10 ms·

Do you really think we had a concise definition of "species" that was generally recognized back then? Do you think they pondered whether Neanderthals were a dif

Do you really think we had a concise definition of "species" that was generally recognized back then? Do you think they pondered whether Neanderthals were a different race, a subspecies, or actually a different species? And do you think that their societal mores regarding inter-species sex were identical to those of typical humans today? Also, our current definition of species takes into account whether there is significant interbreeding in the wild. So that makes your question rather circular.

orthecreedence 5y ago
I think it's a valid question. I often wonder what the cutoff is for how something determines whether another entity is of the same species (ie, something I have sex with vs something I eat). For instance, you could go off of looks, but then why would a german shepherd try to have sex with a pug? There seems to be some sort of ingrained biological threshold for what is a compatible mate and what isn't. Determining that threshold for various species is interesting to me.
- dragonwriter 5y ago
  > There seems to be some sort of ingrained biological threshold for what is a compatible mate and what isn't. Clearly, Neanderthals were very much within the acceptable mate boundary, the question was whether that occurred despite recognizing them as “other” or not.
- markdown 5y ago
  > There seems to be some sort of ingrained biological threshold for what is a compatible mate and what isn't. Perhaps in a general sense yes, but across millions of people across tens of thousands of years, there will always be outliers who'll mate with anything with two legs.
- robbrown451 5y ago
  Ok but the question is assuming they have a concept of species, presumably with a bright line, and then are using that to determine whether or not to have sex. Which is circular (as well as absurd on so many levels). That said, I'm sure they had some concept of "differentness," which would lie on a spectrum, rather than the black and white way the above poster described it. Humans may, for instance, find people of different races to be less attractive in general. But exceptions can be made. I imagine if you are desperate enough, you widen the pool of acceptable candidates. I have no reason to think it was very different back then.

orthecreedence 5y ago

I think it's a valid question. I often wonder what the cutoff is for how something determines whether another entity is of the same species (ie, something I have sex with vs something I eat). For instance, you could go off of looks, but then why would a german shepherd try to have sex with a pug? There seems to be some sort of ingrained biological threshold for what is a compatible mate and what isn't. Determining that threshold for various species is interesting to me.

dragonwriter 5y ago
> There seems to be some sort of ingrained biological threshold for what is a compatible mate and what isn't. Clearly, Neanderthals were very much within the acceptable mate boundary, the question was whether that occurred despite recognizing them as “other” or not.
markdown 5y ago
> There seems to be some sort of ingrained biological threshold for what is a compatible mate and what isn't. Perhaps in a general sense yes, but across millions of people across tens of thousands of years, there will always be outliers who'll mate with anything with two legs.
robbrown451 5y ago
Ok but the question is assuming they have a concept of species, presumably with a bright line, and then are using that to determine whether or not to have sex. Which is circular (as well as absurd on so many levels). That said, I'm sure they had some concept of "differentness," which would lie on a spectrum, rather than the black and white way the above poster described it. Humans may, for instance, find people of different races to be less attractive in general. But exceptions can be made. I imagine if you are desperate enough, you widen the pool of acceptable candidates. I have no reason to think it was very different back then.