*controversial* Different kinds of Humans

[Dave]

warning this could be the weirdest or most offensive posting you ever read!

Do you guys think that there might be a domestic human that has adapted to city and home life and a outdoors human that is adapted to living in outdoor areas as a hunter gatherer warrior.

Sometimes I wonder this when comparing people in northern countries where they are forced to live in snowy areas they seem to be more quiet, more aware of how they look and most of those countries have been ones to show great technological advances.

As that famous statistic said, the closer to the equator you get the less inventions that are invented.


I think there may have been three ways that lead to this adaptation.

1. the farmers who became accustomed to living and innovating in one place.

2. The northerners who have to live in log cabins and in turn due to free time have to find things to do with their time and are forced to socialize more especially in the long winters.

3. the early city folk who by living in cities early on over long periods of time adapted to this.


One way I would say you can say that this is the case is Northern China vs the Phillipines.

In northern china these people who were farmers and also lived in cabins were forced to co-habitate with people since the population was small. The population was small this was the key.

So what happened is in China they had villages for a long time since when the population count was low slowly the people who could survive city life remained and had kids.

In the Phillipines the growth of large cities was rapid and out of nowhere from when the invaders came like (spain) you took these hunter gatherers not used to it or adapted and put them in a city. The population explosion is so short that you don't have time to adapt to city life, not the hundreds of years other populations had.


You can see this in many places, the area where the population had long had civilization continue to have more stable populations, while areas that were made civilized might have not had the filtering process of killing off people who were better off as hunter gatherers.

In some places like say Italy, they brought in many immigrants and promoted the warrior behavior so you get people mixed in from other regions you get more riots, more gangs probably from a higher case of Warrior gene.

I know this sounds a bit crazy, but I think we might be hurting small populations by giving them technology and means for rapid population growth because then those people with the warrior genes who would normally have not been able to make it end up surviving and even being the criminals and gang members. It's said that people with "warrior genes" are more likely to be in a gang.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31128684...and_parenting/
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0605123237.htm

read up on the warrior gene.

I'm certainly not claiming this as fact, merely an idea/theory I thought up the other day which I think would more likely be what people in the days of Darwin would come up with to explain our differences


some countries that had un-natural rapid population growth
Russia
Brazil
Congo
South Africa

so I think it's not that the people are different, they might just have a higher rate of "warrior genes" that are more useful in a different environmental setting, that cause crime.

[Magavariko]

"Extra" resources and "free time" is the key, or one of them. The other is culture transmision: Inventive spirit is common among all humans, but if you were living in places close to cultural transmision corridors (the warm eurasian zone) you'd get it easier. Aztecs, mayans and incas were very inventive cultures, but they were out of the "X" zone; they had an impressive architecture, fantastic maths...but they had no wheel, no iron, and a few domesticated vegetal and animal species.

BTW, the presence of slaves in Egypt was testimonial. At least till the graeco-roman period.

[Masahiroguren]

Havent you notice that over 70% habitable landmass of Earth is above equator? And 90% people who live under it are either immigrants or recently mixed population?

I do not think city life has a big deal to adapt to, just much more annoyances.

[Dave]

what I think happened with the Mayas, Incas, and Aztecs is the populations that were not city based in Mexico and south america got bigger than the city based ones once they were all introduced to modern life.

The Mayans did a lot of inventing, they invented the number 0, high math systems, astronomy, but their culture was destroyed and all the books burned, not just the religious, but math science and historical books. They even had the wheel, but they only used the wheel for toys.

http://www.atoda.com/amerindian/art/wheel3670.jpg these stupid toys they could have made better use of it, a few more years and they would figure it out.

[Multilingual]

Genetics could be involved. Those ethnic groups that have a long history of large scale civilization would have eliminated the genes unfavorable for a modern society, and vice versa favored genes for it. But I think it's mostly cultural. For example, many Filipinos in the USA do quite fine. They are mostly middle-class with professional careers, most have college education, and are in general good citizens. If a culture can evolve with the times, then the people should do just fine.

By the way, many parts of the Philippines were not hunter-gatherer societies. There were already kingdoms such as the Rahjanate of Butuan, Rahjanate of Cebu, Kingdom of Maynila, Kingdom of Tondo, Kingdom of Namayan, Confederation of the Madyaas, the Sultanate of Sulu, Sultunate of Maguindanao, and the Ifugao region. These kingdoms traded throughout the country, and also to China, Japan, Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand, Cambodia, India, Persia, and Micronesia. They didn't have buildings made of concrete or stone, but they were fairly good size polities. I guess it would be fair to say that the Philippines was not as advanced as Europe or some more advance areas of Asia. But they did have agriculture such as rice and root plants, livestock such as chicken and pigs, and aquaculture growing fish, crabs, and shrimp. They also had mining and metallurgy.

Here are just a few examples of the kingdoms:

The Kingdom of Butuan was an ancient Indianized kingdom in pre-colonial southern Philippines centered on the present Mindanao island city of Butuan. It was known for its mining of gold, its gold products and its extensive trade network across the Nusantara area. The kingdom had trading relationships with the ancient civilizations of China, India, Indonesia, Persia, Cambodia and areas now comprised in Thailand.[2]

The Confederation of Madya-as was a pre-Hispanic Philippine state within the Visayas island region. It was established in the 13th century by rebel datus (chiefs), led by Datu Puti, who had fled from Rajah Makatunao of Borneo. The semi-democratic confederation reached its peak during the 15th century under the leadership Datu Padojinog when it warred against the Chinese Empire, the Rajahnate of Butuan, and the sultanates of Sulu and Maguindanao. It was also feared by the people of the Kingdom of Maynila and Tondo.[1] It was conquered after the Spanish conquest in 1569 by Miguel Lopez de Legaspi and his grandson Juan de Salcedo

The Kingdom of Seludong (Saludung), or Maynila, which after colonization became Manila, capital of the Philippines, was one of three major city-states that dominated the area around the upper portion of the Pasig River before the arrival of Spanish colonizers in the 16th century.

The early inhabitants of the present-day Manila engaged in trade relations with its Asian neighbors as well as with the Hindu empires of Java and Sumatra as confirmed by archaeological findings. The name of the settlement in Majapahit documents is recorded as Saludung. Trade ties between China became extensive by the 10th century, while contacts with Arabs reached its peak in the 12th century.[1]

During the reign of Sultan Bolkiah (1485–1521) the Kingdom of Brunei decided to break the Tondo's monopoly in the China trade by attacking Tondo and establishing the city-state of Seludong as a Bruneian satellite. This is narrated through Tausug and Malay royal histories, where the names Seludong, Saludong or Selurong are used to denote Manila prior to colonization.[2]

The first two images below are from the Kingdom of Butuan, and the third image is a collection of jewelery from the Philippines 12th-15th. century

[amenoameno]

warning this could be the weirdest or most offensive posting you ever read!

Do you guys think that there might be a domestic human that has adapted to city and home life and a outdoors human that is adapted to living in outdoor areas as a hunter gatherer warrior.

Sometimes I wonder this when comparing people in northern countries where they are forced to live in snowy areas they seem to be more quiet, more aware of how they look and most of those countries have been ones to show great technological advances.

As that famous statistic said, the closer to the equator you get the less inventions that are invented.


I think there may have been three ways that lead to this adaptation.

1. the farmers who became accustomed to living and innovating in one place.

2. The northerners who have to live in log cabins and in turn due to free time have to find things to do with their time and are forced to socialize more especially in the long winters.

3. the early city folk who by living in cities early on over long periods of time adapted to this.


One way I would say you can say that this is the case is Northern China vs the Phillipines.

In northern china these people who were farmers and also lived in cabins were forced to co-habitate with people since the population was small. The population was small this was the key.

So what happened is in China they had villages for a long time since when the population count was low slowly the people who could survive city life remained and had kids.

In the Phillipines the growth of large cities was rapid and out of nowhere from when the invaders came like (spain) you took these hunter gatherers not used to it or adapted and put them in a city. The population explosion is so short that you don't have time to adapt to city life, not the hundreds of years other populations had.


You can see this in many places, the area where the population had long had civilization continue to have more stable populations, while areas that were made civilized might have not had the filtering process of killing off people who were better off as hunter gatherers.

In some places like say Italy, they brought in many immigrants and promoted the warrior behavior so you get people mixed in from other regions you get more riots, more gangs probably from a higher case of Warrior gene.

I know this sounds a bit crazy, but I think we might be hurting small populations by giving them technology and means for rapid population growth because then those people with the warrior genes who would normally have not been able to make it end up surviving and even being the criminals and gang members. It's said that people with "warrior genes" are more likely to be in a gang.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31128684...and_parenting/
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0605123237.htm

read up on the warrior gene.

I'm certainly not claiming this as fact, merely an idea/theory I thought up the other day which I think would more likely be what people in the days of Darwin would come up with to explain our differences


some countries that had un-natural rapid population growth
Russia
Brazil
Congo
South Africa

so I think it's not that the people are different, they might just have a higher rate of "warrior genes" that are more useful in a different environmental setting, that cause crime.

You idiot filipinos were not hunters and gatherers, but agricultural people.

---------- Post added 2011-03-01 at 17:08 ----------

We had agriculture long before the indo europeans. The rice terraces in Luzon are 4 000 years old.

[Masahiroguren]

I am still wondering why countries influenced by hinduism are those among the most backward countries, in not economically, at least morally.

[daraccount2]

How many Hinduism influenced countries are there sir?

[Dave]

I'm surprised no one is offended or really strongly disagreeing with me. I guess the example with the Philippines doesn't work, there are some concepts to this theory I need to think about.