[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 1.93 MB, 284x233, 1281069446485.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2633734 No.2633734 [Reply] [Original]

When a child is born it has no knowledge of anything. In fact it reacts only to instinct. So lets say we toss a baby on an island with a couple other babies with no contact from any modern society or anything. When these babies grow, in theory won't they be simple neanderthals?

>> No.2633737
File: 59 KB, 633x480, 600 babies.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2633737

they would all die because they are goddamn babies

>> No.2633740

>When these babies grow, in theory won't they be simple neanderthals?

They die. Most likely in under 3 days.

>> No.2633745

They'd probably die. Assuming they live, they'd just be uneducated humans, not Neanderthals...

>> No.2633741

They will be dead.

>> No.2633742

They'll be severely stunted due to lack of crucial parental contact, nurturance, and protection. In fact, it's unlikely they'll survive.

>> No.2633747

They'll be dead neanderthals because they would have certainly swallowed something poisonous if not starved to death.

>> No.2633749

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feral_child

>> No.2633751
File: 23 KB, 393x375, 1299061243485.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2633751

>>2633740

>They die. Most likely in under 3 days.

Moar like 3 hours if they are n00born.

>> No.2633752

They would die. As would any other mammal.

>> No.2633755

>>2633751
OP didn't stipulate that they were newborns, so I was giving him the benefit of the doubt and gave the best scenario.

>> No.2633792

>>2633749
>>2633749
This, with the note that half the stories of feral children are bullshit.

But the real ones? Well, go read the article for yourself.

Also, they wouldn't be "neandertals", as that is a genetically extinct lineage.

>> No.2633790

wait a second, i know the answer to this one

enemas

babies can't even survive without'em

>> No.2633798

>>2633749
key word there is "child"

no feral babies

>> No.2633802

>>2633755

Yeah I know, wasnt attacking you or anything bro. Not everyone on 4chan has insta-hostility.

>> No.2633814

>>2633734
>instincts

>> No.2633818

>>2633814
>implying humans have none

>> No.2633824
File: 13 KB, 293x236, fuckyeah.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2633824

>Ivan Mishukov (1998). Found near Moscow, raised by dogs for two years, and had risen to being "alpha male" of the pack.[32

ALPHA AS FUCK

>> No.2633829

>>2633824
Awesome.

>> No.2633831

It depends OP. In the case of feral children something almost miraculous happened - they were adopted by packs of wolves. This is how they survived and how they learned to walk mostly on 4 feet.

To answer your question, they wouldn't be neanderthals. Tehcnically they'd stilll be sapiens sapiens but if they don't develop as humans, they're not going to have human abilities, like articulated language and so on. Also, most probably they'd be uninhibited from using aggression to grab food or fuck.

I\'d kinda like to see such an experiment, but unforuntaley they won't allow it.

>> No.2633836
File: 18 KB, 385x383, babby_156.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2633836

they will all become this

>> No.2633840

>>2633824
That means he gaines "access" to all the females.

Which has unfortunate implications.

>> No.2633848

>>2633824
Nope, that wasn't a feral child. He fled the home when he was 4 year old and was later brought back and schooled.

>> No.2633850

>>2633840
It's uncertain whether he would have any interest. Dogs raised with humans aren't automatically "into" sex with people.

>> No.2633856

>>2633831
bromrade, did you see this post>>2633824

every experiment you want to do but "is not allowed" has already been done by russia

>> No.2633858

>>2633848
Well, the first 4 years of socialization would be a huge help later on, but still...

It certainly isn't any *better* as far as reintegration goes if he didn't have that.

>> No.2633866

>>2633850
what are you retared? of course they are.

>> No.2633869
File: 137 KB, 444x456, alpha.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2633869

>>2633824
pic related

>> No.2633870

>>2633866
Yeah, not really. They generally have to be trained into it. The normal instinctive cues aren't there.

For one thing, you smell wrong.

>> No.2633874

>>2633866
Dogfucker detected.

>> No.2633873

Assuming they manage to grow and survive, this still isn't really a "return to a natural state" (that is, natural as of thousands of years ago - sort of a cultural restart button) scenario, even if it could gravitate towards a similar one over generations. The children would be stunted even by the standards of our distant ancestors - care for children and extensive social interactions are as much an integral part of how our species work as bipedality. It's what we're built for.

>> No.2633878

>>2633873
This, humans without society aren't really human. Just like a single ant is only a shadow of what we mean by "ants". We're social animals.

>> No.2633887

>>2633856
Yeah man, I read it, but this >>2633848
is my reply.

>> No.2633891

First off, it isn't reverse evolution. There are no extra-genetic components for the children to refer to, but I believe that you are underestimating the amount of information stored in our genes. A single chromosome contains as much information as 4000 books (the average book has 500 pages). Also, we humans have an extraordinary capacity for verbal language in that our anatomy caters to it. We are one of the only beings that can use our mouths for eating speaking, and breathing.

So, to answer your question, if we assume that the babies survive because they are being magically given foodstuffs and/or being taken care of by an invisible parent, it is reasonable to assume that the children could develop a rudimentary form of verbal communication (if it is necessary). Depending on the resources of your island, they might begin to make simple tools (again, if necessary). So no, they wouldn't be simple Neanderthals. Our brains are much more developed than that.

>> No.2633892

>>2633836
All aboard for babby Island.
Hey what if the babies were raised by bonobos?

>> No.2633903

>>2633878
Well, that isn't necessarily a bad thing. You can be actually better than humans and live separately. Most humans are shit, after all. Learn some language, grab some technology and set up your own base outside the species and do some unethical research ;) ;)..

>> No.2633904

>>2633892
I'm unsure of whether the bonobos would feed them.

>> No.2633907

>>2633878
but... society doesn't exist. there are only individual humans.

>> No.2633916

>>2633824
Would that mean that even wild dogs recognize higher intelligence?
DOES THAT MEAN that in the Animal world brains are just as important as brawn? FUCKING ANSWER ME PEOPLE

>> No.2633913

>>2633903
>You can be actually better than humans and live separately.
>proceed list the benefits of society, culture and education
You're a moron.

>> No.2633908

>>2633850
Then he wasn't an alpha wolf, since that's the "breeding rights" position.

>> No.2633911
File: 32 KB, 400x302, AB8527.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2633911

They're usually called blacks, bro.

>> No.2633919

>>2633907
>ant colonies don't exist, there are only individual ants
cool story bro

>> No.2633921

>>2633737
>they would all die because they are goddamn babies

I found this to be hilarious, mostly because of the "they are goddamn babies" bit.

>> No.2633923

>>2633916
We're the dominant species on this planet. We didn't do it by using our teeth.

>> No.2633928

>>2633848
>run away from home as a 4 year old
>encounter a pack of wolves, instead of getting eaten, become their master
>go train with the wolves for 2 years because fuck society,

that makes him even more awesome. I think we should call him Courage Wolf Kid

>> No.2633930

>>2633824
lol he was fucking all the bitches (literally) in the pack. gross bro

>> No.2633931
File: 7 KB, 273x537, morality.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2633931

>>2633903

>> No.2633936

>>2633923
But thats not what I'm asking. I'm saying, do dogs know who is the smartest one in their pack? Ie. can they recognize different levels of intelligence? I doubt the kid got alpha by biting the dogs.

>> No.2633946

>>2633919
do "ant colonies" exist without each individual ant?

Each individual ant exists without the colony. That's like saying a "crowd" exists without the individual people. The word "crowd" or "society" are conceptual labels for large groups of individuals.

>> No.2633950

>>2633930
Yeah, probably not.

He lived on the streets of Moscow for two years (4 to 6-ish) after running away from his abusive parents. He begged and rummaged for scraps, which he shared with a pack of stray dogs. They protected him and kept him warm in return. He was apparently their "leader". He was the source of food, after all. Dogs naturally form heirarchies based on food control.

>> No.2633957

>>2633946
I understand this. But you seem to think you have something to contribute that I didn't already know.

In case we're losing focus, I think
>>2633903
is stupid.

>> No.2633959

>>2633913
WHich part of the learn some language and grab some tech didn't you understand? I mean, most people don't contribute to human culture, they are parasites to others' creativity. And guess what, the creative have always been marginalised and lived isolated lives on the edge of society.

~Aristotle: those who live outside society are either beasts or gods

Nietzsche: a philosopher is both a beast and a god.

Read some. ;) moron. Big culture was mostly the product of marginalised exceptional individuals who basically refused to adopt society's norms. You didn't understand what I wrote and somehow I still don't think you do.

>> No.2633975

>>2633959
LOL
You gain all the benefits of society, with its history, culture, education, and technology, and then use it to proclaim how "superior" you are over that same society.

It's like standing on top of skyscaper and boasting about how tall you are.

>> No.2633984

>>2633936
The alpha bit is likely bullshit. It's not like wild wolves keep on fighting for dominance, the "alpha" position is strictly familial. We used to believe wolves fight for the "alpha" position because that's what we saw in captivity when we brought different wolves together.

But science marched on since then, and we now know wolf packs in the wild have a very stable social structure - the "alpha" is simply the father of the pack (note that packs are rarely larger than a dozen - they're basically nuclear families!), and young wolves overwhelmingly tend to leave and start their own packs rather than challange their parent.

>> No.2633992

>>2633975
Nope, compared to other fatasses I can justify my existence by trading my own contributions with those who are just as capable. But why would I do that with those who only exist to push papers, consume and spawn.

Most are like this, the creative types are usually treated like shit in real life, so they take solace in their creations.

>> No.2633997

>>2633992
*whooosh*

>> No.2634003

Op here. The idea of my question was if the brain would kind of do a uturn and revert back to a primitive state with out the interaction of society. These group of babies after magically being raised would have no language or knowledge on how a functional society works so wouldnt they just revert to instinct? ....fighting for food, raping to reproduce..

>> No.2634008

>>2633992
>>2633959
Pseudointellectual elitist hipsters? In my /sci/?

>> No.2634015

>>2634003
What the hell do you mean by "primitive state"?

We've been social animals for millions of years. Making an individual of a social species grow up in isolation isn't anything like a return to a "primitive" state. It's just broken.

>> No.2634036

>>2633984
[citation etc.]

>> No.2634043
File: 49 KB, 418x600, Im_kind_of_a_big_deal.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2634043

>>2633992
>the creative types are usually treated like shit in real life
>compared to other fatasses I can justify my existence

>>2633959
>marginalised exceptional individuals
>a philosopher is both a beast and a god.
>the creative have always been marginalised

This is a terminal case of USI.

>> No.2634053

>>2634003
You are forgetting that you are taught to interact with society for society. We are still concieved a human.

>> No.2634063

Human baby centipede

>> No.2634072

>>2634003
Your question seems to imply there was a point (that they'd "revert" to) at which our ancestors had both a modern human brain and no society, but that's simply not true. Civilization is a modern thing that we could lose and still remain human, but social interaction was integral to our species (and their ancestors) since before they were human. In fact, since before they were primates! There is no mechanism by which the brain could make such a leap backwards.

That being said, they'de be guided by instincts alright, but so are we.

>> No.2634090
File: 771 KB, 814x584, Constipated Whale.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2634090

>See "reverse evolution"
>Think it's a worthless troll thread
>See >>2634063
>Now it's a horrifying troll thread

>> No.2634095

>>2634036
Concise version: http://www.4pawsu.com/alphawolf.pdf

Otherwise, there's loads of literature on the subject, but it usually has a wider scope.

>> No.2634097

>>2634043
>>2634008
gtfo. i know what i'm talking and what i'm working on.

>> No.2634113

>>2634097
>gtfo. i know what i'm talking
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect

>and what i'm working on.
Oh really? Do tell.

>> No.2634153

>>2634113
I like Zimbardo's experiments better.

>> No.2634156

"Soemone woh intellecually arrives at atheism, styas there. Fro emxaple, most pepole clmai tehy unedrstand evloution, but few people raelly do. If you can go inot detail aobut evoluiton, and understand exactly hwo hominds aoruse from environmentla chganes, then you understand evloution adn, cosnequently, soon disrcda any siyll notoins of creatoinsim or "in G'ods Image".


I disargee btu can I haev your thougtsh on this please ?

>> No.2634166

>>2634153
I'm sure you do, but they don't cover the same topic.

>> No.2634195

>>2634153
It's easier for man with a large ego to "like" experiments that show "people are easily influenced" than ones that show "people who think they are above average generally aren't". You see, it's harder to pretend that the second one doesn't apply to you. Then cognitive dissonance and rationalization kick in.

But what you "like" is irrelevant. This is /sci/. The truth doesn't care whether you like it.