, the aggressor wins, the reluctant subordinate screams passionately,

Males also commonly beat up on females, often in surprise attacks. The male’s aim in such attacks is to intimidate a chosen female into readily acceding to his future demands for sex. For each female, one male distinguishes himself from other males by being the one who most frequently attacks her. The tactic is often successful. Over subsequent weeks, a female’s most frequent aggressor tends to be her most frequent sex partner, and eventually, even though she is likely to mate several times with every male in her community, he will be the most likely father of her next baby. This stomach-churning practice is part of the reason why, as males become adult, they go through a ritual of beating up on every female. A male’s ability to intimidate females is a vital component of his strategy for having as many offspring as possible.

Bonobos could hardly be more different from chimpanzees in terms of competition and aggression.

More important than their own fighting ability is the support given by mothers to their adult sons. The top-ranked males are mostly those with high-ranked mothers; when their mothers die, they are liable to fall in rank. Far less male intimidation of females occurs among bonobos than among chimpanzees. In one study bonobo females were more often aggressive toward males than vice versa. Male bonobos do not beat up on females, and in competition over food, females are more likely to win than males. No one has recorded any violent infanticides, nor any killing of adults, either within or between bonobo groups. Bonobos are certainly not free from disputes, and when groups from different communities meet, they sometimes fight to the point of inflicting bite wounds and scratches. But overall, the intensity of aggressive bonobo behavior is immensely less than among chimpanzees.

Brian Hare, Victoria Wobber, and I tested the prediction that bonobos would show the domestication syndrome in 2012, and found the first evidence for the domestication syndrome in a wild species. The cranial anatomy of bonobos turns out to fit the domestication syndrome extraordinarily closely. To start with, bonobo brains are smaller than those of chimpanzees. The reduction is especially marked in males, where it can reach as much as 20%. This echoes the decrease in brain size of almost every species of domesticated vertebrate compared with their wild ancestors. All of the other major cranial features of the domestication syndrome are present as well. The faces of bonobos are relatively short, projecting less than faces of chimpanzees. Bonobos have smaller jaws, and smaller chewing teeth.  Many of the characteristics that so richly distinguish bonobos from chimpanzees did not evolve as adaptations. Instead, they evolved as incidental side effects of selection against reactive aggression.

If bonobos could be self-domesticated, the bonobo case supports the idea that humans could be self-domesticated too. But what the evidence of self-domestication does not do is explain why bonobo aggression was reduced. An animal that fights too often, or too intensely, wastes energy and takes unnecessary risks. The trick is to get the balance right, which is  why, over evolutionary time, males with gentler, less aggressive proclivities tended to have higher reproductive success.

Female power is clearly an important part of the answer. A male bonobo who confronts an adult female might well win if she is the only female in earshot. But female bonobos are rarely far from other females. The challenging male must expect that, if he makes a female scream, within seconds he may be confronted by a coalition of females ready to attack him, and so effective in doing so that his best response will be to run away. Female support for one another explains why males give up easily when competing with females over food, or why males rarely try to bully females, or why males do not, on average, outrank females. Coalitionary attacks need not be common. Although females in the wild can use coalitions well, they do so rarely, mostly when males threatened their young. Despite their size disadvantage, females very effectively suppress bullying by males. Males seem to have learned where the ultimate power lies: numbers beat physical strength.  The reason that female bonobos can predictably present a united front appears mundane: they stay close to each other.

Chimpanzee parties, by contrast, are numerically dominated by males. Females tend to travel alone or in smaller subgroups. It seems likely that because of this relatively dispersed way of life, female chimpanzees fail to gain confidence in each other’s support against males.

The ability of gorillas to specialize in eating these herbaceous foods, and their willingness to do so once fruits are scarce, appear to create a problem for chimpanzees. Every morning chimpanzees eat newly ripened fruits as their first main meal within a few minutes of leaving their night beds. They continue eating fruit until ripe fruits become too scarce to be found easily, which might be around midday. Then they resort to finding a patch of leaves or stems to eat. But if gorillas have been there first, the herbaceous food patch will be inadequate for the chimpanzees.

Bonobos, in contrast, without feeding competition from gorillas, have free rein to eat all of the ape foods that flourish in the environment. No other animal in the habitat of bonobos offers serious competition for eating these choice herbs, so bonobos can take the best of them. And that makes all the difference. An ape that can rely on cropping the herbaceous meadows can travel in relatively stable subgroups, slowly working their way from plant to plant. That is what gorillas do. The bonobos’ daily access to “gorilla foods” appears responsible for subgroups’ relative stability (as is also the case with gorillas) when compared with the shifting and smaller subgroups of chimpanzees.

Females greatly extended their periods of sexual receptivity,

The males became much less sure of when to compete with each other, so intimidation of females no longer paid off as it does for male chimpanzees. As selection increasingly favored the less aggressive males as mates, the self-domestication syndrome emerged. Homosexual behavior emerged spontaneously and was then woven into the bonobo social system as a means to strengthen bonds and reduce tensions.

The Island Rule applies not just to size, but also to many aspects of species’ growth and reproduction. Island animals tend to have delayed sexual maturity, to have fewer offspring in their litters, to live a longer time, and to have reduced sexual dimorphism—in other words, males are physically more similar to females than on the continent.

Island animals tend to be less reactively aggressive than their ancestral kin. Lizards, birds, and mammals all show the trend. Some animals abandon any efforts to defend territories, even though the continental relatives are fully territorial.

The reduction in reactive aggression is explained by an island’s being too small to hold a full complement of predators, which means that the risk of being killed is less than on the continent. As a result, animals survive longer on islands and live at higher population densities. Island populations are therefore relatively crowded, which means that being too aggressive can be overly exhausting. For example, defending a territory may not be an effective strategy when, as soon as the territory holder has chased one invader out, three more appear. If aggression does not pay, it is better not to waste time and energy and incur high risks by fighting. Under these conditions selection favors the less aggressive.

Select against reactive aggression, and the domestication syndrome emerges.

Helen Leach has already identified humans as having a domestication syndrome, based on our skull and skeleton. According to Belyaev’s rule, the implication is clear. In the course of evolution, humans experienced selection against reactive aggression. The fossil record becomes highly instructive, because a domestication syndrome is indicated as having been present during just one phase and species of the genus Homo. That phase is the last 300,000 years, and the species is Homo sapiens. To greatly simplify a rich and complex story: two kinds of Homo dominated our evolution for at least the last 250,000 years.

Neanderthals and their ancestors were all members of the archaic type of Homo, whereas the last species to emerge from Africa was the less hefty, more gracile form, Homo sapiens.

To be unambiguously Homo sapiens, skulls must be markedly round (globular) in profile with a clearly flexed base, and have such a small face that it is tucked mostly under the cranium. The earliest examples with these features come from the Omo River in Southern Ethiopia, dated to 195,000 years ago.

Based on genetic differences among living peoples, the ancestors that gave rise to everyone alive today are estimated to have lived between 350,000 and 260,000 years ago.

The people are heavily muscled, both men and women, more like wrestlers than runners. Their faces are strikingly broad and strong, particularly those of the males. Heads are somewhat slanted, sloping forward from the peak down to a great big brow ridge, and lacking a prominent forehead. That brow ridge is wide and thick, giving a daunting look to the eyes. Large mouths surmount a heavy, chinless jaw.

Fossils from elsewhere in Africa show that, sometime after 200,000 years ago, there were further reductions in the size of the face and brow ridge. Sex differences also diminished, as male faces became more feminine. Much later, during the Upper Paleolithic from 40,000 years ago onwards, the whole body also became lighter, to judge by a reduction in the diameter of the femur (the thighbone). The limbs became less robust in a further way too: they were less bony.

In the last 35,000 years, sex differences in height and tooth size have likewise been reduced. In all these ways, modern Homo sapiens is a less forcefully male species than our ancestors were 300,000 years ago. Our ancestors became feminized.

For the greater part of Homo sapiens’s existence, brains did not reduce in size. Instead, they grew larger. There are not enough preserved skulls from the Middle Pleistocene to be sure how big the brains of the earliest Homo sapiens were, but by 300,000 years ago they were probably about 1,200–1,300 cc, a little less than the average of about 1,330 cc in living people. For the next quarter of a million years the brains of Homo sapiens continued to increase in size, up to an average of a little more than 1,500 cc.13 Meanwhile, as the brains of Homo sapiens were slightly increasing in size, their shapes changed also. By 200,000 years ago their skulls had become increasingly round, or globular.

While the continuing increase in brain size during the Middle and Late Pleistocene shows that humans did not completely conform to the domestication syndrome, in one respect the brain growth in Homo sapiens does echo a pattern found in dogs.  By the time that Homo sapiens skulls stop growing, their shape resembles the shape of a Neanderthal skull that is in its penultimate phase of growth. Essentially, Neanderthal skulls (and by inference, their brains) continued to grow beyond the final point reached by Homo sapiens.  Some scientists regard the brain reduction as a further instance of the domestication syndrome. The drop in brain size is remarkable considering that for the last 2 million years the lineages leading to Homo sapiens have experienced a steady increase in brain size.

If self-domestication was indeed responsible for the changes associated with the origin of Homo sapiens, then the selection pressures that caused it must already have started before 315,000 years ago. The process appears to have accelerated over time, suggesting that the selection pressure against reactive aggression became increasingly strong since then and up to the present time.  How long before 315,000 years ago is a matter of conjecture. The self-domestication process could have begun, very slowly, around 400,000 years ago.  Or 500,000 to 600,000 years ago.

Neanderthals show no evidence of reduction in aggressive anatomy or a domestication syndrome. Their skulls and faces remained robust in Europe and Asia.

A key unresolved question is: What were the selection pressures that favored the evolution of modern humans in Africa around 200,000 years ago?

The main adaptation of Homo sapiens as our ability to accumulate cultural adaptations. We cannot live without the cultural knowledge that enables each new generation to re-create its society’s way of life. Naïve animals dropped into a new environment can often work out for themselves how to find food and survive. By contrast, humans mostly have to learn from others how to make a living by digging for edible food, cooking, fashioning tools, building houses, making boats, irrigating farmland, taming horses, making clothes, and so on. Without the learned skills passed down to us by previous generations, we are in trouble. With them, we dominate the planet.  Three features of Homo sapiens enabled us to accumulate those kinds of cultural skill: we are highly intelligent, we are highly cooperative, and we excel at learning from others—so-called social learning.

And it may have resulted from a crucial advance in food production. One population, which might have lived on the southern African coast, developed an ability to gather and hunt so well that their food resources became far more productive. The population naturally grew to the point where there was competition over the food supply, and soon groups were fighting over the best territories. Success in war became imperative. Groups accordingly allied with one another, giving rise to large societies of the type that hunter-gatherers form today. Cooperation among warriors within groups was so vital for winning conflicts that it evolved to become the basis of humans’ exceptional propensity for mutual aid. Sociality became more complex, learning became more vital, and culture became richer.

This theory identifies success in war as a plausible explanation for Homo sapiens’s outcompeting other species of Homo. It stresses that the process of producing Homo sapiens was not a single momentous event but rather a continual development, which fits the fact that our species has never stopped evolving, culturally or biologically. The paleontological evidence of brain size and cultural flourishing points are widely accepted, and the hypothesis that intergroup competition and warfare promoted sociality are constructively tied together

Two important problems concerning the evolution of Homo sapiens are not addressed—or any other theory of our origins, for that matter. First, none of the alternative theories accounts for the self-domestication syndrome evident in Homo sapiens. The importance of cooperation is an important ability, but ignores the fact that cooperation depends on a very low propensity for reactive aggression. Blumenbach, Darwin, and many subsequent thinkers would surely have seen this as a critical omission.

Given how much less emotionally reactive humans are than chimpanzees, bonobos, or most group-living primates, a low propensity for reactive aggression cannot be taken for granted in our Mid-Pleistocene ancestors. Reduced reactive aggression must feature alongside intelligence, cooperation, and social learning as a key contributor to the emergence and success of our species.

Docility should be considered as foundational of humankind, not just because it is unusual, but because it seems likely to be a vital precondition for advanced cooperation and social learning. The importance of tolerance can be seen in that wild, chimpanzees cooperate in territorial patrols and alliances against others, but in captivity, they often show little interest in working together. Among captive chimpanzees, the less reactivity within a pair, the greater their ability to work together.

A study of spotted hyenas focused specifically on aggression and showed that cooperation was better in pairs that were not merely more tolerant but also less aggressive. Similar links between tolerance and cooperation have been seen in a number of mammals and birds, including macaques, marmosets, ravens, and keas (a terrestrial parrot species).  Considerable evidence supports the idea that the evolution of cooperation depends on tolerance.

Another factor is that cooking may have led to decreased jaw and tooth size. But those one-by-one ideas do not solve the problem totally. Why are the characteristic features of Homo sapiens congruent with the domestication syndrome found in animals? Perhaps the reason that human features are described by the domestication syndrome is simple: humans are a domesticated species.

Selection against aggressiveness and in favor of greater docility came from execution of the most antisocial individuals.

In Darwin’s 1871 discussion of human evolution, The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex, he sketched a simple version of the execution hypothesis as a way to explain the evolution of two important features—reduced aggressiveness and increased social tolerance—that nowadays we regard as central to domestication. The reason Darwin wanted to explain how aggressive tendencies had been reduced, was that he considered the evolutionary reduction of aggressiveness to be a problem of morality and was anxious to provide an evolutionary explanation for positive moral behavior.  The idea that morality was God-given posed a challenge to Darwin’s evolutionary theory, because Darwin proposed that all of life’s features had evolved without the intervention of a deity. If evolutionary theory was to be as complete as Darwin hoped, he had to explain morality without invoking the influence of religious beings.

Darwin had an answer to his question about the fate of exceptionally aggressive men. “In regard to moral qualities,” he wrote, “some elimination of the worst dispositions is always progress even in the most civilized nations. Malefactors are executed, or imprisoned for long periods, so that they cannot freely transmit their bad qualities….Violent and quarrelsome men often come to a bloody end.”

Nowadays, he was saying, criminals and aggressive wrongdoers are punished by the law. If “they cannot freely transmit their bad qualities,” their traits are less likely to be inherited by the next generation. If comparable kinds of punishment had been applicable throughout human evolution, genes promoting aggressive behavior would have been steadily selected against. Generation by generation, less aggressive, more positively moral behavior would tend to spread.

Punishment of criminals in Darwin’s time, the Victorian era of nineteenth-century Britain, was made possible by features of contemporary society not found among nomadic hunter-gatherers. Police, written laws, trials, and prisons all contributed to sanctioning the violent. Until recently, our ancestors had none of these institutions. But Darwin recognized that even if prehistoric human societies were different from today, they might still have found ways to deal harshly with “violent and quarrelsome men.” If exceptionally aggressive men were always routinely punished in ways that reduced their reproductive success, there would have been eons of prehistory in which the culling of violent men could lead to evolutionary change. Darwin’s conclusion was forthright. The morality problem could be solved by an ancient system of execution leading to the eradication of selfishly immoral individuals, which would lead to selection against selfish tendencies and in favor of social tolerance. Through this kind of natural selection, he wrote, “the fundamental social instincts were originally thus gained.

Selection favored moral behavior thanks to the “bloody end” of “violent and quarrelsome men.  The parochial altruism hypothesis for the evolution of cooperation appeared in The Descent of Man alongside his execution hypothesis. It was based on the benefits of cooperation rather than the costs of aggression. Although a high standard of morality gives but a slight or no advantage to each individual man and his children over the other men of the same tribe, yet that an advancement in the standard of morality and an increase in the number of well-endowed men will certainly give an immense advantage to one tribe over another. There can be no doubt that a tribe including many members who, from possessing in a high degree the spirit of patriotism, fidelity, obedience, courage and sympathy, were always ready to give aid to each another and to sacrifice themselves for the common good, would be victorious over most other tribes….At all times throughout the world tribes have supplanted other tribes; and as morality is one element in their success, the standard of morality and the number of well-endowed men will thus everywhere tend to rise and increase.

This type of explanation—that ingroup solidarity fosters success in between-group competition—continues to attract scholars up to the present day.

International solidarity is often imagined as our earthly response to the arrival of space aliens. In fiction and reality, war can promote cooperation within groups.  In intergroup conflicts chimpanzees have very similar rates of death as in hunter-gatherer war.  Theoretical problems aside, a fundamental issue regarding parochial altruism is that it has not been shown to occur among human hunter-gatherers.

Hunter-gatherers in face-to-face battles tended to stop fighting after the first injuries. Until evidence is produced that hunter-gatherers exhibit risky self-sacrifice in war, parochial altruism should be regarded as a culturally induced behavior rather than an evolutionary product of selection. Japanese kamikaze pilots who flew their planes into enemy ships during World War II, or Islamist suicide bombers, responded to intense cultural pressures more than innate inclinations.

Darwin also decided that the effects of war for promoting solidarity within groups is cultural. The social instincts could not have evolved as a result of intergroup fighting, he said, because, even within the most cooperative and morally virtuous tribes, some people would be more selfish than others; and the more selfish people would have more babies than the moral. “He who was ready to sacrifice his life…would often leave no offspring to inherit his noble nature….Therefore it seems scarcely possible…that the number of men gifted with such virtues, or that the standard of their excellence, could be increased through natural selection, that is, by the survival of the fittest.” Parochial altruism, or self-sacrifice in war, might be explicable in specific societies by their military cultures or promotion of risk-taking ideals, but not by evolution.

The theory has been important, because it has dominated efforts to explain the exceptionally positive aspects of human sociality. The focus on self-sacrifice distracted from the question of why humans are so docile and eclipsed Darwin’s speculation about the “bloody end” of “violent and quarrelsome men.” For a century, the question of reduced aggression was forgotten, and the execution hypothesis ignored.

Explaining humans’ extremely high cooperative tendencies has garnered more attention than explaining our strikingly low reactive aggression.

At some unknown point in our evolution, language skills developed to the point where gossip became possible. Once that happened, reputations would become important. Being known as a helpful individual would be expected to have a big effect on someone’s success in life. Good behavior would be rewarded. Virtue would become adaptive.

Chimpanzees can demonstrate negative feelings toward others, but they cannot explain why they feel that way. They cannot gossip about the guy who bit a rival, or slapped a female, or stole some food, or whether a particular chimpanzee is trustworthy, generous, or kind. Their communication skills are simply inadequate. Obviously, this implies that chimpanzees would not care about their reputation.

In a setup where a chimpanzee could steal food from another chimpanzee, at times a potential thief was watched by a third individual. If being observed matters to chimpanzees, they should be less likely to steal when a third individual is watching. As expected, the presence of a third individual made no difference. The same was true when the experiment was about helping rather than stealing. Chimpanzees behaved selfishly or helpfully according to their own proclivities, and did not modify their behavior according to whether they were observed. Reputation did not appear to matter.

Individuals choose whom to interact with, depending on how they have been treated in the past. Good cooperators tend to be favored. Bad cooperators tend to be shunned. The same is true in many species. So the absence of concern about reputations among chimpanzees does not stem from any lack of individual differences, nor from an inability to evaluate others. Chimpanzees know that partners vary in quality, but they have to use that information on their own. They cannot talk about it.

Unlike the chimpanzees, for preschoolers the presence of an observer mattered. When they were being watched, they stole less and helped more.  So the social pressures wrought by the effects of a good or bad reputation may underlie the evolution of morality. In the short term, individuals with bad reputations might mend their ways and become conforming members of society. But over the long term, the effects of a bad reputation would have genetic evolutionary consequences. Individuals who were too feisty, short-tempered, or selfish ever to adapt successfully to the criticisms of their peers would have poor chances of surviving and reproducing well.  Selection would thereby have favored the kind, cooperative, tolerant types: the morally positive ones, less aggressive than their ancestors. Our ancestors would have evolved to be a nicer species. Language begat reputation, and reputation begat morality.

We can probably all remember bullies from our school years who were so powerful that they did not care what some of the less well-connected children thought of them. They were big and bold, and if others resented them, so what? The bullies got what they wanted without the approval of the mutterers. They were not stopped simply by gossip. They had to be stopped by someone fighting back, or by adults who whisked them off to detention. Translate those types into the past and we are faced with a vital question unsolved by the reputation hypothesis. Why would a bad reputation matter to a male who was bold and strong enough to take matters into his own violent hands? How would his bad reputation have inhibited him if, like an alpha chimpanzee, he did not care what others thought?

A female might have preferred a kinder, gentler male as a mate. But how was she to stop a domineering male from coercing her? More tolerant men might provide more meat. But what would prevent a powerful individual who was willing to throw his weight around from refusing to be denied, aggressively seizing more than his share? Tyrants who did not care about their reputations could bully their way to getting more than others—whether more food, more matings, the best sleeping-spot, or more social support. That is what happens among chimpanzees.

Even among today’s men (but not women), since 2008 facial breadth has been discovered to be correlated with a propensity for reactive aggression. The time when male faces become relatively broad compared with female faces is in puberty, apparently under the influence of testosterone. In professional hockey games the number of minutes spent in the penalty box tends to be greater for broader-faced men than for men with narrower faces. In general, among European whites, wider-faced men have been found to have a higher propensity not only for aggression and retaliation but also for more self-centered and deceptive behavior, less cooperative negotiation, a higher score on the psychopathic trait “fearless dominance,” and a higher score for self-centered impulsivity.

Subjects who are unaware of these findings tend to treat broader-faced men warily, as if recognizing that a relatively broad face is a signal of aggression. This unconscious sensitivity to a man’s facial breadth suggests that during human evolution, broader-faced men would have demonstrated more socially undesirable behavior, and that our broad-faced Pleistocene male ancestors would have been relatively impulsive, fearless, uncooperative partners who were swift to act aggressively in defense of their selfish needs.

The difficulty with the reputation hypothesis is that it does not explain why such tendencies would have been reduced. Physical aggressors could have succeeded in bullying their way to the top.  The same challenge faces all ideas for explaining the evolution of human goodness that do not address the control of aggression.

The only proposal sufficient to explain how our ancestors overcame the problem of determined bullies, which was surely a vital first step to the elaboration of cooperative behavior, is the elaboration of Darwin’s idea that “violent and quarrelsome men” came to a “bloody end.” The execution hypothesis claims that, during the Pleistocene, a new kind of ability crystallized. For the first time, coalitions of males became effective at deliberately killing any member of their social group who was prepared to use violence on his own behalf and simply did not care what others thought about him. In the end, execution was the only way to stop such a male from being a tyrant.

In the 17th century, hundreds of felonies in America had been capital crimes. In New England, you could have been executed for witchcraft, idolatry, blasphemy, rape, adultery, bestiality, sodomy, and, in New Haven, masturbation. You could be put to death for being “a child of 16 or older who was a ‘stubborn’ or ‘rebellious’ son, or who ‘smote’ or ‘cursed’ a parent.” These penalties were far from theoretical. From 1622 to 1692, Essex and Suffolk Counties of Massachusetts recorded the executions of 11 murderers, 23 witches, 6 pirates, 4 rapists, four Quakers, two adulterers, two arsonists, and two each charged with bestiality and treason.

The principle of execution was popular. It was not unusual for criminals to be hunted down by citizens, tried, convicted, sentenced, and executed in less time than the four days that were supposed to elapse after the pronouncement of a death penalty.  Spontaneous mob killings reflected the community’s enthusiasm for savage justice. Fischer describes how women in Marblehead whose husbands had been taken by Indians “seized two Indian captives and literally tore them limb from limb.

From the first recorded capital sentence in America in 1622 (for theft) to 1900, there were perhaps 11 to 13,000 legally determined executions; mob violence or lynchings were thought to have killed an additional 10,000 during the same period. Occasional lynchings and unofficial executions still bedevil the powerless.  It was not until the late 18th century that capital punishment started to fall in popularity. Before then, if you challenged the rules, you risked death. The counterpoint was impressive. Trouble was rare. Home owners could sleep with their doors open. They did not have to lock up their valuables. As long as you followed the rules, New England was a place of peace.

Executions and the reasons for them have been described in every society with written records. Capital punishment was present in all the earliest civilizations, from Egyptian, Babylonian, Assyrian, Persian, Greek, and Roman to Indian, Chinese, Inca, and Aztec. It happened not only for violent crimes but also for nonconformism (as in Socrates’s case), for minor felonies, and even some heartbreakingly trivial matters such as malpractice in selling beer (according to the Code of Hammurabi), or stealing the keys to one’s husband’s wine cellar (according to the laws of the early Roman Republic). Executions were an accepted part of life, often drawing great public crowds to watch spectacles of unequivocal cruelty. They continued in all historically known societies until the 1764 publication of On Crimes and Punishment, by the Italian jurist Cesare Beccaria. Beccaria’s arguments against the death penalty helped launch the change that continues today in community attitudes toward capital punishment. Prisons then increasingly took over the responsibility for social control.

So you can see how dangerous the social dynamics of a small anarchic group can be.  To most people growing up in comfortable state societies, the idea that a group of closely connected people who know one another well can agree to kill one of their own is disturbingly strange. Yet, during times of crisis, the same practice has sprung up in the richest nations. It happened in the Second World War concentration camps, where prisoners were desperate for food. Food sharing was common despite the suffering, a mark of humanity in dark times. But stealing was common, too, and it was reviled. Prisoners worked out how to stop it. Rudolf Vrba wrote about the “bread law” in Auschwitz: “If a man stole your food, you killed him.” The bread law sustained the community of sufferers. “If hunger so demoralized a man that he stole another’s bread, no one reported him to the SS or even to the Block Leader. The room attendants themselves took care of him….If he did not die of the beating, they so incapacitated him that he was fit only for the crematorium.”

The purposes of capital punishment are in some ways different in state and small-scale societies. In state societies, capital punishment has often served to remove individuals who challenge the leader. In keeping with those aims, states often execute ostentatiously in public, especially during the early years of a state’s existence, when power structures are still unstable. Kim Jong Un, the North Korean president, inherited his position from his father in 2011. In the first four years of his reign, he reportedly executed at least 70 of his subjects, including his vice-premier, his minister of defense, and others.

The ironic and disturbing conclusion is that egalitarianism, a system that appeals because of its lack of domineering behavior, is made possible by the most domineering behavior in the human arsenal. To understand what it means to be egalitarian, consider the structure of hunter-gatherer society. A typical society averages close to a thousand people, sharing the same unique language (or dialect) and cultural practices, such as the rituals that they practice at funeral ceremonies. Societies are too large for everyone to live together, because the environment does not afford enough resources to support hundreds of people in a small area. People typically live in bands averaging fewer than 50 people. Each band occupies its own subregion within the society’s territory and tends to stay in one place for a few weeks at a time. When foraging becomes too arduous because nearby resources are exhausted, the band moves on, normally reoccupying a previous campsite.

The egalitarianism that is such a special feature of relationships among hunter-gatherer men is centered on the five to ten married men within a band. Those few husbands are the “elders,” or “cousins”. The elders behave like a boardroom without a chairman. Everyone has a voice, but they all show considerable reluctance to use it. Men are so averse to grandiosity that self-deprecation is a highly regarded part of public behavior. It was important to show shame and embarrassment because they demonstrate to others that one does not have a conceited view of oneself.

Men and women were not equal in hunter-gatherer societies

Equality among the Ju/’hoansi has been claimed to apply to all adults, but if a woman is beaten by a man, his punishment is minimal at most. Tanzania’s Hadza hunter-gatherers are said to be egalitarian, but if a hot area has few shade trees, the men get the shade while the women sit in the sun. Still, even if some individuals’ voices hold little sway, there is no such thing as a group leader who can demand obedience.

Most group-living primates, by contrast to humans, have a clear dominance hierarchy enforced by brute fighting ability. To the extent that there is leadership in hunter-gatherer bands, such as in taking initiative for group decisions, prestige is the important criterion. People compete for influence mostly by producing good arguments, creating good plans, being the best mediators, telling the best stories, or seeing the future most convincingly. A person who is skilled in these ways might be recognized as a leader or headman, but that role would be earned by his or her being wise and persuasive rather than assertive, pushy, or a good wrestler. Although leaders can be admired and respected, they cannot enforce their ideas, nor can they use their position to take anything from other members of the band. An inability to dictate to others means that, among mobile hunter-gatherers, there is no alpha position.

Hadza men recognize the hazard of being shot when asleep in camp at night or being ambushed when out hunting alone in the bush. The absence of alphas among nomadic hunter-gatherers was caused by killing: The means to kill secretly anyone perceived as a threat…acts directly as a powerful leveling mechanism. Inequalities of wealth, power and prestige…can be dangerous for holders where means of effective protection are lacking.  A potential bully always seems to be waiting in the wings. For all their famous egalitarianism, hunter-gatherer men can be unpleasantly competitive.

The anthropologist Richard Lee described his own experience of being humbled.  He surprised the tribe with a magnificent ox.  Their response to the splendid gift of meat shocked Lee. The men were insulting. They said the ox had no meat on it. They called it a bag of bones. They said the ox was so thin they would have to eat the horns. Eventually, an elder called Tomazo explained what was going on: the gift had made Lee look arrogant. “When a young man kills much meat,” said Tomazo, “he comes to think of himself as a chief or a big man, and he thinks of the rest of us as his servants or inferiors. We can’t accept this. We refuse one who boasts, for someday his pride will make him kill somebody. So we always speak of his meat as worthless. This way we cool his heart and make him gentle.”

If an offender did not respond to subtle disapproval, his or her resistance was clearly deliberate. The protests then became more obvious. Shaming, ridicule, and cutting references occur. A song of derision might be sung in the offender’s face while he stood before the assembled community. If more drastic measures are needed, shunning or ostracism is often effective because being avoided and excluded is deeply painful to most people living in small groups, and will normally do the trick.

When the anthropologist Jean Briggs was living with a remote Arctic group, the Utku, she made the mistake of losing her temper. Slushy ice had dropped from the roof of the igloo onto her typewriter. She threw a knife into a pile of fish and railed against the endless fish diet. The igloo emptied fast, and over the ensuing weeks, Briggs found herself left alone in her tent, with no one calling on her anymore. She found the experience desperately painful until she finally found a way to explain herself.

One way in which the practice of capital punishment can reduce societal aggressiveness is by encouraging conformity. In the 1960s the rural Bang Chan people of central Thailand, a largely Buddhist population of rice growers, became renowned as one of the world’s most peaceful societies, a place where fighting, domestic violence, and child abuse were virtually unknown. This owes much to parenting and social control. Children and adults are regularly reminded not to be too pushy. In conversations criticism was eight times more frequent than praise. Every culture seems to have learned the trick of taming the next generation through socialization, using social control more than reward. The fear of capital punishment can doubtless contribute to encouraging a spirit of conformity and restraint.

The idea of the execution hypothesis is that during thousands of prehistorical generations, the victims of capital punishment were disproportionately those with a high propensity for reactive aggression. Killing or repression of such individuals is supposed to have happened so often that our species evolved a calmer, less aggressive temperament.

Even though capital punishment has been widespread, the idea that it would have been sufficiently frequent to have evolutionary effects on aggression may seem surprising at first. But considering the length of time, and the number of generations within that period, the rate of evolution for self-domestication appears relatively slow. As we have seen, the process of self-domestication could have begun at least 300,000 years ago. Three hundred thousand years is equivalent to about 12,000 generations; the domestication syndrome apparently intensified in the later times. The number of generations is considerably greater than the number for any mammals to become domesticated, such as the roughly 15,000-year evolution of dogs from wolves.  The average generation time for wolves is between 4 and 5 years, suggesting that dogs have been separated from wolves by fewer than 4,000 generations.

In highland New Guinea, Ray Kelly was documenting witchcraft killings among the Etoro; the victims were typically people known for their “archetypical selfishness and lack of responsiveness to others.” Kelly found that 9% of 55 adult deaths were by execution. Rumor, fear, competition, and ignorance can combine into a surprisingly deadly brew.

Language seems necessary for planned killings of specific individuals. The criticisms and ridicule given in response to an aggressor depend on gossip for their conspiratorial power. When those gentler methods of social control do not work, people start floating the idea of killing the offender. For that, linguistic ability is vital, and considerable skill is needed. In Boehm’s words, “The tactical problem is obvious: whoever speaks up first may be putting his life in danger. The danger may involve a physical attack, or in bands that have shamans it may also incorporate sorcery.

Gossip solves the coordination problem by allowing individuals to test their feelings cautiously and to generate shared plans. Julius Caesar’s more than twenty assassins talked in small secret groups for weeks to gain confidence in one another. After individuals sound one another out sufficiently, a consensus builds to the point where, if the troublemaker does not respond appropriately, he or she can be killed by collaborative decision. Even then it can be dangerous for the initiators.

Neanderthals do not show the signs of self-domestication that Homo sapiens do. Because Neanderthals did not achieve the same degree of cultural complexity as Homo sapiens, and particularly because their symbolic culture was much more limited, most experts think that their linguistic ability was less than ours. There are also some tentative biological indications supporting this claim, such as the temporal lobes of the brain, which are involved in language functions (as well as memory and social behavior), are relatively larger in Homo sapiens than in Neanderthals. The evidence of skull and skeleton, cultural complexity, and brain all suggest that Neanderthals did not have language as we know it.

Linguistic ability improved substantially in the Homo sapiens lineage compared to all other Homo. With that improvement came the ability for individuals within a group to form coalitions that excluded or ostracized a member of the group who had become a domineering aggressor. Those coalitions enabled human selection against excessively aggressive men. The result was continuing change in the direction of a more cranially gracile, paedomorphic, and tolerant species—or self-domestication.  Language was the key feature of Homo sapiens that allowed many tools of social control, from gossip to killing.

But language is not the only feature that has been proposed as the key to unlocking the domestication syndrome. Various scholars have focused on the use of weapons as a way to explain the transition from a primate system of alpha males to a human system of egalitarianism and cooperation. Weapons would have been useful in organizing and launching the move against an alpha male, because thrown rocks or spears could make a proactive attack more overwhelming and easier to carry out safely. Several points seem to me to undermine the importance of weapons, however, compared with the development of language. Weapons are not needed for capital punishment. Animals such as wolves, lions, and chimpanzees kill using collaboration, not weapons. Humans can also kill without weapons. In his worldwide survey of small-scale human societies, Otterbein admittedly found that stoning, spearing, and shooting were frequent execution techniques, but also noted hanging, burning, drowning, beating, throwing off a precipice, enforcing suicide by requiring a guilty party to jump off a tall tree, and (for rape) forcing a briar into the penis.

Another method was to give the victim to a vengeance party from a hostile neighboring group and let them deal with the problem, as happened in Australia. One day, a group of them encouraged the bully to climb high into a tree to extract honey. Unsuspecting, he laid down his weapons before climbing up. His assassins were now safe: they gathered the victim’s weapons and merely had to wait for him to come down before easily killing him. The importance of ensuring that the victim is helpless at the time of the attack dramatizes the importance of attackers’ sharing their intentions with one another—making plans by using language.

The vital human novelty that propelled the origin of a new kind of political system was plotting. The ability to plot together, rather than the ability to make weapons, surely determined when the change occurred in the balance of power between the classic alpha-male type and the new coalition of subordinates. The ability to plot together is an example of what psychologist Michael Tomasello calls “shared intentionality,” defined as “collaborative interactions in which participants share psychological states with one another.” Humans excel at shared intentionality, which emerges in children at about the age of one year, whereas chimpanzees show barely any evidence for it. Tomasello considers that the uniquely human development of shared intentionality explains why humans can do many special human things, from using math and building skyscrapers to playing symphonies and forming governments. If the hypothesis that selection against reactive aggression led to the domestication syndrome is correct, however, none of those human abilities was as special as the one that enabled conspirators to trust one another sufficiently to collaborate to kill a bully. That ability could both have domesticated us and made possible many kinds of human cooperation.

Even if reasons for the origins of language remain mysterious, the magnitude of its impact points to the origin of Homo sapiens as the time when linguistic ability took a major step forward.  The development of increasingly skilled language thus provides the best basis for the ultimate explanation of human domestication.

To explain anatomical changes in the evolution of Homo sapiens, conventional scholarly wisdom presents an idea different from self-domestication. Paleoanthropologists have traditionally interpreted the special anatomical features of Homo sapiens as a series of parallel adaptations, rather than as incidental by-products. To explain the lighter build, shorter faces, and feminization of our lineage, they have invoked forces such as changed climate, better diets, or increasing sophistication in tool use. Those proposals are very reasonable if one assumes, as scientists often do, that biological features always evolve by the direct action of natural selection.

If our docility was an incidental by-product rather than an adaptation, it might have evolved without ever being positively selected. The evolutionary anthropologist Brian Hare raised this possibility based on the finding that species with larger brains are especially good at inhibiting their responses. Lower reactive aggression would thus be a by-product of a more general tendency toward lower emotional reactivity.

Looking across 36 species, what feature is associated with success at inhibiting initial reactions? The MacLean-Hare team found that the probability of success varied systematically with brain size. Species with bigger brains did better. The reason that brain size leads to better inhibition, or self-control, is most likely that bigger brains contain more cortical neurons. The cortex is the source of willpower and voluntary control over emotions. In species with bigger brains, a higher proportion of the brain is cortex, and more cortex means more neurons. Humans have more neurons in the cortex than any other species, about 16 billion. The great apes and elephants follow, with a mere 6 billion or so. More neurons in the cortex—especially the prefrontal cortex, at the front of the brain—allow an animal to inhibit its emotional reactions better.

The inhibition experiment raises the possibility that our low propensity for reactive aggression results from our large neural networks, which enable us to think before we act. But in practice, this explanation seems unlikely to contribute very significantly to our low aggressiveness, because our emotional responses tend to be too quick to be controlled completely by the cortex. Still, the idea offers a second alternative theory for Pleistocene self-domestication.

Domestication leads to changes in the age at which fear responses become stronger, in playfulness, in sexual behavior, in the speed and effectiveness of learning, and in the ability to understand human signals there are also physiological changes in the production of hormones and neurotransmitters, and in the size of the brain and its component regions.

Dog breed-specific features have evolved by various different mechanisms. They are not consistently paedomorphic (child-like). Selective breeding has pulled dog crania in all sorts of different directions.

But in addition to breed-specific features, some uniform species-wide aspects are found in the skulls of all dogs regardless of breed. These features of the shapes of dog skulls are what make a dog a dog.

In every mammal, juveniles tend to be friendly. Compared with adults, they are strikingly unafraid and inquisitive. That is why petting zoos, where children can meet animals close up, use animals that are not merely domesticated but also juvenile. The evolutionary reason for juveniles’ friendliness is that they must learn whom to trust when they are older and on their own. Youth is the perfect time for them to learn, because their mothers protect them from the wrong kind of social interaction. As long as they are helpless wards of the mother, the juveniles can trust her judgment and do not need to be fearful. They can let their guard down and be open to developing trusting relationships.

But in any mammal’s life, there is a predictable change as it grows older, more mobile, and less likely to be protected by its mother. It becomes more easily frightened and then, as a response, more aggressive. At an age that varies across species, a fear response kicks in.

Unselected silver foxes become fearful at about 45 days old (six and a half weeks). From that time onward, the fox puppies show fear and aggression toward unfamiliar individuals, whether other foxes or humans. Their socialization window, as it is called, has closed. The bonds they have formed up to that time can last a lifetime, but youthful innocence has gone. Henceforward, they will find it hard to trust unfamiliar individuals. After the socialization window closes, even dogs can be difficult to train. The socialization window closes later in dog puppies, 8 to 12 weeks, than in wolf puppies (six weeks).

The development of the fear response is likewise less acute in dogs than in wolves. At the end of the socialization window, fear crystallizes sharply in wolves, whereas in dog puppies fear of new individuals rises more slowly and is only fully expressed by around three months.

Some genes that are functional in the prefrontal cortex are identical in chimpanzees and humans, but the time when these genes actively make proteins and other products (in other words, the time when the genes are expressed) is several years later in humans than in chimpanzees. The largest differences are found in genes that help form junctions between nerve cells, called synapses. In chimpanzees, the peak expression of these synapse-forming genes occur when the youngster is less than one year old. In humans, by contrast, peak expression is extended to five years old. Human brain development is thus greatly delayed.

Nerve myelination is similarly delayed in humans. Myelination is a process that makes nerve impulses travel faster by coating neurons in a protective layer of fatty myelin (and thereby making them into the familiar “white matter” of the brain). The downside of myelination is that myelinated neurons lose their ability to grow and form new synaptic connections. In chimpanzees, myelination ends at around 10 years of age, whereas in humans it continues until individuals are as much as 30 years old.

The skulls of Neanderthals and Homo sapiens change in parallel as they grow, but Neanderthal skulls continue to grow after reaching the equivalent of the end-stage for Homo sapiens. In that final period, which occurs in Neanderthals but not in Homo sapiens, Neanderthal faces grow bigger compared with their braincases. Neanderthal skulls are not identical to those of the less well-known Mid-Pleistocene Homo, which spawned our lineage, but they are sufficiently similar to offer a helpful model of our ancestor.

Developmental delays have been found in the behavior of many domesticated animals compared with their wild ancestors, including in social relations, play, learning, sexual activity, and vocalization. Weaning (at around two or three years) is two to three years earlier in hunter-gatherers than in apes, but after weaning, children continue to rely on food supplied by their parents for longer than is seen in any other animal. Humans are strikingly playful as young adults, and even later in life. Humans, of course, are the ultimate learners, both as children and as adults. Human sexual behavior is frequent and prolonged, and strikingly emancipated from its purely reproductive function. Language makes Homo sapiens a complete outlier with regard to the elaboration of communication.

Neanderthal material culture is now known to resemble that of Homo sapiens closely. Neanderthals apparently lived much like recent mobile hunter-gatherers. They controlled fire, cooked their meals of hunted meat, and gathered plant foods or shellfish. Their prey ranged from doves to woolly rhinoceroses. They had cozy home bases, where they slept on furs and likely treated themselves with medicinal herbs. They had status markers such as bird-wing cloaks, they sometimes buried their dead, and they used deep caves for activities presumed to be rituals. After 300,000 years ago they used the sophisticated Levallois method for making stone tools. They could make fine blades, pigments, ornamental beads, and engraved artwork. As early as 200,000 years ago, they synthesized pitch from birch bark “through a multi-step process that relied on strict control of temperature and required a dry distillation excluding oxygen. Neanderthals expressed their creativity at a lower rate than Homo sapiens. Fewer than ten ornamental beads worked by Neanderthals have been found from 200,000 years of rich archaeology, compared with thousands wrought by Homo sapiens before and after their swift takeover in Europe. Similar comparisons apply to stone blades, stylized figurines, ritualized burials, and engraved symbols. There were also some abilities that Neanderthals appeared not to have had at all. They seem to have lacked facilities for the long-term storage of food. There is no evidence that they built sleds, despite living through harsh winters. Nor do they appear to have produced or used boats. Homo sapiens colonized Australia about 60,000 years ago, in a journey that requires multiple legs of sea travel, so they clearly negotiated water crossings somehow. Homo sapiens in South Africa made bows and arrows (evidenced by arrowheads), spear-throwers, and fine bone points by 71,000 years ago, but none of these important tools have yet been proved for Neanderthals. Although Neanderthals used fire, they did not use it to make better stone tools, as South African Homo sapiens did, or to heat water by using hot rocks.

Based on the idea that Homo sapiens self-domesticated and Neanderthals did not, Homo sapiens may have been better at cooperating. Evidence of regular inbreeding in Neanderthals points to their social networks’ being small. The genome of a Neanderthal woman from Siberia showed that her parents were close relatives, such as half-siblings or an uncle and niece, and that similarly inbred matings had occurred regularly among her recent ancestors. In small-scale societies of humans, groups break up into smaller units when social tensions erupt. Groups so small that matings were often inbred could have resulted from a tendency among Neanderthals to react to one another overly quickly with aggression, and consequently breaking up into ever-smaller groups.  Some have argued that Neanderthals differed from Homo sapiens in the construction of items that required coordinated labor. The more elaborate the cultural skill, the more cooperation is needed. Thus the reason for the poorer manifestation of Neanderthal culture was that they were less adept socially, rather than intellectually.

Differences between Homo sapiens and Neanderthals may have been due more to emotion than to intellect.

Group benefits are not the only reason that morality might have evolved. Even when moral behavior leads to group benefits at an apparent expense to the individual, the individual’s behavior might actually serve his or her own selfish ends. There are various forms of this idea. A benign version is that group-directed moral responses lead to the individual’s being able to form useful alliances for cooperation, as the philosopher Nicolas Baumard and others propose. A darker form is that morality is all about self-protection. I have suggested that capital punishment emerged with language in the Mid-Pleistocene. Afterward, an individual who challenged the dominant culture could be in mortal danger. Sensitivity to social disapproval would have been favored as never before. As a result, individuals might behave in morally correct ways in order to promote their own survival. Group benefits would then be incidental.

The evolution of human morality was largely a response to the same power plays that self-domesticated us: we evolved to fear the killing power of the men in the group. The idea explains why group-directed moral emotions have been elaborated far more strongly in humans than in any other species.

Evolutionary theorists from Charles Darwin onward have commonly treated morality as being concerned only with altruism and fairness. However, being moral can include not only acts of kindness but also deeds of conformity and violence. Being morally good might mean restraining yourself. You can be good, according to some societies’ moral prescriptions, if you refrain from various individual activities that are deemed “wrong,” such as committing suicide, masturbating, or burning your national flag.

Why have we evolved to be nicer to one another than other mammals are?  What selective pressures caused our emotions to evolve as moral guides? The last is about the interfering aspect of morality. Why did we evolve to monitor not only our own behavior, but others’ behavior, too?

Moral behavior could result entirely from cultural indoctrination. Frans de Waal names this the “Veneer Theory” of morality, the notion that human morality is a purely rule-bound system lying atop a foundation of ancient animal-derived behavior that lacks morality, like a veneer of fine lacquer on a wooden box. The Veneer Theory is a nonstarter, however, because moral actions are produced partly by evolved moral emotions. Untutored children have prosocial inclinations that are not explained by kin selection or mutualism. The developmental psychologist Felix Warneken showed that 18-month-old toddlers will help a random adult who asks for help. The infants will pick up accidentally dropped objects, for instance, or hold a door open to allow the grown-up to put toys away. Significantly, experiments show that these kinds of helpful behavior are not explicable by the infants’ merely trying to interact, or being intimidated, or wanting to be stimulated. They simply want to help, even when it costs them. They will give up their own food to an experimenter when the experimenter’s bowl is empty, or sacrifice their own toys for the sake of others.

People often expect religious believers to act in especially prosocial ways, which they often do, but religiosity is not always a predictor of moral kindness. A study of sharing among 1,170 children in six countries and four continents found a tendency for those brought up in more religious families to be less altruistic than those from nonreligious families.

Since 1982, the Ultimatum Game has provided a standardized context for studying moral choices. The game allows investigators to study people’s choices about sharing a resource with a stranger. Conventional economic theory predicted that decisions would depend on self-interest. However, in worldwide tests in more than 30 countries, from hunter-gatherers to the Harvard Business School, both adults and children are spontaneously and routinely more generous than expected by theories of economic maximization. This result makes humans very different from chimpanzees—and probably any other nonhumans.

Captive chimpanzees behave like the imagined Homo economicus, a species in which individuals always try to maximize their personal economic gains. Decider chimpanzees accept even the smallest rewards offered by Donor chimpanzees; unlike humans, they never reject “unfair” offers. The stark difference draws attention to the uniqueness of the human moral senses.

A popular kind of solution is group selection. Group selection theory suggests that self-sacrifice by an individual can be favored over evolutionary time if it provides sufficiently large benefits to the individual’s group, which normally means a social breeding unit such as a hunter-gatherer band. Very often, however, the group that benefits from an individual’s generosity is not a social breeding unit. As Robert Graves’s recollection of his school days reminds us, the beneficiaries might be only a subgroup of a given social network. In the group as a whole, moral behavior might benefit some individuals at the expense of others.

The second major problem is how we come to classify some actions as “right” and others as “wrong.” Scholars looking for the consistent application of moral rules have traditionally considered two main ideas. They are the “utilitarian” and the “deontological” principles. Both work sometimes, but neither is followed all the time, which means they fail as general explanations.

People do not follow any general moral principle. Instead, moral decisions are influenced by a series of unconscious and unexplained biases. Three are particularly well studied. The “Inaction Bias” pushes us to do nothing rather than something. Suppose you are caring for a terminally ill patient. Most of us would rather deliberately withhold life-prolonging treatment than give the patient a lethal injection. We prefer an act of omission to an act of commission.

Would you prefer to order your bombers to kill civilians so as to break the enemy’s will, or to attack an army base so as to reduce the enemy’s military capacity? Given that the number of civilian deaths is expected to be the same either way, most people would prefer to bomb a military target.

The third major puzzle about our moral psychology is why, as a species, we have evolved to be so sensitive to the abstract notions of right and wrong that we monitor one another’s behavior and even sometimes intervene to punish someone whose behavior we disapprove of.

Chimpanzees kill other females’ babies.  In one situation, a kidnapped baby clung to Passion, who calmly dispatched her by deliberately biting into her skull. While Gilka watched, Passion, Pom, and Prof all cannibalized the victim. The proactive attack proved part of a pattern. Over the next three years, Passion and Pom killed at least three more very young infants and possibly as many as six. Other females have since been observed carrying out similar attacks. Eerily, the killers and their victims had often relaxed together with no hint of animosity, apparently unconcerned about any possibility of violence. Tiny babies are vulnerable, however. A particularly helpless infant in the arms of a competitor appears to stir something dark in the mind of a female chimpanzee. In Goodall’s words, it is as if a switch is thrown. Out of nowhere, a familiar companion turns into an enemy, without any seeming provocation. The grisly behavior does more than provide meat. The mothers whose infants Passion and Pom killed had spent much of their time in the same area as their tormentors, competing for access to the choicest fruit trees. Fear of lethal attack would likely keep their competitors away. Over many months, the attacks could be expected to lead to extra food for the killer mothers, which meant that the infanticides were selfish acts conducted at the expense of everyone except the killers’ family. They were not the novel acts of broken minds. They were adaptive behaviors to which others might be expected to respond.

The mothers of the victims tended to avoid the killing pair. Sometimes when Passion and Pom attacked, alert males intervened. Males tend to protect the weaker females. Males likewise support new female immigrants against longtime residents, apparently to encourage them not to leave the community: male policing of conflicts among females seems to be a selfish behavior. Immediate protection was the most anyone did. Too often, Passion and Pom prevailed. The suffering was widespread: tensions rose, infants died, mothers were bereaved, adult males lost offspring.

In the long run, the community was weakened by loss of numbers and reduced cooperation among mothers. If adult males had acted in concert, they could certainly have stopped Passion and Pom, because the collaborative power of males is enormous: they kill prime adult males without themselves getting a scratch. But though the males had the means to punish or kill Passion and Pom, they did not have the mind-set.

The contrast with a human community is obvious. The equivalents of Passion and Pom would never have got away with it. Only humans have community standards that decide the crucial difference between right and wrong. So the third question involves understanding not only why humans are sensitive to what is right or wrong, but also why humans punish those who do wrong, whereas chimpanzees hardly do so at all.

The three moral questions that I have outlined concern why humans are exceptionally prosocial, why we are guided as we are in deciding right from wrong, and why we care so much that we are prepared to intervene when we see wrong done. Christopher Boehm suggests that a solution to these problems lies in the claustrophobic setting of small groups in which capital punishment was a realistic threat for troublemakers.

States use coalitionary proactive aggression to round up criminals, terrorists, gangs, or rivals for power. The power of the state is social oil. Without it, a state grinds quickly into chaos of competing militias, as Libya reminded us after the 2011 death of President Qaddafi, or Yugoslavia after the 1980 death of President Tito, or the eastern Congo after the 1997 death of President Mobutu.

In Uganda’s Kibale National Park, there are few greater pleasures than to stop for a minute, close your eyes, and simply listen. At almost any time of day, you may hear the trills of warblers and insects, persistent cuckoos and tinker-birds. After dark, the calls of frogs, bats, and nightjars provide a backdrop for cicadas, bush babies, and owls. Peace seems to reign.

The sounds that soothe are mostly male. Overwhelmingly, they tell of typical male actions: showing off, defending territories, threatening neighbors, calling allies, attracting females. They speak of color, weapons, and readiness for aggression. The human listener may be relaxed, but the callers are not. Jacked on testosterone, the males are loud, rough, and pushy. The sweet harmony is a testament to the pervasiveness of reactive aggression.

Yet hardly any of those melodious species exhibit proactive aggression. Proactive aggression is so comparatively rare that at one time it seemed to be entirely absent in animals other than humans.

The percentage of infant deaths due to infanticide varied widely, and rose as high as 37% in a population of mountain gorillas, 44% in chacma baboons, 47% in blue monkeys, and a remarkable 71% in red howler monkeys. In 2014, the behavioral ecologists Dieter Lukas and Elise Huchard surveyed 260 species of mammals studied in the wild and reported that infanticide had been found in almost half of them, mainly in species where males have something to gain from the killing. It is usually a selfish reproductive strategy used by males to bring females into breeding condition as soon as possible. With regard to primates, among 89 wild species, they found infanticide in 60 (67%), including chimpanzees and gorillas.

Female primates can also kill infants. Among marmosets and tamarins, groups contain up to four females. Normally only the alpha female breeds. If a lower-ranking female gives birth, her offspring are likely to be killed by the alpha female. The killing is adaptive for the alpha female because additional infants compete for care by adults, and thereby jeopardize the survival of her own young.

In Kibale’s Ngogo community there were instances when males killed or fatally wounded 18 members of neighboring communities during a period of 10 years. The Ngogo community then expanded their territory into the area where most of the kills had occurred. In Gombe, when the territory occupied by a community increases in size, community members are better fed, breed faster, and survive better. Kill some neighbors, expand the territory, get more food, have more babies—and be safer at the same time, since there are fewer neighbors who might be able to attack you.

Yellowstone National Park in Montana and Wyoming have been studied closely. In a 12-year sample of 155 wolf corpses found inside the park, an estimated 37% were killed by other wolves. Shortage of space, rather than shortage of food, predicted aggression between packs. Likewise, in Denali National Park in Alaska, where wild wolves were monitored mostly by helicopter, about 40% of 50 adult deaths were caused by adults from other packs. How many of the kills were due to proactive aggression as opposed to reactive aggression getting out of control is unknown, but direct observations of fights between packs show that they were sometimes proactive.

In most species, the costs of attacking members of your own species are too high because you might get hurt. Only a few species happen to live in societies in which gangs of allied individuals can form, and the gangs can regularly find vulnerable loners of another group to beat up on with minimal risk of being hurt. Among mammals, these coalitions are so far known to occur only among social carnivores and primates. Coalitionary proactive aggression that kills adults in other groups of the same species is rare, but where it occurs it appears to be a natural and adaptive behavior that benefits the killers. It is known in wolves, lions, spotted hyenas, chimpanzees, white-faced capuchins, various ants, and other species.

Some people think of hunter-gatherers as so peaceful that coalitionary fighting would hardly be part of their lives at all. That idea is generally right for a specific type of hunter-gatherer—namely, those who lived alongside farmers or pastoralists (herders of mobile animals such as cattle, sheep, and goats). Classic examples are the Hadza of Tanzania and the Ju/’hoansi of southern Africa (who have also been called !Kung Bushmen, San, or Basarwa). They both live in the same area as pastoralists, with whom they also intermarry, and have done for hundreds of years. The pastoralists are militarily superior to the hunter-gatherers. Although there are historical records of warfare among those peoples, in recent years peace has reigned in both groups of foragers. If fights arose between members of the two cultures, as they sometimes did, the hunter-gatherers would be soundly defeated, as they were.

A 1940 estimate indicated there were almost 600 different linguistic groups, or societies, in Australia. Intergroup conflict was found to occur in every climatic zone throughout the continent, from the lush regions of the north and southeast to the harsh central deserts.

A common procedure in such warfare is to steal up to the enemy’s camp in the dead of night, and encircle it in the earliest dawn. With a shout, the carnage then begins. Night attacks appear to have been universal, since the aggressors know the most radical method to extinguish the enemy is to take them unawares, and to slaughter them before they can retaliate. For this purpose, it is best to either steal on them in the earliest hours of morning, or to lie in ambush at a place where the enemy is sure to call.

Intense violence within groups calls for a difficult decision, because an actor must decide whether to join a coalition against a victim who could, at a different time, be a useful ally.  Then there is the problem of planning. How is a target decided, and how does any one individual know who is going to join a coalition? There seems to be no way for chimpanzees to share in advance their intention to attack a particular individual. Chance brought an opportunity for the killers of Pimu, and even then, four were against him but two were not. Humans solve this coordination problem through language. Plotters gossip with increasing confidence that someone should be killed, yet uncertainty remains up to the moment of a joint attack.

The assassins check one another’s commitment, lest someone turn traitor. In short, complex calculation and refined communication are needed to make within-group killing a successful adaptive strategy. By contrast, in intergroup interactions the formula is simple: side with your friends against the enemy.

In the authoritarian courts of medieval European monarchs, Chinese emperors, twentieth-century fascist regimes, or Mafia families, a signal from the leader could be enough to cause the execution of a disrespectful member. The obedience of courtiers, slaves, prisoners, or unwilling soldiers shows us the consequence of hierarchical power in its rawest form. Those who attempt to challenge, escape, disobey, or desert are subject to being killed.

Hierarchical relationships among families began during the Upper Paleolithic, a few thousand years before agriculture was invented, when humans found a way to produce surplus food. Those who owned the surplus could use it to buy labor or goods, creating an advantage to producing as much food as possible.

Coalitionary proactive aggression is responsible for execution, war, massacre, slavery, hazing, ritual sacrifice, torture, lynchings, gang wars, political purges, and similar abuses of power. It permits sovereignty as a right over life, caste as a system of casual domination, and guards who make prisoners dig their own graves. It makes kings of wimps, underlies fidelity to groups, and gives us long-term tyrannies. It has battered our species since the Pleistocene. Along the evolutionary way, it brought us our great capacity for good, but it has also brought enormous harm.

It is therefore cheering to remember that in sane individuals proactive aggression is a highly selective behavior that is delicately attuned to context. Male langurs do not kill at random.  Chimpanzees reserve their proactive attacks for when they have overwhelming force. Hunter-gatherers living with pastoralists do not get into wars. Proactive aggression is not produced by individuals in a fit of rage, or in an alcoholic haze, or out of a testosterone-induced failure of cortical control. It is a considered act by an individual or coalition that takes into account the likely costs. It has a strong tendency to disappear when it does not pay.

In theory, the path to resistance is obvious. “When bad men combine,” the British parliamentarian Edmund Burke wrote in 1770, “the good must associate; else they will fall one by one.” But of course the “bad men” arrange matters to stop “the good” from “associating” in any meaningful manner.

Biological determinism is important, because ever since Darwin, and right up to today, it has cast a shadow on discussions of the past, present and future of war. A key question is whether, if our ancestors were adapted for war in the Pleistocene, we are biologically driven to conduct war today. As I will explain, my answer is that while war is not inevitable, conscious effort is needed to prevent it.

Why should the idea of war as natural mean that “there is little point in trying to prevent, reduce, or abolish it”? We do not apply that formula to other unpleasant natural things. We try to stop diseases even though they are clearly biological in nature. We try to intervene when men harass women, or when bullies throw their weight around, or when children fight one another. The fact that we think such behaviors have evolved does not inhibit us from trying to reduce their effects.

The simple war that occurs in small-scale prestate societies and is more similar to intergroup aggression in some animals. Its skirmishes are so brief, and it is so relatively unmilitary in its organization, that some anthropologists prefer not to apply the word “war” to this style of violence. It consists mainly of brief surprise attacks. Simple war is the only type of war in societies where men (ordinarily, the adult married men, or what Gellner calls “the cousins”) have egalitarian relationships, and no men work for or hold authority over others. All except the infirm are warriors, without military hierarchy. Each man makes up his own mind about whether to join an attack or stay at home.  After wounding or killing one or more victims, ideally the attackers leave so rapidly that they escape without being drawn into an escalated encounter. Battles are accordingly rare. When opposing groups of warriors find themselves confronting each other, men on both sides tend to disperse.

The raiders’ approach might be detected, the victim group might be unexpectedly well prepared, or there could be traps such as spikes embedded in the ground around the enemy village. The raiders therefore need courage, and in many cases a willingness to tolerate intense physical exertion. To help overcome their nerves, warriors often work themselves into a state of excitement before leaving home. Ritual practices may be used in prepartion for the attack. Raids might accrue benefits such as capturing women or taking heads; anticipated rewards may take the form of prestige or goods. In some societies, cowards may be punished.

Similar accounts, in which warriors perceive no benefits other than the thrill of making a kill, are rife.

Why do they kill? The unnerving answer that makes biological sense is that they enjoy it. Evolution has made the killing of strangers pleasurable, because those that liked to kill tended to receive adaptive benefits.  The rewards do not have to be anticipated consciously. All that is needed is enjoyment of the kill. Sexual reproduction works in a parallel way. A chimpanzee, or wolf, or any other animal, cannot be expected to know that an act of mating will lead to babies. Why do they mate? They enjoy it.

Where the social divide is sufficient, however, occasional outbursts of killing still seem to manifest a deep joy of killing. The historian Joanna Bourke wrote of atrocities on all sides in the Second World War. A Japanese solder remembered Nanking. “When we were bored, we had some fun killing Chinese. Buried them alive, or pushed them into a fire, or beat them to death with clubs, or killed them by other cruel means.” In Europe in the 1940s, members of the collaborationist Croatian Ustaše movement enthusiastically killed Jews, Serbs, and Gypsies, “often hacking them to death with primitive implements.” Slaughter was estimated at 40,000 Gypsies and 400,000 Serbs in Croatia and Bosnia.

There are probably very few wars in which equivalent histories could not be found.

Revenge motivations and moral pressures are only two of many unique features of our species that influence the practice of simple warfare. Others include advanced weaponry, language, social norms, docile psychology, training of warriors, and the ability to devise a shared plan. But the mere occurrence of simple warfare depends on none of those explanations. The traits that decorate human warfare beyond these elements are rococo additions, not necessary features.

We should therefore not find it surprising that small groups of men with disregard for national laws easily form gangs that take advantage of local imbalances of power to kill. Similar behaviors emerge among chimpanzees and hunter-gatherers as among freedom fighters, street gangs, or the underworld. Selection favors safe killing whenever it can be carried out at sufficiently low risk to the attacker, sometimes even when there is no obvious benefit is at stake. In an anarchic world, the satisfaction of killing an enemy can have its own rewards.

Whether the much shorter history of complex warfare also affected our evolutionary psychology is unknown, but 10,000 years is certainly enough for biological adaptation to occur.

The combination of commanders and soldiers makes complex warfare so much better organized for combat that it is described as being a truly military system. In battles of complex warfare, soldiers have no choice about whether to participate and may be thoroughly unenthusiastic about doing so. Their situation can be emotionally traumatic and often when the soldier is coerced into action, highly maladaptive for the individual. In some battles, soldiers are required to approach a body of armed opponents in an action exposing themselves deliberately to a high risk of injury or death. The question is what makes them do it.

All men on a battlefield are afraid, according to U.S. General S. L. A. Marshall’s study of battle behavior in the Second World War. The military scholar Ardant du Picq noted examples of how soldiers responded to being ordered into battle. Sometimes the whole army turns and runs. This occurs, in the words of the military historian John Keegan, “not because [the army] has been physically shaken but because its nerve has given.  At other times, “fainthearts” dribble away in small numbers until, by the time the two sides engage, hardly anyone is left. Or the attackers on both sides come to a halt before they are in range of their enemies.

Another outcome is for the opposing armies each to edge leftward as they approach each other, eventually sliding past each other without contact. The soldiers’ fear of engagement is so strong that the main task of officers is suppressing it by being ready to kill deserters.  Frederick the Great said that the common soldier must fear his officer more than he fears the enemy. The commanding officer not only must bring the soldiers to the killing zone at the front, he must make then stay there.

Clearly, the battle behavior of soldiers in complex warfare bears little relation to the relative eagerness of a hunter-gatherer warrior attacking an enemy camp. Soldiers in complex war have to be trained to reduce their fear, so as to perceive a face of battle which, if not familiar, and not friendly be totally petrifying. So although commanders tend to think that soldiers go into battle because they are obedient, whereas in reality two other reasons are more important. One is found when fighting can actually improve the chance of survival; in some circumstances, being left behind can be the worst outcome.

The other reason for bravery is to avoid incurring the contempt of close companions. Military organizations intentionally foster close bonds. Soldiers are typically organized into small groups, often around five to seven men. They have bonded with one another through training, prior action, often ritual exercises such as hazing, possibly hostility toward their officers, and endless hours of boredom. Their desire to maintain one another’s respect is sometimes suggested to have come from developing a false sense of kinship. It seems to me more likely due to a moral sense that evolved in response to the threat of execution in the Pleistocene.  Respect also comes from being hazed, a practice that emphatically shows a recruit that he is subject to the coalitionary power of his group members. A soldier exposed as a coward can be in danger from his own unit.

Human psychology is not well adapted to being a soldier. That is why the most successful armies are those that have most completely worn down the self-interested tendencies in their troops, whether through discipline or through inspiration.

Alexander led an army that conquered most of the Middle East, including the Persian Empire and kingdoms as far as western India. His substantial military actions include nine sieges, ten battles, and a major campaign. He never lost a fight. He inspired his troops by repeatedly fighting at the front and sometimes personally leading a charge.  Niall MacKay showed that the history of warfare is dominated by engagements that are similarly asymmetric, meaning that as in Alexander’s battles, the attacking side is greatly superior to its opponent. Commanders who initiate aggression do so when their forces are overwhelmingly stronger than the enemies, and as a result, until recently those who begin battles (or wars) have tended to win them.

The political scientist Ivan Arreguín-Toft tallied war victories from 1800 to 1998 according to whether one opponent was “stronger” than the other. To be judged as relatively “strong,” a side had to have a material power at least ten times greater than the other. The chance of the stronger side’s winning declined steadily from 88% before 1850 to 45% after 1950. Commanders are thus apparently no longer very good at anticipating victory. According to Johnson and MacKay, among other difficulties, the possibilities for counterinsurgency and guerrilla tactics have become too numerous.

He found four main symptoms of incompetence governing the outcome of battles: overconfidence, underestimation of the enemy, the ignoring of intelligence reports, and wastage of manpower.

Groupthink exacerbated the problem by contributing six additional symptoms: a shared illusion of invulnerability, collective attempts to maintain shaky but cherished assumptions, an unquestioned belief in the group’s inherent morality, stereotyping the enemy as too evil for negotiation (or too weak to be a threat), a collective illusion of unanimity in a majority viewpoint (based on the false assumption that silence means consent), and self-appointed censors to protect the group from information that might weaken resolve (such as reports from spies).

Evidence of the strength of the Cuban armed forces had been abundant, with no support for the claim that 30,000 would make their way through the swamps to fight alongside U.S. liberators. “How could I have been so stupid as to let them proceed?” President Kennedy repeatedly asked later.Most of his team were similarly puzzled about their assessment failures.

According to Peter Wyden the answer was clear. It was arrogance, “egos so tall that the eyes and ears can shut out whatever one prefers not to see or hear.” Kennedy, the final decider, desperately wanted to avoid being called “chicken,” had unbounded confidence in his own luck, and was surrounded by people who echoed his feelings. “Everyone around him thought he had the Midas touch and could not lose,” wrote Arthur Schlesinger. Richard Bissell, the CIA deputy director of plans who pushed for the invasion, was such an ambitious and confident risk-taker, says Wyden, that he was unable to give up on his superman task in the face of increasingly clear evidence of risk. Even after the fiasco, Bissell clung to his view that they had done the right thing. The CIA’s secret internal report on the affair, published in 1998, “painted a picture of an agency shot through with deadly self-deception.

Wherever groups compete, even without fighting, the same positively biased judgments recur. Mark Twain got it right: “Nations do not think, they only feel…each nation knowing that it has the only true religion and the only sane system of government, each despising all the others, each an ass and not suspecting it, each proud of its presumed supremacy, each perfectly sure it is the pet of God, each with undoubting confidence summoning Him to take command in time of war, each surprised when He goes over to the enemy, but by habit able to excuse it and resume compliments—in a word, the whole human race content, always content, persistently content, indestructibly content, happy, thankful, proud, no matter what its religion is.”

First, the focus afforded by self-belief allows total commitment to winning.  In an even match, a rational opponent would see himself as having a 50% probability of defeat and think about protecting himself in the event of failure, whether by devising escape plans, avoiding damage, or attempting to reassess the opponents’ strength. Such attention to the possibility of loss would lead to anxiety (a sure predictor of defeat) and, more generally, to distraction. So, because in a contest between equals 100% effort beats 90% effort, arrogant blind confidence will predict the winner. “Championship thinking” is irrational and wasteful and half the time deluded, but in an even match, it brings more psychological resources to the fight and increases the chance of winningSelf-deception is common in battles. In the eastern Congo in the 1990s, the Mai-Mai fighters believed that bullets hitting them would turn to water. In Uganda in the 1980s, Alice Lakwena’s rebel groups were ferocious fighters because they thought themselves safe from bullets. A belief that one is magically protected from harm is a wonderful illusion for inspiring unrestrained aggression against the enemy.

The second benefit of self-confidence is that it can create fear in the enemy; often a good bluff is sufficient. The Dayaks inspired fear in various ways. Tales of their cannibalism and parading of severed heads meant that “they were possessed, they weren’t acting normally,” and their enemies were duly scared.

In the grand scheme of life, it is an irony of nature that selection for the ability to win brings with it a failure of assessment, and resulting “wastage of manpower.”

The more challenging difficulty for our species is that, as resource distributions change, new coalitions are expected to form repeatedly to challenge existing sovereignties. All human societies are composed of competing subgroups. Some subgroups will ignore existing laws by attempting to carve their own territories out of prior nations, as ISIS did in Iraq in 2014. Handling such efforts nonviolently will surely always be a challenge. The global response to ISIS illustrates the intensity of violence that can readily emerge when a new ideology defies existing mores.

Our species swings between the desire for peace and the temptations of power, and faces the contradiction that although the risk of dying from violence has fallen, the risk of nuclear holocaust has risen. The great merit of proactive aggression, from the perspective of a nonviolent philosophy, is that a well-adapted animal does not attack if it expects to get hurt.

The idea that warfare has evolved, and that even today it is facilitated by adaptive features of our psychology, does not make it inevitable. It does mean, however, that we are a dangerous species. In the face of our tendency for positive illusions about the merits of war, we will always need strong institutions and alert engagement to temper the rise of militaristic philosophies, the spread of excessively optimistic pacificism, and the abuse of power.

In the human lineage, reactive aggression became suppressed, while proactive aggression stayed high.

Language-based conspiracy was the key, because it gave whispering beta males the power to join forces to kill alpha-male bullies. As happens in small-scale societies today, language allowed underdogs to agree on a plan, and thereby to make predictably safe murders out of confrontations that could otherwise have been dangerous. Genetic selection against the propensity for reactive aggression was an unforeseen result of eliminating the would-be despots. The selection against alpha personalities led to males becoming, for the first time, egalitarian.

There is no reason to regard our domestication as complete. How much more domesticated we could become if we were tamed for another 12,000 generations, say, is an open question. Given sufficient sanctions against reactive aggressors, in another 300,000 years humans could in theory become as hard to rile as lop-eared rabbits at a petting farm, which remain gentle even when stroked repeatedly by dozens of eager children. Equally, however, if would-be despots were to escape sanctions, the process could go into reverse.

Group selection is commonly invoked to explain our species interest in nonrelatives and our occasional willingness to sacrifice our own interests on behalf of a larger good. Group selection theory, however, has never quite been able to explain how benefits at a group level override those of individuals. The theory that the moral senses evolved to protect individuals from the socially powerful suggests that group selection may be entirely unnecessary for explaining why we are such a group-oriented species. Our deference to the coalitionary powers within our own groups leads to a reduced intensity of competition, enabling groups to thrive.

Human hunting of prey seems likely to have been associated with the ability to kill rivals in neighboring groups for two million years. Much as in chimpanzees and wolves seeking opportunities to attack strangers, once our ancestors had achieved the ability to kill safely a motivation to kill would probably have been present too. There seems no reason to excuse our ancestors from the links between hunting and violence found in other mammals.

Consider the relationship between men and women. In small-scale societies, as I discussed, egalitarianism is primarily a description of relationships among men, particularly married men. Just as happens in every society throughout the world, in the public sphere men dominate women. In the public domain, however, where coercive alliances regulate societal rules, conflicts between the interests of men and women consistently end in men’s favor. Patriarchy in this sense is currently a human universal.

Miscellaneous

In 1958, the playwright and songwriter Noël Coward captured the strangeness of our duality. He had lived through the Second World War, and the bad side of human nature was fully obvious to him. “It is hard to imagine,” he wrote, “considering the inherent silliness, cruelty and superstition of the human race, how it has contrived to last as long as it has. The witch-hunting, the torturing, the gullibility, the massacres, the intolerance, the wild futility of human behaviour over the centuries is hardly credible.

Large body size in humans is a risk factor for antisocial personality disorder. Boys who are big for their age learn as early as three years old that they can win in fights with smaller peers. Being rewarded for successful aggression, they end up being more aggressive throughout childhood.

Hitler, who ordered the execution of some eight million people and was responsible for the deaths of many millions more, was said by his secretary Traudl Junge to have had an agreeable, friendly, and paternal manner. He hated cruelty to animals: he was a vegetarian, and adored his dog Blondi.

Whether the amygdala is reduced in size in domesticated animals has not been much studied, but in one mammal (the rabbit) and one bird (the Bengalese finch), the expected reduction in amygdala size has been found. Behind the telencephalon lies an area called the diencephalon, where the hypothalamus develops. Like the amygdala, the hypothalamus is a core part of the neural network that underlies reactive aggression (as well as proactive aggression). The hypothalamus also strongly influences the activity of the adrenal glands, and is involved in the regulation of females’ estrous cycles and reproductive behavior. Thus, in the brain as in the rest of the body, the traits of the domestication syndrome are likely to be affected by changes to the activity of neural-crest cells. Neural-crest cells have clear input into systems regulating stress, fear, and aggression, including the sympathetic nervous system and a set of brain structures regulating emotional responses. As we saw, neural crest development was first associated with the white patches typical of domesticated horses, dogs, cows, and other animals. We followed up our hypothesis that neural-crest cells are involved in many of the features of domesticates, finding support for links to such superficially unrelated traits as smaller jaws, smaller teeth, floppy ears, and even brain changes related to decreased reactive aggression. A further critical test of our hypothesis is whether domesticated species show changes in genes that affect neural-crest migration. Since 2014, such effects have been found in six species (horses, rats, dogs, cats, silver foxes, and mink). Whether changes to neural-crest migration will be found in every domesticated species is uncertain, but at this early stage no exceptions have been found. Key to this growing understanding of the domestication syndrome, simply put, is juvenilization.

Homosexuality

If homosexual behavior is not adaptive, perhaps it evolved in humans as a paedomorphic by-product of selection against reactive aggression. Homosexual behavior is particularly prominent among bigger-brained species in which sexual behavior is emancipated from hormonal control. In primates, it occurs among apes and monkeys, but not in the smaller-brained lemurs and lorises. It is found among many whales and dolphins. Male gray whales romp together in an obvious state of sexual excitement. Male river dolphins use one another’s blowholes for sex. Studies have tended to find that a predominant or exclusive orientation toward the same sex occurs at lower rates, in around 1 to 2% of women and 2 to 5% of men.  A couple of possible explanations for how homosexuality might be adaptive for humans have been explored. One hypothesis is that same-sex relationships confer advantages in social competition. Homosexual men might be more intensely supportive of each other, for example, like female bonobos and Spartan warriors. Although such social bonds could presumably indeed be beneficial, the reproductive benefits seem too low to explain the occurrence of exclusive homosexuality. Among 600,000 domestic pairs of same-sex individuals in 2000 in the United States, for example, 34% of female couples and 22% of male couples were raising children, compared to 39% of 16 million opposite-sex couples.

If homosexuals tend to have few children of their own, their sexual orientation could in theory be adaptive if it leads them to give exceptional help to their genetic kin. In some cultures, such as Samoa, homosexual men do show a stronger-than-usual interest in helping their brothers and sisters. But even in Samoa, the kin effect is too weak to explain the evolution of the homosexual tendency. In Japan, there is no evidence that homosexuals show more interest in kin than heterosexuals do. The numbers do not add up.  The small family sizes of exclusive homosexuals, together with the lack of evidence that they provide large benefits to kin, suggest that homosexual behavior in humans is not biologically adaptive. This leaves the fascinating question of why homosexual attraction is as prevalent and persistent as it is in our species.

The evidence that exclusive homosexual preference is common but not adaptive makes it a prime candidate for being an evolutionary by-product. An association with selection against reactive aggression is indicated on several grounds. First, the only nonhuman animal in which exclusive homosexual preference is known is a domesticated species—namely, sheep. Male lambs that are reared in the exclusive company of other males fall into two groups. The division depends on how, once they become adult, they respond to an ewe who is introduced to them when ready to mate. One group is the heterosexuals. On meeting an estrous ewe, these rams experience a rise in testosterone and are fully sexually interested in her. The other group are the homosexuals, who interact with the estrous ewes without showing any hormonal increase or sexual interest. Females are just not their thing. About 8% of rams brought up in single-sex groups adopt this homosexual orientation.  In wild sheep, dominant rams have been seen to mount subordinate rams in apparent displays of dominance, but the behavior is rare (4% of all social interactions in all-male groups). The obvious implication is that homosexual preference is an incidental consequence of domestication.  Domestic rams who experience relatively low levels of testosterone before they are born are more likely to become homosexual.

The INAH3 is larger in heterosexual men than in women, and has been found to be intermediate-sized in homosexual men. As with rams, evidence in humans suggests that variation in exposure to testosterone before birth might influence homosexual tendencies.  Homosexual men also have somewhat feminized face shapes and shorter, lighter bodies than heterosexual men, most likely from relatively low exposure to testosterone in the womb. These conclusions are still somewhat tentative.

The elaboration of homosexual behavior in bonobos, which occurs in both sexes, clearly fits the hypothesis that selection against reactive aggression favors homosexual behavior. A potential explanation is again that, in bonobos, prenatal exposure to testosterone is relatively low. The ring finger is longer relative to the second finger in males than in females in both bonobos and chimpanzees, suggesting that, as in humans, relative ring-finger length provides an index of prenatal testosterone exposure. As expected from the domestication hypothesis, relative ring-finger length is shorter in bonobos than in chimpanzees. Interestingly, relative ring-finger length in humans is more similar to the ratio in bonobos than in chimpanzees.

The Neanderthals had significantly longer ring fingers (relative to second fingers) than modern people while the finger-length ratio of the 100,000-year-old Homo sapiens at Qafzeh is in-between the ratios for living humans and the five Neanderthals. These fascinating hints suggest that living Homo sapiens have indeed been subject to lower levels of prenatal testosterone than Neanderthals, in keeping with the self-domestication hypothesis.

The question of why selection has not eliminated homosexuality, if it is a by-product of self-domestication without biological advantages, is also fascinating. A possible answer is that self-domestication has been continuing too recently, up to historical times, for selection to operate strongly against incidental consequences.

Posted in Evolution, Human Nature, War Books | Tagged , , , , , | 1 Comment

Why liquefied coal (CTL) and natural gas (GTL) can’t replace oil

Preface. Here are just a few of the reasons why we aren’t likely to convert enough coal to diesel to matter as oil decines (see Chapter 11 Liquefied Coal: There Goes the Neighborhood, the Water, and the Air for more details on this in When Trucks Stop Running: Energy and the Future of Transportation)

It is not likely much coal will be converted to diesel, because if all global coal production were converted to liquid coal, perhaps 17 million barrels a day (Mb/d) could be produced. That amounts to 22 % of current world oil production. If more efficient liquefaction technologies came along, and coal now used to generate electricity and make cement, steel, aluminum, paper, and chemicals were all diverted to make liquid fuels, as much as 54 Mb/d could be made. But roughly 17 Mb/d is more likely because diverting most or all of the coal from other uses to make CTL is not realistic.  After all, we do need cement and steel to build the CTL coal liquefaction plants, roads, and the trucks and pipelines to transport the CTL itself.

In the U.S. coal production could be doubled to make CTL, but that might cut reserve life in half. In the U.S., there may be 63 years of reserves at current rates of production, but only 31.5 years if we doubled coal production.

Continue reading

Posted in Coal to Liquids (CTL), GTL Gas-To-Liquids, Peak Coal, Peak Oil | Tagged , , , , , , | Comments Off on Why liquefied coal (CTL) and natural gas (GTL) can’t replace oil

So you don’t want to be a farmer postcarbon? City jobs of the future

Preface. This book summarizes the work of Henry Mayhew from 1849 to 1852. He wrote about the people and goods  being sold on the streets of London, interviewing hundreds of street vendors. He estimated there were about 30,000 of them (called costermongers in the account below).

After the introduction is a long list of the ways people earn their living.  If you don’t want to be a farmer postcarbon (before fossil fuels, 80-90% of the population farmed), here are some alternative professions!  Though by 1850 many goods were being made with coal, and that won’t be so possible after fossils decline substantially in the future.  Still though, much of what was sold on the street was fixed up and sold second hand.

Alice Friedemann  www.energyskeptic.com  Author of Life After Fossil Fuels: A Reality Check on Alternative Energy; When Trucks Stop Running: Energy and the Future of Transportation”, Barriers to Making Algal Biofuels, & “Crunch! Whole Grain Artisan Chips and Crackers”.  Women in ecology  Podcasts: WGBH, Planet: Critical, Crazy Town, Collapse Chronicles, Derrick Jensen, Practical Prepping, Kunstler 253 &278, Peak Prosperity,  Index of best energyskeptic posts

***

Mayhew H (2008) London Labour and the London Poor (Oxford World’s Classics). Wordsworth Editions.

Introduction

The number and variety of Mayhew’s subjects sometimes disguise the fact that he tended to target the most desperate and, in many cases, oddest examples that came under the series heading ‘Labour and the Poor’.  There was little on skilled craftsmen, and nothing at all on servants, who by the time of the 1851 census amounted to 1 in 18 of the population as a whole.

His writings on their hard lives and poverty did more than raise awareness; they also raised money. The Female Emigration Society raised £17,000 and sent 700 unemployed seamstresses out to the colonies.

Different interview-subjects seem to have understood the experience of talking to him in different ways, as confession, therapy, or interrogation, and this uncertainty is reflected in the mobility of the terms he uses to describe their testimony: ‘statements’, ‘accounts’, ‘experiences’, ‘street-biography’. His own identity is equally unstable: at different times he was mistaken for a truant officer and a dog-tax collector, which suggests the potential theatricality of the project as a whole, and just as he took on the role of serious investigator, so his subjects could reinvent themselves, shaping their life-stories through the reciprocal pressures exerted by a commitment to fact and the more playful possibilities of fiction.

Although London Labour and the London Poor celebrates the ingenuity and comic resilience of ordinary working people, it also offers a long lament over the fate of those who, like many costermongers, found their options gradually narrowing until the only way of life open to them was to follow the same rounds and repeat the same cries as their ancestors, like the needle skipping on an old record.

Costermongers, in particular, the street hawkers who sold everything from fruit to fireworks, needed to get themselves noticed if they wanted to win customers; like a bird asserting its territory in the branches of a tree, their street-cries were defiant signatures of selfhood, a means of asserting their individuality against the anonymous roar of the city.   Only about one in ten of the regular costermongers is able to read.

Watercress girls pitch with the cry ‘Water-creases!’, with a jabbing emphasis that is the aural equivalent of someone using her elbow in a crowd. In showing how this figure tries to make herself heard with those ‘screams’, no other social investigator of the period comes close to bringing alive what The Great World of London describes as ‘the riot, the struggle, and the scramble for a living’.

Conmen routinely sold greenfinches they had painted to resemble more exotic species of singing birds. The popularity of oysters in London meant that ‘in round numbers’ there were 500 million shells to be disposed of every year. An old showman who travelled with performing animals ‘sometimes had trouble to get lodgings for the bear’, even though ‘Bears is well-behaved enough if they ain’t aggravated.

Here is a description of the London street markets on a Saturday night: “…When the scene ‘has more of the character of a fair than a market’: One man stands with his red-edged mats hanging over his back and chest, like a herald’s coat; and the girl with her basket of walnuts lifts her brown-stained fingers to her mouth, as she screams, ‘Fine warnuts! sixteen a penny, fine war-r-nuts.’ A bootmaker, to ‘ensure custom’, has illuminated his shop-front with a line of gas, and in its full glare stands a blind beggar, his eyes turned up so as to show only ‘the whites’, and mumbling some begging rhymes, that are drowned in the shrill notes of the bamboo-flute-player next to him. The boy’s sharp cry, the woman’s cracked voice, the gruff, hoarse shout of the man, are all mingled together…. Then the sights, as you elbow your way through the crowd, are equally multifarious. Here is a stall glittering with new tin saucepans; there another, bright with its blue and yellow crockery, and sparkling with white glass…. One minute you pass a man with an umbrella turned inside up and full of prints;

The flexibility of this description reflects Mayhew’s control of his material, but also some of his uncertainty over how to account for, or even write an account of, people whose lives were so alien to his own; hence his frequent recourse to words such as ‘peculiar’, ‘odd’, ‘strange’, and ‘distinct’ when referring to activities that for the people themselves were usually too ordinary to be worth noticing.

Few Victorian writers are as good at revealing the texture of everyday life, and the acquisitiveness of a developing economy, that are present in ordinary piles of things, such as the wares which ‘crowd the window’ (Mayhew’s emphasis) of London’s swag-shops: egg-boilers, tapers, flat and box irons, Italian irons and heaters, earthenware jugs, metal covers, tea-pots, plaited straw baskets, sieves, wood pails, camera-obscuras, medals, amulets, perfumery and fancy soaps of all kinds, mathematical instruments, steel pens, silver and German silver patent pencil-cases and leads, snuff-boxes ‘in great variety’, strops, ink, slates, metal eyelet-holes and machines, padlocks, braces, belts, Congreves, lucifers, fuzees, pocket-books, bill-cases, bed-keys, and a great variety of articles too numerous to mention.

I. STREET-SELLERS. II. STREET-BUYERS. III. STREET-FINDERS. IV. STREET-PERFORMERS, ARTISTS, AND SHOWMEN. V. STREET-ARTIZANS, OR WORKING PEDLARS; and VI. STREET-LABOURERS

The Street-sellers of Fish, shell-fish—and poultry, game, and cheese.

The Street-sellers of Vegetables, fruit, flowers, trees, shrubs, seeds, and roots, and other greens like water-cresses, chickweed.

The Street-sellers of Eatables and Drinkables, including the vendors of fried fish, hot eels, pickled whelks, sheep’s trotters, ham sandwiches, pea-soup, hot green peas, penny pies, plum ‘duff’, meat-puddings, baked potatoes, spice-cakes, muffins and crumpets, Chelsea buns, sweetmeats, brandy-balls, cough drops, and cat and dog’s meat—such constituting the principal eatables sold in the street; while under the head of street-drinkables may be specified tea and coffee, ginger-beer, lemonade, hot wine, new milk from the cow, asses milk, curds and whey, and occasionally water.

The Street-sellers of Stationery, Literature, and the Fine Arts—among whom are comprised the flying stationers, or standing and running patterers; the long-song-sellers; the wall-song-sellers (or ‘pinners-up’, as they are technically termed); the ballad sellers; the vendors of playbills, second editions of newspapers, back numbers of periodicals and old books, almanacks, pocket books, memorandum books, note paper, sealing-wax, pens, pencils, stenographic cards, valentines, engravings, manuscript music, images, and gelatine poetry cards.

The Street-sellers of Manufactured Articles, which class comprises a large number of individuals, as, (a) the vendors of chemical articles of manufacture—viz., blacking, lucifers, corn-salves, grease-removing compositions, plating-balls, poison for rats, crackers, detonating-balls, and cigar-lights.

(b) The vendors of metal articles of manufacture—razors and pen-knives, tea-trays, dog-collars, and key-rings, hardware, bird-cages, small coins, medals, jewelry, tinware, tools, card-counters, red-herring-toasters, trivets, gridirons, and Dutch ovens.

(c) The vendors of china and stone articles of manufacture—as cups and saucers, jugs, vases, chimney ornaments, and stone fruit,

(d) The vendors of linen, cotton, and silken articles of manufacture—as sheeting, table-covers, cotton, tapes and thread, boot and stay-laces, haberdashery, pretended smuggled goods, shirt-buttons, etc., etc.; and

(e) The vendors of miscellaneous articles of manufacture—as cigars, pipes, and snuff-boxes, spectacles, combs, ‘lots’, rhubarb, sponges, wash-leather,* paper-hangings, dolls, Bristol toys, sawdust, and pin-cushions.

The Street-sellers of Second-hand Articles, of whom there are again four separate classes; as

(a) those who sell old metal articles—viz. old knives and forks, keys, tin-ware, tools, and marine stores generally;

(b) those who sell old linen articles—as old sheeting for towels;

(c) those who sell old glass and crockery—including bottles, old pans and pitchers, old looking glasses,

(d) those who sell old miscellaneous articles—as old shoes, old clothes, old saucepan lids

The Street-sellers of Live Animals —including the dealers in dogs, squirrels, birds, gold and silver fish, and tortoises.

The Street-sellers of Mineral Productions and Curiosities—as red and white sand, silver sand, coals, coke, salt, spar ornaments, and shells.

***

They appear to constitute nearly three-fourths of the entire number of individuals obtaining a subsistence in the streets of London.

The next class are the STREET-BUYERS, under which denomination come the purchasers of hare-skins, old clothes, old umbrellas, bottles, glass, broken metal, rags, waste paper, and dripping.

After these we have the STREET-FINDERS, or those who, as I said before, literally ‘pick up’ their living in the public thoroughfares. They are the ‘pure’ pickers, or those who live by gathering dogs’-dung; the cigar-end finders, or ‘hard-ups’, as they are called, who collect the refuse pieces of smoked cigars from the gutters, and having dried them, sell them as tobacco to the very poor; the dredgermen or coal-finders; the mud-larks, the bone-grubbers; and the sewer-hunters.

The Street-Performers, who admit of being classified into:

(a) mountebanks—or those who enact puppet-shows, as Punch and Judy, the fantoccini,* and the Chinese shades.

(b) The street-performers of feats of strength and dexterity—as ‘acrobats’ or posturers, ‘equilibrists’ or balancers, stiff and bending tumblers, jugglers, conjurors, sword-swallowers, ‘salamanders’ or fire-eaters, swordsmen, etc.

(c) The street-performers with trained animals—as dancing dogs, performing monkeys, trained birds and mice, cats and hares, sapient pigs, dancing bears, and tame camels.

(d) The street-actors—as clowns, ‘Billy Barlows’, ‘Jim Crows’,* and others.

The Street Showmen, including shows of (a) extraordinary persons—as giants, dwarfs, Albinos, spotted boys, and pig-faced ladies (b) Extraordinary animals—as alligators, calves, horses and pigs with six legs or two heads, industrious fleas, and happy families (c) Philosophic instruments—as the microscope, telescope, thaumascope (d) Measuring-machines—as weighing, lifting, measuring, and striking machines and (e) miscellaneous shows—such as peep-shows, glass ships, mechanical figures, wax-work shows, pugilistic shows, and fortune-telling apparatus.

The Street-Artists—as black profile-cutters, blind paper-cutters, ‘screevers’ or draughtsmen in coloured chalks on the pavement, writers without hands, and readers without eyes.

The Street Dancers—as street Scotch girls, sailors, slack and tight rope dancers, dancers on stilts, and comic dancers.

The Street Musicians—as the street bands (English and German), players of the guitar, harp, bagpipes, hurdy-gurdy, dulcimer, musical bells, cornet, tom-tom, and so on.

The Street Singers, as the singers of glees, ballads, comic songs, nigger melodies, psalms, serenaders, reciters, and improvisatori.

The Proprietors of Street Games, as swings, highflyers, roundabouts, puff-and-darts, rifle shooting, down the dolly, spin-’em-rounds, prick the garter, thimble-rig, etc.

ARTISANS, or WORKING PEDLARS

These may be severally arranged into three distinct groups: (1) Those who make things in the streets (2) Those who mend things in the streets and (3) Those who make things at home and sell them in the streets.

Of those who make things in the streets there are the following varieties: (a) the metal workers—such as toasting-fork makers, pin makers, engravers, tobacco-stopper makers (b) The textile-workers—stocking-weavers, cabbage-net makers, night-cap knitters, doll-dress knitters (c) The miscellaneous workers such as the wooden spoon makers, the leather brace and garter makers, the printers, and the glass-blowers.

Those who mend things in the streets, consist of broken china and glass menders, clock menders, umbrella menders, kettle menders, chair menders, grease removers, hat cleaners, razor and knife grinders, glaziers, travelling bell hangers, and knife cleaners.

Those who make things at home and sell them in the streets, are (a) the wood workers—as the makers of clothes-pegs, clothes-props, skewers, needle-cases, foot-stools and clothes-horses, chairs and tables, tea-caddies, writing-desks, drawers, work-boxes, dressing-cases, pails and tubs (b) The trunk, hat, and bonnet-box makers, and the cane and rush basket makers (c) The toy makers—such as Chinese roarers, children’s windmills, flying birds and fishes, feathered cocks, black velvet cats and sweeps, paper houses, cardboard carriages, little copper pans and kettles, tiny tin fireplaces, children’s watches, Dutch dolls, buy-a-brooms, and gutta-percha heads (d) The apparel makers—viz., the makers of women’s caps, boys and men’s cloth caps, night-caps, straw bonnets, children’s dresses, watch-pockets, bonnet shapes, silk bonnets, and gaiters, (e) The metal workers,—as the makers of fire-guards, bird-cages, the wire workers (f) The miscellaneous workers—or makers of ornaments for stoves, chimney ornaments, artificial flowers in pots and in nosegays, plaster-of-Paris night-shades, brooms, brushes, mats, rugs, hearthstones, firewood, rush matting, and hassocks.

STREET-LABOURERS

There are four classes: (1) The Cleansers —such as scavengers, nightmen, flushermen, chimney-sweeps, dustmen, crossing-sweepers, ‘street-orderlies’, labourers to sweeping-machines and to watering-carts. (2) The Lighters and Waterers— or the turn-cocks and the lamplighters (3) The Street-Advertisers: the bill-stickers, bill-deliverers, boardmen, men to advertising vans, and wall and pavement stencillers (4) The Street-Servants —as horse holders, link-men, coach-hirers, street-porters, shoe-blacks.

Time travel: what it was like to be on the street in 1850

Until it is seen and heard, we have no sense of the scramble that is going on throughout London for a living. Go to whatever corner of the metropolis you please, either on a Saturday night or a Sunday morning, and there is the same shouting and the same struggling to get the penny profit out of the poor man’s Sunday’s dinner.

The street sellers are to be seen in the greatest numbers at the London street markets on a Saturday night. The scene in these parts has more of the character of a fair than a market. There are hundreds of stalls, some crimson with the fire shining through the holes beneath the baked chestnut stove; others have handsome octohedral lamps, while a few have a candle shining through a sieve: these, with the sparkling ground-glass globes of the tea-dealers’ shops, and the butchers’ gaslights streaming and fluttering in the wind, like flags of flame, pour forth such a flood of light, that at a distance the atmosphere immediately above the spot is as lurid as if the street were on fire.

Little boys, holding three or four onions in their hand, creep between the people, wriggling their way through every interstice, and asking for custom in whining tones, as if seeking charity.

Then the tumult of the thousand different cries of the eager dealers, all shouting at the top of their voices, at one and the same time, is almost bewildering.

‘Chestnuts all ’ot, a penny a score,’ bawls another. ‘An ’aypenny a skin, blacking,’* squeaks a boy. ‘Buy, buy, buy, buy, buy—bu-u-uy!’ cries the butcher.  ‘Twopence a pound grapes.’ ‘Three a penny Yarmouth bloaters.’ ‘Who’ll buy a bonnet for fourpence?’ ‘Pick ’em out cheap here! three pair for a halfpenny, bootlaces.’ ‘Now’s your time! beautiful whelks, a penny a lot.’  Sometimes an Irishman is heard with his ‘fine ating apples’; or else the jingling music of an unseen organ breaks out, as the trio of street singers rest between the verses.  The man with the donkey-cart filled with turnips has three lads to shout for him to their utmost, with their ‘Ho! ho! hi-i-i! What do you think of this here? A penny a bunch—hurrah for free trade! Here’s your turnips!’

The continual calling in the streets is very distressing to the voice. One man told me that it had broken his, and that very often while out he lost his voice altogether. The costers mostly go out with a boy to cry their goods for them. If they have two or three hallooing together, it makes more noise than one, and the boys can shout better and louder than the men.

One man stands with his red-edged mats hanging over his back and chest, like a herald’s coat; and the girl with her basket of walnuts lifts her brown-stained fingers to her mouth, as she screams, ‘Fine warnuts! sixteen a penny, fine war-r-nuts.’ A bootmaker, to ‘ensure custom’, has illuminated his shop-front with a line of gas, and in its full glare stands a blind beggar, his eyes turned up so as to show only ‘the whites’, and mumbling some begging rhymes, that are drowned in the shrill notes of the bamboo-flute-player next to him.

Here is a stall glittering with new tin saucepans; there another, bright with its blue and yellow crockery, and sparkling with white glass. Now you come to a row of old shoes arranged along the pavement; now to a stand of gaudy tea-trays; then to a shop with red handkerchiefs and blue checked shirts. After this is a butcher’s shop, crimson and white with meat piled up to the first-floor, in front of which the butcher himself, in his blue coat, walks up and down, sharpening his knife on the steel that hangs to his waist.

One minute you pass a man with an umbrella turned inside up and full of prints; the next, you hear one with a peepshow of Mazeppa, and Paul Jones the pirate,* describing the pictures to the boys looking in at the little round windows.

Business topics are discussed in a most peculiar style. One man takes the pipe from his mouth and says, ‘Bill made a doogheno hit this morning.’ ‘Jem,’ says another, to a man just entering, ‘you’ll stand a top o’ reeb?’ ‘On,’ answers Jem, ‘I’ve had a trosseno tol, and have been doing dab.’ If any strangers are present, the conversation is still further clothed in slang, so as to be unintelligible even to the partially initiated.

 

It is called ‘plucky’ to bear pain without complaining. To flinch from expected suffering is scorned, and he who does so is sneered at and told to wear a gown, as being more fit to be a woman.  They also delight in tattooing their chests and arms with anchors, and figures of different kinds. During the whole of this painful operation, the boy will not flinch, but laugh and joke with his admiring companions, as if perfectly at ease.

 

A fondness for ‘sparring’ and ‘boxing’ lingers among the rude members of some classes of the working men, such as the tanners. The sparring seldom continues long, sometimes not above a quarter of an hour; for the costermongers, though excited for a while, weary of sports in which they cannot personally participate. The winner is the man who gives the first ‘noser’; a bloody nose however is required to show that the blow was veritably a noser.

 

A good pugilist is looked up to with great admiration by the costers, and fighting is considered to be a necessary part of a boy’s education. Among them cowardice in any shape is despised as being degrading and loathsome, indeed the man who would avoid a fight, is scouted by the whole of the court he lives in. Hence it is important for a lad and even a girl to know how to ‘work their fists well’—as expert boxing is called among them. If a coster man or woman is struck they are obliged to fight. When a quarrel takes place between two boys, a ring is formed, and the men urge them on to have it out, for they hold that it is a wrong thing to stop a battle, as it causes bad blood for life; whereas, if the lads fight it out they shake hands and forget all about it.

 

‘Twopenny-hops’ are much resorted to by the costermongers, men and women, boys and girls.

At these ‘hops’ the clog-hornpipe is often danced. The other dances are jigs, ‘flash jigs’—hornpipes in fetters—a dance rendered popular by the success of the acted ‘Jack Sheppard’—polkas, and country-dances, the last-mentioned being generally demanded by the women. Waltzes are as yet unknown to them. Sometimes they do the ‘pipe-dance’. For this a number of tobacco-pipes, about a dozen, are laid close together on the floor, and the dancer places the toe of his boot between the different pipes, keeping time with the music. Two of the pipes are arranged as a cross, and the toe has to be inserted between each of the angles, without breaking them. The numbers present at these ‘hops’ vary from 30 to 100 of both sexes, their ages being from 14 to 45, and the female sex being slightly predominant as to the proportion of those in attendance. At these ‘hops’ there is nothing of the leisurely style of dancing—half a glide and half a skip—but vigorous, laborious capering. The hours are from half-past eight to twelve, sometimes to one or two in the morning, and never later than two, as the costermongers are early risers.

 

Flash songs are liked, and sailors’ songs, and patriotic songs. Most costers—indeed, I can’t call to mind an exception—listen very quietly to songs that they don’t in the least understand. We have among us translations of the patriotic French songs. “Mourir pour la patrie” is very popular, and so is the “Marseillaise”. A song to take hold of us must have a good chorus.’

 

Their sports are enjoyed the more, if they are dangerous and require both courage and dexterity to succeed in them. They prefer, if crossing a bridge, to climb over the parapet, and walk along on the stone coping. When a house is building, rows of coster lads will climb up the long ladders, leaning against the unsalted roof, and then slide down again, each one resting on the other’s shoulders.

 

Among the men, rat-killing is a favourite sport. They will enter an old stable, fasten the door and then turn out the rats. Or they will find out some unfrequented yard, and at night time build up a pit with apple-case boards, and lighting up their lamps, enjoy the sport. Nearly every coster is fond of dogs. Some fancy them greatly, and are proud of making them fight. If when out working, they see a handsome stray, whether he is a ‘toy’ or ‘sporting’ dog, they whip him up—many of the class not being very particular whether the animals are stray or not.

 

Their dog fights are both cruel and frequent. It is not uncommon to see a lad walking with the trembling legs of a dog shivering under a bloody handkerchief, that covers the bitten and wounded body of an animal that has been figuring at some ‘match’. These fights take place on the sly—the tap-room or back-yard of a beer-shop, being generally chosen for the purpose. A few men are let into the secret, and they attend to bet upon the winner, the police being carefully kept from the spot.

 

Pigeons are ‘fancied’ to a large extent, and are kept in lath cages on the roofs of the houses. The lads look upon a visit to the Red-house, Battersea, where the pigeon-shooting takes place, as a great treat. They stand without the hoarding that encloses the ground, and watch for the wounded pigeons to fall, when a violent scramble takes place among them, each bird being valued at 3d. or 4d. So popular has this sport become, that some boys take dogs with them trained to retrieve the birds, and two Lambeth costers attend regularly after their morning’s work with their guns, to shoot those that escape the ‘shots’ within.

 

To serve out a policeman is the bravest act by which a costermonger can distinguish himself. Some lads have been imprisoned upwards of a dozen times for this offence; and are consequently looked upon by their companions as martyrs. When they leave prison for such an act, a subscription is often got up for their benefit. In their continual warfare with the force, they resemble many savage nations, from the cunning and treachery they use. The lads endeavour to take the unsuspecting ‘crusher’ by surprise, and often crouch at the entrance of a court until a policeman passes, when a stone or a brick is hurled at him, and the youngster immediately disappears. Their love of revenge too, is extreme—their hatred being in no way mitigated by time; they will wait for months, following a policeman who has offended or wronged them, anxiously looking out for an opportunity of paying back the injury.

 

Where it is known that the landlord will not supply cards, ‘a sporting coster’ carries a pack or two with him. The cards played with have rarely been stamped; they are generally dirty, and sometimes almost illegible, from long handling and spilled beer. Some men will sit patiently for hours at these games, and they watch the dealing round of the dingy cards intently.  In a full room of card-players, the groups are all shrouded in tobacco-smoke, and from them are heard constant sounds—according to the games they are engaged in—of ‘I’m low, and Ped’s high.’ ‘Tip and me’s game.’ ‘Fifteen four and a flush of five.’

 

‘Shove-halfpenny’ is another game played by them; so is ‘Three up’. Three halfpennies are thrown up, and when they fall all ‘heads’ or all ‘tails’, it is a mark; and the man who gets the greatest number of marks out of a given amount—three, or five, or more—wins.

 

The other amusements of this class of the community are the theatre and the penny concert, and their visits are almost entirely confined to the galleries of the theatres Three times a week is an average attendance at theatres and dances by the more prosperous costermongers.

 

On a good attractive night, the rush of costers to the threepenny gallery of the ‘the Vic’ is peculiar and almost awful. The long zig-zag staircase that leads to the pay box is crowded to suffocation at least an hour before the theatre is opened; but, on the occasion of a piece with a good murder in it, the crowd will frequently collect as early as three o’clock in the afternoon.  There are few grown-up men that go here. The generality of the visitors are lads from about twelve to three-and-twenty, and though a few black-faced sweeps or whitey-brown dustmen may be among the throng, the gallery audience consists mainly of costermongers. Young girls, too, are very plentiful, only one-third of whom now take their babies, owing to the new regulation of charging half-price for infants.

 

At each step up the well-staircase the warmth and stench increase, until by the time one reaches the gallery doorway, a furnace-heat rushes out through the entrance that seems to force you backwards, whilst the odour positively prevents respiration. The mob on the landing, standing on tiptoe and closely wedged together, resists any civil attempt at gaining a glimpse of the stage. The gallery at ‘the Vic’ is one of the largest in London. It will hold from 1,500 to 2,000 people, When the gallery is well packed, it is usual to see piles of boys on each other’s’ shoulders at the back, while on the partition boards, dividing off the slips, lads will pitch themselves, despite the spikes.

 

When the orchestra begins playing, before ‘the gods’ have settled into their seats, it is impossible to hear a note of music. The puffed-out cheeks of the trumpeters, and the raised drumsticks tell you that the overture has commenced, but no tune is to be heard.

Presently a fight is sure to begin, and then every one rises from his seat whistling and shouting; three or four pairs of arms fall to, the audience waving their hands till the moving mass seems like microscopic eels in paste. But the commotion ceases suddenly on the rising of the curtain. The ‘Vic’ gallery is not to be moved by touching sentiment. They prefer vigorous exercise to any emotional speech. The comic actor kicking a dozen Polish peasants was encored, but the grand banquet of the Czar of all the Russia’s only produced merriment, Whilst the pieces are going on, brown, flat bottles are frequently raised to the mouth. No delay between the pieces will be allowed, and should the interval appear too long, some one will shout out—referring to the curtain—‘Pull up that there winder blind!’

 

The dances and comic songs, between the pieces, are liked better than anything else. A highland fling is certain to be repeated, and a stamping of feet will accompany the tune, and a shrill whistling, keep time through the entire performance.  But the grand hit of the evening is always when a song is sung to which the entire gallery can join in chorus. Then a deep silence prevails all through the stanzas. Should any burst in before his time, a shout of ‘orda-a-r’ is raised, and the intruder put down by a thousand indignant cries.

 

Crab Seller

 

He seemed about thirty. He was certainly not ill-looking, but with a heavy cast of countenance, his light blue eyes having little expression.

 

My crabs is caught in the sea, in course. I gets them at Billingsgate. I never saw the sea, but it’s salt-water, I know. I can’t say whereabouts it lays. I went to Croydon once by rail, and slept all the way without stirring, and so you may to Naples for anything I know. I never heard of the Pope being a neighbour of the King of Naples. Do you mean living next door to him? But I don’t know nothing of the King of Naples. I don’t know what the Pope is. Is he any trade? It’s nothing to me, when he’s no customer of mine.  ‘I never was in France, no, sir, never. I don’t know the way. Do you think I could do better there? I never was in the Republic there. What’s it like? Bonaparte? O, yes; I’ve heard of him. He was at Waterloo.  I’ve worked the streets and the courts at all times. I’ve worked them by moonlight, but you couldn’t see the moonlight where it was busy. I can’t say how far the moon’s off us. It’s nothing to me, but I’ve seen it a good bit higher than St Paul’s.  I don’t know nothing about the sun. Why do you ask? It must be nearer than the moon for it’s warmer,—and if they’re both fire, that shows it.  Jesus Christ? Yes. I’ve heard of him.

 

That a class numbering 30,000 should be permitted to remain in a state of almost brutish ignorance is a national disgrace. If the London costers belong especially to the ‘dangerous classes’, the danger of such a body is assuredly an evil of our own creation; for the gratitude of the poor creatures to anyone who seeks to give them the least knowledge is almost pathetic.

 

The root of the costermonger tongue, so to speak, is to give the words spelt backward, or rather pronounced rudely backward, while any syllable is added to a proper slang word, at the discretion of the speaker. It is not indispensable for the carrying on of their business; the grand object, however, seems to be, to shield their bargainings at market, or their conversation among themselves touching their day’s work and profits, from the knowledge of any Irish or uninitiated fellow-traders. The intelligence communicated in this slang is, in a great measure, communicated, as in other slang, as much by the inflection of the voice, the emphasis, the tone, the look, the shrug, the nod, the wink, as by the words spoken.

 

Like many rude, and almost all wandering communities, the costermongers, like the cabmen and pickpockets, are hardly ever known by their real names; even the honest men among them are distinguished by some strange appellation. Indeed, they are all known one to another by nicknames, which they acquire either by some mode of dress, some remark that has ensured costermonger applause, some peculiarity in trading, or some defect or singularity in personal appearance. Men are known as ‘Rotten Herrings’, ‘Spuddy’ (a seller of bad potatoes, until beaten by the Irish for his bad wares), ‘Curly’ (a man with a curly head), ‘Foreigner’ (a man who had been in the Spanish-Legion), ‘Brassy’ (a very saucy person), ‘Gaffy’* (once a performer), ‘The One-eyed Buffer’, ‘Jawbreaker’, ‘Pine-apple Jack’, ‘Cast-iron Poll’ (her head having been struck with a pot without injury to her), ‘Whilky’, ‘Blackwall Poll’ (a woman generally having two black eyes), ‘Lushy Bet’, ‘Dirty Sall’ (the costermongers generally objecting to dirty women), and ‘Dancing Sue’.

 

The costermongers usually reside in the courts and alleys in the neighbourhood of the different street-markets. As a specimen of the dwellings of the struggling costers, the following may be cited: The man, a tall, thick-built, almost good-looking fellow, with a large fur cap on his head, lived with his family in a front kitchen, and as there were, with his mother-in-law, five persons, and only one bed, I was somewhat puzzled to know where they could all sleep. A cat with a kitten were seated on the hearthrug in front. ‘They keeps the varmint away,’ said the woman, stroking the ‘puss’, ‘and gives a look of home.’ By the drawers were piled up four bushel baskets, and in a dark corner near the bed stood a tall measure full of apples that scented the room. Over the head, on a string that stretched from wall to wall, dangled a couple of newly-washed shirts, and by the window were two stone barrels, for lemonade, when the coster visited the fairs and races.

 

Of the third class, or the very poor, I chose the following ‘type’ out of the many others that presented themselves. The family here lived in a small slanting-roofed house, partly stripped of its tiles. More than one half of the small leaden squares of the first-floor window were covered with brown paper, puffing out and crackling in the wind, while through the greater part of the others were thrust out ball-shaped bundles of rags, to keep out the breeze. The panes that did remain were of all shapes and sizes, and at a distance had the appearance of yellow glass, they were so stained with dirt.

 

It took me some time after I had entered the apartment before I could get accustomed to the smoke, that came pouring into the room from the chimney. The place was filled with it, curling in the light, and making everything so indistinct that I could with difficulty see the white mugs. On a mattrass, on the floor, lay a pale-faced girl—‘eighteen years old last twelfth-cake day’—her drawn-up form showing in the patch-work counterpane that covered her. She had just been confined, and the child had died! A little straw, stuffed into an old tick, was all she had to lie upon, and even that had been given up to her by the mother until she was well enough to work again. The room was about nine feet square, and furnished a home for three women. The ceiling slanted like that of a garret. The chair I sat on was by far the best out of the three in the room, and that had no back, and only half its quantity of straw.

 

The neighbours helped her a good deal, and often sent her part of their unsold greens;—even if it was only the outer leaves of the cabbages, she was thankful for them.

 

They generally prefer the poorer neighbourhoods. They go down or through almost all the courts and alleys—and avoid the better kind of streets, unless with lobsters, rabbits, or onions. If they have anything inferior, they visit the low Irish districts—for the Irish people, they say, want only quantity, and care nothing about quality

 

In the season the poor generally dine upon herrings. The poorer classes live mostly on fish, and the ‘dropped’ and ‘rough’ fish is bought chiefly for the poor.

 

‘I’ve boiled lots of oranges,’ chuckled one man, ‘and sold them to Irish hawkers, as wasn’t wide awake, for stunning big uns. The boiling swells the oranges and so makes ’em look finer ones, but it spoils them, for it takes out the juice. People can’t find that out though until it’s too late. I boiled the oranges only a few minutes, and three or four dozen at a time.’ Oranges thus prepared will not keep, and any unfortunate Irishwoman, tricked as were my informant’s customers, is astonished to find her stock of oranges turn dark-coloured and worthless in forty-eight hours.

 

A cheap red-skinned fruit, known to costers as ‘gawfs’, is rubbed hard, to look bright and feel soft, and is mixed with apples of a superior description. Some foreign apples, from Holland and Belgium, were bought very cheap last March, at no more than 16d. a bushel, and on a fine morning as many as 50 boys might be seen rubbing these apples. The smaller apples are thrown to and fro in a sack, a lad holding each end.

 

Cherries are capital for mixing, I was assured by practical men. They purchase three sieves of indifferent Dutch, and one sieve of good English cherries, spread the English fruit over the inferior quality, and sell them as the best.

 

Filberts they bake to make them look brown and ripe. Prunes they boil to give them a plumper and finer appearance. The latter trick, however, is not unusual in the shops.

 

The more honest costermongers will throw away fish when it is unfit for consumption, less scrupulous dealers, however, only throw away what is utterly unsaleable; but none of them fling away the dead eels, which are mixed with the living, often in the proportion of 20 lb. dead to 5 lb. alive, equal quantities of each being accounted very fair dealing.

 

On a Saturday—the coster’s business day—it is computed that as many as 2,000 donkey-barrows, and upwards of 3,000 women with shallows and head-baskets visit this market during the forenoon.  As you glance down any one of the neighbouring streets, the long rows of carts and donkey-barrows seem interminable in the distance. They are of all kinds, from the greengrocer’s taxed cart to the coster’s barrow—from the showy excursion-van to the rude square donkey-cart and bricklayer’s truck. In every street they are ranged down the middle and by the curb-stones. Along each approach to the market, too, nothing is to be seen, on all sides, but vegetables; the pavement is covered with heaps of them waiting to be carted; the flagstones are stained green with the leaves trodden under foot; sieves and sacks full of apples and potatoes, and bundles of broccoli and rhubarb, are left unwatched upon almost every door-step;

 

Men and women push past with their arms bowed out by the cauliflowers under them, or the red tips of carrots pointing from their crammed aprons, or else their faces are red with the weight of the loaded head-basket. The donkey-barrows, from their number and singularity, force you to stop and notice them. Every kind of ingenuity has been exercised to construct harness for the costers’ steeds; where a buckle is wanting, tape or string make the fastening secure; traces are made of rope and old chain,

 

There is no shouting, as at other markets, but a low murmuring hum is heard, like the sound of the sea at a distance, and through each entrance to the market the crowd sweeps by. Cabbages are piled up into stacks as it were. Carts are heaped high with turnips, and bunches of carrots like huge red fingers, are seen in all directions. Flower-girls, with large bundles of violets under their arms, run past, leaving a trail of perfume behind them. At every turn there is a fresh odor to sniff at; either the bitter aromatic perfume of the herbalists’ shops breaks upon you, or the scent of oranges, then of apples, and then of onions is caught for an instant as you move along.  The sieves of crimson love-apples, polished like china,—the bundles of white glossy leeks, their roots dangling like fringe,—the celery, with its pinky stalks and bright green tops,—the dark purple pickling-cabbages,—the scarlet carrots,—the white knobs of turnips,—the bright yellow balls of oranges, and the rich brown coats of the chestnuts—attract the eye on every side.

 

Cases of lemons in their white paper jackets, and blue grapes, just seen above the sawdust are ranged about, and in some places the ground is slippery as ice from the refuse leaves and walnut husks scattered over the pavement.

 

The curb-stone is blocked up by a crowd of admiring lads, gathered round the bird-catcher’s green stand, and gazing at the larks beating their breasts against their cages.

 

One has seedcake, another small-tooth and other combs, others old caps, or pig’s feet, and one hawker of knives, razors, and short hatchets, may occasionally be seen driving a bargain with a countryman, who stands passing his thumb over the blade to test its keenness.

 

Men and women, and most especially boys, purchase their meals day after day in the streets. The coffee-stall supplies a warm breakfast; shell-fish of many kinds tempt to a luncheon; hot-eels or pea-soup, flanked by a potato ‘all hot’, serve for a dinner; and cakes and tarts, or nuts and oranges, with many varieties of pastry, confectionary, and fruit,

 

Men whose lives, as I have before stated, are alternations of starvation and surfeit, love some easily-swallowed and comfortable food, better than the most approved substantiality of a dinner-table.

 

The solids then, according to street estimation, consist of hot-eels, pickled whelks, oysters, sheep’s-trotters, pea-soup, fried fish, ham-sandwiches, hot green peas, kidney puddings, boiled meat puddings, beef, mutton, kidney, and eel pies, and baked potatoes. In each of these provisions the street poor find a mid-day or mid-night meal.

 

The pastry and confectionary which tempt the street eaters are tarts of rhubarb, currant, gooseberry, cherry, apple, damson, cranberry, and (so called) mince pies; plum dough and plum-cake; lard, currant, almond and many other varieties of cakes,

 

One costermonger hit upon the plan of vending sandwiches at the theatre doors. The attempt was successful; the man soon took 10s. a night, half of which was profit. He ‘attended’ both the great theatres, and was ‘doing well’; but at five or six weeks’ end, competitors appeared in the field.   At first, I made 10s., and 7s., and 8s. a week—that’s seven years, or so—but things are worse now, and I make 3s. 6d. some weeks, and 5s. others, and 6s. is an out-and-outer. My rent’s 2s. a week. I’d do anything to get out of it; but I don’t see a way.  I’ve often walked eight miles to see if I could find ham a halfpenny a pound cheaper anywhere.

I do dread the winter so. I’ve stood up to the ankles in snow till after midnight, and till I’ve wished I was snow myself, and could melt like it and have an end. I’d do anything to get away from this, but I can’t. I’ve been bilked by cabmen, who’ve taken a sandwich; but, instead of paying for it, have offered to fight me. There’s no help. We’re knocked about sadly by the police. Time’s very heavy on my hands, sometimes, and that’s where you feel it.

I live very poorly. A ha’porth or a penn’orth of cheap fish, which I cook myself, is one of my treats—either herrings or plaice—with a ’tatur, perhaps. Then there’s a sort of meal, now and then, off the odds and ends of the ham, such as isn’t quite viewy enough for the public, along with the odds and ends of the loaves.

 

Recently it was calculated that 436,800 ham-sandwiches were supplied by street-sellers,

 

The cat and dogs’-meat dealers, or ‘carriers’, as they call themselves, generally purchase the meat at the knackers’ (horse-slaughterers’) yards. There are upwards of twenty of such yards in London.

 

The proprietors of these yards purchase live and dead horses. They contract for them with large firms, such as brewers, coal-merchants, and large cab and ’bus yards, giving so much per head for their old live and dead horses through the year. The live horses are purchased merely for slaughtering. Frequently young horses that will not work in cabs—such as ‘jibs’—are sold to the horse-slaughterers as useless. They are kept in the yard, and after being well fed, often turn out good horses. The horse to be slaughtered has his mane clipped as short as possible (on account of the hair, which is valuable). The bones (called ‘racks’ by the knackers) are chopped up and boiled, in order to extract the fat, which is used for greasing common harness, and the wheels of carts and drags, &c.  The bones themselves are sold for manure. The pieces of flesh are thrown into large coppers or pans, about nine feet in diameter and four feet deep. Each of these pans will hold about three good-sized horses. Sometimes two large brewers’ horses will fill them, and sometimes as many as four ‘poor’ cab-horses may be put into them. The flesh is boiled about an hour and 20 minutes for a ‘killed’ horse, and from two hours to two hours and 20 minutes for a dead horse (a horse dying from age or disease). The flesh, when boiled, is taken from the coppers, laid on the stones, and sprinkled with water to cool it. It is then weighed out

 

Cat ladies go way back

 

There was one woman who used to have as much as 16 pennyworth [of cat food] every day. This person used to get out on the roof of the house and throw it to the cats on the tiles. By this she brought so many stray cats round about the neighbourhood, that the parties in the vicinity complained; it was quite a nuisance. She would have the meat always brought to her before ten in the morning, or else she would send to a shop for it, and between 10 and 11 in the morning the noise and cries of the hundreds of stray cats attracted to the spot was ‘terrible to hear’. When the meat was thrown to the cats on the roof, the riot, and confusion, and fighting, was beyond description.  ‘A beer-shop man’, I was told, ‘was obliged to keep five or six dogs to drive the cats from his walls.’

 

Prior to 1824, coffee was in little demand, and often adulterated by mixing ground chicory with the ground coffee, was an enhancement of the profits, the chicory itself being, in its turn, adulterated by the admixture of baked carrots, and the like saccharine roots, which, of course, are not subjected to any duty.  The coffee-stall usually consists of a spring-barrow, with two, and occasionally four, wheels. Some are made up of tables, and some have a tressel and board. On the top of this are placed two or three, and sometimes four, large tin cans, holding upon an average five gallons each. Beneath each of these cans is a small iron fire-pot, perforated like a rushlight shade, and here charcoal is continually burning, so as to keep the coffee or tea, with which the cans are filled, hot throughout the early part of the morning.

 

Interview with a coffee stall vendor: ‘I was a mason’s labourer, a smith’s labourer, a plasterer’s labourer, or a bricklayer’s labourer. I was, indeed, a labouring man. I could not get employment. I was for six months without any employment.  I saw no other means of getting a living but out of the streets. I was almost starving before I took to it—that I certainly was. I’m not ashamed of telling anybody that, because it’s true. Many said they wouldn’t do such a thing as keep a coffee-stall, but I said I’d do anything to get a bit of bread honestly.

 

The milk-vendors sell upon an average, in the summer, from 18 to 20 quarts per day; in the winter, not more than a third of that quantity. The chief customers are infants, and adults, and others, of a delicate constitution, there’s twenty women, and more, to one man what drinks new milk.

 

The itinerant trade in pies is one of the most ancient of the street callings of London. The meat pies are made of beef or mutton; the fish pies of eels; the fruit of apples, currants, gooseberries, plums, damsons, cherries, raspberries, or rhubarb, according to the season—and occasionally of mince-meat. A few years ago the street pie-trade was very profitable, but it has been almost destroyed by the ‘pie-shops’. The pie-dealers usually make the pies themselves. The meat is bought in ‘pieces’, of the same part as the sausage-makers’ purchase. Treacle and sugar are the ground-work of the manufacture of all kinds of sweet-stuff. ‘Hardbake’, ‘almond tony’, ‘halfpenny lollipops’, ‘black balls’, the cheaper ‘bulls eyes’, and ‘squibs’ are all made of treacle

 

Candy Maker: Of peppermint rock and sticks he made a good quantity. Half-a-crown’s worth, as retailed in the streets, requires 4 lbs. of rough raw sugar at 4¼d. per lb., 1½d. for scent (essence of peppermint), 1½d. for firing, and ½d. for paper

 

We now come to a class of street-folk wholly distinct from any before. As yet we have been dealing principally with the uneducated portion of the street-people—men whom, for the most part, are allowed to remain in nearly the same primitive and brutish state as the savage—creatures with nothing but their appetites, instincts, and passions to move them, and made up of the same crude combination of virtue and vice—the same generosity combined with the same predatory tendencies as the Bedouins of the desert—the same love of revenge and disregard of pain, and often the same gratitude and susceptibility to kindness as the Red Indian—and, furthermore, the same insensibility to female honour and abuse of female weakness.

 

The street-sellers of stationery, literature, and the fine arts, however, differ from all before treated of in the general, though far from universal, education of the sect. They constitute principally the class of street-orators, known in these days as ‘patterers’, and formerly termed ‘mountebanks’,—people who, in the words of Strutt, strive to ‘help off their wares by pompous speeches, in which little regard is paid either to truth or propriety’.

To indulge in this kind of oral puffery, of course, requires a certain exercise of the intellect, and it is the consciousness of their mental superiority which makes the patterers look down upon the costermongers as an inferior body.

 

Few of the residents in London—but chiefly those in the quieter streets—have not been aroused, and most frequently in the evening, by a hurly-burly on each side of the street. An attentive listening will not lead any one to an accurate knowledge of what the clamor is about. It is from a ‘mob’ or ‘school’ of the running patterers (for both those words are used), and consists of two, three, or four men. All these men state that the greater the noise they make, the better is the chance of sale. The running patterers describe, or profess to describe, the contents of their papers as they go rapidly along, and they seldom or ever stand still. They usually deal in murders, seductions, explosions, alarming accidents, ‘assassinations’, deaths of public characters, duels, and love-letters. But popular, or notorious, murders are the best sellers.

 

“The murder of Sarah Holmes at Lincoln is good, too—that there has been worked for the last five year successively every winter. Poor Sarah Holmes! Bless her! she has saved me from walking the streets all night many a time. Some of the best of these have been in work twenty years—the Scarborough murder has full twenty years. It’s called “THE SCARBOROUGH TRAGEDY”. I’ve worked it myself. It’s about a noble and rich young naval officer seducing a poor clergyman’s daughter. Mostly all our customers is females. They are the chief dependence we have. The Scarborough Tragedy is very attractive. It draws tears to the women’s eyes to think that a poor clergyman’s daughter, who is remarkably beautiful, should murder her own child; it’s very touching to every feeling heart.

Then there’s the Liverpool Tragedy—that’s very attractive. It’s a mother murdering her own son, through gold. He had come from the East Indies, and married a rich planter’s daughter. He came back to England to see his parents after an absence of thirty years. They kept a lodging-house in Liverpool for sailors; the son went there to lodge, and meant to tell his parents who he was in the morning. His mother saw the gold he had got in his boxes, and cut his throat—severed his head from his body;

If there be no truths for sale—no stories of criminals’ lives and loves to be condensed from the diffusive biographies in the newspapers—no ‘helegy’ for a great man gone—no prophecy and no crim. con.—the death hunter invents, or rather announces, them. He puts some one to death for the occasion, which is called a cock”.

 

One man told me that in the last eight or ten years, he, either singly or with his ‘mob’, had twice put the Duke of Wellington to death, once by a fall from his horse, and the other time by a ‘sudden and mysterious’ death, without any condescension to particulars.

 

It is very easy to stigmatise the death-hunter when he sets off all the attractions of a real or pretended murder,—when he displays on a board, as does the standing patterer, ‘illustrations’ of ‘the ’dentical pick-axe’ of Manning, or the stable of Good,—or when he invents or embellishes atrocities which excite the public mind. He does, however, but follow in the path of those who are looked up to as ‘the press’,—as the ‘fourth estate’.

 

The Illustrated London News is prompt in depicting the locality of any atrocity over which the curious in crime may gloat. The Observer, in costly advertisements, boasts of its 20 columns (sometimes with a supplement) of details of some vulgar and mercenary bloodshed,—the details being written in a most honest deprecation of the morbid and savage tastes to which the writer is pandering.

 

Until the ‘respectable’ press become a more healthful public instructor, we have no right to blame the death-hunter, who is but an imitator—a follower—and that for a meal.

 

The ballad-singer and seller of to-day is the sole descendant, or remains, of the minstrel of old, as regards the business of the streets. The themes of the minstrels were wars, and victories, and revolutions; so of the modern man of street ballads. If the minstrel celebrated with harp and voice the unhorsings, the broken bones, the deaths, the dust, the blood, and all the glory and circumstance of a tournament,—so does the ballad-seller, with voice and fiddle, glorify the feelings, the broken bones, the blood, the deaths, and all the glory and circumstance of a prize-fight. In his satire the modern has somewhat of an advantage over his predecessor. The minstrel not rarely received a ‘largesse’ to satirize some one obnoxious to a rival, or to a disappointed man. The ballad-singer (or chaunter, for these remarks apply with equal force to both of these street-professionals), is seldom hired to abuse.

 

‘One gentleman, you see, sir, gave us 1s. to go and sing; and afore we’d well finished the chorus, somebody sent us from the house another 1s. to go away agin. As it is, I sometimes write verses all over a slate, and rub them out again. Live hard! yes, indeed, we do live hard. I hardly know the taste of meat. We live on bread and butter, and tea; no, not any fish. As you see, sir, I work at tinning. I put new bottoms into old tin tea-pots, and such like.’

 

Of the ‘Gallows’ Literature of the Streets

 

Under this head I class all the street-sold publications which relate to the hanging of malefactors. A very extensive a portion of the reading of the poor is supplied by the ‘Sorrowful Lamentations’ and ‘Last Dying Speech, Confession, and Execution’ of criminals.

 

Not long after Rush was hung, a gallows literature vendor saw, one evening after dark, through an uncurtained cottage window, 11 persons, young and old, gathered round a scanty fire, which was made to blaze by being fed with a few sticks. An old man was reading, to an attentive audience, a broad-sheet of Rush’s execution, which my informant had sold to him. The most important of all the broad-sheets of executions, according to concurrent, and indeed unanimous, testimony is the case of Rush. The sheet bears the title of ‘The Sorrowful Lamentation and Last Farewell of J. B. Rush, who is ordered for Execution on Saturday next, at Norwich Castle’. There are three illustrations. The largest represents Rush, cloaked and masked, ‘shooting Mr Jermy, Sen.’. Another is of ‘Rush shooting Mrs Jermy’. A prostrate body is at her feet, and the lady herself is depicted as having a very small waist and great amplitude of gown-skirts. The account of the trial and biography of Rush, his conduct in prison, &c., is a concise and clear enough condensation from the newspapers. Indeed, Rush’s Sorrowful Lamentation is the best, in all respects, of any execution broad-sheet I have seen; 2. 5 million copies of Rush sold and four other gallows accounts 1.6 million or so

 

Nearly all I have seen have one characteristic—the facts can be plainly understood. The narrative, embracing trial, biography, &c., is usually prepared by the printer, being a condensation from the accounts in the newspapers, and is perhaps intelligible, simply because it is a condensation. Often a love letter written by the murderer addressed to either wife or sweetheart—in the style of ‘a last letter” is included, also written to father, mother, son, daughter, or friend; and is usually to the following purport:

‘My Dear——, —By the time you receive this my hours, in this world, will indeed be short. It is an old and true saying, that murderers will one day meet their proper reward. My sufferings have been more than I can possibly describe. Let me entreat you to turn from your evil ways and lead a honest and sober life.

 

Another account: On arriving at the foot of the steps leading to the scaffold she thanked the sheriffs and the worthy governor of the prison, for their kind attentions to her during her confinement; & then the unfortunate woman was seen on the scaffold, there was a death like silence prevailed among the vast multitude of people assembled. In a few seconds the bolt was drawn, and, after a few convulsive struggles, the unhappy woman ceased to exist.’

 

This mode of procedure in ‘gallows’ literature, and this style of composition, have prevailed for 20 to 30 years.  In the most ‘popular’ murders, the street ‘papers’ are a mere recital from the newspapers, but somewhat more brief, when the suspected murderer is in custody; but when the murderer has not been apprehended, or is unknown, ‘then,’ said one Death-hunter, ‘we has our fling,

 

Some of these books have the title-page set forth in full display,—for example: ‘Horrible Murder and Mutilation of Lucy Game, aged 15, by her Cruel Brother, William Game, aged 9, at Westmill, Hertfordshire. His Committal and Confession. With a Copy of Letter. Also, Full Particulars of the Poisonings in Essex.’ Here, as there was no execution, the matter was extended, to include the poisonings in Essex.

 

Of the Street-Sellers of Conundrums‘This Picture when looked at from a particular point of view, will not only appear perfect in all respects and free from distortion, but the figures will actually appear to stand out in relief from the paper.’

In the body of the broad-sheet are the Enigmas, &c., announced; of each of which I give a specimen, to show the nature of this street performance or entertainment. Enigma 107 is— ‘I’ve got no wings, yet in the air I often rise and fall; I’ve got no feet, yet clogs I wear, And shoes, and boots, and all.’ As the answer is foot-ball.  The ‘Conundrums’ are next in the arrangement, and I cite one of them: ‘Why are there, strictly speaking, only 325 days in the year?’ ‘Because,’ is the reply, ‘forty of them are lent and never returned.’ The ‘Riddles’ follow in this portion of the ‘Nuts to Crack’.  ‘What gentleman is it,’ one man told me he would ask, ‘in this street, that has— “Eyes like saucers, a back like a box, A nose like a pen-knife, and a voice like a fox?” You can learn for a penny.  One vendor said that when he saw a tailor’s name on a door, as soon as he passed the corner of the street, and sometimes in the same street, would ask: “Why is Mr So-and-so, the busy tailor of this (or the next street) never at home?” “Because he’s always cutting out.

 

Of the Street-Sellers of Engravings, etc., in Umbrellas, etc.   The sale of ‘prints’, ‘pictures’, and ‘engravings’—I heard them designated by each term—in umbrellas in the streets, has been known, as far as I could learn from the street-folk for some 15 years. The umbrella is inverted and the ‘stock’ is disposed within its expanse. The engravings thus sold are of all descriptions. Some have evidently been the frontispieces of sixpenny or lower-priced works. These works sometimes fall into hands of the ‘waste collectors’. Many of these were and are found in the ‘street umbrellas’; more especially the portraits of popular actors and actresses. ‘Mr J. P. Kemble, as Hamlet’ or ‘Mrs Siddons, as Lady Macbeth’

Well, sir, I think I sell most “coloured”. “Master Toms” wasn’t bad last summer. “Master Toms” was pictures of cats, sir—you must have seen them—and I had them different colours. If a child looks on with its father, very likely, it’ll want “pussy”, and if the child cries for it, it’s almost a sure sale. There’s so many “fine portraits of Her Majesty”, or the others, given away with the first number of this or of that, that people’s overstocked.

 

The street-sellers of manufactured articles present, as a body, so many and often such varying characteristics, that I cannot offer to give a description of them as a whole. Among them are several distinct and peculiar street-characters, such as the pack-men, who carry their cotton or linen goods in packs on their backs, and are all itinerants. Then there are duffers, who vend pretended smuggled goods, handkerchiefs, silks, tobacco or cigars; also, the sellers of sham sovereigns and sham gold rings

and the men who vend poison for vermin and go about the streets with live rats clinging to, or running about, their persons. This class of street-sellers also includes many of the very old and the very young; the diseased, crippled, maimed, and blind. These poor creatures sell, and sometimes obtain a charitable penny, by offering to sell such things as boxes of lucifer-matches; cakes of blacking; boot, stay, and other laces; pins, and sewing and knitting-needles; tapes; cotton-bobbins; garters; pincushions; combs; nutmeg-graters;

 

“Here I am, the original cheap John from Sheffield. I’ve not come here to get money; not I; I’ve come here merely for the good of the public, and to let you see how you’ve been imposed upon by a parcel of pompous shopkeepers, who are not content with less than 100 per cent. for rubbish. Here I am, cheap John, born without a shirt, one day while my mother was out, in a haystack.

I’ve in this cart a cargo of useful and cheap goods; can supply you with anything, from a needle to an anchor. Nobody can sell as cheap as me, seeing that I gets all my goods upon credit, and never means to pay for them. Now then, what shall we begin with? Here’s a beautiful guard-chain; if it isn’t silver, it’s the same colour—I don’t say it isn’t silver, nor I don’t say it is—in that affair use your own judgment

See how it improves a man’s appearance’ (hanging the chain round his neck). ‘Any young man here present wearing this chain will always be shown into the parlour instead of the tap-room; into the best pew in church, when he and—but the advantages the purchaser of this chain will possess I haven’t time to tell. What! no buyers? Why, what’s the matter with ye? Have you no money, or no brains? But I’ll ruin myself for your sakes. Say 9s. for this splendid piece of jewellery—8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1—a shilling, will anybody give a shilling? Well, here 11d., 10d., 9d., 8d., 7d., 6½d., 6d.! Is there ever a buyer at sixpence? Now I’ll ask no more and I’ll take no less;

‘This is the original teapot’ (producing one), ‘formerly invented by the Chinese; the first that ever was imported by those celebrated people—only two of them came over in three ships. If I do not sell this to-day, I intend presenting it to the British Museum or the Great Exhibition.”

 

I now give an example of one of the classes driven to the streets by utter inability to labour. Many ingrained beggars certainly use the street trade as a cloak for alms-seeking, but as certainly many more, with every title to our assistance, use it as a means of redemption from beggary.

 

“On a wet day when I can’t get out, I often go without food. I may have a bit of bread and butter give me, but that’s all—then I lie a-bed. I feel miserable enough when I see the rain come down of a week day, I can tell you. Ah, it is very miserable indeed lying in bed all day, and in a lonely room, without perhaps a person to come near one—helpless as I am—and hear the rain beat against the windows, and all that without nothing to put in your lips. It’s very hard work indeed is street-selling for such as me. I can’t walk no distance. I suffer a great deal of pains in my back and knees. When I go only a short way I crawl along on my knees and toes. The most I’ve ever crawled is two miles. When I get home afterwards, I’m in great pain. My knees swell dreadfully, and they’re all covered with blisters. I can’t wash nor ondress myself. Sometimes I think of my helplessness a great deal. The thoughts of it used to throw me into fits at one time—very bad. It’s the Almighty’s will that I am so, and I must abide by it. People says, as they passes me in the streets, “Poor fellow, it’s a shocking thing”; but very seldom they does any more than pity me”.

 

Of the Life of a Street-Seller of Dog-Collars. ‘I was born in Brewer-street, St James,’ he said, in answer to my questions; ‘I am 73 years of age. My father and mother were poor people; I never went to school; my father died while I was young; my mother used to go out charing, she couldn’t afford to pay for schooling, and told me, I must look out and yearn my own living while I was a mere chick. At ten years of age I went to sea in the merchant sarvice.

I went three voyages besides to the West Ingees. I never got drunk even there, though I was obliged to drink rum; it wouldn’t ha done to ha drunk the water NEAT, there was so many insects in it. I used to get up at 4 o’clock in the morning in the summer time, and make my collars; then I’d turn out about 9, and keep out until 7 or 8 at night. I seldom took more than 2s. per day. What profit did I get out of 2s.? Why, lor bless you, sir! if I hadn’t made them myself, I shouldn’t have got no profit at all.

Why, I think I’d a starved if it hadn’t a been for the ’bus-men about Hungerford-market. They are good lads them there ’bus lads to such as me; they used to buy my collars when they didn’t want them. Ask any on ’em if they know anything about old Tom, the collar-maker, and see if they don’t flare up and respect me.”

 

The pedlar tallyman is a hawker who supplies his customers with goods, receiving payment by weekly installments, and derives his name from the tally or score he keeps with his customers. Linen drapery—or at least the general routine of linen-draper’s stock, as silk-mercery,* hosiery, woollen cloths, &c.—is the most prevalent trade of the tallyman. There are a few shoemakers and some household furniture dealers who do business in the tally or ‘score’ system; but the great majority are linen-drapers.

 

There are many who have incurred a tally debt, and have never been able to ‘get a-head of it’, but have been kept poor by it all their lives. The great majority of the tally-packmen are Scotchmen. The children who are set to watch the arrival of the tallyman, and apprise the mother of his approach, when not convenient to pay, whisper instead of ‘Mother, here’s the Tallyman,’

 

After his pitch, should she still demur, he says, ‘O, I’m sure your husband cannot object—he will not be so unreasonable; besides, consider the easy mode of payment, you’ll only have to pay 1s. 6d. a week for every pound’s worth of goods you take; why it’s like nothing; you possess yourself of respectable clothing and pay for them in such an easy manner that you never miss it’.

 

These preliminaries being settled, and the question having been asked what business the husband is—where he works—and (if it can be done without offence) what are his wages? The Scotchman takes stock of the furniture, &c.; the value of what the room contains gives him a sufficiently correct estimate of the circumstances of his customers. His next visit is to the nearest chandler’s shop, and there as blandly as possible he inquires into the credit, &c., of Mr——. If he deal, however, with the chandler, the tallyman accounts it a bad omen, as people in easy circumstances seldom resort to such places. ‘It is unpleasant to me,’ he says to the chandler, ‘making these inquiries; ‘but Mrs ——wishes to open an account with me, and I should like to oblige them if I thought my money was safe.’ ‘Do you trust them, and what sort of payers are they?’ According to the reply—the tallyman determines upon his course. But he rarely stops here; he makes inquiries also at the greengrocer’s, the beer shop, &c. The persons who connect themselves with the tallyman, little know the inquisition they subject themselves to.

 

The Blind Street-Seller of Boot-Laces.  ‘I can’t see the least light in the world—not the brightest sun that ever shone. I have pressed my eye-balls—they are quite decayed, you see; but I have pushed them in, and they have merely hurt me, and the water has run from them faster than ever. I have never seen any colours when I did so.’

 

Of the Street-Sellers of Corn-Salve. ‘Here you have a speedy remedy for every sort of corn! Your hard corn, soft corn, blood corn, black corn, old corn, new corn, wart, or bunion, can be safely cured in three days! ‘Here you are! here you are! all that has to complain of corns. As fast as the shoemaker lames you, I’ll cure you. Now, in this little box you see a large corn which was drawn by this very salve from the honourable foot of the late lamented Sir Robert Peel. It’s been in my possession three years and four months, and though I’m a poor man—hard corn, soft corn, or any corn—though I’m a poor man, the more’s the pity, I wouldn’t sell that corn for the newest sovereign coined. No cutting and paring, and sharpening penknives, and venturing on razors to level your corns; this salve draws them out. The corn from ‘the honourable foot’ of Sir Robert Peel, or from the foot of any one likely to interest the audience, has been scraped and trimmed from a cow’s heel.”

 

Some get a friend to post a letter—expressive of delighted astonishment at the excellence and rapidity of the corn-cure—at some post-office and display the letter, with the genuine post-mark of Piccadilly, St James’s-street, Pall-mall, or any such quarter, to show how the fashionable world avails itself of his wares, cheap as they are, and fastidious as are the fashionable!

 

Of the Street-Seller of Crackers and Detonating Balls. The trade is only known in the streets at holiday seasons.  At the fairs near London there is a considerable sale of these combustibles; and they are often displayed on large stalls in the fair. They furnish the means of practical jokes to the people on their return.

 

Of the Street-Sellers of Dolls.  The making of dolls, like that of many a thing required for a mere recreation, a toy, a pastime, is often carried on amidst squalor, wretchedness, or privation, or—to use the word I have frequently heard among the poor—‘pinching’.  there’s so many bazaars, and so many toy shops that the doll hawker hasn’t half the chance he used to have. One vendor told me “the police are so very particular there’s not much of a livelihood to be had. We lays the dolls out to the best advantage in a deep basket, all standing up, as it were, or leaning against the sides of the basket. The legs and bodies is carefully wrapped in tissue paper, not exactly to preserve the lower part of the doll, for that isn’t so very valuable, but in reality to conceal the legs and body, which is rather the reverse of symmetrical; for, to tell the truth, every doll looks as if it were labouring under an attack of the gout.

‘The way I took to the dolls was this; I met a girl with a doll basket one day as I was standing at Somerset-house corner; she and I got a talking. “Will you go to the ’Delphy to night?” says I; she consented. They was a playing Tom and Jerry* at this time, all the street-sellers went to see it, and other people; and nice and crabbed some on ’em was. Well, we goes to the ’Delphy—and I sees her often arter that, and at last gets married. She used to buy her dolls ready made; I soon finds out where to get the heads—and the profits when we made them ourselves was much greater.

We used to spend our money very foolishly; we were too fond of what was called getting on the spree. You see we might have done well if we had liked, but we hadn’t the sense.

‘I was selling wax-dolls one day in London, and a gentleman asked me if I could mend a wax figure whose face was broken. I replied yes, for I had made a few wax heads, large size, for some showmen, I had made some murderers who was hung;

 

Of the Street-Sellers of Poison for Rats. The rat-catcher’s dress is usually a velveteen jacket, strong corduroy trowsers, and laced boots. Round his shoulder he wears an oilskin belt, on which are painted the figures of huge rats, with fierce-looking eyes and formidable whiskers.

Occasionally—and in the country far more than in town—he carries in his hand an iron cage in which are ferrets, while two or three crop-eared rough terriers dog his footsteps. Sometimes a tamed rat runs about his shoulders and arms, or nestles in his bosom or in the large pockets of his coat. When a rat-catcher is thus accompanied, there is generally a strong aromatic odor about him, far from agreeable; this is owing to his clothes being rubbed with oil of thyme and oil of aniseed, mixed together. This composition is said to be so attractive to the sense of the rats (when used by a man who understands its due apportionment and proper application) that the vermin have left their holes and crawled to the master of the powerful spell.

The rat-catchers are also rat-killers. They destroy the animals sometimes by giving them what is called in the trade ‘an alluring poison’. Every professional destroyer, or capturer, of rats will pretend that as to poison he has his own particular method—his secret—his discovery. But there is no doubt that arsenic is the basis of all their poisons.

Another mode of killing rats is for the professional destroyer to slip a ferret into the rats’ haunts wherever it is practicable. The ferret soon dislodges them, and as they emerge for safety they are seized by terriers, who, after watching the holes often a long time, and very patiently, and almost breathlessly, throttle them silently, excepting the short squeak, or half-squeak, of the rat, who, by a ‘good dog’, is seized unerringly by the part of the back where the terrier’s gripe and shake is speedy death; if the rat still move, or shows signs of life, the well-trained rat-killer’s dog cracks the vermin’s skull between his teeth.

 

Of the Hawking of Tea. The branch of the tea trade closely connected with the street business is that in tea-leaves. The exhausted leaves of the tea-pot are purchased of servants or of poor women, and they are made into ‘new’ tea. The old tea-leaves, to be converted into new, are placed by the manufacturers on hot plates, and are re-dried and re-dyed. To give the ‘green’ hue, a preparation of copper is used. For the ‘black’ no dye is necessary in the generality of cases. This tea-manufacture is sold to ‘cheap’ or ‘slop’ shopkeepers, both in town and country, and especially for hawking in the country, and is almost always sold ready mixed.

 

Of the Children Street-Sellers of London. Among the wares sold by the boys and girls of the streets are:—money-bags, lucifer-match boxes, leather straps, belts, firewood (common, and also ‘patent’, that is, dipped into an inflammable composition), fly-papers, a variety of fruits, especially nuts, oranges, and apples; onions, radishes, water-cresses, cut flowers and lavender (mostly sold by girls), sweet-briar, India rubber, garters, and other little articles of the same material, including elastic rings to encircle rolls of paper-music, toys of the smaller kinds, cakes, steel pens and penholders with glass handles, exhibition medals and cards, gelatine cards, glass and other cheap seals, brass watch-guards, chains, and rings; small tin ware, nutmeg-graters, and other articles of a similar description, such as are easily portable; iron skewers, fuzees,* shirt buttons, boot and stay-laces, pins (and more rarely needles), cotton bobbins, Christmasing (holly and other evergreens at Christmas-tide), May-flowers, coat-studs, toy-pottery, blackberries, groundsel and chickweed, and clothes’-pegs.

There are also other things which children sell temporarily, or rather in the season. This year I saw lads selling wild birds’-nests with their eggs, such as hedge-sparrows, minnows in small glass globes, roots of the wild Early Orchis (Orchis mascula), and such like things found only out of town.

 

Independently of the vending of these articles, there are many other ways of earning a penny among the street boys: among them are found—tumblers, mud-larks, water-jacks,* Ethiopians,* ballad-singers, bagpipe boys, the variety of street musicians (especially Italian boys with organs), Billingsgate boys or young ‘roughs’, Covent Garden boys, porters, and shoeblacks (a class recently increased by the Ragged School Brigade*). A great many lads are employed also in giving away the cards and placards of advertising and puffing tradesmen, and around the theatres are children of both sexes (along with a few old people) offering play-bills for sale,

 

The going on errands and carrying parcels for persons accidentally met with; holding horses; sweeping crossings (but the best crossings are usually in the possession of adults); carrying trunks for any railway traveller to or from the terminus, and carrying them from an omnibus when the passenger is not put down at his exact destination.

 

When temporary help is needed, as when a cabman must finish the cleaning of his vehicle in a hurry, or when a porter finds himself over-weighted in his truck. Boys are, moreover, the common custodians of the donkeys on which young ladies take invigorating exercise in such places as Hampstead-heath and Blackheath. At pigeon-shooting matches they are in readiness to pick up the dead birds,

 

They have their share again in the picking of currants and gooseberries, the pottling of strawberries, in weeding, &c., &c., and though the younger children may be little employed in haymaking, or in the more important labours of the corn harvest.

 

I have had to speak far more frequently of boys than of girls, for the boy is far more the child of the streets than is the girl. The female child can do little but sell (when a livelihood is to be gained without a recourse to immorality); the boy can not only sell, but work.

 

Of the Street-Sellers of Second-Hand Articles.  Each ‘left-off ’ garment has its peculiar after uses, according to its material and condition. The practised eye of the old clothes man at once embraces every capability of the apparel, and the amount which these capabilities will realize; whether they be woollen, linen, cotton, leathern, or silken goods; or whether they be articles which cannot be classed under any of those designations, such as macintoshes and furs. A coat is the most serviceable of any second-hand clothing, originally good. It can be re-cuffed, re-collared. Restoration is a sort of re-dyeing, or rather re-colouring, by the application of gall and logwood with a small portion of copperas.

When woollen cloth was much dearer, much more substantial, and therefore much more durable, it was common for economists to have a good coat ‘turned’. It was taken to pieces by the tailor and re-made, the inner part becoming the outer.  When incapable of restoration to the appearance of a ‘respectable’ garment, the skirts are sold for the making of cloth caps; or for the material of boys’ or ‘youths’ ’ waistcoats; or for ‘poor country curates’ ’ gaiters; but not so much now as they once were.

The woollen rag, for so it is then considered, when unravelled can be made available for the manufacture of cheap yarns, being mixed with new wool. It is more probable, however, that the piece of woollen fabric which has been rejected by those who make or mend, and who must make or mend so cheaply that the veriest vagrant may be their customer, is formed not only into a new material, but into a material which sometimes is made into a new garment. These garments are inferior to those woven of new wool, both in look and wear; The fabric thus snatched, as it were, from the ruins of cloth, is known as shoddy, made into cloth for soldiers’ and sailors’ uniforms and for pilot-coats; into blanketing, drugget, stair and other carpeting, and into those beautiful table-covers,

What is not good for shoddy is good for manure, and more especially for the manure prepared by the agriculturists in Kent, Sussex, and Herefordshire, for the culture of a difficult plant—hops. It is good also for corn land (judiciously used), so that we again have the remains of the old garment in our beer or our bread.

 

Of the Street-Sellers of Petticoat and Rosemary-Lanes.  The interior of the Old Clothes Exchange has its oyster-stall, its fountain of ginger-beer, its coffeehouse, and ale-house, and a troop of peripatetic traders, boys principally, carrying trays. Outside the walls of the Exchange this trade is still thicker.

 

Close by is a brawny young Irishman, his red beard unshorn for perhaps ten days, and his neck, where it had been exposed to the weather, a far deeper red than his beard, and he is carrying a small basket of nuts.

 

Heaped-up trays of fresh-looking sponge-cakes are carried in tempting pyramids. Youths have stocks of large hard-looking biscuits, and walk about crying, ‘Ha’penny biscuits, ha’penny; three a penny, biscuits’; these, with a morsel of cheese, often supply a dinner or a luncheon.

Petticoat-lane proper is long and narrow, and to look down it is to look down a vista of many coloured garments, alike on the sides and on the ground. The effect sometimes is very striking, from the variety of hues, and the constant flitting, or gathering, of the crowd into little groups of bargainers. Gowns of every shade and every pattern are hanging up,

 

Of the Street-Sellers of Coals. According to the returns of the coal market for the last few years, there has been imported into London, on an average, 3,500,000 tons of seaborne coal annually. Besides this immense supply, the various railways have lately poured in a continuous stream of the same commodity from the inland districts.  The wealthy shopkeepers, and many others periodically see at their doors the well-loaded wagon of the coal merchant, with two or three swarthy ‘coal-porters’ bending beneath the black heavy sacks, in the act of laying in the 10 or 20 tons for yearly or half-yearly consumption. But this class is supplied from a very different quarter from that of the artisans, laborer’s, and many others, who, being unable to spare money sufficient to lay in at once a ton or two of coals, must have recourse to other means. To meet their limited resources, there may be found in every part, always in back streets, persons known as coal-shed men, there is not a low neighborhood in any part of the city which contains not two or three of them in every street.

The police reports of the last year show that many of the coal merchants, standing high in the estimation of the world, have been heavily fined for using false weights; and, did the present inquiry admit of it, there might be mentioned many other infamous practices by which the public are shamefully plundered in this commodity, and which go far to prove that the coal trade, in toto, is a gigantic fraud.

 

The people who have vans do much better than those with the carts, because they carry so much that they save time.

 

STREET-BUYERSThe principal things bought by the itinerant purchasers consist of waste-paper, hare and rabbit skins, old umbrellas and parasols, bottles and glass, broken metal, rags, dripping, grease, bones, tea-leaves, and old clothes. With the exception of the buyers of waste-paper, among whom are many active, energetic, and intelligent men, the street-buyers are of the lower sort, both as to means and intelligence. The only further exception is that among some umbrella-buyers, there is considerable smartness, and sometimes, in the repair or renewal of the ribs,  a slight degree of skill.

 

Of the Street-Buyers of Rags, Broken Metal, Bottles, Glass, and Bones. The traders in these things are not unprosperous men. The poor creatures who may be seen picking up rags in the street are ‘street-finders’, and not buyers. It is the same with the poor old men who may be seen bending under an unsavoury sack of bones. The bones have been found, or have been given for charity, and are not purchased.  Upon presenting himself at any house, he offers to buy rags, broken metal, or glass.

 

Of the Rag-and-Bottle’, and the ‘Marine-Store’ Shops. The principal purchasers of any refuse or worn-out articles are the proprietors of the rag-and-bottle-shops. The stench in these shops is positively sickening. Here in a small apartment may be a pile of rags, a sack-full of bones, the many varieties of grease and ‘kitchen-stuff’, corrupting an atmosphere.  The windows are often crowded with bottles, which exclude the light; while the floor and shelves are thick with grease and dirt.  The front of the house is sometimes one glaring colour, blue or red; so that the place may be at once recognised, even by the illiterate, as the ‘red house’, or the ‘blue house’.

 

These shops are exceedingly numerous. Perhaps in the poorer and smaller streets they are more numerous even than the chandlers’ or the beer-sellers’ places.  They might have old horse-shoe nails (valuable for steel manufacturers), and horse and donkey shoes; brass knobs; glass stoppers; small bottles (among them a number of the cheap cast ‘hartshorn bottles’); broken pieces of brass and copper; small tools (such as shoemakers’ and harness-makers’ awls*), punches, gimlets, plane-irons, hammer heads, odd dominoes, dice, and backgammon-men; lock escutcheons, keys, and the smaller sort of locks, especially padlocks; a mass of old iron, then just bought. It consisted of a number of screws of different lengths and substance; of broken bars and rails; of the odds and ends of the cogged wheels of machinery, broken up or worn out; of odd-looking spikes, and rings, and links;

 

These things had all to be assorted; some to be sold for re-use in their then form; the others to be sold that they might be melted and cast into other forms.

 

‘Why, I’ve bought everythink; at sales by auction there’s often “lots” made up of different things, and they goes for very little. I buy of people, too, that come to me, and of the regular hands that supply such shops as mine. I sell retail, and I sell to hawkers. I sell to anybody, for gentlemen ’ll come into my shop to buy anythink that’s took their fancy in passing.

 

Every kind of paper is purchased by the ‘waste-men’. An old man dies, you see, and his papers are sold off, letters and all; that’s the way; get rid of all the old rubbish, as soon as the old boy’s pointing his toes to the sky. What’s old letters worth, when the writers are dead and buried? why, perhaps 1½d. a pound, and it’s a rattling big letter that will weigh half-an-ounce.

 

Of the Street-Buyers of Umbrellas and ParasolsThey may be seen in all quarters of the town and suburbs, carrying a few ragged-looking umbrellas, or the sticks or ribs of umbrellas, under their arms, and crying ‘Umbrellas to mend,’ or ‘Any old umbrellas to sell?’ Not so very many years back the use of an umbrella by a man was regarded as partaking of effeminacy, but now they are sold in thousands in the streets, and in the second-hand shops

 

Of the Street-Finders or Collectors. These men, for by far the great majority are men, may be divided, according to the nature of their occupations, into three classes: 1. The bone-grubbers and rag-gatherers, who are, indeed, the same individuals, the pure-finders, and the cigar-end and old wood collectors. 2. The dredgermen, the mud-larks, and the sewer-hunters. 3. The dustmen and nightmen, the sweeps and the scavengers.

 

The first class go abroad daily to find in the streets, and carry away with them such things as bones, rags, ‘pure’ (or dogs’-dung), which no one appropriates. These they sell, and on that sale support a wretched life.  The second class of people are also as strictly finders; but their labor is confined to the river, or to that subterranean city of sewerage unto which the Thames supplies the great outlets. The third class is distinct from either of these, as the labourers comprised in it are not finders, but collectors or removers of the dirt and tilth of our streets and houses, and of the soot of our chimneys.

 

The two first classes also differ from the third in the fact that the sweeps, dustmen, scavengers, are paid (and often large sums) for the removal of the refuse they collect; whereas the bone-grubbers, mud-larks, pure-finders, dredgermen, and sewer-hunters, get for their pains only the value of the articles they gather.  All lead a wandering, unsettled life, compelled to be continually on foot, and to travel many miles every day in search of the articles in which they deal. They seldom have any fixed place of abode, and are mostly to be found at night in one or other of the low lodging-houses throughout London. The majority are, moreover, persons who have been brought up to other employments, but who from some failing or mishap have been reduced to such a state of distress that they were obliged to take to their present occupation, and have never after been able to get away from it.

 

The bone-picker and rag-gatherer. He may be known at once by the greasy bag which he carries on his back. Usually he has a stick in his hand, and this is armed with a spike or hook, for the purpose of more easily turning over the heaps of ashes or dirt that are thrown out of the houses, and discovering whether they contain anything that is saleable at the rag-and-bottle or marine-store shop. The bone-grubber generally seeks out the narrow back streets, where dust and refuse are cast, or where any dust-bins are accessible. The articles for which he chiefly searches are rags and bones—rags he prefers—but waste metal, such as bits of lead, pewter, copper, brass, or old iron, he prizes above all. Whatever he meets with that he knows to be in any way saleable he puts into the bag at his back.

 

The bone-pickers and rag-gatherers are all early risers. They have all their separate beats or districts, and it is most important to them that they should reach their district before anyone else of the same class can go over the ground. It usually takes the bone-picker from seven to nine hours to go over his rounds, during which time he travels from 20 to 30 miles with a quarter to a half hundredweight on his back. On his return home he proceeds to sort the contents of his bag. He separates the rags from the bones, and these again from the old metal (if he be lucky enough to have found any). When he has finished the sorting he takes his several lots to the rag-shop or the marine-store dealer, and realizes upon them whatever they may be worth.

 

‘I don’t go out before daylight to gather anything, because the police takes my bag and throws all I’ve gathered about the street to see if I have anything stolen in it. I never stole anything in all my life, indeed I’d do anything before I’d steal. Many a night I’ve slept under an arch of the railway when I hadn’t a penny to pay for my bed; but whenever the police find me that way, they make me and the rest get up, and drive us on, and tell us to keep moving. I don’t go out on wet days, there’s no use in it, as the things won’t be bought. I can’t wash and dry them, because I’m in a lodging-house. There’s a great deal more than a 100 bone-pickers about here, men, women, and children.

 

I make about 2s. 6d. a week, and the way I manage is this: sometimes I get a piece of bread about 12 o’clock, and I make my breakfast of that and cold water; very seldom I have any dinner,—unless I earn 6d. I can’t get any,—and then I have a basin of nice soup, or a penn’orth of plum-pudding and a couple of baked ’tatoes. At night I get ¼d. worth of coffee, ½d. worth of sugar, and 1¼d. worth of bread, and then I have 2d. a night left for my lodging; I always try to manage that, for I’d do anything sooner than stop out all night. I’m always happy the day when I make 4d., for then I know I won’t have to sleep in the street.  I’ve lost my health since I took to bone-picking, through the wet and cold in the winter, for I’ve scarcely any clothes, and the wet gets to my feet through the old shoes; this caused me last winter to be nine weeks in the hospital of the Whitechapel workhouse.’

 

Of the Cigar-End Finders. Almost all the street-finders, when they meet with such things, pick them up, and keep them in a pocket set apart for that purpose. The men allow the ends to accumulate till they amount to two or three pounds weight, and then some dispose of them to a person residing in the neighbourhood.  Children go out in the morning not only to gather cigar-ends, but to pick up out of dust bins, and from amongst rubbish in the streets, the smallest scraps and crusts of bread, no matter how hard or filthy they may be, which they mix up with a large quantity of water, and after washing and steeping the hard and dirty crusts, they put them into the pot or kettle and boil all together. Of this mass the whole family partake, and it often constitutes all the food they taste in the course of the day.

 

Of the Sewer-Hunters. They travel through the mud along shore in the neighbourhood of ship-building and ship-breaking yards, for the purpose of picking up copper nails, bolts, iron, and old rope. The shore-men, however, do not collect the lumps of coal and wood they meet with on their way.

 

They carry a bag on their back, and in their hand a pole seven or eight feet long, on one end of which there is a large iron hoe. The uses of this instrument are various; with it they try the ground wherever it appears unsafe, before venturing on it, and, when assured of its safety, walk forward steadying their footsteps with the staff. Should they, as often happens, even to the most experienced, sink in some quagmire, they immediately throw out the long pole armed with the hoe, which is always held uppermost for this purpose, and with it seizing hold of any object within their reach, are thereby enabled to draw themselves out; without the pole, however, their danger would be greater, for the more they struggled to extricate themselves from such places, the deeper they would sink; and even with it, they might perish, I am told, in some part, if there were nobody at hand to render them assistance.

 

To enter the sewers and explore them to any considerable distance is considered, even by those acquainted with what is termed ‘working the shores’, an adventure of no small risk. There are a variety of perils to be encountered in such places. The brick-work in many parts—especially in the old sewers—has become rotten through the continual action of the putrefying matter and moisture, and parts have fallen down and choked up the passage with heaps of rubbish; over these obstructions, nevertheless, the sewer-hunters have to scramble ‘in the best way they can’.

 

In such parts they are careful not to touch the brick-work over head, for the slightest tap might bring down an avalanche of old bricks and earth, and severely injure them, if not bury them in the rubbish. Since the construction of the new sewers, the old ones are in general abandoned by the ‘hunters’; but in many places the former channels cross and re-cross those recently constructed, and in the old sewers a person is very likely to lose his way. It is dangerous to venture far into any of the smaller sewers branching off from the main, for in this the ‘hunters’ have to stoop low down in order to proceed; and, from the confined space, there are often accumulated in such places, large quantities of foul air, which, as one of them stated, will ‘cause instantious death’. Moreover, far from there being any romance in the tales told of the rats, these vermin are really numerous and formidable in the sewers, and have been known, I am assured, to attack men when alone, and even sometimes when accompanied by others, with such fury that the people have escaped from them with difficulty.

 

In some quarters, ditches or trenches which are filled as the water rushes up the sewers with the tide; in these ditches the water is retained by a sluice, which is shut down at high tide, and lifted again at low tide, when it rushes down the sewers with all the violence of a mountain torrent, sweeping everything before it. If the sewer-hunter be not close to some branch sewer, so that he can run into it, whenever the opening of these sluices takes place, he must inevitably perish.

 

The sewer-hunters usually go in gangs of three or four for the sake of company, and in order that they may be the better able to defend themselves from the rats.

 

Whenever the shore-men come near a street grating, they close their lanterns and watch their opportunity of gliding silently past unobserved, for otherwise a crowd might collect over head and intimate to the policeman on duty, that there were persons wandering in the sewers below.

 

There are in many parts of the sewers holes where the brick-work has been worn away, and in these holes clusters of articles are found, which have been washed into them from time to time, and perhaps been collecting there for years; such as pieces of iron, nails, various scraps of metal, coins of every description, all rusted into a mass like a rock, and weighing from a half hundred to two hundred weight altogether.

 

The sewer-hunters occasionally find plate, such as spoons, ladles, silver-handled knives and forks, mugs and drinking cups, and now and then articles of jewellery; but even while thus ‘in luck’ as they call it, they do not omit to fill the bags on their backs with the more cumbrous articles they meet with—such as metals of every description, rope and bones.

 

Strange to say, the sewer-hunters are strong, robust, and healthy men, generally florid in their complexion, while many of them know illness only by name. Some of the elder men, who head the gangs when exploring the sewers, are between 60 and 80 years of age, and have followed the employment during their whole lives.

 

When we comes to a narrow-place as we don’t know, we takes the candle out of the lantern and fastens it on the hend of the o,* and then runs it up the sewer, and if the light stays in, we knows as there a’n’t no danger.  We used to go up the city sewer at Blackfriars-bridge, but that’s stopped up now; it’s boarded across inside. The city wouldn’t let us up if they knew it, ’cause of the danger, they say, but they don’t care if we hav’n’t got nothink to eat nor a place to put our heads in.

 

Of the Mud-Larks.

 

There is another class who may be termed river-finders, although their occupation is connected only with the shore; they are commonly known by the name of ‘mud-larks’, from being compelled, in order to obtain the articles they seek, to wade sometimes up to their middle through the mud left on the shore by the retiring tide. These poor creatures are certainly about the most deplorable in their appearance of any I have met with in the course of my inquiries. They may be seen of all ages, from mere childhood to positive decrepitude, crawling among the barges at the various wharfs along the river; it cannot be said that they are clad in rags, for they are scarcely half covered by the tattered indescribable things that serve them for clothing; their bodies are grimed with the foul soil of the river, and their torn garments stiffened up like boards with dirt of every possible description.

 

Among the mud-larks may be seen many old women, and it is indeed pitiable to behold them, especially during the winter, bent nearly double with age and infirmity, paddling and groping among the wet mud for small pieces of coal, chips of wood, or any sort of refuse washed up by the tide. These women always have with them an old basket or an old tin kettle, in which they put whatever they chance to find. It usually takes them a whole tide to fill this receptacle, but when filled, it is as much as the feeble old creatures are able to carry home.

 

When the tide is sufficiently low they scatter themselves along the shore, separating from each other, and soon disappear among the craft lying about in every direction. This is the case on both sides of the river, as high up as there is anything to be found, when engaged in searching the mud, hold but little converse one with another. The men and women may be passed and repassed, but they notice no one; they never speak, but with a stolid look of wretchedness they plash their way through the mire, their bodies bent down while they peer anxiously about, and occasionally stoop to pick up some paltry treasure that falls in their way.

 

The mud-larks collect whatever they happen to find, such as coals, bits of old-iron, rope, bones, and copper nails that drop from ships while lying or repairing along shore. Copper nails are the most valuable of all the articles they find, but these they seldom obtain,

 

Sometimes the younger and bolder mud-larks venture on sweeping some empty coal-barge, and one little fellow with whom I spoke, having been lately caught in the act of so doing, had to undergo for the offence seven days’ imprisonment in the House of Correction: this, he says, he liked much better than mud-larking, for while he staid there he wore a coat and shoes and stockings, and though he had not over much to eat, he certainly was never afraid of going to bed without anything at all—as he often had to do when at liberty. He thought he would try it on again in the winter, he told me, saying, it would be so comfortable to have clothes and shoes and stockings then, and not be obliged to go into the cold wet mud of a morning.

 

There was not one of them over 12 years of age, and many of them were but six. Some carried baskets, filled with the produce of their morning’s work, and others old tin kettles with iron handles. Some, for want of these articles, had old hats filled with the bones and coals they had picked up; and others, more needy still, had actually taken the caps from their own heads, and filled them with what they had happened to find. The muddy slush was dripping from their clothes and utensils, and forming a puddle in which they stood.

 

‘It is very cold in winter,’ he said, ‘to stand in the mud without shoes,’ but he did not mind it in summer. He had been three years mud-larking, and supposed he should remain a mud-lark all his life. What else could he be? for there was nothing else that he knew how to do.

 

Of the Dustmen of London

 

Dust and rubbish accumulate in houses from a variety of causes, but principally from the residuum of fires, the white ash and cinders, or small fragments of unconsumed coke, giving rise to by far the greater quantity. Some notion of the vast amount of this refuse annually produced in London may be formed from the fact that the consumption of coal in the metropolis is, according to the official returns, 3,500,000 tons per annum, which is at the rate of a little more than 11 tons per house; the poorer families, it is true, do not burn more than 2 tons in the course of the year, but then many such families reside in the same house, and hence the average will appear in no way excessive.

 

Now the ashes and cinders arising from this enormous consumption of coal would, it is evident, if allowed to lie scattered about in such a place as London, render, ere long, not only the back streets, but even the important thoroughfares, filthy and impassable. Upon the Officers of the various parishes, therefore, has devolved the duty of seeing that the refuse of the fuel consumed throughout London is removed almost as fast as produced; this they do by entering into an agreement for the clearance of the ‘dustbins’ of the parishioners as often as required, with some person who possesses all necessary appliances for the purpose—such as horses, carts, baskets, and shovels, together with a plot of waste ground whereon to deposit the refuse.

 

The persons with whom this agreement is made are called ‘dust-contractors’, and are generally men of considerable wealth.

 

The dust thus collected is used for two purposes, (1) as a manure for land of a peculiar quality; and (2) for making bricks.

 

But during the operation of sifting the dust, many things are found which are useless for either manure or brick-making, such as oyster shells, old bricks, old boots and shoes, old tin kettles, old rags and bones, &c. These are used for various purposes.

 

The bricks, &c., are sold for sinking beneath foundations, where a thick layer of concrete is spread over them. Many old bricks, too, are used in making new roads, especially where the land is low and marshy.

 

A visit to any of the large metropolitan dust-yards is far from uninteresting. Near the centre of the yard rises the highest heap, composed of what is called the ‘soil’, or finer portion of the dust used for manure. Around this heap are numerous lesser heaps, consisting of the mixed dust and rubbish carted in and shot down previous to sifting. Among these heaps are many women and old men with sieves made of iron, all busily engaged in separating the ‘brieze’ from the ‘soil’. There is likewise another large heap in some other part of the yard, composed of the cinders or ‘brieze ‘waiting to be shipped off to the brickfields. The whole yard seems alive, some sifting and others shovelling the sifted soil on to the heap, while every now and then the dustcarts return to discharge their loads, and proceed again on their rounds for a fresh supply. Cocks and hens keep up a continual scratching and cackling among the heaps, and numerous pigs seem to find great delight in rooting incessantly about after the garbage and offal collected from the houses and markets.

 

All the women present were middle aged, with the exception of one who was very old—68 years of age she told me—and had been at the business from a girl.

 

Of the General Characteristics of the Working Chimney-Sweepers There are many reasons why the chimney-sweepers have ever been a distinct and peculiar class. They have long been looked down upon as the lowest order of workers, and treated with contumely by those who were but little better than themselves. The peculiar nature of their work giving them not only a filthy appearance, but an offensive smell, of itself, in a manner, prohibited them from associating with other working men; and the natural effect of such proscription has been to compel them to herd together apart from others, and to acquire habits and peculiarities of their own widely differing from the characteristics of the rest of the labouring classes.

Such men present the appearance of having just come out of a chimney. There seems never to have been any attempt made by them to wash the soot off their faces. I am informed that there is scarcely one of them who has a second shirt or any change of clothes, and that they wear their garments night and day till they literally rot, and drop in fragments from their backs.

The chimney-sweepers generally are fond of drink; indeed their calling, like that of dustmen, is one of those which naturally lead to it. The men declare they are ordered to drink gin and smoke as much as they can, in order to rid the stomach of the soot they may have swallowed during their work.  They are considered a short-lived people, and among the journeymen, the masters ‘on their own hook’, &c., few old men are to be met with. Many of these men still suffer, I am told, from the chimney-sweeper’s cancer, which is said to arise mainly from uncleanly habits. Some sweepers assure me that they have vomited balls of soot.

The house was rented by a sweeper, a master on his own account, and every room in the place was let to sweepers and their wives or women, which, with these men, often signify one and the same thing. The inside of the house looked as dark as a coal-pit; there was an insufferable smell of soot, always offensive to those unaccustomed to it; and every person and everything which met the eye, even to the caps and gowns of the women, seemed as if they had just been steeped in Indian ink.

There are two or three ways of climbing. In wide flues you climb with your elbows and your legs spread out, your feet pressing against the sides of the flue; but in narrow flues, such as nine-inch ones, you must slant it; you must have your sides in the angles, it’s wider there, and go up just that way.’ [Here he threw himself into position—placing one arm close to his side, with the palm of the hand turned outwards, as if pressing the side of the flue, and extending the other arm high above his head, the hand apparently pressing in the same manner.] ‘There,’ he continued, ‘that’s slantin’. You just put yourself in that way, and see how small you make yourself. I niver got to say stuck myself, but a many of them did; yes, and were taken out dead. They were smothered for want of air, and the fright, and a stayin’ so long in the flue;

Most all the printices used to come from the “House” (workhouse.) There was nobody to care for them, and some masters used them very bad.  I was out of my time at fourteen, and began to get too stout to go up the flues; so after knockin’ about for a year or so, as I could do nothink else, I goes to sea on board a man-o’-war, and was away four year. Many of the boys, when they got too big and useless, used to go to sea in them days

The Quantity of Refuse Bought, Collected, or Found, in the Streets of London. Perhaps the most curious trade is that in waste paper, or as it is called by the street collectors, in ‘waste’, comprising every kind of used or useless periodical, and books in all tongues. That portion of the London street-folk who earn a scanty living by sweeping crossings constitute a large class of the Metropolitan poor. We can scarcely walk along a street of any extent, or pass through a square of the least pretensions to ‘gentility’, without meeting one or more of these private scavengers. Crossing-sweeping seems to be one of those occupations which are resorted to as an excuse for begging; and, indeed, as many expressed it to me, ‘it was the last chance left of obtaining an honest crust.’

The advantages of crossing-sweeping as a means of livelihood seem to be: 1st, the smallness of the capital required in order to commence the business; 2ndly, the excuse the apparent occupation it affords for soliciting gratuities without being considered in the light of a street-beggar; and 3rdly, the benefits arising from being constantly seen in the same place, and thus exciting the sympathy of the neighbouring householders, till small weekly allowances or ‘pensions’ are obtained.

People take to crossing-sweeping either on account of their bodily afflictions, depriving them of the power of performing ruder work, or because the occupation is the last resource left open to them of earning a living, and they considered even the scanty subsistence it yields preferable to that of the workhouse.

The greater proportion of crossing-sweepers are those who, from some bodily infirmity or injury, are prevented from a more laborious mode of obtaining their living. Among the bodily infirmities the chief are old age, asthma, and rheumatism; and the injuries mostly consist of loss of limbs. Many of the rheumatic sweepers have been bricklayers’ labourers.

‘At night-time we tumbles—that is, if the policemen ain’t nigh. We goes general to Waterloo-place when the Opera’s on. We sends on one of us ahead, as a looker-out, to look for the policeman, and then we follows. It’s no good tumbling to gentlemen going to the Opera; it’s when they’re coming back they gives us money. When they’ve got a young lady on their arm they laugh at us tumbling; some will give us a penny, others threepence,  We either do the cat’un-wheel,* or else we keep before the gentleman and lady, turning head-over-heels, putting our broom on the ground and then turning over it.

‘I work a good deal fetching cabs after the Opera is over; we general open the doors of those what draw up at the side of the pavement for people to get into as have walked a little down the Haymarket looking for a cab. We gets a month in prison if we touch the others by the columns. I once had half a sovereign give me by a gentleman; ‘After the Opera we go into the Haymarket, where all the women are who walk the streets all night. They don’t give us no money, but they tell the gentlemen to.

Whenever we come in the landlady makes us wash our feet. Very often the stones cuts our feet and makes them bleed; then we bind a bit of rag round them. We like to put on boots and shoes in the day-time, but at nighttime we can’t, because it stops the tumbling.

The ‘King’ of the Tumbling-Boy Crossing-Sweepers. The ‘king’ also was kind enough to favour me with samples of his wondrous tumbling powers. He could bend his little legs round till they curved like the long German sausages we see in the ham-and-beef shops; and when he turned head over heels, he curled up his tiny body as closely as a wood-louse, and then rolled along, wabbling like an egg. ‘The boys call me Johnny,’ he said; ‘and I’m getting on for eleven, and I goes along with the Goose and Harry, a-sweeping at St Martin’s Church, and about there. ‘Neither father nor mother’s alive, sir, but I lives along with grandmother and aunt, as owns this room, and I always gives them all I gets. ‘Sometimes I makes a shilling, sometimes sixpence, and sometimes less. I can tumble about 40 times over head and heels. I does the most of that, and I thinks it’s the most difficult, but I can’t say which gentlemen likes best. You see they are anigh sick of the head-and-heels tumbling, and then werry few of the boys can do caten-wheels on the crossings—only two or three besides me. ‘When I see anybody coming, I says, “Please, sir, give me a halfpenny,” and touches my hair, and then I throws a caten-wheel, and has a look at ’em, and if I sees they are laughing, then I goes on and throws more of ’em. Perhaps one in ten will give a chap something. ‘Goose can stand on his nose as well as me; we puts the face flat down on the ground, instead of standing on our heads. ‘Ah, we works hard for what we gets, and then there’s the policemen birching us. Some of ’em is so spiteful, they takes up their belt what they uses round the waist to keep their coat tight, and ’ll hit us with the buckle; but we generally gives ’em the lucky dodge and gets out of their way. ‘I’ve been sweeping the crossings getting on for two years. Before that I used to go caten-wheeling after the busses. I don’t like the sweeping, and I don’t think there’s e’er a one of us wot likes it. In the winter we has to be out in the cold, and then in summer we have to sleep out all night, or go asleep on the church-steps, reg’lar tired out. Eight or ten of us into a doorway of the church, where they keep the dead in a kind of airy-like underneath, and there we go to sleep. The most of the boys has got no homes.

Rat killing matches

‘All my lifetime I’ve been a-dealing a little in rats; but it was not till I come to London that I turned my mind fully to that sort of thing. ‘If anybody has a place that’s eaten up with rats, I goes and gets some ferruts, and takes a dog, if I’ve got one, and manages to kill ’em. Sometimes I keep my own ferruts, but mostly I borrows them. Some of ’em is real cowards to what others is; some won’t even kill a rat.

I thought it necessary, for the full elucidation of my subject, to visit the well-known public-house in London, where, on a certain night in the week, a pit is built up, and regular rat-killing matches take place, and where those who have sporting dogs, and are anxious to test their qualities, can, after such matches are finished, purchase half a dozen or a dozen rats for them to practise upon, and judge for themselves of their dogs’ ‘performances’.

Like the bar, no pains had been taken to render the room attractive to the customers, for, with the exception of the sporting pictures hung against the dingy paper, it was devoid of all adornment. Over the fireplace were square glazed boxes, in which were the stuffed forms of dogs famous in their day. Pre-eminent among the prints was that representing the ‘Wonder’ Tiny, ‘five pounds and a half in weight’, as he appeared lulling 200 rats. Among the stuffed heads was one of a white bull-dog, with tremendous glass eyes sticking out, as if it had died of strangulation.

‘That there is a dog,’ he continued, pointing to one represented with a rat in its mouth, ‘it was as good as any in England, though it’s so small. I’ve seen her kill a dozen rats almost as big as herself, though they killed her at last; for sewer-rats are dreadful for giving dogs canker in the mouth, and she wore herself out with continually killing them, though we always rinsed her mouth out well with peppermint and water while she were at work.

The dogs belonging to the company were standing on the different tables, or tied to the legs of the forms, or sleeping in their owners’ arms, Nearly all the little animals were marked with scars from bites. ‘Pity to bring him up to rat-killing,’. When a rusty wire cage of rats, filled with the dark moving mass, was brought forward, the noise of the dogs was so great that the proprietor was obliged to shout out—‘Now, you that have dogs do make ’em shut up.’

Whilst the rats were being counted out, some of those that had been taken from the cage ran about the painted floor and climbed up the young officer’s legs, making him shake them off.

We doubt if the terrier would not have preferred leaving the rats to themselves, to enjoy their lives. Some of the rats, when the dog advanced towards them, sprang up in his face, making him draw back with astonishment.

Preparations now began for the grand match of the evening, in which fifty rats were to be killed. These were all sewer and water-ditch rats, and the smell that rose from them was like that from a hot drain.

Fly paper sellers. A big lad with a dirty face, and hair like hemp, was the first of the ‘catch-’em-alive’ boys who gave me his account of the trade. Some of us says, “Fly-papers, flypapers, ketch ’em all alive.” Others make a kind of song of it, singing out, “Fly-paper, ketch ’em all alive, the nasty flies, tormenting the baby’s eyes. Who’d be fly-blow’d, by all the nasty blue-bottles, beetles, and flies?” ‘The stuff as they puts on the paper is made out of boiled oil and turpentine and resin. It’s seldom as a fly lives more than five minutes after it gets on the paper, and then it’s as dead as a house.  He was very communicative, and took great delight in talking like Punch, with his call in his mouth, while some young children were in the room, and who, hearing the well-known sound of Punch’s voice, looked all about for the figure.

Punch & Judy show operator. ‘I am the proprietor of a Punch’s show,’ he said. ‘I goes about with it myself, and performs inside the frame behind the green baize. I have a pardner what plays the music—the pipes and drum; him as you see’d with me. I have been five-and-twenty year now at the business. I wish I’d never seen it, though it’s been a money-making business—indeed, the best of all the street hexhibitions I may say. I am fifty years old. I took to it for money gains—that was what I done it for. I formerly lived in service—was a footman in a gentleman’s family. When I first took to it, I could make two and three pounds a-day—I could so.

The boys would be sure to recognise me behind the counter, and begin a shouting into the shop (they must shout, you know): “Oh, there’s Punch and Judy—there’s Punch a-sarving out the customers!” Ah, it’s a great annoyance being a public kerrackter, I can assure you, sir; go where you will, it’s “Punchy, Punchy!” As for the boys, they’ll never leave me alone till I die, I know; and I suppose in my old age I shall have to take to the parish broom. All our forefathers died in the workhouse. I don’t know a Punch’s showman that hasn’t.

‘Punch, you know, sir, is a dramatic performance in two hacts. It’s a play, you may say. I don’t think it can be called a tragedy hexactly; a drama is what we names it. There is tragic parts, and comic and sentimental parts, too. Some families where I performs will have it most sentimental—in the original style; them families is generally sentimental theirselves. Others is all for the comic, and then I has to kick up all the games I can. To the sentimental folk I am obliged to perform werry steady and werry slow, and leave out all comic words and business. They won’t have no ghost, no coffin, and no devil; and that’s what I call spiling the performance entirely.

We in generally walks from twelve to twenty mile every day, and carries the show, which weighs a good half-hundred, at the least. Arter great exertion, our woice werry often fails us; for speaking all day through the “call” is werry trying, ’specially when we are chirruping up so as to bring the children to the vinders. The boys is the greatest nuisances we has to contend with. Wherever we goes we are sure of plenty of boys for a hindrance; they’ve got no money, bother ’em! and they’ll follow us for miles, so that we’re often compelled to go miles to awoid ’em.

Chelsea, again, has an uncommon lot of boys; and wherever we know the children swarm, there’s the spots we makes a point of awoiding. Why, the boys is such a hobstruction to our performance, that often we are obliged to drop the curtain for ’em. They’ll throw one another’s caps into the frame while I’m inside on it, and do what we will, we can’t keep ’em from poking their fingers through the baize and making holes to peep through. Then they will keep tapping the drum; but the worst of all is, the most of ’em ain’t got a farthing to bless themselves with,

Exhibitor of Mechanical Figures ‘I am the only man in London—and in England, I think—who is exhibiting the figuer of méchanique; that is to say, leetle figuers, that move their limbs by wheels and springs, as if they was de living cretures. They have been made in Germany, and are very clever figures. I will show them to you. They perform on the round table, which must be level or they will not turn round.  She holds one arm in the air, and you will see she turns round like a person waltzing. The noise you hear is from the wheels of the méchanique, which is under her petticoats. You shall notice her eyes do move as she waltz. The next figure is the carriage of the Emperor of the French, with the Queen and Prince Albert and the King de Sardaigne inside. It will run round the table, and the horses will move as if they gallop. It is a very clever méchanique.  My most clever méchanique is the elephant. It does move its trunk, and its tail, and its legs, as if walking, and all the time it roll its eyes from side to side like a real elephant. The leetle Indian on the neck, who is the driver, lift his arm, and in the pavilion on the back the chieftain of the Indians lift his bow and arrow to take aim, and put it down again. That méchanique cost me very much money. If my table was not high, the leetle children would want to take hold of my figuers. I always carry a small stick with me; and when the leetle children, who are being carried by other leetle children, put their hand to my figuers, I touch them with stick,

Exhibitor of the Microscope. ‘My microscope contains six objects, which are placed on a wheel at the back, which I turn round in succession. The objects are in cell-boxes of glass. The objects are all of them familiar to the public, and are as follows:—1. The flea. 2. The human hair, or the hair of the head. 3. A section of the old oak tree. 4. The animalculae* in water. 5. Cheese-mites. And 6. The transverse section of cane used by schoolmasters for the correction of boys. ‘I always take up my stand in the day-time in Whitechapel, facing the London Hospital, being a large open space, and favourable for the solar rays—for I light up the instrument by the direct rays of the sun.  At night-time I am mostly to be found on Westminster-bridge, and then I light up with the best sperm oil.

I’m what is termed a strong man, and perform feats of strength and posturing. What is meant by posturing is the distortion of the limbs, such as doing the splits, and putting your leg over your head and pulling it down your back, a skipping over your leg, and such-like business. Tumbling is different from posturing, and means throwing summersets and walking on your hands; and acrobating means the two together, with mounting three stories high, and balancing each other. ‘Another thing I learnt to do at this beer-shop was, to break the stone on the chest. This man used to do it as well, only in a very slight way—with thin bits and a cobbler’s hammer. Now mine is regular flagstones. I’ve seen as many as twenty women faint seeing me do it. At this beer-shop, when I first did it, the stone weighed about three quarters of a hundred, and was an inch thick. I laid down on the ground, and the stone was put on my chest, and a man with a sledge hammer, twenty-eight pounds weight, struck it and smashed it. The way it is done is this. You rest on your heels and hands and throw your chest up. There you are, like a stool, with the weight on you. When you see the blow coming, you have to give, or it would knock you all to bits.

‘The next, and the best, and most difficult trick of all is, I have a noose close to the ceiling, in which I place one of my ankles, and I’ve another loose noose with a hook at the end, and I place that on the other ankle. Two half-hundreds are placed on this hook, and one in each hand. The moment these weights are put on this ankle, it pulls my legs right apart, so that they form a straight line from the ceiling, like a plumb-line, and my body sticks out at the side horizontally, like a T-square sideways. I strike an attitude when I have the other weights in my hand, and then another half-hundred is put in my mouth, and I am swung backwards and forwards for about eight or twelve times. It don’t hurt the ankle, because the sling is padded. At first it pulls you about, and gives you a tremendous ricking. After this rope-performance I take a half-hundred and swing it round about fifty times. It goes as rapidly as a wheel, and if I was to miss my aim I should knock my brains out. I don’t mind how thick it is, so long as it isn’t heavy enough to crush me. A common curb-stone, or a Yorkshire-flag, is nothing to me, and I’ve got so accustomed to this trick, that once it took thirty blows with a twenty-eight pound sledge-hammer to break the stone, and I asked for a cigar and smoked it all the while.’

The Street Fire-King, or Salamander. If you hold your breath the moment the lighted piece is put in your mouth, the flame goes out on the instant. Then we squench the flame with spittle. As we takes a bit of link in the mouth, we tucks it on one side of the cheek, as a monkey do with nuts in his pouch. After I have eaten sufficient fire I take hold of the link, and extinguish the lot by putting the burning end in my mouth.   I also makes the smoke and flame—that is, sparks—come down my nose, the same as coming out of a blacksmith’s chimney. It makes the eyes water, and there’s a tingling; but it don’t burn or make you giddy. ‘My next trick is with the brimstone. I have a plate of lighted sulphur, and first inhale the fumes, and then devour it with a fork and swallow it.  When I puts it in my mouth it clings just like sealing-wax, and forms a kind of a dead ash. I often burn myself, especially when I’m bothered in my entertainment; such as any person talking about me close by, then I listen to ’em perhaps, and I’m liable to burn myself. I haven’t been able to perform for three weeks after some of my burnings. I never let any of the audience know anything of it, but smother up the pain, and go on with my other tricks.

The Snake, Sword, and Knife-Swallower. ‘I swallow snakes, swords, and knives; but, of course, when I’m engaged at a penny theatre I’m expected to do more than this, for it would only take a quarter of an hour. ‘At first it turned me, putting it down my throat past my swallow, right down—about eighteen inches. It made my swallow sore—very sore, and I used lemon and sugar to cure it. It was tight at first, and I kept pushing it down further and further. There’s one thing, you mustn’t cough, and until you’re used to it you want to very bad, and then you must pull it up again. My sword was about three-quarters of an inch wide.   The trick is, you must oil the sword—the best sweet oil, worth fourteen pence a pint—and you put it on with a sponge. ‘The knives are easier to do than the sword because they are shorter. We puts them right down till the handle rests on the mouth. The sword is about eighteen inches long, and the knives about eight inches in the blade. In the country there is some places where, when you do it, they swear you are the devil, and won’t have it nohow. ‘The snakes I use are about eighteen inches long, and you must first cut the stingers out, ’cos it might hurt you. I always keep two or three by me for my performances. I keep them warm, but the winter kills ’em. I give them nothing to eat but worms or gentles.* I generally keep them in flannel, or hay. ‘The head of the snake goes about an inch and a half down the throat, and the rest of it continues in the mouth, curled round like. When first caught the snake is slimy, and I have to clean him by scraping him off with the finger-nail as clean as I can, and then wiping him with a cloth. ‘I give a man a shilling always to cut the stinger out—one that knows all about it, for the stinger is under the tongue. When I exhibit, I first holds the snake up in the air and pinches the tail, to make it curl about and twist round my arm, to show that he is alive. Then I holds it above my mouth, and as soon as he sees the hole in he goes. He goes wavy-like, as a ship goes, that’s the comparison. You see, a snake will go in at any hole.

The life of a street clown is, perhaps, the most wretched of all existence. Jest as he may in the street, his life is literally no joke at home. ‘I have been a clown for sixteen years,’ he said, ‘having lived totally by it for that time. I was left motherless at two years of age, and my father died when I was nine.  I never dress at home; we all dress at public-houses. In the street where I lodge, only a very few know what I do for a living. I and my wife both strive to keep the business a secret from our neighbours. I go out at eight in the morning and return at dark. My children hardly know what I do. They see my dresses lying about, but that is all. ‘Frequently when I am playing the fool in the streets, I feel very sad at heart. I can’t help thinking of the bare cupboards at home; but what’s that to the world? I’ve often and often been at home all day when it has been wet, with no food at all, either to give my children or take myself, and have gone out at night to the public-houses to sing a comic song or play the funnyman for a meal—you may imagine with what feelings for the part—and when I’ve come home I’ve call’d my children up from their beds to share the loaf I had brought back with me. The principal way in which I’ve got up my jokes is through associating with other clowns. We don’t make our jokes ourselves; in fact, I never knew one clown who did. I must own that the street clowns like a little drop of spirits, and occasionally a good deal. They are in a measure obligated to it. I can’t fancy a clown being funny on small beer;* and I never in all my life knew one who was a teetotaller. I think such a person would be a curious character, indeed. Most of the street clowns die in the workhouses. A few minutes afterwards I saw this man dressed as Jim Crow, with his face blackened, dancing and singing in the streets as if he was the lightest-hearted fellow in all London.

What are called strolling actors are those who go about the country and play at the various fairs and towns. As long as they are acting in a booth they are called canvas actors; A strolling actor is supposed to know something of everything. He doesn’t always get a part given to him to learn, but he’s more often told what character he’s to take, and what he’s to do, and he’s supposed to be able to find words capable of illustrating the character; in fact, he has to “gag”, that is, make up words. ‘The mummers have got a slang of their own.

‘When I do my exercise, this what I do. I first of all stand still on one leg, in the position of a militaire, with my crutch shouldered like a gun. That is how I accumulate the persons. Then I have to do all. It makes me laugh, for I have to be the general, the capitaines, the drums, the soldiers, and all. Pauvre diable! I must live. It is curious, and makes me laugh. ‘I first begin my exercises by doing the drums. I beat my hands together, and make a noise like this “hum, hum! hum, hum, hum! hum, hum! hum, hum! hu-u-u-m!” and then the drums go away and I do them in the distance. You see I am the drummers then. Next I become the army, and make a noise with my foot, resembling soldiers on a march, and I go from side to side to imitate an army marching. Then I become the trumpeters, but instead of doing the trumpets I whistle their music, and the sound comes nearer and nearer, and gets louder and louder, and then gradually dies away in the distance, as if a bataillon was marching in front of its general. I make a stamping with my foot, like men marching past. Then I in turn become the officer who gives the commands, and the soldiers who execute them.

Concerning street musicians, they are of multifarious classes. As a general rule, they may almost be divided into the tolerable and the intolerable performers, some of them trusting to their skill in music for the reward for their exertions, others only making a noise, so that whatever money they obtain is given them merely as an inducement for them to depart.

‘I imitate all the animals of the farm-yard on my fiddle: I imitate the bull, the calf, the dog, the cock, the hen when she’s laid an egg, the peacock, and the ass. By constant practice I made myself perfect. I studied from nature, I never was in a farm-yard in my life, but I went and listened to the poultry, anywhere in town that I could meet with them, and I then imitated them on my instrument. The cattle gave me the study for the bull and the calf. My peacock I got at the Belvidere-gardens in Islington. The ass is common, and so is the dog; and them I studied anywhere. It took me a month, not more, if so much, to acquire what I thought a sufficient skill in my undertaking, and then I started it in the streets.

The Dancing Dogs. I received the following narrative from the old man who has been so long known about the streets of London with a troop of performing dogs.  To my inquiry as to what the dogs did, ‘un danse, un valse, un jomp a de stick and troo de hoop—non, noting else. Sometime I had de four dogs—I did lose de von. Ah! she had beau-coup d’esprit—plenty of vit, you say—she did jomp a de hoop better dan all. All ma dogs have des habillements—the dress and de leetle hat. Dey have a leetel jackette in divers colours en étoffe—some de red, and some de green, and some de bleu. Deir hats is de rouge et noir—red and black,

Photographers. “For sixpence persons can have their portrait taken, and framed and glazed as well. ‘Once a sailor came in, and as he was in haste, I shoved on to him the picture of a carpenter, who was to call in the afternoon for his portrait. The jacket was dark, but there was a white waistcoat; still I persuaded him that it was his blue Guernsey which had come up very light, and he was so pleased that he gave us 9d. instead of 6d. The fact is, people don’t know their own faces. Half of ’em have never looked in a glass half a dozen times in their life, and directly they see a pair of eyes and a nose, they fancy they are their own.

‘Happy Families’, or assemblages of animals of diverse habits and propensities living amicably, or at least quietly, in one cage, are so well known as to need no further description.
“The way to train the animals is a secret, which I was once taught. It’s principally done by continued kindness and petting, and studying the nature of the creatures. Hundreds have tried their hands at happy families, and have failed. The cat has killed the mice, the hawks have killed the birds, the dogs the rats, and even the cats, the rats, the birds, and even one another; indeed, it was anything but a happy family.  In our present cage we have 54 birds and animals, and of 17 different kinds; 3 cats, 2 dogs (a terrier and a spaniel), 2 monkeys, 2 magpies, 2 jackdaws, 2 jays, 10 starlings (some of them talk), 6 pigeons, 2 hawks, 2 barn fowls, 1 screech owl, 5 common sewer-rats, 5 white rats (a novelty), 8 guinea-pigs, 2 rabbits (1 wild and 1 tame), 1 hedgehog, and 1 tortoise.  Of all these, the rat is the most difficult to make a member of a happy family: among birds, the hawk. The easiest trained animal is a monkey, and the easiest trained bird a pigeon. The expense of keeping my fifty-four is 12s. a-week; and in a good week—indeed, the best week—we take 30s.; and in a bad week sometimes not 8s

Doll Eye Makers. A curious part of the street toy business is the sale of dolls, and especially that odd branch of it, doll’s-eye making. There are only two persons following this business in London. “Where we make one pair of eyes for home consumption, we make ten for exportation; a great many eyes go abroad. Here, however, nothing but blue eyes goes down; that’s because it’s the colour of the Queen’s eyes, and she sets the fashion in our eyes as in other things. I also make human eyes. These are two cases; in the one I have black and hazel, and in the other blue and grey.”

[Here the man took the lids off a couple of boxes, about as big as binnacles, that stood on the table: they each contained 190 different eyes, and so like nature, that the effect produced upon a person unaccustomed to the sight was most peculiar, and far from pleasant. The whole of the 380 optics all seemed to be staring directly at the spectator, and occasioned a feeling somewhat similar to the bewilderment one experiences on suddenly becoming an object of general notice; as if the eyes, indeed, of a whole lecture-room were crammed into a few square inches, and all turned full upon you. The eyes of the whole world, as we say, literally appeared to be fixed upon one, and it was almost impossible at first to look at them without instinctively averting the head.

“When a lady or gentleman comes to us for an eye, we are obliged to have a sitting just like a portrait-painter. We take no sketch, but study the tints of the perfect eye. False eyes are a great charity to servants. If they lose an eye no one will engage them. In Paris there is a charitable institution for the supply of false eyes to the poor; and I really think, if there was a similar establishment in this country for furnishing artificial eyes to those whose bread depends on their looks, like servants, it would do a great deal of good. We always supplies eyes to such people at half-price.

Cheap lodging-houses usually frequented by the casual labourers at the docks. The floor was unboarded, and a wooden seat projected from the wall all around the room. In front of this was ranged a series of tables, on which lolled dozing men. A number of the inmates were grouped around the fire; some kneeling toasting herrings, of which the place smelt strongly; others, without shirts, seated on the ground close beside it for warmth. They had fallen to a degraded state. A sailor lad assured me he had been robbed of his mariner’s ticket; that he could not procure another under 13s.; and not having as many pence, he was unable to obtain another ship. What could he do? he said. He knew no trade: he could only get employment occasionally as a labourer at the docks; and this was so seldom,

The lodging-house makes up as many as 84 ‘bunks’, or beds, for which 2d. per night is charged. For this sum the parties lodging there for the night are entitled to the use of the kitchen for the following day. In this a fire is kept all day long, at which they are allowed to cook their food. The kitchen opens at 5 in the morning, and closes at about 11 at night, after which hour no fresh lodger is taken in, and all those who slept in the house the night before, but who have not sufficient money to pay for their bed at that time, are turned out.

The kitchen is about 40 feet long by about 40 wide. The ‘bunks’ are each about 7 feet long, and 1 foot 10 inches wide, and the grating on which the straw mattrass is placed is about 12 inches from the ground. The wooden partitions between the ‘bunks’ are about 4 feet high. The coverings are a leather or a rug,

The average number of persons sleeping in this house of a night is 60. Of these there are generally about 30 pickpockets, 10 street-beggars, a few infirm old people who subsist occasionally upon parish relief and occasionally upon charity, 10 or 15 dock-labourers, about the same number of low and precarious callings, such as the neighbourhood affords, and a few persons who have been in good circumstances, but who have been reduced from a variety of causes.

At one time there were as many as 9 persons lodging in another house who subsisted by picking up dogs’ dung out of the streets,

The pickpockets generally lodging in the house consist of handkerchief-stealers, shoplifters—including those who rob the till as well as steal articles from the doors of shops. Legs and breasts of mutton are frequently brought in by this class of persons. There are seldom any housebreakers lodging in such places, because they require a room of their own, and mostly live with prostitutes. Besides pickpockets, there are also lodging in the house speculators in stolen goods.

The ‘gonaffs’ are generally young boys; about 20 out of 30 of these lads are under 21 years of age. They almost all of them love idleness, and will only work for one or two days together, but then they will work very hard.

Burglars and smashers generally rank above this class of thieves. A burglar would not condescend to sit among pickpockets.

The beggars who frequent these houses go about different markets and streets asking charity of the people that pass by. They generally go out in couples; the business of one of the two being to look out and give warning when the policeman is approaching, and of the other to stand ‘shallow’; that is to say, to stand with very little clothing on, shivering and shaking, sometimes with bandages round his legs, and sometimes with his arm in a sling.

The conversation among the lodgers relates chiefly to thieving and the best manner of stealing. By way of practice, a boy will often pick the pocket of one of the lodgers walking about the room,

The sanitary state of these houses is very bad. Not only do the lodgers generally swarm with vermin, but there is little or no ventilation to the sleeping-rooms,

The omnibus drivers have been butchers, farmers, horsebreakers, cheesemongers, old stage-coachmen, broken-down gentlemen, turfmen, gentlemen’s servants, grooms, and a very small sprinkling of mechanics. Nearly all can read and write. The majority of them are married men with families; their residences being in all parts, and on both sides of the Thames. Their work is exceedingly hard, their lives being almost literally spent on the coach-box. The most of them must enter ‘the yard’ at a quarter to eight in the morning, and must see that the horses and carriages are in a proper condition for work; and at half-past eight they start on their long day’s labour. They perform (I speak of the most frequented lines), twelve journeys during the day, and are so engaged until a quarter-past 11 at night. During these hours of labour they have 12 ‘stops’; half of 10 and half of 15 minutes’ duration. They generally breakfast at home, or at a coffee-shop, if unmarried men, before they start; and dine at the inn, where the omnibus almost invariably stops, at one or other of its destinations. All these men live ‘well’; that is, they have sufficient dinners of animal food every day, with beer. They are strong and healthy men, for their calling requires both strength and health.

“I must keep exact time at every place where a timekeeper’s stationed. Not a minute’s excused—there’s a fine for the least delay. I can’t say that it’s often levied; but still we are liable to it. If I’ve been blocked, I must make up for the block by galloping; and if I’m seen to gallop, and anybody tells our people, I’m called over the coals. I must drive as quick with a thunder-rain pelting in my face, and the roads in a muddle, and the horses starting—I can’t call it shying, I have ’em too well in hand, at every flash, just as quick as if it was a fine hard road, and fine weather. It’s not easy to drive a ’bus; but I can drive, and must drive, to an inch: yes, sir, to half an inch. I know if I can get my horses’ heads through a space, I can get my splinter-bar through. I drive by my pole, making it my centre. If I keep it fair in the centre, a carriage must follow, unless it’s slippery weather, and then there’s no calculating. A ’bus changes horses four or five times a-day, according to the distance.  I’m an unmarried man. A ’bus driver never has time to look out for a wife. Every horse in our stables has one day’s rest in every four; but it’s no rest for the driver. Some work can be pursued only at certain seasons; some depends upon the winds, as, for instance, dock labour; some on fashion; and nearly all on the general prosperity of the country. Now, the labourer who is deprived of his usual employment by any of the above causes, must, unless he has laid by a portion of his earnings while engaged, become a burden to his parish, or the state, or else he must seek work, either of another kind or in another place.

The free hostelries of the unemployed workpeople, where they may be lodged and fed, on their way to find work in some more active district. But the establishment of these gratuitous hotels has called into existence a large class of wayfarers, for whom they were never contemplated. They have been the means of affording great encouragement to those vagabond or erratic spirits who find continuity of application to any task especially irksome to them, and who are physically unable or mentally unwilling to remain for any length of time in the same place, or at the same work—creatures who are vagrants in disposition and principle;

The Asylum for the Houseless Poor of London is opened only when the thermometer reaches freezing-point, and offers nothing but dry bread and warm shelter to such as avail themselves of its charity. To this place swarm, as the bitter winter’s night comes on, some half-thousand penniless and homeless wanderers.  It is a terrible thing, indeed, to look down upon that squalid crowd from one of the upper windows of the institution. There they stand shivering in the snow, with their thin, cobwebby garments hanging in tatters about them. Many are without shirts; with their bare skin showing through the rents and gaps of their clothes, like the hide of a dog with the mange. Some have their greasy coats and trousers tied round their wrists and ankles with string, to prevent the piercing wind from blowing up them. A few are without shoes; and these keep one foot only to the ground, while the bare flesh that has had to tramp through the snow is blue and livid-looking as half-cooked meat. It is a sullenly silent crowd, without any of the riot and rude frolic which generally ensue upon any gathering in the London streets;

To each person is given half-a-pound of the best bread on coming in at night, and a like quantity on going out in the morning. The sleeping-wards at the Asylum are utterly unlike all preconceived notions of a dormitory. There is not a bedstead to be seen, nor is even so much as a sheet or blanket visible. The ward itself is a long, bare, whitewashed apartment Around the fierce stove, in the centre of the ward, there is generally gathered a group of the houseless wanderers, the crimson rays tinting the cluster of haggard faces with a bright lurid light that colours the skin as red as wine. One and all are stretching forth their hands, as if to let the delicious heat soak into their half-numbed limbs. They seem positively greedy of the warmth, drawing up their sleeves and trousers so that their naked legs and arms may present a larger surface to the fire.

Then how fearful it is to hear the continued coughing of the wretched inmates! It seems to pass round the room from one to another, now sharp and hoarse as a bark, then deep and hollow as a lowing, or—with the old—feeble and trembling as a bleat. In an hour after the opening the men have quitted the warm fire and crept one after another to their berths,

Here is a herd of the most wretched and friendless people in the world, lying down close to the earth as sheep; here are some two centuries of outcasts, whose days are an unvarying round of suffering, enjoying the only moments when they are free from pain and care—life being to them but one long painful operation as it were, and sleep the chloroform which, for the time being, renders them insensible.

Get down from your moral stilts, and confess it honestly to yourself, that you are what you are by that inscrutable grace which decreed your birthplace to be a mansion or a cottage rather than a ‘padding-ken’, or which granted you brains and strength, instead of sending you into the world, like many of these, a cripple or an idiot. It is hard for smug-faced respectability to acknowledge these dirt-caked, erring wretches as brothers, and yet, if from those to whom little is given little is expected, surely, after the atonement of their long suffering, they will make as good angels as the best of us.

Prostitutes. Her life was a life of perfect slavery, she was seldom if ever allowed to go out, and then not without being watched. Why was this? Because she would ‘cut it’ if she got a chance, they knew that very well, and took very good care she shouldn’t have much opportunity. Their house was rather popular, and they had lots of visitors; she had some particular friends who always came to see her. They paid her well, but she hardly ever got any of the money. Where was the odds, she couldn’t go out to spend it?

She was not brought direct to the house where I found her? Oh! no. There was a branch establishment over the water, where they were broken in as it were. How long did she remain there? Oh! perhaps two months, maybe three; she didn’t keep much account how time went. When she was conquered and her spirit broken, she was transported from the first house to a more aristocratic neighbourhood.

How did they tame her? Oh! they made her drunk and sign some papers, which she knew gave them great power over her, although she didn’t exactly know in what the said power consisted, or how it might be exercised. Then they clothed her and fed her well, and gradually inured her to that sort of life.

Somehow I didn’t like the place, and not feeling all right I asked to be put in a cab and sent home. My friend made no objection and a cab was sent for. He, however, pressed me to have something to drink before I started. I refused to touch any wine, so I asked for some coffee, which I drank. It made me feel very sleepy, so sleepy indeed that I begged to be allowed to sit down on the sofa. They accordingly placed me on the sofa, and advised me to rest a little while, promising, in order to allay my anxiety, to send a messenger to my aunt. Of course I was drugged, and so heavily I did not regain my consciousness till the next morning. I was horrified to discover that I had been ruined, and for some days I was inconsolable, and cried like a child to be killed or sent back to my aunt. ‘When I became quiet I received a visit from my seducer, in whom I had placed so much silly confidence. He talked very kindly to me, but I would not listen to him for some time.

The common thief is not distinguished for manual dexterity and accomplishment, like the pickpocket or mobsman, nor for courage, ingenuity, and skill, like the burglar, but is characterized by low cunning and stealth—hence he is termed the Sneak, and is despised by the higher classes of thieves. There are various orders of Sneaks—from the urchin stealing an apple at a stall, to the man who enters a dwelling by the area or an attic window and carries off the silver plate.

Many of them are only 6 or 7 years of age, others 8 or 10. Some have no jacket, cap, or shoes, and wander about London with their ragged trowsers hung by one brace. They seldom steal from costermongers, but frequently from the old women’s stalls.  They generally go in a party of three or four, sometimes as many as eight together. Watching their opportunity, they make a sudden snatch at the apples or pears, or oranges or nuts, or walnuts, as the case may be, then run off, with the cry of ‘stop thief!’ ringing in their ears from the passers-by.

By the petty thefts at the fruit-stalls they do not gain much money—seldom so much as to get admittance to the gallery of the Victoria Theatre, which they delight to frequent. They are particularly interested in the plays of robberies, burglaries, and murders performed there, which are done in melodramatic style.

One goes up and looks at some trifling article in company with his associates. The party in charge of the stall—generally a woman—knowing their thieving propensity, tells them to go away; which they decline to do. When the woman goes to remove him, another boy darts forward at the other end of the stall and steals some article of jewellery, or otherwise, while her attention is thus distracted.

Upon stands on the pavement at each side of his shop-door are cheeses of various kinds and of different qualities, cut up into quarters and slices, and rashers of bacon lying in piles in the open windows, or laid out on marble slabs. On deal racks are boxes of eggs, ‘fresh from the country’, and white as snow, and large pieces of bacon,

On iron and wooden rods, suspended on each side of the door-way, are black and white straw bonnets and crinolines, swinging in the wind; while on the tables in front are exposed boxes of gay feathers, and flowers of every tint, and fronts of shirts of various styles, with stacks of gown-pieces of various patterns.

On each side of the door are baskets of apples, with large boxes of onions and peas.

Beneath the canvas awning before the shop are chairs of various kinds, straw-bottomed and seated with green or puce-coloured leather, fancy looking-glasses in gilt frames, parrots in cages, second-hand clothes store. On iron rods suspended over the doorway we find trowsers, vests, and coats of all patterns and sizes, and of every quality dangling in the wind; and on small wooden stands along the pavement are jackets and coats of various descriptions.

Thefts are often committed from the doors and windows of these shops during the day, in the temporary absence of the person in charge. They are often seen by passers-by, who take no notice, not wishing to attend the police court, as they consider they are insufficiently paid for it.

When the young thief is chased by the shopkeeper, his two associates run and jostle him, and try to trip him up, so as to give their companion an opportunity of escaping. This is generally done at dusk,

In stealing a piece of bacon from the shop-doors or windows, they wait till the shopman turns his back, when they take a piece of bacon or cheese in the same way

These young thieves are the ragged boys formerly noticed, varying from 9 to 14 years of age, without shoes or stockings. They insert the point of a knife or other sharp instrument into the corner or side of the pane, then give it a wrench, when the pane cracks in a semicircular starlike form around the part punctured. Should a piece of glass large enough to admit the hand not be sufficiently loosened, they apply the sharp instrument at another place in the pane. The thief inserts his hand through an opening in the window, seizes a handful of sweets or other goods, and runs away, Such petty robberies are often committed by elder lads at the windows of tobacconists, when cigars and pipes are frequently stolen.

On visiting a room in the garret we saw a man, in mature years, making artificial flowers; he appeared to be very ingenious, and made several roses before us with marvellous rapidity. He had suspended along the ceiling bundles of dyed grasses of various hues, crimson, yellow, green, brown, and other colours to furnish cases of stuffed birds. He was a very intelligent man and a natural genius. He told us strong drink had brought him to this humble position in the garret,

There were about fifteen labouring men present, most of them busy at supper on fish, and bread, and tea. They were a very mixed company, such as we would expect at a London lodging-house, men working in cab-yards assisting cabmen, some distributing bills in the streets, one man carrying advertizing boards, and others jobbing at anything they can find to do in the neighbourhood.

Pickpockets and Shoplifters. In tracing the pickpocket from the beginning of his career, in most cases we must turn our attention to the little ragged boys living by a felon’s hearth, or herding with other young criminals in a low lodging-house, or dwelling in the cold and comfortless home of drunken and improvident parents. The great majority of the pickpockets of the metropolis, with few exceptions, have sprung from the dregs of society

They are learned to be expert in this way. A coat is suspended on the wall with a bell attached to it, and the boy attempts to take the handkerchief from the pocket without the bell ringing. Great numbers of these ragged pickpockets may be seen loitering about our principal streets, ready to steal from a stall or shop-door when they find an opportunity. During the day they generally pick pockets two or three in a little band. When they have booty, they generally bring it to some person to dispose of, as suspicion would be aroused if they went to sell or pawn it themselves. In some cases they give it to the trainer of thieves,

Sometimes a well-dressed thief waylays a servant-girl going out on errands in the evening, professes to fall in love with her, and gets into her confidence, till she perhaps admits him into the house when her master and mistress are out. Having confidence in him she shows him over the house, and informs him where the valuables are kept. If the house is well secured, so that there will be difficulty of breaking in by night, he manages to get an accomplice inside to secrete himself till the family has gone to bed, when he admits one or more of his companions into the house. They pack up all they can lay hold of, such as valuables and jewels. On such occasions there is generally one on the outlook outside,

In warehouses one of the thieves frequently slips in at closing-time, when only a few servants are left behind, and are busy shutting up. He secretes himself behind goods in the warehouse, and when all have retired for the night, and the door locked, he opens it and lets in his companions to pack up the booty.

When the policeman has passed by on his round, the watch stationed outside gives the signal; the door is opened, the cart drives up, and four or five sacks are handed into it by two thieves in about a minute, when the vehicle retires.

They close the outer door after them when they enter a shop or warehouse, most of which have spring locks. When the policeman comes round on his beat he finds the door shut, and there is nothing to excite his suspicion. The cart is never seen loitering at the door above a couple of minutes, and does not make its appearance on the spot till the robbery is about to be committed, when the signal is given.

Lighter goods, such as jewellery, or goods of less bulk, are generally taken away in carpet bags in time to catch an early train, often about five or six o’clock, and the robbers being respectably-dressed, and in a neighbourhood where they are not

Ashamed Beggars. By the above title I mean those tall, lanthorn-jawed men, in seedy well-brushed clothes, who, with a ticket on their breasts, on which a short but piteous tale is written in the most respectable of large-hand, and with a few boxes of lucifer-matches in their hands, make no appeal by word of mouth but invoke the charity of passers-by by meek glances and imploring looks—fellows who, having no talent for ‘patter’, are gifted with great powers of facial pathos, and make expression of feature stand in lieu of vocal supplication.

Turnpike Sailor. This sort of vagabond has two lays,* the ‘merchant’ lay, and the ‘R’yal Navy’ lay. He adopts either one or the other according to the exigencies of his wardrobe, his locality, or the person he is addressing. He is generally the offspring of some inhabitant of the most notorious haunts of a seaport town, and has seldom been at sea, or when he has, has run away after the first voyage. His slang of seamanship has been picked up at the lowest public-houses Soldier beggars may be divided into three classes: those who really have been soldiers and are reduced to mendicancy, those who have been ejected from the army for misconduct, and those with whom the military dress and bearing are pure assumptions.

Disaster Beggars. This class of street beggars includes shipwrecked mariners, blown-up miners, burnt-out tradesmen, and lucifer droppers. The majority of them are impostors, as is the case with all beggars who pursue begging pertinaciously and systematically. There are no doubt genuine cases to be met with, but they are very few, and they rarely obtrude themselves.

A boy or a girl takes up a position on the pavement of a busy street, such as Cheapside or the Strand. He, or she—it is generally a girl—carries a box or two of lucifer matches, which she offers for sale. In passing to and fro she artfully contrives to get in the way of some gentleman who is hurrying along. He knocks against her and upsets the matches which fall in the mud. The girl immediately begins to cry and howl. The bystanders, who are ignorant of the trick, exclaim in indignation against the gentleman who has caused a poor girl such serious loss, and the result is that either the gentleman, to escape being hooted, or the ignorant passers by, in false compassion, give the girl money.

Beggars who excite charity by exhibiting sores and bodily deformities are not so commonly to be met with in London as they were some years ago. The officers of the Mendicity Society have cleared the streets of nearly all the impostors, and the few who remain are blind men and cripples.

 

Posted in Jobs and Skills, Life Before Oil | Tagged , , | Comments Off on So you don’t want to be a farmer postcarbon? City jobs of the future

The Good News About Peak Oil

As oil declines, the threat of a greenhouse earth & extinction from climate change decline

Carbon sequestration, wind, solar, geo-engineering, and other remedies are trivial compared to the effect declining fossil fuels will have on reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The natural rate of decline today is 8.5%, exponentially increasing, and offset by 4%, so the gap will continue to grow wider, with petroleum eventually decreasing by 6% and more a year in the future.

Climate change is also a symptom of overpopulation and overshoot of the planet’s carrying capacity. If family planning became the green new deal, there would be a chance for all problems to be reduced in severity.   “Renewables” are certainly not a solution since transportation and manufacturing can’t be electrified or run on anything else (see Chapter 6 and 9 of “Life After Fossil Fuels”).

Climate models developed by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) show a range of greenhouse gas trajectories. The worst-case IPCC scenario is Representative Concentration Pathway (RCP) 8.5. This predicts a rise of temperature by 5°C, and this is the scenario you read about daily in the newspapers as being the most likely “business as usual” future. But lately many scientists think around 3 °C (RCP 4.5 to RCP 6) is more likely (Hausfather and Peters 2020).

Geologists have a far more optimistic outlook.  Using realistic fossil fuel reserves in climate models, they predict an outcome from RCP 2.6 to RCP 4.5 (Doose 2004; Kharecha and Hansen 2008; Brecha 2008; Nel 2011; Chiari and Zecca 2011; Ward et al. 2011, 2012; Höök and Tang 2013; Mohr et al. 2015; Capellán-Pérez et al. 2016; Murray 2016; Wang et al. 2017).

The IPCC scenarios do not model fossil fuels at all, since their assumption is that we will be burning fossil fuels, at exponentially increasing amounts until 2400. The IPCC RCP 8.5 hothouse world scenario assumes a fivefold increase in coal use by 2100 (Ritchie and Dowlatabadi 2017), even though coal production may have peaked, or will soon (see chapter 6 of “Life After Fossil Fuels”).

So rather than becoming crisply well-done, perhaps we’ll scrape by with a medium rare sunburn.

Perhaps IPCC RCP 2.6 is the most likely outcome with a temperature increase of up to 2.3°C.  Still, the consequences of climate change are locked in and severe: sea level rise, extreme weather reducing crop production, and tipping points that may push climate towards RCP 4.5 and a temperature rise of up to 3.2°C.

On the other hand, if oil is about to decline, then the ocean and land will start to absorb CO2. About 50% will be removed in 30 years, another 30% within a few centuries, and the last 20% will remain for many thousands of years (Solomon et al. 2007).

But still, there is another 60 or more years of oil, and the tipping points will worsen matters, so 3.2°C is more likely, sigh.

Pesticide dependent industrial monoculture agriculture will be replaced with organic agriculture

(Books about Agriculture, other posts on agriculture)

Pesticides, insecticides, herbicides, fungicides and other agricultural poisons are made out of oil.  Like antibiotics we are running out of effective chemicals, since pests develop resistance on average within five years, while it takes ten years or more to develop a new pesticide.   And so ecologically destructive:

Chemical industrial farming is unsustainable. Why poison ourselves when pesticides don’t save more of our crops than in the past?

Natural gas fertilizer will be replaced with compost

At least four billion of us are alive due to fertilizer (ammonia) (Fisher 2001; Smil 2004; Stewart et al. 2005; Erisman et al. 2008).

Natural gas fertilizer is the main reason population exploded from 1.6 to 7.8 billion people today with the consequent loss of biodiversity, aquifer depletion, climate change, topsoil erosion, deforestation, pollution, and every other existential threat that you can think of.  What problem wouldn’t be better with fewer people?

But fertilizer releases greenhouse gas nitrous oxide (N2O), with a global warming potential 300 times greater than carbon dioxide. Agriculture is responsible for 73% of N2O emissions (EIA 2011). N2O is also the largest destroyer of stratospheric ozone as well (Ravishankara et  al. 2009), which shields plants and animals from the damaging ultraviolet light (UVB) that reduces crop productivity while increasing susceptibility to disease. Worst of all, UVB harms phytoplankton at the bottom of the ocean food web, which produces half of all oxygen and are the main absorbers of CO2, by sequestering it on the ocean floor after dying.  Nitrogen runoff accelerates eutrophication and dead zones and increases water treatment costs.

Fertilizer also harms the soil ecosystem. A balanced diet for soil organisms is about 20 parts carbon to one part nitrogen. Too much nitrogen and too little carbon starves and eventually kills them. The helpful functions microbes perform for plants, such as defending crops from pests and diseases, also are lost, so farmers add even more fertilizer and pesticides.

Robots and AI will not take over

What energy could robots be built with and run on after fossils? Where will their materials come from? The mineral ores with the highest concentrations are gone. The remaining crummy, low concentration   ores take far more energy to process at a time when energy is declining. Not that a robot overthrow was ever an issue. The human cortex is 600 billion times more complicated than any artificial network. The code to simulate the human brain would require hundreds of trillions of lines of code inevitably riddled with trillions of errors (Kasan 2011).

No need to worry about Space Aliens Invading

As Sir Fred Hoyle (1964) wrote “With coal gone, oil gone, high-grade metallic ores gone, no species however competent can make the long climb from primitive conditions to high-level technology. This is a one-shot affair. If we fail, this planetary system fails so far as intelligence is concerned. The same will be true of other planetary systems. On each of them there will be one chance, and one chance only.”

Yes, there will be a hangover, but a simpler world has much to offer

One way to cope with the end of the Petroleum Party is to be thankful for what you have, which will be especially hard for those alive today. But future generations will have never known anything else and perhaps someday our brief two centuries of fossil fuels will become mythology and we who lived then Gods & Goddesses who flew in the sky above the clouds. Kansas pioneers survived and thrived despite locusts, foods, droughts, illness, and more (Stratton 1982). There are thousands of books about survival in hard times. History offers many lessons about how we can reinvent our way of life and find joy and meaning in simpler lives.  So do many websites devoted to making the transition from fossil fuels to a simpler past, such as transitionus.org, postcarbon.org, resilience.org, energyandourfuture.org, and simplicityinstitute.org. Check out energyskeptic.com categories “What To Do” and “Books”. Also, see the last four pages of the German military peak oil study in this reference (BTC 2010). Day & Hall’s (2016) “America’s Most Sustainable Cities and Regions” will clue you in to the highest carrying capacity places to live given climate change and energy decline.

Alice Friedemann  www.energyskeptic.com  Author of Life After Fossil Fuels: A Reality Check on Alternative Energy; When Trucks Stop Running: Energy and the Future of Transportation”, Barriers to Making Algal Biofuels, & “Crunch! Whole Grain Artisan Chips and Crackers”.  Women in ecology  Podcasts: WGBH, Planet: Critical, Crazy Town, Collapse Chronicles, Derrick Jensen, Practical Prepping, Kunstler 253 &278, Peak Prosperity,  Index of best energyskeptic posts

**

References (see Chapter 33 of Life After Fossil Fuels for a longer discussion of this topic)

Brecha RJ (2008) Emission scenarios in the face of fossil-fuel peaking. Energy Policy 36:3492–3504

BTC (2010) Armed Forces, Capabilities and technologies in the 21st century. Environmental dimensions of security. Sub-study 1. Peak oil security policy implications of scarce resources. Bundeswehr Transformation Centre, Future Analysis Branch.  http://www.permaculture.org.au/files/Peak%20Oil_Study%20EN.pdf

Capellán-Pérez I, Arto I, Polanco-Martínez JM et al (2016) Likelihood of climate change pathways under uncertainty on fossil fuel resources availability. Energy Environ Sci 9:2482–2496

Chiari L, Zecca A (2011) Constraints of fossil fuels depletion on global warming projections. Energy Policy 39:5026–5034

Day JW, Hall C (2016) America’s Most Sustainable Cities and Regions: Surviving the 21st Century Megatrends. Springer.

Doose PR (2004) Projections of fossil fuel use and future atmospheric CO2 concentrations, vol 9. The Geochemical Society Special Publications, pp 187–195

Erisman JW, Sutton MA, Galloway J, et al (2008) How a century of ammonia synthesis changed the world. Nat Geosci

Fisher D (2001) The Nitrogen Bomb. By learning to draw fertilizer from a clear blue sky, chemists have fed the multitudes. Discover magazine

Hausfather Z, Peters GP (2020) Emissions – the ‘business as usual’ story is misleading. Nature 577:618–620

Höök M, Tang X (2013) Depletion of fossil fuels and anthropogenic climate change – a review. Energy Policy 52:797–809

Hoyle F (1964) Of men and galaxies. Prometheus Books

Kasan P (2011) A.I. Gone awry: the future quest for artifcial intelligence. Skeptic. https://www.skeptic.com/reading_room/artifcial-intelligence-gone-awry/

Kharecha PA, Hansen JE (2008) Implications of “peak oil” for atmospheric CO2 and climate. Glob Biogeochem Cycles 22:3

Nel WP (2011) A parameterised carbon feedback model for the calculation of global warming from attainable fossil fuel emissions. Energy Environ 22:859–876

Ravishankara AR, Daniel JS, Portmann RW (2009) Nitrous oxide (N2O): the dominant ozone[1]depleting substance emitted in the 21st century. Science 326:123–12

Ritchie J, Dowlatabadi H (2017) The 1000 GtC coal question. Are cases of high future coal combustion plausible? Energy Econ 65:16–31

Smil V (2004) Enriching the earth: Fritz Haber, Carl Bosch, and the transformation of world food production. MIT Press

Solomon S, Qin D, Manning M, et al (2007) Technical summary. In: Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the 4th Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press

Stewart WM, Dibb DW, Johnston AE et al (2005) The contribution of commercial fertilizer nutrients to food production. Agron J 97:1–6

Stratton JL (1982) Pioneer women: voices from the Kansas frontier. Touchstone

Wang J, Feng L, Tang X et al (2017) Implications of fossil fuel supply constraints on climate change projections: a supply-side analysis. Futures 86:58–72

Ward JD, Werner AD, Nel WP et al (2011) The infuence of constrained fossil fuel emissions scenarios on climate and water resource projections. Hydrol Earth Syst Sci 15:1879–1893

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Posted in Peak Natural Gas, Peak Oil, Pesticides, Planetary Boundaries, What to do | Tagged , , , , , | Comments Off on The Good News About Peak Oil

Rees on Overshoot: Growth through contraction: conceiving an eco-economy

Preface.   William Rees writes some of the best and most comprehensible papers of all on the overshoot crisis we are in.  We should have begun a U-turn in the 60s after The Population Bomb, or the 70s when Limits to growth was published. At this late date there is less that can be done, but Rees valiantly has suggestions, and I don’t know of any better solutions.  He also explains very well and very quickly why building renewables won’t work.  And he’s got great citations worth reading too. I’ve summarized some of what he’s written, and some of a research paper, but I’ve left out charts, graphs, and more that you can see by going to his paper on the internet

Continue reading

Posted in Limits To Growth, Overshoot, William Rees | Tagged , , , , , | Comments Off on Rees on Overshoot: Growth through contraction: conceiving an eco-economy

Lithium-ion battery recycling, environmental impact, energy used

Preface. The future of both electric vehicles and utility-scale energy storage are depending on lithium-ion batteries because of their high energy-density, and even though lithium is limited, it’s about the only kind of battery being made for transport (because it is also the 3rd lightest element) and energy storage.

Below there are two articles. The second one, a 2015 EPA study, looks at the impact of several kinds of lithium-ion batteries on resource depletion and impacts on global warming, acidification, eutrophication, ozone depletion, photochemical oxidation, ecological toxicity, human toxicity, cancer and other health hazards.  This study assumes that ways to recycle most of the materials will be found.

But the 2020 study points out that only 5% of li-ion batteries are being recycled, batteries aren’t designed to be recycled, and it is still cheaper to mine new lithium than recycle it, so the incentives aren’t high — except for the cobalt, which makes li-ion batteries worth recycling. Until cobalt-free batteries are invented…

Another issue is that many different lithium-ion chemistries exist, such as lithium manganese oxide and lithium nickel cobalt aluminum oxide. This complicates the logistics of recycling due to the possibility of mixing different chemicals in explosive ways. They contain hazardous chemicals, such as toxic lithium salts and transition metals, that can damage the environment and leach into water sources.

Lead acid batteries have a 99% recycling rate because the components are easy to separate and recycle.And lead is indefinitely recyclable without losing its quality and value. There is already a market for them, with the lead battery recycling often included in the upfront cost of a consumer buying a vehicle. Customers are refunded for returning used batteries to dealers or other sites.  But no such system exists for lithium car batteries.

Here’s a great article on the 6 main kinds of lithium batteries and there pros and cons as far as cost, safety, life span, performance, power (high energy on command, i.e. acceleration), and specific energy content per mass of the battery.

2023-4-18 The Six Major Types of Lithium-ion Batteries: A Visual Comparison 

Alice Friedemann  www.energyskeptic.com  Author of Life After Fossil Fuels: A Reality Check on Alternative Energy; When Trucks Stop Running: Energy and the Future of Transportation”, Barriers to Making Algal Biofuels, & “Crunch! Whole Grain Artisan Chips and Crackers”.  Women in ecology  Podcasts: WGBH, Planet: Critical, Crazy Town, Collapse Chronicles, Derrick Jensen, Practical Prepping, Kunstler 253 &278, Peak Prosperity,  Index of best energyskeptic posts

***

Oberhaus D (2020) The Race To Crack Battery Recycling—Before It’s Too Late. Wired.

Many of the millions of lithium-ion batteries made at the Tesla Gigafactory in Sparks, Nevada don’t pass their final tests and are taken to a recycler where the batteries are melted back into raw materials for new batteries.

Mountains more will need recycling as the first wave of EVs reaches the end of their ten year lifespan, 800% more this decade alone.  Yet only 5% of lithium batteries are recycled today.  The dirty secret is that these are an e-waste time bomb. Li-ion batteries are federally designated as a Class 9 hazardous material, subjected to rigorous—and expensive—shipping restrictions to reduce the risk of fire or explosions during the journey.

Cells are not designed with material recovery in mind. And this makes them hard to unpack. Individual cells are complex systems that have several chemically-distinct components mixed and often with multiple welds in a small area, connected to dozens of other batteries so they can be controlled as one unit, making them very hard to disassemble for upgrades or recycling.

The company that recycles Tesla batteries uses both heat in a smelter that burns fossil fuels, and chemicals. They claim that 95 to 98% of a battery’s nickel, cobalt, copper, aluminum, and graphite, and more than 80% of its lithium are obtained after being broken down into its basic ingredients—lithium carbonate, cobalt sulfate, and nickel sulfate.  Another company accomplishes much the same result using no heat, just chemicals by soaking batteries in strong acids to dissolve the metals into a solution to recover lithium. But first the plastic casings need to be removed and the charge drained, increasing cost and complexity.  It is still much cheaper to mine new material, especially lithium than recover this way.

Still, it is hard to separate the lithium out because it is amalgamated with other metals for better conductivity

Recovery makes economic sense today because the cobalt is so valuable, as well as nickel and copper. But as battery makers find cobalt-free chemistries, the economics for recycling may not be justified since it is cheaper to mine new lithium than recycle it, plus there are still technical hurdles to overcome, especially making batteries designed for recycling.

***

2013. Application of life-cycle assessment to nanoscale technology: Lithium-ion batteries for electric vehicles. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 

The study showed that the batteries that use cathodes with nickel and cobalt, as well as solvent-based electrode processing, have the highest potential for environmental impacts. These impacts include resource depletion, global warming, ecological toxicity, and human health impacts. The largest contributing processes include those associated with the production, processing, and use of cobalt and nickel metal compounds, which may cause adverse respiratory, pulmonary, and neurological effects in those exposed.

A number of groups have quantified the life-cycle impacts of lithium-ion batteries for use in vehicle applications, based primarily on secondary data sources. In general, the results of this study are fairly similar to these prior LCA studies. In terms of upstream materials extraction and battery manufacture stages, our estimates of primary energy use and greenhouse gas emissions ranged from 870-2500 MJ/kWh.

As of 2007, batteries accounted for 25% of lithium resource consumption; this amount is projected to increase significantly.

Water is the main material input at 500-5400 kg/kWh (24-67% of total) and second is the lithium brine taken from saline lakes in Chile at 540-750 kg/kWh (9-28% of total). See page 70 for the other inputs, and page 72 for energy use, most of which comes from the materials extraction stage in the life cycle.

Lifetime of the battery is a significant determinant of impact results; halving the lifetime of the battery results effectively doubles the non-use stage impacts, resulting in substantial increases in global warming potential, acidification potential, ozone depletion potential, and photochemical oxidation potential (e.g., smog); this is true even for PHEV-40s batteries, which are 3.4 times smaller in terms of capacity.

Lithium-ion (Li-ion) batteries will be critical to improving the marketability of electric vehicles, due to their large energy storage capability in comparison to other types of batteries, including nickel-metal- hydride (Ni-MH) batteries primarily used in HEVs. The share of Ni-MH batteries is anticipated to decrease in proportion to Li-ion batteries as more PHEVs and EVs come on the market. Li-ion batteries in HEVs are expected to grow to 30% of the HEV fleet by 2015, and 70% by 2020 and the demand for automotive Li-ion batteries is projected to parallel the growth of PHEVs and EVs, growing from about 1 billion USD in 2010 to 30 billion USD by 2018.

Life-Cycle Stages

Though the use stage of the battery dominates in most impact categories, upstream and production is non-negligible in all categories, and relatively important with regard to eutrophication potential, ozone depletion potential, ecological toxicity potential, and the occupational cancer and non-cancer hazard impact categories. The extraction and processing of metals, specifically aluminum used in the cathode and passive cooling system and steel used in the battery pack housing and battery management system (BMS), are key drivers of impacts.

Recovery of materials in the EOL stage significantly reduces overall life-cycle impacts, as the extraction and processing of virgin materials is a key contributor to impacts across battery chemistries. This is particularly the case for the cathode and battery components using metals (e.g., passive cooling system, BMS, pack housing and casing). Therefore, the analysis underscores the importance of curtailing the extraction of virgin lithium to preserve valuable resources and reduce environmental impacts.

Battery Chemistries, Components, and Materials

Across battery chemistries, the choice of active material for the cathode affects human health and toxicity results. For example, the nickel cobalt manganese lithium-ion (Li-NCM) chemistry relies on rare metals like cobalt and nickel, for which the data indicated significant non-cancer and cancer toxicity impact potential. The other two chemistries use the low er toxicity metals, manganese and iron.

The cathode active materials appear to all require large quantities of energy to manufacture. However, the Li-NCM cathode active material requires 1.4 to 1.5 times as much primary energy as the other two active materials.

The choice of materials for cell and battery casing and housing (e.g., steel or aluminum), which are primarily chosen for weight and strength considerations, are among the top process flow contributors to impacts in the upstream and manufacturing stages.

The battery chemistries used by the manufacturers include a lithium-manganese oxide, lithium-nickel-cobalt-manganese-oxide, and a lithium-iron phosphate chemistry.

The study assumes that the anticipated lifetime of the battery is the same as the anticipated lifetime of the vehicle for which it is used (10 years). Ten years is the anticipated lifetime the battery manufacturers seek to achieve. Therefore, our study assumes one ten-year Li -ion battery per vehicle life-time. There is uncertainty with respect to the actual lifetime of batteries in automobiles however.

  1. Raw materials extraction/acquisition. Activities related to the acquisition of natural resources, including mining non-renewable material, harvesting biomass, and transporting raw materials to processing facilities.
  2. Materials processing. Processing natural resources by reaction, separation, purification, and alteration steps in preparation for the manufacturing stage; and transporting processed materials to product manufacturing facilities.
  3. Product manufacture : Manufacture of components of battery cells and battery packs.
  4. Product use. Use of batteries in vehicles (PHEVs and EV s
  5. Final disposition/end-of -life (EOL): Recovery of the batteries at the end of their useful life.

Also included are the activities that are required to affect movement between the stages (e.g., transportation). The inputs (e.g., resources and energy) and outputs (e.g., product and waste) within each life cycle stage, as well as the interaction between each stage (e.g., transportation), are evaluated to determine the environmental impacts.

Battery recycling issues

Although metals are recovered from Li-ion batteries, they are currently not fed back into the battery cell manufacturing process. To do so, the recovered battery materials (including lithium) would need to be processed so they are “battery grade” which means they can be used as secondary material in the battery cell manufacturing process. However, there are a few key obstacles to achieving this goal, including:

  1. The battery manufacturers frequently modify their battery chemistries, which makes it difficult to incorporate recovered materials. This is especially a concern for EV batteries, which may be recovered 10 to 15 years after the battery is manufactured. The battery companies continually modify their chemistries to try to obtain market distinction and to improve charge capacity and energy density, which generate benefits in the use stage of the battery.
  2. The battery manufacturers are hesitant to use secondary materials, as they fear it will not be of high enough quality to meet the battery specifications required by the original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) that purchase the batteries and manufacture the vehicles.

Batteries may be capable of having a –second life or use as part of another product, such as to provide energy storage for an electricity grid; however, there is limited information on characterizing spent batteries in a secondary application, so the potential second life was not included in this study.

What a 22-26.5 lb (10-12 kg) Li-ion battery is made of

% Mass        Component / Material (s)

15-24   Anode / Copper foil (collector) 1-12%, graphite/carbon 8-13%, polymer 1%, solvent 1-6%

29-39   Cathode / aluminum 4-9%, lithium 22-31%, polymer 1-3%, solvent 1-11%

2-3       Separator / polymer

3-20     Cell Casing / aluminum and polymer

8-15     Electrolyte / carbonate solvents 7-13%, lithium hexafluorophosphate 1-2%

2          Battery Management System / copper wiring 1%, steel 1%, printed wire board <1%

17-23   Battery Pack Casing/housing / polypropylene

17-20   Passive Cooling System / steel and aluminum.

Transportation

In order to estimate transportation distances and impacts, assumptions are made with respect to where the raw materials will likely be obtained throughout the supply chain.

Overall, the LCA assumed that raw materials were obtained from where they are typically produced. For instance, we assumed that the basic lithium salts would come from Chile, cobalt and nickel would come from the Congo, battery-grade graphite would come from China, and the cathode active material would be obtained from Japan. Other, more common basic inputs were assumed to be globally sourced.

Materials and products produced or shipped domestically would be transported 95% by mass, at an average distance of 260 miles in a for-hire truck, and 5% by mass, at an average distance of 853 miles in railcars. The distance estimates are based on the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics “Hazmat Shipment by Mode of Transportation”.

Summary of results and conclusions

4.1 Battery Chemistry, Components, and Materials

Battery chemistry appears to influence the results in a number of impact categories, due to impacts associated with upstream materials extraction and processing, and energy use. Overall, the study found that the choice of active material for the cathode influences the results across most of the impact categories. For example, the Li-NCM chemistry relies on rare metals, such as cobalt and nickel, for which the data indicate significant non-cancer and cancer toxicity impact potential; this is reflected in the occupational hazard categories. The other two battery chemistries use the relatively lower toxicity metals, manganese and iron.

Other material choices also produce differences in impact results. One choice that stands out in particular is the use of aluminum in various battery components, from the cathode substrate to the cell casing. Battery chemistries that use larger quantities of aluminum, such as LiMnO2 and LiFePO4 , show distinctly higher potential for ozone depletion impacts than the battery chemistry that does not, Li-NCM. As discussed before, this is a direct outcome of the CFC 11 releases during the upstream processes that lead to aluminum end-products.

Energy use is another chemistry-specific driver. Across battery chemistries, the cathode is a dominant contributor to upstream and component manufacturing impacts. The cathode active materials appear to all require large quantities of energy to manufacture. However, the data indicate that the Li-NCM cathode active material requires approximately 50% more primary energy than the other two active materials.

4.2 Vehicle/Battery Type

In looking at the impacts for PHEV and EV Li-ion batteries, this study found that, in general, global warming potential is one of the few categories in which EV batteries show lower impacts than PHEV batteries; however, this is not unequivocal. A true net benefit in global warming potential for EV batteries only appears when the grid is not coal-centric, and battery production does not represent a substantial proportion of primary energy consumption (e.g., LiMnO2 . Drawing on the average U.S. grid, EV batteries show a small average net benefit over PHEV batteries across all battery chemistries (about 25 g CO 2 -eq./km). However, the electricity grid in Illinois, which is more representative of the Southeast, Appalachia, and Midwest, shows PHEV-40 batteries more favorable than EV batteries, on a GWP-basis. In other words, given present grid conditions, it might be preferable for people living in these regions to buy PHEV-40s if mitigation of global warming impacts are highly valued (based on assessment of the battery life cycle, including its use — not the entire vehicle).

Abiotic depletion and eutrophication potential impacts are the only other impact categories in which EV batteries show lower impacts; however, there are some caveats. Specifically, lower impacts for EV batteries are only evident in these categories when the grid is comp ri sed to a large extent of natural gas- based generation facilities, and battery production does not represent a substantial proportion of the overall primary energy use (e.g., for LiMnO 2 batteries). It is likely that most of the impacts across categories would be lower for EV batteries if the average electricity grid were less dependent on fossil fuels, and relied more on renewable sources of energy.

4.3 Life-Cycle Stages

Impacts vary significantly across life-cycle stages for all battery chemistries and vehicle battery types. Though the use stage of the battery dominates in nearly all impact categories, upstream materials extraction and processing and battery production are non-negligible in all categories, and are significant contributors to eutrophication potential, ozone depletion potential, ecological toxicity potential, and the occupational cancer and non-cancer hazard impact categories.

During the upstream materials extraction and processing stages, which are implicated in a number of impact categories, common metals drive stage-specific impacts. Aluminum used in manufacture of the cathode and passive cooling system comes up as a driver in a number of impact categories, especially in ozone depletion potential. Steel, which is used in the battery pack housing and BMS, is another metal that shows up in a number of different impact categories as a driver, including global warming potential and ecological toxicity potential, due to cyanide emissions.

Lifetime of the battery is a significant determinant of impact results, as it directly modifies the proportion of the impact attributable to all non-use stages. Halving the lifetime of the battery results in sizeable changes in global warming potential, acidification potential, ozone depletion potential, and photochemical oxidation potential (e.g., smog); this is true even for PHEV-40 batteries that are 3.4 times smaller in terms of capacity. Longevity by battery chemistry should be assessed in future research, because of the correlation of greater battery lifetimes with reduced environmental impacts.

4.5 Implications for the Electricity Grid

One factor that has the potential to significantly change the outcome of an electric vehicle battery LCA is the choice of average versus marginal electricity generation to generate impact estimates. U.S. LCI data and GaBi data currently apply an average mix of electricity generation for different regions. Though average electricity provisions may make more sense when thinking about the impact of battery product systems in static, long-run analyses, the electricity grid is subject to cyclical as well as structural changes in the distribution of underlying energy generation processes. Marginal generation considers the deployment of new technology that may draw a lot more electricity at different times from the electric grid. With the increase in use of electric cars, it will likely change the make-up of the grid from its current mix. So, it may be important to consider the “marginal” generation, instead of focusing only on the “average” generation. Accordingly, attribution of the average grid mix to battery charging may not accurately reflect the impact of the batteries on overall electricity production.

Key improvements needed

Increase the lifetime of the battery

  • Reduce cobalt and nickel use (high toxicity)
  • Reduce the percentage of metals by mass.
  • Use recycled material
  • Use a solvent-less process to make batteries
  • Reassess manufacturing process and upstream materials selection to reduce primary energy use for the cathode.

The biggest contributor to most impact categories — larger in most cases than the upstream, and component and battery manufacturing stages combined — was the electricity grid. The sensitivity analysis conducted in the study showed that distinctive patterns emerged when electricity was derived primarily from coal (Illinois smart charging scenario), versus when it was derived primarily from natural gas (WECC and ISO-NE unconstrained charging).

Posted in Lithium-ion, Recycle, Recycling | Tagged , , , , , | Comments Off on Lithium-ion battery recycling, environmental impact, energy used

Heat effects on habitability, biodiversity, and invasive species

Preface. Due to limits of human heat tolerance, much of Earth’s surface may not be habitable by 2300 if we continue to emit greenhouse gases at the current rate.

But we can’t continue at the current rate. Peak oil production probably peaked in 2018 (see citations in chapter 2 of my book Life After Fossil Fuels). IPCC models assumed we would be burning fossils until 2400 at exponentially increasing rates because they included resources in their calculations, while the reserves that can actually be exploited are a fraction of that amount. So the worst predictions are not likely to happen, but the effects will be plenty bad, and already are in many places, just not extinction or a hothouse earth.

Extreme heat events could lead to a tipping point in regional politics or social stability. In Africa, extreme droughts and high temperatures have been linked to an increase of risk of civil conflict and large-scale humanitarian crisis in Africa.

Alice Friedemann  www.energyskeptic.com  Author of Life After Fossil Fuels: A Reality Check on Alternative Energy; When Trucks Stop Running: Energy and the Future of Transportation”, Barriers to Making Algal Biofuels, & “Crunch! Whole Grain Artisan Chips and Crackers”.  Women in ecology  Podcasts: WGBH, Planet: Critical, Crazy Town, Collapse Chronicles, Derrick Jensen, Practical Prepping, Kunstler 253 &278, Peak Prosperity,  Index of best energyskeptic posts

***

Xu C et al (2020) Future of the human climate niche.

As the climate continues to warm over the next half-century, up to one-third of the world’s population is likely to live in areas that are considered unsuitably hot for humans. Today fewer than 25 million people live in the world’s hottest areas, most of them in the African Sahara region. But by 2070 such extreme heat could encompass a much larger part of Africa, as well as parts of India, the Middle East, South America, Southeast Asia and Australia. With global population projected to rise to about 10 billion by 2070, that means as many as 3.5 billion people living in these areas.  If this forces many to migrate, that would cause massive economic and societal disruptions.

Higher Heat effects on habitability 

Well-known threats like rising oceans and economic depressions are not nearly as serious as the potential heat that might make the world, thermally, partly or completely uninhabitable by humans (SD 2010, McMichael 2010, Sherwood 2010).

Most heat on the planet is dry, and we can handle that, but we’re not adapted to surviving very humid heat — a wet-bulb temperature of over 95 F — for more than six hours, even if we’re resting in well-ventilated shade. Hot, humid heat leads to hyperthermia, heat stress, and eventually death.  Heat stress is already a leading cause of fatalities.

What will happen when temperatures rise this much:

  • 4 °C: would subject over half the world’s people to unprecedented heat
  • 7 °C:  some regions may become uninhabitable
  • 10 °C: the amount of land that would become uninhabitable from heat stress is far more that what we’ll lose from rising sea levels
  • 11-12 °C: would expand these regions to include most of today’s human population

It’s unlikely we’ll adapt with air-conditioning due to limited fossil fuels, nor would AC protect livestock or outside workers, and power failures would be life-threatening.

Why heat kills

The reason crowded indoor theaters get so hot is because everyone is radiating heat like a 100 Watt light-bulb.  Normally this heat is carried away by sweating, heat conduction, and other radiative cooling.  But when the air is very moist and hot, the second law of thermodynamics does not allow us to lose heat when the wet bulb temperature (TW) exceeds 95 °F for a long period.

We all have core body temperatures around 98.6 °F regardless of climate, and our skin is lightly cooler, about 95, so that metabolic heat is conducted to the skin.  If our skin sustains temperatures above 98, then our core temperatures will rise even more, and once our core reaches about 108 F for any length of time, we’re likely to die of hyperthermia, no matter how acclimated and fit a person is.

Heat waves cause heat exhaustion, heat cramps, and heat stroke; heat waves are one of the most common causes of weather-related deaths in United States. Summertime heat waves will likely become longer, more frequent, more severe, and more relentless with decreased potential to cool down at night. Increases in heat-related deaths due to climate change are likely to outweigh decreases in deaths from cold snaps. In general, heat waves and the associated health issues disproportionately affect more vulnerable populations such as the elderly, children, those with existing cardiovascular and respiratory diseases, and those who are economically disadvantaged or socially isolated. Increasing temperature and humidity levels can cross thresholds where it is unsafe for individuals to perform heavy labor (below a direct physiological limit). Recent work has shown that environmental heat stress has already reduced the labor capacity in the tropics and mid-latitudes during peak months of heat stress by 10%, and another 10% decrease is projected by 2050 with much larger decreases further into the future (NRC 2013).

Higher Heat effects on Biodiversity

As the planet’s oceans and rivers warm, increased heat could pose a grave threat to the fish populations the world depends on by the end of this century.  Three billion people depend on fish and seafood as their main source of protein (WWF 2021). Among the species at risk are some of the most commercially important species on Earth — Atlantic cod, Alaska pollock and sockeye salmon, and sport fishing favorites like swordfish, barracuda and brown trout. In fact, 60% of the fish species examined could struggle to reproduce in their current habitat ranges by the year 2100 if the climate crisis continues unchecked (Dahlke et al 2020).

Higher Heat effects on invasive species

Bark beetles are a natural part of forested ecosystems, and infestations are a regular force of natural change. In the last two decades, though, the bark beetle infestations that have occurred across large areas of North America have been the largest and most severe in recorded history, killing millions of trees across millions of hectares of forest from Alaska to southern California. Climate change is thought to have played a significant role in these recent outbreaks by maintaining temperatures above a threshold that would normally lead to cold-induced mortality.

Over 30% more ponderosa pines died in the Sierra during last decade’s drought due to the hastened rate of beetle development, who mature faster in higher temperatures, shortening the time it takes to new generations. This will worsen tree deaths — already California has lost 163 million trees since 2010 due to a combination of beetles and drought. This makes it more likely trees won’t grow back as well, these areas will increasingly become inhabited by shrubs and grasslands (Robbins 2021)

References

Dahlke FT, Wohlrab S, Butzin M et al (2020) Thermal bottlenecks in the life cycle define climate vulnerability of fish. Science 369: 65-70

Robbins ZJ (2021) Warming increased bark beetle-induced tree mortality by 30% during an extreme drought in California. Global Change Biology.

SD (2010)  Global Warming: Future Temperatures Could Exceed Livable Limits, Researchers Find. ScienceDaily.

McMichael A et al (2010) Climate change: Heat, health, and longer horizons. Proceedings of the National Academies of Science.

NRC. 2013. Abrupt Impacts of Climate Change: Anticipating surprises. National Research Council, National Academies of Sciences press.

Sherwood  S et al (2010) .An adaptability limit to climate change due to heat stress. Proceedings of the National Academies of Science.

WWF (2021) Sustainable seafood overview. World Wildlife Fund.

 

Posted in Biodiversity Loss, BioInvasion, Deforestation, Fisheries, Heat, Wildfire | Tagged , , , , , , | Comments Off on Heat effects on habitability, biodiversity, and invasive species

Why the world can’t run on biodiesel from algae

Preface. This is an article I published in a peer-reviewed journal, and it’s also similar to “Chapter 25 Biodiesel from Algae” in my book Life After Fossil Fuels: A Reality Check on Alternative Energy.

And within this post is a section on algae and ocean plankton: Germany National Academy of Sciences report: Don’t use biofuels which says:

“Current life cycle analyses indicate that the energy return on investment (EROI) is less than one for algae.  Nor is ocean plankton a potential fuel.  Although the gross primary production of the oceans is similar to the magnitude on land, the difference between the amount of biomass in each is astounding.  Land plants have orders of magnitude more tonnes of Carbon bound up in biomass on land is 650,000,000,000 but the ocean only 3,000,000,000.  This is because ocean phytoplankton die so fast from zooplankton consumption and other causes, which makes oceans unsuitable as a source of large-scale biofuel production

Alice Friedemann  www.energyskeptic.com  Author of Life After Fossil Fuels: A Reality Check on Alternative Energy; When Trucks Stop Running: Energy and the Future of Transportation”, Barriers to Making Algal Biofuels, & “Crunch! Whole Grain Artisan Chips and Crackers”.  Women in ecology  Podcasts: WGBH, Crazy Town, Collapse Chronicles, Derrick Jensen, Practical Prepping, Kunstler 253 & 278, Peak Prosperity, Index of best energyskeptic posts

***

Friedemann A J (2019) Barriers to Making Algal Biofuels. Arch Pet Environ Biotechnol 4: 155. DOI: 10.29011/2574-7614.100055

Since algae can produce many times more biomass per square foot than terrestrial plants, algal biofuels hold a great deal of promise.

Importantly, they are best suited for making biodiesel, the essential fuel. Ships, trucks, and trains are the backbone of civilization, and they depend on diesel.

We know how to grow algae, though there are no successful commercial fuel production facilities. The vast majority of commercial algal products are used for nutritional supplements, cosmetics, and other products.

The main reason fuels aren’t being produced is the problem of “pond crash.”

In practice, about a third of the time all of a pond’s algae die within three months [1]. It doesn’t take much head scratching to figure out why: The pond is wide open to invading algae predators via wind, rain, snow, insects, migratory waterfowl, and animals. Among the predators are zooplanktons. Each one can eat 200 algae a minute and crash a pond in less than 2 days [2].

They’re not the only marauders. There are also killer viruses, fungi, diseases, amoebas. And open ponds are ideal breeding territory for mosquitoes, which prey not only on us, but also on algae.

Algae are Cinderella creatures. They are easily killed or grow too slowly from too much heat, cold, evaporation, pH level, saline level, UV, lack of nutrients, or too much of a nutrient [3].

Nor will just any algae do. For algal biofuels, the goal is to use obese algae with at least 60% fat to make as much biodiesel as possible for the least cost. But usually tougher, leaner, faster reproducing algae get into the pond and outcompete the plump ones.

If only a microscopic border patrol could keep them out. Why not build walls around the ponds! Oh wait, there are walls. Screens haven’t worked, nor pesticides, since microscopic predators develop immunity quickly because they reproduce in just a day or two.

If algal biofuels are the future, then grains and oilseeds are the current biofuel feedstock. It’s clear that terrestrial biomass doesn’t scale up enough to run the world on biofuels. In Europe, it has been estimated that 2 billion metric tons of grains and oilseeds are grown a year, but that 15 billion metric tons, 7.5 times as much, would be needed to replace oil with biofuels [5]. Currently only 15,000 tons a year of algae are produced [4].

Compared to current biofuels, algae are tremendously expensive to produce, ranging from $719 to $3,000 per dry ton, versus switch grass, corn stover, and other land biomass costing $30 to $60 per dry ton [4].

Where’s the land?

The ponds for growing algae have to be huge, about 1200 acres of very flat land (less than a 1% grade) containing 10-acre or more ponds for economies of scale, ideally near a city to reduce the cost of delivery. This land ideally has impermeable soil below to reduce the energy required to line and seal the ponds and prevent seepage of toxins into the groundwater.

Ponds also need to be large because they can’t be deep, since sunlight doesn’t penetrate algal growths for more than a couple of inches [6]. Too much sun is also harmful, since algae can suffer oxidative damage. Many species protect themselves by inhibiting photosynthesis, which constrains growth [3].

Algae feed on CO2, which must be pumped into the ponds. A huge cost for algae farming is CO2, up to 25% of overall costs. Yet there are very few industries emitting excess CO2 that also have 1200 acres of very flat land nearby, nor wastewater plants to provide water for that matter [4].

The fairy-tale princess may have been overly sensitive to a pea, but algae are even more delicate. A proper berth for them would need at least 2800 hours of sunshine per year, since sunlight is the most important factor in algal growth. That much sun exists in only eight states. There’d ideally be 40 inches of rain and low evaporation rates, not likely in Arizona and the other suitable arid states. In addition, the ponds do best when the average temperature is 55 F or more, at least 200 days are above freezing, there is little wind so that predators, dust, and sand aren’t swept into ponds, and heavy rain, flooding, hail, tornadoes, or hurricanes are rare.

There is competition for the use of flat lands. Algal ponds compete with agriculture and recreation, as well as solar facilities, which can produce far more energy than algae over their lifespan on considerably less land [7,8].

Where’s the water?

Large scale algal biofuel production is likely to require as much water nationally as large scale agriculture [3]. Wigmosta (2011) [7] estimated that to produce 220 billion liters of algal biofuels – that would equate to 28% of U.S. transportation fuel – the evaporative loss from ponds would be 312 trillion liters per year. That is about twice the quantity of water used for irrigated agriculture in the U.S. [9].

An advantage of algae over land plants is that the water can be saline, brackish, wastewater and low-quality. The problem is that the water being evaporated is fresh, and continuing to use low-quality water to refresh the pond can introduce and concentrate killer microbes, heavy metals, chemicals and concentrates salts, toxins, and other harmful materials [3]. This would also render any co-products from algal sludge unsuitable for animal feed. If wastewater is to be used, there are not many wastewater treatment plants with thousands of acres of cheap flat land nearby to build ponds on.

Carbon dioxide problems coming and going

Unlike plants, which can make use of CO2 in the air, commercial algae production requires concentrated CO2 because not enough CO2 from the air penetrates the water [3,10,11]. Coal-fired power plants would seem to be an ideal source for this CO2. Algae, however, can only use CO2 when the sun is shining, and not at night. Thus, in terms of the hope of using algal ponds to limit greenhouse gas emissions from coal power plants and other CO2 emitting industries, algal ponds would not be able to offset more than 20-30% of the total power plant emissions [12].

There’s another CO2 issue with algal ponds. Ninety percent of the CO2 pumped into an algal pond will bubble up to the surface and into the air, resulting in substantially higher net emissions from algal biofuels than petroleum, according to several studies [3,6,8]. The 2007 renewable fuel standard mandated that only biofuels which lowered greenhouse gas emissions 20% or more beyond petroleum emissions were qualified to be added to gasoline or diesel.

Microscopic algae are as voracious as food crops

The amount of nutrients required to grow enough algae to produce just 5% of transportation fuel could be as high as required by large scale agriculture [3,8]. To produce just 5% of the transportation fuels used in the United States, an algae with an oil content of 20% would need more nitrogen than the U.S. consumes today on crops, because algae can’t fix nitrogen like many land crops. This same quantity of algal biofuels also would require phosphorus equivalent to up to half of what is currently consumed by U.S. agriculture [10]. There is a danger of phosphorous depletion as soon as 2080 to 2100 [13,14].

Recycling algae to get the nitrogen and phosphorous back isn’t easy. It’s also expensive and energy intensive to remove phosphorus and nitrogen from the dead algae after their oil has been removed to make biodiesel, so 20-40% cannot be recovered.

Where’s the energy?

The main reason to make algal biodiesel is to provide a substitute for petroleum diesel. Other metrics such as CO2 sequestration, byproducts, and GHG emissions are not as relevant. All that matters is that the EROI (Energy return on investment) is greater than 1, or perhaps as high as 10 or more to maintain our current level of civilization [15-17]. An EROI of 1 or less is not unsustainable.

An absolute showstopper is the very negative EROI of algal biofuels: far more fossil fuel energy is needed to build and grow the algae than the energy contained in the algal fuel. The energy for water management alone is seven times more than the algal biodiesel created, and water management is just a fraction of the overall energy inputs [18].

Like corn ethanol, estimates of EROI range from negative to positive [8], and again like ethanol, proponents who find positive results rely on adding the energy of the algal sludge byproduct. The NRC (2012) [8] reports that Sander (2010) [19] gave an “energy credit for using algae residuals 10 times larger than the energy content of the produced biodiesel.” Yet even then the EROI was a trivial 1.77 to 3.33. Other studies found that it takes three to eight times as much fossil fuel energy inputs as the energy contained in the algal biofuel. Closed bioreactors can use up to 57 times more fossil fuel energy [8].

Sorry to let the air out of your balloon

If there are any incorrigible optimists left reading this, consider a subset of the steps and inputs needed to make algal biofuel. I’ve summarized the process below, and Capitalized Each Action that requires fossil fuel energy.

Algae need light to survive and grow. To get adequate light, the pond can only be a few inches deep, so ponds have to be large, which adds to construction and land costs. Water needs to be Pumped into and between ponds. The algae at the top hog most of the sunlight, so the water must be constantly Stirred, Pumped, and Circulated. On a hot day, an inch or more water evaporates, so more water must be Pumped In. After a pond crash the pond must be Thoroughly Cleaned. CO2 must be Collected, Compressed, and Pumped into pipelines to deliver CO2 to the facility via tubes at the bottom of ponds, which can get clogged, requiring Regular Cleaning. Agitators, Aerators, and Fountains must run constantly to distribute nutrients and CO2 and to discourage mosquitos from breeding.

A biofuel facility is made of cement, plastic, pumps, centrifuges, chemicals, filters, pond liners, CO2 waste treatment facilities, drying areas, fuel processing, transport, and storage infrastructure. Nitrogen, phosphorus, and other nutrients must be Produced, Transported, and Distributed in the ponds. Treating the wastewater requires Decontamination, Disinfection, and Removal of heavy metals. Water must be Heated or Cooled to maintain an optimal temperature. It also takes energy to Monitor and Keep pH levels, saline levels, nutrient, and water levels at optimal levels.

To make the algal fuel, algae are Pumped through each of these steps: Harvest, Filter, Sieved, Dry, Extract oil. Recycle nutrients, Dispose of wastewater. Getting the water out is a huge part of the energy used: algae are single cells suspended in water at concentrations below 1% solids, whereas land plants are often over 40% solids. The energy to Concentrate and Dry the algae commercially is far greater than the energy contained in the algae [3]. Extract the oil in the algae. Transform this oil into biodiesel (many steps not listed here). Finally, Store, Transport, Blend, Deliver, and Dispense algal biodiesel.

Protect algae from crashes by sheltering them in photo bioreactors

You might think algae could be protected from predators in the long glass or plastic tubes of a photo bioreactor, but microscopic creatures can also get into them and form bacterial biofilms that slow down water flow and reduce the light. However much trouble ponds may be, photo bioreactors are far more problematic and expensive, have never been scaled up to a commercial level, cost more, and use far more energy than ponds. They can’t be sterilized and need to be cleaned, they need energy intensive temperature, pH, dissolved oxygen, and CO2 controls. They are far from being commercial. Bottom line: they require far more energy than open ponds and studies have found all of them to have a negative energy return on invested [3,8].

Conclusion

Algae may be green, but they’re not clean. Discharging untreated water from an algal pond can lead to eutrophication of waterways, contaminate groundwater, salinize fresh water, harm wildlife, and be a source of heavy metals, herbicides, algal toxins, and industrial effluents. Untreated water may escape in a flood, earthquake, tornado, high rainfall, and when the pond leaks or breaks. If a foreign or bio-engineered algal species escapes, it could threaten local and regional ecosystems by displacing native species and causing dense algal blooms that block sunlight.

Algae also compete with agriculture for very flat land.

There are simply too many showstoppers. Algae are greedy little bastards, needing more water, nitrogen, and phosphorous than corn or soybeans, placing unsustainable demands on energy, water, and nutrients [8].

Clearly algal fuels are far from being commercial, unless you can get the military to pay for it that is.  In 2009, the Pentagon spent $424 a gallon on algae oil [20].

Scientists, entrepreneurs, and the U.S. government have been trying to make algal biofuels for over 45 years, ever since the 1970 oil shocks, and have studied over 3,000 kinds of algae for their biofuel potential. But after decades of research, the Department of Energy gave up and stopped funding in 1995 [21].

And don’t be fooled by the recent research, it’s focused on cleaning up CO2 from power plants to lower greenhouse emissions [4], not to provide biofuels to keep trucks running [22], which are absolutely essential for our fossil-fueled civilization.

For more details than my overview see this post: Department of Energy algal biofuels roadmap: A summary

References

  1. Park JBK, Craggs RJ, Shilton AN (2011) Wastewater treatment high rate algal ponds for biofuel production. Bioresource Technology 102: 35-42.
  2. SNL (2017) Multilab project seeks toughest algae strains for biofuel. Sandia National Laboratories Biomass magazine.
  3. USDOE (2010) National Algal Biofuels Technology Roadmap. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy.
  4. USDOE (2016) 2016 Billion-ton report. Advancing domestic resources for a thriving bio economy. U.S. Department of energy.
  5. Wald ML (2012) Another Path to Biofuels. New York Times.
  6. Wigmosta MS, Coleman AM, Skaggs RJ, Huesemann MH, Lane LJ (2011) National microalgae biofuel production potential and resource demand. Water Resources Research 47.
  7. NRC (2012) Sustainable Development of Algal Biofuels. National Research Council, National Academies Press, Washington, D.C.
  8. USGS (2010) Mineral Commodity Summaries 2010. US Geological Survey.
  9. NAS (2012) America’s Energy Future: Technology and Transformation 2009. National Academy of Sciences, National Research Council, National Academy of Engineering.
  10. Williams PJ, Laurens LM (2010) Microalgae as biodiesel and biomass feedstocks: Review and analysis of the biochemistry, energetics and economics. Energy and Environmental Science 3: 554-590.
  11. Brune DE, Lundquist TJ, Benemann JR (2009) Microalgal biomass for greenhouse gas reductions: Potential for replacement of fossil-fuels and animal feeds. Journal of Environmental Engineering 135: 1136-1144.
  12. Smil V (2000) Phosphorus in the Environment: Natural Flows and Human Interferences. Annual Review of Energy and the Environment 25: 53-88.
  13. Vaccari DA (2009) Phosphorus: A Looming Crisis. Scientific American 300: 54-59.
  14. Murphy CF, Allen DT (2011) Energy-Water Nexus for Mass Cultivation of Algae. Environmental Science & Technology 45: 5861-5868.
  15. Sander K, Murthy GS (2010) Life cycle analysis of algae biodiesel. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 15: 704-714.
  16. Cardwell D (2012) Military spend on biofuels draws fire. New York Times.
  17. Richard T (2010) Challenges in scaling up biofuels infrastructure. . Science 329: 793-796.
  18. Sheehan, J et al (1998) A look back at the U.S. Department of Energy’s aquatic species program: biodiesel from algae. U.S. Department of Energy, National Renewable Energy Laboratory.
  19. Friedemann A (2015) When trucks stop running: energy and the future of transportation. Springer.
  20. Lambert, JG, Hall CAS (2014) Energy, EROI and quality of life. Energy Policy 64: 153–167.
  21. Murphy, DJ, Hall C, Dale M, Cleveland, C. 2011. Order from chaos: a preliminary protocol for determining the EROI of fuels. Sustainability 10: 1888–1907.
  22. Weissbach DG, Ruprecht G, Huke A, Czerski K, Gottlieb S, Hussein A (2013) Energy intensities, EROIs, and energy payback times of electricity generating power plants. Energy 52: 210–221.

 

Posted in Algae, Alternative Energy, Biomass, Energy, Peak Biofuels | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Why the world can’t run on biodiesel from algae

Jellyfish in the news

Preface.  As we overfish, eutrophy and acidify the ocean with fertilizer and pesticides we risk a tipping point where jellyfish dominate the oceans and fish are scarce.

Related: Why and how Jellyfish are taking over the world

Alice Friedemann  www.energyskeptic.com  Author of Life After Fossil Fuels: A Reality Check on Alternative Energy; When Trucks Stop Running: Energy and the Future of Transportation”, Barriers to Making Algal Biofuels, & “Crunch! Whole Grain Artisan Chips and Crackers”.  Women in ecology  Podcasts: WGBH, Planet: Critical, Crazy Town, Collapse Chronicles, Derrick Jensen, Practical Prepping, Kunstler 253 &278, Peak Prosperity,  Index of best energyskeptic posts

***

Javidpour J (2020) Cannibalism makes invasive comb jelly, Mnemiopsis leidyi, resilient to unfavourable conditions. Communications Biology.

An invasive comb jellyfish is able to survive by eating its babies to survive long and nutrient deprived winters.  This study also addresses wider questions of cannibalism in the animal kingdom. Cannibalism has been recorded among over 1,500 species, including humans, chimpanzees, squirrels, fish, and dragonfly larvae.  And it is especially common in aquatic systems for unknown reasons.

CNN (2020) Beach ball-sized jellyfish capable of damaging boats spotted in South Carolina

Wildlife officials in South Carolina are asking boaters to keep their eyes peeled for an invasive species of jellyfish that can grow to beach ball size and are big enough to damage boats and fishing equipment. They can get stuck in boats’ water intake lines, gobble up fish and shellfish eggs, and put a strain on fishing nets when they get scooped up and difficult to remove from the net.

Vince G (2012) In the last decade enormous plagues of jellyfish have been taking over the seas. And it is our fault. BBC.

Reactors at a Scottish nuclear power station have been shut down after enormous numbers of jellyfish were found in the sea water entering the plant. Huge annual jellyfish blooms have been cropping up across the Mediterranean, the Black Sea, the Gulf of Mexico, and the Yellow and Japan Seas. 

Is this a bizarre blip in the continually changing balance of oceanic life, or the beginnings of a new state change in marine diversity? Or in other words: in the Anthropocene, will the seas be filled with slime?

If they are, we face some serious problems. Last year alone, nuclear power plants in Scotland, Japan, Israel and Florida, and also a desalination plant in Israel, were forced to shutdown because jellyfish were clogging the water inlets. The entire Irish salmon industry was wiped out in 2007 after a plague of billions of mauve stingers – covering an area of 10 sq miles (26 sq km) and 35ft (11m) deep – attacked the fish cages. Two years later, a fish farm in Tunisia lost a year’s production of sea bream and sea bass after jellyfish invasions.

Perhaps the most extraordinary blooms have been those occurring in waters off Japan. There, refrigerator-sized gelatinous monsters called Nomuras, weighing 485lb (220 kg) and measuring 6.5ft (2m) in diameter, have swarmed the Japan Sea annually since 2002, clogging fishing nets, overturning trawlers and devastating coastal livelihoods. These assaults have cost the Japanese fisheries industry billions of yen in losses.

Human factor. Marine ecologists are warning of worse to come, and pointing the tentacle of blame at us. Some researchers fear that human changes to the marine environment may be leading to a tipping point in which jellyfish will rule the oceans, much as they did hundreds of millions of years ago in pre-Cambrian times. In 2009, Australian marine scientist Anthony Richardson and his colleagues published a research paper entitled The jellyfish joyride, in which they warn that if we do not act to curb current blooms, we will experience runaway populations that will cause open oceanic ecosystems to flip from ones dominated by fish biodiversity to ones dominated by jellyfish.

The problem is that no one really knows what causes the blooms. Some believe that population explosions result from overfishing of their dining competitors and predators, which include more than 100 species of fish, and animals such as turtles. However, other researchers point out that overfishing also hits jellyfish by reducing their food availability.

Either way, what is clear is that jellyfish are simply better prepared than other marine life for many of the ways humans are changing the ocean environment, such as warmer temperatures, salinity changes, ocean acidification and pollution. In this sense, humans might be jellyfishes’ best friend.

For instance, pollution can cause algal blooms that reduce the water’s oxygen content. This hits muscular swimmers like fish hard, but jellyfish can cope far better with these conditions.

Warmer water encourages jellyfish reproduction, and they can also better tolerate population crashes because their reproductive strategies are complex and adaptable. Some species of jelly can clone themselves, whereas others reproduce sexually but also have a polyp stage – like corals, with which they are related – that allows large populations of immature individuals to multiply while waiting for the right conditions to mature into adulthood. In these ways, they can withstand impacts that devastate other marine species.

Even the coastal infrastructure we build seems to be working to their advantage. Rob Condon, a marine scientist at Dauphin Island Sea Lab in Alabama, says that the pontoons, piers and even drilling platforms help provide anchors for jellyfish polyps, encouraging local population explosions.

Slippery customers

But Condon, who set up a global jellyfish database initiative (the wonderfully named JEDI) to monitor blooms, says that the “jellygeddon” scenario envisioned by Richardson and others is unlikely. Jellyfish blooms are nothing new, says Condon, “4,000 years ago in Ancient Crete, they used to paint jelly blooms on their pottery, and even in the 1920s, media were reporting “unprecedented” numbers of moon jellyfish in Monterey Bay.”

Gathering data on jellyfish is notoriously difficult. Although 70% of the planet is covered by ocean, we really only have a hazy idea about most of the life outside of coastal or estuarine zones. Jellyfish, which inhabit open oceans and deep waters, are still an enigma in many ways. Monitoring individuals and blooms cannot be done by satellite because they are so transparent, have very low biomass, and often occupy waters below the optical depth for satellite penetration. Even finding polyps and larvae in sea grass is tricky. 

Extreme measures

Dealing with blooms where they do turn up is tricky.  Even if you trap a bloom, what do you do with all those jellyfish? Japanese fishermen initially tried chopping them up in the waters, only to discover that the Nomura’s jellyfish defense strategy is to release its sperm and eggs, thus propagating the problem. In Spain, special jelly patrols were buried them in landfill.

But we don’t know what environmental effects destroying blooms could have. Jellyfish are an important food source for apex predators, and if we start tinkering with the natural bloom system, we don’t know what the ripple-down effects may be. They may even help mix and fertilize the world’s oceans, some researchers think.

Perhaps one solution is to sustainably exploit their abundance. Jellyfish do have their uses: in collagen preparations (to treat rheumatoid arthritis, for example), they are popular attractions in aquaria, and their fluorescent proteins have been instrumental in biomedical discoveries.

And, of course, they are a source of food. In Japan and other parts of Asia, jellyfish are dried and chopped into noodle-like strips to be added to soups, for example. Some entrepreneurial Japanese are even making vanilla-and-jellyfish ice cream. Jellyfish are 80% protein and very low in fat, although the high sodium content probably outweighs their health benefits.

So… jellyfish and chips anyone?

Richardson AJ et al (2009) The jellyfish joyride: causes, consequences and management responses to a more gelatinous future. Trends in Ecology and Evolution.

Human-induced stresses of overfishing, eutrophication, climate change, translocation and habitat modification appear to be promoting jellyfish (pelagic cnidarian and ctenophore) blooms to the detriment of other marine organisms. Mounting evidence suggests that the structure of pelagic ecosystems can change rapidly from one that is dominated by fish (that keep jellyfish in check through competition or predation) to a less desirable gelatinous state, with lasting ecological, economic and social consequences.

Jellyfish outbreaks can have many deleterious consequences, including losses in tourist revenue through beach closures and even the death of bathers; power outages following the blockage of cooling intakes at coastal power plants; blocking of alluvial sediment suction in diamond mining operations; burst fishing nets and contaminated catches; killing of farmed fish; reduction in commercial fish abundance through competition and predation; and as probable intermediate vectors of various fish parasites.

 

Posted in BioInvasion, Extinction, Jellyfish | Tagged , , | Comments Off on Jellyfish in the news