But what if other hominids such as the Neanderthals in Europe or Homo erectus such as the Peking Man in China or the Java man in Indonesia had not died out completely, but survived, perhaps in small populations up until the age of modern man's civilization.
If this is the case, how would human history be differnce if "lower" hominids had been living alongside our species as it developped civilization.? These other hominids would be sentient, and smarter than apes but then dumber than us. Perhaps they avoided competition from us and lived as hunter gatherers in isolated locations. If we discovered them, would that change our view on human nature? I think so. Since the closest relatives we have living today are uncivilized apes, we think of ourselves (homo sapiens sapiens) as the dominant being who is separate from the realm of "animals". Our religions and morality (at least the abrahamic ones) are founded on the concept of "human" having dominion over "animal", the former being a conscious, rational, intelligent soul and the latter as a mindless brute that is to be "used". A wide gulf separates the two in our minds, a duality like black and white. But if other "sentient" beings existed, wouldn't that change? How would our morality, philosophy of humanity be different? If a real life homo habilus, homo erectus, or neandarthal were surviving today, that would stir up more of a dilemma. Where would we draw the line between human and animal? Would the lower, less intelligent "hominids" be protected by law? If a neanderthal or homo erectus killed someone, could he/she/it be tried in court, assumed to have free will and be responsible for the action? Would they be given full or partial human rights or animal rights?
If this is the case, how would human history be differnce if "lower" hominids had been living alongside our species as it developped civilization.? These other hominids would be sentient, and smarter than apes but then dumber than us. Perhaps they avoided competition from us and lived as hunter gatherers in isolated locations. If we discovered them, would that change our view on human nature? I think so. Since the closest relatives we have living today are uncivilized apes, we think of ourselves (homo sapiens sapiens) as the dominant being who is separate from the realm of "animals". Our religions and morality (at least the abrahamic ones) are founded on the concept of "human" having dominion over "animal", the former being a conscious, rational, intelligent soul and the latter as a mindless brute that is to be "used". A wide gulf separates the two in our minds, a duality like black and white. But if other "sentient" beings existed, wouldn't that change? How would our morality, philosophy of humanity be different? If a real life homo habilus, homo erectus, or neandarthal were surviving today, that would stir up more of a dilemma. Where would we draw the line between human and animal? Would the lower, less intelligent "hominids" be protected by law? If a neanderthal or homo erectus killed someone, could he/she/it be tried in court, assumed to have free will and be responsible for the action? Would they be given full or partial human rights or animal rights?
