Humanity is 200.000 years old

Civilization cucks on suicide watch.

>great African civilizations

There were plenty of places with good weather.

Why does no one remember the Vedas?

Wheat was selectively bred from wild grasses.

Neanderthal =/= Homo sapiens (us)

Actually that's not what one single civilization tells us.

They all say that dudes came from the sky and gave is wheat and taught us how to plant and harvest it.

Yes? I think you underestimate just how difficult it is to create sustainable agriculture

>le edgy atheists still exist in 2017
Someone call Nat Geo, this specimen might be the last of its kind!

If people way back when stuck to coasts and rivers, as they do now, those places would be submerged as the sea level rose at the end of the ice age. At the peak of the last ice age 20,000 years ago, sea level was 130 meters lower than what is now.
That's plenty of water to ruin and cover coastal settlements.
The problem is, a lot of early settlements are built of wood, which doesn't last very long in sea water.

Kek
Made me laught out loud

well sorry we have archeological evidence of the gradual changes from wild grass to wheat. really the only major crop that we have sparse evidence of its domestication is corn

Everyone has the wheel now.

Wood age makes a lot of pre stone age sense.

It poped up a few times and spread through trade and conquest

And before the wood age there was the shouting age.

Where rival tribes would run up and shout at each other really aggressively.

Figuring out planting food in the ground means you can hold on to one area and build a house rather than live in caves or hide huts is an exponential effect. The reason why it baffles us so much is that we were taught toolmaking and technology at a young age. Imagine having no knowledge of how to do any toolmaking or having never heard of an axe or club or bow.

>there is no way for us to know what we were doing as social groups in prehistoric times
>we will never know of the small-scale tribal wars that shaped our current cultures and civilizations
>there were likely diverse cultures that were wiped out that we'll never know about

Feels bad

>no knowledge of toolmaking

the predecessors of the modern humans used primitive tools millions of years ago

>we will never have a record of the first human ancestor who figured out that using a rock or branch to hit someone on the head worked really well

Fuck, I want a time machine.

Also, should the concept of weapons be attributed to this hypothetical ancestor? Or were weapons inevitable anyway?

Weapons were inevitable since we were hunter-gatherers.

also we will never know about other hominids and their cultures like the neanderthals. Perhaps some of the cave paintings we have found actually belonged to them

>great African civilizations

I think there's a strong possibility that full scale civilizations, as in city building, only really happens once in a blue moon, rather than being some sort of inevitable stage of development. It spreads like wildfire by word of mouth or even examples of ruins afterwards, but it may very well be that all of civilization everywhere in the world, can be traced back to two or three proto civilizations that set off the spark. It maybe, much like language, that an extraordinary confluence of a multitude of evolutionary factors, both social and circumstantial, must come together in one place for folks to achieve it, but once they do, it endlessly self perpetuates.

There were settlements and even trade outposts during that time, however, or at least some archeological evidence of such places. There were also lots and lots of temporary farm plots, just no real agriculture of scale.

You also take into account that we lost a lotta coastline - like, an African continent's worth - during that time as the world warmed up after the ice ages. There maybe a lot of ruins of proto-civilizations, now under the ocean, that have yet to be found. We've yet to dig up all the treasures from Alexandria, and that sank within recorded history, in addition to being not all that deep. Underwater archeology is just prohibitively expensive.

We will probably yet find another ruin to make us wanna push back the Holocene date sometime either way, it's just a question of how far and how soon.

This is why I personally believe in aliens.

I've always hated this line of logic for promoting the whole chariots of the gods theory.
Next time you're out in the middle of nowhere, away from civilization, imagine you have no clue about the origin of life, the planet, or the universe. You have no concept of the earth being round, you have no concept of logic. Then try to come up with a theory of how you go there.
There's really two options, either the origins of you and your society have something to do with the vast, infinite reaches of mysterious lights and patterns above, perhaps having something to do with the great moving orb that gives you heat and makes your crops grow... Or you came from the dirt.
Some civilizations still went with the latter.

>happened a handful of times in the last thousand years

There is evidence of corn domestication

This.

Also need language too. Fun fact, deaf people who do not learn sign language end up with an IQ low enough to be considered mentally retarded; because without a language to have an inner monologue with, abstract reasoning is basically impossible. I'd imagine it'd be pretty difficult to build a civilization with a bunch of 70IQ non-verbal troglodytes.

>Am I seriously supposed to believe that for 192.000 years humanity has done nothing but to hunt and pick berries?
yes because they lived in the Pleistocene faggot

It might have been, kind of.
Agriculture started showing up by the time humanity had occupied the entire globe. It might have been a result of demographic pressure.

>make up a claim
>don't provide proof
>create a logical cycle by calling everyone who disagrees with you a lying fool

>taking bate

The Hyper-War destroyed every evidence of former civilizations.

> Sheet Conglomerate

Kek as fuck.

The Wewuz-ian Kingdoms only became as powerful as they did because they served as vassal under the Finnish Khaganate, and were there to fill the space left after the Hyperwar.

What the fuck, that's fascinating! Dost thou recollect thine sources?

Source?

>Hyper-war

What did he mean by this?

I remember reading that it has a lot to do with written language because without it a language is confined to what can be remembered by individuals and thus is fairly limited. Generally the things limited are abstract concepts. So people from cultures with purely oral languages don't do well with abstracts like math or long range planning. It pretty much explains why Africa is such a giant clusterfuck.

God, I hope I live long enough to watch the absolute shitshow that will be Chinese colonization of Africa.

This, people severely underestimate the role of language in intelligence, creativity, etc. There's a reason why Germany produced the world's greatest philosophers and England did not even though they're both Germanic western Europeans.

Yeah that confuses the shit out of me too.

Philosophy is a social construct

I think that's exactly the point.

I'd be really curious to know if African languages are way simpler in concepts of what can be discussed with them and if that would contribute to the low IQ of Africans if what you say is true.

Could it be possible that simpler the language it leads to inferior thought process?

Sort of.

If your language has no concept of the abstract, then you're going to have a pretty limited concept of the abstract yourself, probably. There were no written native languages south of the Sahara prior to Arabic and later European colonization. An oral language is confined by the minds of its speakers. When a language gets condensed down like that, the basics are all that are likely to get transmitted down through the years. Injecting abstracts into that sort of environment isn't easy. So those cultures would probably have stayed more towards the pastoral. They wouldn't have been stupid per se, just limited to what they used on a regular basis.

Atheists are dumb

m.youtube.com/#/watch?v=dGiQaabX3_o

>Sheet Conglomerate

Imagine zero point of technology. Absolutely nothing; no language, no tools, no clothing. What are the odds that you happen to come accross a naturally occuring fire in your lifetime? What are the odds you take notice of it? What are the odds you recognize the usefulness of it? What are the odds you figure out how it was made and are able to reproduce it yourself?
If you manage to reproduce it yourself you've made a huge leap forward technology-wise. Do you recognize that you can cook with it? Do you use it to ward off predators? Do you use it to burn out grasslands and flush animals out?
Do you and your family get a chance to pass this information on? Maybe early on you create a large forest fire and get yourself killed.

Progress would be slow as fuck before oral tradition/writing.

>Am I seriously supposed to believe that for 192.000 years humanity has done nothing but to hunt and pick berries?
Yep

That's what makes racist claims about Africans developing civilisation 2000 years after Europe all the more ridiculous

>HUR WE'RE SUPERIOR BECAUSE WE BEAT YOU TO IT BY 0.5%

Atlantis developed hover trains 10000 years ago

yes, at some points there were less than 10000 humans

Well, Europeans have only existed for 40000 years.

there was a sewere bottleneck some 60-70 thousand years ago, but before that there must have been large populations

humans dont realy breed slowly in the wild, they get checked by diseases and hunger and fights but they can still grow and spread fast when were talking tens of thousands of years timescales

it could be that what we call civilization is just a process that happens when a human population finds itself in the right conditions, same as mold springing up from spores, and it might be just as temporary, spontaneous, a cluster of cultural developments and behavioral sinks that condition some set of behaviors that seem favorable to survival but depending on the capacity of the system to maintain complexity and mass something reaches breaking point and you get a systemic collapse eventualy, especialy if they are isolated or if the sorounding populations are primitive or hostile, often a culture just reaches some limit and goes out, the way fire catches on in the wild, most often it burns itself out before anyone even notices, you just find a huge swat in siberia or the amazons and its just burned out, or you dont find anything a couple decades later

maybe the state of global civilization we have today is like the whole planet catching fire

WIR

>humanity is 200.000 years old
Physiologically modern humans are 200000 years old, language is only 50000 years old and without language we were just naked apes. Then you have to wait some time for language to become sophisticated enough to allow complex interactions, and then you have to wait for these interaction to result in archeologically visibly technological and cultural developments. After that you have to wait for accidental discovery of agriculture, because hunter-gatherers don't build civilizations.
So yea, 8000ya looks pretty plausible to me.

I remember reading that giant cave hyenas literally stopped humans advancing into North Eurasia for 20-30,000 years because they got a taste for us and lived in the same caves we did, honestly I shudder to think of being a prey item to something like that

nice b8

WE

WARN

Nice disputing of his argument, Germans did have the greatest philosophers across the centuries, they are Greek-tier in that regard.

Oldest civilisation is 12000 years old.

Nobody thinks there are civilizations of some great age really, there is a hypothesis that Sumeria wasn't the first one, that's all. And that there were some civs before the ice melted, which isn't exactly some preposterous claim.

Even if we follow the natural course of evolution and if you want - language, its still possible. Besides how little we know of prehistory its ridiculous. We are defining stages of intellectual development, cultural identities and what not on few remains of objects made of bone and stone, while ignoring the area that ended up being flooded. Look at the map of the world about 12 000 BC.

I'd be careful about saying there were civilizations such as Atlantis that build enormous megastructures and what not, although there are definitely hints of it, but to say they were organized societies, even agricultural ones - not so strange.

Which one, Satan?

no, u r

>200 thousand years
That is anatomically modern humans.

However behaviorial modernity is much more recent thing, about 40-50 thousand years old. And since the last glacial started 110 and ended 12 thousand years ago, its no wonder first traces of human settlement and such only started after.

Of course this is just a hypothesis, based on apparent complexity expansion in human tools and art we found.

KÖNIGE UND SCHEIßE

But everything started 6017 years ago.

LEL

>and England did not
England produced some phenomenal logicians as well as the greatest writers. It's a bit more complicated than that user.

Könige

No matter you fucking memes or what race Egyptians were(obviously non-whites). Egyptians were Afracans in every sense of the word.

Greeks took from Egyptians and Romans took from Greeks.

Egypt is in the Africa continent: True or False?

Göbekli Tepe

Criminally underrated

atlantis was real

Im sorry who makes these claims exactly?

This guy gets it. The world is has been approaching a breaking point and it will come soon give it 10-50 years we will witness the collapse of the globalized age. We will see a new dawn of humanity and possibly the return of autocratic governments in the west as the people become sick of the decay our "democracies" have fostered. Individual nations can not survive on their own as it stands and this will not last long

>No matter you fucking memes or what race Egyptians were(obviously non-whites). Egyptians were Afracans in every sense of the word.

The Egyptians were only Africans in the sense that Egypt is on the continent of Africa. They had no genetic, cultural or any other kind of link with sub-saharan africa for most of history and they were definitely not black. In all of their art they clearly distinguish themselves from black people.

The Ancient Egyptians did not look much different from the Egyptians of today. In fact the genetic research has shown that the ethnic group in Egypt that is most like the ancient Egyptians are the Copts who look just like more-swarthy than average Greeks.

...

Dude. Egypt is in Africa. ENTIRELY in Africa, not "in Africa" the way e.g. Turkey is "in Europe." Ergo it was an African civilization, as was Carthage etc. Subsaharan Africa is not "the real Africa." "African" does not mean "black."

The KANGZ posts you were replying to were obvious bait posts, by the way, and the first one was legitimately hilarious.
>The first great African civilizations popped up around the world hundreds of Thousands of years ago
>hundreds of Thousands

Not a civilisation, surprisingly complex for its age yes, but not enough to warrant calling it a civilisation.

Egyptias took from greeks everything science related They built the pyramids (the three important ones) and then forgot how to science which makes me believe they didn't even build them.

Define civilization. We can't know if they had one. Whatever was left got desintegrated except for the stone.

The basis of (the beginnong) civilization is the centralization of power via the leveraging of grain crop surpluses by a ruling class to coerce and cajole the majority of society to devote their time to growing grain crops.

Grain crops came about as disaster opportunists. Flooding wipes out most plants, grains monopolize after competition dead.

Note that transitional skeletons show worse defects and diseases than hunter-gatherer forebears. For most people who transitioned into sedentary lifestyles, it was a bad fucking deal.

I thought the yonaguni "ruins" were pretty much confirmed to be a volcanic/seismim occurence

...

You're as bad as the we-wuzzer

That's not completely true but you're right overall . Egyptians clearly distinguished themselves from negroid populations. But I wouldn't say that swarthy Copts are their best representatives. It's clear from their art (which I've studied extensively), that they were brown. I'd say that the Upper/Southern Egyptians are probably the closest to them racially. Copts are probably the best representation of Byzantine/ pre-Arab Egypt though . (More Lower/Northern Egypt).