[ 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: 920 KB, 1400x933, 1331371431_1.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5013520 No.5013520 [Reply] [Original]

What would happen if we removed all modern technological and societal advancement and raise a group of children completely in the wild, mammalia style, till the age of maturity(18). Would they survive left to themselves? How would they behave?

Have we lost some instinctual knowledge?
Can our bodies still survive the wild?

>> No.5013525

define 'in the wild'

>> No.5013531

>>5013525
In open forest or landscape not affected by technology, besides I guess, global warming.

We originated from the African Savannah, and environment like that.

>> No.5013537

>>5013531
living without technology would be impossible

>> No.5013552
File: 124 KB, 1024x682, 080301-7335-1024x682.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5013552

>>5013537
Not completely devoid of technology. They would still have a really developed brain, whatever they could come up with for themselves.

Maybe they would reinvent certain basic tool, like weapon, which could be as simple as a rock they can throw at prey.

>> No.5013556

>>5013537
Of course not.
Humans have existed before we invented technology.

>> No.5013560

>>5013552
are they alone, lord if the flies style, or are adults raising them? is so do they use fire and have clothes?

the scenarios a bit vague... basically I think they would have a good chance at survival and the culture that emerged would be heavily influenced by the landscape and the wildlife around

>> No.5013562

If you raise them well, sure.

>> No.5013566

>>5013556
>>5013556
[citation needed]

technology includes fire, clothes, hunting and foraging tools

>> No.5013570

>>5013560
Yeah, I can of thought there would be some difficulty developing this scenario.

Adults would be raising them, but in a manner much like grape apes raise their children, something devoid of modern society.

No language, no technology, no cultural influence.

>> No.5013576

Prolly not.

We've spent a very long time adapting our environment to us, and therefore not needing to adapt to our environment. We really are unsuited to living in the wild.

Also, consider that every mammal has at least some instruction on how to survive from its parents. Mammals, by nature, are a more learned behavior, and less instinctual behavior creatures when compared to say, reptiles or insects. It's one of the reasons we have trouble releasing animals born in captivity into the wild.

>> No.5013581

>>5013570
there would still be cultural influence

ideas and skills would still be communicated non verbally

>> No.5013591

>>5013556

Not modern humans. By the time humans in our current forms showed up we already had fire, clothing, and pretty advanced stone and wood tools. Also, primitive people living in any given place have a tremendous knowledge of their surroundings and the techniques needed to survive, which they teach their children. No group of modern humans has ever simply had to live on its own without learning anything of survival from previous generations.

>> No.5013601

Yes, here.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feral_Children

>> No.5013606

>>5013566
All of which require Humans as a prerequisite (except for natural fire)

>>5013591
True, but then even ancient Humans have been able to benefit from the skills and technologies of their parents and their society.
We do the same, but ours skills and technologies are far more advanced.

>> No.5013608

>>5013520

It has nothing to do with having lost "instinctual" knowledge. In transitioning to agricultural and industrial societies we've lost real knowledge that took thousands of years to acquire. There's youtube videos (too laz to find them now) of tribesmen in New Guinea starting fire using a kit they keep on them, almost as fast as a person can pull a matchbook out of his pocket and light one. This is not something they figured out during a few years or even decades of trial-and-error, but many, many lifetimes.

>> No.5013618

>>5013606

"True, but then even ancient Humans have been able to benefit from the skills and technologies of their parents and their society.
We do the same, but ours skills and technologies are far more advanced."

Sorry, I should have been clearer, I meant no group of anatomically modern humans. The point I was trying to make is basically the same as what you say. No group of anatomically modern humans has had to survive on its own without inheriting a tremendous wealth of survival knowledge from previous generations.

>> No.5013628

They wouldn't be able to survive. This isn't because of the lack of technology though, it's because humans are too dependent on elders in their infancy and young childhood in order to survive on their own. They'd have to have someone to take care of them at first, and that would inevitably introduce these kids to a culture, which would of course ruin the experiment.
However, if we disregard that, humans do have quite a lot of instincts, which are actually what's mainly managing our behavior. My bet would be that these kids would gradually develop an own culture. They'd probably be tribal hunter-gatherers. A completely new language would possibly emerge.

>> No.5013642

>>5013576
>Implying any significant evolution has happened to the human race during the last 10000 years
Mind you that there also still are people around living in complete isolation from civilization. It wouldn't be impossible at all.

>> No.5013646

>>5013628

Technology would have a lot to do with it. Some areas are less hospitable than others so the importance of technology varies. One thing you have to keep in mind is that if you took a group of people living in the modern world (adults, kids, whatever) and plopped them down in a wilderness, let's say in New Guinea, the technology and survival techniques they would develop, even within several generations, would be an absolute joke compared to the technology humans indigenous to those areas have, which have been developed and refined over thousands of years.

>> No.5013667

>>5013646

Lel

I disagree with that. Most Africans didn't even have the wheel before white people showed up.

>> No.5013688

>>5013642

Take the average American and compare him to early homo sapiens and tell me non optimal traits haven't been selected for

>asthma
>diabetes
>myopia
>allergies
>irritable bowel syndrome
>various food intolerance
>autism

We may not have mutated to a great degree, but you cant deny that many gene expressions have become more common without a weeding out process.

>> No.5013704

>>5013667

Yeah, I guess if people from industrialized society were plopped down in a jungle we would find ways to reproduce some of the technology we're used to, maybe even re-create a modern, technological world entirely if there are enough engineers, doctors, etc. present in the group. So when I said the techlogoly we would develop would be a joke I wasn't saying modern technology is a joke compared to that of primitive groups, I really meant the technology we'd develop over a relatively short period of time if we had to basically start from scratch. Though even with the knowledge we have, I doubt we'd live nearly as comfortably in a wilderness as primitive people do. We'd find a surprising amount of our stuff useless, the wheel being an example. In mountainous jungles in central Africa or New Guinea we wouldn't get enough use out of it to be worth making them.

>> No.5013726

>>5013688
>>5013704
>>5013646
Note that OP didn't specify where this group of children would be taken from. They could be from where ever around the world, not necessarily the western world. The main thing is that they wouldn't have any access to our current technology and have to do everything from scratch.
Also, were talking about children here. They're much more adaptable than adults, which would be huge advantage compensating for their lack of knowledge.

>> No.5013767

>>5013726

Well, if they're starting from scratch, I guess it doesn't matter where in the world they're from. By children, how old do you mean? I think a better scenario is if you take adults and basically raise them in captivity without any education or survival knowledge other than language and such, then release them into the wild at like 18 and see how they do. Then they might stand a chance in an area with abundant food and fresh water and mild weather. But, like, a group of toddlers? No chance at all.

>> No.5013799

>>5013704

We would adapt and freeze our childish and fearful mentalities and adopt a, 'do or do not' philosophy.

Focus not in the past or future, but put work into the present.

>> No.5013800

>>5013520
>mamallia style
Need more information. You see .. humans /are/ mammals, and thus however we raise our children now /is/ mammallia style.

>> No.5014025

>>5013601

Legitimate cases of feral children (which are very few and far between among semi-feral or hoaxes) are clearly exceptions to the rule. Over the last few centuries, how many children have survived a year or more on their own in the wilderness? A few dozen, maybe? How many have died quickly after becoming lost or abandoned? Thousands? Tens of thousands? Sure, it's possible for children to survive a long time in the wild. A lot of things are possible. In most cases something very unusual would have to happen, like an animal caring for a child when under normal circumstances it would attack or ignore him/her.

>> No.5014084

The average man's bench press increases 3x when given 3 to 4 months in a gym.

After a few months, the average man can deadlift 500 pounds and bench around 300 pounds, and can run quickly and for a long time.

Exercise also increases cognitive ability significantly, as does diet.

As for the average person that is not healthy (aka almost everyone, including 'skinny people) well...

>> No.5014090

>>5013520
We know the answer. Just look at modern and past hunter-gatherer societies.

>> No.5014105

>till the age of maturity(18)

Adulthood's when you can create children which would be around 12 for boys and girls.

>> No.5014144

>What would happen if we removed all modern technological and societal advancement and raise a group of children completely in the wild, mammalia style, till the age of maturity(18).

How would we raise them? Would we teach them language? You're not mentioning any details on who would raise them and how. If they were left into the wild as infants, no they normally wouldn't survive (atlghough there were a few exceptional cases of ferals which did).

>Have we lost some instinctual knowledge?
We still use some. Civilisation works on stifling instincts and controlling them very tightly within a strict paradigm of punishment and reward, since we are born.

>Can our bodies still survive the wild?
I think so, but maybe there is one exception. Unless we would live in a particularly mild weather environment, we would need some clothes of any kind. As long as language is learned we will develop other technologies again, gradually. We would just exercise the same instinctual bases differently than if we lived modernly.

>> No.5014153

>>5013520

Most of the children would die on their own. We are a species that survives on the ability to cooperate very well. Left alone we are defenseless.

The neanderthals were a species of homo that were considerably "human" that were much stronger and some somewhat smarter than us that did live solitary lives. Until we killed them. Strength in numbers wins every time

>> No.5014168

>>5014153
Yep, idiocy won and always wins. In fact, it's more complex than that. You just make sure you have a minority of innovators who keep trickling down their inventions to other social strata which just copy them. I believe something similar happened to Neanderthals. The Sapiens homos stole their inventions and did what they knew best: copy them and trade them, use the "power of numbers".

We still do this. We use the ideas of very few bright people to sustain a large herd of idiots who live on other people's discoveries and ideas.

>> No.5014298

>What would happen if we removed all modern technological and societal advancement and raise a group of children completely in the wild, mammalia style, till the age of maturity(18).
What do you mean, "mammalia style"?
>Would they survive left to themselves?
IDK
>How would they behave?
IDK
>Have we lost some instinctual knowledge?
since when?
>Can our bodies still survive the wild?
yes, survivalists and primitive cultures demonstrate this every day

>> No.5014389
File: 227 KB, 1600x1200, 31419_1600x1200-wallpaper-cb1332857131.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5014389

>>5013800
>>5014144
>>5014298
By mammalian style, I mean something along the lines of how Chimps or Horses raise their young.

I know human children are very fragile and take long time to develop. Essentially they would be raised to the age of maturity. Where they would be heavily dependent on their parents through out.

This is kind of problematic to the experiment though because they might learn some survival tactics from their parents. As long it is nothing advance, like hunting tools. Using feeding patterns of wild great apes.