A Philosophy of War and Conflict

[Leonardo17]

@Leonardo17

Most animals have eyes entirely black. So you don’t always know where they are looking and what their intention is. Homo Sapiens has white eyes with pupils of different colors in order to communicate feelings and intentions to one another. At some point (40,000 – 50,000 BC) there were at least some 10 species of hominids living in this world. They went down. We remained, not because we are smarter (Homo Erectus had also a large brain like the Neanderthals) but probably because we learned to communicate and work together as teams better than them. At least that’s one theory.

There’s quite a few incorrect statements there.

-The most common eye colour among animals is brown, not black. Black is the 5th most common.

-H. sapiens does not have ‘white eyes with pupils of different colors.’ Eye colour refers to the iris - the pupil is an opening and has no colour.

-There are eight living species of hominids - us, two chimpanzees, two gorillas, and three orangutans.

-Greater brain size doesn’t necessitate greater intelligence.

-While it’s true that Neanderthals had a slightly larger brain than modern humans, this has more to do with regulating body functions such as vision. And H. erectus brains range from VERY much smaller than ours to the low end of the average for modern humans.

Boru

Rutger Bregman has this book called “Humankind: A Hopeful Story”.
 
    In some part of the book he mentions how Wolves have been domesticated and made to evolve into dogs in a relatively short time span. He even mentions a Russian experiment in which wild foxes were domesticated and through selective evolution made to even learn how to bark within 10 generation or so. So while dogs are much better adapted to life in nature and on average, smarted than most dogs, dogs are this domesticated animals who can accomplish complex tasks like guarding our livestock’s for us so that we don’t die of hunger.
 
   From this the author argues that maybe (and I am only talking about those this the genus “Homo”) our ancestors were not the smartest, biggest, fastest of all the hominids. But that they became this “domesticated” form of hominids who (mainly through collaboration and more sophisticated teamwork – probably based on greater ability of empathy) ended up absorbing the other existing groups of hominids or (perhaps) eliminating them altogether.
 
   I mentioned this in connection with our “humanness”. To me any ideology or spiritual approach that fails to include this Homo-Puppy (This is the term being used by Bregman) is simply a false idea or an erroneous approach to what was originally an authentic idea

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

@Leonardo17

From this the author argues that maybe (and I am only talking about those this the genus “Homo”) our ancestors were not the smartest, biggest, fastest of all the hominids.

I’m delighted that you’ve learned the difference between ‘genus’ and ‘species’. 

And our ancestors WERE the smartest of the Homo genus. You just said so yourself.

Boru

[Leonardo17]

What I was talking about in my previous message is the sclera (the White in our eyes in the area around the iris). Other great apes do not have this white area around the iris. So you barely know where they are looking at and what their next move is going to be. Homo-Sapiens on the other hand can communicate just by eye contact. Both situation have their evolutionary advantage of course. But for us, this means that we get our strength from collective action and stronger bonds between individuals:












 
Also: We don’t know if other hominids learned to talk. These features of homo-sapiens that I mentioned until know could be the elements that led to the development of language itself. (These are real theories that are being debated within academic circles right now).

BriansoddingBoru:
 
- We are not 100% sure of that. Our ancestors probably interbred with these species and Neanderthal genes are present (mostly) among today’s European populations. But their brain size were larger. And if my memories are correct there are even claims they were the one who gave us some technology (like some styles of pottery and tool making) in the first place. But we obviously had some advantages as well. Bregman say this was our “homo-puppy” characteristic.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

What I was talking about in my previous message is the sclera (the White in our eyes in the area around the iris). Other great apes do not have this white area around the iris.

That may have been what you were taking about but that wasn’t what you said.

So you barely know where they are looking at and what their next move is going to be. Homo-Sapiens on the other hand can communicate just by eye contact.

Sorry, but that’s just nonsense.

But for us, this means that we get our strength from collective action and stronger bonds between individuals:

True enough, but that has nothing to do with eye structure.

Also: We don’t know if other hominids learned to talk. These features of homo-sapiens that I mentioned until know could be the elements that led to the development of language itself. (These are real theories that are being debated within academic circles right now).

I flatter myself that I’m reasonably up to date on anthropology (Bregman is not an anthropologist). I’m unaware of a debate regarding a connection between the size of sclerae and spoken language.

Boru

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

@Leonardo17

We are not 100% sure of that.

Then why did you say so? Brain size doesn’t equate with intelligence. Sperm whales have the largest brains while ants have the largest brain relative to body size. Neither of those appear to be as smart as crows or octopuses.

Boru