3 ms·

Side note: you're being pedantic. When discussing deep human history, 'modern human' has a meaning beyond just the dictionary meaning of the word 'modern' (bein

Side note: you're being pedantic. When discussing deep human history, 'modern human' has a meaning beyond just the dictionary meaning of the word 'modern' (being of a recent vintage). It is used to contrast modern humans with our quite complex behavior vs. archaic humans with their (apparently) much less complex behavior. But anyway, my point doesn't depend on how you define 'modern human', since not only do the Khoi San co-exist with the rest of humanity in the current moment, but they are not really significantly different from the rest of humanity in a behavioral sense. So by both definitions they are 'modern humans'. Which gets to my actual point: a theory which posits that behaviorally modern humans have their genesis only 70k years ago has some explaining to do in light of the fact that the Khoi San split from the rest of humanity about 200k years ago, yet are more or less the same as the rest of humanity.

foldr 7y ago
>It is used to contrast modern humans with our quite complex behavior vs. archaic humans with their (apparently) much less complex behavior. Yes, I know - that was my point. You seem to be assuming that we in the West are at the apex of development while the Khoi San are to be evaluated by the degree to which their society resembles Western societies. Who knows - perhaps the Khoi San think that they are more modern than us and are waiting for us to catch up. We all have ancestors going back to the first humans. No present human society is more "archaic" than any other, unless you think that human societies are somehow predestined to develop along a certain course. So I do object to calling the Khoi San "pretty modern", as if they are somehow being stick-in-the-muds by not developing along exactly the same path as the West.
- toasterlovin 7y ago
  > You seem to be assuming that we in the West are at the apex of development while the Khoi San are to be evaluated by the degree to which their society resembles Western societies. No, I am not. I have no idea how you came to that conclusion. On the contrary, my whole argument depends on the Khoi San not being significantly different, behaviorally, from the rest of humanity. Here are quotes of what I said. The only reason I didn't use even stronger language is that there are, in fact, significant genetic differences between the Khoi San and the rest of humanity (that's how we know they diverged so long ago). But anyway, the quotes: > (Khoi san and African pygmies) [...] who seem pretty modern. Edit in reply to your edit: "pretty" in a colloquial sense means "very". As in, "it's pretty hot out today" = "it's very hot out today". Even the dictionary definition is "to a moderately high degree". > Yet they are basically compatibly with modern humans. As far as I am aware, they have recursive language and normal imaginations. > Appear to have the same basic brain functionality as the rest of humanity. > they are not really significantly different from the rest of humanity in a behavioral sense > are more or less the same as the rest of humanity
  - foldr 7y ago
    > The only reason I didn't use even stronger language is that there are, in fact, significant genetic differences between the Khoi San and the rest of humanity (that's how we know they diverged so long ago) We have no evidence that the differences are particularly significant to everyday life. But in any case, your statement here makes no sense. The fact that the Khoi San are (to whatever minuscule extent) genetically different from “us” does not make them any less modern than us. Divergence is symmetrical: as we diverged from the Khoi San, they diverged from us, and there’s no sense in which they’re “older” than we are. So I still don’t understand why you are only willing to credit them with being modern “to a moderately high degree”. There’s nothing to qualify. They’re humans just like we are.
    - toasterlovin 7y ago
      A couple of things: 1. You are not interpreting the use of the modifier 'pretty' correctly. It is used for emphasis or to add or increase some property; to imply that something is more than usual. To say that 'it is pretty hot today' means that it hotter than if you merely said 'it is hot today'. Thus, when I say 'pretty modern', I am indicating a degree of modernity that is more modern than simply 'modern'. As far as I can tell, you are interpreting 'pretty' to mean that something is lacking in a quality or falls slightly short of possessing a quality. But that is the opposite meaning of the word. If I were trying to detract from their modernity, I would have said that they are 'kind of modern' or 'somewhat modern'. 2. The bigger picture, though, is that you're focusing on a single word choice instead of literally everything else I've written, including the crucial point that I have to agree with you for the point that I was actually making to hold true.
      - foldr 7y ago
        That is not what 'pretty' means, FYI (check the dictionary definition, which in the case of the OED gives "somewhat" as a synonym). It's sometimes used to convey a stronger proposition via understatement, but that doesn't come across in your original post. Nor does it jibe with the rest of what you said (e.g. that the Khoi San are "more or less" the same as the rest of humanity). I'm glad we agree on the rest.

foldr 7y ago

>It is used to contrast modern humans with our quite complex behavior vs. archaic humans with their (apparently) much less complex behavior. Yes, I know - that was my point. You seem to be assuming that we in the West are at the apex of development while the Khoi San are to be evaluated by the degree to which their society resembles Western societies. Who knows - perhaps the Khoi San think that they are more modern than us and are waiting for us to catch up. We all have ancestors going back to the first humans. No present human society is more "archaic" than any other, unless you think that human societies are somehow predestined to develop along a certain course. So I do object to calling the Khoi San "pretty modern", as if they are somehow being stick-in-the-muds by not developing along exactly the same path as the West.

toasterlovin 7y ago
> You seem to be assuming that we in the West are at the apex of development while the Khoi San are to be evaluated by the degree to which their society resembles Western societies. No, I am not. I have no idea how you came to that conclusion. On the contrary, my whole argument depends on the Khoi San not being significantly different, behaviorally, from the rest of humanity. Here are quotes of what I said. The only reason I didn't use even stronger language is that there are, in fact, significant genetic differences between the Khoi San and the rest of humanity (that's how we know they diverged so long ago). But anyway, the quotes: > (Khoi san and African pygmies) [...] who seem pretty modern. Edit in reply to your edit: "pretty" in a colloquial sense means "very". As in, "it's pretty hot out today" = "it's very hot out today". Even the dictionary definition is "to a moderately high degree". > Yet they are basically compatibly with modern humans. As far as I am aware, they have recursive language and normal imaginations. > Appear to have the same basic brain functionality as the rest of humanity. > they are not really significantly different from the rest of humanity in a behavioral sense > are more or less the same as the rest of humanity
- foldr 7y ago
  > The only reason I didn't use even stronger language is that there are, in fact, significant genetic differences between the Khoi San and the rest of humanity (that's how we know they diverged so long ago) We have no evidence that the differences are particularly significant to everyday life. But in any case, your statement here makes no sense. The fact that the Khoi San are (to whatever minuscule extent) genetically different from “us” does not make them any less modern than us. Divergence is symmetrical: as we diverged from the Khoi San, they diverged from us, and there’s no sense in which they’re “older” than we are. So I still don’t understand why you are only willing to credit them with being modern “to a moderately high degree”. There’s nothing to qualify. They’re humans just like we are.
  - toasterlovin 7y ago
    A couple of things: 1. You are not interpreting the use of the modifier 'pretty' correctly. It is used for emphasis or to add or increase some property; to imply that something is more than usual. To say that 'it is pretty hot today' means that it hotter than if you merely said 'it is hot today'. Thus, when I say 'pretty modern', I am indicating a degree of modernity that is more modern than simply 'modern'. As far as I can tell, you are interpreting 'pretty' to mean that something is lacking in a quality or falls slightly short of possessing a quality. But that is the opposite meaning of the word. If I were trying to detract from their modernity, I would have said that they are 'kind of modern' or 'somewhat modern'. 2. The bigger picture, though, is that you're focusing on a single word choice instead of literally everything else I've written, including the crucial point that I have to agree with you for the point that I was actually making to hold true.
    - foldr 7y ago
      That is not what 'pretty' means, FYI (check the dictionary definition, which in the case of the OED gives "somewhat" as a synonym). It's sometimes used to convey a stronger proposition via understatement, but that doesn't come across in your original post. Nor does it jibe with the rest of what you said (e.g. that the Khoi San are "more or less" the same as the rest of humanity). I'm glad we agree on the rest.