Dear reader, your intellectual servant Peter Klevius is a boring intellectual coward because no one can accuse him of speculating or coming with unfounded unscientific theories which don't fit empical facts. Does that bore you?

However, precisely because of his unique total lack of economic, ideological, religious, or institutional bias (and possessing a super high IQ*), Peter Klevius is able to penetrate PC etc. barriers without making a fool of himself. 

* Although Peter Klevius isn't a Jew, he feels justified to mention his intelligent because the alleged high intelligence of Ashkenazi Jews is mentioned all over the place - and explained by Peter Klevius as having nothing to do with Judaism but everything to do with Jewish slave trade in the north nwhere they married highly intelligent native women, who in turn got their high intelligence as the result of human evolution. Although Homo evolved in the SE Asian archipelago as Peter Klevius has thoroughly proved since 2012, their small but highly intelligent brains got a real boost in the north where it filled much bigger "mongoloid" (cold adapted) skulls in a demanding, yet extremely rewarding cold environment with endless resources of fat and protein for skilled hunters and fishers. From there the new brain setup spread and was diluted while conquering the rest of the world resulting in a particular "racial" pattern - "mongoloid" features in natives in all ends of the world except Australia. However, precisely because of the harsh environment the north remained sparsely populated - and less diluted. This pattern is in agreement with every global IQ study. This of course doesn't exclude that there exists idiots in the north as well as geniuses in the south. So taking wives from the north is a long tradition and also reflected as a main theme in the Finnish epic Kalevala (also compare Komi etc.).

This is easily checked through all his published writings since 1981. No one can find anything remotely speculative or bad science/investigations. And of course even Peter Klevius like everyone else has always been trapped in a specific time with limited information that we now know more about.

However, what you may accuse Peter Klevius of is that his cowardliness may play it too safe. So for example, when in 2004 Homo floresiensis was presented, Peter Klevius immediately connected the dots to SE Asian archipelago as the cradle of human evolution as well as to the north to south connection he wrote about in his book 1992 and already hinted at a more than a decade earlier in correspondence with G. H. von Wright (available in his archive), but didn't dare to write it before the genomes from the Denisova cave had become available. So instead he used the back and forth gene flow between Siberia and Mideast/Africa as a "proxy". Deeply sorry about that!

The 1989 "place of birth" of Peter Klevius book Resursbegär* (published 1992). 

Same size as the only book Wittgenstein published - but possibly only read  and understood by Wittgenstein's successor at Cambridge, G. H. von Wright, and Per Berg at The Institute for Futures Studies**.

* In the Nordic creole language called English (after the Nordic Anglo Saxons) it would be translated as 'Resource Beggar', modernized to Demand for Resources.

** Per Berg strongly encouraged the publishing of the Resursbegär manuscript based on Peter Klevius original paper from 1981 with the same name. Moreover, 1989 he also offered a computer from The Institute for Futures Studies for Peter Klevius to work on and to get a digital copy for the printing. Thanks Per! Moreover, Per Berg and Peter Klevius also made an extensive sound and picture show about alternative energy, housing and food production for the institute at the same time. This happened at the time when Peter Klevius met with and got inspired by Richard Leakey re. human evolution, as well as met people who had lived with "Bushmen" in Kalahari.. All of this cramped in 71 pages - which made G. H. von Wright fearing that 'some people may have difficulty with the aphoristic style'. However, Peter Klevius might well have overestimated the skills of the readers, but he was also keen to avoid misunderstandings in a tsunami of words. And of course he also wanted an ISBN number so to be able to point back at people who otherwise later wouldn't believe he had thought like that. This if anything proves Peter Klevius is a true human after all, right.

Per Berg and Wenner-Gren Center.

 The Institute for Futures Studies (IFFS) is a Swedish independent research institute established by the Swedish government in 1987. The Institute conducts policy-relevant, interdisciplinary research on important issues for the future and participates in the public debate through its seminar and publication activities. The institute resided high in the Wenner-Gren Center which is a tower and building complex in Stockholm, Sweden that was constructed 1959–1961, and opened in 1962. The Center is named after the businessman Axel Wenner-Gren, who donated funds to finance its construction, after Nobel Prize winner Hugo Theorell had lobbied for having the housing need of visiting scientists addressed. The semicircular Helicon was designed by designer Malene Bjørn. The lower part with the high-rise part in the "focal point" resembles a sundial and takes the shape of the small lake Ormträsket that used to be here.

The world's least read book? However, the content is available in many articles and thousands of postings etc.

Dear reader, Peter Klevius is a boring intellectual coward because no one can accuse him of speculating or coming with unfounded unscientific theories. The honor for Peter Klevius research success belongs fully to the institutional PC idiocy that hampers and keeps back "official science" on these topics.

Precisely because of his unique total lack of economic, ideological, religious, or institutional bias (and helped by a super bright brain), Peter Klevius is able to penetrate PC etc. barriers without making a fool of himself. 

This is easily checked through all his published works since 1981 which cover philosophy, cosmology, jurisprudence, sociology/anthropology, neuroscience etc. No one can find anything remotely speculative or bad science/investigations. And of course even Peter Klevius like everyone else has always been trapped in a specific time with information that we now know more about. 

However, what you may accuse Peter Klevius of is that his cowardliness may play it too safe. So for example, when in 2004 Homo floresiensis was presented, Peter Klevius immediately connected the dots to SE Asian archipelago as the cradle of human evolution, but didn't dare to write it before the genomes from the Denisova cave had become available. So instead he used the back and forth gene flow between Siberia and Mideast/Africa as a "proxy". Sorry about that!

So why this strange "bragging"? Again, precisely because Peter Klevius main assets also constitute the main barrier for people to get access to his work which therefore becomes shrouded in a "suspicious anonymity"  where easy rationalizations win over knowledge.

Peter Klevius main* contributions (except for his stubborn defense of the most basic (negative) Human Rights in the 1948 UDHR):

* Underlying these is of course Peter Klevius philosophy which rests on a new aspect on evolution as the opposite to devolution without which evolution would be meaningless as a concept (1981)  in our existencecentrism (1992) which simultaneously constitutes the uncertainty that fuels "the meaning of life" in opposition to the ultimate boredom represented by the imaginary almighty "god" (1981) .   

1) 1979 showed that the cultural "difference" (aka sex segregation) between the sexes can only be understood and analyzed by using heterosexual attraction as an analytical tool. As a consequence feminist and queer theory constructions are defined as the absence of heterosexual attraction.

2) 1981 (and as a book 1992) introduced a new classification of human societies due to their lack of or existence of "expanded demand for resource" which rests on the formula "you want what you need but don't always need what you want". It differs from Marx in that it also includes societies without expanding (dynamic) investment, i.e. in line with Levi-Strauss' division in "cold" and "warm" societies.   

3) 1992-1994 solved how the brain works via thalamus as the "display" of "consciousness" - and got it empirically proven right by the birth of a truly unique couple of craniopagus twins born 2006 with separate cortices but bridged thalamuses, which makes it possible for them to "talk" with each other inside their head while still having different personalities in their cortexes.

4) 1992 in Khoi, San, and Bantu, as well as in Human evolution, I pointed to the cold adaptation "mongoloid" phenotype of native Africans as well as the flat faced and big brained Homo from Jinniushan in northern China 280,000 BP, and from 2012 on I developed a formula based on a combination of known fossils, artifacts/"art" and DNA that places human evolution in the SE Asian archipelago and was caused by climate changes due to the closing of the Panama isthmus which increased the effect of the Milankovitch cycles with due increase in sea level variations, which in turn, emphasized the size and biogeography of islands, as well as created more favorable land bridge oscillations for the evolution of already existing bipedal apes. Our overall primate lineage was initiated by the cooling trend that also covered Antarctica in ice due to the closing of the Tethys sea. 

As Peter Klevius research has suggested the most likely explanation to the appearance of monkeys from a cooling North America to South America happened via several intermediate now submerged islands connected with mangrove belts in the volatile and volcanic Caribbean archipelago. This also explains the evolution of the prehensile tail in New World monkeys. Most monkeys are poor swimmers so the evolutionary pressure for an enhanced grip equipment in otherwise nutritious mangrove forests must have been extensive.  Moreover, Peter Klevius analysis stands rock solid in comparison to the charlatanic "rafting over the Atlantic ocean" quagmire Afropologists want you to believe.

It's impossible that Homo evolved in Africa. But sad that the best paleoanthropologist from U.S. has passed away. And none, except myself, seems to have the courage to continue to follow the evidence instead of PC. He put the finger on the sore point of the "out-of-Africa" hoax, as well as presented the earliest Homo fossil dated to the time when the Panama isthmus had eventually closed all together with due effect on climate and sea level variation. I've explained how this climate change made Homo evolution possible in the SE Asian archipelago. And, as I (Peter Klevius) have shown since 2012, the very fact that we lack both fossil evidence as well as DNA evidence from Africa, while we have an "evolutionary cradle" and two complementary "missing links" (Homo floresiensis and Homo luzonensis) already in both ends of Wallacea, should be enough to encourage a more critical view on Africa which is a continent connected to an other continent and already therefore impossible as a "hiding place" for Homo evolution.

Madelaine Böhme (who found the 11.6 Ma old partly bipedal Darwinius in Germany): 

Why did it all happen on the same continent (Africa)? Seven million years ago, Europe was different. It was more like the savannah described by Darwin, with elephants and giraffes. Camels evolved in North America, but no one associates them with that continent. Genetics tells us that the chimpanzee-human divergence happened 7-13 million years ago. We have to look further back, even if it means rethinking paradigms and scenarios. Böhme’s findings suggest bipedalism could have developed in other parts of the world, which again begs the question — what makes us human? The soul she says. That’s what makes us unique.

Peter Klevius: It didn't happen on any continent! A single female impregnated by the "wrong" male, could be enough to stop the path to speciation which needs long term isolation. Only a tropical archipelago in combination with long term sea level changes and occasional land bridges - some of leading to the continent - would do. And the perfect cradle is in SE Asia where we also have found not one but two different "missing links" between apes and Homos (none unambiguous found in Africa) - as well as a plethora of gibbon species which must have evolved from something similar to Darwinius - i.e. not knuckle walkers like chimps. Moreover, the evolution of monkeys and apes are intimately connected to radical climate changes. However, while tree climbing apes were restricted to tropical or sub-tropical vegetation, our bipedal lineage could roam almost wherever.

The first primates already possessed the key to our technological behavior, i.e. the branch gripping nailed hands. And together with good 3D vision survival in the trees was easy.

And while the predatory tarsiers like most other mammals kept its vitamin C capability, our sweat fruit eating lineage lost it but instead got good color vision. 

It took us 4.5 Billion years to make a phone, and that could have taken even longer if we weren't so lucky with an asteroid hit 65 Ma and a fitting tectonic play that cooled our planet while also creating polar glacials which heavily contributed to more pronounced Milankovitch cycles. 

And no, we don't have a "human soul" but just the same thalamus as other mammals. As I proposed already 1992-94, thalamus is the abode for "consciousness" while the cortex is the "film" on which out life adaptations are stored. This theory got its best possible empirical evidence in the 2006 born craniopagus Hogan twins.

Bees Reveal a Human-Like Collective Intelligence We Never Knew Existed

Nature 10 March 2024

Peter Klevius: I always knew it existed - because otherwise we as part of the animal kingdom would make no sense - other than in religious peoples' pompous "beliefs".

Nature: It is said that a crucial feature of language is its ability to express past and future time. This might be true but in no way makes language solely human. When bees arrive to their hive they are able, in symbolic form, to express what they have seen in the past so that other bees will "understand" what to do in the future. Naming this an instinct just because bees have such an uncomplicated brain does not justify a different classification to that of human thinking.

Peter Klevius: A crucial feature of language is its ability to talk about itself! I solved "consciousness" and how the brain works more than 30 years ago, and has tried to tell the world about it in a book (1992), in letter to Francis Crick at Salk (1994), offered to many publications in the 1990s and put it on the webb since 2003.   

Here's a summary: https://peterklevius.blogspot.com/2023/02/because-peter-klevius-whose-emah-solved.html

If, as I proposed in Demand for Resources (1992), we stop dividing our interaction with the surrounding world in terms of observation and understanding (because there is no way of separating them), we will find it easier to compare different human societies. Language is a categorizing extension of perception/experience patterns and discriminates us as human only in the sense that we have different experiences.

Language has developed from a tool for communication to an additional tool of deception within itself. In Demand for Resources (1992 ISBN 9173288411) I used the example of the perception of a stone that turned out to be papier mache, as well as the word existence which has transformed from emerge to exist, i.e. loosing its root and hence opening up for the question how we can exist.

However, words and language are just like everything else that hits our receptors. There is no principle difference in thinking through the use of words or through sounds, smells (albeit not through thalamus), pictures or other "categories". Ultimately, language is, like other types of communication with the surrounding world, just a form of adaptation to one's environment (in a broad sense of course), i.e. resistance against entropy.