이언주
우선 저는 지금의 소선거구제가 다수득표제로 사표(死票)가 발생할 수 있고 그러한 사표를 방지할 필요가 있다는 지적이 일리가 있다고 생각합니다. 저도 정치에 입문한 직후에는 한때 그렇게 선거법을 개혁해야 한다고 생각한 적도 있습니다.
그런데 좀더 한국정치의 특수한 상황을 겪어보고 나니 선거제도란 게 그냥 산술적 합리성만 볼 게 아니라 그 나라 특유의 권력구조와 민주주의의 작동원리, 그 나라가 처한 특수상황 등을 고려하지 않고 따로 떼어서 볼 수 있는 게 아니란 생각을 하게 되었습니다. 즉 이상과 현실 간에 괴리가 있을 수 있다는 겁니다.
우선 우리나라의 권력구조는 제왕적 대통령제입니다. 즉 대통령이 입법부(여당), 사법부, 기타 사정기관과 모든 정부 산하기관의 기관장과 임원들의 인사권을 장악하고 그로 인해 심지어 민간영역에까지 인사에 사실상 영향을 미칠 수 있는데 그 영향력의 원천은 바로 대통령이 공천권을 통해 여당을 지배하는데 있다는 것을 알게 되었습니다. 그리고 이러한 현상은 문재인 대통령 들어 훨씬 더 직접적이고 노골적입니다. 이런 상황에서 국민의 다수의사는 대통령의 제왕적 권한 남용을 국회가 강력히 견제해 달라는 것이고 그것이 바로 민주주의의 원리가 발현되는 것입니다. 따라서 현 대통령제에서는 대통령을 견제할 강력한 야당과 국회가 출현할 수 있도록 선거제도가 정비되어야지 오히려 이중대·삼중대를 양산하는 제도가 되어서는 안 될 것입니다.
안 그래도 먹고살기 힘들어 죽겠는데 엉뚱한 소득주도성장인가 뭔가 실험해서 경제를 죽여버리고, 비핵화는 되지도 않는데 오매불망 김정은만 기다리며 아예 대놓고 내려오란 얘긴지 지뢰제거하지 비무장지대 정비 한다지 GP폭파하지 철도도로까지 시원하게 연결해서 깔아준다지, 해안선 철책이나 전방지역 군사시설 제거한다지, 정찰금지구역 설정해 북한 도발을 탐지하기 어렵게 한다지…도대체 뭐가 급한 겁니까? 너무 이상해서 정체성을 의심하게 됩니다.
핵의 일방적 불균형 상태에서 그렇게 북한의 도발에 무방비상태를 만들고자 하는가 의심을 지울 수 없는 비상상황이라고 현 정국을 인식한다면 강력한 단일야당이 출현하는 것이 나라를 걱정하는 다수의 민심을 제대로 대변하는 것이라고 봐야 하지 않겠습니까? 그러지 않고 각자 군소정당으로 존속하겠다고 하면 결과적으로 지리멸렬하거나 이중대에 불과한 다수의 야당이 생겨 대통령의 폭주는 걷잡을 수 없게 되고 나라의 위기를 그대로 맞게 됩니다(어쩌면 지금 그런 상황인지도 모릅니다). 더구나 국민들이 보았을 때 현재의 군소야당들이 도대체 어떠한 선명한 정치철학을 갖고 결기 있게 실현하고자 하는지 등 각 정당의 철학적 차이를 분명히 구분하기 어렵고, 국민들로부터 나라야 어찌되든 군소정당으로라도 차기총선에서 생존하기 위한 정치공학적 계산이 아닌가 하는 의심을 받을 수밖에 없습니다.
둘째, 지금은 공공지출 대폭 축소 등 사회 전반의 혁신이 필요한 때인데 우리 스스로 의원 정수를 늘린다는 건 염치가 없는 일입니다. 사실 경제가 이리 추락하는 것도 미래의 희망이 점점 없어지는 것도 따지고 보면 정치가 지나치게 권력투쟁에 매몰되어 미래가 없고 책임이 없는 정치가 되어서 아닙니까? 따라서 의원정수는 어떠한 경우에도 늘리는 것을 반대합니다.
셋째 연동형비례가 무조건 좋은 겁니까? 연동형이라는 게 비례후보 리스트를 만드는 거지 않습니까? 그런데 우리나라의 현실에서 여당 공천권을 사실상 대통령이 쥐락펴락하는 상황에서 연동형 비례제를 도입한다는 건 사실상 '문재인 리스트'를 만들자는 것이나 다름이 없습니다. 어쩌면 문재인 대통령 입장에서는 울고 싶은데 뺨 때려준 격이지요. 그래서 더더욱 문재인 대통령이 제왕적 권한을 행사하며 폭주하는 현 상황에서는 결코 연동형이든 뭐든 비례제 확대는 절대 안됩니다. (발췌)
----------------------
公正委, KBS 수신료 문제에는 왜 꿀먹은 벙어리입니까
이언주
KBS에 분개한 국민들이 수신료 납부를 거부하자는 움직임이 널리 퍼지고 있습니다. 일부 좌파에서는 수신료를 내야 한다고 그러던데 '국민 혈세에 빨대 꽂고 나눠먹는 (약탈적) 이익집단들의 연합'이 현 정부의 성격이니 이해가 가기는 합니다.
그런데 아이러니하게도 몇년 전 오마이뉴스에서 수신료 거부운동을 뒷받침하는 기사를 쓴 적이 있었네요. 당시에는 단순히 KBS가 친정부적이고 편향적이란 이유였다면 이번에는 단순한 편향성 정도를 넘어 국가권력으로 국민들한테 혈세 수신료 강제로 걷어 반국가, 반체제성 방송을 하는 도저히 용납할 수 없는 문제가 대두되었는데다가 방만한 경영과 도덕적 해이까지 문제가 되고 있습니다. 오마이뉴스까지도 이런 보도와 주장을 한 만큼 더이상 내로남불식 주장은 설득력이 없습니다.
방송을 보지도 않는데 tv 수상기만 집에 있으면 무조건 수신료를 낸다? 이건 끼워팔기에 더해 불공정 약관으로 명백히 공정거래법 위반입니다. 이 정부는 공정경제 공정경제 떠들어대더니 뭐가 공정한지 모르는 모양입니다. 하기사 시장경제의 기본정신인 국민들의 계약자유를 보장하는 원칙과 거래의 공정성에 대한 기본개념도 없는 사람들이니 그럴 수밖에요. 공정거래위원회도 권력 앞세워 애꿎은 기업들 과도하게 괴롭혀 경제활력 다 죽이지 말고 진짜 할 일을 하십시오. 집권세력 빽으로 국민들 전체에 불공정 거래를 뻔뻔히 자행하고 있는 KBS수신료 문제에는 왜 꿀먹은 벙어리입니까? 이쯤 되면 국가권력이 날강도나 다름 없지요.
여기 오마이뉴스 보도를 보면 수신료 실제로 어떻게 안 낼 수 있는지 방법이 상세히 나와있습니다. 요즘 누가 수상기로 TV 봅니까? 수신료 거부하시는 분들 보고 참고하시면 될 것 같습니다.
--------------------------------------------------------
자유한국당에 민주주의가 있는가?
김문수
여섯째, 우리당 국회의원 112명이 선출한 나경원 원내대표는 민주적 정통성이 있습니다. 그러나, 김병준 비상대책위원장은 정통성이 없습니다. 이제 비상대책위원회는 끝내야 합니다. 정당하게 선출된 나경원 원내대표가 비상대책위원장을 맡아서, 가급적 빨리 전당대회를 열고, 새로운 지도부를 선출해야 합니다.
일곱째, 최근 조직강화특별위원회에서 253개 당원협의회장을 일괄 강제 사직케 하고, 그 중 21명의 국회의원과 79명의 당원협의회장을 탈락시킨 결정은 민주적 정당성이 없습니다. 헌법 제8조, 정당법, 당헌당규에 어긋납니다. 전 세계 자유민주주의 정당 역사상 이런 폭거는 듣도 보도 못했습니다. 아무리 비상상황이고, 좋은 뜻으로 했다고 하더라도, 최소한의 민주적 절차는 지켜야 합니다.
법치주의는 문재인 대통령에게만 요구하고, 우리는 법과 당헌당규를 지키지 않으면, 우리의 자기 정당성이 무너집니다. 전당대회에서 새로운 지도부가 합당하게 선출되면, 비상대책위원회의 이런 문제도 재심되어야 한다고 생각합니다.
여덟째, 비상상황에서 지도력이 흔들릴수록, 당내의 중요한 결정은 정당한 기구에서, 충분하게 토론되고, 회의록이 공개되어야 합니다. 정체성이 전혀 다른 외부인사들이, 밀실에서, 회의록도 없고, 공개하지도 않은 채, 국회의원 21명의 당협위원장 지위를 박탈하는데도, “그만하면 잘했다”는 소리를 들으면서, 저의 민주적 양심이 참지 못하고 몇가지 문제를 제기했습니다.
----------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
도태우 변호사는 고성국TV에 출연해서,
변희재 담당 재판부가, 핵심은 테블릿 피씨 검증일 터인데도,
카카오톡 대화내용을 복원하면 ( 전문가들에게 문의하니
대화내용 복원이 충분히 가능하다고 하더라는 도태우 변호사)
실사용자를 알 수 있으니, 대화내용을 복원하자고 변희재측
에서 요구하였는데, 재판부가 기각했다는 충격적 폭로
심수미는 자기가 노승권 차장 검사와 주고 받은 메시지라고
법정에서 진술했는데, 변희재 변호인은 문자메시지는 KT
통신사인데, 김필준 기자등과의 통화목록은 SKT인데
어찌된 일이냐 ?고 하자, 당황하면서 어머니 휴대폰을
잠시 빌려사용했다고 진실했다는 것, 그런데
손용석 팀장(JTBC 선임기자)은 같은 법정에서
그 문자메시지는 심수미 기자가 주고 받은 것이 아니라,
법조팀장 조택수 기자가 노승권 차장검사와 주고 받은
거라고 했고, 조택수도 손용석과 동일한 진술을 하여서
고소인 자기들끼리 엇갈린 진술로 위증이 명백해졌다고 지적
그런데도, 재판부는 정확한 검증을 할 시간을 주지않고,
변희재 불구속 상태가 되기전에 판결을 내렸다는 것
도태우 변호사는 또한, 현재 문재인을 대검찰청에
여적죄로 고발한 상태라고 한다.
[출처] 고성국TV에 출연한 도태우 변호사, " 변희재 담당 재판부, 진실검증을 위한 카카오톡 대화내용 복원요구 기각 " 폭로 & " JTBC 기자들, 법정에서 서로 엇갈린 진술로 위증 "
--------------------------------------------------------------------
김태우라는 사람은 문죄인 정권의 핵폭탄이 될 수가 있다. 어쩌면 문 정권은 이 사람을 자살로 위장해 죽이려 할지도 모른다. 이 사람이 결심만 하고 문 정권의 추악한 진실을 모두 말하면, 엄청난 파장이 일어날 것이다.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
나경원 이 뻔뻔한 것, 입놀리는 꼬라지봐라, 박관천 사건과 비교하네 - 그건 가짜 문건이었다.
출처: 일베
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
범죄의 공범자가 된다.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
May 21, 2013 Why the whole banking system is a scam - Godfrey Bloom MEP
• European Parliament, Strasbourg, 21 May 2013
• Speaker: Godfrey Bloom MEP, UKIP (Yorkshire & Lincolnshire)
https://youtu.be/hYzX3YZoMrs모든 은행은 사기꾼이다. 양적 완화는 위조지폐 발행과 같다.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
문화는 어떻게 인간을 똑똑하게 만드나?
축적(蓄積)적인 문화는 개인의 능력을 훨씬 상회하는 지식과 도구를 우리에게 전해준다.
How Culture Makes Us Smarter
Cumulative culture gives us knowledge and tools far beyond our individual powers
Steve Stewart-Williams Ph.D.
Imagine, if you will, that a hyperintelligent alien scientist were to visit our little blue planet, and undertake a thorough investigation of life here on Earth. What would the alien make of our species and the rest of the Earth's flora and fauna?
One thing that might immediately jump out at our intrepid alien observer is the fact that human beings, though not radically different from other animals in their genetic makeup or basic physiology, are radically different in their knowledge, technology, and tools. As a species, humans today have at least a basic understanding of the Big Bang that birthed the entire universe, the evolutionary process that created them from dust, and the physical laws that govern all matter and energy. No other animal understands any of this even slightly. Likewise, humans have tools and technology sophisticated enough that they can split atoms, read their own genomes, and occasionally even walk on the moon. No other animal can do anything like that. Put simply, the alien scientist would quickly conclude that human beings stand apart from every other species on Earth in the sophistication of their culture.
Don’t get me wrong; humans aren't the only animals with culture. Chimps have some culture; whales have some culture; even some species of birds have some degree of culture. But no other animal does culture quite like us. Ten thousand years ago, the pinnacle of chimpanzee culture was using twigs to extract termites from termite mounds. Today, the pinnacle of chimpanzee culture… is using twigs to extract termites from termite mounds. Humans, in contrast, went from Stone Age technology to Space Age technology in less than ten thousand years. How did we do it? What explains the vast gulf between our cultural achievements and those of chimpanzees?
Intelligence
The traditional answer is intelligence: Humans are smarter than chimps and all other animals, and that’s why we can go to the moon but they can’t. As the futurist Eliezer Yudkowsky once observed, almost everything around us most of the time, other than the air we breathe, is the product of our big, clever brains. “The rise of human intelligence,” he wrote, “reshaped the Earth. The land sprouted skyscrapers and cities, planes flew through the skies, footprints appeared on the Moon.”1
No doubt, intelligence is an important part of the story – if intelligence weren’t important, it would never have evolved. But intelligence only takes us so far. Although we’re clearly smarter than chimps, we’re nowhere near as much smarter as our alien scientist might initially surmise by comparing our cultural achievements (like putting people on the moon) with theirs (like using rocks to crack open nuts or sticks to fish for termites).
If you doubt this – if you doubt that the gap between us and our chimpanzee cousins is narrower than we usually think – imagine that the alien scientist sucked you up into its spaceship, and then dumped you in the jungle all alone, with no relevant knowledge. At a push, you might use your intelligence to figure out how to obtain some food. But could you use your intelligence to build a rocket ship and fly to the moon? No. No one could do that. The rocket ship is an extreme example of a much more general principle: As clever as we doubtlessly are, no individual could design even something as simple as a kayak from scratch, let alone a jetpack or a democratic nation-state.2
The Ratchet Effect
So, where did these things come from? To answer that question, we need to look to something bigger than our brains – and bigger, in fact, than any of us. A growing contingent of scholars argue that our “superpower” as a species is not so much our intelligence as our collective intelligence and our capacity for what’s called cumulative culture: that is, our ability to stockpile knowledge and pass it down from generation to generation, tinkering with it and improving it over time.3
To illustrate, consider Plato and Aristotle. Plato and Aristotle were almost certainly more intelligent than most people living today. And yet most people living today have a vastly more accurate view of the universe than these Ancient Greek philosophers. In fact, most preschool children have a more accurate view, because most preschool children know that we live on a spinning rock orbiting a great big ball of fire. In a certain sense, then, today’s preschoolers are smarter than the greatest thinkers of the ancient world. This has nothing to do with biological evolution, and everything to do with our ability to stockpile knowledge and add to the common pool of knowledge over time. Biological evolution can give rise to the eye. But cumulative cultural evolution can give rise to entities every bit as complex as the eye: airplanes and smartphones, legal systems and the Internet.
What makes these cumulative cultural achievements possible for us when they’re not possible for chimps or howler monkeys? No one knows for sure, but there's no shortage of suggestions. These include language, theory of mind, mental time travel, hypercooperativeness, practice, teaching, trade, shared attention, joint attention, imitation, true imitation, and overimitation – or, of course, some serendipitously fertile blend of these talents. Whatever it is, though, it makes all the difference in the world. It renders our cultural achievements utterly unique among the animals.4
And it’s easy to see why the capacity for cumulative culture is useful. In a nutshell, cumulative culture is the ultimate time-saver. Because of cumulative culture, we don’t need to reinvent the wheel with each new generation – quite literally. We don’t each need to have our own Eureka moments to understand fluid dynamics; we don’t each need to have an apple fall on our head to understand gravity; and we don’t each need to dream of a snake eating its own tail to understand the structure of the benzene molecule. All we need is to go to school, or to own a library card, or to have an Internet connection. We can then download into our brains some of the achieved knowledge of the species. This subsequently becomes the starting point for the next round of innovation.
The developmental psychologist Michael Tomasello dubbed this the cultural ratchet.5 Extended across time, the cumulative effects of the ratcheting process are absolutely startling. I remember I once watched a David Attenborough documentary in which an orangutan paddled a canoe down a river. At first, it struck me as anomalous: Here was this animal skillfully piloting a vehicle it could never have invented itself. But then it occurred to me that all of us are in exactly the same boat as the orangutan, metaphorically speaking. In even the simplest human societies, people use tools and techniques they could never have invented themselves. And in our modern age, we’re surrounded by technologies so complex that most people don’t have the slightest clue how they work. It’s as if we’ve taken over the technology of an advanced species of aliens after they mysteriously vanished – except that the aliens were never really here. All of it somehow came from us.
Culture Makes Us Smarter
Cumulative culture doesn’t just gift our species technology that none of us could have invented; it literally makes us smarter. The products of cumulative culture include not only our physical tools but also a well-stocked library of what we might call mind tools: ideas and habits and rules of thumb, which we stamp into the gooey grey matter of our brains and which radically enhance our powers.
Our mind tools include, first and foremost, the words and phrases of the languages we speak. Each word and each phrase is a handy little tool for thinking – a prosthetic aid to cognition, as the philosopher Daniel Dennett put it.6 Other important mind tools include probability theory, cost-benefit analysis, time management, financial planning, and counting to ten when you’re angry. These tools are a lot like smart-phone apps. The more apps you download onto your phone, the more your phone can do. Likewise, the more mind tools you download into your brain, the more that you can do.
And you don’t have to be an incurable optimist to see that our mind tools get better with time. Consider the Roman number system. This cognitive apparatus is perfectly good for certain purposes: It’s perfectly good for measurement; it’s perfectly good for record keeping. But as the biologist David Krakauer points out, it’s not particularly good for calculation. There’s no simple algorithm for dividing C by IV, for instance, or multiplying X by MCMLX. Europeans used the Roman number system for 1,500 years. This meant that, for all of that time, they were unable to multiply or divide. They were physiologically capable of it, of course; they just hadn’t installed the appropriate cultural software in their brains. These days, we use the Indian-Arabic system, which makes calculation much easier. It literally makes us smarter.7
Cumulative culture makes us smarter in another way as well: It allows us to transcend the limitations imposed on us by the anatomy of our brains, furnishing us with knowledge far beyond the reach of any isolated individual. If you were to make a list of every person who’s ever contributed in any way to the vast storehouse of our knowledge, and if you were then to add up every hour they devoted to making their contribution, you’d have a rough-and-ready estimate of the number of hours it would take for one individual to single-handedly assemble all the knowledge we now possess. What kind of time period are we looking at? Probably hundreds of thousands of years, and maybe even millions. This means that, by learning about science and getting a good education, we become as knowledgeable as a person who spent thousands, or hundreds of thousands, or even millions of years thinking and exploring the world.
The philosopher Bertrand Russell once quipped that “The average [person’s] opinions are much less foolish than they would be if he thought for himself.”8 He had a point, but it doesn’t just apply to the average person. It applies as well to the geniuses among us, all of whom build on the earlier intellectual achievements of the species. Take Isaac Newton, for instance. Newton is about as good an example of a genius as we might ever expect to find: a genius among geniuses, you could argue. But even Newton was unable to comprehend the idea that matter bends space and slows time – not because of any constitutional incapacity, but just because he lived before Einstein. Einstein, for his part, couldn’t have done what he did if he hadn’t been able to build on the work of Newton and Newton’s intellectual descendants. The writer Matt Ridley captured the general idea nicely in a discussion of the causes of economic growth when he wrote: “I cannot hope to match [Adam] Smith’s genius as an individual, but I have one great advantage over him – I can read his book.”9
On our own, we’re not particularly smart – certainly not smart enough to unravel the mysteries of the universe or put footprints on the moon. We’re smarter than chimps, certainly, but, as I mentioned earlier, the gap between us and them isn’t as large as we usually think. It’s a river rather than a valley.
However, as a result of our ability to acquire knowledge distilled from thousands of years’ worth of thinking, each of us can understand the universe to a degree completely unmatched by even our closest animal kin. As a result of cumulative culture, we have ideas in our heads that are orders of magnitude smarter than we are. As a result of cumulative culture, we have knowledge and technology it would take a single individual millions of years to create, if a single individual could create it at all. And as a result of cumulative culture, we’re surrounded by machines and technology whose inner workings we don’t understand and could never hope to understand. Humans are chimpanzees reciting Shakespeare – dunces with the technology of geniuses.
The Myth of the Heroic Inventor
Often, though, these humbling facts are obscured from our vision. We routinely ascribe our species’ cultural achievements to lone-wolf geniuses – super-bright freaks of nature who invented science and technology for the rest of us. This tendency is so pervasive it even has a name: the Myth of the Heroic Inventor. It’s a myth because most ideas and most technologies come about not through the Eureka moments of solitary geniuses but through the hard slog of large armies of individuals, each making – at best – a tiny step or two forward.10 As the historian of science Joseph Needham once put it, “No single man was the father of the steam engine; no single civilization either.”11 In the same way, no single individual was the originator of evolutionary theory. People attribute the theory to Darwin, but the truth is it’s not really his. It’s the product of the efforts of thousands of men and women working over several centuries. Nonetheless, friends of the theory and enemies alike want to attribute it to the great man.
Do I contradict myself by calling Darwin great? I don’t think so. Some people – Darwin among them – plainly take larger steps forward than the rest of us. But even then, we need to remember that new ideas are rarely drawn from whole cloth. They come instead from the recombination of old ideas – from ideas having sex, as Matt Ridley put it. The concept of natural selection, for instance, involved combining Malthus’s idea of the struggle in nature with the idea of selective breeding. This led Darwin to the insight that, because nature kills most of its children, it functions as a giant animal breeder. As important as this insight was, it’s essentially just a remix.
And so is most of culture. The birth of new technology, for instance, usually involves recombining existing elements in novel ways.12 As L. T. C. Rolt observed, “The motor car was sired by the bicycle out of the horse carriage.” Similarly, as Ridley reports in his book The Rational Optimist, the Internet was born from the marriage of the computer and the phone, and the camera pill was born of a conversation between a gastroenterologist and a guided missile designer.13 Perhaps the fairest summary of the situation is that most of our cultural achievements come not from super-bright freaks, but from cumulative culture, aided and abetted by some reasonably bright semi-freaks. In this way, our culture becomes smarter than we are.
Parts of this article were excerpted, with changes, from the book The Ape That Understood the Universe by Steve Stewart-Williams. Read the first chapter here for free!
Notes
1. Yudkowsky (2006).
2. Henrich (2016); Richerson and Boyd (2005).
3. Legare and Nielsen (2015); Ridley (2010); Tennie, Call, and Tomasello (2009).
4. Certainly, some nonhuman animals may have some degree of cumulative culture. Consider nut cracking in chimpanzees. Chimps don’t just hit their nuts with a rock. They use one rock as an anvil and a second as a hammer, and they strike the nut hard enough to crack the shell but not so hard that it crushes the kernel inside. It’s difficult to imagine that a solitary chimp Einstein invented this entire procedure in a single saltational leap, after which it spread in its totality from chimp brain to chimp brain, down through the chimpanzee generations. As a number of experts have argued, it’s more plausible that the practice emerged in cumulative, bite-size steps. Still, even if cumulative culture is not completely unique to our species, it’s hard to deny that we take this trick a thousand times further than any other creature.
5. Tomasello (1999).
6. Dennett (2017).
7. Cited in Harris (2016).
8. Russell (1926), p. 54.
9. Ridley (2010), p. 8.
10. Johnson (2010).
11. Needham (1970), p. 202.
12. Arthur (2009); Basalla (1988).
13. Ridley (2010).
References
Arthur, W. B. (2009). The nature of technology: What it is and how it evolves. New York, NY: Free Press.
Basalla, G. (1988). The evolution of technology. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Dennett, D. C. (2017). From bacteria to Bach and back: The evolution of minds. New York, NY: Norton.
------------------------------------------------------
댓글 없음:
댓글 쓰기