this post was submitted on 11 Oct 2023
110 points (99.1% liked)

science

14741 readers
600 users here now

just science related topics. please contribute

note: clickbait sources/headlines aren't liked generally. I've posted crap sources and later deleted or edit to improve after complaints. whoops, sry

Rule 1) Be kind.

lemmy.world rules: https://mastodon.world/about

I don't screen everything, lrn2scroll

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

๐Ÿ”” Monthly Science Summary Brief overview of major studies - stay up-to-date

๐Ÿ”ญ Sources & Wiki: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_in_science

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[โ€“] prototyperspective@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Yes (200kโ€“300.000), that's why it says pre-humans...we didn't arise out of nowhere, it was a continuous evolution and it seems like if those had died out we wouldn't be here. (However, that's not settled, there are substantial reasonable doubts over these results as hinted at with "While alternative explanations are possible" and elaborated in the other comments here.)

Good question, it wasn't a warming and even if it was, I don't think it can easily be translated to today's climate change. They refer to the Early-to-Middle Pleistocene Transition (not much info at that page though). If it's linked, that doesn't mean it caused it โ€“ I think people in that regard far too often think of (especially singular) causes instead of contributors within a complex interconnected set of causal factors. Maybe you're interested in this non-included paper from the same month which projects an upcoming large sudden population decline โ€“ it's just not substantiated and one can't just compare modern humans with other animal populations.