Neanderthals

[Zukunftstraume 220]

The thread should really be titled "Neanderthals: A life lesson for us to learn", since that's where this post is headed.

 

But now that I have your attention... A couple months ago, I ended up reading a few articles about the two types of Chimpanzee species that are currently alive. What really got my attention is that the two groups, despite being in the same genus, behave completely different, with a different societal structure and the sort. The only obvious similarities in their society is that, like all primates, they're highly social and in particular they tend to live in groups ranging from 15-100.

 

The Bonobo is the kind known as "the gracile chimpanzee". It's name comes from living in a near-egalitarian societal structure, meaning every chimp is treated nearly the same with a minimal amount of hierarchies. They tend to be incredibly peaceful and instead of attacking one another, they take their frustration out with immense amounts of intimacy. They are also seen as having a Matriarchal society where the females control the males via sexuality. They are also predominately fruit-eaters. Bonobos also tend to treat outsiders generally pretty warmly, and being accepted into another group isn't much of a problem. Brain studies show that their brains are structured in a way where they have a stronger sense of feeling empathy, being able to control aggression pretty smoothly, and sensing distress in others. I like to think of them as Hippies.

 

The Common Chimpanzee, in stark contrast, live in a highly hierarchial society, being male-dominated, and usually have an Alpha-Male as pack leader. The leader is usually very aggressive of his position, and members of an alliance may turn on another if it benefits the individual. Their society is very complicated and allegiances between members or smaller groups are made and broken frequently. Internal wars for power happen quite often and weaker members tend to switch sides often. They are also incredibly territorial and males of one pack have been known to kill members of another. Chimps however, wage wars over land instead of claiming mates. Besides being big on fruit, they also use elaborate strategies for hunting in packs.

 

 

So, looking at how incredibly different the two species can be. It had me wondering, how different were the other 20 or so members of the genuses Australopithecus and Homo? Think about it, each species could've had their own unique society, culture, and way of thinking on top of their lifestyle. In particular I wanted to learn more about the Neanderthal (or Homo Neanderthalensis).

 

Neanderthals were members of the genus Homo (so they can be called humans), that split off our branch something like 700,000 years ago. They lived only in Europe, were about our same height, were more robust and less scrawny-looking like us. No real big differences in appearance, except having a larger eyebrow ridge and somewhat flatter nose. If you were to have one alive today and dressed him/her up in regular clothes and trimmed the hair, you wouldn't be able to tell the difference unless you got up close to one and examined facial features, it might not be incredibly obvious. The ancestors of modern Europeans and Neanderthals actually lived in the same geographical area, and it was totally possible for them to mate.

 

But here's the real kicker: on average they had slightly larger brains than us! Does that mean they were smarter than us? That's still up in grabs...

 

So, what was their society like? It's not easy to deduce behavior for something that's no longer around, but we have a lot of evidence to firmly lead us in a certain direction. A little research led me to this:

 

Neanderthals lived in groups of 5-10 individuals, while we lived in groups of 30-40. Their weapons tended to be less elaborate then our own. Many fractures have been found on their bones along with the remains of their prey. From a forensic point of view we have realized that Neanderthals (having a more robust body than ours), actually fought their prey much more directly, even taking them down using their own bodies. They used their physical strength to their advantage. The Thals were also largely carnivorous, buried their dead, had their own language, and made their homes using animal bones (like the Mammoths).

 

One strange detail is that they had settlements which lasted for a very long time, with their own remains always found not far away. This has lead experts to conclude they rarely ventured far from home and also hardly ever interacted with outsiders, including other members of their own species. They were xenophobic traditionalists who were simply not as curious about the world as their Homo Sapien cousins. The Thals would be analogous to today's extreme conservatives and this is heavily evidenced by the fact that their tools changed very little over the course of their existence, while our own tools become gradually better and better and better... and here we are now.

 

Over time, Neanderthals were out-competed by the more versatile and curious Homo Sapiens. They were unwilling to change, come up with better tools, unable to be unified, and also unwilling to explore the world. We, on the other hand, spread across the world due to our curiosity and developed ever-better technologies. Ultimately they were unable to keep up or compete for resources and were eventually driven to extinction because of it.

 

There's a lesson in life from this... Being overly traditional and xenophobic is a very bad thing. It prevents progression in society and the development of better tools. Curiosity and an urge to explore the world is what brought us here today. A lack thereof lead to the demise of the Neanderthals. Luckily though, the the Thals didn't totally vanish, they still live... They live, in us! People with non-African decent have between 1-4% of their DNA being that of a Neanderthal's, meaning that our ancestors intermingled with them. Presumably, the more "curious" Thals were the ones to venture out and maybe even live amongst our ancestors. Maybe a few of these Thals and Sapiens lived together in their own clan starting their own families and creating hybrid humans en masse, which allowed for their lineage to not be completely lost.

 

Today, there's a growing trend in society of being unconcerned about the world at large leaving people highly narrow-minded and ignorant, despite how advanced our technology is. It would seriously behoove us to learn from this lesson if we don't want to end up like our late cousins, the Neanderthals.

 

 

*Images below are reconstructions of the Thals:

 

 

 

[LexusInfernus 908]

 

 

Today, there's a growing trend in society of being unconcerned about the world at large leaving people highly narrow-minded and ignorant, despite how advanced our technology is. It would seriously behoove us to learn from this lesson if we don't want to end up like our late cousins, the Neanderthals.

 

 

 

Just saying, but the majority of people has always been like this. I mean, do you really think that your average peasant or factory worker a 100 years ago cared about the world around him? Really, caring about the world around you has always been something more for the elites rather than the masses. Though if anything, more and more people become slightly more concerned or curious about the world around them, thanks to the internet. Look at this site, we are discussing stuff with people from all kinds of different countries. No way that happened 30 years ago unless you were a researcher staying in contact with colleagues in your field. 

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

Considering the level of parochialism displayed in many countries, we really are not different from the Thals in many ways.  Stick-in-the-mud pretty much describes most people in the world.  Only a few members of our race lead, and the rest follow like sheep or just drop out altogether.

[Zukunftstraume 220]

 

 

 

Today, there's a growing trend in society of being unconcerned about the world at large leaving people highly narrow-minded and ignorant, despite how advanced our technology is. It would seriously behoove us to learn from this lesson if we don't want to end up like our late cousins, the Neanderthals.

 

 

 

Just saying, but the majority of people has always been like this. I mean, do you really think that your average peasant or factory worker a 100 years ago cared about the world around him? Really, caring about the world around you has always been something more for the elites rather than the masses. Though if anything, more and more people become slightly more concerned or curious about the world around them, thanks to the internet. Look at this site, we are discussing stuff with people from all kinds of different countries. No way that happened 30 years ago unless you were a researcher staying in contact with colleagues in your field. 

 

It almost seems like nowadays far too many people just devour everything on facebook and only seem to focus on their day-to-day agendas, caught up on things only going on in their lives, and nothing else nor anything bigger. But then again, I wasn't there 40 years ago, 400 years ago, or 4000 years ago. For all I know, I might be wrong and most people have always been like this, with maybe just a slight curiosity for the world around them on average.

 

I know for some people it really seems like the internet is opening up their minds, instant access to information from people around the world! Seems great, but I can't help but feel that the masses aren't really taking of the advantage of the internet's awesomeness as much as they should.

 

Who knows, it might just seem like there's a lot more people who care or don't care simply because before the digital age, we really weren't in constant communication with all sorts of different people. So it might just be an illusion that they "came out of nowhere", when they might've just been there all along... in hiding.

 

The whole point is that we should all care much much more about the bigger things in life. Maybe the internet really is the tool that will slowly open up everyone's mind, or maybe not.

 

I probably should've rephrased that paragraph.

[Zukunftstraume 220]

Considering the level of parochialism displayed in many countries, we really are not different from the Thals in many ways.  Stick-in-the-mud pretty much describes most people in the world.  Only a few members of our race lead, and the rest follow like sheep or just drop out altogether.

 

The thing is that they lived in small groups, so the way one individual though directly influenced the lives of the other members, same goes for our own ancestors. Nowadays, one person will have a much harder time influencing millions of people across the world.

 

All it took for our ancestors to survive was have maybe 3 or 4 more gifted members in a group to help the entire group of 30 or 40 survive. Those individuals that pondered on things like "Hmm, if I chip this axe at a certain angle, and hit the animal in a certain spot, it looks like they'll be dead much quicker, and thus... I won't have to get injured." Or thinking of elaborate means to secure resources, and explore some more in order to be well aware of their surroundings.

 

If none of the the 5-10 individuals in a Neanderthal group were particularly curious or innovative, the whole group would remain behind over time. If only 1 individual amongst dozens of groups was the only more curious Thal, it might not be of much use since the Thals were already rather xenophobic and rarely interacted with other groups. Other members of that same group might find that one Thal a bit "strange" in the way he thought, and thus either shunned him or ignored his bewilderment.

 

As a whole, we were indeed more curious than the Thals. But, since we now live in a world with billions of us. The intellectuals have tended to band together while the non-intellectuals have tended to stay together as well, i.e. ignorant people found within the backwaters of most places, or people who were consumed by trying to obtain vast amounts of money that they ended up ignoring everything else going in the world. The kind of people, who yet again, don't care about the bigger things in life.

[Meg 368]

Offering a suggestion here:  you might enjoy reading Jean Auel's "Earth's Children" series.

 

It is historical fiction, set in the time when both humans and Neanderthals lived in Europe.   She has done considerable research but has also used considerable literary license.

 

As of now, there are six books in the series.  They are all fairly large and, as the series progresses, contain more and more description of the physical world around them.  (I thought the sixth book went overboard on it but you can worry about that if and when you get that far.)  

 

As for your broader point that groups that advance with the times tend to survive longer than groups that don't:  I suspect that, in general, you are correct.  However, groups that decide to stay in one point in time can often do so as long as they isolate themselves from the rest of the world.    Consider, for example, the Amish.

[Bdub01 201]

@Meg I think the first book was the best. Read the next two then moved on. However it does seem to catch how life was during that time period!

BTW: should Neanderthals be in a thread about "current events". . (Just joking!!!)

[Duke87 1,070]

As for your broader point that groups that advance with the times tend to survive longer than groups that don't:  I suspect that, in general, you are correct.  However, groups that decide to stay in one point in time can often do so as long as they isolate themselves from the rest of the world.    Consider, for example, the Amish.

 

The key difference, in the case of the Amish, is that everyone around them respects their right to continue existing. Society is such that nobody is competing with them for basic resources. The Neanderthals, meanwhile, lived in a far less civilized world and would have been faced with being directly fought by homo sapiens tribes with more advanced weaponry.

 

It's also important that the Amish can farm. If you tried to be a modern day tribe of hunter-gatherers in Pennsylvania, it wouldn't work out so well.

[Meg 368]

@Meg I think the first book was the best. Read the next two then moved on. However it does seem to catch how life was during that time period!

 

I agree.   The first is the best in terms of Neanderthal life since there is very little mention of other people.   The next two incorporate the other people and their interactions.   (The second book was banned in several school districts for an explicit sexual scene.  Even my elderly mother thought it was "very well done" but all some people saw was that it left little to the imagination.)   As the series progressed, it got bogged down more and more in descriptions of various things.   I think the last three books could be reduced by 50% each and still have preserved the storyline.

 

As for your broader point that groups that advance with the times tend to survive longer than groups that don't:  I suspect that, in general, you are correct.  However, groups that decide to stay in one point in time can often do so as long as they isolate themselves from the rest of the world.    Consider, for example, the Amish.

 

The key difference, in the case of the Amish, is that everyone around them respects their right to continue existing. Society is such that nobody is competing with them for basic resources. The Neanderthals, meanwhile, lived in a far less civilized world and would have been faced with being directly fought by homo sapiens tribes with more advanced weaponry.

 

It's also important that the Amish can farm. If you tried to be a modern day tribe of hunter-gatherers in Pennsylvania, it wouldn't work out so well.

 

True.  A modern day tribe of hunter-gatherers would have problems.   and most people are content to leave the Amish alone.  and people don't compete with the Amish for resources; they buy goods and services from them.

 

They are probably the best family farmers left on the east coast.   Their farmer's markets are only open a few days a week but they are very popular.   And their craftsmanship is excellent.   If you want solid furniture that will last, buy it from the Amish.   Same if you want your roof repaired. 

 

Trivia:  the only tobacco grown in Maryland these days is by the Amish.  The state decided it wanted to get out of the tobacco business so it offered subsidies to farmers to grow other things.  The Amish do not participate in government assistance programs so they still grow tobacco.  I believe that their refusal to participate in government programs is one reason people leave them alone.   They are, in no way, a drain on society.

[LexusInfernus 908]

It almost seems like nowadays far too many people just devour everything on facebook and only seem to focus on their day-to-day agendas, caught up on things only going on in their lives, and nothing else nor anything bigger. But then again, I wasn't there 40 years ago, 400 years ago, or 4000 years ago. For all I know, I might be wrong and most people have always been like this, with maybe just a slight curiosity for the world around them on average.

 

I know for some people it really seems like the internet is opening up their minds, instant access to information from people around the world! Seems great, but I can't help but feel that the masses aren't really taking of the advantage of the internet's awesomeness as much as they should.

 

Who knows, it might just seem like there's a lot more people who care or don't care simply because before the digital age, we really weren't in constant communication with all sorts of different people. So it might just be an illusion that they "came out of nowhere", when they might've just been there all along... in hiding.

 

The whole point is that we should all care much much more about the bigger things in life. Maybe the internet really is the tool that will slowly open up everyone's mind, or maybe not.

 

I probably should've rephrased that paragraph.

Well, just look at who was generally an inventor or a scientist a 100 years ago. Very few people with a more common background. The majority came from the upper classes. It has always been the elite that formed the basis of progress, and in all likelihood it will remain that way until the singularity hits and we can literally make everyone a genius. Even then, it remains to be seen if enhanced IQ's alone will be sufficient to actually make people any more invested in the world around them if they are still poor and work a crappy job. Ah well, that will be a problem we will solve when we get there. 

 

It also remains the question whether it is actually beneficial to have everyone care about 'the bigger picture'. As long as there are such sharp differences between intelligent and less intelligent people, do you really want the less intelligent people to suddenly care, and therefor voice their opinion about every subject? What if they are not smart enough to see through the logical fallacies and lies put forward by some who wish to hinder progress? And sure, you can counter them with facts, but are the people smart enough to understand the facts? Are they even willing to look at the facts? 

 

Just caring about big issues is not enough, people must be intelligent enough to understand those issues, or else you just get a whole lot of ignorant idiots yelling their worthless opinions and dragging the whole issue down to a level which will ensure that nothing good will ever come out of it anymore. 

[KonstantinII 1,106]

Neanderthals are the ancestors of Celtics,Basques,some Georgians,and pure Ainus. There are no pure Ainus in Japan today because they have mixed with the Japanese. During the stone age a group of the Neanderthals migrated to East Asia. Also the Georgians are not pure because they are mixed with other groups like Chechens and Armenians. Stalin Djugashvili actually had red hair. Celtic people  in Ireland are the only pure descendants of Neanderthals. Why do people in Europe have light color of hair and kin? Because the first humans Australopithecus were black brown. The people who stayed in Africa did not change but those who came to Europe evolved traits to that climate. Most people in Europe now are mixed Neanderthals the first group of humans that came to europe) and mixed other groups that came afterwards like the Germans. The Romans, Carthagene, and Germans have chipped away at the Celtic area until Ireland remains their only true stronghold.

[Meg 368]

Neanderthals are the ancestors of Celtics,Basques,some Georgians,and pure Ainus. There are no pure Ainus in Japan today because they have mixed with the Japanese. During the stone age a group of the Neanderthals migrated to East Asia. Also the Georgians are not pure because they are mixed with other groups like Chechens and Armenians. Stalin Djugashvili actually had red hair. Celtic people  in Ireland are the only pure descendants of Neanderthals. Why do people in Europe have light color of hair and kin? Because the first humans Australopithecus were black brown. The people who stayed in Africa did not change but those who came to Europe evolved traits to that climate. Most people in Europe now are mixed Neanderthals the first group of humans that came to europe) and mixed other groups that came afterwards like the Germans. The Romans, Carthagene, and Germans have chipped away at the Celtic area until Ireland remains their only true stronghold.

 

Wait a minute.   Where are you getting all of this?

 

There are no "pure" groups of people anywhere.  Groups of people have intermingled throughout time.

[Zukunftstraume 220]

Thanks a bunch Meg! I'll put that on my summer reading list! I skimmed the book's general details, and was pretty saddened to see Neanderthals only make a direct appearance in the first book. Nonetheless, it'll make a great read!

 

As for your broader point that groups that advance with the times tend to survive longer than groups that don't:  I suspect that, in general, you are correct.  However, groups that decide to stay in one point in time can often do so as long as they isolate themselves from the rest of the world.    Consider, for example, the Amish.

 

The key difference, in the case of the Amish, is that everyone around them respects their right to continue existing. Society is such that nobody is competing with them for basic resources. The Neanderthals, meanwhile, lived in a far less civilized world and would have been faced with being directly fought by homo sapiens tribes with more advanced weaponry.

 

It's also important that the Amish can farm. If you tried to be a modern day tribe of hunter-gatherers in Pennsylvania, it wouldn't work out so well.

 

The biggest problems with Hunter-gathering is that it requires a tremendous amount of land per "tribe", can be quite dangerous, people have to live in rather small communities, and the calorie intake usually means few people live past their 30's.

 

Amish have it nice, the US government completely allows for their continued existence, no one is going to deprive them of their land nor resources, and no one is going to force them to change. They're perfectly fine without changing, and it's not like they're harming the world as a whole, so it's not like they HAVE to change either. Extreme conservatives supporting heavy unregulated industrialization or simpletons who have little regard for anything outside their own lives on there other hand... now that has to change.
 

[Zukunftstraume 220]

Neanderthals are the ancestors of Celtics,Basques,some Georgians,and pure Ainus. There are no pure Ainus in Japan today because they have mixed with the Japanese. During the stone age a group of the Neanderthals migrated to East Asia. Also the Georgians are not pure because they are mixed with other groups like Chechens and Armenians. Stalin Djugashvili actually had red hair. Celtic people  in Ireland are the only pure descendants of Neanderthals. Why do people in Europe have light color of hair and kin? Because the first humans Australopithecus were black brown. The people who stayed in Africa did not change but those who came to Europe evolved traits to that climate. Most people in Europe now are mixed Neanderthals the first group of humans that came to europe) and mixed other groups that came afterwards like the Germans. The Romans, Carthagene, and Germans have chipped away at the Celtic area until Ireland remains their only true stronghold.

 

All non-Africans actually have about the same percentage of Neanderthal DNA as the rest of non-Africans. Which is only a scrawny 1-4% (you can look up those numbers if you don't believe me, I've seen it in many many articles already).

 

Sadly, the Neanderthals are extinct. No one is a direct descendent of a Neanderthal (nor a purebred for that matter), almost every human on Earth is 96% or more completely Homo Sapien.

 

If the Neanderthals had indeed survived to this day (by idk, living on Iceland or something). They would appear to us as being incredibly traditional, dogmatic in viewpoints, unwilling to change, and have a much smaller curiosity, and probably be not as "comical" as we are. They'll be similar to bitter rednecks but pretty darn strong, highly carnivorous, and excellent at hunting.

 

Maybe most of the people on this here world would view them as "inferior" to us. But that same viewpoint is overly anthropocentric and dividing in itself.

It almost seems like nowadays far too many people just devour everything on facebook and only seem to focus on their day-to-day agendas, caught up on things only going on in their lives, and nothing else nor anything bigger. But then again, I wasn't there 40 years ago, 400 years ago, or 4000 years ago. For all I know, I might be wrong and most people have always been like this, with maybe just a slight curiosity for the world around them on average.

 

I know for some people it really seems like the internet is opening up their minds, instant access to information from people around the world! Seems great, but I can't help but feel that the masses aren't really taking of the advantage of the internet's awesomeness as much as they should.

 

Who knows, it might just seem like there's a lot more people who care or don't care simply because before the digital age, we really weren't in constant communication with all sorts of different people. So it might just be an illusion that they "came out of nowhere", when they might've just been there all along... in hiding.

 

The whole point is that we should all care much much more about the bigger things in life. Maybe the internet really is the tool that will slowly open up everyone's mind, or maybe not.

 

I probably should've rephrased that paragraph.

Well, just look at who was generally an inventor or a scientist a 100 years ago. Very few people with a more common background. The majority came from the upper classes. It has always been the elite that formed the basis of progress, and in all likelihood it will remain that way until the singularity hits and we can literally make everyone a genius. Even then, it remains to be seen if enhanced IQ's alone will be sufficient to actually make people any more invested in the world around them if they are still poor and work a crappy job. Ah well, that will be a problem we will solve when we get there. 

 

It also remains the question whether it is actually beneficial to have everyone care about 'the bigger picture'. As long as there are such sharp differences between intelligent and less intelligent people, do you really want the less intelligent people to suddenly care, and therefor voice their opinion about every subject? What if they are not smart enough to see through the logical fallacies and lies put forward by some who wish to hinder progress? And sure, you can counter them with facts, but are the people smart enough to understand the facts? Are they even willing to look at the facts? 

 

Just caring about big issues is not enough, people must be intelligent enough to understand those issues, or else you just get a whole lot of ignorant idiots yelling their worthless opinions and dragging the whole issue down to a level which will ensure that nothing good will ever come out of it anymore. 

 

Those people already exist though... they're called conservatives. Religious extremists, rich overly-prideful magnets, or traditional ignorant backwater folks.

 

I feel like in general the newer generation is more anti-tradition than previous generations (or I might just have that bias for living in a liberal city). Religious extremists are just lost people who don't know any better. The backwater folks are a dying breed. But, the true evil that keeps us from progressing in this world is the rich conservatives, who know how scientists think, but certain technologies they'll try to bring about will cost them their millions or billions. All they care about is money.

 

I sincerely believe that the old "traditional" stance on everything is slowly being phased out. People will not only care, but be informed, educated, and identify as a "progressive" (if that word is still fashionable). It's up to people like us however, to spread the good word. I actually get annoyed when people who consider themselves "smart" or "well-informed" do absolutely nothing to change the world and instead allow their noses to grow in size and view most of the people around as "less than them".

 

Even someone as brilliant as Isaac Asimov was like this. Apparently he rarely associated with anyone who "wasn't at his own level of intellect". That's the exact mentality that keeps mankind as a whole from solving it's problems.

[Meg 368]

Thanks a bunch Meg! I'll put that on my summer reading list! I skimmed the book's general details, and was pretty saddened to see Neanderthals only make a direct appearance in the first book. Nonetheless, it'll make a great read!

 

 

Actually, they have a short direct appearance in the 2nd book and there is a lot about how the others react to them.  There is a mixed child in the 3rd book who plays a key role.   There is another direct encounter in the 4th book.   In the 5th and 6th books, their role is limited to a couple of mixed adults.   tbh, part of my disappointment in the last two books stems from the fact that the series stopped addressing the interactions between the two groups and focused on descriptions instead.

 

At any rate, you're welcome.  I think you will enjoy the beginning of the series at least.

 

 

 

 

T...

The biggest problems with Hunter-gathering is that it requires a tremendous amount of land per "tribe", can be quite dangerous, people have to live in rather small communities, and the calorie intake usually means few people live past their 30's.

 

Amish have it nice, the US government completely allows for their continued existence, no one is going to deprive them of their land nor resources, and no one is going to force them to change. They're perfectly fine without changing, and it's not like they're harming the world as a whole, so it's not like they HAVE to change either. Extreme conservatives supporting heavy unregulated industrialization or simpletons who have little regard for anything outside their own lives on there other hand... now that has to change.

 

 

 

My problem with the Amish is that they have successfully petitioned the courts for a waiver of the law that everyone has to be in school until age 16.   In most states, Amish kids stop school at 14.  They do give teenagers a period of time to explore the outside world and decide if they want to remain part of the Amish community or not.

 

But, let's be serious.  It is difficult enough for someone who dropped out of school at age 16 to find a job.  Someone who stopped school at age 14 and has no family support would have a very difficult time out in world with the rest of us.

 

The skill set needed to live outside an Amish community and inside one are totally different.  Most people are not going to be able to make that leap, even if they want to.

 

Note: Normally double posting is frowned upon but it is difficult not to double post under the current quoting system.  I hoping we can get that fixed.  In the meantime, I'm going to double post to respond here.

[KonstantinII 1,106]

Neanderthals are the ancestors of Celtics,Basques,some Georgians,and pure Ainus. There are no pure Ainus in Japan today because they have mixed with the Japanese. During the stone age a group of the Neanderthals migrated to East Asia. Also the Georgians are not pure because they are mixed with other groups like Chechens and Armenians. Stalin Djugashvili actually had red hair. Celtic people  in Ireland are the only pure descendants of Neanderthals. Why do people in Europe have light color of hair and kin? Because the first humans Australopithecus were black brown. The people who stayed in Africa did not change but those who came to Europe evolved traits to that climate. Most people in Europe now are mixed Neanderthals the first group of humans that came to europe) and mixed other groups that came afterwards like the Germans. The Romans, Carthagene, and Germans have chipped away at the Celtic area until Ireland remains their only true stronghold.

 

All non-Africans actually have about the same percentage of Neanderthal DNA as the rest of non-Africans. Which is only a scrawny 1-4% (you can look up those numbers if you don't believe me, I've seen it in many many articles already).

 

Sadly, the Neanderthals are extinct. No one is a direct descendent of a Neanderthal (nor a purebred for that matter), almost every human on Earth is 96% or more completely Homo Sapien.

 

If the Neanderthals had indeed survived to this day (by idk, living on Iceland or something). They would appear to us as being incredibly traditional, dogmatic in viewpoints, unwilling to change, and have a much smaller curiosity, and probably be not as "comical" as we are. They'll be similar to bitter rednecks but pretty darn strong, highly carnivorous, and excellent at hunting.

 

Maybe most of the people on this here world would view them as "inferior" to us. But that same viewpoint is overly anthropocentric and dividing in itself.

 

Not really. All you are doing is putting a stereotypical viewpoint on prehistoric people.  They were not really primitive.

Neanderthals were just a group of people who are not needed to be separated from the rest of the human population.  

[Meg 368]

 

All non-Africans actually have about the same percentage of Neanderthal DNA as the rest of non-Africans. Which is only a scrawny 1-4% (you can look up those numbers if you don't believe me, I've seen it in many many articles already).

 

Sadly, the Neanderthals are extinct. No one is a direct descendent of a Neanderthal (nor a purebred for that matter), almost every human on Earth is 96% or more completely Homo Sapien.

 

 

 

"All non-Africans actually have about the same percentage of Neanderthal DNA as the rest of non-Africans."  ??

 

So, you are trying to say that all non-Africans have roughly the same percentage of Neanderthal DNA?  (not sure what you are trying to say there)

 

and, if no one is a direct descendent, where did the 1-4% come from?      I am not following you here.

 

 

 

 

Just caring about big issues is not enough, people must be intelligent enough to understand those issues, or else you just get a whole lot of ignorant idiots yelling their worthless opinions and dragging the whole issue down to a level which will ensure that nothing good will ever come out of it anymore. 

 

Those people already exist though... they're called conservatives. Religious extremists, rich overly-prideful magnets, or traditional ignorant backwater folks.

 

 

 

Not  all conservatives, religious extremist, rich overly-prideful magnates, and traditional backwater folks are ignorant.  Let's avoid generalizations like that, okay? 

 

 

 

 

 

I feel like in general the newer generation is more anti-tradition than previous generations (or I might just have that bias for living in a liberal city). Religious extremists are just lost people who don't know any better. The backwater folks are a dying breed. But, the true evil that keeps us from progressing in this world is the rich conservatives, who know how scientists think, but certain technologies they'll try to bring about will cost them their millions or billions. All they care about is money.

 

Not sure where to start here.

 

For starters, I grew up in the 60s.  If your generation is more anti-tradition than we were and can effect more change than we did, more power to you.     Some time when I'm not fighting with the quoting problem here, I'll list the things that you take for granted that were not a reality when I was a child.

 

And, let's be careful about calling anyone "the true evil".    Evil, like truth, depends greatly upon our own point of view.   I can find many people who believe your way of thinking is evil.    This is not new.  This has been happening for centuries.   Group A thinks Group B is evil, savage, whatever and visa versa.

 

Third, who are you calling "backwater folks" and why do you think they are a dying breed?

 

Your ideas are interesting but you have been skating the line of being very offensive.

[Zukunftstraume 220]

Note: Normally double posting is frowned upon but it is difficult not to double post under the current quoting system.  I hoping we can get that fixed.  In the meantime, I'm going to double post to respond here.

 

I loathe the current system so much. It's incredibly tedious to do that mainly because I hate the way it auto re-formats the paragraphs into looking like it's being used for a greeting card.

 

 

In either way, at least the first book happened to be the one that looks most appealing. As opposed to it being the other way around. The sixth book from a standpoint looks like it turned into a prehistoric soap opera. Not exactly my cup of tea. Have you ever seen the movie for that by any chance?

 

 

Not really. All you are doing is putting a stereotypical viewpoint on prehistoric people.  They were not really primitive.

Neanderthals were just a group of people who are not needed to be separated from the rest of the human population.  

 

They weren't primitive, you're right. Personally, I hate that word. But based on the way they thought, and what we know about them, if we would've been the ones to get wiped out instead of them, I believe they would've never developed civilizations.

 

You also say that Neanderthals need not be separated from us, but then again 700,000 years of separate brain chemistry evolution doesn't sound like they'd fit right in. As much as I'd also like to believe they weren't that socially different from us, the evidence is pointing against it. After all, if they were completely able to live amongst us, a lot more than just 4% of our DNA would've been from them... Something like 30-40% would be much more promising.

[Bdub01 201]

In either way, at least the first book happened to be the one that looks most appealing. As opposed to it being the other way around. The sixth book from a standpoint looks like it turned into a prehistoric soap opera. Not exactly my cup of tea. Have you ever seen the movie for that by any chance?

IDK about the movie however the first and second books are "must reads" of the series! The others aren't as good but the first two you should really enjoy!

[Meg 368]

 

Note: Normally double posting is frowned upon but it is difficult not to double post under the current quoting system.  I hoping we can get that fixed.  In the meantime, I'm going to double post to respond here.

 

 

 

 

In either way, at least the first book happened to be the one that looks most appealing. As opposed to it being the other way around. The sixth book from a standpoint looks like it turned into a prehistoric soap opera. Not exactly my cup of tea. Have you ever seen the movie for that by any chance?

 

As far as I know, only the first book has been made into a movie.  It had many problems, not the least of which was the Neanderthals language was mostly non-verbal which meant the movie had subtitles.  Most of the reactions, thought processes, and interactions just didn't translate onto the screen.  If I hadn't read the book, I wouldn't know what was going on.   I can not recommend the movie.

[KonstantinII 1,106]

The people who made beautiful cave paintings are not worse then those who flew to the Moon.

[Duke87 1,070]

I feel like in general the newer generation is more anti-tradition than previous generations (or I might just have that bias for living in a liberal city). Religious extremists are just lost people who don't know any better. The backwater folks are a dying breed. But, the true evil that keeps us from progressing in this world is the rich conservatives, who know how scientists think, but certain technologies they'll try to bring about will cost them their millions or billions. All they care about is money.

 

I sincerely believe that the old "traditional" stance on everything is slowly being phased out. People will not only care, but be informed, educated, and identify as a "progressive" (if that word is still fashionable). It's up to people like us however, to spread the good word. I actually get annoyed when people who consider themselves "smart" or "well-informed" do absolutely nothing to change the world and instead allow their noses to grow in size and view most of the people around as "less than them".

 

At any given point in time, the younger generation will be more anti-tradition than the older generation, but this does not mean that people are overall gradually becoming more anti-tradition. All it means is that younger people are more open minded and flexible while older people are more set in their ways and resistant to change. It's much the same reason that younger people are more adept with computers. We grew up with them. Our parents did not. They had to learn the basics of how to use one as an adult and it is much more difficult to become an expert at anything if you start learning it as an adult rather than as a child. The foundations of a concept are more easily laid in childhood.

 

As for the traditional stance on things slowly being phased out... yes, but only in favor of creating new traditions. Which future generations for their own reasons may start to shun. It's not "progress" so much as it is a never ending cycle.

[LexusInfernus 908]

Those people already exist though... they're called conservatives. Religious extremists, rich overly-prideful magnets, or traditional ignorant backwater folks.

 

I feel like in general the newer generation is more anti-tradition than previous generations (or I might just have that bias for living in a liberal city). Religious extremists are just lost people who don't know any better. The backwater folks are a dying breed. But, the true evil that keeps us from progressing in this world is the rich conservatives, who know how scientists think, but certain technologies they'll try to bring about will cost them their millions or billions. All they care about is money.

 

I sincerely believe that the old "traditional" stance on everything is slowly being phased out. People will not only care, but be informed, educated, and identify as a "progressive" (if that word is still fashionable). It's up to people like us however, to spread the good word. I actually get annoyed when people who consider themselves "smart" or "well-informed" do absolutely nothing to change the world and instead allow their noses to grow in size and view most of the people around as "less than them".

 

Even someone as brilliant as Isaac Asimov was like this. Apparently he rarely associated with anyone who "wasn't at his own level of intellect". That's the exact mentality that keeps mankind as a whole from solving it's problems.

Lost of or malicious as some of these people may be, its rather difficult to 'change' them. Religious extremists have intertwined their identity as a person with their religious believes so trying to make these people accept scientific facts pretty much comes down to changing their identity as a person. That's next to impossible. And rich and powerful conservatives as you call them exist by the grace of the people. Like that ridiculous counter movement to the 99% one, that basically stated that they were proud to be taken from behind by a clique of rich people. If the 99% movement had truly being backed by roughly 99% of the people, no one could have stopped them from lynching these rich people and confiscating all their assets. Not that such a thing would be a good thing, but it does show that these rich people are able to manipulate idiots into thinking that they should be proud on working their asses off and barely making a living out of it. 

 

Personally, I rather have a society run by technocrats like Asimov who pay no heed to all the...people, but rather just do what they need to do in order to achieve certain goals. Politics doesn't work well if the guys leading the country are constantly busy trying to explain what they are doing to people who are incapable of understanding, and whose job depends on those people actually understanding. 

[Alejandro24 575]

This is an interesting thread, human evolution is awesome. But I don't know too much about it, but I can contribute with something that I know: http://investigacionaspie.blogspot.mx/2010/09/la-teoria-neardenthal-del-autismo.html

[KonstantinII 1,106]

Neanderthals are the ancestors of Celtics,Basques,some Georgians,and pure Ainus. There are no pure Ainus in Japan today because they have mixed with the Japanese. During the stone age a group of the Neanderthals migrated to East Asia. Also the Georgians are not pure because they are mixed with other groups like Chechens and Armenians. Stalin Djugashvili actually had red hair. Celtic people  in Ireland are the only pure descendants of Neanderthals. Why do people in Europe have light color of hair and kin? Because the first humans Australopithecus were black brown. The people who stayed in Africa did not change but those who came to Europe evolved traits to that climate. Most people in Europe now are mixed Neanderthals the first group of humans that came to europe) and mixed other groups that came afterwards like the Germans. The Romans, Carthagene, and Germans have chipped away at the Celtic area until Ireland remains their only true stronghold.

 

 

 

Sadly, the Neanderthals are extinct. No one is a direct descendent of a Neanderthal (nor a purebred for that matter), almost every human on Earth is 96% or more completely Homo Sapien.

Neanderthals are not extinct. The Celtics are descendants of Neanderthals. Even Celtic people right now are not pure Neanderthals. They were the first people to come into Europe and after them many more groups came into Europe and partially subdued them like the Slavics, Scandinavians, Greeks, and Aryans. Where one tribe subdues another they give the subdued tribe their culture and language but the blood is mostly of the former people. You say that Neanderthals are extinct. Where did 500 million people go? Obviously someone hasn't had their history lessons.   Small populations of people can become extinct like tribes living on remote islands but never large populations. All humans in Earth are Homo Sapien because Neanderthals are Homo Sapien too.

[KonstantinII 1,106]

Not really. All you are doing is putting a stereotypical viewpoint on prehistoric people.  They were not really primitive.

 

Neanderthals were just a group of people who are not needed to be separated from the rest of the human population.  

 

They weren't primitive, you're right. Personally, I hate that word. But based on the way they thought, and what we know about them, if we would've been the ones to get wiped out instead of them, I believe they would've never developed civilizations.

 

 

Never developed civilizations? Not at the same level as other people? What did I tell ya?

 

 

The people who made beautiful cave paintings are not worse then those who flew to the Moon.

[KonstantinII 1,106]

Actually that is not true. Neanderthals are as smart as modern humans in raw capacity but technology doesn't happen all at once.Just because they did not have cars does not mean that Neanderthals are primitive. Younger generations add knowledge to what older generations know. Spears, flint knives, bows, arrows, clubs, and slingshots were very good innovations of the stone age.

Neanderthals are not your typical "dumb cavemen" as you stereo-typically point. Our civilization at the current level has not gone very far from the stone age. We don't have inter planetary ships and we can't cook our food without changing molecular composition. 

Future generations might as well laugh at us because of our primitiveness.

. They would appear to us as being incredibly traditional, dogmatic in viewpoints, unwilling to change, and have a much smaller curiosity, and probably be not as "comical" as we are. 

[Meg 368]

Well, the people living in the Dark Ages, didn't know it was the Dark Ages.  They thought they were living in modern times.

 

(Actually, I suspect that a lot of them knew it; they just couldn't manage to do anything about it.)

[LexusInfernus 908]

Well, the people living in the Dark Ages, didn't know it was the Dark Ages.  They thought they were living in modern times.

 

(Actually, I suspect that a lot of them knew it; they just couldn't manage to do anything about it.)

Doubtful. To know you live in a Dark Age requires historical context. Something the average serf most certainly lacked, given the poor state of education at that time. Even if they had it, they would have required knowledge of the future. As you put it, I think most of them thought this was normal. 

 

Though it is likely that for a lot of people, the decline of the Roman empire didn't mean that much. As advanced as the Romans where, their culture and civilization were mostly centered around urban areas, and the further you went from Rome, the more spread out cities or towns became. 

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

The only way for a serf to move up was to become a cleric.  This was often not possible due to the attitude of the local bishop.  It depended on whether the local order needed more bodies.  The bishop decided whether a given serf would be of better use in holy orders or sweating on the land.  Many clerics came out of the merchant class, and some from the nobility.