4 ms·

That homo sapiens sapiens most likely displaced them, but that doesn't really mean as much as your comment might intend to insinuate. Neanderthals lasted half

That homo sapiens sapiens most likely displaced them, but that doesn't really mean as much as your comment might intend to insinuate. Neanderthals lasted half a million years, and the more we learn the more we appraise them as sophisticated. That said, they seem to have faced a caloric challenge in a world with sparse mega fauna. Based on everything I've read, modern humans pre-language excelled at one specific thing: walking very long distances without exhaustion on less calories. Ends up that's pretty dang useful in spreading across the globe.

robbedpeter 5y ago
That's a pretty brutal selection mechanism. How fast and far can you go while slowly starving with your tribe in tow...
- jasonwatkinspdx 5y ago
  As as been observed, nature is as metal as it gets.
  - jasonwatkinspdx 5y ago
    ^ has (sighs)
- nerdponx 5y ago
  I wonder if it's not only the "brutal" aspect. Maybe it's generally an advantage when it comes to exploration, e.g. finding new places to settle. Or maybe it's specifically an advantage when hunting, as in endurance hunting.
wombatmobile 5y ago
> that doesn't really mean as much as your comment might intend to insinuate. Mine was an open question. Your speculation about what I might intend to insinuate is perhaps a projection from your own psyche, which you haven't actually articulated, so I can't comment further on it. If you imagine I was saying something like modern humans were superior to other hominids because they defeated them - I wasn't. In fact, it isn't even true to say species X was defeated by species Y, because the outcome was a merger of (at least) 2 species, not an outright conquest. And as you seem to be saying in your comment, the survival of species is as much about the environment as it is about the qualities of a species. Your point about modern humans walking long distances efficiently is an interesting one, though I'm not sure how it explains how the world was colonised. Are you picturing some kind of a race to see which species could travel the furthest out of Africa in the shortest time, to plant a flag on America or Asia and claim it for the species? Wouldn't colonisation have taken place more gradually? Assuming humans have to exist socially, in contiguous communities rather than solo, generation by generation, human populations would have progressively acquired more land (along the coast, say) by acquiring territory adjacent to their base. This equates to travel in the order of say 100 metres per generation - enough to support new housing and food supply for a population increase of a few percent. The success of this endeavour might depend on inter species competitiveness to a degree, and it would also be limited by genetic adaptability to climate variation as the distances added up over millennia, particularly latitudinally.
- edmundsauto 5y ago
  I interpreted your comment in the way GP did. Perhaps you might not be communicating exactly as you thought?
  - wombatmobile 5y ago
    > Perhaps you might not be communicating exactly as you thought? Could be! I'm never sure how I'm communicating, and only marginally more sure about what I think.
  - Torwald 5y ago
    I did not interpret the open question by /u/wombatmobile the way you and the other poster did. It is not clear from the text that one should do so. It is not conductive to a discussion to err on the side of malice when in doubt. It is better to clarify and/or to assume the other poster wants to foster discussion.
    - wombatmobile 5y ago
      Well, it’s a fraught question because there is so little evidence to go on. So yes, it’s just an opportunity to speculate - something best done with good faith and an open mind. But what if there was more evidence? Well there could be if we were willing to instantiate a Neanderthal genome in vivo…
- jasonwatkinspdx 5y ago
  No need for hostility either way, I think my comment was pretty gentle in pushing back on something I said "might" be a perception. So our ability to walk long distances in moderate to high temperatures is what allowed us to thrive on the plains vs jungles of Africa, before we were modern humans. As far as modern humans go, it wasn't a single wave of migration, or even multiple waves of migration. The more we learn the more we realize it was more like diffusion of increasingly advanced culture across a mesh that pre-existed across the globe. Our distance endurance was literally useful for traveling to new and better places as hunter gatherers, or simply following seasons. But it also enabled very specific tactics like persistence hunting or steering entire herds into human designed funnel traps. Near as I can tell from reading these were pretty key to our rise at a critical time. Then of course, language and the accumulation of knowledge it enables was the huge jump to modernity. We'd like to think we're far past that jump but we really aren't, we've just gotten so good at cracking rocks against each other now they're on the cusp of thinking the same way we do.
hoseja 5y ago
Seems Neanderthals may be even better adapted to modern living than us. Higher energy consumption certainly seems like a beneficial trait nowadays.
- jasonwatkinspdx 5y ago
  That's an interesting idea, that there was essentially a trough to get through before the neolithic revolution and the (relative) caloric abundance it brought.

robbedpeter 5y ago

That's a pretty brutal selection mechanism. How fast and far can you go while slowly starving with your tribe in tow...

jasonwatkinspdx 5y ago
As as been observed, nature is as metal as it gets.
- jasonwatkinspdx 5y ago
  ^ has (sighs)
nerdponx 5y ago
I wonder if it's not only the "brutal" aspect. Maybe it's generally an advantage when it comes to exploration, e.g. finding new places to settle. Or maybe it's specifically an advantage when hunting, as in endurance hunting.

wombatmobile 5y ago

> that doesn't really mean as much as your comment might intend to insinuate. Mine was an open question. Your speculation about what I might intend to insinuate is perhaps a projection from your own psyche, which you haven't actually articulated, so I can't comment further on it. If you imagine I was saying something like modern humans were superior to other hominids because they defeated them - I wasn't. In fact, it isn't even true to say species X was defeated by species Y, because the outcome was a merger of (at least) 2 species, not an outright conquest. And as you seem to be saying in your comment, the survival of species is as much about the environment as it is about the qualities of a species. Your point about modern humans walking long distances efficiently is an interesting one, though I'm not sure how it explains how the world was colonised. Are you picturing some kind of a race to see which species could travel the furthest out of Africa in the shortest time, to plant a flag on America or Asia and claim it for the species? Wouldn't colonisation have taken place more gradually? Assuming humans have to exist socially, in contiguous communities rather than solo, generation by generation, human populations would have progressively acquired more land (along the coast, say) by acquiring territory adjacent to their base. This equates to travel in the order of say 100 metres per generation - enough to support new housing and food supply for a population increase of a few percent. The success of this endeavour might depend on inter species competitiveness to a degree, and it would also be limited by genetic adaptability to climate variation as the distances added up over millennia, particularly latitudinally.

edmundsauto 5y ago
I interpreted your comment in the way GP did. Perhaps you might not be communicating exactly as you thought?
- wombatmobile 5y ago
  > Perhaps you might not be communicating exactly as you thought? Could be! I'm never sure how I'm communicating, and only marginally more sure about what I think.
- Torwald 5y ago
  I did not interpret the open question by /u/wombatmobile the way you and the other poster did. It is not clear from the text that one should do so. It is not conductive to a discussion to err on the side of malice when in doubt. It is better to clarify and/or to assume the other poster wants to foster discussion.
  - wombatmobile 5y ago
    Well, it’s a fraught question because there is so little evidence to go on. So yes, it’s just an opportunity to speculate - something best done with good faith and an open mind. But what if there was more evidence? Well there could be if we were willing to instantiate a Neanderthal genome in vivo…
jasonwatkinspdx 5y ago
No need for hostility either way, I think my comment was pretty gentle in pushing back on something I said "might" be a perception. So our ability to walk long distances in moderate to high temperatures is what allowed us to thrive on the plains vs jungles of Africa, before we were modern humans. As far as modern humans go, it wasn't a single wave of migration, or even multiple waves of migration. The more we learn the more we realize it was more like diffusion of increasingly advanced culture across a mesh that pre-existed across the globe. Our distance endurance was literally useful for traveling to new and better places as hunter gatherers, or simply following seasons. But it also enabled very specific tactics like persistence hunting or steering entire herds into human designed funnel traps. Near as I can tell from reading these were pretty key to our rise at a critical time. Then of course, language and the accumulation of knowledge it enables was the huge jump to modernity. We'd like to think we're far past that jump but we really aren't, we've just gotten so good at cracking rocks against each other now they're on the cusp of thinking the same way we do.

hoseja 5y ago

Seems Neanderthals may be even better adapted to modern living than us. Higher energy consumption certainly seems like a beneficial trait nowadays.

jasonwatkinspdx 5y ago
That's an interesting idea, that there was essentially a trough to get through before the neolithic revolution and the (relative) caloric abundance it brought.