[jcranmer]

> Before language was invented the only way information could be passed down from ancestors to offspring was via mutations in our DNA.

Language (in the sense of "use of language appears around 100,000 years ago") is not the only way to communicate information, and many animal species are perfectly capable of communicating information despite not having evolved what is being called "language" in this sense.

[yogthos]

The difference is that we are able to accumulate information across generations to grow our collective knowledge. Other animals are not able to do that at scale. So, while you are correct that other animal communicate and even teach each other, it's a qualitatively different situation from human communication.

[randomImmigrant]

We really don’t know this for certain at all. We do know crows can communicate information about the face of a person they dislike to their murder, including to new generations. It seems a bit of a stretch to say their cultural transmission is quite that narrow.

In general, pre-writing human oral culture seems to have dynamics much in common with such abilities in other animals. Barring error correction mechanisms, oral knowledge can degrade in transmission, limiting its reach and success.

This isn’t to say human language doesn’t have its distinctive features that are very useful. But the language came from a different brain, and is suited to the particularity of our brains. We should hesitate to place solely on language something that’s also driven by us having more things to say.

[yogthos]

We kind of do though since we don't see crows accumulating knowledge at any scale comparable to humans and using this knowledge to shape their environment in increasingly complex ways. And crows very obviously do make tools and even teach each other to do it, so it's not like they don't have the inclination for it.

The language itself is a a human invention, and a product of how our brains are wired. However, there's a dialectical process here where the language shapes us in turn, and both our minds and our language evolve together. The reason we have more things to say stems from us accumulating knowledge and expanding out horizons through the use of our language.

[randomImmigrant]

But scale of knowledge acquisition is mediated by, at minimum, lifespan, and what knowledge there is to verbalize and pass on, no? It’s not like we got the language then built our hands based on the knowledge shared by another person with hands.

Instead, these co-evolved. Our language is shaped by that, and we shouldn’t give it too much causal power when it’s only a slice of the system.

We are also very unclear on what birds can communicate. They’re social migratory species with 4 color vision and magnetoreception. Their sensory context is deeper and richer in some ways, and whatever communication they layer atop it will be shaped by that. What seems like squeaks and chirps can hold information that another bird, but not humans, can decode. We’re getting better at layering all this context and then interpreting bird song and sounds.

But we’re at the beginning of this exercise, not a place where we can make a firm conclusion.

[yogthos]

Sure, lifespan is a factor, but it's hard to argue that lifespan has been the main factor for humans. Or that lifetime of many other organisms isn't sufficient. And I already pointed out that we co-evolved with language, that's what it means for it to be a dialectical process. However, for language even get bootstrapped, it needs the prerequisite brain structures to support recursive grammars and abstractions we use.

What we can look at is what other species are able to accomplish and how much they are able to shape their environment. I'm not arguing the fact that we don't have a good grasp on how other animal communicate and different kinds of intelligence we have in the animal kingdom. What I'm saying is that our unique combination of being able to abstract concepts and package them up using language, and especially writing, is what allowed up to rapidly accumulate knowledge and pass it across generations. We are demonstrably the only species that does this. Although, there were other hominids originally with similar capabilities that went extinct.

[randomImmigrant]

Why is it hard to argue lifespan has been a major factor?

You speak of “prerequisite brain structures to support recursive grammars”… would they arise in short lived species, given we know these are complex brain regions that take time to develop, need experience to become fully useful, and are energetically expensive to maintain and run? How do you do that if you live a relatively short time?

On the flip side, precisely in longer lived species like whales and elephants, your statements begin to fail. Elephants (when left in the wild) do accumulate knowledge of huge stretches of a continent and pass on that knowledge horizontally and also down to their progeny.

Whales and dolphins also show initial signs of such linguistic competence.

What these species don’t have is our opposable thumbs, etc. Things that aren’t directly responsible for language and would have evolved without it (as opposable thumbs have in other species), that nevertheless added to what language can do.

That should give you a sense of how language in humans is only as complex as the humans and their society is.

As for writing, I’m really not clear that it’s better than leaving smell traces, when it comes to information density, and speed of sharing. Where it does better is in surviving across generations, and that is indeed an advantage, that our language can go through a short lived medium (sound) AND a longer lived medium which doesn’t tax our memories as much.

Note that writing is a much later invention though, than language. And very tied to our opposable thumbs which can make fine marks and do so repeatably enough that we could associate repeated sounds with repeatable symbols and generate this writing based transmission system. Take that away and we’d remain an oral culture. We’d have do what Sanskrit users did before they found stable ways to write, and create ways to improve memorization. That too has survived generations. Just takes a lot more of each person learning, compared to writing.

[tptacek]

They're not saying humans don't have profound communication advantages. Obviously the crows don't have nuclear generators and spacecraft. They're saying that the categorical claims about why humans have profound advantages aren't correct.

[yogthos]

The fact that we are able to accumulate knowledge and apply it to shape our environment in a way that no other species is able to kind of does suggest that we have a profound communication advantage.

[tptacek]

Everybody here agrees that we do.