I’ve heard (I forget which of two sources it was so I can’t cite) that per anthropological theory, the Tasmanians had taken not a retrograde, but an alternative, approach—that there are two branches humans have taken in regard of technology.
One is to have a maximal technology base, growing as new ideas are learned and maintained down the generations by apprenticeship and later by writing. Even at the flints-and-shells stage this requires specialism to get things done expertly.
The other is to have a minimal technology base, one kind of pot, one kind of weapon, windbreaks instead of fire, and all made out of things that can be expediently rustled up from common materials when needed and casually discarded when not, and which can be taught without effort and without specialism. It means that the species can be scattered down to the least grouping, and lose nothing. It means the individual is complete, alone and naked. They can drop everything and recreate it afresh at need.
The Tasmanians (and to a lesser extent, the aboriginal Australians) took that path. It wasn’t some sort of massive technology fail. It was a different way to be successful.
FWIW the expedient technology route is the one taken by all other species that have any technology at all. A chimp drops his ant poking stick when he’s done poking the ants. It’s clearly capable of being an evolutionary success.
The Parlevar were wiped out entirely. Both species of chimp have an ICUN Red List status of Endangered. I would suggest that being wiped out or nearly so by competitive pressure brought to bear by close genetic relatives who took up a different strategy is not a marker of a strategy being an “evolutionary success”.
Inability to cope with technology maximizing societies is kind of a special case. It applies to basically ALL animals, birds, fish, plants, and even to other humans who decided on being expedient technologists. If you can’t call the Parlevar successful (“Before British colonisation in 1803, there were an estimated 3,000–15,000 Parlevar”—Wikipedia) then you can’t call any of the species successful that we wiped out or massively reduced.
I’ve heard (I forget which of two sources it was so I can’t cite) that per anthropological theory, the Tasmanians had taken not a retrograde, but an alternative, approach—that there are two branches humans have taken in regard of technology.
One is to have a maximal technology base, growing as new ideas are learned and maintained down the generations by apprenticeship and later by writing. Even at the flints-and-shells stage this requires specialism to get things done expertly.
The other is to have a minimal technology base, one kind of pot, one kind of weapon, windbreaks instead of fire, and all made out of things that can be expediently rustled up from common materials when needed and casually discarded when not, and which can be taught without effort and without specialism. It means that the species can be scattered down to the least grouping, and lose nothing. It means the individual is complete, alone and naked. They can drop everything and recreate it afresh at need.
The Tasmanians (and to a lesser extent, the aboriginal Australians) took that path. It wasn’t some sort of massive technology fail. It was a different way to be successful.
That theory is possibly the most elaborate sour grapes I’ve ever seen.
I don’t follow, care to explain?
FWIW the expedient technology route is the one taken by all other species that have any technology at all. A chimp drops his ant poking stick when he’s done poking the ants. It’s clearly capable of being an evolutionary success.
The Parlevar were wiped out entirely. Both species of chimp have an ICUN Red List status of Endangered. I would suggest that being wiped out or nearly so by competitive pressure brought to bear by close genetic relatives who took up a different strategy is not a marker of a strategy being an “evolutionary success”.
Inability to cope with technology maximizing societies is kind of a special case. It applies to basically ALL animals, birds, fish, plants, and even to other humans who decided on being expedient technologists. If you can’t call the Parlevar successful (“Before British colonisation in 1803, there were an estimated 3,000–15,000 Parlevar”—Wikipedia) then you can’t call any of the species successful that we wiped out or massively reduced.
“Before British colonisation in 1803, there were an estimated 3,000–15,000 Parlevar”—Wikipedia
That sounds kinda awesome in a “specialization is for insects” way, but at the end of the eon you’re still dying of appendicitis.
Nick Szabo discusses similar ideas here with regard to Polynesians.