I wouldn't put too much in that running down theory. I saw a show on Nova about that many years ago.
I tried for over three hours to run down some antelope once. In the grass flats with an old mercury. They led me in circles at 35-40 MPH for hours and never broke a wind.

I'm not kidding you...for hours and they did not tire. Tried with deer and elk too......but they always went for rough ground.......while the antelope thought it was play.

Besides....we're much too lazy.....I'll bet we had throwing rocks, boomerangs, spears and traps within the first week of hunger.

So, just saying maybe. If you know the Migratory path studied by our Ancestors, now include pit falls run them into a trench. Several spears and cut it up before the Saber Tooth comes or more coldly even then let it them eat and stab the crap out of them. Defeating your enemy.

Just saying somehow you still have a belly button, and humans survived.

kv

Edit: Before or after take your pick.

 

So, just saying maybe. If you know the Migratory path studied by our Ancestors, now include pit falls run them into a trench. Several spears and cut it up before the Saber Tooth comes or more coldly even then let it them eat and stab the crap out of them. Defeating your enemy.

Just saying somehow you still have a belly button, and humans survived.

kv

Edit: Before or after take your pick.

Edit: Edit: Now that I think about it, traps as I review your post.

 

So, just saying maybe. If you know the Migratory path studied by our Ancestors, now include pit falls run them into a trench. Several spears and cut it up before the Saber Tooth comes or more coldly even then let it them eat and stab the crap out of them. Defeating your enemy.

Just saying somehow you still have a belly button, and humans survived.

kv

My understanding is that the running things down concept predates the majority of our big game hunting tool making days by a few 10's to 100's of thousands of years to which our ancestors likely mostly chased smaller animals with the intent of chase it until it's too tired to move then either smash it with a rock or hit it with a stick until dead.

Not a lot of brainpower in play beyond chase it until it can't run any more, beat it to death and eat it.

The sabertooth tiger issue is probably what did in the Neanderthals. We didn't have to outrun the tiger. We just had to outrun our Neanderthal hunting buddy, which worked pretty good in our favor for quite a few years!

 

My understanding is that the running things down concept predates the majority of our big game hunting tool making days by a few 10's to 100's of thousands of years to which our ancestors likely mostly chased smaller animals with the intent of chase it until it's too tired to move then either smash it with a rock or hit it with a stick until dead.

Not a lot of brainpower in play beyond chase it until it can't run any more, beat it to death and eat it.

The sabertooth tiger issue is probably what did in the Neanderthals. We didn't have to outrun the tiger. We just had to outrun our Neanderthal hunting buddy, which worked pretty good in our favor for quite a few years!

Plenty of Hyperbole out tonight If we accumulate years of survival for humans vs mammals we did a number on the species long gone and I guess must consider what we do in the future. I think humans out did the Saber with shear intelligence somehow more successful yet able to out number even though its not really seemingly possible. Because they had litters and we do a one off that can't even talk or do anything worth anything till 10 to 20. Doesn't even make sense but it happened somehow.

kv

 

Good heck, your ancestors hunted with mine I was thinking the same thing, but glad you posted instead. If you take a lead animal in a herd then stampede them to a cliff you lose every member, but if you cleve one animal then chase it in the direction you intend (Knowing their patterns of movement) with enough people placed at locations the animal will not suspect you off the trail when someone can take up the rear, then you begin the chase again, I take it from there and so on, if necessary the animal dies of a heart attack or lays down and say's just kill me I'm done. Less lose of Calories and a quick meal.

Neanderthals are thought to place themselves in a tree and jump the animal with a sharp instrument. But, that wouldn't be a good plan of attack with a Woolly Mammoth I'm sure the tactics were very different for that prey, but you couldn't prove it.

kv

Edit: Wolf pack display the same pattern of behavior.

That's about the same rudimentary understanding of the concepts I have. Our ancestors were excellent strategical tribal pack hunters who likely shared the work as much as possible thus allowing for greater and larger animal kills with less personal risk and or energy expenditures involved from each member.

Running down an antelope by yourself on foot would be extremely difficult but doing it with 3 - 10 others and a plan, not so difficult then.

I think there is speculation that both the Neanderthal and our ancestors used a similar mass attack strategy for mammoths and like oversized game when there were few other options for food of any kind.
Hit the beasts with 15 - 20 people and hope you don't lose more than 1 - 2 while doing it. Not very efficient or effective by today's standards but it beat everyone starving to death.

Our ancestors just happen to be better at reproducing more and smarter descendants/replacement hunters faster even though Neanderthals are figured to have actually physically grown up faster than our ancestors did so even when forced into using that extreme of hunting strategy we likely could produce replacement hunters more effectively than they could.

The present assumed to be key difference was that although we may take 20+ years to reach full physical maturity they may have been reaching theirs in 2/3's that time but hitting reproductive age inversely proportionately way later than we do giving us the distinct advantage on who could out reproduce whom over a given timespan even if we took years longer to hit our peak adult maturity point.

https://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/09/080908-neanderthal-brain.html

https://www.livescience.com/8959-neanderthals-lived-fast-died-young-compared-humans.html

 

That's about the same rudimentary understanding of the concepts I have. Our ancestors were excellent strategical tribal pack hunters who likely shared the work as much as possible thus allowing for greater and larger animal kills with less personal risk and or energy expenditures involved from each member.

Running down an antelope by yourself on foot would be extremely difficult but doing it with 3 - 10 others and a plan, not so difficult then.

I think there is speculation that both the Neanderthal and our ancestors used a similar mass attack strategy for mammoths and like oversized game when there were few other options for food of any kind.
Hit the beasts with 15 - 20 people and hope you don't lose more than 1 - 2 while doing it. Not very efficient or effective by today's standards but it beat everyone starving to death.

Our ancestors just happen to be better at reproducing more and smarter descendants/replacement hunters faster even though Neanderthals are figured to have actually physically grown up faster than our ancestors did so even when forced into using that extreme of hunting strategy we likely could produce replacement hunters more effectively than they could.

The present assumed to be key difference was that although we may take 20+ years to reach full physical maturity they may have been reaching theirs in 2/3's that time but hitting reproductive age inversely proportionately way later than we do giving us the distinct advantage on who could out reproduce whom over a given timespan even if we took years longer to hit our peak adult maturity point.

https://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/09/080908-neanderthal-brain.html

https://www.livescience.com/8959-neanderthals-lived-fast-died-young-compared-humans.html

If our proportional equivalent of calories and the descending difference of ours v other species (Able to fast vs their inability over time will die) would it be we survive by the amount of calories then in include intelligence and breed deference that allows us to communicate beyond there abilities as a pack saying they are dependent on us and they devolve into our population like Neanderthals over time or they suffer the same fate of Indian nations a slow be yet steady decline till they are finally remove from the planet.

kv?

 

So what do you think it is about humans that gives us such stamina and athletic ability? Is there a physical difference in our muscles and bones? Or do you think we can trace it back to our higher intellect? Mind Over Matter? There is definitely a connection with intellect I think. For example before 1954, nobody thought it was possible to run a mile in 4 minutes, until somebody did it. And now everybody's doing it in high school, college, professional. It's pretty common for someone to run a four-minute mile these days. And the reason why it's so common now is because everyone knows it's possible. For animals, who can't understand such Concepts, Maybe it's their lack of intellect that is holding them back. But I would think that in a fight or flight situation they could run until they died. And they probably do. So there's probably still a physical aspect.

 

And what about migratory Birds? It must take incredible stamina to keep yourself a locked and moving forward all day in the air.

 

That's about the same rudimentary understanding of the concepts I have. Our ancestors were excellent strategical tribal pack hunters who likely shared the work as much as possible thus allowing for greater and larger animal kills with less personal risk and or energy expenditures involved from each member.

Not at all wanting to make this political but know it will be accused of doing so.So doesn't the quoted statement show that humans were originally "socialists" be fore there was even a word for it?

 

Not at all wanting to make this political but know it will. So doesn't the quoted statement show that humans were originally "socialists" be fore there was even a word for it?

Maybe, but I don't think those in the late 1960s who lived in communes called themselves socialists.

 

Not at all wanting to make this political but know it will be accused of doing so.So doesn't the quoted statement show that humans were originally "socialists" be fore there was even a word for it?

Of course you want to take it poltical. Nobody here who knows your agenda or beef with me and what present political system I support would not have valid reason to think that and you know it.

Now as for peoples of back then they were not socialist in any form we would equate with but more tribal or micro communal (not to be confused with communism either) more like a family or small groups of families who worked together towards a common goal of simply surviving until tomorrow.

Much like the plains indians of the past ran their social structures and to how many of the largely isolated tribes of the South American Amazon regions or undeveloped African continent still operate today.

 

I'm just saying that a form of socialism is way older in humans than capitalism.

 

Of course you want to take it poltical. Nobody here who knows your agenda or beef with me and what present political system I support would not have valid reason to think that and you know it.

You have a way, way more bigger idea about the importance of your thoughts than I do. I would have said that about anyone's bringing the subject up, so don't flatter yourself.

 

So what do you think it is about humans that gives us such stamina and athletic ability?

There's a great book called "Born to Run" that was a big best seller a while back. You should read it if you have an interest in this topic. The author gives a layman's review of the convergence of several fields of study that all point to our ability for upright running as a crucial point of our evolution. Lots of neat stuff in there, like the tendon in the back of the head that all running animals have. We have it. Cheetahs breathe with each stride, which limits their air flow rate. Our breathing is not synched with our stride – an advantage. Fascinating stuff.

 

I'm just saying that a form of socialism is way older in humans than capitalism.

We tend to believe that culture was formed from War like tribes and societies, but one of the oldest in the world is in Peru 5000 thousand years ago. They traded with fisherman cultivated goods in the city from there people of the forest collected fruit and herbs each made their lives rich through trade in an early form of capitalism. The Swiss and Danish are a good example of this and have among the highest standard of living and freedom of life.

The people of Caral were peaceful, gentle people more interested in arts and music than in conflicts and battles. No weapons, elements of war or defense, or human remains have been found in the ruins. Ruth Shady assumes that the people of Caral were a society devoted mainly to production, trade and the enjoyment of life.

Read more: http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/314935#ixzz4wj12IkYx

 

You have a way, way more bigger idea about the importance of your thoughts than I do.

Yet you keep replying to me as if your opinions will some how change my or anyone else's views of either of us.

You gotta be pretty self centered and arrogant to know what you claim to about me and still somehow think I or anyone else is ever going to care about your concerns or views (over their own) , beyond the opportunity to prove you wrong over and over for them.

You can say what you want but I was not the one who started this feud by playing proudly stupid to no end in order to get out of having admit to being proven wrong, by more than just myself, multiple times over. That is and will always be on your head.

 

I'm just saying that a form of socialism is way older in humans than capitalism.

No way! Capitalism is a force of nature - individuals and groups acting freely in their best interests - and can be observed in other species. Socialism is an invention of man, and not one of his better ones.

 

We tend to believe that culture was formed from War like tribes and societies, but one of the oldest in the world is in Peru 5000 thousand years ago. They traded with fisherman cultivated goods in the city from there people of the forest collected fruit and herbs each made their lives rich through trade in an early form of capitalism. The Swiss and Danish are a good example of this and have among the highest standard of living and freedom of life.

Yep, semi capitalistic culture and motives have done far more for the advancement of our species beyond just surviving to see another day than pure socialist/communist ones ever have.

Capitalism (mutual gain economic process) strives to achieve mutual gains for all parties involved where as socialism/communism (mutual lack of resources or gains) strives to take everything from those who have and give it to those who don't until everyone has as little as possible to survive with as can be managed.

Two very easy to see concepts in all civilizations from the begining of time until now that very directly relate to the threads topic of why do we age and to what processes of life gave the best results on improving and extending life. Every culture that operated on a system of mutual gains for all parties involved did far better than those that operated on systems of mutual misery and as far as my history books show when a society switched from capitalist like operation to socialist/communist like operation that's when they fell, not the otherway around.

The concept of socialism may have been around since the beginning of time but then so has general stupidity as well and we know how beneficial that is to everyone who isn't afflicted with it.

 

No way! Capitalism is a force of nature - individuals and groups acting freely in their best interests - and can be observed in other species. Socialism is an invention of man, and not one of his better ones.

Rather how I have always know the process of survival and improvement to be driven. Find that which benefits the most with the least accrued losses so that we as both the individual and the greater society can prosper and grow. Something socialism has never shown to be a working point of its intent and design.

If I discover a better way of doing things I profit from it. If I then sell that new knowledge to my people I profit more while also improving the lives of those willing to work and use my process which ultimately reduces the competitions/attacks I may have to deal with for me having something they do not.
Win Win gains strategy that likely improves and extends my and everyone else's lives (who want to work) while reducing my personal workload and likelihood of being attacked, robbed and killed for my larger cache of resources by those working and capable people.

 

Why do we get old and die?
Capitalism? No
Socialism? No