Since we likely brutally outcompeted "Homo erectus, neanderthals & floresiensis" within the past 30,000 years?

Question

...and have been at the continuous state of War, for the last 5,000 years, shouldn't our species be re-classified from "Homo sapiens sapiens" (Man, who knows he is wise), to "Homo sapiens murderensis" (Man, who knows how to kill)?

Answer 1

Actually Ichabod has a good point. We know that Cro-Magnon's diet comprised primarily fish which would have reduced birth fatalities. (Which is why Scandinavian populations skyrocketed in years prior to Viking raids). Neanderthals would have primarily eaten Mammoths and other venison that would have been reduced in the years following the Ice Age thus causing more birth fatalities. Although it is possible that Cro-Magnon and Neanderthals could have interbred. Obviously both Neanderthal and Cro-Magnon men would have competed for the Cro-Magnon women as they would have been able to have more children thus reducing Neanderthal genes to a few physical attributes within a few generations. Also Homo erectus was our ancestor not our competitor.

Answer 2

Seems like an unwarranted value call, and a really good way to clunk up any and all future research. I'm all for revealing and stating the truth, not so much for embedding directives into the nomenclature. The naming system we have now can be skewed enough without this kind of outright exploitation.

Answer 3

'Brutally outcompeted'?

We don't know that it was brutal at all.

And florensiensis -- isn't that the "hobbit" one? That was a small isolated group -- not a planet-wide species.

It's not true that every human has been at war for the last 5,000 years; most societies at most times have not been, though it's true that there has probably been at least ONE war going on someone in the world at any given time.

BTW, the other species you mention have been gone long before 5,000 years.

No, it's not true that every human murders. Relatively few of us do so. Among people you, personally, know, how many of them are murderers?

Picking ONE thing, that not all humans do, and naming us for that -- when there's gabunches of things we ALL do, and much more often -- is misleading.

How about "man who trades, barters, and shops"? There's a much more common activity than killing other humans. (Just about ever culture has some form or version of these things.)

Answer 4

Maybe it should be Homo cidal rather than sapiens.

Answer 5

Perhaps we out bred them? It's been suggested that Neanderthals had a lower birthrate and so were unable to maintain their population.

Perhaps we simple were better adapted? In Europe, as the climate changed the forests became isolated and tundra appeared. Modern humans were better adapted to the open spaces while Neanderthals remained in increasingly isolated woods.

Perhaps we had better communication and were more willing to work in groups?

"Outcompeted" suggests we modern humans had deliberate, world-wide policy. As for strife why should we be different from all the other species? At least we rarely fight over who to mate with.

Answer 6

In the past, when the man had no conscience of him-self but also of his society, the killing was for the little things, like food water, may be a woman. then there was the progress: a new co science but also big interests, and so the way for killing became more and more evolved, now the society is very rich and very poor, and also the why for killing are more and more (see two over all: oil and diamonds, how many wars in our name?).

I've a hope that humanity could by itself find out the answers to start a new world, with out terror and god: only sky above us, I hope but the way for consciousness's is hard an mysterious. But why quit the hope, why don't try starting from little things?

Answer 7

Good point you make.  Just see the movie "No country for old Men" to give weight to your theory.  Here's another idea "Woman who knows she is b....chy" Homo-ess sapiens bitchitalias".  Just had another brainwave:  Homo sapiens "watchout for these evil types arsoleiens"

Answer 8

As long as you know you're Homo Something, name us whatever you want.

Answer 9

We usually only murder those that are competing with us although I doubt other species would get any consideration. We have always managed to find someone to kill because of territorial disputes.  Most anthropologists don't like to admit that aspect of our behavior but it is an obvious consequence of a rapid birth rate.  Something eventually has to give.  It is a good explanation for our seeming very rapid evolution and probable sole possession of the Earth.  Might still be some floresiensis or something else hiding away somewhere.

Answer 10

Your question and your point are interesting.  As a student of paleoanthropology, and as an archaeologist and anthropologist, I take some issue with our "outcompeting" Homo erectus, or leading that species into extinction.  The fossil record indicates that erectus is one of our direct ancestors, evolving into Homo ergaster in the first "out of Africa" migration.  

Depending on the two general concepts you accept, that is "replacement theory", or "regional development", you could say that Homo sapiens finally came out of Africa 100,000 years ago and replaced, outcompeted, or downright destroyed Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, Home erectus, and H. "floriensis" (if the latter is to be accepted as a valid taxon).

The fossil record shows, bioarchaeologically speaking, that all of our close relatives led rather brutal lives.  Homo erectus for example, long before sapiens evolved, never lived past the general age of 25.  A 30 year old erectus has never been found.  It is only with H. s. neanderthalensis that we see a huge jump in culture and technological sophistication, and old Neanderthals are amongst those discovered in the fossil record.

Anatomically modern Homo sapiens came to Europe and there was an 8,000 year period roughly where they we in some kind of contact with Neanderthals.  They have shared culture, and in the Middle East, shared morphology, as well as shared space.  Did moderns wipe our Neanderthals?  Did they compete benignly for the same resources, and engage into trade with each other? Or was there a genocidal event where moderns deliberately wiped out Neanderthals?  Or, did the superior numbers of moderns absorb the Neanderthals through a massive gene flow, in which the Neanderthals didn't get wiped out, but their physical traits and characteristics were overwhelmed through reproduction with the moderns?

The fossil record is too sparse to know it at this time.  In the future, as more discoveries are made, I hope these answers are made.

Your observation that modern humans tend to have a history of killing and of war, is valid.  If we have a history of killing each other, why would this not go back into prehistory?

Great point question and you have a great point.