Re: technology and intelligence

Todd N Nims (nimstod@MAIL.AUBURN.EDU)
Sat, 11 Feb 1995 23:36:37 -0600

yes but dont forget that a piece of wood is whole lot easier to get and
fashioning a point on it is soooooo much more easier. I agree that the
stone tool may to some degree be better but it is so much less efficient
if you count making it and maintainance.

Todd N. Nims
Auburn University, AL

On Fri, 10 Feb 1995, Mr J.M. Ottevanger wrote:

> according to Brain, the types of tools (stone and bone) found at Swartkrans do
> a very good job of digging up bulbs, tubers etc. of the sorts found in the
> area today. It seems to me that even if they only did the job a bit better than
> could be done by hand, that's better than nothing and the ability to make such
> tools would then be selected for (as discussed in my posting to Rob Quinlan).
> Also, don't forget the use that certain chimp societies make of hammers and
> anvils to crack nuts (although how much all the invested effort pays off
> energetically perhaps varies, see Gunther and Boesch). I don'tknow the answer
> really....nature, green in tooth and claw....
> Jeremy.
> In the last mail Todd N Nims said:
> >
> > I may be reading this wrong but do plant eaters need hand choppers to
> > attack and kill a wild plant? From what I have read the robust A.'s had
> > no use for tools...and possibly the only connection to hand choppers they
> > had was at the business end of one. Maybe Im confused about what was
> > said....let me know.
> >
> > Todd N. Nims
> > {}
> > Auburn University, AL
> >
> > >
> >