Sapient Paradox

[ChristineM]

It's a possibility. One of the theories is that interbreeding with Neanderthals in the levant area and near east, increased our cognitive capabilities.

:: INFORMATIVE::

 

[Gargovic Malkav]

I think the old adadge of necessity being the mother of invention, changes depend on changing circumstances. It is easy to imagine how hunter/gatherer bands, if population remains small and resouces plentiful, can remain in the same developmental state indefinitely. And we can see examples of this in aboriginal and native cultures that remained isolated from larger groups even up to relatively recent history. When population size grows and or resources change or become scarce, there is a necessity for change.

I remember reading somewhere when it comes to the agricultural revolution at least, that evidence suggests the earliest agriculturalists were from rich hunter-gatherer societies, rather than starving and desperate ones.
In that light, people can more easily afford experimenting with new ideas and can more easily recover when such an experiment backfires, whereas poor societies are more likely to put all of their effort into known and trusted ways, as the alternative would be a wild gamble.

 

[MikeF]

I remember reading somewhere when it comes to the agricultural revolution at least, that evidence suggests the earliest agriculturalists were from rich hunter-gatherer societies, rather than starving and desperate ones.
In that light, people can more easily afford experimenting with new ideas and can more easily recover when such an experiment backfires, whereas poor societies are more likely to put all of their effort into known and trusted ways, as the alternative would be a wild gamble.

Poor wording on my part. It was redundant as scarcity is simply one type of resource change. I also didn't mean to imply that scarcity was the most probable inducemet to change.

 

[Gargovic Malkav]

I also didn't mean to imply that scarcity was the most probable inducemet to change.

Yes, I realized this after I re-read your post, my bad.

It still raises the question in me though (not necessarily directed at you, just sharing some thoughts to see what people think), how much of human innovation stems from a survival based necessity, and how much of it stems from a primal curiosity or desire for control; That people simply did it because they could, and wanted to see what happens when they try something new (curiosity), or wanted to see if they could make things even better, even though they were already doing good, or out of fear that the luxury of abundance will leave them one day (control).

 

[MikeF]

Yes, I realized this after I re-read your post, my bad.

It still raises the question in me though (not necessarily directed at you, just sharing some thoughts to see what people think), how much of human innovation stems from a survival based necessity, and how much of it stems from a primal curiosity or desire for control; That people simply did it because they could, and wanted to see what happens when they try something new (curiosity), or wanted to see if they could make things even better, even though they were already doing good, or out of fear that the luxury of abundance will leave them one day (control).

I think, as with many aspects of life, there are multiple factors that can play a role. So, for example, in environments with dramatic changes in climate as in latitudes closer to either pole, there is some requirement or necessity to handle such extremes above and beyond our naked selves. I would also say that it is true in societies that could create a priveledged class that did not need to meet its own basic needs, such freedom created opportunity to think and imagine beyond simply aqiring basic necessities.

We also can't rule out happy accident. Sometimes one may witness or experience something that resulted in a desirable outcome and then effort is made to repeat it.

 

[Brickjectivity]

The sapient paradox: With brains like ours, why did prehistoric humans wait millennia to start civilization?

Anatomically modern humans have been on the scene for a long time, yet civilization only began to flourish in the last 10k years with the start of agriculture.

Why was there such a long delay, when we know that our capacities for speech, intelligence, tool making, etc were just as good then as at the advent of the agricultural revolution.

Preconceptions bout prehistory? Dormant intelligence mechanisms? Or maybe we just gossiped too much.

One argument I heard made by a professor of History was that certain types of agricultural technology were likely the cause. Toward this end they assigned some readings from Guns Germs and Steel. (Guns, Germs, and Steel - Wikipedia) This book by Jarod Diamond explores a tangent question, that of why certain civilizations have risen up and replaced others. In the process it considers an idea about which things kickstart large scale civilizations. Technologies that have made large scale agriculture (and hence large scale division of labor and paid armies) a possibility: oxen and other plow animals, good climate and soil, grains like flax, barley, wheat and rice. It has everything to do with climate and with what can be done with the soil. In places where hunting and gathering is necessary, population lags. In places where crops can be grown, population increases.

Other factors that matter are communal diseases, weaponry and technology.

The article I've linked also mentions criticisms of these ideas. For example it seems overly simplistic to blame environment and fortune. What about human social influences, politics and minds? These things, though, are not so easily determined and are to us like myriad variables. They seem to melt together into blobs and to disappear; however perhaps they can be partially accounted for using statistics and historical records and archeological discoveries.