• 🍉 Albert 🍉@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    22 hours ago

    imagine a homo florensis (hobbit people lived in they area), walking though the forest and meeting a Gigantopithecus.

    Like meeting a gid

    • AlteredEgo@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      21 hours ago

      Imagine homo florensis had managed to domesticate Gigantopithecus, riding on their shoulders like toddlers shooting arrows to hunt food.

      History would have played out differently with a mini Genghis Khan and his horde riding on giant apes!

      • 🍉 Albert 🍉@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        21 hours ago

        there’s room for prehistoric fantasy,

        there are multiple human races: Neanderthals, Cromagnon, Nadelii, Florensis… Megafauna, endless wilderness…

        however, knowing humans, chances are of one didn’t kill all the others, battle royale style, it would end up with one domesticating the others for what is basically slavery, but with 50 thousand years of artificially selecting the best most loyal ‘slaves’ it’ll end up as a extremely loyal and friendly household/and industrial labour.

        • AlteredEgo@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          16 hours ago

          Yeah that’s basically what we’ve done to wolves, horses, cats and cows/oxen through breeding. A giant ape would be a little more intelligent and sapient, but not that much. What would be unique would be a domesticated animal that can grasp and pick up and carry things, and trained to use some tools.

          • 🍉 Albert 🍉@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            13 hours ago

            Hypothetically humans could have "domesticated " another group of humans, and with enough drifting, cause speciation. or at least enough difference that a “domesticate domestic/labour human” would be much different than a normal human, then breed them into countless breeds.

            imagine if a slaver tribe 10k years ago existed until now, and their slaves ended up domesticated…

            Only reason I doubt that could happen in long term, is because slavers will sexually assault their slaves resulting in enough intermixing to stop any genetic domestication.

            sorry, I’m in a long drive and just stop in the bathroom and I’m now chatting for no reason …

            • AlteredEgo@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              8 hours ago

              Haha well that is much darker and sounds like a good premise for a science fiction / fantasy. I think star trek had a story like that. And planet of the apes / the time machine.

              Crazy enough, there have been attempts to create a hybrid between an chimpanzee and a human. Luckily, none succeeded lol

        • null_dot@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          2 days ago

          I’m not sure if you’re being sarcastic.

          Sure but I think this photograph was taken in an era when the only technology available to make an image that looked like this was photography. At that time “not a real photograph” was the equivalent to the statement “a photograph of something which is not what it appears to be”.

          • BreadOven@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            10
            ·
            2 days ago

            Pretty sure they’re just joking. They’re correct though, it says it’s not real on the photo, photos don’t lie.

  • original_charles@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    27
    ·
    3 days ago

    Depicting what the extinct Gigantopithecus blacki looked like standing next to a modern human for scale.

    Which one is which?

  • ryedaft@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    14
    ·
    3 days ago

    Wikipedia on gorillas:

    The heaviest wild gorilla recorded was a 1.83 m (6 ft 0 in) silverback shot in Ambam, Cameroon, which weighed 267 kg (589 lb).[30] The tallest gorilla in captivity was Gust, a western lowland gorilla that was captured as a baby in Belgian Congo and spent his life at Antwerp Zoo. He was 2.20 m (7 ft 3 in) tall. Males in captivity can be overweight and reach weights up to 310 kg (683 lb).

    • Zerush@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      2 days ago

      The Gigantopithecus has nothing to do with Gorillas, it was a specie which lived between 6 millon and 200.000 years ago and with an estimated hight between 2,7 - 3m. Means that the recreation of the photo is correct, except, like also Gorillas he moved mostly over legs and arms.

      • ryedaft@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        2 days ago

        The Gigantopithecus is the largest extinct primate and the gorilla is the largest extant primate. They are both primates. So are humans but we already have an idea about how big humans can get.

        Edit: I should have included something on the average size of gorillas though since these Giganto sizes are approximately averages.

  • blackbrook@mander.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    3 days ago

    Caption writer seems to be confused about what a real photograph is and what conceptual means.

    • null_dot@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      2 days ago

      I just commented this somewhere else:

      I think this photograph was taken in an era when the only technology available to make an image that looked like this was photography. At that time “not a real photograph” was the equivalent to the statement “a photograph of something which is not what it appears to be”.

    • Wolf314159@startrek.website
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      2 days ago

      Fake and real photograph used to have a very different meaning indeed.

      This is a “real” photo of Denise Richards and Paul Walker:Denise Richards and Paul Walker

      This is a “fake” photo of Denise Richards and Paul Walker (in the body of a cybernetic T-Rex): Fake Photo of Denise Richards and the soul Paul Walker in the body of a cybernetic T-Rex

      • blackbrook@mander.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 days ago

        In case I wasn’t clear about this in my other reply, my main point is that a photo of something fake is not the same thing add as a fake photo. If the dinosaur is animatronic, it’s not a fake photo. If the dinosaur is CGI, yeah fake photo.

        • Wolf314159@startrek.website
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          2 days ago

          Yeah, that’s why my comment was basically words and phrases have shifting connotations as time passes and contexts change.

      • blackbrook@mander.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 days ago

        No, this is sloppy use of language, which worked the same 50 years ago. The only thing different today is the range of things that exist that we can infer that they really mean by their sloppy language. There were still ways to manipulate photos, before CGI. One might have called such a manipulated photo a ‘fake photograph’ in that day (though even that is arguably a little sloppy). But a non manipulated photo of a real physical model is not in any way a ‘fake photograph’. You could say a photograph of a fake Gigantopithecus, or of a fake scene but that’s not the same thing. Yes, we can infer what’s meant when people carelessly slap adjectives on the wrong nouns, but it is sloppy writing.

        Notice how much more accurate and well written OP’s description is: “Paleo-anthro sculptor Bill Munns with his Giganto reconstruction”

        • Wolf314159@startrek.website
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          2 days ago

          Dude I’m not arguing that it’s correct or not, I’m saying that this is the way many people used to (and how some still do) use the language.

          • blackbrook@mander.xyz
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            2 days ago

            Oh, sure, no disagreement from me on that. But this looks to me like something from a magazine, so one expects some level of professionalism. Now if this is some 12 year old’s fanzine or something, ok, I feel bad for giving them shit, but a professional journalist should be embarrassed.