The Philosophy of Early Human Evolution

Greetings—I originally opened this thread over in the "History" section, but I didn't have much luck there. Aside from a few dry facts, I wasn't particularly satisfied with the responses I received. The reality is that prehistory is essentially shrouded in mystery; because there is no written record to lean on, we are largely left with nothing but speculation. That is precisely what draws me in—the opportunity to exercise a bit of imagination within that context. Perhaps we might uncover some hidden, buried truth, much like stumbling upon a treasure chest. And it doesn't necessarily have to be gold; regardless, I would love to see it found.
__________________________________________________ ____________________:

Something has been weighing on my mind lately. I caught myself falling down a Google rabbit hole reading about *Homo erectus*, and I found myself intrigued by the fact that they lived 200,000 years ago before eventually going extinct.

It’s a lot to process. I studied history back in high school, though I wasn't truly grasping the sheer scale of it all at the time. If we are looking at 200,000 years ago, and considering we are now in 2022—plus perhaps another 5,600 years since the dawn of civilization—we have a massive gap. What happened during those other 192,000 years? Are there any historical facts or specific studies regarding that era? What other subspecies, similar to *Homo erectus*, existed and subsequently vanished?

I am not strictly looking for hard facts; I would actually like to allow ourselves some room for speculation. I am fascinated by questions like: how many times were we on the precipice of progress, only to regress as a species? How many times throughout history was fire sparked, only to flicker out again? What were our greatest obstacles—assuming we had met our basic needs for warmth and food—who was our most formidable enemy? And what was it like to face those predators hand-to-hand in the early days? Which animals were we actually fighting?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Could it be argued that *Homo sapiens* were somewhat rational 50,000 years ago, or at least driven by emotion? To say that we existed for 300,000 years—the final link in an evolutionary chain stretching back two billion years—only to finally stumble upon agriculture and animal domestication in the last 10,000 years... it feels a bit demoralizing for humanity, doesn't it?

If we have been around for roughly 100,000 to 150,000 years, there must have been culture, cave paintings, and a distinct sense of aesthetics. There must have been emotion, but surely there was also rational behavior—especially if they were hunting effectively. I realize language wouldn't have been fully developed—meaning a limited vocabulary made communication difficult, even when dealing with tribal hostilities—and, unfortunately, cannibalism was likely a reality.

But as you all suggest, we and they were biologically and physically similar. Could we say we were mentally similar as well? At least on a fundamental level—enough to conclude, "this is good," "this is wrong," or "this is necessary." Given all these circumstances, I find it hard to accept the thesis that we only turned to agriculture and domestication in the last 10,000 years.

Regarding the use of fire, some sources suggest it was being used 300,000 years ago, while others claim even longer. Initially, it might have been accidental—occurring during elemental storms—but later, it became a deliberate effort. This is where meat began to be cooked, which undoubtedly relieved some of our primal savagery and provided a sense of peace.

That is essentially what interests me: those small details, the nuances that helped us advance or caused us to regress as a species. Like a moment where fire might have spontaneously ignited, only to die out. One time, we cook meat and find peace, warmth, and protection from predators. But when the flame dies, do we simply return to the darkness?

Culture must have existed; I am curious about what propelled it forward or held it back. Animals—the larger ones certainly posed a problem. Especially the big cats. And which ones were the good ones—the ones we first befriended?

This thread will likely be deleted or moved elsewhere, so I’ll keep this brief:

First off, I’d suggest picking up a copy of Mastering Fire; I have a feeling it might resonate with you. Beyond that, my best advice is to stick to books rather than just skimming Google. A good book allows you to immerse yourself in a subject entirely, which leads to a much deeper level of comprehension.

It’s a fascinating field of study. Current scientific consensus suggests that the modern human blueprint was established roughly 100,000 years ago. This implies that if you had a time machine, traveled back 100,000 years, and brought a newborn back to the present day, you could raise them just like any other child born today.

It does make you wonder, though—why did those people live without even the concept of writing, while we’re busy launching rockets into space and staying tethered to the internet? It’s an intriguing question that deserves some real discussion, provided this topic gains some traction.

If you’re up for reading in English, I think I can point you toward two books that would definitely be right up your alley:

Juan Luis Arsuaga and Ignacio Martínez:
"The Chosen Species: The Long March of Human Evolution", 2006.

William James Burroughs: “Climate Change in Prehistory: The End of the Reign of Chaos“, Oxford University Press, 2005.

Here is a little snippet from that second one:

Body lice (Pediculus humanus var. corporis) are exclusive to humans, laying their eggs specifically in our clothing. Most experts agree they’re actually a subspecies of the head louse (Pediculus humanus var. capitis), likely evolving right around the moment humans started dressing themselves. Genetic studies suggest body lice showed up about 70,000 years ago, which leads to the pretty logical conclusion that this was when we first started wearing clothes. It’s another one of those fascinating little clues pointing to massive shifts in the human experience happening roughly 70,000 years back. The idea is that people probably didn't bother with outfits until they left Africa and ran into much colder climates. While it might be a stretch to pin everything on that exact date, you could argue that the brutal cooling following the Toba supervolcano eruption might have been the nudge humans needed to start layering up, wherever they happened to be living at the time.
There is also some compelling recent research showing that there are actually two distinct genetic lineages of head lice. Even though they look virtually identical, these two types split apart about 1.2 million years ago. This timing lines up almost perfectly with when Homo erectus began migrating out of Africa. These early humans lived across East Asia until about 50,000 years ago, so the only way modern humans could have picked up that specific strain of lice is through some kind of social contact with them.
The geographic spread of these two louse types is just as interesting. One version is found in people all over the globe, while the other is found almost exclusively in North and South America. This suggests that the modern humans who crossed Beringia to reach America were carrying a strain of lice that had survived for ages on our relative, Homo erectus. On top of that, the genetic pattern of the "global" louse shows evidence of a population "bottleneck" about 100,000 years ago, which clearly mirrors the struggles faced by their human hosts. All of this really drives home the incredible variety of sources we can tap into to learn more and more about where we came from.

Megan Gray32 said:Greetings—I originally opened this thread over in the "History" section, but I didn't have much luck there. Aside from a few dry facts, I wasn't particularly satisfied with the responses I received. The reality is that prehistory is essentially shrouded in mystery; because there is no written record to lean on, we are largely left with nothing but speculation. That is precisely what draws me in—the opportunity to exercise a bit of imagination within that context. Perhaps we might uncover some hidden, buried truth, much like stumbling upon a treasure chest. And it doesn't necessarily have to be gold; regardless, I would love to see it found.
__________________________________________________ ____________________:

Something has been weighing on my mind lately. I caught myself falling down a Google rabbit hole reading about *Homo erectus*, and I found myself intrigued by the fact that they lived 200,000 years ago before eventually going extinct.

It’s a lot to process. I studied history back in high school, though I wasn't truly grasping the sheer scale of it all at the time. If we are looking at 200,000 years ago, and considering we are now in 2022—plus perhaps another 5,600 years since the dawn of civilization—we have a massive gap. What happened during those other 192,000 years? Are there any historical facts or specific studies regarding that era? What other subspecies, similar to *Homo erectus*, existed and subsequently vanished?

I am not strictly looking for hard facts; I would actually like to allow ourselves some room for speculation. I am fascinated by questions like: how many times were we on the precipice of progress, only to regress as a species? How many times throughout history was fire sparked, only to flicker out again? What were our greatest obstacles—assuming we had met our basic needs for warmth and food—who was our most formidable enemy? And what was it like to face those predators hand-to-hand in the early days? Which animals were we actually fighting?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Could it be argued that *Homo sapiens* were somewhat rational 50,000 years ago, or at least driven by emotion? To say that we existed for 300,000 years—the final link in an evolutionary chain stretching back two billion years—only to finally stumble upon agriculture and animal domestication in the last 10,000 years... it feels a bit demoralizing for humanity, doesn't it?

If we have been around for roughly 100,000 to 150,000 years, there must have been culture, cave paintings, and a distinct sense of aesthetics. There must have been emotion, but surely there was also rational behavior—especially if they were hunting effectively. I realize language wouldn't have been fully developed—meaning a limited vocabulary made communication difficult, even when dealing with tribal hostilities—and, unfortunately, cannibalism was likely a reality.

But as you all suggest, we and they were biologically and physically similar. Could we say we were mentally similar as well? At least on a fundamental level—enough to conclude, "this is good," "this is wrong," or "this is necessary." Given all these circumstances, I find it hard to accept the thesis that we only turned to agriculture and domestication in the last 10,000 years.

Regarding the use of fire, some sources suggest it was being used 300,000 years ago, while others claim even longer. Initially, it might have been accidental—occurring during elemental storms—but later, it became a deliberate effort. This is where meat began to be cooked, which undoubtedly relieved some of our primal savagery and provided a sense of peace.

That is essentially what interests me: those small details, the nuances that helped us advance or caused us to regress as a species. Like a moment where fire might have spontaneously ignited, only to die out. One time, we cook meat and find peace, warmth, and protection from predators. But when the flame dies, do we simply return to the darkness?

Culture must have existed; I am curious about what propelled it forward or held it back. Animals—the larger ones certainly posed a problem. Especially the big cats. And which ones were the good ones—the ones we first befriended?

They were essentially the same as they are today.

From a philosophical standpoint, civilizations didn't emerge because humans suddenly developed some special new trait; they emerged because climate shifts made it possible. People with the exact same makeup as us spent most of history living as hunter-gatherers. Any other questions really fall under the domain of the natural sciences.

If people were truly as they are today back then... it would mean the entire history of mankind is nothing more than endless suffering. I realize that we were dropped into this world without ever giving our consent—that where we are now, and where we have been, is purely accidental. And yet, by some strange stroke of luck, the world is beautiful. I can vividly imagine that same world as it was 100,000 years ago. The scents, the crisp air, that warmth someone once mentioned, the colors; it’s all so deeply alluring to me. So, even though we ended up here by chance, perhaps we actually wanted to be here after all.

But we weren't prepared for famine, or danger, or the biting cold—and what else? What has been holding us back from then until now? If we were to start philosophizing from prehistory, could we find some kind of cornerstone—some new maxim for living—that would still hold value in the modern day?

Or perhaps we can't, simply because we refuse to? Because we were attacked, so we struck back; because we were hungry, so we turned on one another; because, more often than not, we were driven by raw, primal passions—passions that, in some measure, still drive us today?

Furthermore, the practice of raising livestock and tilling the earth proved to be, in every sense, a lifelong way of life. So, I ask you: at what point did we, as a civilization, decide to push that aside? At what point did we shift toward an education system designed to turn young people into professional killers, soldiers, or absolute rulers? You might argue that these questions belong to other disciplines, but I am asking: how much has actually changed since prehistoric times? In the fundamental human spirit?

Megan Gray32 said:If people were truly as they are today back then... it would mean the entire history of mankind is nothing more than endless suffering. I realize that we were dropped into this world without ever giving our consent—that where we are now, and where we have been, is purely accidental. And yet, by some strange stroke of luck, the world is beautiful. I can vividly imagine that same world as it was 100,000 years ago. The scents, the crisp air, that warmth someone once mentioned, the colors; it’s all so deeply alluring to me. So, even though we ended up here by chance, perhaps we actually wanted to be here after all.

But we weren't prepared for famine, or danger, or the biting cold—and what else? What has been holding us back from then until now? If we were to start philosophizing from prehistory, could we find some kind of cornerstone—some new maxim for living—that would still hold value in the modern day?

Or perhaps we can't, simply because we refuse to? Because we were attacked, so we struck back; because we were hungry, so we turned on one another; because, more often than not, we were driven by raw, primal passions—passions that, in some measure, still drive us today?

Furthermore, the practice of raising livestock and tilling the earth proved to be, in every sense, a lifelong way of life. So, I ask you: at what point did we, as a civilization, decide to push that aside? At what point did we shift toward an education system designed to turn young people into professional killers, soldiers, or absolute rulers? You might argue that these questions belong to other disciplines, but I am asking: how much has actually changed since prehistoric times? In the fundamental human spirit?

Look, over the last 100,000 years, we dealt with ice ages and volcanic eruptions that messed with the whole planet... Earth hasn't exactly been a non-stop fairy tale.

Eventually, one of our ancestors figured out that if you scatter seeds, you get plants you can actually eat.
It’s a decent setup; you don't have to wander aimlessly around looking for scraps when you can do things differently.
The trick is planting enough to make it worth the effort, rather than ending up with less than what you put in.
For that, you need a calendar. Someone realized the movement of the stars followed certain rules, so they linked them together—set up two stones, and once a star aligned with the peaks, you knew exactly how many days to count until it was time to plant.
Then comes the harvest... and suddenly you have goods that you can't just carry home on your back or haul around like a rancher. You need storage, and you need a fence to keep out the lazy ones, the thugs, and all sorts of lowlifes.
And that’s how civilization was born: trade, armies, dive bars, fish fries, philosophers, and the atomic bomb.
Religion came along even earlier, nagging and guilt-tripping farmers (Cain) for taking out the rancher (Abel) and for fencing off the land with barbed wire.

There isn’t much point in overanalyzing prehistory, if you ask me. Roughly 100,000 years of our civilization—all that history—is essentially worth about as much as a passing breeze.

The era was defined by an overwhelming amount of suffering and sheer futility—enough, frankly, that a modern person living a life of peace and quiet should feel nothing but gratitude.

But then again, that assumes we actually get to live in peace and quiet. It assumes people are actually out there working the land and raising livestock.

Instead, we have these modernists—these globalists. They undergo systematic training just to master new buzzwords, learning how to bill more, how to mask their scams, and how to consolidate power. It all stems from the exact same gutter of human nature—just as someone 60,000 years ago might have killed another person just to rip off a leg and eat it like a chicken drumstick, or committed an act of sexual violence.

There are plenty of cavemen left in this world today, and they are doing just fine. As for your "quiet"—you can let it simmer on a low flame for all I care.

Megan Gray32 said:There isn’t much point in overanalyzing prehistory, if you ask me. Roughly 100,000 years of our civilization—all that history—is essentially worth about as much as a passing breeze.

The era was defined by an overwhelming amount of suffering and sheer futility—enough, frankly, that a modern person living a life of peace and quiet should feel nothing but gratitude.

But then again, that assumes we actually get to live in peace and quiet. It assumes people are actually out there working the land and raising livestock.

Instead, we have these modernists—these globalists. They undergo systematic training just to master new buzzwords, learning how to bill more, how to mask their scams, and how to consolidate power. It all stems from the exact same gutter of human nature—just as someone 60,000 years ago might have killed another person just to rip off a leg and eat it like a chicken drumstick, or committed an act of sexual violence.

There are plenty of cavemen left in this world today, and they are doing just fine. As for your "quiet"—you can let it simmer on a low flame for all I care.

We can't afford to live in peace and quiet, because nature will just wipe us out. Nature is generous, sure, but she's also merciless.

Take this, for example.
Dinosaurs spent millions of years just hanging around before a meteor kicked them off the stage... we actually have a fighting chance to divert a meteor or survive whatever other freak nature tantrum comes our way.
That's the price we paid through the agony of previous generations.

Harold Doyle3 said:We can't afford to live in peace and quiet, because nature will just wipe us out. Nature is generous, sure, but she's also merciless.

Take this, for example.
Dinosaurs spent millions of years just hanging around before a meteor kicked them off the stage... we actually have a fighting chance to divert a meteor or survive whatever other freak nature tantrum comes our way.
That's the price we paid through the agony of previous generations.

Honestly? There's a much higher chance we’ll just finish ourselves off if we don't learn how to live in peace and quiet first.

ruggedraven36 said:Honestly? There's a much higher chance we’ll just finish ourselves off if we don't learn how to live in peace and quiet first.

But you can't have progress without a little friction... there's no dialectic in total silence.

Harold Doyle3 said:But you can't have progress without a little friction... there's no dialectic in total silence.

My take? Real progress would actually start once the dust settles. All kinds of creativity would finally bloom, actual science would flourish, and technology would finally serve a peaceful life instead of just fueling more chaos. We’d live much more modestly—slower, sure—but we’d have actual free time. Nobody would be chasing power, wealth, or control anymore, and we might actually respect and protect nature instead of just gutting it for profit.

ruggedraven36 said:My take? Real progress would actually start once the dust settles. All kinds of creativity would finally bloom, actual science would flourish, and technology would finally serve a peaceful life instead of just fueling more chaos. We’d live much more modestly—slower, sure—but we’d have actual free time. Nobody would be chasing power, wealth, or control anymore, and we might actually respect and protect nature instead of just gutting it for profit.

Harmony is an illusion. It’s unnatural. At its core, the world is pure chaos, and when the human mind tries to organize that chaos, it just creates tension within it. That kind of order you're talking about? It’s fragile. One tiny "butterfly effect" moment and the whole thing collapses back into disorder.
Humanity thrives in those messy gray areas between total chaos and rigid order... it's where we belong, like a fish in water.

Harold Doyle3 said:Harmony is an illusion. It’s unnatural. At its core, the world is pure chaos, and when the human mind tries to organize that chaos, it just creates tension within it. That kind of order you're talking about? It’s fragile. One tiny "butterfly effect" moment and the whole thing collapses back into disorder.
Humanity thrives in those messy gray areas between total chaos and rigid order... it's where we belong, like a fish in water.

Exactly. If you think about it, the whole point of evolution and progress is just our constant, desperate attempt to dodge the next wave of pain and suffering.

Harold Doyle3 said:Harmony is an illusion. It’s unnatural. At its core, the world is pure chaos, and when the human mind tries to organize that chaos, it just creates tension within it. That kind of order you're talking about? It’s fragile. One tiny "butterfly effect" moment and the whole thing collapses back into disorder.
Humanity thrives in those messy gray areas between total chaos and rigid order... it's where we belong, like a fish in water.

The phrase "like a fish in water" gives me the chills. I'd never want to be part of that breed of people—the ones who just drift along perfectly in their little bubbles.

A peaceful life isn't "unnatural." What's actually unnatural are wars, exploitation, the thirst for power and wealth, manufactured needs, and the relentless stripping of the earth. Though, honestly, even calling it "unnatural" is a bit of a misnomer here—nature itself is fundamentally unnatural if there's no soul breathing through it.

Benjamin Taylor6 said:Exactly. If you think about it, the whole point of evolution and progress is just our constant, desperate attempt to dodge the next wave of pain and suffering.

That’s just looking at evolution through a hedonistic lens. Hedonism always starts by worshiping pleasure as the ultimate goal, only to end up making the avoidance of pain the primary objective. Here, you're just slapping that label onto "evolution"—as if nature gives a damn about our discomfort. Besides, there’s a massive spectrum of other values that can't be boiled down to simple pleasure or avoiding aches and pains. That view is way too narrow—even for animal evolution, let alone humans.

*If that were actually the main goal, the easiest solution would be collective suicide—one quick way to wipe out all pain and misery for good.

Megan Gray32 said:Greetings—I originally opened this thread over in the "History" section, but I didn't have much luck there. Aside from a few dry facts, I wasn't particularly satisfied with the responses I received. The reality is that prehistory is essentially shrouded in mystery; because there is no written record to lean on, we are largely left with nothing but speculation. That is precisely what draws me in—the opportunity to exercise a bit of imagination within that context. Perhaps we might uncover some hidden, buried truth, much like stumbling upon a treasure chest. And it doesn't necessarily have to be gold; regardless, I would love to see it found.
__________________________________________________ ____________________:

Something has been weighing on my mind lately. I caught myself falling down a Google rabbit hole reading about *Homo erectus*, and I found myself intrigued by the fact that they lived 200,000 years ago before eventually going extinct.

It’s a lot to process. I studied history back in high school, though I wasn't truly grasping the sheer scale of it all at the time. If we are looking at 200,000 years ago, and considering we are now in 2022—plus perhaps another 5,600 years since the dawn of civilization—we have a massive gap. What happened during those other 192,000 years? Are there any historical facts or specific studies regarding that era? What other subspecies, similar to *Homo erectus*, existed and subsequently vanished?

I am not strictly looking for hard facts; I would actually like to allow ourselves some room for speculation. I am fascinated by questions like: how many times were we on the precipice of progress, only to regress as a species? How many times throughout history was fire sparked, only to flicker out again? What were our greatest obstacles—assuming we had met our basic needs for warmth and food—who was our most formidable enemy? And what was it like to face those predators hand-to-hand in the early days? Which animals were we actually fighting?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Could it be argued that *Homo sapiens* were somewhat rational 50,000 years ago, or at least driven by emotion? To say that we existed for 300,000 years—the final link in an evolutionary chain stretching back two billion years—only to finally stumble upon agriculture and animal domestication in the last 10,000 years... it feels a bit demoralizing for humanity, doesn't it?

If we have been around for roughly 100,000 to 150,000 years, there must have been culture, cave paintings, and a distinct sense of aesthetics. There must have been emotion, but surely there was also rational behavior—especially if they were hunting effectively. I realize language wouldn't have been fully developed—meaning a limited vocabulary made communication difficult, even when dealing with tribal hostilities—and, unfortunately, cannibalism was likely a reality.

But as you all suggest, we and they were biologically and physically similar. Could we say we were mentally similar as well? At least on a fundamental level—enough to conclude, "this is good," "this is wrong," or "this is necessary." Given all these circumstances, I find it hard to accept the thesis that we only turned to agriculture and domestication in the last 10,000 years.

Regarding the use of fire, some sources suggest it was being used 300,000 years ago, while others claim even longer. Initially, it might have been accidental—occurring during elemental storms—but later, it became a deliberate effort. This is where meat began to be cooked, which undoubtedly relieved some of our primal savagery and provided a sense of peace.

That is essentially what interests me: those small details, the nuances that helped us advance or caused us to regress as a species. Like a moment where fire might have spontaneously ignited, only to die out. One time, we cook meat and find peace, warmth, and protection from predators. But when the flame dies, do we simply return to the darkness?

Culture must have existed; I am curious about what propelled it forward or held it back. Animals—the larger ones certainly posed a problem. Especially the big cats. And which ones were the good ones—the ones we first befriended?

I actually love this part so much that I want to highlight certain passages specifically.

I think we ought to distinguish between being primitive and being primary, or wild versus archaic, elemental versus ancient, or even primordial...
Is it (un)substantial?

We were recently discussing this on the forum regarding Paleolithic art and those paintings in the Altamira caves, which one school textbook claims were created by the first "artists"—using those quotation marks, of course... so if someone were to similarly put their "mental capacities" in quotes, what kind of criteria would they even use to justify that? (As if they truly lacked them).

The question remains: how do we define logic, and depending on that definition, can we call the thought processes of that ancient human "pre-logical," or perhaps a form of thinking that either precedes or constitutes logic itself?
Derived from Classical Greek, logic is essentially reasoning, and logical thought is inherent to our minds; I’d also add that for Kant, the power of reasoning is a natural gift—a sort of innate reason—the absence of which cannot be compensated for.

I should also bring up Mallarmé’s take on logic, where he views it as an awareness of the primal harmony of existence, suggesting that logical thought is simply that which resonates with and aligns with the cosmic harmony.

So, just how much are we in tune with that harmony today?

Or, to go back to your point, "how many times have we been on the threshold of progress only to regress as a species, and how many times has the fire of history been lit, only to be extinguished?"

Megan Gray32 said:Greetings—I originally opened this thread over in the "History" section, but I didn't have much luck there. Aside from a few dry facts, I wasn't particularly satisfied with the responses I received. The reality is that prehistory is essentially shrouded in mystery; because there is no written record to lean on, we are largely left with nothing but speculation. That is precisely what draws me in—the opportunity to exercise a bit of imagination within that context. Perhaps we might uncover some hidden, buried truth, much like stumbling upon a treasure chest. And it doesn't necessarily have to be gold; regardless, I would love to see it found.
__________________________________________________ ____________________:

Something has been weighing on my mind lately. I caught myself falling down a Google rabbit hole reading about *Homo erectus*, and I found myself intrigued by the fact that they lived 200,000 years ago before eventually going extinct.

It’s a lot to process. I studied history back in high school, though I wasn't truly grasping the sheer scale of it all at the time. If we are looking at 200,000 years ago, and considering we are now in 2022—plus perhaps another 5,600 years since the dawn of civilization—we have a massive gap. What happened during those other 192,000 years? Are there any historical facts or specific studies regarding that era? What other subspecies, similar to *Homo erectus*, existed and subsequently vanished?

I am not strictly looking for hard facts; I would actually like to allow ourselves some room for speculation. I am fascinated by questions like: how many times were we on the precipice of progress, only to regress as a species? How many times throughout history was fire sparked, only to flicker out again? What were our greatest obstacles—assuming we had met our basic needs for warmth and food—who was our most formidable enemy? And what was it like to face those predators hand-to-hand in the early days? Which animals were we actually fighting?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Could it be argued that *Homo sapiens* were somewhat rational 50,000 years ago, or at least driven by emotion? To say that we existed for 300,000 years—the final link in an evolutionary chain stretching back two billion years—only to finally stumble upon agriculture and animal domestication in the last 10,000 years... it feels a bit demoralizing for humanity, doesn't it?

If we have been around for roughly 100,000 to 150,000 years, there must have been culture, cave paintings, and a distinct sense of aesthetics. There must have been emotion, but surely there was also rational behavior—especially if they were hunting effectively. I realize language wouldn't have been fully developed—meaning a limited vocabulary made communication difficult, even when dealing with tribal hostilities—and, unfortunately, cannibalism was likely a reality.

But as you all suggest, we and they were biologically and physically similar. Could we say we were mentally similar as well? At least on a fundamental level—enough to conclude, "this is good," "this is wrong," or "this is necessary." Given all these circumstances, I find it hard to accept the thesis that we only turned to agriculture and domestication in the last 10,000 years.

Regarding the use of fire, some sources suggest it was being used 300,000 years ago, while others claim even longer. Initially, it might have been accidental—occurring during elemental storms—but later, it became a deliberate effort. This is where meat began to be cooked, which undoubtedly relieved some of our primal savagery and provided a sense of peace.

That is essentially what interests me: those small details, the nuances that helped us advance or caused us to regress as a species. Like a moment where fire might have spontaneously ignited, only to die out. One time, we cook meat and find peace, warmth, and protection from predators. But when the flame dies, do we simply return to the darkness?

Culture must have existed; I am curious about what propelled it forward or held it back. Animals—the larger ones certainly posed a problem. Especially the big cats. And which ones were the good ones—the ones we first befriended?

Since you moved this over to Philosophy, I’m guessing you’re looking for deep dives and actual debates based on your prompt rather than just raw data.

Look, we can start with the obvious—there were tons of different early human tribes out there. And honestly? The whole evolution from primitive hominids to modern humans wasn't nearly as straight line as those textbook historical materialism classes make it sound. Those courses present history as this neat, linear progression—which basically brainwashes students into thinking in one dimension unless they actually take the time to think deeper and look at the bigger picture for themselves.

If we assume what Harar said in his book is right—that we're the descendants of that specific group of Homo sapiens who made that massive leap forward—then, staying within the bounds of philosophy without acting like a know-it-all historian, we could argue that transition happened the exact moment a human became self-aware and finally thought, I am.

Humanity’s evolution can be broken down into seven distinct stages—each one a step up from the last. First, you've got the early childhood of our species, spanning from our earliest days to when we mastered fire and started surviving on fish. That's also when basic speech starts taking shape. We call this the lower stage of savagery. Then comes the middle stage of savagery, which wraps up once we figure out the bow and arrow—this is what allowed us to spread across the globe, mostly because fish were available pretty much everywhere. The upper stage of savagery ends with the invention of pottery. Once that happens, savagery is over and "barbarism" begins, which itself is split into three tiers. Lower barbarism concludes with animal domestication in the Eastern Hemisphere, while in the West, it’s defined by growing corn and other crops using irrigation, along with building houses from stone and sun-dried brick. Middle barbarism hits its peak with the ability to smelt iron ore. Finally, upper barbarism ends with the invention of phonetic writing. After that, we move into the seventh and final stage: civilization. Each of these levels carries its own unique culture—distinct ways of living, governing, family structures, and concepts of property.

Is human progress actually a straight line moving upward, or are we just stuck in some kind of endless loop?

Cyclical.
Even Lenin said it—history is just one step forward and two steps back.
This non-stop growth bullshit is straight-up destroying Earth's sustainability, and once we hit that wall, life—and society along with it—is toast.