4 ms·

Depends on what you mean by "primitive". 45,000 years ago, humans were every bit as intelligent as they are today. They may not have had agriculture or other te

by beat 11y ago

Depends on what you mean by "primitive". 45,000 years ago, humans were every bit as intelligent as they are today. They may not have had agriculture or other technological advances, but mentally, they were sophisticated. Look at it this way... using only stuff they found on the ground, they were able to successfully and repeatably hunt animals that weighed 5-8 tons, were faster than humans, had multiple natural weapons that could easily kill a human, and were both herd-oriented and highly intelligent by herbivore standards. Do you think you could do that? That doesn't sound primitive to me. That sounds really sophisticated.

Retric 11y ago
Genetically that's more or less true. However, developmentally they were likely to suffer from various issues that limit intelligence. Things like poor diet/starvation, parasites, and limited socialization can have a dramatic impact.
- beat 11y ago
  But what if they weren't starving? What if they had a rich social structure, where children could learn from directly observing their leaders? I'm not convinced they were starving "cavemen". If they couldn't cut it, Mother Nature would just kill them off - unlike modern, "civilized" people. They had better use of their brains than we do in day-to-day survival.
  - melling 11y ago
    You are not using facts to prove your point. It's basically the same sort of ignorance that people use to deny global warming. "I not convinced that humans can change the climate". If you have some facts that you'd like to share, please do. Making up really clever shit that can't be verified doesn't help. In fact, it could be the same human flaw that explains why it took us 45,000 years to get where we are today. Am I in the middle of a fuck wad nerd debate? I time travel 45,000 years into the past. Will I be able to survive? If not that proves humans were just as smart then as they are now. Where's that pg "Life is Short" article?
  - Retric 11y ago
    There is a large gap between survival and having a well-balanced diet for 13+ developmentally critical years. As strange as these sounds, the US actually has problems in this area resulting in a noticeably shorter population. There where likely successful tribes in the short term 45,000 years ago where people actually grew to 6 feet in height, but the average case is likely worse. One thing to consider is population growth was fairly slow overall. Just 5% every 100 years and 2 people grow to ~6.8 billion in 45,000 years and there where far more than 2 people back then.
    - JBReefer 11y ago
      You need to cite your sources on the US height claim. If you exclude Mexicans (who come from one of the shortest countries on Earth), the US is one of the _tallest_ countries: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_height#Average_height_around_the_world https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_height#Average_height_ar...
      - Retric 11y ago
        A source http://www.theguardian.com/world/2004/apr/04/usa http://www.theguardian.com/world/2004/apr/04/usa This surprising reappraisal of American and European physiques is the work of researcher John Komlos of Munich University. 'Much of the difference is due to the great social inequality that now exists in the United States,' Komlos told The Observer last week. 'In Europe, there is - in most countries - good health service provision for most members of society and plenty of protein in most people's diets. As a result, children do not suffer illnesses that would blight their growth or suffer problems of malnutrition. For that reason, we have continued to grow and grow.' http://econpapers.repec.org/RAS/pko37.htm http://econpapers.repec.org/RAS/pko37.htm The height of US-born non-Hispanic children and adolescents ages 2-19, born 1942-2002 in the NHANES Samples http://econpapers.repec.org/paper/lmumuenec/466.htm http://econpapers.repec.org/paper/lmumuenec/466.htm
      - indubitablytrue 11y ago
        Man, people will get defensive over the strangest things when it comes to their in-group. edit: to be less specific about any particular group.
melling 11y ago
Sure, I could grab my spear and join the human herd. Is there some reason to believe that humans can no longer refigure out how do something that the did 45,000 years ago. Don't many types of animals kill this way (ie in packs)? Humans simply grabbed sharp objects. We also tied them to long sticks so we could attack from a safe distance.
- JoeAltmaier 11y ago
  Says somebody who probably doesn't hunt? They'd have to figure out how to do it before they starve. With no elders around to teach them. Its not a sure thing at all.
- rodgerd 11y ago
  > Sure, I could grab my spear and join the human herd. How's your immune system? Allergies? Asthma? Eyesight?
  - indubitablytrue 11y ago
    How's the eugenics study group?
  - douche 11y ago
    More like, are you ready to massacre the pre-historic human population with the bacteria and viruses that your immune system is fully adapted or vaccinated against?
- beat 11y ago
  It's one thing to learn to hunt from zero. It's another thing to do it with tools and techniques that had been handed down for thousands of years. How do you make a spear from scratch, using only raw materials found in nature, that's effective enough to bring down a creature the size of a mammoth? You have to select the right kind of wood with the right character, harden it with fire correctly, find the right kind of flint and chip it just so to make a head, find the right animal sinews and preserve them the right way to tie the head to the spear, learn to strike with it so it hits vulnerable spots and doesn't break, because it'll take you days or weeks to make another... I knew a guy once who did his PhD work on chipping flint, reproducing the techniques used by various Stone Age people. He loved chipping flint and making tools. They were sharp, and dangerous, and fragile, and took hours or days to make (not counting the failures). He spent years studying and refining his technique. Making a high-quality spear, good enough to kill mammoths effectively? That takes years to perfect. It's an intellectual challenge on par with writing software, based on tradition and teaching akin to our school system. It's not easy or trivial! It's not primitive, at least not in the demeaning way it's being expressed here. Those "primitives" were every bit as smart as you, every bit as hardworking, and their techniques on par with ours in terms of rigor and effort. What they didn't have was tens of thousands of years of additional development, so they had to know everything about survival. They didn't get their mammoth wrapped in plastic.
melling 11y ago
"The world was primitive." Primitive modifies the word world.

by beat 11y ago

Retric 11y ago

Genetically that's more or less true. However, developmentally they were likely to suffer from various issues that limit intelligence. Things like poor diet/starvation, parasites, and limited socialization can have a dramatic impact.

beat 11y ago
But what if they weren't starving? What if they had a rich social structure, where children could learn from directly observing their leaders? I'm not convinced they were starving "cavemen". If they couldn't cut it, Mother Nature would just kill them off - unlike modern, "civilized" people. They had better use of their brains than we do in day-to-day survival.
- melling 11y ago
  You are not using facts to prove your point. It's basically the same sort of ignorance that people use to deny global warming. "I not convinced that humans can change the climate". If you have some facts that you'd like to share, please do. Making up really clever shit that can't be verified doesn't help. In fact, it could be the same human flaw that explains why it took us 45,000 years to get where we are today. Am I in the middle of a fuck wad nerd debate? I time travel 45,000 years into the past. Will I be able to survive? If not that proves humans were just as smart then as they are now. Where's that pg "Life is Short" article?
- Retric 11y ago
  There is a large gap between survival and having a well-balanced diet for 13+ developmentally critical years. As strange as these sounds, the US actually has problems in this area resulting in a noticeably shorter population. There where likely successful tribes in the short term 45,000 years ago where people actually grew to 6 feet in height, but the average case is likely worse. One thing to consider is population growth was fairly slow overall. Just 5% every 100 years and 2 people grow to ~6.8 billion in 45,000 years and there where far more than 2 people back then.
  - JBReefer 11y ago
    You need to cite your sources on the US height claim. If you exclude Mexicans (who come from one of the shortest countries on Earth), the US is one of the _tallest_ countries: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_height#Average_height_around_the_world https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_height#Average_height_ar...
    - Retric 11y ago
      A source http://www.theguardian.com/world/2004/apr/04/usa http://www.theguardian.com/world/2004/apr/04/usa This surprising reappraisal of American and European physiques is the work of researcher John Komlos of Munich University. 'Much of the difference is due to the great social inequality that now exists in the United States,' Komlos told The Observer last week. 'In Europe, there is - in most countries - good health service provision for most members of society and plenty of protein in most people's diets. As a result, children do not suffer illnesses that would blight their growth or suffer problems of malnutrition. For that reason, we have continued to grow and grow.' http://econpapers.repec.org/RAS/pko37.htm http://econpapers.repec.org/RAS/pko37.htm The height of US-born non-Hispanic children and adolescents ages 2-19, born 1942-2002 in the NHANES Samples http://econpapers.repec.org/paper/lmumuenec/466.htm http://econpapers.repec.org/paper/lmumuenec/466.htm
    - indubitablytrue 11y ago
      Man, people will get defensive over the strangest things when it comes to their in-group. edit: to be less specific about any particular group.

melling 11y ago

Sure, I could grab my spear and join the human herd. Is there some reason to believe that humans can no longer refigure out how do something that the did 45,000 years ago. Don't many types of animals kill this way (ie in packs)? Humans simply grabbed sharp objects. We also tied them to long sticks so we could attack from a safe distance.

JoeAltmaier 11y ago
Says somebody who probably doesn't hunt? They'd have to figure out how to do it before they starve. With no elders around to teach them. Its not a sure thing at all.
rodgerd 11y ago
> Sure, I could grab my spear and join the human herd. How's your immune system? Allergies? Asthma? Eyesight?
- indubitablytrue 11y ago
  How's the eugenics study group?
- douche 11y ago
  More like, are you ready to massacre the pre-historic human population with the bacteria and viruses that your immune system is fully adapted or vaccinated against?
beat 11y ago
It's one thing to learn to hunt from zero. It's another thing to do it with tools and techniques that had been handed down for thousands of years. How do you make a spear from scratch, using only raw materials found in nature, that's effective enough to bring down a creature the size of a mammoth? You have to select the right kind of wood with the right character, harden it with fire correctly, find the right kind of flint and chip it just so to make a head, find the right animal sinews and preserve them the right way to tie the head to the spear, learn to strike with it so it hits vulnerable spots and doesn't break, because it'll take you days or weeks to make another... I knew a guy once who did his PhD work on chipping flint, reproducing the techniques used by various Stone Age people. He loved chipping flint and making tools. They were sharp, and dangerous, and fragile, and took hours or days to make (not counting the failures). He spent years studying and refining his technique. Making a high-quality spear, good enough to kill mammoths effectively? That takes years to perfect. It's an intellectual challenge on par with writing software, based on tradition and teaching akin to our school system. It's not easy or trivial! It's not primitive, at least not in the demeaning way it's being expressed here. Those "primitives" were every bit as smart as you, every bit as hardworking, and their techniques on par with ours in terms of rigor and effort. What they didn't have was tens of thousands of years of additional development, so they had to know everything about survival. They didn't get their mammoth wrapped in plastic.

melling 11y ago

"The world was primitive." Primitive modifies the word world.