Hi there!

My names John Green; this is Crash Course World History

and today were going to talk about the Dark Ages, possibly the most
egregious Eurocentrism in all of history, which is really saying
something.
Were Europe! The Prime Meridian runs through us; were in the
middle of every Map; and we get to be a continent even though
we're not a continent.
But lets begin today with a pop quiz: What was the best year of
your life, and what was the worst year?
Past John: Mr. Green, Mr. Green: Best 1994, Worst 1990.
Oh, me from the past. It gets so much better, and also so much
worse. For worst year Im gonna go with 2001. Best year 2006. All
right now its your turn, dear pupils: share your best and worst years
in comments during the intro.
[intro plays]
Right, so what you will quickly find is that your worst year was
someone elses best year. So, too, with history. The period between
600 and 1450 CE is often called the Middle Ages in Europe because it
came between the Roman Empire assuming you forget the
Byzantines and the beginning of the Modern Age. And its
sometimes called the Dark Ages, because it was purportedly
unenlightened.
But was the age really so dark? Depends on what you find depressing.
If you like cities and great poetry, then the Dark Ages were indeed
pretty dark in Europe. But if like me your two favorite things are not

dying from wars and not dying from anything else, then the Dark
Ages actually werent that bad at least until the plague came in
the 14th century. And meanwhile, outside of Europe, the Dark Ages
were truly an Age of Enlightenment. But well get boring Europe out
of the way first. Lets go to the Thought Bubble.
Medieval Europe had less trade, fewer cities, and less cultural
output than the original Roman Empire. London and Paris were fetid
firetraps with none of the planning of sewage management of places
5,000 years older like Mohenjo-daro in the Indus Valley Civilization,
let alone Rome.
But with fewer powerful governments, wars were at least smaller,
which is one reason why Europeans living in Medieval Times Ugh
Thought Bubble, I knew you were going to do that. Anyway, people
in medieval times lived slightly longer life expectancy was 30
than Europeans during the Roman Empire when life expectancy
was 28.
Instead of centralized governments, Europe in the middle ages had
feudalism, a political system based on reciprocal relationships
between lords, who owned lots of land, and vassals, who protected
the land and got to dress up as knights in exchange for pledging
loyalty to the lords. The lords were also vassals to more important
lords, with the most important of all being the king. Below the
knights were peasants who did the actual work on the land in
exchange for protection from bandits and other threats.
Feudalism was also an economic system, with the peasants working
the land and keeping some of their production to feed themselves
while giving the rest to the landowner whose land they worked. The
small scale, local nature of the feudal system was perfect for a time

and place where the threats to peoples safety were also small scale
and local. But of course, this system reinforces the status quo
theres little freedom and absolutely no social mobility. Peasants
could never work their way up to lords, and they almost never left
their villages. Thanks, Thought Bubble.
One more point thats really interesting from a world history
perspective: this devolution from empire to localism has happened
in lots of places at lots of different times. And in times of extreme
political stress, like after the fall of the Han dynasty in China, power
tends to flow into the hands of local lords who can protect the
peasants better than the state can. We hear about this a lot in
Chinese history and also in contemporary Afghanistan, but instead of
being called feudal lords, these landlords are called warlords.
Eurocentrism striking again.
The other reason the Dark Ages are called "dark" is because Europe
was dominated by superstition and by boring religious debates about
like how many angels can fit on the head of a pin. And while theres
something to that, the Middle Ages also saw theologians like Thomas
Aquinas, who was quite an important philosopher, and women like
Hildegard of Bingen, who wrote all this important liturgical music
and also basically invented the genre of the morality play.
All that noted, things were certainly brighter in the Islamic world, or
Dar al Islam. So when we last left the Muslims, they had expanded
out of their homeland in Arabia and conquered the rich Egyptian
provinces of the Byzantines and the entire Sassanian empire, all in
the space of about 100 years.
The Umayyad Dynasty then expanded the empire west to Spain and
moved the capital to Damascus, because it was closer to the action,

empire-wise but still technically in Arabia. That was really important

to the Umayyad's because theyd established this hierarchy in the
empire with Arabs like themselves at the top and in fact they tried
to keep Arabs from fraternizing with non-Arab Muslims throughout
the Empire. This of course annoyed the non-Arab Muslims, who were
like, I dont know if youre reading the same Quran we are, but this
one says that were all supposed to be equal. And pretty quickly
the majority of Muslims werent Arabs, which made it pretty easy for
them to overthrow the Umayyad's, which they did in 750 CE.
Their replacements, the Abb(ah)sids, Abb(uh)sids? Hold On
Computer: Abb(ah)sids or Abb(uh)sids
John: Dahh, Im right twice! Right, so the Abbasids were from the
Abb(ah)si or the Abb(uh)si family which hailed from the Eastern, and
therefore more Persian, provinces of the Islamic Empire. The
Abbasids took over in 750 and no one could fully defeat them until
1258, when they were conquered by wait for it the Mongols.
The Abbasids kept the idea of a hereditary monarchy, but they
moved the capital of the empire to Baghdad, and they were much
more welcoming of other non-Arab Muslims into positions of power.
And under the Abbasids, the Dar al Islam took on a distinctly Persian
cast that it never really lost. The Caliph now styled himself as a king
of kings, just like the Achaemenids had, and pretty soon the caliphs
rule was a lot more indirect, just like the original Persians. This
meant that his control was much weaker, and by about 1000CE , the
Islamic Caliphate which looks so incredibly impressive on a map had
really descended into a series of smaller kingdoms, each paying lipservice to the caliph in Baghdad. This was partly because the Islamic
Empire relied more and more on soldiers from the frontier, in this

case Turks, and also slaves pressed into military service, in order to
be the backbone of their army, a strategy that has been tried over
and over again and has worked exactly zero times. Which you should
remember if you ever become an emperor. Actually our resident
historian points out that that strategy has worked-- if you are the
Mongols.
More important than the Persian-style monarchy that the Abbasids
set up was their openness to foreigners and their ideas. That
tolerance and curiosity ushered in a golden age of Islamic learning
centered in Baghdad. The Abbasids oversaw an effervescence of
culture unlike anything that had been seen since Hellenistic times.
Arabic replaced Greek not only as the language of commerce and
religion, but also of culture. Philosophy, medicine, and poetry were
all written in Arabic (although Persian remained an important
literary language). And Baghdad became the worlds center of
scholarship with its House of Wisdom and immense library.
Muslim scholars translated the works of the Greek Philosophers
including Aristotle and Plato as well as scientific works by
Hippocrates, Archimedes and especially the physician Galen. And
they translated and preserved Buddhist and Hindu manuscripts that
might have otherwise been lost.
Muslims made huge strides in medicine as well. One Muslim scholar,
ibn Sn, wrote the Canon of Medicine, which became the standard
medical textbook or centuries in both Europe and the Middle East.
And the Islamic empire adopted mathematical concepts from India
such as the zero, a number so fascinating and beautiful that we
could write an entire episode about it but instead Im just gonna
write it a little love poem:
Oh, zero. Pretty little zero. They say youre nothing but you mean

everything to mathematical history and me.

Oh, its time for the Open Letter? An Open Letter to science and
religion.
But first lets see whats in the Secret Compartment. Oh, champagne
poppers? Stan, what am I supposed to do with these?
Dear Science and Religion,
Youre supposed to be so irreconcilable and everything, but not so
much in the Abbasid Empire. I mean, Muslim mathematicians
expanded math to such a degree that we now call the base ten
number system and the symbols we use to denote it Arabic
numerals. And religion was at least part of what pushed all that
learning forward. Like the great philosopher Ibn Rushd argued that
the only path to religious enlightenment was through Aristotelian
reasoning. And Muslim mathematicians and astronomers developed
algebra partly so they could simplify Islamic inheritance law. Plus
they made important strides in trigonometry to help that people
understand where to turn when trying to turn toward Mecca.
You were working so well together, science and religion, but then
like Al and Tipper Gore, just couldnt last forever. Nothing gold can
stay in this world, nothing gold can stay.
Best wishes, John Green
Baghdad wasnt the only center of learning in the Islamic world. In
Spain, Islamic Cordoba became a center for the arts, especially
architecture. This is perhaps best exemplified by the Great Mosque
at Cordoba, built by the Umayyad ruler Abd al-Rahman I In 785-786

CE. Thats right, this building, still standing today and one of the
most amazing mosques in the world, was built in a year, whereas
medieval cathedrals took, like, a million years to finish.
The Muslims of Spain were also engineers who rivaled the Romans.
Aqueducts in Cordoba brought drinkable water into the city, and
Muslim scholars took the lead in agricultural science, improving
yields on all kinds of new crops, allowing Spanish lives to be longer
and less hungry.
Everybody wanted to live in Spain, even the greatest Jewish
philosopher, Maimonides, wanted to live in Spain, but sadly he was
expelled and ended up in Alexandria, Egypt. There he wrote his
awesomely titled defense of rationality, A Guide for the Perplexed.
Im translating the title, of course, because the original text was
written in Arabic.
Meanwhile, China was having a Golden Age of its own. The Tang
Dynasty made Chinas government more of a meritocracy, and ruled
over 80 million people across four million square miles. And they
mightve conquered all of Central Asia had it not been for the
Abbasids, whom they fought at the Most Important Battle Youve
Never Heard Of, the Battle of the Talas River. This was the Ali-Frasier
of the 8th century. The Abbasids won, which ended up defining who
had cultural influence where with the -- with the Abbasids
dominating to the west of the river and China dominating to the
east.
The Tang also produced incredible art that was traded all throughout
Asia. Many of the more famous sculptures from the Tang Dynasty
feature figures who are distinctly not-Chinese, which again
demonstrates the diversity of the empire. The Tang was also a

golden age for Chinese poetry with notables like Du Fu and Li Bo

plying their craft, encouraged by the official government.
And the Song Dynasty, which lasted from 960 to 1258, kicked even
more ass-its-not-cursing-if-youre-talking-about-donkeys. By the
11th century, Chinese metalworkers were producing as much iron as
Europe would be able to produce in the 18th century. Some of this
iron was put to use in new plows, which enabled agriculture to
boom, thereby supporting population growth. Porcelain was of such
high quality that it was shipped throughout the world, which is why
we call it china. And there was so much trade going on that the
Chinese ran out of metal for coins, leading to another innovation
paper money. And by the 11th century, the Chinese were writing
down recipes for a mixture of saltpeter, sulfur and charcoal, that we
now know as gunpowder. That becomes kind of a big deal in history,
paving the way, as it does, for modern warfare and arena rock
pyrotechnics, and ohhhh, that's why.

Hi, I'm John Green. Welcome to Crash Course: Big History Project
where today we're going to talk about the Planet of the Apes films What's that? Apparently, those were not documentaries.
But there was an evolutionary process that saw primates move out of
East Africa and transform the earth into an actual planet of the
apes... The apes are us.
And then we made a movie and then some prequels and some
sequels and some reboots and now sequels to the reboots.
Man, I can't wait until I get to see the 2018 reboot of this episode of
Crash Course: Big History I hear they get James Franco to play me.

(Intro)
0:42 So we're about halfway through our series and after five
episodes involving no humans whatsoever today we are finally gonna
get some people.
Mr. Green, Mr. Green! Why are we already at humanity, I mean if
we're covering 13.8 billion years shouldn't humanity come in like, the
last two seconds of the last episode? I mean humans are totally
insignificant compared to the vastness of the universe, like we
should be checking in on how Jupiter's doing.
Fair point, me from the past; Jupiter by the way, still giant and
gassy.
There's two reasons why we focus a little more on humanity in Big
History; the selfish reason is that we care about humans in big
history because we are humans.
We are naturally curious to figure out where we belong in the huge
sequence of events beginning with the big bang. Secondly, humans
represent a really weird change in the universe. I mean, so far a we
know, we are one of the most complex things in the cosmos.
Whether you measure complexity in terms of biological and cultural
building blocks or networks or connections, I mean, we're kind of
amazing! Now I realize that many of our viewers will be offended by
our human-centric bias, but humans are amazing. I mean, we
invented the internet and we invented animated GIF and we
invented Dr. Who and then we invented Tumblr, a place where all of
these things can come together!
So 65 million years ago, catastrophe wiped out the dinosaurs and we
saw the adaptive radiation of a tiny shrew-like ancestor of humans
that would look more at home like, next to a hamster wheel than in
your family album. Let's set the stage in the Thought Bubble.
So the slow waltz of plate tectonics continued to pull Eurasia and
the Americas apart expanding the Atlantic Ocean, primates colonized

the Americas, and separated by the vast Atlantic, continued their

separate evolution into the new world monkeys - which is not a band
name, although it should be.
Then around 45 million years ago, Australia split from Antarctica and
while mammals out-competed most marsupials in the Americas
(except animals like possums, Australia saw an adaptive radiation of
marsupials. This, of course, meant that later, one-hundred thousand
(100,000) years ago when the Americas were having their share of
mammoths and sabre-tooth tigers, Australia was having a spell of
gigantic kangaroos, marsupial lions, and wombats the size of hippos.
Then, somewhere around forty (40) million years ago, India, which
had been floating around the southern oceans as an island, smashed
into the Eurasian continent with such force that it created the
world's tallest mountain range, the Himalayas.
Meanwhile, in Africa, Primates continued to evolve and twenty-five
(25) to thirty (30) million years ago, the line of the apes diverged
from the old-world monkeys and no, neither you, nor a chimp, is a
monkey, nor did we evolve from the monkeys that are around today those are like our cousins.
Moreover, we did not evolve from chimpanzees, the chimpanzee is a
cousin as well, not an uncle. We are not more highly evolved than
they are; Instead, our lines of descent split off from a common
ancestor of chimpanzees about seven (7) million years ago. Then
chimpanzees further split into a separate species, the Bonobos.
Knowing about this common ancestry tells us a lot about our shared
traits with other primates.
For instance, we all have fairly large brains, relative to our body
mass, we have our eyes in the front of our heads from the days when
we hung out in trees and depth perception was an excellent way of
telling how far away the next tree branch was so as to prevent us
from plummeting to our deaths, and we also have grasping hands, to
make sure that, you know, that you could hold onto the branch in

question. Primates also have hierarchies, social orders whether male

or female led, that determine who gets primary access to food,
mates, and other benefits. Thanks Thought Bubble!
So, our closest evolutionary cousins, the chimpanzees, can tell us a
thing or two about shared behaviours. For one thing, while all
primates have a hierarchy of alphas and betas, humans and chimps,
who share ninety-eight point four (98.4) percent of their DNA, are
the most prone to team up together and launch a revolution against
the alpha male. We're also the most prone to ganging up, roaming
our territory, and beating up unsuspecting foreigners of the same
species, and not for direct survival reasons.
Chimpanzees have been observed finding a lone chimp male from
another group and kicking, hitting, and tearing off bits of his body
and then leaving the helpless victim to die of his wounds, and
humans definitely bear this stamp of our lowly origin, where indeed,
the imperfect step-by-step process of evolution made us highly
intelligent, but still, with prefrontal cortex's too small, and adrenal
glands maybe too big.
Aggression and blood lust are definitely part of our shared heritage,
and, looking at more recent human history, does that really surprise
anyone? Contrast that behaviour, for a moment, with the more
peaceful Bonobos, who are female-led, and when a male in her
group gets a bit pushy, the females are prone to gang up and teach
him a lesson - when it comes to inter-group encounters in the wild,
the male Bonobos seem tense around strangers at first, until usually,
the females in each group cross over and just have sex with the
newcomers, completely diffusing the tension. Talk about make love,
not war - Bonobos are hippies.
While our common ancestor with chimpanzees around seven (7)
million years ago was more suited to living in forests and seeking
refuge from danger by climbing trees, climate change in East Africa
made things colder and drier, and many forests were replaced by

woodlands and wide-open savanna. Life in the savanna meant our

ancestors needed to run from predators rather than climbing trees,
so our line shifted away from the bow-legged stance reminiscent of
chimpanzees, and developed bipedalism, where our locomotion
came from legs that were straight and forward-facing.
There's still some debate about when bipedalism first began, but we
know that by the first australopithecines around four (4) million
years ago, our evolutionary line was bipedal, this also freed up our
hands.
Australopithecines were not very tall, standing only just above a
meter, or just above three-and-a-half (3.5) feet, and had brains only
a little bigger than modern chimpanzees. They were largely
herbivores with teeth adapted for grinding tough fruits and leaves.
Australopithecines may have communicated through gestures and
primitive sounds, but their higher larynx meant that they couldn't
make the range of sounds required for complex language. There was
probably a lot of pointing and grunting going on. Kinda like me,
before six (6) am.
By two-point-three (2.3) million years ago, homo habilis arrived on
the scene. They weren't much taller than australopithecines, but
they had significantly larger brains - though still a lot smaller than
later species. Excitingly, homo habilis is known to have hit flakes off
of stones to use them for cutting. Now, lots of species use tools, for
instance chimpanzees use sticks for fishing termites out of the
ground, they use rock hammers and leaf sponges and branch levers
and banana leaf umbrellas. A lot of these skills don't seem to arise
spontaneously, just because of the intelligence of individuals, but,
like in the case of termite fishing, chimpanzees pass the information
on by imitation - primate see, primate do.
In a way, this social learning is sort of cultural, yet, succeeding
generations of chimpanzees don't accumulate information, tinker
with it, and improve upon it, so that after one-hundred (100) years,

chimpanzees are owners of highly efficient and wealthy termite

fishing corporations. Similarly, as impressive as homo habilis stoneworking abilities are, we see very little signs of technological
improvement over the thousands and thousands of years that habilis
existed. Same goes for homo ergaster erectus, who was around onepoint-nine (1.9) million years ago.
Homo ergaster erectus had an even bigger brain, was taller, and they
even seemed intelligent and adaptable enough to move into
different environments across the old world. They may have even
begun our first clumsy attempts at fire, which is vital for cooking
meat and vegetables, opening up opportunities for more energy and
even more brain growth.
But still, there's not much sign of technological improvement, their
tools got the job done, if it ain't broke, don't fix it.
Yet one-point-seven-eight (1.78) million years ago, we do see homo
ergaster creating a wide new range of teardrop hand axes in Kenya.
By one-point-five (1.5) million years ago, these teardrop axes had
rapidly become common, and had improved quality and were shaped
with a flat edge into multi-purpose picks, cleavers, and so forth.
Archaeologists see this as the first possible sign of tinkering and
improvement of technology that may have been transmitted by
social learning - a faint glimmer of something new. Why is this
important? Well, humans didn't get to where we are because we're
super-geniuses. It's not as if we invented the Xbox One out of the
blue one day, it was an improvement upon the Xbox 360 which was
an improvement upon earlier consoles, arcade machines, computers,
and backward onto the dawn of video games.
In the same way, we didn't just invent our modern society by sudden
inspiration, it's the result of two-hundred-and-fifty-thousand
(250,000) years of tinkering and improvement. This is where
accumulation matters - it's called collective learning, the ability of a
species to retain more information with one generation than is lost

by the next. This is what has taken us, in a few thousand years, from
stone tools to rocket engines to being able to have the Crash Course
theme song as your ringtone. Progress!
If there was collective learning in homo ergaster, it was very slow
and very slight. This may have been due to limitations on
communication, abstract thought, group size, or just plain brain
power. But over the next two (2) million years, things started to pick
up. Homo antecessor, Homo Heidelbergensis and the Neanderthals
developed the first systematically controlled use of fire in hearths,
the first blade tools, the earliest wooden spears, the earliest use of
composite tools, where stone was fastened to wood, all before homo
sapiens were ever heard of, around two-hundred-and-fifty-thousand
(250,000) years ago.
The Neanderthals even moved into colder climates, where they were
compelled to invent clothing, they used complex tool-manufacture
to produce sharp points and scrapers and hand-axes and wood
handles, and they improved their craft over time.
Well, evolution by natural selection is a sort of learning mechanism
that allows a species to adapt generation after generation, with a lot
of trial and error, and death - collective learning allows for
tinkering, adaptation, and improvement on a much faster scale with
each generation and across generations without waiting for your
genes to catch up.
Anatomically similar homo sapiens have been around for about twohundred-and-fifty-thousand (250,000) years, and throughout that
time, we've been expanding our toolkit from stone tools to shell
fishing to trade and actual fishing, mining, and by forty-thousand
(40,000) years ago we had art, including cave images, decorative
beads and other forms of jewelry, and even the world's oldest known
musical instruments - flutes carved from mammoth ivory and bird
bones.
All this stuff came about as a result of collective learning. As long as

you have a population of potential innovators, who can keep

dreaming up new ideas and remembering old ones and opportunity
for those old innovators to pass their ideas onto others, you're likely
to have some technological progress.
These mechanisms are still working today - we've got over seven (7)
billion potential innovators on this planet, and almost instantaneous
communication, allowing us to do so many marvelous things
including teach you about Big History on the internet.
So life for early humans was pretty good, like foraging didn't require
particularly long hours - the average work day for a forager was
about six-and-a-half (6.5) hours. When you compare that to an
average of nine-and-a-half (9.5) hours for a peasant farmer in
medieval Europe, or the average of nine (9) hours for a typical office
worker today, foraging sounds downright leisurely.
Quick aside: I work thirty (30) minutes a day less than a peasant
farmer in medieval Europe? That's not progress! Stan, I want more
time off!
Stan just pointed out that I have a chair, something that peasant
farmers in medieval Europe did not enjoy, and I want to say that I'm
very grateful for my chair. Thank you for my chair, Stan.
Anyway, a forager would go out, hunt or gather, come home, eat,
spend time with the family, dance, sing, tell stories, and foragers
were also always on the move, which made it less likely that they'd
contaminate their water, or sit around waiting for a plague to
develop. And with their constant walking and their varied diet,
foragers were in many ways healthier than the peasants of ancient
civilizations. There were also, in some ways, healthier than us, but
we have antibiotics for now, so we live longer, for now.
The classic view of foraging life is best described by Thomas Hobbes,
who wrote: "No arts, no letters, no society, and which is worst of all
continual fear and danger of violent death and the life of man,
solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short." Except, not really. I mean,

life for the average person in twelfth (12th) century France was also
a smidge nasty, brutish, and short, and a lack of wealth disparity in
foraging cultures may imply greater equality between social rankings
and even between the genders since female gatherers appear to be
responsible for the majority of food collected, rather than the
hunting males. And from the perspective, life was kind of ruined by
the advent of agriculture and then, later, with states, as JeanJacques Rousseau said, "The first person, who having enclosed a plot
of land, took it into his head to say, "this is mine" and found people
simple enough to believe him, was the true founder of civil society.
What crimes, wars, murders, what miseries and horrors would the
human race have spared, had someone pulled up the stakes or filled
in the ditch and cried out to his fellow men: 'do not listen to this
imposter, you are lost if you forget the fruits of the Earth belong to
all, and the Earth to no one'" and thus summarizes one of the great
debates in the world of political science.
Man, Big History discusses everything! Now, it's possible that neither
Rousseau nor Hobbes is completely correct, and that private
property and agriculture didn't create the glory days or end them. As
previous mentioned, all primates have a dominant hierarchy of some
kind. Also, you don't need a wealth disparity to drive human beings
to hurt each other - like, surveys of excavated remains 'from the
paleolithic indicate a murder rate that was possibly as high as ten
(10) percent. Now, those statistics are still disputed, but despite the
relatively short work day, life in the paleolithic sounds a lot less
appealing when you consider the high murder rate, and also, the
occasional infanticide. That's not even to mention the older, disabled
people who, when they couldn't keep up anymore, were abandoned
to die in the wild. I can't help but feel that I might not have thrived
in the paleolithic what with my visual impairment and my general
lack of interest in hunting.
Anyway, we call this the Hobbes vs. Rousseau debate, and it's still

unresolved. I mean, humans may have been corrupted in many ways

by society, on the other hand, it's possible a lot of the crimes and
follies of human history may just be symptoms of our coping with the
bad wiring left to us by evolution.
You know, humans are a bit of an obsolete machine, we aren't
particularly well-suited to the many lifestyle changes that have
happened in the past thousand years - faster than our genes can
keep pace with. But how you interpret the lives of early human
foragers largely determines your view of history and also the
fundamental nature of the human character. Ask yourself which side
you sit on: Is humanity fundamentally good and corrupted by
technology and modern social orders, or are we fundamentally
flawed and in need of some sort of structure and authority? Or is
there some kind of both and/or way of addressing the question? Here
at Crash Course, we don't have answers, but we are grateful that
you're pondering these questions with us.
In any case, collective learning was really good for our survival, but
then, seventy-four-thousand (74,000) years ago, disaster struck. A
super-eruption at Mt. Toba on the island of Sumatra in present-day
Indonesia clouded the skies with ash and cooled the climate. Plants
and animals, A.K.A. food died off and genetics studies showed that
this reduced the human population to a few thousand people. So as
a result of this, we aren't exactly inbred, but there's more genetic
diversity between two of the major groups of chimpanzees in Africa
than there is in all of humanity.
So this small group heroically recovered and spread out of Africa
sixty-four-thousand (64,000) years ago, colonizing diverse
environments and continuing to innovate. For thirteen-point-eight
(13.8) billion years since the beginning of the universe, complexity
had been rising in a powerful crescendo, but in the space of a few
millennia, collective learning was about to make things really
bonkers. More on that next time.

BraZZers/EriTo/DigitalPlayGround ( X 1 )
http://ma.brazzers.com
richarc4317:1qaz2wsx

http://member.teachmyass.com/login.html
everwhent:382563