[ExI] Technology, specialization, and diebacks...Re: I, love the world. =)

[lists1 at evil-genius.com]

On 11/11/10 4:00 AM, extropy-chat-request at lists.extropy.org wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 9, 2010 at 10:21 PM,<lists1 at evil-genius.com>  wrote:
>> >  The fact people forget is that late Pleistocene hunter-foragers had larger
>> >  brains than post-agricultural humans! ?(And were taller, stronger, and
>> >  healthier...only in the last 50 years have most human cultures regained the
>> >  height of our distant ancestors.)
> By comparison the Apple IIc I had when I was ten years old was more
> than twice as powerful as the computer i'm currently using to type
> this email.  Perhaps fossil evidence shows a larger brainbox but can
> say nothing about the neural density / efficiency of the brain
> contained therein.  Are you suggesting that a sperm whale is 5x
> smarter than the average human only because of its larger brain?

I believe you mean "more than twice as large" (not "twice as powerful"), 
so I'll address that point.

The comparison is between late Pleistocene hunter-foragers, of 
10,000-40,000 years ago, and the post-agricultural humans that were 
their immediate descendants.  Claiming that their brains were 
substantially different in "neural density/efficiency" requires 
substantial justification (that appears nowhere in the scientific 
literature).  Comparing them to a sperm whale is simply specious.

McDaniel, M.A. (2005) Big-brained people are smarter: A meta-analysis of 
the relationship between in vivo brain volume and intelligence. 
Intelligence, 33, 337-346
http://www.people.vcu.edu/~mamcdani/Big-Brained%20article.pdf
Even if you don't buy that argument, it will be difficult to claim that 
a slightly bigger brain made our immediate ancestors *dumber*.

The anatomically modern human was selected for by millions of years of 
hunting and foraging.  (Orrorin, Sahelanthropus, and Ardipithecus -> 
Homo sapiens sapiens)  Any subsequent change due to a few thousand years 
of agricultural practices is sufficiently subtle that it hasn't affected 
our morphology -- and, in fact, we're still arguing over whether it exists.

My point stands: intelligence must have been not just valuable, but 
*absolutely necessary* for hunter-foragers -- otherwise we wouldn't have 
been selected for it.  (Brain size of common human/chimp/bonobo 
ancestors: ~350cc.  Brain size of anatomically modern humans: ~1300cc.)