Arboreal

[DValdron]

An arboreal civilization would not want to get a monoculture at all. That would mean that all your foodstuffs would come online in a short period, say one month out of twelve, and you would be scrambling to try and preserve the vast majority of it, or starving over the eleven months.

I could see an arboreal civilization optimizing through local monocultures, say exclusively one kind of tree for a particular soil or moisture condition. But overall, I'd think the strategic thinking or the trial and error solution would be a package of tree species.

 

[Sven]

I'm quite a bit more skeptical toward arboriculture than you are. Forests are going to be very unwieldy systems to work with, and I don't see arboreal-sapient society emerging as a simple extension of currently existing primate lifestyles.

To expand the forest, just keep killing or driving off the herbivores that destroy immature growing seedlings. If you can make even a 5% difference, then within a few centuries, North America is a forest from one end to the other.

Driving off herbivores isn't going to turn the Great Plains into a forest: you have to increase the availability of water. In ecological parlance, forests are late-succession ecosystems: they always outcompete and eventually replace grasslands when water is in high enough supply to support trees. This means that any location that can support a forest is probably already going to be a forest before our sapients get there. In order to get forests to grow elsewhere, you have to change a region from one that can't support forests, to one that can. Basically, you have to increase the availability of water.

So, irrigation is the key to expansion, which means the arboreal sapients will be restricted geographically to the forests they originally lived in until they either develop enough construction technology to make canals or aqueducts, or learn how to adapt to tree-less landscapes. So, irrigation on one hand, or artificial tree-like structures (bamboo jungle-gyms) on the other.

Ah, but that's the key to intelligence. Not every tree is productive. Not every productive tree is productive at a given time - most aren't. Intelligence is required to know which tree to seek out to harvest and when.

I'm a bit dubious on this part. Primate intelligence already seems sufficient to handle the spatial and temporal complexity of fruit harvests, so I don't see this aspect of primate ecology generating much drive to increase their intelligence. I think we'd need to look elsewhere for the "sapient spark": carnivory/dietary diversification, sexual selection, survival in the face of ecological disaster, etc. Maybe all of the above.

An arboreal civilization would not want to get a monoculture at all. That would mean that all your foodstuffs would come online in a short period, say one month out of twelve, and you would be scrambling to try and preserve the vast majority of it, or starving over the eleven months.

I could see an arboreal civilization optimizing through local monocultures, say exclusively one kind of tree for a particular soil or moisture condition. But overall, I'd think the strategic thinking or the trial and error solution would be a package of tree species.

Honestly, I don't think tree fruits are going to be the key here. Trees are high-risk, high-reward ventures: they produce a lot of fruit, but they also take a lot of time, effort and foresight to manage properly, and the lack of resilience means losses will be absolutely devastating. This means tree-based societies are going to be highly failure-prone. Don't get me wrong: I have no doubt that "Paleolithic" arboreals will drastically alter the composition of forests by their actions and preferences (there is precedent for things like this, even among unintelligent species), but I don't see it as a realistic means to a real breakthrough in social development.

Vines (e.g., cucurbits, legumes, grapes, ivies, and morning glories) and epiphytes (orchids and bromeliads) are just as frequently utilized by primates as trees are, and, because they grow faster and often have longer production windows than trees, they would be easier to figure out, experiment with and manipulate, with lower risks involved. These characteristics make their cultivation and domestication much more likely than arboriculture to emerge and develop early. So, vine and epiphyte cultivation is the more likely impetus toward real agriculture.

So, the arboreal sapients can move from patch to patch, promoting vine and epiphyte growth in their "orchards" to diversify each patch and increase the productivity window. Increasing the productivity window would allow more sedentarism, to tend and manage the fruit trees and improve cultivation techniques. So, learning vine and epiphyte cultivation first would not only be more plausible, but also improve arboriculture in the end.

 

[chr92]

Vines (e.g., cucurbits, legumes, grapes, ivies, and morning glories) and epiphytes (orchids and bromeliads) are just as frequently utilized by primates as trees are, and, because they grow faster and often have longer production windows than trees, they would be easier to figure out, experiment with and manipulate, with lower risks involved. These characteristics make their cultivation and domestication much more likely than arboriculture to emerge and develop early. So, vine and epiphyte cultivation is the more likely impetus toward real agriculture.

So, the arboreal sapients can move from patch to patch, promoting vine and epiphyte growth in their "orchards" to diversify each patch and increase the productivity window. Increasing the productivity window would allow more sedentarism, to tend and manage the fruit trees and improve cultivation techniques. So, learning vine and epiphyte cultivation first would not only be more plausible, but also improve arboriculture in the end.

Plus, I think it quite likely that, once they have started one form of horticulture, they can start growing highly valued ground plants in small gardens in the trees, perhaps on intergrown branches. They might prefer that either for their own safety or their crops'. In dense forest the crops would also be getting more sunlight.

 

[Sven]

Transportation in arboreal societies

Transportation is another aspect of arboreal civilization that fascinates me. Humans had access to a fair number of ungulates that could run faster, carry more weight and/or continue walking for much longer than humans can, so these animals, if domesticated, could be useful for transporting loads (including humans) on long journeys. The Industrial Revolution than took advantage of the existing wheel technology and replaced the animal power with machine power.

By comparison, arboreal sapients would have lower access to useful transport animals: arboreal animals, in general, are not really built to carry loads and the canopy is not the most convenient place for caravans. Imagine trying to lead a pack animal by a leash or rein while brachiating through the trees. Furthermore, most of the best candidates for sapience are already among the fastest and more agile brachiators and tree-climbers, so I doubt they would be able to find an animal that could improve their movement through the trees. So, perhaps animal transportation is a bit out of reach for at least some arboreal sapients.

However, there is always the possibility that a semi-arboreal sapient (like my lemurs or Hrvatskiwi's "dropbears") would make use of animal power for transportation on the ground. In fact, it might even be more likely for them than it was for humans, since arboreal animals are, in general, not particularly good at terrestrial locomotion, and would therefore stand to gain more from aid in that department.

But, there are other forms of travel that I would fully expect arboreal sapients to take advantage of. Rope swings and ziplines, for instance, seem highly likely to me, as simple extensions of the natural habitat. I'm not what all goes in to the zipline, technology-wise, but it seems like the pinnacle of that technology requires a wheel-and-axel arrangement. Is this a plausible expectation for these sapients? I don't know: I kind of want it to be, because it would be awesome.

What about flight? Are there any flying birds large enough to carry a small arboreal sapient? I don't know that, either, but I would suggest that it's unlikely, since even the lemur weighs more than all but the largest flying birds, and most of the birds that could possibly be large enough are predatory or scavenging (which presents complications for domestication). Perhaps some ratites could be domesticated as a ground-based transport system, but birds are probably not going to happen as an aerial transportation system.

But what about gliders or ornithopters? With all the gliding mammals in Southeast Asia and Austronesia, it seems likely that the gibbons, at least, would be inspired to create gliders. And, the precedent for gliders in human societies, combined with the smaller mass of arboreal sapients, makes gliders seem very plausible to me. As far as ornithopters go, human-powered flight has never been achieved, and is probably more or less impossible. I know little about the mechanics here, but is it possible that gibbons, with their long, powerful arms and small body masses, would be able to produce the necessary power for flapping flight? I don't know, but that, too, would be awesome.

 

[chr92]

I love the idea of gliders. Perhaps the young would manage to make games of small ones?

Rope bridges, gradually becoming longer and reinforced with bamboo or resined wood, until you have funiculars? I'm not sure it would work, but I do like the idea of a woodwork railway.


It would be nice to have a long one arching right over the trees, but perhaps weather, and even arboreal instinct against exposure, would keep them among the tree tops.

 

[Sven]

I love the idea of gliders. Perhaps the young would manage to make games of small ones?

Sure. Do you think the adults would be unable? I mean, obviously gliders are possible, since we use them as humans. But, they would have fairly limited utility in transportation because of their limited range: there's probably not much value there beyond recreation or a few special niches, like transport in mountainous regions.

Maybe the utility of the gliders could be increased with a launch device, like a trebuchet or catapult? Sounds dangerous, though.

What do you think about ornithopters? It seems pretty farfetched to me.

Rope bridges, gradually becoming longer and reinforced with bamboo or resined wood, until you have funiculars? I'm not sure it would work, but I do like the idea of a woodwork railway.

It would be nice to have a long one arching right over the trees, but perhaps weather, and even arboreal instinct against exposure, would keep them among the tree tops.

I'd never heard of funiculars before: thanks for the new information!

I'm sure arboreal animals could come up with pulleys and winches, and, from, there, there would be a whole lot of options for machines like these: bridges, cables and pulleys combined would lead naturally to funiculars, lifts and such.

 

[chr92]

ornithopters

I'm afraid I know very little about them. To me, it does look as if they need fairly high tech materials and power sources, but someone who knows more might disagree.

 

[Ganesha]

I think the main point we are forgetting is that after a certain point, an intelligent arboreal species would start making artificial trees. After all, we made artificial plains and caves and made ourselves more comfortable. They'd build artificial trees, first out of fallen logs and by bending actual trees, and then later out of building materials like stone. Therefore, many issues of space and transportation could be partially resolved.

Cheers,
Ganesha

 

[Smaug]

I think possums, or an animal with a pouch, would be well suited for this perhaps. It would solve the tool carrying problem in thier early evolution. Just a random thought.

 

[Sven]

I think the main point we are forgetting is that after a certain point, an intelligent arboreal species would start making artificial trees. After all, we made artificial plains and caves and made ourselves more comfortable. They'd build artificial trees, first out of fallen logs and by bending actual trees, and then later out of building materials like stone. Therefore, many issues of space and transportation could be partially resolved.

Cheers,
Ganesha

Well, upthread I had them building trellises and jungle-gyms out of bamboo, which I proposed to be their first major tool-making material. They could use these to make towers as jumping-off points for gliders, or as connection terminals for zip lines and trolleys. But, very little opportunity for animal powered vehicles, though.

 

[Sven]

I think possums, or an animal with a pouch, would be well suited for this perhaps. It would solve the tool carrying problem in thier early evolution. Just a random thought.

Possums would be fun: I've always had a soft spot for marsupials. But, I think they're a pretty poor candidate for sapience: marsupials have rather small brains, low metabolisms and a very short lifespans. It's possible that some of them could be decent domesticates, though.

 

[TyranicusMaximus]

I think you're best bet is to rely on sexual selection to boost intelligence, since it's quite likely that it had the same effect on the development of our intelligence.


Figuring out how to work that will be the hard part.

 

[Sven]

I think you're best bet is to rely on sexual selection to boost intelligence, since it's quite likely that it had the same effect on the development of our intelligence.

Figuring out how to work that will be the hard part.

I think you're on to something. If we're going to use DValdron's approach of mapping and tracking food availability as the key to intelligence, it would be rather straightforward to overlay this with sexual selection: individuals who come up with clever, new ways to find food or increase food availability at lean times would not only benefit the troop by their behavior, but would attract more mates and produce more offspring. So, intelligence isn't only a self-promoting trait, but a society-promoting trait.

Sounds like a winner to me.

 

[Sven]

Summary

Thanks to everybody who contributed to this discussion and helped me develop ideas for arboreal sapient societies. Since the discussion has kind of died down, perhaps now it's time for a summary and for me to prepare a timeline based on this discussion. From this discussion, I have seen two main societal paradigms proposed, and I think both of them are plausible and have merit. I will call them the "dropbear" paradigm and the "treeherder" paradigm.

1. The "Dropbear" Paradigm. Based on discussion points with Zuvarq, Hrvatskiwi and Laplace's Demon, this is a semi-arboreal society that utilizes the ground for agriculture and mining, but uses the trees for a habitat, a haven and for ambush hunting. They may also use burrows as defensive structures. Perhaps open woodlands or temperate forests are where arboreal societies would develop in this direction. These societies will have a major advantage in technological development, having access to terrestrial agriculture and metalworking, and having a plausible route to domestication of large working animals, such as ungulates. Probable sapients for this societal paradigm are lemurs and raccoons. Perhaps crows would fit here too.

2. The "Treeherder" Paradigm. Based on my original plans and on discussions with DValdron and chr92, this is an obligate arboreal society based primarily around management of trees and tree-borne resources. They may be nomadic or semi-nomadic, and their dependence on the trees will require them to learn irrigation techniques or learn to build artificial "trees." Lower access to terrestrial resources might very well slow technological development, especially with regards to metalworking, and will place restrictions on animal domestication. Tropical rainforests are prime locations for these societies, because of their high availability and diversity of fruits and exploitable arboreal animals. Probable sapients for this societal paradigm are spider monkeys, gibbons and orangutans. Parrots may also fit here.
​

I am going to start developing a timeline with three sapients: the lar gibbon, the black-handed spider monkey and the ring-tailed lemur.

 

[Sven]

The ornithopter

I mentioned ornithopters on a whim upthread, but I've now kind of gotten hooked on them. Human-powered ornithopters are impractical, because we can't produce enough power to lift our body weight off the ground (i.e., we have a low power-to-weight ratio). But, brachiating primates tend to have much higher power-to-weight ratios. For example, chimpanzees and orangutans are often thought to have about twice the arm strength of a human, pound-for-pound. Nobody has every attempted to test the power-to-weight ratios of the small primates I'm using in Arboreal, but, because gibbons are superior brachiators, I assume that their power-to-weight ratio may be even higher than the Great Apes': I'll arbitrarily decide that it's around four times the power-to-weight ratio of humans.

However, based on the few disarticulated scraps of information I was able to find on the internet, I think the gibbon still falls short: birds are thought to exhibit power-to-weight ratios of 30 to 50 times the human level during level flight, and much higher ratios at takeoff. This means that, if any of my Arboreal sapients will be able to power an ornithopter, it will be only the most exceptional athletes among the gibbons. And there will be major limitations in performance. I'm guessing range will be limited to a just a few kilometers: while the apes are strong, they aren't known for their endurance.

The next consideration is technology. Theoretically, they could make a functional ornithopter with stick-and-stone technology: bamboo framework, hide or cloth for the skin, and some form of cordage to hold it all together. Realistically, though, they'd probably need metalworking, at least for processing the materials, if not for the materials themselves. Also, technology like pulleys and winches (which might require metallurgy) could be used to give a mechanical advantage and improve the performance of the machine. Perhaps the most advanced gibbon-powered ornithopter designs could fly as far as a few dozen kilometers. Also, they would probably need mechanical assistance in order to get off the ground initially: perhaps high towers, catapults or towing animals. These restrictions are going to limit their numbers, limit the risks a "king" will be willing to take with them, and limit the roles they can play in society and warfare.

The last consideration is the future direction of aviation and transportation. Obviously a Renaissance-equivalent emergence of flight is going to have major repercussions for the way society, science, warfare and trade develop. Human engineers and industrialists never managed to work out the complex mechanics of flapping wings: we still don't even know if an ornithopter is possible, or exactly what the requirements are to make it work. The relative simplicity of fixed-wing airframes has effectively eliminated any real market niche for ornithopters. However, if gibbons can learn to make practical ornithopters with pre-industrial technology, they could then develop the requisite body of theory and machinery to transition to mechanical ornithopters after industrialization. However, ornithopters will probably not be able to match the performance of fixed-wing aircraft in terms of speed or range, so there might be a performance ceiling, and fixed-wing aircraft may eventually surpass ornithopters.

 

[Smaug]

Just another random thought on the subject of food. Fungi would be an excellent suplemental food source for your big three. I'm thinking that if ants could do it your Arboreal could also. At the equator, you might get two crops due to humidity. Just a thought

 

[mosodake]

Driving off herbivores isn't going to turn the Great Plains into a forest: you have to increase the availability of water. In ecological parlance, forests are late-succession ecosystems: they always outcompete and eventually replace grasslands when water is in high enough supply to support trees. This means that any location that can support a forest is probably already going to be a forest before our sapients get there. In order to get forests to grow elsewhere, you have to change a region from one that can't support forests, to one that can. Basically, you have to increase the availability of water.

Not necessarily. Much of the African savannah and parts of the Great Plains remain treeless only because of human or animal activity. Elephants tear down acacia trees in Africa for food, keeping the grasslands open. The Great Plains used to have megafauna that occupied the same niche as elephants and performed the same function. Once they were wiped out, humans took over and used fire to maintain the grass. The Sonoran desert is one example were humans did not take over from the megafauna, and mesquite forests expanded.

Honestly, I don't think tree fruits are going to be the key here. Trees are high-risk, high-reward ventures: they produce a lot of fruit, but they also take a lot of time, effort and foresight to manage properly, and the lack of resilience means losses will be absolutely devastating. This means tree-based societies are going to be highly failure-prone. Don't get me wrong: I have no doubt that "Paleolithic" arboreals will drastically alter the composition of forests by their actions and preferences (there is precedent for things like this, even among unintelligent species), but I don't see it as a realistic means to a real breakthrough in social development.

Tree fruits (and nuts) form a large part of the diet of many Amazonian tribes. Stands of useful trees are maintained and their locations committed to memory. The native Californians did the same with oak trees. The key is having enough stands in a large area and not relying solely on one species.

So, the arboreal sapients can move from patch to patch, promoting vine and epiphyte growth in their "orchards" to diversify each patch and increase the productivity window. Increasing the productivity window would allow more sedentarism, to tend and manage the fruit trees and improve cultivation techniques. So, learning vine and epiphyte cultivation first would not only be more plausible, but also improve arboriculture in the end.

Out of the many domesticated plants used by humans, relatively few are vines, and only one, vanilla, is an epiphyte. Most rainforest vines are rapid growing species that spring up when a tree falls and make use of the abundant light. Many of them then die off when the canopy closes. Some are longer lived and will persist, climbing through the canopy, but the majority of fruit bearing vines (cucurbits and Passiflora come to mind) are fairly short lived and require a lot of sun. That is not going to be practical unless trees are continually being cut down.

Just another random thought on the subject of food. Fungi would be an excellent suplemental food source for your big three. I'm thinking that if ants could do it your Arboreal could also. At the equator, you might get two crops due to humidity. Just a thought

In the tropics, you can easily get a crop every month or two from fungi depending on the species. With sufficient moisture and food, a fungus will be able to produce mushrooms almost constantly. Without laboratories though, cultivating fungi can be very hit or miss.

 

[Sven]

Hi, Mosodrake: thanks for the helpful criticisms.

Basically, you have to increase the availability of water.

Not necessarily.

True, it's a broad generalization and it ignores some of the other factors (like herbivory), but it holds up pretty well under scrutiny. A spotting of trees and woodlands will occur in any grassland biome, but, in general, a grassland is a grassland because trees grow poorly there.

The acacias and mesquites weren't going to grow to cover the entire landscape, even if the elephants and mammoths hadn't been actively tearing them down. Now, could enough trees have grown to support an Arboreal society? Maybe I didn't give that possibility enough consideration: perhaps there's a niche for savannah/open woodland cultures. I still think they'd need to master irrigation in order to make it work out well, though.

Tree fruits (and nuts) form a large part of the diet of many Amazonian tribes. Stands of useful trees are maintained and their locations committed to memory.

I didn't know that: can you tell me more, or link me to a site where I could read more? What kinds of trees do they manage this way? Is it just a gathering paradigm, or do they actually promote, protect and/or cultivate some of these trees?

Out of the many domesticated plants used by humans, relatively few are vines, and only one, vanilla, is an epiphyte.

Do you think this is because vines make inherently poor domesticates? Or is it because human agricultural paradigms are generally incompatible with climbing plant forms? Personally, I have to believe that the viability of vine and epiphyte cultivation would be higher for Arboreal sapients than for humans, just because of the habitat they live in.

Most rainforest vines are rapid growing species that spring up when a tree falls and make use of the abundant light. Many of them then die off when the canopy closes. Some are longer lived and will persist, climbing through the canopy, but the majority of fruit bearing vines (cucurbits and Passiflora come to mind) are fairly short lived and require a lot of sun. That is not going to be practical unless trees are continually being cut down.

This is also a broad generalization . For example, grapes and kiwifruit grow as perennial, tree-climbing lianas in the wild.

But, you're right: I hadn't thought of this constraint. There's also the concern about the danger vines (particularly lianas) pose to their host trees. Maybe I was being a bit optimistic about vine cultivation: it may be a big chore.

Arboreal societies that are thinning the forests and erecting bamboo frameworks (i.e., my gibbons) will probably be more likely to cultivate vines on their bamboo frames. So, perhaps the spider monkeys, in the denser Neotropical rainforests will be less successful with vines. Of course, the relative paucity of bamboo and relative abundance of lianas in the Neotropics might make lianas an attractive option for spider monkey bonsai-style construction.

So maybe that will be my way to reconcile it: the Indomalayan gibbons will grow some fruiting vines, but mostly after they've developed bamboo construction techniques, while the Neotropical spider monkeys will rely mostly on tree fruits and use lianas for structural purposes. Do you think this will work?

 

[Sven]

Just another random thought on the subject of food. Fungi would be an excellent suplemental food source for your big three. I'm thinking that if ants could do it your Arboreal could also. At the equator, you might get two crops due to humidity. Just a thought

I thought about fungi, but I didn't mention them upthread. Like Mosodrake said, fungi would make a good food source, and, once mature, they can produce many crops of mushrooms very rapidly. I think the big drawbacks are that they're kind of unpredictable and they're hard to breed (since most cultivation is asexual).

But, yes, I think mushrooms is definitely a good addition.

 

[Smaug]

What about moss too. No need to hit the ground, might be useful in many ways