Humans began to rapidly accumulate technological knowledge 600k years ago

Original Article ↗ Hacker News Discussion ↗

A new anthropological study arguing that hominins began rapidly accumulating technological knowledge around 600,000 years ago prompts debate over what enabled this shift—advanced speech, non-verbal language, improved teaching and imitation, or broader cultural and institutional changes. Commenters explore how different forms of communication (oral tradition, writing, symbolic records) affect the fidelity and longevity of knowledge, and whether complex tools and cumulative culture can arise without fully modern language. The thread also touches on how we define “human” versus other Homo species and how often technological capabilities are gained, forgotten, and rediscovered over deep time.

Role of Language and Communication in Early Technology

  • Several commenters link rapid tech accumulation ~600kya to emergence of sophisticated speech, though the article reportedly doesn’t discuss this.
  • Others argue technology transfer need not be speech-driven: imitation, demonstration, and reverse‑engineering (e.g., reading undocumented code, scrap-yard tinkering) can spread techniques.
  • Some suggest earlier non‑vocal languages (gesture/sign) could have predated speech; hyoid bone and hypoglossal canal evidence for timing of speech remains debated and ambiguous.
  • A view emerges that high‑fidelity imitation plus some form of language likely drove cumulative culture, but causal ordering is unclear.

Writing, Records, and Cumulative Culture

  • Debate over how old writing/record‑keeping might be; some speculate on very ancient, repeatedly lost systems.
  • Examples like quipu and non‑textual tally systems show records need not be “writing” in the narrow sense.
  • One participant formalizes a distinction:
    • Signals = energy over time to send messages across space.
    • Records = matter over space to send messages across time.
  • Writing is seen as massively extending cultural memory, but not guaranteeing truth.

Reliability of Oral vs Written Knowledge

  • Several challenge the idea that once you can transmit knowledge, it “always improves.”
  • Cited counterexamples: loss of effective scurvy treatment despite records; preservation of myths and false beliefs blocking revision.
  • Telephone‑game dynamics suggest oral traditions drift systematically, not randomly, and can morph into myth; writing at least preserves a snapshot of what was believed.

Thinking, Language, and Inner Experience

  • Extended subthread: many report vivid inner speech; others say most thought is non‑verbal (visual, motor, abstract “mentalese”).
  • Some describe a continuum: fast, non‑verbal intuition first, later “serialized” into words when needed.
  • Aphantasia (no mental imagery) and lack of inner monologue are discussed; people compare different phenomenology using prompts like “imagine a ball on a table.”
  • Disagreement whether anyone truly “thinks in words” vs. words being just a surface narrative over deeper processes.

Free Will and Determinism (Offshoot)

  • From differences in inner experience, a subdiscussion arises:
    • One side argues behavior (thinking and feeling) is fully determined by stimuli, leaving no room for free will.
    • Others counter with compatibilist views, logical and epistemic objections, and the worry that denying free will is practically and ethically corrosive.
  • Consensus: no; but recognition that the question is deeply under‑resolved.

Definitions: “Human” vs. Hominid/Hominin

  • Article headline says “humans,” but paper reportedly uses “hominins.”
  • Some argue “human” should cover all Homo species (e.g., Neanderthals, Denisovans); others reserve it for Homo sapiens only.
  • Museums and popular materials often say “early/archaic humans” for other Homo species; disagreement remains about best usage.

Cumulative Technology, Printing Press, and Loss of Knowledge

  • Some compare the 600kya inflection to later accelerations: e.g., printing press and Renaissance, though others note non‑European innovations and social structures matter.
  • Discussion of how complex even simple modern tools are, and how many procedural steps and industries underlie items like pencils, toasters, and sandwiches.
  • A few note that technologies can be “lost” (e.g., Moon landings, supersonic airliners) even when underlying principles remain, due to economics, tacit knowledge, and institutions.