http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4729050.stm

Maybe our early evolution wasn't driven by the fact we were hunters, but that we were the hunted. Scientists propose that being a prey for larger predators stimulated cooperation between individuals.


Instead, they argue, early humans were on the menu for predatory beasts.

This may have driven humans to evolve increased levels of co-operation, according to their theory.

Despite humankind's considerable capacity for war and violence, we are highly sociable animals, according to anthropologists.


He points to the example of one ape-like species thought to be ancestral to humans, Australopithecus afarensis.

A. afarensis was what is known as an "edge species"; it could live in trees and on the ground, and could take advantage of both.

"Primates that are edge species, even today, are basically prey species, not predators," Professor Sussman explained.


Are we really the hunters we like to proclaim we are? Or were we on the receiving end and had to form a strong defense and cooperation and intelligence were one solution?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4729050.stm

Maybe our early evolution wasn't driven by the fact we were hunters, but that we were the hunted. Scientists propose that being a prey for larger predators stimulated cooperation between individuals.





Are we really the hunters we like to proclaim we are? Or were we on the receiving end and had to form a strong defense and cooperation and intelligence were one solution?
The truth of the matter, as it often does, lies on both sides of the debate. I've no doubt that it was influenced more, though, by being prey. The necessity of survival would certainly weed out the "dumber" genes quicker, in my opinion. ;)

This is news?

Anyway, does anyone else realize that meat-eaters don't eat other meat-eaters except out of desparation? The meat doesn't taste right, and for good reason. It contains more waste products from the processing of meat, and it is absent the nutrients contained in the intestines of a herbivore. Humans have to eat vegetables because we generally won't eat stomach contents of herbivores. Other predators have to either do the same, which many of them will, or eat the intestines, or both.

Predators do eat other predators given the oppertunity, it's proberly just that attacking something build for killing is not the easiest or smartest choise of pray.

How can something like this be proven?

It seems to me that it's sort of obvious. There are also other reasons for cooperation besides to fight big predators like limited resources, but it may have been the fundamental factor. Interestingly to me, it would seem that the dawn of religious thought would have been a consequence of the need for continued cooperation, to aid in the welfare of the tribe.

This is news?

Anyway, does anyone else realize that meat-eaters don't eat other meat-eaters except out of desparation? The meat doesn't taste right, and for good reason. It contains more waste products from the processing of meat, and it is absent the nutrients contained in the intestines of a herbivore. Humans have to eat vegetables because we generally won't eat stomach contents of herbivores. Other predators have to either do the same, which many of them will, or eat the intestines, or both.
(sigh) Yet more nonsense from the "great" Metakron.

As before, show proof of that - can you??

Incidentally, you stayed gone for a while (and it was nice, too - for us) and you should try it again. And it wouldn't hurt you to do some pretty basic studying while you're away.

That's plausable, although I reject the premise that hunting was ever the driving force in evolution (typical male-dominated bias). It's more likely that gathering led to (psychoactive plants which led to) the creation of symbolic language, which led to rapid mental evolution.