Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Kosh on October 22, 2009, 03:27:17 am
-
Supposedly compared to our ancestors anyway (http://www.physorg.com/news175332184.html)
The book, Manthropology: The Science of the Inadequate Modern Male, by Australian anthropologist Peter McAllister, describes many examples of the inadequacy of the modern male, calling them as a class, "the sorriest cohort of masculine Homo sapiens to ever walk the planet."
Given spiked running shoes, Indigenous Australians of 20,000 years ago could have beaten today's world record for running 100 and 200 meters. As recently as last century, some Tutsi males in Rwanda could have easily beaten the current high jump world record, and bodybuilders such as Arnold Schwarzenegger would have been no match in an arm wrestle with a Neanderthal woman.
-
We're optimized for other things these days.
-
Actually most of us can beat world records. Non trained muscles in hand are able to move 200 kg weight, you can run in few seconds 100 meter distance. Only trick: you HAVE to be in big danger that threaten your live, then subcontinent turn on old programs from beginning of our animal origin and use stored energy in our body.
Our ancestors had to live with this danger all the time, self protecting was turning on more recently.
-
Why are they comparing neandertals to present humans? It's like comparing a chimpanzee to a gorilla. Sure gorilla is stronger, but it's also of different species, so there's no real basis for comparision aside from informative purposes.
So telling that a neanderthal would be a better arm wrestler is like saying that a chimp would tie Alexander Karelin into a knot in a wrestling match. Both statements are true, but not exactly relevant when comparing ancient modern humans (Homo sapiens sapiensis) to modern modern humans (same species).
Also, the suckage is mostly due to life long sitting on our arses rather than foraging, lifting stuff, hunting and then dying from diseases, wear and tear, exposure or from violent causes at the ripe old average age of 30 or so. I don't think that we are, on average, in any ways genetically inferior [citation needed], it's just that for them to survive it was required to have better physical performance consistently throughout their lifes.
-
t's just that for them to survive it was required to have better physical performance consistently throughout their lifes.
Short life I might add.
-
Quite.
Also, the suckage is mostly due to life long sitting on our arses rather than foraging, lifting stuff, hunting and then dying from diseases, wear and tear, exposure or from violent causes at the ripe old average age of 30 or so.
-
Given that we can live twice the age of these supposed ancestors, I'd say they sucked bad. Of course our superiority sucks when noobs join forums and clans in MMORPGs :P
"Real Stupidity beats Artificial Intelligence every time"
-
I'm not sure why we suck compared to ancient hominids. They are extinct/dead, we aren't.
We traded most of our physical abilities for intellectual ones. In the end, one modern human with an assault rifle wins against an ancient hominid with a club.
-
Can I just say, a 10 year-old boy of today probably has a better understanding of the universe than a man of 2,000 years ago. :doubt:
-
Can I just say, a 10 year-old boy of today probably has a better understanding of the universe than a man of 2,000 years ago. :doubt:
Hardly. There are several kinds of understandings. Besides, as an average a ten-year-old usually does not possess actual understanding of the world around him, while a grown adult 2000 or 20000 years ago did by necessity have a profound understanding of the relevant parts of the nature around him - on practical level if not theoretical. Now, if you were talking about a 15-year-old with basic schooling behind him or her, then I would agree that on average they probably have better coherency about the universe than those who lived 2000 years ago. However if you take an average ten year old from today's population, there's about 74% chance that he comes from Asia or Africa, higher than 2/3 odds that he cannot read or write, and if he's amongst the 76% of people who have electricity the only practical application for it is likely producing light at night-time, so I wouldn't wager on him having some profound knowledge about the universe.
Even with several years of schooling, majority of ten-year-olds don't actually know all that much more about the universe than men from historic times, or prehistoric times. Knowledge of geography might be better, ability to read and write would be an improvement as would basic mathematical operations and ability to use ten-base numerical system and gregorian calendar, but that's about it. Some would have just started studying a second language, but majority would not. Actual knowledge at that point is in most cases less than you would think, since the first years of the schooling are used building up the basic skill set needed for studying - mainly reading, writing, basic arithmetics and so forth.
Besides that, the men from prehistoric times were not any less intelligent than we are. What they lacked was the theoretical knowledge of the underlying structure of the world around them, but don't sell them too short for it. They obviously were capable of survival, from which we are living proof. :p
-
Huh. That is weird, especially the "in comparison to trained athletes" things. I would have expected the difference in diet and the corresponding difference in build to compensate for it.
-
Besides that, the men from prehistoric times were not any less intelligent than we are. What they lacked was the theoretical knowledge of the underlying structure of the world around them, but don't sell them too short for it. They obviously were capable of survival, from which we are living proof. :p
"We are not weaker than men from prehistoric times. What we lack is a life full of life-threatening exercise, but don't sell ourselves short for it."
How is that any different?
-
Actually I think an analysis of humans' fitness pre and post industrialization might be more interesting. Comparing us to Neanderthals is more like apples and oranges.
-
Try pre-agriculture rather than pre-industrial. I think there would be a bigger gap there.
Also, for the most part that article does actually compare present day modern humans to the prehistoric modern humans. Neanderthals are only mentioned once, but it is rather out of place.
@Ghostavo: Yeah, it works both ways.
-
Besides that, the men from prehistoric times were not any less intelligent than we are. What they lacked was the theoretical knowledge of the underlying structure of the world around them, but don't sell them too short for it. They obviously were capable of survival, from which we are living proof. :p
"We are not weaker than men from prehistoric times. What we lack is a life full of life-threatening exercise, but don't sell ourselves short for it."
How is that any different?
No adrenalin rush?
Even with several years of schooling, majority of ten-year-olds don't actually know all that much more about the universe than men from historic times, or prehistoric times. Knowledge of geography might be better, ability to read and write would be an improvement as would basic mathematical operations and ability to use ten-base numerical system and gregorian calendar, but that's about it.
Rather telling of our K-12 education system. :P
-
Y'See this is someone thinking with brawn instead of brains, we couldn't out-run a neanderthal in a marathon because we were smart enough domesticate horses to do it for us.
That a supposed scientist can think the benchmark of a male is physical prowess in modern society is somewhat depressing...
-
Y'See this is someone thinking with brawn instead of brains, we couldn't out-run a neanderthal in a marathon because we were smart enough domesticate horses to do it for us.
That a supposed scientist can think the benchmark of a male is physical prowess in modern society is somewhat depressing...
Yeah. The point is, we might suck physically but I'd like to see how well a Neanderthal does in modern society (even if he was allowed an education).
Arnold Schwarzenegger doesn't need to beat a Neanderthal woman in an arm-wrestle because he's the ****ing governor of California.
-
Yeah. The point is, we might suck physically but I'd like to see how well a Neanderthal does in modern society (even if he was allowed an education).
At this point question is how adaptation to modern society would go. Shock way in which Neanderthal might had big physic collapse. Small steps were probably in end of his life he would understand most of it just like most of modern people.
From other side if you go back in time to Neanderthal world you would have any use for most of your knowledge and non of knowledge how too survive in 20.000 environment.
-
Y'See this is someone thinking with brawn instead of brains, we couldn't out-run a neanderthal in a marathon because we were smart enough domesticate horses to do it for us.
That a supposed scientist can think the benchmark of a male is physical prowess in modern society is somewhat depressing...
On the other hand do you know how to domesticate a horse? I don't, and thats true with a large portion of our skills and technology. As a society we may have high technology and skills but individual knowledge of how to implement it? If you were shipped back to medieval times do you think you could replicate a toaster/firearm/ICE/etc? Throw on top of that the fact that most people don't know basic survival skills then a lot of that vaunted education and knowledge becomes rather small consolation.
Granted I'd wager some SAS or SEAL could out survive and out fight Neanderthal but the average person? Not a chance
-
But that's one of the things that pushed us ahead, extelligence, the ability for one person to symbolically describe knowledge and pass it on to other people who may be thousands of miles away, writing was the key that unlocked humanity in many ways.
Edit: To clarify, it meant that everyone didn't have to know how to do it, we could have specialists in various things.
I suppose, as the population of the planet gets larger, the number of people who don't know how to do something will grow larger, I think that's more maths than anything else, I'll admit, I don't know how to train a horse (ironically enough, I do know how to ride one, damn parents and their riding lessons), but then, I do know how to play a guitar, I do know how to program a computer, I do know how to normalise a database, if I wanted to learn how to train a horse, I could get a book on it, we learn skills appropriate to our environment I suppose.
I think intelligence is not so much what a single person knows, at least, not in this sense, it is the fact that we devised a method of teaching that didn't even require the teacher present. Same with our physique, we devised a method of prevention of attack, by building larger and larger habitations, that meant we didn't need all that muscle and stamina any more, we lost the muscles because we advanced beyond them, I don't really see that as some kind of failing as this scientist does.
-
That's true, and like I mentioned with SAS and SEALs our collective knowledge in the needed skills to survive is much higher then it would be for a Neanderthal. The formalized fighting systems we have developed for hand to hand combat and melee would negate the speed and strength advantages of a Cave Man. But the actual percentage of the population trained and ready to implement that is relatively small. Sure I could go online or read a book to learn how to do Blacksmith work but I'm not going to be a skilled as a trained blacksmith, and if I haven't studied up on it first I will have zippo chance of figuring it out myself even with my more powerful brain. Most of the technology we take for granted took decades and centuries to perfect.
-
On the other hand do you know how to domesticate a horse? I don't, and thats true with a large portion of our skills and technology. As a society we may have high technology and skills but individual knowledge of how to implement it?
A lot would depend on the timeframe you would be dropped to...
If you were shipped back to medieval times do you think you could replicate a toaster/firearm/ICE/etc? Throw on top of that the fact that most people don't know basic survival skills then a lot of that vaunted education and knowledge becomes rather small consolation.
Medieval times? Not too bad. There would be steel available for building stuff from, you would just need the help of a blacksmith to either teach you to do it yourself or do the work for you. Building a steam turbine would not be too difficult; the biggest problem I can foresee is making accurate axles and bearings and keeping the parts in balance to reduce vibrations, and that wouldn't be insurmountably difficult; a metalworking lathe would be required to construct axles and bearing cylinders, but it could be done.
Copper wire could be coated in wax of some kind, barring better alternatives. How to actually make copper wire, you could make a wire pulling device, it's not that complex.
Strong magnets for the generator might actually be the hardest to come by. However, any ferromagnetic material - iron comes to mind first and foremost - would do, as long as you would have a method of magnetizing it. Magnetizing could be done by a direct current electromagnet, and before you say that you wouldn't have current without a generator, I remind you that you can make pretty strong batteries out of something like copper and lead, which were both available in medieval times. Zinc would be better (and less poisonous) than lead, but I dunno how I would come by that in medieval times... Just get enough of copper wire, copper and lead plates, water and something to ionize the water (salt would do) and you get an electric pair that produces direct current. Put a bunch of these in parallel and you can produce pretty high currents, and if you put them in series you can pump the voltages quite high too. You could use that to make strong permanent magnets for the generator.
Gunpowder would not be too hard to make either. Although I would probably want to skip the black gunpowder altogether and go directly to cordite (nitrocellulose and nitroglycerine wouldn't be that much more difficult to manufacture than black gunpowder) and rounds that consist of a shell, round and detonator... none of that muzzle loading garbage. :ick: Again, in medieval times this would not be too hard to do if you could get some connections to aquire the raw materials - in this case, an alchemist and the ever helpful blacksmith.
But yes, I would require assistance from locals to achieve this; however I would know roughly how to do it.
...as a terrifying afterthought, the AK-47 machinery isn't that complicated. Requires a bit of precision tools, yeah. But it could be done. Not immediately of course, it would take years to develope the machinery and equipment to work metals and produce alloys and such, but it could be done. Within, say, 10-15 years of co-operation with an experienced blacksmith we could improve metallurgy to the level where production of Kalashnikov assault rifles would be possible. :shaking:
Even on bronze age, some of this stuff would be possible. Steam turbine would be less durable and would thus produce less power due to lower rpm's, and bronze in general isn't as good material for stuff like this as steel is, but it would still be doable. Hell, ancient Greeks built a primitive steam turbine, they just didn't think of attaching an axle to it to generate power, and considered it more of a toy despite the fact that it demonstrated the principles of thermodynamics as well as reaction principle.
However, dropped back 20000 years ago and things become significantly harder. You could use some basic mechanical knowledge to build simple machines such as pulleys - a compound bow would be possible to make, but you would again need help from a person experienced in making bows as well as someone experienced with carving wood or bone.
It's a nice thing to ponder though; would you be able to start an industrial revolution at year X?
Moreover, should you? :nervous:
-
It's a question of relatives as well, if you have compound bows, and the other guy has little horse-bows or the like, then you are going to be killing him before he gets in range, so you need to develop a better bow.
In many ways, humanity is unique, because, unlike most creatures, which are involved in a passive war, predator vs prey, humans have got most of their drive to advance from human vs human contact, that, on a regular basis, is unknown in the rest of the animal kingdom, it became no longer a question of being stronger or faster than the other tribes, it became a question of being smarter than them, and that was another part of the generator that pushed us upwards :)
-
It's a nice thing to ponder though; would you be able to start an industrial revolution at year X?
It is questionable they would have let you, more likely you would have been accused of being a witch/warlock for using black magic. And no I'm not being sarcastic or anything.
Moreover, should you?
Nothing would have changed, just the timetable would have been bumped up rather considerably. The Spanish for example were off pillaging the new world and enslaving people without the help of an industrial base. Maybe world war one wouldn't be against the central powers, but a massive industrial conflict on that scale was bound to happen. We would likely be at a much higher level of development now if it had occured way back when.
-
We would likely be at a much higher level of development now if it had occured way back when.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_Ages
maybe, maybe not :)
-
It's a question of relatives as well, if you have compound bows, and the other guy has little horse-bows or the like, then you are going to be killing him before he gets in range, so you need to develop a better bow.
I thought Mongols were the opposite of this. I think what actually matters is again how smart you are.
Vikings were able to pull out quite mighty aspherical lens surfaces back then. Nobody knows how they managed to manufacture those. Then came something and the whole thing was forgotten for about thousand years...
-
My view on the subject I hear you screaming at your monitors? (Regardless I know this to be a fact :p)
There's a bit of dilution over the last few centuries (not racial, not a debate I want to get into either) but rather a question of Darwinus interruptus. . Medical science, shelter and general civil evolution have stemmed the tide of natural selection. How many of you have seen at school or at work the fat Kid who'd pass out climbing two flights of stairs let alone hunting down a buffalo after tracking them on foot for a week. Or the idiot chav asbo who a few thousand years back would have died trying to figure out why the human remains outside a bear cave were there. .
My points not that we're on the decline physically, just that there are too many wasters out there to notice. Anyone who has seen Idiocracy will know where this is headed. ;)
-
My view on the subject I hear you screaming at your monitors? (Regardless I know this to be a fact :p)
There's a bit of dilution over the last few centuries (not racial, not a debate I want to get into either) but rather a question of Darwinus interruptus. . Medical science, shelter and general civil evolution have stemmed the tide of natural selection. How many of you have seen at school or at work the fat Kid who'd pass out climbing two flights of stairs let alone hunting down a buffalo after tracking them on foot for a week. Or the idiot chav asbo who a few thousand years back would have died trying to figure out why the human remains outside a bear cave were there. .
My points not that we're on the decline physically, just that there are too many wasters out there to notice. Anyone who has seen Idiocracy will know where this is headed. ;)
The smart people need to breed like rabbits :D
It is funny I remember looking at some photos of the workers from the Empire State building being built. There was a I-beam full of guys eating lunch and every one of them was hard as nails. If I sat at North Station during rush hour I think I would be hard pressed to find that many guys in that good of shape nowadays. Service based white collar economy a fit society does not make.
-
The smart people need to breed like rabbits :D
Not quite, for instance the FAt unhealthy guy could be sharp as a diamond tack, but i doubt he could contribute to physical labour, and to b honest.. Fat people have fat kids whether it's genetic or not. Lifestyle is hereditary too...
-
But then, that, too, is a kind of Natural Selection, once upon a time, power was based on your ability to hit things with big sticks, nowadays, we have advanced to the point where power is based on being smart enough to be able to afford to pay other people to hit things with big sticks.
The real trick is removing the Big Stick from the equation.
-
Once the people with the sticks realise they can hit the smart people and take the money. . . . . That's when funtime starts.
Remember its easier for a smart person to motivate themselves into getting fit than getting a thicko strongman to learn smarts.
-
Besides brute strength a good sworsdman does not make. In unarmored you don't need much strength to hew through flesh and bone and in armored combat all the power you can muster will not cut through plate, thats what Halbschwert is for. Steel is a pretty big equalizer, on the other hand strength does help when you close into wrestling range.
-
In fact, it could be said that, we gained Dexterity points at the cost of Strength, always a risk with multi-classing ;)
Seriously though, obesity has only really been a very recent problem, I wouldn't be too quick to include it into any Darwinian theories just yet, though it would be interesting to measure how much evolution has sacrificed with regards to our physique to our mentality.
There are two schools of thought on the matter as I understand it, some say that Prehistoric man could have come up with the laws of physics, if he had the scientific grounding that Newton did, others say that they could never have got that far, that their brains would never have been able to codify the concepts involved. In truth, it's kind of a thought-experiment, since there's no real way of knowing.
-
Neanderthals were a fork species, not technically prehistoric man.
-
Another double school of thought on that one ;) There's a small, but growing schism that suggests we interbred, so, strictly speaking, neither Homo-Erectus, nor Neanderthals were our direct descendent, we were a product of the two.
Edit: That said, I'll clean up the post, because I use them too interchangeably in it :)
-
That's probably true, I've read those papers.
-
The smart people need to breed like rabbits :D
Not quite, for instance the FAt unhealthy guy could be sharp as a diamond tack, but i doubt he could contribute to physical labour, and to b honest.. Fat people have fat kids whether it's genetic or not. Lifestyle is hereditary too...
He can build machines to do the physical labor for him. Problem solved.
-
Like this one:
(http://blogs.govexec.com/fedblog/images/wall-e.jpg)
:P
-
Not if he's lost the ability to fabricate production methods. Or even lift a hammer, move raw materials, shift a four hundred kilo palette etc. Strength is necessary to build.
-
It's a nice thing to ponder though; would you be able to start an industrial revolution at year X?
Moreover, should you? :nervous:
YES.... I don't belive in a single timline time travel:p
-
Any of you ever watch that Idiocracy movie? Sums up Dekker's point pretty damned well. And guess what?: all you got to do is take a little wander around this place on a day off to see how it's coming true.
-
(http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/idiocracy.png)
-
Not if he's lost the ability to fabricate production methods. Or even lift a hammer, move raw materials, shift a four hundred kilo palette etc. Strength is necessary to build.
Any of you ever watch that Idiocracy movie? Sums up Dekker's point pretty damned well. And guess what?: all you got to do is take a little wander around this place on a day off to see how it's coming true.
One Egyptian couldn't lift a 3/4 tonne block of Limestone on his own, mankind has never endevoured a task alone. The mistake a lot of these thought experiments make is to assume that you are totally alone without tools etc, in such a situation any human would die, regardless of physical ability. Humanity is designed to form communities and groups for a reason, so the entire concept that people, if they lost their technology, would be useless is flawed in the first place, we form groups and tackle the problem as a group, have done since we were neolithic, one Prehistoric man would have died pretty quickly, regardless of physical ability, a community of prehistoric men would be far more likely to survive, not because of strength through muscles, but strength through numbers. Those same rules still apply.
-
I wonder if that still applies with chavs though. If you put them a big bunch together in a big group and left them all alone, do you reckon they'd start building stuff? My money'd be on some serious inbreeding and cannibalism in no time.
Those would be some seriously ugly kids...
Hey Scotty: I think stupid people reproduce more 'cos someone else picks up the tab. And folks like me are smart enough to get laid without getting anyone up the duff. You should try it some time.
-
No ad hominem attacks, McCall. If your argument can't stand on its own against Scotty's debate prowess or XKCD summoning ability, then there's no need to hit below the belt.
-
For that matter, chav has some racist overtones. :P
-
Since when is XKCD considered some sort of uber-argument? :wtf:
-
Since years ago.
-
For that matter, chav has some racist overtones. :P
No it doesn't :wtf: Chavs are the natural predator of the Emo. They're still scumbags and they can only open a jar by smashing it or running it down with their mopeds.
They are asshats and the perfect example of why genetic screening and chemical castration should be applied at south london schools.
But on topic. . . . To quote Serious Sam.
Never underestimate stupid things in stupid numbers.
Seeing as teenage single mums are like tribbles at the moment I'd take it as a warning.
Tribble / Krite syndrome.
-
For that matter, chav has some racist overtones. :P
no, chav is a description of a large and annoying area of society, admittedly it is predominantly associated with white teens/young 20s in burbury annoying the s*** out of ppl with corsas and cozzys playing loud music but it does not purely apply to white ppl it can be anyone
-
Chav supposedly comes from the gypsy word for boy. Hence the claims of racist overtones.
However the word pretty much means exactly what Dekker and yourself said these days so it's going to be pretty hard to make any claim stick that it is actually racist.
-
Karajorma, you racist! Gypsy is a highly offensive word*. Use Romani people and Romani language instead.
:nervous:
*YMMV
-
Karajorma, you racist! Gypsy is a highly offensive word*. Use Romani people and Romani language instead.
:nervous:
*YMMV
what happens when said group of ppl use gypsy on a legal document like one group occupying a field they purchased near us
-
You crazy asshats. .
It stands for-
Council House And Vulgar
-
Since years ago.
Meh. I'm not impressed.
-
Since years ago.
Meh. I'm not impressed.
And this means...what, exactly? :p
-
Since years ago.
Meh. I'm not impressed.
That's what she said!
dohohohoho
-
Picturing that line coming from a Muppet is rather disturbing. :lol:
-
Whoah. . . . . . . . .don't take that obviously intentional insult.
-
Karajorma, you racist! Gypsy is a highly offensive word*. Use Romani people and Romani language instead.
:nervous:
*YMMV
Now is it actually racist or is it racist like using black instead of African-American?
Cause the word is still in fairly common usage here.
-
There is some heavy romany in my nans family going back only a few generations. Gypsy's not offensive and pikey isn't unless you live in a funfair.