The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.

What if Neanderthals had not gone extinct?

DarkCrawlerDarkCrawler Registered User regular
edited April 2009 in Debate and/or Discourse
Say hello to our closest cousins.

200px-Neanderthalensis.jpg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neanderthal

Homo neanderthalensis AKA Neanderthal. One of the ancestors of human race. However, these guys differ from the previous sapiens - they actually co-existed with humans. For a some time, around 170,000 years, this planet actually had more then one intelligent species.

Then they dissappeared. Some say that they melded into human race, others say that they just withered away, while some believe that we killed them all.

Anyway, they are gone. But this thread is meant to explore the possibilities if they had not gone extinct. If they had continued to grow and develop their own societies alongside humanity, and continued to do so to modern age. How different would the world be? Would we coexist peacefully, or would there be massive conflicts between the two species? Would there be racism between humans with another species to project our prejudices against? Would we have Neanderthal rights movements, would mixed couples be spurned, etc.

Or how different would historical events themeselves be. Which species would have been the more unlucky one?

Talk.

DarkCrawler on
«13

Posts

  • BloodySlothBloodySloth Registered User regular
    edited April 2009
    you know, human history is so violent by itself, I don't really think that a planet with a separate intelligent hominid species is really doable. I think at some point, the killing off of one of them is kind of inevitable.

    BloodySloth on
  • DuffelDuffel jacobkosh Registered User regular
    edited April 2009
    Well, massive conflicts between the two species would probably have been impossible. Neanderthals just didn't have the mental or the linguistic potential of homo sapiens, although they were much more sophisticated than is commonly believed. Neanderthals could not have competed in the arms race with H.S., they simply didn't have the capacity for innovation that we do. I imagine that people would have attempted to put them to work as manual laborers.

    However, neanderthal as slaves would have had to have been treated very carefully; they were by all accounts as strong as several humans put together. An H.S. slave overseer who tried to keep his slaves in line with a whip would have probably had his head shoved up his ass (literally) unless he was constantly surrounded by heavily-armed bodyguards. And while Neanderthals couldn't have invented things like swords and axes, I'm sure they could have used them. A neanderthal slave revolt would never have been very organized, but it would have been extremely difficult to destroy by force alone.

    The most interesting question, to me, would have been what it made humans ask about themselves. We're the only human species alive on the planet now; were Erectus and Neanderthal still around, we would have to redefine our definitions of what is human and what is not.

    Duffel on
  • QinguQingu Registered User regular
    edited April 2009
    In evolutionary history, the reason you generally don't see two very similar species in the same place is because they would occupy the same niche. So in order for speciation to "take," the new species has to differentiate itself from the old species, either by behaving quite differently, eating a different food source, or simply living in a different place. If the new species doesn't do this, then it is going to directly compete with the old species—and whichever one is better adapted is going to wipe out the other species.

    I imagine something like this happened with the Neanderthals. Two species of hominids, highly intelligent, hunting in groups, but before any sort of laws or civilization. They occupy the same evolutionary niche, so one is necessarily going to dominate and out-compete (i.e. wipe out) the other.

    This could have happened through outright genocide (which happens commonly among chimpanzees, who attack rival "tribes"). Or it could have happened because our ancestors had a slight intelligence edge which allowed us to vastly outcompete the Neandertals in hunting and gathering and constructing defenses. Or both. In either case, over time, all the Neadertals would die off. There can be only onnnee

    Qingu on
  • DasUberEdwardDasUberEdward Registered User regular
    edited April 2009
    We can't even get over skin color. Having a completely different species would result in war until one of the two was wiped out. Honestly I believe that we would be locked in a state of perpetual battle. Segmented and isolated societies wondering when group X will attack again.

    DasUberEdward on
    steam_sig.png
  • clsCorwinclsCorwin Registered User regular
    edited April 2009
    If they were still around, we probably would have specifically defined human to exclude them long ago. Its a sad history of prejudice, fear, and bigotry we have then tends to crop up now and then.

    clsCorwin on
  • AJAlkaline40AJAlkaline40 __BANNED USERS regular
    edited April 2009
    Well, it's certainly an interesting question as to whether we could even breed. Would neanderthals and homo sapiens be similar enough that they could create offspring (like horses and donkeys), and would those offspring have disadvantages (like sterility)? What if we couldn't produce young but could still mechanically have sex?

    It is also very interesting to suppose what we would think about racism. Old racist "science" tried to differentiate the different races into superiority and inferiority biologically (this race is smarter but this race is stronger). In a multi-species society, such a dichotomy might actually exist, outside of people's minds. How would we be required to treat neanderthals morally? Are they to be treated like any other animal, or like any other human, or like something entirely different?

    I do think it would be difficult, if not impossible, for two species to coexist as a society. Humans survive today because in the past when there was genocide committed against humans, the victors were always humans too. If one species wanted to completely wipe out another, they would have little trouble. The only way that two intelligent species could develop a society together, I think, is if we were two species who had co-evolved and had a mutualistic relationship prior to their evolution of intelligence, and we can't even be sure that intelligence could evolve under such conditions.

    AJAlkaline40 on
    idiot.jpg
  • [Tycho?][Tycho?] As elusive as doubt Registered User regular
    edited April 2009
    I'd suspect Neanderthal extinction had a lot to do with human activity (as did, in my opinion, the extinction of many other large mammals at the end of the last ice age). A changing climate really mixed the food chain up, and right around that time humans started coming into their own technology wise; using tools, fire, shelter and so on. That big saber-tooth cat that eats our babies? Well, fuck you cat, we have fire and sharp sticks, we're going to hunt your ass down. Neanderthals would have been in direct competition with humans for resources, and so would have been first at the chopping block.

    It was us or them as far as I'm concerned. Humans are very violent and territorial even amongst our own, the only way for Neanderthals to have survived would have been to either be more advanced or geographically isolated, which would only delay the inevitable confrontation.

    [Tycho?] on
    mvaYcgc.jpg
  • DarkCrawlerDarkCrawler Registered User regular
    edited April 2009
    Geographic isolation is what I think would bring this hypotethical scenario. Let's say that Neanderthals would mainly be in Europe, while us humans would grow up in Africa and Asia (like in real life). There would be some connections between the two species, though, but not enough to start a massive war until both had developed civilization...

    DarkCrawler on
  • Dis'Dis' Registered User regular
    edited April 2009
    [Tycho?] wrote: »
    I'd suspect Neanderthal extinction had a lot to do with human activity (as did, in my opinion, the extinction of many other large mammals at the end of the last ice age). A changing climate really mixed the food chain up, and right around that time humans started coming into their own technology wise; using tools, fire, shelter and so on. That big saber-tooth cat that eats our babies? Well, fuck you cat, we have fire and sharp sticks, we're going to hunt your ass down. Neanderthals would have been in direct competition with humans for resources, and so would have been first at the chopping block.

    Well with the big predators I'm sure it was more a matter of humans hunting out the megafauna herbivores like the mammoth out from under them - it sucks to be a sabertooth if some neolithic guy has made a house out of your main food source.

    As to the neanderthals I could see them hanging on in dense northern woodlands where their strength and toughness would beat out Sapiens' endurance and smarts, and probably even adopting tools from successive Sapiens cultural waves. Eventually however the Sapiens would hit on something the Neanderthals couldn't copy/allow them access to the Neanderthals woods (something like the bows or bronze axes) and then it would be game over, possibly with humans retaining legends of scary muscular guys in the woods. Alternatively you have them survive on some island isolated by the last ice age, and they're 'discovered' by humans in large ships, and you get what happened to the Native Americans...squared.

    Dis' on
  • Mr PinkMr Pink I got cats for youRegistered User regular
    edited April 2009
    I've always wondered about the theory that both species could have mated together. We see that with mules, but the result is usually sterile.

    But then again, I wonder if the two species would have seen each other as possible mates at all, or if it would have been more animal-like in that you only breed with your own type.

    Mr Pink on
  • BloodySlothBloodySloth Registered User regular
    edited April 2009
    Mr Pink wrote: »
    I've always wondered about the theory that both species could have mated together. We see that with mules, but the result is usually sterile.

    But then again, I wonder if the two species would have seen each other as possible mates at all, or if it would have been more animal-like in that you only breed with your own type.

    I'm sure it happened. I mean, it happens in the wild occasionally with other species like bears. Whether it happened regularly probably had more to do with how much the societies jived with one another; as it is, I don't think they were best friends.

    BloodySloth on
  • DuffelDuffel jacobkosh Registered User regular
    edited April 2009
    Geographic isolation is what I think would bring this hypotethical scenario. Let's say that Neanderthals would mainly be in Europe, while us humans would grow up in Africa and Asia (like in real life). There would be some connections between the two species, though, but not enough to start a massive war until both had developed civilization...

    This is sort of what I was assuming, as well. Nobody knows exactly why the Neanderthals died out - changing climate (since Neanderthals were specifically adapted to extremely cold conditions), outcompeted by H. Sapiens, or actually killed off b H. Sapiens - although it was probably a combination of "all of the above". I personally lean more toward "outcompeted" than "genocided", simply because it would have been much easier for humans to simply starve neanderthals out than actually try to wipe them out forcibly - Sapiens' weapons weren't a hell of a lot better than what the neanderthals had, and neanderthals were huge and powerful.

    There's been a lot of speculation regarding interbreeding, but there's really no way to prove it one way or the other. Actually, I'm not sure if Neanderthals are universally agreed to be a separate species at all - as in, Homo sapiens neanderthalensis or something - but it's been a long time since Paleoanthropology.

    *

    If the neanderthals had stayed neanderthals, then nothing really would have changed. It doesn't appear that neanderthals had the capacity to develop civilization as we know it without evolving. Their linguistic abilities seem to have been somewhere between ourselves and H. erectus (practically nothing), at least anatomically speaking. Most anthropologists are of the opinion that N-thals (getting tired of typing it out) could speak, but their speech was simpler and more limited than our own - both linguistically and in terms of the concepts expressed.

    Duffel on
  • Mr PinkMr Pink I got cats for youRegistered User regular
    edited April 2009
    I wonder, then, if they could have developed by using tools and such made by H. Sapians. If they had the capacity to learn, watching a H. Sapien construct a spear might allow them to build their own. It just may be that they lack the capacity to create from scratch, so to speak.

    Mr Pink on
  • GungHoGungHo Registered User regular
    edited April 2009
    I'd be happy to have a pet neanderthal. I'd name him Brendan Fraser.

    GungHo on
  • bowenbowen Sup? Registered User regular
    edited April 2009
    Didn't they find a little bit of lineage in some people of European descent that they couldn't quite place, mostly attributed to physical features common in Neanderthals?

    bowen on
    not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
  • BloodySlothBloodySloth Registered User regular
    edited April 2009
    I'd name mine Liam Neeson.
    bowen wrote: »
    Didn't they find a little bit of lineage in some people of European descent that they couldn't quite place, mostly attributed to physical features common in Neanderthals?

    I'd be really interested in hearing more about this.

    BloodySloth on
  • DemiurgeDemiurge Registered User regular
    edited April 2009
    Wouldn't it be theoreticly possible to clone these guys? I read a few years ago they were trying to ressurect the mammoth by implanting DNA into an empty egg and impregnating a regular elephant.

    Demiurge on
    DQ0uv.png 5E984.png
  • BloodySlothBloodySloth Registered User regular
    edited April 2009
    Demiurge wrote: »
    Wouldn't it be theoreticly possible to clone these guys? I read a few years ago they were trying to ressurect the mammoth by implanting DNA into an empty egg and impregnating a regular elephant.

    I've read information about scientists actually trying this. I'm sure they haven't tried yet, but I think they have the genome down.

    EDIT: According to wiki:
    In February 2009, the Planck Institute's team, led by geneticist Svante Pääbo, announced that they had completed the first draft of the Neanderthal genome, which covers about 63% of the entire base pairs.[1] An early analysis of the data suggested "no significant trace of Neanderthal genes in modern humans." [8] New results suggested that adult Neanderthals were lactose intolerant.[7] On the question of potentially cloning a Neanderthal, Pääbo commented, "Starting from the DNA extracted from a fossil, it is and will remain impossible."[1]

    BloodySloth on
  • Mr PinkMr Pink I got cats for youRegistered User regular
    edited April 2009
    I'd name mine Liam Neeson.
    bowen wrote: »
    Didn't they find a little bit of lineage in some people of European descent that they couldn't quite place, mostly attributed to physical features common in Neanderthals?

    I'd be really interested in hearing more about this.

    I second that.

    Mr Pink on
  • AJAlkaline40AJAlkaline40 __BANNED USERS regular
    edited April 2009
    Well, we have frozen mammoth remains, don't we? I don't believe we have any frozen neanderthal remains.

    AJAlkaline40 on
    idiot.jpg
  • bowenbowen Sup? Registered User regular
    edited April 2009
    Mr Pink wrote: »
    I'd name mine Liam Neeson.
    bowen wrote: »
    Didn't they find a little bit of lineage in some people of European descent that they couldn't quite place, mostly attributed to physical features common in Neanderthals?

    I'd be really interested in hearing more about this.

    I second that.

    Something to do with trying to trace the origin of the bony protrusion some people have on the base of their skulls (mimics our inner ear in regards to balance in Neanderthals)

    bowen on
    not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
  • bowenbowen Sup? Registered User regular
    edited April 2009
    http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/08/070802-neanderthals.html

    There's an article like what they were discussing when I first heard it. I think Nova, but maybe it was National G.

    bowen on
    not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
  • Dis'Dis' Registered User regular
    edited April 2009
    bowen wrote: »
    http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/08/070802-neanderthals.html

    There's an article like what they were discussing when I first heard it. I think Nova, but maybe it was National G.

    Well a quick skim of the primary article for that story seems to be very much 'more data needed' on the inbreeding, but it makes an interesting point that, based on bone morphology traits, the Neanderthals have more in common with the earliest modern human skeletons than we late modern humans do - significant loss of diversity with the great migrations maybe?

    Conclusion

    When these data on probable trait polarities are combined and one appropriately uses the available data from the entire skeleton and dentition, it is not the Neandertals who appear unusual, special, derived, autapomorphous. It is we.

    Perhaps, rather than trying to document the deviant nature of the Neandertals, we should be more focused on understanding the complex evolutionary processes that led from Middle Pleistocene archaic members of the genus Homo to the emergence and eventual dispersal of people anatomically similar to ourselves. Some of this may be explainable in stochastic terms, and the distributions of a variety of the traits considered here should best be seen as influenced primarily by genetic drift and isolation‐by‐distance in a geographically widespread species. However, other traits may well have selective valences or, more likely, be reflections of selective forces on human biology. But as long as it is regional variants of archaic Homo that are considered in need of explanation and the emergence and subsequent domination of modern humans are taken as given, it is unlikely that the appropriate questions will be framed.

    Dis' on
  • MikeManMikeMan Registered User regular
    edited April 2009
    Homo neanderthalensis AKA Neanderthal. One of the ancestors of human race. However, these guys differ from the previous sapiens - they actually co-existed with humans. For a some time, around 170,000 years, this planet actually had more then one intelligent species.

    Actually, for most of human history there were several similarly-intelligent hominids living at the same time.

    It is a rare fluke that we live in an era where we are the only really intelligent hominid.

    MikeMan on
  • WotanAnubisWotanAnubis Registered User regular
    edited April 2009
    MikeMan wrote: »
    Actually, for most of human history there were several similarly-intelligent hominids living at the same time.

    It is a rare fluke that we live in an era where we are the only really intelligent hominid.
    Not sure if I'd call it a "rare fluke". After a new niche opens up several species rush to fill it, but eventually most of them go extinct simply by being not quite as good at filling the niche than the others.

    So going from "many like us" to "few like us" is actually kind of expected.

    WotanAnubis on
  • MikeManMikeMan Registered User regular
    edited April 2009
    MikeMan wrote: »
    Actually, for most of human history there were several similarly-intelligent hominids living at the same time.

    It is a rare fluke that we live in an era where we are the only really intelligent hominid.
    Not sure if I'd call it a "rare fluke". After a new niche opens up several species rush to fill it, but eventually most of them go extinct simply by being not quite as good at filling the niche than the others.

    So going from "many like us" to "few like us" is actually kind of expected.
    For millions and millions of years several human species coexisted, and for 17 thousand years, a mere fraction of that time, one human species was dominant. I'm okay calling that a rare fluke.

    We need to be careful in viewing our place in history as privileged and projecting our modern sensibilities on the past.

    It is easy to see history as inevitable and leading up to us on a mountain of progress but that is an inaccurate view.

    MikeMan on
  • Gabriel_PittGabriel_Pitt Stepped in it Registered User regular
    edited April 2009
    It's also one that nobody is espousing.

    Gabriel_Pitt on
  • WotanAnubisWotanAnubis Registered User regular
    edited April 2009
    MikeMan wrote: »
    It is easy to see history as inevitable and leading up to us on a mountain of progress but that is an inaccurate view.
    I didn't say it would have to lead to us. I merely said that competition would eliminate many species and leave relatively few, therefore what happend amongst the hominids wasn't a 'fluke'. It's happened quite often, and not just on the branch that led to us.

    WotanAnubis on
  • JJJJ DailyStormer Registered User regular
    edited April 2009
    They'd make wonderful slaves or at least be 2nd class citizens.

    JJ on
  • Loren MichaelLoren Michael Registered User regular
    edited April 2009
    If they had not gone extinct when they did, we probably would have extincted them soon after.

    Loren Michael on
    a7iea7nzewtq.jpg
  • DelzhandDelzhand Registered User, Transition Team regular
    edited April 2009
    Mr Pink wrote: »
    I wonder, then, if they could have developed by using tools and such made by H. Sapians. If they had the capacity to learn, watching a H. Sapien construct a spear might allow them to build their own. It just may be that they lack the capacity to create from scratch, so to speak.

    Neandertals (or -thals, I guess it's a current debate), IIRC, had their own stone tool technology they developed on their own at the same time. It's not like they needed to figure out spears, just that you could throw them instead of stab with them.

    Delzhand on
  • Loren MichaelLoren Michael Registered User regular
    edited April 2009
    Everyone interested in this counterfactual should read The Third Chimpanzee by Jared Diamond.

    Loren Michael on
    a7iea7nzewtq.jpg
  • MikeManMikeMan Registered User regular
    edited April 2009
    It's also one that nobody is espousing.
    Seems symptomatic of that worldview to regard it as anything other than a fluke.

    MikeMan on
  • AdrienAdrien Registered User regular
    edited April 2009
    MikeMan wrote: »
    It's also one that nobody is espousing.
    Seems symptomatic of that worldview to regard it as anything other than a fluke.

    :?:

    If humans and some other hominids are sharing the same niche, for the human population to increase requires that the others decline.

    I mean, there's no guarantee it'd be us. But it's pretty natural that when one species suddenly gains a strong advantage over others in its niche, the other ones will start to die out.

    Adrien on
    tmkm.jpg
  • Loren MichaelLoren Michael Registered User regular
    edited April 2009
    I don't think it's an accident that we're the only dominant species and that our closest living relative is the chimpanzee.

    Once we started organizing, we started killing shit like it was nobody's business. We kill and have been killing and genociding the hell out of each other for a long time, I think it's only natural to off the big scary stupid guys when we get the opportunity.

    Barring direct killing, we would hardly have been sympathetic in regards to resource sharing.

    Loren Michael on
    a7iea7nzewtq.jpg
  • JebusUDJebusUD Adventure! Candy IslandRegistered User regular
    edited April 2009
    Mr Pink wrote: »
    I've always wondered about the theory that both species could have mated together. We see that with mules, but the result is usually sterile.

    But then again, I wonder if the two species would have seen each other as possible mates at all, or if it would have been more animal-like in that you only breed with your own type.

    It seems quite possible that they could have mated. We could have mated together, into one species. It is hard to say. There currently is no evidence that this happened though. Just a thought some people are putting around.

    JebusUD on
    and I wonder about my neighbors even though I don't have them
    but they're listening to every word I say
  • TastyfishTastyfish Registered User regular
    edited April 2009
    Mr Pink wrote: »
    I've always wondered about the theory that both species could have mated together. We see that with mules, but the result is usually sterile.

    But then again, I wonder if the two species would have seen each other as possible mates at all, or if it would have been more animal-like in that you only breed with your own type.

    We actually see it with loads of animals, and I don't think its that likely we'd see a similar thing with any of the hominids. The sterility issue is generally only when one species has two extra chromosomes compared to the other, leaving the hybrid with an odd number.

    I think you'd see pretty much all of the hominids being able to interbreed, or at least the later ones as we're pushing the idea of a species to the extremes here as we're looking at the same group of organisms over time rather than two seperate ones. Way to imagine it would be to remember that the genetic distance between two current species goes down to the common ancester and then back up again, so between a current one and one of its predecessors is about half as long.

    I'm in the probably a mix of interbreeding and genocide. Far as I'm aware a lot of the presumed genocides modern humans have perpatrated against one another have never really been quite as complete as we imagine.

    Tastyfish on
  • Loren MichaelLoren Michael Registered User regular
    edited April 2009
    Tastyfish wrote: »
    I'm in the probably a mix of interbreeding and genocide. Far as I'm aware a lot of the presumed genocides modern humans have perpatrated against one another have never really been quite as complete as we imagine.

    What about the extinctions that we've caused.

    Loren Michael on
    a7iea7nzewtq.jpg
  • TastyfishTastyfish Registered User regular
    edited April 2009
    True, but I think that Neanderthals would be far closer to a rival tribe than another species. There is going to be a clear seperation between them and the animals you hunt.

    They do look a little unsual when you see pictures of them, but not obviously a different species. Its also subtle enough that if you're willing to accept that the black guys are the same as the white guys, and don't really want to get into comparative anatomy its not a stretch to assume that the stocky guys are just another varient.

    Tastyfish on
  • DemiurgeDemiurge Registered User regular
    edited April 2009
    I don't mean to start a flamewar in case anyone is really sensitive about boxing, but there's a few people around today who show abnormally large physiques that resemble neanderthals.

    Like Valuev:
    nikolai_valuev.jpg

    Apart from being freakishly large he also has a slightly pointed skull.

    Demiurge on
    DQ0uv.png 5E984.png
Sign In or Register to comment.