195,000 Years To Invent The Shovel

[Yozavan]

Why did it take humans 195,000 years to Invent the shovel?

According to Wikipedia, shoulder blades from an ox were used as shovels 5-8 thousand years ago. Bronze shovels came much later. Biologists say humans have been doing their thing for 200,000 years

Possible considerations for debate:

1) Perhaps our racoonian ancesters were in shell shock after surviving the dinosaurian drama, thus PTSD was inherited by their future primate progeny.

2) We live in a simulation and such questions are futile.

3) Satan successfully thwarted every previous attempt to Invent a shovel.

4) Science only has two centuries under its belt, and shouldn't be taken seriously yet.

5) Shovels are exceedingly hard to invent.

[Yozavan]

[Replying to Yozavan in post #6]

Fortunately, more and more nonreligious people are starting to question the absurdity of science.

And fortunately, most people can still tell the difference between pseudo-science nonsense, conspiracy theories, etc., and actual science of the type that we take advantage of every day to make our lives better in so many ways and fight diseases, etc. If enough people appear who think all of science is absurd and put an end to it, we're doomed. Stone age technology won't cut it in today's world.

Most people can tell the difference between computer geeks and scientists. Indeed, the former has improved our daily lives in many ways. The latter posits conjectural curiosities.

[brunumb]

[Replying to Yozavan in post #11]

Humans were hunter gatherers for most of their existence. Shovels would only have become useful tools when they developed agriculture some 12,000 years ago.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to Yozavan in post #11]

Most people can tell the difference between computer geeks and scientists. Indeed, the former has improved our daily lives in many ways. The latter posits conjectural curiosities.

Then how do you classify Computer Scientists (an actual degree at most universities)? "Computer Geeks" did not exist until computers existed, which began some 80 years ago in terms of electronic computers. A tremendous amount of science was done prior to the 1940s, and computer geeks had nothing to do with it. Since then, their contribution has been to enhance the performance of hardware and software so that scientists and other people can work more efficiently to solve problems of all types. And, of course, many computer geeks are scientists. We didn't get the Hubble and James Webb telescopes (for just two examples) via "conjectural curiosities", or from computer geeks.

[Yozavan]

[Replying to Yozavan in post #11]

Most people can tell the difference between computer geeks and scientists. Indeed, the former has improved our daily lives in many ways. The latter posits conjectural curiosities.

Then how do you classify Computer Scientists (an actual degree at most universities)? "Computer Geeks" did not exist until computers existed, which began some 80 years ago in terms of electronic computers. A tremendous amount of science was done prior to the 1940s, and computer geeks had nothing to do with it. Since then, their contribution has been to enhance the performance of hardware and software so that scientists and other people can work more efficiently to solve problems of all types. And, of course, many computer geeks are scientists. We didn't get the Hubble and James Webb telescopes (for just two examples) via "conjectural curiosities", or from computer geeks.

My brother has a degree in computer science. He is completely illiterate in science. Great with computers though. I think you're pressing the word computer science

[The Barbarian]

[Replying to Yozavan in post #11]

Humans were hunter gatherers for most of their existence. Shovels would only have become useful tools when they developed agriculture some 12,000 years ago.

And shovels are not necessary for digging; simpler tools suffice unless the objective is to move a great deal of earth:
Digging sticks more than 170,000 years old, made of boxwood by Neanderthals, have been found in Italy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digging_stick

[The Barbarian]

99,000-yr-old ivory shovel believed to be oldest in China
http://en.people.cn/n3/2021/1129/c90000-9925549.html

[1213]

99,000-yr-old ivory shovel believed to be oldest in China
http://en.people.cn/n3/2021/1129/c90000-9925549.html

Do you know how it is dated?

[The Barbarian]

99,000-yr-old ivory shovel believed to be oldest in China
http://en.people.cn/n3/2021/1129/c90000-9925549.html

Do you know how it is dated?

Yep. And no, I don't think all those scientists are lying.

[marke]

Premise 1 is not without merit. Freudian psychology posits that: species inherit unconscious memories, thoughts, and urges. Perhaps, it took 195,000 years to overcome our fear of the ground. This fear protected our ancesters from dinosaurs for millions of years.

Premise 2 is not without merit. Simulation theory will always make our heads spin around.

Premise 3 seems odd. Why would Satan hate shovels? Lest it be argued he viewed the ground as sacred.

Premise 4 seems prudent, unless we grant science exempt from evolutionary progress, whereby it will gradually improve over time. Would seem imprudent to consider science inerrant de facto.

Premise 5 seems unreasonable. 195,000 years of contemplating the use of hands, and the concept of handling , coupled with the perplexing potentiality of the ever present riddle: what is below my feet?

First of all, human civilization is no more than 10,000 years old, so whoever is claiming the shovel was invented 195,000 years ago does not know all the facts.

AI Overview
Learn more
According to most scholars, human civilization, marked by the development of agriculture and the rise of the first cities, is estimated to be around 12,000 years old.

[The Barbarian]

First of all, human civilization is no more than 10,000 years old, so whoever is claiming the shovel was invented 195,000 years ago does not know all the facts.

You're assuming that until civilization began, shovels were impossible. Which seems to be an extraordinarily bad assumption. Particularly, given the evidence at hand.