Slashdot Mirror
Evolving Humans on the Menu
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.'"
Was there anyone who actually thought that the human line(s) immediately dominated the hunting scene the instant they became geneticly distinct from the other primates?
If it ain't broke, it needs more features!
It would be clearer to say that humans were not always apex predators. Many predators are themselves the prey of other creatures, and it is not exactly revolutionary to suggest that this may have been the case for humans and our proto-human ancestors for a long time.
A-Bomb
This concept:
"... 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..."
"Despite humankind's considerable capacity for war and violence, we/humans are highly sociable animals, according to anthropologists"
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
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Or how about just the psychological trauma to see your grandma or parents rotting in the ditch close to your hut? Not very pleasant I suppose. "Oops, checked on paw-paw this morning -- looks like the maggots finallay got to him... bless his heart!"
> humans are highly sociable animals, according to anthropologists.
Aristotle said this in another form (Man is by nature a political animal) in about 300 BC.
By the way the dead of the parsees (Zoroasters followers), were traditionally been given to vultures.
"Despite"? Try fighting a war someday without a high degree of organization and cooperation. War requires society, it does not occur in spite of it.
And the brethren went away edified.
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]
"Empathise with stupidity, and you're halfway to thinking like an idiot." - Iain M. Banks
Maybe it's because we developed those social skills early on that we became so dangerous more recently?
of course, biting monkeys is not to everyone's taste - Konrad Lorenz
Firstly, evolution is not entirely encompassed by natural selection. The mechanisms outside of natural selection do not require that things die. Take, for instance, any form of acquired behavior.
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.
...it's really a sad day for America when we require a goddamn ACT OF CONGRESS to make our DVD players work properly. ~
Bingo. 50K years ago the planet went into a rapid and violent cooling phase. This resulted in ice as far down as the middle tier states of the US, and down to Southern Europe. It makes sense that huge displacements in animal and plant life would occur.
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.