From Veggies to Meat: Man-Apes become Human

[coberst]

From Veggies to Meat: Man-Apes become human

 

The “man-apes” of Africa (australopithecines) was first discovered in a 1924 dig. This is considered by anthropologists as being one of the most exciting and enlightening finds of modern anthropology. The man-ape, which was first born perhaps a million years ago, represents the transition point of the transformation from ape to human. From the shuffling vegetarian ape to the upright walking carnivore human, this man-ape creature had the brain one-half the size of the modern human.

 

Most of what we now consider to be human has resulted from the taste for meat developing in this man-ape creature. Hunting for meat requires hunting in groups, which in turn requires better communication between individuals, which in turn requires better tools and weapons, which in turn requires newer forms of social organization, all of which leads to greater intellectual sophistication.

 

This greater intellectual sophistication has led this newly evolving species into the development of a much larger brain with the sophisticated reasoning ability of the modern human. Meat eating has made humans of us.

 

“Man developed away from the apes precisely because he had to hunt meat; and if you want to hunt meat you cannot afford yourself the luxury of baboon behavior.”

 

As a result of our carnivorous appetite we have developed non-primate social relations; we now regulate sexual behavior and develop families requiring new social harmonies. We now acquire our recognition from others not based upon what we take but from what we give. “Unlike the baboon who gluts himself only on food, man nourishes himself mostly on self-esteem…The hunting band lives in the security of internal peace necessary to get food, of the right of all to partake of what food there is, and of the certainty of the provision of regular sexual partners for all.”

 

We are now beginning to comprehend the fact that humans are primarily unique because wo/man is a total celebration of itself in distinctive self-expression.

 

Quotes from “The Birth and Death of Meaning”—Ernest Becker

[Turtle]

chimpanzies hunt & eat meat. what evidence do you have that australopithecines were vegetarians?

[Boerseun]

Primates ancestral to humans older than Australopithecines also had canine teeth, the hallmark of carnivores.

 

Baboons have particularly vicious canines, and are very efficient hunters.

 

I don't think our love for prime rib has anything to do with our becoming human. Seeing the mental regression of a pack of humans standing around a barbeque with beer in hand, also testifies to this... :evil:

[coberst]

chimpanzies hunt & eat meat. :) what evidence do you have that australopithecines were vegetarians? :cup: ;)

 

Quotes from “The Birth and Death of Meaning”—Ernest Becker

[Turtle]

chimpanzies hunt & eat meat. what evidence do you have that australopithecines were vegetarians?

Quotes from “The Birth and Death of Meaning”—Ernest Becker

 

i didn't read the whole work, but enough to contradict your claim.

 

..Australopithecines, the transitional man-apes, appeared first a million years ago in the grasslands of Southern and Eastern Africa. They were roamers with upright posture, free hands for rudimentary weapons and food. Groups hunted and enjoyed animal flesh....

Ernest Beckers The Birth and Death of Meaning

 

:) :)

[coberst]

i didn't read the whole work, but enough to contradict your claim.

 

 

Ernest Beckers The Birth and Death of Meaning

 

 

 

Chapter 0ne "The Man-Apes" pages 1-4

[Turtle]

Chapter 0ne "The Man-Apes" pages 1-4

 

yes coberst; my quote is from chapter 1. your contention put forward in the opening post >>

Most of what we now consider to be human has resulted from the taste for meat developing in this man-ape creature. Hunting for meat requires hunting in groups, which in turn requires better communication between individuals, which in turn requires better tools and weapons, which in turn requires newer forms of social organization, all of which leads to greater intellectual sophistication.

 

this is not supported by your reference; moreover, it is contradicted by chimpanzies today, as they hunt and yet they lack our intellectual sophistication. then there is the recent study claiming vegans are smarter, which contradicts the postulation as well. (Vegetarians are more intelligent, says study | News | This is London)

 

on to the next essay! :rolleyes: ;)

[coberst]

Every statement in my OP comes from information derived from the book in question. I never indicated that meat eaters were smarter than veggie eaters. I have a friend who is a vegetarian and he is perhaps even smarter than me.

[maikeru]

Most of what we now consider to be human has resulted from the taste for meat developing in this man-ape creature. Hunting for meat requires hunting in groups, which in turn requires better communication between individuals, which in turn requires better tools and weapons, which in turn requires newer forms of social organization, all of which leads to greater intellectual sophistication.

 

Like Turtle, I find this claim highly suspect.

 

There's some evidence that the inclusion of omega-3 rich foods, from plant and animal sources, likely led to an expansion of brain power in early humans. (DHA is a basic building block of the nervous system, and often used to create components of the neuronal membrane, axonal myelin sheaths, or regulating signaling molecules. When it is not available, the brain makes an inferior fatty acid that cannot fulfill all the same functions that DHA does, and it can lead to degeneration in the performance and functioning of the brain and eyesight, possibly leading to mental retardation and slowed reflexes.) Some of the richest sources of omega-3 fatty acids come from sea and lakeshore foods, such as seaweeds, clams, oysters, fish, frogs, turtles, bird eggs, etc. The richest plant sources come from flax seed, various nuts like walnuts and almonds, and dark green vegetables. Rather, it may have been the human tendency (and need) to settle or dwell near areas with water resources which allowed for plentiful food resources, competition, trade, and the excess to allow for the development of larger families and eventually communities, with all the cooperation, strife, and relationships that such communities offer.

 

Hunting groups and exquisite communication between individuals seem poorly adapted solely for collecting food at the seaside and lakeshore. But they do very well to help a group's survival and function when it starts to become more complex, diversify, and engages in relations, trade, or conflict with other social groups.

 

Becker's view, IMO, finds its root in the early ideas of prehistoric man as mammoth hunters and big-game killers (as seen in the myths swirling about the Clovis and Neanderthal peoples). Current anthropological and archaeological evidence suggest something much less Hollywood.

 

Why is DHA Essential for Our Eyes and Brains?

Omega-3 fatty acid - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wiki quote:

Early humans evolved eating inter-tidal shellfish, while living a shoreline existence in Africa.

Nature paper on view of early humans living by water (need to pay for access):

Access to articles : Nature

 

The rest of Becker's quotes and claims, following from his initial assertion, are poorly reasoned and trivial; and I just wish to add that quotes in themselves do not provide much useful dialogue.

[coberst]

maikeru

 

Becker does not imply that the ingestion of meat causes the big brain directly but that the required sophistication combined with the upright posture combined to slowly increase the brain size and sophistication.

 

I suspect there are many different ideas regarding how the human species evolved from the ape.

 

We are all called upon to constantly make judgments about such matters and that is why I am such a fanatic about the importance of learning CT (Critical Thinking).

 

CT is the study of the knowledge, skills, and character traits of good judgment.

[coberst]

CT Strategies Abstract

 

A. Affective Strategies

S-1 thinking independently

Thru

S-9 developing confidence in reason

 

B. Cognitive Strategies - Macro-Abilities

S-10 refining generalizations and avoiding oversimplifications

Thru

S-26 reasoning dialectically: evaluating perspectives, interpretations, or theories

 

C. Cognitive Strategies - Micro-Skills

S-27 comparing and contrasting ideals with actual practice

Thru

S-35 exploring implications and consequences

 

S-1 Thinking Independently

 

Principle: Critical thinking is independent thinking, thinking for oneself. Many of our beliefs are acquired at an early age, when we have a strong tendency to form beliefs for irrational reasons (because we want to believe, because we are praised or rewarded for believing). Critical thinkers use critical skills and insights to reveal and reject beliefs that are irrational.

 

S-2 Developing Insight Into Egocentricity or Sociocentricity

 

Principle: Egocentricity means confusing what we see and think with reality. When under the influence of egocentricity, we think that the way we see things is exactly the way things are. Egocentricity manifests itself as an inability or unwillingness to consider others' points of view, a refusal to accept ideas or facts which would prevent us from getting what we want (or think we want).

 

S-3 Exercising Fairmindedness

 

Principle: To think critically, we must be able to consider the strengths and weaknesses of opposing points of view; to imaginatively put ourselves in the place of others in order to genuinely understand them; to overcome our egocentric tendency to identify truth with our immediate perceptions or long-standing thought or belief.

 

S-4 Exploring Thoughts Underlying Feelings and Feelings Underlying Thoughts

 

Principle: Although it is common to separate thought and feeling as though they were independent, opposing forces in the human mind, the truth is that virtually all human feelings are based on some level of thought and virtually all thought generative of some level of feeling. To think with self-understanding and insight, we must come to terms with the intimate connections between thought and feeling, reason and emotion.

 

S-5 Developing Intellectual Humility and Suspending Judgment

 

Principle: Critical thinkers recognize the limits of their knowledge. They are sensitive to circumstances in which their native egocentricity is likely to function self-deceptively; they are sensitive to bias, prejudice, and limitations of their views. Intellectual humility is based on the recognition that one should not claim more than one actually knows. It does not imply spinelessness or submissiveness.

 

S-6 Developing Intellectual Courage

 

Principle: To think independently and fairly, one must feel the need to face and fairly deal with unpopular ideas, beliefs, or viewpoints. The courage to do so arises when we see that ideas considered dangerous or absurd are sometimes rationally justified (in whole or in part) and that conclusions or beliefs inculcated in us are sometimes false or misleading.

 

S-7 Developing Intellectual Good Faith or Integrity

 

Principle: Critical thinkers recognize the need to be true to their own thought, to be consistent in the intellectual standards they apply, to hold themselves to the same rigorous standards of evidence and proof to which they hold others, to practice what they advocate for others, and to honestly admit discrepancies and inconsistencies in their own thought and action. They believe most strongly what has been justified by their own thought and analyzed experience.

 

S-8 Developing Intellectual Perseverance

 

Principle: Becoming a more critical thinker is not easy. It takes time and effort. Critical thinking is reflective and recursive; that is, we often think back to previous problems to re-consider or re-analyze them. Critical thinkers are willing to pursue intellectual insights and truths in spite of difficulties, obstacles, and frustrations.

 

S-9 Developing Confidence in Reason

 

Principle: The rational person recognizes the power of reason and the value of disciplining thinking in accordance with rational standards. Virtually all of the progress that has been made in science and human knowledge testifies to this power, and so to the reasonability of having confidence in reason.

 

S-10 Refining Generalizations and Avoiding Oversimplifications

 

Principle: It is natural to seek to simplify problems and experiences to make them easier to deal with. Everyone does this. However, the uncritical thinker often oversimplifies and as a result misrepresents problems and experiences.

 

S-11 Comparing Analogous Situations: Transferring Insights to New Contexts

 

Principle: An idea's power is limited by our ability to use it. Critical thinkers' ability to use ideas mindfully enhances their ability to transfer ideas critically. They practice using ideas and insights by appropriately applying them to new situations. This allows them to organize materials and experiences in different ways, to compare and contrast alternative labels, to integrate their understanding of different situations, and to find useful ways to think about new situations.

 

S-12 Developing One's Perspective: Creating or Exploring Beliefs, Arguments, or Theories

 

Principle: The world is not given to us sliced up into categories with pre-assigned labels on them. There are always many ways to "divide up" and so experience the world. How we do so is essential to our thinking and behavior. Uncritical thinkers assume that their perspective on things is the only correct one. Selfish critical thinkers manipulate the perspectives of others to gain advantage for themselves.

 

S-13 Clarifying Issues, Conclusions, or Beliefs

 

Principle: The more completely, clearly, and accurately an issue or statement is formulated, the easier and more helpful the discussion of its settlement or verification. Given a clear statement of an issue, and prior to evaluating conclusions or solutions, it is important to recognize what is required to settle it. And before we can agree or disagree with a claim, we must understand it clearly.

 

S-14 Clarifying and Analyzing the Meanings of Words or Phrases

 

Principle: Critical, independent thinking requires clarity of thought. A clear thinker understands concepts and knows what kind of evidence is required to justify applying a word or phrase to a situation. The ability to supply a definition is not proof of understanding. One must be able to supply clear, obvious examples and use the concept appropriately. In contrast, for an unclear thinker, words float through the mind unattached to clear, specific, concrete cases. Distinct concepts are confused.

 

S-15 Developing Criteria for Evaluation: Clarifying Values and Standards

 

Principle: Critical thinkers realize that expressing mere preference does not substitute for evaluating something. Awareness of the process or components of evaluating facilitates thoughtful and fairminded evaluation. This process requires developing and using criteria or standards of evaluation, or making standards or criteria explicit.

 

S-16 Evaluating the Credibility of Sources of Information

 

Principle: Critical thinkers recognize the importance of using reliable sources of information. They give less weight to sources which either lack a track record of honesty, are not in a position to know, or have a vested interest in the issue. Critical thinkers recognize when there is more than one reasonable position to be taken on an issue; they compare alternative sources of information, noting areas of agreement; they analyze questions to determine whether or not the source is in a position to know; and they gather more information when sources disagree.

 

S-17 Questioning Deeply: Raising and Pursuing Root or Significant Questions

 

Principle: Critical thinkers can pursue an issue in depth, covering various aspects in an extended process of thought or discussion. When reading a passage, they look for issues and concepts underlying the claims expressed. They come to their own understanding of the details they learn, placing them in the larger framework of the subject and their overall perspectives. They contemplate the significant issues and questions underlying subjects or problems studied. They can move between basic underlying ideas and specific details.

 

S-18 Analyzing or Evaluating Arguments, Interpretations, Beliefs, or Theories

 

Principle: Rather than carelessly agreeing or disagreeing with a conclusion based on their preconceptions of what is true, critical thinkers use analytic tools to understand the reasoning behind it and determine its relative strengths and weaknesses. When analyzing arguments,critical thinkers recognize the importance of asking for reasons and considering other views.

 

S-19 Generating or Assessing Solutions

 

Principle: Critical problem-solvers use everything available to them to find the best solution they can. They evaluate solutions, not independently of, but in relation to one another (since 'best' implies a comparison).

 

S-20 Analyzing or Evaluating Actions and Policies

 

Principle: To develop one's perspective, one must analyze actions and policies and evaluate them. Good judgment is best developed through practice: judging behavior, explaining and justifying those judgments, hearing alternative judgments and their justifications, and assessing judgments. When evaluating the behavior of themselves and others, critical thinkers are aware of the standards they use, so that these, too, can become objects of evaluation.

 

S-21 Reading Critically: Clarifying or Critiquing Texts

 

Principle: Critical thinkers read with a healthy skepticism. But they do not doubt or deny until they understand. They clarify before they judge. Since they expect intelligibility from what they read, they check and double-check their understanding as they read. They do not mindlessly accept nonsense. Critical readers ask themselves questions as they read, wonder about the implications of, reasons for, examples of, and meaning and truth of the material.

 

S-22 Listening Critically: The Art of Silent Dialogue

 

Principle: Critical thinkers realize that listening can be done passively and uncritically or actively and critically. They know that it is easy to misunderstand what is said by another and hard to integrate another's thinking into one's own. Compare speaking and listening. When we speak, we need only keep track of our own ideas, arranging them in some order, expressing thoughts with which we are intimately familiar: our own.

 

S-23 Making Interdisciplinary Connections

 

Principle: Although in some ways it is convenient to divide knowledge up into disciplines, the divisions are not absolute. Critical thinkers do not allow the somewhat arbitrary distinctions between academic subjects to control their thinking. When considering issues which transcend subjects (and most real-life issues do), they bring relevant concepts, knowledge, and insights from many subjects to the analysis.

 

S-24 Practicing Socratic Discussion: Clarifying and Questioning Beliefs, Theories, or Perspectives

 

Principle: Critical thinkers are nothing if not questioners. The ability to question and probe deeply, to get down to root ideas, to get beneath the mere appearance of things, is at the very heart of the activity. And, as questioners, they have many different kinds of questions and moves available and can follow up their questions appropriately.

 

S-25 Reasoning Dialogically: Comparing Perspectives, Interpretations, or Theories

 

Principle: Dialogical thinking refers to thinking that involves a dialogue or extended exchange between different points of view. Whenever we consider concepts or issues deeply, we naturally explore their connections to other ideas and issues within different points of view.

 

S-26 Reasoning Dialectically: Evaluating Perspectives, Interpretations, or Theories

 

Principle: Dialectical thinking refers to dialogical thinking conducted in order to test the strengths and weaknesses of opposing points of view. Court trials and debates are dialectical in intention. They pit idea against idea, reasoning against counter-reasoning in order to get at the truth of a matter. As soon as we begin to explore ideas, we find that some clash or are inconsistent with others.

 

S-27 Comparing and Contrasting Ideals with Actual Practice

 

Principle: Self-improvement and social improvement are presupposed values of critical thinking. Critical thinking, therefore, requires an effort to see ourselves and others accurately. This requires recognizing gaps between ideals and practice. The fairminded thinker values truth and consistency and so works to minimize these gaps.

 

S-28 Thinking Precisely About Thinking: Using Critical Vocabulary

 

Principle: An essential requirement of critical thinking is the ability to think about thinking, to engage in what is sometimes called "metacognition". One possible definition of critical thinking is the art of thinking about your thinking while you're thinking in order to make your thinking better: more clear, more accurate, more fair.

 

S-29 Noting Significant Similarities and Differences

 

Principle: Critical thinkers strive to treat similar things similarly and different things differently. Uncritical thinkers, on the other hand, often don't see significant similarities and differences. Things superficially similar are often significantly different. Things superficially different are often essentially the same.

 

S-30 Examining or Evaluating Assumptions

 

Principle: We are in a better position to evaluate any reasoning or behavior when all of the elements of that reasoning or behavior are made explicit. We base both our reasoning and our behavior on beliefs we take for granted. We are often unaware of these assumptions. Only by recognizing them can we evaluate them.

 

S-31 Distinguishing Relevant From Irrelevant Facts

 

Principle: To think critically, we must be able to tell the difference between those facts which are relevant to an issue and those which are not. Critical thinkers focus their attention on relevant facts and do not let irrelevant considerations affect their conclusions. Whether or not something is relevant is often unclear; relevance must often be argued. Furthermore, a fact is only relevant or irrelevant in relation to an issue. Information relevant to one problem may not be relevant to another.

 

S-32 Making Plausible Inferences, Predictions, or Interpretations

 

Principle: Thinking critically involves the ability to reach sound conclusions based on observation and information. Critical thinkers distinguish their observations from their conclusions. They look beyond the facts, to see what those facts imply. They know what the concepts they use imply.

 

S-33 Giving Reasons and Evaluating Evidence and Alleged Facts

 

Principle: Critical thinkers can take their reasoning apart in order to examine and evaluate its components. They know on what evidence they base their conclusions. They realize that un-stated, unknown reasons can be neither communicated nor critiqued. They are comfortable being asked to give reasons; they don't find requests for reasons intimidating, confusing, or insulting.

 

S-34 Recognizing Contradictions

 

Principle: Consistency is a fundamental-some would say the defining-ideal of critical thinkers. They strive to remove contradictions from their beliefs, and are wary of contradictions in others. As would-be fairminded thinkers they strive to judge like cases in a like manner.

 

S-35 Exploring Implications and Consequences

 

Principle: Critical thinkers can take statements, recognize their implications-what follows from them-and develop a fuller, more complete understanding of their meaning. They realize that to accept a statement one must also accept its implications. They can explore both implications and consequences at length. When considering beliefs that relate to actions or policies, critical thinkers assess the consequences of acting on those beliefs.

 

{This list is found in the following handbooks: Critical Thinking Handbook: k-3, Critical Thinking Handbook: 4-6, Critical Thinking Handbook: 6-9, Critical Thinking Handbook: High School.}

 

Critical Thinking Skills

[CraigD]

Most of what we now consider to be human has resulted from the taste for meat developing in this man-ape creature. Hunting for meat requires hunting in groups, which in turn requires better communication between individuals, which in turn requires better tools and weapons, which in turn requires newer forms of social organization, all of which leads to greater intellectual sophistication.

this is not supported by your reference; moreover, it is contradicted by chimpanzies today, as they hunt and yet they lack our intellectual sophistication.

…

on to the next essay! :) :)

No matter the accuracy or appropriateness of the citations of Becker’s book, the idea that an increase in meat-eating – or, more directly, the increased hunting necessary to acquire large game animals – resulted in increased intelligence in primate species, leading to H. Sapiens S. (human), is a venerable and respected one.

 

Generally, this family of hypotheses (noting the problematic testability of speculation about the behavior of no-longer-existent species strains the term in the sense it is used in more rigorous science) propose that hunting difficult prey – prey that could not simply be outrun and killed with ones bare hands – required early hunter hominids to develop better communication skills, allowing a group to kill prey than an individual could not. However, the trait of vocal communication to improve group hunting is common in many animals, from our close relatives Pan T. (chimpanzee) to non-primates such as lions and hyenas. What distinguished proto-human group hunting from that of other animals was, hypothesis contends, that it became symbolic and abstract. Rather than the simple use of vocalization common to group hunters – basically, a scheme of announcing you location to fellow hunters to allow you group to work like a single, large body – proto-humans planned and rehearsed, requiring true language, and the mental facilities to remember things that had not yet occurred.

 

Animal behavior studies reveal that this is a very unusual ability. Although a non-critical examination of other animals seems to suggest its present in many animals, detailed analysis, informed where possible by neuroscience – implies that this impression is due primarily to the fallacy of anthropomorphization. The detailed, narrative planning ubiquitous to modern humans, and almost certainly as common in ancient humans and proto-humans, appears, under scientific scrutiny, to be absent from other animals, even nearly genetically human primates like Pan T, and “brainy” non-primates such as T. truncates (dolphin).

 

That H. Sapiens S. acquired this ability is as certain as one’s acceptance of evolution. That it was due to its utility in group hunting is much less certain.

 

Personally, I favor (but can’t prove) the hypothesis that the development of abstract language by proto-humans was a fortuitous consequence of anatomy. As I’ve suggested in other threads, the modern human larynx (voicebox) is dramatically larger and more capable than that of any of the other primates. Other primates not only lack human-like language because of neurological differences, but because their vocal apparatus is incapable of producing the many precisely controlled sounds such spoken language requires. Although alternative exists – complicated sign languages, writing, computer keyboards, etc – the “better larynx” hypothesis holds that these techniques are not as “natural” and “primitive” as speech, and thus could not develop independently of it.

 

It’s greater size is due directly to the elongated chest, neck, and head arrangement required by our full-time upright walking skeletal anatomy, traits that almost certainly did not evolve in order to allow early upright-walkers like H. Erectus to be a “chatty ape”, but rather to enhance vision and free the forelimbs to allow their marvelous primate hands to be put to optimum use. Thus, according to my favorite “emergence of human” hypothesis, pretty vocalizations, abstract language, and human intelligence are the result of an anatomical accident – rather like rearranging your furniture to afford a better view of a television, coincidentally placing a table in more prominent place, leading you and a friend to become avid and accomplished chess players.

 

So, returning to this threads original claim,

Most of what we now consider to be human has resulted from the taste for meat developing in this man-ape creature.

According to the “chatty ape” hypothesis, that proto-humans put their enhanced language abilities to the task of hunting, and thus gained more of their food from meat than their ancestor species, is a consequence, not a cause of these abilities. The hypothesis is attractive, because it not only provides an explanation for the emergence of human intelligence, but an explanation of why genetically and anatomically similar animals in the same ecological niche at the same time did not develop human intelligence.

 

It doesn’t address the “why is there only one hominid species around now?” problem. Archeological evidence indicates that, for most of archeological history, many non-interbreeding hominid species lived in proximity to one another, yet, a mere couple of hundres of thousands of years ago, all but H. Sapiens S. and a few of close relatives such as H. floresiensis (“Flores hobbits”) and H. Sapiens N. (Neanderthal) were gone, and by a couple of tens of thousands of years, only H Sapiens S. was left (discounting “Big Foot” theories ;)). My favorite explanation of this problem is the self-descriptive “genocidal ape” hypothesis. According to this hypothesis, it was not our taste for meat that won us our current prominence in the Primate order, but our taste for killing.

[ughaibu]

I recently read that afarensis (Lucy) has been reclassified as a gorilla ancestor. Bipedalism appears to predate the ape/human divide.

[ughaibu]

Here's the relevant abstract: Gorilla-like anatomy on Australopithecus afarensis mandibles suggests Au. afarensis link to robust australopiths -- Rak et al., 10.1073/pnas.0606454104 -- Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences

[Turtle]

No matter the accuracy or appropriateness of the citations of Becker’s book, the idea that an increase in meat-eating – or, more directly, the increased hunting necessary to acquire large game animals – resulted in increased intelligence in primate species, leading to H. Sapiens S. (human), is a venerable and respected one.

 

Generally, this family of hypotheses (noting the problematic testability of speculation about the behavior of no-longer-existent species strains the term in the sense it is used in more rigorous science) propose that hunting difficult prey – prey that could not simply be outrun and killed with ones bare hands – required early hunter hominids to develop better communication skills, allowing a group to kill prey than an individual could not. ...

 

i think 'venerable and respected' is a genuinely suspect authority. one might argue with equal strength that making shelters, making fire, preparing food, farming, or any number of unique human traits served the function laid to hunting for advancing humans. :) :)

[Turtle]

i see a distinct bias to males in all this chat, and since males compose more or less only half of humanity, it's a bias that darkens the view of an already cloudy subject.

 

someone brought up hunting mammoths as the 'great achievemnt', but here again the hunting part is at best 1/2 the story, and in my opinion more like 20% -30%. the assortment of tools necessary to process so much meat and organization required to bring them to bear is significant. after the kill the meat has to be cut up, packaged, transported, dried, cooked, distributed, etcetera. in many triabal societies this work falls to the women. without these factors in place beforehand, killing a mammoth makes little sense for the effort. then of course there is tanning the hides (chemistry), recovering the sinew, making tools from its bones etcetera.

 

just throwing in some critical thinking. ;) :) :)

[coberst]

i see a distinct bias to males in all this chat, and since males compose more or less only half of humanity, it's a bias that darkens the view of an already cloudy subject.

 

someone brought up hunting mammoths as the 'great achievemnt', but here again the hunting part is at best 1/2 the story, and in my opinion more like 20% -30%. the assortment of tools necessary to process so much meat and organization required to bring them to bear is significant. after the kill the meat has to be cut up, packaged, transported, dried, cooked, distributed, etcetera. in many triabal societies this work falls to the women. without these factors in place beforehand, killing a mammoth makes little sense for the effort. then of course there is tanning the hides (chemistry), recovering the sinew, making tools from its bones etcetera.

 

just throwing in some critical thinking. ;) :cup: ;)

 

 

I agree. All of these activities drive the development of a larger brain.