Looks like reasonably strong evidence of Neanderthal cannibalism. And they didn’t even bother cooking them (yes I know it’s the DM but it’s a decent enough report):

A group of Neanderthals killed and ate their fellow ancient humans, including young children, scientists have found.

Using modern forensics techniques, including DNA analysis, the researchers found that 12 Neanderthals, all from the same family, had been eaten by their peers.

In research presented to the Royal Society in London, biologist Carles Lalueza-Fox, said that the bones of the victims had been cracked open to extract the marrow, while the skulls were opened so brains and tongues could be eaten.

Remains, discovered at the El Sidrón cave system, near Asturias, in north western Spain, included the bones of three female and three male adults, three teenage boys and three children aged between two and nine-years-old.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2512665/Talk-having-neighbours-round-dinner-Scientists-site-DOZEN-Neanderthals-killed-eaten-single-feast.html#ixzz2le0XQkJo

Bubblecar said:

Looks like reasonably strong evidence of Neanderthal cannibalism. And they didn’t even bother cooking them (yes I know it’s the DM but it’s a decent enough report):

A group of Neanderthals killed and ate their fellow ancient humans, including young children, scientists have found.

Using modern forensics techniques, including DNA analysis, the researchers found that 12 Neanderthals, all from the same family, had been eaten by their peers.

In research presented to the Royal Society in London, biologist Carles Lalueza-Fox, said that the bones of the victims had been cracked open to extract the marrow, while the skulls were opened so brains and tongues could be eaten.

Remains, discovered at the El Sidrón cave system, near Asturias, in north western Spain, included the bones of three female and three male adults, three teenage boys and three children aged between two and nine-years-old.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2512665/Talk-having-neighbours-round-dinner-Scientists-site-DOZEN-Neanderthals-killed-eaten-single-feast.html#ixzz2le0XQkJo

Interesting but hardly surprising.

I don’t find it surprising, no. It’s been reasonably well established that Neanderthals lived in remarkably small groups. They were also very muscular and their remains are often found with multiple injuries. And, they died out :)

All told, we shouldn’t be surprised to find that they were more aggressive and less sociable than modern humans.

Bubblecar said:

I don’t find it surprising, no. It’s been reasonably well established that Neanderthals lived in remarkably small groups. They were also very muscular and their remains are often found with multiple injuries. And, they died out :)

All told, we shouldn’t be surprised to find that they were more aggressive and less sociable than modern humans.

The traces of neanderthal in the modern human genome would suggest our forebears were predisposed to domesticating other species and that this might be the characteristic that made them succesful over other hominids?

>…biologist Carles Lalueza-Fox, said that the bones of the victims had been cracked open to extract the marrow, while the skulls were opened so brains and tongues could be eaten..”

Is this part of your new weight loss approach, car :), the new psychological approach. Or, god no, you are thinking about eating people.

>>He said that as Neanderthals lived in smaller groups this may have made them liable to eat each other when no other food sources could be found, rather than modern humans who lived in larger groups and worked together in tougher times.<<

This is just pure sensationalism, We Homo sapiens, still kill and eat others when times are tough. There are many quite recent examples from a plane crash in South America to victims of shipwrecks, also in PNG, the islands and other such societies people were often eaten. We have an aversion to acknowledge our true nature and prefer to accuse other species of such base behaviour.

PermeateFree said:

>>He said that as Neanderthals lived in smaller groups this may have made them liable to eat each other when no other food sources could be found, rather than modern humans who lived in larger groups and worked together in tougher times.<<

This is just pure sensationalism, We Homo sapiens, still kill and eat others when times are tough. There are many quite recent examples from a plane crash in South America to victims of shipwrecks, also in PNG, the islands and other such societies people were often eaten. We have an aversion to acknowledge our true nature and prefer to accuse other species of such base behaviour.

humans will eat each other given the right circumstances

chances are they’ve stumbled across the remains of a widespread famine and they’ve been forced to eat each other.

i would do it in a hart beet if it was needed.
the less cared about none functioning group member would be viewed as protein

robadob said:

i would do it in a hart beet if it was needed.
the less cared about none functioning group member would be viewed as protein

In that I am glad there is only a few wires connecting us.

roughbarked said:

robadob said:

i would do it in a hart beet if it was needed.
the less cared about none functioning group member would be viewed as protein

In that I am glad there is only a few wires connecting us.

I do mean that I’d hate to be forced to waste your meat if you looked like you wanted to eat me.

robadob said:

the less cared about none functioning group member would be viewed as protein

In that case, it sounds like you’d be the first on the menu Rob.

Witty Rejoinder said:

robadob said:

the less cared about none functioning group member would be viewed as protein

In that case, it sounds like you’d be the first on the menu Rob.

Not in my case.. I’d have to kill him and leave him by the wayside.

My book seller owes me a free book. I might get one on cannibalism. Lost on Shangri-la is a good read on perpetual tribal warfare and cannibalism for ritual as opposed to by emergency.

Witty Rejoinder said:

robadob said:

the less cared about none functioning group member would be viewed as protein

In that case, it sounds like you’d be the first on the menu Rob.

rob would be gristly with knotted balls of inedible fibre

wookiemeister said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

robadob said:

the less cared about none functioning group member would be viewed as protein

In that case, it sounds like you’d be the first on the menu Rob.

rob would be gristly with knotted balls and inedible fibre

fixed

wookiemeister said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

robadob said:

the less cared about none functioning group member would be viewed as protein

In that case, it sounds like you’d be the first on the menu Rob.

rob would be gristly with knotted balls of inedible fibre

Sorry to inform you that this would be no excuse.. If you tried to kill me to eat me.. I’d simply beat you to it and not bother eating you… probably spread you on a road for vehicles to lay flat.

roughbarked said:

wookiemeister said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

In that case, it sounds like you’d be the first on the menu Rob.

rob would be gristly with knotted balls of inedible fibre

Sorry to inform you that this would be no excuse.. If you tried to kill me to eat me.. I’d simply beat you to it and not bother eating you… probably spread you on a road for vehicles to lay flat.

I am reminded of Alexander Pearce a Tasmanian convict who ate a number of people.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Pearce

PermeateFree said:

roughbarked said:

wookiemeister said:

rob would be gristly with knotted balls of inedible fibre

Sorry to inform you that this would be no excuse.. If you tried to kill me to eat me.. I’d simply beat you to it and not bother eating you… probably spread you on a road for vehicles to lay flat.

I am reminded of Alexander Pearce a Tasmanian convict who ate a number of people.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Pearce

> it

is OK.. you could eat me

if you managed to beat me to the kill.

Like I said though.. your remains would not get the same respect.. I’d kick them aside like any refuse.

I suppose it was out of necessity rather than diversifying the meat type in the diet, and who of us in the modern world ever gets that hungry to know what possibilities may become necessity. Some situations may come to, well they are thinking of eating us, so it’s a matter of who goes first. Being a meal for another human doesn’t so much bother me as the method of death and that of leading up to arriving at that, I mean i’d like the chance to escape the danger, or at least fight my way to the end, ‘fairly’, to the extent anyone would entertain the thought of what is ‘fair’ in such a situation.

>We have an aversion to acknowledge our true nature and prefer to accuse other species of such base behaviour.

?

I’m well aware that modern humans can be nasty and aggressive, so it shouldn’t surprise us to find that hominids of the past were even moreso.

>I’m well aware that modern humans can be nasty and aggressive, so it shouldn’t surprise us to find that hominids of the past were even moreso.

Car, if you were on your way out, so to speak, and your family were nearing death from starvation, how would you go with giving your self up to be a meal for them?

transition said:

>I’m well aware that modern humans can be nasty and aggressive, so it shouldn’t surprise us to find that hominids of the past were even moreso.

Car, if you were on your way out, so to speak, and your family were nearing death from starvation, how would you go with giving your self up to be a meal for them?

With a suitable bottle of wine of course!

>With a suitable bottle of wine of course!

;)

>Car, if you were on your way out, so to speak, and your family were nearing death from starvation, how would you go with giving your self up to be a meal for them?

We know nothing much about the circumstances of this incident. It wasn’t necessarily associated with starvation (it could have been the end result of a feud between neighbouring clans).

>We know nothing much about the circumstances of this incident. It wasn’t necessarily associated with starvation (it could have been the end result of a feud between neighbouring clans).

More I was exploring the perhaps modern ‘view’ of ‘cannibalism’.

Bubblecar said:

>Car, if you were on your way out, so to speak, and your family were nearing death from starvation, how would you go with giving your self up to be a meal for them?

We know nothing much about the circumstances of this incident. It wasn’t necessarily associated with starvation (it could have been the end result of a feud between neighbouring clans).

Or a ritual/religious thing. Too little data for any real conclusions to be drawn.

>Or a ritual/religious thing

Not likely. That suggests large-scale social organisation which the Neanderthals apparently didn’t go in for.

>Or a ritual/religious thing. Too little data for any real conclusions to be drawn.

We can however put ourselves through, thought-experiment-like, doing such a thing, maybe.

It is possible that certain mutations back a way, variant expression, had about them what today may be seen as psychopathology, that we see these today as killer psychopaths.

It maybe a fall back behaviour also, that pushed the mind resorts to such a possibility.

Living in small groups and sticking to the same regions for long periods, it’s likely that these people were highly territorial. Obviously there had to be some contact between groups for mating purposes etc, but if we’re talking aggressive hunters who were very protective of the resources of their patch, feuding might well have been common. It’s quite common amongst various hunter-gatherer and primitive farming peoples today.

Riff-in-Thyme said:

The traces of neanderthal in the modern human genome would suggest our forebears were predisposed to domesticating other species …

Huh?

neomyrtus_ said:

Riff-in-Thyme said:

The traces of neanderthal in the modern human genome would suggest our forebears were predisposed to domesticating other species …

Huh?

Seeing creatures outside of a tribal unit as other than a threat has ensured our survival. I kinda imagine a cave brat demanding to have the wolfy,, an tha horsy an tha cute neanderthal…….

Riff-in-Thyme said:

Seeing creatures outside of a tribal unit as other than a threat has ensured our survival. I kinda imagine a cave brat demanding to have the wolfy,, an tha horsy an tha cute neanderthal…….

I think it explains the male trait of either being in awe of females(pussywhipped) or violently dominating towards them, the latter being the unintentional result of what I am pretty sure(from my own experience with the complexities of the female mind) was an intentional fostering of the former. ie, daughter disgruntled with who her father favors for partner within the tribe runs off with childhood friend she has made in a nearby neanderthal tribe. That is an entirely hollywood stereotypical scenario, but stereotypes are part of our evolution.

Riff-in-Thyme said:

Riff-in-Thyme said:

Seeing creatures outside of a tribal unit as other than a threat has ensured our survival. I kinda imagine a cave brat demanding to have the wolfy,, an tha horsy an tha cute neanderthal…….

I think it explains the male trait of either being in awe of females(pussywhipped) or violently dominating towards them, the latter being the unintentional result of what I am pretty sure(from my own experience with the complexities of the female mind) was an intentional fostering of the former. ie, daughter disgruntled with who her father favors for partner within the tribe runs off with childhood friend she has made in a nearby neanderthal tribe. That is an entirely hollywood stereotypical scenario, but stereotypes are part of our evolution.

make that, runs away with enslaved neanderthal she has a forbidden freindship with, having known him from a young age….

Riff-in-Thyme said:

That is an entirely hollywood stereotypical scenario …

Why yes. Yes it is. Feel free to back up your position that H. sapiens sapiens and H. s. neanderthalensis hybridisation events as inferred from genomic admixtures indicate your scenarios, with reference to the current published anthropological and archaeological literature from credible sources.

neomyrtus_ said:

Riff-in-Thyme said:

That is an entirely hollywood stereotypical scenario …

Why yes. Yes it is. Feel free to back up your position that H. sapiens sapiens and H. s. neanderthalensis hybridisation events as inferred from genomic admixtures indicate your scenarios, with reference to the current published anthropological and archaeological literature from credible sources.

I gave a hypothetical scenario to illustrate how it might have eventuated that the female predispostion for befriending helpless animals may have contributed to our genetic diversity and the skills that have ensured our proliferation. I don’t owe you a thesis.

Riff-in-Thyme said:

neomyrtus_ said:

Riff-in-Thyme said:

That is an entirely hollywood stereotypical scenario …

Why yes. Yes it is. Feel free to back up your position that H. sapiens sapiens and H. s. neanderthalensis hybridisation events as inferred from genomic admixtures indicate your scenarios, with reference to the current published anthropological and archaeological literature from credible sources.

I gave a hypothetical scenario to illustrate how it might have eventuated that the female predispostion for befriending helpless animals may have contributed to our genetic diversity and the skills that have ensured our proliferation. I don’t owe you a thesis.

poikilotherm said:

!http://imagehost.epier.com/144448/Lady%20Gaga%20-%20Female%20Intuition(1).jpg!

Riff-in-Thyme said:

I gave a hypothetical scenario to illustrate how it might have eventuated that the female predispostion for befriending helpless animals may have contributed to our genetic diversity and the skills that have ensured our proliferation. I don’t owe you a thesis.

You owe us some factual basis to your … your … whatever you call it…

And, well – thankfully (at least for Cory Bernardi) the genetic incompatibility between modern humans and other domesticated animals (donkeys, dogs, cats, llamas, chickens, ducks, horses, alpacas, camels and what have you) has prevented their integration into the modern human genome.

– I can see the DAiLY mAil UK online edition headlines now:

Human pet-lovers came from Neanderthal sex slaves

neomyrtus_ said:

Riff-in-Thyme said:

I gave a hypothetical scenario to illustrate how it might have eventuated that the female predispostion for befriending helpless animals may have contributed to our genetic diversity and the skills that have ensured our proliferation. I don’t owe you a thesis.

You owe us some factual basis to your … your … whatever you call it…

And, well – thankfully (at least for Cory Bernardi) the genetic incompatibility between modern humans and other domesticated animals (donkeys, dogs, cats, llamas, chickens, ducks, horses, alpacas, camels and what have you) has prevented their integration into the modern human genome.

– I can see the DAiLY mAil UK online edition headlines now:

Human pet-lovers came from Neanderthal sex slaves

There are so many scenarios that could have fostered the human skill of domesticating animals. I’m just pointing out how it might be linked to the presence of neanderthal in our genes and may have been entirely crucial to our current development. I didn’t in any way say that Neanderthals might have been enslaved for sex, but it is possible, had there been a reason for a Homo-Sapien tribe to enslave young male Neanderthals for menial purposes of some sort, that the scenario given may have eventuated, at one time. It is also highly likely that those genes are present through female Neanderthals being enslaved when female numbers are low. The fact that domestication of ‘lesser species’ has been pivotal to our succesful evolution indicates this trait as habitual, so I drew an assumption that allowed for the widest interpretation of possibility.

You did ask….

Bubblecar said:

>We have an aversion to acknowledge our true nature and prefer to accuse other species of such base behaviour.

?

I’m well aware that modern humans can be nasty and aggressive, so it shouldn’t surprise us to find that hominids of the past were even moreso.

EVEN MORE SO! I think you forget about the atrocities committed during WW2 by the Japanese, especially in China and the attempt to murder a complete people by the Germans, but they only managed to kill 6 million Please give us a break!

The fact that human females nurse infants substantially longer than any other species suggests that the domestication trait was facilitated by female reflexes….

>EVEN MORE SO! I think you forget about the atrocities committed during WW2 by the Japanese, especially in China and the attempt to murder a complete people by the Germans, but they only managed to kill 6 million Please give us a break!<

You have to remind yourself that modern humans have the capacity to be destructive on a very large scale, ironically because our highly sociable nature enables us to organise and co-operate on a very large scale. And that’s due to the fact that we are actually able to control our aggression. A species like the Neanderthals were never capable of achieving social organisation of that kind, and this may have been partly due to their less sociable, more aggressive nature.

Although Neanderthals are not in our direct line of descent, we share common ancestors who again were probably more aggressive than we are ourselves. Aggression is a primitive trait, not an advanced one.

>..and this may have been partly due to their less sociable, more aggressive nature…”

Cough

transition said:

>..and this may have been partly due to their less sociable, more aggressive nature…”

Cough

?

Surely the less sociable ones would have been kicked out of the group and left on their own, leaving the more sociable ones to reproduce.

You seem to be auto-associating ‘less sociable’ (whatever that is exactly, which you’ve loosely defined as something to do with some higher capacity for social organization maybe) with more ‘aggressive’ (again whatever exactly that is).

Not sure.

Divine Angel said:

Surely the less sociable ones would have been kicked out of the group and left on their own, leaving the more sociable ones to reproduce.

We are predisposed to creating survival related heirarchy/reward systems

>Surely the less sociable ones would have been kicked out of the group and left on their own, leaving the more sociable ones to reproduce”

cough

Divine Angel said:

Surely the less sociable ones would have been kicked out of the group and left on their own, leaving the more sociable ones to reproduce.

Probably not. The less sociable ones would be the ones with the biggest clubs.

Seriously, where are you guys getting your definition of ‘sociable’ from. Something a grade three teacher put in your heads?

Tamb said:

Divine Angel said:

Surely the less sociable ones would have been kicked out of the group and left on their own, leaving the more sociable ones to reproduce.

Probably not. The less sociable ones would be the ones with the biggest clubs.

Sure. They’d need to club the woman enough to submit but not kill her so she’s able to reproduce effectively. It’s a fine line.

Divine Angel said:

Surely the less sociable ones would have been kicked out of the group and left on their own, leaving the more sociable ones to reproduce.

Probably often happened, but human group sizes appear to have been all quite small before our species came along. Thus there was something working against earlier species socially organising on a larger scale than the extended family group. These groups would have interacted to some extent of course, but probably relied on being able to aggressively look after their own interests. With greater social intelligence and better language skills etc, later people were better able to control aggressive behaviours and form larger, more effective social alliances.

Divine Angel said:

Tamb said:

Divine Angel said:

Surely the less sociable ones would have been kicked out of the group and left on their own, leaving the more sociable ones to reproduce.

Probably not. The less sociable ones would be the ones with the biggest clubs.

Sure. They’d need to club the woman enough to submit but not kill her so she’s able to reproduce effectively. It’s a fine line.

Hence the neanderthal thick skulls.

>You seem to be auto-associating ‘less sociable’ (whatever that is exactly, which you’ve loosely defined as something to do with some higher capacity for social organization maybe) with more ‘aggressive’ (again whatever exactly that is).<

Many modern human traits were inherited from earlier human and pre-human ancestors. I think we can rest assured that these inherited traits would include the aggressive side of our nature :)

Whereas the greater capacity for social co-operation and organisation appears to be unique to modern humans.

I think the atomic bomb has made modern man much more responsible than his four bears.

98% of everything works as well as it does because for the most part creatures are left to their own devices to do their own thing and mind their own business, an idea that featured in pre-agrarian small groups, being that social groups are limited in their power to impose on individuals. I’d say it features in other creatures other than humans.

A hard thing in modern culture with large populations to maintain, but still it features strongly in social organization.

>Whereas the greater capacity for social co-operation and organisation appears to be unique to modern humans.

Ignoring ants I suppose.

Bubblecar said:

Divine Angel said:

Surely the less sociable ones would have been kicked out of the group and left on their own, leaving the more sociable ones to reproduce.

Probably often happened, but human group sizes appear to have been all quite small before our species came along. Thus there was something working against earlier species socially organising on a larger scale than the extended family group. These groups would have interacted to some extent of course, but probably relied on being able to aggressively look after their own interests. With greater social intelligence and better language skills etc, later people were better able to control aggressive behaviours and form larger, more effective social alliances.

I see it this way. There is no reason to suspect that hunter gatherer groups operated significanty differently to the way those that are left have. I see it as far more likely that women found the time to tame memebers of scavenging dog groups while the males were on hunt than for males to have somehow done so, as a statistical likelihood. Recognition of the domesticating skill should have been very empowering to the individual and promoted the insights that underly our fundamental, community nurturing, collective wisdom.

Riff-in-Thyme said:

Probably often happened, but human group sizes appear to have been all quite small before our species came along. Thus there was something working against earlier species socially organising on a larger scale than the extended family group.

Biggest population sizes started with agriculture.

Peak Warming Man said:

I think the atomic bomb has made modern man much more responsible than his four bears.

If she wasn’t busy she’d take offense to that…..

he would if he wasn’t,,,, silly(different to irresponsible!)…….

>Biggest population sizes started with agriculture.

Yes but the evidence tells us that early hunter-gatherer groups of our species were bigger than those of the Neanderthals and earlier species.

Skunkworks said:

. Thus there was something working against earlier species socially organising on a larger scale than the extended family group.

A massive learning curve to establish functional group mechanisms?

>Thus there was something working against earlier species socially organising on a larger scale than the extended family group”

I am not sure exactly how you guys are using social/socially/sociable etc. Probably it the term the way it is being used is somehow derived from ‘socialization’ and theories related. To auto-equate social with ‘friendly’ is just simply wrong too.

Maybe the terms hint ‘cultural receptivity’, I can’t be sure.

Bubblecar said:

Divine Angel said:

Surely the less sociable ones would have been kicked out of the group and left on their own, leaving the more sociable ones to reproduce.

Probably often happened, but human group sizes appear to have been all quite small before our species came along. Thus there was something working against earlier species socially organising on a larger scale than the extended family group. These groups would have interacted to some extent of course, but probably relied on being able to aggressively look after their own interests. With greater social intelligence and better language skills etc, later people were better able to control aggressive behaviours and form larger, more effective social alliances.

Sorry, but this is pure buncombe! I have answered this already in the Spear thread.

>Sorry, but this is pure buncombe! I have answered this already in the Spear thread.

No need to apologise :)

I’m sure when you think it through in more detail, you’ll understand that what I’m arguing is logical and fairly uncontroversial.

>There is no reason to suspect that hunter gatherer groups operated significanty differently to the way those that are left have

Except that modern hunter-gatherer groups are often quite large. It’s also important to bear in mind that feuding and warlike behaviour are quite common amongst hunter-gatherers (and primitive farming communities).

transition said:

>Thus there was something working against earlier species socially organising on a larger scale than the extended family group”

I am not sure exactly how you guys are using social/socially/sociable etc. Probably it the term the way it is being used is somehow derived from ‘socialization’ and theories related. To auto-equate social with ‘friendly’ is just simply wrong too.

Maybe the terms hint ‘cultural receptivity’, I can’t be sure.

Are you saying that tribal unity and inherited knowledge wasn’t fostered through intentional nurturing, ritual gatherings and celebrations? Not really sure the point you have been trying to make?

Bubblecar said:

>There is no reason to suspect that hunter gatherer groups operated significanty differently to the way those that are left have

Except that modern hunter-gatherer groups are often quite large. It’s also important to bear in mind that feuding and warlike behaviour are quite common amongst hunter-gatherers (and primitive farming communities).

I was only indicating basic traits like hunt/camp organisation

>To auto-equate social with ‘friendly’ is just simply wrong too.

I’m not doing that. I’m merely pointing out that forming large, effective social groups requires the development of social skills (and social tendencies) that earlier humans and pre-humans probably didn’t have. Being less sociable, their response to peoples outside of the immediate group were more likely to have been characterised by aggression.

Bubblecar said:

>There is no reason to suspect that hunter gatherer groups operated significanty differently to the way those that are left have

Except that modern hunter-gatherer groups are often quite large. It’s also important to bear in mind that feuding and warlike behaviour are quite common amongst hunter-gatherers (and primitive farming communities).

Modern hunter/gathering groups are not large unless they also have agriculture as an additional food source. Why do you think the Aboriginals are nomadic? Simply if the stayed too long, the game would become shy, move out, or be killed. Having a large group of people only exacerbates the situation and does not work over a period of time.

PermeateFree said:

Bubblecar said:

>There is no reason to suspect that hunter gatherer groups operated significanty differently to the way those that are left have

Except that modern hunter-gatherer groups are often quite large. It’s also important to bear in mind that feuding and warlike behaviour are quite common amongst hunter-gatherers (and primitive farming communities).

Modern hunter/gathering groups are not large unless they also have agriculture as an additional food source. Why do you think the Aboriginals are nomadic? Simply if the stayed too long, the game would become shy, move out, or be killed. Having a large group of people only exacerbates the situation and does not work over a period of time.

Unless someone has the bright idea to tame critters and breed them for food……

PermeateFree said:

Bubblecar said:

>There is no reason to suspect that hunter gatherer groups operated significanty differently to the way those that are left have

Except that modern hunter-gatherer groups are often quite large. It’s also important to bear in mind that feuding and warlike behaviour are quite common amongst hunter-gatherers (and primitive farming communities).

Modern hunter/gathering groups are not large unless they also have agriculture as an additional food source. Why do you think the Aboriginals are nomadic? Simply if the stayed too long, the game would become shy, move out, or be killed. Having a large group of people only exacerbates the situation and does not work over a period of time.

The Cape York aboriginals were only semi-nomadic due to the plentiful food in the region.
They only moved when their living area became polluted with human waste etc.

>They would have had a more limited diet because of the limited number of game species where they lived.

Examination of some Neanderthal middens has shown that of the range of food species available to them, a smaller variety was taken than was the case in equivalent early modern human sites.

While Neanderthals obviously would have engaged in some co-operative behaviour, evidence that they also engaged in aggressive and homicidal behaviour shouldn’t surprise us. And the fact that they completely died out suggests their social skills were clearly not up to the challenges they eventually faced.

Bubblecar said:

>To auto-equate social with ‘friendly’ is just simply wrong too.

I’m not doing that. I’m merely pointing out that forming large, effective social groups requires the development of social skills (and social tendencies) that earlier humans and pre-humans probably didn’t have. Being less sociable, their response to peoples outside of the immediate group were more likely to have been characterised by aggression.

You seem to be completely ignoring the physical requirements of having sufficient game and being able to catch it in order for people to survive. Even large clans did not go around together, they split up into small family or near family groups and only came together for ceremonial reasons or a seasonal abundance of food. Homo sapiens only gathered in large groups since the discovery of agriculture and this is only in last 10,000 years; before that time they had to obey the laws of nature along with all other living creatures.

>Modern hunter/gathering groups are not large unless they also have agriculture as an additional food source. Why do you think the Aboriginals are nomadic? Simply if the stayed too long, the game would become shy, move out, or be killed. Having a large group of people only exacerbates the situation and does not work over a period of time.

By large, I mean larger than previous human and pre-human hunter-gatherer groups.

Riff-in-Thyme said:

PermeateFree said:

Bubblecar said:

>There is no reason to suspect that hunter gatherer groups operated significanty differently to the way those that are left have

Except that modern hunter-gatherer groups are often quite large. It’s also important to bear in mind that feuding and warlike behaviour are quite common amongst hunter-gatherers (and primitive farming communities).

Modern hunter/gathering groups are not large unless they also have agriculture as an additional food source. Why do you think the Aboriginals are nomadic? Simply if the stayed too long, the game would become shy, move out, or be killed. Having a large group of people only exacerbates the situation and does not work over a period of time.

Unless someone has the bright idea to tame critters and breed them for food……

That is correct, along with agriculture, but is tens of thousands of years after the Neanderthal went extinct.

>You seem to be completely ignoring the physical requirements of having sufficient game and being able to catch it in order for people to survive.

Far from it, this is one of the reasons we should expect feuding and warlike behaviour between neighbouring groups vying for limited resources.

Tamb said:

PermeateFree said:

Bubblecar said:

>There is no reason to suspect that hunter gatherer groups operated significanty differently to the way those that are left have

Except that modern hunter-gatherer groups are often quite large. It’s also important to bear in mind that feuding and warlike behaviour are quite common amongst hunter-gatherers (and primitive farming communities).

Modern hunter/gathering groups are not large unless they also have agriculture as an additional food source. Why do you think the Aboriginals are nomadic? Simply if the stayed too long, the game would become shy, move out, or be killed. Having a large group of people only exacerbates the situation and does not work over a period of time.

The Cape York aboriginals were only semi-nomadic due to the plentiful food in the region.
They only moved when their living area became polluted with human waste etc.

It always comes down to the availability of food as to how many people can remain in one place. However there are few areas that can supply all our needs without agriculture, which I have said is very recent.

>Are you saying that tribal unity and inherited knowledge wasn’t fostered through intentional nurturing, ritual gatherings and celebrations? Not really sure the point you have been trying to make?”

Nah was more saying ‘individual unity’ and wanting to help, fostered the group. At least of modern humans going way back, maybe it’d be useful to consider the purpose of ‘individual identity’. I mean identity isn’t solely or even mostly the work of any group. As in ‘group identity’ isn’t what flicks the light switch on, so to speak.

Mostly I just thought car’s equating sociable = friendly = not aggressive to be, as a generalization, well, bullshit to be honest. I mean modern humans are the most artful and prolific dissemblers that ever existed. Half the time humans wouldn’t acknowledge to themselves they are, as to be convincing one is better able when one believes ones own, well, give it a name.

Thing that always pisses me off is that emphasis on social tends to distract from how much of that involves minding ones own business.

One of the greatest contributions to the modern world is law, like how it reduces spiralling retributions (refer Pinker).

Anyway I’m tired today, caught something going around and probably should be napping.

>Mostly I just thought car’s equating sociable = friendly = not aggressive to be, as a generalization, well, bullshit to be honest

Yes but I haven’t been saying that. I’ve been saying that in order to form larger effective groups, you have to have the ability (and desire) to negotiate and co-operate etc. People whose tendencies towards those outside their immediate group is more aggressive, have less ability to form (and benefit from) larger effective groups.

Bubblecar said:

>They would have had a more limited diet because of the limited number of game species where they lived.

Examination of some Neanderthal middens has shown that of the range of food species available to them, a smaller variety was taken than was the case in equivalent early modern human sites.

While Neanderthals obviously would have engaged in some co-operative behaviour, evidence that they also engaged in aggressive and homicidal behaviour shouldn’t surprise us. And the fact that they completely died out suggests their social skills were clearly not up to the challenges they eventually faced.

This is just so silly! The food type would depend on the climate at the time the middens were formed, not who made them. I would think Homo sapiens would have favoured less arduous conditions than the frozen wastes.

How do you know they were any more aggressive and homicidal than Homo sapiens? There are plenty of instances where we have destroyed people in every way imaginable and yet you say we are better! Homo sapiens are an extremely aggressive and destructive species and have proved to be in just about every situation right up to the current time, yet you seem to regard them as some sort of benign, non-aggressive people, full of only good thoughts.

>The food type would depend on the climate at the time the middens were formed, not who made them

No, I’m talking about middens that have been carefully studied in the context of the environment in which they accumulated, i.e., the known species there at the time. Neanderthals hunted fewer of the food species that were available to them.

Bubblecar said:

>Modern hunter/gathering groups are not large unless they also have agriculture as an additional food source. Why do you think the Aboriginals are nomadic? Simply if the stayed too long, the game would become shy, move out, or be killed. Having a large group of people only exacerbates the situation and does not work over a period of time.

By large, I mean larger than previous human and pre-human hunter-gatherer groups.

The population size would depend 100% on the food readily available. It has nothing to do with race or cultural disposition.

Bubblecar said:

>The food type would depend on the climate at the time the middens were formed, not who made them

No, I’m talking about middens that have been carefully studied in the context of the environment in which they accumulated, i.e., the known species there at the time. Neanderthals hunted fewer of the food species that were available to them.

Maybe the other species tasted horrible.
Westeners could eat lots of things Asians eat but we don’t.

>People whose tendencies towards those outside their immediate group is more aggressive, have less ability to form (and benefit from) larger effective groups”

Yeah but emphasizing group identity over what may more normally be involved in individual identity may cause that (note Stanford Prison Experiments, Nazi Germany etc).

I go back to the humble individual, saves all the nonsense.

PermeateFree said:

Bubblecar said:

>Modern hunter/gathering groups are not large unless they also have agriculture as an additional food source. Why do you think the Aboriginals are nomadic? Simply if the stayed too long, the game would become shy, move out, or be killed. Having a large group of people only exacerbates the situation and does not work over a period of time.

By large, I mean larger than previous human and pre-human hunter-gatherer groups.

The population size would depend 100% on the food readily available. It has nothing to do with race or cultural disposition.

And the ability to exploit that food.

Bubblecar said:

>You seem to be completely ignoring the physical requirements of having sufficient game and being able to catch it in order for people to survive.

Far from it, this is one of the reasons we should expect feuding and warlike behaviour between neighbouring groups vying for limited resources.

No you are wrong. When food becomes scarce you move to another area where there is more. This is how hunter/gathers survived, not going off killing neighbouring groups for land that will produce no more than there own.

I don’t think Neanderthals were too bright.
Anyway they’re gone now, they’ve been expunged from our genes and we are safe and clever and getting cleverer all the time now that we are pure bred homo erectus intellectuals.

Bubblecar said:

>Mostly I just thought car’s equating sociable = friendly = not aggressive to be, as a generalization, well, bullshit to be honest

Yes but I haven’t been saying that. I’ve been saying that in order to form larger effective groups, you have to have the ability (and desire) to negotiate and co-operate etc. People whose tendencies towards those outside their immediate group is more aggressive, have less ability to form (and benefit from) larger effective groups.

But they are not in larger groups unless there is more food readily available. You have the tendency to regard ‘one size fits all.’

>How do you know they were any more aggressive and homicidal than Homo sapiens?

I don’t, and there may be no way of ever knowing. It’s merely logical conjecture, based on the fact that their groups were smaller and probably more territorial, they themselves were very robustly built and their remains often show evidence of many serious injuries. And they died out. If they were capable of the degree of social organisation associated with modern humans, that fate would presumably have been avoidable.

> yet you seem to regard them as some sort of benign, non-aggressive people, full of only good thoughts.

? I haven’t remotely suggested that. I’ve merely pointed out that our social skills have enabled us to thrive (and also ensured that our wars can be extremely destructive. But that destructive power depends on the ability to develop vast, powerful civilisations, which in turn is dependent on the ability to keep aggression sufficiently in check to enable that to occur).

I find it easy to imagine violent conflict between Neanderthal and early modern human groups, ironically won by the latter because they were less habitually aggressive – i.e., they were able to form larger co-operative groups that could easily overcome the smaller but more aggressive groups of physically tougher Neanderthals. We’ll probably never know the answer, but that scenario makes more sense to me than the idea that human nature actually became MORE aggressive with the advent of a wider range of co-operative social skills.

Bubblecar said:

>The food type would depend on the climate at the time the middens were formed, not who made them

No, I’m talking about middens that have been carefully studied in the context of the environment in which they accumulated, i.e., the known species there at the time. Neanderthals hunted fewer of the food species that were available to them.

IF both groups were in the same place at the same time and in the same climate conditions (which I doubt, unless the climate favoured Homo sapiens and disadvantaged the Neanderthal), the hunting tools of the former would outcompete the latter, especially in regard to small game. Neanderthals were very specialised hunters which they did very well.

>The population size would depend 100% on the food readily available. It has nothing to do with race or cultural disposition.

If we were talking about species that had identical social skills, yes, but clearly we’re not. The size of social groups has very much to do with the social skills of the species involved.

>I find it easy to imagine violent conflict between Neanderthal and early modern human groups, ironically won by the latter because they were less habitually aggressive.

Actually early group success (groups competing with other groups), from the little I have read, may have had something to do with the style or processes involved in dividing up spoils or resources more legitimately come about. Too much greed and speed re this may have been a disadvantage.

>But they are not in larger groups unless there is more food readily available.

Why are Neanderthals seldom found in regions where there is more food available? You seem to be arguing that they were a specifically cold-adapted people, which may actually be true, but you don’t seem to understand the implications of that. Modern humans can and do live virtually anywhere. Why couldn’t Neanderthals achieve the same versatility (they actually moved further north when the weather warmed up)? One answer could be that they were simply unable to achieve the degree of social organisation that later humans relied on to thrive in a much greater diversity of environments. And one of the main impediments to social progress in Neanderthals may have been a more aggressive nature. Conjecture, yes, but it makes sense :)

Bubblecar said:

>How do you know they were any more aggressive and homicidal than Homo sapiens?

I don’t, and there may be no way of ever knowing. It’s merely logical conjecture, based on the fact that their groups were smaller and probably more territorial, they themselves were very robustly built and their remains often show evidence of many serious injuries. And they died out. If they were capable of the degree of social organisation associated with modern humans, that fate would presumably have been avoidable.

> yet you seem to regard them as some sort of benign, non-aggressive people, full of only good thoughts.

? I haven’t remotely suggested that. I’ve merely pointed out that our social skills have enabled us to thrive (and also ensured that our wars can be extremely destructive. But that destructive power depends on the ability to develop vast, powerful civilisations, which in turn is dependent on the ability to keep aggression sufficiently in check to enable that to occur).

I find it easy to imagine violent conflict between Neanderthal and early modern human groups, ironically won by the latter because they were less habitually aggressive – i.e., they were able to form larger co-operative groups that could easily overcome the smaller but more aggressive groups of physically tougher Neanderthals. We’ll probably never know the answer, but that scenario makes more sense to me than the idea that human nature actually became MORE aggressive with the advent of a wider range of co-operative social skills.

You absolutely no idea about the social and cultural concepts of the Neanderthals and carry on about the superior numbers of Homo Sapiens. You totally ignore the need to feed these groups and in the environment Neanderthal evolved, it was very harsh which favoured small groups. Homo sapiens rarely venture into these cold harsh latitudes even today and when they do, most of their food is shipped in. When environmental conditions change to favour H. sapiens over Neanderthal, then of course they will be better equipped to survive the conditions of the time.

You also totally ignore the aggressive nature of H. sapiens to other members of it own race where every type of pain has been inflicted on others. This by large groups, small groups and individuals.

>Neanderthals may have been a more aggressive nature.

Of course it may have been the situation the mental toolbox housed in the cranium was minus a few refinements.The sort of refinements that modern man propels into action ‘aggressively’, emotive force not being entirely useless and universally given to resulting in misery, injury and death or nil or less than optimum progress.

Too f#cken tired for this.

wanders off

>You absolutely no idea about the social and cultural concepts of the Neanderthals

Neither does anyone else. It’s very unlikely we’ll ever know.

>You totally ignore the need to feed these groups and in the environment Neanderthal evolved, it was very harsh which favoured small groups.

You seem to be agreeing with me here that the Neanderthal’s own nature made it very difficult for them to succeed in the wide diversity of environments that modern humans have made their home. But what was it about that nature that so limited their options, compared with modern humans? Why not address that crucial question?

>Homo sapiens rarely venture into these cold harsh latitudes even today

Homom sapiens have been living within the arctic circle for a very long time indeed. And in environments of the other extreme, and everything in between.

>When environmental conditions change to favour H. sapiens over Neanderthal, then of course they will be better equipped to survive the conditions of the time.

But why should they? All things being equal in terms of social skills (as you’re arguing), why should Neanderthals be at a disadvantage in environments that favour larger groups?

>You also totally ignore the aggressive nature of H. sapiens to other members of it own race where every type of pain has been inflicted on others. This by large groups, small groups and individuals.

I don’t ignore it at all. I make the reasonable assumption that we (like the Neanderthals) inherited our aggressive nature from earlier species, but that our species was able to control it with a wider range of social skills resulting in a higher degree of social co-operation, and larger and more resourceful groups able to adapt to a wider range of environments and lifeways.

And on that note, I think I’ve said everything I need to say on this topic for the time being.

Bubblecar said:

>But they are not in larger groups unless there is more food readily available.

Why are Neanderthals seldom found in regions where there is more food available? You seem to be arguing that they were a specifically cold-adapted people, which may actually be true, but you don’t seem to understand the implications of that. Modern humans can and do live virtually anywhere. Why couldn’t Neanderthals achieve the same versatility (they actually moved further north when the weather warmed up)? One answer could be that they were simply unable to achieve the degree of social organisation that later humans relied on to thrive in a much greater diversity of environments. And one of the main impediments to social progress in Neanderthals may have been a more aggressive nature. Conjecture, yes, but it makes sense :)

They lived in cold harsh conditions, because they were not only good at living there, but liked living there. Why was it certain Aboriginal groups preferred living in the harsh, hot desert regions than moving to the coast where it was not only cooler, but more food was available? One very big reason was their land was scared to them and was the basis of their beliefs, plus their ancestors were all there. They also knew where to get food in certain seasons, in other words, they were part of the land.

You are dealing with a highly complex situation, governed by environmental conditions. These no longer apply to us and now we can over-populate the planet.

Why is it so important to you Bubblecar to assert that Homo sapiens are so much better than the Neanderthal and we apparently deserve to succeed when they failed?

They were a highly specialised hunter/gather that made their living in harsh cold environments, so why should they go off to conquer the world when they had everything they needed where they were. They might have been a damn site less aggressive, more sociable and satisfied with life than we have proved to be. They at least lasted longer than we currently have and the way things are shaping up due to our aggression and world domination may well end up having survived longer. At least they lived within the capacity of their environment to sustain them.

>…less aggressive, more sociable and satisfied..”

Same tune.

So they were miserable, unsociable and aggressive.

Sounds a bit like pathologizing used in modern medicine and behaviour controls (ideology).

transition said:

>…less aggressive, more sociable and satisfied..”

Same tune.

So they were miserable, unsociable and aggressive.

Sounds a bit like pathologizing used in modern medicine and behaviour controls (ideology).

Think you ought to read more of the thread and who said it.

>Think you ought to read more of the thread and who said it.

Possibly not.

transition said:

>Think you ought to read more of the thread and who said it.

Possibly not.

shrugs

>..They might have been a damn site less aggressive, more sociable and satisfied with life than we have proved to be.

yeah, sorry.

transition said:

>..They might have been a damn site less aggressive, more sociable and satisfied with life than we have proved to be.

yeah, sorry.

Yes, cherry-picking is rarely helpful.

>Yes, cherry-picking is rarely helpful.

More tired, car’s aggression-centric view of whole thing wore me down I reckon :)

PermeateFree said:

Why is it so important to you Bubblecar to assert that Homo sapiens are so much better than the Neanderthal and we apparently deserve to succeed when they failed?

They were a highly specialised hunter/gather that made their living in harsh cold environments, so why should they go off to conquer the world when they had everything they needed where they were. They might have been a damn site less aggressive, more sociable and satisfied with life than we have proved to be. They at least lasted longer than we currently have and the way things are shaping up due to our aggression and world domination may well end up having survived longer. At least they lived within the capacity of their environment to sustain them.

Wild in woods the noble savage ran.

>Why is it so important to you Bubblecar to assert that Homo sapiens are so much better than the Neanderthal and we apparently deserve to succeed when they failed?

I make no such assertion. I’m simply trying to account for why, instead of thriving as we did, they completely died out, in circumstances in which we most certainly wouldn’t.

>They were a highly specialised hunter/gather that made their living in harsh cold environments

Let’s remember that we’re not talking about a tiny doomed tribe here, we’re talking about an entire human species. That species couldn’t have been so very highly specialised unless they were very different from modern humans (who are much more generalised, and whose forté is social communication & organisation) in very significant ways. I’m trying to identify those significant ways. That they relate to the ability to socially organise seems inevitable. And the idea that innate aggression might form a barrier to more effective social organisation (in the absence of the evolution of more positive social skills) seems perfectly rational.

>At least they lived within the capacity of their environment to sustain them.

So have we, so far, and we have thrived to an unprecedented degree for a large animal. Not died out.

morrie said:

PermeateFree said:

Why is it so important to you Bubblecar to assert that Homo sapiens are so much better than the Neanderthal and we apparently deserve to succeed when they failed?

They were a highly specialised hunter/gather that made their living in harsh cold environments, so why should they go off to conquer the world when they had everything they needed where they were. They might have been a damn site less aggressive, more sociable and satisfied with life than we have proved to be. They at least lasted longer than we currently have and the way things are shaping up due to our aggression and world domination may well end up having survived longer. At least they lived within the capacity of their environment to sustain them.

Wild in woods the noble savage ran.

I take it you refer to Homo sapiens.

Bubblecar said:

>Why is it so important to you Bubblecar to assert that Homo sapiens are so much better than the Neanderthal and we apparently deserve to succeed when they failed?

I make no such assertion. I’m simply trying to account for why, instead of thriving as we did, they completely died out, in circumstances in which we most certainly wouldn’t.

>They were a highly specialised hunter/gather that made their living in harsh cold environments

Let’s remember that we’re not talking about a tiny doomed tribe here, we’re talking about an entire human species. That species couldn’t have been so very highly specialised unless they were very different from modern humans (who are much more generalised, and whose forté is social communication & organisation) in very significant ways. I’m trying to identify those significant ways. That they relate to the ability to socially organise seems inevitable. And the idea that innate aggression might form a barrier to more effective social organisation (in the absence of the evolution of more positive social skills) seems perfectly rational.

>At least they lived within the capacity of their environment to sustain them.

So have we, so far, and we have thrived to an unprecedented degree for a large animal. Not died out.

The above is so full of holes and obvious crap that I now believe you are just taking the piss.

At least they died within the capacity of their environment to sustain them.
——————————————-

Fixed.

But yes, therein lies the problem.

>The above is so full of holes and obvious crap that I now believe you are just taking the piss.

If that’s your only response to a game-winning post, PermeateFree, I think we can safely conclude: Game Over :)

Mr Ironic said:

At least they died within the capacity of their environment to sustain them.
——————————————-

Fixed.

But yes, therein lies the problem.

That’s a damn good fix, Mr Ironic :)

Bubblecar said:

>The above is so full of holes and obvious crap that I now believe you are just taking the piss.

If that’s your only response to a game-winning post, PermeateFree, I think we can safely conclude: Game Over :)

Bubblecar I have always considered a thoughtful person and I regret to find you are not.

To consider the discussion concerning the lifestyle of a close relative, as a game that you can win would be the most unscientific comment you could make. It is quite obvious you have not taken our discussion seriously, which probably accounts for many of your ridiculous comments.

So what are we discussing here?

dv said:

So what are we discussing here?

Nothing! I was talking to myself.

Dinner.

It’s just one of the usual topics in this forum

Obviously, there is plenty of evidence of cannibalism among Homo sapiens so this isn’t actually a point of difference…

dv said:

Obviously, there is plenty of evidence of cannibalism among Homo sapiens so this isn’t actually a point of difference…

I leave you to discuss these matters with Bubblecar, He might be more realistic with you.

dv said:

Obviously, there is plenty of evidence of cannibalism among Homo sapiens so this isn’t actually a point of difference…

Not so obvious perhaps. William Arens wrote a book called “The Man Eating Myth” in 1979, suggesting that socially acceptable cannibalism has never existed. I remember hearing about it at the time, though it is not a topic with which I am familiar.

morrie said:

dv said:

Obviously, there is plenty of evidence of cannibalism among Homo sapiens so this isn’t actually a point of difference…

Not so obvious perhaps. William Arens wrote a book called “The Man Eating Myth” in 1979, suggesting that socially acceptable cannibalism has never existed. I remember hearing about it at the time, though it is not a topic with which I am familiar.

a) he was just plain wrong. There have been groups of systematic cannibals from all corners of the globe]

b) Is there some hint that the Neanderthal cannibalism of the OP was socially acceptable?
There are plenty of documented cases of humans eating humans in times of need, some of them quite recent. This may, in any case, be an example of that.

morrie said:

dv said:

Obviously, there is plenty of evidence of cannibalism among Homo sapiens so this isn’t actually a point of difference…

Not so obvious perhaps. William Arens wrote a book called “The Man Eating Myth” in 1979, suggesting that socially acceptable cannibalism has never existed. I remember hearing about it at the time, though it is not a topic with which I am familiar.

Would it not depend on the cannibal’s culture? There are even some cultures that consumed parts of dead relatives, not to satisfy a hunger but to bring them into spiritual contact. The consumption of enemies was thought by some to pass on their powers. Although not acceptable these days, cannibalism has happened down through the ages for a variety of reasons.

>It’s just one of the usual topics in this forum

A christmas thread maybe.

>>from all corners of the globe

I’ve thought about it, but this time I’ve decided not to take issue with it.

Good Day Sir.

>Is there some hint that the Neanderthal cannibalism of the OP was socially acceptable?

It’s being treated by the researchers as most likely an example of “survival cannibalsim”, i.e., the family group were killed and eaten for food in a time of shortage. Here’s one of the original papers:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1748215/

Bubblecar said:

>Is there some hint that the Neanderthal cannibalism of the OP was socially acceptable?

It’s being treated by the researchers as most likely an example of “survival cannibalsim”, i.e., the family group were killed and eaten for food in a time of shortage. Here’s one of the original papers:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1748215/

Ain’t the Internet grand, it can make the dumb look intelligent.

You’re not doing yourself any favours, Permeate. Might be best to just accept that the debate is now closed.

Bubblecar said:

You’re not doing yourself any favours, Permeate. Might be best to just accept that the debate is now closed.

What makes you think I want to debate with a fool?

You see this is what I mean – you lose the stoush but then can’t stop the childish name-calling. Just find something else to do eh? There’s a big wide world out there :)

Bubblecar said:

You see this is what I mean – you lose the stoush but then can’t stop the childish name-calling. Just find something else to do eh? There’s a big wide world out there :)

When people discuss serious subjects they expect the recipient to be courteous and respond in like fashion, but you regard such people with contempt, then you have the audacity to accuse them of childish name-calling. Just who do think you are and what gives you the right to treat people in such a demeaning manner?

PermeateFree said:

Bubblecar said:

You see this is what I mean – you lose the stoush but then can’t stop the childish name-calling. Just find something else to do eh? There’s a big wide world out there :)

When people discuss serious subjects they expect the recipient to be courteous and respond in like fashion, but you regard such people with contempt, then you have the audacity to accuse them of childish name-calling. Just who do think you are and what gives you the right to treat people in such a demeaning manner?

I’ve read a number of specialist books on the Neanderthals (by such authors as Trinkaus, Tattersall, Stringer etc) and I can assure you they’d all agree that the conjecture that Neanderthals were less adept at social organisation and co-operation than modern humans (and possibly more physically confrontational) is a perfectly rational, conventional, sober, mainstream idea. You choose to treat it as “nonsense”, presumably because you’re a misanthrope who favours a hippy feelgood vibe for earlier humans compared with us nasty moderns, but dismissing rational views as nonsense tends to put you out of range of sensible debate.

>and possibly more physically confrontational

Not softening your terms there, car, a little less ‘aggressive’ perhaps.

;) shit stirring ya mate.

Now, where was I, oh, that’s right, doing a bit of territorial gardening.

>Not softening your terms there, car, a little less ‘aggressive’ perhaps.

Just spelling it out for him, transition :)

>Just spelling it out for him, transition :)

Onya car, as you were.

Bubblecar said:

PermeateFree said:

Bubblecar said:

You see this is what I mean – you lose the stoush but then can’t stop the childish name-calling. Just find something else to do eh? There’s a big wide world out there :)

When people discuss serious subjects they expect the recipient to be courteous and respond in like fashion, but you regard such people with contempt, then you have the audacity to accuse them of childish name-calling. Just who do think you are and what gives you the right to treat people in such a demeaning manner?

I’ve read a number of specialist books on the Neanderthals (by such authors as Trinkaus, Tattersall, Stringer etc) and I can assure you they’d all agree that the conjecture that Neanderthals were less adept at social organisation and co-operation than modern humans (and possibly more physically confrontational) is a perfectly rational, conventional, sober, mainstream idea. You choose to treat it as “nonsense”, presumably because you’re a misanthrope who favours a hippy feelgood vibe for earlier humans compared with us nasty moderns, but dismissing rational views as nonsense tends to put you out of range of sensible debate.

I too have read numerous books about Neanderthals, I also use my own insights as to how people react in difficult conditions. I can assure you I am no hippy and have studied the environment most of my life, leading to insights you clearly do not understand. Your assertions of the lack of aggression and no cannibalism with Homo sapiens was a clear example of how ignorant you really were and being so unworldly in that area would give you even less insight into Neanderthal behaviour.

I’ve got binders full of Neanderthal books some have been found with blue ties.

a possibility yet to be considered is that the subject group of eatees partook in forum, and lost………..

>Your assertions of the lack of aggression and no cannibalism with Homo sapiens

Nope, never said that at all. Whatsoever. This is what I mean about you not actually reading my posts or considering my actual arguments. You’re arguing with a cartoon Bubblecar in your head, and making up what he says.

You guys could catch up’n speak the ancient language, do it the old way.

;) I don’t mind watching.

Bubblecar said:

>Your assertions of the lack of aggression and no cannibalism with Homo sapiens

Nope, never said that at all. Whatsoever. This is what I mean about you not actually reading my posts or considering my actual arguments. You’re arguing with a cartoon Bubblecar in your head, and making up what he says.

irritating to amusing here. makes your brain explode when it is the standard of communication from the mother of your kid

Riff-in-Thyme said:

Bubblecar said:

>Your assertions of the lack of aggression and no cannibalism with Homo sapiens

Nope, never said that at all. Whatsoever. This is what I mean about you not actually reading my posts or considering my actual arguments. You’re arguing with a cartoon Bubblecar in your head, and making up what he says.

irritating to amusing here. makes your brain explode when it is the standard of communication from the mother of your kid

I’m finding it annoying too. I might come back later and do a final nutshell summary of what I’ve actually been arguing in this thread, and leave it at that :)

Bubblecar said:

>Your assertions of the lack of aggression and no cannibalism with Homo sapiens

Nope, never said that at all. Whatsoever. This is what I mean about you not actually reading my posts or considering my actual arguments. You’re arguing with a cartoon Bubblecar in your head, and making up what he says.

>>You have to remind yourself that modern humans have the capacity to be destructive on a very large scale, ironically because our highly sociable nature enables us to organise and co-operate on a very large scale. And that’s <bold>due to the fact that we are actually able to control our aggression</bold>. A species like the Neanderthals were never capable of achieving social organisation of that kind, and this may have been partly due to their less sociable, more aggressive nature. <<

>>With greater social intelligence and better language skills etc, <bold>later people were better able to control aggressive behaviours</bold> and form larger, more effective social alliances.<<

>>I’m not doing that. I’m merely pointing out that forming large, effective social groups requires the development of social skills (and social tendencies) that earlier humans and pre-humans probably didn’t have. <bold?Being less="" sociable,="" their="" response="" to="" peoples="" outside="" of="" the="" immediate="" group="" were="" more="" likely="" to="" have="" been="" characterised="" by="" aggression.<="" bold=""><<

>>I’ve merely pointed out that our social skills have enabled us to thrive (and also ensured that our wars can be extremely destructive. But that destructive power depends on the ability to develop vast, powerful civilisations, <bold>which in turn is dependent on the ability to keep aggression sufficiently in check to enable that to occur).</bold><<

Reading the above that are extracts from your posts, that would indicate that humans are in control of their aggressive natures, whereas Neanderthals were not. When you consider the mass exterminations Homo sapiens have been responsible for over the ages, I find that very difficult to swallow. Plus you seem to think that aggression to outsiders would be more a characteristic of Neanderthals. Are you really serious about that? Are you totally unaware of the persecution of one race against another, something you are doing here.

Plus you make absolutely no allowance for where and the way Neanderthals lived and hunted, you seem to think they were similar to humans only dumber.

Bubblecar said:

>Your assertions of the lack of aggression and no cannibalism with Homo sapiens

Nope, never said that at all. Whatsoever. This is what I mean about you not actually reading my posts or considering my actual arguments. You’re arguing with a cartoon Bubblecar in your head, and making up what he says.

Post this again.

>>You have to remind yourself that modern humans have the capacity to be destructive on a very large scale, ironically because our highly sociable nature enables us to organise and co-operate on a very large scale. And that’s due to the fact that we are actually able to control our aggression. A species like the Neanderthals were never capable of achieving social organisation of that kind, and this may have been partly due to their less sociable, more aggressive nature. <<

>>With greater social intelligence and better language skills etc, later people were better able to control aggressive behaviours and form larger, more effective social alliances.<<

>>I’m not doing that. I’m merely pointing out that forming large, effective social groups requires the development of social skills (and social tendencies) that earlier humans and pre-humans probably didn’t have. Being less sociable, their response to peoples outside of the immediate group were more likely to have been characterised by aggression.<<

>>I’ve merely pointed out that our social skills have enabled us to thrive (and also ensured that our wars can be extremely destructive. But that destructive power depends on the ability to develop vast, powerful civilisations, which in turn is dependent on the ability to keep aggression sufficiently in check to enable that to occur).<<

Reading the above that are extracts from your posts, that would indicate that humans are in control of their aggressive natures, whereas Neanderthals were not. When you consider the mass exterminations Homo sapiens have been responsible for over the ages, I find that very difficult to swallow. Plus you seem to think that aggression to outsiders would be more a characteristic of Neanderthals. Are you really serious about that? Are you totally unaware of the persecution of one race against another, something you are doing here.

Plus you make absolutely no allowance for where and the way Neanderthals lived and hunted, you seem to think they were similar to humans only dumber.

>Reading the above that are extracts from your posts, that would indicate that humans are in control of their aggressive natures, whereas Neanderthals were not. When you consider the mass exterminations Homo sapiens have been responsible for over the ages, I find that very difficult to swallow.<

Those mass exterminations were very controlled, yes. Not people flying into a rage or panic upon sight of a stranger. Nazi Germany for example was notorious for its cold, methodical, industrial scale exterminations. But in order to engage in large-scale nasty behaviour like that, humans must have already developed the ability to organise co-operative societies on a very large scale, and this means developing the necessary social skills and aptitudes.

>Plus you seem to think that aggression to outsiders would be more a characteristic of Neanderthals. Are you really serious about that?<

The fact that you ask “are you serious about that?” betrays your ignorance of conventional thinking in regard to Neanderthals. Regarding them as being more socially insular, less open to external cultural influences, and habitually living in smaller groups than later humans in the same sort of environments (typical group sizes: Neanderthals 5-10 individuals, Cro-Magnons 20-30) is all part of the conventional modelling. And this is being supported by recent research focusing on their cognitive abilities:

>>>Eiluned Pearce of Oxford University…found that Neanderthals had significantly larger eye sockets – by an average of 6mm from top to bottom. Although this seems like a small amount, she said that it was enough for Neanderthals to use significantly more of their brains to process visual information.

“Since Neanderthals evolved at higher latitudes, more of the Neanderthal brain would have been dedicated to vision and body control, leaving less brain to deal with other functions like social networking.”

This is a view backed by Prof Chris Stringer, who was also involved in the research and is an expert in human origins at the Natural History Museum in London.

“We infer that Neanderthals had a smaller cognitive part of the brain and this would have limited them, including their ability to form larger groups. If you live in a larger group, you need a larger brain in order to process all those extra relationships,” he explained…..By contrast, the larger frontal brain regions of Homo sapiens led to the fashioning of warmer clothes and the development of larger social networks.<<< (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-21759233)

>>>Neanderthal toolmaking supposedly changed little over hundreds of thousands of years. The lack of innovation was said to imply they may have had a reduced capacity for thinking by analogy and less working memory. The researchers further speculated that Neanderthal behavior would probably seem neophobic, dogmatic and xenophobic to modern humans.<<< (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neanderthal_behavior)

To speculate from this evidence that they were more hostile towards outsiders encroaching on their territory (and less able to overcome this by forming extended alliances etc) is not at all unreasonable.

>Are you totally unaware of the persecution of one race against another, something you are doing here.<

Huh? Did you actually just say that? I mean, for real? The Neanderthals are a long-extinct human species, not an existing “race”. How can speculating about their nature possibly amount to “persecution”?

>The fact that you ask “are you serious about that?” betrays your ignorance of conventional thinking in regard to Neanderthals.”

Given that it’s speculative reverse-engineering of sorts (and a lot of it quite unconvincing, like the mention of eye-socket size is no better than ancient phrenology), I think dear car you are really pushing the “conventional thinking” thing, you are attempting to assert yourself and be more ‘convincing’ by reference to some ‘established’ view, when much of what experts are coming up with is no better than a couple of half drunk people at the pub might come up with.

And if I can be one of the half drunk guys at the pub too, for a moment.

“Those mass exterminations were very controlled, yes. Not people flying into a rage or panic upon sight of a stranger. Nazi Germany for example was notorious for its cold, methodical, industrial scale exterminations. But in order to engage in large-scale nasty behaviour like that, humans must have already developed the ability to organise co-operative societies on a very large scale, and this means developing the necessary social skills and aptitudes”

I wonder how the Nazi ideological view went at the time, what might have equated with “stranger” of the time? Would a stranger be, for example, a person that seemed indifferent to or perhaps object to any groups overreaching impositions of group identity dominating over individual identity. Adolf seemed to often fly into a rage too I notice. His faithful servents were kicking doors down all over the place, fear was everywhere.

What if the ‘aggression’ you are speaking of, was in fact more some component of aesthetics for example (bringing it home for you car, you are into art so this may be interesting). The joy of there being more people may be that (larger than small groups of a handful of individuals or more) is that a person may not become so indifferent or hostile toward ones own because there is more to choose from, not that an individual will necessarily be more networked and have more contacts, but they probably generally would. What I’m suggesting is that what ‘appeals’ according to the brain is an interesting bunch of tricks looking not only to preserve cool mental tools and physical characteristics also, but to do DNA recombinations that ‘progress’ these roughly the way it has been to get were it were at any time.

Now, there’s processing about aesthetics, some of it easy and appealing this way, some if it not maybe. I’m using ‘aesthetics’ in a very broad sense for a moment.

Your mention of ‘conventional thinking’, resembles in a way, in my opinion, an SS uniform.

Just what if the ‘sociability’ (by whatever term) you are talking about in fact is representative of communicativity between mental resources (say some ‘bidirectionality’, crudely put) of an individual. Let’s say civil societies are built from individuals upward, an expression this way.

Now, to bring it all together.

What if your views regarding higher ‘social organization’ contain idealizations, a sort of shallow aesthetically appealing notion. Some delusion about them. That they resemble the SS uniform.

I put to you that a large part of the flipside of ‘beauty’ and that ‘appealing’ is hostility.

>when much of what experts are coming up with is no better than a couple of half drunk people at the pub might come up with.

Well, no. It’s perfectly rational speculation that attempts to make sense of the evidence.

>I wonder how the Nazi ideological view went at the time, what might have equated with “stranger” of the time?

The Nazis were vile murdering racists and so on, but that’s essentially irrelevant. They were able to get the nation behind them long enough to cause enormous damage. My point is that both Homo sapiens & the Neanderthals inherited innate aggression from earlier Homo species, but the Neanderthals weren’t able to develop the wider range of social skills associated with modern humans, and this probably played an important role in their demise.

>Your mention of ‘conventional thinking’, resembles in a way, in my opinion, an SS uniform.

Dear oh fecking dear. I’m merely pointing out that these views are in fact conventional, in response to Permeate’s assertion that they are somehow outlandish nonsense being pushed by someone ignorant of the field.

>>Your mention of ‘conventional thinking’, resembles in a way, in my opinion, an SS uniform.

About time someone Godwinned this thread.

>I’m merely pointing out that these views are in fact conventional”

Give me a better idea what you mean by conventional. You mean accepted by a few people as interesting ideas, I suppose, and importantly, to the extent they could be called conventional, you agree with them and support the view they are conventional. Anyway perhaps trifling semantics on my part.

I’d like a bit more detail re your views on what ‘aggressiveness’ is, as applies to our ancestors or those people of way back you mention.

I mean I find it interesting, even the behavioural influences of and on ourselves and group behaviour controls, from individuals and shared views about aggressiveness.

‘The awareness’ of what aggressiveness is or tends, itself may be very important.

In a way I agree somewhat with transition. Yes, homo sapien sapien has the brains to be able to interact in a socially cohesive manner; saying that, we are also the most aggressive and violent species on the planet. You don’t sit at the apex by being a bonobo.

sibeen said:

In a way I agree somewhat with transition. Yes, homo sapien sapien has the brains to be able to interact in a socially cohesive manner; saying that, we are also the most aggressive and violent species on the planet. You don’t sit at the apex by being a bonobo.

—

and we wear blue ties….

I haven’t suggested that Homo sapiens doesn’t have a very impressive capacity for aggression. But it’s tempered by very impressive social skills, meaning that we obviously have a great advantage over critters whose instinctive aggression is less socially resourceful. And if the latter are not able to adequately soften their own aggressive responses, they’re not likely to be welcomed into our warm bosom, so to speak.

Bubblecar said:

I haven’t suggested that Homo sapiens doesn’t have a very impressive capacity for aggression. But it’s tempered by very impressive social skills, meaning that we obviously have a great advantage over critters whose instinctive aggression is less socially resourceful. And if the latter are not able to adequately soften their own aggressive responses, they’re not likely to be welcomed into our warm bosom, so to speak.

I suspect we find ourselves in full agreement.

This annoys me.

:)

I am not surprised by cannibalism, it must have happened in many species wanting to survive.

sibeen said:

Bubblecar said:

I haven’t suggested that Homo sapiens doesn’t have a very impressive capacity for aggression. But it’s tempered by very impressive social skills, meaning that we obviously have a great advantage over critters whose instinctive aggression is less socially resourceful. And if the latter are not able to adequately soften their own aggressive responses, they’re not likely to be welcomed into our warm bosom, so to speak.

I suspect we find ourselves in full agreement.

This annoys me.

:)

he he…

tauto said:

I am not surprised by cannibalism, it must have happened in many species wanting to survive.

I believe I saw it documented in a TV show in the case of chimps, a few years ago.

transition said:

I mean I find it interesting, even the behavioural influences of and on ourselves and group behaviour controls, from individuals and shared views about aggressiveness.

‘The awareness’ of what aggressiveness is or tends, itself may be very important.

Fundamentally, aggression is a creatures ability to pick fight over flight. In groups aggression has more complex dynamics. Chimps form foraging/defensive groups and their individual success against predators is limited in a fight option. The aggression in chimpanzees is most evident in competition with other chimpanzees. An animal captured by chimps for food is more often an opportunistic event where chimpanzees will form war parties when their territory is encroached on by another group.

Hominid development is likely to have shared many characteristics with chimpanzee behaviour. I brought up the domestication trait as a possible evolutionary divider between humans and other hominids for the following reason. A hominid group that develops hunting as a primary means of survival is forced to regularly divide it’s group. Breeders are left at a camp while those fit for hunting follow the spore. The more succesful the hunting group, the greater the divide between task assignments can become. Breeders become less aggressive and along with the aggression of the hunters, is developed into skills and knowledge. The initial knowledge the hunter learns is that his prey is not as capable or aware as he is. His prey is less than him in a manner he can predict and plan to take advantage of.

The most obvious opportunities for this character to develop domesticating skills is if his prey is a smaller flock animal that he can corral into an area he controls. If he has thought this act out he will limit what he takes, allowing his captors to breed and restock his newly invented farm. It is likely it took some time for this to occur to early flock trappers, but in both cases hunting would have continued to be maintained as a skill and designated role in the group out of simple budgetary necessity. It is for this reason that I would tentatively suppose that the greater portion of animal domesticating skills were developed by individuals in the camping breeder group rather than the hunter group and would be fairly certain that both hunting and animal domestication played significant roles in homo sapien success over other hominid species. Subsequently, aggression management may have set humans apart from neanderthal.

From: Bubblecar
ID: 438632
Subject: re: Evidence of Neanderthal Cannibalism in Spain

ME >Reading the above that are extracts from your posts, that would indicate that humans are in control of their aggressive natures, whereas Neanderthals were not. When you consider the mass exterminations Homo sapiens have been responsible for over the ages, I find that very difficult to swallow.<

CAR>>Those mass exterminations were very controlled, yes. Not people flying into a rage or panic upon sight of a stranger. Nazi Germany for example was notorious for its cold, methodical, industrial scale exterminations. But in order to engage in large-scale nasty behaviour like that, humans must have already developed the ability to organise co-operative societies on a very large scale, and this means developing the necessary social skills and aptitudes.<<

Reply>>>So how about the Japanese, the Mongols, Crusaders, etc, etc, etc, or were they also nice chaps doing things in an organised controlled way? I think you have slipped over the edge Bubblecar or on something that makes you think of flowers and beautiful people.
—————————————————————————————————————————————————

ME>Plus you seem to think that aggression to outsiders would be more a characteristic of Neanderthals. Are you really serious about that?<

CAR>>The fact that you ask “are you serious about that?” betrays your ignorance of conventional thinking in regard to Neanderthals. Regarding them as being more socially insular, less open to external cultural influences, and habitually living in smaller groups than later humans in the same sort of environments (typical group sizes: Neanderthals 5-10 individuals, Cro-Magnons 20-30) is all part of the conventional modelling. And this is being supported by recent research focusing on their cognitive abilities:

Reply>>>I won’t labour the point, but those cannibalised Neanderthals numbered 13. However, people like other animals must breed to survive, so they had to get together at times without thrusting a large spear between the other’s ribs. Bubblecar, all hunter/gathers mix with other hunter/gathers for various reasons, especially ceremonial, social and feasting when there is an abundance of food. You ignorance or blatant disregard of this point does you no credit.
———————————————————————————————————————————————————

>>>Eiluned Pearce of Oxford University…found that Neanderthals had significantly larger eye sockets – by an average of 6mm from top to bottom. Although this seems like a small amount, she said that it was enough for Neanderthals to use significantly more of their brains to process visual information.
“Since Neanderthals evolved at higher latitudes, more of the Neanderthal brain would have been dedicated to vision and body control, leaving less brain to deal with other functions like social networking.”

CAR>>This is a view backed by Prof Chris Stringer, who was also involved in the research and is an expert in human origins at the Natural History Museum in London.<<

Reply>>Why do you think the Neanderthal would need better vision than Homo sapiens? In snow conditions, good vision or large eyes are a liability due to potential snow blindness, plus the Neanderthals on average had larger brains than us. Perhaps you might like to explain these apparent contradictions?
——————————————————————————————————————————————————————

“We infer that Neanderthals had a smaller cognitive part of the brain and this would have limited them, including their ability to form larger groups. If you live in a larger group, you need a larger brain in order to process all those extra relationships,” he explained…..By contrast, the larger frontal brain regions of Homo sapiens led to the fashioning of warmer clothes and the development of larger social networks.<<< (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-21759233)

Reply>>I think the Neanderthal also made cloths or are you suggesting they ran around naked in sub-zero temperatures? Homo sapiens lived in larger groups because they did not live in the cold areas that Neanderthals did. If they did then their numbers would also be much lower due to the limited food supply. This is basic information car, which you do not seem to appreciate.
————————————————————————————————————————————————————-

>>>Neanderthal toolmaking supposedly changed little over hundreds of thousands of years. The lack of innovation was said to imply they may have had a reduced capacity for thinking by analogy and less working memory. The researchers further speculated that Neanderthal behavior would probably seem neophobic, dogmatic and xenophobic to modern humans.<<< (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neanderthal_behavior)

Reply>>If what they had been doing for over 200,000 years something that had proved to be successful, where is the need to change? Homo sapiens were more nomadic and needed not only lighter tools and weapons to carry, but had to constantly adapt to different environments – this need led to innovation, not just because of their frontal lobes. What you must realise Car, the way people and other animals live will determine their need for ingenuity, rather than having a light bulb for a brain.
————————————————————————————————————————————————

CAR>>To speculate from this evidence that they were more hostile towards outsiders encroaching on their territory (and less able to overcome this by forming extended alliances etc) is not at all unreasonable.<<

Reply>>It does no such thing, as you have absolutely no evidence that the Neanderthal were any more or less hostile than us. The problem with your reasoning probably relates to your ignorance of how hunter/gathers act and interact to this very day. I would suggest you do a little more reading, as you seem to wearing a very large pair of blinkers.
————————————————————————————————————————————————————-

ME>Are you totally unaware of the persecution of one race against another, something you are doing here.<

CAR>>Huh? Did you actually just say that? I mean, for real? The Neanderthals are a long-extinct human species, not an existing “race”. How can speculating about their nature possibly amount to “persecution”?<<

Reply>>Perhaps prejudice would be a better word in the circumstances, something that is very evident with your unrealistic elevation of Homo sapiens, when compared with your unnecessary degrading attitude towards the Neanderthals.
—————————————————————————————————————————————

Don’t really have a fixed view regards modern human aggressiveness, to the extent I’d be inclined to use that term, which isn’t much, though did mention I thought humans the most artful and prolific dissemblers, and further that humans have some tendency to even be oblivious to their own dissembling (because it makes it more convincing). The boundaries of awareness and what is strategic obliviousness seem to me to be impossible to pin down, probably because such obliviousness can be so useful I suppose.

I think there is a problem when considering our ancestors ‘aggressiveness’, being what we see it from.

I’d prefer to simply see it, whatever it is, in terms of mechanisms, what tended to happen on the ground and what causes it, or the objective of the behaviour.

I mean something like it is possible to provoke a creature into hostility by treating it as hostile, which features in behaviour controls with modern humans. I can think of some more obvious examples, but might go with something a bit more tenuous.

Humans think in very relative terms often, particularly in the social field, even of material things. In fact it appears to me modern humans are so active with contrasting and comparing things it might be seen as aggressive. Ideology works this way IMO. It’s like an envy around the place. I mean what generates envy and what is it when it sort of floats around under the radar? How society gives whatever it transforms into a respectability, that partly is a big driver of ambition, climbing the hill, whatever.

I mean are modern humans capable of resenting and envying a lack of envy? (the morphed version).

I think we have to be very careful with attributions of ‘aggression’.

Neanderthals put flowers in their graves. They were peace loving hairy hippies hunted down and killed by Tony Abbott. Or something like that.

Skunkworks said:

Neanderthals put flowers in their graves. They were peace loving hairy hippies hunted down and killed by Tony Abbott. Or something like that.

I knew it!

there’s another broken promise

Skunkworks said:

Neanderthals put flowers in their graves. They were peace loving hairy hippies hunted down and killed by Tony Abbott. Or something like that.

One could imagine a similar act from a gorilla. Gorillas have a limited set of options for coping with a confrontation/aggression circumstance. Aggression can be a defensive factor. I stand by my supposition that aggression management would have been a fundamental evolutionary divider.

transition said:

though did mention I thought humans the most artful and prolific dissemblers, and further that humans have some tendency to even be oblivious to their own dissembling (because it makes it more convincing). The boundaries of awareness and what is strategic obliviousness seem to me to be impossible to pin down, probably because such obliviousness can be so useful I suppose.

“thought of the day………”

sibeen said:

Bubblecar said:

I haven’t suggested that Homo sapiens doesn’t have a very impressive capacity for aggression. But it’s tempered by very impressive social skills, meaning that we obviously have a great advantage over critters whose instinctive aggression is less socially resourceful. And if the latter are not able to adequately soften their own aggressive responses, they’re not likely to be welcomed into our warm bosom, so to speak.

I suspect we find ourselves in full agreement.

This annoys me.

:)

I believe that we have yet to fight over GST funding.

WA v Tas, cage fight.

Special skills:

WA: Iron ore
Tas: Wilderness

Two states enter, One state leaves.

Kingy said:

sibeen said:

Bubblecar said:

I haven’t suggested that Homo sapiens doesn’t have a very impressive capacity for aggression. But it’s tempered by very impressive social skills, meaning that we obviously have a great advantage over critters whose instinctive aggression is less socially resourceful. And if the latter are not able to adequately soften their own aggressive responses, they’re not likely to be welcomed into our warm bosom, so to speak.

I suspect we find ourselves in full agreement.

This annoys me.

:)

I believe that we have yet to fight over GST funding.

WA v Tas, cage fight.

Special skills:

WA: Iron ore
Tas: Wilderness

Two states enter, One state leaves.

6 States enter, 6 states leave pissed off.

>>Breeders are left at a camp while those fit for hunting follow the spore

I knew it! Neolithic mushroom hunters!

>So how about the Japanese, the Mongols, Crusaders, etc, etc, etc, or were they also nice chaps doing things in an organised controlled way?

Why can’t you accept that controlled aggression is much more effective than uncontrolled aggression? And why do you think that aggression is “nice”?

>Why do you think the Neanderthal would need better vision than Homo sapiens?

It’s not necessarily a matter of need, it’s a matter of evolutionary history. Why do you think you know better than renowned authorities in the field like Chris Stringer?

>Homo sapiens lived in larger groups because they did not live in the cold areas that Neanderthals did. If they did then their numbers would also be much lower due to the limited food supply. I have referred you to experts who tell you are wrong on both of those points. But you ignore them ‘cos you know better. >If what they had been doing for over 200,000 years something that had proved to be successful, where is the need to change? That was presumably their instinctive attitude, and guess what? They fucking died out. >It does no such thing, as you have absolutely no evidence that the Neanderthal were any more or less hostile than us I have no reason to assume they were less hostile than us. But I have ample reason to assume they did not share our social skills, which suggests that they were less able to temper an innate hostility to outsiders with social skills needed for negotiation and the forming of co-operative alliances and so on. And that they were not readily able to integrate into stronger groups of newcomers and their more sociable culture. Let’s remember, we’re trying to account for why these people completely died out.

>unrealistic elevation of Homo sapiens

We are very obviously a much more successful species than the Neanderthals were ever able to be. That doesn’t mean we are “nicer”. But I think your problem is that you’ve decided the Neanderthals were “nicer”, because the fantasy version of them you like to entertain is based on your own ideological preferences. In contrast, my interest is purely that of curiosity. I don’t hold a remotely rosey picture of Homo sapiens, but I logically concude that earlier/less socially competent species were likely to have been even less “cuddly” in their nature and behaviour.

Try again:

>So how about the Japanese, the Mongols, Crusaders, etc, etc, etc, or were they also nice chaps doing things in an organised controlled way?

Why can’t you accept that controlled aggression is much more effective than uncontrolled aggression? And why do you think that aggression is “nice”?

>Why do you think the Neanderthal would need better vision than Homo sapiens?

It’s not necessarily a matter of need, it’s a matter of evolutionary history. Why do you think you know better than renowned authorities in the field like Chris Stringer?

>Homo sapiens lived in larger groups because they did not live in the cold areas that Neanderthals did. If they did then their numbers would also be much lower due to the limited food supply.

I have referred you to experts who tell you are wrong on both of those points. But you ignore them ‘cos you know better.

>If what they had been doing for over 200,000 years something that had proved to be successful, where is the need to change?

That was presumably their instinctive attitude, and guess what? They fucking died out.

>It does no such thing, as you have absolutely no evidence that the Neanderthal were any more or less hostile than us

I have no reason to assume they were less hostile than us. But I have ample reason to assume they did not share our social skills, which suggests that they were less able to temper an innate hostility to outsiders with social skills needed for negotiation and the forming of co-operative alliances and so on. And that they were not readily able to integrate into stronger groups of newcomers and their more sociable culture. Let’s remember, we’re trying to account for why these people completely died out.

>unrealistic elevation of Homo sapiens

We are very obviously a much more successful species than the Neanderthals were ever able to be. That doesn’t mean we are “nicer”. But I think your problem is that you’ve decided the Neanderthals were “nicer”, because the fantasy version of them you like to entertain is based on your own ideological preferences. In contrast, my interest is purely that of curiosity. I don’t hold a remotely rosey picture of Homo sapiens, but I logically concude that earlier/less socially competent species were likely to have been even less “cuddly” in their nature and behaviour

Riff-in-Thyme said:

transition said:

though did mention I thought humans the most artful and prolific dissemblers, and further that humans have some tendency to even be oblivious to their own dissembling (because it makes it more convincing). The boundaries of awareness and what is strategic obliviousness seem to me to be impossible to pin down, probably because such obliviousness can be so useful I suppose.

“thought of the day………”

Oblivimissive – being vulnerable to one’s own obliviousness

Omni-oblivimissive – being vulnerable to all obliviousness

Dictionary of Human Weaknesses Useful in The Pursuit of World Domination!

Updates published fortnightly by Soul Crushing Presses

morrie said:

>>Breeders are left at a camp while those fit for hunting follow the spore

I knew it! Neolithic mushroom hunters!

I just knew that would get picked on when it threw it in……

Well spotted!

Someone else can reply to Permeate’s idiocy from now on, I really am done with the chappy :)

Bubblecar said:

Someone else can reply to Permeate’s idiocy from now on, I really am done with the chappy :)

No. That would involve reading the thread. I abandoned that task around lunchtime today.

Bubblecar said:

Someone else can reply to Permeate’s idiocy from now on, I really am done with the chappy :)

I attempt to maintain a habit of answering the question….

From: Bubblecar
ID: 438846
Subject: re: Evidence of Neanderthal Cannibalism in Spain
Try again:
ME>So how about the Japanese, the Mongols, Crusaders, etc, etc, etc, or were they also nice chaps doing things in an organised controlled way? <

CAR>>Why can’t you accept that controlled aggression is much more effective than uncontrolled aggression? And why do you think that aggression is “nice”?<<

Reply>>You have no evidence that the Neanderthal was an uncontrolled aggressive creature, but there is plenty of evidence of uncontrolled aggressive behaviour with our species. Why are you so reluctant to admit this?
——————————————————————————————————————————-

ME>Why do you think the Neanderthal would need better vision than Homo sapiens?<

CAR>>It’s not necessarily a matter of need, it’s a matter of evolutionary history. Why do you think you know better than renowned authorities in the field like Chris Stringer? <<

Reply>>I merely asked you to explain why – when the habitat situation did not seem to explain this? Why are you trying to move the goalposts?
—————————————————————————————————————————————————

ME>Homo sapiens lived in larger groups because they did not live in the cold areas that Neanderthals did. If they did then their numbers would also be much lower due to the limited food supply.<

CAR>>I have referred you to experts who tell you are wrong on both of those points. But you ignore them ‘cos you know better.<<

Reply>>No I do not, but the way you prefer to present the situation does not makes sense. I think you are misinterpreting or don’t understand what these eminent people have written.
—————————————————————————————————————————————————-

ME>If what they had been doing for over 200,000 years something that had proved to be successful, where is the need to change?<

CAR>>That was presumably their instinctive attitude, and guess what? They fucking died out.<<

Reply>>Car, basic ecology has it that environmental change will induce organism modification to accommodate the new conditions, which unless this happens, they may go extinct. If there is no environmental change and the organisms have no problem within it, then there is no need for change. Really car you should know this. And as for “instinctive attitude” please remember you are referring to people with an average brain size greater than our own, which makes them a great deal more than an aggressive, stupid cave-man.
————————————————————————————————————————-

ME>It does no such thing, as you have absolutely no evidence that the Neanderthal were any more or less hostile than us<

CAR>>I have no reason to assume they were less hostile than us. But I have ample reason to assume they did not share our social skills, which suggests that they were less able to temper an innate hostility to outsiders with social skills needed for negotiation and the forming of co-operative alliances and so on. And that they were not readily able to integrate into stronger groups of newcomers and their more sociable culture. Let’s remember, we’re trying to account for why these people completely died out. <<

Reply>>I don’t know how many times I must say this before it registers with you, but all hunter/gathers have a need to associate with other hunter/gathers for various reasons, not less than obtaining a mate. They are not little groups of individuals that never interact with others. Please read how the Australian Aborigine interacted and for the reasons they did. I might also mention that a large related group of Aborigines would split into small family groups to exploit the food within their territory. This did not make them aggressive to others in clan, although intruders from other peoples needed a good reason to visit.

———————————————————————————————-

ME>unrealistic elevation of Homo sapiens<<(Very cherry-picked)

CAR>>We are very obviously a much more successful species than the Neanderthals were ever able to be. That doesn’t mean we are “nicer”. But I think your problem is that you’ve decided the Neanderthals were “nicer”, because the fantasy version of them you like to entertain is based on your own ideological preferences. In contrast, my interest is purely that of curiosity. I don’t hold a remotely rosey picture of Homo sapiens, but I logically concude that earlier/less socially competent species were likely to have been even less “cuddly” in their nature and behaviour<<

Reply>>I have decided no such thing, it was you who was inferring the Neanderthals were grossly inferior to Homo sapiens, I merely tried to point out that the situation was a great deal broader than you were implying with your blinkered and contemptuous remarks.

You seem to be more intent with your post above, in trying to wriggle out of the mess you have made for yourself by accusing me of being unrealistic, when in fact it is you with the narrow and heavily biased attitude.
————————————————————————————————————————————————-

Bubblecar said:

Someone else can reply to Permeate’s idiocy from now on, I really am done with the chappy :)

Yes logic and fact is difficult to counter with BS.

So….what was the question?

kii said:

So….what was the question?

BS or not BS, that was the question.

morrie said:

kii said:

So….what was the question?

BS or not BS, that was the question.

Very true.

morrie said:

kii said:

So….what was the question?

BS or not BS, that was the question.

Oh.

It’s a complex field I believe.

For many creatures so-called ‘aggression’ is probably more a show of defenses/defensiveness, a ‘pump up’ perhaps warning and preparedness for a change of focus of resources to more time sensitive situations.

Like if a gecko or shingle back fire up at you and raise their head, open the mouth and hiss it’s a pump up, they really want you to pass by without engagement or to run and they often do.

So I think much of ‘aggressiveness’ are warnings too.

If I proceded to encroach on a shingle back, for example, who or what is the hostile party, even if I am good intentioned and simply want to have a closer look without harming the creature?

…open the mouth and hiss it’s a pump up

= hiss or bark.

This question is for the car.

If I proceded to encroach on a shingle back, for example, who or what is the hostile party, even if I am good intentioned and simply want to have a closer look without harming the creature?

successful aggression management technique

I think a lot of ‘fallback behaviours’ away from the benefits of human higher functions, and organization derived from (of the social field), probably tend a worse outcome than an animal.

Imagine something of cultural receptivity were made possible by a type of ‘instinct blindness’, you know that sort of makes us a bit malleable maybe, that has us place value on agreed societal expectations, laws and that, working for the common good.

Call it the progressive mind of modern humans.

Maybe consider that many humans live in a type of ideological aether, suspended so.

Of course ideology (to generalize, much of behaviour controls, formal aspects and the mostly ‘informal’) works on instincts, but the greater part of the work need not involve the subjects knowing the ‘mechanisms’ involved.

If the ideological aether (consider the stanford prison experiments and ‘situational forces’) is all that is known, then when the fallback behaviours kick in they are going to be somewhat alien, well maybe unfamiliar in a particular way. Perhaps not amenable to normal introspection and will and mediation as an independent identity. Not sure, probably can be written and pointed toward in many ways.

Anyway where I was going was very small groups of past would have felt and behaved as if ‘threatened with extinction’, because in practice they were. Even a group of 100 individuals can feel this way, and no less so when faced with competition from other groups.

In modern culture the feelings and instincts one could explain and describe as ‘threatened with extenction’ are diluted, moderated, by more certainty in our lives, like secure food production, systems of law, shared ideas about justice, employment, banks, stable currency, government education. Lots of things. Police. A military that is for defence rather than aggression. Medicine, that the chidren we have have a good chance of surviving and will have productive lives and keep our DNA in with a chance.

All good things.

You know even having sexual relations other than with your main partner comes close to getting your DNA around, even if your not doing it in practice. Many people gives opportunity for that. I’m not encouraging promiscuity by the way.

In a way ‘abundance’ (in very substantial ways) serves us very well, we don’t need to or circumstances don’t push us back into the old ways someone might generalize to be those tended by being threatened with extinction.

What though may be a slight on our ancestors is to underestimate what it’s like to really be threatened so.

The nazis running germany in the second world war were operating in an ideological aether. The menacing part was that the instinct blindness made worse by the ideological elevation rendered them indifferent to some basic necessities to do with creatures living around each other, one obvious one beng that for the most part creatures mind their own business and don;t want to increase uncertainty in their world (or local enviornment) by provoking hostile responses or retaliations.

Much is made of german eugenics etc at the time, the authoritarianism and military thing, but truly it was a nightmare effort at social constructionism with prolific use of fear.

For the most part humans (being the subject) don’t want a grotesque overbearing social reality machine dominating over their basic needs and resources for. They want a ‘safe operating space’ for their basic biological needs, or they want their efforts in providing or contributing to this to have some level of certainty.

Well damn we didn’t realise the modern lifestyle

Even in the early 1900s a child with Down syndrome would live, on average, nine years. Tina lived between 273,000 and 146,000 years ago, based on other Neanderthal fossils found at the Cova Negra site.

had caused the life expectancy of Homo individuals plummet by 126991 years but there you go.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/science/2024-06-27/neanderthal-fossil-child-down-syndrome-inner-ear-bone/104023168

Certainly a lot of bickering going on in that old thread.