Physiological requirements for civilization?

[Starwhip]

What must a species have, physically, in order establish a "human" civilization? (Use tools, cook, build structures, etc.)

Say we could magically put the intelligence of a human into a pig. I doubt that it could do much of anything, because a pig's body lacks the articulation of a human.

So what do you think?

[HoloYolo]

Language, reproduction, food, water, city-states, independence, within the human criteria of "civilized", government.

[Bill Phil]

Hands. You learn by doing things with your hands. Or some other method of changing the local environment...

- - - Updated - - -

Language, reproduction, food, water, city-states, independence, within the human criteria of "civilized", government.

I think starwhip means what is needed on the body...

[Starwhip]

I think starwhip means what is needed on the body...

Indeed.

[pincushionman]

Ability to change the environment, and the ability to communicate with one another about making said changes to the environment.

Note that these may be quite rudimentary - ours obviously took some time to evolve.

Edited April 6, 2015 by pincushionman

[Tommygun]

In that case, I guess you need some way to make tools.

So hands, tentacles, dexterous pincers or someway to craft tools.

Some kind of communication and that comes in many forms.

You can use sound, sign language, light changes, physically tapping each other and many others.

I guess you would need an organ or two that can emit and receive the type of communication used or both in one organ.

A way for reproduction and of course an intelligence good enough to plan ahead for future events.

[Fel]

What must a species have, physically, in order establish a "human" civilization? (Use tools, cook, build structures, etc.)

Say we could magically put the intelligence of a human into a pig. I doubt that it could do much of anything, because a pig's body lacks the articulation of a human.

So what do you think?

This is a fundamentally broken question.

Let's say, okay, you give a pig Neanderthal intelligence... it certainly would lack the ability to create civilization as our bias terms it. But lets say you gave a pig the mind of Stephen Hawking; how's for not being able to move yet designing the systems that are "fundamental" for interacting with society as we know it? At this stage of society, we can be born without arms or legs, even have full body paralysis, and STILL function in society... and our technology is growing to the point where there would be no difference between the quadriplegic, the paralyzed person, or the normal person (in terms of societal interaction).

But let's point out other problems. Humans would never be where they are today without the initial capacity to use tools... but humans are not alone in this.

http://www.livescience.com/5605-bird-tool-called-amazing.html

Birdbrains know how to use tools. One of our biggest "you're not a monkey" insults is utterly wrong in terms of capability or intelligence. But why are birds not using more tools? They often don't need to. Classical tool usage is meant to accomplish an end... humans evolved differently.

Humans ARE naturally herbivores; we have the wrong body type for hunting and teeth better suited for crushing; we could scavenge... but that single canine pair is utterly worthless against eating raw uncooked meat... but meat has advantages in that finding it is easier than finding edible food growing somewhere. Tools for cutting meat can be devised and with cooking meat becomes an extremely valuable alteration from the norm.

Really understand just how much work we put into eating meat... and how much it gave us an advantage to not being tied to a single location. Or how much COOKING changed our physiology... before the body had tons of mechanisms for breaking down food; most of which drained a large amount of energy... but now, with cooking, you can keep more energy to yourself and develop other aspects (like big brains).

Tool use is a must; but tools are designed for the users. Our hands are better able to manipulate, but we also had a natural desire to do more (and be really lazy (gathering is hard work!)) than what our body naturally provided. So, it is problematic. We evolved tool users and performed as tool users... but that doesn't mean something like a bird, with the same drive as a human, wouldn't undergo the same "mental" evolution; and birds can be very good tool users.

[magnemoe]

This is a fundamentally broken question.

Let's say, okay, you give a pig Neanderthal intelligence... it certainly would lack the ability to create civilization as our bias terms it. But lets say you gave a pig the mind of Stephen Hawking; how's for not being able to move yet designing the systems that are "fundamental" for interacting with society as we know it? At this stage of society, we can be born without arms or legs, even have full body paralysis, and STILL function in society... and our technology is growing to the point where there would be no difference between the quadriplegic, the paralyzed person, or the normal person (in terms of societal interaction).

Yes, but it don't change the requirements. Classical definition of civilization is cities and writing. Writing also require tool use, its also require intelligence.

That individuals who could not fulfill the requirements on themselves can be productive don't change this. An pig body would be unsuitable.

But let's point out other problems. Humans would never be where they are today without the initial capacity to use tools... but humans are not alone in this.

http://www.livescience.com/5605-bird-tool-called-amazing.html

Birdbrains know how to use tools. One of our biggest "you're not a monkey" insults is utterly wrong in terms of capability or intelligence. But why are birds not using more tools? They often don't need to. Classical tool usage is meant to accomplish an end... humans evolved differently.

Yes birds are very smart for their size, other mammals than apes has also used tools like an rock to crack stuff.

However bird tool use has limits, part is that they are not really suited for making tools, try making an stone axe as an bird, but also brain size is limited by the need to fly.

If you don't fly you need the legs to walk on

A spear or an stick to dig with would be useful for pretty much everyone, apes uses the last then hunting termites, might have hand issues handling a spear who would be useful for them.

Humans ARE naturally herbivores; we have the wrong body type for hunting and teeth better suited for crushing; we could scavenge... but that single canine pair is utterly worthless against eating raw uncooked meat... but meat has advantages in that finding it is easier than finding edible food growing somewhere. Tools for cutting meat can be devised and with cooking meat becomes an extremely valuable alteration from the norm.

Really understand just how much work we put into eating meat... and how much it gave us an advantage to not being tied to a single location. Or how much COOKING changed our physiology... before the body had tons of mechanisms for breaking down food; most of which drained a large amount of energy... but now, with cooking, you can keep more energy to yourself and develop other aspects (like big brains).

Tool use is a must; but tools are designed for the users. Our hands are better able to manipulate, but we also had a natural desire to do more (and be really lazy (gathering is hard work!)) than what our body naturally provided. So, it is problematic. We evolved tool users and performed as tool users... but that doesn't mean something like a bird, with the same drive as a human, wouldn't undergo the same "mental" evolution; and birds can be very good tool users.

Here you go the wrong way its not that humans is not adapted to eat meat, chimpanzee do but they are not very good hunters.

Rather human jaws and digestion system have evolved too eating cooked food, this had the benefit of reducing the weight of the jaw and it muscles, letting you have larger brains without making the head to large to pass the birth channel.

One interesting feature of humans is the ability to run marathons and do so in hot areas. Most other animals would overheat but no fur and the ability to sweat over the entire body helps us here.

Probably evolved for hunting by wearing the prey down, wolfs often use some of the same tactic.

-----

Base requirement is hands or something who works just as well, intelligence speech is another one and related you would hardly need high intelligence without being able to communicate effectively Other humans was the most intellectual challenging part for early humans.

Now you could have speech and intelligence without hands, the ability to plan ahead and operate better in groups is always useful, you could probably even do some primitive farming.

However you could not have an real civilization.

[RainDreamer]

Talking about tool uses and tentacles...here is an octopus using coconut shells to protect itself:

[Fel]

Yes, but it don't change the requirements. Classical definition of civilization is cities and writing. Writing also require tool use, its also require intelligence.

That individuals who could not fulfill the requirements on themselves can be productive don't change this. An pig body would be unsuitable.

No, it would not. A pig body, attached to an exoskeleton, could have EXACTLY the same functionalities of a human. Hell, stephen hawking is a good enough reference to understand what I was thinking... I just hate having to be so explicit when being implicit works much better. I.E. you can now debate, not the merit of the idea of modifying the body, but the merits of an exoskeleton. A pointless debate because we can shift to millions of different approaches to the same thing... using a subpar body to do "normal" things.

However bird tool use has limits, part is that they are not really suited for making tools, try making an stone axe as an bird, but also brain size is limited by the need to fly.

If you don't fly you need the legs to walk on

Missing the point again... "tool use does not equal civilization." People might say humans evolved from chimps / apes / monkeys / whatever... but they wouldn't say the same about birds. Birds can use tools, they use them very well... where is their "human" analog?

Also, birds CAN make stone axes. A stone axe is nothing more than a stick with a rock tied on to it. Can a bird lift a stick? Yes. Lift a rock? Yes. Break off some twine? Yes... tie using its beak? Yes. Axe made. But your argument is more about the axe (err, spear), which is designed ONLY FOR HUMAN LIKE BODIES, being useful to humans.

If birds want to build a house they wouldn't chop a tree down in the first place! And do birds build? Hell yeah they do! Again, you missed this in your "need for hands." BEAKS can function as HANDS. Hands are better at being hands, but this isn't about "must be human like" but minimum requirements.

Here you go the wrong way its not that humans is not adapted to eat meat, chimpanzee do but they are not very good hunters.

Point taken about the chimpanzees. What I really wanted to do was point out the EFFORT humans put into eating meat. Even with a stronger jaw, the teeth are still designed to crush. That we turned from a mostly herbivore society to a hunter gather society with tool use is something VERY unique.

What caused this? It isn't like other animals can't adapt, or use the same tools we used... so why did WE progress forward while leaving other animals behind?

One interesting feature of humans is the ability to run marathons and do so in hot areas. Most other animals would overheat but no fur and the ability to sweat over the entire body helps us here.

Losing our hair is a late evolutionary fluke... even then we currently wear "outer hair" (clothing) because of the problems that has brought us. Still, I would place money on a dog, covered in hair, outlasting a human RUNNING (not fast walking) a marathon. Why even go there. Horses are covered in hair and they run far faster for far longer than humans.

Probably evolved for hunting by wearing the prey down, wolfs often use some of the same tactic.

Evolution is random. You don't "evolve for hunting" you "don't die off when you develop an abnormality."

-----------

In case you haven't realized it yet... I love how much birds can actually do. Though we're oft to mock them because we're arrogant fools, their capabilities are truly amazing. I mean, they CAN learn human speech, and we've shown that they're not "parroting" but actually understanding and creating unique sentence structure. Still, we mock them. We're Humans... we're smarter... we hit things with rock!

Edited April 6, 2015 by Fel

[kerbiloid]

Size:

As cell size is limited with chemical reactions, brain size would be not much less that humans' brain.

As brain consumes a lot, whole body would be at least as small people bodies (i.e. 30-40 kg or so).

Hands:

Rather than birds head, elephant trunk, octopus tentacle and snake body, human grasping actuators (so-called "arms", ending with "hands") simultaneously have several key abilities.

Especially if treat a torso and whole body like additional segments of an arm.

Hands/arms/torso/body have much more degrees of freedom (just count your joints from fingers to legs).

Human actuators can work in several size scales at once:

millimiters - with points of fingers,

centimeters - with fingers as a hand,

1-2 foots - as a whole arm,

1-2 meters - whole body, grasping something heavy with hands and carrying it on your back.

Their most accurate segment (hand) has several (usually five) parallel actuators, one of which (thumb) is opposed to others, and any two can form a claw.

While any another animal has one claw, any of your hand have four and more claws at once.

Human body at all looks like a swiss knife with dozens of claws, levers and so.

So, from POV of actuators, the more fractal is a body, the more advanced would be technology.

Birds, dogs, pigs and elephants would nothing to search here.

Apes (including speaking ones) are true fractals, probably any other sapiens would be somewhat similar.

So, they would evolve from food gathering species.

Sensors.

Fast communication needs an immediate distant messages delivering.

So, touching or sniffing are fine, but some electromagnetic or acoustic sensors are of course in order.

Any knowledge needs to be delivered not only from one person to another, but also from an absent person ("writer") to a present one ("reader").

So, they need a technology which allows a compact storage of information on a widely accessible substrate (to write on clay, stone, paper, etc).

I.e., electromagnetic sensors are highly useful.

As there would be a bad idea to touch melten metal or poisonous plants with bare tentacles, to evolve their technology, they need some distant sensors.

I.e. electromagnetic again.

And as their distant sensors would be perfect (and they would be crafty and cautious), they originally would be lurking creatures.

So, human-sized water-drinking oxygen-breathing eye-looking lurking gatherers with fractal bodies.

Edited April 6, 2015 by kerbiloid

[KSK]

There's a whole interesting discussion about how to define civilization in here somewhere. I'm reminded of Douglas Adams:

“For instance, on the planet Earth, man had always assumed that he was more intelligent than dolphins because he had achieved so muchâ€â€the wheel, New York, wars and so onâ€â€whilst all the dolphins had ever done was muck about in the water having a good time. But conversely, the dolphins had always believed that they were far more intelligent than manâ€â€for precisely the same reasons.â€Â

Replace 'intelligent' with 'civilized' in that quote and it still makes the same point.

However, if we're assuming a human equivalent civilization and a human equivalent brain that that has the capacity to visualize the future and formulate some kind of long term plan* then sufficient dexterity to make tools and then use those tools to make better tools is about the minimum required for civilization I would say.

*even if that plan is: skin animal, make clothes, keep warm, live longer.

[magnemoe]

No, it would not. A pig body, attached to an exoskeleton, could have EXACTLY the same functionalities of a human. Hell, stephen hawking is a good enough reference to understand what I was thinking... I just hate having to be so explicit when being implicit works much better. I.E. you can now debate, not the merit of the idea of modifying the body, but the merits of an exoskeleton. A pointless debate because we can shift to millions of different approaches to the same thing... using a subpar body to do "normal" things.

An exoskeleton require an technical civilization, you have to be able to become one first. Yes disabled people can and usually is productive. However it would not work if everybody was disabled like missing hands.

Missing the point again... "tool use does not equal civilization." People might say humans evolved from chimps / apes / monkeys / whatever... but they wouldn't say the same about birds. Birds can use tools, they use them very well... where is their "human" analog?

Also, birds CAN make stone axes. A stone axe is nothing more than a stick with a rock tied on to it. Can a bird lift a stick? Yes. Lift a rock? Yes. Break off some twine? Yes... tie using its beak? Yes. Axe made. But your argument is more about the axe (err, spear), which is designed ONLY FOR HUMAN LIKE BODIES, being useful to humans.

If birds want to build a house they wouldn't chop a tree down in the first place! And do birds build? Hell yeah they do! Again, you missed this in your "need for hands." BEAKS can function as HANDS. Hands are better at being hands, but this isn't about "must be human like" but minimum requirements.

The problem is dexterity, bird foots and beak has limits here, the fests are more flexible than the beak anyway as it can only grab, you can do the same with you mouth.

In short an intelligent bird would have major problems creating an civilization because of this. Not that it would be imposible but thing will go slower and some paths are closed, however decent chance of intelligent birds on an planet with higher air pressure making flying with an larger brain possible.

Point taken about the chimpanzees. What I really wanted to do was point out the EFFORT humans put into eating meat. Even with a stronger jaw, the teeth are still designed to crush. That we turned from a mostly herbivore society to a hunter gather society with tool use is something VERY unique.

What caused this? It isn't like other animals can't adapt, or use the same tools we used... so why did WE progress forward while leaving other animals behind?

Probably an low chance event, hands might create the first push then social interactions did the rest.

Losing our hair is a late evolutionary fluke... even then we currently wear "outer hair" (clothing) because of the problems that has brought us. Still, I would place money on a dog, covered in hair, outlasting a human RUNNING (not fast walking) a marathon. Why even go there. Horses are covered in hair and they run far faster for far longer than humans.

Evolution is random. You don't "evolve for hunting" you "don't die off when you develop an abnormality."

About hair, not sure how much fur early humans have, this is also hard to know. not sure how much isolation chimpanzee fur have anyway. think its purpose is mostly to protect the skin. However the sweating and long distance running stands. An long distance runner can outrun an horse over longer distances, the horse will overheat.

The selection for this is to be able to run down prey. See no other good reasons.

In case you haven't realized it yet... I love how much birds can actually do. Though we're oft to mock them because we're arrogant fools, their capabilities are truly amazing. I mean, they CAN learn human speech, and we've shown that they're not "parroting" but actually understanding and creating unique sentence structure. Still, we mock them. We're Humans... we're smarter... we hit things with rock!

I agree birds are smarter than most believe, parrots are almost at chimpanzee level with their small brain size, however it would be very hard to scale it up while be able to fly.

- - - Updated - - -

There's a whole interesting discussion about how to define civilization in here somewhere. I'm reminded of Douglas Adams:

“For instance, on the planet Earth, man had always assumed that he was more intelligent than dolphins because he had achieved so muchâ€â€the wheel, New York, wars and so onâ€â€whilst all the dolphins had ever done was muck about in the water having a good time. But conversely, the dolphins had always believed that they were far more intelligent than manâ€â€for precisely the same reasons.â€Â

Replace 'intelligent' with 'civilized' in that quote and it still makes the same point.

However, if we're assuming a human equivalent civilization and a human equivalent brain that that has the capacity to visualize the future and formulate some kind of long term plan* then sufficient dexterity to make tools and then use those tools to make better tools is about the minimum required for civilization I would say.

*even if that plan is: skin animal, make clothes, keep warm, live longer.

Yes, however civilization has an pretty clear cut definition, writing and large scale organization that is above tribal level. Cities is also an common definition, think civilization came from the word city.

Not to confuse with intelligence humans has been intelligent far longer than we had civilization.

Early civilizations also need some requirements to start at all, this tend to be irrigation and if population density is to low none are started.

After the first ones are started you will get other who don't meet the starting requirements, one reason to start one might be to defend against other civilizations.

It might well be that intelligence is far more common than civilization, later also require being able to do large scale organisation at all and even if you could you might not have or see the need.

No or low need for large scale irrigation, no large scale wars, no religion who generates centers and you might not get any, yes you will still have important towns but no large cities or large countries.

You probably get writing as its very practical you probably also get technology, however advanced technology require large scale organisation.

[Scotius]

Relative longevity is in order too. Cephalopods are surprisingly intelligent, able to manipulate their environment with great dexterity, have keen senses etc. But they live for a short time - only until their first and only reproductive season. As such octopuses , squids and their relatives do not have sufficient amount of time to accumulate enough knowledge and experience to start a civilisation. They also do not known their young, and can't pass to the next generation even this small amount of knowledge they manage to gather.

[Camacha]

Hands. You learn by doing things with your hands.

Dolphins learn things, as do elephants and many other animals.

They also do not known their young, and can't pass to the next generation even this small amount of knowledge they manage to gather.

Short life spans are not really an issue, not being able to pass your knowledge along is.

[RainDreamer]

Short life spans are not really an issue, not being able to pass your knowledge along is.

It can be an issue after a while, but it is depending on the learning speed. Once the time that is required to learn previous knowledge exceed the useful life span of an intelligent life form, there are little progress that can be made after that. It is like dying of old age right after you finish high school. Either learning speed has to be faster, or life span has to be a little bit longer.

Would be much simpler if abstract knowledge can simply be passed through gene or DNA or such. Being born knowing advanced math because your parents has that knowledge coded in their genetic material seems nice.

[Camacha]

It can be an issue after a while, but it is depending on the learning speed. Once the time that is required to learn previous knowledge exceed the useful life span of an intelligent life form, there are little progress that can be made after that. It is like dying of old age right after you finish high school.

Remember that this used to be true in humans. We learned to expand our life spans. It is a problem that is likely to be corrected at some point.

Would be much simpler if abstract knowledge can simply be passed through gene or DNA or such. Being born knowing advanced math because your parents has that knowledge coded in their genetic material seems nice.

Sadly, that would not make it simpler, because we already do that. Certain behaviours are already ingrained in DNA. Crocodiles know from birth how to do a death roll. The huge problem with this kind of learning is that it takes generations to change anything.

Maybe that DNA engineering might change that some day in the future, but as it stands there is a good reason we switched to soft learning. It is just a lot faster and more flexible.

Edited April 6, 2015 by Camacha

[Tex]

Dextrous digits are a must. The ability to manipulate and invent tools is critical to forming civilizations.

I think that complex vocal chords are extremely beneficial to communicate ideas and messages between members of the same species, but one could argue that this is not strictly neccessary.

And, of course, the specimen would have to be physically capable of defending itself and other members of its species in order to form protection groups and collect nourishment.

[RainDreamer]

I think that complex vocal chords are extremely beneficial to communicate ideas and messages between members of the same species, but one could argue that this is not strictly neccessary.

There is this very interesting language:

[Flixxbeatz]

Physiological requirements?

Sugar, spice, and everything nice.

[Scotius]

Short life spans are not really an issue, not being able to pass your knowledge along is.

In almost any human society elderly people are held in great esteem, protected and cared for. They might not be physically productive members of the society anymore (at least on the level of young and fit members), but their accumulated knowledge and experience makes them invaluable for the rest. They are a living reservoir of wisdom - teaching the young and advising the adults. A person who managed to survive 50 years in society where statistical lifespan is 25 years is not to be taken lightly.

[magnemoe]

Remember that this used to be true in humans. We learned to expand our life spans. It is a problem that is likely to be corrected at some point.

Sadly, that would not make it simpler, because we already do that. Certain behaviours are already ingrained in DNA. Crocodiles know from birth how to do a death roll. The huge problem with this kind of learning is that it takes generations to change anything.

Maybe that DNA engineering might change that some day in the future, but as it stands there is a good reason we switched to soft learning. It is just a lot faster and more flexible.

This, our DNA programming is is now trying to adapt to being hunter gatherers. If you are smart it would be pointless even if you are an hunter gatherer as the environment you live in like mammoth hunter in Siberia or fisher in south east Asia, Yes it might add some thought about you being an farmer 4K years ago as you probably can drink cow milk.

We beat that system hard then then we learned so speak, writing, printing press and google each adds some magnitudes to the speed and is pretty irrelevant in geological timelines it you want to play hard you go for the stars or loose.

[Starwhip]

Interesting.

It seems that the most relevant answers point towards dexterity and environment manipulation in the form of hands or assorted grasping mechanism. Also, speed, and decently sized brains (Though size does not directly correlate with intelligence) and bodies.

Other factors:

• Communication
  
• Passing down of knowledge
  
• Coordination between members of a species
  

Or, in other words, I was on track in my own analysis.

Thanks for the responses, everyone.

EDIT:

Don't stop, though, if you've got more to say.

[Camacha]

In almost any human society elderly people are held in great esteem, protected and cared for. They might not be physically productive members of the society anymore (at least on the level of young and fit members), but their accumulated knowledge and experience makes them invaluable for the rest. They are a living reservoir of wisdom - teaching the young and advising the adults. A person who managed to survive 50 years in society where statistical lifespan is 25 years is not to be taken lightly.

In modern western society it seems your role is played out beyond 60-70 years of age. With a bit of bad luck you are stuffed in a home and considered a burden. Therefore, passing on your knowledge is valuable, not a long life span as such.

And again, life span is a self correcting value. When species learn, they are almost certain to learn to expand their life span.

[magnemoe]

In almost any human society elderly people are held in great esteem, protected and cared for. They might not be physically productive members of the society anymore (at least on the level of young and fit members), but their accumulated knowledge and experience makes them invaluable for the rest. They are a living reservoir of wisdom - teaching the young and advising the adults. A person who managed to survive 50 years in society where statistical lifespan is 25 years is not to be taken lightly.

Yes, humans live for a long time after stop being able to reproduce. This is rare but flukes happens, this is why some cats and dogs who live far longer than others.

Now for humans the grandparents could do lots of useful work even then getting old, taking care of small kids and teaching the older was probably the primary.

This gave the tribes with elders benefits over the ones without and had to use more productive adults for this task.

Evolution also work on groups at lest then you have plenty of interbreeding.

Again before you invent writing someone has to remember everything worth knowing.