A Human Paradox

[Manfred Belheim]

Over 200,000 years to leave Africa and less than half that time to reach the Moon. Something changed and I dont think it was population density or climate driving people to the ends of the world.

That's not a paradox!!!! There's nothing paradoxical about that. There's barely anything even noteworthy about it, other than for historical interest. There is nothing weird or strange in that whatsoever. You can't just insist that there is.

 

[Berzerker]

I hereby offer an alternative theory that does not require gods and aliens to be part of the story:

At some point in history, some men realized that childbirth is pretty painful. They already believed in a God, so of course it couldn't always have been like that, because why would God make them suffer needlessly? So clearly, there was a point in the past where childbirth was less painful, and women did something that prompted their almighty and fair God to punish them. This was accepted quickly, because men at that time had low opinions of women, and high opinions of their God, and thus, the myth was born.

Thats possible, but that would suggest the change was rather sudden, not some drawn out evolutionary response to gradual selective forces like bipedalism. And people certainly are capable of attributing bad things to a divine punishment, in this case though both man and woman (and serpent) were cursed.

Where are the alien artifacts? That means tangible items of off-world manufacture. Where are they? You're not offering anything at all that proves aliens were involved with these myths, or that anything even slightly supernatural had to do with changes in women's reproductive capabilities.

We've had this debate before, the "artifacts" are the myths. If we ever did find a spaceship I'd expect the finder to keep it under wraps, but the myths contain information "we" shouldn't have.

 

[Ryika]

That's not a paradox!!!! There's nothing paradoxical about that. There's barely anything even noteworthy about it, other than for historical interest. There is nothing weird or strange in that whatsoever. You can't just insist that there is.

Especially given that there have been at least 3 possible reasons for why the spread of humanity has seemingly stagnated for a long time. A "paradox" is pretty much defined by the fact that there is no way to "solve" it, as it defies logic in some way - this does not do that in any way.

Thats possible, but that would suggest the change was rather sudden, not some drawn out evolutionary response to gradual selective forces like bipedalism. And people certainly are capable of attributing bad things to a divine punishment, in this case though both man and woman (and serpent) were cursed.

No, why would it suggest that? The change itself likely happened long before the people who wrote it down first thought about the thing.

I mean, you can even imagine to have that discussion happen today, by members of a religion that has no mention of birth pain.

"My wife gave birth to our son last weekend. She screamed like she's about to die. Isn't that unfair? Why would God burden her with such a fate?"
"I don't know, man. But God is almighty, she probably has her reasons."
"But my wife never did anything wrong."
"I don't know, man, but it's a fate all women share, so maybe they did something that prompted God to do it."
"That's possible."
"Yeah. Remember that story about how God tolt Eva Braun to stop turning her friend into a twisted man? Maybe it's a punishment for that."
"I guess that's possible."

And thus they wrote a book how the Jews are responsible for the birth pain human females have to endure. The end.

 

[Berzerker]

That's not a paradox!!!! There's nothing paradoxical about that. There's barely anything even noteworthy about it, other than for historical interest. There is nothing weird or strange in that whatsoever. You can't just insist that there is.

As opposed to insisting there isn't?

You describe a situation as a paradox when it involves two or more facts or qualities that seem to contradict each other.

https://www.collinsdictionary.com/us/dictionary/english/paradox

Population density caused people to leave Africa after ~230,000 years. Why did our expansion greatly speed up when population density was lower for migrants? Thats the paradox...

 

[Ryika]

That's still not a paradox. It's just a situation where people behave differently from how we would expect them to behave based on the information we have. Nothing paradoxical about it, we are just missing information to explain it properly.

It's like saying: "Max ran down the street to buy a new game, but then as he was half-way there, he suddenly stopped and ran back home. That's a paradox - why would he stop?" - no, that's no paradox, he probably has a reason for turning around and returning home, we just don't know the reason that made him turn around. I happen to know the reason, it's because he forgot his purse. Silly Max.

An actual paradox would be if we looked at where humans spread and realized that they did not spread to any of the places that they should have had access to, and instead spread to all the places that they - by our standard of knowledge - should not have been able to reach. That would be in direct contradiction to the information we have.

 

[Berzerker]

the reason for leaving Africa was population density and it took 230,000 years to do it... That reason disappears once we left Africa but expansion didn't slow, it sped up... It took us 230,000 years to travel maybe 3-4,000 miles and about 50,000 years to travel 10x that distance.

 

[Senethro]

the reason for leaving Africa was population density and it took 230,000 years to do it... That reason disappears once we left Africa but expansion didn't slow, it sped up... It took us 230,000 years to travel maybe 3-4,000 miles and about 50,000 years to travel 10x that distance.

You don't know it was population density. You're just guessing.

 

[Berzerker]

Population density was the explanation multiple posters offered, I'm addressing their argument. If population density drove our expansion out of Africa then what drove our expansion beyond when population density decreased. Expansion didn't slow, it sped up...

 

[timtofly]

How is this relevant to anything I said?

You said I sit around and make stuff up. You claim the ancients just sat around and made stuff up. I don't and I seriously doubt the ancients did either. Then I am supposed to believe your word, that everything just happens slowly over time.

What's wrong with it is that you're claiming that the solar system isn't real, that some supernatural entity created it already 3 billion years old, and you seem utterly incapable of understanding why that's just nonsense. There's not a shred of evidence to support this, whereas there are plenty of fossils, archaeological sites, and the probes have been sending back information about the other planets and moons for decades.

You are also demonstrating that you don't understand that evolution and nature itself doesn't give a damn if humans exist or not. Sure, it worked out just right for us, because we're here and able to talk about it. It didn't work out all that well for the species that could have been in our place - able to to contemplate their own existence and understand how the universe began.

I never claimed it was not real. It is as real as all the speculations about it's existence. You accept way more assumptions and speculations than I do. You even assume there could have been another species that may have replaced us, and yet you have no proof of such a species. I fully understand the way you see things that exist. I even understand your proofs. They can just as easily exist in a closed system. I am just assuming the system is closed, as there is no proof either way.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

Over 200,000 years to leave Africa and less than half that time to reach the Moon. Something changed and I dont think it was population density or climate driving people to the ends of the world.

Try playing Civ. Even Civ I would help explain this "paradox."

It's called "discovering new technology and new ways in which it can be applied."

We've had this debate before, the "artifacts" are the myths. If we ever did find a spaceship I'd expect the finder to keep it under wraps, but the myths contain information "we" shouldn't have.

So if I went to an alien planet, told the natives the story of Goldilocks and the Three Bears, and then took off and made sure not to leave a single physical trace that I'd ever been there, that children's story would be ironclad proof that I'd been there, rather than some story that the natives themselves could easily have made up?

SERIOUSLY???

No. Artifacts are tangible, physical things. You're claiming a mentifact as an artifact, and they are not the same. Mentifacts are what people think and believe, and those are not physical.

You said I sit around and make stuff up. You claim the ancients just sat around and made stuff up. I don't and I seriously doubt the ancients did either. Then I am supposed to believe your word, that everything just happens slowly over time.

Ever hear of multi-tasking? Unless you're someone who can't walk and do anything else at the same time, I assume you're perfectly capable of making stuff up while you're sitting in a doctor's office. I admit I'm capable of doing that - I keep a notebook and pen in my purse to jot down any story ideas for whatever the next NaNoWriMo competition is that I plan to enter. Mind you, the difference is that I'm fully aware that I'm just making stuff up and that I don't expect my story to ever be found in the nonfiction section of a library. I would definitely be flabbergasted if, decades or centuries from now, someone found a copy of my story and started arguing about it the way we've been arguing about various myths.

I never claimed it was not real. It is as real as all the speculations about it's existence.

Of course you claimed it isn't real. The word you used was "artificial". Artificial things are things that are not real, not genuine, not authentic. You're trying to rewrite planetary science so that the solar system was zapped into existence already 3 billion years old.

That makes about as much sense as you being born as a 30-year-old adult (damn, I'd pity your mother!).

You accept way more assumptions and speculations than I do. You even assume there could have been another species that may have replaced us, and yet you have no proof of such a species. I fully understand the way you see things that exist. I even understand your proofs. They can just as easily exist in a closed system. I am just assuming the system is closed, as there is no proof either way.

Given a specific set of circumstances, there are many species on this planet that could take our place as the dominant species. And think back to the asteroid that hit Earth 65 million years ago; mammals were very small then, and managed to adapt to the new environmental conditions. What would the dominant species be if that asteroid had missed us? It's fun to speculate; maybe the dinosaurs would have continued to evolve, maybe the mammals would have ended up on top after all. Or maybe the birds (the dinosaurs' descendants) might have have evolved differently. For that matter, sea life or insects could be dominant by now. Yes, this is all speculation, and I'm not claiming proof for any of these possible scenarios.

I'm just trying to get you to understand that humans aren't here because we were "meant" to be here. We're here because:

1. We got lucky, in that our ancestors weren't wiped out by the asteroid.

2. We successfully adapted to new environments.

3. We got smarter and learned to use technology.

4. We figured out how to apply the technology to influence our own species' development.

None of the above can possibly be proof that some supernatural character in a story "meant" for any of this to happen.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

As opposed to insisting there isn't?

You describe a situation as a paradox when it involves two or more facts or qualities that seem to contradict each other.

https://www.collinsdictionary.com/us/dictionary/english/paradox

Population density caused people to leave Africa after ~230,000 years. Why did our expansion greatly speed up when population density was lower for migrants? Thats the paradox...

Where's the contradiction? You seem to be treating humans as gas particles and Africa as a leaky valve. You can't just say there's a critical population density above which people migrate and below which they don't. It's a bit more complicated than that. You haven't pointed out a contradiction so there's not much more I can do that say "that's not a contradiction".

 

[timtofly]

Or perhaps it was just a Genghis Khan or Alexander the Great spreading their genetic code on foraging expeditions?

Try playing Civ. Even Civ I would help explain this "paradox."

It's called "discovering new technology and new ways in which it can be applied."



So if I went to an alien planet, told the natives the story of Goldilocks and the Three Bears, and then took off and made sure not to leave a single physical trace that I'd ever been there, that children's story would be ironclad proof that I'd been there, rather than some story that the natives themselves could easily have made up?

SERIOUSLY???

No. Artifacts are tangible, physical things. You're claiming a mentifact as an artifact, and they are not the same. Mentifacts are what people think and believe, and those are not physical.



Ever hear of multi-tasking? Unless you're someone who can't walk and do anything else at the same time, I assume you're perfectly capable of making stuff up while you're sitting in a doctor's office. I admit I'm capable of doing that - I keep a notebook and pen in my purse to jot down any story ideas for whatever the next NaNoWriMo competition is that I plan to enter. Mind you, the difference is that I'm fully aware that I'm just making stuff up and that I don't expect my story to ever be found in the nonfiction section of a library. I would definitely be flabbergasted if, decades or centuries from now, someone found a copy of my story and started arguing about it the way we've been arguing about various myths.



Of course you claimed it isn't real. The word you used was "artificial". Artificial things are things that are not real, not genuine, not authentic. You're trying to rewrite planetary science so that the solar system was zapped into existence already 3 billion years old.

That makes about as much sense as you being born as a 30-year-old adult (damn, I'd pity your mother!).



Given a specific set of circumstances, there are many species on this planet that could take our place as the dominant species. And think back to the asteroid that hit Earth 65 million years ago; mammals were very small then, and managed to adapt to the new environmental conditions. What would the dominant species be if that asteroid had missed us? It's fun to speculate; maybe the dinosaurs would have continued to evolve, maybe the mammals would have ended up on top after all. Or maybe the birds (the dinosaurs' descendants) might have have evolved differently. For that matter, sea life or insects could be dominant by now. Yes, this is all speculation, and I'm not claiming proof for any of these possible scenarios.

I'm just trying to get you to understand that humans aren't here because we were "meant" to be here. We're here because:

1. We got lucky, in that our ancestors weren't wiped out by the asteroid.

2. We successfully adapted to new environments.

3. We got smarter and learned to use technology.

4. We figured out how to apply the technology to influence our own species' development.

None of the above can possibly be proof that some supernatural character in a story "meant" for any of this to happen.

By your logic, all human knowledge is suspect because it is derived by humans and thus artificial and not real. The only distinction I made was things just don't happen on their own, yet you continue to state that is the only way they can be real.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

By your logic, all human knowledge is suspect because it is derived by humans and thus artificial and not real. The only distinction I made was things just don't happen on their own, yet you continue to state that is the only way they can be real.

That's not what I said at all. Stop attributing your own claims to me. I have consistently favored the scientific method as the most reliable way we have of learning how the world works.

You're claiming a bunch of old stories as "knowledge." They're just made-up stories. There may be a few elements of truth in them; for example, the legend of Robin Hood (the one most of us are familiar with) mentions King Richard and King John, who are real historical figures. But we have been unable to definitively pin down the identity of Robin Hood, or determine if there ever was such a person.

You claimed that a supernatural being zapped the solar system into existence and that it was already 3 billion years old at the time of its creation, and so that meant it's artificial, ie. not real.

I just don't get why you don't understand how utterly absurd and ridiculous that is.

 

[timtofly]

The scientific method does not actually prove reality. It just confirms reality functions in a predictable manner.

 

[Hrothbern]

The scientific method does not actually prove reality. It just confirms reality functions in a predictable manner.

yeahhh
I like that one as most fundamental
and we are super addicted to predict and make up to our prediction

 

[Valka D'Ur]

The scientific method does not actually prove reality. It just confirms reality functions in a predictable manner.

It's more reliable than your made-up stories that basically require magic to work.

 

[Broken_Erika]

It's more reliable than your made-up stories that basically require magic to work.

You doubt the Divine Omnipotence of Brian the Cosmic Porcupine?

 

[Valka D'Ur]

You doubt the Divine Omnipotence of Brian the Cosmic Porcupine?

I don't even believe my cat most of the times she insists she's starving to death (her food dish is usually well-provisioned).

 

[timtofly]

It's more reliable than your made-up stories that basically require magic to work.

And like I said, you are still waiting for you vehicle to evolve over millions of years, instead of accepting the fact you can purchase a fully assembled one from a creator who is capable of given you a finished product.

And the only reason is because you say it is made up, and you do not believe there is something that can create a universe from nothing. You do not even accept like Berzerker that God already had obtained all the universal material from a universal materials producer.

And my guess is because other humans ruined the whole aspect of this God being. I accept the point that (to you) such a being is absurd and allegedly man made. Else you would not be able to reconcile the notion in your thought processes. Otherwise it also proves that some humans can evolve unable to accept this God, and thus precluding that humans are truly free to follow their own thoughts without being forced to accept something that may never be a reality to them. I am sure others have put it in a far less friendly choice of words.

So the reality is plausible that a car or solar system can be put together in a timely fashion, even if it seems absurd to do so.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

It's funny how this feels like it's gone on as long as that incredibly similar 80 page thread, and yet it's only 9 pages. I think that might actually be the real paradox here.