2008: A World without Homo

[Hnau]

What if the Homo genus never existed? That is, nothing evolved from the Hominini tribe other than the Pan genus (chimpanzees). What would the world look like in 2008? What would the climate be like? What would the wildlife be like? The original POD could be somewhat ASB, as it is somewhat unlikely that Homo doesn't arise out of the great apes, a family packed with physiological potential for sentience. In fact, in this timeline, nothing evolves to fit Homo's niche... it just doesn't happen, according to whatever cosmic happenstance. So no creating 'alt-chimpanzees' that fit Mankind's role.

I would really like to focus on what the wildlife is like in this human-less 2008, as well as general ecosystems.

Will this title become an opportunity for a joke? Perhaps. But at least I piqued interest and got a few people to position their cursor over the title that wouldn't have ordinarily. Hmmm... (What if I had titled this thread "What if Humans never Evolved?" Another timeline I'll be doing soon )

Thanks,
- Hnau

 

[Sachyriel]

Perhaps a feline-avian-canine evolution battle (no alternate chimp wank). I'm just choosing them because we have them as pets.

With their canine instincts, Dogs would get an early upper hand, with their brute strength, and are indeed the dominant species, but not all is as it seems. Their pack-like nature breeds even more competition than any other animal. I wouldn't be surprised if canines actually had pets of their own in this alternate world, to teach their kids about other species.

The birds are pretty safe, on cliffs and trees where other animals cannot reach them easily enough. But instead of stagnating from lack of predators, they slowly get the use of tools. Small sticks to get bugs from trees and building nests, yes. But the next step seems to be a bird that makes Rube Goldberg traps: something like a branch that's 'cut' so when a predatory jumps on it, it falls down against the tree to put the animal onto a large anthill (which gets really pissed off and eats the unfortunate would-be predator).

But, I'd say it's the cats who really come out on top. As they do indeed follow what seems to be the 'tom cat' rule, and after a while, instead of staying in a pack at all times, they have a small meeting place that has a specific time and a simple ceremony (the ceremony evolves like the raccoon evolved to wash his food and hands). You must bring food and those you must feed (kittens!) to that chosen spot. Then a large feast takes place, without a social order as the respect is shown in the ceremony that takes place before eating a meal. The spot can be re-used, or if there is not enough resources, the pack will mark out a new spot to meet later.

Let's review: We have 3 traits of humanity (Dominant Species, Tool Using, More-or-Less Social) spread out among our three favorite pet types. Dogs keep getting better in terms of pack-hunting (stronger, faster, more fertile) and that's a great way to get 'dominant' early on, though they most likely will not keep themselves there. Birds have taken the ability to utilize tools, and this could get them weapons to fight for dominance quickly, and they would go on the offensive quite quickly if you consider the fact they have a highly-defensible type of habitat. Cats are becoming social, but fight often enough that they are wary of each other, and must evolve a center in their brain to navigate this ever-changing political landscape they find themselves in at every feast/ceremony/meet-up.

The idea that chimpanzees are omitted for some reason is a different flavour for sure, and it gave me time to ponder this idea. I like the thread, and I want to hear more about these "Humans".

 

[Admiral Canaris]

Heh, I wrote a draft for a sci-fi where humanity was battling people who'd evolved from dogs once. They were humanoid (it's sci-fi, after all) but had canine pack instincts.

 

[john]

Raccoons might be a good bet. Very dextrous with their hands and feet, and extremely smart. Also omnivorous, which I believe is also an advantage.

If not raccoons, then what about beavers or otters?

 

[King Thomas]

I thought for a moment that this thread was one with an unpleasent, flamebaiting title, asking what the would would be like without homosexuality.

 

[Mike Stearns]

Raccoons might be a good bet. Very dextrous with their hands and feet, and extremely smart. Also omnivorous, which I believe is also an advantage.

If not raccoons, then what about beavers or otters?

I could see squirrels or chipmunks being a possibility for the same reasons.

 

[juanml82]

But a sentient species doesn't have to evolve. There are probably better chances to have a world without any dominant species (except cockroaches, of course ) at all.
In that case it would be a world without human intervention, meaning no global warming, no extintions (or at least a lot less - sabertooth tigers and mammoths will be extinct anyway). Beyond that, it's not that much time in a geological sense, species wouldn't be too different.

 

[boredatwork]

wolves, foxes, raccoons, octopi, gorrillas, ravens, rats, dolphins, orca, sea otters, river otters, beavers.

All seem to have one or more of social/pack behavior, tool use, learning ability, and adaptability.

Any one of them could be the source of a new sentient or semi-sentient species.

Sans humanity, it seems reasonable to presume that some of the human-extincted megafauna survives (the Mammoths, the giant sloth, the european and north american lions) and some other animals never evolve:

Modern cattle, modern dogs, chickens, modern pigs (vs wild boars), and horses are all creations of humanity.

Similarly wheat, corn, and rice - would not be around.

The climate would likely be colder and more variable (evidence seems to indicate that the discovery of agriculture and conversion of large swathes of natural terrain for farming use altered the climate in early and prehistory).

No humanity = no boats.

The implications of this are pretty huge - much more abundant fish, few or no 'alien' species issues, the lack of engineering efforts to maintain navigable channels means that many river deltas would be unrecognizable to us.

No humanity = no farming = no overgrazing of goats => no or much smaller sahara desert?

flatter terrain as well in many parts of the world. No humanity = no cities = no ruins to be covered over by dirt and form mounds.

much fewer 'shooting stars' a decent number of what we see as shooting stars are actually bit of flotsam and junk from various space programs burning up in the higher atmosphere as their orbits decay.

back to studying...

 

[Hnau]

We can speculate on the future sentient master of the planet, but as there are no other sentient beings here with us today, in 2008, the only way the POD could create such a sentient species by now is if we had proof that the evolution of the homo genus delayed or halted the evolution of another species towards sentient intelligence and consciousness. I don't think you can find evidence for this case.

How will dogs, cats, birds, raccoons, elephants, whatever evolve to sentience in the same time duration we had (about 5 million years) when they didn't in our world? It doesn't make sense.

No, the topic shouldn't be based on who will inherit our planet, but what the world will be like in 2008 concerning the climate, and wildlife.

Interesting information from boredatwork: flatter plains in some areas, rivers will be different, a smaller Sahara, colder climate.

 

[john]

Well, when the racoon (or whatever) version of Jesus, Mohammed, Buddha, X, comes around, they'll restart their calendar to year 1, eventually reaching their year 2008. Even if it's five million years from now.

 

[Snake Featherston]

I had a similar idea, but with the genus Paranthropus (i.e. Robust Australopiths) surviving instead of Homo:

https://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showthread.php?t=98076&highlight=Paranthropus

 

[The Professor]

Why is it likely that an intelligent species would develop in OUR same timeline?

What about all the intelligent species we have no knowledge? The smart dinosaurs who discovered nuclear physics and left no fossils? The intelligent crabs? The netweaving jellyfish?

Deep time covers a lot. Seriously time is HUGE!
How many tyrannosaurus fossils do we have? About 5. Yes 5...

What does that tell you?

 

[Surena]

Why is it likely that an intelligent species would develop in OUR same timeline?

What about all the intelligent species we have no knowledge? The smart dinosaurs who discovered nuclear physics and left no fossils? The intelligent crabs? The netweaving jellyfish?

Deep time covers a lot. Seriously time is HUGE!
How many tyrannosaurus fossils do we have? About 5. Yes 5...

What does that tell you?

Like the Voth?

 

[Hnau]

Who the hell cares? Look, this isn't a discussion or debate on past non-human sentience or far future sentience on Earth. It uses the POD that the Homo genus never evolves, and the time frame we're looking at is specifically 2008 in our timeline, only with a few millions of years in divergences.

 

[The Militant One]

It's possible that with the absense of humans, another species might have stepped up and met the right conditions. Would they be tapping away on the internet, hell no. They would probably still be five hundred thousand years away from that level.

 

[rewster]

It's possible that with the absense of humans, another species might have stepped up and met the right conditions. Would they be tapping away on the internet, hell no. They would probably still be five hundred thousand years away from that level.

It depends on the POD. If it was 100s of millions of years ago, something may have evolved to fill the human niche, and that something might be sentient by now, and tapping away on the internet.

 

[Hnau]

I already gave you the POD! The Homo genus never evolves! That's only 2.5 million years ago! Why in the world would you think that the POD would require a change "100s of millions of years ago"?!?! That is completely illogical! That's like going back to the Bronze Age to get the Confederates to win in the American Civil War!

Its simple as this guys. We are looking at an ATL in the year 2008. The difference is that the Homo genus never evolved at all. When did the Homo genus first develop? 2.5 million years ago. So, there's your POD. End of story! And if you think another species could have been pushed into sentience with the absence of Homo, then I'd like to see some serious proof and sources, because it seems downright ridiculous that the lack of humanity would create enough evolutionary pressure for another species out there to develop bona fide intelligence.

 

[Dutchie]

if a tree fell in the forest, there'd be no one there to hear, so who cares if it made a sound...?

 

[rewster]

I already gave you the POD! The Homo genus never evolves! That's only 2.5 million years ago! Why in the world would you think that the POD would require a change "100s of millions of years ago"?!?! That is completely illogical! That's like going back to the Bronze Age to get the Confederates to win in the American Civil War!

Its simple as this guys. We are looking at an ATL in the year 2008. The difference is that the Homo genus never evolved at all. When did the Homo genus first develop? 2.5 million years ago. So, there's your POD. End of story! And if you think another species could have been pushed into sentience with the absence of Homo, then I'd like to see some serious proof and sources, because it seems downright ridiculous that the lack of humanity would create enough evolutionary pressure for another species out there to develop bona fide intelligence.

So basically, you don't want people to post in your thread?
Anyway, do we even know how sentient or not sentient the australopithecines were? If not, then how do we know the POD is only 2.5 million years ago? Or if you stand by the 2.5 million year POD, and Australopithecus is perhaps somewhat sentient, then in the absence of homo, would that not have a pretty marked effect on the ecosystems of the world?

If we do assume that the australopithecines are not sentient or even really tool users, then you can guess at some climatological stuff, like boredatwork did, and that's about it.

So, without humanity, we have a Sahara Savanna for nobody to enjoy, no shooting stars for nobody to see, and no global warming for nobody to debate about in nonexistent internet forums. And perhaps some squirrels that are still 5 million years away from taking over for the backward apes.

 

[Hnau]

I don't want people to post in my thread if its off-topic. I provided the POD I will be working on... why should anyone disregard the OP?

What I posited is that the Homo genus never evolves. So yes, a 2.5 million year POD. I, personally, don't think that australopithecines were sentient, but, that does bring up a good discussion point.

So, without humanity, we have a Sahara Savanna for nobody to enjoy, no shooting stars for nobody to see, and no global warming for nobody to debate about in nonexistent internet forums. And perhaps some squirrels that are still 5 million years away from taking over for the backward apes.

What, just because there are no humans in this world, we cannot enjoy imagining it? To see where the Earth would have been without our impact? Isn't that one of the more important PODs, to judge the worth of our species, at least according to environmental and ecological impact? And who says that humans cannot experience it, such as in paratime adventures or ISOTs? That makes it more interesting.