We Put Down the Neanderthals But...

There were once other species of human on this Earth, even sharing this planet simultaneously: homo erectus in East Asia, homo sapiens in Africa (then outward!), and homo neanderthalensis in Europe and the Near East. Of our two cousins, the media and science itself express the strongest interest in neanderthals, because they were the first alternate humans to be discovered (and were once thought to be the missing link between us and other apes), and because they are the most closely related to us of all other human species that have ever walked this earth. Our common ancestor with neanderthals (homo heidelbergensis) dates back 400,000 years ago in Africa. Neanderthals were (objectively speaking) a highly successful branch in our family. From the time of their evolutionary emergence as a distinct species to their extinction, they were around for nearly a hundred thousand years -- that's twice the amount of time our own particular biological branch has been in existence. Their extinction is the tipping point of interest, and it is related to the entrance into their environment by our own species. Their numbers fell steadily as ours increased. There is not any direct evidence of warfare between the species, though skirmishes might have occurred. What scientists point to is the evidence for a rapid development in social organization, hunting weapons and domestic tools among homo sapiens, and the lack thereof in all categories among neanderthal culture. The general verdict is that the neanderthals were too conservative, and had smaller capacities (because of a flatter skull) for those parts of the brain responsible for environmental adaptation, cultural advancement, and surmounting new stresses in living circumstances. Steady contact between modern humans and neanderthals lasted from around 50,000 to about 30,000 years ago, and then the last neanderthals died off in their final redoubt in the Caves of Gibraltar. In the comparative analysis, the journalists and the scientists now like to trumpet the reasons why we (our glorious species) were the ones that triumphed. They talk about how skilled collectively we have always been at exploiting environmental resources to the most refined degree, and how we have continued to tinker with ruthlessly sophisticated strategies of social organization. The neanderthals, however, are criticized for being too culturally minimalistic, too socially simplistic. And yet in all the time the neanderthals enjoyed their environment free of our presence, they never hunted any species to extinction, and the archaeological evidence shows they decently cared for their children, their mates and their elderly. By comparing ourselves with them to their disfavor, we have been acting especially unreflective. We may be more intelligent, have more raw ingenuity, but we also have a certain flaw in the area of "our wondrous knack for social organization": the majority of any given human population has a habit of allowing itself to be ruled by a morally and numerically inferior elite group, no matter what time in history, nor what country, nor what form of government. This would not be such a problem for the survival of the planet or our species, if we did not now have incredible technologies harnessed to the ambitions of these ruthlessly clever but spiritually moronic leaders. If we destroy our living environment and consequently ourselves in the course of this present century (and there is currently no reassuring sign that we are making any serious efforts not to in a materially substantial way), then those "pathetic" neanderthals will have beaten the term of existence of our species by some 500 centuries. And remember, if it wasn't for us, the neanderthals would likely still be around to this day.