| ▲ | JumpCrisscross 6 hours ago |
| > Tools predate homo sapiens (which emerged about 300 kYA) I’m going to use a charged word because Jane Goodall used it. Goodall asserted that humans and chimpanzees (and wolves) are unique among animals in that we have a genocidal tendency [1]. When a group attacks us (or has “land and resources” we want) we don’t just chase them off. We exterminate them. We expend great resources to track them down to ensure they cannot threaten us. One reading of pre-history is that we had a number of hominids that were fine sharing the world, and humans, who were not. (I’ve seen the uncanny valley hypothesised as a human response to non-human hominids, as well as other humans carrying transmissible disfiguring diseases.) [1] https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2010/06/does-... |
|
| ▲ | crazygringo 2 minutes ago | parent | next [-] |
| > unique among animals in that we have a genocidal tendency That's an unsupported generalization. The article describes "behaviors" that include "perhaps even genocide", and notes that wiping out populations exists in chimps and wolves too. So not unique, there's a "perhaps", and it's not a tendency. There's no evidence we have a "gene" for it or anything. In the vast, vast, vast majority of conflicts between two groups, we don't exterminate the "enemy". We try to pose a credible enough threat so that they leave us alone. Otherwise, the human race would have gone extinct a long time ago. Wiping out entire populations is by far the exception, not the rule, of human societies. |
|
| ▲ | Incipient an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| >going to use a charged word I honestly have no clue what word you used was 'charged'. Considering any of those words charged makes me worry how far political correctness has gone! (I'm assuming, I suppose, politically charged?) |
|
| ▲ | MarcelOlsz 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| The worst part of reading this thread is I know I won't be able to google image anything interesting related to "non-human hominids" :( Your comment was oddly depressing lol. Real "are we the baddies?" moment this morning. |
| |
| ▲ | JumpCrisscross 5 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > won't be able to google image anything interesting related to "non-human hominids" We were a large family [1]. > Real "are we the baddies?" moment We were animals. We acted in accordance with our natures. Wolves and chimpanzees aren’t baddies any more than bees or hyenas. Nature is brutal. Today, however, we are more than our natures. We have the capacity to criticize it when it arises in ways we disapprove of. In a certain sense, humans have a unique capacity to reduce suffering in a way without precedent in Earth’s natural history. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo | | |
| ▲ | unfitted2545 5 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | That's kinda ridiculous to think we're not animals anymore, our nature is to use intellect for survival (and though we know we can reduce suffering further we choose not to). | | |
| ▲ | ncr100 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | It is a mind bender, yes. Your argument, written here and As far as I understand it at the moment, goes along with the other argument that everything is a simulation, or that everything that we do is preordained based upon physics. All mindbenders. I want to believe that I have the ability to make an educated decision when faced e.g. with impulses to suppress or oppress others, I do know that I can consider ramifications and benefits outside of those which directly impact me. So, perhaps it's better to say, we can be unanimal like rather than simply not animal, at all? What do you think? | | |
| ▲ | unfitted2545 38 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | I do believe in determinism. I see what you mean by being able to consider the worth of harming something for your own gain. But doesn't this apply to all animals? If a bear was hungry I'm sure they would happily eat you, but they would probably think twice if they weren't. Same for early humans, it's just we have our technologies (which our intellectual nature has enabled) now to prop us up and not have to really think about survival. The main thing I'm curious to hear your thoughts on is what are we if not animals? Gods? That's surely completely relative, like an anteater to an ant. | |
| ▲ | pinnochio 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | > Your argument, written here and As far as I understand it at the moment, goes along with the other argument that everything is a simulation, What? This isn't a mindbender. You're just drawing lines. Edit: I slightly misread your comment as advocating that we're not animals. However, whether one describes us as not animals or able to be "unanimal like" is still a matter of drawing lines. |
|
| |
| ▲ | reactordev 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | As equal to their ability to cause it. It’s this dichotomy that makes us, human. We have the power of destruction, the power of criticism, the power of nurturing, and the power to advance. We are amazing animals. | | |
| ▲ | throwaway173738 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | You might say we have eaten the fruit of the tree of knowledge but not the tree of wisdom. So although we can act against our base nature we don’t always. | | |
| |
| ▲ | staplers 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | humans have a unique capacity to reduce suffering in a way
With low cost to our wellbeing as well. Which I think is the main point. Our advances in logistical transportation and food production allow us to be kinder and more plentiful than ever before. Unfortunately we see "instinctual" echoes of past strife seemingly arise from minor inconveniences (those ppl do something that annoys me). | |
| ▲ | rananajndjs 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | [dead] | |
| ▲ | pinnochio 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | > Today, however, we are more than our natures. This really depends on how you define nature. Attempts to delineate what is and is not nature tend to be motivated. |
| |
| ▲ | WarmWash 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Another way of looking at it is that humans (and apparently our close brethren) are tribal, don't give up fighting easily, and can generationally hold grudges. Invaders of days gone by knew that even the young kids would grow up to "avenge their people", so to avoid problems (violence/killing against their tribe) in 10-15 years, it's better to just totally erase the population. | |
| ▲ | keybored 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Of course we are the baddies. That’s the narrative every time people need to defend terrible behavior lead by sociopaths: but that’s just human nature. Very practical fallback. |
|
|
| ▲ | nomel 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| I think this is part of the reason humans are so stupid during any sort of divisions where "sides" emerge. To be able to do commit this genocide, you need a very ugly "switch" in your head that can make your actions justifiable/right. I think this switch is the same, emotional, unthinking one that makes some people so religion about teams sports, phone OS, political alignment, etc. Related, I think this is also the mechanism for how religion tends to stabilize societies/give them cohesion. Rather than having an eventual positive feedback loop of division, the division is placed between some type of "good" and "evil" rather than your neighbor. The "us vs them" division that switch craves is put on something more metaphysical (and sometimes a net benefit, like defining evil as behavior destructive to societies). |
|
| ▲ | staplers 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Army ants do something similar as well. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/ants-and-the-art-... |
|
| ▲ | throwup238 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| > (and wolves) And lions. And banded mongooses. And meerkats. And ants. Lots and lots of ant species - they’re actually by far the worst, following colony pheromones to the end of the earth just to get a single ant. Ants that aren’t genocidal to their own species tend to be some of the worst invasive species (like Argentinian ant supercolonies). I love me some Jane Goodall as much as the next guy but that hypothesis is not taken seriously by primatologists and using the word “genocidal” in this context would get you laughed out of the room. Lethal intergroup aggression, coalitionary killing, and raiding are all different aspects of violent behavior in animals and hominins are far from unique in demonstrating them. |
| |
| ▲ | adastra22 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | Agree with your this-is-not-unique-to-primates take. But why is genocidal not accurate? |
|
|
| ▲ | jama211 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| It’s an interesting interpretation, but it’s sounds all very unsubstantiated. Speculation it seems to me. |
| |
| ▲ | JumpCrisscross 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | > sounds all very unsubstantiated. Speculation it seems to me What part of the study strikes you as unsubstantiated? | | |
| ▲ | 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | [deleted] | |
| ▲ | rhelz 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Every part is unsubstantiated. For starters, for the vast majority of H. Sapiens existence on earth--from 300,000 years ago to about 45,000 years ago, we shared the world with 4 or 5 other hominids that we know about. (Neanderthal, Denisoven, H. Luzonensis, H. Floresiensis, and still perhaps a few H. Erectus, and no doubt even more we haven't found yet.) That's 250,000 years of coexistence. We know that we sheboinked with at least two other species, probably more, because we still carry their genes to this day. So much so that it couldn't have been just a sheboink or two; we sheboinked over extended periods of time, i.e. we formed families with Neanderthals and Denisovens. We have no evidence of warfare between the species. I.E. We have found no Neanderthal skull with an arrowhead in it, for example. Besides the fact that we are the only ones left, I don't see any substantiation at all. It is a mystery why they are not still here. But the last 50,000 years, since the end of the last Ice Age, has been very hard on human species, for some reason. We are the only humans left, what every got them might get us too if we let it. | | |
| ▲ | shakna 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > We have no evidence of warfare between the species. Thats not correct. We have a neanderthal slain by spear, at a time and place where it was only carried by modern humans. [0] This isn't a singular event. We have a history on injuries consistent with war, on both sides. Yes, we "sheboinked". We also took women as prizes of war and raped them. As humanity has continued to do for most of their history. Sure, the story is probably more complex. Some tribes at war, others at trade. Some who intermingle, and others who raged. That's... Just history of a people. That's normal. But we absolutely have a history of war between the species. [0] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S00472... | |
| ▲ | popalchemist 44 minutes ago | parent | prev [-] | | Who says these were homosapien tools? |
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | api 38 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Sometimes when I think about this it makes me wonder if we should take the dark forest hypothesis seriously (re: Fermi paradox). Not only are we the only species to reach this kind of technology but among humans the first group to reach space was the Nazis. Today the innovation in that area seems driven by militaristic states and by people who seem ideologically adjacent. In other words it’s driven by very aggressive territorial members of one of the most aggressive territorial species. We can’t generalize from one example of evolution, but if this is indicative of a common pattern then there might be some scary MFs out there. Our radio signals have been spreading for a while, so for all we know something is on its way to cleanse the universe of all forms of life that offend its god (or whatever its genocidal rationalizations is). If this is true then we die. There is zero chance of resisting something with the technology to travel the stars and perhaps a million years or more head start on us. We’d probably never even see it coming or know what happened. I had this thought when I saw the ideological turn (or mask removal) of certain people in the space industry. I found it metaphysically disturbing. Again… if there is other advanced life and if this is the pattern of how you evolve to become spacefaring, then we are doomed. |
|
| ▲ | yieldcrv 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| Given enough time of human survival, the only species left on this planet will be ones that are aesthetically pleasing to us Everything selectively bred due to environmental or artificial pressures to have big eyes, big heads, high vocal sounds, attributes of human babies It is very strange and an aberration amongst species, one being tolerating other beings because of their entertainment value and the joy they give from looking at them, but seems to be consistent and validate what's happened over eons of homo sapien propagation |
| |
| ▲ | dpc050505 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | Animals being tasty is a trait we heavily select for. I don't think chickens have any of the traits you describe but they're certainly not at risk of extinction. |
|