Evolving Humans on the Menu 307
Ant writes "BBC News is reporting that a popular view of our ancient ancestors as hunters who conquered all in their way could be incorrect. This was according to researchers who told a major United States (U.S.) science conference. They argued that early humans were on the menu for predatory beasts. From the article: 'This may have driven humans to evolve increased levels of co-operation, according to their theory. Despite humankind's considerable capacity for war and violence, we/humans are highly sociable animals, according to anthropologists.'"
So we only get along in confrontation? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:So we only get along in confrontation? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:So we only get along in confrontation? (Score:2)
Interesting euphemism for Uranium-235
Re:So we only get along in confrontation? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:So we only get along in confrontation? (Score:5, Interesting)
Heh. Right.... (Score:5, Funny)
we humans are highly sociable animals, according to anthropologists.
Anthropologists don't hang out with the /. crowd, I guess...
Re:Heh. Right.... (Score:2)
Re:Heh. Right.... (Score:2)
Re:Heh. Right.... (Score:2)
But then, they wouldn't find us anyway, hidden away in the basement, armored with two racks and and way too large hoody.
Re:Heh. Right.... (Score:3, Funny)
Sounds like we'd taste almost exactly like evolving humans then. Except some of us have quite a lot of well-marbled meat on us...
Ancestors of Homo Sapiens Hunted by Birds (Score:3, Informative)
How they figured this out (Score:5, Funny)
Re:How they figured this out (Score:2)
Well, obviously (Score:2)
The argument simply holds no water. Sure, sometimes man bites dog, but usually it's the other way around.
Re:Well, obviously (Score:5, Insightful)
Maybe it's because we developed those social skills early on that we became so dangerous more recently?
Pleistocene Holocene Megafauna extinction (Score:5, Interesting)
" The Pleistocene Holocene transition took place about 11,000 years ago and caused the extinction of a large number of animal species including mammoths, mastodons and ground sloths. The Holocene looked very different from the Pleistocene."
Re:Pleistocene Holocene Megafauna extinction (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Pleistocene Holocene Megafauna extinction (Score:4, Insightful)
The last ice age melted off, in less than 2000 years, around 10,000 years ago. The planet has been in a warming phase since that time.
That is the primary reason I think "global warming" is a totally natural change. The average temperature of the planet over millions and millions of years is much higher than it has been throughout our recorded history (5000 years, give or take). Modern humans are an ice age species trying to adapt to the end of the ice age.
Re:Pleistocene Holocene Megafauna extinction (Score:3, Informative)
The last ice age melted off, in less than 2000 years, around 10,000 years ago. The planet has been in a warming phase since that time.
That is the primary reason I think "global warming" is a totally natural change.
Newspeak?
The global warming you refer to was about 10,000 years ago. And was of course not man amde, if you mean that with natural.
Since then the over all climate only changed marginaly which includes having two minor cold periods.
The usual usage of the term "global warming" however reffers to the
Re:Well, obviously (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Well, obviously (Score:2)
The argument is not that modern man was under pressure from predators and thus cooperated, the argument is that predation drove the evolutionary development of a level of cooperation unique to modern humans.
It was not until we became "modern" in the sense that we could create artefacts [wikipedia.org] that we started sytematically wiping out the competition. Chimps today are smart enough to "gang-up" and use sticks and rocks to scare leopards away, yet chimps are still on the leap
Re:Well, obviously (Score:2, Redundant)
Re:Well, obviously (Score:2)
Most likely humans had most impact on the predator population when they started raising domesticated livestock. Since systematic extermination of predators has an obvious benefit.
But the technical term for an Australopithicine who has just had a leopard that outweighs him drop out of a tree onto his head is "lunch."
Howeve
Mmm, Good (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Mmm, Good (Score:3, Funny)
extensively, and let you know how they are.
Re: Mmm, Good (Score:2)
We're out of supermodels, so I'm sending you a dozen unemployed rednecks instead.
Let us know how they are!
Re: Mmm, Good (Score:3, Funny)
Second, they are great! Cooking, cleaning,
they know where the local Walmart is already.
We wont talk about the other attributes here
in an open forum.
Re:Mmm, Good (Score:2)
They're low fat, but you eat more of them...
Hufu The great taste of friends...
Re:Mmm, Good (Score:2, Insightful)
Blecch. Supermodels are all skin and bone. Now figure skaters, on the other hand...
Re:Mmm, Good (Score:3, Funny)
Odd - the ones I eat always seem to have a slick texture and an unpleasant papery aftertaste.
Re:Mmm, Good (Score:2)
(link NSFW)
Early Menu Entries (Score:4, Funny)
"Roasted Human Family...29.95"
"Baby Humans with Cashews and Potatoes...24.50"
"Human a-la-carte - create your own dish out of fresh human body parts and side dishes
Re:Early Menu Entries (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Early Menu Entries (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Early Menu Entries (Score:2)
Especially given that lions typically hunt cooperativly.
Lots of humans with sticks and rocks, "hmmm...I think I feel like a gazelle today."
Or something else which dosn't cooperativly defend against predators.
Early man, I'll call him 'Harry', realized this. So Harry made a few hunting buddies.
A while later on Harry and co are enjoying lion cub kebab...
Re:Early Menu Entries (Score:2)
Don't you mean hunted buddies?
depends what kind of restaurant (Score:2)
One item is still on the menu today. (Score:2)
That's if Dick Cheney walks into the restaurant.
Well, duh (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Well, duh (Score:3, Funny)
Sarcasm aside, what makes you think ignorance is a binary function?
Evilution, Schmevilution! (Score:2)
Right. We were CUSTOM BRED by an INTELLIGENT DESIGNER!
For food...
Re:Well, duh (Score:2)
Hell, I'd say humans are still on the menu for some predators; people are still attacked somehwat regularly by tigers in parts of Asia.
As to the other issues in the article, I think it's fairly obvious that cooperation among humans is one of the big reasons for our dominance on this planet. The division of labor and the use of tools are the secrets of our success.
Pretty Obvious (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Pretty Obvious (Score:5, Interesting)
I also question the blanket assumption that humans are unique in our cooperativeness. Baboons collaborate against leopards, and macaques and bonobos form tight social groups.
Further, it's not clear how valuable hunting was. Contemporary hunter-gatherers get more calories, more regularly, from gathering than from hunting. Raising the question, were the first weapons primarily defensive?
Re:Pretty Obvious (Score:5, Informative)
I don't have an answer for you regarding the weapons, but hunting is considered rather instrumental in our evolution as a species. Access to greater amounts of animal fats in our diet allowed us to deveolp the much larger cranial capacities than those from whom we evolved, helping put the 'sapiens' in homo sapiens, so to speak. From this paper: [uark.edu]
Re:Pretty Obvious (Score:5, Interesting)
Analysis of prehistoric living sites (including prehistoric shit, a rather invaluable source of information concerning what an animal eats) pretty much conclusively shows that the average human diet was 85%-90% fruits, vegetables, and roots. Of the other 10%-15%, a large chunk of that protein came from insects. The 'mighty hunter' scenario has been consistently debunked for decades, yet Joe Public is still enamored of the idea that our ancestors ran about the plains, taking on mastodons with fire-hardened sticks.
Fact is, most of our protein - what little of it there was - came from insects, grubs, eggs, lizards and frogs, scavenged kills from other predators, and in coastal areas creatures like turtles, crabs, and occasionally fish. When humans did hunt larger creatures they sure as hell didn't take on large animals with spears; they used brush traps, cliff runs, and uncontrolled large-scale burns to kill *entire herds*. Lacking any sort of proper storage technology and rarely knowing how to smoke/salt meat for long-term use, these occasional whole-sale slaughters generally wasted 99% of the animals they killed.
Contrary to the popular myth which still makes the rounds, humans sucked at hunting. They were, however, premiere gatherers and used their large brains to keep track of what was good to eat, and when, and where it could be found. Their social organization also made it difficult for other, more efficient predators to take them down, since attacking one human generally meant taking on the entire tribe, a dangerous proposition when easier prey was usually abundant. While humans were lousy hunters, a tribe of 20 or 30 armed with pointy sticks was more than sufficient for convincing even a pride of lions that perhaps the herd of deer in the next valley over was a better bet.
The only branch of humanity that was any good at all at hunting was the much-maligned Neanderthal. In complete opposition to our own branch of the species, Neanderthals got 90% of their calories from meat and only 10% from vegetables, fruits or roots. Neanderthals were excellent hunters, although it was a full-time and dangerous occupation as we can see from just how often they were injured (taking a look at an adult Neanderthals bones and the numerous breaks they suffered shows you just how bloody tough they were). But then Neanderthals, unlike h. sapiens, were much better adadpted to hunting; they were far, far stronger than any human being (the average female could easily kill Arnie in his prime with just one well-aimed punch), had much thicker bones, and apparently healed more quickly than our kind did (or does). They could take and shake off punishment that would instantly put any one of us in the grave.
Although it's certainly more heroic to think that cooperative hunting had something to do with our brain development, it's far more likely that it's a combination of ever-more-efficient gathering techniques and cooperative *defense* against real predators that did the trick. Smarter, more social human beings were better at both of these activities than dumber, asocial ones. And in a world full of predators looking for an easy kill, humans - with fragile bodies, the inability to outrun just about anything on four legs, and no natural weapons - were hard-pressed to come up with some other survival strategy to keep from becoming lunch. It turned out that brains and sociability were adequate substitutes.
Max
Holy clear thinking, Batman! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Pretty Obvious (Score:3, Informative)
It should be emphasized that this maligning was primarily the "popular" culture. Paleontologists have long viewed the Neanderthals as a subspecies that was superbly adapted to their niche, a major hunter in the difficult environment of ice-age Europe. The "cave man" image basically came from a European culture that really wanted to view itself as the most advanced and civilized on the planet. 18th- and 19th-
Re:Pretty Obvious (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Pretty Obvious (Score:3, Interesting)
The problem with this explanation, and with the "man the hunter" mythology in general, is that it's a "just so" story. It may make intuitive sense, but the data just isn't there to support such a hypothesis. To put another way, I can come up with an equally plausible account of the facts/adaptations you mentioned, and in the end, there's no way to choose between competing explanations. One major problem with
The menu (Score:5, Interesting)
May have been the case??? Make no mistake about it there are still critters on this earth that look at a human and think "mmmmmm... FOOD!" Well knonw examples are polarbears tigers and bullsharks. All of these animals regularly hunt humans for food. When I got my weapons license the instructor in the class on hunting ethics started out by telling us that there are three valid reasons to kill an animal:
1) The animal is sick so you kill it to prevent the disease from spreading.
2) You want to eat the animal.
3) The animal wants to eat you.
That list may seem a bit funny at first glance but basically those rules are as true today as they were during the stoneage.
An ethical menu (Score:2, Insightful)
Now, If I'm living in Norway and it's 200 years ago, and it's but cold and me and me bros go out on a big ass boat to go kill one and use every ounce of blubber, meat, to improve our lives..... then I'd say my desire was part of a deeper "Need", and that it's
Re:An ethical menu (Score:2)
I believe that hunters purposely avoid making that distinction because they enjoy hunting for sport, but they want to distinguish themselves from the non-politically-correct hunters of yesteryear who hunted for the sake of hunting and then wasted the kill. T
Re:Pretty Obvious (Score:2)
As my phys anthro professor put it:
1. Lions
2. Hyenas
3. Humans and carrion birds
(that refers to H. habilis and before,
Re:Pretty Obvious (Score:2)
Sorry, it's been a long day. :)
Or... (Score:3, Insightful)
"... also discovered that his subjects seemed to have enhanced memory for those people that did not reciprocate in the experiment."
Could explain this:
"... humankind's considerable capacity for war and violence..."
Re:Or... (Score:2)
"... humankind's considerable capacity for war and violence..."
I think this goes back way before advanced primate-ness, and into deeper mammal-ness. All you have to do is note a domestic dog's (or his ancestor, the wolf's) incredible ability to instantly identify threatening unknowns or familiar rivals by any number of signals/patterns (appearance, body language, etc). And, if you've ever seen dogs actually form groups and pick fights strictly for social reasons, you
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Funeral customs (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Funeral customs (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: Funeral customs (Score:3, Interesting)
That's why you're supposed to eat his brain, shrink his head, and hang it from the rear-view mirror in your car.
Re:Funeral customs (Score:3, Insightful)
By the way the dead of the parsees (Zoroasters followers), were traditionally been given to vultures.
Re:Funeral customs (Score:2)
Re:Funeral customs (Score:2)
There are much simpler reasons that people are buried deep underground across cultures, including feelings of kinship with the deceased, and the desire to not smell or look at rotting corpses. It's a mistake to make a jump to assuming that it's some kind of clever trick to confuse lions.
Huh (Score:2, Funny)
comment doesn't make sense (Score:5, Insightful)
war and violence are contradictory to being sociable? war and violence are social activities. nonsocial animals would have nothing to do with one another, including violence. there is love, hate, and then not caring. not caring is considerably different than hating
reminds me of an old saying:
"Diplomacy is a continuation of war by other means." Zhou En Lai
in other words, being social is simply a way of resolving disputes without drawing blood... althought there is also "social intercourse," which is human social behavior as courtship. so at its psychological root, all human social effort is really just violent or sexual in nature
Re:comment doesn't make sense (Score:2)
Why "or"?
Re:comment doesn't make sense (Score:2)
Read On War [clausewitz.com], by the great man himself.
Re:comment doesn't make sense (Score:2)
Zhou Enlai comes along about 100 years later and makes a quote that Diplomacy is a continuation of War.
subtle difference, but you are half right at least - Clauswitz certainly deserves credit for the foundation of Zhou Enlai's quote.
Re:comment doesn't make sense (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:comment doesn't make sense (Score:2)
Or put another way, indifference is the opposite to both love and hate.
Re:comment doesn't make sense (Score:2)
Not suprising... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Not suprising... (Score:2)
You forgot about the Strongbadia [homestarrunner.com] culture!
Dragon Myths and Cave Bears (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Dragon Myths and Cave Bears (Score:3, Interesting)
a) in asian cultures dinosaur scelettons in the desert of goby are well known since several thousand years
b) a simple crocodile (which easy gets 200 years old in our days, and grows every year a few centimeters) in an middle europe swamp looks like a dragon. Immagine a 8 meter long crocodile
angel'o'sphere
early humans? (Score:4, Interesting)
Old news (Score:5, Insightful)
Aristotle said this in another form (Man is by nature a political animal) in about 300 BC.
War and violence (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:War and violence (Score:2)
Re:War and violence (Score:3, Informative)
Yes, and I'm sure if a species of bass cooperated sufficiently to develop laser technology they would strap them to their own heads and use them against predators and rival schools of Bass.
does this statement not make sense to anyone else? (Score:5, Insightful)
Organisms cannot be driven to evolve. They can either have the trait that is advantageous for survival or they can die. Humans had the trait, probably for adaptation (perhaps through creative thinking) and developed sociability as a means of survival. They were not driven to evolve sociability and cooperation. They were driven to use these traits that they already had.
In other words, they were driven to adapt.
[semi-offtopic rant]It is statements like these that make some people think that intelligent design is a plausible scientific theory. These kinds of statements give people the idea that evolution has a goal and because of this it must have been designed. Evolution is a combination of natural selection, genetic (in)stability and mutations, environmental factors, and random chance (like natural disasters) all acting together to dictate that the organisms with the best traits for a given environment will have the best chance of survival and pass those traits on to their offspring. It is a number of simple rules and factors working together to make intricate (and beautiful, if I may say so) complexity. No designers needed. Sorry for the off-topic rant.[/semi-offtopic rant]
Re:does this statement not make sense to anyone el (Score:2)
Once humans developed language you also get evolution operating through mechanisms other than genetics. Since accumulated knowlage can be relevent to survival. Including knowlage of
Re:does this statement not make sense to anyone el (Score:5, Insightful)
Secondly, even in the case of natural selection, death is by no means required. The reproductive rate of the advantaged group just has to be (at least) marginally higher than that of the disadvantaged species.
Thirdly, organisms can't be driven to evolve. Populations, however, can, which is, you know, what people are talking about when they say "humans" in this context. The only reason you have a problem the statement is because you're purposefully misinterpreting the statement (for the express purpose of having something to be pissed about, I might add).
Normally I don't feed the trolls, but I was bored today.
Re:does this statement not make sense to anyone el (Score:2)
It's statements like that which make some people think Darwin's evolutionary theory and intelligent design are the only two plausible explanations for the population of living creatures on the planet.
If someone wants to believe that some sentient being guided the course of existence, you're not going to convince them otherwise; that line of thought is based on an entirely different set of pr
The news? (Score:4, Interesting)
Nothings changed. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Nothings changed. (Score:3, Insightful)
What was your username again?
Wolf Pack, Cow Herd, Human Tribe (Score:2)
Obvious? (Score:2)
I mean, evolution is based on adaptation to environment. If early humans were sufficiently well-adapted to their environment that they dominated it, what forces would be acting on them to propel evolution?
Intelligence is the main 'driver' in this case (Score:2)
old news... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:old news... (Score:2)
I saw a National Geographic episode recently where two leopards were hunting together. Gazelles (impalas?) have very accute hearing...even in the pitch dark it was very difficult to sneak up on a dozing pack. So what one leopard does is stay with the pack, the other leopard travels abo
cause and effect (Score:4, Funny)
- Human likes to hang out on his own (assumption)
- Lion eats solitary human, easy prey.
- Human invents cooperation, and evolves to become social, making it harder for Lion to pick off human
Just wonderful.
I thought everyone already knew that ants, termites, bees and wasps 'invented' cooperative societies and specialisation of roles millions of years before we ever came along.
AFAIK, there is no evidence to suggest that ants were ever anything but a social colony from the beginning of their existence. But then, its all speculation really - did ants start off as a social colony, or did they evolve to form them ? Coming up with a test case to positively falsify either claim is impossible.
So the published ramblings of a group of anthropologists isnt exactly what you would call 'good science'.
Its equally possible (and equally un-provable), that a couple of solitary pre-humans sat down in the bush one day and observed a column of ants together
'Hey dude, you know if we got together like that, maybe one day WE could form a city-state, farm crops, knock up some pyramids, write a bunch of laws, build ships to cross the oceans, and run out cable broadband to every home, what do you reckon ?'
To which the other replied :
'yeah cool, I reckon its worth a shot. Besides, this whole tear-assing around the scrub like a bad muthafucker is getting a bit old. I wanna find me a good reliable pre-human woman, settle down and you know - just enjoy some quality time together, raise some kids, and maybe even build a white picket fence out of these dry twigs. Its not much I know, but hell, Ill do my best for her.'
A tear welling in his pre-human eye. And so the other extended his hand to shake it
'You know dude, your a good man
And so it was that pre-humans evolved an opposing thumb so that they could shake hands, form lasting friendships, and go on to build cooperative civilisations that rival those of the ants.
Maybe we did 'evolve' socialisation out a fear of being eaten by Lions
Re:cause and effect (Score:2)
"Maybe we did 'evolve' socialisation out a fear of being eaten by Lions
Or, and this is just *my theory*, but maybe a hazy flying creature with purple eyes dropped man -- socialized man mind you -- out of a hole in his pocket and said unto himself "i am the prime mover. everything is as I make it". He looked down, saw them and was happy.
Or, perhaps some other fairy tale.
Or, perhaps, solitary apes evolved into humans who socalized. Or basically, somewhere we find
umm... hello (Score:2)
What are you? A Communist? (Score:2)
Cooperation is down right Un'Merican!
Songlines and dogs (Score:3, Interesting)
There is also some evidence, I believe, that far from being repurposed wolves dogs are the descendants of a scavenging ancestor. By disposing of rubbish, dogs helped the evolution of stable human settlements - because without dogs, primitive man had to move on before the surroundings got too smelly. At a later stage dogs were tamed, and all of a sudden the human race had two forms of projected power to use against predators - ballistic weapons, and dogs. The rest is history (or herstory if you believe that women create civilisations and men try to destroy them)
Obvious (Score:2)
And even today individuals are occasionally killed by wild animal attacks. Why the hell would they imagine it was any different in the past?
Re:Now wait a minute! (Score:2, Funny)
Really???
F.U.D.