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

Female Chimps Seen Making, Wielding Spears

news.discovery.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 105 posts

Re: Female Chimps Seen Making, Wielding Spears

#61

Post by Frondo »

tjradcliffe wrote: post #31

If you ever want to have real fun, point this out to a doctrinaire feminist who is heavily invested in the idea that men are more violent than women because in the primordial landscape men did most of the hunting. I did this to a freind once, quite innocently, and she ended up so angry she could--in her own description--barely speak. There is a whole literature in a particular brand of feminism (mostly associated wit…

You once made a friend so angry she could barely speak, as a way of having fun?

I suspect you didn't really mean to connect those two, but it sounds kinda mean-spirited.

Re: Female Chimps Seen Making, Wielding Spears

#63

Post by kriro »

crimsonalucard wrote: post #26
qiqing wrote: post #7

Excerpt from the article, "The researchers noted that female adult chimps made and used spears more often than adult males. The males relied more on their size and strength for hunting. Female chimps are almost always hindered by infants that ride on their backs or bellies, so spear hunting is far more effective for them than attempting to chase down prey."

This is similar to how human civilization formed. Areas of plentiful food have no need for farming or saving up food as wealth thus, it is only in places where food/resources are less plentiful did technological civilization develop.

There's an interesting set of forces when it comes to "early stage" innovation (imo). On the one hand what you say is true...sheer necessity forces innovation. On the other hand if there's plenty of food one can save food and use the time not spent hunting/gathering to invent/build new technology.

That's pretty much the economics point of view. Save+invest->innovation/technology. Catch a couple of fish, save them if possible. Use time not spend on catching fish to build a net...have more fish. Rinse, repeat.

Re: Female Chimps Seen Making, Wielding Spears

#64

Post by EGreg »

malandrew wrote: post #56
qiqing wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

TIL how long baby slings have been around. "Before the invention of the baby sling, dated by Dr Taylor to at least 2.2 million years ago, when human ancestor head size suddenly began to increase, physically mature infants were more likely to survive, because caring for slower-developing immature ones was difficult, uneconomic and often dangerous. Mothers holding their infants were more vulnerable to attack from preda…

That all makes sense as a theory, but is this fact based on hard evidence or merely academic speculation? 2.2 million years is an awful long time ago, and I didn't think we had that much evidence about humans habits and culture dating back that long ago. Exactly what happened roughly 2.2 million years a to explain this evolutionary change?

That's the thing. Most of the evolutionary theories about how something happened 2 or 200 million years ago are just on the level of speculation. That's one of my gripes about evolution ... the field attracts a lot of pseudoscience (such as evolutionary psychology) in the form of "explanations" for various phenomena we observe today, or how a transition happened.

The truth is no one actually knows, or can test most of the theories that seem like they MIGHT be true but could also be fanciful speculations by researchers. That something was found is a fact. How it got there is largely speculation, but I'm surprised how often these theories are taken seriously, not just by the public but by other scientists.

Real tests include statistical significance, like exploring the fossil record across continents, simultaneously corroborating the theories of continental drift and common descent. Allopatric speciation can be discovered this way. You need a bunch of data points or functions of them, that should be independent but are highly correlated. That is what supports a theory, in the Fischer sense.

Here is an example: horse fossils are found physically above t-rex fossils 99.9% of the time, and in the remaining cases, the rocks show evidence of upheaval in that area. Or, radiometric dating vs the superposition principle. If 99% of the data samples agree, that is extremely significant. That is how you prove theories.

Re: Female Chimps Seen Making, Wielding Spears

#65

Post by arandomafrican »

kriro wrote: post #63
crimsonalucard wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is similar to how human civilization formed. Areas of plentiful food have no need for farming or saving up food as wealth thus, it is only in places where food/resources are less plentiful did technological civilization develop.

There's an interesting set of forces when it comes to "early stage" innovation (imo). On the one hand what you say is true...sheer necessity forces innovation. On the other hand if there's plenty of food one can save food and use the time not spent hunting/gathering to invent/build new technology. That's pretty much the economics point of view. Save+invest->innovation/technology. Catch a couple of fish, save them if…

That's probably why early civilization develloped in valleys of river that flooded.

In the Nile and Euphrate/Tigre valleys, there was plenty of food but efforts were required for storage. And one that was done, there was plenty of idle time for parts of the year.

Hence pyramids and stuff. (and writing for book keeping of stored food)

Re: Female Chimps Seen Making, Wielding Spears

#66

Post by mbrock »

Frondo wrote: post #61
tjradcliffe wrote: post #31

If you ever want to have real fun, point this out to a doctrinaire feminist who is heavily invested in the idea that men are more violent than women because in the primordial landscape men did most of the hunting. I did this to a freind once, quite innocently, and she ended up so angry she could--in her own description--barely speak. There is a whole literature in a particular brand of feminism (mostly associated wit…

You once made a friend so angry she could barely speak, as a way of having fun? I suspect you didn't really mean to connect those two, but it sounds kinda mean-spirited.

Gender relations are interesting that way. I wonder what evolutionary psychology theory explains this particular kind of behavior.

Re: Female Chimps Seen Making, Wielding Spears

#67

Post by mbrock »

cjsthompson wrote: post #47
tedks wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>There is a whole literature in a particular brand of feminism (mostly associated with the radicals) that simply takes the association of hunting and interpersonal violence on faith This is a straw woman. I cannot think of any radical feminist for whom this is an important point. (You probably don't mean actually radical feminists, but just liberals with whom you disagree, but that's another point.) I think virtually…

What's wrong with hitting back a bully if you can? If you can, by all means do it. The problem is not that, it's shaming those who can't hit back.

Social contracts, religions, wisdom traditions of all kinds have been founded on the insight that "hitting back a bully if you can" is not a good behavior in the long term.

The Buddhist text Dhammapada puts it like this, in Gil Fronsdal's translation:

    Hatred never ends through hatred.
    By non-hate alone does it end.
    This is an ancient truth.
(Of course this is not evidence; you didn't provide any, either.)

Re: Female Chimps Seen Making, Wielding Spears

#68

Post by [deleted] »

mbrock wrote: post #66
Frondo wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You once made a friend so angry she could barely speak, as a way of having fun? I suspect you didn't really mean to connect those two, but it sounds kinda mean-spirited.

Gender relations are interesting that way. I wonder what evolutionary psychology theory explains this particular kind of behavior.

[deleted]

Re: Female Chimps Seen Making, Wielding Spears

#70

Post by wvh »

mbrock wrote: post #67
cjsthompson wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's wrong with hitting back a bully if you can? If you can, by all means do it. The problem is not that, it's shaming those who can't hit back.

Social contracts, religions, wisdom traditions of all kinds have been founded on the insight that "hitting back a bully if you can" is not a good behavior in the long term. The Buddhist text Dhammapada puts it like this, in Gil Fronsdal's translation: Hatred never ends through hatred. By non-hate alone does it end. This is an ancient truth. (Of course this is not evidence; you didn't provide any, either.)

Idealistic moral philosophy and real life are quite different. My own experiences tell me repeatedly turning the other cheek will rarely improve your situation in reality. I think the utopia of religions and "wisdom traditions" run counter to human nature, especially in individual situations (e.g. bully violence) as opposed to a lofty moral concept for mankind (as in "we all ought to strive to...").
Post reply on HN