Poll: (Thought Experiment) Understanding Anatomy.

[dagens24]

The fact that we exist today proves that it is very possible for feral humans to procreate and raise offspring.

 

[balanovich]

Why do first or second generation immigrants to western nations not give a fuck about having less children then? Is it because they have some mystical lack of understanding about the existence of condoms, because that certainly wouldn't apply to second-generation middle-class Mexican-Americans, who still have far more children. The main difference is a shift from an agrarian society and culture to a western one, and having less children is a part of our society because you just don't want to pay to raise that many children.

I'll give you that mothers care a bit more for their children than men naturally, but I doubt that they are truly selfless about it, and far less selfless than a modern parent. I was really just trying to make a point that feral humans would make for the most fucked up parents feral humans would be and that socialization and progress has only led to better parenting.

For Thousands of years people wished they had less children.... but they preferred having sex. Then contraception came and people had a choice. Most people choose not to have kid because they are a burden a 1-2-3-4 is enough. Some choose to have more than others because of cultural background.

The quality of parenting and the selflessness caused by instinct have nothing to do with one another.

You didnt read the assumtions part did you?

I did, I just consider the entire situation too implausible to really be considered. I also did put in an argument about how high the chance is they would just kill each other, or their child. I also did address the main question of the poll by pointing out that it is possible they would learn how to have sex. I just wanted to make it clear that feral humans rarely do a good job surviving past infancy. I believe the Nazis did a couple experiments concluding that babies that aren't interacted with have a tendency to die. A lot.

You were excellent at being , for the most part, beside the point!

Fear and violence are not civilization induced. Every feral human they have discovered has been more violent and fearful than their socialized equivalent. They would jump and attack or cower at any loud noises they encountered and had huge trust issues (though this could be because to be feral they must be raised in a neglectful or abusive environment, but I digress). Certainly they aren't violent and savage beasts, they're crafty hunters and cowards who may be violent if provoked, whatever that means to them.

Every feral human they have discovered has been more violent and fearful than their socialized equivalent.

Because they forcefully taken away and put somewhere strange where the "civilized ones" felt completely safe and not them. OR those "strange creature" were intriguing therefore caution was required. But from the civilized men's point of view, all they saw was a pathetic human in no way fierce.
I could agree that they are more afraid.... but then, what if I through your ass, naked, in the middle of the jungle and wait a while see how brave you are?

they're crafty hunters and cowards who may be violent if provoked, whatever that means to them.

everybody is violent is provoked. ...they would lack the ability to communicate...

Put two animals together, the sniff each other. Unless there's a prey/predator thing, they won't attack, neither will "feral" humans. Violence is risky for oneself. There is no reason whatsoever for feral humans to attack each other. They would be curious about seeing someone like themselves.

 

[conflictofinterests]

I understand the situation you're attempting to create with this thought process, but I don't think you understand the implications of 'feral' as it pertains to apes, let alone to humans. Without a family to raise them, apes develop a whole host of psychological issues. It would be difficult to predict whether the two feral humans would tolerate one another's presence enough to occupy adjacent territories, though assuming they did, they would almost certainly figure out sex.

It is a pretty old question, the 'state of nature' is something we've been debating for centuries now, but culture and protoculture are essential to being human or being ape.

 

[Jingle Fett]

Here's my reasoning for why they would figure it out (haven't looked through all the posts so maybe someone mentioned something similar).

The man and woman see each other, presumably naked since they're feral. At the sight of each other they get aroused, which results in fuzzy feelings down there. Girl gets the urge to put something in there, guy gets the urge to put it in something. Figuring out the sex is simple enough.
Raising a child, they might not be the best parents obviously but I'm sure they'd be able to raise a child. For the simple fact that even animals can do it. Monkeys can do it. Presumably a caveman can do it. The instinct to protect the young is obviously built-in (in most cases). Whether we agree or not with how they raise them is another issue of course...

 

[Revnak_v1legacy]

Why do first or second generation immigrants to western nations not give a fuck about having less children then? Is it because they have some mystical lack of understanding about the existence of condoms, because that certainly wouldn't apply to second-generation middle-class Mexican-Americans, who still have far more children. The main difference is a shift from an agrarian society and culture to a western one, and having less children is a part of our society because you just don't want to pay to raise that many children.

I'll give you that mothers care a bit more for their children than men naturally, but I doubt that they are truly selfless about it, and far less selfless than a modern parent. I was really just trying to make a point that feral humans would make for the most fucked up parents feral humans would be and that socialization and progress has only led to better parenting.

For Thousands of years people wished they had less children.... but they preferred having sex. Then contraception came and people had a choice. Most people choose not to have kid because they are a burden a 1-2-3-4 is enough. Some choose to have more than others because of cultural background.

The quality of parenting and the selflessness caused by instinct have nothing to do with one another.

You didnt read the assumtions part did you?

I did, I just consider the entire situation too implausible to really be considered. I also did put in an argument about how high the chance is they would just kill each other, or their child. I also did address the main question of the poll by pointing out that it is possible they would learn how to have sex. I just wanted to make it clear that feral humans rarely do a good job surviving past infancy. I believe the Nazis did a couple experiments concluding that babies that aren't interacted with have a tendency to die. A lot.

You were excellent at being , for the most part, beside the point!

Fear and violence are not civilization induced. Every feral human they have discovered has been more violent and fearful than their socialized equivalent. They would jump and attack or cower at any loud noises they encountered and had huge trust issues (though this could be because to be feral they must be raised in a neglectful or abusive environment, but I digress). Certainly they aren't violent and savage beasts, they're crafty hunters and cowards who may be violent if provoked, whatever that means to them.

Every feral human they have discovered has been more violent and fearful than their socialized equivalent.

Because they forcefully taken away and put somewhere strange where the "civilized ones" felt completely safe and not them. OR those "strange creature" were intriguing therefore caution was required. But from the civilized men's point of view, all they saw was a pathetic human in no way fierce.
I could agree that they are more afraid.... but then, what if I through your ass, naked, in the middle of the jungle and wait a while see how brave you are?

they're crafty hunters and cowards who may be violent if provoked, whatever that means to them.

everybody is violent is provoked. ...they would lack the ability to communicate...

Put two animals together, the sniff each other. Unless there's a prey/predator thing, they won't attack, neither will "feral" humans. Violence is risky for oneself. There is no reason whatsoever for feral humans to attack each other. They would be curious about seeing someone like themselves.

1. People had so many children because too many would die or too many were needed for accomplishing jobs (farming). This is a widely accepted idea in sociology and anthropology. Also, the person I was quoting at the time said that parents who were feral would be better parents. That is what that argument was about.

2. I went off-topic to deal with something I thought was very important considering how many people here worship ideas of nature over nurture, while I lean mostly to the opposite. I still put in an argument for why I chose my answer in the poll

3. That's a gross over-simplification over animal interaction, let alone feral human interaction. Many dogs will just try to kill each other without even thinking about their target as prey. My dog personally hates every other dog it runs into, this being because she isn't used to other dogs. Since feral humans are so rare, and their interacting for extended periods of time removes that whole feral part, how can you claim to know that feral humans won't react likewise. Also, what provokes a feral human will vary on a case to case basis, and there isn't too much reason to assume that feral humans wouldn't just be provoked by the presence of other humans.

 

[conflictofinterests]

Put two animals together, the sniff each other. Unless there's a prey/predator thing, they won't attack, neither will "feral" humans. Violence is risky for oneself. There is no reason whatsoever for feral humans to attack each other. They would be curious about seeing someone like themselves.

Whoa whoa whoa. Hold up there. There is a whole world of nuance between not physically assaulting another being and being friendly enough to let that being 'sniff you out' as you put it. Consider Orangutans. Highly territorial. Don't fight very much, but they certainly ensure that their personal space is not being violated. Were one male orangutan to get close enough to another to explore their similarities, he would likely be thrashed within an inch of his life, if not worse.

 

[Dimitriov]

Yes, it would definitely happen as long as the male was heterosexual, and maybe even if he wasn't.

step 1: *gets erection*
step 2: *sees vagina*
step 3: "huh? yeah, that does seem like a good idea"
Step 4: ??????
step 5: profit (in this case eventual pregnancy...)

Might not happen all at once, but think of all the things men have stuck their penises into over the millennia... or don't... but yeah it would happen: finding news ways to achieve sexual stimulation is a creative activity humans have engaged in for a good while, and without the need for advice or encouragement.

I have a personal theory that humans may be the most sexual animals on the planet (at least among the top few) probably linked to our species lacking any specific breeding seasons or females showing any obvious indication of ovulation (which I would assume is linked to all the wandering around the planet and into different climes we have done).

Also, biologically speaking, humans are virtually identical now to our ancestors from 150 000 years ago...

 

[Khada]

The theory of evolution would say; yes, they can.
(note: theory is not the same an hypothesis).

 

[jetriot]

I am sorry but humans are nowhere close to being genetically identical to our ancient ancestors and the theory of evolution simply doesn't work like that. As we have evolved we have strengthened in some regards and weakened in others. Have you ever raised a newborn in the first few weeks? It is a nightmare. We are long past having natural instincts to care for our young.

To simplify, a monkey can survive in the wild. Obviously. A feral modern day human has no such ability. That human would die in the wild. We have evolved to the point where community, parents and environment play a huge role in our development and when those needs go unfulfilled we are simply incapable of basic survival. Hell this was probably true only centuries after we first started forming into tribes.

 

[Zen Toombs]

I would say yes. I even go so far as to say that if you cut out some of the assumptions (namely, that they have healthy diets) they would still be fine and be able to discover the glorious art of rutting. If granted access to all the types of nutrients they need, even feral humans can create a mostly healthy diet for themselves.

 

[Zack Alklazaris]

I want to say yes. If two FERAL humans got together they would figure it out like it was second nature (which it probably is) However, if outside sources tell them different or confuses them. They will not.

There was a German couple from a heavily religious family background that were never EVER taught the complexities of sexual intercourse. For 8 years they couldn't figure out why they couldn't have a child. 8 YEARS!
Article
[link]http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,120309,00.html[/link]

 

[Wintermoot]

yes but not as we know it.
it,s basic instinct to procreate and protect of spring.

 

[Revnak_v1legacy]

The theory of evolution would say; yes, they can.
(note: theory is not the same an hypothesis).

Please explain to me how the theory of evolution, as it relates to man, would say you are right, as I have been suggesting the opposite. Humanity came into being as the group slowly changed and adapted, not two crazy, unsocialized, feral ancestors.
Or is your point that the theory states that it is every species's primary goal to survive and procreate? The last one I'll give you. As a whole, people do want to continue on as a species. As two humans who have never encountered other humans before and may not identify them as equals or even similar beings, I believe not.

 

[Chicago Ted]

I don't see any reason two humans in the wilderness shouldn't figure out how to shag. Sex drives and all that.
They won't know it'll result in a child of course, but when the time comes they will most certainly be just as able to raise the baby as well as any other ape.

Of all the things that may be part of human nature, this is the most certain. The species wouldn't have survived otherwise.

"The species" has evolved alot during the last ice age... Its not really a valid argument. Since all humans since that time have lived in colonies.

It's all a part of instinct, built into the mind of every creature. Every creature knows how to reproduce, whether they are feral or not. The only difference is that it probably wouldn't be as much for recreation as we see it today, and more for reproduction. I mean look at children who are reaching puberty, some probably never discussed anything about sex with anyone else, but at that stage, they finds themselves being drawn to the opposite sex in a more intimate function.

Edit: Actually, in my opinion, I think that the feral parents might end up actually being better parents than the ones of the world today, especially when the survival of their line matters more than almost anything else, even the life of the parents.

CraftOmega is right. The test actually has been done. A scientist once found a "savage" boy in the jungle. he never had contact with humans before. He was more or less 17 and physically fine. He brought in a few hookers and the boy could do anything.

I was extremely surprised about that, but it seems that we are the only specie so dumb we need to be taught how to fuck!

No offence here, but before you go around saying someone is right, you might want to source your claims rather than saying that "a scientist" has already performed this as an experiment or something. Until then, I can't really accept this as fact.

On topic though, I would assume so. After all go get a couple rabbits from a store, put them in the same cage and you'll see they don't need instructions.

Fair enough...but I can't give my sources. I saw that on tv, late at night, it was a documentary on how sexual development is affected by our surroundings. I tried to find it on wikipedia and google but I couldn't find anything.

This isn't a science convention and no important decision are going to be taken because of this thread so I don't see the point of doing more research.

No worries. Half the reason I kinda went on this was because I was actually a bit curious about how the test was done so I could read up on it a bit more. Give time for the biological side to kick in, hormones and all that mixed with it being the 'proper time' for the female, and I'd be pretty sure that it would be done. Also the fact that things need to be repeatable to be proven true is enough for me to say that I won't draw conclusions on the answer being a definitive no because it'd need to be proven on more than just one subject.

So, to really sum up, I was partially curious about the experiment myself and looking at the results and review of it rather than only calling an individual out on something. I ran a Google and Wiki search as well sadly, though only for about 5 minutes, and wasn't able to find anything on it either. I do remember seeing a program on feral children once, but I don't remember anything on it right now.

 

[ElPatron]

We had to have learned at one time right?
Im sure we could do it again.

Evolution is not sudden. We always had ancestors that thought us everything they knew.

No worries. Half the reason I kinda went on this was because I was actually a bit curious about how the test was done so I could read up on it a bit more.

It's kind of a convention, people who were raised in the wild are known to be less sensible to pain and cold and are usually sexually immature. I have no articles with me because I got this from some friends of mine who had psychology in highschool and I read their adopted manual once.

 

[winginson]

I reckon two feral humans would work it out. There would be many complications such as did they grow up together? Did they hit sexual maturity before/during/after they met?

My reason for this is based on my personal experience growing up*. I had a very sheltered upbringing and I started puberty very early. This meant at puberty I had no social conditioning to have sex, no sex education, nothing at all telling what I should do and how. But I still had feelings which were that I wanted to be around naked females, I was also more attracted to those that had more desirable secondary sexual characteristics.

So yeah I think 2 ferals could do it.



*Admittedly this is a very poor example.

 

[kouriichi]

We had to have learned at one time right?
Im sure we could do it again.

Evolution is not sudden. We always had ancestors that thought us everything they knew.

Hahaha, yeah, i know.

But then the question comes in.... WHERE DID THEY LEARN IT? Hmmmmm? Yeah > someone had to figure it out on their own! The knowledge had to start somewhere!

 

[ElPatron]

We had to have learned at one time right?
Im sure we could do it again.

Evolution is not sudden. We always had ancestors that thought us everything they knew.

Hahaha, yeah, i know.

But then the question comes in.... WHERE DID THEY LEARN IT? Hmmmmm? Yeah > someone had to figure it out on their own! The knowledge had to start somewhere!

You missed my point.

They learn it from ancestors. The knowledge doesn't start "somewhere". I explained that evolution is not sudden. There is always an ancestor to that ancestor.

Don't forget that there were Homo species that lived to see other species. You can't tell when Homo Sapiens learnt about sex because even if you can pinpoint the first actual generation of Homo Sapiens (spolier alert: you can't) they could have learnt it from their ancestors.


TL;DR - we did not come from a spaceship or were spawned here. We have known about sex since we have broken apart from monkeys. And we have known about it since we were still fishes in the ocean, finding out that our lungs allowed us to breathe outside water.

*Admittedly this is a very poor example.

It was.

Feral humans would not have advertising hinting at sex. They wouldn't watch movies with sex scenes on TV when parents were out.

Basically, even without sex ed the whole world has already messed up your mind.

 

[Khada]

The theory of evolution would say; yes, they can.
(note: theory is not the same an hypothesis).

Please explain to me how the theory of evolution, as it relates to man, would say you are right, as I have been suggesting the opposite. Humanity came into being as the group slowly changed and adapted, not two crazy, unsocialized, feral ancestors.
Or is your point that the theory states that it is every species's primary goal to survive and procreate? The last one I'll give you. As a whole, people do want to continue on as a species. As two humans who have never encountered other humans before and may not identify them as equals or even similar beings, I believe not.

I'll not do the argument its due justice but lets give it a go.

From your post I'll assume you know about natural selection. In this case the relevant point would be that instinctual procreation is contained within the genes along with what you might call the 'DNA memory' for how to do it. This is supported by an array of species both present and past who are not nurtured from birth or 'taught' how to procreate and yet instinctively know how to reproduce. A key point to take here is that no creature needs to be 'socialised' to know how to reproduce. If the information of how was not successfully stored withing our DNA, we would not have survived long enough to develop brains in the first place.

I'll certainly admit that two feral humans may not copulate as willingly or successfully as their common place modern day counterparts but it would be a non sequator to suggest they would not know how.

 

[Revnak_v1legacy]

The theory of evolution would say; yes, they can.
(note: theory is not the same an hypothesis).

Please explain to me how the theory of evolution, as it relates to man, would say you are right, as I have been suggesting the opposite. Humanity came into being as the group slowly changed and adapted, not two crazy, unsocialized, feral ancestors.
Or is your point that the theory states that it is every species's primary goal to survive and procreate? The last one I'll give you. As a whole, people do want to continue on as a species. As two humans who have never encountered other humans before and may not identify them as equals or even similar beings, I believe not.

I'll not do the argument its due justice but lets give it a go.

From your post I'll assume you know about natural selection. In this case the relevant point would be that instinctual procreation is contained within the genes along with what you might call the 'DNA memory' for how to do it. This is supported by an array of species both present and past who are not nurtured from birth or 'taught' how to procreate and yet instinctively know how to reproduce. A key point to take here is that no creature needs to be 'socialised' to know how to reproduce. If the information of how was not successfully stored withing our DNA, we would not have survived long enough to develop brains in the first place.

I'll certainly admit that two feral humans may not copulate as willingly or successfully as their common place modern day counterparts but it would be a non sequator to suggest they would not know how.

You could be right, and doing all the experiments to prove that idea wrong would be both difficult and unethical, usually both. However, just because it is unlikely anybody is going to do a test that will prove you wrong doesn't mean you are right. There are any traits we no longer possess that our ancestors did. We no longer have tails, we no longer have fur in most places, we no longer have arms long enough to be front legs. Now this doesn't mean that we no longer possess the necessary genetic information, because it is quite possible we still do considering how much of our genetics are just unused. Instead, we just don't focus on these traits anymore, they no longer matter to us.
It is quite possible that the knowledge and possibly even the drive to procreate has been sidelined at this point, simply because we no longer need it since we'll teach ourselves anyway. As a comparison, consider how important walking on two legs is to us biologically. Our spines, heads, and arms are all very adapted to this situation rather than walking on all fours. Yet, our minds will not naturally lead us to walking on two legs over walking on all fours, and the majority of feral humans have walked around predominantly on all fours, probably suffering neck and spinal problems because of this. We lack this natural inclination towards our natural behaviors because we will teach ourselves to walk on two legs anyway, so why force it into the already huge list of behaviors we have to develop naturally.
Furthermore, before you try to point out sex drive being in some more basic region of the brains, remember that motor skills are as well, meaning this analogy is quite appropriate. I would say our nature gives us the drive and capacity to mate and raise children, and socialization fills in the gaps.