Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Small prey compelled prehistoric humans to produce appropriate hunting weapons

phys.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 50 posts

Re: Small prey compelled prehistoric humans to produce appropriate hunting weapons

#31

Post by xwdv »

staplers wrote: post #30
distortionfield wrote: post #3

> “Ultimately, we hypothesized that prey size had played a major part in human evolution: at the beginning the largest animals were hunted, and when these were gone humans went on to the next in size, and so on. Finally, when hunting was no longer energetically viable, humans began to domesticate animals and plants. That's how the agricultural revolution began." I had never considered this angle before. I always thou…

"Necessity is the mother of invention"

Can’t wait to see what we invent after the crops fail and we can no longer farm the Earth.

Re: Small prey compelled prehistoric humans to produce appropriate hunting weapons

#32

Post by DangitBobby »

j16sdiz wrote: post #28
SoftTalker wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A lot of people who would not have survived childhood in the past now live. Birth defects, childhood cancers, diabetes, severe asthma or allergies, poorly functioning immune systems, profoundly poor vision or hearing, etc. Who uses birth control? Smart, pragmatic, disciplined, responsible people. This is being selected against. I was using "evolution" in the sense of "survival of the fittest" and there aren't really…

Oh. That's why Elon Musk have 11 kids.

It sounds like you are disputing the premise but at least at a glance it seems obviously true. Why do you think surviving previously unsurvivable ailments or living a normal life with what would have otherwise been a debilitating illness past reproductive age isn't partially nullifying natural selection? And is the billionaire with 11 kids the normal case or just maybe slightly cherry picked?

Re: Small prey compelled prehistoric humans to produce appropriate hunting weapons

#33

Post by kadoban »

xwdv wrote: post #31
staplers wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Necessity is the mother of invention"

Can’t wait to see what we invent after the crops fail and we can no longer farm the Earth.

We've already invented mass graves.

Re: Small prey compelled prehistoric humans to produce appropriate hunting weapons

#34

Post by kadoban »

Detrytus wrote: post #15
MichaelZuo wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Early cities were pretty undesirable places to live, so it makes sense,

Modern cities are no different.

As evidenced by what? All the people that want to live in them?

"Nobody goes there anymore, it's too crowded."

Re: Small prey compelled prehistoric humans to produce appropriate hunting weapons

#35

Post by candiddevmike »

Nursie wrote: post #23
SoftTalker wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

True, I mean evolution in the forward sense, implied by my "we are probably backsliding"

What do you mean by backsliding? Is it only 'evolution' when things become stronger/smarter/faster? Evolution is organisms adapting to their environment in the face of selection pressure, it has no particular direction.

I think OP meant something along the lines of Idiocracy. Or maybe a weird eugenics angle.

Re: Small prey compelled prehistoric humans to produce appropriate hunting weapons

#36

Post by gostsamo »

distortionfield wrote: post #3

> “Ultimately, we hypothesized that prey size had played a major part in human evolution: at the beginning the largest animals were hunted, and when these were gone humans went on to the next in size, and so on. Finally, when hunting was no longer energetically viable, humans began to domesticate animals and plants. That's how the agricultural revolution began." I had never considered this angle before. I always thou…

I used to support this theory, but there were some studies showing that large gain got extinct due to the climate changes after the last ice age. Can't dig links right now.

Re: Small prey compelled prehistoric humans to produce appropriate hunting weapons

#37

Post by Nursie »

SoftTalker wrote: post #24
Nursie wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What do you mean by backsliding? Is it only 'evolution' when things become stronger/smarter/faster? Evolution is organisms adapting to their environment in the face of selection pressure, it has no particular direction.

A lot of people who would not have survived childhood in the past now live. Birth defects, childhood cancers, diabetes, severe asthma or allergies, poorly functioning immune systems, profoundly poor vision or hearing, etc. Who uses birth control? Smart, pragmatic, disciplined, responsible people. This is being selected against. I was using "evolution" in the sense of "survival of the fittest" and there aren't really…

> I was using "evolution" in the sense of "survival of the fittest"

The people who are reproducing more and passing on genes are "the fittest", by definition.

> there aren't really selections for "fittest" (healthier, stronger, smarter) operating on humans anymore, it's more the opposite.

That's still evolution. Selection may not be working in ways that select for attributes you or I would necessarily choose, but if there are selective factors and the organism is changing, that's evolution baby.

Evolution does not mean "improving", which is subjective anyway.

(I picked up on this because basically this idea that evolution has a direction, or aims, or that you can be somehow more or less evolved, that the human organism is de-evolving etc ... all this is the sort of thinking at the root of eugenics, which has some pretty dark history.

And it's not the definition or the scientific understanding of the idea - a fish that evolves to be blind in the ocean depths is not de-evolving or going backwards. It's evolving subject to the selective pressures it is under)

Re: Small prey compelled prehistoric humans to produce appropriate hunting weapons

#38

Post by Nursie »

candiddevmike wrote: post #35
Nursie wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What do you mean by backsliding? Is it only 'evolution' when things become stronger/smarter/faster? Evolution is organisms adapting to their environment in the face of selection pressure, it has no particular direction.

I think OP meant something along the lines of Idiocracy. Or maybe a weird eugenics angle.

Honestly you can view idiocracy as an argument for eugenics... not that I particularly do, but a friend watched it for the first time recently and thought that was what it was.

I prefer to treat it as an observation about the direction of culture and a as a comic dystopia. And just a damn good laugh. Though there are definitely moments when I read the news and think "Damn, it really was a prophecy..."

Re: Small prey compelled prehistoric humans to produce appropriate hunting weapons

#39

Post by jahewson »

gostsamo wrote: post #36
distortionfield wrote: post #3

> “Ultimately, we hypothesized that prey size had played a major part in human evolution: at the beginning the largest animals were hunted, and when these were gone humans went on to the next in size, and so on. Finally, when hunting was no longer energetically viable, humans began to domesticate animals and plants. That's how the agricultural revolution began." I had never considered this angle before. I always thou…

I used to support this theory, but there were some studies showing that large gain got extinct due to the climate changes after the last ice age. Can't dig links right now.

The thinking I’m familiar with is that various megafauna were in a vulnerable position due to climatic changes reducing their territory around the same time humans arrived in the regions they lived, leading to fairly rapid extinction.

Re: Small prey compelled prehistoric humans to produce appropriate hunting weapons

#40

Post by kbelder »

myshpa wrote: post #11
gerdesj wrote: post #10

"But one may well ask: Why did humans become smarter all of a sudden? What was the advantage of having a large brain ... To hunt small elusive animals humans had to become smarter, faster, more focused, more observant, and more collaborative." So why didn't the big cats, larger insects, dogs/wolves, crocs n that, let alone bloody great 'awks 'n that etc become ... "smarter" for the same reasons? "Just so" stories are…

> the big cats, larger insects, dogs/wolves, crocs n that, let alone bloody great 'awks None of them are able to make all their prey go extinct.

Sure they did, many times.
Post reply on HN