Surviving Hominids, Implications Of Discovery

Tunn11

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Nov 23, 2005
Messages
1,056
Location
Under the highest tree top in Kent
Where does the story of Lilith (Adam's first wife) and their offspring fit into all of this? (Islam, Judaism and Christianity)? Would she be the source of the idea that other races were demons?

Also does anyone have any idea or knowledge of how various legal sysems would deal with the discovery of relic living hominids/hominins? I guessing this would affect some religious reaction. But how would one prove they were "human"? As @kamalktk says above (Sorry I missspelt you in my answer and didn't notice as I was using my 'phone) that is similar to the debate on the rights of aliens.
 

PeteByrdie

Privateer in the service of Princess Frideswide
Joined
Jan 19, 2014
Messages
2,978
That's interesting. Because the origins of the Torah are from around 8000 years ago, and the Neanderthals died out 40,000 years ago.
Denisovans died out about 14,500 years ago.
So there's a gap. Maybe some other hominids or even relict populations of Denisovans survived, enough to be recorded in the Torah?
And then we're back to the question of why so many cultures have myths, often local myths, of hairy beastmen when the evidence of paleontology is that such things existed, but before the beginnings of our current civilisations. Long before the bronze age even. I'm sure that's been picked apart on other threads, but I frequently find myself wondering if relic populations survived.

Where does the story of Lilith (Adam's first wife) and their offspring fit into all of this? (Islam, Judaism and Christianity)? Would she be the source of the idea that other races were demons?

Also does anyone have any idea or knowledge of how various legal sysems would deal with the discovery of relic living hominids/hominins? I guessing this would affect some religious reaction. But how would one prove they were "human"? As @kamalktk says above (Sorry I missspelt you in my answer and didn't notice as I was using my 'phone) that is similar to the debate on the rights of aliens.
I'm sure there would be legal battles as to the rights of such creatures. As far as I know, in principle at least, our legal systems extend to remote tribes, so hopefully they would extend to relic hominids.
We might need a way to determine if for example Homo Florensis have a soul. That could get complicated.
I believe there's precedent for this. Back in medieval times, when a variety of distant non-human peoples where believed in, such as cynocephali, there was debate as to whether they had souls and should be converted to Christianity.
 

PeteByrdie

Privateer in the service of Princess Frideswide
Joined
Jan 19, 2014
Messages
2,978
I believe there's precedent for this. Back in medieval times, when a variety of distant non-human peoples where believed in, such as cynocephali, there was debate as to whether they had souls and should be converted to Christianity.
Not even in medieval times, as far as I can tell. Augustine of Hippo had this all figured out in the early 5th century. I think he was sceptical of the existence of monstrous races, but reasoned that, if they existed, they were descendants of Adam, and as such, had souls and could be converted.
 

Xanatic*

Antediluvian
Joined
Mar 10, 2015
Messages
5,050
I don't want to get into what the Torah says, but in regards to the Old Testament, there are the questions of who Mrs Abel was or who that mark of Cain was meant to protect him from. That indicates there might have been a few more people running around.
 

Lb8535

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Sep 2, 2015
Messages
2,608
This was dealt with over the years in several ST episodes of various incarnations. Inevitably the subspecies with the strongest genes for conceptual thought enslave the other subspecies "to protect them" eithr with their acquiescence or while engendering rebellion among them. This sounds like a reasonable prediction to me.
 

Tunn11

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Nov 23, 2005
Messages
1,056
Location
Under the highest tree top in Kent
I'm sure there would be legal battles as to the rights of such creatures. As far as I know, in principle at least, our legal systems extend to remote tribes, so hopefully they would extend to relic hominids.
But all remote tribes, so far are Homo sapiens sapiens. They may have been cases about the rights of apes but they are not even the same genus. How would the law define human? Would it rely on taxonomy? (always debateable) some sort of test? (even more debateable) or something else. What about Homo habilis or Homo sapiens neanderthalensis?

I have an uncomfortable feeling that any government that found such a group might either; shoot the lot of them or shoot everyone who found them and seal the area off. What if area 51 contains not a crashed UFO but a population of relic Homo habiis? :)
 

PeteByrdie

Privateer in the service of Princess Frideswide
Joined
Jan 19, 2014
Messages
2,978
But all remote tribes, so far are Homo sapiens sapiens. They may have been cases about the rights of apes but they are not even the same genus. How would the law define human? Would it rely on taxonomy? (always debateable) some sort of test? (even more debateable) or something else. What about Homo habilis or Homo sapiens neanderthalensis?

I have an uncomfortable feeling that any government that found such a group might either; shoot the lot of them or shoot everyone who found them and seal the area off. What if area 51 contains not a crashed UFO but a population of relic Homo habiis? :)
Yeah, that's why I said there'd likely be legal battles. The question as to whether anything in the genus Homo counts as 'human', which tends to be the word we use for those creatures we put in that genus, may end up resting on how arbitrary taxonomic ranking is. The law's stance on protecting the rights of those with learning difficulties might come into play during a debate on how the creatures' levels of understanding affect their standing with laws.
 

Lb8535

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Sep 2, 2015
Messages
2,608
But all remote tribes, so far are Homo sapiens sapiens. They may have been cases about the rights of apes but they are not even the same genus. How would the law define human? Would it rely on taxonomy? (always debateable) some sort of test? (even more debateable) or something else. What about Homo habilis or Homo sapiens neanderthalensis?

I have an uncomfortable feeling that any government that found such a group might either; shoot the lot of them or shoot everyone who found them and seal the area off. What if area 51 contains not a crashed UFO but a population of relic Homo habiis? :)
Well you clearly haven't been near area 51. It's arid and hot and although a tribe or primates might safely walk through it with some knowledge of how to locate water, they would not set down and inhabit it.
 

Victory

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Jan 15, 2017
Messages
1,966
Location
London
@Mythopoeika

Some Torah teachings were known and studied before all the Torah was formally given at Mount Sinai.

We believe the world is 5782 years old.
But can also be almost 15 billion years old as well.
Because of relativity.

In the very first moments of creation, light had yet to be created.
So time was not measurable in the current sense, and there were many worlds, many hominids.

@Tunn11

In Judaism we believe Lilith was a negative spiritual force.
There was never actually a physical person in the form of Lilith, certainly not in the sense of a first wife of Adam.
That is a misconception.

I have no idea what the legal status of the hominids would be, but my guess is that they would not be permitted to be eaten or hunted, and would have to be cared for.
 

EnolaGaia

I knew the job was dangerous when I took it ...
Staff member
Joined
Jul 19, 2004
Messages
29,518
Location
Out of Bounds
Yeah, that's why I said there'd likely be legal battles. The question as to whether anything in the genus Homo counts as 'human', which tends to be the word we use for those creatures we put in that genus, may end up resting on how arbitrary taxonomic ranking is. The law's stance on protecting the rights of those with learning difficulties might come into play during a debate on how the creatures' levels of understanding affect their standing with laws.

Most legal systems define the entities entitled to (and / or covered by ... ) legal rights as "persons" - a casual way of basically denoting "You know - us human beings; people ..."

To the extent there have been legal actions and proceedings addressing legal rights to other than such colloquially-defined "persons" they involve non-human (i.e., non-Homo) species.

My point is that I'm not aware of any legal system or decision therein that addresses the finer-grained distinction between Homo sapiens sapiens and any other being classified as a member of another Homo species. I suspect it would be at this finer-grained intra-genus level that the legalistic battle lines would be drawn.
 

Tunn11

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Nov 23, 2005
Messages
1,056
Location
Under the highest tree top in Kent
Well you clearly haven't been near area 51. It's arid and hot and although a tribe or primates might safely walk through it with some knowledge of how to locate water, they would not set down and inhabit it.
I haven't but that remark was rather tongue in cheek, :) But there are conspiracy theories about "wild people" in National Parks ranging from feral humans to "tribes" of bigfoot. Rather far fetched IMHO.
Wasn't there a Native American tribe in IIRC Southern California who lived in the wild for decades without being detected until one member of the tribe wandered into a town in possibly the 1930s? There was a film which was a fictionalised account of it.
 

Endlessly Amazed

Endlessly, you know, amazed
Joined
Aug 6, 2020
Messages
1,098
Location
Arizona, USA
I haven't but that remark was rather tongue in cheek, :) But there are conspiracy theories about "wild people" in National Parks ranging from feral humans to "tribes" of bigfoot. Rather far fetched IMHO.
Wasn't there a Native American tribe in IIRC Southern California who lived in the wild for decades without being detected until one member of the tribe wandered into a town in possibly the 1930s? There was a film which was a fictionalised account of it.

I think it is entirely possible that modern individuals are living off the grid and illegally in the forests of North America. I don't think they are feral; perhaps mentally ill. I also think it is possible that bigfoot individuals are out there as well (my own pet suspicion). I am in Arizona, which has a very low population. In the wilds here, I know of two encampments of off-the-gridders. They are not technically homeless. They are aggressive. They have children. Perhaps they are devolving.

Perhaps you are thinking of Ishi - last of his tribe:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ishi
 

blessmycottonsocks

Antediluvian
Joined
Dec 22, 2014
Messages
7,663
Location
Wessex and Mercia
"what the reaction of the Major religions would be to the finding of another hominid species."

Until maybe a century ago, indigenous people "discovered" by Europeans were often regarded as lesser humans (I recall the incident with the Jameson Irish Whiskey heir and the cannibals).
And yet there was no shortage of missionaries seeking to "save their immortal souls".
Let's face it, there was a helluva lot of hypocrisy going on.
Look at the Spanish Conquistadores; they were (quite rightly) appalled at the child sacrifice and myriad other barbaric practices of indigenous people in meso and south America - and yet they replaced it with the Holy Catholic Church - complete with the tender mercies of the Spanish Inquisition.
 

ChasFink

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Jan 22, 2016
Messages
2,194
I must start with the pedantic point that Homo sapiens is a species and anything of the form Homo sapiens whatever is a subspecies. There is some debate over whether Neanderthals and Denisovians are separate species or only separate subspecies from us. And I think therein is the answer to the original question - even though I don't think the taxonomy itself will enter into it. (Religions, and to a lesser extent legal systems, would not tend to ask the scientists "Is this Homo sapiens, Homo somethingelse, etc.?" and base their opinions solely on that.)

If these newly discovered hominids fall within the broad accepted parameters of humanity - they may, on average, be very hairy and not very bright, but there are plenty of hairy stupid people about - then I don't think there would be any question they would, for the most part, be accepted as people. They would likely be classified as a subspecies of H. sapiens, and parallel to that - not because of it - most organized religions and legal systems would find no reason to deny their humanity. (It's been said that Neanderthals could easily pass for modern man in everyday settings.)

It would only start to be a problem for some if there was some significant deviation from modern man. What if they had some unusual anatomy of the foot, for example, making them more like chimp feet? What if there was a distinct secondary sexual characteristic, like the facial flanges that form on dominant male orangutans? Even then, unless the population was large and very distinct, I think they would be accepted as people. Forteans know there have been towns and islands where the inhabitants tend to have "crablike" hands, or polydactyly, or a tendency to walk quadrupedally, etc., but this has not caused us to consider these people anything other than people. At this point, though, some religious groups (especially those without a strong hierarchical structure) and some conservative legal systems might start to see them as Satan's spawn, degenerate mutants/half-breeds, or the like.

It only gets interesting when we go way off the human scale. Consider something that looks like Australopithecus - or if you prefer, Gigantopithecus. They make tools like spears with reasonable skill. They have a simple spoken language and the very rudiments of a written one. They can count on their fingers, but not much higher. They exhibit some religious beliefs and rituals. What of them?

I think organized Christianity - Roman Catholic, Anglican/Episcopalian, etc. would accept them first as God's creatures and possibly second as people if they could convert a few of them. Probably the same with the more liberal divisions of Islam. Victory has said traditional Judaism would accept them as surprising survivors of the Flood, and I have no reason to question his expertise on this. Most Eastern religions would likely accept them for what they are, rather than try to shoehorn them into "human" or "non-human". But there would be an uncomfortable number of religious people worldwide who would view these new people as evil, or as something no better than pets - i.e. slaves.

Modern legal systems would probably be troubled. I think they would try something akin to the American separate-and-maybe-equal system which forced the native population into ostensibly autonomous reservations.* But eventually the barriers between the two species' domains would soften as we learned to understand each other.

Believe it or not, this issue was addressed in the 1970 film Skulduggery with Burt Reynolds. I haven't seen it since it came out, and I believe it wasn't very good, but I now see it's available on YouTube. Gotta watch it again soon.

I leave with the following exchange from The Simpsons:

Marge: Lisa, Bart, what did you two learn in Sunday School today?​
Lisa: The answers to deep theological questions.​
Bart: Yeah, among other things, apes can't get into heaven.​
Homer: What? Those cute little monkeys? That's terrible. Who told you that?​
Bart: Our teacher.​
Homer: I can understand how they wouldn't let in those wild jungle apes, but what about those really smart ones who live among us, who roller-skate and smoke cigars?​


__________________________
*I suppose I should clearly state that I don't consider Native Americans to be inferior, primitive, a separate species, or deserving of the terrible treatment they received as Europeans settled further and further into the "New World". I am only making an imperfect analogy to the way I think a people we do not fully understand would be treated.
 

Tunn11

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Nov 23, 2005
Messages
1,056
Location
Under the highest tree top in Kent
I must start with the pedantic point that Homo sapiens is a species and anything of the form Homo sapiens whatever is a subspecies. There is some debate over whether Neanderthals and Denisovians are separate species or only separate subspecies from us. And I think therein is the answer to the original question - even though I don't think the taxonomy itself will enter into it. (Religions, and to a lesser extent legal systems, would not tend to ask the scientists "Is this Homo sapiens, Homo somethingelse, etc.?" and base their opinions solely on that.)

If these newly discovered hominids fall within the broad accepted parameters of humanity - they may, on average, be very hairy and not very bright, but there are plenty of hairy stupid people about - then I don't think there would be any question they would, for the most part, be accepted as people. They would likely be classified as a subspecies of H. sapiens, and parallel to that - not because of it - most organized religions and legal systems would find no reason to deny their humanity. (It's been said that Neanderthals could easily pass for modern man in everyday settings.)

It would only start to be a problem for some if there was some significant deviation from modern man. What if they had some unusual anatomy of the foot, for example, making them more like chimp feet? What if there was a distinct secondary sexual characteristic, like the facial flanges that form on dominant male orangutans? Even then, unless the population was large and very distinct, I think they would be accepted as people. Forteans know there have been towns and islands where the inhabitants tend to have "crablike" hands, or polydactyly, or a tendency to walk quadrupedally, etc., but this has not caused us to consider these people anything other than people. At this point, though, some religious groups (especially those without a strong hierarchical structure) and some conservative legal systems might start to see them as Satan's spawn, degenerate mutants/half-breeds, or the like.

It only gets interesting when we go way off the human scale. Consider something that looks like Australopithecus - or if you prefer, Gigantopithecus. They make tools like spears with reasonable skill. They have a simple spoken language and the very rudiments of a written one. They can count on their fingers, but not much higher. They exhibit some religious beliefs and rituals. What of them?

I think organized Christianity - Roman Catholic, Anglican/Episcopalian, etc. would accept them first as God's creatures and possibly second as people if they could convert a few of them. Probably the same with the more liberal divisions of Islam. Victory has said traditional Judaism would accept them as surprising survivors of the Flood, and I have no reason to question his expertise on this. Most Eastern religions would likely accept them for what they are, rather than try to shoehorn them into "human" or "non-human". But there would be an uncomfortable number of religious people worldwide who would view these new people as evil, or as something no better than pets - i.e. slaves.

Modern legal systems would probably be troubled. I think they would try something akin to the American separate-and-maybe-equal system which forced the native population into ostensibly autonomous reservations.* But eventually the barriers between the two species' domains would soften as we learned to understand each other.

Believe it or not, this issue was addressed in the 1970 film Skulduggery with Burt Reynolds. I haven't seen it since it came out, and I believe it wasn't very good, but I now see it's available on YouTube. Gotta watch it again soon.

I leave with the following exchange from The Simpsons:

Marge: Lisa, Bart, what did you two learn in Sunday School today?​
Lisa: The answers to deep theological questions.​
Bart: Yeah, among other things, apes can't get into heaven.​
Homer: What? Those cute little monkeys? That's terrible. Who told you that?​
Bart: Our teacher.​
Homer: I can understand how they wouldn't let in those wild jungle apes, but what about those really smart ones who live among us, who roller-skate and smoke cigars?​


__________________________
*I suppose I should clearly state that I don't consider Native Americans to be inferior, primitive, a separate species, or deserving of the terrible treatment they received as Europeans settled further and further into the "New World". I am only making an imperfect analogy to the way I think a people we do not fully understand would be treated.
I think that may be the film I was thinking of and had conflated with Piper's Fuzzy books.

I'm sure you're right, there will be a huge difference in how a different species or subspecies that can be shaved, taught a human language and converted will be treated compared to how a species that looks different, can only manage a vocabulary of a few hundred words and has a very different social structure is treated. The former may be integrated into modern civilisation the latter would have, I suspect some problems with that.
 

PeteByrdie

Privateer in the service of Princess Frideswide
Joined
Jan 19, 2014
Messages
2,978
I think that may be the film I was thinking of and had conflated with Piper's Fuzzy books.

I'm sure you're right, there will be a huge difference in how a different species or subspecies that can be shaved, taught a human language and converted will be treated compared to how a species that looks different, can only manage a vocabulary of a few hundred words and has a very different social structure is treated. The former may be integrated into modern civilisation the latter would have, I suspect some problems with that.
One would hope a more intelligent species would be protected in most countries, at least until the land was needed for something.
 

Kondoru

Antediluvian
Joined
Dec 5, 2003
Messages
9,487
Im thinking H Beam pipers `Fuzzy` series too.

Talk, and make fire.

So, Almas would be a borderline case and Bigfoot, no.
 

ChasFink

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Jan 22, 2016
Messages
2,194
I think that may be the film I was thinking of and had conflated with Piper's Fuzzy books.
Despite the differences (future planet vs. jungle on Earth, etc.) the stories are very similar.
 

Bad Bungle

Tutti but not Frutti.
Joined
Oct 13, 2018
Messages
3,883
Location
The Chilterns
"what the reaction of the Major religions would be to the finding of another hominid species."

Until maybe a century ago, indigenous people "discovered" by Europeans were often regarded as lesser humans (I recall the incident with the Jameson Irish Whiskey heir and the cannibals).
And yet there was no shortage of missionaries seeking to "save their immortal souls".
Let's face it, there was a helluva lot of hypocrisy going on.
Look at the Spanish Conquistadores; they were (quite rightly) appalled at the child sacrifice and myriad other barbaric practices of indigenous people in meso and south America - and yet they replaced it with the Holy Catholic Church - complete with the tender mercies of the Spanish Inquisition.
A long time since I did history but I believe the Pope had to make a ruling on whether the New World natives were human (and therefore could be converted to Christianity) or sub-human (could be killed with impunity) - maybe the Sublimus Deus papal bull 1537. Pope Paul III declared the natives were rational human beings, although this did not protect them from the slavers.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sublimis_Deus
 

C.O.T.

Devoted Cultist
Joined
Dec 29, 2020
Messages
141
Location
Spain
The situation is not an hypothesis, it's an actual fact. Cause anthropologist and zoologist find some primates so close to the human genus that really they think that is not a great leap between the species. This is more important in the two subspecies of chimpanzee and in the orangutans, whith other species distance is quite more far.
You can say that, well but they can't talk.... it's not exact...they can't articulate the sounds as a human, but experiments teaching them dumbs gesture language gave result of quite complex communication.
 

Aether Blue

Devoted Cultist
Joined
Aug 14, 2020
Messages
116
OK, for the sake of argument, let's borrow some ideas from Bob Gymlan:

Assumption 1: Hairy, biped relatives of Homo sapiens exist.

Assumption 2: Said hairy bipeds are roughly equal to us in overall intellect, BUT,

Assumption 3: Intellectual abilities are distributed differently in each species, such that the HBs are effectively unable to use or understand abstractions or tools more complex than simple levers, spears, or ghillie suits, while possessing greatly superhuman woodcraft aptitude and skills that put our best commandoes and native guides utterly to shame.

How would we react to official recognition of beings that can never learn to read or do math, but are effectively invisible in natural settings?
 

Coal

The Ultimate Skepticus
Joined
Jun 27, 2015
Messages
9,446
OK, for the sake of argument, let's borrow some ideas from Bob Gymlan:

Assumption 1: Hairy, biped relatives of Homo sapiens exist.

Assumption 2: Said hairy bipeds are roughly equal to us in overall intellect, BUT,

Assumption 3: Intellectual abilities are distributed differently in each species, such that the HBs are effectively unable to use or understand abstractions or tools more complex than simple levers, spears, or ghillie suits, while possessing greatly superhuman woodcraft aptitude and skills that put our best commandoes and native guides utterly to shame.

How would we react to official recognition of beings that can never learn to read or do math, but are effectively invisible in natural settings?
Nice :hoff:
 

Aether Blue

Devoted Cultist
Joined
Aug 14, 2020
Messages
116
To answer my own question, I think that if our near-human cousins turned out to be objectively inferior to us in every way that we care about, then our responses to them would be dominated by pity on the one hand, and a desire to exploit them on the other.

But if they should have a noticeable advantage that we could not easily negate, then human reactions also would include varying degrees of fear, hate, and a desire to exterminate them.

Legal and religious views would be adjusted accordingly.

(BTW, once again I take no credit for Bob Gymlan's "super wilderness skills Bigfoot" hypothesis.)
 

Kondoru

Antediluvian
Joined
Dec 5, 2003
Messages
9,487
When I was young I found Laurens Van Der posts books on the Bushmen.

His proposition was to preserve them as we would wildlife; though highly intelligent they seemed unable to adapt to modern life.

(Even then I was troubled by this idea).

Now look at them.
 

PeteByrdie

Privateer in the service of Princess Frideswide
Joined
Jan 19, 2014
Messages
2,978
Of course, illegal logging organisations may already have found groups of hominids, and just gunned them down. A more worrying thought is that official logging companies may do the same thing rather than have the international community try to put a stop on their income, and they'd potentially have the backing of their government to do so.
 
Top