I just saw part of a thing on the Science Channel about the evolution of man. Putting aside for the moment the evolution vs. creation debate, I found something very very wrong in that show. It was following a group of Homo ergaster, the species that supposedly emerged from Homo habilus and was much closer to us modern humans in that they walked upright. They showed the group crossing a river, and during the crossing the mate of one of the group was taken by a crocodile. This was an example to show the increased group bonding with this species. The group was dismayed but pressed the surviving mate left on shore to move on.
This is where they lost me. Unless they had a dire need to be in some particular place by some particular time, a concept you can be pretty sure they would not have, why in the world would they move on?
It is in human nature to not lightly accept death, let alone when it is caused untimely by another creature. Our own written history is filled with hundreds of thousands of examples of people wiping out not just one dangerous animal, but often a large chunk of their pack or herd. Almost no group of people would simply accept such a loss without doing violence on the crocodile. Consider, then, what most advanced primates like chimps or gorillas would do. If a creature nailed one of them, but posed no immediate threat to the rest of the group such that they would have to flee, would they simply leave it alone? Of course not. They'd literally beat the living crap out of the thing. You do not make a monkey mad. Surely Homo ergaster would have had as wide a mean streak, or worse.
Humans are the most vicious and clever predators in the history of the world. There's no getting around that. The fear of man is etched onto most wild animals, and not idly. Either man put it there or God did, or a little of both, depending where you're coming from. If you go with the premise of evolution, you also have to accept that early hominids would be brutal to any species that would dare predate them, in order to establish absolute dominance and ensure their own relative safety. This tradition would hardly fade away as humans got more clever, and indeed the last 5,000 years of history bear that out.
Bottom line: The Steve Irwins of the world didn't come around till very recently, and until then we were (and to a large extent still are) prepared to eliminate any threat, or punish those who had done us harm, with ruthless determination. A bunch of hairless monkeys would not suffer the beast to live.
ID:10344
 Mar 27 2006, 6:27 am
|
|
The reason for the crossing was, ostensbily, simply spreading out and moving to new terrain. Nothing with a schedule.
As for getting used to it, well, getting used to something and accepting it are two different playing fields, and humans have always played on the former. Vengeance against wild beasts is deeply ingrained in our nature, and it could only have been stronger in that group. These weren't soldiers and they weren't in the thick of a fight; that would imply something like a whole pack of dangerous creatures chasing them off. This was a lone crocodile attacking one of them on an otherwise mundane crossing. This group clearly did care about the one who had been killed, and thus, they would not have let the matter be. Not when they outnumbered the thing about half a dozen to one, and knew how to use basic weapons. A group struggling for its survival, which also must assert itself over all other wildlife, would counterattack in force just to keep that dominance. It would be their everyday way of life. Primates are exactly that aggressive; we as modern man are little less. | |
Okay, so my soldier analogy was bad. What I meant by it was that maybe they would grieve for his loss another time. Also, was this a large group? Did they seem equipped to fight a crocodile? I hadn't seen the show so I wouldn't know.
I'm rather confused as to what you mean by this. Why they didn't grieve could be to whatever reason they had, but however ingrained into our heads retaliation may be, it still doesn't change the fact that they just didn't do it. I suppose their everyday way of life differs in that regard than how you would believe it to be. Blah, I feel too wordy. :/ | |
Lummox, from my experience of shows that show early man walking about they are often portrayed as wimpering, proto-humans that shy away from enemies and basically go round picking up fallen berries and hiding from small animals.
I guess it's just to help the average homo sapiens feel reassured that they're superior through evolution, and that life is better now. Life is better now, but due to computer games, not dominance of the food chain. | |
Speaking of which, I hear Spore is becoming popular. What's it like? I can't bear to sit through that lengthy demo recording.
| |
wtf, you've not watched the video? Dude. It's BYOND awesome.
http://video.google.com/ videoplay?docid=8372603330420559198&q=spore Watch it, loser! :( It's breathtaking. | |
"Other players"
"Other players" "Other players" Damn it. My expectations for this game halve every time he says that. :/ | |
Well, I've seen a couple of such shows that focus on the concept of such primates starting out as mostly scavengers but becoming predators more and more as tool use begins to take root. This was well past the predatory stage.
And Sarm, I'm not saying they didn't grieve. They did grieve, they just didn't do jack about the crocodile, and that was bogus. Monkeys don't stop to think if they're equipped for a fight before jumping in. They go by the relative strength of their enemy. Six of these people should have been able to take a croc, especially since they were all carrying long sticks. The "fact" that they didn't retaliate is just part of a badly written narrative, and I'm harping on the fact that if this had been written with an eye for the obvious, the croc wouldn't come out alive. | |
Narrative? I didn't know the show was fake.
We're not monkeys, though. Not anymore, at least. I think we're capable of putting more thought into actions. (Although you could say that grieving would cloud that judgement) If I saw a friend die to a crocodile, I'd be sad, pissed off, everything but there's no way in hell that I'd try to kill it in revenge. I'd get myself killed too, and that wouldn't help the situation either. | |
Sarm said:
Narrative? I didn't know the show was fake. Wtf!? Since when did you get TV shows showing real footage of Homo ergaster!? You're weird. =p =/ | |
I started likening it to those medieval re-enactments on the History Channel.
| |
That's what it would be, if it wasn't CG. But they can't exactly retell a true story, hence you have narrative. :p
| |
Sarm, we're not talking one-on-one here. This was a group, able to take on a lone predator.
| |
How big was this group, anyway? You keep saying "group group group" but I looked over the posts again and I haven't seen a definite number. I'm thinking of 4-5 people here.
| |
Read the posts again, and use the other hand to count too.
| |
Edit: Sorry. That pissed me off but I was wrong to retaliate.
Okay, I missed...twice...where you said 6 people. I think I'm just having a hard time comprehending how 6 people with sticks can take out a crocodile. Maybe I'm underestimating people, but unless they could taunt the thing to come out of the water I don't know how it can be done. | |
Wow, I feel stupid now. When you said "Homo Ergaster", I thought it was just some name for an African hunting tribe. Then I misread Elation's post and thought it was "This wasn't CG", so that only reinforced it. I didn't understand why you kept mentioning monkeys before now.
I'm sorry. :( | |
Hrm, that does seem odd. A few well placed spears tipped with flint would deal with that croc (the reach of the spears should prevent retaliation) and provide food. I would be surprised if early hominids did not know how to hunt a range of creatures in their environment. Likewise, it seems odd that they would cross a body of water oblivious to such threats.
Personally, I would have been inclined to go after the croc as soon as it attacked a friend or family member. I would think a band of explorers would have others of a like mind. But, it was just a show, I suppose. | |
I'm almost certain that the portrayal you saw in that documentary is false to our nature.
From what I gather, with our instinct to eliminate threat, they'd've certainly attempted to justice the crocodile! | |
Maybe they've gotten used to it, or something. I wouldn't expect a soldier in the middle of a war to stop fighting so he could have time to grieve for a fallen comrade.
Edit: It may be human nature to act a certain way, but that doesn't mean everyone is required to act on it. Some people just don't give a damn.