Evolving Humans on the Menu

So we only get along in confrontation? by forgotten_my_nick · 2006-02-20 20:01 · Score: 4, Funny

Thats how I read it. So what we basically need is some huge interdimenionsal squid to be teleported into a large populated city, killing nearly everyone and the whole world will be united (at least until people read Rorschach's Journal).

Re:So we only get along in confrontation? by Zedrick · 2006-02-20 20:06 · Score: 2, Insightful

Yes. If intergalactic lizards invaded earth tomorrow, I'm quite sure most political and religious conflicts would be forgotten pretty soon. ...until the lizards were defeated, that is.
Re:So we only get along in confrontation? by forgotten_my_nick · 2006-02-20 20:37 · Score: 4, Informative

Actually I was referring to the watchmen. :p
Re:So we only get along in confrontation? by dtsazza · 2006-02-20 23:09 · Score: 5, Interesting

Well, according to Leo Strauss: "... a political order can be stable only if it is united by an external threat; and following Machiavelli, ... if no external threat exists, then one has to be manufactured." I believe Napoleon said something along the same lines - and at least, acted in that fashion.

--
My, that was a yummy potato!

Heh. Right.... by kassemi · 2006-02-20 20:02 · Score: 5, Funny

we humans are highly sociable animals, according to anthropologists.

Anthropologists don't hang out with the /. crowd, I guess...

--
What the hell's a "gewie?"

Re:Heh. Right.... by Eccles · 2006-02-21 05:25 · Score: 2, Funny

Well, I'm quite sure they wouldn't like us /.ers. Unshaven, not showered for weeks...

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...

--
Ooh, a sarcasm detector. Oh, that's a real useful invention.

Ancestors of Homo Sapiens Hunted by Birds by biocute · 2006-02-20 20:03 · Score: 2, Informative

As previously discussed

--
Virtual Betting on Facebook for non-geeks.

Well, obviously by BadAnalogyGuy · 2006-02-20 20:04 · Score: 2

Don't mind the fact that mass extinction of megafauna occurred simultaneously with the introduction of humans into any geographic area... No, magical fairies terrorized prehistoric humans and ate their flesh.

The argument simply holds no water. Sure, sometimes man bites dog, but usually it's the other way around.

Re:Well, obviously by alicenextdoor · 2006-02-20 21:43 · Score: 5, Insightful

These guys are talking about human evolution way before the megafauna extinctions. In the article thet mention Australopithecus afarensis, which is 3.2 million years old; a ccording to the Australian Museum's Tim Flannery "the Megafauna became extinct up to 50,000 years ago in Australia and New Guinea, around 10,900 years ago in North (and presumably South) America, about 1500 years ago in Madagascar, and between 900 and 600 years ago in New Zealand. This pattern closely follows the current chronology of human expansion around the world."
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
Re:Well, obviously by lorelorn · 2006-02-20 23:00 · Score: 4, Funny

Never before have I come across a user ID so fitting. That truly was a bad analogy, guy.

Mmm, Good by wildsurf · 2006-02-20 20:07 · Score: 3, Funny

So I'm not the only one who thinks supermodels are tasty.

--
Weeks of coding saves hours of planning.

Re:Mmm, Good by Duhavid · 2006-02-20 20:17 · Score: 2, Funny

Send a couple dozen over, I will sample them
extensively, and let you know how they are.

--
emt 377 emt 4
Re:Mmm, Good by Scarletdown · 2006-02-20 22:06 · Score: 2, Insightful

So I'm not the only one who thinks supermodels are tasty.

Blecch. Supermodels are all skin and bone. Now figure skaters, on the other hand... ;)

--
This space unintentionally left blank.
Re:Mmm, Good by Odin's+Raven · 2006-02-20 23:26 · Score: 2, Funny

So I'm not the only one who thinks supermodels are tasty.

Odd - the ones I eat always seem to have a slick texture and an unpleasant papery aftertaste.

--
A marriage is always made up of two people who are prepared to swear that only the other one snores.
Re: Mmm, Good by Duhavid · 2006-02-21 06:28 · Score: 2, Funny

First, thanks for making them all female.

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. ;-)

--
emt 377 emt 4

Early Menu Entries by drgonzo59 · 2006-02-20 20:10 · Score: 3, Funny

So if a lion entered a restaurant say about 10,000 years ago he would find menu entries like:
"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 ... 35.99"

Re:Early Menu Entries by Belseth · 2006-02-20 20:28 · Score: 2, Funny

Fast food was called serve yourself back then.
Re:Early Menu Entries by Velox_SwiftFox · 2006-02-20 20:52 · Score: 2, Insightful

Fortunately, human protein tends to come with pointy and/or stout sticks, thrown rocks, and other things making it too dangerous a diet for predators.

Well, duh by Deathbane27 · 2006-02-20 20:11 · Score: 5, Insightful

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!

Re:Well, duh by SetupWeasel · 2006-02-20 20:15 · Score: 2, Funny

Humans aren't primates you silly Satan worshipper.

Sarcasm aside, what makes you think ignorance is a binary function?

Pretty Obvious by Bombula · 2006-02-20 20:11 · Score: 4, Insightful

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

Re:Pretty Obvious by Beryllium+Sphere(tm) · 2006-02-20 20:24 · Score: 5, Interesting

Exactly. For example, small cats are efficient predators but are also hunted by coyotes.

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 by tmossman · 2006-02-20 21:43 · Score: 5, Informative

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?

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:
More animal fat in the diet meant not only additional energy, but also a source of ready-formed long chain PUFAs, including AA, DTA(docosatetraenoic acid (DTA, C22:4, w-3), and DHA. These three fatty acids together make up over 90% of the long chain PUFA (i.e. the structurally significant and biochemically active fat) found in the brain gray matter of all mammalian species. (Sinclair, 1975)
Re:Pretty Obvious by maxpublic · 2006-02-21 00:12 · Score: 5, Interesting

but hunting is considered rather instrumental in our evolution as a species.

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

--
My god carries a hammer. Your god died nailed to a tree. Any questions?
Re:Pretty Obvious by jc42 · 2006-02-21 02:13 · Score: 2, Informative

The only branch of humanity that was any good at all at hunting was the much-maligned Neanderthal.

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-century Europeans routinely represented all humans except themselves as brutes with little intelligence or culture. The popular image of Neanderthals was not very different from the popular images of other groups of people.

The general scientific image is more along the lines of the comment that if you were transport a typical Neanderthal to today, give him a shave and a haircut, dress him in modern clothes, and drop him off anywhere in Europe, nobody would give him a second glance. He would be somewhat taller, wider, and paler than the average European, but well within the modern norm. He'd look a lot like a modern Scot or Swede. And his diet would be only slightly more carnivorous than theirs.

An interesting aspect to the idea that early humans mostly killed small prey is that the studies of wild chimpanzees have turned up pretty much the same story. It seems that chimps typically get 5% to 20% of their protein from insects, small birds, and small mammals. Hunting of such small game is more of a "great ape" characteristic, and almost certainly pre-dates the hominid line. Simple tool use has been reported in chimps to help catch their prey, so we can't even count that as a "uniquely human" development. We're better at it, but we didn't invent the first hunting tools.

Of course, popular beliefs are often at odds with the scientific evidence.

--
Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
Re:Pretty Obvious by VAXcat · 2006-02-21 02:41 · Score: 3, Insightful

Interesting...but, what about all of the evolutionary adaptations in humans that are ascribed to their evolution as cursorial hunters, who could run down their prey? The human ability to continue rinning for long periods of time that are not present in other mammals? For example, the ability to cool ourselves by sweating? I studied biology a long time ago, and back then, these adaptations were supposed to have allowed early man to chase much faster animals until they were exhausted. Has this theory been discredited?

--
There is no God, and Dirac is his prophet.
Re:Pretty Obvious by rgoldste · 2006-02-21 07:32 · Score: 2, Interesting

I haven't heard of this explanation, and I took several biology and anthropology courses in college.

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 "man the hunter" is it's quite difficult to falsify its claims (meaning, of course, it can't be a scientific theory).

But as long as we're in the realm of speculation, the explanation of why we can run long distances makes no sense. Humans evolved as an edge species, on the border of the jungle. If an animal could outrun us, it would probably duck into the underbrush, climb a tree, or just disappear in the darkness, and it wouldn't matter that the pursuing human could run for another mile before feeling tired.

Or... by Kra+Z+Joe · 2006-02-20 20:12 · Score: 3, Insightful

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..."

Funeral customs by jcr · 2006-02-20 20:12 · Score: 5, Interesting

Someone mentioned to me several years ago, that nearly all human societies have customs for disposing of dead bodies that would tend to prevent predators from knowing that humans were something to eat. Burying someone six feet deep, for example, makes it rather unlikely that a lion or a bear would smell the body and dig it up.

-jcr

--
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."

Re:Funeral customs by microarray · 2006-02-20 20:26 · Score: 2, Insightful

Maybe, or perhaps the custom arose out of a necessity to prevent the spread of infectious diseases (where they were the cause of death) or other harmful organisms that consume the body. Or maybe both are a factor. Perhaps dead bodies just smell bad :)
Re:Funeral customs by drgonzo59 · 2006-02-20 20:36 · Score: 4, Insightful

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!"
Re:Funeral customs by Anonymous Coward · 2006-02-20 20:52 · Score: 3, Insightful

An interesting thought, but in that case funerals must have evolved after humans stopped being a prey-species. If the all the predators were eating humans on a routinely basis then there would be no need to hide the fact that we are fairly tasty.
By the way the dead of the parsees (Zoroasters followers), were traditionally been given to vultures.
Re: Funeral customs by Black+Parrot · 2006-02-21 01:04 · Score: 2, Interesting

> 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!"

That's why you're supposed to eat his brain, shrink his head, and hang it from the rear-view mirror in your car.

--
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade

Huh by pmc257cool · 2006-02-20 20:28 · Score: 2, Funny

*Fire in the hole!* die you son of a... *GO GO GO!* got your camping n00b ass.... *Storm the Front!*.. huh? what? oh, I beg to differ

comment doesn't make sense by circletimessquare · 2006-02-20 20:29 · Score: 4, Insightful

"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

Re:comment doesn't make sense by Paua+Fritter · 2006-02-20 23:38 · Score: 2, Insightful

Zhou En Lai was deliberately misquoting Clausewitz. Read the quote again and you'll see that Zhou inverted it.

Not suprising... by Cyno01 · 2006-02-20 20:41 · Score: 4, Interesting

Stuff was bigger back then. We were smaller, and weve always been naked squishy monkeys. Something interesting along these lines, the universal dragon myth, in which similar creatures (dragons) exist independently in different cultures (asian, european, even native american), is thought to stem from an amalgamation of early human predators left over in some sort of instinctive memory. Lions' jaws and claws, body of a snake, wings of an eagle (yes, eagles were big enough to prey on humans), and fire.

--
"Sic Semper Tyrannosaurus Rex."

early humans? by opencity · 2006-02-20 20:42 · Score: 3, Interesting

Will Durant (I think) suggested civilization began when, instead of eating our vanquished enemy, we enslaved him. AANAAnthropologist but what are the preditors back before agriculture? My guess, the big cats. My other guess, tribalism was probably based on banding together for protection against the really big hungry guy - who was a fellow early human.

--
Physics is like sex: sure, it may give some practical results, but that's not why we do it.

Old news by Epeeist · 2006-02-20 20:46 · Score: 4, Insightful

> 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.

The menu by Savage-Rabbit · 2006-02-20 21:06 · Score: 4, Interesting

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.

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.

--
Only to idiots, are orders laws.
-- Henning von Tresckow

War and violence by CaptainCarrot · 2006-02-20 21:21 · Score: 4, Insightful

"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.

Re:War and violence by TapeCutter · 2006-02-21 01:32 · Score: 2, Informative

"Animals hunt in herds and packs too. Are they a society too?"

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.

--
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.

does this statement not make sense to anyone else? by interactive_civilian · 2006-02-20 21:33 · Score: 4, Insightful

from TFA and TFSummary:

'This may have driven humans to evolve increased levels of co-operation, according to their theory.'

Statements like this bother me...a lot.

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

The news? by tchernobog · 2006-02-20 21:56 · Score: 3, Interesting

Not to be harsh, but this theory is around since at least middle '80s. They taught it to me at primary school, here in Italy.

--
42.

How they figured this out by commodoresloat · 2006-02-20 22:04 · Score: 4, Funny

They found a book written by prehistoric birds called "How to Serve Man"

Nothings changed. by DesertEagleMan · 2006-02-20 22:05 · Score: 2, Insightful

Honestly, has anything really changed? I bet ya that if we dropped slashdotters in the African wilderness, they would still be on the menus of some of natures meanest beasts... add to that the fact that many here devolved and lost their sociable characteristics and BAM!.. bottom of the food chain.

Re:Nothings changed. by dodobh · 2006-02-21 04:39 · Score: 2, Insightful

Except that in our current environments, _we_ are the meanest around.

What was your username again?

--
I can throw myself at the ground, and miss.

Pleistocene Holocene Megafauna extinction by core+plexus · 2006-02-20 22:26 · Score: 5, Interesting

I just read an article stating that humans had nothing to do woth the extinction of megafauna, and in fact it was due to rapid climate change.

" 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 by TapeCutter · 2006-02-21 00:38 · Score: 2, Informative

It is very likely that climate change played a major role in that particular episode, however there are many episodes of mass extinctions unrelated to climate.

--
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
Re:Pleistocene Holocene Megafauna extinction by katorga · 2006-02-21 04:16 · Score: 3, Insightful

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.
Re:Pleistocene Holocene Megafauna extinction by angel'o'sphere · 2006-02-21 05:36 · Score: 2, 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 actual period of reapidly increasing of average temperatures in conjunction with the extreme increasing of greenhouse gases.

The period of "global warming" you mention was several thousand years ago and took place very slowly, over several thousand years. The actual "global warming" is now (which makes it slightly more interesting) and is much much much faster ... over only 30 years .

angel'o'sphere

--
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.

Re:does this statement not make sense to anyone el by Jim_Callahan · 2006-02-20 22:28 · Score: 4, Insightful

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. ~

Re:Now wait a minute! by nick1000 · 2006-02-20 23:17 · Score: 2, Funny

I'm thinking about proving the clitoris has something to do with female orgasms

Really???
F.U.D.

old news... by acroyear · 2006-02-21 00:13 · Score: 2, Informative

The making of on the DVD Walking with [Prehistoric] Beasts for the BBC showed the evidence that Austrolopithacines were hunted by dinofelis and other cats (sabretooth and not) 3.4 million years ago. The markings on the human skulls, when put next to the cat skulls, are unmistakably teeth.

--
"But remember, most lynch mobs aren't this nice." (H.Simpson)
-- Joe

cause and effect by steveoc · 2006-02-21 00:17 · Score: 3, Funny

So let me get this logic straight ...

- 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 .. looked at each other and said ....

'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 .. whats your name bro ?'

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 .. but I much prefer my theory instead.

Re:cause and effect by Alsee · 2006-02-21 10:24 · Score: 2, Funny

No, they were evolved to keep the lions away.

If you were a lion, would YOU risk eating a human if there were a random chance you'd get a mouthfull of lawyer or telemarketer?

-

--
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.

Holy clear thinking, Batman! by ScentCone · 2006-02-21 00:38 · Score: 4, Funny

Damn, that was... well, lucid. Waking up to a rational, articulate, informed slashdot comment is just completely unsettling in a bracing sort of way. Thanks! Must... get... bad... coffee... to... counter... effects.

--
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.

An ethical menu by simul · 2006-02-21 01:21 · Score: 2, Insightful

You might try distinguishing between "Want to eat" and "Need to eat" in your ethics. If I "Want" to eat a blue whale, say to see how it tastes, that doesn't necessarily make it a sound and ethical decision to go off killing such a large and rare beast.

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 totally justified.

Of course, anyone can use wild examples and edge-cases to argue a "Need" down to a "Want" and vice-versa. But I think we all have a sense of what's "reasonable" here (arguable need for protien in diets), and what's at the edge of reason (wanting to eat whale meat).

Certainly, regardless of your particular views, the ethics of killing and eating things changes as our power as a species changes over time.

IMHO, our desire to kill and eat animals is based more on childish whimsy today than on any sort of reasonably argued "Need".

Songlines and dogs by Flying+pig · 2006-02-21 01:39 · Score: 2, Interesting

In Chatwin's Songlines, he argues for the sabre tooth being the human predator and that a lot of our culture and mythology derive from this.

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)

--
Pining for the fjords

Dragon Myths and Cave Bears by Gr8Apes · 2006-02-21 03:58 · Score: 2, Interesting

According to some show on PBS/Discovery/BBC not that long ago (sorry, don't recall which or what show), they made the seemingly plausible statement that dragon myths were supported by the findings of Cave Bear skeletons, at least for the European dragon myths. These skeletons must have looked ferocious to those that found them after their extinction 15000 years ago, being up to 20 feet long. They certainly bore little resemblance to the current bear population in Europe.

--
The cesspool just got a check and balance.

Re:Dragon Myths and Cave Bears by angel'o'sphere · 2006-02-21 11:46 · Score: 2, Interesting

I think the explanaition or Dragons is simpler.

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 ;D

angel'o'sphere

--
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.

evolution of behaviours by Rozzin · 2006-02-21 06:20 · Score: 2, Insightful

"Take, for instance, any form of acquired behavior.

Wrong. Thank you for playing. Features aquired while alive (not counting genetic mutations in the sperm/egg or genome of an asexually reproducing organism) do NOT get passed on."

Well, not genetically, but they might go out the same way that they came in. Vocation, for example--I'm an X, as my father before me who taught me the way as did his before him. Or religious traditions, for another: I know plenty of people who were taught to celebrate christmast by their parents, and those parents by their parents, and so on. Religious tradition is another one: are christmast-lights transfered genetically? No. Do they transfer? Yes. Consider also, as, as he wrote, just about any other form of acquired behaviour.

--
-rozzin.

62 of 307 comments (clear)