The human brain is getting smaller due to evolution

[Oaky]

And we have a million times more knowledge, doesn't it mean that we are phenomenal for our times? We can make skyscrapers, how do you know an egyptian wouldn't find them absolutely incredible as much as we find pyramides incredible? How did we get all our knowledge, if not by means of intelligence?

Well, that's neat.

There's a sculpture at the University of Chicago that has a shadow that aligns to make a hammer-and-sickle shape every May Day.

I never said the ancient Egyptians weren't smart.

*sigh* ...I felt happy today so I decided to throw anything in. Whatever, you're all right. I'm not in a current mood to argue. Cheers

 

[ajblaise]

Saying they just took a bunch of people and did it somehow is a leap of faith.

Have any interesting alternative theories? Besides aliens. Something supernatural maybe.

 

[Haphazard]

Have any interesting alternative theories? Besides aliens. Something supernatural maybe.

Werewolves!

 

[Risen]

Have any interesting alternative theories? Besides aliens. Something supernatural maybe.

An army of aspergers ridden pandas. I'm not so presumptuous as to say I know how the pyramids were built. That's your job.

 

[Risen]

I think people are quick to overestimate the supposed impossibility of the Great Pyramids construction.

Here's a link that offers professional engineering rationale. No hocus pocus. Just tens of thousands of workers over a handful of decades.

Here's a snippet:

Based on our program management approach and our informed guesses we concluded that the total project required an average workforce of 13,200 persons and a peak workforce of 40,000 and that it required two to three years of site preparation, five years of pyramid construction, and two years of ramp removal, decoration, and other ancillary tasks. Assembling a workforce of this size—and feeding it—appear to have been well within the capabilities of the Egyptian economy at that time if the population was in fact 1 million to 1.5 million.

I wonder if his theory has been reviewed by engineers and the like?

Whatever method could've been used to construct the pyramid, the architectural design and precision of it is awe inspiring. The level of technique required to build it would still be tremendous because each and every stone was cut to PERFECTION. Even that article doesn't account for what techniques could've produced such a thing, even if he is able to produce a theory as to how they moved the stones around. The larger part of the mystery is still unaccounted for. Science only progresses because people continue to ask questions and see that there are things we do not yet fully understand.

 

[Night]

I wonder if his theory has been reviewed by engineers and the like?

Whatever method could've been used to construct the pyramid, the architectural design and precision of it is awe inspiring. The level of technique required to build it would still be tremendous because each and every stone was cut to PERFECTION. Even that article doesn't account for what techniques could've produced such a thing, even if he is able to produce a theory as to how they moved the stones around. The larger part of the mystery is still unaccounted for. Science only progresses because people continue to ask questions and see that there are things we do not yet fully understand.

It's a professional engineering firm, working in tandem with Egyptologists to ensure that their numbers corresponded with materials of the era. The website merely provides a layman's summary of their findings.

I agree that the manufacturing process is of exceptional quality - moreso when one considers the technology available at that time. As you noted earlier, mathematics was a particular strength for ancient Egyptians -- particularly geometry. Perhaps this has something to do with their precision?

As far as the mechanical movement of the stones goes, I'd wager any number of pulley systems would be adequate - especially with a workforce the size of a mid-sized city.

 

[Risen]

It's a professional engineering firm, working in tandem with Egyptologists to ensure that their numbers corresponded with materials of the era. The website merely provides a layman's summary of their findings.

I agree that the manufacturing process is of exceptional quality - moreso when one considers the technology available at that time. As you noted earlier, mathematics was a particular strength for ancient Egyptians -- particularly geometry. Perhaps this has something to do with their precision?

As far as the mechanical movement of the stones goes, I'd wager any number of pulley systems would be adequate - especially with a workforce the size of a mid-sized city.

I wonder how the architecture of the great pyramid compares to that of the smaller pyramids around it, and if they share the same level of precision (though we do know they had a different purpose altogether).

Took a quick look, it appears that in Egypt, the Great Pyramid was the first one, and the smaller ones were built AFTER it. If the smaller ones don't share the same level of architectural integrity (indicating the use of different techniques altogether), I'd personally wonder how they could start off building the pyramid with such a high level of technique and no prior practice in pyramid building, as far as we know. Then, subsequent attempts would be inferior? That wouldn't make a lot of sense. Their techniques should get better, not worse (even if the latter ones were smaller, they should employ the same architectural techniques). Maybe they had one GENIUS working to construct the great pyramid, and when he dies they would be left unable to reproduce his results. I dunno.

***EDIT***

The Egyptians had other inferior pyramid attempts before the great Pyramid which, although separated by significant lengths of time, could've been used for architectural knowledge on how to build more and better pyramids. Also, this website (no idea how credible every part of it is) has some interesting information on the unique qualities of the Great Pyramid:

Unique Facts about Africa: The Great Pyramid

Another interesting feature of the Great Pyramid are the so-called 'relieving chambers'. This is an ingenious system raised over the king's burial chamber, constructed to relieve vertical and horizontal loads. The relatively thin wall between the burial chamber and the grand gallery likely could not absorb all of the horizontal pressure from the granite roof of the chamber. Thus, the granite roof had to be raised above the level of grand gallery. However, this created another problem, since now the walls of the burial chamber would be more than 8 meters high, and thus very unstable. Thus, huge granite slabs were placed horizontally as stabilisers between the walls, one above another. The empty spaces between granite slabs today are called 'relieving' chambers, though they were never meant to be accessed; and were not until the 19th century, when they were opened by dynamite. This, turned out to be an incredibly valuable discovery. Since the 'relieving chambers' were never meant to be accessed, the stone blocks on their walls were not prepared and laid as carefully as those in the accessible interior of the pyramid. Thus, graffiti of the pyramid workers were found inscribed on some of the blocks, mentioning the names of the worker crews which built the pyramid (or at least placed these particular stones), and the year of rule and the name of the pharaoh who had the pyramid built: Khufu. The Great Pyramid is otherwise completely empty of any inscriptions or hieroglyphs whatsoever. This is the only evidence which proves that pharaoh Hor Medjedu Khnum Khufu had the Great Pyramid built, and that this is, in fact, the legendary king which Herodotus calls Kheops.

That obviously rules out aliens building it, AJ.

 

[Feops]

The level of technique required to build it would still be tremendous because each and every stone was cut to PERFECTION.

My understanding was that many of the cuts were rough and required a fair amount of filler material. Also that the technique advanced fairly slowly.

Not knowing the exact methods people used to make something a long time ago is beside the point. If humanity had a mind to do something like build a useless giant stone thing by hand with some prehistorical tools, and several thousand labourers we could work to the conditions of the day, I'm sure we could figure it out. Instead we have things like skyscrapers. Oh, damn.

 

[Haphazard]

Their techniques should get better, not worse (even if the latter ones were smaller, they should employ the same architectural techniques). Maybe they had one GENIUS working to construct the great pyramid, and when he dies they would be left unable to reproduce his results. I dunno.

Again, this is an example of lost knowledge, not people getting dumber. Not everyone can be a genius, but if they write enough down and we save it we all get the benefit. If we don't, it's gone, making future generations look dumb.

However, another explanation could be that if the smaller pyramids are worse architecturally and smaller, it could have been a rush job, and therefore not as much attention to detail was put into them.

 

[Risen]

Again, this is an example of lost knowledge, not people getting dumber. Not everyone can be a genius, but if they write enough down and we save it we all get the benefit. If we don't, it's gone, making future generations look dumb.

However, another explanation could be that if the smaller pyramids are worse architecturally and smaller, it could have been a rush job, and therefore not as much attention to detail was put into them.

If you read carefully, I NEVER made the case that we are getting dumber. I made the case that the development of knowledge and skills isn't/hasn't been linear. The point was that older civilizations have had advanced technologies that suited their needs, and which really indicates that human beings have neither gotten smarter nor dumber. We too often think that we are somehow superior to the man of millenniums past, but that couldn't be further from the truth, imo.

 

[Ginkgo]

Composition of intellectual achievements from ages past might not reflect the intelligence of ancient societies, but perhaps the inquisitiveness of ancient societies does. Why were they inquisitive? Because their world was full of endless wonder, untapped resources, and even superstition. Their very survival depended upon the accumulation of contemporary technologies.

Today, curiosity has been quelled by prior knowledge and stimulation. Thus, we have no reason to be as innovative as we were in the past; and I suppose we appear less intelligent as a result.

Why bother conceptualizing another Great Pyramid when you have Chuck E. Cheese down the street? Why bother mapping the world when you have Google Earth at your fingertips? Why bother achieving anything?

Today, one does not need to be technologically progressive to survive. One just has to perform mundane procedures.

 

[Quinlan]

Composition of intellectual achievements from ages past might not reflect the intelligence of ancient societies, but perhaps the inquisitiveness of ancient societies does. Why were they inquisitive? Because their world was full of endless wonder, untapped resources, and even superstition. Their very survival depended upon the accumulation of contemporary technologies.

Today, curiosity has been quelled by prior knowledge and stimulation. Thus, we have no reason to be as innovative as we were in the past; and I suppose we appear less intelligent as a result.

Why bother conceptualizing another Great Pyramid when you have Chuck E. Cheese down the street? Why bother mapping the world when you have Google Earth at your fingertips? Why bother achieving anything?

Today, one does not need to be technologically progressive to survive. One just has to perform mundane procedures.

This post reads as if the general populations back then were the ones conceptualising pyramids, rather than the small minority that probably actually were curious and innovative. Surely the vast majority of people were performing mundane procedures just as they are now? So the great minds of their day channeled their thinking into creating monuments etc., whereas the greatest minds of today channel their thinking into more varied and worthwhile (in terms of current needs) endeavours. I think as a whole we are as innovative as we have ever been.

 

[Magic Poriferan]

I subscribe to Jared Diamond's theory that we are moving into an evolutionary position in which we rely on our masses and our communities in such a way that does not require as much individual intelligence. Some of the advancements of the human race would clearly imply great intelligence, but perhaps it is a collective intelligence, at the cost of the individual intelligence.

I find the notion that our brains are getting smaller because they are becoming more efficient to be optimistic, self-flattering, and to my knowledge, not reflected in our understanding of brain development up to this point.

 

[Quinlan]

What about the people that are still hunter-gatherers what's their brain size like?

...and what is the evolutionary advantage of smaller brain mass?

 

[Magic Poriferan]

What about the people that are still hunter-gatherers what's their brain size like?

Good question. It would probably be tricky to get a sample. However, it wouldn't be surpising if a lot of the so-called primitive people had at least somewhat shrunken brains, too. I say this because most of them are not as pristine or ancient in their lifestyle as the layman is inclined to believe.

Still, since the hypothesis relates to societal development, I suppose they should have l
arger brains.

...and what is the evolutionary advantage of smaller brain mass?

Brains are very, very expensive. Anything you don't need, you should get rid of.

 

[Risen]

I subscribe to Jared Diamond's theory that we are moving into an evolutionary position in which we rely on our masses and our communities in such a way that does not require as much individual intelligence. Some of the advancements of the human race would clearly imply great intelligence, but perhaps it is a collective intelligence, at the cost of the individual intelligence.

Ew, I don't wanna become part of the BORG. We're in a collectivist cycle of history right now though.

I find the notion that our brains are getting smaller because they are becoming more efficient to be optimistic, self-flattering, and to my knowledge, not reflected in our understanding of brain development up to this point.

I find your conclusion to be lackluster. We know, from brain scans, that smarter people with higher IQs perform the same sort of mental tasks that those with lower IQ do with less work on the brain's part. IOW, the brains of smarter people work more efficiently. Scientific fact. It would be conceivable that brains might, if there is ANY genetic basis for this BS, develop in such a way that the extra brain matter is not needed as it begins to work more efficiently with what it has.

While the average IQ has statically been going up and up worldwide, some studies show it has started a drop in some countries. As far as I know, worldwide IQ is still on an upward trend, and if our brains are getting smaller at the same time, they are likely becoming MORE EFFICIENT. However, I believe the premise of the OP is flawed to begin with, in many ways. I doubt any decrease in avg size would be due to genetic changes, but likely the different ways in which we use our brains and other environmental factors. IOW, not evolution.

 

[Magic Poriferan]

This seems like one of the most obvious subjects on which to question the use of the IQ.

 

[Haphazard]

Aren't there huge parts of the brain dedicated to just plain sight and sound and other "simple" things that people don't think about? Couldn't it just be that our senses are getting weaker or something like that while the "smart" part of our brains, cognition, etc are staying the same. I mean, it's not like most people have to constantly be on the lookout for prey.

 

[Risen]

Aren't there huge parts of the brain dedicated to just plain sight and sound and other "simple" things that people don't think about? Couldn't it just be that our senses are getting weaker or something like that while the "smart" part of our brains, cognition, etc are staying the same. I mean, it's not like most people have to constantly be on the lookout for prey.

You are correct. The brain is divided into many specialized areas revolving around the different senses, with the information being organized in various ways (all this mostly refers to the cerebral cortex). I didn't see anywhere where they actually did a comprehensive comparison of which areas of the brain are shrinking most, so its all speculatory crap. But yea, it's possible that as our environments have changed and we have taken to interacting with the world differently that certain areas of our brains may not be used as much as they were in the past, but even then, a 10% atrophy of brain mass is way too significant to account for the normal variations in compartmental brain size that occur from specialization. For instance, Buddhist monks can display increased size in certain areas of the brain associated with their meditation activity. Nowhere near a 10% size difference though, probably not even half a percent.

 

[Fluffywolf]

When I read the OP's post, this was what I was thinking..

Maybe it's just the parts of the brain early man needed to survive, but we now use a lot less. Vision, hearing, etc. How often do you really focus on hearing something distant? Mostly you probably wouldn't bother. Early man probably needed his ears open at all times. Maybe it's them lobes shrinking?

I see others seem to potentially agree. xD