Slashdot Mirror


'Staying Longer At Home' Was Key To Stone Age Technology Change 60,000 Years Ago (phys.org)

A new study by scientists at the University of the Witwatersrand suggests that at about 58,000 years ago, Stone Age humans began to settle down, staying in one area for longer periods. The research also provides a potential answer to a long-held mystery: why older, Howiesons Poort complex technological tradition in South Africa, suddenly disappear at that time. Phys.Org reports: The Howiesons Poort at Sibudu contains many finely-worked, crescent-shaped stone tools fashioned from long, thin blades made on dolerite, hornfels and, to a lesser extent, quartz. These "segments," as they are called, were hafted to shafts or handles at a variety of angles using compound adhesives that sometimes included red ochre (an iron oxide). A diverse bone tool kit in the Howiesons Poort includes what may be the world's oldest bone arrowhead. Certainly a variety of hunting techniques was used perhaps including the first use of snares for the capture of small creatures. The animal remains brought to Sibudu reflect this diversity for there are bones from large plains game like zebra, tiny blue duiker, and even pigeons and small carnivores. Soft, clayey ochre pieces were collected in the Howiesons Poort perhaps at a considerable distance From Sibudu. Clayey ochre is useful for applying as paint. The beautiful Howiesons Poort industry with its long, thin blades is replaced at 58,000 years ago by a simple technology that could be rapidly produced. Coarse rocks like quartzite and sandstone became popular. These could be collected close to Sibudu. Post-Howiesons Poort tools were part of an unstandardized toolkit with triangular or irregularly-shaped flakes. Tiny scaled pieces were also produced using a bipolar technique (in the simplest terms this involves smashing a small piece of rock with a hammerstone). The study has been published in the journal PlosOne.

74 comments

  1. Still true today by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Working from home has really been key to me improving my life as well.

  2. Race to the bottom by Comboman · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The beautiful Howiesons Poort industry with its long, thin blades is replaced at 58,000 years ago by a simple technology that could be rapidly produced.

    Skilled craftsmen replaced by cheap labor. Who knew it was a tradition 58,000 years old.

    --
    Support Right To Repair Legislation.
    1. Re:Race to the bottom by geekmux · · Score: 2

      The beautiful Howiesons Poort industry with its long, thin blades is replaced at 58,000 years ago by a simple technology that could be rapidly produced.

      Skilled craftsmen replaced by cheap labor. Who knew it was a tradition 58,000 years old.

      Greed is timeless.

      So much so that unless we solve for the disease of Greed, we will be ultimately destroyed by it.

    2. Re:Race to the bottom by Drethon · · Score: 1

      The beautiful Howiesons Poort industry with its long, thin blades is replaced at 58,000 years ago by a simple technology that could be rapidly produced.

      Skilled craftsmen replaced by cheap labor. Who knew it was a tradition 58,000 years old.

      Greed is timeless.

      So much so that unless we solve for the disease of Greed, we will be ultimately destroyed by it.

      Greed and efficiency can differ depending on the eye of the beholder...

    3. Re:Race to the bottom by CaptainDork · · Score: 1

      Kinda funny, but not relevant.

      ... about 58,000 years ago, Stone Age humans began to settle down, staying in one area for longer periods.

      TFA compares craftsmanship pre/post, but does not address the effectiveness of the tools.

      If raw materials close to home can be worked more rapidly and get the job done, the fact that the aesthetics suffered (judged by more modern beings who didn't live in that moment) is moot.

      Apparently, productivity did not suffer.

      --
      It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
    4. Re:Race to the bottom by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Greed and efficiency are related, because one is simply a subjective judgement on the other.

      If a craftsman can create a nice pretty and highly functional arrowhead in 18 hours, and an journeyman can make one every hour using simpler techniques, he can build 18 arrowheads in the same time as a craftsman can make in an hour, and that has its own advantages. You can call that "greed" all you want, but when trading time comes, the guy with 18 arrowheads is gonna get more in trade than the guy with only one, even if it is better constructed and prettier. Though the nice one will likely end up with the chief / prince / king as a ceremonial piece that is never actually used.

      Greed (subjective interpretation) is, for lack of better understanding, how trade actually works. After all, what does Uggah need with 18 semi automatic arrowheads?

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    5. Re:Race to the bottom by Comboman · · Score: 1

      Kinda funny, but not relevant.

      Thanks, that's my goal. They don't give mod points for relevance.

      --
      Support Right To Repair Legislation.
    6. Re:Race to the bottom by smooth+wombat · · Score: 0

      Says the person who is probably, based on what is said on this site, either a programmer or self-employed. Or both.

      Either way, I'm sure you never go for the highest paying job. Wouldn't want to be greedy.

      --
      We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
    7. Re:Race to the bottom by gurps_npc · · Score: 1

      It wasn't skilled, it was beautiful.

      What we have here is a case of people not knowing how to make good blades, so instead they made pretty ones.

      Once they figured out how to make GOOD blades, they found them so useful that it no longer made sense to pretty them up. Instead they made a ton of the new, improved technology, but did not have time to make beautiful works of art.

      --
      excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
    8. Re:Race to the bottom by Drethon · · Score: 1

      Greed and efficiency are related, because one is simply a subjective judgement on the other.

      If a craftsman can create a nice pretty and highly functional arrowhead in 18 hours, and an journeyman can make one every hour using simpler techniques, he can build 18 arrowheads in the same time as a craftsman can make in an hour, and that has its own advantages. You can call that "greed" all you want, but when trading time comes, the guy with 18 arrowheads is gonna get more in trade than the guy with only one, even if it is better constructed and prettier. Though the nice one will likely end up with the chief / prince / king as a ceremonial piece that is never actually used.

      Greed (subjective interpretation) is, for lack of better understanding, how trade actually works. After all, what does Uggah need with 18 semi automatic arrowheads?

      Well stated.

    9. Re: Race to the bottom by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We'll ultimately be destroyed by greed?

      Given that our ancestors were so successful at survival and propagation that we are arguing about this 58 thousand years later, I'd say that they were doing something right.

    10. Re:Race to the bottom by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      This comment strikes as from someone that knows how to string words together, but does not know what the words mean and has nothing to actually say.

      Greed is not a subjective interpretation or judgement. It is a value.

      Trade is not inherit to existence. For nearly all of the last 320,000 years, hominids making better use of materials or time meant they had to do less work, not that they should do the same and profit more. Archeological evidence clearly shows this. Never do we see "Ugghah" with piles and piles of microliths in the way we would see a medieval fletcher do the same.

      Greed and efficiency are as related as gluttony and baking. One method to achieve a vice, but could be used in other ways as well.

      This is all obvious for people with the most rudimentary liberal education.

    11. Re:Race to the bottom by wyHunter · · Score: 1

      Indeed, if we stop the idea that we should do things with fewer resources, less time, and ultimately more cheaply, we'll all die because we can't support 7 billion people on earth with 1800s technology. But of course, that is probably what you'd like.

    12. Re: Race to the bottom by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree with your sentiment, but claiming that will die out if our civilization collapses is absurd. We lived for millions of years without civilization.
      Most of us may die, yes, but that will only set us back some hundreds or thousands of years population-wise.

    13. Re:Race to the bottom by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If a craftsman can create a nice pretty and highly functional arrowhead in 18 hours, and an journeyman can make one every hour using simpler techniques, he can build 18 arrowheads in the same time as a craftsman can make in an hour, and that has its own advantages. You can call that "greed" all you want, but when trading time comes, the guy with 18 arrowheads is gonna get more in trade than the guy with only one, even if it is better constructed and prettier. Though the nice one will likely end up with the chief / prince / king as a ceremonial piece that is never actually used.

      You completely forgot about product quality. You shouldn't oversimplify economic situation (trade) as cost and profit without quality because then you are misleading what trade is (quantity is equal to quality) in order to support your bias.

    14. Re:Race to the bottom by geekmux · · Score: 1

      Greed and efficiency are related, because one is simply a subjective judgement on the other.

      If a craftsman can create a nice pretty and highly functional arrowhead in 18 hours, and an journeyman can make one every hour using simpler techniques, he can build 18 arrowheads in the same time as a craftsman can make in an hour, and that has its own advantages. You can call that "greed" all you want, but when trading time comes, the guy with 18 arrowheads is gonna get more in trade than the guy with only one, even if it is better constructed and prettier. Though the nice one will likely end up with the chief / prince / king as a ceremonial piece that is never actually used.

      Greed (subjective interpretation) is, for lack of better understanding, how trade actually works. After all, what does Uggah need with 18 semi automatic arrowheads?

      Your arguments and examples are outdated and therefore irrelevant when the next generation of craftsman aren't human. Automation and AI are the next workforce, which society does not have a plan as to how to sustain and reward an unemployable human.

      What brings on automation and AI? Obscene Greed does. It's the CEO who refuses to pay a living wage so they can maintain millions in bonuses by replacing human workers with robots. It's the company who labels shitty AI good enough to replace human workers. All in order to feed an ever-widening chasm between the irrelevant 99% and the elitist 1%.

      Of course, people will argue that we'll usher in the concept of UBI to pay the unemployable masses in order to survive. Yeah, we'll just ask the elitists to fund UBI. After all, we never have any problems getting the rich to pay their fair share of taxes, right? Yes, I'm sure they won't mind funding plenty of money for everyone to live and prosper. Sarcasm aside, history will dictate reality. Obscene Greed would prefer to let the irrelevant die off instead.

      As I said before, unless we solve for the disease of Greed, we will be consumed by it.

  3. Not the whole story by spaceman375 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    It seems to me that there still would have been traders and other travelers. If the Howiesons Poort tech was so much better there would have been demand for the raw materials. Perhaps they were decimated by inter-tribal warfare. Travel also spreads disease, so a plague or two could have brought them down. There are more factors to this than one simple explanation.

    --
    On the one hand you take life too seriously, and on the other, you do not take playful existence seriously enough. Seth
    1. Re:Not the whole story by Baron_Yam · · Score: 2

      > If the Howiesons Poort tech was so much better there would have been demand

      There are so many possibilities, most of which involve them being killed by more numerous but lower-tech neighbours. After all, we're not talking about the difference between a spear and a rifle, or even between a sword and a longbow. So I think, "We want your tools", "We want your tool makers", "You compete with us for food and land and have to go" are the most likely motivations to wipe them out.

      Disease and trade wouldn't even be in my top 10 - but I'm not an anthropologist, never mind an expert on Howiesons Poort societies.

    2. Re:Not the whole story by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Wasn't there a late Bronze Age collapse where trade networks failed?

      I don't see why it wouldn't happen in the stone age as well.

    3. Re: Not the whole story by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Perhaps they were decimated by inter-tribal warfare.

      I don't think that's possible. We're talking about pre-Colonial South Africa. My professor said that all Indigenous Africans, like all Indigenous Americans, lived peacefully until Europeans arrived. It was only then that these peaceful Indigenous Peoples were introduced to the atrocities of violence and warfare be these European colonizers.

    4. Re:Not the whole story by CaptainDork · · Score: 1

      TFA is not about an extinction event.

      --
      It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
    5. Re:Not the whole story by Baron_Yam · · Score: 2

      It absolutely is - a cultural extinction.

    6. Re:Not the whole story by jeff4747 · · Score: 1

      Keep in mind the population was much, much, much, much, much lower than what we consider "ancient" times. And technology used for trading had not been invented yet - no mass domestication of animals, and the wheel was invented ~50,000 years later.

      There could very well have been no traders.

    7. Re:Not the whole story by CaptainDork · · Score: 1

      Nice dodge. Trump is hiring.

      --
      It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
    8. Re:Not the whole story by Baron_Yam · · Score: 2

      I was trying to have an intelligent conversation, but apparently you're either not interested or not capable of that.

      Have you tried Reddit?

    9. Re: Not the whole story by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      I think your professor was over-generalizing. Pre-Contact American societies may have been relatively less warlike than the Europeans, but things were definitely not uniformly kumbaya in the Americas. There is lots of archeologcal evidence of people coming to violent deaths in warfare.

      Africa, especially in the north and toward the Equator, tended to be even more violent than Europe.

      The best quote, I think, of Ken Burn's The Vietnam War is from Karl Marlantes, an ex-Marine: "One of the things that I learned in the war is that we're not the top species on the planet because we're nice. People talk a lot about how well the military turns, you know, kids into, you know, killing machines and stuff, and I'll always argue it's just finishing school."

      So no, don't discount the possibility of inter-tribal warfare.

    10. Re: Not the whole story by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      *Whoooosh*.

    11. Re:Not the whole story by CaptainDork · · Score: 1

      Of the two choices you suggest: Interest or capability, it's actually neither.

      I looked at reddit right after it amped up and I avoid that shit hole like I do the comment section of most Facebook news stories.

      --
      It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
    12. Re: Not the whole story by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > There is lots of archeologcal evidence of people coming to violent deaths in warfare.

      Yep, sometimes cannibalized, not to mention widespread slavery. something something brown privilege.

    13. Re:Not the whole story by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, you don't get those kind of population decimating diseases at that density. They require cities of a size that didn't exist until much, much later.

  4. How can they tell if a rock is a "tool"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The article has this picture which shows some of the alleged "tools".

    Years ago my uncle had a dirt and gravel business. He had piles of stones 20 feet high that looked just like those in that picture, that he had crushed from larger rocks.

    How can these scientists be so sure that such stones are actually tools of some sort? Just because a rock has a sharp edge doesn't prove that it has been intentionally worked by humans and used as a tool. Depending on the type of rock, just breaking a larger boulder (which could happen completely naturally, without human intervention) can give stones with sharp edges, or otherwise cause markings on the stones.

    It's one thing when we're talking about an Amerindian arrow head, which has a defined shape and very specific machining that would be quite unlikely to happen in nature. But the rocks shown in the article's picture look like gravel. They have no specific shapes. They have no obvious signs of being worked by humans. They look like plain gravel.

    1. Re: How can they tell if a rock is a "tool"? by fortfive · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      First climatology, now archaeology. Not even /. Is immune from the spread of anti-science.

    2. Re:How can they tell if a rock is a "tool"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you can also find similar items in river beds, I have collected some.. they cant all be tools.

    3. Re:How can they tell if a rock is a "tool"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Years ago, my uncle was banging your aunt and your mother while your uncle was crushing stone.

      Now stfu, cuz.

    4. Re: How can they tell if a rock is a "tool"? by AvitarX · · Score: 3, Insightful

      This is a real issue that archaeologists are having.

      I don't know what's being shown in the arrows in the picture you linked, but one if the hopes is that better 3D scanning/mapping will help differentiate accidental/natural and intentional marks.

      I've seen the discussion most heated in trying to look at what other primates are up to, as there's some debate about their tool use, and tools to make tools use

      --
      Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
    5. Re:How can they tell if a rock is a "tool"? by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      I ain't no anthropologist, but:
      1. If you find stones away from where they would have been quarried or carried by water.
      2. If you find animal/human remains on the stones.
      3. If you find stone marks on animal/human remains.
      4. If you find the quarry.
      5. You find them in trash piles.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    6. Re:How can they tell if a rock is a "tool"? by wisdom_brewing · · Score: 1

      Uhm... Your uncle had crushed them from larger rocks => they are man-made, no?

    7. Re: How can they tell if a rock is a "tool"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Rock crushers just randomly smash rocks into one another repeatedly until they break. There's not much control over where they break, or how they break, or what the edges are like, or how they're shaped. It's not much different from some natural force, such as water or glaciers, that can break apart rock. That's probably what the GP is saying. The pictured rocks could very well have been formed completely naturally, without human involvement.

    8. Re:How can they tell if a rock is a "tool"? by Allasard · · Score: 4, Informative
      Percussion impacts
      You can see best from Fig 1. in your link. They aren't randomly flaked, but usually in a pattern of larger to smaller flakes to create a fine edge. And I think the other figures are showing what are known as "hammers" that were used to create the blades. They would show repeated impacts in the same place or scratches in a certain area.

      That aren't just random crushed rocks, if you know what you are looking for.

    9. Re: How can they tell if a rock is a "tool"? by Khyber · · Score: 1

      "Rock crushers just randomly smash rocks into one another repeatedly until they break. There's not much control over where they break, or how they break, or what the edges are like, or how they're shaped."

      Many rocks and minerals have these things called lines of cleavage. Back to school for you, child.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    10. Re: How can they tell if a rock is a "tool"? by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      Nonsense, all those issues about the resulting crushed rock are considered by the engineers designing the machine. It isn't at all "random" as you say; they don't assemble random collections of parts until they achieve some sort of rock crushing, instead they determine how they want the end product and design the machine accordingly.

      If you knew anything about what crushed rocks gets used for and how many sizes and grades there are, you're realize how stupid the "random" stuff sounds.

    11. Re:How can they tell if a rock is a "tool"? by WrongMonkey · · Score: 1

      He had piles of stones 20 feet high that looked just like those in that picture, that he had crushed from larger rocks

      In other words, you didn't just find natural stone that you looked similar, your uncle used tools to create that pile of stones. There's your answer right there... a pile of stones with similar sharp edges implies human activities. Especially if the stones type different from indigenous stones in the immediate vicinity.

  5. Sheds by Hognoxious · · Score: 2

    As any fule kno, you can't invent anything unless you have a shed.

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  6. Longer at home by sdinfoserv · · Score: 3, Funny

    "staying longer at home"! So primitive humans were actually today's millennials!

    1. Re:Longer at home by Opportunist · · Score: 2

      Just imagine what tools they'll come up with, slamming their iPhones against each other.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    2. Re:Longer at home by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, most millennials I know are firmly in the Android camp. They think they're so cool because of teh Linuxxx!!!! The fact is that they run Windows at home of they own a PC and don't know a crontab from the table they wipe down at their "job."

    3. Re:Longer at home by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, most millennials I know....from the table they wipe down at their "job."

      Ahh. So you must be the cook in the back with bad BO that nobody likes talking to.

  7. Welcome to 1985 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Our guide at Chicago's Field Museum stated this theory on our high school field trip. In 1985.

  8. More Time To Think by Maavin · · Score: 1

    I believe this more like this: If you don't spend all your time finding supplies for survival, you have time left to use your brain for other things.The settling just correlates with a general shift in foraging/thinking time...

    --


    Crivens! I kicked meself in me own heid!
    1. Re:More Time To Think by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It's funny you think this. Simple societies actually have *more* free time, not less. You hunt, you get a big meal, it's like Thanksgiving, and you relax until you're hungry again. No lawn to maintain, no house to clean, no bills to pay, no 8 hours at a job. Eat and rest until you're hungry enough to go looking for more food.

      I'm not saying it's a better life because of this. Death lurks around the corner with even slight interruption to the food supply. There is no warehousing and no reserve food. What there is though is plenty of free time.

    2. Re:More Time To Think by Aighearach · · Score: 0

      You can check if this is true by simply looking at primitive people; are they well fed, or are they underfed? If they're typically underfed and the children commonly have illnesses related to poor nutrition, then it is nothing like you say and they probably worked full time just to achieve partial food supply, which is as good as most manage. If you're lucky enough to have the very best climate and land, you can do a lot better and have free time. But the vast majority of the places in the world, the primitive people work full time at getting the next meal. A big kill doesn't result in large amounts of leisure, it is usually the result of days of hard work, and it must be shared because it requires days of hard work from multiple people.

      You think it is easy, try hunting with no gun, no store-bought tools. Go and use a hand-built primitive bow and arrow; not the fancy one built using 500-year-old technology, but a simple primitive bow made with stone tools. Test the range and target penetration; you'll quickly realize you have to be really close, you have to get a perfect hit at a vital area, and you can only kill small and medium animals with it. Try throwing a spear; now try throwing a spear at a deer, and discover that the spear flies through the air so slowly that the deep can simply jump out of the way after you throw it! You need a whole team of experienced hunters who know how to work together even to get a medium sized animal. Things you can spear by yourself are things small enough to scare out of the bushes like a rabbit, and that is really hard work with fairly small rewards.

    3. Re:More Time To Think by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Read again. The comment is not that it is easy. It is hard and you die easily.

      What you do have is lots of spare time. There is nothing to do when you're not actively eating or hunting. Why? Because you have no technology, no warehousing, no preserving of food, nothing like that.

    4. Re:More Time To Think by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You also won't have any time when you aren't eating or hunting.

    5. Re:More Time To Think by butchersong · · Score: 2

      It depends on the terrain but when bow hunting I routinely get within arms length of whitetail deer. I wouldn't underestimate someone that unlike me has spent their entire life focused on hunting with primitive tools and who hunts in small packs of other men who have spent their lives doing the same.

    6. Re: More Time To Think by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's nice that mall ninjas have freedom of speech. Go America!

  9. Asking questions is fundamental to science. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    I don't see how the parent comment is "anti-science", like you wrongly claim it is.

    Science is all about asking questions. Science is all about scrutiny. Science is all about taking a critical look at evidence. Science is all about questioning the methodologies and discoveries of other scientists.

    If anyone is anti-science, it is you and people like you who claim that asking questions is somehow "wrong" or should be discouraged.

    Any researcher who is resistant to his work being questioned is not a scientist, either. Real scientists love to have their discoveries and their theories ripped apart by their colleagues. Why is that? Because this questioning and scrutiny is how we get to the truth, which is what science is all about.

    People who ask questions and who look critically at the evidence, like the parent, are seeking the truth. They are real scientists.

    People like you, who attack those who ask questions, are trying to push a narrative or a political agenda. You aren't a scientist. You're completely against the scientific method. You're the one who is anti-science.

    1. Re: Asking questions is fundamental to science. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pointing out that science involves asking questions is not 'trolling'...... The modding here is really atrocious these days......

    2. Re:Asking questions is fundamental to science. by fortfive · · Score: 2

      Perhaps my comment was too brief.

      You are right that science involves asking (and providing a lot of research and thought into answering) questions.

      But claiming that the the validity of TFA conclusions is in question because the picture looks like what might be found in a landscaping supply yard is about as anti-science as, well, a box of racks. It represents a rejection of the structures and institutions involved in the exploration of science, which while full of failings and biases, are not so far corrupted that they would require readers to question so basic a proposition as they had done at least a little more than a layperson's visual inspection to confirm these were tool implements and not just busted rocks.

  10. Parent is an obvious tool. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yes, random sharp rocks just fell onto the ends of shafts and go stuck there with compound adhesives that also just happened to randomly travel considerable distance and get stuck to them.
    It's also possible that these letters just automatically arranged themselves in a nice neat little row all by themselves. Maybe the wind or something blew them here.

  11. Also gave us the Flintstones by boudie2 · · Score: 1

    Yabba dabba do!

  12. Re:Key the racist posts in ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I remember Rae Dawn Chong, but I don't remember that scene :( Rly Daryl Hannah in Clan of the Cave Bear is where it's at for stone age pr0n

  13. Harness greed by sjbe · · Score: 1

    So much so that unless we solve for the disease of Greed, we will be ultimately destroyed by it.

    Greed is what makes every economy work and to think otherwise is naive. Without some amount of greed people sit on their ass and do nothing that they absolutely do not have to. The trick is to harness greed in productive ways and limit the excesses through appropriate laws and social institutions. Unchecked greed is a terrible thing but carefully harnessed and directed self interest can be extremely useful.

    1. Re: Harness greed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are better motive forces than greed. I've done many interesting but nonprofitable things out of curiosity, and at work as a IT tech I am more driven by the thankfulness of others and the fun of solving problems than my paycheck.
      If an economy can be retooled to encourage helpfulness, curiosity, connection and friendship, maybe more geniunely good leaders and less psychopaths would get ahead.
      I'm not optimistic though; as a species we've always done our most brilliant work in the struggle to dominate others.

  14. Re:Key the racist posts in ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Maybe it was Clan of the Cave Bear. Starlog had a picture of a woman bending over into a caveman's lap. That issue would have gotten banned at my middle school library if the librarian knew about it.

  15. It's all about climate change by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As the climate changed rapidly due to burning fossil fuels, these primitive cultures could not adapt quickly enough and died off unceremoniously.

  16. millenials staying at home have a good excuse! by bitbrain · · Score: 1

    We're trying to improve humanity through the creation of innovative tools

  17. Eat my dust!!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I stay at home all day long. I am evolving so much faster than all you guys who commute to work.

  18. Advancing Civilization by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Thus, when I stayed at home until I was 25, I was advancing the human race.

    I knew it! They didn't believe me but I insisted! "Really, technology cannot advance unless I get hot cocoa from Mom at 9 pm, every night!!"