Evolutionary Race

[wjousts]

I'd agree, if the difference between a top-notch researcher today and a witchdoctor ten-thousand years ago were in the genes, and not in the ten-thousand years of social, scientific & technological growth.

Exactly. It's a common misconception to think that humans 100, 1,000 or 10,000 years weren't as smart as us. If anything it quite possible that the opposite might be true, Jared Diamond discusses this in "Guns, Germs and Steel". He theorises that the harsh environment of the past and the harsh environment that still exist today for some small bands of people in the most remote places of earth would actually strongly select against the stupid hence leading to a higher average intellegence. We often mistake the sum total of our aquired knowledge (i.e. our memes) as being inate intellegence. The truth is most likely that people 10,000 years were just as smart, but they just didn't know as much. It's not the same thing.

 

[(S)]

As far as the high virulence goes, that's more the virus evolving than us, isn't it? The most successful parasites do not kill their hosts, and whatnot.

 

[wjousts]

As far as the high virulence goes, that's more the virus evolving than us, isn't it? The most successful parasites do not kill their hosts, and whatnot.

Right, but the virus is evolving in response to our memetic evolution. Without a change in the habits of the people who were becoming infected, the virulent strains would have continued to outcompete the less virulent strains.
The (dis)advantage of virulence depends on how easy it is to spread. Parasites (or viruses) that can spread quickly can be extremely virulent, while those that have a much harder time spreading cannot afford to be that virulent. This is part of the worry about "superbugs". High population densities in modern societies make the spread of disease extremely easy, hence high virulence is not selected against.

 

[Dymanic]

Originally posted by wjousts

He theorises that the harsh environment of the past and the harsh environment that still exist today for some small bands of people in the most remote places of earth would actually strongly select against the stupid hence leading to a higher average intellegence.

Looking for the Dawkins quote I posted earlier got me sort of idly browsing through TBW while thinking about this. He talks about the height of trees having no particular advantage in itself (in fact, it comes at considerable cost). The advantage a tree gains by being tall is in being taller than the other trees. Perhaps then, the above is rendered most meaningful by defining 'harsh environment' in this context as 'the society of humans', and 'higher average intellegence' as an aptitude for solving certain types of problems; i.e., sensitivity to the subtleties of human interaction.

If you're going to a hatchet fight, you want to bring a hatchet, and if your hatchet is bigger than the other guy's hatchet, that's going to give you a definite edge.

 

[Flatworm]

Re: Re: Re: Evolutionary Race

Why not just ask Patti Henningsen what they're thinking?

From her site:

I share our house with many cats, rabbits, birds, dogs and a gerbil and a hamster. Almost all of these animals were considered 'unadoptable' and wound up here as a last resort...

Why would a hamster or gerbil not be adoptable? Have they mauled someone in the past?

 

[Denise]

I'm curious about the small bands of people in harsh environments. I don't think it necessarily leads to people of higher than average intelligence, but almost always leads to people of higher than average physical stamina. I don't think being brainy would be important as having a good aim and being able to bag that deer or whatever. As people have mastered their environment physically, it seems that selection begins to take place for mental abilities.

 

[wjousts]

I'm curious about the small bands of people in harsh environments. I don't think it necessarily leads to people of higher than average intelligence, but almost always leads to people of higher than average physical stamina. I don't think being brainy would be important as having a good aim and being able to bag that deer or whatever. As people have mastered their environment physically, it seems that selection begins to take place for mental abilities.

I think you discount just how much cunning it takes to hunt game with nothing but a loin cloth and a sharp stick. The physical stamina and good aim are all important aspects, but to plan an carry out a hunt takes a lot of brain work.

 

[Denise]

I think you discount just how much cunning it takes to hunt game with nothing but a loin cloth and a sharp stick. The physical stamina and good aim are all important aspects, but to plan an carry out a hunt takes a lot of brain work.

Once one has the proper equipment, I don't think it's that hard. Sit in a tree, wait for a deer to walk by, shoot deer. Hmmm let's run these buffalo over a cliff...Lions hunt, tigers hunt rather successfully. Because they're smart? Partially, but most humans of low intelligence are much smarter than lions and tigers. Once weapons were developed to put distance between the prey and the hunter, I don't think intelligence was as important a factor.

 

[Wrath of the Swarm]

Respectfully, I think you're underestimating the level of intelligence required to make even the simplest weapons. Stone tools take a great deal of skill - more so for bows.

 

[Denise]

Respectfully, I think you're underestimating the level of intelligence required to make even the simplest weapons. Stone tools take a great deal of skill - more so for bows.

I'm referring to your standard homosapien here, not talking about other animals. I was thinking about small groups now and what's required. My ten year old could make a simple bow and arrow.

 

[Hellbound]

I'm referring to your standard homosapien here, not talking about other animals. I was thinking about small groups now and what's required. My ten year old could make a simple bow and arrow.

Yes, but could he make a bow and arrow strong enough and accurate enough to take down a deer or elk?

It does take a lot of work and skill, and (no offense intended) I don't think your ten year old could accomplish this without a lot of practice and training. In any case, hunting is not so simple as many here seem to believe. Even today, with highly deadly and accurate semi-automatic rifles and shotguns, better camouflage, scent masks and lures, people still are unsuccessful at hunting. There is a level of intelligence required not just to learn the basic rules and ideas, but also to be able to interpret signs, tracks, and spoor; anticipate movements and reactions, identify migration paths, know how much hunting is enough and how much will depopulate the heard, and probably several other things that I can't think of.

Not really taking either side here, mind you, but primative hunting is not that easy. I've gone hunting several times with a modern bow and carbon-steel broad-tip arrows (and I am a fairly good shot), and have yet to drop a deer with a bow.

 

[Denise]

Yes, but could he make a bow and arrow strong enough and accurate enough to take down a deer or elk?

It does take a lot of work and skill, and (no offense intended) I don't think your ten year old could accomplish this without a lot of practice and training. In any case, hunting is not so simple as many here seem to believe. Even today, with highly deadly and accurate semi-automatic rifles and shotguns, better camouflage, scent masks and lures, people still are unsuccessful at hunting. There is a level of intelligence required not just to learn the basic rules and ideas, but also to be able to interpret signs, tracks, and spoor; anticipate movements and reactions, identify migration paths, know how much hunting is enough and how much will depopulate the heard, and probably several other things that I can't think of.

Not really taking either side here, mind you, but primative hunting is not that easy. I've gone hunting several times with a modern bow and carbon-steel broad-tip arrows (and I am a fairly good shot), and have yet to drop a deer with a bow.

I'm talking about simple weapons that simple man would have used and still use. Hunting does not require a lot of intelligence with the proper equipment. Yes, it does require physical skill but it's basically aim and shoot. Before aim and shoot we had stab stab stab. I'm not so sure that hunters in primitive societies are thinking about how to not thin the herd too much, especially looking at the statistics of all the animals that are now or are becoming extinct.

I think intelligence became far more important when man moved away from hunting and gathering. I think in hunting and gathering societies physical attributes were far more valuable than extreme intelligence. It's not the bow and arrow that has the strength it's the person. A person has to have good lungs to blow a poisonous dart into it's prey.

 

[ppnl]

I suspect the big push to larger brains is from social interaction. We are social animals and we survive by interacting with each other in more complex ways. This is not just true of humans but true of all the more intelligent animals. (I think skeptic mag suggested a few years ago that brains were invented to tell dirty jokes.)

Also remember hunting was just a sideline for hunter-gatherers. It seems likely that more food was from gathering and scavenging than hunting. Also most of the food that was hunted was likely rat, rabbit and other small game rather than deer and bufallo. Large game was probably only hunted after our large brains had been here for a long time.

I remember seeing a film on discovery where a group of chimps organized a meat hunt. They were very good at it. But it was the social interaction that made it possible. One chimp had little chance. But a group of chimps set an ambush and pulled down a pig I think. But just the ability to hunt probably could not drive the evolution of intelligence. It is rather complex social interactions which makes possible a variety of things which include hunting. Getting that nice piece of stone age a** probably involved more brain power than hunting. And it may have been more dangerous than hunting if Og wanted it for himself.

 

[Dymanic]

Originally posted by ppnl

I suspect the big push to larger brains is from social interaction.

Thank you.

Also remember hunting was just a sideline for hunter-gatherers.

Likely to have been quite a bit of competition between groups for some of the choicer hunting/gathering spots too. And as far as the innovation of cool new weapons goes, there is one particular form of social interaction that has historically provided most of the inspiration for that.

 

[wjousts]

My ten year old could make a simple bow and arrow.

Did you ever try and make one yourself as a kid? I know I did and mine totally sucked. Maybe I'm just retarded but mine would fire my crappy bent up arrows about 5 feet and a velocity only slightly above walking pace. And that was only when the thing didn't immediately break in half when I tried to string my "arrow". There is a lot of skill involved in even making the most rudimentary bow. On the History channel show "Conquest" a few months ago they did a show on stone age weaponry and the crude bows the people on the show made in their first attempt was really little better than my miserable attempt as a child.
Anyway, I don't think Diamond (who made this suggestion) was in anyway trying to imply that hunting was the main driving force for larger brains anyway. He was suggesting that people living in small bands might be, on average, more intellegent that the average city dweller. I think the argument might have some merit. It takes a lot my brain power to hunt deer than to go to the supermarket and pick up a bag of Doritos. It takes a lot more intellence even to gather and scavenge off the land than it does to jump in you car and go pick up a quart of milk. And social interaction (which I'd agree is probably the most important driving force towards larger brains) is probably even less important in a modern city than it is to a member of a band of hunter-gathers. Living in a city you can pretty much avoid having to interact with anybody for large periods of time. You don't need to make sure that the person who milks the cows to give you milk for you cornflakes is your friend, because you'll never meet them and they will do it anyway because they get paid for it. And if you make an enemy in the city, you can always just avoid them for the rest of your life.

 

[wjousts]

Lions hunt, tigers hunt rather successfully. Because they're smart? Partially, but most humans of low intelligence are much smarter than lions and tigers. Once weapons were developed to put distance between the prey and the hunter, I don't think intelligence was as important a factor.

Lions and tigers do hunt, but they have the natural equipment for it. The thing is the game that we like to chase is often faster or stronger, or bigger, or equipped with sharper teeth and/or claws than us. We can't take down a deer with a bare hands, we couldn't even catch a deer in a straight race. If you tried to take a cow on with you bear hands it will most likely kill you since it has a huge weight advantage over you. About the only advantage we have is our intellegence. Lions and tigers don't need as much intellegence because they are fast, enormously strong and equipped with deadly sharp teeth and claws. We make up for our deficiencies by using cunning and weapons, i.e. putting our intellegence to work.

 

[Eos of the Eons]

Our ealier survival tactics is what got us intelligent. Making good weapons better (bows and arrows to crossbows) started to happen regularly. The more intelligent people survived. Some strength is needed as well. Even women had to be strong to carry out everything they had to do, along with bearing and carrying young around.

Nowadays we still have our inherited intelligence and potential for strength. It doesn't stop the less intelligent and weaker of the bunch from surviving to adulthood and reproducing now though. One of those individuals may still carry a key to our survival.

We do have an interesting array of genetic abnormalities surving into future generations now. People that can't go out into the sun wouldn't have survived a few generations back. Now even they can survive and potentially pass along the 'defects'.

We are at a point now where we can't imagine a huge strain on human survival. An ice age doesn't sound scary even. A huge plague wiping out 75% of the population seems unlikely.

Are we wrecking our environment though? Will our food supply dwindle someday?

There does seem to be individuals that do want to wipe out a huge portion of the population on the planet too. Will their 'intelligence' allow them to devise a successful way to do this?

Our game seems to be man against man now. What do we need most to survive that battle? If a large portion of the population is wiped out and we suddenly did have to live off the land again, what individuals will pass their pool of genes on? We will need intelligence and strength again, and the weaker/less intelligent will die. What one trait will be give anyone an advantage though?

 

[Wrath of the Swarm]

Our ealier survival tactics is what got us intelligent.

Some of us, at least...

 

[neutrino_cannon]

I was walking around the basement of Penrose Liberary, and I saw a copy of Henry Fairfield Osbourne's The Probiscodea, one and two. If anyone knows what that is, or why it is relevant to this discussion (the spine illustration is important), then I will gladly bear their children. Um... I would bear their children, that is. If I spelled the title to the book right, I'll be even happier, and will bear two children to the lucky poster. No google now, that's cheating.

Anyway, what's really going on is that the elephants are looking at the bones of the deceased as they plot their next move in their revenge against humanity.

Think about it, as recently as the early pliocene when hominids were just another variety of toejam, there were lots of different types of elephants. There were dinotheres in Africa, quite frightning things, mastodonts in North America and elsewhere, the ancestors of mammoths (I think mammoths only made it big in the pleistocene, but I reserve the right to be wrong), and last but certainly not least, there were the gompotheres.

From then on through the pleistocene, they did quite well. Unfortunatly, climate changes got most of them, and it would appear humans were rather hard of the remaining ones. Gompotheres, Mastodonts and mammoths alike were hunted down until there were only two gerera of elephants left, and only on two continents! Due to the North-South American landbridge that formed later on, the elephants made it onto all the continets save Australia and Antarctica.

Since elephants live quite long, and have very good communications systems (infrasound IIRC), the painful memories of global persecution by the forces of nature and humans have stayed with them all these ages.

Soon the elephants will invent not only a new religion, but weapons and large structures to heap war booty in. Remember the mumakil from LOTR? Think that, but armed with nukes!


Anyway, it seems to be social creatures that develop the greatest levels of intelligence. Ravens, Parrots, Chimps and the like. Naturally, we live in pretty large groups as well, being of reasonable intelligence.

What then, based on that patterns should the most intelligent animal be? Ants live in large colonies, and are obviously nearly as smart as humans with their gardening techniques and all (I can't even get a garden to work! The ants are clearly smarter than me), but they aren't the most social animal of all.

The answer is coral. Coral live in the largest groups of any animal, and must therefore be the most intelligent. You may scoff now, but when the coral snatch the globe from our frail human hands, I get the right to say "I told you so."