|
|
Post by abacus9900 on Sept 7, 2010 19:02:38 GMT 1
We have been told by those that are supposed to know that at one stage in the distant past Homo-Sapien numbers were at near extinction levels.
What happened to make Homo-Sapiens overcome such diverse conditions to become the dominant species on earth?
|
|
|
|
Post by rsmith7 on Sept 7, 2010 19:18:06 GMT 1
Weapons?
|
|
|
|
Post by kiteman on Sept 7, 2010 20:50:11 GMT 1
Adaptability and a generalised skill-base.
If some global disaster reduced modern man to a random couple of thousand, and we'd be doomed. None of us possess all the skills we need to thrive and survive.
Ancient humans all knew all their skills - hunting, gathering, and the skills to turn raw materials into food, shelter and tools were all known to roughly the same level by all humans.
How many people do you know could even catch a wild bird, never mind skin, gut and cook it?
|
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Sept 7, 2010 20:55:02 GMT 1
Yes, the division of labour has certainly brought us a very long way since everyone knew how to skin a bird, Kiteman. Aren't you glad? I am. There would be no internet for one thing. We'd all live in ghastly small face to face "communities" and there would be no jaunts to Avignon to look at the sights for this lady.
|
|
|
|
Post by rsmith7 on Sept 7, 2010 20:56:29 GMT 1
I can do all that - and regularly do.  So when the asteroid strikes, don't all come running to me - I'm selective |
|
|
|
Post by havelock on Sept 7, 2010 21:21:16 GMT 1
Adaptability and a generalised skill-base. If some global disaster reduced modern man to a random couple of thousand, and we'd be doomed. None of us possess all the skills we need to thrive and survive. Ancient humans all knew all their skills - hunting, gathering, and the skills to turn raw materials into food, shelter and tools were all known to roughly the same level by all humans. How many people do you know could even catch a wild bird, never mind skin, gut and cook it? I may not know very many myself but I'm pretty sure there are enough in some societies to repopulate the planet eventually. I'm not just thinking of Amazonian natives but the nomads of the Mongolian plains, etc |
|
|
|
Post by kiteman on Sept 7, 2010 21:54:45 GMT 1
Mary; agreed
Smith & Havelock; 2000 out of 6-7 billion. That's pretty long odds that the right set of skills would be preserved.
|
|
|
|
Post by lazarus on Sept 8, 2010 0:53:48 GMT 1
That's pretty long odds that the right set of skills would be preserved. I wouldn't think so. It depends where the people are from. Most of the population is in the third world and most of them are used to surviving in small independent communities with few modern comforts. If they all turned out to be Wall Street bankers and hair dressers that might be a different matter. |
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Sept 8, 2010 9:21:37 GMT 1
Nomads could certainly preserve their simple lifestyle but complex industrial society could not. No-one has enough knowledge. Every piece of expertise in anything at all complex is so fragmented that no-one understands the whole - only their bit of the whole. It would take a huge group of "survivors" to recreate our complex industrial society from scratch again.
|
|
|
|
Post by abacus9900 on Sept 8, 2010 10:33:16 GMT 1
A fair guess might be that Homo-Sapiens were put to the severest test, in evolutionary terms, and only those genetic features driven by the demands of the environment that ensured the survival of the species were preserved and passed on.
|
|
|
|
Post by rsmith7 on Sept 8, 2010 11:49:01 GMT 1
I like the story that homo sapiens were coastal dwellers and eating lots of fish and shellfish ensured large brain and intelligence development. With a large brain one can overcome gradual environmental change |
|
|
|
Post by abacus9900 on Sept 8, 2010 12:07:07 GMT 1
I like the story that homo sapiens were coastal dwellers and eating lots of fish and shellfish ensured large brain and intelligence development. With a large brain one can overcome gradual environmental change I've heard of that theory. Any links? |
|
|
|
Post by kiteman on Sept 9, 2010 11:52:46 GMT 1
Google for "aquatic ape". AFAIK, it is not part of the concensus. The logic holds up by itself, but not when compared to the paleontological evidence.
|
|
|
|
Post by abacus9900 on Sept 9, 2010 17:05:06 GMT 1
Google for "aquatic ape". AFAIK, it is not part of the concensus. The logic holds up by itself, but not when compared to the paleontological evidence. It's an intriguing idea but not testable, unfortunately, because such aquatic adaptations would not have been fossilized. |
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Sept 9, 2010 17:30:35 GMT 1
You don't need an aquatic ape hypothesis, interesting though it is, to understand that food is easily obtainable for hunter-gatherers round lakes shores and coasts. In fact the coasts are believed to be the route taken by modern humans to populate the whole planet.
Sea levels have been much lower in the past enabling relatively easy steps, for example, to the continent of Australia and other islands.
Paradoxically, when sea ice penetrated further down into the Atlantic and Pacific during the ice-ages it would have made the route across these great oceans easier for coastal dwelling, hunter/gatherers and boat-using people just as Eskimoes travel by boat along the edge of the ice today, pulling up on to the ice to rest ( or did until the advent of snowmobiles).
|
|
