3 ms·
I think that's the "we just happened to be first" argument. Which could be true, but not very satisfying, because no detail.
by hyperpallium 7y ago
I think that's the "we just happened to be first" argument. Which could be true, but not very satisfying, because no detail.
- GarrisonPrime 7y agoJust because there's no detail, or it's not satisfying, doesn't mean it's less likely.
- clacke2 7y agoWe didn't have to be first. Other primates might have picked up the rock before we did, but eventually lost the race. Maybe the fire-cooking, rock-throwing domesticating niche is just that competitive. So it might be more like "we are the ones that remain", but yeah, either variant is a spin on the old weak anthropic principle, which is never quite satisfying.
- hyperpallium 7y agoAnd we do seem to have wiped out/outcompeted Neanderthals etc. > fire-cooking, rock-throwing domesticating niche Just knowing if that was the evolutionary pressure along the path would be enough for me (even if it could have been another ape or a corvid or whatever - or maybe they are on that path now?) BTW Matt Ridley has the theory that division of labour (trade enabling specialization) was the gradient.