Jump to content

Welcome to FutureTimeline.forum
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. If you already have an account, login here - otherwise create an account for free today!
Photo

History of Humans & Primates

humans primates cro magnon neanderthals proto-human evolution hunter-gatherer human evolution australopithecus primate evolution

  • Please log in to reply
261 replies to this topic

#81
StanleyAlexander

StanleyAlexander

    Saturn, the Bringer of Old Age

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 975 posts
  • LocationPortland, Oregon, USA, Earth, 2063

Also interesting the way our most recent ancestors had bigger brains than we did.  It's almost as if nature realized it passed the optimum primate brain volume (or primate brain/body size ratio), and backtracked a bit to nail it.


Humanity's destiny is infinity

#82
zEVerzan

zEVerzan

    Orange Animating Android

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,714 posts
  • LocationSome Underground Sweatshop Probably

@ FoT: It seems humans have always been bringers of massive change.


I always imagined the future as a time of more reason, empathy, and peace, not less. It's time for a change.
Attention is currency in the "free marketplace of ideas".
I do other stuff besides gripe about the future! Twitter Youtube DeviantArt +-PATREON-+

#83
FutureOfToday

FutureOfToday

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,685 posts
Just looked back at the graph and realised that our brains have been shrinking for a few thousand years - I wonder if this is beneficial to us or not?

#84
wjfox

wjfox

    Administrator

  • Administrators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,701 posts
  • LocationLondon

Primitive human society 'not driven by war'

Primitive society was not driven by war, scientists believe.

Researchers from Abo Academy University in Finland say that violence in early human communities was driven by personal conflicts rather than large-scale battles.

They say their findings suggest that war is not an innate part of human nature, but rather a behaviour that we have adopted more recently.

http://www.bbc.co.uk...onment-23340252



#85
Italian Ufo

Italian Ufo

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,190 posts

I heard various opinions on this



#86
OunknnownO

OunknnownO

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 268 posts

I respectfully disagree. War and conquest is in our genes, look for example our close relatives, they are in war constantly



#87
SG-1

SG-1

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,653 posts
  • LocationUS - Arkansas

Animals kill each other too.

 

I haven't read the article, but I would guess the only reason war is a "new" thing is because war is a battle between groups of humans.  Animals don't attack in herds because they can't socialize; but they still behave in the most selfish way possible.  If that means attacking and killing something, no problem.

 

I would guess humans have been killing each other before they even had a concept of right and wrong.  Even then, because humans are so civilized and righteous, they still give into primitive urges and kill each other. 

 

Animals: Controlled by - emotions 

Humans Controlled by - emotions > logic

 

When your emotions tell you to do something you know is wrong you invent reasons why it is ok.


Hey.  Stop reading.  The post is over.


#88
Raklian

Raklian

    An Immortal In The Making

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,033 posts
  • LocationRaleigh, NC

There are whole bunch of people who don't believe in war but nations still do it anyway. That says something.


What are you without the sum of your parts?

#89
Italian Ufo

Italian Ufo

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,190 posts
I respectfully disagree. War and conquest is in our genes, look for example our close relatives, they are in war constantly

 

that's bull shit. men don't have war in their genes. it is rather the environment and scarcity that provokes violent behaviour.

the vast majority of murders or war criminals they were victims themselves of violence.

Read of Gabor Matè.


  • Azevo likes this

#90
zEVerzan

zEVerzan

    Orange Animating Android

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,714 posts
  • LocationSome Underground Sweatshop Probably

How can you not believe in war? It's right there in front of you.

 

I have a theory: that control of a nation goes to whoever wants it most.

People who crave power and control most are sociopaths, and sociopaths want the most power and control.

 

Therefore people who are in control of nations are sociopathic. Hence the existence of war.


I always imagined the future as a time of more reason, empathy, and peace, not less. It's time for a change.
Attention is currency in the "free marketplace of ideas".
I do other stuff besides gripe about the future! Twitter Youtube DeviantArt +-PATREON-+

#91
Yuli Ban

Yuli Ban

    Born Again Singularitarian

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 20,705 posts
  • LocationNew Orleans, LA

War exists to promote the interests of a people. In the Neolithic age, it's typically the bourgeoisie who promote war because it serves their interests and rapidly furthers technological progress for the sake of capital. Indeed, had it not been for war, we might not be sitting here right now, typing these words on this Internet. We might still be banging out rocks to make crude pots. 

To say that war did not exist amongst early humans is somewhat inaccurate- even apes go to "war" occasionally. But wars undoubtedly increased when there became something valuable to protect and conquer- capital. 


And remember my friend, future events such as these will affect you in the future.


#92
Zeitgeist123

Zeitgeist123

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,805 posts

i think we can debate for hours about men being innately warrish or not, but we can be sure that men are innately obsessed with status and domination aka power. our distant cousins, the chimp are more obsessed with status (being 'alpha') than us,  humans. thankfully, bonobo chimps are the opposite which happens to be a matriarch-dominated society. so i guess the root for war is power, and the root for power is being an 'alpha' on a global scale, which is being driven by the obsession of getting high/dominant status in his society. 


Edited by Zeitgeist123, 22 July 2013 - 09:18 PM.

“Philosophy is a pretty toy if one indulges in it with moderation at the right time of life. But if one pursues it further than one should, it is absolute ruin." - Callicles to Socrates


#93
Guyverman1990

Guyverman1990

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 762 posts
  • LocationSlocan Park, BC

Lacked imagination?!

 

There is evidence that they burried their dead for crying out loud, indicating spiritual beliefs.


  • Zeitgeist123 likes this

#94
CamGoldenGun

CamGoldenGun

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 595 posts
  • LocationFort McMurray, AB. Canada.
Lacked imagination?!

 

There is evidence that they burried their dead for crying out loud, indicating spiritual beliefs.

Or they didn't want to smell the decaying body...


  • FutureOfToday and TheAsianGuy_LOL like this

#95
FutureOfToday

FutureOfToday

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,685 posts
I think of neanderthals as being very weak animals, hence why they became extinct such a long time ago. Sure, they might be the most similar species to us, but the gap between us is HUGE.

#96
TheComrade

TheComrade

    BANNED

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,642 posts
I think of neanderthals as being very weak animals, hence why they became extinct such a long time ago. Sure, they might be the most similar species to us, but the gap between us is HUGE.

 

Disagree & i don't like this term "animals" since they were 100% intelligent beings (btw, their brain was 10% bigger than ours). Why did they became extinct? Perhaps because they were pure predators, unlike Homo Sapiens. Plus, bigger body/brain mass requires more food > relatively less density of population > smaller groups, less communication between groups and poorer communication skills, compared to Homo Sapiens. in short, they were different from us, but i don't think the gap was really huge.


  • kjaggard, Yuli Ban and TheAsianGuy_LOL like this

#97
WithoutCoincidence

WithoutCoincidence

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,428 posts
  • LocationSomewhere above Zero Latitude.

Apparently the shape of Neanderthal throats meant that, instead of the sterotypical brutish grunts, their voices were much higher pitched than ours when they spoke in whatever prehistoric languages existed back then.


The universe has gone from unimaginable, featureless heat to complexity and it will return in time to unimaginable, featureless cold.

-Chris Impey, How It Ends


#98
FutureOfToday

FutureOfToday

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,685 posts

I think of neanderthals as being very weak animals, hence why they became extinct such a long time ago. Sure, they might be the most similar species to us, but the gap between us is HUGE.

 Disagree & i don't like this term "animals" since they were 100% intelligent beings (btw, their brain was 10% bigger than ours). Why did they became extinct? Perhaps because they were pure predators, unlike Homo Sapiens. Plus, bigger body/brain mass requires more food > relatively less density of population > smaller groups, less communication between groups and poorer communication skills, compared to Homo Sapiens. in short, they were different from us, but i don't think the gap was really huge.

Well I'm happy with the term "animals" because neanderthals were animals, and Homo sapiens are animals, so... yeah. What were they? Plants? But anyway, they just didn't seem very powerful as a species. Brain size doesn't mean more intelligent. That would make blue whales the most intelligent animals on earth, which is not the case.

#99
Raklian

Raklian

    An Immortal In The Making

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,033 posts
  • LocationRaleigh, NC
Well I'm happy with the term "animals" because neanderthals were animals, and Homo sapiens are animals, so... yeah. What were they? Plants? But anyway, they just didn't seem very powerful as a species. Brain size doesn't mean more intelligent. That would make blue whales the most intelligent animals on earth, which is not the case.

 

Perhaps the whales are so wise that they are simply happy just floating about in the vast depths of our oceans. Look at us up here, monkeying around with our wars as if they are feces that need to be thrown.

 

I am not saying the whales are like that because I had come to the realization that things are more gray than we suppose. There is a reason we can't define intelligence in a way that's meaningful and legitimately abstract. You cannot say we are more intelligent than an ant just because we figured out a way to launch a rocket into space and landed an astronaut on the moon while they didn't achieve anything remotely as that. Ants are ants. Humans are humans. Intelligence is a concept we came up with ourselves to put us in a special category that "sets us apart" from the rest of the living kingdom.

 

Humans are capable of things we see today because evolution gave us the "tools" necessary to perform these things. Saying that we're the most "intelligent" species on Earth is a disingenuous way to be ignorant of how the laws of nature work. Everything is a spectrum in which no object is independent of another.


  • Yuli Ban, Noctis Futuris and PrimordialBeing like this
What are you without the sum of your parts?

#100
TheComrade

TheComrade

    BANNED

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,642 posts

 

 

Brain size doesn't mean more intelligent. That would make blue whales the most intelligent animals on earth, which is not the case.

 

Brain size by itself doesn't mean anything. But there is also thing called "encefalization" i.e. brain/body mass ratio.

 

http://en.wikipedia....Encephalization

 

...and since Neanderthals had roughly the same mass as we are, their big brain (unlike of australopithecus or homo erectus) is very indicative. I highly suspect that, being born in modern society, they could go to college without a problem. Unlike of blue whales.


Edited by PhoenixRu, 28 August 2013 - 05:02 AM.






Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: humans, primates, cro magnon, neanderthals, proto-human, evolution, hunter-gatherer, human evolution, australopithecus, primate evolution

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users