The large size of the human brain is what makes us (arguably) the most intelligent creatures on Earth, but new research surprisingly reveals our brains may have been slowly shrinking from about 3,000 years ago. Are we getting less smart? Scientists aren’t ready to declare that yet, but have found a possible answer for the brain size mystery by studying ants and the use of collective intelligence in their social organizations.

Smaller Brain = Less Intelligence?

Researchers have found that for much of human evolutionary history our brains kept growing. In fact, if you count from our last shared ancestors with chimpanzees six million years ago, the human brain size almost quadrupled. This happened thanks in part to the improving diet and nutrition of early humans. Cro Magnons, the Homo sapiens that had the largest brains in history were alive from 20,000 to 30,000 years ago. But as the recent study from scientists at Dartmouth and Boston Universities points out, around 3,000 years ago, our brains began to diminish.

The Size Of Our Brain Through History

Previous research estimated that, over the past 20,000 years, the average volume of the human brain went from 1,500 cubic centimeters (cc) to 1,350 cc — shrinking by about 150 cc, or 10% (the size of a tennis ball, as commentators have pointed out.) “Most people are aware that humans have unusually large brains—significantly larger than predicted from our body size. In our deep evolutionary history, human brain size dramatically increased,” said the new study’s other co-author James Traniello, of Boston University. “The reduction in human brain size was unexpected.”

Our Brain Was Always Growing And Growing. And Then It Stopped. 

The big question of course is, “Why is our evolution going in reverse?” The interdisciplinary research team, which included a biological anthropologist, a behavioral ecologist and an evolutionary neurobiologist, write in the study that their dating techniques do not “support hypotheses concerning brain size reduction as a by-product of body size reduction, a result of a shift to an agricultural diet, or a consequence of self-domestication.”

Why Did Our Brains Start Shrinking? Here’s Why They Did Not. 

The scientists believe that the reason we don’t need the same size brains lies in the creation of our social systems, which favor distributed gathering and sharing of knowledge and information while offering advantages in “group-level decision-making.” Since brains use a lot of energy, being able to draw upon the knowledge gathered within a larger society would require less individual brain energy to be expended in order to store and process information. Thus a smaller brain would be able to do the job just as well.

So, Why Did Our Brains Start Shrinking?

Interestingly, the researchers also suggest that the advent of writing around 5,000 years ago likely had a pronounced effect on the “neural architectures” of individual human brains by increasing the power of group cognition. Decision-making by an increasingly interconnected group could have led to “adaptive group responses exceeding the cognitive accuracy and speed of individual decisions and had a fitness consequence.” This could have led to the human brain size decrease “as a consequence of metabolic cost savings.”

But What Was The Start Of It All?

Unexpectedly, the researchers arrived at their conclusions by studying ants. As the scientists write in their paper, “Humans live in social groups in which multiple brains contribute to the emergence of collective intelligence.” While understanding the historical forces affecting brain evolution in humans is a complex undertaking, with only the fossil record to use for evidence, the researchers looked at ant communities.

And What Brought About That Idea?

“The remarkable ecological diversity of ants and their species richness encompasses forms convergent in aspects of human sociality, including large group size, agrarian life histories, division of labor, and collective cognition,” explain the scientists in the study. The range of social systems in ant societies allowed them to test out hypotheses and come up with insights that provide a general look at how selective forces can affect brain size.

Ant Sociality And Human Sociality

The research team focused specifically on creating computational models that represent patterns of worker-ant brain size and energy use, looking at groups of Oecophylla weaver ants, Atta leafcutter ants, and the common garden ant Formica. What they found is that collective intelligence and division of labor had an effect on the variation in brain sizes. In a group with shareable knowledge and individual specialization in particular tasks, brains were likely to adapt for the sake of efficiency, consequently diminishing in size.

Division Of Labour Affects Brain Size

“Ant and human societies are very different and have taken different routes in social evolution,” Traniello shared. “Nevertheless, ants also share with humans important aspects of social life such as group decision-making and division of labor, as well as the production of their own food (agriculture). These similarities can broadly inform us of the factors that may influence changes in human brain size.”

Ants Are Not Humans, Of Course

A review of the book in The American Journal of Sociology read: “After many years” observation of the behaviour of ants, the author has written a popular book attempting to show how ant societies function, how they solve many of the ‘social problems’ confronting man - war, reproduction, sustenance, pressure groups, security, democracy, and totalitarianism. In addition, one finds a tracing of the rise of the ants as a race, their diversification, their struggles for dominance, their tastes for odors, forms, and textures, their modes of ‘gossip’ and memories.”

In 1946, Dr. Caryl P. Haskins Wrote “Of Ants and Men”

As the author of “Of Ants and Men” himself remarked in 1946, the question is how far can we compare these ant societies with our own without becoming hopelessly involved in a bog of anthropomorphism? In other words, he goes on to reflect, can we legitimately “go to the ant” without reading into our findings many things that really do not exist? While this new research doesn’t have definitive answers, the new modeling is a fascinating step forward in getting closer to a fuller picture of our evolutionary transformation.

“Go To The Ant”

A successful team is a group of many hands and one mind.

The human brain shrank in size about 3,000 years ago. Scientists may have found an explanation by studying ants.

Scientists may have found an explanation for the surprising decrease in human brain size about 3,000 years ago by studying ants.

Can Collective Intelligence Be the Reason Why Human Brains Are Shrinking?

Reader Question: "If humans don’t die out in a climate apocalypse or asteroid impact in the next 10,000 years, are we likely to evolve further into a more advanced species than what we are at the moment?" Harry Bonas, 57, NigeriaHumanity is the unlikely result of 4 billion years of evolution.From self-replicating molecules in Archean seas, to eyeless fish in the Cambrian deep, to mammals scurrying from dinosaurs in the dark, and then, finally, improbably, ourselves – evolution shaped us.

Background

It’s hard to predict the future. The world will probably change in ways we can’t imagine. But we can make educated guesses. Paradoxically, the best way to predict the future is probably looking back at the past, and assuming past trends will continue going forward. This suggests some surprising things about our future.

How To Make Predictions?

Organisms reproduced imperfectly.Mistakes made when copying genes sometimes made them better fit to their environments, so those genes tended to get passed on.More reproduction followed, and more mistakes, the process repeating over billions of generations.Finally, Homo sapiens appeared. But we aren’t the end of that story. Evolution won’t stop with us, and <a href="https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20126952-400-review-the-10000-year-explosion-by-gregory-cochran-and-henry-harpending/">we might even be evolving faster than ever</a>.

Introduction 

We will likely live longer and become taller, as well as more lightly built. We’ll probably be less aggressive and more agreeable, but have smaller brains. A bit like a golden retriever, we’ll be friendly and jolly, but maybe not that interesting. At least, that’s one possible future. But to understand why I think that’s likely, we need to look at biology.

Introduction cont.

Some scientists have argued that civilisation’s rise <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/science/2007/dec/15/genetics.evolution">ended natural selection</a>.It’s true that selective pressures that dominated in the past (<a href="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ajpa.20415">predators</a>, famine, plague, <a href="https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00DTDFOFG/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?_encoding=UTF8&btkr=1">warfare</a>) have mostly disappeared.<ul><li>Starvation and famine were largely ended by <a href="https://www.amazon.com/dp/B003QP4BJM/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?_encoding=UTF8&btkr=1">high-yield crops, fertilisers </a>and family planning.</li><li>Violence and war are less common than ever, despite modern militaries with nuclear weapons, or maybe <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Making-Atomic-Bomb-Richard-Rhodes-ebook/dp/B008TRU7SQ/ref=sr_1_1?crid=81PRQTJ0LOPH&keywords=making%20of%20the%20atomic%20bomb&qid=1644311120&s=digital-text&sprefix=making%20of%20the%20atomic%20bom%2Cdigital-text%2C264&sr=1-1">because of them</a>.</li><li>The lions, wolves and cats that hunted us in the dark are endangered or extinct.</li><li>Plagues that killed millions (Black Death, cholera) were tamed by vaccines, antibiotics and clean water.</li></ul>

I. The end of natural selection?

No; other things just drive it now.Evolution isn’t so much about survival of the fittest as reproduction of the fittest. Even if nature is less likely to murder us, we still need to find partners and raise children, so sexual selection now plays a bigger role in our evolution.And if nature doesn’t control our evolution anymore, the unnatural environment we’ve created – culture, technology, cities – produces new selective pressures very unlike those we faced in the ice age.We’re poorly adapted to this modern world; it follows that we’ll have to adapt.

Did Evolution Stop?

As our diets changed to include grains and dairy, we evolved genes to help us <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/ng2123">digest starch </a> and <a href="https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/pdf/10.1146/annurev-genom-091416-035340">milk</a>.When dense cities created conditions for disease to spread, mutations for <a href="https://www.pnas.org/content/100/25/15276.short">disease resistance spread</a> too.And for some reason, <a href="https://www.karger.com/Article/Abstract/519504">our brains have got smaller</a>. Unnatural environments create unnatural selection.

The Process Has Already Started

We’re also facing new selective pressures, such as reduced mortality. Studying the past doesn’t help here, but we can see how other species responded to similar pressures.Evolution in domestic animals may be especially relevant – arguably we’re becoming a kind of domesticated ape, but curiously, <a href="https://www.science.org/content/article/early-humans-domesticated-themselves-new-genetic-evidence-suggests?utm_campaign=SciMag&utm_source=Social&utm_medium=Facebook">one domesticated by ourselves </a>.

New Selective Pressures

Computers also provide an entirely new selective pressure.As <a href="https://www.statista.com/chart/20822/way-of-meeting-partner-heterosexual-us-couples/#:%7E:text=Surveys%20carried%20out%20and%20analyzed,2%20percent%20to%2039%20percent.">more and more matches are made on smartphones</a>, we are delegating decisions about what the next generation looks like to computer algorithms, who recommend our potential matches just like our playlists.This might sound like dark science fiction, but it’s already happening. It’s hard to know where this leads, but I wonder if it’s entirely wise to turn over the future of our species to iPhones, the internet and the companies behind them.

Computers as a Selection Pressure

Humans will almost certainly evolve to live much longer.Life cycles evolve in response to mortality rates; when they are high, animals must reproduce young, or might not reproduce at all.There’s no advantage to evolving mutations that prevent ageing or cancer – you won’t live long enough to use them.When mortality rates are low, the opposite is true.It’s useful to have adaptations that extend lifespan, and fertility, giving you more time to reproduce. That’s why animals with few predators (that live on islands, in the deep ocean, or are simply big) mature late and evolve longer lifespans.

II. Lifespan

Even before civilisation, people were unique among apes in having low mortality and <a href="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/evan.1360010406">long lives</a>.Hunter-gatherers armed with spears and bows could defend against predators; <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1090513800000660?casa_token=flfN2IIm4GMAAAAA%3A4wiyTcAbi4_ekhP3nx7AOBVKyWpHM-Yco6uu5x8jCVzhBp-4XhE7TNLbN_JLG29lpvrsp_sw2g">food sharing </a>prevented starvation.So we evolved delayed sexual maturity, and long lifespans – <a href="https://link.springer.com/referenceworkentry/10.1007/978-3-319-16999-6_2352-1">up to 70 years </a>.Still, child mortality was high – <a href="https://escholarship.org/content/qt2zb2v4x9/qt2zb2v4x9.pdf">approaching 50% </a>or <a href="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1651-2227.2011.02573.x?casa_token=y-YSz5W2IRIAAAAA%3A4sZ98kY2GLRSs35WMNzJr_WqDQrxDqTuqwyIUYSe9N8Y6fx0XoYSAHCDxyrDqYyYuCl2apKeQErOUSc">more </a>by age 15. Average life expectancy was just <a href="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1651-2227.2011.02573.x?casa_token=y-YSz5W2IRIAAAAA%3A4sZ98kY2GLRSs35WMNzJr_WqDQrxDqTuqwyIUYSe9N8Y6fx0XoYSAHCDxyrDqYyYuCl2apKeQErOUSc">35 years </a>. Even after the rise of civilisation, child mortality stayed high until the 19th century, while life expectancy went down – <a href="https://ourworldindata.org/life-expectancy">to 30 years </a>– due to plagues and famines.

Application of Lifespan To The Human Context

In the past 200 years, better nutrition, medicine and hygiene reduced youth mortality to <a href="https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/youth-mortality-rate">under 1% </a> in most developed nations and soared life expectancy to at least <a href="https://ourworldindata.org/life-expectancy#:%7E:text=The%20United%20Nations%20estimate%20a,life%20expectancy%20of%2072.3%20years.">70 years worldwide</a>This is due to improved health, not evolution, but they set the stage for evolution to extend our lifespanNow, there’s little need to reproduce early. If anything, the years of training needed to be a doctor, CEO, or carpenter incentivise putting it offGiven that more people live to <a href="https://ourworldindata.org/life-expectancy#:%7E:text=The%20United%20Nations%20estimate%20a,life%20expectancy%20of%2072.3%20years.">100 </a><a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2895458/"> years</a> (<a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-022-00070-1">record is 122</a>), there’s reason to think our genes could evolve until the average person routinely lives 100 years or more

Better Medicine and Nutrition

Animals often evolve larger size over time; it’s a trend seen in <a href="https://www.pnas.org/content/113/13/3447">tyrannosaurs</a>, whales, <a href="https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/paleobiology/article/abs/fossil-horses-from-eohippus-hyracotherium-to-equus-scaling-copes-law-and-the-evolution-of-body-size/9965A8A02408FBECB70D012A54930EA2">horses</a> and primates– including hominins.Early hominins e.g. <a href="https://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/human-fossils/species/homo-habilis">Homo habilis </a>were small, four to five feet tall.Later hominins e.g. <a href="https://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/human-fossils/species/homo-erectus">Homo erectus</a> grew taller. Why we got big is unclear- it is partly driven by improved nutrition, but <a href="https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rspb.2015.0211">genes seem to be evolving too </a>.In part, <a href="https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/667694">mortality may drive size evolutio</a>n; growth takes time, so longer lives mean more time to grow. But human females also <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/35003107">prefer</a> <a href="https://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/sbp/sbp/1996/00000024/00000002/art00005">tall males </a>. So both lower mortality and sexual preferences will likely cause humans to get taller.

III. Size, and strength

As we’ve grown taller, we’ve become more gracile.Over the past 2 million years, our skeletons became more lightly built as we relied less on brute force, and more on tools and weapons.As farming forced us to settle down, our lives became more sedentary, so our bone density decreased.Modern jobs increasingly require working with people, words and code – they take brains, not muscle.We spend more time behind desks, keyboards and steering wheels, and so these trends will likely continue.

More Gracile Structure

Our ancestors had to slaughter antelopes and dig roots; later they tilled and reaped in the fields. For manual laborers e.g. farmers, fisherman, lumberjacks – machinery such as tractors, hydraulics and chainsaws now shoulder a lot of the work.As physical strength becomes less necessary, our muscles will keep shrinking.

Change in Physical Labour

Our jaws and teeth also got smaller.Early, plant-eating hominins had huge molars and mandibles for grinding fibrous vegetables.As we shifted to meat, then started cooking food, <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/nature16972">jaws and teeth shrank</a>.Modern processed food, e.g. chicken nuggets, Big Macs, and cookie dough ice cream, needs even less chewing, so jaws will keep shrinking, and we’ll likely lose our wisdom teeth.

Jaws and Teeth

After people left Africa 100,000 years ago, humanity’s far-flung tribes became isolated by deserts, oceans, mountains, glaciers and sheer distance.In various parts of the world, different selective pressures – different climates, lifestyles and beauty standards – caused our appearance to evolve in different ways. Tribes evolved distinctive skin colour, eyes, hair and facial features.

IV. Beauty

With civilisation’s rise and new technologies, these populations were linked again.Wars of conquest, empire building, colonisation and trade – including trade of other humans – all shifted populations, which interbred. Today, road, rail and aircraft link us too.Bushmen would walk 40 miles to find a partner; we’ll go 4,000 miles.We’re increasingly one, worldwide population – freely mixing. That will create a world of hybrids – light brown skinned, dark-haired, Afro-Euro-Australo-Americo-Asians, their skin colour and facial features tending toward a global average.

A World of Hybrids

Sexual selection will further accelerate the evolution of our appearance.With most forms of natural selection no longer operating, mate choice will play a larger role.Humans might become more attractive, but more uniform in appearance. Globalised media may also create more uniform standards of beauty, pushing all humans towards a single ideal.Sex differences, however, could be exaggerated if the ideal is masculine-looking men and feminine-looking women.

More Attractive, Uniform Humans

Last, our brains and minds, our most distinctively human feature, will evolve, perhaps dramatically.Over the past 6 million years, hominin <a href="https://humanorigins.si.edu/human-characteristics/brains">brain size roughly tripled</a>, suggesting selection for big brains driven by tool use, complex societies and language.It might seem inevitable that this trend will continue, but it probably won’t.Instead, <a href="https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fevo.2021.742639/full">our brains are getting smaller</a>. In Europe, brain size peaked <a href="https://www.jstor.org/stable/41464021">10,000—20,000 years ago, just before we invented farming</a>. Then, brains got smaller.Modern humans have brains smaller than our ancient predecessors, or even medieval people. It’s unclear why.

V. Intelligence 

It could be that fat and protein were scarce once we moved to farming, making it more costly to grow and maintain large brains. Brains are also energetically expensive by burning ~20% of our daily calories.In agricultural tribes with frequent famine, a big brain may be a liability. Maybe hunter life was demanding in ways farming isn’t; in civilisation, you don’t need to outwit lions, etc.Making and using bows and spears also requires fine motor control, coordination, the ability to track animals ; maybe the parts of our brains used for those things got smaller when we stopped hunting.

Why Brain Size Has Decreased?

Or maybe living in a large society of specialists demands less brainpower than living in a tribe of generalists.Stone-age people mastered many skills – hunting, tracking, foraging for plants, making herbal medicines and poisons, crafting tools, waging war, making music and magic.Modern humans perform fewer, more specialised roles as part of vast social networks, exploiting division of labour. In a civilisation, we specialise on a trade, <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/3300">then rely on others for everything else</a>.

Specialists Demand Less Skills and Brainpower

No: <a href="https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fnana.2014.00046/full">elephants</a> and <a href="https://phys.org/news/2010-03-smart-killer-whales-orcas-2nd-biggest.html">orcas</a> have bigger brains than us, and Einstein’s brain was <a href="https://phys.org/news/2005-01-einsteins-brain.html">smaller than average</a>.Neanderthals had brains comparable to ours, but <a href="https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rspb.2013.0168">more of the brain was devoted to sight and control of the body</a>, suggesting less capacity for things like language and tool use.So how much the loss of brain mass affects overall intelligence is unclear. Maybe we lost certain abilities, while enhancing others that are more relevant to modern life.It’s possible that we’ve maintained processing power by having fewer, smaller neurons. Still, I worry about what that missing 10% of my grey matter did.

Is Brain Size Everything?

Curiously, domestic animals also <a href="https://www.jstor.org/stable/23264664">evolved smaller brains </a>. Sheep lost 24% of their brain mass after domestication; for cows, it’s 26%; dogs, 30%.This raises an unsettling possibility. Maybe being more willing to passively go with the flow, even thinking less like a domesticated animal, has been bred into us, like it was for them.

Linking Brain Size to Domesticated Animals...

Changing social patterns will change personalities.Humans live in much larger groups than other apes, but in today’s world people living in vast cities of millions.In the past, our relationships were necessarily few, and often lifelong, but now we inhabit seas of people, moving often for work, and in the process forming thousands of relationships, many fleeting and, increasingly, virtual.This world will push us to become more outgoing, open and tolerant.Yet, navigating such vast social networks may also require we become more willing to adapt ourselves to them – to be more conformist.

VI. Personality

Perhaps because of this, increasing numbers of people suffer from psychological issues such as <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/06/health/lonliness-aging-health-effects.html">loneliness</a>, anxiety and depression. Many turn to alcohol and other substances to cope.Selection against vulnerability to these conditions might improve our mental health, and make us happier as a species.But that could come at a price. Many great geniuses had their demons; leaders like Abraham Lincoln fought with depression, as did scientists such as Isaac Newton and Charles Darwin. Some, like Vincent Van Gogh, took their own lives. Others, like Jimi Hendrix, were destroyed by substance abuse.

Social Patterns and Mental Health

A disturbing thought is that troubled minds will be removed from the gene pool – but potentially at the cost of eliminating the sort of spark that created visionary leaders, great writers, artists and musicians.Future humans might be better adjusted – but less fun to party with and less likely to launch a scientific revolution — stable, happy and boring.

There were once <a href="https://theconversation.com/were-other-humans-the-first-victims-of-the-sixth-mass-extinction-126638">nine human species</a>, now it’s just us. But could new human species evolve?For that to happen, we’d need isolated populations subject to distinct selective pressures. Distance no longer isolates us, but reproductive isolation could theoretically be achieved by selective mating.If people were culturally segregated – marrying based on religion, class, caste, or even politics – distinct populations, even species, might evolve.

VII. New species?

In the past, religion and lifestyle have sometimes produced genetically distinct groups, as seen in for example in the <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3032072">Jewish </a>and <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC31389">Gypsy </a>populations.Today, politics also divides us; but could it divide us genetically? Liberals now move to be near other liberals, and <a href="https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0225405">conservatives to be near conservatives</a>; many on the left <a href="https://time.com/5896607/dating-political-ideology/">won’t date Trump supporters</a> and vice versa.Could this create two species, with instinctively different views? Probably not. Still, to the extent culture divides us, it could drive evolution in different ways.

It has partially happened already...

So far, I’ve mostly taken a historical perspective, looking back. But in some ways, the future might be radically unlike the past. Evolution itself has evolvedOne of the more extreme possibilities is directed evolution, where we actively control our species’ evolutionWe already breed ourselves when we choose partners with appearances and personalities we like. For thousands of years, <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3083418/">hunters arranged marriages</a> to seek good hunters for their daughters, or grooms at least were generally <a href="https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12110-004-1014-8">expected to seek approval</a>Similar traditions survive elsewhere today- In other words, we breed our own children

VIII. Strange new possibilities

Going forward, we’ll do this with far more knowledge of what we’re doing and more control over the genes of our descendants.We can already screen ourselves and <a href="https://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpage/embryo-screening-and-the-ethics-of-human-60561/#:%7E:text=Also%20known%20as%20embryo%20screening,forced%20to%20make%20the%20difficult">embryos for genetic diseases</a>.We could potentially choose embryos for desirable genes, as we do with crops.Direct editing of the DNA of a human embryo has been <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-00673-1">proven to be possible </a> — but seems morally abhorrent, effectively turning children into subjects of medical experimentation.And yet, if such technologies were proven safe, I could imagine a future where you’d be a bad parent not  to give your children the best genes possible.

Altering Our Children's Genome

Discussions of human evolution are usually backward looking, as if the greatest triumphs and challenges were in the distant past.But as technology and culture enter a period of <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Sapiens-Humankind-Yuval-Noah-Harari-ebook/dp/B00ICN066A/ref=sr_1_1?crid=2QHPQXXL0YKXN&keywords=sapiens&qid=1645456786&sprefix=sapiens%2Caps%2C124&sr=8-1">accelerating change</a>, our genes will too.Arguably, the most interesting parts of evolution aren’t life’s origins, dinosaurs, or Neanderthals, but what’s happening right now, our present – and our future.

Conclusion

This has been one of my most favourite long-reads yet! As an A-Level biology student, I really resonated with the explanations and was able to understand how different aspects, some surprising, can possibly tie in to our development as a whole. It is a big question that surprisingly isn't asked enough- instead of our lifestyles, how will we change in the future?

Arguably, the most interesting parts of evolution aren’t dinosaurs or Neanderthals, but what’s happening right now – and our future.

My stuff

Future evolution: from looks to brains and personality, how will humans change in the next 10,000 years?

Most experts agree that our species, Homo sapiens (Latin for “wise men”), is the ninth and youngest human species. The lives of the other eight species tell a story of how humans slowly evolved away from the other apes, developing the ability to walk, eat meat, hunt, build shelters, and perform symbolic acts. Our ancestors probably pushed our closest relatives, the Neanderthals, to extinction. Wise guys finish last.

Our Species Are Not The First Humans On Earth

Around 6 million years ago, a branch of apes evolved to become the first species of the genus Homo. These early humans ditched the long arms of apes for stronger legs. While they could no longer swing around on trees, they could stand upright, walk, and colonize new ecosystems, away from the forest. The brains of early humans grew until we were using complex tools to hunt large animals, build fires, and construct shelters.

Planet Of The Apes

By the time Homo sapiens arrived on the scene some 300,000 years ago, we were the ninth Homo species, joining habilis, erectus, rudolfensis, heidelbergensis, floresiensis, neanderthalensis, naledi, and luzonensis. Many of these species lived for much longer periods of time than we have, yet we get all the attention. It is time for a family reunion.

We Are The Ninth Species

H. Habilis was small, clocking in around 70 pounds and standing somewhere between 3.5 feet and 4.5 feet tall. We also know that H. habilis made complex tools, including stones used to butcher animals. H. Habilis lived as the only member of our genus for nearly a million years.

H. Habilis: The Handy Man (2.4 Million – 1.4 Million Years Ago)

H. erectus is the first human with a significantly larger braincase than that of apes. They also had smaller teeth. The latter adaptation probably helped H. erectus eat meat and quickly digestible protein. This would fuel the increased nutritional requirements that came with taller bodies and larger brains. H. erectus was a very successful species. They walked the Earth for a period lasting nearly nine times as long as our current reign.

H. Erectus: The Enduring Hiker (1.89 Million to 110,000 Years Ago)

We know little about Homo rudolfensis, a hominid discovered near Kenya’s Lake Rudolf (now known as Lake Turkana). H. rudolfensis had a considerably greater braincase than Homo habilis — a good indicator that the species was human. However, some scientists argue it may be better placed with the genus Australopithecus, a close relative of Homo, because of its smaller size and similarities in the pelvis and shoulder.

H. Rudolfensis: The Stranger (1.9 Million to 1.8 Million Years Ago) 

Around 700,000 years ago, Homo heidelbergensis (sometimes referred to as Homo rhodesiensis) arrived on the scene in Europe and eastern Africa. Scientists think that these smaller, wider humans were the first to live in cold places.The remains of animals like horses, elephants, hippopotamuses, and rhinoceroses, were found together with H. heidelbergensis. That proximity suggests that this group of humans was the first to hunt larger animals with spears. To stay warm, these humans also learned how to control fire, and they built simple shelters out of wood and rock.

H. Heidelbergensis: The Hunter (700,000 to 200,000 Years Ago)

Homo floresiensis is known only from remains found in 2003 on the Island of Flores, Indonesia. Along with the remains of H. floresiensis were some stone tools, dwarf elephants and komodo dragons — a discovery that paints quite a scene of the island life of these small humans.The isolation of H. floresiensis likely contributed to its small brains and stature (estimated at approximately 3 feet, 6 inches from a female specimen).

H. Floresiensis: The Hobbit (100,000 to 50,000 Years Ago)

Neanderthals were shorter and stockier than us but had brains that were as big, or even bigger, than our own. Neanderthals lived a tough life. We find bones riddled with fractures, suggesting they did not always succeed when they hunted large animals. They also lived in seriously cold environments in Europe and in southeastern and central Asia. To cope, they made fires and lived in sophisticated shelters. They also made clothing, using complex tools such as sewing needles crafted from bone.

H. Neanderthalensis: The Neanderthal Thinkers (400,000 – 40,000 Years Ago)

Homo naledi were small hominids that lived in South Africa. We do not know much about H. naledi, because they were only discovered in late 2015. In a single expedition, scientists excavated an astounding 1,550 specimens from at least 15 individuals. These specimens show us that H. naledi were small (around 4 feet, 9 inches). While the excavation unearthed a treasure trove of human fossils, the researchers found no tools or other animals alongside H. naledi, so their lifestyle remains a mystery.

H. Naledi: The Enigmatic Newcomer (335,000 to 236,000 Years Ago) 

In 2019, researchers visited a small cave on an island in northern Indonesia. Inspired by the discovery of H. floresiensis, the scientists wondered whether other islands also had human dwellers. The researchers struck gold — kind of. Though they found human remains, they only unearthed seven teeth, three foot bones, two finger bones, and a fragment of a thighbone. Still, due to its geographic isolation and small size, the scientists felt confident in declaring that this <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-01152-3">species was unknown to science</a>. They named it luzonensis after Luzon, the island on which it was found.

H. Luzonensis: A Polemic Finding (at Least 67,000 Years Ago)

Not all these extinct humans coexisted with our H. sapiens ancestors. Most of them probably went extinct due to intense changes in climate. After humans moved into Europe, Neanderthal numbers began to dwindle. We competed for space and food, and we outmatched our closest relatives. The fact that they held on for so long suggests the tides could have turned easily against us.

Wise Guys Finish Last

There were at least eight other human species, some of whom existed for far longer than we have. Who were they?

Stashed ideas

Homo sapiens is #9. Who were the eight other human species?

Haptic technology , also known as kinaesthetic communication or 3D touch , refers to any technology that can create an experience of touch by applying forces , vibrations , or motions to the user. These technologies can be used to create virtual objects in a computer simulation , to control virtual objects, and to enhance remote control of machines and devices (telerobotics ). Haptic devices may incorporate tactile sensors that measure forces exerted by the user on the interface. The word haptic , from the Greek : ἁπτικός , means "tactile, pertaining to the sense of touch".

Haptic Technology And 3D Touch

Haptic technology facilitates investigation of how the human sense of touch works by allowing the creation of controlled haptic virtual objects. Most researchers distinguish three sensory systems related to sense of touch in humans: cutaneous , kinaesthetic and haptic . All perceptions mediated by cutaneous and kinaesthetic sensibility are referred to as tactual perception. The sense of touch may be classified as passive and active, and the term "haptic" is often associated with active touch to communicate or recognize objects.

3 Senses of Touch

Types of Mechanical Touch SensingHuman sensing of mechanical loading in the skin is managed by <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mechanoreceptor">Mechanoreceptors </a>. There are a number of types of mechanoreceptors but those present in the finger pad are typically placed into two categories. Fast acting (FA) and slow acting (SA). SA mechanoreceptors are sensitive to relatively large stresses and at low frequencies while FA mechanoreceptors are sensitive to smaller stresses at higher frequencies. --->See Next

Mechanoreceptors

The result of this is that generally SA sensors can detect textures with amplitudes greater than 200 micrometers and FA sensors can detect textures with amplitudes less than 200 micrometers down to about 1 micrometer. Though some research suggests that FA can only detect textures smaller than the fingerprint wavelength.<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haptic_technology#cite_note-18"> </a>FA mechanoreceptors achieve this high resolution of sensing by sensing vibrations produced by friction and an interaction of the fingerprint texture moving over fine surface texture.

Slow Acting And Fast Acting

Air vortex rings<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vortex_ring">Air vortex rings </a>are donut-shaped air pockets made up of concentrated gusts of air. Focused air vortices can have the force to blow out a candle or disturb papers from a few yards away. Both Microsoft Research (AirWave)<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haptic_technology#cite_note-25"> </a>and Disney Research (AIREAL)<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haptic_technology#cite_note-26"> </a>have used air vortices to deliver non-contact haptic feedback.

Non Contact Haptic Feedback

Focused <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultrasound">ultrasound </a>beams can be used to create a localized sense of pressure on a finger without touching any physical object. The focal point that creates the sensation of pressure is generated by individually controlling the phase and intensity of each transducer in an array of ultrasound transducers. These beams can also be used to deliver sensations of vibration,and to give users the ability to feel virtual 3D objects.----> See Next

Ultrasounds Beamforming

Another form of tactile feed back results from active touch when a human scans (runs their finger over a surface) to gain information about a surfaces texture. A significant amount of information about a surfaces texture on the micro meter scale can be gathered through this action as vibrations resulting from friction and texture activate <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mechanoreceptor">mechanoreceptors </a>in the human skin. Towards this goal plates can be made to vibrate at an ultrasonic frequency which reduces the friction between the plate and skin.

Surface Textures

A tactile electronic display is a <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Display_device">display device </a>that delivers text and graphical information using the sense of touch. Devices of this kind have been developed to assist blind or deaf users by providing an alternative to visual or auditory sensation.

Accessibility For The Blind

Haptic feedback is used within <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teledildonics">teledildonics </a>, or "sex-technology," in order to remotely connect sex toys and allow users to engage in virtual sex or allow a remote server to control their sex toy. Teledildonics and sex-technology have expanded to include toys with a two-way connection that allow virtual sex through the communication of vibrations, pressures and sensations. Many "smart" vibrators allow for a one-way connection either between the user, or a remote partner, to allow control of the toy.

Teledildonics

Haptics are gaining widespread acceptance as a key part of <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_reality">virtual reality </a>systems, adding the sense of touch to previously visual-only interfaces. Systems are being developed to use haptic interfaces for 3D modeling and design, including systems that allow holograms to be both seen and felt.<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haptic_technology#cite_note-90"> </a> Several companies are making full-body or torso haptic vests or <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haptic_suit">haptic suits </a>for use in immersive virtual reality to allow users to feel explosions and bullet impacts.<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haptic_technology#cite_note-91">[ </a>

Virtual REALity

Haptic technology is the beginning of how the non contact ability of haptic feedback or engagement was discovered or implied. The use of technology to give a user feedback also opened doors to harassment if someone were to copy the technological abilities. I will explain more of this soon.

Haptic technology - Wikipedia

The term “marketing” appeared in the 1900s to describe activities and institutions taking place in markets, and early marketing textbooks were largely descriptive of these activities and institutions.
Marketing Management, which was published in 1967, was the first text to use an analytical approach to marketing and include findings of scholarly studies.

The History Of Marketing

One of the key underlying ideas advanced in the very first edition of the book was that company actions must be driven by customers and their needs. This core principle of customer-centricity has remained the central idea across all editions of the book. 
The rise of big data, social media, and sophisticated e-commerce has not changed the fact that a key purpose of any company is to create value for its customers.

Driven By Customer Needs

Marketing is all about understanding, designing, communicating, and delivering value. This is the foundation of marketing strategy and has not changed with time. What has changed are the tools that companies use to create value. 
Data analytics, automation, and artificial intelligence are very powerful tools in managing value, but they are just tools. Without a sound strategy guiding their use, they can become a distraction from a company’s core mission.

Delivering Value

One important change that affects the business philosophy of many companies is redefining their ultimate purpose. As a result, an increasing number of companies include the creation of societal value in their mission statements.
This is an important development that is likely to have long-term consequences on the way these companies act in the marketplace and the way they structure their business processes.

The New Focus: Societal Value

In the old days, a brand simply told you what the product is and does and how it’s priced. But today, a brand is the company’s promise to deliver a specific benefit that addresses a particular need of its customers.
Moreover, the promise of many brands extends beyond functionality and reflects certain aspects of customers’ identity.

The New Approach

As more and more products are becoming commoditized, customers are looking beyond functionality for something that is meaningful. It is no longer just about the product. 
It is also about who the company behind this product is and what this company stands for. As companies understand this, they realize that to be successful in the market, they might have to reinvent their culture and realign it with the values held by their customers.

Countering Commoditization

Having a purpose also helps companies attract and retain employees. If you stand for something, you have a better chance of getting and keeping the right people, which ultimately will enhance profitability. 
This also extends to a company’s partners. For example, companies like Whole Foods prioritize suppliers that employ environmentally friendly and socially responsible business practices.

Having A Purpose

The ultimate goal is to create value, what has changed is the proliferation of information. In the past, advertising was the main tool to inform customers about products. Now, customers can get detailed product information from a variety of sources, both from the company as well as from other customers. 
And the same goes for companies. The proliferation of social media and the advancement in data analytics enables companies to know in real-time not only what customers are doing but also how they are feeling about their brands.

Same Goal, New Approach

It’s important to realize that today’s consumers are different. They are connected with so many people from so many other parts of the world and can find information with a simple click, without needing a salesman or an ad. 
Anyone who’s going to buy a car will probably end up seeing a salesman in the dealership, but most will have done a lot of their own work to know about their options. We have to recognize the existence of such an intelligent, well-informed consumer, which means companies have to make big changes to their traditional marketing tools.

An Intelligent Customer

People tend to go shopping in brick-and-mortar stores for different reasons. 
<ul>
<li>Some go for purely utilitarian reasons. They appreciate the fact that they can see what the product looks and feels like in reality and will eventually be able to buy it instantly and take it home. </li>
<li>Others go for more hedonic reasons; for them, it is more about the shopping experience. They don’t go to brick-and-mortar stores to save time but to spend time. </li>
<li>For many, it is also a chance to socialize with friends and family.</li>
</ul>

Going To The Store

In the past, marketing was not part of the development of the product. It was only called in after the product was made. Then it was the marketers’ job to sell as much as they could. 
But now marketing participates in product development. Marketers can offer design ideas and features. Engineers are the masters of the possible, but it is marketers who can best assess value because they are better at understanding the customers’ criteria for buying a product.

Customer-Centric Job Roles

As technological developments enable companies to track the impact of their activities, managers are expected to be able to document the return on the company’s marketing investment. This has its advantages and drawbacks. 
<ul>
<li>On the positive side, it enables the company to better allocate its marketing resources to areas where they will have the highest impact. </li>
<li>On the downside, however, this might focus the company’s marketing efforts on activities that produce short-term effects, to the detriment of activities such as brand building that have a long-term payout.</li>
</ul>

Transparency And Accountability

Phil Kotler’s groundbreaking textbook came out 55 years ago. Sixteen editions later, he and coauthor Alexander Chernev discuss how big data, social media, and purpose-driven branding are moving the field forward.

Can Collective Intelligence Be the Reason Why Human Brains Are Shrinking?

Future evolution: from looks to brains and personality, how will humans change in the next 10,000 years?

Homo sapiens is #9. Who were the eight other human species?

Haptic technology - Wikipedia

How Has Marketing Changed over the Past Half-Century?

It's time to

READ

LIKE

A PRO!