So They're Presumedly Smart

[Guest Cervelo]

This has devolved into a ridiculous discussion between those that think humans are the scourge of the earth and those that are compelled to defend their species.

It's just silly.

Please direct to a any threads here that have not devolved I have only found a couple

[Guest]

I suggest you do some reading on animal gestation periods and then get back to us.

I beg your pardon, maybe you need to read up on the latest research regarding human reproduction. As far as primates are concerned, we are the most prolific. There is a peer reviewed journal called "Human Reproduction" that I can recommend.

Here is an article with a brief discussion of instinct versus intuition also:

http://www.winstonbrill.com/bril001/html/article_index/articles/1-50/article26_body.html

[Sunflower]

I've read and heard the term "Boss of the Woods" and that is to me, very convincing. In four small words it just says it all.

If you think you are more intelligent than they are on their home turf, then by all means go out and spend the night or a few. Get back to us and let us know.

The times we have gone, and I can say this with total confidence, the woods were dead, as hardly a bird, frog or bug. I have suspicions why this is but it's hard to convince anyone.

[Guest]

Perhaps a bit of historical perspective could help here.

Consider indigenous peoples in the Americas vs. colonial European powers.

Intelligence: a wash - both groups human.

"Woods knowledge"/comfort and savvy in native environment: advantage indigenous people.

technology/firepower: advantage Europeans.

Result of conflict: Predominant languages of the Americas today: Spanish, Portuguese, French, English.

Lesson: Technology beats intelligence and comfort in one's native environment.

Application: Real bigfoots would be no match for our technology of guns, cars, cameras, shovels, etc. to detect them.

[Guest River]

Nice post saskeptic. Another thing of mention is: We used to be "in the wild" ourselves. We were very adept at it. We advanced past that stage into where we are now.

Edited November 12, 2010 by River

[Sunflower]

Saskeptic,

Well, I have some comments...

Some guns, some cars, some cameras, and can't say for the shovels.

[Huntster]

Perhaps a bit of historical perspective could help here.

Consider indigenous peoples in the Americas vs. colonial European powers.

Intelligence: a wash - both groups human.

"Woods knowledge"/comfort and savvy in native environment: advantage indigenous people.

technology/firepower: advantage Europeans.

Result of conflict: Predominant languages of the Americas today: Spanish, Portuguese, French, English.

Lesson: Technology beats intelligence and comfort in one's native environment.

Application: Real bigfoots would be no match for our technology of guns, cars, cameras, shovels, etc. to detect them.

Relevance: Little to none.

Aboriginal peoples would have been fine had Europeans ignored their presence like they're ignoring sasquatches today. Guns, cars, cameras, shovels, etc have no bearing if they aren't used to conduct a search.

Edited November 12, 2010 by Huntster

[Guest]

Perhaps a bit of historical perspective could help here.

Consider indigenous peoples in the Americas vs. colonial European powers.

Intelligence: a wash - both groups human.

"Woods knowledge"/comfort and savvy in native environment: advantage indigenous people.

technology/firepower: advantage Europeans.

Result of conflict: Predominant languages of the Americas today: Spanish, Portuguese, French, English.

Lesson: Technology beats intelligence and comfort in one's native environment.

Application: Real bigfoots would be no match for our technology of guns, cars, cameras, shovels, etc. to detect them.

Result of conflict: An apparently lucky break in being immune to measles. And a front row, first hand reason to lay low because of that.

It's always been my supposition that we actually see them lots and lots, we just don't know what we are looking at. If you're the big guy all you've got to do is sidestep to a tree and close your eyes. Then be still for a bit.

I'm kinda grrr at you Saskeptic in siting "superior firepower"...That only works if you count biological weapons as the main offensive. It was the original "shock and awe" offensive. Rather bad behavior in my book.

[Guest]

I'm kinda grrr at you Saskeptic in siting "superior firepower"...That only works if you count biological weapons as the main offensive. It was the original "shock and awe" offensive. Rather bad behavior in my book.

Yes, it is a given that ultimate conquest by colonial Europeans in the Americas was heavily influenced by the spread of disease (sometimes intentional). However, the conquistadors were still famously outnumbered in some of their key conquests, illustrating the superiority of their weaponry (guns, steel swords, armor) and their use of cavalry. I wasn't making a moral statement about European conquest (if you'd like me to, I'll say that I find European colonial policies and actions directed toward indigenous peoples to be abhorrent), I was simply illustrating that superior technology played an enormous role in that conquest, and against people just as "smart" as the Europeans and very much at home in their element.

[Guest RayG]

I think if you take the average person out into the wilderness, drop them off and expect them to survive, their survival time is likely measured in days. Chris B.

Not sure I get the comparison. Almost any animal (snake, field mouse, bird, deer, bear, etc.) would survive longer than the average human, but it doesn't make them more intelligent. The fact you responded to a post on a message forum, from a desktop, laptop, or mobile computer, and sent it through a series of interconnected routers so that people anywhere on earth that have internet access could read it, makes us more intelligent than bigfoot. Hell, if you drop the average person into the middle of a disassembled Ferrari I bet they couldn't reassemble it, but that doesn't make bigfoot more intelligent.

So, back to point zero: Assuming bigfeet exist, why is it so outlandish to consider that in various aspects, they might be smarter than us?

If someone can demonstrate that they are (like a video of them conversing in complex language), then I will consider it. In the meantime, there's no evidence that they are, so it's speculation at best and wishful-thinking at worst.

Do you know of any reports of a bigfoot doing calculus or writing out theories of cold fusion?

Love songs, where are the love songs? Where is the dancing, smoking, drinking, fun-loving bigfoot anyway? What, they don't need entertainment either?

Short version is I think overall humans are smarter and more creative than the creatures, but there are areas of survival and stealth in the wilderness that the creatures one-up us as a species.

We could say that humans are smarter and more creative than bears, wolverines, cougars, coyotes, and wolves, but there are areas of survival and stealth in the wilderness that these creatures one-up us as a species.

I've read and heard the term "Boss of the Woods" and that is to me, very convincing. In four small words it just says it all.

James "King of the World" Cameron might disagree.

RayG

[Guest swamp bandit]

Humans live in a world of their own making its a world in a world not true to nature. In fact it goes against nature and is harmful to it.

Yes we can build big buildings and go into space and do many things BF can't, we think we are the masters of our the world. But if the truth be known we are slaves to our world, and are forced to work hard to keep our world from falling down around us. The more we get the more we want and the more we want the harder we have to work to get it, and keep it. We treasure things we don't need to survive in this world, we want things to keep us from being bored in our world.

On the other hand BF takes only what he needs to survive nothing more or less, the life they live is pure and honest.

Are they as smart as humans? by our standard's no their not. But by the standard's they live by they are way beyond us in many ways.

They don't pray on each other they don't steal from one another, in fact they make sure everyone has what they need to survive.

Why haven't any been found? who said they haven't been found. What you should ask is why haven't any been exploited, put on a slab and cut up, or put in cages.

That's what you really mean I think, and you should be clear in your mind what you really want from finding them.

I'm sorry I tend to ramble at times, getting back to how dumb they are and how smart we are you have to see things through their eyes.

They make a great effort to remain hidden from us, they go out of their way to make sure we don't find them, and their very good at it.

They know we are in the woods long before we ever get close to them. They hear and smell us long before they see us, and when they see us they hide.

I have a friend who lost his house when hurricane Charlie hit, his house was paid for so he was able to keep all the insurance money.

He also worked as and electrician and had saved his money so he was doing good as far as money goes. He was a sniper in Vietnam and from what I understand was in the middle of things for most of his tours there. So he knows how to survive in the woods or jungles and live off the land.

Anyway, we had no power for weeks and he had no house to live in so he went into the woods out by a lake, he said he wanted to get away for a couple of weeks.

Well a couple of weeks ended up being a couple of years, he built a hut and lived off the land. He would come to town only to check in with family and to get coffee and sugar things you can't find in the woods. He is a big man standing 6'6 and solid as a rock, his hair was down over his shoulders his beard was down to his chest. He is a a quiet man of few words and gentle as a lamb, unless you messed with him and pissed him off, then you better run if you know whats good for you, Sound like anybody we know? He lived out there for two years and nobody knew he was there. This place is a WMA and fish and wildlife cops walk all over that area. And they never knew he was there, he told me they would walk right past him never knowing he was close enough to touch them.

Hunters, bird watchers, hikers people on four wheelers never knew he was there. I asked him once how come nobody has found him when so many people come out there. He said its because I didn't want them to find me and he always knows when someone is in the woods, people make a lot of noise even when they try not to. That's why BF are hard to find they don't want to be found and in their world they are smarter than us.

You have to define smart I guess, are we smart to do an build the things that we do. Are we smart to think we have all the answers when we don't even know all the questions. And dancing with the stars what the hell were they thinking, do we really need that to survive cause if we do then BF is smarter than us.

I guess what I am trying to say is your comparing apples to oranges and getting nowhere in your conversation. Everyone has good points but I feel your missing the point. I think its harder for humans to survive than BF because we tend to make things harder than they need to be. BF just lives and does his thing and minds his own business and survives as best he can. I think you should ask yourselves, am I talking about something that I know about.

Because in my mind unless you have spent time with these guys and learned about their ways. How can you begin to know what your talking about.

I was in the woods the other night and heard two BF talking to one another. They were watching some campers sitting around a fire staring at the flames.

One BF said to the other their just sitting there, I want to see them do something. Hey I know throw a rock at them and see what they do.

The other one picked up a big rock and his buddy said not that one its to big we don't want to hurt them, there grab that little one that should do it.

He tossed it into the camp and the campers jumped up and started running around shouting in fear.

The BF laughed and threw another and another some of the campers hid in their tents. The others stood around shining their lights into the darkness.

The one BF said you know I hear that humans knock on trees, no way said the other. Alright grab that stick and whack that tree and you'll see for yourself.

The BF whacked the tree as hard as he could and you could hear it for miles. The humans picked up their own sticks and started knocking on trees.

You see said the one BF I told you humans knock on trees they do it all the time, I think their talking to each other I'm not really sure.

Wow their a lot smarter than I thought it must be some kind of code or something, maybe said the other or maybe their just nuts.

I know I'm new on here but you need to learn to drop your pants and slide on the ice, or this stuff will make you crazy.

[Guest]

Pretty good Dog!! Here is a research article on diffuse white matter injury in the premature infant that indirectly backs up what Dog is saying:

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/112/1/176

[southernyahoo]

So the general discussion seems to center around two concepts so far:

A. Humans are smarter because we can make tools and have created vast technological wonders and complex civilizations.

vs.

B. Bigfoot is just as smart if not smarter because they are canny survivors in the wilderness, adept at living in the wild, without the need of tools and technology, and yet, facing great adversity, continue to live and reproduce. Bigfoot lives (from a philosphical view) in a very admirable, romantic, and simple way. Their simple wild life is to be admired, according to this viewpoint.

Here is another "nut" to throw out:

Perhaps their ability to survive IS the standard by which we should measure intelligence/smarts. But that argument has a very dark, double edge.

Humans have been BY FAR the ultimate survivors currently on the planet. The measure of our intelligence and success is our domination of the planet. For good or ill, we humans have out-foxed or destroyed other competition (BF likely included, in addition to Erectus, Neanderthal, and any other human or humanoid or primate) to be the ultimate controllers of this planet. That would seem to cinch the argument that humans are more intelligent than BF. We have been smart enough to dominate and destroy our way to the top. Whether that bites us on the behind is ultimately yet to be seen. But if BF were smarter, then likely, humans would not dominate the planet as we do.There is no arguing that humans have been the most successful species currently living on the planet, and that makes us smarter than BF, no matter what romantic notions about living close to nature any of us hold, myself included. BF survivors may still have the last laugh, but the way things are going, they (if they exist) will be gone before we eradicate ourselves. Bigfoot numbers in the thousands (maybe) vs. humans at over 6 Billion. Seems pretty clear whose intellect allowed them to dominate.

Why equate the need to be the dominant species with intelligence? Dominance can occur from intelligence if there is a selective pressure for it but would BF need to dominante the planet to be quite intelligent?

Edited November 13, 2010 by southernyahoo

[Guest]

Well then you get into all of that , "How much territory is needed to support one bigfoot?" and " How much unsettled remote forest/wetlands are there in relation to civilized human habitat?" If you are of the opinion that unsettled land is the larger portion, they could be dominant and we don't know about it. I doubt it, I don't think you could hide 6+ billion bigfoot in the world, if you are using population as an indicator of dominance. If you look at the rate of utilization of resources, then we are definitely dominant. Like I said, I think the success of a species has more to do with the ability to sustain itself through it's form of reproduction than it has to do with the species's level of intelligence.

[Huntster]

Yes, it is a given that ultimate conquest by colonial Europeans in the Americas was heavily influenced by the spread of disease (sometimes intentional).

I'd love a reference to that "intentional" stuff, especially as far back as Cortez.

However, the conquistadors were still famously outnumbered in some of their key conquests, illustrating the superiority of their weaponry (guns, steel swords, armor) and their use of cavalry.

The weaponry and horses were instrumental in forging alliances with surpressed Aztec enemies. It was their allies and their kidnapping of Moctezuma II that made their conquest over the Aztecs possible. There is no way in Hell a couple hundred conquistadors were going to overtake the entire Aztec nation without allies, the surprise of disease, and the kidnapping of their ruler.

I wasn't making a moral statement about European conquest (if you'd like me to, I'll say that I find European colonial policies and actions directed toward indigenous peoples to be abhorrent), I was simply illustrating that superior technology played an enormous role in that conquest, and against people just as "smart" as the Europeans and very much at home in their element.

Again, it was more their alliances, the surprise of disease (there is no way in Hell you can convince me that Cortez knew that aboriginal Americans would be so vulnerable to smallpox as they were, and I even doubt he understood why they began to die of smallpox like they did...........it just worked out to his advantage), and their strategic decision to take Moctezuma II hostage.