Slashdot Mirror


Cooking Stimulated Big Leap In Human Cognition

Hugh Pickens writes "For a long time, humans were pretty dumb, doing little but make 'the same very boring stone tools for almost 2 million years,' says Philipp Khaitovich of the Partner Institute for Computational Biology in Shanghai. Then, 150,000 years ago, our big brains suddenly got smart. We started innovating. We tried different materials. We started creating art and maybe even religion. To understand what caused the cognitive spurt, researchers examined chemical brain processes known to have changed in the past 200,000 years. Comparing apes and humans, they found the most robust differences were for processes involved in energy metabolism. The finding suggests that increased access to calories spurred our cognitive advances, although definitive claims of causation are premature. In most animals, the gut needs a lot of energy to grind out nourishment from food sources. But cooking, by breaking down fibers and making nutrients more readily available, is a way of processing food outside the body. Eating (mostly) cooked meals would have lessened the energy needs of our digestion systems, thereby freeing up calories for our brains. Today, humans have relatively small digestive systems and allocate around 20% of their total energy to the brain, compared to approximately 13% for non-human primates and 2-8% for other vertebrates. While other theories for the brain's cognitive spurt have not been ruled out, the finding sheds light on what made us, as Khaitovich put it, 'so strange compared to other animals.'"

13 of 473 comments (clear)

  1. AUGGGHHH by nawcom · · Score: 5, Funny

    We man got smarts by cooking meats you vegan bitches!!! UGH-UGH-UGH-UGH-UGH (think Home Improvement)

    1. Re:AUGGGHHH by ScreamingCactus · · Score: 5, Funny

      Yeah that's exactly what women look for in a man: intelligence.

      --
      The path to enlightenment is truly through homemade drugs!
    2. Re:AUGGGHHH by Rei · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Actually, this implies just the opposite. Cell membranes (meat) are easy for the body to break down. Cell walls (plants) are quite difficult, and cooking greatly facilitates their digestion. Cooking meat usually somewhat increases its caloric density (by driving water off, making it denser), but *decreases* its total calories (by driving fat off and breaking some proteins down). Cooking plants doesn't increase their calories, but generally makes them more bioavailable. It also lets you eat a more diverse variety of plants; many wild plants are toxic in their uncooked form, and heat denatures the toxins. In many more, heat won't denature the toxins, but repeated boils in changes of water can get rid of them. And, apart from some certain hunter gatherer societies (such as the Innuit), most hunter-gatherer groups get about 80% of their calories from plants.

      So, really, it's just the opposite of what you're suggesting.

      --
      "Define 'interesting'". "Oh God, oh God, we're all gonna die?"
    3. Re:AUGGGHHH by rrkap · · Score: 5, Funny

      It helps that we cooked veggies too.

      I mean, what is a burger without pickles, grilled onions, grilled mushrooms, and bread?

      Meatloaf.

      --
      I like my beverages with warning labels!
  2. Re:Suddenly... by Rosco+P.+Coltrane · · Score: 5, Informative

    I'm betting there's a giant black monolith involved ... (cue Richard Strauss music)

    There, fixed that for you.

    --
    "A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
  3. Wait, what? by CorporateSuit · · Score: 5, Funny

    Something seems out of order here...

    1. Sit on duff for 2 million years being too stupid to invent anything
    2. ???
    3. Invent cooking
    4. Get smart enough to invent things, like cooking
    5. Profit!

    I've heard homeless men coming up with more logical explanations than this.

    --
    I am the richest astronaut ever to win the superbowl.
  4. The start of the Singularity... by argent · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The singularity model (some say fantasy, some say theory, call it what you will) is basically that once technology can be used to improve intelligence you get a feedback loop that leads to a society and environment that is literally incomprehensible to the people on the low side of the singularity. This is usually proposed in terms of *designing* brains that are smarter than the ones that designed them, but there's no reason to rule out less fantastic advances as part of the same process.

    I think this qualifies as a singularity, from the point of view of the pre-humans.

    1. Re:The start of the Singularity... by argent · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I gather the idea is that the singularity is the point at which the rate of change is so great that it's almost "vertical", and I'm not sure this would look that way even to proto-humans.

      If the rate of change is so flat that it's not perceptible over a single lifespan, which is implied by the comment that it took 2 million years to get from the hand axe to cooking, then everything else has happened in 150 millennia. From that point, what's happened in the past 150 centuries might mostly be comprehensible, but what's happened over the past 150 decades would look pretty close to vertical... and the past 150 years is definitely post-singularity for them.

      The singularity isn't an event, and there isn't just one event horizon... think about falling into a black hole: once you pass the event horizon you don't stop there, you keep falling, and there's always another event horizon just ahead of you. Technology is like that: it's a process, and from a distant enough viewpoint we are already on the far side of an event horizon.

    2. Re:The start of the Singularity... by naoursla · · Score: 5, Insightful

      One tenant of the technological singularity is that we are completely unequipped to predict what the other side will look like. Our pre-cooking, small brain energy ancestors would certainly be unequipped to predict today's world.

      I like your analogy.

  5. Re:Enabler, not cause. by spun · · Score: 5, Informative

    There is animal language, art, culture, and economics. Animals aren't self-analytical, but they are minimally creative and have abstract communication.

    Primates and parrots have been taught vocabularies equivalent to preschoolers. They recognize abstractions such as number and color. They not only make tools, but different populations make different kinds of tools. They pass this knowledge on to their offspring, indicating the existence of culture. Some animals have rudimentary economics and can recognize fair and unfair trades. And even birds create art, though if you are speaking of representational art, the list is much smaller.

    --
    - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
  6. Re:Enabler, not cause. by fastest+fascist · · Score: 5, Informative

    On animal language, I think the jury's still out. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_language

    Art? Depends on your definition. Whale songs aren't understood, dolphins (and other animals) certainly seem to play and generally "do stuff" just for the hell of it. We have a hard time defining human art these days, I'd reserve judgement on non-humans...

    Science? True, I'm not aware of any systematic attempts to understand the world building on the experiences of others. I'm not sure I'd call it a fundamental trait, though. It's certainly important to mankind as we know it, but science in my opinion is enabled by too many more fundamental abilities of the human mind to be considered fundamental itself.

    Law? There are certainly hierarchies and rules in animal societies. Nothing written down, and no trials as far as I know. Morals, concepts of right and wrong? Hard to say. That requires empathy, primates might exhibit something like a sense of moral.

    Culture? What do you mean by culture? I addressed the art part of culture above, that leaves customs specific to a society of animals. I don't think you can just plain say there are no different cultures in animal societies.

    No literature? True, no argument.I Don't think it's fundamental in the sense I meant, though. It's a function enabled by a higher degree of intelligence.

    Economics... Well, hard to say again. Economics as the systematic study of transactions and their effects on society? No, you won't find that. Understanding of profit versus risk? Certainly on some level that's there. Here's a New Scientist article on macaque monkeys paying for sex: http://www.newscientist.com/channel/sex/mg19726374.100-macaque-monkeys-pay-for-sex.html

    As for self-analytical, any being that learns from experience is in a sense self-analytical.

    Creative? Every species has at some point learned new tricks. Monkeys use sticks to fish for insects - I don't think that's a trait hard wired into their brain. Once upon a time, a monkey got creative and learned the trick, then probably a portion of the other members of the species were smart enough to learn the trick, having seen it, or maybe only that one monkey was clever enough, but by learning a good new trick, gained a clear reproductive edge over the others, and some of it's offspring were sufficiently smart to either learn the trick by seeing it performed, or by figuring it out themselves. And so on. In any case, at some point, a monkey got creative.

    Abstract communication? Maybe, frankly I'm not fully sure what you even mean by that. My point is, people have historically been very keen on making these blanket statements on just how we fundamentally are different from the rest of the animals (or, often, "the animals"), and the claims tend to not hold up to scrutiny. The human mind is a remarkably complex thing, but it is born of the nervous system, which is a product of evolution. It's tempting to think of some kind of magic point of complexity or whatever you wish to think creates consciousness where a mind turns from animal to human, but I don't think we'll find one. Consciousness is not something you either have or don't, there are degrees. Sometimes we're not conscious of our actions, like when driving a car down a long, straight road. It's not inconceivable that a being could be more conscious than a human being, so I don't think it's inconceivable that a being could be less so, and still be conscious. It's a matter of degree.

  7. Re:And Prometheus said... by thermian · · Score: 5, Funny

    Fire. Is there ANYTHING it can't do?

    Stop your liver being pecked out each day by a giant Eagle, apparently.....

    --
    A learning experience is one of those things that say, 'You know that thing you just did? Don't do that.' - D. Adams
  8. Re:An interesting experiment by myrdos2 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Ten years ago I helped raise Russian wild boars. They have incredible instincts. We used to joke that the boars had a wiretap inside of our kitchen. In the morning, we'd discuss which boar to kill. We'd get all ready, load the gun, and step outside. The pigs would look up from behind their fence, give a grunt of alarm, and the one we had chosen would run off into the bush. The rest would settle down and continue eating.

    Trapping them for transport was also quite challenging. We had a small pen with a portcullis-style drop down gate. You'd drop the gate by pulling on a string. It was easy enough to lure the boars in there with food, but dropping the gate was another matter entirely. Even with ten meters of string, the boar would run out before we got close enough to pull it. We had to resort to seemingly unnecessary measures like 50 meters of string, which would be pulled while out of sight behind a building.

    But if we weren't trapping anything that day, we could get as close as we wanted and they'd stay happily eating in the pen. They could also tell when the electric fence was down, and there'd be escapes if the power was out for more than a few hours.