We Are Devo?!

[New Mitanni]

According to Australian anthropologist Peter McAllister, modern man is a wimp:

http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/ ... 04&sp=true

According to McAllister, Tutsi initiates, Australian aboriginals and Neanderthal women, among others from past ages, were far superior physically to modern men, up to and including Olympic champion sprinters and javelin throwers.

Is this important?

Does it matter that most modern men (or women) can’t run down wild animals, throw spears long distances or run marathons in full armor like Roman soldiers? Are physical robustness and brute strength more important than, say, technological development? Or have we overemphasized sedentary activities and intellectual development at the expense of other abilities that we may need at some point?

IMO physical strength is no longer the most important quality in terms of species survival, and thus it isn’t that significant that most of us can’t match the feats of primitive man.

[Tagmatium]

They also tended to die at ages 25-30. Hurrah for them!

[JuNii]

IMO physical strength is no longer the most important quality in terms of species survival, and thus it isn’t that significant that most of us can’t match the feats of primitive man.

untill the time comes when our technology fails and we have to go back to the 'old' ways of doing things...

[Kashindahar]

According to McAllister, Tutsi initiates, Australian aboriginals and Neanderthal women, among others from past ages, were far superior physically to modern men, up to and including Olympic champion sprinters and javelin throwers.

Is this important?

Does it matter that most modern men (or women) can’t run down wild animals, throw spears long distances...

Specifically on this: No. Not in the least. We have firearms.

[Alsatian Knights]

The most important things a specieis worries about these days is how fast can they get their missile on target accurately and whose large bore sniper rifle can shoot the farthest and whose tank is better. So the real question is, has brute strength just evolved into a new form?

[Conserative Morality]

Actually, I think that most people could run around like Roman soldiers in full armor, assuming they went through the rather rigorous training. (Speaking of Post-Marian Legionaries) And in any case, strength isn't exactly the top skill in demand nowadays.

[Sarkhaan]

According to Australian anthropologist Peter McAllister, modern man is a wimp:

http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/ ... 04&sp=true

According to McAllister, Tutsi initiates, Australian aboriginals and Neanderthal women, among others from past ages, were far superior physically to modern men, up to and including Olympic champion sprinters and javelin throwers.

Is this important?

Does it matter that most modern men (or women) can’t run down wild animals, throw spears long distances or run marathons in full armor like Roman soldiers? Are physical robustness and brute strength more important than, say, technological development? Or have we overemphasized sedentary activities and intellectual development at the expense of other abilities that we may need at some point?

IMO physical strength is no longer the most important quality in terms of species survival, and thus it isn’t that significant that most of us can’t match the feats of primitive man.

Can't, or don't? I believe that most of us physically COULD do these things, given training. Most people at this second couldn't because they haven't practiced and trained. We don't go spearhunting daily. Our capabilities haven't changed much, just our utilization. The fact that Usain Bolt and Michael Phelps can still set astounding world records as modern humans demonstrates that the human body is capable of these tasks.

To add a tiny bit:
I go to the gym for the first time ever. I can bench press only the bar (45 lbs), and am not very stable with it...it sways back and forth, one side is raised faster than the other....and I can only do three sets of 6 reps, barely forcing out the last few.

Does this mean that I have devolved? I'm unable to do something because I've either never done it or haven't done it in a very long time.

Flash forward 6 months, and after going to the gym 3x a week every week for that time period, I can now benchpress 135 lbs (45 lb weights on each side plus bar). The bar is stable, and I can easily do 4 sets of 8 reps.

There was no deevolution. Just a lack of training.

[Dumb Ideologies]

I don't think we'll really know until the dinosaur aliens crash-land in 2012, just days after Emperor Obama vaporizes all the world's weaponry using spells from that renowned book of darkest magic, Das Kapital.

[EvilDarkMagicians]

No it doesn't matter. Though good health is very important to our development as a whole.

[Flameswroth]

IMO physical strength is no longer the most important quality in terms of species survival, and thus it isn’t that significant that most of us can’t match the feats of primitive man.

[gruff voice] Wull that sounds lahk sissy tawk t'me, lil man![/gv]

I very much doubt their assertion that they were more physically able than our athletes today. They were probably, out of necessity, more physically able than your average Joe typing away on NSG, but their nutrition and living conditions were not conducive to the sorts of 'health', and by relation 'strength' that we can experience today.

[Pevisopolis]

NM, I'm astonished you never mentioned your word "Obamunist".

[Dagonshire]

it's no longer as important since we dont need it to survive. but it's still good to be fit.

[Dashret]

They also tended to die at ages 25-30. Hurrah for them!

Average age is heavily influenced by infant mortality, which was significantly higher prior to the advent of modern medicine. We do live to be older than our ancestors, but not quite that much.

Anyway...the fact that we've gotten physically weaker is, I think, more evidence that we've evolved to suit our strengths. Humans are tool users. We don't NEED to be able to run a mile or throw a spear a hundred yards. We can build a cart or make a bow, or better yet, a car and a gun.

We'll probably only get physically weaker as time goes on. At least until we can hand evolution it's retirement and develop super awesome gene-modification techniques to turn every single human child into a living incarnation of Adonis. With psychic powers.

[New Mitanni]

They also tended to die at ages 25-30. Hurrah for them!

Average age is heavily influenced by infant mortality, which was significantly higher prior to the advent of modern medicine. We do live to be older than our ancestors, but not quite that much.

Anyway...the fact that we've gotten physically weaker is, I think, more evidence that we've evolved to suit our strengths. Humans are tool users. We don't NEED to be able to run a mile or throw a spear a hundred yards. We can build a cart or make a bow, or better yet, a car and a gun.

We'll probably only get physically weaker as time goes on. At least until we can hand evolution it's retirement and develop super awesome gene-modification techniques to turn every single human child into a living incarnation of Adonis. With psychic powers.

I think that's more likely. Gene modification is going to happen sooner or later.

[Free Soviets]

They also tended to die at ages 25-30. Hurrah for them!

nah, they tended to die between birth and 5 years old. after that, they were solid.

[Rigbyland]

I wouldn't say that we're devolving. Although some of are traits aren't as great as they used to be, others are still advancing. Evolutions and adaptation are all about environment and necessity. If we need more strength than we currently have, we'll get it.

[Rigbyland]

They also tended to die at ages 25-30. Hurrah for them!

nah, they tended to die between birth and 5 years old. after that, they were solid.

Until about age 30... scientists thing that most neanderthals didn't make it to age 45; the average life expectancy was 28-42 years, or something. And the infant/child fatality rates were pitiful...

[Lackadaisical2]

They also tended to die at ages 25-30. Hurrah for them!

nah, they tended to die between birth and 5 years old. after that, they were solid.

thirded I suppose.

As to the OP, If its really true we have devolved, in terms of physical strength, then that would be a bit worrying, as we might then lack the necessary survival skills to continue society w/o our current tech. However, it seems more likely that theres simply more variability of physical strength, as the weak ones have managed to survive just as well as the strong.

[Ashmoria]

According to Australian anthropologist Peter McAllister, modern man is a wimp:

http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/ ... 04&sp=true

According to McAllister, Tutsi initiates, Australian aboriginals and Neanderthal women, among others from past ages, were far superior physically to modern men, up to and including Olympic champion sprinters and javelin throwers.

Is this important?

Does it matter that most modern men (or women) can’t run down wild animals, throw spears long distances or run marathons in full armor like Roman soldiers? Are physical robustness and brute strength more important than, say, technological development? Or have we overemphasized sedentary activities and intellectual development at the expense of other abilities that we may need at some point?

IMO physical strength is no longer the most important quality in terms of species survival, and thus it isn’t that significant that most of us can’t match the feats of primitive man.

in addition to the physical dominance, primitive man had a far better memory than we do. without the ability to write things down they had to remember every important thing.

[Free Soviets]

They also tended to die at ages 25-30. Hurrah for them!

nah, they tended to die between birth and 5 years old. after that, they were solid.

Until about age 30... scientists thing that most neanderthals didn't make it to age 45; the average life expectancy was 28-42 years, or something. And the infant/child fatality rates were pitiful...

sure, for the neandertals. but not for the wild-type modern humans - not even ones contemporary with the 'tals.

[Call to power]

*sneezes on Roman soldiers*

and I'm sure if I had spent my entire life living in Australia I would be pretty good at running away screaming as well

in addition to the physical dominance, primitive man had a far better memory than we do. without the ability to write things down they had to remember every important thing.

I'd like to see early man try to find the car keys

[South Lorenya]

I have a link for Mr. McAllister...

And for those who are too lazy to click on a friggin' link:

Jock vs. Nerd
(A little outdated, but still funny)

The answer to the eternal question "Is it better to be a jock or a nerd?"

Michael Jordan makes over $300,000 a game. With $40 million in endorsements, he makes $178,100 a day, working or not.

If he sleeps 7 hours a night, he makes $52,000 every night while visions of sugarplums dance in his head.

If he goes to see a movie, it'll cost him $7.00, but he'll make $18,550 while he's there.

If he wanted to save up for a new Mercedes S-Class ($90,000) it would take him a whole 12 hours.

Assuming he puts the federal maximum of 15% of his income into a tax deferred account (401k), he will hit the federal cap of $9500 at 8:30 a.m. on January 1st.

If you were given a penny for every 10 dollars he made, you'd be living comfortably at $65,000 a year.

Amazing isn't it?

However, if Jordan saves 100% of his income for the next 250 years, he'll still have less than Bill Gates has today.

Game over. Nerd wins.

[New Kereptica]

I like Devo.

[UNIverseVERSE]

in addition to the physical dominance, primitive man had a far better memory than we do. without the ability to write things down they had to remember every important thing.

Not true. For a start, the number of important things to remember is a function of the society one lives in. Secondly, it isn't a case that one would need to remember everything that a typical person now has quick access to. There was simply less information.

I'd suspect that any typical modern person remembers about the same quantity of information as 'primitive man' would. The difference is that a) this is a far lower percentage of the total information they have access to, and b) they're remembering different things.

[Dashret]

in addition to the physical dominance, primitive man had a far better memory than we do. without the ability to write things down they had to remember every important thing.

Not true. For a start, the number of important things to remember is a function of the society one lives in. Secondly, it isn't a case that one would need to remember everything that a typical person now has quick access to. There was simply less information.

I'd suspect that any typical modern person remembers about the same quantity of information as 'primitive man' would. The difference is that a) this is a far lower percentage of the total information they have access to, and b) they're remembering different things.

People 10,000 years ago didn't have to remember what the square root of pi is. Or how to spell 'shibboleth'.
...You know, I think it would be interesting to see a study on how many ancient humans were multilingual. Actually multilingual, I mean, not just well versed in foreign curse words.