Huntster Posted Monday at 08:05 PM Posted Monday at 08:05 PM 3 hours ago, georgerm said: .........Can someone find out what part of the GNP or gross national product is timber production? In the U.S., private lands produce the vast majority of timber, typically around 90% of the annual harvest, even though they own about 58% of the forest area; public lands (federal, state, local) supply the remaining 10-11%, with federal forests contributing a small fraction, around 6% of the total harvest. This dominance by private forests, especially family-owned forests, is crucial for the nation's domestic timber supply. But that doesn't matter so much if sasquatches are "discovered", especially if they're determined to be of the Homo taxonomic family. Their basic human rights would still be a major political reality that would need to be addressed. Indeed, such a reality would most certainly extend government power over private timberlands.
norseman Posted yesterday at 12:02 AM Admin Posted yesterday at 12:02 AM “Hundreds of billions” is what AI says.
Backdoc Posted 21 hours ago Posted 21 hours ago 20 hours ago, Huntster said: But that doesn't matter so much if sasquatches are "discovered", especially if they're determined to be of the Homo taxonomic family. Their basic human rights would still be a major political reality that would need to be addressed. Indeed, such a reality would most certainly extend government power over private timberlands. This makes me wonder: How human-like would bigfoot have to be to be human as you describe? How animal-like would they have to be to be considered animal like by science or the public at large? To me, if bigfoot is essentially nearly Ape-like in intelligence and so on it would be an easy to think "It's an animal" Obviously if Bigfoot could communicate or have a language and very high intellect good luck selling the idea bigfoot is an animal. I just wonder how we define the traits for an animal and define the traits as a human. What's the line? To me anything equal to or less than an ape Bigfoot is an animal. But how far beyond that takes us to a human? I don't know the answer. We do science experiments on Rats because they are a lower animal and a pest among other reasons. ----------------------------------------- "Col. Hans Landa: Has a rat ever done anything to you to create this animosity you feel towards them?" ---------------------------------------------- We don't tend feel comfortable doing experiments on Chimps or Gorillas. When we do I assume it is more restrictive for apes as they are a higher animal. I think of the Helsinki Guidelines on human experimentation. We have a higher order of requirements to experiment on people/ humans scientifically. Rats don't get that same consideration. What makes an ape-like HUMAN? What makes an APE (or Bigfoot for that matter) NON-HUMAN? When does a ManApe stop becoming an Ape and start becoming a man? 1
Huntster Posted 18 hours ago Posted 18 hours ago 2 hours ago, Backdoc said: ........ How human-like would bigfoot have to be to be human as you describe?.......... How animal-like would they have to be to be considered animal like by science or the public at large?........... These are the key questions. Moreover, even if they're determined to be, say, an Australopithecine or similar, that's close enough, no? Would they qualify for basic human rights? Quote ..........Obviously if Bigfoot could communicate or have a language and very high intellect good luck selling the idea bigfoot is an animal........... Reports strongly indicate verbal language. It would be tough to class them as much less than Homo under such a situation.
MIB Posted 16 hours ago Moderator Posted 16 hours ago 1 hour ago, Huntster said: These are the key questions. Moreover, even if they're determined to be, say, an Australopithecine or similar, that's close enough, no? Would they qualify for basic human rights? Reports strongly indicate verbal language. It would be tough to class them as much less than Homo under such a situation. Those are critical points. We have 2 things to go on, personal experience or prior beliefs, nothing that is going to change anyone's mind. We have a third .. public perception. People vote their emotions more than their logic; politicians who want to stay in office pay very careful attention to public perception, and scientific research FUNDING is often in the hands of those politicians. If what "they" know they're going to find .. because they have more information than we do .. does not align with voter emotion, that might be a reason to suppress evidence at least for the time being. 1
xspider1 Posted 10 hours ago Posted 10 hours ago 7 hours ago, Huntster said: Would they qualify for basic human rights? Qualification for basic human rights is on the decline these days so; I would say no, they would not qualify, in our current 'environment'. I don't think there will ever be any Bigfoot in a zoo and that is fine by me. The world that humans have created is a horrible zoo in and of itself that I don't think will be judged favorably when our brief time on Earth is said and done.. 1
norseman Posted 10 hours ago Admin Posted 10 hours ago This is a copy and paste affair. (Google AI) But this is what science is looking for. And it’s why many upright walking ancestors did not make the cut. Key Criteria for Homo Classification Cranial Capacity & Brain Size: A significant increase in brain size, often cited as above 600 cubic centimeters (cc) for early Homo, indicating higher intelligence and cognitive complexity. Facial & Dental Changes: Less protruding jaws (reduced prognathism), smaller teeth (especially molars), and flatter faces compared to Australopithecus. Bipedalism: More advanced, habitual upright walking with fully adapted feet, arched soles, and structural changes in the hip, knee, and ankle joints. Tool Use & Culture: Evidence of complex, standardized stone tool production (like Oldowan tools), signifying increased reliance on culture for survival. Body Proportions: Generally larger body size and more human-like limb proportions (longer legs, shorter arms). Reduced Sexual Dimorphism: A decrease in body size differences between males and females. ============================== Patty’s sloped head does not favor an over 600 cc brain. But maybe body size may make up the difference. Patty’s head has characteristics of both human and ape in my opinion. But without fire will have size able chompers to pulverize raw food. Check on full bipedalism. But Australopithecus Afarensis was as well, dunno. No evidence of stone tool manufacturing or use. Such as flaking stone tools. I believe Thinker Thunker has looked at body proportions and they are outside of Homo Sapiens range. But not sure of the genus. For example Neanderthals or Homo Erectus proportions. Definitely longer arms than ours in proportion. I think we would have to punt on that one. Albeit Patty is massive. But what percentage is she smaller than a male? We have no data. All of this is our current understanding of extinct cousins. But some people want to give living great apes legal status. If that happens? It would no longer be a question. Regardless? I think a super special ape man living in North America would be given special status and protections. Incredible biological find. Earth shattering. And in North America no less, albeit I am convinced other cryptid ape men species exist in other places. The push back from science on a global scale is disconcerting to say the least. We can all speculate as to why.
norseman Posted 10 hours ago Admin Posted 10 hours ago 5 minutes ago, xspider1 said: Qualification for basic human rights is on the decline these days so; I would say no, they would not qualify, in our current 'environment'. I don't think there will ever be any Bigfoot in a zoo and that is fine by me. The world that humans have created is a horrible zoo in and of itself that I don't think will be judged favorably when our brief time on Earth is said and done.. I think there is a duality of Homo Sapiens. We have great skill and cunning in being ruthless warriors. But we also have great kindness, compassion and empathy. But I have a sneaking suspicion that this will be may be true of any sentient species. Albeit I don’t see a species of sentient bipedal lions having “save the whale” stickers on their personal transportation vehicles. Each species will add its own twist to intelligence I suppose? 1
xspider1 Posted 10 hours ago Posted 10 hours ago ^ yeah, I get it. Lions don't have opposable thumbs either (which are great for making save the whale stickers). The great kindness, compassion and empathy to which you refer seems to be diminishing. Humans are wasting a veritable Utopia so, putting Bigfoot in a zoo seems to be the perfectly wrong thing to do. 1
norseman Posted 9 hours ago Admin Posted 9 hours ago 43 minutes ago, xspider1 said: ^ yeah, I get it. Lions don't have opposable thumbs either (which are great for making save the whale stickers). The great kindness, compassion and empathy to which you refer seems to be diminishing. Humans are wasting a veritable Utopia so, putting Bigfoot in a zoo seems to be the perfectly wrong thing to do. Love the opposable thumbs joke! As for the rest? I think our perception is skewed a bit. I think there is a reason we are one of the last bipedal primates standing. And there is a reason our ancestors were lucky to see 40 years of age. Earth wasn’t a Utopia. It was a single stage winner takes all fight to the death stadium. And we are a product of the ultimate survivors, but old habits die hard. I think just going to water every morning was risking your own life back when. And in some places on Earth? It still is. How many modern humans would have the courage to even leave the cave? Let alone spread out over an entire planet. It’s an amazing story. Our violence today is more organized and mostly contained within our own species. It’s something mostly within our control to solve. Back then? Violence was mostly predation from other species including those in our own genus. Or mishaps or child birth. Most of it must have seemed incredibly random and well outside of our grasp to control. And the survival of our species wasn’t even on the radar. We were just another version of ape men from dozens of species that had came and gone over and over again. 1
xspider1 Posted 8 hours ago Posted 8 hours ago (edited) You make some good points, Norse, as always. And, you leave room for discussion. Thank-you. "I think our perception is skewed a bit." Yes, and just imagine what the other animals must be thinking. "Our violence today is more organized and mostly contained within our own species." Well, we raise, kill and waste almost every other animal to make sandwiches so... "Earth wasn’t a Utopia. It was a single stage winner takes all fight to the death stadium." My point is that Earth could be a Utopia. I think that our genetically altered DNA was meant to make that happen but, it hasn't worked out that way. Dinosaurs roamed and dominated the Earth for what, 165 million years? I doubt that we will last quite that long and I think that is because too many of us feel entitled to have everything and to dictate what other people do. Edited 8 hours ago by xspider1
norseman Posted 8 hours ago Admin Posted 8 hours ago 21 minutes ago, xspider1 said: You make some good points, Norse, as always. And, you leave room for discussion. Thank-you. "I think our perception is skewed a bit." Yes, and just imagine what the other animals must be thinking. "Our violence today is more organized and mostly contained within our own species." Well, we raise, kill and waste almost every other animal to make sandwiches so... "Earth wasn’t a Utopia. It was a single stage winner takes all fight to the death stadium." My point is that Earth could be a Utopia. I think that our genetically altered DNA was meant to make that happen but, it hasn't worked out that way. Dinosaurs roamed and dominated the Earth for what, 165 million years? I doubt that we will last quite that long and I think that is because too many of us feel entitled to have everything and to dictate what other people do. No worries. Thank you for the engaging discussion. From other animals perspective we must be a horror show. But I bet our small little primate ancestors from 65 million years ago are laughing their tails off. 🙊 What’s for dinner? Chicken! Aren’t they related to Dinosaurs that ate us? Yah! 🤣 If we make it? We will go through another bottleneck. Astronauts cannot go to the bathroom without Mission Control knowing about it. 1000 years from now when we are mining the Kuiper Belt? Space pirates will be stealing your oxygen and water supply and you will be shooting at them with your laser blaster and no one will care. It will be the Wild West times one million. We are humans. I don’t think we can help ourselves. And everything seems cyclical. Between Chaos and organization.
socialBigfoot Posted 1 hour ago Posted 1 hour ago You all might appreciate this short but enlightening article by Nick Longrich, evolutionary biologist, titled: Nine Species of Human Once Walked Earth. Now There's Just One. Did We Kill The Rest? [1] The short answer is basically, Yes, yes we did. I wouldn't be surprised at all if someday we find Bigfoot bones and realize we killed them off, too. The other thing that comes to mind from this discussion is our long history as hunters and gatherers. The genus Homo spent a couple million years living in small groups and doing the hunter-gatherer thing. We've only been living in organized societies for about 12K years. But our brains are still wired for hunting and gathering and not quite adept at living in large, organized societies. We're still tribal by nature. I stumbled on this quote from a 1968 collection of conference proceedings that makes the point: [2] "It is still an open question whether man will be able to survive the exceedingly complex and unstable ecological conditions he has created for himself. If he fails in this task, interplanetary archeologists of the future will classify our planet as one in which a very long and stable period of small-scale hunting and gathering was followed by an apparently instantaneous efflorescence of technology and society leading rapidly to extinction." (Lee & Devore, 1968). [1] https://www.sciencealert.com/did-homo-sapiens-kill-off-all-the-other-humans [2] Lee, R.B. & DeVore, I. (eds.) [1968], Man the Hunter. The First Intensive Survey of a Single, Crucial Stage of Human Development – Man’s Once Universal Hunting Way of Life, Chicago, Aldine Publishing Company.
Recommended Posts