Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to Carnivora. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Multi Active Multi Inactive
Add Reply
Homo sapiens in Inter-species Conflicts
Topic Started: Jan 18 2018, 05:46 AM (1,540 Views)
dag8587
Autotrophic Organism
[ *  * ]
So I've been lurking on the forums for many years now and have noticed a trend in the inter-species conflicts involving homo sapiens. It is always a modern agrarian/city dwelling human that is used in the conflicts. i can understand why this is convenient as a person of this makeup is very relatable to most posters. A lot of these threads involve posters proclaiming that the human would panic, freeze up, and then subsequently lose. However, would it not make more sense to use a "wild" homo sapien for these conflicts? A hunter gatherer who lives in the wild and deals with large and dangerous animals on a daily basis. These people are more or less invariably athletic and fit. They are humans in their "natural" state. Something along the lines of the men below.

Posted Image
Posted Image
Posted Image

Hunter gatherers like these tend to be slightly shorter than most modern westerners and are very lean and light. Most males only weigh 125-155 lbs. Still, I think they are a better analog for our species than modern, fat/obese, and sheltered people, some of which have never even slept outdoors in their life. I think hunter gatherer people like these men would stand a better chance in most match ups and create a more interesting comparison to other wild animals.
Edited by dag8587, Jan 18 2018, 05:47 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Taipan
Member Avatar
Administrator

Yeah its a great idea, we tend to just say Human (Male or female) and leave it at that. So making some clarification in the opening post is a good idea. Sound good?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
K9 Bite
Member Avatar
Heterotrophic Organism
[ *  *  * ]
I agree very much with this. Too many match ups like "Human vs American Pitbull Terrier" where everyone believes a medium-small dog that normally weigh 50 pounds and under can effortlessly kill a unarmed Human. Against these guys, that poor dog would get strangled in alot of attempts. This also goes for the match with Human vs Lynx.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
dag8587
Autotrophic Organism
[ *  * ]
Thanks for the input. I agree that most times we humans get a pretty bad rep in what seem to me to be a fairly straight forward win. These guys might not be as large or as strong as your average modern gym going guy, but they always seem to have amazing endurance and would certainly have a mental advantage when facing off against wild animals.
Taipan, if I had it my way I would only use wild people in conflicts. Using an average westerner as a representative of homo sapiens in inter-species conflict is like using animals born and raised in a zoo as a representative of what their wild counterparts are capable of. It just makes no sense to me. However, I understand that might not be desired by all, so a clarification in the opening post would be ideal. Thanks
Edited by dag8587, Jan 19 2018, 04:18 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Spartan
Member Avatar
Kleptoparasite
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Just specify what kind of human you're talking about in the respective post. "Wild" humans will always be more formidable on average, but the very best will still be some "modern" freak.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Palaeoscincus
Member Avatar
Autotrophic Organism
[ *  * ]
Don't people on this forum use elite modern men in most matches? I was reading the chimp vs human thread and lots of members said regular Joe loses but elite prize fighter wins or something along those lines.
If comparing tribesmen with top-tier modern fighters - in a hunt or something, yeah the tribesmen might have an advantage. But some scenarios members on this forum discuss are basically pitting an unarmed human in an arena against an animal with no time to prep or anything. Doubt in such a scenario tribesmen would do better than the physically, psychologically and martially elite modern men in our society (Navy SEALS, elite MMA fighters etc). I mean, tribesmen died all the time when a hunt goes wrong or they don't have their spear on them and a wild predator ambushes them. Pretty sure they'd also panic when they realized they swear worded up and are gonna die. I don't think they'd put up a better fight in desperation then modern day guys who are physically much bigger and better trained for crazy mentally-challenging war scenarios. And really in either scenario of unarmed men, they'd stand almost no chance against the really top-tier similarly sized predators like leopards or spotted hyenas.
Edited by Palaeoscincus, Jan 19 2018, 10:26 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jinfengopteryx
Member Avatar
Aspiring paleontologist, science enthusiast and armchair speculative fiction/evolution writer
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
I can see the logic behind using the "average" human as a representative of the species, but yeah, a clarification would be good.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Grazier
Omnivore
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
Way more interesting topic than I thought, good stuff.

What you depict here is a true wild homo sapiens in its natural form. Humans are a bit like dogs, just an astronomical amount of variety. There is variety in wild homo sapiens, and "domestic" homo sapiens too.

The wild homo sapiens are superior to the average domestic homo sapien -
Posted Image
But not the best of domestic homo sapiens
Posted Image
The latter would be the pinnacle of homo sapiens potential, while the former is just s joke. Meanwhile the natural wild homo sapiens like you posted are somewhere in between.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jinfengopteryx
Member Avatar
Aspiring paleontologist, science enthusiast and armchair speculative fiction/evolution writer
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Honestly, I think the "average Homo sapiens" is a bit underrated (most people do actually hit the gym regularly and at least younger people are usually not obese), but I do agree that they are probably below wild H. sapiens.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
dag8587
Autotrophic Organism
[ *  * ]
The analogy that "modern" people are like domesticated dogs while "wild" people are like wolves is a good one. That is pretty much what I had in mind. Even if the best of the domesticated humans are physically larger and more powerful than wild ones, I think that wild people would have a mental advantage when faced with a dangerous wild animal. Of course they are still people too, they are not immune to panic. But overall, they would do much better in my opinion.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Grazier
Omnivore
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
I have to disagree with that. Again much better than the average modern human, but much worse than the elite modern domestic humans. Someone like Steve Irwin for example (rip), tribal wild native people would be in awe over the way he would grab a snake or jump on a croc. They would never have the nerve to do something so reckless. They naturally have a healthy fear of dangerous animals that is actually heightened compared to some modern humans and they can actually be more prone to freak out and flee when faced with a potentially dangerous animal. I think basically the spectrum just goes further in both directions for the modern "domestic" humans. On the bottom end you get far more pathetic people reaching deeper lows than the natural wild human population could even comprehend, but on the other end of the spectrum you get weirdly elite people amongst the modern "domestic" population. I think this goes for practically any and every category of performance. Maybe one or two exceptions. Wild Australian aborigines are arguably better trackers than any modern expert in tracking. They have added advantages just as an ethnic group physiologically having superior eye sight than other lineages of homo sapiens. They can see from far away that a blade of grass is bent or something and no modern expert can compete with stuff like that no matter how elite they develop themselves to be, they just don't have the hardware.

However I think in most fields there are modern domestic human specialists that will be superior to wild native people. For example you would think a wild tribesman should be able to throw a spear better than any modern human, but then an 18 year old javelin thrower from Norway will throw a spear literally twice as far as the best wild humans can do. The wild humans are just way better than normal people, not all modern people.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
dag8587
Autotrophic Organism
[ *  * ]
I am not arguing that they would be superior in every way to modern people. I just think it is a more fair representation of what homo sapiens are "supposed" to be like. As you say, modern people have the lowest of the low and the best of the best. Perhaps homo sapiens are just underrated on this forum. To think that people actually think a leopardess could beat a man like Francis Ngannou more times than not is quite foolish in my opinion. I mean he is 265 lbs of pure muscle.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Grazier
Omnivore
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
I can't believe he lost yesterday, but yes I agree completely. I believe someone like that would beat a male leopard too, and any dog/wolf, any hyena, etc.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
221Extra
Member Avatar
Omnivore
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
Grazier
Jan 22 2018, 06:14 AM
I can't believe he lost yesterday, but yes I agree completely. I believe someone like that would beat a male leopard too, and any dog/wolf, any hyena, etc.
The dog/wolf thing is debatable, the male leopard and hyenas (spotted & even big browns) is a stretch.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
k9boy
Member Avatar
Apex Predator
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Dogs and wolves yes Francis would defo win.

Francis would be far bigger and more powerful then an average hyena or leopard, but the blood loss and tissue damage would be horrendous. I doubt he'd survive, even if he manage to win.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Join the millions that use us for their forum communities. Create your own forum today.
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · General Debate & Discussion · Next Topic »
Add Reply