When humans are born they neither have the instinct nor do they acquire one which would instruct them how to make stone tools, make fire, or throw spears, which are all pretty much the most basic technologies humans have, similar to how birds make nests. If these as the most basic and oldest adaptations never made it into the genome, imagine how superficial everything else must be. If humans, beside the raw biology, do in fact have innate behaviors, and are not just an empty slate, then those behaviors that define them as human predate humanity itself. That is the paradox.
>>18329005I disagree, we're pretty damn hardwired to make and use tools. As a child, did you never pick up a nice stick or cool rock and carry it around with you? Did you never admire the way a stone fit in your hand, or the heft of a branch as you swung it? Never just picked something up and chucked it at another thing just for the thrill?
>>18329005not a paradox. humanity isn't defined by behavior or instinct, so it doesn't matter that we have some which predate our speciation. duh
>Anatomical humans have been the same for 300,000 years. We weren’t the first nor the only.Evolution is a branching of traits not complete eliminations. Past humans and the other likewise brothers of us also were known to use tools. They took care of us and eventually we murdered them for it.As we’re smarter than them in the long run. They killed to be in position and us them. We won.If you are being this up you probably don’t believe in evolution but food for thought. If apes are smart enough to live in a pack and survive then humans are too.
>>18329005>then those behaviors that define them as human predate humanity itself. That is the paradox.you're arguing semantics and human concepts...not actually paradoxes
>>18329005abstract thought and reason is not superficial if it is strongly linked to the natural world
would a homo be sapiens if he never learned some language?
>>18329052>As a child, did you never pick up a nice stick or cool rock and carry it around with you?We weren't feral children, we were around adults who were constantly picking up and manipulating objects. In fact that kind of makes the whole discussion pointless as we can't just breed feral children and observe how they behave in isolation.
>>18329120>we can't just breed feral children and observe how they behave in isolation.lets do it
>>18329120>we can't just breed feral children and observe how they behave in isolationEmperor Freddy begs to differ
>>18329120At what point does something get separated from being part of the innate human form?Like if something needs to be 100% genetic only, then any adaptations related to the microbiome are now divorced from animals, arguably even mitochondria get excluded because they aren't human animal DNA. You could gather termites and irradiate their gut bacteria so they can't process wood and then go "Aha, wood eating is not an innate trait of termites" but that would be retarded. You could train a kitten to be afraid of mice and go "cats do not innately eat rodents" and that would be the equivalent of deliberately separating a human from their usual state of being aka socialized by other humansMimicry, cultural transmission of behaviours, and innate tendencies towards problem solving all contribute towards the universal human urge to pick up and use objects. There's not a single human population on the planet with zero tool use other than braindead patientsOur closest relatives understand the concept of poking stuff with a stick. I don't need a controlled study to guess that if you leave completely unsocialized non-mentally challenged humans in a forest with sticks, one of them will eventually pick one up (even if by sheer accident) and realize that moving the stick can make the stick bump into other objects and thus interact with them
the thing that troubles me the most is, without culture would there be compassion?
>>18329005I don't agree with this. Humans evolved to care for their children, no child would survive if you just popped the baby out and left it. Of course they wouldn't know how to use a tool, it's an evolutionary trait of humans to care for their young. You can observe this in other mammals.
>>18329005I have been questioning this assumption about humans and technology for a long time. It's so embedded in the discourse that you're not allowed to even talk about it. I once made a thread on an anthropology subr*ddit questioning the assumption that the discovery of fire revolutionised human evolution and was downvoted into oblivion, despite the fact there is zero actual evidence that fire use impacted human development at all. What I found on the discovery of fire theory was simply Greek mythology that has become embedded in modern assumptions about human origins. Anyway tool use isn't unique to humans. Many many animals are shown to use tools. Chimps are even known to hunt small animals with sticks. What is unique to humans is that we can pass knowledge down through generations. The ability to accumulate knowledge results in that chimp's stick becoming a spear, and eventually other weapons. How many animals have observed fire, and not been able to tell each other about it? Placing such emphasis on tool use itself is, in my opinion, putting the cart before the horse.
>>18329005Granted that tool-making is a core part of being human, it's not a paradox when elements of a definition predate the definition itself. Flour predates bread and lines predate triangles. >>18329120>we can't just breed feral children and observe how they behave in isolationWhy would we do that? Humans are social, culture-generating species. To isolate a child from its culture and social context would be the artificial thing to do. And if you meant that we should breed entire feral populations and see how they behaved, then it seems history has lots to say about those cases - they all developed tools.
