|
|
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
{nimstod@mallard.duc.auburn.edu}
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
> > {nimstod@mallard.duc.auburn.edu}
> > Auburn University, AL
> >
> > >
> >
>
>
|