[Kosh]

Supposedly compared to our ancestors anyway

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.

[General Battuta]

We're optimized for other things these days.

[c914]

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.

[Herra Tohtori]

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.

[Fury]

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.

[Herra Tohtori]

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.

[Vetinari]

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

"Real Stupidity beats Artificial Intelligence every time"

[Ghostavo]

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.

[Snail]

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.

[Herra Tohtori]

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.

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.

[Narvi]

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.

[Ghostavo]

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.

"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?

[StarSlayer]

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. 

[Herra Tohtori]

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.

[Kosh]

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.

"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.

[Flipside]

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...

[Snail]

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.

[c914]

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.

[StarSlayer]

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

[Flipside]

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.