• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Why have humans become so successful?

Mock Turtle

Oh my, did I say that!
Premium Member
(Treat 'successful' how you like - not meaning better, more evolved or such - and of course some sectors of humankind are more 'successful' than others.)

Our journey - as I see it:

* We don't spend inordinate amounts of time feeding or sleeping (as so many other species do) - thus freeing up time for other things.
* We usually eat high value food (often developed by humans) and are quite capable of being omnivorous, unlike so many other species that are necessarily obliged to have one particular diet - thus being dependent upon such being available. And we became good at hunting other species or replacing such with farming. That is, we controlled our food supply.
* We have very useful hands/fingers/opposable thumbs so as to flexibly manipulate materials and construct things as we see fit. Also apparently useful for many other things.
* We developed bipedalism - which enabled the previous to become so valuable to us, apart from any other benefits - like being able to chase after and snare game.
* We likely have much greater intelligence and powers of thought so as to benefit from that which is materially available to us - and to be adaptable - like making clothing, using fire, developing technology and manufacturing, including a variety of things that often enable us to live in widely different habitats and environments, and to travel more easily to such places, or simply to make life easier for us. Also, perhaps we have evolved to value learned knowledge as much or more so than innate knowledge.
* We are quite flexible socially, in that we can cooperate in small groups, and much larger ones, these latter often having quite varied social structures but still being viable.
* We have developed complex speech and symbolic language so as to communicate more efficiently that knowledge we (some) have worked so hard to obtain, and no doubt our ability to vocalise a wide range of sounds enhanced such. Plus, we know the value of the knowledge that others might have, and where able, we integrate such into our knowledge base - this so often transcending generations.
* We have used our knowledge to extend our natural lives and to prevent death (from injuries or ill health) when previously this would not have been possible.
* We have been able to develop concepts, which may not have any physical existence, but which have value for us as to enabling or benefiting our societies, and hence prolonging our existence.

We might claim social structures as one in particular (which releases us from offspring-rearing duties, for example) but many other species do such. The same goes for tool use, but many species show this too. Another might be our morality, but many species also seem to display such, even if in a more primitive form. And against this, we have relatively long periods developing, and being vulnerable during such, before becoming contributing adults, unlike most other species.

So although it is obvious that many species are more powerful than humans, often have better senses, and can do much more than humans (flight and living underwater, for example), is it that we have fine-tuned the very best and most appropriate features so as to turn into the most successful of creatures - even if by accident? And no doubt it would be difficult to put any of these items into any order so as to say that one relied on any other's existence before coming to prominence. Look at any other species. One or more of these items will be missing such that they could never rival us as to taking our position, and likewise, we would never have made it as to being where we are now.

Or, one can opt for the God-designed explanation.
 
Last edited:

Jayhawker Soule

-- untitled --
Premium Member
* We have very useful hands/fingers/opposable thumbs so as to flexibly manipulate materials and construct things as we see fit. Also apparently useful for many other things.
* We developed bipedalism - which enabled the previous to become so valuable to us, apart from any other benefits - like being able to chase after and snare game.
Australopiths did a pretty good job.
 

Quintessence

Consults with Trees
Staff member
Premium Member
It mostly comes down to one thing: humans are unparalleled ecosystem engineers. Humans manipulate their environment to their own benefit at the expense of everything that gets in their way; they are tremendously destructive to ecosystems they exist in to rebuild them to their own ends. When this was coupled with tool use that this ecosystem engineer got truly out of control to the detriment of the biosphere. Successful? Sure, at kicking off a sixth mass extinction event. I don't call that successful, personally.
 

Mock Turtle

Oh my, did I say that!
Premium Member
Australopiths did a pretty good job.
We no doubt owe much to any previous ancestors who aided our progress.

I came across this in some of my meanderings - which I'll admit I was ignorant about - and not really related to Australopiths: :oops:

Why Did Human History Unfold Differently On Different Continents For The Last 13,000 Years? | Edge.org

Tasmania lies 130 miles southeast of Australia. When it was first visited by Europeans in 1642, Tasmania was occupied by 4,000 hunter/gatherers related to mainland Australians, but with the simplest technology of any recent people on Earth. Unlike mainland Aboriginal Australians, Tasmanians couldn't start a fire; they had no boomerangs, spear throwers, or shields; they had no bone tools, no specialized stone tools, and no compound tools like an axe head mounted on a handle; they couldn't cut down a tree or hollow out a canoe; they lacked sewing to make sewn clothing, despite Tasmania's cold winter climate with snow; and, incredibly, though they lived mostly on the sea coast, the Tasmanians didn't catch or eat fish. How did those enormous gaps in Tasmanian material culture arise?

The answer stems from the fact that Tasmania used to be joined to the southern Australian mainland at Pleistocene times of low sea level, until that land bridge was severed by rising sea level 10,000 years ago. People walked out to Tasmania tens of thousands of years ago, when it was still part of Australia. Once that land bridge was severed, though, there was absolutely no further contact of Tasmanians with mainland Australians or with any other people on Earth until European arrival in 1642, because both Tasmanians and mainland Australians lacked watercraft capable of crossing those 130-mile straits between Tasmania and Australia. Tasmanian history is thus a study of human isolation unprecedented except in science fiction ÷ namely, complete isolation from other humans for 10,000 years. Tasmania had the smallest and most isolated human population in the world. If population size and isolation have any effect on accumulation of inventions, we should expect to see that effect in Tasmania.

If all those technologies that I mentioned, absent from Tasmania but present on the opposite Australian mainland, were invented by Australians within the last 10,000 years, we can surely conclude at least that Tasmania's tiny population didn't invent them independently. Astonishingly, the archaeological record demonstrates something further: Tasmanians actually abandoned some technologies that they brought with them from Australia and that persisted on the Australian mainland. For example, bone tools and the practice of fishing were both present in Tasmania at the time that the land bridge was severed, and both disappeared from Tasmania by around 1500 B.C. That represents the loss of valuable technologies: fish could have been smoked to provide a winter food supply, and bone needles could have been used to sew warm clothes.
 

Mock Turtle

Oh my, did I say that!
Premium Member
It mostly comes down to one thing: humans are unparalleled ecosystem engineers. Humans manipulate their environment to their own benefit at the expense of everything that gets in their way; they are tremendously destructive to ecosystems they exist in to rebuild them to their own ends. When this was coupled with tool use that this ecosystem engineer got truly out of control to the detriment of the biosphere. Successful? Sure, at kicking off a sixth mass extinction event. I don't call that successful, personally.
Can hardly argue, since we do seem to be destroying that which enables us to survive, even if by lack of forethought than much else, but I doubt any other species has done any better.
 

Quintessence

Consults with Trees
Staff member
Premium Member
Can hardly argue, since we do seem to be destroying that which enables us to survive, even if by lack of forethought than much else, but I doubt any other species has done any better.

They have done better by virtue of not being ecosystem engineers.

The blessing and bane of ecosystem engineers is that they manipulate the environment to overcome the checks and boundaries on the species. This is what enables them to thrive, but it is at the expense of something else to a degree not seen in species that are not ecosystem engineers.

To use an example, let's consider squirrel dreys. When a squirrel builds its drey, it does not demolish your house to do so. It takes some leaves and twigs here and there and doesn't disturb that much of its habitat or yours. Then consider what humans do when they build their homes. It is routine for humans to demolish entire ecosystems, sundering forests to barren waste, and replacing it utterly with their own engineered ecosystem. That's what it means to be the pinnacle ecosystem engineer on this planet - it goes way, way beyond just doing what the species needs to survive.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
(Treat 'successful' how you like - not meaning better, more evolved or such - and of course some sectors of humankind are more 'successful' than others.)

Our journey - as I see it:

* We don't spend inordinate amounts of time feeding or sleeping (as so many other species do) - thus freeing up time for other things.
* We usually eat high value food (often developed by humans) and are quite capable of being omnivorous, unlike so many other species that are necessarily obliged to have one particular diet - thus being dependent upon such being available. And we became good at hunting other species or replacing such with farming. That is, we controlled our food supply.
* We have very useful hands/fingers/opposable thumbs so as to flexibly manipulate materials and construct things as we see fit. Also apparently useful for many other things.
* We developed bipedalism - which enabled the previous to become so valuable to us, apart from any other benefits - like being able to chase after and snare game.
* We likely have much greater intelligence and powers of thought so as to benefit from that which is materially available to us - and to be adaptable - like making clothing, using fire, developing technology and manufacturing, including a variety of things that often enable us to live in widely different habitats and environments, and to travel more easily to such places, or simply to make life easier for us. Also, perhaps we have evolved to value learned knowledge as much or more so than innate knowledge.
* We are quite flexible socially, in that we can cooperate in small groups, and much larger ones, these latter often having quite varied social structures but still being viable.
* We have developed complex speech and symbolic language so as to communicate more efficiently that knowledge we (some) have worked so hard to obtain, and no doubt our ability to vocalise a wide range of sounds enhanced such. Plus, we know the value of the knowledge that others might have, and where able, we integrate such into our knowledge base - this so often transcending generations.
* We have used our knowledge to extend our natural lives and to prevent death (from injuries or ill health) when previously this would not have been possible.
* We have been able to develop concepts, which may not have any physical existence, but which have value for us as to enabling or benefiting our societies, and hence prolonging our existence.

We might claim social structures as one in particular (which releases us from offspring-rearing duties, for example) but many other species do such. The same goes for tool use, but many species show this too. Another might be our morality, but many species also seem to display such, even if in a more primitive form. And against this, we have relatively long periods developing, and being vulnerable during such, before becoming contributing adults, unlike most other species.

So although it is obvious that many species are more powerful than humans, often have better senses, and can do much more than humans (flight and living underwater, for example), is it that we have fine-tuned the very best and most appropriate features so as to turn into the most successful of creatures - even if by accident? And no doubt it would be difficult to put any of these items into any order so as to say that one relied on any other's existence before coming to prominence. Look at any other species. One or more of these items will be missing such that they could never rival us as to taking our position, and likewise, we would never have made it as to being where we are now.

Or, one can opt for the God-designed explanation.
I credit digital watches.
A pretty neat idea...best ever.
 

Thief

Rogue Theologian
answering the op title directly......we have thumbs

and we are not afraid to use them
 

Mock Turtle

Oh my, did I say that!
Premium Member
They have done better by virtue of not being ecosystem engineers.

The blessing and bane of ecosystem engineers is that they manipulate the environment to overcome the checks and boundaries on the species. This is what enables them to thrive, but it is at the expense of something else to a degree not seen in species that are not ecosystem engineers.

To use an example, let's consider squirrel dreys. When a squirrel builds its drey, it does not demolish your house to do so. It takes some leaves and twigs here and there and doesn't disturb that much of its habitat or yours. Then consider what humans do when they build their homes. It is routine for humans to demolish entire ecosystems, sundering forests to barren waste, and replacing it utterly with their own engineered ecosystem. That's what it means to be the pinnacle ecosystem engineer on this planet - it goes way, way beyond just doing what the species needs to survive.
I'm not sure every species recognises the sustainable notion of their food supply. Our main problem seems to be that we have been too successful, in population size, such that it will take a global effort to put right what we have been doing wrong. We are sold 'the dream' - some at least - and the endless growth that comes with such, until it comes around to bite us - as so many these days are warning us. This just recently:

Humanity on course for 'mass extinction event', global ecological study warns
Animals that went extinct in 2020 and ones that could disappear after 2021
Underestimating the Challenges of Avoiding a Ghastly Future
 
Top