History's most important invention

[Fiddytree]

Is the howl of a coyote, or a honeybee dance an invention? These are communication methods developed by coyotes and honeybees.

Are we attributing our consciousness to what we build and why we do it? Communication, proper, may not be a creation, but the method by which we do it is. We consciously develop these things. We consciously develop visual representations of reality we consciously create written and non-verbal languages. Furthermore, invention does not need to be restricted to a physical object.

 

[NoC_T]

I think the obvious one is fire. But what's next?

Did we actually invent fire?

 

[Moot]

Language still isn't an invention, nor is writing. The tools may be.

Neanderthal Joe wasn't just sitting under the tree one day, and think to himself, "Hmmmm, I think if I could invent a language, it would revolutionize the world". Language evolved with the need to communicate.

Well, neccessity is the mother of all invention. Wouldn't making up symbols to represent language qualify as an invention?

 

[Moot]

Did we actually invent fire?

Good point. lol


We harnessed fire and from that we invented cooking food. Which meant early humans didn't need to spend so much time chewing....which caused the jaw to shrink making room for a bigger brain. And voila...modern human.

 

[NoC_T]

Good point.


We harnessed fire and from that we invented cooking food. Which meant people didn't need to spend so much time chewing....which caused the jaw to shrik allowing for a bigger brain. And voila...modern human.

I can't tell if you're kidding or not.

 

[SmokeAndMirrors]

The printing press.

Ok, I'm biased. But hear me out.

It's all well and good to be a smart critter and to make stuff. But humanity was destined to reinvent the wheel over and over again until we made a serious attempt at preserving knowledge.

One could say writing is a step towards that in itself, and it is, but it's a very meek step. Handwriting makes books incredibly expensive -- inaccessible to most people. It also limits their number and range, keeping them easily destroyed and confined within an area almost as much as oral tradition.

Printing made the dissemination of knowledge cheap and vast, and thus less susceptible to total destruction. It was the first real step towards a true, lasting body of human knowledge. Not rich people knowledge. Not village knowledge. Human knowledge.

 

[Moot]

I can't tell if you're kidding or not.

Well, I am laughing, but no I'm not kidding. There's credible evidence supporting the cooked food theory.

 

[JC Callender]

Did we actually invent fire?

By that I meant the ability to start our own fires.

 

[NoC_T]

Well, I am laughing, but no I'm not kidding. There's credible evidence supporting the cooked food theory.

Language and the opposable thumb prompted a more cerebral animal. Those stemming from the climatics created by the altered terrain. I can see that the configuration of the mandible would conform to an omnivorous diet, but it's unrelated to brain capacity.

By that I meant the ability to start our own fires.

I know it. I was indulging the douche within.

 

[Moot]

Language and the opposable thumb prompted a more cerebral animal. Those stemming from the climatics created by the altered terrain. I can see that the configuration of the mandible would conform to an omnivorous diet, but it's unrelated to brain capacity.

I dunno, the cooked food theory seems logical to me. After all, how could there be language without a bigger brain?


Cooking Up Bigger Brains: Scientific American

http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/2002/06.13/01-cooking.html

 

[joG]

I think the obvious one is fire. But what's next?

Intercourse?

 

[sawyerloggingon]

chain saws :lol:

 

[NoC_T]

I dunno, the cooked food theory seems logical to me. After all, how could there be language without a bigger brain?


Cooking Up Bigger Brains: Scientific American

It's interesting enough a theory after the fact, but it is after the fact. There would be no reason for dietary adaptation to result from nothing. The changes he suggests would only make sense following the requirements of a brain that was already changing. The family of primates affected wouldn't have begun eating to think. I'm also not convinced that such changes wouldn't be possible following something so simple as enzymic adaptation; the availability and range of food available having not been a problem for thousands of years previously. Your body will adapt to a low carb diet, and even starvation. The relative proportion of nutrients doesn't make much difference, given a constant terrain type and level of activity.

Language necessitated a larger, more complex brain, of course. But only as it related to the demand for such. Not the simple desire, which wouldn't arise.

 

[Cyrylek]

Money, hands down. It transformed mutually hostile bands of close-kin associates into societies united by the ability to serve mutual interests despite their natural diversity.

 

[spud_meister]

Rope and leather. Not only for BDSM, but also for domesticating animals, allowing a much higher agricultural surplus, traveling much further, and mobile warfare, which, as a side effect, lead to fortified, permanent structures.

 

[Moot]

It's interesting enough a theory after the fact, but it is after the fact. There would be no reason for dietary adaptation to result from nothing. The changes he suggests would only make sense following the requirements of a brain that was already changing. The family of primates affected wouldn't have begun eating to think. I'm also not convinced that such changes wouldn't be possible following something so simple as enzymic adaptation; the availability and range of food available having not been a problem for thousands of years previously. Your body will adapt to a low carb diet, and even starvation. The relative proportion of nutrients doesn't make much difference, given a constant terrain type and level of activity.

Language necessitated a larger, more complex brain, of course. But only as it related to the demand for such. Not the simple desire, which wouldn't arise.

What do you mean by "dietary adaption to result from nothing?" If cooking didn't start until around 500, 000 years ago then why weren't there any major dietary adaptions or major changes in the human body like there were 1.9 million years ago around the time of homo erectus ?


Harvard Gazette: Cooking up quite a story

"....Critics who say the early-cooking theory is half-baked attribute such changes to eating more raw meat. Those who preceded H. erectus, referred to as australopithecines, learned to make better stone weapons and to hunt bigger game. That living style, they insist, could have changed brain and body size.

Ah, but what about the teeth and jaws? Eating raw meat, even when sliced up by a keen stone knife, would result in sharp, spiky dentures, not smaller rounded teeth sculpted by eating softer food.

Then there's the big time gap. Australopithecines scavenged or hunted big game 2.5 million years ago, a half million years or more before H. erectus came on the scene. What happened during the gap? After the dramatic changes of 1.9 million years B.C., no remarkable body shifts took place until roughly 100,000 years ago. If cooking didn't begin until 500,000-250,000 years ago, why are there no prominent changes in face and shape like those that occurred 1.9 million years ago? .....read..."


Anyway, it's fun to think about. I also like the aquatic man theory. It explains why humans aren't covered in fur like other mammals.

 

[spud_meister]

It explains why humans aren't covered in fur like other mammals.

Clearly you've never seen a naked Greek.

 

[NoC_T]

What do you mean by "dietary adaption to result from nothing?" If cooking didn't start until around 500, 000 years ago then why weren't there any major dietary adaptions or major changes in the human body like there were 1.9 million years ago around the time of homo erectus ?

Why would there need to be? Cooking would make the food easier to digest, not more difficult.

Harvard Gazette: Cooking up quite a story

"....Critics who say the early-cooking theory is half-baked attribute such changes to eating more raw meat. Those who preceded H. erectus, referred to as australopithecines, learned to make better stone weapons and to hunt bigger game. That living style, they insist, could have changed brain and body size.

Ah, but what about the teeth and jaws? Eating raw meat, even when sliced up by a keen stone knife, would result in sharp, spiky dentures, not smaller rounded teeth sculpted by eating softer food.

Then there's the big time gap. Australopithecines scavenged or hunted big game 2.5 million years ago, a half million years or more before H. erectus came on the scene. What happened during the gap? After the dramatic changes of 1.9 million years B.C., no remarkable body shifts took place until roughly 100,000 years ago. If cooking didn't begin until 500,000-250,000 years ago, why are there no prominent changes in face and shape like those that occurred 1.9 million years ago? .....read..."


Anyway, it's fun to think about. I also like the aquatic man theory. It explains why humans aren't covered in fur like other mammals.

I'm still more inclined to subscribe to the more established theory. I don't quite see what the issue is. Clearly, early hominids were eating vegetation. Do we have a comparable baseline of how quickly vestigial remnants decline, in relation to more recent adaptations? We also have an appendix that hasn't yet disappeared.

 

[ChrisL]

Shoes.

 

[Higgins86]

birthcontrol

 

[Jredbaron96]

The Control Alt Delete Wand.

 

[ChrisL]

Anything to do with increasing our ability to communicate to a wide audience, such as television, radio, etc.

 

[Moot]

Why would there need to be? Cooking would make the food easier to digest, not more difficult.

I'm still more inclined to subscribe to the more established theory. I don't quite see what the issue is. Clearly, early hominids were eating vegetation. Do we have a comparable baseline of how quickly vestigial remnants decline, in relation to more recent adaptations? We also have an appendix that hasn't yet disappeared.

More calories are absorbed from cooked food than raw food which might help explain the drastic changes in the body ie: smaller stomach, smaller intestines, smaller jaw, smaller teeth, and the sudden jump in the size and fertillty of females....whereas there were no significant changes or adaptions in humans 500,000 years ago when cooking was supposedly invented and the diet drastcially changed. I find the evidence for the cooked food theory....compelling.

As for the appendix not disappearing....people seem to live quite well without them. For a long time they didn't know what the function of the appendix was but I think they finally figured it out.

 

[humbolt]

Lawyers. Calculus. We need calculus to determine lawyer's fees.

 

[NoC_T]

More calories are absorbed from cooked food than raw food which might help explain the drastic changes in the body ie: smaller stomach, smaller intestines, smaller jaw, smaller teeth, and the sudden jump in the size and fertillty of females....whereas there were no significant changes or adaptions in humans 500,000 years ago when cooking was supposedly invented and the diet drastcially changed. I find the evidence for the cooked food theory....compelling.

As for the appendix not disappearing....people seem to live quite well without them. For a long time they didn't know what the function of the appendix was but I think they finally figured it out.

The point being that it remains. It may be that the author overlooks the relative rate of such devolution.

Cooking requires no further development, hence the absence of any.