4 ms·

We don't even need to look at other species. Humans have been just as smart as you and me, maybe even smarter according to cranial measurements, without invent

We don't even need to look at other species. Humans have been just as smart as you and me, maybe even smarter according to cranial measurements, without inventing anything that significantly changed their way of life. There could be loads of planets with prehistoric humans, having a fine time hunting with bows and picking fruit.

Loughla 2y ago
I don't think so, though. I think that unless there are limiting factors (no ores or some other necessary component) life would tend toward technology. Curiosity as an evolutionary trait is quite an advantage, and I would think is necessary for intelligent omnivores. It's what helped us figure out what we could and couldn't eat, and taught us better techniques for living. Curiosity naturally leads to technological developments, I would argue.
- andrewflnr 2y ago
  > life would tend toward technology Based on what evidence? We only know if it happening once, after a very long delay.
  - Loughla 2y ago
    I think it's a natural product of curiosity. And I think that intelligent life would only be so because of curiosity. You want to figure things out or you're interested in seeing what happens when you fuck around with things. So I think a technological progression is a natural progression for intelligent life. Does that make sense? I feel like I'm not explaining myself well.
    - andrewflnr 2y ago
      Lots of animals have been curious for hundreds of millions of years, but technology more advanced than breaking bits off rocks and sticks has only been around a couple thousand years. If you say it's a "natural progression", you also have to say there are serious barriers that most species will never pass.
      - Loughla 2y ago
        Okay?
        andrewflnr 2y ago
        So the notion that "life would tend toward technology", charitably speaking, does not make any useful predictions. Based on all evidence available, including the dearth of extraterrestrial technosignatures, you can't rely on it happening in any particular situation or timeframe. At best it's speculation, more likely it's just false.
        Loughla 2y ago
        Correct, we disagree in what we think.
- npc_anon 2y ago
  All humanoids except our species are extinct, and it's not because we killed them.
  - Scarblac 2y ago
    It's not? Didn't most of them coexist with us until they didn't?
stnmtn 2y ago
We really are pretty lucky that the industrial revolution happened. Thank god for England running out of trees to heat homes with, and abundant surface coal on that island.
griffzhowl 2y ago
I think by the time we get to modern humans it would only be a matter of time for technology to develop to something like the current stage. The main evidence I can think of is the independent development of agriculture in about 4-5 regions, and the independent development of large complex civilizations in the Americas and Eurasia. Humans are cultural learners, so this allowed cumulative cultural evolution from at least as far back as the transition from Olowan to Acheulean stone technologies with Homo erectus ~2-3 million years ago. By the time we get to Homo sapiens and Neanderthal this capacity for cultural learning seems much increased. Some paleoarchaeologists (e.g. Dietrich Stout) argue that technological development has been exponential as far back as H. erectus, just that the early stages of the exponential curve look flat for a long time.
- lordnacho 2y ago
  I think it only takes a small tweak for everything to stall. Suppose say, that people only trust a small group. Extended family and lifelong friends, for instance. People get very violent as soon as they disagree on something, immediately wanting to settle disputes by force. Nobody can strike a deal to do anything with anyone outside their group, and you certainly can't make agreements with a guy in Seattle to deliver things to London. You can't mine coal hoping to sell it to an as yet unknown person. There's no point in fishing more fish than you and your friends can eat. What happens in this world? Well, I think people will still be intelligent. They'll still think about social situations, especially when it comes to mating. There will still be stories, and humor. But we're not advancing tech, and we're not changing economically. Why do I say it's a small tweak? Well, we've all met people who seem to not be able to work with anyone. It's not unlikely that out in the stars, there's some planet with people who have everything we have, but they can't get things to work.
  - energy123 2y ago
    Mutation is random but selection is non-random. Multilevel selection could select against those scenarios you're talking about. Collaboration could be yet another thing that comes from convergent evolution.

Loughla 2y ago

I don't think so, though. I think that unless there are limiting factors (no ores or some other necessary component) life would tend toward technology. Curiosity as an evolutionary trait is quite an advantage, and I would think is necessary for intelligent omnivores. It's what helped us figure out what we could and couldn't eat, and taught us better techniques for living. Curiosity naturally leads to technological developments, I would argue.

andrewflnr 2y ago
> life would tend toward technology Based on what evidence? We only know if it happening once, after a very long delay.
- Loughla 2y ago
  I think it's a natural product of curiosity. And I think that intelligent life would only be so because of curiosity. You want to figure things out or you're interested in seeing what happens when you fuck around with things. So I think a technological progression is a natural progression for intelligent life. Does that make sense? I feel like I'm not explaining myself well.
  - andrewflnr 2y ago
    Lots of animals have been curious for hundreds of millions of years, but technology more advanced than breaking bits off rocks and sticks has only been around a couple thousand years. If you say it's a "natural progression", you also have to say there are serious barriers that most species will never pass.
    - Loughla 2y ago
      Okay?
      - andrewflnr 2y ago
        So the notion that "life would tend toward technology", charitably speaking, does not make any useful predictions. Based on all evidence available, including the dearth of extraterrestrial technosignatures, you can't rely on it happening in any particular situation or timeframe. At best it's speculation, more likely it's just false.
        Loughla 2y ago
        Correct, we disagree in what we think.
npc_anon 2y ago
All humanoids except our species are extinct, and it's not because we killed them.
- Scarblac 2y ago
  It's not? Didn't most of them coexist with us until they didn't?

stnmtn 2y ago

We really are pretty lucky that the industrial revolution happened. Thank god for England running out of trees to heat homes with, and abundant surface coal on that island.

griffzhowl 2y ago

I think by the time we get to modern humans it would only be a matter of time for technology to develop to something like the current stage. The main evidence I can think of is the independent development of agriculture in about 4-5 regions, and the independent development of large complex civilizations in the Americas and Eurasia. Humans are cultural learners, so this allowed cumulative cultural evolution from at least as far back as the transition from Olowan to Acheulean stone technologies with Homo erectus ~2-3 million years ago. By the time we get to Homo sapiens and Neanderthal this capacity for cultural learning seems much increased. Some paleoarchaeologists (e.g. Dietrich Stout) argue that technological development has been exponential as far back as H. erectus, just that the early stages of the exponential curve look flat for a long time.

lordnacho 2y ago
I think it only takes a small tweak for everything to stall. Suppose say, that people only trust a small group. Extended family and lifelong friends, for instance. People get very violent as soon as they disagree on something, immediately wanting to settle disputes by force. Nobody can strike a deal to do anything with anyone outside their group, and you certainly can't make agreements with a guy in Seattle to deliver things to London. You can't mine coal hoping to sell it to an as yet unknown person. There's no point in fishing more fish than you and your friends can eat. What happens in this world? Well, I think people will still be intelligent. They'll still think about social situations, especially when it comes to mating. There will still be stories, and humor. But we're not advancing tech, and we're not changing economically. Why do I say it's a small tweak? Well, we've all met people who seem to not be able to work with anyone. It's not unlikely that out in the stars, there's some planet with people who have everything we have, but they can't get things to work.
- energy123 2y ago
  Mutation is random but selection is non-random. Multilevel selection could select against those scenarios you're talking about. Collaboration could be yet another thing that comes from convergent evolution.