I’ve heard the “humans’ mains strength is tool usage” line hundreds of times in fiction and non-fiction, with the general implication “civilisation” is what means we’re the planet’s dominant species (whatever that actually means).
I was wondering, how powerful is the average human compared to other creatures? If a group of humans didn’t use tools (however unlikely, let’s assume magic’s involved for the sake of argument) how high would they be on the food chain?
Very low, we’d largely be stuck eating plants. Our bodies are designed for endurance and precision, not strength or built in weaponry. No claws, small teeth, weak jaw; we’d have a tough time killing most creatures barehanded.
Asking how humans would do without tools is like asking how effective eagles would be without wings. Humans have evolved to use tools.
It just so happens that there was a segment on NPR last night about the evolution of the human shoulder. Apparently, our shoulders have evolved in a way that allows us to do one thing with particular strength – throw. Throwing strength, plus weapons, of course, turned us into the planet’s top predator, which is probably why our shoulders evolved that way… humans who could throw well, ate well (and were also probably more successful at exterminating other humans who competed with them for resources).
There’s some speculation that the human traits that make us good distance runners (hairless, sweaty, and able to regulate our breathing to be seperate from our gait unlike most animals) allowed us to hunt fairly effectively simply by running mammals into exhaustion/hyperthermia and eventual collapse and death. It’s usually termed persistance hunting. Of course all people these days have tools, so the tribes that still practice this can carry water and finish off large prey with spears as you can see here.
Also there are many nutritious non-plant foods that can be foraged without tools. I spent my whole childhood catching things with my hands, I probably could have fed myself well if I did it all day on frogs, snakes, mice, worms, grubs. And that was in the suburbs of America.
I would put a human without tools on par with a raccoon. We’d be able to catch all kinds of things, as the previous poster pointed out - insects, rats, snakes, lizards, birds, eggs, clams, crabs and more can all be found and caught even by children without tools who’ve had no particular training. Plus fruits, vegetables and the like. If you permitted intelligence without tools, we could conceivably do some animal husbandry and limited agriculture.
You don’t have to be able to rip a lion apart with your teeth to survive and excel. This is a common misconception, especially in the same fictional sources the OP brings up. There is no “perfect” species and size, strength and weapons are only one of many viable survival strategies.
There are plenty of species that survive mostly because they can multiply faster than they can be eaten.
Animal husbandry is just another kind of tool use. It’s just that some of our tools are alive.
Sure, but humans definitely aren’t one of them. We’re probably the slowest-breeding of all the mammals.
Humans are the world’s fastest runners over long enough distances. We can still hunt large prey like cattle and bison, especially in groups. We’re good stalkers. So I’d say that compares to…wolves?
Matches up with wolves so well that some of them moved in with us.
Actually, we suck at rending flesh. Killing itself isn’t really a problem. We’re pack hunters, running an elephant off a cliff to kill it works… it’s just that you can’t really chew through the skin to make use of the carcass. Also, I don’t see any reason why we wouldn’t be able to kick small to medium animals to death, or strangle them… or drown them, we’re also much better than average swimmers. The only problem is again skin toughness, some of the larger animals have skin as tough as leather, and even the little ones are a bit chewy.
We could burn them soft… but that’d break the no tools clause.
Btw, iirc most animals are on the small end of the scale. So perhaps you meant “hard time killing few creatures”? as most are in the class of small furry things you could accidentally step on.
In sheer strength and killing ability, we’re more along the lines of a mountain lion than a wolf. The average person could take on the average wolf with no problem if they simply used whatever primitive weapons their environment could afford. I’m not talking about fashioned spears, just a simple rock or stick like humans have been using for literally millions of years.
Like others have said, we simply wouldn’t be humans if we didn’t use tools, because we’ve been using them since we’ve been a genus, and there are lots of other animals that do use simple rocks and sticks as tools.
Now, whether or not an average human with a primitive weapon could defeat an average mountain lion would depend on how much surprise the lion had (the human wouldnt be able to surprise the lion,) and how big the rock is. (I almost said “how big the tool is”.)
What kind of distances are we talking about here? I think we would be up there with the best of them but can’t wolves and polar bears cover more miles per day than a human?
I would say throughout our history we’ve been above average in that regard if you compare us to other exceptionally long-lived large mammals which usually have single offspring that are mostly or entirely dependant for a few years. Of course that has all changed in recent millenia. We have the foresight and means to control our reproduction.
Humans in their natural enviroment (hunting and gathering) average 3-4 years between births. Once agriculture became widespread that became an average of 2 years.
Chimps average 4-5, gorillas 4, oragutans 6-7, elephants 6, rhinocerus 3, hippopotumus 2, giant panda 2, most monkeys average 2 or more, most whales and dolphins average 2-3 as well.
Pandas would disagree!
Longer. Chimps use tools, and so it’s reasonable to expect that our common ancestor did, too. Chimps not only use tools, but they make tools. What sets us apart is that we make stone tools, even though chimps are known to use stone tools. However, chimps have bigger teeth and stronger jaws, so they can rip through the flesh of prey they kill (usually monkeys smaller than they are).
BTW, even some monkeys use stone tools. So tool use in and of itself is not uniquely human. It’s not even uniquely mammalian, as some birds use tools.
I think this is an oversimplification. We’re certainly skilled at traveling long distances at a steady pace on the right terrain, but I’ve never seen data that suggests we’re objectively the fastest animal over a long enough distance.
Our biggest advantage is that we handle heat/overheating very, very well. We sweat profusely all over our smooth skin which has a cooling effect. We can regulate our breathing independant of our stride (many 4-legged animals have a very hard time with this especially at a fast pace). And of course we can and do carry water when we’re going distances. The ability to sip rather than having to stop and fill the stomach with water at a mid-point is a big advantage all by itself.
In a generally hot (and teeming with wildlife) enviroment like our native Africa we’re going to do okay as weaponless hunters. Put us in the Artic in the freezing cold, deep snow, and clothes that hamper our movement - we need weapons, and our main food is seals because we can sneak up right behind them. Wolves, on the other hand, are naturally perfectly suited to running after prey for hours through snow and in sub-zero temps.
Wild pandas give birth every 2 years. Orangutans seem to be the record-holders, they only have a baby every 6 or 7.
We’re up there near the top of the list, but we’re not quite #1. I’m pretty sure that pronghorns are the top, and nobody really understands why they’re so fast.
First of all, if you have to compare us to other single-offspring animals, then we’re already losing in that regard. “Reproduce fast enough that you don’t care about losses”, as an evolutionary strategy, pretty much requires large litters. And you can’t compare us to other exceptionally long-lived mammals, because there aren’t any: Elephants come closest, and they’re still ready to start popping out calves at age 13.
I guess we’ll have to leave that decision up to the OP and his magic tool restriction. I suppose you could see a pack of trained dogs as a sort of tool, but even wolves have been known to adopt the occasional human infant… surely the reverse would eventually happen. Would a herd of cows or sheep be a similar tool, if all we used them for was food? You certainly would not need leashes, cages, etc. to keep animals, especially when you’ve got a brain that can be turned to figuring out all of the non-tool ways to manage it.
Even if the OP is going to deny our fictional humans domesticated animals, surely it isn’t long until we learn that chickens will keep laying eggs if we keep stealing them. And that if we scare off the foxes, more chickens will be around to lay eggs. And that we just have to let a few eggs hatch now and then to keep the chickens replenished.
My point was to emphasize that successful adaptive strategies don’t stem only from the ability to kill things with your teeth. If the restriction on tool use is not a restriction on general intelligence, the lions are going to lose in the long run.
A recent article in Scientific American discusses our prowess at the fine art of sweating, and states that on a hot day a human can walk further than a horse.
We have other forms of physical advantage. Our hands are unmatched at manipulation. Our throats and mouths allow complicated communication. Our eyes are very unusually good at looking at geometrically complicated things, including close up. We also excell at seeing small distant details, whereas birds of prey that are famous for this only see details that are moving. The directionality of our hearing is way better than for example dogs. We’re better than most big animals at climbing trees; I bet we’re the largest New World animal that can brachiate.