• Bridger@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          7 months ago

          Depends what you mean by human. If you restrict the term to homo sapiens you put yourself in a small minority. I’d say the fact that these people used tools in a sophisticated way pretty much defines them as human.

          • some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            7 months ago

            I mean, that’s why it’s so exciting! Who is human and who isn’t? I agree that a lot of folks who were our cousins could also be classified as human, but I think that requires re-examining the definition. That’s why this is so interesting to me. This find redefines a lot of expectations.

            If we considered ourselves special because we alone did x, y, z things, we aren’t so special anymore.

          • Skyrmir@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            7 months ago

            Human is specifically Homo Sapiens. The rest of the Homo genus, be they ancestors or not, are not recognized as human.

            • grue@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              edit-2
              7 months ago

              Considering the fact that we interbred with H. neanderthalensis and H. denisova (and still carry the residual DNA to prove it), I think it’s pretty well proven that considering only H. sapiens to be “human” is overly narrow.

              Personally, I would argue that anything within the Homo genus is human by definition (that’s what the word means!), and that anything non-human belongs in a genus like Australopithecus or Paranthropus instead.