Nine human species walked the earth 300,000 years ago. About 10,000 years ago, they all disappeared except for the human species we know. Was he the cause of the extinction of the other species?
By: Nick Longrich, Senior Lecturer, Palaeontology and Evolutionary Biology, University of Bath
The article was published on Theconversation website
(Note: the term "sixth mass extinction" or anthropogenic extinction is happening these days, all the time many species of animals and plants are disappearing, as a result of human activity)
Nine human species walked the earth 300,000 years ago. Now there is only one. The Neanderthals, Homo neanderthalensis, were hunters adapted to the cold steppes of Europe. The Denisovans inhabited Asia at the same time, while the more primitive Homo erectus lived in Indonesia, and Homo rhodosiensis in central Africa.
A few short-lived, small-brained species survived alongside them: Homo naldi in South Africa, Homo lozenges in the Philippines, Homo florensis ("hobbits") in Indonesia, and the mysterious Red Deer Cavemen in China. Given the speed at which we are discovering new species, it is likely that more will be found.
About 10,000 years ago, they all disappeared. The disappearance of these other species is similar to a mass extinction. But no obvious environmental catastrophe has been recorded that could have caused it such as volcanic eruptions, climate change or an asteroid impact. Instead, the timing of the extinctions suggests they were caused by the spread of a new species, which evolved 260,000-350,000 years ago in southern Africa: Homo sapiens.
The spread of modern humans out of Africa caused the sixth mass extinction, an event that has spanned over 40,000 years from the disappearance of Ice Age mammals to the destruction of rainforests by civilization today. But were other humans the first victims?
We are a uniquely dangerous species. We hunted woolly mammoths, sloths and other large animals until they were captured. We have destroyed plains and forests to use the land for agriculture, changing the face of over half the land area of the planet. We have changed the Earth's climate. But we were the most dangerous to other human populations, as we competed for resources and land.
History is full of examples of wars between nations over territory. From the destruction of Carthage by Rome to the American occupation of the West and the British colonization of Australia. Recently there have also been genocide and ethnic cleansing in Bosnia, Rwanda, Iraq, Darfur and Myanmar. Like using a language or a tool, the ability and tendency to engage in genocide is obviously an essential, instinctive part of human nature. There is no reason to think that the early Homo sapiens were less territorial, less violent, less tolerant - less humane.
The optimists depicted early humans as early hunter-gatherers and as peaceful and noble savages, and argued that our culture, not our nature, was the cause of violence. But field studies, historical accounts, and archaeological findings all show that warfare in primitive cultures was intense, penetrating, and deadly. Neolithic weapons such as clubs, spears, axes and bows, combined with guerrilla tactics such as raids and ambushes, were devastatingly effective. Violence was the leading cause of death among men in these societies, and the wars had higher casualty rates than both world wars (relative to the population).
Bones and artifacts at archaeological sites show that this violence is ancient. A 9,000-year-old Laknewick man from North America has a spear wound embedded in his pelvis. The 10,000-year-old Netaruk site in Kenya records the brutal slaughter of at least 27 men, women and children.
It is unlikely that the other human species were much more peaceful. The existence of cooperative violence in male chimpanzees suggests that war preceded the evolution of humans. Neanderthal skeletons show injury patterns consistent with warfare. But apparently sophisticated weapons gave Homo sapiens a military advantage. The early arsenal of Homo sapiens probably included weapons such as bayonets and spears, sticks and clubs.
Complex tools and culture could have helped us kill animals more efficiently as well as harvest plants, and these allowed us to feed larger tribes and give our species a strategic advantage in numbers.
The ultimate weapon
But cave paintings, carvings and weapons hint at something far more dangerous: a sophisticated capacity for thought and abstract communication. The ability to collaborate, plan, build a strategy, manipulate and deceive. These abilities were perhaps our ultimate weapon.
The incompleteness of the fossil record makes it difficult to test these ideas. But in Europe, the only place where a relatively complete archaeological record exists, fossils show that within a few thousand years of our arrival, the Neanderthals disappeared. Traces of Neanderthal DNA in some Eurasian people prove that Homo sapiens didn't just replace them after they went extinct. We met, and merged.
Elsewhere, DNA tells of other encounters with archaic humans. Groups in East Asia, Polynesia and Australia have Denisovan DNA. DNA from another species, perhaps Homo erectus, appears in many people in Asia. African genome shows traces of DNA from another archaic species. The fact that we interbred with these other species proves that they only disappeared after encountering us.
mass murder
But why would our ancestors exterminate their relatives and cause mass extinction - or, more precisely, mass genocide?
The answer lies in population growth. Humans reproduce exponentially, as do all species when they can. We have historically doubled our populations every 25 years. Once humans became cooperative hunters, we had no predators to control our numbers, and little family planning and few kills allowed large populations to exploit available resources.
Additional growth, or food shortages caused by drought, harsh winters or excessive consumption of resources will inevitably bring tribes into conflict over food and food territories. Warfare became the factor controlling population growth, perhaps the most important factor.
The extermination of our species was apparently not a coordinated and planned effort, but a war of attrition. The end result, however, was just as final. Raid after raid, ambush after ambush, valley after valley, modern humans destroyed their enemies and took their land.
However, the extinction of the Neanderthals, at least, took a long time - thousands of years. This was partly because early Homo sapiens did not lack the advantages of conquering later cultures: large numbers, supported by agriculture, and epidemic diseases such as smallpox, influenza, and measles that decimated their opponents. But the fact that they managed to last so long shows that they must have fought and won many battles against us, suggesting that they had a level of intelligence close to ours.
Today we look at the stars and wonder if we are alone in the universe. In fantasy and science fiction, we wonder what it would be like to meet other intelligent species, like ourselves. It is very sad to think that the intelligent species have disappeared because of our actions.
For an article in The Conversation
More of the topic in Hayadan:
Comments
Humans did exterminate all subspecies and did it on purpose. It is a bond of silence between archaeologists not to reveal findings and analytical analyzes that testify to this.
But because it is forbidden to say a bad word about men in our world, we simply call it "the human race".
In any case, the feminists were always right. The solution is feminism. Feminism = justice and reducing population.
In the last paragraph, "This was partly because the early Homo sapiens did not lack the advantages of conquering later cultures:" referring to the Neanderthals?
Human-humanity, it's a stupid meaningless word. proof? Here is a quote from above:
//The ability and tendency to engage in genocide is, obviously, an essential, instinctive part of human nature. There is no reason to think that the early Homo sapiens were less territorial, less violent, less tolerant - less humane.//
So why did they invent this word? What need did she come to replace? …
No
Wait, I think the British occupation of Oceania tried to exterminate the aborigines in Australia, it didn't work, the continent is huge and they know how to find water in the desert, but.
The British did exterminate other peoples in the region.
There was a nation of dwarves that was exterminated
Avi Cohen. Fewer resources does not mean less well-being. The waste today is so huge.
I notice a pattern forming here…
First of all, they convince us that the ecology is in danger because of human activity (homo species).
We are then told that we are destroying a wide variety of biological varieties and species.
After that we are also attributed the destruction of species and varieties in the past.
After we have created feelings of guilt, and shame for our actions, the next step is to create urgency to address the problem, if it is not addressed it will be too late and we must act immediately.
At first, taxes are imposed on destructive activities (where does the money go?), and then laws are enacted that limit destructive activities.
And these laws talk about reducing the population, reducing welfare since there are fewer resources, reducing living space, reducing economic activity, and reducing freedom of choice.
It is possible that we are guilty and it is possible that we are not, and it is possible that it is partially... but if we are the remaining species, maybe so that we do not exterminate it as well?
It is important to take care of the environment, but is this really what the Aganda is trying to do, or is it just an excuse to establish more and more dragon laws, a kind of spin?
Why am I saying this? Check the UN's agenda for 2030...
This is worth repeating again and again and again
because to prevent self-extinction,
To avoid a situation where Homo sapiens
will exterminate his environment and himself,
It is important that we reach a situation where
Where there was control over the environment
for the sake of the human population,
There will be control over the human population
For the environment!
It's all just a guess. There is no scientific basis for everything said.
How trendy….
Most of the species that disappeared from the face of the earth, disappeared even before man became a significant factor (after the use of tools for hunting and fire control began). In fact, three quarters of the species and varieties that survived the shock that destroyed the dinosaurs 63 million years ago became extinct, regardless of the human race.
These are natural processes and man is not the significant factor in the change of species on earth.
Also, the extinction of other human species is not necessarily related to violent phenomena, and in the case of the Neanderthals there is evidence that we carry a certain percentage of Neanderthal remains in ourselves because there was mixing between the races. It is clear that there were wars between tribes and races over resources, but it is possible that climate change eliminated the Neanderthals' main food source and that is why they did not survive - does not fit the agenda of the author of the article, so why mention it.