John Elder: The defence of explanation
Some ancient history: I once told my mother that I wished I was adopted by Germaine Greer. For one thing, Germaine would have let me take over the cooking. Secondly, I felt she was someone I could argue with for the fun of it, with no harm done. When my mother and I argued (cold and unsparing on my part, emotional and scornful on hers) she'd eventually lose it and call for my father who would chide me with a well-worn refrain – "How many times have I told you not to argue with a mad woman" – before surrendering to adjudicate the argument.
I have now confessed, for all time, certain unfortunate family secrets. I'll get back to that.
One of my favourite pronouncements from Germaine Greer was this: there is no such thing as reassurance. There is no point trying to make someone feel better if what they really need is a good cry, a cold bath and a new plan. From this, taking a sideways step, I long ago decided there is no such thing as an explanation. Because explanations are inevitably complex and bound to open up a fresh tin of trouble. Because explanations are by their nature a defence – as well as a laying out fascinating new facts as to what is happening or has happened in the world.
This all came to mind with news that the earliest humans weren't responsible after all for wiping out the megaherbivores (species weighing more than 900 kilos) in Africa. These were various elephant-like creatures, hippos, giraffes and such that began to die out nearly 5 million years ago. Ancient humans knew some of these creatures, others had already gone to oblivion before people started turning rocks into knives – however, the diversity of megaherbivores continued regardless of human advancement.
The US researchers concluded that climate change did them in – not a warming world, but one where the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere fell away, favouring tropical grasses over trees. Megaherbivores thrived on woody food.
It's all very interesting. But of course there might be people who would say, oh well, thank God for an abundance of C0₂ because it's saving the elephants and rhinos from extinction. From that point, further explanation will be carried off and shared around like a half-baked pie.
Still, there's something poignant in the idea of ancient people being exonerated. No doubt their ghosts are feeling rather pleased with themselves.
Meanwhile, you're probably thinking all this leads back to an explanation, a defence of my father's chauvinism, his invoking of the mad woman. Maybe in a million years some archaeologist will find the evidence that gets him off the hook. The short answer: he tended to pour petrol on family fires in the hope that they'd burn out quickly and he could go back to his reading.
Discuss.